The rebirth of Bond...
Film franchises over the last couple of years have a found a great way to inject more energy into the series and try to head in a different artistic direction. And as with Batman, Bond has gone back to it's roots and recreated itself.

And it works, we get a slow edited film which may bore some - but it helps to establish depth to a new incarnation of a character most are already familiar with. There was uproar when Daniel Craig was announced as Bond - but after the release of Casino Royale he felt like a natural choice, infact after watching this it felt as though he'd played the character for years.

I really enjoyed Brosnan as Bond. He was perhaps my favourite, but the films were getting a little bit too ridiculous - but because it was Bond coming out with the horrifically cheesy lines, the films somehow got away with it.

Craig gives us a Bond capable of the suave uber-cool on-screen-image that comes with the role. He also brings with him a vulnerability and fallibility that we're not used to seeing. This makes the film a bit more edgy - after all, Bond might not necessarily walk away damage free - he makes mistakes and sometimes needs someone to save him.

We get the womanising gentlemen scoundrel we want to see, but there's compassion too, and in Casino Royale we see the emotional shutters come down after being hurt - the making of the cold action hero.



James Bourne is Better, but Not Good Enough
A lot has been made of Casino Royale's new direction. Out with the nonsense, back to basics, enter James Bourne. Q is agreeably absent, and the nearest thing to Moneypenny is a control-room full of 20-something CSI wannabes. In cleaning up his act, however, Bond appears to have misplaced his licence to thrill.

That Casino Royale constitutes a 'back to basics' reincarnation (a 'reboot' of the Bond timeline, in comic-book argot) speaks volumes about how far the series had lost its way - sort of like a drunk waking up after a twenty-year bender and learning to put one foot in front of the other again. Like bourbon or vodka, pyrotechnics and body counts are kept firmly out of the repentant screenplay's reach. Nothing happens in Casino Royale that could not conceivably happen in real life, which for a Bond movie is an astonishing and dubious accolade. Simply put, action movie 'basics' - explosions, tension, effective pacing and straightforward characterisation - are not in place. The latter is a moot point, for Bond's fling with Vesper Lynd is meant to be the romantic affair to end them all, her death the wound that never heals. Yet all the script can offer is the kind of clunky, unremarkable dialogue that Bond fans will recognise from the slow bits in Goldeneye. The power of Bourne's relationship with Franka Potente is never matched; there are, in fact, far more memorable romantic interludes in earlier Bond: Her Majesty's Secret Service and the Louis Armstrong sequence, for instance.

Casino Royale is both boring and complacent enough to assume its audience will forgive its boringness through their fondness for all things Bond. Undoubtedly better than Die Another Day - but that's hardly grounds for comparison.

terrible
if you liked this film (in the case dat it should be suitable to be part of the james bond phenominon) then you are not a true and proper bond fan. i found this to be a pthetic attempt to get more money because the company knew everyone who liked bond will watch this whether it was imence or terrible. it makes no sence to be set in present day yet be set when bond is just starting? okay good for u bond now look in a few years time u will be fighting the soviet union and lateer ull be doing a mission 6 years back in the millenium... cos this makes sence?!!? :l
judi dench as m wtf its good for pierce coz its modern day but this is ment to be before dr no isnt it so why is the same actor playing a character set after 3 other m'sdaniel craig is too serious and u can ell in quantum of solace they make him try tobe more tongue and cheek but he is no sean connery he scrapes timothy dalton (also too seirous) BOOOO

Not the sharpest but still action packed
After being promoted to a 00, James Bond (Craig) heads on his first mission to find the man who is behind the worldwide terrorist market.

In his first role as the infamous British spy, Daniel Craig (Layer Cake) proved critics and fans wrong with a silent leading performance as Bond in a good action thriller.

Craig's portrayal of the spy is intriguing to observe throughout as he takes Bond to a different level. His silent and sophisticated charisma gives the character a beautiful mysterious edge which is a contrast to previous performances by Brosnan and Connery. Though brilliantly acted, this silent exterior takes away the humour from the character and the cheeky little puns and we only see the charm of the agent towards mid point.

As this is where the Bond series starts, Craig's portrayal is therefore spot on and we can gain a greater understanding of the character and it's motives with all those different women and the nature to not settle down and unleash his anger on the world, and is the most interesting to watch in an action packed but inaccurate plot.

Opening in a completely diverse way, we see Bond sitting in a chair waiting for a man to enter. Filmed in black and white, director Campbell takes Bond to a different level with the use of flashbacks and the sudden urgency of the plot as the title sequence appears and Chris Cornell's You Know My name plays. Not the best Bond song but a catchy and energetic rock song nonetheless.

As the colourful title sequence seizes we are thrust into a typical Bond world with guns, stunts and fast cars, though sadly without the gadgets.

These familiar elements will please fans and viewers alike as we see miraculous stunt after stunt and pure adrenaline.

Eva Green (The Golden Compass) makes the best Bond girl for years and Mads Mikkelsen makes one of the most boring Bond Villains ever to grace the screen. But perhaps that is down to a tough and poor script.

To gain a better understanding of Bond's character, we could have been given a longer introduction before he was promoted to a double 00. There are also long pauses without dialogue when it was required to gain a better understanding of the background to the villain Le Chiffre. The action and Craig's Bond makes up for these lapses, not to mention a great and bitter twist which leaves the viewer shocked and eager to see Quantum of Solace which opens soon and is tipped to be one of the biggest hits of the year, on this Ian Fleming's 100th birthday year.

Though this wasn't the best written Bond film the action and intensity keeps the plot lively with a great performance by Daniel Craig

8/10

Bond begins again
Casino Royale was the finest James Bond movie in years. Daniel Craig was (and I know this is a cliché) the finest Bond since Sean Connery's early days, erasing the cheesy pong of Pierce Brosnan's Teflon slimeball and investing 007 with an emotional depth not seen since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Just about everything else about the movie hit the bull's-eye too; it certainly deserves a score of 9/10, only losing a few minor points for the bland theme song, the credits sequence (which was a bit too `Casino Royale 1967' for my taste), the last-minute `excuse' for Vesper Lynd's treachery, and of course Judi Dench's continuing role as the 'luvvie' M, an unnecessary holdover from the Brosnan movies, and the one anachronistic note in this `Year One' outing.

Hide Reviews