Half-Assed Movie Reviews

November 2, 2008: Casino Royale (2007)

(Note: I’ve recently implemented a new policy here at Half-Assed Movie Reviews, of actually re-reading my writeups just prior to posting.  Typos should decrease, but we’ll see whether the quality of the writing improves or degrades.)

I once watched the original Casino Royale.  I know I should revisit it, but it’s really hard to let that one bubble up to the top of the priority list.

I never used to watch James Bond movies in the theatre.  When I was growing up, they were strictly TV-based entertainment for me.  That changed with the Pierce Brosnan era, more likely because of my age and my possession of some amount of money than any particular revelation that I should be spending my hard-earned dollars to see these goofy lightweight movies in the theatre, rather than waiting to see them in pan-and-scan and full of commercials on TV.

And that brings us to 2007 with Daniel Craig as the new James Bond, revisiting the novel that started it all in 1953.  I have read a few of Ian Fleming’s James Bond books, including this one, which I think really helps to add depth to this reimagining of Casino Royale and the bond movies in general.  Incidentally, reading the books also helped to devastate my opinion of the films from the Roger Moore era.  The updated Casino Royale really is much more representative of the James Bond from the books, who was always flying much more by the seat of his pants, catching a more realistic balance of both tough breaks and easy breaks, and never quite sure he was going to get the job done.  Being a superspy involves a lot of thinking ahead, a lot of preparation for the task at hand, and a lot of thinking on your feet.  It’s not simple.

Here we have a plot which is similar to that in the novel, a high-stakes gambling event put on by a man (Le Chiffre) who handles money for criminals, who needs to generate some quick cash to make up for his unintentional loss of a large amount of powerful bad men’s money.  What better solution than some high-stakes gambling?  James Bond is sent in to try and win at the event, which would leave Le Chiffre in over his head and hopefully lead to the exposure of the bad men when the government offers to protect Le Chiffre instead of being killed by his angry clients.  The gambling event is changed from Baccarat in the book to a 10-player no-limit Texas Hold ‘Em tournament in the movie, probably a wise move to engage the kids of today by featuring the game du jour, but leading to what can only be described as a ridiculous final hand and conclusion of the tournament (unrealistic play by at least 2 out of the 4 or 5 players in the final hand).  I won’t spoil the story and tell who wins.  Let’s just say that I was yearning for the “realism” of the two pivotal Hold ‘Em hands in Rounders (BOTH TIMES one player is all-in, and both players have a full house).

I saw this in the theatre, and was very impressed by the action set-pieces, the verbal sparring between Bond and the latest Bond girl (Eva Green), and the pacing of the whole story.  Having Judi Dench returning as M is an important win for the franchise, and they would be well advised to keep her on for as long as she’s willing to do the work.  Eva Green is better than this material, but she’s game to play along and enjoy the spotlight afforded the Bond girl of the moment, between weightier roles.

Upon this recent re-viewing of the film, I was struck by how the pacing didn’t flow as smoothly as I remembered.  It seemed that there was a long lead-up to the main poker event, and that not a lot of time was spent at the gaming table or even on the happenings during the breaks from the gaming.  Mind you, examining the contrived Texas Hold ‘Em happenings in a movie too closely, or dwelling too long, can really kill suspension of disbelief, so that’s well handled, but I guess the first half of the movie just dragged a bit more for me on a second viewing.  Tighten that up by 10 minutes and a lot can be gained.  The multiple false endings were still well-constructed, and the arc actually seemed more believable than when I first saw it and could predict where it was going.  It’s confusing to find my perception backwards in this case.

I can be counted as a fan of the new Daniel Craig version of James Bond, and he really does seem well suited to the part.  Not all will agree, and it probably depends a lot on the Bond you grew up with.  Those who grew up with the Connery Bond typically refuse to give him up.  Those who were raised on the Moore or Brosnan Bonds are far more likely to overthrow their former favourite and latch on to Craig.