Love Bond. Like movie.
[The post below solely reflects the author's personal views and opinions and is not meant to hurt or insult die-hard fans of any actor who has played Bond in the past. And yeah there are also some spoilers.]
I just got home from watching Casino Royale. Daniel Craig is the best Bond, ever. Bar none, in case you didn’t get that the first time around. He makes Pierce Brosnan look like a souffl� with a whipped cream topping. Heck, he makes Ursula Andress look too soft and lumpy in all the wrong places.
The movie, on the other hand, is merely good. Not great. Perhaps it might have worked better had it come before one had been glutted with the current obsession with wanting to get to the “root” of things - before one was told why Peter Parker became Spiderman, or Bruce Wayne became Batman or Jason Bourne became, well, Jason Bourne.
![]() |
The best thing about Craig’s Bond is that he is a man who gets the job done. It is when he attempts to do more, such as be charming, that he isn’t very convincing. In every mushy scene (and am afraid there was as much mush as I’d feared there might be), I was impatient for him to stop and turn back into the cold killing machine he is so clearly born to be.
That this movie isn’t the sort of Bond movie we’ve become used to in the last few years is evident right from the opening credits. Psychedelic patterns of suites of cards float around, as Bond kills man after man. There isn’t a single naked woman in sight. In keeping with the opening theme, this movie is all about Bond, really. If there’s
![]() |
killing to be done, Bond does it. If there’s running to be done, Bond does it. If there’s stripping to be done, Bond does it.
With Brosnan, there was a consistent attempt (in rare cases successful) to turn Bond girls into Bond partners. This movie smoothly reverses the trend. And when one female character is given importance, it’s not in a Michelle Yeoh or Rosamund Pike manner. And I found myself wishing how much better it would’ve been if they hadn’t bothered with making even this minor concession.
If you’re the sort of fan who enjoys Bond movies for their formula, you’re in for a mixed bag. Some golden, even holy Bond traditions have been dispensed with* in this movie, but most of the stock phrases make an appearance. And they do so at such unexpectedly delightful moments, that you fall in love with them all over again.
Action fans take note - Casino Royale may well be the most physically challenging Bond movie ever made, and boy, does Craig pull it off. I can’t imagine any other Bond doing any of the key stunts in this movie**. Just as one’s no longer impressed with Matrix-style stunts, one was also tiring of the blow up party that’d become part of the Bond formula in the Brosnan movies. Casino Royale has hopefully begun a new phase of stunts on a low-TNT, high-adrenaline diet.
So why do I insist that this is only a good movie? Here’s the thing - when I was walking out of the theater, in those 2-3 minutes before I had a chance to ask the mandatory “So?” to my companions, I kept willing myself to love the movie because I so loved Craig. And that’s precisely the point - you don’t need to talk yourself into liking Craig. You just do. Not so with the movie, and in my book, that’s not the sign of a great movie.
I sure as hell hope that Craig will make many more Bond movies - perhaps some script will finally let him be the cold-blooded spy he is.
*I for one didn’t even notice their absence till I started writing this post. And when I think about it now, am quite relieved and happy they didn’t try to force them in. Craig doesn’t do breezy charm very well, and having those scenes would have only embarrassed him and the audience.
** And hats off to the extremely nimble and sure-footed Sebastien Foucan for an incredible chase in the first third of the movie




Comments (8 comments)
Good review.In fact I didnt find anything insulting to Bond diehards.Amazing action sequences as noted.The violence underlines the reality of ‘kill or be killed.’
Gowri Shankar / November 18th, 2006, 3:32 pm / #
Hmmm…why do I have a feeling that the picture of Craig in the blue swimming trunks tells us more about why you enjoyed the movie than the rest of the review. Did you see the Zoe Williams piece in the Guardian about Craig:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1948908,00.html
At last, a reason to watch a Bond film. And one so much more exciting than hearing Sean Connery’s miraculous voice.
Falstaff / November 18th, 2006, 4:49 pm / #
Gowri Shankar: Thank you! I put the caveat in because I could hear my dad saying, “Ah but no one comes close to Connery.” I notice the same trend with most reviews I read - everyone seems to agree Craig is as good as Connery, but they all stop there. I think Craig is better, and for more than the reason Falstaff gives.
Fastaff: Aww, c’mon - why won’t you let me enjoy this? Now you go and make me think of principles
I’d be lying if I said I didn’t like looking, but that isn’t the only reason, I liked him in this movie, you know. Now I sound like “I read Playboy for the articles”, damn it! There’s no winning here, is there? :p
DoZ / November 18th, 2006, 5:31 pm / #
Huh? Principles? Where did all this principles stuff come from? I’m all for ogling movie stars unabashedly. Why do you think I admired Brokeback Mountain so much?
Falstaff / November 19th, 2006, 9:10 pm / #
any and every bond is a good bond because a bond movie is as good as the story played.
I’d say, if u are looking for a flamboyant, stylish, ultra cool spy,…thne Sean Connery and Brosnan were the best because they embodied the genre of Bond’ism’ to its truest sense.
Lets just wait to see how Craig fits in a movie where he is a real spy, since this is a prequel of sorts. But not taking his 2 years of fame away, this is indeed a good action flick.(…not a spy flick.)
gp / November 24th, 2006, 6:10 am / #
Doz, Iam thinking you read the reviews first before watching and kind of psyched yourself into liking Craig. This Bond isnt half the fun Connery and others were. The movie,centered around a poker game was boring and 25 mins too long. I dont buy all this realistic and this is how Bond was meant to be in Fleming’s novels and all that stuff. The previous movies even if it were corny or a touch over-the-top at times, were fun in a Bond kind of way. Whereas here,the most hi-fi gadget is a defibrillator?!! Give me a freaking break. If I wanted to watch a serious,unfunny,dark movie about a spy-cum-killer I can always go to Damon’s Bourne movies or umpteen other movies that grace the theaters with similar themes. We go to a Bond movie for that Bond experience which was sorely missing in this one. Hope they get it next time
Vijay / November 26th, 2006, 4:33 am / #
[...] Before I changed my mind about Daniel Craig, I was rooting for Clive Owen for Bond. After watching Casino Royal and Children of Men, I’m relieved that Hollywood has wiser heads than mine – that sharp decision has given us a great new Bond, and left Owen free to do movies like this one. And it’s a complete pity that Cuarón isn’t directing the next Harry Potter movie. I like what he does with books. [...]
+: etcetera :+ » Scary future and Clive Owen are better than Gong Li and stylish soap opera / January 3rd, 2007, 2:43 am / #
billet+grill+jeep++%3Ca+href%3D+http%3A%2F%2Fbillet%2Dgrill%2Djeep.cn%2F+%3Ebillet+grill+jeep%3C%2Fa%3E+e
reinluup%40mail.ee / August 31st, 2007, 4:40 pm / #
Post a comment