---

Casino Royale: Reviewed Oct 23rd 2007

Friday night, Chris, Justin D and myself headed to the opening of Casino Royale, the newest in a long line of James Bond movies. We went to the 10:45pm showing and it mildly surprised me how packed the theater was. Being a Bond movie and one that a lot of people have complained about I wasn’t sure if we’d be met with a full house but we were. This honestly didn’t work out super well because the theater was really hot and all the people just added their heat. Luckily the movie was entertaining enough that it didn’t matter.

On to the movie: As a lot of you probably know, I’m a big James Bond fan. I’ll call them my “guilty pleasure” movies. Generally speaking before this one came out, you know what to expect going on: flashy explosions, flashy gadgets, eccentric villians and loose women. Rarely did the formula deviate from this. Bond himself was stereotyped as a suave British man oozing with charm, luck and an aptitude for getting into and out of sticky situations (as well as an affection for the previously mentioned loose women). While these movies generally made for fun flicks, the producers of Casino Royale sought to breathe new life into the series.

I’ll digress for minute here. It’s interesting to look at the Bond series. Like it or not, it’s a distinct and recognizable mythos in Western society. Mention James Bond and everyone immediately knows who you are talking about. Get into a discussion of any length about spies or intelligence agencies and he inevitably comes up. That’s one of the reasons redefinition is important for the character – so that he stays relevant to who we are. It’s been done in minor ways (generally all of the Bond movies take place in the time period produced in) and Bond is generally the same ageless age in each. The gadgets are also more in tune (as are the villians and supporting characters). Casino Royale though makes a good case for the need of a more holistic redefinition every so often.

With that note, I’ll segue into the numerous changes. For one we start with a slightly younger Bond. He’s also rough, taking the shoot first/ask questions later approach more so than prior Bonds have. With that comes a more physical approach to fighting the bad guys. Gone are the flashy gadgets and cars. In fact the car, which has played quite a prominent role in previous movies, is really nonexistant. There is one brief chase scene that ends in the complete totaling of it. Several staple characters are also notably absent. With the lack of gadgets comes a lack of Q. Ms. Moneypenny, M’s personal assistant, also never shows up. Also gone is the “I’ll sleep with any female with working parts regardless of how it affects the mission” mentality. In fact, new Bond passes up a night with a lovely lady in order to tale her terrorist boyfriend. When he does hook up in this flick, it’s with someone he actually cares about as he places her feelings at least on the same plane as his. Don’t think elements of the old Bond aren’t there though. He still could charm the socks off of anyone he wanted to. Also, he’s still as sharp as a tack. It’s just they’ve supplemented his classic flaws with new ones that speak more to the present time.

Between the lack of easy women, flashy toys and an in general rougher Bond lies in environment laden with much more suspense than previous Bond movies have had. This is a good thing in my mind though. It takes itself much more seriously and forces us (the viewers) to as well. I can definitely say I’d recommend seeing this and I look forward to how the supposed trilogy develops (there are supposed to be three Bond movies starting with Casino Royale that track Bond taking out an international terrorist ring).

tags: movie, review

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (required)

Website