Directed by Martin Campbell

MGM/Columbia Pictures

4 Stars



There seems to be a recent trend in cinema of going back to a character’s origins—some notable examples including “Batman Begins,” “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning,” and the upcoming “Hannibal Rising”—which has now gained popularity with the 007 franchise. Once you’ve incorporated invisible cars and ice mansions as crucial plot elements and cast Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist, it’s time to press the reboot button.

In classic 007 fashion, James Bond orders a martini. But in the new “Casino Royale,” when asked whether he would like it shaken or stirred, Bond (played by Daniel Craig) replies, “Do I look like I give a damn?” That just about sums up the new 007 adventure: grittier, tougher, and better than any other Bond film in recent memory.

Pierce Brosnan’s 007 films were about how far the writers’ imaginations could stretch, how much the audience would be willing to believe, with each installment trying to outdo the last. But “Casino” is firmly grounded in reality.

Based on the first book in the James Bond series of the same name, “Casino Royale” opens with a beautifully shot black-and-white montage following the iconic character as he earns his “00” status after two assassinations in rapid succession, giving him license to kill. From the first scene, the film is intense and more or less keeps that tension up right until the end.

His first assignment thereafter—given to him by M, played by the incomparable Judi Dench—is to stop the sinister Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen, whose last American film was “King Arthur”), banker to the world’s terrorist organizations. The pic is centered around a high stakes poker game that Bond must win to keep the money from getting into the wrong hands.

“Casino” fits in the series with its plentiful action and cute witticisms, but it’s also a great spy thriller in its own right. There are still plenty of Bond traditions intact in this installment. The locations (the Bahamas, Venice, and Madagascar among others) display the upper class lifestyle that is distinctive to the franchise. The villain has a unique physical attribute as well: because of a disfigured eye, he cries tears of blood.

And, as always, there is the Bond Girl. This time around the BG is the beguiling Vesper Lynd, played by the impossibly attractive Eva Green. While Craig’s 007 is grittier, Casino’s Bond girl—unlike previous bombshells Halle Berry or Teri Hatcher who have inhabited the role in the past—has more class and elegance than ever.

The first time Bond and Lynd meet, they size each other up, but not with the same intense sexual innuendo as in previous 007 flicks. They study each other’s clothing and analyze the answers to their very personal questions. It’s one of the film’s best scenes and Green—who steamed up the screen in Bernardo Bertolucci’s provocative “The Dreamers”—enchants Craig and the audience with her performance.

Martin Campbell, who first came to the franchise when he directed “Goldeneye” in 1995, goes back to basics in style as well as content. “Goldeneye” was by far the most entertaining of the Brosnan Bonds and the film’s producers were right to bring him back.

The action, as in the rest of the series, delivers the pulse-pounding that audiences will be expecting, including a gripping chase sequence through a construction site at the film’s outset. The scene sets the bar very high for the rest of the film and, while the action thereafter never reaches that level, it still remains superior to most any other action movie this year.

The score harkens back to the classic 007 vibe as well, except the film’s theme song. “You Know My Name,” performed by Chris Cornell of Audioslave and Soundgarden, may just be the worst Bond song. Ever. But as soon as the track ends, it is wisely not heard again for the rest of the film.

As the media and Bond fans alike have pointed out many times, Craig is blond, not classically good-looking and seems to be kind of a wuss—essentially the anti-Bond. But Craig puts any skeptics to shame. His ruggedly handsome face with icy blue eyes and buff physique give him a more 21st century depiction of what 007 should be.

Craig’s Bond is a man’s man but still maintains that air of sophistication that has defined this character. He does not take cues from any other actor who has played Bond before, mostly because he doesn’t need to. His credits—including “Layer Cake,” “Enduring Love” and “Road to Perdition”—are evidence enough that he’s an immensely talented actor and, like Christian Bale did for “Batman,” his performance makes “Casino” much richer than it is expected to be.

The film works so well because it is a return to character-driven action fare. The 007 formula—Bond is introduced to the gadgets, uses the gadgets, saves the world in the nick of time—is not here, but what remains is a well-executed, edge-of-your-seat thriller.

Bottom Line: With all the family-oriented fare and kudo-hungry movies flooding theatres right now, have some escapist holiday fun with Craig. Daniel Craig.

—Reviewer Christopher C. Baker can be reached at ccbaker@fas.harvard.edu.