casinoroyale06

There is no justice. I often wonder why in one era a concept is rejected, resoundingly, and then a
few years later the concept is embraced as if it was never before introduced. So is the legacy of
“Casino Royale,” a film I predict will one day vindicate a James Bond that for years has been vilified.

Much praise has been heaped upon this James Bond remake and prequel of sorts, and the praise
is well deserved. Director Martin Campbell, who resurrected James Bond with “Goldeneye” and
Pierce Brosnan, does so again with Daniel Craig in “Casino Royale.”

Critics have lauded and gushed over this film, but one mistake they have made is complimenting the
film’s style and performances as if they were new ideas in the James Bond franchise. “Casino
Royale” is flattered for its realistic situations, a James Bond with real emotions who has internal
complications and seems more human than prop. Bond is tied romantically to essentially one
woman in the film, unlike many past outings and Bonds in which the women are like candy. Many
have said this film is also noteworthy for staying close to the original novels of Ian Fleming.

These same critics and fans ignored these exact efforts more than a decade ago when Timothy
Dalton assumed the role of James Bond for two films, “The Living Daylights” and “Licence to Kill”
before he was run out on a rail by angry fans. Dalton too wanted more realism, a closer
interpretation of the character to Fleming’s books and a Bond that bleeds. Dalton gave us that and
was derided and even today lambasted unjustly for his effort. Yet “Casino Royale” is considered
amazing and flawless for the same aspects and audiences remain blind to the hypocrisy of the
situation.

In my mind, we would have had “Casino Royale” much sooner as “Licence to Kill” was fast
approaching that level of sophistication, but at the time audiences would have none of it and the
Bond franchise detoured with Brosnan and his Roger Moore-like escapades for four films over
almost a decade. “Casino Royale” is the natural progression of “Licence to Kill” and the precedent
Dalton tried to set.

The film is almost flawlessly crafted, with echoes in both locations and story points as the most
sophisticated elements of the early Sean Connery Bond movies and the aforementioned Dalton
films. Craig is a hard-edged agent who only softens and slowly when he meets the one woman who
can disarm him emotionally (a lot like Dalton). Craig’s Bond is cold and often moody (also a lot like
Dalton) and sometimes downright mean (cough-Dalton-cough).

The film is replete with amazing set pieces, action sequences akin to a slicker more mature version of “Die Hard,” and all of Bond’s conventions like the cool car
and tuxedo are seamlessly and subtly interwoven, not the in-your-face gadgets of the former Batman-like arsenals previous Bond’s sported. If I recall correctly,
Dalton’s gadget count was also markedly lower than any other Bond.

What weirds me out about this film is the continuity. Craig is playing Bond just after he earns his licence to kill and his 007 number. Yet, M is still played by Judi
Dench, who was Brosnan’s new M in “Goldeneye.” How can Dench be M at the beginning of Bond’s career and then be Bond’s new M a few years later? The
only thing I can assume is that the name James Bond like 007 is also a code name given to the British agent who is in line for the 007 number? Yeah, I know
that’s a stretch, but don’t blame me, I didn’t write this thing.

All I know is “Casino Royale” ranks right up there alongside “Licence to Kill” as the most pleasingly unconventional, violent and realistic Bond film of all time.
Craig, like Dalton before him, once again proves that the Bond of the films took on a different character than the Bond of the books and I hope Craig’s efforts to
bring the book Bond to the screen succeed. Dalton also did an amazing job with the role and audiences were generally pleased with his first outing as well, only
to squash him critically on the second go around. Mr. Craig, I wish you good luck with the second film, because that’s when audiences will either be hypocritical
and embrace you or follow the Dalton pattern and run you out of town.

“Licence to Kill” was ahead of its time. I only hope “Casino Royale” is right on time because I’d like Craig to stick around for a while.