Casino Royale
Dir: Martin Campbell
2006
**
Quentin Tarantino is said to have planted the seed that the first film of the Bond reboot, and the twenty-first film of the franchise, should see 007 going back to his roots somewhat, back to one of Ian Flemming's best loved novels, Casino Royale. There were a few reasons why it had never been made by Eon before but mainly it was due to the fact that it lacked the action the audience expected from a Bond film and because it had been made as an unsuccessful comedy in 1967. It's a shame really, a Sean Connery version would have been brilliant but until 2006, Casino Royale was simply Ian Flemming's best book according to fans and a failed comedy to everyone else. The franchise was desperately in need of a reboot, making a film direct from one of Flemming's books was key (or at least, having the title of one was) so MGM made a deal with Sony, who owned the rights and essentially swapped Spiderman for Bond. Pierce Brosnan was an adequate Bond, he probably could have done another but realistically he had to go, as did any other association to the horror that was Die Another Day (apart from Judi Dench of course who actually worked quite well as the link between the chapters even though this version neither preceded or succeeded any of the previous incarnations). Daniel Craig was a controversial choice, he's won most people over since 2006 although personally I'm still not sold on him, however I'm quite glad Henry Cavill wasn't cast as it would be unlikely he would have been allowed to play the Man of Steel if he had. Plus, he's young and could always be considered at a later date. They sort of went back to basics with Casino Royale but they also tried something new but for me it never really worked as well is I think it could have. I think they should have gone further, maybe even hiring Quentin Tarantino as director (although his idea of setting it in the 1950s, in Black and White, starring Brosnan sounds like a tough sell). Martin Campbell was too safe an option for this to really feel like something new. Campbell rebooted the franchise with Goldeneye to great success and so they decided to get him in to do the same again. Personally I think both films are over hyped and feel like imitations. It takes a while sometimes for an actor to get into a role, especially one as established as James Bond but like Brosnan in Goldeneye, Craig seemed like he was impersonating Bond rather than embodying him. Of all six Bonds, Craig and Brosnan are the only two that, in my opinion, haven't really established their own versions of the character. Maybe Craig has so more than Brosnan but it's not a version I like very much. It's not just Bond though, Mads Mikkelsen is an actor I love but here he acts like a Bond villain, rather than the well written villain he was playing. I think it is only Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter that felt fresh to me. The parkour opening was pretty good, the script is strong and it was nice to see an extended Casino scene again but everything else I found somewhat forgettable. I don't think it was the great reboot everyone says it was, however it did have a nice new sophistication about it and it did seem like Bond was finally back on track.