Friday, December 01, 2006
Movie Review - Casino Royale

I went to watch Casino Royale even though the reviews about it weren't fantastic. Friends told me that the new James Bond (played by Daniel Criag) is not befitting the Bond image...that the plot is weak and all....well after watching the movie...i beg to differ....

Based on the first of Ian Fleming’s novels, ‘‘Casino Royale’’ is an origin story (very much like ‘‘Batman Begins’’ — a movie that went back to the past to tell the tale). Many aspects of this Bond movie made it stand out from the rest. First of all, this James Bond had to work really hard. He was beaten up, tortured, scolded, back-stabbed and left heart-broken. And even though Daniel Criag lacked the poise and elegance of the other Bonds, I rather liked his portrayal. He gives more depth into the personality and made Bond a more believable character.

Other ritual aspects of the 007 mythos are also missing, eg. there’s no Q with his fabulous gadgets, no Miss Moneypenny, no villain trying to vaporize the world by satellite. And frankly speaking, personally I feel that ‘‘Casino Royale’’ is better off without them.

James Bond's first 007 mission takes him to Madagascar, where he is to spy on a terrorist organisation. Not everything goes as planned and Bond decides to investigate, in order to track down the rest of the terrorist cell. The story even packs in a few twists to keep the audience at the edge of their seats. I was especially captivated by the first few scenes where Bond had to chase down a bomber whose skills could give the 'Ong Bak' guy a run for the money.

Casino Royale displays the young 007’s arrogance and immaturity but also shows him tempered by mistakes. At the end of it, the James Bond we know finally emerges: wiser and less emotional.