Casino Royale (2006)

When last we left him in 2002's Die Another Day, James Bond (Pierce Brosnan), armed with an invisible Aston Martin, a gun-toting Halle Berry at his side, had just defeated a face-changing Korean colonel and his giant space laser.If that description elicits more of a groan than a gasp, you're not alone. After forty-plus years of cinematic spectacle, it's easy to understand why Agent 007's recent adventures haven't done very much to leave expectant audiences shaken or stirred.It wasn't always like this, of course. There was a time when a James Bond movie represented the pinnacle of filmmaking -- both unceasingly innovative and wildly subversive at the same time. With their unparalleled technical prowess coupled with heaping helpings of violence, action, and innuendo, the early Bond films forged the path that nearly all commercial blockbusters follow to this very day.But then, that was a long time ago.By the time I watched my first Bond, 1979's Moonraker, the series was firmly ensconced in the (quite-successful, mind you) Roger Moore-era, and had long since traded in narrative trailblazing for a kind of baseline consistency and an insistent clinging to formulaic repetitiveness. And yet, there was something oddly reassuring about it. It was just one of those things. Every couple of years, you'd go to the theater, that strobe light/gun barrel opening would come up, and you'd watch 007 save the world yet again. It didn't have to be a good movie; it just had to be a Bond movie.Well, it's taken awhile -- several decades, in fact -- but with the release of Casino Royale, the 22nd film in the invincible series, we can finally, definitively say that the two are no longer mutually exclusive. James Bond is back, and as it turns out, he's been gone a lot longer than anyone even realized.As soon as the lights go down, before the opening credits even start, we know right away that something is different. What is it? That famous opening shot. The gun barrel motif that has signaled the beginning of every official Bond movie from 1962's Dr. No until now -- it's not there. And just like that, all our preconceptions of what to expect are kicked to the curb.When you think about it, the Bond producers have done something that's really unprecedented for a series as successful as this has been (each of the four Brosnan entries made more money than the last) -- they've dared to buck tradition and go in a new direction, winding the clock back for a Batman Begins-style reboot, giving us a ground-up look at James Bond's first mission.Taking its title and basic plotline from Ian Fleming's 1952 debut 007 novel, the film revolves around a high-stakes poker game that the wet-behind-the-ears Bond (Daniel Craig) is recruited to participate in against terrorist broker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen).It's a straightforward affair, with none of the standbys we've come to know and expect from these things -- no banter with Q, no fancy gadgets (nary an invisible car to be seen), no innuendo-laced banter with Miss Moneypenny, and an honest-to-gosh love story with new Bond girl Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) dropped down right smack in the middle.This is the Bond formula stripped bare, and every frame bespeaks the joy of rediscovery, with the gleeful abandon that comes with freedom from the stultifying sameness that has crippled this franchise for the past twenty-some years.As embodied by Daniel Craig, far-and-away the best actor to don the trademark tux since it was doffed by Sean Connery in 1971; the character is more meat-and-potatoes than caviar and escargot, and for the first time in seemingly ever we get a sense of the raw brutality and casual cruelty that drives him.Paradoxically, Craig also makes him far more real than he's ever been by also showing us a vulnerable side to this heretofore unshakable assassin. This is no easy task, as both Timothy Dalton and Brosnan before him tried and failed to lend some much needed gravitas to the usual 007 derring-do.At just under two-and-half hours in length, Casino Royale is longer, even, than the George Lazenby-starring On Her Majesty's Secret Service (one of the best in the series), and yet, from a breathless opening footchase in Madagascar to a cat-and-mouse game in Miami to a showdown in the canals of Venice, it remains utterly involving for its entirety.Much of the credit for this can go to star Craig, who electrifies from his first scene, as well as director Martin Campbell. Campbell, who also helmed Pierce Brosnan's 1995 007 debut, GoldenEye, also seems to have benefited greatly from the franchise's reinvention, employing a style here very clearly beholden to such recent spy outings as the Jason Bourne movies (as evidenced by a visceral bathroom brawl before the opening credits, depicting Bond's first kill).Ultimately, it's a bit of a wait before we finally hear Craig utter that most famous of lines -- "Bond. James Bond." -- the whole movie, in fact. But by the time he gets there, and by the time we first hear Monty Norman's "James Bond Theme," we realize that the usual promise at the closing credits that "James Bond Will Return," has finally transcended the constraints of the familiar and become something it hasn't been in quite awhile: something worth getting excited about. Good show, 007. A

I’am an old school fan; of the James Bond franchise. And this could have been; one of the great J B - 007 films of all time. It was supposed to be a prequel of James Bond; & a one time trip for Daniel Craig; & then back to the regular formula. And with the great Martin Campbell at the helm as Director; the movie was a huge success. But you know that ole saying; if it’s not broken; don’t fix it?? 🤔. Well that’s exactly what happened. For some strange reason; Barbara Broccoli; decided; to give creative control to Mr. Daniel Craig; on his second stint as James Bond for the next three films. 😲🤔. And what does he do ?🤔. He desides to change everything. 😳😱!!!! And this was the actor; that thousands of fans; including myself; were in an uproar of disapproval; as the new James Bond. But it was because of Martin Campbell’s directing; that made Casino Royal 🎰 a success. 🎱 These films history have been made by ladies & gentlemen: ( directors, John Barry with his famous; musical scores; screenwriters; stunt men & women; producers; Ian Fleming, & the late Albert Broccoli; her father; which put that undeniable stamp on the J B - 007 franchise. It’s what made Bond; world wide famous🌎. But it’s just not the same anymore. What’s even worse; these four films that Mr. Craig is in; ( including this fifth one J B 25 : No Time To Die ) is still all the same continuing film. !!!🤭🤯!!! How stupid is that. A James Bond film; use to be an event. Right up there with the other contending franchises..... ( Star Wars, Aliens, Star Trek, Indiana Jones etc......). But not now. Daniel Craig has single handily destroyed this franchise with his egotistical input to change something; that shouldn’t have been touched. Sean Connery without a doubt; was the best James Bond of all time. George Lazenby; in certain circles feel his stint as J B : On His Majesty’s Secret Service was one of the best Bond films of his time; Roger Moore gave his wonderful take on Bond with charm; humor; & without a doubt; had the best opening secrecies in his seven turns as Bond; Pierce Bronson was absolutely incredible; when he got his four turns as Bond; but I don’t care what anyone says. When the franchise had that little drought; where Connery wanted to retire; & Moore had gotten to old to play Bond any longer; it was my favorite Bond: Timothy Dalton who put James Bond back on the map; & regenerize that whole franchise with his two stints as James Bond 007: License To Kill. He chose to play Bond exactly the way Ian Fleming wrote him in his novels. Cold, handsome, & ruthlessly dangerous.!!! But having said all this; Casino Royal 🎰 still makes my top five out of ten all time favorite James Bond films. 1- Goldfinger, 2- Thunderball, 3- The Spy Who Loved Me, 4- The Living Daylights, & 5- Casino Royal🎰.👊🤯👍🙏😎🎱. In that order. As far as Casino Royal 🎰 Is concerned; it’s the only Bond film that Mr. Craig was in; that made it into my collection. The other three are just plain awful. There’s not one employee from the original ( director; producer,....etc ) franchise that have a stamp in these three films ( Quantrum of Solice; Skyfall, & Spectre * 🎱. Trust me; there’s a lot of pressure for No Time To Die; to do well. But not a lot of interest. The Marvel Universe & The Fast; & Furious franchises have taken over.!!!👊💪👍🙏🎱

冒頭シーンを観ただけで、シリーズ全作を観てきたからこそ本作の凄さが解る。これは“本物”だと。初代ショーン・コネリーの余裕綽々の男の色香、ロジャー・ムーアのお惚けかつ優雅なフェロモン全開、ティモシー・ダルトンの戸惑う実直な正義、ピアーズ・ブロスナンの生真面目なムーア弟版を経て、Ｍ:Iやボーンシリーズ等の新興アクション映画の急速なレベルアップを意識して大幅リニューアルを施したのが、この2006年公開、ダニエル・クレイグ主演でシリアス路線に転換した「カジノロワイヤル」だ。それまでの核兵器や地球壊滅を目論むスペクターの圧倒的なスペクタクル犯罪ではない、極めて現実的な戦争マネーのロンダリングと利殖請負業と言う現代的な地に足のついたテーマに加え、此れまでにない肉体派ジェームス・ボンドのドライな自己統制や行動はハードボイルド的で、殊に根っからの女好きじゃないボンドはそれだけでもかなり衝撃的だった。ボンドガールもイケイケ・アクションの金髪美女じゃない、黒髪の知性漂う英国財務省金融活動部のエリート官僚役、エヴァ・グリーンなのだ。自分は彼女のファンだが本作のヴェスパー・リンド役は異様に嵌まっていて、彼女の憂いのある眼差しと微笑を湛える口許、優雅な佇まいは最高に魅力的で忘れ難い。最初は反目するボンドと彼女との間が急接近する展開は毎度お約束だが、次作「慰めの報酬」への伏線を兼ねたラストの展開には正直唸らされた。本作の凄さとは、此れまで築き上げた歴史を踏まえつつ、あらゆる既成概念を大胆に破壊して再創造しに行った制作方針の挑戦に尽きる。人気シリーズにとってはどう見ても冒険なのだが、旧作ファンから若者層に広がらないマーケティングを踏まえた結果とは言え、その勇気に驚きと賛辞を禁じ得ない。ボンドをとことん一人の人間として掘り下げた試みこそ本作最大の醍醐味だろう。ダニエル・クレイグとエヴァ・グリーンの好演だけでなく、悪役ル・シッフルを演じたマッツ・ミケルセンのアフリカ軍事政権の資金洗浄屋と言う微妙に弱い業者の立ち回り演出が素晴らしい。圧倒的な巨悪ではない、株の空売りとテロの組み合わせで資金利回りを稼ぐ投資家の禁じ手、インサイダー手法を活用する闇金融的な知的犯罪者の策謀シナリオに痺れた。米ＣＩＡ諜報員とポーカーで真剣に共闘する破天荒な脚本には驚いたが、Ｍが初の女性設定でドライテイストなのも現代的で良い。ボンドの危機一髪もちゃんとスリリングに挿入され、無駄の無いクールな台詞回しも相俟って全編にわたり完成度が高いので、何度観ても飽きない。悪にはタフだが、愛には餓えたボンドの人間的側面にこれほど感情移入するとは正直言って意外だが、ダニエル・クレイグだからこそ可能だったのだと思う。彼がスパイとして闘い続ける理由を想像しながら観るのが愉しかった。脚本、映像、演技、アクション、冴え渡る主題歌を含めた音楽の完璧なアンサンブルは、シリーズ過去の名作達を堂々と上書きした筈だ。失敗の許されない元祖スパイ映画のフルモデルチェンジを成功させた製作には、ビジネスパーソンとしても拍手喝采しかない革新的な傑作です。

Out of all of the modern Bond films, this is my favourite. I wasn’t keen when I saw that Daniel Craig has been cast as James Bond but this film changed my mind on that. It’s fast, tense and suitably cool.The actual card game in the Casino is my favourite part. Very tense and the poisoning part was just mind blowing!Great, great film and my favourite Bond film of the modern era.

When this was first released I wasn't at all sure that I liked Daniel Craig as the new Bond. It seemed then that he didn't look the part. Well, he still doesn't, but I've come to like his Bond all the same. Craig is a very decent actor and he handles himself well in action scenes. His Bond is similar to that of Dalton in that here's a ruthless Bond with very little humour. Very much the way he was conceived by Fleming.As to the film, it's right up there with the best in the franchise. The story is great, the locations are glorious, sets and costumes are lavish and there are breathtaking action scenes and moments of great suspense. As to the cast, Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre makes for a worthy villain, Eva Green as Vesper Lynd is a very memorable Bond Girl, and Judi Dench makes a welcome return as M. What's not to like?

Arrived in prompt time. Seen on dvd before which urged me to buy blu ray version. watched many bonds,not the best compared to some others. This story a little weak,distinctive effects, it was notable inconsistant image quality. good bonding movie despite the flaws as bond faces off with ruthless terrorist financier hinges on a poker game. grown tired of this romantic,passionate spy vision heroics,instead the purposeful,on the job hero. some over the top. Actions set pieces okay.

First of all let me say that I think this is a great Bond film. Not that some earlier ones weren't, they were good for their era but it seems that now 'we' want a gritty hero, not a romantic vision of a spy.In that I think DC plays the role very well.What did surprise me was that some of the film displayed poor image quality. The part that springs to mind is the scene in the embassy courtyard. The camera switches from Bond to his persuers and back and forth again.The change in definition quality changes dramaticaly between one and the other camera shot. I thought I must have a fault but a friend at work had noticed the same thing. Strange for a recent film to have this problem.Probably a case that the two camera angles were shot at completely different times/location with different equipment and one was inferior to the other.Still, a great Bond film.