Review of Casino Royale (1954) by Noah Abraham G — 17 Mar 2013

I've never been a fan of the Jason Bourne movies, and it's hard to exactly articulate why. The leads are fine, the action is good, the plot has plenty of twists and turns to keep you invested. There are villains, there are Big Ideas, there are car chases and foot chases and gun fights and fist fights and Brian Cox and good-looking women and even better-looking men and just about everything that you could possibly want in a decent action movie and yet it just leaves me completely cold. I can't get invested. I can only half-pay attention. They're boring, and I don't care. And I don't exactly know why.

I suppose the best I can come up with is that it's not more like "Casino Royale.".

"Casino Royale" is Daniel Craig's first outing as super spy and sex symbol James Bond, and what a way to kick the whole thing off. Although by no means a masterpiece (and only six years later "Skyfall" would come around to blow it out of the water), the film is still a marvel and a load of fun to watch.

Which is funny, seeing as how the filmmakers clearly wanted to make "James Bond as Jason Bourne". So why does this one work while Bourne doesn't?

I think part of it is that James Bond is a more compelling character than Bourne is. At the time of this film's release, Bond had forty-four years of cinematic history (and nine years more in books). That's a lot of time to develop a character and, as such, a lot more wiggle room to reinvent him. Jason Bourne may have been twenty-two when his film was made, but he wasn't as rich of a tradition.

As such, Bourne was first finding his steps, walking ahead tentatively, while the new Bond stepped boldly forth into the daylight. And it works. Both characters are clearly human (although the way they both break through glass with nary a scratch on them is beyond me), far from infallible and they both have a sensitive side. And both are damaged. But there's a key difference, I think, that puts the edge in Bond's corner:

Bourne's damage has to do with his lack of memory and the absence of his past; Bond's damage comes from his past. Although it's not explicit like it is in "Skyfall", Bond is clearly dealing with some ghosts and trauma from his childhood. It makes him cold on the outside, but there's clearly something lying underneath that can be damaged.

I think the long tradition in cinema also gives Bond a leg up with his relationship with the love interest- I don't know how Bourne was with women, so it just seems like he's latching on to the first woman he meets. But when Bond connects with Vesper (Eva Green), it's the first time in a long time that Bond has had real emotional connection with a woman. Vesper is also a better character, less a damsel-in-distress and more of an agent out of her element. Yes, she has trouble dealing with all the death and violence, but she works for the Treasury. It makes sense why Bond would love a woman like her; she's basically Bond, but with a little more humanity.

The villain here is also better. Many people have accused Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) as a bit of a bore, and I guess there's an element of truth to that, but I don't know. It's a bold new direction for a new Bond, and I like the fact that he's not a mastermind- he's just a man good with numbers. It's an effective performance of a bad man who's ultimately in way over his head. Also, he CRIES BLOOD.

The action, though inspired by Bourne, is better here too. Yes, there's some shaky cam here and there, but ultimately the violence is a lot easier to follow. And although it's rooted in reality, the film isn't afraid to go a little out there with its set pieces, especially with a jaw-dropping chase scene that serves as its post-credits Cold Open.

And that's another thing- this film has set pieces. I have no problem with an action film not being nonstop action; in fact it's probably a better idea. I mean, "Die Hard" and "Dredd" are great, but most movies simply can't pull off what they manage to do. Character development is a good idea.

But if you're not going to have a straight up action film, you need set pieces. Less action, but more imagination and energy in the action you gives us. The Bourne series doesn't have set pieces, just average fights. "Casino Royale" has set pieces.

So yeah, I think I've demonstrated why this movie is considerably better than Bourne. But why 100%? All the elements above are fine and all, but does it merit five stars?

Ultimately, no, but the film has another ace up its sleeve- its plot is wholly different from what you'd expect in an action movie. You'll never see another espionage thriller whose main source of tension comes from a high-stakes poker game. Well, until someone else comes along and adapts "Casino Royale" again. It'll happen. One day.

But I digress. The plot, which I've not even begun to discuss, is basically this: Bond competes in the poker game (changed from the novel's baccarat) to prevent a group of international terrorists from winning the money, and forcing Le Chiffre to cooperate.

Also worth noting is the opening credits, which are some of the best opening credits of all time. Complete with a badass song, it's a great way to kick off the film.

If you haven't seen it, please do. You won't regret it.