\n \r\n

\r\n \t

Fast forward a few decades – EON (since bought by MGM) continued to make Bond movies starring several actors, the latest of which being Pierce Brosnan.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
Columbia, meanwhile, had been purchased by Sony, who were interested in making a movie about some no-name superhero named Spider-Man. As luck would have it, MGM had bought the rights to Spider-Man only a few years prior, but simply couldn\u2019t agree on how to put the movie together. And with 007 being MGM\u2019s biggest franchise, a trade was made: the rights to Spider-Man for the rights to \u201cCasino Royale\u201d<\/strong>. The deal happened in the late 90s, and that\u2019s actually how Sony\/Columbia started making Spider-Man movies, which they continue to do to this day, both by themselves (\u201cVenom\u201d and \u201cInto the Spider-Verse\u201d) and alongside Disney\/Marvel Studios (Tom Holland\u2019s \u201cSpider-Man\u201d trilogy).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n
A few years later, it was decided that a fresh start was needed for James Bond – Pierce Brosnan was demanding too much money to return, and the audience was growing weary with the gadgets and other sci-fi elements. That\u2019s why the radical decision was made to fully reboot the franchise and start from scratch with an origin story for James Bond, something that had never been done in the franchise\u2019s 50 year history (at that point). True, he\u2019d been played by many actors, but it was assumed that they all played the same person, and the audience was supposed to ignore that he looked different. This time, however, the new James Bond – Daniel Craig – would be a new person<\/strong> with his own history, personality and aesthetic. Gone were the gadgets, gone were the \u201cBond babes\u201d (at least as we knew them), gone was the suave charm. This new Bond would be at the beginning of his career, and he would be the \u201cblunt instrument\u201d that Fleming envisioned originally. What better film to start him off with than \u201cCasino Royale\u201d?<\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/div><\/div>
\r\n
The Story<\/h2>\r\n $\"\"$ \r\n
The film\u2019s opening moments reveal to us that, in order to obtain the status of a \u201c00\u201d agent, you need to murder two people. So we see James Bond do exactly that, beating a man to death in a bathroom and then his boss, an MI6 chief turned traitor. Bond has killed many, many people over the years, but it\u2019s always been portrayed as cool and glamorous – a firefight against overwhelming odds to save the world, a fistfight with an evil henchman twice Bond\u2019s size. This couldn\u2019t be further from the truth in the case of \u201cCasino Royale\u201d, at least in its opening minutes. Even though the people he kills are \u201cbad guys\u201d, the movie makes it explicitly clear that he is murdering them in cold blood. A stark reminder that, unlike the previous versions of Bond, Daniel Craig\u2019s Bond is a ruthless sociopath<\/strong> who will go to any lengths to achieve his objective. He may be the main character, but to call him a \u201chero\u201d would be a stretch, and it\u2019s scary to think about what he would do if he was ordered to do something that\u2019s truly villainous.<\/p>\r\n
The first act sees Bond following breadcrumbs, all leading up to a mysterious banker known as Le Chiffre (played by Mads Mikkelsen), an investor for some of the biggest criminal names in the world who uses insider knowledge of the underworld to make big profits for both their organizations and himself. Due to Bond\u2019s interference, Le Chiffre ends up losing a lot of money to some really powerful people, which puts him in something of a bind. His plan is to make that money back at a high stakes poker tournament in the titular Casino Royale<\/strong> in Montenegro where he\u2019d easily win over $100 million if successful\u2026 But if he fails, it\u2019d mean certain death. MI6 realize that this is a golden opportunity and send Bond to enter the tournament, hoping that after he loses, Le Chiffre will have no other option but to seek asylum with the British government in exchange for dirt on the people he invested money for. With the plan settled, Bond is sent off to Montenegro alongside Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), an agent for the British treasury responsible for the $10 million buy-in, and for keeping Bond on a leash during the mission.<\/p>\r\n
\n \r\n\r\n \t
Most of the rest of the movie focuses on this high stakes poker game in Casino Royale, and we have to say – we certainly admire the filmmakers\u2019 courage.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
It would have been so easy to just set one or two scenes in the casino, enough to advance the plot, and then spend the rest of the movie on explosions and gadgets – it\u2019s certainly what most other Bond films would\u2019ve done. But keep in mind, \u201cCasino Royale\u201d shows us a brand new Bond<\/strong>, both in terms of the character and style. The director, Martin Campbell, understands that you don\u2019t need your main character dangling from the edge of a cliff to have tension in a scene, and that sometimes, a quiet moment at a poker table is all it takes.<\/p>\r\n
Casino games<\/a> already lend themselves perfectly to these types of stories (there\u2019s a reason why there\u2019s so many casino movies around), and we\u2019ve never seen that captured as perfectly as it is here. The poker games are incredibly tense<\/strong>, the scenes are kept deliberately quiet and focused on the players\u2019 expressions and body language to truly immerse you into the atmosphere with some top-notch directing and editing. Of course, credit should also be given to the actors themselves (Craig, Mikkelsen and Jeffrey Wright as an undercover CIA operative at the same tournament) for being able to convey so much of what their characters are feeling while still keeping their in-character poker face. Truly a joy to behold!<\/p>\r\n<\/div>
\r\n
The Themes<\/h2>\r\n $\"\"$ \r\n
The original \u201cCasino Royale\u201d from the 60s was, in many ways, a deconstruction of James Bond – which is very necessary when you\u2019re trying to do a parody. The movie took essential elements that had been established in the first 4 Bond movies (the only ones made at that point) and tried to break them down, to \u201cflip\u201d them around for the sake of humor. After all, Bond is kind of a ridiculous person, and there\u2019s plenty to mock about both him and his movies. In stark contrast, the 2006 \u201cCasino Royale\u201d is a reconstruction of Bond<\/strong>, and in bringing him from a brute into the stylish Bond from the other movies, a true origin story.<\/p>\r\n
Another reason why the poker tournament is so great is because it puts Bond, the \u201cblunt instrument\u201d, completely out of his element. True, Connery or Dalton would\u2019ve felt right at home in an elegant suit and a martini in hand, but not Craig. He\u2019s anything but an elegant, sophisticated guy<\/strong> – that\u2019s kind of the point. He\u2019s little more than a barbarian, a hired thug that just so happens to be working for the government rather than the world. In an alternate reality he could\u2019ve easily become the type of henchman that previous Bonds have fought against. Fighting a battle of the minds in an elegant suit? That\u2019s not his scene, at all, and he clearly struggles with that role. Again, it can\u2019t be understated just how brilliant Craig is in the role, and why he was cast in it despite his blond hair and blue eyes being a stark departure from previous Bonds (which, believe it or not, caused quite the controversy at the time). This Bond would feel much more comfortable beating Le Chiffre with a hammer than beating him at cards, and that\u2019s why placing him in a situation where violence wouldn\u2019t solve his problems was such a brilliant idea, and why the movie works even though it\u2019s not packed to the brim with action and explosions like other 007 flicks.<\/p>\r\n
\n \r\n
\r\n \t
But nothing shows Bond\u2019s development into the ruthless, sexist sociopath of the other movies more than the character of Vesper Lynd, his attractive female handler.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
Right at the beginning of the movie, we already know that Bond doesn\u2019t really have the best opinion of women – his relationship with his direct superior M (Judi Dench) is mostly respectful, if strained, but that\u2019s pretty much where the line is drawn. Early in the movie, before the tournament, Bond seduces the wife of a corrupt Greek official involved in Le Chiffre\u2019s schemes, and later, due to his own actions, the organization that Le Chiffre works for ends up torturing her to death – which Bond clearly isn\u2019t particularly bothered about. That\u2019s very much in line with the Bond we know<\/strong>, the one who sees women as little more than objects for his own pleasure and nothing more. Once he\u2019s had his way with them, they\u2019re of little consequence. He is neither willing nor able to get attached to anyone in that way, or possibly in any way.<\/p>\r\n
And then\u2026 There\u2019s Vesper, the very antithesis of a Bond girl. She\u2019s not defined by her relationship with Bond, or any other man – in fact, Bond\u2019s mission entirely depends on keeping himself in her good graces, because she can cut his funding at any point and call off the entire mission. After all, if things go south, the British government would be directly funding terrorists, which obviously can\u2019t happen, meaning that it\u2019s on her to pull the plug if things go south. Obviously, she quickly clashes with Bond\u2019s confident, headstrong nature<\/strong>, so that quickly throws out any hope Bond might have had of simply having a one-night stand with her and leaving her behind. As he grows closer to Vesper, we see Bond leaving himself emotionally vulnerable for\u2026 Pretty much the first time in the entire franchise (hell, he wasn\u2019t even that vulnerable with his wife in \u201cOn Her Majesty\u2019s Secret Service\u201d). But don\u2019t forget that this is supposed to be James Bond\u2019s first real mission, his origin story which shaped him into the person he would end up becoming. Part of it is learning to order his martini shaken, not stirred. Another part is closing his heart to anything that might resemble real attachment or emotion.<\/p>\r\n<\/div><\/div>
\r\n
Legacy<\/h2>\r\n $\"\"$ \r\n
Most 007 movies, including newer ones like \u201cSkyfall\u201d (as successful as they may be), aren\u2019t really much more than popcorn entertainment. We watch them to see Bond beat the crap out of bad guys, bed beautiful women and ultimately stop the bad guy, and we like them for it. Not every movie has to be smart, or have deep, complex themes that can still be examined and dissected a decade and a half later. But \u201cCasino Royale\u201d, in stark contrast to its successors and predecessors, decided not to simply follow that trend<\/strong>. Its writer and director, alongside Barbara Broccoli, Daniel Craig and everyone else involved in the production, saw the casting of a new actor and the return of the rights to the original Bond novel as a chance for a truly fresh start. And, in all honesty, if they hadn\u2019t done that, it is our firm belief that James Bond movies probably wouldn\u2019t have been around today.<\/p>\r\n
The world of action movies is always movie forward, and the franchises that refuse or are unable to conform to this change get left behind. Just as \u201cDie Hard\u201d and \u201cHard Boiled\u201d shaped action of the 90s (leading to the most successful movies of the decade, like \u201cThe Matrix\u201d, following in their footsteps), \u201cBourne\u2019s Identity\u201d shaped them for the 00s, giving us masterpieces like \u201cThe Dark Knight\u201d. \u201cDie Another Day\u201d, the last Bond flick before \u201cCasino Royale\u201d, very much felt like a 90s movie in terms of its plot, cinematography and action. It needed that step forward, that leap into the world of gritty, down-to-earth, close and personal action that Bourne had ushered in. \u201cCasino Royale\u201d did that, and so much more<\/strong>. It did what many 007 movies before it could not: bringing the entire franchise into a modern era.<\/p>\r\n
\n \r\n\r\n \t
Up until its end in 2021, Daniel Craig\u2019s era, which started with \u201cCasino Royale\u201d, has continued to buck conventions and break records.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
The sequel to \u201cCasino Royale\u201d, \u201cQuantum of Solace\u201d, was the first ever Bond film to begin immediately after its predecessor, continuing its story and featuring many of the same characters as Bond went after the bosses of Le Chiffre. The third part of the trilogy, \u201cSkyfall\u201d, became the most financially successful Bond movie of all time. While the fourth movie, \u201cSpectre\u201d was a disappointment with both fans and critics, the fifth and final film of the series, \u201cNo Time to Die\u201d, was the first to give Bond a definitive ending<\/strong> and a concrete conclusion, ending a saga 15 years in the making. And none of this would have happened if \u201cCasino Royale\u201d wasn\u2019t as good as it was, or as revolutionary as it ended up being. If you\u2019re a casual casino fan that hasn\u2019t seen it already, we honestly couldn\u2019t recommend it enough, and if you\u2019re a Bond fan, or even just an action movie fan – let\u2019s face it, you\u2019ve already seen it. So this sounds like a good time for a rewatch!<\/p>\r\n<\/div>
\r\n\r\nTop 3 Casinos of the month<\/div>\n
\n\n\n
<\/span>\">\n
\n\n
\n