Casino Royale

Martin Campbell (Dir), Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Eva Green (2006)

Thursday was the Barbican's members' screening of Casino Royale, complete with martinis (shaken, not stirred, but no olive. Not that I give a damn...). Of course, I can think of no better way to precede such an event than a decent steak frites at Smiths of Smithfield just down the road. Incidentally, the "lucky squid" is an excellent starter - smoky, grilled squid with Chinese broccoli, chilli, garlic and ginger. Desserts appear to have changed a little since last time. There I was looking forward to their trifle, only to discover that it's been replaced by a banoffee fool for the winter season (although it's not at all a bad alternative).

Anyway, enough of food. After all the hype about Daniel Craig and the lack of gadgetry in the new Bond film, I was curious to see how Casino Royale would compare to its predecessors. I must admit that I'm not a huge fan of Bond movies. I watch them because it's become more or less a civil duty, but I have no particular passion for them. In fact, other than Pierce Brosnan, I haven't particularly liked previous Bonds, and the last few have had rubbish storylines. I must also admit that I haven't seen the original Casino Royale, and have no idea what it's about. With this in mind, I was pleasantly surprised by this new outing - here's a Bond movie I actually really enjoyed watching (admittedly, this might have been residual endorphin effects from the steak at Smiths, but still...). Daniel Craig makes an unlikely Bond; he lacks that certain charm and charisma. He is, however, a much better actor than most previous ones, and he's a lot meaner. The tongue-in-cheek humour and gadgets are replaced with a much grittier, and more violent, style. It's to Daniel Craig's credit that, thinking back, I have no idea what the plot was about, but I don't really care. The film itself is so engaging, particularly the Montenegro sequence, that you more or less lose sight of the bigger picture (you'll realize that this is quite ironic once you've seen the film...). Eva Green is stunning as Vesper Lynd, and Judi Dench is bitchier than ever as "M". There were other people in the film, but who cares about them? Most of them die, anyway. There are some great one-liners, though, but I can't say them here, so I don't give them away. As for the title song, Chris Cornell's You Know My Name.... the jury's still out on that one. Not sure I'm that keen. Although David Arnold does a reasonable job of weaving it into the score.

All in all, the best Bond movie I've seen, I would say.

Now then, what the heck is this Baz Luhrmann-directed Chanel no. 5 comercial with Nicole Kidman? Anyone else get this before the main feature? It's ridiculous! The thing is unbearably cheesy and it goes on for ages. The credits alone (yes, credits for a freakin' commercial!) are longer than the bloody film! Seriously, yes Chanel no. 5, close-up of Nicole Kidman looking pretty, and then move on already. What else do you need to say? It's a perfume. At least half the audience has no interest in it, and I'm sure the other half will have lost all interest after being made to sit through a commercial reminding them that they look nothing like Nicole Kidman...