Casino Royale (2006)

Note Générale:

8,0/10   

Réalisateur:

Martin Campbell

Scénaristes (WGA):

Neal Purvis (screenplay) &
Robert Wade (screenplay) ...

Date de sortie:

17 novembre 2006 (USA)

Genre:

Action | Aventure | Thriller

Accroche:

Everyone has a past. Every legend has a beginning. On November 17th, discover how James...became Bond.

Intrigue:

In his first mission, James Bond must stop Le Chiffre, a banker to the world's terrorist organizations, from winning a high-stakes poker tournament at Casino Royale in Montenegro.

Plot Keywords:

Terrorist | Poker | James Bond | Montenegro | Casino

Récompenses:

Won BAFTA Film Award. Another 15 wins & 25 nominations

Avis des utilisateurs:

"Millenium" series James Bond - top-of-the-line!

Ensemble

Daniel Craig	...	James Bond
Eva Green	...	Vesper Lynd
Mads Mikkelsen	...	Le Chiffre
Judi Dench	...	M
Jeffrey Wright	...	Felix Leiter
Giancarlo Giannini	...	Mathis
Caterina Murino	...	Solange
Simon Abkarian	...	Alex Dimitrios
Isaach De Bankolé	...	Steven Obanno (as Isaach De Bankole)
Jesper Christensen	...	Mr. White
Ivana Milicevic	...	Valenka
Tobias Menzies	...	Villiers
Claudio Santamaria	...	Carlos
Sebastien Foucan	...	Mollaka (as Sébastien Foucan)
Malcolm Sinclair	...	Dryden

Autre(s) titre(s):

Bond 21 (UK) (working title)
Bond Begins (USA) (fake working title)
Bond XXI (UK) (working title)
James Bond 007 - Casino Royale (Germany)
James Bond 21 (USA) (working title)

MPAA:

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violent action, a scene of torture, sexual content and nudity.

Durée:

144 min

Pays:

USA | UK | Allemagne | Czech Republic

Langue:

Anglais

Couleur:

Noir et Blanc | Couleur

Rapport de forme:

2,35 : 1

Son:

Dolby Digital | SDDS | DTS

Classification:

Ireland:15A | Norway:15 | Sweden:15 | Finland:K-15 | Australia:M | Singapore:PG | Belgium:KT | Philippines:PG-13 (MTRCB) | Germany:12 | Netherlands:12 | Switzerland:14 (canton of Geneva) | Switzerland:14 (canton of Vaud) | Spain:13 | Hong Kong:IIA | Canada:14A (Alberta/British Columbia/Manitoba) | Canada:PG (Nova Scotia/Ontario) | Malaysia:U | New Zealand:M | Argentina:13 | Peru:14 | Brazil:14 | USA:PG-13 (certificate #42012) (cut version) | Portugal:M/12 | UK:12 (video rating) (cut) | UK:12A (cinema rating) (cut) | South Korea:15 | Denmark:11 | Canada:13+ (Quebec) | South Africa:13V | France:U (with warning) | India:UA | Iceland:12

Lieux de tournage:

"The Canals", Venice, Veneto, Italy

Société:

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)

Anecdotes:

The first film in the series to show Bond as a rookie in MI6. In all the other films, he had long been a spy.

Goofs:

Erreurs factuelles: While fighting hand to hand with a villain in the sinking house, Bond holds his opponents shirt as he rips an electrical cable from the wall and then presses the exposed wires against the villains chest. Since Bond was also electrically bonded to the villain by their wet clothes, Bond would have suffered the same electrical shock.

Guillemet:

[first lines]
James Bond: M really doesn't mind you earning a little money on the side, Dryden. She'd just prefer it if it wasn't selling secrets.

Connexions:

Référencé sur "Jeopardy!: (#26.16)" (2009)

Bande son:

You Know My Name

"Millenium" series James Bond - top-of-the-line!

In the original Bond series, only a handful of films really attempted to touch base with the novels of Ian Fleming. "Dr. No" showed the Fleming feeling for character and action, but introduced elements to the plot that detracted from the 'hard-boiled' spy story that Fleming thought he was writing; "Thunderball" came close, but that was because Fleming developed the story on commission for the film. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" had the book's plot pretty down pat, and was made in a kind of 'grand adventure' style, but of course it suffered from the choice of Lazenby - a professional model, not an actor - as Bond. "The Living Daylights" showed the producers' interest in returning to the roots, but Dalton was uncomfortable playing Bond, and uncomfortable with the wisecracks which had become part of the character's schtick - and which were really badly written for the Dalton films. "Goldeneye" was admirable attempt to update the Fleming milieu for the end of the Cold War, but left the character himself as yet without an 'updated' definition.

The decision to make a 21st Century version of Fleming's first Bond novel - and, beyond the update, to remain true to the novel, sans comic patter, sans sci-fi techno-schtick, sans major rewrite of the basic plot - promised to present Bond fans of all ages with a direct challenge. Do we want the hard-boiled spy Fleming first envisioned - patterned after Chandler's Philip Marlowe and W. Somerset Maughm's Ashenden ("or: The British Agent")? Or would we really rather have the suave stand-up comedian and Playboy magazine contributor introduced by Broccoli, Maibaum, Young, and company, in the second Connery film, "From Russia With Love"?

Well, the votes are still being tallied on that.

As someone who came to Bond reading "Goldfinger" at the tender age of twelve (the phrase "round, firm, pointed breasts" has been an inspiration to me since), the closer the films came to the sense of the novels, the happier I was.

So of course, this version of Bond is a joyous surprise for me - my youthful daydreams have been vindicated and at last fully satisfied. There are indeed elements added to the plot, but they are completely congruent with it. There is the use of current technology, but no techno-schtick - i.e., no Q. and no "gadgets". There are the luscious Bond babes (2 - the minimum Bond requirement), but there is no attempt to reduce them to photogenic sex-toys.

Fleming's plot actually requires the film's addition of some heavy action sequences (all done very snappy, with a brutally realistic edge), because the novel is very claustrophobic; the original TV version of the story (1955, with Barry Nelson as 'Jimmy Bond'), only used three indoor sets, because it could - except for the car chase and an attempted bombing at an outdoor café, Fleming's novel took place almost entirely within Bond's hotel suite and the gaming room. The film's opening this novel out to the world is actually quite welcome, and does not affect the central plot or its theme.

The character of Bond presented in this film may disappoint followers of the original films, but the news is, this is FLEMING's Bond - an orphan uncertain of his own identity, a disillusioned romantic trying hard to pretend he's incapable of emotions, a middle class, middle-brow, middle-level management type who just happens to kill people for a living. But he does it extremely well.

The other problem some general viewers may have is the level of violence in the film; having determined to film the novel realistically, director Martin Campbell has decided to ditch the 'B-movie' violence of most of the earlier films, and present us the violence with a hard 'British neo-noir' edge to it. Given the romantic plot twist toward the end, this would be a perfect date movie - except that the violence left some of the female viewers in the theater I attended clearly unsettled. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is part of the gestalt of the film's experience.

Cambell's direction is very good; the writing is crisp; production values are very high; the photography is stunning. Some of the stunt work is truly remarkable, worthy competition for Jackie Chan. The acting is rock-solid and believable for these characters. There is plenty of muscle for the action-film fan, and some real brains for the more general viewer to ponder later.

This film is best viewed with minimal reliance on knowledge of the previous series. In fact, it functions perfectly well as a 'one-off', a film without a series.

But of course, the ending invites a sequel. In Godzilla terms, Connery and Moore having given us the 'showa' Bond, Dalton and Brosnan the "Heisei" Bond, we now have the "Millenium" series James Bond - not a prequel nor even a 'reboot', but, really, an entirely new series about the same character. It is probably too much to hope for, but maybe they can make the sequels just as good as this.

As a genre film it never quite lifts above its genre; so normally I would only give it "nine stars" as a film.

However, as a film within its genre, it is top-of-the-line - so it gets a ten.