Bond hits the inside straight.
Casino Royale (2006): 10 out of 10: After earning his “00” status with two professional hits, James Bond (Daniel Craig) is sent on a mission that takes him from the crane-tops of Madagascar to the beaches of the Bahamas. The trail leads to Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a high-stakes banker for the world’s most dangerous terrorists. When Bond foils Le Chiffre’s plan to profit from a massive stock fraud involving a new aerospace prototype, the villain is forced to host a high-stakes poker game at the Casino Royale in Montenegro to recoup his clients’ money. Joined by Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), a Treasury official assigned to watch the money, Bond enters a world of psychological warfare and physical brutality that will ultimately define the man he is to become.
The Good
The Good: Casino Royale remains a masterclass in pacing. It feels like a high-speed chase even when the characters are just sitting around a felt table. The film even lures you into a false sense of security with a romantic, meandering third act in Venice only to yank the rug out from under you with a jolt of energy that sends the finale sideways in the best way possible.
The stunt work and cinematography here are top-tier and, frankly, more effective because they are “down to earth.” Gone are the invisible cars and space lasers; in their place, we get a muscular, gritty Daniel Craig engaging in a parkour chase that feels like it has actual physical weight. Speaking of Craig, this was the peak of his physicality. He looked less like a spy and more like a blunt instrument wrapped in a tuxedo.
Perhaps most refreshing is the villain’s motivation. Le Chiffre isn’t trying to nuke the planet or rewrite the DNA of the human race. He’s just a guy trying to commit stock fraud to fund terrorism and cover his own losses. This grounded approach makes the stakes feel far more tangible and “real-world” than your standard Bond fare.
The Bad
The Bad: As much as we love Dame Judi Dench, the narrative heavy-lifting she has to do at the end of the film is a bit of a stretch. M’s explanation that Vesper Lynd made a secret deal with Quantum to keep Bond alive has been explained multiple times across the franchise now, and it still doesn’t make a lick of sense. It feels like a convenient plot device to keep James “pure” while still allowing for the tragedy.
Also, if we’re talking about characters who need a good interrogation, let’s look at Rene Mathis. While Bond suspects him of being a double agent, I’d argue he deserves the torture chair simply for “mansplaining” the rules of Texas Hold ’em to the audience throughout the entire movie. We get it, Rene; it’s a flush.
The Ugly
The Ugly: Looking back at this film 14 years later (and yes, those mid-aughts flip phones date this movie faster than anything else), there are some moments that would definitely trigger a rewrite in 2026. The scene where Bond gets into hot water for shooting an unarmed black man who had surrendered, and then later in the film chokes another black man to death by stepping on his neck… well, that feels particularly jarring today. It’s reminiscent of the “shooting an unarmed teenager” backstory from Die Hard, carrying a weight of social discomfort that likely wasn’t the primary focus of the filmmakers in 2006 but stands out like a sore thumb now.
Also, Casino Royale has some of the worst opening credits for a Bond film in a long time. The title song “You Know My Name,” performed by Chris Cornell, is okay. I mean, it is not a memorable hit, but it’s not “The Man with the Golden Gun” from Lulu or the sixties syrup that was “From Russia with Love” sung by the British Sinatra himself Matt Monro.
No, the issue is the visuals, which I swear look like the idle screen on a video poker machine. Longtime readers might surmise that the lack of sexy women and backlit nudity is the reason I dislike these Macau casinos pop-up ad opening graphics. Longtime readers are not wrong.
In Conclusion
In Conclusion: The biggest problem with Casino Royale is that it is a promise unkept. It was a 10/10 reboot that proved Bond could be gritty, grounded, and emotionally resonant. While it was unlike the campy films that came before it, it is unfortunately also unlike the Craig sequels that followed. It’s as if the producers learned every possible lesson on how to make a perfect modern spy thriller, executed it flawlessly, and then immediately forgot everything they learned for the next four entries. It remains the gold standard of the era. A beautiful, brutal, and brilliant anomaly.
