007 is back this weekend, and around here, we’re just a bit keyed up. Laremy Legel and C. Robert Cargill got an early look at Daniel Craig in Casino Royale, and we posed five questions to get their thoughts on the new Bond – the movie and the man.

Send your own Royale replies to staff@film.com.

1. How is Daniel Craig different than previous Bonds?

Laremy:
Way tougher and less caring. Daniel Craig’s Bond is a cousin to Jason Bourne as opposed to a relative of Austin Powers like Pierce Brosnan was. Gone are the silly quips at peril, instead replaced with a psychotic and slightly menacing almost “anti-hero.” Frankly, it’s a major upgrade as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know that die-hard Bond traditionalists will be pleased, but a whole new group of people will be.

Cargill:
Daniel Craig is meaner, tougher and much closer to the original James Bond (from the novels) than he is to any of the previous adapted Bonds. This is the James Bond that is referred to (specifically in the film) as a blunt instrument for the British government to use in times of need. He’s not a nice guy, and he doesn’t like to crack jokes.

2. What did you miss from old Bond films?

Laremy:
Almost nothing. Well, I did miss better looking Bond girls. Eva Green was a miscast. She’s probably a nice enough gal, but she’s the kind of woman you marry … and we all know Bond doesn’t marry. She’s a lovely Mercedes, but Bond needs a sleek Ferrari as his playmate.

Cargill:
Well, while I didn’t miss it, many, many people are going to miss the humor of the old Bond films, which is very absent here. There’s no gadgets, no set-up scene with Q, no smart-aleck quips. The film is an old-fashioned spy film — not a tongue in cheek adventure like the Bond franchise has become.

3. What could they have done better?

Laremy:
Well, as I said, the lady quotient. It’s also a very epic Bond at two hours and twenty minutes. There are certainly times when you feel that length full-force and wish they’d get on with it already. In general it’s also very difficult to create tension in the 007 world because he’s escaped everything short of nuclear winter, so the film has a little element of suspense missing at times too. These are minor quibbles, however, not really germane to the experience as a whole.

Cargill:
Just when the movie seems to be over, there’s what seems like a fourth act, a lovey-dovey sequence that takes the tense pace of the movie and slows it to a crawl for 10 minutes. While this is adapted from the novel, and it sets up the great climax of the film, it seems really out of place and could have been trimmed or done differently.

4. Is Bond still cinematically relevant?

Laremy:
He is now. This isn’t your momma’s Bond, but it is a Bond that people will flock to. In a sense they had to kill the franchise to rebirth it, but I think it’s all for the greater good. There is some sadness in Bond even having to compete with MI3 and Bourne Supremacy, but that’s the world we currently live in. The long-lasting character finally had to depart from the high horse and mingle with us bloodthirsty commoners.

Cargill:
Of course he is. While he is often referred to as a Cold War Relic, the idea that Bond was only of any use or interest when there were only two major sides to a conflict is ridiculous. There are still spy stories to be told, and there should always be a James Bond to tell them. At this point, James Bond has become like Zorro, The Three Musketeers and Superman. While these heroes are a product of their age, they are heroes beloved by every new generation.

5. Who would you recommend this to, and why?

Laremy:
Almost anyone. Action fans, date night, Bond folks, fans of huge Hollywood spectacle. It’s a worthy film for almost anyone. Now, film snobs will hate it, but they probably hate most action films. These people love movies like Babel, and they are not of our world. I guess I’d call it a pass for the dozen remaining hardcore Pierce Brosnan fans because this Bond bears no relation to that one.

Cargill:
Action fans and Bond fans are gonna love this, as is anyone who enjoys a good spy thriller. I definitely wouldn’t recommend this to anyone expecting a goofy, “fun” film, nor to anyone who thinks watching people play cards is about as boring as it comes. Card playing is a huge part of both this film and the book it was based upon. Oddly enough, anyone who is a big fan of Texas Hold ‘Em is going to lose their mind with excitement at the prospect of watching it in the context of the stakes involved in this film.

Thanks, Laremy and Cargill!

Austin-based Cargill, who “… not only loves, but owns, The Cutting Edge,” writes on Movies and DVD two times a week.

Laremy ponders and portends on Movies, DVD, and TV five times per week.