I’m deviating from my focus on smaller films to very big ones with Casino Royale, the latest installment in the the James Bond franchise that’s thrived for over 40 years. I’ve been a fan of this series for as long as I can recall so it was a priority to check this one out on opening weekend. The buzz from critics all around has been extremely favorable.
Typically, the Bond films are trashed by both critics and loyalists to the Flemming novels as being too over the top and too reliant on gadgetry. I say that such a formula has worked well over the last several decades with some down cycles here and there, but overall they met most movie goers expectations. This includes yours truly who found himself giggling like a kid over the ice palace and invisible car featured in the last installment, Die Another Day. That would also be the final outing for the long sought after and acquired Piece Brosnan who I found to be great as 007.
Producers, after seeing the stellar results of prequels like Batman Begins, opted for the same treatment for Bond. They would focus on his first mission as a double 0 agent. A Bond less refined and green around the edges but with a heart of steel when it comes to killing and a softy when it came to romance. Casino Royal sets out to give us a Bond in the midst of a steep learning curve who gets hurt physically and emotionally with each mistake made. This would deviate from the formula that worked so well for so many years and be, in essence, a return to the basics. The guide in putting this film together would be the sole Flemming book never made into an official Bond film, Casino Royale. And in a move more controversial than it should have been, Daniel Craig was cast as Bond.
Does the gamble pay off? Yes and, in some ways, no. First, a little about the film. Bond
must take down a criminal banker and ace card player known as Le Chiffre (Madds Mikklesen) who weeps blood due to a problem with his tear ducts. Le Ciffre is a mastermind at getting money into the hands of terrorists around the world. He intends to use his card playing skills to raise money for them in a super high stakes poker game in Montenegro. Bond romances the wife of one of heavies connected with Le Chiffre, Solange (Caterina Murino), but is melted away by MI6 money cruncher Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who is sent by M (Dame Judi Dench) to keep Bond in check. Bond must then defeat Le Chiffre at the poker game which will, in turn, bring his criminal network crashing down.
I had to keep reminding myself that this was before Bond really becomes Bond. He does several things that are out of character so to speak when dealing with Vesper. But if you keep in mind that this is the beginning, it will make sense how Bond becomes the type of man that views women as temporary prizes, obstacles, liabilities or disposable. The Vesper character deviates strongly from the typical “Bond girls” of the past. She’s given more to do with her mind rather than her beauty, both of which she has in abundance. She’s not afraid to challenge James and she has the upper hand through most of the film. The exchanges between them are fun and sorely lacking in past films.
The action sequences are fine. There’s a great foot chase through a construction site, another chase through an airport runway and a nasty shoot out in a collapsing Venetian building to name a few. The gadgets are there but seem more pratical than fun, almost pedestrian with the exception of the defibrillator in the glove box of his Aston Martin. If I can wage any gripe about this films action it’s that it felt, at times, like The Bourne Identity series. To be clear, that film and it’s followup are fantastic. I have no problem with them. However, Bourne is Bourne and Bond is Bond. The two are best enjoyed separately and not mixed shaken or stirred together. There’s is also way too much product placement going on in Casino Royale. The rather reserved David Arnold score picks up dramatically as Bond cruises the Bahamas in…….a Ford! Sure he gets the Aston Martin later, but where’s the real music for that. C’mon guys! A Ford!?! I know Bond had humble beginnings, but honestly.
And that brings me to another gripe, continuity. Sure the Bond series is rather dodgy with with this but while I love Judi Dench as M, it makes no sense having her in it since she’s not brought in until Goldeneye. This is where things get a tad precarious in my judgement of this film. I can’t determine if this is just a liberty taken by the producers to keep a woman with incredible presence and ability in the series, or if they are going to act as if the previous 20 films never happened. If the latter, then this film drops from one of my favorites to one of the most hated in the blink of an eye. I don’t mind shaking up the legacy but don’t spit on the legacy.
Overall, we have a new Bond in Daniel Craig that is funny, gritty, dangerous and vulnerable. His attempt at the role is class, this guy nails it. If there is one potential problem that critics seem to be pushing for, it’s injecting too much realism into this series. It doesn’t belong in Bond as his world is that of fantasy. To be too real in the world of Bond is to be boring or something in the realm of Tom Clancy. (Nothing wrong with Clancy, it’s just not Bond) Bond doesn’t need to be human, he needs to be just as mad as the evil maniacs he’s trying to do in. Absurdity and impracticality are not hindrances in the Bond canon, they are necessities. But again, this is the beginning, some of his practical humanity is still left and he hasn’t become Bond we know and love. 
To the Bond movie fans out there who are worried about the changes; the exotic locations, beautiful women, glamor, gadgets and guns are still there but they just don’t feel like anything we’ve seen in the past films. You even have recurring characters like Felix Lieter (Jeffery Wright) coming back into the mix. But it wans’t until this films final moments that it really felt like a true Bond film to me. And that sequence was so different from the typical Bond ending that strangely…….it was more Bond than anything I’d ever seen in this series.
And that had me leaving the theater with a smile on my face.
4 responses so far ↓
fiwilson // December 9, 2006 at 4:26 pm
I’ve heard great stuff about this film. Won’t be seeing it myself as I’m of the mentality that they should’ve been left alone, so on stubborn principal I’ve seen none of the new ones. I think Eva Green makes for a great Bond Girl, she has a very intriguing beauty about her. Not so sure about about Daniel Craig, though I have heard he’s really rather good, he just doeasn’t seem very suave or attractive to me.
Ricardo // December 24, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Sorry I’m so late getting back to you :-/
He’s not suave in a Bond way but he is a bit slick with roughness around the edges it that makes sense. I took a reluctant female friend to see this movie who also thought he wasn’t attractive until the torture scene where he’s naked. She changed her tune but beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Eva did a great job as a Bond girl also. She was very believable and dangerous in a cerebral way. And while my female friend thought she was nothing special I was knocked in lust over her after seeing The Dreamers. You’ll get no refusal from me over a woman like her. I would give this one a shot. Are you a Connery fan? Many felt this had a very early Connery feel.
Fi Wilson // December 28, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Hey, no worries Ricardo. Happy holiday’s to you also! I was actually more of a Roger Moore fan, though I know most folk prefer Connery. I think I must’ve seen his films first or more when I was a kid so he’s Bond to me. It’s actually only in later life I appreciated these films for what they were, when I was a kid I was a bit pee’d off at the disposable sexualisation of women. Now I appreciate them for a lost era of masculinity. Still think I’ll give it a miss though, if I don’t see any of the new ones I can pretend they don’t exist.
Ricardo // January 1, 2007 at 6:25 am
I grew up with Moore as well Fi so I hear what you’re saying there. I got to really appreciate Connery as I got older and he became my favorite Bond.
As for the disposable sexual objectification of women, I can see how that could offend many. However, It’s really part of the male fantasy that many of us (including me) have had at one time or another because it does 2 things. First, the idea of being that way protects you from getting hurt while having a high level of physical intimacy. Second, it’s our own weird way of dealing with our fears, insecurities and mysteries that come in dealing with the opposite sex. Femme Fatales are strongly based on the second reason from the reading and writing that I’ve done. You are right in that it is a lost era of masculinity but what appeared at first as “men being men” actually could have been men dealing with their dreams and insecurities.
I will say this regarding the new one, it really bothered me that they screwed with the time line so to speak. Now they are pretending like everything didn’t happen and that’s just sad. Ill give the next film a shot but if it goes too much into Bourne or Clancy territory, I’m out of following the Bond thing.
Leave a Comment