James Bond is back.
There’s no more fitting way to describe this film. It’s the highest praise I can give it. It certainly wipes the bad taste left by Die Another Day out of the mouth and shows that the “new†(since 1995) production team of Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have finally gotten their act together and caught the Bond spirit. Every film in their reign (Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day) has, to one degree or another, felt off-kilter.
This one is absolutely on the mark.
The worst thing I can say about this film is that the titles are absolutely naff and have no naked women cavorting around.
As pointed out in my earlier post, the novel Casino Royale is a flawed book, with the action out-of-balance, and the plot being very short. The movie does an admirable job of following the book but, to flesh it out to an admittedly, butt-numbing two and a half hours, they’ve embellished the original story in several ways and improved it in every way.
In the original novel, M receives a memo outlining Le Chiffre’s financial difficulties and his high stakes baccarat game at Casino Royale to win back the money has already been setup. Bond is assigned simply because he is the best card player in the service.
In the film, the first hour concentrates on Bond’s efforts to stop first one, then a second hired bomber from causing financial turmoil and, not coincidentally, a financial windfall for Le Chiffre – who only puts in token appearances in the early part of the film.
The casino sequences have been embellished with action between breaks in the gaming, which is now poker rather than baccarat, presumably because baccarat has never been a popular game in the US and poker is currently experiencing an unfathomable popularity as a spectator sport.
The movie then follows the spirit of the book quite closely. (Easily the closest adaptation since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.) Vesper and Bond are kidnapped, Bond is tortured and hen the principal baddie is killed by an unknown assassin while Bond is still tied in his torture chair and the movie still has a good 30 or 40 minutes to go.
Apart from the title sequence, my main secondary complaint would be that the movie might follow the book a little too closely and the story slows into the final act of Bond and Vesper falling in love. Unlike the book’s final act which ends with a complete fizzle, the writers have thankfully ended this film with an exciting Bond finale.
Then when you’re sure it’s finally over and you think you’ll finally be able to go empty your bladder, they throw a final twist in that makes you clinch up and prepare for some more chair time.
This is not a movie at which to buy the 44oz soda at the concessions counter.
The movie is a little disjointed, feeling more like 4 (or more) different, yet related, short stories following one after the next. The final segment, like the book, rings a bit untrue, as the developing love between Bond and Vesper really manfests itself only after the mission is over. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service tells a better Bond love story because you can see the love develop over the film, and it makes Bond’s desire to marry more credible. While OHMSS’s love story is superior, Craig’s performance leaves Lazenby’s far, far behind.
Director Martin Campbell redeems himself after mangling Goldeneye and does a journeyman job. (Only complaint: during the final fight sequence, there are times when it is difficult to tell which stunt man is supposed to be Bond.)
As I’ve mentioned earlier, the score is not one of my favorites when listened to by itself, but in the context of the film does well and compliments the movie nicely. The theme song, which I dislike does have a nice melody and I found myself humming it after the film. It’s apparently the vocal performer that fails for me on this one.
Finally
A lot of ire was tossed at Daniel Craig prior to the release of this film, and I certainly had my doubts about him. His “look†is still not what I expect, and when he’s dressed up in his dinner jacket, he looks in desperate need of someone to comb his hair. With that and his features, he looks more like a bouncer than a secret agent.
That notwithstanding, he turns in a great performance. No complaints, not one. His Bond is smart, resourceful, arrogant and rather humorless.
Prior to the release of the film, the film is hyped as Bond’s first adventure and how he becomes the agent we all know. Frankly, that’s just hype. While it is true that this film depicts Bond’s promotion to 007, the script really just plays lip service to the concept. Bond is every bit the agent he’ll be in the end from the beginning of the film to the end. Character “growth†really isn’t there.
So there it is, a superior Bond film. Go see it. Bring a comfy cushion, have an empty bladder.
One other thing…
I almost loath giving these guys a link, but I’m going to. You may know that there was a vocal anti-Craig movement, based largely on his looks. One of the most visible manifestations of it is the Daniel Craig is Not Bond website. They’ve been urging a boycott of the film and the return of Pierce Brosnan. Having once been in the “I’m not sure he’s a good choice†category, I was curious to see if they’d changed their tune – or better yet, taken down their website completely and replaced it with the I’m-Eating-Crow website.
Nope, they’re still sponsoring a boycott of the film (their loss) and have even posted a few “honest and reliable†reviews (presumably from people who didn’t go along with the boycott). I’m going to link to them here because they are so wrong they’re funny. They’re kind of like the conspiracy nuts who think we never landed on the moon.
Don’t let someone else make up your mind for you, go see it for yourself.
