Casino Royale (2006)Written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis
Directed by Martin Campbell
In retrospect it's easy to say that Casino Royale was the right direction for the franchise to take, but prior to its release (has it really been nearly four years) there seemed to be an awful lot of risks being taken.
Not least of these the casting of Daniel Craig, an excellent actor - anyone who's seen Road To Perdition or cult Brit-Gangster movie Layer Cake can attest to that - but one who, on paper, doesn't fit the role of Bond. When people think of Bond they think of the tall, dark handsome stranger - Craig is neither tall nor dark, and his handsomeness is very, very subjective.
But for all the risk that lay in casting Craig, the producers were actually taking a much bigger risk - they unceremoniously ditched the Forty-Plus years of continuity in favour of starting all over again.
Rebooting is a pretty popular trend in Hollywood today, and it was probably all kick-started by the critical success of Batman Begins, in fact Reboot seems to have become the new 'it-word' around Hollywood - So you want to make a film? A reboot you say? Greenlight that bitch!
There wasn't much hope for fans to cling to, except the fact that this movie would be based on Ian Fleming's first novel Casino Royale... and Martin Campbell, director of fan-fave Goldeneye would be returning to helm the flick.
The producers and Director were touting a 'back to basics' approach, which had some people scared. Many assumed we were going to see Bond totally stripped down into a character that barely resembled the one we were used to - a Bond without gadgets and one-liners? Surely that's not Bond?
In some respects they were right, Bond had become a bit of a joke. His place in cinema history would have ultimately been cemented by Die Another Day - a terrible, overblown sci-fi action film that continued to force the series into a specific little hole that the Pierce Brosnan era had dug for itself. Not that those films are terrible, and they were probably right for the time. Each of them seems like it's trying to 'Scream Bond' at the viewer, and ultimately it became too far removed from what Bond was.
Craig himself is perfectly cast. I'll admit when he was announced I didn't like it. I was too used to the popular concept of Bond. I got over it. I maintain that if Craig hadn't put the physical work in (and got a hair cut) he would be physically wrong for the role - but the dude did some serious work. He didn't just show up and pretend to be James Bond, he physically became the character.
And he is right. No, he perhaps does not fit the classic description of James Bond in the Fleming novels, nor the typical image of 'movie-Bond'. But he embodies the character, and that's a point that should be raised. There are hundreds of actors out there who 'look' like they could be Bond. Tall, dark and handsome (ie. Pierce Brosnan) but that doesn't mean they are right for the role. Personally, whilst he fit the role in terms of looks I never got any sense of 'my' Bond from Brosnan. Sure he had charm, he was good looking. Dude had some serious style, but for me he lacked any real threat. Just like Roger Moore, he didn't feel dangerous. Appearance isn't everything. But the fact is, the female reaction to Daniel Craig shows he is a good looking guy, just unconventionally so.
Craig's strenth is in his performance, he comes across as charming but ruthless. Cold but easily tipped into sentiment (as Bond is described in the Casino Royale novel) and above all willing to get the job done, no matter what the cost. He has presence and is incredibly physical - I believe this is a man who could kick my ass in a fight. That's important. Craig feels natural in the role instantly, and when it comes time for some actual drama he's able to put away his biceps and stretch his acting muscles. Dude is actually a brilliant actor. He makes you believe it.
Phew, now moving on from Craig. The movie itself, as we all know, adapts Ian Flemings first Bond novel (review coming soon) which had previously been adapted twice. The first time as an episode of American teleivision show 'Climax' in 1954 (review here) and again as a spoof of the Bond franchise in 1967 (review coming soon). The producers of the 'official series' gained the rights sometime in the late 1990's and after Die Another Day failed to impress Bond fans (although they certainly emptied their wallets for it) they decided the time was right to go back to the beginning.
According to director Campbell, they briefly considered doing the film as a period piece. Just my opinion, but that would have been awesome. Bond belongs in the cold war, but they chose not to. Okay, they made is modern. Many things had to be altered to accomodate this - but here's the thing. We live in a time of terror. We live in fear that someone is going to drop a bomb on us - just like in the cold war. It's the perfect time for the spy to return.
So instead
of fighting Commie's, Bond battles terrorists. Fair enough. The first half of the film is pretty much an original story, but it's all building towards the second half which is a fairly faithful adaptation of Flemings' novel, save a few changes (Poker, not Baccarat). The story moves along at quite a pace, but finds plenty of time for character development and story alongisde the action. For the first time in a Bond film we really see the character develop.
The movie opens with a pretty sweet black and white scene (no gunbarrel) which dramatises Bonds first two kills, those which get him his Double-0 Licence. It's short and brutal, and in a way that immediately differentiates it from the few films preceeding it. During the nineties it became the norm to cram as much as possible into the pre-titles sequence, granted this habit goes back to much earlier days but it seemed to become excessive during the Brosnan era. The World Is Not Enough is particualarly guilty. They truly became mini-movies. Here it takes on the role of 'teaser', as it was in the early days.
We then move on to a badass free-running sequence. Whilst being almost all action it does somehow add to the character of Bond, we see that this Bond lacks finesse and rushes head-first into situations. It's the beginning of a character arc that will culminate in the closing moments of the movie.
The casino scenes themselves are enjoyable - they could have so easily become boring and repetative. They manage to build a genuine suspense around them. They also take frequent 'breaks', normally to include a small action scene or to push the plot along. The story has been drawn rather celverly to ensure the poker scenes do not outstay their welcome.
The torture scene is perfect, almost taken straight from the original novel. It works well on film. Mads Mikkelsen really makes you believe it. Thankfully the script sticks to the novel and doesn't have Le Chiffre relish in torture. It's strictly business, both actors do an excellent job here.
I'm not a huge fan of the climax. The sinking house in Venice doesn't really do it for me, and it feels like some of the over the top action that plagues You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever and much of the Moore and Brosnan eras. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the movie, and adds too many minutes to a pretty long film. Sticking closer to the novels ending would have been better (although it perhaps would have lacked the 'action' necessary in modern Hollywood), that said the coda to the flick is one of the best moments in any Bond film ever. Hell, in the history of cinema. It makes you want to stand up and cheer, no matter how many times you see it.
The other performances in the flick are solid, there isn't really a weak link. Dench portrays an 'M' very different from the character in the Brosnan era. She's tougher, hard as nails really. Closer to the Miles Messervy version of the character than the bean counter of Goldeneye. It works, since really this is a different M. Mads works wonders as Le Chiffre, although again he is totally different, physically, from the literary character. He creates a character who is utterly unlikable, is totally arrogant... and yet somehow you pity him for getting out of his depth. But you still want Bond to finish him... some acting job. French actress Eva Green does a good job, and is probably the most appealing and realistic Bond girl we've had in decades. The producers decided to buch their trend of casting big name Hollywood stars and it's worked for the better. She's very likable and believable - and the Bond/Vesper romance works completely, despite the rush.
Casino Royale is the best Bond film in a long time. Personally I hold it up amongst the incredible 'From Russia With Love' and 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'. Awesome.
Directed by Martin Campbell
In retrospect it's easy to say that Casino Royale was the right direction for the franchise to take, but prior to its release (has it really been nearly four years) there seemed to be an awful lot of risks being taken.
Not least of these the casting of Daniel Craig, an excellent actor - anyone who's seen Road To Perdition or cult Brit-Gangster movie Layer Cake can attest to that - but one who, on paper, doesn't fit the role of Bond. When people think of Bond they think of the tall, dark handsome stranger - Craig is neither tall nor dark, and his handsomeness is very, very subjective.
But for all the risk that lay in casting Craig, the producers were actually taking a much bigger risk - they unceremoniously ditched the Forty-Plus years of continuity in favour of starting all over again.
Rebooting is a pretty popular trend in Hollywood today, and it was probably all kick-started by the critical success of Batman Begins, in fact Reboot seems to have become the new 'it-word' around Hollywood - So you want to make a film? A reboot you say? Greenlight that bitch!
There wasn't much hope for fans to cling to, except the fact that this movie would be based on Ian Fleming's first novel Casino Royale... and Martin Campbell, director of fan-fave Goldeneye would be returning to helm the flick.
The producers and Director were touting a 'back to basics' approach, which had some people scared. Many assumed we were going to see Bond totally stripped down into a character that barely resembled the one we were used to - a Bond without gadgets and one-liners? Surely that's not Bond?
In some respects they were right, Bond had become a bit of a joke. His place in cinema history would have ultimately been cemented by Die Another Day - a terrible, overblown sci-fi action film that continued to force the series into a specific little hole that the Pierce Brosnan era had dug for itself. Not that those films are terrible, and they were probably right for the time. Each of them seems like it's trying to 'Scream Bond' at the viewer, and ultimately it became too far removed from what Bond was.
Craig himself is perfectly cast. I'll admit when he was announced I didn't like it. I was too used to the popular concept of Bond. I got over it. I maintain that if Craig hadn't put the physical work in (and got a hair cut) he would be physically wrong for the role - but the dude did some serious work. He didn't just show up and pretend to be James Bond, he physically became the character.And he is right. No, he perhaps does not fit the classic description of James Bond in the Fleming novels, nor the typical image of 'movie-Bond'. But he embodies the character, and that's a point that should be raised. There are hundreds of actors out there who 'look' like they could be Bond. Tall, dark and handsome (ie. Pierce Brosnan) but that doesn't mean they are right for the role. Personally, whilst he fit the role in terms of looks I never got any sense of 'my' Bond from Brosnan. Sure he had charm, he was good looking. Dude had some serious style, but for me he lacked any real threat. Just like Roger Moore, he didn't feel dangerous. Appearance isn't everything. But the fact is, the female reaction to Daniel Craig shows he is a good looking guy, just unconventionally so.
Craig's strenth is in his performance, he comes across as charming but ruthless. Cold but easily tipped into sentiment (as Bond is described in the Casino Royale novel) and above all willing to get the job done, no matter what the cost. He has presence and is incredibly physical - I believe this is a man who could kick my ass in a fight. That's important. Craig feels natural in the role instantly, and when it comes time for some actual drama he's able to put away his biceps and stretch his acting muscles. Dude is actually a brilliant actor. He makes you believe it.
Phew, now moving on from Craig. The movie itself, as we all know, adapts Ian Flemings first Bond novel (review coming soon) which had previously been adapted twice. The first time as an episode of American teleivision show 'Climax' in 1954 (review here) and again as a spoof of the Bond franchise in 1967 (review coming soon). The producers of the 'official series' gained the rights sometime in the late 1990's and after Die Another Day failed to impress Bond fans (although they certainly emptied their wallets for it) they decided the time was right to go back to the beginning.
According to director Campbell, they briefly considered doing the film as a period piece. Just my opinion, but that would have been awesome. Bond belongs in the cold war, but they chose not to. Okay, they made is modern. Many things had to be altered to accomodate this - but here's the thing. We live in a time of terror. We live in fear that someone is going to drop a bomb on us - just like in the cold war. It's the perfect time for the spy to return.
So instead
of fighting Commie's, Bond battles terrorists. Fair enough. The first half of the film is pretty much an original story, but it's all building towards the second half which is a fairly faithful adaptation of Flemings' novel, save a few changes (Poker, not Baccarat). The story moves along at quite a pace, but finds plenty of time for character development and story alongisde the action. For the first time in a Bond film we really see the character develop.The movie opens with a pretty sweet black and white scene (no gunbarrel) which dramatises Bonds first two kills, those which get him his Double-0 Licence. It's short and brutal, and in a way that immediately differentiates it from the few films preceeding it. During the nineties it became the norm to cram as much as possible into the pre-titles sequence, granted this habit goes back to much earlier days but it seemed to become excessive during the Brosnan era. The World Is Not Enough is particualarly guilty. They truly became mini-movies. Here it takes on the role of 'teaser', as it was in the early days.
We then move on to a badass free-running sequence. Whilst being almost all action it does somehow add to the character of Bond, we see that this Bond lacks finesse and rushes head-first into situations. It's the beginning of a character arc that will culminate in the closing moments of the movie.
The casino scenes themselves are enjoyable - they could have so easily become boring and repetative. They manage to build a genuine suspense around them. They also take frequent 'breaks', normally to include a small action scene or to push the plot along. The story has been drawn rather celverly to ensure the poker scenes do not outstay their welcome.
The torture scene is perfect, almost taken straight from the original novel. It works well on film. Mads Mikkelsen really makes you believe it. Thankfully the script sticks to the novel and doesn't have Le Chiffre relish in torture. It's strictly business, both actors do an excellent job here.
I'm not a huge fan of the climax. The sinking house in Venice doesn't really do it for me, and it feels like some of the over the top action that plagues You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever and much of the Moore and Brosnan eras. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the movie, and adds too many minutes to a pretty long film. Sticking closer to the novels ending would have been better (although it perhaps would have lacked the 'action' necessary in modern Hollywood), that said the coda to the flick is one of the best moments in any Bond film ever. Hell, in the history of cinema. It makes you want to stand up and cheer, no matter how many times you see it.
The other performances in the flick are solid, there isn't really a weak link. Dench portrays an 'M' very different from the character in the Brosnan era. She's tougher, hard as nails really. Closer to the Miles Messervy version of the character than the bean counter of Goldeneye. It works, since really this is a different M. Mads works wonders as Le Chiffre, although again he is totally different, physically, from the literary character. He creates a character who is utterly unlikable, is totally arrogant... and yet somehow you pity him for getting out of his depth. But you still want Bond to finish him... some acting job. French actress Eva Green does a good job, and is probably the most appealing and realistic Bond girl we've had in decades. The producers decided to buch their trend of casting big name Hollywood stars and it's worked for the better. She's very likable and believable - and the Bond/Vesper romance works completely, despite the rush.
Casino Royale is the best Bond film in a long time. Personally I hold it up amongst the incredible 'From Russia With Love' and 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'. Awesome.
No comments:
Post a Comment