|
And you know what? They’re right. Daniel
Craig is not Bond. Well, not the Bond we cinemagoers know anyway.
No,
this guy is definitely not the cartoonish bigot charmer who is more
quick-quips than true-grit, but he is the serious and scarred agent
from Ian Flemming’s original novels. Yes, Craig’s probably the closest
to Fleming’s idea of who James Bond was – and he jumps off the screen
as literally a carbon copy of the well-defined scoundrel of the novels.
He’s brash, he’s cocky, he’s reckless… and he even gets hurt sometimes.
Yep, real blood, real scars, real pain.
On the other hand, you
can see why fans are complaining: for the last couple of decades, we’ve
been treated to a light and fluffy James Bond that goes through women
faster than he does milk, seems to always be in good enough spirits to
crack sexist gags, and can save the day with one hand tied behind his
back. In short, the guy we’ve seen on the screen for the past couple of
years is a superhero – a cartoon superhero. And we liked that just
fine. I guess we always knew what we’d get for our money.
The 22nd (counting Never
Say Never Again)
Bond film traces the early career of James Bond. His first “007”
mission leads him to Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), banker to the world’s
terrorists. In order to stop him and bring down the terrorist network,
Bond must beat Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game at Casino Royale.
Bond is initially annoyed when a beautiful Treasury official, Vesper
Lynd (Eva Green), is assigned to deliver his stake for the game and
watch over the government's money. But as Bond and Vesper survive a
series of lethal attacks by Le Chiffre and his henchmen, a mutual
attraction develops, leading them both into further danger and events
that will shape Bond’s life forever.
In the late 80s, the makers of the long-running series – hard to
believe the first Bond film, Dr No,
was made in 1962 - decided to shake things up by replacing the
cartoonish antics of the Roger Moore succession of films with the
seriousness of a Timothy Dalton (someone else they complained about
when he was announced for the part) vehicle that was as close to the
previous Bond as Basinger is to Baldwin. It went down about as well as
arsenic in Coke. Nobody wanted to see James Bond being serious, not
when they’d gotten well use to seeing him being a larger-than-life
action playboy in the Moore/Connery movies.
As critic Roger
Ebert said at the time, “The raw materials of the James Bond films are
so familiar by now that the series can be revived only through an
injection of humor. That is, unfortunately, the one area in which the
new Bond, Timothy Dalton, seems to be deficient. He's a strong actor,
he holds the screen well, he's good in the serious scenes, but he never
quite seems to understand that it's all a joke.”
Which begs the question; will audiences accept what they couldn’t then
– now?
With
most of the James Bond fans now a tad older and simply waiting to check
out the latest adventure from the secret agent as they sequentially hit
DVD, Sony don’t seem to be too worried about cheesing off the purists:
After all, teenagers are today’s biggest cinema going crowd and half of
them probably haven’t even seen most of the 007 movies – bar a couple
of the recent Brosnan efforts. And secondly, after the success of
the Batman
restart (Christopher Nolan’s phenomenally successful Batman Begins) the
studio has obviously realised there is potential with starting a series
again.
Granted,
there’s one rehashed element about the latest 007 movie: it’s been done
twice before. Fleming’s first Bond novel was previously produced as a
1954 television episode and a 1967 film spoof. This is, however, the
only official version of the film – as far as the 007 troupes are
concerned.
As for the new Bond, let me say this: he’s the guy
from the book, he really is. He has flesh, he has personality…. He’s a
real person. You feel for this guy more than any other previous
incarnation of the character. More importantly, Craig does have the
facial structure and blue eyes described by Ian Fleming. For the movies
sake, he’s also a damn good actor. Craig is one of today’s most
intriguing chameleons – he can seemingly play it all. OK, so those ears
are a little big (he graciously makes fun of them himself in one scene)
and he’s not as suave as his predecessors, but Craig’s nowhere near the
rotten apple that many had been projecting.
Personally, I liked
Pierce Brosnan in the role. I thought he was the best Bond since
Connery. But it’s all a matter of taste. For what its worth though,
Craig (even with his disparate looks) gives a damn good performance.
Thing is, as I was watching the film, I didn’t so much think of Craig
as James Bond than say a new unconnected spy character. A Jason Bourne
or Ethan Hunt type. I had to essentially remind myself that he was
playing 007. I'm not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. It
means the movie can definitely stand on its own, but it also means many
mightn’t see it as a continuation or at least, relation, of the
original bunch of films. It’s probably simply the fact that this is a
vulnerable Bond with many flaws, compared to the squeaky-clean
unblemished hero of the previous films. Whatever way you slice it, it
is a different guy.
In addition, the film’s ‘Bond Girl’ per se
has also been picked from a different plantation to the previous space
cadet sexpots. This one, Vesper Lynd, has a brain and even a little bit
of disinclination when it comes to Bond. Whilst most Bond girls jump in
bed with him before he has even bat an eyelid, this one plays hardball
for most of the film – and it works; it makes her a real woman. It’s a
testament to Eva Green (Kingdom
of Heaven),
who’d have to be one of the most beautiful Bond babes ever, for not
playing the role as a waif quilt sharer, and giving the girl some
brainpower. Any woman that gets Bond to admit that he has “No armour
left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever I
am - I'm yours” must be something special.
Points must also go
to Mads Mikkelsen, whose far from your token Bond villain. His Le
Chiffre is a cold and calculating son-of-a-bitch (even frightening) but
thankfully isn’t over-the-top. It was also good to see Giancarlo
Giannini bringing his sardonic humour and melancholy to his role as
Bond's contact, Mathis. And, of course, we can’t forget Dame Judi
Dench, reprising her role from the previous Bond/Brosnan films as ‘M’.
She gets a lot more to do here; and thanks to Dench’s performance, we
get a better insight into how her relationship with 007 functions – it
seems she’s not just about giving out orders, but does legitimately
care about the guy.
Still, as good as Craig and his co-stars
have turned out to be (still don’t know about the blonde hair and ears
though, I’ve got to be honest), the real stars of Casino Royale
though are screenwriters Neal Purvis, Robert Wade & Paul Haggis
-
and of course, director Martin Campbell. The screenplay is sensational
– its funny (lines like “What I understand, double-ohs have a very
short life expectancy” are priceless), its romantic, its dramatic, its
action, it’s very in-jokey (you learn how Bond discovered his drink of
choice, for instance), but most of all, it keeps you interested. And if
you’re ever going to try and re-invent Bond, you get the guy that
did Goldeneye
(1995),
Martin Campbell. Campbell knows how to breathe life into a struggling
franchise, and does it again here with flying colours. He’s inserted
the exhilaration back into the series. The guy knows what makes a good
Bond movie. He really does.
There will star be a few purists
who’ll challenge the casting of Craig and the series reboot – and it is
fair enough; as I said, this is a radically different approach to the
long running series and some may not appreciate the change (if even
just the change in hair colour) - but by the time the film finishes,
most of that crowd will be swallowing their tongue.
Bring on Bond 23 (or 22, if you don't count Never Say...)
EXTRAS
I’d say the Casino Royale
DVD
is pretty disappointing – can’t talk about how the film looks and
sounds, because we only received the special features disc,
unfortunately – but most of the 007 first-editions usually are. It
isn’t until a few years down the track, until they start doing ‘Special
Edition’s’ and ‘Ultimate Edition’s’ that they really bother with decent
extras – notably, the audio commentary.
The main supplement on
the disc is a reasonably entertaining featurette on how they chose
their Bond. Without admitting that Quentin Tarantino actually gave them
the idea to remake Royale,
the producers – and director Martin
Campbell – talk candidly about Craig’s audition; the film itself and
the backlash against both the actor and the film from the world media.
Craig, donning scruffy half-beard, admits that the negative press made
him try even harder to convince everyone he was the right choice for
the role.
Other extras include a bit on the action sequences; an
old featurette (available on a previous disc) with a new add-on (of
the Royale
girls”) called “Bond Girls Are Forever” hosted by Maryam
d’Abo; and Chris Cornell’s music video – which, I gotta admit, the more
times I listen to it, the more I like it.
Conclusion:
Movie 90% Extras: 70%
|
