The job's done and the bitch is dead
Nov. 22nd, 2006 03:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
khaosworks[x-posted to Vox]
So, I just watched Casino Royale, a.k.a. Bond Begins. No, not really, but that's what people are calling it and it's rather appropriate. On the whole, it was an okay Bond movie, but that's ultimately when you tally up the points on the scorecard. It certainly was better than the excruciating Die Another Day, which managed to combine a huge budget with an inane story, but to say that about Casino Royale is to simply damn it with faint praise.
At about two and a half hours, it's certainly the longest Bond film I've ever seen, and has no less than three or four different climaxes, and while (in a Bondian mood) I could quip about how multiple climaxes are usually quite welcome, in terms of storytelling it often elicits a "GET ON WITH IT!" from me, or a sigh of frustration, or both. The movie also takes a really long time to get to its central premise, the high stakes game at the Casino Royale, although this is ameliorated somewhat by long chases/fights and explosions.
Also, of all the Bond movies, it's the one that sticks closest to its source material (with the possible exception of From Russia With Love). Aside from the set pieces and the fringe stuff, the central plotline about Le Chiffre, why MI6 is going after him in such a way, what Le Chiffre does to Bond and the story of Bond and Vesper Lynd is straight out of the book, as is some of the actual dialogue. Now, this may or may not be a good thing, depending on how much you liked the novel, and I'm one of those whose general reaction to the book was "meh". I mean, it's certainly a spy story, but whether it's Bond — or rather, the popular Bond people have expectations about — is another matter. Note that the last time they adapted Casino Royale it was a spoof, and it took the official franchise this long to get around to it, which tells you something about how uncomfortably it fits in with the standard Big Villain Big Scheme Big Explosion motif that surrounds the movie Bond. It's a psychological portrait more than rollicking adventure, and this really shows in the last half hour or so of the movie, where it drags on quite a bit.
I can't decide if Daniel Craig is a worthy successor to the mantle. I really liked Pierce Brosnan's Bond, and while Craig's Bond is certainly closer to the cold-hearted ruthless operative of Fleming's books, at the same time one continues to note that the movie version of Bond has evolved into something else altogether. I know that they're trying to reinvent the movie Bond, but there are still certain expectations from long-time Bond fans.
So while Connery was every bit as brutal, there was a suaveness about his manner that Craig's craggy, punched-in-the-face-several-times looks can't convey. Craig's Bond never really pretends that he's anything else but Her Majesty's Thug, and the times when he appears to do so he doesn't carry it off. So, props to Craig for the brutality and the grittiness, bit nil points for charm. However, I reserve judgement for the next movie to give him a chance to move better into that suit.
Also on the down side is Eva Green as Vesper Lynd, the least appealing Bond girl in my mind since Grace Jones as May Day in A View To A Kill. Green is a beautiful and sensual young woman, but she has zero chemistry with Craig, and her natural beauty is hidden beneath way too much make-up and especially mascara; the panda look doesn't do much for me. I was never convinced of the romance between her and Bond, and the fact that I knew it couldn't and wouldn't last (quite apart from knowing the end of the book, the conventions of a Bond movie series made this impossible) made the last bits of the movie drag out even more as my mind began the Vesper Lynd Death Watch™ timer.
Also, the game of the movie is Texas Hold 'Em. As much as I myself enjoy poker, this does not exude the same class as chemin de fer or baccarat. In fact, it's kind of crass, really.
On the plus side, Le Chiffre is a classic (if kind of namby pamby) Bond villain, complete with the physical flaws that mark him as part of the Fleming literary tradition (all Fleming bad guys have some kind of deformity. That's why the moment I saw Elektra King had a damaged earlobe in The World Is Not Enough — the most literary of all the Bond movies — I instantly pegged her for a baddie). They've dumped the bad blue screen and/or CGI from Die Another Day and returned to real, physical stunt work for the action sequences, another welcome return. Judi Densch as M is a delight, as always, and I've already mentioned Craig being able to carry off one-half of what a movie Bond should be. I'm still waiting for the other half. Also, the titles were amazing cool, although I still don't like the pop/rock approach they've taken to the theme songs of late and wish we could have Shirley Bassey back again. Or at least let the Propellerheads take a shot at the theme next time. Speaking of themes, the main James Bond theme was strangely muted and subtle in this one, surfacing almost teasingly before vanishing back into the soundtrack, only to blossom with the end credits. I'll give David Arnold credit for this kind of thematic development, but the fanboy in me would rather have had it up front.
Casino Royale is a reboot, and as reboots go, it's not that bad. It scores a lot of points in that the movie makers are obviously trying to go back to Bond's literary bad boy roots, but they may be going a bit too far in that direction. There's a certain English-ness about the movie Bond that doesn't really come to the fore in this movie. While this certainly did not make me wring my hands in disgust like I did Die Another Day, it didn't make me go wild either. It's a good start, and I'll be interested in seeing more.
So, I just watched Casino Royale, a.k.a. Bond Begins. No, not really, but that's what people are calling it and it's rather appropriate. On the whole, it was an okay Bond movie, but that's ultimately when you tally up the points on the scorecard. It certainly was better than the excruciating Die Another Day, which managed to combine a huge budget with an inane story, but to say that about Casino Royale is to simply damn it with faint praise.
At about two and a half hours, it's certainly the longest Bond film I've ever seen, and has no less than three or four different climaxes, and while (in a Bondian mood) I could quip about how multiple climaxes are usually quite welcome, in terms of storytelling it often elicits a "GET ON WITH IT!" from me, or a sigh of frustration, or both. The movie also takes a really long time to get to its central premise, the high stakes game at the Casino Royale, although this is ameliorated somewhat by long chases/fights and explosions.
Also, of all the Bond movies, it's the one that sticks closest to its source material (with the possible exception of From Russia With Love). Aside from the set pieces and the fringe stuff, the central plotline about Le Chiffre, why MI6 is going after him in such a way, what Le Chiffre does to Bond and the story of Bond and Vesper Lynd is straight out of the book, as is some of the actual dialogue. Now, this may or may not be a good thing, depending on how much you liked the novel, and I'm one of those whose general reaction to the book was "meh". I mean, it's certainly a spy story, but whether it's Bond — or rather, the popular Bond people have expectations about — is another matter. Note that the last time they adapted Casino Royale it was a spoof, and it took the official franchise this long to get around to it, which tells you something about how uncomfortably it fits in with the standard Big Villain Big Scheme Big Explosion motif that surrounds the movie Bond. It's a psychological portrait more than rollicking adventure, and this really shows in the last half hour or so of the movie, where it drags on quite a bit.
I can't decide if Daniel Craig is a worthy successor to the mantle. I really liked Pierce Brosnan's Bond, and while Craig's Bond is certainly closer to the cold-hearted ruthless operative of Fleming's books, at the same time one continues to note that the movie version of Bond has evolved into something else altogether. I know that they're trying to reinvent the movie Bond, but there are still certain expectations from long-time Bond fans.
So while Connery was every bit as brutal, there was a suaveness about his manner that Craig's craggy, punched-in-the-face-several-times looks can't convey. Craig's Bond never really pretends that he's anything else but Her Majesty's Thug, and the times when he appears to do so he doesn't carry it off. So, props to Craig for the brutality and the grittiness, bit nil points for charm. However, I reserve judgement for the next movie to give him a chance to move better into that suit.
Also on the down side is Eva Green as Vesper Lynd, the least appealing Bond girl in my mind since Grace Jones as May Day in A View To A Kill. Green is a beautiful and sensual young woman, but she has zero chemistry with Craig, and her natural beauty is hidden beneath way too much make-up and especially mascara; the panda look doesn't do much for me. I was never convinced of the romance between her and Bond, and the fact that I knew it couldn't and wouldn't last (quite apart from knowing the end of the book, the conventions of a Bond movie series made this impossible) made the last bits of the movie drag out even more as my mind began the Vesper Lynd Death Watch™ timer.
Also, the game of the movie is Texas Hold 'Em. As much as I myself enjoy poker, this does not exude the same class as chemin de fer or baccarat. In fact, it's kind of crass, really.
On the plus side, Le Chiffre is a classic (if kind of namby pamby) Bond villain, complete with the physical flaws that mark him as part of the Fleming literary tradition (all Fleming bad guys have some kind of deformity. That's why the moment I saw Elektra King had a damaged earlobe in The World Is Not Enough — the most literary of all the Bond movies — I instantly pegged her for a baddie). They've dumped the bad blue screen and/or CGI from Die Another Day and returned to real, physical stunt work for the action sequences, another welcome return. Judi Densch as M is a delight, as always, and I've already mentioned Craig being able to carry off one-half of what a movie Bond should be. I'm still waiting for the other half. Also, the titles were amazing cool, although I still don't like the pop/rock approach they've taken to the theme songs of late and wish we could have Shirley Bassey back again. Or at least let the Propellerheads take a shot at the theme next time. Speaking of themes, the main James Bond theme was strangely muted and subtle in this one, surfacing almost teasingly before vanishing back into the soundtrack, only to blossom with the end credits. I'll give David Arnold credit for this kind of thematic development, but the fanboy in me would rather have had it up front.
Casino Royale is a reboot, and as reboots go, it's not that bad. It scores a lot of points in that the movie makers are obviously trying to go back to Bond's literary bad boy roots, but they may be going a bit too far in that direction. There's a certain English-ness about the movie Bond that doesn't really come to the fore in this movie. While this certainly did not make me wring my hands in disgust like I did Die Another Day, it didn't make me go wild either. It's a good start, and I'll be interested in seeing more.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-22 12:44 pm (UTC)To try to work around spoilers, let's just say that for me it was a question of whether she was going to go the way of Tracey (and if so, when and how), or whether she was a bad guy. I had read Casino Royale years ago but couldn't remember it.
> Texas Hold 'Em
Annoying choice, but understandable for the audience. They couldn't have spent nearly as much time showing hands of the game if they'd kept it to baccarat. And have officially licensed Casino Royale cards and chips shown up in stores yet?
> suaveness
Who needs suaveness when there were at least two coming-out-of-the-ocean-with-no-shirt-on shots? I sure didn't regret any lack of suaveness. :)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-22 12:53 pm (UTC)Mostly I liked this movie as classic Bond straight up. After Thunderball they got too hokey, but I grew up reading the novels.
Oh, yes, my resident poker expert says that it wasn't TEXAS Hold 'Em, but some other form of Hold 'Em. He gave me the reason which I can't remember. I also agree that it doesn't have the same exotic glamour of the old games, but is, apparently, the high stakes game of choice right now.
So, it was a curious combination of past and present. That's what ultimately sat uneasily with me. Do Bond's past, but do it consistently, putting uncouth Bond actually in the past. Or do Bond now, and allow him the sardonic humour and savoir faire that Bond has "now". Instead we had a rather anachronistic story line in a modern setting.
I jus' gots one question:
Date: 2006-11-22 01:59 pm (UTC)If not, I ain't goin'.
sort of
Date: 2006-11-22 04:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-22 05:28 pm (UTC)Also, May Day was supposed to be a Bond Girl?!?
Regarding themesongs: what was your opinion regarding the Tomorrow Never Dies themesong (which seemed to me to be the best of the four Brosnan themes).
no subject
Date: 2006-11-22 08:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-22 10:37 pm (UTC)