an icepick through the keyhole

Having watched the trailer for Die Hard 4.0 (or Live Free or Die Hard as it's called in the US), I realized that John McClane is the 1980s version of Jack Bauer.

I know, I know. I'm always late to the party.

[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.

I mean, just for Robot Monster alone...

SciFi Classics Collection 50 Movie Pack Collection

1. Incredible Petrified World
2. Queen of the Amazons
3. Robot Monster
4. She Gods of Shark Reef
5. Amazing Transparent Man
6. Atomic Brain
7. Horrors of Spiker Island
8. Wasp Woman
9. Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet
10. Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women
11. King of Kong Island
12. Bride of the Gorilla
13. Attack of the Monsters
14. Gamera the Invincible
15. Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
16. Teenagers From Outer Space
17. Crash of the Moons
18. Menace From Outer Space
19. Hercules Against the Moonmen
20. Hercules and the Captive Women
21. Hercules and the Tyrants of Babylon
22. Hercules Unchained
23. Lost Jungle
24. Mesa of Lost Women
25. Assignment: Outer Space
26. Laster Mission
27. Killers From Space
28. Phantom From Space
29. White Pongo
30. Snow Creature
31. Son of Hercules: Land of Darkness
32. Devil of the Desert vs. Son of Hercules
33. First Spaceship on Venus
34. Zontar Thing From Venus
35. Astral Factor
36. Galaxy Invader
37. Battle of the Worlds
38. Unkown World
39. Blod Tide
40. Brain Machine
41. Wild Women of Wongo
42. Prehistoric Women
43. They Came From Beyond Space
44. Warning From Space
45. Phantom Planet
46. Planet Outlaws
47. Colossus and the Amazon Queen
48. Eegah
49. Cosmos: War of the Planets
50. Destroy All Planets

This is spoiler-free — or as spoiler-free as I can make it — review.

Let me just say this so there's no mistaking what I'm about to write: It's not a bad movie. People who know me know I am an unabashed Superman fan. I love the character to death. I understand how the character works, and I know Bryan Singer understands it the same way.

I also know many comic fans enjoyed it, some just as curmudgeonly, if not more so, than I am. It has some wonderfully realised set-pieces, excellent special effects, better performances that I expected from nearly all concerned, especially Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth. It had a good emotional core, was quite exciting in spots, and an interesting new twist that really needs to be followed up in a sequel.

Let me also say this: I'm going to watch it again. Not because I didn't give it a fair shake, but because, oddly enough, the movie didn't give itself a fair shake. I'll try and explain.

I was sceptical of Superman Returns from the start. It was clear in my mind that Christopher Reeve cast a very large shadow that could not be easily replaced. I didn't like the costume, I thought Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth were too young to be playing the parts that were ostensibly five years down the road from Superman II, and generally I thought it would compare badly to the movies of my childhood.

This was why when I went into the cinema, I was trying desperately to think to myself: "Take it on its own terms; take it on its own terms; take it on its own terms. Don't compare it to the first two, don't compare Routh to Reeve, just see how good it is on its own."

Ironically, however, the movie just wouldn't let me. From John William's "Superman March", from the credits that duplicated the style of the Salkind movies, from whole passages of dialogue that were lifted/repeated from the first two movies, from Routh's Chris Reeve impression, and the glimpses of Hackman in Spacey's performace, as hard as I was trying not to compare this movie to the past, it kept bringing me back. Never has a movie worked so hard to stop me from trying to accept it on its own merits.

Again, let me emphasise — it's not a bad movie. But the shadow of Richard Donner, Tom Mankiewicz, John Williams and Christopher Reeve haunts the movie, and I think it does everyone involved in it a disservice. Some may say that it's homage, it's tribute, and for a fresh new generation who don't remember or haven't seen the originals in any big way, I'm sure it resonates. But for myself, and I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm in a minority of one, if you keep reminding me of how good the first two movies were and mining them for iconic moments, you're not going to convince me how good this movie is. I hope I'm making sense.

So I'm going to watch it again, and maybe this time I can adjust my mind so that I can accept the kisses to the past without being reminded too much about it.

The good bits: Routh, Bosworth, Spacey, Posey, Marsden, everyone, really, all turn in great performances. Even the kid that plays Lois's son isn't bad, and generally I hate the cute kid syndrome. Luthor is written and played as much more intelligent than the Hackman days, as someone who actually thinks things through, and the movie is much improved for that. Special effects, top notch. Script is witty. Climactic scene, suitably awesome, although mildly implausible. Did not mind the twist at all, although there are continuity problems with that which I won't go into because this is supposed to be non-spoilerish.

The bad bits: Plot is very, very thin. Concentrating on the emotional core is great, but as intelligent as Luthor appears in the movie, there's very little intelligence involved in his scheme. Also, despite the knowledge he's gained, he never makes use of it and thus leaves himself wide open for the way Superman defeats him. As mentioned, the movie also keeps wanting to invite comparisons with the earlier ones. The ending has at least three different denouements, which is always a bad sign, as if the movie can't decide which way it wants to end. Routh and Bosworth still too young to convincingly play a Superman and Lois five years on. Hate, hate, hate the costume: "S" too small, no "S" on the back of the cape, boots too short, stupid "S" buckle... please redesign it for the sequels.

In the end, the basic sin of this Superman movie, to my mind, was that, compared to every other super-hero movie, it was ordinary. So my first watching of it didn't stir any fanboy impulses, didn't make me feel nostalgic, didn't even make me all emotional (and these days, I'm a real sap and tear up at movies a lot, so for a movie about a character who has been my particular hero since childbirth not to do that takes some doing).

Given the frame of mind I went in, and how it was completely stymied by the way the movie structured itself, I think I should give it a second chance. So I'll take a second tilt at it, and hopefully I'll enjoy it more.

On a completely separate note, this week's issue of The Thing was hilarious. Dan Slott is probably the most underrated writer in mainstream comics now. One scene halfway through the book in particular had me chuckling and saying out loud, "Ben Grimm, you're such a bastard." You'll know the one I'm talking about when you read it.

Somewhere in an alternate universe, I am writing the script for a movie where where Captain Jack Sparrow, Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann come across a map left behind by the late Elaine Marley, whose husband, the legendary pirate Guybrush Threepwood, vanished while searching for a great secret and a greater treasure. And somewhere, in the mystical trap that is Big Whoop, locked in eternal combat with his nemesis, is the biggest, baddest zombie pirate of them all... LeChuck.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Return to Monkey Island

A man can dream.