Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Bond.....James Bond
I have to begin this review by saying that I love James Bond movies. Love them. The great acting, the great writing, the originality and gritty realism of the story lines, the positive moral lessons, the penetrating political commentary, it has it all. Actually, when you think about it, you have to wonder why anyone still watches these movies. If you’ve read anything I’ve written here or elsewhere, you have likely heard me blast the American movie/TV watching audience as it constantly rejects quality and embraces the muck that usually gets churned out of Hollywood and TV land these days. But this is one instance where I am happy for that tendency. You see, I know the Bond movies are bad. I know they have nearly none of the characteristics of good movie making. I know my defense and praise of them makes me a hypocrite as I usually trash movies like this, but I also know that I rarely have as much fun at the movies as I do when a new Bond film comes out.
(TANGENT ALERT, TANGENT ALERT: why is there no “Hollywood” for TV? I mean when we want to refer to the movie industry by shorthand we refer to the whole industry as “Hollywood” in much the same way I did in the prior paragraph. But what is it for TV? Is there no street or studio or area in NY or LA that could be a shorthand for TV? Surely there is. There must be. I suggest we convene a congressional committee to investigate this immediately.)
My love for the Bond movies is deep seeded. Growing up I often suffered the education of my Father’s rather sophisticated taste in cinematic entertainment. My Dad’s choice in TV shows and movies has always been interesting and insightful, but as a child, I didn’t want interesting and insightful, I wanted fun. I didn’t want subtitles or symbolism. I didn’t want poignant or moving or gut wrenching. I wanted fun or funny or both. It was the same with food. My Dad wanted pickled beats and stewed tomatoes. I wanted tacos. My Dad wanted stir-fry. I wanted Tacos. My Dad wanted variety and interesting flavors. I wanted TACOS!!! I wanted the 6 Million Dollar Man and Tacos. My Dad would have none of it.
But when my Dad was traveling, my Mom would make a big mess of tacos and we would sit down and watch James Bond together. It was a great way to distract ourselves from missing having Dad there (which we always did a lot) and since my Dad liked Bond about as much as SPECTRE does, and doesn’t consider tacos an actual meal, these times with my Mom always felt like we were getting away with something. And as a kid, that was pretty cool.
Now, like in other things, I’m a mix of my Mom and Dad. I like symbolism and subtitles and rarely eat Tacos. But I still love Bond.
Of course, as similar as they all are, not all Bond movies are created equal. For me, “For Your Eyes Only” has always been my favorite, though “Goldfinger”, “Octupussy” and “The Man with the Golden Gun” were also right up there. As a kid, I loved Moonraker mostly because of “Jaws” and his metal teeth. But when you start out liking a movie franchise, and then they actually make a good movie, that is a real treat.
That’s what happened with Casino Royale. Not only is this a good Bond movie, this is a good movie. Not good like the Godfather or American Beauty, but as action movies go, this is a good one.
What’s to like
With this franchise, the first really big question for this movie is “how is the new Bond?” There have been, as I’m sure you know, 5 different actors who played Bond before the new Bond Daniel Craig (star of the very underrated Layer Cake). The franchise started with Sean Connery who will always define the character. He is the standard by which any other bond is judged and now has the Citizen Kane mystique that assures there will never be another Bond considered anything better than the second best Bond because Connery is the man, whether he really is or not, in the minds of movie fans. And, really, it’s hard to argue. When you go back and watch him in the early movies, you are reminded that no one pulls off misogynistic charm like Connery did. He is a man’s man in a perfect suit and car and you can’t imagine him not getting whatever or whomever he goes after.
I grew up on Roger Moore who was fine, but not nearly as good. Some of his movies are better and certainly flashier, but he never pulled off the character like Connery.
George Lazenby was only in one movie and for good reason. He was bad and the movie was such a departure from other Bond movies, that he was doomed from the start.
When Moore and Connery were finally too old (and this happened a good decade after Connery was much too old) for the role, the franchise was given a gift. There was a perfect actor to play the part. He had the look, the accent, and the characters he played were more Bond than Bond at times. Pierce Brosnan was born to play Bond. He could have been a bit more masculine at times, but other than that he was about perfect. But NBC had other ideas. They didn’t want to loose Remington Steele in which Pierce was starring, so they refused to allow him out of his contract to do Bond. The studio went with Timoth Dalton instead and NBC promptly dumped Steele. Nice.
So, Bond fans had to endure 2 films with Dalton as Bond. He’s not a bad actor and the movies he made were actually pretty good. But he just wasn’t Bond like.
Eventually, Dalton was killing the franchise and they had to make another change. Pierce was available now and still young enough, but the movie makers needed to breathe new life into the franchise. Would the guy who seemed to be the natural for the role be enough to bring it back? They actually toyed with bringing in Sharon Stone to be Jane Bond or even someone like Denzel Washington to completely change the look and feel.
Mercifully, in the end they decided to go with Pierce. Unfortunately, they didn’t give him much to work with. The movies were pretty underwhelming and they started simply trying to outdo the last one made. Bigger explosions, more outrageous characters, more obvious double entendres and everything became more and more in your face until the movies were incredibly cartoonish. They stood out more than ever from other action movies because many action movies, the good ones at least, were continuing to push the boundaries. They were mixing up the look and feel constantly and Bond just kept riding the form over substance until the Bond experience was so terribly predictable and corny, even big fans like me lost some of that lovin’ feeling.
Then Pierce pulled out or got fired or whatever and Craig was brought in. Blonde haired, blue eyed, rough looking, he had none of the smooth, dark, look or charm as the prior Bonds who practically all could have been related. Bond fans were skeptical. Then he admitted he couldn’t swim. Then he had some mishaps during some publicity for the movie. All in all, he started to come across like a major weenie. Not a good rep for someone set to play the world’s most invincible super spy.
And, if the Bond folks had simply made the same kind of movie they had been making and stuck Craig into the role, I’m guessing he would have been the second coming of Lazenby and would have failed badly and ended his run at one movie.
Instead, the franchise started over. The movie tells the story as if it is Bond’s first mission and shows him first becoming a double-O. The look and feel are different without being totally different and the whole thing worked. Craig was good, the story was scaled down and most of the cartoonishness was abandoned.
I really liked the look and feel of this movie which I will discuss in more detail later.
I liked the night chase scene near the end.
I also liked the scaled down story. Most recently, all the movies are basically about some uber-bad guy seeking world domination. That’s fine and all, but they had reached a point where they couldn’t outdo themselves. So, instead they simplified and gave us a wealthy, evil middle-man. He’s not seeking to conquer the world, but is very bad and, of course, is a terrorist seeking personal gain. He’s bad enough and the plot is big enough to explain why a secret agent is involved, but small enough that you could enjoy the tension of a poker game without their being a nuclear warhead or giant laser pointing at a beautiful young woman hostage.
I really liked the movie’s opening sequence. It set the tone for the whole movie. It was darker and more serious than earlier films and came right out of the gate saying this was going to be a different sort of Bond film.
Great, great chase scene on foot at the beginning of the movie. Bond chases a guy who appears to be a cross between Jackie Chan and Reggie Bush and has some fantastic, if not believable, sequences. Good, good stuff.
This Bond was tough. Much tougher than Brosnan. He wasn’t doing outrageous wire-fu or anything so the fight scenes seemed more real and you believe that this Bond, unlike any in the past with the possible exception of Connery, might actually be able to win a fight.
I liked the more graphic violence. I know that’s a weird thing to say. I’m not a violence junky by any stretch, but the movie benefited from a more gritty real feel.
I liked his car…of course.
I liked the opening credits – not just one strange sexual reference after another.
What I could have done without
Where was Q branch? I know it is usually comic relief and this movie was going for more real and less hokie, but I missed Q and the gadgets. Not much in the way of super spy gadgets which has always been one of my favorite things, and no Q at all. Too bad. And now I hear the next movie won’t have them either.
Why does Craig walk that way? He holds his arms like his biceps and triceps are 10 times bigger than they are and swings his shoulders like he’s carrying a large 2x4 across them and is trying to smack something with each end with every step. Especially when he’s coming out of the water in his swimsuit (I prefer Halle Berry thank you), he just looked ridiculous.
Speaking of Halle, the Bond girls weren’t pretty. They weren’t particularly good actresses and weren’t called on to do much acting, so why not go pretty here. I mean, that’s a big part of these movies, and these girls just did not live up to the standard. Just confusing more than anything else.
I don’t want to spoil anything, but there is a section in the middle of the movie where it shows an extended romance between Bond and a woman. It seems to take about 45 minutes and could have easily been accomplished in 5…or less…it is slow, boring, almost painful. Oh look, they’re kissing on the beach. Now they’re kissing on a boat. Now they’re kissing in their room. Wow, they really like kissing in various locations. I feel like the director is trying to tell me something. You think they might have actual (gasp) feelings toward each other? Maybe it will be clear to me if this only goes on another 30 minutes or so. Oh, look now they’re kissing in a cute little café with sweeping violin music in the background. I hope this goes on forever.
It felt like it did.
I felt like it could have been better if more things had connected. The opening sequence was pure set up. What about her necklace? There were just a number of things that could have tied together to make the whole story a bit more clever.
What you see and hear (this is a new section to say what I thought of the camera/sound stuff) – the cinematography was good. Lots of cameras in strange locations gave some good shots and the editing during the initial chase was perfect. The music and sound was just like every other Bond movie, and frankly, that’s fine. Nothing real noteworthy here.
What’s new
The look and feel as discussed above. The opening sequence is in black and white and features a fight scene in a dirty public bathroom with lots of blood and rather graphic, realistic violence. That’s a complete departure for Bond which has stayed away from anything too dark until now. It appeared that this movie was trying to do for this franchise what Batman Begins did for the Batman franchise. It worked….for both.
What’s the last word
Good ending. Could have gone a bunch of different ways, but it went the right way. Plus when it ends, you’re just glad to stop the romantic music video that has been going on forever.
Who you should bring
Men, mostly, though in my experience women like Bond as well and so I expect they would like this. One word of warning. My parents generation who grew up with Connery and the smooth, light-hearted, inferred violence or glitzy explosion Bond, may not like this new more gritty Bond, and most likely will not appreciate the more graphic violence. So even though I grew up watching these movies with my Mom, I’m not sure I would recommend it to her.
Where you should watch
You need to see this on a big screen. The explosions and chases and action really needs the big screen and sound system.
What’s the couch rating
I saw this with my lovely wife and she liked it. In fact, as Bond movies go, I think she liked it quite a bit. That said, that long “we’re so in love” scene(s) might have put her to sleep if we were home. Probably not though. I’m betting she would have made it through this one.
What my gut tells me
I came out pretty pumped up about it. I was not only excited to see it again (which I already have), but I was excited at the direction of the franchise again.
What it’s like – For the reasons I discussed above, it’s like Batman Begins. It is a lot like some of the earlier Bond movies with a modern noir twist.
Where it rates – For Bond movies I give it a 9. For movies in general, probably an 8. worth seeing unless you hate this kind of movie.
(TANGENT ALERT, TANGENT ALERT: why is there no “Hollywood” for TV? I mean when we want to refer to the movie industry by shorthand we refer to the whole industry as “Hollywood” in much the same way I did in the prior paragraph. But what is it for TV? Is there no street or studio or area in NY or LA that could be a shorthand for TV? Surely there is. There must be. I suggest we convene a congressional committee to investigate this immediately.)
My love for the Bond movies is deep seeded. Growing up I often suffered the education of my Father’s rather sophisticated taste in cinematic entertainment. My Dad’s choice in TV shows and movies has always been interesting and insightful, but as a child, I didn’t want interesting and insightful, I wanted fun. I didn’t want subtitles or symbolism. I didn’t want poignant or moving or gut wrenching. I wanted fun or funny or both. It was the same with food. My Dad wanted pickled beats and stewed tomatoes. I wanted tacos. My Dad wanted stir-fry. I wanted Tacos. My Dad wanted variety and interesting flavors. I wanted TACOS!!! I wanted the 6 Million Dollar Man and Tacos. My Dad would have none of it.
But when my Dad was traveling, my Mom would make a big mess of tacos and we would sit down and watch James Bond together. It was a great way to distract ourselves from missing having Dad there (which we always did a lot) and since my Dad liked Bond about as much as SPECTRE does, and doesn’t consider tacos an actual meal, these times with my Mom always felt like we were getting away with something. And as a kid, that was pretty cool.
Now, like in other things, I’m a mix of my Mom and Dad. I like symbolism and subtitles and rarely eat Tacos. But I still love Bond.
Of course, as similar as they all are, not all Bond movies are created equal. For me, “For Your Eyes Only” has always been my favorite, though “Goldfinger”, “Octupussy” and “The Man with the Golden Gun” were also right up there. As a kid, I loved Moonraker mostly because of “Jaws” and his metal teeth. But when you start out liking a movie franchise, and then they actually make a good movie, that is a real treat.
That’s what happened with Casino Royale. Not only is this a good Bond movie, this is a good movie. Not good like the Godfather or American Beauty, but as action movies go, this is a good one.
What’s to like
With this franchise, the first really big question for this movie is “how is the new Bond?” There have been, as I’m sure you know, 5 different actors who played Bond before the new Bond Daniel Craig (star of the very underrated Layer Cake). The franchise started with Sean Connery who will always define the character. He is the standard by which any other bond is judged and now has the Citizen Kane mystique that assures there will never be another Bond considered anything better than the second best Bond because Connery is the man, whether he really is or not, in the minds of movie fans. And, really, it’s hard to argue. When you go back and watch him in the early movies, you are reminded that no one pulls off misogynistic charm like Connery did. He is a man’s man in a perfect suit and car and you can’t imagine him not getting whatever or whomever he goes after.
I grew up on Roger Moore who was fine, but not nearly as good. Some of his movies are better and certainly flashier, but he never pulled off the character like Connery.
George Lazenby was only in one movie and for good reason. He was bad and the movie was such a departure from other Bond movies, that he was doomed from the start.
When Moore and Connery were finally too old (and this happened a good decade after Connery was much too old) for the role, the franchise was given a gift. There was a perfect actor to play the part. He had the look, the accent, and the characters he played were more Bond than Bond at times. Pierce Brosnan was born to play Bond. He could have been a bit more masculine at times, but other than that he was about perfect. But NBC had other ideas. They didn’t want to loose Remington Steele in which Pierce was starring, so they refused to allow him out of his contract to do Bond. The studio went with Timoth Dalton instead and NBC promptly dumped Steele. Nice.
So, Bond fans had to endure 2 films with Dalton as Bond. He’s not a bad actor and the movies he made were actually pretty good. But he just wasn’t Bond like.
Eventually, Dalton was killing the franchise and they had to make another change. Pierce was available now and still young enough, but the movie makers needed to breathe new life into the franchise. Would the guy who seemed to be the natural for the role be enough to bring it back? They actually toyed with bringing in Sharon Stone to be Jane Bond or even someone like Denzel Washington to completely change the look and feel.
Mercifully, in the end they decided to go with Pierce. Unfortunately, they didn’t give him much to work with. The movies were pretty underwhelming and they started simply trying to outdo the last one made. Bigger explosions, more outrageous characters, more obvious double entendres and everything became more and more in your face until the movies were incredibly cartoonish. They stood out more than ever from other action movies because many action movies, the good ones at least, were continuing to push the boundaries. They were mixing up the look and feel constantly and Bond just kept riding the form over substance until the Bond experience was so terribly predictable and corny, even big fans like me lost some of that lovin’ feeling.
Then Pierce pulled out or got fired or whatever and Craig was brought in. Blonde haired, blue eyed, rough looking, he had none of the smooth, dark, look or charm as the prior Bonds who practically all could have been related. Bond fans were skeptical. Then he admitted he couldn’t swim. Then he had some mishaps during some publicity for the movie. All in all, he started to come across like a major weenie. Not a good rep for someone set to play the world’s most invincible super spy.
And, if the Bond folks had simply made the same kind of movie they had been making and stuck Craig into the role, I’m guessing he would have been the second coming of Lazenby and would have failed badly and ended his run at one movie.
Instead, the franchise started over. The movie tells the story as if it is Bond’s first mission and shows him first becoming a double-O. The look and feel are different without being totally different and the whole thing worked. Craig was good, the story was scaled down and most of the cartoonishness was abandoned.
I really liked the look and feel of this movie which I will discuss in more detail later.
I liked the night chase scene near the end.
I also liked the scaled down story. Most recently, all the movies are basically about some uber-bad guy seeking world domination. That’s fine and all, but they had reached a point where they couldn’t outdo themselves. So, instead they simplified and gave us a wealthy, evil middle-man. He’s not seeking to conquer the world, but is very bad and, of course, is a terrorist seeking personal gain. He’s bad enough and the plot is big enough to explain why a secret agent is involved, but small enough that you could enjoy the tension of a poker game without their being a nuclear warhead or giant laser pointing at a beautiful young woman hostage.
I really liked the movie’s opening sequence. It set the tone for the whole movie. It was darker and more serious than earlier films and came right out of the gate saying this was going to be a different sort of Bond film.
Great, great chase scene on foot at the beginning of the movie. Bond chases a guy who appears to be a cross between Jackie Chan and Reggie Bush and has some fantastic, if not believable, sequences. Good, good stuff.
This Bond was tough. Much tougher than Brosnan. He wasn’t doing outrageous wire-fu or anything so the fight scenes seemed more real and you believe that this Bond, unlike any in the past with the possible exception of Connery, might actually be able to win a fight.
I liked the more graphic violence. I know that’s a weird thing to say. I’m not a violence junky by any stretch, but the movie benefited from a more gritty real feel.
I liked his car…of course.
I liked the opening credits – not just one strange sexual reference after another.
What I could have done without
Where was Q branch? I know it is usually comic relief and this movie was going for more real and less hokie, but I missed Q and the gadgets. Not much in the way of super spy gadgets which has always been one of my favorite things, and no Q at all. Too bad. And now I hear the next movie won’t have them either.
Why does Craig walk that way? He holds his arms like his biceps and triceps are 10 times bigger than they are and swings his shoulders like he’s carrying a large 2x4 across them and is trying to smack something with each end with every step. Especially when he’s coming out of the water in his swimsuit (I prefer Halle Berry thank you), he just looked ridiculous.
Speaking of Halle, the Bond girls weren’t pretty. They weren’t particularly good actresses and weren’t called on to do much acting, so why not go pretty here. I mean, that’s a big part of these movies, and these girls just did not live up to the standard. Just confusing more than anything else.
I don’t want to spoil anything, but there is a section in the middle of the movie where it shows an extended romance between Bond and a woman. It seems to take about 45 minutes and could have easily been accomplished in 5…or less…it is slow, boring, almost painful. Oh look, they’re kissing on the beach. Now they’re kissing on a boat. Now they’re kissing in their room. Wow, they really like kissing in various locations. I feel like the director is trying to tell me something. You think they might have actual (gasp) feelings toward each other? Maybe it will be clear to me if this only goes on another 30 minutes or so. Oh, look now they’re kissing in a cute little café with sweeping violin music in the background. I hope this goes on forever.
It felt like it did.
I felt like it could have been better if more things had connected. The opening sequence was pure set up. What about her necklace? There were just a number of things that could have tied together to make the whole story a bit more clever.
What you see and hear (this is a new section to say what I thought of the camera/sound stuff) – the cinematography was good. Lots of cameras in strange locations gave some good shots and the editing during the initial chase was perfect. The music and sound was just like every other Bond movie, and frankly, that’s fine. Nothing real noteworthy here.
What’s new
The look and feel as discussed above. The opening sequence is in black and white and features a fight scene in a dirty public bathroom with lots of blood and rather graphic, realistic violence. That’s a complete departure for Bond which has stayed away from anything too dark until now. It appeared that this movie was trying to do for this franchise what Batman Begins did for the Batman franchise. It worked….for both.
What’s the last word
Good ending. Could have gone a bunch of different ways, but it went the right way. Plus when it ends, you’re just glad to stop the romantic music video that has been going on forever.
Who you should bring
Men, mostly, though in my experience women like Bond as well and so I expect they would like this. One word of warning. My parents generation who grew up with Connery and the smooth, light-hearted, inferred violence or glitzy explosion Bond, may not like this new more gritty Bond, and most likely will not appreciate the more graphic violence. So even though I grew up watching these movies with my Mom, I’m not sure I would recommend it to her.
Where you should watch
You need to see this on a big screen. The explosions and chases and action really needs the big screen and sound system.
What’s the couch rating
I saw this with my lovely wife and she liked it. In fact, as Bond movies go, I think she liked it quite a bit. That said, that long “we’re so in love” scene(s) might have put her to sleep if we were home. Probably not though. I’m betting she would have made it through this one.
What my gut tells me
I came out pretty pumped up about it. I was not only excited to see it again (which I already have), but I was excited at the direction of the franchise again.
What it’s like – For the reasons I discussed above, it’s like Batman Begins. It is a lot like some of the earlier Bond movies with a modern noir twist.
Where it rates – For Bond movies I give it a 9. For movies in general, probably an 8. worth seeing unless you hate this kind of movie.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
