It doesn’t seem right to be doing a movie analysis without the intrepid Therese tossing her trenchant observations into the fray, but I’ve just seen the latest offering in the ultimate boxed franchise movie, James Bond, and I wanted to share my thoughts while they’re still fresh. Casino Royale could have been a royale dud. Instead, the producers and writers took the best of Bond and unboxed the suave spy who was beginning to wear as thin as the vermouth in his martini. The result is fresh and entertaining, if not quite plausible in many, many instances. But plausibility is not why one watches a Bond movie. Casino Royale is a lesson on how to take a stale genre mired in predictability and breathe new life into it.
They start by tinkering with the character of Bond himself. Purists were up in arms that Bond could be imagined as anything other than talk, dark, and handsome. In other words, boring as old coats. As played by Nordic blond Daniel Craig, the new ‘old’ Bond has gone back to his roots the way Ian Fleming initially wrote him: cold and ruthless, a feral killing machine. Suavity was a persona Bond would inhabit when he needed it. In the first scene we’re treated to Bond brutally murdering a man. There’s nothing suave about it. Craig’s Bond is an unlikable anti-hero. People die, and not well, and there’s no remorse in the icy blue eyes.
The creators then tinker with the Bond bimbettes. In recent years, most notably starting with the Timothy Dalton era, they’ve tried to infuse the femme fatales with something resembling a character. They haven’t been entirely successful. But in Vesper Lynd, the chilly accountant, they succeed and it’s a credit to the actor Eva Green who is able to pull vulnerability out of a tricky character. She’s beautiful, but like a prickly English rose, not the big-boobed vamps usually littering Bond’s bed (the one beautiful bimbette never gets to second-base in this movie). Vesper’s the one who gives Bond the armour he uses to create his myth: impeccably tailored clothes, shaken martinis, and untouchable heart.
Le Chiffre, the villain, is also given a twist. As played by the narrow-eyed Mads Mikkelsen, Le Chiffre weeps blood and huffs on an asthma inhaler, and it’s not clear if he needs to for health reasons or for kicks. He’s a genuinely scary cat, and there are moments in the movie where you wonder if Bond’s finally met his match.
Since this is Casino Royale, much time is devoted to the penultimate card game. As my husband commented, there’s never been so many straight flushes, full houses, and four-of-a-kinds in one card game–completely impossible. Still, with attempted poisonings, murders between card sessions, and Craig’s impeccably-delivered bon mots, the movie resists bogging down in the second act.
I haven’t been a fan of Bond in recent years. I hadn’t seen one of the offerings since Goldeneye. I like Pierce Brosnan just fine. But I got the sense that the movies had become slaves to special effects (Bond drives a motorcycle off a cliff to land safely into a helicopter? Yawn.) and concentrated less on character and storytelling. And women writhing in the opening credit sequence was about as fresh as a leisure suit.
Fortunately these deficiencies have been rectified in Casino Royale. It was fitting the creators decided to start at the beginning of the Bond books to relaunch their brand. And it was telling that my husband thought the clunkier notes were hit when they tried to hew to the myth. But he was fully entertained by the clever stunts and blistering action sequences. We still don’t know what the plot was all about–something about terrorism, dirty money, and African war lords, but we didn’t dwell on it. By taking a fresh look at everything Bond down to the Aston Martin, and concentrating on building his character anew, Bond has been liberated from his baggage. I’m looking forward to the next installment.
About Kathleen Bolton
Kathleen Bolton is co-founder of Writer Unboxed. She writes under a variety of pseudonyms, including Ani Bolton. She has written two novels as Cassidy Calloway: Confessions of a First Daughter, and Secrets of a First Daughter--both books in a YA series about the misadventures of the U.S. President's teen-aged daughter, published by HarperCollins, and Tamara Blake, for the novel Slumber.
I really do want to see this flick. Thanks, Kath, for a great analysis. You did just fine without me. ;)
I’ve seen it twice now, loved it both times. :) I’ve been a big Bond fan since I used to watch them with my dad when they came on as Saturday evening movies.
Daniel Craig is magnificent as Bond. He has the necessary angst and the necessary skills to completely rejuvenate this character. (And he’s also not bad on the eyes.)
Suffice to say, the instant this comes out on DVD, I’m going to get my hot little hands on it.
My dad loved Bond too, Melissa. In fact, my first movie memory is watching Live and Let Die at the drive in—the voodoo scene gave me nightmares for weeks.
It’ll be interesting to hear the commentary tracks on the DVD and find out what they junked and what they kept and why. I didn’t miss the SMERSH angle at all.
As for Craig, the final shot of him in the bespoke suit saying the immortal line…perfect.
I’ve been looking forward to seeing this one, thanks for the heads up.
I saw the movie too and agree with your analysis. And yes, Daniel Craig is HOT. :)
I’ve heard some people complain that Craig is NOT Bond but this movie is about him BECOMING Bond.
My best friend wouldn’t go to this movie because she said Daniel Craig would ruin it. I think the Bond franchise was ruined a long time ago to the point it became cartoonish and I had lost all interest in Bond movies. But Daniel Craig intrigued me. And when I heard they were making it grittier and going back to Bond’s roots as Ian Fleming envisioned the character, I grabbed some of the girls from my RWA chpt and we made a movie night of it. I came back and told my best bud she would regret missing it. It was the best Bond ever.
I really wanted to like this film, I thought it would be back to a decent plot and character development that we found in the first of the franchise, Dr No.
What normally lets a latter-day bond film down is the plot and this one failed as abysmally as ever. In fact I challenge anyone to understand it all in one sitting and explain the many holes that were as big as the one in the ozone layer.
The dialogue didn’t help by being mumbly and difficult to hear as well as strange use of language which didn’t become clearer by switching the subtitles on.
Apart from not really understanding why they needed to play the card game before arresting La Chiffre (or not – as the film forgets to show us why the CIA didn’t pick him up) the film loses credibility by having someone go all in with about 50 times as much money as a couple of other guys while bluffing. He may have succeeded in bluffing Bond, but he’s only calling with the other guys who obviously could have a very good hand. The fact that bond wins with a straight flush (at least it wasn’t royal) just rubs salt into the wound. Winning with a straight flush against a terrible poker player does not make you some poker genius. Anyone can do it.
I also don’t understand how La Chiffe lost the $101M. I understand that if you buy shares low and they rise dramatically, you make a profit, and that if you buy high and they go low you make a big loss. But how does selling high and then the shares don’t drop make you lose money? You may not gain anything, but you still have the money. And how do you make money by knowing shares will drop? I can see how you can save money or gain shares but not how you make a profit – unless you are dealing in futures.
The screenplay writer clearly does not know about poker and the stock-market, or is not giving us enough information to show that he understands them at all. Most of the audience will think they understand it although they don’t but are impressed by the action sequences to really think about it.
Sorry but I’m neither shaken nor stirred by this flimsy action film.
Calsot said: “I also don’t understand how La Chiffe lost the $101M. I understand that if you buy shares low and they rise dramatically, you make a profit, and that if you buy high and they go low you make a big loss.”
– This is not a plot hole. It’s called a “Put Option” …(Hellooo!).