 |
Casino Royale is so different from any other James Bond film in the EON series that it doesn't feel at all like a part of that series. Even entries as disparate as From Russia with Love, and The Man with the Golden Gun, shared enough of the EON/007 hallmarks as to be identifiable as part of the same series. But the 2006 Casino Royale is a whole 'nuther beast entirely. Effectively, that means this longest running of film series, begun way back in 1962, has ended. But EON have re-emerged with a fantastic new James Bond movie. Casino Royale is perilously close to being the James Bond film I always hoped someone would make, but never expected to get, and certainly not from EON. Certainly not so soon. With the monster success of Die Another Day, there was no reason to think we were in for anything but many more of the same from EON for the foreseeable future. Major congratulations and thanks to them for taking this bold step, and looking beyond just massive profits. They have brought a new integrity to 007 in the cinema. On the surface this is a movie about high stakes gambling, with consequences on the funding of global terrorism. But it's really about, is James Bond, the man, which means that Daniel Craig's performance is the backbone of the film. Right from the start, Daniel Craig gets it right, and makes the character his own. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, he makes the character Ian Fleming's own. They say each generation gets the James Bond it deserves, and this is Ian Fleming's Bond, transmogrified for this less gracious, more harsh, double-oh decade. He's less suave, less sophisticated, to match the world of today. And to be fair, it's early days yet for this re-imagined, re-launched, re-born, Bond. A line of dialogue from You Only Live Twice, when Bond tells Blofeld, "This is my second life." is perhaps even more apt for this film. By now you've heard it many times; Craig's Bond is dark, grim and gritty. All that's true, but he's also complex, sensitive and fully human.
When Craig was announced as the next James Bond, I went out and rented his best-known starring vehicle, Layer Cake, to see what this guy was like. He won me over completely, and from that moment on, I've never had any misgivings at all that he would be fantastic in the role of 007. I would love to hear what the previous Bond actors think of Craig's portrayal. I expect Sean Connery will envy Daniel Craig this script, that allows James Bond a human depth and dimension that Connery yearned for more and more as each successive movie slipped further from James Bond as a 3-dimensional Character. It is Connery's Bond who is mentioned most often as coming to mind when watching Craig's performance. Both actors brought a nearly palpable feeling of danger to the character, but Craig's Bond gets to demonstrate it in ways Connery was never allowed. While watching Daniel Craig in the first protracted chase scene, I actually found his Bond intimidating, and found my sympathies going out to his quarry. I thought, "Jeeze, I sure wouldn't want this guy coming after me!" The script serves Daniel Craig very well. As they say, "If it's not on the page, it's not on the screen," and there's wonderful stuff up on that screen. With this script, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade come of age. I hope they, and Paul Haggis, are back again for the next two films, as well. I also hope that who ever scouted locations for this film is back again, too. Some of the locations are simply breathtaking in their beauty, and Phil Meheux's cinematography does them justice. This is a handsome, elegant looking picture.. The Fleming novel takes place mostly inside a casino, so it was necessary for the visual medium of film, to open it up a lot, and so the first half of the movie is entirely new, before the plot takes us into the titular arena, from which point the film is fairly faithful to the novel, if not exactly in detail, then certainly in spirit and in character. Several iconic trademarks of the EON franchise get parodied, or poked affectionate fun at, such as Bond's preference for shaken martinis, or the puerile naming of female characters. But it is the gunbarrel scene that takes the biggest hit. Instead of the stylized blank stage across which we are used to seeing our various James Bonds strut, Daniel Craig's Bond does his Spin'n'Shoot in a trashed out men's bathroom, with old, once-white tile taking the place of the pristine, pure white, studio backdrop. If you didn't know it before, this serves notice that this ain't your daddy's James Bond. In this world, things get dirty; people get bloodied, and trust has consequences. Following Criag's gun shot, the red wash that descends like a curtain of blood is quite different looking from anything before. It is less an aesthetic graphic device, and closer to a depiction of what blood might look like flowing down the screen. Frankly, I didn't much like it compared with the other style. Daniel Kleinman has done his usual superb job with the titles that follow. Not surprisingly, the visual themes are mayhem and gambling, but they are merged in very creative and dynamic ways. Another great job from the man who brought us my favorite opening titles of all time, GoldenEye. Here he takes one more step away from the legacy of Maurice Binder, and asserts his own style. And it's a lucky thing the titles are so interesting, because the musical theme certainly is not. It's a dull, unmelodic piece, with no real hook. It isn't even included on the soundtrack album. Perhaps a prerequisite to get on the CD was a cut had to be good, which, thankfully, the rest of the score is. It does a great job of supporting and enhancing the many moods of the film. In particular I liked the optimistic, up tempo piece that accompanies Bond's arrival in the Bahamas. David Arnold has left his 1970's disco sound machine at home this time around, and the score is better off for it, having a more lush, fully orchestral sound. The closing credits start with a terrific orchestration of the James Bond theme, the best in years. It's very pure, very sixties and very, very welcome. Speaking of the closing credit's music, for the first time in any 007 movie, the opening theme is repeated in the closing credits "as is." It is not an instrumental version, or re-orchestration. Odd. I'd hoped that the credits would end with, "James Bond will return . . ." and the name of the next film, since we've been told the title's been decided already. But unfortunately it seems those days are gone. But I'm getting ahead of myself. I've already arrived at the closing credits, and there's a lot more to say about this film. The cast is excellent. Dame Judi Dench as "M" gets her best scenes ever, and we get to see her as a master manipulator with a deft touch. Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre is a fully dimensional human being, not a two dimensional cardboard cutout, ranting about world domination. He makes us empathize with him for his predicament. Good and bad aren't black and white, and we see there are shades of gray. Oh sure, LeChiffre's got the requisite Fleming villain's physical disfigurement, but right from the start he demystifies it, explaining to a visitor that it's purely a medical condition and, "nothing sinister." The preview photos I saw months ago of Eva Green, as Vesper Lynd, had me worried about her for the role. I just didn't like her looks for the role. Something about her eyes, I think. So I am very happy to report, her performance won me over completely. I especially liked the complexity of the ever changing, give and take, between her character and Bond's. Yes, I said the "C" word. No longer is it anathema to speak of character in a James Bond film! They have so many good scenes together, whether feeling each other out initially, gaining grudging respect for one another, relaxing their defences and being playful, and so on into much more intense territories; they are all played believably. Having seen the film four times now, I've taken the chance to keep my eye on the same character through out a scene, and not just look at who's talking at that moment. Eva Green's performance is skilled and nuanced, often showing subtle hints of her character's secrets. Speaking of LeChiffre and Vesper, though Fleming took pains in the novel to create interesting origins for both names, oddly enough neither name is explained in the film. Bond does still adopt's Vesper's name for his drink creation (first described by Ian Fleming in the 1953 novel), but there's an oddity about one ingredient he lists for the drink. Although the year is 2006, Bond still requests "Kina Lillet". Even 53 years ago, back in 1953, Fleming was way out of date using that name. The "Kina" had been dropped from the name back in the 1930's! And sadly, the drink Fleming had in mind is impossible to make today, because in 1986 the recipe for Lillet was changed, making it less bitter and more fruity. Perhaps a Vesper made with today's Lillet might taste good, but it won't be the drink Fleming had in mind. Now, just one more word about Vesper's eyes; and that word is, "Racoon". The make up people have done Eva Green no favors at all with their heavy handed application, seemingly with a trowel, of eye shadow, eye liner and maybe even chimney soot, pitch and creosote. She looks loveliest when her make up is the lightest. I hope who ever designed the make up for this film is conveniently unavailable for the next two.
Craig's frequently semi-clad physique is the film's eye-candy for the distaff audience. Eva Green even went so far as to joke that Daniel Craig is this film's "Bond Girl." In other casting, I miss the handsome, elegant, Colin Salmon, as Charles Robinson, "M"'s strong right hand. Instead we get Tobias Menzies as Villiers, who looks like an overly tall, slightly retarded, schoolboy. Why is he here? I did not miss having a Q scene because it meant this film was blessedly gadget free, for the most part. Oddly enough, twice in this film a gadget actually got the good guys in trouble. They insist on wearing tiny earpieces that are not so tiny as to be unnoticeable, and the bad guys do notice, and, to put it mildly, take umbrage. Here's where the spies would have been better served with over the counter stuff. If instead of the tiny earpieces, with their little tiny antennas, our guys had simply been wearing large, obvious Bluetooth earpieces, no one would have looked twice or thought anything of it. But no, they go and wear something that says to the world, "Look at me! I'm a spy! Shoot at me!" Also missing from this film appears to be the venerable Walther PPK. I can't say with complete certainty, but I saw only the newer, larger, Walther P99. Could EON have ditched such an enduring icon of the 007 films? Can it be gone for good? I hope so. Like the Beretta before it, "It's had its day", and no longer makes sense for a man with Bond's mission and duties. You may notice I've stayed away from telling you the plot of the film. I want to keep spoilers to a minimum for those of you who've yet to see it. For those of you who have seen it, well you don't need me to tell you the story then, do you? I've rated Casino Royale an A+. Initially I was going to hold back the "+", because the film's not perfect. But then I thought about just how excellent the film is, imperfections and all, and how thrilled I was by it in so many ways, and it seemed clear that the movie deserved that extra little, "+" after all. It's a long movie, and for me the weakest part was the large set piece on the airport runways. It's here the film looks most like a traditional, big budget, big crash, big explosion, big-snore "Bond Film" of recent years. One person told me this scene was a sop to those fans disappointed that Casino Royale isn't what they've been led to expect from a James Bond picture. Maybe so, but the plot points created in this scene could have been established just as well, if not better, with the mayhem scaled down about 90%. Other than that, I wouldn't mess with a single frame of this film. Having seen it several times, I've come to appreciate how well crafted the story is, and thoroughly thought through. There's a lot of foreshadowing, and detail going on here, and this film provides rich fodder for post-viewing discussions. On that score I'll admit there are some things I still have questions about. But it's a testament to the depth and quality of this film that it is possible to discuss the character's actions and motivations so thoroughly. My sole regret is that I'm going to have to wait another two years to see the next installment in this trilogy. (Editor's Note: A trilogy of films has yet to be confirmed.) I hope they keep it as edgy and personal as this one, and don't succumb to the usual temptation to try to top themselves. Bigger will definitely not be better. That path has always led to unfortunate excess. They got it right with this film. Please EON, just give us more of the same.
Copyright © 2006 James McMahon |
|
Contact the Author: James McMahon
Return to CASINO ROYALE Coverage HMSS Contents |
As a red-blooded, heterosexual male, I would be remiss indeed if I did not mention the film's best female eye-candy, Caterina Murino as Solange. Unfortunately, she's the film's sacrificial lamb, but not before she beautifully decorates a few scenes. This script is so good, even her minor character gets enough depth that we mourn more than her good looks, when she's found, having been tortured and killed.