How does "Casino Royale" stack up to previous Bond movies?
***warning - spoilers throughout***
1. Bond theme - I'd rate it above average. Chris Cornell's theme is definitely rough and rocky, not at all like the smoothies of Shirley Bassey and, more recently, Garbage. It does work for the new angle on Bond though. A bit more like Moby's "Extreme Ways" used for the closing credits of "The Bourne Identity" but not so techno-y. Initially I didn't think too highly of the theme, but I think that's because the rest of the movie that followed was good enough to make me forget much of anything at all about the song. Opening credit sequence fairly... lame. But that's all that's lame about the film, so I'm ok with that.
2. Bond gadgetry - not so much featured in this movie. In fact, we're missing a key character associated with said gadgetry. But I think the movie doesn't suffer too much from the lack.
3. Bond villain - secretes blood from his tear duct. Other than that, not particularly noteworthy.
4. Bond "girl" - I will say Eva Green's Vesper Lynd is the best Bond leading-lady of them all. She actually has a character, instead of just a body and a pretty face.
5. Bond himself - Daniel Craig is... well... he's second only to THE Bond, Connery. Not particularly polished. He's physical, raw, and wickedly powerful-looking in even Bahamian linen. And in this, the "prequel," he has something of a heart.
6. Overall, one of the best films in the franchise.
A little personal Bond history: The most recent Bond movie that I've seen is Goldeneye. It was 1995 and I was... well, I was young. My parents and I went to see Goldeneye projected in a theater particularly known for its sound system. Once the shooting started in the Russian research facility (early in the film), I was a cowering mess huddled down as far as I could go into my seat. Can't handle the mass killing with firearms. I guess it left a bad taste in my mouth because three more Bond movies have been released since then and I've not come anywhere near seeing any of them. But even so, I was indignant when I heard the Bond powers-that-be had opted for a blond actor to carry the torch, and out of protest I mentally refused to see "Casino Royale" long before it even was released. Idly checking out movie reviews for this weekend (and nursing a hope somewhere deep inside that the Bond series would get some life injected back into it somehow)... I clicked on Roeper's review, liked that it was favorably compared to Bourne, and after checking out a few Google Images results (bonus: Eva Green!), made up my mind to see the film immediately. My point: instead of tons of extras getting dispatched with automatic weapons fire, this Bond is brutal and very personal. Quite a lot of hand-to-hand combat and close-range violence going on. In this way more than anything else does Bond resemble Bourne. One thing that I noticed about myself however was that I was not looking away at first, but my mom sort of looked over at me and I realized that I wasn't looking away from the violence as per standard operating procedure. So I proceded to look away. But I wonder if I'm getting de-sensitized, and what in me is fascinated by this glorification of slick if slightly more realistic violence.
So. This Bond gets dirty and bloody. A more believable Bond, if there is such an animal. As several reviews have pointed out, "Casino Royale" is more character-driven, which I think draws in female viewers. There were some slyly funny parts... everyone loves to stick it to snooty presumptuous asses, and Bond is no exception. Any time an on-screen poker hand receives scattered applause from a movie audience, it has to be good (hint: it rhymes with "crate blush"). And I thought it was hilarious that several people in our audience reacted with mutterings to the effect of "well, you can kiss *her* good bye" when our leading lady inspires Bond to express a very particular kind of intent or emotion. That's the beauty of prequels - lines that normally would mean very little are imbued with more significance as a kind of wink to the audience member who is familiar with the franchise. On a slightly down note, even I found it over the top that three lines of dialogue were used to call attention to Bond's watch (actually, three lines and more obnoxiously, a deep and lingering reflective pause that followed them). I suppose it wouldn't have been too evil to call it by name, but the following comment made by Vesper (and even more annoyingly) the pause that followed it, was too much. This coming from me, who loves men's watches a little too much, and even I couldn't stomach it. However, any film that uses Italy as a shooting location is A-Ok in my book. Just found it a little distracting (well, for me, very distracting) that part of the film was on location at Villa del Balbianello in Lake Como, the same site used for the Anakin-and-Padmé-falling-in-love-on-Naboo scenes from "Attack of the Clones." I was thinking: "I recognize those geranium planters and that breathtaking lake view behind them!" A sentiment that was rapidly followed by thoughts of lame pick-up lines comparing a love interest to sand. One thing's for sure, Bond is unquestionably more successful with the ladies than Vader-to-be.
No comments:
Post a Comment