A year behind everyone else, as is my wont, I watched, last night, an American DVD of Casino Royale and it's damned good.
I well remember the furore when Pierce Brosnan was stood down, along with Moneypenny and Q and at the time, even thought of boycotting the next Bond film too. As it turns out, they did it all really well, were wise to wait and rethink it all and the whole package not only stands up but is right up there as a contender for the best Bond ever.
It unfortunately puts some of the Moore vehicles like Live and Let Die and View to a Kill, which had great moments, ultimately to shame though Moore himself always had a certain something about him. Many say that the Dalton era was sub-standard but some disagree - he brought a sort of realism back to the role which, in the era when computer graphics were just taking off big time, consigned Dalton to the scrapheap of Bondiana.
Bond flicks must always have that blend of big budget exotic locations, suspended disbelief, action and those eternal Bond girls and yet the last of the Brosnan era, even with Halle Berry, was overrated IMHO, along with Halle Berry herself. Just how much of the wham bam, incessant action does it take to rob the plot of dimensions beyond two?
Brosnan opened well in Goldeneye and possibly did best in the next. Sophie Marceau lifted TWINE out of all proportion to the quality of the film and overall, Brosnan certainly didn't disgrace the role one bit.
So what of Daniel Craig?
Well, everything's subjective but given the raw brashness he was meant to display, he was great. Truly. I think he's a magnificent Bond and you can really feel his emotions or non-emotions if you like, along with him. The betrayal near the end was predictable, of course - Bonds don't have wives - but it was handled well. Boston dot com describes Craig thus:
Time dot com disagrees:
The locations were often stunning and one can picture Mr. White [interesting how in real life the cabal nasties are colour coded too] in his real setting - a chateau by Lake Geneva is the perfect place for true evil to reside. This is gritty, it's raw and it's great.
The only annoying suspension of disbelief, for me, is during the torture scene. As males, we can assure the female half of the population that Bond wouldn't be making wisecracks to his tormenter in that cheeky-face way, with his testicles in that condition. By the way, Craig's body would have to be the best of any Bond, Connery included and his level of menace was right up in the Connery class.
My favourite part was in the opening sequence when the sleek black terrorist is leaping from one derrick up in the sky to another with Craig in dogged pursuit - James almost falls off a few times but hauls himself back and continues the chase. His body's obviously not cut out for ths type of highwire gymnastics but he manages. That was a nice touch.
Naturally, even after one picture, the comparisons have been made and yes, it's too early.
Craig is a fine actor, there's absolutely no doubt of that and Eva Green is surprising. Did they dub the English voice? Her kissing gives her away - it's so French and her body movements are too - the French have that artless sluttishness down pat. She's not a beautiful woman but scrubs up well - although maybe she'd have been better off as a true villain, if the Fleming novel had only allowed.
As a fan of the grittier type of Bond, where does Casino Royale rate? Right up there. Where does Craig rate? Surely up with Connery and with Connery's reputed orneriness as well - hell, what do you want from a hero after all? He's fun and he's dangerous but for sheer menace, perhaps early Connery edges him out.
Bond 22 is going to have a lot of people eagerly waiting, methinks. I loved 21 and might watch it again now - work is a bit slow today.
I well remember the furore when Pierce Brosnan was stood down, along with Moneypenny and Q and at the time, even thought of boycotting the next Bond film too. As it turns out, they did it all really well, were wise to wait and rethink it all and the whole package not only stands up but is right up there as a contender for the best Bond ever.
It unfortunately puts some of the Moore vehicles like Live and Let Die and View to a Kill, which had great moments, ultimately to shame though Moore himself always had a certain something about him. Many say that the Dalton era was sub-standard but some disagree - he brought a sort of realism back to the role which, in the era when computer graphics were just taking off big time, consigned Dalton to the scrapheap of Bondiana.
Bond flicks must always have that blend of big budget exotic locations, suspended disbelief, action and those eternal Bond girls and yet the last of the Brosnan era, even with Halle Berry, was overrated IMHO, along with Halle Berry herself. Just how much of the wham bam, incessant action does it take to rob the plot of dimensions beyond two?
Brosnan opened well in Goldeneye and possibly did best in the next. Sophie Marceau lifted TWINE out of all proportion to the quality of the film and overall, Brosnan certainly didn't disgrace the role one bit.
So what of Daniel Craig?
Well, everything's subjective but given the raw brashness he was meant to display, he was great. Truly. I think he's a magnificent Bond and you can really feel his emotions or non-emotions if you like, along with him. The betrayal near the end was predictable, of course - Bonds don't have wives - but it was handled well. Boston dot com describes Craig thus:
The new James Bond is quick and muscular, and there is nothing remotely camp about him. He doesn’t wink; in fact, I’m not sure he even blinks. Where other men might athletically sail through a narrow window opening during a chase scene, he prefers to plow through the wall. He’s a strapping brute — young, untested, rough around the edges — and he is magnificent. Let the purists squawk: In Daniel Craig, the Bond franchise has finally found a 007 whose cruel charisma rivals that of Sean Connery.
Time dot com disagrees:
The Craig Bond might know no French at all; he's not the suave, Oxbridgian 007 of legend but the strong, silent type, almost a thug for hire, and no smoother with a sardonic quip than John Kerry. Still, he fits one description Fleming gave of his hero: "[His face was] a taciturn mask, ironical, brutal and cold." ... [This] is a Bond with great body but no soul.
The locations were often stunning and one can picture Mr. White [interesting how in real life the cabal nasties are colour coded too] in his real setting - a chateau by Lake Geneva is the perfect place for true evil to reside. This is gritty, it's raw and it's great.
The only annoying suspension of disbelief, for me, is during the torture scene. As males, we can assure the female half of the population that Bond wouldn't be making wisecracks to his tormenter in that cheeky-face way, with his testicles in that condition. By the way, Craig's body would have to be the best of any Bond, Connery included and his level of menace was right up in the Connery class.
My favourite part was in the opening sequence when the sleek black terrorist is leaping from one derrick up in the sky to another with Craig in dogged pursuit - James almost falls off a few times but hauls himself back and continues the chase. His body's obviously not cut out for ths type of highwire gymnastics but he manages. That was a nice touch.
Naturally, even after one picture, the comparisons have been made and yes, it's too early.
Craig is a fine actor, there's absolutely no doubt of that and Eva Green is surprising. Did they dub the English voice? Her kissing gives her away - it's so French and her body movements are too - the French have that artless sluttishness down pat. She's not a beautiful woman but scrubs up well - although maybe she'd have been better off as a true villain, if the Fleming novel had only allowed.
As a fan of the grittier type of Bond, where does Casino Royale rate? Right up there. Where does Craig rate? Surely up with Connery and with Connery's reputed orneriness as well - hell, what do you want from a hero after all? He's fun and he's dangerous but for sheer menace, perhaps early Connery edges him out.
Bond 22 is going to have a lot of people eagerly waiting, methinks. I loved 21 and might watch it again now - work is a bit slow today.
I entirely agree James.
ReplyDeleteYes it was a great film, one of the best films i've seen a long time.
ReplyDeleteCraig was a real breath of fresh air.
Daniel Craig and Sean Connery are my two favourite bonds....I think the rest,Roger Moore especially were rather camp.
ReplyDeleteI like Casino Royale but for one thing. I think a lot of the scenes with Bond and Vespa could have been cut out. They made the film slow.
Just been watching the "making of" and it was an amazing thing, especially the SFX and freerunning.
ReplyDeleteAs for Vesper and Bond, I don't know, Oestre - I quite like the building of the relationship but then again, I'm older.
People who like the "I find you attractive, would you go to bed with me?" would be disappointed.
In my books, there're both types. Slow build can be good, as long as it has an explosive denouement.
Daniel Craig brings to mind the Russian word "otmorozok." A very different Bond, indeed.
ReplyDelete