This ain't your daddy's espionage!

At the request and advice of a good friend I sat down last week with a copy of the latest Bond 'venture 'Casino Royale.' First off let me begin by saying that the twelve year old little boy in me still requires me to daydream at times about saving the world, getting the girl and being the sauvest cat in the room (fortunately my life has allowed me to fulfill two out of three of those requirements). Because of this I have read all of the original Fleming novels and seen all the films, Connery is my personal favorite and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is the best of the novels in my humble opinion.

Anyway last Thursday I sat down and took a look at the new "re-boot" of the franchise. First off I don't mind the casting of Daniel Craig in the lead role. Is he Fleming's version of Bond, well no but he does a good job just in his appearance of causing us to sit up and take notice. He's blonde, bigger than the previous Bond's with the exception of possibly Connery and he brings back that quality which Connery had, the ability to appear lethal just by walking or looking in one's general direction. Moore was more Peter Sellersesque in my opinion, his Bond was older (Moore I believe was almost 50 when he started, I'm not certain and too lazy to check IMDB) and his actions came across as absolute camp. Who could forget his first dangerous foray in "Live and Let Die" when the villain puts a poisonous snake in his room and Moore reaches for the Hair Net and his cigar to dispatch the critter. Hair spray and a lit stogie? Yeah that's what I felt when I first saw that scene, Connery would have judo chopped the snake into submission and then done a solid Bear Grils impression by taking a chunk out of it.

Okay maybe I'm guilty of hyperbole but I could never get over Moore taking over, (out of respect for the novel we shall only once mention George Lazenby and the abomination that is OHMSS, there that's done), Dalton lasted just slightly longer than you know who, although A-Ha had a pretty good title song with "Living Daylights" even if it was beyond their expiration date. Brosnan did, what I think, was a very respectable job. Namely taking a forgotten pop culture franchise and making it respectable again, or at least for a few go rounds. The thinly veiled Rupert Murdoch style villain was entertaining as were the stunts, but by the time "Die Another Day" came out Pierce had jumped the ole shark.

This brings us to "Casino Royale," the third and latest attempt to resurrect the ole franchise (Connery's return and Brosnan's eventual assuming of the role being the other two). I enjoyed the novel when I read it, it came across as being smart and gripping without being entirely implausible, much like a John LeCarre novel than something by Tom Clancy.

As I said before I didn't mind the casting of Craig and thought Eva Green fit the part of Vesper Lynd quite well. The villain Le Chiffre, played by Mad Mikkelsen, was great. He was what I want in a Bond villain, over the top in some respects but still believable. Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter was also a great casting, I like how they broke away from tradition and had Leiter be black. Wright is a great actor and while "Casino" didn't really allow him to shine he does a fare better job than Halle Berry's turn as Jinx. As a side note what the hell kind of name is that? I felt like I was watching the reject auditions from Mortal Kombat two. Jinx? You're a CIA operative and your name is Jinx?! Wow that's subtle and incospicous. So for me the casting worked well...

As for the plot I enjoyed the beginning interlude between Bond and his second confirmed kill, it gave a bit of an interesting back story and added a bit to the lore of Bond mythology. Also the chase through Madagascar was eye popping and could hold up with any of the recent openers. After that though the film became somewhat disjointed and a bit of a drag.
Bond gets relieved of his post and told to lay low for a while, sounds good, we know our boy from MI-6 will get his hands dirty somewhere, but the plot device they used...terrorists in the Bahamas? I understand he's hunting international financiers for terrorism but the Bahamas? And then Miami International? I can imagine the editing of the script.

Producer-"We need something to show Bond is current."

Screenwriter-"How bout terrorism?"

Producer-"Oh sounds good. What do you have in mind?"

Screenwriter-"Bond chases international terrorists through remote Afghan provinces and eventually catches Bin Laden."

Producer-"Nah, not enough skin and surf. Any other ideas?"

Screenwriter-"How bout Bond defeats international terrorists in Cuba?"

Producer-"Good idea but we already worked that angle with Goldeneye, remember we had him destroying a Russian satellite installation in Cuba 5 years after the Cold War."

Screenwriter-"Oh right my bad, I missed that one I was in middle school. What if he fights international terrorists via playing in the Bahamian World Series of Poker tournament and then takes a flight to Miami that same night, gets in a knife fight with the bad guy in the middle of crowded museum and then stops the terrorist from blowing up a jumbo airliner only seconds before running into the plane in an out of control fuel truck with no brakes?"

Producer-"Hmmm....totally implausible? Check. Cards are involved? Check. Wait, no skin. How bout he dry humps the terrorist's wife on the floor of his suite, and then takes out her husband in the museum?"

Screenwriter-"Works for me."


It was at this point that I started to check out. Now don't get me wrong I enjoy my Bond shaken, not stirred and as implausible as they come. This is why I enjoyed Connery, he could be given ridiculous lines about Pussy Galore and still deliver them with a wink and a nod to the camera. Basically saying yeah I said Pussy Galore and I'm not gonna stop saying it for the next hour. He was an adolescent boy driving a fast car, getting with beautiful women and still stopping the bad guys. But with "Casino" we are given the implausible scenarios minus the wink and the nod, Bond is instead shown shooting an icy stare or a homicidal smirk as the bad guy blows up right in front of him. And yes I know to be a government agent who does "wet work" one really needs to be slightly "off" but in this scene it seemed like the audience was being told yeah it's Bond and yeah he's going to have a fist fight with a terrorist in a speeding truck that could blow up any minute, but no don't expect the cheeky one liner, instead enjoy the ice cold stare.

In all fairness Bond in the Fleming novels was one ice cold Mo' Fo', but if I wanted novel Bond I would crack open "Diamonds are Forever" or "Moonraker" and get down to business with ice water in the veins. When I watch a Bond film I enjoy the one liners and contrary to what I previously wrote I guess I enjoy some of the camp too, "Casino" is missing that aspect, which I found disappointing.

When the action moves to the Casino Royale in Montenegro for the high stakes poker tourney, I had all but checked out. What I enjoyed about the novel was that baccarat was an interesting game, obscure to most Americans, and to have that be the center point of the showdown between Bond and Le Chiffre made it all the more entertaining. Baccarat is exotic and the way the game is bankrolled made it all the more plausible that Bond could break Le Chiffre by a simple card game. Changing it to poker really made it seem not as exciting or as upper class as is typical of Bond. I have nothing against poker but to have it be the main focus of the latter half of the film rather than baccarat just didn't 'feel' right.

Another aspect missing from "Casino" were the gadgets, there was no briefing by "Q" to tantalize the audience with some convaluted Rube Goldbergesque gadget. "Here is an ordinary tube of chap stick. But if you stick it up your ass, cluck like a chicken and wait til the sun rises on the Summer Solstice, it will become a hand grenade." We did catch a glimpse of an interesting series of hidden drawers in the Aston Martin, and there was the scene with the mobile heart monitor, diagnostic machine, but I felt cheated not having a briefing by "Q" with the odd little gadgets. Of course in the most recent films we've been lucky to have such ridiculous gadgets as a jacket which inflates like the Michelin man.

The torture scene was great, not great as in torture is great, but great in that it was true to the book and brought a nice aspect to the film, namely that Bond is a destructible human being and capable of feeling pain. Although his wise ass cracks to Le Chiffre were just what one would expect from Bond, total disregard for the brevity of the situation.

The Venice ending was also well done, I enjoy how they ended the film. ****SPOILERS**** Avoiding the fairy tale ending was a great way to end the film, I felt the film did an even better job of Vesper's death than novel, the face to face interaction between the two of them as he frantically scrambles to free her was fabulous drama and acting. Showing Bond's grief and his mourning of her in the receding water was equally powerful. Bond's eventual disassociation with Vesper and detachment from her after her death added an interesting aspect to the character. Much like how Fleming would end one novel with Bond grieving or mourning the death of his latest lover, the next would start with Bond calling her a "bitch" or "silly girl" caught up in the world of men. Having Craig's Bond do that was an interesting twist which I enjoyed.

In the end I would say that the makers of "Casino" wanted to try their hand at a Bourne style action flick, something smart but also action packed. And while I would say they didn't fail at that, their rendition of a stylized, smart action film fell short of the mark. What we get instead is an interesting mix of Bourne, Bond and take your pick of the latest English gangster film, maybe it's simply because Craig is in it and he did "Layer Cake" prior to Bond but that's what I think of. Guilt by association perhaps?

I would say that "Casino" was better than the most recent fair from Brosnan's Bond but the attempt to re-boot the franchise failed in my eyes because they failed to give the viewer what I think is key to a re-booting of a franchise. Namely a backstory to the mythos of the character, "Batman Begins" comes to mind. That may not have been what the filmmakers intended but in my mind I was hoping to see something like that rather than simply just an other Bond film with a new actor in the lead role. I'd recommend it but with certain caveats.