Daniel Craig — The Dour Bond

[carl stromberg]

http://www.devilsreviews.com/reviews/jamesbond6.htm
Daniel Craig—The Dour Bond

With only one excursion into the land of Bond, it's too early to characterize Daniel Craig's films. As for his take on the super spy, I can be tentative at best. As he's playing a proto-Bond, just starting in his career and still developing those characteristics that would define the man in later outings, his portrayal could be completely different next time around. For now, his James Bond is extremely athletic; he's also troubled and petulant. He shows little intelligence, less charm, and while he can "read people," is devoid of empathy. M calls him a blunt weapon (as she had in a previous film), but this time, she's accurate. He is driven, but little reason is given except for much harping on his ego which does not explain his behavior. He isn't a suave secret agent; he's a killing machine. In the past, Bond was someone men wanted to be, and women wanted to be with. Not this time. This is the James Bond of low-budget exploitation cinema, put in a huge budget film.

It's always been tricky to put the Bond films together in time. Too many years separate Dr. No from Die Another Day for the spy to be one man (thus the multiple actors). But now things are more confusing since Daniel Craig's Bond-adventures predates those in all the other films. This is a young Bond just earning is "00" status, who is set in time after is later selves. And there's M, still played by Judi Dench, who, according to GoldenEye took the position years after Bond had earned his reputation. Is the series rebooting or just thumbing its nose at continuity? It doesn't really matter, but it is curious. I've a demon who swears that the filmmakers' intention is that James Bond keeps dying every few years so MI6 recruits a new agent and give him the old name. Hmmmm, now isn't that the plot to the 1967 spoof also titled Casino Royale.

Casino Royale


Casino Royale
The Devil Says
See It

(If you are a fan boy)
Casino Royale is the fan boy's Bond film. It answers all those questions that if you were asking, you didn't get the movies. When did Bond first wear a tux? Why doesn't he get into close, permanent relationships with women? Did he always want his martini's shaken, not stirred? Under what circumstances did he first introduce himself with, "Bond, James Bond"?

Gadgets Low
Absurdity of evil plot Low
Killer fish Nope
Let's get this out of the way for all those people who failed physics and are unaware of the working of the human body. This is NOT a realistic film. The term "gritty realism" is being tossed around by uneducated critics who like to lavish praise on anything they can so label. This ain't it. Cars do not barrel-role seven times on their own. It can't happen. Why is the one flip done in Man With the Golden Gun often criticized as silly and fake while the multiple flips here are called true-to-life? The former was actually performed by a stuntman driving a real car off a ramp, while this time the car was shot out of a cannon. Is it because Bond meant to do the river jump while it is an accident now? Similarly, no human being can leap and swing as Bond and the terrorist do at the beginning of the film. Like the crash, it is pure fantasy.

Luckily, I like fantasy, but I prefer some explanation for the non-real elements, no matter how bizarre and unlikely it is. It'd be nice if something said why a henchmen was able to do tricks that would impress Batman. He jumps around on girders and drops several stories, and he's just some average bomb-maker? Can all bomb-makers do that? Shouldn't he have been some super-villain trained for years or an Olympic gymnast gone bad? I'm perfectly happy to see all the outlandish action (there's a lot more than I'm mentioning); let's just remember that is is just that, and Casino Royale is no closer to our world than Thunderball and You Only Live Twice, just grouchier.

The plot more-or-less follows the novel's (minus the action scenes). James Bond is sent to stop a banker, Le Chiffre, who supports terrorists (of course it wasn't terrorists in the book, but terrorists are all the rage). Le Chiffre has entered a high stakes poker game (it was baccarat in the book, but it's a little too high-brow and not nearly trendy enough) and Bond must make sure he loses. He's aided by the peevish Vesper Lynd. Considering that as things turn out, she should really want Bond to like her, there's no reason for her to be such a bitch to him. But hey, Eva Green is really hot, and that's the point after all.

Casino Royale is fresh, but only for the franchise, not films in general. It is different because it is so very much the same at a more basic level: it may be the most slavish Bond movie ever to the decree that Bond flicks embrace current fads. This is James Bond starring in Mission Impossible 3. This year's cinematic trends are grit, anger, torture, and of course, terrorism. It is reminiscent of Live and Let Die and its peculiar absorption of blaxploitation. Mainstream films have gotten a bit darker, and Bond's along for the ride.

As The Devil, I was disappointed by several things in Casino Royale. What happened to the credits sequence? Not only is the song forgettable (while it's still playing you're likely to forget it), but there's not a single nude woman in silhouette. Yes, yes, they wanted it to be all serious, but that's no reason to take away the nudes. Make them serious nudes. The other problem is the sinning. There isn't enough and it's not shown in a good light. James Bond is an icon for the joy of sin. Yet here he comes up almost empty. Of course that could be the reason he's miserable, but I prefer lessons that show how much fun sinning is over ones that demonstrate how rotten life is without sin. This Bond needs to find some Pride, order out some good food and a lot of drinks, exercise his mind, learn a joke or two, and bed some babes.

Trendy Influences: Terrorists, gritty action pics with excessively physical leads, dark make-overs of pop icons like Batman, torture as entertainment on TV and in movies, celebrity poker.

[Harvey Wallbanger]

Daniel Craig—The Dour Bond -Right on the money.

but there's not a single nude woman in silhouette. Yes, yes, they wanted it to be all serious, but that's no reason to take away the nudes. Make them serious nudes. -youre preaching to the choir here

[The Sweeney]

Whoah!!! Spooky!

I just had a Marty McFly experience right there! I suddenly felt as though I was transported in a time machine back to the year 2006.

http://img175.imagevenue.com/img.php?im ... _754lo.jpg

Luckily, I was transported back to the present day quickly, with a new Bond film about to be released, rather than reading something from waaaaay back 2 years ago.....

[007]

Some interesting thoughts especially on the 'gritty' spin. His thoughts on the other Bond films and actors are interesting too.

[The Sweeney]

Gadgets Low
Absurdity of evil plot Low
Killer fish Nope

Anyone criticizing the lack of above, and attempting to justify the car stunt scene in TMWTGG, by kindly forgetting the one thing that killed it - the Godawful sound effect that accompanies it, deserves to be tied naked to a lampost and be subjected to hours of target practice for brick-throwers.

[007]

I think he prefers the days when Bond films were fun.

[The Sweeney]

Fun and action films don't mix, IMO.

If I want fun, I watch Carry On films.

[007]

I watched Die Hard again the other week. Possibly the greatest action film ever made. Do you know what? It was great fun.

[stockslivevan]

"Fun" is subjective, at least for me. There's all kinds of different fun. There Will Be Blood is fun in one way while Star Wars is in another way. I don't find Roger Moore "fun", but I do think Connery is, especially in DAF. Or in little moments where he teases the chinese guard in GF smiling like a mad man. Now THAT was fun.

[The Sweeney]

I watched Die Hard again the other week. Possibly the greatest action film ever made. Do you know what? It was great fun.

I agree. Die Hard is superb, one of the best films ever made, and it may be fun in certain aspects, but there definitely is a gritty element to it, dare I say even an edge of realism to the action, something the Moore/Brosnan films never ventured into. Fun is not the word I would describe Die Hard. Edge-of-your-seat action, tension, etc. is more like it, and more how action films should be. When Bruce Willis gets hurt in Die Hard, he gets hurt. We see blood on him.

And it depends what we define as `fun'. Witty one-liners in Die Hard - great! Nasty OTT villain, great! But the film isn't spoiled by double-taking pigeons, invisible cars, underwater tie-straightening, gondolas on wheels, telling snakes to `hiss off', Tarzan yells, etc.

[007]

Now we're getting somewhere. Alan Rickman's super slick camp camp villain, a wisecracking hero, Reginald VelJohnson's Oliver Hardy look of exasperation at dumb Police Chief Dwayne T Robinson, William Atherton's sleazy journalist, Hart Bochner as Ellis ("I must have missed 60 minutes" or whatever), the two FBI Agents (from LTK) "This is Agent Johnson...no relation." John McClane destroys the ground floor of the building with a computer and some explosives and jumps off the top of the building with a fire hose. Packed with action and laughs. It's fun! Eon should try it sometime. It's a new one to me the notion that action films aren't supposed to be fun! Are James Bond films supposed to be fun? What about The Matrix? Is that fun?

[FormerBondFan]

Alan Rickman's super slick camp camp villain, a wisecracking hero, Reginald VelJohnson's Oliver Hardy look of exasperation at dumb Police Chief Dwayne T Robinson, William Atherton's sleazy journalist, Hart Bochner as Ellis ("I must have missed 60 minutes" or whatever), the two FBI Agents (from LTK) "This is Agent Johnson...no relation."

Rickman was considered to play Alec in GoldenEye.

[The Sweeney]

Now we're getting somewhere. Alan Rickman's super slick camp camp villain, a wisecracking hero, Reginald VelJohnson's Oliver Hardy look of exasperation at dumb Police Chief Dwayne T Robinson, William Atherton's sleazy journalist, Hart Bochner as Ellis ("I must have missed 60 minutes" or whatever), the two FBI Agents (from LTK) "This is Agent Johnson...no relation." John McClane destroys the ground floor of the building with a computer and some explosives and jumps off the top of the building with a fire hose. Packed with action and laughs. It's fun! Eon should try it sometime. It's a new one to me the notion that action films aren't supposed to be fun! Are James Bond films supposed to be fun? What about The Matrix? Is that fun?

I guess we have a slightly different take on these kind of films then. I loved Die Hard because it was gripping. You really felt like Willis was in danger (all those years ago when I first watched it). You really wanted him to kick ass with Rickman's gang. I never really thought `this is fun' watching Die Hard. I was too gripped, thinking about what would happen next. That's how action films should be. Zero humour, or any humour that does appear should be black humour, as was the case with Die Hard.

I loved Matrix because of the complex story, and how it unfolded. Again, I didn't watch that thinking `this is fun'. I want films to engross me, grip me with tension, fear, a kind of `Phew! Glad he got out of that one ok!' I never would expect an action film to be fun. Once an action film suddenly strays over the border of silliness, it has lost me then. I'm no longer involved anymore (as was the case with Indy 4 immediately, after seeing the silly teddy bear jump straight out of the Paramount logo).

[Terry]

While the review is positive Maltin's film guide does nitpick Die Hard for having too many suporting comic characters. It's a popcorn film and humour is one of the many reasons why the film is such a crowd pleaser. There is so much going on and you are never far from a joke or a great stunt. That's really what I want from Bond. I don't want the films to be either silly or too grim. Just as long as it feels like a Bond film and entertains me. On the whole I prefer Bond as a slightly un PC male fantasy. If you like Bond films to be gritty (whatever that means) then I suppose humour will annoy you. With Casino Royale I was annoyed by a contrasting quality. It wants to be a serious film but suddenly throws in silly action scenes to pad out the running time. It's just more jarring and out of place than it would be in previous Bonds. All in all I'd rather have a James Bond film that wasn't ashamed to be a James Bond film.

[Captain Nash]

I don't think you'll find that CR is ashamed to be a Bond film. You still have James Bond as the central character. The film is based on Ian Flemings first Bond novel.
The fact that the producers successfully re-imagined Bond for the next century is obviously something that annoys the majority of fans here. But it didn't annoy everyfan. I think to much of people perception of Bond in CR comes from what they've read in the press...or online especially.
For example, the whole young rookie Bond concept is one that was looked at, but canned. Craigs Bond is supposedly born in 1968. Hardly making him a young Bond. If you just sit down and watch the film or any Bond film you will be entertained. Yes even DAD has its moments.

[James]

I think Eon had run out of ideas. So they went f**k it, we'll just copy the Bourne films.

[The Sweeney]

After DAD, you are probably right. So they decided to go back to the source - Fleming, by adapting one of his novels.

And some would say Bourne copied Bond first.....

[FormerBondFan]

And some would say Bourne copied Bond first.....

I don't see that at all. Bourne's just series with its own spy theme.

[The Sweeney]

And some would say Bourne copied Bond first.....

I don't see that at all. Bourne's just series with its own spy theme.

I don't agree. The action portrayed in Bourne was far closer to how Fleming wrote Bond, than anything we saw during the crappy Brozza flicks.

[FormerBondFan]

And some would say Bourne copied Bond first.....

I don't see that at all. Bourne's just series with its own spy theme.

The action portrayed in Bourne was far closer to how Fleming wrote Bond, than anything we saw during the crappy Brozza flicks.

If Pierce's Bonds is that crappy then this is all Babs' fault.