A combination of luck and timing got me to the midnight show of Casino Royale, the new James Bond pic opening... well, opening today. And so, dear reader - because I only think of you - I thought I'd get my thoughts up before going off to bed. When the other option is one of those incomprehensible Manohla Dargis reviews, believe me, I'm doing us both a favor. :)
The immediate question of course, is about Daniel Craig and can he cut it as Bond. The answer is a reassuring yes, though it's really the wrong question - slap a well tailored tux on a handsome Brit accent with a gun, and you're basically there. The real question is how good is Casino Royale and the answer I come up with is... serviceable. It's not the best Bond, it's not the worst Bond. It's good Bond, and that, plus curiosity will spell a hit and future Bonds. Which is the real concern, but I'll get to that in a bit.
The strength of this entry lies in the well plotted and paced first half, where the new Bond (we're starting from scratch here - Casino Royale was the first book) earns his 007 and embarks on a worldwide investigation of wealthy arms merchants. After a neo-realist black and white opening we leap, literally, into color - the initial action sequence in Madagascar, traipsing through an open construction site, is completely breathtaking and stands as one of the most superb action sequences done up to now, Bond or no. And just as remarkably, the film still has someplace to go - first to the Bahamas, then to Miami, and a great airport action set piece. From there, it's off to Montenegro and a high stakes poker game with arms merchant Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelson, overplaying facial tics, and underplaying evil).
Once we're there, the tension mounts and so does the body count, but the poker game feels like a conclusion and as it turns out, it's not, and from there the film takes a longer, and somewhat convoluted route to wrapping up loose ends, which turn out to be several. It's this somewhat slack second half that brings the film down from great to good.
Probably the most welcome development, though, comes from both Craig and Judi Dench's M - a ratcheting up of the psychological aspects of espionage, of killing machines with all too human flaws and tightly wound springs that are hard to keep in place. Craig does a masterful job of making clear, nonverbally, how tightly wound his Bond is, and how he can only let his emotions out in carefully controlled moments. Dench meanwhile, superb as always, conveys several levels at once - a motherly concern for her agents, the practical mind of a good manager of people, and the subterfuge of a very smart spy.
Craig's nonverbals point to a script that's tight and focused - perhaps too focused; Craig's Bond is one where action speaks louder than words, and what words there are often come across as sardonic and world weary. The verbal finesse of previous Bonds just isn't there, and it hurts in the glossy casino and poker sequences. And some classic Bond bits are lost in the shuffle - The Aston Martin (which arrives as a more DIY model, absent a Q to explain the various gadgets) comes and goes so quickly one wonders why have it at all.
Meanwhile, the film renews not just the License to Kill, but also the "Learner's Permit to Make-out" as Mad Magazine aptly put it years ago - the most skin we get is from Craig, surely the best Bond body yet, rising from the ocean, a la Ursula Andress and Halle Berry. But the sex sequences are remarkably tame, and the gals are more decorative artifacts in striking gowns than serious players in the larger story. This is sadly most true of Eva Green, whose Vesper Lynd is quite charming, but not necessarily all that memorable. Both Caterina Murino, and Ivana Milicevic make more of an impression in smaller roles (and, it should be said, tighter gowns).
As I said, given the curiosity factor (my theater was full of appreciative college boys; I'm sure the New York audience was full of the similarly appreciative young office workers these kids will become) and the film's strengths, this should be a hit. I certainly recommend it, even with my various mild criticisms (as well as a so-so theme song and a weak opening credit sequence). But to some degree this was the easy part - Casino Royale was never a great Bond film; indeed, the new version feels very late sixties/early seventies at times, driven by the hoary conventions of high stakes poker (the kind alluded to in the Austin Powers "1 million dollars" joke). It all feels a little done, but this version certainly has panache.
The problem lies in what comes next - it's the sequels that established Sean Connery and Bond - Dr. No, Thunderball and Goldfinger form quite a legacy. With a sequel more or less built into the ending, there's sure to be more, but I wonder where this can go, and how to hold on to the humanity that Craig has found in his Bond, and keep the plots modern. Its rather like having the live grenade in hand, walking through the minefield, laser headed towards your crotch, as Dr. No says "Can you get out of this, Mis-tair Bond?" I'm not necessarily sure they can.
Comments