I am actually going to write a new, more in-depth review for "Casino Royale" tomorrow. Does it hold up after repeated viewing? What aspects about it particularly appealed to me? Why should you care? After that, look for my review of "Quantum of Solace" on Saturday evening. Now, here is my original post on Daniel Craig's first Bond film.
My father and I have always enjoyed movies. I credit Dad with instilling in me an appreciation for the craft and artistry involved in making movies. I don’t think that Dad knows that my lifelong appreciation for movies began the summer between 5th and 6th grade. During the school year, my father had purchased a very heavy and exotic looking device that, for all intents and purposes, looked like a giant tape recorder. My father was excited about this giant box, and my brother and I could not understand why. Our confusion lasted as long as it took for my Dad to put a tape into the box and press “play.” We found ourselves watching a movie on TV. We were able to pause it so we could go to the bathroom or get snacks. My mind was really blown away when my Dad was able to play a TV show that had been on 2 nights before. Wow. The family VCR was definitely a hit, and I think that we were among the first adopters of the new technology. Dad, in his infinite wisdom, had even chosen a VHS machine instead of Betamax. His decision was highly prescient. Our love affair with the VCR intensified upon Dad’s purchase of a video camera. Now, we were able to film all of our family’s special moments and watch them instantaneously instead of waiting weeks for Super 8 film to develop. No more setting up the projector and the screen. It was all so awesome. I know that, in a world of tiny camcorders, digital cameras, and DVRs this all might seem a bit trite, but I grew up in a time where we had 3 channels (6 after Dad set up a UHF/VHF antenna). It really seemed like magic to me.
The VCR was also the way that Dad and I bonded. My parents were very good about choosing appropriate films for my brother and me (resulting in me not seeing “My Fair Lady”, a “G” rated film, mind you, for a few years because Henry Higgins yells the word “Damn” several times). The real fun came during the aforementioned summer when Dad took my brother and me to the video store, the Video Discount Warehouse, located in Portsmouth, VA. This was a time before the ubiquitous Blockbuster Video, Hollywood Video, Erol’s, Movie Gallery, and Family Video. Every Wednesday, Dad would take us there and let my brother and me choose movies. I still remember how the films had stickers on the spines (red “As” for new releases, blue “Bs” for slightly older releases, and green “Cs” for old releases and kid films). Dad would always let my brother and me choose the maximum 6 movies, and he did not limit us to the most inexpensive lists. Sometimes, he would gently make suggestions if we could not decide. I used to look forward to my Wednesdays with Dad because they were true bonding times. Neither of us was into baseball as many fathers and sons are, so we bonded over films. I think that, except for my love of science fiction films, we have a pretty similar taste in movies to this very day.
One of the films that we rented that summer was a recent blockbuster, “Octopussy.” Up to that point, I had only watched part of a James Bond film, and it had bored me to tears. The film was “From Russia, With Love,” and I remember when it was broadcast on ABC falling asleep while watching it. I also remember my parents’ amusement at my comment upon viewing the moment when Bond, fresh from the shower with a towel around his waist, finds Tatiana Romanova in his bedroom, sits down on the bed, and starts his seduction. My comment? “Wouldn’t he be embarrassed if his towel fell off.” Hey, I was pretty young, so I didn’t quite get the sexual overtones of Bond. I think that my parents were both amused and comforted by my naivety. Anyway, “Octopussy” was available, and we rented it. I was mesmerized from the first moments of the film. Roger Moore became the Bond of my childhood the moment he flew out of Cuba using the tiny jet in the pre-credit sequence. The next time we went to the video store, Dad let me rent the max number of Bond films. I devoured them over the next few days. My favorite Bond when I was a youngster was Roger Moore; I think that a lot of this had to do with the foppishness of his performance. As a kid, you never want to fell as if the hero is really in any danger, and I never felt that Moore was ever in any danger.
Time went on. As I reached my teen-aged years, Moore gave way to Dalton, and my appreciation for the performances of Dalton and Connery grew. My appreciation was born both out of a more mature appreciation for how the character was portrayed (with me wanting more realism from my action heroes) and out of my appreciation for Ian Fleming's original James Bond novels. Connery came closest to Fleming’s description of Bond, and and I later learned that Fleming, impressed with Connery’s portrayal of his creation, introduced a Scottish background into Bond’s backstory during the writing of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," which coincided with the filming of "Goldfinger". Dalton took his cue from the Fleming novels, but subpar screenplays and having the role of the follow-up to the popular Moore (not to mention a long drawn-out lawsuit concerning the character of Bond), proved to be Dalton’s undoing. I always felt that Dalton received short shrift for his portrayal, and it is not deserved. He did the Fleming Bond proud. Between the last Dalton film, 1989’s “License to Kill” and 1995, there were no Bond films as the lawsuit was litigated.
In 1995, however, Pierce Brosnan was given the role and was superb in the film “Goldeneye.” Brosnan proved to be a worthy successor to the Bond mantle, and the story also gave the audience an all too rare glimpse into the psyche of Bond. There were not a lot of gadgets in the film, and Brosnan gave a subtly nuanced performance as Bond, finding middle ground between the intensity of Dalton and the foppishness of Moore. Still, I never thought that Brosnan could compare to Connery from the first 3 Bond films. Sadly, the quality of the films deteriorated rapidly shortly after that (a remote control BMW in “Tomorrow Never Dies,” Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist in “The World is Not Enough,” and an INVISIBLE CAR and a diamond-satellite refuge from “Diamond are Forever” in “Die Another Day”). The future looked bleak. Brosnan was starting to look a little too old for the role (a role that was originally offered to him in 1986 before NBC screwed that up). The screenplays by Purvis and Wade were ludicrous, and I started to wonder about the viability of the franchise. I found myself reading the books, and I wondered why the filmmakers couldn’t just make a straight translation of Fleming’s novels. The thing that every single Bond film has missed was Fleming’s character. The movie Bond (with the noted exceptions of Dalton, Connery’s first 3 films, and George Lazenby’s single film portrayal in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”) all missed the boat when it came to understanding the character of Bond. Bond is an assassin, a cold, calculating, cruel weapon of the MI6.
Word then started coming about a NEW Bond. This Bond would be Daniel Craig, Paul Newman’s weak son in “The Road to Perdition.” I was a bit nervous about this until I saw his performance in Steven Spielberg’s “Munich”; his performance in that film convinced me that Craig might be a good Bond, but I was skeptical as to whether the producers would actually take advantage of Craig’s talent by providing a good screenplay. When the trailers for the new film started to play, I started getting more excited. This was a different kind of Bond, one who seemed to have sprung from the pages of Fleming’s novel. “Casino Royale” opened yesterday. I saw it today.
Wow.
The origin of Bond proved to be every bit as satisfying as that of Batman in “Batman Begins.” The screenwriters (the much maligned Purvis and Wade, with an assist from "Crash" writer/director Paul Haggis) crafted an excellent story, using Fleming’s novel as the template and FAITHFULLY ADAPTING it, changing some minor aspects that had to be changed due to the post-Cold War world we live in. We see the 2 kills that made Bond 007 (2 kills, 2 “0s”, hence 00…and this is straight from Fleming's 1952 novel). Daniel Craig IS James Bond to the point who…dare I say it…not only challenges Connery’s portrayal but actually SURPASSED it in many ways. The plotline is timely and not far fetched, the stunts were not ridiculous, and there were no gadgets. The wonderful thing is that we get to see what made Bond BOND. I cannot recommend this film enough. Halfway through the film, I reflected on what a good film it was, not just what a good “James Bond” film it was. Several things made me smile…retaining Rene Mathis and Felix Leiter as characters from the novel, the creation (lifted straight from Fleming’s novel) of the James Bond martini, the total lack of slapstick and ridiculous science, the acting of Daniel Craig, the soundtrack (both Chris Cornell's throwback of an opening song, AND the string-heavy instrumental soundtrack that was a throwback to the great Bond soundtracks of the 1960s), and the overall “feel” of the film. This film felt like a classic 1960s Bond film sans rocket packs and bulletproof cars. Much of the dialogue was lifted straight from the novel, and I was pleased. This is a great film. I cannot recommend it enough. I was also impressed with the pacing. In most action films, the character scenes are too often viewed as filler for the action sequences, but the scenes had true import in this movie. In the end, when Bond (excuse me, Daniel Craig) delivers the famous introduction, I was smiling. When the original arrangement of Monty Norman’s James Bond theme played over the final credits, I was smiling even more broadly. Even the theme was as it was in the early Connery films. This was a great Bond film. This was a great spy movie. This is one of my favorite films of the year. Wow. Congratulations, Daniel Craig. May the producers continue to provide good screenplays for you to use, and may we continue to see you as Bond for years to come.
For those of you interested in watching the films in chronological order:
1) Dr. No
2) From Russia, With Love
3) Goldfinger
4) Thunderball
5) You Only Live Twice
6) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
7) Diamonds Are Forever
8) Live and Let Die
9) The Man With the Golden Gun
10) The Spy Who Loved Me
11) Moonraker
12) For Your Eyes Only
13) Octopussy
14) A View to a Kill
15) The Living Daylights
16) License to Kill
17) Goldeneye
18) Tomorrow Never Dies
19) The World is Not Enough
20) Die Another Day
21) Casino Royale
22) Quantum of Solace (to be released on 11/14/08 in the United States)
Note..I realize that there was an earlier version of Casino Royale, and I know that Connery was in the Thunderball remake, Never Say Never Again, but the only authentic Bond films (in my opinion) are the ones from Eon Productions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
My dad foolishly bought a Betamax which frustrated moving renting for a few years until he gave in and purchased a VCR.
Pierce Brosnan's hair is never out of place in the movies. It doesn't matter how huge the explosion or how intensely the wind is whipping past- his hair is always perfect. This bothers me, James Bond should not use that much hair product. NO ONE should use that much hair product. Connery is my favorite Bond. I think I have inherited this from my father. I think he just likes that Bond is a Scot (my dad's side of the family is part Scottish). But most importantly, Sean Connery is still a badass as an old man. It is very fitting.
Post a Comment