Showing posts with label James Bond. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Bond. Show all posts

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Shock new James Bond!!

In a break with tradition, and in advance of the Pan's Labyrinth review, PCMR has felt compelled to make a posting without even a hint of a movie review... the reason for this? Well, who would have thought it, but it appears Daniel Craig has been replaced as James Bond... you have to say though, his replacement looks more than capable...



Kudos to the folks at Obsessed With Film for finding this little gem.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Casino Royale (2006)

Even as event movies go, James Bond is one of those rare beasts: a franchise that seems to transcend audiences, appealing to many different types of cinema-goer. The old cliche of 'men wanting to be him and women wanting to be with him' is probably the easiest mental shortcut to make when thinking of double o'seven's appeal to a global audience. But Bond has been rather in the doldrums of late, even if the box office hasn't reflected the dip in quality of the franchise since 'Tomorrow Never Dies'.

And so with the event of this new Bond movie comes the added audience giddiness provided by a new James Bond. There can hardly be many ways of mainlining yourself more rapidly into the global cultural mainstream than by reprising the role of Mr. Bond. You know all their names, I'm sure, even if the names of other Timothy Dalton or George Lazenby movies don't spring to mind all that readily...

If you have read some of my other reviews on this site, you'll know I was happy with Daniel Craig's appointment as Bond after seeing Munich. However, I hadn't been interested in the Bond franchise at all since that one with Teri Hatcher.. even Halle Berry's presence just seemed to make Pierce Brosnan descend into hammy double entendre, and when Madonna was given a guest starring role in Die Another Day, well.. let's call it a bit of a low point for double o'seven.

I'm happy to say that this Bond is definitely different from Pierce Brosnan's outings. Paul Haggis - who also wrote the po-faced 'Crash' - was drafted into the writing team on Casino Royale, and the result of his influence is a script full of character, nuance and intelligence. Whether this is what the Bond faithful really want is another thing, but there is also plenty of crash bang wallop for the entry fee. Two memorable action set-pieces book-end the movie, and both are really high-octane episodes, and memorable for their originality. However, between these set pieces, there's.. well, Bond's budding relationship with Versper Lynd is developed, and after many flirty sparring sessions of wordsmithery between the two, we learn much about both. And this is what makes this Bond so different. Rather than presuming we know Bond, we are actually introduced to him in Casino Royale. Daniel Craig screams in pain in Casino Royale. He falls in love, he bleeds, he sweats and yes, he almost cries near the end... Sean Connery wouldn't have been caught bloody dead in this one, I can tell you!

There's a high-stakes poker game involved as the centrepiece of Casino Royale, and plenty of assorted unpleasantness for Bond to deal with in between hands while he tries to outwit the deeply unwholesome 'Le Chiffre', played with cold repulsiveness by Mads Mikkelsen.

The ambition appears to be to make Bond more real, someone audiences can relate to, and in my opinion, Daniel Craig's performance is strong enough to achieve this. His intimate moments with Vesper are as watchable as his assorted action sequences, where he regularly gets bruised and battered, but overall he should remove all doubt that he is a more than capable Bond.

The gadgets are numerous and integrate well with the story, even if there is no 'Q'.. or 'R'. (Still not sure about that whole John Cleese episode either..) And the cars, well they gradually improve throughout the flick, and by the end, Bond is driving a rather nice Aston Martin DB9 which will provide a pleasant distraction for all the blokes in the audience while some of the boring chick flick bits are going on!

More importantly than simply being a good movie in its own right though, Casino Royale has, for me, re-invented the Bond franchise. As Casino Royale ends, we're left with little doubt that Daniel Craig's Bond is meaner than the one we met at the start of the picture, and you get the impression that next time round, we'll have a very different movie as a result. Roll on Bond 22 but if the Bond producers are reading, dudes, you gotta make it shorter! Two and a half hours of any Bond is too much... unless it's Thunderball, then it's ok! Oh, and if you're still listening, Quentin Tarantino's available to direct...

Verdict: Bond, but not as you know it.. a solid reboot for a previously tired franchise.
Rating: 7/10

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Casino Royale (1967)

Now this really is a funny egg. I was curious to see what a 1960's comedy version of James Bond could offer, and to be honest, after watching it, I'm really not sure... inspiration to Mike Myers perhaps? If you're looking for either a good James Bond movie, or a good comedy though, I'd have to say you're not likely to find either in this version of Casino Royale.


The 1967 version features David Niven as a prissy aristocratic Bond caricature, a really very large Orson Welles as the original 'le Chiffre', and Peter Sellers as one of a number of Bond impersonators... Woody Allen even turns up as Jimmy Bond, James's american nephew, and John Huston plays a Scottish M, replete with novelty comedy accent dyed ginger hair, and a surname of McTarry... at this point, Ricky Gervais might claim someone was having a laugh.


But that's kind of the point with this one. It looks like the film-makers really enjoyed themselves making this. David Niven is a class act, and he does well with the odd version of Bond that the numerous scriptwriters and no less than five directors concocted in this truly bizarre Bond parody. Casino Royale starts as a farce, and eventually degenerates into a python-esque slapstick finale that resembles a cross between Blazing Saddles and Austin Powers. This finale sequence goes over the top and then further again, I'm not sure if it was the red indian dance sequence of the monkey in the wig blowing bubbles that pushed it over the edge into the surreal for me...

The spirit of this movie is warm-hearted, and there is a lot of budget on display on screen. And it must be said, it has its moments.. Nicholas Roeg, of 'Don't Look Now' notoriety, cut his teeth as a filmographer on this one, and I'm not sure which scenes bear his hallmarks, but the scene where Niven's Bond is introduced to his daughter is a viaually stunning dance sequence that even briefly evoked memories of 'House of Flying Daggers'. In addition, there are certain sequences in Doctor Noah's lair where the cast are subjected to a sequence of rooms resembling optical illusions, and these are very nicely done. Also, Orson Welles! Well, he's his usual charismatic self here, but a little too larger than life unfortunately. He was already deep into Marlon Brando territory as far as his size by the time this movie was made. Even still, his card game with Peter Sellers in the Casino of the title is quite a good sequence.

Unfortunately, despite the warm heart of this movie, it's really quite confusing in parts, possibly due to the large number of directors involved (five in total). I'm currently in college, working quite a lot on group projects, and this movie smacks of a collaborative effort that was broken into pieces at the outset, and then hastily assembled together in an attempt to derive a narrative thread... to be honest, the plot is largely irrelevant to this movie. It's a spoof, and is probably in the same genre as Airplane, Blazing Saddles or Austin Powers, all of which are far better than this.

The problem is, despite cameos from Peter O'Toole and Jean-Paul Belmondo, even Peter Sellers, Ursula Andress and Orson Welles can't save this. There simply arent enough jokes, the soundtrack is camp and annoying (Burt Bacharach, who also did the Austin Powers soundtrack) and the plot just doesn't make sense. Honestly, unless you're a Bond completionist (I'm shifting embarassingly in my seat as I type this..) or someone who watches a lot of movies and has time to kill (ahem..) you won't get much from the 1967 version of Casino Royale.


The verdict: a curiosity, nothing more. Movie buffs may enjoy, most people wont.
The rating: 5/10

/** Amazon Affiliates code /** Google Analytics Code