Massawyrm Shows His Hand In CASINO ROYALE!!

Hola all. Massawyrm here. Bond is back, baby. Boy howdy is he back. And he’s going to be the most divisive Bond ever. When they set out to reinvent the series and went back to the well of the original text, man oh man did they go back. This isn’t the James Bond you’ve come to love over the years – rather, it’s the James Bond from the printed page. The “…anonymous blunt instrument wielded by a Government Department” that Ian Fleming both described and wrote about. And Daniel Craig and Martin Cambell do one hell of a job breathing new life into a long dying franchise. Let’s face it. While I love Bond, even the most ardent fans have to admit the shortcomings of the franchise. After 20 official feature films, countless parodies and skits, dozens of non-Fleming penned novels and 5 other guys playing the role…it’s gotten a bit stale and something of a self-parody machine. They ran out of adaptable material two bonds ago, and they simply began to spin the “Wheel of Bond Plots” as each film seemed to get more and more ridiculous. Even though Die Another Day was fun, you have to shrug at the bizarre plot involving the North Koreans trying to harness the power of the sun. It’s just gotten kind of silly. Hell, even the sequence with the new Q made fun of the goofy gadgets in the series. It’s safe to say that Bond, as we all knew him, was pretty much done. And it’s often been tossed around here at AICN, when the topic of Bond has come up, about how one might going about reinventing him. Harry has often mused that it should become a director showcase, with each film bringing a different visionary director in to take the helm for a single film. After all, what would Tarantino’s Bond, Rodriguez’s Bond, John Woo’s Bond or even Tony Scott’s Bond…be like? What kind of adventure would they send him on? Myself, I’ve always wondered what it would have been like if each new Bond wasn’t actually James Bond, but simply the new 007. At least then they could give each actor some room to make the charcter their own without offending those that were really attached to the old ones. Kind of like how Dr. Who has always handled the Regenerations. But no matter your opinion on how it should be handled, most everyone can agree on one thing. Bond has gotten a bit weak and needs some new blood. The question is, will this new iteration of Bond get your blood pumping for some new Bond adventures or will it upset you that they depart so much from the long established formula? Both points of view or going to be vaild and both are very much going to exist. Because this IS NOT the James Bond you grew up with on screen. Not one bit of it. First of all, this Bond is never played for laughs. He’s quite serious. He’s not a one liner, pun spitting smart ass. Instead he’s a hard core bad ass. The kind of guy the British government would go to to kill someone quickly and efficiently if they needed to. As you’ve seen Bond say in the trailer “You want someone who is part hitman, part monk,” only he hasn’t quite gotten the monk part down. No, this isn’t the Bond you grew up with. This is the Bond from the original novel. He’s not bitter yet, he’s not comfortable with his job. And he’s not weighed down by dozens of miniturized gadgets. That’s right. There isn’t a single scene with Q, he’s got no special watch, his car doesn’t fire rockets or spray water or leave oil slicks on the road. He’s got a really cool cell phone and a car with a hidden compartment and that’s about it. You won’t see a surprise parchute nor a special device that seems to only have a single purpose that Bond just happens to find useful. Nothing of the kind. Now do you see what I’m getting at? Already a whole mess of you are saying “Wait just one cotton picking minute there, Wyrm. Are you saying this is a James Bond movie without gadgets? That’s not a James Bond movie! Next thing you’ll be telling me is that there aren’t any characters with silly names.” Well, about that. There are no silly names. “Oh fucking hell! What kind of Bond movie is this?” An incredibly badass one. And one that sticks enough to formula, and sticks especially close to the original novel, that it still hits all the right marks. Long known for its amazing opening sequences, Casino Royale is no different. It opens with a black and white sequence introducing us to our new Bond on an early assignment. It’s slick, gorgeous and to the point. It is a few moments of sheer, noir cool that sets the tone brilliantly for what is to come. What follows is a classic spy tale, one that takes full advantage of everything you know about Bond. When it’s not busy ignoring some of the clichés of the last 20 films, it gets busy using the remaining ones to its full advantage. There are plenty of inventive fight scenes, beautiful Bond girls, Bond’s trademark use of surrounding environments to incompacitate foes, sweet rides, tuxedos, malevolent villains, and arrogence…a whole lot of arrogence. No, there’s enough classic Bond here to satiate your desire for it, but enough that feels fresh and updated to make you fall in love with Bond all over again. But that doesn’t by any means mean that everyone will be happy. Anyone in love with the campy goodness that is the bulk of the previous Bond films (particularly everything with and post-Roger Moore) is going to find this film nearly humorless and devoid of some of their favorite elements. And that’s the biggest hurdle this film has to overcome with the audience. Are you ready to buy into a serious Bond, a bond that feels closer to the bastard child of Jason Bourne and Sean Connery’s Bond than it feels like any other portrayal? I sure was. I absolutely adored this film. It was gritty, raw and the exact kind of slick cool that I want out of a James Bond movie. The tweaks they made to the story (like changing Bakarat to Texas Hold ‘em and changing the modus operondi of Le Chiffre) worked for me. Because there was enough Bond and an adherence to the Novel I so loved in my youth to remind me that this was, in fact, a Bond film. (For fans of the book, it even includes his infamous, bitter final line.) Daniel Craig is an amazing Bond. His take on the character is a breath of fresh air, focusing more on Bond’s trademark arrogence without ever seeming either sleazy or cheesy. And he’s one tough son of a bitch. This is a very different Daniel Craig than we’ve seen recently. He’s played tough before, but he’s never gotten so physical. It’s like the first time you saw The Transporter or The Bourne Identity and said “Holy shit! He can fight too?!?” Yes, he can. And Mads Mikkelsen gives a career making performance as one of the best Bond villains ever brought to life on the screen. He’s creepy, unnerving and possesses a quiet menace that truly makes him a worthy opponant for Bond. And, get this, he’s actually got very real motivations. He’s not some rich guy sitting behind a desk ordering goons to kill Bond while he tries to hold the world hostage. He’s actually the guy in the thick of it, sitting right there across the card table from Bond with as much at stake in the game as Bond has. But as much as I dug this, it’s not without its flaws. One complaint I heard (apart from the general lack of humor) was that there was entirely too much card playing in the movie. And while I am quick to point out that, well, that’s kind of what Casino Royale was fucking all about, I have to admit that some will get fidgety watching these guys try to read one another over the cards. And the film has a strange pacing, that while adhering to the book, steps outside of the classic three-act structure. I mean, it has an entire fourth act. The movie seems done…except that it isn’t. There’s this whole 10 minute lovey-dovey sequence followed by another pair of action sequences that will leave some people wondering when this thing is gonna get around to ending. Especially since it comes in at about two-and-a-half hours. But for my money, the payoff of the final scene of the film is so unrepentantly kickass, that I forgive, and ultimately came to like the slowdown. And of course there’s that lame ass Chris Cornell Bond song – yet another studio attempt to try and grasp at some of the old crossover hit greats like Live and Let Die, Nobody Does it Better and A View to a Kill. But two points to make about that. One: it’s not nearly as bad as Madonna’s turn at the theme song, simply forgettable – and Two: the intro animation to the film is so unique and so individually badass that it is entirely possible (I know this from experience) to completely tune out the song and simply get wrapped up in the credit sequence. Now that credit sequence screams old school Bond so bad it hurts, and coupled with the killer opening, really gets you pumped and primed for what is to follow. Ultimately, I really dug the hell out of Casino Royale and for anyone who enjoys Bond, but really is open to a toughened up retooling – this comes Recommended. Taken as a reboot, it’s one hell of a start, and if Craig can keep up this level of intensity for a few more films, he’ll easily be remembered as one of the best of the Bond’s, if not simply Bond to an entire new generation. But it can’t in any way be taken as a continuation of the series, unless you consider it a prequel. And if you’re an old school Bond nut that quotes chapter and verse and feels that an utter lack of Q, gadgets or smirked one liners is a betrayal of the franchise, and would prefer your Royale…with cheese…you’re probably going to be quite let down by Bond 21. Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em. Massawyrm Okay, I really must apologize for any pain inflicted by that final pun. It was wrong and I’m sorry. Truly. I know now that I will forever burn in the fires of Gene Shalit hell. E-mail your pained reactions here.