Thinktrain has moved! Redirecting…


You should be automatically redirected. If not, visit http://thinktrain.net/ and update your bookmarks.


Showing posts with label 007. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 007. Show all posts

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Casino Royale reviewed

I'm going to risk overhyping Casino Royale in sharing my thoughts now that I've seen it. I went in with high expectations based on the great reviews I'd seen, and those expectations were exceeded. That is a rare event for me when seeing a much anticipated movie.

Royale is an exceptional and spectacular film, and it is easily one of the best Bond movies ever made. I'm going to allow some time to pass before I reflect on exactly where it stands against the previous films, mainly because I suspect it may be better than all of them.

This is a beautiful and brutal movie. The cinematography is elegant, the action sequences are extraordinarily well produced and the dialogue and character interactions are refreshing and vivid. Even as a longtime Bond fan, I will confess that these are attributes that have been missing from the series for a long, long time. If I knocked anything about Royale, it would be that it opens a little clumsily up until the end of the title sequence. It is top notch the rest of the way.

Once you see the movie, I think you will know what I mean when I say that comparing Daniel Craig to anyone except Sean Connery would be comparing apples to oranges. He brings elements to the character and person of Bond that have never been on screen before. Especially during the first hour of the film, he is a physical force and a man possessed. I was stunned by how he moves and by how consumed he appears with succeeding in his mission. Never does Craig seem along for the ride from one one liner (or sexual conquest) to the next: He is immersed, toe to scalp, in being a young, arrogant and powerful secret agent. It works. Boy, does it work. Craig has quickly made the character of Bond his own in a way that no one other than Connery has, and he may well surpass even Connery if given the time, the films and the solid writing needed to do so.

If you are willing to see some minor spoilers, keep reading. If not, stop here.

The last several Bond films have seemed to me to be insistent on contributing signature elements and trademarks to add to the canon of 007 excitement. They have largely failed, and those attempts have come off as mere tribute and even parody, at times, of the earlier movies.

This is not the case with Royale. The torture scene that has generated a lot of discussion prior to the film's release is original, creative and realistic, and it is intense in a way that Bond films rarely are. It is a modern answer to the laser aimed at Connery's crotch in Goldfinger, but it isn't derivative. It may even become more iconic with time. I found myself wincing and entralled simultaneously in watching it.

Also akin to Goldfinger is a brief chase scene midway through the film. While it echoes the manner in which Connery wrecks his Aston Martin by being decieved by one of Goldfinger's clever traps (a mirror that reflects his own vehicle's headlights), leaving the lovely and strong-willed Eva Green strapped to the asphalt in the middle of the night for Craig to nearly run over is a stroke of creative brillance. I never saw that coming, and I felt myself gasp when it happened. Royale is full of these kinds of new thrills, not with poor imitations of earlier movies.

Not long after Craig signed on as Bond, I began wondering if the Bond series was nearing its end. Die Another Day was a loud and overdone movie, in my opinion, and the move to hire Craig and reboot the franchise smacked of desperation to me. No longer. I left the theatre last night feeling like the story of Bond is nowhere near a conclusion, but only beginning. I cannot wait to see where the series heads next, because it will clearly be fresh and uncharted territory.

Friday, November 17, 2006

Glowing reviews for Casino Royale

The reviews are flowing in now for Casino Royale, and they are very favorable. Here are a few highlights courtesy of Yahoo! Movies:

  • "The best Bond since Sean Connery."
  • "Eleven years ago director Campbell made GoldenEye, the first of the Brosnan Bond pictures. Casino Royale trumps it every which way."
  • "...Craig, speckled with facial cuts, plays Bond with an almost bruised virility..."
  • "...should help newcomers and older viewers rediscover what made Sean Connery's early Bond movies the best of the series"
  • "Casino Royale doesn¿t play as dirty as the Bourne films, but the whole thing moves far lower to the ground than any of the newer Bond flicks."
  • "There's one whopper of a reason why Casino Royale is the hippest, highest-octane Bond film in ages, and his name is Daniel Craig."
  • "...flat-out one of the best Bonds ever."
This is a better reception than I can recall most Bond films getting, but there's always a danger of hyperbole when it comes to new 007 movies. In my opinion, this is welcome news for a beloved film franchise that had, to say the least, shown its age in recent memory and, at worst, appeared very tired and worn out. Long live 007!

007: Top to Bottom


In honor of the release of Casino Royale, I've compiled my personal ranking of Bond films from best to worst. How does my list compare with yours?

  • From Russia With Love (1963)
  • Goldfinger (1964)
  • Thunderball (1965)
  • For Your Eyes Only (1981)
  • Dr. No (1962)
  • GoldenEye (1995)
  • On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
  • You Only Live Twice (1967)
  • The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)
  • The Living Daylights (1987)
  • Octopussy (1983)
  • The World is Not Enough (1999)
  • Live and Let Die (1973)
  • Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
  • The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)
  • Die Another Day (2002)
  • A View to a Kill (1985)
  • Diamonds Are Forever (1971)
  • Moonraker (1979)
  • Licence to Kill (1989)

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Best Bond Since: Moore?


Will Daniel Craig be a better James Bond than Roger Moore? This is a question that will likely take the passage of some time to answer fully. It isn’t fair to compare the two actors when Craig’s debut film has not even launched yet and Moore has seven contributions to the franchise.

That said, I don’t think the media will be likely to make the “Best Bond Since Moore” claim because Pierce Brosnan has been so widely loved in the role. I do think he may ultimately be a better Bond than Moore, though. Why? He’s young enough and rugged enough to look the part. Moore really wasn’t even with Live and Let Die in 1973, and it didn’t get any better as he grew older. I think Craig has the opportunity to operate in Sean Connery’s determined, sophisticated and clever shoes while still incorporating some of Brosnan’s not-as-goofy-as-Moore-but-still-clever wit.

Will any critics claim that Casino Royale is the Best Bond Since For Your Eyes Only? That’s not likely, even though I would argue that it is Moore’s best film by far, because FYEO is 25 years old at this point. Regardless, it may very well be true. Looking objectively at the series in recent decades, I think the best films, in chronological order, are: FYEO, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough. Octopussy might perhaps merit an honorable mention, but it pales in my mind with the rest of this class. So does Tomorrow Never Dies, even though it is a respectable entry. I fully suspect that Royale will be better, based on what I have seen, than Daylights and TWINE. It is likely to outclass Goldeneye, if you ask me, but that is a taller order.

I would have to say that FYEO and Goldeneye are the highlights of the James Bond film series since 1981. Royale should be safely in good company among those films and possibly even higher. We’ll see very soon.