The 6th Bond book, Dr. No was the first time Ian Flemming's signature character was presented to the big screen.
This is actually one instance where I like the movie more than the book. The plot of the two is very similar: James Bond is called to Jamaica to resolve the disapperance of Strangeways, an undercover MI6 operative.
Dr. No is missing most of what would later be signature tropes of the Bond franchise: no special spy gadgets and no daring car chases. Sure, Dr. Julius No has a nuclear reactor, a flamethrower tank, and mechanical hands; but Bond does not have these himself.
No himself is a classic example of the supervillain. He has a tragic backstory, a brilliant mind, and a God-complex. Like a good classical villain, there is something about him that is horribly wrong. Often with this sort of character it is a normally virtuous trait turned extreme. For No, his attention to the most minute detail is a defining characteristic, and especially since it is turned to evil pursuits. Dr. No's evil is reflected in the physical too, with his mechanical hands.
The main differences between the novel and movie are in the complexity of the plot. This is pretty normal for adaptations. Also, there is a lot about "Chigros" (Chinese-Negros in Jamaica) in the novel, which isn't really dealt with in the movie. One good thing left out of the movie is the "Death Gauntlet" scene from the novel. In this, Dr. No places Bond through a rigorous test to determine his problem solving capacity and his pain threshold. Pretty stupid sequence, if you ask me.
All in all, a solid movie. A good start to a powerful franchise, and it is understandable how this could have spawned a generation of movies.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Casino Royale (2006) -- Bond 21
Based on the original tale of 007, the newest James Bond movie explains why the character became iconic of not only the spy genre, but also one of the keystone literary figures of the 20th century.
Written in 1952, in the early years of the Cold War, the book Casino Royale does not hold the same cultural relevance with contemporary audiences that it did with the paranoid, Red-fearing people of the day. That is where the new movie excels. The plot and thematic elements of the original story are kept in tact, while updating the context from a standoff between the Superpowers to the War on Terror, the Cold War of the 21st century.
Casino Royale is easily the best Bond movie to date. It captures the grit, realism, and daring of the original story and the original character. I read a recent review of the movie that said Casino Royale does not deliver what fans of the series love, the cheesy, over-the-top gadgets and suave demeanor of later day Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan. The trick is that James Bond's initial popularity was not found in these traits at all. The 007 of the first few books is more bastard than debonair, more likely to choke a man to death in a bathroom sink than spare time for a pithy one-liner. He had gadgets, but they were not the focus of the mission; they were aids and nothing more. This is the James Bond that has been revived in the current movie.
Casino Royale has reset the series. We are no longer assuming that there have been successive James Bonds. Sean Connery and Roger Moore no longer exist in this universe, although I'm sure we are to assume that there have been other 007s. We are looking at the first James Bond, a "blunt instrument" of the 21st century rather than one whose balance was tested against the Nazis in WWII and who fought the Communists in the novels. Fresh slate, dark and brooding.
The plot of the movie closely mirrors the novel. Some of the details have been changed, but only the window dressing; the intent remains the same. Essentially replace Russians with terrorists and you have the differences between the villains.
Synopsis: Bond goes after a financier of terrorists, a mathematical prodigy known as Le Chiffre, who has a penchant for gambling. Le Chiffre has also lost money that does not belong to him, so he stages a high-stakes poker game at Casino Royale to win the millions of dollars he needs back. MI6 sends Bond (with a freshly minted "00" number) to infiltrate the poker game and foil Le Chiffre's plans so that the villain is forced to go to the Brits for protection against the people whose money Le Chiffre has gambled with. With a little help from the CIA (who for once don't look like fools), Bond succeeds in his mission, invents a cocktail (the Vesper martini: 3 oz gin, 1 oz vodka, 1/2 oz Lillet Blanc wine, shaken in a cocktail shaker half-filled with ice. Strain into a cocktail glass (chilled) and add a twist of lemon), is captured by Le Chiffre and tortured in a gruesome, demasculinizing way, is rescued by an unknown agent, falls in love during recovery with the beautiful Vesper Lyd, is betrayed by Vesper to the unknown organization, and watches her die.
The book is different in only the identity of the unknown agent and his organization. In the book it was SMERSH (Russian counter-espianoge force that specialized in killing double-agents and turncoats, the acronym stands for "Smert Shpionam" or "Death to Spies" and actually existed--and according to current events still appears to be around!). In the movies, all references to SMERSH were changed to SPECTRE, although in the novels these were seperate organizations. The current Casino Royale does not name the identity of the secret organization that Vesper worked for, but if this is truly a restart to the series as it seems to be, I am guessing that SPECTRE is rising again as well. SMERSH is somewhat old fashioned for today's political climate, even if it is still exercising its mission statement. But SPECTRE, a criminal orginization of global proporations run by Bond's ultimate nemesis Ernst Stavro Blofeld (the character that was the inspiration for the parody Dr. Evil in the Austin Powers movies), would be ideal. I eagerly await the next installment, codenamed Bond 22 (for the number it would be in the line-up of official films) which is already under production.
Style and Filmography: Casino Royale has great action shots, a deliciously twisted plot where the villain is not the real villain, and a femme fatale that has a more subtle and sophisticated flavor than the typical cheesecake most Bond girls have. Don't get me wrong, I love all the Bond movies and their crazy cheeseball moments. But this movie provides something that is missing from all the others: credability. If that seems out of place for a Bond movie, think again: remember that Ian Flemming was a spy before he was a writer of spy stories. The oddest thing about his novels were not the crazy stunts or the plots within plots; it was the degree of money involved. Most people sell out their country for a few thousand dollars.
In terms of filming, the movie is beautiful. Daniel Craig has the right amount of charm in a tailored suit to look the part of the gentleman spy, and the precise quantity of ass-kicking necessary to make his role of assassin for the crown believable. They even get some great shots of the characteristic Bond martini (which was invented in the first novel in nearly the same way as it is in the movie), and it looks gorgeous with the lemon twist. The fight and stunt scenes are amazing. Craig makes Bond look competant without making him the star of every stunt. The chase and subsequent fight with Mallaka at the beginning of the movie show just how bad-ass 007 is without making him perfect. Mallaka's special thing is his agility, and while Bond can keep up, it isn't Bond's trademark to be an acrobat. The final scene at the embassy is great too, showing that when pushed, Bond is willing to push back and create a way out even if it isn't precisely the one he was hoping for. Improvisation over perfection. I like it.
Written in 1952, in the early years of the Cold War, the book Casino Royale does not hold the same cultural relevance with contemporary audiences that it did with the paranoid, Red-fearing people of the day. That is where the new movie excels. The plot and thematic elements of the original story are kept in tact, while updating the context from a standoff between the Superpowers to the War on Terror, the Cold War of the 21st century.
Casino Royale is easily the best Bond movie to date. It captures the grit, realism, and daring of the original story and the original character. I read a recent review of the movie that said Casino Royale does not deliver what fans of the series love, the cheesy, over-the-top gadgets and suave demeanor of later day Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan. The trick is that James Bond's initial popularity was not found in these traits at all. The 007 of the first few books is more bastard than debonair, more likely to choke a man to death in a bathroom sink than spare time for a pithy one-liner. He had gadgets, but they were not the focus of the mission; they were aids and nothing more. This is the James Bond that has been revived in the current movie.
Casino Royale has reset the series. We are no longer assuming that there have been successive James Bonds. Sean Connery and Roger Moore no longer exist in this universe, although I'm sure we are to assume that there have been other 007s. We are looking at the first James Bond, a "blunt instrument" of the 21st century rather than one whose balance was tested against the Nazis in WWII and who fought the Communists in the novels. Fresh slate, dark and brooding.
The plot of the movie closely mirrors the novel. Some of the details have been changed, but only the window dressing; the intent remains the same. Essentially replace Russians with terrorists and you have the differences between the villains.
Synopsis: Bond goes after a financier of terrorists, a mathematical prodigy known as Le Chiffre, who has a penchant for gambling. Le Chiffre has also lost money that does not belong to him, so he stages a high-stakes poker game at Casino Royale to win the millions of dollars he needs back. MI6 sends Bond (with a freshly minted "00" number) to infiltrate the poker game and foil Le Chiffre's plans so that the villain is forced to go to the Brits for protection against the people whose money Le Chiffre has gambled with. With a little help from the CIA (who for once don't look like fools), Bond succeeds in his mission, invents a cocktail (the Vesper martini: 3 oz gin, 1 oz vodka, 1/2 oz Lillet Blanc wine, shaken in a cocktail shaker half-filled with ice. Strain into a cocktail glass (chilled) and add a twist of lemon), is captured by Le Chiffre and tortured in a gruesome, demasculinizing way, is rescued by an unknown agent, falls in love during recovery with the beautiful Vesper Lyd, is betrayed by Vesper to the unknown organization, and watches her die.
The book is different in only the identity of the unknown agent and his organization. In the book it was SMERSH (Russian counter-espianoge force that specialized in killing double-agents and turncoats, the acronym stands for "Smert Shpionam" or "Death to Spies" and actually existed--and according to current events still appears to be around!). In the movies, all references to SMERSH were changed to SPECTRE, although in the novels these were seperate organizations. The current Casino Royale does not name the identity of the secret organization that Vesper worked for, but if this is truly a restart to the series as it seems to be, I am guessing that SPECTRE is rising again as well. SMERSH is somewhat old fashioned for today's political climate, even if it is still exercising its mission statement. But SPECTRE, a criminal orginization of global proporations run by Bond's ultimate nemesis Ernst Stavro Blofeld (the character that was the inspiration for the parody Dr. Evil in the Austin Powers movies), would be ideal. I eagerly await the next installment, codenamed Bond 22 (for the number it would be in the line-up of official films) which is already under production.
Style and Filmography: Casino Royale has great action shots, a deliciously twisted plot where the villain is not the real villain, and a femme fatale that has a more subtle and sophisticated flavor than the typical cheesecake most Bond girls have. Don't get me wrong, I love all the Bond movies and their crazy cheeseball moments. But this movie provides something that is missing from all the others: credability. If that seems out of place for a Bond movie, think again: remember that Ian Flemming was a spy before he was a writer of spy stories. The oddest thing about his novels were not the crazy stunts or the plots within plots; it was the degree of money involved. Most people sell out their country for a few thousand dollars.
In terms of filming, the movie is beautiful. Daniel Craig has the right amount of charm in a tailored suit to look the part of the gentleman spy, and the precise quantity of ass-kicking necessary to make his role of assassin for the crown believable. They even get some great shots of the characteristic Bond martini (which was invented in the first novel in nearly the same way as it is in the movie), and it looks gorgeous with the lemon twist. The fight and stunt scenes are amazing. Craig makes Bond look competant without making him the star of every stunt. The chase and subsequent fight with Mallaka at the beginning of the movie show just how bad-ass 007 is without making him perfect. Mallaka's special thing is his agility, and while Bond can keep up, it isn't Bond's trademark to be an acrobat. The final scene at the embassy is great too, showing that when pushed, Bond is willing to push back and create a way out even if it isn't precisely the one he was hoping for. Improvisation over perfection. I like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
