Nov. 30, 2006

‘Casino Royale’ lacks the usual Bond gusto

Jeremy Kopp
koppj@marietta.edu

Remember that first time Agent Pussy Galore introduced herself in ‘Goldfinger?’ I do, and it was then and there that I fell in love with the Bond series: the gorgeous women, the outrageous stunts, the corny one-liners…they were so much fun.

But forty-plus years later, Bond has suddenly become a…person; someone who's capable of falling in love, who experiences other real emotions like fear and vulnerability, who gets bruised and bloodied when knocked around. ‘Casino Royale’ makes for a dark and dreary movie-going experience, and who goes to the Bond movies for that?

The opening sequence introduces Bond early in his time as a secret service agent; we witness the two kills that merits his double-O status as the film cuts from a tense conversation between Bond and a bad guy to Bond beating the hell out of another bad guy in what looks to be the bathroom from `Saw.' As Bond and Bad Guy #1 exchange repartee, I smiled as I recognized “classic Bond;” suave, witty, and as always, in control (Bond makes the kill shortly after his opponent realizes Bond had emptied the cartridge of his pistol). But I frowned at the Bond we've never seen, brutal and unforgiving in his execution of Bad Guy #2. I just wasn't having fun anymore.

Granted, I appreciated the fact that ‘Royale’ doesn't involve some nutty villain bent on world domination, but rather a high-stakes poker game that will fund terrorism if Bond fails to play his cards right. In fact, most of the film's suspense and intrigue derives from a battle of the psyche, as Bond matches his card-playing skills with the evil numbers-genius Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen).

But the shootouts and explosions and chase scenes are still there, too; the early segment where Bond is in pursuit of an assassin through a construction yard as each demonstrate unnatural acrobatic ability made for one of the more thrilling scenes shot in a Bond film in some while.

The problem is, Bond never seems to be having any fun. The $64,000 question: is Daniel Craig a good Bond? He's certainly more Connery than Moore, and that's a good thing. But even Connery wore a smug, cocky grin that suggested he was enjoying himself. Why doesn't Craig smile? I'm not blaming Craig, only the material.

What happened to the Bond who would love ‘em and leave ‘em? Why is he falling in love with the treasury agent, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), only to be left miserable in the end? Where is flirty banter between Bond and the charming secretary Moneypenny and the always-hilarious exchanges between Bond and the gadget-expert Q, both of whom are MIA this time around? Where are those stupid gadgets and incompetent foot soldiers Bond could drop by the dozens without blinking and then dismiss with a corny quip?

Really, Craig's Bond is more Matt Damon of the Bourne movies, and if I wanted Jason Bourne, I could have rented the DVDs. This isn't a bad movie by any means; it just doesn't feel like a Bond movie. When Bond is asked how he wants his martini served and replies, “I don't give a damn,” he should have kept in mind that some of his long-time fans do.