Daniel Craig? Not Bond, James Bond

[007]

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/17184

Daniel Craig? Not Bond, James Bond

He’s Blond, James Blond. He’s a counter-spy, an impostor, a pretender, a double-agent. The aura doesn’t match that of the real McCoy.

You ask, rhetorically: ‘Who cares whether James Bond was black-haired or blond in Ian Fleming’s mind?’ I, Moviegoer mind. And I mind not only the color of the hair, the color of the cocktail – more so the color of the character.

After the release of the latest Bond film by Sony Pictures, what did all those movie experts say? Their best. But their best isn’t good enough. They all miss the point. James Bond is a sharpshooter; ‘I never miss!’ he says. If he can only read the critics. On Casino Royale (the movie), I have scanned a hundred movie reviews, most of them are in praise of the new Bond – arising from:

(a) a wrong assumption – Most assumed that it was all about revivifying a movie series, which is error in logic.

(b) a forgotten rule of thumb – None said anything about satisfying the customer, which is error in marketing.

I, Moviegoer have something to say about most of those film appraisals I have read and about the movie itself: Eh? Anyway, I got a bang out of browsing those approving works. I’m happy no one hit the bull’s-eye, so I can shoot for my own.

A fair warning: James Cunliffe (19 Nov, mk-news.co.uk/) overhears a moviegoer coming out, saying to the companion: ‘It was okay. I’m still not converted though.’ Me too.

Thinking of Daniel Craig’s Casino Royale and as a writer, I love it when not everything comes together! How do I love it? Let me count the ways:

(1) Casino Royale mixes metaphors, not cocktail.

As a drink, Casino Royale is mixed cocktail that stirs me to the opposite direction of expelling it – if you will pardon the mixed metaphor. It’s too heady for me.

The movie critics are bewildered themselves, as I shall show you. I’m referring to online male and female performers in a starring role – as they assign stars to the motion pictures they critique. Once the movie critics mix their metaphors, I say, Watch out!

Like: Stax says (17 Feb, au.movies.ign.com/), commenting on the script: ‘Casino Royale reboots the Bond franchise much the same way as Batman Begins.’ Stax is one of (if not) the first to say it, ‘reboot,’ trying not to copy from Batman, trying to be chic and knowledgeable. Nice try. If you reboot your PC, it’s the same banana – you just get rid of a bug or register a change or something. You are not installing a different program, not updating software, not scanning for viruses, not even scanning for errors. With Casino Royale, with new software, Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson have changed the image, and that’s not rebooting – that’s morphing.

No. This Daniel Craig and his Casino Royale don’t make a reboot; they don’t even make a pair: Yes, they make a morph. To morph is to transform from one image to another … completely and instantaneously (from Encarta Dictionary 2006). A real, physiological and psychological remake – Daniel Craig’s James Bond in Casino Royale come up very different from all the other James Bonds. The producers have made a paradigm shift about their superspy.

Stax approves. He thinks of Casino Royale in terms of Batman Begins of which he says: ‘The Dark Knight has been gloriously reborn on film.’ Batman floats on air, beautifully. It’s a freshly sensational story (I love it), but Batman Begins is not a reinvention of Batman; it is, in the language of George Lucas’ Star Wars, a prequel, the one before this one, the one that establishes the present. On the contrary, Daniel’s Casino Royale de-establishes the present! In fact, it destabilizes the present. In the years up to 4 BC (Before Craig), that is, from 1962 (Sean Connery in Dr No) to 2002 (Pierce Brosnan in Die Another Day), James Bond is a suave, sophisticated, smooth, sexy sweetheart. Daniel’s James Bond I note is NOTA: None Of The Above.

The movie experts don’t see Batman Begins and Casino Royale as prequels; For good’s sake they are, the stories before the stories. Prequels MaryAnn Johanson knows and puts the words in my mouth describing what she likes of The Phantom Menace and, in effect, defining what is a prequel in terms of the Star Wars storyline (1999, flickfilosopher.com/):

From the opening scrawl – which mirrors the slight hyperbole of Star Wars’ as it describes an ‘alarming chain of events’ involving the ‘greedy Trade Federation’ and the Jedi Knights, ‘guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy,’ who will put things right – to the echo of Luke’s theme in Anakin’s in John Williams’ wonderfully operatic score, this is without doubt the same self-contained, internally consistent, astonishing and frightening universe we’ve come to love. (my emphasis)

That is to say, when you’re in a James Bond or Star Wars prequel, you can feel if not see the same self-contained, internally consistent, astonishing and frightening universe you’ve come to love. And how do I, Moviegoer rate Casino Royale as a prequel? A non-prequel prequel. Out of 5 stars, I give it not one; it’s ill-starred. It changes James Bond himself. It doesn’t reveal him from the very beginning; it doesn’t uncover the hero. Instead, it reveals a different James Bond – not the one that I, Moviegoer have come to adore.

Not only ‘reboot’ is mixed metaphor applied to Batman or James Bond; it’s too high-tech. Folks, go down from your level. When you talk about Ian Fleming and his James Bond (in his books), talk low-tech: Fleming used an old, manual Remington typewriter to type his stories in Goldeneye, the name he gave his house on the North Coast of Jamaica, writing at the end of World War II (commanderbond.net/).

Daniel Craig is the wrong Bond. I agree with danielnotbond.com, whom Clint Morris (17 Nov, moviehole.net/) quotes and disagrees with:

How can a short, blond actor with the rough face of a professional boxer and a penchant for playing killers, cranks, cads and gigolos pull off the role of a tall, dark, handsome and suave secret agent? This is what happens when you lose touch with public opinion. By casting Daniel Craig, Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson have proven once and for all that they care little for the opinions of Bond fans.

You’re right, Clint. I, Moviegoer am the one Broccoli and Wilson are making Bond movies for. Of course, Casino Royale is making millions of dollars right now all over the world, so they must have done something right, right? That’s because we moviegoers wanted to see what’s new, or if the rumors were true. It was not out of closeness but out of curiosity. Now they know that James Bond is dead. This time curiosity did not kill the cats; instead, it killed their curiosity.

(2) Casino Royale makes Bond imperfect.

Anton Carrera says it well in favor of Daniel’s Casino Royale (21 Nov, rutgersobserver.com/):

In every other way, Casino Royale is an audience pleaser because it introduces a more human, imperfect Bond.

Anton, I, Moviegoer am not pleased; I don’t want a more human, imperfect Bond. I want a perfect Bond!

About being perfect, Blair Pettis says of the spy in Casino Royale (21 Nov, commanderbond.net/):

Daniel has found the essential Bondian chords within himself and played them to near perfection. The man is James Bond.

Blair, I don’t want that kind of perfect.

Mimi Avins reports that Director Martin Campbell claims (15 Nov, southflorida.com/): ‘(Casino Royale is) the perfect opportunity to reboot the series and go back to basics.’ So! Even the director is guilty of mixed metaphor; he should go back to the basics of grammar. When you reboot a PC, you don’t go back to basics – you go back to the original; in James Bond, you are trying to create the original that fits into the stories already told. You cannot simply ignore the character and color of the James Bond that’s already in the moviegoers’ mind. Otherwise, you lose your credibility.

Mimi also reports that the director also says:

Once I saw where we were going, Daniel was the perfect fit for the story we were telling. The character in the books is much darker than he has been in the movies and that’s what we’ve returned to. It’s a more personal, more emotional story than we’ve seen Bond in before. Daniel has a sexuality that’s very much in keeping with how Fleming saw the character.

The story you are telling? I’m not listening. The character you are showing? I’m not liking. The sexuality Daniel is exhibiting? I’m not interested.

(3) Casino Royale makes Bond a brute.

George Grella says of Daniel Craig as James Bond (22 Nov, rochester-citynews.com/):

Daniel possesses some of the brawny virility of Sean Connery, for many the only true Bond; in fact, contrasting with the generally supercilious manner of some of his predecessors, he rather resembles a well-dressed thug.

George, James Bond is not about brawny or virile; it’s about sexy. And George, I, Moviegoer don’t want my hero as a thug, no matter how well-dressed.

And it’s not about adhering to the details of Ian Fleming’s story, not like what Devin Zydel reports when Daniel Craig first read the script for Casino Royale (22 Nov, commanderbond.net/):

Upon finally seeing the Casino Royale script, Daniel said, ‘Paul Haggis had sprinkled his magic dust on it. I was honestly wanting to dislike it. It would have been an easy decision. I could have said, “That’s very nice. Good luck with it.” But it was too much. I sweated when I read the script. I thought, this is a great story, probably because it adhered to the book quite closely.’

Daniel, if I want the original, I’ll read the book! James Bond (the movie) is not supposed to be James Bond (the book). It can’t be, no matter how you try. When I watch a James Bond movie and celebrate, I’m not celebrating Ian Fleming’s James Bond, who is too intellectual. Try him; published by Signet (1961), here are the first 4 sentences of Thunderball (the book):

It was one of those days when it seemed to James Bond that all life, as someone put it, was nothing but a heap of six to four against.

To begin with he was ashamed of himself – a rare state of mind. He had a hangover, a bad one, with an aching head and stiff joints. When he coughed – smoking too much goes with drinking too much and doubles the hangover – a cloud of small luminous black spots swam across his vision like amoebae in pond water.

Ian Fleming’s James Bond is psychologically intense and intelligent in the book. You can’t create him in film – you have to recreate him. If you create a James Bond that is like that in the book, I can’t call that originality – I can only call it lack of imagination.

And oh, yes, the first 2 sentences of Casino Royale (the book) make my point even more clearly:

The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. Then the soul-erosion produced by high gambling – a compost of greed and fear and nervous tension – becomes unbearable, and the senses awake and revolt from it.

Outside the book, I want my spy suave and sophisticated, one that I am not. How can I fantasize if I can see myself in him, if I can identify with him? I must only be able to admire him, look at him as if he were one of my friends, entirely different from me.

James Frazier describes the Bond he loves that’s not my type either (21 Nov, fp.uni.edu/):

Each star had his own niche, from Connery’s macho unflappability to Pierce Brosnan’s ice-cold lethality, and Daniel is no exception. He portrays a significantly more predatory killer that nonetheless carries a glimmer of regret in his intelligent eyes.

My point exactly! Lethal is different from predatory.

Joe Williams doesn’t like my favorite Bond either and describes Daniel Craig in Casino Royale in these terms (17 Nov, stltoday.com/):

Daniel Craig is a fair-hair, bare-knuckle antidote to Pierce Brosnan. Instead of depending on gadgets and good looks, this Bond is stripped to his basic brutality.

I never did like any beast. Not even King Kong.

James Verniere puts it more bluntly describing the James Bond he loves (21 Nov, townonline.com/):

Daniel is the real story. His Bond is a cold-hearted killer and screaming madman who likes his sexual partners to be married, but not to him. This Bond wears his lacerations like a Marquis de Sade-approved badge of honor.

Brute!

And what has Blair Tellers to say (21 Nov, whitworth.edu/)?

As for the newest member of the Bond family, Daniel Craig is, in a word, spectacular. Todd McCarthy of Variety magazine along with an impressive multitude of other movie critics, praises Daniel’s acting, describing the reinvented Bond as ‘recharged with fresh roughness and arrogance, along with balancing hints of sadism and humanity.’

Et tu, Brute! I like the humanity but not the sadism.

(4) Casino Royale makes Bond a superhero.

James Bond is from the mind of Ian Fleming, not Stan Lee; he’s a superspy, not a superhero. Kevin Cowherd calls him in Daniel’s Casino Royale a ‘Marvel Comics hero’ (20 Nov, baltimoresun.com/). Kevin writes (excerpts):

In Casino Royale, Bond is tortured so much. In the opening scene alone, Bond survives about three-dozen brushes with death. … By the end of the movie, Bond has been beaten, shot, whipped, poisoned, nearly run over by a tanker truck, thrown from a speeding car and almost drowned. … And tortured in a very, um, unique way. … The point is, it’s so over-the-top, this physical abuse, that it becomes cartoonish. Even for a Bond movie. It’s Bond as-cyborg. Bond as Marvel Comics hero. Bond able to withstand the kind of punishment no human being – not even a bionic man – could withstand.

And so Kevin pleads, and so do I, Moviegoer:

No, Give me the old days, where all Bond had to sweat was the occasional tarantula dropped on his pillow, or a powerful laser inching toward his groin, or a nutty Spectre agent who looked like your grandmother with a stiletto hidden in her shoe. He never took the kind of beating they give him in Casino Royale. Heck, back then Bond would wipe out 20 vicious martial-arts-trained hitmen and barely get a scratch on his face. Not a lick of hair was out of place, either. I liked him a lot better back then.

After all, Kevin says, remembering the good old days of Bond:

As everyone knows, watching a James Bond movie requires what the poet called ‘a willing suspension of disbelief.’

Too much of a bad thing makes one a superhero. If I wanted to watch a cartoon, I’ll watch Superman or Batman or the Simpsons.

(5) Casino Royale makes Bond different.

I, Moviegoer am a Catholic, and I listen not only to non-Catholics but also to other Catholics, even movie critics. Here’s what Catholic David DiCerto says (22 Nov, catholicnews.com/):

Some fans will applaud its harder-edged return to the grittiness of Ian Fleming’s novels. Others may feel it’s too dark and serious, and lacks the sense of campy fun of earlier films. Both sides, however, will agree that from its brutal prologue – shot in stylish black and white – this is a different kind of Bond movie.

David, yes, it’s a different James Bond – It’s the one I don’t like. It’s different from the previous James Bond films – It’s the one that doesn’t thrill me at all.

Tim O’Connor describes the Casino Royale in these words (21 Nov, purdueexponent.org/):

Right from the beginning, we’re treated to a stylistic black and white flashback of Bond earning his promotion. This opening is so cool you’ll wish the entire movie were filmed this way. After that, there’s a thrilling chase scene with Bond and his target running across a construction site. Then, for the next hour, nothing.

That hour is spent playing poker. Sherwin Das says of it (22 Nov, baltictimes.com/):

Too much is built around the poker game which, for me, is a tad more exciting than watching paint dry.

That’s 2 against this 1: Basil Deakin must be so in love with Daniel’s Casino Royale he doesn’t see the soporific poker hour that eats up the film he watches, and says the opposite (23 Nov, thechronicleherald.ca/):

I regard the new movie as possibly the most exciting, action-packed 007 epic of the 40-year-old, 21-strong film series, with Daniel a riveting, hard-fisted Bond.

Okay, it’s most exciting – where there’s action, outside of the hour-long poker game. Hard-fisted? That’s what’s wrong with this Bond.

Let’s hear from Tim O’Connor again:

Bond movies are all about explosions, hot women and one-liners. This movie has very little in the way of any of those. The action is spaced too far apart to keep our interest and the one-liners aren’t especially clever or memorable.

The James Bond movie I find irresistible has the explosion of explosives, expletives, women and wit.

Tim continues:

Another change for the series is its tone. Casino Royale has a more somber tone than any previous Bond flick. Die Another Day had a brief torture scene at the beginning, but it was quick to return to a campy, fun atmosphere. This time, the torture scene is longer and more disturbing.

Campy, as in affectation or appreciation of manners and tastes commonly thought to be artificial, vulgar, or banal … appreciated for its humor (from American Heritage Dictionary).

My James Bond is high camp.

Peter Travers tells us why he likes Daniel’s Casino Royale (13 Nov, rollingstone.com/):

Not only is Daniel, 38, the best Bond since Sean Connery, he’s the first of the Bonds (great Scot Connery, one-shot George Lazenby, charmer Roger Moore, stuff-shirt Timothy Dalton and smoothie Pierce Brosnan) to lose the condescension and take the role seriously.

Peter, I don’t want my James Bond to take his role seriously. I want him to enjoy so I can enjoy too!

I hope Daniel Craig’s James Bond will finish with Casino Royale. Meanwhile, we’re not finished with Tim O’Connor who wants to finesse the whole thing:

One interesting question the movie brings up is how does Bond deal with all the killing? How can one cleanse his soul after taking another life? Unfortunately, that question is never really answered and the dilemma resolves itself by removing the inspiration for our hero’s internal struggle. This is evidence that the Bond franchise should let other films deal with such serious questions, and you should just deal with another Bond film.

I, Moviegoer want James Bond back!

Andrew Hard doesn’t see the subtle difference, but I do; he says (15 Nov, foxnews.com/):

It’s a radical change from his predecessor: the suave, ladies-man assassin played by Pierce Brosnan.

Andrew, you’re right about the radical change but, I beg your pardon, James Bond is not an assassin. He is licensed to kill, 007 is, but he kills neither for business nor for pleasure. Rather, he kills under pressure.

The title of Basil Deakin’s review is this: ‘West needs real Bond with brains over brawn’ (23 Nov). But, Basil, they’re offering a Brawn, James Brawn.

Michael Calleri says (21 Nov, niagarafallsreporter.com/): ‘In this new adventure … Daniel is a better Bond because we are at the beginning. We learn how Bond became Bond.’ That’s faulty logic: ‘better … because … beginning.’ So far, I have yet to see better logic with Casino Royale.

(6) Casino Royale leaves much to be desired.

I want more than Daniel Craig’s James Bond. Kevin McQuarn puts the words right in my mouth, listing what are/should not be there (23 Nov, 2theadvocate.com/):

(1) Not as many big explosions. (2) This James Bond is blonde. (3) No Q. (4) No gadgets. (5) Not enough hot cars. (6) James Bond actually falls in love – with a ‘real’ woman. (7) Daniel’s Bond reminds me too much of an underwear model.

Perhaps producers Barbara and Michael are thinking of their life after James Bond, going into the apparel business?

Anthony Breznican dismisses Casino Royale in all but one sentence, this one (16 Nov, usatoday.com/):

James Bond arrives at a ritzy tropical resort in a blue Ford Mondeo, the kind of nice-but-everyday vehicle that projects ‘suburban dad’ more than ‘superspy.’

I, Moviegoer don’t want your suburban dad; I want my superspy.

Anthony quotes Daniel Craig as saying:

There’s a duty to fulfill here. Nobody is more aware of the responsibility for this than me. I get that this is incredibly important to a lot of people. It’s part of their movie upbringing. My only plan is to deliver everything I am.’

And the actor did. And I, Moviegoer did not like it.

Casino Royale made $42.2 M in 27 countries in its opening weekend (NS, 22 Nov, playfuls.com/). That’s quantity. What about quality? Ben Hoyle & Joanna Bale quote Peter Taylor of Sony Pictures as saying (20 Nov, timesonline.co.uk/):

It’s the most successful opening weekend of any Bond film … we are delighted – it’s a great testament to the quality of the movie.

Now I know $42.2 M is a record of sort, but then I don’t know that quality can be measured by quantity.

(7) Casino Royale is not psy-fi.

When Ian Fleming thought, he was metaphorical; when he typed, he was mechanical, which is beside the point. By creating James Bond, Ian Fleming left me a legacy, and I treasure it as a writer. That legacy John Cork describes well (1995, klast.net/):

Fleming single-handedly transformed popular detective and spy fiction from the dark, middle-class heroes of Hammett, Chandler and Sapper, to the elegant world of his own, seen through the eye of James Bond, secret agent 007. Bond grew from the literary world of Edgar Allan Poe, Ambrose Bierce, E Phillips Oppenheim, John Buchan and Sax Rohmer.

Fleming argued that he created Bond as ‘an interesting man to whom extraordinary things happen.’

That’s my man.

In Daniel Craig’s Casino Royale, the poetry is gone, that wonderful character is gone. I call Ian Fleming’s James Bond stories in book or movies, psy-fi, psychological fiction. I invented the name; Ian Fleming invented the genre.

Petri Liukkonen says of Ian Fleming (2000, kirjasto.sci.fi/): ‘Fleming spent some years with British intelligence, but his books are far from reality – they offer colorful locations, beautiful women, and exciting and inventive adventures.’ Precisely! A construction site is not my kind of colorful location. And Eva Green is not my kind of unreal beautiful woman; Daniel’s Casino Royale is not kind of unreal adventure. It’s the story that unmakes the film.

One book can’t define a genre; all 13 Bond books make the series psy-fi. Daniel’s Casino Royale stands out as a standalone film – no relation to the other Bond films. James Bond is dead. Long live James Bond!?

Patrick Herald inadvertently puts it well, in these his own words (20 Nov, svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/): ‘Due to my less than all-encompassing knowledge of Bond, this review will focus on Casino Royale as a standalone film.’ He believes he can view Casino Royale apart from the 20 other ‘official’ James Bond films produced before. No Patrick, you can’t have one without the others. Ignorance is not an excuse for not knowing.

James Bond is not James Bond if he can’t repeat his adventures and miss-adventures in different stories in different times. And I’m not indifferent to that.

Simon Hooper sums it all in 4 words, speaking of James Bond as (15 Nov, edition.cnn.com/) ‘The world’s favorite spy.’ I, Moviegoer don’t care about the world – he’s my favorite spy, and that’s good enough for me. Give him to me!

Peter Fulham is convinced when in praise of Daniel he says (22 Nov, buffalonews.com/):

If Pierce Brosnan, who held the job for the past four films, was the gentleman’s Bond, annoyingly suave and relentlessly indestructible, Daniel is his infinitely cooler younger cousin – gritty, brusque and deadly.

Ah, but you miss the point, Peter. I, Moviegoer want him to be a gentleman’s Bond, and annoyingly suave, and relentlessly indestructible – that’s what I call a deadly combination

Daniel’s Casino Royale is so standalone that it stands opposite all the other film Bonds. This is what I mean, in the words of Andrew Hard (15 Nov, foxnews.com/):

Casino Royale offers a frightening new take on England’s most famous spy – this grim-faced character played by Daniel Craig is as menacing as any classic 007 villain.

Grim-faced? Daniel Craig doesn’t have to act at all. James Bond as villain? Thereby Casino Royale turns James Bond’s world upside down. But it’s okay – he’s not my James Bond.

So, after all is said and done, who is my favorite James Bond? Dean Kish’s favorite is Connery; he ignores mine (23 Nov, realmovienews.com/):

No matter if your favorite Bond is Connery or Moore, one thing is for sure that we always remember why we love James Bond. The allure of the world of espionage and intrigue, of course.

Of course. And my favorite Bond is Brosnan, Pierce Brosnan. Having said that, I better beware of Simon Winder; Simon says of the films of my beloved Bond (18 Nov, nytimes.com/):

The film Casino Royale is a remake based on the first of Ian Fleming’s Bond books: an attempt to return the character to his roots, a fresh beginning after the increasingly witless Pierce Brosnan years. In astrological terms, this is the equivalent of several planets or suns or whatever being perfectly aligned. Will Bond’s latest rebirth usher in some new era in our history?

The Brosnan years witless? I’m witness otherwise. If you don’t recognize wit, you’re without.

But Simon insists. With Brosnan as Bond, Simon says:

I have always felt Mr Brosnan was a false prophet – a figure more at home modeling chunky watches or conservative suits than fulfilling Bond’s homicidal and sexual core competences. But the scale of his films’ success at last banished Mr Connery’s ghost. His followers may have been misled, but there could be no arguing with the immense, fervid crowds Mr Brosnan could draw.

So Simple Simon says. ‘Core competences’ eh? Simon, when I watch James Bond, I don’t want to learn about management, not even about core values. The heart of James Bond, yes; and it is this: international intrigue internalized intelligently & individually. You can call them The 5 Is of Bond, James Bond.

And Simon, I, Moviegoer say I make that passionate crowd, and my number is legion. Misled? I love the Pierce Brosnan that Simon says he hates. And the one that Michael Phillips pontificates on (15 Nov, chicagotribune.com/):

For a long time now, the James Bond franchise has been operating with a license to overkill. That license has been revoked by Casino Royale. It doesn’t even feel like a Bond film as we have come to expect (each of) them, in their numbing, increasingly gadget-dependent gigantism. No death rays from space this time. No invisible car. For once, most of the laws of physics are given due respect.

Michael, physics has nothing to do with entertainment. I am after entertainment, not respect for the laws of physics. Science is too serious for entertainment if you’re not Isaac Azimov or Ray Bradbury or Arthur Clarke. Else, science doesn’t make sense to the I, Moviegoer.

Jeremy Reynolds walks softly talking about the new Bond movie, but he too trips (20 Nov, dailytoreador.com/):

Casino Royale is a gritty James Bond masterpiece that redefines what the series could be – minus all the British-charm fluff. Daniel Craig … takes over where Pierce Brosnan left off. Daniel is a younger, blue-eyed, blond-haired Bond who is still wet behind the ears and allows his arrogance to overshadow his brains.

Jeremy, my Bond is more brain than brawn – that’s why he survives. When he kills, he thrills.

Oh! And my dear TP says it quite frankly that I do give a d**n (19 Nov, teluguportal.net/):

This movie, in many ways, is the antithesis of the Bond archetype. Apart from the simpler action sequences, there are no one-liners, sexual innuendos and hi-tech gadgets.

Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Following Hegelian thought, you can’t have an antithesis without a thesis first.

My thesis: The Bond archetype is the one that moviegoers favor in their individual dialectic. And as customers, they are always right.

At 66, I am suddenly grown up, thanks to Daniel Craig. I don’t like James Bond anymore.

My synthesis: Pierce Brosnan as James Bond sharpens all my senses. Now that he’s Gone, James Gone, I’m going back to reading James Bond as he sharpens my mind. I’ll leave the broccoli soup to Barbara. They don’t make it like they used to anymore.

Casino Royale (the book) was published in 1953 by Jonathan Cape in London (commanderbond.net/), the first of Ian Fleming’s 13 James Bond novels. I have read many of them and admired Fleming’s passionate, cerebral 007. Everything was right in all those books, everything about this superspy. Most anything was right about the first 20 James Bond movies; most anything is wrong with Casino Royale, the 21st Bond film. Here, James Bond wins millions in the poker game but loses millions of his fans. He survives the assassination attempts but he will not survive the series.

Is Daniel Craig the new emperor of psy-fi? The child in Kimberly Last has been looking at the photos and now she tells me (email), 'The emperor has no clothes.'




What else is there to say? Daniel Craig's James Bond chains us, the legion of movie boomers, to the new dialectic of Broccoli & Wilson, producers who, not being perfect, forgot to ask the customers what they want.

Boomers of the world, unite: You have nothing to lose but your chains!

[The Sweeney]

Interesting read.
He's obviously more a lover of the Bond films than the Bond books. I don't agree with his opinion, but I respect it.

As for crticism of CR, I don't agree with any of it. To me, the film is nearly faultless. However, if this level of criticsim was aimed more at QoS, I would shift my poisition slightly. CR and QoS are worlds apart.

[Felix Leiter]

I agree with many of his points. You can't really translate too much of Fleming these days into a modern action film series.

[Dr. No]

I agree with many of his points. You can't really translate too much of Fleming these days into a modern action film series.

Maybe that is why they shoudl be done differently. What I had liked about Bond is yes there was action but there also was something different about the experience. The last "new" I watched was a depressing experience, all of the exotic locations were all for nothing. There was nothing to enjoy as the moive moved along. The old bonds had somthing to keep your interest in the background, perhaps showing us somewhere int eh world he hadn't seen before and then showing us something we never saw on film before

[oscartheman]

d**n good review!

[stockslivevan]

The guy lost me when he proclaimed that Batman Begins was a "prequel".

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Not only is Daniel, 38, the best Bond since Sean Connery, he’s the first of the Bonds (great Scot Connery, one-shot George Lazenby, charmer Roger Moore, stuff-shirt Timothy Dalton and smoothie Pierce Brosnan) to lose the condescension and take the role seriously.

I think Tim Dalton took it seriously too. Pierce wanted too but was hampered by some of his scripts. Roger and Sean realised that they were making a load of old cobblers.