Hey folks! I'm planning on watching all 23 of the James Bond films between now and the release of Spectre in November. 007 films have always been my guilty pleasure and I thought it might be worth trying to have a more analytical discussion about them. If you all are interested, I'll be posting one of these discussions/reviews every 2 weeks. So here goes!
Story It’s often said that Bond films are made and broken by their villains. I say that this is a fine metric for all pre-Craig entries. Don’t get me wrong. Le Chiffre is perhaps one of my favorite Bond villains and I’ll get into that shortly, however this film isn’t dictated by the quality of the villain as he is overshadowed by a far more fulfilling character. We finally have our first film that is truly about James Bond.
For the first time in the illustrious 44 year history of the franchise, we get a film that honors James Bond as a three-dimensional character. The role is juicy and Craig delivers spectacularly. The film dives deep,
deep into the psyche of a spy — of a killer. I revel in the pointed exchanges between Bond and M. It is a pleasure to watch Bond arrogantly defend his actions. He is smug, self-righteous, and (to his superiors and peers) frustratingly correct more often than not. The caustic sparing between Bond and Vesper Lynd in their first meeting on the train even takes the title of greatest dialogue sequence away from Pierce’s Bond vs. Dench’s M in GoldenEye. It’s intelligent, it’s hysterical, and it’s real. It’s everything that a conversation between a top-tier, egotistical field agent and an aggressively ambitious agency accountant would be.
And speaking of Vesper, there is no doubt that she is the greatest of all of Bond’s female cohorts. Obviously with 20 films to choose from, there are no shortage of female characters to consider. Pussy Galore is first competent female character who isn’t being played by forces out of her control. She’s completely dismissed for being a lesbian and taken advantage of in a terribly unsexy love scene. Tracy Bond is a fiercely independent and upstanding young woman. But ultimately she is restricted by her role as the obedient daughter. Anya Amasova is the first truly self-reliant, professional female. Even
her character's integrity is completely undone as the writers go for a cheap sex scene at the end of the film. None of this applies to Vesper. She is self-sufficient. She is clever. She is human. The scene in which Bond comforts her in the shower following his visceral killing of a couple of thugs is one of the most striking and easily the most touching scenes in the entire series.
Finally, as I mentioned before, Le Chiffre is one of my favorite villains. He is a welcome breath of fresh air in a series that had clumsily escalated to the point of villains wearing cheap Ironman knock off suits shooting lasers from the moon. Le Chiffre is a mathematical wizard who enjoys embezzling the money of his criminal clientele. Best of all, the entire plot of Casino revolves around Le Chiffre’s necessity to recollect $100 million of his clients’ funds that he lost betting the wrong way on a stock shortage. This sets up a fantastic dynamic between hero and villain. Unlike Everything that Le Chiffre does, he does out of fear and desperation. As the veil thins and the stakes raise, his actions become increasingly wretched, eventually concluding in a skin-crawling torture scene.
Look and Sound
Plain and simple, Casino Royale is the sexiest looking Bond film yet. Even the stylized scenes (the cold open and it’s accompanying flashback) are positively stunning. Daniel Craig’s introduction isn’t one of flash and spectacle. He doesn’t get a big Hollywood close up. His first lines are as dry in content as they are in delivery. The first time we see him, he is sitting in the far corner of a dark office. All we see is his face, unmoving and small in the film’s frame, his body obscured in noir-like darkness. Mads Mikkelsen's already superb performance is also greatly enhanced by top tier lighting.
When the frame moves, the direction is just as immaculate as when it is still. The camera motion invokes a high level of energy during a series of perfectly choreographed, photographed, and executed action scenes. The stunt work and effect work is above and beyond any heretofore seen 007 footage. The parkour chase scene and airport chase scene are two of the most exhilarating sequences the franchise has to offer.
David Arnold’s score is above average, though ultimately it doesn’t stand out too far from its contemporary film scores. That said, my absolute favorite music decision is that of the delayed gratification of the James Bond theme. It is absent throughout the entire score until the final seconds in which the familiar tune slowly and smirkingly edges in as our protagonist saunters into frame to utter the ever-iconic line, “Bond… James Bond.”
Chris Cornell’s “You Know My Name” is solid though I wouldn’t rank it terribly high in the annals of Bond Song history. The accompanying credit sequence on the other hand is quite possibly my favorite. Title designer Daniel Kleinman dispenses with the standard 3D abstractions in favor of flat colors and 2D design.
Casino marks the final Bond film in which Peter Lamont acted as Production Designer. His mark on the series is as notable as his predecessor, Ken Adam. Where Adam emphasized the stylized mid-century modern world of Connery's Bond, Lamont took the world in a decidedly new direction. Beginning in 1981 on the production of For Your Eyes Only, Lamont aimed to produce a world that felt tangible, modern, and realistic. In this final film, his efforts reach their zenith. When paired with the positively stunning lighting from cinematographer, Phil Méheux, the combination is a world that requires no suspension of disbelief.
Callbacks, Recurrences, and Tropes
From the first frame, things have changed. Immediately following the MGM lion’s roar, we find ourselves at the snowy exterior of a foreign government building. No gun barrel sequence here. The scene plays out with Bond discussing his first ever kill as a government agent. During the conversation, we flashback to the fight. It climaxes with Bond’s nemesis springing back to life and aiming a gun at 007. The POV snaps into the barrel of the gun as Bond reacts, shooting the would-be killer in the familiar manner of the traditional gun barrel shot.
Casino Royale is the first film of the series not to include either Moneypenny or a Quartermaster. While Dr. No didn’t include a character by the name of Q, it did have Major Boothroyd, MI6’s armorer. Incidentally, Q is referred to as Major Boothroyd in The Spy Who Loved Me. It's a bit confusing but the moral of the story is that there is no gadget master in Casino Royale. With that is the absence of the traditional gadgetry as we’ve come to expect. One of the few prop callbacks is the return of the iconic 1964 Aston Martin DB5. The DB5 makes its fifth showing in the series, following appearances in Goldfinger, Thunderball, GoldenEye, and a brief cameo in Tomorrow Never Dies. In one of the wiser casting decisions, Judy Dench was asked to return as M. She provides a pleasant bridge in the casting change between Brosnan and Craig.
Casino also marks the return of CIA Agent Felix Leiter — this time portrayed by Jeffrey Wright. It shouldn’t come as a surprise by this point that Wright’s portrayal of Leiter is also undoubtedly the best of the series. Gone is the portrayal of Americans as cowboys and the rednecks. That’s not to say that the character isn’t without his Americanisms. I do get a chuckle every time Bond asks Leiter what will become of the poker game winnings if Bond beats Le Chiffre. Leiter response with a toothy grin, “does it look like we need the money?”
Casino even handles one of the more preposterous 007 traditions in spectacular fashion. It would seem entirely out of place for a character to have a name like Pussy Galore or Xenia Onatopp. The gag still makes an appearance, however. When briefing Vesper on their upcoming mission, Bond playfully informs her that her undercover alias is Stephanie Broadchest (and that she’s just going to have to trust him on this one).
Finally, even Bond’s signature drink order is adjusted to reflect the new character’s coarse nature. After being denied reentry into the poker tournament, Bond orders a drink while he stews over his course of action. He then responds to the bartender’s “shaken or stirred” inquiry by snapping, “does it look like I give a damn?”
Overall Impression
Spectacular. Visually stunning. Emotionally gripping. Engaging, exhilarating, electrifying. The strongest and most unique entry thus far. Technically proficient in every way with writing that is entirely without equal. Every facet from the cinematography to the costuming appears to be fully thought out and executed in with the utmost care and proficiency. I suppose it’s a bit of a faux pas to refer to another review in your own review but Roger Ebert said it best when he explained that as the years went on, he was becoming less convinced that he would ever need to see another James Bond film until he saw Casino Royale.
Quick Hits
| Category | Score | Note |
| Writing | 9.5 | Top notch. Sharp, smart, funny. |
| Directing | 10 | Gorgeous framing, excellent camera moves, pulled some fantastic acting from his cast. |
| Acting | 9 | As true to real witnessing real life as you’re going to get in a Bond film. |
| Cinematography | 10 | Even for a non-Bond film it’s still positively breathtaking. |
| Production Design | 10 | Peter Lamont continues to deliver. |
| Score | 8.5 | Rock solid without being exceptional. |
| Editing | 9 | Fantastic pacing. Never feels slow or dull. |
| Effects | 9.5 | Stunts and effects are mind blowing. |
| Costumes | 10 | Watching Daniel Craig evolve into the Bond that we know and love is a spectacular moment. |
| Personal Score | 9.5 | |
Score - 95 / 100
Bonus Category!
So for each movie my wife and I will be enjoying a spirit or cocktail that relates to the film. This was the easiest cocktail choice yet. Bond hands us the drink on a silver platter by actually listing out the exact ingredients and measurements for the Vesper Martini. It is as follows
• 3 measures Gordon's Gin
• 1 measure vodka
• 1/2 measure Cocchi Americano vermouth (Bond asks for Kina Lillet which has been discontinued so the internet suggested Cocchi as a "perfect substitute")
• garnish with a slice of lemon
Shake well over ice until cold. Garnish with a thin slice of lemon rind.
So what do you folks think? How does Casino Royale fare in your opinion?
Why The Living Daylights is the best Bond film of the series The fifteenth EON Productions James Bond film,
The Living Daylights, was arguably the first risk the series had taken since 1973’s
Live and Let Die made Roger Moore the third Bond actor in as many films. Appearing on screens in 1987, following the preposterous and disappointing
A View to A Kill (1985),
The Living Daylights was released at a time when the AIDS epidemic was making promiscuity decidedly out of fashion. The critical response to
The Living Daylights largely centered around two issues: Bond’s monogamy within the film, and Dalton’s serious portrayal of the legendary agent.(1)
The film takes its title and to some extent its opening scenes from a Fleming short story about Bond watching and waiting for a KGB assassin from East Berlin. The assassin turns out to be a beautiful female cello player whose orchestra he had been observing for several nights. This story informs the post-credits sequence of the film
The Living Daylights. In the story, Bond deliberately misses the assassin because she is a beautiful woman, instead hitting her gun. In the film, Bond claims to miss her because she is an “amateur” assassin, although his handler directly confronts him for missing her because of her beauty.
The rest of the film centers on Bond’s slow seduction of the lovely musician, Kara, played by Maryam d’Abo. Kara is in love with a Soviet general who defects to the West on the night Bond was assigned to shoot the cellist. Watching the film now, the inclusion of a single female protagonist is not an issue either way, although it clearly was an issue at the time. The specter of AIDS weighed heavily on the minds of the critics and public, and it was claimed that in response to the AIDS crisis, Bond became “monogamous” within the film.
In fact, the monogamy charge is not even strictly true, as Bond clearly beds a bored woman (whose yacht he parachutes onto) before the credits even roll, and that woman is never heard from again. A minor point, perhaps, but is “yacht woman” any less of a character than the nameless girls in the log cabin and harem tent in
The Spy Who Loved Me, women who are the only Bond seductions aside from Agent XXX in that film? What about Plenty O’Toole from
Diamonds Are Forever, who appears briefly but memorably in a film dominated by Jill St. John’s American smuggler Tiffany Case. As fondly as O’Toole is recalled, she does not ultimately sleep with Bond, but is instead thrown from a hotel tower into a pool, and later killed in a case of mistaken identity. Tiffany Case is in fact his only sexual conquest in that film. The other famed females from that film, Bambi and Thumper, try to hurt Bond, not sleep with him. The result, a monogamous Bond. Wait, a monogamous Bond? In 1971? Somehow, not an issue.
In
The Living Daylights, however, there are no major female characters once Kara is introduced. Certainly a second or even third “Bond girl” could have been shoehorned in, as with previous entries in the series. However, was it really preferable to watch Roger Moore improbably bed 21-years-younger henchwoman Grace Jones while still romancing 28-years-younger “good girl” Tanya Roberts? (The Dalton-d’Abo gap is about fifteen years, by the way, so there was not much improvement on that score even with a younger Bond.) Whatever the reason, be it a choice to focus on the female assassin character set in motion from the original Fleming story or a genuine response to AIDS, the film is all the better for having a single female lead.
What about Dalton’s alleged seriousness? Much was made of it at the time of the film’s release, with Roger Ebert calling Dalton’s performance “dark and saturnine,” but stating that is not a good thing in what should be the silly world of Bond.(2) (Years later Ebert would call Daniel Craig’s much darker turn “bloody damned great.”(3))
Watching the film now, Dalton’s performance is pitch-perfect. During the obligatory chase scene in a gadget-laden car, Bond’s dry running commentary to Kara about how his vehicle happens to be so well equipped with weaponry is hilarious. At the end of a preposterous slide down a snow-covered mountain on a cello case, Bond simply shouts “nothing to declare” at the Austrian border guard as they slide under the gate. In other words, Dalton doesn’t skimp on the wisecracks, but his Bond does not stop to laugh at his own jokes, wink at the camera, raise an eyebrow, nor even provide a pregnant pause for the audience to laugh along. This may have been enough to throw off the 1980s audience as well as the critics.
In fact, if anything, Dalton’s Bond is a bit too silly for modern audiences. In the opening sequence, a training exercise turns deadly and one of Bond’s fellow double-0 agents is killed. After making his own narrow escape, Bond lands on the aforementioned yacht with a lonely beautiful woman and plans to drink and sleep with her rather than making his way back to headquarters immediately. At the time this was likely a wink to the audience: “Good old 007!” it screams. “Nothing has changed!” (Somehow audiences missed this reassurance.) Watching now, his cavalier attitude toward just having witnessed the assassination of a double-0 seems incongruous. Even within the film it is a bit strange. Later, when Bond’s ally and handler Saunders is killed after a meeting in Vienna, Bond reacts angrily and with deadly seriousness, seething and popping the assassin’s balloon-slash-calling-card.
Watching now, it’s admittedly hard to understand why Bond’s attitude is different in the two scenes. Why is Bond angered by the assassination in Vienna, but not, apparently, by the assassination at the beginning of the film? Still, in the context of Bond films this attitude gear-shift is no different from Moore’s
For Your Eyes Only, going from killing anonymous henchmen by pushing their bodies into a hockey goal (complete with scoring siren) to the vicious close-up murder of Locque by kicking his car so it completes its fall over a cliff.
Dispatching with the primary two arguments one hears about
The Living Daylights, we arrive at the heart of the matter. Despite the fact that Bond films are considered by the general public to be “spy movies,” precious little cold war spying goes on in most of the films. One could argue that, along with
From Russia With Love and to a certain extent
Octopussy,
The Living Daylights is one of the very few times Bond is seen working as a real Cold War spy in the films, as opposed to fighting economic or political terrorism from non-state actors.
And as Cold War tales go, it’s a doozy. Compared to the relatively straight line honeypot story of
From Russia With Love,
The Living Daylights’ twists and turns, starting with the pipeline-mediated defection of a high-level Russian general, Koskov. The general is then kidnapped from an MI6 country safe house. Bond’s spy work (escorting an unknowing Kara to Vienna) leads him to believe that the defection was a fake, and that the general is out of favor with, and under investigation by, the Russian military. Kara betrays Bond and they are taken to a Soviet base in Afghanistan. They escape to work with the Mujahideen, making this one of the few Cold War films to deal in 1980s USSR geopolitics as opposed to sticking with 1960’s era Moscow, Berlin, and the rest of the Eastern Bloc.
Bond uncovers Koskov’s plot to buy opium from the Mujahideen and sell it to buy arms for the Soviets to use against, amongst others, the Mujahideen themselves. He saves the day in spectacular fashion, stealing the plane carrying the opium, fighting the henchman and throwing him from the plane, then using a bomb he had planted on the plane to blow up the opium and a critical bridge, crippling the Soviets’ fight against the Mujahideen in two ways.
This is MI6 in action! This is the cream of the British Secret Service, doing its best to fight the communists and maintain a beachhead of freedom! Is there a cartoon villain in this film, a Hugo Drax or Ernst Stavro Blofeld or, dare we disparage the acclaimed third film in the series, an Auric Goldfinger? Certainly there is the American rogue general, Whitaker, ably played by Joe Don Baker as a good old boy who likes dealing arms as much as he likes playing with army men.
But, while he’s certainly a major character and an eccentric, his plan is not eccentric. He’s not repopulating the world from an undersea base, like Stromberg, or... repopulating the world from a space station, like Drax, or building a solar gun, like Scaramanga, or… building a solar gun, like Gustav Graves/Colonel Moon. No, Whitaker is an eccentric arms dealer, and that’s it. People similar to him most likely exist. His motives are from the real world, not the fictional villainy playbook. There’s no volcano lair, no laser battle in space, just an estate in Tangiers with an incredibly elaborate battle diorama.
Remove the baggage of the times, remove the resistance to Dalton’s approach after the Moore era, remove the odd critical over-reaction to the onset of the AIDS epidemic, and you are left with what may be the best film in the entire series. A true espionage film, a funny adventure film, a realpolitik film, and a dangerously sexy film. Most of all, you’re left with a Bond who is recognizably a combination of the best of the film series character and the best of Fleming’s literary creation.
References:
(1)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/style/longterm/movies/videos/thelivingdaylightspgkempley_a09f96.htm (2)
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-living-daylights-1987 (3)
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/casino-royale-2007 submitted by Casino Royale's poker scenes may be more stylised than those in, say, The Sting or Rounders, but they are still very well-executed with good pacing and a frisson of unpredictability. Casino Royale (2006) is without doubt one of the best Ian Fleming's James Bond. This is the real film, the real Bond film unlike lackluster sh**y Die Another Day stupid movie! I have enjoyed this film so damn much! I love this film to death, from action sequence to actors and the plot story I love it. This Casino Royale movie review provides our rating for the movie, and why. Also included is a summary of the movie from beginning to end. This action-packed thriller keeps viewers on their toes at all times. It's just the right mix of unpredictable excitement and the classic Bond story we all know and love. In Casino Royale, the reset button has been pressed in the manner of "Batman Begins." 80. Empire Kim Newman. Contrary to pre-release nay-sayers, Daniel Craig has done more with James Bond in one film than some previous stars have in multiple reprises. Roger Ebert spoke to this point in his own review of the film, stating that "the public is getting tired of action sequences that are created in post-prodcution." He also noted that most of the action in Casino Royale takes place "in something vaguely approaching real space and time." "Casino Royale" has the answers to all my complaints about the 45-year-old James Bond series, and some I hadn't even thought of. It's not that I didn't love some of the earlier films, like some, dislike others and so on, as that I was becoming less convinced that I ever had to see another one. When Casino Royale opened in the U.S. in 2006, the first film to star Daniel Craig as 007 quickly earned nearly $600 million worldwide and became one of the most acclaimed entries in the history of the series.. It must have particularly sweet for the Broccoli family, as the longtime Bond producers can still remember the first movie adaptation of Ian Fleming’s novel, Casino Royale, which went ... Casino Royale is just swell when Bond is busting up bathrooms in Prague, busting up embassies in Madagascar and busting a move in Nassau. But when he gets to, well, Casino Royale (here, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro), the film goes utterly flat. Read full review At one time or another, "Casino Royale" undoubtedly had a shooting schedule, a script and a plot. If any one of the three ever turns up, it might be the making of a good movie. Casino Royale (1954) - Reviews & Comments. Casino Royale was released in 1954 and has generally received positive reviews. Online reviewers have written 947 reviews, giving Casino Royale (1954) an average rating of 72%.
