My nephew assured me that Daniel Craig is every bit as good
as Pierce Brosnan in the 007 Bond series of films. Given this recommendation, I
decided to watch the four films Craig has starred in where he played the
infamous secret agent.
The first, Casino
Royale, was released in 2006. It is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of
violent action, a scene of torture, sexual content and nudity. In other words,
a typical Bond film. Casino Royale was
the first Bond novel published by Ian Fleming in 1952. This film thus begins at
the place in the creator’s mind where the famous spy series began.
James Bond (Daniel Craig) is new to the job, and M (Judi
Dench) is watching him closely, for performance issues you might say. The
action takes us from Uganda to Madagascar to London to the Bahamas to
Montenegro, all with the requisite unreal chase scenes and fight sequences
where men take on superhuman qualities without the benefit of being
superheroes. The lack of authenticity here in their not getting severely
injured during their race on foot, fleeing or being chased, is really quite
annoying. Such action is, however, typical for this type of film.
After leaving Madagascar, Bond ends up back in London for a tête-à-tête
with M, briefly goes to the Bahamas, and then is sent to Montenegro to play
poker in an attempt to win a small fortune from a banker, Le Chiffre (Mads
Mikkelsen), who takes terrorists money and invests it for them. Bond’s contact
for this setup is the beautiful and mysterious Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). Here is
where this particular film gets boring for me. I don’t play poker and I have no
interest in the game. In between playing poker, Bond is poisoned, nearly dies,
fights off and kills some bad guys, and gets back to the game.
Vesper (where do they get these names?) coaches James in how
to succeed at being a suave, cool guy with money to lose or win at the poker
table. In the process, they fall in love. Our final travel excursion for the
two is to Venice, city of water and inevitable decay. Has James met his match
in Vesper? Did he save the day? And will M be impressed enough with him that he
has a permanent job as a spy?
Some things have to be a mystery or you wouldn’t watch! What
I liked about the film was the traveling to exotic locations. That’s part of
the reason I like the Bourne films with Matt Damon. It’s kind of like a
travelogue. What’s different between Bourne and Bond though is that one has a
conscience and the other is a cold-blooded killer. If you’ve seen the Bourne
films, the distinction should be obvious.
Do you agree with me on that point? Or not? I will watch and
review the other three Daniel Craig 007 films and let you know how I liked them
over the next couple of weeks.
H Sue - it must be obvious ... Bourne is very complicated - while Bond is his own master, yet simpler. I enjoyed the Bond movies ... but the Bourne ones were long and pretty intricate ... some Bonds I preferred to others ... cheers Hilary
ReplyDeleteEach Bond film is unique, and you're right, depending on story and which actor is playing the role, that is what makes the film. Thanks for visiting.
Delete