Bond, James “Blunt Weapon” Bond

So what happens when a film series becomes ludicrous? You go back to the basics. You hope that the basics payoff in box office revenue. You hope that everyone will be okay with your choices. You hope that it will be enough to sell another film and all of the other films in the franchise. You pin your hopes that people want the basics. No gadgets, no ridiculous names for female characters, and no bad guys that exist just to provide Bond with one liners and razor hats. You move beyond the Duran Duran aesthetic and the spin off of Jinx. You pray that when everyone leaves the theater, they want more Bond and do not care whether that martini is shaken or stirred.

Well, they got it right. Casino Royale is the first Bond film in awhile that had me excited. I do miss Q, but I would rather have a Bond that kicks ass without relying on that gadget that miraculously works for the exact situation he had found himself in. The film was fun, but there were a few snags along the way.

Daniel Craig proved that Bond can live on without the perfect hair and clothes. One of the shining points for me was Craig, as he wove the history of Bond into a new portrayal. As M puts it, this Bond is “a blunt weapon.” And you know what, it works. I always viewed Bond as a finesse secret agent that rarely gets his hands dirty, but spying is not always finesse. Craig demonstrates that his physical nature and recklessness are what people want. The old Bond may have worked in the past, but the world has changed. Craig updates the character while really stepping back into the original Bond of Fleming descent. There were a few one-liners, but those were smart ones that played on the audiences knowledge of Bond as if to say, “here is a bone.”

I also thought that the action was more realistic. Okay I am laughing when I say that, how about more realistic than other Bond films. I enjoyed the explosions and fights better than the peril – gadget – one-liner – escape gadget methodology of the older films. The opening chase scene showed that gadgets are not needed and that the only explosions we seek are ones that make sense. There is nothing worse than a garbage can that explodes and blows up an entire block. It is a trash can of doom I guess. In Casino Royale, the action fits the film. To prove my point, about 1/3 of the film is a card game.

These are all good aspects, but that is not to say that the film is without flaws. My main grip centers around “the phone.” You know, the phone that everyone has in the film from villains to Bond. Product placement has become very prevalent, but how about some variety. Has the government mandated that everyone in the world has to use the same Sony Ericsson phone. It is cool, but come on! It is unfortunate that the phone receives more screen time than the cars, or the women! Some product placement is to be expected in a Bond film, but this was ridiculous. The fact that I find myself talking about the phone more than the film is disturbing. Huh, I guess it actually did work.

My final problem is that the supporting characters were not as exciting as I would have liked. Honestly, I did not like any of the female roles except for M. Although we have moved away from Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist, some of the camp would have been welcomed. Perhaps the next film will have one intelligent and sexy role and one kick ass bad girl. If this were a scorecard for a fight, this is easily a draw. I wanted more, but the film could have given me much less.

I am glad to see that Bond is back. Casino Royale tended to drag on a bit, but it was nice to have some breathing room for the action. It had a layering quality that allowed me time to really get into the backstabbing and subterfuge. This is easily one of the better Bond films and should be a nice start to the next era of Bond, James Bond.