By Mark David Blum, Esq.
WARNING: SPOILERS!
Everybody has their mental junk food. For some, it is daytime soap operas. Others no matter how snobbish or intellectual find a couple hours of escapism in any number of activities to which we would be embarrassed to confess openly.
Let it be my confession that among my mental junk foods are James Bond movies. Chapter and verse, line and scene, I could walk you through any adventure on any heretofore released film adventure since the series started. Long story short; my favorite is Diamonds are Forever, Pierce Brosnan is the penultimate James Bond, and I saw the newly released film Casino Royale this weekend.
Always and despite my utter fascination with all things, ‘Bond’, I had never watched or paid any attention to the original Casino Royale starring David Niven. When it first came out, I remember trying to watch it, but Mr. Niven would never be Bond, and I just could not get into the attempt at making a comedy out of a superhuman killer. The first Casino Royale was the one and only Bond film I had never seen and its remake gave me a mental woodie.
The new Royale most certainly does not resemble its namesake. Blond haired and blue eyed and with a body that momentarily made me reconsider my own sexual preference; the new ‘Bond’ is perfect for the role. Sean Connery fans will hate him but not for the same reason we all hated Roger Moore. Moore and his successors turned Bond into a caricature. Sean was suave and sexy, dark and mysterious. Blond and blue is not dark and mysterious and hence those whose tastes run toward one will probably not enjoy the other.
More importantly and the focus of this review is how the film is a yawner on the scale of Bond movies; but it is very important and expertly done if your desire is to learn about your hero’s past and what makes him who he is. Indeed there is a high powered, high impact, rock ‘em, sock ‘em format to the film with one of the best foot chase scenes I have ever seen. Few are the times the movie actually comes to a halt and tells any kind of story. Yes there is action, but for all practical purposes, the action seems more of a backdrop to the real story. The best summary word for this movie would be a Prequel to the James Bond series.
Unfortunately due to the realities of human beings, the present does come crashing into the past. Bond as an agent has been on the job many times and has dealt with many “M’s” over the years. Casting directors miscast the character by relying on a later introduced M as being in place 20 years earlier when Bond first came on the job. Also forgotten in the chaos of the film is the introduction of Q or even Q Branch. We see a fancy car, but learn of none of its gadgets beyond a medical device you can find now in every building in the nation.
Of course, there is the glorious femme fatale` whose presence in the film had me muttering aloud to myself over and over, “this just isn’t right.” It was not ‘Bond’, what they were doing was wrong for a Bond film, and it was wholly inconsistent for the character of James Bond or his birth parent, Ian Fleming. As I gnawed on my knuckles, I was spared disappointment and treated to a big splash ending.
From the mucky waters of the hell into which the newly cast Double-Oh emerges and though he may try and salvage the one last bit of his humanity and compassion, the entire message becomes suddenly clear. This film is about the birth of Bond, James Bond. As with any birth, it is ugly, full of naked raw pain, laced with sex, and horrifying except to those with an eye for the real beauty that lies within.
Truly, I thank the producers for giving me this Bond. It is a story that has longed to have been told. For those of you who pay your money expecting to see fancy cars, hot chicks, seriously evil people, and super sleuth toys, you are going to be disappointed. If however, your lust is for Bond and to become more enlightened as to the man and the character, then go see Casino Royale is for you. You will be shaken and you will be stirred.
