Ah James Bond. Everyone loves James Bond. Every man wants to be James Bond and every woman wants to sleep with James Bond. Also, every man wants to sleep with James Bond, and every woman wants to be James Bond. And while there is pleasure to be taken from every James Bond movie, there is some debate as to which one of the 23 is the best. Often Goldfinger tops the list, with many citing it as the first Bond flick to codify 007’s now-well-catalogued habits and widgets. I am very fond of GoldenEye, myself, as I think Pierce Brosnan is the best of the Bonds (that’s not trolling; I genuinely love him as Bond), and GoldenEye is the best of his era.
But the one Bond film that has received the most publicity in recent years, and the one that is the most adored by the most recent generation of James Bond fans is easily Martin Campbell’s 2006 film Casino Royale, the first film to feature Daniel Craig as Bond, and the film to sort-of “soft reboot” the Bond franchise (a “reboot” that is still chugging along). Casino Royale differed from the previous bond films in many important ways. It was less quippy and lightweight, featuring a new Bond who was tougher, stronger, more brutish, less likely to smile. The punches landed harder, there was more blood, and Bond had his testicles repeatedly beaten by the bad guy. This was not your father’s James Bond. No more deranged billionaires with death rays here. This new version of the Bond universe was grittier and more realistic, capturing and pleasing a new generation of Bond fans who had become fond of “dark” reboot stories and grittier violence in their escapist entertainment.
But was this a good thing? Did they actually fall in love with a good movie, or were they duped by a bad one? Indeed, when looked at in the right light, one could say that Casino Royale – while kind-of reviving the Bond franchise – ruined everything for the 50-year-old iconic British spy franchise. Not only did it ruin the franchise, but – and it’s time for Trolling to just come out and say it – Casino Royale SUCKS. Read on, and discover why the beloved new Bond is the worst Bond yet.
Casino Royale does have the best screenplay of any James Bond movie, and the dialogue crackles with wit. I also like the central card game in the movie, and Daniel Craig is most certainly the sexiest of the James Bonds. But this beloved and novel take on an age-old movie character feels, in many salient ways, like a betrayal of the James Bond traditions. I’m all for keeping a series fresh, but there’s a way to do that and maintain the series’ traditions of fun, wit, and cosmopolitan globe-trekking fantasy fulfillment. Casino Royale didn’t do that.
Until next week, let the hate mail flow.
Witney Seibold is a featured contributor on the CraveOnline Film Channel, and co-host of The B-Movies Podcast. You can read his weekly articles Trolling, Free Film School and The Series Project, and follow him on “Twitter” at @WitneySeibold, where he is slowly losing his mind.
Casino Royale SUCKS
-
It’s Not Fun Anymore
What’s the most marked detail about James Bond movies? Easy: they’re fun films. Each of the James Bond films – even the more so-called “serious” ones – are broad action adventure films. Putting aside for a moment the usual plot elements, attractive distant locales, and bevvies of hot ladies, the one overall tonal dictate for making a James Bond film is that they are fun and romantic. Being a spy is a fun job. Casino Royale is a dark, dour, almost depressing movie about bullies and murderers. Getting the job done is now painful and horrific. You’ll get tortured, and you’ll watch your girlfriend die. You’ll hate your boss. Why does James Bondwant to be a spy anymore? Doesn’t a dark tone undermine what James Bond movies ought to be?
-
Bond is Too Dour
Bond himself is also no longer a fun-loving prankster. Indeed, Craig seems incapable of joy in this new version of things. In previous films, I got the sense that James Bond wanted to be a spy because of the enjoyment it afforded him. True, he had to fight and kill from time to time, but he was more of a dashing gentleman about it, fitting sex and drinking and gambling into his day job. Bond used to be a bon vivant. Now he’s a thug. And, given the current action movie climate, this makes him indistinguishable from any number of dour thug action heroes. How is James Bond now any different from, say, the guy from Hitman?
-
Bond is Too Violent
Oh sure, James Bond has always been known for murdering people. When it comes to action movies, murder is often heroic. It’s also exciting. Nothing is more exhilarating than a good guy offing a bad guy. Bond even has a license to kill, which seems like the single most morally irresponsible document a government could ever issue. And while one can tut-tut the murders in the old Bond films for being too flip, I vastly prefer the lighthearted and heroic violence over the terrors in Casino Royale. All of a sudden, there was real pain and blood, and Bond was all too eager to scowl and fire bullets into people. There was a dark edge to the violence in Casino Royale that was absent from previous Bond movies. Showing the more real brutality of the more real violence only makes the movie less fun and the hero less heroic.
-
Who Cares Where Bond Came From?
James Bond’s appeal as a character has always been how easily he seems to naturally take his life of action and intrigue. It’s easy, then, to imagine yourself as James Bond, an international Jet Setter with fast cars, loose women, and laser guns. He’s not a terrifically complex character, and he shouldn’t be. I don’t want to know how James Bond became James Bond, or why M first hired him. All I want to know is that he’s good at his job, and he loves his life. Like Superman or Indiana Jones, the character works better the less complex he is. I don’t want a tortured rich history for Bond. No one does. We want a fun fantasy Bond. Seeing how he grew up or how he found his job ruins the mystique of who he is, and how well he does his job.
-
Why is M Still Here?
This is a continuity error that drives me nuts. Casino Royale is clearly a reboot of the James Bond franchise, going back to the beginning of Bond’s career, recasting him as a hothead. So far, so meh. However, Judi Dench plays M in this film, as she did in the previous four movies. The ones with Pierce Brosnan. So wait, M is now older than she was before, and now she’s just meeting Bond? Okay, so it’s an all-new continuity. Then why have any sort of connective tissue? Dench was calling James Bond an outdated dinosaur 11 full years before she lectured him for being inexperienced? The timeline is too shifty-eyed now.
-
It’s Derivative of the Bourne Movies
James Bond movies, throughout the years, have all struck a very similar tone. Thanks to the jazzy music, the lush photography, and the familiar James Bond iconography, we can now spot a James bond movie in a matter of seconds. Casino Royale is the only film in the entire James Bond franchise that doesn’t feel like a James bond film. It’s just as slick, and there’s still plenty of action, but there’s something drastically different and horribly amiss. It seems like the new steely straightforward action and brutality is now trying to imitate the American Jason Bourne films. The Bourne films were trying to – I think – subvert the James Bond model, right? As a result, we have a James bond film that is at odds with itself. To be a James Bond film, or to subvert? This time around, it was more subversion. And it felt wrong.
-
No Gadgets
What does Bond use in this movie? A self-defribulator? That's it? No lasers? Bombs? Jet packs? Snore.
