Daniel Craig Bond Retrospective: "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace"

Spoilers for the films below

With the Daniel Craig era of the James Bond franchise coming to a close with No Time to Die I wanted to look back his at tenure, starting with my favourite, Casino Royale. This movie was a big deal for 17 year old Andrew. And it's incredible to think Craig has been playing Bond since I was still in high school. It was 2005 when he was first announced to be playing Bond and now it's 2021. Crazy. I fell in love with the tragic love story between Bond and Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), the reinvention of the gun barrel, set at the end of the series' first black and white sequence, was so cool. And Craig's performance made him my favourite Bond. While I often say Timothy Dalton is my favourite Bond, re-watching Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace back-to-back I think Craig may be my favourite, though it's always hard to choose. And while I can't say I love this film in exactly the same way I used to, I still feel some of that old love. It's a very nostalgic movie for me.

While Pierce Brosnan's final Bond film Die Another Day was a box office hit it was seen as too fantastical with its invisible car, ice palace and other such things. The decision was made to not only recast but to completely reboot the franchise, taking this opportunity to film Bond creator's Ian Fleming first Bond novel, Casino Royale. When Albert R. Broccoli was first making the Bond films, producer Charles K. Feldman had the film rights to the book which he made in to the 1967 spoof version. Broccoli tried to buy the rights from Feldman but to no avail. When Sony bought Columbia 1999 they got the rights and when they able to distribute the Bond movies, Broccoli's EON Productions was finally able to do the story proper. And the film is actually one of the most faithful Bond adaptations, retaining the basic plot of Fleming's novel though adding a lot more action. 

When Craig was chosen there was plenty of controversy but  the reviews for the film and Craig were maybe the best the franchise ever received until Skyfall. And director Martin Campbell, who introduced Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye, had for the second time rejuvenated the franchise. Casino Royale was coming at a time where I believe audiences were open to more serious takes on characters like Batman and Bond. I feel people now want something a little lighter, that they're tired of the darker tome. But the film, I'd argue, has the right balance between seriousness and humor. There's a real sense of fun in the reinvention of this icon.

Casino Royale is very much a character study of Bond. It's also an origin story that's not an origin at the same time. Instead of starting with Bond getting recruited by MI6 from the navy or showing his schoolboy days the pre-title sequences jumps right in to Bond carrying out the two kills which will earn him his "00" status. Another film would've taken more time getting to Bond's first two kills but Casino Royale retains an element of mystery regarding Bond's past. The next time we see him he's chasing down a bombmaker in the film's first and stand-out set-piece. While he's a more rough-around-the-edges character, a "blunt instrument" as Judi Dench's M calls him, he's pretty much Bond right from the start- quipping, womanizing, gambling. The only  exception is him not giving a damn whether his martini is shaken or stirred. 

Coming back to the pre-title sequence, it efficiently sets up this version of  Bond as we see him talking calmly to MI6 Section Chief (and traitor) Dryden while cutting to Bond earlier brutally killing Dryden's contact, Fisher, in a bathroom. The black and white cinematography switches between a stark and gritty look in the bathroom to a smoother one in the present. This contrasts the hands on killing of Fisher with one silent bullet assassination of Dryden. Though to be fair, Fisher does come back to life and Bond shoots him as well. 

It takes almost an hour for Vesper to shows up, which makes her introduction more impactful. We've spent nearly an hour with Bond, seeing how he operates, free of emotional attachment. And then he meets the woman he doesn't know is going to change his life. He's never met a woman like Vesper and it changes the dynamic of what the film has been so far. Bond has been a loner, now he's working with someone who's going to challenge him and his ego. The dialogue between Bond and Vesper is the best we've ever had between Bond and his leading lady. It's snappy but also shows them probing each other, challenging each other's beliefs 

Their mission involves making sure terrorist financier Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) doesn't win the high stakes poker game at Casino Royale. Bond foiled Le Chiffre's plan to bankrupt the airline industry, which lost Le Chiffre the money of his clients. If Le Chiffre loses MI6 can offer him protection in return for information. The gambling isn't the most exciting part of this movie but the script by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis adds enough business around the game to up the tension and give us some nice character moments, including Bond being poisoned and Vesper having to re-start his heart. The scene where Vesper is sitting in the shower after Bond has killed several of Le Chiffre's who has come looking for their money. is one the franchise's most genuinely tender scenes as well. 

Just as how the film is simultaneously an origin story and not, Le Chiffre is a traditional Bond villain but also not. He has the physical disfigurement that's a trademark of several Bond villains, the sinister presence, and for the first hour Bond is a trail which leads to him. But Bond stops Le Chiffre's plan before the film has hit the hour mark. Le Chiffre becomes desperate man attempting to pay back his clients, rather than the villain with a world domination plot. The film's true villains are in the shadows, who we'll learn in the next film are the terrorist organization Quantum, who have kidnapped Vesper's boyfriend to get her to help them. And this makes Bond part of their plot as well, since it's him winning the game which gets them their money.  

Bond and Le Chiffre and just both expendable pawns. When Le Chiffre is torturing Bond, he tells him that even if he kills Bond MI6 will still help him. And Le Chiffre is killed because Quantum can't trust him. And this is before the final act. This further exemplifies how Le Chiffre is not the big bad of the film. And the larger threat looms over the happiness Bond and Vesper find with each other. Like On Her Majesty's Secret Service we see Bond given an opportunity for a different kind of life before it's tragically snatched away. But it's inevitable, if not for Bond than for the audience, who know Bond can't quit. There wouldn't be a franchise if he did. But there is odd sense of triumph to the film's final scene, with Bond standing over Quantum member Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), saying the iconic "Bond. James Bond" It's letting us know Bond's not going to be brought down by tragedy.

 

But Bond still has to deal with Vesper's betrayal and his need for vengeance in the next film, Quantum of Solace, a film that was one of the victims of the 2007-2008 writer's strike and displays it's lack of a polished story pretty clearly. I guess it wasn't originally supposed to be a direct sequel but became that later on. Stylistically the film does feel different from Casino Royale- largely I think because Campbell didn't return and Marc Forster ended up directing-and it's plot involving a coup in Bolivia and control over its water supply feels like it could've been in a standalone movie. 

Quantum is best viewed it back-to-back with its predecessor,  since it takes place right after Casino Royale ends, a first for the franchise.  Watching it for this retrospective, I didn't like it quite as much as I had before. It's a little thin and underdeveloped, and doesn't get to have to a true built from the ground up story. And it feels rushed compared to the more thought out prequel. The film has its moments: I like the bits of humour, stylistic flourishes and Craig's performance but it can't help but feel like a disappointment as a sequel to what was a breath of fresh for the franchise.

It was a bold choice to shove us right back in to the story of Casino Royale but I wonder if the story should've been placed some time after, allowing more space to build up its story rather than forgoing a traditional first act. Casino Royale took  time with its story but Quantum of Solace, at only 106 minutes with credits- including the pre-title sequence- is the shortest Bond film and as I said, it's kind of rushed. Bond usually has a more leisurely quality as we follow Bond from one exotic location to the next. But the shorter running time does befit what's an essentially a revenge story. If Craig is the 21st Century's Timothy Dalton then this is his Licence to Kill, a harder edged Bond film where Bond is caught between his emotions and his duty. 

I said the previous film was an origin story that wasn't and I'd argue Quantum is a revenge story that's not quite a revenge story. The film's main villain Dominic Greene (Mathau Almaric) is never established as having been involved with Vesper's kidnapped boyfriend who was being used to blackmail her. The whole point is Bond doesn't know where to direct his anger. As M tells him, he's so full of "inconsolable rage" he doesn't care who he hurts. It turns out Vesper's boyfriend was himself was a Quantum member and his kidnapping was staged to get her to help them. Bond confronts the boyfriend at the end, deciding to spare him and allow MI6 to arrest him. So, it's kind of an anti-revenge story in a way. And see Bond learn restrain, becoming more like the Bond we know other films. 

The revenge/character stuff is set against the backdrop of geopolitical plot concerning Quantum helping General Medrano's (Joaquin Cosio) coup against the government in exchange for control over Bolivia's water supply, with the C.I.A turning a blind eye. The film is obviously going for a plot reflecting real world geo-politics but there's not enough connective issue between Bond's inner turmoil and the main villain plot. There needed a clear turning point where begins to care about the bigger picture. One thing I do appreciate about the film's plot is how it incorporates Bond's C.I.A ally Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), giving Felix a little moral dilemma.  Wright as Felix is great casting and wish he was in these films more. 

What's always remarked about the film is its frantic editing. The editing is very messy in this film but I can see how they were maybe going for something impressionistic. The opera shootout id actually quite good, with the editing cutting between the action on stage with the gunfight. It's one of the most "arty" things ever put in a Bond movie. And I admire the build up to the opening car chase. We're shown glimpses Bond's eyes, guns, and the car in shadows. The music builds and then we're suddenly thrust in to the chase Forster is a more "art house" kind of director than journeyman Campbell so it makes sense while we have more of these stylistic displays.

The film is at its best in its quieter character moments than in its action. The scenes between Rene Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), who Bond thought had betrayed him in the previous film, have a real warmth to them. Mathis' death features both Bond being comforting and cruel in quick succession. He holds Mathis while he's dying but then throws in the garbage. Bond's relationship with Bolivian Secret Service agent Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko) also has a surprising poignancy to it. Their relationship never becomes sexual. Instead, the film focuses on how they're both broken people looking for closure. Camille wants to kill Medrano for him killing her family. Bond doesn't attempt to lecture her about revenge. He even apologizes for screwing up her shot at Medrano earlier in the film. These are nice character details which make Craig's Bond maybe the most nuanced incarnation of the character. 

Casino Royale began with Bond killing two men and Quantum ends with him sparing one. It's a nice bookend for the duology. M tells Bond she needs him back, to which Bond replies he never left. Bond then drops Vesper's necklace in the snow. This ending actually segues nicely in to Skyfall, where Bond has committed himself to M16 for years, a cog in a machine. And he begins to question his relationship with M and what it means. But that's for next time. See you then.

Forget Everything You Think You Know: "Doctor Strange"

Mild Spoilers Below

Doctor Strange represents an important step forward for Marvel Studios. With a plethora of visual imagination and a distinct feel which separates it from its brethren in the Marvel Cinematic Universe- even though it still has several Marvel movie elements that arise- the film is honestly one of the favourite films from the MCU thus far. The story itself is very much the "Origin Story"- Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) goes through personal trauma, learns his powers, defeats the villain, and everything is firmly set up both for sequels and for Strange to appear in other MCU films. But while the story is generic, the film doesn't feel overtly stale. This comes from the aforementioned visual creativity as well as a compact running time and a dedicated lead performance from Cumberbatch and his fellow cast-members. 

Stephen Strange is a renowned and brilliant neurosurgeon who after a car accident is unable to continue his practice due to his hands being damaged. Strange learns of a former paraplegic named Jonathon Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt) who is now walking. Hoping that whatever healed Pangborn can give him hands back, he confronts Pangborn, who tells Strange of a place called Karmar-Taj. There Strange meets Baron Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who takes him to the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton). She introduces Strange him to the world of magic, alternate worlds and astral planing. While at first reluctant to take in Strange as a pupil, she finally agrees. Strange eventually learns of the larger conflict at place between the Ancient One's former pupil Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelsen) who has stolen pages from a book in the Karmar-Taj library and wants to summon the demon Dormammu and gain eternal life.

The film's director Scott Derrickson is someone whose work I've admired in the past. I think Sinister and The Exorcism of Emily Rose are underrated gems of the horror genre and Derrickson's background in this genre and his talent for crafting unsettling imagery benefits the film when it enters psychedelic mode. When the Ancient One first sends Strange on a trip through the multiverse there's some creepy stuff that right's out a nightmare. What I like about the film is it acknowledges how scary magic and the mystic arts can be. Strange is warned that he plays around with time manipulation he can be stuck- Groundhog Day style- in the same moment forever or even wipe himself out of existence. Cinematographer Ben Davis provides a more atmospheric and darker look than we're used to in the MCU. 

Cumberbatch isn't a stranger to playing hyper-intelligent and arrogant men who are very good at what they do- though Strange is more recognisably human than his version of Sherlock Holmes. The early parts of the film where we're introduced to Strange, witness his accident and it's aftermath feel refreshingly feel less like a superhero film than a drama. When Strange first sees his damaged hands it has genuine dramatic weight and we can understand his desperation at wanting to repair himself- though its underscored by his arrogance. He can't stand losing the fame and glory his talent and work brought him. 

Rachel McAdams as Dr. Christine Palmer, Strange's colleague and former lover, is sadly underused but McAdams is such a naturally appealing and charismatic actress that she imbues Christine with some personality that's absent on the page. Michael Stuhlbarg, a fine actor, is also wasted as another fellow doctor, Nicodemus West.  

Mikkelsen is one of the best when it comes to playing suavely sinister bad guys and he makes Kaecilus one of the better MCU villains. I like that his motivation isn't world domination but wanting to reunite with his deceased wife and son. There's not much of a hero-villain relationship between Kaecilius and Strange- instead Kaecilius has a more intriguing relationship with the Ancient One.

Ejiofor, an elegant yet forceful actor, is arguably playing the most important character next to Strange. I would've liked a few more moments just to make his decision at the end of the film a little more weighty. Benedict Wong is amusing as the humourless Wong. Most of the humour in the film comes from his interactions with Strange, which is where the typical Marvel humour seeps in. Once the humour starts it does clash with the more serious first act. 

There's been much controversy surrounding Swinton's casting as the traditionally Tibetan Ancient One. Whitewashing is still a significant issue in Hollywood and needs to be rectified. With that being said, Swinton's performance is very good. She's such an offbeat and unique presence as an actress that she makes the Ancient One feel believably mystic. She also has the most emotional scene in the movie; it takes place between her and Strange and emphasises her humanity and how it exists alongside her incredible powers.

For those that felt Inception didn't do enough visually regarding its dream-scapes, Doctor Strange provides a plenty of eye-candy. I've become somewhat numb to blockbuster action but this is the rare film of its kind where the action is involving and exciting. Gravity is defied, geography is twisted and people fight on the astral plane; even the whole end of the world climax gets a fresh coat of paint and I love how the villain is defeated through wit rather than brawn.

While I like that the film is relatively short I still would've liked more of certain characters. I also feel it has the Man of Steel problem of putting most of the action in the back-half. Doctor Strange feels more in line with the Phase 1 films of the MCU where Marvel really felt like they were playing around with different genres within the same universe. The film is also very standalone- even though it name drops the Avengers, Infinity Stones and someone drops by in the mid-credits. It's good we can get more standalone adventures to balance out the more continuity heavy films like Civil War. Doctor Strange, while working as a self-contained story- also introduces plenty of cool ideas and concepts in to the larger MCU. And I am looking forward to seeing Strange interact with the other Marvel characters. As cynical as I can be about the superhero genre, having these characters exist and interact together is a wonderful thing. To paraphrase the poster for Doctor Strange: The possibilities are endless.  

An Unspeakable Act: "The Hunt"

When he was a young child, director Alfred Hitchcock was sentto the police station with a note from his father. A desk sergeant read the note and locked young Hitchcock in a cell for several minutes. He was eventually let out and was told by the officer this is what happened to boys who did bad things. This incident stayed with Hitchcock his entire life and provided a central theme to his filmography- that of the “wrong man,” an innocent man out to prove his innocence, which was the foundation for light escapist fare such as North by Northwest (1959), The 39 Steps (1935) and Saboteur (1942). Hitchcock treated this theme most seriously in The Wrong Man (1956), the only Hitchcock film based on a true story. The film tells of a New York musician named Manny Balestrero (Henry Fonda), who was mistaken for criminal.

Thomas Vinterberg’s The Hunt can be seen as a companion film to Hitchcock’s overlooked thriller, as well as an extension of Hitchcock’s favourite theme. The film concerns a Kindergarten teacher named Lucas (Mads Mikkelsen) who, after a remark by Klara, one of the Kindergarten children, is accused of molesting her. The small Danish town in which Lucas lives then turns against him. The title can refer to the hunting by Lucas that occurs in the woods but the deeper significance of the title refers to how the story of the film becomes that of a modern day witch hunt- a The Crucible for the 21^st Century.

While we understand the town’s disgust at the crime they believe Lucas committed- child molestation is a despicable crime- but the film shows how morality and outrage at horrible acts can slowly turn us in to monsters ourselves. There is a turning point- albeit a highly manipulative one- in the story where the town crosses a line and loses our sympathy. Even so the film never forgets these are human beings. This is what makes the film so unsettling. How far can seemingly sane people go when confronted with what they view as one evil man?

The film also asks the question, as did The Wrong Man, of what an innocent man can do when he is accused of something he didn’t do. It’s not as easy as saying “I’m innocent.” In the court of public opinion, once the seed of distrust is planted, it grows until it takes over the heart and mind. And why would Klara lie? I’m sure some will criticize the film for showing a young girl to be untrustworthy regarding matters of sexual abuse. But I don’t believe the film is suggesting we should never listen to children when it pertains to this crime. Rather, the film is showing us one remark can set off a chain reaction that can’t be stopped.

I like that before Lucas comes under fire we get a little of his back-story- he’s a divorcee who wants his teenage son Marcus to live with him and not his mother. This back-story adds some texture to Lucas’ character and makes him more than a blank slate victim. The fact Klara is the daughter of Lucas’ best friend Theo adds to the anguish of the film. How can Theo ever look at his friend the same way? It’s devastating and the shows the depths of pain Klara’s remark makes.

It’d be easy for the film to be played histrionically- and there are several very heightened and intense moments- but the film knows how to restrain itself- due to Vinterberg’s minimalist visual style as well as Mikkelsen’s performance. There’s a scene in a church near the end where we’re allowed to take in Lucas’s emotions- just through Mikkelsen’s wearied and broken down face.

As The Hunt enters its final scene we begin to think we’re in for a neat ending. But the final moments and image suggests the shadow of the previous year will always be there. There’s no turning back from the feelings we experience and the events we go through. They’ll always be there- regardless of guilt or innocence.