Ohhh. Now that's BAD.

So you're going to be a villain in a James Bond movie. Who do you base your character on? Imadinnerjacket? Kim Jong-il? Heck, the Unabomber? OJ Simpson? Rick Berman?

Nooooo.

Amalric said he modeled his character to some extent on former Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. "I've been taking details, the smile of Tony Blair, the craziness of Sarkozy, he's the worst villain we've ever had," he said

Uh huh. Simple choice. Live in France under Sarkozy, live in Syria under Bashar al-Assad. Or Iraq under that cuddly old fellow Hussein. (Walk in the park, that was.) Give us your answer. Take your time...

Quantum of Solace, by the way, is a really depressing story. Bond's not even in it, really other than as a bookend. It's a story being told to him by some Brit official at a party in Jamaica or somewhere about this couple where the fellow was a nice guy and the wife ran around on him with the tennis pro. The fellow commits suicide out of shame and leaves her alone and penniless. See? The Bond books weren't all women and gadgets and car chases.

You Know My Name

Wow. Just so you know, I keep a "temp" file of random text that I jot on when I get a free moment. That way when the moment comes to press "SEND" I have an appreciable amount of pointless blather to keep the blog rolling. Some days more than others.

Well, I have about a page and a half of not quite coherent and unpublishable (even for TGP) rambling about Casino Royale. It comes down to this: There are topics on which I know too much. Investment planning is not one of them. Nor is carpentry or car care. Star Trek is. Firefly is. James Bond definitely is. So I'm going to try and get this down in a few paragraphs without detailing the history of the evolution of the gun barrel titles, the John Barry / Monty Norman dispute, why Timothy Dalton was almost a great Bond, and why George Lazenby sitting next to a skating rink is the greatest scene in the history of the series, and in how many films he does not say "Bond, James Bond". But if you're that foolish, you can ask me.

I liked it much. As I think back on the film, there is a certain sparkle that still seems to be missing that I think Pierce Brosnan brought to the role even through three very uneven movies. But barring that, the film is brave enough to jettison (mostly) the CG effects, the too much is too much gadgetry, and many of the staples of the last twenty James Bond films. You know it right away when they don't start with the James Bond theme and the gun barrel (no, it's not a camera lens). You see people in the cinema looking around at each other whispering "Is this the movie? Didn't we go to see James Bond?" This is the first EON produced Bond movie that doesn't start with it.

Craig isn't exactly Ian Fleming's James Bond but he's really close. This Bond isn't perfect at everything, only a few things. He can be out-run and out-fought, but he can't be out-shot or out-schemed. His skill is getting a situation to play to his skills. He's in a little over his head for much of the film and it works terrifically. I hope they can keep to this style for a few more movies. And guys? Bring Martin Campbell back again, please. He made Goldeneye, he made this. He's your guy. If you make movies that are distinguishable from one another you don't have to change directors every time.

The story runs pretty close to book while filling in the blanks (that weren't necessary during the cold war - Russians, spies, money - got it) at the beginning of the movie. Now that I think on it, the story manages to make "terrorism" the bad guys, without ever showing anyone who looked like a modern terrorist (although they do reference 9/11 explicitly). Of course, as much as everyone thinks of James Bond as cold-warrior extraordinaire, the Soviets weren't the actual bad guys until For Your Eyes Only, in NINETEEN EIGHTY! While the plot in From Russia With Love the novel directly involved the Russians (as did Casino Royale, for that matter) the movie made them the dupes, along with the Brits, of SPECTRE. So, same trick, different bad guys. They manage to keep the three or four most memorable moments from the book. Including the ending, which is very downbeat. (Not On Her Majesty's Secret Service downbeat, but close.)

Judi Dench is still terrific. M (Barbara Mawdsley is her real name, btw) has a choice line about fighting the war in the press. And she still has no compunction about sending a double-oh out to die. But while Brosnan was playing the MI6 golden boy who Dench's M had inherited (much to her dismay), Craig is the new kid on the block who M is trying to groom into something more than a thug. It's an interesting relationship.

The bad guy: They've pulled off having the disfigured crazy Bond villain and having him be a real person. At this stage he seems an honest match for Bond in much the same way that Goldfinger or Blofeld or Largo were. No henchmen as such. There's no Oddjob or Jaws. He has a terrific line where he is bleeding from his tear ducts and assures the man playing cards with him that it is "nothing sinister".

So it's a nice new start for the Bond series. Like Batman Begins, it's a good film but I'm more interested to see what they do next with it.

Whew. That wasn't' so bad after all. Be seeing you.