 |
An
endless array of explosions, betrayal, emotionless violence and slaughter, countless
evasions of death which would be impossible to execute in real life, extremely exaggerated
chaos and destruction, super human aerobatics, predictable romance, a simplistic
plot that is unraveled in complicated ways as to produce a more sophisticated and
complex effect; these are all common clichés of generic action films, which, in
the case of this genre, includes popular, big name productions as well as
aspiring series and overlooked films alike. It is due to these clichés that I
am generally uninterested in movies of this genre, as I see them as mostly
predictable, simplistic and desperate to attract the attention of viewers
through messages of ruthless violence, impassiveness, and perpetual hatred. Previously,
I have never watched a James Bond film of any sort, which I believe had both a
positive and negative effect on my experience; positively, I was engaged in an unfamiliar,
and therefore, more interesting, plot with unfamiliar and therefore, more
intriguing characters. Additionally, my experience wasn’t affected by the whole
“who plays the best Bond” debate (I’ve heard a lot of people aren’t too fond of
Craig). Negatively, however, I wasn’t familiar with the story or characters,
and am still uncertain as to whether the plot of Casino Royale ties in with
other Bond movies; whether this took away from my experience or not, I’ll never
know unless I proceed to watch more films of this series. Regardless, I wasn’t
too sure what to expect with Casino Royale. Because, from what I understand,
007 is one of finer series of this genre, I found it more enticing than I otherwise
would have.
 |
| Go fish. |
I’ll
start by detailing my interpretation of the plot; I mentioned earlier that
action movies generally take a rather simplistic plot and reveal it in way that
makes it appear to be more complex than it actually is; Casino Royale was no
exception; unless the viewer has a vast knowledge of poker (which I do not),
the only way to interpret what was occurring was to observe the appearances and
reactions of the characters. Concerning the plot as a whole, it seemed like the
first half hour was dedicated to explaining Bond to those who were not very
familiar with him (quite fortunately, for me), demonstrating the relationship between
Bond and his superiors, as well as the coldhearted mercilessness he displays
towards his enemies. Finally, as, the “rising action” stage of the story begins
to address the primary plot, drama begins to increase, as does the hand to hand
combat, and as do the stabbings, gunfights, poisonings, death threats, and heated
games (if “games” is the correct term) of Poker. It is towards the beginning of
the ascent of the primary plot that Bond’s female “business partner” (whose
name, now that I consider it, I never did acquire, but then again, I should
note, names weren’t a prominent aspect of this film), is introduced. As seems
to be the case with all Bond’s companions, and as would seem to be the case
with most companions in action movies, Bond’s female partner represents several
different characters and relations (business partner, romance, companion, etc.).
Finally the plot (which I do not mean to retell the entirety of, I simply must
explain it as to justify my opinion) proceeds to a point where the character
who seems to be the main antagonist (another name I do not recall after having
watched the film just a short time ago) is eliminated, a romantic scene is
displayed in which Bond completes the final parts of what is referred to as his
“mission”, and romance is displayed between Bond and his female companion; due
to the beauty and blissfulness of the ocean-side scene, and what seemed to be
conclusion of the plot, I was certain the credits would role very shortly;
however, much to my surprise, the plot dragged on for another half hour, where
the action picked up once again, and the “happy ending” was crushed. While I
believe this element of surprise was a refreshing separation from the ending I had
previously played out in my head, I believe it could have been executed in a
less sudden and more sensitive fashion. Overall, the end was just a bit too
dark, and there was just a bit too much betrayal (Bond’s superior alludes to
this fact when she congratulates him for learning not to trust anyone).
 |
| Yeah, I have no clue what her name was. |
Concerning
cinematography, there was nothing particular interesting or noticeable concerning
the contrast of lighting, however, color was used to express mood; when the
scene was intense, violent, or depressing, the color was bland and rather dull,
with a seemingly dusty-brownish hue. When the mood was happier or romantic, the
colors were much brighter, and different environmental entities were used to
produce more “beautiful” effects; during one romantic scene, which took place
at an ocean-side setting, entities included trees and vegetation swaying in the
breeze, peaceful wakes on the water when the water could be seen, brightly,
richly green grass, etc. When the scene was dramatic and suspenseful, the
background was blurred, and the camera was focused solely on the actor’s faces.
During intense chase scenes, the camera was constantly changing angles,
displaying over-the-shoulder views as well as views higher and lower respect to
the character it was focusing on. There was once scene in particular that immensely
inspired and interested me, in which Bond is poisoned, and walks into a
bathroom; during his entrance, the camera goes berserk, displaying all
different angles and perspectives of the stumbling bond as he struggles to
reach the sink; certain shots looked up, from the ground, towards Bond’s face
and the ceiling, while others showed only his face, and everything around him
was blurred and made wavy as to produce a dazed effect. Needless to mention,
the cliché “everything that is smashed or shot at explodes” concept was not
neglected either, as there are several intense explosions in places they would
never actually occur (ex: a large truck crashes into a bus, and the bus suffers
massive combustion, I suppose this would make sense if everyone on board was
made of kerosene and gun powder, otherwise, it is simply an overused concept)
Other than their exaggerated nature, the special effects were pulled off in a
very successful and realistic appearing manner.
Overall,
while Casino Royale exhibits many common clichés of action films, if you’re the
kind of person that doesn’t care for action movies because you believe they
have no sense of decency when it comes to plot, I would definitely recommend that
you consider giving this one a chance, even if you know nothing about 007. Due to my inexperience with Bond films, slight distaste for action films, and the poorly executed abrupt twist at the end, I give Casino Royale a 6/10 for holding my interest as well as it did.
No comments:
Post a Comment