The new Casino Royale will put 007 on the couch, metaphorically anyway. Director Martin Campbell tells USA Today it’s an origin tale, meant to explain everything from why he likes his martinis shaken-not-stirred to why he’s a compulsive womanizer.
I’m not sure we want to know all that. Bond’s psychology has never been all that important; he’s not a Marvel Comics hero. Still, if the producers really want a brooding Bond, it helps explain more why they’ve picked the stormy Daniel Craig (left). (As opposed to, say, Clive Owen, who’d be a more quietly smoldering Bond.) And you have to give the filmmakers credit for nerve if they truly intend to make the franchise less about gadgets and more about character.
Comments (1-3) of 3 Add your comment
I for one, think it’s a great idea to do an 007 origin story. I mean, come on, what do you want? Yet another stale same old same old cookie cutter Bond movie, the way it’s been for YEARS? Going back to the drawing boards worked wonders for Batman. Let’s try it here. Admit it, this series has been on autopilot for waaaaaaay too long.
I agree with the idea 100%, but producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbra Broccoli need to write the checks and stay out of the creative team’s way. You brought in a veteran pilot (Campbell) to direct and you’re having a red hot screenwriter (Haggis) do the polish. Leave them be!
Let them reboot the series with an edgy guy (Craig) who looks like he’s capable of having a license to kill and come up with some SPECTRE-like villain organization. You’ve used up every rogue Korean or ex-Soviet agent types that would even want to take over the world by now.
If I have to see ANOTHER laser weapon in outer space or 007 hang gliding off a tidal wave I’m going to turn in my license to buy a ticket.
Isn’t Craig a little bit old to be starring in the origin story of Bond? By 40, the origin is pretty much taken care of, right?