Bond character gains depth in ‘Casino’

In theaters

CASINO ROYALE, directed by Martin Campbell, written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis from Ian Fleming’s novel, 144 minutes, rated PG-13.

The new James Bond movie, “Casino Royale,” is one of the best, most satisfying movies of the year – and who saw that coming? Since it was first announced last year that Daniel Craig would replace Pierce Brosnan as Bond, purists began their rumblings and rantings, hammering nails in the film’s coffin and condemning the shift in command while the filmmakers went about their work.

For awhile, it seemed as if Britain’s most notorious, dashing sociopath couldn’t get a break, poor chap. But what director Martin Campbell and his producers likely knew is what we now see onscreen, Craig isn’t just the best Bond since Sean Connery, he in fact creates a richer, more complex Bond, bringing to the character the sort of depth and nuance that Connery never mined.

That isn’t a criticism of Connery, whose genius as Bond is one of pop culture’s great pleasures. Instead, it’s an observation of the way Bond is handled here. “Casino Royale” is based on Ian Fleming’s 1953 novel, the first in the Bond franchise, which Connery wasn’t allowed to play since the Bond films began in 1962 with the second book in the series, “Dr. No.” At that point, at least in print, the Bond character had been established – Connery was playing an agent who had matured.

But what of the younger Bond, the brash, impulsive agent who grew into the icon we know? What was he like? It’s this part of the equation with which “Casino Royale” is concerned, and it’s precisely this attention to detail that makes the movie so gratifying. The superlative action scenes don’t hurt it, either (the opening chase scene is a vertigo-inducing blast), nor do the performances or the writing, all of which are smart and compelling.

Mirroring the excellent “Batman Begins,” “Royale” is designed to take a popular fictional figure and infuse him with a back story meant to explain how, in this case, Bond became Bond. Predictably, the storyline is dense, with Bond botching his first mission before a furious M (Judi Dench) dispatches him to the Bahamas and then to Montenegro. There, he is given a last chance to prove his double-0 worthiness by bringing down Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a villainous financier of terrorists whose left eye is given to weeping blood.

Le Chiffre is a master at poker, which is how Bond must bring him down. Helping him to that end is the fetching Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), an MI6 accountant whose job it is to give Bond the money he needs to take on Le Chiffre at the tense, high-stakes poker game that consumes the second half of the film. Vesper is Bond’s intellectual and sexual equal, so much so that she beats into his armored heart in ways that fully round out his character. It’s how their relationship evolves that gives the final third of the film its fierce (and surprising) dramatic pull.

In the end, some might miss those old Bond staples – Q and this kitschy gadgets, the passing presence of Moneypenny, the lighter tone. But at my screening, which ended with a rare, spontaneous burst of applause from the audience, it appeared as if the film’s intense, inward shift to a darker, more interesting core was just right for the times. It proved more than enough, as did this new Bond himself.

Grade: A

On HD DVD

HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS, directed by Ron Howard, written by Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman, 102 minutes, rated PG.

Ron Howard’s $120 million production of Dr. Seuss’ “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” now available in high definition on HD DVD, may appeal to youngsters who haven’t read the 1957 book or seen the equally great 1966 cartoon, but adults who grew up on each will know exactly what’s been stolen from the story, essentially, everything that mattered.

This big-budget fiasco misses what made Seuss’ fable an endearing classic, the lyricism of its language, the richness of its story, the gentleness and sly humor with which it was told, and, more importantly, the enormous green heart it wore on its sleeve.

Desperate to pull, stretch and expand Seuss’ story into a full-length feature film, Howard and his crew depart wildly from the text and the ideas that inspired it, a fatal mistake. Seuss created the Whos and Whoville to illustrate what Christmas should mean to lesser mortals such as us. But in Howard’s film, the Whos are now cruelly (some might say accurately) meant to reflect us.

Driven by greed and commercialism, they aren’t the sweet, decent people Seuss imagined in his Whovillian utopia, but a grossly piggish, hateful band of louts no better than the Grinch, who push and shove while clambering for more, more, more.

Cindy Lou Who (Taylor Momsen) may be the exception, but since the film turns only to her to provide the balance of good vs. evil (in the book, it was the townspeople vs. the Grinch), that balance is shot.

Momsen is cute and has an angelic smile, but she isn’t nearly enough to rise up against Jim Carrey’s nonstop shenanigans as the Grinch and his struggle to be recognized beneath the layers of Rick Baker’s makeup. His exhausting performance isn’t acting, per se, but pandering reduced to a series of sight gags, some of which are so raunchy, adults might find themselves wondering what happened to the Grinch they grew up with.

The good news? The cartoon version has just been remastered and re-released by Warner.

Grade: D+

Visit www.weekinrewind.com, the archive of Bangor Daily News film critic Christopher Smith’s reviews, which appear Mondays in Discovering, Fridays in Happening, and Weekends in Television. He may be reached at Christopher@weekinrewind.com.