The Hamster just sent in this photo from his local newspaper in Denmark. It’s of Mads Mikkelsen. More specifically, how he looks as the villainous Le Chiffre in the forthcoming 007 reboot CASINO ROYALE. I haven’t seen this image circulating on the net, so I thought I’d post it for your perusal.
I just saw the original (1967) CASINO ROYALE in HD…a damn peculiar film in nearly every way. I’m not sure what to make of this new movie, either. I don’t hate director Martin Campbell like some people do, nor do I find his filmmaking terribly consistent. The casting of Daniel Craig as Bond is neither here nor there for me; I think the role has proven capable of accommodating numerous actors with different styles and approaches.
However, I’m not convinced about grounding Bond in “the real” world. I’ve always enjoyed the more spectacular, fantastic Bond films…the Bonds Mike Meyers has so much fun lampooning in AUSTIN POWERS. The spaceship and underwater city kind of Bond films. Sure, they bring with them a whopping cheese factor…but to me that’s part of the fun. And, such things don’t necessarily have to be cheesy. If, for pretend example, James Cameron or Ridley Scott were directing a James Bond spaceship (or underwater city) adventure…that would be pretty amazing to see.
Bond, in my interpretation, isn’t “real” – and doesn’t belong in a “real” world. 007 is a larger-than-life archetype at home in a larger-than-life (stylized?) reality. The “spectacle” Bond template better fits my personal preference.
The problem is: We’re less likely to see “spectacle” Bond if the newly rewritten rules don’t accommodate it. This being said, I’m very curious to see how CASINO ROYALE plays out, and I’m actually quite open to it despite such uncertainties.
As a side note, I’m not clear on why Judy Dench is reprising her role as “M” if this film is a ground-up re-launch of the franchise. Sure, one could argue that Bernard Lee continued as “M” through several Bonds…but those films were direct continuations, within a set continuity. This…is starting over. Why clutter our perceptions of the “new” Bond vibe by evoking previous “noise” from the old?