Coyote Blog

My kids and I drive my wife crazy when we are watching a movie at home.  We have all kinds of conversations going, conversations we would never even consider in a theater (another reason, beyond screen size and sound systems, why I consider the home movie watching experience distinct and not entirely competitive with the theater experience).   No movie can be watched without a dozen IMDB lookups of what else so and so actor was in.

One game we play is spot the rifle.  This probably does not mean what you think it means.  It refers to Checkov's rule (the writer, not the astrogator) never to put a rifle on stage in Act 1 if someone is not going to use it in Act 3.  Our game assumes that movies are following this rule, so we look for elements sometimes awkwardly thrown into Act 1 so they can be used later.  Note this is distinct from a macguffin, and is really not the same as foreshadowing either.  The "save the clock tower" fund raiser early in Back to the Future is an example.  Calling your shot in this game, like on Jeopardy, requires the answer to be in a specific form, ie "Never put a lightening strike on a clock tower on stage in Act 1 if you are not going to use it in Act 3".  It goes without saying that winning answers must be shouted out in Act 1, not Act 3.

My daughter, who is quite an aficionado of romantic comedies, texted me an updated corollary:  Don't put a pregnant woman on stage in act 1 of a comedy unless she is going to go into labor at the most inconvenient moment in act 3.

Postscript:  The "Q" armorer dynamic in James Bond is a version of this on steroids.  The rules of Q were:  1.  Every tool he gives Bond gets used and 2.  No matter how odd or arcane the tool (e.g. high powered electromagnet built into a condom) it turns out to be exactly the niche tool Bond needs to escape at some point.   For example, one and only one time is Bond issued with a CPR device but that one time he needs it to save his life (Daniel Craig version of Casino Royale).

First, I want to preface that I absolutely loved Casino Royale.  I had expected not to like it, being skeptical of Daniel Craig and the apparently trendy substitution of Texas Hold'em for Baccarat.  But the movie was fabulous, easily the best Bond ever, and a long-overdue retooling of the franchise.  In comparison, the campy Roger Moore 70's Bond movies are almost embarassing.

All that said, I was disapointed in Quantum of Solace.  The movie was entertaining and worth the price of admission, but two aspects really hurt the movie for me:

1. The directors have adopted the currently popular edgy filming style of action sequences which involve lightning quick cuts and jerky camera pans (used in the Bourne movies, for example).  The style really increases the confusion of the moment, and has its place in creating tension and giving a first person feel to the action, but it gets tiring and confusing after a time.  Compare the opening chase sequences in this movie to the absolutely fabulous chase scene through the construction site near the beginning of Casino Royale.  I thought the Casino Royale sequence was much a better, but I must admit I am a big fan of long tracking shots over quick cuts, so I guess your mileage may very.  There was one shot I thought really cool in the new movie.  Bond and mystery villain #3 or 4 fall through a glass ceiling, and you fall with them POV-style. 
2. The movie seems to be a return to the WTF-style plot of a lot of modern action movies, especially sequels, that put one-upping the action sequences of the previous movie over having a coherant plot.  I don't mind twists and turns, but in the end, all the motivations have to make sense.  I mean, how many mystery guys can Bond chase, kill, and then say, well, I guess we'll never figure out who that guy was.  The early parts were like the Seinfeld version of action movies -- they are not about anything, they are just chase scenes.  And, I still don't understand why the bad guys in QoS are doing what they are doing.  Its another one of those "spend a billion dollars in a vast conspiracy to make $100 million" Bond villain plans.  In contrast, Casino Royale was anchored to what I think was the best Ian Fleming book, and it stuck close to the book.  Even when it deviated, for example with the shift from bacarrat to Texas Hold'em, it actually improved the plot, as it shifted to a game that at least involves some skill.

Update:  I feel I need to clarify one thing.  I am a huge fan of the old Bond movies.  Goldfinger, Thunderball, Diamonds are Forever, Goldeneye -- all great.  Despite my comments above, I even like most of the Roger Moore films, though you have to take a different approach to them.  But the formula was tired.  The Survivor formula was hugely popular at first, but in season 9 or 10 or whatever, it's just done.  You either are repeating the same tired cliches, because you feel locked into a formula by your fans who will get pissed (as they did with Casino Royale) when you violate the formula, or you fall into the trap of trying to top yourself with goofier and goofier plots.  I actually thought the series was dead around about View to a Kill, but Pierce Brosnan really brought new life to the series for a while. 

Update #2:  Tigerhawk has similar thoughts

I finally saw Casino Royale this weekend, and though it has been said in many other reviews, I will repeat it:  This is the best Bond ever.  More than just changing Bond actors, the movie represents a retooling of a Bond franchise gone way, way astray in the Roger Moore years.  Pierce Brosnan did a good job bringing Bond back to reality, but he was still too pretty-boy to really portray the ice-cold, very serious Bond of the books.  The double-0's are supposed to be hired as assassins (license to kill, remember) and not because they look good in a tux.  Bond in the book Casino Royale, for example, doesn't even want Vesper Lynd around because he refuses to be distracted by women on duty.  The Bond of recent movies seems to do nothing but get distracted by women on duty.

Casino Royale was always my favorite of the Bond books, and I am pleased that it was this book that brought the franchise into a new era.  Yes, Q and the gadgets are gone, and even some of the classic lines are mostly absent (though shaken not stirred draws a funny joke).  In their place is much sharper and more interesting dialog.  Judie Dench finally gets a role as M that does justice to some of her acting talents.  And  Daniel Craig is fabulous.   

This is also by far the closest any Bond movie has stuck to it's namesake book.  The book was a bit light on action, so rather than try to work it in where it does not belong, they grafted the action onto the front of the movie, which is essentially a prequel to the action in the book.  The book begins about where Bond gets approval to go after LeChiffre in a card game, and from that point forward it follows the book almost exactly, with some minor updating.  The only small amount of pain was seeing Bond playing Texas hold'em rather than Baccarat, but after seeing the movie, poker works much better than Baccarat did in the book - the element of bluffing adds to the tension.

Don't worry, the action is still there.  The opening chase scene is fabulous, all the more so because it is mostly free of gadgets and aircraft and missiles and... you get the idea.  Instead, you get Bond at his most ruthless as well as the improvisational Bond we haven't seen since Sean Connery.  First movie in a while I immediately wanted to see again.  And first action movie in forever where the plot made any sense and the writing was sharp.