Casino Royale / The Good Shepherd

Casino Royale



Bond movies are kinda like Rajnikanth movies. They have their own rules and conventions and viewers who go to these movies expect - or even look forward to - these movies following these special rules. Casino Royale breaks these conventions but in a mostly good way. Going back to Bond's roots as a spy, it puts James Bond in a real action movie that showcases him more as a man than the superman we are used to seeing him as.

Casino Royale is a trademark Bond movie and has all the trademarks of a regular Bond movie - exotic locales, nice set pieces, high-octane stunts and a unique villain. There are not as many gadgets or women but its Bond himself who brings the most difference to the table. He is cold, brutal and almost heartless when it comes to the bad guys and is enough of a romantic to fall in love. This makes him different and interesting. He also gets more down and dirty than in any other Bond film and is at the receiving end of a particularly brutal form of torture.

It may be a new kind of Bond but we still have a history with him. So the best parts of the movie happen when we see a link to the Bond we know and love. I loved his answer to "Shaken or Stirred?" and the "Bond... James Bond" answer is so effective since we are really made to wait for it.

The film starts with a fantastic chase on foot that reminds one of the opening chase in District B13 (though here, it is the guy who Bond is chasing, who stuns us with his athleticism). There are not too many action sequences in the rest of the film with the bulk of the action taking place at the poker table but the movie doesn't slow down though. Where it does slow down in is the climax. It drags on for way too long with atleast two places where I thought the film had ended.

The Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd is a very good thriller. A cerebral spy thriller, it is at the other end of the spectrum when compared to action-heavy films like Casino Royale (and other Bond films) but is more involving and satisfying because of that.

The film starts of with the botched Bay of Pigs invasion that the US attempted in Cuba in 1961. Armed only with a single grainy photograph of a man and a woman in bed and and a recording of their conversation, EdwardWilson(Matt Damon) attempts to find out who in the CIA leaked information about the attack. As the CIA's technicians analyze the photograph, we learn about Edward's past - his days at Yale University, his marriage to Clover(Angelina Jolie), his days at the OSS in Berlin after the war and his initiation into the newly-formed CIA.

My American history is not too strong and so the historical aspect of the film didn't do much for me. But the movie still worked on a personal level. The transformation of Damon from the nice, fun(the first look we get at him is in drag at a college play!), romantic college guy to the serious, emotionally distant spy is portrayed well. He is not the nicest of people but most of his negatives come about because of his one trait - he puts country above everything(and everyone) else. The movie builds slowly but surely to the point where he is caught in a dilemma. The resolution of the dilemma is fully expected but still surprising.

It is in the present, when the technicians gather information from the photograph, that the movie comes close to being the kind of espionage thriller we are familiar with. The way they pick apart the photo is fascinating and the way they use the few identifiable items in the picture to track down the people in it is superb and gives us an idea of the painstaking work it requires.

This is a film where the storytelling technique embellishes the underlying story. The movie proceeds in 2 tracks - one in the present where the photograph is being analyzed and one where we learn about Damon's past. The two dovetail wonderfully at the end, catching us by surprise. It is doubtful if the exact same story told in a linear way would have had the same emotional impact.