Filed Under: Moving Pictures

Casino Royale [based on book] by
dir. by

Genre: ,
Script: , ,
Cast: , , ,
Rated :

based on the novel by Ian Fleming
Image Hosted by ImageShack.usBefore I saw this film I said that I would enjoy it, I just decided, spur of the moment type of thing that I would like it. And I’m glad to report that I didn’t have to lie to myself, because I did enjoy it. It isn’t perfect, it is too long and a little lacking in plot. It isn’t isn’t really a Bond film, although of course technically it is. But it doesn’t have the same gadgets and big bad in the same way as the other Bond films.

Instead we get a Bond who is brand new to the world of being a 00 agent.

Craig makes a great Bond, he isn’t really good-looking, but then again I’ve never thought that any of the previous Bonds were good looking either, and I really don’t get the Sean Connery kerfuffle. What Craig has though is presence. He is an excellent actor and really carries off the coldness of Bond. I’d love to see him play an evil bad guy.

There is some great dialogue, some great action scenes, a wonderful car crash and plenty of violence.

Although perhaps I’m a little too cynical because Show Spoiler ▼

All in all a good film, but not really one you’d want to watch twice. Let’s hope that Craig doesn’t do too many Bond flicks because it’d be a waste of his talent.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

11 Comments

  • 1 December 2006 - 5:51 pm | Permalink

    Though it doesn't happen too often I'll have to disagree with you on one point…I've already seen it twice and it will probably be the only Bond film I will buy. From what I've read about the novel…which I have ordered for my first ever Ian Fleming experience…it follows the overall plot quite closely. It is supposedly the only novel where Bond questions the morality of what he is doing, etc. which I thought they did well in the film. It is a bit long but I have tendency to be okay with long films if I enjoy the story and I liked this one. As with any movie like this, you have to stretch your sense of belief a bit to think that he could have 'fallen in love' with Vesper so quickly and been willing to cash in his existence for her. I hope Craig doesn't get typecast as Bond, but I do hope he does a few more Bond films…only if they can stay away from some of the more cliched Bond stuff. I enjoyed the less is more approach to gadgets in this one but I know some true Bond fans, which I cannot count myself among, didn't like that about Casino Royale. Glad you enjoyed it overall.

    I think the Connery thing is more about the voice, don't you? Although I don't think he is a bad looking fella.

  • 1 December 2006 - 7:18 pm | Permalink

    I did enjoy it, and I have no doubt that when it comes on the telly in a few years I'll watch and enjoy it, just won't be going out of my way to catch it. Best of the Bond films though

  • Harlequin
    3 December 2006 - 4:08 am | Permalink

    Hey Carl – as a long-time fan of the Bond books, I have to say that Craig -despite my initial reservation – really IS Bond-from-the-books. And Casino Royale is a great way to start your journey into the world of Bond. If you can find it (it's pretty much a collector's edition but you might find it in a library), try out The James Bond Dossier by Kingsley Amis. It's very funny and gathers together info on the Real James Bond beautifully, with chapters called "No woman has ever held this man" (the girls), and "Damnably clear grey eyes" (M), while discussing important aspects of Bond's existence such as the "warm dry handshake" that sorted the real men from the not-real men and what Bond ate, drank, wore and played. Great stuff.

    I was pretty shocked to see the torture-scene from Casino Royale play out on the big screen, with a few alterations. My God.

    I get the Sean Connery thing but not so much because of Bond. More because of his sexy-but-screwed-up performance in the underrated Marnie where he plays a really, *really* fucked up character who becomes fixated on a frigid kleptomaniac and does some really appalling things to her in the course of the movie so that at the end, you're not quite sure who's more fucked up. Go Hitchcock.

  • 3 December 2006 - 12:03 pm | Permalink

    What about that opening chase scene?! Incredible…

    Yeah, excellent entertainment – and seriously, I'm sooo glad that Brosnan will be doing other things.

    A friend couldn't remember his name and called him Remington Steele – that's exactly his problem, isn't it: he's Remington Steele, not James Bond.

  • Harlequin
    3 December 2006 - 2:21 pm | Permalink

    One of the reasons I've started liking Brosnan over the past few years is that as well as doing Bond, he's done a lot of other good stuff too. He was great in the Thomas Crown Affair and the fairly crappy Laws of Attraction, very funny in Mars Attacks! and excellent in The Matador and The Tailor of Panama (so my Dad says). I thought he was a good Bond but the films let him down. Every time he did anything good, they'd shove in an invisible car or something and ruin everything. Damn invisible cars!

  • 4 December 2006 - 3:50 pm | Permalink

    And see Harlequin, I love Laws of Attraction. It reminds me so much of the old Spencer Tracey/Katherine Hepburn movies. Its one that my wife and I fell in love with in the theatre and have seen multiple times on DVD. I love that Brosnan's character is so pro-marriage and wants so desperately to be in love and be committed.

  • 4 December 2006 - 11:00 pm | Permalink

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who though Craig made the perfect Bond. I saw this twice in one week I loved it so much. I grew up watching the Bond films cause my parents are fans – I'm of the Roger Moore generation – and Daniel Craig has now toppled Timothy Dalton off the top of my Favourite Bond list.

    I actually studied the books – well, Goldfinger – at uni in my Popular Fiction course, and it was really fascinating. He's a very complex character, and this is the first movie to really explore him. It's hard to go from watching all the previous films, where his character is so well established, to this one and not think "oh that's not right, he would never have done that." Rather, it's good to remember this movie was all about him feeling his way, coming to terms with his "job" and learning his own limits etc.

    I loved it, and I'll definitely be seeing it again.

  • Harlequin
    5 December 2006 - 1:02 am | Permalink

    I kind of loved the interraction between the always wonderful Julianne Moore and the rumpled and loving Brosnan – very screwball 1940's comedy. But I couldn't get past the dreadful 'Oirish' segment in the middle of the film. I probably could have forgiven the film-makers (they're only Americans, after all ;-) ) but I couldn't believe Brosnan let them away with that!! I liked it enough to rent it again recently though and probably would watch it again some time, though, so that's pretty much a thumbs up from me!

    Did you like the Coen Brothers' Intolerable Cruelty?

  • 5 December 2006 - 3:31 pm | Permalink

    I thought Intolerable Cruelty was just okay. I much prefer Oh Brother Where Art Thou and Raising Arizona.

    Sounds like Daniel Craig is lobbying for a gay love scene in the next Bond film. I'm all for people having the right to do what they will but I don't think I'm ready to see Bond that way. Talk about getting beyond the realm of the original stories! Whoa!

  • 5 December 2006 - 5:27 pm | Permalink

    I really liked Intolerable Cruelty the first time I saw it, but I caught it again on the telly and wasn't too impressed. Oh Brother Where Art Thou is sheer genius though.

  • 14 December 2006 - 11:49 pm | Permalink

    Saw this today and don't know what all the fuss is about. First of all, it doesn't seem like THAT much of a departure. It still has nothing like the rawness of the Bourne films. You still have the exotic locales and the beautiful laydeez and product placement.

    Anyway, Bond is Bond, and trying to give it emotional depth and dramatic kudos is just embarassing.

    Never a big Bond fan, but surely in this case, it's not so much "less is more" and "too much is a good start". I LIKED the invisible car, and the satellite with a laser beam, and the ice palace. It was fun seeing how far they could push it. But if you want serious spy stuff (although there's far too much spy stuff anyway), go to John Le Carre. The Constant Gardener, along with the Munich, was one of the only thrillers I've seen that could claim to be serious movies, and where the drama and the thriller parts meshed together perfectly.

    Le Chiffre was a babe, though.

  • Comments are closed.

    Powered by: Wordpress