One of my favorite movie franchises has got to be James Bond. The man has it all — fine clothes, awesome gadgets, skills in every study known to man, kick-ass cars and of course, smoking hot chicks who line up to screw him. Who wouldn’t want to emulate that? However, it is with some skepticism, that Hollywood has chosen to remake Casino Royale instead of gracing us with a new adventure.
For this remake, Pierce Brosnan has been kicked to the curb and in his place Daniel Craig takes the lead as everyone’s favorite 00 agent. I must admit the change is definitely for the better. Craig (whom I admittedly never heard of before), fits the part better than the bulk of his predecessors (time will tell if he can overcome Connery). First, he looks the part. Bond is supposed to have rugged/refined looks and chiseled body. Roger Moore looked like a fag, Pierce Brosnan was too small and Timothy Dalton was too pretty. Secondly, Craig appears to have the natural Bond swagger. Cocky and egotistical — just like me! Lastly, I’ve always felt Bond was more of a dirty, hands-on kind of agent. From his looks, Daniel Craig appears to have been working in a foundry for the better part of his life, and it translates well to the character.
Another surprising twist on the franchise is the realism. Casino Royale is by far the most realistic Bond flick to date. The fight scenes are brutal and at time painful to watch. 90% stunt sequences are done by humans on location. Very little CGI touch ups, as was the downfall of the later Bond flicks. This leads to some “HOLY SHIT, I would never have done that” or “That was fucking CRAZY” moments. The most significant change, is the lack of the ass. I expect at least three women a movie to get conned and screwed. And I expect them all to be hot as hell. Here, only one girls gets tapped and he falls in love with her! Not what I want from my favorite spy.
That being said, there are a few fatal flaws. Instead of showing us the hot chicks, our fearless directors have instead decided to show us countless shots of our hero with his clothes off. I can appreciate the looks of a fellow handsome chap, but I’ll be damned if I want to see his bare chest every 15 seconds. Another let down, albeit not as painful as the lack of women, is the continued casting of Judi Dench as M and the lack of any Q. Dench just doesn’t come across convincingly enough for me, for me to believe she is the tough as nails, head of MI6. This role needs to be recast (although it appears Dench is slated as M in the upcoming Bond movie). And although the movie wanted to focus more on the character development of Bond (how he overcomes mistakes, character flaws, etc.), I still felt they could have dropped a few techno gadgets his way. Who doesn’t love crazy gadgets whose sole purpose to kill a person in a bizarre fashion? There are also times when Casino Royale runs a bit slow. The poker game takes forever to end. The lovey-dovey shit between Bond and his love interest, Vesper Lynd (played by Eva Green) is boring. 15-20 minutes could have easily been shaved off of the this 144 minute epic without the loss of anything important.
So, my recommendation is simple. If you are a fanboy (or girl) of the Bond series, see the movie. You sure as shit don’t need me to convince you to see it. For those of you who enjoy a good action movie, you won’t be disappointing. There are enough fights, chases and other assorted action sequences to overcome the obvious plot twists and bathroom break moments.
'Movie Review: Casino Royale (2006)' have 8 comments
June 29, 2007 @ 7:08 pm Frank Cantone
Dear Critical Critics,
Well, you asked for it. You asked me to speak my mind regarding your review of this abomination of a movie that called itself Casino Royale, and here it is.
First off, how the hell can so many people not notice that there is NO PLOT to this mess? The whole steaming pile looks like they shot a bunch of ridiculous stuntwork and then said don’t worry, we’ll shoot some exposition scenes later to tie it all together.
And where the hell is the “realism”? Bond hanging onto cranes that seem to be thousands of feet in the air and running through walls, that’s realistic???? Getting bloodied up in so many fights that I wondered why he didn’t go into shock? I thought they were going to re-title it “The Passion of the Bond,” with all his bloodletting. And what about that asthmatic villain who bleeds from his eyes (probably the actor who played him really did bleed from his eyes after reading the script). They even botched that detail from the novel, in which LeChiffre had a little spray can from which he shot benzedrine up his nose for a rush of energy. Ooooohh, I’m sure a lot of people were frightened by an asthmatic villain. God, what morons these writers be. Oh and what about those two South African terrorists who get to walk around a fancy “upscale” hotel carrying big guns and knives. Where the hell is the security in this joint? And this taking place after 9/11!!! And I like the little touches, like at the end when Vesper is walking around with a little brief case that’s supposed to contain $150 million, though it seems to weigh about 14 ounces.
Of course, I wouldn’t mind all this idiocy and plotlessness if the movie had just the tiniest bit of entertainment value. The movie’s greatest achievement was to be boring from the first to the last frame. I had more fun checking out the decor of the Ziegfeld theater where I saw this coughed up furball.
And as for Daniel Craig, the less said the better. At times he looked like a life size plastic action figure, at times he looked like one of those Atari video game characters. Push the toggle and see your hero crouch and run. Release the toggle and see him stop and stand still. Someone should tell him acting involves more than just showing off your pecs and shooting people.
Of course the blame isn’t all his, one should also give credit to the hundreds of writers, producers, and other craftsmen responsible for putting this cinematic shit onto the screen.
I could go on much longer with my condemnation of this pretentious mind-numbing tripe, but all I’ll say in conclusion is I’m a little worried about this critic, considering his view of past Bond actors. I never saw Moore as a “fag” or Dalton as “too pretty.” Especially not when Moore’s Bond shot a spear through not one but two henchman in The
Spy Who Loved Me. At least they never looked like playstation characters like Craig does. And hey, you forgot about George Lazenby, or does he not look pretty enough for you?
I would rate Casino Royale–AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE
Sincerely,
Frank Cantone
(Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton Fan)
June 30, 2007 @ 7:33 am General Disdain
So Frank, I’m assuming I missed the nail, eh?
You make some interesting points . . .
When does any Bond flick have a realistic plot? Every movie in the series is cut from the same cloth.
I have to say this rendition has the most realism I’ve seen to date. Bond bleeds and gets hurt (even though you see that as a negative). As for the villian, does his outward appearance have to be scary? Some of the sickest individuals in the world are the the ones that appear to be weak . . .
I’ll agree Daniel Craig is a bit rigid, but his portrayal of Bond is more aunthentic than the others. James Bond was never meant to be a candy ass (Moore definitiely had a questionable swagger about him; Brosnan was a pipsqueak; Lazenby doesn’t count).
December 18, 2008 @ 3:04 pm Aston Martin
Bond always has some great cars. Loved the Aston Martin in Casino Royale!
P.S. No one can overcome Connery! IMHO
July 11, 2009 @ 2:40 am Neil Haydock
Have to agree with General Disdain here – Daniel Craig plays a convincing Bond both in his physical presence and attitude. There was one important ommission in this review which is the score – composed by David Arnold. We don’t actually hear the main James Bond theme until the of the movie, with only glimpses of it during the rest of the film. This cleverly corresponds to the development of the Bond character through the storyline. Nice touch.
October 22, 2009 @ 10:48 am Settor97
Made me realize that pretty much every generation thinks that when they were kids it was so much safer, better, more prosperous. ,
October 23, 2009 @ 8:43 am Pol57
It’s quite good, although not quite at Eiskaffee level. ,
December 26, 2009 @ 1:43 pm online
I never watch this movie before but according to my friends, this movie is boring. There’s only simple guns and running and chasing. I prefer Jackie Chan style.
January 27, 2010 @ 7:19 am Fruitmachines
I belive casino royal is the best James Bond movie there is. but that is just my opiniun