PDA

View Full Version : Casino Royale


Moosey
18-Nov-2006, 03:12 PM
Casino Royale
Reviewed by Moosey

Having seen Pierce Brosnan drag the bond franchise to a new low with his sleazy, charmless portrayal of Bond set amidst mindless strings of action scenes and glossy product placement, I had high hopes that Daniel Craig would be the man to bring 007 back to being a character that men want to be and women want to ...well...you know! And guess what - he did! Capturing Sean Connery's rugged charm and Timothy Dalton's steely-eyed ruthlessness while abandoning Roger Moore's pantomime Englishness, George Lazenby's slightly buffoonish air and Pierce Brosnan's slimy "American business executive" approach, Craig portrays a no-nonsense hard-ass Bond. Despite being built like a brick outhouse and proving himself a more than capable action hero, Craig also shines in the role of suave British spy. Avoiding Roger Moore's "dandyish" lady's-man character and Pierce Brosnan's creepy arrogance, Craig succeeds at the rough-and-ready charm at least equalling Sean Connery's earlier performances. On the whole though, Craig succeeds at making Bond seem dangerous again, and this is something the franchise very much needed.

Special mention should also go to Eva Green as this episode's Bond girl, Vesper Lynd. While the stereotypical Bond girl is either helpless dumb blonde or PC-pleasing action heroine, Green manages to be human, charming and entirely believable. The fact that she's very attractive doesn't hurt either! :D

Sadly the plotting and production of the film doesn't live up to the two stars' great performances. The "plot" is not so much a plot as a series of things that happen. While this is pretty much par for the course in a Bond movie, it would have been nice for them to acknowledge the quality of the actors and give them a tightly-plotted thriller to star in. The overly-glossy camerawork (shiny cars and shiny modern architecture all around) and unneccesary use of technology does detract slightly from the gritty edge that the actors all seemed to be trying to portray. All credit to the director for the action scenes though, which were generally well handled if a little choppily edited (Hollywood directors take note: let action scenes speak for themselved! constant closeups and angle changes are irritating, not exciting).

On the whole though (and with the possible exception of The Living Daylights) this is possibly the best Bond movie since From Russia With Love. It still doesn't recapture the feeling of a cold war spy thriller, but the portrayal of Bond as unstoppable military axe-man and Lynd as a believable love interest carries the film through its technical flaws.

Rating: 3/4 Stars

Slindsay
22-Nov-2006, 11:42 AM
My thoughts:

The main problem I had with this film (And if you havent watched it yet, pay attention to this bit) Was nothing to do with the film itself but was actually the adverst before the film. I watched three traillers for this film whilst sitting in th cinema waitting for the film to start! As a result I am going to:

1) Pirate as many movies as possible (Courtesy of the Federation Against Copyright Theft, incidentally, for a group called FACT they really need to stop spouting so much crap in their adverts)

2) Never buy a watch again and campaign for the abolishment of all forms of time keeping as being restrictive and counter productive (Omega watches)

3) Firebomb Viao HQ (Previously I was just going to put a brick through the window for maing crappy laptops, but haing them play a trailler that shows the climatic end scene of the movie I'm going to watch 4-5 minutes before I watch the movie is justification for murder if ever there was one)

If your going to watch Casino Royale, shut your eyes and only peep ocassionally to check if the films started while your in the cinema.

Mr Punch
29-May-2007, 04:49 AM
Totally agree with your assessment of the characters and the reinvigoration of a way tired genre (for once you get the impression that Bond might actually be a match for Jason Bourne :D ) but I thought the plot was OK (relatively low-key but believable). What did you want? Gritty, with a superspy plot? It was never going to be 'The Third Man'... it is James Bond!Casino Royale
Reviewed by Moosey...shiny modern architecture all around) and unneccesary use of technology does detract slightly from the gritty edge that the actors all seemed to be trying to portray. Architecture: I would hardly call the half of the film shot in Montenegro shiny modern architecture, and I'm not sure the substantial portion in venice or an undisclosed dungeon fit that description either! All credit to the director for the action scenes though, which were generally well handled if a little choppily edited I really liked the editing on the post-opening chase scene and the stairwell fight (neither 'choppy' at all - in fact at one point on the stairwell where the bad guy throws himself for no apparent reason - though generally the choreography was tight - I wished it had been a little choppier!) and the opening scene's gritty flashback effect was OK to be choppy IMO.

And as for the technology, again, I'm not sure what your're referring to! There wasn't any! Well, unless you're counting mobiles, a laptop or two and the medical kit, but that just doesn't compare to any other Bond film!

ap Oweyn
05-Jun-2007, 05:59 PM
Good review(s) from Mr. Punch and Dr. Moose. I really liked this flick too, for many of the same reasons. I've been a fan of Daniel Craig for a while. And it was great to see this latest interpretation of the character as a believable action hero.

Great description of the previous Bonds too, Dr. Moose. I could never really put my finger on what bothered me about Pierce Brosnan. But you have. Well done.


Stuart

Stan O'Kella
10-Jun-2007, 05:08 PM
Good review Moosey, good film too. Really invigorated my interest in the world of Bond, and the sad way that my mate and I had a bottle of champagne in the pub after seeing it, not bollinger though :D

With regard to the plot, this is first Bond film in ages to actually use the text from Fleming to base the screenplay. The film follows the book on the whole, with some modern updates like changing the card game from Baccarat to poker, and a slight extension and change to the relationship between Bond and Vesper.

windtalker
20-Sep-2007, 01:36 PM
Thank you for supporting my negative views about Pierce Brosnan. Although my wife thinks highly of Brosnan there were always qualities about him that I never liked. The words sleazy and arrogant were fitting. Also completly agree that Brosnan was a terrible Bond and did little to help the franchise.

To be honest I never cared for anyone that has portrayed Bond with the exceptions of Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton. It seems the majority thought Connery was the best Bond and some continue to hold that view today. Yet there was something about Dalton in his portrayal of Bond that I liked.

Now we have Daniel Craig and the new take on the Bond films. Until I saw the movie Casino Royale the role of Bond seemed best portrayed by Connery by far. Yet I actually liked Craig better. The whole super-villan planning world domination scripts were lame then and seem to have even less appeal these days. The gadgets and sense of humor typically associated with Bond films were also absent. Which I also liked.

The movie Casino Royale was by far my favorite James Bond film and in my view the best. No actor has portrayed Bond any better than Daniel Craig even Sean Connery. The only thing about casino Royale that I did'nt like was the torture scene. That was painfull to watch! Like a worst nightmare.

Hopefully the movie will renew intrest with the Bond films and before long another will be made.