|Page 14 of 231:||               |
|Index||2301 reviews in total|
This is the first Bond move I've seen without naked female silhouettes
in the opening credits. The leading lady is a complete feminist with a
huge chip on her shoulder. The torture scene was a feminist dream come
true. No man would ever conceive of whacking a (hunky, nude, attractive
to women and gay men) guy's nuts.
They made this movie to appeal to women. I don't go to a James Bond movie to see a chick flick. I could have done without any of the standard chick flick elements... the mental battle of "who's more perceptive", the sappy lines, the male bashing, the discovery of tenderness under a macho male shell. I should have known something was up when they put a Matthew McConaghey preview ahead of it. Did anyone else notice that Barbara Broccoli, not Albert, produced this thing?
Oh, dear James, how deep have you sunk! From a charming gentleman to nothing but a common thug! Ian Fleming would turn in his grave could he see it! (I'm surprised that this movie has got such high ratings, but I guess many people have never seen the 'older' kind.) I was never much of a James Bond fan, but in its first conceived version at least the movies had some originality and imagination, including interesting gadgetry. But this 'new' James Bond movie has not much more in common with the original idea than the name. And it all looks like we've seen it all before. Ian Fleming could sue the makers of this movie for misusing the name, but, what a shame, he is dead. …And so is James Bond.
I can't say this was a bad movie, it wasn't, but as a James Bond movie I really felt it failed miserably. It seems like an attempt to Americanize and dumb down the character (and the movie.) Somewhere between XXX and Jason Bourne it was a decent action movie, but totally hollow when compared to an established Bond character. I would even be willing to buy into this movie as a study in the evolution of the character but it didn't even do that well. Villain - poor, love interest - poor, plot as presented - poor, ability to care about ANY of the characters - poor. The only character I got remotely excited about was one of the cars and that was incredibly brief. I think the 'Bourne' movies do a much better job making this type of movie and that character has twice the panache of this 'Bond.'
OK, it's a good film in fact it is a great film. It's just not a Bond
I've got a few bits of ranting to do here, so excuse the lack of clear narrative.
Casino Royale has just had its opening weekend here in the UK and it's the HIGHEST GROSSING FIRST WEEKEND FOR ANY BOND FILM EVER!!!. That's because cinema tickets are even more expensive than they were three years ago when Die Another Day came out. Also, since when has the weekend started on a Thursday? That's when I watched it, along with a load of other mugs who netted the cinemas £1.7m on the first day / preview.
Daniel Craig is undoubtedly a fine actor. I was particularly impressed with him in the virtually unseen The Trench. He has also put in some time to go to the gym, which is something I certainly don't have the discipline to do. He also looks bloody great in a suit while toting advanced automatic weaponry. I'm not so sure about the whole swimming trunk issue - if you want equality, fine, but that means some girls in bikinis too that's how equality works. The whole taciturn, monosyllabic persona is great for Jason Bourne or possibly The Terminator, but this is Bond, with a cheesy quip for every situation: Sean Connery' - That's quite a nice little nothing you're almost wearing. I approve.' George Lazenby - 'this never happened to the other guy' (perhaps Craig was thinking of that when he was putting on his trunks). Roger Moore - elevated eyebrow, Pierce Brosnan - 'I thought Christmas only came once a year'. It takes Craig the entire film to unfreeze his face for long enough to say 'Bond, James Bond.'
Then the gadgets oh well. James Bond is not a real person. He was never meant to be, he is a construct and a very important part of that construct is the gadgets. He is defined more by the car he drives and the clothes he wears than he is by his hair-colour or physique. To take this away from him is to empty him out rather than 'strip him back' as everyone is so fond of saying of Craig-Bond. To be honest I've not been happy with the whole Aston Martin thing since Ford bought Aston Martin, the '64 DB6 is a great hand-built bit of kit. The DBS is built in bulk for dull bankers who need something to blow their bonuses on. The whole travesty of the hire car at the airport is just completely beyond the pale. Okay Ford gave them £15m and a load of Jaguars and Astons, but Bond works for Queen and country, not for the highest bidder, and he is met the airport, not hanging about the Hertz desk while some fat tourists complain about their car not having a/c. So what have we got left? He has a defibrillator in the glove box of his car old men with inappropriately young wives have defibs in their glove boxes.
Eva Green is pretty easy on the eye, but her real name is better than her Bond name (Vesper Lind sounds like a limited edition chocolate moped sorry Mr Fleming). Her accent was weird and all over the shop, and her motivation was pretty confused for one supposed to be so bright. And can we not have any more Bond falling in love? Please? Weirdly Lazenby and Rigg managed to pull it off, but really Bond is a swinger at heart and modern girls can get their kicks with them too. This debacle just makes the end of the film drag on and on.
Speaking of the ending, basically wtf! Bond films don't end like that. They just don't. I can't believe I'm not allowed to spoil it for you, but I can take solace in the fact that it spoils itself.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is a spoiler if you haven't seen the movie. If you have then your
in good shape.
Hmm... This movie must be judged by a taste in bond movies. For starters...following the current Bond storyline founed by Connery...ITS A DISGRACE!!! Their is absolutely NO sophistication in bond anymore. Craig is just a hard shell killing machine with no sophistication. Then of course we must examine the language. None of the previous bond movies used soo much cussing. I don't want to see a Bond movie where M has her period and starts screaming B**** and B******. And wait...getting exposed and put in the World News?!! IF this is the predecesor then hell..all the bad guys would know who he was. And lets look at those stunts in the beginning... First think about it...you got a black guy caring a BACKPACK with a BOMB in it, and he's doing stunts that Jackie Chan would have trouble doing. TOTAL BS. Then not to mention the 30 min of lax boring time in between action scenes. And OMG...the end of the movie mission that's suppose to be the climax...oh man its the best ever...a stupid game of poker...jeeze wow that sure beats scaling a 1000 foot cliff in ForYourEyesOnly and sure beats the flying death trap plane from DieAnotherDay. (sarcasm) And the one sacred rule of Bond movies...always some kind of vehicle chase that keeps you on the edge of your seat or has u laughing at the 3o bad guy cars flying off cliffs and exploding. Not in Casino Royale...OMG he gets into his car...drives for the grand total of 30 secs at like 300MPH and then flips his car like 50 times and totals it. WOW...sooo interesting...NOT! As you should now be aware, this movie was good on its own... but a disgrace to the BOND storyline. I know all people who have seen all the other bond movies (i've seen them all about 30 times) will agree with me. No Sophistication...No Car chase...Cheasy stunts...No charm...and tons of swearing...Also this was by far Judie Dench's worst showing.
It's impossible to believe the actually made this movie. The first thirty minutes could be interesting (except of course for the main theme). After forty five minutes the movie became impossible to tolerate. Absolutely no action, no love sequence and no thriller.The actor is so ugly than became impossible to see the love sequence (better close the eye. The girls are absolutely ridicules compare to the females of the others movies. The only scene I enjoyed are the ones with "Giancarlo Giannini" th only true actor of this movie. Peraphs they decide to kill the saga.If they don't want to do bond anymore it would be simpler keep the money in the pocket instead of wasting'it for that kind of movie. If you have time to waste watch it but don't do it to much late in the evening or you must have an iron will to keep watching until end.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
When the movie first starts, you think that it is something of a terrorist plot with the code name of ellipse and the constant chase scene from one place to another. The stunt work is fabulous and I have to admit I have never seen anything quite like it, but then the story makes no sense. We are not told why he is after the frenchman to start with. We think we are following the plot at the airport when all of the sudden we are taken elsewhere to the casino with no apparent idea of why he is in this game. The frenchman loses all the money on the stock market on purpose?? and then he plays in a high stakes poker game. Also, the gianni character..mathis..he is completely out of place. We don't know what he is supposed to be doing. Also if the boy friend of vesper is being held for ransom, and she is a high level British government worker from the treasury representing the money factor, don't you think they would know about her background? She would have to have some type of security clearance and she already had access to the money so why would she go through the charade of having to play the part at the poker game. I was very disappointed and I have to say it was the worst bond film yet.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
From the timid and most unexciting "starter story" (the worst I have
seen in any Bond) to the tedious and unexciting storyline - this was
the worst Bond ever filmed. Even the animated main title sequence is
the worst of any Bond film. One wishes Maurice Binder back from the
grave - he could have done a much, much better job.
The opening scene has been stolen and re-filmed from the movie "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" - the same plot, the same roles filmed in the same locale. Did nobody notice that? The only difference is that the James Bond version was filmed in black and white - how nouveau!
Casino Royale should have been sharper edited. Many times I nearly feel asleep and caught myself looking at the watch during the long, unedited and tedious dialogs scenes between James Bond and his "girls". These conversations were pointless and did not go anywhere. The "villain" was no really a "villain" - in fact he was the dumbest, boring and lamest "villain" in film history. A villain should be portrayed as such to make the audience dislike him - in this Bond film, the audience did not give a dam if the villain lives or dies.
In fact, all the characters of Casino Royale were not sufficiently portrayed for the audience to care for them. For example: the unattractive "blond" help of the bad guy who poisoned James Bond appeared out of nowhere and disappeared into nowhere - who cared ? She looked like a lifted, vulgar and out of place Eastern European prostitute - which villain in any Bond movie ever had such poor taste?
Talk about the ending of the movie: one felt reminded on a "cliffhanger". The bad guy was introduced towards the end and no one cared about him anyway - in fact, it was not clear for the majority of the audience if he was the bad guy after all. I think the only person who could follow that thin storyline was the trainee who thought that he wrote a good script.
In general, the movie is a waste of time, energy and resources. I am a huge Bond fan and have all the movies - Casino Royal has been a huge disappointment.
I hope you don't mind but I'll be one more of the few here to comment
very negatively indeed about this film.
Let me say first that I AM a Bond fan and proudly own the Bond DVD collection with all 20+1 films. Every single one of these has it's charms, the more modern ones are those I like least, but nevertheless, they are OK.
Now this new Casino Royale Bond edition is beyond all comparison. It's a mere action flick, a brutal one to boot with unnecessary, explicit violence that has nothing to do in a Bond movie. Craig is a great actor and how well he tackles his task of interpreting this Bond here, speaks in his favor. The feel, the story, the settings are wrong, unreal, out of context, badly put together. I didn't get what it was all about! The actors run and come and go and do all kinds of things without any background explanation and logic. The settings very wildly from a high-speed luxury train in supposedly Montenegro, when there are no such trains there at all, to Venice where houses collapse selectively without damaging others, etc.etc. It's all such a mix-up, a terrible sauce to excite, more than superficially, a gullible, eat-it-all-if-it-cracks-and-pops public obviously accustomed to bad action flicks to the point of becoming mindless creeps. What a pain! Great God in Heaven...
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Enter Casino Royale The only way The producers could escape the
inevitable comparison between their movie and the new kids on the
block, is going more REALISTIC, i.e. if you cannot beat them, beat
other people. The solution was to make Bond more like another type of
spy movies which is much more realistic, even brutally so. Theirs is a
reality where people are more frail, no big action scenes, the scenery
is grayer, the chases are done in small streets with ordinary cars,
every blow can kill, every car accident kills half of the passengers,
you cannot trust your bosses, and the world is filled with ordinary
clerk-like people living their small lives and pettiness and intrigue
rule the day. This is basically the ANTI-BOND type of spy movie or
novel (whose most notable writer is John Le Carre). 'The Bourne
Identity' belongs to that genre. The advantage of this kind of movie is
that, due to the overarching sense of frailty, every punch, every car
chase, every gun shot can cause a great amount of suspense, since you
don't find yourself comparing it to the more fantastic action movies.
Think about that: if in real life a pugilist suffers a heavy punch it's
a reason to worry (if you like him), but in a Van Dam movie you know
it's just getting him madder and it doesn't raise the same amount of
O.k. so after deciding that this is the direction they wanted to take Bond to, they had to cast a new kind of Bond Enter DC. DC is short, blond and looks like the villain, he is certainly not the Bond of the movies and, as one who have read some of these books, is not Fleming's Bond (and since Fleming's books were crap - the man wasn't a literary genius, having a Fleming's Bond would have just made things worse). But THAT IS THE POINT Craig is supposed to be the anti-Bond, a John Le Caree's Bond. But of course the producers won't say that, and given that they clearly cannot say he's the movies' Bond they say he's Fleming's. They do that because they don't want to give ammunition to the anti DC crowd, because 'going back to the origins' always sounds impressive and because they want to cash in on the success and prestige of the previous movies (while crapping on them at the same time It's like the alien in 'Men In Black' who put on the skin of the man he killed, thus both defiling him and pretending to be him). So the anti-DC crowd are right: He is NOT the classic Bond, but If they think that casting a male model type (the manly type that does the cigarettes or designer suits ads) and having him do the same old stuff is going to make a good movie are deluding themselves - for the reasons I've already mentioned.
O.k. did it work? Predictably, NO.
First of all, I am not a big fan of the John Le Carre (JLC) style and find it too anachronistic (also died in the 80's), The Bourne Identity is fine, but I really don't understand the hoopla. Now, moving Bond totally into that direction will really take the Bondiness out of Bond, it will take all the distinctive features out, and will be Bond only in name. So they couldn't go all the way, which is the main problem of the movie it is stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea: on one hand, in order to preserve the Bondiness they have to have the outlandish action scenes, bigger than life stories, colorful characters etc. which again brings us back to the realm of the CGI movies and, again, causes Bond to look very bad. On the other hand, making it more JLC like, takes some of the unserious charm of it, the winking to the crowd; bringing a gray and non-suave man like Craig denies us of being around someone cool, good looking and with roguish sparkle in his eyes, and everyone would rather be around that kind of person than with the DC kind. CR tries to have the best of both worlds but remains with none. Here is an example: in the movie DC has to swerve with his car and it overturns, in the old JB movies he would be unscathed, in a JLC book he would die or spend nine months in hospital, here he is a bit shaken. So we are denied the charm of the indestructible Bond, but are not instilled with a sufficient sense of frailty to really feel afraid for him a double miss. So no, this is a good movie IF IT WERE 1986, but IN 2006 it's not; and it didn't save the series, you can't save it. The old Bond cannot compete with the CGI movies, and you cannot make Bond too JLC or it won't be Bond. Bond should go the way of the movie-musicals and the Westerns, both genres are all but dead today, and for good reasons. They cannot be modernized without changing their distinctive features, hence they cannot be modernized.
Still, is it the best Bond ever? Well, since Bond depends very much on special effects, then I'd guess 'Octopussy' is the best (like I said, JB died in the 80's) if you compensate for technological ability (like you do for inflation) then 'Goldfinger' is. In a sense, it's like asking 'Is it the best Commodore 64 game ever?', it might have meant something in the 80's, but today, in the age of PS3, X-Box and Wii, Who cares.
|Page 14 of 231:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|