An interesting review

[Skywalker]

I appreciate not everyone will agree with this assessment, but it is an interesting read.

http://www.philbradley.typepad.com/frivolity/.

Enjoy.

[James]

Another interesting review. Best quote from this one:

Bond got a double first at Oxford, was a naval Commander and an acomplished gambler. As played in the film he would have been rather more at home on a council estate beating up old ladies for their pensions.

[Skywalker]

Another interesting review. Best quote from this one:

Bond got a double first at Oxford, was a naval Commander and an acomplished gambler. As played in the film he would have been rather more at home on a council estate beating up old ladies for their pensions.

I found that quote to be rather amusing.

[Dr. No]

Another interesting review. Best quote from this one:

Bond got a double first at Oxford, was a naval Commander and an acomplished gambler. As played in the film he would have been rather more at home on a council estate beating up old ladies for their pensions.

Oh Snap!
That is a snap right?

[Skywalker]

Another interesting review. Best quote from this one:

Bond got a double first at Oxford, was a naval Commander and an acomplished gambler. As played in the film he would have been rather more at home on a council estate beating up old ladies for their pensions.

Oh Snap!
That is a snap right?

Very good Dr No.

[Dr. No]

Another interesting review. Best quote from this one:

Bond got a double first at Oxford, was a naval Commander and an acomplished gambler. As played in the film he would have been rather more at home on a council estate beating up old ladies for their pensions.

Oh Snap!
That is a snap right?

Very good Dr No.

Whats a council estate?
Doesn't sound that bad.

[Blowfeld]

Another interesting review. Best quote from this one:

Bond got a double first at Oxford, was a naval Commander and an acomplished gambler. As played in the film he would have been rather more at home on a council estate beating up old ladies for their pensions.

Oh Snap!
That is a snap right?

Very good Dr No.

Whats a council estate?
Doesn't sound that bad.

A council estate is the british equavalent of the projects in America. They are government housing built for the poor.

[Blowfeld]

The complete review:
Casino Royale - worst Bond picture ever?
I finally got around to watching Casino Royale a few days ago, having read and heard such rave reviews of both it and the 'new Bond' Daniel Craig, who I'd seen and liked in various television programmes. Now, I know how everyone is saying how good this film is, how Craig is the best Bond ever, yada yada yada, but I'm afraid that I have to come out well on the opposite side. I'm almost tempted to say that this is the worst Bond ever, both in terms of lead actor, plot, opening credits, song - just about everything.

Let's start with the plot, which to be fair doesn't really exist in the book. Bond plays cards against the bad guy, wins, gets tortured, wins the day; that's it. It's hard to make an exciting film out of that. Moreover, Bond is really very nasty in the book, much more so than they'll ever be able to show on screen - the idea of Bond considering the 'sweet tang of rape' for example is just not on, is it. Yet in the novel he not only dislikes women, he hates them, there is no doubt about it at all. They exist for one reason only, which is to provide men with sexual entertainment. The novel is poorly written, very short and quite tedious; many of the 007 elements you expect are not included - no Moneypenny, Q or DB5 for example. So it's a difficulty for the producers, I'll grant.

However, whatever else he is in the book, he's not an ignorant thug, which is how Craig plays him. Bond got a double first at Oxford, was a naval Commander and an acomplished gambler. As played in the film he would have been rather more at home on a council estate beating up old ladies for their pensions. Admittedly Bond makes errors of judgement - rather too many, but as a newly qualified 00 this isn't that surprising, but he was at least sophisticated about it. The Craig version with the sequence at the start of the film chasing the terrorist, while quite exciting, lacks much of the panache of Bond, resorting to trying to steamroller his way to a victory. The idea that the 'love interest' would find it necessary to purchase a properly fitting tuxedo for him is, I'm afraid, quite laughable.

Craig shows only two emotions while playing Bond - one being grumpy and the other one being everything else. I suspect that it is this that's got so many people excited - he's certainly a different type of Bond to any that have gone before him, but in this instance a change isn't as good as a rest; very far from it I'm afraid. He's just seen as being a rather stupid thug, and while Bond is many things, even at the start of his career he was never that.

However, I'm sure that Craig will go on to reprise the role several more times, hopefully rather more accurately, though since this version appears to have scored critical acclaim I rather doubt it. I suspect that we're stuck with Simpson, Homer Simpson as our lead for a few years yet. Of course, if we're starting out on a new time line, as it would seem that we are, with Bond regenerating like some strange Dr Who, perhaps we'll be starting back from book one, and can now run through them all again.

Modesty Blaise anyone? We've only had (I think) one film of her, and I'd love to see a rather better version hitting the screen, and if she ever did, the Craig Bond would have to pray he never meets up with her.

[Skywalker]

Another interesting review. Best quote from this one:

Bond got a double first at Oxford, was a naval Commander and an acomplished gambler. As played in the film he would have been rather more at home on a council estate beating up old ladies for their pensions.

Oh Snap!
That is a snap right?

Very good Dr No.

Whats a council estate?
Doesn't sound that bad.

They do tend to have a bad stereotype associated with them. I have managed to get a picture of a rough council esate.



Incidently DC was brought up on one.

[Harvey Wallbanger]

I appreciate not everyone will agree with this assessment, but it is an interesting read.

http://www.philbradley.typepad.com/frivolity/.

Enjoy.

Thanks

[Jedi007]

Casino Royale - worst Bond picture ever?
I finally got around to watching Casino Royale a few days ago, having read and heard such rave reviews of both it and the 'new Bond' Daniel Craig, who I'd seen and liked in various television programmes. Now, I know how everyone is saying how good this film is, how Craig is the best Bond ever, yada yada yada, but I'm afraid that I have to come out well on the opposite side. I'm almost tempted to say that this is the worst Bond ever, both in terms of lead actor, plot, opening credits, song - just about everything.

Let's start with the plot, which to be fair doesn't really exist in the book. Bond plays cards against the bad guy, wins, gets tortured, wins the day; that's it. It's hard to make an exciting film out of that. Moreover, Bond is really very nasty in the book, much more so than they'll ever be able to show on screen - the idea of Bond considering the 'sweet tang of rape' for example is just not on, is it. Yet in the novel he not only dislikes women, he hates them, there is no doubt about it at all. They exist for one reason only, which is to provide men with sexual entertainment. The novel is poorly written, very short and quite tedious; many of the 007 elements you expect are not included - no Moneypenny, Q or DB5 for example. So it's a difficulty for the producers, I'll grant.

However, whatever else he is in the book, he's not an ignorant thug, which is how Craig plays him. Bond got a double first at Oxford, was a naval Commander and an acomplished gambler. As played in the film he would have been rather more at home on a council estate beating up old ladies for their pensions. Admittedly Bond makes errors of judgement - rather too many, but as a newly qualified 00 this isn't that surprising, but he was at least sophisticated about it. The Craig version with the sequence at the start of the film chasing the terrorist, while quite exciting, lacks much of the panache of Bond, resorting to trying to steamroller his way to a victory. The idea that the 'love interest' would find it necessary to purchase a properly fitting tuxedo for him is, I'm afraid, quite laughable.

Craig shows only two emotions while playing Bond - one being grumpy and the other one being everything else. I suspect that it is this that's got so many people excited - he's certainly a different type of Bond to any that have gone before him, but in this instance a change isn't as good as a rest; very far from it I'm afraid. He's just seen as being a rather stupid thug, and while Bond is many things, even at the start of his career he was never that.

However, I'm sure that Craig will go on to reprise the role several more times, hopefully rather more accurately, though since this version appears to have scored critical acclaim I rather doubt it. I suspect that we're stuck with Simpson, Homer Simpson as our lead for a few years yet. Of course, if we're starting out on a new time line, as it would seem that we are, with Bond regenerating like some strange Dr Who, perhaps we'll be starting back from book one, and can now run through them all again.

Modesty Blaise anyone? We've only had (I think) one film of her, and I'd love to see a rather better version hitting the screen, and if she ever did, the Craig Bond would have to pray he never meets up with her.

That's a good one. Thanks for bringing that up.

But I do hope they bring out the elements of the Bond character in the next movie.

Favorite quote: Of course, if we're starting out on a new time line, as it would seem that we are, with Bond regenerating like some strange Dr Who, perhaps we'll be starting back from book one, and can now run through them all again.

[007]

Yes, another interesting review. Follows on from the others posted here and my own thoughts on CR. Overrated film and Craig is fine but he isn't James Bond.

[Captain Nash]

Overrated film

Well that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

and Craig is fine but he isn't James Bond.

But the end film titles sayed he was.
So it must be true.

[carl stromberg]

Another review with the same theme from Blogcritics:


Bland. James Bland.

I hate to buck the trend of those critics who are hailing the new James Bond film, Casino Royale, as a return to form and reinvention of the superhero spy franchise, but I found the film, while technically proficient, overlong and underwhelming. I’m personally disappointed too, being old enough to remember when a new James Bond film was one of the few reliable pleasures of escapist movie going.

My criticism is not about this Bond’s not being “faithful” to either its literary or cinematic predecessors. It’s true that Daniel Craig’s Bond is, despite his blond hair, closer in many respects to Ian Fleming’s description of the suave-yet-lethal secret agent. Both Fleming’s Bond and Craig are, at least on the surface, cold and unemotional. They can be brutal and ruthless. They both have amazing survival skills and stamina, but Fleming’s Bond is also possessed of a sense of humor, not least about himself, that makes him good company through the casual sexism, racism, and brand name-dropping of the original Bond novels.

Being true to Fleming’s conception of Bond doesn’t necessarily make for a good movie in 2006 and beyond. Several choices made by the filmmakers and by Craig contribute to Casino Royale’s shortcomings. Some may be built-in tensions that no one can resolve to everyone’s satisfaction. Ironically, some may be due to Craig’s skills. It’s quite possible he’s too good an actor for this role.

The filmmakers wisely re-set the Bond clock so that, for this film, Craig’s Bond is on one of his first big assignments. This Bond is still rough - not the suave sophisticate with an encyclopedic knowledge of wine and the finer things in life, but a blunt instrument, a man who kills because it’s part of his job, and who has cut off most of his emotions so he can continue to do that job.

Craig’s Bond limits his sexual dalliances to married women because there’s far less chance of emotional involvement on both sides. He does flirt, but Craig makes it seem like something of an effort - a difficult concert piece instead of a jazz improvisation. Craig plays all this and creates a credible human being. Unfortunately, he’s not a human being that’s fun or interesting to spend two and a half hours with.

A built-in issue exacerbated by Craig’s conscientiousness as an actor is Bond’s indestructibility. In this franchise we’ve become accustomed to the hails of evil henchmen’s bullets somehow, magically never even nicking Bond, while a single shot from his Beretta or Walther PPK takes out one, two, or three of these red-shirts at a time. It’s become a convention of the genre, lovingly mocked by the Austin Powers movies.

The first big stunt set piece of Casino Royale has Bond chasing a terrorist bomber through a construction site, running and leaping like a pair of Spidermen on to I-beams and cranes set at dizzying heights, bouncing off walls and falling through roofs and floors - all without one missing a step or even running out of breath. Throughout the movie this Bond runs and runs and runs; he’s the Energizer Bunny, or another indestructible bunny: Bugs, or his cousin the Road Runner.

How can we identify with someone who seemingly can’t be hurt - and why should we worry about him? He even [SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!] survives a poison-induced heart attack that would have put an ordinary human into a hospital for a week. He not only survives, but is back playing high-stakes poker in an hour’s time, looking very little the worse for wear.

With the previous Bonds, their cartoon-like ability to bounce back, Lazarus-like, from situation after situation was made at least partly contextual by the slightly sci-fi universe that both Bond and his ever-more-grandiose villains inhabited. The increasingly elaborate gadgets that Q supplied to Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan helped set this tone.

While Craig has a fairly cool cell phone/tracking device, as well as that handy-dandy portable defibrillator that shocks him back to life after the heart attack, the gizmos in Casino Royale are kept to a minimum. Craig’s Bond is Superman without the redeeming element of kryptonite and Batman without the elaborate crime-fighting tools - just your average un-killable spy. Again, why should we care about him?

Another miscalculation in Casino Royale is central to the story: Bond’s showdown with Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), who has unwisely lost hundreds of millions of terrorist dollars playing the stock market and must win it back at the gaming tables before the bad guys kill him. This plot is lifted almost directly from Fleming’s Cold War-era novel of the same name, with today’s all-purpose evil, international terrorism standing in for Fleming’s bogeyman of Soviet Russia. In the book, Bond faces off with Le Chiffre at the baccarat table, but the filmmakers have updated this to Texas Hold ‘Em no-limit poker, familiar to anyone who, like me, has become addicted to Celebrity Poker Showdown.

The cinematic problem with Texas Hold ‘Em, which gives each player two face-down cards and then lets each one make the best hand they can from five common cards that are revealed one at a time, is that unless the audience knows what cards each player holds, and therefore knows whether a player is bluffing, winning or simply miscalculating, there’s no real suspense. I mean Alfred Hitchcock’s kind of suspense as opposed to simple surprise.

If, for example, the audience knows there’s a bomb under the table that will go off in five minutes, everything that keeps the film’s characters in the soon-to-explode room is a source of agony for the audience. However, if the audience is as ignorant as the characters, all they get is the surprise of a “boom” when the bomb goes off — a few seconds of shock versus minutes of involved suspense. [SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!] We get a surprise when Bond finally defeats Le Chiffre, but because we don’t know what the players’ hole cards are, we are denied the pleasures of suspense.

Much is made in the film of “tells,” the tiny giveaways card players exhibit when they are bluffing - things as obvious as drumming one’s fingers on the table or as subtle as flaring one’s nostrils. Bond discovers Le Chiffre’s “tell” and foolishly shares it with his supposed allies, one of whom is in league with Le Chiffre, who then learns from the double agent that Bond is aware of his tell. Le Chiffre consciously controls his tell, limiting Bond’s ability to determine if Le Chiffre is bluffing.

All this turns out to be a set of rather smelly red herrings, however, since in the final, decisive hand, both Bond and Le Chiffre turn out to have what they believe to be unbeatable hands. Therefore, neither one is bluffing when they raise and re-raise each other. Also significantly, we never learn what Bond’s “tell” is. If he has a readable flaw, we never see what it is. As indicated, he is something more than human and therefore something less than interesting.

Bond’s one weakness (in the novels and in this film) is his heart: not the physical one that has to be jump-started, but the emotional one that falls for the wrong girl, blinding him to her complicity with his (and England’s) enemies. Craig and Eva Green, as his supposed amour fou Vesper Lynd, strike only a few sparks and not the sexual bonfire they should to redeem and humanize this hero.

The only real relationship this Bond establishes with anyone else is with Judi Dench’s M who, as head of the British Secret Service, is as tough as she needs to be, but who nevertheless manages to retain a few shreds of her humanity. Dench is a wonderful actress; she’s too good for this movie in a good way.

Can the filmmakers behind Bond solve the indestructibility issue? Again, this may be a built-in problem no matter who plays the part. We the audience may want a hero we don’t have to worry about, but that makes these films pure, no-consequences escapism. At their best they were a bit more than that.

[Captain Nash]

Another interesting review from Future Movies.
http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/review.asp?ID=628

...and yet more from IGN.COM
http://au.dvd.ign.com/articles/768/768774p1.html

[The Sweeney]

Another interesting review from Future Movies.
http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/review.asp?ID=628

...and yet more from IGN.COM
http://au.dvd.ign.com/articles/768/768774p1.html

I'm so used to reading positive reviews on CR, it's almost a formality now. The only bad ones I have ever read are the ones that have been found on here.

The couple of negative ones on here give the doubters hope that it wasn't just them who thought badly of CR, but it is so obvious that these reviews are very much in the minority right now.

[BondFan007]

Of cause there's going to be negative reviews, it's the same with all films

So, according to Captain Nash, every single person worldwide who went to see Casino Royale loved the film?

, but the vast majority of reviews are positive.

[Dr. No]

Of cause there's going to be negative reviews, it's the same with all films

So, according to Captain Nash, every single person worldwide who went to see Casino Royale loved the film?

, but the vast majority of reviews are positive.

The "vast majority" lost credibility with me after Superman Returns.
SR's hype was unmatched and the reviews sung the praises of the IMO bland unimaginative movie.

On the way to work we were bombarded with SR poster where every where. Including overpasses usually reserved for expressions of teenage love or gang slang.

SR got the best reviews however the general public opinion of SR was less than positive.

Pirates of the Caribbean 2: Dead Man's Chest has a (slim) majority of positive reviews too.

Truthfully I don't hold stock in reviews as much any more, I've found movies that were trashed to be enjoyable and movies praised to be duds.

I did as asked and watched CR and found it in the same league as SR.

I appreciate that you love CR and you are obviously are not alone, but pointing out the CR has positive reviews to combat a negative one is for me like pointing to SR and saying its not so bad look how many loved.

I might be alone on this.

[Skywalker]

I found this very fair balanced review. Let me know what you think.


Royale Flush? More Like a Pair of Deuces
Nov 17 '06 (Updated Nov 17 '06)

Author's Product Rating


Bang For The Buck

Pros
relationship between Bond and M

Cons
writing, violence and gore instead of cleverness, edgy and dark Bond, Felix Leiter

The Bottom Line
I wanted to like Casino Royale, but unfortunately the movie didn't provide much to like.


Full Review
Bond, James Bond. Ever since Sean Connery first uttered those words the whole world's been hooked on 007. Whether it's the breathtakingly dangerous complex stunts or the scantily clad beautiful women or the glimpse of the good life or the many layers of intrigue to sort through or all of the above, Bond provides something for everyone to enjoy. But how did it all start? What was our intrepid hero like as a young man just awarded a license to kill? Find out in Casino Royale.

James Bond (Daniel Craig) is granted 00 status and almost immediately gets in trouble for following a man into an embassy and killing him there. The protection of an embassy is one of the few truly inviolate international laws. Besides, MI6 needed him alive, needed information about an international terrorist ring they couldn't get anywhere else. A furious M tells Bond to go off somewhere and think about whether he's really prepared to be an elite agent. Bond winds up in the Bahamas.

He didn't choose Nassau for the sun and sand, although they were certainly pleasant side effects. No, unbeknownst to M James is following the trail of the terrorists. He soon finds himself embroiled in high stakes poker and even higher stakes chases as he tries to stop the terrorists and dry up their funding at the same time. That's a tall order for one man, even a man with Bond's skills.

Despite effectively being the Bond origin story, Casino Royale is set in the post 9/11 world with all of the concerns and technology we live with on a daily basis. Sure, some of it's extended a little, but for the most part this is a world filled with cell phones and wireless internet and few extra frills beyond that. You won't find any whizbang new Bond gadgets here.

You also won't find a suave, urbane leading man. Craig's Bond is edgier than his predecessors, more violent and more focused on killing the bad guys and getting the job done. I can see some potential for Craig to be a good Bond, but not unless the character is written more true to form.

There are scantily clad women - this is still a Bond flick - but this James sees them as tools and the means to an end without any of the genuine interest and playfulness we've come to expect when it comes to his lady friends.

That playfulness is saved almost exclusively for M (Judi Dench). Cat and mouse games abound as James goes out of his way to showoff just how clever he is whenever possible, exasperating M. In some ways it comes across as insecurity on the part of Bond, but regardless this is the only relationship in the movie that really works.

One relationship that really disappoints is that of Bond and Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright). Leiter comes across as a bit of a bufoon, he and Bond have no chemistry whatsoever and, to add insult to injury, Leiter just disappears without a trace when logically he should be rescuing James from a tight fix. Unless he's the most idiotic CIA agent ever he had to know at least some of what was going on yet he did nothing.

No Bond film would be complete without a few outrageously dangerous and inventive chase scenes. It's traditional that each movie start with just such an event before the opening credits and that at least one or two more pop up during the course of the rest of the action. Unfortunately Casino Royale chose to break with this tradition. The opening sequence shows the violent, gory assassination Bond performed to earn his wings as a 00 agent. There is one fairly decent on-foot chase scene on cranes, through several construction sites, and along a variety of rooftops of different heights fairly early in the film, but otherwise the movie relies on some traditional car chases and blood and guts fight scenes for its action. This, more than anything else, ruined the movie.

I wanted to like Casino Royale, but unfortunately the movie didn't provide much to like. Craig might be a decent Bond when handed a good script that understands who Bond is, but the character here doesn't cut it. Felix Leiter was a disgrace, the women don't provide any light relief at all, and the filmmakers substituted violence and gore for the trademark clever action sequences.

You might find the transplanting of a young Bond to modern times with the most recent M a bit difficult to swallow if you're a purist or someone who cares about continuity across a series. It didn't bother me as much as I thought it would, but it was definitely a distraction. Keeping the original timeframe for the story might have also solved or at least aided some of the other problems; for instance, today's normal technology would easily pass for yesterday's cutting edge whizbang gadgets. Alas, it was not to be.

I'm not going to stop any Bond fan from seeing Casino Royale nor would I really want to do so. However, other than the relationship between Bond and M and a very few stray bits of almost witty dialogue, the movie fails in almost every way. Unless you just have to see this now, now, now either wait for the DVD or, if you can make yourself do so, skip it entirely. Casino Royale played for high stakes and went bust.

Recommended:
No

Movie Mood: Action Movie
Worst Part of this Film: Script