Home | Register | Login | Members  

Movies, TV, Music & Games > Casino Royale (2nd review...more detailed, more defined)
New Topic | Post Reply
<< | 1 | >>  
1. Wednesday, November 22, 2006 12:45 PM
Hyde Casino Royale (2nd review...more detailed, more defined)


 Member Since
 12/20/2005
 Posts:1235

 View Profile
 Send PM
CASINO ROYALE

Directed by
Martin Campbell

Written by:
Neal Purvis
Robert Wade
Paul Haggis


Ian Fleming (novel)


Daniel Craig .... James Bond
Eva Green .... Vesper Lynd
Mads Mikkelsen .... Le Chiffre
Judi Dench .... M
Jeffrey Wright .... Felix Leiter
Giancarlo Giannini .... Mathis
Caterina Murino .... Solange
Simon Abkarian .... Alex Dimitrios
Isaach De Bankolé .... Steven Obanno
Jesper Christensen .... Mr. White


Plot:
Bond has created a problem for a group of terrorists by stopping a disastor that would make them millions.
Now, a terrorist named Le Chiffre is organizing a 150 million dollar poker game at Casino Royale. If he raises enough money, he will be able to fund the terrorist operations.
Enter James Bond, the service's best gambler, to beat Le Chiffre. With the aid of Felix Leiter, and the beautiful Vesper Lynd, James Bond finds adventure, romance, and betrayel.

Review:
This novel is one of the best James Bond novels, and the story is a classic one with a great, mysterious twist. Does this movie execute itself well enough to support such a wonderful piece of classic literature. Yes, and no.

Pros:
Daniel Craig is completely convincing as a young, egotystical spy, who is loyal to his country. He adds comedy, and drama to the role. He is definatly more physical than any of the other James Bonds, as most action sequences consist of running and elaborate fist fights. This is a celebrated change in the character, since the role had become almost SUPER HERO in execution.
However....(see Cons)

Vesper Lynd is an AMAZING Bond girl. She immediately blows away any of the Bond girls we have seen throughout all of Brosnan's films. She is realistic, lovable, and true to the book. She is amazingly beautiful, and enchants the audience with her charm and wit. She keeps up with Bond, but in a way that shows her human side, and forces him to show his. THIS IS HOW A BOND GIRL SHOULD BE!!!!

Mads Mikkelsen IS perfect as Le Chiffre. FINALLY A GOOD BOND BAD GUY!!!! He is creepy and almost deformed in his appearance, yet he never gets too over the top. I hated the way the most recent Bond bad guys had lost the old formula, and this guy brings it back! This is a bad guy who isn't trying to destroy the world...but merely has a crime vendetta.

Caterina Murino is frighteningly sexy and beautiful, and the supportive cast is just as convincing, as Judi Dench once again shows her perfection as M, and Giancarlo Giannini shines as Mathis. Perhaps the biggest breath of fresh air was the return of James Bond long time friend and ally, Felix!
Jeffrey Wright is PERFECT and completely likable and believable in the role of CIA agent Felix. It is so wonderful to see this character return to the movie. He plays each line with perfection and care. However.....(see cons)

Martin Campbell directs this film with wonderful care and the story reflects the main story line set forth in the novel.
The visuals, and each scene, is obviously well crafted, and planned to the filmmaker's vision. The poetic and almost haunting ending is shot in a way that shows the extent of this filmmakers imagination....and the action scenes were so creative and original, they kept the basic idea that Bond simply has to do something original in his action sequences. A truly beautifully shot film! however...(see cons)

The story to this movie is amazing! Finally, we have a spy story that could easily happen, and reminds the viewer that Ian Fleming was a real spy!
Completely convincing and original, this story is the kind of tale that makes a good and exciting movie!

Lastly, Chris Cornells song YOU KNOW MY NAME was a truly fantastic song, and set a great mood throughout the film.

Cons:
With all these praises, many people will be surprised by the complaints of this film.
Sadly, there are some shortcomings, and it is surprising how they come about.

For example, as good as felix is, he is BARELY in the movie. The viewer can't help but feel left out when they see how SMALL the character of Felix is presented, especially when you consider he was a much larger role in the book.
This is supposed to be the story where James and Felix become friends...instead, they only exchange a few words.

Craig may have been a very convincing character for this story, but he simply DOES NOT play a convincing James Bond. Sure, you can believe he is an egotystical spy, but the ego gets to be too much. Craig walks around with pursed lips and an overly poised expression on his face, and while it works for a simple SPY character, it IS NOT James Bond.
Since he is supposed to be BECOMING the character, I expected him to evolve more throughout the movie. He barely does...

The James Bond theme is almost completely unused, and while this was also expected since this is BEFORE he is the JB we all know and love, it is sorely missed. There should have been more HINTS of the theme, just to provide the fans with the feeling of familiarity.

The main complaint about this film is that it is missing ALL the style from the novels and the old films. Even though this had a modern setting, I expected some of the style used in Dr. No, and From Russia With Love, to be present in the movie. Gone are all the cool and trademark moments, and while I understand the need to re-invent the franchise....I feel some more Bond magic could have been used.

Overall:
This is a GREAT SPY film.....it is a decent Bond movie.
If you want to see a truly fantastic and entertaining spy movie....check this movie out, as it falls in the line of THE BOURNE IDENTITY. If you are after a JAMES BOND FEEL....this movie will leave you feeling as though you missed out.
Since this is the case, I am rating this as a movie, AND as a James Bond film.
Let it be said that this is a fantastic movie! I have seen it twice and I will probably see it again very soon. It just misses out on somethings that could have remained closer to the novel, and the OLDER films.
As good as this movie is, I wish Quentin Tarintino and Pierce Brosnan could have made THEIR version of Casino Royale. They proposed it, and it was turned down. Even though this film is great, what they could have done would have been more like the book, and the old movies with Sean Connery.

Overall Grade:
A- (weak A-....almost B) AS A MOVIE by itself.
B- (almost C) as a movie made from the book.
B (slightly weak B) as a BOND film.

 
2. Friday, November 17, 2006 8:21 PM
Outlaw2x4 RE: Casino Royale (Hyde says: Good movie, Weak Bond)


 Member Since
 12/20/2005
 Posts:1627

 View Profile
 Send PM
Personally I felt that Craig really stepped the Bond Character up a level and delivered the best Bod performance Ive seen since Brosnan in Goldeneye. Great film and a brilliant Bond.


If we nail this bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a pack of cards...Checkmate! - Zap Brannigan
 
3. Sunday, November 19, 2006 10:13 PM
JVSCant RE: Casino Royale (Hyde says: Good movie, Weak Bond)


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:2870

 View Profile
 Send PM

I also had a more uniformly positive reaction. I bought Craig as Bond immediately and had no issues with him, except for a little bit of posing from time to time. The film itself I thought was the strongest since the Connery days; I have a soft spot for quite a few of the intervening ones, but this for me was both a good Bond film and a good film in and of itself, which is a very rare thing. Some of the weakest parts of the storytelling were actually many of the same parts that reminded me of the old Bond stylisms, so the change in tone was not a negative for me.

On Daniel Craig a little more... He may or may not be the best actor, but he had the advantage of being in a far better film with a far better script that any Bond in recent memory. Moments like the loud clumsiness with which he searches the security room at the resort hotel are touches that I can't help but assume are going to be leveraged for character development through the Craig series, so I'm glad that either he or someone else is taking these details seriously and planning for the long haul. Connery is still my sentimental favorite, but I'm pretty optimistic about what Craig will do with the role in the future, as he did a pretty sharp job of revivifying what was a dead character in this one...


 
4. Monday, November 20, 2006 6:20 AM
smokedchezpig RE: Casino Royale (Hyde says: Good movie, Weak Bond)


 Member Since
 12/19/2005
 Posts:5246

 View Profile
 Send PM
I am overall fan of Craig's work (Road To Perdition, Munich, Layer Cake, Enduring Love) and am looking forward to how he handles the Bond persona. This'll be the first time I paid for a Bond film since For Your Eyes Only (barring screenings of earlier Connery films).     


"Every day holds a new beginning and every hour holds the promise of an Invitation to Love." 

 
5. Wednesday, November 22, 2006 12:46 PM
Hyde RE: Casino Royale (2nd review...more detailed, more defined)


 Member Since
 12/20/2005
 Posts:1235

 View Profile
 Send PM

I saw the movie again, and now have revised my review.

What do you think of this one?

 
6. Wednesday, November 22, 2006 12:55 PM
rocksandbottles RE: Casino Royale (2nd review...more detailed, more defined)


 Member Since
 12/18/2005
 Posts:7169

 View Profile
 Send PM
While Connery and Brosnan are my favorites, I must admit this looks quite intriguing. Was bummed when I learned that Pierce was no longer filling the debonair shoes of our beloved 007, but this chap looks like he does a smashing job. Once things calm down a bit after the hustle and bustle of the holidays, we are going to go see it. Nice to see Dame Judi Dench as M still...she's such a smooth gloved fit for that role. :D


 
7. Thursday, November 23, 2006 6:45 PM
LogicHat RE: Casino Royale (2nd review...more detailed, more defined)


 Member Since
 12/19/2005
 Posts:2335

 View Profile
 Send PM

Forget Daniel Craig, what about the juicy possibilities of Jeffery Wright as the new Felix Lighter (sic)? Eh?

I just got back from seeing it tonight. Was really impressed. I've been a Bond fan since I was a preteen, and after the unevenness of the last two films (being rather generous by using that adjective, I know), I was all set for James to get the Bond Begins-treatment. I was not disappointed.

QUOTE:Craig really... delivered the best Bod performance

Judging by the reactions of many of the female members of the audience, I'd have to concur with this.


Logic Hat Online- logichat.org


 
8. Friday, November 24, 2006 7:11 AM
smokedchezpig RE: Casino Royale (2nd review...more detailed, more defined)


 Member Since
 12/19/2005
 Posts:5246

 View Profile
 Send PM
yeah, yeah, I should have mentioned this before. I think Jeffrey Wright's terrifc...he was one of the few bright spots of Syriana...his performance dripped with subtelety...He wasn't in Broken Flowers enough, but he really cracked me up when he was...Angels in America, worthy of all the awards he's received and he's in Ang Lee film. Anyway, that does make me want to see it all the more. I bet Craig and Wright are great together. Bring on th Dr. No remake, which has some of the best Bond/Leiter moments.     


"Every day holds a new beginning and every hour holds the promise of an Invitation to Love." 

 

New Topic | Post Reply Page 1 of 1 :: << | 1 | >>
Movies, TV, Music & Games > Casino Royale (2nd review...more detailed, more defined)


Users viewing this Topic (0)


This page was generated in 156 ms.