*flashback review* Casino Royale: A return to form
by: bamf 1 year, 8 months, 2 weeks, 3 days, 17 hours, 46 minutes ago 9
Email Article Print ArticleCasino Royale was touted as the relaunch to bring Bond back to his former glory. It has a grittier approach with a new face for Bond and a redefinition of the series. My short review of the film, it was crap, and it truly was a return to form. The same form that has been established with the preceding installments of the franchises films that lead to short box offices and hack attempts at continuing a legend. Before you buy the dvd on tuesday, consider this review when the inevitable double dip is right around the corner.
Bamf here rematerializing from the void..
The problem I have with Casino Royale is it has the new face, the Aston Martin and the Vodka Martini. But it never fully commits to being what it claims. A reboot to the character, an origin story without an origin. In an interview with Martin Campbell (director) he talked up the idea of watching Bond become the man we all knew. The lethal alcoholic whose misogynisim is only outdone by his sense of style. This is an exciting idea. In execution it fails. The film feels like it’s trying too hard to not be a Bond film. They tried to force emotion into him while maintaining his cold image and the two just do not work contemporaneously in this film. It fell flat like week old coke. Casion Royale lacks gadgets yet was full of Sony product placement which is a fine analogy for the movie discussed. A film built on a brand but really has no substance.
The score was a letdown as it was more a painted montage of past Bond music greatness. A couple movements screamed From Russia With Love, but to be fair, that’s my favorite Bond film. It feels like a third of this film is entirely credits. The opening montage has no women using the gun as a phallic device, but instead men being killed with Hoyle card symbols. The song by Cornell is horrible. Really. I could even look past this all until they actually show Bonds face as part of the montage not as a static figure but a moving image. His silhouette would have been just fine thank you, and ya, I know his name.
The poker scenes were so damn boring due to the fact that Bond isn’t a Poker player, he’s a Baccarat player. But put that aside its such a dumbed down paint by the numbers sh** fest it nearly had me asleep, literally. And I had napped earlier. The “river” scenes were so damn unimaginative, hurrmm, what can beat 3 kings when there’s an Ace on the board? Oh ya, three aces. Yawn. What wicked banality. I wish they had stuck with Baccarat because at least then I wouldn’t have known what was going on. And that game would have been far more interesting then trying to invoke the WPT. The pacing of Casino Royale was going fine until they actually arrived at Casino Royale. These scenes were like a rodeo clown stepping in front of the bull right before it hits the unaware cowboy. The clown stepped in front, pointed a loaded gun at it, and buried a hollow point from head to tail. From there you aren’t really sure where you’re going in the story because it just plays so slow, and the bull is dead on the ground. There are faster cuts in the beginning of the film then the end, a lot like Run Lola Run, but lets not bring up a good film or anything here.
Casino Royale tried to be different but in the end it came right back to the form that the past few Bond films have taken, mediocrity.
Perhaps I have grown out of the character. Maybe I’m a little jaded towards the franchise. I haven’t seen a Bond movie since Tomorrow Never Dies. I felt cheated that it wasn’t about time travel. When I first heard about The World Is Not Enough I thought, damn now there’s a title. Finally a villain who would rather destroy the world then have it. I sort of saw a pirated version on my friends’ computer when it was in theaters but I wouldn’t actually count it as a full viewing. I really lost interest when I heard the Bond girls name was Christmas. I just could not bare to hear a "Will Christmas come twice this year?" line. Ugg.
This leads me to what I did like about the film, besides Craig and the Astin Martin (although it was only a glorified med station, but Ill admit it does make sense). Casting a Bond girl you always have to go with an unknown. The biggest person in a Bond film should be Bond and never the piece he is pumping for information so to speak. So they did that right. And I genuinely want too see another Craig, Bond movie. This one has hints of the character I love but offers nothing of the emotions that On His Majesties Secret Service discovered.
What the Bond franchise needs is not just a fresh look at old material, but a fresh look at new material. Get this property in the right hands and make it explode off screen because the Bond name will only take this reviewer so far and continuing to make tripe like this only pushes the franchise back into its recent disingenuous form.
Bamf will return with his report from Wizard World LA
{about}
I guess as long they keep making money on the Bond movies, they will keep making them. (yawn) Not a big fan of making the same movie over and over and inserting a new face or body to say it is new and improved.
Some folks seem to like those kind of movies, me, not so much. Like you, I could get into some new material with this character. What are the chances Ian Fleming will write a new book?
I am going out on a limb and say, none.
But, maybe they could put Bond into one of Flemings other books. Say ... Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
If I may be so bold…
I couldn’t disagree with you more if I tried. While reading your review I found a few points of particular interest to me. You talk about this being the same old boring Bond, however if you’ve ever read Flemming’s books (particularly Casino Royale) then you’d know the characterization of Bond is MUCH different from what we’ve seen in the previous incarnations. His Bond was more of a brawler, I also believe his looks were more subtle, and less striking....much like Craig.
The problem I had with the other Bond flicks was they relied too much on thos gadgets to sell the story. Bond is supposed to be this super cool secret agent that can do anything, yet how are we supposed to know that when he has a gadget for every situation he’s in? This Bond didn’t need a laser watch, or a dart gun...he can kick your ass with his bare hands. When’s the last time you saw Bond get into scraps like in Casino Royale? Within the first 30 sec of the film it’s obvious this is a completely different take on the character. While I would’ve liked to see more of Bond’s history (like how he became an agent) I would hardly call the story “crap”...that seems like such an unimaginative word for such an extensive review.
While I won’t try to sway your judgement on the film, I would suggest you pick up a copy of Flemming’s original “Casino Royale” book and see how close the character of Bond, and the story are. Your comment about him not being a great poker player struck me as odd since I thought Bond was relying more on his intelligence, and ability to “size people up” (hence the scene between he and Vesper on the plane) to tell when Le Chiffre was bluffing, I don’t remember them saying how he was some world renowed card player. While the story is not exact, Craig’s version of Bond is the closest we’ve ever seen to Flemming’s original character.
And for your comment about Cornell’s song being crap, you’re obviously insane. When you’ve had people like Tina Turner and Madonna doing Bond themes in the past that were mediocre at best, Cornell’s “You know my name” gives the franchise a shot of life with it’s tempo...it’s not the same seudo-sexy song we’ve heard time and time again. It’s a new song for a new Bond. This is some of Cornell’s best work since his Soundgarden days, even some of his Audioslave music isn’t on par with this...it’s a return to his roots for him, and it sounds great.
Oh, and BTW...the quote that you’re referring to was “I thought Christmas only came once a year.”
That’s what Komikazee is. You wouldn’t be here if you weren’t “one of us.”
Oh, and BTW...the quote that you’re referring to was “I thought Christmas only came once a year.”
You mean that line actually WAS in that movie? Im so happy I turned it off.
Perhaps Im too comfortable with Peter Sellers version of Casino Royale to ever like this one. I stand by all of my crap, crap, crappier points.
If you like the Peter Sellers version then you can’t be a fan of the actual Casino Royale book. Sellers’ version was like a predecessor to the “Austin Powers” movies.
It was good though.
Lets keep things straight, Peter Sellers version of Casino Royale was a spoof of all spy type movies including Bond so I am not sure it really fits into a serious discussion of Bond Movies.
Another point may be, the Bond we have been seeing since the 60’s is the REAL Bond to us. To come along now and say, this (craig) Bond is more like the REAL Bond in the books, sounds like Connery and the others were pretenders.
I haven’t read any Fleming in years but all the other Bond movies are what came out of his books and everyone was OK with it until the new Bonds were selected and folks started choosing sides about which one was best. There was never a discussion about whether they are like Flemings books are not. It may be a little late to try and sell that angle now.
It is why this new guy had to be sold as someone different. In this case, he is gritty and NEW except he is OLD like in the books written in 1950’s and 60’s.
To me, it just the same old soup warmed over.
The reason Bond was made out to be some good looking ladies man is because Hollywood decided to exaggerate on a character. Back in those days they didn’t think the idea of a decent looking, womanizing, brawler who happened to be a secret agent would sell really well to the general audience hence the need to make Bond is extremely handsome, sophisticated guy that could do almost anything.
Nowadays people like things “gritty” and “realistic” which is why the laser watch and submarine car wouldn’t work for the latest Bond flick. I would suggest that the $593,000,000 it made at the box office (making it the most successful Bond film ever) supports that idea
Also, I would hardly call Craig old. Especially since he’s 38 and Brosnan was around 50 when he last portrayed 007.
In the end it just comes down to how you prefer your James Bond...the gadget toting ladies man spouting out one-liners, or the suave agent who doesn’t need gadgets to kick your ass, and who can have any woman he wants.
Sorry I didn’t make my point clear. Craig isn’t old, the character is old, having been created in the 1950’s. A 50 year old movie character is normally considered old.
In Bonds case, he always comes back to being in his 30’s not matter how old he gets.