Casino Royale

[luckykaa]

Tip for movie watching; Don't drink a couple of pints of beer too soon before the start of a two and a quarter hour movie.



So, we get a reboot. Which sort of doesn't quite make sense. It's set in 2006, so this is obviously a different timeline, but we have the same 'M' as the previous films. It doesn't really matter.

We do still have the sexist chauvenistic bond that we all know and love, and naturally (in a film called Casino Royale) we have the gambling scene, as well as a decent action scene near the start. We don't have such a huge reliance on a gadget laden supercar, and no gimicky henchman. Which is all good. Has anyone else notices that Goldfinger managed just about all the cliches, and every Bond since has felt the need to have them but usually not as good? Yes, we do have a chase scene, and yes there is a DB5. But Casino Royale seems less reliant on the cliches than several of the other more recent bond flicks.

Bond is a lot rougher, more thuggish than we're used to. Also remarkably cold hearted. The fight scenes are really rather brutal. Much dirtier and messier than we're used to in action films. And Daniel Craig is a lot less clean cut than any of the previous Bonds. I like him but it took a while to warm to him.

Comments

[omylouse.livejournal.com]

That's a very good review of it :)

I did miss Q & his gadgets though. The whole different timeline thing annoyed me a bit until I realised if they'd tried tie it in with the other's it would have looked a lot worse...

Craig was definitly more a book-Bond than a film-Bond which was good. But made it less of a "Bond film" if you know what I mean. (Plus he looked too funny nekkid! *giggles*)

[ingaborg.livejournal.com]

I thought it was fantastic. I took to Craig immediately: he is IMO the first Bond ever who I can believe is the character from the book. I also thoroughly enjoyed the extra glimpses into M's life and the interplay between her and Bond. The brutal approach was refreshing and fit far better with the original character: but although the scenes were scary and violent I didn't think they stepped over the line into gratuitous or gore-fest. It was very thoughtfully and deliberately done.

The slow pace was an interesting choice, and clearly also deliberate. I think it worked well that they took time over the relatively simple story.

I also thought that although this film is more "serious" than many and almost without campness, Craig's Bond is the first one since I don't know when who looked as though *he* had any sort of sense of humour - he was a much more attractive and interesting character than any of the placcy boys.