Reviews of Casino Royale

Casino Royale review

Posted : 9 months, 3 weeks ago on 21 February 2009 02:57 (A review of Casino Royale)

Seriously? I didn't really enjoyed action movies, or James Bond movies until Casino Royale. Becausa this movie is way much more than just action. It just upgrades irony to the ULTIMATE level. It's a movie that you watch over and over again, and it just keeps getting better.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

J.B. = James Bond or Jason Bourne???

Posted : 1 year ago on 19 November 2008 11:09 (A review of Casino Royale)

"Any thug can kill. I need you to take your ego out of the equation."

Casino Royale denotes the 21st official entry to the James Bond cinematic pantheon (three unofficial Bond films are also in existence - two earlier versions of Casino Royale, and another version of Thunderball entitled Never Say Never Again with Sean Connery). To the die-hard 007 aficionados, 2002's somewhat atrocious Die Another Day indicated the immediate death of James Bond. The film wasn't warmly received in spite of grossing $450 million at the international box office. As a consequence, EON productions returned to the drawing board to devise an alternative strategy to re-invent Bond and rescue the filmic franchise that had endured for forty years.

During the four-year space between Die Another Day and 2006's Casino Royale, EON must've noticed the remarkably successful Batman Begins - a reboot of the Batman cinematic franchise, resurrecting a character that had died in the unspeakably appalling Batman & Robin. EON productions had acquired the rights to Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel - Casino Royale - and ultimately opted to take the opportunity to reboot the Bond cinematic franchise. From the outset, the objective was to offer a far more compelling, brutal antihero and a faithful embodiment of the Ian Fleming character.

Back in 1995, the world beheld a modernised James Bond in GoldenEye (arguably the best in the franchise since Goldfinger). Directed by Martin Campbell and starring Pierce Brosnan in the title role, the film successfully transplanted the classic character to a post-Cold War setting. It re-ignited the Bond series which alas subsequently died again with Die Another Day. EON productions were desperate for the Bond film franchise to continue, and their last hope was Casino Royale. Quentin Tarantino had expressed interest in helming an adaptation of Fleming's novel, however his wish was denied. Instead Martin Campbell was chosen to direct (as he had effectively resurrected the series once beforehand), and Daniel Craig was selected as James Bond.

Casino Royale has been described as the most faithful cinematic appropriation of an Ian Fleming 007 novel. Gone is the suave womanising, the endearing one-liners, the charm and the fascinating gadgets. Sure, the creators wanted the series to be closer to the Ian Fleming novels, but following forty years of the appealing "Classic Movie Bond" formula it frankly feels like too little, too late. Throughout the early 21st century the world was introduced to numerous action heroes barely individual from one another. Craig's rougher Bond fails to differentiate himself in the field of action heroes today. What originally set Bond apart from the rest was his style, his wit, the sex and the class... All of which has vanished. In addition to paying attention to Batman Begins as a way to revive a classic franchise, it seems EON also noticed the smartest espionage action-thrillers ever made - the Jason Bourne series. To keep Bond alive for a modern generation, Bond has been transformed into an emotionless thug - a fundamental clone of Jason Bourne (interestingly, Gary Powell is responsible for the stunts in The Bourne Ultimatum after he was hired for this film). Yes, this is Fleming's Bond, but it's lacking a compelling story. The emotionless Jason Bourne movies work because of the story that keeps viewers engaged. In this case, the mishmash of a brutal thug with a flippant Bond narrative is jarring. It lacks the charming "Film Bond" elements, and therefore fails to emerge as separate from the Bourne series.

Casino Royale also lulls a tad too much with its emaciated plot flattened out into an action/adventure film with a distinct lack of momentum. Towards the end of its 140-minute runtime it contains a number of anticlimaxes that go on forever. The subdued villainy (more of a fault of Fleming's novel...but it's still a fault carried over to the film) is less interesting and less menacing. Casino Royale could have been far worse, but it also could've been far better.

"I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours."

As for the film's plot, James Bond (Craig) has just earned his Double-0 status. At MI6, M (Dench) sees Bond's potential and is aware that he's the best card player in the service. Bond is sent to the Casino Royale in Montenegro to play a high-stakes poker game against Le Chiffre (Mikkelsen); a banker to the world's terrorists. If Bond wins and bankrupts Le Chiffre, it will destroy his terrorist organisation. M places Bond under the vigilant eye of the beguiling Vesper Lynd (Green).
Fleming's Casino Royale novel isn't as sexy, tense or action-packed as the other jazzier Bond novels. Apart from the obligatory action scenes (of which are very limited) all Bond needs to do is play cards and win. The premise just isn't as strong as the other Bond films/novels.

Typical Bond screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are joined by Paul Haggis; a man responsible for Crash and Million Dollar Baby. The script works well throughout the kinetic first half in particular. However, at times during the second half there are moments of dialogue entirely improper in a Bond setting. The film even alludes to Macbeth! It may seem clever to insert Oscar-winning moments of drama, but in an action/adventure movie it doesn't work...it's cringe-worthy.

There are incalculable other flaws in the screenplay. For example, the novel approach of gritty realism is abandoned during moments that are utterly preposterous. Bond is shown as a vulnerable human, yet it'd be impossible for anyone to survive some parts of the furious action scenes. For example: at a time during the opening foot-chase he falls onto a metal surface before rolling onto the ground. If he was "human" he'd have fractured a rib or two. And Bond runs almost non-stop during the opening chase. No matter how fit he is no-one can run for that long. The most substantial insult to the realism approach is the combined fault of the screenwriters and those behind the camera. A car swerves to avoid hitting someone, consequently rolling around in the air several times. It's physically impossible for any car to dance around in the air like that in this certain context. Bond also survives this massive car wreck. If he was "human" he'd have broken a few bones and his organs would be in trouble. But no - a few scratches is all suffers. Uh huh...

"Arrogance and self-awareness seldom go hand in hand."

In tradition with the Bond films, the location filming (Italy, Montenegro, Bahamas, England, Czech Republic) is striking. Director Martin Campbell is masterful at setting the required atmosphere. For the amazing pre-title sequence there's a moody atmosphere. Casino Royale is one of the gloomiest Bond films in existence, containing much blood, brutal punches and a high body count. The violence has a more British neo-noir spark to it. The film is even reportedly the first in the franchise to feature rain. The action scenes rattle along at a furious pace, and the card-playing (while excessively dragged out to monotony) is lensed with consummate dexterity. The stunts are utterly superb. All the fights (reminiscent of Jason Bourne) are brutal, rough and riveting. To accompany this, David Arnold's exhilarating score radically accelerates the pacing. There are a few miscalculations with the action, unfortunately; the collapsing building in Venice is a gimmick too far in an emotional finale which would play better without all the noise.

"I'm sorry. That last hand... nearly killed me."

Most controversial during the film's production period was Daniel Craig as James Bond. He's a wooden, stiff, emotionless assemblage of muscles. In this single movie alone he spends more time with his shirt off than any other actor portraying the role combined! To be honest he looks like a slightly ham-fisted attempt at woodworking. Craig's head is a rough cube, sawed and sanded, with the blue eyes hammered in like nail heads. He looks right at home handling the action scenes and beating opponents to a pulp, but he occasionally falters while delivering dialogue. Also, when the writers offer him humour to deliver, he sounds forced.
As the sixth actor to play James Bond in the official films, Craig doesn't have the ruggedness or cheek of Sean Connery, the charming dapperness of Roger Moore, nor the playful and debonair grace of Pierce Brosnan. But his portrayal is superior to the less popular Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby. Casino Royale is expected to be the first of three or four Bond adventures featuring Daniel Craig as the beloved spy.

Eva Green is outstandingly beautiful and impossibly well-dressed as the Bond girl of the picture. Judi Dench immediately won the heart of Bond fans when she debuted as M in 1995's GoldenEye. To be honest, M seems pretty useless here. She begs Bond to stop his silly investigation before begging for his help. M is quite poorly written in the film. Jeffrey Wright features as 007's traditional CIA contact, Felix Leiter. A black Felix may appear somewhat peculiar to some, but Wright is just right for the part (excuse the pun) and is spot-on believable. Mads Mikkelsen is barely menacing, nor is he remarkable as the film's primary villain. Memorable villains are a necessity for Bond films, but Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre is tragically underwhelming. This is a fault of adhering to the original Fleming novel. Whatever makes the novel enthusiasts happy, I suppose.

Overall, Casino Royale is a decent action-adventure film and a solid revitalisation of everyone's favourite British secret agent. The film stalls and is indeed too long at about 140 minutes (the longest in the franchise's history), and there's a sappy lacklustre section towards the film's conclusion, but at least there's sufficient time for character exploration and the action is predominantly amazing.

"The name's Bond... James Bond."

6.5/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The last card to be dealt ends up being best...

Posted : 1 year, 1 month ago on 29 October 2008 02:01 (A review of Casino Royale)

''The name's Bond. James Bond.''

In his first mission, James Bond must stop Le Chiffre, a banker to the world's terrorist organizations, from winning a high-stakes poker tournament at Casino Royale in Montenegro.

Daniel Craig: James Bond

''I'm sorry. That last hand... nearly killed me.''

The character of Bond presented in Casino Royale may disappoint followers of the original films, but the news is, this is Fleming's Bond.
An orphan, uncertain of his own identity, a disillusioned romantic trying hard to pretend he's incapable of emotions, a middle class, middle-brow, middle-level management type who just happens to kill people for a living. But he does it extremely well.

The other problem some general viewers may have is the level of violence in the film; having determined to film the novel realistically, director Martin Campbell has decided to ditch the 'B-movie' violence of most of the earlier films, and present us the violence with a hard British neo-noir spark to it. Given the romantic plot twist toward the end, this would be a perfect date movie also. Except that the violence left some of the female viewers in the Cinema I attended clearly scared. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is part of the roller-coaster of the film's antics.

''Arrogance and self-awareness seldom go hand in hand.''

Cambell's direction is very good, the writing is crisp and clinical, production values are an all time high; the photography is beyond excellence. Some of the stunt work is truly remarkable and jaw dropping. The acting is rock-solid and believable for these characters. There is plenty of muscle for the action-film fan, and some real brains for the more intellectual viewer to ponder in the ensuing plot contrivances.

Casino Royale is best viewed with minimal reliance on knowledge of the previous installments. In fact, it functions perfectly well as a one-off, a film without a series.
It's The Bourne of Bond pretty much and it takes ideas from that series and uses them for it's own inspirational means.

''Why is it that people who can't take advice always insist on giving it?''

The real ace here is Craig. He doesn't have Connery's raw star quality, but he's easily the best actor to have played the part for ages.
I don't know if the film was shot in sequence but for the only time since Majesty's Secret Service you get a sense of Bond evolving throughout the film as his cockiness becomes confidence and his brutality becomes cold icy efficiency. He starts off unlikeable but human and gradually picks up the Bond traits we know and love, until he becomes more likable but just a little less human. It's an interesting journey and Craig is up to the task in hand. It's not just his delivery, it's also his body language and dedication to the mission. Even his fighting style changes as he adapts.

''I'm sorry I'm not sorry.''

Physically he's the most in your face Bond since Lazenby and the action scenes look brutal and effective with a gritty realism long forgotten or unseen. Even the not very likely free running chase is spectacular but believable because you get the idea that this really is kill or be killed antics. It's got a real feel of danger to it that hasn't been seen in the series in years. Only the torture scene feels like it's holding back but that's probably fear of the censors.

You'll come out of this one not just thinking that Daniel Craig IS James Bond, that no-one has ever played him before. Let's all hope they don't lose their nerve with Bond 22 and bring back the sci-fi crap and unrealistic gadgetry, because this could be a real new habit to emphasis...Roll on Quantum Of Solace!

''I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

"Bond. James Bond."

Posted : 1 year, 4 months ago on 4 August 2008 03:39 (A review of Casino Royale)

I was never too big on the James Bond series, and I didn't think that Daniel Craig had the right look for to be an Agent 007. Therefore, I ended up avoided this film when it was theatres. However, after I watched it on DVD, it became one of those films that I wished I had caught whilst still in the theatres.
Suddenly, Mr. Bond felt like a new character ( which is no surprise, considering that this story focus on the secret agent at the beginning of his career) & absent were the schtick of the goofy sex-pot sidekicks & the cartoonish weaponry & the over the top comicbook-like villains bent on world domination. All that was left was the energetic action sequences ( still-high powered, yet still in the realm of logistical suspended belief that one walks into for a film such as this), international spy intrigue, antagonists of a more believable & sophisticated level & even an intricate romance sub-plot that reveals the mechanics of the mindset required to achieve the level of double-o seven.
IMO, this is the James Bond movie for non-James Bond enthusiasts without sacrificing the heart & soul of loyal fans.





0 comments, Reply to this entry

This left a lot to be desired

Posted : 1 year, 9 months ago on 14 March 2008 07:02 (A review of Casino Royale)

This movie left a lot to be desired as it was horrible the story line was too slow and everytime I tried to watch it I fell asleep other than two nights ago I finally watch it and I would have preferred falling asleep it is too slow too repetitive and the action moments don't seem good enough to call it a bond film
I honestly think they should re-do it and actually make it flow every thing seemed to be tacked on to beef it up it's a disgrace to bond movies and deserves to be burnt in the flaming pits of the Christian hell but it does have it's good points such as the action is pretty good and the romance is in there and it is following in the steps of its predecessors but it just didn't seem right

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Kinda back to the roots

Posted : 1 year, 10 months ago on 10 February 2008 09:38 (A review of Casino Royale)

They did with this movie the same thing as with Batman begins. It has a much more realistic touch.

Some say that this is not a Bond movie, well...it is a bond movie, but the movie is set long before Bond was the Bond we know from the other 20 movies. So Bond is much more down to earth, he dosn't know the way he wan't his vodka martini, he looks bruised when he was in a fight and he can fall in love.

Watch it if you want to see a great action movie.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Casino Royale

Posted : 1 year, 11 months ago on 22 December 2007 01:15 (A review of Casino Royale)

By no means did this film resurrect the Bond series. I am sorry but I have to disagree with every critic, Daniel Craig is no James Bond. Not only did he not look or carry the role to the standard of any of his predecessors (including George Lazenby), the underlying story was just plain boring. No where near the adventure or the ladies of past movies. The only positive was its redemption of the offbeat Peter Sellers original of the same title.

1 comments, Reply to this entry

five stars

Posted : 2 years ago on 24 November 2007 07:21 (A review of Casino Royale)

Bond's best film of all time...

0 comments, Reply to this entry

I Love 007!

Posted : 2 years, 2 months ago on 15 September 2007 07:02 (A review of Casino Royale)

A reallly good movie...i really enjoyed it.
Daniel Craig was a good james bond, well, kind of average, because i still have my favourite.

There were some really good action scenes in this, but some quite unbelievable.. but I guess thats James Bond, eh?

There were actually some really funny lines in it, i was in a cinema full of people and every 5 mins or so they all laughed.

He is a different "bond" character, which was...in some parts good... but some parts bad..
James Bond fans definetly see this!

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The name's Bond...

Posted : 2 years, 8 months ago on 26 March 2007 05:26 (A review of Casino Royale)

No soy gran fan de las películas del 007. De hecho, solo he visto 3 de las de Pierce Brosnan y ninguna pasa el 7 según mi sistema de ratings (el 7 es, para mi, una pelicula que me entretiene pero que olvido en un par de horas).

Pero tenía ganas de ver esta, en parte por el cambio de actor y en parte por las buenas criticas. Y me gustó mucho.

La pelicula dura 2 horas y 20 minutos y no te das cuenta. Es agil, con mucha acción y un par de persecusiones muy buenas. La historia es simple, con un par de giros interesantes (aunque predecibles =/) y un partido de poker memorable :P.
Mención especial a la escena inicial en blanco y negro mostrando cómo Bond se convirtió en doble cero.

Y lo mejor: Daniel Craig. Creo que vi algunas pelis con él, pero nunca le preste atención. Que buen actor que es. Y su Bond fue muy interesante. Es oscuro... pero gris oscuro. Es frio, duro, calculador, pero a la vez capaz de enamorarse y sufrir. Muy distinto al muñequito delicado de Brosnan.

Más en Taly OnLine

0 comments, Reply to this entry