peeker
TracyCASINO ROYALE - ORBLE'S FIRST REVIEW
November 16th 2006 12:45
I'm glad to give you one of the first reviews of Casino Royale, even before the movie's official release tomorrow.
Agent MI6 becomes 007 and starts his first mission: to find and destroy Le Chiffre, that plans to get stinky rich through a seemingly solid plan he has made up in his sick mind.
The agent is of course named James Bond, but Casino Royale is so far before the movies we know, that he doesn't even have a clue how he likes his Martini to be. Not to mention his excitement when he realizes there's a huge basement where a man creates stuff he can't imagine are possible, like pen-tank and gum-parachutes.
By pressing reboot on this franchise, EON doesn't have to concentrate to find the best and coolest technology, without forgetting that SONY is its main financer. It also avoids plenty of other problems and traps, by making James what he really is. He's simply a stone-cold killer that uses his own power in order to accomplish something.
There has been a lot of talk, almost too much, whether Daniel Craig would be good for this role or not. He is. He gives us the image of a confused but determined first-timer, erasing the air of the upper socialites Pierce introduced us too. With a solid look, he runs, catches, kills, jumps (and humps), making the action great and fast cars better. The women are in the same style, although a bit smarter. Might be good, might be bad.
Casino Royale makes room for a new fan-base, making his ancestors (or sequels) look like... well, nothing like this. It's a nice trip full with action and strong script, where the only big con would be the rather big hole in the third act.
Campbell, who resurrected Ian Flemming's character a decade a go (or something like that), hits hard this time with a double dose of adrenaline, and leaves us with a doped creature ready to sweep the floor with anything on its way. I hope it'll remain this way, and not turn to what it once was, with the invincible BMWs and flying Playstations.
//filmpeeker
| 73 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Looks like its going to be a love or hate bond movie for old time fans...
Comment by Filmpeeker
Film Peek
Gizmo Peek
Film Peek Forum
Yeah, Sony indeed. Although what I meant was that it can easily turn into something the previous Bond movies were, with the unlogical high tech and playstations...
Luckily this movie doesn't have a flying playstation =)
I think it's mostly a love bond movie.
Cheers!
//filmpeeker
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Daily Inspirations
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
I doubta female bonde will work well, first problem is wtih the name... james bonde just doesn't cut it in a woman... Anna bonde, dorothy bonde... those would work, but still... I just don't see it.
I bet they'll ahve a bisexual bonde though... that kind of seems inevitable. But only if it's a she, cos sexism and all, gay bonde going at it is just meh for the box office, bisexual female bond going at it is something else entirely...
and why did I put an 'e' at the end of bond?
Comment by Filmpeeker
Film Peek
Gizmo Peek
Film Peek Forum
Ahmed, yea, why did you put an "e" at the end of Bond? And Dorothy Bond? That would only work if it was a parody...
Even though it would be SO wrong, I must agree with you on the bisexual thing and point of view... It is different with a female than a male.
Comment by MelissaA
Fun Facts
Comment by Filmpeeker
Film Peek
Gizmo Peek
Film Peek Forum
Hmm, do you mean the original Casino Royale, cause if yes, it's just a comedic spoof. So I would say they don't stack up against each other at all
If you don't mean what I think you mean, tell me what you mean so that I can answer your real meaning. You know what I mean?
See you around.
Comment by MelissaA
Fun Facts
I'd just heard that there was an original version and out of curiousity wanted to know how they stacked up on the assumption that it was a normal movie version - you know - like when they re-made "The Stepford Wives" etc.
So if you understand my meaning and take my meaning how I mean it, then you should understand what I mean, know what I mean? ; )