Review: Casino Royale

Casino Royale

Casino Royale
My rat­ing: 4.5 out of 5.

Bah. I was plan­ning on writ­ing this up as a proper review but now I’m feel­ing tired so you’re going to get the bul­let point version.

  • The lat­est install­ment in the James Bond film empire is Casino Royale. This also hap­pens to be the first install­ment of the books. The film doesn’t quite cover Bond’s ori­gins, but we do get a few min­utes of Bond “work­ing up the cor­po­rate lad­der”. Kind of inter­est­ing but given how lit­tle time was spent in those scenes; I won­der if there weren’t other areas that the time could have been bet­ter spent on.
  • Daniel Craig brings an inter­est­ing inter­pre­ta­tion to the role of Bond. He has back the panache of Connery’s Bond but with a bru­tal vio­lence that we’ve not seen before. I’m still not con­vinced this is the best path to go with but it’s cer­tainly bet­ter than Brosnan’s some­what stilted performances.
  • Some peo­ple seem to really like the vil­lain of this film, Le Chiffre. How­ever I found him to be weak and inef­fec­tual; though to be fair had a bet­ter plan than some we’ve seen1.
  • The chase scene at the begin­ning was incred­i­ble. Though I know there are other movies out there which also do this sort of thing. For­tu­nately, I’ve not actu­ally seen many of those movies so this still looked new/fresh/interesting rather than old and derivative.
  • It’s a pity they killed off Cate­rina Murino’s char­ac­ter so early in the movie. She was much more in the style of clas­sic Bond women than Eva Green.2
  • Prod­uct place­ment sucks. In this case, I’m refer­ring to the fact Bond was dri­ving a Ford towards the start of the film. On the other hand, win­ning the clas­sic 1964 Aston Mar­ton in a card game was pretty cool.

1 Banker to world ter­ror­ists vs. Russ­ian EMP satel­lites, no con­test here.
2 Smok­ing hot vs. vaguely attractive.

Similar Posts

  • Review: The Marine
    Mark's Rating: 1.75 out of 5 stars Friday, Ariesna and I were originally planning on having guests ...
  • Review: Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull
    What a wretched, steaming pile of poo this movie was. Two thumbs all the way down. The wacky, over-t ...
  • Random Notes
    The next installment of Ant-Boy wasn't ready for posting this morning but I hope to have it up befor ...
  • Jon Stewart on Crossfire
    Apparently Jon Stewart recently went on CNN's Crossfire show but didn't have somebody to debate but ...
  • Review: Steaming pile of poo
    Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to go and see Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Wow was ...

About Mark McKibben

Mark works as a [REDACTED] for [REDACTED], currently residing in Iowa. CoffeeBear.net is a place for him to blather on about whatever strikes his fancy. He currently spends his "free" time working on a photography project, playing with his cat and attempting to keep his wife happy (not necessarily in that order).

3 Comments

  1. Player says:
    December 22nd, 2006 at 3:36 pm

    James Bond movies are pretty much camp to me. I am also sus­pi­cious of any review that Cof­fee­bear does, as he is nei­ther a good movie critic nor a big fan of the medium itself. The other reviews I got was that it was good. How­ever, what’s with this craze to go back to the begin­ning with every­thing? Bat­man Begins was done very well, but I doubt that every­thing will be of that cal­iber. The best film I’ve seen all year is Old­boy, a dark and orig­i­nal view of what life means when every­thing you have gets taken away from you. Over­all 2006 sucked for movies. I’d have to say that the sum­mer was held up by Snakes On A Plane, the only major film that didn’t suck, and cheaper films like The Descent that comes out next week on DVD. 2007 is going to fea­ture The Trans­form­ers and big dis­ap­point­ments like.…oh I don’t know… Ghost Rider or say Fan­tas­tic Four (the 2.0 ver­sion), and other sad films. As for Bond movies, after Halle Berry, I doubt they can ever show any other woman as hot on the screen, but hey that’s not a sug­ges­tion, that’s a dare!

  2. Ken says:
    December 27th, 2006 at 10:24 pm

    Good quick review, but I guess I’d request that, if you think any­one will read your review before see­ing the movie, you rewrite the point about the love inter­est so as not to give stuff away. (Also, it’s not really clear whether you were say­ing Eva Green was smok­ing hot or vaguely attractive).

    It was slim pick­ins this year, but I’d say this Bond was the best film I’ve seen since Bat­man Begins. And the chase scene in Royale blew BB’s gra­tu­itous Bat-car chase scene com­pletely away. Did I men­tion they’re going to do a “Bat­man Begins II”? Well, the title still under development.

  3. Mark says:
    December 27th, 2006 at 10:55 pm

    @Player: I’ll grant I’m not the best movie critic out there, but dis­agree on not being a big fan of the medium. I love films. I just haven’t seen any in years truly wor­thy of the medium. As for going back to the begin­ning, that’s sim­ply. Hol­ly­wood knows these sto­ries are ones that work, which means low risk for big returns (e.g. profit). If you want inno­v­a­tive film-making; you need to watch stuff not being pro­duced out of Hol­ly­wood. For­eign films and/or inde­pen­dent works are your best bets.

    @Ken: I think you’re get­ting the women in the movie con­fused. Cate­rina Murino played a minor (though smok­ing hot) char­ac­ter at the begin­ning of the movie; while Eva Green played the vaguely attrac­tive char­ac­ter who was Bond’s love inter­est for this film.

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.