Monday, November 27, 2006

Casino Royale

I've always been apprehensive about watching a Bond movie because it's been treading the same water for decades. An evil villan with a nervous twitch or facial scar who's into world domination defeated by our intrepid hero who manages to bed the narcisstic arch enemies wench before getting captured and placed in a slow moving mechanistic death bed, manages to escape, shoot his way through henchmen and kill the bad guy in a twist of ironic fate. They are the types of films you half watch on Boxing Day whilst walking in and out of the room doing other things.

Casino Royale promised it would be different. A more gritty, realistic Bond. A hark back to Flemings first work and a more grounded and rounded character. Poppycock. I would have to say that the only thing gritty is Daniel Craigs face that looks like a sack of potatoes with blue eyes and a hairpiece stuck on the top. And let's run through the Bond clichés that were meant to be replaced by a more subdued and self-effacing Bond. Evil villan - check. Twitch or facial scar? - An astmatic requiring cinematic inhaler shots - Check. World domination? - An unscrupulous banker who supports foreign terrorists. Bedded wench? - Check. Captured and escapes? - Check. Henchmen shot? - Check. Bad guy killed in ironic twist of fate? - Well, he does die.

Hardly anything new and certainly not a reinvention by any stretch of the imagination. Apart from this being a Bond film, it looks and feels like it could be any generic action flick with a big budget. The plot is over-convoluted for what is a simple premise and the film is a whole is a huge let-down. I am probably one of the few nay-sayers as the film has garnered great reviews all round but in my opinion this film has no reach on any of the Bourne films which is a gritty and realistic action movie in terms of action sequences and plot development and I for one cannot wait until the next installment. As for another Bond, I'll wait until it's showing on Boxing Day.

I would give this film 005 out of 010.

Labels:

3 Comments:

Blogger Skry said...

Yet again you slate a terrible movie and then give it an average result... For shame bro, for shame...

This movie had unfortunately suckered me in with the promise of a more gritty, serious and less sexist plotline. I too bought the sales pitch hook, line, sinker and copy of angling times.

I can't believe that they can sell this movie as being anything other than another bond movie. He beds women (2 of them), the bad guy has a nasty scar over one eye, there are a number of stupid and unnecessary gadgets and, of course, the obligatory classic Bond car.

If you like Bond films you will love this. If not then try your best to avoid the lies that the hype are spouting about this being a whole new type of Bond. It's not.

I hate James Bond movies and, with such a formulaic and repetitive plot, I couldn't possibly advise anyone who doesn't normally like this series to watch Casino Royale.

Personally I would struggle to give such a boring all-budget no-plot movie more than 007%...

12:28 am  
Blogger Jay Tea said...

It was a generic action movie flick treading the same waters and although it was dull, we all still watched it through to the end.

If we turned it off because it was trully unwatchable it would have garnered a lower score.

1:26 am  
Anonymous Chris said...

I don't know how to blow a rasperry in text but i'll try thrrrrrrrppppppttttttttt!!!
I thought it was good fun and daniel craig was really very good. He kept very close to the sh*t that bond is and Me and my mates all had a great time. I give it 008 out of 010. by the way the obligatory things have to be there otherwise its just not Bond. So thrrrrrrrpppppppttttttttttt!!!! to you good sir.

4:32 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker

Stumble Upon Toolbar