Most of you probably saw this movie months ago, but being an old geezer who no longer goes to the theater I had to wait until now. So bear with me as I make a few comments.
First of all, to get the important stuff out of the way . . . No, this is not, in my opinion, the best James Bond film ever. Nor is Daniel Craig the best James Bond. Those honors still belong to GOLDFINGER and Sean Connery, respectively. In fact, I’d say that both FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE (yes, even with George Lazenby, who didn’t deserve the critical beating he got) are also better than CASINO ROYALE.
However, CASINO ROYALE is better than all of the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies, better than all the Roger Moores (with the possible exception of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, which is a pretty good film), and as for the Timothy Dalton Bonds, well, I watched ’em but I have almost no memory of them, so I suspect CASINO ROYALE is better than they were, too. Daniel Craig does a great job, especially in the action scenes. He looks like he’s actually capable of doing all that stuff. I also liked the way the script at least tried to stick closer to Ian Fleming’s source novel. The updating didn’t bother me, nor did changes like switching Le Chiffre’s game of choice from baccarat to poker. (Le Chiffre did play baccarat in the novel, didn’t he? It’s been close to forty years since I read it.) I also liked the occasional subtle nod to what has come before, like having Bond driving a 1964 Aston Martin at one point. And the final shot of the movie, while inevitable, was great. My only real quibble is that some of the action set pieces, good as they are, seem to go on a little too long.
All in all, this film captures the spirit of what the James Bond movies should be better than any of them for a long, long time. At this point I’m actually looking forward to the next one quite a bit, something I haven’t been able to say in ages.
First of all, to get the important stuff out of the way . . . No, this is not, in my opinion, the best James Bond film ever. Nor is Daniel Craig the best James Bond. Those honors still belong to GOLDFINGER and Sean Connery, respectively. In fact, I’d say that both FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE (yes, even with George Lazenby, who didn’t deserve the critical beating he got) are also better than CASINO ROYALE.
However, CASINO ROYALE is better than all of the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies, better than all the Roger Moores (with the possible exception of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, which is a pretty good film), and as for the Timothy Dalton Bonds, well, I watched ’em but I have almost no memory of them, so I suspect CASINO ROYALE is better than they were, too. Daniel Craig does a great job, especially in the action scenes. He looks like he’s actually capable of doing all that stuff. I also liked the way the script at least tried to stick closer to Ian Fleming’s source novel. The updating didn’t bother me, nor did changes like switching Le Chiffre’s game of choice from baccarat to poker. (Le Chiffre did play baccarat in the novel, didn’t he? It’s been close to forty years since I read it.) I also liked the occasional subtle nod to what has come before, like having Bond driving a 1964 Aston Martin at one point. And the final shot of the movie, while inevitable, was great. My only real quibble is that some of the action set pieces, good as they are, seem to go on a little too long.
All in all, this film captures the spirit of what the James Bond movies should be better than any of them for a long, long time. At this point I’m actually looking forward to the next one quite a bit, something I haven’t been able to say in ages.
5 comments:
I have to agree with you about the film, though I liked the Timothy Dalton films better than most people.I read all the Fleming novels before I ever saw any film and he fit my mental perception of Bond better than any of the actors, Still, Connery is the best Bond. You remembered correctly about Baccarat, but Texas Hold 'em is the hot game today and probably more relevant with the younger film goers than us old geezers!
The last half hour was superfluous. They were trying to re-establish the Bond mythos, but it just dragged down the story.
Anonymous has a point. The whole film could have done with a little tightening up. The last half-hour was there just so they could get the last line in, I'm guessing.
The action sequences did run too long but I think they were trying to establish Craig's authenticity as an action hero. I liked it although a 20 minute cut would have been a good idea.
One thing that Connery's Bond did and Craig's Bond doesn't: pretend to be a gentleman. In Connery's hands, Bond put on a veneer of upper-class sophistication, but he was as much a brutal killer as Craig's Bond - especially in DOCTOR NO.
Post a Comment