Having gone out fairly eagerly to watch the new Bond film Casino Royale starring Daniel Craig, I am struggling to control my contempt and loathing for this 'new' interpretation of Ian Fleming's classic novels.
Put simply, this is a sickening betrayal of just about everything the Bond franchise has stood for, both as entertainment and as a slick, fun alternative to the usual thriller genre. The Bond films have always been larger-than-life, glamorous portrayals of the super-spy world, full of eye-catching stunts, brilliant gadgets, gorgeous actors and actresses, dangerous, world-threatening villains and tongue-in-cheek humour. This film reduces the whole franchise to just another bunch of thugs with guns. And to give it a PG-13 rating, when it contains a genuinely sick torture scene, is a joke.
Casino Royale has one great (if rather pointless) chase scene, some neat jet-setting between venues, a brief attempt at gadgetry and the most botched storyline in the history of Bond films (and that includes the fairly woeful Moonraker!). Daniel Craig turns in a grimly athletic performance and looks good in a swimsuit and a dinner jacket, but he is more male model than international spy. To say this is a low-budget Bond is a massive understatement.
There is also nothing glamorous about any of this film; if anything, it veers into the murky and grimy world of Quentin Tarantino, and the torture sequence is more Saw than anything else. The actors are a bunch of complete nobodies, with no charisma, charm or menace; you've never heard of any of them in a major role prior to this film, and you never will (with the obvious exception of Judi Dench, who must wonder what she's doing among such utterly clueless company). The main part of the ridiculously over-long story revolves around a dull, incomprehensible poker game which makes a game of Snap seem like world-class chess. And the pitiful love interest is enough to make you weep for Sean Connery/Honor Blackman, Roger Moore/Jane Seymour, Pierce Brosnan/Halle Berry and even George Lazenby/Diana Rigg, but most especially for Ian Fleming himself. It is such a butchered presentation of his smart, urbane super-spy, it makes you wonder if the film-makers ever saw a single one of the previous 20 movies or read a single Fleming book.
If you like your Bond as if he's come straight from some dingy East End market, with no sense of humour, charisma or presence; who falls in love improbably and pointlessly; who chases villains recklessly and without regard to injuring innocent by-standers; who fails to grasp the basics of his job; and who looks as if he would be more at home in a bookies than a casino, then this is the Bond for you.
Casino Royale is not edgy, well-acted or clever enough to be a Bourne movie (which it clearly wants to be); it is not eye-catching or star-studded enough to be a Mission Impossible film (not by a LONG way); it is not gritty and realistic enough to be from the Michael Caine/Ipcress File genre; and it is not remotely interesting enough to be the start of a 'new' Bond direction.
No, the makers have just dug a huge hole for the franchise and thrown in a pile of unconvincing, turgid nonsense that wastes a glorious chance to give new direction and life to the genre. It is dull, vicious and soul-less. By trying to give it a 'modern' direction and feel, the film-makers completely lose the point of the Bond style. There are so many better-made films of the modern thriller/spy type these days, why try to copy what they are doing? And why try to do it with a bunch of people who would struggle to bring any life or glamour to an episode of Eastenders? Mads Mikkelsen (who?) as the chief villain is simply woeful - you would find more menace from the playground bully at the neraest primary school. A threat to world peace? He's more of a threat to the acting profession.
You can probably tell by now I am singularly underwhelmed by this film. I liked it about as much as I like root canal dentistry, and it was barely as enjoyable; I thought it was a twisted, badly-advised and ill conceived concept - like saying let's reinvent Sherlock Holmes as a bumbling, womanising, muscle-bound action hero; and I found it a disgrace to a long line of distinguished - and hugely entertaining - films.
And, if just one person decides not to go after reading this, I will feel that my spleen has been satisfactorily vented!
Now, let the arguments start...............!!
Put simply, this is a sickening betrayal of just about everything the Bond franchise has stood for, both as entertainment and as a slick, fun alternative to the usual thriller genre. The Bond films have always been larger-than-life, glamorous portrayals of the super-spy world, full of eye-catching stunts, brilliant gadgets, gorgeous actors and actresses, dangerous, world-threatening villains and tongue-in-cheek humour. This film reduces the whole franchise to just another bunch of thugs with guns. And to give it a PG-13 rating, when it contains a genuinely sick torture scene, is a joke.
Casino Royale has one great (if rather pointless) chase scene, some neat jet-setting between venues, a brief attempt at gadgetry and the most botched storyline in the history of Bond films (and that includes the fairly woeful Moonraker!). Daniel Craig turns in a grimly athletic performance and looks good in a swimsuit and a dinner jacket, but he is more male model than international spy. To say this is a low-budget Bond is a massive understatement.
There is also nothing glamorous about any of this film; if anything, it veers into the murky and grimy world of Quentin Tarantino, and the torture sequence is more Saw than anything else. The actors are a bunch of complete nobodies, with no charisma, charm or menace; you've never heard of any of them in a major role prior to this film, and you never will (with the obvious exception of Judi Dench, who must wonder what she's doing among such utterly clueless company). The main part of the ridiculously over-long story revolves around a dull, incomprehensible poker game which makes a game of Snap seem like world-class chess. And the pitiful love interest is enough to make you weep for Sean Connery/Honor Blackman, Roger Moore/Jane Seymour, Pierce Brosnan/Halle Berry and even George Lazenby/Diana Rigg, but most especially for Ian Fleming himself. It is such a butchered presentation of his smart, urbane super-spy, it makes you wonder if the film-makers ever saw a single one of the previous 20 movies or read a single Fleming book.
If you like your Bond as if he's come straight from some dingy East End market, with no sense of humour, charisma or presence; who falls in love improbably and pointlessly; who chases villains recklessly and without regard to injuring innocent by-standers; who fails to grasp the basics of his job; and who looks as if he would be more at home in a bookies than a casino, then this is the Bond for you.
Casino Royale is not edgy, well-acted or clever enough to be a Bourne movie (which it clearly wants to be); it is not eye-catching or star-studded enough to be a Mission Impossible film (not by a LONG way); it is not gritty and realistic enough to be from the Michael Caine/Ipcress File genre; and it is not remotely interesting enough to be the start of a 'new' Bond direction.
No, the makers have just dug a huge hole for the franchise and thrown in a pile of unconvincing, turgid nonsense that wastes a glorious chance to give new direction and life to the genre. It is dull, vicious and soul-less. By trying to give it a 'modern' direction and feel, the film-makers completely lose the point of the Bond style. There are so many better-made films of the modern thriller/spy type these days, why try to copy what they are doing? And why try to do it with a bunch of people who would struggle to bring any life or glamour to an episode of Eastenders? Mads Mikkelsen (who?) as the chief villain is simply woeful - you would find more menace from the playground bully at the neraest primary school. A threat to world peace? He's more of a threat to the acting profession.
You can probably tell by now I am singularly underwhelmed by this film. I liked it about as much as I like root canal dentistry, and it was barely as enjoyable; I thought it was a twisted, badly-advised and ill conceived concept - like saying let's reinvent Sherlock Holmes as a bumbling, womanising, muscle-bound action hero; and I found it a disgrace to a long line of distinguished - and hugely entertaining - films.
And, if just one person decides not to go after reading this, I will feel that my spleen has been satisfactorily vented!
Now, let the arguments start...............!!
(Kathryn drifts off into a little fantasy world 
)
) and it is quite eye-opening stuff. The new film actually follows the book quite closely in parts (quite a novelty for a Bond film!), and the section from the card game to Bond's 'rescue' from torture are incredibly close (albeit, it is set in France, not grimy Montenegro; the game is baccarat, not plain old poker; Mathis is French and not a double-agent; and Vesper Lynd is a far more glamorous character than she is portrayed in the film, IMHO).
