Casino Royale


in Daily updates, Films and movies

I went into Casino Royale expecting it to be quite good, and it did not disappoint. While I am not going to reveal anything critical to the plot, I can express my appreciation for how this was more of a character driven film than most in the recent Bond franchise. This film is definitely a head and shoulders above any of the mediocre Bond releases since GoldenEye. Most of the big budget explosion scenes were kept to the beginning, allowing for a follow-through more interesting than the massive explosion of the arch enemy’s secret lair.

One strange thing about this film is the anachronisms it introduced into the larger Bond plotline. Rather than a “relic of the Cold War” – as the ‘new’ M called Bond in GoldenEye – he is just starting out, in the post-September 11th world. Now, she is the relic – overwriting her much more conservative predecessor in earlier films. Odd. There is no way this film does not critically damage the George Lazenby, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service portion of the Bond history. Eva Green may be gorgeous and an unusually good actress for a ‘Bond girl,’ but she is no Dianna Rigg.

Without going too much into analysis – I have other things to think about – it can be said that this is a worthy addition to the series, and well worth going to see in theatres if you are the sort to enjoy spy films in general.

PS. Just when you thought it might be over, new complexities have arisen in the publication of the fish paper.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Antonia November 20, 2006 at 12:23 pm

Saw this on Friday and agree overall. On the overall Bond plotline, the makers have said that part of the point of selecting ‘Casino Royale’ was to do a sort of ‘Batman Begins’ to reposition the franchise (it being the first story in Fleming’s sequence), though of course reclaiming this title from the abject Niven/Allen musical was important.

Given that Bond film settings have always been ‘contempory’, the overall plot arch has always been problematic. I was a little saddened that this gave dates including the year (on security camera times) but this was in part explicitly acknowledging the issue.

I agree that Diana Rigg was fantastic and is unchallenged by Eva Green, but the latter came far closer than the majority of recent ‘Bond girls’ (although I thought at least one villaness of the last decade did well).

Milan November 20, 2006 at 2:36 pm

I thought at least one villaness of the last decade did well

Which do you mean?

Milan January 9, 2007 at 4:46 am

We normally don’t say much about James Bond movies because, frankly, we don’t expect much from them, at least, not from a physics standpoint. The movies are mostly pure fantasy, albeit male fantasy—the hottest cars, poker hands, and women depicted in the coolest of locations, and, have we mentioned, served up with the most exacting of Martinis.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: