« Apocalypto (2006): B- | Main | Dreamgirls (2006): C »

December 05, 2006


I've only seen about half of all the Bond films, but already this is one of my two or three favorites, mainly for the reasons you site. People complaining about surface details (no Q, the martinis bit) are nothing short of idiots in my book; they ignore the films lead-in nature, not to mention the fact that any movie is more than the sum of its parts. I might have to agree with you on Craig being the best Bond actor yet, as much as I enjoy Connery's earlier work (From Russia With Love being the most meaty and entertaining in my book) and Lazenby's no-nonsense portrayal (which, "boring" as it might be, is aging much better than his counterparts, methinks).

I'd hardly call myself a Bond expert, but I've seen most of them at one point or another in my life. And while I think Connery's stuff is still the best - not because it's the deepest, but because it's the most iconically cool - there's a real depth to the new one that makes the whole series feel (somewhat) fresh again.

That said, for all of Casino Royale's improvements over the Brosnan films, it's probably going a bit far to call any Bond adventure that features a villain who cries blood revolutionary.

Yeah, for as much as I did enjoy this new film, and for as much of a "departure" as it is from the old Bond films, it was somewhat cooly reassuring to see the old stock elements in play. Case in point: the villian with one isolated, unique physical deformity - here, one and the same with the villianous athiest who looks like some wan cave dweller.

The beginning was easily my favorite part of the whole film (although, as someone who has been CPR certified many times, the scene in which Bond had to jump-start his own heart was especially nerve-racking), both for the incredibly foot chase (District B13, anyone?) and the black-and-white intro, which - dare I say - almost felt like it was shot with an auterist's touch.

Agree entirely. Goldfinger I suppose is probably my favorite of the series (From Russia With Love and Dr. No are also largely entertaining), but Casino Royale is certainly up there as well. Humility (equally agreed) and respect are hot topics, but I think the biggest pleasure is the simple fact Royale is a Bond film with dramatic impetus, and one where a shot-down figure, ally or enemy (sometimes both, olol spoiler!) alike, isn't just another victim.

Hi, just a correction to the above review, where inexplicably it says "the titular Bahamas Casino". The titular "Casino Royale" is halfway across the world from the Bahamas, in the just recently independent (from Serbia) former part of Yugoslawia, Montenegro. Not only is it said, you can see it in the Eastern European locations, you see them going there by train etc., so why this change of location from the Bahamas to Montenegro has not been noted makes one wonder whether the reviewer fell asleep during an entire reel.


Thanks for the heads-up - it was just a typo.

And thanks also for the insult, though it's pretty funny that you'd slam me for a (minor) mistake and then go ahead and prove that you don't know how to spell YugoslaVia.

Btw, great job at getting insulted recently Nick... :-)

No one wants to provide constructive criticism, but apparently a few people are interested in arbitrarily serving your reviews! Letting you know in advance, I plan to scrutinize your upcoming writing for improper use of synecdoche and aposiopesis so watch out!

The comments to this entry are closed.

New Releases

© 2004-2011 LoD