Casino Royale: good, but too serious.

Post by **carl stromberg** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:11 pm

http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines ... 24&SecID=2

'Casino Royale' is good but too serious

By: Chris Nashawaty, Entertainment Weekly

NEW YORK -- When Daniel Craig was announced as the new James Bond last year, the 007 faithful over in Britain got their knickers into quite a twist.

They bellyached that the actor was too much of a thug, his hair and eye color weren't right for Bond, and that he didn't even know how to drive a stick shift. You'd think they hired Daniel DeVito instead of Daniel Craig for all the heat the guy took.

Then when "Casino Royale" finally came out, they were just as extreme in the opposite direction, saying that Craig was the best Bond since Sean Connery, that they were finally freed from the smirking, cocked eyebrow one liners of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, and finally, that "Casino Royale" was the best Bond in decades.

Well, after seeing the movie, I'm inclined to say the truth is something inbetween the haters and the fawners. Craig is fine and "Casino Royale" is solid enough, but well, I still miss Connery and Moore.

My beef with "Casino Royale" isn't so much the new James Bond, but how endlessly grim and glum the whole thing is. I was always convinced that Bond movies should be fun.

My beef with Craig's film isn't so much the actor, but how endlessly grim and glum the whole thing is. Growing up with "Live and Let Die" and "The Spy Who Loved Me," I was always convinced that Bond movies should be fun.

"Casino Royale" may be a good movie, but there isn't a whole lot of fun. Existential brooding, sure. But I want kicky, fizzy thrills with my license to kill.

Anyway, Craig's Bond globetrots from Madagascar to the Bahamas and Montenegro while chasing a bad guy named Le Chiffre, who leaks tears of blood from his eyes. The big face off between them occurs during a game of Texas Hold 'Em - an unfortunate nod to poker's current popularity. What ever happened to Baccarat?

And then there's the woman who gets his heart, played by Eva Green. Green isn't the usual Bond bimbo who pops up to take a roll in the hay with 007. He actually falls in love with her, which turns tragic and gets Bond to sulking.

This whole Bond in love angle was done a lot better in 1969's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" when Bond was played by another actor people either loved or hated-George Lazenby.

Come to think of it, that and "Casino Royale" might make a perfect double feature.[/i]

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:46 pm

"My beef with Craig's film isn't so much the actor, but how endlessly grim and glum the whole thing is. Growing up with "Live and Let Die" and "The Spy Who Loved Me," I was always convinced that Bond movies should be fun."

No wonder he got the impression that it was endlessly grim and glum. He got too comfortable with kid friendly Bond films.
If there was any Bond movie endlessly grim and glum it would be Licence to Kill which had the least sense of humor with more violence. I think some people like this reviewer have forgotten that the Bond movies weren't always some kid friendly act like the Roger Moore films.

Still I do agree that OHMSS love story was better done but I suppose that is the way it is suppose to be since in that case Bond loses his wife, and that John Barry contributed in a big way.

Post by **Kristatos** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:51 pm

stockslivevan wrote:Still I do agree that OHMSS love story was better done but I suppose that is the way it is suppose to be since in that case Bond loses his wife, and that John Barry contributed in a big way.

Let down only by Lazenby's, ahem, "acting", especially in the final scene, which I find painful to watch for all the wrong reasons.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:55 pm

Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:Still I do agree that OHMSS love story was better done but I suppose that is the way it is suppose to be since in that case Bond loses his wife, and that John Barry contributed in a big way.
Let down only by Lazenby's, ahem, "acting", especially in the final scene, which I find painful to watch for all the wrong reasons.

I think OHMSS is one of those rare movies that can carry on without the need of a good Bond actor. Lazenby is the worst in my book but everything else about that film is just brilliant. Had Sean Connery came back after YOLT and actually put effort into his performance like in the early films, this could have been THE best Bond film of all time. Even major critics like Leonard Malton have expressed this.

Post by **Kristatos** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:09 pm

stockslivevan wrote:Had Sean Connery came back after YOLT and actually put effort into his performance like in the early films, this could have been THE best Bond film of all time.

I totally agree.

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:36 pm

Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:Had Sean Connery came back after YOLT and actually put effort into his performance like in the early films, this could have been THE best Bond film of all time.
I totally agree.

I totally agree as well. Lazenby gives it a try, but he comes off like Connery's stunt double doing the acting scenes as well. But OHMSS is a great movie in it's own right, Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas, with John Barry's great score make this film stand out.
As for License to Kill, it is a grim film, but I think it's also a great one. I wish it had been a bigger hit. Dalton had so much going in the right direction, but he had to follow Moore, and unfortunately people my age grew up thinking Bond films should be like Moonraker and Octopussy. I used to get into heated arguments about how Dalton portrayed Bond closer to the books, and would get chastised about how he wasn't funny enough in the role.
now I get into arguments over how Craig isn't right for the role. Casino Royale inmho isn't as good as OHMSS or LTK. sorry.

davido · Post by **davido** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:12 pm

Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:Still I do agree that OHMSS love story was better done but I suppose that is the way it is suppose to be online casinosince in that case Bond loses his wife, and that John Barry contributed in a big way.
Let down only by Lazenby's, ahem, "acting", especially in the final scene, which I find painful to watch for all the wrong reasons.

I did not liked the ending part too!

ID · Post by ID » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:07 pm

Welcome to the forum davido.

Post by **Skywalker** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:04 pm

stockslivevan wrote: I think OHMSS is one of those rare movies that can carry on without the need of a good Bond actor. Lazenby is the worst in my book but everything else about that film is just brilliant. Had Sean Connery came back after YOLT and actually put effort into his performance like in the early films, this could have been THE best Bond film of all time. Even major critics like Leonard Malton have expressed this.

Agree 100% with that comment Stock.