The-reel-mccoy.com Casino Royale review

[007]

http://www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies/20 ... oyale.html


Recently, every time that a new James Bond movie comes out, I completely forget just how bad the last one was, and I am fooled by the trailers into thinking that the next one will be exciting and exhilarating. Unfortunately, I am consistently disappointed, and Casino Royale has not broken this trend. I seem to live up to the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

So why isn't Casino Royale the greatest Bond film ever? After all, we have a new Bond in Daniel Craig, and other critics have been giving him rave reviews. Furthermore, the film starts off with a very vintage Bond look as shots are devoid of color and camera angles are taken from extreme angles. Unfortunately, this unique film style only lasts for a few minutes and then we go back to boring, cookie-cutter movie. This really disappointed me right off the bat, and I'll give you three more reasons why Casino Royale does not live up to its potential...

Craig looks out of place and uncomfortable in a tuxedo

Craig's straight-faced performance makes it impossible for us to discern his feelings and therefore impossible to empathize with him as the protagonist

The majority of the film consists of an extremely boring Texas Hold 'Em game

The James Bond character is essentially three things: fearless, a ladies' man, and sophisticated. Daniel Craig does a decent job of not looking scared on film, and he is seen rolling around with more than one woman on screen. Unfortunately however, he looks so uncomfortable when he gets dressed up. He looks like a beer delivery guy who was forced to put on a tuxedo because his mommy told him to and he can't wait to take it back off and change into his play clothes.

The audience should always be able to empathize with the protagonist. The audience doesn't need to be able to do what the hero can do, but we should be able to feel what the character feels. Daniel Craig seems to do things for no reason (such as every single time that he shoots someone). He risks his life time and again for what purpose? We don't really get any indication that he cares about anyone or anything. However, the most ridiculous thing is his relationship with Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). He flirts around with her, tries to get into her pants a few times, but all the while they treat each other with contempt. Suddenly, without warning, he says that he loves her, wants to marry her, and wants to quit his job as a secret agent. WHAT?!?!? Again, because we never get any indication what he is thinking or feeling, this end result is ludicrous.

Finally, we have the Texas Hold 'Em game. It turns out that Casino Royale is aptly named because that is essentially what this movie is about. The overwhelming majority of the film's running time is devoted to bidding and holding, bluffing and folding. I half expected to hear Kenny Rogers start singing "You've got to know when to hold 'em..." However, if they would have used this as background music, they would have had to repeat it about 50 times in order to get the music to last as long as these scenes did.

Since when is James Bond so boring? Since now.

[carl stromberg]

Since when is James Bond so boring? Since now.

I agree.

[Kristatos]

The poker scenes didn't seem that long to me. This review seems to fall into what I call the Cosmo Landesman category of negative reviews - people who hate James Bond films so much that no reinvention, however radical, will pull them back into the fold.

[The Sweeney]

The poker scenes didn't seem that long to me. This review seems to fall into what I call the Cosmo Landesman category of negative reviews - people who hate James Bond films so much that no reinvention, however radical, will pull them back into the fold.

I agree. It's plainly obvious this guy was never a Bond fan to start with.

[Skywalker]

It would be interesting to hear any other Bond reviews written by this guy. I agree with a number of the points raised in the review.

[Captain Nash]

Was this review written by a member here?

Okay so that's his idea of a Bond film...but I'd like to read his reviews for the other films of the series.
From this I'd say he's not a Bond fan...but a person who reviews films, and has no real idea about the subject.

[Blowfeld]

Was this review written by a member here?

Okay so that's his idea of a Bond film...but I'd like to read his reviews for the other films of the series.
From this I'd say he's not a Bond fan...but a person who reviews films, and has no real idea about the subject.

However if someone who is "not a Bond fan" loved Royale it is a different can of worms?

[Captain Nash]

Was this review written by a member here?

Okay so that's his idea of a Bond film...but I'd like to read his reviews for the other films of the series.
From this I'd say he's not a Bond fan...but a person who reviews films, and has no real idea about the subject.

However if someone who is "not a Bond fan" loved Royale it is a different can of worms?

I never said that.
You know what happens when you assume something Ernie.

[Kristatos]

However if someone who is "not a Bond fan" loved Royale it is a different can of worms?

I would say so, yes. At least it would mean that Sony is achieving its aim of expanding Bond's fanbase. I just wish they could have done it without alienating "old-school" fans such as myself - keeping the more serious and down-to-earth approach but casting a more traditional-looking Bond and ditching the reboot aspects.

[Blowfeld]

Craig looks out of place and uncomfortable in a tuxedo
Unfortunately however, he looks so uncomfortable when he gets dressed up. He looks like a beer delivery guy who was forced to put on a tuxedo because his mommy told him to and he can't wait to take it back off and change into his play clothes.

Craig's straight-faced performance makes it impossible for us to discern his feelings and therefore impossible to empathize with him as the protagonist

Interesting review 007.
raises a few good points, especially about the tuxedo.

[Blowfeld]

Was this review written by a member here?

Okay so that's his idea of a Bond film...but I'd like to read his reviews for the other films of the series.
From this I'd say he's not a Bond fan...but a person who reviews films, and has no real idea about the subject.

However if someone who is "not a Bond fan" loved Royale it is a different can of worms?

I never said that.
You know what happens when you assume something Ernie.

tongue in cheek old man, thus the

there is a double standard out there. Among them accusing Bond Fans who do not like Rpyale of not being "true fans”.
Also there are those quick to embrace a positive review even if the reviewer is not fan (and plenty have admitted such).
To dismiss a review because the reviewer is not "a fan" is excessive, he obviously had some love or appreciation of what Bond was.

However I have to agree with Kristatos, I don't think any Bond film would have pleased this reviewer. Although he was never as disappointed as he was with Royale.

[Kristatos]

It would be interesting to hear any other Bond reviews written by this guy.

Here you go:

Die Another Day
The World Is Not Enough
Tomorrow Never Dies

[Blowfeld]

It would be interesting to hear any other Bond reviews written by this guy.

Here you go:

Die Another Day
The World Is Not Enough
Tomorrow Never Dies

These reviews are now also available on the forum.
Die Another Day
The World Is Not Enough
Tomorrow Never Dies

[Skywalker]

It would be interesting to hear any other Bond reviews written by this guy.

Here you go:

Die Another Day
The World Is Not Enough
Tomorrow Never Dies

Thanks for the links.

[Dr. No]

It would be interesting to hear any other Bond reviews written by this guy.

Here you go:

Die Another Day
The World Is Not Enough
Tomorrow Never Dies

Thanks for the links!
Reading them, this guy is a Bond Fan. I know a few thought he might not be a fan or no Bond movie would have satisfied, but a good Bond movie would have made him happy.