World of India!: PopularCulture : The new James Bond in Casino Royale' - Marshy Mush e

World of India!

Fire at will.

PopularCulture : The new James Bond in Casino Royale' - Marshy Mush

<-The World is not safe, so i turn into a wimp and fall in love.

So I saw Casino Royale, the much hyped about latest in the Bond series. And my verdict? Average, at best.

Sure, the action sequences are shorn of gizmos and are believable. Sure, Bond is shown in a more humane light and even falls in love. But the producers seem to have missed that the essence of Bond was that he was larger than life. So going down this path does not do much for the franchise, in my opinion.

I think it would have been better to keep the gizmos and the 'larger than life' personna (which has been given almost a complete go by), but tone it down, from the excesses committed in 'Golden Eye'.

And its almost pathetic to see Bond in Love. Bond was never meant to fall in love, at least not admit it in public ! Bond is meant to philander and fulfill the male populations fantasy of fooling around with exotic bimbos in even more exotic locales. What's coming next? A married Bond who drops the kids to school, bah !

The script is important in Bond movies to give the twists and turns and witty one liners. We hardly expect a Bond movie to win a Oscarfor its screenplay!In this movie, there are NO twists and turns which really hold you, except the last one, when Bond's love seemingly betrays him (serves him right, for not behaving to type). The script slows down completely in parts, perhaps in an attempt to build characters. But it takes a lot off the movie's action/thriller genre', in parts. There is no buildup to a dramatic finale'. In fact the finale' almost leaves you cold.

Don't get me wrong. The movies not THAT bad. Daniel Craig is a good actor and does a splendid job. So does the Danish actor who plays the villain. Its just that- well, this is not the type of Bond I signed up for!

Links to this post:

Create a Link

You can skip to the end and leave a response.

« Home | Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »

November 20, 2006 6:33 AM

I have been skeptical about Craig ever since his name was announced. Although you give him a thumbs up, I will reserve judgment until I watch the movie. It's a Bond movie. Can't be that bad, right?    

November 22, 2006 11:53 PM

Frankly, I thoroughly enjoyed the down to earth - more approachable Bond. But to post an argument to your's, Casino Royale is supposed to be Ian Fleming's first(?) novel. Thats where Bond is getting the double-o status...From that point of view, the movie is brilliant, so is Daniel Craig...Yeah the love story is not something I enjoyed too much. But I looked at it as an explanation of how Bond became what he is.    

November 22, 2006 11:58 PM

@Anup,hmm...interesting take on the "why Bond became what he is" when it comes to women. I had not thought of it from that angle. Hope we see a changed bond swinging around in the coming flicks.    

» Post a Comment