Casino Royale (2006)

Craig, Brosnan, Dalton all great; the problem is the concept

The other reviewers here mostly seem to applaud the new, buff, hard-core Bond (shaken not stirred, though he doesn't seem to care). But what's really happened is that 007 has been grafted onto "Die Hard." If we really want to revivify James Bond, the challenge isn't finding the right actor -- Roger, Timothy, Pierce, Daniel -- all of them are perfectly fine. The challenge is in the formula. Why make 007 into the typical action movie, where the chase is less a chase than a physical combat?

The James Bond that the early films taught me to love was the suave hero who could vault the perimeter of an embassy and still emerge perfectly dressed for a black-tie evening, complete with the red rose in his lapel. His arrogance had to do with his intellect and his physical charm not his overbearing presence. He doesn't need to be able to leap from a toppling building or construction site; half the film needn't be devoted to the stunt men. The point of James is that he is professional; he makes do with the least amount of effort. Bond: You should never see him sweat.

I think it's in the film "Thunderball," 007 enters his hotel room, checks the audiorecording he has made (this is HIGH TECH in 1965), and realizes based on the echo of the steps that an enemy is hiding in his shower. He proceeds into the shower area, knocks the guy out, and leaning over gently pops his gun out of his hand, by hitting just this precise spot on the back of the wrist that causes the gun to drop. No effort even slightly over what is required to achieve the result he desires. As the intruder runs out of the room he shouts to James, "Aren't you going to kill me?" James's answer is to this effect: I'm a professional, I kill when I have to; and I don't kill the small fish if I don't need to.

When we are able to re-imagine this sort of hero, who is interesting to the extent that he is complex and not just a burly strong guy, then the makers of the James Bond films will be able to find their new James. In other words, all these choices to replace Sean Connery have been fine; it's the concept that remains lacking.

The new M, in contrast, she is the absolute bomb.
August 26, 2008

Royale disgrace to The Bond series!

This is by the far the most disjointed and boring Bond movie ever. What's disjointed about it is it's supposed to be Bond starting off to get his 00 license and yet they make mentions about 9/11. How is this a prequel to Dr. No when they mention 9/11? And they also make a reference about it being the end of The Cold War but again the 9/11 references and they use cell phones but it's supposedly the prequel of Dr. No. And they don't even have the female M when Bond starts off in the field. Also the movie drags on and on and it's one of the longest Bond movies ever along with On Her Majesty's Secret Service (another Bond dud). The guy who Bond (this time played by Daniel Craig) is going after is La Chiffe, a guy who is funding terrorism. La Chiffe is the least intimidating Bond villain. They should have instead wrote in him as a sidekick instead of a main villain. And they had no hot Bond girls this time around. Vesper didn't appeal to me at all. Seeing her made me long for the likes of Bond girls past such as Talisa Soto, Famke Jansen, Teri Hatcher, Sophie Marceau, and Halle Berry. I didn't care for Daniel Craig as Bond. He tried to come off as a no-nonsense Bond like Timothy Dalton but Craig was just boorish. I have seen nearly every Bond movie except for Sean Connery's last 2 and Roger Moore's first 5. I like the first 4 Connery movies, I didn't like OHMSS which tells my opinion of George Lazenby as Bond, and I couldn't take Moore seriously as Bond. I like both of Dalton's movies and I enjoyed all of Pierce Brosnan's Bond movies. With the clunkers made by Lazenby and Moore, at least Dalton and Brosnan made Bond movies that were worth watching. But with no more Pierce Brosnan and this joke of a Bond movie, The Bond franchise is officially dead in my mind. Here lies The Bond Franchise 1962 to 2006! August 23, 2008

Not a huge fan of this Bond here's why -

Bond was always a classy cat with a lot of interesting spy weapons and gadgets. This is more like another action film and this Bond is to rough. Not bad, but just another action movie. August 21, 2008

Cardio workout

This blu-ray will and has kept people who always fall asleep during a movie wide awake. Non stop action, vivid color and great sound. August 17, 2008

A new Bond

3.5 stars. Granted, I'm not a huge Bond fan. The ones I've seen over the years late 80's on up have all had very forgettable storylines. I'm not sure that this one will be all that memorable either-but I like the new complexties of this Bond. There's a sense of a wounded soul and I find that appealing instead of the easy flirtatious playboy. The only thing is despite the terrific body Craig looks too stiff and unbelivable in the love scenes. I didn't believe for a moment the sudden love story. In fact when he started talking about being in love, I started frowning at the screen and wondering if I missed something. The final scene was also anti-climatic. Still I liked it better than the Bronson films. August 16, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...