‘Casino Royale’ is good but too serious

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.

Special thanks to “Carl Stromberg”
Click Here To Discuss This In Our Forum

 

‘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.

Special thanks to “Carl Stromberg”
Click Here To Discuss This In Our Forum

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *