Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Casino Royale

Gaddamn Mocha and Egm, a brada can't ululate in finding the perfect avatar...I almost feel like bringing back Spidey

I actually avoided reviewing Casino Royale...especially since Ichiena was supposed to be my date...now let's get the review started right.

Verdict: Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

so what is that supposed to mean?

For starters, I actually see why the chose to go the Daniel Craig Route. We expected them to replace Pierce and for him to compete with the likes of Sean Connery and Roger Moore...but in fact what they did was give us a whole new BOND.

And i dont think it's workin unlike Justin Timberlake's "I'm bringing sexy back-yeah!"

And this may have played to their advantage. It's hard having to replace a character...think Batman...from Keaton to Kilmer to Cage ...and now Bale. Even Smallville did the same for Superman. The secret nowadays looks like it involves..going back to the roots and beginning all over again. Cause this is what Casino Royale actually is James Bond-Episode 1. Hollywood has discovered this whole Episode 1 genre and using it to revive Bond. Worked on Star Wars as well.

is it me or does he look like Rock from Fantastic Four. Move over Chiklis!
Move over Halle Berry that scene is being re-done!

Instead of suave and chique! Instead of classy, majestic, debonair-we now have a BRUT!
A cold mean Brut! Who to make things worse wastes our time falling in LOVE! Damn it-BOND doesn't do LOVE! Bond doesn't succumb to emotions! He doesn't have to he is BOND, James Bond to say the least! That whole sequence irritated the hell out of me...and for hi to be duped like that-is now pushing it! Bond is smart with lots of cheek! Oh no they didn't play him out like that!

Many may argue that perhaps this is what made him casual in his future flames..i refuse! They wasted to much time on that love story the same way Superman Returns did with Lois and Superman flyin around. Many may say this is the side of Bond we never knew...that this is the initial Bond that IAN FLEMING had in mind...and as BORAT would say NAAAAAAT!

Honestly, the movie started with such a BANG! His two killings in black and white that made him a 00 agent-EXCELLENT! That chase scene with that black guy was outstanding especially the aerial shots...I was damn well near clapping...however the whole story line went downhill. Too much time was wasted in the casino! Not even Judy Dench could help it not crumble down. Though I liked the interaction between Bond and in her room...was hoping to hear M stands for a prudish name like Margaret...The torture scene was fantastic and you can see the Cheek in Bond come out


Where were the gadgets? Where was the shameless advertising and merchandising like in "Tomorrow never dies?" Remeber how almost every ad on CNN was to do with Bond...from the watch, car rental, BMW... The cars? Where were they? The many many Bond Girls? Q? (yeah I know the original Q died and John Cleese came at the end?) But for the sake off continuity...damn it bring back Q and MONEY PENNY! Where was the killer Theme Song? I mean all BONDS had significant theme songs!

So as much as this was going back to the roots to re-invent BOND! I don't think you can reinvent a product 20 movies down the line! You cannot attempt to change BOND yet have his old traits ooze out...

I think Craig will do one more Bond before the franchise slowly tapers off! Perhaps it will grow..but they have taken BOND in a whole new direction. Which the old audience may not appreciate! It is doing very well in the box office...but the truth will be out come the second movie!

To me James Bond is not a BRUT or a THUG!

The movie is definitely worth a watch especially on big screen. It was satisfyingly long but there was room to make this movie more than it was. It left us wanting more! It had had great start...lousy end! Amidst glowing reviews...nah this wasn't the best BOND for me!


Mitzy said...

LOL @ you getting hyper @ no Money Penny, no cars, no girls, no theme song....
I liked it, can't wait for the next one, out in 2008, "Bond 22"

AfroM said...

hey spidey! (Kwanza what happened to nick? He got swallowed by couch tato? I miss Nick for real)

Now this one, i watched, drooled and then drooled some more, i can see why you didnt quite like his attitude. This movie IMO was made for women! Yani that scene where D Craig is chucking from the water...the linen pants in the bahamas. Halala! Hebu change your avatar to new bond and you will need a mega-firewall to beat away the chick flocking to you...i.e moi'. :) - i wont potea sana - i have an inkling you were abt to scold me for that.

AfroM said...

mini- clarification: I meant to say that i can see why it isn't the best bond yet... instead of 'i can see why you didnt quite like his attitude.' sorry :)

The absence of gadgets got me kidogo questioning too lakini D craig's body is enough of a gadget for me. - o.k i will stop :)

Couch 'tato said...

@mitzy: damn it where is Money Penny????
yup we will be there to catch it then but i tell you its on its way down

@Afrom:enyewe where have you been. Nick quit a long time ago..but tyronne still remembers u

him trying to pull off a Halle Berry that was so not on

Movie Buff said...

Daniel Craig is so scrumptous.

I could def eat him for breakfast, lunch dinner and a small helping of brunch and an afternoon snack!

Well, to your comment about too much time being spent in the casino... umm... my dear.. the name of the movie was CASINO ROYALE.

I rest my case.

I actually like that there was no overglamorization and all those useless gadgets. YES I said it!

Quintessence said...

I enjoyed the movie but found the love bits a lil tiresome, took away from bond for me...I felt that all that coulda been cut out!

egm said...

Like MB, I have to admit I was for once happy there wasn't gadget galore in this movie. Other than the defibrillator which came in handy, this was a gadgetless movie! At times those gizmos make it look as though the movie can't stand on its own strength, thus needing them to push it along. It was painful how the Aston got wrecked, but then I guess that was their way of showing how insignificant the toys were.

I have to also agree with both CT and Q as to the over-lengthened love theme. It could have been shorter. But then I guess this was done since we'll never again (hopefully) have to see Bond in this love-induced quagmire.

Unless they screw up royally in the next movie, I have to disagree with you CT on this one, saying that Bond has nowhere to go but up.

bankelele said...

I almost watched it last Sunday but all the ATM's I use including Pesa Point were malfunctioning - so i was penniless.

Now after reading this, I'm not so keen anymore: It was dubbed as Back to Basics, but was that really necessary? The Batman franchise had to go that route after the horror show that was the 4th movie (with Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy & and an erratic Robin) . But just because the producers wanted Brosnan out was no reason to overturn the whole Bond concept which the last five have delivered.

Whispering Inn said...

The movie can go jump in a lake, potatoes. I am more concerned about the object of my blog-stalking affection -- namely AfroM.

I hope you’re proud of youself, Potatoes. You’ve gotten her swooning and fawning all over some James-Bond-punk guy.

How, exactly, am I supposed to compete for her attention -- as The Great Whis -- against some smalltime punk Bond wannabe?

I want you to know it's entirely your fault. (LOL!)

Ichiena said...


Couch 'tato said...

@MB:Bond ahs always been about location location and locationS.Hapana i refuse...just coz its casino royale doesnt ean u spend the entire movie playin poker

@Q:the other Q that is...overplayed yaani even the violins were a trombone

@EGM:bana gadzets gadgets gadgets...but ti ewill tell if he will be a successful as the other Bonds..i actually waiting to hear what Moore/connery and Brosnan have to say

@bankelele:lol at money-penny-less pun intended but do watch it and come back give me feedback

@W.I: all u have to woo her with is soe solar-tech gadget and you will have won her heart

@Moviedate that was ichiena: auuauuuuu

TeeJ said...

Ati bond in love.What a joke! Dude used the L word! Since when?! And since when did he not care about whether his drink was shaken or stirred?! Puhleeze.
I also don't understand why women find this dude good looking. I actually think the dude is ugly...is that too harsh?...oh well, he's not even sexy or anything! I'm disappointed why lie. The beginning of the movie was good...totally loved the action pact scene but it got all lovey dovey on me later on...eiish. No wonder he got royally screwed in the end.
Yes Nick, due to unavoidable circumstances I ended up watching it...:-)

Aegeus said...

I think i will wait for the official dvd then watch is 'slowly'.

m said...

James Bond should ALWAYS be a cad. This nonsense of feelings is just not on!

But on the whole -- that first chase scene was awesome!

don said...

Guys... the story of Bond was that he loved one woman and one only here is a good chronological order http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/have-all-james-bonds-remembered-his.html

She was killed by one of the "bad guys" but her name was not Vespa (I dont know where they pulled that on out).

The car was the gadget and product placement (personally i'm saving up to buy that... one day)

Bond stars off as a brut and at the end becames "bond". He has always been "brutish". If you attempt to "off" him, it becomes personal... man/woman/child... no difference. I remember "you only live twice" when he slapped this chick around looking for info after she called a hit man on him.

And don't even talk about Sebastien Foucan with his "free running" style.. waa!

All in all. This was perfect