Casino Royale: MI4
If you want to see a movie with as many plot problems at Mission: Impossible, take a look at Casino Royale. It tries to be way too heady for its own good, and it collapses in a heap. Without spoiling the movie (if such can be done), I shall try to illuminate the problems:
1. Daniel Craig - This queer-bait dickhead looks like he belongs in a Calvin Klein underwear ad, not as James Bond, superspy. While I don't think this guy is particularly blonde like the papers say he his, the fact remains that we don't have a dark-haired bond because Daniel Craig refused to dye his hair for the role. What an arrogant prick.
2. Lack of Comedy - While some of the latter Bond movies were almost ridiculous with some of their comedy, these films are meant to be seen by teenage boys. Casino Royale was definitely meant to be an adult movie and took itself way too seriously. The comedy that did result was from Bond's acting like an asshole, not his wit. The comedy took its cue more from an episode of Jackass than the dry British humor and wry wit we have come to expect of Bond.
3. Confusing Jargon - At the beginning of the movie, a big deal is made over Bond's 00 status. Only one reference is made to the requirements of it, and the person who elevated him to that status doesn't seem happy with it. So, why is he a double O agent? It introduces the idea without explaining it or backing it up, making it useless, confusing jargon.
4. Terrorism - If this is supposed to be set in the modern day, fine, we don't have the Russians, but for God's sake, how cliché can we be? Even worse, the terrorists aren't believeable. They're simply people who appear on screen with creepy music and are labeled as 'terrorists'. Boring. Why not have one of them wear a Greenpeace shirt? They'd be 'terrorists', too. If the movie wanted to make the villians terrorists, they needed to really villanize them. They didn't, and the villians came across simply as assholes.
5. Lack of Chemistry - Perhaps it's because we don't have Miss Moneypenny or Q to help us see Bond's charming and witty side, but Bond has no chemistry on screen with anyone. There's a dreadful lack of chemistry with M, who in previous movies has always seemed to be like the schoolteacher who gives a glare at her favorite mischevious student. In Casino Royale, she really doesn't like him, or at least that's the impression you get.
6. Plot Twists - This is one of the biggest sticking points for me. While some of the previous Bond movies have required more suspension of disbelief (like the nuclear sub crashing into the ocean floor and not failing...), this movie leaves you twisting in the wind at the end due to the twisting nature of the plot. The plot is like a pretzel--a broken one. Instead of tying things up neatly at the end, it takes two or three twists more than it should have and winds up taking a giant shit on itself and stomping about in it some. Up until the last 30 or so minutes of the movie, the plot stays relatively simple and has no problems. Then one large twist happens, which could have been really good--if they had stopped there. Then it twists again, and again and again. It reminded me of the part in Mission: Impossible at the end wher Tom Cruise starts pulling the masks off and you're wondering what the hell is going on. You'll wonder the same thing about the end of Casino Royale.
7. Texas Hold'em - PLEASE! This is the silliest thing they have in the movie. A huge deal of the game is made, and it is given way too much screen time. Not only that, but do you think that they're going to be playing No Limit Texas Hold'em Poker (which, incidentally is specifically mentioned by name by a french-accented dealer to ridiculous effect) in Monte Carlo? No.
8. Anachronism - This movie is supposed to take place before Bond becomes Bond. Well, if that's the case, then maybe we better step back in time to 1962, because it's painfully obvious with cellphones and the like that Bond is not in the 60s. Some people said that this movie is like Batman Begins. Well, the Batman movies were set in Gotham city, a ficticious metropolis. In Batman Begins you also had the feel of the 1915s during the scenes in China, and the 1920s-1930s when Bruce Wayne returns home. Yeah, they had some technological gadgets, but the decor and the people were old-styled. I'd have been fine with Bond using really high-tech gadgets if the decor had been a bit older.
9. Daniel Craig - One last time, this guy is a pussy. He comes across as a thug. There is no pinache, no suaveness, and no wit. Craig is lame. He plays Bond about as well as Sylvester Stallone would have played Tim Robbins' character from The Shawshank Redemption.
The final wrap? Had they ended it about 20 minutes earlier, Casino Royale would have been a good action movie. Not a Bond movie at all, but still a good action movie. As it is, it didn't even make the good action movie category. This movie will leave you unfulfilled and with more questions than when you went in, one of which will be "Why did I just pay to see this?"
1. Daniel Craig - This queer-bait dickhead looks like he belongs in a Calvin Klein underwear ad, not as James Bond, superspy. While I don't think this guy is particularly blonde like the papers say he his, the fact remains that we don't have a dark-haired bond because Daniel Craig refused to dye his hair for the role. What an arrogant prick.
2. Lack of Comedy - While some of the latter Bond movies were almost ridiculous with some of their comedy, these films are meant to be seen by teenage boys. Casino Royale was definitely meant to be an adult movie and took itself way too seriously. The comedy that did result was from Bond's acting like an asshole, not his wit. The comedy took its cue more from an episode of Jackass than the dry British humor and wry wit we have come to expect of Bond.
3. Confusing Jargon - At the beginning of the movie, a big deal is made over Bond's 00 status. Only one reference is made to the requirements of it, and the person who elevated him to that status doesn't seem happy with it. So, why is he a double O agent? It introduces the idea without explaining it or backing it up, making it useless, confusing jargon.
4. Terrorism - If this is supposed to be set in the modern day, fine, we don't have the Russians, but for God's sake, how cliché can we be? Even worse, the terrorists aren't believeable. They're simply people who appear on screen with creepy music and are labeled as 'terrorists'. Boring. Why not have one of them wear a Greenpeace shirt? They'd be 'terrorists', too. If the movie wanted to make the villians terrorists, they needed to really villanize them. They didn't, and the villians came across simply as assholes.
5. Lack of Chemistry - Perhaps it's because we don't have Miss Moneypenny or Q to help us see Bond's charming and witty side, but Bond has no chemistry on screen with anyone. There's a dreadful lack of chemistry with M, who in previous movies has always seemed to be like the schoolteacher who gives a glare at her favorite mischevious student. In Casino Royale, she really doesn't like him, or at least that's the impression you get.
6. Plot Twists - This is one of the biggest sticking points for me. While some of the previous Bond movies have required more suspension of disbelief (like the nuclear sub crashing into the ocean floor and not failing...), this movie leaves you twisting in the wind at the end due to the twisting nature of the plot. The plot is like a pretzel--a broken one. Instead of tying things up neatly at the end, it takes two or three twists more than it should have and winds up taking a giant shit on itself and stomping about in it some. Up until the last 30 or so minutes of the movie, the plot stays relatively simple and has no problems. Then one large twist happens, which could have been really good--if they had stopped there. Then it twists again, and again and again. It reminded me of the part in Mission: Impossible at the end wher Tom Cruise starts pulling the masks off and you're wondering what the hell is going on. You'll wonder the same thing about the end of Casino Royale.
7. Texas Hold'em - PLEASE! This is the silliest thing they have in the movie. A huge deal of the game is made, and it is given way too much screen time. Not only that, but do you think that they're going to be playing No Limit Texas Hold'em Poker (which, incidentally is specifically mentioned by name by a french-accented dealer to ridiculous effect) in Monte Carlo? No.
8. Anachronism - This movie is supposed to take place before Bond becomes Bond. Well, if that's the case, then maybe we better step back in time to 1962, because it's painfully obvious with cellphones and the like that Bond is not in the 60s. Some people said that this movie is like Batman Begins. Well, the Batman movies were set in Gotham city, a ficticious metropolis. In Batman Begins you also had the feel of the 1915s during the scenes in China, and the 1920s-1930s when Bruce Wayne returns home. Yeah, they had some technological gadgets, but the decor and the people were old-styled. I'd have been fine with Bond using really high-tech gadgets if the decor had been a bit older.
9. Daniel Craig - One last time, this guy is a pussy. He comes across as a thug. There is no pinache, no suaveness, and no wit. Craig is lame. He plays Bond about as well as Sylvester Stallone would have played Tim Robbins' character from The Shawshank Redemption.
The final wrap? Had they ended it about 20 minutes earlier, Casino Royale would have been a good action movie. Not a Bond movie at all, but still a good action movie. As it is, it didn't even make the good action movie category. This movie will leave you unfulfilled and with more questions than when you went in, one of which will be "Why did I just pay to see this?"
Labels: Movie Reviews
posted by ChemicalJesus at 7:09 AM
1 comments
