Saturday, November 25, 2006

Casino Royale

Casino Royale

I thought Daniel Craig was a brilliant choice for the role of James Bond - if anything, he will take James Bond down a different alleyway. His roles in Road to Perdition, Layer Cake, Munich and Endruing Love showed me the amount of skill he has to offer - not to mention, as a blond man myself, its nice to think that we blonde folk can be used to play 'sexy' characters.

Nevertheless, I hotly anticipated this next offering. The time had come to stop the crazy hollywood-version, mindless-explosions, post-Speed type of films Brosnan offered us. Don't get me wron, it was brilliant while it lasted (Even now, I think Renard ("a bullet, lodged in his brain - he feel nothing", "He push himself, harder and longer than any normal person") was an awesome bad guy, Zao wasn't great - but he looked cool, especially Halle Berry, not to mention Jonathon Pryce and Michelle Yeah pre-Crouching Tiger - the one I've missed out, Goldeneye, would stand comfortably against Goldfinger, Spy Who Loved Me and You Only Live Twice as best Bond film ... ever), so it was simply time to change.

I don't want to give too much away for the few who haven't seen it (and you call yourself 007 fans. Pish), but I firmly believe that the three reasons they have made this film is as follows:

1) It was a chance to make the one Ian Fleming book they had not yet turned into an official MGM James Bond film, but not only that ...
2) It was an ideal opportunity to introduce a new James Bond, using the 'first ever story' to actually reimagine the role.
3) Not to mention, the filmmakers want to make James Bond films go further than cliche action films. What makes The Bourne films good, is that there is the interesting depth to them - by starting the franchise again, they have the opportunity to revisist old characters - characters they can create now, rather than going back to the Connery days. Not to mention, they want to give James Bond 'depth' - alongside thi same point, it is worth pointing out that alot of people thought Brosnans 'torture' intro on 'Die Another Day' was a bad move - "James Bond doesn't get tortured". Yet, Casino Royale reimagines James Bond in a world where, not only can he be tortured - but lives of his loved ones hang in the balance and James Bond himself may actually need a resucitation machine to stay alive: has he ever used one of those before?

Fact is, this James Bond film is brilliant as an action movie, but the finale: Once we realise that James Bond, for the final five minutes, is te James Bond we know and love - we want more. So, you think 'I have sat through some two hours of 'not-exactly-James Bond-yet' action, and you are just begging to see Daniel Craig as the bad ass James bond himself.

In closing, if I watch a really good film - I feel like I cannot wait to watch it again. With 'Casino Royale' I felt more excited about the next film, rather than watching Casino Royale again: But, saying that, since watching the film i have wanted to watch it again now just for the new 007 actions sequences: the jumping dude, the fight inside the truck-front, the M-James bond banter, so... in time it may become alot better. Who knows. Another watch is in order! Woo hoo!