|
|
Casino Royale (Widescreen)
|
 |
| List Price |
: |
CDN$ 26.95 |
| Our Price |
: |
CDN$ 18.99 |
| You Save |
: |
CDN$ 7.96 (30%) |
| |
|
|
| 5 Used |
: | from CDN$ 10.97 |
| 3 New |
: | from CDN$ 18.99 |
| |
|
|
| Availability |
: |
Usually ships in 24 hours |
|
|
 |
|
|
| Custom Reviews: | |
|
|  | For the original series of James Bond films, Sean Connery defined the part quite effectively. Since Connery other actors such as George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan have attempted to portray this persona with the same elan with varying degrees of success. In my opinion none have measured up to Connery in the qualities of an international British agent with unsurpassed physical skills, sophistication and attraction for women. None until now. Daniel Craig makes one heck of a Bond! He fits this role equally well. Thus this movie is quite successful. The locations-Italy, Montenegro, the Bahamas- are fantastic with wonderful photography. Some exotic, mind-dizzying technology is used but not too much. There are some exciting action scenes such as in Miami and particularly around the casino at Montenegro. Eva Green plays Vesper and provides some excellent verbal jousting with Craig such as on a train in Europe. Vesper also becomes the name of a drink (6 parts Gordons Gin, 2 of vodka, one of Kina Lilet all shaken until cool). Overall this is a wonderful movie.The Griffon Trilogy: Part I
| | | This version of Casino Royale is definitely better than the original version. Who was the best James Bond? you have to take into consideration that society has changed it's attitudes over the 40 odd years James Bond movies have been around which makes scripts politicaly correct now. The changes make it tougher to judge who is best. As for the movie itself, action packed as always. People go to Bond movies to be entertained and this certainly succeeds on that level.
| | Is this a James Bond movie or an action movie that has someone named James Bond?? You decide!! | |
| | XXXXX
This movie is based on the book "Casino Royale" (1953) by the late Ian Fleming. It is the 21ST "official" (meaning EON Productions) Bond movie with Daniel Craig being the 6TH actor to play James Bond.
Before this movie came out, Bond movies covered a period of 40 years beginning with 1962's "Dr. No" and ending with 2002's "Die Another Day."
This movie is about James Bond receiving his "double oh" status and completing his first mission as "007."
The movie's strong point is that it has a lot of action and good special effects. In fact, before explaining anything to the viewer, there is a long chase scene with death-defying leaps and bounds. It is quite well done. There is another long chase scene that follows this chase. It, too, is quite well done.
Unfortunately, the story is difficult to follow and is somewhat complicated. In fact, I had to view this movie twice in order to completely understand it.
It is after about fifty minutes (that's right, fifty minutes!!) into this long movie that you actually learn exactly who Bond was chasing both times and you learn the details of Bond's first assignment.
You have to understand two things in order to understand Bond's first assignment, namely the basics of how stock options work and the basics of a poker game called "Texas Hold'Em" (a variation of the poker game called seven card stud). This, personally, is why I'm amazed that this movie has received such high ratings from others--I don't believe that all people who view this movie know such things. For the record, I know the basics of these things and, in fact, my interest increased at this point.
For Bond's first assignment we're told what he has to do. Oddly enough, we're not told why he has to do it. I found this frustrating and had to guess why he was on this assignment. It turns out I guessed right by reading some articles about this movie after I had viewed it. The point is that you will have to do some guessing while watching this movie.
You may need a brochure to figure out all the bad guys that pop in and out. The main villain seems to be someone called Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), "private banker to the world's terrorists." What I noticed is that this villain is not very villainous (except in his last few scenes).
The Bond girl has the name of Vesper Lyn (Eva Green). She's integral to the plot and especially to the movie's long, somewhat predictable, ending. The ending reminded me of the 1969 Bond movie called "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Sean Connery who was playing Bond at the time wisely did not perform in this movie.
When viewing this movie, don't expect to see the James Bond that you've seen in the last forty years. There is no Miss Moneypenny, no gun barrel walk, no Q and, thus no gadgets. (Apparently in the book, Q is not mentioned so there are no gadgets. Actually, there is a gadget that Bond in this movie uses extensively--a cell phone.)
In my mind's eye, I compared Daniel Craig to the other five Bond actors that came before him (namely Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan). In my opinion, he doesn't fit the mold of a James bond. Sure, he's physically fit but there's more to Bond than just being fit! (Actually, Craig does look like Bond in the last thirty seconds of the movie.)
I also missed the Bond music. The background music is good but does not compare to the distinctive music associated with James Bond movies. (Bond-type music is played when the end credits roll.)
The thing I missed most is the James Bond witticisms and snappy dialogue. For example, here is some dialogue from 1964's "Goldfinger" where Bond is tied down on a gold slab with a laser beam cutting the slab and slowly inching up threatening to cut Bond in half:
Bond says to Goldfinger: "You don't expect me to talk, do you?"
Goldfinger's priceless reply: "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to DIE."
Now, this movie is not entirely devoid of humor but it's not nearly as witty as expected.
Filming for this movie took place in the Czech Republic, Bahamas, Italy, and England.
Finally, the DVD (the one released March, 2007) I have is perfect in picture and sound quality. There are several interesting extras included on a second disc.
In conclusion, for those who are not James Bond fans and looking to see a good action movie, this is the film to see. However, many true Bond fans may ask themselves the following:
"Is this a James Bond movie or is this an action movie that happens to have somebody named James Bond in it?"
(2006; 2 hr, 25 min; wide screen; 2 discs; 28 scenes)
<>
XXXXX
| | | Okay, so after absolutely everyone else in the world has seen, and grown to unanimously love Casino Royale, I finally got around to watching it. After 4 disappointing Brosnan outings, where the plots got progressively sillier and sillier, I was looking forward to this retro Bond - one devoid of gadgets, super laser satellites, and a more emotionally deep hero.
As I watched I realized a couple of things:
- I like Daniel Craig as Bond. He seems to continue the trend of alternating smooth, charming, dandified Bonds (Moore, Brosnan) with the harder-edged Bonds (Connery, Dalton)
- The plot made absolutely no sense....at least to me.
Maybe I am just dense, but questions started forming in my mind during and after the film. Maybe you can help me out with them.
What was the guy at the snake pit up to? He's a terrorist of some sort, who has been contracted by LeChiffre to blow up something - but what? Why is he hanging out betting on snake fights with a backpack full of explosives? What was his objective?
Bond tells his junior partner that we "have to take him alive". When cornered at the embassy, Bond shoots the suspect and then shoots the propane tank, allowing him to make his getaway. If it was so important to take him alive, why didn't Bond simply shoot the propane tank, and haul the suspect out of there?
In Bermuda, when Bond is seducing the wife of the terrorist, she suspects he's using her to get to him. It must become obvious that Bond is working against her husband when he ditches her. Why doesn't she call to warn him?
LeChiffre would take payments to blow up targets, and would use that money to invest in such a way that he would make millions when the stock (of the airline, etc) collapsed. How is this possible? How can you make money off of a declining stock? I know I only have 2 business degrees, so it's confusing to me.
What exactly is the big con game central to the plot? As explained, LeChiffre has lost all of his money (except $10million), so needs to win it back at the high stakes poker game. He allows in agents from MI-6 and the CIA (why?), and yet seems to have no mechanism in place to make sure he wins. Say what you want about LeChiffre, but he isn't a cheater. And neither are the US and British secret services - they have no compunction about dealing out their own brand of justice (as we saw in the pre-credit sequence, where Bond simply executes an unarmed dirty agent), but they too seem loathe to cheat at the card game. Their plan seems to consist entirely of beating LeChiffre fair and square, based on their poker skills alone.
Bond's contention that every player has a "tell" seems problematic. I would be very wary about entering a $110 million poker game if I scratched my left armpit and whistled "America the Beautiful" every time I was bluffing.
Why did they try and poison Bond in the middle of the game? LeChiffre hadn't won all of the money at that point. If Bond had keeled over dead at the table, wouldn't the remaining players have simply stopped playing?
Did the African terrorists sneak that machete through Montenegro customs, or buy it at a gift shop?
Who exactly was Mathis? Why did MI-6 need to have a local agent? And didn't they do a background check? What tipped Bond off to the fact that Mathis was working for LeChiffre (they are celebrating with cavier, when Vesper is called away by Mathis....and then Bond suddenly clues in to the fact that he's a double-agent. Why?). After Mathis' boss gets offed, why does Mathis stick around and meet Bond in the hospital? Who is he working for then? Is he trying to get the money? Wouldn't he suspect Bond would know who he really is?
A portable heart defibrillator that has a cord that just pops off at random seems to be a recall issue.
The CIA plans to extract LeChiffe the morning after he has lost the card game. Doesn't that seem to be leaving things a little long? Won't LeChiffre (a) flee Montenegro, knowing that after being there for 3 days, the people who are after him will certainly be looking for him, (b) get killed by the people who are after him, (c) go after Bond.
Leaving Vesper on the road seems a dangerous move. Since she's the only one who knows the account number, if Bond had run her over, his sense of guilt may have compelled him to give up the password (but probably not), but it would have been useless if LeChiffre didn't already have the account number (did he extract it from Vespa in the 13 seconds she was in the car?)
Why does Bond think that Vesper has suddenly fallen in love with him, when he awakes at the hospital? After he saved her life previously, she still loathed him. Yet he thinks she will fall for him after he was willing to let her be tortured to death rather than give up the account password? I admit Bond's ego may prevent this logical thinking, but it does seem a quick turnaround for Vesper. More importantly, what makes Bond fall in love with her, enough to leave the service?
Where was the money? M calls to say it was never deposited in the account. I think what happened is that Vesper had it in a different account. She puts in the account number and then asks Bond for the password. But rather than type in his password, she puts in another one. But how was that all set up? The only accounts accessible were the ones the poker players set up. That may be a small point, but it leads to a bigger one: All LeChiffre needed to access the money was the account number and the password. If that's the case, why did Vesper have to go to the bank and withdraw the money in a suitcase for Mr. White (more about him later)? Why didn't she just give them the account/password and let them take the money, rather then sail around Venice for a month with Bond?
From a filmmaking standpoint, why does Vesper's contact have an eyepatch? It adds to the confusion, because the first thought one has is that it's actually LeChiffre. But of course, it isn't. It just doesn't seem to serve any purpose to have two of the bad guys have the same kind of distinction. If there was a point to it, I don't know what it was.
Vesper wore the medallion that her boyfriend had given her. We later learn that White had kidnapped the boyfriend (we never do find out what happened to him. Oh well) and was holding him hostage. Fine. But she finally removes the medallion on the day that she is going to betray Bond. Why? Is it to give Bond a false sense of security? Is it to tip him off?
If in fact Vesper is going to leave Bond clues (ie, "Mr. White" as a text message), why doesn't she just tell him upfront? MI-6 could have sent in an agent to rescue the boyfriend.
Who was White anyway? We see him in the beginning, but he's associated with the African terrorists. Does he work for them? They for him? What is their connection?
I know, I know. The plot is not the important thing in a Bond film. But why not? If we are going to have a more mature Bond, why shouldn't we hold things to a higher standard plotwise as well? The film had so many things going for it. The relationship between M and Bond (kind of a dysfunctional mother/son relationship) is really neat. Having Bond get his first kill and then kind of get addicted to it is neat. The revealing of his background (on the train) worked well. But why so many loose ends (even if they maybe were in the original novel)? These loose ends bugged me more than usual because this had the potential to be a really good movie (unlike many other Bond films). None of the reviews seem to really pick up on this, so perhaps I am just not swift enough to answer all of these questions. So, a little help, please.
| | Not your regular James Bond movie, but quite good! | |
| | I am not a James Bond fan, but I've seen many of them just the same. This one was quite good, mostly due to Daniel Craig's great performance. He was absolutely a great choice for the part and I hope to see him again play this part if ever they make other James Bond movies (as if they would stop...) as he has class and oh... gorgeous blue eyes! Physically, he's the most fit Bond that I can remember.
This Bond movie has a strong plot and the action scenes look brutal for once. There's a lot of action which I'm sure will please the true Bond fan.
| |
|
|
Home
View Cart
Bookmark This Page
Contact Us
