Because finally, after some fourty years of sci-fi, James Bond is back as a secret agent whose knuckles aren’t afraid of a little dirty fighting in filthy Easter European public toilets, wthout any explosive gadgets or bleeping toys or hovercrafts to help him. The bad guys have resources, of course — if they hadn’t, they wouldn’t be targets for 007 — but it’s nowhere near the ridiculous things we’ve seen in such garbage as the previous one, “Die Another Day“, and there were no satelites equipped with lasers or tasers or fasers or whatever they’re calling it this week. Instead, you had a slick Mads Mikkelsen as an even slicker bad guy, whose specialty was financing “freedom fighters”, with no special fighting skills, no particularly awesome henchmen, and a hell of a lot of problems of his own, seeing as Bond fouls up his little money-making scheme, thus ensuring that he loses every cent he was holding for some of the most brutal men on the face of the Earth. Yay for a plot which actually makes sense! 
Then there was Bond himself. Daniel Craig does a perfect job as the “young” Bond (this is supposed to take place just after his promotion to 00-status). He’s brutal where the older Bond is coldly effective, and you can actually observe this change in him as the movie progresses, along with some other changes.
But the perhaps best part of the entire film is the love affair. In the last couple of Bond flicks, they’ve tried to portray the Bond Babe as a strong woman, who knows how to take care of herself. And how did they do this? By letting her start out as a secret agent, too, so that she could be helpful to our Mr. Bond. And in “Casino Royale“, how do they do it? They create a character who’s a professional accountant, who’s sent to supervise Bond’s spending habits during his visit to the Casino Royale in Montenegro. She’s probably no good in a fight, but the lady’s got spunk, and she’s got brains, and all that important stuff. The fact that I’ve liked Eva Green ever since I first saw her in “Kingdom of Heaven” two years ago may have made me slightly biased towards her character, but all in all, I think this was the best Bond Babe since Pussy Galore. At least that I can remember. (It’s been a couple of years since I last watched the old Bond movies, though, so…)
This is easily a 9.0/10. It hasn’t too much depth, and there are still some lines that stink of “Die Another Day” and its ilk, but as a Bond film, it’s heaven. I hope this will be the beginning of a new era for Bond, and that the over-the-top misogynist jokes and the sci-fi gadgets won’t be back in the next one…
Posts
All hail Eva Green! I’d let her boss me around any day
I concur 100 % with your assesment of this great movie, but would add that the theme song also kicks major ass!
29. November 2006 @ 17:01 ( Permalink )
I would refrain from making such an addendum, as my relationship to Chris Cornell has soured in the last couple of months. Said shortly, I hate his crappy style of singing and his horrible, horrible lyrics, which have now completely ruined my otherwise positive view of Audioslave. Seriously, they should have hired Morrisey or something; someone with some style as well as some roughness of character.
29. November 2006 @ 18:06 ( Permalink )
Hmh. Whilst I agree in all your assesments, I would NEVER give this movie 9.0. 7.5, guaranteed, possibly 8.0, but nothing higher than that. It is entertainment, and it is good entertainment, but the tension-curve (?) is somewhat odd, reaching a high point three times (after the poker-game, the torture, and the elevator-scene). It had the same problem as the ending of the Return of the King, when the ending finally is there you’ve expected it for too long.
30. November 2006 @ 17:16 ( Permalink )
Realistically speaking, I’d probably never give it more than 8.0, either, but I always give movies a point or so more than what they really deserved. Besides, I think the joy I got from this one being quite unlike the Brosnan-movies, and Craig being almost the Anti Brosnan, made me evaluate it with even milder eyes than usual.
30. November 2006 @ 17:20 ( Permalink )
Pardon? “Realistically” speaking? Are the reviews you post here merely something you do to pass the time and trick others into seeing movies they wouldn’t have seen otherwise? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
And they tried to restart the Bond-continuity, so it should be evaluated as just that. A new start, not to be compared with the old movies.
1. December 2006 @ 20:28 ( Permalink )
They tried to restart it? And here I went through the whole movie thinking that whole business about his being “a poor orphan put through upper class-schooling” was a subtle way ot trying to indicate that maybe he’s simply been formally adopted by the old one and had his finances and schooling paid for by him. Who was, after all, pretty damned rich.
That’s my interpretation and I’m sticking to it. Because I hate giving up that much continuity. Even if it is self-contradictory and lousy.
2. December 2006 @ 01:27 ( Permalink )
Realistically speaking, I’d probably never give it more than 8.0, either, but I always give movies a point or so more than what they really deserved.
I can easily relate to that, because when I find myself loving something so profoundly that it clouds my senses, I tend to give it a better grade than what it really deserves. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve my grade, just that other people might not agree with it ’cause they didn’t love it as much as I did. Love is, as we all know, a relative thing.
They tried to restart it? And here I went through the whole movie thinking that whole business about his being “a poor orphan put through upper class-schooling” was a subtle way ot trying to indicate that maybe he’s simply been formally adopted by the old one and had his finances and schooling paid for by him. Who was, after all, pretty damned rich.
If you really mean that, Loki; you’re seriously messed up.
2. December 2006 @ 14:34 ( Permalink )
Of course I am.
And of course I do.
2. December 2006 @ 14:56 ( Permalink )
“I can easily relate to that, because when I find myself loving something so profoundly that it clouds my senses, I tend to give it a better grade than what it really deserves. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve my grade, just that other people might not agree with it ’cause they didn’t love it as much as I did. Love is, as we all know, a relative thing.”
I guess that what was I was trying to say above, but I suspect that my brain has been leaking out my ears the last couple of months, thus reducing my cognitive and literal abilities.
“They tried to restart it? And here I went through the whole movie thinking that whole business about his being “a poor orphan put through upper class-schooling” was a subtle way ot trying to indicate that maybe he’s simply been formally adopted by the old one and had his finances and schooling paid for by him. Who was, after all, pretty damned rich.”
You know, that interpretation was kinda nifty, and would explain quite a lot, actually. However, one think it would most certainly not explain, at least not as far as I can see, is the appearence of Felix Leiter. After all, Felix Leiter got his feet chewed off by sharks on the Bahamas in “Licence to Kill”….
2. December 2006 @ 16:04 ( Permalink )
Sorry, not enough into Bond-movies to even remember the character. :\
2. December 2006 @ 16:06 ( Permalink )
From either movie, I might add.
2. December 2006 @ 16:07 ( Permalink )
Not even in Casino Royale? He’s the Black poker player from the CIA who gave Bond his money after he (Bond) lost all of his own. Or something like that.
2. December 2006 @ 16:11 ( Permalink )
Ah, okay. Didn’t catch his name. And if it is a CIA-agent, I think I might remember him from License fo Kill, too.
(In that case, that’s easily explained, though, it could just be a fake-fake pesudonym taken on purpose by the CIA-agent in the same manner Bond flaunted his fake identity. Stretch? Maybe. But it works.)
2. December 2006 @ 16:15 ( Permalink )
I guess that what was I was trying to say above, but I suspect that my brain has been leaking out my ears the last couple of months, thus reducing my cognitive and literal abilities.
Another suitable example of what should stay with between yourseld, your doctor and god. ;P
2. December 2006 @ 23:40 ( Permalink )
Not between him, his doctor and “god”, between him, his doctor and *his* god.
(i.e. Don’t be dragging me into this by being too general.)
3. December 2006 @ 03:20 ( Permalink )