Casino Royale (2006) 
What does Double ‘O’ mean anyway?
|
This and a couple other questions about the origins of James Bond are answered by Casino Royale. In another prequel, we get to see James Bond as the character is forged from a blunt object into a sharp-witted blunt object. I liked Craig in this less-polished Bond role and I liked a lot of the action scenes.
I didn’t feel especially moved by all the bad guys in this movie, though I was intrigued by some of the broader plot devices. I liked that they didn’t spend a ton of time laying out all the ins and outs of the evil master plan.
There was talk in the bathroom after the show. One college kid got in line and said something along the lines of, “Whoa, that was awesome.” I gave him an eyebrow raised nod, but did not delve into his nuanced view of cinema. The other conversation in the bathroom was an older gent trying to figure out the plot of the movie by asking his friend questions. “So he took the money, but she didn’t tell him anything?” Stuff like that. I feel like both of these comments speak pretty well to the merits of the film. It has some cool stuff and the plot moves briskly.
My only real complaint about Casino Royale was the length. Maybe it was because I had to pee about half way through, but 2.5 hours was long. They really took their time in some spots where they didn’t have to. The first chase scene was very impressive, almost Ang Batesque, but also went on forever. I read one review that complained about how the poker scenes were handled and I agree taht people who do not know Hold ‘em will have a hard time following. Granted in the key Bond demographic, this shouldn’t be too much of an issue. Plus, I don’t know what more they could have done without an inner monologue or a pocket cam combined with winning probabilities on the screen. My other complaint was that the review I read spoiled some of the good lines that everyone else seemed to enjoy. Hence, I will not do so here.
