DIRECTED BY MARTIN CAMPBELL
RELEASE DATE- 15TH DEC'06
Every film needs some particular mood, temperament or perception to watch so that it can be enjoyed better. Likewise to me Bond films signify- style, thrills and women, rest all is secondary. 
With Casino Royale I was also curious to get acquainted with the new bond- “Daniel Craig”…I was trying my best to keep Brosnan out of my mind and make no comparisons.
The film started well- the action was amazing and it did not take me great effort to accept Daniel Craig- however Brosnan till scores above- as the suave British agent.
In Craig, with his grey eyes i could not help but get a hint of villainy rather than the boyish naughtiness and charm that Brosnan brought to Bond.
As the film moved ahead I started feeling short changed- there were no bond girls, you had to force yourself to find one!!! The action did not take an ascending graph! The thrill at the casino was good, but the plot was such that it required better specifics. The villains and bond’s conflict was underplayed. At one point Craig looked a romantic hero than a sleek- action spy.
Where was the entire gadget introductory sequence?- A very important staple of Bond films.
Finally the climax was very hurried and wrapped up.
At the end of it, it was not a rubbish film- I don’t think any bond film can be bad but this one definitely felt less spicy and less salty!
The correct word as used above is- “SHORTCHANGED”
With Casino Royale I was also curious to get acquainted with the new bond- “Daniel Craig”…I was trying my best to keep Brosnan out of my mind and make no comparisons.
The film started well- the action was amazing and it did not take me great effort to accept Daniel Craig- however Brosnan till scores above- as the suave British agent.
In Craig, with his grey eyes i could not help but get a hint of villainy rather than the boyish naughtiness and charm that Brosnan brought to Bond.
As the film moved ahead I started feeling short changed- there were no bond girls, you had to force yourself to find one!!! The action did not take an ascending graph! The thrill at the casino was good, but the plot was such that it required better specifics. The villains and bond’s conflict was underplayed. At one point Craig looked a romantic hero than a sleek- action spy.
Where was the entire gadget introductory sequence?- A very important staple of Bond films.
Finally the climax was very hurried and wrapped up.
At the end of it, it was not a rubbish film- I don’t think any bond film can be bad but this one definitely felt less spicy and less salty!
The correct word as used above is- “SHORTCHANGED”
No comments:
Post a Comment