I've watched all the James Bond flicks from Connery to Brosnan and if there's one characteristic of all of them, it's formula. From the opening credits to the tech wizardry to the beautiful women to the action sequences, they all have to be there. Unlike other films where formulas are shunned, the Bond films thrive on formulas; which is why people keep coming back for more.
I had a feeling that the formulas that made all the other Bond films work had to be changed in order to justify the selection of Daniel Craig as a "different" Bond, which really doesn't make sense because you don't fix a franchise that ain't broke.
For instance, the gratuitous violence (for a Bond film) just can't be justified. Yes, the other Bonds killed people, but they managed to do it smoothly. There was no need for James Bond to get his suit wrinkled and stained and his hair all out of place in order to kill. It was unrealistic, but who said Bond was real? People loved Bond that way, and it worked.
True, the film had some entertainment value, but I felt that it was too long. The action scenes were just too repetitive. The gambling scenes overly stretched. I think that it would have been better with maybe 30% of the film left on the cutting room floor. In fact, my wife even slept midway through one of the action sequences.
As to the new Bond, he just seems, well, out of place. Again, I suppose the reason is really simple: Craig is not formulaic. He's not as smooth as the Bonds of the past. I don't even get why he mumbles his words. If the mumbling is intended, it absolutely doesn't work. I thought that Bond was an orphan, raised by the powers that be to be both a lethal killer and well-skilled in social graces.
All in all, I would say that this Bond doesn't work because it tries too bloody hard to work. It's the same as a golf swing. You change the mechanics of your backswing and you realize that you change the rest of your swing as well just to compensate.
Casino Royale is simply just a double bogey in my book.
I had a feeling that the formulas that made all the other Bond films work had to be changed in order to justify the selection of Daniel Craig as a "different" Bond, which really doesn't make sense because you don't fix a franchise that ain't broke.
For instance, the gratuitous violence (for a Bond film) just can't be justified. Yes, the other Bonds killed people, but they managed to do it smoothly. There was no need for James Bond to get his suit wrinkled and stained and his hair all out of place in order to kill. It was unrealistic, but who said Bond was real? People loved Bond that way, and it worked.
True, the film had some entertainment value, but I felt that it was too long. The action scenes were just too repetitive. The gambling scenes overly stretched. I think that it would have been better with maybe 30% of the film left on the cutting room floor. In fact, my wife even slept midway through one of the action sequences.
As to the new Bond, he just seems, well, out of place. Again, I suppose the reason is really simple: Craig is not formulaic. He's not as smooth as the Bonds of the past. I don't even get why he mumbles his words. If the mumbling is intended, it absolutely doesn't work. I thought that Bond was an orphan, raised by the powers that be to be both a lethal killer and well-skilled in social graces.
All in all, I would say that this Bond doesn't work because it tries too bloody hard to work. It's the same as a golf swing. You change the mechanics of your backswing and you realize that you change the rest of your swing as well just to compensate.
Casino Royale is simply just a double bogey in my book.