Skip to main content

Casino Royale - Re view

Owning DVDs is a good way to entertain oneself.  I can re watch any movie I want, when I want, how I want.  So last night I re-watched some of the rather long run time remake of the Bond adventure - called Casino Royale -  cast with a new lead to play the iconic spy - Daniel Craig.  This viewing took place after a few years of my original viewing.


I decided I like this new Bond.  I also enjoyed Casino Royale.  I think the villain makes half the movie and I liked the Danish Mads Mikkelsen (who knew Danes acted - that is part of the Bond franchise - I think - they find unusual cast to be in the film including the opposite sex) as Le Chifre a mean dude who bleeds blood through his tear duct and who believes in a 'reasonable rate of return'.


Although the two installments that followed Casino Royale that released nine years ago, respectively 'Quantum of Solace' in 2008 and 'Skyfall' in 2012, were somewhat lame even for the Bondantics.


Part of the lack of charm was a poor character for the villain role - Skyfall had Javier Bardeim who is great as an actor but IMHO was a poor choice for a Bond villain.


Casino Royale in its Xth remake was quintessentially Bond with as the name suggests, gambling, running (free running to be specific), shooting, killing, drinking (shaken, stirred and neat), womanizing and spending (in this case her majesty's money - lots of dollars in this film, but no pennies including lack of Moneypenny).  It did not have too much of high speed driving which I missed.


I am eagerly awaiting SPECTRE the latest installment due later this year.

Labels:

Comments

  1. RajendraMarch 25, 2015 at 10:36 PM

    I generally haven't liked Craig, but I liked Casino Royale with him in it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Diamond HeadMarch 26, 2015 at 10:36 AM

    perhaps his 'perfectly formed' ass helped

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

But What If We're Wrong?

I attempted to read this book by author Chuck Klosterman backward to forward but it started hurting my brain so I decided to stop and do it like any other publication in the English language.  Start from page 1 and move to the right. Witty, caustic and thought provoking this is a book you want to read if you believe that the status quo might, just might be wrong. At times bordering on being contrarian about most things around us it tries to zero in on the notion of what makes anything believable and certain in our minds.  The fact that there is a fact itself is ironic.  Something analogous to the idea that you can never predict the future because there is no future. Many books and movies have tried to play on this concept - best that I recollect (I think I am) was 'The Truman Show'.  This book by Klosterman attempts to provoke the reader to at least contemplate that what they think they know may be wrong. He uses examples like concept of gravity, and how it ...
2 comments
Read more

You are important to us

Followed by piano music.   Followed by 'we are experiencing heavier than usual call volume'.  Sounds macabre like bleeding during menstruation or after a ghastly attack with a weapon on a hemophiliac.  Sorry Mrs. Johnson but it appears little Gertrude here has been bleeding heavier than usual what with her night time activities competing with the woodchucks in your neighborhood. Some services even go as far as to pick a random day to say - 'if you were to call us during the Chinese lunar month when the moon is axiomatically hugging the polar star with Jupiter intravenous when call volume is light'.  Well I will be damned.  I thought  I had checked with my astrologer before I placed this well focused call but  I guess this is what you get for listening to a quack. Umph! I am not sure which marketing genius came up with this personal touch concept of informing the caller that you are really a jackass for actually calling the customer serv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Of Jims and Johns

Here is another essay on the subject of first names. As in birth names. Or names provided to an offspring at birth. While the developed world tends to shy away from the exotic like Refrigerator or Coca Cola for their new production there is a plethora of Jims and Johns and Bobs or Robs. Speaking of which I do not think there is a categoric decision point at the time of birth if a child will be hereafter called as Bob. I mean have not yet met a toddler called Bob or Rob for that matter. At some point though the parental instinct to mouth out multiple syllables runs out and they switch from calling the crawler Robert to simply Robbie to Rob. Now speaking of - it is strange that the name sounds like something you would not want Rob to do - i.e. Rob anyone. Then why call someone that? After all Rob Peter to Pay Paul is not exactly a maxim to live a young life? Is it? Perhaps Peter or Paul might want to have a say in it? Then there is this matter of going to the John. Why degrad...
2 comments
Read more