So I actually entirely forgot to post about this, although I saw Casino Royale a while ago.
My overall impression of the movie was that it was rather good. I think Daniel Craig is a good person to take over the Bond legacy. He’s more like the rugged Sean Connery Bond than the super slick Piers Brosnan Bond, and I liked it. He seemed like the sort of man who isn’t afraid to get his knees dirty. He carried the role well, and made himself a compelling and interesting character. Of course, he also had much more leeway with character development because Casino Royale was the first Fleming novel, before Bond really had much of a character.
It was interesting to me that they left Casino Royale in the right place chronologically within the Bond narrative, but that Bond had all these fancy modern gadgets. It seems like something destined to lead to cognitive dissonance, to see Bond using a slick cell phone in the first part of the narrative, and then switching back to more crude devices in Dr. No. I’m glad that they gave us more background on Bond as a character, showing us how he got double O status, but it did seem a little wierd.
The movie also dragged on. There was a point that I thought was the end, and then it kept going. This might be due to a flaw in the narrative itself that just didn’t adapt well to screen. But it did make the last half hour or so of the film seem needlessly long. Oh, the plot twistings!
My favourite line:
“The job is done. The bitch is dead.”
Getting saucy, Mr. Bond!
I’ve always had a soft spot for the Bond franchise, because the films have beautiful women, gratifying explosions, and exotic locations. I was glad to see all of these things present, because it just wouldn’t be a Bond film without scenes shot at cool locations like Venice. I should add a complete collection of the Bond films to the list of things I would like to own someday.