Newgnfr: Casino Royale (2006) Christian film reviews

Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store

November 5, 2008

Casino Royale (2006)

Should I see it?
A weak yes.

Short Review: Two hours of Bond crying in his martini.

The James Bond franchise, while still successful, had become tedious and struggled for years to come to terms with the rise of socially sensitive audiences. In a post-modern age, Bond felt like a throwback to a bygone era. Today, male characters are supposed to be introspective and not allowed to walk with a swagger. Like most of our society, Bond was in need of a “re-envisioning”. Throw out the classic Bond (tall, dark, handsome, cool, collected, charming) and replace him with post-modern Bond (tall, blond, receding, brutish, wracked with guilt and generally unpleasant). The things in our culture are being redesigned for us by the elites to remove heroism from the public sphere. This “updating” is happening all over the place (Batman, I'm looking at you).

Gone is the man of the cold war and in comes in the post-modern half-man. He’s sensitive, he’s troubled by his masculine traits, and he’s oh so grumpy. Everything needs to be more “real”, meaning the heroes and bad guys remove their white and black hats and settle for nice moody gray hats. Instead of our heroes holding set morals and making clear, decisive choices everything is a wash of existential muck. The heroes of our modern myths have been knocked down from their pedestals and replaced with brooding mopes.

I have never been a huge fan of James Bond. I’ve always found the films to be too corny for my tastes. I always understood his draw however. Complaints that the franchise had become to heavy with gimmicks and flash are reasonable and the films could have done with more plot and less goofy antics. The inability of producers to keep Bond from his descent into irrelevance was killing the series. Bond was in need of attention, they gave him an overhaul. Daniel Craig was cast in a striking move to abolish the physical remnants of the previous incarnations of Bond. With his villain’s eyes, pumped up body and blond hair, it was clear when he was cast Bond was in for a change. The plot and its devices changed dramatically as well. Gone is Q and his gadgets, goodbye Miss Moneypenny and sayonara to all of you overblown villains. The plot in this new version of Bond is more serious, more real. The problem with the piece is that Bond isn’t about being serious and it’s certainly not real. Yes, this piece is closer to the original books but that’s isn’t important anymore. Bond is a cinematic brand. Its like McDonalds trying to sell whole foods.

When an audience goes to see a Bond film they know what they can expect to see. This film sets to break all of these expectations. It does this successfully by ignoring its pedigree and showing the darker side of 007. As a separate movie, this film is pretty good. Not great, but good. The structure is somewhat disjointed but it still works. Craig is a convincing hired killer and the story has some interest. This is a good film, but it is not Bond. With all other Bond movies you could remove the music, his name and that whole “shaken, not stirred” routine and you’d still know you’re watching a 007 film. This movie is missing the central heart of the franchise and is only connected by the frivolous references thrown in as an awkward reminder of who we’re watching.

I liked (not loved - liked) the movie and chances are that you will like it as well. If you want the same ol’ 007 you’re used to, you’re out of luck. There’s a new sheriff in town and he needs therapy. In effect, this is like redesigning Star Trek without Spock and making Kirk longing for emotional love and respecting other people's boundaries. The name is the same but the formula has changed.

Click on James Blond to view the trailer