If you walk into a DVD rental, pick up four movies without much consideration for your choice, and the worst one is the James Bond movie, you know you are out of touch with cinema.Â Have things changed so much?
Seriously.Â I am not a big fan of Bond movies.Â I like a good action and a good spy movie, but I don’t like extensive advertising and propaganda in my entertainment.Â Also, I think if the actor isn’t very good at holding dramatic pauses, then he shouldn’t be forced to do so.Â There are enough evil guys to kill for any James Bond.Â There are enough ways to kill them with.Â And there are enough camera angles to show it from.Â That’s all there is to it.Â Run, shoot, drive, shoot, kick, shoot, cut.Â Done.Â Add a little bit of style, a few gorgeous women, and some gadgets – and you got yourself a nice James Bond movie.
“Casino Royale” failed at that. Daniel Craig is a good guy, but he isn’t a James Bond kind of good.Â Even Matt Damon taken directly out of his Bourne trilogy would have made a better James Bond. Craig is a better substitute for John Rambo. Here, insert a lot of gadgets.Â Didn’t happen in this film.Â Guns with silences, a couple of bugs, and a CD-player like electric shock.Â At least the ladies should have saved the situation…. But not for me.Â All the women which were featured in the film, aren’t my types.
The best scene of the film is in the beginning.Â Chasing the parkour guy down to the embassy and then a huge gun fight.Â After that it was all downhill.Â Almost like they were out of budget.Â But I doubt that they were, because then they wouldn’t have made a film 144 minutes long.Â Two and a half hours is just too much for what was going on in this movie.
6 out of 10.