Those who know me will always attest to the fact that i support the underdogs and i like what most people dont.
Well, this particular movie- Casino Royale- has caused me sooooooooo much of headache and heartache. Because I was the main organisor for the company movie outing. To sum it all up, i had worries before, DURING, and after the movie. Sigh.
Ok, review. Some people said that the movie sucks big time. Firstly, Daniel Craig is not suave like his predecessors. His height is not right and his hair is in the wrong colour. Everything about him is just not Bond enough. secondly, the opening act was not typical Bond- no end-of-mission scene and Bond putting on a rigorous fight with a villain. Thirdly, the trademark 'gun-pointing' with the gun barrel circling him was also tarnished by the the choice of suit Craig was wearing. Fourthly, the gals were not famous. Fifthly, Q was non-existant, Sixthly, he killed his trademark martini "shaken, not stirred" (or was it the other way round?) by saying "do i look like i give a damn?" and finally, not as action packed as the other Bonds.
For me, this movie is good. People can say what they like because they just fail to accept shorty Daniel as Bond. Many have, conscious or sub-consciously set in their minds who and what James Bond is supposed to be and that he should act and look in such and such a manner of which failing to fulfil their preconceived idea of Bond would render the particular actor not fit for the role. But, does anyone really know how Ian Fleming wanted his Bond to be? Our minds have been shaped to accept a 'Sean Connery' Bond and refuse to accept the other side of him- that he has emotions and struggles too.
I've also heard disputes that this Bond is not like the previous Bonds. But what they didnt know (but it's widespread news!) is that this movie (Casino Royale) is based on Fleming's very first book, and the story should be viewed in retrospective of all the other Bond movies. It's smthg like "James Bond begins". The story about the formative years of Agent 007. How he became the suave, smooth, intelligent, rich etc etc secret agent. Certainly a rookie cannot be compared with the more defined and seasoned man that the previous actors portrayed so well. The concept is simple- can you compare yourself as a new, graduate engineer now and yourself 10 years from now as an experienced engineer? Cannot, right? So be fair to Daniel who had to play the rookie Bond and dont compare with the other Bonds. Its not apple-to-apple.
If you dont believe me, check this out. I didnt nonsense here OK. Got facts to support. I would rate it 6/10 (I am fussy, the best movie also scored only 8/10 in my scale).
So if you have not watch this movie, go book your tickets now. Go into the cinema with a clear mind- erase all your memories on the Professional Bond and welcome the Rookie Bond. You will appreciate it better. Because, this is the way it should have been produced in the first place.
Ah, btw, just a detour: I am tempted to blog this. Nothing to do with the plot, or the production. My colleague Chong and his fren were definitely the two most satisfied and happy people yesterday. Yeah, the made frens with 2 pretty gals in the cinema and even chatted with them! Sayang only they didnt ask the gals for lunch after the movie....Well, at least my project is successful, in a way =)