Casino Royale
Oh, the James Bond films. Once little more than campy good fun, they started to take themselves too seriously somewhere along the line, and now we’re left with, well, Casino Royale.
The thing is, it’s not a competely consistent trend. Though I adore the old films, especially the Connery ones, they sometimes get a little boring, and the campiness could have been turned up more than it was. But with characters like Pussy Galore, and villains with increasingly bizarre backstories, who really cares?
After Roger Moore it all went downhill, in my opinion. However, like I said, the trend isn’t entirely consistent, and I believe that certain directors have been able to find the heart of the franchise, achieving that tricky balance of outlandish plotlines, bad one-liners, and gratuitous sex and drinking. As much as people seem to hate Pierce Brosnan’s Bond, I found him to be quite satisfactory in the role, and I don’t care what anyone says, I thought Die Another Day was awesome. You know, the one with the ice palace and the invisible car? Ha ha, invisible car.
Therefore, I was curious to see how Daniel Craig would do in a role that seems capable of focusing all the hatred of the world on you if you screw it up. And as it turns out, I thought he did a fine job. The problem was, the film was a total piece of crap.
Granted, I was kind of falling asleep near the end, and I didn’t even finish watching it because it sucked so bad, but seriously, I could have shat out a better script. More like Ass-ino Royale. The plot was boring and stupid and the villains weren’t even scary, and to top it off, I kept waiting for some hot sex, but there was barely any necking. Plus, for some reason it’s set in modern times, although it is a prequel. Try reasoning your way through that and you’ll get a headache.
In conclusion, all I really need to say is, don’t see it unless you’re really drunk and bored. And even so, see if there’s something on the Food Network first, because it’ll probably be more interesting.
