HH007

I read Paul Mavis's DVD review of Casino Royale at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=26835 and...

I must say, I completely disagree with Mr. Mavis, respectfully. First off, Daniel Craig. I believe Mr. Craig is not only perfectly cast in the role, I think he's the best Bond ever. He brought to the table a raw intensity and a level of humanity that we have never seen before, making him the closest we've ever come to Ian Fleming's vision of the character. Sure, he may not be a pretty boy, but he has a roguish, man's man sexuality that tells me he can get any girl he wants. Fleming described Bond as having a cruelly handsome face and piercing eyes, Craig matches that to a "T." I mean, come on, he's like the English Steve McQueen. Roger Moore, now there was a guy who didn't look the part, with his pudgy, pug-like face. Craig also made Bond more in depth and dimensional (and human) than any actor before him. He owns the role! Second, Eva Green. Never before has there been more chemistry and affection between a Bond and his girl. I think Miss Green has a unique, ethereal beauty, and she played her part with just the right amount of heart and intelligence. Her face is far from "blank" as described in Mr. Mavis's review. She did win a BAFTA for her performance (voted by the public), that's a first for a Bond girl. Craig was nominated for a BAFTA for his, that's a first for a Bond actor. Third, the movie itself. Casino Royale is energized and visceral, with arresting action scenes that make the previous Bond films look anemic by comparison. The story is also smart and engaging, which is a departure from Brosnan's recent mediocre outings. Suffice to say, I think this is a huge step in the right direction for the Bond franchise. I loved it, all my friends loved it, and the wide reception to it has been mostly positive. This is the first Bond film I've really liked in years. I believe this will be the one to beat, and I am so buying it on March 13.

karlie

Indeed I also completely disagree with the review, it probably shows that I am not a Bond fan but a movie fan.

I always found the Bond movies to be a waste of money: silly story, silly lines (except for one or two in each), some nice chases and stunts in the later ones, but overall I thought that all the production money should have gotten me a better movies (as opposed to a Bond Movie, which sometimes can be compared to Mel Brooks movies).

Anyway the only things I did not like in this movie were:
- indeed M saying "you're a mysogynist dinosaur" felt compleely out of place
- the too long love sequence / happy ending to try to set us up for the plot "twist".
- the really really horrible bond song and opening credits

I guess Bond films fans have special tastes.

JIF

I agree with you 100%.

Ok, when I saw the television promos praising CASINO ROYALE as "the best Bond ever!” I laughed saying that's ridiculous. Sony's marketing department is desperate to get us in the theatres.

Well, while seeing the movie, I was totally thrilled by the action scenes, riveted by the poker scenes and instantly won over by Craig. His interactions with Judy Dench were priceless. This wasn't a paint by numbers Bond movie (which, let's face it, were since LICENSE TO KILL).

I couldn't stop talking about how much I liked CASINO ROYALE to friends, and I was actually excited about seeing it again a week later. I've never done that with a Bond movie. Ever.

After the first screening, I couldn't wait to buy the dvd. I never felt that way about a Bond movie. Ever (hell, I've even entertained the idea of buying a PS3 to enjoy the movie in HD).

So, I was forced to reconsider that critic's review: the best Bond ever? Well, yeah, it is...at least for me.

captainjoe

When I saw the rating of only 2.5 I wondered what the rating for Die Another Day would have been. Thinking with that logic it would probably be a big fat zero. Everything I read in that review I completely disagreed with. But your opinion is justified and not everyone can like every movie.

Joe Molotov

Die Another Day was marketed as the "Best Bond Ever" too, so don't give them too much credit.

Anyway, I'm not one to complain about reviews I don't agree with but that review is pretty harsh.

RichC2

I also disagree with the review.

Anubis2005X

Not to jump on the bandwagon, but I was very surprised to see the review that this DVD got. I'm a big fan of Bond, and I walked out of the theater thinking this is the best one to date, hands down...

Groucho

But isn't that line from GoldenEye?

thelwig14

I usually find myself in substantial agreement with almost every review on dvdtalk, but I just think this is probably the worse review on the site.

Especially since I have gone back and watched the Ultimate Editions through Moonraker and to give Casino Royale that low of a score, is just unfair.

Supermallet

Yes, it is.

captainjoe

Why was that used in the review? It doesn't make sense.

bluesilo

I also disagree with the review

IMHO top 5 best bond movies ever worthy. I'd love to see someone else get a chance to write a review to give a second opinion but that probably won't happen. I guess it just didn't feel right. anyways. I'd give a 4.5/5 and recommend it to everyone as a must buy dvd.

slothroplt

Mavis is pining away for the days of CRAP. How can I take this guy seriously?

JIF

I've finally read Paul Mavis' review of CASINO ROYALE and after a barrage of negativity it baffles me that he ends his review with "I'm recommending Casino Royale."

Maybe he says that because he knows Bond fans are going to see it anyway; but he himself says "I've watched it three times now, and I'll probably catch it again". Why? You've reviewed (or maligned) the film already. Why put yourself through that torture again. What film that grades a 2 1/2 for Replay factor deserves to be seen a 4th time for no good reason?

And I totally disagree with his miscasting of Dench statement. Her casting symbolizes that times have changed and women are accepted in positions of power. And anyone who doesn't agree with that (including Bond) is a "misogynist dinosaur" (see GoldenEye for context).

Her portrayal of M was not weak. I felt that she took the extra time with Bond (even meeting him in the field) because she felt he had potential. After he killed the bomber irresponsibly at the Nambutu Embassy, maybe she felt she had to hold his hand a little to ensure that he didn't completely unravel. She needed him to get the job done. More importantly, she needed him to be the agent deserving of his double 0 status.

Despite Bond's antics with M (breaking into her apartment and passwords), he obviously respects her greatly. That's evident when we see her quickly convince him that maybe Vesper Lynd isn't the "bitch" that he thought she was.

Mavis' review essentially says that Bond films should not be intended for sophisticated viewers who appreciate dialogue and character development. Instead, Bond films should be light action fare to satisfy adrenaline junkies. My response to that is, if that's what action fans really wanted, Joel Schumacher would still be directing Batman films.

Like Batman Begins, the producers of Bond have finally taken the subject matter seriously and just in time. After ridiculous stunts like a CGI Bond gliding over intense waves in DIE ANOTHER DAY, Bond was losing his credibility.

I think for the first time, in a long time, Bond fans are anxiously waiting for the next Bond film.

One thing that I totally concur with Mavis is the theme song. At first I didn't like "You Know My Name", but with replay, it does grow on you. You'll especially appreciate the song more after reading Chris Cornell's cool lyrics (http://www.metrolyrics.com/you-know-...-cornell.html).

And if anyone cares, my replay rating of CASINO ROYALE is 5/5.

P.S. I told you that I couldn’t stop talking about this film.

project86

LOL he gave Walking Tall 2, a direct to video movie starring hercules, a better rating than casino royale.

Jim

Count me in as another that thinks Casino Royale may be the impetus to getting a Blu-Ray player. I really enjoyed the film and thought that some of the dialog between Bond and Vesper was the most intelligent of the entire series. I usually enjoy Mavis' reviews, but I think he is in the minority on this one.

bjh_18

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of any give film, but I'm with everyone else here when I say I completely disagree with the review. It's not very often that you find a professional review that is so far off from almost every other professional review in existence. There have a been a few times that I've read a review on dvdtalk and wondered what the reviewer was thinking, but this is the first time that I've been completely baffled. Oh well, to each their own I suppose.

B5Erik

I'm not toally sold on Daniel Craig as Bond, and I don't think Casino Royale is quite as good as most opinions hold it to be - but I do think it is very good and deserves at 4 star rating.

I don't get this review, either. Very odd.

Of course, my favorite Bond was/is Timothy Dalton, and my favorite Bond movie is Licence To Kill, so a serious, darker Bond movie worked for me.

the big train

I was astonished to almost completely agree with everything in Paul's review. I mean, I didn't think there was someone out there who shared my views on the direction of the series and Casino Royale itself.

I love the Jason Bourne movies as much as anyone, but they're not something that will stay with me for very long. Part of the greatness of the Bond series is its decadence. I think when the bigwigs at Eon feel the need to start apologizing for this, someone else needs to be put in place.

Casino Royale confounds me so much that I still can't place it among the other entries. I know it's not as good as my top five (From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secrest Service, Goldeneye and The Living Daylights), but it may be in my top ten. This is all despite the fact that it probably adheres more to the book than any of the previous adaptations.

It's good to know that someone finally feels the same way as I do about Judi Dench's M. She's waaaaaay too involved.

Josh Z

Why do people keep saying this? Has no one actually read the book? There were no chase scenes, shoot outs, car crashes, or imploding buildings in the book. Bond in the book was collected and debonaire, far removed from Craig's rough & tumble bruiser, and he most certainly would never play Texas Hold 'Em.

I liked the movie, but it's no more faithful to Ian Fleming than any other adaptation has been, which is to say not at all.

the big train

I've read it twice, thank you.

Obviously, they added on to the story so they could have those huge action set pieces. I could have done without the building implosion. I think the original conclusion of the Vesper story was more poignant. However, the last chapters of the book are way too understated for cinematic Bond.

I suppose one could argue For Your Eyes Only was faithful to the book except that it was a mismash of about three of the short stories and used a scene from Live and Let Die.

I'd say On Her Majesty's Secret Service was the most faithful, but the first four were also faithful to certain degrees.

Supermallet

It's also a much better plotted, paced, and characterized piece of work than the book. Ian Fleming wrote some exciting spy novels, but Casino Royale is easily the weakest of all the Bond books, and a wholly uninteresting entry into the spy genre in general.

DeepBlue

cdollaz

Damn, this reviewer is getting slammed.

Shannon Nutt

While I don't agree with everything in Mr. Mavis' review, I do think CASINO ROYALE is vastly overrated...kind of the same way [please don't ban me!] RETURN OF THE KING is.

I think it's a 3-star movie. Good, but far from great. I was disappointed the first time I saw it, but it has grown on me a bit...but not much.