Don’t bet against this house

Posted by Danger Boy on November 19, 2006

Casino Royale is the best James Bond picture since “Goldfinger.” There have been many Bond films that were highly entertaining and compelling entries into the franchise. Diamonds are Forever, Live and Let Die, For Your Eyes Only, The Spy Who Loved Me, Licensed to Kill, and Goldeneye were a few of my favorites. But for sheer thrills and character-driven drama, Casino Royale is it.

For the longest time I have damned the producers of the Bond pictures, Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, for always sticking to the formula, for not taking risks, for always dismissing the declining box-office on the merits or demerits of the man playing Bond. But the onus always rested on the producers, not the actors. For the record, I really liked Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan in the role. They each brought something to the character that I responded to. Dalton brought a sobriety to the role, something akin to a Shakespearean-trained actor. Brosnan brought movie-star charisma and charm to the role. But neither one of them were really given the chance to expand on the character, aside from a few tantalizing false starts. Dalton could’ve explored Bond’s sadism a bit more in “License to Kill,” while Brosnan had a chance to delve into Bond’s dark side after spending fourteen months in a North Korean prison in “Die Another Day.”

Finally, the producers recognized the writing on the walls (or perhaps they saw why “The Bourne Identity” and “The Bourne Supremacy” worked so well) and have produced a Bond picture that stays true to the character, but makes him multi-dimensional. It is exciting, bloody, surprising, and funny. Exceptional stunt-work has made a triumphant return, while CGI has been limited (thankfully).

Finally, I saw a Bond picture that made me give a damn about James.

See the reviews for the film’s merits. Or better yet, see the film yourself. It is outstanding.

15 Comments |

submit

15 Responses Don’t bet against this house

Posted By Rob : November 19, 2006 3:41 pm

I agree! It was very well done; as exciting as anyone could wish. Only the choice of song and the title sequence were a bit disappointing (although almost anything would be better than Madonna's horrible Bond song).

Posted By KLF : November 20, 2006 7:37 am

Ok, I hate to admit this, but I've never watched a Bond movie all the way through and I feel like I'm missing out on something. Do you think I should begin at the beginning or are there a select few that I should watch? What's the Ultimate Bond Movie list for Beginners?

Posted By Charlie : November 20, 2006 2:22 pm

KLF – I had this exact discussion with friends yesterday. One of us was arguing to stay away from all Roger Moore Bonds if you're a beginner. I don't necessarily agree with that, but overall your best bet (I think) is either "From Russia With Love" or "Goldfinger." But my personal favorite is "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" – I just think you're better off waiting to see that one after you've seen a couple of the others.

Posted By Eric Stafford : November 20, 2006 9:37 pm

Go See IT! I was so happy to see a great bond film again! I first saw Goldfinger edited on Broadcast TV as a kid then saw Spy Who Loved Me as the first in the theater and I've enjoyed something about about each bond I've seen so just dive in!

Posted By EditorialEmergency : November 29, 2006 11:07 pm

I'm looking forward to the Daniel Craig version, but I must say it's fascinating to me that not one review or feature I've seen has mentioned the 1967 original, which has to stand as one of the most mind-boggling fiascos of the decade. Featuring a staggering array of talent — David Niven, Peter O'Toole, Peter Sellers, Orson Welles, John Huston (co-star and co-director), Woody Allen, Deborah Kerr and plenty more — and songs by Burt Bacharach (as performed by Herb Alpert/TJ Brass and Dusty Springfield), it's a nearly unwatchable mess. Yet I keep returning to it. Why? Is it the hot chicks in tartan gear? Perhaps.

Posted By Mike : November 29, 2006 11:20 pm

Nice site! [url=http://hydhcgol.com/kxpx/tvyk.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://docoehqu.com/alzx/ennd.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted By Ryan : November 29, 2006 11:21 pm

Great work! My homepage | Please visit

Posted By Quentin : December 2, 2006 4:35 am

Posted By Gabriel : December 5, 2006 2:39 am

Posted By Cory : December 5, 2006 2:40 am

Posted By Cindy : December 5, 2006 2:40 am

Posted By Jean : December 5, 2006 2:40 am

Posted By William : December 5, 2006 2:41 am

Posted By Tester : December 13, 2006 2:34 pm

Hello…this is Superb….

Posted By Ken Loar : December 28, 2006 2:24 pm

I have a theory that they are reinventing Bond, from the ground up. Which is the reason that they decided to start with "Casino Royale". We are seeing Mr. Bond from his humblest beginnings, as if he was just handed his license to kill and I believe that we are in for some great Bond movies again. I really went into this one expecting very little. Daniel Craig had not made a huge impression on me before this time. However, now I must say I AM IMPRESSED. As one of those that uses Sean Connery as the measuring stick, I place Mr. Craig right there next to Pierce Brosnan as the second greatest Bond yet. While I to this date still have not seen all of the Brosnan films, he retained his place just because I was always able to picture him there while I was reading the novels. Until now, I think the first "Casino Royale" has been excluded from the Bond canon due to it's whimsical storyline, but the new one certainly has it's place there with the rest of them now. Hope that we see a few more with Mr. Craig before he outgrows the role.

MovieMorlocks.com is the official blog for TCM. No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.