canada goose outlet canada goose schweiz http://www.osoja.ch canada goose outlet http://www.familienboerse.ch canada goose schweiz http://www.wellnessfun.ch canada goose schweiz canada goose outlet canada goose sale canada goose outlet http://www.bloemenscheepstra.nl canada goose jassen

Irritated.org | About Casino Royal...

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

About Casino Royal...

I saw the movie and wanted to digest it for a few weeks before I jumped in with my thoughts. The movie "itself" was pretty good.  A fair amount of action (could have used more) and Daniel Craig was a pretty good action figure.  The movie ran too long for its content and the "extended" romance scenes at the end of the movie could have been dramatically reduced (WAY too long).  All in all it gets about a B on the Irritated Scale.

Craig Bond 007

Now for the bad... 

(DISCLAIMER:  I am not a "fan boy" when it comes to my movies. I enjoy re-inventing, re-invisioning, re-booting, and any other phrase which is normally attached to remake/sequels that change fundamental events or characters from the earlier versions. One such example of this is the New Battlestar Galactica series which i think is just fantastic.)

The movie is NOT a James Bond movie.  The movie is NOTHING AT ALL like the book.  The only similarities between this movie and any other James Bond film or book is the names of the characters. From the perspective of the book, the plot, character traits, setting, and well everything accept character names has been changed.  This movie is not a James Bond movie.

I would have been happy with this movie if they just made character name changes and called it something else, even if they kept the James Bond spin and had named the movie ANYTHING else I would have been modestly happy.  IMHO it was a huge mistake to call this movie Casino Royal when it had nothing to do with the book. 

Comments

Name
URL
Email
Email address is not published
Remember Me
Comments

CAPTCHA
Write the characters in the image above