Folks, I have no doubt what the reaction of the sleazy men and women who participate in straight porn would have been after seeing Shortbus. Every time a male-male interaction would come on, they'd go something like "ewww". These straight porn hypocrites think it's only OK for men to hang out with women and for women to hang out with women. Men hanging out with men is a big no-no to them. They are the ultimate hypocrites. - Heterophobic troll on IMDB desperately trying to cause a debate over film "Shortbus"
Ladies and gentlemen, I ask that you ignore the completely unrelated quote immediately above what I'm writing now. I have just felt since my discovery of it that the IMDb messageboards are the ultimate goldmine for retarded quotes when one is in the mood and right now I am certaintly in the mood.
BUT I am here for an altogether different reason: reviewing Casino Royale. I figure that now it has taken 600 million, is no longer showing and people are moving on to watch Denzel Washington in a film that has a plot he was unable to explain in a TV interview, it's the best possible time to complain about Daniel Craig.
CR is, simply a re-launch. RTD style. And it, sadly, gets the most predictable reactions. Really, imagine every piece of sickening fawn that media lapdogs could spout and they have. Daniel craig is THE BEST BOND SINCE CONNERY! Eva Green is THE HOTTEST BOND BABE EVER! And, most ludicrously, CASINO ROYALE IS THE MOST FAITHFUL ADAPTATION TO A JAMES BOND NOVEL EVER!
I disagree. If you will allow me to state my case-
HAY GUYZ look at me! NIRPICKNITPICKNITPICK! In the novel, Bond wears a red tie to the meeting with M! In this one, he's wearing a watch! AND HE'S BLO OOO OOO OOO OOO OOO OOO OOO OOO ND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT'S NOT FAITHFUL TO THE BOOK!!!!! - standard IMDb debating skills in action
What? No, the meeting with M doesn't appear in the book. And he was wearing a watch AND a tie in the film. Please don't interrupt me like that again, IMDbPerson.
So, where was I? Ah, yes. The film adds fifty minutes of stuff to the front and more (WAY too much) onto the end. As well as a love story. We get to see Bond in his new-age white fashions driving around Venice in a barge with his lovely girl in the most sickeningly senstive way you'll immediately realise the high pressure on your bladder walls after sitting through 2 hours of this crap. And there's still heaps to go.
But going back to the start - a faithful adaptation of a Bond novel isn't possible without making it a period piece. Fleming's Bond novels are gritty, paranoia fuelled thrillers mingled with a touch of boy's own sentimentality - they're so `50s you could mistake them for John Howard's family. But also, CR is a small-scale story as Bond books go anyway - just about entirely st in the titular casino dealing with the interactions of a small, intriguing cast of characters. But unless your French you're not going to make a movie like that. So we need 50 minutes of mindless action to bring us into the casino in the first place. This is where the next ecstatic point comes in:
CASINO ROYALE IS LEIK, OMG, SO FCUKINg R3AL1S+IC!!!!1!
Some AOL talk used there to insinuate people who say so are complete morons. Because CR is, really, just another Bond film. The only reason people are jumping around crazily saying it's realistic is down to a couple of simple things:
*Bond punches up people
*There's blood splatter
*ZOMG terrorists that's so insightful and shit!
*The last Bond films were shitty Pierce Brosnan ones with CGI effects
And also some of it may be due to the idiocy of others.
At the part where he is poisoned, i wonder if he injects all these things for real or not? - an idiot
LeChiffre's character is a banker for terrorists. I'm not sure how concerned terrorist leaders are about interest rates in real life, but these guys definitely are - they give him a biiiig suitcase of money and are assured that they can access the money from anywhere in the world. Your guess is as good as mine how that works.
Interestingly, LeChiffre is also a high-profile stock magnate, who makes his money by putting terrorist's money into the stock market and making windfalls on corporations that undergo unexpected disasters - caused by different terrorists that he hires. Interestingly his stockbroker doesn't seem to be surprised that LeChiffre just happens to buy-back shares just after freak terrorist bombings... could it be because this guy is his stockbroker?
At any rate LeChiffre loses his money when Bond has sex with one of the Veronicas who lets slip that her husband is a terrorist and Bond kills him and some anonymous terrorist redshirt in a pyromaniacs wet dream at LAX. (About forty minutes in) So he's forced to go to a Montenagro casino to try and win a heap of money off stupid foreigners. Because his incredibly abilities of mathematics give him the power to guess what cards you'll get at poker. Amazingly, people seem to swallow the idea that knowledge of probability gives you the godlike power to guess what cards people are holding.
Does any of this sound like something that would happen in real life?
And going back further, right back to the start of the film... well, not the real start, which is Bond psychotically beating up a Pakistani bloke in the men's room before shooting one of his superiors to get his cool three-digit codename. No, the bit after that where Bond has the longest chase scene ever - I laughed several times at it and enjoyed it, but the suspension of disbelief was swept away by janitors at the end. Any scene where Bond steals a bulldozer and smashes up a construction site is funny, and it only gets more ludicrous when the poor bloke he's chasing decides the most logical way to run is up a gigantic crane. Eventually they end up in the middle of an embassy, where James starts shooting everyone. Yeah, this would really be an act of war but that's glossed over. Bond gets a slap on the wrist from Judi Dench but because he only killed someone to do with terrorists nobody ... wait, maybe that part's not that unrealistic.
For me, I still have some trouble with Bond. Daniel Craig really doesn't seem quite right to me. Put bluntly, he's not very good-looking. He reminds me of Marv in Sin City. He seems generally too thuggish for the role and I-
Again, all I see is men bitching about Craig's looks, which really supports my theory that a lot of the Craig haters are just closet homos that don't got metrosexual Brosnan around to jerk off too.
- "Grantzilla", possibly not their real name
Well, that seems a well-reasoned argument. Of course, plenty of woman can be found who are impressed on the good ol' IMDb. How about some testimonials:
Sexy sexy sexy!!!!!!
I simply must have him. ;)
I must see a picture of him topless and dripping wet! With his trousers just slipping ever so slightly below his waistline...
Oh, wait, sorry. They aren't talking about Daniel Craig! They're talking about this guy.
Anyway, moving on... the thing that got me about this film most, after being reluctantly taken along after a 'hope the coin explodes and kills me' choice between it and Blood Diamond, was just how Bond it all was. It's just the same old stuff with less hovercraft. One of the most obvious recurring features:
People with disfigurements are evil.
Yep, that one's back with a vengeance. Carrying on from the guy with a robot hand (Live and Let Die) the bloke with an eyepatch (Thunderball) scarred-eye man (You Only Live Twice) gigantic bloke with freaky teeth (Spy Who Loved Me/Moonraker) French midget and bloke with three nipples (The Man With the Golden Gun) and many others we have LeChiffre's completely unnecessary bleeding eye. And the African bomb-maker who has a burnt face. And the African embassy bloke with the messed up eye. And the young terrorist with unusually large hands. It just helps re-inforce the grand old Boy's Own feel of it all - well-kempt, well dressed hero is cheered on as he thumps poor cripples. Rule Brittannia!
Is that itself what's wrong with this film? No. It's not a problem. This is Bond not Reality, so I don't expect the sort of credible baddies you get in thought-out films such as The Bourne Identity. No, the big problem is simply the pretension. The problem is that everything the media-whores believe about this film, the people who made it believe as well.
This is why the film is an unbelievable 150 minutes long, when it could have easily been 90. This is why they try to create a Sensative New Age Guy image of Bond whilst still keeping some of his sexism. This is why African terrorists are (kind of) the bad guys. This is why the film ends in a shitty lead in to a sequel.
So, what's my final verdict? How many stars?
I give this film... no stars. Because I'm not that serious a reviewer. Is it worth watching? Ah, what does it matter, you've already gone to see it and are going to buy the DVD you consumer-mad bastards. Where were you when Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy desperately needed box-office figures to make a sequel? Don't answer that, I know where you were. Either watching Revenge of the Sith or masturbating to Paris Hilton. You Lowest Common Denominator pricks can get the hell out of my blog and go listen to the Scissor Sisters...
APOLOGIES. IT APPEARS THAT THE AUTHOR OF THIS BLOG HAS UNDERGONE COMPLETE MENTAL MELTDOWN AS A RESULT OF HIS HATRED OF THE WORLD IN GENERAL. NORMAL SERVICE WILL BE RESUMED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE - APPROX. 25 YEARS TIME.
THE ONE TRUE ADMINISTRATOR
(I can assure you, it's nothing sinister...)
EDIT: Just wanted to say that stuff has gone wrong with font sizes in this post. Sorry, but this site is really starting to shit me off with how it conspires to screw up asbolutely everyone one of my entries. Hoepfully it's readable, though - as it isn't readable for me editing it right now. I had to manually change the font to white because the site thought black-on-black was a good look. So now I'm typing in white-on-white. Hahaha I feel like shooting someone.