Having said that, it's decent in it's own strange way. At least that's what I thought, don't know about Reuben, an old friend whom I caught it with.
Not bad in terms of action, and it did have a nice twisty plot, though Craig would have fit better as the Bond villain rather than as Bond himself. And there was no Q! Awful! And the time-line was all screwed up: Bond began as 007 back in the 1950's-1960's Cold War. Not in some post-Cold-War, no, post 9/11, time frame, like what the movie portrayed. They placed the beginning right at the very end! How weird is that!
In addition I found it disappointing that there were no ignominious deaths for the baddies (relatively speaking). A gun-launched nail through a false eye and into the brain might be gross, but it's not gross enough for 007's nefarious arch-enemy. Nothing makes a Bond film a Bond film quite like seeing the evil mastermind drowning in radioactive water or getting frozen by liquid nitrogen or being sucked into a giant chainsaw.
While on a morbid note, the torture scene was a cringe-inducing moment reminiscent of Hard Candy. One can only wonder how 007 ever became the womanizer he is today given all that punishment inflicted on his testicles. Gives the term "Balls of Steel" a whole new meaning, doesn't it.
Or maybe that's how he got the codename "Double-O" (Double-Zero). The people at MI6 all thought he only had a pair of "zeroes" left after the torture, and he proved them all wrong in the subsequent films! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Sorry.
Right, enough of the plot spoilers and the examination of the grosser aspects of the movie. Suffice to say that it was a bit more strange than the conventional Bond movie, and yet less crazy; it was more plausible (save the afore mentioned part) and it tied everything together quite nicely- especially his penchants for Aston Martins, Vodka Martinis shaken not stirred, and all the rest. Not stupendously great stuff, yet not bad at all either.
But this movie was significant, and not just because it was the first movie I watched with my pink IC in a long time.
It represented a kind of Genesis Project (imperfect as it is) for an entire generation of secret agent flicks captured in that unique, recognizable style.
I had grown up with the Bond genre since my early years and I can't really forget all that ownage gadgetry and cool British wit with big Hollywood explosions and chase sequences all over the place. The women were a mere side-show, despite what many (mostly male) fans might think. The flesh flashes were just for the more Neanderthalic fan-base.
Speaking of the Neanderthalic fan-base, I have to admit that I enjoyed the Austin Powers spin-offs too, but they were a bit imbalanced. They seemed more calculated towards purely disrespectful iconoclasticism then true satire and parody. They would've been better had they involved more wit and less ribald humour. But they were still quite funny, though they were imperfect as a parody in the real sense of the term.
Bond was to pulp fiction spydom what Star Trek and Star Wars (the original trilogy) were to pulp science fiction. He defined the crazy-assed world of crazy-assed Cold War espionage. I'm grateful to him for introducing the prospects of jet-packs and missile-armed cars and wrist-watch lasers and underwater spear-gun fights to my impressionable 8-year-old mind. Did a great deal for my imagination, much more than Barney and his dinosaur friends could ever hope to achieve (not that I hate Barney anymore, he's ok, the real freaky ones are Teletubbies). Good stuff, if cheesy at times (Bond, not Barney).
To end off, here's something for the conspiracy theorists:
Why are They screening Casino Royale just after They decided to build the "Integrated Resorts"? Is there something more subliminal than spy-games going on here?
