You can pick up hundreds of DVD's for a round-pound each - it doesn't matter. Its never about quantity, its about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and understanding why I own the films ... or you can tell me why I should sell 'em
#37 - Casino Royale
Why did I buy it?
This is where this whole A-Z thing can get a bit problematic. I am a self-confessed huge 007 fan. When we reach boxsets, I can discuss in more depth where this love came from, but suffice to say, I bought Casino Royale day-of-release having watched it at the cinema in Reading.
This is where this whole A-Z thing can get a bit problematic. I am a self-confessed huge 007 fan. When we reach boxsets, I can discuss in more depth where this love came from, but suffice to say, I bought Casino Royale day-of-release having watched it at the cinema in Reading.
Why do I still own it?
Funnily enough, it is actually a film that, in due course, will be sold - but only to be upgraded by that sweet Blu-Ray version. Fact is, currently this on DVD, on the shelf. It really is an incredible film and the free-running start set the bar incredibly high frm the get-go. Ironically, once everyone jumped on the Daniel Craig bandwagon, they all seemed to turn on Brosnan who, for what its worth, was the James Bond of the ninties - in the mould of action films such as Die Hard and Speed. Daniel Craig is gritty and built in the mould of The Bourne Supremacy - which is not a bad thing.
A flawless film that deserves its place in everyone's collection. Unlike the follow-up Quantum of Solace ...
Maybe you disagree ... maybe I should get rid of it permanaently?
Funnily enough, it is actually a film that, in due course, will be sold - but only to be upgraded by that sweet Blu-Ray version. Fact is, currently this on DVD, on the shelf. It really is an incredible film and the free-running start set the bar incredibly high frm the get-go. Ironically, once everyone jumped on the Daniel Craig bandwagon, they all seemed to turn on Brosnan who, for what its worth, was the James Bond of the ninties - in the mould of action films such as Die Hard and Speed. Daniel Craig is gritty and built in the mould of The Bourne Supremacy - which is not a bad thing.
A flawless film that deserves its place in everyone's collection. Unlike the follow-up Quantum of Solace ...
Maybe you disagree ... maybe I should get rid of it permanaently?
Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com
"A flawless film?" Is that a joke? Cause you've got me laughing.
ReplyDeleteLook, I'm sure this was better than the last three before it (I don't blame Brosnan, but all of them after GoldenEye seemed like shit to me), but I was never gaga for this film like so many others (including yourself). It had about eight endings - and shit, weren't you just complaining about Casino being long? A sharp opening did not make up for the many flaws in Royale.
I never even saw Solace, though I'll remedy that soon enough, just to see how bad it is...
CASINO ROYALE is right up there as one of my favourite 007 films. The definition of what is/isn't a good 007 has been set over the last nearly-fifty years! Brosnan was alright in TOMORROW NEVER DIES and the opening to THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is, as far as opening sequences go for Bond films, i'll say it again, flawless (speedboat, on the Thames, yes please.) The problem may lay in the not-really-a-bond-film-because-it-is-set-before-he-becomes-bond thing. The most tantalising point is when he utters the immortal line "bond, james bond" in the final reel. Shame QUANTUM OF SOLACE was so bad. I have seen CASINO ROYALE multiple times and it gets better the more watches you pack in - I think the first watch is always a little strange because it plays with alot of bond codes-and-conventions, but once you know the style and what Campbell is trying to do, your away.
ReplyDelete