Casino Royale is not one "movie Bond"

Rating: 6/10 (15 December 2006)

Is a fraud consider to Casino Royale one movie Bond. When one leaves the room of cinema realizes that the elements that keep relation with 007 are that it appears M, that the main personage is called James Bond and who the car that takes is a Aston Martin. also, the personage has undergone a presumed update that what it has done is to denature it, leaving it devoid of the elements that made one single one and matchless: glamor, sophistication, and elegance. In this bond abortion, the personage interpreted by Daniel Craig lacks all those qualities, and, is but, it deceives of certain classics characteristics mark of the house, like the Martini with mixed Vodka not shaken that usually requests Bond to drink. But they are not mistaken, do not throw the fault to him to Daniel Craig; note in each one of the planes that the best thing if same has given in this movie, and is clear the exigency that has supposed the paper to him. And frankly, it does not dislike much to me like James Bond; I recognize that it is not Pierce Brosnan (the 007 along with the magic Are Connery that but has convinced to me), but has an interesting point. But, like to say, she is not the culprit. The culprit of this resignation to the roots (or but well the guilty) is trio of scriptwriters that has ruined the continuity of the saga, who lasted 40 years in single movie: to include a.m. like Judi Dench (when in Goldeneye express mention to that this becomes to replace to the previous M, interpreted by Bernard Lee) is an attack to the work of hundreds of professionals throughout 20 films. In the same way it supposes it to reinvent the reason by which Bond obtains the Aston Martin DB5, that, we remember, in Goldfinger, Q, the one in charge to provide with gadgets to Bond, it provided the agent. Neither the change of protagonists nor of times habia caused that that continuity was undermined. And without but, with a stroke of the pen, Neal Purvis and others destroy a tax exemption that survived almost half century. Exactly it is the context in that they surround to Bond and the character that they attribute to him (coarse, of hard type, really, of nice boy of beach mixed with bloodthirsty assassin) what ends an unpolluted image in all its existence. The resignation to the traditions of Bond is manifest when, or in the introduction, the famous the 007 are obviate white circulates of Logo, and they are refuted when we see contemptuous mentions it express to the smoking or at the Martini it arrives mentioned. The absence of emblematic personages as Q or Moneypenny also shines by their absence, although certainly to this does not complete either lies down to him in too much lack. Therefore, we concluded that the movie is shipwrecked with regard to which to be able to call bond style, not only because the tape modernizes in some aspects to Bond (as those of Brosnan hacian) if that does resigning of way it does not specify that they cause that Bond is Bond and is not a Steven Segal with years less. To the case those go that say that a personage of nobody I generate must renew or die, with which I agree, but without letting be what it is. The James Bond who leaves of this movie is not 007, is a gross assassin and with an incommensurable ego that, chances of the destiny, is called equal. Asi, lacking movie of its classics elements and therefore of the incentive that compensated to the previous deliveries its ridiculous arguments, we must describe Royale Casino avoiding that is a movie of James Bond by means of merely concrete criteria to the case.