Casino Royale (2006) -vs- Goldeneye (1995)
Review by Bryce Zabel
The Smackdown. Two re-boots to the enduring James Bond franchise, both introducing a new actor as the title character. Every time a new actor steps into the role, it's a chance to re-define -- but some changes are gutsier than others.
"License to kill? Whatever..."
The Challenger. CASINO ROYALE takes the Bond character back to his roots as a leaner, meaner killer -- and lets us get to know him as a guy who's not above brawling, and shooting people in cold blood. But the character is the beginning here; this latest incarnation is less about high-tech gimmicks and more about intrigue and suspense.
"A license to kill is an incredible aphrodesiac."
The Defending Champion. GOLDENEYE held no surprises, preferring to simply sub in Pierce Brosnan for Roger Moore and continue the Bond franchise with huge stunt openers, plans for world domination and babes with names like Xenia Onatopp. This film actually was self-aware, I thought, in that it was obvious everybody knew that Bond was in its 18th film and audiences could figure out what was coming next just by instinctive memory.
The Scorecard. I guess there are people out there who liked the familiarity of the Brosnan series of Bond movies where the stunts get bigger and bigger and reality is out the window. I got tired of this during Roger Moore's reign and, even though Brosnan is an appealing actor, I couldn't bring myself to even watch the last couple Bond films. I felt like I'd seen them a dozen times already. I was ready to embrace a grittier secret agent, like Tom Cruise in the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films. But I never loved Ethan Hunt like I loved James Bond.
The Decision. Now I can have it all. CASINO ROYALE feels fresh and original by going back to basics. I don't want Bond to be a goof; I want Bond to be a guy who gets the job done, whatever it takes. For me, there's no going back. This is a Bond we can get behind for a while.
Recent Comments