Casino Royale

Casino Royale, the newest Bond film, opens tonight. I haven't seen it yet. I want to, but I haven't, so this won't be a review.

I did however read some reviews on MSN (available here) The critic review is pretty pathetic, but the part I thought was the best was the readers reviews. A few people had accually seen it, but many had not! How d you review a movie you haven't even seen? Even MSN Managment posted a "Review" saying if you hadn't seen the movie, don't post a review.

There was some stuff in the reviews that I wanted to coment on. Here's what one person said:

Q Why replace a guy who is doing well ? As the saying goes, dont fix it if it is not broke. Daniel Craigs looks alone, make him an after thought.

A. the producers thought it was time to move on and bring in a new Bond. Sad very Sad.

Yes my non exsistant readers, that is the whole review. Informative, isn't it? It's also inaccurate. The reason why Peirce Brosnan is no longer James Bond has nothing to do with producers. Brosnan didn't want to play the part anymore. It was his choice, not the producers.

Personally I think this is a great time to do Casino Royale. We finaly get to find out how Bond gained his Double-0 status. Some people complained about his personality (more on that in a minute) but maybe he didn't become the Bond we all know and love until after he became 007. Same with the hair. Some fans didn't like the fact that he has blond hair, but maye Bond had blond hair until he dayed it for a mission and decided to keep the darker hair color (that is just speculation, but it works.)

I think my favorite review is this one:

I read everyones review can tell none of you actually saw the movie.
The movie isnt bad if your not a Bond fan and just want to go see an action movie.
But if your a Bond fan youll hate it, Daniel Craig is no James Bond.
There trying to go a new route with Bond and it just doesnt work.
Bond is suppose to be cool not any average joe!!!!!

Like I said, maybe he isn't the same Bond we know and love, but this is supposed to be his first mission as 007. Time and events can change people. Maybe the events of this mission and any missions before Dr. NO (the next film is supposed to be a direct sequel to this one,) caused him to become the Bond we are used to.

I think my favorite line in that review is the one about Bond being an "average joe." Obviously this guy doesn't know his Bond history. Ian Flemming chose the name James Bond because it sounded "plain." It sounded like a name for an average joe.

ALl I know is I can't wait to see it. I don't rely on critics to tell me if a movie is good or not. I watch it and make my own decisions about whether or not I like it. I do rely on reviews for somethings (if a movie gets a good review I might see it, even if I didn't want to see it originaly) but in the end the viewer must make their own call about whether or not a movie (or T.V. show) is good. Anyone who relies completely on what critics and other people say are going to miss out on a lot of good movies and shows.