omarbey
Joined Dec 1999
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews3
omarbey's rating
I rented this film a few weeks ago but then I (and the family) liked it so much I bought it over the internet, as it is a film to keep and which can be seen every now and then, by young and adults alike. Why? So many reasons. The tigers are, of course, a treat to watch (what beautiful eyes !); the plot is cleverly woven, heading to the climax, and still keeping our attention till the closing scenes. There are many dramatic moments, and some of them are really moving. The characters are all given depth, whether it is the local dignitary ("his excellency") or the French commander, or the circus people, even though the character played by Guy Pearce is quite enigmatic, being a professional hunter and emotional and good-hearted at the same time. The cinematography is extremely well crafted; the film does not have a hectic pace which is a relief considering how films are edited these days, and practically all the actors, including the child, deliver fine performances. The film can also be interpreted in ecological terms, giving a further dimension to this high quality entertainment. Five stars !
Well, I beg to differ, Casino Royale is a good action movie but is it a good Bond movie? I mean imagine if it was just an action film without the "Bond" tag, you would have accepted it as your usual summer action flick. But where is Bond, THE James Bond ? The opening scene is inverted, meaning the action sequence (the chase, well made) comes after the opening credits, not before, and as a Bond fan I would have hoped for a dazzling opening especially that this Bond is new. Daniel Craig keeps the same straight face all through the film, maybe not wishing to "over" do it,but I am one who did not read any of Ian Fleming's books, so I really don't care if the main character in Casino Royale is closer to what the author intended; previous films always showed a colorful Bond, with a great sense of humor, and not taking himself too seriously all the time. And who says that we audience don't like the gadgets? Scenes with gadgets in previous films are always great fun (except, granted, the one about the invisible car, this was too much...), as for the gambling table scenes in Casino Royale, I think they lacked the sense of menace and tension that previous films always conveyed when stakes were high in similar situations. I hope in the next Bond film Daniel Craig "loosens up" a bit, and be given a dialog with more panache, he doesn't have to be a humane Bond, let him be James Bond.
First I would like to clarify the issue of the two actresses playing the same character, Conchita. Bunuel initially worked with Maria Schneider (Last tango in Paris) for the title role. In the course of shooting the film Maria Schneider quit; her reasons were that she could not understand, and therefor portray, the character as was requested by Bunuel. This honesty is to this actress' credit. Then Bunuel took the full logic of the character, Conchita, as a bi-faceted character indeed, sometimes cool and calm and serene (played by the quietly beautiful Carole Bouquet) and on other times sensuous and hot and lustful (played by the fiery beauty Angela Molena).
Now what can one say about this masterpiece of a film? It is the eternal story of man chasing woman, to satisfy his earthly desires, and the woman who is sometimes romantic, sometimes wild, always passionate and self-conscious, driving the man mad, humiliating him and toying with him, then again satisfying his ego and deepest fantasies and even truly loving him. Freud knew it all along. Man and woman are surrounded by inexplicable events, absurd, surreal, strange as life can be. And their game goes on. In the course of the film Bunuel "winks" and reminds us of his eternal dislikes of the "bourgeoisie" -here in the form of an upper class rich and corrupt diplomat- who are genuinely so keen on etiquette and good manners, as evidenced by the rat that appears on the main character's dish ! and also the director's dislike of the church establishment and supposedly "devout" people as evidenced by the hypocrisy of Conchita's mother practically selling her daughter. It's a superb film, summarizing the eternal relationship between man and woman, amid normal extra-ordinary events, with top class actors under the directorship of Bunuel the genius.
Now what can one say about this masterpiece of a film? It is the eternal story of man chasing woman, to satisfy his earthly desires, and the woman who is sometimes romantic, sometimes wild, always passionate and self-conscious, driving the man mad, humiliating him and toying with him, then again satisfying his ego and deepest fantasies and even truly loving him. Freud knew it all along. Man and woman are surrounded by inexplicable events, absurd, surreal, strange as life can be. And their game goes on. In the course of the film Bunuel "winks" and reminds us of his eternal dislikes of the "bourgeoisie" -here in the form of an upper class rich and corrupt diplomat- who are genuinely so keen on etiquette and good manners, as evidenced by the rat that appears on the main character's dish ! and also the director's dislike of the church establishment and supposedly "devout" people as evidenced by the hypocrisy of Conchita's mother practically selling her daughter. It's a superb film, summarizing the eternal relationship between man and woman, amid normal extra-ordinary events, with top class actors under the directorship of Bunuel the genius.