Dan the Man's Movie Reviews

All my aimless thoughts, ideas, and ramblings, all packed into one site!

Tag Archives: Giancarlo Giannini

New York Stories (1989)

Now that I think about it, New York’s kind of lame.

New York is chock full of interesting little lives and stories that are just waiting to be heard and seen. One concerns a passionate, but confused painter (Nick Nolte), who is struggling to come up with new and interesting ideas, none of which are made any easier when his girlfriend (Rosanna Arquette), walks back into his life without promising to be everything that he needs. Another concerns Zoë (Heather McComb), a little schoolgirl who lives in a luxury hotel and constantly dreams about her father (Giancarlo Giannini) and mother (Talia Shire) getting back together, once and for all. And lastly, one concerns a New York lawyer named Sheldon Mills (Woody Allen), who thinks he’s finally met the love of his life (Mia Farrow), even if his overbearing mother (Mae Questel), doesn’t think so. This brings Sheldon to wishing that she’d just go away once and for all; his dream eventually does come true, except not in the way that he wanted, nor did he ever expect.

Paint it black, please.

Paint it black, please.

The biggest issue with anthology films is that you always run the risk of one portion being way better than all of the rest. In the case of New York Stories, given the talent on-board, it’s honestly a shock that none of the segments are really all that good; there’s one that’s more tolerable than the rest, but honestly, it’s sort of like grasping at straws. And yes, just in case any of you were wondering, New York Stories is an anthology flick featuring three, 35-40 minute segments from Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, and Woody Allen, respectively.

Let me repeat them all one more time.

Martin Scorsese.

Francis Ford Coppola.

And Woody Allen.

So, why the heck on Earth is this movie incredibly lame? Honestly, from what it looks like on the outside, all three directors had been wanting to do something together for quite some time, however, just never had the right time, or package to do so. Then, a hot-shot, studio exec thought of a grand idea, in having them all contribute to a three-part anthology flick, where people would all get drawn in by the fact that these three directing legends are somehow, slightly coming together on a project for the whole world to see.

Except that this was all happening in the late-80’s, and not the mid-to-late-70’s, when they were all at the top of their game. And also, rather than waiting for them to all have something worthy of filming and throwing into the movie, it appears that each director picked up whatever script they had lying on the ground, had an obligation, was forced to direct something, and just decided to roll with that. Sure, I’m speculating here, but after seeing the final product, I couldn’t imagine New York Stories coming together or being put-together in any other way.

Pictured: The future heir to the Ford Coppola legacy

Pictured: The future heir to the Ford Coppola legacy

For one, Scorsese’s bit is “meh”, at the very best. He gets a lot of mileage out of a neat soundtrack that seems to intentionally ram “A Winter Shade of Pale” down our throats, but honestly, there’s no meat to whatever story was supposed to take place here. Apparently, Nick Nolte and Rosanna Arquette’s characters are supposed to have some sort of sexy, fiery and ruthless relationship, but they don’t have any sex, and then Steve Buscemi shows up, and uh, yeah, I don’t know. Nick Nolte paints a lot and that’s about it. It’s boring, nonsensical, and most of all, uninteresting.

Words I never thought I’d describe something of Scorsese’s, but hey, such is the case.

Then again, Scorsese’s segment isn’t nearly as terrible as Coppola’s.

Yes, Coppola’s segment is notorious for possibly being the worst thing he’s ever directed in his life and, well, I can’t argue with that. It’s really bad, in the sense that it seems like Coppola had no clue of what to film, or actually do with the time and money given to him, so he just decided to make a movie for his kids. Sure, the character of Zoe is cute, but it’s placed in the middle of two, very adult segments that really, it serves no purpose or place in this movie altogether. Why anyone thought this was a good idea in the first place, is totally beyond me.

Heck, I don’t even think Coppola knows what to make of it still to this very day.

But thankfully, the smartest decision of New York Stories is to allow for Woody Allen’s segment to be the very last because, well, it’s the best. Once again, that’s not saying much, but it works because it’s quintessential Woody – light, breezy, simple, funny, and most of all, entertaining. The other two segments, despite appearing as if they were fun to film, don’t really come off as such; Woody, working with a really silly, almost cheeseball-ish plot-line, gets a lot of mileage out of looking like he’s enjoying his time filming this goofy story.

Does it save the movie?

Sort of. But if there was ever a reason to not feel optimistic of any anthology feature, regardless of talent involved, it’s New York Stories.

Consensus: Despite Woody Allen, Francis Ford Coppola, and Martin Scorsese each having something to do with the final product, New York Stories sort of begins on a whim, continues with a snore, and ends on a somewhat likable whimper.

5 / 10

Every Jewish man's dream and/or nightmare, come true. It depends on who you talk to, really.

Every Jewish man’s dream and/or nightmare, come true. It depends on who you talk to, really.

Photos Courtesy of: Jonathan Rosenbaum


Hannibal (2001)

Should have just let him eat whoever he wanted to eat.

Ten years after getting away from practically everybody involved with law enforcement, Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) is enjoying his time, relaxing, looking at fine art, and walking through the breezy, lovely streets of Florence, Italy. Meanwhile, back in the states, Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) is stuck in a bit of a pickle in which a drug-bust went incredibly wrong and violent – leaving the FBI to have to clean up the mess. But because Lecter can’t keep his appetite for Clarice down, he decides to send her a letter, which then leads her to start her own investigation into finding exactly where Lecter is. However, Clarice isn’t the only one. Chief Inspector Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) is also on his own search for an art scholar who goes missing, which may lead him to stumbling upon Lecter and having to decide whether he wants to arrest the man, or bring him in for a healthy reward granted by deformed billionaire, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman). The reason for Verger’s reward, is because he is one of Lecter’s last survivors around, and has the face, body, and voice to prove it.



So yeah. The Silence of the Lambs is, was, and will forever be, a great movie. There’s no way of getting around that. And as is usually the case when you’re trying to recreate some of the same magic from a precursor that’s as legendary and iconic as that movie was, the odds are not in your favor.

Such is the case with Hannibal, the sequel to the Silence of the Lambs, that came out nearly ten years later, starred someone new as Clarice, and had a different director.

Granted, Anthony Hopkins is still around and if you’re replacing the likes of Jodie Foster and Jonathan Demme, with Julianne Moore and Ridley Scott, then not everything’s so bad. But honestly, if there was ever a reason for a sequel to not exist, it’s shown here. That is, after the first ten minutes in which some of the creepiest, most disturbing opening-sequences ever created, transpire and bring you right down to the level of knowing what to expect from the rest of the movie.

And the rest of the movie for that matter, is also pretty creepy. Because Scott is such a talented director, he’s able to make almost each and every shot feel as if it came right out of an art exposition itself and add a sense of eeriness, even if we’re literally watching a scene dedicated to two people just sitting around in a darkly-lit room, whispering about something, and not doing much of anything else. There’s a lot of scenes like that in Hannibal, and while it’s hard to really be excited by any of them, Scott tries his hardest to add a little more pizzazz and energy in any way that he can.

But it still doesn’t escape the fact that the movie’s still uneventful.

Sure, people are shot, killed, ripped-open, eaten alive, sliced, diced, and chewed-on, but is any of it really exciting? Not really, and that’s perhaps the movie’s biggest sin. The first flick may have been a dark, serious and chilly thriller, but there was still a bunch of excitement to the madness of tracking down Wild Bill, nabbing him, and taking him; while it took its time, there was still a feeling of tension in the air. That same tension isn’t really anywhere to be found here, even if the same feeling of general creepiness is – though it only comes in short spurts.

Most of this has to do with the fact that, despite there being maybe three-to-four subplots going on, there isn’t anyone that really grabs ahold of you and makes you want to watch it as it unfolds. Once again, Clarice is on the search for Dr. Lecter, but because there’s another story that runs along the same lines going on, it doesn’t actually seem all that important. Sure, she’ll get her arch-nemesis, but at the end of the day, does any of it really matter? The dude’s off the streets and not eating people anymore, but does that mean the killing is done once and for all?

This is a point the movie seems to bring up, but never actually go anywhere deeper with. Instead, it’s more concerned with seeing how many times Dr. Lecter can fool people into thinking that he isn’t a mean, sadistic, and brutal cannibal. In fact, hearing that, I realize that these scenes should be somewhat fun, if not, totally hilarious. But they aren’t. Instead, they’re just drop dead serious, grim, and uninteresting.

Stop saying her name!

Stop saying her name!

And that’s about it.

The cast does try their hardest, however. Hopkins, as usual, fits into the role of Lecter as if he never left it to begin with. He’s weird and off-putting, but at times, can also be incredibly suave and charming, especially when he’s speaking of disemboweled bodies. But, at the same time, we are getting a lot more of him, which means that it can seem to be a bit of overkill; whereas the first movie featured nearly 15 minutes of screen-time devoted to Lecter, Hannibal features nearly an-hour-and-a-half of him, which means that his act can get a bit old and stale as the time rolls along. Especially since, you know, he isn’t really growing as a character – he’s still killing, conning, and eating people, the way he always did.

The only difference now is that he’s a lot more laid-back than usual.

And though she tries, too, Julianne Moore really does have all the odds stacked against her playing this role that was definitely made a lot better, and more famously by Jodie Foster. Though Moore seems to be still playing into that same kind of ruthless aggression and dedication that Foster worked well with, it’s hard to get past the fact that she’s playing the same character, but it not being Foster. Ray Liotta shows up and, of course, plays a crooked cop that seems like he has nobody’s best intentions at heart and is fine, but once again, what else is new?

The best of the rest, though, is an absolutely nonidentical Gary Oldman as the disgusting and vile-looking Mason Verger. From the beginning, it’s difficult to recognize that Oldman is even in the movie (mostly do the ugly, but impressive make-up and costume job done to him), but after awhile, it’s obvious that it is him, and the performance works wonders from then on. Despite being able to only use his eyes and voice for his character, Oldman still gives off an deceitful feel that helps make it clear that, if the film was just about him and Lecter sparring-off in a duel of wit and evilness, then it would probably be better.

But sadly, that is not what we get and instead, we’re left reaching for our copies of the Silence of the Lambs.

Consensus: Despite trying its hardest, Hannibal cannot quite reach the same creepily entertaining heights as its predecessor and feels more like a waste for each of the talent involved.

5 / 10

It's okay, Jules. We feel the same way.

It’s okay, Jules. We feel the same way.

Photos Courtesy of: Screen Musings

Mimic (1997)

As if the sewers weren’t disgusting enough.

After an insane roach problem threatened half of humanity three years ago, Susan Tyler (Mira Sorvino) and her husband Peter Mann (Jeremy Northam) feel as if there is nothing else out there in the world to worry about, other than having a couple of babies and starting a family. However, all of those settling-down ideas are put to the side once some roaches stay alive and find a way to mutate into any species they oh so desire. Even humans! This means that Tyler and Mann have to get back into the groove of things, show up to work, and get ready to kill the roaches once and for all, but this time, they’re a little bit more powerful and hungry this time around and it’s going to be a lot easier said then done. Maybe.

This is the epitome of the type of creepy, gushy-flicks that Gulliermo del Toro loves to make. There’s oodles amounts of slime, creatures, people in distress, and even a couple of kids wandering around. It’s exactly the type of movie you expect from this dude, except for the fact that this one sort of blows. Okay, maybe it’s not as bad as I already have made it out to be, but you can already tell, right from the very beginning that this is the work of a guy who’s whining and dining at a bigger table than he’s used to, and eventually, the jig is going to be up and they’re going to ask for the check.

That means that del Toro bit-off a bit more than he could chew. Does that label it down for you out there?

Cool beans.

Scientists can get down and party too! Woo!

Scientists can get down and party too! Woo!

What I will say positive about del Toro’s direction is that the dude obviously loves the creatures and the havoc he has created for us to watch on screen. Most of the creatures are computer-animated, but each and every one has a fine line of detail that looks and feels real, as if you are almost right there. They don’t scare you like they should because they’re a bit corny to look at, but when they are all up in your grill here and show their violent-ways, I have to admit, even I was a bit freaked-out. Not because I thought I was going to get killed or anything, but because they were just disgusting-looking. Many horror movies do that with their monsters in order to have them be scary: the grosser, the scarier. It doesn’t quite work for me as much as it may for some horror-hounds out there, but I do have to admit that some of it does work, and some of it doesn’t. More good, than bad, but the bad does show.

However, the bad barely even shows because the whole freakin’ movie is dark. Seriously, practically the last 20 minutes of this movie is lit-up by a glow-stick and a small flashlight. That’s it. I get that, literally and figuratively, keeping the audience in the dark is supposed to keep us on the edge of our seats and even more scared with what’s next to come, but I need to see something, hell, anything in order to feel that way! I trust that del Toro really had some suspense to build on here, but it never quite latched onto me, mostly because I couldn’t tell what the hell was going on, and mostly, because I wasn’t all that interested.

Basically, the whole problem with this movie comes down to the script and how poorly-written it is. When I watch a horror movie, I don’t ask for a winning-screenplay about life, love, and the pursuit of happiness, but I do ask for a little something more than just the same old lines I’ve heard time and time again. Somebody saying to an on-looker, “Look out!”, right before they get all caught up by a monster and eaten alive, or a moment where people decide to split-up because “that’s what’s best for now”, all just piss me off to high heavens and make it obviously clear why the horror genre has failed me so much in the past. That’s why come every Halloween, I’m always packing on the quality horror flicks that I’ve most likely missed, and get on top of them so I can actually feel happy for the genre that will never, ever go away, not even as each and every one that came before it gets a remake.

Look out! It's a buggy/roachy thingy!

Look out! It’s a buggy/roachy thingy!

Yup, wasn’t a fan of that one either.

But at least the Oscar-caliber cast is good and here to save the day, right? Ehhhh! Wrong! Despite Mira Sorvino being about 2 years past her Oscar win, she still seemed to want to cash in on the money, and not the respect, especially when she took a role as cut-and-dry as this. I’ll give Sorvino some credit, the lady’s natural charm and cuteness to her look makes this character more interesting than your usual, heroine in horror movies, but she does fall victim to some pretty shitty lines and uninspired actions her character takes. Then again, the gal’s smokin’, so I can’t be on her ass too much.

Jeremy Northam is here as her dorky hubby and does what he’s asked of, even if that is being insanely hokey; Charles S. Dutton is meant to be here for comedic-relief, and because every horror movie is strictly in need of a black character to kill off, especially once the murder-toll begins to tally-up; Josh Brolin plays Northam’s hot-shot buddy that’s a bit too big for his britches, but gets by on wit and just being cool (as always); F. Murray Abraham plays an aging, college professor who knows a bit too much dangerous shit to walk around and not tell anybody about, even though he plays it with enough class to make us feel like he knows what he’s doing and talking about, even if it is completely idiotic; and rounding it all out is Giancarlo Giannini plays a shoe-shiner who works in the subway where all of these roaches are hibernating, and gives the movie some much-needed warmth and depth as we see that the dude obviously cares for his “special” son, no matter how “special” he may be. And by “special”, I mean that the kid walks around, playing tunes with two spoons and his legs, and calling somebody “Mr. Funny Shoes”. Wow, nice subtlety there del Toro!

Consensus: People who love del Toro flicks, as well as the creature-feature flicks that are obviously famous in the horror genre, will have a blast with Mimic, if they can get by the over-familiarity of the plot, as well as the sure dumbness of the script and characters.

5 / 10 = Rental!!

"Sooooo rad."

“Sooooo rad.”

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Hey, I don’t blame Bond. I’d be pretty pissed if Eva Green was taken away from me.

Returning once again, James Bond (Daniel Craig) battles wealthy businessman Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a member of the Quantum organisation, posing as an environmentalist who intends to stage a coup d’état in Bolivia to seize control of the nation’s water supply. Bond seeks revenge for the death of his lover, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), and is assisted by Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko), who is seeking revenge for the murder of her family.

After falling in love with Casino Royale right from the first-shot on, I realized that the only way to keep this “new” Bond series going-strong, would be to up the ante a bit and give us some more action, more intensity, and most of all, more of Bond just being cool. That last one isn’t really hard to do, but the first two can sometimes be pulled-off well and other times, cannot. Sadly, I think director Marc Forster took this idea of “more, more, more”, and decided to just go to town with it and that’s where I think the film/”new” series takes it’s sudden-dip.

See, what makes Bond so cool is that the guy is able to do all of this crazy, violent crap that definitely makes you go “Ouch!”, but is also able to pull off some sly and witty stuff like faking people out, getting in between buildings without being seen, and just being the ultra-sneaky spy we all know and love him to be. However, all of that violent crap starts to take over the film and as fun as it may be to watch, you can’t have a Bond flick with over 15 minutes of non-stop action, already happening in the first 30 minutes of the actual-movie. That makes it seem more like an action-thriller that is more about being thrilling, rather than being a Bond flick and as weird as that may sound, yes, they are both two different types of films in their own right and I think it comes off more as Bourne movie.

A lot of people complained that the last one felt a bit too much like a Bourne movie with all of the non-stop shaky-cam work, crazy stunt-work used, and high-flying, action set-pieces, and sort of getting rid of the old-school, classy-way that Bond usually does his line of business. However, as much as I agree with that statement, I can definitely say that some of that is true because it is a very gritty, actiony thrill-ride that delivers more action than it deserves class, but at least it had the classic, Bond class. This film, somehow, doesn’t even seem to really have that. It goes on and on and on with Bond killing almost every single person that walks into his way, without him ever getting a chance to ask question them or interrogate them in any way possible, and to top that off, the story makes no sense despite picking right up 5 minutes after the first-one ended.

In a case like this, I think it’s easy to blame the writers, the producers, and the companies who were behind this movie, but I think the one to really blame is Foster of all people. For people who don’t know who the hell Marc Forster is, well, let’s just say that he’s a guy that’s most known for directing character-based dramas like Stranger than Fiction, Monster’s Ball, and the Kite Runner, among others. To be honest, the only type of action that happens in any of those movies is when Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thornton decide to get down and dirty, late one night, so why the hell would they decide to give this guy a Bond movie that’s all about guns, cars, violence, girls, and Bond? Seriously, it’s not like the guy does a terrible job or anything, it’s just that it’s pretty obvious that the guy brings nothing new to the table in terms of action or story-development, and instead, has this movie come off like a failed-attempt at trying to create a Bond spin-off for a far, far away future. It’s no surprise that this guy’s screwing up World War Z now, because he sure as hell came close to screwing this one up, big-time.

But as much as I may get on Forster’s case, and this movie’s case, I can’t lie anymore because I really did have a fun time with this flick and all of it’s action. Some of the set-pieces are a bit unbelievable and ridiculous, but you know what? So were some of the ones in Casino Royale and that’s what sort of made me love that movie even more, so I can’t really get on this film for all of that crap either. At the end of the day, it’s still a James Bond movie that definitely features plenty of thrills worthy of seeing and worthy of being in a Bond movie, and even though they sure as hell aren’t as memorable as Bond playing poker, they sure as hell keep your attention on the screen for as long as it can.

And come to think of it, as much as this film may not be worthy of his skills, Daniel Craig still kicks plenty of ass as Bond and shows us exactly why he was chosen for this role in the first-place. Craig, no matter what all the haters may say, just has this dirty and tough look to him that makes you scared for the baddies that go up against him in brawls, but also has this charming and swift look that makes you feel like he is the coolest guy in the room, and definitely the type of guy you would go up to and try to conversate with, but no words would come out because he is simply that cool and intimidating. Maybe I put too much thought into this guy’s look and role, but I don’t care, because Craig is awesome.

Olga Kurylenko plays his “Bond girl” and is alright for the most part, even though she really has nothing to work with here other than a forced, sympathetic-route her character takes. I just want to know why the hell Craig doesn’t bone her, instead, goes off to bone Gemma Arterton as some red-headed, secret-spy that shows up for 5 minutes, gets laid, and is practically gone from the rest of the movie after that. I mean you put them side-by-side, Olga definitely takes the cake and it’s a shock to me that Bond would make a silly-mistake like this. Once again, gotta blame it on Forster. That guy should know Bond, and Bond’s taste in women. Damn you!

Matthieu Amalric plays Greene, the typical Bond-villain that we need in these movies to make it work and although he does what he can, the character is too thinly-written. It’s a good thing that Greene isn’t your typical Bond-villain, where all he does is twirl his mustache and hat and make huge, unbelievable promises of destroying the world around him, however, I felt like we sort of needed that in order to hate this guy even more and actually feel scared for Bond. Yeah, Greene does do some bad things, but never to the point of where I felt like Bond needed him to kill him right-away, or else all hope was lost. Also, the guy was a bit of a softy and I even think M could have kicked his ass, just as much as Bond could have.

Consensus: Quantum of Solace is definitely fun, entertaining, and a relatively mediocre addition to the Bond series, but still feels like it should have been so much more, instead of just settling for typical, action-thriller conventions, two-dimensional characters, and choices that seem to come from a place that isn’t all about Bond, and more about making a lot of money and making it quick. Hey Hollywood, news flash for ‘ya: It’s a James Bond movie, therefore, it’s already going to make a shit-load of moolah at the box-office. Now shut up, and let James get back to work!


Casino Royale (2006)

Blond is always better.

James Bond (Daniel Craig)’s first 007 mission takes him to Madagascar where he is to spy on a terrorist, Mollaka (Sebastien Foucan). Not everything goes to plan and Bond decides to investigate, independently of MI6, in order to track down the rest of the terrorist cell. Following a lead to the Bahamas, he encounters Dimitrios (Simon Abkarian) and his girlfriend, Solange (Caterina Murino).

This was the James Bond flick that brought back James Bond after about 4 years because honestly, even though ‘Die Another Day’ was one of the highest-grossing Bonds flicks at the time, it was still pretty lame. So Hollywood finally wised up and brought back the director of ‘Goldeneye’, Martin Campbell, and probably made one of the best decisions of their lives.

Campbell is the perfect director for James Bond, especially a reboot of his story, which means he can do whatever the hell he wants without any die-hard Bond fan crying about how they are ruining the name of Bond. There’s so much action, energy, and fun to be had here with a bunch of crazy set-pieces like when Bond and some dude go parkouring around a construction site, the terrorist attempt on the airport that reminded me a bit of the ending to ‘Liar Liar’,  and also when Bond was fighting those two guys in the stairway. Everything Campbell does here is so much fun and filmed in the kind of way that we can actually tell what’s going on, but still feeling the tension and havoc that is being ensued. Campbell also somehow found a way to make a simple game of poker seem like the biggest win or die situation that I have ever seen. It’s a real wonder as to why this dude doesn’t do more action with a big budget because he can put it to some real good use.

When it comes to the story, it’s pretty standard fare but what I liked is how I didn’t quite know what was going to happen next. Yes, we all know that Bond usually lives at the end so he can give his famous last lines, but something with this flick made me feel different about that because he wasn’t just a guy that could kick insane amounts of ass but he was also a guy that could easily lose as well. This was cool to see in a story about James Bond considering it can get pretty predictable at a certain point but the story still worked for me and at least held my interest beneath all of the running, shooting, and killing.

My only gripe with this flick is that it feels too long by the end. The film is about 144 minutes long and you can start to feel it around that 2 hour mark and it gets even worse when the film continues to never end. It was almost like ‘The Never Ending Story’ of James Bond, it just kept on going and going and going until we were basically lost in the story-line and sort of felt like we had enough. However, Campbell does do a great job of keeping our minds off of that for the most part.

The main hype surrounding this flick was actually whether or not Daniel Craig, a relatively unknown indie actor at the time, was going to be able to be the part of James Bond and he practically got all of the nay-sayers to shut their mouths after this. What I like about Craig is that he always seem one step ahead of whoever he’s talking to and his role as Bond is no different because if you think about, Bond is always one step ahead of everybody else around him even though he’s terribly cocky. I have seen all of the Bonds that have came before Craig and they are all good but Craig brings a lot more that we didn’t expect from him such as making Bond seem more like a bad-ass rather than just the wizard of spy gadgets. Yes, Craig is the Blond Bond but he’s also one of the better Bonds of recent memory and I’m glad to see that he is still sticking with this role and can still go onto other flicks like ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ and actually be looked at as an actor rather than just another Bond dude.

The rest of the cast is pretty out-standing too even though it is fairly knocked down to a couple of key roles. Mads Mikkelsen is pretty damn intimidating as Le Chiffre, and plays up that scary, freaky look to his advantage and definitely makes me feel like I should run away if I saw him across from me at a poker table; Eva Green is good as our new and improved Bond girl, Vesper Lynd, and she actually has a lot more depth to her rather than just being another one of the chicks that Bond bones and forgets about, she actually has something special about her and you can actually believe the relationship her and Bond have; and Judi Dench is always awesome as the cruel and sassy, M. Can’t say much else that hasn’t already been said of Ms. Dench.

Consensus: Casino Royale is by far one of the better Bond flicks with a star-making role from Daniel Craig, constant energy and action flying all about, and a new and improved look at Bond that we have yet to see from any other of the other films, which always works.

9/10=Full Price!!