61 replies to this topic

[David Schofield]

If CBNer's want my opinion on Casino Royale, read on. Please feel free to ignore. Perhaps, however, if you have read any of my posts ove rthe last two years, you may ahve realised I can be hard to please and very argumentative. I say this just to put the following criticisms in personal perspective. So be warned if you read these random thoughts/rants.

After all this build up, in the press but particularly here on CBN, finally got to see CR last evening... and I'm afraid some of you have been a little too fulsome in your praise for my taste. I feel like a rant, so here goes. Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first. To tackle a few issues:

IT NOT LIKE ANYTHING WE'VE SEEN OF A BOND FILM BEFORE (from CBNers and various reviewers): yes, it Is, and I don't think EON ever wanted it otherwise. There's a bit too much critical falttery going on.Sure, its not like DAD (blessed reflief) but it is Bond. What is different is the Craig look. I'm sure (I hope) that this will bed in and my reaction is just that of how radically different he looks to the tall and dark look of '87-'02 of Dalton and Brozza. I guess I had the same reaction to seeing Tim, dark and hard, replacing soft and middle-aged Rog in TLD and 14 years: I'm sure Rog had the same effect on original Connery fans in 1973. At least Craig is plausible as Bond and there is none of the compulsory Brosnan overdressing. Which leads to:

THE BOND BEGINS IDEA IS A LOAD OF GARBAGE: let's misinterpret Fleming's intention with CR in which Bond is clealy not a novice and has had a fairly rough time of it through WW2 and his MI6 career. Let's then cast a 38 year old who has the qualities... and make him a novice. This is just unnecessary. EON seem to have been obsessed with CR being the first novel and Batman begins. I found the pre-credits far too brief and trite (Craig just doesn't look like a novice even in B&W) and then why was it necessary for M to re-emphasis the fact that Bond is new to the 00 section, that she has just promoted him? (Without them, CR could easily be chronologically Bond 21, if you like). Take these references very easily out and you have a far better film. Craig looks far more wordly than, say, Connery in DN, Laz, even Brozza in GE, doesn't seem to develop as claimed as a person from start to finish (and why should he?) - WHY THE HELL DOES HE HAVE TO BE A BLOOD NOVICE THEN? And because of that you have to drop the "Strong Sensations/Nature of Evil" exchange with Mathis which leads to:

SOME OF THE MOST BUGGERED UP CHARACTERISATION OF FLEMING ORIGINALS: This is NOT Felix Leiter (black, white or green), nor does it need to be. One conversation with Bond, no "this is a gift from Uncle Sam", nor emphasis on potential friendship. Give the character another name, please. And Matthis: superbly cast and played, but then...(you know what I mean). And who the hell wrote his opening line, in an open place, "I am your contact here"? What was that, a tribute to CR '67 or the Pink Panther moves? And on to:

THE SCRIPT: it wasn't quite the masterpiece those CBNers who had jealously guarded the script suggested it was (you know who you are and you know I'm right). But I tell you what, it was a vast improvement on anything since LTK, though the story was far too long and meandering and not as neat and tight as Maibaum and MGW's revenge plot. Oh, and:

THIS FILM COULD EASILY HAVE STARRED BROSNAN: I'm with Loomis: remove the PTS, the M references to new promotion (which are unnecessary) and Brozza could have done CR. I'm sorry everyone, this is not a "it had to be Craig or nothing" movie. Just amend the Madagascar and MIA scenes because:

THE ACTION SET PIECES ARE JUST TOO LONG: of course, Brozza would have looked stupid doing these scenes (and I hope EON wouldn't have been tempted) and Craig gives them renewed energy but the still go on far too long! We get the point that Craig Bond is resourceful and extremely determined. And why the need both in these pieces and the finale for lots to be going on around Bond: the best fights in the series, say in FRWL and OHMSS, are Bond in a one to one situation. The best action here, close to that principal, is the stairwell fight and the PTS.

THE DB5: totally unnecessary. I though we were trying to be different, EON? It achieves absolutely nothing.

CRAIG: now here's a funny thing. This guy isn't very goodlooking (OK, so I'm in Moomoo mode ), and he isn't very big (everyone in every crowd scene seems taller and just bigger: surely not ever extra is 6' plus and 14 stone?). Try sell it all you want, but this guy hasn't got the attention grabbing appeal of ANY of his predecessors. And putting the "my name's Bond" bit at the end is a HUGE mistake however much it may make the fanboys cheer. (We need convincing he is Bond a bit earlier). However, boy, he is James Bond...

Well, that's all that's crap about the film. If you want the good bits, let me know.

[Harmsway]

SOME OF THE MOST BUGGERED UP CHARACTERISATION OF FLEMING ORIGINALS: This is NOT Felix Leiter (black, white or green), nor does it need to be. One conversation with Bond, no "this is a gift from Uncle Sam", nor emphasis on potential friendship. Give the character another name, please. And Matthis: superbly cast and played, but then...(you know what I mean). And who the hell wrote his opening line, in an open place, "I am your contact here"? What was that, a tribute to CR '67 or the Pink Panther moves? And on to:

Leiter's characterization wasn't buggered up - it just wasn't there (and understandably so... they needed to keep this film moving), though I'm sure he'll return later on.

And I genuinely like what they did with Mathis; his role in BOND 22 should be fascinating.

THIS FILM COULD EASILY HAVE STARRED BROSNAN: I'm with Loomis: remove the PTS, the M references to new promotion (which are unnecessary) and Brozza could have done CR. I'm sorry everyone, this is not a "it had to be Craig or nothing" movie. Just amend the Madagascar and MIA scenes because:

Could Brosnan have been cast in it? I suppose (technically, any actor *could* do it). But that's irrelevant, because the point is I can't see Brosnan doing anything but butchering that film.

THE ACTION SET PIECES ARE JUST TOO LONG:

I thought they were remarkably brief, myself. I was impressed by how much I thought that, but I expected these scenes to go on much longer than they did. They were very tight and very compact. I and my friends both thought that, if anything, the sequences could have been a little longer.

THE DB5: totally unnecessary. I though we were trying to be different, EON? It achieves absolutely nothing.

It achieves nothing besides being cool, which I suppose counts enough for its appearance.

Try sell it all you want, but this guy hasn't got the attention grabbing appeal of ANY of his predecessors.

You think so? The people at my screening bought him hook, line, and sinker, which is remarkable considering everything he had to overcome.

[bogard]

I heard MooMoo is ugly too.

[spynovelfan]

I sort of agree with all your points, David - I do think we've had too long to overehype ourselves, and have gotten to the stage where we were expecting a film that would better FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. I think this is more like OHMSS, in a lot of ways, actually. We have a new Bond, a younger man who is more athletic than his replacement and more believably tough even than Connery (Laz was in Aussie special forces, I think? Or is that a myth?). We have an emotional Bond, a tragic Bond, a pretty faithful adaptation of a Fleming novel - less so here, but a lot of the details and spirit are there, and I think they actually improve the motivations of Vesper and Felix. We have a rich texture, a song that doesn't mention the title, some self-referencing, fewer gadgets, and loads of fantastic, classic Bond moments. But unlike FRWL - which I think is the one to beat, myself - it is inconsistent. I agree that the Bond begins stuff is rushed and irrelevant, though it doesn't immensely trouble me from any other perspective than the context of the film. Small stuff like Branson's cameo and the appearance of his planes jars with the mood of the film, and all the stuff in Uganda and with M seemed to me like Brosnan-style scripting.

But it is nevertheless a quantum leap in quality from the last four films. And I think the real joy is Craig's performance, which I think betters Connery's. Sticky-out ears and lumpen nose he may have, but for me he has all the strong points of Connery, Dalton an d Lazenby and then some. He surpassed what I expected of him, and of the role. So perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, BOND 22 will deliver a tighter script and we'll get a film that finally does rival FRWL. As it is, I don't think I'm overstating it at all to say this is the best Bond film since OHMSS.

So what did you like, then?

[David Schofield]

So what did you like, then?

Wanted to get a bit of angry vitriol chucked back at me for my criticism (if I can) first, Spy.

But the end titles were good...

[spynovelfan]

So what did you like, then?

Wanted to get a bit of angry vitriol chucked back at me for my criticism (if I can) first, Spy.

But the end titles were good...

LOL. Do tell me you liked more than that! Didn't really understand your criticism of Craig: he doesn't look like James Bond, but boy, he is him? Can't say I once noticed his height, either.

[Jim]

Using your headings, for ease of reference:-

IT NOT LIKE ANYTHING WE'VE SEEN OF A BOND FILM BEFORE (from CBNers and various reviewers): yes, it Is, and I don't think EON ever wanted it otherwise.

True; it is certainly a Bond film. They were never going to let go completely. What will be interesting is where they now go with 22 - shove in more "staples" or go entirely the other way.

THE BOND BEGINS IDEA IS A LOAD OF GARBAGE: let's misinterpret Fleming's intention with CR in which Bond is clealy not a novice and has had a fairly rough time of it through WW2 and his MI6 career. Let's then cast a 38 year old who has the qualities... and make him a novice.

I don't think there's anything to suggest novice - new to the 00 but there's experience, just not this sort of experience. I don't know we can draw quite so much from Fleming - it's a sketchy book at best. Personally I think this adds a dimension to the story otherwise missing, but that's my view.

SOME OF THE MOST BUGGERED UP CHARACTERISATION OF FLEMING ORIGINALS:

Tend to agree with you on this one, but it's not as if those were anything very tremendous in the book, really? There is an overabundance of supporting characters, true, but I guess that's to stop it being boring.

THE SCRIPT: it wasn't quite the masterpiece those CBNers who had jealously guarded the script suggested it was (you know who you are and you know I'm right).

It's a Bond film, not the fifth proposition of Euclid. As a Bond film script, it is a considerable improvement. As a script of a stand-alone film - yeah, well, meh. But perhaps we prefer to compare and contrast in our own little Bondy bubble. It's the equal and in most cases the better of every other Bond script and if that's not too high a standard in the real world and damning it with faint praise, so be it. The bar was never that high so not an impossible obstacle to overcome.

THIS FILM COULD EASILY HAVE STARRED BROSNAN:

Wouldn't have been half as interesting. And some scenes would not have worked - the stand-out shower scene - which is a pivotal one in the relationship between Bond and the girl - could have looked a bit odd with an old man playing it. There are, certainly, aspects of the film that are hangovers from Bond films previously, but then that was true of Mr Brosnan's films. Any of the others could have been Bond in his films too, without changing anything. Here you would have to change stuff. Accordingly I can't agree.

THE ACTION SET PIECES ARE JUST TOO LONG: of course, Brozza would have looked stupid doing these scenes (and I hope EON wouldn't have been tempted) and Craig gives them renewed energy but the still go on far too long!

Fair enough, and it is a long film. On reflection, it could do with a bit of a trim here and there but then I did enjoy these scenes hugely when they were on.

THE DB5: totally unnecessary. I though we were trying to be different, EON? It achieves absolutely nothing.

I tend to agree with this. I'm not sure what they are trying to tell us here, except for showing a development of a taste for high living, but it could have just as easily been any other high-value sports car without being a frickin' DB5.

CRAIG: I didn't notice this business of height. I think there are a couple of moments of odd posture that make him look a bit shorter but I think his muscular width tends to suggest that he is shorter than he is. I have no comment on his face; personally, he's got the hard look I would expect Bond to have, hair blond or black or sky-blue pink.

[sabrina]

Hi,

I have seen it yesterday and all i can say is wow to Daniel Craig. To answer some of the critics here, he is devastatingly Handsome!!!! (so thought the other 200 women in the Cinema by applauding when he gets out of the water...)

His acting is very intelligent, he is tough, cold then warm and affectionate then thouger and colder again! It shows so much vulnerability and some kind of madness too...


was a bit disappointed by Le chiffre...we don't see him that much and he does not feel threatening or anything...just mad.

Vesper: very good, Eva Green did a great job too, the chemistry with DC is great. Vesper really feels like the Feminine version of Bond. Tough but very vulnerable inside.

Judit Dench: Brilliant M!

Favourite scene: Sebastien Foucan's scene at the beginning is just brilliant...a bit long but would not have had the same effect I think if it was shorter....a real pleasure to see his jumps!

least favourite scene: the scene where James arrives at the Bahamas then drives along the coast in a Ford...he checks on his mobile phone GPS...what was that all about?? yes it is straight forward, it is the only road ahead! looked a bit cheesy...like if they had to squeeze that in to balance the lack of gadgets in the rest of the film.

favourite quote: "Shaken or Stirred Sir? Do I look Like I give a damn"

In general: Great scenes, great acting, The "Wow" effect is there for sure. My only disapointement: the scenes seemed a bit compact and put one after the other sometime...it was not always very smooth...you'd have a very long scene of action then a short scene somwhere else then another long love scene...a bit confusing sometimes...it felt like if they had cut parts of it. (especially during the romance bit with Vesper)

A big Bravo to Daniel Craig once again who is definitely the classiest asset of the film!

x

[stone cold]

im gonna write a full review .. but heres my 1st reaction.
daniel craig just looked incredible up on screen last night .. i mean super handsome, masculine in the extreme..classic - almost as if he was from another era. he moved like a shark or a panther.. he burnt up the screen. in some scenes he was simply devastating looking..( the cinema let out a gasp when he put on the tux for the 1st time) in other scenes they played his uncoventional looks well... but the look in his eyes guided this film. you never doubted him for a sceond. in terms of action he was thrilling - tearing along like a stretfighter, relelntless, fierce. as a character you felt worried for him - he was reckless, almsot like a deathwish, an obsession with the bad guys and winning ( the scene with the knife in the casino - what was he thinking!? )you warmed towards him cos a sort of vulnerability showed through. one person pointed out that he was unlike anything we've ever seen before but reminds you of classic heroes. another person said he looked too pumped up. and that for example - the fight at the airport was less realistic because his adversary was so obviously weaker than him. i thought the stairwell and bathroom fights were sensational.. but lamented the lack of build up and immersion..in terms of spatial feeling, a sense of location, narrative..they just seemed to occur and then end. I liked most of the casino scne because the film breathed in the location - you felt you knew the room. i loved the acting between daniel and mads in this scene. all looks and snarling face-off. i liked le chiffre cos he was sleazy and desperate.. but i definately want to see this bond face some more seriously dangerous guys.

i thought it had pacing issues, some ropey lines and a few strange edits - but overall it rocked so much harder than we've had any reason to think was possible in a bond film. the action scenes rocked, but i actually prefered the low key bahamas stuff.. bond striding around small hotels, low key spy work, glamourous locations, casinos.. it felt so right and so enjoyable..craig swaggered with complete bondian cool in those scenes..brilliant. i only hope they can come up with as immersive a idea/plot/location in the the next film.i loved how bond hunted dimitreos, took his car, humiliated him, took his woman, killed him - all in maybe 24 hours..

my bad points about the film are few - but pointed.. i think they raced over the ending too fast.. although a long film, some of these scenes felt somewhat disconnected from eachother.. the car crash/torture/venice/aftermath/endng felt a little wrong - no matter how good they were individually. some lines felt like clunkers, somewhere between over written and cheesy.. id need to see it again..maybe just those final romantic scenes just felt too breezy in the cinema - in the context of what came before.. i dunno. but i sure brought that bond loved her, was vulnerable because he didnt quite know her, trusted her against his instincts... that last look underwater was incredible. the film had so much in it id have to see it again. there are literally 1000s of tiny cool moments in this film - even if the overall all plot narrative doesnt scan.. bonds arc worked. my impression was that craig was sensational.. but i want them to take it even darker and more real. but as a movie to establish craigs bond it was perfect. it was sometimes ancomomfortable mix of brosnan era action and classic novel bond. but seeing how well they did the casino scene - it make you think they could have just done the book prety much straight..but obviously they had to make a blockbuster.. i dont think we can complain about lenght of action scenes - cos big films simply have to have these.

the cinema i was in last night was obviously blown away by craig.. i dont think ive seen an actor cause quite that much impact in a long time. his presence and ferocity made up for a few cracks in the film..overall it was a glorious return to classic bond. dangerous and cooler than ever.. and bond gets put through the wringer in this film to such an extent that Craigs bond is now the only bond i care about. cant wait for the next one.

Edited by stone cold, 17 November 2006 - 11:45 AM.

[dee-bee-five]

I sort of agree with all your points, David - I do think we've had too long to overehype ourselves, and have gotten to the stage where we were expecting a film that would better FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. I think this is more like OHMSS, in a lot of ways, actually. We have a new Bond, a younger man who is more athletic than his replacement and more believably tough even than Connery (Laz was in Aussie special forces, I think? Or is that a myth?). We have an emotional Bond, a tragic Bond, a pretty faithful adaptation of a Fleming novel - less so here, but a lot of the details and spirit are there, and I think they actually improve the motivations of Vesper and Felix. We have a rich texture, a song that doesn't mention the title, some self-referencing, fewer gadgets, and loads of fantastic, classic Bond moments. But unlike FRWL - which I think is the one to beat, myself - it is inconsistent. I agree that the Bond begins stuff is rushed and irrelevant, though it doesn't immensely trouble me from any other perspective than the context of the film. Small stuff like Branson's cameo and the appearance of his planes jars with the mood of the film, and all the stuff in Uganda and with M seemed to me like Brosnan-style scripting.

But it is nevertheless a quantum leap in quality from the last four films. And I think the real joy is Craig's performance, which I think betters Connery's. Sticky-out ears and lumpen nose he may have, but for me he has all the strong points of Connery, Dalton an d Lazenby and then some. He surpassed what I expected of him, and of the role. So perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, BOND 22 will deliver a tighter script and we'll get a film that finally does rival FRWL. As it is, I don't think I'm overstating it at all to say this is the best Bond film since OHMSS.

So what did you like, then?

Actually, in my book, Casino Royale does eclipse From Russia With Love. I think it could even match, even surprass, OHMSS - which is the Bondian Holy Grail for me. Hell, at one point I don't mind admitting I had tears in my eyes as it dawned on me how good this movie really is.

It might not be everybody's idea of a perfect Bond film. But it sure as hell is mine.

[Loomis]

THE BOND BEGINS IDEA IS A LOAD OF GARBAGE: let's misinterpret Fleming's intention with CR in which Bond is clealy not a novice and has had a fairly rough time of it through WW2 and his MI6 career. Let's then cast a 38 year old who has the qualities... and make him a novice.

I don't think there's anything to suggest novice - new to the 00 but there's experience, just not this sort of experience.

But there doesn't seem to be anything Bond is A. allowed to do (or experience) or B. is capable of doing (or experiencing) that isn't the case before the opening credits sequence. Also, let's be fair: the "novice" angle has been very heavily emphasised in the publicity for this film, so the average viewer could certainly be forgiven for expecting a BOND BEGINS; yet if he were to arrive late by such a small margin as to be seated during the opening credits, and if he tuned out of M's "too early to promote you" line, he could (if unexposed to said publicity, that is) go to his grave without knowing that CASINO ROYALE had been sold in large part as an origin story.

[marktmurphy]

I don't think there's anything to suggest novice - new to the 00 but there's experience, just not this sort of experience.

But there doesn't seem to be anything Bond is A. allowed to do (or experience) or B. is capable of doing (or experiencing) that isn't the case before the opening credits sequence.

He's headstrong and reckless and M doesn't trust him, although works out how to use him. Although this isn't showing the origins of Bond's career or his abilities as with Batman Begins, it is an earlier Bond who simply learns and is changed by his experiences. It's not as extreme an 'origin story' as Batman was; it's just a story set in the slightly earlier life of Bond.

[David Schofield]

I don't think there's anything to suggest novice - new to the 00 but there's experience, just not this sort of experience.

But there doesn't seem to be anything Bond is A. allowed to do (or experience) or B. is capable of doing (or experiencing) that isn't the case before the opening credits sequence.

He's headstrong and reckless and M doesn't trust him, although works out how to use him. Although this isn't showing the origins of Bond's career or his abilities as with Batman Begins, it is an earlier Bond who simply learns and is changed by his experiences. It's not as extreme an 'origin story' as Batman was; it's just a story set in the slightly earlier life of Bond.

But to what end? It serves no purpose, and is not evidenced by Craig's performance or appearance. His Bond is ALREADY far more worldweary than the plastic Bond's of Rog and Brozza. Craig as novice Bond doesn't remotely convince: sure, M tells him she doubts his ability, but as he's Bond, and even in this film we've seen evidence before she says it that he's good at what he does. Sure, he destroys an Embassy: previous, supposedly experienced Bonds have done much worse, almost as a party piece. Dench telling Craig she doubts him is as unconvincing as her calling Brozza a sexist, misogynist dinousaur. And in CR its just unnecessary.

[JimmyBond]

But to what end? It serves no purpose, and is not evidenced by Craig's performance or appearance. His Bond is ALREADY far more worldweary than the plastic Bond's of Rog and Brozza.

Surely being employed by MI6 for years would have made him world weary no? The only novice thing about him is the fact that he is promoted to a Double-Oh status. A title he himself admits only means that he is capable of killing in cold blood. It has nothing to do with how good of an agent he is.

[spynovelfan]

im gonna write a full review .. but heres my 1st reaction.
daniel craig just looked incredible up on screen last night .. i mean super handsome, masculine in the extreme..classic - almost as if he was from another era. he moved like a shark or a panther.. he burnt up the screen. in some scenes he was simply devastating looking..( the cinema let out a gasp when he put on the tux for the 1st time) in other scenes they played his uncoventional looks well... but the look in his eyes guided this film. you never doubted him for a sceond. in terms of action he was thrilling - tearing along like a stretfighter, relelntless, fierce. as a character you felt worried for him - he was reckless, almsot like a deathwish, an obsession with the bad guys and winning ( the scene with the knife in the casino - what was he thinking!? )you warmed towards him cos a sort of vulnerability showed through. one person pointed out that he was unlike anything we've ever seen before but reminds you of classic heroes. another person said he looked too pumped up. and that for example - the fight at the airport was less realistic because his adversary was so obviously weaker than him. i thought the stairwell and bathroom fights were sensational.. but lamented the lack of build up and immersion..in terms of spatial feeling, a sense of location, narrative..they just seemed to occur and then end. I liked most of the casino scne because the film breathed in the location - you felt you knew the room. i loved the acting between daniel and mads in this scene. all looks and snarling face-off. i liked le chiffre cos he was sleazy and desperate.. but i definately want to see this bond face some more seriously dangerous guys.

i thought it had pacing issues, some ropey lines and a few strange edits - but overall it rocked so much harder than we've had any reason to think was possible in a bond film. the action scenes rocked, but i actually prefered the low key bahamas stuff.. bond striding around small hotels, low key spy work, glamourous locations, casinos.. it felt so right and so enjoyable..craig swaggered with complete bondian cool in those scenes..brilliant. i only hope they can come up with as immersive a idea/plot/location in the the next film.i loved how bond hunted dimitreos, took his car, humiliated him, took his woman, killed him - all in maybe 24 hours..

my bad points about the film are few - but pointed.. i think they raced over the ending too fast.. although a long film, some of these scenes felt somewhat disconnected from eachother.. the car crash/torture/venice/aftermath/endng felt a little wrong - no matter how good they were individually. some lines felt like clunkers, somewhere between over written and cheesy.. id need to see it again..maybe just those final romantic scenes just felt too breezy in the cinema - in the context of what came before.. i dunno. but i sure brought that bond loved her, was vulnerable because he didnt quite know her, trusted her against his instincts... that last look underwater was incredible. the film had so much in it id have to see it again. there are literally 1000s of tiny cool moments in this film - even if the overall all plot narrative doesnt scan.. bonds arc worked. my impression was that craig was sensational.. but i want them to take it even darker and more real. but as a movie to establish craigs bond it was perfect. it was sometimes ancomomfortable mix of brosnan era action and classic novel bond. but seeing how well they did the casino scene - it make you think they could have just done the book prety much straight..but obviously they had to make a blockbuster.. i dont think we can complain about lenght of action scenes - cos big films simply have to have these.

the cinema i was in last night was obviously blown away by craig.. i dont think ive seen an actor cause quite that much impact in a long time. his presence and ferocity made up for a few cracks in the film..overall it was a glorious return to classic bond. dangerous and cooler than ever.. and bond gets put through the wringer in this film to such an extent that Craigs bond is now the only bond i care about. cant wait for the next one.

What he said.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

As it is, I don't think I'm overstating it at all to say this is the best Bond film since OHMSS.

You may have just laid my fears to rest...haha...

That's more or less what I've been expecting all along, a movie like OHMSS.

[HildebrandRarity]

IT NOT LIKE ANYTHING WE'VE SEEN OF A BOND FILM BEFORE (from CBNers and various reviewers): yes, it Is, and I don't think EON ever wanted it otherwise.

THE SCRIPT:

I tell you what, it was a vast improvement on anything since LTK..

THIS FILM COULD EASILY HAVE STARRED BROSNAN:

Brozza would have looked stupid doing these scenes (and I hope EON wouldn't have been tempted) and Craig gives them renewed energy

You say Brozza could have starred and then immediately say he would have looked stupid in the action scenes....Er...ok...isnt a stupid looking Bond/Bond movie the last thing we want/need?

Schizophrenic today, are we?

I don't know whether to take you seriously or not.

Muddled review, old boy.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 17 November 2006 - 02:14 PM.

[marktmurphy]

I don't think there's anything to suggest novice - new to the 00 but there's experience, just not this sort of experience.

But there doesn't seem to be anything Bond is A. allowed to do (or experience) or B. is capable of doing (or experiencing) that isn't the case before the opening credits sequence.

He's headstrong and reckless and M doesn't trust him, although works out how to use him. Although this isn't showing the origins of Bond's career or his abilities as with Batman Begins, it is an earlier Bond who simply learns and is changed by his experiences. It's not as extreme an 'origin story' as Batman was; it's just a story set in the slightly earlier life of Bond.

But to what end? It serves no purpose, and is not evidenced by Craig's performance or appearance. His Bond is ALREADY far more worldweary than the plastic Bond's of Rog and Brozza. Craig as novice Bond doesn't remotely convince: sure, M tells him she doubts his ability, but as he's Bond, and even in this film we've seen evidence before she says it that he's good at what he does. Sure, he destroys an Embassy: previous, supposedly experienced Bonds have done much worse, almost as a party piece. Dench telling Craig she doubts him is as unconvincing as her calling Brozza a sexist, misogynist dinousaur. And in CR its just unnecessary.

'Serves no purpose'? It's a film about a man who gets his fingers severely burnt by falling in love with a woman he shouldn't trust- the whole thing is a learning experience for him: just what every film should aim to do. He's not a novice at being a spy; of course not- it never says he is. You can be very experienced and still be reckless and egotistical. The recklessness (in love; not just in action) makes it a much more interesting film to watch. Imagine Jason Bourne doing all that- he wouldn't have got any of it wrong and has no character faults- more or less exciting?

[Mike00spy]

I didn't really find the film to be too long at all- I guess I am in the minority?

I mean, its not like King King (2005 version) or LOTR long.

I wouldn't have cut any of the romantic scenes- we do have to buy the Bond/Vesper relationship in order for the film to be effective.

I certainly wouldn't have cut the two early action scenes either. Each one is amazing, especially when you stack them against "invisible car" "ice surfing" from DAD. They feel real and are just plain exciting.

So, yeah, no problems with the running time at all.

BTW, A+

[kneelbeforezod]

His Bond is ALREADY far more worldweary than the plastic Bond's of Rog and Brozza. Craig as novice Bond doesn't remotely convince: sure, M tells him she doubts his ability, but as he's Bond, and even in this film we've seen evidence before she says it that he's good at what he does. Sure, he destroys an Embassy: previous, supposedly experienced Bonds have done much worse, almost as a party piece.

He might appear more world-weary than Brosnan or Moore, but that's because this is a different style of film, a bit more realistic; the filmmakers aren't trying to suggest that Bond is a complete novice that will one day turn into the Bond we saw in the films of Brozza and Rog.

This is a different universe. He is at the start of his double-O career, and as such he is more reckless, more hot-headed, he makes mistakes, and he lets his emotional guard down to Vesper.

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 17 November 2006 - 03:27 PM.

[Loomis]

I don't think there's anything to suggest novice - new to the 00 but there's experience, just not this sort of experience.

But there doesn't seem to be anything Bond is A. allowed to do (or experience) or B. is capable of doing (or experiencing) that isn't the case before the opening credits sequence.

He's headstrong and reckless and M doesn't trust him, although works out how to use him. Although this isn't showing the origins of Bond's career or his abilities as with Batman Begins, it is an earlier Bond who simply learns and is changed by his experiences. It's not as extreme an 'origin story' as Batman was; it's just a story set in the slightly earlier life of Bond.

But to what end? It serves no purpose, and is not evidenced by Craig's performance or appearance. His Bond is ALREADY far more worldweary than the plastic Bond's of Rog and Brozza. Craig as novice Bond doesn't remotely convince: sure, M tells him she doubts his ability, but as he's Bond, and even in this film we've seen evidence before she says it that he's good at what he does.

Good at what he does? He's brilliant, nay, flawless. Not that I'm calling for him to bumble around like Clouseau, but, just fifteen minutes or so in, he breaks into M's home (a pretty challenging feat, surely, even for the most seasoned and veteran Double-O just a couple of years from retirement, such as Moore's in A VIEW TO A KILL), and there's absolutely no explanation whatsoever of how he does it (a lazy cheat on the filmmakers' part), and we're presumably supposed to just accept it because, hey, he's James Bond. (Incidentally, doesn't M doubt Bond's ability in virtually every single film, regardless of era?)

And this is in an origin story. The dirty bastards.

[Jim]

Good at what he does? He's brilliant, nay, flawless.

This is part of the reason for his promotion, surely?

...and we're presumably supposed to just accept it because, hey, he's James Bond.

Yes, he's always been James Bond.

This is how he becomes James Bond 007 .

Given what he goes through in SilverFin and Blood Fever, he'sa always been pretty resourceful... oh, OK, that's cheating.

[marktmurphy]

Good at what he does? He's brilliant, nay, flawless. Not that I'm calling for him to bumble around like Clouseau, but, just fifteen minutes or so in, he breaks into M's home (a pretty challenging feat, surely, even for the most seasoned and veteran Double-O just a couple of years from retirement, such as Moore's in A VIEW TO A KILL), and there's absolutely no explanation whatsoever of how he does it (a lazy cheat on the filmmakers' part), and we're presumably supposed to just accept it because, hey, he's James Bond. (Incidentally, doesn't M doubt Bond's ability in virtually every single film, regardless of era?)

And this is in an origin story. The dirty bastards.

'Flawless'? Were you watching the same film as me? He cocks up constantly, from the foot chase, to nearly losing the terrorist at the Bodyworlds exhibition and again at the airport, to only just stopping the truck through blind luck, from losing all of his governement funds because he's a reckless poker player to being spotted by Gettler hiding behind a pillar, from failing to save himself from being poisoned to being spotted with an earpiece giving him away (what's that for incidentally? Who's he got to listen to?) and then crashing his Aston Martin. Hardly flawless.

And why is breaking into M's home such a 'challenging feat'? It's just a presumably quite secure (although I wouldn't have thought high security) house- no big feat at all. He should be trained to do that. I don't need to see how he does it- just some usual breaking and entering.

[JackWade]

If you think Brosnan could've been Bond in this movie, you're sadly mistaken. There is no way he could pull it off. That's just stupid.

[Harmsway]

'Flawless'? Were you watching the same film as me? He cocks up constantly, from the foot chase, to nearly losing the terrorist at the Bodyworlds exhibition and again at the airport, to only just stopping the truck through blind luck, from losing all of his governement funds because he's a reckless poker player to being spotted by Gettler hiding behind a pillar, from failing to save himself from being poisoned to being spotted with an earpiece giving him away (what's that for incidentally? Who's he got to listen to?) and then crashing his Aston Martin. Hardly flawless.

Yup. The earpiece, BTW, was to listen to the bug/tracker in Le Chiffre's inhaler. There was more with that in the script than was on screen (this film seems to have been remarkably streamlined; lots of little details that I'm pretty sure were filmed have been diced out to keep the pacing).

[Loomis]

Good at what he does? He's brilliant, nay, flawless. Not that I'm calling for him to bumble around like Clouseau, but, just fifteen minutes or so in, he breaks into M's home (a pretty challenging feat, surely, even for the most seasoned and veteran Double-O just a couple of years from retirement, such as Moore's in A VIEW TO A KILL), and there's absolutely no explanation whatsoever of how he does it (a lazy cheat on the filmmakers' part), and we're presumably supposed to just accept it because, hey, he's James Bond. (Incidentally, doesn't M doubt Bond's ability in virtually every single film, regardless of era?)

And this is in an origin story. The dirty bastards.

'Flawless'? Were you watching the same film as me? He cocks up constantly, from the foot chase, to nearly losing the terrorist at the Bodyworlds exhibition and again at the airport, to only just stopping the truck through blind luck, from losing all of his governement funds because he's a reckless poker player to being spotted by Gettler hiding behind a pillar, from failing to save himself from being poisoned to being spotted with an earpiece giving him away (what's that for incidentally? Who's he got to listen to?) and then crashing his Aston Martin. Hardly flawless.

Good points. I think another viewing may be in order, with more attention paid to those scenes.

And why is breaking into M's home such a 'challenging feat'? It's just a presumably quite secure (although I wouldn't have thought high security) house- no big feat at all. .

I'd have thought M would have one of the most secure homes in the land, right up there with, say, that of the Prime Minister, and that she would have at least one armed guard there at all times. After all, she won't even allow her real name to be known, so it's hardly a stretch to assume that her residence would be somewhat Fort Knoxish!

[avl]

His Bond is ALREADY far more worldweary than the plastic Bond's of Rog and Brozza. Craig as novice Bond doesn't remotely convince: sure, M tells him she doubts his ability, but as he's Bond, and even in this film we've seen evidence before she says it that he's good at what he does. Sure, he destroys an Embassy: previous, supposedly experienced Bonds have done much worse, almost as a party piece.

He might appear more world-weary than Brosnan or Moore, but that's because this is a different style of film, a bit more realistic; the filmmakers aren't trying to suggest that Bond is a complete novice that will one day turn into the Bond we saw in the films of Brozza and Rog.

This is a different universe. He is at the start of his double-O career, and as such he is more reckless, more hot-headed, he makes mistakes, and he lets his emotional guard down to Vesper.

Totally - I think this is a massive step change from the other 20, I really can't see them as the same series right now. This film had an emotional realism that was visceral and unlike any of the others, which even at their darkest, never approached the level of characterisation and intensity that CR achieved.

[marktmurphy]

The earpiece, BTW, was to listen to the bug/tracker in Le Chiffre's inhaler.

Of course; yes. I there's enough there in the film to work that out- I just forgot about the bug to be honest; it didn't confuse me while I was watching it.

'Flawless'? Were you watching the same film as me? He cocks up constantly, from the foot chase, to nearly losing the terrorist at the Bodyworlds exhibition and again at the airport, to only just stopping the truck through blind luck, from losing all of his governement funds because he's a reckless poker player to being spotted by Gettler hiding behind a pillar, from failing to save himself from being poisoned to being spotted with an earpiece giving him away (what's that for incidentally? Who's he got to listen to?) and then crashing his Aston Martin. Hardly flawless.

Good points. I think another viewing may be in order, with more attention paid to those scenes.

Fair enough- I honestly don't think we see a fully formed double o in this film: he's a fully fledged killer, but there's more to a double O.

And why is breaking into M's home such a 'challenging feat'? It's just a presumably quite secure (although I wouldn't have thought high security) house- no big feat at all. .

I'd have thought M would have one of the most secure homes in the land, right up there with, say, that of the Prime Minister, and that she would have at least one armed guard there at all times. After all, she won't even allow her real name to be known, so it's hardly a stretch to assume that her residence would be somewhat Fort Knoxish!

Hmm... no; don't really follow that. There's no basis to that in the real world or in Fleming: Quarterdeck is a nice place but no fortress.

[Jet Set Willy]

I don't think there's anything to suggest novice - new to the 00 but there's experience, just not this sort of experience.

But there doesn't seem to be anything Bond is A. allowed to do (or experience) or B. is capable of doing (or experiencing) that isn't the case before the opening credits sequence.

He's headstrong and reckless and M doesn't trust him, although works out how to use him. Although this isn't showing the origins of Bond's career or his abilities as with Batman Begins, it is an earlier Bond who simply learns and is changed by his experiences. It's not as extreme an 'origin story' as Batman was; it's just a story set in the slightly earlier life of Bond.

But to what end? It serves no purpose, and is not evidenced by Craig's performance or appearance. His Bond is ALREADY far more worldweary than the plastic Bond's of Rog and Brozza. Craig as novice Bond doesn't remotely convince: sure, M tells him she doubts his ability, but as he's Bond, and even in this film we've seen evidence before she says it that he's good at what he does. Sure, he destroys an Embassy: previous, supposedly experienced Bonds have done much worse, almost as a party piece. Dench telling Craig she doubts him is as unconvincing as her calling Brozza a sexist, misogynist dinousaur. And in CR its just unnecessary.

Fair enough. You didn't like it. Each to their own I guess.

Me, it completely blows everything else out of the water. To me, this is Bond. After 40-odd years of waiting, I have finally seen Fleming's Bond on-screen.

I was so mesmerised by it, I couldn't imagine anyone not liking it, but just goes to show I was wrong.

Incidentally, please let me know which Bond films you think are actually far superior to CR (just so I can get a sense of your particular taste in films).

[marktmurphy]

This isn't really much of a character study of a rookie, or novice, learning how to manuever at MI6

Well, it's not really supposed to be. He's been at MI6 for a while- such is obvious- he even tells another officer how to behave on duty. He just has to learn to temper his headstrong nature and arrogance; it's a story about an arrogant hero with serious flaws but a heart that needs opening.

and with some slight variations, could've been made to be Brosnan's swan song, as his Bond finally finds someone to share his life with and go into retirement with, only to be betrayed (if we're not counting Tracy in the Brosnan timeline).

Yeah- could have been and would be pretty decent- although you'd lose all the interesting stuff with Bond's more inexperienced arrogance, which ties directly into his relationship with Vesper. M even. It makes more sense this way. Even the action scenes which pretty much rely on Bond's mistakes and luck would have seemed very out of place after the recent Pierce Perfect films.

Well, the "free-running" sequence was dynamic, but the use of the bulldozer was simply overkill and senseless, and just the dumb sort of thing EON would've done in the past. Here you've just had Bond tell his colleague to quit touching his ear and to quit drawing attention to himself, and yet Bond draws attention to himself when he steals a bulldozer to go after ONE MAN.

Yeah; fair point. It's very GoldenEye tankish, that bit.

The crane sequence is among the best of the series, and the Miami airport sequence is action-packed, even if a bit forced and shoe-horned into the script.

Well, it is the starting point for the entire plot- without Bond foiling the plot the poker game would never have needed to take place. Can't agree with that.

Where's the clever ability to get out of the situation like using a cigarette lighter to incinerate Sanchez? Or using a statue of Wellington to crush Whitaker?

I;m in two minds on that; I like all that too, but Bond is supposed to be more real in this, and killing people ain't pretty. Dr Goodhead didn't sit in the shower crying about killing a man; it's swings and roundabouts. And Fleming liked a bit of black humour but he also didn't mind showing how brutal killings are.