27 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

From CBn's Main Page...

CBn Reviews Casino Royale

Forum members review the twenty-first James Bond film

[00Twelve]

Well, since we have a CBn Member review section, I'll just link my review from that forum. And my opinion hasn't changed.

00Twelve's Review

[Zorin Industries]

"The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning...."

To even think of Pierce Brosnan - let alone watch his latter entries in the series - seems embarrassing and pointless. Watching a Brosnan Bond now seems like watching a tired England match you've seen before.

CASINO ROYALE is hard to compare to the previous 20 films as it doesn't want to be. The franchise of old is still present, but the formula is not. Structurally alone, this film re-writes the book on Bond. It also re-structures what any adventure film can get away with these days (as it should - Bond wrote the book on mainstream cinema and shouldn't be left behind by its imitators).

The film has a pre-title sequence, a build up and a climax granted - but not necessarily in that order (the film ends on a prologue to the next film).

Replacing the traditional destruction of the villain's lair with the main character's emotional destruction is astute, intelligent and bloody cool. It is not a lady's mid-drift or a Moore-ism that gets laid bare in a shower scene in this film - but a character trait underscored by the simple gesture of giving someone more hot water.

The dialogue crackles with insight and judgment on a character we actually know very little about. But Craig doesn't make him a victim. He also doesn't play Bond like a 1970's ambassador abroad. This Bond has to be almost bribed into donning the tuxedo. Wealth and the accoutrement's of it (including a reference to Bond's childhood benefactor) embarrass this Bond.

CASINO ROYALE successfully shaves back all the deadwood of the series - apart from Bond having a pit stop with a typically voluptuous chanteuse (which worked for 44 years for Bond but now seems awkward and unnecessary and is maybe indicative of a sequence that seems handed down from Brosnan).

However, even M's new polytechnic-educated assistants work. The titles alone are stunning and perfectly illustrate the film's vibrancy, texture and masculinity. There are no writhing bints in this prelude. Just a dealing of the cards both actually and metaphorically against a 'cock rock' title song that wipes the Bassey cobwebs well and truly from the speakers.

This is a uber-cool film that remembers how the Connery entries were the Tarantino films of their day. Craig is extremely sexy, aggressive and impatient - but that is the character ("Vodka Martini, Mr Bond, shaken or stirred?" - "Do I look like I care?!"). Craig is a panther-like thug. And so he should be. Bond is a paid assassin, not an Alan Whicker globe-trotter.

But unlike Brosnan - who admittedly got better as the scripts got worse - Daniel Craig's Bond shows emotion and vulnerability (in fact 'vulnerability' is a theme running through the whole film and crosses multiple characters at various times, notably LE CHIFFRE, the antagonist). But rest assured, Craig's Bond does not make a quiche once (Roger Moore hold your A VIEW TO A KILL head in shame...!).

Bond films should always reflect the cinematic trends of the time as well as pre-empt a few along the way. Brosnan's Bond films were becoming dated and were almost apologising for being Bond films ("You are a misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the Cold war"). CASINO ROYALE doesn't apologise once. Some fans will hate it, most should not. Either way I don't care. The producers set out to make a good film that rewards your time and money. And they have. They know there is no point remaking THE SPY WHO LOVED ME twelve times.

CASINO ROYALE can be epitomised in one scene. There is a torture sequence where a helpless Bond brilliantly takes the verbal initiative, makes the audience laugh, makes the torturer laugh, makes himself laugh then all narrative hell breaks loose. That scene alone demonstrates what Bond and the Bond films could now be and I for one am excited...

The old questions such as "who is your favourite Bond?" and "what is your favourite Bond film?" may just have to be reconsidered. It may not be my favourite Bond film yet, but the final strength of CASINO ROYALE is that it is in a different league to most of what has gone before. These questions now miss the point. Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson have raised the bar. The series has been lifted from the cinematic stalemate it had slipped into. It is no longer important to ask "who is going to sing the song?" (Cornell's effort works perfectly in the film and this writer was not an initial fan - it's a different version to what's doing the download rounds), or "who is playing the girl?" (note to producers : Caterina Murino cannot act, bless her...) or "what's the title going to be - please let it be BEYOND THE ICE...". These are Smash Hits considerations that seem futile, boring and fan-happy in the face of a film that resets the counter.

What will matter is when is the next one coming and how can we keep Daniel Craig? Okay - and maybe "who is Mr White and who is he working for" needs answering fairly quickly too.....

[thecasinoroyale]

^^ What he said!


10/10.

The defining, humane portrayal of Agent 007, James Bond, the sadistic, cold and ruthless assassin for HMG.

Daniel Craig is James Bond, simply put.

[Matt_13]

10.

[chris-o]

10/10!!!!

It's a real Bond movie with real action, that's how everything began!

[Billy Bob]

CASINO ROYALE PRIMER
(Don

[Qwerty]

Excellent summary, Billy Bob. Welcome to the CBn Forums.

[Qwerty]

Keep the reviews and votes coming.

[Vauxhall]

Pretty decent scores so far!! I'll try and track down and update my review from November

[Garth007]

^^ What he said!


10/10.

The defining, humane portrayal of Agent 007, James Bond, the sadistic, cold and ruthless assassin for HMG.

Daniel Craig is James Bond, simply put.

I 100% agree with u. its back to the extreme basics as it should be and that Daniel Craig is the perfect guy to be Bond at the beginning of how it all started.

[BoogieBond]

I gave it a 9.
Its not perfection. But it is great. Everything works in this, there are a couple of minus points which prevents it from being a 10
But the good points
Daniel Craig. Great performance as bond
The action. great gritty scenes, the Parkour scenes are awesome. The fights are intense.
The story and dialogue. The arc is from Flemings CR. Also its about Bond. We find he is actually an interesting character and not a cardboard superhero
The chemistry between vesper and bond. Great.
The supporting characters, direction all great.

The bad points. Not much
Perhaps slightly long.
Disappointed they didn't use baccarat as the game and the casino scenes drag slightly.
The Miami airport scene could have been improved, although it is fine, it is a bit long.

But it will stand out from the others , and does now, even though it is a recent entry, as one of the best Bond films of them all IMO.

[ChrissBond007]

8.5/10

A bit overrated, but it's still a great film. I'm not quite a fan of the beginning of the movie, the pre title didn't inpressed me, the parkour scenes and the Miami airport scenes could have been much shorter. But after that, the movie really starts. The casino scenes, torture scene, the scenes in Venice and the ending are awesome.

Craig's peformace did suprised me, I don't really think he is the best or the best since Sean Connery, but his peformance in this film is great. Of course it has some weak points, the villians for example aren't that great.

But it's a great movie, the best since Goldeneye, in my opinion.

Edited by ChrissBond007, 31 October 2008 - 02:36 PM.

[Qwerty]

Article updated.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Casino Royale:
10/10!!!!! My absolute favourite Bond film of all time (Besides FRWL and GF)! Here's why:
Daniel Craig: The controversy around his pick as Bond didn't affect me at all. I said, he deserves a chance to be Bond. Let him be. And so, what happened? He didn't dissapoint!! He did a lot of those cool stunts (diving through that window in the airport/the crane fight/running through that wall!!!!)! Fantastic Bond actor, and he was able to display some real emotion in the character, which was, IMO, lacking in some of the earlier films.

Eva Green: My favourite Bond girl (besides Honey Rider) is now Vesper Lynd. Beautiful, smart, and witty. She is another reason why CR is AMAZING!!

Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen): Great Bond villain. Totally believable, not a "take over the world" kind of villain, either.

The stunts: Again, amazing, real, CGI-free, and cool!!!

The title sequence: Fantastic stuff from Kleinman. Great title song to go along with the sequence.

Overall, this was a fantastic movie. The only thing that I have to complain about the film is that, at times, it felt a little long and that Omega placement between Vesper and Bond. But, if you can get past that, you'll have a fun time with this movie. I can't wait to see what Daniel Craig does for his future Bond outings.

[007FANATIC]

First, I have to say that this is my personal favorite Bond film, and is one of the best, if not the best Bond film. Daniel Craig as Bond is just pure awesome. He plays Bond with a harder edge, and much more brutal, but also vulnerable, and human. Eva Green plays an excellent Vesper Lynd, smart, beautiful, and tragic. Mads Millelsen is also excellent as Le Chiffre, he plays him brilliantly and has some very good scenes.
The plot is classic, the poker game is tense, the dialog sparkling, and the torture scene is very well done. The movie adds much to the book, and the fights are realistic, brutal and exciting.
This movie is a classic, and a must see.
-I love EVERYTHING Bond, but I still have favorites.

[Alena]

Casino Royale is great movie! I love this movie.
Daniel is really the best James Bond and he´s fantastic talented.
My mum says that he isn´t attractive. Dan is very attractive man (I say it despite blond men isn´t my type).

http://img36.imagesh...36/8459/dan.png

Characters of CR are splendid, psychologically interesting and enigmatic (Vesper and Le Schiffre).

James Bond is like never before. He´s cold, more dangerous, heartless and egoistic. Is he bad guy??
Vesper shows that not. She disarms him, occupies his cold heart and where´s suddenly the hard Bond??
James&Vesper is my favourite pair. Their love is the most beautiful which I knows.

http://img36.imagesh...noroyale225.jpg

CR adds strength to me. It´s so nice, sad, touching .. simply gorgeous.
I´m forever faithful in this movie. Casino Royale THE BEST BOND, JAMES BOND MOVIE.

10/10 unambiguously

I´m sorry for my bad English.

Edited by Alena, 01 June 2009 - 02:51 AM.

[byline]

Dan is very attractive man (I say it despite blond men isn´t my type).

It's funny, but ordinarily I'm not attracted to blond men either. But Craig is different!

[chrisno1]

In 2008 I watched all the Bond movies and wrote a series of reviews for another site. The aim was to watch them in order in the run up to the premiere of QOS. I succeeded and the reviews were well received.
However, subsequently, I have re-read my reviews and re-watched a number of the movies (the BFI had a whole 007 season earlier this year and I saw quite a few on the big screen again!).
This is my updated review for Casino Royale.

CASINO ROYALE
REVISED REVIEW 23/1/2010

Casino Royale starts in grainy black and white. James Bond has carried out his first hit, a vicious encounter in a gentleman’s lavatory. The traitor in Prague knows it wasn’t easy. “He made you feel it,” he states. Bond is stoic; the second kill is considerably easier and the traitor is dispensed with one bullet. It’s an excellent beginning, recalling the clever, tense openings to the earliest Bond films. There is some mystery to the short gamut. But the questions are unanswered and it doesn’t matter. The purpose is to introduce us to James Bond.

As played by Daniel Craig, Bond is much more than a blunt instrument. Certainly he is cold, ruthless, reckless and determined. But Craig’s versatility gives gravitas to Bond, while exuding considerable charm and, at times, passion. He also has a fine physical presence. Craig is excellent as Bond, in a portrayal that owes much to Connery’s formative years, treating other’s possessions with contempt and exchanging barbed, bitter conversations with an equally scornful M. This Bond doesn’t even own a decent dinner suit.

He feels very close to the one written about by Ian Fleming in Casino Royale, his debut and one of his better novels. The writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis have taken a bold step in returning to the source of the Bond series. For all the excitement of recent years, the soul of James Bond had been missing. Barring a few scenes in a few films, any trace of Fleming’s 007 had all but disappeared in the last three decades. That is put right in Casino Royale and the middle section of the film follows the novel much as Fleming wrote it, including passages of dialogue and scenes of torture.

The producers call the film a “re-boot” of the world’s greatest film franchise. If by that they mean a good kick up the butt, I think they’ve just about it got it spot on. If the producers believe this film genuinely points Bond in a more realistic direction, perhaps even back to his literal roots, then the debate has to remain open. Casino Royale doesn’t quite dispense with cinema’s action packed Bond, but is does re-establish him for modern audiences, who have been fed a seemingly never ending diet of gadgets and sci-fi style plots.

The early scenes around Prague, Madagascar, the Bahamas and Miami, reveal Bond as tough and focussed, if slightly out of control. He takes more of the rough than the smooth and even turns down a bout of love making in favour of chasing the bad guys. There are two long winded pursuits, first around a building site and then across Miami airport by night. The former of these is well edited and features some excellent stunt work, particularly from the free-runner Sebastien Foucan. The latter however is pure Die Hard and reminded me of the worst offences of the Pierce Brosnan era. Both sequencess struggle to escape a sense of the overtly deliberate spectacle.

What makes the scenes particularly heavy going isn’t just their excessive length, a problem in itself, but the later impression that they are not necessary to support the story. After forty minutes of Bond chasing small time baddies, the kingpin, Le Chiffre, organises a high stakes poker game in Montenegro. Thanks to Bond’s unintentional involvement, Le Chiffre’s stock market investments lost his terrorist employers millions and he needs to recoup the money. It resembles the story concocted by Fleming, but in the novel Le Chiffre’s profligate expense was self inflicted and his ruse to generate money an elaborate cover to avoid the Russian secret service. Here it is done with full knowledge of his backers, which makes his eventual demise unlikely.

Equally difficult to understand is the behaviour of Vesper Lynd, Bond’s love interest, here played affectingly by Eva Green. The writer’s retain Fleming’s thread of betrayal, but in expanding the story they have left only one significant indication of Vesper’s love for Bond – at her death she kisses the finger she described as being “on it’s own, more of a man than any I have met.” We also have to accept Bond’s love for Vesper with something of an intake of breath, given that their relationship is a prickly one. It is not though devoid of tenderness, as shown by two exchanges which take place in the bathroom of their hotel suite.

The first has them dressing for the opening night at the casino; the second takes place following Bond’s killing of two thugs as Vesper sits shell shocked and fully clothed in the shower. Director Martin Campbell allows Craig and Green to offer the glances, expressions and sighs that tell us more of their growing relationship than the dialogue, which while clever does not have emotional depth. As in the novel, their most wordy exchanges take place over two meals, but while Fleming used these to develop Bond’s emotions and Vesper’s duplicity, here they are used for some pseudo psycho analysis. Entertaining it may be; character developing it is not.

Mads Mikkelsen is a wonderful compensation as Le Chiffre. He is frighteningly calm, an asthmatic who suffers a weeping eye. There is an early scene in Uganda where his stern, solid face speaks volumes about his character. He offers little conversation, he is a powerful, rich man, who will go to any lengths to succeed, including the severing of his mistresses arm if need be. When he finally confronts Bond, it is a sweaty raging Le Chiffre, a man whose world has fallen apart, a man who has lost control.

The other protagonists are Giancarlo Giannini’s Mathis and Jesper Christensen’s Mr White, but while well inhabited by their respective actors, the characters offer little to the story as a whole. The CIA agent Felix Leiter also appears, but is reduced to nothing more than a background figure, and Jeffrey Wright is wasted. Once more Judi Dench is an irritable M.

The film looks good and Peter Lamont’s interiors are decadent and colourful. Phil Meheux’s photography is perhaps too colourful, the brightness making a weighty contrast to the darkness of the proceedings on screen. It’s well edited and costumed. The score by David Arnold utilises Chris Cornell’s theme song “You Know My Name” to good effect and while he still has a tendency towards melodramatic strings, he handles much of the action with restraint. Daniel Klienman’s excellent title sequence blends fighting silhouettes, playing cards and roulette wheels, to resemble animated covers of the original paperback novels.

The film ends in Venice, with another untidy action sequence in a collapsing Venetian palace, and the loose ends are almost all tied up. There is however an ultimate, more satisfying finale, as 007 traces Mr White to a gorgeously radiant Lake Como villa and introduces himself as “Bond, James Bond.” The James Bond Theme crashes into the final credits.

There appears to be scope for an immediate sequel to Casino Royale and if the standard of this film can be maintained, James Bond will continue to entertain and enthral for several more years. Ian Fleming’s now more human hero has at last been returned to his rightful place at the top of the world’s list of super spies and action heroes.

RATING 8 from 10

[Attempting Re-entry]

10/10. Fantastic. Was all primed to hate it it upon release, but was absolutely blown away. That sequel, though....ugh

[jaguar007]

no chance he could pull off some of the groan-inducing one-liners Brosnan was forcefed,

Well, Brosnan could not pull those off either.

[Doctor Whom]

A good, solid 9 from me.

It's a testament to the skill of all involved that this, the 22nd film in a film series that has been around since 1962, could arguably be considered the best of the lot.

A lot of times, I look at a Bond film and some things work and some things don't. The actor playing Bond is great, but the supporting cast needs work. Or the supporting cast is great and the actor playing Bond isn't up to par. Or the special effects are poor. But with this film, almost everything works. Craig is nothing like Bond on paper, but after this film, he seems born to play the part. Eva Green is a good actress and has decent chemistry with Craig. The direction, production design, editing, supporting cast --everything (even David Arnold's score) just works.

[00Twelve]

no chance he could pull off some of the groan-inducing one-liners Brosnan was forcefed,

Well, Brosnan could not pull those off either.

Well said.

[Safari Suit]

I probably have more issues with CR than most posters here, but I like that it's not too much of a prequel. About 90% of the film could play just as well as a follow on from DAD as TLD did to AVTAK. The extent to which it demystifies or explains the character of Bond is something viewers can project on to the film; an obvious intepretation is that Bond's relationship with Vesper is responsible for his subsequent detachment with women, but it's not something that's explicitly stated and as such does not have to be taken as such if desired.

[Doctor Whom]

I probably have more issues with CR than most posters here, but I like that it's not too much of a prequel. About 90% of the film could play just as well as a follow on from DAD as TLD did to AVTAK. The extent to which it demystifies or explains the character of Bond is something viewers can project on to the film; an obvious intepretation is that Bond's relationship with Vesper is responsible for his subsequent detachment with women, but it's not something that's explicitly stated and as such does not have to be taken as such if desired.

I don't see CR as a prequel at all. If it were a prequel, it would take place in the same continuity as the previous films, but it's pretty clear that this film establishes its own continuity (which is why I love Judi Dench sticking around as M. Same actor playing Bond's boss, but it can't be the same character she played previously). It's a reboot not a prequel. As such it's not that much different thatn every other time they've changed leading men. They've always done a bit of a reboot, if for no other reason, than to change the style of the fims slightly to take into account the different strengths (and weaknesses) of the new lead actor. Sort of "soft" reboots. CR is more of a "hard" reboot.

Having said that, I do agree with you that the vast majority of CR is straight-ahead Bond.

[00Twelve]

See, I don't see Rik Van Nutter as being any cooler than the backside of my pillow. Take of the shades inside the casino, please. And lose the suit on the beach, for crying out loud, it's like having "SPY" tattooed on your forehead, ya know? But those are minor gripes from merely another fan.

I love Wright, myself.

[jaguar007]

See, I don't see Rik Van Nutter as being any cooler than the backside of my pillow. Take of the shades inside the casino, please. And lose the suit on the beach, for crying out loud, it's like having "SPY" tattooed on your forehead, ya know? But those are minor gripes from merely another fan.

Agreed. Rik Van Nutter had no charisma at all. Of course you can't compare Wright to Lord, No Felix Leiter will ever be as cool as Jack Lord, the man is as cool as ice (and nobody turns on a balcony quite like Lord).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AepyGm9Me6w&feature=related

[00Twelve]

Dude just let Bond sock him in the gut. Could you imagine Lord letting Connery get away with that?

Despite the stature difference, I don't even imagine Wright's Leiter letting Craigbond get away with it.