Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Film Review ::: Casino Royale


32 replies to this topic

#1 B. Brown

B. Brown

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 477 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 23 June 2009 - 07:55 PM

I wrote this up for my blog today. It probably won't make me very popular around here, but oh well:

This film does a great job of grasping the audience right from the beginning. The pre-titles sequence doesn’t follow the normal formula, either. First and foremost, it doesn’t start off with the traditional gun barrel and, instead, ends with it. The pre-titles are also in grayscale – something we had never seen before in a James Bond film. Finally, the scenes take place in James Bond’s past. The crew involved with these scenes did an outstanding job. In noir-fashion, we see James Bond earn his legendary double-oh number. The bathroom fight brought me back to the Dalton era. In this scene, James Bond is in his most brutal form. Between slamming the enemy into the urinals and drowning him in a sink, these flashbacks certainly deliver thrills. We also see how cold James Bond can really be when he shoots Dryden (the 00-section chief). A quickly-cut shot shows a family photo on Dryden’s desk as the bullet strikes him. And at last, we also get an idea of how the gun barrel sequence came to be.

As great as that all may sound, I think this is the first and final solid aspect of the film. Once again, in true cinematic James Bond fashion, this film loosely adapts the classic Ian Fleming novel.

Perhaps one of the better aspects of the film includes the characters. Vesper Lynd and Rene Mathis were portrayed quite well, in my opinion. Eva Green did a great job of playing James Bond’s lover. She was certainly the best Bond girl we’ve been given since Sophie Marceau or Izabella Scorupco. Giancarlo Giannini’s portrayal of Rene Mathis was exceptional and the character ranks up there with the greatest allies of the series. On the other hand, the fates of each character were poorly written. With Vesper, the masterminds Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis turn Fleming’s sleeping pill suicide into a drowning in an elevator. They also (pointlessly) turn Mathis into a potential informant for Le Chiffre, and therefore he is tasered and taken off for imprisonment by the end of the film. As far as Mad Mikkelsen’s performance as Le Chiffre goes, I could take it or leave it. It was certainly a more glamorized, MTV-generation version of the character. In the novel, Le Chiffre was not model material. I would prefer Peter Lorre’s version of the character any day. The producers also introduce Felix Leiter in this film, portrayed by Jeffrey Wright. I saw this performance as very limited, thanks to the writers. Wright did not have much to work with here, and therefore, was not able to shine as he has done in some other films that he’s been in. Judi Dench is also brought back as M – which is another disgrace to Fleming’s novel. Instead of acting as Bond’s boss in the film, she more or less acts like his mother. It gets annoying after a while, to be honest. Other performances in the film were limite; none of them come off as memorable or worth a mention.

David Arnold also offers us another uninspired score. I consider the score to be one of the worst of the series. It’s dull, lifeless, unoriginal, and doesn’t even come close to the works of John Barry or Eric Serra. That said, I think I’ve given the score to this film more attention than it deserves.

Chris Cornell’s theme song was decent; made in more of “Live and Let Die” style, it certainly provided for an interesting title track. The vocals are great (coming from a Cornell fan), but the lyrics are pretty simple. It’s not the worst of the series, and not the best either. It works well with the film, though.

My major problem with this film is the ridiculous action and the poor adaptation of the novel – they go hand in hand. The story seems to be propelled by lack-luster action. The only scenes that stand up to the film’s opening include the casino scenes and the moments before the end titles. Other than that, the rest of the film carries that MTV-generation appeal. I really can’t find the difference between this James Bond film and the films of the supposedly “out-of-control” Pierce Brosnan era. When you shred away the thin, outer coating, they’re still the exact same things – generic action films made to generate loads of cash. The most outrageous scene of “Casino Royale”, though, has to be the falling house in Venice. If this house were made of ice, it would really be no different than one of those scenes in “Die Another Day”.

The brutal take on James Bond goes a bit too far, also – to the point in which it seems to mimic Jason Bourne, rather than Ian Fleming’s character. You can really notice this at Miami International with Bond’s attire. Jason Bourne can wear blue jeans and casual jackets – not James Bond. And what was with the sadistic smirk after killing Carlos? It made Bond come off as some sort of psychopath. What was with the deliberate disobedience? Had a fresh agent thoughtlessly killed a suspect against the instructions of his superior, I doubt he’d be in the service for much longer. While Bond can be a cold assassin at times, there has to be a line drawn. He is not some psycho on a killing spree.

The first few viewings of “Casino Royale” were satisfying, I must admit. It was a new Bond, and a new take on Bond, too. After a while, though, this film started losing its appeal with me, and the flaws started standing out a bit more. If you’re into generic action and cringe-worthy love scenes, then this is the film for you. However, you could also get that out of a random Arnold Schwarzenegger film if you wanted to. Though the series does not have a reputation for faithfully adapting Fleming’s novels, I think the writers could have at least made an honest attempt. Instead, this is not Ian Fleming’s “Casino Royale” … it is Eon Productions’ “Casino Royale”. They maintained the basic plot, and changed mostly everything else. Even that genital mutilation/torture scene from the novel was turned into a joke.

I do not see how this is any more of a James Bond film as “Moonraker” or “Die Another Day”. It provides ridiculous action and trend-following, rather than trend-setting.

In the end, an official, faithful adaptation of Ian Fleming’s classic novel went to waste. What a shame.

:S :| :S :| B) :tdown: :tdown: :) :) :S

#2 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 23 June 2009 - 08:09 PM

The pre-titles are also in grayscale – something we had never seen before in a James Bond film.


Actually, I believe it was shot on black-and-white stock.

#3 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 23 June 2009 - 08:15 PM

If we had a truly faithful adaptation, then we would've had a period piece.

The Bond films move with the times, and that's exactly what Casino Royale does. Whilst still sticking to the spirit of the original novel.

#4 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 23 June 2009 - 08:20 PM

Casino Royale (while yes it is a loose adaption) is still a closer adaption of it's source material than over half the Bond films out there.

#5 B. Brown

B. Brown

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 477 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 23 June 2009 - 08:26 PM

If we had a truly faithful adaptation, then we would've had a period piece.

The Bond films move with the times, and that's exactly what Casino Royale does. Whilst still sticking to the spirit of the original novel.


I never mentioned it, but I wouldn't have minded a period piece. It would've been interesting to see!

If ripping-off rival franchises means "keeping up with the times", then I completely agree.


Casino Royale (while yes it is a loose adaption) is still a closer adaption of it's source material than over half the Bond films out there.


That's not saying much.

Edited by B. Brown, 23 June 2009 - 08:29 PM.


#6 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 23 June 2009 - 08:37 PM

And you're point is? We could have gotten a film completely unrelated to the novel with the name Casino Royale slapped on the front.

Besides, despite it's liberties taken with the novel I feel the film is amazingly faithful. It hits all the beats the novel does, just does them a tad differently.

#7 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 23 June 2009 - 08:51 PM

As far as Mad Mikkelsen’s performance as Le Chiffre goes, I could take it or leave it. It was certainly a more glamorized, MTV-generation version of the character. In the novel, Le Chiffre was not model material. I would prefer Peter Lorre’s version of the character any day.

B)

Judi Dench is also brought back as M – which is another disgrace to Fleming’s novel. Instead of acting as Bond’s boss in the film, she more or less acts like his mother. It gets annoying after a while, to be honest.

:tdown:

The brutal take on James Bond goes a bit too far, also – to the point in which it seems to mimic Jason Bourne, rather than Ian Fleming’s character. You can really notice this at Miami International with Bond’s attire. Jason Bourne can wear blue jeans and casual jackets – not James Bond. And what was with the sadistic smirk after killing Carlos? It made Bond come off as some sort of psychopath.

:tdown:

:| :| :D :D :) :) :S :S :| :S

Too harsh. I'll give it 6.5/10.

#8 B. Brown

B. Brown

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 477 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 23 June 2009 - 08:55 PM

And you're point is? We could have gotten a film completely unrelated to the novel with the name Casino Royale slapped on the front.



Oh, I thought that was what we got...

#9 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 23 June 2009 - 09:19 PM

If we had a truly faithful adaptation, then we would've had a period piece.

The Bond films move with the times, and that's exactly what Casino Royale does. Whilst still sticking to the spirit of the original novel.


I never mentioned it, but I wouldn't have minded a period piece. It would've been interesting to see!


You'll have to see it in your dreams, then, because there's no way that Eon was ever going to make the film as a period piece.

If you can't get past the lack of a 1950s setting, the lack of Bond's comma of black hair and his Benzedrine habit and his sixty cigarettes a day and the scar down his cheek and all the rest of it, then I suggest you stick to the Fleming novels or their Daily Express comic strip adaptations. The films are probably not for you.

There's nothing wrong with being a Fleming purist - the world probably needs more of 'em, in fact. But don't complain when a film made in 2006 for a mass audience fails to be exactly like its 1953 source novel.

#10 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 23 June 2009 - 09:33 PM

CR was one of the best experiences I have seen watching Bond in the cinema. After first seeing the film I left wanting more, something I had not experienced since TLD. I was proud of Bond again.
I do think the impact of the film wears off quite quickly, but for me there is no doubt this is a great 007 movie for our times.

#11 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 23 June 2009 - 09:35 PM

The brutal take on James Bond goes a bit too far, also – to the point in which it seems to mimic Jason Bourne, rather than Ian Fleming’s character.

Bourne doesn't enjoy killing anymore than Bond so that's an odd point.

You can really notice this at Miami International with Bond’s attire. Jason Bourne can wear blue jeans and casual jackets – not James Bond.

He was wearing chinos and a lightweight leather jacket. He wears Jeans in QOS, not CR.

And what was with the sadistic smirk after killing Carlos? It made Bond come off as some sort of psychopath.

Because Carlos gave him a look of "you failed Mr whoever you are" and Bond enjoyed the irony of it...it was the Terrorist guy that was about to be blown up by his own bomb. It also fits into the whole poker theme of casino royale. Bad guy gets busted by the better hand he's convinced he has beat. I see nothing sick about this.

What was with the deliberate disobedience? Had a fresh agent thoughtlessly killed a suspect against the instructions of his superior, I doubt he’d be in the service for much longer. While Bond can be a cold assassin at times, there has to be a line drawn. He is not some psycho on a killing spree.

He IS a professional assassin/secret agent/special ops soldier. He's "maladjusted" and so his morality is not like a normal person's. We all accept this as fans, no?

The whole point of the two film arch of CR and QOS was for Bond to mature into a seasoned veteran who has good judgement and become the Bond we all know and love™. I think it's a worthy journey to take as a fan after so many dull, pointless excercises we had the prior 10 years.

#12 B. Brown

B. Brown

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 477 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 23 June 2009 - 09:35 PM

If you can't get past the lack of a 1950s setting, the lack of Bond's comma of black hair and his Benzedrine habit and his sixty cigarettes a day and the scar down his cheek and all the rest of it, then I suggest you stick to the Fleming novels or their Daily Express comic strip adaptations. The films are probably not for you.


I've obviously gotten past it, or else I doubt I'd be posting here. B)

But don't complain when a film made in 2006 for a mass audience fails to be exactly like its 1953 source novel.


Well, everyone's got the right to complain.

And it wouldn't have been too hard to adapt it more faithfully.

There were a number of scenes taken from the novel that didn't need to be changed. For example, the genital mutilation and Vesper's death. How did changing those scenes update it to 2006?

Oh, I could take a guess, I suppose - the MTV-generation of audiences need to hear "balls" or "boobs" in a film in order to generate a laugh, and sinking houses are so 2006?

And what was with the sadistic smirk after killing Carlos? It made Bond come off as some sort of psychopath.

Because Carlos gave him a look of "you failed Mr whoever you are" and Bond enjoyed the irony of it...it was the Terrorist guy that was about to be blown up by hois own Bomb. I see nothing sick about this.



Hm. So because Carlos gave him a look of "you failed Mr whoever you are", Bond can be excused when he smirks while watching a man blow up in front of him?

Must be quite a pleasant sight.

Edited by B. Brown, 23 June 2009 - 09:39 PM.


#13 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 23 June 2009 - 09:43 PM

If you can't get past the lack of a 1950s setting, the lack of Bond's comma of black hair and his Benzedrine habit and his sixty cigarettes a day and the scar down his cheek and all the rest of it, then I suggest you stick to the Fleming novels or their Daily Express comic strip adaptations. The films are probably not for you.


I've obviously gotten past it, or else I doubt I'd be posting here. B)

But don't complain when a film made in 2006 for a mass audience fails to be exactly like its 1953 source novel.


Well, everyone's got the right to complain.

And it wouldn't have been too hard to adapt it more faithfully.

There were a number of scenes taken from the novel that didn't need to be changed. For example, the genital mutilation and Vesper's death. How did changing those scenes update it to 2006?

Oh, I could take a guess, I suppose - the MTV-generation of audiences need to hear "balls" or "boobs" in a film in order to generate a laugh, and sinking houses are so 2006?

And what was with the sadistic smirk after killing Carlos? It made Bond come off as some sort of psychopath.

Because Carlos gave him a look of "you failed Mr whoever you are" and Bond enjoyed the irony of it...it was the Terrorist guy that was about to be blown up by hois own Bomb. I see nothing sick about this.



Hm. So because Carlos gave him a look of "you failed Mr whoever you are", Bond can be excused when he smirks while watching a man blow up in front of him?


Yes. :tdown: This guy has probably killed lots of innocent people via bomb for money so he deserves to die that way.

btw, I didn't know his name was Carlos...now that is a Bourne rip off! :tdown:

#14 B. Brown

B. Brown

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 477 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 23 June 2009 - 09:48 PM

How the guy died isn't the main matter, though.

I had a problem with how Bond reacted. I can take a one-liner or something after a villain's death, but smirking about it? Especially when blood and guts were probably spattered all over? Eh, I didn't care for it.

#15 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 23 June 2009 - 10:36 PM

And you're point is? We could have gotten a film completely unrelated to the novel with the name Casino Royale slapped on the front.



Oh, I thought that was what we got...



Did you watch the movie with David Niven and Woody Allen? Because that's how it appears. The film we got is remarkably faithful to the novel. Just because it's been updated for 2006 doesnt take away anything from it. As I said before the film (at least once Bond gets to Montenegro) hits all the same beats from the novel.

#16 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 23 June 2009 - 11:11 PM

I do find a similarity in the action styles of Bourne and QoS, but there is absolutely nothing about Casino Royale that suggest Bourne, except the fact that is may have been a bit grittier than than the last few films (Bond has been gritty before any of the Bourne movies were made). Would you have preferred Bond to be chasing Carlos to Miami in a suit???? I guess you also hate Thunderball because Bond is dressed appropriately for where he is and spends most of the movie dressed more casually.

As for the sinking house scene, I can understand why you don't like it included. The thing to keep in mind is that the movie going public expects big action set pieces in a Bond movie and CR has far less of them than any recent Bond film. Apparently they felt the need to add an action scene to appease the public. I think it worked much better than say the Caviar factory scene in TWINE (that really felt sandwiched in that movie).

As far as CR, like sthgy. mentioned earlier, CR was the first Bond movie I walked out of satisfied since TLD. On the opening night of QoS I saw a double feature that showed CR again on the big screen. I had seen CR several times prior to that, but that night it hit me that I think CR has possibly surpassed FRWL as my favorite BOnd film. CR had been my favorite Bond book since I had first read it 30 some odd years ago. While CR (the film) is not as faithful to the book as FRWL was, it was updated to 53 years in the future quite well. The thing that really hooked me was the superb character development. Bond, Vesper etc were much more three dimentional characters than any previous Bond film. Daniel Craig may not the the spitting image of Fleming's Bond, but he is the first real Bond. He made Bond a believable human and not a cartoon character. Craig also has a commanding presence to him that his predecessor was lacking. I did not doubt Craig in the role for one minute. It is this extra layer that made CR may favorite Bond movie.

#17 B. Brown

B. Brown

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 477 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 23 June 2009 - 11:34 PM

I do find a similarity in the action styles of Bourne and QoS, but there is absolutely nothing about Casino Royale that suggest Bourne, except the fact that is may have been a bit grittier than than the last few films (Bond has been gritty before any of the Bourne movies were made). Would you have preferred Bond to be chasing Carlos to Miami in a suit???? I guess you also hate Thunderball because Bond is dressed appropriately for where he is and spends most of the movie dressed more casually.


I pointed this out because this Bourne-esque fashion carries out through the film, and all the way to "Quantum of Solace". I particularly like that tropical-themed shirt in Madagascar. It looked like Bond stopped at the local thrift shop before going after Mollaka. He's a frugal and unstylish character now, perhaps?

As for the sinking house scene, I can understand why you don't like it included. The thing to keep in mind is that the movie going public expects big action set pieces in a Bond movie and CR has far less of them than any recent Bond film. Apparently they felt the need to add an action scene to appease the public. I think it worked much better than say the Caviar factory scene in TWINE (that really felt sandwiched in that movie).


To me, it felt "sandwiched" into "Casino Royale", too. I wonder what one of the three stooges stood up and said, "Hey, a sinking house would be neat!" The movie could have sold easily on the action before the sinking house. It was just unnecessary and lazy - just like the freefall in "Quantum".

As far as CR, like sthgy. mentioned earlier, CR was the first Bond movie I walked out of satisfied since TLD. On the opening night of QoS I saw a double feature that showed CR again on the big screen. I had seen CR several times prior to that, but that night it hit me that I think CR has possibly surpassed FRWL as my favorite BOnd film. CR had been my favorite Bond book since I had first read it 30 some odd years ago. While CR (the film) is not as faithful to the book as FRWL was, it was updated to 53 years in the future quite well. The thing that really hooked me was the superb character development. Bond, Vesper etc were much more three dimentional characters than any previous Bond film. Daniel Craig may not the the spitting image of Fleming's Bond, but he is the first real Bond. He made Bond a believable human and not a cartoon character. Craig also has a commanding presence to him that his predecessor was lacking. I did not doubt Craig in the role for one minute. It is this extra layer that made CR may favorite Bond movie.


How did he turn Bond into a believable human? By hopping off from a crane, onto a roof, without being injured? Dodging bullets in the embassy? Jumping off from oil tankers and on to tarmac at Miami International Airport? Swallowing lethal poison and surviving the experience? Fighting men in a sinking house? B)

And you're point is? We could have gotten a film completely unrelated to the novel with the name Casino Royale slapped on the front.



Oh, I thought that was what we got...



Did you watch the movie with David Niven and Woody Allen? Because that's how it appears.


My opinion is my opinion. There's no need to make me out to be an idiot here just because I dislike the beloved "Casino Royale". I don't mind a bit of opposition. That's fine and all.

Edited by B. Brown, 23 June 2009 - 11:46 PM.


#18 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 23 June 2009 - 11:47 PM

How did he turn Bond into a believable human? By hopping off from a crane, onto a roof, without being injured? Dodging bullets in the embassy? Jumping off from oil tankers and on to tarmac at Miami International Airport? Swallowing lethal poison and surviving the experience? Fighting men in a sinking house? :tdown:


Bond did alot more than just those action in CR. There were scenes of characterization in that film as well. The one scene right after the stairwell fight when BOnd goes into the bathroom, takes of his shirt, downs his booze and cleans up the blood is more Flemingesque than most other Bond actors have done in their entire run as Bond. The development of Bond/Vesper relationship, the shower scene, the torture scene, being betrayed, Vesper's death etc. I think Craig really nailed these scenes.

You ask people not to treat you like an idiot because you don't like CR, fine, I politely added to the discussion by giving you reasons why I do like CR, no insult initiated, but you come back to me with a smart B) answer like I am stupid. If you want respect on this board, you need to show it as well.

#19 B. Brown

B. Brown

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 477 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 24 June 2009 - 12:01 AM

I asked you a question, and you provided a response. I wasn't being a smart B). I see your point about Craig nailing those scenes - but do you think those alone make him a believable character? Do you think the believability of those scenes outweigh the unbelievability of the actions scenes I mentioned? I thought you meant something like an all-around believable character. Emotionally, I'd say Craig's Bond is believable. (Keep in mind, though, that Brosnan's Bond went through similar emotional scenes in "Tomorrow Never Dies" and "The World Is Not Enough", though.) But as far as action goes, I'd say he's still as believable as Brosnan's Bond.

If you want respect on this board, you need to show it as well.


Hmm... there's no reason why I should gain disrespect on these boards for not liking a film that everyone else likes, either. That's quite stupid, actually.

Edited by B. Brown, 24 June 2009 - 12:03 AM.


#20 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 24 June 2009 - 12:13 AM

I'll focus on one complaint of yours. The dodging of the bullets.

Bond's been doing that for years, long before the Brosnan era with it's emphasis on action. And speaking of the Brosnan era, to think that some influences from that era won't carry over to the Craig's films is narrow minded. Just as Roger Moore's first few films carried a Connery vibe, and Dalton's debut was rife with Moore-esque humor. So too will Craig's films have a few of thos outlandish action sequences that were present in the Brosnan films. Personally I enjoyed the action sequences of Casino Royale and felt they fit thir purpose in the movie narratively speaking. They're far less intrusive than the set pieces from the Brosnan films.

#21 B. Brown

B. Brown

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 477 posts
  • Location:New York

Posted 24 June 2009 - 12:23 AM

I know he's been doing this for years. I'm by no means trying to make EON's Bond out to be 100% faithful to Fleming and believable, up until Craig. That's definitely not the case. :tdown:

I mentioned the bullets in "Casino Royale" just to point out that I think it's action is just as believable as the rest of the series. I personally don't think Craig's Bond is more realistic than any of the other Bonds. But that's just me.

Does "Casino Royale" provide some great action? Yes it does. This film makes for an incredible action flick. The best we've seen come out of the 2000's, as a matter of fact. Maybe that's just what EON's aiming for these days? Who knows.

Does it hold up against one of the better Bond films, like "Dr. No" or "From Russia With Love"? Not really. That's just me, though.

I really enjoyed it when it first came out, and could admire it's fresh style. But after a few re-watches, I can hardly sit through the whole film.

It's interesting reading your feedback, however. I appreciate it, folks. :tdown: B)

#22 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 24 June 2009 - 12:24 AM

You came across a bit smart assed in the following quote. You said it like that is all Bond did in CR. Anyone who has seen the movie knows it had more than just a few actions scenes in it.

"How did he turn Bond into a believable human? By hopping off from a crane, onto a roof, without being injured? Dodging bullets in the embassy? Jumping off from oil tankers and on to tarmac at Miami International Airport? Swallowing lethal poison and surviving the experience? Fighting men in a sinking house?"

Most Bond films have scenes like that. They are no different than BOnd taking off on a jet pack, jumping over the backs of alligators, skiing behind an airplane as it is taking off etc. It is part of the cinematic Bond's lore.

As far as the character driven (aka emotional) scenes, yes, they did it with Brosnan as well. The difference is that Craig SOLD me on the scenes, Brosnan did not (I'm not really wanting to bash Brosnan, that was just not his strong point, humor was).

I also find Craig believable in the action scenes, and that can't be said about all actors that portrayed Bond.

I'm sorry that you don't find the enjoyment in CR that many of us do.

#23 Mike00spy

Mike00spy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Location:South Florida

Posted 24 June 2009 - 03:43 AM

How the guy died isn't the main matter, though.

I had a problem with how Bond reacted. I can take a one-liner or something after a villain's death, but smirking about it? Especially when blood and guts were probably spattered all over? Eh, I didn't care for it.



Bond smirking over a villain's death? That is surprsing to you? Have you seen the other films?

#24 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 24 June 2009 - 03:49 AM

As far as the character driven (aka emotional) scenes, yes, they did it with Brosnan as well. The difference is that Craig SOLD me on the scenes, Brosnan did not (I'm not really wanting to bash Brosnan, that was just not his strong point, humor was).


I must agree. Brosnan and emotion just did not mix well. GE and TWINE he's confronted with the death of Tracy, albeit a bit indirectly in the latter, and nothing. You can tell Brosnan's trying to look like he's hurting, wants to get the hell away from that topic, but to me it just looks like he's bored in GE and needs to take a dump in TWINE. Plenty of other examples of how Brosnan didn't sell me on the emotion, but really, those two are where I have my biggest complaints with him and emotional scenes. His goddamned wife is murdered, his predecessors convey his heartbreak over it beautifully no matter how fleetingly they do, and then we get Brosnan, the man who needs to use the toilet. Sorry for the tangent. I tend to do that a lot.

#25 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 24 June 2009 - 06:34 AM

Again and again when we all believe that this nonsense argument of Bond copying Bourne in CR was over. Here comes another poster saying the same- like always- without any single solid basis. Nonetheless, this time I'm not going to bother in making a direct answer to this, until I read from him, at least one reasonable comparison between the two movies.

#26 bond 16.05.72

bond 16.05.72

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1068 posts
  • Location:Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

Posted 24 June 2009 - 08:00 AM

To be honest the problem I find is that some people make some of the earlier entries into really amazing films.

Personally I find Dr No save Connery and few key scenes, Bonds intro, Dent's death (colded blooded assasination interesting that) quite uninvolving.

I think FRWL is far superior but GF is just silly and probably still the most overrated Bond film ever in my view and I'll take CR over it anyday.

Before CR came along it was OHMSS which was my favoutite and before it's assumed I'm some teenager who's been into the series for 5 minutes, I am 37 years old and have been a Bond fan for 32 years.

I found one of the freshest most enjoyable films of the series in CR and much better than any Brosnan film.

Craig's level of acting puts him far above Brosnan's and no I don't see any comparrisons between either apart from the fact they are playing a character called James Bond.

#27 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 24 June 2009 - 08:27 AM

Craig's level of acting puts him far above Brosnan's and no I don't see any comparrisons between either apart from the fact they are playing a character called James Bond.


That's what I like about Craig, his take is a whole new approach on the character. Sure there's elements of Connery and Dalton in his portrayal, but he makes it feel fresh and new.

During the Brosnan years when he played it as a "greatest hits" version of the character I was convinced there was nowhere left for an actor to go with the Bond role. Craig has proven me wrong.

#28 Tubes

Tubes

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 49 posts
  • Location:Fitchburg

Posted 24 June 2009 - 12:43 PM

Okay, so you guys disagree with Brown. Did you have to troll him because of that?

#29 bond 16.05.72

bond 16.05.72

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1068 posts
  • Location:Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

Posted 24 June 2009 - 12:58 PM

Okay, so you guys disagree with Brown. Did you have to troll him because of that?



Why is it trolling, he offered his review and we offered our opinions.

The title of his review was asking for trouble with it's smugness!

#30 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 24 June 2009 - 07:39 PM

And you're point is? We could have gotten a film completely unrelated to the novel with the name Casino Royale slapped on the front.



Oh, I thought that was what we got...


Even though I like CASINO ROYALE, I do agree that what we got in that film is a very loose adaptation of Fleming's novel. While it's closer than other EON "adaptations" of Fleming, it's hardly a faithful adaptation of the source.