108 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

I always fall for Green's Vesper whenever I watch CASINO ROYALE, so I have little problem buying into Bond's own affection for her. (And I much prefer her to the rather annoying gal in Fleming's novel.)

But while the writing for CASINO ROYALE has some obvious shortcomings re: the Bond/Vesper romance, I'd like to defend a bit of how the screenplay represents their relational dynamic. Sharky describes her as a spoilt, bitchy, schoolgirl. And that's certainly the front she puts up, at least at first. But I think it's the case that Bond doesn't admire her for the front that she puts on so much as what he imagines lies behind it. Vesper is a cipher, and Bond doesn't actually love Vesper as much as he loves the idea of her.

[The Shark]

I always fall for Green's Vesper whenever I watch CASINO ROYALE, so I have little problem buying into Bond's own affection for her. (And I much prefer her to the rather annoying gal in Fleming's novel.)

If she didn't wear the goth eye makeup, put on some weight, and made up her mind on the accent, I'd probably fall for her too.

While Fleming's Vesper's annoying in her bouts of crying and weird statements ('people are like islands'), I find such a mess of a character more convincing as a suicidal, blackmailed treasury agent, than the film's counterpart. Vesper should be like an illusion, something not real, and out of this world. A day dreaming headcase.

But I think it's the case that Bond doesn't admire her for the front that she puts on so much as what he imagines lies behind it. Vesper is a cipher, and Bond doesn't actually love Vesper as much as he loves the idea of her.

My problem hat when she lowers her front, there isn't much to see. And that lowering of the front itself is far too rushed in the film's narrative for me to buy it.

[AMC Hornet]

Halle Berry was miscast...
Denise Richards was miscast...
Lynn Holly Johnson was miscast...
Tanya Roberts was DEFINATELY miscast...

While I don't agree with the first half of this statement, have no opinion on the third part, and definitely agree with the last part, I feel it's time to forgo my silence on one aspect of this, and other similar statements which I have read here and elsewhere.

I mean you not disrespect, Miles, but I think you and many others may benefit from my coming out and specifying that:

THERE IS NO 'A' IN THE WORD 'DEFINITELY'!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Pant, pant) Rant over, move along. Nothing to see here, folks...

Sincerely,

AMC Hornet,
BA/B.Ed./TESL/Tech.Wtr cert'd/Resident spelling & grammar nazi.

[L4YRCAKE]

There is no doubt in my mind that Skyfall will top Casino Royale, in the same way The Dark Knight built on and improved upon Batman Begins. it's a shame QoS was a misfire, but between that and the ridiculously long gap between films it seems evident (at the press conference, for example) that Mendes and Daniel Craig et al. have something to prove this time around, and their sense of confidence in the material and talent gathered seems palpable. Quantum Of Solace had a particularly nasty yet weak villain, Dominic Green was pretty much all right, but Elvis was a missed opportunity and a waste, something I think they've made up for in spades by hiring Javier Bardem (shudder ), whose character I predict will rank up there with Red Grant. The real question is whether Ralph Fiennes is playing Blofeld or not, that to me is what will make or break Skyfall. My sense is that they've ironed out all legal issues behind the scenes, and Blofeld will be returning with a roar and it will make the film.

Bond's got veins in his teeth this time around, boys and girls. Mark my words...

[Pussfeller]

Bardem alone makes me confident that SF will surpass CR and QOS. His mere involvement implies a strong script, and particularly suggests that the villain is well-written, with coherent motivations. And Bardem is a physically intimidating actor with a strong screen presence. For years, the producers have favored wimpy little villains, perhaps out of a fear of upstaging Bond. With Bardem, we could finally have a villain who's cool in his own right, and who can pose a credible physical threat to Bond. Fiennes will be great. Likewise Finney and Helen McCrory, even if their parts are small. Just about everyone in the cast is solid. I'm also encouraged by the presence of Roger Deakins and the merciful absence of David Arnold.

As far as I can see, there are only three major causes for concern: the continuing expansion of Judi Dench's character, the involvement of hack screenwriter John Logan, and the potential for Berenice Marlohe to be the French Talisa Soto.

[AMC Hornet]

There is no doubt in my mind that Skyfall will top Casino Royale, in the same way The Dark Knight built on and improved upon Batman Begins...The real question is whether Ralph Fiennes is playing Blofeld or not, that to me is what will make or break Skyfall.

Remember Indiana Jones and the Last Crusades. Bring on CraigBond #3!

I prefer to attend a new movie with no expectations. If I were to try to impose my expectations on a movie over which I have had no input, then I - not the film makers - will be responsible for my disappointment.

[L4YRCAKE]

Bardem alone makes me confident that SF will surpass CR and QOS. His mere involvement implies a strong script, and particularly suggests that the villain is well-written, with coherent motivations. And Bardem is a physically intimidating actor with a strong screen presence. For years, the producers have favored wimpy little villains, perhaps out of a fear of upstaging Bond. With Bardem, we could finally have a villain who's cool in his own right, and who can pose a credible physical threat to Bond. Fiennes will be great. Likewise Finney and Helen McCrory, even if their parts are small. Just about everyone in the cast is solid. I'm also encouraged by the presence of Roger Deakins and the merciful absence of David Arnold.

As far as I can see, there are only three major causes for concern: the continuing expansion of Judi Dench's character, the involvement of hack screenwriter John Logan, and the potential for Berenice Marlohe to be the French Talisa Soto.

I actually thought the soundtrack for Casino Royale was pretty great, but I'd like to see them turn up the heat with this one, something comparable with Live And Let Die would be an adrenaline pumping godsend, Bryan Ferry for instance is long overdue to pen an iconic Bond theme. What's your issue with Judy Dench's 'M' tho', I think she's been integral to Bond defining himself in the Craig era...?

[L4YRCAKE]

There is no doubt in my mind that Skyfall will top Casino Royale, in the same way The Dark Knight built on and improved upon Batman Begins...The real question is whether Ralph Fiennes is playing Blofeld or not, that to me is what will make or break Skyfall.

Remember Indiana Jones and the Last Crusades. Bring on CraigBond #3!

I prefer to attend a new movie with no expectations. If I were to try to impose my expectations on a movie over which I have had no input, then I - not the film makers - will be responsible for my disappointment.

Well, okay maybe Ralph Fiennes as Blofeld making or breaking this movie was a little strongly worded. But I think my expectations stem from my love of the books (which still have not been really explored satisfactorily other than the titles), Daniel Craig being an inspired casting choice and getting it right in Casino Royale, envisioning a decade of classic Bond films starring Craig, only to have the whole thing derailed by a well meaning follow up (QoS), which wouldn't be so bad except that it jeopardized Craig's possible continuation in the role, in other words my understanding is that if Skyfall bombs he and the producers have agreed to shake hands and walk away from each other. So in that sense, I think the stakes are really high for this movie to be a success, and I think leaving Blofeld out of the equation would be a giant mistake. Sherlock Holmes needs his Moriarty, Batman needs his Joker, and Bond needs his Blofeld...

[David Schofield]

... Yep. I wasn't convinced by the romance for one second. We are told they're in love by braindead dialogue ("Everyone has a tell, except you. I think that's why I love you") but never shown by the actors.

How does this mean that Green was miscast, though? I'd agree that some of the dialogue in CASINO ROYALE is rather "on-the-nose" and wince-inducing, and that the romance is narrated to us rather than shown, but surely the writers and director are to blame and not Green (who presumably had no say whatsoever over the content of the script). All she could do - and all she did do - was her best with the material she was given.

If she was indeed at fault, and miscast, then so was Craig.

Very fair comments.

I guess the only way Green could be held responsible is that her performance was such that she convincingly spoke the words and emoted in a way that made Vesper a truly horrible person, and hence contributed to the ludicrousness of the rapidly developing relationship with JB after the way the Vesper-Bond dynamic was originally presented to us.

However, I cannot see how any "better" an actress might have made Vesper more sympathetic given the part as written and made the romance any more convincing.

[SecretAgentFan]

I find the judgment that we are told that Bond and Vesper are in love by dialogue much too harsh (and actually untrue).

We see them when they first meet. They obviously are attracted to each other. They flirt. They annoy each other. They are bound together by their job - and the same time Vesper knows that she is betraying Bond. She witnesses him risking everything for his job AND for her (coming after her when she is kidnapped). All of this leads to their affair.

I have never thought that she is really head over heels in love with Bond. But she likes him, she admires him and she feels very guilty by betraying him and the idea he represents. At the same time she has still feelings for her "boyfriend". A conflict she can never tell Bond. And when it is revealed she knows that Bond will hate her and even bring her to justice. So... pure love in the common sense is out of the question here. And everything they tell each other has to be mistrusted and looked at in context of all the factors at work here.

A line like "Everyone has a tell, except you. I think that´s why I love you." IMO is not "braindead" at all but has a very ironic and deeply sad double meaning.

Even the line that I always cringed at ("You´re more of a man with your little finger...") actually reveals Vesper´s inner turmoil - even while it flatters Bond in a very schoolgirlish way which he definitely enjoys. And which tells us a lot about him also. He might actually fall in love with Vesper mostly because of her looks and the idea of being in love, leaving a job that he has very mixed feelings about. Vesper represents an escape plan for Bond, another life. But again, it is not true love.

Eva Green, IMO, is a perfect Vesper. Not only does she have the perfect looks of an attractive, intelligent woman with a darker, tragic side. She also delivers the dialogue very well and has great chemistry with Craig.

[David Schofield]

I find the judgment that we are told that Bond and Vesper are in love by dialogue much too harsh (and actually untrue).

We see them when they first meet. They obviously are attracted to each other.

Vesper: "You're an arrogant, chippy, chavy meathead"

Bond: "You're an insecure harpy"

When shall we set the date for the wedding?

The Bond-Vesper relationship is meant to have sexual tension. We get that; because that's what we are told. But it's not realistic, it's not clever. It's melodramatic tosh.

[Dustin]

I always fall for Green's Vesper whenever I watch CASINO ROYALE, so I have little problem buying into Bond's own affection for her. (And I much prefer her to the rather annoying gal in Fleming's novel.)

If she didn't wear the goth eye makeup, put on some weight, and made up her mind on the accent, I'd probably fall for her too.

While Fleming's Vesper's annoying in her bouts of crying and weird statements ('people are like islands'), I find such a mess of a character more convincing as a suicidal, blackmailed treasury agent, than the film's counterpart. Vesper should be like an illusion, something not real, and out of this world. A day dreaming headcase.

Well, some men don't feel comfortable in the company of Eva Green's type and some men don't mind it at all; Bond apparently falling into the latter group. I think she was spot on as a somewhat brittle sarcastic woman who doesn't take the boys and their toys entirely seriously, mocking the bling-bling watch and the cockfighting at the poker game. I'm happy with the fact she's giving Bond a hard time, that's what attracts him to her and makes him want to win her over.

But I think it's the case that Bond doesn't admire her for the front that she puts on so much as what he imagines lies behind it. Vesper is a cipher, and Bond doesn't actually love Vesper as much as he loves the idea of her.

My problem hat when she lowers her front, there isn't much to see. And that lowering of the front itself is far too rushed in the film's narrative for me to buy it.

Indeed, in the film's scope the relationship Bond-Vesper could - and should? - have had more room to unfold, if only to make it easier for the sceptics in the audience to accept the fact. After all this is Bond, the hero who doesn't fall for women in general, and surely not for a suicidal wisecracking girl that doesn't appreciate his kingsize, hefty, expensive precision tool. Let's face it, most of the casual fans have long since forgotten Bond's marriage in OHMSS and the fact Tracy fell into the same category.

But I wonder if the true reason for the lacklustre response of some fans to Vesper isn't due to the fact the entire romance is an ill-conceived motif? Mind you, on Bond's part, not Vesper's.

In the book Bond early on feels a desire to come as close to Vesper as their respective anatomy allows. After the work is done of course, Bond's still the effective and reliable instrument of the Service. When the work finally really is done it takes a while for Bond to appreciate Vesper's attentions again, but soon enough he decides to give his restored equipment an extensive field test with a little help of Vesper. He's entirely unromantic about this, the idea is fun without consequence. Bond even made up his mind about a Plan B should Vesper give him a hard time. He'd either apply for a posting abroad or just simply quit the Service. Now there's a man setting his priorities. Not bad at all, considered he nearly lost parts of his body (not to talk about his entire life!) in the course of his duty just a few weeks prior to this.

And what happens right after that first satisfactory innings? Drunken with joy and relief the same cad who only pages before coldly decided to ditch Vesper at the first sign of complications now watches the blue skies of the France coastside and reads "marriage" there. This is the real deal-braker for me. Not so much the fact a troubled woman under severe psychological pressure should fall for Bond and later decide to take her own life. It's the sudden out-of-the-blue care for Vesper that doesn't ring true to me at this point.

Fleming here introduced a part of his own situation into the narrative, the imminent marriage and the birth of Lady Ann's baby. In this case the relationship to his wife is a vital part of his decision to finally start his own writing adventure. And the book here stands for the entire complex of feelings Fleming went through at this point in his life. Andrew Lycett notes that especially the last sentence - 'The bitch is dead now.' - has a deeper meaning for the author. Fleming later admitted that he had literally killed the job. In this way CR incorporates many different facettes of the author's personality, not all of them without contradictions. To me Bond's favouring of extreme options and his sudden gratitude and overhasty decision to ask Vesper to marry him belong to this aspect of CR.

[univex]

Besides everytinh that has been said about the Bond/Vesper thing..., when two people endure traumatic events together they bond (pun intended). The adrenaline rush and the common ground they have surely have something to do with it. Point being: we can overanalyse this to the point that makes sense but...It´s just a movie. Do all of us believe Sean´s Bond turned Pussy into a non pussy-lover? I, for one, don´t think CR was perfect or even near perfection, but my favourite part of it is the Bond/Vesper relationship. PS: Eva Green is wonderful.

[SecretAgentFan]

I find the judgment that we are told that Bond and Vesper are in love by dialogue much too harsh (and actually untrue).

We see them when they first meet. They obviously are attracted to each other.

Vesper: "You're an arrogant, chippy, chavy meathead"

Bond: "You're an insecure harpy"

When shall we set the date for the wedding?

The Bond-Vesper relationship is meant to have sexual tension. We get that; because that's what we are told. But it's not realistic, it's not clever. It's melodramatic tosh.

Hmm, this dialogue was in no print I have seen. And when did Bond speak about a wedding. You´re sure you don´t mean OHMSS?

[Dustin]

Wedding's rhetorical, not dialogue of Bond here.

[PPK_19]

I find the judgment that we are told that Bond and Vesper are in love by dialogue much too harsh (and actually untrue).

We see them when they first meet. They obviously are attracted to each other.

Vesper: "You're an arrogant, chippy, chavy meathead"

Bond: "You're an insecure harpy"

When shall we set the date for the wedding?

The Bond-Vesper relationship is meant to have sexual tension. We get that; because that's what we are told. But it's not realistic, it's not clever. It's melodramatic tosh.

Ever heard of hate=love?

Obviously not...

[AndrewBond]

CR and Skyfall are operating under much different circumstances. CR had to set up Bond (a new Bond at that), and had a workmanlike director in Campbell and a screenplay doctored by Oscar-bait Paul Haggis. Meanwhile, Skyfall is a Bond movie in the classic mold, and a 50th anniversary to somehow honor. It has an Oscar-bait director in Sam Mendes and a screenplay by pop virtuoso John Logan. So the tables have been flipped somewhat. It's too early to say, but it will be an interesting comparison. I think ultimately CR will be considered a better movie but Skyfall will be much more entertaining.

[Miles Miservy]

Halle Berry was miscast...
Denise Richards was miscast...
Lynn Holly Johnson was miscast...
Tanya Roberts was DEFINATELY miscast...

While I don't agree with the first half of this statement, have no opinion on the third part, and definitely agree with the last part, I feel it's time to forgo my silence on one aspect of this, and other similar statements which I have read here and elsewhere.

I mean you not disrespect, Miles, but I think you and many others may benefit from my coming out and specifying that:

THERE IS NO 'A' IN THE WORD 'DEFINITELY'!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Pant, pant) Rant over, move along. Nothing to see here, folks...

Sincerely,

AMC Hornet,
BA/B.Ed./TESL/Tech.Wtr cert'd/Resident spelling & grammar nazi.

Thank you Mr. Spel Chek.

[David Schofield]

I find the judgment that we are told that Bond and Vesper are in love by dialogue much too harsh (and actually untrue).

We see them when they first meet. They obviously are attracted to each other.

Vesper: "You're an arrogant, chippy, chavy meathead"

Bond: "You're an insecure harpy"

When shall we set the date for the wedding?

The Bond-Vesper relationship is meant to have sexual tension. We get that; because that's what we are told. But it's not realistic, it's not clever. It's melodramatic tosh.

Ever heard of hate=love?

Obviously not...

Juvenile rubbish as an excuse for justification? It's Bond, not Neighbours or Hollyoaks. Not the way worldy 30 somethings talk and behave. Never mind greet each other.

[Miles Miservy]

The problem with CR is not the lack of gadgets, but the presence of leftovers from the Brosnan age, along with shoddy writing and hit-and-miss casting (i.e. Eva Green).

But you are SO WRONG Mr Bond!

- Le Chiffre - Casino Royale

That's the one line of LeChiffe's I could not stand. I half-expected him to follow it up with, "So there!"

The problem with CR is not the lack of gadgets, but the presence of leftovers from the Brosnan age, along with shoddy writing and hit-and-miss casting (i.e. Eva Green).

Eva Green was NOT miscast.

Shout as loud as you want, but Green played a spoilt, bitchy, schoolgirl. Not the girl a bloke like a Bond would fall head over heals for.

Truth be told, I liked her better as Miss Stephanie Broadchest.

[Kristian]

I think my opinion of CR is not quite as high as most people around here. I loved the first half, but I found everything after Le Chiffre's death to be draggy and aimless, and I never bought the love plot.So I certainly hope that Skyfall turns out better than CR. I think it could. The cast is more promising, especially Fiennes and Bardem, the composer will not be Arnold, the cinematography will surely be excellent, and the director seems to have a good understanding of Bond. I expect Craig to give a more polished and classically Bondian performance, which will be nice. The absence of Quantum is a plus, since it implies a self-contained story. And based purely on the fact that people like Fiennes and Bardem signed on, the script would appear to be solid.

Agree with Pussfeller. I think CR was a bit overrated. It's a very strong Bond film for me - but I just don't see what is so compelling about Vesper as played by Eva Green that would make Bond fall for her. And since the movie hinges on this romance, the fact I couldn't buy into their "love" weakened the film for me. I just couldn't accept Bond quitting the service over her. Eva Green was just too chilly for me and not vulnerable enough. Whenever she was trying to be vulnerable, I just saw "acting" and "artifice". If Rose Byrne had been cast in the role, Vesper would've come across better. And maybe I would understand what the drama is all about.

At any rate, I don't think SKYFALL will have a problem besting CR. And maybe it's about time that another Bond movie humbled the "great" CASINO ROYALE.

Edited by Kristian, 20 April 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[Kristian]

The problem with CR is not the lack of gadgets, but the presence of leftovers from the Brosnan age, along with shoddy writing and hit-and-miss casting (i.e. Eva Green).

Eva Green was NOT miscast;

Halle Berry was miscast...
Denise Richards was miscast...
Lynn Holly Johnson was miscast...
Tanya Roberts was DEFINATELY miscast...

But Eva Green did just fine. She was beautiful enough to fall in love with; as well as cold enough to be capable of betrayal.

I have to agree with Mr. Shark on this one, I'm afraid. Green was beautiful and competent as an actress - but opaque and incapable of showing deeper layers to Vesper in an intriguing way. She's the main reason I prefer QOS over CR. Her romance with Bond was supposed to be CR's emotional center, but she wasn't emotionally compelling. She nails the "ice princess" part of the character - but not the softness, which is ostensibly what Bond really falls for.

In the end, it's a matter of opinion, but I'm with Shark when he says she hampered rather than helped CR. I wish Rose Byrne or Charlize Theron had been cast as Vesper. Oh, my that would've been wonderful....

By the way, concerning the other miscast Bond ladies you mentioned, I agree with you there. Here's how I would've cast the roles:

DAD: Jinx should've been played by a latina spitfire (as initially envisioned and evidenced by her Cuba introduction and latin first name Giacinta). I would've cast Patricia Velazquez or Eva Mendes.

TWINE: Christmas Jones should've been played by Carrie-Anne Moss or Jennifer Connelly or Natasha Henstridge.

FYEO: The character of Bibi Dahl should've been axed compeletely. Lynn Holly Johnson was not the problem. She was perfect for the role. The problem is the character. She doesn't belong in a Bond film. Countess Lisl should've been expanded and made into the secondary Bond girl.

AVTAK: Stacey Sutton should've been played by Sharon Stone (at that time I'm sure she would've gladly taken on a Bond girl role) or Kimberly Beck or Kate Capshaw. And the character should've been rewritten to be less of a screaming wimp.

Regarding SKYFALL, I'm pretty sure Naomie Harris will do well - and I get the feeling Berenice M. just might surprise us. Someone earlier feared she might be the "French Talisa Soto." Well, I thought Talisa was okay overall as Lupe in LTK. Her only real clunker of a line was "I love James sooooooo much." But even Meryl Streep wouldnt've been able to sell that line.

We shall see...

[Harmsway]

I wish Rose Byrne or Charlize Theron had been cast as Vesper. Oh, my that would've been wonderful....

They would have been no real improvement. For all of her ability to evoke "softness," Rose Byrne lacks pure sex appeal, and Charlize Theron is scarcely more capable of "softness" than Green is, and her faux-British accent would have been nigh-unbearable.

[Royal Dalton]

Emily Blunt would have been a better choice.

[Harmsway]

Emily Blunt would have been a better choice.

She would have been splendid.

[L4YRCAKE]

I cannot disagree more strongly with all of the above comments. Eva Green was perfect casting for Vesper. The character was inherently a dark yet vulnerable contradiction and none of the other actresses named above could have pulled off what EG did with that role.

And Casino Royale isn't overrated, it's a perfect start for a character that needs to be reintroduced to the world in a more modern emotional context. It's a great film because it points to the potential of a decade or more of great Bond films, and gives Bond a trajectory he never had in his 50 year history on film. And that is in no way saying it's The Great Bond Film. Rather it will be remembered as the first of many.

[The Shark]

I cannot disagree more strongly with all of the above comments. Eva Green was perfect casting for Vesper. The character was inherently a dark yet vulnerable contradiction and none of the other actresses named above could have pulled off what EG did with that role.

And Casino Royale isn't overrated, it's a perfect start for a character that needs to be reintroduced to the world in a more modern emotional context. It's a great film because it points to the potential of a decade or more of great Bond films, and gives Bond a trajectory he never had in his 50 year history on film. And that is in no way saying it's The Great Bond Film. Rather it will be remembered as the first of many.

Still drinking the EON Kool-Aid, huh?

[SecretAgentFan]

To each his own, guys.

Returning to the thread´s question: I am confident that SKYFALL will be a good Bond film. I hope it will be great Bond film. I hope it will be even better than great, maybe Craig´s best Bond. The ingredients all seem to promise something special. The rumored personal angle worries me, just as I am fond of Dench as M but not so fond of having her around for too much of the film´s running time. I long for a simple "routine" Bond with a clear separation between personal and professional issues (better yet: Bond working without any personal angle). But SKYFALL seems to be influenced by the last decade´s idea of having pulp fiction (and yes, that´s what Bond or superheroes basically are) must be told as greek tragedies, the darker the better.

If SKYFALL does not forget the light-hearted tone - namely, that Bond films should be FUN - then it could be as good as CR.

[Kristian]

To each his own, guys.

Returning to the thread´s question: I am confident that SKYFALL will be a good Bond film. I hope it will be great Bond film. I hope it will be even better than great, maybe Craig´s best Bond. The ingredients all seem to promise something special. The rumored personal angle worries me, just as I am fond of Dench as M but not so fond of having her around for too much of the film´s running time. I long for a simple "routine" Bond with a clear separation between personal and professional issues (better yet: Bond working without any personal angle). But SKYFALL seems to be influenced by the last decade´s idea of having pulp fiction (and yes, that´s what Bond or superheroes basically are) must be told as greek tragedies, the darker the better.

If SKYFALL does not forget the light-hearted tone - namely, that Bond films should be FUN - then it could be as good as CR.

Agree on the professional vs. personal angle. We haven't really had a "personal agenda-free" Bond flick since THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. With CR, it was kind of understandable because it was the adventure that would set Bond's outlook, and you could argue that they didn't really have to continue the angst in QOS. They could've just started with a new adventure. But with SKYFALL, with the rumors of a certain major character's departure, I think the only way they can do that and do the character justice is to reintroduce the "personal angle" yet again. I think SKYFALL will be fine....

But the next Bond Adventure better be a straightforward mission. Otherwise, the Personal Angle well will have run dry - and thankfully so.

[L4YRCAKE]

I cannot disagree more strongly with all of the above comments. Eva Green was perfect casting for Vesper. The character was inherently a dark yet vulnerable contradiction and none of the other actresses named above could have pulled off what EG did with that role.

And Casino Royale isn't overrated, it's a perfect start for a character that needs to be reintroduced to the world in a more modern emotional context. It's a great film because it points to the potential of a decade or more of great Bond films, and gives Bond a trajectory he never had in his 50 year history on film. And that is in no way saying it's The Great Bond Film. Rather it will be remembered as the first of many.

Still drinking the EON Kool-Aid, huh?

Hah! You're welcome to interpret my point of view however you like.