108 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

I watched Quantum of Solace at a friends house today, and we had a bit of a Bond discussion and Casino Royale obviously popped up. Now, I've always been a massive fan of Casino Royale, and constantly praised it, but thinking about it carefully and the points my friend raised, I decided to rewatch it. Now, this is probably the first time in ages that I've watched Casino Royale giving it my full attention. I usually watch a film I've already seen whilst doing something else. I don't think I've ever watched Casino Royale since it's DVD release and totally, 100%, followed the story. So tonight, I sat down and watched with no distractions, and I've come to the conclusion, that Casino Royale might be quite overrated.

I'm just going to put my thoughts into bullet points because I'm rather tired and cannot be bothered to write in full paragraphs. Anyway...

• If you watch carefully, half of it doesn't make any sense.
• Why would Felix offer Bond all of his winnings, and say that "Does it look like we need the money?". Evidently yes, it does. Considering the whole Miami Airport affair, you would think that the CIA would need quite a lot.
• Why does it not bother Le Chiffre that the people who have threatened him have just been killed and thrown in a car boot? As he suspects Bond anyway, you would think that he'd see him as some kind of ally. The whole thing is never mentioned again.
• The whole thing with Bond and Dimitrios in the Art Gallery is just stupid. They follow eachother around for a bit then he stabs him and kills him. It wasn't intense, they were just staring at eachother.
• Something I've never really understood, but kept quiet about it. I don't understand how Bond suddenly thinks Mathis is a traitor, and I don't understand why in Quantum of Solace he thinks he isn't? It looks like Bond has just made assumptions and is going with them. This is probably the most confusing part about the entire movie. I always put it down to Mathis contacting Vesper at the Dinner Table instead of him. Considering Mathis was Bonds contact. But even if this was the case, it just doesn't make any sense, and just because he contacted Vesper, it still doesn't make Mathis a traitor. You'd think that both Mathis and Vesper had a rather close friendship during the Poker Game. Considering they were always together.
• The film itself is very uneven. I love the Pre Title Sequence, and I've never thought much of the Madagascar Chase, but I think the film only really picks up when Bond gets to the Casino. The entire final act is awfully paced and the entire first act is pretty much the same. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I find the pacing of Quantum of Solace to be a lot better, Casino Royale feels really loose in comparison. It kinda just feels overly long, and not tied together at all. The entire first half just feels like a filler.
• I don't think Eva Green was a good choice for Vesper, and this is the point that has bothered me the most. This is where I think the film failed. Casino Royale was trying to tell a love story, this was the main point of it. Bond falls in love and gets his heart broken. It just wasn't believable in the least for me. There's just something about Eva Green that's just wooden and cold and desolate. You would think that the producers would want to cast someone who you would naturally warm to so you could actually feel Bonds betrayal, as well as feeling sorry for Vesper at the same time. To me, Vesper just comes across as the 'bitch in the red dress'. I don't feel sorry for her at all, and it completely stumps me how Bond can fall in love with her. I didn't find it too belivable in the novel either. I felt much more sorry for Solange, and Fields for that matter. They were both in the wrong place at the wrong time and considering Vesper is the ultimate Bond girl for Bond, I felt no emotional connection to her at all.
• The dialogue in parts is really cringeworthy. "That's because you know what I can do with my little finger.", "Half Monk; Half Hitman!", "Ego Ego, Blunt Instrument.". The one liners are fine, and very witty, but the some of the dialogue is just... really out of place. I don't want to bang on too much about Quantum of Solace, but I really do find the flow of dialogue in there a lot better. I much prefer Camilles line to Bond about his prison being in his head to "I have to Armour left... You stripped it from me..."
• I also think that Martin Campbell has very little artistic flair. Granted he did out do himself on this film, compared to the likes of GoldenEye, but the cinematography wasn't anything brilliant, and very straight forward. The thing I really admire about Quantum of Solace was the interesting cinematography. It was full of interesting, beautiful shots. Yes, Casino Royale felt classic in terms of this, but some of it was just a little bit boring for me.

I really do feel that people overlook all of this, due to the fact that Casino Royale came directly after Die Another Day, and everything in this film was a massive step up from it. I do admire the production team for sucessfully bringing Bond back into the 21st Century and doing something different. The point I'm trying to make, is that Casino Royale, whilst a good film, maybe isn't as good as everyone makes it out to be. Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoy it, and probably rank it a low 4/5. I just think it's incredibly overrated. The only truly amazing parts of the film for me, is the PTS/Main Titles and then Bond at the Casino right up untill the torture sequence. The rest just feels like really uncessary padding. It could've been done a lot better, but it's good for what it is.

Edited by Mharkin, 15 June 2012 - 09:27 PM.

[Matt_13]

This will get people talking. Well done Harkers. That said, I disagree with a lot, but can level with you on much. The pacing is dicey. Following the parkour chase and Bond's tongue lashing at the hands of M, the film takes a fairly unnecessary jaunt to the Bahamas. I've brought up my issues with the surveillance room before, and, granted, much can easily be explained away by the "It's just a movie" argument, but still, it's a fairly dull stretch that culminates in a decent action beat but ultimately proves superfluous in the grand scheme of things. The second half of the film is certainly its strongest, thanks primarily to its focus on character and atomosphere, which is where Casino Royale is at its best. You argue the cinematography isn't anything special but I disagree. A large part of it can be contributed to the wonderful locations, but I think the film is consistently glamorous and easy on the eyes for the duration. Is it anything groundbreaking? No, but it does evoke that sense of escapism and high-class fantasy that I've always loved.

Apart from that, I could not disagree with you more about Eva Green. They never could have cast a better match for Daniel Craig, and I know a fair few who will protest this point exhaustively. She is, apart from stunningly beautiful, a bright, cerebral actress who brought a lot to the Vesper character. I will hear nothing to the contrary. She's fantastic, and a great foil. As for the dialogue, it's hit and miss, which I believe will always be the case with Bond. Personally, I find very few issues, but I don't see much of a problem with somewhat heavy handed movie dialogue if it's delivered with verve, which is consistently the case here. Casino Royale means a lot to me, personally, as it represents everything I love about movies. It's my favorite film, despite its faults, and I still have a hard time believing Skyfall will topple it. Time will tell. Good post Harkers.

[blueman]

Overrated, yes.

I put it in that grouping of lesser, but still good, Bond films like DAF and TMWTGG and TND: strong lead performance, good bad guy but a plot that goes whoops too often and leading ladies who leave a lot to be desired acting-wise.

Despite Craig's awesome performance, there's a better film in there somewhere, like the other films mentioned. For me CR is half a Bond film - some good, even great moments, but not a completely satisfying Bond adventure, for many of the reasons you point out. Good topic.

[AMC Hornet]

Re: point #5:

The point is that Mathis didn't contact Vesper. That's just what she said, to lure Bond outside to see her 'abducted' so he would give chase, so that Le Chiffre could capture him. Le Chiffre claimed that "your friend Mathis is really my friend Mathis" - rather than Vesper - so that he could hold the threat of Vesper over him, and to convince Bond not to expect Mathis to come to his rescue.

Bond, not knowing this, had no reason to suspect otherwise. Le Chiffre made this claim while he had the upper hand, and Bond was not expected to live to share the information (the usual scenario).

Of course Bond would know that Mathis had eventually been cleared, and hoped he would be enough of a professional not to hold Bond's accusation against him. Hence his visit and plea for help in Q0S.

As for your other points, I agree that the first half of the story seems like filler, but since this was supposed to be the new Bond #1, some backstory for both Bond and the villain was called for. As there wouldn't be much action until the end, something was required to satisfy those who find films like Thunderball "boring." I agree that the real story doesn't actually start until Bond meets Vesper en route to Montenegro, but that's because that's where Fleming's story starts (my favorite part of FYEO is the middle half-hour, where they acted out Risico in its entirety).

You say that you don't see Vesper as the love of Bond's life - that's fair enough. I myself can't imagine that Paris Carver ever really got 'too close for comfort." It's all in who you like as an actor. Someone whom you or I can see as being 'the one' might leave everyone else cold. Eva Greene and Teri Hatcher impressed the directors at their auditions, and you and I weren't there to set them straight, so we have to take what they gave us.

You think Martin Campbell has very little artistic flair. Okay. I don't know your credentials, but I can safely say that he has a hell of a lot more artistic flair for directing films than I have. I remember reading some teenage fanboy flamer once claiming that he could have made a better film than DAD for half the budget. Right. It must be nice to have that kind of confidence. What I know is that Martin Campbell gets contracted to direct films such as GE, CR, the Mask of Zorro and Edge of Darkness (twice!), and I've never heard that he was bottom-of-the-barrel last choice for any of them.

You could be right that CR is over-rated as a reaction to some fans' disappointment over DAD and QoS. These things occur over time (There's an article in June's Empire magazine commenting on how, through hindsight, 'the reputation of 007's "worst" film (OHMSS) has been transformed'). I for one rate CR highly for being the back-to-the-source origin story that we've been denied for so long. Perhaps it could have been better, but I don't believe that any reflections of mine would have necessarily improved it in anyone else's eyes.

Let's see what happens with Skyfall - maybe it will be so good that everyone will begin underrating CR to the point where we'll both jump to its defence.

It could happen...

[Dustin]

About Mathis being the traitor, I thought this was supposed to be because LeChiffre's men cut the tracking chip from his arm. Bond probably supposed that detail had been revealed by Mathis. But the real question is, why should either Mathis or Vesper know about it? Both weren't present when Bond got it implanted. And there's no reason why either should be told by SIS. So - where did Le Chiffre learn about it???

That aside CASINO ROYALE does have its obvious shortcomings, some of which you have addressed. But Vesper I wouldn't want any different than she is played by Eva Green. Somehow I always found she should be a farouche person, not a likeable doe-eyed kitten. What I missed was more room for the affair to develop, but Green herself doesn't disturb me a bit. Her fate is sealed anyway, so I probably wouldn't want her more simpatico.

[AMC Hornet]

Bond had a wire stuck in his forearm when Vesper found him and administered his defib shock. He yanked that wire out before returning to the casino. She must have been compelled to mention this tidbit while Le Chiffre was grilling her in the car and he, being hip to modern technology, must have made an assumption - hence stopping Bond and disconnecting him from MI6 surveillance before carrying on to his hideout.

We don't get time to think about this during the running time, of course, but we've had six years to think of our own explanations to spackle over the plot holes.

[x007AceOfSpades]

I respectfully disagree with you, but hey, that's what this right? Giving our opinions so no hard feelings haha. I would thoroughly reply, but I'm too lazy and tired. Later though I'll my own analysis on this.

[Odd Jobbies]

• If you watch carefully, half of it doesn't make any sense.

First half or second

• Why would Felix offer Bond all of his winnings, and say that "Does it look like we need the money?". Evidently yes, it does. Considering the whole Miami Airport affair, you would think that the CIA would need quite a lot.

This was pre-recession, when it was fair to assume the U.S. and Wall Street still finically ruled the world.

• Why does it not bother Le Chiffre that the people who have threatened him have just been killed and thrown in a car boot? As he suspects Bond anyway, you would think that he'd see him as some kind of ally. The whole thing is never mentioned again.

Because Le Chiffre's henchmen are set up for their murder (bodies are in their car)

• The whole thing with Bond and Dimitrios in the Art Gallery is just stupid. They follow eachother around for a bit then he stabs him and kills him. It wasn't intense, they were just staring at eachother.

I found it pretty tense - it went past the fighting to the essence: One man taking away another's life with extreme prejudice.

• Something I've never really understood, but kept quiet about it. I don't understand how Bond suddenly thinks Mathis is a traitor, and I don't understand why in Quantum of Solace he thinks he isn't? It looks like Bond has just made assumptions and is going with them. This is probably the most confusing part about the entire movie. I always put it down to Mathis contacting Vesper at the Dinner Table instead of him. Considering Mathis was Bonds contact. But even if this was the case, it just doesn't make any sense, and just because he contacted Vesper, it still doesn't make Mathis a traitor. You'd think that both Mathis and Vesper had a rather close friendship during the Poker Game. Considering they were always together.

I'd need to double check, but i'm pretty sure the reason he suspects Mathis is because the only 2 people Bond told about his discovery of Le Chiffre's 'Tell' (touching his eye when bluffing) was Mathis and Vesper. The twist is that Bond never sees Vesper as a possible traitor, suggesting he's already in love with her (love being blind). At the dinner table with Vesper, after he wins the poker game, Bond realises he told Mathis the 'Tell' - in that moment Vesper screams, faking her kidnap and Bond assumes Mathis is responsible. Like i said, i need to re-watch it...

• The film itself is very uneven. I love the Pre Title Sequence, and I've never thought much of the Madagascar Chase, but I think the film only really picks up when Bond gets to the Casino. The entire final act is awfully paced and the entire first act is pretty much the same. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I find the pacing of Quantum of Solace to be a lot better, Casino Royale feels really loose in comparison. It kinda just feels overly long, and not tied together at all. The entire first half just feels like a filler.

The pacing isn't pitch-perfect (i think only Kubrick ever was), but CR is packing a lot in. The first half is absolutely necessary to set-up 'Proto-Bond' and create a proper foundation for his important ongoing relationship with M; there needs to be tension created so he can finally come back into the fold when he's 'Real-Bond' at the end of QoS.

I always thought the card game in the novel would be pretty hard to film & cut without it becoming dull. It's fantastic in the book, but that doesn't always translate, since much of it is Bond's internal monologue (hence Tarantino wanted to make CR with Bond's voice-over straight from the novel, a'la Philip Marlowe). However, i think Campbell and Stuart Baird made it work very well, the script's set-pieces (stairwell fight & car resuscitation working wonderfully to break & pace it up.

What makes this film unusual is that where Bond movies usually has a brief epilogue in which Bond gets his leg over, or the longest being his marriage in OHMSS, in CR there's a whole final act in which we discover and play out Vesper's story (as in the novel).

As for QoS, i also think this film is wrongly maligned. The script is unfinished and the editor can't cut action scenes, treating them more like expressionistic art pieces that represent the tumult of violence, not unlike a Jackson Pollock. But having said that the editing of the Opera shootout is one of the best/classiest action set-pieces in the franchise. QoS also has the best score in decades.

• I don't think Eva Green was a good choice for Vesper, and this is the point that has bothered me the most. This is where I think the film failed. Casino Royale was trying to tell a love story, this was the main point of it. Bond falls in love and gets his heart broken. It just wasn't believable in the least for me. There's just something about Eva Green that's just wooden and cold and desolate.

That kinda sums Vesper up - "wooden and cold and desolate'. She appears this way because of the awful secret she's hiding from her colleagues. Bond senses the vulnerability beneath the cool facade (spelt out in internal monologue in the novel). And like the gent he really is beneath the bravado he's drawn to a damsel in distress and falls for her. In the novels and i think in Craig and Brosnan's era's Bond has an impulse to rescue those in need. CR is about Bond suffering betrayal by someone he rescues, making him the slightly callus, tougher, darker individual thereafter, at least in the novel... "The bitch is dead..."

For the rest of our relationship with the written Bond after CR we see him question himself - can he do his job and still be a 'good guy'; he'll ask himself if he's a cowboy or and indian, but i'll come to that in a moment....

But back to Vesper, in short, she's a woman with a big secret that's a burden for her to carry, hence Eva Green's well judged 'offness' in her character. The only time she's ever allowed to be truthful with him is her act of suicide; though this is more subtle/vaguer In the movie as she sucks in the water before Bond can open the elevator - she wants to die rather than tell him why or how she could betray him..

• ....You would think that the producers would want to cast someone who you would naturally warm to so you could actually feel Bonds betrayal, as well as feeling sorry for Vesper at the same time. To me, Vesper just comes across as the 'bitch in the red dress'. I don't feel sorry for her at all, and it completely stumps me how Bond can fall in love with her. I didn't find it too belivable in the novel either. I felt much more sorry for Solange, and Fields for that matter. They were both in the wrong place at the wrong time and considering Vesper is the ultimate Bond girl for Bond, I felt no emotional connection to her at all.

I don't think 'feeling sorry for her' is the point of Vesper's character. Yes Fleming wants you to sympathise, but she's complex. In the novel Bond and Mathis discuss the job; Bond seeing it as just cowboys and indians and Mathis telling the young Bond that real life is not so simple. Young Bond learns of his job's complexity the hard way through Vesper's love & betrayal; she is both good and bad. She's trapped into her choices and perhaps genuinely loves Bond, but she puts lives in danger. If she's all warm and cuddly then how does that wash with her betraying Bond - it would make nonsense of her character, her betray too arch, making her a cartoon.

• The dialogue in parts is really cringeworthy. "That's because you know what I can do with my little finger.", "Half Monk; Half Hitman!", "Ego Ego, Blunt Instrument.". The one liners are fine, and very witty, but the some of the dialogue is just... really out of place. I don't want to bang on too much about Quantum of Solace, but I really do find the flow of dialogue in there a lot better. I much prefer Camilles line to Bond about his prison being in his head to "I have to Armour left... You stripped it from me..."

Yes, some parts were clunky, while QoS was less so in terms of dialogue. IMO this is because P&W didn't get the chance to polish the script and 'Bond it up' with the usual clunky one liners. I imagine Craig may have improvised some of the absent QoS stuff, making it simple, to-the-point, which ended up working nicely, e.g. "It's time to get out...." at the end of the pre-credits. However, CR was far less clunky than the Brosnan/Dalton scripts.

• I also think that Martin Campbell has very little artistic flair. Granted he did out do himself on this film, compared to the likes of GoldenEye, but the cinematography wasn't anything brilliant, and very straight forward. The thing I really admire about Quantum of Solace was the interesting cinematography. It was full of interesting, beautiful shots. Yes, Casino Royale felt classic in terms of this, but some of it was just a little bit boring for me.

I think you should look at Campbell in comparison to previous Bond directors, most of whom have been workman like and far more often than not 'without flare'. In this light i think Campbell was a huge leap forward for Eon: Though not concerned with art so much, he has a great eye and really understands 70mm composition (Goldeneye has some wonderfully composed shots and sequences). Add to that his great experience in action (cutting teeth on TV's The Professionals) and he's that rare gem of a Bond director - a good eye, not bad at drama (not brilliant, but not bad) and no need to hand everything over everything to Vic Armstrong to do the action, giving the movie a disjointed tone, as in TWINE.

Foster, however, is in the Auteur league (and his movies have Oscars!) - a massive step up in terms of Eon's ambition to attract such director's (thanks wholly to Craig's performance in CR). With a finished script and Stuart Baird co-cutting the action i think it could've been a great movie. As it stands i'm not ashamed to say it's a very good Bond movie and a good final act to CR.

I really do feel that people overlook all of this, due to the fact that Casino Royale came directly after Die Another Day, and everything in this film was a massive step up from it. I do admire the production team for sucessfully bringing Bond back into the 21st Century and doing something different. The point I'm trying to make, is that Casino Royale, whilst a good film, maybe isn't as good as everyone makes it out to be. Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoy it, and probably rank it a low 4/5. I just think it's incredibly overrated. The only truly amazing parts of the film for me, is the PTS/Main Titles and then Bond at the Casino right up untill the torture sequence. The rest just feels like really uncessary padding. It could've been done a lot better, but it's good for what it is.

Fair enough, i see your point, but for me i think Casino Royale almost nails something that really should've been 'un-naillable' (even Tarantino didn't want to do this film unless he could use voiceover as an aid to the story-telling). I think what it achieved is way beyond what we'd hoped for. I think this is down to Eon (Michael and Barbara) finally making the franchise their own; and to the extraordinary effort from Campbell to top his own best score, managing to reinvigorate the ailing franchise for a second time.

Most of all though it's down to Daniel Craig, who i have to say i suggested in the ajb007.co.uk forums way back in the late 90s/early naughties when i saw him in the movie Love Is The Devil (1998). Something threatening, yet seductive and authentic in his screen presence throughout the many sex-scenes of that film made me think this is Bond.

Thanks to him more than anyone Casino Royale doesn't suck...
QoS is way better and far more watchable than it should've been, having been shot with half a script....
And now we have Sam Mendes...

So i say thanks DC and thanks Eon for having the balls to cast him.

I give Casino Royale a high 4/5

(only FRWL and GF rate higher)

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 15 June 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[Vauxhall]

I've been rewatching it over the past couple of days for the first time in a while, and it still performs very strongly for me. It's not just simply an excellent Bond film, it's a very good film, and rightly praised. Its importance should also be considered in terms of what has followed since; I think the Bond franchise would be hugely in danger, if not extinct, without the change of direction that CASINO ROYALE took.

[Royal Dalton]

Very overrated.

[tdalton]

This is certainly an interesting question, and one that I'll delve into in a bit more detail after I give the film a viewing over the weekend. But, my initial impressions of Casino Royale is that I like the film on its own merits, but I find it to be very much a failure as an adaptation of Fleming's novel. It gets the mechanics of two of the three main set pieces of the novel correctly (the card game and the torture sequence, even if they did have to change the type of card game). The third, the finale of the film, is a complete botching of the finale of the novel.

[Double-0-Seven]

Odd Jobbies excellent post is pretty much what I was going to say. I definitely respect your opinion but I disagree. I think it is very fairly rated and deserves the praise. Craig really nails it his first time around in what I would consider to be the best debut performance from any Bond actor. I love the first half of the film, especially the scenes at the hotel in the Bahamas. Classic Bond all the way. The Miami Airport scene, which often gets criticized as out of place, does fit into the story. The point of it is that Le Chiffre placed money on the aircraft being destroyed but Bond prevents it. Thus, Bond is actually responsible for Le Chiffre losing his funds, which is a nice little twist on the story in the original novel.

I think the action in the first half of the film is appropriate since the card game slows things down and gives a nice change of pace. It was brilliantly done. I never thought it'd work on film without getting tedious or boring but it's excellent. The torture scene is also amazing. Handled excellently by Mr. Craig.

Also, I thought Eva Green made a terrific Vesper. She's natural and believable. The fact that she doesn't exactly look like a super model adds a sense of realism to the idea that Bond is in love with her. He finds her mysterious which is what attracts him to her. He wants to figure her out. In a sense, it's a personal goal for him. He's certain he can figure her out. The tragedy is that he never does figure out she's the real traitor until it's too late.

[Odd Jobbies]

The third, the finale of the film, is a complete botching of the finale of the novel.

I did feel disappointed that they didn't end with "The bitch is dead", and felt the actual delivery of the line was thrown away, hiding it in fear of alienating the audience from Bond, despite that being the very reason the line is in the book. It's there to shock the audience - to let them know how much this man has changed since this story began; that he's now ruthless and more dangerous than ever and that's an attractive prospect for the reader to look forward to - more shocks. I thought M's insistence that Vesper was 'an ok sort, really', which followed through to the end of QoS was the only copout in the reboot.

They went for the same effect with the ruthless sniping of Mr White and subsequent cool, detached delivery of the famous line, cue Bond theme. It's very effective, but not as much so as Fleming's hard hitting final line...

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 16 June 2012 - 01:46 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

...The Miami Airport scene, which often gets criticized as out of place, does fit into the story. The point of it is that Le Chiffre placed money on the aircraft being destroyed but Bond prevents it. Thus, Bond is actually responsible for Le Chiffre losing his funds, which is a nice little twist on the story in the original novel.

I think the beats of the story work very well n Miami. As you said it's a clever addition to have Bond responsible for Le Chiffre's awkward situation with his African client, which forces the card game. Also, in terms of pace a big action set-peice was needed at that point.

On a side note, i love how this chapter starts in the Bahama's and breathlessly moves to its conclusion in Miami airport as Bond peruses his hunch. The kind of detective work that's too often been missing from the franchise.

For me the most successful part of TWINE was Bond assuming the nuclear physisist's identity, flying to the desert, meeting [the terribly cast] Christmas Jones and ending in the gun fight with Renard. Sweeping stuff that takes the audience by the scruff of the neck on a magic carpet ride, done best in Raiders Of The Lost Ark.



EDIT: Sorry about all the re-edits i do - i love Macs but their auto on-the-fly spell correction gets it wrong more often than not.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 16 June 2012 - 01:52 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Overrated... well, as everything that gets celebrated by a majority - and then gets torn apart again a few years later when the hype has quieted down.

CR, IMO, is a very good Bond film, introducing a very good actor in the main role, a film giving us unfussy directing, telling a more-or-less believable Bond story (after the "these can be turned to 11"-DAD), with beautiful locations and a classic feel to the whole thing that has not been done since, well, at least FYEO.

I agree that the pacing is spotty - but that is not due to the actual scenes (which IMO are directed and edited very well) but to the overall plot which, as noted above, is very busy.

And while it has some very nice and sardonic dialogue, the "little finger" scene is absolutely cringeworthy.

Eva Green, however, makes the character work IMO because there is something very attractive but also kind of reserved about her. (And yes, I think she is a stunning woman.)

In the end, CR is doing everything it can to return to the classic Bond films of the 60´s while providing the action sequences of the 00´s - a mix that is a bit jarring. Also, having the whole Bond arc in it, it takes more time than usual for a Bond film (save OHMSS). Could it have been done snappier? Yes, I do think so. But somehow I was so happy to have him back on the screen I did not mind then. These days, I prefer other Bond films.

And I sincerely hope that SKYFALL will manage to give us a great mix of CR and QOS - and TSWLM thrown in there as well...

[The Shark]

Extremely overrated. A disgrace to Fleming.

[Goodnight]

I hate the "my little finger" line, It completely ruins the emotive lines spoken immediately prior to it.

A cheap, nasty, gag that belongs in something like an episode of 'The Inbetweeners' not in a Bond film.


I never really understood why Felix says "Does it look like we need the money" either.

[Trevelyan 006]

To say it plainly, yes, in a sense I believe it is.

• The film itself is very uneven. I love the Pre Title Sequence, and I've never thought much of the Madagascar Chase, but I think the film only really picks up when Bond gets to the Casino. The entire final act is awfully paced and the entire first act is pretty much the same. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I find the pacing of Quantum of Solace to be a lot better, Casino Royale feels really loose in comparison. It kinda just feels overly long, and not tied together at all. The entire first half just feels like a filler.

Perhaps that is why I find myself skipping to the train scene in Montenegro after watching the pre-title sequences! I can honestly say if the movie started from that point, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. There's just something about those pieces along the beginning that I find uninteresting, and frankly sub-par compared to the later section of the movie.

I'd need to double check, but i'm pretty sure the reason he suspects Mathis is because the only 2 people Bond told about his discovery of Le Chiffre's 'Tell' (touching his eye when bluffing) was Mathis and Vesper. The twist is that Bond never sees Vesper as a possible traitor, suggesting he's already in love with her (love being blind). At the dinner table with Vesper, after he wins the poker game, Bond realises he told Mathis the 'Tell' - in that moment Vesper screams, faking her kidnap and Bond assumes Mathis is responsible. Like i said, i need to re-watch it...

I always took this to be pretty much the explanation of the whole situation. A line Bond says near the end of the movie confirms it for me I believe.

Something like:

"Remember I told you about Le Chiffre's tell?

Well, Mathis told Le Chiffre.

That's how he wiped me out."

Edited by Trevelyan 006, 16 June 2012 - 03:22 PM.

[tdalton]

To say it plainly, yes, in a sense I believe it is.

• The film itself is very uneven. I love the Pre Title Sequence, and I've never thought much of the Madagascar Chase, but I think the film only really picks up when Bond gets to the Casino. The entire final act is awfully paced and the entire first act is pretty much the same. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I find the pacing of Quantum of Solace to be a lot better, Casino Royale feels really loose in comparison. It kinda just feels overly long, and not tied together at all. The entire first half just feels like a filler.

Perhaps that is why I find myself skipping to the train scene in Montenegro after watching the pre-title sequences! I can honestly say if the movie started from that point, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. There's just something about those pieces along the beginning that I find uninteresting, and frankly sub-par compared to the later section of the movie.

The film really should have started at that point. The Madagascar, the Bahamas, and Miami are rather uninteresting sequences that really drag down the stronger aspects of the film with the two unnecessary action set pieces tied together with unnecessary filler. Losing the first half of the film would have allowed for them to use that time to further develop the Bond/Vesper relationship and feature Gettler more and expand on Vesper's paranoia at the end of the novel and use that as a means to lead to a more faithful adaptation of the ending of the novel. I have no problem with the film ending with "Bond, James Bond" (I love the slightly psychotic look Bond has hiding behind the smile he gives Mr. White), but the final line of the novel should not have been a throwaway line like it was in the film, and should have immediately followed Bond finding Vesper's dead body and note rather than seemingly later in the day (or the next day) after Vesper drowned.

[Dustin]

Ah, I have completely forgotten about the tell subplot. Doesn't speak for my powers of memory.

Overrated - what does that really say? We all rate the films and most of us rate them differently than others. A 'perfect' Bond film, that's a thing that doesn't exist in my view. We can find things to pick at in the best of them - and we frequently do. What I feel I've detected is a general tendency in recent years to ... I don't know, it's not exactly an iconoclastic riot, but it's coming close. We apparently fell in love with trying to bring down our object of affection by overanalysis. And the most successful entries seem to be the most worthy targets for this strange kind of masochism.

In general I don't think this is due to some sick need for recognition or self-styled authority on the topic - though some may indeed need just this as a means to boast their ego and find a cheap temporary satisfaction in it. I think it's more a result of the ever-faster turning wheel of our cultural moods and whims and the - perhaps natural, universal even - desire to claim some authority over the tastes of the mass market. Though of course we never can; if we had actual authority over the matter, if we really knew better we'd not discuss the films on the Internet, we'd be in the business ourselves. But the net and the ubiquity of the films provided us with the illusion we were experts on the matter - instead of informed and passionate laymen with too much time on our hands.

Only a few years ago people lamented over paper-thin plots, too fantastical themes and stunts and about a general lack of seriousness and quality. And just as these are tackled - with some success even, albeit perhaps not always the success we'd wish for - we are already willing to turn these in for more humour, less seriousness and 'please, pretty please, no pretentiousness!' and I'm half expecting to hear pleads for a tougher, darker, harder Bond, once we get our way. When I'm reading such I must of course include my own opinion; why ever would I be different than the next fan? I rate CASINO ROYALE high but I have no idea if it's too high. Could be, how would I know? Too high compared to what? The first Bond film? The next? The dollar? I have no idea.

Sure, I may rate it differently in some years. I'm getting older and less patient and may not suffer less-than-perfect as easily as I used to. But I seriously doubt my opinion on CR or any of the other films will ever be anything but mine. Insofar it may be too subjective, but I'm glad about that.

Mind you, this is not a critique of our criticising or our discussing things. I merely feel there is no wrong way as such to rate CASINO ROYALE (or any of the other films and books).

Edited by Dustin, 16 June 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[Jim]

I enjoyed it; it entertained me.

But I suspect this still wold have been better http://debrief.comma...rosnan-version/

[S K Y F A L L]

I felt CR was overrated.
It was the first Bond film in 4 years and starring a new 007 actor so there was a lot of hype going into the film.
They cashed in on the fact that Taxes Holdem became so popular but I felt the film dragged on at the end in Venice.

I enjoyed it and thought it was a great Bond film for DC to star off on; it is an interesting question because it makes me aware of my over excitement for SF since it too is the first Bond film in 4 years.
I noticed on moviemistakes.com that CR has a lot of mistakes and I wonder if the other films have as many. The one movie mistake I always notice is the handed that pulls the door closed at the airport, drives me nuts and makes me wonder is the film was rushed.

[Pussfeller]

I agree with Mharkin about Eva Green not being Vesper material, and finding the love plot implausible. But these things don't spoil my enjoyment of the film. I always enjoy the first two hours. I'm not so crazy about the last thirty minutes. Everything after Le Chiffre's execution feels draggy and muddled, and the stakes don't feel particularly high.

[Bryce (003)]

Back in 2007, The Admiral, Quartermaster and Mister Asterix (Dave, Greg & Evan) all visited L.A. and it was a Hell of a week. Casa Bryce became CBn HQ and it was like a Bond frat house. Good times.

Aside from countless So. Cal. adventures, Bond lived in my DVD and PS2 and CR ran daily.

One afternoon, prepping for another evening on the town, CR was on and, sitting with the Admiral, we discussed it.

Admiral: "What is it that just makes this the perfect Bond movie?"

Bryce: *pause for thought* "Because Bond isn't perfect yet...But he's on his way."

It was the breath of fresh air albeit "old school" that the series needed. A contemporary take on the classic story that started it all. Not the campy 60's mojo, not the '54 live American TV hack job. The novel retold in a modern current setting. Dalton said here and there (as has Brosnan) that they wished that the legalities of CR had been straightened out when they did their first Bond.

Right time, right place and a damn fine actor filling the shoes...slowly.

This fall will mark my 40th year as a Bond fan. In 2006, this was the "lightning in a bottle" moment for me in the film series. Just an IMO here. Let the haters hate and frankly I feel sorry for the fact that they left the films or their interest in Bond simply over casting.

Just proves they aren't really Bond fans.

That's my two pence...Now somebody pour me a two-fingered measure of Glenlivet 25 neat that I can give to someone else.

[S K Y F A L L]

I just want to add I like Eve Green but I felt she was to young for Bond. She was 26 and DC was 36 and I don't think it was the right message to be sending to kids watching the film. Its just that it makes me think of FYEO what if Roger Moore bedded the figure skating girl?

[DamnCoffee]

I don't think anyone but you has found that a problem. I'm sure Moore was atleast 30 years older than the Bond girl there.

[00Twelve]

Six years out and several re-watches and re-reads of the whole series later, it's still my favorite Bond film.

[SecretAgentFan]

I just want to add I like Eve Green but I felt she was to young for Bond. She was 26 and DC was 36 and I don't think it was the right message to be sending to kids watching the film.

Um, they are both consenting adults, right? So that message I would LOVE to send to kids.

However, killing, beating up, lying, cheating or the other stuff Bond does - that would be something I don´t want kids to emulate.

[Darth Prefect]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I will concur that CR is vastly overrated. From the preposterously overlong foot chase to the nonsense of having Bond be responsible for Le Chiffre's predicament to ruining Vesper's "suicide" by not actually making is sucide, all capped with an actor who is totally wrong for the role, it's my least favorite of the three "Casino Royale" adaptations. Add in the inexplicable retention of the previous "M" in a supposed reboot (I love Judi Dench, but it only makes sense because they had her signed and were too cheap to pay her off and get a new actor), the disrepect shown one of Bond's best friends (I know, let's finally portray Mathis on screen, but then f*** him over royally), a lousy song and none of the proper Bond cinematic traditions and you've got a film I couldn't even enjoy on first viewing.

Then, of course, along came "Quantum of Solace" and I got to see just how bad ol' jug-ears could be as Bond and suddenly I started seeing the more positive side of CR. Yes, it misrepresents the characters, but there are hints of Fleming in there. Yes, it's too long, but at least it's rarely a complete snooze-fest. Yes, it's pandering to the audience to use Texas Hold'em instead of Baccarat, but at least they used the new setting well. (The buy back in was a perfect replacement for the "suddenly having more money" in the original.) Yes, they screwed up Mathis, but I really liked Felix. And so on...

So, I place it in with the other weaker entries, but, thanks to QoS, it no longer sits at the bottom.

[The Shark]

Well put.