491 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

It sounds jolly good.

Turning James Bond into some sort of character - extraordinary.

But of course we'll have to deal with all the folks who believe James Bond shouldnt be a real character, they are the ones who'll dislike the film.

Myself? I think the script sounds great, certainly better than the last four Bond film

[Leon]

Sounds good, alot of more old school Fleming style things, but one or two little things bug me. Too much mobile phone stuff and the dark, "smokey" casino atmosphere which is THE major point of the story may feel lacking in the film...

[Harmsway]

A tipster claims this AICN review is based on a post-Haggis draft, but I read nothing that indicates this in the review. Sounds like the same Dec draft that was reviewed at IGN and Latino Review.

Yup. Seems to me like the same script that's been bandied about.

Furthermore, it can't really be post-Haggis, since the names Merrick cites are just P&W and Haggis.

[Bond_Bishop]

Based on that AICN review I am sure this movie will be one of the best Bond movies in a long time. Way better than the three latest movies. That scene with Vesper in the shower will be beautiful, I have missed scenes like that in the Bond movies. I hope the reviewer have right about Bond in this movie, that you actually will find him sympathetic and more than just an icon. I still feels that I will miss the usual gunbarrel if it will turn out to be like the reviewer describe it. But anyway, I am soooo looking forward to november and to Casino Royale.

[Gobi-1]

Love the part about Bond wearing a tux for the first time checking himself out in the mirror. It's sounds funny and cool.

[Harmsway]

Love the part about Bond wearing a tux for the first time checking himself out in the mirror. It's sounds funny and cool.

It's a bit I love too. It's just a really terrific character moment that plays well into the origin nature of the film and furthermore adds some great humanity to Bond.

[Bryan Harris]

A tipster claims this AICN review is based on a post-Haggis draft, but I read nothing that indicates this in the review. Sounds like the same Dec draft that was reviewed at IGN and Latino Review.

Sloppy phrasing. When I posted that, I meant to say that the script being reviewed was apparently the one that reflected Haggis's input, as opposed to an earlier one.

[zencat]

A tipster claims this AICN review is based on a post-Haggis draft, but I read nothing that indicates this in the review. Sounds like the same Dec draft that was reviewed at IGN and Latino Review.

Sloppy phrasing. When I posted that, I meant to say that the script being reviewed was apparently the one that reflected Haggis's input, as opposed to an earlier one.

Ah, great. Thanks.

[007GadgetChick]

I was searching the net and found a neat site full of Casino Royale spoilers. It's too much to post here, but you can read it here:

http://www.aintitcoo...ay.cgi?id=23103

Some of it, you may have read before.

[Dunph]

I am nothing but excited for the film after reading that script. Nothing but excited.

[zencat]

Thanks, 007GadgetChick. That review and others are being discussed now in this thread.

Welcome to CBn.

[zencat]

[box]BOND THE RENEGADE. Another shortcoming is the script

[Harmsway]

As I've stated before, my biggest concern regarding CASINO ROYALE is whether or not Campbell is really a capable enough director to really handle this. This does seem like a film that is more suited for some MUNICH-style Spielberg, or some Christopher Nolan, or at the very least some Paul Greengrass.

Maybe I'm worrying too much and Campbell will be just dandy, but it does seem like he is really out of his depth with this.

[Auric64]

A one-dimensional villain? Since when has Bond *not* had a fairly one-dimensional villain... even in the Fleming novels? Bond villains are something that's primarily made in the performance, and hopefully Mikkelsen can deliver there. Furthermore, I think a somewhat uninteresting villain, if Mikkelsen can't really make him work, is a fairly forgiveable flaw. After all, he does die 3/4ths of the way through the film anyhow.

There have been a few notable villians in Fleming`s novels that have not been one dimensional. Hugo Drax, Dr. No, Goldfinger, are three that spring to my mind. Certainly the individual character of these three, (and in particular Drax) has been shaped by their past, (which can`t always be included in a fast plotted film in the way it can in a novel) and apart from Goldfinger, (to a lesser extent) these characters from the books have not been properly transposed to the film.

The question he asks is "Will audiences accept this new Bond?" - a Bond who has come from a lower class to rise to an upper class, a Bond that is really fleshed out. The Bond of CASINO ROYALE was Bond for me, just Bond in a origin that hadn't been given us either by Fleming or by EON. Is this a Bond audiences will accept? Maybe, maybe not. It's a Bond *I* accept.

"Will audiences accept this new Bond?" Well, we`re back to TLD and LTK territory, aren`t we? Part of the reason for Dalton not being as accepted as Bond, (not in my eyes but in the eyes of the audiences round the world - notably USA) is that Dalton`s Bond was too serious. Going "back to basics" which the producers felt they could do with Dalton that they couldn`t have envisaged with Moore, (sounds familiar?) gave many Bond fans, (Fleming fans such as myself) the Bond film we wanted, but many of the cinema going public were not happy with the serious approach. They wanted what they had had for 10 years previous: large sets, larger than life villians, guns, girls and gadgets.

Now, with CR showing a more serious approach, with a Bond who is, not only cocky and arrogant, but also confused, lonely and unloved, is this going to alienate the Bond audience who have enjoyed and had what they wanted with the last 4 Brosnan movies? Whether you liked them or you didn`t, they were successful, and that, in part is down to audiences who enjoyed Brosnan in the role and enjoyed the Bond elements that I have mentioned in my last sentence in the above paragraph. I hope it won`t alienate the audience, but I won`t be surprised if it does.

The immediate question I think that the rather excellent script now brings us to is "Can Campbell really carry this off?" Before, I had thought Campbell more than capable of bringing us CASINO ROYALE, but I didn't know quite how extreme it was... somehow, now I wonder. I have high hopes, but it does seem like CASINO ROYALE is really out of Campbell's league. I hope Campbell brings his best game to CASINO ROYALE and really surprises us.

Yes, Campbell, like Glen, is an excellent action director, but kinda falls short with the emotional stuff and, seeing as CR may be the most emotional Bond film since OHMSS, alarm bells are ringing in my head too. But hey, maybe Campbell will surprise us and want to outdo himself after GE. Let`s hope the script can invigorate him and he`ll nail it.

This script review from AICN does flesh out the story more and, while there are still bits in it I`m not happy with, (the reboot, Bond in the SAS, Dench as M, etc. etc.) as a drama, and dare I say it a Bond drama, there are elements in there that I think are worth exploring.

Hey, it`s got me intrigued enough now, that I may even end up going to see the damn movie!!

Best
Andy

[007GadgetChick]

Thanks, 007GadgetChick. That review and others are being discussed now in this thread.

Welcome to CBn.

Hey thanks for the welcome! I'll check out the other thread.

[Harmsway]

I'll let you know, Auric, that Bond in CASINO ROYALE is not a deathly serious character. He's definitely a brooding, darker character, but he does have a sense of humor. The Bond of CASINO ROYALE, in other words, is *not* Dalton's Bond (actually, in many aspects, he's very removed from Dalton's portrayal and the flavors of the two characterizations are very different).

It's a different mixture of seriousness and fantastical flair than was in the Dalton films. It seems we're getting a better mixture - I'm not a huge fan of the execution of the Dalton films and think that they're just okay. I'm very curious as to how the average joe will respond to CASINO ROYALE.

And re: Campbell - Campbell does have it in him to give us something good. He did very solid work on the critically-acclaimed EDGE OF DARKNESS, and so it's possible he'll really bring his best game to CASINO ROYALE. My qualms there are somewhat moot, though, since it seems to me like CASINO ROYALE will range from "pretty darn good" to "absolutely brilliant."

[Qwerty]

I've merged the two topics.

[Andrew]

I've noticed that the AICN review doesn't give Madagascar as one of the locations. SImple error or something more?

I'm also wondering, and I'm sure some of you can answer this in a yes or a no, if Le Chiffre gives Bond a "red Indians" type speech during the torture sequence.

Edited by Andrew, 23 April 2006 - 09:57 PM.

[Yitztak]

I'm not going to lie... the sound of tons of blood and nudity sounds like too much of a departure from the past 20 movies for me... but I like the "no CGI, Bond has feelings, there is a free-running sequence" thing. I just can't justify watching a movie with that much carnage and blatant nudity. Heck, I even like the idea of the gunbarrel and the scene where Bond checks himself out in a tux (although weren't we told that he wouldn't don a tux... I guess the tux makes sense in a Casino, though).

[Loomis]

And re: Campbell - Campbell does have it in him to give us something good. He did very solid work on the critically-acclaimed EDGE OF DARKNESS, and so it's possible he'll really bring his best game to CASINO ROYALE. My qualms there are somewhat moot, though, since it seems to me like CASINO ROYALE will range from "pretty darn good" to "absolutely brilliant."

I'm no huge Campbell fan, either (hey, who is? No one, apparently ), but my feeling is that elements like the script and casting seem so solid that a director would really have to go out of his way in order to derail CASINO ROYALE. Besides, I don't think any of the other Bond directors were among the all-time greats of cinema, exactly, and didn't they all make a turkey or two outside Bond?

I don't subscribe to the view that the franchise needs A-listers or brilliant visionaries like Tarantino, Nolan and Greengrass (and I think they'd be more trouble than they were worth). If everything else is up to par - and it seems it is - a competent professional like Campbell is all that's required.

[Harmsway]

I hope you're right, Loomis.

[JCRendle]

And re: Campbell - Campbell does have it in him to give us something good. He did very solid work on the critically-acclaimed EDGE OF DARKNESS, and so it's possible he'll really bring his best game to CASINO ROYALE. My qualms there are somewhat moot, though, since it seems to me like CASINO ROYALE will range from "pretty darn good" to "absolutely brilliant."

I'm no huge Campbell fan, either (hey, who is? No one, apparently ), but my feeling is that elements like the script and casting seem so solid that a director would really have to go out of his way in order to derail CASINO ROYALE. Besides, I don't think any of the other Bond directors were among the all-time greats of cinema, exactly, and didn't they all make a turkey or two outside Bond?

Cambell gave us Brosnan's best Bond film, many fans have GoldenEye amonst their favourite Bond films - I think Cambell knows what works and what doesn't with a Bond film, he wont stray too far in his direction of the film

[deth]

still not a fan of the gunbarrel change. I wish it would have stayed as something ambiguous like it always has been...

[Vauxhall]

I've noticed that the AICN review doesn't give Madagascar as one of the locations. SImple error or something more?

Simple error I believe. It was in the early draft of the script as I understand it. The set in the Bahamas was signposted "Madagascar", and it has been referred to by both Campbell and Craig relatively recently. I think it was just an oversight on the part of the reviewers.

Seems like a lot of locations though - which I quite approve of. I enjoy seeing Bond as a globe-trotting spy, gives it a hint of exoticism. From the list of locations given in the review then it looks as though Bond will be catching his train to the casino in Montenegro from somewhere in The Alps. There we are - our traditional sight of snow in the last 4 movies continuing I would imagine!!

[MarcAngeDraco]

I just read the script review on AICN, and all I can say is WOW!!

The script sounds to be everything I hoped it might be...

WOW!!

[kneelbeforezod]

It's a different mixture of seriousness and fantastical flair than was in the Dalton films. It seems we're getting a better mixture - I'm not a huge fan of the execution of the Dalton films and think that they're just okay. I'm very curious as to how the average joe will respond to CASINO ROYALE.

You talk a lot of sense Harmsway... People often use the Dalton films as proof that audiences will not accept a more realstic, back to basics Bond. But this view ignores the fact that a) Dalton arguably lacked charisma, despite admirably approaching the part seriously and b ) the films themselves were only average.

I don't think modern audiences have seen a great Bond film that takes the story and the character seriously. If done well, theres no reason why people wouldn't embrace it. I'm really encouraged by this latest script review!

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 23 April 2006 - 11:41 PM.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

Skimmed the AICN article.
Sounds like a largely dull and dreary affair.

[kneelbeforezod]

The elan, the sophistication are all gone. Craig just looks like a brutish and thuggish man.

Its a shame you dont find Craig attractive, since that seems to be at the root of your criticisms. And thats fair enough. But my mum, never a fan of Brosnan (who she felt was just too pretty, and not hard or cruel enough) came out of Layer Cake and said "Do you know what, I think Daniel Craig would make a good Bond". And you never know, Craig's performance might be full of elan and sophistication... or can only male models be sophisticated?

And if we are to go by the script review, this seems to verge on being pretentious character driven film. I maybe in the minority here, but I don't watch Bond films to see high art. When I want to watch films on par with 'Brokeback Mountain' or 'Capote' then I'll go directly to that.

This comment would carry more weight if I hadn't seen pictures of Bond fighting on and hanging from a crane a hundred foot up...

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 24 April 2006 - 12:17 AM.

[kneelbeforezod]

Skimmed the AICN article.
Sounds like a largely dull and dreary affair.

It may sound dull and dreary to you now... but when you see it, you'll find that you actually care for these characters... you'll be emotionally involved in the drama... and when the big action set pieces happen you'll be on the edge of your seat even more because you believe in them and care about the outcome!

At least... that's what I hope will happen when you watch it.

[Harmsway]

Another question to be asking now is, "Can CASINO ROYALE be uncompromising and still be PG-13?"