491 replies to this topic

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

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.

I truly hope so, man.
However, recent comparisons to 'Batman Begins' have done nothing but heighten my fears. As I am one of the few people who though BB was a waaaay too self-serious, heavy-handed piece of filmic dreck.
Sucks to be me, I know.

Edited by Roger Moore's Bad Facelift, 24 April 2006 - 02:16 AM.

[deth]

Sucks to be me, I know.

hey...... well, you said it, not me....

Edited by deth, 24 April 2006 - 04:55 AM.

[Kingdom Come]

Sorry to sound sour - but we have had all this too often in the past - 'more attention to characters and story' and we ended up with neither. FYEO / LTK / TWINE and now this film.

They are ONLY doing this to sell a film. When they are not promoting a high octane film they are promoting a back to basics approach and then the next film or two its back to high octane and then back to Bond's roots and the wheel turns.

I don't buy any of it. They must think we have short memories.

[Harmsway]

Sorry to sound sour - but we have had all this too often in the past - 'more attention to characters and story' and we ended up with neither. FYEO / LTK / TWINE and now this film.

But we have the script - big difference here. EON's actions have actually backed them up this time around, despite what history might indicate. CASINO ROYALE *does* pay more attention to the characters and story.

[Rolex]

When i read the the script outline couple months ago I thought it would be a TLD /LTK back to basic adventure, now it sounds to me CR will be as unique as OHMSS it will split fans and average filmgoers.

[Leon]

My guess is this will be a modern OHMSS style film, only with a much better actor who looks tougher and less silly as 007.

To be as good as it can be the script needed to have some more refinement it seems. Too much P&W crummyness and cheese left on it from what I've heard, lots of mobile phones, bland "jerk" villains and the odd strains of very corny dialogue.

Bond is also suggested to be working class, not from a background of money...this is all wrong, he came from a very wealthy family - parents died climbing and was brought up by his Aunt and went to the best schools, yet he was a rebelious child.

I like the script a lot but that really bothers me. It sounds more like the induction of Sean Connery into the role of 007 as a young man by Terrence Young.

Edited by Leon, 24 April 2006 - 08:05 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Best thing about this new review IMO is that we really get to know Bond as an unformed character and not as the suave agent who can do anything he wants. And the scene with Vesper, trying to wash the blood off her hands... brilliant. I do not agree with the reviewer (who, by the way, must be one of those geeks who always have to say "I would have done it much better") about the "bad" dialogue and the cardboard villains. I also have to smile whenever I hear someone mentioning DIE HARD as a kind of rulebook for the perfect villain - it is only due to Alan Rickman

[David Schofield]

"So, Mr Bond, this is the first time you've been classless, eh? I remember when you had a Scottish accent that was all over the place, an Australin twang, Yorkshire vowels and even a slight Irish brogue."

Anybody think the lower class/poor background stuff might be slightly less explicit than the latest review suggests?

[Leon]

I hope so, I do like the sound of this film alot, but little things like that annoy me alot.

Bond isn't from a working class background! grr

[Leon]

However, recent comparisons to 'Batman Begins' have done nothing but heighten my fears. As I am one of the few people who though BB was a waaaay too self-serious, heavy-handed piece of filmic dreck.
Sucks to be me, I know.

I agree, Batman Begins was ridiculous. The original film was dark and serious but in a larger than life quirky manner with a great script and it hinted at Batmans roots without actually bloody showing every little silly thing. The martial arts training in the mountains? Ninjas? Give me a break.

It's one of those films which thinks it's amazing and tries to make people think it's really deep and brilliant, but it isn't. Like the Star Wars prequels.

The original Batman just did a Batman story and actually was brilliant, it didn't try to force it on you. Jack Nicholson's Joker, the best suit, the car, the dark comic book style...THE SCORE!! superb.

The score in Batman Begins...where is it? Oh there it is, in the toilet.

[belvedere]

I'm surprised I haven't read this yet. I don't think the script that was reviewed was the final script. It says "Uganda" is a script location, yet we know officially that Madagascar is in the story - we've even seen footage from it with the principles saying that it was supposed to be Madagascar. That tells me that this script was an earlier draft and therefore the comments about dialogue may not be accurate.

We'll see...

[Harmsway]

Anybody think the lower class/poor background stuff might be slightly less explicit than the latest review suggests?

It is. They don't run around pointing out that Bond's a lower-class guy, and though his fashion in the film somewhat evolves from a little more casual (but not any less stylish - and even in the early section of the film he is wearing suits and the like) to more dressy, it's generally a pretty subtle thing.

That tells me that this script was an earlier draft and therefore the comments about dialogue may not be accurate.

There *have* been some changes since that draft, which was dated in December. Felix Leiter has been added, for starters (presumably replacing a CIA agent character in the draft). Dialogue likely will have changed some as well.

[Harmsway]

I agree, Batman Begins was ridiculous. The original film was dark and serious but in a larger than life quirky manner with a great script and it hinted at Batmans roots without actually bloody showing every little silly thing. The martial arts training in the mountains? Ninjas? Give me a break.

It was a direct copy of the origin of the character in the comics. Bruce Wayne *did* do martial arts training in the mountains. The background given here is primarily taken from two iconic stories: BLIND JUSTICE and THE MAN WHO FALLS. And I don't understand why anybody wouldn't find the roots of the character interesting - the origin pieces of Batman are some of the coolest, IMO.

It's one of those films which thinks it's amazing and tries to make people think it's really deep and brilliant, but it isn't. Like the Star Wars prequels.

I don't know anyone who thinks the Star Wars prequels are deep and brilliant.

The original Batman just did a Batman story and actually was brilliant, it didn't try to force it on you. Jack Nicholson's Joker, the best suit, the car, the dark comic book style...THE SCORE!! superb.

There are so many problems with B89 - Keaton's miscasting as Bruce Wayne (he's great in the suit), the fact that everybody acts as if they're in a cartoon (whereas we should feel like they're real people who just happen to live in a larger-than-life world), a narrative with unclear focus, a lack of gripping action scenes, and some extremely uninteresting central characters (Vicki Vale and Knox). It has a certain style, to be sure, that will certainly appeal to others more than BEGINS' pseudo-real world style, but B89 has a lot of problems on its own.

I personally prefer the dark intensity of BEGINS' storytelling that grants the Batman mythos a certain gravitas. It's not like Nolan actually made the Batman character any more serious than he already was.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

However, recent comparisons to 'Batman Begins' have done nothing but heighten my fears. As I am one of the few people who though BB was a waaaay too self-serious, heavy-handed piece of filmic dreck.
Sucks to be me, I know.

I agree, Batman Begins was ridiculous. The original film was dark and serious but in a larger than life quirky manner with a great script and it hinted at Batmans roots without actually bloody showing every little silly thing. The martial arts training in the mountains? Ninjas? Give me a break.

It's one of those films which thinks it's amazing and tries to make people think it's really deep and brilliant, but it isn't. Like the Star Wars prequels.

The original Batman just did a Batman story and actually was brilliant, it didn't try to force it on you. Jack Nicholson's Joker, the best suit, the car, the dark comic book style...THE SCORE!! superb.

The score in Batman Begins...where is it? Oh there it is, in the toilet.

I didn't really want to *go there*, as the film has many ardent supporters (here at CBN, as well as at seemingly every film-related website on the web). But, I must say I agree with you 100%. And that's not even the half of it. But the last thing I really want to do is get embroiled in another immitigable pissing match with a forum member over this movie.

[David Schofield]

Anybody think the lower class/poor background stuff might be slightly less explicit than the latest review suggests?

It is. They don't run around pointing out that Bond's a lower-class guy, and though his fashion in the film somewhat evolves from a little more casual (but not any less stylish - and even in the early section of the film he is wearing suits and the like) to more dressy, it's generally a pretty subtle thing.

So, basically, no overdressing, such as tux's for lunch at the Eiffel Tower or change of suits to visit caviar plants on docks, eh?

And yet people complain about this, think eleminating this sort of stuff makes Bond too "real" and not the fantasy Bond we're used to!

[Simon]

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.

Well Apted was hired specifically because of his female directorial experience - and he was totally and utterly out of his depth on that.

I really don't think there's any telling.

...and I'd much prefer a Campbll to an Apted for this series. I keep referring to his TV series, the Professionals. It's there for all to see if they want grit, realism and emotion.

[Skudor]

That was a pretty informative review on AICN! I'm both excited and a little scared now. Only a little scared, as any mistakes that may be made on Casino Royale are easy enough to reverse in B22. But I am a little concerned that they might be taking Bond out of the Bond film. Of course this is a highly subjective thing - what, or who, is Bond, what defines him? Is it the actors (the long running ones like Connery, Moore and Brosnan), or the tone and theme of the movie, or the tuxes and drinks, the gun, the cars, the girls? Trying to compare Dr. No, From Russia With Love with [TLD,] Licence To Kill, Moonraker, The Spy Who Loved Me and Die Another Day I really can't define this concept of "James Bond" - because I see Bond in all those movies and am hard pressed to judge just what exactly makes it so. My gut feeling is that for me they won't lose that feeling of it being a Bond film - but I'm easily pleased. Plenty of people will complain.

I'm excited, though, because this movie really is leaving behind the more outlandish elements of the last several movies and appears to be trying to take the characters more seriously, which is important if you want to care about the action. I, as a fan, will enjoy this movie since it looks like it will be more about Bond himself than any other Bond film. You can't do that often - but when you do the results are great (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service). And a few films down the line they'll deliver another The Spy Who Loved Me to please that crowd.

And I'm worried about Campbell being in charge. I just don't trust the guy to deliver a good movie.

Craig, though, is looking better and better. I just had my sisters-in-law going on about what a hunk he is (based on those famous beach-boy pictures). I've no fear that Craig won't please. He's got the birds well and truly nailed!

Either way the movie will be out in November (that's seven months from now) and that's the time to judge!

[Vauxhall]

I'm surprised I haven't read this yet. I don't think the script that was reviewed was the final script. It says "Uganda" is a script location, yet we know officially that Madagascar is in the story - we've even seen footage from it with the principles saying that it was supposed to be Madagascar. That tells me that this script was an earlier draft and therefore the comments about dialogue may not be accurate.

We'll see...

The omission of Madagascar was simply an error on the part of the reviewers I believe. According to one of the earlier script reviews, Uganda is in the script as a Lords Resistance Army rebel camp in the northern town of Gulu where Steven Obanno meets with Le Chiffre and Mr White quite early on in the movie (before the Madagascar chase scene in that draft of the script).

[SecretAgentFan]

Be that as it may, I just don

[JimmyBond]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='546947' date='24 April 2006 - 10:52']
Be that as it may, I just don

[MarcAngeDraco]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='546947' date='24 April 2006 - 11:52']
Be that as it may, I just don

[Skudor]

Also, let's not forget that this is a script. Good actors can fix any number of problems related to one-dimensional villains.

[Harmsway]

...and I'd much prefer a Campbll to an Apted for this series. I keep referring to his TV series, the Professionals. It's there for all to see if they want grit, realism and emotion.

I think Apted is the worst director in Bond film history, so I fully endorse that idea of taking Campbell over him. But I'm just wondering if a director with tried-and-true artistic abilities might do better, but no matter.

As Loomis says, the script and cast are so solid that Campbell would really have to try hard to muck it all up.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

From the sound of things the aicn review of the script jives with I know. As far as his take, I think he just doesn't get it.Now I've read the script and let some of my friends do also. Some hardcore Bond Fans, some not, some for the film, others not. All, including myself were blown away by it. The problem with all these script reviews is that IMO you can't really zero in on any one flaw, you got to take the script as a whole, and as a whole it's fantastic! It may not be oscar material(maybe it is?), as Bond fan I would say we haven't had a story this good since....actually I don't think we have ever had a story this good. I as I said in my "review", this IS a BOND FILM. Everything is Bond, not Bourne or Batman Begins. This may be an origin story but they don't constantly hit you over the head with that. It's subtly intergrated into the story. It's there, it does it's job, but you probably won't notice it too much. Unlike Batman Begins which spent close to an hour setting up that back story, this film gets stright to business. There is the PTS and MTS which show his origins and little details dropped here and there but they don't overwhelme the story.The only way you can really judge this script is to read it, and if you can't do that, see it in November. I know this is just a script and things will change in the final product, but it is so damn good! As a friend who read the script and posted on another forum said(this person was infact one of Craig and Campbell's biggest critics on that forum and has a 180 degree change in opinion based soley on this script)" With a story this good, not even Craig or Campbell can screw this up. EON after many unscusseful attemps will make good on it's promise to give us the best Bond yet. In closing words, could the film still be a disaster? Yes, thats possible but this a film you got to give a chance. This story has guts and takes a big gamble, but it's one that you want to be there to see.

Edited by Agent Spriggan Ominae, 24 April 2006 - 06:22 PM.

[DLibrasnow]

I'm more and more convinced that Casino Royale is going to be a disaster at the box office.

Sad.

[JimmyBond]

I'm more and more convinced that Casino Royale is going to be a disaster at the box office.

Sad.

How do you think you'll percieve the movie though?

[Harmsway]

Those who haven't read the script just don't know, but CASINO ROYALE plays out like pure classic Bond. It's like taking THUNDERBALL and combining it with ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and LICENCE TO KILL. Merrick really just doesn't know what he's talking about, IMO.

[JimmyBond]

Those who haven't read the script just don't know, but CASINO ROYALE plays out like pure classic Bond. It's like taking THUNDERBALL and combining it with ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and LICENCE TO KILL.

While I'm hoping that Casino Royale is going to be a huge hit, DLibrasnow does have a point. Will audiences (and I'm not even talking about genre fans who think the Bond films are old hat, I'm talking the casual movie goer who sees a Bond film because it's a Bond film) warm up to this departure Bond film? Now you may counter with your comparisons to old Bond films, but the only comparisons audiences will be making is too Brosnan's films. Believe it or not, I know people who hate the Connery films because they arent as fast paced as the Brosnan films.

Will *those* fans take to Casino Royale?

[Jackanaples]

Those who haven't read the script just don't know, but CASINO ROYALE plays out like pure classic Bond. It's like taking THUNDERBALL and combining it with ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and LICENCE TO KILL. Merrick really just doesn't know what he's talking about, IMO.

Man, that sounds good. Whatever the merits of all the Bond movies since, OHMSS was the last time Bond was pure cinematic 'cool' in my opinion.

I really enjoy your posts, Harmsway. Clearly we have similiar ideas as to what Bond on film should be. Can't wait till November 17th!

Incidentally, I wonder why no one mentions the brilliant REILLY: ACE OF SPIES tv series from the 1980's. Martin Campbell did that and it's a clear indicator of how well he can direct character scenes as well as action.

[triviachamp]

I'm more and more convinced that Casino Royale is going to be a disaster at the box office.

Sad.

While I'm looking forward to the film I have to agree with you that I'm not too hopeful of good boxoffice either.