278 replies to this topic

[Jackanaples]

Great posts, stone cold. I remember reading (on the Premiere website I think) that when Craig asked Spielberg if he should take the role, Spielberg said something to the effect of, "Do you like the script? Then of course you ****ing should."

I think you're right in thinking that Bond movies aren't going to be the same again. (About bloody time too!) The forseeable future for the series looks creative, dynamic, and strictly top drawer.

In the past I know it would never have happened, but now I wouldn't be at all surprised if they asked Spielberg to direct Bond 23. I think it might really put both star and director on their 'A' game, but I also wouldn't mind Matthew Vaughan getting a shot at Bond 22.

[Jackanaples]

Early reviews are almost always extremely positive (especially those from the fan community).

http://commanderbond...=Story&SID=1733

http://www.ianflemin...dayreview.shtml

http://www.ianflemin...ent/000021.html

And yet when you go to Rotten Tomatoes, DAD has a fresh rating of 0%. While it's true that those reviews of DAD you link to are all positive, the ones we've been reading of CR this past weekend are shot through with an enthusiasm that only comes when you've seen something that surprised, thrilled and delighted you.

Put another way: Even if CR is only half as good as all the positive reviews I've read make it out to be, then it's still the best Bond movie since OHMSS at minimum. So you know, one of the best. That's an achievement I never thought I'd see.

Edited by Jackanaples, 06 November 2006 - 12:18 PM.

[JCRendle]

Casino Royale
Nov 6 2006

By Philip Key Arts Editor, Liverpool Daily Post


AS PROMISED, Daniel Craig's James Bond is very different in Casino Royle. And it has a very different look to it.

For one thing, it starts in black and white with Craig having a terrific hand-to-hand fight with a man in a washroom. No gun barrel framing a silhouetted Bond opening, no James Bond theme.

The gun barrel moment does eventually arrive in a novel fashion, and the movie does eventually go into colour.

But, even then, this is a different sort of Bond.

When Craig's Bond has to chase a suspected bomber all over a building site, he does puff quite a bit. He makes the odd slip. And when he hurts himself, he does bleed and gets rough-looking.

This Bond, Craig seems to be saying, is a real person, not the superhero who emerges from a fight with hardly a hair out of place.

The point is that the film is based on the very first Bond novel, written in 1953, when the Soviets were the villains and the Cold War at its height.

Updated to the present with terrorists as the bad guys, it nevertheless sets out to establish how Bond came to be.

Craig gives Bond a street fighter quality, someone who knows how to fight dirty and does not always obey the diplomatic rules.

He is still a bit of a sexist pig, preferring to seduce married women. When he tells his fellow spy Vesper Lynd (played by French actress Eva Green) that she is not his type, she queries "Too smart?" "No, single," he replies.


It's a difficult Bond to pull off, this bit of rough who also has a soft, intelligent side, but Craig manages it beautifully.


His gaunt, craggy looks may not be typical film Bond, but they suit this 2006 Bond admirably.

While different in many ways, Casino Royale will fulfil many of the expectations of Bond fans.

There are the big action set-pieces with Bond fighting a man atop a crane, at an airport single-handedly battling a mad bomber trying to blow up the world's biggest passenger plane, and a fight in Venice which causes one of its famous buildings to sink into a canal.

At the centre of the film is a poker game in which Bond is trying to break crime chief Le Chiffre (played by Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen), a game that pauses a few times for a fight or an attempt to kill Bond. By this time, Craig's Bond is in his tuxedo, looking smart and suave, but the interval fight is about as vicious as any screen punch-up.

There are many twists and turns along the way (some taken from the book) but Craig emerges at the end as the perfect Bond, tough yet romantic.

And in the final scene he does get to deliver the immortal line introducing himself. The Bond theme also plays over the final credits, so all is all right with the world of Bond.

________________

Casino Royale

Allan Hunter in London 06 November 2006

Dir: Martin Campbell. UK. 2006. 147mins

Bond Is Back. The old promise takes on a fresh emphasis in Casino Royale, a muscular, wildly successful attempt to strip the lucrative James Bond franchise back to basics. Returning to the origins of the series in the first Ian Fleming novel, Casino Royale depicts Bond as a rough, reckless diamond before he acquires the polish of suave sophistication required of an international man of mystery. Ridiculous gadgets, pneumatic lovelies, flamboyant megalomaniacs and flippant one-liners are largely jettisoned in favour of heart-thumping action, fuller characterisations and relatively gritty realism.

In his first Bond venture since Pierce Brosnan

[stone cold]

great review in the standard!!! i was dreaming of reviews like this!!!

[kneelbeforezod]

Early reviews are almost always extremely positive (especially those from the fan community).

http://commanderbond...=Story&SID=1733

http://www.ianflemin...dayreview.shtml

http://www.ianflemin...ent/000021.html

Good post, gave me pause for thought. I'm not saying I don't believe these reviews for Casino Royale, but I do think it's important for people to keep their expectations in check slightly. I really want all this "greatest Bond film since..." stuff to be true, but I have been disappointed in the past.

The very fact that some reviewers, including Jonathan Ross, were very kind to DAD, a film I basically hated, worries me a bit.

[sharpshooter]

This is like a dream. I prayed for pro Craig news, and for Royale to be one of, if not the best Bond ever. Craig with "ferocious commitment of a man to silence his critics".....AMAZING!

I feel Royale will become one of the series finest, because although it has the forumula as such, it is unique. It is unlike any other. I re-iterate the fact, I can NOT wait.

[Simon]

Grief - these reviews are outstanding.

This situation has to be unprecedented in terms of glowing reports across the board.

Well done to all.

[luciusgore]

Well we have yet to hear from U.S. critics

[Jackanaples]

Early reviews are almost always extremely positive (especially those from the fan community).

http://commanderbond...=Story&SID=1733

http://www.ianflemin...dayreview.shtml

http://www.ianflemin...ent/000021.html

Good post, gave me pause for thought. I'm not saying I don't believe these reviews for Casino Royale, but I do think it's important for people to keep their expectations in check slightly. I really want all this "greatest Bond film since..." stuff to be true, but I have been disappointed in the past.

The very fact that some reviewers, including Jonathan Ross, were very kind to DAD, a film I basically hated, worries me a bit.

I think there's a glaring difference in the reviews of both DAD and CR. Serious question: Do the reviews thus far for CR sound like the writers are just being kind? Like they're holding back? Because that's not how they come off to me.

Everything I'm reading in these reviews echoes what my acquaintance in the MPAA said about a month ago: "The film is fantastic! The best Bond movie since GOLDFINGER (I would probably say OHMSS)! Craig is tough, sinewy, unpredictible, and unreadable." He certainly wasn't looking forward to the movie beforehand. We'd had a discussion where he admitted to not liking or even seeking out the James Bond movies for decades.

Hell, the worst review (from The Guardian) tells me more about the reviewer's complete lack of critical faculties (The last line of TWINE one of the high points of wit for the series? Please.) than it helps to shed light on any deficiencies the film might have.

There's a vast difference between merely being kindly disposed towards liking a movie and flat-out loving it. There's no comparison between the two, and the reviews for both films do nothing but show that.

Well we have yet to hear from U.S. critics

Yeah, I'm hoping a friend of mine can get some tickets for a press screening out here in L.A.

Edited by Jackanaples, 06 November 2006 - 03:19 PM.

[00Twelve]

Seriously. The Guardian's review carries as much credibility as a five-foot first baseman.

[Jackanaples]

The worst thing I read in any of the reviews was that Jeffrey Wright's role as Felix Leiter was "small but pivotal." Then I remembered that Mathis had a much larger role in the book than Leiter did anyway. As they'll no doubt bring Wright back for the next one or two in a larger capacity, even that turns out to be a positive.

[kneelbeforezod]

I think there's a glaring difference in the reviews of both DAD and CR. Serious question: Do the reviews thus far for CR sound like the writers are just being kind?

Serious answer: No.

Everything I'm reading in these reviews echoes what my acquaintance in the MPAA said about a month ago: "The film is fantastic! The best Bond movie since GOLDFINGER (I would probably say OHMSS)! Craig is tough, sinewy, unpredictible, and unreadable."

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited too. But you're basically going to go into this film with the mindset "This film is going to be the best Bond since Goldfinger", and my point is simply that going into a film with such high expectations can often lead to disappointment.

There's a vast difference between merely being kindly disposed towards liking a movie and flat-out loving it. There's no comparison between the two, and the reviews for both films do nothing but show that.

I'm sure overall the reviews will be much more positive for CR than for DAD. But are you sure there is no comparison? Here's Jonathan Ross talking about DAD:

"Bond is back bigger, better and ballsier than ever".

"The girls are better than ever, especially one in particular - the breathtaking Halle Berry", and: "As for the action, the film kicks off with one of the best and most exciting sequences I can remember seeing Bond involved with and the pace doesn't let up".

Ross in addition exclaimed that Pierce is "better than ever" and has really made the role his own, while the direction is "brisk and effective, feeling modern without ever sacrificing plot and character for gimmicky shots".

All I'm saying is that if someone whose opinion I respect can say the above about a film I loathed, then maybe I should not instantly assume that CR will be the greatest Bond film since Goldfinger. What if the film turns out to be good, not great?

[Jackanaples]

I understand exactly where you're coming from, kneelbeforezod. Please try to understand my point of view. My expectations are extremely high, but then so are so are my standards.

I said in a previous post something to the effect of Even if CASINO ROYALE is only half as good as the reviews say it is, it still sounds like the best Bond movie since OHMSS. I meant that.

I love James Bond and always have, but I think very little of most of the movies. I own all the new British UE dvd's... of the first six films. I will not be purchasing any of the dvds for the last fourteen Bond films. That should tell you how I feel about them. In my estimation it would be very difficult for CR to NOT surpass all the films that Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan in quality.

Besides that, I am extremely adept at picking out what I'm going to like and what I'm not. I'm expert at it, and don't get this excited about something without damned good reason.

[dee-bee-five]

These are extraordinary reviews, aren't they?

Even the Observer one (always been a bit sniffy about Bond, seems to be making an over-clever point) is complimentary about Craig.

Exciting, isn't it?

Absolutely. I've waited nearly 40 years for reviews like these.

[Mr_Wint]

If Casino Royale is half as good as the reviews say it is, then this film will make Lawrence of Arabia look like a cheap film student project.

[kneelbeforezod]

I understand exactly where you're coming from, kneelbeforezod. Please try to understand my point of view. My expectations are extremely high, but then so are so are my standards.

I said in a previous post something to the effect of Even if CASINO ROYALE is only half as good as the reviews say it is, it still sounds like the best Bond movie since OHMSS. I meant that.

I love James Bond and always have, but I think very little of most of the movies. I own all the new British UE dvd's... of the first six films. I will not be purchasing any of the dvds for the last fourteen Bond films. That should tell you how I feel about them. In my estimation it would be very difficult for CR to NOT surpass all the films that Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan in quality.

Besides that, I am extremely adept at picking out what I'm going to like and what I'm not. I'm expert at it, and don't get this excited about something without damned good reason.

Well I'm crossing my fingers it surpasses both our expectations

[kneelbeforezod]

Attack Of The Clones.

I remember some truly fantastic buzz and glowing reviews before that film opened. I was there, Odeon Leicester Square, opening night, sell-out crowd. I wanted and expected it to be great. About half an hour before the end, I remember looking at my friend and shaking my head in disbelief at how bad it was.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Casino Royale will be bad. I'm crossing my fingers for a classic. I'm just... offering some food for thought

[Simon]

And an unbelievable review from Graham Rye - a chap for whom Bond was in hibernation since the 60s.

If he can be impressed....

[Publius]

In reference to the DAD comparisons (which are a valid point I'm glad has been brought up), I have to say, although I'm one of the biggest DAD-haters around, that movie would have been one of my favorites if a few things were done differently; namely, replace the embarrassingly bad actors with good (or even great) ones, elevate the writing above cheap single entendres and bad puns (and maybe even actually make it smart), and tone down the excessive/reliance on CGI. CR seems to have done all of those things and then some.

Also, I think so many people appreciated DAD at the time because it at least featured some formula-breaking (Bond captured and tortured) while still been one of the lighthearted, celebratory romps not seen in ages. And even then the reviews (that I've seen) weren't as glowing as these.

[00Twelve]

True, but the "breaks in formula" that occur in this film (i.e., the whole thing) make the recent formula "breaks" look like a joke. Bond gets hurt in TWINE!!...slightly debilitating shoulder injury. Bond gets captured and tortured in DAD!!...CR will make that look like fraternity hazing. M captured in TWINE - Dench's biggest role ever!!...not anymore.

And yes, Graham Rye's review is great and very appetite-whetting.

[Publius]

Oh, I agree (or am sure I will), 00Twelve. I'm just saying I can understand where much of the enthusiasm for DAD or even TWINE came from. But where those were half-arsed, short-lived breaks from the formula, CR (and Daniel Craig) seems to go all out in every way, and seems to do it well at that. As I've said a few times before, I'm happy to see EON finally mean Everything Or Nothing.

[00Twelve]

Right on.

[MattofSteel]

Oh, I agree (or am sure I will), 00Twelve. I'm just saying I can understand where much of the enthusiasm for DAD or even TWINE came from. But where those were half-arsed, short-lived breaks from the formula, CR (and Daniel Craig) seems to go all out in every way, and seems to do it well at that. As I've said a few times before, I'm happy to see EON finally mean Everything Or Nothing.

That is EXACTLY right. Thank you:). Those films WERE good, in their own context, in their own time. But things have changed, and Bond has matured.

No one, I mean NO ONE, should cast aside the job Pierce did or the job of the creative time in light of the new film, no matter how amazing it ends up being:). Times have just changed, and so have the films. As Graham said in his review, Bond has come of age.

[JCRendle]

Empire Review

Empire Review


The only thing missing from Casino Royale is a truly memorable theme song. Otherwise, this has almost everything you could want from a Bond movie, plus qualities you didn

[Marquis]

True, but the "breaks in formula" that occur in this film (i.e., the whole thing) make the recent formula "breaks" look like a joke. Bond gets hurt in TWINE!!...slightly debilitating shoulder injury. Bond gets captured and tortured in DAD!!...CR will make that look like fraternity hazing. M captured in TWINE - Dench's biggest role ever!!...not anymore.

And yes, Graham Rye's review is great and very appetite-whetting.

Oooh i must have missed Graham Rye's review. Do you have a quick link to that please 00T?

[Orion]

Love Empires comment of

"Daniel Craig has done more with James Bond in one film than some previous stars have in multiple reprises"

Shows how good he is.

[stromberg]

True, but the "breaks in formula" that occur in this film (i.e., the whole thing) make the recent formula "breaks" look like a joke. Bond gets hurt in TWINE!!...slightly debilitating shoulder injury. Bond gets captured and tortured in DAD!!...CR will make that look like fraternity hazing. M captured in TWINE - Dench's biggest role ever!!...not anymore.

And yes, Graham Rye's review is great and very appetite-whetting.

Oooh i must have missed Graham Rye's review. Do you have a quick link to that please 00T?

There we have it:
http://commanderbond...n...&item=35450

[K1Bond007]

Through RT (currently 83% 5 - 1), I found another (hopefully not a repost)

http://www.emanuelle...?articleID=3668

Essentially gave it a B+, called it overly long and Craig possibly the best since Connery. (I just skimmed it).

[holothane]

these reviews are great thanks for these, I am so excited about this one, only nine days for me.

[kitt22]

Saw Casino Royale at the press screening last Friday and have been gathering my thoughts and feelings about it over the weekend.
First of all the whole night is a bit of an adrenalin blur but I