22 replies to this topic

[HellIsHere]

Casino Royale
U.K.-Czech Republic-Germany-U.S
By TODD MCCARTHY
Daniel Craig stars as James Bond in 'Casino Royale.'

A Sony Pictures Entertainment release of an MGM, Columbia Pictures and Albert R. Broccoli's Eon Productions Ltd. presentation. Produced by Michael G. Wilson, Barbara Broccoli. Executive producers, Anthony Waye, Callum McDougall. Directed by Martin Campbell. Screenplay, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Paul Haggis, based on the novel by Ian Fleming.

James Bond - Daniel Craig
Vesper Lynd - Eva Green
Le Chiffre - Mads Mikkelsen
M - Judi Dench
Felix Leiter - Jeffrey Wright
Mathis - Giancarlo Giannini
Solange - Caterina Murino
Alex Dimitrios - Simon Abkarian
Steven Obanno - Issach De Bankole
Mr. White - Jesper Christensen
Valenka - Ivana Milicevic
Villiers - Tobias Menzies
Carlos - Claudio Santamaria


For once, there is truth in advertising: The credits proclaim Daniel Craig as "Ian Fleming's James Bond 007," and there can be little argument that Craig comes closer to the author's original conception of this exceptionally long-lived male fantasy figure than anyone since early Sean Connery. "Casino Royale" sees Bond himself recharged with fresh toughness and arrogance, along with balancing hints of sadism and humanity, just as the fabled series is reinvigorated by going back to basics. The Pierce Brosnan quartet set financial high-water marks for the franchise which may well not be matched again, but public curiosity, lack of much high-octane action competition through the holiday season and the new film's intrinsic excitement should nonetheless generate Bond-worthy revenue internationally.
Bond made his debut in "Casino Royale" when it was published in 1953, and while the novel was adapted the following year for American television (Barry Nelson played Bond) and in 1967 became a lame all-star spy send-up featuring Peter Sellers, David Niven and Woody Allen, it remained unavailable to the Eon producers until now.

As refashioned for this 21st series installment, the novel's focus on a high-stakes cards showdown doesn't kick in for an hour. But Craig's taking over as the sixth actor to officially portray the secret agent provides a plausible opportunity to examine the character's promotion to double-0 status, which is neatly done in a brutal black-and-white prologue in which he notches his first two kills.

After pic bleeds into color, Bond pursues a would-be suicide bomber in a madly acrobatic chase through an African construction site, at the end of which he happens to be filmed killing an apparently, if not in fact, unarmed man in images instantly disseminated on the internet, to the enormous embarrassment of MI6. Welcome to the 21st century, Mr. Bond.

Doubling the displeasure of his boss M (Judi Dench happily back for her fifth turn) by surreptitiously entering her flat, Bond ignores her reprimand by high-tailing it to the Bahamas, itself a nice throwback to the film series' origins in "Dr. No." Following a cellphone trail of potential terrorist bombers, he tracks one, then another in Miami, where an evening that begins at a "Bodyworks" exhibition ends with a high-speed tarmac battle in which the fate of the world's biggest new jetliner hangs in the balance.

Even by this early juncture, pic has emphatically announced its own personality. It's comparatively low-tech, with the intense fights mostly conducted up close and personally, the killings accomplished by hand or gun, and without an invisible car in evidence; Bond is more of a lone wolf, Craig's upper-body hunkiness and mildly squashed facial features giving him the air of a boxer; 007's got a frequently remarked upon ego, which can cause him to recklessly overreach and botch things, and the limited witticisms function naturally within the characters' interchanges.

As matters advance to the Continent, elements even more unusual in the Bond world of late, comprehensible plotting and palpable male-female frissons, move to the fore. Bond's enemy is not a Mr. Evil type plotting world domination, but a financier of international terrorism, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), who needs to make financial amends by winning a big-pot poker game at the casino in fictional Montenegro. It's Bond's scheme to break Le Chiffre for good at the gambling table, and to this end he is fronted $10 million delivered by a most alluring messenger, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), assigned to keep tabs on the coin.

Their initial meeting on board a Euro fast train fairly crackles with a sexual undercurrent as they perceptively size one another up. But Vesper intends to maintain a professional distance from her temporary colleague, whose contest of wills and luck with Le Chiffre in the hushed confines of a private gaming room is repeatedly interrupted on breaks by spasms of violence and attempts on Bond's life.

Yarn does tend to go on a bit once it sails past the two-hour mark, but final stretch contains two indelible interludes crucial to defining this new incarnation of Bond. Constrained nude to a bottomed-out chair, Bond is tortured as Le Chiffre repeatedly launches a hard-tipped rope upon his nemesis' most sensitive area, and Craig once and for all claims the character as his own by virtue of the supremely cocky defiance with which he taunts Le Chiffre even in vulnerable extremis. Later, the startling, tragic turn in Bond's relationship with Vesper provides a measure of understanding for his rake-like tendancies down the line.

Script by series vets Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, along with Paul Haggis, hangs together reasonably well and is rewarded for its unaccustomed preoccupation with character by the attentiveness to same by director Martin Campbell, back after having helmed the first Brosnan entry, "GoldenEye," 11 years ago. Dialogue requires Bond to acknowledge his mistakes and reflect on the soul-killing nature of his job, self-searching unimaginable in the more fanciful Bond universes inhabited by Brosnan and Roger Moore.

Shrewd and smart as well as gorgeous, Vesper Lynd is hardly the typical Bond girl (she never even appears in a bathing suit), and Green makes her an ideal match for Craig's Bond. Danish star Mikkelsen proves a fine heavy, an imposing man with the memorable flaw of an injured eye that sometimes produces tears of blood. Giancarlo Giannini has a few understated scenes as a friendly contact in Montenegro, and while Jeffrey Wright has little to do as CIA man Felix Leiter, he does get off a couple of the film's best lines and one can hope he may figure more prominently in forthcoming installments. Sebastien Foucan does some eyebrow-raising "free running" stunts in the African chase.

"Casino Royale" is the first Bond in a while that's not over-produced, and is all the better for it. Production values are all they need to be, and while score by David Arnold, in his fourth Bond outing, is very good, title song, "You Know My Name," sung by Chris Cornell over disappointingly designed opening credits, is a dud.

[marktmurphy]

Another good, slightly more spoilerish review. The reviewer does appear to have forgotten the word 'the' in many places, however. Odd.

[dinovelvet]

Another good, slightly more spoilerish review. The reviewer does appear to have forgotten the word 'the' in many places, however. Odd.

Yeah thats typical Variety nonsense. This review is pretty glowing, by their standards!

[RazorBlade]

This just gets me hot to see CR. It's been a long time since I've wanted to see a movie this much.

[streetjive]

...a big-pot poker game at the casino in fictional Montenegro.

Fictional Montenegro? I think there may be a few hundred thousand people who may wish to dispute that...

[SecretAgentFan]

Good sign - Variety is still the opinion-leader of the trades.

But at this point, I suspect that nothing can stop CR anymore. The glowing raves CR got from the British Press, of course, will provoke some critics to state the opposite (psychologically very typical of a certain kind of thinking). But the overall impact has been made: This is the film to beat, everybody will go see it.

Wouldn

[stamper]

Even with my Harrap's english/french dictionary, I fail to understand many of this guy sentences.

[dee-bee-five]

Another good, slightly more spoilerish review. The reviewer does appear to have forgotten the word 'the' in many places, however. Odd.

It's Variety's annoyingly "arty" house style.

But the review is positively glowing by their sniffy standards.

[Jackanaples]

I found it funny that Variety panned the credits sequence when just about everyone else praised it as being one of the best ever (and the acquaintance of mine who saw CR said it was one of the most imaginative he'd seen in a film in years).

[JCRendle]

I don't think many people expected CR to match DAD.

[morganhavoc]

Nice review, I have a feeling Casino Royale will open a bit better, high 30's lower 40's. Not a rabid Craig fan, but the conditions are right for this film to open very well, Great TV spots, thank god Sony took over the advertising and the general lack of a fun action film in quite awhile, may make this a strong opener.

[kneelbeforezod]

Which I think is a fair statement. Now, where are all the posts calling Variety a "biased-troll" for daring to suggest that Casino Royale might not earn the same amount of money that Brosnan's films did? It doesn't even need to earn DAD-sized money to be a "hit".

95 percent of people in these forums are open to the possibilty that it might not do as well.

One thing though... if box office is down, it won't be because people are confused about the casting of Judi Dench which, since Craig's glowing reviews, seems to be your main criticism these days

[MattofSteel]

Yes, I'm already NOT looking forward to that argument.

If the opening is one CENT less than DAD, the anti-Craig, anti-CR brigade are going to latch on to that one piece of information and cite it as reasons for 'franchise failure,' and use it as ammunition for many years to come.

It's not like I'm actually going to pay attention, as none of us should, but it's going to be annoying seeing the all the boards do that same thing all over again. Pointless bickering based on their non-existant arguments.

I'm not furiously pro-Craig (although I'm excited), I'm not furiously pro-anything. I just want to give the film a chance, and I'm sure it will perform.

How can these people be fans, when they actively try and sabotage this "thing" they supposedly love?

Damnit, I said I wouldn't rant about them anymore. Ah well, just thinking out loud. As for opening Box Office, I'm sure the film will be fine.

Fact of the matter is, if trading box office means I get a better quality Bond film that I can watch...well then I don't give a .

[MR. BOND 93]

Nice review.

[EyesOnly]

Who cares what the Craig Not Bond or anti-Craig people have to say...I'm surprised people on here still give them a second thought! I expect CR to do very well at the BO, not as well as DAD, but i would assume that is to be expected! Forget the CNB idiots and just rejoice that we have a kick Bond movie!

Edited by EyesOnly, 10 November 2006 - 02:56 AM.

[Qwerty]

Forget the CNB idiots and just rejoice that we have a kick Bond movie!

Three cheers for that.

[Publius]

Which I think is a fair statement. Now, where are all the posts calling Variety a "biased-troll" for daring to suggest that Casino Royale might not earn the same amount of money that Brosnan's films did? It doesn't even need to earn DAD-sized money to be a "hit".

Again, I go back to my predictions: U.S. box office opening weekend: $26.96 million..........total U.S. box office: $101 million....total worldwide box office (including the United States) $300 million.

At this point, I think you should just stick that in your sig. It'll save you time. I am curious, though, as to what gives you the confidence to predict box office to the thousands of dollars. You must know something we don't.

Anyway, the review seemed strong for what I read of it, but I aborted at the first sign of a spoiler (shouldn't this thread be tagged?). Still, good to see all this positive press. It'll at least help get butts into seats.

[Stax]

Glad they gave it a positive review but McCarthy made two dumb goofs in the same paragraph. Mr. Evil? I think you mean Dr. Evil. And Montenegro is not a fictional place:

http://www.visit-montenegro.com/

[marktmurphy]

...a big-pot poker game at the casino in fictional Montenegro.

Fictional Montenegro? I think there may be a few hundred thousand people who may wish to dispute that...

More and more I am convinced this man is an idiot. What is wrong with writing in proper english?

[HildebrandRarity]

By TODD MCCARTHY
Daniel Craig stars as James Bond in 'Casino Royale.'

The Pierce Brosnan quartet set financial high-water marks for the franchise which may well not be matched again, but public curiosity, lack of much high-octane action competition through the holiday season and the new film's intrinsic excitement should nonetheless generate Bond-worthy revenue internationally.

Which I think is a fair statement. Now, where are all the posts calling Variety a "biased-troll" for daring to suggest that Casino Royale might not earn the same amount of money that Brosnan's films did? It doesn't even need to earn DAD-sized money to be a "hit".

Again, I go back to my predictions: U.S. box office opening weekend: $26.96 million..........total U.S. box office: $101 million....total worldwide box office (including the United States) $300 million.

Variety is not The Bible...First, because the financial high-waters were actually set by Goldfinger/Thunderball/YOLT (if you chose to be fair and compare apples with apples)....and...Second, according to accounts the profitability of the last two very expensive Brosnans were marginal.

The simpleton from Variety is obviously looking only at nominal non-inflation adjusted grosses as opposed to admissions (much higher in those Connerys) or profitability (likely to be higher for Casino Royale which reportedly costs much less than DAD and TWINE)

These simpletons don't know much about money. This guy does not know what he
's talking about from that point of view and, as a result, does not know how to present a balanced report. (He's just a movie reviewer, remember(it does not surprise me that he has no inkling that Montenegro is a real place (I guess he missed hearing about the war in Kosovo at the turn of the millenium))).

Anyway, you heard it here (from me) several weeks ago (before the buzz/reviews) that Casino Royale would be more successful than Die Another Day and TWINE globally.

It's now completely and utterly clear that Casino Royale will be more profitable than DAD and MUCH MORE profitable than TWINE and that Daniel Craig will make people forget about Pierce Brosnan very quickly. In fact the 10, 11, 12, 13 and perhaps even some of the 14 or 15 year olds in the audience won't even know who Pierce is, funnily enough.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 12 November 2006 - 12:56 AM.

[kneelbeforezod]

These reporters don't know much about money. This guy does not know what he
's talking about from that point of view and, as a result, does not know how to present a balanced report. (He's just a movie reviewer, remember).

Todd McCarthy does know what he's talking about. He's the premier reviewer for Variety, who cover box office extensively. In all his reviews he makes general predictions about box office.

It's not as if he said it would bomb, indeed he predicted "Bond-worthy revenues". He just said it may not make as much as the Brosnan films. And maybe it won't. Personally, thats fine with me, as quality films tend not to bring in the lowest common denominator audiences (whereas invisible cars...). A bit snobby of me maybe...

[HildebrandRarity]

These reporters don't know much about money. This guy does not know what he
's talking about from that point of view and, as a result, does not know how to present a balanced report. (He's just a movie reviewer, remember).

Todd McCarthy does know what he's talking about. He's the premier reviewer for Variety, who cover box office extensively. In all his reviews he makes general predictions about box office.

It's not as if he said it would bomb, indeed he predicted "Bond-worthy revenues". He just said it may not make as much as the Brosnan films. And maybe it won't. Personally, thats fine with me, as quality films tend not to bring in the lowest common denominator audiences (whereas invisible cars...). A bit snobby of me maybe...

Does Todd McCarthy know that around Serbia and Croatia there exists a political state named Montenegro?

Does Todd McCarthy know what TWINE "made" from its theatrical run after costs and revenues?

Does he know the difference between 'gross' and 'profitability'?

I think the answers to all three are probably "no".

Straight out box office predictions in 2006 dollars are totally different to knowing what films actually "makes" or how "profitable" they are.

Anyway, i'm in your camp...I also really dont care too much about how much money thay will make as long as they make enough for there to be Bond films every two years...max three.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 12 November 2006 - 01:11 AM.

[Dr. Noah]

That's the beauty of this film. Sony is spending over a hundred million on advertising because it's a new actor nobody knows and they need to get the message out, but MGM will most likely have control of Bond again for the next film, and can adjust the budget accordingly to whatever Craig draws.

So EON can only win with this film. They could take more chances and actually make a GOOD MOVIE instead of giving in to box office considerations. They could hire the guy who wrote the last two Oscar winners for Best Picture. They could hire Campbell back. They could find a good actor to take on the role.

And it has already paid off handsomely. They have critical respect again, a Bond who according to reviews is the best since Connery, and whatever happens to SONY isn't their problem. Barbara and Michael have made their first truly good film, like daddy used to make, and their rep in the industry will be up a notch. They've proven they can do it without Cubby.

And actually, the winner is US! We don't have to get defensive when we say we like Bond films. They're respected critically again! Nobody's going to roll their eyes and say "a fifty year old superagent and Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist?" or "invisible car, eh?"

This film is a GIFT to Bond fans. And it probably wont ever happen like this again, so enjoy it.