81 replies to this topic

[Jim]

"All at Sea"

(Can't find an online version yet)

The Sunday Times has rated Casino Royale two stars (out of, I think, five).

Cosmo Landesman laments (sic) that the film shows Bond is a busted flush. Various quotes:-

"James Bond is dead, and no new face can hide the fact that Casino Royale is the same old tosh the producers of the Bond franchise have been serving up since the glory days of the 1960s."

"I take that back. Actually, we have here a new and inferior type of tosh."

"This is the first Bond film that is really all about James Bond." [Note: is that a bad thing?]

"While on a mission in Africa, Bond chases a bombmaker through the Nambutu embassy and ends up practically slaughtering the entire staff. Were they terrorists too, or just unfortunate darkies who happened to be in Bond's way? We never know. Could you have a hero slaughter an entire embassy of white people? I doubt it."

"But the only thing triumphant about Casino Royale is Craig's performance. He brings to the role sex appeal, sadism and athleticism. (Though he doesn't look to me like a man who drinks martinis). Craig actually looks like Gollum's younger brother, and he charges around like the Terminator. The films aims to be a character-driven study of how 007 was changed by this mission and meeting Vesper. But, as far as I can tell, it's the story of how a sadistic psycho who hated women became a better dressed and more professional sadistic psycho who hates women. Nor do we ever believe he has fallen in love with Vesper."

"As for the bad guys, I don't think I've ever seen such an instantly forgettable bunch. Le Chiffre is just boring."

"I suspect that when all the hype dies down, people will see what a disappointing film Casino Royale is... It's neither an exciting thriller nor an interesting study in character."



However, this is from the same reviewer who said of Die Another Day:

"The big challenge for every actor playing Bond is to make the role his own. Connery had cool, Moore had camp and Dalton was all dark and disturbed. But what's Brosnan's Bond? As far as I can tell, after four films, he still hasn't found his own voice.

Here, he looks like an ageing gigolo in a rented tux. Brosnan has the screen presence of a mannequin and the acting talent of an afternoon-soap star. All I can say is; come back George Lazenby, all is forgiven."

Doesn't really like Bonds and Bond films, does he? Was he savaged by a persian cat as a child?

[marktmurphy]

"While on a mission in Africa, Bond chases a bombmaker through the Nambutu embassy and ends up practically slaughtering the entire staff. Were they terrorists too, or just unfortunate darkies who happened to be in Bond's way? We never know. Could you have a hero slaughter an entire embassy of white people? I doubt it."

Hmmm...

"But the only thing triumphant about Casino Royale is Craig's performance.

Good.

But, as far as I can tell, it's the story of how a sadistic psycho who hated women became a better dressed and more professional sadistic psycho who hates women."

Well, I can believe that may be a possible problem.


Parky on Radio 2 incidentally, liked it a lot (quite surprisingly).

He's currently playing 'The name's Bond... James Bond' from the soundtrack(!)

[DamnCoffee]

it dosent bother them, pissing of the fans!

[Mr_Wint]

the story of how a sadistic psycho who hated women became a better dressed and more professional sadistic psycho who hates women.

lol they should've used that as a tagline

[Bond#9-GeorgeKemp]

I've hated Cosmo Landesman's reviews for years but this is the straw that breaks my back!

Its a ridiculous review! He says he likes Craig's performance, sex appeal etc. and then says he looks like Gollum's brother!

He also comments that they've got rid of the exotic locations. The Bahamas, Montenegro, Vence, Miami. Need I say more?

Everyone's entitled to their opinion but people are going to read this and not see the movie. Which, by the way, I doubt Cosmo LADIES-MAN has!

He's just bitter at the world for his name.

[stone cold]

cosmo landesman is a complete prick. try-hard, overcooked cynicism, sexist, offensive, a truly lame reviewer - alot of people in journalism hate him. he has written too many ignorant unfunny things, he always puts himself in opposition to anything that could be deemed remotely popular or cool. he writes mind numbingly boring, groundless, offensive reviews, and slightly creepy things about actresses in particular. he is worse than a hack. he thinks he is some astute cutting hardboiled movie critic - but he's just a smug, very poor quality attack dog who doesnt know his own mind, im sure he has very few fans of any description.

i am interested in good criticism, but trust me on this - read any one of this guys pieces from the last few years and you will see what i mean. i actually was bracing myself slightly for this guys redundant crap. it should be noted that this guy hates almost all films - thats his thing.

still..the word triumph and craig is the same sentence..i love this guy!

Edited by stone cold, 12 November 2006 - 12:32 PM.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

"All at Sea"

(Can't find an online version yet)

The Sunday Times has rated Casino Royale two stars (out of, I think, five).

Cosmo Landesman laments (sic) that the film shows Bond is a busted flush. Various quotes:-

"While on a mission in Africa, Bond chases a bombmaker through the Nambutu embassy and ends up practically slaughtering the entire staff. Were they terrorists too, or just unfortunate darkies who happened to be in Bond's way? We never know. Could you have a hero slaughter an entire embassy of white people? I doubt it."

I commented on this very same aspect when I reviewed the script over at MI5 back in April or May. Bond does maximum damage on a construction site, all in an effort to get to one man, who....SPOILER AHEAD: ends up getting killed before he can give up any useful information END SPOILER.

Well I agree that the part where Bond gets behind the wheel of the digger is a bit much and basically just a bit of pointless destruction but as far as I remember the only person that Bond kills in the sequence is Mollaka so this comment by the reviewer about "slaughtering the entire staff" seems a bit off. Infact it seemed that script made it a point that Bond didn't kill any of the staff or troops at the embassy. Sure he knocks out and incapciates quite a few off them and there is that explosion but even then it had the troops dazed and shocked but still alive after the blast. One would think form this review that Bond is getting all Rambo on the troops and pumping everyone full of lead.

[kneelbeforezod]

Rave review after rave review after rave review... and we don't hear the slightest peep out of GS. One negative review and... hello there!

[kneelbeforezod]

Rave review after rave review after rave review... and we don't hear the slightest peep out of GS. One negative review and... hello there!

Not true at all. I replied in the Variety thread(s), and Variety gave the film an excellent review.

Yeah but you skipped over the excellent review, and seized upon the one part that could be described as a slight negative, where it said that CR might not make as much as the Brosnan films.

As someone who had been very critical of most aspects of this production, I'm surprised you've never commented on the numerous reviews hailing the film and Craig's performance. The reviews that compare it to the early Connery films, which presumably you are a fan of.

The film sounds brilliant, doesn't it?

[CM007]

Well I agree that the part where Bond gets behind the wheel of the digger is a bit much and basically just a bit of pointless destruction but as far as I remember the only person that Bond kills in the sequence is Mollaka so this comment by the reviewer about "slaughtering the entire staff" seems a bit off. Infact it seemed that script made it a point that Bond didn't kill any of the staff or troops at the embassy. Sure he knocks out and incapciates quite a few off them and there is that explosion but even then it had the troops dazed and shocked but still alive after the blast. One would think form this review that Bond is getting all Rambo on the troops and pumping everyone full of lead.

I'm not sure what the writers point was, especially the reference to the "darkies", since Bond has clearly taken liberties with the lives of many different ethnicities and nationalities. He's steamrolled right through St.Petersburg in a military tank, recklessly driven through the streets of Paris in a stolen taxi and the list goes on. However, we were told with CR that things would be different, and that it wouldn't just be mindless stunts and explosions, yet when it is boiled down to its very essence, that is exactly what the whole Madagascar sequence is. Not that I object; I love the cookie-cutter Bonds of past, but the writer is right in this one respect: EON hasn't really elevated their game as much as they'd like us to believe they have. For as much of a redux as this film is, it's still nowhere as revoluntionary or progressive as it could've been.

Exactly GS...This isn

[David Schofield]

Come on, we Bond fans should be thick skinned enough to ignore the opinions of someone who is clealy not a Bond fan.

Sure, if you like Bond you ignore the idea of demolishing an embassy, just as in the same way you ignore similarly impractical situations in the older films. Its called suspending disbelief. Would MI6 really try destroy Le Chiffre via gambling? Probably not. But it stood up well enough in 1954, and will suffice now, thank you.

Alternatively, sure, work you way through Bond and pick holes in it. That's easy is you dislike the concept. There are many people who aren't Bond fans for that reason.

The rest of us will just enjoy the style, the action, in this case the acting, and the story. In this film, it seems these elements are achieved extremely successfully.

Landesman should perhaps go see Bourne, read Le Carre. He can take some of the doubters from this site with him.

[Jim]

Come to think of it, that comment about destroying an embassy full of "darkies" is rubbish, isn't it? Isn't there a whole sequence of From Russia with Love when Bond blows up the Russian Embassy in Istanbul? Plenty of white meat on show there.

Twerp.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, ask a moron to review a film and you get a moronic review. Definitely an example for my theory: If lots of people love something there just has to be someone who states the opposite to make himself feel better and stand out from the crowd. His criticism is entirely mean-spirited and biased. But I

[marktmurphy]

The whole thing:

http://www.timesonli...01-2443353.html

[Jim]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='645123' date='12 November 2006 - 15:33']
But I

[JCRendle]

He's a bit racist isn't he? I don't remember hearing or reading the word "darkies" since a book written in the early 20th century.

[Dr. Noah]

Hey, CM007 and GS, now that you're posting again, care to comment on these reviews?

http://www.sundaymir...-name_page.html

http://entertainment...2437429,00.html

http://arts.guardian...1943188,00.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk...06_review.shtml

http://www.hollywood...r...p?&rid=8223

http://www.variety.c...7...yid=31&cs=1

http://www.timesonli...2437998,00.html

http://www.dailymail...in_page_id=1924

http://www.viewlondo...eview_3064.html

http://www.screendai...y...8513&r=true

http://www.007.info/News79.asp

http://www.mirror.co...-name_page.html

http://www.shropshir...ook-at-new-007/

http://www.molodezhn...asinoroyale.htm

http://www.empireonl...e.asp?FID=10199

http://www.expressan...your-eyes-only/

http://www.mirror.co...-name_page.html

http://www.dailystar...il.html?sku=663

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

http://scotlandonsun...m?id=1672132006

http://www.edmontons...326847-sun.html

http://www.totalfilm...s/casino_royale

http://express.lineo...il.html?sku=661

http://www.007magazi...yale-review.htm

http://www.hippimple..._james_blo.html

http://www.mansized.....phtml/377/504/

http://outnow.ch/Mov...d-CasinoRoyale/

http://www.cinemonia...sinoroyale.html

http://www.filmstart.....o Royale.html

[Jackanaples]

"But, as far as I can tell, it's the story of how a sadistic psycho who hated women became a better dressed and more professional sadistic psycho who hates women."

See, now this is perfect. This is exactly the type of complaint that Fleming's novels and the early movies (DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, etc.) got from idiotic critics. I'd be disappointed if we didn't read reviews like that.

[db077]

As with all films, Bond or not, I don't put much store in reviews. It's all opinion after all, and opinions vary as much as the weather here in Michigan.

It doesn't matter if all the reviews were like this one, I'd still go see CR. Sure, I want it to do well, I want it to blast the nay-sayers out of the water, but in the end, all that really matters is if the fans enjoy it. And I know we will.

[tdalton]

However, we were told with CR that things would be different, and that it wouldn't just be mindless stunts and explosions, yet when it is boiled down to its very essence, that is exactly what the whole Madagascar sequence is. Not that I object; I love the cookie-cutter Bonds of past, but the writer is right in this one respect: EON hasn't really elevated their game as much as they'd like us to believe they have. For as much of a redux as this film is, it's still nowhere as revoluntionary or progressive as it could've been.

That's been the sense I've been getting from this film everytime a new clip has become available. Now, granted, the overall look to the film is great (something with the cinematography makes this film look quite different than what's come before it), but a good portion of what I've seen does look like just a slightly more serious version of what has come before (and with emphasis on "slightly") Now, as long as it's better than DAD, I'll be satisifed on at least some level, but I would like to see this film actually set the bar for future films, and I'm not sure that it's going to happen. I think that Craig will be fantastic (there hasn't really been a review yet, that I've read anyway, that has said that he wasn't), but I'm hoping that this isn't like the Brosnan Era where the film was consistently worse than the actor's performance in the role.

[EyesOnly]

I'm not exactly sure how different you want your Bond films to be? This film seems to be a much more humble of a Bond film. Seems very violent and the plot is different from what we have seen before due to the book. I agree with a previous poster that the cinematography looks great, different and very atmospheric. Whether this is your FRWL or not, I don't care because it DOES seem from the clips i've seen vastly different from the last few Bond films and is all that matters. The tone is different, the witt is sharp and the action, from the reviews sound astounding. So i'm a little puzzled when you say you want a new groundbreaking Bond.

[tdalton]

I'm not exactly sure how different you want your Bond films to be? This film seems to be a much more humble of a Bond film. Seems very violent and the plot is different from what we have seen before due to the book. I agree with a previous poster that the cinematography looks great, different and very atmospheric. Whether this is your FRWL or not, I don't care because it DOES seem from the clips i've seen vastly different from the last few Bond films and is all that matters. The tone is different, the witt is sharp and the action, from the reviews sound astounding. So i'm a little puzzled when you say you want a new groundbreaking Bond.

I just get a bit of a Brosnan Era vibe from this film, although it's given a great makeover due to the cinematography. From what I can gather from the reviews, it once again seems like it's going to be (at least for the first hour) action just for the sake of action. There have been several reviews that have said that, for the first half of the film, that it is extremely difficult to determine who Bond was chasing and why he was doing it. To me, that signals that the action sequences may have been put in there just for the sake of having an action sequence rather than just focusing on strengthening the great storyline of the novel.

With that said, however, I still think that the film is going to be good, and that Daniel Craig is going to be great, if not the best of the 6 Bonds, but the clips that I've seen have caused me to lower my expectations a bit.

[Jackanaples]

If anything, I'm thrilled because CR looks like the first real Bond film since OHMSS, albeit updated for the 21st century.

[Harmsway]

From what I can gather from the reviews, it once again seems like it's going to be (at least for the first hour) action just for the sake of action. There have been several reviews that have said that, for the first half of the film, that it is extremely difficult to determine who Bond was chasing and why he was doing it. To me, that signals that the action sequences may have been put in there just for the sake of having an action sequence rather than just focusing on strengthening the great storyline of the novel.

The first act is, indeed, an action sequence too long. Either the Madagascar or Miami sequence should have ended up chopped (and probably the Madagascar scene). The Madagascar sequence reads like it should have been the pre-title sequence in that it doesn't contribute all that much to film aside from establishing something about Bond and loosely tying into the narrative. It's really the Bahamas/Miami that really kicks off the story of the film.

That said, it doesn't mean the sequence will play badly for people - there are tons of excessive moments in past Bond films or other action films that I think have worked to great effect. One reviewer commented that the film *needed* to start with a bang to establish Craig as Bond and really like the slam-bang opening act of the film.

But as to the confusion: The reason it's hard to distinguish why he does what he does there is that they retroactively explain what went on in the Madagascar sequence. You're just kind of thrust into it. Adding to this is the fact that in a good deal of the film, it's not all spelled out for you and you kind of have to figure out for yourself what's going on - I don't think that's bad, in fact I like it, but it means that the people in the audience who aren't paying attention will get somewhat lost as far as motivations during certain sequences, because it's not being spelled out in dialogue.

[stromberg]

Hey, CM007 and GS, now that you're posting again, care to comment on these reviews?

http://www.sundaymir...-name_page.html

http://entertainment...2437429,00.html

http://arts.guardian...1943188,00.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk...06_review.shtml

http://www.hollywood...r...p?&rid=8223

http://www.variety.c...7...yid=31&cs=1

http://www.timesonli...2437998,00.html

http://www.dailymail...in_page_id=1924

http://www.viewlondo...eview_3064.html

http://www.screendai...y...8513&r=true

http://www.007.info/News79.asp

http://www.mirror.co...-name_page.html

http://www.shropshir...ook-at-new-007/

http://www.molodezhn...asinoroyale.htm

http://www.empireonl...e.asp?FID=10199

http://www.expressan...your-eyes-only/

http://www.mirror.co...-name_page.html

http://www.dailystar...il.html?sku=663

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

http://scotlandonsun...m?id=1672132006

http://www.edmontons...326847-sun.html

http://www.totalfilm...s/casino_royale

http://express.lineo...il.html?sku=661

http://www.007magazi...yale-review.htm

http://www.hippimple..._james_blo.html

http://www.mansized.....phtml/377/504/

http://outnow.ch/Mov...d-CasinoRoyale/

http://www.cinemonia...sinoroyale.html

http://www.filmstart.....o Royale.html

Thanks for these, spares me some time

[kneelbeforezod]

it once again seems like it's going to be (at least for the first hour) action just for the sake of action.

To me, that signals that the action sequences may have been put in there just for the sake of having an action sequence

But... my god, this happens in about 90 percent of Bond films! There appears to be much more of a sense of urgency and drama in the action in this film though.

Some of the "Bond fans" who are constantly critical of this film (and I don't direct this at you tdalton, you seem to have a very balanced view) strike me as the kind of people that wouldn't like any Bond film! Brosnan fans complaining that the action is superfluous, or that the relationship with Vesper isn't deep enough. Bizarre.

[NATO Sub]

As earlier posters have aluded, poor old Cosmo isn't really a good benchmark when it comes to cinema reviews. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if he doesn't like a film my wife and I know we will love it and vice-versa!

A case in point; "The Prestige", which opened in the UK on Friday, gets 2 stars from Cosmo. I saw the film on Sat and loved it - a definite 4 star film in my book. The fact that he gave CR 2 stars is the final proof that I will love it!

Edited by NATO Sub, 12 November 2006 - 05:38 PM.

[Bon-san]

One bad review so far. One person's opinion. Fair enough.

As far as 'movie critics having an agenda', welcome to the real world.

[Simon]

And he's probably thinking, "but it isn't me who is out of step with the rest of the world, the rest of the world is out of step with me."

[dee-bee-five]

Hey, CM007 and GS, now that you're posting again, care to comment on these reviews?

http://www.sundaymir...-name_page.html

http://entertainment...2437429,00.html

http://arts.guardian...1943188,00.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk...06_review.shtml

http://www.hollywood...r...p?&rid=8223

http://www.variety.c...7...yid=31&cs=1

http://www.timesonli...2437998,00.html

http://www.dailymail...in_page_id=1924

http://www.viewlondo...eview_3064.html

http://www.screendai...y...8513&r=true

http://www.007.info/News79.asp

http://www.mirror.co...-name_page.html

http://www.shropshir...ook-at-new-007/

http://www.molodezhn...asinoroyale.htm

http://www.empireonl...e.asp?FID=10199

http://www.expressan...your-eyes-only/

http://www.mirror.co...-name_page.html

http://www.dailystar...il.html?sku=663

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

http://scotlandonsun...m?id=1672132006

http://www.edmontons...326847-sun.html

http://www.totalfilm...s/casino_royale

http://express.lineo...il.html?sku=661

http://www.007magazi...yale-review.htm

http://www.hippimple..._james_blo.html

http://www.mansized.....phtml/377/504/

http://outnow.ch/Mov...d-CasinoRoyale/

http://www.cinemonia...sinoroyale.html

http://www.filmstart.....o Royale.html

But don't you see? These great reviews are WHY Cosmo Smallpiece has written what he has. He does it every time. It's the Julie Burchill school of journalism where you try to make yourself different and "relevant". He does it everytime other critics rave about a movie. Casino Royale is no different. He and A.A. Gill have, between them, eroded the Sunday Times' reputation for objective journalism.