81 replies to this topic

[Orion]

and its also why he slandered The Prestige, every other critic loved it. Besides The Sunday Times printed another CR Review last week and were positive, its just this guy, and he hates good films so the review may as well be positive judging by his previous standards.

[Orion]

blah,blah,blah, you know GS this would be interesting if you hadn't been saying this since Craig was announced as Bond, and even though we've had 29 4-5 star reviews you still won't give up on this narrow minded crusade. The Free-running does not come across as just being wedged in in the script, and i know for a fact we are reading the same script, it just doesn't spoon feed you everything thats happening like alot of Bonds do. Casino Royale is different form Brosnan's films in that respect.

[Orion]

I'd like to point out GS, that Purvis and Wade did write most of it, Haggis only "Polished" it, so naturally it'll be (No paradox intended) Purvis and Wade material with alot of class.

[NATO Sub]

You've hit upon something that I have mentioned before, though not recently, and that is this: the film can't be "good" by merely not having Brosnan on board. If it's basically just another Brosnan film without the awful double-entendres, and fake-looking CGI work, then we really haven't advanced ourselves much. We've merely dialed back the series a bit, but in the process have passed over a very good opportunity to reinvision the series. Such a move actually might have entailed ditching certain hallmarks of the series we've become accustomed to, like: getting a new Bond theme, getting rid of the 007 gunbarrel logo, the pre-title sequence...possibly harder sex and more excruciating violence. I don't know. What I do know is that CR isn't really that much of a reboot, and the entire origin aspect of the story is brought up in the first five minutes in the film and then mostly dropped.

You need to take a quick reality check: Abandon the bond theme? One of the most recognised pieces of music in the world? Akin to Coca-Cola changing the can colour and logo IMHO. Harder sex and excruciating violence will just end up with an 18 rating, which any large commercial film producer is not going to thank you for. Surely the origin aspect is continued throughout the film? I don't want to introduce any spoilers here, but will mention a few specific items - dinner jacket, Aston Martin, Martini - and the general aspects we know about, like Bond being mistakes, and taking a beating.

EON have been walking a tightrope between the Bond we know and the Bond Fleming wrote about. Too far toward Fleming's Bond and they risk losing box office and alienating fans of the existing films, too far toward the Bond we know and the series will implode (which would have taken two, maybe even just one more Brosnan film like DAD). The vast majority of reviewers seem to think that EON have stuck a great balance and have managed to walk the tightrope without falling off.

[JackWade]

One bad review out of the twenty or so good ones is fine with me. Even if this guy is a loser, complaining about it will just play into his hands.

I know a lot of you are biased because you're Bond fans, and frankly, a bad review surprised me and upset me too. But everyone's entitled to say what they want.

[Jackanaples]

You've hit upon something that I have mentioned before, though not recently, and that is this: the film can't be "good" by merely not having Brosnan on board. If it's basically just another Brosnan film without the awful double-entendres, and fake-looking CGI work, then we really haven't advanced ourselves much. We've merely dialed back the series a bit, but in the process have passed over a very good opportunity to reinvision the series. Such a move actually might have entailed ditching certain hallmarks of the series we've become accustomed to, like: getting a new Bond theme, getting rid of the 007 gunbarrel logo, the pre-title sequence...possibly harder sex and more excruciating violence. I don't know. What I do know is that CR isn't really that much of a reboot, and the entire origin aspect of the story is brought up in the first five minutes in the film and then mostly dropped.

It's not elements like the Bond theme, gunbarrel, and pre-title sequence that need to go or change drastically though, GS. The fat clogging the series:

1. Idiotic dialogue, with prepubescent humor and puns. Thanks to Paul Haggis this has been well sorted.

2. Gadgets. These are totally cliche and actually make 007 look weaker in comparison to other screen heroes. Dialing it back to things FRWL's attache case does the trick. Say bye to Q as well.

3. Moneypenny. This only ever worked well with Connery and Lois Maxwell. The character is not in the movie and I expect Villiers will be taking the role of M's secretary in future films.

4. The violence. CR promises to be the most brutally violent Bond film ever made. Fantastic news.

5. M. They retained Judi Dench for the role. Smart. She's the one thing from the Brosnan era that I actually loved. The clip between her and Craig in M's apartment easily surpasses any exchange between Bond and M in the entire series.

6. Felix Leiter. They could have cast a D-list American actor in the role. Instead, they got Jeffrey Wright! Bravo! I hope they bring him back for at least one of the next two films.

I could go on, but why bother? You've decided not to like it even before seeing it. Whatever EON's mistakes in the past, it's clear to me that they have reenvisioned the Bond series for the 21st century. They did this by going back to the novels and the early Terence Young Bond films --when Bond was cool and dangerous.

Honestly, GS, why not comment on some of the overwhelmingly positive reviews? I haven't seen reviews for a Bond film this good in my entire life. In particular, I recommend Graham Rye's review from 007 Magazine. That guy knowledge of Ian Fleming's character pretty much trumps yours or almost anyone else's. He flat out loves it and says pretty much the opposite of everything you and CM007 have been saying. Also, his review seems to echo what we've been reading from most film critics (Kim Newman of EMPIRE is a man who knows his Bond, and his film as well).

[HildebrandRarity]

I found Brosnan's films to be silly romps of fantastic fun, not burdened down by a faux-mandate to be more realistic

What do you call TWINE, the first Bond movie in decades to lose money from its theatrical run?

You're funny Grav. LOL.

[HildebrandRarity]

Honestly, GS, why not comment on some of the overwhelmingly positive reviews?

...because he's hell bent on his stated agenda:

I believe, down to the very fiber of my being, that audiences will reject Craig and Casino Royale. They will vote, on November 17th, to remove Craig and EON from power.

More Craig films? NOT IN MY NAME! No Owen, no peace! No Owen, no peace!

Poor bastard. I feel genuinely sorry for Grav. He's wasted an entire year in a pool of negativity and hatred. And for what? He's NEVER getting what he wants. Barbara just got even more powerful.

[Jim]

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.

Yeah, well, we didn't have Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli shoveling loads of public relations manure at us, telling us that Brosnan was more like Fleming's incarnation of 007, or that he (Wilson) was suffering from a case of creative premature ejaculation, and thus had to change the direction and tone of the series to suit Brosnan.

I found Brosnan's films to be silly romps of fantastic fun, not burdened down by a faux-mandate to be more realistic, therefore they get held to a higher standard. If you don't want me to criticize Casino Royale, then don't tell me you're elevating your game play by bringing in respected writer/director Paul Haggis, because when you do, I start judging the product by Haggis standards, and not by Purvis, Wade and Johnny English standards.

Every post, the goalposts shifted.

It's like fighting fog, people. There will never be an end to this, so let it spiral into its own pit of doom.

[Jackanaples]

Oh. I hadn't seen that post. Christ.

Well, I think he's in for a very rude awakening. Craig looks set to become the most popular Bond since Connery.

[Jim]

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?

And thickjustthick.com have indeed quoted it.

So, let me get this one straight - the opinion of a man who fundamentally hated Pierce Brosnan's Bond is suddenly to be trusted as supporting their cause that Mr Brosnan should return.

Umm...

Well, they quoted a review that claimed that Daniel Craig is a triumph. From someone who despised Mr Bronsan's portrayal.

I wonder if they can read.

[Dr. Noah]

Hey, here's a new one -- CBS News in the US:

http://www.cbsnews.c...in2174639.shtml

Daniel Craig: James Bond Rediscovered
David Edelstein Says 'Casino Royale' Takes 007 In A Refreshing
Direction

(CBS) Sunday Morning movie critic David Edelstein said that the new
James Bond movie is worthy of pushing the "reset button" and is excited
about the new Bond, Daniel Craig.

I don't know why after so many lousy James Bond pictures I always look
forward to the next. Maybe it's the overture with the rangefinder, the
blood, the thrumming 007 theme - it gets me drooling like a Pavlov
dog.

Like most people, I bonded with Bond when he was Sean Connery, with his
mixture of elegance and ruggedness and danger. Having a license to kill
in "Dr. No" was shocking in the Sixties, when heroes only killed in
self-defense.

After Connery decamped, Roger Moore made Bond old-boy and arch. Then he
got heavier and the switch from Moore to his stuntman was the campiest
thing in movies. Timothy Dalton was peevish. Pierce Brosnan grew on me
but never overcame his role as TV's foppish phony detective Remington
Steele.

Now, the CEOs of the Bond franchise have opted for Brosnan's opposite
- for Bond as a bit of rough trade. And believe it or not, it works!

Daniel Craig is an actor whose versatility is uncanny - a weasel in
"Road to Perdition," a brooding poet in "Sylvia," an intellectual at
arm's length from his life in "Enduring Love," a murderer in
"Infamous." As Bond, Craig tilts his head forward like a boxer, an
impression reinforced by his smashed nose and sandpaper skin. But those
irradiated blue eyes make him more than a bullyboy. This Bond is
haunted, not housebroken, still constructing the persona.

"Casino Royale" presses the reset button. Judi Dench is back as the
scolding M, but Bond has only just been licensed to kill. The
ingredients are reshuffled to catch you off-guard. The villain isn't
the usual wanna-be world dominator but a financier called Le Chiffre
played by the Danish Mads Mikkelson, the clammiest actor alive - a
man you never want to see across a card table.

The movie weirdly front-loads the action set-pieces, then settles into
something cerebral. But it never loses its romantic pulse. Craig and
the luscious Eva Green have a teasing, sometimes biting rapport -
whoa, a complex relationship!

No, it's not a design for all Bond pictures - by all means, let's
have gadgets, supervillains, an oh-so-superior hero. But let's also
have the joy of rediscovery! Here, when Bond slips into a good tuxedo
for the first time, you taste his glee in the tailoring. I hope Craig
finds more moments like that. I want to see him in that tuxedo for
years to come.

[Jim]

Oh.

[EyesOnly]

Regardless of GS's views on CR, I love his point of views even if I don't agree with them! It's great to know that he isn't afraid to voice his opinion regarding Royale! ...I think it will be great regardless! The reviews, the clips and from what our fellow CBN'ers who have seen the movie, sounds like it's a huge winner!

Edited by EyesOnly, 12 November 2006 - 08:25 PM.

[Orion]

"Actually, that's what makes me the most objective person in this discussion, because if I go in to theater on Friday and end up liking the film, then that's proof that EON is on to something. But if I hate the film, well.....it's just my normal bias against the film"
the phrase "Theres less in a manure truck" comes to mind

[Moore Baby Moore]

No Owen, no peace! No Owen, no peace!

But Owen doesn't want it. Campaigning for him is like campaigning for the equally stubborn Tom Welling to take over as Superman...useless. If the actor makes it clear on every single occasion that he'll never even consider taking the role, then it's a done deal. He'll never play the role no matter how much you scream and yell that he should.

Accept this, and accept it now. This lobbying for a guy who doesn't want anything to do with the franchise is beyond ridiculous.

[JimmyBond]

Yes, and those are trivial, trivial issues. You think anyone, ANYONE, has ever sat around and wondered why Bond had an eye for the ladies? Where Bond got his Aston Martin? These are bones that the writers have thrown at the audience, with just the barest of meat on them. I mean, for God's sakes, why does a nice dinner jacket need explaining to the audience? Why do Bond Women need explaining to the audience? They're beautifully tailored, exquisite pieces of creation (both the girls and the tuxedo), THAT'S WHY!!! For the film to delve into any of that is just a huge waste of time when effort could've been better spent elsewhere.

Waste of time for YOU perhaps, but I find it all quite fascinating; it's incredibly naive to assume others wont either.

[Jackanaples]

I hardly think that my excitement for CR indicates that I'm an EON sycophant. You're the one who says the Brosnan films are "fantastic romps" then complains that EON didn't do what they said they were going to. Myself, I think the Brosnan and Moore films are okay as movies, but as James Bond movies they stink on ice.

In the past, GS, my attitude about going to a new Bond movie has been a bit subdued. I'd go to the theater usually accompanied by one male friend. I'd enter not expecting much, and always leave underwhelmed. Whatever the filmmakers did, they just couldn't seem to make James Bond cool again.

Then they cast Daniel Craig and everything changed. It was such an inspired choice that it was inevitable all the world's most annoying gits would rise up to voice their displeasure.

You're annoyed that it's too much like what they've done in the past, you're annoyed that they've departed too far from the formula. Pick one. Regardless of whether you like CR (and no doubt you won't), it's pretty obvious that more effort and thinking went into making this one than can be said for many of the previous films. Also, your comments regarding Jeffrey Wright are ignorant in the extreme.

I'm excited to see a new Bond film. I haven't been excited to see one since I was 11 when I was excited to see all of them. Instead of one friend, this it's fifteen: I have tickets to see CR on Friday night at 7:30, and reservations for sixteen at Musso & Frank's for steaks and martinis after the film. I don't know if Ian Fleming ever ate there, but it's completely his kind of place.

Edited by Jackanaples, 12 November 2006 - 08:57 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

No Owen, no peace! No Owen, no peace!

But Owen doesn't want it.

This lobbying for a guy who doesn't want anything to do with the franchise is beyond ridiculous.

Grav has well and truly gone off the deep end. LOL.

Can you hear that siren in the background, GS?

That's the little truck with men in pristine white uniforms coming to take you the bin.

LOL!!!

[Publius]

So what's the score now? 29-2? (Going by Dr. Noah's post and the fact there's been one other negative review so far.)

And that's only for Casino Royale itself. What's Craig's score? 31-0?

[NATO Sub]

Thanks. You've just made my point. Casino Royale is a compromised film; it's not the revolutionary vision we were force-fed to believe was coming, but essentially another rock'em, sock 'em, action-adventure film minus some of the more excruciatingly bad puns ("I've always wanted to have Christmas in Turkey", "Oooh James, don't take it out. Leave it in.") and the faux-action stunts set against a blue-screen.

So, a Bond film that isn't an action adventure. That certainly would be a departure. James Bond - The Musical, I can see it now. Pierce Bronsan returns from a sell out Broadway run to bring the singing agent to the silver screen. Or perhaps, 007 - Licenced to ill. Jamez Bond, the coolest secret agent rapper in his neighbourhood takes on the evil enemy rapper Dr Dre No.? "Ringfinger" a Rom Com with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie set in a hollowed out volcano...

What were you expecting? The Bond books are gritty action adventure mixed with a little plot and some fun. That's what CR is delivering, they haven't thrown the formula away, just re-tuned it for 2006 and in order to regain some (much needed) credibility.

Yes, and those are trivial, trivial issues. You think anyone, ANYONE, has ever sat around and wondered why Bond had an eye for the ladies? Where Bond got his Aston Martin? These are bones that the writers have thrown at the audience, with just the barest of meat on them. I mean, for God's sakes, why does a nice dinner jacket need explaining to the audience? Why do Bond Women need explaining to the audience? They're beautifully tailored, exquisite pieces of creation (both the girls and the tuxedo), THAT'S WHY!!! For the film to delve into any of that is just a huge waste of time when effort could've been better spent elsewhere.

So you don't see how the dinner jacket is suggesting that Bond is developing a taste for luxury, or how the relationship with Vesper sets the scene for Bond's future relationships with women? Are you sure you actually are a James Bond fan?

Face it, you're on the ropes and the room is starting to spin. You are in a minority of two and reeling because the vast majority of the world's press is now saying what most of the posters on these boards have been saying for A YEAR. Casino Royale is great film, a great Bond film and Daniel Craig is perhaps the best Bond since Connery!

[1q2w3e4r]

[quote name='Gravity's Silhouette' date='12 November 2006 - 20:10' post='645240']

Or perhaps changing Bond from a 6'2" tall, dark-haired, handsome spy to a guy who is 5'11", with blonde-hair, blue-eyes, and looks like he just lost a bar brawl? Yes, point taken, thank you very much.

Yes, because Bond measure's in at 183 cm or 6 foot even according to ILF. And of course, lets all forget the red haired Bond who stepped in for Roger. Or even the fact that Roger is blonde in his later films anyway shall we? Yes. Lets, great.

Yes, and those are trivial, trivial issues. You think anyone, ANYONE, has ever sat around and wondered why Bond had an eye for the ladies? Where Bond got his Aston Martin? These are bones that the writers have thrown at the audience, with just the barest of meat on them. I mean, for God's sakes, why does a nice dinner jacket need explaining to the audience? Why do Bond Women need explaining to the audience? They're beautifully tailored, exquisite pieces of creation (both the girls and the tuxedo), THAT'S WHY!!! For the film to delve into any of that is just a huge waste of time when effort could've been better spent elsewhere.

Trivial to you perhaps. Oh wait, you think your viewpoint and wants are more important than those of others? Sure, and no one cares how Bruce Wayne became Batman, Peter Parker Spidey or any other iconic icon. Check.

Thanks. You've just made my point. Casino Royale is a compromised film; it's not the revolutionary vision we were force-fed to believe was coming, but essentially another rock'em, sock 'em, action-adventure film minus some of the more excruciatingly bad puns ("I've always wanted to have Christmas in Turkey", "Oooh James, don't take it out. Leave it in.") and the faux-action stunts set against a blue-screen.

Interesting, "compromised film". Tell me, what constitutes a non compromised film?

That I wouldn't mind seeing. Quite frankly, I was a bit tired of Samanatha Bond's whorish banter with 007 ("Oh, I know just where to stick that", and "you'll just have to decide how much pumping is needed" are so beneath that character that it was embarassing to sit there in theater and here those lines uttered)

Try thats the writing, not the character. It makes no difference if you call the character Moneypenny or even have it Tanner. The audience isn't privy to the intimate details of the character, if you change it to a strictly assistants role, gender makes no difference.

Should've been replaced. No ifs, ands or buts about it. How can you have a reboot when you bring back the same M, producers, directors, writers, and crew? EON went about calling this a "reboot" when it's actually a new Bond film, just without Brosnan.

Well, that's the point isn't it? It's a new Bond film. Sorry, I thought everyone knew this.

Jeffrey Wright *IS* a D-list actor.

In your opinon. Funny, that.

Actually, that's what makes me the most objective person in this discussion, because if I go in to theater on Friday and end up liking the film, then that's proof that EON is on to something. But if I hate the film, well.....it's just my normal bias against the film.

I'm going into the theater on Friday with an open mind. I'm going to empty my brain of all knowledge...so since that'll take about 5 seconds, I should be able to settle in rather quickly and see CR with a fresh perspective.

The most objective person in this discussion? Yeah, no evidence of grandeur there Ernst. Sorry, GS. It doesn't make you objective at all, you have a different viewpoint heading it.

Your arguement holds no water in comparision to someone going to see the movie who's enthusiastic about it and ends up thinking it's rubbish. However, only in your mind it does. I agree with the 5 seconds part.

Why? They need no commentary from me. Why does the film need my critical praises? I"m the lone wolf in this thing; why does my measly little opinin, which is not shared by the vast majority of forum members, mean so much?

I've complimented the film on the things that I think it deserves to be commended for, but quite frankly, I think a lot of this hype by the "fans" is one of two things: either extreme relief Brosnan is gone, or else some of you suffer from Abused Housewife Syndrome, and are preconditioned to believe anything EON tells you, even thought you've been betrayed by them in the past, been severely beaten down by them, and whispered promises in your ears that never came true.

I for one will believe we've got a great Bond film once I see it with my own eyes.

Your right, it doesn't need your praise. You sound like a broken record, and you've an overly high inflated opinion of yourself. Your opinion and views are no more important in this forum for disucssion that any other members. You belittle others opinions and question their intelligence because they are looking forward to the film are you aren't. Pretty petty of you. Read through some of the tripe you've written, don't tell me of my experience of the films I've seen "I've been betrayed by them in the past and severely beaten down by them..." Interesting.

I think a lot of your negativity steams from having to be different, and causing a fuss. Still, I think it matters not a ounce, and taking a note out of your book of posting. That's all thats important.

It's noteable that you don't feel that constructive viewpoints and arugements nessesitate the need to post in threads or issues that run contrary to your own views.

Best not to bring up Graham's name in my presence. He's no one whose "word" I would trust. He's got about as much credibility with me as Brigitte Boisselier's cloning claims.

That's alright, you've about as much credibility with me as Rummy with Ze German's

I quite like this second position, makes you not have to come up with any constructive viewpoints and arguments of your own.

[crheath]

This guy doesn't sound like a legit critic. The way he exagerrates things and the sarcastic insults. I'm not going to give this much weight.

[Tiin007]

some of you suffer from Abused Housewife Syndrome, and are preconditioned to believe anything EON tells you, even thought you've been betrayed by them in the past, been severely beaten down by them, and whispered promises in your ears that never came true.

Wait a second, are you against CR or the series as a whole?

[Mr Woodpigeon]

"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."

What a crap reviewer. Bond has a job to do and that's final. Not sure what the outcome of his mission could have been if he failed, but it may have amounted to thousands of deaths, rather then c.100

[Harmsway]

But the interesting thing is that Bond DOESN'T kill any of the embassy people, so that comment is entirely off the mark.

[K1Bond007]

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion. I certainly didn't expect it to get 100% reviews so I'm not sure why there's even a debate here on this one review.

I haven't seen the movie (though I have read the script) but this seems rather insulting:

"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."

That's pretty sad that someone would jump to such a conclusion.... because you know how racist those James Bond folks are that they only let Bond kill black people (yeah, that's sarcasm). Remember that time Bond ripped up a certain Russian city in a tank causing massive damage and practically slaughtering innocent civilians all in order to catch a general who died moments later? Yeah. You think Bond would have done that if they weren't all black.. oh wait.. Of course I don't recall anyone dying in either scene.

All James Bond fanboyism aside this reviewer is a complete douchebag just for that comment alone.

[Stax]

If those quotes are accurate then I guess we know who was behind CraigNotBond.com now (the Gollum's brother comment was the big giveaway) ...

As for the racial implications the critic raises, I'm pretty sure 007 has racked up quite a substantial bodycount among Caucasians during his four decades onscreen. A smarter film critic/analyst could have written an interesting essay on that scene with Bond representing the white colonial power's legacy in Africa, destroying things even when they sometimes meant to do good. But then that would require an actual writer with brains.

Edited by Stax, 13 November 2006 - 12:19 AM.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

All James Bond fanboyism aside this reviewer is a complete douchebag just for that comment alone.

Don't be to hard on him. His wife left him for another woman. That's a true story.

Edited by Agent Spriggan Ominae, 13 November 2006 - 12:30 AM.

[JCRendle]

Ouch