81 replies to this topic

[kneelbeforezod]

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.

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.

Good for you! But the thing is, almost every damn review that has come out says that the film IS a big improvement over the usual P&W rubbish, and yet somehow these reviews are almost completely ignored by you, and you continue to do nothing but criticise a film YOU HAVEN'T SEEN.

I have no problem with people criticising this film, I would just prefer that a) they show a little balance, and b, they see it.

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 13 November 2006 - 12:47 AM.

[krypt]

The whole thing:

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

Thank you for posting the link.

Silly review, isn't it?

[HildebrandRarity]

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.

Puts me in mind of a joke. Here goes:

Sulking man to bartender: 'I need a drink...I just found out my brother is gay.'


Following week, same two at bar..

Bartender to sulking man: 'Now what?'

Man to bartender: 'I just found out my only other brother is gay too...make it a double.'


Following week, same situation...

Bartender: 'Geez...doesnt anyone in your family like women?'

Man: 'Ya...my wife.'

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 13 November 2006 - 12:50 AM.

[kneelbeforezod]

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.

Ah, wise words. Why do I bother?

When I grow up, I want to be like you Jim

[kneelbeforezod]

No different than praising a film you haven't seen either. Flip side of the same coin. And it's a stretch to say that I've done "nothing but criticise" when I've actually said positive things about it.

It's not that much of a stretch.

I don't think I have been blindly praising the film either, in fact I have argued that people shouldn't get their expectations too high; I'm just encouraged by the reviews.

[dinovelvet]

Good grief. If any American reviewer used the word "darkies" in a respectable publication, he'd be fired on the spot and the paper would probably be sued.

[kneelbeforezod]

Good grief. If any American reviewer used the word "darkies" in a respectable publication, he'd be fired on the spot and the paper would probably be sued.

You do realise that he's not being racist, he's implying the filmmakers are being slightly racist, by using a racist word?

[dinovelvet]

Good grief. If any American reviewer used the word "darkies" in a respectable publication, he'd be fired on the spot and the paper would probably be sued.

You do realise that he's not being racist, he's implying the filmmakers are being slightly racist, by using a racist word?

Yes I'm aware of it, but I think he could have found a classier way of making his point. How old is this Cosmo guy, btw? "Darkie" is pretty much old school racism, isn't it?

[kneelbeforezod]

Good grief. If any American reviewer used the word "darkies" in a respectable publication, he'd be fired on the spot and the paper would probably be sued.

You do realise that he's not being racist, he's implying the filmmakers are being slightly racist, by using a racist word?

Yes I'm aware of it, but I think he could have found a classier way of making his point. How old is this Cosmo guy, btw? "Darkie" is pretty much old school racism, isn't it?

I was just checking, I was worried some of you might think that was just straight racism. That would be totally unacceptable in any publication over here.

"darkie" is an old fashioned word yeah, but thats probably why he uses it.

[Peckinpah1976]

And if I followed stricly what the critics said, I'd have missed out on some great films like: Ace Ventura Pet Detective, The Village, Independence Day, etc...

Not good examples to try and further your argument with.......

Edited by Peckinpah1976, 13 November 2006 - 09:27 AM.

[dee-bee-five]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.


JACKANAPLES WROTE:

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

NEWSFLASH: Jeffrey Wright *IS* a D-list actor.

I could go on, but why bother? You've decided not to like it even before seeing it.

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.

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

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.

I recommend Graham Rye's review from 007 Magazine.

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.

Goodness, how feverish. I hope you had a good lie down after all that.

Relax, dear. It's only a movie.

[marktmurphy]

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.

Worryingly I thought the Prestige was very irritating- nowhere near as clever as it thought it was. Which leaves me in the dangerous position of not being able to say I'm opposed to Cosmo's point of view...

[Auric64]

I just hope GS WILL post on here a review of CR, equally praising it if there are bits in it he likes, as well as equally damning it with the bits he didn`t like.

I`d like to think and hope he will come out praising it more than condeming it.

As no doubt we would all want that, being as we are Bond fans.

Best

Andy

[steve234]

Hey it's a review and if he hates it....fine. It's his opinion.
I am a bit confused when he says he's good then compares him to Gollums brother.
Other than that whats the problem? Different people see different things . This isn't an exact science it's about opinion. Like soup or a painting or music . Personal taste.

[steve234]

I wonder if critics ever get bribed?
There's a good saying which says.."when everyone is thinking the same thing someone isn't thinking"
I find it odd that everyone is giving it 4 stars.
It can't be worse than some of Brosnons efforts but even still this all seems a bit too convenient that it's getting universal approval.
Hmmmm!
Anyone else smell something odd here?

[00Twelve]

Wow, did the reviewer really use the term "darkies?" That was the point at which I began to zone out of that review.

[Moore Baby Moore]

I wonder if critics ever get bribed?
There's a good saying which says.."when everyone is thinking the same thing someone isn't thinking"
I find it odd that everyone is giving it 4 stars.
It can't be worse than some of Brosnons efforts but even still this all seems a bit too convenient that it's getting universal approval.
Hmmmm!
Anyone else smell something odd here?

No. Now go away, Moo Moo.

[kneelbeforezod]

No. Now go away, Moo Moo.

Moo Moo? For real?

Which brings up a question that has probably been asked a trillion times: Why do the boards in Bond fandom keep banning him? Other than being repetitive, I haven't seen him attack anyone other than Daniel Craig. The guy has issues, to be charitable, and rather than people shunning him (which is what he's probably used to), people should try reaching out to a fellow human. God, I can't believe I'm saying that feel-good crap, but....I'm trying to be nice.

The guy needs help, folks. Can't you just throw him a bone?

He is quite entertaining actually.

But maybe it's just because I've only experienced him in small doses.

[EyesOnly]

I think Moo Moo is constantly banned due to the fact that he brings nothing to these boards worth discussing about. He comes with his own agenda to be contradictive which isn't bad...but he isn't on to have great conversation. He is obviously a Bond fan, but acts like he is from a different planet. The CBN admins have a pretty low tolerance level for that, and I think that's great! I'd love to throw him a bone and help him out, but I live in Michigan and Timbuck two is a lil out of my jurisdiction!

[Doctor Shatterhand]

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

"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:

[i]"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.

Oh dear, after reading the comments on Brosnan's last film I'm beginning to feel I agree with him. I sure hope that after watching CR my thoughts are opposite from his.

[Marquis]

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.

You'd think that at least one of them would see the irony in using a review that gushes about Craig from a reviewer who loathed Brosnan! Unbelievable!

Incidentally, i had a browse of the petition (i know i shouldn't give that vile site the time of day, but i was waiting to have a dump) and it quite clearly is just 2 or 3 people trying to pass off their mongoloid ramblings as public opinion. Pathetic tossrag mentalists, the lot of them.

Edited by Marquis, 13 November 2006 - 07:49 PM.

[JCRendle]

I wonder if critics ever get bribed?
There's a good saying which says.."when everyone is thinking the same thing someone isn't thinking"
I find it odd that everyone is giving it 4 stars.
It can't be worse than some of Brosnons efforts but even still this all seems a bit too convenient that it's getting universal approval.
Hmmmm!
Anyone else smell something odd here?

Just reading through these replies - wouldn't you say this was slightly libellous?