84 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Having seen CASINO ROYALE (once), here are some thoughts:

This film is a radical shakeup, for the most part. Okay, so we've known that for months, what's new? But when I say radical, what I mean is what I'd never expected, namely a departure from what's gone before so huge as to make THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS look like A VIEW TO A KILL 2.

Put it this way: so viciously does CR smack "the formula" around that the controversial casting of Craig has turned out - incredibly - to be one of the safest moves the filmmakers made. If you're prepared to embrace this all-out assault on everything that James Bond and one of his movies is popularly held to be (and you probably are), then great. If, however, your Bondian values are more Mooreish and you're really only in it for entertainment that tends towards the lighthearted, then you may well have problems adjusting to Martin Campbell's vision.

"Martin Campbell's vision". Something that would until quite recently have sounded just as comical as the idea of a Bond flick that actually had a bit of artistic merit about it, but Campbell (very ably supported by cinematographer Phil Meheux and editor Stuart Baird) lays on the stylistic flourishes in such quantities that you get the sense of a director furiously determined to prove that, no, he's not just another hack and that he's capable of being every bit as "radical" and auteurish as fanboy fave Tarantino. Indeed, this in many ways looks and feels like the Tarantino CR (the Tarantino of JACKIE BROWN more than the Tarantino of RESERVOIR DOGS and PULP FICTION) dreamed about by the stellar likes of Pierce Brosnan and Harry Knowles as well as by movie geeks.

To be fair, this is a film of real visual pleasures, some expected (the black and white opening), some surprising (a juxtaposition between, if memory serves, playing cards and cocktail glasses that artily dazzles the eye in a "nice little touch" kinda way, a la the spinning toy windmills shot in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY), and some that just come shooting out of the blue in a burst of sheer brilliance (our hero taken ill at the casino makes for one of the most extraordinary episodes in the history of - if we can still consider CR to be part of it - the franchise; it's as though David Lynch has seized the reins).

But, as is for some reason so often the case, the flip side of a film that's good to look at is here a script that's overbaked yet undernourished. For all its splendours, CR is overlong and occasionally incoherent.

It's also exhausting in places. There are two major action sequences (both very impressively staged, shot and edited, but both a little overextended) placed so closely together, and appearing so quickly after the explosively violent pre-credits sequence, that the viewer has little chance to breathe. CR is DIE ANOTHER DAY in reverse: action-packed first half and relatively "atmospheric" and "character-driven" second, and both halves are more than slightly disjointed and meandering.

This film is supposed to be BOND BEGINS. Am I right on this? In which case, is the gun not being jumped a trifle by having 007, straight after the phenomenally marvellous opening credits animation (something about this restart business seems to have somehow brought about quantum leaps in quality in the work of "Bond regulars" I've never been particularly fond of - not only is Danny Kleinman on history-making form, but I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be blown away by the contributions of David Arnold and Judi Dench), behave in as bad*** and commanding a fashion as ever has been seen? That said, he's no slouch in the PTS, either. I mean, what exactly remains for him to learn? Well, not all that much, as things turn out, other than: don't give your heart to women who may be treacherous, a lesson he obviously goes on to thoroughly forget on later assignments, judging by his behaviour when played by Brosnan.... unless, of course, CR somehow means that the other 20 - the horror! - No Longer Exist™. But then, why Dench for M? My head hurts. Anyhow, MI6's training for new Double-Os seems to be so swift and so efficient that "DIRECTED BY MARTIN CAMPBELL" is still a fairly fresh ghost image on the retina by the time we're evidently supposed to just accept that Bond can somehow break into M's home he's that good.

Also, Bond becomes increasingly sloppy (and soppy) as the story progresses. Shouldn't it be the other way round? Adds fuel to the idea that they could indeed have done this one with Brosnan, not that I'm saying they should have.

Perhaps I'm carping, but Bond seems so much the seasoned pro for most of this film that the origin story aspect feels tacked-on, as well as underdone. Granted, future Craig outings will doubtless continue the BOND BEGINS theme, introducing Moneypenny, Q and so on (I'm looking forward to learning how Bond hits on that quiche recipe), so it may be churlish to attack what's only part one of "a three-film character arc" for being incomplete. So I'll move to another criticism: while I never expected a ridigly faithful-to-Flemmmming flick, and never really wanted one, either (okay, I lie - I did), it seems curious that opportunities to stick to the original novel are passed up by a creative team trumpeting fidelity to the novel.

Take the PTS. While it would be unreasonable to expect dated stuff about cipher experts in the years around World War II to be transferred to a film that's (rightly) set in the present day, what would have been wrong with making Bond's first assassination targets Japanese and Norwegian? Which makes me look as though I'm absolutely scraping the barrel for complaints, I suppose (one more, though - why no Moneypenny instead of lifeless stand-in Villiers?), so on to the good stuff:

Acting - Craig takes top honours with a superb performance. Green and Mikkelsen are good, but seem underused. No one else makes much of an impact (you could argue, of course, that no one else is supposed to), apart from Dench, who's much, much better than she's ever been.

Action - Nicely done.

Dialogue - Some very good, witty lines. No apparent DAD-style howlers.

Locations - Okay, but not exactly fleshed out.

All gripes aside, CASINO ROYALE is a noble effort and in places hits heights that James Bond purists could never in their most Benzedrine-blasted dreams have expected Eon to even try for. It's far from flawless, but, hey, as steps in the right direction go it's pretty impressive. ACE puts it perfectly in his review:

"This film will not be to everyone's taste and does not lean into expectations. Casino Royale needs to percolate, mature, air in the mind, explored by the senses. Only then will the full flavour of the gourmet Bond film we have been served begin to be savoured by all of us who have hungered for James Bond to return."

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=35371

[Matt_13]

Fantastic review!!!!!!!!!!!

[Evil Doctor Cheese Returns]

I always have respected your opinion Loomis and I have to say this may be a very fair review of the film...but I'll tell you what...I was all excited about seeing the film tomorrow to the point of singing the theme tuen all day and now I'm pretty bummed out.

<heavy sigh> (eeore voice) ooohhhh welll.....

My fave Bond movie's TWINE and I love it despite its flaws so I'll go into this one expecting to have a bit of fun and enjoy a gritty spy thriller based on my favourite secret agent and just be greatful they made another one with a damn fine actor. I'll try anyway...I may well have come to a very slow stop after the crushing swathe of depression heralded by that sour puss of a review! lol

G x

PS I'm sure I will post back tomorrow completely agreeing with you as usual Loomis! lol

[MR. BOND 93]

Nice review!

Kinda dissapointed that you gave it a 7/10 though...

Edited by MR. BOND 93, 15 November 2006 - 11:32 PM.

[Roebuck]

Myself. I found the film hard to fault.
But horses for courses...

[Andrew]

Very well written review, Loomis!

...I'm just glad I'm not as picky as you are

[MR. BOND 93]

Fantastic review!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed!

[Scottlee]

Good stuff.

Something that really comes across more in the fan reviews than those written by journalists is the heavy action emphasis in the first half of the film. As someone who hasn't seen the film yet (roll on next Tuesday), but has read the book, I'm slightly fearful the last half an hour will feature nothing but Craig wandering around the beach waiting for something..err..bad to happen. I've forgotten if this a spoiler free sub-forum that I'm in, by the way.

Loomis refrains from going too far in his praise, but as is hinted at the end of his piece, this was always going to be the sort of film that becomes more enjoyable on repeated viewings sat in front of your DVD player on a windy Monday night. Die Another Day on the other hand has completely the opposite effect for me. I thought it was an absolute blast as a cinematic experience, but as a home viewing really sucked.

It will be interesting to see if the next version earns more praise, Loomis, similar with everyone else who has written one. i.e...

Reviews of the same film
Verson 21.1 - "Great moments, some problems" (After seeing it at the cinema)
Version 21.2 - (After DVD viewing)
Version 21.3 - (After the trilogy is finished)

[Publius]

unless, of course, CR somehow means that the other 20 - the horror! - No Longer Exist™. But then, why Dench for M? My head hurts.

The more appropriate question is still "if the other 20 no-longer-exist, why not Dench?"

Anyway, good review Loomis, although we have such largely divergent tastes in Bond (for instance, several of your grievances don't bother me, or I'm even welcoming them) that I expect to think even better of Casino Royale. And given that you're already mainly positive, that can only be a good thing for me.

[Loomis]

Well, I'll see CASINO ROYALE at least once more on the big screen. And, yes, I'm expecting to appreciate it more on second viewing (which is no biggie: it often takes me a while to really come to love a film, and there are even favourite flicks of mine - HEAT being an example - that I actually hated when I first saw them) - I'm very much with ACE (and others): this is a film you need to give some sinking in time to.

unless, of course, CR somehow means that the other 20 - the horror! - No Longer Exist™. But then, why Dench for M? My head hurts.

The more appropriate question is still "if the other 20 no-longer-exist, why not Dench?"

Indeed.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Superb review. I'm glad you didn't over praise it like I think some people will(kinda like Harry Knowles' loving The Phantom Menace). No mention of the song so points for originality. Loomis, you say you love Die Another Day so what's gonna be your prefered film in 3 years?

[Loomis]

Loomis, you say you love Die Another Day so what's gonna be your prefered film in 3 years?

I really don't know. Probably CASINO ROYALE, but I don't know. I may end up preferring DIE ANOTHER DAY, while conceding that CR is the better film, in the same way as THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN is my favourite Bond flick while I'd say that something like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is the best.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I was expecting rabid fanboyism from you dude...what happend? You sound so ugh, I dunno, just blase?

I wonder how your Bourne Ultimatum review will compare...

[Harmsway]

Great stuff, Loomis. Your opinion was one of the ones I was anticipating most.

Your comments on the radicalness of CASINO ROYALE (after you were so dubious about how radical it was) makes me very hopeful for the film. I'm supposing that the clips that have been released don't adequately prepare you for the film, then.

And as to your "Bond Begins" commentary, when I read the script, it was pretty clear to me that CASINO ROYALE was just going to be the basic character arc of Fleming's novel dressed up with a bit more oompf by having Bond gain his Double-O number at the very beginning of the film. Otherwise, there's not much more to exploring his origin.

[Loomis]

I'm supposing that the clips that have been released don't adequately prepare you for the film, then.

They certainly don't. And I'm pretty sure that I saw all the clips, so it's not as though I was ignoring evidence of radicalness that was there for all to see. I was as "spoilered" for CR as was possible to be, apart from not having read the script (although I did, of course, have 99.9% knowledge of what happened in it), but even then I wasn't prepared for the full force of this thing. It's like a flippin' hurricane (albeit one that has a few problem areas for the ultra-picky fanboy who's determined to do what fanboys do best, i.e. gripe - see my first post in this thread ).

You've read the script, but it won't fully prepare you for how radical CR is on a visual level, or for its tone.

I'm virtually 100% sure that you're going to go crazy for this film, Harmsmeister.

[Harmsway]

I'm supposing that the clips that have been released don't adequately prepare you for the film, then.

They certainly don't.

Great news. I want to be shocked. Those clips... well, they were fairly "safe" scenes.

It's like a flippin' hurricane (albeit one that has a few problem areas for the ultra-picky fanboy who's determined to do what fanboys do best, i.e. gripe - see my first post in this thread ).

But of course. After all of CASINO ROYALE's edginess, Bond still can't light up a single cigarette during the card game.

But still, it's nice to know it's a shaking-up for the franchise on a radical level. That's what I wanted, after all.

You've read the script, but it won't fully prepare you for how radical CR is on a visual level, or for its tone.

In your opinion, how violent is CASINO ROYALE? And sexually explicit?

I'm virtually 100% sure that you're going to go crazy for this film, Harmsmeister.

Fantastic.

[Loomis]

In your opinion, how violent is CASINO ROYALE?

Very. I was pretty shocked, and in some ways still am. Now, it's true that there's little explicit gore, but this is easily the most brutal Bond film. Not even LICENCE TO KILL comes close. How CASINO ROYALE didn't get a 15 over here I'll never know, and there would have been a good case for an 18. It's truly nasty, disturbing stuff, and the torture scene.... wow. And I believe you'll have an even stronger version of it Stateside.

And sexually explicit?

Not at all.

[triviachamp]

It's truly nasty, disturbing stuff

Really? Besides the torture? Care to give us the details? Is it Bond doing this stuff or is it other guys?

[kneelbeforezod]

In your opinion, how violent is CASINO ROYALE?

Very. I was pretty shocked, and in some ways still am. Now, it's true that there's little explicit gore, but this is easily the most brutal Bond film. Not even LICENCE TO KILL comes close. How CASINO ROYALE didn't get a 15 over here I'll never know, and there would have been a good case for an 18. It's truly nasty, disturbing stuff, and the torture scene.... wow. And I believe you'll have an even stronger version of it Stateside.

And sexually explicit?

Not at all.

I think the violence is par for the course for a 12A film these days. In other words, a few years ago it probably would have been a 15.

I was actually surprised at how the film isn't sexually explicit at all. Its more romantic really.

I think that's one of the reasons the film, and indeed Craig, works so well: it's violent and romantic at the same time.

[ACE]

Having seen CASINO ROYALE (once), here are some thoughts:

This film is a radical shakeup, for the most part. Okay, so we've known that for months, what's new? But when I say radical, what I mean is what I'd never expected, namely a departure from what's gone before so huge as to make THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS look like A VIEW TO A KILL 2.

Steady on, old bean! That's TLD you're talking about! Show some respect!

Put it this way: so viciously does CR smack "the formula" around that the controversial casting of Craig has turned out - incredibly - to be one of the safest moves the filmmakers made. If you're prepared to embrace this all-out assault on everything that James Bond and one of his movies is popularly held to be (and you probably are), then great. If, however, your Bondian values are more Mooreish and you're really only in it for entertainment that tends towards the lighthearted, then you may well have problems adjusting to Martin Campbell's vision.

"Martin Campbell's vision". Something that would until quite recently have sounded just as comical as the idea of a Bond flick that actually had a bit of artistic merit about it, but Campbell (very ably supported by cinematographer Phil Meheux and editor Stuart Baird) lays on the stylistic flourishes in such quantities that you get the sense of a director furiously determined to prove that, no, he's not just another hack and that he's capable of being every bit as "radical" and auteurish as fanboy fave Tarantino. Indeed, this in many ways looks and feels like the Tarantino CR (the Tarantino of JACKIE BROWN more than the Tarantino of RESERVOIR DOGS and PULP FICTION) dreamed about by the stellar likes of Pierce Brosnan and Harry Knowles as well as by movie geeks.

'Spose. QT likes pulp fiction and the dynamics of dialogue and story therein. Bond is classic (pulp) fiction so it could be that QT's style emanates from spy novel literature in the first place. QT's digressive dialogue about things which interest him surely has it's roots in this Royale with pleasing ruminations on food, drink and how to rob a caisse. Of course, could QT replicate the dry, urbane, British flavour of Bond? Doubt it. Let him stick to Modesty Blaise and UNCLE.

'Gree about Baird and Meheux - top notch Brit techs following Campbell's valiant lead. 'Course, I love BOTH Zorro movies...

To be fair, this is a film of real visual pleasures, some expected (the black and white opening), some surprising (a juxtaposition between, if memory serves, playing cards and cocktail glasses that artily dazzles the eye in a "nice little touch" kinda way, a la the spinning toy windmills shot in THE BOURNE SUPREMACY), and some that just come shooting out of the blue in a burst of sheer brilliance (our hero taken ill at the casino makes for one of the most extraordinary episodes in the history of - if we can still consider CR to be part of it - the franchise; it's as though David Lynch has seized the reins).

Hmmm, innerestin' observations. Lynch-ian how? No, you said it! How is that ing Lynch-ian? Is it here to be ing Lynch-ian for you? Certainly, some things for me to pick up on my next viewing of film.

But, as is for some reason so often the case, the flip side of a film that's good to look at is here a script that's overbaked yet undernourished. For all its splendours, CR is overlong and occasionally incoherent.

It's also exhausting in places. There are two major action sequences (both very impressively staged, shot and edited, but both a little overextended) placed so closely together, and appearing so quickly after the explosively violent pre-credits sequence, that the viewer has little chance to breathe. CR is DIE ANOTHER DAY in reverse: action-packed first half and relatively "atmospheric" and "character-driven" second, and both halves are more than slightly disjointed and meandering.

DAD-ish! I see your point but don't feel it. I think the momentum of the two major action setpieces carries us through the sedate middle act.

This film is supposed to be BOND BEGINS. Am I right on this? In which case, is the gun not being jumped a trifle by having 007, straight after the phenomenally marvellous opening credits animation (something about this restart business seems to have somehow brought about quantum leaps in quality in the work of "Bond regulars" I've never been particularly fond of - not only is Danny Kleinman on history-making form, but I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be blown away by the contributions of David Arnold and Judi Dench), behave in as bad*** and commanding a fashion as ever has been seen? That said, he's no slouch in the PTS, either. I mean, what exactly remains for him to learn? Well, not all that much, as things turn out, other than: don't give your heart to women who may be treacherous, a lesson he obviously goes on to thoroughly forget on later assignments, judging by his behaviour when played by Brosnan.... unless, of course, CR somehow means that the other 20 - the horror! - No Longer Exist™. But then, why Dench for M? My head hurts. Anyhow, MI6's training for new Double-Os seems to be so swift and so efficient that "DIRECTED BY MARTIN CAMPBELL" is still a fairly fresh ghost image on the retina by the time we're evidently supposed to just accept that Bond can somehow break into M's home he's that good.

Also, Bond becomes increasingly sloppy (and soppy) as the story progresses. Shouldn't it be the other way round? Adds fuel to the idea that they could indeed have done this one with Brosnan, not that I'm saying they should have.

Yes, but the publicity touts the Bond begins angle more than the script. See your point and feel it. Totally agree that Brosnan could have done this film as is and all they would have had to have done was change one line ("I knew it was too early to promote you...").

Perhaps I'm carping, but Bond seems so much the seasoned pro for most of this film that the origin story aspect feels tacked-on, as well as underdone. Granted, future Craig outings will doubtless continue the BOND BEGINS theme, introducing Moneypenny, Q and so on (I'm looking forward to learning how Bond hits on that quiche recipe), so it may be churlish to attack what's only part one of "a three-film character arc" for being incomplete. So I'll move to another criticism: while I never expected a ridigly faithful-to-Flemmmming flick, and never really wanted one, either (okay, I lie - I did), it seems curious that opportunities to stick to the original novel are passed up by a creative team trumpeting fidelity to the novel.

Take the PTS. While it would be unreasonable to expect dated stuff about cipher experts in the years around World War II to be transferred to a film that's (rightly) set in the present day, what would have been wrong with making Bond's first assassination targets Japanese and Norwegian? Which makes me look as though I'm absolutely scraping the barrel for complaints, I suppose (one more, though - why no Moneypenny instead of lifeless stand-in Villiers?), so on to the good stuff:

'Gree. But Bond doesn't flirt with Villiers in the version I saw. Isn't the idea that one kill is clean and one kill is dirty? 007 is a hot and cold blooded blunt instrument. But I concur. Yeah, and while we're putting stuff back in, "Two Men In Straw Hats" is begging to be filmed.

Acting - Craig takes top honours with a superb performance. Green and Mikkelsen are good, but seem underused. No one else makes much of an impact (you could argue, of course, that no one else is supposed to), apart from Dench, who's much, much better than she's ever been.

Action - Nicely done.

Dialogue - Some very good, witty lines. No apparent DAD-style howlers.

Locations - Okay, but not exactly fleshed out.

All gripes aside, CASINO ROYALE is a noble effort and in places hits heights that James Bond purists could never in their most Benzedrine-blasted dreams have expected Eon to even try for. It's far from flawless, but, hey, as steps in the right direction go it's pretty impressive.

'Gree. But isn't it, Loomis, a great, great film? I think you are saying that somewhere in here. And as for flawless, Loomie, not EVERY Bond film can be "The Man With The Golden Gun"...

ACE puts it perfectly in his review:

"This film will not be to everyone's taste and does not lean into expectations. Casino Royale needs to percolate, mature, air in the mind, explored by the senses. Only then will the full flavour of the gourmet Bond film we have been served begin to be savoured by all of us who have hungered for James Bond to return."

http://debrief.comma...showtopic=35371

Hmmm, badly written and dodgy quote and link. Takes the shine off the 'tastic writing before....

Good, pithy original observations nicely stated. Brrrr, how wincingly well Mr Loomis writes...

[HildebrandRarity]

Adds fuel to the idea that they could indeed have done this one with Brosnan, not that I'm saying they should have.

Totally agree that Brosnan could have done this film as is and all they would have had to have done was change one line ("I knew it was too early to promote you...").

How could they have done this "as is" with Brosnan?

They couldn't. Would it have been the same film? I'd suggest not:

A) Craig is regarded as one of the finest actors of his generation whereas Brosnan is regarded as a model. Further, Craig physically looks like he can do what's up on screen whereas Brosnan looks like he's ready for the old age home. Doesn't it all go to 'credibility'? Wouldn't the believability factor have gone out the window and as a result been panned by critics instead of being hailed as the second coming?

B ) Brosnan would have wanted about $12 or $14 million more that what Craig got. How could they have afforded people like Haggis and the DP and the editor and the real stunts? Haggis does not work for free. Would having Brosnan not have transalted into less money being up on the screen and less available for a sharp script?

C) Would there have been a movie borne out of pure love from the Brocollis (esp Barbara) if Brosnan was involved...or would it be a movie borne out of pure frustration and dis-respect?

To suggest that Brosnan could have done it is the most ludicrous thing i've heard since Gravity's Silhouette's low balling of the box office three weeks back.

Wow. I'm amazed.

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 16 November 2006 - 04:02 AM.

[JimmyBond]

Great review Loomis, nice to see you looked at it from a fairer perspective than some. Although you're cup of tea is the more outlandish Moore films (nothing wrong with that), so I can see where you're coming from.

[spynovelfan]

I discussed this at some length with you over Vespers at Quaglino's, Loomis.

Sorry, just thought I'd start with that one. Sa-a-ad, aren't I?

To continue the Alan Partridge theme, STOP GETTING CASINO ROYALE WRONG! I agree with a lot of your criticisms, but come at the film from a different angle. If anything, I think it wasn't radical enough. It doesn't bother me in the least that they royally (ahem) screwed with the formula - I'd have been happy for them to have ditched even more of it. The film is very long, but it still seems to have been edited down massively - it almost could have been three films, they had so much material. By the titles sequence, all the Bond Begins stuff is done with, and there are numerous points in the story which aren't properly fleshed out or especially coherent ('Get the girl out' - can someone explain to me what that's about?). Many things we've seen images or footage of and discussed to death last just a couple of seconds.

But this is a Bond film. Holes in plots, inconsistencies, things we would have done differently - name me another in the series we don't have some problems with in these respects. Okay, apart from FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. Seriously, every other Bond film has these issues. Even the greatest OHMSS fan in the world might be forced at gunpoint to admit that the dubbing is dreadful. Even THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN obsessives might, if placed on a chair with the hole cut out of the middle, confess that Britt Ekland is just plain old irritating.

So this film has flaws. We've spent four years discussing every tiny detail of what they might do, and - surprise! - they didn't take *all* our advice. But imagine that you'd just watched DIE ANOTHER DAY and were hankering for a grounded, suspenseful adaptation of Fleming's first novel that dared to dispense with a lot of the traditional formula. Dreaming, you'd want the character playing Bond to ooze charisma, raw power, cool, elegance, cockiness (not smugness), vulnerability and hey, it would be nice to see some finger-sucking in a Bond film for a change.

They'd delivered all that and more. It's easily the best Bond film since THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. Perhaps even earlier.

[NATO Sub]

Interesting to read, and I will have to wait until Friday night to form my own opinon! One thing that puzzled me was your confusion at the "Bond Begins" notion and 007s apparent displays of skill. Isn't Casino Royale (the film) supposed to be Bond's first misson for MI6, having already been operational for another military service? Surely it's entirely possible that Bond has killed before and been involved in other missions?

[Zorin Industries]

My review - for what it's worth...

http://debrief.comma...p...c=35499&hl=

Zorin Industries

[Loomis]

[quote name='triviachamp' date='16 November 2006 - 01:08' post='647816']
[quote name='Loomis' post='647805' date='15 November 2006 - 19:58']
It's truly nasty, disturbing stuff
[/quote]

Really? Besides the torture? Care to give us the details? Is it Bond doing this stuff or is it other guys?
[/quote]

No, I'm thinking mostly of the torture scene, although it does cast a long, dark shadow over the film. As it should, I suppose. Bond is fairly brutal (hardly for the first time, of course, but during the pre-credits sequence the character Craig reminded me of was Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter rather than any of the previous incarnations of 007), but it's the torture stuff that really shocks and lingers. Well, that and the PTS, which is somehow all the nastier for being in black and white.

[quote name='kneelbeforezod' date='16 November 2006 - 01:27' post='647827']
I think the violence is par for the course for a 12A film these days. In other words, a few years ago it probably would have been a 15.
[/quote]

Yeah. BORAT (okay, no violence, but some pretty extreme stuff) is a 15, LAYER CAKE is a 15 - what exactly do filmmakers nowadays have to do to get an 18 certificate from the once notoriously censorious British Board of Film Classification? There are a few films I'm surprised are 12s - for example, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III and TERMINATOR 3, but CR is the most boundary-pushing 12 I've ever seen. I mean, M:I-2 is a 15, and it's nothing like as brutal as CR.

[quote name='kneelbeforezod' date='16 November 2006 - 01:27' post='647827']
I think that's one of the reasons the film, and indeed Craig, works so well: it's violent and romantic at the same time.
[/quote]

Good point. I think I agree.

[quote name='ACE' date='16 November 2006 - 01:31' post='647829']
QT likes pulp fiction and the dynamics of dialogue and story therein. Bond is classic (pulp) fiction so it could be that QT's style emanates from spy novel literature in the first place. QT's digressive dialogue about things which interest him surely has it's roots in this Royale with pleasing ruminations on food, drink and how to rob a caisse.
[/quote]

True.

[quote name='ACE' date='16 November 2006 - 01:31' post='647829']
'Gree about Baird and Meheux - top notch Brit techs following Campbell's valiant lead. 'Course, I love BOTH Zorro movies...
[/quote]

I haven't seen them. But the expression "top notch Brit techs" hits on the head the nail that is the surprise a lot of people will feel from CR. These guys are clearly enormously talented and accomplished, and at the top of their professions, but they and other Bond collaborators have often been regarded - unfairly, perhaps - with a certain amount of disdain by "serious" critics, and not just by professional reviewers but by "movie geeks". They're seen as artisans rather than artists, as competent craftsmen rather than visionaries (I once read a Sight & Sound review describing John Glen as "the epitome of the sheepskin coat school of British directors", which I presume wasn't intended to be entirely flattering). And yet, here, they've ended up doing visionary work, and on, of all things, a Bond film! The biggest gripe on AICN about CR over the past year or so has been the fact that Martin Campbell was directing. "How boring," was the view of Knowles and co. "Broccoli and Wilson have gone back to Fleming and hired the brilliant Craig, but once again they've dropped the ball by getting a yes-man hack director of middling talent who won't rock the boat and who'll end up making a compromised film. If only they'd had the guts to get a director like Nolan, Wong Kar-Wai or the guy who did OLDBOY, oh, and Christopher Doyle must be the director of photography." But CR's technical excellence shows that relatively unsung industry veterans like Campbell, Meheux and Baird can perform every bit as well as more fashionable (and, possibly, overrated and excessively expensive) names.

[quote name='ACE' date='16 November 2006 - 01:31' post='647829']
Hmmm, innerestin' observations. Lynch-ian how? No, you said it! How is that ing Lynch-ian? Is it here to be ing Lynch-ian for you? Certainly, some things for me to pick up on my next viewing of film.
[/quote]

LOL! Not 100% sure it's Lynchian, come to think of it. I told you after the screening that I thought it was Kubrickian (daaaaaaaahling ), but I changed my mind and now I may be changing it back. Dunno. Whatever it may be, it's striking and brilliant, and, like many things in CR, very unexpected. In a good way.

[quote name='ACE' date='16 November 2006 - 01:31' post='647829']
[quote name='Loomis' post='647732' date='15 November 2006 - 23:03']
But, as is for some reason so often the case, the flip side of a film that's good to look at is here a script that's overbaked yet undernourished. For all its splendours, CR is overlong and occasionally incoherent.

It's also exhausting in places. There are two major action sequences (both very impressively staged, shot and edited, but both a little overextended) placed so closely together, and appearing so quickly after the explosively violent pre-credits sequence, that the viewer has little chance to breathe. CR is DIE ANOTHER DAY in reverse: action-packed first half and relatively "atmospheric" and "character-driven" second, and both halves are more than slightly disjointed and meandering.
[/quote]

DAD-ish! I see your point but don't feel it. I think the momentum of the two major action setpieces carries us through the sedate middle act.
[/quote]

For me, that sedate middle act is the best part of the film (and, not so coincidentally, the most Flemingian). And I wasn't even following the game!

[quote name='ACE' date='16 November 2006 - 01:31' post='647829']
the publicity touts the Bond begins angle more than the script.
[/quote]

Very true. I'm just thinking of "civilians" who'll wander in late and sit down midway through the opening credits, and then spend the movie wondering what all this talk of an origin story was about.

[quote name='ACE' date='16 November 2006 - 01:31' post='647829']
All gripes aside, CASINO ROYALE is a noble effort and in places hits heights that James Bond purists could never in their most Benzedrine-blasted dreams have expected Eon to even try for. It's far from flawless, but, hey, as steps in the right direction go it's pretty impressive.
[/quote]

'Gree. But isn't it, Loomis, a great, great film? I think you are saying that somewhere in here.
[/quote]

Might be.

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='16 November 2006 - 09:20' post='647945']
The film is very long, but it still seems to have been edited down massively - it almost could have been three films, they had so much material. By the titles sequence, all the Bond Begins stuff is done with, and there are numerous points in the story which aren't properly fleshed out or especially coherent ('Get the girl out' - can someone explain to me what that's about?).
[/quote]

Exactly. Even leaving aside the deliberate loose ends to be tidied up in BOND 22, not all of CR flows smoothly or makes much sense, and I did find myself a little bored in parts (not that often, mind). And the film has OHMSSitis: too many endings.

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='16 November 2006 - 09:20' post='647945']
But this is a Bond film. Holes in plots, inconsistencies, things we would have done differently - name me another in the series we don't have some problems with in these respects. Okay, apart from FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. Seriously, every other Bond film has these issues.
[/quote]

Sure. And, yes, it does seem a bit churlish to pick faults when we have a Bond film of such high quality as this one.

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='16 November 2006 - 09:20' post='647945']
We've spent four years discussing every tiny detail of what they might do, and - surprise! - they didn't take *all* our advice.
[/quote]

I know. How dare they?

[quote name='NATO Sub' date='16 November 2006 - 10:43' post='647963']
Interesting to read, and I will have to wait until Friday night to form my own opinon! One thing that puzzled me was your confusion at the "Bond Begins" notion and 007s apparent displays of skill. Isn't Casino Royale (the film) supposed to be Bond's first misson for MI6, having already been operational for another military service? Surely it's entirely possible that Bond has killed before and been involved in other missions?
[/quote]

Yes, but the trouble - although this isn't really a "problem", merely something that non-Bond fans may be a bit confused by (especially if they've fallen for the whole origin story hype) - is that none of this is actually explained in the film. You'll know about Bond's military background only if you've been following CR's production on sites like this one. Not sure that he's even referred to as "Commander Bond" at any point, although it's possible that he is and I've forgotten about it. Similarly, only us fans will be aware that one of the PTS kills takes place in Pakistan (oddly, though, we do have some text on the screen telling us that Dryden's office is in Prague).

[ACE]

I discussed this at some length with you over Vespers at Quaglino's, Loomis.

Sorry, just thought I'd start with that one. Sa-a-ad, aren't I?

To continue the Alan Partridge theme, STOP GETTING CASINO ROYALE WRONG! I agree with a lot of your criticisms, but come at the film from a different angle. If anything, I think it wasn't radical enough. It doesn't bother me in the least that they royally (ahem) screwed with the formula - I'd have been happy for them to have ditched even more of it. The film is very long, but it still seems to have been edited down massively - it almost could have been three films, they had so much material. By the titles sequence, all the Bond Begins stuff is done with, and there are numerous points in the story which aren't properly fleshed out or especially coherent ('Get the girl out' - can someone explain to me what that's about?). Many things we've seen images or footage of and discussed to death last just a couple of seconds.

But this is a Bond film. Holes in plots, inconsistencies, things we would have done differently - name me another in the series we don't have some problems with in these respects. Okay, apart from FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. Seriously, every other Bond film has these issues. Even the greatest OHMSS fan in the world might be forced at gunpoint to admit that the dubbing is dreadful. Even THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN obsessives might, if placed on a chair with the hole cut out of the middle, confess that Britt Ekland is just plain old irritating.

So this film has flaws. We've spent four years discussing every tiny detail of what they might do, and - surprise! - they didn't take *all* our advice. But imagine that you'd just watched DIE ANOTHER DAY and were hankering for a grounded, suspenseful adaptation of Fleming's first novel that dared to dispense with a lot of the traditional formula. Dreaming, you'd want the character playing Bond to ooze charisma, raw power, cool, elegance, cockiness (not smugness), vulnerability and hey, it would be nice to see some finger-sucking in a Bond film for a change.

They'd delivered all that and more. It's easily the best Bond film since THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. Perhaps even earlier.

LOL and ROTFLMAO

"Get the girl out" = Bond has lost at cards and is angry about not being bought back in. Bond is going to stab Le Chiffre with the steak (as opposed to across the green baize with a, ahem, "stake") knife. He wants Mathis to clear the scene of the crime of all personnel who could be compromised. But, I hear you say, don't they want Le Chiffre alive? Yes, but this is Bond's impetuousnous coming out.

V's @ Q? Whatever next?

[ACE]

Adds fuel to the idea that they could indeed have done this one with Brosnan, not that I'm saying they should have.

Totally agree that Brosnan could have done this film as is and all they would have had to have done was change one line ("I knew it was too early to promote you...").

How could they have done this "as is" with Brosnan?

They couldn't. Would it have been the same film? I'd suggest not:

A) Craig is regarded as one of the finest actors of his generation whereas Brosnan is regarded as a model. Further, Craig physically looks like he can do what's up on screen whereas Brosnan looks like he's ready for the old age home. Doesn't it all go to 'credibility'? Wouldn't the believability factor have gone out the window and as a result been panned by critics instead of being hailed as the second coming?

Well, that depends upon your interpretation of Pierce Brosnan's credibility. Roger got good reviews for FYEO. Still think Pierce could have done it as a purely academic thought.

B ) Brosnan would have wanted about $12 or $14 million more that what Craig got. How could they have afforded people like Haggis and the DP and the editor and the real stunts? Haggis does not work for free. Would having Brosnan not have transalted into less money being up on the screen and less available for a sharp script?

Good point. However, the budgets often expand to accomodate a star. Brosnan would have almost certainly be a hedge against uncertainty. Agree, Haggis and Campbell probably got higher-than-usual-for-Bond salaries. But Sony would have ponied up.

C) Would there have been a movie borne out of pure love from the Brocollis (esp Barbara) if Brosnan was involved...or would it be a movie borne out of pure frustration and dis-respect?

To suggest that Brosnan could have done it is the most ludicrous thing i've heard since Gravity's Silhouette's low balling of the box office three weeks back.

Wow. I'm amazed.

I accept your argument in the first paragraph.

Amazed you're amazed. It may even be ludicrous to think the suggestion is ludicrous - there are enough very intelligent people on this thread who do not think it is a "ludicrous thing." For the record, I adore Craig's performance as Bond. It was just a rumination of mine. Opinions are like ****holes - everybody has one...

Nice post, HildebrandRarity.

[Loomis]

Still think Pierce could have done it as a purely academic thought.

Same here. Should he have done it? I don't think so, although I reckon he'd have loved to be in a Bond flick like this one.

Similarly, Owen could have done this film. And maybe Cavill.... if he's a very, very, very good actor indeed (having never seen him in anything, I haven't a clue what he's like).

Can't picture anyone else, though. Butler? Nah. Jackman? Nope. Ewan Stewart? Pains me to say it, but no.

Ultimately, Eon went with the best man for the job among the handful (if that) who could have done it.

BTW, ACE, check your private messages.

[Seannery]

Hey Loomis--I come back to a shock...a semi-lukewarm review of CR by one of the biggest boosters of change. It would be ironic if I would end up giving it a higher review. We shall see soon.


I knew Acey(that Bond optimist) would love it.