Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

7 out of 10 (or so) - great moments, some problems


84 replies to this topic

#31 Red Barchetta

Red Barchetta

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1161 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA, USA

Posted 16 November 2006 - 03:42 PM

Very nice review. Can't wait to see it- it comes out tomorrow (Friday) here in Washington State!

#32 Bon-san

Bon-san

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4124 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 November 2006 - 04:35 PM




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.


Have you seen the film yet, HildebrandRarity?

#33 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 05:40 PM

Oh I forgot Loomis--was Daniel too ugly to be Bond as you once vociferously argued :) You didn't mention that in your review. :P

#34 killkenny kid

killkenny kid

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6607 posts
  • Location:Albany, New York

Posted 16 November 2006 - 05:42 PM





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.


Have you seen the film yet, HildebrandRarity?


indeed.

#35 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 09:52 PM

I will first thing at midnight.

But tell me, how does me not having seen the film as of this writing invalidate points:

A) which tackles the physicality issue and the acting issue. (I cant imaging a 53 year old going mano-a-mano against Fourcan's character on the cranes. I just can't...not without groaning or rolling my eyes. Further, I've seen Daniel in Layer Cake and in Munich and i've seen Brosnan in whatever there is to see...and I can not imagine PB pulling off any kind of chemisty with a girl 30 years his junior..."as is", remember?);

:) which tackles the money issue. (Cubby said you have to put the money on the screen and studios don't have unlimited funds to throw away. They are in it for profit. TWINE had approximately 12.5 percent of it's production budget go to Pierce's salary and you see what we got in TWINE. Further TWINE was in the red for MGM at the end of it's theatrical run. CR has about 3 percent of it's prod budget allocated to Craig. How does me not seeing the movie invalidate my argument that an extra 9.5 percent of budget going into writing, stunts, cinematography and location make for CR being a better movie all things being equal?);

C) which tackles the quite appearent issue of there being no love lost between Brocolli and Brosnan. (I don't need to see the movie to speculate that the atmosphere on CR during pre-production and during filming was likely better with Craig on board than it would have been with Brosnan).

I'll see the movie within hours and upon digesting it over a second viewing several hours later, i'll come back here and we'll take up the debate then.

If i'm "wrong", i'll happily say so.

#36 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 09:59 PM

I will first thing at midnight.

But tell me, how does me not having seen the film as of this writing invalidate points:

A) which tackles the physicality issue and the acting issue. (I cant imaging a 53 year old going mano-a-mano against Fourcan's character on the cranes. I just can't...not without groaning or rolling my eyes. Further, I've seen Daniel in Layer Cake and in Munich and i've seen Brosnan in whatever there is to see...and I can not imagine PB pulling off any kind of chemisty with a girl 30 years his junior..."as is", remember?);

:) which tackles the money issue. (Cubby said you have to put the money on the screen and studios don't have unlimited funds to throw away. They are in it for profit. TWINE had approximately 12.5 percent of it's production budget go to Pierce's salary and you see what we got in TWINE. Further TWINE was in the red for MGM at the end of it's theatrical run. CR has about 3 percent of it's prod budget allocated to Craig. How does me not seeing the movie invalidate my argument that an extra 9.5 percent of budget going into writing, stunts, cinematography and location make for CR being a better movie all things being equal?);

C) which tackles the quite appearent issue of there being no love lost between Brocolli and Brosnan. (I don't need to see the movie to speculate that the atmosphere on CR during pre-production and during filming was likely better with Craig on board than it would have been with Brosnan).

I'll see the movie within hours and upon digesting it over a second viewing several hours later, i'll come back here and we'll take up the debate then.

If i'm "wrong", i'll happily say so.



I enjoyed Brosnan's Bonds and I do defend him against some of the more extreme posts on here. But, that said, there is absolutely no way Brosnan could have done this script. Or, rather, he could; but it would have possibly bordered on the embarrassing.

#37 CharlieBind

CharlieBind

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 238 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 09:59 PM

Great review, Loomis.

I'm a bit disappointed that I didn't like the film more. It's certainly not the best Bond movie ever made, but it's not the worst, either. I think I'll need to watch the DVD a few times before making my mind up.

#38 Bon-san

Bon-san

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4124 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 16 November 2006 - 10:14 PM

I will first thing at midnight.

But tell me, how does me not having seen the film as of this writing invalidate points:

A) which tackles the physicality issue and the acting issue. (I cant imaging a 53 year old going mano-a-mano against Fourcan's character on the cranes. I just can't...not without groaning or rolling my eyes. Further, I've seen Daniel in Layer Cake and in Munich and i've seen Brosnan in whatever there is to see...and I can not imagine PB pulling off any kind of chemisty with a girl 30 years his junior..."as is", remember?);

:P which tackles the money issue. (Cubby said you have to put the money on the screen and studios don't have unlimited funds to throw away. They are in it for profit. TWINE had approximately 12.5 percent of it's production budget go to Pierce's salary and you see what we got in TWINE. Further TWINE was in the red for MGM at the end of it's theatrical run. CR has about 3 percent of it's prod budget allocated to Craig. How does me not seeing the movie invalidate my argument that an extra 9.5 percent of budget going into writing, stunts, cinematography and location make for CR being a better movie all things being equal?);

C) which tackles the quite appearent issue of there being no love lost between Brocolli and Brosnan. (I don't need to see the movie to speculate that the atmosphere on CR during pre-production and during filming was likely better with Craig on board than it would have been with Brosnan).

I'll see the movie within hours and upon digesting it over a second viewing several hours later, i'll come back here and we'll take up the debate then.

If i'm "wrong", i'll happily say so.


I don't have a whole lot of interest in this debate. But your statement in regards to 'the most ludicrous thing i've heard' seemed odd, in light of the fact that you hadn't yet apparently seen the film.

I have no personal stake in whether you are 'right' or 'wrong'. I'm not aware that's even really an issue, as we're dealing with opinions, not facts.

I hear Casino Royale is wonderful. Can't wait to see it. I was a tad disappointed with DAD on opening night, but it's grown on me quite a bit since. I've read all the Bond books (the Flemings at least thrice each). I don't care about box office, but I was really into it when I was a teenager.*


* My qualifications submitted, such as they are. :)

#39 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 16 November 2006 - 11:55 PM

Oh I forgot Loomis--was Daniel too ugly to be Bond as you once vociferously argued :P You didn't mention that in your review. :)


Come now, Seannery, you know as well as I do that I've long been a huge Craig supporter. Sure, he has an "uncoventional" look for Bond, and is in many ways an incredibly brave choice, and so on and so forth (I mean, stop me if you've heard this before :P ), and, yes, I may have made the odd quip about his appearance that at the time I imagine I flattered myself was original and witty, but, come on, I've never been opposed to Craig, let alone a "hater" - quite the reverse.

:) [censored]

Good to see you posting here again, by the way. [censored]

#40 freemo

freemo

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPip
  • 2995 posts
  • Location:Here

Posted 17 November 2006 - 01:00 AM

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 [...] behave in as bad*** and commanding a fashion as ever has been seen?

[...]

Also, Bond becomes increasingly sloppy (and soppy) as the story progresses. Shouldn't it be the other way round?


But isn't that the way it's suppsoed to be? I.e Bond starts off all tough and hard, tips into sentimentality when he falls for Vesper, then when the rug is pulled out from under him at the end, hardens up again, perhaps permanently. Life-affirming, rather than life-changing. (Final nail in the coffin, as opposed to say, Bond starting off completely different and slowly progressing as the film moves to become the character we know and love by the end).

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.

[...]

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.


But shouldn't one already be a seasoned pro when they get their "double-0"? Perhaps this isn't (and isn't meant to be) "Bond Begins" in the "starting from scratch ala Batman Begins" way, but rather as in "he's already 90-99% of the way there and this is just what tips him over the edge" (which is frankly more interesting to me than a straight out "origin story").

I write all this having not seen the film.

#41 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 01:15 AM

But shouldn't one already be a seasoned pro when they get their "double-0"? Perhaps this isn't (and isn't meant to be) "Bond Begins" in the "starting from scratch ala Batman Begins" way, but rather as in "he's already 90-99% of the way there and this is just what tips him over the edge" (which is frankly more interesting to me than a straight out "origin story").


Agreed. It's just that many "regular people"/"casual fans"/"civilians"/basically, people who don't follow Bond to anything like the degree that we do will presumably go into CASINO ROYALE expecting more of a BATMAN BEGINS-esque starter from scratch. Although you could, of course, say that that's their problem, and certainly not that of Sony/Eon as long as they've stumped up at the box office window beforehand.

Still.... it's just a little jarring as presented onscreen, although this is probably one of those occupational artistic/believability hazards of filmmaking. In Fleming's novel, Bond is clearly a pretty tough customer right from the opening sentence, but then again we don't have him leaping around atop cranes, demolishing building sites and making mincemeat out of platoons of embassy guards, or doing anything remotely similar at any point in the book, let alone five minutes (pages) in. Bond isn't just a seasoned pro at the start of the film - effectively a fully paid-up Double-O who just needs to go through a couple of formalities; he's perfect at what he does.

This is worth commenting on, I think, as the publicity around the film sells the origin story angle to a much greater extent than the novel does (obviously, the novel doesn't really make anything at all of it).

#42 Double-Oh-Zero

Double-Oh-Zero

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3167 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, Ontario (via Brantford)

Posted 17 November 2006 - 01:33 AM

Very, very interesting review, Loomis. I will be seeing the film during the Saturday night late showing, and hopefully I'll be able to contribute something a bit more substantial to this thread by then.

For now though, just one question, which you sort of already answered in the initial post: specifically, how were Giancarlo Giannini (sp?) as Mathis and Jeffrey Wright as Felix? I only ask his because I'm almost more excited to see them than Craig; I'm quite certain Craig will be bloody fantastic, but I'm really interested to see how these two fare as their respective characters.

#43 Loque

Loque

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 20 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 07:53 AM


But shouldn't one already be a seasoned pro when they get their "double-0"? Perhaps this isn't (and isn't meant to be) "Bond Begins" in the "starting from scratch ala Batman Begins" way, but rather as in "he's already 90-99% of the way there and this is just what tips him over the edge" (which is frankly more interesting to me than a straight out "origin story").


Agreed. It's just that many "regular people"/"casual fans"/"civilians"/basically, people who don't follow Bond to anything like the degree that we do will presumably go into CASINO ROYALE expecting more of a BATMAN BEGINS-esque starter from scratch. Although you could, of course, say that that's their problem, and certainly not that of Sony/Eon as long as they've stumped up at the box office window beforehand.


I thought the beginning worked well and was clear - Bond is a known MI6 operative but is not a double-0. To be awarded the Licence to Kill he has to carry out two assassinations on behalf of the British Government. By the end of the PTS, as is told in the trailer for those wary of spoilers, he has these kills and is 007.

I don't need to see him doing a spy training course on top of that.

#44 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 08:45 AM

For now though, just one question, which you sort of already answered in the initial post: specifically, how were Giancarlo Giannini (sp?) as Mathis and Jeffrey Wright as Felix? I only ask his because I'm almost more excited to see them than Craig; I'm quite certain Craig will be bloody fantastic, but I'm really interested to see how these two fare as their respective characters.


Both are good, but neither gets much screentime (actually, this is true of virtually everyone apart from Bond). Leiter is a slightly "showier" role (he's given some memorable dialogue that raised much laughter among the audience I saw the film with), but both characters seem possibilities for BOND 22 in larger roles.

#45 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 06:26 PM


Oh I forgot Loomis--was Daniel too ugly to be Bond as you once vociferously argued :P You didn't mention that in your review. :)


Come now, Seannery, you know as well as I do that I've long been a huge Craig supporter. Sure, he has an "uncoventional" look for Bond, and is in many ways an incredibly brave choice, and so on and so forth (I mean, stop me if you've heard this before :P ), and, yes, I may have made the odd quip about his appearance that at the time I imagine I flattered myself was original and witty, but, come on, I've never been opposed to Craig, let alone a "hater" - quite the reverse.

:) [censored]

Good to see you posting here again, by the way. [censored]





Thanks Loomis--just kidding. [censored]

#46 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 06:27 PM

I know. :P But still I couldn't resist rising to the bait. :)

#47 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 06:28 PM


For now though, just one question, which you sort of already answered in the initial post: specifically, how were Giancarlo Giannini (sp?) as Mathis and Jeffrey Wright as Felix? I only ask his because I'm almost more excited to see them than Craig; I'm quite certain Craig will be bloody fantastic, but I'm really interested to see how these two fare as their respective characters.

Both are good, but neither gets much screentime (actually, this is true of virtually everyone apart from Bond). Leiter is a slightly "showier" role (he's given some memorable dialogue that raised much laughter among the audience I saw the film with), but both characters seem possibilities for BOND 22 in larger roles.

I think Mathis is going to be crucial in CASINO ROYALE. There's more going on with him than it seems (the scene with him and Bond at the hospital seems to indicate to me there's a lot going on in that head of his). I wager we'll see a 24-like interrogation scene with him and Bond in BOND 2.2.

#48 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 17 November 2006 - 06:30 PM

I still think you went on like that about Craig to reverse jinx him into being picked as Bond. :P If that makes sense. :)

#49 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 17 November 2006 - 07:30 PM

Bond isn't just a seasoned pro at the start of the film - effectively a fully paid-up Double-O who just needs to go through a couple of formalities; he's perfect at what he does.


Where is he 'perfect'?! He's pretty bad- he makes dreadful decisions and most of the time only survives through sheer luck in this film! I honestly don't know what you mean. Yes, he can beat people up very well, but there's more to being a double-O than that: as Craig said, it about the decisions you make.

#50 Lazenby880

Lazenby880

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 18 November 2006 - 12:42 AM

Even the greatest OHMSS fan in the world might be forced at gunpoint to admit that the dubbing is dreadful.

Pfft. Speak for yourself, old chap. :)

Fascinating and articulate review Loomis, although I disagree with most of your criticisms and the 7 out of 10 (!) score. I'm just back from the pictures and hope to post areview tomorrow, however my exceedingly high ecpectations were not met: They were surpassed.

#51 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:14 PM


I will first thing at midnight.

But tell me, how does me not having seen the film as of this writing invalidate points:

A) which tackles the physicality issue and the acting issue. (I cant imaging a 53 year old going mano-a-mano against Fourcan's character on the cranes. I just can't...not without groaning or rolling my eyes. Further, I've seen Daniel in Layer Cake and in Munich and i've seen Brosnan in whatever there is to see...and I can not imagine PB pulling off any kind of chemisty with a girl 30 years his junior..."as is", remember?);

:) which tackles the money issue. (Cubby said you have to put the money on the screen and studios don't have unlimited funds to throw away. They are in it for profit. TWINE had approximately 12.5 percent of it's production budget go to Pierce's salary and you see what we got in TWINE. Further TWINE was in the red for MGM at the end of it's theatrical run. CR has about 3 percent of it's prod budget allocated to Craig. How does me not seeing the movie invalidate my argument that an extra 9.5 percent of budget going into writing, stunts, cinematography and location make for CR being a better movie all things being equal?);

C) which tackles the quite appearent issue of there being no love lost between Brocolli and Brosnan. (I don't need to see the movie to speculate that the atmosphere on CR during pre-production and during filming was likely better with Craig on board than it would have been with Brosnan).

I'll see the movie within hours and upon digesting it over a second viewing several hours later, i'll come back here and we'll take up the debate then.

If i'm "wrong", i'll happily say so.


I don't have a whole lot of interest in this debate. But your statement in regards to 'the most ludicrous thing i've heard' seemed odd, in light of the fact that you hadn't yet apparently seen the film.


Ok, having seen it twice, I can safely say that the idea that Brosnan could be inserted for Craig in the movie "as is" remains the most ludicrous thing any one can say in these forums.

Insert PB in the shower scene...I can't see it working. Only as a father figure, perhaps...not potential lover/partner figure. I'd feel sick watching PB suckling Vespers finger tips. Absolutely sick. The audience would never buy it "as is".

Further, with all due respect, I can not see BrosnanBond 'selling' the Madagascar chase sequence "as is"...unless it was circa GoldenEye/TND when PB was and looked younger.

In addition, IMO (*IMO*) BP does not have the acting chops to pull of the cardiac arrest scene in the Aston nor the end of the death of Vesper scene. Just IMO, to qualify.

Lastly, I do not think PB would be able to "pull of" the humour-oriented defiancy moments in the rope/chair sequence.

Suffice it to say he does not have the physique or youth to 'sell' me on any of the scenes where there is intense physicality involved or when the shirt comes off.

Just an opinion. Everyone has one.

#52 Mercator

Mercator

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 365 posts
  • Location:UK/Deutschland

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:32 PM

I agree with you Loomis. This was not a Bond film or good Bond film.

Why?

No Q
No Moneypenny
No gadgets
No girls in the titles
No big villain - Ian Fleming would disapprove of this story - where was it?
No locations - why not France?
No humour
No good ending - Bond should always end with the girl. Hopefully with the funny jokes
No sets - I was expecting a big battle in the Casino Royale. Wasn't it the baddie's HQ in the original?
No 007 Theme - only came at the end
No proper Bond song - you cannot have the American rock as Bond song. Bring back Shirley Bassey or Carly Simon. They would have done a good song.
Why no Blofeld or big plan? The last few Bond films suffer from this.
I think a lot of peoples have been fooled by Daniel Craig. He is good actor with good body but Bond is not Arnold Schwartzenegger. Daniel is too tough. Roger said that Bond is someone who does not like killing - Daniel does. Why do they have to have the girl die again. Are they trying to copy OHMMS (another not very good film - I am sorry to say).

I'm glad that you Loomis agrees with me and that I am not alone.

Edited by Mercator, 18 November 2006 - 03:51 PM.


#53 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:51 PM

God Please stop posting exactly the same thing in every single topic :), dosent your sig say "Educate yourself before you post more that just one opinion" :P

#54 Mercator

Mercator

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 365 posts
  • Location:UK/Deutschland

Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:52 PM

I am only posting what I can write. I am trying to change it.

#55 Roebuck

Roebuck

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1870 posts

Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:03 PM

This was not a Bond film or good Bond film.

Why?

No gadgets...

No big villain - Ian Fleming would disapprove of this story - where was it?...

No sets - I was expecting a big battle in the Casino Royale. Wasn't it the baddie's HQ in the original?


Transdermal implant, Aston Martin with concealed weapons drawer, high-tec field medical kit and a mobile phone with GPS tracker function.

And you feel you were short-changed on gadgets? :)
I think the latest Bond toys are maybe being overlooked because the writers have kept away from the more speculative technologies featured in recent films and (just like FRWL) used realistic spy equipment.

As for the story, it's largely there as Fleming wrote it, even if some of the details have changed. The big casino battle was something from the 67 movie version.

#56 HildebrandRarity

HildebrandRarity

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4361 posts

Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:13 PM

I agree with you Loomis. This was not a Bond film or good Bond film.

I'm glad that you Loomis agrees with me and that I am not alone.


Loomy and loony...lol

Loomis, old friend...do you have a rebuttle for this member?

He says you don't think Casino Royale is a Bond film or a good Bond film...Do you agree with his assessment?

#57 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 21 November 2006 - 03:12 PM

Loomis, old friend...do you have a rebuttle for this member?


My rebuttal is this: on seeing CASINO ROYALE for the second time, I've realised I underrated it the first. Yes, considerably. My initial review was accurate. Yes, dammit, I said "was". It isn't any more. CASINO ROYALE is pretty darn close to a masterpiece, and I'm giving it nine out of ten. Not ten, 'cause I'm difficult to please. And, at the end of the day, it isn't THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

:)

Sorry, Mercator, but I don't agree with you. My responses to your criticisms:

No Q


This is a good thing.

No Moneypenny


Doesn't matter. Although, if I'd been in charge, Villiers would have been Moneypenny.

No girls in the titles


Don't care.

No big villain - Ian Fleming would disapprove of this story - where was it?


In that case he'd disapprove of his own CASINO ROYALE novel, surely? Anyway, Mikkelsen is excellent.

No locations - why not France?


Why not the locations we have, which are splendid?

No humour


I'm sorry?

No good ending - Bond should always end with the girl. Hopefully with the funny jokes


Tell that to Fleming. There are at least three of his books I can think of off the top of my head in which Bond doesn't end with the girl.

No sets - I was expecting a big battle in the Casino Royale. Wasn't it the baddie's HQ in the original?


If by "the original" you mean the 1967 CASINO ROYALE film, I've no idea, since I've never seen it (all the way through, at least). If you mean Fleming's novel, then no.

No 007 Theme - only came at the end


But what a way to use it!

No proper Bond song - you cannot have the American rock as Bond song. Bring back Shirley Bassey or Carly Simon. They would have done a good song.


Cornell's is one of the best Bond songs ever. Incidentally, is McCartney's LIVE AND LET DIE a proper Bond song in your book? I mean, I know he's not American, but, still, it's pretty much in the same rock ballpark as Cornell's piece.

Why no Blofeld or big plan? The last few Bond films suffer from this.


I suggest you go back to NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, then, since I imagine it's the most recent Bond flick that will satisfy you.

Roger said that Bond is someone who does not like killing - Daniel does.


I don't see that there's anything in the film to suggest that.

Why do they have to have the girl die again. Are they trying to copy OHMMS (another not very good film - I am sorry to say).


You should stick with the Connery and Moore films. :P

#58 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 21 November 2006 - 04:18 PM

Loomis--a masterpiece? Not even close. There are about 15 better Bond films. :)

#59 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 21 November 2006 - 04:20 PM

Name them.

I'd have trouble citing more than a handful, let alone fifteen. DR. NO is possibly better than CR. Ditto FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. Ditto ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. That's about it as far as I'm concerned.

And Connery is perhaps a better Bond than Craig. Perhaps.

#60 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 21 November 2006 - 04:22 PM

Loomis--a masterpiece? Not even close. There are about 15 better Bond films. :)



Loomis is right. Casino Royale is a masterpiece. And already the jewel in Eon's crown.