54 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

Little is explained in advance, and you don't really know who the bad guys are and what they're doing. (You'll agree that CR is not one of those spelling-everything-out-nicely-and-neatly James Bond films.... which makes a refreshing change.)

No actually, I disagree entirely. It is ALL spelled out. Every single scene has a reason for "being". Were we watching the same movie? I know I saw it twice in one day...but I got it on first viewing.

It's spelled out in the Uganda sequence at Obanno's camp where Mr White introduces Le Chiffre to Obanno, in the Le Chiffre-to-London-stockbroker-phone-call sequence, In Dimitrios's visit to Le Chiffre on his yatch, in Bond's seduction of Solange (last flight to Miami), in Bond's warning to headquarters by cell phone from MIA, in MI6's phone call to M in her bedroom, in M's frantic call to Bond during his pursuit of Carlos the bomber.

It's all spelt out. That is why this movie is 1/2 an hour longer than most movies.

Further there is a fair amout of screen time between the first action and the second action:
- M's dressing down of Bond in her appartment
- Bond finding his way to Nassau and going through the security room at the Ocean Club to track down "Ellipsis"
- The scene that sets up Bond's prowess at poker where he beats Dimitrios
- Bond's seduction of Solange in an effort to extract information (You don't see Bourne doing that, do you?)
- Bond tracking Dimitrios to Miami.

All the above takes place BETWEEN action one and action two. That's about HALF AN HOUR!!!. How is that like "Bourne Supremacy type wall-to-wall action?

Please explain?

We get to see how intelligent Bond is (tracking down the Ellipsis clue from Mollaka's backpack at the embassy in Madagascar to M's home in London all the way to the security room of the Ocean Club in the Bahamas) and how he uses women for information (the girl at the concierge desk and Solange).

In summary, we get to see at least a couple of Bond's character traits as well as his talent at cards and at seduction and at investigation BEFORE action scene number 2.

I really think you viewed a different version of Casino Royale than I. To say it went from one action sequence to the next is a statement that borders on the, well, the humorous.

Well, it moved too fast for me, chief, but I'm planning on seeing the film again tomorrow, so rest assured that I like it and am not on a crusade to knock it.

Incidentally, have you seen the Bournes? What did you think of them? Just out of interest.

LOL. No problem, my dear old friend.

Bond movies always moved fast to cover up gafs (pre video and dvd days).

Now they move fast because of the 12 to 24 year olds out there who grew/grow up on Nintendo/XBox/Gamecube/Wii/PS3.

What do I think of Bournes? I like them. They are terrific entertainment popcorn flicks that move fast. But as a character, I prefer the style (both clothing and attitude wise) and womanizing and gambling and adventure of the Bonds. I grew up on Connery and Moore in the 70s and I get a sense of world wide panic and globe-trotting adventure (even still > TND, DAD) that you don't get from Bourne.

I state in my previous post what I think of the main differences and what I prefer. Some may put the preference down to a sense of nostalgia and a direct link to one's fond childhood...but I think it's more than that.

You can only go by recent history and for my money, I'd take the pure spectacle of DAD and the sheer multi-dimentionality and audacity of CR over the BI and the BS duo any day. Hands down.

Further, there is something about the blood washing over the gunbarrel, the title songs / main titles and the James Bond Theme that is unparralled for me when it comes to movies and you only get that in 007 movies and that is worth more to me than just plain action.

In fact, I pay just to see the titles and to hear the song because I enjoy graphic art and I enjoy various genre's of music. To me the work of Binder/Brownjohn/Klienmann adds so much to a James Bond movie going experience that you are left completely absorbed in the "experience". Bourne does not do that for me. It's the intangibles that do it.

Notice the influence of 007 on a hobby of mine: An acrylics on canvas of CraigBond...

Attached Files

•  RoyaleBond.jpg   46.03KB   37 downloads

Edited by HildebrandRarity, 19 November 2006 - 07:14 PM.

[Publius]

I'm not talking up Bourne at the expense of Bond. Possible to enjoy both, no?

Definitely. And I think CR "took" (I believe some of it belonged to Bond in the first place) all the right elements from Bourne and none of the wrong ones. Specifically, most of the grittiness and realism, but never at the expense of that sense of epic adventure we've come to expect from Bond.

Still, over the course of this past year, the haters have conditioned me to reflexively presume that dropping a Bourne comparison is an insult, unless proven otherwise.

[Loomis]

What do I think of Bournes? I like them. They are terrific entertainment popcorn flicks that move fast. But as a character, I prefer the style (both clothing and attitude wise) and womanizing and gambling and adventure of the Bonds. I grew up on Connery and Moore in the 70s and I get a sense of world wide panic and globe-trotting adventure (even still > TND, DAD) that you don't get from Bourne.

I state in my previous post what I think of the main differences and what I prefer. Some may put the preference down to a sense of nostalgia and a direct link to one's fond childhood...but I think it's more than that.

You can only go by recent history and for my money, I'd take the pure spectacle of DAD and the sheer multi-dimentionality and audacity of CR over the BI and the BS duo any day. Hands down.

Further, there is something about the blood washing over the gunbarrel, the title songs / main titles and the James Bond Theme that is unparralled for me when it comes to movies and you only get that in 007 movies and that is worth more to me than just plain action.

In fact, I pay just to see the titles and to hear the song because I enjoy graphic art and I enjoy various genre's of music. To me the work of Binder/Brownjohn/Klienmann adds so much to a James Bond movie going experience that you are left completely absorbed in the "experience". Bourne does not do that for me. It's the intangibles that do it.

That's what's so great about Bond, there's so much to it.

Notice the influence of 007 on a hobby of mine: An acrylics on canvas of CraigBond...

That's bloody good, old man.

[Simon]

[quote name='Blofeld's Cat' post='650870' date='19 November 2006 - 05:44']
[quote name='zencat' post='650738' date='19 November 2006 - 14:21']

David Arnold's score:
Didn

[zencat]

Just back from my second viewing and my opinion of this movie is even higher. My cons are now just quibbles and my quibbles are now nitpicks hardly worth mentioning. As predicted, CR is now a solid 9 and will probably grow into a 10 by DVD time (when, in the privacy of my own home, I can finally cry my eyes out for Vesper). This really is one of the greatest Bond films...ever.

[deth]

I gotta disagree with zencat about the music... I know Arnold said it was a re-invention.... but you had to know that was just talk. When have we ever seen a film composer TOTALLY change his style? Even Barry didn't do that on the non Bond projects. I feel that Arnold changed enough (yeah, maybe not the action sequences) to make a difference: see "dirty martini" for instance... or the PTS music. Also the Solange stuff, while over-used, is purely a Barry influence... surely that must be obvious from her main theme that played while she rode the horse...

and Simon... I'm pretty sure Arnold DID actually say "New Bond, new sound"

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Fantastic review, Zen. Just 15 days to the Argentinean Premiere !!!

[Seannery]

[quote name='zencat' post='650738' date='19 November 2006 - 04:21']
My review up on my website:

http://web.mac.com/z...5182BD90EE.html

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

This movie shook me up (no, I

[David_M]

Re: Product placement

If the Sony stuff bugged you, how'd you feel about the watch?

"Rolex?"
"Omega"
"It's beautiful."

Or some such. I half expected Craig to turn to the camera with the watch held up next to his face and give a big toothy smile ("Available at finer stores near you.")

Re: the Bond/Vesper relationship

It really worked for me as well. I for one am tired to death of all these "equal of Bond" superwomen we've been getting. They're silly caricatures who take away from Bond's uniqueness and frankly Fleming's Bond would have steered well clear of them as pants-wearing militant females with a bad case of penis envy.

Vesper on the other hand is a mere human being and as such our point of identification in the film. She's an accountant, not a superspy, and all the violence going on around her wigs her out, as it would any of us if we were seeing it in real life and not a movie. It's through her that we learn a little about who Bond is and where he comes from, and when she breaks down in the shower it's she who drives home to us what we've been watching...a series of violent and ugly deaths. This for me helps raise CR above the normal Bond film with its casual attitude to death and killing...that approach may be fun but it hardly sticks to your ribs.

I think Vesper does the same thing for Bond that she does for us. She shows him what he looks like through someone else's eyes, and suggests that maybe he doesn't have to live the life he's chosen. Is she his equal, even mentally? Probably not, so if you're judging the relationship on that level it may fall short for you. But she is human and vulnerable and all the things Bond feels he's stopped being somewhere down the line, so he loves her. She's "a bird with a wing down," so he falls hard. "Like all hard men," Fleming wrote, "Bond was easily tipped over into sentiment."

It works for me.

[zencat]

Re: Product placement

If the Sony stuff bugged you, how'd you feel about the watch?

"Rolex?"
"Omega"
"It's beautiful."

Somehow that didn't bug me because it wasn't a visual. It somehow made it less intrusive. Weird. (BTW, I think Craig’s Bond should wear a Rolex.)

...I for one am tired to death of all these "equal of Bond" superwomen we've been getting. They're silly caricatures...

Couldn't agree more! Vesper is strongest Bond Girl we've had in many a moon, and she doesn't shoot anyone, she doesn't karate kick anyone, she doesn't run around in a skin tight jumpsuit. All she is is real.

[Seannery]

David M--great call on the watch. That had to be one of the worst product placements ever. A less subtle one than Pierce had with his watch in Goldeneye. Unfortunately it's seems inescapable for the modern Bonds.

[Four Aces]

Nice review John. Thanks for posting.

4A

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Zen, it's true that you cried when Vesper dies ????

Mmmm ... and you said "an horrible death" ?. Well, getting drowned it's not that horrible, I think.

[Seannery]

Zen let me ask you:


Can you expound a bit further as a Bond fan, movie fan and screenwriter on what worked for you on CR(and the elements that used to create them)?


It'll give me something to look at ,from someone I usually agree with on Bond issues(like how we are both members of the defenders of DAD!),when I see the film a second time.

And i'll just add something I remember you said--when you got won over to the more serious Bond route...you said the producers really needed go hardcore in this direction. Seeing CR I agree and think they didn't shake it up enough for this new direction. Half popcorn formula, half down and dirty--unevenly mixed. You mentioned you didn't like the PTS--I think because it was too short. Too short yes BUT I thought it was all down and dirty without the popcorn--that is what I wanted to see. Obviously we disagree. Next time I want to see Craig's LTK--I think he could make it work much better than Tim.

Anyway if you can describe the guts and mechanics of what really worked for you, i'd appreciate it.

[spynovelfan]

And i'll just add something I remember you said--when you got won over to the more serious Bond route...you said the producers really needed go hardcore in this direction. Seeing CR I agree and think they didn't shake it up enough for this new direction.

Sorry to butt in, Seannery. And stalk you. But I honestly think nothing would have gelled for you with this film - you've been sceptical all the way (and, sorry to say, were rooting for Adrian Paul as Bond!). No film is ever perfect, so whatever the flaws were with this, they'd have stuck out for you. I know it's more fun to be the voice of reason, the one saying that it's not quite as good as all that, chaps. It's not fun to be part of a flock. But in this case, the flock is right. Yep, there were loads of flaws in CR - all minor. There always will be with films, though. There were tons and tons of flaws in MI3, which seriously messed up the mix of the popcorn and the hardcore. And you know there were tons of flaws in that film, but you could put them to one side and say 'Sure, but I loved it. They were minor flaws.' Obviously, we all have our own tastes and we can't dictate to others. But I think that's partly it - you don't want to feel like your taste is being dictated, and you have a natural tendency to flow away from the party line. Hence you often balance opinions with a BUT in the middle.

Pop psychology over. But I'm not trying to say your opinion is *wrong*. Far from it. It's dead wrong. No, I mean your opinion is yours and yours alone. But let me ask you: have you really given CR the same chance as you have other films?

I'll leave you alone now!

[Johnboy007]

Zen, it's true that you cried when Vesper dies ????

Mmmm ... and you said "an horrible death" ?. Well, getting drowned it's not that horrible, I think.

I think it's one of the more terrifying ways to die. Not speaking from experience (obviously), it has to be terrifying knowing that you'll be dead in a matter of minutes and there isn't anything you can do about it. A bit like someone strangling or stabbing you to death, you know it's coming.

Now, that was morbid.

[Seannery]

And i'll just add something I remember you said--when you got won over to the more serious Bond route...you said the producers really needed go hardcore in this direction. Seeing CR I agree and think they didn't shake it up enough for this new direction.

Sorry to butt in, Seannery. And stalk you. But I honestly think nothing would have gelled for you with this film - you've been sceptical all the way (and, sorry to say, were rooting for Adrian Paul as Bond!). No film is ever perfect, so whatever the flaws were with this, they'd have stuck out for you. I know it's more fun to be the voice of reason, the one saying that it's not quite as good as all that, chaps. It's not fun to be part of a flock. But in this case, the flock is right. Yep, there were loads of flaws in CR - all minor. There always will be with films, though. There were tons and tons of flaws in MI3, which seriously messed up the mix of the popcorn and the hardcore. And you know there were tons of flaws in that film, but you could put them to one side and say 'Sure, but I loved it. They were minor flaws.' Obviously, we all have our own tastes and we can't dictate to others. But I think that's partly it - you don't want to feel like your taste is being dictated, and you have a natural tendency to flow away from the party line. Hence you often balance opinions with a BUT in the middle.

Pop psychology over. But I'm not trying to say your opinion is *wrong*. Far from it. It's dead wrong. No, I mean your opinion is yours and yours alone. But let me ask you: have you really given CR the same chance as you have other films?

I'll leave you alone now!

Spy I did answer you in the Loomis thread but my computer crapped out and I lost the post! That po'd me--I took a lot of time with that. You need more psychology training! I don't need to disagree but if I do I will say so. CR honestly didn't work for me...I wasn't skeptical going in--I was neutral(which you remember irritated you). And you seem determined to hang MI3 over me but it worked while CR didn't. There is a difference between popcorn and an attempt at more serious. And I supported a lot of actors for Bond--about a dozen including AP. And I liked Craig in CR--he convinced me but not the film.

And yes I gave CR the same chance as all others--there can be an intellectually honest view that differs from you, you know.

Go back to Loomis thread as I will try to redo my more detailed response over there if I have the time.

[spynovelfan]

And yes I gave CR the same chance as all others--there can be an intellectually honest view that differs from you, you know.

Surely you jest! To quote Don Henley, 'I could be wrong... but I'm not'. The motto of the interweb, perhaps.

You make some fair points, sirrah, so I shall leave you in peace and hand over to Zencat, who will explain to you better than I ever can why you are fundamentally mistaken in your hilarious belief that MI:3 was somehow a better film than CASINO ROYALE.

[zencat]

Zen let me ask you:


Can you expound a bit further as a Bond fan, movie fan and screenwriter on what worked for you on CR(and the elements that used to create them)?


It'll give me something to look at ,from someone I usually agree with on Bond issues(like how we are both members of the defenders of DAD!),when I see the film a second time.

And i'll just add something I remember you said--when you got won over to the more serious Bond route...you said the producers really needed go hardcore in this direction. Seeing CR I agree and think they didn't shake it up enough for this new direction. Half popcorn formula, half down and dirty--unevenly mixed. You mentioned you didn't like the PTS--I think because it was too short. Too short yes BUT I thought it was all down and dirty without the popcorn--that is what I wanted to see. Obviously we disagree. Next time I want to see Craig's LTK--I think he could make it work much better than Tim.

Anyway if you can describe the guts and mechanics of what really worked for you, i'd appreciate it.

I think I need more time to digest the film to figure out the mechanics of why it worked so well for me (aside from what I wrote in my review). It's so overwhelming at the moment. And sometimes when I really love something, I can't tell you exactly why. I just do. It hits the heart and not the head.

As to the "hardcore" direction I said they should go in... I said that because I feared they couldn't strike a balance. They've tried all through the Brosnan era and failed, so I thought they should commit themselves to new style totally. But they went for the James Bond balance and nailed it! And then they brought in a completely new emotional element that elevates the movie to place I didn't think Bond movies could go. I was just telling someone last night, seeing this movie is what it must have been like to see Dr. No in '62. I don't know what the hell it is, but I know I love it. It's this new thing called a "James Bond movie" which is fantasy and reality at same time. It's authentic. It drips with the Fleming vibe. Really, if CR was the first James Bond film ever made, it would make me a Bond fan.

[Loomis]

The amazing achievement of CR is that it blends all the best bits of Fleming with all the best bits of the Eon tradition (this may be a new era, but by no means does it trash the past) and manages to be a bloody good film that feels both "classic" and fresh.

It really is a staggering accomplishment, and I'm glad to see that many "serious" critics are rightly recognising it as one of the very best films of the year.

Still, whoever let through that awful reference to a "cell phone" in Bond's final exchange with M wants shooting.

[Seannery]

Zen let me ask you:


Can you expound a bit further as a Bond fan, movie fan and screenwriter on what worked for you on CR(and the elements that used to create them)?


It'll give me something to look at ,from someone I usually agree with on Bond issues(like how we are both members of the defenders of DAD!),when I see the film a second time.

And i'll just add something I remember you said--when you got won over to the more serious Bond route...you said the producers really needed go hardcore in this direction. Seeing CR I agree and think they didn't shake it up enough for this new direction. Half popcorn formula, half down and dirty--unevenly mixed. You mentioned you didn't like the PTS--I think because it was too short. Too short yes BUT I thought it was all down and dirty without the popcorn--that is what I wanted to see. Obviously we disagree. Next time I want to see Craig's LTK--I think he could make it work much better than Tim.

Anyway if you can describe the guts and mechanics of what really worked for you, i'd appreciate it.

I think I need more time to digest the film to figure out the mechanics of why it worked so well for me (aside from what I wrote in my review). It's so overwhelming at the moment. And sometimes when I really love something, I can't tell you exactly why. I just do. It hits the heart and not the head.

As to the "hardcore" direction I said they should go in... I said that because I feared they couldn't strike a balance. They've tried all through the Brosnan era and failed, so I thought they should commit themselves to new style totally. But they went for the James Bond balance and nailed it! And then they brought in a completely new emotional element that elevates the movie to place I didn't think Bond movies could go. I was just telling someone last night, seeing this movie is what it must have been like to see Dr. No in '62. I don't know what the hell it is, but I know I love it. It's this new thing called a "James Bond movie" which is fantasy and reality at same time. It's authentic. It drips with the Fleming vibe. Really, if CR was the first James Bond film ever made, it would make me a Bond fan.

Thanks Zencat--yeah your heart was pierced(not Brosnan!)by the Vesper romance. For me it wasn't done well. So I wasn't engaged on the emotional level. For example the instant analysis of each other--seen it often elsewhere and it was forced IMO. As a screenwriter why did you like that whole scene? Just curious--I won't badger you over every point but we differ so much there i'd like your take on it.

And yes I gave CR the same chance as all others--there can be an intellectually honest view that differs from you, you know.

Surely you jest! To quote Don Henley, 'I could be wrong... but I'm not'. The motto of the interweb, perhaps.

You make some fair points, sirrah, so I shall leave you in peace and hand over to Zencat, who will explain to you better than I ever can why you are fundamentally mistaken in your hilarious belief that MI:3 was somehow a better film than CASINO ROYALE.

Ah SPY, I don't mind if you hilariously overrate CR.

[zencat]

Thanks Zencat--yeah your heart was pierced(not Brosnan!)by the Vesper romance. For me it wasn't done well. So I wasn't engaged on the emotional level. For example the instant analysis of each other--seen it often elsewhere and it was forced IMO. As a screenwriter why did you like that whole scene? Just curious--I won't badger you over every point but we differ so much there i'd like your take on it.

I didn't really love that scene. I did think it was forced and overwritten. Also, they used it as the screen-test, so it was maybe over rehearsed. The scene that I thought did the same thing only better was them in the car afterwards. That scene felt just as combative, but natural and funny. It also had the perfect ending. BOND: You're not my type. VESPER: Smart? BOND: Single. That got a big laugh both times I saw the movie.

[Loomis]

I didn't really love that scene. I did think it was forced and overwritten. Also, they used it as the screen-test, so it was maybe over rehearsed. The scene that I thought did the same thing only better was them in the car afterwards. That scene felt just as combative, but natural and funny. It also had the perfect ending. BOND: You're not my type. VESPER: Smart? BOND: Single. That got a big laugh both times I saw the movie.

I see what you're saying, but I do really love that scene (it's one of the best in the entire history of the series, IMO), and I think it's where the film really "starts". In fact, it belongs right after the opening credits, with a dissolve to the cobra/mongoose fight as Craig starts shaking his head and smiling to himself and a caption reading "TWO WEEKS EARLIER" (or whatever).

[Seannery]

Thanks Zencat--yeah your heart was pierced(not Brosnan!)by the Vesper romance. For me it wasn't done well. So I wasn't engaged on the emotional level. For example the instant analysis of each other--seen it often elsewhere and it was forced IMO. As a screenwriter why did you like that whole scene? Just curious--I won't badger you over every point but we differ so much there i'd like your take on it.

I didn't really love that scene. I did think it was forced and overwritten. Also, they used it as the screen-test, so it was maybe over rehearsed. The scene that I thought did the same thing only better was them in the car afterwards. That scene felt just as combative, but natural and funny. It also had the perfect ending. BOND: You're not my type. VESPER: Smart? BOND: Single. That got a big laugh both times I saw the movie.

I'll check out that second scene closely next time, Zencat. Yeah that first scene repelled me from the romance because it rang false. I'll see how it goes on a second viewing. And yes I did like the "single" quip.

[Dr. Noah]

The train scene worked for me because it's NOT a typical Bond pick-up scene. It's a conflict between two people who don't want to like each other, and it's supposed to feel forced. Neither wants to be dealing with the other.

She's a bureaucrat and he's a guy risking $15 million of the government's money. Both think the other is risking/hindering their job. They aren't trying to impress with their analysis of each other as much as trying to piss each other off.

The key line is Vesper's, concerning the government directly financing terrorism. It's a terrific line that grounds the film and gives the poker game a lot more weight. It