78 replies to this topic

[Seannery]

In the flush of a new Bond, I fear a lot critics and fanboys have ALMOST criminally overrated Casino Royale. I hear a lot of--best Bond film ever, best Bond actor hands down, not just a great Bond film but great film period, best Bond in decades, supremely touching, finally a real Bond, a Bond with true depth and so on. SORRY, I DON'T SEE IT.

Don't get me wrong it's not bad--i'd give Casino a 6 out of 10 which would unfortunately put the film in the bottom tier of my "Bond List". The film is wildly uneven with the BEST PART of the film clearly being Daniel Craig. BUT he is sabatoged often by the narrative and script.

The film is schizophrenic and works against itself--it aims to be a down and dirty realistic spy adventure while also trying to be a high octane popcorn action juggernaut. The film didn't mix these elements well.

Daniel Craig is strong as Bond and if the film played to his strengths of realism and humanity then Casino would have been much better. Instead we get too much elaborate stunts, action and fights that would have worked better with overly handsome fantasy figures of Sean, Roger and Pierce.

Daniel needs more "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold" and less stunts and Bond formula. Going with Daniel, the Producers didn't go far enough to change things up. The cars, babes, stunts, huge action are still way too prominent for such a "real" actor like Craig. I love the classic Bond but going to Craig you need to go real much more often than Casino did.

Also the much vaunted work by Haggis often falls flat. The first meeting between Bond and Vesper is weak with their dueling analysis--heavyhanded forced and flat. The connection between Daniel and Eva never takes flight. Eva disappointed me also. Diana Rigg as the other essential Bond woman was way superior. Even Sophie Marceau more recently was much more effective emotionally.

So the romance doesn't work well which deflates the emotional heft while the second half of the film bogs down at times with the card game and blah romance. The overall narrative lacks thrust--it only works in fits and starts. The main story lacks intensity and importance--and the romance fizzling doesn't help.

Craig along with some fitful tension and action perk it up but not enough. And for once I agree that a Bond film is too long--tighten it up a lot and some dullish stretches could have been avoided.

The problem is the realistic elements were done only sporadically well and the same goes for the action--and again they didn't mesh those elements well. The script/story is the biggest flaw.

The PTS was excellent and watching that I thought we may really have something good--and I loved the very last scene. BUT in between only so so material. The PTS had the realism and the dirty Gritty new Bond they should have continued with as long as they have Daniel Craig as Bond. The rest of the cast was okay to reasonable but nothing special. Hated the title sequence--one of the weakest. Disappointed with the Song especially being a fan of Chris Cornell. Good direction but not as sharp as Goldeneye for Martin.

So I give it a 6 out of 10--if Craig wasn't in it...my rating would be 4 out of 10. Craig may not be able to quite do classic Bond but as a new real Bond he could if the film had the courage of it's convictions. He was cool, tough, real and fully inhabited this new 007. Sorry I can't say the same for the film.

[Yellow Pinky]

To each his own I suppose. I disagree with virtually 100% of your opinions, but you cogently make your case.

I would recommend peppering it with the occasional "IMO" however, as that is indeed what it is and not the fact you present it as.

Cheers...

[Seannery]

To each his own I suppose. I disagree with virtually 100% of your opinions, but you cogently make your case.

I would recommend peppering it with the occasional "IMO" however, as that is indeed what it is and not the fact you present it as.

Cheers...

IMO I just assume that with everyone(it's all opinion)--I was just going in my authoritative critic's voice. Thanks for the compliment by the way. Casino Royale is just like any other Bond film now--in the hands of us all with our varying opinions.

[Yellow Pinky]

To each his own I suppose. I disagree with virtually 100% of your opinions, but you cogently make your case.

I would recommend peppering it with the occasional "IMO" however, as that is indeed what it is and not the fact you present it as.

Cheers...

IMO I just assume that with everyone(it's all opinion)--I was just going in my authoritative critic's voice. Thanks for the compliment by the way. Casino Royale is just like any other Bond film now--in the hands of us all with our varying opinions.

Indeed! And that is my favorite place for any Bond film to be, regardless of differing opinions!

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

The film is schizophrenic and works against itself--it aims to be a down and dirty realistic spy adventure while also trying to be a high octane popcorn action juggernaut. The film didn't mix these elements well.

Ahh, therein lies the paradox of all these formerly bloated, over-produced film franchises that are now aiming for realism (Batman, Bond).
They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Like many Bond villains of old, Le Chiffre is given a striking facial disfigurement, but there is a scene where the cliche is attemptedly disarmed by the character making reference to it and dismisively saying " it's nothing sinister."

So why bother including it in the first place?

In another scene, Craig tells Vesper that her secret name is Stephanie Broadchest and the name is reacted with disbelief. Again, strking a clear demarcation between this new Bond world and the one of the past, where Pussy Galores', Jenny Flexs', and Octopussys' all roamed freely amongst the crowded streets.
Apparently double-entendre names can't exist in this gritty real world, but facially contorted bad guys still do.

Like all re-sets, it selectively goes for realism when it suits their needs. Otherwise it's business as usual.

Hell, during the uber-realistic torture scene there is some camp looking girl strolling about in a leather catsuit.

Edited by Roger Moore's Bad Facelift, 20 November 2006 - 05:46 PM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Good review. I haven't seen it yet so I can't argue really but I'm not sure you wanted to have a good time? "get too much elaborate stunts, action and fights "? Is there a problem here? No CGI or banal characters just good old fashion action...As much as they wanna dress it up as an art piece it is an action film ya know.

[Loomis]

Give it at least one more viewing, Seannery. My initial rating was similar to yours - seven out of ten, although I get the feeling that I still liked it rather more than you did the first time I saw it. But you need to spend time with this one, sip it, not gulp it, so to speak, Sardi's, not McDonald's, and so on.

Having now seen CASINO ROYALE twice, my rating has crept up to eight or nine - as a film, that is, rather than as a Bond film, if you see what I mean. Artistically, it's almost certainly the best film Eon has ever made, but stacking it against the other 20 Bonds seems unfair since CR seems to have been made with such different intentions.

As ever, though, gripes remain. I still don't hold with the breaking into M's home bit - even if you accept, as I do not, that her residence would not necessarily be a pretty tall order to access (in which case it's a bit of a cheat that we don't see how Bond does it), M would surely immediately discipline if not fire for this offence a relatively untested and unknown new Double-O who's in her bad books anyway! What if he'd planned to kidnap or kill her? And M doesn't even reprimand him for breaking into her place until quite some way into the conversation - it's as though she's only just noticed what he's done! Still, given other moments in this film and others, it's possible that Dench's M is basically just a ****wit.

Also, why does this scene have to be at M's home in order to work? Why doesn't Bond just confront her in her office - he could break in there, and it'd seem more believable. Or, heck, why not just have a regular meeting with her there? Not every scene in the film has to showcase Bond's maverick ingenuity, surely? As it stands, though, it's a sticking-out-like-a-sore-thumb scene that tears even the most basic credibility to shreds, every bit as much as, say, the glacier surfing CGI rot in DAD, and it's a shame because most of the other things in CR are so superb.

Oh, yes, and during his final conversation with M, Bond mentions a "cell phone". A stern word to Mr Haggis (the presumed culprit, although others should have known better and cut it out of the script): no Briton talking to another Briton would ever use the term "cell phone" - it's "mobile phone" or "mobile". This is another of those "Sir Havelock"/"Dee-Em-Zee" moments.

[dee-bee-five]

In the flush of a new Bond, I fear a lot critics and fanboys have ALMOST criminally overrated Casino Royale. I hear a lot of--best Bond film ever, best Bond actor hands down, not just a great Bond film but great film period, best Bond in decades, supremely touching, finally a real Bond, a Bond with true depth and so on. SORRY, I DON'T SEE IT.

Don't get me wrong it's not bad--i'd give Casino a 6 out of 10 which would unfortunately put the film in the bottom tier of my "Bond List". The film is wildly uneven with the BEST PART of the film clearly being Daniel Craig. BUT he is sabatoged often by the narrative and script.

The film is schizophrenic and works against itself--it aims to be a down and dirty realistic spy adventure while also trying to be a high octane popcorn action juggernaut. The film didn't mix these elements well.

Daniel Craig is strong as Bond and if the film played to his strengths of realism and humanity then Casino would have been much better. Instead we get too much elaborate stunts, action and fights that would have worked better with overly handsome fantasy figures of Sean, Roger and Pierce.

Daniel needs more "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold" and less stunts and Bond formula. Going with Daniel, the Producers didn't go far enough to change things up. The cars, babes, stunts, huge action are still way too prominent for such a "real" actor like Craig. I love the classic Bond but going to Craig you need to go real much more often than Casino did.

Also the much vaunted work by Haggis often falls flat. The first meeting between Bond and Vesper is weak with their dueling analysis--heavyhanded forced and flat. The connection between Daniel and Eva never takes flight. Eva disappointed me also. Diana Rigg as the other essential Bond woman was way superior. Even Sophie Marceau more recently was much more effective emotionally.

So the romance doesn't work well which deflates the emotional heft while the second half of the film bogs down at times with the card game and blah romance. The overall narrative lacks thrust--it only works in fits and starts. The main story lacks intensity and importance--and the romance fizzling doesn't help.

Craig along with some fitful tension and action perk it up but not enough. And for once I agree that a Bond film is too long--tighten it up a lot and some dullish stretches could have been avoided.

The problem is the realistic elements were done only sporadically well and the same goes for the action--and again they didn't mesh those elements well. The script/story is the biggest flaw.

The PTS was excellent and watching that I thought we may really have something good--and I loved the very last scene. BUT in between only so so material. The PTS had the realism and the dirty Gritty new Bond they should have continued with as long as they have Daniel Craig as Bond. The rest of the cast was okay to reasonable but nothing special. Hated the title sequence--one of the weakest. Disappointed with the Song especially being a fan of Chris Cornell. Good direction but not as sharp as Goldeneye for Martin.

So I give it a 6 out of 10--if Craig wasn't in it...my rating would be 4 out of 10. Craig may not be able to quite do classic Bond but as a new real Bond he could if the film had the courage of it's convictions. He was cool, tough, real and fully inhabited this new 007. Sorry I can't say the same for the film.

First time I saw Casino Royale, I kept thinking "is this as good as I think it is, or am I just willing it to be?"

The second time, I knew. It is as good as I initially thought. The third time I saw it (within four days of seeing it), I knew that it was my favourite Bond film, surpassing even OHMSS - and I saw OHMSS in cinemas on its first release.

[Seannery]

I'll definitely see it again Loomis--though I doubt i'll jump it up from a 6 to a 9. I'm thinking Craig needs to do what didn't work for Dalton IMO--he may need his LTK. I do disagree with others who say the Vesper part really worked--when they met I thought that scenes played flat, poorly. I don't think Eva was good. And there where definite moments toward the end that dragged and lost my attention.

And Tarl i'm all for fun--I love the "fun" Bonds. But CR went for deeper and some of the traditional elaborate stunts and action distracted from that IMO. Some of it was fun but overall created a film that wasn't cohesive.

[dee-bee-five]

I'll definitely see it again Loomis--though I doubt i'll jump it up from a 6 to a 9. I'm thinking Craig needs to do what didn't work for Dalton IMO--he may need his LTK. I do disagree with others who say the Vesper part really worked--when they met I thought that scenes played flat, poorly. I don't think Eva was good. And there where definite moments toward the end that dragged and lost my attention.

And Tarl i'm all for fun--I love the "fun" Bonds. But CR went for deeper and some of the traditional elaborate stunts and action distracted from that IMO. Some of it was fun but overall created a film that wasn't cohesive.

Personally, I was riveted throughout. Eva Green IS Fleming's Vesper and, for my money, one of the most successful elements of Casino Royale is the relationship between Bond and Vesper.

But, of course, it's all subjective. I appreciate if one expected/wanted Die Another Day II, one would be disappointed. But if one wanted intelligent, grow-up film-making, Casino Royale is the epitome of that. As I wrote elsewhere, Casino Royale will separate the men from the boys amongst Bond fans.

[MattofSteel]

I will happily concede that the film had something of a split personality. But for me, I enjoyed that. The only part of the film that really felt out of place compared to the rest, for me, was the entire sequence at Miami International.

But that made up for it by being so damn cool.

Everything in Montenegro was spot on, tonally, I thought. Realistically, the best adaptation of any Fleming work we've seen. Just the right touch of modernism on top of a (welcome) classic feeling.

[dee-bee-five]

I will happily concede that the film had something of a split personality. But for me, I enjoyed that. The only part of the film that really felt out of place compared to the rest, for me, was the entire sequence at Miami International.

But that made up for it by being so damn cool.

Everything in Montenegro was spot on, tonally, I thought. Realistically, the best adaptation of any Fleming work we've seen. Just the right touch of modernism on top of a (welcome) classic feeling.

Absolutely. I enjoyed the earlier action sequences, but for me the most tense and brilliant parts of the movie were in the casino, after which, the romance between Bond and Vesper - pure Fleming brought to life by Craig and Green - was the icing on the cake.

[Seannery]

I'll definitely see it again Loomis--though I doubt i'll jump it up from a 6 to a 9. I'm thinking Craig needs to do what didn't work for Dalton IMO--he may need his LTK. I do disagree with others who say the Vesper part really worked--when they met I thought that scenes played flat, poorly. I don't think Eva was good. And there where definite moments toward the end that dragged and lost my attention.

And Tarl i'm all for fun--I love the "fun" Bonds. But CR went for deeper and some of the traditional elaborate stunts and action distracted from that IMO. Some of it was fun but overall created a film that wasn't cohesive.

Personally, I was riveted throughout. Eva Green IS Fleming's Vesper and, for my money, one of the most successful elements of Casino Royale is the relationship between Bond and Vesper.

But, of course, it's all subjective. I appreciate if one expected/wanted Die Another Day II, one would be disappointed. But if one wanted intelligent, grow-up film-making, Casino Royale is the epitome of that. As I wrote elsewhere, Casino Royale will separate the men from the boys amongst Bond fans.

Well I certainly wasn't expecting DAD2--in fact I said it was too much of the same old in certain spots to its detriment. IMO it was a mishmash of serious and popcorn and it didn't mix well.

I like serious AND fun Bonds--I just happen to think this one didn't work well enough. And I don't think anyone of us gets to decide what separates the "real" Bond fans from the phony(or men from boys).

[Kajiana]

I agree with your general analysis of the film when taken critically, Seannery. I did think the romance part was a bit played out and overlong. I wish they would've extended the torture scene instead, but that's just me.
Eva Green also left me cold in Kingdom of Heaven with Orlando Bloom; maybe she doesn't project enough empathy or something. Sophie Marceau - she's an expert at it. (Diana Rigg, although great as the love interest, would've been super in a Xenia Onatopp type role.)

Daniel Craig surprised me more with his brute force no-nonsense acting. I wasn't prepared to like him as much as I did. He's even better polished up, like in the last scene. I can't wait for the next two installments.

You're right about the title sequence, it was a bit cheesy, even if it was "sexually politically correct." As much as I also love Chris Cornell, the song itself could've been more catchy; maybe they should've just picked a song from an Audioslave CD, like "Set It Off."

For the most part, though, this was a great first 007 movie for Craig. I think it was the right amount of action and realism to gain a more widespread audience than previously sought after. People who would never watch a Bond flick came to see this one; I think it's garnered new fans for 007.

[Harmsway]

I couldn't disagree with you more on every point, Seannery. But I don't find that surprising - you and I rarely agree on anything.

The first meeting between Bond and Vesper is weak with their dueling analysis--heavyhanded forced and flat. The connection between Daniel and Eva never takes flight.

I thought that scene was the best in the film. Absolute classic Bond. And I thought the chemistry between Eva and Daniel was crackling.

Eva disappointed me also. Diana Rigg as the other essential Bond woman was way superior. Even Sophie Marceau more recently was much more effective emotionally.

To each their own. Eva Green's Vesper is my favorite Bond girl at this point, and I think she's flawlessly acted and much more affecting than even Diana Rigg. And since I hate Sophie Marceau's performance with an undying passion (she is, by far, the most grating Bond girl), you know where I stand on that one.

Hated the title sequence--one of the weakest.

I just can't understand that. For me, it's the best title sequence since YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. Absolute genius.

Having now seen CASINO ROYALE twice, my rating has crept up to eight or nine - as a film, that is, rather than as a Bond film, if you see what I mean. Artistically, it's almost certainly the best film Eon has ever made, but stacking it against the other 20 Bonds seems unfair since CR seems to have been made with such different intentions.

Loomis, you once asked me whether I thought CASINO ROYALE was superior to BATMAN BEGINS. Well, I do. BATMAN BEGINS was good - CASINO ROYALE was great.

As it stands, though, it's a sticking-out-like-a-sore-thumb scene that tears even the most basic credibility to shreds, every bit as much as, say, the glacier surfing CGI rot in DAD, and it's a shame because most of the other things in CR are so superb.

I'll agree that the moment in M's apartment is well, unnecessary. But I don't find it quite as sticking-out-like-a-sore-thumb as you do, or quite so incredible. And in the long run, it's certainly no worse than Connery's wave good-bye to the tape at the end of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

Oh, yes, and during his final conversation with M, Bond mentions a "cell phone". A stern word to Mr Haggis (the presumed culprit, although others should have known better and cut it out of the script): no Briton talking to another Briton would ever use the term "cell phone" - it's "mobile phone" or "mobile". This is another of those "Sir Havelock"/"Dee-Em-Zee" moments.

At least they bothered to correct something from the December draft - Bond and Vesper referred to "tuxedoes." Thankfully that was changed to "dinner jackets."

[dee-bee-five]

I'll definitely see it again Loomis--though I doubt i'll jump it up from a 6 to a 9. I'm thinking Craig needs to do what didn't work for Dalton IMO--he may need his LTK. I do disagree with others who say the Vesper part really worked--when they met I thought that scenes played flat, poorly. I don't think Eva was good. And there where definite moments toward the end that dragged and lost my attention.

And Tarl i'm all for fun--I love the "fun" Bonds. But CR went for deeper and some of the traditional elaborate stunts and action distracted from that IMO. Some of it was fun but overall created a film that wasn't cohesive.

Personally, I was riveted throughout. Eva Green IS Fleming's Vesper and, for my money, one of the most successful elements of Casino Royale is the relationship between Bond and Vesper.

But, of course, it's all subjective. I appreciate if one expected/wanted Die Another Day II, one would be disappointed. But if one wanted intelligent, grow-up film-making, Casino Royale is the epitome of that. As I wrote elsewhere, Casino Royale will separate the men from the boys amongst Bond fans.

Well I certainly wasn't expecting DAD2--in fact I said it was too much of the same old in certain spots to its detriment. IMO it was a mishmash of serious and popcorn and it didn't mix well.

I like serious AND fun Bonds--I just happen to think this one didn't work well enough. And I don't think anyone of us gets to decide what separates the "real" Bond fans from the phony(or men from boys).

You are, of course, choosing to misrepresent what I meant by "separating the men from the boys". And I did point out it was purely subjective; you are perfectly entitled to your opinion about the film - as I am to disagree with you.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I'll definitely see it again Loomis--though I doubt i'll jump it up from a 6 to a 9. I'm thinking Craig needs to do what didn't work for Dalton IMO--he may need his LTK. I do disagree with others who say the Vesper part really worked--when they met I thought that scenes played flat, poorly. I don't think Eva was good. And there where definite moments toward the end that dragged and lost my attention.

And Tarl i'm all for fun--I love the "fun" Bonds. But CR went for deeper and some of the traditional elaborate stunts and action distracted from that IMO. Some of it was fun but overall created a film that wasn't cohesive.

Yeah, they made two movies because they had to. Casino Royale is a short story and a faithful adaption would be an hr long. I will see it tonight and have my review up asap. Looking forward to it.

[Seannery]

I'll definitely see it again Loomis--though I doubt i'll jump it up from a 6 to a 9. I'm thinking Craig needs to do what didn't work for Dalton IMO--he may need his LTK. I do disagree with others who say the Vesper part really worked--when they met I thought that scenes played flat, poorly. I don't think Eva was good. And there where definite moments toward the end that dragged and lost my attention.

And Tarl i'm all for fun--I love the "fun" Bonds. But CR went for deeper and some of the traditional elaborate stunts and action distracted from that IMO. Some of it was fun but overall created a film that wasn't cohesive.

Personally, I was riveted throughout. Eva Green IS Fleming's Vesper and, for my money, one of the most successful elements of Casino Royale is the relationship between Bond and Vesper.

But, of course, it's all subjective. I appreciate if one expected/wanted Die Another Day II, one would be disappointed. But if one wanted intelligent, grow-up film-making, Casino Royale is the epitome of that. As I wrote elsewhere, Casino Royale will separate the men from the boys amongst Bond fans.

Well I certainly wasn't expecting DAD2--in fact I said it was too much of the same old in certain spots to its detriment. IMO it was a mishmash of serious and popcorn and it didn't mix well.

I like serious AND fun Bonds--I just happen to think this one didn't work well enough. And I don't think anyone of us gets to decide what separates the "real" Bond fans from the phony(or men from boys).

You are, of course, choosing to misrepresent what I meant by "separating the men from the boys". And I did point out it was purely subjective; you are perfectly entitled to your opinion about the film - as I am to disagree with you.

Sorry if I misread you. Yes, we just disagree--movies...a subjective experience.

[Seannery]

I couldn't disagree with you more on every point, Seannery. But I don't find that surprising - you and I rarely agree on anything.

The first meeting between Bond and Vesper is weak with their dueling analysis--heavyhanded forced and flat. The connection between Daniel and Eva never takes flight.

I thought that scene was the best in the film. Pure, classic Bond. And I thought the chemistry between Eva and Daniel was crackling.

Eva disappointed me also. Diana Rigg as the other essential Bond woman was way superior. Even Sophie Marceau more recently was much more effective emotionally.

To each their own. Eva Green's Vesper is my favorite Bond girl at this point, and I think she's flawlessly acted and much more affecting than even Diana Rigg. And since I hate Sophie Marceau's performance with an undying passion (she is, by far, the most grating Bond girl), you know where I stand on that one.

Hated the title sequence--one of the weakest.

I just can't understand that. For me, it's the best title sequence since YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. Absolute genius.

Harmsway--no it's not suprising we disagree. You do represent your points well as usual though I just can't go there with you. The Bond/Vesper scenes we REALLY disagree on--the acceptance of that scene goes a long way to deciding if one likes the film or not. More Haggis forced heaviness--not a fan of this IMO overrated writer. Genius title sequence--well that is shocking to me...to each their own. Wow and Eva too--we really see it differently.

[dee-bee-five]

I couldn't disagree with you more on every point, Seannery. But I don't find that surprising - you and I rarely agree on anything.

The first meeting between Bond and Vesper is weak with their dueling analysis--heavyhanded forced and flat. The connection between Daniel and Eva never takes flight.

I thought that scene was the best in the film. Pure, classic Bond. And I thought the chemistry between Eva and Daniel was crackling.

Eva disappointed me also. Diana Rigg as the other essential Bond woman was way superior. Even Sophie Marceau more recently was much more effective emotionally.

To each their own. Eva Green's Vesper is my favorite Bond girl at this point, and I think she's flawlessly acted and much more affecting than even Diana Rigg. And since I hate Sophie Marceau's performance with an undying passion (she is, by far, the most grating Bond girl), you know where I stand on that one.

Hated the title sequence--one of the weakest.

I just can't understand that. For me, it's the best title sequence since YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. Absolute genius.

Harmsway--no it's not suprising we disagree. You do represent your points well as usual though I just can't go there with you. The Bond/Vesper scenes we REALLY disagree on--the acceptance of that scene goes a long way to deciding if one likes the film or not. More Haggis forced heaviness--not a fan of this IMO overrated writer. Genius title sequence--well that is shocking to me...to each their own. Wow and Eva too--we really see it differently.

Have to say, I agree wholeheartedly with Harmsway on Eva Green/Vesper. Better than Rigg/Tracy in my book; and if you know how much I love OHMSS you'll know what it takes for me to write that. As for the retro titles, I absolutely love them - yes; a real work of genius.

[Lazenby880]

Have to say, I agree wholeheartedly with Harmsway on Eva Green/Vesper. Better than Rigg/Tracy in my book; and if you know how much I love OHMSS you'll know what it takes for me to write that. As for the retro titles, I absolutely love them - yes; a real work of genius.

I concur entirely

[dee-bee-five]

[quote name='Lazenby880' post='652448' date='20 November 2006 - 21:15']
[quote name='dee-bee-five' post='652433' date='20 November 2006 - 21:08']Have to say, I agree wholeheartedly with Harmsway on Eva Green/Vesper. Better than Rigg/Tracy in my book; and if you know how much I love OHMSS you'll know what it takes for me to write that. As for the retro titles, I absolutely love them - yes; a real work of genius.[/quote]
I concur entirely

[Loomis]

Loomis, you once asked me whether I thought CASINO ROYALE was superior to BATMAN BEGINS. Well, I do. BATMAN BEGINS was good - CASINO ROYALE was great.

I agree, although, as you know, I'm not a Batman fan (much as I enjoy BATMAN BEGINS).

However, I'd have been delighted had CASINO ROYALE merely ended up being vaguely in the same league quality-wise as BATMAN BEGINS or the Bournes. I'm surprised and ecstatic to report that I think CR has bettered those two franchises.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Loomis, you once asked me whether I thought CASINO ROYALE was superior to BATMAN BEGINS. Well, I do. BATMAN BEGINS was good - CASINO ROYALE was great.

I agree, although, as you know, I'm not a Batman fan (much as I enjoy BATMAN BEGINS).

However, I'd have been delighted had CASINO ROYALE merely ended up being vaguely in the same league quality-wise as BATMAN BEGINS or the Bournes. I'm surprised and ecstatic to report that I think CR has bettered those two franchises.

For reals Loomis? Better than Bourne Supremacy?

[MarcAngeDraco]

Seannery,

I disagree with so much of what you said, that I don't know where to start...

the BEST PART of the film clearly being Daniel Craig.

Okay, I found something I agree with!

Instead we get too much elaborate stunts, action and fights that would have worked better with overly handsome fantasy figures of Sean, Roger and Pierce.

I definitely can't see Roger or Pierce pulling off ANY of the action in this film. IMO, only Sean MIGHT have been able to pull off SOME of it (and only in his prime).

The first meeting between Bond and Vesper is weak with their dueling analysis--heavyhanded forced and flat. The connection between Daniel and Eva never takes flight. Eva disappointed me also. Diana Rigg as the other essential Bond woman was way superior. Even Sophie Marceau more recently was much more effective emotionally.

Perhaps I disagree here most strongly. I thoroughly enjoyed the scene on the train (one of the best in the entire film), and thought the chemistry between Bond and Vesper was excellent throughout the film. I was more emotionally affected by this film than ANY other Bond film, and probably more than all other Bond films combined.

But, as others have said, to each his own.

[Loomis]

Loomis, you once asked me whether I thought CASINO ROYALE was superior to BATMAN BEGINS. Well, I do. BATMAN BEGINS was good - CASINO ROYALE was great.

I agree, although, as you know, I'm not a Batman fan (much as I enjoy BATMAN BEGINS).

However, I'd have been delighted had CASINO ROYALE merely ended up being vaguely in the same league quality-wise as BATMAN BEGINS or the Bournes. I'm surprised and ecstatic to report that I think CR has bettered those two franchises.

For reals Loomis? Better than Bourne Supremacy?

Well, let me qualify that.

Better than SUPREMACY? Yes. Not that there's anything wrong with SUPREMACY, but CR is ultimately more audacious and involving, with characters who are rather more interesting. CR seems the greater achievement, given that just a few years ago the same team was giving us films like TWINE and DAD (if anything, SUPREMACY is a slight dip in quality after its own predecessor, although I'm aware that you differ from me in considering it a better film than IDENTITY). And it hits spots Bourne doesn't reach - Bourne is gritty and intelligent, and action-packed, and thrilling, and well-acted, and stylish and so on; CR is all those things, but it's also funny, and iconic, and has a romantic subplot that really grips you. While its flaws may be more numerous and larger than those of SUPREMACY, it also manages to reach higher, erm, heights. So, on balance, yes, I think it's better.

Better than IDENTITY? Probably. Maybe only slightly better, but still better. There's really not much distance between them, though. I love them all. I'm just happy that Bond is back on top once more, and playing as good a game as the best of "the competition".

[Publius]

*shrug*

Connery is overrated. Goldfinger, Spy, and GoldenEye are overrated. In retrospect, I may very agree that so is Casino. But it's nothing new.

[marktmurphy]

Casino Royale bests OHMSS; Green/Vesper bests Rigg/Tracy

No way- sorry but Rigg is still easily the best. She would have delivered those lines with so much more intelligence, sassiness while never losing her femininity. Eva's good, but Rigg would have been so much better if only she'd had lines like these.

[Lazenby880]

Were we separated at birth?

That depends. Is You Only Live Twice your favourite novel too?

No way- sorry but Rigg is still easily the best. She would have delivered those lines with so much more intelligence, sassiness while never losing her femininity. Eva's good, but Rigg would have been so much better if only she'd had lines like these.

Believe me Mark it takes a lot for me to say that. I positively love Diana Rigg and think her one of the best actresses this country has produced. Her performance as Tracy is excellent, intellectual and engaging, however I cannot help but feel that Eva Green is the most compelling girl of what might now be loosely described as the 'Bond series'. Green takes the lines and the character and delivers an absolutely beautiful performance: she is brutal yet endearing, smart and razor sharp, with an enigmatic distance ostensibly melted by Bond. Of course, the fact that the relationship is given time to breathe helps, however Green's is, frankly, an incredible performance (as is Rigg's, although Green is just a bit better).

I never in a thousand years thought that anything could take the place of On Her Majesty's Secret Service or indeed Diana Rigg. Casino Royale and Eva Green have.

[dr.doak]

Haven't read the replies, but wanted to chip in that I agree with a lot of the first post and the film being overrrated. In fact I almost completely agree with it. I am not a fan of Casino Royale, I hate the reboot element and I would have preferred another Brosnan. I don't have too much more to say, I just wanted to chip that in against all my friends who loved it and the positive reviews everywhere, because I believe time will bear out mine as a valid opinion as well.