78 replies to this topic

[dee-bee-five]

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.

No, You Only Live Twice isn't my favourite Fleming novel - but it's one of them; does that count?

As for OHMSS and Rigg/Tracy, I'm with you all the way. I, too, never thought anything could supplant OHMSS in my affections; or indeed, see someone replace Diana Rigg as best Bond girl (I suppose we still call them that?) It's not that I think Eva Green is the better actress (I've seen Diana Rigg onstage and, boy, can she deliver the goods). But I think Eva's is the better performance in CR than Diana's is as Tracy. But it could be that, for my money, Vesper is written more intelligently than Tracy.

Edited by dee-bee-five, 21 November 2006 - 07:48 AM.

[Broadsword]

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.

it will be interetsing to see how the reviews change over time especially come the DVD.

I also felt the schizophrenic nature undermined it somewhat. They just can't seem to imagine Bond as a real Human being and so have him doing extraordinary things in every scene. Either do a proper spy thriller or do another DAD but I felt the compromise that is CR is luke warm.

[Seannery]

Hmmmmmmm...I would love to love CR as much as some of you guys. I was hoping for it. But as I watched the film I was just mildly entertained and touched. Though I love Bond, objectively I can't rate CR as a very good movie. Decent, fair but except for a few scenes nothing knocked my socks off. Daniel was impressive but his vehicle was running on fumes. Hit the ejector seat!

[stamper]

Hmmm, anyone who have a soft spot for Sophie "gimmie a line coke pal !" Marceau is having delusions, to me that is ;-)

[Zorin Industries]

[/color]
[/quote]


Yes, Sophie Marceau should be in every BOND film. She was so good in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. Those scenes where she's torturing BOND and harping on about wealth like an Anna Scher reject were series gold. Please.... It takes a lot for a female co-star to make Denise Richards look good...

[zencat]

Even though I don't agree, still a well thought out and good review, Seannery.

[Dr. Noah]

In the flush of a new Bond, I fear a lot critics and fanboys have ALMOST criminally overrated Casino Royale.

Why do you "fear" people are calling it the best Bond movie?

I cannot believe the bizarre reactions that this film generates in fans, even now.

[Seannery]

In the flush of a new Bond, I fear a lot critics and fanboys have ALMOST criminally overrated Casino Royale.

Why do you "fear" people are calling it the best Bond movie?

I cannot believe the bizarre reactions that this film generates in fans, even now.

I don't truly "fear"..."I fear"--it means in this context "I believe". Just a different way of saying that.

With regards to Sophie Marceau it's debatable but she was widely hailed critically. If some don't like her then so be it.

Even though I don't agree, still a well thought out and good review, Seannery.

Thank you, John.

[Four-of-a-Kind]

i disagree with all of your opinions Seannery, i think that they did not overate "Casino Royale". I think its just the truth to how good it is. ive seen it 5 times since its came out and i beleive that they are not overrating it.

[Seannery]

i disagree with all of your opinions Seannery, i think that they did not overate "Casino Royale". I think its just the truth to how good it is. ive seen it 5 times since its came out and i beleive that they are not overrating it.

Well I respect that you loved it--our opinions just differ, that's all. I thought it was okay but it just didn't do it for me.

[spynovelfan]

Well I respect that you loved it--our opinions just differ, that's all. I thought it was okay but it just didn't do it for me.

Please tell us how MI:3 was better!

[Seannery]

Well I respect that you loved it--our opinions just differ, that's all. I thought it was okay but it just didn't do it for me.

Please tell us how MI:3 was better!

I will tell you this--I agree with you that Craig is easily the best part of the film ,as you said, that has it's flaws. I probably think it is more flawed than you. And the part that CR beats MI3 is Craig definitely beats Cruise.

[kneelbeforezod]

I will tell you this--I agree with you that Craig is easily the best part of the film ,as you said, that has it's flaws. I probably think it is more flawed than you. And the part that CR beats MI3 is Craig definitely beats Cruise.

It's funny but even the people who aren't keen on the film still really like Craig's performance. Mr Craig must be feeling so pleased with himself right about now.

[yolt13]

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.

And you tip your hand right there in your post. In your own words: "I hate the reboot element and I would have preferred another Brosnan". I have yet to read one negative review from professional critic or fan which did not echo this or similar sentiments in some way. Ultimately, those dissatisfied with this film are those whose perception of both character and series is too set in stone to allow for openness to the new actor or the new direction. Fans who grew up on Moore or Brosnan, casual Bond viewers who are befuddled and put off by the absence of Q and his gadgets and Miss Moneypenny, people who harbor the misguided notion that starting over is somehow disrespectful to the previous 20 entries, folks for whom James Bond is an unflappable superman with a tuxedo and a rocket-launching car and an endless supply of smart aleck quips rather than a multi-layered human character who is essentially a hired killer (as Fleming conceived him)...

This is not a case of me belittling others for having a different viewpoint. I have read dozens and dozens of reviews for this film, positive and negative, and the negatives ALL share that same undercurrent of resentment toward the notion of a grittier, less cartoonish Bond that emphasizes character as much as big stunts and flippant remarks. Every fan and critic who disliked this film admits within their review, whether openly or by inference, that this Bond doesn't work for them because it isn't the Bond they have grown comfortable with in the recent past. "He's too cold, he's too blond, he's not Pierce Brosnan, etc., etc." Your opinion is certainly valid, my friend, because it's how you feel. But before you go declaring the film "overrated", you'd do well to consider that everyone else's opinion is just as valid for the same reason. And it never hurt anyone to examine their own reasons for forming a specific opinion and considering whether perhaps, just perhaps, they are letting other factors impair their view of something new.

[Seannery]

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.

And you tip your hand right there in your post. In your own words: "I hate the reboot element and I would have preferred another Brosnan". I have yet to read one negative review from professional critic or fan which did not echo this or similar sentiments in some way. Ultimately, those dissatisfied with this film are those whose perception of both character and series is too set in stone to allow for openness to the new actor or the new direction. Fans who grew up on Moore or Brosnan, casual Bond viewers who are befuddled and put off by the absence of Q and his gadgets and Miss Moneypenny, people who harbor the misguided notion that starting over is somehow disrespectful to the previous 20 entries, folks for whom James Bond is an unflappable superman with a tuxedo and a rocket-launching car and an endless supply of smart aleck quips rather than a multi-layered human character who is essentially a hired killer (as Fleming conceived him)...

This is not a case of me belittling others for having a different viewpoint. I have read dozens and dozens of reviews for this film, positive and negative, and the negatives ALL share that same undercurrent of resentment toward the notion of a grittier, less cartoonish Bond that emphasizes character as much as big stunts and flippant remarks. Every fan and critic who disliked this film admits within their review, whether openly or by inference, that this Bond doesn't work for them because it isn't the Bond they have grown comfortable with in the recent past. "He's too cold, he's too blond, he's not Pierce Brosnan, etc., etc." Your opinion is certainly valid, my friend, because it's how you feel. But before you go declaring the film "overrated", you'd do well to consider that everyone else's opinion is just as valid for the same reason. And it never hurt anyone to examine their own reasons for forming a specific opinion and considering whether perhaps, just perhaps, they are letting other factors impair their view of something new.

Well that doesn't apply to me--i'm fine with the gritty move...in fact I said it didn't go far enough. Too much popcorn meshed unevenly with the serious elements--among some other quibbles. So definitely not "ALL" who say CR doesn't work have some psychological resentment and barrier to CR. They just think differently than you. It's all good. So lets not psychoanalyze away people's views on either side. As you say it's all opinion--whether one says CR is overrated or the best Bond ever.

[Cody]

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.

It's odd that they make small changes in language like that, when there's lines like "You've got a bloody cheek!" when M finds Bond in her apartment. That's just nonsense to an American audience, he has no blood on his face in that scene.

[stamper]

Soon you are going to debate wether a movie is bad because the lead says "lift" instead of "elevator" LOL

[yolt13]

As you say it's all opinion--whether one says CR is overrated or the best Bond ever.

The difference being when someone says "CR isn't that good" or is "the best Bond ever", they are expressing their own opinion about the film. When they say it is "overrated", they are moving beyond that into the realm of critiquing others' opinions. "Overrated" means the film isn't great, but it also means the people who say it is great are wrong. It's an ultra-fine line, but it's the difference between just expressing your own view and belittling (no matter how subtly or indirectly) that of others. And once that door has been opened, it's a small step to analyzing and hypothesizing why someone feels the way they do.

[spynovelfan]

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.

It's odd that they make small changes in language like that, when there's lines like "You've got a bloody cheek!" when M finds Bond in her apartment. That's just nonsense to an American audience, he has no blood on his face in that scene.

You seem to have missed the point. Bond is British.

[Cody]

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.

It's odd that they make small changes in language like that, when there's lines like "You've got a bloody cheek!" when M finds Bond in her apartment. That's just nonsense to an American audience, he has no blood on his face in that scene.

You seem to have missed the point. Bond is British.

I understand. I was saying it's strange that lines like "You've got a bloody cheek" are in there, yet "mobile phone" and "zed" get changed to "cell phone" and "zee" for some reason.

None of it matters much to me, I was just commenting on a side comment.

Edited by Cody, 23 November 2006 - 10:03 PM.

[spynovelfan]

Ah. With you now. Apologies.

[Loomis]

So Americans don't understand phrases like "bloody cheek" (or words like "revoked" )? I'll know not to say, next time I'm in the States, things like "That guy's got some cheek" - might be misconstrued, and earn me the kind of look I once received when I asked an American if he enjoyed eating baked beans out of the can.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

So Americans don't understand phrases like "bloody cheek" (or words like "revoked" )?

Sure don't. I cried the first time I saw the word 'revoked'.

And that time I saw the title "Risico"....Christ, they were talking me down from a skyscraper ledge...I was so confused, I just didn't know what to think anymore.

[License To Kill]

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.

Well argued, sir. But 100% wrong..

[ACE]

Seannery, would it have been better with Adrian Paul in the role?

[Seannery]

Seannery, would it have been better with Adrian Paul in the role?

No ACEY it would NOT--I praised Craig in CR but IMO the fault lies elsewhere as I stated above.

As you say it's all opinion--whether one says CR is overrated or the best Bond ever.

The difference being when someone says "CR isn't that good" or is "the best Bond ever", they are expressing their own opinion about the film. When they say it is "overrated", they are moving beyond that into the realm of critiquing others' opinions. "Overrated" means the film isn't great, but it also means the people who say it is great are wrong. It's an ultra-fine line, but it's the difference between just expressing your own view and belittling (no matter how subtly or indirectly) that of others. And once that door has been opened, it's a small step to analyzing and hypothesizing why someone feels the way they do.

Well I see your point but honestly almost everyone who loved CR has at the same time given an often strong critique of the views of those who didn't and vice versa--including yourself. And that's fine as long as we don't get nasty with one another and/or get dismissive. When I say CR is overrated, I explain the reasons I believe that but I don't label those who disagree with psychological blocks, bad taste or less intelligence. I'll engage in the points of the movie. Strong, lively debate is all good and if people want to say no you are wrong then fine(and then debate the points)--and this has been and will be done on this site and others with CR and all the other Bond movies, actors and books. It's the nature of the beast.

[ACE]

In the flush of a new Bond, I fear a lot critics and fanboys have ALMOST criminally overrated Casino Royale.

[Dr. Noah]

In the flush of a new Bond, I fear a lot critics and fanboys have ALMOST criminally overrated Casino Royale.

Yup.

All I can say is. if you didn't think CR had strong enough pacing, or character, or a convincing romance...

...You must not have liked a Bond film in the last 40 years...

[Bon-san]

In the flush of a new Bond, I fear a lot critics and fanboys have ALMOST criminally overrated Casino Royale.

Yup.

All I can say is. if you didn't think CR had strong enough pacing, or character, or a convincing romance...

...You must not have liked a Bond film in the last 40 years...

Ridiculous comment. It really escapes me why it is so important for everyone to love the new movie. It certainly hasn't been similarly important in regards to DAD these past few years.

The wringing of hands, and hurling of invective over someone else's opinions in regards to art is baffling.

Can we not allow respected members of our community the right to their opinions? Must we badger and bludgeon at every hint of dissent?

Let's revel in our communal interest in Bond, and celebrate said interest in all its many different forms.

[Dr. Noah]

Yup.

All I can say is. if you didn't think CR had strong enough pacing, or character, or a convincing romance...

...You must not have liked a Bond film in the last 40 years...

Ridiculous comment. It really escapes me why it is so important for everyone to love the new movie. It certainly hasn't been similarly important in regards to DAD these past few years.

The wringing of hands, and hurling of invective over someone else's opinions in regards to art is baffling.

Can we not allow respected members of our community the right to their opinions? Must we badger and bludgeon at every hint of dissent?

Let's revel in our communal interest in Bond, and celebrate said interest in all its many different forms.

Who isn't giving him a right to his opinion? I'm asking if he didn't like those things, what Bond movie in the last 40 years did it better? MY opinion is there weren't any. GoldenEye, TLD and TSWLM are probably the only ones even in the same ballpark in terms of the craft of the writing, because they're the only ones with actual character arcs and story progression. You're just complaining about MY opinion.