13 replies to this topic

[RedTail332]

I admit I have some

[Mr. Du Pont]

[quote name='RedTail332' post='652703' date='20 November 2006 - 19:46']
Overall, if you

[dinovelvet]

[quote name='Mr. Du Pont' post='652709' date='20 November 2006 - 16:53']
[quote name='RedTail332' post='652703' date='20 November 2006 - 19:46']
Overall, if you

[bond 16.05.72]

[quote name='RedTail332' post='652703' date='21 November 2006 - 00:46']
I admit I have some

[Publius]

I had high expectations going into this film because of the reviews I had read. But after viewing it, I didn’t have that same sense of fun and exhilaration I usually have when I watch a good Bond film. Maybe this one was too dark, missing too many familiar elements, or was, interestingly enough, too realistic. One of the fun things about Bond movies is that they are escapist entertainment. To enter into a Bond movie meant being transported to an elegant but deadly world. However, much in this movie seemed very real (including the horrific torture and violence.) Nothing wrong with that in an espionage film I suppose, but it seemed more Jason Bourne than James Bond as several reviewers have accurately pointed out. No, I don’t want Bond movies to be as cartoonish as some of the worst ones have been, but I still want the “larger than life” element to be included.

Yes, this movie was relatively realistic. But it was still escapist spy fantasy. This guy runs on cranes, jumps on gas tankers, and plays cards to stop terrorists, while still finding time to cavort in exotic locales. Heck, this is as larger-than-life as it gets without becoming a cartoon.

And the humor? Better than anything I've ever seen come out of a Bond film. However, most of it is subtle, sarcastic, situational, and (no offense) witty, as opposed to the obvious puns of yesteryear, so it may not be everyone's cup of tea.

As for the Bourne comparison, please elaborate, because we get a lot of that with no explanation, and frankly a lot of people don't know what they're talking about (again, I'm speaking in general here, not a shot at you RedTail332). The Bourne films are very grainy and extremely realistic, and as I've just pointed out, Bond isn't, not even here.

And the torture and violence? Far from horrific. In fact, I prefer this to the way it's usually handled, because I find not showing the consequences of violence and glossing it over even more repulsive than being honest about it and not glorifying it.

I don’t know if this Bond had served in the military as had the Bond created by Ian Fleming, but as some have suggested, this Bond did seem a little too old to finally be getting his “00” status. In my own imagination, that status would have been attained by the time you’re in your early to mid thirties. I would have liked to have seen a little more information on this Bond’s professional history as an “operator”, as well as a little insight into the “00” selection process. This new Bond appeared to me to be a little too old of a agent to still be “unsophisticated” and still running roughshod during sensitive espionage operations. Maybe the new Bond was recruited directly from the SAS and that would explain his initial brutishness. I know that’s being “nitpicky”, but it’s was something I wonder about now as the critics praise the new “young” James Bond.

He's 38. No Bond has been in his thirties since 1967. The Double-Oh section consists of the cream of the crop, and yes, Bond has not only military service under his belt, but standard intelligence duties. That's why he's selected (well, that and his personal qualifications).

And since this film was about Bond becoming the man we know, and since the story that was told was the one that explains it, much more in the way of background would have been a waste of time.

The villain Le Chiffre was okay I suppose. The “tears of blood” thing was quirky and cool, but….well…. maybe we caught him too early in his criminal career before he could move into the truly Bond level of villainy. A Bond villain almost getting taken out by two Ugandan “freedom fighters” with machetes? It’s hard to imagine a past Bond nemesis allowing that, no matter how tough and skilled the assassins were. The assassins wouldn’t have even been able to get close….in past movies, only Bond could get close enough to the villain to do damage. And from the way Le Chiffre was killed, there were bigger players than him in the running the show….I guess he was still a “middle management” villain! And I suppose as a new "00", Bond wasn't ready to take on the "Big Dawgs" just yet.....

That's part of it. Another part of it is that the story is not about the villain, it's about Bond. Le Chiffre just happens to be a man desperate enough to give Bond some painful memories, but at the end of the day he's not a major piece in the puzzle, and certainly a relatively replaceable one. In fact, I'd wager to say that that's the whole point.

Also, the mysterious Mr. White is... well, let's just say he plays into a bigger picture, and that many of CR's apparent loose ends are there on purpose.

The Bond girls? Major disappointment. The first actress was sexy enough, but as pretty as she may have been, she wasn’t really breathtaking (yes, I have high standards for Bond women!). And Eva Green…well….she’s a pretty lady and came across as very intelligent and competent, but please send her some McDonald’s gift certificates for Christmas so she can gain some weight! She was frightfully thin. My own personal preference is for Bond girls to be curvy and voluptuous (Sylvia Trench, where are you?). I always felt that if you don’t have the physique to do the famous Ursula Andres “rising out of the water” scene from "Dr. No", you don’t need to be a Bond girl. Halle Berry pulled it off, but I doubt any actress in this movie could have, and thank God they didn’t try. Surely there are some actresses out there who are beautiful, intelligent, and actually have a body that actually would distract players at a $10 million dollar per person poker game! I prefer Bond women who are more “Alberto Vargas” than “Anorexic”. Hollywood, do us guys who like women with curves a favor….please keep the waifs OUT of the new Bond films!!!

Well, I find Ursula Andress and Halle Berry only moderately attractive, whereas I find Eva Green to be one of the most beautiful women in the world, and appropriately curvy at that, so there you go.

Or actually, here you go.

Overall, if you’re a fan of the Jason Bourne series or action movies in general as I am, you’ll like this film. However, if you are a fan of the Bond films as I am also, you may still enjoy the film but come away a little disappointed. However, now that the “prequel” is over, I believe Daniel Craig will be a fine Bond in future films as long as he is given good material to work with and gets that “old school cool” that Bond is know for. But as for “Casino Royale”, again, I say, Good film…but not a good BOND film.

Funny, I found that Casino Royale was the most Bondian movie since OHMSS in terms of action, adventure, imagery, beautiful women, plot, and acting. In Daniel Craig, I found the first Bond since the Connery of the 1960s to have that "old school" cool, that wholly justified "I own this place" confidence and swagger, to say nothing of that classic humor which he's so quickly mastered. Mix in the physicality of Lazenby and the intensity, darkness, danger, and humanity of Dalton, and you have a recipe for the perfect Bond. In short, this guy has hit the ground running in the finest debut ever, and quite possibly the best Bond film ever. But to each his own.

[Joyce Carrington]

Interesting... I think it might be a good Bond film but a mediocre film.

I'll have to see it again, though.

[Zorin Industries]

It is not Eva Green's job to be a role model for the canon of Bond girls and the representation of women the world over. Her weight is actually no-one's business and certainly not a reason to pick at CASINO ROYALE. Yes, the world is obsessed by unnaturally thin women. But we all know that. And criticising one French actress for physically making the most of her twenties is absurd.

Also, the film is not obsessed with catching the Jason Bourne crowds. It - like any Bond film - is about the cinematic times of the day. Cinema - in keeping with society the world over - is a darker place right now. It won't always be the case, but while it is I for one am more than happy this Bond reflects a more real world rather than a 1970's Pan-Am view of it.

[Broadsword]

Interesting... I think it might be a good Bond film but a mediocre film.

I'll have to see it again, though.

I m with you here. we have different standards for the series we love but EON need to get their act together if this is going to survive, although i see no sign of the light dimming just yet.

[Joyce Carrington]

Well, I just think I need to make a clear distinction for myself between viewing this film as part of the series and viewing it on its own.

Because it's a new take on the character, refreshing, cool, what I've always wanted to see in Bond, it's instantly great for me, as a Bond film.

But I'll need to check on the script, the story, as a thriller/action movie on its own, at my second viewing - because I'm afraid there's a lot that I feel could have been better.

[Zorin Industries]

Interesting... I think it might be a good Bond film but a mediocre film.

I'll have to see it again, though.

I m with you here. we have different standards for the series we love but EON need to get their act together if this is going to survive, although i see no sign of the light dimming just yet.

Eon have got their "act" together for CASINO ROYALE. Regardless of where folk stand on Daniel Craig, I cannot see how anyone who thinks they know cinema can hate CASINO ROYALE. It is one of the most adept examples of mainstream, global cinema in years.

[Joyce Carrington]

Eon have got their "act" together for CASINO ROYALE. Regardless of where folk stand on Daniel Craig, I cannot see how anyone who thinks they know cinema can hate CASINO ROYALE. It is one of the most adept examples of mainstream, global cinema in years.

Oh, absolutely.

[Broadsword]

Eon have got their "act" together for CASINO ROYALE. Regardless of where folk stand on Daniel Craig, I cannot see how anyone who thinks they know cinema can hate CASINO ROYALE. It is one of the most adept examples of mainstream, global cinema in years.

Oh, absolutely.

I love cinema. Not sure that i 'know' it like you. I felt it was a lukewarm attempt at a gritty spy thriller that was hampered by EONs lack of commitment. certain scenes do not work.

Ms apartment scene, the bleeding tear duct, the Mondeo advert, even the poison scene

They have to get their act together and decide what they want to make. Gritty thrillers such as the Bourne's, Ronin, Spy who came in from the cold etc. Or pop corn type blockbusters which repeat a set formula. This was too compromised to be the former and I am not keen on the latter which is why I didnt; like it too much.

With DC they have chosen a real actor for a 'real world'. They should make a film that suits this premise.

[Scottlee]

I must admit, I too am getting increasingly tired of references to Jason Bourne.

[Broadsword]

I must admit, I too am getting increasingly tired of references to Jason Bourne.

I agree.

The Bourne films certainly set the standard for Spy thrillers these days. EON should take note if only to stop us all talking about them