3 replies to this topic

[jake speed]

I agree with people who have said it is difficult to place Casino Royale in a favourite Bond film list because it is different from what we have come to expect from a 'James Bond' film. Do I like the change? Overall I'm lukewarm to the final result.

What I Liked

It had a better flow to it than recent 'cut and paste' Bonds.

Campbell clearly pulled out all the stops and delivered a film that looks way better than GoldenEye.

Jeffrey Wright. This actor should have been given more to do.

Yes, they cut the double-entrendres.

David Arnold was relatively restrained. For him

Free running sequence.

There were a few touching moments I'll admit. In the shower for example.

What I Disliked

Eva and Mads just didn't cut it for me. They weren't bad but I just expected them to be more memorable. It is absurd to compare Green with Diana Rigg.

Action sequences felt gratuitous and fell flat. Especially the Airport sequence. Free running was fun but the crane stuff bordered on the ridiculous. Bond shooting the air-vent/steam-pipes and avoiding a million bullets in the Embassy is the sort of stuff they were suppposed to be eschewing for a 'gritty' approach.

'No gadgets' they said. Bond seems to have a Sony mobile-phone superglued to his hand for half the film. He uses it the way Dr Who uses the sonic screwdriver to solve everything. If Bond had made a piece of toast with it I wouldn't have been suprised.

The reboot or re-imagining or whatever they call it. Didn't amount to an awful lot besides a vodka-martini joke and the PTS. Michael G Wilson waited twenty years to do this? I really warmed to the idea of a young Bond origin film but they didn't actually make it in the end.

Daniel Craig. He gave a perfectly respectable performance but he just isn't my cup of tea as Bond. I never liked his casting and my low post count at least proves I've tried to keep my gob shut on this one as much as possible. He is a bit long in the tooth to be a reckless 'rookie' agent and a bit too much of a generic, musclebound action man for my tastes. We all have our personal conception of what a James Bond should be like and Craig misses a few boxes for me.

Casino scenes were slightly dull with set-pieces shoehorned in around. I don't know the first thing about poker so maybe it was just me.

Overall I didn't think this was anything like the masterpiece some have claimed it to be. Over the next few years it will be doubtless picked over on the forums. The reviews for GoldenEye were excellent in 95 and I left the cinema after that film wondering what all the fuss was about. I sort of did the same here.

2/5

[kneelbeforezod]

Fair enough, but...

Free running was fun but the crane stuff bordered on the ridiculous. Bond shooting the air-vent/steam-pipes and avoiding a million bullets in the Embassy is the sort of stuff they were suppposed to be eschewing for a 'gritty' approach.

I always assumed they meant grittier... Bond ducks beneath the window so it's not really dodging a million bullets. Also, every Bond film has borderline silly action, its just a question of degrees of silliness, and this film is at the low end.

'No gadgets' they said. Bond seems to have a Sony mobile-phone superglued to his hand for half the film. He uses it the way Dr Who uses the sonic screwdriver to solve everything. If Bond had made a piece of toast with it I wouldn't have been suprised.

Again, surely they meant no stupid gadgets, such as missiles in the car and... well, the list goes on and on. I don't think a phone with a map on it really constitutes them breaking their word...

The reboot or re-imagining or whatever they call it. Didn't amount to an awful lot besides a vodka-martini joke and the PTS. Michael G Wilson waited twenty years to do this? I really warmed to the idea of a young Bond origin film but they didn't actually make it in the end.

Well I think they did. It depends on your definition of "reboot". Late 30's is the right age to follow the exploits of a new 00 agent. He's rougher round the edges, he makes mistakes, and is more emotionally vulnerable and volatile. Overall it's a considerable reboot in tone from recent films. If you were expecting to see a Bond version of Young Sherlock Holmes then I can understand your disappointment. And... be careful what you wish for.

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 23 November 2006 - 12:54 AM.

[dinovelvet]

'No gadgets' they said. Bond seems to have a Sony mobile-phone superglued to his hand for half the film. He uses it the way Dr Who uses the sonic screwdriver to solve everything. If Bond had made a piece of toast with it I wouldn't have been suprised.

Sounds to me like you're talking about the cellphone in TND. What did that one do again? Drove Bond's car, worked as a stun gun, and scanned fingerprints to open doors. What does the one in CR do? Shows a map to Bond's destination? Cellphones do that in real life. The one thing that is obviously a bit into fantasy land was where the phone was used to show a 3D map of Le Chiffre's location. But, the way technology is going, 3D mapping on phones is probably only a few years away. Its been nine years since TND and I've been waiting patiently for a phone that will drive a car, scan fingerprints, and electrocute anyone else who tries to use it, but it doesn't seem to have arrived yet.

[Dr. Noah]

This is how you know it's a good film: JS, GS, CM007 and the others who have been ripping it for a year say it's... okay. Translation: It's good.

BTW: Too many gadgets equals... A CELL PHONE??? Pardon me while I go have Q trick me up at Sears...