16 replies to this topic

[Lounge Lizard]

Was it possible for anything man-made to live up to the epic expectations I had of Casino Royale? In order to keep my head cool and not let all this feverish anticipation take over my life, I took a break from the CBN boards for a few months. And now, finally, I've seen the film.

In many ways, Casino Royale is a fan's dream come true. I give full credit to Eon producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, damned by a legion of hardcore Bondophiles ever since they announced Pierce Brosnan as 007, for making this incredibly bold move. Perhaps it was the pressure of new studio Sony, or the pressure of energetic new rival franchises such as Batman and Bourne. But the great thing about Casino Royale is that it doesn't rip off other franchises to come off as cool and fresh, as was the case with Die Another Day, which 'borrowed' its aesthetic from The Matrix and other CGI-based epics. This time, Eon focused fully on the classic literary character, on Ian Fleming's James Bond, 007, himself, to capture its audiences. It has paid off tremendously. This is, simply stated, the best realized Bond movie since On Her Majesty's Secret Service - and this comes from someone who loves For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights to death, and had never expected to see another Bond movie on that particular level.

The last Bond movie to generate as much hype as Casino Royale was GoldenEye. It was the first Bond in six years, and, like Casino Royale, it starred a new actor as Bond. The precious GoldenEye, which seemed like such an impressive effort eleven years ago, represents little more than the sum of its (sometimes excellent) parts. It is, in retrospect and compared to Casino Royale, cruelly exposed as a minor work in the Bond canon, a pseudo-revisionist pastiche: absurdly self-glorifying yet uncertain where to go, even a bit embarassing at times.

Casino Royale goes way further than On Her Majesty's Secret Service following You Only Live Twice, or For Your Eyes Only following Moonraker, or The Living Daylights following A View to a Kill. Those films tried to counterbalance the overly parodic slant of the previous film, by pulling the character into reality a bit more. This however is a complete reinvention, the creation of a new timeless - instead of cheesy retro - universe for Bond to inhabit. It's our world, grounded in mid-2000s politics and technology, but it's heightened by old-world glamour, a whiff of neo-noir and Fleming's 1950s. This is a Bond universe as we've never seen it before, and a Bond as we've never seen him before to go with it: a Bond who's cocky and proud, who only recently lost his SAS-style military crew cut, somewhere between experienced professional and superspy, waiting to be sucker-punched. He's not Bond enough yet to not be mistaken for a parking valet when he first enters his Paradise Island hotel - but he's Bond enough to exploit the situation and turn it to his advantage.

This is also the first Bond who doesn't have a past or present in the Cold War. He was groomed on other conflicts (Yugoslavia, Persian Gulf, War on Terror), but at the same time, the character is truer to Fleming than ever before: a cold state assassin. MI6 is portrayed in the screenplay as a shady group of government officials, using 'secret murder squads', spilling tax money into 'poker games' of bluff, and popping up in remote locales with 'CSI teams'. In a brilliant script innovation, almost on par with the 'not-robbing-the-gold-but-contaminating-it' twist of the Goldfinger script, Bond has to 'smoke out' Le Chiffre through the poker game, so that M can give him shelter and question him about his financial dealings. It adds new shades of complexity and ambiguity to the spy game that we haven't experienced before in a Bond movie. In that respect, Bond's first 'slip-up' is fascinating: getting caught on a security camera and being televized by CNN. When we see the CNN reports of Bond's actions in the film, we respond to Bond for the first time as we would to a state assassin in the real world. The Miami airport sequence focuses on an act of terror, but the threat is interestingly suggested through the 'frozen' dead bodies of Gunter Von Hagen's Body Worlds exposition, rather than shown through the chaos and bloodshed of terrorism itself.

The Casino Royale world isn't limited to the Fleming source. The film is highly aware of a larger body of classic spy fiction. The screenplay references Eric Ambler in a villain's name, and Bond - with due irony - describes himself to M as 'half monk, half hitman'. John Le Carr

Edited by Lounge Lizard, 24 November 2006 - 10:58 PM.

[ACE]

That is, quite simply, one of the best reviews I have read on Casino Royale.
A stunningly articulate, superbly insightful and majestic piece of writing, Lounge Lizard. Het was een te lezen voorrecht.



Totally agree about the eerie juxtaposition of the Bodyworld exhibit (the corpses gambling is particularly symbolic) and the brilliant improvements on the novel (keeping Le Chiffre alive, Vesper's scepticism of the "plan", the reason why Le Chiffre loses money in the first place due to Bond's actions,
and the foreshadowing of Le Chiffre's death at another's hands, Vesper's conflicted betrayal, saving Bond's life but breaking his soul). I love the first segment action for it's excitement and originality. Totally agree about Campbell (though I loved both Zorro movies and think him very under-rated!) and the unsuitability of Tarantino.

Again, wonderful, wonderful writing. Thanks so much for the effort.

[Lounge Lizard]

Thanks ACE, you make me blush...

[Loomis]

What makes this 'coldhearted bastard' oddly endearing is the fact that he's so Walter Mittyish. You get the feeling this Bond watched Bond movies himself as a kid (hence 'Stephanie Broadchest') and became his own childhood hero through rigourous training and disciplined exercise - only to find that being Bond is not as heroic as it seems.

A very interesting point, and one I agree with. Yes, you can certainly picture the adolescent Craig's Bond being extremely gung-ho about the idea of a career in the military, in a way that for some strange reason it's hard to do with any of the others. If Connery, Lazenby and Moore would have signed up chiefly out of national service obligations, and Dalton and Brosnan mainly for class/social reasons, Craig comes across as a Bond who just plain craved action and adventure from an early age.

Your point also captures the unique, and attractive, underdog quality to Craig's 007 (yes, despite his being an invincible warrior and all-round cool dude).

Perhaps CASINO ROYALE is neither "a James Bond film", nor "a film about James Bond", but a film about a guy who wants to be James Bond but finds himself slightly in over his head.

Great review, LL.

[Seannery]

LL I also have to add that it's a wonderfully intelligent, incisive review. Probably the best one here. That said i'll have to disagree with you conclusion that CR is a high mark in the Bond series. I think a good number of previous Bonds are better--CR is not bad but no masterpiece imo. And don't really buy(at least not wholly) the analysis of Craig's relation to Bond versus the other actors BUT it definitely is an unique take(and does give one something else to think and agree/disagree about). I agree with you that after the excellent PTS the excess action and stunts left me rather cold--they were okay but typical. But where we differ is the train introduction beween Bond and Vesper with their mutual instant analysis I felt was forced, cliched and flat. So where the film took off for you, it just did not take off for me. Great reference with Eva and Theda Bara! Very nice insight--but she was only decent overall for me...the script in parts hurt her. And yes the film has its pleasures throughout but also flaws that stopped it from taking off. Only so-so narrative thrust and lack of an intense through line for the film caused CR to bog at points especially at times in the poker game. We'll end on an agreement--Daniel Craig was strong as Bond. Again really nicely written and deeply thought out.

[Lounge Lizard]

Thanks for your very generous words, Loomis and Seannery!

That said i'll have to disagree with you conclusion that CR is a high mark in the Bond series. I think a good number of previous Bonds are better--CR is not bad but no masterpiece imo.

No, I don't think the word 'masterpiece' should apply here - but then again, I can't think of any other Bond film I'd really call a masterpiece. Vertigo or The Third Man, yes. But a Bond film, no (although I enjoy them just as much and possibly even more). Still, in terms of cinematic craft and momentum, CR scores very high on my list of favourite Bonds.

And don't really buy(at least not wholly) the analysis of Craig's relation to Bond versus the other actors BUT it definitely is an unique take(and does give one something else to think and agree/disagree about).

Good!

I agree with you that after the excellent PTS the excess action and stunts left me rather cold--they were okay but typical. But where we differ is the train introduction beween Bond and Vesper with their mutual instant analysis I felt was forced, cliched and flat. So where the film took off for you, it just did not take off for me.

I didn't examine the film's dialogue very thoroughly in my review. I have to agree with you that it varies wildly in quality, but in this particular instance I think the actors transcend a potentially ludicrous dialogue. They take it well. As for dialogue, I don't know who's to credit or blame; Purvis & Wade and Haggis suffer from the same writing handicap, an urge to put subtext into spoken word (therefore it's rather add that Haggis was chosen to do the polish).

And yes the film has its pleasures throughout but also flaws that stopped it from taking off. Only so-so narrative thrust and lack of an intense through line for the film caused CR to bog at points especially at times in the poker game.

Flawed as the screenplay and its character arc may be, I still rate it high for its sense of detail, for its challenge to director and actors alike, and for the many occasions it offers to create a truly 'Bondian' atmosphere. That may indeed not to be enough to make it the best Bond film ever, but it certainly sets it apart from the films of the last few decades, IMO.

We'll end on an agreement--Daniel Craig was strong as Bond.

Yep!

[Seannery]

Regardless if I agree, I do respect your opinion LL--you could make a living as a film critic.

[ACE]

Best Casino Royale review out there.

[spynovelfan]

Yes, fantastic review (though I don't like the idea of Craig having grown up on Bond much!). But fine fine writing. Communicated excitement.

[Lounge Lizard]

Yes, fantastic review (though I don't like the idea of Craig having grown up on Bond much!).

Oh, I didn't mean it to have the heavyhandedness of another 'codename theory' type of thing, it's just something that popped into my head, especially during the Stephanie Broadchest exchange. Glad you enjoyed the review!

[TimD]

I find the idea of Craig having grown up on Bond intersting, as this idea precisly enlighten what is for me the main inconstency of CR. Indeed, contrary to various comments from especially Campbell, the Bond we all know and love is the one we see in the first part of the movie rather than the one we see at the end. In a way, at the beginning Craig plays Connery's Bond and as the story progress he somehow becomes Dalton's Bond. Oddly, I think that CR would be more approriate as the missing link between AVTAK and TLD that as an origin story. And if it's an origin story, it's certainly isn't the story of Bond becoming the Bond we knew in the great majority of Eon's movies. So I really wonder what Bond22 will be like.
Despite those inconsistencies, I enjoyed CR very much thanks to some really amazing sequences, at least in the second part of the movie. As for Craig, he is amazing when the movie becomes amazing, but in the first part when the movie is just average, I thought Craig was just average too. On the whole I'd say that he is a mix between Connery and Dalton, but to plays Connery's Bond, I will always prefre Sean Connery and to play Dalton's Bond I will always prefer Tim Dalton.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Great review. Impeccably written. I can't agree about the score...I think the love theme in CR is fantastic.Really haunts me...I need to buy the soundtrack.

Perhaps CASINO ROYALE is neither "a James Bond film", nor "a film about James Bond", but a film about a guy who wants to be James Bond but finds himself slightly in over his head."


Great point! I felt that way when I read Casino Royale...it was like Ian coulda hvae titled it: "So, you wanna be a secret agent?" It did make Bond's life not exactly something to envy.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Lounge Lizard,

Thanks for a fantastically well-written and thorough review!

Probably the best CR review I've read...

[Marquis]

That is, quite simply, the best review i've read of Casino Royale. What a thoroughly engrossing read - thank you for taking the time to write and share it with us.

[Lazenby880]

A wonderfully articulate review Lounge Lizard in which a variety of points are made eloquently. I enjoy your enthusiasm, something we share, although like snf I cannot say I much of a fan of the CraigBond-watching-Bond-films idea!

Overall, a thoroughly engaging review; undoubtedly the best I have read.

[Lounge Lizard]

Again, thanks for your kind responses.

Yesterday evening, I saw CR for a second time; I'm happy to report that the love affair continues (despite the fact that, for all the talk of less gadgets, we have to endure an inordinate amount of close-ups of computer screens and cell phone displays). I went to see the film with my dad, who introduced me to Bond at the tender age of eleven, as most good dads do. He really liked CR and said it reminded him of his favourite Bond movie, FYEO, and he promply named Craig his favourite Bond actor ever.

In another thread I mentioned that I felt profound sadness at the end of CR. Quite ironic in fact; in the final scene, Bond has finally grown into the 007 'we all know and love', yet I found myself missing the rough, soulful, upstart character I had learned to like during the run of the film. When another board member mentioned the word 'tragic' in this respect, I started thinking. Is it indeed tragic? Perhaps CR is a tragedy in the classic sense, but with a twist: the rise of the noble, yet flawed hero is indistinguishable from his downfall.

And what does this say about the film's audience, about Bond's loyal supporters? Have we been cheering a coldblooded psychotic for the last 44 years? We all know that, in a way, we have, but the point has never been hammered home this strongly before. If the film is indeed tragic in nature, morality also enters in. In portraying Bond honestly, as an assassin, CR makes all the moral criticisms that were heaped upon Fleming's novels and the early films, and makes them relevant again. Fleming's critics had a point; and I think Fleming was more aware of that than people give him credit for, and - fortunately - so is this film version of CR.

I also watched Craig more closely this time, looking for traces of insecurity. Every actor suffered from nerves when first playing Bond: Connery needed 32 takes to get his introductory shot right (or so the legend goes), and he certainly had his unsure moments in Dr. No, which show especially when he tries to be conventionally 'movie star' likeable; Lazenby was impatient, and easily bored during long stretches of dialogue; Moore confessed to hearing Connery's voice saying his lines in LALD, and at times he even tried to mimic his friend and colleague's demeanour; Dalton was theatrical at times in TLD, and buggered up some of the one-liners; Brosnan tried to 'keep it simple', but was in effect quite stiff and dull throughout GE. The advantage of debuting as Bond with a 'Bond Begins Reboot' (or whatever the term is that we now use), is that it's harder to tell for the audience when it is Bond or the actor who's unsure. Come 2008, we'll really know how sound Craig's act is.

What is fascinating is that we now know how much Craig was influenced by the other Bond actors - he kept an Ultimate Edition DVD box by his side in his trailer, in order to study his predecessors in key scenes, looking for little 'clues' to their performances. Craig admitted to being a fan of Connery's Bond, and to having pinched some of Dalton's act. So for once, claims of him being a 'hybrid' (the way Brosnan, who by his own account never studied the earlier films, supposedly approached the part) are actually substantiated - and luckily, it never distracts from his final performance. You can see how he learned to understand what made each Bond performance work (or fail), but instead of imitating the results he went back to the core situation and made it his own.

Viewing CR a second time, I could relax more and soak in all the wonderful little details: the swooping camera moves during the poker scene, which are propelled by the movements of chips and cards, thereby incorporating the motifs of chance and fate into the film's aesthetic scheme; Bond muttering 'the big picture' during the torture scene, referring to an earlier scene with M; Bond and Vesper playfully assuming the pose of a married couple in the elevator of their Venice hotel, before stepping out; Bond rushing the words 'you're a bloody idiot' when angry at Vesper. The sequence that features the latter line is probably my favourite of the whole movie. It's a very well developed sequence: Bond loses it all at the poker table, he sulks and gets angry at Vesper for not giving into his wishes (and God don't they both look handsome in the studio moonlight), he orders his vodka-martini, grabs a table knife, snaps curtly at Mathis to 'get the girl out', only for Leiter to stop him in his tracks and talk some sense into him. Then Bond returns to the table, cool and collected - and there's a tiny twitch in Le Chiffre's eye. I hope we get to see these sort of sequences more often in subsequent Bond films.

Am I being morbid when I also rank the torture scene among my favourites? It is one of a kind in the series, and not just for its weird camera angles and distorted close-ups. I saw CR in a packed theatre this time; and it took the bravoura set piece of the torture scene for the audience to really warm to Craig. After that, they laughed at his every joke and were right with him at the end; there was satisfied laughter when Bond crippled Mr. White, and when he finally spoke The Words. Yep, sadism for the family.

I also warmed to Arnold's score: his love theme is indeed his best yet, and the atonal mood music for the pre-title sequence and the poker scenes is pleasingly devoid of Arnold's usual vanity and pomposity. Still not too sure about some of his action cues though ('African Rundown' is passable). I'm no Chris Cornell fan yet, but his song now achieves the desired effect: it fills me with fanboy glee every time I hear it, and in the context of the film, it really sets one up for a great ride.

Edited by Lounge Lizard, 08 December 2006 - 02:49 PM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I saw it last night too but I wish I could gush over the film. The print I saw was defective so we would get constant seconds of pure darkness...the whole audience groaned repeatedly...I got a refund...but the third time was dissapointing for those reasons only. Otherwise it holds up very well,true to the 007 tradition. I can't wait for the DVD. I'm glad we have '24' season 6 and The Bourne Ultimatum to tie us over till Bond 22.