Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Casino Royale - Overrated?


191 replies to this topic

#1 B5Erik

B5Erik

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 465 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 07 January 2007 - 05:55 PM

While I really liked Casino Royale, and I thought Daniel Craig was very good as James Bond, I do believe that this movie is being a bit overrated and over-hyped.

IMHO, Casino Royale is not the best Bond movie ever - I wouldn't even put it in my top 5. (It is in "my" Top 10, however...)

Daniel Craig is not the best James Bond ever, either, IMO.

I still rate Timothy Dalton, Sean Connery, and even Pierce Brosnan as better Bonds. I didn't see enough of "James Bond" in Craig's performance. He was too cynical and didn't seem to ever really have any fun. Dalton's Bond appeared to have some fun in TLD and even in parts of LTK. Craig didn't have much (if any) of that sense of fun - the wicked sense of humor, the sense of joy in going after someone when he's got a plan together. There was a twinkle in Dalton's eye and a wry smile when he mentioned going (shark) hunting in LTK. When he was manipulating Sanchez (pretending to befriend him and providing him with "information") you could see the undertones of satisfaction and even enjoyment that Dalton's Bond was getting out of the situation. I didn't see any of that in Craig's Bond. This may change, though, with the release of Bond 22.

Brosnan was hit and miss in Goldeneye - great in spots, forced and uncomfortable in others - but he was spot-on in Tomorrow Never Dies, so I think it's entirely possible that Daniel Craig will grow into the role as well (especially if they give him a few more "Bond-ian" lines and situations in Bond 22).

Casino Royale was about 5 or 10 minutes too long, and there were some bits that didn't make sense (such as Bond breaking in to M's home - that would have more serious consequences for him - not just a threat from M warning him never to do it again).

To me, the hype and praise of CR has gotten a little out of hand considering that it isn't a flawless movie and that there are some issues with it. Again, I thought it was VERY good, but some people are making it out to be this transcendant Bond movie that elevates the series to a whole new level, and I'm just not buying into that.

Overall, Casino Royale was one of the best movies of 2006, and Bond 22 promises to be a great movie as well if they continue on this path - but I don't think CR is the new Gold standard by which all future Bond movies should be held to.


...But Bond 22 could certainly be the Best Bond Movie Ever if they continue down this path and add in some classic Bond-ian lines and situations (keep the tone and style of CR, and throw in some classic Bond stuff).

#2 annita

annita

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 77 posts
  • Location:some where is the good Old U S A

Posted 07 January 2007 - 06:05 PM

isn't this the 2nd thread you started saying basically the same thing?

any way...
CR may be getting over praised..but no it's not overrated, and DC in one film outperformed Brosnan in his 4 films, so he is better than PB for sure, as for Dalton..as much I like him as Bond, but DC was in a better movie(CR)than Dalton's TDL and LTK.

me personally...I am just loving the fact that this film brought us the Flemming vision that we missed since TLD, and DC is definitely has put himself in the conversation as one of the best Bond actors, and if Bond 22 can even match the quality of CR, then DC will be the best Bond IMO.

#3 brittany

brittany

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 36 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 06:49 PM

B5Erik - as the great Dalton Fan you are, I just think this is quite funny because I thought when I came out of my first viewing of Casino Royale (I went back another 3 times) - finally they have found back some 'Dalton-ionism' which I missed during the Brosnan-Era.
I like Bond to be darker, tougher.
I always liked the performance Dalton has shown and was sorry he didn't continue with it.
But then Daniel came along - and I think he did a good job.
As for the 'fun' and the 'joy' - you must not forget that he just started his carreer as 007 and we see him on his first mission - so he is tense. He is a rookie!
And this goes not only for his job but perhaps for his character as well. He is not quite yet the suave and eloquent character he will be in his future life. I think the script would not have done any good to him in giving him great, perfect lines while he fails or makes mistakes in his actions?!
And when it comes to 'joy' - killing people while fulfilling his mission is giving him already some sort of 'pleasure' (ie - close-up to his face during the scene at Miami Airport when the guy is killing himself with his bomb - let alone for this scene the new Bond actor HAD to have blue eyes - steely eyes with a smile all over his face that makes you realize that he really liked what he witnessed there!!)
And I truly believe that the 'joy' and 'fun' will come along in the next mission - just give him time.. and I can only tell you - mourning old times will not make the time pass quicker until Bond22 comes along!!

Regards,
Brittany

#4 B5Erik

B5Erik

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 465 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 07 January 2007 - 07:36 PM

Now, remember - I'm not criticizing CR, I'm criticizing the hype. I'm just saying that the movie doesn't match the praise it's getting from many fans.

It is a VERY good movie. It is a GREAT way to "reboot" the series. But it is not be "Best Bond Ever," (regarding either the movies or the actors who have played Bond).

It's a beginning - but we haven't seen the new style applied to the "Real James Bond," - meaning, the more polished, charming, experienced James Bond. Theoretically, this new style applied to a more experienced James Bond - the more suave, sophisticated, sure of himself James Bond - SHOULD make for one hell of a great movie, but we haven't seen it yet.

While it SHOULD be great, we haven't seen how the producers, writers, and director execute the plan. They could still blow it.

We haven't yet seen Daniel Craig even ATTEMPT to play James Bond as we have known him for the last 44 years (on the big screen). We don't even know if he is willing to play the more traditional Bond. Sure, he's under contract - but he could still pull a Lazenby and become such a pain in the [censored] that they don't want him back (unlikely, but it's possible).

As for CR - VERY good movie, but the hype and almost orgasmic response of some fans would have you believe that it is the Citizen Kane or Casablanca of thrillers. It's not.

This is one of those cases where the movie has become overrated and will never completely live up to it's reputation.

(But you can bet your [censored] that I'm going to get the DVD the first day it's available!)

#5 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 07:49 PM

While I really liked Casino Royale


Sounds like it. :cooltongue:

and even Pierce Brosnan as better Bonds.


:angry:

I didn't see enough of "James Bond" in Craig's performance. He was too cynical and didn't seem to ever really have any fun. Dalton's Bond appeared to have some fun in TLD and even in parts of LTK. Craig didn't have much (if any) of that sense of fun - the wicked sense of humor, the sense of joy in going after someone when he's got a plan together. There was a twinkle in Dalton's eye and a wry smile when he mentioned going (shark) hunting in LTK. When he was manipulating Sanchez (pretending to befriend him and providing him with "information") you could see the undertones of satisfaction and even enjoyment that Dalton's Bond was getting out of the situation. I didn't see any of that in Craig's Bond.


I saw all of those things. Craig has plenty of fun in CR - sauntering into the Paradise Island casino like a young Connery and taking delight in "pwning" the arrogant German bloke (Goldfinger?). He relishes his food and drink throughout the film, goes swimming and sailing, chats up the birds and has a holiday with Vesper. In fact, I don't believe there's any other Bond flick in which we see more of 007 at play. Wicked sense of humour? Well, there's the little finger joke for starters. Sense of joy in going after someone? Twinkle in the eye? Wry smile? I refer you to the climax of the Miami action sequence.

there were some bits that didn't make sense (such as Bond breaking in to M's home - that would have more serious consequences for him - not just a threat from M warning him never to do it again).


Well, I agree with you on that one. I've always had issues with that scene, and I think they're the same as yours - I've aired them at length a couple of times here on CBn, so I won't do so again. But it doesn't really mar the film for me, any more than, say, the silly stuff with Q spoils the superb LICENCE TO KILL in my eyes.

To me, the hype and praise of CR has gotten a little out of hand considering that it isn't a flawless movie and that there are some issues with it. Again, I thought it was VERY good, but some people are making it out to be this transcendant Bond movie that elevates the series to a whole new level, and I'm just not buying into that.


I am.

B5Erik - as the great Dalton Fan you are, I just think this is quite funny because I thought when I came out of my first viewing of Casino Royale (I went back another 3 times) - finally they have found back some 'Dalton-ionism' which I missed during the Brosnan-Era.
I like Bond to be darker, tougher.
I always liked the performance Dalton has shown and was sorry he didn't continue with it.
But then Daniel came along - and I think he did a good job.


For me, CASINO ROYALE is the third Dalton film. I think Dalton was the clearest and largest influence on Craig's performance, even more important than Connery, and there are parts of CR where I can almost make myself believe I'm watching Dalton, so similar are Craig's mannerisms and line delivery.

#6 sgt-scream

sgt-scream

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 38 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 07:56 PM

Great movie, here's how I see it.

If you ask someone if they didn't like the movie, the chances are big that they started watching Bond at Brosnan and compare the rest of the Bond's to him. THis was the point where we started veering off from Flemming's Bond. And so they hate Craig cause he's not a good Brosnan, (looking at you Zolly Becker). The character is James Bond not Pierce Brosnan.

But since you have taste in movies, you liked it but didn't know what all the fuss was about, B5Erik, and I respect your opinion because you back your arguments up unlike most CR negative reviews and what not.

That may not have been worded right, I'm not attacking you I'm acknowledging your opinion as a good one.

But IMO I think the hype did match the movie, maybe because It's been a long time since I had seen the movies with Dalton (I loved LTK) and since I saw the trailer, I noticed a tiny bit of Dalton, so I was stoked for the movie and enjoyed every second of the film.
Dalton showed a lot of Flemming's bond IMO and I saw a massive amount of Flemming's Bond in DC, and I think he is the best. Brosnan doesn't hold a candle to Craig, not his fault beacuse I don't think Brosnan had a choice to drive around in an invisible car or surf the glaciers (glaciers right?).

#7 Jet Set Willy

Jet Set Willy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 195 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 10:07 PM

No hype at all. In fact, it isn't hyped enough.

This film is the film I've waited all my life to see. This is how Bond should have always been from day one. It's only taken EON 40-odd years to get it right, but there you go.

So it's only right that this film should be getting massive hype. CR is awesome, and I doubt Bond 22 can beat it, but it'll be fun to see EON try.

#8 dinovelvet

dinovelvet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8038 posts
  • Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite

Posted 07 January 2007 - 10:27 PM

No hype at all. In fact, it isn't hyped enough.

This film is the film I've waited all my life to see. This is how Bond should have always been from day one. It's only taken EON 40-odd years to get it right, but there you go.

So it's only right that this film should be getting massive hype. CR is awesome, and I doubt Bond 22 can beat it, but it'll be fun to see EON try.


I agree, Jet Set Willy...it isn't hyped enough! Casino Royale is absolutely the real deal, I just watched it a third time and it is still thrilling.

#9 JackWade

JackWade

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 836 posts
  • Location:The Ohio State University

Posted 07 January 2007 - 10:49 PM

Not overhyped/overrated/etc. By far the best Bond movie since at least TLD.

If you think Brosnan's Bond was better than Craig, then chances are you have no idea what Fleming's Bond was like.

#10 English Agent

English Agent

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 329 posts
  • Location:Cambridgeshire, UK

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:01 PM

I agree with the last few posts

i.e. the film is not overated or overhyped.

If anything it could of done with more hype in America.

As with many people on this site, i have seen this film
a few times (4 to be exact), because its a very good movie,
and thats why the film is still playing very strongly in
cinemas around the world.

#11 kneelbeforezod

kneelbeforezod

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1131 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:02 PM

Now, remember - I'm not criticizing CR, I'm criticizing the hype. I'm just saying that the movie doesn't match the praise it's getting from many fans.

Well, it might not match the praise for you, but it almost sounds like your trying to correct other people in their views of the film. The "hype" isn't some manufactured thing designed to hoodwink people... the fact is that many, many people genuinely love the film, and you just can't argue with that.

This is one of those cases where the movie has become overrated and will never completely live up to it's reputation.

The word "overrated" is overused on internet forums, frankly. What you're essentially saying is that you didn't like it as much as other people, but you're saying it in such a way as to imply that other people are wrong. Every time I see it it effortlessly lives up to it's reputation.

Casino Royale is definitely not "overrated". You just don't rate it as highly as me and others.

#12 bill007

bill007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2072 posts
  • Location:I'm in my study, at the computer desk.

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:04 PM

.....I do believe that this movie is being a bit overrated and over-hyped.

Where does the "hype" come from? The critical reviews and fanboards such as CBn. The reviewers, for the most part, are championing Casino Royale because it is a fresh face to a franchise that had become stale, formula-istic, and routine. As for the fans, speaking only for myself here, I am extatic to see a new actor overcome all the nay-sayers and produce an extraordinary performance as 007.

It is essentially one's own point of view. Hype? Or Praise?


#13 B5Erik

B5Erik

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 465 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:06 PM

See, here's the thing - I'm one of those people that likes to let history decide.

How well does the movie/performance hold up in 5-10-20 years?

None of us know for sure how this one will hold up. And I guarantee you that EVERYONE who is praising CR as a transcendant Bond film is on a 007 high right now. I don't mean that as a criticism or dismissal in ANY way - I mean that in a good way!

CR was a VERY good movie, and it was the direction that DAD SHOULD have gone in (IMO - or at least it should have headed in that direction throughout, as the first hour was heading in this direction and then took a sharp left turn to Diamonds Are For Moonraker at Iceland). It's hard NOT to come out of the theater on a 007 high after watching CR! I came out on a 007 high (read my review of the movie on the reviews page if you don't believe me).

In the 6 or so weeks since I saw CR I've come down a bit, and realize that it's place in the 44 year world of Bond movies (and 53 years of Bond overall) can't really be objectively assessed for at least 4 or 5 years. After Bond 23 comes out we'll all have better perspective on how good this movie is.

Remember how many people said DAD was the best Bond film EVER after that one came out? Some still believe that (and good for them), but others have come to realize that the silly stuff in that movie really tarnished it. It didn't hold up, and now many (both fans and critics) who praised that movie when it came out are critical of it.

I'm willing to bet that CR holds up a hell of a lot better than DAD over the long haul - but I'm also willing to bet that some people who are raving about CR being the, "Best Bond EVER," will have toned that down to putting it in their top 5.

It happens every time.

Remember, I started going to Bond movies as a kid back in 1977, so I've seen this kind of thing before. I saw it with Spy, I saw it with FYEO, I saw it with TLD and LTK, I saw it with GE, and now I'm seeing it with CR. I saw some of the same people who praised Dalton as a breath of fresh air end up praising Brosnan as the guy who saved Bond from Dalton's legacy! I saw people call both Dalton and Brosnan, "The best Bond ever!" Sometimes the SAME people!

So I take the hype and praise with a grain of salt.

#14 kneelbeforezod

kneelbeforezod

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1131 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:36 PM

I understand what you're saying, but the difference is this: taking a step back from the "hype", on a purely analytical basis, CR is better than most other Bond films. In terms of acting, direction, story, action, dialogue, it's better than the films you mentioned.

I'm not saying that on a wave of euphoria as I stagger out of the cinema. I didn't say it after Goldeneye. I sank into my seat with horror during DAD.

That does not mean I'm saying it's the greatest thriller ever made, just that it's a [censored]ing great Bond film.

#15 bill007

bill007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2072 posts
  • Location:I'm in my study, at the computer desk.

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:42 PM

See, here's the thing - I'm one of those people that likes to let history decide.

You're reading my mind, B5Erik. As with you, I saw CR 4 times, and it has been about a month since my last viewing. My 'high' is also waning. For me, CR has the same traits as the more memorable Bond films. So I place it firmly in that catagory. I believe, that after a few years have passed, Casino Royale will still be a benchmark movie for the franchise.

So I take the hype and praise with a grain of salt.

...tossed over the left shoulder, I hope. :cooltongue:

#16 triviachamp

triviachamp

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1400 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 08 January 2007 - 12:55 AM

Well I hated DAD and TWINE when I first saw them and was not too impressed when I saw TND so I don't think this is a case of a "high" on my part.

#17 Mike00spy

Mike00spy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Location:South Florida

Posted 08 January 2007 - 01:39 AM

I dont think we really need that much time to pass to figure out how good Casino Royale is. For those of you who have seen it 3 or more times, I think you can agree that the initial high has worn off and the movie can now be judged with a bit more of a critical eye. It has for me, and I can easily say it is one of the best ever.

If you have been a Bond fan all your life, and you've always thought (insert movie here) was the best, you develop a certain attachment to it. It can be hard to figure out if your original favorite was better b/c it is truly a better movie, or b/c you just have the history with it.


I think that the only way Casino Royale could tarnish over time would be if Bond 22 and Bond 23 are significantly better movies. (Wouldn't that be amazing?) However, if the series takes a turn towards the other direction, Casino Royale gets elevated even more.

Plus, Casino Royale- with its origin story - will always be set apart from the other Bonds.

Edited by Mike00spy, 08 January 2007 - 01:40 AM.


#18 SilencedPPK

SilencedPPK

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 474 posts
  • Location:Waimea, Hawaii

Posted 08 January 2007 - 02:34 AM

I dont think we really need that much time to pass to figure out how good Casino Royale is. For those of you who have seen it 3 or more times, I think you can agree that the initial high has worn off and the movie can now be judged with a bit more of a critical eye. It has for me, and I can easily say it is one of the best ever.

I do agree. I have been pumping myself up for this movie for over two years, and when it finally came, there were no words to describe my high. I came out of the theatre very happy, and ready to see it again. After the third time seeing it, the initial high wore down a bit, but I still crave it. I have seen it eight times! And I love every moment of it, and it's just as thrilling. And that I think that is important for a movie -- if it is able to be watched over a few times and still have the same thrilling effect. Casino Royale did that brilliantly!

If you have been a Bond fan all your life, and you've always thought (insert movie here) was the best, you develop a certain attachment to it. It can be hard to figure out if your original favorite was better b/c it is truly a better movie, or b/c you just have the history with it.

I agree with you Mike00spy.


(Wouldn't that be amazing?)

It sure would! :cooltongue:

However, if the series takes a turn towards the other direction, Casino Royale gets elevated even more.

Yes, but I hope that does not happen. The films should only get better!

Plus, Casino Royale- with its origin story - will always be set apart from the other Bonds.

Well said, mate! :angry:

#19 bill007

bill007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2072 posts
  • Location:I'm in my study, at the computer desk.

Posted 08 January 2007 - 03:00 AM

I have seen it eight times!

Well done, SilencedPPK. :cooltongue:

And brovo for your quoting skills. :angry: :lol:

#20 Brock Samson

Brock Samson

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 124 posts
  • Location:Venture Compound East

Posted 08 January 2007 - 04:58 PM

Remember how many people said DAD was the best Bond film EVER after that one came out?

Honestly, no. Anecdotally, I remember it being largely panned for it's atrocious second half by most of my friends who always sound me out as the resident Bond fanatic. I'm willing to forgive a lot in my Bond films but even I came out of DAD let down. I didn't even feel that bad after TWINE which many people consider a worse film.

#21 English Agent

English Agent

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 329 posts
  • Location:Cambridgeshire, UK

Posted 08 January 2007 - 05:18 PM

Remember how many people said DAD was the best Bond film EVER after that one came out?

Honestly, no. Anecdotally, I remember it being largely panned for it's atrocious second half by most of my friends who always sound me out as the resident Bond fanatic. I'm willing to forgive a lot in my Bond films but even I came out of DAD let down. I didn't even feel that bad after TWINE which many people consider a worse film.


I don't either remember anyone saying DAD was a great film, in fact
i remember one of my work mates saying to me that he thought the film was
'pants'.
It was a film that started off pretty well, but as others here have said
when Bond reached the ice palace the film became absurd.
The producers received a great deal of criticism for this, and hence probably
the main reason they changed direction of the series.

CR is definitely not overated....in comparison to DAD its almost shakespear.

#22 Bond Bug

Bond Bug

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 879 posts

Posted 08 January 2007 - 05:29 PM

If you think Casino was overhyped, wait for the next Bond movie.

The Bond movies have moved from a product that would be an embrarrassment for Eon to a quality product that has given the franchise a new prestige absent in most action films.
Not only that, but the audience have been as positive as the critics.

The next Bond flick will be the most eagerly awaited since the 1960s. Then you will see hype and that Bond has a chance of become a billion dollar blockbuster.

#23 Four Aces

Four Aces

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1133 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 08 January 2007 - 06:18 PM

It is by far the best of the Bond movies.

4A

#24 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 7461 posts
  • Location:the bottle to the belly!

Posted 08 January 2007 - 06:24 PM

To me, the hype and praise of CR has gotten a little out of hand considering that it isn't a flawless movie and that there are some issues with it. Again, I thought it was VERY good, but some people are making it out to be this transcendant Bond movie that elevates the series to a whole new level, and I'm just not buying into that.

Overall, Casino Royale was one of the best movies of 2006, and Bond 22 promises to be a great movie as well if they continue on this path - but I don't think CR is the new Gold standard by which all future Bond movies should be held to.


The question has been broken down very well in previous posts.

Edited by Judo chop, 08 January 2007 - 06:24 PM.


#25 dodge

dodge

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5068 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 January 2007 - 06:35 PM

If you think Casino was overhyped, wait for the next Bond movie.

The Bond movies have moved from a product that would be an embrarrassment for Eon to a quality product that has given the franchise a new prestige absent in most action films.
Not only that, but the audience have been as positive as the critics.

The next Bond flick will be the most eagerly awaited since the 1960s. Then you will see hype and that Bond has a chance of become a billion dollar blockbuster.


I've said it before and I'll say it again: Dan Craig is The Beatles. B22 will be his Sgt. Pepper's.

#26 Scottlee

Scottlee

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2592 posts
  • Location:Leeds, England

Posted 08 January 2007 - 06:51 PM

I agree that CR has been just a tiny bit over-hyped. It's a very good film, possibly a great one. I certainly don't think it's the best Bond of all though, or even in the top three. I would err on the side of caution until you've had more than the one viewing (which a lot of people have already had, I admit. Fair enough). You do have to consider one or two factors which could have elevated people's opinions somewhat...

- This was the first Bond in four years. It was only the fifth new Bond film in the last 17 years. We've been extremely Bond-starved over recent times. Even Connery coming back at 76 years old to do a NSNA2 might have appeased those who were just nigh on desperate to see a new Bond film. Would we have been as enthusiastic about CR if the previous film, Die Another Day, had been released just a year ago in November 2005?

- The CraigNotBond brigade established a wall of defiance among us decent fans willing to give the new lad a fair crack. We were desperate for Craig to shut the negative people up, and as such even another DAD clone might have brought sterling reviews from most.

- Regardless of the above, a new actor in the role of Bond is always going to get plenty of encouragement and words of "this is a good attempt, and the next one might even be better". It's polite, civil, and in a way, fair. Bond is a tough gig. IMO nobody should be critically hammered after one crack at the role.

- The continued production of James Bond films still gets sneers from some corners of the media. Mention the new Bond film to a non-Bond fan and it's not surprising to get a response along the lines of "Oh, they're still making those?", as if to suggest a dead horse is being well and truly flogged somewhere. (This was actually more the case during the later Brosnan era, suggesting CR has been well received among even non-Bond fans).

Just some things to consider. On the whole though, CR WAS worth the hype. As I've said, it's at least a very good film. I'm going to hold off on calling it great until I've had that second DVD viewing, but it is at least a 'very good film'. It's better than DAD by a country mile, Craig is a more than worthy Bond, and a commendable amount of effort has gone into the writing and creative side of the new era. If you're giving it 10/10 and calling it the best Bond in 30 years and claiming it's the best film of any kind for about ten years, chances are yes you are over-hyping it. If like most you're being sensible and accepting that at least 1-10% of the film has things that could have been improved (Bond still runs around like a good Terminator-Brosnan in Venice), chances are you're spot on the money.

A short and sweet verdict - It's a very impressive Bond film starring a very impressive James Bond. Let's keep the feet on the ground though, of everyone concerned with these films.

#27 VisualStatic

VisualStatic

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 192 posts
  • Location:A dark hole in the vacuum of cyberspace

Posted 08 January 2007 - 06:59 PM

Who can say which Bond movie is the best, how do you define what makes it best. All any one can say is where it falls in their favorites list.

Now for me, CR is my second favorite Bond movie. FRWL is still my first.

Maybe we need to rephrase the question, Did CR live up to expectations? Rather then is it over-hyped or over-rated.

My answer, Yes. It did live up to my expectations and surpassed them. I usually only see a movie in the theater once.(going to the theater is just too expensive) I saw CR twice, in the theater, for me that's a big deal. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie in the theater more then once, if ever.

#28 bond_girl_double07

bond_girl_double07

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2322 posts
  • Location:My Underground Lair - err in Ohio

Posted 08 January 2007 - 07:07 PM

Having just seen it for the third time this weekend, I think the hype is justified.. My sister (who is in no way a Bond fan) saw it with me this weekend, and her remark was that it was an excellent film, not just an excellent Bond film. I think this says something about the film's lasting quality (for the person that was curious about the lasting draw of the film). There's clearly an eye for quality production, the acting is excellent, and the plot is interesting and cohesive.. Definitely one of the best films in the series, and I think 10 years from now I'll be saying the same thing...

#29 lafemmefantome

lafemmefantome

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Bakersfield, California

Posted 08 January 2007 - 07:51 PM

Now, remember - I'm not criticizing CR, I'm criticizing the hype. I'm just saying that the movie doesn't match the praise it's getting from many fans.


Interesting thought. But if the movie doesn't match the praise then someone or something is out of sync. The fans or the movie? I would respectfully disagree. I think the praise matches the film.

It is a VERY good movie. It is a GREAT way to "reboot" the series. But it is not be "Best Bond Ever," (regarding either the movies or the actors who have played Bond).

It's a beginning - but we haven't seen the new style applied to the "Real James Bond," - meaning, the more polished, charming, experienced James Bond. Theoretically, this new style applied to a more experienced James Bond - the more suave, sophisticated, sure of himself James Bond - SHOULD make for one hell of a great movie, but we haven't seen it yet.


The "Real James Bond?" Hmm...now would this be the one who doesn't get a hair out of place as he's fighting the villain over North Korea? The one that fights three to four guys but hardly a scratch?

I don't know if I'm ready to see the "old" real James Bond. I want to watch him grow as a person and I want to see him as more than a one-dimensional character (albeit a fun one but one-dimensional in the past).

In CR, this Bond was as sure of himself as anyone can be...that is until someone changes the rules. Then he learns and adapts. That's what I find appealing. Nothing is perfect and nothing is guaranteed.


We don't even know if he is willing to play the more traditional Bond. Sure, he's under contract - but he could still pull a Lazenby and become such a pain in the [censored] that they don't want him back (unlikely, but it's possible).


I could be wrong, but I don't think Craig would necessarily play a traditional Bond. That would lead back down the path of the past and well sometimes, the past should well...stay in the past?

(But you can bet your [censored] that I'm going to get the DVD the first day it's available!)


Well I will be there also getting the DVD when it arrives. I also plan on using it in my classroom. It will be a debate with my students in the higher level French class. They are going to compare and contrast one of three complex character of film and literature. James Bond will be one of the them.

lafemme

#30 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 08 January 2007 - 09:28 PM

No.

I seldom require more than one viewing before settling on a firm, "objective" opinion about a movie. If and when I later sing a different tune about one, it's inevitably because my tastes have changed. None of Brosnan's first three got me to have more than a casual interest in Bond, Die Another Day almost put me off completely, and The Living Daylights sold me as a fan, in each case with only one viewing, subsequently confirmed with more.

I don't appreciate people suggesting my judgment is somehow clouded simply because Casino Royale is new. Just because this is the Bond film (and Craig the Bond) I've been waiting for doesn't invalidate my opinion, nor does it mean I should reserve final judgment, even if it means proclaiming it (and him) the best yet. If I or anyone else can argue why, and I can and have, then that perspective should be respected.