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

#31 Roebuck

Roebuck

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1870 posts

Posted 08 January 2007 - 09:48 PM

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.


I think you've just summed up my own stance on this.

Casino Royale is a good movie that doesn't need the qualification of saying it's a 'good Bond movie'. Saw it the week it opened but (with one thing and another) have only just managed to go back for a second viewing. Occurred to me that this is the only Bond since OHMSS where I didn't glance at my watch to see how much longer it had to go. The pacing is pretty much spot on. Film slows for a bit post torture sequence, but there's nothing superfluous to the story telling that needs cut.

#32 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 January 2007 - 09:57 PM

A very difficult question to answer. I think whether or not a film is overrated is as subjective as any other opinion. Ultimately, to the viewer personally, every film is either a little underrated or overrated, no matter to how small a degree. In the case of "Casino Royale" we have a Bond film which has caused some life-long fans to question the relevance to them of the previous twenty films. For these people the film is ultimately underrated, and always will be no matter what level of critical and public adoration the film recieves. For others, the film has not created as strong a reaction, and this may leave them feeling a little confused and left out.

"Casino Royale" is a unique case among Bond (and perhaps all) films for many reasons. But it is worth considering that this is perhaps the first Bond to become an instant classic in an age where the Internet has become a part of everyday life. Would there have been a similar response to other franchise landmarks? No one knows, so it is difficult to appropriately put the reaction of this film into context.

At any rate, the fact that this film has provoked such strong reactions (on both sides) suggests that this is a Bond film which is special enough to have lived up to the hype, even if for you personally it proves to not quite be your cup of Bond.

Edited by Safari Suit, 08 January 2007 - 09:59 PM.


#33 B5Erik

B5Erik

    Sub-Lieutenant

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

Posted 09 January 2007 - 04:48 AM

[quote name='Judo chop' post='683661' date='8 January 2007 - 18:24'][quote name='B5Erik' post='683062' date='7 January 2007 - 11:55']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.[/quote]

[size=2]The question has been broken down very well in previous posts.

#34 Jet Set Willy

Jet Set Willy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 195 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 08:02 AM

[quote name='B5Erik' post='684048' date='9 January 2007 - 04:48'][quote name='Judo chop' post='683661' date='8 January 2007 - 18:24'][quote name='B5Erik' post='683062' date='7 January 2007 - 11:55']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.[/quote]

[size=2]The question has been broken down very well in previous posts.

#35 Nimsworth

Nimsworth

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 207 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 09 January 2007 - 09:15 AM

The thing with a question like "Casino Royale - Overrated?" is its all down to an opinion. Its not something with a definite answer answer like say "Daniel Craig - First Actor to be born after Dr No?"

Personally I think that CR isnt overrated. But I could just as easily have said that it is. Go with whatever supports your side of the argument cause theres never going to be a definite answer.

#36 kneelbeforezod

kneelbeforezod

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1131 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 09 January 2007 - 02:50 PM

You're pretty close to the mark. A lot of opinions about specific movies change over time. Many who score this movie an 11 now (this movie goes to 11) may score it an 8 or a 9 in five years' time.

It's funny, but a lot of people who have gotten all over me for daring to even question the "greatness" of CR and Daniel Craig seem to forget the reaction of at least half the members of this forum when DAD came out. The EXACT same kind of "greatness," reaction - a rather large number of our members called DAD, "The best Bond film EVER!"

There are 2 problems with your argument.

1) To imply there is a general consensus that this film is an "11" is wrong... the fact is that most people on this site would probably give it a 9, and it will stay a 9. Many people, myself included, are well aware of CR's flaws. In fact, the phrase you hear repeated the most is "best Bond since Connery". What you're basically doing is arguing with a very small niche of people who might say this is "the greatest film ever made"... but what's the point of that?

2) If you're going to equate CR's reception to DAD's, then be fair: whilst you may be right that some people on this Bond forum got excited about that film, in general the receptions to the 2 films have been wildly different: I hated DAD the instant I saw it, and so did many, many others. The critical reception is totally different as well, CR is making various top ten lists.

It's funny, but a lot of people who have gotten all over me for daring to even question the "greatness" of CR and Daniel Craig

I don't have the slightest problem with you "questioning the greatness of CR". What I find slightly irritating is you questioning the judgement of people that love it.

FYEO is a 6, TLD is a 6, LTK is a 7, CR is a 9, it definitely has minor flaws, and DC is the most exciting Bond since Connery. That is my perfectly clear-eyed, objective opinion.

#37 dodge

dodge

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5068 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 January 2007 - 03:10 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.


I not only respect your perspective, I salute you for expressing it so vigorously and clearly. The new direction may not be welcome to all, but CR declared its intentions right off in the astonishing PTS: a bold, new and original take. And there's no need to wait five years to rest in full assurance that CR delivered in champion form on that promise.

#38 Judo chop

Judo chop

    Commander

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

Posted 09 January 2007 - 03:23 PM

I'll just give my 2 cents to say I'm not offended by the question.

Some people do find their opinions change over time. That is a fact. There are people who do; I am one of them.

Some people are confident that they can watch a movie once (or twice, or thrice, or whatever) and formulate an accurate and unchanging opinion.

Our poster has humbly placed himself in the first category. He's just asking whether anybody else also places themselves in that category, and whether they suspect that their current rating of CR will dwindle over time.

I'm not saying it's a GOOD question, or one with a point, because how is one supposed to know how one WILL feel? But I don't find it offensive in the least.

#39 pedroarmendariz

pedroarmendariz

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 61 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 05:55 PM

casino royale is not overrated. it's a great movie and should be praised for turning a big gamble into a big payoff. sure it leaves true fans with many questions still unanswer mainly how bond can start again in the modern era, but if you check your brains at the door and enjoy the movie you'll be quite entertain. i saw superman returns and walked out of the theater wishing for my money and my time back. warner bros. tried their best to resurrect superman and failed big. they made money at the box office, but so did x-men 3 and it had a better story line. long live bond, and those who hate him can go post at craigisnotbond.com because the true fans reside in forums like this one.

#40 Publius

Publius

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3225 posts
  • Location:Miami

Posted 09 January 2007 - 06:45 PM

the editing is actually pretty poor in some cases (watch the DVD when it comes out and try to figure out when things are happening - they're at the poker table, they take a break for an hour, they're back at the table, they're on another unannounced break?? They're back at the table... Fights and whatnot are ensuing during these breaks, and it becomes a bit hard to follow the clock as relates to the rest of the people at the table).

Well, Licence to Kill is even worse in that regard (one of the most confusing films I've ever seen with respect to what time of day it is) and I still rank it very, very highly, probably just under Casino Royale. For me, even saying that a movie is a 10 out of 10 doesn't mean I think it's flawless, just that I don't find its flaws major enough to get in the way. If I looked for perfection, I'd never find it, because we'd all do things our own way, but only a few (EON) call the shots. No sense in letting that constantly get in the way when discussing our perceptions of a film's quality.

#41 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 10 January 2007 - 01:11 AM

I hope I do find Casino Royale overrated......


in two years when Bond 22 comes out. :cooltongue:

Till then, there's nothing I find overrated about it. It's taken something I really enjoy and kicked it up several notches. If that's overrated in some people's eyes, that's fine. But in light of what we have, I'd rather find myself in my own ignorant bliss than looking for flaws.

#42 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 01:14 AM

Till then, there's nothing I find overrated about it. It's taken something I really enjoy and kicked it up several notches. If that's overrated in some people's eyes, that's fine. But in light of what we have, I'd rather find myself in my own ignorant bliss than looking for flaws.


Agreed 100%.

You wanna talk about overrated? CASINO ROYALE has made me realise just how much I've spent the past few years overrating DIE ANOTHER DAY! :cooltongue: :angry: :lol:

#43 Four Aces

Four Aces

    Lt. Commander

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

Posted 10 January 2007 - 01:19 AM

Yes, CR has kicked it up several notches for us Bond fans. It has also resurrected the franchise in a big way.

#44 B5Erik

B5Erik

    Sub-Lieutenant

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

Posted 10 January 2007 - 05:06 AM

Keep this in mind - I agree that CR is a VERY good, perhaps even great Bond film, and just a very good movie overall.

I just don't find it to really be any better than Dr. No, FRWL, GF, TB, TSWLM, FYEO, TLD, LTK, GE, TND, or even TWINE - just a little different (in a good way).

CR has definitely pointed the series in the right direction - the direction I wanted it to go in following LTK! As I stated in my review this is a near-perfect way to restart the series. I had some gripes about the movie, but they were relatively minor. Craig was very good... but just not Bond, James Bond - and with good reason. He was Bond, Becoming Bond. The next movie will tell the tale as to whether or not Daniel Craig is a Bond for the ages, or just another guy giving his take on the role.

I want the serious, Fleming-esque style, but I also want a little more fun that we got in CR. I WANT the one-liners on occasion. Not to the extent that we saw in the Roger Moore era, and not quite as much as we saw during the Pierce Brosnan era, but more than we got in CR. And certainly not as cheesy as in DAD - cheesy one liners are death! But SEMI-cheesy one liners are fun. Connery's one-liners were perfect ("He got the point."), and that's the kind of thing I'd like to see thrown in just a little in the nest movie.

Now, as I said, maybe with repeated viewings on DVD MY opinion will change about CR and it's status will be elevated in my Bond rankings, but for now my opinion is that is is merely one of the best Bond movies - along with about 9 others!

This is a series with a 44+ year history, and a character that has been around for 54 years, and CR is just one part of that history. A good part, a highlight, but not the kind of thing that wipes out that history.

Hell, I didn't like Sean Connery's Bond movies back in the early and mid 80's when I was a teenager and a (very) young adult. It wasn't until about 1987 or so that I started to warm up to Connery - and over time I realized just why a majority of Bond fans preferred Connery to Moore.

My opinion of Moore's Bond has diminished over time as my esteem for Connery and Dalton rose. I still like Moore, and his Bond movies, but Connery and Dalton's performances, and the films they were in, just work better for me than Moore's do.

I'm just not sure how I'm going to feel about Craig and CR in 5 years' time. I know that I will always like CR a lot, and Craig WAS good, but for me something was missing - and it may just be that whole Bond Begins thing, he isn't the same Bond we've known - yet. The thing is, I still can't see Craig fully becoming James Bond. I wanted the more serious Fleming-esque approch, but I also wanted it applied to Bond, James Bond, not some modern agent who only shares a name with the guy we've known. I want the Bond of FRWL or TLD, and I'm just hoping we see that in Bond 22.

If not, then the Craig era, as good as he is, as good as CR is (and Bond 22 may be), will be a disappointment for me.

That's part of the reason why I think CR is a little overrated - CR just doesn't seem to be a James Bond movie in the sense that all 20 previous movies were James Bond movies.

Then again, maybe in 5 years I'll think I was totally wrong in my current assessment of the reaction to CR. Who knows?

#45 annita

annita

    Midshipman

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

Posted 10 January 2007 - 05:21 AM

I just don't find it to really be any better than Dr. No, FRWL, GF, TB, TSWLM, FYEO, TLD, LTK, GE, TND, or even TWINE - just a little different (in a good way).

CR has definitely pointed the series in the right direction - the direction I wanted it to go in following LTK! As I stated in my review this is a near-perfect way to restart the series. I had some gripes about the movie, but they were relatively minor. Craig was very good... but just not Bond, James Bond - and with good reason. He was Bond, Becoming Bond. The next movie will tell the tale as to whether or not Daniel Craig is a Bond for the ages, or just another guy giving his take on the role.

I want the serious, Fleming-esque style, but I also want a little more fun that we got in CR. I WANT the one-liners on occasion. Not to the extent that we saw in the Roger Moore era, and not quite as much as we saw during the Pierce Brosnan era, but more than we got in CR. And certainly not as cheesy as in DAD - cheesy one liners are death! But SEMI-cheesy one liners are fun. Connery's one-liners were perfect ("He got the point."), and that's the kind of thing I'd like to see thrown in just a little in the nest movie.



This is a series with a 44+ year history, and a character that has been around for 54 years, and CR is just one part of that history. A good part, a highlight, but not the kind of thing that wipes out that history.

Hell, I didn't like Sean Connery's Bond movies back in the early and mid 80's when I was a teenager and a (very) young adult. It wasn't until about 1987 or so that I started to warm up to Connery - and over time I realized just why a majority of Bond fans preferred Connery to Moore.

My opinion of Moore's Bond has diminished over time as my esteem for Connery and Dalton rose. I still like Moore, and his Bond movies, but Connery and Dalton's performances, and the films they were in, just work better for me than Moore's do.


I think you are mixing two issues here..on one hand you state tat CR is a good film, on the other hand you state it may be overrated because it's missing some of the Bond typical formula, and that doesn't make sense.
by saying that CR is no better than TND or TWINE( which I disagree with strongly), you seem to miss the old tired cliche of Bond films, and that's why you are saying that CR is overrated, while in fact CR is the closest to Flemming and the real Bond we got since OHMSS, so it is good film in your opinion but because it doesn't have "enough" one liners(I thought they had plenty of smart, witty one liners), it is overrated

CR is not overrated as a good , well made film. and it's definitely not over praised as a great Bond film that is up there with the best of the series.
and I have to say that CR was way better than the 4 Brosnan films and LTK, it's on par with FRWL, OHMSS, and GF.

P.S
i was a lurker on this forum long time before the release of CR, and people here never thought that DAD was a great film, so I don't know where you get that argument

That's part of the reason why I think CR is a little overrated - CR just doesn't seem to be a James Bond movie in the sense that all 20 previous movies were James Bond movies.

are you saying that DAD, MR, OP, TWINE were more of a Bond movies than CR?

Edited by annita, 10 January 2007 - 05:26 AM.


#46 B5Erik

B5Erik

    Sub-Lieutenant

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

Posted 10 January 2007 - 05:38 AM

Annita - you must have missed the out and out fights posted here debating DAD. It got ugly at times - because there were such strong feelings on both sides.

There were plenty of people who called DAD, "The best Bond film ever," back then. I thought they were nuts, but there were more than just a couple of them. (There were also people, like me, who were disgusted with the last hour of that movie...)

And I guess you missed my point. CR lacks the James Bond we all know and love. That was by design, as this was the assignment that helped create the Bond we all know and love.

My problem with the movie, and with Craig, is that it doesn't leave much room for him to develop into the James Bond we've seen in the previous 20 movies. While they aren't likely to give us Daniel Craig doing his best Roger Moore, I'm hoping that they throw in elements of Connery, Dalton, and Brosnan's Bonds along with the new gritty style.

You CAN have it both ways - a tough, straight Bond movie with some one liners and a sense of fun. That would make writing the script tricky - not going too far in either direction - but it can be done.

#47 DanMan

DanMan

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2009 posts
  • Location:The City That Never Sleeps

Posted 10 January 2007 - 05:57 AM

There really is no comparison between the fan & critical reactions of Die Another Day and Casino Royale upon there initial releases. While there were a few fans who believed it to be great, hell I was one of them, the common consensus seemed to be that the the film was a giant missed opportunity. Fans hated the fact that it went from dark/gritty to OTT and even critics who enjoyed the film admitted it was nothing more than disposable entertainment.

CR and Craig were immediatly praised upon release and the common consensus was that it was the first Bond film since the 60's that could actually be judged as a real movie and not just the new Bond flick. Critically, it's probably the best received Bond film ever, maybe only challenged by DN and FRWL. For the 21st film of a 44 year old franchise to be referred to as "one of the best movies of the year" and even "the best movie of the year" by many respected critics says a lot about the quality of a film.

While the release of DAD signaled the end of Bond as we know it, the release of CR signals a bright new future for our beloved franchise. I don't know how long the quality will last for and for all we know CR could just be a one-hit wonder, but the fact is that all involved with production brought their A-game and the film is receiving the praise it deserves.

#48 B5Erik

B5Erik

    Sub-Lieutenant

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

Posted 10 January 2007 - 06:22 AM

17 years ago I walked out of the theater with the feeling and firm belief that I had just seen the best James Bond movie ever. I still feel that way about LTK now.

I didn't feel that way about CR. I liked it - a lot - but to me it isn't in the same class as LTK or TLD (or FRWL, or DN, or TB, or FYEO). It's newer, more modern, but I don't think it's any better.

Something about it struck me as being not quite right. The more I think about it the more it strikes me that way.

So when I see all the hype and the buildup as, "The best Bond ever," it does strike me as odd, or not appropriate given the movie and the history of the series.

Maybe I'm just not getting it - hell, there are A LOT of people who feel that way about LTK! (They don't get all the high praise...)

Apparently, for a very large contingent here CR isn't the least bit overrated, and the movie matches the hype. Well, if you're one of those people then all I can say is... Good for you! I'm glad you feel that way about it.

I'll tell you this - I'm VERY glad that CR was a 180 from DAD's last hour! It may not be exactly what I wanted, but it's a lot closer to what I wanted than DAD was!

#49 Jet Set Willy

Jet Set Willy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 195 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 07:49 AM

17 years ago I walked out of the theater with the feeling and firm belief that I had just seen the best James Bond movie ever. I still feel that way about LTK now.

I didn't feel that way about CR. I liked it - a lot - but to me it isn't in the same class as LTK or TLD (or FRWL, or DN, or TB, or FYEO). It's newer, more modern, but I don't think it's any better.

Something about it struck me as being not quite right. The more I think about it the more it strikes me that way.

So when I see all the hype and the buildup as, "The best Bond ever," it does strike me as odd, or not appropriate given the movie and the history of the series.

Maybe I'm just not getting it - hell, there are A LOT of people who feel that way about LTK! (They don't get all the high praise...)

Apparently, for a very large contingent here CR isn't the least bit overrated, and the movie matches the hype. Well, if you're one of those people then all I can say is... Good for you! I'm glad you feel that way about it.

I'll tell you this - I'm VERY glad that CR was a 180 from DAD's last hour! It may not be exactly what I wanted, but it's a lot closer to what I wanted than DAD was!


Funny that, because up until CR's release, LTK was my all-time favourite too. I never ever thought EON would be able to top LTK, but they have with CR.

In fact, watching LTK again now after seeing CR, and the minor faults in the film suddenly become more apparent. The humour, which is almost non-existent in both films, is more evident in LTK (which I do NOT like).

The reasons why CR is now superior to LTK are as follows -

1) The scenes with Q now look more silly
2) The winking fish at the end I do not like
3) The '80's Die Hard feel to it now looks more dated that the 60's films
4) Not the same level of class or sophistication that is evident in CR
5) Dalton. Great performance (the closest to Fleming we got) until Craig came along. Dalton doesn't really look like a man who could kill with his bare hands, whereas Craig obviously does. They both have great acting credentials, but Craig edges it by looking more tougher, meaner.
6) Kamen music. Arnold's Barry-type score is infinitely better (especially the Venice scenes).
7) Title score - no comparison.
8) Violence - even more bloody than LTK.

Other than that, I love both films, but after seeing CR 4 times now, I believe it is a better all-round film than LTK.

#50 dee-bee-five

dee-bee-five

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2227 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 08:16 AM

I can only speak for myself, of course, as we all can. But as a 40-something Bond fan who saw his first Bond in '67 and who's regarded OHMSS as the greatest-ever Bond movie for at least two decades, I had to downgrade Lazenby's triumph to second-place to make room for Casino Royale in the top slot in November. Subsequent viewings of the film have reinforced, not challenged, that. The awful din over the splendid opening credits aside, there's not a thing I'd change about the movie.

But threads like this were inevitable, I guess. Success always provokes a backlash. After all, there are people who would deny that the Mona Lisa is a work of art.

Edited by dee-bee-five, 10 January 2007 - 08:26 AM.


#51 DavidSomerset

DavidSomerset

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 879 posts
  • Location:Moonbase Alpha

Posted 10 January 2007 - 09:28 AM

Hi all,
I think this has already been asked in this forum but please humor me.
Why does Mr. White send the sms to Bond at the end of the film? Or was it Vesper? My kid was creating some problems at the end of the flick so didnt actually get this part...

#52 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 January 2007 - 12:15 PM

Apart from the lagging pace after LeChiffre

#53 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 10 January 2007 - 12:48 PM

The promotion-generated hype isn't especially different from the launch of Brosnan, or the 60s Connery era. What you're talking about, it seems to me, is the REACTION. And complaining that people are over-reacting is kinda redundant - after all, people are going to praise what they like and criticise what they don't.

As to WHY the reaction's been so remarkable...well, it's only understandable if your take on the film concurs with the majority voice. If you don't think it's one of the best-made action-thrillers of recent times, much less one of the best Bonds, then of course the rection is going to seem exaggerated to you.

For the rest of us, though, it's a deeply special time. A franchise we adore just reached a brand new pinacle. A 40-year franchise just created a new installment that out-performed its predecessors in almost every regard - writing, direction, performance, style, tone, wit. And when we already adored what had gone before, that's a pretty high peak.

(Consider, for example, the disappointment over the Star Wars prequels, or the way Scorsese and DePalma's later films have been less magnificent than the ones that blew us away 20+ years ago. How shockingly fabulous to have something so good so late on, rather than another Octopussy.)

I'm reminded of a moment in Family Guy where Peter admits not liking The Godfather. He just can't see what makes it so magnificent. Similarly, he can complain all he likes - but the bottom line is that the film's reputation is built on its sheer outstanding quality, on public reaction, not 'hype'.

If you don't dig The Godfather, say, well, your loss, but you're completely entitled to your opinion. Ditto Casino Royale.

So you can't really complain that people are voicing their own positive view - they're doing the same as you, it's just that you're outnumbered! :-)

#54 B5Erik

B5Erik

    Sub-Lieutenant

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

Posted 10 January 2007 - 01:19 PM

You know, I don't know why people keep cherry-picking through my posts and skipping the most important point (to me)...

I really, REALLY like CR. It is a very good movie. One of the better Bond movies - one that lives up to the expectations.

I just don't agree with the point of view that says it is a transcendant Bond movie - one that puts ALL the rest to shame, one that makes them ALL look bad in comparison. CR has as many flaws as LTK or FYEO, but it's new, it's exciting, and it is the movie that many Bond fans wanted so the reaction is extremely positive. I get that. The reaction should be positive.

I'm just saying that the current euphoria is very likely going to die down over the next few years - it always has when a good new Bond movie comes out. It is inevitable that some fans' opinion of the movie will cool just a little over time. Not much, but a little. The flaws in the film will start to bother fans - just a little.

I mean, come on - Jet Set Willy's laundry list of nit-picks about LTK is just that: nit picks. Little, insignificant things - but over 5-10-15 years they started to bother Willy, and now with CR out (and showing none of those "flaws") they have become magnified. Willy still loves LTK, but now places it below CR in part because of those things (and in part because of how good CR is).

Those things never bothered me about LTK, in fact, some of them I rather liked (the humor, for one thing - it helped keep the movie from getting TOO dark for a Bond film).

But EVERYONE is entitled to his or her own opinion. I just asked the question, "Is CR overrated, is the fan and media generated hype about this movie (the reaction to it) a little out of hand?"

I asked that because while I really, REALLY like CR, I don't feel nearly as strongly about it as many Bond fans do. I certainly don't think Craig is some sort of Bond messiah. He's good, but he hasn't played the same character that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan played. Let's see how he handles the more experienced, more confident Bond - will he have the charisma, the charm, the swagger that the others have shown? We won't know for sure until 2008.

IF he can add charm, swagger, and confidence to his performance, IF he can play a more suave and in control Bond while keeping the basics of his performance in CR intact then I may say, "This guy is the best Bond to date." But, for me, he was George Lazenby with better acting chops. That's not a bad thing - Lazenby is, to me, UNDERrated. Given another Bond movie or two he might have grown nicely into the role. We'll never know.

So, again - BOTTOM LINE for me: I very much liked CR. I thought it was a VERY good Bond movie, and a good movie in general.

Don't get the idea that I'm Anti-CR, because I'm not. I'm actually VERY Pro-CR! I just don't agree with the idea that it is the best Bond ever.

#55 krypt

krypt

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 320 posts
  • Location:classified

Posted 10 January 2007 - 02:04 PM

CR and Craig were immediatly praised upon release and the common consensus was that it was the first Bond film since the 60's that could actually be judged as a real movie and not just the new Bond flick. Critically, it's probably the best received Bond film ever, maybe only challenged by DN and FRWL. For the 21st film of a 44 year old franchise to be referred to as "one of the best movies of the year" and even "the best movie of the year" by many respected critics says a lot about the quality of a film.


Indeed. Excellent point. I was pleased to see CR listed as among the best of 2006 in several entertainment media "best of" roundups.

But it's not just media. The word-of-mouth among longtime Bond fans and casual fans alike has been very, very strong.

Overrated? In a word, no, IMO anyway. Personally, I put CR in among the best of the 007 series. I'm not going to say it's better than FRWL, but it's certainly equal to it in my book.

Edited by krypt, 10 January 2007 - 02:37 PM.


#56 sorking

sorking

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 562 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 10 January 2007 - 02:53 PM

You know, I don't know why people keep cherry-picking through my posts and skipping the most important point (to me)...


Oh. erm, sorry. But I really don't think that's what I did!

I take all your points, but your supporting evidence all stood around the main question - is the hype out of hand? - and that's what I answered.

(The answer was 'no', by the way. And I also had a crack at seperating 'hype' from 'opinion', because they differ.)

I got that you liked the movie; I think we all did. I don't think my own post suggested otherwise. But it didn't hit you as hard as it did many of us - it's in a lot of people's top fives and has made a lot of number one slots. But not yours. You post invites us to include that opinion in your feeling about 'too much hype'.

All of which is fair enough. But no, on this subject, I think you're wrong. I think time will pick out the flaws, but you can just as easily find flaws in The Godfather or Citizen Kane. Does this lessen their impact or quality? Not really.

Never before in Bond history have commerce and critical response been so synchronised. Not only do the majority of fans have the film they want, but the general public do, too. Huge new audiences are flocking to CR, and more than hardcore fans are going twice. It's attracted people who never liked, or had gone off, the franchise.

That is, frankly, 'a big deal'. Financial success also came to Moonraker, but the reviews really didn't; while the fans loved Dalton, the public didn't. To bring all that together along with a witty (rather than droll) and emotionally capable screenplay, plus scorchingly good effects...it simply doesn't happen often enough.

Time will tell, of course - and there you are you're absolutely right. I just happen to disagree - I think time will show that we all got jolly excited for exactly the right reasons.

#57 dodge

dodge

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5068 posts
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 January 2007 - 03:13 PM

Quoting Sorking:
I think time will pick out the flaws, but you can just as easily find flaws in The Godfather or Citizen Kane. Does this lessen their impact or quality? Not really.

Never before in Bond history have commerce and critical response been so synchronised. Not only do the majority of fans have the film they want, but the general public do, too. Huge new audiences are flocking to CR, and more than hardcore fans are going twice. It's attracted people who never liked, or had gone off, the franchise.

That is, frankly, 'a big deal'. Financial success also came to Moonraker, but the reviews really didn't; while the fans loved Dalton, the public didn't. To bring all that together along with a witty (rather than droll) and emotionally capable screenplay, plus scorchingly good effects...it simply doesn't happen often enough.

Time will tell, of course - and there you are you're absolutely right. I just happen to disagree - I think time will show that we all got jolly excited for exactly the right reasons.
[/quote]


This may be the best summing-up on this particular subject I've seen. In terms of the franchise, CR was revolutionary. It's possible to nit-pick, as you've pointed out, with absolutely anything. But the earth is still trembling from the impact of CR. Some argue that Craig 'just' got lucky: the planets were all in allignment, the studio was ripe for change, the script was superlative, etc. Luck and timing are always involved. But, for me, the key thing about Daniel Craig--and what gets my juices going--is that he fought to boost his luck: he made demands, he insisted on things, there was some (bleep) he would not eat. And he didn't do these things because he was rolling in money and able to hold out. He said, from the start: 'I'm an artist and, by God, you'll respect that. Or I am out that door.' Bravo!

#58 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:15 PM

I wouldn't say Casino Royale was overrated in the slightest. The opening of a Bond movie is a massive event, and the debut of a new Bond actor is even bigger. If you were going to say any Bond movie was overrated it would have to be Die Another Day, Royale didn't have half the hype Die Another Day had. Brozza's last outing had loads of TV Specials including, Best Ever Bond, James Bond a Bafta Tribuite, Die Another Day: From Script to Screen and Premiere Bond: The Premiere of Die Another Day In England alone. I'm not to sure what other countries had. If you look at Casino Royale, imo, it was much more low key. All we had over here was two half hour TV Specials. We didn't even get half the things what Die Another Day had, we even had to watch the premiere online. So... Even though it was the 40th Anniversay Die Another Day was way more overhyped, than Casino Royale ever was.

And... I expect the 50th Anniversary to be way bigger. :D

#59 HH007

HH007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1833 posts
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:47 PM

Die Another Day was way more overhyped, than Casino Royale ever was.


Absolutely it was. I remember a lot more hype in the general media over DAD than CR. And as for CR being overrated, I don't think it was at all. I remember having a simular debate with someone on IMDb. They said essentially that CR was "good but not great" and that we were "buying into a hysteria." Now here's my answer to that. I didn't love CR because it was new. I went to see TND, TWINE, and DAD when they were new, and I did not flip over those movies. In fact, I found myself losing interest in Bond during the Brosnan era. Initially I attributed this to the idea that I was becoming more interested in films by the likes of Tarantino, the Coen Bros., David Lynch, Jim Jarmusch, etc. Simply, I was becomming more interested in artier, more independent type films and I thought I was simply outgrowing Bond (no offense to anyone here). Then, before CR, I caught FRWL on TV and I thought "man, what a damn good movie!" Then I saw DN and thought, "Damn, that's a good movie, too! Why aren't Brosnan's movies that good? Why can't they make Bond films like that anymore." And when CR came out, the thing that struck me about it was it totally has that old school flavor of the early movies. True, it's set in the modern day, the action is more elaborate, but still, it had a certain class, a certain essense that that Pierce's movies lacked (save for GE). That, and the action was amazing, the script was well written for a change, and Craig was phenomonal. This is my opinion that I formed on my own from watching the film and honestly evaluating it. It was not based on any critical or fanboy hype. CR is number 1 in my book (and I actually have a book :P ).

I know Mharkin007 and I are responding to this 10 months after the fact, but it's never to late, right? :D

#60 Daddy Bond

Daddy Bond

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2052 posts
  • Location:Back in California

Posted 31 October 2007 - 04:59 PM

Die Another Day was way more overhyped, than Casino Royale ever was.


Absolutely it was. I remember a lot more hype in the general media over DAD than CR. And as for CR being overrated, I don't think it was at all. I remember having a simular debate with someone on IMDb. They said essentially that CR was "good but not great" and that we were "buying into a hysteria." Now here's my answer to that. I didn't love CR because it was new. I went to see TND, TWINE, and DAD when they were new, and I did not flip over those movies. In fact, I found myself losing interest in Bond during the Brosnan era. Initially I attributed this to the idea that I was becoming more interested in films by the likes of Tarantino, the Coen Bros., David Lynch, Jim Jarmusch, etc. Simply, I was becomming more interested in artier, more independent type films and I thought I was simply outgrowing Bond (no offense to anyone here). Then, before CR, I caught FRWL on TV and I thought "man, what a damn good movie!" Then I saw DN and thought, "Damn, that's a good movie, too! Why aren't Brosnan's movies that good? Why can't they make Bond films like that anymore." And when CR came out, the thing that struck me about it was it totally has that old school flavor of the early movies. True, it's set in the modern day, the action is more elaborate, but still, it had a certain class, a certain essense that that Pierce's movies lacked (save for GE). That, and the action was amazing, the script was well written for a change, and Craig was phenomonal. This is my opinion that I formed on my own from watching the film and honestly evaluating it. It was not based on any critical or fanboy hype. CR is number 1 in my book (and I actually have a book :P ).

I know Mharkin007 and I are responding to this 10 months after the fact, but it's never to late, right? :D


Well written. I do like Pierce's first two outings though. If Broz's Bond movies had improved after TND, I think our view of his tenure as Bond would be totally different. If we had two pretty good Bond pics (GE and TND) followed by two great Bond pics, then Broz would be at (or at least nearer) to the top of the pack - and might have been back for a 5th outing. As it is, it seems like each Broz outing was worse than the one before IMHO.

As for CR, it is now in my top 5 Bond films ever! It deserves all the hype and more.