148 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Agreed, Publius. Not even sure that a new M would have been an improvement.

As a side note, I'm disappointed by most of my friends' reactions to CASINO ROYALE. A typical exchange from the other day:

ME: So what did you think of CASINO ROYALE?
FRIEND: It's a very good film, but it lacks some of those Bondian elements.
ME: What do you mean?
FRIEND: Oh, you know, gadgets and so on.
ME: Ah, but, see, the whole point of this one is that----
FRIEND: Yes, yes, I know what you're going to say: that it's trying to take the series back to Fleming, and that the Bond of the books doesn't drive an invisible car, and----
ME: Well, yeah, 'cause it's true.
FRIEND: And that's great, but I miss those Bondian elements.
ME: Like?
FRIEND: Q. Gadgets.
ME: Are they really so important, though?
FRIEND: Yes. Good film, though, on the whole.
ME: Good.
FRIEND: Like I say, though, it lacks those traditional elements.
ME: Okay. So what about Craig? What did you think?
FRIEND: Again, he was very good. But he wasn't James Bond.

*Sigh*

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Another criticism I would have is that CR sometimes seems more like 2 movies than 1. Madagascar/Bahamas/Miami feels little bit like a Bruce Willis-type action flick while Montenegro/Lake Cuomo/Venice feels like a 2nd movie (which makes sense since this part is the actual adaptation of CR novel.) While I enjoyed "both movies" that made the CR film we have, it did feel a little disjointed.

That bothered me too at first, but the movie seems less disjointed the more you watch it.

I understood why EON made it the way they did. If they had just started with the Fleming material(when Vesper makes her entrance to the end of the film), a lot of modern-day viewers would be bored, hence the "His name is Bond, Bruce Willis Bond" type stuff at the beginning was necessary. In this way, Casino Royale is almost a reverse of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, i.e., CR has more action in the first half and is slower and more dramatic in the second half instead of being somewhat slow in the first half and more action packed in the 2nd half.

Some people have suggested that there are actually 3 parts to the movie - the Bahamas-Miami section. The mission.

Then the Casino section.

and finally the love story/Venice section.

I would add the B&W pre-title sequence is another mini-movie, so in Casino Royale we get 4 movies(a film noir, a Bruce Willisish action flick, a suspense intrigue pic, and a sappy chick flick) all in one!

It's as perfect a Bond film as has ever been made or ever will likely be made.

It's certainly raised the bar for Bond films. Bond 22 will certainly have a tough act to follow. I have a feeling like with Timothy Dalton, Mr. Craig's first will be his best.

[font=Courier New]
3) Over the top makeup with Vesper on many occasions. Sometimes the makeup is so excessive its almost clown like. But why? Eva Green is a beautiful woman - e.g. the death scene in Venice when she is lying on top of the ruined house.

Indeed. Miss Green was so much more appealing the less she put on her eyes.

Good points, Andy. By the way, From Russia with Love is Daniel Craig's favourite Bond movie.

BTW, From Russia With Love is also Connery's and Dalton's favorite as well(not to mention Raymond Benson), so Craig's in good company

The love dialogue got a little too mushy for me. I was expecting someone to say, "you had me at hello"

It wasn't as bad as some of the similar scenes in the Brosnan era, even though I love all of Brosnan's scenes with Teri Hatcher's Paris in Tomorrow Never Dies. It was also better acted by Mr. Craig and Miss Green than the similar scenes in the Brosnan era.
Since it was Bond's first mission and Vesper was the first woman who "got too close" I was OK with it. However, if they have Craig say similar things to his remaining Bond girls I'll be very annoyed. I want the callous womanizer who loves 'em and leaves' em back for the remainder of his tenure.

You know the song "who loves and leaves 'em. A pity if it grieves them. Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang." Now that would make a good title for a future Bond film.

[Publius]

*Sigh*

I know what you mean, although thankfully a good dozen of my friends (and even my grandparents!) expressed almost 100% approval, with running time being the only real quibble.

The one person I do know who didn't like it outright hated everything about, save for the DBS. Not much I could do to reason with him, but I did try to address his "not traditional/Bondian" complaint by pointing out how little gadgets and other cliches actually mattered to the classics, from Goldfinger to Spy and even to GoldenEye. No luck, unfortunately, but (and I mean no offense to anyone) that lack of understanding does seem to be the trend (note: not the rule) in people who dislike much or all of CR, even when they're the polar opposites of CnB in terms of civility.

[Loomis]

The most bizarre complaint anyone's aired to me - in all seriousness, mind - about CR is that---- wait for this one, it's a corker.... that the torture scene pales in comparison to the torture in DAD, which is much more intense and scary.

I mean.... I just....

[DaveBond21]

Well, we must remember that there is nothing wrong with not liking CR. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if someone likes the Moonraker/Octopussy/DAD type of Bond movie, then they have every right not to enjoy CR as much.

I have heard a few women say that Daniel is not good-looking enough, and some others missed Q, but most people I know loved it as much as I did.

[Santa]

I'm not sure I believe in perfection as a concept, but CR was pretty good. There were some things about it that hold it back from the number one spot for me, but nothing I can really put my finger on, it's just a feeling. Still, I don't really have complaints as such, it was bloody brilliant, I just cannot bring myself to call it perfect - but then the same goes for the other 20.

[Bondian]

I don't think Casino Royale is the best we've seen, or will see. It's a refreshment of what we're expecting, and I think EON have got to go some to improve upon things for the next one. There was still some left-over absurdities that need to be removed from the old 'days', but it's the 'old days' that has made this movie great. After 20 movies, we now get a Bond who doesn't really fit the job description doing an amazing job, and kicking the brown stuff from any competition.

The thing that works for me, is that Casino Royale does it's damnedest not to emulate anything from the previous films. But what comes with that is a kind of vulnerability that cannot be copied over to the next movie, otherwise it'll act as a flop. There was far too many 'nods and winks' to other movie franchises but were badly disguised.

Bond 22 has GOT to be a dialogue/character driven movie with inducements of what's already been established in the past. Now it would be a very brave task to bring back 'Q' and the comedy. As we've seen, Craig can do comedy, action and is exquisite at telling the camera that what he's doing is REAL. There's absolutely no bullcrap coming from him. But let's not make Bond 22 too serious. A Bond movie is an adventure, not a lesson in how to do things differently.

Cheers,


Ian

[Loomis]

Well, we must remember that there is nothing wrong with not liking CR.

There is, dammit! If you don't like CR, you don't like James Bond!

[Santa]

Bond is not blond he ugly he going to ruin the franchise blah blah blah

[Santa]

Bond is not blond he ugly he going to ruin the franchise blah blah blah

[DaveBond21]

Well, we must remember that there is nothing wrong with not liking CR.


There is, dammit! If you don't like CR, you don't like James Bond!

LOL. But you know what I mean. If someone came on here with valid reasons for not liking it as much as the rest of us, I think he/she would be shot down.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Well, we must remember that there is nothing wrong with not liking CR. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if someone likes the Moonraker/Octopussy/DAD type of Bond movie, then they have every right not to enjoy CR as much.

But what those of us who adore Moonraker/You Only Live Twice/Octopussy/first 2/3 of Die Another Day(see my sig) who also adore Casino Royale, From Russia With Love, Thunderball and The Living Daylights(again also see my sig)? It's possible to like both types of Bond films for different reasons.

[Loomis]

If someone came on here with valid reasons for not liking it as much as the rest of us, I think he/she would be shot down.

Hmmm.... do you want a clean kill, or do you want to send a message?

*Oh, get a life, Loomis*

[DaveBond21]

But what those of us who adore Moonraker/You Only Live Twice/Octopussy/first 2/3 of Die Another Day(see my sig) who also adore Casino Royale, From Russia With Love, Thunderball and The Living Daylights(again also see my sig)? It's possible to like both types of Bond films for different reasons.

Yes, I know, I love all 21 of the Bond movies. All I am saying is that not everyone is going to like CR.

[Tiin007]

Well, we must remember that there is nothing wrong with not liking CR. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if someone likes the Moonraker/Octopussy/DAD type of Bond movie, then they have every right not to enjoy CR as much.

But what those of us who adore Moonraker/You Only Live Twice/Octopussy/first 2/3 of Die Another Day(see my sig) who also adore Casino Royale, From Russia With Love, Thunderball and The Living Daylights(again also see my sig)? It's possible to like both types of Bond films for different reasons.

I fall into that category. My favorite Bond movies include You Only Live Twice, Octopussy, Moonraker, AND From Russia With Love, The Living Daylights,[film=99]On Her Majesty

Edited by Tiin007, 16 January 2007 - 01:20 AM.

[DaveBond21]

Well, they don't. Nobody ever said that, either, you'll be pleased to know.


But there are people who don't like CR as much as other Bond movies, and even if none of them fall into the same categories as each other, they have one thing in common - they don't like CR. But don't hurt them too much, all they are doing is expressing an opinion.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

[quote name='Tiin007' post='687927' date='15 January 2007 - 19:20'][quote name='PrinceKamalKhan' post='687920' date='15 January 2007 - 20:09'][quote name='DaveBond21' post='687908' date='15 January 2007 - 18:52']Well, we must remember that there is nothing wrong with not liking CR. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if someone likes the Moonraker/Octopussy/DAD type of Bond movie, then they have every right not to enjoy CR as much.[/quote]

But what those of us who adore Moonraker/You Only Live Twice/Octopussy/first 2/3 of Die Another Day(see my sig) who also adore Casino Royale, From Russia With Love, Thunderball and The Living Daylights(again also see my sig)? It's possible to like both types of Bond films for different reasons.
[/quote]

I fall into that category. My favorite Bond movies include You Only Live Twice, Octopussy, Moonraker, AND From Russia With Love, The Living Daylights,[film=99]On Her Majesty

[DaveBond21]

Yes.

I think we would have to ask those people who don't like CR, which Bond movies they do like.

[Publius]

If someone came on here with valid reasons for not liking it as much as the rest of us, I think he/she would be shot down.

I don't see why you'd think that. I've seen very few people here make a civil argument against CR or (to a lesser extent, given the atmosphere CnB created) Craig and be put down. I have seen well-argued opinions met with similarly well-argued disagreements, but that's why we're here.

Anyway, nothing wrong with not liking CR, but I can't help but notice that many (again, not all) of those take issue with some really silly things, like continuity with past movies, or frankly have no idea what they're talking about (for example, saying Goldfinger, Spy, and GE are similar and "Bondian" while CR is different, in a bad way, and not).

[Agent Carter]

For me it's as perfect as it's gonna get. No real gripes. The swimming scene would have been nice. The big finale with the sinking building was odd since I was kinda following along in my mind with the book. Didn't seem needed. But it was cool anyway.

[Harmsway]

The most bizarre complaint anyone's aired to me - in all seriousness, mind - about CR is that---- wait for this one, it's a corker.... that the torture scene pales in comparison to the torture in DAD, which is much more intense and scary.

I mean.... I just....

Weeeeeeeeeeeird.

I've found CASINO ROYALE to be quite a hit among my friends (who weren't that big fans of Bond to begin with). One friend even suggested it was the best action film he'd ever seen.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

For me it's as perfect as it's gonna get. No real gripes. The swimming scene would have been nice. The big finale with the sinking building was odd since I was kinda following along in my mind with the book. Didn't seem needed. But it was cool anyway.

I think they did that to give CR a "big action finish" which would not have occurred if they were more faithful to the book. They did the same thing in FRWL by adding the action sequences post-train fight between 007 and Grant with the helicopter and the boat chase, neither of which were in FRWL the novel.

[DaveBond21]

I would say my wife enjoyed it more than any other Bond film she has seen. Her other favourite is FYEO, mostly because of the title song (which was played at our wedding), and the fact that we visited some of the locations.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

I would say my wife enjoyed it more than any other Bond film she has seen. Her other favourite is FYEO, mostly because of the title song (which was played at our wedding), and the fact that we visited some of the locations.

That's cool that you all played a Bond theme at your wedding. I'm guessing a lot of female viewers like Casino Royale because of the romance. What does your wife think of On Her Majesty's Secret Service and The Living Daylights, probably the 2 other most romantic 007 films?

[DaveBond21]

Yes, it was really cool to have a Bond element to our wedding. In addition, our wedding reception, had tables named after famous Newcastle United footballers/managers from the past...

Great day!


She hasn't watched TLD all the way through, I don't think, and OHMSS - she didn't like Lazenby as Bond, but she thought the ending was sad - although inevitable - as she says - Bond can't fall in love forever, otherwise there would be no more movies!

[B5Erik]

Is Casino Royale the perfect Bond movie?

No, LTK is.

Edited by B5Erik, 16 January 2007 - 03:44 AM.

[Diabolik]

I am trying very hard to think of something that is wrong with Casino Royale, and I am finding it hard.

Apart from maybe FRWL, I am wondering if this is the perfect Bond movie? Can anyone find a flaw?

Maybe there's just too much music as usual, and maybe the Miami truck chase goes on too long but does anyone else agree that they've come pretty close to perfection here?

If not - please let's try and put a list of minor gripes down!

Although I think CR is an excellent film and probably saved the franchise, it is definitely not perfect.

1. It's too long. They could have trimmed 20-30 minutes and made it a tighter thriller.

2. The script structure is really weird (as is the pacing). Some may say it's because it follows the book. I say rubbish, FRWL and GF followed the books pretty closely and Maibaum crafted them into tight thrillers.

That said, the only "perfect" Bond films (IMHO) are FRWL and GF. (Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed CR and have fallen in love with Bond films again as a result).

Edited by Diabolik, 16 January 2007 - 03:37 AM.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Yes, it was really cool to have a Bond element to our wedding. In addition, our wedding reception, had tables named after famous Newcastle United footballers/managers from the past...

Great day!


She hasn't watched TLD all the way through, I don't think, and OHMSS - she didn't like Lazenby as Bond, but she thought the ending was sad - although inevitable - as she says - Bond can't fall in love forever, otherwise there would be no more movies!

Of course. I looked through an old copy of The New Yorker magazine and in Pauline Kael's review of On Her Majesty's Secret Service she said they should have let Diana Rigg/Tracy live and have a "Mr. and Mrs. Bond" spy adventure series like Nick and Nora Charles in The Thin Man. Kinda glad EON didn't take her up on that suggestion.

I think TLD is like FYEO only much better! You ought to get her to try it again.(I'm an extremely big TLD fan).

[B5Erik]

Is Casino Royale the "perfect" Bond movie?

Would it stun ANYONE if I said, "NO."

I didn't think so.

The pre-credits sequence was OK, but could have been fleshed out just a little more.

The editing was poor in spots (can anyone tell me what's happening when after they take their first break in the poker game? They're on a break, they're back, they're on another break(???) - what's going on, and when? What's the continuity? Poorly edited in that spot.

Another editing issue - the Airport/Truck Chase sequence. Too long. And was it just me, or did anyone else get flashbacks to Speed there for some reason?

Not enough Felix Leiter. Leiter plays a greater role in the book, and he played a greater role in the previous movies that he appeared in (Dr No, GF, TB, LALD, LTK), so this was a wasted opportunity to really re-establish the character.

Eva Green. Sorry, she just doesn't do it for me. I don't think she's all that great looking (too thin - and she's almost got the "heroin chic" look going on, which I find repulsive), and her acting was average (MILES - or KILOMETERS - apart from Denise Richards or Tanya Roberts, but not worth all the hype, IMO).

Spoiler:

Spoiler

Turning Mathis into "maybe" a bad guy.

That seemed like a change just for change's sake. Fleming didn't need him

Spoiler

to be the "inside man,"

and it just adds one too many layers of complication into the plot.

Finally (that I can think of off the top of my head)...

Daniel Craig. Good. VERY good in spots, but in others didn't seem anywhere near James Bond. He reminded me of a modern, "Actor's actor's," take on Lazenby's interpretation of Bond. He didn't seem like the guy who will become the character that James Bond HAS to become. It's like he played James' little brother (James, James, James) rather than 007 himself. Don't get me wrong (and put the knives away), he gave the character some gravitas, but he took his performance just a little too far from the character that we've all enjoyed for 44 years, IMO.


Now - OTHER than all that, I LOVED Casino Royale. It was really nice to see a straight adaptation of the first Bond novel FINALLY hit the big screen. I loved the tone overall, and if they add just a little more of the classic Bond style to Bond 22 THEN maybe they'll have the perfect Bond movie.

Maybe with repeated viewings on DVD I'll like it even more, but for now I'd rate it in my top 10, but not in my top 5 Bond movies.

[Harmsway]

1. It's too long. They could have trimmed 20-30 minutes and made it a tighter thriller.

What would you have cut?