148 replies to this topic

[DaveBond21]

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

What would you have cut?

I would have cut the fight with the chimp.



Or did I dream that?

[Loomis]

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.

*Draws knife*

Well, firstly, I don't believe that there's ever really been a consistent portrayal of "the character that we've all enjoyed for 44 years" - is Rog's Bond in, say, OCTOPUSSY particularly similar to Dalton's in LICENCE TO KILL, and does either actor's portrayal chime with, say, Brosnan's in GOLDENEYE, or Connery's in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? I don't really see how Craig has all of a sudden taken 007 away from "the norm" (or that there's even a norm at all). What exactly does he do with the character that's so strange or unacceptable?

A modern 'actors' actor's' take on Laz's Bond? Couldn't this also be said of Dalton?

I'll quote Moriarty on AICN:

By following the lead of last year

[dodge]

[quote name='Loomis' post='688193' date='16 January 2007 - 14:46'][quote name='B5Erik' post='688013' date='16 January 2007 - 03:42']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.[/quote]

*Draws knife*

Well, firstly, I don't believe that there's ever really been a consistent portrayal of "the character that we've all enjoyed for 44 years" - is Rog's Bond in, say, OCTOPUSSY particularly similar to Dalton's in LICENCE TO KILL, and does either actor's portrayal chime with, say, Brosnan's in GOLDENEYE, or Connery's in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE? I don't really see how Craig has all of a sudden taken 007 away from "the norm" (or that there's even a norm at all). What exactly does he do with the character that's so strange or unacceptable?

A modern 'actors' actor's' take on Laz's Bond? Couldn't this also be said of Dalton?I'll quote Moriarty on AICN:

By following the lead of last year

[mario007]

In my opinion, if the climax was improved ... CR would be the 'perfect' bond movie for me. For me the 'perfect' bond movie right now is TLD closely followed by CR. That might change with repeat viewings of CR on DVD. TLD had the perfect balance of spy elements, danger, great stunts, a decent story and humor. I think bond 22 will top TLD come 2008! EON is the best production company in the business period!

P.S. Goldeneye used to be on the top of my list for awhile. However it is number three right now... the sevanaya attack just drags the film down and brosnan is too thin and wooden!

Edited by mario007, 16 January 2007 - 03:28 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

The casino scene builds up the whole atmosphere in the movie. Finally, there's real tension between Bond and the villain and this keeps building up and building up until we reach the exciting final climatic... yes what? That's the main problem with the movie for me. They start with big explosive action before the game, before the character development and before we even understand the main plot. It is action between characters that we hardly know. That's why everything that happens after the game is slightly disappointing.

If you look at the film's structure and compare that with OHMSS or TB... then maybe, just maybe, someone out there might understand why I do not consider CR to be a "perfect" Bondfilm. I have always felt that Fleming's first Bond-book is good but not great. It's interesting to see that the movie has exactly the same problems as Fleming's book.

Nevertheless, even if the script is somewhat weak, the execution is more or less flawless with good direction, first-class cinemaphotography and great acting. All combined it is an improvement after the last five films.

[dee-bee-five]

Good point, I did miss Q and Moneypenny, but that is something that is prevalent in other Bond movies, I suppose.

Also, M should have been a man again(maybe Timothy Dalton! I would have like to see him ordering Craig around).

Sorry, but I think this would be ghastly. I don't want - ever - to see a former Bond actor making a reappearance, in a cameo or larger role. It would be painfully arch.

Nothing in life should be perfect, and I don't think CR is. But it's the closest I could have hoped for - and I'll live with that.

[Lazenby880]

I still can't believe all those Bafta nominations.

Indeed. The thought of any Bond picture being thought of as, y'know, *good* by award-types would have inspired howls of laughter a few years ago. Casino Royale is to Bond what David Cameron is to the Tory party: suddenly anything's possible and there are no no-go areas.

Edited by Lazenby880, 16 January 2007 - 04:20 PM.

[Loomis]

Casino Royale is to Bond what David Cameron is to the Tory party: suddenly anything's possible and there are no no-go areas.

OT, but did you see THE TRIAL OF TONY BLAIR last night, Laz? It was excellent. Very broad satire, meaning that it was utterly impossible to take even semi-seriously, but boy was it entertaining.

[Lazenby880]

OT, but did you see THE TRIAL OF TONY BLAIR last night, Laz? It was excellent. Very broad satire, meaning that it was utterly impossible to take even semi-seriously, but boy was it entertaining.

I missed it unfortunately, although the utter lack of seriousness was something I probably would not have liked. Part of the problem, for me, is Robert Lindsay, who from the advertisements has not captured the essence of Mr Blair. To be fair, of course, I should watch the thing and then pass judgement. Hopefully it will be repeated.

Incidentally, I doubt it will be better than 2003's The Deal which I thought excellent, if hilariously one-sided. And *no-one*, as far as I can see, could top Michael Sheen's slimy Tony Blair: a satirical performance with enough truth to be taken seriously.

[dee-bee-five]

OT, but did you see THE TRIAL OF TONY BLAIR last night, Laz? It was excellent. Very broad satire, meaning that it was utterly impossible to take even semi-seriously, but boy was it entertaining.

I missed it unfortunately, although the utter lack of seriousness was something I probably would not have liked. Part of the problem, for me, is Robert Lindsay, who from the advertisements has not captured the essence of Mr Blair. To be fair, of course, I should watch the thing and then pass judgement. Hopefully it will be repeated.

Incidentally, I doubt it will be better than 2003's The Deal which I thought excellent, if hilariously one-sided. And *no-one*, as far as I can see, could top Michael Sheen's slimy Tony Blair: a satirical performance with enough truth to be taken seriously.

Tony Blair slimy, venal and self-serving? The very idea...

[Lazenby880]

Tony Blair slimy, venal and self-serving? The very idea...

Indeed! I have never understood the appeal of Mr Blair myself, even during the days when he was apparently all the rage. The appeal of centrism I understand, however there is something deeply unctuous about the very way he talks and acts and I cannot help but laugh at the attempts at 'principle'.

Sorry to those wishing to discuss the perfect Bond picture, we appear to have veered violently off-topic.

[Loomis]

Incidentally, I doubt it will be better than 2003's The Deal which I thought excellent, if hilariously one-sided. And *no-one*, as far as I can see, could top Michael Sheen's slimy Tony Blair: a satirical performance with enough truth to be taken seriously.

Agreed, although Rory Bremner does a damn fine Blair. The casting of Lindsay presumably lay in the requirement to have a Tone a couple of years into the future, so Sheen would probably not have been a viable choice (perhaps makeup could have done the job, though).

Yes, THE DEAL is excellent, and, no, THE TRIAL OF TONY BLAIR doesn't even approach it. And neither, funnily enough, does THE QUEEN, even though it's by the same team. But, yes (this post is getting very Vicky Pollard, innit?), THE TRIAL is still very much worth watching. Just be sure to leave any thirst for "realism" at the door.

[Dr00d]

The only part I would whittle down is when he goes into the security room in the Bahamas and searches the Security CDs for Dimitrios.
Other than that...it's the best put together Bond film. The others either have bad editing and/or cheesy/dragging parts (but are still good).

[dee-bee-five]

Incidentally, I doubt it will be better than 2003's The Deal which I thought excellent, if hilariously one-sided. And *no-one*, as far as I can see, could top Michael Sheen's slimy Tony Blair: a satirical performance with enough truth to be taken seriously.

Agreed, although Rory Bremner does a damn fine Blair. The casting of Lindsay presumably lay in the requirement to have a Tone a couple of years into the future, so Sheen would probably not have been a viable choice (perhaps makeup could have done the job, though).

Yes, THE DEAL is excellent, and, no, THE TRIAL OF TONY BLAIR doesn't even approach it. And neither, funnily enough, does THE QUEEN, even though it's by the same team. But, yes (this post is getting very Vicky Pollard, innit?), THE TRIAL is still very much worth watching. Just be sure to leave any thirst for "realism" at the door.

Indeed. But then truth and realism have always been difficult to distinguish from spin and buried-on-a-bad-news-day-stories with this lot, haven't they?

[DaveBond21]

The only part I would whittle down is when he goes into the security room in the Bahamas and searches the Security CDs for Dimitrios.

For some reason, that scene reminded me of Star Wars when Obi-Wan Kenobi switches off the Death Star's tractor beam thingy.

[watchman]

The truck chase is too long, very "Die Hard", but indeed, CR and FRWL are the
best each one in their time.
Of course Daniel is blond and 5'11, but let us forget that !

[DaveBond21]

The truck chase is too long

I agree with you on that point.

[ambrosia]

It was about as close to "perfect" you could get, but it did seem odd when they cut the tracking device out of Bond's arm there was no blood.

Agreed the truck scene was a more traditional action sequence yet there were a few interesting twists like filming the reaction shot vs. the terrorist blowing up, the pacing and build up.

There were a few confusing moments during the Venice building collapse.

[DaveBond21]

Casino Royale and Happy Feet have been the 2 big Summer blockbusters here in Australia

[bill007]

I enjoyed every minute of this film, and left completely entertained, all 4 times. I'm very excited with the new direction, and eagerly await the next release.

[sharpshooter]

The Miami International Airport sequence is the only sequence that I dont like as much. It goes for too long, but it seems worthwhile with the finale of the explosion. Apart from that, the film is ace.

[DaveBond21]

Yes, the ending of the Miami Airport sequence was great.

[DaveBond21]

Any more comments on this, now that we've seen the DVD and so had more time to think about the qualities of Casino Royale?

[sharpshooter]

I still think the BodyWorlds Exhibit and the Miami Airport sequences tarnish the film, but the film is outstanding.

[echomusic]

I just watched this film for the __th time on my friends freakishly big TV and as I stated somewhere else on these boards ( http://debrief.comma...showtopic=42759 ) I enjoy this movie more and more and the things I used to have problems with are no longer as I see how they tie in to the rest of the film.

I have no problem with the lack of Bond theme, this is an origin movie, in a sense, he had to earn the right to have that theme played as well as say The Line (Bond...James Bond)

Was completely fine with the lack of traditional gun barrel sequence, once again, it's his first kill, it shouldn't have the slick, classy opening -- it should be brutal and gritty (like it was during my first kill...I mean...nothng!)

And particularly, I love the fact that it seems like it's three different movies but they are all tied together in the sense that we are seeing the formation of James Bond. We are watching him unravel this mystery that is so massive it spans the globe. It all ties together and it's Bond's tenacity we are witness to.

Great stuff.

It is not only my favorite Bond film, but may be one of my top 20 films of all time.

I only hope they do the next one justice.

[00Twelve]

No complaints from me!

Love it. Gets better with each viewing.

[HH007]

I don't think it's perfect, but for me it's about as perfect as a Bond movie can be. I do have very high standards for what is perfection (heck, even my favorite film of all time, David Lynch's Blue Velvet, is not a perfect movie). As far as Bond films go, this and FRWL are about as close to perfect as they can get.

I do have a few minor complaints, mostly reiterating what other's have said.

1. I also would have liked a little more Felix Leiter. Jeffrey Wright is a great character actor and it was a shame they didn't use more of him in the story. Like he should have showed up after the casino section and explained exactly what the hell happened to him. I mean, he was supposed to take Le Chiffre into custody, wasn't he?

2. I think the love story, though perfectly played by Craig and Eva Green, could have been fleshed out a little more. I think they could have trimmed back the action heavy first half and used that screen time to develope their relationship further.

3. The Make-up Artist did go a little nuts on Miss Green's eye make-up. I mean, she has one of the most beautiful sets of eyes in the world, and simply didn't need that much make-up. There were some scenes where she looked like a racoon, it was absurd. I prefered how she looked in the last section of the film, when she was dressed down a little.

4. The movie needed a better title song. Chris Cornell just didn't deliver the goods. I've lost count of how many times I've seen the movie, but the song just hasn't grow on me. Especially after that exceptional pts, I think they needed a really awesome song to kick off the movie, and they just didn't have it. In fact, the four times I saw the movie in theaters, I noticed that this song almost lost the audience... fortunately the rest of the movie wins them back.

Other than those gripes, CR is the first Bond film that I really loved in a long, long time, and it's as close to perfect as we're going to get. I just hope Bond 22 will measure up.

[LadySylvia]

No, I don't think that CASINO ROYALE is a "perfect" Bond movie. I don't think that a "perfect" Bond movie even exists. In fact, I don't think that perfection exists in this world in any form. Why do humans insist upon finding or naming some form of perfection?

[00Twelve]

<slaps forehead>

[LadySylvia]

<slaps forehead>

I guess that's a "I don't know".