148 replies to this topic

[DaveBond21]

-Arnold delivers his finest work on Bond, but there are large stretches of absolutely forgettable underscore.
-I do wish that some of the Poker hands weren't so ludicrously epic.

Very fair points there, Harmsway.

My one problem with David Arnold is that he punctuates too many scenes with music - mind you, the sweeping camera pan to Mr White's house looks like it was made for music, but we get an effective silence, which shows that he can show restraint.

[Harmsway]

My one problem with David Arnold is that he punctuates too many scenes with music - mind you, the sweeping camera pan to Mr White's house looks like it was made for music, but we get an effective silence, which shows that he can show restraint.

Well, to be fair, a composer takes orders from the director (and from what I understand about Campbell, he has very specific ideas about which scenes he wants scored and which ones he doesn't). We have no idea whether Arnold would have wished to score that scene if left to his own devices.

[AgentPB]

I believe the only problem i have with this movie is the poker. It wasn't well enough explained so that i feel newbies to the game would ever really understand it. And it really threw the pacing of the movie off and seemed to drag on at times. But as that is original from the book (different game of course) I don't see how i can really complain.

[stamper]

I'm no poker player, and the movie did give me all the information I needed : that some combination of cards kills the others. I don't care about the rest

[sharpshooter]

I believe the only problem i have with this movie is the poker. It wasn't well enough explained so that i feel newbies to the game would ever really understand it. And it really threw the pacing of the movie off and seemed to drag on at times. But as that is original from the book (different game of course) I don't see how i can really complain.

I thought the poker was well explained - with help from Mathis during the game as well. The poker tournament is the film's strongest section I feel.

[Judo chop]

I agree the poker scene was handle very well. The additional explanations by Mathis, if anything, threw off the scene for me a touch. I thought the film was handling the card game well enough without the paint-by-numbers commentary. As Stamper said, all you really need to know is that certain hands beat others and that LeChiffre has a

[DaveBond21]

I believe the only problem i have with this movie is the poker. It wasn't well enough explained so that i feel newbies to the game would ever really understand it. And it really threw the pacing of the movie off and seemed to drag on at times. But as that is original from the book (different game of course) I don't see how i can really complain.

I thought the poker was well explained - with help from Mathis during the game as well. The poker tournament is the film's strongest section I feel.

I agree, and the scene had to be a certain length as it was one of the most important sections of the movie.

[Skudor]

I believe the only problem i have with this movie is the poker. It wasn't well enough explained so that i feel newbies to the game would ever really understand it. And it really threw the pacing of the movie off and seemed to drag on at times. But as that is original from the book (different game of course) I don't see how i can really complain.

I think they pulled that off pretty well. Although I do understand the game so didn't really need it explained. But the way they did it you didn't really need to understand the game - just understand the interactions between the characters.

[00Twelve]

Wait, how come nobody's raised this issue over the umpteen baccarat games, or even the OP backgammon game? I had to read CR to understand baccarat/chemin de fer. If I hadn't, I'd have never known a thing about that game. I understand that it's less complex than hold'em, but the Bond movies have never taken the time to explain the inner workings of casino games as much as in CR.

[bond 16.05.72]

It's my favourite entry but perfect, no I don't think any Bond film will ever be perfect and I wouldn't expect it.

Although Connery's FRWL performance is my fav, although I prefer OHMSS overall of the first 20 entries. Daniel is simply dynamite in the role and the difference between him and Sean is I believe he could well get even better. Whereas Connery hit his stride in FRWL then started to slack off I believe Dan will indeed improve with age.

I don't have problem with the script or the pacing, the only thing which could have been better was definitely the score. (sorry David)

If CR had had a classic Barry score I think it would be a close to perfect as it gets.

OHMSS standard score would have done it Justice but we're not likely to get that are we.

I believe Bond 22 could likely be even better, I'm certainly confident.

[DaveBond21]

I believe Bond 22 could likely be even better, I'm certainly confident.

Well it has a tough act to follow, but let's hope....

[ArlingtonBeech]

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!

I think this is as close to perfect as a Bond film gets. I rank CR right up there with FRWL and OMHSS. Craig nailed the part in a very "Fleming-esque" way like no other has - including Sean Connery. I think the future is very bright for the series. That is unless Craig becomes saddled with bad scripts like Brosnan did. But Craig is definitely the best actor to don the tux.

[DaveBond21]

But Craig is definitely the best actor to don the tux

Yes, I would say he is the first "proper actor" to play the role. And welcome to CBn....

[Publius]

Wow, this is my 100th post.

I'm always proud to be part of milestones.

I believe the only problem i have with this movie is the poker. It wasn't well enough explained so that i feel newbies to the game would ever really understand it.

Just goes to show you can't please everyone. If anything, I thought they should have dropped the Mathis commentary scenes. I would have also liked to see one more hand where Bond beats Le Chiffre, despite having worse cards. It could have simply been an extension of that scene where Le Chiffre folds his cards after accidentally doing his tell. However, I do think it would have been a challenge to film (and added yet more time to the movie), and might be why they didn't do such a thing.

Wait, how come nobody's raised this issue over the umpteen baccarat games, or even the OP backgammon game?

Yeah, I still don't really get it. But I forgave the other movies because I realize that they have to skimp on the details for the sake of being cinematic. That's why I went easier on CR than I would have, but given how central the game was to the plot, I understand why some people are being hard on it.

[DaveBond21]

Wow, this is my 100th post.

I'm always proud to be part of milestones.

I believe the only problem i have with this movie is the poker. It wasn't well enough explained so that i feel newbies to the game would ever really understand it.

Just goes to show you can't please everyone. If anything, I thought they should have dropped the Mathis commentary scenes. I would have also liked to see one more hand where Bond beats Le Chiffre, despite having worse cards. It could have simply been an extension of that scene where Le Chiffre folds his cards after accidentally doing his tell. However, I do think it would have been a challenge to film (and added yet more time to the movie), and might be why they didn't do such a thing.

Wait, how come nobody's raised this issue over the umpteen baccarat games, or even the OP backgammon game?

Yeah, I still don't really get it. But I forgave the other movies because I realize that they have to skimp on the details for the sake of being cinematic. That's why I went easier on CR than I would have, but given how central the game was to the plot, I understand why some people are being hard on it.

I must admit, I like that Octopussy backgammon game!

[Publius]

I must admit, I like that Octopussy backgammon game!

Yeah, definitely short but sweet. And while Connery had the "I'm the man at this" look when playing, Moore had the "did I just do that? it must be beginner's luck" look. Both classic, and even though I think Connery's was cooler, Moore's was funnier and makes him seem more of a pro.

[Keir]

In Dr. No when Bond and Rider have been captured and questioned by the Dr.'s matronly staff, he uses as next-of-kin M's real name according to the book. This may or may not jibe with Craig's sudden surprise at M's name in CR.

[AngryPolarBear]

I just saw it for the third time and it's very close to perfection. Here are some reasons:

- The down-to-earth plot
- The portrayal of James Bond
- The spectacular action sequences
- The beautiful locations
- The creepy villain

And I've always wondered why some find the casino part slow and boring. Bond kills two people and is poisoned. I'm no poker expert, but I don't think that's common.

I do believe the film have some weird editing after the death of Le Chiffre. I don't mind the love sequences at all, but they go from the hospital, to some tropical Island and then suddenly they're in Venice. And I don't like the Omega watch comment at the train.

Other than that, this is just great film making. I absolutely adore this movie.

[sharpshooter]

I wouldn't call it perfect. Nothing is perfect, and nothing ever will be. Take into account people's different interpretations and views on subjects, etc.

I would call it an enjoyable, well made film. A film that is one of the best in the series.

[Mr. Blofeld]

What, with the way QoS is going, this may well be...

[Monkeyfoahead]

^ How do you mean?

[Mr. Blofeld]

^ How do you mean?

Pear-shaped.

[Monkeyfoahead]

Oh, It'll be a little difficult watching the DVD then, won't it.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Oh, It'll be a little difficult watching the DVD then, won't it.

Well, hope springs eternal...

[dodge]

Only OHMSS was flawless. But CR makes a wonderful companion piece and is a near-contender, introducing a Bond who may well prove in time to be the best of all. If 22 isn't a dud. Let us pray.

[Pete]

I agree the poisoning was fantastic. Great performance by DC, nicely filmed, well put together (the salt and vomiting). It really added something worthwhile to the movie.

I just don't like the defibrilator, or to be more precise, Vespers uncanny ability to spot what was wrong with it within a couple of seconds of her arrival.

I was the same, until a few weeks back when I found out that Defibs are very common in work places & probably would be in a SIS car. The one's we were shown how to use talk to you. So that scene is less annoying now.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Only OHMSS was flawless.

Even with that whole "you love chickens" business?

[Colossus]

You will love chickens, Mr. Blofeld, you will love chickens. The chickens. THE CHICKENS!!!!!!!!

[DaveBond21]

You will love chickens, Mr. Blofeld, you will love chickens. The chickens. THE CHICKENS!!!!!!!!

LOL.

Nice to see a revival of my thread. Yes, Casino Royale does have its flaws, but it's a great Bond movie, up there near to FRWL and FYEO to me.

It is a little too long. That is the only thing that's really wrong with it. I don't understand why people think that the production of Quantum of Solace is going pear-shaped. It sounds to me like it is going very well and that Marc Forster really knows what he is doing. I think it's going to be great.