51 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Yep, I'm one of those rare fans who only saw the film once in theaters. I kept meaning to go back for another viewing, but I just never got around to it then it was too late, but oh well, now I have it on DVD and I can watch it again and again

I watched it with my parents the second time around, and I must say they enjoyed it. At two hours and twenty minutes I wasnt sure if they'd stay awake (if the movie is dull to them they usually switch off and fall asleep). Well not this time, they stayed awake throughout the film and had a good time, so that was something

I was able to look at the film more objectionably the second time around, and let me first say this: My opinion of it does not change completely, I still believe it's one of the best films and I still think Craig is a damn good Bond, however I want to see his second go around (where he is more in line with the Bond we're familar with) to make a real judgement.

The film is really wildly uneven. Not sure it was such a good idea to put a long action sequence so close after the MTS. We're barely introduced to Craig's Bond in the teaser and already we're thrust into a big action sequence. Then the film finally slows down and this is where the films biggest strength, in it's slow sequences.

That's funny really, where the Brosnan's shined in there outlandish action sequences (and Brosnan too) Craig's big strength are the scenes that allow him to act, and where he has people to bounce dialogue off. Don't get me wrong, this film has three great action set pieces (and the small, a bit weak, stairwell fight), but the two in the first hour do hurt the pace of the film a bit.

Still, a great Bond film. I'm really eager to see what Mike and Babs do for Craig's second go around.

[00Twelve]

I've found more and more security in my appreciation for CR with the three viewings I've had thus far. Though I don't want to be the cause of digression in this thread, I personally don't want Craig to become traditional. His lack of predictable reactions made Bond more interesting to me.

[plankattack]

I've found more and more security in my appreciation for CR with the three viewings I've had thus far. Though I don't want to be the cause of digression in this thread, I personally don't want Craig to become traditional. His lack of predictable reactions made Bond more interesting to me.

I'm onboard with Twelve here. DC's strength is his impulsiveness and unpredictability. His Bond is Fleming's blunt instrument, but I have no doubt there will be layer of ironic sophistication added, but in SC-like amounts rather than Brozza's thick coat.

Any movie, Bonds not excepted, suffer upon multiple viewings due to the familiarity. I saw CR 6(!) times in cinema, equalling the previous record-holder, LTK (what's frightening is that I can remember this stuff). But CR hasn't dimished to the extent that I feel differently about it. Watching on DVD yesterday, after a couple-of-month's interval - I was still impressed and thoroughly entertained, although I agree with Jimmy Bond that the uneveness is a little more apparant. If there is a weakness in the film, it's that DC has sporadic opportunities to really act until after the Miami sequence (when we segway into the true adaptation of the novel) but I do feel he was so good doing the physical stuff that it overrides the uneveness of his introduction. But I did appreciate how good the PTS was in terms of setting the tone of his Bond. Smooth and cool with Dryden, brutal with the chap in the bathroom; I knew that this was an MI6 assasin.

But I keep saying - when we catch it on TV in six years, how will it feel? When we know it inside-out like we do, say GF, or TSWLM, how energised will we be by watching it? OHMSS has taken a long time to mature, but to me it gets better every time. YOLT (which I enjoy just as much) does seem a more pedantic, slower film, if you see it a couple of times over three months on TV-marathons.

Bonds have to be judged like wine - once they've aged. Will it be FRWL? I think it might come close.

[dodge]

After seven viewings I still wouldn't change a thing--except to have made the film longer by adding in gems from the cutting room floor. The film's structure, imo, was bold and defiantly risky. But I was equally blown away by the razzmatazz action and by the quieter moments of romance and suspense. After my next cross-country move I'll get a DVD player and watch the film once a month till I tire...which could take a couple of years.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I just watched it last night.It holds up very well.I'm not complaing so that means something right? I still prefer the early Bond films of '62-'65 so call me an insurgent if you like. They are just the Bond films for me and Connery is still the coolest Bond. But I'm drooling for B22.

[JimmyBond]

I think you're all missing my point. I still think it's a great film, I just feel it has pacing problems in the first half. Jumping from huge action sequence to another huge action sequence a few minutes later feels like a hold over from the Brosnan era. Once the film (and Bond) get to Montenegro the movie falls in place and hits it's stride.

[Judo chop]

There

[Monsieur B]

Oh, I quite agree with you, Jimmy. I just watched CR last night and I did feel a little pushed into the movie too quickly with the bathroom fight scene, the Parkour chase and the MIA chase all within the first hour of the film. You've hit the nail right in the head in saying that Craig doesn't truly shine until the film reaches Montenegro and Fleming's contribution. At that point, Craig is able to act and really be Bond as opposed to just running and gunning and all that rough 'n' tumble stuff.

I hope that the producers and particularly the writers will resolve this pacing issue for Bond 22. I think the barrage of action scenes was actually meant to show all the naysayers Craig's physicality, to show them immediately that this guy will be doing bigger and better stuff that you would never see Brosnan do. What with Craig being the new Bond, the average movie-goer needs to be jolted and action, I guess, is the way to jolt them. And with the array of rave reviews, it obviously worked.

But as much as I love Craig's physicality compared with past Bonds, I think the action should be evenly spread throughout the film and not jammed into the first act. I don't know; it's a minor squabble, I suppose. As long as Bond 22 retains the CR kind of quality then I shan't be disappointed.

[Mr_Wint]

I think Casino Royale holds up fairly well (I have seen it four times). For me, it never was a flawless Citizen-Kane-meets-Bond type of film as some fans still claims, but it is still a major improvement after DAD.

I'm not at all happy with the Bond-Begins idea they 'tried' to use. The PTS, a flashback to his first kills. Fine. But the rest? Remove two sentences from M's dialog and no one would even notice that Bond is "new". The film ends with a Bond-character that is more or less the same as the one we started the film with... no wait, he dont kill his enemies now. He shoots them in the kneecap so he can question them first! Wooaa! What a character development! "Bond begins" ends up being just a confusing marketing ploy.

Nevertheless, CR relies far more on classic film-making and I think that will give the film a more timeless appeal. The first big action scene is fresh and fast-paced, the second one is decent (not more) and the casino scenes are very good. The third act could've been improved. Overall, it has a solid script and a good cast. Peter Lamont did a somewhat uninspired job this time and Arnold's music is nothing more than acceptable but the cinemaphotography is excellent, IMO.

However, this film biggest strength is Daniel Craig's performance as James Bond. He has charisma and screen-presence and in that way he reminds me a lot about Sean Connery and Roger Moore. Bond is once again a character that the audience enjoys watching - "what will he come up with next?". I think Craig can become a very good James Bond and I hope Bond 22 will be even better.

[Mr Ashdown]

For this viewer, "Casino Royale" is one of the only Bond movies that
actually gets *better* on repeated viewings. I'll qualify that
remark: I enjoy the majority of the Bond series, and I find them
consistently entertaining when I watch them. I'll happily watch
"Diamonds Are Forever" (to pick a film at random), and find much to
enjoy in it, despite its obvious flaws (not least because it has
Connery, enjoying the mayhem).

But "Casino Royale", for me, is a film without serious flaws, and when
watching it again, I'm constantly impressed and delighted by things I
missed on previous viewings. Right now, I'm still marvelling over the
brief, but wonderfully framed shot of the train snaking through
Montenegro -- like the noirish pre-credits sequence, it seems to belong
to a newly created genre of its own; a genre that could quite aptly
(if pretentiously) be called 'neo-Bond'. This is Bond at its
classiest and most inventive and involving.

Key to the success of the movie is *believing* in Bond and his world,
and Daniel Craig is astonishingly good at making James Bond as scarily
human (in the sense that he's a killer you can believe will get you if
you're on his -list) as he is in the best Fleming novels. It's the
little things that sell his performance: the impressed smile he
flashes at the departing Vesper after she's psychologically "skewered"
him on the train; the look he gives his battered reflection in the
mirror after killing; the way he almost sighs the line "Ah well,
lesson learned" after explaining to Vesper all about Mathis's
deception, and how he can't trust anybody but her (Craig plays this
bit so truthfully: he honestly has *no idea* about Vesper at this
point).

To be fair, the characterisation of Bond in this film would be a gift
to any actor, so it's no wonder that Craig stopped wavering about
taking the role after he'd read the script. "Casino Royale" puts Bond
centre-stage and opens him up for examination; the Brosnan films had a
coquettish interest in deconstructing 007, but had never seemed to
have the confidence in Brosnan to fully pull it off, or in the
audience to go with the idea.

Sometime between rubbing their hands with glee at the astonishing box-
office success of "Die Another Day" and the horrifying thought of ever
having to listen to Quentin Tarantino, the EON creative team grew a
pair of balls. And they decided that the best possible thing to do to
rescue the franchise would be to show the world that Bond isn't made
of plastic (as he seemed to be when played by Pierce Brosnan) but that
instead he was flesh and blood and muscle with an impressive pair of
nadgers that were worth examining.

As David Arnold remarked about the idea behind "You Know My Name",
"Casino Royale" has an attitude that screams, "Come and have a go if
you think your hard enough!" The delightful thing is that James Bond
can stand the toughest of interrogations into his very existence ("Do
we need Bond any more?" was the question "Die Another Day" had left us
with. "Yes, we ing do!" is the answer "Casino Royale" gives us
back), Daniel Craig has proven to be the most robust and complicated
and wholly satisfying 007 since Timothy Dalton's Bond told a by-the-
books colleague that M could stuff his job; and the movie-going public
have so overwhelmingly embraced all this that the new perception of
what makes a great Bond movie isn't laser beams and quips, its what
the hell is going on behind Daniel Craig's steely blue eyes.

Where next for 007, I wonder with excitement. Well, Bond's girlfriend
just died in his arms. I'm guaranteeing that there will be more blood
splattered over Bond's new shirts as he smashes through walls and
leaves a pile of battered corpses in his ruthless pursuit of those
responsible.

[Judo chop]

The film ends with a Bond-character that is more or less the same as the one we started the film with

Mostly the same guy, but now one who has truly loved, been betrayed by love, and then lost his love to find the betrayal was far from black-and-white. Plus we got all the little vices (martini, aston, tux...) thrown in along the way. So that

[Publius]

After five viewings (the most recent one being two weeks ago), it's managed to keep its 10/10 from me (okay, 9.5 rounded up because of Craig).

I remember reading a review that said the front-loaded action provided a momentum that propelled us through the rest of the film, and I couldn't agree more with that. The PTS was the best way to start the movie and introduce us to Craig's intensity and the realism of his interpretation, the Madagascar sequence was a great introduction to Craig's physicality, the Bahamas scenes let us get to know Craig's lighthearted and womanizing side very well (and gave us what seems to be an underrated opportunity to breath before the next action set-piece), and the Miami sequence was just a bit of old-fashioned over-the-top fun meant to reinforce Craig's cool while advancing the plot.

As a poker buff, I also found the game to be far from the deadweight it's been described as elsewhere, and I even consider it to be some of the best Bond "action" in years. The stairwell fight and the Venice finale likewise kept the energy going for me. And needless to say, the dialogue and character-driven scenes was as good it gets and was masterfully interwoven with the action.

So really, I'm afraid I can't agree that the film had much of a pacing problem. If I had to list its flaws, I'd say it was the bit in M's home and some dialogue (probably P&W remnants...) here and there, although the actors were so good that the delivery often sold it anyway. Oh, and the one piece of product placement I actually found jarring: the Ford Mondeo.

[quote name='Judo chop' post='712725' date='14 March 2007 - 12:37'][quote name='Mr_Wint' post='712717' date='14 March 2007 - 11:23']The film ends with a Bond-character that is more or less the same as the one we started the film with[/quote]
Mostly the same guy, but now one who has truly loved, been betrayed by love, and then lost his love to find the betrayal was far from black-and-white. Plus we got all the little vices (martini, aston, tux...) thrown in along the way. So that

[00Twelve]

Oh, and the one piece of product placement I actually found jarring: the Ford Mondeo.

I can't wait until that deal with Ford is over. I do want to see Astons and Jags on occasion, but I just care nothing for American Ford models, save the Mustang. But I digress...

[bond_girl_double07]

Oh, and the one piece of product placement I actually found jarring: the Ford Mondeo.

I can't wait until that deal with Ford is over. I do want to see Astons and Jags on occasion, but I just care nothing for American Ford models, save the Mustang. But I digress...

Agreed. The product placements were the only part of the film I didn't like. I can see the point about the two action scenes falling so closely together at the beginning, but I liked the juxtaposition of how Bond became a 00 and an example of the type of work he'll be doing

[Harmsway]

Well, CASINO ROYALE ain't perfect (no Bond film is). And it isn't even the most perfect film in the franchise (give that to FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE). But I'll still suggest it's the best, because CASINO ROYALE goes farther than any film in the franchise, even if it has some things that are a bit off.

And I don't even mind the Ford Mondeo - I think it makes perfect sense, considering Bond has to win the DB5 later. Whether it was intended that way, I don't know, but I think the moment's truly hilarious for a "Bond Begins" moment. We're all ready for the car, and then it's a... Ford. LOL. And then when he wins the DB5 at the card game, it makes it all the cooler.

[LadySylvia]

I have one problem with CASINO ROYALE - it is the news media's report of "a MI-6 agent killing an unarmed man inside an embassy".

How in the hell did the media, let alone the personnel of embassy or Mollaska knew that Bond was a MI-6 agent? I had learned there was a scene in which Bond had introduced himself to Mollaka before killing him, but it ended on the cutting floor. The filmakers should have either kept the scene or change those headlines.

Well, CASINO ROYALE ain't perfect (no Bond film is). And it isn't even the most perfect film in the franchise (give that to FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE).

I wouldn't call FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE perfect. In fact, I came across a major plot error upon recent viewing. Which is why my estimation of it has slipped a little bit.

Edited by LadySylvia, 14 March 2007 - 05:36 PM.

[plankattack]

I wouldn't call FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE perfect. In fact, I came across a major plot error upon recent viewing. Which is why my estimation of it has slipped a little bit.

Lady Sylvia - please explain the major plot error!

[Harmsway]

Well, CASINO ROYALE ain't perfect (no Bond film is). And it isn't even the most perfect film in the franchise (give that to FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE).

I wouldn't call FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE perfect. In fact, I came across a major plot error upon recent viewing. Which is why my estimation of it has slipped a little bit.

I didn't call it perfect, though. After all, I say right before it, "no Bond film is [perfect]," and then proceed to claim that it's the closest thing to perfection the Bond franchise has. Which it is. It still has problems, of course (including that terrible final wave to the microfilm... ugh).

[Mr_Wint]

[quote name='Judo chop' post='712725' date='14 March 2007 - 17:37'][quote name='Mr_Wint' post='712717' date='14 March 2007 - 11:23']The film ends with a Bond-character that is more or less the same as the one we started the film with[/quote]

Mostly the same guy, but now one who has truly loved, been betrayed by love, and then lost his love to find the betrayal was far from black-and-white. Plus we got all the little vices (martini, aston, tux...) thrown in along the way. So that

[Harmsway]

Wouldn't it be intresting to see "how" and "why" Bond is like this? Isn't that what everyone would expect from a Bond-begins film?

Not really. I didn't want as much of an origin film as much as I wanted a telling of Bond's first Double-O mission. Bond isn't interesting enough of a character to demand a BATMAN BEGINS-like dissection. In fact, it would probably demystify the character and end up being fairly dull.

Besides, most of those things don't need explanation. They're self-evident, and easily explained. Some of them were even addressed in CASINO ROYALE, just without devoting whole scenes to them.

[Judo chop]

Wouldn't it be intresting to see "how" and "why" Bond is like this? Isn't that what everyone would expect from a Bond-begins film?

Not really. I didn't want as much of an origin film as much as I wanted a telling of Bond's first Double-O mission. Bond isn't interesting enough of a character to demand a BATMAN BEGINS-like dissection. In fact, it would probably demystify the character and end up being fairly dull.

Besides, most of those things don't need explanation. They're self-evident, and easily explained. Some of them were even addressed in CASINO ROYALE, just without devoting whole scenes to them.

Yep. I mean, either way it qualifies as 'Bond Begins'. I know your point, Wint... we didn't get as much beginning as we could have. As Harms points out, it's not dissected to the point that Batman Begins did with its character, but I don't see that Batman Begins has copyrights on the 'begins' label. Both films are definitely dealing with the beginnings of a character.

[Santa]

The film ends with a Bond-character that is more or less the same as the one we started the film with

Mostly the same guy, but now one who has truly loved, been betrayed by love, and then lost his love to find the betrayal was far from black-and-white. Plus we got all the little vices (martini, aston, tux...) thrown in along the way. So that's a pretty big difference, actually. Wouldn't you say?

As far as I'm aware, none of us has seen Bond 22 yet, so I'm not sure we have enough evidence to say whether or not he's changed in any way. If you're getting an impression of how much he has or hasn't changed from the extremely short "Bond, James Bond" sequence, I'd say that's reaching a bit. As it happens I think we'll find for Bond 22 that he has changed due to the events JC mentions, but until that comes out I don't see how anyone can say how he has or hasn't changed after CR.

[plankattack]

The whole "Bond Begins" argument is going to come down to how one defines "begins." I think CR is about the experiences that make Bond who he is to [BECOME rather than a two and half rendition of HOW he changes. Yes, he's just become a double-0, but the major experience (the betrayel by Vesper) doesn't occur until the end of the final act. So really, Bond 22 will be the indicator of whether this is truly a new beginning, or a lazy sales pitch. I didn't go in expecting a plotline similar to "Batman Begins" and I don't feel ripped off or let down by not getting a moment-by-moment desconstruction of the man.

If nothing else "Bond Begins" is either lazy use of the current Hollywood plot buzzphrase, or in fact it accurately refers to the idea that EON begins. CR does feel like DN or FRWL (as Campbell and DC both credit as inspiration). So if "Bond Begins" means that EON are going to do a couple of films in the same style as the first four, then as accurate marketing goes, that's good enough for me.

Edited by plankattack, 14 March 2007 - 05:55 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

Wouldn't it be intresting to see "how" and "why" Bond is like this? Isn't that what everyone would expect from a Bond-begins film?

Not really. I didn't want as much of an origin film as much as I wanted a telling of Bond's first Double-O mission. Bond isn't interesting enough of a character to demand a BATMAN BEGINS-like dissection. In fact, it would probably demystify the character and end up being fairly dull.

Besides, most of those things don't need explanation. They're self-evident, and easily explained. Some of them were even addressed in CASINO ROYALE, just without devoting whole scenes to them.

Ok, so if this is self-evident and easily explained then why do a Bond-begins film?

I dont think anyone would change their opinion of this film if the two/three references to Bond as new was removed from the actual film. It is so shallow, even a less skilled editor could fix it in less than 1 minute.

I'm not totally against the Bond-Begins idea. But it should be used to create a better film, not just for decoration. It isn't worth it.

[Mr Ashdown]

I strongly suspect that Daniel Craig will be involved in creative discussions about the development of Bond's character. Bond 22 will be as character-based as "Casino Royale", I'll put money on it.

It's also worth remembering that EON have done this before: Just like with Daniel Craig being hugely impressive as Bond in a smash hit movie that wowed the critics, with "Dr No", they had a hugely impressive Bond in a smash hit movie that wowed the critics... and then they made an *even better movie* in "From Russia With Love".

You know, I've just realised how far we've moved away from "Die Another Day", in *one* movie, in that now I can type "creative discussions about the development of Bond's character" and it doesn't sound odd or implausible.

[Harmsway]

Ok, so if this is self-evident and easily explained then why do a Bond-begins film?

Uhh, because it's a story worth telling. Again, CASINO ROYALE isn't "Bond begins" - it's the story of his first Double-O mission and his early Double-O career. And why tell that story? Because it's a good one. It places Bond in an interesting place as a character, a place where we haven't seen him before.

I dont think anyone would change their opinion of this film if the two/three references to Bond as new was removed from the actual film. It is so shallow, even a less skilled editor could fix it in less than 1 minute.

Well, admittedly, you take this film's placement away from his early Double-O career, and it loses a lot of impact. That setting gives his relationship with Vesper all the credibility in the world. You set this film after all those that came before and none of it adds up. Why is Bond suddenly overly cocky? Why is Bond so arrogant? Wait... Bond falls in love all of a sudden?

I'm not totally against the Bond-Begins idea. But it should be used to create a better film, not just for decoration. It isn't worth it.

It is used to create a better film, I think. It really enhances the subject material. CASINO ROYALE being set after all of Bond's previous adventures would take a lot away from the film.

[Loomis]

For this viewer, "Casino Royale" is one of the only Bond movies that
actually gets *better* on repeated viewings. I'll qualify that
remark: I enjoy the majority of the Bond series, and I find them
consistently entertaining when I watch them. I'll happily watch
"Diamonds Are Forever" (to pick a film at random), and find much to
enjoy in it, despite its obvious flaws (not least because it has
Connery, enjoying the mayhem).

But "Casino Royale", for me, is a film without serious flaws, and when
watching it again, I'm constantly impressed and delighted by things I
missed on previous viewings. Right now, I'm still marvelling over the
brief, but wonderfully framed shot of the train snaking through
Montenegro -- like the noirish pre-credits sequence, it seems to belong
to a newly created genre of its own; a genre that could quite aptly
(if pretentiously) be called 'neo-Bond'. This is Bond at its
classiest and most inventive and involving.

Key to the success of the movie is *believing* in Bond and his world,
and Daniel Craig is astonishingly good at making James Bond as scarily
human (in the sense that he's a killer you can believe will get you if
you're on his -list) as he is in the best Fleming novels. It's the
little things that sell his performance: the impressed smile he
flashes at the departing Vesper after she's psychologically "skewered"
him on the train; the look he gives his battered reflection in the
mirror after killing; the way he almost sighs the line "Ah well,
lesson learned" after explaining to Vesper all about Mathis's
deception, and how he can't trust anybody but her (Craig plays this
bit so truthfully: he honestly has *no idea* about Vesper at this
point).

To be fair, the characterisation of Bond in this film would be a gift
to any actor, so it's no wonder that Craig stopped wavering about
taking the role after he'd read the script. "Casino Royale" puts Bond
centre-stage and opens him up for examination; the Brosnan films had a
coquettish interest in deconstructing 007, but had never seemed to
have the confidence in Brosnan to fully pull it off, or in the
audience to go with the idea.

Sometime between rubbing their hands with glee at the astonishing box-
office success of "Die Another Day" and the horrifying thought of ever
having to listen to Quentin Tarantino, the EON creative team grew a
pair of balls. And they decided that the best possible thing to do to
rescue the franchise would be to show the world that Bond isn't made
of plastic (as he seemed to be when played by Pierce Brosnan) but that
instead he was flesh and blood and muscle with an impressive pair of
nadgers that were worth examining.

As David Arnold remarked about the idea behind "You Know My Name",
"Casino Royale" has an attitude that screams, "Come and have a go if
you think your hard enough!" The delightful thing is that James Bond
can stand the toughest of interrogations into his very existence ("Do
we need Bond any more?" was the question "Die Another Day" had left us
with. "Yes, we ing do!" is the answer "Casino Royale" gives us
back), Daniel Craig has proven to be the most robust and complicated
and wholly satisfying 007 since Timothy Dalton's Bond told a by-the-
books colleague that M could stuff his job; and the movie-going public
have so overwhelmingly embraced all this that the new perception of
what makes a great Bond movie isn't laser beams and quips, its what
the hell is going on behind Daniel Craig's steely blue eyes.

Where next for 007, I wonder with excitement. Well, Bond's girlfriend
just died in his arms. I'm guaranteeing that there will be more blood
splattered over Bond's new shirts as he smashes through walls and
leaves a pile of battered corpses in his ruthless pursuit of those
responsible.

That, Mr Ashdown, was a superb post.

[AgentPB]

This is a bit off topic but because you all obviously own the DVD, is it true that "we have all the time in the world" Is played quietly while Vesper is drowning? I tried to catch it while watching in the theatre but i couldn't hear it..

[dinovelvet]

This is a bit off topic but because you all obviously own the DVD, is it true that "we have all the time in the world" Is played quietly while Vesper is drowning?

Erm...no, it is not.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I do have a complaint about the DVD: No deleted scenes!? What's up with that??? I know there is tons of stuff left out-you can see pics in the Casino Royale photo book...So I assume they want me to buy Casino Royale 2.0 huh? Yeah, figures, just like the trailor for the Spiderman 2.1 DVD("with 8 minutes of footage never seen before"). I don't wanna buy this thing twice Eon. I already gave you $30 bucks for theatrical viewings!