146 replies to this topic

[chanoch]

Hello, I haven't posted here since probably TWINE when balance, discontent and sanity were alive and well in those days.

This has been an interesting run with the world of Bond this time out. Quite surprising, really. But unlike a well paid critic, I'm not blown away.

I've followed the series since I saw Moonraker in the theaters when I was 7. And though stones may be cast, I must in good conscience ensure that these boards represent a wholly inclusive reflection of authentic reaction, even from an admited simpleton. See, I didn't even spell admitted right.





I despised Casino Royale.

This should not be inflammatory. I take no pleasure in saying that. Well, maybe alittle.

My review could not be up to the current CBN standard if I tried and would only resemble a perceived trolling which would result in endless disection, point by point. Good fun I might add, if the deck were not so stacked against me here. Why is that?

To qualify my rant, being my first post here in a while, I wanted to go on record, not to piss on anyones clean clothes here, but rather to just say I love Bond films, I was blown away when I first saw OHMSS at age 18, a long time ago. Particularly because I avoided it for so long. Lazenby grew on me in the first act. I was in the theater when Moore bowed out and likewise when Dalton had his first close-up. I endured the legal desert that followed LTK. Moore was my Bond as a kid yet Goldfinger my favorite film. Picking one over the other was redundant even as a kid. I thought Brosnan was the best choice at the time even though I've never walked out of a Brosnan Bond entirely satisfied. Not like when I've just finished watching FYEO. Point is, I never gave up on him or said something so stupid as to suggest putting the series to pasture. Only from the visionless do we here that particular sentiment. And I support him still, although my fervor is now running on fumes. I'm not the enemy when I say... (or maybe I am)...

...I despised Casino Royale.

I loathed almost everything about it. Even DC. Sorry chaps, this is the counterfeit Bond in its fullest manifestation. My opinion is that THIS IS NOT FLEMINGS CHARACTER AND CUBBY WOULD BE HORRIFIED.

I am in knots over how to spare Mr. Craig's feelings and yet voice that I find his Bond incorrect. Daniel Craig belongs in a Bond movie, undoubtedly, BUT NOT AS BOND.

I do applaud the courage to rethink the series and as Pierce might have said, "give it a kick in the pants". But dear blokes, this was arguably the dreariest affair I've ever witnessed. It's pretty obvious to me that the makers really no longer understand what we see in those old films. Nor do they understand the all important coolness factor in context with the times they inhabit. Cigarettes and alcohol are far more edgy and politically incorrect now days than blood and thunderous scores. Dark is clique if the truth be told. It's as clique as Bond going on another personal vendetta. Edgy would be to go against everyone's jaded parodies and make another SPECTRE story. Ah, but that would be a little TOO realistic, wouldn't it? Fire Dave Arnold. Please. His music is not good. It's not even music really. Barbara, instead of replacing the next Bond, replace yourself. You've made your point. A strange fate for Bond to be on the marrionette strings of a woman. Still, I believe he'll get out of this one, he always does.

And on a related note, make M a man again. Enough already. We need him now more than ever.

And the real reason I am posting is not to stir the storm of controversy but rather to voice my utter disbelief at the appalling lack of constructive and uncompromising appraisal. The vibe here is like a Brazilian election and reminiscent of a message board in Stepford. It's decideldly un-Bond. And I really do expect more from this fraternity. Are we now making Bond films for Philistines AND THEIR WIVES. Is this really what you wanted? Really? Not me. I actually despised Casino Royale. So for what its worth, and for all the intolerance to any views to the contrary, ...HERE'S TO BOND 23!

Talk to you later, Chanoch.

Edited by chanoch, 15 March 2007 - 02:15 AM.

[bill007]

Well, no one can knock you for you opinion, chanock. But to jeer "this fraternity" for being "un-Bond" is another thing, altogether.

The whole Daniel Craig/Casino Royale issue has two sides. The cons are over there, the pros are over here.

[Monsieur B]

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

Oh well. You can't win them all.

Edited by Monsieur B, 15 March 2007 - 02:39 AM.

[Publius]

My opinion is that THIS IS NOT FLEMINGS CHARACTER AND CUBBY WOULD BE HORRIFIED.

Frankly, I don't give a . Cubby gave us some of the best in Bond, but also some of the worst. For each LTK there was a DAF, for each powerful Lazenby or Dalton there was a geriatric Connery or Moore.

And really, aside from Dalton, no Bond has truly struck me as even mostly Fleming. Not that it matters, however, given that the screen incarnation is much more interesting and works better in that medium than Fleming's Bond would.

But dear blokes, this was arguably the dreariest affair I've ever witnessed.

I can understand hating it, but "dreary"? I take it you're not a fan of, oh, about half the Bond movies, probably more.

Nor do they understand the all important coolness factor in context with the times they inhabit. Cigarettes and alcohol are far more edgy and politically incorrect now days than blood and thunderous scores.

As much as I hate the political correctness that keeps cigarettes out of movies, it's not that big of a deal. Besides, Bond is an athlete and a military man now, so it makes sense he wouldn't want black lungs holding him back from doing his job. Maybe that's not cool enough for you, but I can live with the trade-off...

Anyway, this Bond is very much a man of his times, something I think has alluded the character for decades, actually. Odd that you would disagree, as one thing Craig's detractors have so far agreed upon is that he's a product of the Bourne/Batman Begins age.

Dark is clique if the truth be told.

How can a tone be "cliche" (I'm presuming that's what you meant)? Plots yes, but style? Especially when it hasn't been seen in nearly 18 years? Then again, I'm not one of those fans who likes the "pendulum" swinging back and forth...

And on a related note, make M a man again. Enough already. We need him now more than ever.

Yeah, I miss that myself. I thought Dench was at her best since TND (which I think is still her best turn), but there definitely could have been a more fitting M, and it'd be a man.

Is this really what you wanted? Really?

Uhh, yes, and I'm not sure what you're complaining about with that last paragraph. Sure, it seems that more people hate Casino Royale than hated even Die Another Day or TWINE, but by far more people love it than loved either of those two (and many of the rest). Congratulations on having a minority opinion, it happens to the best of us at least once in a lifetime. We're not obliged to keep you company, nor are we fascists for finding more consensus than usual.

Anyway, I've been waiting for a Bond film like TLD for ages, something that was serious yet epic, dark yet witty, with real thrills galore, and led by a man who was the ideal synthesis of Fleming's hard-edged spy and his cinematic counterpart. CR delivered all that for me. And unique in many ways as it is, I consider it to be in the same league as the early Connerys, OHMSS, and the Daltons, and it often shares a charm very similar to what I "see in those old films". In the aftermath of DAD, thank goodness.

So, yeah, I'm happy. Shame that you aren't, but maybe Craig will sway you yet by the time he finishes with Bond 23 or 24 (or beyond, if we're lucky).

[Tiin007]

It's pretty obvious to me that the makers really no longer understand what we see in those old films. Nor do they understand the all important coolness factor in context with the times they inhabit.

I think those are two things that they completely understand.

[JimmyBond]

And the real reason I am posting is not to stir the storm of controversy...

Fair enough, everyone's allowed there opinion.

...but rather to voice my utter disbelief at the appalling lack of constructive and uncompromising appraisal. The vibe here is like a Brazilian election and reminiscent of a message board in Stepford. It's decideldly un-Bond.

Perhaps many genuinely feel that praise (even a bit uncompromising) is warranted for Craig and the film, as I (and other's no doubt) find it to be one of the best Bond films in quite a long time.

Is this really what you wanted? Really?

You know what? This is exactly what I wanted. Really.

...HERE'S TO BOND 23!

Allow me a big "WTF?" moment right here. You do know Craig is contracted for at least three right? That means he will be in Bond 23.

[DaveBond21]

Well, he is free to voice his opinion, and it does make a refreshing change to read a negative review.

I've also heard 2 recently from friends who finally got around to watch it, and said that the movie "wasn't very Bond".


Interesting.

[Harmsway]

It's pretty obvious to me that the makers really no longer understand what we see in those old films.

Interesting. For the first time since 1969, I think they actually got back to it. Style, class, and coolness by the gallon. I daresay Daniel Craig's the coolest the Bond character has been since Connery, and finally feels like a product of his own times, rather than an aging icon on life support.

Cigarettes and alcohol are far more edgy and politically incorrect now days than blood and thunderous scores.

Well, there's plenty of alcohol in CASINO ROYALE, so at least one out of the two is there.

Edgy would be to go against everyone's jaded parodies and make another SPECTRE story.

Well, isn't BOND 22 kind of set up to have a SPECTRE-like organization? But honestly, going against the parodies isn't even close to being edgy. I mean, hell, DIE ANOTHER DAY might as well have been one of those Bond parodies for all the cliches it put into action. What going back into Bond formula mode would do is bring about the end of the franchise. They needed something different.

Fire Dave Arnold. Please. His music is not good. It's not even music really.

Personally, I'm not an Arnold fan and didn't care for his work on the prior three films. But I thought the work on CASINO ROYALE was quite good - certainly the best non-Barry Bond score.

Is this really what you wanted? Really?

In a word: yes.

Not me. I actually despised Casino Royale.

I'm sorry. It has to feel like a party where you're the only one who's not having any fun.

[Publius]

Well, he is free to voice his opinion, and it does make a refreshing change to read a negative review.

That's not the annoying part. It's the claims that our reactions are not "authentic" or whatever (when they just happen to be authentically and widely positive...*gasp*, much like it is for FRWL or OHMSS). He basically seems to be accusing us of a hive mentality or something similarly ridiculous.

I've also heard 2 recently from friends who finally got around to watch it, and said that the movie "wasn't very Bond".

Heard the same myself, although it's largely been from people who are Moore or Brosnan fans first and foremost. Dalton fans have been thrilled. Connery fans have run the gamut. Interesting indeed.

[tdalton]

I've also heard 2 recently from friends who finally got around to watch it, and said that the movie "wasn't very Bond".

Heard the same myself, although it's largely been from people who are Moore or Brosnan fans first and foremost. Dalton fans have been thrilled. Connery fans have run the gamut. Interesting indeed.

Agreed. I've heard some say that they don't like the movie for various reasons, one of which that they didn't find it to be "Bondian" enough for them, and that's fine. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I don't think that there's ever going to be a film that is unanimously liked, it just won't happen. But, I have to say that I am thrilled with Casino Royale. It's a fantastic film, and it may just be the best one that EON has made thus far, IMO. And I also think that Daniel Craig is fantastic as Bond, possibly even better than Dalton.

But, I can see where some might not like the film, but it's a very subjective thing, and the films go through cycles and those who don't like the style of Casino Royale for whatever reason will certainly see the style change to something else eventually as it has done many times in the past. Right now, Casino Royale is For Your Eyes Only to Die Another Day's Moonraker, so the films will eventually work their way back into a more Moore or Brosnan-like style before it's all said and done with.

[K1Bond007]

...HERE'S TO BOND 23!

Allow me a big "WTF?" moment right here. You do know Craig is contracted for at least three right? That means he will be in Bond 23.

And quite possibly Bond 24.

I could care less if some people liked Casino Royale or didn't. Everyone has an opinion and we're all entitled to it. What I don't care for is the rationale I see sometimes. In this post for instance he says that "this is not Fleming's Bond", to which I respond by saying I don't think he knows what he's talking about. Anyone who has read the novels has to agree that this is undoubtedly one of the most faithful films to Fleming's character. Another one I see a lot which is also in this post is that "Cubby would be horrified" -- It gets rather tiresome to see people act like they know what Cubby would have wanted or not wanted and it's rather sad to see so many people put him up on a mantle as if all his decisions were perfect. Cubby was great and he's owed a lot of respect, but as another poster in this thread said, he gave us some of the best and the worst of Bond.

But this guy didn't like Casino Royale. That's cool. It's not for everyone. Anyway.....

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]Moved topic to Member

[Skudor]

The great thing about Casino Royale is that it is, in some ways, so unlike all the other Bond films. And for the same reason some are bound to despise it. That's fine by me.

The producers could easily have made another DAD or GoldenEye or Octopussy. They could have hired Julian McMahon or a random six foot male model and chucked them into the role. I would have been happy. But just as I was scared of what the results of the Casino Royale reboot might be I am thrilled by the results.

Bond has been reinvented and his future is all the brighter for it. If I want the old Bond I can watch any of the other 20 classics again and again on DVD. After Casino Royale I have something new and different to look forward too. The concept of what a Bond film can be has been expanded.

But that's just me. I can understand why some would be horrified by what's been done to Bond. I think it was time for a shake up and, luckily, it worked.

Edit: Nice to get a harsh criticism of the movie from a Bond fan who didn't spend all of last year predicting how bad it would be. Craig was a controversial choice and the script and style aren't exactly standard Bond. It would be weird if it didn't get some beating.

[dodge]

Didn't mean to stir up the pot, eh? Come on, you had the time of your life!

I respect your opinions. But I'd be more inclined to consider them if they were more balanced. You found nothing to admire in CR? The whole thing was totally rotten? Not even the ghost of a rose?

Stir the pot, by all means. We should be able to take it. But, please, be careful where you splash...and also what you splash!

[plankattack]

Skudor and K1 - you've just verbalized everything that I was thinking. I have absolutely no problem with Chanoch not liking the movie - I loved it and DC but I respect the fact that he didn't and had some reasons to back it up.

The only thing I take issue with is the "Cubby would be turning in his grave" stuff. Cubby and EON have, as has already been said, done some good stuff (better than some of Fleming's original material), and in my opinion, turned out some real rubbish that has done quantitive injustice to the character.

EON have always adapted Fleming's Bond for their own ends, not always for the better, so it's definitely a switch to hear that Cubby, Harry, Babs, Michael, are somehow historically responsible for the sanctity of the character. How can they honestly be the ones defending Fleming's Bond, when as a company, they were the first ones to fiddle with him for own profit?

I know many who don't like CR, and care as passionately about Bond as those of us that do, believe current management may have let down previous management, but to a point previous management let down Fleming in the decades after his death. If anything I give Michael and Babs credit for trying to recapture what Fleming's character was originally all about. Whether we think they failed or succeeded, well that's all our individual opinions. And I for one, am glad we have so many different ones at CBn.

I hope you stay for awhile Chanoch.

[00Twelve]

I personally don't really care if Cubby "turns in his grave" over Casino Royale. That's not to say I don't highly respect the man and appreciate what he helped to give us over his 34 years of Bond. But he adapted the source material as he saw fit, and there's no way to say that it would have been worse had it stuck more closely to said source material (with a few exceptions of course). We'll just never know. I love Cubby, but the sun doesn't rise and set with him.

[chanoch]

Let it not be implied that I don't consider your views or find them unauthentic. They are up to standard. Thanks for indulging and more later.

[00Twelve]

Likewise.

[dodge]

Well, he is free to voice his opinion, and it does make a refreshing change to read a negative review.

That's not the annoying part. It's the claims that our reactions are not "authentic" or whatever (when they just happen to be authentically and widely positive...*gasp*, much like it is for FRWL or OHMSS). He basically seems to be accusing us of a hive mentality or something similarly ridiculous.

I've also heard 2 recently from friends who finally got around to watch it, and said that the movie "wasn't very Bond".

Heard the same myself, although it's largely been from people who are Moore or Brosnan fans first and foremost. Dalton fans have been thrilled. Connery fans have run the gamut. Interesting indeed.

It's not only annoying. It's downright arrogant to come onto this site and tell long-standing members like yourself, that he regards your views as 'not unauthentic'. But, of course he's not trying to stir up the pot to gather a little attention.

[Santa]

I find it hard to be bothered about what his opinion is when it's written this badly. I can quite understand some people disliking CR, but I can also spell 'cliche'.

[The Dove]

Hmmm...I wonder if this is our old friend Moomoo back again?? (and I'm not suggesting that it is by any means..) Just a question..

[Santa]

I do hope so.

[Bondian]

Ian Flemmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmming could have turned in his grave with all of the Bond actors. And if he did, I'll be the first tosser to ask him for his autograph. .

chanoch. This is the only Bond site (more like a professional webzine) that you CAN voice your opinion without being banned.

You will get many differences of opinion. But I can tell you should sit back and just read. You'll be amazed at some of the opinions here. But it's all healthy.

Stick around. You've joined the best Bond site imaginable. You're opinions mean a lot whether we agree or not.

Cheers,


Ian

[Mamadou]

The great thing about Casino Royale is that it is, in some ways, so unlike all the other Bond films. And for the same reason some are bound to despise it. That's fine by me.

The producers could easily have made another DAD or GoldenEye or Octopussy. They could have hired Julian McMahon or a random six foot male model and chucked them into the role. I would have been happy. But just as I was scared of what the results of the Casino Royale reboot might be I am thrilled by the results.

Bond has been reinvented and his future is all the brighter for it. If I want the old Bond I can watch any of the other 20 classics again and again on DVD. After Casino Royale I have something new and different to look forward too. The concept of what a Bond film can be has been expanded.

This is just how I've been wanting to phrase it, but could never find the words.

Thank you very much.

[VisualStatic]

Agreeing with what everyone has said, chanoch is entitled to his opinion.

I'd just be curious if he could be more specific on his problems with CR. To me, his post is very general, except for not likely Dave Arnold.

I can safely say, that I was not one who drank the kool-aid, but I was willing to give the movie a chance. Having only seen DC in Toom Raider and Munich, I was very willing to wait and see.

In the end, I was very pleased with what we got. Were there things I didn't like, sure.

1. Theme song. Its no worse or better then the last few. For me, someone mentions Bond music and I start to hear Tom Jones and Shirley Bassey.

2. I thought the movie was too front heavy with action. Could have had a better flow, a little less in the beginning, more at the end for a nice balance.

3. Not enough plot development in the middle, mainly due to the front loading of alot of action.

Those are my major cons to the movie. But, in the end, I thought it was a refreshing take and a wonderful way to give the movie a kick.

And personally, for those who think it's not "Bondian", that's the point. Figure it out.

Just my 2 cents.

[Publius]

Let it not be implied that I don't consider your views or find them unauthentic. They are up to standard. Thanks for indulging and more later.

I do hope you're sincere, and that you choose your words more carefully from now on so they can't so easily and logically be construed as condescending. I'll take your word on it if the rest of this discussion stays out of the gutter.

Anyway, feel free to do a piecemeal evaluation of the movie. There'll probably be a lot of dissecting back and forth, but if it's critical without being vitriolic, the disagreements will be civil and hopefully constructive. We can always do with a healthy debate around here.

[chanoch]

If I had to be specific and break down my distaste for Casino Royale in its simplest terms, I could put it like this.

Forwarning, this is meandering. But I'm not writing for a mid-term, but for this community.

If film is a marriage of sight and sound, and specific beats and/or a general tone is acheived by the fusion of the too, whether intentional or not, then there is theoretically a "science" at work in the movie-going experience. Stay with me here - I'm not trying to sound like Hermes here.

The outcome, the perceived effect that John Doe experiences while watching say a Connery or Moore film is almost definably different than watching a TND or a CR. There are many variables at work here as any film student worth his weight can tell you. And the differences between a film from '77 and '95 are both obvious and yet deceptively complex.

Hence, the introduction of certain ingredients affect the overall flavor. We are speaking of film and not reality. The succes of the end result is a matter of individual taste and perception. So that those more cerebral makers of cinema ( I won't name anyone in particular so we don't divide, but I would say Kubrick could be seen as an extreme example of this "science") go through great lengths to acheive a particular tone or emotional experience. 101 to many of us, I realize.

So, whether the desired outcome is something light, dark, great or terrible, a film can be manipulated in this way. Every filmmaker struggles with this as only they can know.

In these terms, the past 20 years of Bond bear little resemblance to a Connery classic. There exists an unspoken belief in the "Bond camp" that the older films represent a life-style that is no longer appropriate to modern ethics. Yet, sexism, cigarettes and humorous violence are exactly why these films still have a pusle. But with that license, comes responsibility. You have to do it better than anyone else or end up with a Bulldog Drummond. I propose that because they are unable to lead with this type of protagonist and make their films better than the rest, they have abdicated the throne of cool and jettisoned the controversial baggage. This is what would not have been acceptable to Cubby. Make no mistake, Barbara eluded to it, there is a political agenda at work here which has little to do with art. The numbing, brutish, less-clever violence and sensitive realism will divert you from the thievery of the character's soul. For, as Lazenbys agent was able to get it so wrong, Bond IS counterculture. And his chief method of rebellion came from a brilliant intellect which he used to armour a spirit of hedonism and distaste for authority. But I digress.

If I was to say I hadn't seen a Bond film which acheives the tone of what I consider the essence of Bond since...(this is not an easy one, don't hold me to this)...say TMWTGG. There is a certain untangible and elusive quality that may just be the result of an era that has passed, but to the film scientist, there is nothing actually preventing another Goldfinger. It is a matter of the right ingredients in capable hands. Tarrantino succeeds in this way, (a different genre) and makes old seem new without betraying the sensibilities of the world his characters inhabit.

So, I don't hope to deprive anyone of their ideal Bond film, I just think we are all WAY overdue for something that pays more than just homage to the old-school films. Because although some may find the older films slow and perhaps sexist, (whatever, girls I know prefer the older femmes) they appear to to me infinitely more sophisticated and artistic. And if this is due to dwindling attention spans, and cultural de-evolution, then this analysis is probably a lost cause. But let's assume Thunderball still manages to be perceived as a worthy waste of 2 hours to the current Bond fan.

How would one do this? Let's start with the ingredients ie the sights and sounds that are projected at the thrill seeking audience. Will the setting be an industrial warehouse or the penthouse of Willard White.

Will the story unfold with rhythm and pace, or will we just assume that action will overcome any pacing issues.

Will the sight of a tipsy Bond offend the reputation of intelligence agencies the world over.

Will the music be abrasive without a discernible melody or will there be more subtlety and perhaps an attempt to decipher John Barry's use of music. Because again, in this experiment (which to be far, is what CR was too) we are going for a specific outcome. A film that replicates the joy of an "old" James Bond film. We can all sight cues that referenced Barry in later films, but much like the Superman Returns score, the high acheived by the reference is not sustained and the style is abandonded once the composer resorts to his own material, IMO. I understand that John Williams are in short supply now days, but all of us could conjure dozens of young artists that fuse 60's jazz with contemporary sensibilities that might enhance a Bond film better than Mr. Arnold. John Barry and his imaginative mind makes alot of sense to me. We should still be auditioning his successor instead of dumbing down the artform. Because sound, as Mr. Lucas reminds me, is half of the experience.
Will the screen-writers/producers/directors realize what they have and why it is indeed special from other action films. Now is not the time to surrender the novelty of Bonds intellect and efficiency in all areas which probably bewilder his fellow double 0's. We should always wonder exactly how his hair is still in place and his collar isn't ruffled despite the fact he just saved the world. He would be annoying in real life, but we would have no choice but to bow down.

So, Craig is an attempt to make the character more likable by removing the things which bother the uneducated Philistine. Like an anti-christ, you think your getting the real thing, but you've been duped. Kudos to those who noticed the switch.

I gotta get, more some other time chaps. Chanoch

Edited by chanoch, 16 March 2007 - 02:30 AM.

[bill007]

Duped? No, not for me. In Michael G. Wilson's own words, and I paraphrase: "...things were just getting too fantastical." And I agree with that viewpoint.

The whole concept of bringing Casino Royale to the screen was to show just how our hero became what we have been seeing for the past 20 films. He had to be young, thus the new actor. He's headstrong, arrogant, and self-righteous. He is stripped of all the super-hero-isms that would become the hallmark of his cinematic escapades.

Bond has always been in the here-and-now. To bring Casino Royale to us today, also meant a hard look at the theatrical landscape. Barbara and Michael had a choice to make. Keep Bond as he was, and make him into an X-Man. Or take the opportunity to bring Bond back down to Earth, before it all got so 'fantastical.'

I am glad they chose the latter, rather than the former. It is, in may ways, a fresh start for the franchise. All sorts of possibilities abound. The Fleming novels still have a few grapes on the vine. Or, follow-on authors can be given another chance, without the heavy burdon of trying to out-do the last Bigger-Better-Bonder film.

I grew up with Connery. And I yearn for those days every day. But that was then. It is, as they say in the movies, time to move on.

[Publius]

Fair enough, chanoch, but I think you've put too much thought into this. Maybe it makes me one of these uneducated bovines you're talking about, but the test I applied to CR is the same I applied to all the other Bond films: did I enjoy this? And the answer for me is a resounding yes.

CR, like TLD or FRWL before it, satisfied me on several levels by being a well-crafted thriller with sharp humor, exciting and suspenseful action, a slick and evocative atmosphere, and that overall cinematic "cool" that defines Bond. It may not be the "sexist, misogynist dinosaur" that I love from the early 60s, but not only did he die almost as soon as he was introduced, this version, in its rawness and brutality, is probably the closest we've come since LTK (and TMWTGG before that, IMO).

Sure, it's different (very much so, often times) from its predecessors, and yes I mourn the loss of that which made those early Connery years so special, but it nevertheless managed to prove excellent despite a lot holding it down (I'm still not the biggest fan of many of those involved or of the judgment of the powers that be). If there has been a "switch" pulled on us, it happened years ago and not with this entry, unless you count dropping the placeholding cookie-cutter brand of the 90s in favor of the real quality seen here.

And if I were to hold it against Bond movies for not keeping to the style and philosophy of the early years, I couldn't enjoy most of them. The Brosnan flicks feel very different from those of Dalton, whose feel worlds apart from those of Moore, whose were nothing like those of Lazenby or Connery. I could even cite numerous examples of eras divided within (DAF versus TB, say, or FYEO versus TSWLM).

Of course, I'm presuming your gripe has something to do with CR being an altogether different animal from the other films. It's honestly hard to say, because (no offense) you were pretty damn vague for all that you wrote.

[LadySylvia]

Hello, I haven't posted here since probably TWINE when balance, discontent and sanity were alive and well in those days.

This has been an interesting run with the world of Bond this time out. Quite surprising, really. But unlike a well paid critic, I'm not blown away.

I've followed the series since I saw Moonraker in the theaters when I was 7. And though stones may be cast, I must in good conscience ensure that these boards represent a wholly inclusive reflection of authentic reaction, even from an admited simpleton. See, I didn't even spell admitted right.





I despised Casino Royale.

This should not be inflammatory. I take no pleasure in saying that. Well, maybe alittle.

My review could not be up to the current CBN standard if I tried and would only resemble a perceived trolling which would result in endless disection, point by point. Good fun I might add, if the deck were not so stacked against me here. Why is that?

To qualify my rant, being my first post here in a while, I wanted to go on record, not to piss on anyones clean clothes here, but rather to just say I love Bond films, I was blown away when I first saw OHMSS at age 18, a long time ago. Particularly because I avoided it for so long. Lazenby grew on me in the first act. I was in the theater when Moore bowed out and likewise when Dalton had his first close-up. I endured the legal desert that followed LTK. Moore was my Bond as a kid yet Goldfinger my favorite film. Picking one over the other was redundant even as a kid. I thought Brosnan was the best choice at the time even though I've never walked out of a Brosnan Bond entirely satisfied. Not like when I've just finished watching FYEO. Point is, I never gave up on him or said something so stupid as to suggest putting the series to pasture. Only from the visionless do we here that particular sentiment. And I support him still, although my fervor is now running on fumes. I'm not the enemy when I say... (or maybe I am)...

...I despised Casino Royale.

I loathed almost everything about it. Even DC. Sorry chaps, this is the counterfeit Bond in its fullest manifestation. My opinion is that THIS IS NOT FLEMINGS CHARACTER AND CUBBY WOULD BE HORRIFIED.

I am in knots over how to spare Mr. Craig's feelings and yet voice that I find his Bond incorrect. Daniel Craig belongs in a Bond movie, undoubtedly, BUT NOT AS BOND.

I do applaud the courage to rethink the series and as Pierce might have said, "give it a kick in the pants". But dear blokes, this was arguably the dreariest affair I've ever witnessed. It's pretty obvious to me that the makers really no longer understand what we see in those old films. Nor do they understand the all important coolness factor in context with the times they inhabit. Cigarettes and alcohol are far more edgy and politically incorrect now days than blood and thunderous scores. Dark is clique if the truth be told. It's as clique as Bond going on another personal vendetta. Edgy would be to go against everyone's jaded parodies and make another SPECTRE story. Ah, but that would be a little TOO realistic, wouldn't it? Fire Dave Arnold. Please. His music is not good. It's not even music really. Barbara, instead of replacing the next Bond, replace yourself. You've made your point. A strange fate for Bond to be on the marrionette strings of a woman. Still, I believe he'll get out of this one, he always does.

And on a related note, make M a man again. Enough already. We need him now more than ever.

And the real reason I am posting is not to stir the storm of controversy but rather to voice my utter disbelief at the appalling lack of constructive and uncompromising appraisal. The vibe here is like a Brazilian election and reminiscent of a message board in Stepford. It's decideldly un-Bond. And I really do expect more from this fraternity. Are we now making Bond films for Philistines AND THEIR WIVES. Is this really what you wanted? Really? Not me. I actually despised Casino Royale. So for what its worth, and for all the intolerance to any views to the contrary, ...HERE'S TO BOND 23!

Talk to you later, Chanoch.

Chanoch, you're entitled to your opinion. But I find it rather odd that a person who despises CASINO ROYALE, would love ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. Especially when one would consider the similarities between the two movies.