Same old.
Here I didn't mean 'same old film' - I meant same old conclusion, in terms of my opinion of the film. Though I think this time I liked it even less.
I respect its ambitions, and its narrative structure is pretty unorthodox for a Bond film. I buy that.
Mindlessly entertaining action.
For some of the running time, yes. But what's wrong with that?
It overstays its welcome. And more importantly, it draws away from much needed character development.
Eva Greene miscast - French accent rendering a lot of her lines near inaudible.
I'll give you that her accent is a little strange at times (but Giannini's is even worse, as is his odd and stilted delivery of lines), but the overall quality of her performance more than makes up for it. And have you really forgotten the women of the Brosnan era, or do you happen to believe that the likes of Halle Berry and Denise Richards turned in performances a few notches above those of Green and played more interesting characters?
That's a very flawed counter-argument. It's the old excuse of saying
"Sure, things here aren't great. But this is nothing compared to the Middle East!"The only two Brosnan films that I rank above Casino Royale are GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY. The former for being a far more coherent, entertaining, funny, and intelligently constructed film. The other for being a hell of a lot more fun to watch.
Either way, I'd take Eva Greene over Halle Berry and Denise Richards any day without second thought - but that doesn't mean I rate her highly as a Bond girl or actress. Daniel Craig acts circles around her in every scene.
And as far as elocution goes, I had no problem with Giannini's accent. In fact it was much easier to hear than a lot of Craig and Green's mumbling - with far too of much of their delivery being sotto voce.
Sure, there are a couple of clunkers, but just have a glance at the original script and see some of the lines that didn't make it to the screen. You'll feel quite relieved. Having done that, I'll ask you to recall the Brosnan films. I'm satisfied that you'll realise that, overall, the dialogue in CASINO ROYALE is of a rather higher standard.
Again, while it's a greater standard than the three previous screenplays; I'm not still impressed. In fact, I prefer much of the dialogue that was cut from the final film. Particularly in the afternoon lunch scene. I still think there are a more than a 'couple of clunkers' left in the final film, more like an entire legion of clunkers.
MATHIS You know, I used to hate husband and wife covers. Before she stuck me out here, M would consistently pair me with a defected Latvian wrestler or the Scottish shot-putting champion.
MATHIS (CONT'D) Beauty, brains and courage, almost an irresistible combination.
BOND You're quite the romantic, Mathis.
MATHIS (amused) And you're immune7
BOND No. But I've found that the only person you want really close to you is someone you can use as a shield. I'm afraid she's so tiny the bullets would pass right through her. Last thing one needs is a woman hanging on your gun arm.
MATHIS For someone who works at the treasury, the girls has nerve; didn't flinch at my little show.Well, I know you know your stuff about music, but for me the CASINO ROYALE score is easily the best of all the non-Barry scores. Granted, most of the non-Barry scores aren't really very good, but I do find CASINO ROYALE to be leagues better than Arnold's other Bond efforts.
I'd take Serra's GE, Conti's FYEO, Martin's LALD, and Arnold's DAD over this one. In fact, I'd take all of Arnold's Bond scores over this.
But my main problem with the score, is that there's far too much of it. Particularly for such a supposedly 'realistic' Bond film, so much of it feels arch thanks to clumsy music. It's nearly wall to wall. I'm a firm believer in the power of no music in film, and the dominance of sound design for long stretches. It not only makes the presence of music more powerful, but it gives the viewer a chance to breath. I think a number of scenes would have felt much more touching if they weren't scored - the shower scene is a great example. It's a potentially quiet and moving scene that's compromised by a bloody Out of Africa rip-off.
Others come to mind - Dryden's office entrance and verbal confrontation with Bond, Le Chiffre's arrival, M's 'half-monk/half-hitman' nonsense (conveniently here, the score here sounds identical to Arnold's TWINE) - and tonnes more.
But overscoring isn't unique to CASINO ROYALE - it may be for Bond, but it's something endemic to all modern film scores.
I don't think a version of the book's dialogue between Bond and Mathis about playing Red Indians would have added anything to the film.
I think it would have added much more flesh Bond's character arc - becoming more self-aware and human, than the tired
"you don't trust anyone do you? good" shtick at the end, or the false chic-flick romance between Bond and Vesper.
It would have also given Bond a sharp mind found in the novels (though as Fleming stated in interview, Bond was never a intellectual), and also implied by Bond's public school background. Craig's Bond might not be working class, but he isn't well educated. He may know the right takedowns, but he probably doesn't know the right wines.
As for physical consequences, I'm not sure that we've ever seen a cinematic 007 as bloodied as Craig's is after the stairwell fight (okay, so his injuries seem to clear up at lightning speed...)
That's exactly my problem. And it constantly happens throughout the film - they build something up, and then take it away in the following scene. It's a false pretence of realism. The Miami International chase is just as cartoony as the hovercraft DMZ chase in DAD - the only difference is that one takes itself much more seriously than the other.
The scars are just beauty scars. A more realistic consequence would have been broken teeth.
Neither have we seen Bond hospitalised for several weeks, or seen him show such fear of pain as he does when he realises how Le Chiffre plans to torture him.
And then they have to ruin the torture with some crude jokes, Arnold's score coming back in, and some real clunkers of lines -
"But you are SO WRONG! 'Cause even after I slaughtered you and your little girlfriend, your people would still welcome me with open arms... because they need... what I know. "And still, the 'recovery sequence' is only about 20 seconds of echoed instructions from doctors, mumbled lines from Craig, and some digital glow filter - then it's over. Hell, the hospital scene in DIE ANOTHER DAY was more memorable. After that, it's followed by Bond-meets-ATONMENT with Vesper.
I think the deleted scene Bond being taken to the hospital (with no score) - would have added more weight to Bond's injuries.
And CASINO ROYALE also shows the emotional consequences of violence, most notably in the shower scene with Vesper.
For so much violence, there's only one or two scenes to justify it. Even then they ring false.
I find that CASINO ROYALE gets more interesting and affecting as it goes on.
It becomes more like James Cameron's second attempt a chic-flick, and feels less and like a Bond film. I give you that. To be honest, I tend to tune out after the torture scene.
Don't really care. I don't need to know more about the players,
I meant primarily Bond and Le Chiifre. There's not enough character building dialogue between them, which previous card games in the film used more convincingly. DR. NO and THUNDERBALL for example.
and if I'm interested in poker (which I'm not) I'll read a book or watch a documentary about it.
That's like George Lucas saying -
"To understand the some of the changes I made to the original Star Wars films, you have to watch the prequels, and see them as one big film."Or having to learn Turkish to understand the first act of FRWL. That's bollocks.
A film should stand on its own. If you can't understand the mechanics of Texas Holdem Poker from Casino Royale - that's the filmmaker's fault, not your own. It simply makes the game much less engaging to watch. And worse still, it goes on far too long.
They should have gone with Baccarat. Much more simple rules, and less of an attempt to appeal to the yank audience.
With all due respect, I think wanting CASINO ROYALE to brim with "wholesome warmth" would be rather missing the point of it. It isn't supposed to be a Roger Moore outing.
No, but then it doesn't have to be a Lars Von Trier film, either - does it? I want some balance. Not a morose actioner on the nature of trust starring an albino ape on steroids, but not a Moore-era romp.
Do you wish there'd been more slapstick comedy in ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE?
No. Simon Raven and Richard Maibaum's dialogue is funny enough on its own. It's also a lot more evenly spaced through the film than with CASINO ROYALE, which is only witty in the middle act.
