108 replies to this topic

[byline]

Apart from that, I could not disagree with you more about Eva Green. They never could have cast a better match for Daniel Craig, and I know a fair few who will protest this point exhaustively. She is, apart from stunningly beautiful, a bright, cerebral actress who brought a lot to the Vesper character. I will hear nothing to the contrary. She's fantastic, and a great foil. As for the dialogue, it's hit and miss, which I believe will always be the case with Bond. Personally, I find very few issues, but I don't see much of a problem with somewhat heavy handed movie dialogue if it's delivered with verve, which is consistently the case here. Casino Royale means a lot to me, personally, as it represents everything I love about movies. It's my favorite film, despite its faults, and I still have a hard time believing Skyfall will topple it. Time will tell.

I completely agree with this, and couldn't say it better. I think it really boils down to what people expect from a Bond film, and that determines whether they will like the writing, casting, direction, editing and so on. My husband and I both felt that this was the Bond film we'd been waiting for, and my opinion on that hasn't changed.

[S K Y F A L L]

Well if I'm the only one that thinks so then I must just be jealous of DC I should have been Bond, lol.

I know its a reboot and not a prequel but because it shows Bond before his 'double-o-status' and because in DN Bond's beretta is taken and replaced with the Weather I would have liked to see him using it although it wouldn't and doesn't necessarily make complete sense.

[blueman]

I think the frustrating thing about CR is how much it got right: Craig, Mads, the card game. Makes the wrong bits stick out more: poorly put together plot with YOLT-sized action set pieces in the first half to mask it, Green way out of her depth in the second half. Comes across as a schizophrenic Bond film. But like many lesser Bonds I do appreciate what it got right, Craig foremost.

[Leon]

I agree with the first and third act mention. I found the entire airport sequence with the over the top introduction of a passenger plane and the whole terrorist bombing theme quite forced. It felt completely unnecessary. I love most of the first act however, the chase was novel, well shot and had some great music and the Bahamas stuff was wonderful, with a very classic Bond feel.

The second act - from about where Bond returns to find the body of Solange and gets briefed for his main assignment by M, to Bond's torture at the hands of Le Chiffre - was excellent. Nothing is ever perfect, and there can always be little niggles for hardcore fans, but all in all I was extremely impressed. The main reason for this seems to be that this was the main body of the film for which they had Fleming's original novel to work from.

The final act generally felt a little weak and fractured to me. All kinds of things from the lack of a properly relevant location/ focal point for the climax to the small things such as Bond running about the main climactic action scene wearing some unbecoming blue tracksuit and trainers.

Casino Royale was a very welcome step back in a good direction to me, and the novel treatment was pretty damn good. It's problem was some poor creativity for the extra bookend scenes. They felt they clearly had to add an original introduction and finale to give what is a very quiet and thoughtful story some big Bond movie action pieces. One was the chase/airport in Miami and the other was the collapsing building in Venice. I once watched my Casino Royale DVD just from Bond's briefing by M in the Bahamas to the Venice hotel room scene. Thoroughly enjoyed it, and left it at a happy ending to boot .

[volante]

Don't get me wrong I love CR...
...but (as I have said in other threads) it does have lot's of plot holes.
Unless we believe that Bond get's it wrong by choice.
Question. If Bond understands the mission is to beat LeC to drive him into the arms of MI6; why does he go to his hotel room with the gun?
We now understand that Vesper had n=been turned before meeting Bond. Her affection for him was simply to extract the password.
If we are then to believe that she falls for Bond, why does she take the money from the bank?
And who is it that she works for Quantum, or LeC. We later learn that Mr. White has been talking to her during her liason with Bond. Which means the kidnap by LeC is genuine. But all she really has to say is "I work for Quantum"
For M to believe that Vesper made a deal is silly. With who? Mr White from Quantum comes in and kills LeC.

Having got the password, why does Vesper stay with Bond?
Cause she's in love? then why does she take the money?
If its to get Quantum off her back and save Bond's life; then how does she intend to continue to live with him?
If she thinks its to get her kidnapped boyfriend back; then why mess around with James?

[thecasinoroyale]

I do love 'Casino Royale' - it's good to have Bond on solid ground and it was a good film to bring him back to Earth and also re-introduce more of the espionage / spy elements to Bond that were lost as an action hero in latter-day Brosnan films.

I can't decide if it's over-rated or not. I think....it IS over-rated by the general public who don't really know and understand James Bond films too much or the franchise history, but we fans can easily rank it in Top 10s, 5s or 3's but there are more Bond films that can eclipse 'Casino Royale' on enjoyment terms and 'simple Bond pleasures' that doesn't require the focus and patience that 'CR' requires. Although for novice fans who over-rated it, it was a god-send of returning James Bond to be fashionable once more.

It's easy to agree that the film is about 30 minutes too long, but the story is always engaging - it's just the sequences that are drawn out too long which turn some of the film into a 'drama' more than a 'James Bond' genre piece.

The stand out moments for me are the opening sequence and the Madagascar scenes, and Montenegro start to finish - that is very modern Bond but also very vintage too. The darkness and coldness of the card game with Bond squaring up against Le Chiffre is a great adaptation to the novel and I love it far more than the Venice finale.

Daniel Craig couldn't have proven better he was capable of acting to high standards as an emotional and hurting yet tough and powerful spy and I thought the casting of Le Chiffre was spot on with Mads and so too for Vesper with the smouldering Eva (her fragility and constant mystery suited her character to the final moments.)

The action in Miami is the only part that is good, but not totally required and also for Venice, some moments aren't really there and at times you feel the film could end but it keeps plodding on...and on...and on until everything Daniel can give is squeezed out of him.

The fact that 'Quantum Of Solace' didn't hold a candle to 'Casino Royale's pacing and fleshing out of the characters and story is easy to point out as they are so both totally different, but 'QOS' does match 'CR' in terms of delivering a great performance from Craig, stand-out action sequences and lots of nice 'Bond moments' we easily identify.

As you say, I hope 'Skyfall' now delivers 'Casino Royale' without the need to pad moments out but includes the classic, beautiful shots and also work on 'Quantum Of Solace's constant pacing but not fragile film-making and editing.

One thing can easily be stated - Daniel Craig was and is a near-perfect James Bond for our times!

[DR76]

Do I feel that "CASINO ROYALE" is overrated? No. I can think of a few Bond movies that seem overrated to me. I believe that "CASINO ROYALE" has its flaws, but I don't think it's overrated.

The fact that 'Quantum Of Solace' didn't hold a candle to 'Casino Royale's pacing and fleshing out of the characters and story is easy to point out as they are so both totally different, but 'QOS' does match 'CR' in terms of delivering a great performance from Craig, stand-out action sequences and lots of nice 'Bond moments' we easily identify.

I don't believe that "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" was better or just as good as "CR", but I certainly don't agree with this excessively negative view of it. The worst I can say about the 2008 movie is that its pacing in the first half was too fast. And I can think of two characters I would have deleted. But I thought it was still a pretty good film. And it was a much better follow up to "CR" than "DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER" was to "OHMSS".


I have noticed that whenever faced with a dark Bond story like "QoS" or 1989's "LICENSE TO KILL", fans and critics tend to overreact and demand that the movie franchise return to the traditional fantasy-adventure crap of films like "GOLDFINGER" or "THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN".

[Zographos]

Being "overrated" can't be that bad an offence when forumgoers rush to declare everything from Goldfinger to GoldenEye as such.

Wish there were more overrated Bond movies...

[Mickeba]

Over the last 3 weekends, we watched "Casino Royale" and "Quantum". "Quantum" was not very good. It was muddled and didn't seem to have a lot of energy or direction, but I think that was due to the writers strike that effectd the production. "Casino" was a different story. I hadn't watched it in 3 or 4 years, but it was much better than I remembered it. I don't think it was as good as the Connery classics, "OHMSS" or "Spy", or "Goldeneye", but it stood out from most other Bond films.

[DR76]

Being "overrated" can't be that bad an offence when forumgoers rush to declare everything from Goldfinger to GoldenEye as such.

If you're talking about GOLDFINGER,

Over the last 3 weekends, we watched "Casino Royale" and "Quantum". "Quantum" was not very good. It was muddled and didn't seem to have a lot of energy or direction, but I think that was due to the writers strike that effectd the production. "Casino" was a different story. I hadn't watched it in 3 or 4 years, but it was much better than I remembered it. I don't think it was as good as the Connery classics, "OHMSS" or "Spy", or "Goldeneye", but it stood out from most other Bond films.

Over the last 3 weekends, we watched "Casino Royale" and "Quantum". "Quantum" was not very good. It was muddled and didn't seem to have a lot of energy or direction, but I think that was due to the writers strike that effectd the production. "Casino" was a different story. I hadn't watched it in 3 or 4 years, but it was much better than I remembered it. I don't think it was as good as the Connery classics, "OHMSS" or "Spy", or "Goldeneye", but it stood out from most other Bond films.

One, I feel that "CASINO ROYALE" was better than any of the "Connery classics", including "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE". I'm saying this with a cold eye and I love both films.

Two, everyone is entitled to his or her feelings about "QUANTUM OF SOLACE". I realize that it is very unpopular with Bond fans. But frankly, I don't care. I still like it very much. I believe it has less flaws than the overrated "GOLDFINGER" and "DR. NO". For me, it's ranked at No. 10 out of 22 Bond movies.

[honeyjes]

Most cinema goers watch a film and hope to be entertained, and if a film does that then it’s not overrated and who are we to denounce the film or the audience as one’s enjoyment will evolve around personal taste and preference.

CR being a disgrace to Fleming is a big leap of judgment as I doubt any of us knew the man, and the majority of films that have his titles mainly contain smidges of his books anyway. If Fleming cared that much about authenticity wouldn’t he have made a proviso that any book filmed should contain all his writings and his estate would veto filming of his works if that was breached.

This Fleming turning in his grave nonsense presumes to know better than those that have tried and put themselves and their work on the line whilst the whiners haven’t. It’s a lot easier to crap on someone else’s efforts when our main involvement and expertise with these films lies in buying the finished product, pressing the rewind, play, pause and forward button on the player. We haven’t actually produced one of these films or anything better ourselves and if we have where is it..

Edited by honeyjes, 19 June 2012 - 07:07 AM.

[Dustin]

I blame - partially at least - Nick Hornby's HIGH FIDELITY. It's the book that turned ranking lists into a mass sport. I never felt an urge to rank the Bond films prior to 1995. Come to think of it, I still don't.

Seriously, I think home entertainment may have had the same effect on enjoying films the Internet had on medicine. All of a sudden everybody is an expert. And in the case of films you can dissect them now down to the fraction of a second, analyse every camera angle of every frame, judge the lighting and the make-up and the costumes. Three decades ago even film students didn't have the amount of raw data now available to everybody. And as fans it's perhaps only natural to invest more analysis than the average viewer does; that itself isn't necessarily pretension.

Yet I feel over-analysis can impair on the enjoyment of the whole affair. No film ever was shot to withstand the amount of critical eye we invest now on a regular basis. Take whatever example, even the best films can be shot into a pathetic shoestring affair, half-hearted and clumsy. All it takes is a miserable mood and a pointed pen. That doesn't exempt our topic from critique, it merely goes to show how deeply involved we feel we've become with it. So much so that we indeed feel above and beyond those creative forces providing actual content and subject to discussion.

Edited by Dustin, 19 June 2012 - 04:11 PM.

[Chief of SIS]

The idea of not ranking things just blew my mind. To live in a world where TB and CR don't have to be classified under the same ridiculous standards!?

This is a whole realm I can't wait to explore.

[Dustin]

Yes, odd idea, I know. Still works remarkably well for me.

[Zographos]

I blame - partially at least - Nick Hornby's HIGH FIDELITY. It's the book that turned ranking lists into a mass sport. I never felt an urge to rank the Bond films prior to 1995. Come to think of it, I still don't.

Seriously, I think home entertainment may have had the same effect on enjoying films the Internet had on medicine. All of a sudden everybody is an expert. And in the case of films you can dissect them now down to the fraction of a second, analyse every camera angle of every frame, judge the lighting and the make-up and the costumes. Three decades ago even film students didn't have the amount of raw data now available to everybody. And as fans it's perhaps only natural to invest more analysis than the average viewer does; that itself isn't necessarily pretension.

Yet I feel over-analysis can impair on the enjoyment of the whole affair. No film ever was shot to withstand the amount of critical eye we invest now on a regular basis. Take whatever example, even the best films can be shot into a pathetic shoestring affair, half-hearted and clumsy. All it takes is a miserable mood and a pointed pen. That doesn't exempt our topic from critique, it merely goes to show how deeply involved we feel we've become with it. So much so that we indeed feel above and beyond those creative forces providing actual content and subject to discussion.

All good points. I think the other odd tendency is to judge Bond films based on their flaws rather than strengths. Bond films more than anything ought not to be judged on their flaws. They're packed with them after all. Especially when the criticism is some odd clunker of a line, erratic pacing, or shoehorned action scene. We didn't become fans because we're bothered by these things (and it's nothing new to point these out in the case of CR; read any critic review from 2006).

So maybe one area where CR is underrated is in just how far it's jacked up fans' expectations. You can read CBn posts from 2000 and the tone is so completely different.

[Dustin]

I suppose most of us got hooked by Bond in a similar manner a good stage magician can grip his audience - you just sit in awe and joy, and you don't really wonder how it's done, you just enjoy the ride.

Recently a number of those magicians spilled the beans about their tricks (which often date back hundreds of years; in some cases to the pyramids and longer even, true cultural treasures), explained and dissected them.

Did they add to our enjoyment of stage magic? Not at all. This strange phenomenon destroys the sense of wonder we felt when the show mesmerised us. And I'm afraid too much poking at the Bond films can spoil your fun a lot like a revealed trick of stage magic. You may perhaps feel a temporary kick for now being able to see behind it all. But once the fascination is gone it won't come back, not in the way you used to feel it.

[5thstreet]

I do not understand the stock- selling -buying, does not make sence to me?

[Chief of SIS]

It had relatively nothing to do with the typical way of buying stock. Instead, what was happening was shorting stocks. In a crude sense, it is the inverse of how a normal individual plays the stock market, buy low and sell high. When you short stocks you buy high with the hope of selling them back for a low price. So when le Chiffre shorted his stocks he was banking on the knowledge that Skyfleet's stock would plummet the next day. It was supposed to be a quasi form of "insider trading." Instead, the plane didn't explode and stocks stayed high resulting in a large loss of money.

[AMC Hornet]

Thanks for the attempt at explaining, Chief, but it still doesn't make any sense to me. How do you profit from buying stock at a high price, and selling them back at a low price? Doesn't it make more sense to just invest in the competition?

[MrKidd]

Hello - can't resist chiming in here to clarify the confusion. Actually, shorting stocks is a method of selling HIGH with the intention of buying LOW at a later date, i.e. you're still buying low and selling high but in the reverse order. However, what Le Chiffre was actually doing was buying PUT options - which is the right to SELL the stock at a predetermined price. It is a financial 'instrument' called a 'derivative' and effectively acts as a downward bet on a stock's price. So, Le Chiffre made a massive 'down bet' in the stock price (using the money he got from that warlord - 'how do I trust this man I never met before with all ma money?' - brill!) and then tried to blow the plane up - which of course would have had the consequences on the share price he so desired. But thanks to Bond, which BTW I thought was an ace action scence, he didn't succeed. The plane was saved, the stock price didn't plummet and your man Le Chiffre therefore lost the stake he bet. It's still pretty complicated but does that make more sense now?

[hilly]

Every time I watch Casino Royale, I try and concentrate hard to understand the principle of stock-shorting. (I've watched M's " After 9/11" speech several times)...and never quite manage it...

[MrKidd]

Every time I watch Casino Royale, I try and concentrate hard to understand the principle of stock-shorting. (I've watched M's " After 9/11" speech several times)...and never quite manage it...

As I (tried to!) describe above - he wasn't shorting the stock - instead he was buying put options - a 'synthetic' method of making money if a stock price goes down. With that said, shorting a stock is another similar method to capture profit if a share price falls. S'pose you think the stock of a share is too high at $100 and you think it's going to go down. You can sell it for $100 - but here's the funky bit - EVEN IF YOU DON'T OWN IT! How do you manage that? Well you can borrow the stock (usually from a financial institution) - for a fee of course. Now the institutional will want you to return the stock at some point - so what you have to do is, at a later date, buy the stock back and return it to the institution, at what you HOPE is a lower price than the price you sold it for. You see, its still 'buy low, sell high' but in the reverse order..'sell high, buy low'...that's what shorting stocks is all about. Of course, the risk is that when the 'shorter' tries to buy the stock back to return to the financial institution, the stock price is actually higher than it was when he sold it. Well, you're just plain F****KED then.

Edited by MrKidd, 21 June 2012 - 11:50 AM.

[marktmurphy]

It has weak points (the climactic action scene doesn't need to be there; the plot doesn't entirely make sense towards the end; the reboot is a little uncertain in that it keeps Judi, Aston Martin etc.; Craig is strictly speaking too old for the role as written), and I do agree that probably the biggest of these is that Eva Green is miscast (although gorgeous she's too cold, can't do witty playful banter to save her life, isn't even the right nationality), but despite these I'm not sure it isn't a candidate for the best Bond film of all of them. It's gripping, exciting and touching stuff and Bond himself is absolutely the strongest thing about it. It's a film about Bond, rather than a Bond film- and that's brilliant.

It's a great movie. Not just a great Bond movie, but a great movie full stop.

[Major Tallon]

It has weak points (the climactic action scene doesn't need to be there; the plot doesn't entirely make sense towards the end; the reboot is a little uncertain in that it keeps Judi, Aston Martin etc.; Craig is strictly speaking too old for the role as written), and I do agree that probably the biggest of these is that Eva Green is miscast (although gorgeous she's too cold, can't do witty playful banter to save her life, isn't even the right nationality), but despite these I'm not sure it isn't a candidate for the best Bond film of all of them. It's gripping, exciting and touching stuff and Bond himself is absolutely the strongest thing about it. It's a film about Bond, rather than a Bond film- and that's brilliant.

It's a great movie. Not just a great Bond movie, but a great movie full stop.

Gripping, exciting, touching. Yes, absolutely. And Craig brings James Bond to wonderful life.

The best Bond film of our generation.

[Miles Miservy]

"Something I've never really understood, but kept quiet about it. I don't understand how Bond suddenly thinks Mathis is a traitor, and I don't understand why in Quantum of Solace he thinks he isn't?"

CR: LeChiffe to Bond - "It seems your friend Mathis is really MY friend Mathis."

QOS: Gemma to Mathis - "Since MI-6 cleared you & bought you this villa, maybe you should be thanking him."

[Chief of SIS]

Hello - can't resist chiming in here to clarify the confusion. Actually, shorting stocks is a method of selling HIGH with the intention of buying LOW at a later date, i.e. you're still buying low and selling high but in the reverse order. However, what Le Chiffre was actually doing was buying PUT options - which is the right to SELL the stock at a predetermined price. It is a financial 'instrument' called a 'derivative' and effectively acts as a downward bet on a stock's price. So, Le Chiffre made a massive 'down bet' in the stock price (using the money he got from that warlord - 'how do I trust this man I never met before with all ma money?' - brill!) and then tried to blow the plane up - which of course would have had the consequences on the share price he so desired. But thanks to Bond, which BTW I thought was an ace action scence, he didn't succeed. The plane was saved, the stock price didn't plummet and your man Le Chiffre therefore lost the stake he bet. It's still pretty complicated but does that make more sense now?

There would be a time on this forum where I could +1 this post. Thanks for the insight and clarification from someone that has a minimal grasp of shorting even.

[marktmurphy]

"Something I've never really understood, but kept quiet about it. I don't understand how Bond suddenly thinks Mathis is a traitor, and I don't understand why in Quantum of Solace he thinks he isn't?"

CR: LeChiffe to Bond - "It seems your friend Mathis is really MY friend Mathis."

Nah; before that Bond takes off after Vesper because he suddenly suspects Mathis. There's a chance it's because he thinks Mathis told Le Chiff about the tell, but it's hugely unclear what made Bond react like that.
And why Le Chiffre would say he was his friend if he wasn't is unclear too. He has no intention of letting Bond go.

[Professor Dent]

Back when the movie was released, I remember reading many a posts on this board where people were just gushing with praise for it and seemed to be more willing to ignore or maybe just overlook issues with the movie. With the passage of time and the subsequent release of Quantum, that seems to have settled down. The movie isn't without its share of plot or timeline issues (like the whole Bahamas to Miami sequence) but, on the whole, it's a really good movie.

As I watch it now, I still wonder who goes to the Bahamas in July and packs a leather jacket for the trip? Only Bond.

[SecretAgentFan]

"Something I've never really understood, but kept quiet about it. I don't understand how Bond suddenly thinks Mathis is a traitor, and I don't understand why in Quantum of Solace he thinks he isn't?"

CR: LeChiffe to Bond - "It seems your friend Mathis is really MY friend Mathis."

Nah; before that Bond takes off after Vesper because he suddenly suspects Mathis. There's a chance it's because he thinks Mathis told Le Chiff about the tell, but it's hugely unclear what made Bond react like that.
And why Le Chiffre would say he was his friend if he wasn't is unclear too. He has no intention of letting Bond go.

True - but this is what (Bond) villains enjoy: titilating their victims.

[AMC Hornet]

Could the problem be that, although almost everyone is willing to praise Craig as possibly Connery's equal, nobody wants to admit that a new film could ever be equal to one of the classics from the 60s?

I see some people rating CR as their #1 favorite, but they never say "it's the best film since...", only that it's better than any of Brosnan's or Moore's.

CR sold a whole load of tickets and DVDs, so more than just the faithful were seeing it more than once.

CR is not over-rated. It's the best film since TLD (unless you didn't like TLD, in which case I'll retract that and say it's the best since OHMSS (oh wait, some people still haven't revised their opinion of that one). Thunderball? Oh yeah, people who find the scuba scenes 'boring' say it was over-rated when it was new.

There's no pleasing everyone, but I'm happy with it. It's in my top ten, along with the ones I mentioned above.