Casino Royale Reviews (Page 16 of 18)

Bond's burglary of M's flat and finding out her name are not "disrespectful", they are meant to show how clever and resourceful Bond is. oo7 is very respectful of "M" and seems to appreciate the seriousness of her rebuke, his ELLIPSIS investigation is Bond's way of making up for the shooting of Mollacka which turned out to be a disaster. I would say that DC's Bond is as "dog-like" in his devotion to "M" as the Book Bond who in Dr.No and OHMSS demonstrates he can be "peeved" with his boss. Even when given the opportunity DC's Bond doesn't dismiss his boss as a "bean counter".

The "recklessness" is more apparent in CR'06, than say in Goldfinger - where Bond stupidly steals the villians girl, and gets her killed. In the books Bond shows poor judgement on a few ocassions, like staying on the train in FRWL, or swimming to the Isle of Suprise in LALD.

What I enjoy the most about this Bond is the attempt by the actor/producers/writers to develope a charecter rather than "filling shoes" which we got with GL, or just a great new actor in an old script which we got with TLD. I think this is a new direction for the series that we can all celebrate. If you can't stand this new direction, the wonderful thing is you can always watch 20 other DVD's and find something in those you prefer.

The next few years will probably be a hell for some fans .... good chance to read the books!

Thanks blueman!

No the CR'06 adapation was not a faithful as OHMSS. But long ago I gave up any notion that EON would undertake to do Fleming's novels as period pieces and closely follow the scripts. So the best we can hope for these days is the retention of Fleming elements. CR'06 was able to dovetail a modern beginning onto an IF ending very seamlessly.

The lack of a Fleming book as a base for Bond 22 worries me....

It was easier for Peter Hunt in 1968 to use OHMSS pretty completely since it had been a bestseller only a few years earlier. Unlike today's auidance, alot of the public had read the OHMSS novel, and with it's plot ending with the wedding of James Bond - keeping with the book was really a pretty safe bet for the producers.

What EON had NOT learned at that point was that SC was not just a face, but a man gifted with that certain quality that lights up a movie screen and commands your attention. Thinking they could drop a "look-a-like" in and with minimal direction create a replacement oo7 was a dumb gamble, and while GL did his level best it was not a success. In retrospect I blame Peter Hunt for this as he played up the action and played down the crucial love story. At least they did not back away from either in CR.

Bond's burglary of M's flat and finding out her name are not "disrespectful", they are meant to show how clever and resourceful Bond is.

But to go along with the "realistic" premise of the character reboot, how that was done in CR did not make sense.  Instead of showing remorse or some sense of reluctant but justified defiance, we instead get treated to some smug insolence!  Again, using the supposed framework of realism, it's troublesome to accept M's actions."

I think you are holding the fim to impossible standards. This "realistic" Bond film is still a fantasy. The whole Mollacka chase is well done, exciting, and innovative - but hardly realistic! It is however more grounded than a boat driving down streets or an invisable car in a ice palace.

superado wrote:

"M responds to that kind of reckless behavior by entrusting this agent of questionable judgement with a mission of even higher critical consequences. "

Again, I don't feel that Bond was showing disrespect as much as he was trying to redeem himself by "showing off" that he could enter M's apartment. He was also demonstrating his shame by avoiding "the office", and prehaps being detained. Bond completes the ELLIPSIS investigation by covertly using M's computer and password -essentially going rogue as Bond did in LTK - but offically on vacation. M could have changed her password at any time, but allowed Bond to continue to make use of the resource.

One of the re-boot changes that I really enjoy is the seasoned M, who knows Bond better than he knows himself. She literally lets 007 loose on a target with minimal direction. M knows Bond is a loose cannon, but also knows one way or the other the job will get done. M really uses Bond in a cruel sense - knowing he is going to a price in  "learning who to trust". M knows Bond is rough edged and in this first mission she is deliberately knocking the edges off.

superado wrote:

Then it gets better...Bond then bails (actually doing so, ala OHMSS the movie, vs. only planning to do so) only to then jeopardize himself and the service's interests to more of his poor judgement/lack of perception, only to then get rewarded with renewed trust and reinstatement into his former role of elevated trust that could be seen as a priviledge that he didn't really value all that much... "

M didn't want to use Bond against LC, she even tells him so, but he is the best gambler in the service and she wants LC. Bond is reigned in by both Vesper an Mathis not to mention a tracking device. All those add up to someone who is not been given much leash.

After near castration, we could give Bond a bit of a break. It's not easy to determine the timeline between Bond's resignation and the discovery by that "nice man from the treasury" that the money is missing. It could be a day or two, not much more. M would have to figure that Bond is fragile at that point. She knows he has an ego problem, and despite the crack about not getting emotionally involved -  emotion is Bond's biggest problem, he's got the old chip on his shoulder that Vesper so cleverly spots - he has to prove to himself and everyone he is better than all those high class boys who used to abuse and debag him at school. M knows that despite whatever Bond sends her in an E-Mail, he is not going anywhere. Heck, he doesn't know what an honest job is!

superado wrote:

"Yes, differences with the novel in the finer points might seem subtle, but plot-wise, it makes a world of difference."

I think it's the best written film I've seen in years and would adore it even if the title charecter had been another JB. But it is Bond and by gosh that makes it even more fantasticly good!

superado wrote:

To close, however, please, please note, everyone who is a fan of the movie's every pore, this is not an attack on Daniel Craig or the innovative spirit behind CR...I am appealing for soberness, or in other words, get-a-grip!  CR did not fall out of Heaven; it has many strengths but its not without its flaws, and it's getting wearisome how some feel duty-bound to compensate for and defend valid criticisms against it by slamming "every Bond and Bond film that's gone before, with the exception of course, of Connery in the first 4 movies."  Let CR stand on its own merits, and equally important, allow it to answer for its own flaws."

CR stands very nicely on its own merits. I think it is as good a film as any of the four originals with SC, it is a very different film - with its own style. And I have yet to find a serious flaw that makes CR something that Bond fans shouldn't embrace.

With the series nearing 22 entries, there are some peaks and valleys. CR is a peak! This next one may be a valley. One thing I have come to realise (I watched Octopussy last evening) is that while we may differ over what aspects of a film are properly "Bondian" and have preferences for certain actors, every single Bond film has been excellently made, impeccably produced with top notch production values. EON is to be admired for that, with CR I think they are at the top of their game. I hope they stay there.

Superado - my apologies for chopping up your post!

"Arm yourself because no one else here will save you."