LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited March 2007
Another happy Bond fan! :007) Good to see the boycotters are still promoting the film...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm not against a return to a grittier Bond, but I still remain unsure about Daniel Craig. Personally, I think Dalton did a better job of portraying a darker Bond than Craig did.
I will admit, however, that a lot of my reservations are due to the fact that Craig doesn't look anything like the character Fleming described - tall, dark and handsome. Craig is none of the above. When playing a well-established character like James Bond, looks are just as important as performance. I have no problems with Craig's performance, it is his appearance that bothers me, that makes me wonder if the producers have made the right choice.
Casino Royale is a very good film - much, much better than Die Another Day. But I don't think it's "one of the best".
Eon's Casino Royale more than met my expectations, despite the fact that I'd once been somewhat reluctant to accept Daniel Craig as James Bond.While the film was in production, I watched Tomb Raider, Sylvia, The Road to Perdition, and Munich and was quite impressed with Craig's performances in each of those movies.Once the Casino Royale DVD began playing on my TV, and I saw Craig in character, everything was fine--he was 007.He's a different kind of James Bond compared to his predecessors, but James Bond nonetheless.
For the record,I've liked all of the actors who've played James Bond--some of them more than others,perhaps--but I think that each of those gentlemen have given interesting and valid interpretations of the character Ian Fleming created.And as far as I'm concerned,this is equally true of Daniel Craig.I believe him as Bond.He doesn't resemble my mental image of 007, nor do his looks tally with what Ian Fleming set down when he was describing Bond's features(few of the actors do),but through talent and determination,Craig makes the part his own.If by some magic a young Sean Connery or a young Timothy Dalton or a young Pierce Brosnan appeared on the scene in 2007, could they have played James Bond in this iteration of Casino Royale as skillfully as Craig?Perhaps.Possibly.Maybe.And Gerard Butler,Sam Worthington or Henry Cavill might've been good as 007 too,because this film's material is rich and challenging--and any talented actor would welcome such a chance to work with it.At any rate,we'll never know,because all with all speculation aside,Daniel Craig is the man who is now James Bond and he's excellent in the role.
Craig imbues his Bond with considerable dimension-he's reckless and he's arrogant;yet he's also sensitive and romantic.And he's always damned dangerous to be around.In the Casino Royale novel Ian Fleming calls 007 "a beautiful killing machine" and however one might regard Craig's outward appearance, there's no question that the Bond he plays in the Casino Royale movie is most definitely a killing machine--luckily,he's one of the good guys.
Eva Green was remarkable as Vesper Lynd.Whenever she smiles(and what a lovely smile it is) at Craig it's easy to believe that her Vesper is really in love with James Bond.In my opinion,the screenwriters improved this character considerably from Fleming's original--giving her much greater depth and credibility.When Eva's Vesper acknowledges that she's complicated, it's a logical and understandable admission, considering importance of her official responsibilities and what happens with her over the course of the movie.This is a terrific performance-it's subtle and impressively nuanced.The audience cannot help but fall for Eva's Vesper and hope against hope that,somehow,some way, she'll avoid her inevitablely tragic end.It's the kind of performance that is award worthy.I have only one caveat-Eva really didn't need to use so much mascara to highlight her dancing eyes,because they're quite beautiful without any makeup.
Mads Mikkelsen's LeChiffre bears absolutely no physical resemblance whatsoever to the Alistair Crowley lookalike Fleming described,and that's probably a good idea considering the number of bad guys who,over the course of the series have indirectly resembled Crowley.Even with his bleeding eye, Eon's LeChiffre is a much less florid monster than so many of 007's previous adversaries--although he's still cut from the same cloth as the ghouls of the past.Anyone who calls himself "The Cipher" isn't exactly trying to maintain a low profile--LeChiffre knows exactly what he is and makes no effort to pretend otherwise.Even his height gives LeChiffre a dramatic edge as he looms over nearly everyone else in the film(interestingly,from some angles he looks a bit like a tall Peter Lorre-the original LeChiffre).It's a good performance. Mikkelsen's LeChiffre's unhidden enthusiasm as he strikes 007 during the torture scene is absolutely cringworthy.As a longtime fan of the SPECTRE of both the novels and the early films, I was pleased to see the introduction of Ellipsis--which looks to be the newest enemy organization for 007 to combat.
It was great to see 007's friend Rene Mathis finally come to the screen,and Giancarlo Giannini's performance,is,in it's own way, as memorable as Pedro Armendariz's Kerim Bey.Hopefully he'll return in Craig's future films.
At first,I wasn't too pleased to see Judi Dench return as M.And I'd still have prefered to have seen Admiral Sir Miles Messervy return as 007's commanding officer.If Casino Royale was really supposed to mark an entirely new beginning for the James Bond series,then here was the perfect moment to bring the original M back to the screen.But that didn't happen, which is unfortunate.I know why Eon kept Judi on--she's now well-established in the role and thus offers a familiar face to general audiences.Despite my initial misgivings,Judi's M gradually grew on me.She and Craig have a fine chemistry, and the irony of the womanizer being bossed around by a woman still has its power.However,one thing I'd really rather not see Judi's M do--or any other M for that matter--is continually venture out from MI6 into the field to be with 007.M isn't Bond's partner and belongs in the office at headquarters.There are,after all,other Double-Os to contend with.
Director Martin Campbell did a wonderful job of getting in touch with his inner Terence Young and brings a similar kind of pseudo realism to Casino Royale seldom seen in a Bond film since the series' glory days of the 1960s.This movie wasn't directed in a manner that ever called attention to itself but was,instead high quality stuff--straightforward solid storytelling.The cinematography and editing are outstanding.On balance,Campbell has set the bar very high for whoever winds up taking the reins of Bond 22.
I think the screenplay is superb.Is it the very best James Bond script?No--but it's certainly one of them.I'm impressed by the screenplay's complexity and more importantly,it's basic fidelity to the novel's overall storyline.It's noteworthy to see how well a story written during the Cold War can have relevance today.
The dialogue is believable, considering the kind of film this is--Bond still cracks a joke but he's not interested in offering a succession of witty responses to everything he sees.In this way,007's humor is closer to that seen in the earliest films.The quips don't come often, but when they do, they're pretty good.Take the one about Vesper being assigned the alias "Stephanie Broadchest",for example.Not only is it funny on its own terms,but it's also a good reference to the many intentionaly suggestive "Pussy Galores" and "Holly Goodheads" et al.,names of the past.Frankly,I hope those types of risque names will eventually reappear(provided they're intelligent and inoffensive),because while political correctness is admirable, I'm not convinced that it always has a place in something attempting to be true to Ian Fleming.
One sequence I particularly liked had no dialogue at all.This was the scene where an empty gun is thrown at Bond by an exasperated adversary.Instead of just dodging the gun and perhaps saying something about his enemy's poor aim,007 catches it and hurls it directly into his opponents' face.
Indeed,this film's action sequences--which actually serve the story as opposed to looking like setpieces the film might've been built around--are simply incredible.These are some of the finest examples of action I've ever seen in any motion picture.All of the locations--especially those in Prague and Venice, are gorgeous.The climax was both breathtaking and heartbreaking.Ultimately,James Bond loved Vesper and she loved him and Ellipsis is going to pay for her death.
A minor complaint-I didn't care for Chris Cornell's singing, although it was nice to hear a male performing the title song to a Bond film again.Ironically,I like the intrumental version of "You Know My Name" and I think Arnold's score is a good one--worthy of comparison to John Barry--and I didn't even note the absence of the James Bond Theme.
Another observation--it seems that Eon is trying rewrite the literary James Bond's history because they have continually claimed that the Casino Royale novel is about 007's first mission.This is not true.In the book, James Bond is already a seasoned Double-O, and is even considering leaving the service before he ever meets Vesper Lynd.It's actually not Bond's origin story, although he briefly thinks back in a fleeting reference to his first kills--which took place at another time altogether.
Regardless of the liberties taken with the story, in my opinion,Casino Royale represents one of the truest versions of an Ian Fleming story to reach the screen since the halcyon days of From Russia With Love,Thunderball,Goldfinger and On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
The movie's nearly three hours flew by and when Casino Royale ended,I wanted it to continue.Eon succeeded admirably in recreating James Bond-instilling a kind of freshness and excitement in the franchise that'll keep audiences coming back for more.I'm definitely looking forward to Bond 22.
Did anyone notice in the Bahama's the guy that throws Bond his car key: "Are you going to make me wait all day" sounded a little like Goldfinger (looked like he was coming back from playing golf) with his gold Range Rover. Which of course Bond recks. A pretty interesting Easter egg so to speak?
Did anyone notice in the Bahama's the guy that throws Bond his car key: "Are you going to make me wait all day" sounded a little like Goldfinger (looked like he was coming back from playing golf) with his gold Range Rover. Which of course Bond recks. A pretty interesting Easter egg so to speak?
Well, a few people have said that the character is supposed to be Goldfinger; but, while I think there's a certain resemblance in terms of how they're dressed, I don't think it's really supposed to be the man with the Midas touch. You'd think Goldfinger would be driven around in a golden-colored car, be wearing johdpurs, and have a Korean servant!
. . .Oh, and WG, magnificent review!
Vox clamantis in deserto
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
I think it was probably just an inside joke. Can someone tell me what Bond says to him when he sits next to him in the casino and the guys stares at him? I can never make out what Craig is saying.
I think it was probably just an inside joke. Can someone tell me what Bond says to him when he sits next to him in the casino and the guys stares at him? I can never make out what Craig is saying.
He says "Guten Abend", which is German for "Good evening".
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
I am so angry I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this disgrace they call a "James Bond" movie. It was garbage. Complete and utter garbage. If I wanted to watch this movie I just would have flipped ESPN poker on and then watch a 5 minute clip from an action movie.
This was one of the worst movies I've seen in my life, nevermind the worst Bond movie hands down.
What was this movie complete trash, I'll tell you:
#1 -- BORING. Bond movies are supposed to be exciting and clever, this movie was a boring, drawn out poker game.
#2 -- No gadgets. The best gadget they could come up with was a friggin difibulator for christ sakes, are you joking? A DIFIBULATOR AS THE TOP GADGET?
#3 -- No car chase. Every Bond movie has some great chase scene in it. But in this movie they tease you in making you think you are escaping the bordem of the poker match with a car chase, but the chase last about 5 seconds when he flips his car.
#4 -- Lack of hot cars. Bond movies are known for having classy cars. However, in the begining we see bond driving a what? A FORD FOCUS?? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Is this was bond has been reduced to? Some type of Ford Focus hybrid soccor mom car? Pleeeeease. The two classy cars in the movie were just a snippett you barely even saw.
#5 -- Ugliest Bond girl ever. You think they could have at least found someone hot for this movie. Yeah, sure this girl looks alright, but nothing for a bond girl. The first girl in the movie he met should have had the lead role, anyone, but this girl. Bond girls need to be hot, she was not.
#6 -- Lack of action. There was barely any action scenes in this. He chases a black guy at the begining, and that was great, but other than that, it was boring as hell.
#007 -- The overall lack of 007 feel. Bond movies are known as the ultimate guy movies because of 3 simple ingredients: Action, Hot Women, Hot Cars. This movie lacked all 3. Sure, there were two hot chicks, but you barely saw then, instead some average Suzzie got the lead role. In addition, this guy was the worst James Bond ever. His huge nose, wrinkled and scarred face, and overall look was terrible. I am better looking than this guy, Bond is supposed to be a good looking charming man -- not Joe Shmoe.
CASINO ROYALE SUCKS!
This guy better not make another bond movie. Producers better smarten up and give Christian Bale a call to make the next several Bond movies. Bale matches to visibile discription of a James Bond with his looks, he is an action star, a tremendous actor, and to top it off: he's British! He has a heavy natural British accent that would be PERFECT for Bond.
Producers better smarten up and give Christian Bale a call to make the next several Bond movies.
I agree that he could have been great. The problem is that he is now so associated with Batman that it would probably be confusing if he was given the tux as well.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
One of the things I learnt very quickly about this site, is that the kind of arrogant, almost threatening post such as that from Bronson (is he just a bad speller?) is not tolerated.
Just a quick note to Bronson, you can have your view by all means but threatening that the producers "had better" put Christian Bale in the role is unpleasant and could be considered threatening if it weren't so laughable.
Have your say by all means, but don't behave like an idiot.
BORING. Bond movies are supposed to be exciting and clever, this movie was a boring, drawn out poker game. . . .There was barely any action scenes in this. He chases a black guy at the begining, and that was great, but other than that, it was boring as hell.
Total agreement. An agonizingly dull 144-minute poker game, interrupted every now and then by the "black guy" chase, as well as by Bond beating the hell out of someone in a bathroom, blowing up an embassy, fighting a guy on a big rig while preventing a plane from being destroyed, knifing someone in a bizarre exhibit of dead bodies, battling machete-wielding terrorists in a stairwell, crashing his oh-so-dull Aston Martin (what? he rolled it only seven times? LAME!), enduring torture, shooting it out with bad guys in Venice, and enduring a sinking building.
The producers need to realize that today's audiences have no attention span whatsoever! How dare they put so few action scenes in the movie! Why on earth do they think we care about well-developed characters, detailed plotting, and action that takes place more in the head than expressed with guns and fists? I go to Bond movies to shut off my brain and to be stimulated by action, cool cars, and hot babes! If the producers don't give me what I demand in Bond 22, I guess I'll just have to buy a Hot Rod magazine and read it under the covers.
This guy better not make another bond movie. Producers better smarten up and give Christian Bale a call to make the next several Bond movies. Bale matches to visibile discription of a James Bond with his looks, he is an action star, a tremendous actor, and to top it off: he's British! He has a heavy natural British accent that would be PERFECT for Bond.
Except he's already got his hands full with the Batman franchise. I'm sorry to tell you this, but CR was quite popular. I'm afraid Daniel Craig and his 'huge nose' are going to be around for a while longer.
Wow, one harsh review and all the knives come out.
Guys, come on. What are we, the defenders of CR or a Bond forum? I totally disagree with Bronson's review and tone, but that doesn't mean we need to call him an idiot and belittle his grammar and spelling -- is it not possible that his handle is legitimately "Bronson" and not a misspelling of Brosnan or Branson?
Are those of us who like CR secure in our devotion, or are we not? I wonder. Why would one negative review spur all this sarcastic defensiveness?
Wow, one harsh review and all the knives come out.
Guys, come on. What are we, the defenders of CR or a Bond forum? I totally disagree with Bronson's review and tone, but that doesn't mean we need to call him an idiot and belittle his grammar and spelling -- is it not possible that his handle is legitimately "Bronson" and not a misspelling of Brosnan or Branson?
Are those of us who like CR secure in our devotion, or are we not? I wonder. Why would one negative review spur all this sarcastic defensiveness?
Are those of us who like CR secure in our devotion, or are we not? I wonder. Why would one negative review spur all this sarcastic defensiveness?
Just shows that we'll attack someone for their anti-CR comments with the same zeal as we attack those who make anti-Brosnan comments.
But, seriously, Hilly, I don't believe that people are necessarily being defensive (I certainly wasn't), and though one person said Bronson is behaving like an idiot, no one said he is one. I think Bronson's post got the response it did for the following reasons:
First, a smug, "I-know-all-about-Bond-and-you-don't" tone. When you make sweeping statements like "this is why the Bond movies are a success" and "all Bond movies have a great car chase" and on and on, you're likely to rub the wrong way people who have considerably more Bond knowledge than this poster.
Second, his use of hyperbole and overstatement to mischaracterize the film. Practically no action? Ugly Bond girl? No hot cars? C'mon. I can respect those like darenhat and (believe it or not) JennyFlexFan who've criticized the movie on the basis of what the film is and what it tries to be--they didn't accuse it of being filled with stuff that isn't there.
Third (and finally), the threats. Craig better not come back. The producers better get Christian Bale. Or what? Who the heck is this person to make threats, and what makes his opinion and his money spent on the film more important than mine? Or maybe this criticism of mine belongs in the first group.
I guess what it all comes down to, Hilly and everyone else, if you're going to stick your neck out you're likely to get your head cut off. That doesn't excuse abusiveness and that will not be tolerated on AJB; but when a person is being deliberately outrageous, he shouldn't be too shocked if he gets outrageous responses.
All right you Daniel Craig bootlickers...I read all your rants about defending this ugliest Bond ever. Just because I have my own intelligent and thoughtful comments about this lame movie doesn't mean you have the right take pot shots at me.
I say what I think this movie is. A dull, long boring movie and it boggles the mind it made that much money.
All right you Daniel Craig bootlickers...I read all your rants about defending this ugliest Bond ever. Just because I have my own intelligent and thoughtful comments about this lame movie doesn't mean you have the right take pot shots at me.
I say what I think this movie is. A dull, long boring movie and it boggles the mind it made that much money.
Is it too late to welcome you to AJB?
See you in line for the next one, Bronson! {[]
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Just because I have my own intelligent and thoughtful comments about this lame movie doesn't mean you have the right take pot shots at me.
First of all...Charles, or Pierce (assuming you can't spell Brosnan, which from what you've shown us is not at all a very big stretch) or should we just call you TROLL!?!, you're clearly not here to intelligently or thoughtfully discuss anything!
In fact, you're the one who joined AJB just to apparently just take POTSHOTS at (us) members of this ridiculously intelligent site, who are doing nothing but having civil and thoughtful discussions about the latest Bond entry to the series, and (You would know this had you bothered to even take a glimpse around the site!)
Yet no, you just keep firing bullets of ignorance and hate from your virtual Walther PPK, not caring at all about the range of opinions or possible GREATER JAMES BOND KNOWLEDGE you may be able to tap into by actually taking the time to read the many threads on AJB that are actually SPLICED with pro and anti "Casino Royale" opinions. You'll probably notice that the members of this site who aren't fond of CR don't refer to the rest of us as Daniel Craig bootlickers, and once you comprehend this that will be a step in the right direction.
Yes, BRONSON, you are certainly trolling this site young man, but in your interest may I also suggest a proven step two remedy for such an arrogant young Craig-hater such as yourself? Here is step two:
And finally, to achieve the complete state of ignorance and bliss that you deserve, BRONSON, I shall send you to a place where the truth ( your shortsightedness) will set you free! You won't be needing AJB or any of us Casino Royale fans anymore, Old Man!
In fact, you're the one who joined AJB just to apparently just take POTSHOTS at (us) members of this ridiculously intelligent site, who are doing nothing but having civil and thoughtful discussions about the latest Bond entry to the series. (You would know this had you bothered to even take a glimpse around the site!)
Well, we are now. Took some work to get there though, perhaps there's hope for our new-found, er, friend?
Wow, one harsh review and all the knives come out.
Guys, come on. What are we, the defenders of CR or a Bond forum? I totally disagree with Bronson's review and tone, but that doesn't mean we need to call him an idiot and belittle his grammar and spelling -- is it not possible that his handle is legitimately "Bronson" and not a misspelling of Brosnan or Branson?
Are those of us who like CR secure in our devotion, or are we not? I wonder. Why would one negative review spur all this sarcastic defensiveness?
Comments
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I will admit, however, that a lot of my reservations are due to the fact that Craig doesn't look anything like the character Fleming described - tall, dark and handsome. Craig is none of the above. When playing a well-established character like James Bond, looks are just as important as performance. I have no problems with Craig's performance, it is his appearance that bothers me, that makes me wonder if the producers have made the right choice.
Casino Royale is a very good film - much, much better than Die Another Day. But I don't think it's "one of the best".
a review by Willie Garvin
Eon's Casino Royale more than met my expectations, despite the fact that I'd once been somewhat reluctant to accept Daniel Craig as James Bond.While the film was in production, I watched Tomb Raider, Sylvia, The Road to Perdition, and Munich and was quite impressed with Craig's performances in each of those movies.Once the Casino Royale DVD began playing on my TV, and I saw Craig in character, everything was fine--he was 007.He's a different kind of James Bond compared to his predecessors, but James Bond nonetheless.
For the record,I've liked all of the actors who've played James Bond--some of them more than others,perhaps--but I think that each of those gentlemen have given interesting and valid interpretations of the character Ian Fleming created.And as far as I'm concerned,this is equally true of Daniel Craig.I believe him as Bond.He doesn't resemble my mental image of 007, nor do his looks tally with what Ian Fleming set down when he was describing Bond's features(few of the actors do),but through talent and determination,Craig makes the part his own.If by some magic a young Sean Connery or a young Timothy Dalton or a young Pierce Brosnan appeared on the scene in 2007, could they have played James Bond in this iteration of Casino Royale as skillfully as Craig?Perhaps.Possibly.Maybe.And Gerard Butler,Sam Worthington or Henry Cavill might've been good as 007 too,because this film's material is rich and challenging--and any talented actor would welcome such a chance to work with it.At any rate,we'll never know,because all with all speculation aside,Daniel Craig is the man who is now James Bond and he's excellent in the role.
Craig imbues his Bond with considerable dimension-he's reckless and he's arrogant;yet he's also sensitive and romantic.And he's always damned dangerous to be around.In the Casino Royale novel Ian Fleming calls 007 "a beautiful killing machine" and however one might regard Craig's outward appearance, there's no question that the Bond he plays in the Casino Royale movie is most definitely a killing machine--luckily,he's one of the good guys.
Eva Green was remarkable as Vesper Lynd.Whenever she smiles(and what a lovely smile it is) at Craig it's easy to believe that her Vesper is really in love with James Bond.In my opinion,the screenwriters improved this character considerably from Fleming's original--giving her much greater depth and credibility.When Eva's Vesper acknowledges that she's complicated, it's a logical and understandable admission, considering importance of her official responsibilities and what happens with her over the course of the movie.This is a terrific performance-it's subtle and impressively nuanced.The audience cannot help but fall for Eva's Vesper and hope against hope that,somehow,some way, she'll avoid her inevitablely tragic end.It's the kind of performance that is award worthy.I have only one caveat-Eva really didn't need to use so much mascara to highlight her dancing eyes,because they're quite beautiful without any makeup.
Mads Mikkelsen's LeChiffre bears absolutely no physical resemblance whatsoever to the Alistair Crowley lookalike Fleming described,and that's probably a good idea considering the number of bad guys who,over the course of the series have indirectly resembled Crowley.Even with his bleeding eye, Eon's LeChiffre is a much less florid monster than so many of 007's previous adversaries--although he's still cut from the same cloth as the ghouls of the past.Anyone who calls himself "The Cipher" isn't exactly trying to maintain a low profile--LeChiffre knows exactly what he is and makes no effort to pretend otherwise.Even his height gives LeChiffre a dramatic edge as he looms over nearly everyone else in the film(interestingly,from some angles he looks a bit like a tall Peter Lorre-the original LeChiffre).It's a good performance. Mikkelsen's LeChiffre's unhidden enthusiasm as he strikes 007 during the torture scene is absolutely cringworthy.As a longtime fan of the SPECTRE of both the novels and the early films, I was pleased to see the introduction of Ellipsis--which looks to be the newest enemy organization for 007 to combat.
It was great to see 007's friend Rene Mathis finally come to the screen,and Giancarlo Giannini's performance,is,in it's own way, as memorable as Pedro Armendariz's Kerim Bey.Hopefully he'll return in Craig's future films.
At first,I wasn't too pleased to see Judi Dench return as M.And I'd still have prefered to have seen Admiral Sir Miles Messervy return as 007's commanding officer.If Casino Royale was really supposed to mark an entirely new beginning for the James Bond series,then here was the perfect moment to bring the original M back to the screen.But that didn't happen, which is unfortunate.I know why Eon kept Judi on--she's now well-established in the role and thus offers a familiar face to general audiences.Despite my initial misgivings,Judi's M gradually grew on me.She and Craig have a fine chemistry, and the irony of the womanizer being bossed around by a woman still has its power.However,one thing I'd really rather not see Judi's M do--or any other M for that matter--is continually venture out from MI6 into the field to be with 007.M isn't Bond's partner and belongs in the office at headquarters.There are,after all,other Double-Os to contend with.
Director Martin Campbell did a wonderful job of getting in touch with his inner Terence Young and brings a similar kind of pseudo realism to Casino Royale seldom seen in a Bond film since the series' glory days of the 1960s.This movie wasn't directed in a manner that ever called attention to itself but was,instead high quality stuff--straightforward solid storytelling.The cinematography and editing are outstanding.On balance,Campbell has set the bar very high for whoever winds up taking the reins of Bond 22.
I think the screenplay is superb.Is it the very best James Bond script?No--but it's certainly one of them.I'm impressed by the screenplay's complexity and more importantly,it's basic fidelity to the novel's overall storyline.It's noteworthy to see how well a story written during the Cold War can have relevance today.
The dialogue is believable, considering the kind of film this is--Bond still cracks a joke but he's not interested in offering a succession of witty responses to everything he sees.In this way,007's humor is closer to that seen in the earliest films.The quips don't come often, but when they do, they're pretty good.Take the one about Vesper being assigned the alias "Stephanie Broadchest",for example.Not only is it funny on its own terms,but it's also a good reference to the many intentionaly suggestive "Pussy Galores" and "Holly Goodheads" et al.,names of the past.Frankly,I hope those types of risque names will eventually reappear(provided they're intelligent and inoffensive),because while political correctness is admirable, I'm not convinced that it always has a place in something attempting to be true to Ian Fleming.
One sequence I particularly liked had no dialogue at all.This was the scene where an empty gun is thrown at Bond by an exasperated adversary.Instead of just dodging the gun and perhaps saying something about his enemy's poor aim,007 catches it and hurls it directly into his opponents' face.
Indeed,this film's action sequences--which actually serve the story as opposed to looking like setpieces the film might've been built around--are simply incredible.These are some of the finest examples of action I've ever seen in any motion picture.All of the locations--especially those in Prague and Venice, are gorgeous.The climax was both breathtaking and heartbreaking.Ultimately,James Bond loved Vesper and she loved him and Ellipsis is going to pay for her death.
A minor complaint-I didn't care for Chris Cornell's singing, although it was nice to hear a male performing the title song to a Bond film again.Ironically,I like the intrumental version of "You Know My Name" and I think Arnold's score is a good one--worthy of comparison to John Barry--and I didn't even note the absence of the James Bond Theme.
Another observation--it seems that Eon is trying rewrite the literary James Bond's history because they have continually claimed that the Casino Royale novel is about 007's first mission.This is not true.In the book, James Bond is already a seasoned Double-O, and is even considering leaving the service before he ever meets Vesper Lynd.It's actually not Bond's origin story, although he briefly thinks back in a fleeting reference to his first kills--which took place at another time altogether.
Regardless of the liberties taken with the story, in my opinion,Casino Royale represents one of the truest versions of an Ian Fleming story to reach the screen since the halcyon days of From Russia With Love,Thunderball,Goldfinger and On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
The movie's nearly three hours flew by and when Casino Royale ended,I wanted it to continue.Eon succeeded admirably in recreating James Bond-instilling a kind of freshness and excitement in the franchise that'll keep audiences coming back for more.I'm definitely looking forward to Bond 22.
My rating for Casino Royale: 007/0010.
Well, a few people have said that the character is supposed to be Goldfinger; but, while I think there's a certain resemblance in terms of how they're dressed, I don't think it's really supposed to be the man with the Midas touch. You'd think Goldfinger would be driven around in a golden-colored car, be wearing johdpurs, and have a Korean servant!
. . .Oh, and WG, magnificent review!
He says "Guten Abend", which is German for "Good evening".
Kein problem! Zu jeder Stunde.
(No problem! Any time.)
This was one of the worst movies I've seen in my life, nevermind the worst Bond movie hands down.
What was this movie complete trash, I'll tell you:
#1 -- BORING. Bond movies are supposed to be exciting and clever, this movie was a boring, drawn out poker game.
#2 -- No gadgets. The best gadget they could come up with was a friggin difibulator for christ sakes, are you joking? A DIFIBULATOR AS THE TOP GADGET?
#3 -- No car chase. Every Bond movie has some great chase scene in it. But in this movie they tease you in making you think you are escaping the bordem of the poker match with a car chase, but the chase last about 5 seconds when he flips his car.
#4 -- Lack of hot cars. Bond movies are known for having classy cars. However, in the begining we see bond driving a what? A FORD FOCUS?? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Is this was bond has been reduced to? Some type of Ford Focus hybrid soccor mom car? Pleeeeease. The two classy cars in the movie were just a snippett you barely even saw.
#5 -- Ugliest Bond girl ever. You think they could have at least found someone hot for this movie. Yeah, sure this girl looks alright, but nothing for a bond girl. The first girl in the movie he met should have had the lead role, anyone, but this girl. Bond girls need to be hot, she was not.
#6 -- Lack of action. There was barely any action scenes in this. He chases a black guy at the begining, and that was great, but other than that, it was boring as hell.
#007 -- The overall lack of 007 feel. Bond movies are known as the ultimate guy movies because of 3 simple ingredients: Action, Hot Women, Hot Cars. This movie lacked all 3. Sure, there were two hot chicks, but you barely saw then, instead some average Suzzie got the lead role. In addition, this guy was the worst James Bond ever. His huge nose, wrinkled and scarred face, and overall look was terrible. I am better looking than this guy, Bond is supposed to be a good looking charming man -- not Joe Shmoe.
CASINO ROYALE SUCKS!
This guy better not make another bond movie. Producers better smarten up and give Christian Bale a call to make the next several Bond movies. Bale matches to visibile discription of a James Bond with his looks, he is an action star, a tremendous actor, and to top it off: he's British! He has a heavy natural British accent that would be PERFECT for Bond.
And listen to Bale naturally talk, he could easily pull off the Bond speech! http://movies.go.com/feature?featureid=855392[/quote]
I agree that he could have been great. The problem is that he is now so associated with Batman that it would probably be confusing if he was given the tux as well.
Actually, you wasted 2 hours and 24 minutes of your life watching that disgrace they call a "James Bond" movie.
Just a quick note to Bronson, you can have your view by all means but threatening that the producers "had better" put Christian Bale in the role is unpleasant and could be considered threatening if it weren't so laughable.
Have your say by all means, but don't behave like an idiot.
...tack on about another half hour posting about it.
No, he's not just a bad speller- his grammar is pretty poor as well.
Total agreement. An agonizingly dull 144-minute poker game, interrupted every now and then by the "black guy" chase, as well as by Bond beating the hell out of someone in a bathroom, blowing up an embassy, fighting a guy on a big rig while preventing a plane from being destroyed, knifing someone in a bizarre exhibit of dead bodies, battling machete-wielding terrorists in a stairwell, crashing his oh-so-dull Aston Martin (what? he rolled it only seven times? LAME!), enduring torture, shooting it out with bad guys in Venice, and enduring a sinking building.
The producers need to realize that today's audiences have no attention span whatsoever! How dare they put so few action scenes in the movie! Why on earth do they think we care about well-developed characters, detailed plotting, and action that takes place more in the head than expressed with guns and fists? I go to Bond movies to shut off my brain and to be stimulated by action, cool cars, and hot babes! If the producers don't give me what I demand in Bond 22, I guess I'll just have to buy a Hot Rod magazine and read it under the covers.
Except he's already got his hands full with the Batman franchise. I'm sorry to tell you this, but CR was quite popular. I'm afraid Daniel Craig and his 'huge nose' are going to be around for a while longer.
Guys, come on. What are we, the defenders of CR or a Bond forum? I totally disagree with Bronson's review and tone, but that doesn't mean we need to call him an idiot and belittle his grammar and spelling -- is it not possible that his handle is legitimately "Bronson" and not a misspelling of Brosnan or Branson?
Are those of us who like CR secure in our devotion, or are we not? I wonder. Why would one negative review spur all this sarcastic defensiveness?
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
Funniest. Post. Ever.
Just shows that we'll attack someone for their anti-CR comments with the same zeal as we attack those who make anti-Brosnan comments.
But, seriously, Hilly, I don't believe that people are necessarily being defensive (I certainly wasn't), and though one person said Bronson is behaving like an idiot, no one said he is one. I think Bronson's post got the response it did for the following reasons:
First, a smug, "I-know-all-about-Bond-and-you-don't" tone. When you make sweeping statements like "this is why the Bond movies are a success" and "all Bond movies have a great car chase" and on and on, you're likely to rub the wrong way people who have considerably more Bond knowledge than this poster.
Second, his use of hyperbole and overstatement to mischaracterize the film. Practically no action? Ugly Bond girl? No hot cars? C'mon. I can respect those like darenhat and (believe it or not) JennyFlexFan who've criticized the movie on the basis of what the film is and what it tries to be--they didn't accuse it of being filled with stuff that isn't there.
Third (and finally), the threats. Craig better not come back. The producers better get Christian Bale. Or what? Who the heck is this person to make threats, and what makes his opinion and his money spent on the film more important than mine? Or maybe this criticism of mine belongs in the first group.
I guess what it all comes down to, Hilly and everyone else, if you're going to stick your neck out you're likely to get your head cut off. That doesn't excuse abusiveness and that will not be tolerated on AJB; but when a person is being deliberately outrageous, he shouldn't be too shocked if he gets outrageous responses.
I say what I think this movie is. A dull, long boring movie and it boggles the mind it made that much money.
Is it too late to welcome you to AJB?
See you in line for the next one, Bronson! {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
First of all...Charles, or Pierce (assuming you can't spell Brosnan, which from what you've shown us is not at all a very big stretch) or should we just call you TROLL!?!, you're clearly not here to intelligently or thoughtfully discuss anything!
In fact, you're the one who joined AJB just to apparently just take POTSHOTS at (us) members of this ridiculously intelligent site, who are doing nothing but having civil and thoughtful discussions about the latest Bond entry to the series, and (You would know this had you bothered to even take a glimpse around the site!)
Yet no, you just keep firing bullets of ignorance and hate from your virtual Walther PPK, not caring at all about the range of opinions or possible GREATER JAMES BOND KNOWLEDGE you may be able to tap into by actually taking the time to read the many threads on AJB that are actually SPLICED with pro and anti "Casino Royale" opinions. You'll probably notice that the members of this site who aren't fond of CR don't refer to the rest of us as Daniel Craig bootlickers, and once you comprehend this that will be a step in the right direction.
Yes, BRONSON, you are certainly trolling this site young man, but in your interest may I also suggest a proven step two remedy for such an arrogant young Craig-hater such as yourself? Here is step two:
Take my Remedy young BRONSON, and go back to what made you HAPPY!!!
And finally, to achieve the complete state of ignorance and bliss that you deserve, BRONSON, I shall send you to a place where the truth ( your shortsightedness) will set you free! You won't be needing AJB or any of us Casino Royale fans anymore, Old Man!
Here's where your brash and offensive opinions will be valued, old man, young man, whatever...
Well, we are now. Took some work to get there though, perhaps there's hope for our new-found, er, friend?
?:) Don't get it.