I know I am late posting my review having just become a member, but after seeing the film in the theater twice and several more times on my recent DVD purchase, I thought I would throw in my two doubloons.
I admit I was also one of the BIG sceptics when it came to the choice of Craig. However, after seeing the film I was overjoyed at what he did with the role! He definitely nailed Bond's earlier character, and though he does not match Dalton in the dark and dangerous looks department, he certainly proved how dangerous and deadly this character is supposed to be. Craig's cold but calculating stare sold me, along with his boxing physique. He can look good in an a tux, but even dressed up there is something about him that seems to say "I can tie a bow tie, but I wouldn't hesitate to shove a knife in your back".
As to the film itself, it's one I've waited years to see. Afte wetting our appetites with FRML, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD and LTK, it was so satisfying to finally see Fleming's work front and center.
Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed all the films to a certain degree (except for DAF and a lot of Moore's, where the producers just went off on into a vaudelille vein during the 70's). The bottom of the series pile in my opinion was TMWTGG and AVTAK. I take exception with DAD. Though I understand fans dismisal because of it's overused plot device (diamonds and satellites and a Bond type female) and the stupid techno beat dance theme, I thought the villains were arrogant and lethal and loved seeing them use plot points from the Moonraker novel and the actions scenes were top notch (except for the famous dreadful digital parasail scene). Well, we've had a lot of entertaining Goldfinger type romps over the decades, and I certainly believe they should not shy away from doing any in the future (as long as they are on the same level of style and quality), I hope the present success of CR will finally put the last nail in the coffin that contains the likes of TMWTGG or any other future buffoonery.
I see this review is starting to pall, so I'll head off to the end of it..
- Liked the opening black and white brutality of the pre-credits, but wish they would have done the sniper setting from the novel. Also wish they would have done better with the bathroom fight. Even though this is his first kill, an agent trained to become an assassin would not have drowned his target by hand (too clumsy and too long to do). He could have snapped his neck and finished it after the brutal hand to hand tussle.
- The credits were a great use of playing card designs. They needed a different sequence to show that this would be a different Bond film. The music? I admit I was first taken back by the rock song, but after repeated viewings, it fits perfectly with the credits - it's raw and powerful and the lyrics are in your face and define the type of life Bond's getting into.
- Opening action scenes are amazing. Kudos to the stun team and Craig and Foucan.
- I love Judi Dench. I really do, but to keep her as M just because she's good at it and everyone respects her is not a good reason to screw up the series time line. If they were starting from scratch and at the beginning they should have gotten a male actor.
- Oh no! Bond's driving a Ford rental! I realize the producers made a deal because Ford owns Aston Martin, but couldn't they have at least let him rent a Mustang?
- My friend says that the entire security staff would not have run to the parking lot after Bond's parking diversion. I said I know someone who works security in a small 5 star resort, and he's been in the business for years, and yes they are stupid enough they would do it (especially in places with a small staff).
- Like how he get's to drive his first Aston Martin. It would have been nice to have him respond to the initial offer in the bet if he would have said, "thanks, but I prefer Bentleys." then taken the wager anyway.
- The Miami airport scene was thrilling and first rate. Loved how he got rid of the bomber!
- Le Chiffre. What a cold blooded snake of a character. Mikkelsen nailed that one. The bleeing eye was a nice, creepy Fleming-like touch.
On the whole, I thought all the villains were chillingly realistic. Mikkelsen made Le Chiffre almost seem like Satan in disguise.
I loved the Montenegro locations, but I was disapointed they didn't make it a fictional French seaside resort. That's what made the whole story in the novel seem so yin and yang. Fleming set the death and high stakes in a sunny, vacation beach side resort to emphasize the contrasts. The place they shot CR looked like any other standard small Euro village. That's why the scenes of Bond's recovery location next to Lake Como are so stunning in comparison to what took place earlier.
- Yes, I did miss the baccarat. I realize they were just capitalizing on the popularity of poker, but I still think baccarat is more exciting. To me, poker is like a stock car race, where as baccarat is like playing a game of chicken with Maseratis. You get to the point a lot quicker, and you can lose a lot larger!
- Great idea breaking up the game with the brutal action sequences. We finally get to see Bond licking his wounds and yes, he's actually drinking a bourbon (or maybe it was scotch)instead of the movie standard vodka.
- Vesper. Eva Green was great. I thought her break down after seeing men killed in front of her was done well. Yes, the relationship with
Bond did feel rushed, but it was sacrificed for the films' running time. It's a shame, but they had to cut somewhere, and for an action/thriller film, it's usually the first thing that's trimmed.
- Loved seeing Venice again. Been there and gambled in the Lido casino. It really is that beautiful (though you can't always see the refuse that floats in the water when it's on film). Too bad they couldn't have had them staying at Gritti Palace.
- What an ending..great set piece in the sinking palace. Great tragic death for Vesper. Nice touch at the end "The names Bond....".
All in all, a knock out film. Hope the producers stay with this type of story line and serious plotting for at least a few more films, then they can throw us another Goldfinger type for a break (but just one!).
I don't see how any of you guys liked it. I haven't personally met anyone that liked the film.
It was BORING. For christ sakes, how do you people find a drawn out poker game a good movie? Then again you probalby can sit and watch World Series of Poker lol, that is all this movie is. The action is few and far between.
Daniel Craig is only good at bit parts like Munich and The Jacket. Now I admit he did some fine acting in those two movies. {[]
It was BORING. For christ sakes, how do you people find a drawn out poker game a good movie? Then again you probalby can sit and watch World Series of Poker lol, that is all this movie is. The action is few and far between.
Well, Bronson, I simply think that the poker game is a fairly small part of the film and I really disagree with you about there being little action in the movie. There's a LOT of it, and I think it's good stuff. But as for the poker game, I've never once watched World Series of Poker or anything else along that line, and I really didn't care what cards anyone had in the movie. What made the poker game interesting was that you saw the characters measuring each other up, trying to figure each other out, and trying to learn the other person's weak spots. It's all about characterization, and the material works well.
I've been watching Bond movies for a long, long time now; and while I think gadgets, guns, and girls are important elements of the series I think a Bond movie has to offer more than just those things. It has to be about character and story first, and CR delivers those elements in abundance.
For christ sakes, how do you people find a drawn out poker game a good movie? Then again you probalby can sit and watch World Series of Poker lol, that is all this movie is. The action is few and far between.
I may be in a minority here, but I was disappointed with how little poker there was in the film. Alot of people talk about how the poker game was so drawn out, well I didn't see it. I mean, I think we saw, what, three, four hands at the most? IMO (and I'm not a huge poker fan) there was nowhere near enough poker. But that's just me.
"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
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.
You are so misguided my friend words can not even begin to describe...
You obviously have no conception of what a James Bond film should be about. You, no doubt have never read any of Fleming's books and obviously were introduced to Bond by means of Die Another Day or some other lackluster Brosnan effort.
Casino Royale is as close as it gets to the perfect Bond film in my opinion. I do not need to list the reasons why this is true, simply check out any of the reviews from people who know what they are talking about and you'll see why.
Bale has been a hot favourite of mine to replace Brosnan since I saw him in American Psycho. However since Bale is now wearing 'The Cape' he wouldn't exactly have been on the producers wish list. If 'Remington Steele is not going to be James Bond' as Cubby once said I hardly think Batman can be Bond either. Anyway Bale (at 31) is and looks too young for the part.
That quote by the way is in reference to Pierce Brosnan, (but I'm sure you knew that).
I may be in a minority here, but I was disappointed with how little poker there was in the film. Alot of people talk about how the poker game was so drawn out, well I didn't see it. I mean, I think we saw, what, three, four hands at the most? IMO (and I'm not a huge poker fan) there was nowhere near enough poker. But that's just me.
If you take out all the scenes in between the poker game you'll notice that it's not drawn out. And if you concentrate on the poker you'll notice there weren't many hands played. And there are substantial time lapses during the poker scenes themselves. For instance, Bond buys back into the game with the five million "That last hand almost killed me". At this point, Le Chiffre has approx fifteen million. Cut to the next shot and Bond has a stack of chips the equal of Le Chiffre's. Also, in the final phase of the game the audience only sees the last hand.
All this goes against the poker game being drawn out. If anything, it was rushed.
I haven't personally met anyone that liked the film.
I haven't personally met anyone that didn't. Not all of the people that I hang about with are Bond fans- not by a long chalk- and every one has liked CR as a MOVIE, as opposed to a Bond movie. While I'm prepared to admit that my own personal viewpoint is slanted, having been a Bond fan for more years than some here have been alive, CR is a very professional piece of entertainment that deserves every bit of the praise that has come its way. TPTB have delivered and delivered in style- Fleming devotees have meat to chew on while contemporary tastes have been satisfied and, more importantly, the future of the franchise has been secured.
As one who prefers tradition (eg Q and Moneypenny; Brosnan over Craig) this may have produced some qualms, and I must admit to certain reservations. BUT, the future of the series has been confirmed by the overwhelming success of this film.
It is my personal feeling that the newness of this movie and its deliberate breaking of the traditions compared to DAD has contributed to its high placing among Bond fans- but I'm prepared to be wrong over that. The next film (and remember that above all we're talking about a series here) will tell.
All this goes against the poker game being drawn out. If anything, it was rushed.
Exactly. I don't know why people complain that there was too much poker, when arguably it was rushed more than anything else.
"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
I agree with everyone who has said the game was rushed. It was excellent Bond/LeChiffre verbal jousting, and a great chance for the audiance to see how both characters handled the extreame pressure of high stakes gambling. IMO there was too much cutting about, which made me lose track of what was happening for a few seconds before I got back on track. How long is the game anyway? something like, 45 or less minutes of actual screen time? That's hardly drawn out at all...
I bought CR on DVD yesterday and have watched it a couple of times now.
I'm still annoyed/disappointed with the writers' attempt to get inside Bond's head which just doesn't work.
Watching the film is the visual equivalent of smelling clothing that has been permeated by the odours of stale cologne, alcohol and tobacco smoke.
Vesper's act throughout the film is too smooth considering the pressure she is under to save her boyfriend.
I miss the the gadgets and the big improbable plots to take over the world. These are two major hallmarks of the Bond franchise that should never have been tampered with. Without these elements as well as Bond's moral unassailability which has also been taken from him, he is just a well-dressed thug.
Without these elements as well as Bond's moral unassailability which has also been taken from him, he is just a well-dressed thug.
To be fair, Connery also had a thuggish element to him. And the same argument could be made about Lazenby. Both looked like they enjoyed beating the hell out of their opponents. They were also more than happy to give a woman a good slap when they felt she needed one. Moore was IMO the first Bond to act like a proper gent.
To me CR highlighted how some people expect different things from a Bond film. Some prefer the darker, more Fleming-based Bonds, while some prefer the more outlandish movie Bonds. Personally, I'll take either as long as they deliver the goods in terms of entertainment value.
I think CR had to be darker for a number of reasons. The producers wanted to make a faithful adaptation of Fleming's novel. The current political climate is so tense right now, that an over-the-top 'Moonraker' style adventure would have looked completely out of touch with the modern world. The Bond producers have always moved with the times. See how they incorporated the Blaxploitation movie into 'Live and Let Die' as an example. Also the genre itself has toughened up, with Bourne and Bauer fighting dirty and having moral anxieties about what they were doing. I think Eon would have been foolish not to ignore those factors. I think it was the right time to do something a little different.
However, I don't think we've seen the last of the traditional Bond movie elements. I'm sure at some point further down the line a return to the fantastical style of Bond films will seem as fresh as CR felt when it came out last year.
Without these elements as well as Bond's moral unassailability which has also been taken from him, he is just a well-dressed thug.
To be fair, Connery also had a thuggish element to him. And the same argument could be made about Lazenby. Both looked like they enjoyed beating the hell out of their opponents. They were also more than happy to give a woman a good slap when they felt she needed one. Moore was IMO the first Bond to act like a proper gent.
quote]
Im not concerned about Bond being violent or even being a womaniser. Im concerned about his attitude to his own behaviour. When Connery and Lazenby played him he didnt have an attitude about his own behaviour - that is, he didnt reflect on his actions and motives because the writers and the zeit geist of the 60s and 70s made him morally unassailable. He was always right and always jsutified in what he did. Even his errors of judgement in the pursuit of a bad guy were always vindicated by his eventual success. The issue is that since Brosnan became Bond the character has been forced to reflect on who he is and why he does what he does. As Bond say to M in CR, "You want me to be half zen monk and half hitman."
As soon as Bond became reflective, his character was doomed. It started in GE:
Bond: "It's what keeps me alive."
Natalya: "No, it's what keeps you alone."
Dalton in LTK is the last time we see Bond as a pure man of action destroying evil men and bedding beautiful women without worrying about whether he's losing his soul etc.
We see the essence of this contradiction in CR when Bond corners the traitorous MI6 section chief during the PTS:
Section Chief: "Made you feel it did he. Well don't worry, the second is..."
BANG!
Bond: "Yes. Considerably."
The writers are playing this edge between the hitman and the zen monk and it bugs the hell out of me because its totally implausible and psychologically unrealistic.
The issue is that since Brosnan became Bond the character has been forced to reflect on who he is and why he does what he does. As Bond say to M in CR, "You want me to be half zen monk and half hitman."
As soon as Bond became reflective, his character was doomed. It started in GE:
Bond: "It's what keeps me alive."
Natalya: "No, it's what keeps you alone."
Dalton in LTK is the last time we see Bond as a pure man of action destroying evil men and bedding beautiful women without worrying about whether he's losing his soul etc.
We see the essence of this contradiction in CR when Bond corners the traitorous MI6 section chief during the PTS:
Section Chief: "Made you feel it did he. Well don't worry, the second is..."
BANG!
Bond: "Yes. Considerably."
The writers are playing this edge between the hitman and the zen monk and it bugs the hell out of me because its totally implausible and psychologically unrealistic.
Hope this clarifies things.
I also can't stand the psychoanalyzing. One of my least favourite Bond scenes was M's 'misogynistic dinosaur' speech in GE. I also hated her 'I should never have promited you, you're just a blunt instrument..' speech in CR.
"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
I took Bond's response to Dryden's attempt at psycho-babble (an obvious attempt to play Bond, gain some time, etc.)--just shooting the guy--to be a pretty emphatic statement about how this Bond feels about self-reflection. The entire film is about Bond unapologetically doing whatever the flip he thinks best, sometimes coming out on top, sometimes not, regardless of what anybody including M says about it. Some of it may sink in by the end, but it doesn't appear to be because of any dark night of the soul. He loves and loses and is betrayed--then buckles into an awesome suit, grabs an assault rifle (or whatever that thing was, lol), and goes White hunting. If there was a scene where Bond examines Bond (not counting the beach scene where he chucks in his job, that was very old school-OHMSS-Fleming to me), I guess I missed it in all the ass-kicking that was going on. M commenting on Bond seems very in line with what M does, especially in the books. Do agree that there was some really hammy attempts at psycho-whatever in some of the Brosnan Bonds, but CR seemed to toss all that aside IMO in favor of a very Flemingesque approach to things.
Is it just me or can anybody else hear Fleming's M tell Bond post-events in CR, you've learned your lesson?
Do agree that there was some really hammy attempts at psycho-whatever in some of the Brosnan Bonds, but CR seemed to toss all that aside IMO in favor of a very Flemingesque approach to things.
I disagree. I felt that GE was lessened due to the psychoanalyzing but IMO CR had some of its own. There was the 'you treat women as disposable objects' line which IMO ruined one of the best scenes in CR (the train scene) and there was the scene in M's home, in which she theorised about how Bond wasn't ready yet and how he was a 'blunt instrument' etc...
"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
I guess the difference for me was, in GE those references are just sitting there, M's talk with Bond and the scene on the beach, they don't mean anything in context to the plot; conversely, in CR those kinda comments are all about the plot, Bond being rash drives the story forward at significant points. Also, in GE Bond himself gets into self-analyzing, the keeps me alive exchange, whereas in CR Bond treats such reflective exchanges as a joke, like the half hitman half monk line. Or, it's about a decision he's making ala leaving the service. CR's poking and prodding about Bond is about moving the story forward; GE's is about, well, it's just there, and just as easily could've not been. I suppose the GE bit with M about being a dinosaur could be seen as an important aside, by the film's end Bond's proven that dinosaur or no, he's gets the job done. But that bit always struck me a big forced whatever, it's true for every Bond film. Fleming was going on about that in some of the later books even. I did like Brosnan's reaction to it, though: amused disdain, as I recall. There is a lot chatter from Trevelyan about Queen and country, making comparisons between him and Bond, but I just hated all that, it was so poorly done IMO. More of what I consider hammy attempts at what CR pulls off very well, and puts in its proper context.
Actually the most telling line about how Bond sees himself is when he tells Vesper he's going to get out of MI6 while he still has some soul left. This shows how deeply uncomfortable he is with his job as a professional killer. Compare this with Connery, Moore, Lazenby or Dalton whose sense of identity is comfortable with what they do. Unfortunately we cant go back - since the cat was let out of the bag in GE Bond is now forever going to have to defend himself against judgements about what he does. The moral goal posts have shifted over the 40 or so years that Eon's film Bond has been around - the cowboys and indians approach is no longer valid - so thats why the critical dialogue appeared in GE. Before that Bond was never criticised for being un-PC. I predict that Ocupational Health and Safety concerns in MI6 procedures will be the next blow to this character's freedom! LOL!
Good grief, fellas--OK, even I'll admit that the line about Bond "learning his lesson" made me cringe; but as for Bond deciding to leave MI6 to live a happy life with Vesper--that's straight out of the novel. Perhaps we are indeed at a stage where Fleming's Bond and Film Bond are so different that the character from the books will no longer be accepted in the movies?
Didn't Bond quit for love in OHMSS? Said something like, an agent shouldn't be concerned about anything but his mission or some such...reflective comment? It's all in how it's handled IMO, and CR was very in line with OHMSS, and with the books, two comparisons I have no problems with.
I am concerned only with the evolution or perhaps devolution of the cinematic Bond who has always been different from the literary one and should in fact be treated as a separate character.
...as for Bond deciding to leave MI6 to live a happy life with Vesper--that's straight out of the novel. Perhaps we are indeed at a stage where Fleming's Bond and Film Bond are so different that the character from the books will no longer be accepted in the movies?
Hopefully not as long as 'Flemingesque' entries continue to do $600 million at the box office
That's the beauty of CR, to me: The gap between Cinematic Bond and Literary Bond has narrowed---if only slightly.
Better late than never :007)
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
This is my first post on this forum, so I thought I might as well get the big one out the way.
When Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, I like many others were surprised at his appointment. Craig was introduced to us via the Thames River on a speedboat. He appeared wearing shades and lifejacket (Oh dear) and commented that he was scared sh*tless by the boat journey. Not a great start, I thought to myself. The press had a field day and many tabloid papers commented on the arrival blunder. Despite this I felt Craig could deliver something different to the role. DAD had been a bit of a disaster (Not in terms of admissions) and had left an ugly stain on the franchise. I was willing to give Craig a chance and looked forward to his first outing.
I remember leaving the movie theatre with an extreme sense of frustration. After so many great reviews and positive feedback, how could this be? Perhaps my own expectations were too high? The film in my opinion tried too hard to be different, and the end result was a totally different Bond film, more akin to the Bourne series of films.
Back to the film itself and the start had me watching in awe. The film opens up with a nicely shot black and white PTS, which I feel is a joy to watch. The inclusion of this scene is to show Bond’s initiation into the OO club. Two kills are required for Bond to attain his licence to kill status. The virgin Bond is shown violently despatching an informant for Dryden (A rogue OO Agent) that demonstrates Craig’s physical presence (I wonder if the initial criticism had led to this style of Bond character) and the tone for which Craig’s Bond would continue. This scene culminates in Bond killing Dryden and delivering a nice one-liner.
The next scene containing Craig was the free running (parkour) scene. From this point on the film went downhill. For me this whole scene epitomised the desire for Hollywood (Jerry Bruckheimer) action, with no real point or benefit to the film. Many people enjoyed it, but I just felt this did not belong in a Bond movie. Why did Bond climb into the demolition vehicle just to drive it into a wall? This is supposed to be a top class operative, not a Rambo wannabee.
The free running itself was like an episode of Extreme sports, another pointless part of the movie. Why did the villain decide to climb up the crane when surely a hiding place or the nearest car would have been better option? This whole scene makes me cringe and the site of Craig running through walls is a joke.
Yes Craig gave a tougher, more brutal edge to Bond, something that was evidently missing in the Brosnan years, but he seemed to me, to be a standard Hollywood action hero, in the same way the film was full of stereotypical needless Hollywood action.
The poker scenes were steady at best. I actually felt is was very drawn out and failed to deliver the required tension that surely should have been evident.
The inclusion of Dame Judi Dench was an extremely poor decision by EON to include her as M. As we all know, the Dame has played M throughout the Brosnan era and was introduced as the replacement M in Goldeneye with Brosnan playing the seasoned Bond. In Casino Royale it was a case of role reversal. Dame Judi was playing an experienced M with an ageing Rookie Bond in Craig. Are we supposed to accept Dame Judi is a different M to the one she has previously played? Don’t get me wrong I like The Dame and consider her to be a fine actress and a good M, but this role should have been given to someone else.
All in all I feel Daniel Craig could be an excellent Bond if directed correctly. When smooth and refined like at the start and end he showed glimpses of the cinematic Bond that I am accustomed too, but this just wasn’t enough to persuade me he is Bond as there were too many instances in the film where he looked too brash. This style of film could have perhapsed worked with a younger looking actor, not someone who clearly looks his age.
For me Casino Royale was a gamble that did not pay dividends.
_________________
“I'd like to thank the Royal Marines for bringing me in like that and scaring the s--- out of me,” Bond Hardman Daniel Craig.
I must say that was a very honest and respectable review. While I loved CR as a whole and thought Craig was amazing, I do agree with some of your criticisms of the film.
I agree with some of your criticisms of the action scenes early in the film, however, while you criticize the free running scene, I had more of a problem with the airport chase, a little too "Die Hard" or "Speed" for my tastes. The free running scene was so amazing on the big screen and opens the film with such a bang that I really have a hard time complaining about it, but you may have a point about the bulldozer. )
Furthermore, I can't help but agree with you on Dench's M as well, although I have less of a problem with it than most of her CR detractors. Before the film came out I thought it might work out, but after a few viewings I couldn't help but feel that her schtick has grown pretty tiresome and probably should have been laid to rest after DAD like Pierce.
That's about all I can complain about however, because once Bond hops on the train towards Casino Royale I feel the movie starts hitting on all cylinders, and the poker scenes were really good IMO, and were broken up nicely with some of my other favorite scenes, including: the stairwell murder, Bond downing a stiff drink and changing his bloody shirt (I thought that was pure Fleming), the shower scene with Vesper, the martini order at the bar, the introduction of Felix and Bond's rebuy, and of course the poisoning scene.
After a few viewings I also really felt like the romance between Bond and Vesper is developing well in the aforementioned scenes, which doesn't make it seemed rushed later on, as was my original impression and also one of my few complaints.
Glad you think Craig has the potential to be a great Bond, I certainly agree with that, and I can't wait to see how Craig will play Bond in 22. As Loeffelholz (another member here) often says, "See you in line for the next one!" {[]
The free running scene on the crane did look spectacular on the big screen, but at no time did I feel tense. I actually felt the scene on the goldengate bridge had far more tension in AVTAK.
Welcome skywalker, I agree with all your points (the demolition vehicle confused me though - you mean the bulldozer, right?)
I was trying to be politically correct.;)
Welcome to the board, Skywalker. I don't believe that Craig is Bond, but just like you, I believe he could be better with the right talent around him. BTW - Are you the same Skywalker who has a review on alternative007 site? If so, that review was great also.
Comments
I've only been a poster for a relatively short time but I am glad to be part of such a decent group.
cheers
I admit I was also one of the BIG sceptics when it came to the choice of Craig. However, after seeing the film I was overjoyed at what he did with the role! He definitely nailed Bond's earlier character, and though he does not match Dalton in the dark and dangerous looks department, he certainly proved how dangerous and deadly this character is supposed to be. Craig's cold but calculating stare sold me, along with his boxing physique. He can look good in an a tux, but even dressed up there is something about him that seems to say "I can tie a bow tie, but I wouldn't hesitate to shove a knife in your back".
As to the film itself, it's one I've waited years to see. Afte wetting our appetites with FRML, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD and LTK, it was so satisfying to finally see Fleming's work front and center.
Don't get me wrong - I enjoyed all the films to a certain degree (except for DAF and a lot of Moore's, where the producers just went off on into a vaudelille vein during the 70's). The bottom of the series pile in my opinion was TMWTGG and AVTAK. I take exception with DAD. Though I understand fans dismisal because of it's overused plot device (diamonds and satellites and a Bond type female) and the stupid techno beat dance theme, I thought the villains were arrogant and lethal and loved seeing them use plot points from the Moonraker novel and the actions scenes were top notch (except for the famous dreadful digital parasail scene). Well, we've had a lot of entertaining Goldfinger type romps over the decades, and I certainly believe they should not shy away from doing any in the future (as long as they are on the same level of style and quality), I hope the present success of CR will finally put the last nail in the coffin that contains the likes of TMWTGG or any other future buffoonery.
I see this review is starting to pall, so I'll head off to the end of it..
- Liked the opening black and white brutality of the pre-credits, but wish they would have done the sniper setting from the novel. Also wish they would have done better with the bathroom fight. Even though this is his first kill, an agent trained to become an assassin would not have drowned his target by hand (too clumsy and too long to do). He could have snapped his neck and finished it after the brutal hand to hand tussle.
- The credits were a great use of playing card designs. They needed a different sequence to show that this would be a different Bond film. The music? I admit I was first taken back by the rock song, but after repeated viewings, it fits perfectly with the credits - it's raw and powerful and the lyrics are in your face and define the type of life Bond's getting into.
- Opening action scenes are amazing. Kudos to the stun team and Craig and Foucan.
- I love Judi Dench. I really do, but to keep her as M just because she's good at it and everyone respects her is not a good reason to screw up the series time line. If they were starting from scratch and at the beginning they should have gotten a male actor.
- Oh no! Bond's driving a Ford rental! I realize the producers made a deal because Ford owns Aston Martin, but couldn't they have at least let him rent a Mustang?
- My friend says that the entire security staff would not have run to the parking lot after Bond's parking diversion. I said I know someone who works security in a small 5 star resort, and he's been in the business for years, and yes they are stupid enough they would do it (especially in places with a small staff).
- Like how he get's to drive his first Aston Martin. It would have been nice to have him respond to the initial offer in the bet if he would have said, "thanks, but I prefer Bentleys." then taken the wager anyway.
- The Miami airport scene was thrilling and first rate. Loved how he got rid of the bomber!
- Le Chiffre. What a cold blooded snake of a character. Mikkelsen nailed that one. The bleeing eye was a nice, creepy Fleming-like touch.
On the whole, I thought all the villains were chillingly realistic. Mikkelsen made Le Chiffre almost seem like Satan in disguise.
I loved the Montenegro locations, but I was disapointed they didn't make it a fictional French seaside resort. That's what made the whole story in the novel seem so yin and yang. Fleming set the death and high stakes in a sunny, vacation beach side resort to emphasize the contrasts. The place they shot CR looked like any other standard small Euro village. That's why the scenes of Bond's recovery location next to Lake Como are so stunning in comparison to what took place earlier.
- Yes, I did miss the baccarat. I realize they were just capitalizing on the popularity of poker, but I still think baccarat is more exciting. To me, poker is like a stock car race, where as baccarat is like playing a game of chicken with Maseratis. You get to the point a lot quicker, and you can lose a lot larger!
- Great idea breaking up the game with the brutal action sequences. We finally get to see Bond licking his wounds and yes, he's actually drinking a bourbon (or maybe it was scotch)instead of the movie standard vodka.
- Vesper. Eva Green was great. I thought her break down after seeing men killed in front of her was done well. Yes, the relationship with
Bond did feel rushed, but it was sacrificed for the films' running time. It's a shame, but they had to cut somewhere, and for an action/thriller film, it's usually the first thing that's trimmed.
- Loved seeing Venice again. Been there and gambled in the Lido casino. It really is that beautiful (though you can't always see the refuse that floats in the water when it's on film). Too bad they couldn't have had them staying at Gritti Palace.
- What an ending..great set piece in the sinking palace. Great tragic death for Vesper. Nice touch at the end "The names Bond....".
All in all, a knock out film. Hope the producers stay with this type of story line and serious plotting for at least a few more films, then they can throw us another Goldfinger type for a break (but just one!).
It was BORING. For christ sakes, how do you people find a drawn out poker game a good movie? Then again you probalby can sit and watch World Series of Poker lol, that is all this movie is. The action is few and far between.
Daniel Craig is only good at bit parts like Munich and The Jacket. Now I admit he did some fine acting in those two movies. {[]
Well, Bronson, I simply think that the poker game is a fairly small part of the film and I really disagree with you about there being little action in the movie. There's a LOT of it, and I think it's good stuff. But as for the poker game, I've never once watched World Series of Poker or anything else along that line, and I really didn't care what cards anyone had in the movie. What made the poker game interesting was that you saw the characters measuring each other up, trying to figure each other out, and trying to learn the other person's weak spots. It's all about characterization, and the material works well.
I've been watching Bond movies for a long, long time now; and while I think gadgets, guns, and girls are important elements of the series I think a Bond movie has to offer more than just those things. It has to be about character and story first, and CR delivers those elements in abundance.
You are so misguided my friend words can not even begin to describe...
You obviously have no conception of what a James Bond film should be about. You, no doubt have never read any of Fleming's books and obviously were introduced to Bond by means of Die Another Day or some other lackluster Brosnan effort.
Casino Royale is as close as it gets to the perfect Bond film in my opinion. I do not need to list the reasons why this is true, simply check out any of the reviews from people who know what they are talking about and you'll see why.
Bale has been a hot favourite of mine to replace Brosnan since I saw him in American Psycho. However since Bale is now wearing 'The Cape' he wouldn't exactly have been on the producers wish list. If 'Remington Steele is not going to be James Bond' as Cubby once said I hardly think Batman can be Bond either. Anyway Bale (at 31) is and looks too young for the part.
That quote by the way is in reference to Pierce Brosnan, (but I'm sure you knew that).
If you take out all the scenes in between the poker game you'll notice that it's not drawn out. And if you concentrate on the poker you'll notice there weren't many hands played. And there are substantial time lapses during the poker scenes themselves. For instance, Bond buys back into the game with the five million "That last hand almost killed me". At this point, Le Chiffre has approx fifteen million. Cut to the next shot and Bond has a stack of chips the equal of Le Chiffre's. Also, in the final phase of the game the audience only sees the last hand.
All this goes against the poker game being drawn out. If anything, it was rushed.
I haven't personally met anyone that didn't. Not all of the people that I hang about with are Bond fans- not by a long chalk- and every one has liked CR as a MOVIE, as opposed to a Bond movie. While I'm prepared to admit that my own personal viewpoint is slanted, having been a Bond fan for more years than some here have been alive, CR is a very professional piece of entertainment that deserves every bit of the praise that has come its way. TPTB have delivered and delivered in style- Fleming devotees have meat to chew on while contemporary tastes have been satisfied and, more importantly, the future of the franchise has been secured.
As one who prefers tradition (eg Q and Moneypenny; Brosnan over Craig) this may have produced some qualms, and I must admit to certain reservations. BUT, the future of the series has been confirmed by the overwhelming success of this film.
It is my personal feeling that the newness of this movie and its deliberate breaking of the traditions compared to DAD has contributed to its high placing among Bond fans- but I'm prepared to be wrong over that. The next film (and remember that above all we're talking about a series here) will tell.
~Pen -{
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
I bought CR on DVD yesterday and have watched it a couple of times now.
I'm still annoyed/disappointed with the writers' attempt to get inside Bond's head which just doesn't work.
Watching the film is the visual equivalent of smelling clothing that has been permeated by the odours of stale cologne, alcohol and tobacco smoke.
Vesper's act throughout the film is too smooth considering the pressure she is under to save her boyfriend.
I miss the the gadgets and the big improbable plots to take over the world. These are two major hallmarks of the Bond franchise that should never have been tampered with. Without these elements as well as Bond's moral unassailability which has also been taken from him, he is just a well-dressed thug.
To be fair, Connery also had a thuggish element to him. And the same argument could be made about Lazenby. Both looked like they enjoyed beating the hell out of their opponents. They were also more than happy to give a woman a good slap when they felt she needed one. Moore was IMO the first Bond to act like a proper gent.
To me CR highlighted how some people expect different things from a Bond film. Some prefer the darker, more Fleming-based Bonds, while some prefer the more outlandish movie Bonds. Personally, I'll take either as long as they deliver the goods in terms of entertainment value.
I think CR had to be darker for a number of reasons. The producers wanted to make a faithful adaptation of Fleming's novel. The current political climate is so tense right now, that an over-the-top 'Moonraker' style adventure would have looked completely out of touch with the modern world. The Bond producers have always moved with the times. See how they incorporated the Blaxploitation movie into 'Live and Let Die' as an example. Also the genre itself has toughened up, with Bourne and Bauer fighting dirty and having moral anxieties about what they were doing. I think Eon would have been foolish not to ignore those factors. I think it was the right time to do something a little different.
However, I don't think we've seen the last of the traditional Bond movie elements. I'm sure at some point further down the line a return to the fantastical style of Bond films will seem as fresh as CR felt when it came out last year.
I also can't stand the psychoanalyzing.
Is it just me or can anybody else hear Fleming's M tell Bond post-events in CR, you've learned your lesson?
Anyway, random and rambly thoghts.
Nice debating with you blueman.
Hopefully not as long as 'Flemingesque' entries continue to do $600 million at the box office
That's the beauty of CR, to me: The gap between Cinematic Bond and Literary Bond has narrowed---if only slightly.
Better late than never :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This is my first post on this forum, so I thought I might as well get the big one out the way.
When Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, I like many others were surprised at his appointment. Craig was introduced to us via the Thames River on a speedboat. He appeared wearing shades and lifejacket (Oh dear) and commented that he was scared sh*tless by the boat journey. Not a great start, I thought to myself. The press had a field day and many tabloid papers commented on the arrival blunder. Despite this I felt Craig could deliver something different to the role. DAD had been a bit of a disaster (Not in terms of admissions) and had left an ugly stain on the franchise. I was willing to give Craig a chance and looked forward to his first outing.
I remember leaving the movie theatre with an extreme sense of frustration. After so many great reviews and positive feedback, how could this be? Perhaps my own expectations were too high? The film in my opinion tried too hard to be different, and the end result was a totally different Bond film, more akin to the Bourne series of films.
Back to the film itself and the start had me watching in awe. The film opens up with a nicely shot black and white PTS, which I feel is a joy to watch. The inclusion of this scene is to show Bond’s initiation into the OO club. Two kills are required for Bond to attain his licence to kill status. The virgin Bond is shown violently despatching an informant for Dryden (A rogue OO Agent) that demonstrates Craig’s physical presence (I wonder if the initial criticism had led to this style of Bond character) and the tone for which Craig’s Bond would continue. This scene culminates in Bond killing Dryden and delivering a nice one-liner.
The next scene containing Craig was the free running (parkour) scene. From this point on the film went downhill. For me this whole scene epitomised the desire for Hollywood (Jerry Bruckheimer) action, with no real point or benefit to the film. Many people enjoyed it, but I just felt this did not belong in a Bond movie. Why did Bond climb into the demolition vehicle just to drive it into a wall? This is supposed to be a top class operative, not a Rambo wannabee.
The free running itself was like an episode of Extreme sports, another pointless part of the movie. Why did the villain decide to climb up the crane when surely a hiding place or the nearest car would have been better option? This whole scene makes me cringe and the site of Craig running through walls is a joke.
Yes Craig gave a tougher, more brutal edge to Bond, something that was evidently missing in the Brosnan years, but he seemed to me, to be a standard Hollywood action hero, in the same way the film was full of stereotypical needless Hollywood action.
The poker scenes were steady at best. I actually felt is was very drawn out and failed to deliver the required tension that surely should have been evident.
The inclusion of Dame Judi Dench was an extremely poor decision by EON to include her as M. As we all know, the Dame has played M throughout the Brosnan era and was introduced as the replacement M in Goldeneye with Brosnan playing the seasoned Bond. In Casino Royale it was a case of role reversal. Dame Judi was playing an experienced M with an ageing Rookie Bond in Craig. Are we supposed to accept Dame Judi is a different M to the one she has previously played? Don’t get me wrong I like The Dame and consider her to be a fine actress and a good M, but this role should have been given to someone else.
All in all I feel Daniel Craig could be an excellent Bond if directed correctly. When smooth and refined like at the start and end he showed glimpses of the cinematic Bond that I am accustomed too, but this just wasn’t enough to persuade me he is Bond as there were too many instances in the film where he looked too brash. This style of film could have perhapsed worked with a younger looking actor, not someone who clearly looks his age.
For me Casino Royale was a gamble that did not pay dividends.
_________________
“I'd like to thank the Royal Marines for bringing me in like that and scaring the s--- out of me,” Bond Hardman Daniel Craig.
I must say that was a very honest and respectable review. While I loved CR as a whole and thought Craig was amazing, I do agree with some of your criticisms of the film.
I agree with some of your criticisms of the action scenes early in the film, however, while you criticize the free running scene, I had more of a problem with the airport chase, a little too "Die Hard" or "Speed" for my tastes. The free running scene was so amazing on the big screen and opens the film with such a bang that I really have a hard time complaining about it, but you may have a point about the bulldozer.
Furthermore, I can't help but agree with you on Dench's M as well, although I have less of a problem with it than most of her CR detractors. Before the film came out I thought it might work out, but after a few viewings I couldn't help but feel that her schtick has grown pretty tiresome and probably should have been laid to rest after DAD like Pierce.
That's about all I can complain about however, because once Bond hops on the train towards Casino Royale I feel the movie starts hitting on all cylinders, and the poker scenes were really good IMO, and were broken up nicely with some of my other favorite scenes, including: the stairwell murder, Bond downing a stiff drink and changing his bloody shirt (I thought that was pure Fleming), the shower scene with Vesper, the martini order at the bar, the introduction of Felix and Bond's rebuy, and of course the poisoning scene.
After a few viewings I also really felt like the romance between Bond and Vesper is developing well in the aforementioned scenes, which doesn't make it seemed rushed later on, as was my original impression and also one of my few complaints.
Glad you think Craig has the potential to be a great Bond, I certainly agree with that, and I can't wait to see how Craig will play Bond in 22. As Loeffelholz (another member here) often says, "See you in line for the next one!" {[]
The free running scene on the crane did look spectacular on the big screen, but at no time did I feel tense. I actually felt the scene on the goldengate bridge had far more tension in AVTAK.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I was trying to be politically correct.;)
Welcome to the board, Skywalker. I don't believe that Craig is Bond, but just like you, I believe he could be better with the right talent around him. BTW - Are you the same Skywalker who has a review on alternative007 site? If so, that review was great also.