Strange, those reviews seemed spot on to me! I don't know, what we can agree on is how odd these split views are, like it's two different movies completely.
I don't mind sometimes thinking of renting CR to watch again, I like the idea of it and must admit that Craig has rejunivinated the series in a way that a Hugh Jackman type never could.
But odd memories of the film resurface to put me off. I mean, Vesper getting Bond's tux: "I need you to look like a man who belongs at that table..." Er, why? He's not there to negotiate a sale or to pitch an idea. It's not a job interview. He's there to play a game of poker. Surely what you need to do is wear what you're used to and comfortable with. He's not exactly trying to impress anyone.
And then Bond says, I need them all to be jealous of me cos you look so ravishing in your dress. It's all so hamfistedly written. 8-)
I know you don't like CR, Nape, which is cool, but your antipathy is so strong the movie just can't win for losing.
Are you serious when you say you're put off by Vesper's comment about the tux? Do you really have to ask "why" that exchange occurred? I've heard several people, even people who enjoyed the film, gripe that the romance was underwritten. That always blows me away. It's as if those folks have never flirted before, or even seen movie characters flirt before. Underwritten? the only way to make Bond-Vesper's attraction to each other plainer would be great big yellow arrows onscreen that point at the characters with the caption "They're hot for each other."
I suppose you would have preferred for Bond to show up at the poker table in sandals and Bermuda shorts. After all, as you correctly point out, he's not there for a job interview. Hopefully EON will take the hint in Bond 22 and have more "bond-like" moments like that )
I found the Vesper dinner jacket exchange to be typical of the CR script: witty and thoughtful, in the sense that the writer obviously had sat down and seriously pondered Bond both as a character in a particular situation and as an icon before setting pen to paper. It was a marked contrast to the strained, by-the-numbers double-entendres we've suffered with for the last 30 years. Bond, especially in the movies, has always has a reputation for sartorial splendor. Wouldn't it be fun if a young woman challenged that fashion sense? Especially if Bond first tried to push his wardrobe sense on her? Imagine this young woman turning the tables on our hero. It's a nice touch, just like Bond's "Do I look like I care" dismissal of the martini, which works for the same reason: Bond's choice of martini is legendary, but one can easily imagine that after losing several of the Queen's millions, he just wants a #$!* drink. Same thing with the "Stephanie Broadchest" quip, which simutaneously allowed Bond to flirt in a natural way with Vesper and and gave a nod to the Bond tradition of outrageous female names.
If that's hamfisted writing, fix me a sandwich ...
Another hole in CASINO ROYALE...somebody please explain how Mr. White got his hands on the briefcase after it plunged into the raging water.
They're not the same briefcase. Vesper was trying to doublecross the Venice guy when Bond showed up, so I assume what she gave him was an empty briefcase. I suspect the one Mr. White walked off with contained the money.
I've nothing against flirting, I do it online with Lady Rose all the time! And it's a darn sight wittier than what Bond comes up with (back me up on this Rose... )
I don't remember using the words underwritten, it's overwritten more like. The chemistry between Bourne and his gal in the first film is more like it for me, and yep, the seen in the shower in CR is on the money. Again, why does he need a posh dinner jacket? No one is that well dressed are they? It's not like Eliza Doolittle turning up at the ball, now is it? This isn't posh gambling like Blades in the 1950s, more the Vegas type thing where anyone can come and have a go if they're hard enough.
Nowl if Vesper had said: "Wear this outfit, it will rattle Le Chiffre because it's his favourite outfit himself... or, it will kill him to see a rough diamond dress posh" Or, "the atmosphere there isn't what you're used to, you just won't fit in if you dress the way you usually do, I happen to know these things..." then you're talking...
I truly wonder how other life-long James Bond fans can say this is the best Bond film ever when it resembles nothing like the wit and charm of the character that made us fans in the first place.
I guess some of us might start by not accepting your premise, because to me this Bond film bears a striking resemblance to the character that made me a fan in the first place...and it didn't happen on the silver screen...
I think the die-hard Brozzer fans will always have a bit of a chip on their shoulder where (Formerly) Poor DannyTM is concerned, and that's a shame, but time moves on, Bonds change and the tone of his films does tend to evolve over time. I've been seeing Bonds come and go since Connery; the parting of ways hasn't always been pretty, and the films have occasionally not been what I would prefer...but I've learnt that patience is rewarded, and a long-term strategic view works best.
Someday you'll get another Bond you like---but right now, I've got one :007)
See you in the queue for #22! -{
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 truly wonder how other life-long James Bond fans can say this is the best Bond film ever when it resembles nothing like the wit and charm of the character that made us fans in the first place.
I guess some of us might start by not accepting your premise, because to me this Bond film bears a striking resemblance to the character that made me a fan in the first place...and it didn't happen on the silver screen...
I think the die-hard Brozzer fans will always have a bit of a chip on their shoulder where (Formerly) Poor DannyTM is concerned, and that's a shame, but time moves on, Bonds change and the tone of his films does tend to evolve over time. I've been seeing Bonds come and go since Connery; the parting of ways hasn't always been pretty, and the films have occasionally not been what I would prefer...but I've learnt that patience is rewarded, and a long-term strategic view works best.
Someday you'll get another Bond you like---but right now, I've got one :007)
See you in the queue for #22! -{
Ah yes ... the good old days, when the writers would actually name the Bond girl "Christmas" ... for no apparent reason other than to allow Bond in the final, obligatory Bond-in-bed-with-the-Bond-girl scene (the one that follows the obligatory Bond-leads-the-assault-on-the-villain's-stronghold-by-the-troops/ninjas/commandos scene} to crack that he thought "Christmas only came once a year" like some oily lounge lizard; those charming pigeons that do double takes just like they do in Disney cartoons ...; the invisible cars and narrow escapes down mountain trails in cello cases; the canned "Q scene" ( ... Really Double-0 Seven ... pay attention ...) repeated practically verbatim from movie to movie. How witty, how charming. I sometimes think all EON would have to do to satisfy some fans is reissue the same movie with a different title, year after year. I suppose that just for the sake of variety, some years the figure in the gun barrel sequence could crouch when he fires his gun, and stand upright in others. Sure, the purists will howl because everything isn't numbingly the same. But some of us got tired of their missionary-position Bond long ago. The novelty wore off 25 years ago. I say meet the new Bond -- thankfully he's not like the old Bond. The new one is more like the 007 I used to love. And if there's a resemblance to Jason Bourne, that's because Bourne, Harry Palmer, Matt Helm or any other secret agent of popular culture that you can name, are basically riffs on the original -- and that's Bond. Bourne only seems new because Bond has strayed so far from his roots.
And to think CR's writing has been described as ham-fisted. I think what we're witnessing here in some folks is a kind of cinematic Stockholm Syndrome: keep 'em on a diet of crap long enough, and at some point the crap starts to taste like steak.
Ah yes ... the good old days, when the writers would actually name the Bond girl "Christmas" ... for no apparent reason other than to crack that he thought "Christmas only came once a year" like some oily lounge lizard;
Say what you want about TWINE, but leave that extraordianry line alone. X-(
How witty, how charming. I sometimes think all EON would have to do to satisfy some fans is reissue the same movie with a different title, year after year.
Not quite. LALD is completely different to TSWLM which is completely diffeent to FYEo which is completely different to GE etc... I think that you love CR s much that you've become blind to the fact that, with a few exceptions, each film is completely different. If they were the same, nobody (except for me ) would rank the films. ) Plus, HH, if the only reason you love CR is that it's different to previous films, how objective are you? I mean, you're lkely to like anything Eon throws at you as long as it's new.
Bourne only seems new because Bond has strayed so far from his roots.
And CR is similar to DN-TB how? I'm sorry HH, but you'll have to try alot harder to convince many of us that CR is more like the 60's Bonds than Moore or Brosnan. One if the disappointing things about CR IMO is that it does things that would never have occured in the 60's films (such as, drum roll, Bond's breaking into M's apartment.)
And to think CR's writing has been described as ham-fisted. I think what we're witnessing here in some folks is a kind of cinematic Stockholm Syndrome: keep 'em on a diet of crap long enough, and at some point the crap starts to taste like steak.
"I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours." You think that is good writing? You use the word hamfisted but how else would you describe such a clumsy piece of dialogue?
And then there's the shower scene in which Bond is sucking Vesper's finges. IMO it's one of the creepiest scenes in the Bond series. Is Bond a vampire or something?
HH, the moment I saw your condescension and derision, I knew I was home.
"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
Ah yes ... the good old days, when the writers would actually name the Bond girl "Christmas" ... for no apparent reason other than to crack that he thought "Christmas only came once a year" like some oily lounge lizard;
Say what you want about TWINE, but leave that extraordianry line alone. X-(
How witty, how charming. I sometimes think all EON would have to do to satisfy some fans is reissue the same movie with a different title, year after year.
Not quite. LALD is completely different to TSWLM which is completely diffeent to FYEo which is completely different to GE etc... I think that you love CR s much that you've become blind to the fact that, with a few exceptions, each film is completely different. If they were the same, nobody (except for me ) would rank the films. ) Plus, HH, if the only reason you love CR is that it's different to previous films, how objective are you? I mean, you're lkely to like anything Eon throws at you as long as it's new.
Bourne only seems new because Bond has strayed so far from his roots.
And CR is similar to DN-TB how? I'm sorry HH, but you'll have to try alot harder to convince many of us that CR is more like the 60's Bonds than Moore or Brosnan. One if the disappointing things about CR IMO is that it does things that would never have occured in the 60's films (such as, drum roll, Bond's breaking into M's apartment.)
And to think CR's writing has been described as ham-fisted. I think what we're witnessing here in some folks is a kind of cinematic Stockholm Syndrome: keep 'em on a diet of crap long enough, and at some point the crap starts to taste like steak.
"I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours." You think that is good writing? You use the word hamfisted but how else would you describe such a clumsy piece of dialogue?
And then there's the shower scene in which Bond is sucking Vesper's finges. IMO it's one of the creepiest scenes in the Bond series. Is Bond a vampire or something?
HH, the moment I saw your condescension and derision, I knew I was home.
Dan, the moment I saw you associate the "Christmas" line with the word "extraordinary," I knew you were about to trip over the doorstep.
I would observe that CR is different from ALL the Bond films that preceeded it, because it bravely tossed out all the set pieces and started out with a pre-oo James Bond.
With the other "first" Bond - DN, oo7 sprang onto the screen as a fully developed charecter - a ten year vet of the Secret Service. Bond IS what you see on the screen - a womanizing, ruthless agent with a like of Smirnoff Vodka, as handy with a quip as he is with a Walther.
CR's oo7, has more interesting charecter traits. He is still ruthless - but single minded, and rather than being cool - he loses his temper and acts rashly. He is of superior ability - able to burgle the bosses apartment and discover her name - secrets seemingly way beyond his supposed skill level. Like the DN Bond, he can kill without brooding over it - but more interesting is the fact that this new Bond is able to question the direction of his life - and still emotionally vunerable enough to fall in love, and want a "normal" existance.
The shower scen in CR is wonderful - because it shows us a charecter who realises the brutality of his job, and how that effects a "normal" person - that "vampire" sucking of Vesper's fingers, is Bond's attempt to assume responsibility for the guilt and horror Vesper feels. I think it's one of the best scenes I have watched in ANY film.
Unlike previous Bond's, there is no "diddle" ending with Bond and the latest cutie fooling around under a parachute or in a boat. Like the book the Bond of Casino Royale is on a mission of vengance against people who are enemies of his goverment and also happen to have wounded him personally. There IS more depth to CR'06 than previous Bond's.
It is curious to me that some fans prefer the comic Bond, who marches through predictable set pieces with a casual wink and dispatches villians with a clever joke shop toy, rather than getting into the mud. This is not surprising because many of those who prefer "comic Bond" have yet to crack open an Ian Fleming Novel. For Fans and Producers, ignoring the novels is inexcusable!
CR'06 has taken Bond in a new direction, a rather brave choice for the producers who let (IMO) Bond self destruct with the previous entry - DAD.
In the meantime, for those of you who cannot stand the "New Bond" there are those marvellous DVD's to watch - something we did not have back in the "old days".
It's interesting that oftentimes when someone doesn't like CR, that person is accused of prefering the 'comic Bond' (which is typically an assumption on the part of the accuser). Does CR try to have more depth? Sure it does. But in my opinion, trying and succeeding are two different things. I personally didn't care for CR for the implicit reason that it was NOT an accurate depiction of Bond in CR the Novel. Bond was not a rookie agent, prone to make rash decision and disrespect the authority of his superior. CR's Bond, IMO, represents neither the character that I enjoy in the novels nor in the previous films (as disparate as those two incarnations are). Eon crafted a Bond film which captured neither the sophisticated depth of the literary Bond, nor the enjoyable escapism of the earlier cinematic Bond. I was hoping to get at least one of those and got neither. This is why TLD and OHMSS remain consistently high on my list because I feel that those films came the closest in combining the two mediums.
Ah yes ... the good old days, when the writers would actually name the Bond girl "Christmas" ... for no apparent reason other than to allow Bond in the final, obligatory Bond-in-bed-with-the-Bond-girl scene (the one that follows the obligatory Bond-leads-the-assault-on-the-villain's-stronghold-by-the-troops/ninjas/commandos scene} to crack that he thought "Christmas only came once a year" like some oily lounge lizard; those charming pigeons that do double takes just like they do in Disney cartoons ...; the invisible cars and narrow escapes down mountain trails in cello cases; the canned "Q scene" ( ... Really Double-0 Seven ... pay attention ...) repeated practically verbatim from movie to movie. How witty, how charming. I sometimes think all EON would have to do to satisfy some fans is reissue the same movie with a different title, year after year. I suppose that just for the sake of variety, some years the figure in the gun barrel sequence could crouch when he fires his gun, and stand upright in others. Sure, the purists will howl because everything isn't numbingly the same. But some of us got tired of their missionary-position Bond long ago. The novelty wore off 25 years ago. I say meet the new Bond -- thankfully he's not like the old Bond. The new one is more like the 007 I used to love. And if there's a resemblance to Jason Bourne, that's because Bourne, Harry Palmer, Matt Helm or any other secret agent of popular culture that you can name, are basically riffs on the original -- and that's Bond. Bourne only seems new because Bond has strayed so far from his roots.
And to think CR's writing has been described as ham-fisted. I think what we're witnessing here in some folks is a kind of cinematic Stockholm Syndrome: keep 'em on a diet of crap long enough, and at some point the crap starts to taste like steak.
Whew...thank goodness we have leading lights like you to prevent us all from devolving into cavemen! Can we call your esteemed group The Enlightened OnesTM to show that we recognize your brilliance? Or is trademarking only reserved for the clever?
Ah yes ... the good old days, when the writers would actually name the Bond girl "Christmas" ... for no apparent reason other than to allow Bond in the final, obligatory Bond-in-bed-with-the-Bond-girl scene (the one that follows the obligatory Bond-leads-the-assault-on-the-villain's-stronghold-by-the-troops/ninjas/commandos scene} to crack that he thought "Christmas only came once a year" like some oily lounge lizard; those charming pigeons that do double takes just like they do in Disney cartoons ...; the invisible cars and narrow escapes down mountain trails in cello cases; the canned "Q scene" ( ... Really Double-0 Seven ... pay attention ...) repeated practically verbatim from movie to movie. How witty, how charming. I sometimes think all EON would have to do to satisfy some fans is reissue the same movie with a different title, year after year. I suppose that just for the sake of variety, some years the figure in the gun barrel sequence could crouch when he fires his gun, and stand upright in others. Sure, the purists will howl because everything isn't numbingly the same. But some of us got tired of their missionary-position Bond long ago. The novelty wore off 25 years ago. I say meet the new Bond -- thankfully he's not like the old Bond. The new one is more like the 007 I used to love. And if there's a resemblance to Jason Bourne, that's because Bourne, Harry Palmer, Matt Helm or any other secret agent of popular culture that you can name, are basically riffs on the original -- and that's Bond. Bourne only seems new because Bond has strayed so far from his roots.
And to think CR's writing has been described as ham-fisted. I think what we're witnessing here in some folks is a kind of cinematic Stockholm Syndrome: keep 'em on a diet of crap long enough, and at some point the crap starts to taste like steak.
Whew...thank goodness we have leading lights like you to prevent us all from devolving into cavemen! Can we call your esteemed group The Enlightened OnesTM to show that we recognize your brilliance? Or is trademarking only reserved for the clever?
{[] You bet your life you can, Hill! I'd hate to think I had all those calling cards printed up for nothing ... Although to be honest, they read "The Enlightened One."
Whew...thank goodness we have leading lights like you to prevent us all from devolving into cavemen! Can we call your esteemed group The Enlightened OnesTM to show that we recognize your brilliance? Or is trademarking only reserved for the clever?
{[] You bet your life you can, Hill! I'd hate to think I had all those calling cards printed up for nothing ... Although to be honest, they read "The Enlightened One."
Then...by the powers IN-vested IN me by this parish, I hereby commandeer this phrase, and all those trademarks within. )
[In best John Belushi Bluto voice]...from now on, your AJB name is TEOTM. {[]
Bond's burglary of M's flat and finding out her name are not "disrespectful", they are meant to show how clever and resourceful Bond is. oo7 is very respectful of "M" and seems to appreciate the seriousness of her rebuke, his ELLIPSIS investigation is Bond's way of making up for the shooting of Mollacka which turned out to be a disaster. I would say that DC's Bond is as "dog-like" in his devotion to "M" as the Book Bond who in Dr.No and OHMSS demonstrates he can be "peeved" with his boss. Even when given the opportunity DC's Bond doesn't dismiss his boss as a "bean counter".
The "recklessness" is more apparent in CR'06, than say in Goldfinger - where Bond stupidly steals the villians girl, and gets her killed. In the books Bond shows poor judgement on a few ocassions, like staying on the train in FRWL, or swimming to the Isle of Suprise in LALD.
What I enjoy the most about this Bond is the attempt by the actor/producers/writers to develope a charecter rather than "filling shoes" which we got with GL, or just a great new actor in an old script which we got with TLD. I think this is a new direction for the series that we can all celebrate. If you can't stand this new direction, the wonderful thing is you can always watch 20 other DVD's and find something in those you prefer.
The next few years will probably be a hell for some fans .... good chance to read the books!
Bond's burglary of M's flat and finding out her name are not "disrespectful", they are meant to show how clever and resourceful Bond is. oo7 is very respectful of "M" and seems to appreciate the seriousness of her rebuke, his ELLIPSIS investigation is Bond's way of making up for the shooting of Mollacka which turned out to be a disaster. I would say that DC's Bond is as "dog-like" in his devotion to "M" as the Book Bond who in Dr.No and OHMSS demonstrates he can be "peeved" with his boss. Even when given the opportunity DC's Bond doesn't dismiss his boss as a "bean counter".
The "recklessness" is more apparent in CR'06, than say in Goldfinger - where Bond stupidly steals the villians girl, and gets her killed. In the books Bond shows poor judgement on a few ocassions, like staying on the train in FRWL, or swimming to the Isle of Suprise in LALD.
What I enjoy the most about this Bond is the attempt by the actor/producers/writers to develope a charecter rather than "filling shoes" which we got with GL, or just a great new actor in an old script which we got with TLD. I think this is a new direction for the series that we can all celebrate. If you can't stand this new direction, the wonderful thing is you can always watch 20 other DVD's and find something in those you prefer.
The next few years will probably be a hell for some fans .... good chance to read the books!
Wonderful sentiments in there 7289, especially the bolded part about the new (first time like this, even) approach. Cheers! {[]
I personally didn't care for CR for the implicit reason that it was NOT an accurate depiction of Bond in CR the Novel.
I will give you that the film is not as faithful as some would argue, but it was the most faithful adaptation since OHMSS. Hell, it might be the only true adaptation since OHMSS, and that was significant and exciting for a lot of us. And while I agree with you that it could have been even more faithful, the fans would cry bloody murder if they did a Bond reboot and DIDN'T use Casino Royale as the basis.
No the CR'06 adapation was not a faithful as OHMSS. But long ago I gave up any notion that EON would undertake to do Fleming's novels as period pieces and closely follow the scripts. So the best we can hope for these days is the retention of Fleming elements. CR'06 was able to dovetail a modern beginning onto an IF ending very seamlessly.
The lack of a Fleming book as a base for Bond 22 worries me....
It was easier for Peter Hunt in 1968 to use OHMSS pretty completely since it had been a bestseller only a few years earlier. Unlike today's auidance, alot of the public had read the OHMSS novel, and with it's plot ending with the wedding of James Bond - keeping with the book was really a pretty safe bet for the producers.
What EON had NOT learned at that point was that SC was not just a face, but a man gifted with that certain quality that lights up a movie screen and commands your attention. Thinking they could drop a "look-a-like" in and with minimal direction create a replacement oo7 was a dumb gamble, and while GL did his level best it was not a success. In retrospect I blame Peter Hunt for this as he played up the action and played down the crucial love story. At least they did not back away from either in CR.
Yeah, for a use-most-of-the-novel Bond film, CR turned out pretty okay.
It's something EON has struggled with in the past, finding that balance of Fleming/new material. While YOLT, DAF and LALD were all fairly successful in their time, not all have aged as well as they intially performed. Meanwhile TMWTGG, with arguably a tougher (and more Fleming) Bond performance than any of the earlier three films, suffered then (and now...) from an uneasy blending of source material and newfangled plot points. None of the four earlier films work as well as CR IMHO, although LALD comes closest, again IMO.
It's not a very enviable position to be in IMO, coming up with something Fleming, or near-Fleming even, especially tacked onto one of his stories. I'm very curious what Haggis comes up with for Bond 22, really liked what he did to the Le Chiffre story sans SMERSH, it's a good setup IMO, just needs a strong follow-through. Hope we get it.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
No the CR'06 adapation was not a faithful as OHMSS. But long ago I gave up any notion that EON would undertake to do Fleming's novels as period pieces and closely follow the scripts. So the best we can hope for these days is the retention of Fleming elements. CR'06 was able to dovetail a modern beginning onto an IF ending very seamlessly.
The lack of a Fleming book as a base for Bond 22 worries me....
It was easier for Peter Hunt in 1968 to use OHMSS pretty completely since it had been a bestseller only a few years earlier. Unlike today's auidance, alot of the public had read the OHMSS novel, and with it's plot ending with the wedding of James Bond - keeping with the book was really a pretty safe bet for the producers.
What EON had NOT learned at that point was that SC was not just a face, but a man gifted with that certain quality that lights up a movie screen and commands your attention. Thinking they could drop a "look-a-like" in and with minimal direction create a replacement oo7 was a dumb gamble, and while GL did his level best it was not a success. In retrospect I blame Peter Hunt for this as he played up the action and played down the crucial love story. At least they did not back away from either in CR.
I agree that instead of receiving the unanimous "thanks" from audiences that EON expected for playing up to expectations, the "find a lookalike" strategy drew inevitable comparisons with Connery that in turn spoiled popular expectations. However, that doesn't mean they didn't try that again, which they did w/Moore. But the next time, they managed to extract the "essence" and bottled it into the famous forumula that sustained the series (through continued audience patronage coupled by extraordinary box office returns), arguably up to the CR debut in 2006. Not to say that excuses the mediocrity, my point is that the underlying theory behind the lookalike strategy eventually succeeded, and the means to pull that off, since we're now touching on the aspects of art and fidelity to the source, was more heinous than the blunder called OHMSS that you seemingly attribute to Peter Hunt.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Bond's burglary of M's flat and finding out her name are not "disrespectful", they are meant to show how clever and resourceful Bond is. oo7 is very respectful of "M" and seems to appreciate the seriousness of her rebuke, his ELLIPSIS investigation is Bond's way of making up for the shooting of Mollacka which turned out to be a disaster. I would say that DC's Bond is as "dog-like" in his devotion to "M" as the Book Bond who in Dr.No and OHMSS demonstrates he can be "peeved" with his boss. Even when given the opportunity DC's Bond doesn't dismiss his boss as a "bean counter".
The "recklessness" is more apparent in CR'06, than say in Goldfinger - where Bond stupidly steals the villians girl, and gets her killed. In the books Bond shows poor judgement on a few ocassions, like staying on the train in FRWL, or swimming to the Isle of Suprise in LALD.
What I enjoy the most about this Bond is the attempt by the actor/producers/writers to develope a charecter rather than "filling shoes" which we got with GL, or just a great new actor in an old script which we got with TLD. I think this is a new direction for the series that we can all celebrate. If you can't stand this new direction, the wonderful thing is you can always watch 20 other DVD's and find something in those you prefer.
The next few years will probably be a hell for some fans .... good chance to read the books!
Wonderful sentiments in there 7289, especially the bolded part about the new (first time like this, even) approach. Cheers! {[]
Gosh, thinking that 7289's post couldn't be said any better, your one sentence addition pregnant with such novel thoughts and ideas, certainly enriched it beyond perfection! I love posts like those!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Bond's burglary of M's flat and finding out her name are not "disrespectful", they are meant to show how clever and resourceful Bond is.
That logic is questionable. (1) What those elements were meant to convey, and (2) The outcome from those actions, are not strictly mutually exclusive, i.e., it's not a case of "it's either one or the other." Sure, these actions served to establish the character's resourcefulness, but there's reason for M to call Bond cheeky; however you look at it, respect due to her was breached. What could motivate a reasonable person to go to lengths of what Bond did? Given the circumstances (mission failure), maybe a visibly heightend sense of urgency and desperation would have made better sense, like the character and plot development in LTK. But to go along with the "realistic" premise of the character reboot, how that was done in CR did not make sense. Instead of showing remorse or some sense of reluctant but justified defiance, we instead get treated to some smug insolence! Again, using the supposed framework of realism, it's troublesome to accept M's actions considering how in theory she's the seasoned and highly competent head of an elite government organ of a leading world power, especially problematic is how M responds to that kind of reckless behavior by entrusting this agent of questionable judgement with a mission of even higher critical consequences. Then it gets better...Bond then bails (actually doing so, ala OHMSS the movie, vs. only planning to do so) only to then jeopardize himself and the service's interests to more of his poor judgement/lack of perception, only to then get rewarded with renewed trust and reinstatement into his former role of elevated trust that could be seen as a priviledge that he didn't really value all that much... Yes, differences with the novel in the finer points might seem subtle, but plot-wise, it makes a world of difference.
To close, however, please, please note, everyone who is a fan of the movie's every pore, this is not an attack on Daniel Craig or the innovative spirit behind CR...I am appealing for soberness, or in other words, get-a-grip! CR did not fall out of Heaven; it has many strengths but its not without its flaws, and it's getting wearisome how some feel duty-bound to compensate for and defend valid criticisms against it by slamming "every Bond and Bond film that's gone before, with the exception of course, of Connery in the first 4 movies." Let CR stand on its own merits, and equally important, allow it to answer for its own flaws.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
A bit wordy, Supes, but on the money. That's what annoyed me about CR (along with other stuff); it's a fresh start but on the other hand the audience is encouraged to indulge this new operative because he's 007 ie it's ok really him breaking into M's office as it's only him, and we know how great he is. It's CR wanting to have its cake and eat it a bit imo, ditching tradition but using it cover the cracks when it sees fit.
I mean, no other film would have women eyeing up Craig like they do at the country club, but here, it's meant to be because he's the tradtional Bond we all know and love.
I seem to remember Sienna Miller's character getting all hot for Craig in LAYER CAKE. And as for a rebooted Bond, well Connery was presented as exactly such an uber-male in DN, why not Craig in CR? Bond should be Bond, whomever is playing the character and regardless of what point it is in his spy-career IMHO. Part of that is allure to women, and CR did that fine IMO.
Does a new double-oh agent act the same in 1953 as in 2006? I wasn't expecting a period piece, where Bond would hold M's pipe up as a precious object for instance, and absolutely never break into M's home. CR is a modern take on an old favorite, seems it works or not depending on the fan. I was bored with the last decade or so of rehashed 70s Bond, so the reboot and how they went about it worked swell for me. Bond breaking into M's home was a nice touch, gave them a scene out-of-the-box, and allowed M the opportunity to interact with Bond in a way she might not in the office. Clever, IMO.
For my money, CR had more classic Bond in it than any five Bond films '79-'02 smushed together. And, I think Fleming would like Haggis's script for CR--an updated (by half a century!) character-driven thriller with sex, sadism, and suspenseful action--better than any of the hammy attempts in the period cited above. JMHO.
CR did not fall out of Heaven; it has many strengths but its not without its flaws, and it's getting wearisome how some feel duty-bound to compensate for and defend valid criticisms against it by slamming "every Bond and Bond film that's gone before, with the exception of course, of Connery in the first 4 movies." Let CR stand on its own merits, and equally important, allow it to answer for its own flaws.
Agreed. I have my favorite Bond films and actors, but when someone is ardently disgusted with those entries (say, JFF for example ) I just think ' so we apparently have different tastes'. The strangest thing occurs, however, when you honestly say something critical of CR. CR-fans flail around like some extra who's been shot in a bad B-Movie Western, putting on a show of being mortally wounded.
This is a thread for CR reviews. There's going to be some good, and some bad. That's the simple truth.
But to go along with the "realistic" premise of the character reboot, how that was done in CR did not make sense. Instead of showing remorse or some sense of reluctant but justified defiance, we instead get treated to some smug insolence! Again, using the supposed framework of realism, it's troublesome to accept M's actions."
I think you are holding the fim to impossible standards. This "realistic" Bond film is still a fantasy. The whole Mollacka chase is well done, exciting, and innovative - but hardly realistic! It is however more grounded than a boat driving down streets or an invisable car in a ice palace.
"M responds to that kind of reckless behavior by entrusting this agent of questionable judgement with a mission of even higher critical consequences. "
Again, I don't feel that Bond was showing disrespect as much as he was trying to redeem himself by "showing off" that he could enter M's apartment. He was also demonstrating his shame by avoiding "the office", and prehaps being detained. Bond completes the ELLIPSIS investigation by covertly using M's computer and password -essentially going rogue as Bond did in LTK - but offically on vacation. M could have changed her password at any time, but allowed Bond to continue to make use of the resource.
One of the re-boot changes that I really enjoy is the seasoned M, who knows Bond better than he knows himself. She literally lets 007 loose on a target with minimal direction. M knows Bond is a loose cannon, but also knows one way or the other the job will get done. M really uses Bond in a cruel sense - knowing he is going to a price in "learning who to trust". M knows Bond is rough edged and in this first mission she is deliberately knocking the edges off.
Then it gets better...Bond then bails (actually doing so, ala OHMSS the movie, vs. only planning to do so) only to then jeopardize himself and the service's interests to more of his poor judgement/lack of perception, only to then get rewarded with renewed trust and reinstatement into his former role of elevated trust that could be seen as a priviledge that he didn't really value all that much... "
M didn't want to use Bond against LC, she even tells him so, but he is the best gambler in the service and she wants LC. Bond is reigned in by both Vesper an Mathis not to mention a tracking device. All those add up to someone who is not been given much leash.
After near castration, we could give Bond a bit of a break. It's not easy to determine the timeline between Bond's resignation and the discovery by that "nice man from the treasury" that the money is missing. It could be a day or two, not much more. M would have to figure that Bond is fragile at that point. She knows he has an ego problem, and despite the crack about not getting emotionally involved - emotion is Bond's biggest problem, he's got the old chip on his shoulder that Vesper so cleverly spots - he has to prove to himself and everyone he is better than all those high class boys who used to abuse and debag him at school. M knows that despite whatever Bond sends her in an E-Mail, he is not going anywhere. Heck, he doesn't know what an honest job is!
"Yes, differences with the novel in the finer points might seem subtle, but plot-wise, it makes a world of difference."
I think it's the best written film I've seen in years and would adore it even if the title charecter had been another JB. But it is Bond and by gosh that makes it even more fantasticly good!
To close, however, please, please note, everyone who is a fan of the movie's every pore, this is not an attack on Daniel Craig or the innovative spirit behind CR...I am appealing for soberness, or in other words, get-a-grip! CR did not fall out of Heaven; it has many strengths but its not without its flaws, and it's getting wearisome how some feel duty-bound to compensate for and defend valid criticisms against it by slamming "every Bond and Bond film that's gone before, with the exception of course, of Connery in the first 4 movies." Let CR stand on its own merits, and equally important, allow it to answer for its own flaws."
CR stands very nicely on its own merits. I think it is as good a film as any of the four originals with SC, it is a very different film - with its own style. And I have yet to find a serious flaw that makes CR something that Bond fans shouldn't embrace.
With the series nearing 22 entries, there are some peaks and valleys. CR is a peak! This next one may be a valley. One thing I have come to realise (I watched Octopussy last evening) is that while we may differ over what aspects of a film are properly "Bondian" and have preferences for certain actors, every single Bond film has been excellently made, impeccably produced with top notch production values. EON is to be admired for that, with CR I think they are at the top of their game. I hope they stay there.
Superado - my apologies for chopping up your post!
CR did not fall out of Heaven; it has many strengths but its not without its flaws, and it's getting wearisome how some feel duty-bound to compensate for and defend valid criticisms against it by slamming "every Bond and Bond film that's gone before, with the exception of course, of Connery in the first 4 movies." Let CR stand on its own merits, and equally important, allow it to answer for its own flaws.
Agreed. I have my favorite Bond films and actors, but when someone is ardently disgusted with those entries (say, JFF for example ) I just think ' so we apparently have different tastes'. The strangest thing occurs, however, when you honestly say something critical of CR. CR-fans flail around like some extra who's been shot in a bad B-Movie Western, putting on a show of being mortally wounded.
This is a thread for CR reviews. There's going to be some good, and some bad. That's the simple truth.
"Well, Highhopes. We've ridden together too long for me to lie to you now. It looks bad."
"I know. I reckon it's the end of the trail for me, Clem. But if I have to die on this dusty Dodge City street, at least it was with my boots on ... For somethin' I believe in ..."
"Is there anything I can do, Highhopes?"
"Yeah -- tell my sweetheart, Mary Lou, back in Big Bend that I always loved her ... and tell the folks that Darenhat and his gang of superado ... I mean desperadoes ... can take a man's life, but killin' an idea ain't so easy. Casino Royale, the greatest Bond film -- aw shucks, the greatest film, period -- of all time, will live on. I know it will ..."
"You be quiet now, y'hear. The doc's on his way."
"Too late for the sawbones, Clem ..."
"I'll hunt 'em down for ya, Highhopes. Dastardly Darenhat, Nasty Nape Plural, Down Under Dan Same and the rest of that lily-livered, Casino Royale-criticizin' bunch. By God, I swear I will ..."
"Don't you be a-frettin' about that, Clem. They can't escape. 'Cause wherever they are, that's where I'll be. Whenever one of them criticizes the Bond break-in scene ... I'll be there. Whenever someone complains about Craig's appearance: I'll be there, too; I'll be there in the way that movie-goers chuckle when Bond says "Do I look like I give a damn," or the way that the womenfolk swoon when Craig emerges from the ocean in them newfangled bathin' britches of his... But I gots to be a-ramblin' on, now."
"Well, Highhopes. We've ridden together too long for me to lie to you now. It looks bad."
"I know. I reckon it's the end of the trail for me, Clem. But if I have to die on this dusty Dodge City street, at least it was with my boots on ... For somethin' I believe in ..."
"Is there anything I can do, Highhopes?"
"Yeah -- tell my sweetheart, Mary Lou, back in Big Bend that I always loved her ... and tell the folks that Darenhat and his gang of superado ... I mean desperadoes ... can take a man's life, but killin' an idea ain't so easy. Casino Royale, the greatest Bond film -- aw shucks, the greatest film, period -- of all time, will live on. I know it will ..."
"You be quiet now, y'hear. The doc's on his way."
"Too late for the sawbones, Clem ..."
"I'll hunt 'em down for ya, Highhopes. Dastardly Darenhat, Nasty Nape Plural, Down Under Dan Same and the rest of that lily-livered, Casino Royale-criticizin' bunch. By God, I swear I will ..."
"Don't you be a-frettin' about that, Clem. They can't escape. 'Cause wherever they are, that's where I'll be. Whenever one of them criticizes the Bond break-in scene ... I'll be there. Whenever someone complains about Craig's appearance: I'll be there, too; I'll be there in the way that movie-goers chuckle when Bond says "Do I look like I give a damn," or the way that the womenfolk swoon when Craig emerges from the ocean in them newfangled bathin' britches of his... But I gots to be a-ramblin' on, now."
"Faretheewell, old pal ..."
THE END
) ) )
Very good, HH -- um, I mean TEOTM.
Alright, Loeff and blueman, fess up -- which one of you is really named Clem?
Comments
I know you don't like CR, Nape, which is cool, but your antipathy is so strong the movie just can't win for losing.
Are you serious when you say you're put off by Vesper's comment about the tux? Do you really have to ask "why" that exchange occurred? I've heard several people, even people who enjoyed the film, gripe that the romance was underwritten. That always blows me away. It's as if those folks have never flirted before, or even seen movie characters flirt before. Underwritten? the only way to make Bond-Vesper's attraction to each other plainer would be great big yellow arrows onscreen that point at the characters with the caption "They're hot for each other."
I suppose you would have preferred for Bond to show up at the poker table in sandals and Bermuda shorts. After all, as you correctly point out, he's not there for a job interview. Hopefully EON will take the hint in Bond 22 and have more "bond-like" moments like that
I found the Vesper dinner jacket exchange to be typical of the CR script: witty and thoughtful, in the sense that the writer obviously had sat down and seriously pondered Bond both as a character in a particular situation and as an icon before setting pen to paper. It was a marked contrast to the strained, by-the-numbers double-entendres we've suffered with for the last 30 years. Bond, especially in the movies, has always has a reputation for sartorial splendor. Wouldn't it be fun if a young woman challenged that fashion sense? Especially if Bond first tried to push his wardrobe sense on her? Imagine this young woman turning the tables on our hero. It's a nice touch, just like Bond's "Do I look like I care" dismissal of the martini, which works for the same reason: Bond's choice of martini is legendary, but one can easily imagine that after losing several of the Queen's millions, he just wants a #$!* drink. Same thing with the "Stephanie Broadchest" quip, which simutaneously allowed Bond to flirt in a natural way with Vesper and and gave a nod to the Bond tradition of outrageous female names.
If that's hamfisted writing, fix me a sandwich ...
They're not the same briefcase. Vesper was trying to doublecross the Venice guy when Bond showed up, so I assume what she gave him was an empty briefcase. I suspect the one Mr. White walked off with contained the money.
I've nothing against flirting, I do it online with Lady Rose all the time!
I don't remember using the words underwritten, it's overwritten more like. The chemistry between Bourne and his gal in the first film is more like it for me, and yep, the seen in the shower in CR is on the money. Again, why does he need a posh dinner jacket? No one is that well dressed are they? It's not like Eliza Doolittle turning up at the ball, now is it? This isn't posh gambling like Blades in the 1950s, more the Vegas type thing where anyone can come and have a go if they're hard enough.
Nowl if Vesper had said: "Wear this outfit, it will rattle Le Chiffre because it's his favourite outfit himself... or, it will kill him to see a rough diamond dress posh" Or, "the atmosphere there isn't what you're used to, you just won't fit in if you dress the way you usually do, I happen to know these things..." then you're talking...
Everything about CR winds me up.
And you wind me up too, highhopes!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I guess some of us might start by not accepting your premise,
I think the die-hard Brozzer fans will always have a bit of a chip on their shoulder where (Formerly) Poor DannyTM is concerned, and that's a shame, but time moves on, Bonds change and the tone of his films does tend to evolve over time. I've been seeing Bonds come and go since Connery; the parting of ways hasn't always been pretty, and the films have occasionally not been what I would prefer...but I've learnt that patience is rewarded, and a long-term strategic view works best.
Someday you'll get another Bond you like---but right now, I've got one :007)
See you in the queue for #22! -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Ah yes ... the good old days, when the writers would actually name the Bond girl "Christmas" ... for no apparent reason other than to allow Bond in the final, obligatory Bond-in-bed-with-the-Bond-girl scene (the one that follows the obligatory Bond-leads-the-assault-on-the-villain's-stronghold-by-the-troops/ninjas/commandos scene} to crack that he thought "Christmas only came once a year" like some oily lounge lizard; those charming pigeons that do double takes just like they do in Disney cartoons ...; the invisible cars and narrow escapes down mountain trails in cello cases; the canned "Q scene" ( ... Really Double-0 Seven ... pay attention ...) repeated practically verbatim from movie to movie. How witty, how charming. I sometimes think all EON would have to do to satisfy some fans is reissue the same movie with a different title, year after year. I suppose that just for the sake of variety, some years the figure in the gun barrel sequence could crouch when he fires his gun, and stand upright in others. Sure, the purists will howl because everything isn't numbingly the same. But some of us got tired of their missionary-position Bond long ago. The novelty wore off 25 years ago. I say meet the new Bond -- thankfully he's not like the old Bond. The new one is more like the 007 I used to love. And if there's a resemblance to Jason Bourne, that's because Bourne, Harry Palmer, Matt Helm or any other secret agent of popular culture that you can name, are basically riffs on the original -- and that's Bond. Bourne only seems new because Bond has strayed so far from his roots.
And to think CR's writing has been described as ham-fisted. I think what we're witnessing here in some folks is a kind of cinematic Stockholm Syndrome: keep 'em on a diet of crap long enough, and at some point the crap starts to taste like steak.
Not quite. LALD is completely different to TSWLM which is completely diffeent to FYEo which is completely different to GE etc... I think that you love CR s much that you've become blind to the fact that, with a few exceptions, each film is completely different. If they were the same, nobody (except for me
And CR is similar to DN-TB how? I'm sorry HH, but you'll have to try alot harder to convince many of us that CR is more like the 60's Bonds than Moore or Brosnan. One if the disappointing things about CR IMO is that it does things that would never have occured in the 60's films (such as, drum roll, Bond's breaking into M's apartment.)
"I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours." You think that is good writing?
And then there's the shower scene in which Bond is sucking Vesper's finges. IMO it's one of the creepiest scenes in the Bond series. Is Bond a vampire or something?
HH, the moment I saw your condescension and derision, I knew I was home.
Dan, the moment I saw you associate the "Christmas" line with the word "extraordinary," I knew you were about to trip over the doorstep.
With the other "first" Bond - DN, oo7 sprang onto the screen as a fully developed charecter - a ten year vet of the Secret Service. Bond IS what you see on the screen - a womanizing, ruthless agent with a like of Smirnoff Vodka, as handy with a quip as he is with a Walther.
CR's oo7, has more interesting charecter traits. He is still ruthless - but single minded, and rather than being cool - he loses his temper and acts rashly. He is of superior ability - able to burgle the bosses apartment and discover her name - secrets seemingly way beyond his supposed skill level. Like the DN Bond, he can kill without brooding over it - but more interesting is the fact that this new Bond is able to question the direction of his life - and still emotionally vunerable enough to fall in love, and want a "normal" existance.
The shower scen in CR is wonderful - because it shows us a charecter who realises the brutality of his job, and how that effects a "normal" person - that "vampire" sucking of Vesper's fingers, is Bond's attempt to assume responsibility for the guilt and horror Vesper feels. I think it's one of the best scenes I have watched in ANY film.
Unlike previous Bond's, there is no "diddle" ending with Bond and the latest cutie fooling around under a parachute or in a boat. Like the book the Bond of Casino Royale is on a mission of vengance against people who are enemies of his goverment and also happen to have wounded him personally. There IS more depth to CR'06 than previous Bond's.
It is curious to me that some fans prefer the comic Bond, who marches through predictable set pieces with a casual wink and dispatches villians with a clever joke shop toy, rather than getting into the mud. This is not surprising because many of those who prefer "comic Bond" have yet to crack open an Ian Fleming Novel. For Fans and Producers, ignoring the novels is inexcusable!
CR'06 has taken Bond in a new direction, a rather brave choice for the producers who let (IMO) Bond self destruct with the previous entry - DAD.
In the meantime, for those of you who cannot stand the "New Bond" there are those marvellous DVD's to watch - something we did not have back in the "old days".
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Whew...thank goodness we have leading lights like you to prevent us all from devolving into cavemen! Can we call your esteemed group The Enlightened OnesTM to show that we recognize your brilliance? Or is trademarking only reserved for the clever?
{[] You bet your life you can, Hill! I'd hate to think I had all those calling cards printed up for nothing ... Although to be honest, they read "The Enlightened One."
Then...by the powers IN-vested IN me by this parish, I hereby commandeer this phrase, and all those trademarks within.
[In best John Belushi Bluto voice]...from now on, your AJB name is TEOTM. {[]
The "recklessness" is more apparent in CR'06, than say in Goldfinger - where Bond stupidly steals the villians girl, and gets her killed. In the books Bond shows poor judgement on a few ocassions, like staying on the train in FRWL, or swimming to the Isle of Suprise in LALD.
What I enjoy the most about this Bond is the attempt by the actor/producers/writers to develope a charecter rather than "filling shoes" which we got with GL, or just a great new actor in an old script which we got with TLD. I think this is a new direction for the series that we can all celebrate. If you can't stand this new direction, the wonderful thing is you can always watch 20 other DVD's and find something in those you prefer.
The next few years will probably be a hell for some fans .... good chance to read the books!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I will give you that the film is not as faithful as some would argue, but it was the most faithful adaptation since OHMSS. Hell, it might be the only true adaptation since OHMSS, and that was significant and exciting for a lot of us. And while I agree with you that it could have been even more faithful, the fans would cry bloody murder if they did a Bond reboot and DIDN'T use Casino Royale as the basis.
No the CR'06 adapation was not a faithful as OHMSS. But long ago I gave up any notion that EON would undertake to do Fleming's novels as period pieces and closely follow the scripts. So the best we can hope for these days is the retention of Fleming elements. CR'06 was able to dovetail a modern beginning onto an IF ending very seamlessly.
The lack of a Fleming book as a base for Bond 22 worries me....
It was easier for Peter Hunt in 1968 to use OHMSS pretty completely since it had been a bestseller only a few years earlier. Unlike today's auidance, alot of the public had read the OHMSS novel, and with it's plot ending with the wedding of James Bond - keeping with the book was really a pretty safe bet for the producers.
What EON had NOT learned at that point was that SC was not just a face, but a man gifted with that certain quality that lights up a movie screen and commands your attention. Thinking they could drop a "look-a-like" in and with minimal direction create a replacement oo7 was a dumb gamble, and while GL did his level best it was not a success. In retrospect I blame Peter Hunt for this as he played up the action and played down the crucial love story. At least they did not back away from either in CR.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
It's something EON has struggled with in the past, finding that balance of Fleming/new material. While YOLT, DAF and LALD were all fairly successful in their time, not all have aged as well as they intially performed. Meanwhile TMWTGG, with arguably a tougher (and more Fleming) Bond performance than any of the earlier three films, suffered then (and now...) from an uneasy blending of source material and newfangled plot points. None of the four earlier films work as well as CR IMHO, although LALD comes closest, again IMO.
It's not a very enviable position to be in IMO, coming up with something Fleming, or near-Fleming even, especially tacked onto one of his stories. I'm very curious what Haggis comes up with for Bond 22, really liked what he did to the Le Chiffre story sans SMERSH, it's a good setup IMO, just needs a strong follow-through. Hope we get it.
I agree that instead of receiving the unanimous "thanks" from audiences that EON expected for playing up to expectations, the "find a lookalike" strategy drew inevitable comparisons with Connery that in turn spoiled popular expectations. However, that doesn't mean they didn't try that again, which they did w/Moore. But the next time, they managed to extract the "essence" and bottled it into the famous forumula that sustained the series (through continued audience patronage coupled by extraordinary box office returns), arguably up to the CR debut in 2006. Not to say that excuses the mediocrity, my point is that the underlying theory behind the lookalike strategy eventually succeeded, and the means to pull that off, since we're now touching on the aspects of art and fidelity to the source, was more heinous than the blunder called OHMSS that you seemingly attribute to Peter Hunt.
Gosh, thinking that 7289's post couldn't be said any better, your one sentence addition pregnant with such novel thoughts and ideas, certainly enriched it beyond perfection! I love posts like those!
That logic is questionable. (1) What those elements were meant to convey, and (2) The outcome from those actions, are not strictly mutually exclusive, i.e., it's not a case of "it's either one or the other." Sure, these actions served to establish the character's resourcefulness, but there's reason for M to call Bond cheeky; however you look at it, respect due to her was breached. What could motivate a reasonable person to go to lengths of what Bond did? Given the circumstances (mission failure), maybe a visibly heightend sense of urgency and desperation would have made better sense, like the character and plot development in LTK. But to go along with the "realistic" premise of the character reboot, how that was done in CR did not make sense. Instead of showing remorse or some sense of reluctant but justified defiance, we instead get treated to some smug insolence! Again, using the supposed framework of realism, it's troublesome to accept M's actions considering how in theory she's the seasoned and highly competent head of an elite government organ of a leading world power, especially problematic is how M responds to that kind of reckless behavior by entrusting this agent of questionable judgement with a mission of even higher critical consequences. Then it gets better...Bond then bails (actually doing so, ala OHMSS the movie, vs. only planning to do so) only to then jeopardize himself and the service's interests to more of his poor judgement/lack of perception, only to then get rewarded with renewed trust and reinstatement into his former role of elevated trust that could be seen as a priviledge that he didn't really value all that much... Yes, differences with the novel in the finer points might seem subtle, but plot-wise, it makes a world of difference.
To close, however, please, please note, everyone who is a fan of the movie's every pore, this is not an attack on Daniel Craig or the innovative spirit behind CR...I am appealing for soberness, or in other words, get-a-grip! CR did not fall out of Heaven; it has many strengths but its not without its flaws, and it's getting wearisome how some feel duty-bound to compensate for and defend valid criticisms against it by slamming "every Bond and Bond film that's gone before, with the exception of course, of Connery in the first 4 movies." Let CR stand on its own merits, and equally important, allow it to answer for its own flaws.
I mean, no other film would have women eyeing up Craig like they do at the country club, but here, it's meant to be because he's the tradtional Bond we all know and love.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Does a new double-oh agent act the same in 1953 as in 2006? I wasn't expecting a period piece, where Bond would hold M's pipe up as a precious object for instance, and absolutely never break into M's home. CR is a modern take on an old favorite, seems it works or not depending on the fan. I was bored with the last decade or so of rehashed 70s Bond, so the reboot and how they went about it worked swell for me. Bond breaking into M's home was a nice touch, gave them a scene out-of-the-box, and allowed M the opportunity to interact with Bond in a way she might not in the office. Clever, IMO.
For my money, CR had more classic Bond in it than any five Bond films '79-'02 smushed together. And, I think Fleming would like Haggis's script for CR--an updated (by half a century!) character-driven thriller with sex, sadism, and suspenseful action--better than any of the hammy attempts in the period cited above. JMHO.
Agreed. I have my favorite Bond films and actors, but when someone is ardently disgusted with those entries (say, JFF for example
This is a thread for CR reviews. There's going to be some good, and some bad. That's the simple truth.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
"Well, Highhopes. We've ridden together too long for me to lie to you now. It looks bad."
"I know. I reckon it's the end of the trail for me, Clem. But if I have to die on this dusty Dodge City street, at least it was with my boots on ... For somethin' I believe in ..."
"Is there anything I can do, Highhopes?"
"Yeah -- tell my sweetheart, Mary Lou, back in Big Bend that I always loved her ... and tell the folks that Darenhat and his gang of superado ... I mean desperadoes ... can take a man's life, but killin' an idea ain't so easy. Casino Royale, the greatest Bond film -- aw shucks, the greatest film, period -- of all time, will live on. I know it will ..."
"You be quiet now, y'hear. The doc's on his way."
"Too late for the sawbones, Clem ..."
"I'll hunt 'em down for ya, Highhopes. Dastardly Darenhat, Nasty Nape Plural, Down Under Dan Same and the rest of that lily-livered, Casino Royale-criticizin' bunch. By God, I swear I will ..."
"Don't you be a-frettin' about that, Clem. They can't escape. 'Cause wherever they are, that's where I'll be. Whenever one of them criticizes the Bond break-in scene ... I'll be there. Whenever someone complains about Craig's appearance: I'll be there, too; I'll be there in the way that movie-goers chuckle when Bond says "Do I look like I give a damn," or the way that the womenfolk swoon when Craig emerges from the ocean in them newfangled bathin' britches of his... But I gots to be a-ramblin' on, now."
"Faretheewell, old pal ..."
THE END
Very good, HH -- um, I mean TEOTM.
Alright, Loeff and blueman, fess up -- which one of you is really named Clem?