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!
Just having a conversation, supes, just having a conversation.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
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...
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.
I do think CR is relatively well written, and done appropriately so to capitalize on Craig's abilities. It was a nicely crafted vehicle that allowed him to explore interesting textures and plumb new depths in the role. However, this is the point where I feel many fans go wrong, in defining this radical departure, or distinct achievement as they see it, and hailing CR/Craig as the remarkable harkening back to the early Bonds, while at the same time pulling of a long-awaited return to his literary roots!
At least in terms of Bond's cinematic "legacy," that's debatable and largely remains in the realm of opinion (vs. general consensus) particularly in how Craig had touched the phenominally serendipitous levels of Connery's own "screen magic."
And bringing Bond back to his Fleming roots? That again, is something I find seriously problematic to reconcile, just as difficult it is to accept that Connery's early Bonds at any time remotely resembled the Fleming character. Sure, his Bond obviously had issues with commitment and being obsessively entrenched in his creature comforts, but I don't think he was a clinical narcissist nor was he nearly as arrogant, defiant or irreverent as he was portrayed in CR; if anything, those are the trappings of movie Bond, particularly evolved in the TD and PB installments.
Again, as great as CR is, let's applaud it for what it is, and to aggresively promote claims of it being anthing more (especially in terms stated above) beyond opinion is just plain and pure pretense.
"...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.....
"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
) You know, if you ever want to get onto my good books, quoting a western (and a Ford western at that) is certainly one way of achieving it.
"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 should say at this point that I agree with highhopes about the rundown of M, Q and Moneypenny scenes, I can't relate to fans who want their Bond with all the trimmings. I mean, if Q came back for Bond 22, he wouldn't be Desmond or even Cleese. Likewise, Sam Bond's Moneypenny wasn't the same character or pesonality as Lois Maxwell's, only in name. M is a different person altogether.
That said, we watch sitcoms week in week out with same characters, same situ - just, they tend to have better writing. I don't care for having these office scenes shoehorned into the film.
Again, as great as CR is, let's applaud it for what it is, and to aggresively promote claims of it being anthing more (especially in terms stated above) beyond opinion is just plain and pure pretense.
Would that be your opinion on that, supes?
I'm fine with anyone's take on CR, love it or hate it or something in between. But when did any one person not named Ian Fleming become the sole and official arbitrator of Bond? All any of us have on this board is their opinion, and that's never about right or wrong, just what we feel and think (however "right" or "wrong" it might seem to someone else). The hypocrisy in the above quote is fascinating to me: my opinion has value but all others outside of the parameters I set are pretense. Supes, your opinion on CR is just that, YOUR opinion, no better or worse than anybody else's and I don't think anybody here has a right to dictate to anybody else what they should think or feel about anything. In the end our Bond is who we bed down with, Brosnan never did it for me but but for others he's the bee's knees, so be it. Same for Moore more or less, or Dalton, whatever--it's THEIR Bond. We've had these discussions before and they lead to ruin, always IMO. You just can't legislate subjectivity.
Also think (some of? most of?) the negativity around CR is simply Craig-based: if Brosnan (or Lazenby, or...) had been in CR a lot of the criticisms would fade if not disappear completely IMHO. It would still be what it is, just looked on differently because of the biases we bring when we look at OUR Bond. Which really shouldn't be all that big a deal.
The discussion should be around presenting POVs, and making them clear in context, not limiting--or dismissing--the opinions of others (that would be the job of the CNBers ). JMHO.
People go ape over the new, happened with all the Bonds, it's happening now. Dissent away, but leave the absolutes for Fleming. 2 cents.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited January 2008
"Hello, and welcome back to the longest-running football game in the current century. We've been at it now for 423 straight days, and one certainly must wonder where all the time has gone...
"The score is still tied at 8547-8547, with Anti-CR United making quite a few runs at goal over the past few days or so, and the beleaguered and short-staffed Royale Fandom making quite a game show of keeping them out of the net, despite ACRU's very effective control of the ball on both ends of the field. Quite a bit of suspense we've had here of late...isn't that right, Nigel?"
"ZZZZzzzzz...heh??...Er, yes, quite, Peter. Royale Fandom seem to have lost a segment of their team...no one seems to know whether they've simply retired from the game, or perhaps died of debatus repeatum vegetatis, that virulent strain of Endless-Loop Debate Sickness which so wreaked havoc on Cool Music Consolidated in the late '70s, and caused that historic forfeit-by-attrition to Wham! Forever! in the Cup Finals...but regardless of the cause, RF have been somewhat handicapped of late, and there's rampant speculation that the stalemate won't last the entire decade...
"Whatever the outcome, those observers fortunate enough to survive this match, and live to see a ripe old age, are sure to be rewarded with...another match..."
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
"Hello, and welcome back to the longest-running football game in the current century. We've been at it now for 423 straight days, and one certainly must wonder where all the time has gone...
"The score is still tied at 8547-8547, with Anti-CR United making quite a few runs at goal over the past few days or so, and the beleaguered and short-staffed Royale Fandom making quite a game show of keeping them out of the net, despite ACRU's very effective control of the ball on both ends of the field. Quite a bit of suspense we've had here of late...isn't that right, Nigel?"
"ZZZZzzzzz...heh??...Er, yes, quite, Peter. Royale Fandom seem to have lost a segment of their team...no one seems to know whether they've simply retired from the game, or perhaps died of debatus repeatum vegetatis, that virulent strain of Endless-Loop Debate Sickness which so wreaked havoc on Cool Music Consolidated in the late '70s, and caused that historic forfeit-by-attrition to Wham! Forever! in the Cup Finals...but regardless of the cause, RF have been somewhat handicapped of late, and there's rampant speculation that the stalemate won't last the entire decade...
"Whatever the outcome, those observers fortunate enough to survive this match, and live to see a ripe old age, are sure to be rewarded with...another match..."
Brilliant, and spot on. As a neutral, I can confirm that the game is currently devoid of creativity and utterly numbing. Would be nice to move to PK's to settle it, but alas, it's destined to end in a desultory draw...if it ends at all. Looking forward to that next match...at least the first few weeks of it.
With all these dead cowboys covered in linen, I see this discussion must be at an end .... or at least caught up in an endless loop of attack-defend!!!
Since it all seems to be boring everyone, I suppose that it's time to pull the plug. I was glad to get off a few shots in this "OK Corral" of thoughtful assertion, but it seems time to load up my well worn, ivory handled six-shooter and lay low for the next round which should begin in 298 days!
So I'll saddle up my Appoloosa Stud "Cochise" and ride off with a wave and a shout for you fella's to "Come see a fat old man sometime!!"
I should say at this point that I agree with highhopes about the rundown of M, Q and Moneypenny scenes, I can't relate to fans who want their Bond with all the trimmings. I mean, if Q came back for Bond 22, he wouldn't be Desmond or even Cleese. Likewise, Sam Bond's Moneypenny wasn't the same character or pesonality as Lois Maxwell's, only in name. M is a different person altogether.
That said, we watch sitcoms week in week out with same characters, same situ - just, they tend to have better writing. I don't care for having these office scenes shoehorned into the film.
I think it does indeed come down to the writing. I do like my Bonds to have all the traditional fillings but obviously I want the quality to be at a high level. One thing that has annoyed me in recent years is that M and Moneypenny have both had their roles dramatically increased. Moneypenny had that whole VR fantasy sequence in CR, while M, well, M became Judy Dench. I would therefore argue that the reason why some people seem to dislike the 'formula' is that in recent years (such as DAD) we have had so much of it. In fact, it's worth pointing out that in CR M propably appeared more than M did in the first four films put together. )
My point is that I think one can have the cake and eat it too. One can have M & Moneypenny & Q, and still keep the film fresh and sharp. It's subjective of course, but IMO the Connery/Moore films are evidence of this. (Even the Brosnan films IMO procided superb moments involving these three characters although I think that M was radically overused.) Regardless of what one thinks about M, Q & Moneypenny, if they never existed, HH would have less grounds on which to mock other Bond fans; and we certainly wouldn't want that. :v
One more thing; NP, it is true that the Moneypenny and the M of recent years are different to those in the past, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate them. To me, M and Moneypenny are almost as essential a feature of the Bond films as Bond himself. The same goes for Q. I love these characters so much and IMO they are so important that I honestly won't be able to think of the future films as (IMO) 'proper' Bond films witout them. It would be like having a Thanksgiving meal (or Sabbath meal for Jews) with turkey or chicken, only the turkey or chicken is vegetarian.
"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
) You know, if you ever want to get onto my good books, quoting a western (and a Ford western at that) is certainly one way of achieving it.
Then here's something else you'll thank me for: a recommendation.
If you haven't already, go see the remake of 3:10 to Yuma. I just watched the DVD last night and it is absolutely brilliant. If it isn't nominated in every major Oscar category this year, it'll be a crime (and it probably won't be). Beautifully conceived, written and shot, plenty of suspense and action, this one's a classic right now that I'd put alongside any of Ford's, Hawks', Leone's or Eastwood's. And the acting is an absolute treat. I've always known Christian Bale and Russell Crowe were great actors, but I had no idea how great they really were until Yuma. They're absolutely pitch-perfect. Crowe had to modulate his performance exactly right in order for the ending to work -- and it does, beautifully and emotionally -- and while watching Bale, I kept thinking if they brought a subsistence rancher back from Arizona territory in a time machine, that's what he'd be like. It was hard to believe it was an actor playing a role. And the kid was great, too, without the annoying precociousness of most young actors. He seemed like a real 14-year-old, albeit one who in some ways was older than his years because of his hardscrabble environment.
Today's the first sunny day we've had in Sacramento in more than week (I lost my power for three days last weekend during a storm), but I'm thinking of foregoing the motorcycle and watching the movie again today. It really is that good. Has James Mangold ever been considered as a director for a Bond film? If not, he has my vote. He took a beloved classic and, as Roger Ebert and other critics point out, made it better. He sounds like a perfect candidate to helm a Bond film.
Casino Royale: A Good Film. But is it a good Bond film?
After watching this film three times in the theaters, I finally watched it again a few days ago. Following a review of the entire series as well as this film itself in the past 7 weeks, I now have a final opinion on Casino Royale.
This was a very well made motion picture. However, I do not feel that this was a well made Bond film. I will explain why this film was a cleverly conceived idea that was executed improperly.
Before I review to the film, I want to state that I believe the literary Bond and the cinematic Bond are two different things. I think that is fairly obvious considering it has been going on for 46 years. Don't try to tell me some of the early ones were similar to the book. Sure some were more serious, darker, and played like true spy thrillers, but none of them had torture or men getting drowned in a bathroom sinks or choked to death while struggling like an animal. I believe the cinematic Bond should resemble the literary Bond in looks, background, and behavior. Whether you like it or not, the cinematic Bond is the most popular. Basing him on the literary Bond is fine, but I do not think that even Fleming himself expected or wanted some of the "grittiness" (if you must call it that) of his books to be adapted to the screen. Keyword: ADAPTATION.
First, no proper gunbarrel. I do not care if this was "007's first mission". The gunbarrel is required to make it a good Bond film. If Cubby, and most certainly "Mo" Binder, had been alive today, there would have been a proper gunbarrel. I did not like how Daniel Craig killed the man in a bathroom that looked like a place where Larry Craig should be soliciting sex. I can't believe I just thought of that coincidence.
I will say this film had Danny Kleinman's first good credits sequence since Goldeneye. His last three were terrible. This one still had a flaw: no dancing women. Another 007 tradition broken.
If the producers want to ground 007 in reality and move away from OTT and unrealistic stunts and action sequences, why did they have a Bond on EPO chasing who was apparently a world-class track runner who may or may not have been fathered by Spider-Man?
Judi Dench's M in this film seemed to only be there for comic relief. Sure Bernard Lee has a few humorous moments with Sean and Roger, but those was sophisticated humor, not "How could 007 be so stupid?". How many times are we going to hear M insult Bond's judgment? Oh, what the hell is up with the line "Utter one more word and I'll have you killed?". What??? I was not aware the UK was a military dictatorship who could kill their employees on a whim. Cheap comic relief.
Kudos to whoever cast Caterina Munro as Solange. The sexiest Bond girl for me since Kristina Wayborn as Magda. Although Denise Richards was pretty nice, too, even though her character wasn't much. Too bad they killed off Munro too soon. I found Eva Green to be an average Bond girl. Not too bad. I still felt her and Craig had no chemistry and their being almost the same height hurts Bond's screen presence if you ask me.
Mads Mikkelsen portrays a decent villain. Not too threatening to me. The blood-weeping eye felt like over-compensation to me though. He was the only good thing in the OTT and out of place torture scene. Wow, ball scratching humor? A new low. I'll take a pigeon doing a double take any day. If they had to do something as "gritty" as that, at least take it seriously.
The gambling scenes were well done and did not drag too long for me. I agree with most when I say, "I want more Felix!". Bond and he talk like twice. Shame. Mathis was a forgettable treacherous ally. The fight scene between games was great until Bond choked a man to death like he's John McClane. I love McClane, but he is supposed to be more violent than Bond. Vesper's shock did not please me and Bond comforting her in the shower was also out of place. Bond films can have some emotional performances and stuff like that, but that seemed like something out of The Notebook.
The car was awesome, but once again like in TWINE, destroyed too soon. The best action sequence was at the airport. Not too OTT or violent. However, the defibrillator scene was too much, like something out of DAD (first he stops his heart thru meditation, and now he revives it like this).
I did not feel that Bond and Vesper were in love, especially Bond. Bond films rarely have character development. If you must try it, don't screw it up. The montage scenes in OHMSS convinced me more than this film. Her suicide was done well though with a nice action scene to accompany it.
Daniel Craig is a good actor. I saw him in Tomb Raider, Road to Perdition, Munich and Layer Cake. He was remarkable in the last one, but just because a young, fit, cool acting English actor can play a violent drug dealer does not mean he will be a good Bond. I am past the fact that he is 5'11'', too muscular (Bond is lean not cut) and has a high school jock's hairstyle (what happened to sophistication?). He plays the role too serious and HARDLY smiles. Dalton played a serious Bond better than anyone. He still smiled a lot and looked like he was having fun! That is important for the character. Even Connery's Bond smiled and had some fun. Dalton would be the best Bond had he done a few more films. Oops! Off-topic. Craig can't do humor at all. Yes, Bond does give damn about his martini's preference. Still though, I will not rank him just yet. It is not fair. Maybe with a few more films he will develop a better style. The only things he did that were "Bondian" to me were the car alarm scene (very smooth) airport action sequence.
All I have left to say is that it lacked more tradition. No Q or Moneypenny? Even though I disagree about leaving out Q, at lest that would make sense of the film's purpose (reboot). Moneypenny could have replaced that buffoon Villiers and made this so much better. She is a staple in Bond films. Period. She and Q better come back in Bond 23. No James Bond Theme until the end? Don't tell me this crap like "He wasn't James Bond until the end". That is crap. He is, was, and always will be Bond. The theme is required.
Too many traditions were broken for the wrong reasons. Cubby would have never broken tradition. He told Wilson NOT to make a prequel years ago and that it was a bad idea. What happens after Cubby's widow dies? The prequel. Great job conforming to mainstream Hollywood, kids! Way to respect your parent's wishes.
This was a very good film as far as acting, dialogue, plot, and set design goes. It beats the last three in all those departments. But it still lacked in realistic stunts and action sequences as well as music (Arnold is so mediocre these days). It has about ten Bond films beat when it comes down to spy thriller themes, seriousness, dialogue, acting, and plot, but I cannot rank it Top 10. It did not FEEL like a Bond film. A gun barrel, the theme song, Q, Moneypenny, dancing ladies, and a Bond who has fun is required. This film had none. DAD was a step too far in one direction and this was a step too far in another. It tried to take Bond back to basics but came up average because it sacrificed tradition and was full of hypocrisy (like no more OOT stunts yet Bond fights Spider-Man.) Do you people who say this is the best 007 film since OHMSS really think that DAF thru DAD were all mediocre and forgettable? I hope not. Why did you keep watching if you felt that way? All of those films sure do entertain me. They certainly entertain me a lot more so than Casino Royale does because they FEEL like Bond films.
Lastly, they had better not act like Bond 23 and on are not related to the first 20 like these first two Craig vehicles aren't. That would be taking a crap on the franchise's continuity and legacy. Bond's continuity stopped making sense years ago. He is ageless and timeless. Cubby did not erase Dr. No thru Moonraker beginning with FYEO because Moonraker was OOT and kinda campy, did he? I like to think we have been watching the same Bond all these years. The same guy who killed Dr. No killed Gustav Graves in my eyes.
If you haven't already, go see the remake of 3:10 to Yuma. I just watched the DVD last night and it is absolutely brilliant. If it isn't nominated in every major Oscar category this year, it'll be a crime (and it probably won't be).
I liked 3:10 to Yuma a lot, and thought it was the best thing Russell Crowe's done since Gladiator. But then you wait ages for a decent Western and two come along at once. Much as I liked 3:10, it's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford that I'd like to see picking up loads of awards. But I have a horrible feeling it will be that bloody awful Atonement that receives more than it should.
... it's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford that I'd like to see picking up loads of awards. But I have a horrible feeling it will be that bloody awful Atonement that receives more than it should.
Haven't seen Jesse James, but I'm with you on Atonement. The kind of buzz it's been getting, and the timing of it, makes it sound like the juggernaut of the season. I can't really comment on it 'cause I haven't seen it, but it has that English Patient vibe. And when it comes to that movie, let's just say I liked it about as much as Elaine on Seinfeld ("Please: DIE -- Why won't you just die?")
[
One more thing; NP, it is true that the Moneypenny and the M of recent years are different to those in the past, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate them.
Too late, I've put out a contract on them this morning. But if you love these characters so much, DS, then which characters? Lee's M or Dench's? The original Moneypenny, or Sam Bond's? To me it's like liking a band called The Beatles when it's not made up of John, Paul, George and Ringo and the songs aren't the same.
but I'm with you on Atonement. The kind of buzz it's been getting, and the timing of it, makes it sound like the juggernaut of the season. I can't really comment on it 'cause I haven't seen it, but it has that English Patient vibe. And when it comes to that movie, let's just say I liked it about as much as Elaine on Seinfeld ("Please: DIE -- Why won't you just die?")
And Atonement duly scoops the Golden Globe for best picture. ) X-(
If you hated The English Patient you are really going to hate this one HH. In fact essentially this is 'The English Patient 2'. It's ridiculous that this has beaten a couple of great American movies, in Jesse James, and No Country for Old Men, (I saw this the other day, highly recommended).
I also enjoyed Atonement, although I didn't love it. As a matter of fact, I plan on seeing it again very soon as I'm not entirely sure of what I think of it.
"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 also enjoyed Atonement, although I didn't love it. As a matter of fact, I plan on seeing it again very soon as I'm not entirely sure of what I think of it.
No apartment break-ins, I trust.
Are you guys saying you're like Elaine's boyfriend, who broke up with her because he didn't think he could ever love someone who didn't like The English Patient?
I didn't say I didn't or wouldn't like Atonement. I don't make up my mind about movies before I see them, unlike certain CR critics. I'm just saying it has the kind of buzz that the academy seems to find irresistible.
No, but there was that one annoying scene when one male character told a female character "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." The audience nearly threw popcorn at the screen, people were laughing so hard.
Are you guys saying you're like Elaine's boyfriend, who broke up with her because he didn't think he could ever love someone who didn't like The English Patient?
Not me. I love The English Patient but I wouldn't break up with anybody if they didn't like it. Now, if she didn't like The Godfather, or sticking with romantic films, Casablanca, it would be a different story.
I don't make up my mind about movies before I see them, unlike certain CR critics. I'm just saying it has the kind of buzz that the academy seems to find irresistible.
HH, if I truly made up my mind about CR beforehand, why would I have seen it twice at the cinemas? ) (Which is a big deal for me as I'm not someone who believes in seeing films multiple times at the cinemas, no matter how much I love them. The most numer of times I would see a film at the cinemas in a short period of time is three, although I do see particular films twice.)
"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
But if you love these characters so much, DS, then which characters? Lee's M or Dench's? The original Moneypenny, or Sam Bond's? To me it's like liking a band called The Beatles when it's not made up of John, Paul, George and Ringo and the songs aren't the same.
The originals are my favourite interpretations. But I don't just love the characters as I also love the idea of the characters. In fact I love the idea of the characters almost as much as I love the characters themselves. But you know what, it's not all that different to James Bond himself. I am less than thrilled, to be diplomatic, with Dalton's portrayal of Bond, and I don't love Lazenby's or Craig's portrayals either, but that does not mean I think that the group known as James Bond should ever break up.
"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 feel that the characters of Q and Moneypenny can be freshly handled, but they could do serious damage if inserted into the film with no regard. Caroline Bliss's Moneypenny in LTD for example is atrocious. LTD's my favorite Bond film but the inclusion of a 'rehashed' and not 'reinvented' Moneypenny was a bad move. Q was 'up to his usual tricks' and that was all. Samantha Bond's Moneypenny was delightfully refreshing, and a great deal of this IMO stems from the fact that the relationship between her and the Judi Dench's new M added a fun facet to the office environment, elevating Moneypenny to a position of equality and not subordination. It's when the relationships are new, not necessarily the characters, that the audience gets to enjoy fresh territory. As maligned as it is, NSNA had achieved some freshness by creating the Algernon character in place of Q. The relationship with Algernon and Bond was not one of contempt and irritation, but rather of boyish cameraderie that was rather fun to watch.
I don't mind the absence of Q and Moneypenny in CR, but their omission in Bond 22 bothers me a little. I don't think these characters have outlived their usefullness. I hope it is not merely a lack of vision that is keeping them from utilizing them in the future.
I'm not sure how I feel about Q and Penny not being in Bond 22, haven't seen it yet. But, don't mind the idea of them not being in it, as I sure didn't miss them in CR--in fact the greater emphasis on Bond, and Bond/M, was very much appreciated. Nothing against them returning, but most of the books feature Bond and M, other office characters sort of came and went IIRC. The movie paradigm had gotten stale, even EON had started to shake things up during Brosnan's films. Makes sense for EON to set a new tone/style/whatever with Craig's Bond, and if that means no siginificant Q/Penny so be it. If they keep giving us great BOND stories, I'll be appeased.
Craig does an excellent job! I know this is a late posting, but I just finished watching the remake of Casion Royale for the 2nd time and it is an awesome movie. Next to Connery, Craig is the best bond ever. He brings out more of the dark side of bond and in many ways the movie represents a defining moment for the agent James Bond. He is tough, cold blooded, arrogant, egotistical, intelligent, lucky...an ideal agent, but he allows himself to fall in love (contrary to the advice of M) and this is his downfall and, ironically, also what drives him to succeed and track down the antagonist at the end of the movie. He is driven. He is a great agent because that is what he is (not necessarily what he has chosen to be)and he cannot be otherwise. He can't have a normal relationship with anyone, because he is too good at what he does.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
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
Why am I not surprised that both Loeff and HH made their way to the CR reviews thread after such a long time since the release of the film? )
"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
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Well, when someone with excellent taste happens along, we want to make them feel welcome before the sharks arrive on the scene...
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
Comments
Very good, Hardy. You are a movie buff after my own heart ...
Just having a conversation, supes, just having a conversation.
I do think CR is relatively well written, and done appropriately so to capitalize on Craig's abilities. It was a nicely crafted vehicle that allowed him to explore interesting textures and plumb new depths in the role. However, this is the point where I feel many fans go wrong, in defining this radical departure, or distinct achievement as they see it, and hailing CR/Craig as the remarkable harkening back to the early Bonds, while at the same time pulling of a long-awaited return to his literary roots!
At least in terms of Bond's cinematic "legacy," that's debatable and largely remains in the realm of opinion (vs. general consensus) particularly in how Craig had touched the phenominally serendipitous levels of Connery's own "screen magic."
And bringing Bond back to his Fleming roots? That again, is something I find seriously problematic to reconcile, just as difficult it is to accept that Connery's early Bonds at any time remotely resembled the Fleming character. Sure, his Bond obviously had issues with commitment and being obsessively entrenched in his creature comforts, but I don't think he was a clinical narcissist nor was he nearly as arrogant, defiant or irreverent as he was portrayed in CR; if anything, those are the trappings of movie Bond, particularly evolved in the TD and PB installments.
Again, as great as CR is, let's applaud it for what it is, and to aggresively promote claims of it being anthing more (especially in terms stated above) beyond opinion is just plain and pure pretense.
That said, we watch sitcoms week in week out with same characters, same situ - just, they tend to have better writing. I don't care for having these office scenes shoehorned into the film.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Would that be your opinion on that, supes?
I'm fine with anyone's take on CR, love it or hate it or something in between. But when did any one person not named Ian Fleming become the sole and official arbitrator of Bond? All any of us have on this board is their opinion, and that's never about right or wrong, just what we feel and think (however "right" or "wrong" it might seem to someone else). The hypocrisy in the above quote is fascinating to me: my opinion has value but all others outside of the parameters I set are pretense. Supes, your opinion on CR is just that, YOUR opinion, no better or worse than anybody else's and I don't think anybody here has a right to dictate to anybody else what they should think or feel about anything. In the end our Bond is who we bed down with, Brosnan never did it for me but but for others he's the bee's knees, so be it. Same for Moore more or less, or Dalton, whatever--it's THEIR Bond. We've had these discussions before and they lead to ruin, always IMO. You just can't legislate subjectivity.
Also think (some of? most of?) the negativity around CR is simply Craig-based: if Brosnan (or Lazenby, or...) had been in CR a lot of the criticisms would fade if not disappear completely IMHO. It would still be what it is, just looked on differently because of the biases we bring when we look at OUR Bond. Which really shouldn't be all that big a deal.
The discussion should be around presenting POVs, and making them clear in context, not limiting--or dismissing--the opinions of others (that would be the job of the CNBers
People go ape over the new, happened with all the Bonds, it's happening now. Dissent away, but leave the absolutes for Fleming. 2 cents.
"The score is still tied at 8547-8547, with Anti-CR United making quite a few runs at goal over the past few days or so, and the beleaguered and short-staffed Royale Fandom making quite a game show of keeping them out of the net, despite ACRU's very effective control of the ball on both ends of the field. Quite a bit of suspense we've had here of late...isn't that right, Nigel?"
"ZZZZzzzzz...heh??...Er, yes, quite, Peter. Royale Fandom seem to have lost a segment of their team...no one seems to know whether they've simply retired from the game, or perhaps died of debatus repeatum vegetatis, that virulent strain of Endless-Loop Debate Sickness which so wreaked havoc on Cool Music Consolidated in the late '70s, and caused that historic forfeit-by-attrition to Wham! Forever! in the Cup Finals...but regardless of the cause, RF have been somewhat handicapped of late, and there's rampant speculation that the stalemate won't last the entire decade...
"Whatever the outcome, those observers fortunate enough to survive this match, and live to see a ripe old age, are sure to be rewarded with...another match..."
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Brilliant, and spot on. As a neutral, I can confirm that the game is currently devoid of creativity and utterly numbing. Would be nice to move to PK's to settle it, but alas, it's destined to end in a desultory draw...if it ends at all. Looking forward to that next match...at least the first few weeks of it.
Since it all seems to be boring everyone, I suppose that it's time to pull the plug. I was glad to get off a few shots in this "OK Corral" of thoughtful assertion, but it seems time to load up my well worn, ivory handled six-shooter and lay low for the next round which should begin in 298 days!
So I'll saddle up my Appoloosa Stud "Cochise" and ride off with a wave and a shout for you fella's to "Come see a fat old man sometime!!"
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
My point is that I think one can have the cake and eat it too. One can have M & Moneypenny & Q, and still keep the film fresh and sharp. It's subjective of course, but IMO the Connery/Moore films are evidence of this. (Even the Brosnan films IMO procided superb moments involving these three characters although I think that M was radically overused.) Regardless of what one thinks about M, Q & Moneypenny, if they never existed, HH would have less grounds on which to mock other Bond fans; and we certainly wouldn't want that. :v
One more thing; NP, it is true that the Moneypenny and the M of recent years are different to those in the past, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate them. To me, M and Moneypenny are almost as essential a feature of the Bond films as Bond himself. The same goes for Q. I love these characters so much and IMO they are so important that I honestly won't be able to think of the future films as (IMO) 'proper' Bond films witout them.
Then here's something else you'll thank me for: a recommendation.
If you haven't already, go see the remake of 3:10 to Yuma. I just watched the DVD last night and it is absolutely brilliant. If it isn't nominated in every major Oscar category this year, it'll be a crime (and it probably won't be). Beautifully conceived, written and shot, plenty of suspense and action, this one's a classic right now that I'd put alongside any of Ford's, Hawks', Leone's or Eastwood's. And the acting is an absolute treat. I've always known Christian Bale and Russell Crowe were great actors, but I had no idea how great they really were until Yuma. They're absolutely pitch-perfect. Crowe had to modulate his performance exactly right in order for the ending to work -- and it does, beautifully and emotionally -- and while watching Bale, I kept thinking if they brought a subsistence rancher back from Arizona territory in a time machine, that's what he'd be like. It was hard to believe it was an actor playing a role. And the kid was great, too, without the annoying precociousness of most young actors. He seemed like a real 14-year-old, albeit one who in some ways was older than his years because of his hardscrabble environment.
Today's the first sunny day we've had in Sacramento in more than week (I lost my power for three days last weekend during a storm), but I'm thinking of foregoing the motorcycle and watching the movie again today. It really is that good. Has James Mangold ever been considered as a director for a Bond film? If not, he has my vote. He took a beloved classic and, as Roger Ebert and other critics point out, made it better. He sounds like a perfect candidate to helm a Bond film.
After watching this film three times in the theaters, I finally watched it again a few days ago. Following a review of the entire series as well as this film itself in the past 7 weeks, I now have a final opinion on Casino Royale.
This was a very well made motion picture. However, I do not feel that this was a well made Bond film. I will explain why this film was a cleverly conceived idea that was executed improperly.
Before I review to the film, I want to state that I believe the literary Bond and the cinematic Bond are two different things. I think that is fairly obvious considering it has been going on for 46 years. Don't try to tell me some of the early ones were similar to the book. Sure some were more serious, darker, and played like true spy thrillers, but none of them had torture or men getting drowned in a bathroom sinks or choked to death while struggling like an animal. I believe the cinematic Bond should resemble the literary Bond in looks, background, and behavior. Whether you like it or not, the cinematic Bond is the most popular. Basing him on the literary Bond is fine, but I do not think that even Fleming himself expected or wanted some of the "grittiness" (if you must call it that) of his books to be adapted to the screen. Keyword: ADAPTATION.
First, no proper gunbarrel. I do not care if this was "007's first mission". The gunbarrel is required to make it a good Bond film. If Cubby, and most certainly "Mo" Binder, had been alive today, there would have been a proper gunbarrel. I did not like how Daniel Craig killed the man in a bathroom that looked like a place where Larry Craig should be soliciting sex. I can't believe I just thought of that coincidence.
I will say this film had Danny Kleinman's first good credits sequence since Goldeneye. His last three were terrible. This one still had a flaw: no dancing women. Another 007 tradition broken.
If the producers want to ground 007 in reality and move away from OTT and unrealistic stunts and action sequences, why did they have a Bond on EPO chasing who was apparently a world-class track runner who may or may not have been fathered by Spider-Man?
Judi Dench's M in this film seemed to only be there for comic relief. Sure Bernard Lee has a few humorous moments with Sean and Roger, but those was sophisticated humor, not "How could 007 be so stupid?". How many times are we going to hear M insult Bond's judgment? Oh, what the hell is up with the line "Utter one more word and I'll have you killed?". What??? I was not aware the UK was a military dictatorship who could kill their employees on a whim. Cheap comic relief.
Kudos to whoever cast Caterina Munro as Solange. The sexiest Bond girl for me since Kristina Wayborn as Magda. Although Denise Richards was pretty nice, too, even though her character wasn't much. Too bad they killed off Munro too soon. I found Eva Green to be an average Bond girl. Not too bad. I still felt her and Craig had no chemistry and their being almost the same height hurts Bond's screen presence if you ask me.
Mads Mikkelsen portrays a decent villain. Not too threatening to me. The blood-weeping eye felt like over-compensation to me though. He was the only good thing in the OTT and out of place torture scene. Wow, ball scratching humor? A new low. I'll take a pigeon doing a double take any day. If they had to do something as "gritty" as that, at least take it seriously.
The gambling scenes were well done and did not drag too long for me. I agree with most when I say, "I want more Felix!". Bond and he talk like twice. Shame. Mathis was a forgettable treacherous ally. The fight scene between games was great until Bond choked a man to death like he's John McClane. I love McClane, but he is supposed to be more violent than Bond. Vesper's shock did not please me and Bond comforting her in the shower was also out of place. Bond films can have some emotional performances and stuff like that, but that seemed like something out of The Notebook.
The car was awesome, but once again like in TWINE, destroyed too soon. The best action sequence was at the airport. Not too OTT or violent. However, the defibrillator scene was too much, like something out of DAD (first he stops his heart thru meditation, and now he revives it like this).
I did not feel that Bond and Vesper were in love, especially Bond. Bond films rarely have character development. If you must try it, don't screw it up. The montage scenes in OHMSS convinced me more than this film. Her suicide was done well though with a nice action scene to accompany it.
Daniel Craig is a good actor. I saw him in Tomb Raider, Road to Perdition, Munich and Layer Cake. He was remarkable in the last one, but just because a young, fit, cool acting English actor can play a violent drug dealer does not mean he will be a good Bond. I am past the fact that he is 5'11'', too muscular (Bond is lean not cut) and has a high school jock's hairstyle (what happened to sophistication?). He plays the role too serious and HARDLY smiles. Dalton played a serious Bond better than anyone. He still smiled a lot and looked like he was having fun! That is important for the character. Even Connery's Bond smiled and had some fun. Dalton would be the best Bond had he done a few more films. Oops! Off-topic. Craig can't do humor at all. Yes, Bond does give damn about his martini's preference. Still though, I will not rank him just yet. It is not fair. Maybe with a few more films he will develop a better style. The only things he did that were "Bondian" to me were the car alarm scene (very smooth) airport action sequence.
All I have left to say is that it lacked more tradition. No Q or Moneypenny? Even though I disagree about leaving out Q, at lest that would make sense of the film's purpose (reboot). Moneypenny could have replaced that buffoon Villiers and made this so much better. She is a staple in Bond films. Period. She and Q better come back in Bond 23. No James Bond Theme until the end? Don't tell me this crap like "He wasn't James Bond until the end". That is crap. He is, was, and always will be Bond. The theme is required.
Too many traditions were broken for the wrong reasons. Cubby would have never broken tradition. He told Wilson NOT to make a prequel years ago and that it was a bad idea. What happens after Cubby's widow dies? The prequel. Great job conforming to mainstream Hollywood, kids! Way to respect your parent's wishes.
This was a very good film as far as acting, dialogue, plot, and set design goes. It beats the last three in all those departments. But it still lacked in realistic stunts and action sequences as well as music (Arnold is so mediocre these days). It has about ten Bond films beat when it comes down to spy thriller themes, seriousness, dialogue, acting, and plot, but I cannot rank it Top 10. It did not FEEL like a Bond film. A gun barrel, the theme song, Q, Moneypenny, dancing ladies, and a Bond who has fun is required. This film had none. DAD was a step too far in one direction and this was a step too far in another. It tried to take Bond back to basics but came up average because it sacrificed tradition and was full of hypocrisy (like no more OOT stunts yet Bond fights Spider-Man.) Do you people who say this is the best 007 film since OHMSS really think that DAF thru DAD were all mediocre and forgettable? I hope not. Why did you keep watching if you felt that way? All of those films sure do entertain me. They certainly entertain me a lot more so than Casino Royale does because they FEEL like Bond films.
Lastly, they had better not act like Bond 23 and on are not related to the first 20 like these first two Craig vehicles aren't. That would be taking a crap on the franchise's continuity and legacy. Bond's continuity stopped making sense years ago. He is ageless and timeless. Cubby did not erase Dr. No thru Moonraker beginning with FYEO because Moonraker was OOT and kinda campy, did he? I like to think we have been watching the same Bond all these years. The same guy who killed Dr. No killed Gustav Graves in my eyes.
All in all, still an entertaining motion picture.
005 out of 007.
I liked 3:10 to Yuma a lot, and thought it was the best thing Russell Crowe's done since Gladiator. But then you wait ages for a decent Western and two come along at once. Much as I liked 3:10, it's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford that I'd like to see picking up loads of awards. But I have a horrible feeling it will be that bloody awful Atonement that receives more than it should.
Haven't seen Jesse James, but I'm with you on Atonement. The kind of buzz it's been getting, and the timing of it, makes it sound like the juggernaut of the season. I can't really comment on it 'cause I haven't seen it, but it has that English Patient vibe. And when it comes to that movie, let's just say I liked it about as much as Elaine on Seinfeld ("Please: DIE -- Why won't you just die?")
Too late, I've put out a contract on them this morning.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
And Atonement duly scoops the Golden Globe for best picture.
If you hated The English Patient you are really going to hate this one HH. In fact essentially this is 'The English Patient 2'. It's ridiculous that this has beaten a couple of great American movies, in Jesse James, and No Country for Old Men, (I saw this the other day, highly recommended).
Then again, hh, you liked CR, say no more...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No apartment break-ins, I trust.
Are you guys saying you're like Elaine's boyfriend, who broke up with her because he didn't think he could ever love someone who didn't like The English Patient?
I didn't say I didn't or wouldn't like Atonement. I don't make up my mind about movies before I see them, unlike certain CR critics.
Not me. I love The English Patient but I wouldn't break up with anybody if they didn't like it. Now, if she didn't like The Godfather, or sticking with romantic films, Casablanca, it would be a different story.
HH, if I truly made up my mind about CR beforehand, why would I have seen it twice at the cinemas?
The originals are my favourite interpretations. But I don't just love the characters as I also love the idea of the characters. In fact I love the idea of the characters almost as much as I love the characters themselves. But you know what, it's not all that different to James Bond himself. I am less than thrilled, to be diplomatic, with Dalton's portrayal of Bond, and I don't love Lazenby's or Craig's portrayals either, but that does not mean I think that the group known as James Bond should ever break up.
I don't mind the absence of Q and Moneypenny in CR, but their omission in Bond 22 bothers me a little. I don't think these characters have outlived their usefullness. I hope it is not merely a lack of vision that is keeping them from utilizing them in the future.
B-)
Welcome to AJB, dbden {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'll drink to that. Welcome indeed
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM