I liked it, but I don't class it as anything other than a worthy entry to the series.
Let's get the obvious out of the way, a compelling performance from Daniel Craig. He showed the toughness and physicality that everybody, without exception, believed he would bring to the role. He also looked comfortable, and showed promise in terms of the expected quips and snappy dialogue. If I'm honest, despite him being in no way my choice as Bond, he has done no wrong here. He's done an exceptional job with the material and baggage he's been given to work with.
However, I still have to maintain that I saw nothing in the story or tone, that, with a few tweaks, couldn't have given Brosnan a fitting swansong.
One of the other criticisms leading up to the film and reboot, has been the inclusion of Judi Dench. In viewing this film, I am convinced that the producers would have been mad to let her go, inconsistencies aside. Her 'M' character is too good to waste, and the class with which Judi Dench delivers the role, with this new 'raw' Bond was a highlight for me.
Overall, the rest of the cast all did a very good job, none of them standout, but all above reproach.
I also kinda admired the song and credits, I was surprised first of all, but then appreciated them for their creativeness, in trying to homage what had gone before, but do something different, in line with the 'new Bond' and 'Casino' motif.
Another good point was the return to fisticuffs, as opposed to gunplay, a valid criticism of the 'machine-gun' Brosnan movies.
However, the film had a lot of problems.
Pace - A necessary slave to the storyline of the book, but the seemingly thrown-in Bang, Bang double-dose of action setpieces were too much too soon, and the rest of the film dragged on by comparison.
Realism - I also found these setpieces jarred with me, they were just too far over the edge of belief suspension, given the tone of realism we were told the producers were trying to achieve. They also were quite weak plotting-wise, highlighting the fact that the second half of the movie was a character-driven interpretaion of the literary Casino Royale, and the first half a tacked-on nod to the expectations of a Bond audience, wanting action, stunts and spectacle. Don't get me wrong, the stunts themselves were immaculately impressive in their execution, but disappointing in context of the story. Slightly too much death-defying, and pyrotechnics where none were needed.
Romance - Didn't work, happened too quickly, and the tone of flirting and teasing, all the way up to the Vesper kidnapping, suddenly turned to Bond in love and throwing his career away. This was down to poor script and poor judgement, not the fault of the actors. I think this is where they really needed to make 'implicitly clear' that it had been a long few weeks of spending time together, but instead undying love is declared the first time Vesper wakes him from his recovery, and the subsequent beach\vacation scenes could have been the very next day, for all that the film showed. Additionally, without the suicide note, the 'impact' on Bond is severely diluted, and the 'I'm sorry' just wasn't enough for me to justify his cold attitude, and delivery of the line from the book. Essentially in the book, Bond is stripped bare and betrayed, but you feel the agony of the betrayal from both sides. In Casino Royale (the movie) he's simply been 'played' by a beautiful woman, something that likely happens to every healthy heterosexual man, several times in a lifetime from teens to twenties to early-thirties, especially is you are a bit of a 'player' yourself. This is the weakest part of the film, and I think scenes from a few of the Brosnan movies put the handling of this part of the story to shame.
All in all, very good, not great. Not the 'great departure' from all I like about Bond that I feared, but the clear necessity to 'retain' some of those elements, in an admittedly difficult storyline, was hamfisted. I'm looking forward to the next, and am more intrigued than ever as to what the tone and story will be, because it needs to be an original piece, as opposed the Fleming novel that either 'elevated' or 'restricted' the traditional elements of a Bond movie that any Bond fan wants.
Also, just some perspective on the Box Office - It's been a really poor year for blockbuster movies, so something really was just waiting to bring the audience back in droves, and Casino Royale was it, as far as I'm concerened. The marketing of the movie 'has' been exceptional, and there is also the big curiosity factor of a new Bond, and good reviews help.
I've said it before, it can only truly be considered a triumphant success if it exceeds DAD's worldwide $450m, adjusted for inflation and ticket prices. Funnily enough, I have a feeling it may come respectably close, and we must applaud the producers for their gamble, because whatever the measures used to judge, they took a huge gamble, and have won on many levels.
Amazing action sequences. MGM must of went all out. Also Danial craigs acting was phnemonal. But, there was no q or Moneypenny. I mean i can deal without moneypenny but no q. Overall great movie it could of been better with Q but oo well still great movie overall. danial craigs right up there with all the other top bonds but I think we should give him a little time.
As always, I am late to the party, but as always, everyone's secretly been waiting for me to arrive and can't wait to hear from me, so here I am
My initial impression, two days after I saw it? I liked it. I really, really, really liked it. No, I loved it. It's a fantastic film, and it's a fantastic Bond film. I was so worried that with all the changes, everything I loved about 007 would be thrown down the toilet, but it hasn't happened at all. This doesn't feel like the start of Bond Series 2.0; CR can quite happily slot in with the other films (though it might feel a little uncomfortable sat next to Moonraker).
I'm not going to review the whole thing, just record a few of my thoughts:
- The titles were excellent, though I miss the naked girlies (would it have been too difficult to have the Queen of Hearts in the nude?). It even made me enjoy Chris Cornell - who'd have thought? And I grinned like a demented person at Based on the novel by Ian Fleming.
- All the action sequences were superbly staged; violent, knockabout stuff, that showed pain and agony, and that Bond didn't just cruise through. Saying the Madagascar sequence was superb is redundant, and the Miami chase was truly edge of my seat stuff. I particularly loved Bond's swing into the tanker cabin through the shattered windscreen. It didn't feel lopsided, which had been a concern of mine when I read the previews - the Venice sequence was a perfect bookend.
- M swearing like a trooper was great, as well as the glimpse of Mr M. Judi Dench's best performance so far.
- Poor Solange! Not only is she tortured to death, no-one even bothers mentioning her name on screen. Caterina Murino was utterly lovely though. I had thought she was a bit horsey, in photographs; but onscreen she was just beautiful, with a lovely sadness.
- What was with Valenka's outfits? She couldn't wear a dress or a swimsuit without enormous pieces of it being chopped out to reveal her midriff. Does Le Chiffre's yacht have moths?
- Speaking of Le Chiffre - great. No campery, or flouncing; just a nasty, sinister man. Including his inhaler was a great moment from the novel.
- Actually, all the bits from the novel were incorporated wonderfully. It was such a thrill to see them appear onscreen after years of just being on the page.
- Vesper, however, was nothing like the book. She was better. The Vesper in the novel is a neurotic, and it's difficult to see what Bond sees in her. Eva Green was just stunningly beautiful, and a wonderful actress. She was Bond's equal, despite what's been said; instead of her being a (yawn) woman who can beat people up, she matches him in wit, intelligence and guile - the things that matter. I could see what he saw in her - in fact, when she was washing in the bathroom, and Bond delivered her evening dress, even I thought "Wow!", and I am a confirmed woofter. Her final death scene was heartbreaking, even though, as we all know, she was a bitch.
- I know nothing about poker, and, after this film, I know nothing about poker. I missed the baccarat. But I was still caught up in the excitement, just as I can read the bridge game in MR without any idea how to play and get caught up in the tension.
- The poison sequence was one bump too far, I have to say; it's the only thing in the whole film that I feel could have been excised without any problem. And with this new, realistic Bond, I'm glad there are no silly fictional gadgets; after all, we all have mini defibrilators and syringes of poison antidotes stowed in secret compartments in our cars, don't we?
- Mathis is a traitor? No, no, no, no, NO!
- The torture sequence. Cue the sound of a hundred men crossing their legs. But excellently done (though if that was a 12a then LTK is practically a U).
- The German banker was a little too broad for me; he seemed a bit like Lieutenant Gruber from 'Allo 'Allo.
- Venice was ravishingly shot, though would it have been too much to ask for a single double taking pigeon as Bond ran across St Marks' Square?
- The final scene, and the final line, and the final bit of music. Oh yes.
I feel like I have forgotten something... oh yes; Daniel Craig. Or as he is currently known, James Bond - and there is absolutely no room for disagreement. The man was completely, utterly, 100 % Bond, from the very first shot. He was physical, he was intelligent, he was witty. You know how you have those debates about "Roger was great, but he couldn't do coldness", or "Timothy was great, but he couldn't do humour"? I can't think of a single facet of Bond's character that Daniel Craig didn't do. I thought he was absolutely superb. My only gripe is that he kept sucking his cheeks in times of crisis; it started to look a little Blue Steel. However, his great goody trail made up for it If reports are to be believed, Barbara Broccoli pushed Craig through against the wishes of other team members; all I have to say is well done Babs, and this more than makes up for the Rita Coolidge debacle.
Can't wait to see it again. And again. And again. Did I mention I loved Vesper's theme in the score? Or the black and white bit? Or the murder in the Bodyworld exhibition? Or the finger sucking moment? Or the... oh, bloody hell, when is it on again?
Well I'm not going to get into dissecting CR bit by bit. It's been done enough here. However, I will say that I liked Craig's Bond a great deal. Bond is back to being a kick ass bad boy for a change. I was very impresed with Craig's physicality and swagger. My wife thought the walk was a bit over done, but having seen it twice now, I thought the swagger was right on, almost a nod to Connery.
The way Bond carried his weapon in an "in the pants" holster was very good too. The most tactical way is on the hip, however behind the hip is a common compromise to concealability. Likewise, another compromise to concealability is in front of the hip with the muzzle pointing toward the groin. I've known people to carry it that way too and without the holster, very dangerous in my opinion, but also very "bad boy".
I also happened to like the main title sequence. Again it showed off the physicality of this new Bond. The end shot of Craig staring into the camera as if to say "you want some of this?" was fantastic.
I also likeed the fact that Bond was not always wearing a suit. An MI6 Agent's appearence should fit the situation. Suits when needed only.
I must say too that Mr. Craig is not the most handsome Bond, however his swagger and confidence makes you forget it. As we all know, success with women has a lot to do with confidence as anything else. Blond hair didn't matter either.
Lastly, I was a doubter and now I'm not.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Running commentry of the James Bond film - Casino Royale…if it can be called a James Bond film.
1. W000SH *BUZZ OF ELECTRICITY AND MECHANICS* WHAT WAS THAT? Oh I see, it was the gun barrel scene, hmm, where was the slightly faded Bond and swirling barrel? The usual James Bond theme tune that has lasted since the time of Connery?
I sure as hell didn't see it
So naturally…not a great start to the Bond film
Scene 1 - What the hell is this? Film Noir? Was this a flashback? A memory? Something happening in the present? A scene from Sin City? Certainly not a James bond film. I don't care if it’s a flashback (James bond shouldn't have flash backs anyway) you do not see things from the characters' points of view….you just don't ok….its not a deep meaningful story…its 007
Credits - ok I knew the song was crap…but oh well I'll live….my this is interesting, I love this 1960s colourful casino feel. And the people are nice and simple silhouettes again like the pre-Brosnan films………..there's a silhouette man…and another…and another…….where's the silhouette woman?........c'mon every James bond film has women……nope…..just men fighting to bad Coldplay kind of music.
Action scene: not bad, nice directing, nice show….pity about the 2006 mobile phones…I mean if this is a prequel to Dr No, I'm not saying its got to be pre 1962 gadgets but lets say somewhere in the late 70s to 80s yes?
If M became the NEW M during the Brosnan era than why is she in the pre Dr No era, would it be so hard to find some guy who looked like Bernard Lee?
The girls; Bond's firs Bond girl in this, the wife of one of the many villains, was stunning, she had the right entrance (on the horse) she had the style, the looks, the clothes….but she was all to done and dusted and lets face it terribly boring before we even got a chance to know her
Vesper, great character, I liked her strength mingled with the naivety, it was excellent, not too much a crime fighter, but not too much a bimbo. But she was in no comparison to the any of the past Bond Girls. La Chiffre's girlfriend could have really been something as well, she had an extremely good presence and look for the role…unfortunately she had barely any dialogue and barely any screen time….I felt that it would have been interesting to see her interact with Bond, if not act as one of his pursuits.
Villains - There's one, no there's one…no its definitely La Chiffre who's in charge…but wait…..he's working for someone else who never even mentions' Bond's name!! The eye thing is creepy…pity you only saw it bleed once or we might have had an interesting gimmick going on here
Clichés - Granted that this is set when James Bond is starting out and my not have developed his clichés yet….but this is Bond film, you need something in there to say this is James Bond! Not Mr Spy Crime Fighter!
All in all, one of the worst Bond films ever made, saved only by Daniel Craig's excellent performance
Running commentry of the James Bond film - Casino Royale…if it can be called a James Bond film.
1. W000SH *BUZZ OF ELECTRICITY AND MECHANICS* WHAT WAS THAT? Oh I see, it was the gun barrel scene, hmm, where was the slightly faded Bond and swirling barrel? The usual James Bond theme tune that has lasted since the time of Connery?
I sure as hell didn't see it
So naturally…not a great start to the Bond film
Scene 1 - What the hell is this? Film Noir? Was this a flashback? A memory? Something happening in the present? A scene from Sin City? Certainly not a James bond film. I don't care if it’s a flashback (James bond shouldn't have flash backs anyway) you do not see things from the characters' points of view….you just don't ok….its not a deep meaningful story…its 007
Credits - ok I knew the song was crap…but oh well I'll live….my this is interesting, I love this 1960s colourful casino feel. And the people are nice and simple silhouettes again like the pre-Brosnan films………..there's a silhouette man…and another…and another…….where's the silhouette woman?........c'mon every James bond film has women……nope…..just men fighting to bad Coldplay kind of music.
Action scene: not bad, nice directing, nice show….pity about the 2006 mobile phones…I mean if this is a prequel to Dr No, I'm not saying its got to be pre 1962 gadgets but lets say somewhere in the late 70s to 80s yes?
If M became the NEW M during the Brosnan era than why is she in the pre Dr No era, would it be so hard to find some guy who looked like Bernard Lee?
The girls; Bond's firs Bond girl in this, the wife of one of the many villains, was stunning, she had the right entrance (on the horse) she had the style, the looks, the clothes….but she was all to done and dusted and lets face it terribly boring before we even got a chance to know her
Vesper, great character, I liked her strength mingled with the naivety, it was excellent, not too much a crime fighter, but not too much a bimbo. But she was in no comparison to the any of the past Bond Girls. La Chiffre's girlfriend could have really been something as well, she had an extremely good presence and look for the role…unfortunately she had barely any dialogue and barely any screen time….I felt that it would have been interesting to see her interact with Bond, if not act as one of his pursuits.
Villains - There's one, no there's one…no its definitely La Chiffre who's in charge…but wait…..he's working for someone else who never even mentions' Bond's name!! The eye thing is creepy…pity you only saw it bleed once or we might have had an interesting gimmick going on here
Clichés - Granted that this is set when James Bond is starting out and my not have developed his clichés yet….but this is Bond film, you need something in there to say this is James Bond! Not Mr Spy Crime Fighter!
All in all, one of the worst Bond films ever made, saved only by Daniel Craig's excellent performance
2/10
This really is one of those reviews where every point makes me think 'but I liked that about the film!'
For the most part, each to his own, but I will pick you up on what you said about the villains.
I found Le Chiffre terrifying. Why? Because he was weak, he was under pressure. He was a desperate man, low in the hierarchy. That meant he would go to desperate lengths to save his own skin, and I think that made him much more dangerous. Can you imagine Blofeld sweating and physically hurting Bond himself. No, he'd push a button.
I've learnt an important lesson from this film. "Never trust anyone completely, they could be plotting against you." That means noone. Not your friends, family, even the people you're close to.
-I thoroughly disliked it. Seriously, this is definitely the worst Bond movie ever made, and my least favorite. Daniel Craig just doesn't fit as Bond. If I want a tough guy Bond, I'll go watch TLD or LTK. Le Chiffre was an interesting villain, but he just didn't seem evil enough.
-The product placement was absolutely gratitous! Every time we see an electonic device there's a Sony logo on it! WTF?!
-The theme song sequence was good, the song was okay. The retro casino look, and the silhouettes I dig. But why break with tradition and not have the name of the movie in the theme song?
-The whole "prequel" thing just sucks. Seriously. It's nothing more than a way to start a whole new series of Bond movies.
Conclusion: Horrible movie, I don't consider it canon. The car was very cool, though.
- The titles were excellent, though I miss the naked girlies (would it have been too difficult to have the Queen of Hearts in the nude?). It even made me enjoy Chris Cornell - who'd have thought?
Although I've said this elsewhere, this is the thread where my initial review is so I should clarify... On second viewing, the titles ended and I thought to myself "Why didn't I like them before??" Perhaps knowing what to expect made me appreciate them more, perhaps it was the shock of no nude girlies at all, but they're actually alright. And a better position in the cinema second time round made Chris Cornell seem a little bit fuller and more balanced, so while still far from being the greatest song on earth, wasn't as bad as I initially thought.
Oh, and I didn't notice the film dragging even slightly second time round. Again, perhaps knowing what to expect alters that perception.
1.Unfashionable i know but i loved the theme song and opening credits, i've been humming it all weekend.
2.I came out of DAD abit depressed and wondering whether the franchise had finally run its course. Came out of this one reinvigorated and excited cant wait for the next one!
3.I struggle to think of anything i didn't like, it was almost too good to be a Bond film if you get my meaning. Real sophisticated adult entertainment.
4. BTW my favourite Bond is Roger Moore, and i still loved it!
5. Finally, the Sunday Express gave it an excellent review this weekend, but mused whether it would appeal to the audience of 'teenage American boys' that flocked to DAD. Since i know there are some on this site id love to know your opinions. Is this kind of gritty Bond a turn off for American audiences?
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Definitely not! I saw a group of boys, probably 13 and 14, all taking a picture after seeing the movie and yelling "Bond rocks" instead of "cheese."
I agree that there was no one part I didn't like, except for the TS. I was never bored, which is unusual because even in my favorite of Bond films there is always a boring part. Not so in this one.
I wen't into the cinema with some degree of optimism after seeing the trailers, but I also still had real concerns regarding Daniel Craig, the re-boot and the darker tone of Casino Royale.
Virtually all my concerns were swept away inside the first five minutes. The brutality of the fight scene and the way Bond earns his 00 status took my breath away. The fact that it was in black & white seemed just right and not "old fashioned" filmmaking. The gunbarrel and title sequence by comparison are ok, if a little uninspiring. However, I do really like the title song 'You Know My Name'.
The action set pieces are all beautifully executed and exciting to watch. I could watch the MIA sequence and the Aston Martin crash again and again and again and never get bored. My only slight criticisms would be that the Madagascar chase is a little too long. Also, the excessive use of machine guns, I am getting bored with them. I wish the producers would come up with something more novel, perhaps a sniper?
The Casino sequence is very good overall. I don't have any problem with it's overall length. I like the way it's broken up to include events away from the table. My only real complaint revolves around the defibrilator scene. It's all rather silly and OTT, the low point of the film. If that's what we get in the absence of Q then I say bring him back immediately. The stairwell fight has clear echo's of Bourne. The struggle at the bottom of the stairs is the only time where I felt the brutal realism wen't a little too far. I didn't enjoy seeing all that blood on Bond and his nemesis' legs flailing as the life was being choked away from him.
The torture scene if handled badly could have been a potential disaster. Instead, it's a triumph for Campbell, Mads Mikkelsen, and most notably Daniel Craig. The lighting, camera angles, dialogue and humour are all perfect. Craig is just superb here, especially when Bond is trying to laugh despite the intense pain he is suffering.
In terms of acting, Craig has all of Bond's attributes, except maybe the suaveness. The screen presence, the grit, the toughness, the charm and the humour are all there in abundance. Like Sean Connery in DN, he has set a benchmark which the others who follow him will be judged by. In terms of his looks, Craig remains something of an enigma to me. In some scenes he looks seriously cool, in others he looks uncool and considerably older than his 38 years. I think he's a chameleon.
As for the acting in general. It's top notch. The only complaint here would be the lack of screen time for Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter and Caterina Murino as Solange. Mads Mikkelsen stands out for me as Le Chiffre. Le Chiffre may not be a threat in terms of physique, but he does have the intelligence to outwit Bond. There is also a real hint of menace and creepiness about him which is convincingly portrayed by Mikkelsen.
Casino Royale is a really good looking film. The cinematography really stands out. Locations such as Prague, Venice and The Bahamas are made to look really good. The money really is on the screen.
I could go on about the script, the score, product placement, the ending, etc. But I will cut my losses here. Overall, Babs & Mickey's gamble has paid off handsomely, for me at least. I congratulate all involved in the making of Casino Royale. Let's now hope it gets the box office it deserves.
Definitely not! I saw a group of boys, probably 13 and 14, all taking a picture after seeing the movie and yelling "Bond rocks" instead of "cheese."
I agree that there was no one part I didn't like, except for the TS. I was never bored, which is unusual because even in my favorite of Bond films there is always a boring part. Not so in this one.
Thats interesting Nightshooter, I am glad to hear it. I think some English newspapers can be shockingly patronising towards American cinema goers.
I never once looked at my watch during Casino Royale (unlike DAD when i was desperate to get out). The running time really wasnt an issue for me either.
sorry...I posted this review in a different thread (Didn't see this one). Mods: feel free to remove my review from the "CR discussion" thread if you feel it is necessary.
My CR review: 004
The Good?
THE FIRST HALF
Action galore. Original concepts and excellent editing (from ace editor Stuart Baird) make for some riveting action sequences. Shame that the back half of the film was so uneven.
DANIEL CRAIG
DC proves himself as an excellent James Bond and polished actor. He delivered lines which of all the actors who played the part, I could only imagine Dalton being able to give credence to. Top notch
For me, this pretty much constitutes what is good in CR
The reasons I dislike CR tend to be a little different from what I was expecting:
THE REBOOT - pointless, IMO. The black and white opening for me was simply Over The Top. Other than confirming Bond’s OO status, it doesn’t carry over into the story. We see Bond is a tough killer (but we knew that already). How does this relate to the remainder of the story? I didn’t feel it worked.
“M”
I appear to be the only one who feels Dame Judy fails miserably in this role. Part of it, to her credit, is the poor handling of the character. “M” was always a strong character, but since GE, Dench was left with a struggling and semi-ineffective beauracrat. There was a time when even the audience cowered under M’s authority, an individual who ruled his organization in Bristol-fashion. Gone are the strong bits of dialogue that made Bond feel sheepish like “Since I’ve been in charge, there’s been a drop in 00 casualties!” “Having a licence to kill is useless unless one can set up a target!” and “From this moment, your licence to kill is revoked!” These were moments that reminded us that M was the one calling the shots, but in CR, Bond acts like a rogue agent that M has no control over. All she can do is rant at underlings and wring her hands with no effect. All she does is place a little tracker in his arm - their version of a slap on the wrist, I guess - and utterly pointless as we find out in the film.
WHO IS THIS GUY?
Daniel Craig does a great job, but is it Bond? I’m not talking about looks, I’m referring to the character itself. He comes across as more of a troublemaker than troubleshooter. He hs no respect for authority, which seems highly undisciplined for a man who forges a career in the military and Secret Service. This guy wouldn’t last a day under the thumb of Bernard Lee. The literary Bond held M in high regard, almost as a father figure, but here Bond seems to make up his own rules. It’s doesn’t make sense to me.
THE LOVE STORY
A bit rushed. The character of Vesper fails. I can’t believe Bond would fall for her only because we are given no reason for him to. In the novel, she cares for him. After being tortured, Bond has serious misgivings about the life ahead of him in the service. Vesper offers something better. But this doesn’t come out in the film. And the script gives no opportunity for Eve Green to shine. She’s cold at first, weak at second, and a traitor at the third. I never saw a moment in the film that makes me say “I like this girl”. The audience needs to see what Bond sees in her to make the romance work, and the film doesn’t do that.
THE ENDING
I got a very real impression that the audience I saw the film with was very disappointed with the ending. Bond says his name, the music kicks in. Are we supposed to cheer? As the song points out at the beginning, we know his name. So what makes this significant? It really only signals that he’s not resigning from the service...and that he has somehow magically become the secret agent we have come to know. But wasn’t he before? Did his love for Vesper get him his 00 at the beginning of the film? No. Did his ability to shoot the guy in the leg make him Bond? I don’t think so. The fact that we know nothing about Mr. White makes it hard for me to see any significance of Bond’s introduction to him. Seeing Bond shooting some unarmed old man in the leg, and gloat over his soon-to-expire corpse is not the Bond of the books. Maybe if Bond didn’t sound so proud, the line would have had more gravitas but the way it was just didn’t work for me.
Don’t get me wrong, I wanted to like this movie. For me, though, it simply didn’t deliver action-wise, story-wise, or character-wise.
I have decided to post my rambling thoughts having seen the picture twice; I will have viewed it thrice on Wednesday night. Do forgive the mind-numbingly buoyant inanities that follow; I cannot help it. Loved it loved it loved it.
I had very high expectations for this picture. Having met the casting of Daniel Craig with blissful incredulity—I never, in my wildest thoughts, expected Eon to do something quite so edgy—and having been elated at the news that formula would be positively eschewed, that a new direction would be taken, and that the likes of Moneypenny and Q would be discarded, the *only* factor causing a degree of trepidation was this: Would they really do it?
They did. I cannot overemphasise just how surprising Casino Royale is. Harbouring a sneaking suspicion that cold feet would be had at the last minute I wondered just how far Babs and Mike et al would go in burying what desperately needed burying. It was, therefore, with a combination of elated shock and heavenly surprise that I watched the pre-titles sequence unfold and found myself immersed in the new, and far improved, world of 007.
What the producers have done is asked themselves the right question at the right time. Instead of asking ‘how do we make a good Bond movie?’, they have asked themselves ‘how do we make a quality picture that happens to be about James Bond?’. That these people are the those who thought that an invisible car would be a bit of a laugh, or that John Cleese *wouldn’t* be cringe worthy as Q, defies any sort of logic. Of course, one could point to, as I am sure others have, For Your Eyes Only or The Living Daylights as examples of much the same people taking an alternative direction and bringing the Bond series back to earth. And yet, the truth is that Casino Royale is *so* much more than a For Your Eyes Only, or even a The Living Daylights. Casino Royale is a different creature altogether, having abandoned the basic formula that even Dalton’s first outing adhered to. It is in a different league to most of what has gone before it ,and even those films in the same league find themselves bested by Royale’s tour de force.
At its heart, Casino Royale is a success largely down to one man: Daniel Craig. This Bond bleeds. This Bond fails. This Bond hurts. And while he bleeds and fails and hurts we feel it too: by highlighting the consequences of Bond’s actions the audience feels Bond’s pain. Daniel Craig fills the screen with an unmatched presence and pushes these attributes with a brutality to which we are completely unused: Sean Connery couldn’t do half the stuff Craig pulls off. More than that, this Bond can be despondent. This Bond self-reflects and casts a critical eye over himself. That most spectacular scene, which truly confirms that this Bond and this film are, indeed, quite different, in which Bond examines himself in the mirror after killing is without doubt a stand-out moment. There was a bit of this in Lazenby’s Bond, however Craig has taken 007 to a whole new level.
Moreover, there is a seething cruelty beneath the surface of the man; an eagerness to wound his enemies and resolve things violently. This man is a killer. He may not be ‘Fleming’s Bond’ (whoever *that* is), however he is ‘ironical, brutal, and cold.’ He is, above all, believable: I believe that this Bond is dangerous and menacing; he relies on his wits and his strength, not gadgets. At times contemptuous and at times cockily arrogant, Craig also incorporates a genuine charisma—all grim smirk and sardonic humour—and challenging intensity to bring to the fore a fascinating and seminal interpretation of the character. Even deeper than that, Craig displays a wounded vulnerability, an emotional insecurity at times, that never once steps towards the lamentable territory of ‘Insert characterisation here’. In this film Bond proves himself as an agent, and Daniel Craig proves his doubters absolutely wrong. Arbitrary as this may sound, Craig is the best Bond: Better than Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan. He is an inspiration.
Eva Green is another example of superb casting. Capturing Vesper’s character with an inner darkness and broken susceptibility—with a hard shell—Green emerges as quite possibly the best Bond girl the series has seen. A consummate intellect with a fierce outlook, Green’s Vesper proves that the most meaningful girls need not be kicking female James Bonds. Indeed, with her enigmatic attitude and emotional distance Vesper makes for compelling viewing, and the chemistry between Craig and Green in evident in bags. As beautiful as she is tortured, this Bond girl truly takes Bond’s heart. The Bond/Vesper courtship, meanwhile, is given time to flourish and breathe; finally here is a romance we can believe. Authentic and sincere, this leads to the final act being all the more cruelly tragic.
What is especially surprising is that all this emotion and vulnerability is handled with subtlety and it *feels* real. It has not just been thrown in as a hollow reference to some semblance of character development. This is the first Bond film in a long time which credits its audience with a significant level of imagination and intelligence. Yes, action exists, however a big shiny bang does not appear every five minutes and those wonderfully delicate quieter moments, which really do elevate this film above all others, are so exceptional that I struggled to believe that they were actually appearing in a Bond film. That the central piece of action is a card sequence shows the courage shown by the film-makers; that these scenes are far more gripping than other central sequences show just how essential such courage was required. In this respect Casino Royale is the most bold, fresh and daring picture ‘the family’ have ever created.
The other dramatis personæ are played with such aplomb that the card sequence has a group dynamic ensuring that the other characters do not merely sink into the background. Mads Mikkelsen has a delicious malice as Le Chiffre and it is an interesting break to see the villain being in as difficult a predicament as Bond. Gianni’s Mathis is, obviously, rather different from the book but this is no bad thing; like Wright’s Felix Mathis has a three-dimensional quality rather than a cardboard cut-out shoved in to make up the numbers. Dench’s M has the same caustic nature, however here it works far better as the relationship is different: this is a recently promoted 007 in whom she does not display a great deal of trust—or confidence.
My one concern, beyond a general feeling that the ‘team’ would not see the new direction through, was Martin Campbell as GoldenEye, however enjoyable, was not a radical departure. I doubted Campbell’s ability to execute what I thought a great and necessary idea. However, he executes it with a gusto the likes of which I sincerely did not expect. The film is elegant, classy, down right arty at times. Noirish, moody and atmospheric in the latter half Casino Royale is drenched in a melancholy aura which ensures it is an emotionally resonant film that registers a particularly deep impact.
To see real locations being used is a revelation, giving the film a feel slightly reminiscent of the early pictures. The fact that they are used well is something of a bigger surprise, however mention must be made of the gorgeous photography that gives Casino Royale that sumptuous travelogue ambience which has been sorely missing of late.
David Arnold's score was another pleasant surprise. Before the man had all the finesse of a daisy-cutter; here he lets quiet scenes be quiet, often with just a little twinge of a few piano keys. The music complements the action rather that detracting from it: Arnold sharpens the atmosphere of the pre-titles sequence considerably. Indeed, Arnold is so good and so different here that I cannot help but wonder what on earth he was thinking previously.
One esteemed reviewer of the Washington Times described Casino Royale as a return to *a* real world—not *the* real world. Obviously the events depicted are ludicrously unrealistic, however the film still has as its base a greater feeling of realism, a feeling that this *might* happen. Never is credibility stretched too far: the smaller scale and more grounded story make for a far more satisfying outing. Comparisons have been drawn with the likes of For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights and yet this is mistaken: as mentioned, Casino Royale is much more than a simple scaling down; it is an entire change of direction, a completely new start and a bold attempt to bury the accoutrements that had become supposedly integral to the cinematic James Bond. And as far as comparisons go forget any with Bourne. As enjoyable as the Matt Damon pictures are they exist in another cul de sac: this Bond, despite protestations to the contrary before its release, has class and glamour in spades.
I understand many Brosnan fans object to ‘their man’ being criticised as a means of supporting Craig, however it is only natural that the new film be contextualised by using the previous era as a term of reference. The Brosnan approach, an approach not entirely the responsibility of Mr Brosnan himself, was essentially a deconstruction of the Bond persona, so that a modern Bond, more in touch with what some called his emotions, could emerge with the attributes deemed necessary for a successful ‘new-man’ of the 1990s. In everything Daniel Craig does, his Bond seems a repudiation of this approach. It is unlikely that this is a deliberate ploy to lay to rest the Brosnan era—Craig is undoubtedly his own man—however the result is still the same. Vulnerable he may be, however Craig’s Bond is no modern day PC man: he falls in love, but women are conquests and the married ones the best.
It is still hard to believe that the producers have gone down this route when one considers Die Another Day, surely the ultimate triumph of the derivative over the daring. Be clear, this is no ‘Bond film’. This is no rechauffage of the Bond ingredients. This is a wonderfully elegant and imaginative picture with a harder edge which happens to be about James Bond. Character actually matters here. The tension and suspense are real. I almost—*almost*—feel like Keith Joseph on the brink in 1974: “I had thought I was a Conservative but I now see that I was not really one at all.” Substitute ‘Conservative’ for ‘filmBond fan’ and this would be quite an apt description of my feelings since Friday evening. This is like Dr No all over again—only better.
That wasn't a James Bond film - bloody terrible. Just a run of the mill action movie with none of the things that make 007 unique. Daniel Craig is totally miscast and I'll never see another Bond film with the actor in the role. Complete and utter rubbish
It is with singular regret to tender my resignation from Her Majesty's Secret Service, pursuant to the following (kind note, unlike the resignation of my good colleague and even better friend, Commander James Bond, this document is irrevocable and even final) :
Advisory. The latest screen incarnation of Cmdr. Bond, codename "Casino Royale" drops far below par from BOTH James' excellent biographies and the screen romanticisms.
A. The Literary James Bond
* "Saturnine sense of humour" -- a description used by Cmdr. Fleming. Although it is a popular myth that James is a cold flounder without a trace of humour, it is diamond clear that he evinces a wonderful, trenchant sense of cheerfulness (one of his favourite words, I believe)from the second book onwards. A few examples :
* In "Live and Let Die" James and Felix are nearly a comedic team, playing off one another. James' sense of life is keenly felt in his raised-eyebrowed descriptions of American culture. When Fleming was writing the sequence of naked Solitaire and James tied like newsprint(lucky fish indeed), she says, "I didn't want it to be like this." Noel Coward read it, asking, "You're not going to leave it like this!" Fleming, with tears of laughter, said, "Yes!!!"
* In the Blofeld trilogy, James' wit builds with each operation, from TB > OHMSS > YOLT. OHMSS has plenty of "splitting sides" (another James favourite)scenes. Note his resignation letter, "Neat that. Perhaps too neat!" or "Hm. Irma not so la douce!" or Griffin Orr : "Hm. Hm. Hm. Three balls!" No doubt James was rolling in his flat that evening recalling that.
* In YOLT, even the half-broken Bond in the beginning still retains his irony -- "Where do bees corpses go when they die?" James with Tiger, like with Felix, is a classic team, their repartee building to a firm friendship. Until James realises that Dr Shatterhand is Blofeld, their banter is continuous; Tiger is shocked in the change of his darkly cheerful friend to the cold avenger. The first chapter with the Geishas is hilarious. Dikko Henderson escalates the fun.
* Let us not forget operation Thunderball, as we laugh at James' agonies at Shrublands (at least we did at HQ), his meeting with Domino ("Bitch!")and again with Felix, who remarks, "I'm strictly a chocolate sailor."
B. The Screen 007
* As we can net from even a blink to the books, Commander Bond's humour did not originate with the films. James retains his cheek throughout his career, (a book observes that he is just "a simple peasant" looking forward to his chicken farm when he's put to pasture). Through four decades the screen James is simply a big boy, albeit a very tough, smart and lucky boy. He does not live in a world of blood and spilt guts. If even a simple punch-up were depicted 'realistically' James' face would be mishapen for a month! If the CR 'realistic' violence continues to the next mission, James will be dead midway through the story.
Two Lines of Demarcation
1. When James is asked, "Shaken or stirred?" One camp cheers, the other groans. Die Mister Bond! No more bespoke suits for you! Nor broken sommeliers. Instead of mock elegance, we'll get our Double Os at the gym's steroid section.
2. "Who will cry for a Commander?" One might well ask. Finally, James has been stripped of his RNVR status, a penultimate insult. Instead he is a Rambo-Terminator, a machine Jason Bourne -- so much so that the two JBs are interchangeable. But instead of protests from Double Os at this most horrific of slaps, we get "Here! Here!" Not a biggie, as the Americans say.
James Bond has not been re-born, he has been re-killed -- You only die twice, Mr Bond -- by the Antibond, in the sense of 1. against and 2. Instead of. (One of the Pope's official titles is Vicarius Filii Dei, "Instead of the Son of God.") The Antibond has slipped into the shoes of the real Bond, and has been accepted by many as the one, true Commander James Bond, RNVR, CMG. Like the Antichrist, "even the very elect shall be deceived." But it is no longer the authentic Bond of the books or screen, but a counterfeit.
In light of the above, Sir, I beg you to accept this resignation forthwith and endit.
Your obedient servant,
Once Commander Eggy, 0077
______________________
"Surely, you're joking!!?"
"Don't call me Shirley."
That wasn't a James Bond film - bloody terrible. Just a run of the mill action movie with none of the things that make 007 unique. Daniel Craig is totally miscast and I'll never see another Bond film with the actor in the role. Complete and utter rubbish
Good! Then don't bother coming back for the next 5 years or so then, because we have a new Bond in town, and he is here to stay......:v
A. The Literary James Bond
* "Saturnine sense of humour" -- a description used by Cmdr. Fleming. Although it is a popular myth that James is a cold flounder without a trace of humour, it is diamond clear that he evinces a wonderful, trenchant sense of cheerfulness (one of his favourite words, I believe)from the second book onwards. A few examples :
* In "Live and Let Die" James and Felix are nearly a comedic team, playing off one another. James' sense of life is keenly felt in his raised-eyebrowed descriptions of American culture. When Fleming was writing the sequence of naked Solitaire and James tied like newsprint(lucky fish indeed), she says, "I didn't want it to be like this." Noel Coward read it, asking, "You're not going to leave it like this!" Fleming, with tears of laughter, said, "Yes!!!"
* In the Blofeld trilogy, James' wit builds with each operation, from TB > OHMSS > YOLT. OHMSS has plenty of "splitting sides" (another James favourite)scenes. Note his resignation letter, "Neat that. Perhaps too neat!" or "Hm. Irma not so la douce!" or Griffin Orr : "Hm. Hm. Hm. Three balls!" No doubt James was rolling in his flat that evening recalling that.
* In YOLT, even the half-broken Bond in the beginning still retains his irony -- "Where do bees corpses go when they die?" James with Tiger, like with Felix, is a classic team, their repartee building to a firm friendship. Until James realises that Dr Shatterhand is Blofeld, their banter is continuous; Tiger is shocked in the change of his darkly cheerful friend to the cold avenger. The first chapter with the Geishas is hilarious. Dikko Henderson escalates the fun.
* Let us not forget operation Thunderball, as we laugh at James' agonies at Shrublands (at least we did at HQ), his meeting with Domino ("Bitch!")and again with Felix, who remarks, "I'm strictly a chocolate sailor."
Very cleverly written Egg, although based on a flawed premise in my view. There is plenty of humour in Casino Royale, the difference being that it is actually well-written and well delivered. What about the 'That last hand nearly killed me'? Broadchest? Bond's mocking of Le Chiffre during the torture? These may not be corny one-liners delivered with a knowing wink and a nod however they *do* inject some quality moments of humour into the film, while not jarring with the gratifyingly more serious direction.
Two Lines of Demarcation
1. When James is asked, "Shaken or stirred?" One camp cheers, the other groans. Die Mister Bond! No more bespoke suits for you! Nor broken sommeliers. Instead of mock elegance, we'll get our Double Os at the gym's steroid section.
2. "Who will cry for a Commander?" One might well ask. Finally, James has been stripped of his RNVR status, a penultimate insult. Instead he is a Rambo-Terminator, a machine Jason Bourne -- so much so that the two JBs are interchangeable. But instead of protests from Double Os at this most horrific of slaps, we get "Here! Here!" Not a biggie, as the Americans say.
Er, you must have missed all that stuff in the casino then. I cannot say I recall Jason Bourne dressed up and playing some high-stakes cards. Casino Royale does have a wonderful sense of glamour, elegance and exoticism and while it may be fairly easy to dismiss the film as a BourneBond attempt this is not based on the film itself.
Very witty, Commander, however I disagree vehemently with all points of argument in your post. I should imagine your resignation shall be accepted.
I'll never see another Bond film with the actor in the role. Complete and utter rubbish[/quote]
Good! Then don't bother coming back for the next 5 years or so then, because we have a new Bond in town, and he is here to stay......:v[/quote]
Oh my god people are already getting so defensive at the travesty that was Casino Royale - The Times said it better than I can and I quote:
suspect that when all the hype dies down, people will see
what a disappointing film Casino Royale is. Despite
updating Ian Fleming’s 1953 novel and replacing
communist agents with terrorists, the film has no relation
to the world we live in. Nor does it offer a fantasy of a
glamorous world we would like to escape to. It’s neither an
exciting thriller nor an interesting study in character. And
there is no memorable iconic moment featuring Bond, his
baddies or his beauties, the kind that you take home from
the cinema and that stays with you.
That wasn't a James Bond film - bloody terrible. Just a run of the mill action movie with none of the things that make 007 unique. Daniel Craig is totally miscast and I'll never see another Bond film with the actor in the role. Complete and utter rubbish
I agree
the worst Bond fim (if you want to call it a Bod film) EVER!
Let's all calm down,everybody.Surely we can accept a variety of opinions here.There's no hard and fast rule at AJB stipulating that each of our members must be in agreement on everything--including all of the James Bond movies.
Let's try and be polite to one another.When we disagree,we can make a point of disagreeing agreeably, and show some respect for opposing viewpoints.
* The pre-credit sequence is too short and they put most of it in the trailer. What happened to the cricket match? I said on another thread recently that Daniel Kleinman was better than Maurice Binder. After seeing the Casino Royale titles I take that back and would like to apologise to the late Mr Binder. I won't comment on the song again. Enough has been said about that.
* The first half of the film is a Pierce Brosnan film without Pierce Brosnan. I'm not saying Brosnan could have stepped straight in but it could have been adjusted. The second half of the film is very different and a big departure from what we are used to seeing.
* The Miami Airport scene felt as tacked on as the ski-chase in TWINE.
* Eva Green was bland as Vesper. She seemed to twitch after every line of dialogue and her banter with Craig fizzled out very quickly. At times she looked so young that she could pass for Craig's daughter. The film is nearly over when Bond decides that he loves Vesper. I cared much more about Lazenby and Diana Rigg in OHMSS.
* The shower scene was an unexpectedly touching moment and my favourite in the film.
* Wilson and Branson cameos-Ugh!
* Bond puts the tux on Not exactly like Superman discovering his uniform is it? Didn't like these post-modern moments. Like the vodka-martini joke. A 38 year-old man who hasn't worked out what his favourite alcoholic beverage is yet? Wouldn't a public school dropout have ticked boxes like these in his formative years? Of course I don't believe Craig's Bond went to public school for a second.
* Mads dull as Le Chiffre. I struggled to understand a word he was saying early on. Robert Davi is still the last memorable villain in the Bond series.
* Poker scenes. I didn't find them as long as some of the critics but I wouldn't exactly say I was gripping my seat. I liked the shower scene but the other bits worked in around the game were a bit artificial. In the knife fight for example I could barely make out what was happening. I missed the traditional suave, handsome Bond in the card game.
* A preview of this film I saw somewhere said it had 'a car chase to rival the one in Ronin'. Where was this car chase? I didn't se it.
* Judi Dench. M's office now seems to be a broom cupboard with a bunch of hotshot whizzkids outside waiting for an emergency. Whenever I saw her I expected Pierce Brosnan to walk into the room.
* I didn't laugh once during the whole film. Not one laugh out loud line or joke.
* Didn't feel like a James Bond film. Arnold's score was forgettable. Although the photography was good. Campbell made the film look better than GE.
* Daniel Craig. I didn't buy Craig as Bond at all. He is called 'James' once or twice in the film and it doesn't ring true. Paul Morley summed up my feeling. He said that you feel that Craig's 'character' might have met James Bond once very fleetingly, perhaps in a corridor or something, but you never believe he is the real thing. Craig spits out his dialogue under his breath in a permanently amused with himself sarcastic manner and it grates very quickly. He has one chance to overact and boy does he take it. There is a moment (after Bond has asked the swiss bloke if he brought any chocolate) when Craig mugs for a second to get a laugh. It's painful. On the whole he is restrained and ok but he's in the wrong film. He's too ordinary to be James Bond. He looks small in some of the fight scenes and doesn't command the screen. If they want me to believe this is Fleming's Bond they might have cast someone who looks like him. I thought Craig looked terible in the PTS and last shot of the titles. There are moments in this film when he looks like a waxwork dummy. He looked like a diminutive nightclub bouncer crammed into a ill-fitting suit in the last scene. He also looks too old for the rookie agent angle
thing and comes off as slightly stupid.
* Overall, the least fun I have ever had at a James Bond film. I love OHMSS, love Timothy Dalton, found this pretty tedious. Craig is not my cup of tea at all. Call me shallow but I've never got over the way he looks. I left the cinema feeling bored and flat.
* I don't know if this is an eccentric opinion but now that I've seen the film I honestly think young Cavill might have worked in this...
It's wonderful that we have such a spectrum of opinion on a site dedicated to such a specific interest - I disagree with everything (yes everything) arthur pringle says about CR. Oh no, I like the photography too. Everything else then.
I even disagree about the shower scene: am I the only one who found the finger-sucking thing a tiny bit odd?
I disagree with what you say, arthur, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (who was it said that?)
It's wonderful that we have such a spectrum of opinion on a site dedicated to such a specific interest - I disagree with everything (yes everything) arthur pringle says about CR. Oh no, I like the photography too. Everything else then.
I even disagree about the shower scene: am I the only one who found the finger-sucking thing a tiny bit odd?
I disagree with what you say, arthur, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (who was it said that?)
I too don't agree with one thing Arthur says. Just goes to show that you cannot win everyone over (even though Craig practically has by the looks of things)....
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
edited November 2006
Well, I just saw Casino Royale yesterday with my nine year old. I will admit that I enjoyed this picture alot better than I did the much-anticipated but anemically-done Superman Returns and coming from me that saying something being that I wasn't too smitten with Daniel Craig in the first place.
Sorry guys, it was a superb action flick without much Bond residue. Oh, of course the story showed flashes of what I hoped to see in a regular 007 picture but something was missing for me to make the experience all the more pleasurable and I'm not talking about Q or Moneypenny not showing up...although that pains me.
Let me be man enough to say, after naysaying so long, that Daniel Craig is a very good actor who grasped this role with both hands and did a commendable job as "said" 007.
Please understand that for me, Craig will be an acquired taste to adjust to in the way of oatmeal(which I hate) or God awful okra. He seemed intent of delivering a good Bond and for the masses it appears that he's succeeded. It may take me awhile to get around his looks but I'll give the man his due...
The story and action were pretty good; I felt that it wasn't balanced enough but considering that the powers that be had to liven up the action-nilled novel, I give then kudos.
I was disappointed with the pre-teaser because it felt a little short or not edited right or something and was one of the reasons I rushed to check out the film in the first place. Started out good but ended pretty numb.
That little "heart" sequence felt a little stupid and out of place to me. I was expecting the gun cane which I though might work well for this but perhaps that's just me.
Craig had his Connery-like moments but some of his close pans were just ugh Eva Green is just unappealing to me; that hasn't changed and Ms. Murino is still captivating as always.
My favorite part was the ending(no pun intended). To hear the music build and see Craig deliver the line after pluggin' Mr. White in the leg while standing over him, was just classic. This is the best Bond? film I've seen since LTK. Goldeneye was excellent but a bit watered down by comparison to CR, it would appear that the Broccolis should've hired Haggis long before now to clean up P&W's handiwork...Martin Campbell did fairly better his second time out but nothing Oscar-worthy...
P.S. Did anyone else think that it was funny when those agents zapped Mathis and casually exited him from the lawns? )
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Comments
Let's get the obvious out of the way, a compelling performance from Daniel Craig. He showed the toughness and physicality that everybody, without exception, believed he would bring to the role. He also looked comfortable, and showed promise in terms of the expected quips and snappy dialogue. If I'm honest, despite him being in no way my choice as Bond, he has done no wrong here. He's done an exceptional job with the material and baggage he's been given to work with.
However, I still have to maintain that I saw nothing in the story or tone, that, with a few tweaks, couldn't have given Brosnan a fitting swansong.
One of the other criticisms leading up to the film and reboot, has been the inclusion of Judi Dench. In viewing this film, I am convinced that the producers would have been mad to let her go, inconsistencies aside. Her 'M' character is too good to waste, and the class with which Judi Dench delivers the role, with this new 'raw' Bond was a highlight for me.
Overall, the rest of the cast all did a very good job, none of them standout, but all above reproach.
I also kinda admired the song and credits, I was surprised first of all, but then appreciated them for their creativeness, in trying to homage what had gone before, but do something different, in line with the 'new Bond' and 'Casino' motif.
Another good point was the return to fisticuffs, as opposed to gunplay, a valid criticism of the 'machine-gun' Brosnan movies.
However, the film had a lot of problems.
Pace - A necessary slave to the storyline of the book, but the seemingly thrown-in Bang, Bang double-dose of action setpieces were too much too soon, and the rest of the film dragged on by comparison.
Realism - I also found these setpieces jarred with me, they were just too far over the edge of belief suspension, given the tone of realism we were told the producers were trying to achieve. They also were quite weak plotting-wise, highlighting the fact that the second half of the movie was a character-driven interpretaion of the literary Casino Royale, and the first half a tacked-on nod to the expectations of a Bond audience, wanting action, stunts and spectacle. Don't get me wrong, the stunts themselves were immaculately impressive in their execution, but disappointing in context of the story. Slightly too much death-defying, and pyrotechnics where none were needed.
Romance - Didn't work, happened too quickly, and the tone of flirting and teasing, all the way up to the Vesper kidnapping, suddenly turned to Bond in love and throwing his career away. This was down to poor script and poor judgement, not the fault of the actors. I think this is where they really needed to make 'implicitly clear' that it had been a long few weeks of spending time together, but instead undying love is declared the first time Vesper wakes him from his recovery, and the subsequent beach\vacation scenes could have been the very next day, for all that the film showed. Additionally, without the suicide note, the 'impact' on Bond is severely diluted, and the 'I'm sorry' just wasn't enough for me to justify his cold attitude, and delivery of the line from the book. Essentially in the book, Bond is stripped bare and betrayed, but you feel the agony of the betrayal from both sides. In Casino Royale (the movie) he's simply been 'played' by a beautiful woman, something that likely happens to every healthy heterosexual man, several times in a lifetime from teens to twenties to early-thirties, especially is you are a bit of a 'player' yourself. This is the weakest part of the film, and I think scenes from a few of the Brosnan movies put the handling of this part of the story to shame.
All in all, very good, not great. Not the 'great departure' from all I like about Bond that I feared, but the clear necessity to 'retain' some of those elements, in an admittedly difficult storyline, was hamfisted. I'm looking forward to the next, and am more intrigued than ever as to what the tone and story will be, because it needs to be an original piece, as opposed the Fleming novel that either 'elevated' or 'restricted' the traditional elements of a Bond movie that any Bond fan wants.
Also, just some perspective on the Box Office - It's been a really poor year for blockbuster movies, so something really was just waiting to bring the audience back in droves, and Casino Royale was it, as far as I'm concerened. The marketing of the movie 'has' been exceptional, and there is also the big curiosity factor of a new Bond, and good reviews help.
I've said it before, it can only truly be considered a triumphant success if it exceeds DAD's worldwide $450m, adjusted for inflation and ticket prices. Funnily enough, I have a feeling it may come respectably close, and we must applaud the producers for their gamble, because whatever the measures used to judge, they took a huge gamble, and have won on many levels.
Amazing action sequences. MGM must of went all out. Also Danial craigs acting was phnemonal. But, there was no q or Moneypenny. I mean i can deal without moneypenny but no q. Overall great movie it could of been better with Q but oo well still great movie overall. danial craigs right up there with all the other top bonds but I think we should give him a little time.
My initial impression, two days after I saw it? I liked it. I really, really, really liked it. No, I loved it. It's a fantastic film, and it's a fantastic Bond film. I was so worried that with all the changes, everything I loved about 007 would be thrown down the toilet, but it hasn't happened at all. This doesn't feel like the start of Bond Series 2.0; CR can quite happily slot in with the other films (though it might feel a little uncomfortable sat next to Moonraker).
I'm not going to review the whole thing, just record a few of my thoughts:
- The titles were excellent, though I miss the naked girlies (would it have been too difficult to have the Queen of Hearts in the nude?). It even made me enjoy Chris Cornell - who'd have thought? And I grinned like a demented person at Based on the novel by Ian Fleming.
- All the action sequences were superbly staged; violent, knockabout stuff, that showed pain and agony, and that Bond didn't just cruise through. Saying the Madagascar sequence was superb is redundant, and the Miami chase was truly edge of my seat stuff. I particularly loved Bond's swing into the tanker cabin through the shattered windscreen. It didn't feel lopsided, which had been a concern of mine when I read the previews - the Venice sequence was a perfect bookend.
- M swearing like a trooper was great, as well as the glimpse of Mr M. Judi Dench's best performance so far.
- Poor Solange! Not only is she tortured to death, no-one even bothers mentioning her name on screen. Caterina Murino was utterly lovely though. I had thought she was a bit horsey, in photographs; but onscreen she was just beautiful, with a lovely sadness.
- What was with Valenka's outfits? She couldn't wear a dress or a swimsuit without enormous pieces of it being chopped out to reveal her midriff. Does Le Chiffre's yacht have moths?
- Speaking of Le Chiffre - great. No campery, or flouncing; just a nasty, sinister man. Including his inhaler was a great moment from the novel.
- Actually, all the bits from the novel were incorporated wonderfully. It was such a thrill to see them appear onscreen after years of just being on the page.
- Vesper, however, was nothing like the book. She was better. The Vesper in the novel is a neurotic, and it's difficult to see what Bond sees in her. Eva Green was just stunningly beautiful, and a wonderful actress. She was Bond's equal, despite what's been said; instead of her being a (yawn) woman who can beat people up, she matches him in wit, intelligence and guile - the things that matter. I could see what he saw in her - in fact, when she was washing in the bathroom, and Bond delivered her evening dress, even I thought "Wow!", and I am a confirmed woofter. Her final death scene was heartbreaking, even though, as we all know, she was a bitch.
- I know nothing about poker, and, after this film, I know nothing about poker. I missed the baccarat. But I was still caught up in the excitement, just as I can read the bridge game in MR without any idea how to play and get caught up in the tension.
- The poison sequence was one bump too far, I have to say; it's the only thing in the whole film that I feel could have been excised without any problem. And with this new, realistic Bond, I'm glad there are no silly fictional gadgets; after all, we all have mini defibrilators and syringes of poison antidotes stowed in secret compartments in our cars, don't we?
- Mathis is a traitor? No, no, no, no, NO!
- The torture sequence. Cue the sound of a hundred men crossing their legs. But excellently done (though if that was a 12a then LTK is practically a U).
- The German banker was a little too broad for me; he seemed a bit like Lieutenant Gruber from 'Allo 'Allo.
- Venice was ravishingly shot, though would it have been too much to ask for a single double taking pigeon as Bond ran across St Marks' Square?
- The final scene, and the final line, and the final bit of music. Oh yes.
I feel like I have forgotten something... oh yes; Daniel Craig. Or as he is currently known, James Bond - and there is absolutely no room for disagreement. The man was completely, utterly, 100 % Bond, from the very first shot. He was physical, he was intelligent, he was witty. You know how you have those debates about "Roger was great, but he couldn't do coldness", or "Timothy was great, but he couldn't do humour"? I can't think of a single facet of Bond's character that Daniel Craig didn't do. I thought he was absolutely superb. My only gripe is that he kept sucking his cheeks in times of crisis; it started to look a little Blue Steel. However, his great goody trail made up for it
Can't wait to see it again. And again. And again. Did I mention I loved Vesper's theme in the score? Or the black and white bit? Or the murder in the Bodyworld exhibition? Or the finger sucking moment? Or the... oh, bloody hell, when is it on again?
@merseytart
The Bond movie that made me cry (well, almost)
Now I'm off to see it again.
Well I'm not going to get into dissecting CR bit by bit. It's been done enough here. However, I will say that I liked Craig's Bond a great deal. Bond is back to being a kick ass bad boy for a change. I was very impresed with Craig's physicality and swagger. My wife thought the walk was a bit over done, but having seen it twice now, I thought the swagger was right on, almost a nod to Connery.
The way Bond carried his weapon in an "in the pants" holster was very good too. The most tactical way is on the hip, however behind the hip is a common compromise to concealability. Likewise, another compromise to concealability is in front of the hip with the muzzle pointing toward the groin. I've known people to carry it that way too and without the holster, very dangerous in my opinion, but also very "bad boy".
I also happened to like the main title sequence. Again it showed off the physicality of this new Bond. The end shot of Craig staring into the camera as if to say "you want some of this?" was fantastic.
I also likeed the fact that Bond was not always wearing a suit. An MI6 Agent's appearence should fit the situation. Suits when needed only.
I must say too that Mr. Craig is not the most handsome Bond, however his swagger and confidence makes you forget it. As we all know, success with women has a lot to do with confidence as anything else. Blond hair didn't matter either.
Lastly, I was a doubter and now I'm not.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
1. W000SH *BUZZ OF ELECTRICITY AND MECHANICS* WHAT WAS THAT? Oh I see, it was the gun barrel scene, hmm, where was the slightly faded Bond and swirling barrel? The usual James Bond theme tune that has lasted since the time of Connery?
I sure as hell didn't see it
So naturally…not a great start to the Bond film
Scene 1 - What the hell is this? Film Noir? Was this a flashback? A memory? Something happening in the present? A scene from Sin City? Certainly not a James bond film. I don't care if it’s a flashback (James bond shouldn't have flash backs anyway) you do not see things from the characters' points of view….you just don't ok….its not a deep meaningful story…its 007
Credits - ok I knew the song was crap…but oh well I'll live….my this is interesting, I love this 1960s colourful casino feel. And the people are nice and simple silhouettes again like the pre-Brosnan films………..there's a silhouette man…and another…and another…….where's the silhouette woman?........c'mon every James bond film has women……nope…..just men fighting to bad Coldplay kind of music.
Action scene: not bad, nice directing, nice show….pity about the 2006 mobile phones…I mean if this is a prequel to Dr No, I'm not saying its got to be pre 1962 gadgets but lets say somewhere in the late 70s to 80s yes?
If M became the NEW M during the Brosnan era than why is she in the pre Dr No era, would it be so hard to find some guy who looked like Bernard Lee?
The girls; Bond's firs Bond girl in this, the wife of one of the many villains, was stunning, she had the right entrance (on the horse) she had the style, the looks, the clothes….but she was all to done and dusted and lets face it terribly boring before we even got a chance to know her
Vesper, great character, I liked her strength mingled with the naivety, it was excellent, not too much a crime fighter, but not too much a bimbo. But she was in no comparison to the any of the past Bond Girls. La Chiffre's girlfriend could have really been something as well, she had an extremely good presence and look for the role…unfortunately she had barely any dialogue and barely any screen time….I felt that it would have been interesting to see her interact with Bond, if not act as one of his pursuits.
Villains - There's one, no there's one…no its definitely La Chiffre who's in charge…but wait…..he's working for someone else who never even mentions' Bond's name!! The eye thing is creepy…pity you only saw it bleed once or we might have had an interesting gimmick going on here
Clichés - Granted that this is set when James Bond is starting out and my not have developed his clichés yet….but this is Bond film, you need something in there to say this is James Bond! Not Mr Spy Crime Fighter!
All in all, one of the worst Bond films ever made, saved only by Daniel Craig's excellent performance
2/10
This really is one of those reviews where every point makes me think 'but I liked that about the film!'
For the most part, each to his own, but I will pick you up on what you said about the villains.
I found Le Chiffre terrifying. Why? Because he was weak, he was under pressure. He was a desperate man, low in the hierarchy. That meant he would go to desperate lengths to save his own skin, and I think that made him much more dangerous. Can you imagine Blofeld sweating and physically hurting Bond himself. No, he'd push a button.
-I thoroughly disliked it. Seriously, this is definitely the worst Bond movie ever made, and my least favorite. Daniel Craig just doesn't fit as Bond. If I want a tough guy Bond, I'll go watch TLD or LTK. Le Chiffre was an interesting villain, but he just didn't seem evil enough.
-The product placement was absolutely gratitous! Every time we see an electonic device there's a Sony logo on it! WTF?!
-The theme song sequence was good, the song was okay. The retro casino look, and the silhouettes I dig. But why break with tradition and not have the name of the movie in the theme song?
-The whole "prequel" thing just sucks. Seriously. It's nothing more than a way to start a whole new series of Bond movies.
Conclusion: Horrible movie, I don't consider it canon. The car was very cool, though.
-Vroom
Oh, and I didn't notice the film dragging even slightly second time round. Again, perhaps knowing what to expect alters that perception.
Daniel Craig has outdone himself as the newest James Bond.
(Edit: Copyright image removed)
He looked the part and played the part. I'd give casino royale a giant 007
1.Unfashionable i know but i loved the theme song and opening credits, i've been humming it all weekend.
2.I came out of DAD abit depressed and wondering whether the franchise had finally run its course. Came out of this one reinvigorated and excited cant wait for the next one!
3.I struggle to think of anything i didn't like, it was almost too good to be a Bond film if you get my meaning. Real sophisticated adult entertainment.
4. BTW my favourite Bond is Roger Moore, and i still loved it!
5. Finally, the Sunday Express gave it an excellent review this weekend, but mused whether it would appeal to the audience of 'teenage American boys' that flocked to DAD. Since i know there are some on this site id love to know your opinions. Is this kind of gritty Bond a turn off for American audiences?
I agree that there was no one part I didn't like, except for the TS. I was never bored, which is unusual because even in my favorite of Bond films there is always a boring part. Not so in this one.
Virtually all my concerns were swept away inside the first five minutes. The brutality of the fight scene and the way Bond earns his 00 status took my breath away. The fact that it was in black & white seemed just right and not "old fashioned" filmmaking. The gunbarrel and title sequence by comparison are ok, if a little uninspiring. However, I do really like the title song 'You Know My Name'.
The action set pieces are all beautifully executed and exciting to watch. I could watch the MIA sequence and the Aston Martin crash again and again and again and never get bored. My only slight criticisms would be that the Madagascar chase is a little too long. Also, the excessive use of machine guns, I am getting bored with them. I wish the producers would come up with something more novel, perhaps a sniper?
The Casino sequence is very good overall. I don't have any problem with it's overall length. I like the way it's broken up to include events away from the table. My only real complaint revolves around the defibrilator scene. It's all rather silly and OTT, the low point of the film. If that's what we get in the absence of Q then I say bring him back immediately. The stairwell fight has clear echo's of Bourne. The struggle at the bottom of the stairs is the only time where I felt the brutal realism wen't a little too far. I didn't enjoy seeing all that blood on Bond and his nemesis' legs flailing as the life was being choked away from him.
The torture scene if handled badly could have been a potential disaster. Instead, it's a triumph for Campbell, Mads Mikkelsen, and most notably Daniel Craig. The lighting, camera angles, dialogue and humour are all perfect. Craig is just superb here, especially when Bond is trying to laugh despite the intense pain he is suffering.
In terms of acting, Craig has all of Bond's attributes, except maybe the suaveness. The screen presence, the grit, the toughness, the charm and the humour are all there in abundance. Like Sean Connery in DN, he has set a benchmark which the others who follow him will be judged by. In terms of his looks, Craig remains something of an enigma to me. In some scenes he looks seriously cool, in others he looks uncool and considerably older than his 38 years. I think he's a chameleon.
As for the acting in general. It's top notch. The only complaint here would be the lack of screen time for Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter and Caterina Murino as Solange. Mads Mikkelsen stands out for me as Le Chiffre. Le Chiffre may not be a threat in terms of physique, but he does have the intelligence to outwit Bond. There is also a real hint of menace and creepiness about him which is convincingly portrayed by Mikkelsen.
Casino Royale is a really good looking film. The cinematography really stands out. Locations such as Prague, Venice and The Bahamas are made to look really good. The money really is on the screen.
I could go on about the script, the score, product placement, the ending, etc. But I will cut my losses here. Overall, Babs & Mickey's gamble has paid off handsomely, for me at least. I congratulate all involved in the making of Casino Royale. Let's now hope it gets the box office it deserves.
006 out of 007.
Thats interesting Nightshooter, I am glad to hear it. I think some English newspapers can be shockingly patronising towards American cinema goers.
I never once looked at my watch during Casino Royale (unlike DAD when i was desperate to get out). The running time really wasnt an issue for me either.
My CR review: 004
The Good?
THE FIRST HALF
Action galore. Original concepts and excellent editing (from ace editor Stuart Baird) make for some riveting action sequences. Shame that the back half of the film was so uneven.
DANIEL CRAIG
DC proves himself as an excellent James Bond and polished actor. He delivered lines which of all the actors who played the part, I could only imagine Dalton being able to give credence to. Top notch
For me, this pretty much constitutes what is good in CR
The reasons I dislike CR tend to be a little different from what I was expecting:
THE REBOOT - pointless, IMO. The black and white opening for me was simply Over The Top. Other than confirming Bond’s OO status, it doesn’t carry over into the story. We see Bond is a tough killer (but we knew that already). How does this relate to the remainder of the story? I didn’t feel it worked.
“M”
I appear to be the only one who feels Dame Judy fails miserably in this role. Part of it, to her credit, is the poor handling of the character. “M” was always a strong character, but since GE, Dench was left with a struggling and semi-ineffective beauracrat. There was a time when even the audience cowered under M’s authority, an individual who ruled his organization in Bristol-fashion. Gone are the strong bits of dialogue that made Bond feel sheepish like “Since I’ve been in charge, there’s been a drop in 00 casualties!” “Having a licence to kill is useless unless one can set up a target!” and “From this moment, your licence to kill is revoked!” These were moments that reminded us that M was the one calling the shots, but in CR, Bond acts like a rogue agent that M has no control over. All she can do is rant at underlings and wring her hands with no effect. All she does is place a little tracker in his arm - their version of a slap on the wrist, I guess - and utterly pointless as we find out in the film.
WHO IS THIS GUY?
Daniel Craig does a great job, but is it Bond? I’m not talking about looks, I’m referring to the character itself. He comes across as more of a troublemaker than troubleshooter. He hs no respect for authority, which seems highly undisciplined for a man who forges a career in the military and Secret Service. This guy wouldn’t last a day under the thumb of Bernard Lee. The literary Bond held M in high regard, almost as a father figure, but here Bond seems to make up his own rules. It’s doesn’t make sense to me.
THE LOVE STORY
A bit rushed. The character of Vesper fails. I can’t believe Bond would fall for her only because we are given no reason for him to. In the novel, she cares for him. After being tortured, Bond has serious misgivings about the life ahead of him in the service. Vesper offers something better. But this doesn’t come out in the film. And the script gives no opportunity for Eve Green to shine. She’s cold at first, weak at second, and a traitor at the third. I never saw a moment in the film that makes me say “I like this girl”. The audience needs to see what Bond sees in her to make the romance work, and the film doesn’t do that.
THE ENDING
I got a very real impression that the audience I saw the film with was very disappointed with the ending. Bond says his name, the music kicks in. Are we supposed to cheer? As the song points out at the beginning, we know his name. So what makes this significant? It really only signals that he’s not resigning from the service...and that he has somehow magically become the secret agent we have come to know. But wasn’t he before? Did his love for Vesper get him his 00 at the beginning of the film? No. Did his ability to shoot the guy in the leg make him Bond? I don’t think so. The fact that we know nothing about Mr. White makes it hard for me to see any significance of Bond’s introduction to him. Seeing Bond shooting some unarmed old man in the leg, and gloat over his soon-to-expire corpse is not the Bond of the books. Maybe if Bond didn’t sound so proud, the line would have had more gravitas but the way it was just didn’t work for me.
Don’t get me wrong, I wanted to like this movie. For me, though, it simply didn’t deliver action-wise, story-wise, or character-wise.
I had very high expectations for this picture. Having met the casting of Daniel Craig with blissful incredulity—I never, in my wildest thoughts, expected Eon to do something quite so edgy—and having been elated at the news that formula would be positively eschewed, that a new direction would be taken, and that the likes of Moneypenny and Q would be discarded, the *only* factor causing a degree of trepidation was this: Would they really do it?
They did. I cannot overemphasise just how surprising Casino Royale is. Harbouring a sneaking suspicion that cold feet would be had at the last minute I wondered just how far Babs and Mike et al would go in burying what desperately needed burying. It was, therefore, with a combination of elated shock and heavenly surprise that I watched the pre-titles sequence unfold and found myself immersed in the new, and far improved, world of 007.
What the producers have done is asked themselves the right question at the right time. Instead of asking ‘how do we make a good Bond movie?’, they have asked themselves ‘how do we make a quality picture that happens to be about James Bond?’. That these people are the those who thought that an invisible car would be a bit of a laugh, or that John Cleese *wouldn’t* be cringe worthy as Q, defies any sort of logic. Of course, one could point to, as I am sure others have, For Your Eyes Only or The Living Daylights as examples of much the same people taking an alternative direction and bringing the Bond series back to earth. And yet, the truth is that Casino Royale is *so* much more than a For Your Eyes Only, or even a The Living Daylights. Casino Royale is a different creature altogether, having abandoned the basic formula that even Dalton’s first outing adhered to. It is in a different league to most of what has gone before it ,and even those films in the same league find themselves bested by Royale’s tour de force.
At its heart, Casino Royale is a success largely down to one man: Daniel Craig. This Bond bleeds. This Bond fails. This Bond hurts. And while he bleeds and fails and hurts we feel it too: by highlighting the consequences of Bond’s actions the audience feels Bond’s pain. Daniel Craig fills the screen with an unmatched presence and pushes these attributes with a brutality to which we are completely unused: Sean Connery couldn’t do half the stuff Craig pulls off. More than that, this Bond can be despondent. This Bond self-reflects and casts a critical eye over himself. That most spectacular scene, which truly confirms that this Bond and this film are, indeed, quite different, in which Bond examines himself in the mirror after killing is without doubt a stand-out moment. There was a bit of this in Lazenby’s Bond, however Craig has taken 007 to a whole new level.
Moreover, there is a seething cruelty beneath the surface of the man; an eagerness to wound his enemies and resolve things violently. This man is a killer. He may not be ‘Fleming’s Bond’ (whoever *that* is), however he is ‘ironical, brutal, and cold.’ He is, above all, believable: I believe that this Bond is dangerous and menacing; he relies on his wits and his strength, not gadgets. At times contemptuous and at times cockily arrogant, Craig also incorporates a genuine charisma—all grim smirk and sardonic humour—and challenging intensity to bring to the fore a fascinating and seminal interpretation of the character. Even deeper than that, Craig displays a wounded vulnerability, an emotional insecurity at times, that never once steps towards the lamentable territory of ‘Insert characterisation here’. In this film Bond proves himself as an agent, and Daniel Craig proves his doubters absolutely wrong. Arbitrary as this may sound, Craig is the best Bond: Better than Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan. He is an inspiration.
Eva Green is another example of superb casting. Capturing Vesper’s character with an inner darkness and broken susceptibility—with a hard shell—Green emerges as quite possibly the best Bond girl the series has seen. A consummate intellect with a fierce outlook, Green’s Vesper proves that the most meaningful girls need not be kicking female James Bonds. Indeed, with her enigmatic attitude and emotional distance Vesper makes for compelling viewing, and the chemistry between Craig and Green in evident in bags. As beautiful as she is tortured, this Bond girl truly takes Bond’s heart. The Bond/Vesper courtship, meanwhile, is given time to flourish and breathe; finally here is a romance we can believe. Authentic and sincere, this leads to the final act being all the more cruelly tragic.
What is especially surprising is that all this emotion and vulnerability is handled with subtlety and it *feels* real. It has not just been thrown in as a hollow reference to some semblance of character development. This is the first Bond film in a long time which credits its audience with a significant level of imagination and intelligence. Yes, action exists, however a big shiny bang does not appear every five minutes and those wonderfully delicate quieter moments, which really do elevate this film above all others, are so exceptional that I struggled to believe that they were actually appearing in a Bond film. That the central piece of action is a card sequence shows the courage shown by the film-makers; that these scenes are far more gripping than other central sequences show just how essential such courage was required. In this respect Casino Royale is the most bold, fresh and daring picture ‘the family’ have ever created.
The other dramatis personæ are played with such aplomb that the card sequence has a group dynamic ensuring that the other characters do not merely sink into the background. Mads Mikkelsen has a delicious malice as Le Chiffre and it is an interesting break to see the villain being in as difficult a predicament as Bond. Gianni’s Mathis is, obviously, rather different from the book but this is no bad thing; like Wright’s Felix Mathis has a three-dimensional quality rather than a cardboard cut-out shoved in to make up the numbers. Dench’s M has the same caustic nature, however here it works far better as the relationship is different: this is a recently promoted 007 in whom she does not display a great deal of trust—or confidence.
My one concern, beyond a general feeling that the ‘team’ would not see the new direction through, was Martin Campbell as GoldenEye, however enjoyable, was not a radical departure. I doubted Campbell’s ability to execute what I thought a great and necessary idea. However, he executes it with a gusto the likes of which I sincerely did not expect. The film is elegant, classy, down right arty at times. Noirish, moody and atmospheric in the latter half Casino Royale is drenched in a melancholy aura which ensures it is an emotionally resonant film that registers a particularly deep impact.
To see real locations being used is a revelation, giving the film a feel slightly reminiscent of the early pictures. The fact that they are used well is something of a bigger surprise, however mention must be made of the gorgeous photography that gives Casino Royale that sumptuous travelogue ambience which has been sorely missing of late.
David Arnold's score was another pleasant surprise. Before the man had all the finesse of a daisy-cutter; here he lets quiet scenes be quiet, often with just a little twinge of a few piano keys. The music complements the action rather that detracting from it: Arnold sharpens the atmosphere of the pre-titles sequence considerably. Indeed, Arnold is so good and so different here that I cannot help but wonder what on earth he was thinking previously.
One esteemed reviewer of the Washington Times described Casino Royale as a return to *a* real world—not *the* real world. Obviously the events depicted are ludicrously unrealistic, however the film still has as its base a greater feeling of realism, a feeling that this *might* happen. Never is credibility stretched too far: the smaller scale and more grounded story make for a far more satisfying outing. Comparisons have been drawn with the likes of For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights and yet this is mistaken: as mentioned, Casino Royale is much more than a simple scaling down; it is an entire change of direction, a completely new start and a bold attempt to bury the accoutrements that had become supposedly integral to the cinematic James Bond. And as far as comparisons go forget any with Bourne. As enjoyable as the Matt Damon pictures are they exist in another cul de sac: this Bond, despite protestations to the contrary before its release, has class and glamour in spades.
I understand many Brosnan fans object to ‘their man’ being criticised as a means of supporting Craig, however it is only natural that the new film be contextualised by using the previous era as a term of reference. The Brosnan approach, an approach not entirely the responsibility of Mr Brosnan himself, was essentially a deconstruction of the Bond persona, so that a modern Bond, more in touch with what some called his emotions, could emerge with the attributes deemed necessary for a successful ‘new-man’ of the 1990s. In everything Daniel Craig does, his Bond seems a repudiation of this approach. It is unlikely that this is a deliberate ploy to lay to rest the Brosnan era—Craig is undoubtedly his own man—however the result is still the same. Vulnerable he may be, however Craig’s Bond is no modern day PC man: he falls in love, but women are conquests and the married ones the best.
It is still hard to believe that the producers have gone down this route when one considers Die Another Day, surely the ultimate triumph of the derivative over the daring. Be clear, this is no ‘Bond film’. This is no rechauffage of the Bond ingredients. This is a wonderfully elegant and imaginative picture with a harder edge which happens to be about James Bond. Character actually matters here. The tension and suspense are real. I almost—*almost*—feel like Keith Joseph on the brink in 1974: “I had thought I was a Conservative but I now see that I was not really one at all.” Substitute ‘Conservative’ for ‘filmBond fan’ and this would be quite an apt description of my feelings since Friday evening. This is like Dr No all over again—only better.
James Bond is dead. Long live James Bond.
Fr : Commander Hammond Egorunamuck
Sir,
It is with singular regret to tender my resignation from Her Majesty's Secret Service, pursuant to the following (kind note, unlike the resignation of my good colleague and even better friend, Commander James Bond, this document is irrevocable and even final) :
Advisory. The latest screen incarnation of Cmdr. Bond, codename "Casino Royale" drops far below par from BOTH James' excellent biographies and the screen romanticisms.
A. The Literary James Bond
* "Saturnine sense of humour" -- a description used by Cmdr. Fleming. Although it is a popular myth that James is a cold flounder without a trace of humour, it is diamond clear that he evinces a wonderful, trenchant sense of cheerfulness (one of his favourite words, I believe)from the second book onwards. A few examples :
* In "Live and Let Die" James and Felix are nearly a comedic team, playing off one another. James' sense of life is keenly felt in his raised-eyebrowed descriptions of American culture. When Fleming was writing the sequence of naked Solitaire and James tied like newsprint(lucky fish indeed), she says, "I didn't want it to be like this." Noel Coward read it, asking, "You're not going to leave it like this!" Fleming, with tears of laughter, said, "Yes!!!"
* In the Blofeld trilogy, James' wit builds with each operation, from TB > OHMSS > YOLT. OHMSS has plenty of "splitting sides" (another James favourite)scenes. Note his resignation letter, "Neat that. Perhaps too neat!" or "Hm. Irma not so la douce!" or Griffin Orr : "Hm. Hm. Hm. Three balls!" No doubt James was rolling in his flat that evening recalling that.
* In YOLT, even the half-broken Bond in the beginning still retains his irony -- "Where do bees corpses go when they die?" James with Tiger, like with Felix, is a classic team, their repartee building to a firm friendship. Until James realises that Dr Shatterhand is Blofeld, their banter is continuous; Tiger is shocked in the change of his darkly cheerful friend to the cold avenger. The first chapter with the Geishas is hilarious. Dikko Henderson escalates the fun.
* Let us not forget operation Thunderball, as we laugh at James' agonies at Shrublands (at least we did at HQ), his meeting with Domino ("Bitch!")and again with Felix, who remarks, "I'm strictly a chocolate sailor."
B. The Screen 007
* As we can net from even a blink to the books, Commander Bond's humour did not originate with the films. James retains his cheek throughout his career, (a book observes that he is just "a simple peasant" looking forward to his chicken farm when he's put to pasture). Through four decades the screen James is simply a big boy, albeit a very tough, smart and lucky boy. He does not live in a world of blood and spilt guts. If even a simple punch-up were depicted 'realistically' James' face would be mishapen for a month! If the CR 'realistic' violence continues to the next mission, James will be dead midway through the story.
Two Lines of Demarcation
1. When James is asked, "Shaken or stirred?" One camp cheers, the other groans. Die Mister Bond! No more bespoke suits for you! Nor broken sommeliers. Instead of mock elegance, we'll get our Double Os at the gym's steroid section.
2. "Who will cry for a Commander?" One might well ask. Finally, James has been stripped of his RNVR status, a penultimate insult. Instead he is a Rambo-Terminator, a machine Jason Bourne -- so much so that the two JBs are interchangeable. But instead of protests from Double Os at this most horrific of slaps, we get "Here! Here!" Not a biggie, as the Americans say.
James Bond has not been re-born, he has been re-killed -- You only die twice, Mr Bond -- by the Antibond, in the sense of 1. against and 2. Instead of. (One of the Pope's official titles is Vicarius Filii Dei, "Instead of the Son of God.") The Antibond has slipped into the shoes of the real Bond, and has been accepted by many as the one, true Commander James Bond, RNVR, CMG. Like the Antichrist, "even the very elect shall be deceived." But it is no longer the authentic Bond of the books or screen, but a counterfeit.
In light of the above, Sir, I beg you to accept this resignation forthwith and endit.
Your obedient servant,
Once Commander Eggy, 0077
______________________
"Surely, you're joking!!?"
"Don't call me Shirley."
Good! Then don't bother coming back for the next 5 years or so then, because we have a new Bond in town, and he is here to stay......:v
Er, you must have missed all that stuff in the casino then. I cannot say I recall Jason Bourne dressed up and playing some high-stakes cards. Casino Royale does have a wonderful sense of glamour, elegance and exoticism and while it may be fairly easy to dismiss the film as a BourneBond attempt this is not based on the film itself.
Very witty, Commander, however I disagree vehemently with all points of argument in your post. I should imagine your resignation shall be accepted.
Good! Then don't bother coming back for the next 5 years or so then, because we have a new Bond in town, and he is here to stay......:v[/quote]
Oh my god people are already getting so defensive at the travesty that was Casino Royale - The Times said it better than I can and I quote:
suspect that when all the hype dies down, people will see
what a disappointing film Casino Royale is. Despite
updating Ian Fleming’s 1953 novel and replacing
communist agents with terrorists, the film has no relation
to the world we live in. Nor does it offer a fantasy of a
glamorous world we would like to escape to. It’s neither an
exciting thriller nor an interesting study in character. And
there is no memorable iconic moment featuring Bond, his
baddies or his beauties, the kind that you take home from
the cinema and that stays with you.
Casino Royale, Two stars
12A, 144 mins
I agree
the worst Bond fim (if you want to call it a Bod film) EVER!
its awful!
Let's try and be polite to one another.When we disagree,we can make a point of disagreeing agreeably, and show some respect for opposing viewpoints.
Carry on...
* The pre-credit sequence is too short and they put most of it in the trailer. What happened to the cricket match? I said on another thread recently that Daniel Kleinman was better than Maurice Binder. After seeing the Casino Royale titles I take that back and would like to apologise to the late Mr Binder. I won't comment on the song again. Enough has been said about that.
* The first half of the film is a Pierce Brosnan film without Pierce Brosnan. I'm not saying Brosnan could have stepped straight in but it could have been adjusted. The second half of the film is very different and a big departure from what we are used to seeing.
* The Miami Airport scene felt as tacked on as the ski-chase in TWINE.
* Eva Green was bland as Vesper. She seemed to twitch after every line of dialogue and her banter with Craig fizzled out very quickly. At times she looked so young that she could pass for Craig's daughter. The film is nearly over when Bond decides that he loves Vesper. I cared much more about Lazenby and Diana Rigg in OHMSS.
* The shower scene was an unexpectedly touching moment and my favourite in the film.
* Wilson and Branson cameos-Ugh!
* Bond puts the tux on
* Mads dull as Le Chiffre. I struggled to understand a word he was saying early on. Robert Davi is still the last memorable villain in the Bond series.
* Poker scenes. I didn't find them as long as some of the critics but I wouldn't exactly say I was gripping my seat. I liked the shower scene but the other bits worked in around the game were a bit artificial. In the knife fight for example I could barely make out what was happening. I missed the traditional suave, handsome Bond in the card game.
* A preview of this film I saw somewhere said it had 'a car chase to rival the one in Ronin'. Where was this car chase? I didn't se it.
* Judi Dench. M's office now seems to be a broom cupboard with a bunch of hotshot whizzkids outside waiting for an emergency. Whenever I saw her I expected Pierce Brosnan to walk into the room.
* I didn't laugh once during the whole film. Not one laugh out loud line or joke.
* Didn't feel like a James Bond film. Arnold's score was forgettable. Although the photography was good. Campbell made the film look better than GE.
* Daniel Craig. I didn't buy Craig as Bond at all. He is called 'James' once or twice in the film and it doesn't ring true. Paul Morley summed up my feeling. He said that you feel that Craig's 'character' might have met James Bond once very fleetingly, perhaps in a corridor or something, but you never believe he is the real thing. Craig spits out his dialogue under his breath in a permanently amused with himself sarcastic manner and it grates very quickly. He has one chance to overact and boy does he take it. There is a moment (after Bond has asked the swiss bloke if he brought any chocolate) when Craig mugs for a second to get a laugh. It's painful. On the whole he is restrained and ok but he's in the wrong film. He's too ordinary to be James Bond. He looks small in some of the fight scenes and doesn't command the screen. If they want me to believe this is Fleming's Bond they might have cast someone who looks like him. I thought Craig looked terible in the PTS and last shot of the titles. There are moments in this film when he looks like a waxwork dummy. He looked like a diminutive nightclub bouncer crammed into a ill-fitting suit in the last scene. He also looks too old for the rookie agent angle
thing and comes off as slightly stupid.
* Overall, the least fun I have ever had at a James Bond film. I love OHMSS, love Timothy Dalton, found this pretty tedious. Craig is not my cup of tea at all. Call me shallow but I've never got over the way he looks. I left the cinema feeling bored and flat.
* I don't know if this is an eccentric opinion but now that I've seen the film I honestly think young Cavill might have worked in this...
I even disagree about the shower scene: am I the only one who found the finger-sucking thing a tiny bit odd?
I disagree with what you say, arthur, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (who was it said that?)
I found it creepy...and I would have a hard time falling in love with someone who enjoys sucking blood from my fingernails.
I too don't agree with one thing Arthur says. Just goes to show that you cannot win everyone over (even though Craig practically has by the looks of things)....
Sorry guys, it was a superb action flick without much Bond residue. Oh, of course the story showed flashes of what I hoped to see in a regular 007 picture but something was missing for me to make the experience all the more pleasurable and I'm not talking about Q or Moneypenny not showing up...although that pains me.
Let me be man enough to say, after naysaying so long, that Daniel Craig is a very good actor who grasped this role with both hands and did a commendable job as "said" 007.
Please understand that for me, Craig will be an acquired taste to adjust to in the way of oatmeal(which I hate) or God awful okra. He seemed intent of delivering a good Bond and for the masses it appears that he's succeeded. It may take me awhile to get around his looks but I'll give the man his due...
The story and action were pretty good; I felt that it wasn't balanced enough but considering that the powers that be had to liven up the action-nilled novel, I give then kudos.
I was disappointed with the pre-teaser because it felt a little short or not edited right or something and was one of the reasons I rushed to check out the film in the first place. Started out good but ended pretty numb.
That little "heart" sequence felt a little stupid and out of place to me. I was expecting the gun cane which I though might work well for this but perhaps that's just me.
Craig had his Connery-like moments but some of his close pans were just ugh
My favorite part was the ending(no pun intended). To hear the music build and see Craig deliver the line after pluggin' Mr. White in the leg while standing over him, was just classic. This is the best Bond? film I've seen since LTK. Goldeneye was excellent but a bit watered down by comparison to CR, it would appear that the Broccolis should've hired Haggis long before now to clean up P&W's handiwork...Martin Campbell did fairly better his second time out but nothing Oscar-worthy...
P.S. Did anyone else think that it was funny when those agents zapped Mathis and casually exited him from the lawns?
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -