Hey! Not a review but is more of my breif view on the film.
CASINO ROYALE IS EXCELLENT!
To me CR has brought back the franchise, its is remarkably good, it has opened so many doors for the series, and in the last scene when bond said the three immortal words "bond, james bond" it sent shivers down my spine and the hairs on my neck pringed up! Daniel Craig is superb, can't wait untill 2008, its too far away!
Three scenes highlight this very very special Bond movie:
Scene 1: Bond shoots a guy and while removing the silencer from his gun,gives a slanted, vicious look at the fallen man and says/mutters
"considerably" - that sent a shiver up my spine!
Scene 2: Bond drives with his looks focussed on the road, determined, yetdeadly cool and then suddenly sees his woman lying bound hand and feet,
right in the middle of the road - Bond swerves to avoid her, and the car somersaults several times - just before, he swerves the car, the look on
Bond's face says it all - a perfect blend of shock + puzzlement!
Scene 3:Bond has just tried to rescue the woman he had fallen in love with, and who had betrayed him, and she is dead - and speaking to M over phone, calls his woman a "bit*h" - cold, detached,
indifferent!
No mischeivous glint in his eyes, no naughty
smirks, no overt sarcasm - just plain deadpan humor, and an 'up y*urs' attitude on his shoulders!
Welcome Mr.Daniel Craig! I would not say you are a perfect replacement for Mr.Brosnan - rather you have filled in the shoes left empty by one Mr.Timothy Dalton!
I just saw CR for a second time. I gave it a great review the first time, but I changed my mind
:v Here's why:
This film was way too suspenseful. There should have been more comedy relief to ease the tension. For example, when Bond swerves the Aston Martin to avoid hitting Vesper, they should have showed the car spinning in slow motion as it crashed, with a Beach Boys song like "Good Vibrations" or "Fun Fun Fun" playing in the backgound.
Just to remind us that Bond is immortal and we needn't worry that he is ever actually in any danger. When Bond makes a joke, it should be a very obvious and bad one, delivered with raised brows and eye twinkles so we don't miss out on the fact that he's just joking.
This Bond is too tough and gritty. He bleeds and sweats and shows too much emotion. We should never worry that Bond would actually get hurt. He should be safely tucked away in the seat of a Q-equipped futuristic vehicle, wearing a clean white tux, calmly pushing buttons and destroying everything around him while delivering corny one-liners and checking the rear-view mirror to make sure his hair isn't getting messed up. Bond should never actually put any effort into getting the job done. That's why he has Q.
There weren't enough Q gizmos. If Bond had had his X-ray glasses, he could have read LeChiffre's poker hands straightaway and not have to borrow that extra cash from Felix Leiter. This would have made the film much shorter. If he had his magnetic wristwatch from LALD, he could have pulled that elevator out of the water with it.
There should have been at least one car chase with Bond driving something besides a car: like half a car, half a double-decker bus, a fortified mini-helicopter, a stolen jet, a gondola on wheels, a fire engine, a tank, a motorcycle, a boat that travels across land, a camel, an elephant, a lunar rover, a hovercraft, or something like that.
There weren't enough bikini-clad bimbos. LeChiffre should have had a harem full of them lounging around in his futuristic lair. Not that they would be necessary for the plot, mind you, but some of us aren't ready for REAL porno yet.
And this LeChiffre villain... why isn't he blackmailing the world with stolen nuclear weapons or a killer satellite or trying to start World War III?? Why doesn't he live in a space station or a volcano or a giant undersea mushroom or something like that? He doesn't even own an island!
Bond should never really fall in love. Didn't he learn that mistake in OHMSS? The Bond we know and love just acts like he's in love with the leading Bond girl so he can do her in a boat or a space capsule or under a parachute at the end of the movie. Then she is quickly forgotten before the next film begins.
The ending was all wrong. Everybody knows that a Bond movie climaxes with Bond blowing up the villain's fortess with Bond dragging his babe from the wreckage as balls of flame explode all around him. Didn't the screenwriters see the first 20 films??? Why should this one be any different? This film was way too unpredictable.
Worst of all... they changed the gun barrel sequence! I really wanted to see that same old gun barrel sequence I've seen 2100 times before (with the few slight changes over the years). This one was TOTALLY DIFFERENT! Oh well, at least we know they can't use it again in the next film! Maybe they'll have to come up with a different one in every film now. That'll teach 'em! Or they'll just go back to the same old one we're used to seeing over and over again when we see the old films on DVD or TV. That would be cool!
Yes, if you're a true Bond fan like me who hates the Fleming novels and early Connery films (before they became more like self-satirical sci-fi Austin Powers comedies) you are really going to hate Casino Royale.
By all means, boycott it. You would only be wasting space in the theater anyway.
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 won't say that it was terrible, but it just didn't feel like a James Bond movie. The airport scene felt like I was watching a Die Hard movie. LeChiffre is a punk ass for a villian. How are you going to be a villian/banker for terrorism and not have at least three 250 pound bodyguards around you at all times? And then let two dudes roll up in your hotel room and punk you. Daniel Craig can do the rough and tough stuff, but his acting is suspect. He reminds me of Hayden Christiansen as Anakin in Episode III. They both can do the "dark" scenes, but when it comes down to nitty-gritty acting, they can't pull it off. To me, a Bond girl has to be someone that I don't see on a daily basis. Eva Green is average looking. You can find better looking women at the local mall. I believe that most people who have praised this film are caught up into the hype. I was a little bit. So I decided to watch it two more times to get a better understanding of it. Craig needs to work on being more suave, smooth and sophisticated. I don't like this Tranporter-type Bond. The fighting and rough stuff is easy. The acting and making the audience believe you're Bond. He has to get rid of that Terminator-style running. There's no natural look to his running scenes. I don't expect him to run like Reggie Bush, but damn. How can he be praised for being gritty and natural and his running looks rehearsed? I will say thats its good to see a Bond in good shape. I won't hate on this guy totally. I believe he needs one more film to get it right.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
He has to get rid of that Terminator-style running. There's no natural look to his running scenes. I don't expect him to run like Reggie Bush, but damn. How can he be praised for being gritty and natural and his running looks rehearsed?
And I thought that I was the only one thinking he resembled Robert Patrick in his running scenes... )
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I just saw CR for a second time. I gave it a great review the first time, but I changed my mind
:v Here's why:
This film was way too suspenseful. There should have been more comedy relief to ease the tension. For example, when Bond swerves the Aston Martin to avoid hitting Vesper, they should have showed the car spinning in slow motion as it crashed, with a Beach Boys song like "Good Vibrations" or "Fun Fun Fun" playing in the backgound.
Just to remind us that Bond is immortal and we needn't worry that he is ever actually in any danger. When Bond makes a joke, it should be a very obvious and bad one, delivered with raised brows and eye twinkles so we don't miss out on the fact that he's just joking.
This Bond is too tough and gritty. He bleeds and sweats and shows too much emotion. We should never worry that Bond would actually get hurt. He should be safely tucked away in the seat of a Q-equipped futuristic vehicle, wearing a clean white tux, calmly pushing buttons and destroying everything around him while delivering corny one-liners and checking the rear-view mirror to make sure his hair isn't getting messed up. Bond should never actually put any effort into getting the job done. That's why he has Q.
There weren't enough Q gizmos. If Bond had had his X-ray glasses, he could have read LeChiffre's poker hands straightaway and not have to borrow that extra cash from Felix Leiter. This would have made the film much shorter. If he had his magnetic wristwatch from LALD, he could have pulled that elevator out of the water with it.
There should have been at least one car chase with Bond driving something besides a car: like half a car, half a double-decker bus, a fortified mini-helicopter, a stolen jet, a gondola on wheels, a fire engine, a tank, a motorcycle, a boat that travels across land, a camel, an elephant, a lunar rover, a hovercraft, or something like that.
There weren't enough bikini-clad bimbos. LeChiffre should have had a harem full of them lounging around in his futuristic lair. Not that they would be necessary for the plot, mind you, but some of us aren't ready for REAL porno yet.
And this LeChiffre villain... why isn't he blackmailing the world with stolen nuclear weapons or a killer satellite or trying to start World War III?? Why doesn't he live in a space station or a volcano or a giant undersea mushroom or something like that? He doesn't even own an island!
Bond should never really fall in love. Didn't he learn that mistake in OHMSS? The Bond we know and love just acts like he's in love with the leading Bond girl so he can do her in a boat or a space capsule or under a parachute at the end of the movie. Then she is quickly forgotten before the next film begins.
The ending was all wrong. Everybody knows that a Bond movie climaxes with Bond blowing up the villain's fortess with Bond dragging his babe from the wreckage as balls of flame explode all around him. Didn't the screenwriters see the first 20 films??? Why should this one be any different? This film was way too unpredictable.
Worst of all... they changed the gun barrel sequence! I really wanted to see that same old gun barrel sequence I've seen 2100 times before (with the few slight changes over the years). This one was TOTALLY DIFFERENT! Oh well, at least we know they can't use it again in the next film! Maybe they'll have to come up with a different one in every film now. That'll teach 'em! Or they'll just go back to the same old one we're used to seeing over and over again when we see the old films on DVD or TV. That would be cool!
Yes, if you're a true Bond fan like me who hates the Fleming novels and early Connery films (before they became more like self-satirical sci-fi Austin Powers comedies) you are really going to hate Casino Royale.
By all means, boycott it. You would only be wasting space in the theater anyway.
) ) ) ) )
Great sarcasm is THE most underappreciated art form.
WE HAVE A WINNER! I deem this the funniest post I have ever read on AJB, displacing a similar post that Napoleon Plural wrote on Dr. No way back in 2003 (yes, I remember these things). I am literally wiping tears off my face as I type.
{[] CLASSIC review, Johnny!!! You've hit on everything that is wrong with CR, except one thing: what about M, Johnny? Why was Judi Dench playing M instead of Bernard Lee? He died, but it wasn't until after Moonraker ... But since CR is a prequel, why didn't he play M? ... I don't get it ... It doesn't make any sense. I'm getting dizzy ... My head is going to explode ... help me ...
I mean, clearly, that nightclub bouncer guy with marbles in his mouth and the dead eyes is Fleming's vision, born to play the part.
Hey, this sarcasm thing is fun...
Sarcasm is only fun if what you are saying defines the exact opposite of what the truth is. You have just stated the obvious truth right there. Craig was born to play the part......:007)
I just watched it and was bloody briliant. It's great that 007 is "down to earth" again. No greater than life superhero, just a secret agent who' s doing his job like a coldhearted professional. And a range of emotions that Bond express, while keeping his professional edge is brightest point of movie. And this movie have it a lot..
Bond should never really fall in love. Didn't he learn that mistake in OHMSS?
Yes, if you're a true Bond fan like me who hates the Fleming novels and early Connery films (before they became more like self-satirical sci-fi Austin Powers comedies) you are really going to hate Casino Royale.
Bond fell in love in Casino Royale way, way before OHMSS, and ive never met a 'true Bond fan' who 'hates' Flemings work and the early Connery films!8-)
{[] CLASSIC review, Johnny!!! You've hit on everything that is wrong with CR, except one thing: what about M, Johnny? Why was Judi Dench playing M instead of Bernard Lee? He died, but it wasn't until after Moonraker ... But since CR is a prequel, why didn't he play M? ... I don't get it ... It doesn't make any sense. I'm getting dizzy ... My head is going to explode ... help me ...
Oh, god, now I'm wiping tears. You guys are so hilarious. Oh, having trouble breathing... It's TOO funny, I can't take it.
Okay, I'm alright now.
Arthur: You nailed it perfectly, and aticulated my reaction much better than I have. Well done. You're so right about the brevity and editing of the PTS being a bad omen of the flatness to come. Of course we're both just philistine idiots who know nothing of the REAL Bond. I mean, clearly, that nightclub bouncer guy with marbles in his mouth and the dead eyes is Fleming's vision, born to play the part.
Hey, this sarcasm thing is fun...
Oh Ben, for heavens sake, relax. I loved Johnny's post for some of the cartoonish imagery it conjured up and the dry way he wrote it -- that's all. I'm not idiot enough to imagine everyone likes CR as much as I do (or even likes it at all), nor do I condone shout-downs of those with differing views. Chill.
A note to highhopes, Johnny Danger, Arthur Pringle, and benskelly:
Can we please refrain from attacking other people's tastes in Bond? Different people have different visions of Bond; some people think that CR fits it, some don't. And that's fine: this is a big Bond universe. Whether you liked CR or not, please respect other people's visions, and don't say that what other people want that conflicts with what you want isn't "real Bond." Thank you.
Personally, I think Bond can fit many things. Fleming in text certainly casts a very wide net in terms of what we can expect Bond to look like and what we can expect him to be character-wise. And to say that we've been given a wide purview in terms of the cinematic Bond is an understatement. In my view, Daniel Craig is the 6th in a long line of actors who have been expertly cast in the role of James Bond. I enjoy his interpretation best, and he best fits what I view to be the Literary 007. I understand others disagree with me, and that's fine.
Spectreisland and I just caught the film today. Overall I enjoyed it quite a bit and I happily retract many of my earlier misgivings about both Craig and the movie in general.
I thought Craig acquitted himself quite nicely. His performance struck me as what Lazenby might have been after in OHMSS had he been a better actor at the time. Lookswise he looked fine on film other than a few disconcerting shots (primarily when he's coming out of the water). He's really short on humor, nor does he display any of the wit of his predecessors. And other than his scenes with Vesper in the 3rd act, he's pretty much all business all the time. As such, it really is pointless to compare him to his predecessors as the interpretation is so different from what came before and the character himself is realized very differently. It is similarly pointless to call CR the best (or worst) Bond film made; it is in many ways a reimagining of the series and it doesn't negate my enjoyment of the past 20 films in the slightest.
The PTS was a bit short and pretty straightforward; no big thrills but it accomplished what it set out to do, which is tell us how Bond gets his 00 status. I miss the gunbarrel logo at the start but like the way it was worked into the PTS. The blood did look wrong though, maybe they'll fix it for the DVD.
I actually liked the title song and opening credits quite a bit within the context of the film. For me, they worked well together and the playing card motif was a refreshing change of pace from the high tech credits of the past few movies. Also, despite statements to the contrary, I did hear parts of the Bond theme as incidental music throughout the film; it was much more subtle than when it blares at the end but it is definitely there.
The supporting cast was very good. Eva Green was a very sympathetic Vesper and even though she was a little hard to understand at times her final fate did strike an emotional chord. Giancarlo Giannini was great as Mathis and had some of the best lines. And Jeffrey Wright was very good as Felix, even though he didn't have a lot to do; I loved his line about "Do we look like we need the money". I had really criticized his casting and apologize wholeheartedly having now seen what he can do. Mads was also very good as LeChiffre, suitably sleazy and self-serving. I did not notice any homosexual undercurrents to his performance as others have stated. Lastly, the scene of Michael Wilson being handcuffed and hauled away was most welcome.
As to what didn't work too well for me, firstly I thought the big action setpieces fell kind of flat. Maybe it was the emphasis on story and character but they did feel tacked on and almost unnecessary given the story. Solange's screen time was much too brief; really a shame since she is such a knockout (and she really knows how to dismount a horse). The middle act in the casino did go a bit long; it held my attention but I don't know how it will hold up to repeated viewings. LeChiffre's demise, even though it is the same as the book, is somewhat unsatisfying from the standpoint that Bond is really no more than an observer. The third act with Bond and Vesper cementing their relationship may likewise start to feel long in the tooth after a few viewings. In short, the movie shares a lot of the structural pitfalls of the book.
Overall, I still prefer the OTT spectacles to a more character oriented film like this. But I get what they were trying to do and now that they got to make it, hopefully they will bring back a little more spectacle and humor for Bond 22.
Most people here will probably disagree with me, but I still feel like writing down my thoughts about the new movie!
Hey, it was a good movie, 7.5/10!
But was it a James Bond movie? I can't consider this at all being a Bond film. It just hasn't to do anything at all with James Bond. So as Bond movie it is probably a 001 for me!
Yes, yes, things need a change and blabla... but literally everything that makes out the real James Bond has been taken away in this movie!
The start of the film was okay, it doesn't really bother me whether or not there are girl silhouettes in the opener. The chasing scene is also well made and the part in the embassy is still quite enjoyable.
Daniel Craig played very well, but he just doesn't fit in the picture as James Bond. He's missing the whole Bond style in my opinion.
Okay, the movie might be more realistic than others, but that's not really what a James Bond is about for me. It has to be fun and enteretaining and I'm expecting to see things never seen before in a Bond movie. I did indeed see new things, but nothing thrilling at all, just boring Casino/Love scenes for 30 minutes each...
Daniel Craig has a bloody face in each 3rd scene and he gets tortured while attached naked to a chair. On top of that he gets his life saved atleast twice by Vesper? Also, He doesn't have any clever tricks or cool gadgets (not to mention that Q is somehow totally missing) which get him out of tough situations!
I'm not saying these are bad things about a movie, but it's just not James Bond at all.
The villains - do they even have a real plan? I had the impression it's all just about a few millions. Le Chiffre doesn't have any style at all either and then he ends up getting randomly shot by some guy that suddently walks through the door...?
Is there a big plot in the movie? No.. oh yea there is, Vesper turns her back on James - WOW!
Last but not least, where is the big fighting scene at the end? I was looking forward to this during the whole movie and what do I get? a little shooting around in a crumbling down house.. mmkay!
Maybe those 'and once again the world is saved by James Bond'-scenes are be a bit lame, but for me it's something that just belongs to the movie! These might be scenes you already see coming, yet they make you smile and say 'good old James'..
All in all it wasn't a bad movie, but it surely wasn't a James Bond to me. I really can't see how some people can consider this as the best Bond film ever =|
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
edited November 2006
I had to check this film out again to make sure that I wasn't on some sort of sugar high; the movie is Batman Begins in a tux. I love it; it just doesn't feel quite like a Bond flick.
I just hope that the follow-up returns to some of the staples of the traditional formula. I am slowly conditioning myself to Craig; he's not Sean level but he's damn close. Last Bond to be this physical was Lazenby and that's a good thing.
My son thought that it was even cooler the second time around (nine years old and understood it without getting bored) and we're both awaiting 2008...well of course the DVD for this first.
{[]
The Bond girl who looked even less appealing than Green to us was LeChiffre's girlfriend... WOOF!
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
It's a shame that the one iconic English character which we can feel genuinely proud
of, and which makes the rest of the world slightly upset they weren't born an
Englishman looks like a charmless big-issue vendor. Surely there are English actors
who combine strength and sex appeal? No doubt he was 'fantastic' in Our Friends in
the North and 'smoldering' in some BBC Mr Darcy role, but any self respecting Bond
Girl would die laughing if our Shrek-a-like hero tried his luck in an obviously
out-of-character monkey suit.
A note to highhopes, Johnny Danger, Arthur Pringle, and benskelly:
Can we please refrain from attacking other people's tastes in Bond? Different people have different visions of Bond; some people think that CR fits it, some don't. And that's fine: this is a big Bond universe. Whether you liked CR or not, please respect other people's visions, and don't say that what other people want that conflicts with what you want isn't "real Bond." Thank you.
Personally, I think Bond can fit many things. Fleming in text certainly casts a very wide net in terms of what we can expect Bond to look like and what we can expect him to be character-wise. And to say that we've been given a wide purview in terms of the cinematic Bond is an understatement. In my view, Daniel Craig is the 6th in a long line of actors who have been expertly cast in the role of James Bond. I enjoy his interpretation best, and he best fits what I view to be the Literary 007. I understand others disagree with me, and that's fine.
Well, in my sarcastic/satire of a review, I wasn't really implying that anybody who disagreed
with my taste in Bond films was not a "true Bond fan." I was really spoofing some previous reviews, especially one page 4 of this thread who began her review by implying that anyone who liked CR is not a true Bond fan, and I chuckled as I read many of her reasons.
If I've learned nothing else from these forums in the past year, there are at least two different camps of Bond fans who feel very strongly about what they like and dislike about the Bond films. Basically, some people like a realistic, gritty, down-to-earth Bond; others like the more far-fetched, lighthearted, over-the-top Bonds. I really wouldn't want to seriously imply that one camp is more "true fan" than the other. I've enjoyed all of the various interpretations of the Bond universe over the years, despite cringing numerous times in the '70's and '80's, but obviously I like some eras better than others.
I don't intend to "attack" anybody, but I find it hard to explain why I think something is good without comparing it with what I think is bad. If people want to explain why they think Brosnan is a better Bond than Craig, that's fine with me. I won't take it personally. I liked Brosnan a lot, but now that I've seen Craig, I like him better, and I don't think Brosnan fans should feel "attacked" if I explain why by comparing the two.
'Casino Royale', to my mind, belongs among a family of more serious Bonds which includes FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO and LTK. In their day, OHMSS and LTK seemed to be pushing at the boundaries of the established formula, so the fact that CR is doing this too shouldn't worry anyone unduly.
I loved the way that this film adapts the Fleming novel and places it in a contemporary setting... CR becomes the most faithful cinematic adaptation of a Fleming title since 1969. Okay, we don't have a Moneypenny or a Q this time... but we have a Mathis (one of Fleming's recurring characters) for the first time in the cinema (he's well-cast, too)... and we have a rebooted Leiter (proving that, all these years after NSNA, audiences can still be surprised by a Leiter being black). We also have some very effective cinematic interpretations of original Fleming situations which, until about a year ago, I'd never have imagined that we'd get to see on screen in all their raw power. Fleming's Bond / Vesper relationship is especially well-handled and played for all its worth. The world of James Bond in the cinema has just been nuanced, stretched and deepened in a way which was long overdue.
The two major action sequences in the first half of the film - in Africa and at the airport - are breathtaking, with fantastic effects and stunt work, but they seem a little out of place in the context of the Fleming adaptation (which really kicks in with the introduction of Vesper). These two set pieces, in particular, make Bond look like a superhuman superhero again... which shows that even now a Bond film can't just ignore the legacy of the Lewis Gilbert YOLT / TSWLM / 'Moonraker' versions of 007!
Craig is a fine actor who deliberately moves his character, over the course of the film, from being a thug-like "blunt instrument" towards becoming a more vulnerable person... but he never loses sight of Bond's essential role as an assassin. Craig's Bond isn't as 'human' as Dalton's, or as immediately accessible as Brosnan's, but he's more rounded than any of the others and, probably, the closest we've had to Fleming's conception of the character. (I know it's a bit of a cliche to say that about a latest Bond actor, but I genuinely think this is so.) Craig even looks a bit like Fleming... and he certainly has the "pale grey-blue eyes" and the "rather cruel mouth."
The idea of rebooting Bond means that the in-joke which the film series has traded on ever since the 60s... that Bond has a long history within a loose continuity which makes him a kind of celebrity in his own world... is no longer available - although it is sort of resurrected in the closing moments of the film. (Incidentally, the sadistic way in which Bond walks up to the wounded Mr. White and introduces himself - with the shot of his walking feet as he approaches - put me very much in mind of Connery's approach towards 'Marie' in the pre-credits sequence of DAF - including the footage of Connery's feet, as used only in the DAF trailer: my heart was uplifted by this recognition, and there are actually numerous other examples of subtle back-referencing to the film series throughout CR.)
This was a great film... and a great Bond film, too. Campbell has done something special with Craig's debut, just as he did with Brosnan's. But let's re-stabilise some of the more familiar conventions next time around, and put the gunbarrel sequence back in its rightful place!
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
Most people here will probably disagree with me, but I still feel like writing down my thoughts about the new movie!
Hey, it was a good movie, 7.5/10!
But was it a James Bond movie? I can't consider this at all being a Bond film. It just hasn't to do anything at all with James Bond. So as Bond movie it is probably a 001 for me!
Yes, yes, things need a change and blabla... but literally everything that makes out the real James Bond has been taken away in this movie!
The start of the film was okay, it doesn't really bother me whether or not there are girl silhouettes in the opener. The chasing scene is also well made and the part in the embassy is still quite enjoyable.
Daniel Craig played very well, but he just doesn't fit in the picture as James Bond. He's missing the whole Bond style in my opinion.
Okay, the movie might be more realistic than others, but that's not really what a James Bond is about for me. It has to be fun and enteretaining and I'm expecting to see things never seen before in a Bond movie. I did indeed see new things, but nothing thrilling at all, just boring Casino/Love scenes for 30 minutes each...
Daniel Craig has a bloody face in each 3rd scene and he gets tortured while attached naked to a chair. On top of that he gets his life saved atleast twice by Vesper? Also, He doesn't have any clever tricks or cool gadgets (not to mention that Q is somehow totally missing) which get him out of tough situations!
I'm not saying these are bad things about a movie, but it's just not James Bond at all.
The villains - do they even have a real plan? I had the impression it's all just about a few millions. Le Chiffre doesn't have any style at all either and then he ends up getting randomly shot by some guy that suddently walks through the door...?
Is there a big plot in the movie? No.. oh yea there is, Vesper turns her back on James - WOW!
Last but not least, where is the big fighting scene at the end? I was looking forward to this during the whole movie and what do I get? a little shooting around in a crumbling down house.. mmkay!
Maybe those 'and once again the world is saved by James Bond'-scenes are be a bit lame, but for me it's something that just belongs to the movie! These might be scenes you already see coming, yet they make you smile and say 'good old James'..
All in all it wasn't a bad movie, but it surely wasn't a James Bond to me. I really can't see how some people can consider this as the best Bond film ever =|
Hi i tend to agree with what you have said here.I went to see the film expecting the worse and as a Bond film(that's my interpretation of Bond)it wasn't.It was another action movie,ok watchable but not exciting.
Wait for it,i was against Craig and he was better than i thought he would be and better than the film its self.I found him amusing but as some one said above Batman in a tux.
Im glad so many loved it but i found it a hollow shell of a film,which i know it was meant to be as a reboot.To me it had no depth and it felt like it was going to end then abit more happened then end again then another bit and so on,i was actually bored at the end as nothing dramatic occured.I was hoping for something exciting,dramatic that over whelming feeling you get in a "Bond" movie,all the way through it but nothing.
I saw it with my Brother and he felt the same as me but in all honesty i would like to watch it again just in case i have missed something great.
The best bit for me was Craig's portrayal of the humour,he made me laugh and M was alot funnier when she was supposed to be a harder M.
Overall the humour kept me watching nothing else.
* 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...
Arthur, Darenhat , Cmdr Egornuamuck and benskelly : you have summed up wonderfully the way I feel about this movie. So I won't have to write yet another long post )
I have now finished watching CR for the third time. And not because I liked it. It hasn't been released here in Italy yet, but a girl always has her ways to get what she wants.
I have finished watching it for the third time in vain hope to find what I was looking for: James Bond. And I didn't find him.
I just want to add something on Vesper. Because I really felt insulted as a woman during certain parts of the movie. Vesper is supposed to be, if not Bond's equal, at least someone who can definitely hold her own in terms of courage, determination and intelligence compared to Bond.
The woman I've seen in this movie is instead a weak, coward person who doesn't take initiative to do things unless she is ordered to. She is a woman with little personality who tries to prove how smart she is by spitting out psychological cliches at Bond. And getting back to him like a child would do. (you bought me a dress? HA! I bought you a tailored tuxedo! I win! ).
And she tries (unsuccessfully) to mask her weakness and helplessness under office suits and lots of eyeliner. She is a flat and totally non-independent woman who tries to prove other men --and Bond in particular-- how intelligent she is by shooting back obvious one liners and acting like "I'm the woman, so you must be at my feet". This is not Vesper Lynd, not by a long shot.
And I love romantic movies, but the romance and love story here were contrived and cheesy.
I really, really wanted to enjoy this movie as an action movie at least, given I don't see Craig as Bond at all (and the movie made my perception even worse). But I did not. I was bored by most of it, and annoyed by the fact that the action scenes remained totally unrealistic but without the only thing which partially justified the unrealistic part, and made them fun: the gadgets. And I'm not talking about over the top gadgets, but the basic toys that every secret agent has, and Bond always had. Jumping from places like Spiderman and managing to reach vehicles running like Flash Gordon is just too much to take for me when I am watching Bond. (Not that other Bond movies didn't have this. But at least it wasn't the main trait of action scenes).
I refuse to make a detailed comment on the opening credits and song: atrocious doesn't really cover it.
Just one more thing: the motivations behind Le Chiffre's actions are way too weak. We never understand why he does what he does, what his motivations are. Why funding terrorism when there are a lot of other illegal things to do which would make you gain a lot more money and with much less danger? What is he doing with the terrorists? The movie in this part is extremely weak to me. Le Chiffre isn't at all the guy Bond fights in the book. And the modernisation of that part of the plot didn't work well at all IMO.
Anyway, I am glad that some of us liked it and some of us didn't. That means that there are a lot of different perceptions, and that Bond fans are far from being a stereotyped audience. And I can only rejoice about that. {[]
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
A note to highhopes, Johnny Danger, Arthur Pringle, and benskelly:
Can we please refrain from attacking other people's tastes in Bond? Different people have different visions of Bond; some people think that CR fits it, some don't. And that's fine: this is a big Bond universe. Whether you liked CR or not, please respect other people's visions, and don't say that what other people want that conflicts with what you want isn't "real Bond." Thank you.
Personally, I think Bond can fit many things. Fleming in text certainly casts a very wide net in terms of what we can expect Bond to look like and what we can expect him to be character-wise. And to say that we've been given a wide purview in terms of the cinematic Bond is an understatement. In my view, Daniel Craig is the 6th in a long line of actors who have been expertly cast in the role of James Bond. I enjoy his interpretation best, and he best fits what I view to be the Literary 007. I understand others disagree with me, and that's fine.
Isn't this what I said in my "attack?" I've read a number of reviews that were less than complimentary without comment. I was only responding to the idea that fans of CR "don't really like Bond films." Why I should even care enough to argue is another matter. I don't have an answer to that. I guess it's a blog and arguing is what people do on blogs But from now on I will hold my tongue.
I finally saw the film last night, I have to say I was pretty impressed. Daniel Craig makes a very interesting Bond.
I enjoyed the way the gun barrell was fitted in at the beginning. As has been stated, Bond is very rough around the edges and his suaveness that we have come to know isn't quite there. But thats the point isn't it. This is Bond before he becomes the Bond we know.
One thing that got me was the lack of the the original theme being used throughout the film, this makes it almost, un-bondish, if you will.
It was only after the credits roll and the theme kicks in that I realised, the whole film was building up to the last line!
A lot of people seem to have this film wrong, who seem to have been expecting the formulaic Bond film we all know and love.
To me, after seeing Casino Royale, this is a seperate entity. In my mind this is not a continuation of the old films and I see the series as starting afresh, almost as if the old ones never existed.
I realise other people see things differently, I am not saying that that is the case, its just the way I choose to look at it.
My rating - 007/007
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
I just want to add something on Vesper. Because I really felt insulted as a woman during certain parts of the movie. Vesper is supposed to be, if not Bond's equal, at least someone who can definitely hold her own in terms of courage, determination and intelligence compared to Bond.
The woman I've seen in this movie is instead a weak, coward person who doesn't take initiative to do things unless she is ordered to. She is a woman with little personality who tries to prove how smart she is by spitting out psychological cliches at Bond. And getting back to him like a child would do. (you bought me a dress? HA! I bought you a tailored tuxedo! I win! ).
And she tries (unsuccessfully) to mask her weakness and helplessness under office suits and lots of eyeliner. She is a flat and totally non-independent woman who tries to prove other men --and Bond in particular-- how intelligent she is by shooting back obvious one liners and acting like "I'm the woman, so you must be at my feet". This is not Vesper Lynd, not by a long shot.
I am really surprised that you feel this strongly about Vesper. I couldn't disagree with you more. Vesper is an office accountant not a field operative. She is not in the line of dealing with the types Bond deals with and her reaction to the staircase fight scene is quite appropriate.
As for psychological clichés I think every Bond woman in the past 5 films has used them in abundance.
I found Vesper to be confident and strong.As a woman I wasn't insulted at all.
Do you know her? To which Vesper Lynd are you referring? I don't remember Vesper in the novel as a gun-weilding all-action girl who loves her martial arts. If I recall, she was neurotic - emotionally turbulent and contrite. I don't recall her being Bond's equal in anyway, really. In fact, I think I remember putting the book down and thinking "How terribly sexist, I'm glad we've moved on a little."
So I don't know what you mean by "This is not Vesper Lynd"; if you mean she's not the Vesper in the books, to an extent you're right - this one's a lot smarter, a lot stronger and far more emotionally stable.
I don't believe there's any written rule that says Bond's female companion "has to be his equal", but perhaps I've missed that one. Refreshingly enough, this wasn't even touted from the outset of Eva Green's casting, so I certainly didn't go in to the cinema expecting it.
But hey, for me she worked, and I'd rather have a Vesper-type character than some girl who runs about in a bikini and thinking she can charm any man by smiling and fluttering her eye lashes...or Jinx.
I guess we all have different ideas and perceptions Lady Rose.
I didn't mean strong as in kicking enemies' asses around. I meant as in strong character, will, determination. Vesper had none of those in the movie. She was actually a far more helpless Bond girl than others were in the past, and this just bothered me to no ends. She just sits there, bats eyelashes and does nothing unless someone calls her on her cell phone and tells her to do something. She takes no initiative. She is the perfect incarnation of women who are at the mercy of men and think they are not because they spit back one liners and wear serious suits when working. It's such a cliche that I really refuse to deal with it.
As for the one liners and the cliches, Vesper isn't supposed to be like the other Bond girls in other movies. She is different, speaks intelligently and acts intelligently. I saw none of this. I really liked Vesper in the book. But on screen, I didn't see the Vesper I liked in the book. I guess I have a totally different idea of how she was supposed to be, or maybe I am sensitive to certain issues because I work in an environment which is typically manly. ) No idea. I just didn't like her at all.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
I really liked Vesper in the book. But on screen, I didn't see the Vesper I liked in the book.
Well, completely opposite opinion from me then! I thought the Vesper in the books was a royal pain in the ar5e with her personality traits and I really couldn't understand why Bond fell for her at all.
I guess we all have different ideas and perceptions Lady Rose.
I didn't mean strong as in kicking enemies' asses around. I meant as in strong character, will, determination. Vesper had none of those in the movie. She was actually a far more helpless Bond girl than others were in the past, and this just bothered me to no ends. She just sits there, bats eyelashes and does nothing unless someone calls her on her cell phone and tells her to do something. She takes no initiative. She is the perfect incarnation of women who are at the mercy of men and think they are not because they spit back one liners and wear serious suits when working. It's such a cliche that I really refuse to deal with it.
As for the one liners and the cliches, Vesper isn't supposed to be like the other Bond girls in other movies. She is different, speaks intelligently and acts intelligently. I saw none of this. I really liked Vesper in the book. But on screen, I didn't see the Vesper I liked in the book. I guess I have a totally different idea of how she was supposed to be, or maybe I am sensitive to certain issues because I work in an environment which is typically manly. ) No idea. I just didn't like her at all.
Could not diagree with you more. I found Vesper to be exactly as I imagined her in the books.
Comments
CASINO ROYALE IS EXCELLENT!
To me CR has brought back the franchise, its is remarkably good, it has opened so many doors for the series, and in the last scene when bond said the three immortal words "bond, james bond" it sent shivers down my spine and the hairs on my neck pringed up! Daniel Craig is superb, can't wait untill 2008, its too far away!
CASINO ROYALE ROCKS MY WORLD!!!
Scene 1: Bond shoots a guy and while removing the silencer from his gun,gives a slanted, vicious look at the fallen man and says/mutters
"considerably" - that sent a shiver up my spine!
Scene 2: Bond drives with his looks focussed on the road, determined, yetdeadly cool and then suddenly sees his woman lying bound hand and feet,
right in the middle of the road - Bond swerves to avoid her, and the car somersaults several times - just before, he swerves the car, the look on
Bond's face says it all - a perfect blend of shock + puzzlement!
Scene 3:Bond has just tried to rescue the woman he had fallen in love with, and who had betrayed him, and she is dead - and speaking to M over phone, calls his woman a "bit*h" - cold, detached,
indifferent!
No mischeivous glint in his eyes, no naughty
smirks, no overt sarcasm - just plain deadpan humor, and an 'up y*urs' attitude on his shoulders!
Welcome Mr.Daniel Craig! I would not say you are a perfect replacement for Mr.Brosnan - rather you have filled in the shoes left empty by one Mr.Timothy Dalton!
:v Here's why:
This film was way too suspenseful. There should have been more comedy relief to ease the tension. For example, when Bond swerves the Aston Martin to avoid hitting Vesper, they should have showed the car spinning in slow motion as it crashed, with a Beach Boys song like "Good Vibrations" or "Fun Fun Fun" playing in the backgound.
Just to remind us that Bond is immortal and we needn't worry that he is ever actually in any danger. When Bond makes a joke, it should be a very obvious and bad one, delivered with raised brows and eye twinkles so we don't miss out on the fact that he's just joking.
This Bond is too tough and gritty. He bleeds and sweats and shows too much emotion. We should never worry that Bond would actually get hurt. He should be safely tucked away in the seat of a Q-equipped futuristic vehicle, wearing a clean white tux, calmly pushing buttons and destroying everything around him while delivering corny one-liners and checking the rear-view mirror to make sure his hair isn't getting messed up. Bond should never actually put any effort into getting the job done. That's why he has Q.
There weren't enough Q gizmos. If Bond had had his X-ray glasses, he could have read LeChiffre's poker hands straightaway and not have to borrow that extra cash from Felix Leiter. This would have made the film much shorter. If he had his magnetic wristwatch from LALD, he could have pulled that elevator out of the water with it.
There should have been at least one car chase with Bond driving something besides a car: like half a car, half a double-decker bus, a fortified mini-helicopter, a stolen jet, a gondola on wheels, a fire engine, a tank, a motorcycle, a boat that travels across land, a camel, an elephant, a lunar rover, a hovercraft, or something like that.
There weren't enough bikini-clad bimbos. LeChiffre should have had a harem full of them lounging around in his futuristic lair. Not that they would be necessary for the plot, mind you, but some of us aren't ready for REAL porno yet.
And this LeChiffre villain... why isn't he blackmailing the world with stolen nuclear weapons or a killer satellite or trying to start World War III?? Why doesn't he live in a space station or a volcano or a giant undersea mushroom or something like that? He doesn't even own an island!
Bond should never really fall in love. Didn't he learn that mistake in OHMSS? The Bond we know and love just acts like he's in love with the leading Bond girl so he can do her in a boat or a space capsule or under a parachute at the end of the movie. Then she is quickly forgotten before the next film begins.
The ending was all wrong. Everybody knows that a Bond movie climaxes with Bond blowing up the villain's fortess with Bond dragging his babe from the wreckage as balls of flame explode all around him. Didn't the screenwriters see the first 20 films??? Why should this one be any different? This film was way too unpredictable.
Worst of all... they changed the gun barrel sequence! I really wanted to see that same old gun barrel sequence I've seen 2100 times before (with the few slight changes over the years). This one was TOTALLY DIFFERENT! Oh well, at least we know they can't use it again in the next film! Maybe they'll have to come up with a different one in every film now. That'll teach 'em! Or they'll just go back to the same old one we're used to seeing over and over again when we see the old films on DVD or TV. That would be cool!
Yes, if you're a true Bond fan like me who hates the Fleming novels and early Connery films (before they became more like self-satirical sci-fi Austin Powers comedies) you are really going to hate Casino Royale.
By all means, boycott it. You would only be wasting space in the theater anyway.
I won't say that it was terrible, but it just didn't feel like a James Bond movie. The airport scene felt like I was watching a Die Hard movie. LeChiffre is a punk ass for a villian. How are you going to be a villian/banker for terrorism and not have at least three 250 pound bodyguards around you at all times? And then let two dudes roll up in your hotel room and punk you. Daniel Craig can do the rough and tough stuff, but his acting is suspect. He reminds me of Hayden Christiansen as Anakin in Episode III. They both can do the "dark" scenes, but when it comes down to nitty-gritty acting, they can't pull it off. To me, a Bond girl has to be someone that I don't see on a daily basis. Eva Green is average looking. You can find better looking women at the local mall. I believe that most people who have praised this film are caught up into the hype. I was a little bit. So I decided to watch it two more times to get a better understanding of it. Craig needs to work on being more suave, smooth and sophisticated. I don't like this Tranporter-type Bond. The fighting and rough stuff is easy. The acting and making the audience believe you're Bond. He has to get rid of that Terminator-style running. There's no natural look to his running scenes. I don't expect him to run like Reggie Bush, but damn. How can he be praised for being gritty and natural and his running looks rehearsed? I will say thats its good to see a Bond in good shape. I won't hate on this guy totally. I believe he needs one more film to get it right.
And I thought that I was the only one thinking he resembled Robert Patrick in his running scenes...
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Great sarcasm is THE most underappreciated art form.
WE HAVE A WINNER! I deem this the funniest post I have ever read on AJB, displacing a similar post that Napoleon Plural wrote on Dr. No way back in 2003 (yes, I remember these things). I am literally wiping tears off my face as I type.
Rescuing the elevator with the LALD watch!
Thank you Johnny!! {[]
Sarcasm is only fun if what you are saying defines the exact opposite of what the truth is. You have just stated the obvious truth right there. Craig was born to play the part......:007)
Bond fell in love in Casino Royale way, way before OHMSS, and ive never met a 'true Bond fan' who 'hates' Flemings work and the early Connery films!8-)
Oh, and P.S.....why wont my smileys work??:) See!
Oh, I covered the M continuity dilemma in the continuity thread, highhopes, where I didn't attempt your maturity or self-restraint.
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=25651&cpage=2
Can we please refrain from attacking other people's tastes in Bond? Different people have different visions of Bond; some people think that CR fits it, some don't. And that's fine: this is a big Bond universe. Whether you liked CR or not, please respect other people's visions, and don't say that what other people want that conflicts with what you want isn't "real Bond." Thank you.
Personally, I think Bond can fit many things. Fleming in text certainly casts a very wide net in terms of what we can expect Bond to look like and what we can expect him to be character-wise. And to say that we've been given a wide purview in terms of the cinematic Bond is an understatement. In my view, Daniel Craig is the 6th in a long line of actors who have been expertly cast in the role of James Bond. I enjoy his interpretation best, and he best fits what I view to be the Literary 007. I understand others disagree with me, and that's fine.
I thought Craig acquitted himself quite nicely. His performance struck me as what Lazenby might have been after in OHMSS had he been a better actor at the time. Lookswise he looked fine on film other than a few disconcerting shots (primarily when he's coming out of the water). He's really short on humor, nor does he display any of the wit of his predecessors. And other than his scenes with Vesper in the 3rd act, he's pretty much all business all the time. As such, it really is pointless to compare him to his predecessors as the interpretation is so different from what came before and the character himself is realized very differently. It is similarly pointless to call CR the best (or worst) Bond film made; it is in many ways a reimagining of the series and it doesn't negate my enjoyment of the past 20 films in the slightest.
The PTS was a bit short and pretty straightforward; no big thrills but it accomplished what it set out to do, which is tell us how Bond gets his 00 status. I miss the gunbarrel logo at the start but like the way it was worked into the PTS. The blood did look wrong though, maybe they'll fix it for the DVD.
I actually liked the title song and opening credits quite a bit within the context of the film. For me, they worked well together and the playing card motif was a refreshing change of pace from the high tech credits of the past few movies. Also, despite statements to the contrary, I did hear parts of the Bond theme as incidental music throughout the film; it was much more subtle than when it blares at the end but it is definitely there.
The supporting cast was very good. Eva Green was a very sympathetic Vesper and even though she was a little hard to understand at times her final fate did strike an emotional chord. Giancarlo Giannini was great as Mathis and had some of the best lines. And Jeffrey Wright was very good as Felix, even though he didn't have a lot to do; I loved his line about "Do we look like we need the money". I had really criticized his casting and apologize wholeheartedly having now seen what he can do. Mads was also very good as LeChiffre, suitably sleazy and self-serving. I did not notice any homosexual undercurrents to his performance as others have stated. Lastly, the scene of Michael Wilson being handcuffed and hauled away was most welcome.
As to what didn't work too well for me, firstly I thought the big action setpieces fell kind of flat. Maybe it was the emphasis on story and character but they did feel tacked on and almost unnecessary given the story. Solange's screen time was much too brief; really a shame since she is such a knockout (and she really knows how to dismount a horse). The middle act in the casino did go a bit long; it held my attention but I don't know how it will hold up to repeated viewings. LeChiffre's demise, even though it is the same as the book, is somewhat unsatisfying from the standpoint that Bond is really no more than an observer. The third act with Bond and Vesper cementing their relationship may likewise start to feel long in the tooth after a few viewings. In short, the movie shares a lot of the structural pitfalls of the book.
Overall, I still prefer the OTT spectacles to a more character oriented film like this. But I get what they were trying to do and now that they got to make it, hopefully they will bring back a little more spectacle and humor for Bond 22.
Overall: 004.5 / 007
Hey, it was a good movie, 7.5/10!
But was it a James Bond movie? I can't consider this at all being a Bond film. It just hasn't to do anything at all with James Bond. So as Bond movie it is probably a 001 for me!
Yes, yes, things need a change and blabla... but literally everything that makes out the real James Bond has been taken away in this movie!
The start of the film was okay, it doesn't really bother me whether or not there are girl silhouettes in the opener. The chasing scene is also well made and the part in the embassy is still quite enjoyable.
Daniel Craig played very well, but he just doesn't fit in the picture as James Bond. He's missing the whole Bond style in my opinion.
Okay, the movie might be more realistic than others, but that's not really what a James Bond is about for me. It has to be fun and enteretaining and I'm expecting to see things never seen before in a Bond movie. I did indeed see new things, but nothing thrilling at all, just boring Casino/Love scenes for 30 minutes each...
Daniel Craig has a bloody face in each 3rd scene and he gets tortured while attached naked to a chair. On top of that he gets his life saved atleast twice by Vesper? Also, He doesn't have any clever tricks or cool gadgets (not to mention that Q is somehow totally missing) which get him out of tough situations!
I'm not saying these are bad things about a movie, but it's just not James Bond at all.
The villains - do they even have a real plan? I had the impression it's all just about a few millions. Le Chiffre doesn't have any style at all either and then he ends up getting randomly shot by some guy that suddently walks through the door...?
Is there a big plot in the movie? No.. oh yea there is, Vesper turns her back on James - WOW!
Last but not least, where is the big fighting scene at the end? I was looking forward to this during the whole movie and what do I get? a little shooting around in a crumbling down house.. mmkay!
Maybe those 'and once again the world is saved by James Bond'-scenes are be a bit lame, but for me it's something that just belongs to the movie! These might be scenes you already see coming, yet they make you smile and say 'good old James'..
All in all it wasn't a bad movie, but it surely wasn't a James Bond to me. I really can't see how some people can consider this as the best Bond film ever =|
I just hope that the follow-up returns to some of the staples of the traditional formula. I am slowly conditioning myself to Craig; he's not Sean level but he's damn close. Last Bond to be this physical was Lazenby and that's a good thing.
My son thought that it was even cooler the second time around (nine years old and understood it without getting bored) and we're both awaiting 2008...well of course the DVD for this first.
{[]
The Bond girl who looked even less appealing than Green to us was LeChiffre's girlfriend... WOOF!
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
of, and which makes the rest of the world slightly upset they weren't born an
Englishman looks like a charmless big-issue vendor. Surely there are English actors
who combine strength and sex appeal? No doubt he was 'fantastic' in Our Friends in
the North and 'smoldering' in some BBC Mr Darcy role, but any self respecting Bond
Girl would die laughing if our Shrek-a-like hero tried his luck in an obviously
out-of-character monkey suit.
Well, in my sarcastic/satire of a review, I wasn't really implying that anybody who disagreed
with my taste in Bond films was not a "true Bond fan." I was really spoofing some previous reviews, especially one page 4 of this thread who began her review by implying that anyone who liked CR is not a true Bond fan, and I chuckled as I read many of her reasons.
If I've learned nothing else from these forums in the past year, there are at least two different camps of Bond fans who feel very strongly about what they like and dislike about the Bond films. Basically, some people like a realistic, gritty, down-to-earth Bond; others like the more far-fetched, lighthearted, over-the-top Bonds. I really wouldn't want to seriously imply that one camp is more "true fan" than the other. I've enjoyed all of the various interpretations of the Bond universe over the years, despite cringing numerous times in the '70's and '80's, but obviously I like some eras better than others.
I don't intend to "attack" anybody, but I find it hard to explain why I think something is good without comparing it with what I think is bad. If people want to explain why they think Brosnan is a better Bond than Craig, that's fine with me. I won't take it personally. I liked Brosnan a lot, but now that I've seen Craig, I like him better, and I don't think Brosnan fans should feel "attacked" if I explain why by comparing the two.
I loved the way that this film adapts the Fleming novel and places it in a contemporary setting... CR becomes the most faithful cinematic adaptation of a Fleming title since 1969. Okay, we don't have a Moneypenny or a Q this time... but we have a Mathis (one of Fleming's recurring characters) for the first time in the cinema (he's well-cast, too)... and we have a rebooted Leiter (proving that, all these years after NSNA, audiences can still be surprised by a Leiter being black). We also have some very effective cinematic interpretations of original Fleming situations which, until about a year ago, I'd never have imagined that we'd get to see on screen in all their raw power. Fleming's Bond / Vesper relationship is especially well-handled and played for all its worth. The world of James Bond in the cinema has just been nuanced, stretched and deepened in a way which was long overdue.
The two major action sequences in the first half of the film - in Africa and at the airport - are breathtaking, with fantastic effects and stunt work, but they seem a little out of place in the context of the Fleming adaptation (which really kicks in with the introduction of Vesper). These two set pieces, in particular, make Bond look like a superhuman superhero again... which shows that even now a Bond film can't just ignore the legacy of the Lewis Gilbert YOLT / TSWLM / 'Moonraker' versions of 007!
Craig is a fine actor who deliberately moves his character, over the course of the film, from being a thug-like "blunt instrument" towards becoming a more vulnerable person... but he never loses sight of Bond's essential role as an assassin. Craig's Bond isn't as 'human' as Dalton's, or as immediately accessible as Brosnan's, but he's more rounded than any of the others and, probably, the closest we've had to Fleming's conception of the character. (I know it's a bit of a cliche to say that about a latest Bond actor, but I genuinely think this is so.) Craig even looks a bit like Fleming... and he certainly has the "pale grey-blue eyes" and the "rather cruel mouth."
The idea of rebooting Bond means that the in-joke which the film series has traded on ever since the 60s... that Bond has a long history within a loose continuity which makes him a kind of celebrity in his own world... is no longer available - although it is sort of resurrected in the closing moments of the film. (Incidentally, the sadistic way in which Bond walks up to the wounded Mr. White and introduces himself - with the shot of his walking feet as he approaches - put me very much in mind of Connery's approach towards 'Marie' in the pre-credits sequence of DAF - including the footage of Connery's feet, as used only in the DAF trailer: my heart was uplifted by this recognition, and there are actually numerous other examples of subtle back-referencing to the film series throughout CR.)
This was a great film... and a great Bond film, too. Campbell has done something special with Craig's debut, just as he did with Brosnan's. But let's re-stabilise some of the more familiar conventions next time around, and put the gunbarrel sequence back in its rightful place!
Hi i tend to agree with what you have said here.I went to see the film expecting the worse and as a Bond film(that's my interpretation of Bond)it wasn't.It was another action movie,ok watchable but not exciting.
Wait for it,i was against Craig and he was better than i thought he would be and better than the film its self.I found him amusing but as some one said above Batman in a tux.
Im glad so many loved it but i found it a hollow shell of a film,which i know it was meant to be as a reboot.To me it had no depth and it felt like it was going to end then abit more happened then end again then another bit and so on,i was actually bored at the end as nothing dramatic occured.I was hoping for something exciting,dramatic that over whelming feeling you get in a "Bond" movie,all the way through it but nothing.
I saw it with my Brother and he felt the same as me but in all honesty i would like to watch it again just in case i have missed something great.
The best bit for me was Craig's portrayal of the humour,he made me laugh and M was alot funnier when she was supposed to be a harder M.
Overall the humour kept me watching nothing else.
Holy crap? You didn't like Valenka?
If I may be honest for a second, I most certainly felt a certain "stiffness" coming on when she climbed onto the boat.
Arthur, Darenhat , Cmdr Egornuamuck and benskelly : you have summed up wonderfully the way I feel about this movie. So I won't have to write yet another long post
I have now finished watching CR for the third time. And not because I liked it. It hasn't been released here in Italy yet, but a girl always has her ways to get what she wants.
I have finished watching it for the third time in vain hope to find what I was looking for: James Bond. And I didn't find him.
I just want to add something on Vesper. Because I really felt insulted as a woman during certain parts of the movie. Vesper is supposed to be, if not Bond's equal, at least someone who can definitely hold her own in terms of courage, determination and intelligence compared to Bond.
The woman I've seen in this movie is instead a weak, coward person who doesn't take initiative to do things unless she is ordered to. She is a woman with little personality who tries to prove how smart she is by spitting out psychological cliches at Bond. And getting back to him like a child would do. (you bought me a dress? HA! I bought you a tailored tuxedo! I win!
And she tries (unsuccessfully) to mask her weakness and helplessness under office suits and lots of eyeliner. She is a flat and totally non-independent woman who tries to prove other men --and Bond in particular-- how intelligent she is by shooting back obvious one liners and acting like "I'm the woman, so you must be at my feet". This is not Vesper Lynd, not by a long shot.
And I love romantic movies, but the romance and love story here were contrived and cheesy.
I really, really wanted to enjoy this movie as an action movie at least, given I don't see Craig as Bond at all (and the movie made my perception even worse). But I did not. I was bored by most of it, and annoyed by the fact that the action scenes remained totally unrealistic but without the only thing which partially justified the unrealistic part, and made them fun: the gadgets. And I'm not talking about over the top gadgets, but the basic toys that every secret agent has, and Bond always had. Jumping from places like Spiderman and managing to reach vehicles running like Flash Gordon is just too much to take for me when I am watching Bond. (Not that other Bond movies didn't have this. But at least it wasn't the main trait of action scenes).
I refuse to make a detailed comment on the opening credits and song: atrocious doesn't really cover it.
Just one more thing: the motivations behind Le Chiffre's actions are way too weak. We never understand why he does what he does, what his motivations are. Why funding terrorism when there are a lot of other illegal things to do which would make you gain a lot more money and with much less danger? What is he doing with the terrorists? The movie in this part is extremely weak to me. Le Chiffre isn't at all the guy Bond fights in the book. And the modernisation of that part of the plot didn't work well at all IMO.
Anyway, I am glad that some of us liked it and some of us didn't. That means that there are a lot of different perceptions, and that Bond fans are far from being a stereotyped audience. And I can only rejoice about that. {[]
Isn't this what I said in my "attack?" I've read a number of reviews that were less than complimentary without comment. I was only responding to the idea that fans of CR "don't really like Bond films." Why I should even care enough to argue is another matter. I don't have an answer to that. I guess it's a blog and arguing is what people do on blogs
I enjoyed the way the gun barrell was fitted in at the beginning. As has been stated, Bond is very rough around the edges and his suaveness that we have come to know isn't quite there. But thats the point isn't it. This is Bond before he becomes the Bond we know.
One thing that got me was the lack of the the original theme being used throughout the film, this makes it almost, un-bondish, if you will.
It was only after the credits roll and the theme kicks in that I realised, the whole film was building up to the last line!
A lot of people seem to have this film wrong, who seem to have been expecting the formulaic Bond film we all know and love.
To me, after seeing Casino Royale, this is a seperate entity. In my mind this is not a continuation of the old films and I see the series as starting afresh, almost as if the old ones never existed.
I realise other people see things differently, I am not saying that that is the case, its just the way I choose to look at it.
My rating - 007/007
I am really surprised that you feel this strongly about Vesper. I couldn't disagree with you more. Vesper is an office accountant not a field operative. She is not in the line of dealing with the types Bond deals with and her reaction to the staircase fight scene is quite appropriate.
As for psychological clichés I think every Bond woman in the past 5 films has used them in abundance.
I found Vesper to be confident and strong.As a woman I wasn't insulted at all.
So I don't know what you mean by "This is not Vesper Lynd"; if you mean she's not the Vesper in the books, to an extent you're right - this one's a lot smarter, a lot stronger and far more emotionally stable.
I don't believe there's any written rule that says Bond's female companion "has to be his equal", but perhaps I've missed that one. Refreshingly enough, this wasn't even touted from the outset of Eva Green's casting, so I certainly didn't go in to the cinema expecting it.
But hey, for me she worked, and I'd rather have a Vesper-type character than some girl who runs about in a bikini and thinking she can charm any man by smiling and fluttering her eye lashes...or Jinx.
I didn't mean strong as in kicking enemies' asses around. I meant as in strong character, will, determination. Vesper had none of those in the movie. She was actually a far more helpless Bond girl than others were in the past, and this just bothered me to no ends. She just sits there, bats eyelashes and does nothing unless someone calls her on her cell phone and tells her to do something. She takes no initiative. She is the perfect incarnation of women who are at the mercy of men and think they are not because they spit back one liners and wear serious suits when working. It's such a cliche that I really refuse to deal with it.
As for the one liners and the cliches, Vesper isn't supposed to be like the other Bond girls in other movies. She is different, speaks intelligently and acts intelligently. I saw none of this. I really liked Vesper in the book. But on screen, I didn't see the Vesper I liked in the book. I guess I have a totally different idea of how she was supposed to be, or maybe I am sensitive to certain issues because I work in an environment which is typically manly.
Horses for courses, I guess.
Could not diagree with you more. I found Vesper to be exactly as I imagined her in the books.