Thanks Mrs D, an interesting read. I agree about the unnecessary changes from the book.
I watched TSWLM this year on the big screen - it is out of sorts with other action films today (I think all the classic films are, bar the first three). So I was expecting CR to knock it out the park but for me it didn't happen.
Mrs. D, those are some fine observations, and it would've been great to see some more Fleming in the mix. However I doubt we'll ever get as much as some of us would like, EON has always shied away from Fleming's more outre material (beginning with the torture tunnel in DN, a sad loss...:( ). I think EON did do a remarkable job incorporating Fleming into a modern "James Bond" film, and watching the film I find it hard to fault most of their choices, CR just rolls along so very well in the viewing IMO. For a big-budget, cinematic, Bond film (or film about Bond, as that seems more apt in comparison to the last couple decades' worth of Bond films), I thought CR found a nice middle ground we haven't been fortunate enough to visit since OHMSS. And it's very heartening to see it do such great box office, hopefully EON will crank out more of the same in the forseeable future. As you point out, it sure beats the recent pap. {[]
Bond has been soiled in the latest film and this represents a fundamental reorganisation of the character.
Although Bond has always had a reputation as a womaniser, I don't think I can ever remember him actually bedding a married woman in any of the films. My impression is that almost all of the sex he has while on a mission is in the line of duty and to get information. In Casino Royale he seems to be doing the same thing when he seduces Solange. However that scene and the banter with Vesper later on about her not being his type: single - gives the impression that he actually does sleep with married women for pleasure.
The earlier Bond films are able to create the psychological illusion that Bond is morally above reproach because he only kills those who are themselves professional killers. This is actually stated by him in conversation with Scaramanga in TMWTGG. This illusion is necessary in the action-romance context of Bond films - the reality of being an assassin must never be introduced. People who kill, for whatever reason, damage themselves spiritually and morally, no matter how noble their intentions. In Casino Royale the writers have gone into this dangerous territory and again Bond has been left soiled.
Psychology, as I have often said before, has been the bane of Bond. The only way that he can survive is in a cinematic universe where his character is not probed too deeply because the contradictions between the world of romance and reality are enough to destroy him.
A glamorous, charming, devil-may-care assassin is a psychological contradiction. Bond is similar to Hannibal Lecter in this respect - a charming, sophisticated, self aware, articulate cannibal. Such creatures can only exist in the world of art (film) where anything is possible.
And that is what I have always loved about Bond. Anything is possible. The gadgets, the plots, the characters - all are the stuff of fantasy and every explosion is like a beautiful orange flower blossoming on the silver screen. There is excitement without terror, sex without sin, violence without judgement, action without consideration. We go to the movies to see Bond to be free of the limits of everyday life - Casino Royale puts too much reality into the mix and has brought Bond down from the stratosphere where be belongs. Give him back the gadgets, the over the top villains, the crazy plots to take over the world. Use just enough reality to make the fantasy plausible if not possible. And stay out of Bond's head or his demise will be at the hands of his own writers.
Per the request of NP, I, a CR naysayer shall post a review, it may seem familiar because it's similar to the one I posted over in another thread.
1. M's a HYPOCRITE ("Bond, you're a relic of the cold war"/"Damn, I miss the cold war!") Plus she swears more than every other character in the movie combined. She's also mean, annoying and a total divergence from the previous character. If they're going to totally change the character, just get a new M to make it slightly less confusing. By the way Dame Judi, you're a wonderful actress, but get a better hair stylist.
2. The poker sequence. Will it ever end? Maybe? Probably? Not particularly. I know they're trying to say it wasn't just one game, but we all knew the final outcome, Bond wins.
3. The reviewers say "Gone are the smirky days of Moore and Brosnan". I must beg to differ, this man was VERY wisecracky, though Craig was an adequate Bond, he made many self-referencing jokes and others. The whole carpet beater sequence, which is painful to think of was turned into a joke.
"Now the world will know you scratched my balls!"
Not even Roger Moore went there.
4. The worst villains. Guess what Klaus? Sanchez is now no longer the worst villain, that honor belongs to the boring Le Chiffre and the Moopy Henchmen Brigade. While the film was in development, I saw many of the characters top-billed, like Dimitrios, Obanno, Solange, Valenka, etc. However, we meet them for about two minutes, and they're dead. Did Valenka ever actually speak? No. The most boring crop of henchmen and villains to date. Le Chiffre bled tears, he also had this irritating sourpuss expression on his face all the time that drove me insane! I know it's his first assignment and the threat won't be as large, but can't there be a teeny-tiny presence of a threat?
5. The pre-titles, titles and song.
First, film noir, very dark and gritty feel to the whole opening sequence by Bond's actions and his dealings with Bond's 2nd Kill are very cold. Suddenly, we cut to a gunbarrel with cartoony blood, the crappiest song in a Bond film to date (Yes, Madonna and Lulu, you are no longer reviled as the worst singers of a theme, Mr. Chris Cornell has now been awarded that honor, as the song is not hummable and very forgettable, it also never says Casino Royale) All Time High didn't do that either but at least that's a hummable tune (plus, how could you fit Octopussy in a song without someone getting angry?).
6. The confusing and disheartening ending
Very unsatisfying. Vesper and Bond are all lovey-dovey and some guy who needs to get his sunglasses repaired shows up with a few moops to get the money (the access codes, physical money?) from her. Also, the building collapses for some reason, I know he shot the ballistas but no one was actually aware of what was happening. People die, Vesper goes down, Vesper acts like there's no water, cuddles with Bond, backs into the elevator and kills herself for some odd reason. Was she fearing she'd be tracked down? Could she not face Bond after betraying him? Who knows. Craig has an amazing amount of lung capacity and drags her up there. Mr. White. Bond, James Bond.
7. Self-Parodies
They kept happening, it's late now so I won't go into them.
The best sequence was in Uganda with the crazy acrobatic guy, very well done.
I know they're going in a radically different direction, and this movie was a bit LTK for me, which to me of course, is a negative thing. Hopefully they can pick up the pieces for Bond 22.
At last, a few neg reviews to balance things out! Delicious, that was fine post and more succinct than my onslaught! You are quite right about Bond being an assassin but how they really shouldn't go there. They're trying to take a leaf out of Bourne's book but of course Bourne is a reluctant assassin. He has amnesia and has turned his back on all that, he's Bourne-again ha ha.
Funnily enough, despite Wade and Purvis saying "you want to be Bond whereas you don't want to be Bourne, his life is hell" I disagree on this evidence. When Bourne does something smart and amazing, you enjoy and believe it. He still seems happier in his own skin than Craig's Bond, who left the happy pills at home.
JFF, good to hear from you though your first point in the post is the worst, about M being a hypocrite - that's nitpicking! Not sure it's meant to be the same M anyway! Who knows? However I agree more as your review goes on: the song, the villains, the confusing ending. It's like Campbell can't convey anything to us except through verbal exposition...
At last, a few neg reviews to balance things out! Delicious, that was fine post and more succinct than my onslaught! You are quite right about Bond being an assassin but how they really shouldn't go there. They're trying to take a leaf out of Bourne's book but of course Bourne is a reluctant assassin. He has amnesia and has turned his back on all that, he's Bourne-again ha ha.
Funnily enough, despite Wade and Purvis saying "you want to be Bond whereas you don't want to be Bourne, his life is hell" I disagree on this evidence. When Bourne does something smart and amazing, you enjoy and believe it. He still seems happier in his own skin than Craig's Bond, who left the happy pills at home.
JFF, good to hear from you though your first point in the post is the worst, about M being a hypocrite - that's nitpicking! Not sure it's meant to be the same M anyway! Who knows? However I agree more as your review goes on: the song, the villains, the confusing ending. It's like Campbell can't convey anything to us except through verbal exposition...
Well that may be, and I've already said how that M is not the real M but her evil twin N.
Worst title sequence & music, worst Bond, worst Bond girl........boring.
Bond upsets boss, looses loads of money at poker (classy!), gets poisoned, breaks defibrillator, crashes car, gets tortured and spends ages in hospital. More Blonde than Bond.
I'll stick with the old Bonds until the production team and Blonde changes. Sooner rather than later I hope.
At last, a few neg reviews to balance things out! Delicious, that was fine post and more succinct than my onslaught! You are quite right about Bond being an assassin but how they really shouldn't go there. They're trying to take a leaf out of Bourne's book but of course Bourne is a reluctant assassin. He has amnesia and has turned his back on all that, he's Bourne-again ha ha.
Funnily enough, despite Wade and Purvis saying "you want to be Bond whereas you don't want to be Bourne, his life is hell" I disagree on this evidence. When Bourne does something smart and amazing, you enjoy and believe it. He still seems happier in his own skin than Craig's Bond, who left the happy pills at home.
JFF, good to hear from you though your first point in the post is the worst, about M being a hypocrite - that's nitpicking! Not sure it's meant to be the same M anyway! Who knows? However I agree more as your review goes on: the song, the villains, the confusing ending. It's like Campbell can't convey anything to us except through verbal exposition...
Nothing wrong with negative reviews, NP, but the truth is, for anyone who enjoyed CR, Delicious' account simply confirms why they enjoyed it. I don't think any of them misses the James Bond that Delicious describes: basically a Walt Disney character. My God! CR's Bond has sex with married women! Shame on him. At least when the other Bonds had casual sex, they closed their eyes and thought of England. CR's Bond kills people and it "soils" him! How awful! He should be a nicer guy, like, if I read it correctly, Hannibal Lecter????? )
The "soiled" version is exactly what some of us have been waiting for for many, many years. But to each his own, I guess.
Yes, the Hannibal Lector analogy seemed a bit odd, care to expand Delicious?!
However, Spottiswoode wearily recalled long discussions from the producers during TND about whether Bond should sleep with Carver's wife or not, as she was married. They've changed their tune.
Craig's Bond is more interesting because of his negative qualities, but less enjoyable to empathise with for the same reasons imo. I don't want to be him, wouldn't want to hang out with him. That magical connection is gone for me. I think that's in part what Del' was suggesting.
Yes, the Hannibal Lector analogy seemed a bit odd, care to expand Delicious?!
However, Spottiswoode wearily recalled long discussions from the producers during TND about whether Bond should sleep with Carver's wife or not, as she was married. They've changed their tune.
Craig's Bond is more interesting because of his negative qualities, but less enjoyable to empathise with for the same reasons imo. I don't want to be him, wouldn't want to hang out with him. That magical connection is gone for me. I think that's in part what Del' was suggesting.
And I understand that point. I'm not sure I would necessarily want to hang out with Craig's Bond, or be Craig's Bond, either. But I just happen to find a flawed Bond more interesting than a perfect, morally spotless one. The reasons are simple. I can't identify with perfect, morally spotless people, for one thing. I'm flawed, as I think we all are. Second thing is, it's a cinch for a saint to be hero. It's more difficult for the rest of us. So when a human being -- morally flawed and imperfect in every way -- rises above him or herself and does something heroic, it's all the more remarkable.
Craig is absolutly fantastic. My only complaint would be the casino scene was a bit quiet, and there wasnt enough atmosphere too it, but i was in very strong suspense the whole time, the movie was kind of long, but only because I desperatly needed to go to the toilet and was not going to leave.
But otherwise I think its the Best Bond movie ever and at my theatre its sold out everynight and people are loving it! {[]
Yes, the Hannibal Lector analogy seemed a bit odd, care to expand Delicious?!
However, Spottiswoode wearily recalled long discussions from the producers during TND about whether Bond should sleep with Carver's wife or not, as she was married. They've changed their tune.
quote]
I'd forgotten about Bond sleeping with Carver's wife. But Bond did not try to seduce Paris, rather they were drawn to each other because they were old lovers. And Paris made the first move.
Re garding Hannibal Lecter, I was making the point that some literary and cinematic characters could never exist in th real world but our need for romance/glamour/excitement alows such characters to be real in these artificial worlds. If you met a serial killer in real life you would feel cold, afraid and totally creeped out, and no matter how charming and erudite they were you would pick up first and foremost on their sociopathic vibe. In the novel "Hannibal" Thomas Harris actually writes the seduction of Clarice Starling by Hannibal Lecter which involves a sick banquet where they eat the brains of Startling's sleazy boss Krendler. Like Dr Chilton before him in Silence of the Lambs, the reader is persuaded that these men are more villainous than lecter because of their corrupt tendencies which are somehow less reprehensible than the desire to kill and eat another human being. This is manipulation of psychological reality within the freer realm of art, literature in this case. Lecter, by Harris's own admission, is a composite of a number of real serial killers.
Bond's character contains a similar kind of contradiction. He is a cold blooded killer on the one hand and a charming, warm, caring, loyal and witty gentleman on the other. These two sets of qualities could not exist in a real human being, they are only possible in the worlds of film and literature.
That is why it is best not to delve too deply into Bond's psychological make up - this can only result in unravelling him.
Having said that I have a terrible feeling that its already too late - with Goldeneye the process began in earnest and is still continuing. Romantic/action films like the Bond series should focus on the plot and the situation, that is where the enjoyment and entertainment are.
Check out the movie Road to Perdition starring Tom Hanks, Daniel Craig - this film follows a mobster father's desperate attempt to keep his young son from becoming a killer like his father. The mobsters know they will go to Hell for their deeds and the one with the son is determiend that his son will not go the same way.
Ideas like perdition, karma, God's judgement and so on do not enter into the Bond universe except for the old idea that villains always get their come-uppence. In the Bond films before CR, he has always had a kind of forcefield around him that protects him from moral scrutiny because of his absolute loyalty to Queen and country and dedication to destroying evil men. However this is still a cowboys and indians way of looking at the world and is pretty dated now. Hence we now have reluctant remorseful assasins like Jason Bourne. And in another vein, action heroes like Indiana Jones who are serving a highe rpower and do not even know it - Jones is being used by God in the first and third films and by Shiva in the 2nd, to defeat evil.
Some other criticisms of CR:
I missed the beautiful dancing girls in the title sequence of CR and thought they could have used dancing girls with the playing card motif to great effect.
The title song really is awful and this was a real shock as for me there are almost no bad Bond songs - LTK and TND have perhaps my least favourite ones. I miss the sumptuous pop music used in films like TWINE, AVTAK, TSWLM and LALD.
Yes, the Hannibal Lector analogy seemed a bit odd, care to expand Delicious?!
Not odd, but a very interesting observation which I too would like Mr Delicious to expand on.
Even on a superficial level, the comparisons are striking: both characters are portrayed as well dressed and sophisticated western, white males, frequently (exclusively?) the most sophisticated in their respective stories. Yet both characters are killers. Bond of course is an employee and supposedly carrying out his executions for the British government, though he frequently has to make a decision on the spur of the moment. Whatever; Bond's victims are invariably portrayed (by the writers) as those who deserve their fate - Bond rarely, if ever, kills anyone who appears to be 'nice'.
Those victims selected by Lector for his own motives are invariably people whom the audience might also consider to deserve their fate - he wouldn't dream of killing the Starling or Barney characters for instance, and is even willing to sever his own limb to protect them. We invariably cheer for Lector as the anti-hero of the piece, just as we cheer for the British assassin.
Nonsense, perhaps; but an interesting comparison nonetheless.
_______________________________________________________________
*Note: annoyingly posted within minutes of the response, above. Many thanks for the erudite clarification, Delicious.
New Year's resolution: I must endeavour to type faster.
_______________________________________________________________
Bond is like Godzilla, maybe? Both pretty much lay waste to Tokyo: in YOLT (the novel) Bond drinks Tiger under the table and ends up setting off a volcano eruption; and, Godzilla kinda IS a volcano eruption...(hey, these comparisons are fun )
Agree with high, Craig's Bond was a welcome and long-awaited return to what Bond is--for some of us--supposed to be. And I really don't think it's anywhere near a Hannibal (or even a Godzilla) comparison, just a comparitively (to the previous 30 odd years of cinematic Bond) subtle shift in emphasis.
EDIT: Well that reads pretty flippant, lemme backup a bit here. Yes all such hero/anti hero comparisons are valid, it's certainly why such characters keep being so popular, these qualities we're discussing, and Mrs. D raises some good points. But if the original premise of the Hannibal point is that Craig's Bond brings us closer to such a creation, that's kinda weird to me as Craig's Bond is arguably the most fully-realized and emotionally well-rounded of the Bonds. Perhaps the issue is that we get to know this Bond more than previous ones, and really get under his skin ala seeing what makes a character like Hannibal tick? Well then, three cheers for that from this Bond fan. {[]
I've only really seen the first and third Lector films and never totally came round to the idea that he's a relatively nice guy myself! But I concede that Hannibal the novel may be different... I would argue that Le Chiffre is not really a relatively bad guy compared to Bond, this is where CR falls down imo. You don't see him actually do anything as 'evil' as Bond eg drown a bloke in a basin (or try to). His evil deeds are really just a kind of stockbroking with some fireworks prearranged!
And it all could have led to Bond's argument with Matthis that he and Le Chiffre are morally one and the same, a theme nicely explored by Scorcese in this year's The Departed, his remake of Infernal Affairs.
Could've sworn there was a torture scene in the version of CR I saw...;)
Well, that makes everything clear...MI6 was going after Le Chiffre because he tortured Bond...waitaminit...but Bond was tortured becuase MI6 was after Le Chiffre. Hmmm .
Obviously, Le Chiffre was a baddie, though...Enough to raise M's eyebrows when his dossier flashes across the screen as Bond is accessing her files (although I'm not sure why this happened because, as far as I can remember, Bond was not investigating Le Chiffre...he was following the Demetrius lead.) The thing that I couldn't figure out was if Le Chiffre was such a nasty guy, why is MI6 going through this elaborate charade of playing cards to defeat him? It's not like an Osama Bin Laden thing where they can't find him...why doesn't Bond meet him in the Casino Royale men's room and bash his head in? It worked before...at least this way they won't risk actually helping him.
For the genre, I guess it isn't that confusing to me: why didn't they just arrest Goldfinger? Knock him out, throw him in a room, sweat him till he pops. Financing terrorism, just that simple phrase, is plenty evil to me, and I can understand (again, given the genre) why the good guys have to come up with a plot to bring him down. Plus he had the sinister bleeding eye thing, eww.
I was messing around about December 7th and it finally came... so i finally can make my review... unlike other, i will take my time (and your if you are reading)
Let's start by the beginning:
Casino Royale in the Media:All the entertainment sections started to Talk About CR and Daniel Craig around Dec 4, saying how different it was... and all that stuff. but it wasn't like in UK and Europe, it wasn't that much.
Casino Royale Premiere: as i anounced before, there wasn't THE big premiere with Craig and his friends, nor even the worst stuntman in the film, no, our premier was on Dec. 6th with some "TV personalities" which i could see for the first time (thanks to W radio and Andrea who gave me the tickets). it was in one of the most important Malls in the City, and there were 2 functions: the VIP and the regular dudes. it was a Heinneken event with Sony advertising (a lovely girl was giving info about Bond Cell phone)
now, move on into the movie itself:
The Name's Craig, Daniel Craig: i (as pretty much everyone) was stranged about Craig being Chosen but, i saw Munich desperately to see him act, after i manage to get a DVD of L4yer Cak3 and then i realized that he might get the job done. When the teaser was released i thought "Habemmus Bond".
Well, i will explain it this way: Daniel Craig is superb, he has overpassed the powers, the abilities, the behaviour of an ordinary Bond, and even the strongest one, He is a Super Saiyan Bond (hence the golden hair and the piercing blue eyes) all because his work, his workout, his preparation, he has so angry to the CnB stuff than he became a Super Saiyan Bond, as good as it gets. Period.
Pre Titles Sequence: I want to use some words as perfect, superb or something like that, and wouldn't be a lie, but i prefer Short. the idea is more than fine (sadly no sniping Japanese agent in New York or knife work in Europe) but yes, i don't dislike the noir sense but it might be longer (like a couple minutes in dialogues and stronger beginning in the bathroom part.
You Know my Name: Honestly, i like it, i like the song (not that much when it came out) but it grows on me, in fact i can hum it all day long, and the myspace song seems better for the main titles (i love that version), instead, they put some mix in which the trumpets were taken. not the best decision, but you can't win them all. The titles were near perfect, the cards, and the casino theme were clever... no jumping unnecessarily, everything had a purpose and sadly no girls, but this particular Bond had no girls, so i got that.
Not the kids Madagascar: Uganda appears to show reality and present us Le Chiffré and his way of living. not why, but how. In Madagascar we first see Bond, not as Rookie as the media present him (he was careful and athletic). It didn't matter to see him in a cobra fight (as someone in a chat room criticises) because i don't think Madagascar has lots of casinos and let Mollaka in, so it was apropiate. when he was in trouble he compensates with wit. i thought the Parkour was short and not as spectacular when they get in the crane fight, but i gladly ate my thoughts after. The embassy shows "Comando Bond" (remember, he is a SAS agent -sadly no RNVR-) using his training to complete his objective and escape.
London Calling: M scene was good, weird because the Dench affair, but good, first laughs and giggles in the theatre. Bond seems rouge, rebel and all that stuff, but he is smart and well trained to get Dimitros location and to show M that he isn't as "blunt" as he appears.
Welcome to Nassau: in Bahamas we see a "suave" yet strong character Bond - ok, no tie but you don't need a suit to show class - who uses technology, brains and a little charm to have info (again a large response to the Rover incident)... sorry, the movie may deserve, in a scale of 1 to 10 a 11, but WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH THE OCEAN SCENE... WHY, WHY LIKE THAT.... HE IS NO FRIC**** URSULA ANDRESS.... sorry EON, that scene WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN (oh man, im really ****ed of about that).... but Solange is beautiful, a shame so little time on screen, but her scenes were good and the Aston Martin part... great. This is the Bond that we saw before, i don't care if he does it with married women.
Bienvenido a Miami: Again, Bond is determinate to follows his instincts (no direct or indirect orders whatsoever) to solve the mystery (again a good use of cell phones) and spy stuff in the museum. No chit-chat with Dimitros, no social events with him, only a knife and again, Bond reacting to survive.
In the airport, well, he made a mistake, when he let the bomber discovers him and a pathetic cameo appears (i'll blink next time). When he finds him, he becomes more Bond (his first impulse is to call M ommy to help him, to have an army on his back and open a door for him, when he realized he coul open it. The chase was fun (not hilarious fun rather risky, worth to see) some good moves and again, no stupid one - liners ("do you mind if i seat next to you?" i think). someone asked about Bond plan, it was rather simple: if the bomber was paid, he probably hasn't any intention to blow himself up, so he would be far from the explosion ratio. The audience hold their breath more than once.
Briefing: Short and with a mayor fault: how did M knew Bond was the best plater in the service? i would change the Villers explanation and put a past reference like " for the Monaco incident and your development over there i can tell you're the best player in the service"... beats me, but but an official case rather a simple opinion surely would be not only better but appreciated.
The "Money" Train: Good scene (yes, i love trains too) and puts the mood between the relationship between Bond and Vesper. I like the poker and its psycological chat afterwards. We see something that old, new and fundamentalist fans have to accept: Bond Eats (he has a good appetite, and his literary counterpart eats a lot and darn well i might add).
Besides the Casino: We meet Mathis, as Bond contact and gives info about Le Chiffré moves. we also continue meeting Bond with women (not as the womaniser that never says no, but more like a playful man who happens to taunt single women) a great intro in the Splendide Hotel (i like the attitude he gets there and Vesper's Reply) in this part i would like to see the Muntz, the Bombers (terrorist or whatever)... it needed more development.
Casino Royale: i like the poker game, i didn't find it boring (even if everybody thought and knew Bond would win) and the cut-outs were appropriated, the one when they changed the day perhaps a little confusing. but not a big deal.
I love the Vesper Martini being ordered an its reaction, understand the "give a damn" line (laughs over here) as well as in the "that last hand..." i'm happy abut the casino treatment, every thing fits. i would put a Cosack with a Cane.
About the casino, i was disappointed with its looks, but i saw the casino i wanted outside, and understand that as a private room was ok.
Dinner's Over:it was a nice moment when Bond has his reward, and a dramatic approach when "Mathis appears" (i like that scene even when feeling it more dramatic in the book). the chase was too short, and Vesper in the road was a surprise (was a good move not showing Le Chiffré putting her in the road)
Thunderballs shaken or stirred? the torture should be longer (not like the half of the movie) but the movie timeline itself. I mean, i like it, but a better approach would be this: first hit him in the belly or something, so then when he hits down the chair you'll feel pain and surprise as well. he gets lots of pain (LOTS) and pass away, when Bond wakes up he gets the pain state described in the Book and becomes sarcastic (i think as a good homage Le Chiffré could said " choose well your next..."
Le Chiffré's dead... not good enough, it missed something, not Bond killing him but more suffering from Le Chiffré (not sadical, but psycological) and Bond being marked in some way.
Recovering: very fast, seems like Bond didn't suffer at all, and he and Mathis could have the same dialogue than had in the book, and in the end of it, Mathis being arrested.
Bond and Vesper needed a Mountage, something that really shows them in love (like OHMSS) and not a shagging after shagging stuff like it seems that happened.
Is The bitch Dead?: Venice part was marvellous except one thing: Vesper wasn't The Bitch, in part for M's Lines. i really didn't feel like Bond said those words with the strength he did it in the book. those should be better delivered by the scrip, it's not Craig's Fault.
The Name's Craig, Daniel Craig that last scene really didn`t mean anything until the theme kicks in... that had to be Bond 22, but you can't go without Saying that. and with his voice, his presence in that particularly scene... that makes it fits
With the movie analized, now i must go with the characters (except Bond of course)
Vesper was appropiate, i have no complains about her, i have only one comment: when she appears in the bathroom (when Bond gives her outfit and has no make up at all) i heard the room filled by a "Wow", "Humm" and others sounds that indicated this: that is GORGEOUS in that scene... you can screw pretty much all her other scenes, and why not, other Bond Girls... i envy the person ho can see her every day when she looks like that.
Mathis was a good ally, Giancarlo seemed old to me (well, he is) but it doesn't care, its a shame that whasn't more useful, but he did his job.
Sadly, i can't say the same about Geofrey's Leiter... who is this guy, what is he doing? i must say: nothing. Is nothing personal, and even if i can't buy his look (not racism, but his neutral look: not menacing, not funny, not much of a support... he gives nothing) i mean, you can revive Marlon Brando in his youth and make him Leiter, put De Niro or Tom Hanks... nobody can't fix that, only the script.
What about Q and Moneypenny: they could perfectly fit in some scenes, but i'm honest: i didn't miss them: Moneypenny would do an office job, a "secret burocracy", she would act professionally and not precisely flirting Bond so lots of fans would hang her for that. About Q, well, if he gives Bond the Defibrillator, well: you would know that he had one, worse, you would know he would use it. and it doesn't seems as crazy as you might think: Le Chiffré has to get rid of Bond, so that's why he poison him... (everybody was hysterical about the defibrillator, but none said anything abut lots of poison cures.) it makes part of the future medkid.
I miss more Tanner that Q and Moneypenny, and wouldn't be hysterical if they doesn't appear in Bond 22. bring them only if they are necessary.
I'm sorry about all the gadgets and one-liners (even knowing i have no idea how are them) but there is a line in which they are dangerous to the films... please don't cross it again.
About Rookie Bond, or Clumsy Bond, or James Bland... i've just remembered something; the great Connery didn't have any idea how to dismantle an atomic bomb... three more cliks later and Goldfinger would won... instead, Moore pretty much had disarming nuclear Bombs for a hobby. James Bond is classy, elegant, suave and all those things, but he bleeds, he swears, he suffers, he even sweats... i'm glad i finally saw that, and not in a Brosnan faked kinda way but really beaten up (in the books he ends in a hospital or in a curating process)
i didn't find it long, but my brother who went with me thought that.
007 of 007: there are things that i would change but i give this score Why? Bond said it better than i could:Mais n' anculons pas de mouches
Saw it last Friday and absolutley loved it. I enjoyed Goldeneye but I have been hanging out for this movie since LTK. I have to take my hat off to Daniel Craig, I knew he was good actor but he did his research and totally exceeded my expectations of his portrayal of Bond. So I must say sorry to Barbara and Michael, good call.
I will also apologise for my criticism of the decision to keep Judi Dench. I was initially pi#%ed when I heard she was staying on but I cannot imagine a better M in this movie. Congrats EON
Casino Royale was one of best James Bond movies i have seen. It will go down in history as the first James Bond movies from 40 years ago such as Goldfinger and From Russia with Love. The trouble was that it did not follow the book's storyline, like in the book Vesper Lynd poisons her drink, yet in the movie she drowns. Other then that i'd give this movie a 5 star review.
1. Goldfinger 2. Skyfall 3. Goldeneye 4. The Spy Who Loved Me 5. OHMSS
Check out my Instagram: @livingthebondlife
"I never joke about my work, 007."
I'm a HUGE 007 addict since ... 25 years, I saw my first Bond when I was 9 ;-)) with my father .. it was FYEO .. and I got hooked.. since then I've seen every BOND flick in theatre at least 2..3..times and 20 times more over the years on video/ dvd ;-))
I've read all the novels, got the entire collection from NO til CR (got the dvd from SONY), got all movie soundtracks etc...- I've seen CASINO ROYALE so far just once in theatre.. when? ...YESTERDAY.. i know a bit late.. but I waited on prupose .. and I was BLOWN away.. OMG.. superb movie, and Craig got deffinately what it takes to carry on .. they could'nt use Brosnan for CR .. I agree 100% with the desicion EON went with a new actor ... and chosing Craig, and yes he got the certain something in him between Dalton and Connery!!!!
I thought it (CR) had all the right elements you need it to understand BOND as a rookie ..
can't wait for BOND 22 "RISICO"
PS: I'm going to the movies 2.. 3..times more.. ;o)))
CASINO ROYALE was worth the time, the drama and the time ... a total success.
Comments
I watched TSWLM this year on the big screen - it is out of sorts with other action films today (I think all the classic films are, bar the first three). So I was expecting CR to knock it out the park but for me it didn't happen.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Bond has been soiled in the latest film and this represents a fundamental reorganisation of the character.
Although Bond has always had a reputation as a womaniser, I don't think I can ever remember him actually bedding a married woman in any of the films. My impression is that almost all of the sex he has while on a mission is in the line of duty and to get information. In Casino Royale he seems to be doing the same thing when he seduces Solange. However that scene and the banter with Vesper later on about her not being his type: single - gives the impression that he actually does sleep with married women for pleasure.
The earlier Bond films are able to create the psychological illusion that Bond is morally above reproach because he only kills those who are themselves professional killers. This is actually stated by him in conversation with Scaramanga in TMWTGG. This illusion is necessary in the action-romance context of Bond films - the reality of being an assassin must never be introduced. People who kill, for whatever reason, damage themselves spiritually and morally, no matter how noble their intentions. In Casino Royale the writers have gone into this dangerous territory and again Bond has been left soiled.
Psychology, as I have often said before, has been the bane of Bond. The only way that he can survive is in a cinematic universe where his character is not probed too deeply because the contradictions between the world of romance and reality are enough to destroy him.
A glamorous, charming, devil-may-care assassin is a psychological contradiction. Bond is similar to Hannibal Lecter in this respect - a charming, sophisticated, self aware, articulate cannibal. Such creatures can only exist in the world of art (film) where anything is possible.
And that is what I have always loved about Bond. Anything is possible. The gadgets, the plots, the characters - all are the stuff of fantasy and every explosion is like a beautiful orange flower blossoming on the silver screen. There is excitement without terror, sex without sin, violence without judgement, action without consideration. We go to the movies to see Bond to be free of the limits of everyday life - Casino Royale puts too much reality into the mix and has brought Bond down from the stratosphere where be belongs. Give him back the gadgets, the over the top villains, the crazy plots to take over the world. Use just enough reality to make the fantasy plausible if not possible. And stay out of Bond's head or his demise will be at the hands of his own writers.
1. M's a HYPOCRITE ("Bond, you're a relic of the cold war"/"Damn, I miss the cold war!") Plus she swears more than every other character in the movie combined. She's also mean, annoying and a total divergence from the previous character. If they're going to totally change the character, just get a new M to make it slightly less confusing. By the way Dame Judi, you're a wonderful actress, but get a better hair stylist.
2. The poker sequence. Will it ever end? Maybe? Probably? Not particularly. I know they're trying to say it wasn't just one game, but we all knew the final outcome, Bond wins.
3. The reviewers say "Gone are the smirky days of Moore and Brosnan". I must beg to differ, this man was VERY wisecracky, though Craig was an adequate Bond, he made many self-referencing jokes and others. The whole carpet beater sequence, which is painful to think of was turned into a joke.
"Now the world will know you scratched my balls!"
Not even Roger Moore went there.
4. The worst villains. Guess what Klaus? Sanchez is now no longer the worst villain, that honor belongs to the boring Le Chiffre and the Moopy Henchmen Brigade. While the film was in development, I saw many of the characters top-billed, like Dimitrios, Obanno, Solange, Valenka, etc. However, we meet them for about two minutes, and they're dead. Did Valenka ever actually speak? No. The most boring crop of henchmen and villains to date. Le Chiffre bled tears, he also had this irritating sourpuss expression on his face all the time that drove me insane! I know it's his first assignment and the threat won't be as large, but can't there be a teeny-tiny presence of a threat?
5. The pre-titles, titles and song.
First, film noir, very dark and gritty feel to the whole opening sequence by Bond's actions and his dealings with Bond's 2nd Kill are very cold. Suddenly, we cut to a gunbarrel with cartoony blood, the crappiest song in a Bond film to date (Yes, Madonna and Lulu, you are no longer reviled as the worst singers of a theme, Mr. Chris Cornell has now been awarded that honor, as the song is not hummable and very forgettable, it also never says Casino Royale) All Time High didn't do that either but at least that's a hummable tune (plus, how could you fit Octopussy in a song without someone getting angry?).
6. The confusing and disheartening ending
Very unsatisfying. Vesper and Bond are all lovey-dovey and some guy who needs to get his sunglasses repaired shows up with a few moops to get the money (the access codes, physical money?) from her. Also, the building collapses for some reason, I know he shot the ballistas but no one was actually aware of what was happening. People die, Vesper goes down, Vesper acts like there's no water, cuddles with Bond, backs into the elevator and kills herself for some odd reason. Was she fearing she'd be tracked down? Could she not face Bond after betraying him? Who knows. Craig has an amazing amount of lung capacity and drags her up there. Mr. White. Bond, James Bond.
7. Self-Parodies
They kept happening, it's late now so I won't go into them.
The best sequence was in Uganda with the crazy acrobatic guy, very well done.
I know they're going in a radically different direction, and this movie was a bit LTK for me, which to me of course, is a negative thing. Hopefully they can pick up the pieces for Bond 22.
Funnily enough, despite Wade and Purvis saying "you want to be Bond whereas you don't want to be Bourne, his life is hell" I disagree on this evidence. When Bourne does something smart and amazing, you enjoy and believe it. He still seems happier in his own skin than Craig's Bond, who left the happy pills at home.
JFF, good to hear from you though your first point in the post is the worst, about M being a hypocrite - that's nitpicking! Not sure it's meant to be the same M anyway!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well that may be, and I've already said how that M is not the real M but her evil twin N.
Maybe Bond finds that out in Bond 22!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Worst title sequence & music, worst Bond, worst Bond girl........boring.
Bond upsets boss, looses loads of money at poker (classy!), gets poisoned, breaks defibrillator, crashes car, gets tortured and spends ages in hospital. More Blonde than Bond.
I'll stick with the old Bonds until the production team and Blonde changes. Sooner rather than later I hope.
The over-hype won't work for the next movie!
Although, from what I understand, disenchanted new members have a VERY short life expectancy...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Nothing wrong with negative reviews, NP, but the truth is, for anyone who enjoyed CR, Delicious' account simply confirms why they enjoyed it. I don't think any of them misses the James Bond that Delicious describes: basically a Walt Disney character. My God! CR's Bond has sex with married women! Shame on him. At least when the other Bonds had casual sex, they closed their eyes and thought of England. CR's Bond kills people and it "soils" him! How awful! He should be a nicer guy, like, if I read it correctly, Hannibal Lecter?????
The "soiled" version is exactly what some of us have been waiting for for many, many years. But to each his own, I guess.
However, Spottiswoode wearily recalled long discussions from the producers during TND about whether Bond should sleep with Carver's wife or not, as she was married. They've changed their tune.
Craig's Bond is more interesting because of his negative qualities, but less enjoyable to empathise with for the same reasons imo. I don't want to be him, wouldn't want to hang out with him. That magical connection is gone for me. I think that's in part what Del' was suggesting.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
And I understand that point. I'm not sure I would necessarily want to hang out with Craig's Bond, or be Craig's Bond, either. But I just happen to find a flawed Bond more interesting than a perfect, morally spotless one. The reasons are simple. I can't identify with perfect, morally spotless people, for one thing. I'm flawed, as I think we all are. Second thing is, it's a cinch for a saint to be hero. It's more difficult for the rest of us. So when a human being -- morally flawed and imperfect in every way -- rises above him or herself and does something heroic, it's all the more remarkable.
BEST BOND EVER!
Craig is absolutly fantastic. My only complaint would be the casino scene was a bit quiet, and there wasnt enough atmosphere too it, but i was in very strong suspense the whole time, the movie was kind of long, but only because I desperatly needed to go to the toilet and was not going to leave.
But otherwise I think its the Best Bond movie ever and at my theatre its sold out everynight and people are loving it! {[]
Thanks EON
"Better make that two."
Not odd, but a very interesting observation which I too would like Mr Delicious to expand on.
Even on a superficial level, the comparisons are striking: both characters are portrayed as well dressed and sophisticated western, white males, frequently (exclusively?) the most sophisticated in their respective stories. Yet both characters are killers. Bond of course is an employee and supposedly carrying out his executions for the British government, though he frequently has to make a decision on the spur of the moment. Whatever; Bond's victims are invariably portrayed (by the writers) as those who deserve their fate - Bond rarely, if ever, kills anyone who appears to be 'nice'.
Those victims selected by Lector for his own motives are invariably people whom the audience might also consider to deserve their fate - he wouldn't dream of killing the Starling or Barney characters for instance, and is even willing to sever his own limb to protect them. We invariably cheer for Lector as the anti-hero of the piece, just as we cheer for the British assassin.
Nonsense, perhaps; but an interesting comparison nonetheless.
_______________________________________________________________
*Note: annoyingly posted within minutes of the response, above. Many thanks for the erudite clarification, Delicious.
New Year's resolution: I must endeavour to type faster.
_______________________________________________________________
Agree with high, Craig's Bond was a welcome and long-awaited return to what Bond is--for some of us--supposed to be. And I really don't think it's anywhere near a Hannibal (or even a Godzilla) comparison, just a comparitively (to the previous 30 odd years of cinematic Bond) subtle shift in emphasis.
EDIT: Well that reads pretty flippant, lemme backup a bit here. Yes all such hero/anti hero comparisons are valid, it's certainly why such characters keep being so popular, these qualities we're discussing, and Mrs. D raises some good points. But if the original premise of the Hannibal point is that Craig's Bond brings us closer to such a creation, that's kinda weird to me as Craig's Bond is arguably the most fully-realized and emotionally well-rounded of the Bonds. Perhaps the issue is that we get to know this Bond more than previous ones, and really get under his skin ala seeing what makes a character like Hannibal tick? Well then, three cheers for that from this Bond fan. {[]
And it all could have led to Bond's argument with Matthis that he and Le Chiffre are morally one and the same, a theme nicely explored by Scorcese in this year's The Departed, his remake of Infernal Affairs.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
And the plane he arranges to destroy doesn't even have any people on it!
Well, that makes everything clear...MI6 was going after Le Chiffre because he tortured Bond...waitaminit...but Bond was tortured becuase MI6 was after Le Chiffre. Hmmm
Obviously, Le Chiffre was a baddie, though...Enough to raise M's eyebrows when his dossier flashes across the screen as Bond is accessing her files (although I'm not sure why this happened because, as far as I can remember, Bond was not investigating Le Chiffre...he was following the Demetrius lead.) The thing that I couldn't figure out was if Le Chiffre was such a nasty guy, why is MI6 going through this elaborate charade of playing cards to defeat him? It's not like an Osama Bin Laden thing where they can't find him...why doesn't Bond meet him in the Casino Royale men's room and bash his head in? It worked before...at least this way they won't risk actually helping him.
Casion Royale.....it just goes to show, you cannot please all the people all the time!
Anyway, I've had my say so that's ok.
Great site by the way, I'll check out some of the other topics.
I was messing around about December 7th and it finally came... so i finally can make my review... unlike other, i will take my time (and your if you are reading)
Let's start by the beginning:
Casino Royale in the Media:All the entertainment sections started to Talk About CR and Daniel Craig around Dec 4, saying how different it was... and all that stuff. but it wasn't like in UK and Europe, it wasn't that much.
Casino Royale Premiere: as i anounced before, there wasn't THE big premiere with Craig and his friends, nor even the worst stuntman in the film, no, our premier was on Dec. 6th with some "TV personalities" which i could see for the first time (thanks to W radio and Andrea who gave me the tickets). it was in one of the most important Malls in the City, and there were 2 functions: the VIP and the regular dudes. it was a Heinneken event with Sony advertising (a lovely girl was giving info about Bond Cell phone)
now, move on into the movie itself:
The Name's Craig, Daniel Craig: i (as pretty much everyone) was stranged about Craig being Chosen but, i saw Munich desperately to see him act, after i manage to get a DVD of L4yer Cak3 and then i realized that he might get the job done. When the teaser was released i thought "Habemmus Bond".
Well, i will explain it this way: Daniel Craig is superb, he has overpassed the powers, the abilities, the behaviour of an ordinary Bond, and even the strongest one, He is a Super Saiyan Bond (hence the golden hair and the piercing blue eyes) all because his work, his workout, his preparation, he has so angry to the CnB stuff than he became a Super Saiyan Bond, as good as it gets. Period.
Pre Titles Sequence: I want to use some words as perfect, superb or something like that, and wouldn't be a lie, but i prefer Short. the idea is more than fine (sadly no sniping Japanese agent in New York or knife work in Europe) but yes, i don't dislike the noir sense but it might be longer (like a couple minutes in dialogues and stronger beginning in the bathroom part.
You Know my Name: Honestly, i like it, i like the song (not that much when it came out) but it grows on me, in fact i can hum it all day long, and the myspace song seems better for the main titles (i love that version), instead, they put some mix in which the trumpets were taken. not the best decision, but you can't win them all. The titles were near perfect, the cards, and the casino theme were clever... no jumping unnecessarily, everything had a purpose and sadly no girls, but this particular Bond had no girls, so i got that.
Not the kids Madagascar: Uganda appears to show reality and present us Le Chiffré and his way of living. not why, but how. In Madagascar we first see Bond, not as Rookie as the media present him (he was careful and athletic). It didn't matter to see him in a cobra fight (as someone in a chat room criticises) because i don't think Madagascar has lots of casinos and let Mollaka in, so it was apropiate. when he was in trouble he compensates with wit. i thought the Parkour was short and not as spectacular when they get in the crane fight, but i gladly ate my thoughts after. The embassy shows "Comando Bond" (remember, he is a SAS agent -sadly no RNVR-) using his training to complete his objective and escape.
London Calling: M scene was good, weird because the Dench affair, but good, first laughs and giggles in the theatre. Bond seems rouge, rebel and all that stuff, but he is smart and well trained to get Dimitros location and to show M that he isn't as "blunt" as he appears.
Welcome to Nassau: in Bahamas we see a "suave" yet strong character Bond - ok, no tie but you don't need a suit to show class - who uses technology, brains and a little charm to have info (again a large response to the Rover incident)... sorry, the movie may deserve, in a scale of 1 to 10 a 11, but WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH THE OCEAN SCENE... WHY, WHY LIKE THAT.... HE IS NO FRIC**** URSULA ANDRESS.... sorry EON, that scene WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN (oh man, im really ****ed of about that).... but Solange is beautiful, a shame so little time on screen, but her scenes were good and the Aston Martin part... great. This is the Bond that we saw before, i don't care if he does it with married women.
Bienvenido a Miami: Again, Bond is determinate to follows his instincts (no direct or indirect orders whatsoever) to solve the mystery (again a good use of cell phones) and spy stuff in the museum. No chit-chat with Dimitros, no social events with him, only a knife and again, Bond reacting to survive.
In the airport, well, he made a mistake, when he let the bomber discovers him and a pathetic cameo appears (i'll blink next time). When he finds him, he becomes more Bond (his first impulse is to call M ommy to help him, to have an army on his back and open a door for him, when he realized he coul open it. The chase was fun (not hilarious fun rather risky, worth to see) some good moves and again, no stupid one - liners ("do you mind if i seat next to you?" i think). someone asked about Bond plan, it was rather simple: if the bomber was paid, he probably hasn't any intention to blow himself up, so he would be far from the explosion ratio. The audience hold their breath more than once.
Briefing: Short and with a mayor fault: how did M knew Bond was the best plater in the service? i would change the Villers explanation and put a past reference like " for the Monaco incident and your development over there i can tell you're the best player in the service"... beats me, but but an official case rather a simple opinion surely would be not only better but appreciated.
The "Money" Train: Good scene (yes, i love trains too) and puts the mood between the relationship between Bond and Vesper. I like the poker and its psycological chat afterwards. We see something that old, new and fundamentalist fans have to accept: Bond Eats (he has a good appetite, and his literary counterpart eats a lot and darn well i might add).
Besides the Casino: We meet Mathis, as Bond contact and gives info about Le Chiffré moves. we also continue meeting Bond with women (not as the womaniser that never says no, but more like a playful man who happens to taunt single women) a great intro in the Splendide Hotel (i like the attitude he gets there and Vesper's Reply) in this part i would like to see the Muntz, the Bombers (terrorist or whatever)... it needed more development.
Casino Royale: i like the poker game, i didn't find it boring (even if everybody thought and knew Bond would win) and the cut-outs were appropriated, the one when they changed the day perhaps a little confusing. but not a big deal.
I love the Vesper Martini being ordered an its reaction, understand the "give a damn" line (laughs over here) as well as in the "that last hand..." i'm happy abut the casino treatment, every thing fits. i would put a Cosack with a Cane.
About the casino, i was disappointed with its looks, but i saw the casino i wanted outside, and understand that as a private room was ok.
Dinner's Over:it was a nice moment when Bond has his reward, and a dramatic approach when "Mathis appears" (i like that scene even when feeling it more dramatic in the book). the chase was too short, and Vesper in the road was a surprise (was a good move not showing Le Chiffré putting her in the road)
Thunderballs shaken or stirred? the torture should be longer (not like the half of the movie) but the movie timeline itself. I mean, i like it, but a better approach would be this: first hit him in the belly or something, so then when he hits down the chair you'll feel pain and surprise as well. he gets lots of pain (LOTS) and pass away, when Bond wakes up he gets the pain state described in the Book and becomes sarcastic (i think as a good homage Le Chiffré could said " choose well your next..."
Le Chiffré's dead... not good enough, it missed something, not Bond killing him but more suffering from Le Chiffré (not sadical, but psycological) and Bond being marked in some way.
Recovering: very fast, seems like Bond didn't suffer at all, and he and Mathis could have the same dialogue than had in the book, and in the end of it, Mathis being arrested.
Bond and Vesper needed a Mountage, something that really shows them in love (like OHMSS) and not a shagging after shagging stuff like it seems that happened.
Is The bitch Dead?: Venice part was marvellous except one thing: Vesper wasn't The Bitch, in part for M's Lines. i really didn't feel like Bond said those words with the strength he did it in the book. those should be better delivered by the scrip, it's not Craig's Fault.
The Name's Craig, Daniel Craig that last scene really didn`t mean anything until the theme kicks in... that had to be Bond 22, but you can't go without Saying that. and with his voice, his presence in that particularly scene... that makes it fits
With the movie analized, now i must go with the characters (except Bond of course)
Vesper was appropiate, i have no complains about her, i have only one comment: when she appears in the bathroom (when Bond gives her outfit and has no make up at all) i heard the room filled by a "Wow", "Humm" and others sounds that indicated this: that is GORGEOUS in that scene... you can screw pretty much all her other scenes, and why not, other Bond Girls... i envy the person ho can see her every day when she looks like that.
Mathis was a good ally, Giancarlo seemed old to me (well, he is) but it doesn't care, its a shame that whasn't more useful, but he did his job.
Sadly, i can't say the same about Geofrey's Leiter... who is this guy, what is he doing? i must say: nothing. Is nothing personal, and even if i can't buy his look (not racism, but his neutral look: not menacing, not funny, not much of a support... he gives nothing) i mean, you can revive Marlon Brando in his youth and make him Leiter, put De Niro or Tom Hanks... nobody can't fix that, only the script.
What about Q and Moneypenny: they could perfectly fit in some scenes, but i'm honest: i didn't miss them: Moneypenny would do an office job, a "secret burocracy", she would act professionally and not precisely flirting Bond so lots of fans would hang her for that. About Q, well, if he gives Bond the Defibrillator, well: you would know that he had one, worse, you would know he would use it. and it doesn't seems as crazy as you might think: Le Chiffré has to get rid of Bond, so that's why he poison him... (everybody was hysterical about the defibrillator, but none said anything abut lots of poison cures.) it makes part of the future medkid.
I miss more Tanner that Q and Moneypenny, and wouldn't be hysterical if they doesn't appear in Bond 22. bring them only if they are necessary.
I'm sorry about all the gadgets and one-liners (even knowing i have no idea how are them) but there is a line in which they are dangerous to the films... please don't cross it again.
About Rookie Bond, or Clumsy Bond, or James Bland... i've just remembered something; the great Connery didn't have any idea how to dismantle an atomic bomb... three more cliks later and Goldfinger would won... instead, Moore pretty much had disarming nuclear Bombs for a hobby. James Bond is classy, elegant, suave and all those things, but he bleeds, he swears, he suffers, he even sweats... i'm glad i finally saw that, and not in a Brosnan faked kinda way but really beaten up (in the books he ends in a hospital or in a curating process)
i didn't find it long, but my brother who went with me thought that.
007 of 007: there are things that i would change but i give this score Why? Bond said it better than i could:Mais n' anculons pas de mouches
but DC coming out of the water was for the ladies, its not for us to look at.
It worked for the ladies, and you must admit dont you wanna look like that?
I do {[] cos then i could pick up ALL of the CR girls :x :v
"Better make that two."
Yes, you're right (i also like the way he walks and smiles) but i'm sick about the scene since DAD...
I don't wanna or need all CR girls, i only need Vesper in the bathroom without makeup... that would make my day. :x
I will also apologise for my criticism of the decision to keep Judi Dench. I was initially pi#%ed when I heard she was staying on but I cannot imagine a better M in this movie. Congrats EON
You heard right, as least as far as I'm concerned. I think you'll love it.
Check out my Instagram: @livingthebondlife
"I never joke about my work, 007."
I've read all the novels, got the entire collection from NO til CR (got the dvd from SONY), got all movie soundtracks etc...- I've seen CASINO ROYALE so far just once in theatre.. when? ...YESTERDAY.. i know a bit late.. but I waited on prupose .. and I was BLOWN away.. OMG.. superb movie, and Craig got deffinately what it takes to carry on .. they could'nt use Brosnan for CR .. I agree 100% with the desicion EON went with a new actor ... and chosing Craig, and yes he got the certain something in him between Dalton and Connery!!!!
I thought it (CR) had all the right elements you need it to understand BOND as a rookie ..
can't wait for BOND 22 "RISICO"
PS: I'm going to the movies 2.. 3..times more.. ;o)))
CASINO ROYALE was worth the time, the drama and the time ... a total success.
peace & love
www.slimk.cjb.net