I would like to talk to James Bond purists about Casino Royale (2006)

JohnMasterson

I know there's a certain percentage of people around here who openly reject Martin Campbell's Casino Royale movie in favor of the book. And I completely understand that but there's just one thing that I would like to bring up to the forefront.

Are any of you guys even aware of how LOW the bar was set by the previous "adaptations" of the Casino Royale novel? I mean I guess Climax's Casino Royale was an okay adaptation of the book; at the time, but I believe that making James Bond an American and calling him Jimmy was just plain stupid.

If they really wanted to mix things up THAT badly they could have simply made the American agent Felix Lighter into the hero and they could've had James Bond playing the sidekick role. And don't even get me started on Charles K. Feldman's Casino Royale movie. If you could even call it that. It was "SUGGESTED" by the Ian Fleming novel as opposed to being based upon it. And yet it had nothing to do with the work of the late great Ian Fleming, NOTHING AT ALL!!!

Golrush007

I think that both the Ian Fleming novel and the 2006 film are exceptionally good works. Fleming's first book is one of his best and although it is a much smaller story than the adventures that followed it is full of wonderful passages and great prose.

The 2006 film is, in my opinion, a very good adaptation of the book to the modern day, and also to a larger scale story to make a worthy cinematic Bond adventure. I honestly don't think that Casino Royale could have been adapted for the screen better than that, unless one were making a period film.

Thunderpussy

Don't know if I'm a purist But I thought the 2006 Casino Royale was a great
adaptation and updating of the Novel.

Virgil37

I was one of those Bond fans that dreamt about a true movie of Casino Royale for years and years. Having read the novel many times, I could feel there was a great movie there. And simply put, in 2006 they went and made the movie of my dreams. I had been there with my imagination many times, and they captured all the atmosphere of the novel and enhanced it and updated it for modern times. It´s simply superb in every aspect. IMHO, Ian Fleming would have been proud.

Blood_Stone

The torture scene was far better in the book and I would've likd to have seen Bond read Vesper's letter, but overall I felt Casino Royale did a good job trying to be faithful to the literary version.

Blackleiter

I agree. The filmmakers did a tremendous job with their adaptation.

Thunderpussy wrote:

Don't know if I'm a purist But I thought the 2006 Casino Royale was a great
adaptation and updating of the Novel.

zaphod

Agree that it was a superb job. The novel to my mind is fairly slight, but the tone was preserved well and updated with real flair. Altough the torture scene is great, and a series highlight, it still lacks some of that menace that came from the almost casual beating and the warped fatherly nature of the discourse re cowboys an Indians, heroes and villains that is truly creepy in the book. That said, it's hard for me to imagine a better interpretation. If Skyfall gets anywhere near this quality ( and I think it might) we are in for another great Bond film.

BIG TAM

I wondered how on earth the torture scene was going to be pulled off. I thought 007's plight at the end of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH was as near-the-knuckle as the series might get. To do a MARATHON MAN style of intensity would surely deviate too much from the acceptable face of 12 & PG-13 rated Bonds. But the film-makers surprised me in getting the balance just right. We feel the guy on the chair's in real peril but there's still enough sly wit to remind us this is still our beloved spy. Full marks to Martin Campbell & co for pitching it perfectly.

Virgil37

The torture scene was a masterful combination of faithful adaptation, great filmmaking and wonderful acting. No wonder the movie upon release went to the top five of many Bond fans, and had Craig rubbing elbows with Connery for the spot of best Bond ever.
Which makes me think it´s a good thing CR was made in 2006 and not 1962. They probably couldn´t have pull this scene off. And I can´t imagine Connery (or any other actor) in it.

BIG TAM

I know what you mean. We live in a far more liberal age with regard to what's okay to show to a younger audience. I don't necessarily agree with all of it (the UK 12A rating's a complete waste of time in my view), but that's another issue.

For 1964 I think the laser dissection scene in GOLDFINGER is reasonably intense. Given the possible outcome for 007 it's just as wince-inducing as the torture scene in CASINO ROYALE & Connery plays his torment as well as Craig.

JohnMasterson

Anybody like how James Bond brutally kills people in this movie? Because I do. I love how Bond strangles people and dunks their heads in sink and toilet water. And these people often deserve to be treated that way because why should Bond take it easy on the bad guys when the bad guys are not taking it easy on him?

Ian Fleming usa

BIG TAM wrote:

I know what you mean. We live in a far more liberal age with regard to what's okay to show to a younger audience. I don't necessarily agree with all of it (the UK 12A rating's a complete waste of time in my view), but that's another issue.

For 1964 I think the laser dissection scene in GOLDFINGER is reasonably intense. Given the possible outcome for 007 it's just as wince-inducing as the torture scene in CASINO ROYALE & Connery plays his torment as well as Craig.

I couldn't agree with you more. "What about "Operation Grandslam?" What a bluff. Great Movie and bad guys.

Ian Fleming usa

Golrush007 wrote:

I think that both the Ian Fleming novel and the 2006 film are exceptionally good works. Fleming's first book is one of his best and although it is a much smaller story than the adventures that followed it is full of wonderful passages and great prose.

The 2006 film is, in my opinion, a very good adaptation of the book to the modern day, and also to a larger scale story to make a worthy cinematic Bond adventure. I honestly don't think that Casino Royale could have been adapted for the screen better than that, unless one were making a period film.

Ah yes, good old S.M.E.R.S.H.

GoldenEye85

It took a few times watching Casino Royale for me to like it, but now it is EASILY one of my favorites in the series. It also has made Daniel Craig one of my favorite Bond actors.

superado

I think Casino Royale (2006) was a fantastic effort of an adaptation considering how much the novel is dated. I even think the sleight-of-hand done with the reboot cinematically speaking was deftly pulled off. As a caveat, I do think Daniel Craig delivers the best (of all the Bond actors) combination of acting ability, intensity and sincerity; however, all that is tantalizingly frustrating because personally I do not think he aesthetically fits the role.

As far as Casino Royale (1967) is concerned, I do not agree with the suggestion that it barely resembles the source material. Of course, the plot elements and stylistic approach were radically changed, but because Charles Feldman faced the difficult prospect of going against the EON Bond series that was at its peak. It became therefore a business matter I think of steering into the curve. The movie did retain the novel’s characters of Vesper and even Mathis, as well SMERSH and Le Chiffre using trick glasses to cheat in baccarat. If I remember correctly, it's even set in Fleming's fictional French town, Royale-les-Eaux. Technically speaking, therefore, the 1967 version retains more elements of the novel than the 2006 version. But I suppose just as I mentioned about my frustration with Craig being really good but not fitting my Bond ideal (like Robert Downey, Jr. as Sherlock Holmes), the camp flavor of Feldman's CR became the deal breaker.

What’s interesting to note that just came to mind, how Herb Alpert performed the theme song of this first non-Eon Bond movie and his wife, Lani Hall, performed the theme song for the 2nd non-Eon Bond movie, NSNA!

chrisisall

superado wrote:

I do think Daniel Craig delivers the best (of all the Bond actors) combination of acting ability, intensity and sincerity; however, all that is tantalizingly frustrating because personally I do not think he aesthetically fits the role.

I love DC as an actor, but yeah, I have such a hard time with him as Bond... his performance is second to NONE, I just wish he had more physical presence like Connery or Dalton.... it's a bit like getting a 6'2" blond guy to play Peter Parker- it's just not the way the character was established... 8-)

mpoplawski

Well, I consider the 2006 Casino Royale to be a "good" Bond movie, but not great. I won't even go into what I didn't like. I don't think the 50's Casino Royale can be really taken to seriously in any comparisons. It was the first attempt at a Bond movie, it is on a limited budget and I think it was recorded live. It also is much simplified from the book. It is great to watch from a historical perspective and the Bond phenomenon.

Now, the 1967 Casino Royale, which so many seem to hate. I think you must take it as it is, a satire of the series meant to be a comedy. Great soundtrack. Some interesting points in it. I was taken by some of the details that do appear and were in the book but never made it to other movie versions. You had of course the Vesper character, but did you pickup on Bond's 1930's Bentley? We barely see a glimpse of it in From Russia with Love. If I took the time to review the movie I know I would find other references. I am not saying that the movie should be taken as a serious Bond flick just an interesting side note. When I watch it I feel like it is a Harvard Lampoon version of the book written by people that really know the book.

Sorry for the rambling pointless comments, please enjoy.

Blackleiter

My biggest quibble with the 1967 version of Casino Royale is not so much that it doesn't adhere to the novel closely enough. In fact, a "Harvard Lampoon" style spoof would be a great idea. But isn't a spoof supposed to be funny? For me, this movie is almost totally devoid of laughs and is nothing more than a loud, chaotic, pointless mess!

mpoplawski wrote:

Well, I consider the 2006 Casino Royale to be a "good" Bond movie, but not great. I won't even go into what I didn't like. I don't think the 50's Casino Royale can be really taken to seriously in any comparisons. It was the first attempt at a Bond movie, it is on a limited budget and I think it was recorded live. It also is much simplified from the book. It is great to watch from a historical perspective and the Bond phenomenon.

Now, the 1967 Casino Royale, which so many seem to hate. I think you must take it as it is, a satire of the series meant to be a comedy. Great soundtrack. Some interesting points in it. I was taken by some of the details that do appear and were in the book but never made it to other movie versions. You had of course the Vesper character, but did you pickup on Bond's 1930's Bentley? We barely see a glimpse of it in From Russia with Love. If I took the time to review the movie I know I would find other references. I am not saying that the movie should be taken as a serious Bond flick just an interesting side note. When I watch it I feel like it is a Harvard Lampoon version of the book written by people that really know the book.

Sorry for the rambling pointless comments, please enjoy.

JohnMasterson

I think Charles K. Feldman didn't play to the production's strengths...Instead he kept insisting that Peter Sellers should be a "funny" James Bond but Sellers wouldn't do it and Sellers was supposedly being paid a lot of money to be humorous in front of the camera.

I think if Sellers wasn't going to be funny then they should have used that to their advantage. If Peter Sellers was going to play James Bond as a straight-character as opposed to a funny character, then they could have had the Sellers Bond as sort of the bud of everybody else's jokes and by the end of the movie the Peter Sellers James Bond character snaps like a twig and brutally kills everyone has ever made fun of him in the film.

He just kills them all and he doesn't appear to have suffer any consequences, or maybe he does suffer the consequences but who truly knows? Because the movie just fades to black after he's killed everyone.

chrisisall

mpoplawski wrote:

Well, I consider the 2006 Casino Royale to be a "good" Bond movie, but not great.

Strange, in the Seventies, Bond became funny, in the 2000's Bond becomes hyper serious. I enjoy my 'adult comic books' somewhere in the middle.
I want more TB/TLD/GE in my Bonds... 8-)

Will Skyfall deliver this? My bet is yes. -{