The Sun `Craig...best Bond since Connery.'
glidrose
Posts: 138MI6 Agent
Yes, I know. It's The Sun. But still, another positive review. Most of this was sweet music to my ears, but I bet it won't please all of you....;)
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006480716,00.html
By THE SNEAK
October 20, 2006
CASINO ROYALE is the most eagerly awaited Bond movie ever.
It’s not out in Britain until November 16 but here The Sun’s secret agent The Sneak gives Sun readers the world’s first review.
He has gone undercover to infiltrate a preview screening of the film, starring Brit Daniel Craig.
I WONDERED if I should do two versions of my review — one for the Bond fans who prefer the tongue-in-cheek Roger Moore and another for those who long for a return to Sean Connery’s classic From Russia With Love.
To be honest, those 007 fans who want more Moore — or Pierce Brosnan back — will not like what I am about to say.
And that is: Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Connery.
Craig’s performance is so strong he could even make moviegoers forget there was anyone between himself and Connery.
He plays the gritty, tougher-than-nails secret agent novelist Ian Fleming meant the world to see.
With his bulked-up frame, intense blue eyes and don’t-mess-with-me attitude, Craig makes Brosnan look a bit girlie in comparison.
Blond-haired Craig has had to dodge as many bullets from internet critics as movie villains since becoming the sixth official James Bond.
But from the black-and-white opening sequence to the pulse-pounding, action-packed end, Craig is telling his critics, “I’m gonna be doing this for years.”
The film includes the most disturbing Bond torture scene ever filmed and shows 007 will not be pulling any punches from now on.
Bond’s Thunderballs get so gruesomely whacked that every man in the audience will feel his pain long after getting home.
And rather than simply dusting himself down after this attack, the new, realistic Bond takes a month in hospital getting his mojo back.
The director, Martin Campbell, returns to kick butt after directing Pierce Brosnan in GoldenEye in the Nineties — and again clearly jump-starts the series for the 21st Century.
Gone are the cartoon-like trappings of past films such as the invisible cars and outlandish villains — and some fans may be disappointed by the noticeable absence of old favourites Q and Miss Moneypenny. But the presence of Dame Judi Dench brings authority and humour to her role as Bond’s boss M.
Casino Royale was Fleming’s first Bond novel. The title was used for a spoof starring David Niven in 1967.
This, though, is the first attempt to bring Fleming’s original vision to life.
And, to be frank, like the novel, it suffers from a lack of sharpness in the plot.
You will need to concentrate as you follow the story because, running at a whopping two hours and 20 minutes, the movie is 20 minutes too long.
A healthy bit of editing would have avoided confusing scenes where some characters appear and disappear inexplicably.
And, often, the characters do things for no apparent reason.
Some scenes seem to be going in a certain direction but end up leaving the audience scratching their heads in sheer confusion.
The novel is the rough template for the film — but screenwriters Robert Wade, Neal Purvis and Oscar-winning Crash writer and director Paul Haggis have to change the enemy and setting in order to bring it up to date. Casino Royale follows Bond on his first Licence to Kill mission.
Not everything goes according to plan, though, and Bond is forced to investigate a terrorist cell on his own, which leads him to banker Le Chiffre played with understated menace by Danish actor Mads Mikkelson.
Le Chiffre and Bond then take each other on in a high-stake game of poker.
Fortunately, the action sequences more than compensate for the complicated plot.
Campbell has ditched the computer-generated imagery and gone back to real stunts – which give Casino Royale a real awe factor.
The set-piece with a terrorist called Mollaka crackles with energy.
He is played by Sebastien Foucan — the real-life free runner who gets his kicks out of jumping from building to building. Mollaka is chased through a construction site and across a crane suspended high above a city.
Another thrilling scene sees a terrorist attempt to blow up an airliner.
Female fans will not be disappointed by the sight of Craig in a picture-postcard Bahamas landscape.
He emerges from the sea wearing a skimpy pair of swimming trunks, set against a stunning Bahamas backdrop.
French actress Eva Green plays the main Bond girl Vesper Lynd.
And she manages to bring out the soft side of Bond that has rarely been seen in previous films.
But beyond that, she still has the perfect assets for a Bond girl that have wowed generations of red-blooded males.
James Bond is the most successful film franchise in history in terms of box office receipts.
And the key to its continuing success is whether the fans are still egging on their hero at the end of each film.
But you can bet on Craig being a hit because when he sorts out his enemy at the end of the film — with his well-worn line “Bond — James Bond”, you just can’t help cheering.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006480716,00.html
By THE SNEAK
October 20, 2006
CASINO ROYALE is the most eagerly awaited Bond movie ever.
It’s not out in Britain until November 16 but here The Sun’s secret agent The Sneak gives Sun readers the world’s first review.
He has gone undercover to infiltrate a preview screening of the film, starring Brit Daniel Craig.
I WONDERED if I should do two versions of my review — one for the Bond fans who prefer the tongue-in-cheek Roger Moore and another for those who long for a return to Sean Connery’s classic From Russia With Love.
To be honest, those 007 fans who want more Moore — or Pierce Brosnan back — will not like what I am about to say.
And that is: Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Connery.
Craig’s performance is so strong he could even make moviegoers forget there was anyone between himself and Connery.
He plays the gritty, tougher-than-nails secret agent novelist Ian Fleming meant the world to see.
With his bulked-up frame, intense blue eyes and don’t-mess-with-me attitude, Craig makes Brosnan look a bit girlie in comparison.
Blond-haired Craig has had to dodge as many bullets from internet critics as movie villains since becoming the sixth official James Bond.
But from the black-and-white opening sequence to the pulse-pounding, action-packed end, Craig is telling his critics, “I’m gonna be doing this for years.”
The film includes the most disturbing Bond torture scene ever filmed and shows 007 will not be pulling any punches from now on.
Bond’s Thunderballs get so gruesomely whacked that every man in the audience will feel his pain long after getting home.
And rather than simply dusting himself down after this attack, the new, realistic Bond takes a month in hospital getting his mojo back.
The director, Martin Campbell, returns to kick butt after directing Pierce Brosnan in GoldenEye in the Nineties — and again clearly jump-starts the series for the 21st Century.
Gone are the cartoon-like trappings of past films such as the invisible cars and outlandish villains — and some fans may be disappointed by the noticeable absence of old favourites Q and Miss Moneypenny. But the presence of Dame Judi Dench brings authority and humour to her role as Bond’s boss M.
Casino Royale was Fleming’s first Bond novel. The title was used for a spoof starring David Niven in 1967.
This, though, is the first attempt to bring Fleming’s original vision to life.
And, to be frank, like the novel, it suffers from a lack of sharpness in the plot.
You will need to concentrate as you follow the story because, running at a whopping two hours and 20 minutes, the movie is 20 minutes too long.
A healthy bit of editing would have avoided confusing scenes where some characters appear and disappear inexplicably.
And, often, the characters do things for no apparent reason.
Some scenes seem to be going in a certain direction but end up leaving the audience scratching their heads in sheer confusion.
The novel is the rough template for the film — but screenwriters Robert Wade, Neal Purvis and Oscar-winning Crash writer and director Paul Haggis have to change the enemy and setting in order to bring it up to date. Casino Royale follows Bond on his first Licence to Kill mission.
Not everything goes according to plan, though, and Bond is forced to investigate a terrorist cell on his own, which leads him to banker Le Chiffre played with understated menace by Danish actor Mads Mikkelson.
Le Chiffre and Bond then take each other on in a high-stake game of poker.
Fortunately, the action sequences more than compensate for the complicated plot.
Campbell has ditched the computer-generated imagery and gone back to real stunts – which give Casino Royale a real awe factor.
The set-piece with a terrorist called Mollaka crackles with energy.
He is played by Sebastien Foucan — the real-life free runner who gets his kicks out of jumping from building to building. Mollaka is chased through a construction site and across a crane suspended high above a city.
Another thrilling scene sees a terrorist attempt to blow up an airliner.
Female fans will not be disappointed by the sight of Craig in a picture-postcard Bahamas landscape.
He emerges from the sea wearing a skimpy pair of swimming trunks, set against a stunning Bahamas backdrop.
French actress Eva Green plays the main Bond girl Vesper Lynd.
And she manages to bring out the soft side of Bond that has rarely been seen in previous films.
But beyond that, she still has the perfect assets for a Bond girl that have wowed generations of red-blooded males.
James Bond is the most successful film franchise in history in terms of box office receipts.
And the key to its continuing success is whether the fans are still egging on their hero at the end of each film.
But you can bet on Craig being a hit because when he sorts out his enemy at the end of the film — with his well-worn line “Bond — James Bond”, you just can’t help cheering.
Comments
Well, it is The Sun we are talking about here, after all.....;)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Still, interesting, if not slightly conflicting, review.
The review does give me even more hope of loving CR though. And as for confusing a journalist from the Scum - surely that's a good thing?
@merseytart
the trailer showed a lot of of promise imo, and i'm getting more and more used to craig as bond. in fact i can't wait to see him in the film!
the only part i am slightly worried about is actually martin campbell. granted, goldeneye is a fine film (and certainly brosnan's best) but how qualified is he otherwise? his resume from the past few years doesn't really look that great.
anyways, here's hoping that casino royale will work 100%. it might not be as commercially big as DAD was, but it surely can't be as bad as a film in itself.
And of course, we can't have a review of Craig without taking a shot at Brosnan. Whatever!
Internet critics ?:)
These guys are so shameless they're practically endearing.
A word on the slight criticism in the middle of the review. Hardly a big deal -- either for the movie or the review. I always have little quibble with movies I love and it doesn't spoil them a bit. Ex: in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" hows does Indiana Jones get all the way to the island OUTSIDE the submarine? Always bothered me but never spoiled the picture for me at all. Although someone inclined to dislike the movie anyway might harp on that.
How can you say they won't be standing in lines around the block this time round too? It hasn't been released yet so you cannot say this.
I just managed to book tickets for the charity premiere on the 15th, but it looked like both 16th and 17th were sold out. I cannot remember a film selling out like this a month before its release. I think there is a very high level of anticipation for this movie (just look at how many posts you have made on this forum regarding the subject, for instance). It seems every major movie mag for the past few months has had one article or another on Craig, and no doubt a lot of people read these magazines.
With regards the Brosnan-bashing, well the critics have to compare with what has been before. If they didn't like Brosnan in the role, so be it. Freedom of speech and all that.
There has been certainly enough Craig bashing by the press over the past year, but I bet that didn't bother you half as much.
I don't think the standing-around-the-block test is really relevant anymore, if it ever was. There are so many theaters with so many screens at so many times, you never see lines around the block anymore. At least I don't out here. There weren't even any for "Titanic," and no Bond film has had that kind of success.
But "most eagerly awaited" I think is still a valid description in the context of all the controversy surrounding Craig and the reboot. Even a little review hyperbole like "most eagerly awaited" gets analyzed as if it were the latest pronouncement from the Pope and reviews are reviewed. Some people are "eagerly awaiting" it to succeed, others are "eagerly awaiting" for it to flop.
Ooops ;% Thanks Arthur. I guess the Sun would headline my post this way:
"Sun Target of Internet Smear"
what more can you write? If the plot's out there, what can a reviwer actually say to prove he's seen it if you won't accept his view on the quality of the acting etc. as proof?
He whipped himself to the periscope!:
I think we need to wait until it is released. Who know what will happen then....
I was around, too, Barry, and you are right: there was a definite Bond mania back then. Bond will never be as new as he was in the '60s, so the Sneak's remark is certainly a bit hyperbolic (I'm under the impression that the Sun is not given to understatment, whatever the subject). But anticipation comes in many forms. I think it is fair to say that because the Bond torch has been passed and the formula changed to great controversy, CR is very highly anticipated by people interested in movies (critics, movie freaks, industry people, theater owners) and Bond (us, and perhaps more casual fans, as well). I just don't think we all anticipate it for the same reasons. Some are looking for the answer to their prayers, others are looking through their fingers anticipating a train wreck. So the Sneak's statement doesn't appear to be as outrageous as it may sound.
Excellent point. There have been entire websites sprout up in anticipation of CR---even if only to boycott it
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Thanks, emtiem, but I can't tell if you're serious or pulling my leg. Wouldn't he have drowned? I guess you have to believe it remained on the surface the whole time (Seems to me the sequence suggests they dive, but I don't remember). I guess that since WWII hostilities hadn't yet begun, it's plausible they might not have had reason to. Still. But here's another one: What about the guy who was shot with the poisoned arrows in the opening sequence at the south American temple? Isn't he exactly the same guy with the Nazi spies in the Cairo scenes? Did he revive????
Will my thirst for total Raiders understanding be quenched at last by emtiem (or anyone else who cares to chime in?). I know I've veered off-topic Mods, but please -- I'm so close.
{[] That a BIG 10-4, Ben. One of the biggest gaffes of Broccoli's career -- movie history for that matter -- has to be turning down Spielberg to direct a Bond film. The guy can really think outside the box and one can only imagine what the film would have been like if Spielberg had been given free rein. But I'm not sure Albert could have handled handing over "his" franchise to someone else. And subsequent films might have looked dull by comparison.
I keep seeing rumours Spielberg wants to do a Tintin film!
Sorry to butt in, but I used to have the Marvel comic adaptation, which does show Indy lashing himself onto the periscope for the whole voyage to the secret U-boat pen. In it also in Raider's style, Indy struggled physically and mentally to withstand the cold and extreme discomfort. I suppose as with novelizations, scripts are given to the writers before hand, and the posted image seems to show that the sequence was shot but eventually left on the cutting room floor.
As with how it would have been like in real life, WWII subs, which ran on diesel, did not regularly endure remaining submerged for extended voyages, even during hostilities. Therefore, the flaw of that sequence was the opposite, which is the absence of crew in the conning tower during the voyage to the u-boat pen.
Aha!! {[] Thanks Superado (and Emtiem, of course). Works for me. Now explain the Case of the Resurrected Henchman and I'll be all set ... (In the Cairo scene, I'm talking about the guy with the ill-fated monkey who ate the dates)
I was only about 7 when Dr. No came out. My earliest memory of the Bond films is of asking my parents to go see it but being told I wouldn't be interested because it was mostly dialogue. Of course, what they were really concerned about was the sex and violence, which was pretty explicit for its day. I was finally allowed to see a Bond film with the family when GF came out, so I guess I was about 9 or 10. I was by then a huge fan, having seen the other films, read some of the books in paperback or serialized in my dad's "Playboy" magazines (and seen the Bond girls)like YOLT and TMWTGG.
The mania was real, especially accompanying GF, when it peaked. There was a good deal of toy merchandising. I get a kick out of the "making of" documentary on the GF DVD because they mention this GF-themed slot car set that I saw in the Sears catalogue and wanted desperately for Christmas that year. It was really expensive for a kid's toy back then -- something like 35-50 bucks, so I didn't get it. I was pleased to hear it didn't work so well. Very petty of me, but I really wanted that thing
My dad worked in France during this period, so we lived there. I remember seeing TB when it first came out at a big theater in Piccadilly Circus, because we happened to be visiting England at the time. There was this huge billboard of Bond fighting a frogman underwater above the theater (I wonder if the theater still exists -- do any Londoners on the site know?). I think Thunderball was a phenomenon not only because of Bond, but because of the underwater scenes. You have to remember that although scuba equipment had been around for a while, scuba diving was still relatively exotic to the masses back then and still had that "gadget" appeal. They'd built a whole TV show around it a few years earlier called "Sea Hunt," starring Lloyd Bridges, Jeff's dad. Huge hit. In fact, to people my age, he is best known as "Mike Nelson" (note the name Nelson and its association with the sea). And old Jacques Cousteau , who co-invented the aqualung, had fairly recently achieved a level of fame with his documentaries "The World of Silence" and "The World Without Sun" (great films, by the way). So there was this kind of "scuba mania" going on as well.
Yes indeed- they filmed it but left it out of the movie for whatever reason. Personally I think the worst choice was cutting out the bit where Indy learns that looking at the the Ark when opened is A Bad Thing, but what can you do?
http://www.theraider.net/films/raiders/deleted_scenes.php
1)I find Spielberg to be far too sentimental.
2)My fear regarding a 'name' director being hired is that they might try to put too much of an individual stamp on the film. I'm not seeing CR because it's a Martin Campbell film and, other than GF, DAF and LALD, I don't really love Guy Hamilton, so IMO a Bond film should always be more important than whomever is directing it.
3)There are certain thing that would I like all (or most) Bond films to have; these constitute the formula. A 'name' dirctor mught try to change the formula. I don't want that.
I can't understand that at all. The idea of Fleming having no sort of individual style when writing the books is very similar and similarily awful. In fact- that's Benson; and is pretty much the definition of diminishing returns. I want to see art, not some faceless production line.
Personally I think Raiders is the best Bond film never made (in fact I think it's a very strong candidate for Best Film Ever Made full stop- it's pretty much flawless); I'd love to have seen young Speilberg's take on Bond; the wit and originality stands far above anything Bond was doing at the time. Would I prefer to watch FYEO or Raiders? Not ahard question, and they were trying to do the same thing.
In my case I was about 8 when GF came out and my first memories are of all the cool toys. A kid across the street had all the toys, attache case being the coolest. He also had the slot car set and HH is right, it didn't work well. Anyway my first Bond movie was TB, which I saw at an outdoor theater, with state of the art speaker which hung from the car window
What really cemented me being a Bond fan was reading the books, which I started shortly after seeing the movies. The library was just down the street from me, so I would read one and go back and check out another. I loved them. James Bond was, and still is the coolest.
Now about that Sun article...:))
GF was the first film I ever saw (on TV too). That pretty much cemented my future as far as Bond was concerned. And after that it was only the Connery films that I watched. I never saw the Moore films when I was that young, even though he was from my era. The first Moore film I saw was probably LALD, which I thought was good, but never rated Moore compared to Connery.
I started borrowing my dad's Pan books that he had from the 60's, and once reading them I was hooked. I had to collect every Pan book from then on, just to have the collection.
I wasn't around during the Bondmania of the 60's, but I doubt we will ever see fanmania reaching that height again, regardless of who is playing Bond.