Em, I was only expressing what I feel about the review. If there are things in it which concern me, and perhaps me only, why can't I state them and then perhaps simply ignore the review? Is it such a big deal that I express my own personal concerns with a review?
Oh Dan; just because he hasn't worked out the list of his favourite Bond films in order doesn't mean his words are somehow rendered meaningless. He likes OHMSS a lot; therefore we know how he thinks. He doesn't have to like them in exactly the same order for you to appreciate his review, does he?
I didn't bring up TSWLM purely because he didn't mention it. I brought it up because, as I explained, the review mentions several key elements of the novel are in the film, which have been a source of great concern for me, and these elements are un-TSWLM like. It doesn't matter to me what films he like, but the films that he mention (or don't mention) can provide a clue as to what kind of film CR will be.
As it happens, for the reasons stated, I don't appreciate the review and I will simply discard it from my memory.
And yes, I like a good few of Roger's lines too (although some were awful); I don't think you're supposed to be comparing each and every line against each and every line of Roger's: it's more about feeling than being scientifically precise- this is art; not maths. There's no precise formula.
I was simply expressing my feelings. What is so wrong with that? Now as it happens, the reviewer mentions that the lines are not like in the Moore films. This concerns me more than if he had said that they are like in the Moore films.
At the end of the day though, this is just a review, and I was simply stating my feelings.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Interesting the most of the "worry" points have been addressed in these early reviews:
Craig--best Bond since Connery.
Campbell--better job than GE.
It won't feel like a Bond movie--that hasn't come up anywhere that I've read yet, just that it's a different type of Bond movie, not like what we've been getting, etc. Even comments to the effect of pulling Bond out of the doldrums.
Script--great story, great action. A few quibbles both ways, but kinda to be expected with a running time of that length.
Reboot--saw one "M doesn't work with Dench in the part." All the other comments about that are positive-to-glowing, though some gloss over it (like it's just not that important...?).
Rest of the cast--hardly gets mentioned in the Craig lovefest, saw one (the AICN reviewer again) who thought LeChiffre was weak, words to that effect.
I'm sure there will be other less-than-giddy reveiws/comments, but so far so awesome! Seems ANY film getting released these days should be so fortunate to get reviews like these...it's a good day to be a Bond fan. :007)
Em, I was only expressing what I feel about the review. If there are things in it which concern me, and perhaps me only, why can't I state them and then perhaps simply ignore the review? Is it such a big deal that I express my own personal concerns with a review?
Probably the depressing predictablility of people of on this site finding the cloud in a thread full of silver linings.
I didn't bring up TSWLM purely because he didn't mention it. I brought it up because, as I explained, the review mentions several key elements of the novel are in the film, which have been a source of great concern for me, and these elements are un-TSWLM like. It doesn't matter to me what films he like, but the films that he mention (or don't mention) can provide a clue as to what kind of film CR will be.
That's true, he mentions OHMSS and I like that one quite a lot.
As for not having elements un-TSWLM like... you've baffled me. It isn't TSWLM. Perhaps it's better.
Have you read the novel yet? Do you know you don't enjoy the elements which disturb you in context.
I was simply expressing my feelings. What is so wrong with that?
Because you do it in such a clinical, precise manner, as if the reviewer has had to have drawn up a list of the best Felixes with a bar graph to show how good they are for you to appreciate it. I just never get the idea that you have any passion for these films.
Perhaps if you had shown any enthusiasm for all the many, many positives; but no- you just find something you've decided is negative and go for it. It's depressing. I bring all these reviews for you to look at in one place and I get that as thanks. Not that I'm expecting flowers or anything, but to be rewarded by a fellow Bond fan with such apathy...
Interesting the most of the "worry" points have been addressed in these early reviews
I'm glad to see a few negatives; it was hard to accept that it's the most perfect film ever, which a few of these reviews had been presenting it as! Makes it easier to believe that it's just very, very good.
Interesting the most of the "worry" points have been addressed in these early reviews
I'm glad to see a few negatives; it was hard to accept that it's the most perfect film ever, which a few of these reviews had been presenting it as! Makes it easier to believe that it's just very, very good.
Oh yeah, every film has it lesser moments, sure. CR sounds like one of those really good films where they don't matter much.
I guess I'm most surprised about the comments about Campbell's direction, seems he's hit it just right from the reviews...who knew? And good for him! I was hoping his flair (relatively speaking...) for genre in general would translate to this particular type of genre, and guess it did (looks it from the trailer scenes IMO). Campbell not getting in the way was biggest on wish list, seems that is the case...but I'll have to see it for myself you know, these early reviewers are all studio stooges.
As for not having elements un-TSWLM like... you've baffled me. It isn't TSWLM. Perhaps it's better.
Have you read the novel yet? Do you know you don't enjoy the elements which disturb you in context.
The elements which I'm referring to include the torture and the betrayal of Bond. These are non-TSWLM elements and these greatly concern me. I don't need to have read the novel to know about them. I brought up TSWLM as an example of a brilliant Bond film which is less dark in tone and which does not feature such elements.
Because you do it in such a clinical, precise manner, as if the reviewer has had to have drawn up a list of the best Felixes with a bar graph to show how good they are for you to appreciate it.
I can't help the way I am. Plus it's only one review. There will be plenty of others, some of which might interest me.
Perhaps if you had shown any enthusiasm for all the many, many positives; but no- you just find something you've decided is negative and go for it. It's depressing. I bring all these reviews for you to look at in one place and I get that as thanks. Not that I'm expecting flowers or anything, but to be rewarded by a fellow Bond fan with such apathy...
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I rarely post (positively or negatively) on 'review' threads. That was my first post on this thread. Plus, I hate to say it, but I don't feel that CR has many positives.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
An initial opinion of CASINO ROYALE by TOOTS
Writing about Casino Royale right now is like dancing about architecture. But here goes...
Casino Royale is an instant classic with a clean, clear linear plot that moves confidently ahead, capturing the spirit and essence and, in surprising places, the details of the 1953 book. The credit "based on a novel by Ian Fleming" in the title sequence is miraculously both present and true in a Bond film made in 2006.
Daniel Craig is immediately James Bond as we have all known him and as we have never known him before. This is Fleming's Bond brought to life but the jewel of this performance is set magnificently in an exquisite script and framed in Martin Campbell's bold and satisfying direction. This is good film -making first and an extraordinary Bond film second. Craig is intense, naturalistic and fierce but also tender, vulnerable and haunted. A man emboldened and burdened by his licence to kill.
Eva Green is stunning as Vesper Lynd. Edgy, elegant, intelligent yet guarded and mysterious. Her romance with Bond is the core of the movie which takes us back to the tarnished knight of novels.
Mad Mikkelson is sinister, original and malevolent as Le Chiffre, a silouhetted cypher. He is interestingly and dynamically rendered in a performance that shades Fleming's creation with added complexity.
Caterina Murino's Fleming-named Solange is sexy and sultry and could have been a character from Quantum of Solace or The Hilderbrand Rarity. She really does hold the eye and her scenes with Bond sizzle. She is also integral to the function and spirit of the story and is played with arch aplomb by the Sardinian beauty.
Judi Dench's M is teasingly developed both in her relationship with Bond and her placement in the British Government. Continuity aside, her inclusion is exactly right for this story and her admonishing of Bond crackles with good writing and topical knowingness. M contextualizes 007's character and sets up the story and the stakes in an expositionally creative way. Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter is a subtle but pivotal presence while Giancarlo Giannini's Rene Mathis is a more prominent, ebullient performance.
The theme song and titles are similarly different from the past and a development. Saul Bass-esque graphic artistry combines with Binder-esque motion poetry in Daniel Kleinman's CG animated titles. Playing card and gambling imagery also incorporates a live action Daniel Craig. The instrumental version of the song provides a driving, energetic action theme. Denied of the full James Bond theme until the end (although we are given delicious truffle-shavings of it), You Know My Name binds the film like John Barry's alternate "007" theme. David Arnold's score both simmers and soars and is an achievement of reinvention as much as the performance of Daniel Craig, whom the score consciously tries to emulate.
Martin Campbell's style is different from GoldenEye in all but the pure energy and exuberance of his film-making. Visually intriguing (a cobra-mongoose fight, a trail through the bizarre Bodyworld exhibit) and atmospherically sinister, the film touches on elements of classic but recently unused filmBond. The travelogue is non-specific but visually stunning especially the recreation of Montenegro. Phil Meheux's sweeping photography is glorious and colourful and rich and romantic. Structurally different from most of the recent Bonds, the 21st Eon film flies through the series' longest ever running time. Stuart Baird's editing is uncompromising in the action sequences yet paces the film carefully through the poker duel and romantic subplot. Time is given to characters to talk, to love and to live. Gary Powell has made the combat very brutal and realistic and original. The visceral action setpieces are extremely exciting and, above all, original: the Madgascan freerunning sequence is breathtaking.
The toying with the Bond film formula is playful yet respectful from the placement of the gunbarrel, the name-reveal, the use of the James Bond theme, outrageous femme fatale names ("Stephanie Broadchest"!), the use of gadgetry and the symbolic invocation of the vodka martini (the Medal), Aston Martin (the chariot), MI6 hierarchy (the Order) and M (the Monarch). The reboot really is tangential to the story.
Casino Royale is like the fourth James Bond film, after Dr No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. Before the lava of creativity cooled to the crust of formula, Bond films sat as individual pieces, extracting and refining the ore of Fleming. Daniel Craig is laced with a soupçon of Dalton (richer though with the stronger charm and wit of a superior script). However, Daniel Craig is very much his own, believable, instantly winning incarnation of James Bond 007.
The larder of the last 20 films will confuse and confound the ardent Bond fan upon first viewing. This is not Surf 'n Turf at your local franchise chain restaurant. This film will not be to everyone's taste and does not lean into expectations. Casino Royale needs to percolate, mature, air in the mind, be mentally explored. Only then will the full flavour of the gourmet Bond film we have been served begin to be savoured by all of us who have hungered for James Bond to return.
The elements which I'm referring to include the torture and the betrayal of Bond. These are non-TSWLM elements and these greatly concern me. I don't need to have read the novel to know about them.
But you have to have read it to appreciate them in context. Try it; you might like it.
I hope you're simply referring to CR, because to say that I don't have any passion for the Bond films is ludicrous. ?:)
It's nothing personal Dan- it'd mean a lot to me if you enjoyed this film; btu all these lists, these precise '8th favourite Aston Martin'... it doesn't feel passionate.
Apparently the critics gave the film a round of applause at the press screening, and some sought out Wilson to shake his hand...that doesn't suck.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
That isn't quite fair, Em, he is allowed to be non-enthusiastic.
However, Dan, I'm surprised that you haven't thought to yourself if these skeptics (The Mirror, etc.) ended up liking the movie that maybe you can, too?
An initial opinion of CASINO ROYALE by TOOTS
Writing about Casino Royale right now is like dancing about architecture. But here goes...
Nice job on a well-written review that really gives a sense of the picture. It's a bonus that it's a positive one. I'm ready to dig in and lick my fingers.
I'm glad to see a few negatives; it was hard to accept that it's the most perfect film ever, which a few of these reviews had been presenting it as! Makes it easier to believe that it's just very, very good.
If you wan't to see negatives then I'm sure you'll be seeing plenty of them in a couple of weeks time.
After DAD I was hoping for a more realistic Bond film with Pierce Brosnan as 007. Something along the lines of FYEO after MR. I felt changes to the formula were needed, but I never expected they would turn out to be such radical changes. Daniel Craig as a rookie Bond, a re-boot complete with Judi Dench as M. It certainly was a shock to the system.
Now that a year has passed, now that I have seen the trailers, now that Casino Royale is almost upon us, I find myself looking forward to the film rather more than I was expecting to. That does not mean that I will except Craig/the re-boot/Judi Dench, but there is now optimism where there was once virtually none.
But you have to have read it to appreciate them in context. Try it; you might like it.
Well, I know from watching the first half of DAD that I don't like the idea of Bond being tortured. Additionally, after watching 20 Bond films, I know what I like and what I don't. There is much in CR which concerns me. These things also concern Tony and Barry so I don't know why it is such a shock that I might have a problem with the content of CR. (And I don't have to read the novel; I am perfectly aware of what I want in a Bond film.)
It's nothing personal Dan- it'd mean a lot to me if you enjoyed this film; btu all these lists, these precise '8th favourite Aston Martin'... it doesn't feel passionate.
Let me begin by saying that I don't feel I need to defend my passion for the Bond films to anybody.
Now that is cleared up, has it ever occured to you that the way I express passion is through lists? People express passion in different ways. For me, it is through lists. I love making lists (although I don't rank Aston Martins; I prefer to rank Bond cars) wether it be film lists, sporting lists or things that I need to do. However, if you can't honestly see that in my case listmaking may equal passion, then have a look at my signature as well as any thread talking about why GF/FRWL/TB/Connery/Moore/Brosnan are so good. I am a little more organised and precise in my thinking than other people, but does that make me less passionate? If I wasn't passionate about Bond, I wouldn't be here. Because, trust me, I have enough debate in my own life without having to go looking for it. I have to say, that this really annoys me. Say whatever you want about my views, but please never doubt either the sincerity of my views or my passion for the Bond films.
If this thread doesn't convince you, nothing will. I wouldn't bother seeing it if I were you.
That is an option. However, this thread aside, I am honestly lookng forward to CR. I've never not seen a Bond film at the cinemas since GE and CR, although I am less excited about it than many people on this site, is not going to be an exception.
Em, why do you have to be so negative? If I am less than enthusiastic about CR, is that such a bad thing? I simply like different things to you, that's all. I want to like CR but I don't feel that I need to act really excited or ignore certain elements which concern me simply to make you feel better.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Em - Why are you browbeating Dan? He's entitled to think and feel whatever he wants.
As good as it is to hear these reviews - and they're in keeping with what the script promised - I still have concerns myself. I won't know until I see it. And yes, it bothers me to hear the same bashing of Brosnan (and even his movies, which admittedly are flawed) over and over. Most of these reviewers seem to not be "regular" Bond fans, so it makes me wonder if this film FEELS Bondian. Also, what happens when the movies pull back into the more familiar with Bond 22?
I'm not looking for the "cloud", just nervous that what I've loved about the series might be thrown out with the bathwater.
Question: Are you going to gloat and beat down anyone who has dared doubt this film for the next few weeks? Cuz if so, any joy at the success of the film will be completely sapped.
It's only natural for Craig supporters to be pleased about reviews that validate their view, but let's not crow too loudly. I think the faction that had qualms about CR and Craig has been remarkably good-natured about letting us have our day and go on about all these good notices. Hopefully they may ultimately convince them to look at the film in a different light.
But enough of that: back to my fanboy gushings )
Even what could be described as the negatives in a couple of reviews sound positive to me. I couldn't be happier. My only concern is should I skip work on Nov. 17? The choice seems clear.
My only concern is should I skip work on Nov. 17? The choice seems clear.
So will you skip work?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
However, Dan, I'm surprised that you haven't thought to yourself if these skeptics (The Mirror, etc.) ended up liking the movie that maybe you can, too?
I'm completely open to the idea that I'll like CR. (If I don't, it'll be a waste of $11.50 ) however that particular review didn't impress me as I have some concerns regarding some of its contents. I have alot of issues with CR, and my liking CR will depend on the film's ability to maneuver around/lessen these issues. Wether or not CR is (IMO) successful on that score can only be judged by me. Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm seeing CR on 9/12/06 (regardless of the reviews) and the only person whose opinion I care about is my own.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
My only concern is should I skip work on Nov. 17? The choice seems clear.
So will you skip work?
Not sure yet. The decision hinges on a single question: Will civilization collapse if a nearly 52-year-old man tosses all dignity aside and takes the afternoon off to see a movie? ?:)
Not sure yet. The decision hinges on a single question: Will civilization collapse if a nearly 52-year-old man tosses all dignity aside and takes the afternoon off to see a movie? ?:)
Well, let me just say that there is no better reason to skip work than to see a film.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
If that's brow-beating, what was going on back in October???
Can I just point out, we've come a long way, baby (is Craig actually bringing Bond fans together...?). And, it's sure nice to have differences aired so politely. Kudos to us all.
Ultimately, every Bond fan will have to come to terms with this new Bond/reboot/Craig/whatever. So far, the critics are smiling--not like this , but like this . And there's none of this , or this ?:), or even this . To EON and company, I can only show this: {[]. And of course some of this: :x.
Ultimately, every Bond fan will have to come to terms with this new Bond/reboot/Craig/whatever. So far, the critics are smiling--not like this , but like this . And there's none of this , or this ?:), or even this . To EON and company, I can only show this: {[]. And of course some of this: :x.
Bit premature, blue. Or have you already seen Casino Royale? Perhaps you will be showing this to EON and company in a couple of weeks from now?
Somehow, I doubt it.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Ultimately, every Bond fan will have to come to terms with this new Bond/reboot/Craig/whatever. So far, the critics are smiling--not like this , but like this . And there's none of this , or this ?:), or even this . To EON and company, I can only show this: {[]. And of course some of this: :x.
Bit premature, blue. Or have you already seen Casino Royale? Perhaps you will be showing this to EON and company in a couple of weeks from now?
Somehow, I doubt it.
You're forgetting X-( and and of course |) <- I think that's me.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2006
It all sounds pretty good, so far...
My own hopes for CR's quality and success have always been dangerously high, as everyone here knows... {[] Like ben, I'll have to see it for myself, but abject disappointment seems increasingly unlikely
:007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Ultimately, every Bond fan will have to come to terms with this new Bond/reboot/Craig/whatever. So far, the critics are smiling--not like this , but like this . And there's none of this , or this ?:), or even this . To EON and company, I can only show this: {[]. And of course some of this: :x.
Bit premature, blue. Or have you already seen Casino Royale? Perhaps you will be showing this to EON and company in a couple of weeks from now?
Somehow, I doubt it.
What's premature? So far, the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, and I tip my hat to EON for what really looks to be a grand success for them--at least critically speaking (early days, yes, but still, good is good, eh?).
I imagine there will be a few dud reviews, always are. But when I read things like, not only the best Bond since Connery, but the best Bond film since Connery's tenure, kinda hard not to get excited. I realize there have been such comments before, about other Bonds/Bond films, but this is the first time I'm predisposed (since my youthful exuberance for TSWLM!) to believe them.
Looking forward to a great Bond, and a great Bond film! What's the harm in that? Round one may have gone to the tabloids, but round two belongs to the critics--and they like it. Round three will be in a week and a half, when the box office starts to roll in...
Does appear to be shaping into a Bond event, as opposed to just another Bond film. Cool. B-)
The positive reviews are very encouraging. Even though I've never thought of Craig as "the best Bond since Connery", and doubt that I ever will, in spite of what has been said in some of these reviews, that doesn't mean that I want this movie to fail. In fact, I do want it to be a good Bond movie. The reason is simple: it has been a while since the last movie, and I don't want to feel like I've waited all this time just to see a mediocre film. So far, it looks like I won't have to worry about that any more, and that's a good thing.
Here's a negative review. The writer seems to think the timeline of the movie goes all the way back to the '70s. No one else seems to have picked up on this and it seems unlikely.
Not a review, but a story about the reviews. I love the headline.
‘Potato head’ shoots his way to 007 triumph
Stuart Wavell
Sunday Times
THEY said he was too ugly, too chunky and too blond to play the sixth James Bond. Bookmakers took bets that the actor known as “Mr Potato Head” would not survive the first movie.
But Daniel Craig has come through with flying colours as Ian Fleming’s sadistic secret agent in Casino Royale.
It is probably the most violent Bond film yet, with Craig, 38, wading gamely into the fray, breaking heads, loosing lead and, in a notable torture scene, strapped naked to a chair and getting his unmentionables whipped by a man with a thick rope.
The 21st film in the series takes Bond back to his earlier years and his first assassination. He dispenses with the usual gadgets in favour of a ruthlessness and athleticism that is reminiscent of Sean Connery, the first screen 007.
Craig’s performance rescues the franchise from the trough into which it had fallen in the last outing, Die Another Day, which despite a good box-office seemed as vacuous as Bond’s invisible car. Many thought it was time for Pierce Brosnan to disappear, too.
Guests who attended a sneak preview emerged impressed. Monica Bertei, 29, an actress, said: “He’s very sexy. It’s a lot more graphic and gritty than in the past.” Graham Rye, 55, editor of 007 Magazine, said: “I haven’t been as excited about a Bond film for years. He’s the best Bond ever.”
Casino Royale, which goes on release on November 16, is only nominally based on Fleming’s 1953 novel. Here 007 finds himself pitched against a Euro-villain named Le Chiffre (played by Mads Mikkelsen), a man with a scarred, dead eye, who weeps blood through a tear duct when he starts to get agitated.
Such traits do not serve him well when bluffing at Texas hold ’em, the card game around which the story revolves. Having tracked Le Chiffre from Madagascar to Miami, Bond — “the best player in the service” — must face off with him in a high-stakes game in Montenegro.
This provides an opportunity to showcase Craig in a tuxedo, quaffing a cocktail and squiring a comely babe (Vesper Lynd, played by Eva Green). She is a chaperone from MI6, on hand to ensure the agent doesn’t blow his wad, in any sense, outside of the business at issue.
Le Chiffre, it turns out, prefers bankrolling terrorist organisations to anything fanciful like satellite death rays or pools of piranha fish. Armed with several million pounds from the Treasury, Bond’s mission is to clean Le Chiffre out, thus siphoning off global terror’s funding.
It’s all quite riveting. Throw in some neat oneliners and a couple of major setpiece stunts — notably a vertigo-inducing bit of leaping between cranes on an African dockside — and Casino Royale does the business.
It is almost enough to forgive the absence of Q, and the pain of an appalling theme song, sung by Chris Cornell.
We see Bond as little more than a grubby little murderer, or “blunt instrument”, as M calls him, who performs his first messy kill in a public lavatory and whose new-found 00 (assassin) status barely elevates him above the villains he terminates before his afternoon snifter.
Casino Royale is rich in little insights. We learn that Bond is an orphan, resents the mysterious benefactor who paid for his schooling, won his Aston Martin DBS at poker, and prefers the no-strings thrill of married women. This is a prototype Bond we have never seen before. It seems we have underestimated you, Mr Craig.
I was actually referring to the way you speak to me. You have a very negative way in how you converse with me; saying things like 'then don't go see it then' (or something like that) when all I am doing is raising some valid personal concerns and trying to make it seem that I don't have the right to dislike some of the things that I do (such as Bond being tortured.)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
I didn't bring up TSWLM purely because he didn't mention it. I brought it up because, as I explained, the review mentions several key elements of the novel are in the film, which have been a source of great concern for me, and these elements are un-TSWLM like. It doesn't matter to me what films he like, but the films that he mention (or don't mention) can provide a clue as to what kind of film CR will be.
As it happens, for the reasons stated, I don't appreciate the review and I will simply discard it from my memory.
I was simply expressing my feelings. What is so wrong with that? Now as it happens, the reviewer mentions that the lines are not like in the Moore films. This concerns me more than if he had said that they are like in the Moore films.
At the end of the day though, this is just a review, and I was simply stating my feelings.
Craig--best Bond since Connery.
Campbell--better job than GE.
It won't feel like a Bond movie--that hasn't come up anywhere that I've read yet, just that it's a different type of Bond movie, not like what we've been getting, etc. Even comments to the effect of pulling Bond out of the doldrums.
Script--great story, great action. A few quibbles both ways, but kinda to be expected with a running time of that length.
Reboot--saw one "M doesn't work with Dench in the part." All the other comments about that are positive-to-glowing, though some gloss over it (like it's just not that important...?).
Rest of the cast--hardly gets mentioned in the Craig lovefest, saw one (the AICN reviewer again) who thought LeChiffre was weak, words to that effect.
I'm sure there will be other less-than-giddy reveiws/comments, but so far so awesome! Seems ANY film getting released these days should be so fortunate to get reviews like these...it's a good day to be a Bond fan. :007)
Probably the depressing predictablility of people of on this site finding the cloud in a thread full of silver linings.
That's true, he mentions OHMSS and I like that one quite a lot.
As for not having elements un-TSWLM like... you've baffled me. It isn't TSWLM. Perhaps it's better.
Have you read the novel yet? Do you know you don't enjoy the elements which disturb you in context.
Because you do it in such a clinical, precise manner, as if the reviewer has had to have drawn up a list of the best Felixes with a bar graph to show how good they are for you to appreciate it. I just never get the idea that you have any passion for these films.
Perhaps if you had shown any enthusiasm for all the many, many positives; but no- you just find something you've decided is negative and go for it. It's depressing. I bring all these reviews for you to look at in one place and I get that as thanks. Not that I'm expecting flowers or anything, but to be rewarded by a fellow Bond fan with such apathy...
I'm glad to see a few negatives; it was hard to accept that it's the most perfect film ever, which a few of these reviews had been presenting it as!
Oh yeah, every film has it lesser moments, sure. CR sounds like one of those really good films where they don't matter much.
I guess I'm most surprised about the comments about Campbell's direction, seems he's hit it just right from the reviews...who knew?
Me to, but my love of OHMSS incidentally is a key reason why I'm concerned about CR.
The elements which I'm referring to include the torture and the betrayal of Bond. These are non-TSWLM elements and these greatly concern me. I don't need to have read the novel to know about them. I brought up TSWLM as an example of a brilliant Bond film which is less dark in tone and which does not feature such elements.
I can't help the way I am. Plus it's only one review. There will be plenty of others, some of which might interest me.
I hope you're simply referring to CR, because to say that I don't have any passion for the Bond films is ludicrous. ?:)
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I rarely post (positively or negatively) on 'review' threads. That was my first post on this thread. Plus, I hate to say it, but I don't feel that CR has many positives.
An initial opinion of CASINO ROYALE by TOOTS
Writing about Casino Royale right now is like dancing about architecture. But here goes...
Casino Royale is an instant classic with a clean, clear linear plot that moves confidently ahead, capturing the spirit and essence and, in surprising places, the details of the 1953 book. The credit "based on a novel by Ian Fleming" in the title sequence is miraculously both present and true in a Bond film made in 2006.
Daniel Craig is immediately James Bond as we have all known him and as we have never known him before. This is Fleming's Bond brought to life but the jewel of this performance is set magnificently in an exquisite script and framed in Martin Campbell's bold and satisfying direction. This is good film -making first and an extraordinary Bond film second. Craig is intense, naturalistic and fierce but also tender, vulnerable and haunted. A man emboldened and burdened by his licence to kill.
Eva Green is stunning as Vesper Lynd. Edgy, elegant, intelligent yet guarded and mysterious. Her romance with Bond is the core of the movie which takes us back to the tarnished knight of novels.
Mad Mikkelson is sinister, original and malevolent as Le Chiffre, a silouhetted cypher. He is interestingly and dynamically rendered in a performance that shades Fleming's creation with added complexity.
Caterina Murino's Fleming-named Solange is sexy and sultry and could have been a character from Quantum of Solace or The Hilderbrand Rarity. She really does hold the eye and her scenes with Bond sizzle. She is also integral to the function and spirit of the story and is played with arch aplomb by the Sardinian beauty.
Judi Dench's M is teasingly developed both in her relationship with Bond and her placement in the British Government. Continuity aside, her inclusion is exactly right for this story and her admonishing of Bond crackles with good writing and topical knowingness. M contextualizes 007's character and sets up the story and the stakes in an expositionally creative way. Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter is a subtle but pivotal presence while Giancarlo Giannini's Rene Mathis is a more prominent, ebullient performance.
The theme song and titles are similarly different from the past and a development. Saul Bass-esque graphic artistry combines with Binder-esque motion poetry in Daniel Kleinman's CG animated titles. Playing card and gambling imagery also incorporates a live action Daniel Craig. The instrumental version of the song provides a driving, energetic action theme. Denied of the full James Bond theme until the end (although we are given delicious truffle-shavings of it), You Know My Name binds the film like John Barry's alternate "007" theme. David Arnold's score both simmers and soars and is an achievement of reinvention as much as the performance of Daniel Craig, whom the score consciously tries to emulate.
Martin Campbell's style is different from GoldenEye in all but the pure energy and exuberance of his film-making. Visually intriguing (a cobra-mongoose fight, a trail through the bizarre Bodyworld exhibit) and atmospherically sinister, the film touches on elements of classic but recently unused filmBond. The travelogue is non-specific but visually stunning especially the recreation of Montenegro. Phil Meheux's sweeping photography is glorious and colourful and rich and romantic. Structurally different from most of the recent Bonds, the 21st Eon film flies through the series' longest ever running time. Stuart Baird's editing is uncompromising in the action sequences yet paces the film carefully through the poker duel and romantic subplot. Time is given to characters to talk, to love and to live. Gary Powell has made the combat very brutal and realistic and original. The visceral action setpieces are extremely exciting and, above all, original: the Madgascan freerunning sequence is breathtaking.
The toying with the Bond film formula is playful yet respectful from the placement of the gunbarrel, the name-reveal, the use of the James Bond theme, outrageous femme fatale names ("Stephanie Broadchest"!), the use of gadgetry and the symbolic invocation of the vodka martini (the Medal), Aston Martin (the chariot), MI6 hierarchy (the Order) and M (the Monarch). The reboot really is tangential to the story.
Casino Royale is like the fourth James Bond film, after Dr No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. Before the lava of creativity cooled to the crust of formula, Bond films sat as individual pieces, extracting and refining the ore of Fleming. Daniel Craig is laced with a soupçon of Dalton (richer though with the stronger charm and wit of a superior script). However, Daniel Craig is very much his own, believable, instantly winning incarnation of James Bond 007.
The larder of the last 20 films will confuse and confound the ardent Bond fan upon first viewing. This is not Surf 'n Turf at your local franchise chain restaurant. This film will not be to everyone's taste and does not lean into expectations. Casino Royale needs to percolate, mature, air in the mind, be mentally explored. Only then will the full flavour of the gourmet Bond film we have been served begin to be savoured by all of us who have hungered for James Bond to return.
In your words; if there are things you say which 'concern me, and perhaps me only, why can't I state them'?
But you have to have read it to appreciate them in context. Try it; you might like it.
There have been. Do none of them excite you in any way? A Bond film getting this many critics this excited?
It's nothing personal Dan- it'd mean a lot to me if you enjoyed this film; btu all these lists, these precise '8th favourite Aston Martin'... it doesn't feel passionate.
If this thread doesn't convince you, nothing will. I wouldn't bother seeing it if I were you.
However, Dan, I'm surprised that you haven't thought to yourself if these skeptics (The Mirror, etc.) ended up liking the movie that maybe you can, too?
Nice job on a well-written review that really gives a sense of the picture. It's a bonus that it's a positive one. I'm ready to dig in and lick my fingers.
If you wan't to see negatives then I'm sure you'll be seeing plenty of them in a couple of weeks time.
After DAD I was hoping for a more realistic Bond film with Pierce Brosnan as 007. Something along the lines of FYEO after MR. I felt changes to the formula were needed, but I never expected they would turn out to be such radical changes. Daniel Craig as a rookie Bond, a re-boot complete with Judi Dench as M. It certainly was a shock to the system.
Now that a year has passed, now that I have seen the trailers, now that Casino Royale is almost upon us, I find myself looking forward to the film rather more than I was expecting to. That does not mean that I will except Craig/the re-boot/Judi Dench, but there is now optimism where there was once virtually none.
Well, I know from watching the first half of DAD that I don't like the idea of Bond being tortured. Additionally, after watching 20 Bond films, I know what I like and what I don't. There is much in CR which concerns me. These things also concern Tony and Barry so I don't know why it is such a shock that I might have a problem with the content of CR. (And I don't have to read the novel; I am perfectly aware of what I want in a Bond film.)
I am excited that there is a new Bond film. But when it comes to Bond films, quite frankly, I never care what critics think.
Let me begin by saying that I don't feel I need to defend my passion for the Bond films to anybody.
Now that is cleared up, has it ever occured to you that the way I express passion is through lists? People express passion in different ways. For me, it is through lists. I love making lists (although I don't rank Aston Martins; I prefer to rank Bond cars) wether it be film lists, sporting lists or things that I need to do. However, if you can't honestly see that in my case listmaking may equal passion, then have a look at my signature as well as any thread talking about why GF/FRWL/TB/Connery/Moore/Brosnan are so good.
That is an option. However, this thread aside, I am honestly lookng forward to CR. I've never not seen a Bond film at the cinemas since GE and CR, although I am less excited about it than many people on this site, is not going to be an exception.
Em, why do you have to be so negative? If I am less than enthusiastic about CR, is that such a bad thing? I simply like different things to you, that's all. I want to like CR but I don't feel that I need to act really excited or ignore certain elements which concern me simply to make you feel better.
It's only natural for Craig supporters to be pleased about reviews that validate their view, but let's not crow too loudly. I think the faction that had qualms about CR and Craig has been remarkably good-natured about letting us have our day and go on about all these good notices. Hopefully they may ultimately convince them to look at the film in a different light.
But enough of that: back to my fanboy gushings
Even what could be described as the negatives in a couple of reviews sound positive to me. I couldn't be happier. My only concern is should I skip work on Nov. 17? The choice seems clear.
I'm completely open to the idea that I'll like CR. (If I don't, it'll be a waste of $11.50
Not sure yet. The decision hinges on a single question: Will civilization collapse if a nearly 52-year-old man tosses all dignity aside and takes the afternoon off to see a movie?
Can I just point out, we've come a long way, baby (is Craig actually bringing Bond fans together...?). And, it's sure nice to have differences aired so politely. Kudos to us all.
Ultimately, every Bond fan will have to come to terms with this new Bond/reboot/Craig/whatever. So far, the critics are smiling--not like this
Bit premature, blue. Or have you already seen Casino Royale? Perhaps you will be showing this
Somehow, I doubt it.
You're forgetting X-( and
My own hopes for CR's quality and success have always been dangerously high, as everyone here knows... {[] Like ben, I'll have to see it for myself, but abject disappointment seems increasingly unlikely
:007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
What's premature? So far, the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, and I tip my hat to EON for what really looks to be a grand success for them--at least critically speaking (early days, yes, but still, good is good, eh?).
I imagine there will be a few dud reviews, always are. But when I read things like, not only the best Bond since Connery, but the best Bond film since Connery's tenure, kinda hard not to get excited. I realize there have been such comments before, about other Bonds/Bond films, but this is the first time I'm predisposed (since my youthful exuberance for TSWLM!) to believe them.
Looking forward to a great Bond, and a great Bond film! What's the harm in that? Round one may have gone to the tabloids, but round two belongs to the critics--and they like it. Round three will be in a week and a half, when the box office starts to roll in...
Does appear to be shaping into a Bond event, as opposed to just another Bond film. Cool. B-)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1939830,00.html
Irony upon irony.
‘Potato head’ shoots his way to 007 triumph
Stuart Wavell
Sunday Times
THEY said he was too ugly, too chunky and too blond to play the sixth James Bond. Bookmakers took bets that the actor known as “Mr Potato Head” would not survive the first movie.
But Daniel Craig has come through with flying colours as Ian Fleming’s sadistic secret agent in Casino Royale.
It is probably the most violent Bond film yet, with Craig, 38, wading gamely into the fray, breaking heads, loosing lead and, in a notable torture scene, strapped naked to a chair and getting his unmentionables whipped by a man with a thick rope.
The 21st film in the series takes Bond back to his earlier years and his first assassination. He dispenses with the usual gadgets in favour of a ruthlessness and athleticism that is reminiscent of Sean Connery, the first screen 007.
Craig’s performance rescues the franchise from the trough into which it had fallen in the last outing, Die Another Day, which despite a good box-office seemed as vacuous as Bond’s invisible car. Many thought it was time for Pierce Brosnan to disappear, too.
Guests who attended a sneak preview emerged impressed. Monica Bertei, 29, an actress, said: “He’s very sexy. It’s a lot more graphic and gritty than in the past.” Graham Rye, 55, editor of 007 Magazine, said: “I haven’t been as excited about a Bond film for years. He’s the best Bond ever.”
Casino Royale, which goes on release on November 16, is only nominally based on Fleming’s 1953 novel. Here 007 finds himself pitched against a Euro-villain named Le Chiffre (played by Mads Mikkelsen), a man with a scarred, dead eye, who weeps blood through a tear duct when he starts to get agitated.
Such traits do not serve him well when bluffing at Texas hold ’em, the card game around which the story revolves. Having tracked Le Chiffre from Madagascar to Miami, Bond — “the best player in the service” — must face off with him in a high-stakes game in Montenegro.
This provides an opportunity to showcase Craig in a tuxedo, quaffing a cocktail and squiring a comely babe (Vesper Lynd, played by Eva Green). She is a chaperone from MI6, on hand to ensure the agent doesn’t blow his wad, in any sense, outside of the business at issue.
Le Chiffre, it turns out, prefers bankrolling terrorist organisations to anything fanciful like satellite death rays or pools of piranha fish. Armed with several million pounds from the Treasury, Bond’s mission is to clean Le Chiffre out, thus siphoning off global terror’s funding.
It’s all quite riveting. Throw in some neat oneliners and a couple of major setpiece stunts — notably a vertigo-inducing bit of leaping between cranes on an African dockside — and Casino Royale does the business.
It is almost enough to forgive the absence of Q, and the pain of an appalling theme song, sung by Chris Cornell.
We see Bond as little more than a grubby little murderer, or “blunt instrument”, as M calls him, who performs his first messy kill in a public lavatory and whose new-found 00 (assassin) status barely elevates him above the villains he terminates before his afternoon snifter.
Casino Royale is rich in little insights. We learn that Bond is an orphan, resents the mysterious benefactor who paid for his schooling, won his Aston Martin DBS at poker, and prefers the no-strings thrill of married women. This is a prototype Bond we have never seen before. It seems we have underestimated you, Mr Craig.