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.
That's exactly it. I have my concerns but I want CR to be good. It is Bond after all.
"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
AS PROMISED, Daniel Craig's James Bond is very different in Casino Royle. And it has a very different look to it.
For one thing, it starts in black and white with Craig having a terrific hand-to-hand fight with a man in a washroom. No gun barrel framing a silhouetted Bond opening, no James Bond theme.
The gun barrel moment does eventually arrive in a novel fashion, and the movie does eventually go into colour.
But, even then, this is a different sort of Bond.
When Craig's Bond has to chase a suspected bomber all over a building site, he does puff quite a bit. He makes the odd slip. And when he hurts himself, he does bleed and gets rough-looking.
This Bond, Craig seems to be saying, is a real person, not the superhero who emerges from a fight with hardly a hair out of place.
The point is that the film is based on the very first Bond novel, written in 1953, when the Soviets were the villains and the Cold War at its height.
Updated to the present with terrorists as the bad guys, it nevertheless sets out to establish how Bond came to be.
Craig gives Bond a street fighter quality, someone who knows how to fight dirty and does not always obey the diplomatic rules.
He is still a bit of a sexist pig, preferring to seduce married women. When he tells his fellow spy Vesper Lynd (played by French actress Eva Green) that she is not his type, she queries "Too smart?" "No, single," he replies.
It's a difficult Bond to pull off, this bit of rough who also has a soft, intelligent side, but Craig manages it beautifully.
His gaunt, craggy looks may not be typical film Bond, but they suit this 2006 Bond admirably.
While different in many ways, Casino Royale will fulfil many of the expectations of Bond fans.
There are the big action set-pieces with Bond fighting a man atop a crane, at an airport single-handedly battling a mad bomber trying to blow up the world's biggest passenger plane, and a fight in Venice which causes one of its famous buildings to sink into a canal.
At the centre of the film is a poker game in which Bond is trying to break crime chief Le Chiffre (played by Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen), a game that pauses a few times for a fight or an attempt to kill Bond. By this time, Craig's Bond is in his tuxedo, looking smart and suave, but the interval fight is about as vicious as any screen punch-up.
There are many twists and turns along the way (some taken from the book) but Craig emerges at the end as the perfect Bond, tough yet romantic.
And in the final scene he does get to deliver the immortal line introducing himself. The Bond theme also plays over the final credits, so all is all right with the world of Bond.
________________
Casino Royale
Allan Hunter in London 06 November 2006
Dir: Martin Campbell. UK. 2006. 147mins
Bond Is Back. The old promise takes on a fresh emphasis in Casino Royale, a muscular, wildly successful attempt to strip the lucrative James Bond franchise back to basics. Returning to the origins of the series in the first Ian Fleming novel, Casino Royale depicts Bond as a rough, reckless diamond before he acquires the polish of suave sophistication required of an international man of mystery. Ridiculous gadgets, pneumatic lovelies, flamboyant megalomaniacs and flippant one-liners are largely jettisoned in favour of heart-thumping action, fuller characterisations and relatively gritty realism.
In his first Bond venture since Pierce Brosnan’s debut in Goldeneye (1995), director Martin Campbell has achieved the considerable feat of reinventing the franchise for a second time and creating a film that can kick sand in the face of upstart rivals like Jason Bourne and Ethan Hunt.
Jackpot global returns should follow as exhibitors around the world (the film opens in many international markets from next week) discover that absence has made the heart grow Bonder. Purists will revel in its seriousness of intent and respectful treatment of their hero: more casual audiences will simply love it for its action and attitude.
Certainly it should be a worldwide hit with returns on a par with the most recent Bond films like 2002’s Die Another Day, which took $432m globally, and The World Is Not Enough (1999), which similarly grossed $361m. Also expect it to surpass relative newer franchises like the Jason Bourne films (eg The Bourne Supremacy, 20004, worldwide: $289m) and possibly surpass the higher reaches of the Mission: Impossible series (eg Mission: Impossible II, 2000, worldwide: $546m).
The many technical aspects of the film are so outstanding, especially editing and cinematography, that it begs the question as to why Bond has never been more prominent in major awards consideration. If Harry Potter can be considered for BAFTA’s Alexander Korda Award for Best British Film, then why not 007, the greatest British success story that cinema has known?
First published in 1953, Casino Royale was adapted for television in 1954 (with Barry Sullivan) and filmed in 1967 as a self-indulgent, star-studded Swinging Sixties romp that now looks more Austin Powers than James Bond.
The official Bond 21 begins in Prague with a black and white sequence that feels like an homage to the series Cold War roots. This could almost be the world of The Spy Who Came In From The Cold (1965) or Torn Curtain (1966) as Bond completes his first two kills and earns his 00 status. The tale continues in typical globe-trotting fashion with visits to Madagascar, Nassau and Miami.
The main quarry this time is Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) a man who has grown rich financing international terrorism. The cat and mouse games build towards a showdown at a high stakes poker game in Montenegro where Bond is accompanied by Treasury representative Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). The initial hostility between them is played out in some sharp, well-scripted bantering and the relationship develops convincingly towards a tenderness that is unusual in the Bond movies.
In a similar vein to last year’s Batman Begins, returning to the origins of Bond seems to have reinvigorated every aspect of the production. It has given regular screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade something fresh to work with and the addition of Oscar-winning screenwriter Paul Haggis to the team seems to have been the force behind the sharper dialogue and tougher ethos.
The task for Martin Campbell and the team is to balance the assurance of the familiar with the excitement of the novel. Licence To Kill (1989) showed that Bond could be dour and gritty but that was a film that divided audiences and critics. Casino Royale does not lose sight of what made Bond so popular but does acknowledge that the competition is tougher than ever especially from the Jason Bourne franchise.
The freshness comes in the way that Bond is seen to acquire a certain style in the way he drinks and dresses, how he becomes battle-hardened (in a nasty torture sequence) and why he has to develop a certain sadistic, emotional detachment if he is to perform his job to the best of his abilities. The familiar elements come in some bravura chase and fight sequences where Daniel Craig appears to have been bloodied, battered and bruised in the line of fire. The pace and precision in Stuart Baird’s graceful editing is exemplary and there are enough heart-in-the-throat moments to satisfy any action fan.
The plot is a little flawed in places but does contain a few genuine surprises and mercifully does not rely on the ticking time bomb climax so beloved of the series. The way we see Bond emerge and the crowd-pleasing final moments leave plenty of options for how the character can develop further in Bond 22.
A controversial choice in some quarters, new boy Daniel Craig was cruelly dubbed James Blonde before Casino Royale even began filming. He performs with all the ferocious commitment of a man determined to silence his critics. Tough and aggressive, he is every inch the ruthless action hero but also ensures that the character wears his emotions on his sleeve. His Bond develops over the course of the film and we know everything he is feeling from the trembling adrenaline rush of his early kills to the impetuosity of his renegade actions and the attachment he develops to one of the more interesting female characters seen in a Bond film for a long while.
He has the panther-like grace of Sean Connery, fills a pair of swimming trunks amply and gives the kind of triumphant performance that will leave most audiences thinking Pierce who?
Mads Mikkelsen brings a low-key intensity to Le Chiffre, Eva Green is a spiky Vesper Lynd and Judi Dench lends a typical astringency to M.
A new, improved version of the single George Lazenby venture On Her Majesty’s Secret Service might be an obvious and profitable option to explore. On the evidence of Casino Royale the promise that Bond Will Return should sound better than ever to global audiences
________________
Craig challenges Connery as best ever Bond
By Nick Curtis, Evening Standard 06.11.06
****/*****
Those polls that regularly dub Sean Connery the best James Bond ever may look a little different next time round. In the thrilling, franchise- reviving Casino Royale, Daniel Craig lays serious claim to the role.
Blond and blue-eyed, with a rock-hard sixpack and an attitude to match, he is the first Bond since Connery to exude an air of menace. He's also funnier than Roger Moore, and more of a credibly ruthless womaniser than Pierce Brosnan. And he's the first Bond who bleeds, literally and metaphorically.
Director Martin Campbell lets us know early on that the whole Bond business has been stripped back to basics, shaken and stirred and given a twist. In a black-and-white prologue we see the agent winning his licence to kill with a messy murder in a bathroom and a cold-hearted execution.
There's not a girl to be seen in the beautifully animated credits, the first chase is on foot through a Madagascan building site, and the first cars Craig's 007 drives are a bulldozer and a hired Ford, before the famous Aston Martin DB5 is stirred wittily-into the mix.
Campbell even addresses fans' fears about Craig's suitability for the role, by having Judi Dench's M wonder if she's promoted him too soon. There are sly, clever nods to Bond lore and several of the earlier films. These references are not so intrusive they would distract a newcomer - if indeed, there are any - but they gladden the heart of a fan.
The plot is a straightforward but clever updating of Ian Fleming's original novel. After Bond foils a plot to blow up a plane, thereby wrecking airline share prices, the "banker to the world's terrorists" Le Chiffre finds himself out of pocket. Threatened by some very angry warlords, he tries to make up his cash shortfall in a high-stakes card game in Montenegro.
Bond, initially acting on his own initiative having embarrassed the government, must make sure that doesn't happen. Oh, and he's accompanied to the casino by Treasury girl Vesper Lynd, played by the fine and very beautiful French actress Eva Green.
Their verbal sparring and eventual union make this the most erotic Bond film in years, and give Craig room to show off his acting chops as well as his bared muscles. The latter are on display in a torture scene taken straight from the book and conducted with such sadistic relish by Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre, it will have men in cinemas across the country crossing their legs.
The locations are glamorous, but not absurdly so, the violence brutally real and the only real gadget is an in-car defibrillator. This may be yet another sly allusion by Campbell and his trio of writers - spearheaded by Crash's Paul Haggis - to the way they have restarted the whole Bond franchise by pumping in new blood.
Criticisms? Well, it's a bit long, and Eva Green, though stunning, also looks alarmingly thin. Le Chiffre's habit of weeping blood seems to be a theatrical attribute left over from an earlier script-draft. I wonder, too, whether today's terrorists still do business with suitcases full of money, like the one tossed around in the finale that takes place in a collapsing house in Venice. But these are very minor quibbles.
Casino Royale is brilliantly exciting, and a triumph for Craig. I watched most of it with a huge grin plastered across my face. Bond is back
Someone in my office saw it, said it was gripping but a bit baffling at times, like you can't tell what's going on...
These good reviews, don't pay too much attention. DAD got pretty good write-ups too, including five stars out of five from the Evening Standard's Alexander Walker, three stars out of five from Empire, J Ross loved it on Film 2001 or whatever it was etc. There is an emperor's clothes thing going on with Bond and critics, and anything not Moore is seen as good...
This is undoubtfully old news but this was in my local paper, and to show that I am not totally opposed to CR , I thought I would share it:
'Craig slays critics as 007
British actor Daniel Craig, the controversial choice to play the new James Bond in the upcoming film Casino Royale, has won early reviews Miss Moneypenny would be proud of.
The producers of one of the world's most successful movie franchises were seen taking a considerable risk with Craig, who angry fans said was too blond, too ugly and insufficiently suave to serve on Her Majesty's Secret Service.
But if the majority of film critics is anything to go by, the risk has paid off handsomely. The 38-year-old, with a proven acting pedigree, has been credited with revitalising a series some felt had become bloated and over-reliant on clever gadgets.
"It's a terrific debut," wrote the Daily Telegraph's Sinclair McKay, summing up a weekend of praise from British newspapers eager to get their reviews out early.
"From the very start, he steps with full assuredness into Sean Connery's old handmade shoes."
The Times' Wendy Ide appears to take a swipe at some of Craig's five predecessors in the role by concluding her review: "His main asset quickly becomes evident. He can act".
Ide also points out that Bond had met his match in other, younger screen spies Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer, who "share Bond's initials but little else".
Casino Royale takes viewers back to the beginning of Bond's life as a spy, allowing director Martin Campbell to introduce character changes most have welcomed.
"This Bond is far more vulnerable than his predecessors," said David Edwards in British tabloid the Daily Mirror. "Not only does he have his heart broken, he also winds up almost dead after a beating."
Several reviewers noted one joke that deliberately breaks a Bond tradition. When asked if he wants his vodka martini shaken or stirred, Craig replies: "Do I look like I give a damn?"
Casino Royale is described as darker and more raw than previous films in the series and less reliant on the gadgets that have helped Bond out of countless scrapes.
Only The Observer's Tim Adams was generally negative, calling the time frame of the film "perplexing" and questioning the filmmakers' decision to make Bond more real.
"The problem with making Bond more real is that everything around him then seems even more fake than usual," he said.
The response to Casino Royale will come as a relief to producers Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, who admit they took a risk in casting Craig as Bond.
He replaced the popular Pierce Brosnan, whose last Bond film Die Another Day raked in an estimated $432 million at the box office. The franchise has generated billions of dollars over its 44-year lifespan.'
"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
All press' critics are exited, but `till Nov 16(Dec 9) let's get kinda real:
1. Sean Connery IS James Bond. No matter how great, awesome or astonishing were Lazemby, Moore, Dalton Brosnan or Craig, Sean Connery IS James Bond
2. Nobody can be funnier than Moore. i'm not sayng that he was some kind of clown (except octopussy) he was funny and believable, he surelly has carisma an some reputation, he was beliebable in suits, in meetongs, in casinos... everywere he was, he could affort some sort of comic relieve (thought he tend to do it a lot)
3. Pierce Brosnan was James Bond. he was Bond back in 1995 and until 2005 (some say today still) please try not to send him back to the limbo, he did a wonderfull work, even when the script didn´t allow him. Fans are grateful.
there is something that seems funny in the movie, but, some purist will say that that`s just wrong, that Bond was suave an sophisticated before Casino Royale, even before he was a 00... that he cared things, that he put special care even to dinners (and drinks) but it`s just me, a guy who haven`t seen the movie.... in a month 8or another topic we`ll discuss that
Those guys over at Craignotbond.com should feel really stupid right now! ... but they probably don't.
They are posting links the reviews -- or should I say the review: the only negative one I've seen, from the Observer. ) Good luck on the boycott. I think they're going to need it.
Sean Connery IS James Bond. No matter how great, awesome or astonishing were Lazemby, Moore, Dalton Brosnan or Craig, Sean Connery IS James Bond.
What are you trying to do? Force us to accept this as fact? This is NOT a fact. This is AN OPINION. Period. Try to keep it that way.
It is an opinion, now, i`ll put it this way to make it a fact: Connery was the first James Bond, probably the only one who had the chance to talk with Fleming. it appears that that would make him kind of important. if you or someone don`t accept it, please let it like an opinion, period.
Pierce Brosnan was James Bond. he was Bond back in 1995 and until 2005 (some say today still) please try not to send him back to the limbo, he did a wonderfull work, even when the script didn´t allow him. Fans are grateful.
Oh great. Another opinion that we're supposed to accept as fact. Well, this is one opinion I do not share. Brosnan was the only one whose portrayal of Bond I was never satisfied with. You may loved him a lot as 007, but I didn't.
he did his job, numbers support him, and there are some chaps that think he would make Casino Royale Perfect, something that is a little impossible. he may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he did four EON`s James Bond movies, i haven`t, so i respect him. did he do a good job? could someone else do it better? hell yes . i´m not asking desperately to make everyone love everybody, just wanted to say (with some examples that are just that) that the press may be forgetting some stuff.
even though, there are more internet sites that haven`t say anything, an plenty of time to do it
i´m more than pleased that you read me and respond me as well, but let`s not fight anymore
Although oddly he thinks the Hotel Spendide is a bit of product placement... presumably he thinks 'Casino Royale' in Las Vegas have paid for the film's title...
Obviously all the other reviewers at the press screening! )
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited November 2006
"...the first actor to really nail 007's defining characteristic: he's an absolute swine."
:007)
B-)
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
Comments
These good reviews, don't pay too much attention. DAD got pretty good write-ups too, including five stars out of five from the Evening Standard's Alexander Walker, three stars out of five from Empire, J Ross loved it on Film 2001 or whatever it was etc. There is an emperor's clothes thing going on with Bond and critics, and anything not Moore is seen as good...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
This is undoubtfully old news but this was in my local paper, and to show that I am not totally opposed to CR
'Craig slays critics as 007
British actor Daniel Craig, the controversial choice to play the new James Bond in the upcoming film Casino Royale, has won early reviews Miss Moneypenny would be proud of.
The producers of one of the world's most successful movie franchises were seen taking a considerable risk with Craig, who angry fans said was too blond, too ugly and insufficiently suave to serve on Her Majesty's Secret Service.
But if the majority of film critics is anything to go by, the risk has paid off handsomely. The 38-year-old, with a proven acting pedigree, has been credited with revitalising a series some felt had become bloated and over-reliant on clever gadgets.
"It's a terrific debut," wrote the Daily Telegraph's Sinclair McKay, summing up a weekend of praise from British newspapers eager to get their reviews out early.
"From the very start, he steps with full assuredness into Sean Connery's old handmade shoes."
The Times' Wendy Ide appears to take a swipe at some of Craig's five predecessors in the role by concluding her review: "His main asset quickly becomes evident. He can act".
Ide also points out that Bond had met his match in other, younger screen spies Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer, who "share Bond's initials but little else".
Casino Royale takes viewers back to the beginning of Bond's life as a spy, allowing director Martin Campbell to introduce character changes most have welcomed.
"This Bond is far more vulnerable than his predecessors," said David Edwards in British tabloid the Daily Mirror. "Not only does he have his heart broken, he also winds up almost dead after a beating."
Several reviewers noted one joke that deliberately breaks a Bond tradition. When asked if he wants his vodka martini shaken or stirred, Craig replies: "Do I look like I give a damn?"
Casino Royale is described as darker and more raw than previous films in the series and less reliant on the gadgets that have helped Bond out of countless scrapes.
Only The Observer's Tim Adams was generally negative, calling the time frame of the film "perplexing" and questioning the filmmakers' decision to make Bond more real.
"The problem with making Bond more real is that everything around him then seems even more fake than usual," he said.
The response to Casino Royale will come as a relief to producers Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, who admit they took a risk in casting Craig as Bond.
He replaced the popular Pierce Brosnan, whose last Bond film Die Another Day raked in an estimated $432 million at the box office. The franchise has generated billions of dollars over its 44-year lifespan.'
1. Sean Connery IS James Bond. No matter how great, awesome or astonishing were Lazemby, Moore, Dalton Brosnan or Craig, Sean Connery IS James Bond
2. Nobody can be funnier than Moore. i'm not sayng that he was some kind of clown (except octopussy) he was funny and believable, he surelly has carisma an some reputation, he was beliebable in suits, in meetongs, in casinos... everywere he was, he could affort some sort of comic relieve (thought he tend to do it a lot)
3. Pierce Brosnan was James Bond. he was Bond back in 1995 and until 2005 (some say today still) please try not to send him back to the limbo, he did a wonderfull work, even when the script didn´t allow him. Fans are grateful.
there is something that seems funny in the movie, but, some purist will say that that`s just wrong, that Bond was suave an sophisticated before Casino Royale, even before he was a 00... that he cared things, that he put special care even to dinners (and drinks) but it`s just me, a guy who haven`t seen the movie.... in a month 8or another topic we`ll discuss that
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=10199
They are posting links the reviews -- or should I say the review: the only negative one I've seen, from the Observer.
It is an opinion, now, i`ll put it this way to make it a fact: Connery was the first James Bond, probably the only one who had the chance to talk with Fleming. it appears that that would make him kind of important. if you or someone don`t accept it, please let it like an opinion, period.
he did his job, numbers support him, and there are some chaps that think he would make Casino Royale Perfect, something that is a little impossible. he may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he did four EON`s James Bond movies, i haven`t, so i respect him. did he do a good job? could someone else do it better? hell yes . i´m not asking desperately to make everyone love everybody, just wanted to say (with some examples that are just that) that the press may be forgetting some stuff.
even though, there are more internet sites that haven`t say anything, an plenty of time to do it
i´m more than pleased that you read me and respond me as well, but let`s not fight anymore
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,1943415,00.html
Although oddly he thinks the Hotel Spendide is a bit of product placement... presumably he thinks 'Casino Royale' in Las Vegas have paid for the film's title...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2006/11/06/casino_royale_2006_review.shtml
Oddly, 164 people have 'agreed' with the review!
Obviously all the other reviewers at the press screening!
:007)
B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Thanks --- I think ?:) ?:) ?:)