Welcome to the board, Skywalker. I don't believe that Craig is Bond, but just like you, I believe he could be better with the right talent around him. BTW - Are you the same Skywalker who has a review on alternative007 site? If so, that review was great also.
Thanks for the feedback. BTW I am the same Skywalker.
Although new to the forum, just thought I would post my thoughts:
Overall Casino Royale is a fantastic film, BUT I would like to make it clear that this is NOT a Bond film, or true to the book.
The lack of Sir Mile Messervy as M, the lack of smoking from Bond (I know it's not PC to smoke but Bond does), lack of Q branch, pandering to the popularity of Poker rather than using the original Bacharrach, the list goes on a Blonde Bond etc etc etc etc etc.
The problem I feel is that they will either have to remake the other Fleming books to adhere to the ending of CR or put on further to the story. They made a mistake going for CR, and should have kept the Bond stories moving.
I enjoyed Pierce Brosnan as Bond, and felt he brought out the Bond that Fleming wrote about in the later books.
Since I am reading these posts might as well toss in my 2 cents....
I knew DC would work as oo7 at the end of the credits with the close up. Liked the opening chase, amazed by the jumping about and wondering how long the stunt men spent at the doctor with their knees. I felt the airport chase was too long - and would have preferred to see more of a chase after Vesper was "kidnapped"
For the rest, as stated above - once they got on the train Ian Fleming's "Casino Royale" was on the screen and they did a great job. Still can't say enough good things about the supporting cast!
Ever notice that the 007 films produced after “Goldeneye” seem to get worse and worse in significant critical, creative respects like screenplay quality, casting decisions, etc.? With “Casino Royale,” the franchise hits rock bottom. “Casino Royale” is, objectively, the worst James Bond film in the history of the 007 film franchise. Why?
1) Story: Based, more or less, on Ian Fleming’s original novel, this unskillful adaptation/update is communicated with a disdain for clarity. The audience is fed too little information, too late (or not at all)—about both character motivations as well as the stakes involved in various action sequences—to remain emotionally engaged and genuinely interested in what’s going on.
2) Casting/characterization: lacks conviction and appeal
• Daniel Craig (Bond). Craig’s characterization of Bond is charmless, worthless, and disturbingly nihilistic. At one point in the script, Craig’s Bond responds to a question with “Do I look like I give a damn?” The answer in “Casino Royale” is overwhelmingly NO. Why on earth, then, should the audience care about him? At another point, he tells Vesper “I have no idea what an honest job is.” Is this a credible (or creditable) moral statement to hear from a top-level government secret agent? Craig’s monotonously stoic performance is by no means compensated for by his (atrocious) line readings: he articulates rarely, mumbles often. As a result of Craig’s hollow Bond interpretation, what should have been the film’s ultimate impact moment—007’s “Bond, James Bond” confrontation with villainous Mr. White—is surprisingly anti-climactic, prompting a shrug rather than a cheer from this reviewer.
• Eva Green (“Bond Girl,” Vesper Lynd). Green’s Vesper characterization comes across unwittingly as awkward, unsophisticated. Green looks and acts like a teenager playing at “grown-up.” What’s missing is the mature presence/feminine poise that typifies the best Bond Girl actresses (e.g. Ursula Andress, Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg, Barbara Bach, Maud Adams, Izabella Scorupco, et al). A self-confessed “complicated woman,” Green’s Vesper remains maddeningly inscrutable to the end, and her romance with Craig’s Bond is ineptly developed and unconvincingly consummated.
• Judi Dench. Her “M” is more unsympathetic than ever. No other actress has ever contributed less charm and more unfemininity to the Bond series than Dame Judi Dench.
• Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre). In Ian Fleming’s novel, Le Chiffre is skillfully characterized as an odd, sinister presence. Onscreen, Mikkelsen’s version of Le Chiffre is unimpressive—an effete villain with a blood-weepy eye, but without the twisted charisma that typifies the best Bond screen adversaries (Goldfinger, Blofeld, Mr. Big, Max Zorin, Janus, et al).
3) Script/dialogue. Both in content and tone, the screenplay—like the novel—overwhelmingly projects malevolence: the power of evil; the stress on the tragic and traumatic; all events taking place in a world where no one can or ought to be trusted. And notice how the script flagrantly undercuts James Bond, the ultimate fictional egoist, with the inclusion of damning “anti-ego” lines thrown at him by M and Vesper. The dialogue is cynical, tasteless, and witless.
4) Original Music: Chris Cornell’s unmemorable opening-credits theme song—“You Know My Name”—lacks color, drama, and excitement. David Arnold’s unremarkable score sounds melodramatic and overly derivative, like a cheap John Barry knock off.
5) Producer infamy/creative poverty: Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the film’s producers, lacking the vision and ingenuity to advance Bond’s personal timeline onscreen, reveal their creative bankruptcy by bringing 007 back to the beginning of his secret service career, presenting him in his most unflattering incarnation yet. Out go Bond’s cinematically-cultivated charm and conviction. The new Bond is an uninteresting, expressionless, muscle-bound nihilist and a disgracefully vulnerable “hero.” The producers deliberately emphasize Bond’s vulnerability by subjecting him, incredibly, to cardiac arrest(!) as well as a horrific trial of torture (this latter was a rotten, graphic part of Fleming’s original novel). Putting obstacles in a purposeful screen hero’s path makes for good drama; but these shocking “Casino-Royale” examples are an extremely sick way to challenge a hero and are certainly artistically unworthy of depiction onscreen.
Considering all these points, it is clear that “Casino Royale” is neither value-driven art nor fan-pleasing entertainment. The proof is in the picture.
“Casino Royale” is the highest-grossing Bond film to date. But consider:
1. This fact merely indicates the degree of public curiosity about or interest in James Bond and owes virtually everything to the franchise’s longstanding cinematic appeal and reputation (earned by much better films and performances in the series and betrayed dramatically by “Casino Royale”).
2. This fact confirms nothing about public satisfaction with or approval of this latest installment.
3. High box-office numbers neither reflect nor establish this film’s merit.
CR isn't my cup of tea (and I don't think it really does credit to Ian Fleming's original novel) but I don't rate the film a 'zero'. Saw the film once in the theatres, have watched the DVD twice, so I will say there is some entertainment value in it, but not enough to keep me coming back to it.
I read all the negatives about CR'06 and am a little surprised of the level of dislike for this film.
It is NOT a perfect movie, but there has yet to be a Bond film made that did justice to the original material. A prefectionist could nit-pick even the best of the Bond films to death.
Seems to me that many fans came to this particuliar film either determined in advance to HATE it, or with unrealistic expectations based on a favorite Bond film of the past - starring an actor who was for them the "best" oo7.
Based on my past expierence with Bond films, I should have HATED this flick myself. I suffered through the worst dreck Bond has to offer up to and including the wretched DAD!
I wanted a reboot set in the 1950's, absolutely faithful to Fleming!
What I got was a film whose first half has nothing to do with IF and whose second half kept many of IF's set pieces, but radically changed them. Not to mention the lead actor does not resemble Hoagy Carmichael one bit.
But CR'06 while a compromise of modern filmaking brought a fresher interpetation of oo7 as an ambitious, reckless adventurer who forces himself onto his assigned target, and while damn near getting killed manages to win despite his own shortcomings. Much closer to Fleming's charecter than ever before.
Gone were the moronic one liners that started in 1961 with "Sergeant, Don't let him get away" and reached the apex of vulgarity with "I thought Christmas ...." This kind of cr*p was blessedly replaced with an ocassional silent, sardonic look.
While the chases were repetitive, never before has a Bond film had such well written charecters/dialog. Only FRWL has better friends and villians - but they are played straight - no traitors or badstabbers there - bad is bad and good is good. In FRWL there was no "big picture" to confuse us with the possibility that Bond could win at the Casino, but end up choking on his own mahood. While "loser" LeChiffre is wined and dined by the CIA or MI6.
Eva Green may not be Ursula, but she looks like a real woman, and is the first Bond girl who can look Bond in the face and tell him "No" and mean it.
I could go on, but will sum it up like this ...It's not perfect, but possibly for the first time ever, this film is at its core a "serious" movie. For that it comes about as close as any Bond film will ever be to what Mr. Fleming had in mind when he first sat down at Goldeneye in 1951.
I've decided to contribute a review to this thread, be it late, if simply for the sake of having it in the vaults of AJB's webspace. But seriously, this is an important movie (to me anyway), and so here are a few paragraphs offered as a thanks and tribute.
Casino Royale (2006)
4 out of 4 stars
Roger Ebert, having recovered (welcome back!) enough to begin reviewing movies again, mentioned in his take o Casino Royale that "reviews aren't a list of favorite scenes." (or something to that effect) I agree. And it also happens to make this review a letter-grade nudge easier to write. You see, the level of a Bond film's amalgmate quality is usually measured by the quality of its formula scenes. This doesn't mean we want to watch and review the films like action/sex montages, only that often there simply is not much else to there to work with.
Casino Royale is an actual MOVIE, which is only worth mentioning because only about 1/5 of the Bonds from the last THREE decades have met the criteria. It is a movie because it sports character development and theme. Or to put it another way, Casino Royale is a story about people who change and learn things, and is a story which interacts with its audience on a personal level. Not that James Bond (or even this film, for that matter) could or should be considered interpretive literature. Part of what makes the films what they are intrinsically is escapism. But escapism and quality cinema are not mutually exclusive.
By some miracle, this series has survived hundreds of millions of dollars worth of awful films. Movie after movie, sometimes three, four, five in a row have drawn and highlighted the thought that maybe James Bond should turn in his gun. What maintains this eclectic series of films and perpetuates them forward are films like Casino Royale. You may not like it, you might love the misogynistic overman represented in so many of these films (and there is a real appeal, I'm not removing myself entirely), but if this series is to move forward then movies like Casino Royale need to be made.
Casino Royale is not only a real movie. It is also a very good one, and (to move even further down this path) is also one of the best Bond films. Daniel Craig plays a VERY good Bond by our decade's standards, and if you aren't willing to blend Bond and present culture than you aren't talking about James Bond. 007 and the NEW, the present, the pertinent are essential to James Bond, and any fan should know this. God didn't create a James Bond cookie-cut. The producers did. And there cannon, or rules of fair play, or whatever you call the limits the Bond team is required to follow CANNOT be based on a 1970's understanding or interpretation of who Bond is. Bond is meant as a cultural ideal, someone men want to be and women want to be with. He is meant to be attractive, smart, strong, possessing savoire faire, current. CURRENT. Alive. Understandable. Believable. The world today judges attraction, strength, understanding, all these things differently than they did a decade ago, or the decade before. Bond must be fluid, like society. Anything less is failure. The modern James Bond, in his truest form, is not a tribute to his past. He is ever growing and evolving. You may not like the evolution, but Bond as he stands today is a success by our cultural standard.
The meat of this film is found in the relationship between Vesper and Bond. If you don't see this, you probably won't understand the novelty or praise the film has received since its release. Bond's brush with love opened him (briefly) to a worldview encompassing hope and trust. Near the beginning of the film, Bond replies to M's harsh corrections "Well, I understand 00's have a very short life expectancy, so your wish will be short-lived." Whatever his values were then, they weren't personal. They didn't involve redemption or hope of some kind of self-actualization. As he said of vodka martinis so goes life, "Does it look like I give a damn?"
Vesper changes all this, for a time. And while he is hurt, and likely more guarded emotionally than ever, I have a feeling that those couple moments of existential beauty for Bond won't stay hidden forever. No one who has tasted such things could live out the life of a gloried sociopath. As these films continue, so long as they remain in capable hands, I am optimistic of Bond's development. He'll find love again, or die trying.
It's all right. It's quite all right, really. She's having a rest. We'll be going on soon. There's no hurry, you see. We have all the time in the world.
It only seems like yesterday that Daniel Craig paddled down the Thames and was pushed out of his dinghy in a rubber-ring by Michael G Wilson. I was thrilled because Daniel Craig has always been my favourite actor. When I say favourite actor I'm not being entirely truthful. To be honest I had no idea who he was. But anyway he was the new James Bond. He seemed a bit short for the role and his fair hair and craggy features seemed better suited to a Robin Askwith biopic than tall, dark and handsome 007. For some reason he was wearing enough eyeliner to stock a small beauty saloon. But anyway he was James Bond. He looked a bit scrawny at the press conference but when shooting began he seemed to have packed two years worth of body-building into three months. He looks like he can kill or do some damage said his supporters. Why has he done all that body-building? said the sceptics. He looks like even more of a shortarse now. But anyway he was the new James Bond. As more footage from the film was released positions became more entrenched. I became more pessimistic with every new terrible photo of Daniel Craig and his one facial expression. On the plus side I was relieved to see someone had given the poor man some eyebrows. On the minus side he looked a bit like Roger De Courcey without Nookie the Bear. But anyway he was the new James Bond.
You could tell that old Bigmouth himself, the reliably unimaginative Martin Campbell was directing the new James Bond film. He managed to insult the other Bond actors before he'd finished. After proudly trumpeting the fact that Casino Royale would feature a 28-year-old Bond who has just earned his Double-O status he ended up with 53 year-old Daniel Craig as his young rookie Bond. The young Bond contenders were just too young he said later. Yes, 22 year-old Henry Cavill was too young to be James Bond. What a turn up for the books. Makes sense really with him only being, you know, 22. Perhaps they should have tested a few more actors who were old enough to shave.
Casino Royale is seventeen hours long. It begins with a B/W sequence and then moves into a title sequence involving a very small Daniel Craig and a theme tune that was rejected by Finland when David Arnold offered it to them as their Eurovision song contest entry. Then we have the free-running sequence which is too long and a bit silly. Yes, Pierce Brosnan is still roasted for his underwater tie-adjustments and radio controlled BMW but Daniel Craig running through walls and jumping off girders is somehow humane and realistic. Then he kills three-hundred soldiers and shoots the man he was chasing for reasons that escape me at the moment. The villain of Casino Royale is Le Chiffre played by the great Madge Nicholson. He wears a black suit and looks a bit oily. And that's it. Vesper is played by the French actress Eva Green. She doesn't have an awful lot to do in this film and her acting skills suggest that wasn't such a bad move.
After the chase we get a lot of product placement and cellphone nonsense. Cell phones received enough screen time to virtually be placed on the cast list. Craig plays cards and drives a Ford Mondeo. Judi Dench gives her 'just happy to be here' performance as M. The Airport sequence, which I feel like I've seen two hundred times in other movies, felt shoehorned in to give the film another set-piece and then we move into Montenegro and the second half of the film. It won't come as a huge suprise to know that I disliked the second half of the film too. Why? In no real order:
1) The Bond/Vesper train sparring was woeful.
2) The poker scenes were drab.
3) Clunky dialogue.
4) Drink wobbling.
5) Drink wobbling.
6) Drink wobbling.
7) Contrived ending.
Daniel Craig in the lead role wanders around looking miserable and talks in a flat, monotone voice. He runs a lot and purses his lips. At no time did I think I was watching James Bond. His looks are laughably wrong for Bond and he lacks charisma, charm and a sense of mischief. I'd rather be locked in a room with a double-glazing salesman than watch Craig's Bond. James Bond is a joyless character in CR. Gone is the escapism and fun, replaced by laborious psychology and dreary production design.
Somebody Please Make This Movie. ) For the benefit of non-British members, here's the opening sequence to one of the cinematic masterpiece's that Askwith graced in the 1970's.
Daniel Craig is probably ten years too old for the part, so Capt, I'm afraid we'll have to look elsewhere for a leading man. But Emilia Fox would be perfect casting as the landlady's daughter who takes her clothes off at every opportunity with hilarious consequences.
Didn't really know where to put this. Based on world wide reviews CS was the best film of 2006. Go figure
"Casino Royale disposes of the silliness and gadgetry that plagued recent James Bond outings, and Daniel Craig delivers what fans and critics have been waiting for: a caustic, haunted, intense reinvention of 007. But scribes also note "Casino" is hardly morose, with enough stunning action sequences and in-jokes to please the diehards. Some pundits even go so far as to say that Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Sean Connery."
(quoting rottentomatoes.com)"Some pundits even go so far as to say that Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Sean Connery."
Couldn't have said it better, myself---oh, wait, I did (see signature)
: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
When I first watched CR, I was quite disappointed. I hated it and the idea of a reboot. But I just viewed it for the second time and it was magnificent. I do not know what I was thinking the first time. I enjoyed almost every second of it. I have definitely misjudged this movie. I brought it way up on my favorite films list also. It seems to get better and better after each viewing. I may just watch it again . -{
Considering the abuses the franchise has been put through over the decades CR06 rises above the dross and floats at or very near the top (FRWL and possibly GF occupying top spots IMHO).
Pros (a selection):
- Relatively gadget free. I for one was very happy to see the gadgets being played to a minimum in this film (though I thought the defibrillator in the glove box was a bit too convenient).
- Realistic character development. As a "reboot" it correctly places Bond in the formative stages of his career--emotionally and professionally.
- Straight Villains. Okay, a little tongue-in-cheek villainy isn't a bad thing, but it was nice to see Le Chiffre played straight.
Cons:
- Action, action, action. Lets face it, the action sequences that dominate the first half of the film are only filler, setting up the real action at the table. I realise this is a sop to the target market, but half of the action sequences' running time (as well choreographed as they were) could have been left on the editing floor without any injury to the film.
- Unrealistic relationship development. A minor gripe. I don't care how suave the Bonds have been in the past, winning over miss Vesper should have been a little more difficult... and Jame's would have to have been seriously deluded not to have sniffed things out.
has he only just seen Casino Royale recently or has he seen it and has been trying to put into words his horror ever since?
) ) ) )
He missed the dis on the gun-barrel sequence, the ugliness of the leading lady, the lack of silhouette babes in the title sequence, the disappearance of our beloved Moneypenny and crusty old Q.
It's becoming harder and harder not to put CR at the top of the Bond list, for reasons stated above (7289 and Luke make great points IMO). Still give the overall edge to OHMSS, but only just.
Strange, those reviews seemed spot on to me! I don't know, what we can agree on is how odd these split views are, like it's two different movies completely.
I don't mind sometimes thinking of renting CR to watch again, I like the idea of it and must admit that Craig has rejunivinated the series in a way that a Hugh Jackman type never could.
But odd memories of the film resurface to put me off. I mean, Vesper getting Bond's tux: "I need you to look like a man who belongs at that table..." Er, why? He's not there to negotiate a sale or to pitch an idea. It's not a job interview. He's there to play a game of poker. Surely what you need to do is wear what you're used to and comfortable with. He's not exactly trying to impress anyone.
And then Bond says, I need them all to be jealous of me cos you look so ravishing in your dress. It's all so hamfistedly written. 8-)
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited January 2008
Coming soon: CR QuibblesTM Thread #10,743 - Was Martin Campbell Cramped and Retaining Water During The Poker Scenes?
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
Strange, those reviews seemed spot on to me! I don't know, what we can agree on is how odd these split views are, like it's two different movies completely.
I don't mind sometimes thinking of renting CR to watch again, I like the idea of it and must admit that Craig has rejunivinated the series in a way that a Hugh Jackman type never could.
But odd memories of the film resurface to put me off. I mean, Vesper getting Bond's tux: "I need you to look like a man who belongs at that table..." Er, why? He's not there to negotiate a sale or to pitch an idea. It's not a job interview. He's there to play a game of poker. Surely what you need to do is wear what you're used to and comfortable with. He's not exactly trying to impress anyone.
And then Bond says, I need them all to be jealous of me cos you look so ravishing in your dress. It's all so hamfistedly written. 8-)
Nappy, if CR was ham-fisted, what do you call the scripts MR-DAD inclusive? Rump-footed, maybe? Cuz there's a helluva lotta crap writing in the series the last 30 years or so. CR may not be Pulitzer-worthy, but it's a huge step up from what we've been getting IMO. Massive, massive improvement IMHO.
"Different genre" shouldn't preclude quality writing/directing/acting IMHO. If CR doesn't hit the right mix for you so be it, but differences aside it's STILL a huge step up from MR-DAD, and more in line with DN-OHMSS--finally and thank Heaven! (IMHO and FWIW )
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited January 2008
Everybody needs a hobby, and CR QuibblesTM is one of the least expensive one can undertake {:) ...at least, until our marketing people get ahold of the idea... ...surely, there's some money to be made here, somehow... :v
I've got it!! CR QuibblesTM...Nap, you really need to design a board game )
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
Well I’ve been very tight-lipped about my feelings concerning CR ever since it premiered. I know it’s considered by many to be the best Bond ever. This makes me feel like I’m in a very small minority because I couldn’t disagree more.
I tried ranking the movie with all the others, but I simply couldn’t. Not necessarily because I think it’s so bad it’s like an Ed Wood production, but more because it seems nothing like a Bond film. It’s just a real oddity to me, like the 1954 TV version of CR, or the 1967 headache-inducing spoof.
Even more puzzling is how so many Bond fans for decades have insisted NSNA isn’t canon, but I don’t see how that can be a legitimate argument anymore. CR actually does more to legitimize NSNA then Kevin McClory ever imagined. Ironic, since Eon would like you to believe NSNA never happened. (And they even have the uncanny distinction of being the only two Bond films where Felix Leiter is black! ) NSNA may not be a very good Bond film, but at least it seems more like a Bond film than CR.
Some reading this post will surely come to the conclusion that I’m unfamiliar with the original novels. Not true. I’ve read every one by Fleming and Gardner. My favorite Fleming novel is DN. In the movie TLD, I thought Timothy Dalton really nailed the character, and felt he was a worthy successor to Roger Moore. I enjoy catching little references to the books in the movies. And my three top favorite films are very faithful to the Fleming versions – OHMSS, FRWL and GF. (Actually, the movie GF is even better than the book.)
So what is it? Why am I so negative towards this movie? I think some of it has to do with the utter contempt CR seems to have for any past tradition with the Bond series. It makes me wonder why the producers still make Bond films if they are so ashamed of the last 40 years that they have to pretend like it never even happened. I just see cheap shots made at the legacy all over the place – from the PTS to Bond’s choice of car rental to his response for how he wants his martini prepared to the film’s unenthusiastic score.
You could argue that this was how Bond was always supposed to be. But I maintain that Fleming’s DN novel was even more fantastical than the movie based on it, so I don’t really buy into the whole theory that James Bond is supposed to be more grounded. And I see no proof that Daniel Craig is the way Fleming wanted his agent portrayed.
I might still be a little bitter about how the whole thing was handled with Brosnan. If you want to reboot the series, fine – reboot the series. But at least give the guy who saved your franchise a proper send-off. The fanboy in me would have loved to have seen one final adventure with Brosnan that actually brings closure to the entire series. (A revenge tale involving Irma Bunt would have had me giddy with anticipation.) Instead, DAD ends like any other Bond film, and most will say not exactly on a high note.
Maybe if I could have said goodbye to the James Bond I’ve known my entire life, I would have been more accepting of CR. Instead, CR strikes me as being more guilty than MR of wanting to be something it’s not. MR was a Star Wars wannabe, and CR desperately wants to be Jason Bourne. I like the frantic seriousness of Jason Bourne and I like the escapist fun of James Bond. These two tastes don’t have to be mutually exclusive, and it is possible to like both.
I truly wonder how other life-long James Bond fans can say this is the best Bond film ever when it resembles nothing like the wit and charm of the character that made us fans in the first place.
Comments
Thanks for the feedback. BTW I am the same Skywalker.
Overall Casino Royale is a fantastic film, BUT I would like to make it clear that this is NOT a Bond film, or true to the book.
The lack of Sir Mile Messervy as M, the lack of smoking from Bond (I know it's not PC to smoke but Bond does), lack of Q branch, pandering to the popularity of Poker rather than using the original Bacharrach, the list goes on a Blonde Bond etc etc etc etc etc.
The problem I feel is that they will either have to remake the other Fleming books to adhere to the ending of CR or put on further to the story. They made a mistake going for CR, and should have kept the Bond stories moving.
I enjoyed Pierce Brosnan as Bond, and felt he brought out the Bond that Fleming wrote about in the later books.
Rating for the Film: 003
Only joshing, wollastonblue, and playing with words. Baccarat is the card game; Bacharach was the composer for the '67 CR.
I knew DC would work as oo7 at the end of the credits with the close up. Liked the opening chase, amazed by the jumping about and wondering how long the stunt men spent at the doctor with their knees. I felt the airport chase was too long - and would have preferred to see more of a chase after Vesper was "kidnapped"
For the rest, as stated above - once they got on the train Ian Fleming's "Casino Royale" was on the screen and they did a great job. Still can't say enough good things about the supporting cast!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Have you seen this Casino Royale opening sequence spoof on You Tube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry2hUWHFduQ
It's priceless!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
"Casino Royale": 007's Film Franchise Obituary
Ever notice that the 007 films produced after “Goldeneye” seem to get worse and worse in significant critical, creative respects like screenplay quality, casting decisions, etc.? With “Casino Royale,” the franchise hits rock bottom. “Casino Royale” is, objectively, the worst James Bond film in the history of the 007 film franchise. Why?
1) Story: Based, more or less, on Ian Fleming’s original novel, this unskillful adaptation/update is communicated with a disdain for clarity. The audience is fed too little information, too late (or not at all)—about both character motivations as well as the stakes involved in various action sequences—to remain emotionally engaged and genuinely interested in what’s going on.
2) Casting/characterization: lacks conviction and appeal
• Daniel Craig (Bond). Craig’s characterization of Bond is charmless, worthless, and disturbingly nihilistic. At one point in the script, Craig’s Bond responds to a question with “Do I look like I give a damn?” The answer in “Casino Royale” is overwhelmingly NO. Why on earth, then, should the audience care about him? At another point, he tells Vesper “I have no idea what an honest job is.” Is this a credible (or creditable) moral statement to hear from a top-level government secret agent? Craig’s monotonously stoic performance is by no means compensated for by his (atrocious) line readings: he articulates rarely, mumbles often. As a result of Craig’s hollow Bond interpretation, what should have been the film’s ultimate impact moment—007’s “Bond, James Bond” confrontation with villainous Mr. White—is surprisingly anti-climactic, prompting a shrug rather than a cheer from this reviewer.
• Eva Green (“Bond Girl,” Vesper Lynd). Green’s Vesper characterization comes across unwittingly as awkward, unsophisticated. Green looks and acts like a teenager playing at “grown-up.” What’s missing is the mature presence/feminine poise that typifies the best Bond Girl actresses (e.g. Ursula Andress, Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg, Barbara Bach, Maud Adams, Izabella Scorupco, et al). A self-confessed “complicated woman,” Green’s Vesper remains maddeningly inscrutable to the end, and her romance with Craig’s Bond is ineptly developed and unconvincingly consummated.
• Judi Dench. Her “M” is more unsympathetic than ever. No other actress has ever contributed less charm and more unfemininity to the Bond series than Dame Judi Dench.
• Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre). In Ian Fleming’s novel, Le Chiffre is skillfully characterized as an odd, sinister presence. Onscreen, Mikkelsen’s version of Le Chiffre is unimpressive—an effete villain with a blood-weepy eye, but without the twisted charisma that typifies the best Bond screen adversaries (Goldfinger, Blofeld, Mr. Big, Max Zorin, Janus, et al).
3) Script/dialogue. Both in content and tone, the screenplay—like the novel—overwhelmingly projects malevolence: the power of evil; the stress on the tragic and traumatic; all events taking place in a world where no one can or ought to be trusted. And notice how the script flagrantly undercuts James Bond, the ultimate fictional egoist, with the inclusion of damning “anti-ego” lines thrown at him by M and Vesper. The dialogue is cynical, tasteless, and witless.
4) Original Music: Chris Cornell’s unmemorable opening-credits theme song—“You Know My Name”—lacks color, drama, and excitement. David Arnold’s unremarkable score sounds melodramatic and overly derivative, like a cheap John Barry knock off.
5) Producer infamy/creative poverty: Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the film’s producers, lacking the vision and ingenuity to advance Bond’s personal timeline onscreen, reveal their creative bankruptcy by bringing 007 back to the beginning of his secret service career, presenting him in his most unflattering incarnation yet. Out go Bond’s cinematically-cultivated charm and conviction. The new Bond is an uninteresting, expressionless, muscle-bound nihilist and a disgracefully vulnerable “hero.” The producers deliberately emphasize Bond’s vulnerability by subjecting him, incredibly, to cardiac arrest(!) as well as a horrific trial of torture (this latter was a rotten, graphic part of Fleming’s original novel). Putting obstacles in a purposeful screen hero’s path makes for good drama; but these shocking “Casino-Royale” examples are an extremely sick way to challenge a hero and are certainly artistically unworthy of depiction onscreen.
Considering all these points, it is clear that “Casino Royale” is neither value-driven art nor fan-pleasing entertainment. The proof is in the picture.
“Casino Royale” is the highest-grossing Bond film to date. But consider:
1. This fact merely indicates the degree of public curiosity about or interest in James Bond and owes virtually everything to the franchise’s longstanding cinematic appeal and reputation (earned by much better films and performances in the series and betrayed dramatically by “Casino Royale”).
2. This fact confirms nothing about public satisfaction with or approval of this latest installment.
3. High box-office numbers neither reflect nor establish this film’s merit.
I disagree with everything you just said =D
I think even the strongest CR haters on this site would say your being a teeny tiny bit strong there.
It is NOT a perfect movie, but there has yet to be a Bond film made that did justice to the original material. A prefectionist could nit-pick even the best of the Bond films to death.
Seems to me that many fans came to this particuliar film either determined in advance to HATE it, or with unrealistic expectations based on a favorite Bond film of the past - starring an actor who was for them the "best" oo7.
Based on my past expierence with Bond films, I should have HATED this flick myself. I suffered through the worst dreck Bond has to offer up to and including the wretched DAD!
I wanted a reboot set in the 1950's, absolutely faithful to Fleming!
What I got was a film whose first half has nothing to do with IF and whose second half kept many of IF's set pieces, but radically changed them. Not to mention the lead actor does not resemble Hoagy Carmichael one bit.
But CR'06 while a compromise of modern filmaking brought a fresher interpetation of oo7 as an ambitious, reckless adventurer who forces himself onto his assigned target, and while damn near getting killed manages to win despite his own shortcomings. Much closer to Fleming's charecter than ever before.
Gone were the moronic one liners that started in 1961 with "Sergeant, Don't let him get away" and reached the apex of vulgarity with "I thought Christmas ...." This kind of cr*p was blessedly replaced with an ocassional silent, sardonic look.
While the chases were repetitive, never before has a Bond film had such well written charecters/dialog. Only FRWL has better friends and villians - but they are played straight - no traitors or badstabbers there - bad is bad and good is good. In FRWL there was no "big picture" to confuse us with the possibility that Bond could win at the Casino, but end up choking on his own mahood. While "loser" LeChiffre is wined and dined by the CIA or MI6.
Eva Green may not be Ursula, but she looks like a real woman, and is the first Bond girl who can look Bond in the face and tell him "No" and mean it.
I could go on, but will sum it up like this ...It's not perfect, but possibly for the first time ever, this film is at its core a "serious" movie. For that it comes about as close as any Bond film will ever be to what Mr. Fleming had in mind when he first sat down at Goldeneye in 1951.
For me that makes this a four star film!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Casino Royale (2006)
4 out of 4 stars
Roger Ebert, having recovered (welcome back!) enough to begin reviewing movies again, mentioned in his take o Casino Royale that "reviews aren't a list of favorite scenes." (or something to that effect) I agree. And it also happens to make this review a letter-grade nudge easier to write. You see, the level of a Bond film's amalgmate quality is usually measured by the quality of its formula scenes. This doesn't mean we want to watch and review the films like action/sex montages, only that often there simply is not much else to there to work with.
Casino Royale is an actual MOVIE, which is only worth mentioning because only about 1/5 of the Bonds from the last THREE decades have met the criteria. It is a movie because it sports character development and theme. Or to put it another way, Casino Royale is a story about people who change and learn things, and is a story which interacts with its audience on a personal level. Not that James Bond (or even this film, for that matter) could or should be considered interpretive literature. Part of what makes the films what they are intrinsically is escapism. But escapism and quality cinema are not mutually exclusive.
By some miracle, this series has survived hundreds of millions of dollars worth of awful films. Movie after movie, sometimes three, four, five in a row have drawn and highlighted the thought that maybe James Bond should turn in his gun. What maintains this eclectic series of films and perpetuates them forward are films like Casino Royale. You may not like it, you might love the misogynistic overman represented in so many of these films (and there is a real appeal, I'm not removing myself entirely), but if this series is to move forward then movies like Casino Royale need to be made.
Casino Royale is not only a real movie. It is also a very good one, and (to move even further down this path) is also one of the best Bond films. Daniel Craig plays a VERY good Bond by our decade's standards, and if you aren't willing to blend Bond and present culture than you aren't talking about James Bond. 007 and the NEW, the present, the pertinent are essential to James Bond, and any fan should know this. God didn't create a James Bond cookie-cut. The producers did. And there cannon, or rules of fair play, or whatever you call the limits the Bond team is required to follow CANNOT be based on a 1970's understanding or interpretation of who Bond is. Bond is meant as a cultural ideal, someone men want to be and women want to be with. He is meant to be attractive, smart, strong, possessing savoire faire, current. CURRENT. Alive. Understandable. Believable. The world today judges attraction, strength, understanding, all these things differently than they did a decade ago, or the decade before. Bond must be fluid, like society. Anything less is failure. The modern James Bond, in his truest form, is not a tribute to his past. He is ever growing and evolving. You may not like the evolution, but Bond as he stands today is a success by our cultural standard.
The meat of this film is found in the relationship between Vesper and Bond. If you don't see this, you probably won't understand the novelty or praise the film has received since its release. Bond's brush with love opened him (briefly) to a worldview encompassing hope and trust. Near the beginning of the film, Bond replies to M's harsh corrections "Well, I understand 00's have a very short life expectancy, so your wish will be short-lived." Whatever his values were then, they weren't personal. They didn't involve redemption or hope of some kind of self-actualization. As he said of vodka martinis so goes life, "Does it look like I give a damn?"
Vesper changes all this, for a time. And while he is hurt, and likely more guarded emotionally than ever, I have a feeling that those couple moments of existential beauty for Bond won't stay hidden forever. No one who has tasted such things could live out the life of a gloried sociopath. As these films continue, so long as they remain in capable hands, I am optimistic of Bond's development. He'll find love again, or die trying.
It only seems like yesterday that Daniel Craig paddled down the Thames and was pushed out of his dinghy in a rubber-ring by Michael G Wilson. I was thrilled because Daniel Craig has always been my favourite actor. When I say favourite actor I'm not being entirely truthful. To be honest I had no idea who he was. But anyway he was the new James Bond. He seemed a bit short for the role and his fair hair and craggy features seemed better suited to a Robin Askwith biopic than tall, dark and handsome 007. For some reason he was wearing enough eyeliner to stock a small beauty saloon. But anyway he was James Bond. He looked a bit scrawny at the press conference but when shooting began he seemed to have packed two years worth of body-building into three months. He looks like he can kill or do some damage said his supporters. Why has he done all that body-building? said the sceptics. He looks like even more of a shortarse now. But anyway he was the new James Bond. As more footage from the film was released positions became more entrenched. I became more pessimistic with every new terrible photo of Daniel Craig and his one facial expression. On the plus side I was relieved to see someone had given the poor man some eyebrows. On the minus side he looked a bit like Roger De Courcey without Nookie the Bear. But anyway he was the new James Bond.
You could tell that old Bigmouth himself, the reliably unimaginative Martin Campbell was directing the new James Bond film. He managed to insult the other Bond actors before he'd finished. After proudly trumpeting the fact that Casino Royale would feature a 28-year-old Bond who has just earned his Double-O status he ended up with 53 year-old Daniel Craig as his young rookie Bond. The young Bond contenders were just too young he said later. Yes, 22 year-old Henry Cavill was too young to be James Bond. What a turn up for the books. Makes sense really with him only being, you know, 22. Perhaps they should have tested a few more actors who were old enough to shave.
Casino Royale is seventeen hours long. It begins with a B/W sequence and then moves into a title sequence involving a very small Daniel Craig and a theme tune that was rejected by Finland when David Arnold offered it to them as their Eurovision song contest entry. Then we have the free-running sequence which is too long and a bit silly. Yes, Pierce Brosnan is still roasted for his underwater tie-adjustments and radio controlled BMW but Daniel Craig running through walls and jumping off girders is somehow humane and realistic. Then he kills three-hundred soldiers and shoots the man he was chasing for reasons that escape me at the moment. The villain of Casino Royale is Le Chiffre played by the great Madge Nicholson. He wears a black suit and looks a bit oily. And that's it. Vesper is played by the French actress Eva Green. She doesn't have an awful lot to do in this film and her acting skills suggest that wasn't such a bad move.
After the chase we get a lot of product placement and cellphone nonsense. Cell phones received enough screen time to virtually be placed on the cast list. Craig plays cards and drives a Ford Mondeo. Judi Dench gives her 'just happy to be here' performance as M. The Airport sequence, which I feel like I've seen two hundred times in other movies, felt shoehorned in to give the film another set-piece and then we move into Montenegro and the second half of the film. It won't come as a huge suprise to know that I disliked the second half of the film too. Why? In no real order:
1) The Bond/Vesper train sparring was woeful.
2) The poker scenes were drab.
3) Clunky dialogue.
4) Drink wobbling.
5) Drink wobbling.
6) Drink wobbling.
7) Contrived ending.
Daniel Craig in the lead role wanders around looking miserable and talks in a flat, monotone voice. He runs a lot and purses his lips. At no time did I think I was watching James Bond. His looks are laughably wrong for Bond and he lacks charisma, charm and a sense of mischief. I'd rather be locked in a room with a double-glazing salesman than watch Craig's Bond. James Bond is a joyless character in CR. Gone is the escapism and fun, replaced by laborious psychology and dreary production design.
I miss the panache, the wit, the charm of Bond.
Somebody Please Make This Movie.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2cc1yoRC_QM
Daniel Craig is probably ten years too old for the part, so Capt, I'm afraid we'll have to look elsewhere for a leading man. But Emilia Fox would be perfect casting as the landlady's daughter who takes her clothes off at every opportunity with hilarious consequences.
"Casino Royale disposes of the silliness and gadgetry that plagued recent James Bond outings, and Daniel Craig delivers what fans and critics have been waiting for: a caustic, haunted, intense reinvention of 007. But scribes also note "Casino" is hardly morose, with enough stunning action sequences and in-jokes to please the diehards. Some pundits even go so far as to say that Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Sean Connery."
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/features/rtawards/movie_2006.php?r=1&mid=1159328&type=w
Couldn't have said it better, myself---oh, wait, I did (see signature)
:007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Wow. Lots vitriol in this thread.
Considering the abuses the franchise has been put through over the decades CR06 rises above the dross and floats at or very near the top (FRWL and possibly GF occupying top spots IMHO).
Pros (a selection):
- Relatively gadget free. I for one was very happy to see the gadgets being played to a minimum in this film (though I thought the defibrillator in the glove box was a bit too convenient).
- Realistic character development. As a "reboot" it correctly places Bond in the formative stages of his career--emotionally and professionally.
- Straight Villains. Okay, a little tongue-in-cheek villainy isn't a bad thing, but it was nice to see Le Chiffre played straight.
Cons:
- Action, action, action. Lets face it, the action sequences that dominate the first half of the film are only filler, setting up the real action at the table. I realise this is a sop to the target market, but half of the action sequences' running time (as well choreographed as they were) could have been left on the editing floor without any injury to the film.
- Unrealistic relationship development. A minor gripe. I don't care how suave the Bonds have been in the past, winning over miss Vesper should have been a little more difficult... and Jame's would have to have been seriously deluded not to have sniffed things out.
All in all the best Bond film since the 60s.
Aaron -{
He missed the dis on the gun-barrel sequence, the ugliness of the leading lady, the lack of silhouette babes in the title sequence, the disappearance of our beloved Moneypenny and crusty old Q.
I don't mind sometimes thinking of renting CR to watch again, I like the idea of it and must admit that Craig has rejunivinated the series in a way that a Hugh Jackman type never could.
But odd memories of the film resurface to put me off. I mean, Vesper getting Bond's tux: "I need you to look like a man who belongs at that table..." Er, why? He's not there to negotiate a sale or to pitch an idea. It's not a job interview. He's there to play a game of poker. Surely what you need to do is wear what you're used to and comfortable with. He's not exactly trying to impress anyone.
And then Bond says, I need them all to be jealous of me cos you look so ravishing in your dress. It's all so hamfistedly written. 8-)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Nappy, if CR was ham-fisted, what do you call the scripts MR-DAD inclusive?
I could suspend my disbelief with the era you talked of, but not with CR. Actually that's a lie, the Brosnan films bar TWINE fell way short too!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I've got it!! CR QuibblesTM...Nap, you really need to design a board game
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I tried ranking the movie with all the others, but I simply couldn’t. Not necessarily because I think it’s so bad it’s like an Ed Wood production, but more because it seems nothing like a Bond film. It’s just a real oddity to me, like the 1954 TV version of CR, or the 1967 headache-inducing spoof.
Even more puzzling is how so many Bond fans for decades have insisted NSNA isn’t canon, but I don’t see how that can be a legitimate argument anymore. CR actually does more to legitimize NSNA then Kevin McClory ever imagined. Ironic, since Eon would like you to believe NSNA never happened. (And they even have the uncanny distinction of being the only two Bond films where Felix Leiter is black!
Some reading this post will surely come to the conclusion that I’m unfamiliar with the original novels. Not true. I’ve read every one by Fleming and Gardner. My favorite Fleming novel is DN. In the movie TLD, I thought Timothy Dalton really nailed the character, and felt he was a worthy successor to Roger Moore. I enjoy catching little references to the books in the movies. And my three top favorite films are very faithful to the Fleming versions – OHMSS, FRWL and GF. (Actually, the movie GF is even better than the book.)
So what is it? Why am I so negative towards this movie? I think some of it has to do with the utter contempt CR seems to have for any past tradition with the Bond series. It makes me wonder why the producers still make Bond films if they are so ashamed of the last 40 years that they have to pretend like it never even happened. I just see cheap shots made at the legacy all over the place – from the PTS to Bond’s choice of car rental to his response for how he wants his martini prepared to the film’s unenthusiastic score.
You could argue that this was how Bond was always supposed to be. But I maintain that Fleming’s DN novel was even more fantastical than the movie based on it, so I don’t really buy into the whole theory that James Bond is supposed to be more grounded. And I see no proof that Daniel Craig is the way Fleming wanted his agent portrayed.
I might still be a little bitter about how the whole thing was handled with Brosnan. If you want to reboot the series, fine – reboot the series. But at least give the guy who saved your franchise a proper send-off. The fanboy in me would have loved to have seen one final adventure with Brosnan that actually brings closure to the entire series. (A revenge tale involving Irma Bunt would have had me giddy with anticipation.) Instead, DAD ends like any other Bond film, and most will say not exactly on a high note.
Maybe if I could have said goodbye to the James Bond I’ve known my entire life, I would have been more accepting of CR. Instead, CR strikes me as being more guilty than MR of wanting to be something it’s not. MR was a Star Wars wannabe, and CR desperately wants to be Jason Bourne. I like the frantic seriousness of Jason Bourne and I like the escapist fun of James Bond. These two tastes don’t have to be mutually exclusive, and it is possible to like both.
I truly wonder how other life-long James Bond fans can say this is the best Bond film ever when it resembles nothing like the wit and charm of the character that made us fans in the first place.