I have a few questions about the movie... things i didn't get after the first time. I'm going to see it a second time tomorrow !!
Anyway, first of all, the guy supposed to blow up the plane was supposed to be frenchman sebastien foucan, right ?? Originally i mean, before bond kills him... ??
Then, in miami, everything goes so fast that i didn't even understand what's inside the locked door ?? "Ellipsis" is the password to get into it, right ?? but then, when the guy is inside it, what is he doing ?? And the only purpose of the bag is to get the uniform...??:)
I know i'm asking a lot of questions, but it's just to be sure before my second viewing.
thanks a lot !!
I don't have the answer for you, but I thought the bombing of the plane, although a good action scene, was rather silly. To begin with our bomber has to get past airport security, which in the movie looked rather easy. Then he has to use a password to get into the secure area. switch into a maintenance uniform, find a guy who happens to be using a fuel truck, knock him out, get into the truck, attach the bomb and jump out just as the truck his headed for the plane. All this takes place within 30 minutes of the planes debut. What if airport security was backed up, airport secure areas have security cameras everywhere, how did they miss him? What if a fuel truck wasn't available to steal?
I think this scene could have been rewritten to to make it a little bit more clever. Seemed to me that it was added as an action scene and a chance to have some big explosions.
I have a few questions about the movie... things i didn't get after the first time. I'm going to see it a second time tomorrow !!
Anyway, first of all, the guy supposed to blow up the plane was supposed to be frenchman sebastien foucan, right ?? Originally i mean, before bond kills him... ??
Then, in miami, everything goes so fast that i didn't even understand what's inside the locked door ?? "Ellipsis" is the password to get into it, right ?? but then, when the guy is inside it, what is he doing ?? And the only purpose of the bag is to get the uniform...??:)
I know i'm asking a lot of questions, but it's just to be sure before my second viewing.
thanks a lot !!
I don't have the answer for you, but I thought the bombing of the plane, although a good action scene, was rather silly. To begin with our bomber has to get past airport security, which in the movie looked rather easy. Then he has to use a password to get into the secure area. switch into a maintenance uniform, find a guy who happens to be using a fuel truck, knock him out, get into the truck, attach the bomb and jump out just as the truck his headed for the plane. All this takes place within 30 minutes of the planes debut. What if airport security was backed up, airport secure areas have security cameras everywhere, how did they miss him? What if a fuel truck wasn't available to steal?
I think this scene could have been rewritten to to make it a little bit more clever. Seemed to me that it was added as an action scene and a chance to have some big explosions.
Very true, but it's silliness in a story that is preposterous to begin with. I'll go you one better: Didn't Demetrious notice the guy he just lost his Aston Martin to on the last plane to Miami with him? Because if Bond wasn't on that plane, how did he get there? I suppose he could have chartered a flight.
And of course the hearty Hollywood perennial: just as a blow to the back of the head invariably renders someone unconscious (though never dead) for as long as necessary to the hero, silver screen cabdrivers always successfully manage to tail cars, whatever the traffic conditions. Which explains how Bond winds up right behind Demetrious at the museum.
In films like these, it's best to restrict questions to "whys." The "hows" are a little shaky. )
After all these years, it’s good to finally have James Bond back.
What can I say? Daniel Craig is excellent as Bond, not quite in the same league as Connery (even with the same walk and cavalier attitude), but awfully, awfully close. His Bond is darker and more psychologically disturbed than any except perhaps Dalton’s, but he’s also charming, fearless, loyal, and sincere. And he joins Connery and Lazenby in playing Bond as a man’s man with no concern for his safety or appearance when it comes to fulfilling his mission – it isn’t just the level of intensity that makes scenes work but the fact the Craig’s Bond couldn’t care less if he’s scarred or maimed to get things done. His performances while poisoned and during the torture sequence were flawless.
The rest of the cast is solid. Eva Green is so much better as Vesper than I expected I’m stunned. She carries the role with utter believability and pathos. Judi Dench, as usual, provides a great performance as M, but she’s given far better lines this time and is allowed to act with a great range, calling to mind the great Bernard Lee. I’m thrilled that Mads Mikkelsen underplays Le Chiffre as a cold-blooded weasel – he’s so much more menacing that, say, whiny Jonathan Pryce or that bratty British guy in the last one. Giancarlo Gianinni, Geoffrey Wright, and Caterina Murino brought depth to their brief roles. Even LeChiffre's plastic girlfriend felt more developed than I would have expected in a modern Bond film.
The script has better and smarter dialogue and scenes than any of the Bonds of the past 30 years, and gone is the sense of juvenilia and cheesy formula. This one thankfully is made for grown ups. But it does have flaws. The romance is a bit rushed, and there are a few too many scenes reminiscent of previous Bonds – Demetrious’ killing and the public dispatching of Fiona Volpe; Bond’s resignation and its parallel in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”; Bond’s breaking into M’s apartment and his unannounced visit to Quarterdeck. More creativity would have improved things.
The card sequences played very well – and I don’t care much for cards – and the romance, while rushed, felt real. The action sequences crackle, due to looking authentic, Craig’s intensity, and the fact that they’re sandwiched between other scenes that actually mean something, David Arnold’s score is terrific (and I like the theme song), and Martin Campbell should be applauded for directing the film with style and enthusiasm. He’s clearly moved beyond his “Goldeneye” cable TV sensibility to a full-fledged film with proper setups and sweeping shots. The ending simply made me want to applaud.
A friend and long-time fan of Bond said she thinks it was the best Bond movie she’s ever seen and that she completely forgot she was watching a movie. We both wanted another 10-15 minutes of movie because it was that good.
Bless you Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson for giving me something I’ve been waiting for for decades (though shame on you for the awful product placement)!
LOVED the film! There is an on-going rumour that a fromer Bond does a quick cameo in the airport scene. Can anyone confirm or deny? I didn't see him...
Saw Casino Royale for the second time today and enjoyed it just as much, if not more so.
I wen't along with my parents. The first time in many years that we had visited the cinema together, so it was a very special occasion. My Father is a long time Bond fan. However, my Mother is not a Bond fan, but she does find Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan very attractive. She doesn't like Roger Moore and never forgets to tell me whenever the subject of Bond is raised. X-( Bless her. :x
Needless to say, I asked my folks for their opinion as soon as CR had finished. My Father really enjoyed it and rated Daniel Craig the equal of Brosnan. My Mother loved Vesper Lynd's (Algerian knot) necklace, she mentioned it at least four times during the film. She compared Craig to Connery when he spoke the immortal line at the end. And she said he has a perfectly formed arse......she noticed.
saw casino royale a second time today as well !!
And i've been thinking at something : at the end , M says to bond that if the organisation didn't kill them (vesper and him), it is surely due to the fact that vesper exchange their life for the money. If so, it means that she didn't care about her franco-algerian boyfriend (who had been kidnapped by the organisation).
The organisation was already blackmailing vesper to have the money, and she decides to save their life in exchange the money !! So, basically, she says to the organisation : "you can kill him (her boyfriend), i don't care !!" Right ??
But at one point do you think the organisation starts blackmailing vesper ?? It can't be at the beginning... because they didn't know if bond or le chiffre was going to win the poker game.
Well, I have just finished watching CR for the second time...
I enjoyed the film, though the second time through felt a little slow. But it reminds me of OHMSS. The action, the plot, most of the elements (even without Q and Moneypenny) are Bondian, but the actor is not. In Lazenby's case it's due to his inexperience as an actor, whereas in Craig's case, his acting is very good and the problem lies elsewhere. I cannot get over his "more human," gritty-looking Bond.
This is what I feared going in. I was assurred that I would like him more once I'd seen him actually take on Bond, but I'm afraid that's not true. One of the primary reasons I'm a Bond fan is because I look up to Bond, I want to be Bond. I don't want an imperfect, gritty Bond with spiky blond hair and a lined face (not intended as an insult, I don't think that DC is unattractive).
Unfortunately (for me and whomever happens to agree with me), DC is the antithesis of my Bond, at least physically and maybe as written in CR. Like I said, I enjoyed the film, but everytime someone said "Bond," I felt like saying "where?" Personally I hope the series returns to its more "campy" roots.
I remain a Bond fan, but I expect that I won't be watching anymore of DC's outings as Bond in theatre. I'll wait for the DVD (or whatever replaces DVDs) on Bond 22 and 23. And to all those who enjoyed CR and DC, I'm happy for you. -{
006/007. Even my wife liked it! And that says a lot. Hmm. Perhaps she showed a bit too much interest in Daniel Craig, rising from the sea like some male Venus. Well, this is probably not only one of the most faithful Bond movies but also one of the most mainstream. Not only for young Bond wannabes.
Let’s have Daniel Craig in a remake of Live and Let Die!
I do think that vesper loves bond over her algerian boyfriend... she makes a deal with the organisation to save their life (bond and vesper's)in exchange of the money !! Which means that she doesn't care so much about her boyfriend (who has been captured by the organisation).
By the way, since nobody answers me the first time, at what point do you think the organisation starts blackmailing vesper ?? It can't be at the beginning because they don't even know who is going to win the poker game (bond or le chiffre), so they don't know who is going to win the money, right ?? So , what do you think ?
I do think that vesper loves bond over her algerian boyfriend... she makes a deal with the organisation to save their life (bond and vesper's)in exchange of the money !! Which means that she doesn't care so much about her boyfriend (who has been captured by the organisation).
By the way, since nobody answers me the first time, at what point do you think the organisation starts blackmailing vesper ?? It can't be at the beginning because they don't even know who is going to win the poker game (bond or le chiffre), so they don't know who is going to win the money, right ?? So , what do you think ?
The plot is not clear and I expect it will be explained in Bond 22. It's hard to say when she was turned, but it may have been fairly early or even from the beginning. Remember: she refuses to stake him the additional $5 million to get him back in the game, which definitely benefits LeChiffre. Leiter gives him the money. I'm sure the whole plot will be explained in Bond 22
I do think that vesper loves bond over her algerian boyfriend... she makes a deal with the organisation to save their life (bond and vesper's)in exchange of the money !! Which means that she doesn't care so much about her boyfriend (who has been captured by the organisation).
By the way, since nobody answers me the first time, at what point do you think the organisation starts blackmailing vesper ?? It can't be at the beginning because they don't even know who is going to win the poker game (bond or le chiffre), so they don't know who is going to win the money, right ?? So , what do you think ?
There are lots of spins on the involvement of the Algerian boyfriend - me and HH have already given them a choice of plotlines on a different thread {[] I personally think that he will be the bad guy and that he was only going out with her as she was an employee of the government.
This then explains how he got himself kidnapped and the blackmail starting. She was worth more than money as she had access to buildings etc that were off limits to your average joe and in her position (i.e. knowing account numbers and having the power to authorise large transfers) she could have been doing this covertly from the Treasury itself. This means that the game at CR just presented itself as a big hit after which she would be disposed of, she just beat them to it.
It's interesting to think about: if the boyfriend is the bad guy and was just playing her, does that change how Bond feels about Vesper? Would Bond have some sympathy for Vesper who herself had been played, or would it matter to him? In one sense, it makes the loss even greater--Bond and Vesper had something real, at least in comparison. Or would there be more respect from Bond if Vesper was acting out of a (again comparitively) truer love for her captive boyfriend? It's a quagmire.
I think either way, the bottom line for Bond was: she made her choice, and in the end it wasn't him. She did save his life, but she didn't/couldn't/wouldn't choose him over another. Ouch.
In my own opinion , I've no doubt about Bond's feelings for vesper... and the same goes to vesper !!
It's obvious that vesper cared more about bond than about her ex-boyfriend (even if their love was real at first.. and considering the fact that the boyfriend wasn't playing her).
You just have to watch the end, and see vesper saying "forgive me james" and then comitting suicide !! It explains everything.. as somebody has said already, she just couldn't live with the fact she had let him down the only man she's ever loved (knowing that she knew bond was going to forgive her, obviously !!). Anyway, her love is fully real, and the drowning just proves it.
As for Bond, there is nothing more to say : he is ready to quit his job for her !! That's enough to prove the extent of his love... And almost all the scenes between him and her are there to emphasize it !! He is attracted to her right from the beginning... and his attraction becomes passion through the movie !!
LOVED the film! There is an on-going rumour that a fromer Bond does a quick cameo in the airport scene. Can anyone confirm or deny? I didn't see him...
I was impressed with Craig as a grittier Bond. The airport sequence was rather well done. Le Chiffre was a credible villain. The Aston Martin acquisition was a nice backstory. I'm glad Felix Leiter has been resurrected.
I was unimpressed with the murky plot. The movie was too long for the weak story. The next film definitely will need Moneypenny & Q. The construction site action in the entry was a bit derivative of the TRANSPORTER movies.
Continuing the franchise in a new direction will be rather difficult. Better screenwriting is the answer. An effort should be made to avoid redoing past Bond derring do. The new films should avoid underwater sequences, ski chases and space flight, space satellites or laser beams. New vehicular stunts and locations should be tried. For example, has Bond ever been to Canada? Or Antarctica? Or Poland? Finland? Northern Ireland? Akron?
Snowmobiles, snowcats, superbikes, ATVs, Liebherr mining trucks, skateboards, etc...have been underused/not used at all, and should be up for consideration.
Realistic contemporary villains should be based upon realworld terrorists, criminal gangs, paramilitary death squads & military war criminals. If Bond is really ex-SAS, then maybe he has experience hunting the IRA???
As for directors, I would recommend either Tony Scott, George Miller or Geoff Murphy.
I've finally gotten around to watching CR today and the following are my impressions of this film based on my initial viewing (a bit late, I'll admit, but better late than never )
First of all, this is, IMO, an important Bond film because it marks a radical departure from most of the previous 20 films(probably everything following FRWL. Ever since Sean Connery tossed out that "Shocking! Positively shocking!" line in GF, Bond films have been known for violence laced with humor as our hero followed up his kills with one-liners that somehow mitigated the impact of the deadly acts that preceded them. No more quips this time. This Bond kills quickly, brutally, and has no time for jokes afterwards. This approach, it can be argued, is more realistic and Fleming-esque. On the other hand, it could shock certain sections of the audience, who may not have expected this level of brutality from their Bond (especially from a series of PG-13 films). I believe the ratings board has been very lenient with CR, but that's a whole different topic. The gadgetry has also been toned down to a minimum (the only gadget I could think of was the defibrillator hidden inside the Aston Martin's glove compartment). Again, this is truer to the books, but is significantly different from most of the other films.
What about Bond himself? Well, I have to say that Daniel Craig has earned my respect. There are only a handful of actors (past and present) who, IMO, can match his intensity. Thus, he is able to portray the "blunt instrument", lethal-killing-machine side of Bond extremely well. His athleticism is also something to behold as he launches himself into his stunts with a seemingly total disregard for personal safety. However, he hasn't, at least in this film, shown a lot of skills in handling the suave, charming side of Bond. The script simply didn't give him many opportunities to do so. The scene where he picked up Solange was playful and very well done. The movie needed a few more such scenes. As it was, CR was mostly compelling, sometimes thrilling, sometimes touching, but not very ... fun. Perhaps that was due to the lack of moments of comic relief as well. Craig had a few good lines ("that last hand nearly killed me", for example), but they were few and far in between. There was only one moment in the theater where I watched the film when the entire audience laughed out loud, and that was after the "that's because you know what I can do with my little finger" line. It wouldn't be a bad idea for the producers and
screenwriters to allow Craig to turn on the charm and the humor more in his next outing as Bond. A friend of mine said he wondered why Craig was walking around with a scowl on his face most of the times. That's an exaggeration, but I do
think that DC needs to relax a bit more as he settles into the role. It's true that Bond is a "badass", but he doesn't need to advertise it. He is indeed a steel fist, but also one concealed in a velvet glove. And he should have fun with his job, as he enjoys the perks of being an elite assassin: glamorous covers and a seemingly-unlimited expense account, to name a few.
What about the most controversial part about Craig as Bond, i.e his looks? It seems that he has gone through a major transformation from the days of his introduction as Bond in the press conference to now. The training regimen and whatever else that Eon has made him go through have paid off. Craig is still the most, shall we say rugged looking, of all the actors who have played Bond, but his looks are no longer something that would overshadow his considerable acting talents, and prevent people from accepting him as Bond. As a Bond fan who grew up with Roger Moore as 007, and who was very happy with Brosnan's portrayal of Bond, I never thought that I could see Craig as Bond. However, after seeing CR, I have to say that even though DC doesn't fit my image of Bond, he is still believable in the role due to his presence and aforementioned intensity.
A film can only be as good as its script, and this is where CR shines. I can't believe that Purvis & Wade, the guys who made a mess out of the last half of DAD (which turned out, regrettably, to be Brosnan's swan song) could, by themselves, have penned CR. Paul Haggis must have made some significant contributions to the script (I wouldn't be surprised if I were to hear that he had done a complete re-write of some key scenes in the script). Anyway, the dialogue was cracklingly good, at a level not frequently attained in Bond films. As a Brosnan fan, I can only wish that PB had been given a chance to act out a script written or revised by Haggis. The score from David Arnold also deserves an honorable mention. It was probably his best work as a Bond composer. There were moments of brilliance in his TWINE score (like the Bond/Electra skiing scene), but as a whole, the CR score is better. The cinematography was also first-class. It was as if the whole production team had brought their A-game this time to support the new Bond.
However, the villains in this film are simply not a very memorable bunch. Le Chiffre, with eyes that wept blood, was supposed to be sinister and menacing. I found him to be merely a petulant playboy with a strange and inconvenient physical characteristic. And the guy who manipulated Vesper, and his henchmen? They are just a bunch of nameless, stereotypical thugs. And since
we are talking about the supporting cast, I must say that the beautiful Caterina Murino was severely underused as Solange. What's
the point of hiring such a lovely actress if you are just going to use her in a couple of scenes?
The title sequence also, IMO, left much to be desired. I know that the producers were aiming for something new this time around, but I really missed the dancing naked female silhouettes of a traditional Bond title sequence. The silhouette of Craig running around and fighting, intertwined with playing cards motifs, while curiously retro, simply didn't do it for me. I just felt like I'm not watching a proper Bond movie (I usually expect a lot out of the PTS, theme song and title sequence, since they give Bond movies a classy feel that other spy or action movies can imitate but never match). Kleinman had been doing so well with the last 4 films' title sequences, so I'm not sure why he felt he needed to change his style for CR (unless he was told to do so by the producers).
Finally, this may sound like I'm nit-picking, but what was Craig doing holding up that monstrous gun when he finally uttered the iconic "Bond, James Bond" line, backed by the Bond theme, at the end of the movie? This is the big moment, the point when Bond as we know him was born. Craig should be proudly holding the Walther PPK. The other gun makes him look more like a Mafia hit man than MI6's finest spy/assassin.
Overall rating for CR: 006/007.
Verdict on DC as Bond: a very good and promising debut. I'm really looking forward to seeing how he will develop the Bond character, now that the reboot is out of the way and the character has become the Bond that we have known and loved for decades.
i just saw CR yesterday for the first time, and i must say i enjoyed it thoroughly. it was a pleasant surprise that the movie succeeded so well in capturing the bond magic (especially after the terrible DAD) despite of all the much-touted talk of brutal realism. it was a gritty film, but it stayed true to its subject matter.
as to daniel craig: imo he was terrific as 007. what he maybe lacks in poster-boy appearance, he obviously makes up in depth and intensity. physically he looks like a man who he can give damage and take it as well (which he did)... and this comes from a roger moore fan.
what comes to his charm, i think he showed it best with vesper. the dialogue they exchange really reveals his wit and humour superbly, it's something that contrasts his rough exterior very well. true, craig maybe seemed a bit tense in some scenes: not perhaps as "laid back" as previous bonds. but the reason to this i think was how much more grounded the overall story was. it just felt like CR dealt with both physical and mental pain with much more realism than previous bonds. the scene after bond's "revival" during the poker game stands as a testament to this... wouldn't anyone be a bit tense and on the edge after being practically dead? and he still landed a great oneliner for that, which was simply brilliant.
in fact after all the hearsay i was surprised to see craig smiling so much in his role. granted, it still wasn't as quirky as sir moore etc, but it was much better than i had feared: he was serious, but not totally grim. and that's a good thing.
much like frostbitten i was also surprisingly impressed with the score. david arnold hasn't really won me over with his previous bond scores, they've just felt far more generic than the genius work of barry...then again barry is almost impossible to compete with. but in CR david arnold actually shines as the score has a very sweeping and classic feel to it. there are nice stabs at the key melody of "you know my name" as well, something that both nods to previous bond classics and also compliments cornell's song (which itself was just ok in my opinion).
speaking of the theme song, this reminds me of the titles. i had no problem with the cell-shaded visuals, but for some reason the colour scheme didn't work at times for me at all. beige as a background colour for the totles? it is a minor quibble, but something that distracted me anyways.
the rest of the cast was very good, eva green actually surprised me by giving a much deeper impression as a bond lady than i would have thought. vesper really felt like an intelligent character, not just a carboard cutout. murino felt more like she was there just for eyecandy, but at least she did that part well. M was her usual self, it was odd in a way that dame dench was still playing her... but a blessing at the same time since introducing a new M plus a new bond would've probably distracted the audience too much. and then there's le chiffré. i thought le chiffré was a very interesting character, he came across as much more subtle rather than cartoony which was great. it might be because i was strangely hypnotised by mads mikkelsen's cold stare (he's a cool man), but i really thought he gave us a great bond "villain".
the direction in CR was solid from campbell, much tighter in terms of action and pacing (regardless of the film being long) that i had anticipated with sexier cinematography too. he did a good job in the 90s with goldeneye, but his past resumé with other projects hasn't really impressed me at all... so it was great relief to see him deliver such a classy bond film, something which surely was aided by a much greater script than the usual fare.
all in all i think the best thing about casino royale is that it reinvigorates a legendary and beloved franchise that was on its way to depressing idiocy. also i feel genuinely happy for daniel craig: here's a man who was nearly crucified for being casted as the next 007, proving the world wrong by giving us more than just empty model-boy looks.
so what else can i say? long live 007. james bond will return.
I've seen the film twice now. Once with a big group of students from my college, the other with family. I assume a lot has been said already about the film (what is this, page 12?) So I'll attempt to go at it from one angle.
First off, this film, CASINO ROYALE, is a crowd-pleaser. It is full of energy. Both times I saw the show, the theatre was packed. People laugh at the jokes, give respect to the occasional sentimental scene, verbalize their awe at the free jumping, Bonds ingenuity, the flip of cards in the casino. Bond is cool again! It isn't simply a popular cult-film like star wars anymore. This film works very well with the people. The timing is great as well. i like to note the torture scene. Bond is naked in a chair--one can expect a few snickers. The filmmakers anticipate this very well, throwing in jokes at just the right places to calm the tension. This sort of thing fills the movie. The average person walking into this film will enjoy it.
My personal opinion of the film? Far better than I expected. I didn't think it could be done, but somehow they've managed it:
Best bond film since the 60's.
Craig is such a great actor too, isn't he? That was the biggest shock for me. I was into the decision from the beginning, but I didn't expect the performance we received.
Only major problem for me was the ambiguity of the climax. Was it the death of Vesper (conclusion of the 3rd act, which felt like a post-script to the film), or the torture scene? The confusion made the ending come a bit too fast, I felt. Not to say I didn't like the ending--it just wasn't perfectly placed. Felt a bit disjointed.
Casino Royale is the new ohmss in my mind. It doesn't quite surpass the novelty of the 60's film, but it is a similar sort of film in that it stands out as an "emotional oddity". Maybe this 'reboot' will encourage a more emotionally charged character in Bond. But as of yet, Casino Royale and OHMSS are the only two films in the series to establish a real development of character.
Summary:
Craig has established himself as Bond. This film is better than anything Brosnan did, and will be remembered as one of the classics. This is one of the bonds that people are going to remember. Like Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me, this is one of the big ones. Unlike TWINE or DAD, which may or may not have been good in their own right, Casino Royale has made a very permanent and distinguished mark in the series. This is a very exciting time for bond fans, and I feel bad for those who don't see this. Thanks for reading!
4 out of 4 stars (excellent - only one of 3 bond films i'd award this rating)
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.
Well i tried really hard to keep an open mind about Craig, I was never bothered too much about his blondness but i got a little worried with some of the press photos. Then I saw the film. Craig has done bond proud, as a long time reader of the books he's managed to really portray the character the way it was written and looks a hell of a lot better on screen than in the photos.
My only grumbles are: the theme, its just still six kinds of wrong. The product placement. Every plane in Miami was a virgin? come on. Oh look I've just run through customs and all there is is a large stand of Smirnoff vodka. sheesh! and the running commentary though the poker game, I know not everyone knows how to play but I just think it could have been handled better.
apart from that it ranks as one of the best. can't wait for the next one to see how craig does will it be a more formula bond?
I saw some other Bond movies some years ago, and didn't like them at all.
When I knew who'll play the new Bond, I said: "Ahh! he would be OK in the rôle of a Nazi!"
But I saw the trailer, and everywhere the posters, and good critiques. So I decided to see it.
And I loved him (both movie and Bond)! I understood the sory (yeah!), there were no stupid gadgets, the girl wasn't stupid (and the actress is French! {[] ) ), and... Daniel Craig made me love James Bond!!
He's not very handsome, but he's so charismatic, and we can't get our eyes off him (i'm not sure my sentence is correct ^__^ )!
:x :x
thanks!!
that's amazing: when i think to all the people who loathed him! and now he's among the best Bonds! )
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Now that was just plain mean, Fish.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited December 2006
"I only ask that you continue to bring unfilmed Fleming scenes into future Bond films."
Mr. Basinger, I second the motion {[]
- The German
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
Saw the movie last w/e and overall I think it's ok. Three issues bothered me throughout though:
First, this movie was way too sappy. Were they trying to make a chick flick?! Too much pillow talk of feelings and mush. Which leads me to the second issue...why is DC half naked(if not more)in most of it?! What happened to all of the scantily clad knock-out women that used to flock our main man?
The last issue is perhaps the biggest grip of all. Poor product placement. It was obvious Ford Motor Co and it's premium brands paid big bucks to have their vehicles on display. We felt like we were watching a commercial. Now I can understand the Aston Martin(a must-have in any respectable Bond film) but all the Land Rovers and Jaguars were too much. Surely all those exotic locations import more than that same Grey Jag that was in every outside shot. Nice black Bentley to mix it up though(thanks Volkswagen AG)!!
Any questions?
Mr Plural has asked for the mature woman’s POV on CR, and always happy to oblige...
Mr Craig: excellent raw material. If not exactly Fleming’s Bond in appearance he possibly comes closer than anyone so far in embodying the spirit. A few too many lingering shots of Craig playing male model, otherwise a thumbs up (sic).
The Plot: unnecessarily complicated, possibly in the mistaken belief that this would add depth. Always a mistake for a Bond story; Mr Fleming revelled in his hidden shallows.
The Tone: very well handled, I thought, and the film’s strongest element. There was the overall feel of a Fleming story with wry bits of ironic humour. Humour seems the most difficult element to balance in a Bond film, and it’s all too easy to insult the viewer’s intelligence. I re-watched TSWLM recently but couldn’t bear more than a third as it seemed too much like a children’s film.
In CR I thought it was spot-on, but this might largely be due to the lack of silly and unnecessary gadgetry. In subsequent films when the gadget cars et al start to re-appear (and they will!), this will prove much more difficult. It’s always tricky to look mean and moody if your car is turning into a submarine or you’re at the helm of a hollow crocodile. Let’s hope EON can contain themselves.
The Book: biggest disappointment is that more of the book wasn’t included. Yes, I can see the need to flesh-out the story a little, give some of the background to Le Chiffre’s motives and bolt-on the obligatory action ending, but the second and third acts could easily have followed the book much more closely. Why make such a fuss about CR being 'the Holy Grail' then abandon most of it? Where was Bond’s bonding with Felix? Where was Felix for that matter – no doubt Jeffrey Wright is a fine actor, but he’s hardly the man for the part. I can understand the need for updating a novel written more than 50 years ago, but most of the changes seemed unnecessary.
The Ending: as many others have pointed out, film-Vesper’s death seems far too ambiguous. This is clarified a little if you’ve read the book but then as EON have changed so much else, why take that as a guide? I’ve read that this will all be cleared up in the next film, but why wait? By all means have a plot that continues into the next film, Bond’s vendetta/revenge against ELIPSIS, but there was little need to make it all so confusing. Most of the people I’ve spoken to seemed very unclear about what happened: did she kill herself? Did she remove the key? Had she planned on killing herself? Why did she kill herself? Etc, etc.
The Reboot: goodness how the franchise was on life support before CR came along, and love it or loathe it, Bond has certainly been re-born with fresh vigour for a new generation. Of the people I’ve canvassed for an opinion, all have said that it was not a matter of ‘if’ they would see the new film, but ‘when’. When did that last happen? Most of the last 10 films seem to have been greeted with bored apathy.
I’m all in favour and think that, with reservations, the reboot has been handled with aplomb.
The reservations are in EON not showing the courage of their convictions in appointing a new M (are we in a alternative universe, or does the code-name theory really hold water?), and in making unnecessary changes from the Fleming canon: why didn’t we see Bond’s first two kills as written?
Conclusion: a top-notch Bond film, and the best since OHMSS. Too much gunfire (as usual) but all in all a tremendous effort considering the pap EON have been re-heating for so long.
Comments
Because public access to the tarmac where the planes, baggage and refueling trucks are is prohibited for security reasons.
I don't have the answer for you, but I thought the bombing of the plane, although a good action scene, was rather silly. To begin with our bomber has to get past airport security, which in the movie looked rather easy. Then he has to use a password to get into the secure area. switch into a maintenance uniform, find a guy who happens to be using a fuel truck, knock him out, get into the truck, attach the bomb and jump out just as the truck his headed for the plane. All this takes place within 30 minutes of the planes debut. What if airport security was backed up, airport secure areas have security cameras everywhere, how did they miss him? What if a fuel truck wasn't available to steal?
I think this scene could have been rewritten to to make it a little bit more clever. Seemed to me that it was added as an action scene and a chance to have some big explosions.
Very true, but it's silliness in a story that is preposterous to begin with. I'll go you one better: Didn't Demetrious notice the guy he just lost his Aston Martin to on the last plane to Miami with him? Because if Bond wasn't on that plane, how did he get there? I suppose he could have chartered a flight.
And of course the hearty Hollywood perennial: just as a blow to the back of the head invariably renders someone unconscious (though never dead) for as long as necessary to the hero, silver screen cabdrivers always successfully manage to tail cars, whatever the traffic conditions. Which explains how Bond winds up right behind Demetrious at the museum.
In films like these, it's best to restrict questions to "whys." The "hows" are a little shaky.
Because she loved Bond and felt that she had let him down, She couldn't face him.
Of course, there may be more to it but we won't know until Bond 22.
What can I say? Daniel Craig is excellent as Bond, not quite in the same league as Connery (even with the same walk and cavalier attitude), but awfully, awfully close. His Bond is darker and more psychologically disturbed than any except perhaps Dalton’s, but he’s also charming, fearless, loyal, and sincere. And he joins Connery and Lazenby in playing Bond as a man’s man with no concern for his safety or appearance when it comes to fulfilling his mission – it isn’t just the level of intensity that makes scenes work but the fact the Craig’s Bond couldn’t care less if he’s scarred or maimed to get things done. His performances while poisoned and during the torture sequence were flawless.
The rest of the cast is solid. Eva Green is so much better as Vesper than I expected I’m stunned. She carries the role with utter believability and pathos. Judi Dench, as usual, provides a great performance as M, but she’s given far better lines this time and is allowed to act with a great range, calling to mind the great Bernard Lee. I’m thrilled that Mads Mikkelsen underplays Le Chiffre as a cold-blooded weasel – he’s so much more menacing that, say, whiny Jonathan Pryce or that bratty British guy in the last one. Giancarlo Gianinni, Geoffrey Wright, and Caterina Murino brought depth to their brief roles. Even LeChiffre's plastic girlfriend felt more developed than I would have expected in a modern Bond film.
The script has better and smarter dialogue and scenes than any of the Bonds of the past 30 years, and gone is the sense of juvenilia and cheesy formula. This one thankfully is made for grown ups. But it does have flaws. The romance is a bit rushed, and there are a few too many scenes reminiscent of previous Bonds – Demetrious’ killing and the public dispatching of Fiona Volpe; Bond’s resignation and its parallel in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”; Bond’s breaking into M’s apartment and his unannounced visit to Quarterdeck. More creativity would have improved things.
The card sequences played very well – and I don’t care much for cards – and the romance, while rushed, felt real. The action sequences crackle, due to looking authentic, Craig’s intensity, and the fact that they’re sandwiched between other scenes that actually mean something, David Arnold’s score is terrific (and I like the theme song), and Martin Campbell should be applauded for directing the film with style and enthusiasm. He’s clearly moved beyond his “Goldeneye” cable TV sensibility to a full-fledged film with proper setups and sweeping shots. The ending simply made me want to applaud.
A friend and long-time fan of Bond said she thinks it was the best Bond movie she’s ever seen and that she completely forgot she was watching a movie. We both wanted another 10-15 minutes of movie because it was that good.
Bless you Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson for giving me something I’ve been waiting for for decades (though shame on you for the awful product placement)!
I wen't along with my parents. The first time in many years that we had visited the cinema together, so it was a very special occasion. My Father is a long time Bond fan. However, my Mother is not a Bond fan, but she does find Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan very attractive. She doesn't like Roger Moore and never forgets to tell me whenever the subject of Bond is raised. X-( Bless her. :x
Needless to say, I asked my folks for their opinion as soon as CR had finished. My Father really enjoyed it and rated Daniel Craig the equal of Brosnan. My Mother loved Vesper Lynd's (Algerian knot) necklace, she mentioned it at least four times during the film. She compared Craig to Connery when he spoke the immortal line at the end. And she said he has a perfectly formed arse......she noticed.
And i've been thinking at something : at the end , M says to bond that if the organisation didn't kill them (vesper and him), it is surely due to the fact that vesper exchange their life for the money. If so, it means that she didn't care about her franco-algerian boyfriend (who had been kidnapped by the organisation).
The organisation was already blackmailing vesper to have the money, and she decides to save their life in exchange the money !! So, basically, she says to the organisation : "you can kill him (her boyfriend), i don't care !!" Right ??
But at one point do you think the organisation starts blackmailing vesper ?? It can't be at the beginning... because they didn't know if bond or le chiffre was going to win the poker game.
I enjoyed the film, though the second time through felt a little slow. But it reminds me of OHMSS. The action, the plot, most of the elements (even without Q and Moneypenny) are Bondian, but the actor is not. In Lazenby's case it's due to his inexperience as an actor, whereas in Craig's case, his acting is very good and the problem lies elsewhere. I cannot get over his "more human," gritty-looking Bond.
This is what I feared going in. I was assurred that I would like him more once I'd seen him actually take on Bond, but I'm afraid that's not true. One of the primary reasons I'm a Bond fan is because I look up to Bond, I want to be Bond. I don't want an imperfect, gritty Bond with spiky blond hair and a lined face (not intended as an insult, I don't think that DC is unattractive).
Unfortunately (for me and whomever happens to agree with me), DC is the antithesis of my Bond, at least physically and maybe as written in CR. Like I said, I enjoyed the film, but everytime someone said "Bond," I felt like saying "where?" Personally I hope the series returns to its more "campy" roots.
I remain a Bond fan, but I expect that I won't be watching anymore of DC's outings as Bond in theatre. I'll wait for the DVD (or whatever replaces DVDs) on Bond 22 and 23. And to all those who enjoyed CR and DC, I'm happy for you. -{
Let’s have Daniel Craig in a remake of Live and Let Die!
By the way, since nobody answers me the first time, at what point do you think the organisation starts blackmailing vesper ?? It can't be at the beginning because they don't even know who is going to win the poker game (bond or le chiffre), so they don't know who is going to win the money, right ?? So , what do you think ?
The plot is not clear and I expect it will be explained in Bond 22. It's hard to say when she was turned, but it may have been fairly early or even from the beginning. Remember: she refuses to stake him the additional $5 million to get him back in the game, which definitely benefits LeChiffre. Leiter gives him the money. I'm sure the whole plot will be explained in Bond 22
There are lots of spins on the involvement of the Algerian boyfriend - me and HH have already given them a choice of plotlines on a different thread {[] I personally think that he will be the bad guy and that he was only going out with her as she was an employee of the government.
This then explains how he got himself kidnapped and the blackmail starting. She was worth more than money as she had access to buildings etc that were off limits to your average joe and in her position (i.e. knowing account numbers and having the power to authorise large transfers) she could have been doing this covertly from the Treasury itself. This means that the game at CR just presented itself as a big hit after which she would be disposed of, she just beat them to it.
Or am I over analysing
I think either way, the bottom line for Bond was: she made her choice, and in the end it wasn't him. She did save his life, but she didn't/couldn't/wouldn't choose him over another. Ouch.
It's obvious that vesper cared more about bond than about her ex-boyfriend (even if their love was real at first.. and considering the fact that the boyfriend wasn't playing her).
You just have to watch the end, and see vesper saying "forgive me james" and then comitting suicide !! It explains everything.. as somebody has said already, she just couldn't live with the fact she had let him down the only man she's ever loved (knowing that she knew bond was going to forgive her, obviously !!). Anyway, her love is fully real, and the drowning just proves it.
As for Bond, there is nothing more to say : he is ready to quit his job for her !! That's enough to prove the extent of his love... And almost all the scenes between him and her are there to emphasize it !! He is attracted to her right from the beginning... and his attraction becomes passion through the movie !!
I saw Richard Branson. Does that count???
I was unimpressed with the murky plot. The movie was too long for the weak story. The next film definitely will need Moneypenny & Q. The construction site action in the entry was a bit derivative of the TRANSPORTER movies.
Continuing the franchise in a new direction will be rather difficult. Better screenwriting is the answer. An effort should be made to avoid redoing past Bond derring do. The new films should avoid underwater sequences, ski chases and space flight, space satellites or laser beams. New vehicular stunts and locations should be tried. For example, has Bond ever been to Canada? Or Antarctica? Or Poland? Finland? Northern Ireland? Akron?
Snowmobiles, snowcats, superbikes, ATVs, Liebherr mining trucks, skateboards, etc...have been underused/not used at all, and should be up for consideration.
Realistic contemporary villains should be based upon realworld terrorists, criminal gangs, paramilitary death squads & military war criminals. If Bond is really ex-SAS, then maybe he has experience hunting the IRA???
As for directors, I would recommend either Tony Scott, George Miller or Geoff Murphy.
First of all, this is, IMO, an important Bond film because it marks a radical departure from most of the previous 20 films(probably everything following FRWL. Ever since Sean Connery tossed out that "Shocking! Positively shocking!" line in GF, Bond films have been known for violence laced with humor as our hero followed up his kills with one-liners that somehow mitigated the impact of the deadly acts that preceded them. No more quips this time. This Bond kills quickly, brutally, and has no time for jokes afterwards. This approach, it can be argued, is more realistic and Fleming-esque. On the other hand, it could shock certain sections of the audience, who may not have expected this level of brutality from their Bond (especially from a series of PG-13 films). I believe the ratings board has been very lenient with CR, but that's a whole different topic. The gadgetry has also been toned down to a minimum (the only gadget I could think of was the defibrillator hidden inside the Aston Martin's glove compartment). Again, this is truer to the books, but is significantly different from most of the other films.
What about Bond himself? Well, I have to say that Daniel Craig has earned my respect. There are only a handful of actors (past and present) who, IMO, can match his intensity. Thus, he is able to portray the "blunt instrument", lethal-killing-machine side of Bond extremely well. His athleticism is also something to behold as he launches himself into his stunts with a seemingly total disregard for personal safety. However, he hasn't, at least in this film, shown a lot of skills in handling the suave, charming side of Bond. The script simply didn't give him many opportunities to do so. The scene where he picked up Solange was playful and very well done. The movie needed a few more such scenes. As it was, CR was mostly compelling, sometimes thrilling, sometimes touching, but not very ... fun. Perhaps that was due to the lack of moments of comic relief as well. Craig had a few good lines ("that last hand nearly killed me", for example), but they were few and far in between. There was only one moment in the theater where I watched the film when the entire audience laughed out loud, and that was after the "that's because you know what I can do with my little finger" line. It wouldn't be a bad idea for the producers and
screenwriters to allow Craig to turn on the charm and the humor more in his next outing as Bond. A friend of mine said he wondered why Craig was walking around with a scowl on his face most of the times. That's an exaggeration, but I do
think that DC needs to relax a bit more as he settles into the role. It's true that Bond is a "badass", but he doesn't need to advertise it. He is indeed a steel fist, but also one concealed in a velvet glove. And he should have fun with his job, as he enjoys the perks of being an elite assassin: glamorous covers and a seemingly-unlimited expense account, to name a few.
What about the most controversial part about Craig as Bond, i.e his looks? It seems that he has gone through a major transformation from the days of his introduction as Bond in the press conference to now. The training regimen and whatever else that Eon has made him go through have paid off. Craig is still the most, shall we say rugged looking, of all the actors who have played Bond, but his looks are no longer something that would overshadow his considerable acting talents, and prevent people from accepting him as Bond. As a Bond fan who grew up with Roger Moore as 007, and who was very happy with Brosnan's portrayal of Bond, I never thought that I could see Craig as Bond. However, after seeing CR, I have to say that even though DC doesn't fit my image of Bond, he is still believable in the role due to his presence and aforementioned intensity.
A film can only be as good as its script, and this is where CR shines. I can't believe that Purvis & Wade, the guys who made a mess out of the last half of DAD (which turned out, regrettably, to be Brosnan's swan song) could, by themselves, have penned CR. Paul Haggis must have made some significant contributions to the script (I wouldn't be surprised if I were to hear that he had done a complete re-write of some key scenes in the script). Anyway, the dialogue was cracklingly good, at a level not frequently attained in Bond films. As a Brosnan fan, I can only wish that PB had been given a chance to act out a script written or revised by Haggis. The score from David Arnold also deserves an honorable mention. It was probably his best work as a Bond composer. There were moments of brilliance in his TWINE score (like the Bond/Electra skiing scene), but as a whole, the CR score is better. The cinematography was also first-class. It was as if the whole production team had brought their A-game this time to support the new Bond.
However, the villains in this film are simply not a very memorable bunch. Le Chiffre, with eyes that wept blood, was supposed to be sinister and menacing. I found him to be merely a petulant playboy with a strange and inconvenient physical characteristic. And the guy who manipulated Vesper, and his henchmen? They are just a bunch of nameless, stereotypical thugs. And since
we are talking about the supporting cast, I must say that the beautiful Caterina Murino was severely underused as Solange. What's
the point of hiring such a lovely actress if you are just going to use her in a couple of scenes?
The title sequence also, IMO, left much to be desired. I know that the producers were aiming for something new this time around, but I really missed the dancing naked female silhouettes of a traditional Bond title sequence. The silhouette of Craig running around and fighting, intertwined with playing cards motifs, while curiously retro, simply didn't do it for me. I just felt like I'm not watching a proper Bond movie (I usually expect a lot out of the PTS, theme song and title sequence, since they give Bond movies a classy feel that other spy or action movies can imitate but never match). Kleinman had been doing so well with the last 4 films' title sequences, so I'm not sure why he felt he needed to change his style for CR (unless he was told to do so by the producers).
Finally, this may sound like I'm nit-picking, but what was Craig doing holding up that monstrous gun when he finally uttered the iconic "Bond, James Bond" line, backed by the Bond theme, at the end of the movie? This is the big moment, the point when Bond as we know him was born. Craig should be proudly holding the Walther PPK. The other gun makes him look more like a Mafia hit man than MI6's finest spy/assassin.
Overall rating for CR: 006/007.
Verdict on DC as Bond: a very good and promising debut. I'm really looking forward to seeing how he will develop the Bond character, now that the reboot is out of the way and the character has become the Bond that we have known and loved for decades.
i just saw CR yesterday for the first time, and i must say i enjoyed it thoroughly. it was a pleasant surprise that the movie succeeded so well in capturing the bond magic (especially after the terrible DAD) despite of all the much-touted talk of brutal realism. it was a gritty film, but it stayed true to its subject matter.
as to daniel craig: imo he was terrific as 007. what he maybe lacks in poster-boy appearance, he obviously makes up in depth and intensity. physically he looks like a man who he can give damage and take it as well (which he did)... and this comes from a roger moore fan.
what comes to his charm, i think he showed it best with vesper. the dialogue they exchange really reveals his wit and humour superbly, it's something that contrasts his rough exterior very well. true, craig maybe seemed a bit tense in some scenes: not perhaps as "laid back" as previous bonds. but the reason to this i think was how much more grounded the overall story was. it just felt like CR dealt with both physical and mental pain with much more realism than previous bonds. the scene after bond's "revival" during the poker game stands as a testament to this... wouldn't anyone be a bit tense and on the edge after being practically dead? and he still landed a great oneliner for that, which was simply brilliant.
in fact after all the hearsay i was surprised to see craig smiling so much in his role. granted, it still wasn't as quirky as sir moore etc, but it was much better than i had feared: he was serious, but not totally grim. and that's a good thing.
much like frostbitten i was also surprisingly impressed with the score. david arnold hasn't really won me over with his previous bond scores, they've just felt far more generic than the genius work of barry...then again barry is almost impossible to compete with. but in CR david arnold actually shines as the score has a very sweeping and classic feel to it. there are nice stabs at the key melody of "you know my name" as well, something that both nods to previous bond classics and also compliments cornell's song (which itself was just ok in my opinion).
speaking of the theme song, this reminds me of the titles. i had no problem with the cell-shaded visuals, but for some reason the colour scheme didn't work at times for me at all. beige as a background colour for the totles? it is a minor quibble, but something that distracted me anyways.
the rest of the cast was very good, eva green actually surprised me by giving a much deeper impression as a bond lady than i would have thought. vesper really felt like an intelligent character, not just a carboard cutout. murino felt more like she was there just for eyecandy, but at least she did that part well. M was her usual self, it was odd in a way that dame dench was still playing her... but a blessing at the same time since introducing a new M plus a new bond would've probably distracted the audience too much. and then there's le chiffré. i thought le chiffré was a very interesting character, he came across as much more subtle rather than cartoony which was great. it might be because i was strangely hypnotised by mads mikkelsen's cold stare (he's a cool man), but i really thought he gave us a great bond "villain".
the direction in CR was solid from campbell, much tighter in terms of action and pacing (regardless of the film being long) that i had anticipated with sexier cinematography too. he did a good job in the 90s with goldeneye, but his past resumé with other projects hasn't really impressed me at all... so it was great relief to see him deliver such a classy bond film, something which surely was aided by a much greater script than the usual fare.
all in all i think the best thing about casino royale is that it reinvigorates a legendary and beloved franchise that was on its way to depressing idiocy. also i feel genuinely happy for daniel craig: here's a man who was nearly crucified for being casted as the next 007, proving the world wrong by giving us more than just empty model-boy looks.
so what else can i say? long live 007. james bond will return.
I've seen the film twice now. Once with a big group of students from my college, the other with family. I assume a lot has been said already about the film (what is this, page 12?) So I'll attempt to go at it from one angle.
First off, this film, CASINO ROYALE, is a crowd-pleaser. It is full of energy. Both times I saw the show, the theatre was packed. People laugh at the jokes, give respect to the occasional sentimental scene, verbalize their awe at the free jumping, Bonds ingenuity, the flip of cards in the casino. Bond is cool again! It isn't simply a popular cult-film like star wars anymore. This film works very well with the people. The timing is great as well. i like to note the torture scene. Bond is naked in a chair--one can expect a few snickers. The filmmakers anticipate this very well, throwing in jokes at just the right places to calm the tension. This sort of thing fills the movie. The average person walking into this film will enjoy it.
My personal opinion of the film? Far better than I expected. I didn't think it could be done, but somehow they've managed it:
Best bond film since the 60's.
Craig is such a great actor too, isn't he? That was the biggest shock for me. I was into the decision from the beginning, but I didn't expect the performance we received.
Only major problem for me was the ambiguity of the climax. Was it the death of Vesper (conclusion of the 3rd act, which felt like a post-script to the film), or the torture scene? The confusion made the ending come a bit too fast, I felt. Not to say I didn't like the ending--it just wasn't perfectly placed. Felt a bit disjointed.
Casino Royale is the new ohmss in my mind. It doesn't quite surpass the novelty of the 60's film, but it is a similar sort of film in that it stands out as an "emotional oddity". Maybe this 'reboot' will encourage a more emotionally charged character in Bond. But as of yet, Casino Royale and OHMSS are the only two films in the series to establish a real development of character.
Summary:
Craig has established himself as Bond. This film is better than anything Brosnan did, and will be remembered as one of the classics. This is one of the bonds that people are going to remember. Like Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me, this is one of the big ones. Unlike TWINE or DAD, which may or may not have been good in their own right, Casino Royale has made a very permanent and distinguished mark in the series. This is a very exciting time for bond fans, and I feel bad for those who don't see this. Thanks for reading!
4 out of 4 stars (excellent - only one of 3 bond films i'd award this rating)
My only grumbles are: the theme, its just still six kinds of wrong. The product placement. Every plane in Miami was a virgin? come on. Oh look I've just run through customs and all there is is a large stand of Smirnoff vodka. sheesh! and the running commentary though the poker game, I know not everyone knows how to play but I just think it could have been handled better.
apart from that it ranks as one of the best. can't wait for the next one to see how craig does will it be a more formula bond?
www.scottacademymartialarts.co.uk
When I knew who'll play the new Bond, I said: "Ahh! he would be OK in the rôle of a Nazi!"
But I saw the trailer, and everywhere the posters, and good critiques. So I decided to see it.
And I loved him (both movie and Bond)! I understood the sory (yeah!), there were no stupid gadgets, the girl wasn't stupid (and the actress is French! {[]
He's not very handsome, but he's so charismatic, and we can't get our eyes off him (i'm not sure my sentence is correct ^__^ )!
:x :x
that's amazing: when i think to all the people who loathed him! and now he's among the best Bonds!
Mr. Basinger, I second the motion {[]
- The German
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
First, this movie was way too sappy. Were they trying to make a chick flick?! Too much pillow talk of feelings and mush. Which leads me to the second issue...why is DC half naked(if not more)in most of it?! What happened to all of the scantily clad knock-out women that used to flock our main man?
The last issue is perhaps the biggest grip of all. Poor product placement. It was obvious Ford Motor Co and it's premium brands paid big bucks to have their vehicles on display. We felt like we were watching a commercial. Now I can understand the Aston Martin(a must-have in any respectable Bond film) but all the Land Rovers and Jaguars were too much. Surely all those exotic locations import more than that same Grey Jag that was in every outside shot. Nice black Bentley to mix it up though(thanks Volkswagen AG)!!
Any questions?
Mr Craig: excellent raw material. If not exactly Fleming’s Bond in appearance he possibly comes closer than anyone so far in embodying the spirit. A few too many lingering shots of Craig playing male model, otherwise a thumbs up (sic).
The Plot: unnecessarily complicated, possibly in the mistaken belief that this would add depth. Always a mistake for a Bond story; Mr Fleming revelled in his hidden shallows.
The Tone: very well handled, I thought, and the film’s strongest element. There was the overall feel of a Fleming story with wry bits of ironic humour. Humour seems the most difficult element to balance in a Bond film, and it’s all too easy to insult the viewer’s intelligence. I re-watched TSWLM recently but couldn’t bear more than a third as it seemed too much like a children’s film.
In CR I thought it was spot-on, but this might largely be due to the lack of silly and unnecessary gadgetry. In subsequent films when the gadget cars et al start to re-appear (and they will!), this will prove much more difficult. It’s always tricky to look mean and moody if your car is turning into a submarine or you’re at the helm of a hollow crocodile. Let’s hope EON can contain themselves.
The Book: biggest disappointment is that more of the book wasn’t included. Yes, I can see the need to flesh-out the story a little, give some of the background to Le Chiffre’s motives and bolt-on the obligatory action ending, but the second and third acts could easily have followed the book much more closely. Why make such a fuss about CR being 'the Holy Grail' then abandon most of it? Where was Bond’s bonding with Felix? Where was Felix for that matter – no doubt Jeffrey Wright is a fine actor, but he’s hardly the man for the part. I can understand the need for updating a novel written more than 50 years ago, but most of the changes seemed unnecessary.
The Ending: as many others have pointed out, film-Vesper’s death seems far too ambiguous. This is clarified a little if you’ve read the book but then as EON have changed so much else, why take that as a guide? I’ve read that this will all be cleared up in the next film, but why wait? By all means have a plot that continues into the next film, Bond’s vendetta/revenge against ELIPSIS, but there was little need to make it all so confusing. Most of the people I’ve spoken to seemed very unclear about what happened: did she kill herself? Did she remove the key? Had she planned on killing herself? Why did she kill herself? Etc, etc.
The Reboot: goodness how the franchise was on life support before CR came along, and love it or loathe it, Bond has certainly been re-born with fresh vigour for a new generation. Of the people I’ve canvassed for an opinion, all have said that it was not a matter of ‘if’ they would see the new film, but ‘when’. When did that last happen? Most of the last 10 films seem to have been greeted with bored apathy.
I’m all in favour and think that, with reservations, the reboot has been handled with aplomb.
The reservations are in EON not showing the courage of their convictions in appointing a new M (are we in a alternative universe, or does the code-name theory really hold water?), and in making unnecessary changes from the Fleming canon: why didn’t we see Bond’s first two kills as written?
Conclusion: a top-notch Bond film, and the best since OHMSS. Too much gunfire (as usual) but all in all a tremendous effort considering the pap EON have been re-heating for so long.