Bond has stuck to the same winning format for years, untill now. I appreciate it is his first 007 status but I expected more.
Where's the underlying theme music that roars to a crescendo as bond overcomes almost imposible odds? Where's the feel good factor of our British secret service agent beating the bad guys?
Yeah the corny one liners we all know well; "shocking" as the heater goes into the bath, and "I think he got the point". It's not the content of the sentence, it's the attitude of Bond as he shrugs of another adversary.
And as for the CPR machine in the glove box, well it's like something from Halfords. Maybe thats the point of it being more realistic, but thats not what I wanted to see. I see realism everyday, I wanted inspiration, a fantasy glipse of space technology packed into a Rolex.
Bond has stood the test of time agian and again beceause it evolves with time but keeps the same traditions. I look forward to the next more than I savour the current one. I think Daniel has the potential to become a good Bond only beceause he is a great actor. Is it like Roger never filling Sean's shoes all over again? I think Pierce was great, and more importantly I believed in him. But then he had the toys to play with...thanks to Q.
Bond has always inspired his fans, and has been a role model to many. OK he's a womaniser which some might think is not PC, but at some point every boy has wished he was him. Sorry, this time I was Ethan Hunt...
I love Bond, and feel it's a British Icon, but this time I just didn't combat role across my living room and pull out a PPK...
I'll replay my collection over and over again, evan Dalton, but I think this one may collect some dust.
Lets hope he gets more Bond and less pain in the backside. Good sarcasm though...
I've got an itch....OUCH!!!
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
Jazz - welcome to a very elite and exclusive club. I'm with ya', brother.
I think you'll find your confusing the word "elite" with "small" - and, probably, "wrong" )
As we've said - it's each to their own. Some people like the comic-book style and some don't. I'm lucky that I can appreciate both - but, at my age, I much prefer the path CR has taken.
The movie is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and I would hesitate to call it "one of the best". I think the weaknesses of this film has been highlighted by Jazz a couple of posts above, so I needn't elaborate further.
What I found refreshing was that finally this is a movie that is actually based on an Ian Fleming novel - albeit with a few discrepancies as you will always have when you translate a book into a film. I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of the old formula of Bond stopping a maniac that is trying to take over the world (yawn). Where is the suspense in that? Casino Royale actually stuck to the novel on the whole, with the gambling between Bond and Le Chiffre, with Bond losing the first few bouts, get cleaned out and then get a reprieve from Felix - albeit they were playing Poker in the film and Baccarat in the book. I especially liked the line "The bitch is dead" ... pinched from the book!
More importantly, this movie is way better than Die Another Day, which in my opinion was the worst Bond film ever. Die Another Day is the only Bond film I have seen no more than once, and have no intention of seeing again. After Die Another Day I didn't have high expectations for Casino Royale, but I have to admit that I'm pleasantly surprised. Rating? Well, maybe 004.5
At last, a few neg reviews to balance things out! Delicious, that was fine post and more succinct than my onslaught! You are quite right about Bond being an assassin but how they really shouldn't go there. They're trying to take a leaf out of Bourne's book but of course Bourne is a reluctant assassin. He has amnesia and has turned his back on all that, he's Bourne-again ha ha.
Funnily enough, despite Wade and Purvis saying "you want to be Bond whereas you don't want to be Bourne, his life is hell" I disagree on this evidence. When Bourne does something smart and amazing, you enjoy and believe it. He still seems happier in his own skin than Craig's Bond, who left the happy pills at home.
JFF, good to hear from you though your first point in the post is the worst, about M being a hypocrite - that's nitpicking! Not sure it's meant to be the same M anyway! Who knows? However I agree more as your review goes on: the song, the villains, the confusing ending. It's like Campbell can't convey anything to us except through verbal exposition...
Quite so. I'm still on the "Why No More Commander Team" and feel that this is a huge sticking point.
Happy New 2 007!
______________________
"Surely, you're joking!!?"
"Don't call me Shirley."
Well, Ben and Jazz, as you know I am part of the same club, and I am surprised (positively) to see some negative reviews. I just want to add that for the first time, I fully agreed with the review of one of the most famous movie critics in Italy, Tullio Kezich, who writes for Corriere della Sera. CR was released today here in Italy and the title on today's Corriere says "New Bond Disappoints. Mysoginous cold-blooded killer".
I found the article (full page, page 46 of the newspaper) quite interesting because of the fact the critic bothered to re-read the novel before going onto the movie. And makes a good analysis of the novel before getting into the movie. He starts off saying "I didn't like CR in the slightest", which certainly put me in a favourable mood towards the article, I won't deny . Anyway, found it interesting to hear a different voice from a critic I rarely agree with.
I found particularly interesting his analysis of the character. He says that Bond's character in this movie is now "light years" away from the "dignified literary origin". He also analyses how Fleming's Bond in CR had very little of a Superman, being extremely vulnerable, problematic and sentimental. But nevertheless, a killer. And that the fitting definition of Bond, at the time the novel was released, was "amoral hero". Then he proceeds to say how Craig in this movie is very far from being "amoral hero" and that he is just a cold-blooded killer who, while in pursuit of a terrorist in Madagascar, makes more athletic numbers than an acrobat at the circus. Sorry, couldn't resist putting in this one, because I, too, found the whole jumping here and there of that scene way out of line. And the whole outlook of the character in this movie to me is exactly as the critic said.
The definition and analysis of the movie, though, is what surprised me the most, since I felt like I had written it! He says "this is just a random action movie without daddy or mommy". Not sure this works in English? In Italian it means without a convincing lead author behind it. That is exactly my problem with this movie, that I don't see it as a Bond movie at all. I see it as a random action movie, not as a Bond movie. Because Bond isn't Bond to me, and because it lacks too many ingredients of the original recipe. Just my opinion of course, very personal perception.
Kezich goes on and says the movie spends its time inflating with violence and baroque-ism estrogens an inconsistent plot. Again, I agree. And he ends in a very Italian way, stating that if Fleming could see this Bond in CR today, he would feel like Geppetto when he sees Pinocchio run away on his own legs. This sentence probably works better for Italians since Pinocchio is likely the most popular fairytale we have, and a lot of everyday life sayings are based on it.. but anyway.. I find it a perfect comparison.
Anyway. I think that each of us has a very personal idea and perception of how Bond should be, and that is what makes up the difference of opinions. We'll never manage to agree on things because of this, but I find this to be one of the most fascinating things about life: how something can look totally different to different people because of how they are and how they perceive something. Glad that many enjoyed the movie, I am just not one of them!
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
And I don't like characterizing my taste as "comic book" - as I have never bought a comic book in my entire life, and MR and DAD are not even close to my idea of a great Bond film.
Good point Ben. I also don't love CR (although I don't dislike it) but it's not because I prefer comic-book style Bond films. In fact, I think it's a terrible label. The reason I hate it is that it's saying that if I prefer a less 'realistic film' such as TSWLM to a film like CR, it's because I prefer the comic-book style Bond films. The truth is, I prefer TSWLM because I consider it to be a vastly superior film to CR. I do like CR, but I don't love it. The reason I don't love it is not because I am adverse to serious Bond films (I love FRWL and OHMSS) but because I honestly don't think it's a great film.
Plus, I don't think that the more serious or 'realistic' films are necessarily superior to the less serious or less 'realistic' films. DAD is terrible, but I would say that it's terrible mainly because it's got a horrible script rather than that it is less 'realistic.' I guess what I'm saying is that I have a list of what I consider to be great Bond films (which include TSWLM and not CR) but it's not because they are comic-book style. It's simply because, in my view, they are great Bond films.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I'll replay my collection over and over again, evan Dalton, but I think this one may collect some dust.
I'll gladly receive it so it doesn't get dusted.
I like CR, i've said it before (maybe page 14) but i'll have to say this:
It is a shame that is not 100% loyal to the book, there are some things that just don't fit, perhaps the things that fit are "disgusting" for some others... i respect that.
Defibrillators will de as small and practical as that one (if not now later in the future) put think this: why nobody says anything about the vaccines?
It was a good Bond movie overall. My only gripe is that it lacked enough Bond theme music, in other words I had to remind myself i was watching a Bond movie.
The fight sequences were very well choreographed, and exciting. CR is a breath of fresh air since that abomination DAD, all i can hope is that EON will stick to the new "serious/realistic" tone format.
I am going to sound like such a shill, but I found an interesting take on reviews here. And by found, I mean I helped make and thought you guys could get a kick out of it.
Call me *****, call me shill. You know what? That's fine.
I was so skeptical about Craig being Bond I've kept from seeing the new film...until this past weekend.
I was looking forward to a lengthy review being I haven't visited this site in months, but Moonraker 5 beat me to it. I echo his review with very few exceptions. Moonraker, you have my adoration.
The exceptions are...I can't rank this film yet. I know it is top calibur, but to compare Craig to the other Bonds is near impossible. I am leaning toward this being the best ever because we've finally removed the "cheese" from Bond and gone with a real person.
Over time I might change my mind, but a once skeptical fan is totally sold.
I did that last night. I watched A View to A Kill and then watched Casino Royale. Very different indeed. I'm still not sold on Craig. He has one more movie to impress me.
The exceptions are...I can't rank this film yet. I know it is top calibur, but to compare Craig to the other Bonds is near impossible. I am leaning toward this being the best ever because we've finally removed the "cheese" from Bond and gone with a real person.
Well, the "cheese" has made Bond successful for all these years. And to say that this movie is the best one ever....I find that to be suspect. Its your opinion and you're entitled to it; however, I don't share that opinion. I jumped on this thread immediately after coming home from the midnight showing of CR. I've read all the reviews from people on here. I've paid attention very closely to the ones that like this movie. I'm watching the movie now via Xbox 360 and don't understand how some of you all can say that Casino Royale is the best Bond movie ever. To say this movie is the best one ever is like me saying that Michael Jordan was the most overrated basketball player of all time. Before the movie came out, I was telling people on here to give Craig a chance first and then make an opinion. I should have kept my mouth shut because they're right. This guy isn't Bond material. Let me guess, he's the best because he can get his nuts beat on and still talk smack? Is he the best because he can fight and kill two black dudes in a stairway and get sliced up in the process? Or is he the best because of his bold and blunt statements about not trusting anyone? Don't tell me its the acting. Damn, he needs some work. The action scenes weren't original, especially the airport scene. I can go on for a while about this movie, but the main part I want to question was the whole reboot scenario. Like I said before, I embraced this idea and defended it. Now I'm regretting that mistake. If you really think about it...was it really necessary to start over from scratch? You had the pre-title sequence and then that was it. Nothing more about earning his rank, the two kills, nothing! I haven't read the novel since middle school, but I do remember James Bond already being an established agent at the beginning. I know some of this has been discussed already, just getting some stuff out of the head.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
So... we're entitled to our own opinions unless they conflict with yours?
Some people think it is the best Bond movie ever because that is how they FEEL. Just like you dislike it, others love it. Who're you to take that away from people who enjoy the film?
So... we're entitled to our own opinions unless they conflict with yours?
Some people think it is the best Bond movie ever because that is how they FEEL. Just like you dislike it, others love it. Who're you to take that away from people who enjoy the film?
I knew someone would misunderstand and get their feelings hurt. I'm only challenging people's opinions and I'm trying to see what they're seeing. Thats all. I remember when 007 set the standard. I remember when it was cool to try to be like 007. I've talked to older people who have been since Dr. No and they've said the same thing. Now, its like 007 is either like everyone else or is under other action heroes. I don't hear people talking about James Bond like they use to. Hell, some people didn't know there was a new guy playing him.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Now, its like 007 is either like everyone else or is under other action heroes.
Happily, he's also quite a lot like Fleming wrote him in Casino Royale, which for me is a big part of the appeal.
James Bond set the standard; this is true...but it shouldn't be surprising that not even James Bond will live up to James Bond all the time, and for everyone...Will 007 ever be as big as he was during GF and TB? Likely not.
But he is still around---still stubbornly relevant and appealing, 44+ years on, after many changes of actor, style and tone...
Some of us love Craig...others swear by Moore...still others will never forgive the dismissal of Saint Pierce, The Martyr...
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
Some of us love Craig...others swear by Moore...still others will never forgive the dismissal of Saint Pierce, The Martyr...
I have never forgiven the dismissal of Saint Sean, The Martyr and I was born 11 years after it happened. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Well they had free Evening Standard tickets going, so I caught CR for free, my second time.
Loved the look of the film, must be the best looking Bond yet. Thankfully cinema is moving in this direction; Blood Diamond has some lovely vistas too. I can't be the only one who found the so called fantasy flicks of Potter and Rings rather dull to look at, tarted up by garish CGI.
I could hear the film better this time round, so maybe the sound was wrong at Odeon Leicester Square that night... the explanation about Vesper trading in her life for Bond's and going to her death at the rendezvous at the end made sense. Originally it seemed quite tacked on after the harrowing death scene (the nastiest I have seen). But... as ever, with each plothole that closes, another one opens... When did V get the change to make that deal to spare Bond's life? She's have had to talk to Mr White pretty fast... When Matthis said to a recuperating Bond, 'Why did they let you both live? Maybe it was a signal', I thought, aha, that's to be revealed in the next film. But it isn't, it's revealed here. So why bother with that dialogue?
A bit of the film is like that still. EArly on, Le Chiffre is asked by the black terrorist 'Do you believe in God?' This seems to be interesting... His reply ' No. I believe in a reasonable rate of return..' Okay, but why did the terrorist ask it? Is he trying to figure out if he's a Muslim bomber? If so, he'd say 'Allah' not God. I can't figure it out...
Judi Dench is awful in this really. I praised her before, but she just shouts and looks rather pleased that she's playing M in a blockbuster Bond film, as ever. By this point I was nitpicking like crazy... the Martin Campbell signature of having Bond injure civilians willy nilly - one or two contractors die in the chase... and how is that bulldozer meant to hit the bomber, more likely it will hit anyone else. And Bond says "I want him alive" at the beginning, then seems to do everything he can to kill him, ending up putting a bullet in him.
The to-ing and fro-ing events at the casino made more sense this time. Who is the guy Matthis frames with the dead bodies in the trunk though? Friends of Le Chiffre, but I don't recall seeing him before. It just looks like he's framing some random guy...
The break in at the country club... it's just not plausible and how would Bond know which disc to look for, or that Demetrius would be on that particular camera and not inside or on the loo when the call comes. If he'd broken in late at night and had time to devote to it, popping back the next morning, that would have been credible. The phone time is unlikely to be exactly the same as that on the screen, though the general idea of matching the ringing phone to the CCTV shot is quite ingenious.
The song would have been quite cool sung by the lead from The Cardigans, like My Favourite Game. Now it sounds a bit like Ricky Martin's Loco song: "put a bullet in your brain..." then chorus effect.
Craig has grown on me, but why anyone would like his body, it looks like those weightlifter bodies you see on posters, all shaved and odd... He does go from sociopath thug to normal bloke on meeting Vesper very quickly...
Still, CR is lovely to look at and a great change of scenery. Would have used a flurry/montage of cards and dice to denote the passing of time at the casino table.
EArly on, Le Chiffre is asked by the black terrorist 'Do you believe in God?' This seems to be interesting... His reply ' No. I believe in a reasonable rate of return..' Okay, but why did the terrorist ask it? Is he trying to figure out if he's a Muslim bomber? If so, he'd say 'Allah' not God. I can't figure it out...
I would imagine that the terrorist asked the question as a subtle threat; 'if you lose my money, you will have to believe in God because I'm going to kill you.'
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
So... we're entitled to our own opinions unless they conflict with yours?
Some people think it is the best Bond movie ever because that is how they FEEL. Just like you dislike it, others love it. Who're you to take that away from people who enjoy the film?
I knew someone would misunderstand and get their feelings hurt. I'm only challenging people's opinions and I'm trying to see what they're seeing. Thats all.
No, you're not challenging, you're condemning, by calling others' views suspect.
Well they had free Evening Standard tickets going, so I caught CR for free, my second time.
Loved the look of the film, must be the best looking Bond yet. Thankfully cinema is moving in this direction; Blood Diamond has some lovely vistas too. I can't be the only one who found the so called fantasy flicks of Potter and Rings rather dull to look at, tarted up by garish CGI.
I could hear the film better this time round, so maybe the sound was wrong at Odeon Leicester Square that night... the explanation about Vesper trading in her life for Bond's and going to her death at the rendezvous at the end made sense. Originally it seemed quite tacked on after the harrowing death scene (the nastiest I have seen). But... as ever, with each plothole that closes, another one opens... When did V get the change to make that deal to spare Bond's life? She's have had to talk to Mr White pretty fast... When Matthis said to a recuperating Bond, 'Why did they let you both live? Maybe it was a signal', I thought, aha, that's to be revealed in the next film. But it isn't, it's revealed here. So why bother with that dialogue?
A bit of the film is like that still. EArly on, Le Chiffre is asked by the black terrorist 'Do you believe in God?' This seems to be interesting... His reply ' No. I believe in a reasonable rate of return..' Okay, but why did the terrorist ask it? Is he trying to figure out if he's a Muslim bomber? If so, he'd say 'Allah' not God. I can't figure it out...
Judi Dench is awful in this really. I praised her before, but she just shouts and looks rather pleased that she's playing M in a blockbuster Bond film, as ever. By this point I was nitpicking like crazy... the Martin Campbell signature of having Bond injure civilians willy nilly - one or two contractors die in the chase... and how is that bulldozer meant to hit the bomber, more likely it will hit anyone else. And Bond says "I want him alive" at the beginning, then seems to do everything he can to kill him, ending up putting a bullet in him.
The to-ing and fro-ing events at the casino made more sense this time. Who is the guy Matthis frames with the dead bodies in the trunk though? Friends of Le Chiffre, but I don't recall seeing him before. It just looks like he's framing some random guy...
The break in at the country club... it's just not plausible and how would Bond know which disc to look for, or that Demetrius would be on that particular camera and not inside or on the loo when the call comes. If he'd broken in late at night and had time to devote to it, popping back the next morning, that would have been credible. The phone time is unlikely to be exactly the same as that on the screen, though the general idea of matching the ringing phone to the CCTV shot is quite ingenious.
The song would have been quite cool sung by the lead from The Cardigans, like My Favourite Game. Now it sounds a bit like Ricky Martin's Loco song: "put a bullet in your brain..." then chorus effect.
Craig has grown on me, but why anyone would like his body, it looks like those weightlifter bodies you see on posters, all shaved and odd... He does go from sociopath thug to normal bloke on meeting Vesper very quickly...
Still, CR is lovely to look at and a great change of scenery. Would have used a flurry/montage of cards and dice to denote the passing of time at the casino table.
Nape, old buddy -- What kind of masochism compels you to subject yourself to such a horrible movie not once, but twice? But I supposed it's as hard for you to resist the opportunity to write yet another scathing review than it is for me to let it go unanswered.
As you might expect, I've already addressed all of your questions in previous posts -- kind of like a Cliff Notes for Casino Royale . But if you weren't paying attention the first time, I'll be damned if I'm going to go over them again. I urge you to look them up, though, if only so that watching the DVD won't be such a wretched experience. I'll admit I can't account for your dislike for Judi.
I just saw Casino Royale for the first time(well second I fell asleep first time not because I was bored because my dad ,Barbel,took me to a night showing). I did love it but the last half hour
SPOILER
after Le Chiffre dies it all gets not bad but weird.:007)
I'm not sure you have addressed them hh, these are a set of NEW complaints!
Still, no matter. The reason I saw it a second time? Well it looks great and I could hear the dialogue this time... of course that's like the Woody Allen joke about the two old ladies in a restaurant complaining about the food... "and such small portions, too!"
I'm not sure you have addressed them hh, these are a set of NEW complaints!
Still, no matter. The reason I saw it a second time? Well it looks great and I could hear the dialogue this time... of course that's like the Woody Allen joke about the two old ladies in a restaurant complaining about the food... "and such small portions, too!"
{[] I love that joke!!! From Annie Hall, way back when Woody Allen's movies were actually funny.
To reward you for your good taste in film comedies, I will relent and answer your questions, which are indeed old questions I've already answered at one time or another -- but from other posters, not you. You merely assumed I meant you. But assuming facts not in evidence is characteristic of many of your misunderstandings about CR.
When did V get the change to make that deal to spare Bond's life? She's have had to talk to Mr White pretty fast...
The hatch was closed, so we can't see what's going on behind it, which is the main point -- we're not supposed to know. But there are any number of explanations that are reasonable. Perhaps Mr. White was there the whole time and held her and LeChiffre's henchmen at gunpoint while she pleaded for Bond's life? If Vesper was actually in league with Mr. White in the first place rather than LeChiffre, she would not have had to make a deal (Simply because M thinks it happened one way doesn't mean it did). Perhaps Mr. White was there to kill LeChiffre and the "deal" with Vesper was made after he killed him, as an afterthought -- why let all that good money go to waste? After all, he does say to LeChiffre that the organization valued "loyalty more than money." What did he mean? I think it simply meant he was unaware of LeChiffre's stock market speculation and that those types of extra-curricular activities were frowned upon. That was, after all, the whole point of Bond's mission, wasn't it? Perhaps he suspected LeChiffre was behind the disappearance of the two African men. After all, the cops found the bodies in the car of LC's henchmen, and LC certainly had a motive to kill them. But who knows? Again -- the real point is, you're not supposed to.
When Matthis said to a recuperating Bond, 'Why did they let you both live? Maybe it was a signal', I thought, aha, that's to be revealed in the next film. But it isn't, it's revealed here. So why bother with that dialogue?
Not sure what you mean here, exactly, unless it's that M "revealed" why they were both left alive. Why bother with the dialogue (assuming M is correct about Mr. White's reasons)? Good question. If Mathis had only seen the movie, he would have known it would be explained just a few minutes later. It seems to me Mathis' speculation is perfectly in order. Bond does the same thing in the novel, concluding in that case that the Smersh killers left him alive because they were not directly ordered to kill him.
A bit of the film is like that still. EArly on, Le Chiffre is asked by the black terrorist 'Do you believe in God?' This seems to be interesting... His reply ' No. I believe in a reasonable rate of return..' Okay, but why did the terrorist ask it? Is he trying to figure out if he's a Muslim bomber? If so, he'd say 'Allah' not God. I can't figure it out...
Dan Same provided the answer a couple posts ago. You're way overthinking what was a simple threat. What I said several weeks ago was that that if LeChiffre has said "Yes," the terrorist would probably had said something like "then you better pray that nothing happens to that money ..." or something like that.
Judi Dench is awful in this really. I praised her before, but she just shouts and looks rather pleased that she's playing M in a blockbuster Bond film, as ever.
{[] Nape -- I really admire a guy who can admit he was wrong. No one can accuse you of being close-minded, that's for sure.
The Martin Campbell signature of having Bond injure civilians willy nilly - one or two contractors die in the chase... and how is that bulldozer meant to hit the bomber, more likely it will hit anyone else. And Bond says "I want him alive" at the beginning, then seems to do everything he can to kill him, ending up putting a bullet in him.
I didn't see Bond kill any contractors. I did see the bomber shooting one or two. And while it's true that the plan is to bring the bomber back alive, if that fails, Bond feels "one less bomber in the world would be a good thing." Which is basically what he tells M at the apartment. More hearing difficulties?
The whole Madagascar sequence is meant to show Bond's recklessness.
The to-ing and fro-ing events at the casino made more sense this time. Who is the guy Matthis frames with the dead bodies in the trunk though? Friends of Le Chiffre, but I don't recall seeing him before. It just looks like he's framing some random guy...
Oh my God! First it's the hearing, then the eyesight. Those guys were standing around LeChiffre in the casino all evening. They were also on LeChiffre's boat.
The break in at the country club... it's just not plausible and how would Bond know which disc to look for, or that Demetrius would be on that particular camera and not inside or on the loo when the call comes. If he'd broken in late at night and had time to devote to it, popping back the next morning, that would have been credible. The phone time is unlikely to be exactly the same as that on the screen, though the general idea of matching the ringing phone to the CCTV shot is quite ingenious.
You know, it's just not plausible that the ship, sailing in all that ocean, hit a freaking iceberg and sank ... except that it did. And the fact that it did is the reason we make movies about "Titanic." It's sort of the same principle with CR. The filmmakers are saying, in effect, "Here is what happened through a combination of good luck and detective work."
It was only a couple days between the Madagascar sequence and Bond in the Bahamas. These disks are dated, he pulled one out of a drawer. Why not? Bond used the phone and M's computer at home (and an unseen satellite in the sky) to globally position where that person was standing when the call was taken. M's computer screen showed right out front of the building. That was the whole point of breaking in to her apartment. As for the disk's time, even if it had not been exact, the fact that someone took a cellphone call at the approximate time in the front of the hotel would have been pretty good evidence that he had found his guy.
The song would have been quite cool sung by the lead from The Cardigans, like My Favourite Game. Now it sounds a bit like Ricky Martin's Loco song: "put a bullet in your brain..." then chorus effect.
Craig has grown on me, but why anyone would like his body, it looks like those weightlifter bodies you see on posters, all shaved and odd... He does go from sociopath thug to normal bloke on meeting Vesper very quickly...
[quote/]
*Sigh* (that's not me sighing, by the way, but all the women in the theater reacting to Craig's emergence from the sea and wishing they were Vesper)
Remember, Nape -- psychopathic thuggery is in the eye of the beholder.
Still, CR is lovely to look at and a great change of scenery. Would have used a flurry/montage of cards and dice to denote the passing of time at the casino table.
Ah yes, a "montage" to show the passing of time. Nothing like a tired cliche to improve a film.
'hopes, I just don't go along with your explanations. 'Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...' I certainly did not pick up on the fact that Bond had located Demetrius' exact whereabouts when he took that call, didn't even know you could do that with a mobile signal. I doubt many in the cinema would have got that point, but maybe it's obvious on the fifth viewing... BTW you don't really have to take my criticisms that personally, they're directed at the forum generally, though I sense you're a zealot...
I have said some nice things about CR y'know. On the other hand is there ANYTHING you didn't like about that film, or did you sit through it in a state of giddy euphoria...?
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
NP, I'm with hh that is was easy to see that Bond broke in to M's apartment to use her GPS locator and see where the call was being made from.
Okay, but the exact location? As opposed to inside the club, or anywhere else in the grounds? My point is that I didn't know they could be that exact...
Comments
Bond has stuck to the same winning format for years, untill now. I appreciate it is his first 007 status but I expected more.
Where's the underlying theme music that roars to a crescendo as bond overcomes almost imposible odds? Where's the feel good factor of our British secret service agent beating the bad guys?
Yeah the corny one liners we all know well; "shocking" as the heater goes into the bath, and "I think he got the point". It's not the content of the sentence, it's the attitude of Bond as he shrugs of another adversary.
And as for the CPR machine in the glove box, well it's like something from Halfords. Maybe thats the point of it being more realistic, but thats not what I wanted to see. I see realism everyday, I wanted inspiration, a fantasy glipse of space technology packed into a Rolex.
Bond has stood the test of time agian and again beceause it evolves with time but keeps the same traditions. I look forward to the next more than I savour the current one. I think Daniel has the potential to become a good Bond only beceause he is a great actor. Is it like Roger never filling Sean's shoes all over again? I think Pierce was great, and more importantly I believed in him. But then he had the toys to play with...thanks to Q.
Bond has always inspired his fans, and has been a role model to many. OK he's a womaniser which some might think is not PC, but at some point every boy has wished he was him. Sorry, this time I was Ethan Hunt...
I love Bond, and feel it's a British Icon, but this time I just didn't combat role across my living room and pull out a PPK...
I'll replay my collection over and over again, evan Dalton, but I think this one may collect some dust.
Lets hope he gets more Bond and less pain in the backside. Good sarcasm though...
I've got an itch....OUCH!!!
I think you'll find your confusing the word "elite" with "small" - and, probably, "wrong"
As we've said - it's each to their own. Some people like the comic-book style and some don't. I'm lucky that I can appreciate both - but, at my age, I much prefer the path CR has taken.
What I found refreshing was that finally this is a movie that is actually based on an Ian Fleming novel - albeit with a few discrepancies as you will always have when you translate a book into a film. I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of the old formula of Bond stopping a maniac that is trying to take over the world (yawn). Where is the suspense in that? Casino Royale actually stuck to the novel on the whole, with the gambling between Bond and Le Chiffre, with Bond losing the first few bouts, get cleaned out and then get a reprieve from Felix - albeit they were playing Poker in the film and Baccarat in the book. I especially liked the line "The bitch is dead" ... pinched from the book!
More importantly, this movie is way better than Die Another Day, which in my opinion was the worst Bond film ever. Die Another Day is the only Bond film I have seen no more than once, and have no intention of seeing again. After Die Another Day I didn't have high expectations for Casino Royale, but I have to admit that I'm pleasantly surprised. Rating? Well, maybe 004.5
Quite so. I'm still on the "Why No More Commander Team" and feel that this is a huge sticking point.
Happy New 2 007!
______________________
"Surely, you're joking!!?"
"Don't call me Shirley."
I found the article (full page, page 46 of the newspaper) quite interesting because of the fact the critic bothered to re-read the novel before going onto the movie. And makes a good analysis of the novel before getting into the movie. He starts off saying "I didn't like CR in the slightest", which certainly put me in a favourable mood towards the article, I won't deny
I found particularly interesting his analysis of the character. He says that Bond's character in this movie is now "light years" away from the "dignified literary origin". He also analyses how Fleming's Bond in CR had very little of a Superman, being extremely vulnerable, problematic and sentimental. But nevertheless, a killer. And that the fitting definition of Bond, at the time the novel was released, was "amoral hero". Then he proceeds to say how Craig in this movie is very far from being "amoral hero" and that he is just a cold-blooded killer who, while in pursuit of a terrorist in Madagascar, makes more athletic numbers than an acrobat at the circus. Sorry, couldn't resist putting in this one, because I, too, found the whole jumping here and there of that scene way out of line. And the whole outlook of the character in this movie to me is exactly as the critic said.
The definition and analysis of the movie, though, is what surprised me the most, since I felt like I had written it! He says "this is just a random action movie without daddy or mommy". Not sure this works in English? In Italian it means without a convincing lead author behind it. That is exactly my problem with this movie, that I don't see it as a Bond movie at all. I see it as a random action movie, not as a Bond movie. Because Bond isn't Bond to me, and because it lacks too many ingredients of the original recipe. Just my opinion of course, very personal perception.
Kezich goes on and says the movie spends its time inflating with violence and baroque-ism estrogens an inconsistent plot. Again, I agree. And he ends in a very Italian way, stating that if Fleming could see this Bond in CR today, he would feel like Geppetto when he sees Pinocchio run away on his own legs. This sentence probably works better for Italians since Pinocchio is likely the most popular fairytale we have, and a lot of everyday life sayings are based on it.. but anyway.. I find it a perfect comparison.
Anyway. I think that each of us has a very personal idea and perception of how Bond should be, and that is what makes up the difference of opinions. We'll never manage to agree on things because of this, but I find this to be one of the most fascinating things about life: how something can look totally different to different people because of how they are and how they perceive something. Glad that many enjoyed the movie, I am just not one of them!
Plus, I don't think that the more serious or 'realistic' films are necessarily superior to the less serious or less 'realistic' films. DAD is terrible, but I would say that it's terrible mainly because it's got a horrible script rather than that it is less 'realistic.' I guess what I'm saying is that I have a list of what I consider to be great Bond films (which include TSWLM and not CR) but it's not because they are comic-book style. It's simply because, in my view, they are great Bond films.
I'll gladly receive it so it doesn't get dusted.
I like CR, i've said it before (maybe page 14) but i'll have to say this:
It is a shame that is not 100% loyal to the book, there are some things that just don't fit, perhaps the things that fit are "disgusting" for some others... i respect that.
Defibrillators will de as small and practical as that one (if not now later in the future) put think this: why nobody says anything about the vaccines?
The fight sequences were very well choreographed, and exciting. CR is a breath of fresh air since that abomination DAD, all i can hope is that EON will stick to the new "serious/realistic" tone format.
Call me *****, call me shill. You know what? That's fine.
www.samenightmoviereview.com
It's under the video reviews section.
I was looking forward to a lengthy review being I haven't visited this site in months, but Moonraker 5 beat me to it. I echo his review with very few exceptions. Moonraker, you have my adoration.
The exceptions are...I can't rank this film yet. I know it is top calibur, but to compare Craig to the other Bonds is near impossible. I am leaning toward this being the best ever because we've finally removed the "cheese" from Bond and gone with a real person.
Over time I might change my mind, but a once skeptical fan is totally sold.
Well, the "cheese" has made Bond successful for all these years. And to say that this movie is the best one ever....I find that to be suspect. Its your opinion and you're entitled to it; however, I don't share that opinion. I jumped on this thread immediately after coming home from the midnight showing of CR. I've read all the reviews from people on here. I've paid attention very closely to the ones that like this movie. I'm watching the movie now via Xbox 360 and don't understand how some of you all can say that Casino Royale is the best Bond movie ever. To say this movie is the best one ever is like me saying that Michael Jordan was the most overrated basketball player of all time. Before the movie came out, I was telling people on here to give Craig a chance first and then make an opinion. I should have kept my mouth shut because they're right. This guy isn't Bond material. Let me guess, he's the best because he can get his nuts beat on and still talk smack? Is he the best because he can fight and kill two black dudes in a stairway and get sliced up in the process? Or is he the best because of his bold and blunt statements about not trusting anyone? Don't tell me its the acting. Damn, he needs some work. The action scenes weren't original, especially the airport scene. I can go on for a while about this movie, but the main part I want to question was the whole reboot scenario. Like I said before, I embraced this idea and defended it. Now I'm regretting that mistake. If you really think about it...was it really necessary to start over from scratch? You had the pre-title sequence and then that was it. Nothing more about earning his rank, the two kills, nothing! I haven't read the novel since middle school, but I do remember James Bond already being an established agent at the beginning. I know some of this has been discussed already, just getting some stuff out of the head.
Some people think it is the best Bond movie ever because that is how they FEEL. Just like you dislike it, others love it. Who're you to take that away from people who enjoy the film?
I knew someone would misunderstand and get their feelings hurt. I'm only challenging people's opinions and I'm trying to see what they're seeing. Thats all. I remember when 007 set the standard. I remember when it was cool to try to be like 007. I've talked to older people who have been since Dr. No and they've said the same thing. Now, its like 007 is either like everyone else or is under other action heroes. I don't hear people talking about James Bond like they use to. Hell, some people didn't know there was a new guy playing him.
Happily, he's also quite a lot like Fleming wrote him in Casino Royale,
James Bond set the standard; this is true...but it shouldn't be surprising that not even James Bond will live up to James Bond all the time, and for everyone...Will 007 ever be as big as he was during GF and TB? Likely not.
But he is still around---still stubbornly relevant and appealing, 44+ years on, after many changes of actor, style and tone...
Some of us love Craig...others swear by Moore...still others will never forgive the dismissal of Saint Pierce, The Martyr...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Loved the look of the film, must be the best looking Bond yet. Thankfully cinema is moving in this direction; Blood Diamond has some lovely vistas too. I can't be the only one who found the so called fantasy flicks of Potter and Rings rather dull to look at, tarted up by garish CGI.
I could hear the film better this time round, so maybe the sound was wrong at Odeon Leicester Square that night... the explanation about Vesper trading in her life for Bond's and going to her death at the rendezvous at the end made sense. Originally it seemed quite tacked on after the harrowing death scene (the nastiest I have seen). But... as ever, with each plothole that closes, another one opens... When did V get the change to make that deal to spare Bond's life? She's have had to talk to Mr White pretty fast... When Matthis said to a recuperating Bond, 'Why did they let you both live? Maybe it was a signal', I thought, aha, that's to be revealed in the next film. But it isn't, it's revealed here. So why bother with that dialogue?
A bit of the film is like that still. EArly on, Le Chiffre is asked by the black terrorist 'Do you believe in God?' This seems to be interesting... His reply ' No. I believe in a reasonable rate of return..' Okay, but why did the terrorist ask it? Is he trying to figure out if he's a Muslim bomber? If so, he'd say 'Allah' not God. I can't figure it out...
Judi Dench is awful in this really. I praised her before, but she just shouts and looks rather pleased that she's playing M in a blockbuster Bond film, as ever. By this point I was nitpicking like crazy... the Martin Campbell signature of having Bond injure civilians willy nilly - one or two contractors die in the chase... and how is that bulldozer meant to hit the bomber, more likely it will hit anyone else. And Bond says "I want him alive" at the beginning, then seems to do everything he can to kill him, ending up putting a bullet in him.
The to-ing and fro-ing events at the casino made more sense this time. Who is the guy Matthis frames with the dead bodies in the trunk though? Friends of Le Chiffre, but I don't recall seeing him before. It just looks like he's framing some random guy...
The break in at the country club... it's just not plausible and how would Bond know which disc to look for, or that Demetrius would be on that particular camera and not inside or on the loo when the call comes. If he'd broken in late at night and had time to devote to it, popping back the next morning, that would have been credible. The phone time is unlikely to be exactly the same as that on the screen, though the general idea of matching the ringing phone to the CCTV shot is quite ingenious.
The song would have been quite cool sung by the lead from The Cardigans, like My Favourite Game. Now it sounds a bit like Ricky Martin's Loco song: "put a bullet in your brain..." then chorus effect.
Craig has grown on me, but why anyone would like his body, it looks like those weightlifter bodies you see on posters, all shaved and odd... He does go from sociopath thug to normal bloke on meeting Vesper very quickly...
Still, CR is lovely to look at and a great change of scenery. Would have used a flurry/montage of cards and dice to denote the passing of time at the casino table.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No, you're not challenging, you're condemning, by calling others' views suspect.
Nape, old buddy -- What kind of masochism compels you to subject yourself to such a horrible movie not once, but twice? But I supposed it's as hard for you to resist the opportunity to write yet another scathing review than it is for me to let it go unanswered.
As you might expect, I've already addressed all of your questions in previous posts -- kind of like a Cliff Notes for Casino Royale . But if you weren't paying attention the first time, I'll be damned if I'm going to go over them again. I urge you to look them up, though, if only so that watching the DVD won't be such a wretched experience. I'll admit I can't account for your dislike for Judi.
SPOILER
after Le Chiffre dies it all gets not bad but weird.:007)
Still, no matter. The reason I saw it a second time? Well it looks great and I could hear the dialogue this time... of course that's like the Woody Allen joke about the two old ladies in a restaurant complaining about the food... "and such small portions, too!"
Roger Moore 1927-2017
{[] I love that joke!!! From Annie Hall, way back when Woody Allen's movies were actually funny.
To reward you for your good taste in film comedies, I will relent and answer your questions, which are indeed old questions I've already answered at one time or another -- but from other posters, not you. You merely assumed I meant you. But assuming facts not in evidence is characteristic of many of your misunderstandings about CR.
So here goes:
The hatch was closed, so we can't see what's going on behind it, which is the main point -- we're not supposed to know. But there are any number of explanations that are reasonable. Perhaps Mr. White was there the whole time and held her and LeChiffre's henchmen at gunpoint while she pleaded for Bond's life? If Vesper was actually in league with Mr. White in the first place rather than LeChiffre, she would not have had to make a deal (Simply because M thinks it happened one way doesn't mean it did). Perhaps Mr. White was there to kill LeChiffre and the "deal" with Vesper was made after he killed him, as an afterthought -- why let all that good money go to waste? After all, he does say to LeChiffre that the organization valued "loyalty more than money." What did he mean? I think it simply meant he was unaware of LeChiffre's stock market speculation and that those types of extra-curricular activities were frowned upon. That was, after all, the whole point of Bond's mission, wasn't it? Perhaps he suspected LeChiffre was behind the disappearance of the two African men. After all, the cops found the bodies in the car of LC's henchmen, and LC certainly had a motive to kill them. But who knows? Again -- the real point is, you're not supposed to.
Not sure what you mean here, exactly, unless it's that M "revealed" why they were both left alive. Why bother with the dialogue (assuming M is correct about Mr. White's reasons)? Good question. If Mathis had only seen the movie, he would have known it would be explained just a few minutes later.
Dan Same provided the answer a couple posts ago. You're way overthinking what was a simple threat. What I said several weeks ago was that that if LeChiffre has said "Yes," the terrorist would probably had said something like "then you better pray that nothing happens to that money ..." or something like that.
{[] Nape -- I really admire a guy who can admit he was wrong. No one can accuse you of being close-minded, that's for sure.
And I certainly can't argue with that
I didn't see Bond kill any contractors. I did see the bomber shooting one or two. And while it's true that the plan is to bring the bomber back alive, if that fails, Bond feels "one less bomber in the world would be a good thing." Which is basically what he tells M at the apartment. More hearing difficulties?
The whole Madagascar sequence is meant to show Bond's recklessness.
Oh my God! First it's the hearing, then the eyesight. Those guys were standing around LeChiffre in the casino all evening. They were also on LeChiffre's boat.
You know, it's just not plausible that the ship, sailing in all that ocean, hit a freaking iceberg and sank ... except that it did. And the fact that it did is the reason we make movies about "Titanic." It's sort of the same principle with CR. The filmmakers are saying, in effect, "Here is what happened through a combination of good luck and detective work."
It was only a couple days between the Madagascar sequence and Bond in the Bahamas. These disks are dated, he pulled one out of a drawer. Why not? Bond used the phone and M's computer at home (and an unseen satellite in the sky) to globally position where that person was standing when the call was taken. M's computer screen showed right out front of the building. That was the whole point of breaking in to her apartment. As for the disk's time, even if it had not been exact, the fact that someone took a cellphone call at the approximate time in the front of the hotel would have been pretty good evidence that he had found his guy.
*Sigh*
I have said some nice things about CR y'know. On the other hand is there ANYTHING you didn't like about that film, or did you sit through it in a state of giddy euphoria...?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017