Liked Craig, Hated Casino Royale
JennyFlexFan
Posts: 1,497MI6 Agent
Hello All, it's everyone's favorite contrary person, JennyFlexFan!
And I'm here to say this, Craig isn't my favorite Bond and ranks relatively low, but still does an adequate job and has a unique flair.
However, my problem with the movie was not with him, but in the over-long poker and Vesper-love sequences, the horrible and under-developed villains, the baffling ending that made Moonraker seem credible, and having M be so annoying you wanted to strangle her.
Does anyone share my predicament, where they grew disenchanted with the movie, but not because of Daniel Craig?
(Edit: Spoiler tag removed)
And I'm here to say this, Craig isn't my favorite Bond and ranks relatively low, but still does an adequate job and has a unique flair.
However, my problem with the movie was not with him, but in the over-long poker and Vesper-love sequences, the horrible and under-developed villains, the baffling ending that made Moonraker seem credible, and having M be so annoying you wanted to strangle her.
Does anyone share my predicament, where they grew disenchanted with the movie, but not because of Daniel Craig?
(Edit: Spoiler tag removed)
Comments
In the 'making of' documentary of The Living Daylights, Michael Wilson comments that they wanted to do a Bond Begins story, but Cubby Broccoli said 'Never!' Well, Cubby's dead and now Wilson was able to do whatever he wanted. In my opinion, they looked over that 'origin' precipice and took it as far as it could go: Bond shoots two people and someone types in a computer '00 status confirmed' Wow! a scene Wilson finally got to do after almost twenty years. 8-) I hope he feels more complete. Now let's get on with telling a 'real' story that evolves the character now. You can only 'reboot' once. If you really want to be innovative with the series, you have to think bigger than what came before...you have to think about what can come next.
CR's a good story. I don't hate it, but I don't want Craig to turn into a 'one-trick pony'...He deserves better than that.
excepting OHMSS, when has he ever learned an important life lesson, or ended up a different person at the end of a film than he was at the beginning?
I disagree on virtually all counts. Having said that, I would have preferred a more conclusive ending than having Bond stand over a man he has just shot. It means a long wait to find out what happens next.
I really do like Daniel Craig, I really do like Casino Royale. Craig has all of Bond's attributes, perhaps with the exception of suaveness. He has set the new benchmark just like Sean Connery did in DN. For me, there are a few negatives in CR, which include: The defibrilator scene is rather silly and OTT, the end of the stairwell fight is a bit too brutal for my liking, and some of the product placement was too blatant. Overall though, the negatives are pretty much overwhelmed by all the positives.
My two cents worth. I found Craig better than Brosnan, but my favorite will always be Connery. CR on the whole was fairly good;more violent than previous, less goofy than some. I think that as far as silliness goes, we are lucky to be rid of Roger Moore's time. I quite enjoyed the opening sequence with all of the "buildering" going on. Would that I was in that good a shape. Remind me to stay away from wicker furniture.
This has been the Bond film that I've been waiting for. This has been the closest to the tone of the books that Flemming wrote (IMO).
Not everything is kiss-kiss-bang-bang.
Alone again, JFF... hopefully I won't have to form the ACRL, well I won't or I'll be kicked so far away from this website it wouldn't be funny!
I'm sure SOMEONE didn't like it, but to each his (or her) own actually.
Dude,
it's a big Bond universe. As someone who's tastes in Bond have come under attack (by you, namely), allow me to advise you that you should just like what you like and generally not care what other people think. If you like AVTAK, more power to you; I personally think it's fine entertainment and fun to watch (although a good way to kill a , but not exactly what I look for or what I think is representative of what I imagine as Bond, based on my interpretation of Fleming's novels and the films I most enjoy.
I personally loved CR to death, immensely enjoyed it, and thought that it and Craig were the best interpretations of Fleming quite ever.
But here is the deal, that i wanted to post it later, but here seems to be the right place and is this:
FOR ME JOHMSS, I CAN'T BELIEVE THE "CLOSEST TO THE ORIGINAL BOOK" STUFF.
Sure some'll say "what dou you want? a 1960 film, a Le Chiffre working for the now missing soviets?, that all the movie happens in a casino like the Climax TV special?" no, i understand (even support) some addings and the obvious changes but here is some stuff that i can't take (today)
Rookie Bond: i'm not a against a learning Bond, is just that in the Book he already has a 00, and a hell of a 00 (when he was assigned to the mission, all were like " oh man!, is the 007" a 00, a man with licence to kill) even Vesper was intrigued (as i suppose it happens in the dinner). He was already classy, he invented his drink... He knew mathis in a montecarlo case which involved a card game and some training for it. Here he is the best paler in the servise perhaps in he Vauxhall cross internal MI6 poker game. I would prefer than the Rokie Bond were in bond 21, and when he became a closer Bond than the one we know and love, when he gets some respect, experience, reputation, he makes Casino Royale (Bond 22)
A female M: perhaps Dame Judi Dench best job in her life, but not for me... the relationship with M starts because Bond knew the worries of a man ho was an Almirant, a RNVR like him, a soldier... well my M would probably fought in the Falkland islands war (to much old to be in WWII). i really have no idea, but M woud be a man of war like Bond. I have no idea if Dench's M is Barbara Madsway (the accounter, the evil queen of numbers as in GE - not THE same, more like a lookalike) or where she came from... i prefer a Male, old army man M, a man who was in a battlefield, someone Bond can admire and be reflected in.
The little details out of the book: for what i understand, there are no "bomberman" and no Le Chiffre henchman with a limp (if you know what i mean) details that show that not only bond was betting with treasure money but with his life as well. some things that makes the Montenegro staying (sadly no Royale-Les-Eaux) more challenging. i even can bet there are no Muntz in his upper floor (i LOVE that line in the book, the end of that chapter)
Texas Hold'em: it is the game right now, and i think i could stand the game because i see a lot of tournaments in ESPN, there must be some differences, but the game is the same. but... No Baccarat in the entire movie?
THE BLOODY OCEAN RISE SCENE: CRAIG IS NOT A BOND GIRL no Honey Ryder... no sense at all. ok, let him swim, but not be so (insert offensive word) to make him go out of the water like that. why, a homage to Ursula Andress... i mean, please, look Dr. No, she DOESN'T came directly out of the water. she just walks from the ocean to the screen. (please not make me start about that in DaD)
Anyhow, i haven't seen it PLEASE NO SPOILERS PLEASE ... after i see it, my perception might change... but i'll wanna get this clear, apart from Craig, and the movie itself, the things above aren't precisely my favourites, i can't do anything about them, only dream.
It's a Bond movie for fans who have loved Bond from the start, just that we haven't seen much of him really since 1969......but now he is back!!!!
Speaking only for myself, I'd say separate from, rather than better than ...and I feel the same way about how so many say that TSWLM is the best Bond movie ever...Go figure ?:) There's a Bond for everyone.
Can't say I understand the 'pandering' thing. I only know what I like.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a Bond movie for those who love the books, but had given up hope that anything from them would ever again succeed on the big screen. In that sense, it's quite a pleasant surprise
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This I have to disagree with...as the film skipped everything in the book that got into Bond's psyche and what made him tick, mainly his introspection on his life in the Service. In the film CR, I didn't get the impression Bond was any different at the end then he was at the beginning. Let's see: the movie starts out with Bond as a tough, hardened killer working for MI6...the movie ends with Bond as a tough, hardened killer working for MI6, although supposedly with a brokenheart
Sorry Ben, but that last comment is nonsense. You're entitled to believe it if you want, but people are entitled to believe in the tooth fairy is they so choose.
I would argue that what you view as a "Bond movie" is a corruption of the real deal -- this superduper spy who does everything without breaking a sweat (cool-as-a-cucumber, as you say, but hardly a m*****F***** -- that would be Craig-like), with a gadget and quip for every occasion. It may define Bond to you, but it kills it for a lot of people who recognize that the spy of Ian Fleming and Sean Connery, with the taste for luxury and danger, has been turned into a foppish metrosexual over the years.
A lot of people throw around the word "suave" on this site without really knowing what it means, I think. If they did, they might not be so eager to describe James Bond that way. Let's move to the online dictionary, shall we?
Suave: Smoothly agreeable or polite; agreeably or blandly urbane.
Oh yeah, that's James Bond all right -- Are you kidding? If Sean Connery had been anything like the above, Dr. No would have been both the beginning and the end.
But I will agree that the film Bond has become "suave" over the years, and as a result really tiresome. You make Craig sound like he scratches his armpits when he talks, and that just isn't so. He projects a good deal of sophistication, but with a palpable sense of danger underneath. He orders the "right" martini, the "right" champagne -- he looks great in a dinner jacket. He just doesn't draw attention to it like the mannequins we've had for Bond over the few decades. When they order the damn martini, you'd think they were announcing the arrival of the Queen. But Bond's taste for the good life is part of the character, not the whole enchilada. Bond can be very nasty when he wants to be. Craig knows this. That's why he's compared to the great Sean C.
I don't mind if future movies show Craig as a more experienced or sophisiticated agent, but smooth all of Bond's rough edges and 007 becomes a big fat 0 for me and a lot of other people.
I doubt that, Mitch--DAD received extremely mixed reviews on this site, with plenty of people loving it, others hating it, and many finding themselves somewhere in between. However, the reviews for CR have been overwhelmingly positive--on this site and everywhere else. We even have quite a few who've gone to see CR for a second time and have come out saying they still love it. I don't recall DAD ever generating as many good vibes as CR.
I don't think you are alone in your feelings at all ben. I don't see how anyone that read it couldn't share some of your disappointment. I too loved the story on paper, it left me completely optimistic about CR from then on. Even Craig didn't seem like such a problem with fantastic dialogue like this. But then I started to realize how it could all blow up with Campbell at the helm. It was kind of like coming back from your honeymoon, only to find out your mother-in-law is moving in with you. Ok-- maybe not such a great analogy, but you get my drift.
So long story short, we should have a little understanding for those that were let down and want to express it. Those who just feel Craig didn't hit the mark for them. I got that same feeling arthur did when I saw M. It's funny when Caterina was making out with Craig, she called him James and I remember thinking it just didn't fit right.....yet. I will say, he is a lot better than I thought he would be, and there were moments I thought he actually had arrived. I was impressed with some of his acting chops, and then other times some of his reactions were completely vacant or rushed. Again, Campbell's fault! So I'm not blaming Craig for anything today, I think I can actually live with him for a couple more. I'm just simply looking forward to a new director, and feeling those who were hoping the words of Haggis would remain onscreen.
I have to speak up on this one, I dare say the character of M is not the best job in Dame Judi Dench's illustrious career. She is an extremely accomplished and respected actress, an Oscar and Golden Globe winner, and the Bond franchise is damn lucky to have her.
I'll ignore the rest of the remark about thinking a man is better for the job.
I suggest you actually see the movie before you start listing what you didn't like!
Really? DAD received almost unaminous global praise from just about every film reviewer, and just about every forum member on every Bond site?
Take a look at this - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/casino_royale/
Maybe this is why -- Rotten Tomatoes' Current tally:
CR: 94%
Reviews Counted: 153
Fresh: 144 Rotten: 9
In 153 reviews, 144 critics praised it, and nine gave it a bad review. (Although over half of those 9 critics praise Craig but find the movie mediocre.) That's as close to universal as a film reviewed by 153 critics is likely to get. It's fairly astounding. Check and see how the last few Bond films did:
DAD: 59%.
Reviews Counted: 181
Fresh: 107 Rotten: 74
TWINE: 53%
Reviews Counted: 88
Fresh: 47 Rotten: 41
TND: 53%
Reviews Counted: 30
Fresh: 16 Rotten: 14
TND has only a third of the reviews of CR, but STILL has more negative ones!
This starts to paint the picture of how this film is being received globally, compared to the Brosnan films.
You're not a lone voice, just in a minority. It will be interesting to see were all these discussions are over the next few weeks when all the excitement of having a new Bond film to talk about has died down, and a touch more objectivity is injected.
Personally I loved, CR and I did think Craig was pretty flawless as Bond, but I'm certainly not going to make any 'best film/best Bond' ever statements after a week. Goldfinger has long been my favourite Bond film and that has stood the time after 40+ years. DAD and Moonraker were both huge movies yet now are both panned constantly.
It will be interesting to see were Bond 22 goes. I hope there is a return to Q, Moneypenny etc There is only so much playing with the formula the masses will take. I know people who really enjoyed CR but also said they missed the gadgets and Moneypenny.
I'm sorry you feel insulted, Ben. What gets my goat is your remark that CR is a movie for people -- and that's a whole bunch of them -- who don't really like Bond films, as if your conception is the only valid one and I just don't get it. You're right: I don't. I have a different view of the character. And I feel mine is just as valid as yours (OK, more so -- but you feel the same way about yours). Sorry.
But keep this in mind: from where I stand, you've had "your" Bond for the last 30 years, and I've had to grin and bear it. I feel your pain about CR -- I've been there (I was there last night, watching LALD on Spike and wondering what might have been). But at the risk of sounding selfish, I think I'm entitled to have it my way for a while.
P.S. to keep with continuity with the whole reboot thing why didnt Bond use a Beretta.... just curious.
Cheers {[]
If continuity was an issue, perhaps he should have had a Bentley too?
But then again continuity has never been a strong point in the conversion of the books to the films.
I think the point is that in no way is Casino Royale all things to all Bond fans. You don't like the chases (possibly the first to admit that), but you do like the torture scene.
Individual certainly, rather like your username!
Difference is, CR is a quality film. DAD is not!
I think when all the dust has settled and everyone has had a chance to reflect on Casino Royale, there is a real probability it will dawn on at least some fans that it is not actually as good as they first thought. Of course, there is also a real probability that the opposite will happen. In time, CR will find it's rightful place. I am reasonably confident that it will end up (and remain) in the top half of most fans ranking list.
I agree MNL.I posted something similar myself.
It is interesting reading the views of some commentators in the media. All the other Bonds are getting quite regularly trashed at the moment. I knew it would happen but when the dust has settled we will get a more overall view. Here's a snippet from todays Daily Mail.
' Between Connery and Craig were Roger Moore ( more toff than tough), Timothy Dalton (who should never have exchanged Mr Rochester's frock coat for the immortal dinner jacket) and Pierce Brosnan( who's pointless good looks rendered him more at home serving sangria in a Spanish bar than wrestling baddies) '
I have read several simlar things in recent days and it is really beginning to grate.
They'll print anything these days
The newspaper that slags off, say, Brosnan today will praise him tomorrow. Of course, tomorrow never lies...