So the wife and I decided to watch CR again last night (it had been a while for both of us) and I did tend to pick up on a few things that I looked past previously. But maybe someone can help me with this little question (forgive me if someone has already asked it)
Who was the unlucky guy who was shocked to find the dead general in his boot outside the casino?
Mathis claimed that the bodies were 'useful'. The police were examining this guy when all of a sudden a cell phone goes off revealing the cars hidden secret. We're we supposed to know who this 'innocent bystander?' was? I remember everyone in the theater laughing, but all I remember thinking was 'poor guy, what did he do to deserve that?'
Does anyone have any explanation?
I assumed when watching the film that he was one of Le Chiffre's entourage. If I remember correctly after Mathis states that the bodies can still be useful Bond responds that this event will keep Le Chiffre guessing who is coming after him next, implying that Le Chiffre would wonder who killed the General and when they would be coming after him.
"A blunt instrument wielded by a Government department. Hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic. He likes gambling, golf, fast motor cars. All his movements are relaxed and economical". Ian Fleming
Yeah darenhat, I remember thinking that too. But highhopes replied later that it was one of Le Chiffre's goons. Easy to overlook as they're even more anonymous than the lead villain.
What a wonderful thread, even if it took 45 minutes to read through all nine pages!!!
All this banter over CR convinced me that I am right having it along with FRWL on top of my list of favorite oo7 films.
Some observations that I felt were lacking regards CR regards was that this film was supposed to show how Bond became the slick oo7 spy everyone so loved.
In fact they ended up with a charecter who bleeds like Fleming's Bond, but rather than being a "blunt insturment" has instead a "movie star ego".
Bond is the ultimate dupe in this film! He is manipulated by "M" into going after his targets, instead of just being assigned. Bond is easily decieved by Vesper and believes LC about Mathis. Bond gets pi**ed off at the bomber in Madagascar and stupidly storms the Embassy. In Montenegro Bond recklessly drops his cover. At the Casino he gets mad at having lost and goes after LC with a knife. Bond then fails to follow up on the cash from the game - after bartering with Leiter for it, and even at the end of the film he still must rely on M to tell him that "the b**ch" Vesper saved his life. Really, this oo7 may have been based on the real life George Lazenby.
Hopefully in the next film, Bond will not instantly become the old Connery Bond or (gag!) another Brosnan/Moore, but will continue getting beat up and learning (or not) about being a double-o the hard way.
Compliments to highhopes and Darenhat for a great exchange and for others comments as well!
Compliments to highhopes and Darenhat for a great exchange and for others comments as well!
Thanks 7289...admittedly I think I got under highhopes skin a little too much, and he's an ardent defender of CR so you couldn't ask for a better person to give insight to the film's positive attributes.
After watching it a few times, I'm still lukewarm on CR primarily for the reason you mentioned. I don't mind the reboot concept, but I think they 're-invented' Bond a bit too much. I'm not of the opinion that Fleming's Bond in the novel CR is as 'blunt' as the film's was. And to suddenly transform Bond in the sophisticate that we later see in one film will be unwieldy and I hope they don't do it. At the same time, though I yearn for the 'honed' Bond that we have seen in the previous films.
If I am understanding you correctly, I appreciate the disappointment fans of PB and RM feel.
It was in. that the elegant oo7 fully emerged, gliding through the Gypsy camp fight, cracking a head here - shooting Bulgars at 50 feet from the hip - all without a single (non-toupee) hair out of place. That Bond was polished even more in Goldfinger, and has been the model for all Bonds since, except with the noticable "bump" that was TD.
For me the formula got very tired, the plots too fantastic, while PB had a fair start in GE, he became too "Mooreish" for me ... and I refused to see his last two films in the theatre - after being a Bond fan since 1963!
For me CR 06 was a fine return to something akin to the original Bond, as a breath of fresh air. DC doesn't have the literary's swarthy pirate look, but he has blue eyes and looks tough.
I hope that "traditional" fans can give DC a chance to show some "arc" in the Bond charecter - see him grow into the polished agent you so love.
Getting the thread back on track, the "plot holes" can be explained, and although this is out of charecter for a Bond film it was not as blatent as a Kubrick film.
Comments
I assumed when watching the film that he was one of Le Chiffre's entourage. If I remember correctly after Mathis states that the bodies can still be useful Bond responds that this event will keep Le Chiffre guessing who is coming after him next, implying that Le Chiffre would wonder who killed the General and when they would be coming after him.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
All this banter over CR convinced me that I am right having it along with FRWL on top of my list of favorite oo7 films.
Some observations that I felt were lacking regards CR regards was that this film was supposed to show how Bond became the slick oo7 spy everyone so loved.
In fact they ended up with a charecter who bleeds like Fleming's Bond, but rather than being a "blunt insturment" has instead a "movie star ego".
Bond is the ultimate dupe in this film! He is manipulated by "M" into going after his targets, instead of just being assigned. Bond is easily decieved by Vesper and believes LC about Mathis. Bond gets pi**ed off at the bomber in Madagascar and stupidly storms the Embassy. In Montenegro Bond recklessly drops his cover. At the Casino he gets mad at having lost and goes after LC with a knife. Bond then fails to follow up on the cash from the game - after bartering with Leiter for it, and even at the end of the film he still must rely on M to tell him that "the b**ch" Vesper saved his life. Really, this oo7 may have been based on the real life George Lazenby.
Hopefully in the next film, Bond will not instantly become the old Connery Bond or (gag!) another Brosnan/Moore, but will continue getting beat up and learning (or not) about being a double-o the hard way.
Compliments to highhopes and Darenhat for a great exchange and for others comments as well!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Thanks 7289...admittedly I think I got under highhopes skin a little too much, and he's an ardent defender of CR so you couldn't ask for a better person to give insight to the film's positive attributes.
After watching it a few times, I'm still lukewarm on CR primarily for the reason you mentioned. I don't mind the reboot concept, but I think they 're-invented' Bond a bit too much. I'm not of the opinion that Fleming's Bond in the novel CR is as 'blunt' as the film's was. And to suddenly transform Bond in the sophisticate that we later see in one film will be unwieldy and I hope they don't do it. At the same time, though I yearn for the 'honed' Bond that we have seen in the previous films.
If I am understanding you correctly, I appreciate the disappointment fans of PB and RM feel.
It was in. that the elegant oo7 fully emerged, gliding through the Gypsy camp fight, cracking a head here - shooting Bulgars at 50 feet from the hip - all without a single (non-toupee) hair out of place. That Bond was polished even more in Goldfinger, and has been the model for all Bonds since, except with the noticable "bump" that was TD.
For me the formula got very tired, the plots too fantastic, while PB had a fair start in GE, he became too "Mooreish" for me ... and I refused to see his last two films in the theatre - after being a Bond fan since 1963!
For me CR 06 was a fine return to something akin to the original Bond, as a breath of fresh air. DC doesn't have the literary's swarthy pirate look, but he has blue eyes and looks tough.
I hope that "traditional" fans can give DC a chance to show some "arc" in the Bond charecter - see him grow into the polished agent you so love.
Getting the thread back on track, the "plot holes" can be explained, and although this is out of charecter for a Bond film it was not as blatent as a Kubrick film.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond