People frequently get the point of the book and movie wrong. Defeating LeChiffre is not the primary issue. The mission to beat LeChiffre is just a maguffin. The primary issue is Bond's relationship with Vesper and how it will shape the man he becomes. That's why the last line of the book is "The bitch is dead." That's the reason why I keep saying the romance should have been handled better in Casino Royale than it was -- while I understand Bond falls in love and is betrayed for all the right reasons, I didn't necessarily feel it as strongly based on what was shown.
But, then, the novel was aimed at adults while the movie included younger viewers. Younger viewers tend to want to see emotional issues reduced to action, and while they can intellectualize what love and betrayal are, many have not had enough life experience to completely comprehend the emotional toll. That's not a criticism of younger people. We can only process fully what our experiences have prepared us for. But it would affect how the writers and producers might choose to present the material to the audience, including whether the romance would get more or less screen time.
Casino Royale is my favorite Bond book because it is not only the most hard-hitting, but it is also -- with the possible except of its bookend, On Her Majesty's Secret Service -- the most dramatic of Fleming's Bond books. The rest are pure melodramas, but Casino Royale drifts into real drama territory by focusing almost entirely on Bond's character instead of the mission. Sure, it has the trappings of melodrama, too -- consider the genre -- but Fleming seems far more interested in developing James Bond as a man than he does on the race against the clock to defeat some nefarious villain.
Casino Royale the movie is good because it retains a lot of these qualities. The two that follow are not so good because they do not, instead paying lip service to the ideas when the scripts do not completely integrate them.
Casino Royale the movie is good because it retains a lot of these qualities. The two that follow are not so good because they do not, instead paying lip service to the ideas when the scripts do not completely integrate them.
In a sense, I agree. Quantum of Solace is very un-Bond-like in some ways. James Bond is a man of leisure, who kills for a living, but would much rather smoke a nice cigar and play poker than spend 40 hours in a desert hunting for a corrupt environmentalist jf given the choice.
Quantum of Solace is very un-Bond-like in some ways. James Bond is a man of leisure, who kills for a living, but would much rather smoke a nice cigar and play poker than spend 40 hours in a desert hunting for a corrupt environmentalist jf given the choice.
I see QoS as a VERY Bondian film...it's almost 'pure Bond' for me...but I understand it's all about opinions and is subjective... -{
Quantum of Solace is very un-Bond-like in some ways. James Bond is a man of leisure, who kills for a living, but would much rather smoke a nice cigar and play poker than spend 40 hours in a desert hunting for a corrupt environmentalist jf given the choice.
I see QoS as a VERY Bondian film...it's almost 'pure Bond' for me...but I understand it's all about opinions and is subjective... -{
I agree that it is a very Bondian film. It's the only one of Craig's Bond films so far to follow the classic formula. That is something that can be proven, it's not an opinion. But I wish Craig's Bond films would explore more of what Bond likes to do for fun, like have him play golf. I could just imagine if a Bond film with Daniel Craig featured him playing golf everyone on this board would immediately take up golf.
Well Bond smokes and drinks ( yet I don't ) Bond has loads of sex
As I've been married for years, ...... I don't have any sex ! ) so I
don't care if Bond ever plays golf again.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I wouldn't mind seeing Bond and Tanner enjoying a round of golf, only to be interrupted by a crisis a la Colonel Sun (as long as it's not M being kidnapped again).
People frequently get the point of the book and movie wrong. Defeating LeChiffre is not the primary issue. The mission to beat LeChiffre is just a maguffin. The primary issue is Bond's relationship with Vesper and how it will shape the man he becomes. That's why the last line of the book is "The bitch is dead." That's the reason why I keep saying the romance should have been handled better in Casino Royale than it was -- while I understand Bond falls in love and is betrayed for all the right reasons, I didn't necessarily feel it as strongly based on what was shown.
But, then, the novel was aimed at adults while the movie included younger viewers. Younger viewers tend to want to see emotional issues reduced to action, and while they can intellectualize what love and betrayal are, many have not had enough life experience to completely comprehend the emotional toll. That's not a criticism of younger people. We can only process fully what our experiences have prepared us for. But it would affect how the writers and producers might choose to present the material to the audience, including whether the romance would get more or less screen time.
Casino Royale is my favorite Bond book because it is not only the most hard-hitting, but it is also -- with the possible except of its bookend, On Her Majesty's Secret Service -- the most dramatic of Fleming's Bond books. The rest are pure melodramas, but Casino Royale drifts into real drama territory by focusing almost entirely on Bond's character instead of the mission. Sure, it has the trappings of melodrama, too -- consider the genre -- but Fleming seems far more interested in developing James Bond as a man than he does on the race against the clock to defeat some nefarious villain.
Casino Royale the movie is good because it retains a lot of these qualities. The two that follow are not so good because they do not, instead paying lip service to the ideas when the scripts do not completely integrate them.
I wonder if this has to do with the possibility that Fleming intended this to be just one novel.
He had mentioned on different occasions prior to writing it that he wanted to write a spy novel, but he never hinted at writing an entire series with the same character. If this was supposed to be a one shot creative piece it might explain why it was done in the manner you outlined.
You're spot on in your first paragraph. The story was about those two, not the villain. Also, Le Chiffre was just a criminal helping to fund SMERSH operations (like Mr. Big). The film Le Chiffre was similar and I didn't have a problem making him a terrorist financier or having QUANTUM (SPECTRE, whatever) being the replacements for the Soviets. However, you're right in that Bond's romance/betrayal was given short shift to that because they didn't spend enough screen time building it up. I don't remember how much time they were together after Bond recovered in the novel, but I'm certain it was more than what appeared as they showed in the film, which to me seemed like a long weekend, because when M called Bond about the bank account, it was clear not much time had passed.
Casino Royale the movie is good because it retains a lot of these qualities. The two that follow are not so good because they do not, instead paying lip service to the ideas when the scripts do not completely integrate them.
In a sense, I agree. Quantum of Solace is very un-Bond-like in some ways. James Bond is a man of leisure, who kills for a living, but would much rather smoke a nice cigar and play poker than spend 40 hours in a desert hunting for a corrupt environmentalist jf given the choice.
A lot of that is due to the fact it didn't have Fleming's material to use as they did in CR. Granted, a lot of the script for CR was added to frame action scenes, but Fleming's story was
there. QOS suffered from the lack of Fleming's pen - even though they borrowed elements of the end of TSWLM (the burning cabins and fight with the two goons) for the third act. It also doesn't seem like Fleming because Bond did not seek revenge for Vesper after CR. He moved on when we caught up with him in LALD and she became just a bitter memory. EON is making Craig's films into a continuing story thread (with QUANTUM/SPECTRE pulling the strings), rather like Fleming did with TB/OHMSS/YOLT - only they mixed up the plots.
CR is like OHMSS - Bond loses the heroine and goes after the people responsible (QUANTUM); QOS is like TB - the heroine loses family to villain(s) and gets involved with them so she can kill them and Bond comes in to defeat them (and help her revenge) and
squash their plot (blackmail with nuclear bombs or water supply); SF is like YOLT/MWTGG- though Bond does not lose his memory. He does disappear from duty after being injured and
when he returns M sends him on a mission to see if he can still hack it as a 00.
So EON is using some of Fleming's ideas but they're mixing them up - and of course not really using his actual writing - and that's why though the QOS/SF use the same ingredients from those novels, the finish dish doesn't taste as good. It's like asking a cook at a chain restaurant to create a dish similar to that of a five star chef. It will be palatable - it just won't be as savory or amazing.
Quantum of Solace is very un-Bond-like in some ways. James Bond is a man of leisure, who kills for a living, but would much rather smoke a nice cigar and play poker than spend 40 hours in a desert hunting for a corrupt environmentalist jf given the choice.
I see QoS as a VERY Bondian film...it's almost 'pure Bond' for me...but I understand it's all about opinions and is subjective... -{
I agree that it is a very Bondian film. It's the only one of Craig's Bond films so far to follow the classic formula. That is something that can be proven, it's not an opinion. But I wish Craig's Bond films would explore more of what Bond likes to do for fun, like have him play golf. I could just imagine if a Bond film with Daniel Craig featured him playing golf everyone on this board would immediately take up golf.
+1! Would love to see him playing with Tanner - even if it was just a minute or two of screen time. That's all it would take to show that he does have a life outside being a 00. Even playing cards at his club or with some friends as he does in the novels. One gets the idea from EON's CR that M assigns him to play against Le Chiffre only because he supposed to be the best player in the Service. It never was shown he did it a lot as a hobby - even the quick game where he wins the DB5 merely seems like a typical Bond playing casino cards scene - we alread know from the series he's a good card player, but they never show that he does it on a regular basis - just like his golf. Some scenes of him doing this in the future would be a nice addition to the EON series - even if Craig is not the one that gets to do it (though I would like to see that).
I wouldn't mind seeing Bond and Tanner enjoying a round of golf, only to be interrupted by a crisis a la Colonel Sun (as long as it's not M being kidnapped again).
+1...or what about a drone attack on the golf course?
I think Casino Royale pulls off an impressive task; making Bond 'modern' without trying to erase tradition. Although it changes details of the novel, I think it's an excellent attempt at redefining it in a modern setting. I think the banter between Craig and Vesper works; there's a couple of times where it is a bit too predictable but on the whole I think it works well and stops the romance getting sappy. I think it's an attempt to hark back to the style of film noirs where innuendo was bread and butter because sexuality had to be coded (see for example the conversation about horse racing in The Big Sleep) And they keep one of the best lines from the novel; it may not end the film but the line they do end with turns out to be a masterstroke.
As for the love between Bond and Vesper, I think it's more lust but with some feeling behind it. Bond's desire for Vesper clouds his judgement and he finds that he can't just dismiss her. I don't think we have to believe that he's the love of her life and it's very hard to show that in a film that isn't a romance. We just have to believe that she represents a desirable alternative to danger.
Aesthetically, it looks good without being showy or letting the aesthetics overtake the film. Even the black-and-white pre-title sequence doesn't feel as if it overwhelms the film. The costumes look good as well; it adds glamour.
Cons: I think that Vesper's motivation in the novel is better than in the film, and fits better with the film's characterisation. There's also some good lines in the novel that I feel could have been incorporated into the film (particularly the discussion in the hospital about heroes and villains and the Devil that I think would fit well with the direction they were taking Bond in).
I think Casino Royale pulls off an impressive task; making Bond 'modern' without trying to erase tradition. Although it changes details of the novel, I think it's an excellent attempt at redefining it in a modern setting. I think the banter between Craig and Vesper works; there's a couple of times where it is a bit too predictable but on the whole I think it works well and stops the romance getting sappy. I think it's an attempt to hark back to the style of film noirs where innuendo was bread and butter because sexuality had to be coded (see for example the conversation about horse racing in The Big Sleep) And they keep one of the best lines from the novel; it may not end the film but the line they do end with turns out to be a masterstroke.
As for the love between Bond and Vesper, I think it's more lust but with some feeling behind it. Bond's desire for Vesper clouds his judgement and he finds that he can't just dismiss her. I don't think we have to believe that he's the love of her life and it's very hard to show that in a film that isn't a romance. We just have to believe that she represents a desirable alternative to danger.
Aesthetically, it looks good without being showy or letting the aesthetics overtake the film. Even the black-and-white pre-title sequence doesn't feel as if it overwhelms the film. The costumes look good as well; it adds glamour.
Cons: I think that Vesper's motivation in the novel is better than in the film, and fits better with the film's characterisation. There's also some good lines in the novel that I feel could have been incorporated into the film (particularly the discussion in the hospital about heroes and villains and the Devil that I think would fit well with the direction they were taking Bond in).
I agree; he seems much more of a character in the novel. However it doesn't bother me too much.
+1 on the Pro's -{
as for the Con's: I have no problem with Vesper.
the only thing I can think of is the lack of Q and Moneypenny/at least some tiny gadgetry
but all in all a super movie
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
IThere's also some good lines in the novel that I feel could have been incorporated into the film (particularly the discussion in the hospital about heroes and villains and the Devil that I think would fit well with the direction they were taking Bond in).
That part is featured in Quantum of Solace
Glad to see you tackling the novels..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
I love this film, in fact it's my favourite film of all time. I was really impressed with pretty much everything, the photography, the way the Director took his time let the film breathe, the chase scene was wonderful, the locations, the list goes on and on.
Why is it that I like this movie less every time I watch it? After about 5 or 6 times, I have no desire to watch it ever again. I've watched Moonraker about 15 times and could still watch it again!
IThere's also some good lines in the novel that I feel could have been incorporated into the film (particularly the discussion in the hospital about heroes and villains and the Devil that I think would fit well with the direction they were taking Bond in).
That part is featured in Quantum of Solace
Glad to see you tackling the novels..
Just watched that again today actually and was pleased to note the line about heroes and villains!
I think Casino Royale pulls off the entertainment factor whilst having class, so it pleases both camps. It's not too serious but it's not silly.
Why is it that I like this movie less every time I watch it? After about 5 or 6 times, I have no desire to watch it ever again. I've watched Moonraker about 15 times and could still watch it again!
Who knows. I guess it's just not your type of movie.
Why is it that I like this movie less every time I watch it? After about 5 or 6 times, I have no desire to watch it ever again. I've watched Moonraker about 15 times and could still watch it again!
Who knows. I guess it's just not your type of movie.
Yeah. Bond films are my type of movie, and I don't feel like Daniel Craig's Bond films so far have been like Bond films. There's no gun barrel at the beginning to tell me it's a Bond film, or much use of the Bond theme.
I found the opening of SF was much more effective and dramatic without the constraint of having a GB, but that said I do hope the GB is back at the start of SP. Pretty much every PTS begins quietly. The most exciting opening frame is probably Brosnan walking in TWINE.
But I don't think that or "the lack of the Bond theme" should be deal breakers to your enjoyment. I felt CR got people interested in Bond again instead of thinking of them as cheesefests.
I found the opening of SF was much more effective and dramatic without the constraint of having a GB, but that said I do hope the GB is back at the start of SP. Pretty much every PTS begins quietly. The most exciting opening frame is probably Brosnan walking in TWINE.
But I don't think that or "the lack of the Bond theme" should be deal breakers to your enjoyment. I felt CR got people interested in Bond again instead of thinking of them as cheesefests.
but I think this "getting people interested again in Bond" is the wrong way because true fans would
stick around anyway. people who think of them as cheesefests shouldn't be watching them anyway.
besides, I can understand some peoples issues of the lack of the Bond theme, it's basically the same as with the place of the GB sequence: it is something that clearly differs the Bond movies from any other action film and therefore must be included !
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
I found the opening of SF was much more effective and dramatic without the constraint of having a GB, but that said I do hope the GB is back at the start of SP. Pretty much every PTS begins quietly. The most exciting opening frame is probably Brosnan walking in TWINE.
But I don't think that or "the lack of the Bond theme" should be deal breakers to your enjoyment. I felt CR got people interested in Bond again instead of thinking of them as cheesefests.
but I think this "getting people interested again in Bond" is the wrong way because true fans would
stick around anyway
Yeah but drew in new fans I would imagine a lot of females. The swimming trunks. And the women are actually Bond equals not just "disposable pleasures". Well they still are to Bond but they are real characters not hollow eye candy
-Great PTS. A fine way to give us a new 007. Easily my fave of the Craig ones.
-The gunbarrel rocks.
-LeChiffre is very well acted by Mikkelsen.
-Campbell's direction is great: the use of scenery and the action sequences are very well executed.
-Matthis is well acted (in both this and CR).
-The film is well paced, and thus doesn't drag.
Cons:
-Craig's weakest performance as 007 (imo he gets better in the next 2). While he does well in the PTS and the torture scene, he just seems to struggle to get a grip on the role and doesn't seems secure enough in it. His dry delivery weakens the effect of his lines.
-Eva Green is alright as Vesper, but her character psychoanalizes Bond a bit too much imo.
-The love story (for me anyways) doesn't stand the test of time.
-You feel pity for LeChiffre once you understand what his situation in the movie is. I don't know about other people, but I much prefer to fear or admire my villains rather than pity them.
-Bond blows up an embassy, which to me is anti-Bondian.
-He also gets into M's apartment, rather than meeting her in her office, also anti-Bondian to me.
Overall, CR might eventually become a 7/10 for me, as of now it's a soft 8/10.
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
First of all, I have to say Casino Royale is my favourite Bond novel. I had read it many times, and fantasized so much about it for years, that I must say in 2006 a dream came true. Funnily enough, the first time that I heard the name of James Bond was together with Casino Royale...the 1967 Casino Royale. It was on TV in the early 80s, and I remember very well my dad said it was "a James Bond movie". Well, not quite...So when I finally saw a real Bond, I always had Casino Royale in the back of my mind.
Pros:
-Daniel Craig, the best Bond to grace the screen since the early Connery movies (1962-1965).
-Eva Green. Simply the best Vesper Lynd. You believe Bond falls for her.
-Mads Mikkelsen as LeChiffre. Menacing, yet vulnerable. A rare quality in a Bond villain, that he plays masterfully.
-How faithful they were to the novel. Essentially, it's all there. How long since they had not been faithful to a Fleming novel? I repeat, a dream come true.
-How well they developed the novel backwards. In the novel, LeChiffre just loses money in some investments. In CR, Bond causes those loses. Great script solution.
-PTS. Short. To the point. Bond's first two kills are there for eternity to see. How cool is that?
-Great action scenes. The Madagascar chase, the airport, the ladder fight,... all perfectly integrated in the story.
-Did I mention Daniel Craig? with all the pressure he must have felt, he carries the weight of history and all the fans hate on his shoulders with a confidence that still amazes me, achieving what seemed impossible. He made me forget of past Bonds. Really.
Cons:
I can't think of any cons...which makes me think this must be my favourite Bond movie ever. It's official. CR tops my list. FRWL, second.
PS:Ah, yes. I just remembered a con. Please EON, do not include a famous watch brand product placement in the dialogue again. It's so obvious and out of place.
21st film in the Bond series, debuting Daniel Craig as 007. Craig was initially greeted with much skepticism, but the movie and his performance were both widely acclaimed. By many, it is considered the most acclaimed entry in the series since Goldfinger. In a turn from the predecessor, comical CGI-laden Die Another Day, Casino Royale is more grounded in Fleming's writing.
Pros:
The gritty black-and-white followed by an colorful anthemic song/video
Daniel Craig a sexy lust-bomb with a whole new take on the character
Embodies the anger, harrowing sadness and paranoia/mistrust of the post 9/11 era
Adapts Fleming's work to the 21st century (terrorists are more scary than brothel moguls)
Eva Green as Vesper, a female lead that embraces a strong femininity
Dench's M keeps up the good work with a revised approach toward Craig's Bond
Mads makes a really good, and believeable Le Chiffre (that torture scene...)
In many ways, was a paradigm shift for other action movies in the 2000's
No gadgets, Moneypenny, Q, etc. Expanding creatively on the formula
The ending gives Connery's famous introduction a run for its money
Cons:
Action-heavy first hour could've been tightened just a little bit.
How Bond gets his 00-status could've been explained a little bit more
Practically no real flaws here - my cons are marginal nitpicks. It's an overall perfect movie, as perfect as any film can get. Probably my favorite film in the series.
Comments
But, then, the novel was aimed at adults while the movie included younger viewers. Younger viewers tend to want to see emotional issues reduced to action, and while they can intellectualize what love and betrayal are, many have not had enough life experience to completely comprehend the emotional toll. That's not a criticism of younger people. We can only process fully what our experiences have prepared us for. But it would affect how the writers and producers might choose to present the material to the audience, including whether the romance would get more or less screen time.
Casino Royale is my favorite Bond book because it is not only the most hard-hitting, but it is also -- with the possible except of its bookend, On Her Majesty's Secret Service -- the most dramatic of Fleming's Bond books. The rest are pure melodramas, but Casino Royale drifts into real drama territory by focusing almost entirely on Bond's character instead of the mission. Sure, it has the trappings of melodrama, too -- consider the genre -- but Fleming seems far more interested in developing James Bond as a man than he does on the race against the clock to defeat some nefarious villain.
Casino Royale the movie is good because it retains a lot of these qualities. The two that follow are not so good because they do not, instead paying lip service to the ideas when the scripts do not completely integrate them.
In a sense, I agree. Quantum of Solace is very un-Bond-like in some ways. James Bond is a man of leisure, who kills for a living, but would much rather smoke a nice cigar and play poker than spend 40 hours in a desert hunting for a corrupt environmentalist jf given the choice.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
I see QoS as a VERY Bondian film...it's almost 'pure Bond' for me...but I understand it's all about opinions and is subjective... -{
I agree that it is a very Bondian film. It's the only one of Craig's Bond films so far to follow the classic formula. That is something that can be proven, it's not an opinion. But I wish Craig's Bond films would explore more of what Bond likes to do for fun, like have him play golf. I could just imagine if a Bond film with Daniel Craig featured him playing golf everyone on this board would immediately take up golf.
As I've been married for years, ...... I don't have any sex !
don't care if Bond ever plays golf again.
I wonder if this has to do with the possibility that Fleming intended this to be just one novel.
He had mentioned on different occasions prior to writing it that he wanted to write a spy novel, but he never hinted at writing an entire series with the same character. If this was supposed to be a one shot creative piece it might explain why it was done in the manner you outlined.
You're spot on in your first paragraph. The story was about those two, not the villain. Also, Le Chiffre was just a criminal helping to fund SMERSH operations (like Mr. Big). The film Le Chiffre was similar and I didn't have a problem making him a terrorist financier or having QUANTUM (SPECTRE, whatever) being the replacements for the Soviets. However, you're right in that Bond's romance/betrayal was given short shift to that because they didn't spend enough screen time building it up. I don't remember how much time they were together after Bond recovered in the novel, but I'm certain it was more than what appeared as they showed in the film, which to me seemed like a long weekend, because when M called Bond about the bank account, it was clear not much time had passed.
A lot of that is due to the fact it didn't have Fleming's material to use as they did in CR. Granted, a lot of the script for CR was added to frame action scenes, but Fleming's story was
there. QOS suffered from the lack of Fleming's pen - even though they borrowed elements of the end of TSWLM (the burning cabins and fight with the two goons) for the third act. It also doesn't seem like Fleming because Bond did not seek revenge for Vesper after CR. He moved on when we caught up with him in LALD and she became just a bitter memory. EON is making Craig's films into a continuing story thread (with QUANTUM/SPECTRE pulling the strings), rather like Fleming did with TB/OHMSS/YOLT - only they mixed up the plots.
CR is like OHMSS - Bond loses the heroine and goes after the people responsible (QUANTUM); QOS is like TB - the heroine loses family to villain(s) and gets involved with them so she can kill them and Bond comes in to defeat them (and help her revenge) and
squash their plot (blackmail with nuclear bombs or water supply); SF is like YOLT/MWTGG- though Bond does not lose his memory. He does disappear from duty after being injured and
when he returns M sends him on a mission to see if he can still hack it as a 00.
So EON is using some of Fleming's ideas but they're mixing them up - and of course not really using his actual writing - and that's why though the QOS/SF use the same ingredients from those novels, the finish dish doesn't taste as good. It's like asking a cook at a chain restaurant to create a dish similar to that of a five star chef. It will be palatable - it just won't be as savory or amazing.
+1! Would love to see him playing with Tanner - even if it was just a minute or two of screen time. That's all it would take to show that he does have a life outside being a 00. Even playing cards at his club or with some friends as he does in the novels. One gets the idea from EON's CR that M assigns him to play against Le Chiffre only because he supposed to be the best player in the Service. It never was shown he did it a lot as a hobby - even the quick game where he wins the DB5 merely seems like a typical Bond playing casino cards scene - we alread know from the series he's a good card player, but they never show that he does it on a regular basis - just like his golf. Some scenes of him doing this in the future would be a nice addition to the EON series - even if Craig is not the one that gets to do it (though I would like to see that).
+1...or what about a drone attack on the golf course?
As for the love between Bond and Vesper, I think it's more lust but with some feeling behind it. Bond's desire for Vesper clouds his judgement and he finds that he can't just dismiss her. I don't think we have to believe that he's the love of her life and it's very hard to show that in a film that isn't a romance. We just have to believe that she represents a desirable alternative to danger.
Aesthetically, it looks good without being showy or letting the aesthetics overtake the film. Even the black-and-white pre-title sequence doesn't feel as if it overwhelms the film. The costumes look good as well; it adds glamour.
Cons: I think that Vesper's motivation in the novel is better than in the film, and fits better with the film's characterisation. There's also some good lines in the novel that I feel could have been incorporated into the film (particularly the discussion in the hospital about heroes and villains and the Devil that I think would fit well with the direction they were taking Bond in).
I agree; he seems much more of a character in the novel. However it doesn't bother me too much.
+1 on the Pro's -{
as for the Con's: I have no problem with Vesper.
the only thing I can think of is the lack of Q and Moneypenny/at least some tiny gadgetry
but all in all a super movie
That part is featured in Quantum of Solace
Glad to see you tackling the novels..
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Why is it that I like this movie less every time I watch it? After about 5 or 6 times, I have no desire to watch it ever again. I've watched Moonraker about 15 times and could still watch it again!
Just watched that again today actually and was pleased to note the line about heroes and villains!
I think Casino Royale pulls off the entertainment factor whilst having class, so it pleases both camps. It's not too serious but it's not silly.
Who knows. I guess it's just not your type of movie.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Yeah. Bond films are my type of movie, and I don't feel like Daniel Craig's Bond films so far have been like Bond films. There's no gun barrel at the beginning to tell me it's a Bond film, or much use of the Bond theme.
But I don't think that or "the lack of the Bond theme" should be deal breakers to your enjoyment. I felt CR got people interested in Bond again instead of thinking of them as cheesefests.
but I think this "getting people interested again in Bond" is the wrong way because true fans would
stick around anyway. people who think of them as cheesefests shouldn't be watching them anyway.
besides, I can understand some peoples issues of the lack of the Bond theme, it's basically the same as with the place of the GB sequence: it is something that clearly differs the Bond movies from any other action film and therefore must be included !
Yeah but drew in new fans
-Great PTS. A fine way to give us a new 007. Easily my fave of the Craig ones.
-The gunbarrel rocks.
-LeChiffre is very well acted by Mikkelsen.
-Campbell's direction is great: the use of scenery and the action sequences are very well executed.
-Matthis is well acted (in both this and CR).
-The film is well paced, and thus doesn't drag.
Cons:
-Craig's weakest performance as 007 (imo he gets better in the next 2). While he does well in the PTS and the torture scene, he just seems to struggle to get a grip on the role and doesn't seems secure enough in it. His dry delivery weakens the effect of his lines.
-Eva Green is alright as Vesper, but her character psychoanalizes Bond a bit too much imo.
-The love story (for me anyways) doesn't stand the test of time.
-You feel pity for LeChiffre once you understand what his situation in the movie is. I don't know about other people, but I much prefer to fear or admire my villains rather than pity them.
-Bond blows up an embassy, which to me is anti-Bondian.
-He also gets into M's apartment, rather than meeting her in her office, also anti-Bondian to me.
Overall, CR might eventually become a 7/10 for me, as of now it's a soft 8/10.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Pros:
-Daniel Craig, the best Bond to grace the screen since the early Connery movies (1962-1965).
-Eva Green. Simply the best Vesper Lynd. You believe Bond falls for her.
-Mads Mikkelsen as LeChiffre. Menacing, yet vulnerable. A rare quality in a Bond villain, that he plays masterfully.
-How faithful they were to the novel. Essentially, it's all there. How long since they had not been faithful to a Fleming novel? I repeat, a dream come true.
-How well they developed the novel backwards. In the novel, LeChiffre just loses money in some investments. In CR, Bond causes those loses. Great script solution.
-PTS. Short. To the point. Bond's first two kills are there for eternity to see. How cool is that?
-Great action scenes. The Madagascar chase, the airport, the ladder fight,... all perfectly integrated in the story.
-Did I mention Daniel Craig? with all the pressure he must have felt, he carries the weight of history and all the fans hate on his shoulders with a confidence that still amazes me, achieving what seemed impossible. He made me forget of past Bonds. Really.
Cons:
I can't think of any cons...which makes me think this must be my favourite Bond movie ever. It's official. CR tops my list. FRWL, second.
PS:Ah, yes. I just remembered a con. Please EON, do not include a famous watch brand product placement in the dialogue again. It's so obvious and out of place.
I just realised it's my favourite too. -{