376

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Bond's burglary of M's flat and finding out her name are not "disrespectful", they are meant to show how clever and resourceful Bond is. oo7 is very respectful of "M" and seems to appreciate the seriousness of her rebuke, his ELLIPSIS investigation is Bond's way of making up for the shooting of Mollacka which turned out to be a disaster. I would say that DC's Bond is as "dog-like" in his devotion to "M" as the Book Bond who in Dr.No and OHMSS demonstrates he can be "peeved" with his boss. Even when given the opportunity DC's Bond doesn't dismiss his boss as a "bean counter".

The "recklessness" is more apparent in CR'06, than say in Goldfinger - where Bond stupidly steals the villians girl, and gets her killed. In the books Bond shows poor judgement on a few ocassions, like staying on the train in FRWL, or swimming to the Isle of Suprise in LALD.

What I enjoy the most about this Bond is the attempt by the actor/producers/writers to develope a charecter rather than "filling shoes" which we got with GL, or just a great new actor in an old script which we got with TLD. I think this is a new direction for the series that we can all celebrate. If you can't stand this new direction, the wonderful thing is you can always watch 20 other DVD's and find something in those you prefer.

The next few years will probably be a hell for some fans .... good chance to read the books!

377

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

7289 wrote:

Bond's burglary of M's flat and finding out her name are not "disrespectful", they are meant to show how clever and resourceful Bond is. oo7 is very respectful of "M" and seems to appreciate the seriousness of her rebuke, his ELLIPSIS investigation is Bond's way of making up for the shooting of Mollacka which turned out to be a disaster. I would say that DC's Bond is as "dog-like" in his devotion to "M" as the Book Bond who in Dr.No and OHMSS demonstrates he can be "peeved" with his boss. Even when given the opportunity DC's Bond doesn't dismiss his boss as a "bean counter".

The "recklessness" is more apparent in CR'06, than say in Goldfinger - where Bond stupidly steals the villians girl, and gets her killed. In the books Bond shows poor judgement on a few ocassions, like staying on the train in FRWL, or swimming to the Isle of Suprise in LALD.

What I enjoy the most about this Bond is the attempt by the actor/producers/writers to develope a charecter rather than "filling shoes" which we got with GL, or just a great new actor in an old script which we got with TLD. I think this is a new direction for the series that we can all celebrate. If you can't stand this new direction, the wonderful thing is you can always watch 20 other DVD's and find something in those you prefer.

The next few years will probably be a hell for some fans .... good chance to read the books!

Wonderful sentiments in there 7289, especially the bolded part about the new (first time like this, even) approach.  Cheers! ajb007/cheers

378

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

darenhat wrote:

I personally didn't care for CR for the implicit reason that it was NOT an accurate depiction of Bond in CR the Novel.

I will give you that the film is not as faithful as some would argue, but it was the most faithful adaptation since OHMSS.  Hell, it might be the only true adaptation since OHMSS, and that was significant and exciting for a lot of us. And while I agree with you that it could have been even more faithful, the fans would cry bloody murder if they did a Bond reboot and DIDN'T use Casino Royale as the basis.

Last edited by HalfMonk HalfHitman (11th Jan 2008 01:47)

379

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Thanks blueman!

No the CR'06 adapation was not a faithful as OHMSS. But long ago I gave up any notion that EON would undertake to do Fleming's novels as period pieces and closely follow the scripts. So the best we can hope for these days is the retention of Fleming elements. CR'06 was able to dovetail a modern beginning onto an IF ending very seamlessly.

The lack of a Fleming book as a base for Bond 22 worries me....

It was easier for Peter Hunt in 1968 to use OHMSS pretty completely since it had been a bestseller only a few years earlier. Unlike today's auidance, alot of the public had read the OHMSS novel, and with it's plot ending with the wedding of James Bond - keeping with the book was really a pretty safe bet for the producers.

What EON had NOT learned at that point was that SC was not just a face, but a man gifted with that certain quality that lights up a movie screen and commands your attention. Thinking they could drop a "look-a-like" in and with minimal direction create a replacement oo7 was a dumb gamble, and while GL did his level best it was not a success. In retrospect I blame Peter Hunt for this as he played up the action and played down the crucial love story. At least they did not back away from either in CR.

380

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Yeah, for a use-most-of-the-novel Bond film, CR turned out pretty okay. ajb007/wink

It's something EON has struggled with in the past, finding that balance of Fleming/new material.  While YOLT, DAF and LALD were all fairly successful in their time, not all have aged as well as they intially performed.  Meanwhile TMWTGG, with arguably a tougher (and more Fleming) Bond performance than any of the earlier three films, suffered then (and now...) from an uneasy blending of source material and newfangled plot points.  None of the four earlier films work as well as CR IMHO, although LALD comes closest, again IMO.

It's not a very enviable position to be in IMO, coming up with something Fleming, or near-Fleming even, especially tacked onto one of his stories.  I'm very curious what Haggis comes up with for Bond 22, really liked what he did to the Le Chiffre story sans SMERSH, it's a good setup IMO, just needs a strong follow-through.  Hope we get it.

381

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

7289 wrote:

Thanks blueman!

No the CR'06 adapation was not a faithful as OHMSS. But long ago I gave up any notion that EON would undertake to do Fleming's novels as period pieces and closely follow the scripts. So the best we can hope for these days is the retention of Fleming elements. CR'06 was able to dovetail a modern beginning onto an IF ending very seamlessly.

The lack of a Fleming book as a base for Bond 22 worries me....

It was easier for Peter Hunt in 1968 to use OHMSS pretty completely since it had been a bestseller only a few years earlier. Unlike today's auidance, alot of the public had read the OHMSS novel, and with it's plot ending with the wedding of James Bond - keeping with the book was really a pretty safe bet for the producers.

What EON had NOT learned at that point was that SC was not just a face, but a man gifted with that certain quality that lights up a movie screen and commands your attention. Thinking they could drop a "look-a-like" in and with minimal direction create a replacement oo7 was a dumb gamble, and while GL did his level best it was not a success. In retrospect I blame Peter Hunt for this as he played up the action and played down the crucial love story. At least they did not back away from either in CR.

I agree that instead of receiving the unanimous "thanks" from audiences that EON expected for playing up to expectations, the "find a lookalike" strategy drew inevitable comparisons with Connery that in turn spoiled popular expectations.  However, that doesn't mean they didn't try that again, which they did w/Moore.  But the next time, they managed to extract the "essence" and bottled it into the famous forumula that sustained the series (through continued audience patronage coupled by extraordinary box office returns), arguably up to the CR debut in 2006.  Not to say that excuses the mediocrity, my point is that the underlying theory behind the lookalike strategy eventually succeeded, and the means to pull that off, since we're now touching on the aspects of art and fidelity to the source, was more heinous than the blunder called OHMSS that you seemingly attribute to Peter Hunt.

Last edited by superado (11th Jan 2008 07:17)

"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....

382

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

blueman wrote:
7289 wrote:

Bond's burglary of M's flat and finding out her name are not "disrespectful", they are meant to show how clever and resourceful Bond is. oo7 is very respectful of "M" and seems to appreciate the seriousness of her rebuke, his ELLIPSIS investigation is Bond's way of making up for the shooting of Mollacka which turned out to be a disaster. I would say that DC's Bond is as "dog-like" in his devotion to "M" as the Book Bond who in Dr.No and OHMSS demonstrates he can be "peeved" with his boss. Even when given the opportunity DC's Bond doesn't dismiss his boss as a "bean counter".

The "recklessness" is more apparent in CR'06, than say in Goldfinger - where Bond stupidly steals the villians girl, and gets her killed. In the books Bond shows poor judgement on a few ocassions, like staying on the train in FRWL, or swimming to the Isle of Suprise in LALD.

What I enjoy the most about this Bond is the attempt by the actor/producers/writers to develope a charecter rather than "filling shoes" which we got with GL, or just a great new actor in an old script which we got with TLD. I think this is a new direction for the series that we can all celebrate. If you can't stand this new direction, the wonderful thing is you can always watch 20 other DVD's and find something in those you prefer.

The next few years will probably be a hell for some fans .... good chance to read the books!

Wonderful sentiments in there 7289, especially the bolded part about the new (first time like this, even) approach.  Cheers! ajb007/cheers

Gosh, thinking that 7289's post couldn't be said any better, your one sentence addition pregnant with such novel thoughts and ideas, certainly enriched it beyond perfection!  I love posts like those!

"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....

383

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

7289 wrote:

Bond's burglary of M's flat and finding out her name are not "disrespectful", they are meant to show how clever and resourceful Bond is.

That logic is questionable.  (1) What those elements were meant to convey, and (2) The outcome from those actions, are not strictly mutually exclusive, i.e., it's not a case of "it's either one or the other."  Sure, these actions served to establish the character's resourcefulness, but there's reason for M to call Bond cheeky; however you look at it, respect due to her was breached.  What could motivate a reasonable person to go to lengths of what Bond did?  Given the circumstances (mission failure), maybe a visibly heightend sense of urgency and desperation would have made better sense, like the character and plot development in LTK.  But to go along with the "realistic" premise of the character reboot, how that was done in CR did not make sense.  Instead of showing remorse or some sense of reluctant but justified defiance, we instead get treated to some smug insolence!  Again, using the supposed framework of realism, it's troublesome to accept M's actions considering how in theory she's the seasoned and highly competent head of an elite government organ of a leading world power, especially problematic is how M responds to that kind of reckless behavior by entrusting this agent of questionable judgement with a mission of even higher critical consequences.  Then it gets better...Bond then bails (actually doing so, ala OHMSS the movie, vs. only planning to do so) only to then jeopardize himself and the service's interests to more of his poor judgement/lack of perception, only to then get rewarded with renewed trust and reinstatement into his former role of elevated trust that could be seen as a priviledge that he didn't really value all that much...  Yes, differences with the novel in the finer points might seem subtle, but plot-wise, it makes a world of difference.

To close, however, please, please note, everyone who is a fan of the movie's every pore, this is not an attack on Daniel Craig or the innovative spirit behind CR...I am appealing for soberness, or in other words, get-a-grip!  CR did not fall out of Heaven; it has many strengths but its not without its flaws, and it's getting wearisome how some feel duty-bound to compensate for and defend valid criticisms against it by slamming "every Bond and Bond film that's gone before, with the exception of course, of Connery in the first 4 movies."  Let CR stand on its own merits, and equally important, allow it to answer for its own flaws.

"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....

384

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

A bit wordy, Supes, but on the money. That's what annoyed me about CR (along with other stuff); it's a fresh start but on the other hand the audience is encouraged to indulge this new operative because he's 007 ie it's ok really him breaking into M's office as it's only him, and we know how great he is. It's CR wanting to have its cake and eat it a bit imo, ditching tradition but using it cover the cracks when it sees fit.

I mean, no other film would have women eyeing up Craig like they do at the country club, but here, it's meant to be because he's the tradtional Bond we all know and love.

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017

385

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

I seem to remember Sienna Miller's character getting all hot for Craig in LAYER CAKE. ajb007/wink  And as for a rebooted Bond, well Connery was presented as exactly such an uber-male in DN, why not Craig in CR?  Bond should be Bond, whomever is playing the character and regardless of what point it is in his spy-career IMHO.  Part of that is allure to women, and CR did that fine IMO.

Does a new double-oh agent act the same in 1953 as in 2006?  I wasn't expecting a period piece, where Bond would hold M's pipe up as a precious object for instance, and absolutely never break into M's home.  CR is a modern take on an old favorite, seems it works or not depending on the fan.  I was bored with the last decade or so of rehashed 70s Bond, so the reboot and how they went about it worked swell for me.  Bond breaking into M's home was a nice touch, gave them a scene out-of-the-box, and allowed M the opportunity to interact with Bond in a way she might not in the office.  Clever, IMO.

For my money, CR had more classic Bond in it than any five Bond films '79-'02 smushed together.  And, I think Fleming would like Haggis's script for CR--an updated (by half a century!) character-driven thriller with sex, sadism, and suspenseful action--better than any of the hammy attempts in the period cited above.  JMHO.

386

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

superado wrote:

  CR did not fall out of Heaven; it has many strengths but its not without its flaws, and it's getting wearisome how some feel duty-bound to compensate for and defend valid criticisms against it by slamming "every Bond and Bond film that's gone before, with the exception of course, of Connery in the first 4 movies."  Let CR stand on its own merits, and equally important, allow it to answer for its own flaws.

Agreed. I have my favorite Bond films and actors, but when someone is ardently disgusted with those entries (say, JFF for example ajb007/wink ) I just think ' so we apparently have different tastes'. The strangest thing occurs, however, when you honestly say something critical of CR. CR-fans flail around like some extra who's been shot in a bad B-Movie Western, putting on a show of being mortally wounded.

This is a thread for CR reviews. There's going to be some good, and some bad. That's the simple truth.

Last edited by darenhat (11th Jan 2008 17:01)

387

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

superado wrote:


But to go along with the "realistic" premise of the character reboot, how that was done in CR did not make sense.  Instead of showing remorse or some sense of reluctant but justified defiance, we instead get treated to some smug insolence!  Again, using the supposed framework of realism, it's troublesome to accept M's actions."

I think you are holding the fim to impossible standards. This "realistic" Bond film is still a fantasy. The whole Mollacka chase is well done, exciting, and innovative - but hardly realistic! It is however more grounded than a boat driving down streets or an invisable car in a ice palace.

superado wrote:


"M responds to that kind of reckless behavior by entrusting this agent of questionable judgement with a mission of even higher critical consequences. "

Again, I don't feel that Bond was showing disrespect as much as he was trying to redeem himself by "showing off" that he could enter M's apartment. He was also demonstrating his shame by avoiding "the office", and prehaps being detained. Bond completes the ELLIPSIS investigation by covertly using M's computer and password -essentially going rogue as Bond did in LTK - but offically on vacation. M could have changed her password at any time, but allowed Bond to continue to make use of the resource.

One of the re-boot changes that I really enjoy is the seasoned M, who knows Bond better than he knows himself. She literally lets 007 loose on a target with minimal direction. M knows Bond is a loose cannon, but also knows one way or the other the job will get done. M really uses Bond in a cruel sense - knowing he is going to a price in  "learning who to trust". M knows Bond is rough edged and in this first mission she is deliberately knocking the edges off.

superado wrote:


Then it gets better...Bond then bails (actually doing so, ala OHMSS the movie, vs. only planning to do so) only to then jeopardize himself and the service's interests to more of his poor judgement/lack of perception, only to then get rewarded with renewed trust and reinstatement into his former role of elevated trust that could be seen as a priviledge that he didn't really value all that much... "

M didn't want to use Bond against LC, she even tells him so, but he is the best gambler in the service and she wants LC. Bond is reigned in by both Vesper an Mathis not to mention a tracking device. All those add up to someone who is not been given much leash.

After near castration, we could give Bond a bit of a break. It's not easy to determine the timeline between Bond's resignation and the discovery by that "nice man from the treasury" that the money is missing. It could be a day or two, not much more. M would have to figure that Bond is fragile at that point. She knows he has an ego problem, and despite the crack about not getting emotionally involved -  emotion is Bond's biggest problem, he's got the old chip on his shoulder that Vesper so cleverly spots - he has to prove to himself and everyone he is better than all those high class boys who used to abuse and debag him at school. M knows that despite whatever Bond sends her in an E-Mail, he is not going anywhere. Heck, he doesn't know what an honest job is!

superado wrote:


"Yes, differences with the novel in the finer points might seem subtle, but plot-wise, it makes a world of difference."

I think it's the best written film I've seen in years and would adore it even if the title charecter had been another JB. But it is Bond and by gosh that makes it even more fantasticly good!

superado wrote:


To close, however, please, please note, everyone who is a fan of the movie's every pore, this is not an attack on Daniel Craig or the innovative spirit behind CR...I am appealing for soberness, or in other words, get-a-grip!  CR did not fall out of Heaven; it has many strengths but its not without its flaws, and it's getting wearisome how some feel duty-bound to compensate for and defend valid criticisms against it by slamming "every Bond and Bond film that's gone before, with the exception of course, of Connery in the first 4 movies."  Let CR stand on its own merits, and equally important, allow it to answer for its own flaws."

CR stands very nicely on its own merits. I think it is as good a film as any of the four originals with SC, it is a very different film - with its own style. And I have yet to find a serious flaw that makes CR something that Bond fans shouldn't embrace.

With the series nearing 22 entries, there are some peaks and valleys. CR is a peak! This next one may be a valley. One thing I have come to realise (I watched Octopussy last evening) is that while we may differ over what aspects of a film are properly "Bondian" and have preferences for certain actors, every single Bond film has been excellently made, impeccably produced with top notch production values. EON is to be admired for that, with CR I think they are at the top of their game. I hope they stay there.

Superado - my apologies for chopping up your post!

ajb007/cheers

388

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

darenhat wrote:
superado wrote:

  CR did not fall out of Heaven; it has many strengths but its not without its flaws, and it's getting wearisome how some feel duty-bound to compensate for and defend valid criticisms against it by slamming "every Bond and Bond film that's gone before, with the exception of course, of Connery in the first 4 movies."  Let CR stand on its own merits, and equally important, allow it to answer for its own flaws.

Agreed. I have my favorite Bond films and actors, but when someone is ardently disgusted with those entries (say, JFF for example ajb007/wink ) I just think ' so we apparently have different tastes'. The strangest thing occurs, however, when you honestly say something critical of CR. CR-fans flail around like some extra who's been shot in a bad B-Movie Western, putting on a show of being mortally wounded.

This is a thread for CR reviews. There's going to be some good, and some bad. That's the simple truth.

"Well, Highhopes. We've ridden together too long for me to lie to you now. It looks bad."

"I know. I reckon it's the end of the trail for me, Clem. But if I have to die on this dusty Dodge City street, at least it was with my boots on ... For somethin' I believe in ..."

"Is there anything I can do, Highhopes?"

"Yeah -- tell my sweetheart, Mary Lou, back in Big Bend that I always loved her ... and tell the folks that Darenhat and his gang of superado ... I mean desperadoes ... can take a man's life, but killin' an idea ain't so easy. Casino Royale, the greatest Bond film -- aw shucks, the greatest film, period -- of all time, will live on. I know it will ..."

"You be quiet now, y'hear. The doc's on his way."

"Too late for the sawbones, Clem ..."

"I'll hunt 'em down for ya, Highhopes. Dastardly Darenhat, Nasty Nape Plural, Down Under Dan Same and the rest of that lily-livered, Casino Royale-criticizin' bunch. By God, I swear I will ..."

"Don't you be a-frettin' about that, Clem. They can't escape. 'Cause wherever they are, that's where I'll be. Whenever one of them criticizes the Bond break-in scene ... I'll be there. Whenever someone complains about Craig's appearance: I'll be there, too; I'll be there in the way that movie-goers chuckle when Bond says "Do I look like I give a damn," or the way that the womenfolk swoon when Craig emerges from the ocean in them newfangled bathin' britches of his... But I gots to be a-ramblin' on, now."

"Faretheewell, old pal ..."

THE END

Last edited by highhopes (11th Jan 2008 19:35)

389

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Very nice, my friend. You brought a tear to my eye. :'(

390

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

I'm very Fonda that scenario there, Highhopes.

Vox clamantis in deserto

391

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

highhopes wrote:

"Well, Highhopes. We've ridden together too long for me to lie to you now. It looks bad."

"I know. I reckon it's the end of the trail for me, Clem. But if I have to die on this dusty Dodge City street, at least it was with my boots on ... For somethin' I believe in ..."

"Is there anything I can do, Highhopes?"

"Yeah -- tell my sweetheart, Mary Lou, back in Big Bend that I always loved her ... and tell the folks that Darenhat and his gang of superado ... I mean desperadoes ... can take a man's life, but killin' an idea ain't so easy. Casino Royale, the greatest Bond film -- aw shucks, the greatest film, period -- of all time, will live on. I know it will ..."

"You be quiet now, y'hear. The doc's on his way."

"Too late for the sawbones, Clem ..."

"I'll hunt 'em down for ya, Highhopes. Dastardly Darenhat, Nasty Nape Plural, Down Under Dan Same and the rest of that lily-livered, Casino Royale-criticizin' bunch. By God, I swear I will ..."

"Don't you be a-frettin' about that, Clem. They can't escape. 'Cause wherever they are, that's where I'll be. Whenever one of them criticizes the Bond break-in scene ... I'll be there. Whenever someone complains about Craig's appearance: I'll be there, too; I'll be there in the way that movie-goers chuckle when Bond says "Do I look like I give a damn," or the way that the womenfolk swoon when Craig emerges from the ocean in them newfangled bathin' britches of his... But I gots to be a-ramblin' on, now."

"Faretheewell, old pal ..."

THE END

ajb007/lol ajb007/lol ajb007/lol

Very good, HH -- um, I mean TEOTM. ajb007/biggrin

Alright, Loeff and blueman, fess up -- which one of you is really named Clem? ajb007/wink

Hilly...you old devil!

392

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Hardyboy wrote:

I'm very Fonda that scenario there, Highhopes.

Very good, Hardy. You are a movie buff after my own heart ...

393

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

"Why, Santa Claus, oh why can't I like CR very very very very much?" ajb007/cool

394

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

superado wrote:
blueman wrote:
7289 wrote:

Bond's burglary of M's flat and finding out her name are not "disrespectful", they are meant to show how clever and resourceful Bond is. oo7 is very respectful of "M" and seems to appreciate the seriousness of her rebuke, his ELLIPSIS investigation is Bond's way of making up for the shooting of Mollacka which turned out to be a disaster. I would say that DC's Bond is as "dog-like" in his devotion to "M" as the Book Bond who in Dr.No and OHMSS demonstrates he can be "peeved" with his boss. Even when given the opportunity DC's Bond doesn't dismiss his boss as a "bean counter".

The "recklessness" is more apparent in CR'06, than say in Goldfinger - where Bond stupidly steals the villians girl, and gets her killed. In the books Bond shows poor judgement on a few ocassions, like staying on the train in FRWL, or swimming to the Isle of Suprise in LALD.

What I enjoy the most about this Bond is the attempt by the actor/producers/writers to develope a charecter rather than "filling shoes" which we got with GL, or just a great new actor in an old script which we got with TLD. I think this is a new direction for the series that we can all celebrate. If you can't stand this new direction, the wonderful thing is you can always watch 20 other DVD's and find something in those you prefer.

The next few years will probably be a hell for some fans .... good chance to read the books!

Wonderful sentiments in there 7289, especially the bolded part about the new (first time like this, even) approach.  Cheers! ajb007/cheers

Gosh, thinking that 7289's post couldn't be said any better, your one sentence addition pregnant with such novel thoughts and ideas, certainly enriched it beyond perfection!  I love posts like those!

Just having a conversation, supes, just having a conversation.

395

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

7289 wrote:

M would have to figure that Bond is fragile at that point. She knows he has an ego problem, and despite the crack about not getting emotionally involved - emotion is Bond's biggest problem, he's got the old chip on his shoulder that Vesper so cleverly spots - he has to prove to himself and everyone he is better than all those high class boys who used to abuse and debag him at school...

CR stands very nicely on its own merits. I think it is as good a film as any of the four originals with SC, it is a very different film - with its own style. And I have yet to find a serious flaw that makes CR something that Bond fans shouldn't embrace.

I do think CR is relatively well written, and done appropriately so to capitalize on Craig's abilities.  It was a nicely crafted vehicle that allowed him to explore interesting textures and plumb new depths in the role.  However, this is the point where I feel many fans go wrong, in defining this radical departure, or distinct achievement as they see it, and hailing CR/Craig as the remarkable harkening back to the early Bonds, while at the same time pulling of a long-awaited return to his literary roots! 

At least in terms of Bond's cinematic "legacy," that's debatable and largely remains in the realm of opinion (vs. general consensus) particularly in how Craig had touched the phenominally serendipitous levels of Connery's own "screen magic." 

And bringing Bond back to his Fleming roots?  That again, is something I find seriously problematic to reconcile, just as difficult it is to accept that Connery's early Bonds at any time remotely resembled the Fleming character.  Sure, his Bond obviously had issues with commitment and being  obsessively entrenched in his creature comforts, but I don't think he was a clinical narcissist nor was he nearly as arrogant, defiant or irreverent as he was portrayed in CR; if anything, those are the trappings of movie Bond, particularly evolved in the TD and PB installments. 

Again, as great as CR is, let's applaud it for what it is, and to aggresively promote claims of it being anthing more (especially in terms stated above) beyond opinion is just plain and pure pretense.

Last edited by superado (12th Jan 2008 11:13)

"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....

396

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

highhopes wrote:

"Well, Highhopes. We've ridden together too long for me to lie to you now. It looks bad."

"I know. I reckon it's the end of the trail for me, Clem. But if I have to die on this dusty Dodge City street, at least it was with my boots on ... For somethin' I believe in ..."

"Is there anything I can do, Highhopes?"

"Yeah -- tell my sweetheart, Mary Lou, back in Big Bend that I always loved her ... and tell the folks that Darenhat and his gang of superado ... I mean desperadoes ... can take a man's life, but killin' an idea ain't so easy. Casino Royale, the greatest Bond film -- aw shucks, the greatest film, period -- of all time, will live on. I know it will ..."

"You be quiet now, y'hear. The doc's on his way."

"Too late for the sawbones, Clem ..."

"I'll hunt 'em down for ya, Highhopes. Dastardly Darenhat, Nasty Nape Plural, Down Under Dan Same and the rest of that lily-livered, Casino Royale-criticizin' bunch. By God, I swear I will ..."

"Don't you be a-frettin' about that, Clem. They can't escape. 'Cause wherever they are, that's where I'll be. Whenever one of them criticizes the Bond break-in scene ... I'll be there. Whenever someone complains about Craig's appearance: I'll be there, too; I'll be there in the way that movie-goers chuckle when Bond says "Do I look like I give a damn," or the way that the womenfolk swoon when Craig emerges from the ocean in them newfangled bathin' britches of his... But I gots to be a-ramblin' on, now."

"Faretheewell, old pal ..."

THE END

ajb007/lol You know, if you ever want to get onto my good books, quoting a western (and a Ford western at that) is certainly one way of achieving it. ajb007/biggrin

"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

397

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

I should say at this point that I agree with highhopes about the rundown of M, Q and Moneypenny scenes, I can't relate to fans who want their Bond with all the trimmings. I mean, if Q came back for Bond 22, he wouldn't be Desmond or even Cleese. Likewise, Sam Bond's Moneypenny wasn't the same character or pesonality as Lois Maxwell's, only in name. M is a different person altogether.

That said, we watch sitcoms week in week out with same characters, same situ - just, they tend to have better writing. I don't care for having these office scenes shoehorned into the film.

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017

398

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

superado wrote:

Again, as great as CR is, let's applaud it for what it is, and to aggresively promote claims of it being anthing more (especially in terms stated above) beyond opinion is just plain and pure pretense.

Would that be your opinion on that, supes?

I'm fine with anyone's take on CR, love it or hate it or something in between.  But when did any one person not named Ian Fleming become the sole and official arbitrator of Bond?  All any of us have on this board is their opinion, and that's never about right or wrong, just what we feel and think (however "right" or "wrong" it might seem to someone else).  The hypocrisy in the above quote is fascinating to me: my opinion has value but all others outside of the parameters I set are pretense.  Supes, your opinion on CR is just that, YOUR opinion, no better or worse than anybody else's and I don't think anybody here has a right to dictate to anybody else what they should think or feel about anything.  In the end our Bond is who we bed down with, Brosnan never did it for me but but for others he's the bee's knees, so be it.  Same for Moore more or less, or Dalton, whatever--it's THEIR Bond.  We've had these discussions before and they lead to ruin, always IMO.  You just can't legislate subjectivity.

Also think (some of? most of?) the negativity around CR is simply Craig-based: if Brosnan (or Lazenby, or...) had been in CR a lot of the criticisms would fade if not disappear completely IMHO.  It would still be what it is, just looked on differently because of the biases we bring when we look at OUR Bond.  Which really shouldn't be all that big a deal.

The discussion should be around presenting POVs, and making them clear in context, not limiting--or dismissing--the opinions of others (that would be the job of the CNBers ajb007/wink ).  JMHO.

People go ape over the new, happened with all the Bonds, it's happening now.  Dissent away, but leave the absolutes for Fleming.  2 cents.

399

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

"Hello, and welcome back to the longest-running football game in the current century.  We've been at it now for 423 straight days, and one certainly must wonder where all the time has gone...

"The score is still tied at 8547-8547, with Anti-CR United making quite a few runs at goal over the past few days or so, and the beleaguered and short-staffed Royale Fandom making quite a game show of keeping them out of the net, despite ACRU's very effective control of the ball on both ends of the field.  Quite a bit of suspense we've had here of late...isn't that right, Nigel?"

"ZZZZzzzzz...heh??...Er, yes, quite, Peter.  Royale Fandom seem to have lost a segment of their team...no one seems to know whether they've simply retired from the game, or perhaps died of debatus repeatum vegetatis, that virulent strain of Endless-Loop Debate Sickness which so wreaked havoc on Cool Music Consolidated in the late '70s, and caused that historic forfeit-by-attrition to Wham! Forever! in the Cup Finals...but regardless of the cause, RF have been somewhat handicapped of late, and there's rampant speculation that the stalemate won't last the entire decade...

"Whatever the outcome, those observers fortunate enough to survive this match, and live to see a ripe old age, are sure to be rewarded with...another match..."

Last edited by Loeffelholz (12th Jan 2008 23:42)

"Blood & Ashes"...AVAILABLE on Amazon.co.uk: Get 'Jaded': Blood & Ashes: The Debut Oscar Jade Thriller
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM

400

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Loeffelholz wrote:

"Hello, and welcome back to the longest-running football game in the current century.  We've been at it now for 423 straight days, and one certainly must wonder where all the time has gone...

"The score is still tied at 8547-8547, with Anti-CR United making quite a few runs at goal over the past few days or so, and the beleaguered and short-staffed Royale Fandom making quite a game show of keeping them out of the net, despite ACRU's very effective control of the ball on both ends of the field.  Quite a bit of suspense we've had here of late...isn't that right, Nigel?"

"ZZZZzzzzz...heh??...Er, yes, quite, Peter.  Royale Fandom seem to have lost a segment of their team...no one seems to know whether they've simply retired from the game, or perhaps died of debatus repeatum vegetatis, that virulent strain of Endless-Loop Debate Sickness which so wreaked havoc on Cool Music Consolidated in the late '70s, and caused that historic forfeit-by-attrition to Wham! Forever! in the Cup Finals...but regardless of the cause, RF have been somewhat handicapped of late, and there's rampant speculation that the stalemate won't last the entire decade...

"Whatever the outcome, those observers fortunate enough to survive this match, and live to see a ripe old age, are sure to be rewarded with...another match..."

Brilliant, and spot on.  As a neutral, I can confirm that the game is currently devoid of creativity and utterly numbing.  Would be nice to move to PK's to settle it, but alas, it's destined to end in a desultory draw...if it ends at all.  Looking forward to that next match...at least the first few weeks of it. ajb007/wink

Hilly...you old devil!

Posts [ 376 to 400 of 435 ]

Pages Previous 1 14 15 16 17 18 Next

You must login or register to post a reply