76

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

I wen't into the cinema with some degree of optimism after seeing the trailers, but I also still had real concerns regarding Daniel Craig, the re-boot and the darker tone of Casino Royale.

Virtually all my concerns were swept away inside the first five minutes. The brutality of the fight scene and the way Bond earns his 00 status took my breath away. The fact that it was in black & white seemed just right and not "old fashioned" filmmaking. The gunbarrel and title sequence by comparison are ok, if a little uninspiring. However, I do really like the title song 'You Know My Name'.

The action set pieces are all beautifully executed and exciting to watch. I could watch the MIA sequence and the Aston Martin crash again and again and again and never get bored. My only slight criticisms would be that the Madagascar chase is a little too long. Also, the excessive use of machine guns, I am getting bored with them. I wish the producers would come up with something more novel, perhaps a sniper?

The Casino sequence is very good overall. I don't have any problem with it's overall length. I like the way it's broken up to include events away from the table. My only real complaint revolves around the defibrilator scene. It's all rather silly and OTT, the low point of the film. If that's what we get in the absence of Q then I say bring him back immediately. The stairwell fight has clear echo's of Bourne. The struggle at the bottom of the stairs is the only time where I felt the brutal realism wen't a little too far. I didn't enjoy seeing all that blood on Bond and his nemesis' legs flailing as the life was being choked away from him.

The torture scene if handled badly could have been a potential disaster. Instead, it's a triumph for Campbell, Mads Mikkelsen, and most notably Daniel Craig. The lighting, camera angles, dialogue and humour are all perfect. Craig is just superb here, especially when Bond is trying to laugh despite the intense pain he is suffering.

In terms of acting, Craig has all of Bond's attributes, except maybe the suaveness. The screen presence, the grit, the toughness, the charm and the humour are all there in abundance. Like Sean Connery in DN, he has set a benchmark which the others who follow him will be judged by. In terms of his looks, Craig remains something of an enigma to me. In some scenes he looks seriously cool, in others he looks uncool and considerably older than his 38 years. I think he's a chameleon.

As for the acting in general. It's top notch. The only complaint here would be the lack of screen time for Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter and Caterina Murino as Solange. Mads Mikkelsen stands out for me as Le Chiffre. Le Chiffre may not be a threat in terms of physique, but he does have the intelligence to outwit Bond. There is also a real hint of menace and creepiness about him which is convincingly portrayed by Mikkelsen.

Casino Royale is a really good looking film. The cinematography really stands out. Locations such as Prague, Venice and The Bahamas are made to look really good. The money really is on the screen.

I could go on about the script, the score, product placement, the ending, etc. But I will cut my losses here. Overall, Babs & Mickey's gamble has paid off handsomely, for me at least. I congratulate all involved in the making of Casino Royale. Let's now hope it gets the box office it deserves.


006 out of 007.

Last edited by Moore Not Less (20th Nov 2006 11:50)

77

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Nightshooter wrote:

Definitely not! I saw a group of boys, probably 13 and 14, all taking a picture after seeing the movie and yelling "Bond rocks" instead of "cheese."

I agree that there was no one part I didn't like, except for the TS. I was never bored, which is unusual because even in my favorite of Bond films there is always a boring part. Not so in this one.

Thats interesting Nightshooter, I am glad to hear it. I think some English newspapers can be shockingly patronising towards American cinema goers.

I never once looked at my watch during Casino Royale (unlike DAD when i was desperate to get out). The running time really wasnt an issue for me either.

78

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

sorry...I posted this review in a different thread (Didn't see this one). Mods: feel free to remove my review from the "CR discussion" thread if you feel it is necessary. ajb007/smile

My CR review: 004
The Good?
THE FIRST HALF
Action galore. Original concepts and excellent editing (from ace editor Stuart Baird) make for some riveting action sequences. Shame that the back half of the film was so uneven.

DANIEL CRAIG
DC proves himself as an excellent James Bond and polished actor. He delivered lines which of all the actors who played the part, I could only imagine Dalton being able to give credence to. Top notch

For me, this pretty much constitutes what is good in CR

The reasons I dislike CR tend to be a little different from what I was expecting:

THE REBOOT - pointless, IMO. The black and white opening for me was simply Over The Top. Other than confirming Bond’s OO status, it doesn’t carry over into the story. We see Bond is a tough killer (but we knew that already). How does this relate to the remainder of the story? I didn’t feel it worked.

“M”
I appear to be the only one who feels Dame Judy fails miserably in this role. Part of it, to her credit, is the poor handling of the character. “M” was always a strong character, but since GE, Dench was left with a struggling and semi-ineffective beauracrat. There was a time when even the audience cowered under M’s authority, an individual who ruled his organization in Bristol-fashion. Gone are the strong bits of dialogue that made Bond feel sheepish like “Since I’ve been in charge, there’s been a drop in 00 casualties!” “Having a licence to kill is useless unless one can set up a target!” and “From this moment, your licence to kill is revoked!”  These were moments that reminded us that M was the one calling the shots, but in CR, Bond acts like a rogue agent that M has no control over. All she can do is rant at underlings and wring her hands with no effect. All she does is place a little tracker in his arm - their version of a slap on the wrist, I guess - and utterly pointless as we find out in the film.

WHO IS THIS GUY?
Daniel Craig does a great job, but is it Bond? I’m not talking about looks, I’m referring to the character itself. He comes across as more of a troublemaker than troubleshooter. He hs no respect for authority, which seems highly undisciplined for a man who forges a career in the military and Secret Service. This guy wouldn’t last a day under the thumb of Bernard Lee. The literary Bond held M in high regard, almost as a father figure, but here Bond seems to make up his own rules. It’s doesn’t make sense to me.

THE LOVE STORY
A bit rushed. The character of Vesper fails. I can’t believe Bond would fall for her only because we are given no reason for him to. In the novel, she cares for him. After being tortured, Bond has serious misgivings about the life ahead of him in the service. Vesper offers something better. But this doesn’t come out in the film. And the script gives no opportunity for Eve Green to shine. She’s cold at first, weak at second, and a traitor at the third. I never saw a moment in the film that makes me say “I like this girl”. The audience needs to see what Bond sees in her to make the romance work, and the film doesn’t do that.

THE ENDING
I got a very real impression that the audience I saw the film with was very disappointed with the ending. Bond says his name, the music kicks in. Are we supposed to cheer? As the song points out at the beginning, we know his name. So what makes this significant? It really only signals that he’s not resigning from the service...and that he has somehow magically become the secret agent we have come to know. But wasn’t he before? Did his love for Vesper get him his 00 at the beginning of the film? No. Did his ability to shoot the guy in the leg make him Bond? I don’t think so. The fact that we know nothing about Mr. White makes it hard for me to see any significance of Bond’s introduction to him. Seeing Bond shooting some unarmed old man in the leg, and gloat over his soon-to-expire corpse is not the Bond of the books. Maybe if Bond didn’t sound so proud, the line would have had more gravitas but the way it was just didn’t work for me.

Don’t get me wrong, I wanted to like this movie. For me, though, it simply didn’t deliver action-wise, story-wise, or character-wise.

79

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

I have decided to post my rambling thoughts having seen the picture twice; I will have viewed it thrice on Wednesday night. Do forgive the mind-numbingly buoyant inanities that follow; I cannot help it. Loved it loved it loved it.

I had very high expectations for this picture. Having met the casting of Daniel Craig with blissful incredulity—I never, in my wildest thoughts, expected Eon to do something quite so edgy—and having been elated at the news that formula would be positively eschewed, that a new direction would be taken, and that the likes of Moneypenny and Q would be discarded, the *only* factor causing a degree of trepidation was this: Would they really do it?

They did. I cannot overemphasise just how surprising Casino Royale is. Harbouring a sneaking suspicion that cold feet would be had at the last minute I wondered just how far Babs and Mike et al would go in burying what desperately needed burying. It was, therefore, with a combination of elated shock and heavenly surprise that I watched the pre-titles sequence unfold and found myself immersed in the new, and far improved, world of 007.

What the producers have done is asked themselves the right question at the right time. Instead of asking ‘how do we make a good Bond movie?’, they have asked themselves ‘how do we make a quality picture that happens to be about James Bond?’. That these people are the those who thought that an invisible car would be a bit of a laugh, or that John Cleese *wouldn’t* be cringe worthy as Q, defies any sort of logic. Of course, one could point to, as I am sure others have, For Your Eyes Only or The Living Daylights as examples of much the same people taking an alternative direction and bringing the Bond series back to earth. And yet, the truth is that Casino Royale is *so* much more than a For Your Eyes Only, or even a The Living Daylights. Casino Royale is a different creature altogether, having abandoned the basic formula that even Dalton’s first outing adhered to. It is in a different league to most of what has gone before it ,and even those films in the same league find themselves bested by Royale’s tour de force.

At its heart, Casino Royale is a success largely down to one man: Daniel Craig. This Bond bleeds. This Bond fails. This Bond hurts. And while he bleeds and fails and hurts we feel it too: by highlighting the consequences of Bond’s actions the audience feels Bond’s pain. Daniel Craig fills the screen with an unmatched presence and pushes these attributes with a brutality to which we are completely unused: Sean Connery couldn’t do half the stuff Craig pulls off. More than that, this Bond can be despondent. This Bond self-reflects and casts a critical eye over himself. That most spectacular scene, which truly confirms that this Bond and this film are, indeed, quite different, in which Bond examines himself in the mirror after killing is without doubt a stand-out moment. There was a bit of this in Lazenby’s Bond, however Craig has taken 007 to a whole new level.

Moreover, there is a seething cruelty beneath the surface of the man; an eagerness to wound his enemies and resolve things violently. This man is a killer. He may not be ‘Fleming’s Bond’ (whoever *that* is), however he is ‘ironical, brutal, and cold.’ He is, above all, believable: I believe that this Bond is dangerous and menacing; he relies on his wits and his strength, not gadgets. At times contemptuous and at times cockily arrogant, Craig also incorporates a genuine charisma—all grim smirk and sardonic humour—and challenging intensity to bring to the fore a fascinating and seminal interpretation of the character. Even deeper than that, Craig displays a wounded vulnerability, an emotional insecurity at times, that never once steps towards the lamentable territory of ‘Insert characterisation here’. In this film Bond proves himself as an agent, and Daniel Craig proves his doubters absolutely wrong. Arbitrary as this may sound, Craig is the best Bond: Better than Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan. He is an inspiration.

Eva Green is another example of superb casting. Capturing Vesper’s character with an inner darkness and broken susceptibility—with a hard shell—Green emerges as quite possibly the best Bond girl the series has seen. A consummate intellect with a fierce outlook, Green’s Vesper proves that the most meaningful girls need not be kicking female James Bonds. Indeed, with her enigmatic attitude and emotional distance Vesper makes for compelling viewing, and the chemistry between Craig and Green in evident in bags. As beautiful as she is tortured, this Bond girl truly takes Bond’s heart. The Bond/Vesper courtship, meanwhile, is given time to flourish and breathe; finally here is a romance we can believe. Authentic and sincere, this leads to the final act being all the more cruelly tragic.

What is especially surprising is that all this emotion and vulnerability is handled with subtlety and it *feels* real. It has not just been thrown in as a hollow reference to some semblance of character development. This is the first Bond film in a long time which credits its audience with a significant level of imagination and intelligence. Yes, action exists, however a big shiny bang does not appear every five minutes and those wonderfully delicate quieter moments, which really do elevate this film above all others, are so exceptional that I struggled to believe that they were actually appearing in a Bond film. That the central piece of action is a card sequence shows the courage shown by the film-makers; that these scenes are far more gripping than other central sequences show just how essential such courage was required. In this respect Casino Royale is the most bold, fresh and daring picture ‘the family’ have ever created.

The other dramatis personæ are played with such aplomb that the card sequence has a group dynamic ensuring that the other characters do not merely sink into the background. Mads Mikkelsen has a delicious malice as Le Chiffre and it is an interesting break to see the villain being in as difficult a predicament as Bond. Gianni’s Mathis is, obviously, rather different from the book but this is no bad thing; like Wright’s Felix Mathis has a three-dimensional quality rather than a cardboard cut-out shoved in to make up the numbers. Dench’s M has the same caustic nature, however here it works far better as the relationship is different: this is a recently promoted 007 in whom she does not display a great deal of trust—or confidence.

My one concern, beyond a general feeling that the ‘team’ would not see the new direction through, was Martin Campbell as GoldenEye, however enjoyable, was not a radical departure. I doubted Campbell’s ability to execute what I thought a great and necessary idea. However, he executes it with a gusto the likes of which I sincerely did not expect. The film is elegant, classy, down right arty at times. Noirish, moody and atmospheric in the latter half Casino Royale is drenched in a melancholy aura which ensures it is an emotionally resonant film that registers a particularly deep impact.

To see real locations being used is a revelation, giving the film a feel slightly reminiscent of the early pictures. The fact that they are used well is something of a bigger surprise, however mention must be made of the gorgeous photography that gives Casino Royale that sumptuous travelogue ambience which has been sorely missing of late.

David Arnold's score was another pleasant surprise. Before the man had all the finesse of a daisy-cutter; here he lets quiet scenes be quiet, often with just a little twinge of a few piano keys. The music complements the action rather that detracting from it: Arnold sharpens the atmosphere of the pre-titles sequence considerably. Indeed, Arnold is so good and so different here that I cannot help but wonder what on earth he was thinking previously.

One esteemed reviewer of the Washington Times described Casino Royale as a return to *a* real world—not *the* real world. Obviously the events depicted are ludicrously unrealistic, however the film still has as its base a greater feeling of realism, a feeling that this *might* happen. Never is credibility stretched too far: the smaller scale and more grounded story make for a far more satisfying outing. Comparisons have been drawn with the likes of For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights and yet this is mistaken: as mentioned, Casino Royale is much more than a simple scaling down; it is an entire change of direction, a completely new start and a bold attempt to bury the accoutrements that had become supposedly integral to the cinematic James Bond. And as far as comparisons go forget any with Bourne. As enjoyable as the Matt Damon pictures are they exist in another cul de sac: this Bond, despite protestations to the contrary before its release, has class and glamour in spades.

I understand many Brosnan fans object to ‘their man’ being criticised as a means of supporting Craig, however it is only natural that the new film be contextualised by using the previous era as a term of reference. The Brosnan approach, an approach not entirely the responsibility of Mr Brosnan himself, was essentially a deconstruction of the Bond persona, so that a modern Bond, more in touch with what some called his emotions, could emerge with the attributes deemed necessary for a successful ‘new-man’ of the 1990s. In everything Daniel Craig does, his Bond seems a repudiation of this approach. It is unlikely that this is a deliberate ploy to lay to rest the Brosnan era—Craig is undoubtedly his own man—however the result is still the same. Vulnerable he may be, however Craig’s Bond is no modern day PC man: he falls in love, but women are conquests and the married ones the best.

It is still hard to believe that the producers have gone down this route when one considers Die Another Day, surely the ultimate triumph of the derivative over the daring. Be clear, this is no ‘Bond film’. This is no rechauffage of the Bond ingredients. This is a wonderfully elegant and imaginative picture with a harder edge which happens to be about James Bond. Character actually matters here. The tension and suspense are real. I almost—*almost*—feel like Keith Joseph on the brink in 1974: “I had thought I was a Conservative but I now see that I was not really one at all.” Substitute ‘Conservative’ for ‘filmBond fan’ and this would be quite an apt description of my feelings since Friday evening. This is like Dr No all over again—only better.

James Bond is dead. Long live James Bond.

Last edited by Lazenby880 (20th Nov 2006 20:36)

80

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

That wasn't a James Bond film - bloody terrible. Just a run of the mill action movie with none of the things that make 007 unique. Daniel Craig is totally miscast and I'll never see another Bond film with the actor in the role. Complete and utter rubbish

81

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

To :  M
Fr :  Commander Hammond Egorunamuck

Sir,

It is with singular regret to tender my resignation from Her Majesty's Secret Service, pursuant to the following (kind note, unlike the resignation of my good colleague and even better friend, Commander James Bond, this document is irrevocable and even final) :

Advisory.  The latest screen incarnation of Cmdr. Bond, codename "Casino Royale" drops far below par from BOTH James' excellent biographies and the screen romanticisms.

A.  The Literary James Bond
*  "Saturnine sense of humour" -- a description used by Cmdr. Fleming.  Although it is a popular myth that James is a cold flounder without a trace of humour, it is diamond clear that he evinces a wonderful, trenchant sense of cheerfulness (one of his favourite words, I believe)from the second book onwards.  A few examples :
*  In "Live and Let Die" James and Felix are nearly a comedic team, playing off one another.  James' sense of life is keenly felt in his raised-eyebrowed descriptions of American culture.  When Fleming was writing the sequence of naked Solitaire and James tied like newsprint(lucky fish indeed), she says,  "I didn't want it to be like this."  Noel Coward read it, asking,  "You're not going to leave it like this!"  Fleming, with tears of laughter, said,  "Yes!!!"
*  In the Blofeld trilogy, James' wit builds with each operation, from TB > OHMSS > YOLT.  OHMSS has plenty of "splitting sides" (another James favourite)scenes.  Note his resignation letter, "Neat that.  Perhaps too neat!"  or "Hm. Irma not so la douce!"  or Griffin Orr :  "Hm. Hm. Hm.  Three balls!"  No doubt James was rolling in his flat that evening recalling that. 
*  In YOLT, even the half-broken Bond in the beginning still retains his irony -- "Where do bees corpses go when they die?"  James with Tiger, like with Felix, is a classic team, their repartee building to a firm friendship.  Until James realises that Dr Shatterhand is Blofeld, their banter is continuous; Tiger is shocked in the change of his darkly cheerful friend to the cold avenger.  The first chapter with the Geishas is hilarious.  Dikko Henderson escalates the fun. 
*  Let us not forget operation Thunderball, as we laugh at James' agonies at Shrublands (at least we did at HQ), his meeting with Domino ("Bitch!")and again with Felix, who remarks, "I'm strictly a chocolate sailor."

B.  The Screen 007
*  As we can net from even a blink to the books, Commander Bond's humour did not originate with the films.  James retains his cheek throughout his career, (a book observes that he is just "a simple peasant" looking forward to his chicken farm when he's put to pasture).  Through four decades the screen James is simply a big boy, albeit a very tough, smart and lucky boy.  He does not live in a world of blood and spilt guts.  If even a simple punch-up were depicted 'realistically' James' face would be mishapen for a month!  If the CR 'realistic' violence continues to the next mission, James will be dead midway through the story.

Two Lines of Demarcation
1.  When James is asked, "Shaken or stirred?" One camp cheers, the other groans.  Die Mister Bond!  No more bespoke suits for you!  Nor broken sommeliers.  Instead of mock elegance, we'll get our Double Os at the gym's steroid section.
2.  "Who will cry for a Commander?"  One might well ask.  Finally, James has been stripped of his RNVR status, a penultimate insult.  Instead he is a Rambo-Terminator, a machine Jason Bourne -- so much so that the two JBs are interchangeable.  But instead of protests from Double Os at this most horrific of slaps, we get "Here! Here!"  Not a biggie, as the Americans say.

James Bond has not been re-born, he has been re-killed --  You only die twice, Mr Bond -- by the Antibond, in the sense of 1.  against and 2.  Instead of.  (One of the Pope's official titles is Vicarius Filii Dei, "Instead of the Son of God.")  The Antibond has slipped into the shoes of the real Bond, and has been accepted by many as the one, true Commander James Bond, RNVR, CMG.  Like the Antichrist,  "even the very elect shall be deceived."   But it is no longer the authentic Bond of the books or screen, but a counterfeit.

In light of the above, Sir, I beg you to accept this resignation forthwith and endit.

Your obedient servant,

Once Commander Eggy, 0077

______________________

"Surely, you're joking!!?"
"Don't call me Shirley."

Last edited by Cmdr_Egorunamuck (21st Nov 2006 06:01)

82

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

authorwriting wrote:

That wasn't a James Bond film - bloody terrible. Just a run of the mill action movie with none of the things that make 007 unique. Daniel Craig is totally miscast and I'll never see another Bond film with the actor in the role. Complete and utter rubbish

Good! Then don't bother coming back for the next 5 years or so then, because we have a new Bond in town, and he is here to stay......:v

83

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Cmdr_Egorunamuck wrote:

To :  M
Fr :  Commander Hammond Egorunamuck

A.  The Literary James Bond
*  "Saturnine sense of humour" -- a description used by Cmdr. Fleming.  Although it is a popular myth that James is a cold flounder without a trace of humour, it is diamond clear that he evinces a wonderful, trenchant sense of cheerfulness (one of his favourite words, I believe)from the second book onwards.  A few examples :
*  In "Live and Let Die" James and Felix are nearly a comedic team, playing off one another.  James' sense of life is keenly felt in his raised-eyebrowed descriptions of American culture.  When Fleming was writing the sequence of naked Solitaire and James tied like newsprint(lucky fish indeed), she says,  "I didn't want it to be like this."  Noel Coward read it, asking,  "You're not going to leave it like this!"  Fleming, with tears of laughter, said,  "Yes!!!"
*  In the Blofeld trilogy, James' wit builds with each operation, from TB > OHMSS > YOLT.  OHMSS has plenty of "splitting sides" (another James favourite)scenes.  Note his resignation letter, "Neat that.  Perhaps too neat!"  or "Hm. Irma not so la douce!"  or Griffin Orr :  "Hm. Hm. Hm.  Three balls!"  No doubt James was rolling in his flat that evening recalling that. 
*  In YOLT, even the half-broken Bond in the beginning still retains his irony -- "Where do bees corpses go when they die?"  James with Tiger, like with Felix, is a classic team, their repartee building to a firm friendship.  Until James realises that Dr Shatterhand is Blofeld, their banter is continuous; Tiger is shocked in the change of his darkly cheerful friend to the cold avenger.  The first chapter with the Geishas is hilarious.  Dikko Henderson escalates the fun. 
*  Let us not forget operation Thunderball, as we laugh at James' agonies at Shrublands (at least we did at HQ), his meeting with Domino ("Bitch!")and again with Felix, who remarks, "I'm strictly a chocolate sailor."

Very cleverly written Egg, although based on a flawed premise in my view. There is plenty of humour in Casino Royale, the difference being that it is actually well-written and well delivered. What about the 'That last hand nearly killed me'? Broadchest? Bond's mocking of Le Chiffre during the torture? These may not be corny one-liners delivered with a knowing wink and a nod however they *do* inject some quality moments of humour into the film, while not jarring with the gratifyingly more serious direction.

Two Lines of Demarcation
1.  When James is asked, "Shaken or stirred?" One camp cheers, the other groans.  Die Mister Bond!  No more bespoke suits for you!  Nor broken sommeliers.  Instead of mock elegance, we'll get our Double Os at the gym's steroid section.
2.  "Who will cry for a Commander?"  One might well ask.  Finally, James has been stripped of his RNVR status, a penultimate insult.  Instead he is a Rambo-Terminator, a machine Jason Bourne -- so much so that the two JBs are interchangeable.  But instead of protests from Double Os at this most horrific of slaps, we get "Here! Here!"  Not a biggie, as the Americans say.

Er, you must have missed all that stuff in the casino then. I cannot say I recall Jason Bourne dressed up and playing some high-stakes cards. Casino Royale does have a wonderful sense of glamour, elegance and exoticism and while it may be fairly easy to dismiss the film as a BourneBond attempt this is not based on the film itself.

Very witty, Commander, however I disagree vehemently with all points of argument in your post. I should imagine your resignation shall be accepted. ajb007/wink

84

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

I'll never see another Bond film with the actor in the role. Complete and utter rubbish[/quote]

Good! Then don't bother coming back for the next 5 years or so then, because we have a new Bond in town, and he is here to stay......:v[/quote]


Oh my god people are already getting so defensive at the travesty that was Casino Royale - The Times said it better than I can and I quote:

suspect that when all the hype dies down, people will see
what a disappointing film Casino Royale is. Despite
updating Ian Fleming’s 1953 novel and replacing
communist agents with terrorists, the film has no relation
to the world we live in. Nor does it offer a fantasy of a
glamorous world we would like to escape to. It’s neither an
exciting thriller nor an interesting study in character. And
there is no memorable iconic moment featuring Bond, his
baddies or his beauties, the kind that you take home from
the cinema and that stays with you.



Casino Royale, Two stars
12A, 144 mins

85

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

authorwriting wrote:

That wasn't a James Bond film - bloody terrible. Just a run of the mill action movie with none of the things that make 007 unique. Daniel Craig is totally miscast and I'll never see another Bond film with the actor in the role. Complete and utter rubbish


I agree

the worst Bond fim (if you want to call it a Bod film) EVER!

its awful!

86

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Let's all calm down,everybody.Surely we can accept a variety of opinions here.There's no hard and fast rule at AJB stipulating that each of our members must be in agreement on everything--including all of the James Bond movies.

Let's try and be polite to one another.When we disagree,we can make a point of disagreeing agreeably, and show some respect for opposing viewpoints.

Carry on...

87

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Ok, saw this on sunday and these are my thoughts.

* The pre-credit sequence is too short and they put most of it in the trailer. What happened to the cricket match? I said on another thread recently that Daniel Kleinman was better than Maurice Binder. After seeing the Casino Royale titles I take that back and would like to apologise to the late Mr Binder. I won't comment on the song again. Enough has been said about that.

* The first half of the film is a Pierce Brosnan film without Pierce Brosnan. I'm not saying Brosnan could have stepped straight in but it could have been adjusted. The second half of the film is very different and a big departure from what we are used to seeing.

* The Miami Airport scene felt as tacked on as the ski-chase in TWINE.

* Eva Green was bland as Vesper. She seemed to twitch after every line of dialogue and her banter with Craig fizzled out very quickly. At times she looked so young that she could pass for Craig's daughter. The film is nearly over when Bond decides that he loves Vesper. I cared much more about Lazenby and Diana Rigg in OHMSS.

* The shower scene was an unexpectedly touching moment and my favourite in the film.

* Wilson and Branson cameos-Ugh!

* Bond puts the tux on ajb007/insane Not exactly like Superman discovering his uniform is it? Didn't like these post-modern moments. Like the vodka-martini joke. A 38 year-old man who hasn't worked out what his favourite alcoholic beverage is yet? Wouldn't a public school dropout have ticked boxes like these in his formative years? Of course I don't believe Craig's Bond went to public school for a second.

* Mads dull as Le Chiffre. I struggled to understand a word he was saying early on. Robert Davi is still the last memorable villain in the Bond series.

* Poker scenes. I didn't find them as long as some of the critics but I wouldn't exactly say I was gripping my seat. I liked the shower scene but the other bits worked in around the game were a bit artificial. In the knife fight for example I could barely make out what was happening. I missed the traditional suave, handsome Bond in the card game.

* A preview of this film I saw somewhere said it had 'a car chase to rival the one in Ronin'. Where was this car chase? I didn't se it.

* Judi Dench. M's office now seems to be a broom cupboard with a bunch of hotshot whizzkids outside waiting for an emergency. Whenever I saw her I expected Pierce Brosnan to walk into the room.

* I didn't laugh once during the whole film. Not one laugh out loud line or joke.

* Didn't feel like a James Bond film. Arnold's score was forgettable. Although the photography was good. Campbell made the film look better than GE.

* Daniel Craig. I didn't buy Craig as Bond at all. He is called 'James' once or twice in the film and it doesn't ring true. Paul Morley summed up my feeling. He said that you feel that Craig's 'character' might have met James Bond once very fleetingly, perhaps in a corridor or something, but you never believe he is the real thing. Craig spits out his dialogue under his breath in a permanently amused with himself sarcastic manner and it grates very quickly. He has one chance to overact and boy does he take it. There is a moment (after Bond has asked the swiss bloke if he brought any chocolate) when Craig mugs for a second to get a laugh. It's painful. On the whole he is restrained and ok but he's in the wrong film. He's too ordinary to be James Bond. He looks small in some of the fight scenes and doesn't command the screen. If they want me to believe this is Fleming's Bond they might have cast someone who looks like him. I thought Craig looked terible in the PTS and last shot of the titles. There are moments in this film when he looks like a waxwork dummy. He looked like a diminutive nightclub bouncer crammed into a ill-fitting suit in the last scene. He also looks too old for the rookie agent angle
thing and comes off as slightly stupid.

* Overall, the least fun I have ever had at a James Bond film. I love OHMSS, love Timothy Dalton, found this pretty tedious. Craig is not my cup of tea at all. Call me shallow but I've never got over the way he looks. I left the cinema feeling bored and flat.

* I don't know if this is an eccentric opinion but now that I've seen the film I honestly think young Cavill might have worked in this...

88

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

It's wonderful that we have such a spectrum of opinion on a site dedicated to such a specific interest - I disagree with everything (yes everything) arthur pringle says about CR. Oh no, I like the photography too. Everything else then.

I even disagree about the shower scene: am I the only one who found the finger-sucking thing a tiny bit odd?

I disagree with what you say, arthur, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (who was it said that?)

Green figs, yoghurt, coffee very black.

89

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Osato wrote:

I even disagree about the shower scene: am I the only one who found the finger-sucking thing a tiny bit odd?

I found it creepy...and I would have a hard time falling in love with someone who enjoys sucking blood from my fingernails.

90

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Osato wrote:

It's wonderful that we have such a spectrum of opinion on a site dedicated to such a specific interest - I disagree with everything (yes everything) arthur pringle says about CR. Oh no, I like the photography too. Everything else then.

I even disagree about the shower scene: am I the only one who found the finger-sucking thing a tiny bit odd?

I disagree with what you say, arthur, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (who was it said that?)

I too don't agree with one thing Arthur says. Just goes to show that you cannot win everyone over (even though Craig practically has by the looks of things)....

91

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Well, I just saw Casino Royale yesterday with my nine year old. I will admit that I enjoyed this picture alot better than I did the much-anticipated but anemically-done Superman Returns and coming from me that saying something being that I wasn't too smitten with Daniel Craig in the first place.


Sorry guys, it was a superb action flick without much Bond residue. Oh, of course the story showed flashes of what I hoped to see in a regular 007 picture but something was missing for me to make the experience all the more pleasurable and I'm not talking about Q or Moneypenny not showing up...although that pains me. ajb007/biggrin


Let me be man enough to say, after naysaying so long, that Daniel Craig is a very good actor who grasped this role with both hands and did a commendable job as "said" 007.
Please understand that for me, Craig will be an acquired taste to adjust to in the way of oatmeal(which I hate) or God awful okra. He seemed intent of delivering a good Bond and for the masses it appears that he's succeeded. It may take me awhile to get around his looks but I'll give the man his due...


The story and action were pretty good; I felt that it wasn't balanced enough but considering that the powers that be had to liven up the action-nilled novel, I give then kudos.


I was disappointed with the pre-teaser because it felt a little short or not edited right or something and was one of the reasons I rushed to check out the film in the first place. Started out good but ended pretty numb.

That little "heart" sequence felt a little stupid and out of place to me. I was expecting the gun cane which I though might work well for this but perhaps that's just me.


Craig had his Connery-like moments but some of his close pans were just ugh ajb007/crap Eva Green is just unappealing to me; that hasn't changed and Ms. Murino is still captivating as always.



My favorite part was the ending(no pun intended). To hear the music build and see Craig deliver the line after pluggin' Mr. White in the leg while standing over him, was just classic. This is the best Bond? film I've seen since LTK. Goldeneye was excellent but a bit watered down by comparison to CR, it would appear that the Broccolis should've hired Haggis long before now to clean up P&W's handiwork...Martin Campbell did fairly better his second time out but nothing Oscar-worthy...


P.S. Did anyone else think that it was funny when those agents zapped Mathis and casually exited him from the lawns? ajb007/lol

Last edited by RogueAgent (22nd Nov 2006 07:12)

Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"

Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -

92

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Hey! Not a review but is more of my breif view on the film.

CASINO ROYALE IS EXCELLENT!

To me CR has brought back the franchise, its is remarkably good, it has opened so many doors for the series, and in the last scene when bond said the three immortal words "bond, james bond" it sent shivers down my spine and the hairs on my neck pringed up! Daniel Craig is superb, can't wait untill 2008, its too far away!

CASINO ROYALE ROCKS MY WORLD!!!

http://www.classicbondforums.tk - Please support our community.

93

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Three scenes highlight this very very special Bond movie:

Scene 1: Bond shoots a guy and while removing the silencer from his gun,gives a slanted, vicious look at the fallen man and says/mutters
"considerably" - that sent a shiver up my spine!

Scene 2: Bond drives with his looks focussed on the road, determined, yetdeadly cool and then suddenly sees his woman lying bound hand and feet,
right in the middle of the road - Bond swerves to avoid her, and the car somersaults several times - just before, he swerves the car, the look on
Bond's face says it all - a perfect blend of shock + puzzlement!

Scene 3:Bond has just tried to rescue the woman he had fallen in love with, and who had betrayed him, and she is dead - and speaking to M over phone, calls his woman a "bit*h" - cold, detached,
indifferent!

No mischeivous glint in his eyes, no naughty
smirks, no overt sarcasm - just plain deadpan humor, and an 'up y*urs' attitude on his shoulders!

Welcome Mr.Daniel Craig! I would not say you are a perfect replacement for Mr.Brosnan - rather you have filled in the shoes left empty by one Mr.Timothy Dalton!

94

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

I just saw CR for a second time. I gave it a great review the first time, but I changed my mind
ajb007/wink

ajb007/shifty Here's why:


This film was way too suspenseful. There should have been more comedy relief to ease the tension. For example, when Bond swerves the Aston Martin to avoid hitting Vesper, they should have showed the car spinning in slow motion as it crashed, with a Beach Boys song like "Good Vibrations" or "Fun Fun Fun" playing in the backgound.
Just to remind us that Bond is immortal and we needn't worry that he is ever actually in any danger. When Bond makes a joke, it should be a very obvious and bad one, delivered with raised brows and eye twinkles so we don't miss out on the fact that he's just joking.

This Bond is too tough and gritty. He bleeds and sweats and shows too much emotion. We should never worry that Bond would actually get hurt. He should be safely tucked away in the seat of a Q-equipped futuristic vehicle, wearing a clean white tux, calmly pushing buttons and destroying everything around him while delivering corny one-liners and checking the rear-view mirror to make sure his hair isn't getting messed up. Bond should never actually put any effort into getting the job done. That's why he has Q.

There weren't enough Q gizmos. If Bond had had his X-ray glasses, he could have read LeChiffre's poker hands straightaway and not have to borrow that extra cash from Felix Leiter. This would have made the film much shorter. If he had his magnetic wristwatch from LALD, he could have pulled that elevator out of the water with it.

There should have been at least one car chase with Bond driving something besides a car: like half a car, half a double-decker bus, a fortified mini-helicopter, a stolen jet, a gondola on wheels, a fire engine, a tank, a motorcycle, a boat that travels across land, a camel, an elephant, a lunar rover, a hovercraft, or something like that.

There weren't enough bikini-clad bimbos. LeChiffre should have had a harem full of them lounging around in his futuristic lair. Not that they would be necessary for the plot, mind you, but some of us aren't ready for REAL porno yet.

And this LeChiffre villain... why isn't he blackmailing the world with stolen nuclear weapons or a killer satellite or trying to start World War III?? Why doesn't he live in a space station or a volcano or a giant undersea mushroom or something like that? He doesn't even own an island!

Bond should never really fall in love. Didn't he learn that mistake in OHMSS? The Bond we know and love just acts like he's in love with the leading Bond girl so he can do her in a boat or a space capsule or under a parachute at the end of the movie. Then she is quickly forgotten before the next film begins.

The ending was all wrong. Everybody knows that a Bond movie climaxes with Bond blowing up the villain's fortess with Bond dragging his babe from the wreckage as balls of flame explode all around him. Didn't the screenwriters see the first 20 films??? Why should this one be any different? This film was way too unpredictable.

Worst of all... they changed the gun barrel sequence! I really wanted to see that same old gun barrel sequence I've seen 2100 times before (with the few slight changes over the years). This one was TOTALLY DIFFERENT! Oh well, at least we know they can't use it again in the next film! Maybe they'll have to come up with a different one in every film now. That'll teach 'em! Or they'll just go back to the same old one we're used to seeing over and over again when we see the old films on DVD or TV. That would be cool!

Yes, if you're a true Bond fan like me who hates the  Fleming novels and early Connery films (before they became more like self-satirical sci-fi Austin Powers comedies) you are really going to hate Casino Royale.

By all means, boycott it. You would only be wasting space in the theater anyway.

95

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

authorwriting wrote:

That wasn't a James Bond film - bloody terrible. Just a run of the mill action movie with none of the things that make 007 unique. Daniel Craig is totally miscast and I'll never see another Bond film with the actor in the role. Complete and utter rubbish


I won't say that it was terrible, but it just didn't feel like a James Bond movie.  The airport scene felt like I was watching a Die Hard movie. LeChiffre is a punk ass for a villian.  How are you going to be a villian/banker for terrorism and not have at least three 250 pound bodyguards around you at all times? And then let two dudes roll up in your hotel room and punk you. Daniel Craig can do the rough and tough stuff, but his acting is suspect. He reminds me of Hayden Christiansen as Anakin in Episode III.  They both can do the "dark" scenes, but when it comes down to nitty-gritty acting, they can't pull it off.  To me, a Bond girl has to be someone that I don't see on a daily basis.  Eva Green is average looking.  You can find better looking women at the local mall.  I believe that most people who have praised this film are caught up into the hype.  I was a little bit.  So I decided to watch it two more times to get a better understanding of it.  Craig needs to work on being more suave, smooth and sophisticated.  I don't like this Tranporter-type Bond.  The fighting and rough stuff is easy.  The acting and making the audience believe you're Bond.  He has to get rid of that Terminator-style running.  There's no natural look to his running scenes.  I don't expect him to run like Reggie Bush, but damn.  How can he be praised for being gritty and natural and his running looks rehearsed?  I will say thats its good to see a Bond in good shape.  I won't hate on this guy totally. I believe he needs one more film to get it right.

96

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Jermaine76 wrote:

He has to get rid of that Terminator-style running.  There's no natural look to his running scenes.  I don't expect him to run like Reggie Bush, but damn.  How can he be praised for being gritty and natural and his running looks rehearsed?


And I thought that I was the only one thinking he resembled Robert Patrick in his running scenes... ajb007/lol

Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"

Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -

97

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

Johnny Danger wrote:

I just saw CR for a second time. I gave it a great review the first time, but I changed my mind
ajb007/wink

ajb007/shifty Here's why:


This film was way too suspenseful. There should have been more comedy relief to ease the tension. For example, when Bond swerves the Aston Martin to avoid hitting Vesper, they should have showed the car spinning in slow motion as it crashed, with a Beach Boys song like "Good Vibrations" or "Fun Fun Fun" playing in the backgound.
Just to remind us that Bond is immortal and we needn't worry that he is ever actually in any danger. When Bond makes a joke, it should be a very obvious and bad one, delivered with raised brows and eye twinkles so we don't miss out on the fact that he's just joking.

This Bond is too tough and gritty. He bleeds and sweats and shows too much emotion. We should never worry that Bond would actually get hurt. He should be safely tucked away in the seat of a Q-equipped futuristic vehicle, wearing a clean white tux, calmly pushing buttons and destroying everything around him while delivering corny one-liners and checking the rear-view mirror to make sure his hair isn't getting messed up. Bond should never actually put any effort into getting the job done. That's why he has Q.

There weren't enough Q gizmos. If Bond had had his X-ray glasses, he could have read LeChiffre's poker hands straightaway and not have to borrow that extra cash from Felix Leiter. This would have made the film much shorter. If he had his magnetic wristwatch from LALD, he could have pulled that elevator out of the water with it.

There should have been at least one car chase with Bond driving something besides a car: like half a car, half a double-decker bus, a fortified mini-helicopter, a stolen jet, a gondola on wheels, a fire engine, a tank, a motorcycle, a boat that travels across land, a camel, an elephant, a lunar rover, a hovercraft, or something like that.

There weren't enough bikini-clad bimbos. LeChiffre should have had a harem full of them lounging around in his futuristic lair. Not that they would be necessary for the plot, mind you, but some of us aren't ready for REAL porno yet.

And this LeChiffre villain... why isn't he blackmailing the world with stolen nuclear weapons or a killer satellite or trying to start World War III?? Why doesn't he live in a space station or a volcano or a giant undersea mushroom or something like that? He doesn't even own an island!

Bond should never really fall in love. Didn't he learn that mistake in OHMSS? The Bond we know and love just acts like he's in love with the leading Bond girl so he can do her in a boat or a space capsule or under a parachute at the end of the movie. Then she is quickly forgotten before the next film begins.

The ending was all wrong. Everybody knows that a Bond movie climaxes with Bond blowing up the villain's fortess with Bond dragging his babe from the wreckage as balls of flame explode all around him. Didn't the screenwriters see the first 20 films??? Why should this one be any different? This film was way too unpredictable.

Worst of all... they changed the gun barrel sequence! I really wanted to see that same old gun barrel sequence I've seen 2100 times before (with the few slight changes over the years). This one was TOTALLY DIFFERENT! Oh well, at least we know they can't use it again in the next film! Maybe they'll have to come up with a different one in every film now. That'll teach 'em! Or they'll just go back to the same old one we're used to seeing over and over again when we see the old films on DVD or TV. That would be cool!

Yes, if you're a true Bond fan like me who hates the  Fleming novels and early Connery films (before they became more like self-satirical sci-fi Austin Powers comedies) you are really going to hate Casino Royale.

By all means, boycott it. You would only be wasting space in the theater anyway.

ajb007/lol ajb007/lol ajb007/lol ajb007/lol ajb007/lol
Great sarcasm is THE most underappreciated art form.

WE HAVE A WINNER!  I deem this the funniest post I have ever read on AJB, displacing a similar post that Napoleon Plural wrote on Dr. No way back in 2003 (yes, I remember these things).  I am literally wiping tears off my face as I type.

Rescuing the elevator with the LALD watch! ajb007/lol

Thank you Johnny!! ajb007/cheers

Hilly...you old devil!

98

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

ajb007/cheers CLASSIC review, Johnny!!! You've hit on everything that is wrong with CR, except one thing: what about M, Johnny? Why was Judi Dench playing M instead of Bernard Lee? He died, but it wasn't until after Moonraker ... But since CR is a prequel, why didn't he play M? ... I don't get it ... It doesn't make any sense. I'm getting dizzy ... My head is going to explode ... help me ...

99

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

benskelly wrote:

  I mean, clearly, that nightclub bouncer guy with marbles in his mouth and the dead eyes is Fleming's vision, born to play the part. 

Hey, this sarcasm thing is fun...

Sarcasm is only fun if what you are saying defines the exact opposite of what the truth is. You have just stated the obvious truth right there. Craig was born to play the part......:007)

100

Re: Casino Royale Reviews

I just watched it and was bloody briliant. It's great that 007 is "down to earth" again. No greater than life superhero, just a secret agent who' s doing his job like a coldhearted professional. And a range of emotions that Bond express, while keeping his professional edge is brightest point of movie. And this movie have it a lot..