 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I finally saw the film, and I found it totally mediocre.
Any opinions on the film?
What kind of reviews did it receive?
Even the score was nothing special, I liked Arnold's 90s Bond scores better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 15, 2012 - 11:12 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
quiller007
(Member)
|
I hate every bit of it. I thought the whole idea of the "reboot" and
Bond's "first mission" was a huge mistake and the dumbest thing
EON ever came up with. I don't like Daniel Craig's version of Bond.
This guy just doesn't look, act or seem like James Bond, at all, imo.
If I want to see an ugly, gritty, realistic thriller I'll watch TAXI DRIVER.
I don't like the whole introspective characterization of this Bond.
I don't like the entire revisionist direction this series has taken
starting with this film. I don't like the music, especially the main title
song. I don't like Judi Dench's M and the increasing expansion of
her role - although to be fair this all started with the Brosnan films.
I'm not a Fleming purist at all. I've read all the books and they're
fine - as books. It's funny how fans of the current era of Bond keep
claiming how faithful the Craig films are to Fleming, when there was
just as much bogus material added to CASINO ROYALE,
and changes made from the transfer of the book to the screen,
as any of the films from the 60's or 70's. On a scale from 1 to 10,
this one gets a big fat ZERO!
Btw, I LOVE the 1967 CASINO ROYALE = 10 / 10 (or 4 stars!)
At least CASINO ROYALE '67 is a FUN and chic movie, aspects
that are completely absent from version 2006.
Den
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 15, 2012 - 11:14 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
I have never been able to understand the adulation this film recieved at the time of release or subsequently.
Taking the film in isolationrather than part of a franchise, I quite like it, although I don't find it especially well paced. But frankly you cannot judge it as a stand alone movie because it is a James Bond film. And - whilst I fully accept I am in a minority, both on FSM and generally it seems - I really just think it doesn't work at all.
Firstly, and probably most importantly, I find the action to be lacking. Things get off to a cracking start with all that parkour stuff in Madacasgar and the scene at Miami airport is terrific too. But other than that, the action - what little there is - is just very average indeed. And the climax in Venice, which is neither tense nor thrilling, just seems particulalrly tacked on.
My other big issue with the film - and again this is just (obviously) my own view - is that I have no interest in watching an introspective, morose, vulnerable hero. There are plenty of those around in better made films, with better acting. Bond to me (the cinematic version that is) should be larger than life, able to beat the bad guy against all odds. I have no interest in watching him have his goolies tortured but particulalrly when circumstances, rather than Bond's own action, guile or gadget, conspire to save him.
I detest that the film is almost entirely devoid of humour. Even Dalton's movies managed to have some light hearted moments, but I've seen Casino Royale three times now and the only thing I found funny was Bond joking with Vesper about the alias she had been given. That one quip aside, the film is just too serious in tone and, worse, takes itself too seriously as well.
I won't go on about how much I dislike Daniel Craig in the role as I appreciate many people here are fed up hearing about it. But I do think he is a terrible Bond.
There are elements of the movie I like. Arnold's score is pretty good and Chris Cornell's song is the first Bond theme I've loved since The World Is Not Enough. And Judi Dench is terririfc as always. But thats about it unfortunately.
I think the thing that pisses me off most about Casino Royale though, is the fact that the producers seem to be so desperately intent in eschewing all the other elements of the series. Honestly, apart from the closing scene, it just doesn't look like a Bond film at all. And that brings me back to where I started this commentary - as a stand-alone movie Casino Royale isn't a bad movie, but no matter how hard it tries to distance itself from all the previous 007 movies, Casino Royale IS a James Bond film and on that basis I just don't think it works at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me be the first on this thread to give CR a solid double thumbs-up. I did not care for the Pierce Brosnan Bond era. GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough were just passable as OK Bond movies. Die Another Day was the pits. After seeing it, I thought - "well, 40 years is a damned good run for a movie franchise. Too bad it's dead now."
Casino Royale (2006) won me over completely. I hadn't been this excited and thrilled by a new Bond film for 25 years. What I immediately noticed was that it has a real glamor - an intoxicating view of far-away lands filled with intrigue and beauty. Something Bond movies had been lacking for a long time. Yes, Bond always globe-hops, but it had all gotten so bland for many of the films before this.
The action is wild without being too cartoonish. Bond's chase of the free-runner is complete euphoria. His attempt to stop the airport bombing is properly nail-biting. His torture at the hands of Le Chiffre conveys both excruciating pain and "ballsy" gallows humor. The sequence of the collapsing building in Venice is compelling due to there being an actual emotional element because of Vesper. And so on and so forth.
What can I say about Eva Green's Vesper Lynd without sounding like a basket case? She is the ultimate Bond girl. Beautiful, alluring, sexy, vulnerable, possessing a dry wit and a fragile heart. A femme fatale who really isn't a femme fatale. All "Bond girls" before and since her pale by comparison.
I think Daniel Craig is splendid in this movie. I like this rough-edged, bull-in-a-china-shop rebooted Bond. He is "funny-looking" and dashing all at once. Powerful and tough, while also sometimes seeming unsure and easily beaten. Too emotional, then later an attempt to appear too detached. Very fun seeing this Bond earn his 00 status, get into a tux for the first time, obtain a 1964 Aston Martin, ask for a vod martini and not caring if it's shaken and stirred, etc.
Everything else is perfection or close to it. This is probably David Arnold's finest Bond score. It's on the level of the finest John Barry, but it's still pure Arnold. The title song he wrote with its singer Chris Cornell is very catchy and driven. The locales, as I've mentioned, and the cinematography is quite stunning. The entire cast is terrific. I love Jeffrey Wright's Felix, and the two Danish actors who play the main villains have the requisite charm and menace. Great teaser and tag scenes as well. The b&w prologue is a swift little intro to this new Bond - immediately showing how he becomes 007. The last line of CR, with Craig finally intoning the familiar, "Bond, James Bond" inspired cheers and applause in the theatre when I first saw it.
Unfortunately, the following Quantum of Solace was a comedown. I like a number of things about it, but it really loses the momentum begun by CR. I hope Skyfall recaptures some of the qualities I've discussed above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 15, 2012 - 11:58 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MusicMad
(Member)
|
I enjoyed Casino Royale (06) immensely, when compared with the previous film Die Another Die, despite not being in favour of the re-boot idea. But as I watched the film a second and third time and thought about it I realised that for all its good elements it fails to deliver in so many other ways and critically, for me, the story does not work.
At the time I thought that its sequel Quantum of Solace would provide the answers but that film failed to do so (along with failing in other respects, too) and I now view the film(s) as telling a story in whicb we viewers see only isolated events and we're meant to draw the (story-) lines together ourselves ...
Forum responses have suggested that I do not understand the story (and the general response on, say, IMDb is that if you can't follow what's going on you're dumb or not watching). Such respondents do, of necessity - of course - fail to provide logical answers to the queries.
Pinching my comments from another forum, I have commented as follows (pre Quantum of Solace):
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed (and still do) CR06 very much. After the decade of PB films (which are entertaining but definitely below par, IMHO), it came as a nice clean approach. That said, I wasn't too taken with the re-birth idea but it's happened so I'll live with it.
My big problem with CR06 though, and I've been on about this before but have yet to get a totally satisfactory answer is:
at what point in the storyline does Vesper become a rogue (I'm reluctant to use the words traitor or villain)?
As I see it there could be three points:
1. before she meets 007 on the train
2. sometime during the poker game but say, before 007 loses
3. at the torture sequence
... or maybe a fourth: sometime afterwards but I reject this idea.
None of the time windows seems to fit for me.
Also, for whom is she "working"? i.e. it is surely Mr. White but is it also Le Chiffre - or was he not aware of her duplicity (even her role re: the money)?
I hope that QofS will provide the answers but, regretfully, doubt it.
As a result, given the film is not perfectly self-contained, I cannot rate it as highly as other forum members do. I don't think these issues were left open so that we are longing for the next movie so as to get the answers. Rather, I think it's due to a script which underwent numerous changes and finally the writers could not see the "wood for the trees".
And in response to some feedback:
Sorry, ---, but:
"I think its intriguing that you're not quite sure when Vesper was turned,even with repeat viewings,and it stands to the overall quality of the script and acting!"
doesn't gel with me - I'm more inclined to think that they couldn't get the script to work properly. I note that you do not comment on the second aspect: just who is Vesper acting for - Mr. White or Mr. White & Le Chiffre?
I keep intending to re-read the novel to see how these aspects are dealt with therein ... maybe that will shine the light I need.
And then:
Certainly Mr. White, ---, no question about that.
But was Le Chiffre in on it too? i.e. did he know he had an ally in Vesper? I can't see this being so because she could have been so easily killed in the car sequence and surely he would not have wanted to annoy Mr. White by causing her death.
But if he did not know she was working for Mr. White how did he get the info on 007 (e.g. the Tell)? If Mr. White's men were "on the scene" at the time of the card game why did they allow the Africans to attack Le Chiffre?
No matter how I permutate it, the story doesn't hold up and whilst I think there is a route through this maze I do believe the story should have been more clear-cut for the viewer.
When you look at a film like MR which is played for laughs it does not matter when there are story inconsistencies (such as Jaws' survival record) but when it is a serious storyline then I feel cheated with such gaps in the storyline.
With a few other gripes, too, this means the film - despite being far more entertaining than PB's 4 films - misses out on the "Classic" heading which I'd reserve for the very best of the series.
And continued:
So where does CR(06) sit [in my listing of JB007 films]? Well, clearly not in the top 6 but certainly not in the bottom 6 either. Probably about half-way but as with most of them it will vary dependent upon mood at the time.
Yes, each of the [films have] faults but the overall feeling is one of a succesful film. CR(06) didn't quite reach that point for me.
Overall, CR(06) is a good story - subject to (or perhaps despite) - the queries I have about the storyline but it is far from perfect. Whilst I like DC in the role - far better than PB - he isn't as good as TD (IMHO) but that may be down to the material. I'm willing to believe he will continue to improve with better material (as good as TD? ... perhaps not) but readily acknowledge it was a good start.
I liked a lot of the supporting cast but felt that the backroom staff - not readily identified - were very much bit players. Okay, without Miss Moneypenny or Q it was not going to be easy to bring people to the fore but M's aide and the doctor(s) were very much 2nd rate. Just think of Michael Kitchen as Bill Tanner - superb - in two of the PB films; similarly Colin Salmon in three of the films. Felix Leiter has had a mixed run throughout - in this he was completely wasted.
I didn't like the start: when the filmmakers rely on gimickry I always feel they're hiding something. A classic 007 movie doesn't need the b&w, on-off photography - would the scene have worked had it been filmed in a normal manner? As mentioned in another thread, LTK has, for me, one of the best PCSs but I dislike the slo-mo bits therein as they were not necessary.
Action scenes: I felt the airport sequence was very much Die Hard material. I was not in favour of PB running around with a machine gun shooting everyone but I hope this is not the replacement material we will get film after film. The end sequence was very confusing (but so much better than DAD's final action sequence) but that was probably due to ill-defined bad guys.
Music: better than DAD but still wanting - I hope David Arnold comes up with something a bit more melodic for QofS.
But back to your question as to why I can't call it "A Classic" - simply because it was so different from the previous 007s that it's not easy to compare it with them. And I hope we don't seek to call it "A Classic" in future because that will mean the forthcoming 007 films are not so good!
Re: backroom staff - I'm not too bothered about Moneypenny and/or Q - both overrated (mainly by the Press) in my view. But there does need to be somebody supporting M in what is basically a labour intensive Civil Service. The role of Tanner played by Michael Kitchen in two of PB's films was very small but very noticeable - similarly Colin Salmon. The only way I remember their CR(06) equivalents is because one of the actors appeared in a (then) recent episode of New Tricks!
For anyone still reading ( ) ... of course, as we know now, Vesper was under the control of the baddies from the start (seeking to transcribe this from the novel) but it could still be that she was not approached to change sides until later ... e.g. points 2 or 3 as referred to above. Whichever it is it doesn't work.
And I haven't even mentioned what happens to the money once the Banker has visited Bond and Vesper.
And: given Bond's mission was to (a) bring Le Chiffre in and (b) win the game ... by which we must assume, not lose the money ... he fails miserably. 
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 15, 2012 - 12:35 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
quiller007
(Member)
|
It's set in 2006 because Casino Royale is, in affect, creating it's own continuity unrelated to the previous films. (Think of it as essentially a brand new series.)
And there was absolutely no good reason for this. They could have just continued
on with the same type of Bond they are doing now (with Craig) instead of having
it be his first mission. Although the movie would still have sucked.
This is just Broccoli and Wilson's way of completely kissing off the first 20 films,
disrepecting older, loyal fans of the series, AND asking them to forget that those
first 20 films ever happened in the first place. Stupid move!
And if you're going to reboot Bond and have him get his start in a contemporary setting, I see no better way to do it than by starting with his first Double-0 mission.
If they were going to make a prequel and reboot the whole thing and have this
be Bond's first mission, then the only logical way to do it would have been to
set the film in 1960. And why can't they make a period film anyway?
Please don't say that it wouldn't work nowadays, because it would.
EON is just catering to today's generation - the young kids who play
video games all day, and weren't even born until after the Dalton films.
Den
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would rate it number 1 in regards to the Bond films I've seen previously.
I was never that big a fan of Bond, I found them to be tawdry comedies, in the main.
I tired of the formula once the film makers repeated it with EVERY film.
What he said.
Loved this movie. Loved it. Daniel Craig: awesome. Starting from scratch: great idea. Music: among Arnold's best work. Extremely exciting and even the card game sequences were interesting and well done. This was the best Bond movie I'd seen in a long time. Even the song was excellent and Bond songs after the 70's began generally make me laugh or bore me to tears.
As a fan of the Bond films, I welcomed this reboot because the series was following the same pattern it always did: start serious, get too wrapped up in topping the last film, get way too big and have to backpedal because the fantasy elements and jokes got out of control. Fans seem to act like the previous 20 films were all unimpeachable, fantastic movies - the best the cinema ever produced. Actually, like any long running series, they were a mixture of good, great and fricking awful. Most of the Moore years were utterly painful and I was thrilled to see them cast off the continuity and start fresh. Do people really go to a Bond movie to see Moneypenny and Q? They needed a break so when they get reintroduced, they will be fresher.
I consider a lot of the complaints about missing characters and the timeline to be non-issues. Updates keep the character fresh. How do you explain Bond's age when they went from Moore to Dalton and then to Brosnan? Neither of the latter two were old enough to be veteran agents in 1963. Once Moore left, the timeline was moved up by necessity. Nobody complained then. Rooting Bond forever in the 60's dates him. Keeping him current makes him timeless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love the classic Bond movie era (roughly the first 20 years of the franchise.) Bernard Lee as M in the wood-panelled office, Lois Maxwell as Moneypenny, Desmond Llewellyn as Q, John Barry music, cold war shenanigans, straighforward adventure without an overpowering load of psychological backstory, and so on. I saw this begin to change in the 1980s, and then it was completely gone by the Brosnan era. I was ready to quit being a "Bondhead" until the 2006 Casino Royale renewed my faith.
The older style of Bond, as much as I love it and hate to see it gone, can not realistically be brought back and maintained. The next best thing is to have new Bonds that are wonderful adventure movies (as opposed to action, which is what the Brosnan films became.) Casino Royale is a brilliant start for a new era. Quantum of Solace is a disappointment though. I'm eagerly awaiting to see Skyfall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, those of ya who want the same old cookie cutter Bond flicks where nothing ever changes except the actors can enjoy them on video. I'll look forward to each new film to see what surprises they have in store. At least I have something to look forward to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
!!!! Sorry, but no. Judi Dench is a fine actress, but I really HATE
