Daniel Craig rightfully won many over with his portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale. There are still detractors. Some remain vocal, others are biding their time until his tenure is over before speaking up again. It will be interesting to see how Craig is generally viewed once his successor becomes established (assuming he does).
As for Casino Royale, very few criticisms that I can think of right now. The defibrillator scene, Bond's instant recovery, then winning the poker game literally within the hour is all a bit silly. Not too keen on Obanno's death at the bottom of the stairs. His legs flailing with the life being choked out of him, I find that uncomfortable viewing.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,777MI6 Agent
The story feels like a modern Fleming. Dame Judi is on finr form as an established M. The Bond women are brilliant, Caroline Munro - if you haven't seen her in St Trinnians do! Eva Greene is wonderful as Vesper. The music, effects, locations, action sequences, storyline weaves well, classic truly Bondian Baddies, that car (I mean both of them) and a card game taking centre stage in the story. A lead actor who made me happy to eat my words and say - I was wrong. Brilliant casting all round, but Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond.
The film is not perfect - I agree on the Defibrillator / back at the table aspect, and we don't see the consequences of the lost money. If I was really picky, I'd ask for a longer chase sequence with the DBS too. But these are small fry elements in an otherwise great film. Def my favorite Bond film of the lot, and I love the series as a whole.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
Daniel Craig rightfully won many over with his portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale. There are still detractors. Some remain vocal, others are biding their time until his tenure is over before speaking up again. It will be interesting to see how Craig is generally viewed once his successor becomes established (assuming he does).
.
To be honest I think his successor could be in trouble. He's too well established. The Craig Bonds are events.
Yet to find any problem with CR06. The romance is done perfectly.
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
To be honest I think his successor could be in trouble. He's too well established. The Craig Bonds are events.
Bah, the new kid will be hailed as the really actual best since Connery, Craig will suffer the slings & arrows of "he was stoic & brutish", Brosnan will be forgiven as Dan takes heat... it has happened before & it will happen again... 8-)
To be honest I think his successor could be in trouble. He's too well established. The Craig Bonds are events.
Bah, the new kid will be hailed as the really actual best since Connery, Craig will suffer the slings & arrows of "he was stoic & brutish", Brosnan will be forgiven as Dan takes heat... it has happened before & it will happen again... 8-)
What he said. They managed to replace Connery (ok, it took two tries but they did), they can replace Craig who is nowhere near as established as SC was.
A rookie 53 year old Bond that you've been seeing for a decade! great idea! now, that would have been casting against type.
If CR had been made with Brosnan, Bond wouldn't have been a rookie. The script wouldn't have been tailored that way- there's nothing in Fleming's novel suggesting that this is Bond's first assignment as 007.
Parts of the only complaints I hear on this movie is people finding the "I have no armor left.. you stripped it from me" line to much... Even that didn't bother me personally though. Great movie!!
If CR had been made with Brosnan, Bond wouldn't have been a rookie. The script wouldn't have been tailored that way- there's nothing in Fleming's novel suggesting that this is Bond's first assignment as 007.
Yes! The script as-is was tailored as a break-in mission for Craig, a Brosnan version could have been fashioned as late era mission. And has been done numerous times before, fiddled with to add or delete certain elements to fit his stage in the double-oh's.
A rookie 53 year old Bond that you've been seeing for a decade! great idea! now, that would have been casting against type.
If CR had been made with Brosnan, Bond wouldn't have been a rookie. The script wouldn't have been tailored that way- there's nothing in Fleming's novel suggesting that this is Bond's first assignment as 007.
Well...of course. You can do anything. The fact that Vesper Lynd came first and Tracy Bond later can be tailored. Rewritting Fleming is not new. Only thank God it didn't turn out that way. We would be discussing how come Bond was saved from torture by a UFO. Surely they would have found somewhere sillier to go after DAD.
Me neither.
It's part of the Bond cycle: an OTT movie with little Fleming content (YOLT, MR, DAD) is followed by a fairly faithful Fleming film (OHMSS, FYEO, CR).
I never thought I would read CR and criticisms in the same phrase! I just love every one of the 144 minutes, I wouldn't cut anything, I wouldn't change anything. I remember I had a working mate who was also a Bond fan. We went to see it separately that weekend. On monday, we didn't even have to speak. We just knew it had been special for both of us by our smiling faces. A modern classic.
If Bond was more over the top with his love for Vesper it would have beeN out of character. He shows his love in more subtle ways. For example when he sits in the shower with Vesper and puts his arm around her.
The word criticism is so harsh.
There's loads of stuff I'd alter about CR, not because I think it's bad in any way, but simply because I don't get very excited chases which go on for more than about 4 minutes. One of the beautiful things about the early Bond films was their brevity. When they got bloated they often failed to be tense [OHMSS excepted].
CR sadly suffers from similar problems.
1. I'd cut out the Miami chase scenes. It's like '007 does Die Hard' and offers us nothing new about this reboot Bond we haven't learned in the first two action sequences. I know it is crucial to Le Chiffre's downfall, but I think the novel (which the movie follows very faithfully in the main) merely suggested he'd got fingered by the French police and subsequently lost Soviet money when his brothels got shut down. Of course this would be too simple, too serendipitous, for a modern audience who expect their cinematic heroes to influence every aspect of the plot, but given how much money people lose on the stock market, couldn't Le Chiffre simply have been party to poor investments? Again in the novel M merely wants to embarrass him, force him into a tight corner; the movie seems to be demanding something bigger all round. Thing is, as long as Le Chiffre loses the cash, the Miami scenes don't effect the outcome of the story in the slightest.
2. The heart attack thingy dissipates all the tension from the poker game. Oh it shouldn't be poker, it must be chemmy.
3. The closing romantic scenes are too long winded. The film has climaxed once already and we are virtually dragged towards the Venice conclusion.
4. Mathis being arrested was a dumb note which should never have happened. The producers realised this and tried desperately to correct the mistake in QOS but the damage was done.
The word criticism is so harsh.
There's loads of stuff I'd alter about CR, not because I think it's bad in any way, but simply because I don't get very excited chases which go on for more than about 4 minutes. One of the beautiful things about the early Bond films was their brevity. When they got bloated they often failed to be tense [OHMSS excepted].
CR sadly suffers from similar problems.
1. I'd cut out the Miami chase scenes. It's like '007 does Die Hard' and offers us nothing new about this reboot Bond we haven't learned in the first two action sequences. I know it is crucial to Le Chiffre's downfall, but I think the novel (which the movie follows very faithfully in the main) merely suggested he'd got fingered by the French police and subsequently lost Soviet money when his brothels got shut down. Of course this would be too simple, too serendipitous, for a modern audience who expect their cinematic heroes to influence every aspect of the plot, but given how much money people lose on the stock market, couldn't Le Chiffre simply have been party to poor investments? Again in the novel M merely wants to embarrass him, force him into a tight corner; the movie seems to be demanding something bigger all round. Thing is, as long as Le Chiffre loses the cash, the Miami scenes don't effect the outcome of the story in the slightest.
2. The heart attack thingy dissipates all the tension from the poker game. Oh it shouldn't be poker, it must be chemmy.
3. The closing romantic scenes are too long winded. The film has climaxed once already and we are virtually dragged towards the Venice conclusion.
4. Mathis being arrested was a dumb note which should never have happened. The producers realised this and tried desperately to correct the mistake in QOS but the damage was done.
4. Don't remember this part too well. What's bad about and how'd they try to correct it?
couldn't Le Chiffre simply have been party to poor investments?
I understand you're suggesting that the first part of CR should be like Bloomberg. Or would you just let it be known that Le Chiffre had lost money in the stock market, probably M briefing Bond as in the book? The problem is how to fill the first hour of screen time. I think the story that Fleming tells in the book is brilliantly developed in the CR script. In fact, it's one of the best things about CR, that plot device that enhances the CR novel and the Bond character.
I tried watching it again when it was on telly last week as it is a good looking film but I can't get on with it. Craig is an unappealing guy in this, the caveat I suppose being that he is on a learning curve and that he is, as one put it, autistic and so on. But that doesn't quite mean I have to like him. Even then, it's like they don't quite play up his transformation at the end, and I don't like the way M witters on about the bigger picture, it seems simplistic. All that stuff about his 'ego' we've heard before with Brosnan in GE. It might even be better if she cited his 'balls' like he's got the cojones but does he have any discernment - a similar charge was levelled against Lazenby by Broccoli after he quite the role. This would make better sense seeing as Bond's balls get put through the masher at the end.
Generally, I just don't like the plot of CR too much, and there is a lot of good stuff from the novel that doesn't make it to screen.
couldn't Le Chiffre simply have been party to poor investments?
I understand you're suggesting that the first part of CR should be like Bloomberg. Or would you just let it be known that Le Chiffre had lost money in the stock market, probably M briefing Bond as in the book? The problem is how to fill the first hour of screen time. I think the story that Fleming tells in the book is brilliantly developed in the CR script. In fact, it's one of the best things about CR, that plot device that enhances the CR novel and the Bond character.
It's a while since I've seen the film, but I think a lot of the first hour is taken up with the PTS, the free running stuff, M meets 007, and the intro to the villains. I'm not even suggesting Bond can't visit the Bahamas or where ever it is he goes, after all that's where his lead is. I just feel the terrorist incident angle is a bit short sighted of the film makers. It's an easy action led option. We had these a lot in Brosnan's era. I feel it does detract from what is an excellent representation of the novel as this section is one of the few where the movie severely veers away from the source prose.
I was wondering if everyone had seen this, and if so, what you think about it?
Of course these (intentionally sarcastic) clips can be made about almost every movie, even the very best ones. But for me, who could, against my best intentions, never quite enjoy Skyfall because of its obvious plot holes, it got me thinking.
Is there a convincing reason why Le Chiffre had to lose the poker game in order to be arrested? I know Mi6 wanted to uncover his contacts, but they could've interrogated or made him a chief witness all the same before? And that's already overlooking the fact that they risk everything on a 00-agent beating a "mathematical genius and chess prodigy" at poker (which, to be fair, is part of the novel).
Edit: Yes, I know, no poker in the novel!
Would like to hear your thoughts. -{
"I'm afraid I'm a complicated woman. "
"- That is something to be afraid of."
Not arrested ,turned , so the pressure had to be on him with not only the threat from MI6 and CIA but an even bigger threat from his "friends", and it works in real life
Yes, but still I don't understand why his predicament would've been much worse after not winning the tournament. The money of his clients was already lost and he was only trying to recover it. Granted, the movie tells the story well and this didn't bother me on my first ~10 viewings. But on closer look, I no longer understand it.
"I'm afraid I'm a complicated woman. "
"- That is something to be afraid of."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,562Chief of Staff
Not arrested ,turned , so the pressure had to be on him with not only the threat from MI6 and CIA but an even bigger threat from his "friends", and it works in real life
That's your answer right there ! Clear enough I'd have thought -{
Not arrested ,turned , so the pressure had to be on him with not only the threat from MI6 and CIA but an even bigger threat from his "friends", and it works in real life
That's your answer right there ! Clear enough I'd have thought -{
What did you not like about the film? What scenes/characters do you think were unnecessary to its 144 min running time?
Everything wrong with CR was fixed in QoS.
Everything right about CR was taken directly from the Fleming novel.
I agree that the good things about CR were the parts taken from the novel. But how did QoS fix CR's problems? Like CR, it still had boring action sequences.
Comments
Daniel Craig rightfully won many over with his portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale. There are still detractors. Some remain vocal, others are biding their time until his tenure is over before speaking up again. It will be interesting to see how Craig is generally viewed once his successor becomes established (assuming he does).
As for Casino Royale, very few criticisms that I can think of right now. The defibrillator scene, Bond's instant recovery, then winning the poker game literally within the hour is all a bit silly. Not too keen on Obanno's death at the bottom of the stairs. His legs flailing with the life being choked out of him, I find that uncomfortable viewing.
Unequivocally, inarguably, definitively completely coherently concurringly undeniably - Thunderbird TOO!!
The story feels like a modern Fleming. Dame Judi is on finr form as an established M. The Bond women are brilliant, Caroline Munro - if you haven't seen her in St Trinnians do! Eva Greene is wonderful as Vesper. The music, effects, locations, action sequences, storyline weaves well, classic truly Bondian Baddies, that car (I mean both of them) and a card game taking centre stage in the story. A lead actor who made me happy to eat my words and say - I was wrong. Brilliant casting all round, but Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond.
The film is not perfect - I agree on the Defibrillator / back at the table aspect, and we don't see the consequences of the lost money. If I was really picky, I'd ask for a longer chase sequence with the DBS too. But these are small fry elements in an otherwise great film. Def my favorite Bond film of the lot, and I love the series as a whole.
To be honest I think his successor could be in trouble. He's too well established. The Craig Bonds are events.
Yet to find any problem with CR06. The romance is done perfectly.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
What he said. They managed to replace Connery (ok, it took two tries but they did), they can replace Craig who is nowhere near as established as SC was.
If CR had been made with Brosnan, Bond wouldn't have been a rookie. The script wouldn't have been tailored that way- there's nothing in Fleming's novel suggesting that this is Bond's first assignment as 007.
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Well...of course. You can do anything. The fact that Vesper Lynd came first and Tracy Bond later can be tailored. Rewritting Fleming is not new. Only thank God it didn't turn out that way. We would be discussing how come Bond was saved from torture by a UFO. Surely they would have found somewhere sillier to go after DAD.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
It's part of the Bond cycle: an OTT movie with little Fleming content (YOLT, MR, DAD) is followed by a fairly faithful Fleming film (OHMSS, FYEO, CR).
I absolutely agree with you! -{
There's loads of stuff I'd alter about CR, not because I think it's bad in any way, but simply because I don't get very excited chases which go on for more than about 4 minutes. One of the beautiful things about the early Bond films was their brevity. When they got bloated they often failed to be tense [OHMSS excepted].
CR sadly suffers from similar problems.
1. I'd cut out the Miami chase scenes. It's like '007 does Die Hard' and offers us nothing new about this reboot Bond we haven't learned in the first two action sequences. I know it is crucial to Le Chiffre's downfall, but I think the novel (which the movie follows very faithfully in the main) merely suggested he'd got fingered by the French police and subsequently lost Soviet money when his brothels got shut down. Of course this would be too simple, too serendipitous, for a modern audience who expect their cinematic heroes to influence every aspect of the plot, but given how much money people lose on the stock market, couldn't Le Chiffre simply have been party to poor investments? Again in the novel M merely wants to embarrass him, force him into a tight corner; the movie seems to be demanding something bigger all round. Thing is, as long as Le Chiffre loses the cash, the Miami scenes don't effect the outcome of the story in the slightest.
2. The heart attack thingy dissipates all the tension from the poker game. Oh it shouldn't be poker, it must be chemmy.
3. The closing romantic scenes are too long winded. The film has climaxed once already and we are virtually dragged towards the Venice conclusion.
4. Mathis being arrested was a dumb note which should never have happened. The producers realised this and tried desperately to correct the mistake in QOS but the damage was done.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
4. Don't remember this part too well. What's bad about and how'd they try to correct it?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I understand you're suggesting that the first part of CR should be like Bloomberg. Or would you just let it be known that Le Chiffre had lost money in the stock market, probably M briefing Bond as in the book? The problem is how to fill the first hour of screen time. I think the story that Fleming tells in the book is brilliantly developed in the CR script. In fact, it's one of the best things about CR, that plot device that enhances the CR novel and the Bond character.
Generally, I just don't like the plot of CR too much, and there is a lot of good stuff from the novel that doesn't make it to screen.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It's a while since I've seen the film, but I think a lot of the first hour is taken up with the PTS, the free running stuff, M meets 007, and the intro to the villains. I'm not even suggesting Bond can't visit the Bahamas or where ever it is he goes, after all that's where his lead is. I just feel the terrorist incident angle is a bit short sighted of the film makers. It's an easy action led option. We had these a lot in Brosnan's era. I feel it does detract from what is an excellent representation of the novel as this section is one of the few where the movie severely veers away from the source prose.
I was wondering if everyone had seen this, and if so, what you think about it?
Of course these (intentionally sarcastic) clips can be made about almost every movie, even the very best ones. But for me, who could, against my best intentions, never quite enjoy Skyfall because of its obvious plot holes, it got me thinking.
Is there a convincing reason why Le Chiffre had to lose the poker game in order to be arrested? I know Mi6 wanted to uncover his contacts, but they could've interrogated or made him a chief witness all the same before? And that's already overlooking the fact that they risk everything on a 00-agent beating a "mathematical genius and chess prodigy" at poker (which, to be fair, is part of the novel).
Edit: Yes, I know, no poker in the novel!
Would like to hear your thoughts. -{
"- That is something to be afraid of."
Live, he'd have to cooperate with MI6 ?
"- That is something to be afraid of."
That's your answer right there ! Clear enough I'd have thought -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Everything wrong with CR was fixed in QoS.
Everything right about CR was taken directly from the Fleming novel.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
"- That is something to be afraid of."
I agree that the good things about CR were the parts taken from the novel. But how did QoS fix CR's problems? Like CR, it still had boring action sequences.