Casino Royale Reviews (Page 17 of 18)

I think it does indeed come down to the writing. I do like my Bonds to have all the traditional fillings but obviously I want the quality to be at a high level. One thing that has annoyed me in recent years is that M and Moneypenny have both had their roles dramatically increased. Moneypenny had that whole VR fantasy sequence in CR, while M, well, M became Judy Dench. I would therefore argue that the reason why some people seem to dislike the 'formula' is that in recent years (such as DAD) we have had so much of it. In fact, it's worth pointing out that in CR M propably appeared more than M did in the first four films put together.

My point is that I think one can have the cake and eat it too. One can have M & Moneypenny & Q, and still keep the film fresh and sharp. It's subjective of course, but IMO the Connery/Moore films are evidence of this. (Even the Brosnan films IMO procided superb moments involving these three characters although I think that M was radically overused.) Regardless of what one thinks about M, Q & Moneypenny, if they never existed, HH would have less grounds on which to mock other Bond fans; and we certainly wouldn't want that.

One more thing; NP, it is true that the Moneypenny and the M of recent years are different to those in the past, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate them. To me, M and Moneypenny are almost as essential a feature of the Bond films as Bond himself. The same goes for Q. I love these characters so much and IMO they are so important that I honestly won't be able to think of the future films as (IMO) 'proper' Bond films witout them. It would be like having a Thanksgiving meal (or Sabbath meal for Jews) with turkey or chicken, only the turkey or chicken is vegetarian.

Last edited by Dan Same (13th Jan 2008 09:24)

Casino Royale: A Good Film. But is it a good Bond film?

After watching this film three times in the theaters, I finally watched it again a few days ago. Following a review of the entire series as well as this film itself in the past 7 weeks, I now have a final opinion on Casino Royale.

This was a very well made motion picture. However, I do not feel that this was a well made Bond film. I will explain why this film was a cleverly conceived idea that was executed improperly.

Before I review to the film, I want to state that I believe the literary Bond and the cinematic Bond are two different things. I think that is fairly obvious considering it has been going on for 46 years. Don't try to tell me some of the early ones were similar to the book. Sure some were more serious, darker, and played like true spy thrillers, but none of them had torture or men getting drowned in a bathroom sinks or choked to death while struggling like an animal. I believe the cinematic Bond should resemble the literary Bond in looks, background, and behavior. Whether you like it or not, the cinematic Bond is the most popular. Basing him on the literary Bond is fine, but I do not think that even Fleming himself expected or wanted some of the "grittiness" (if you must call it that) of his books to be adapted to the screen. Keyword: ADAPTATION. 

First, no proper gunbarrel. I do not care if this was "007's first mission". The gunbarrel is required to make it a good Bond film. If Cubby, and most certainly "Mo" Binder, had been alive today, there would have been a proper gunbarrel. I did not like how Daniel Craig killed the man in a bathroom that looked like a place where Larry Craig should be soliciting sex. I can't believe I just thought of that coincidence.

I will say this film had Danny Kleinman's first good credits sequence since Goldeneye. His last three were terrible. This one still had a flaw: no dancing women. Another 007 tradition broken.

If the producers want to ground 007 in reality and move away from OTT and unrealistic stunts and action sequences, why did they have a Bond on EPO chasing who was apparently a world-class track runner who may or may not have been fathered by Spider-Man?

Judi Dench's M in this film seemed to only be there for comic relief. Sure Bernard Lee has a few humorous moments with Sean and Roger, but those was sophisticated humor, not "How could 007 be so stupid?". How many times are we going to hear M insult Bond's judgment? Oh, what the hell is up with the line "Utter one more word and I'll have you killed?". What??? I was not aware the UK was a military dictatorship who could kill their employees on a whim. Cheap comic relief.

Kudos to whoever cast Caterina Munro as Solange. The sexiest Bond girl for me since Kristina Wayborn as Magda. Although Denise Richards was pretty nice, too, even though her character wasn't much. Too bad they killed off Munro too soon. I found Eva Green to be an average Bond girl. Not too bad. I still felt her and Craig had no chemistry and their being almost the same height hurts Bond's screen presence if you ask me.   

Mads Mikkelsen portrays a decent villain. Not too threatening to me. The blood-weeping eye felt like over-compensation to me though. He was the only good thing in the OTT and out of place torture scene. Wow, ball scratching humor? A new low. I'll take a pigeon doing a double take any day. If they had to do something as "gritty" as that, at least take it seriously.

The gambling scenes were well done and did not drag too long for me. I agree with most when I say, "I want more Felix!". Bond and he talk like twice. Shame. Mathis was a forgettable treacherous ally. The fight scene between games was great until Bond choked a man to death like he's John McClane. I love McClane, but he is supposed to be more violent than Bond. Vesper's shock did not please me and Bond comforting her in the shower was also out of place. Bond films can have some emotional performances and stuff like that, but that seemed like something out of The Notebook.

The car was awesome, but once again like in TWINE, destroyed too soon. The best action sequence was at the airport. Not too OTT or violent. However, the defibrillator scene was too much, like something out of DAD (first he stops his heart thru meditation, and now he revives it like this).

I did not feel that Bond and Vesper were in love, especially Bond. Bond films rarely have character development. If you must try it, don't screw it up. The montage scenes in OHMSS convinced me more than this film. Her suicide was done well though with a nice action scene to accompany it.

Daniel Craig is a good actor. I saw him in Tomb Raider, Road to Perdition, Munich and Layer Cake. He was remarkable in the last one, but just because a young, fit, cool acting English actor can play a violent drug dealer does not mean he will be a good Bond. I am past the fact that he is 5'11'', too muscular (Bond is lean not cut) and has a high school jock's hairstyle (what happened to sophistication?). He plays the role too serious and HARDLY smiles. Dalton played a serious Bond better than anyone. He still smiled a lot and looked like he was having fun! That is important for the character. Even Connery's Bond smiled and had some fun. Dalton would be the best Bond had he done a few more films. Oops! Off-topic. Craig can't do humor at all. Yes, Bond does give damn about his martini's preference. Still though, I will not rank him just yet. It is not fair. Maybe with a few more films he will develop a better style. The only things he did that were "Bondian" to me were the car alarm scene (very smooth) airport action sequence.

All I have left to say is that it lacked more tradition. No Q or Moneypenny? Even though I disagree about leaving out Q, at lest that would make sense of the film's purpose (reboot). Moneypenny could have replaced that buffoon Villiers and made this so much better. She is a staple in Bond films. Period. She and Q better come back in Bond 23. No James Bond Theme until the end? Don't tell me this crap like "He wasn't James Bond until the end". That is crap. He is, was, and always will be Bond. The theme is required.

Too many traditions were broken for the wrong reasons. Cubby would have never broken tradition. He told Wilson NOT to make a prequel years ago and that it was a bad idea. What happens after Cubby's widow dies? The prequel. Great job conforming to mainstream Hollywood, kids! Way to respect your parent's wishes.

This was a very good film as far as acting, dialogue, plot, and set design goes. It beats the last three in all those departments. But it still lacked in realistic stunts and action sequences as well as music (Arnold is so mediocre these days). It has about ten Bond films beat when it comes down to spy thriller themes, seriousness, dialogue, acting, and plot, but I cannot rank it Top 10. It did not FEEL like a Bond film. A gun barrel, the theme song, Q, Moneypenny, dancing ladies, and a Bond who has fun is required. This film had none. DAD was a step too far in one direction and this was a step too far in another. It tried to take Bond back to basics but came up average because it sacrificed tradition and was full of hypocrisy (like no more OOT stunts yet Bond fights Spider-Man.) Do you people who say this is the best 007 film since OHMSS really think that DAF thru DAD were all mediocre and forgettable? I hope not. Why did you keep watching if you felt that way? All of those films sure do entertain me. They certainly entertain me a lot more so than Casino Royale does because they FEEL like Bond films. 

Lastly, they had better not act like Bond 23 and on are not related to the first 20 like these first two Craig vehicles aren't. That would be taking a crap on the franchise's continuity and legacy. Bond's continuity stopped making sense years ago. He is ageless and timeless. Cubby did not erase Dr. No thru Moonraker beginning with FYEO because Moonraker was OOT and kinda campy, did he? I like to think we have been watching the same Bond all these years. The same guy who killed Dr. No killed Gustav Graves in my eyes.

All in all, still an entertaining motion picture.

005 out of 007.

Last edited by yodboy007 (14th Jan 2008 00:50)

Haven't seen Jesse James, but I'm with you on Atonement. The kind of buzz it's been getting, and the timing of it, makes it sound like the juggernaut of the season. I can't really comment on it 'cause I haven't seen it, but it has that English Patient vibe. And when it comes to that movie, let's just say I liked it about as much as Elaine on Seinfeld ("Please: DIE -- Why won't you just die?")

And Atonement duly scoops the Golden Globe for best picture.

If you hated The English Patient you are really going to hate this one HH.  In fact essentially this is 'The English Patient 2'.  It's ridiculous that this has beaten a couple of great American movies, in Jesse James, and No Country for Old Men, (I saw this the other day, highly recommended).

I also enjoyed Atonement, although I didn't love it. As a matter of fact, I plan on seeing it again very soon as I'm not entirely sure of what I think of it.

No, but there was that one annoying scene when one male character told a female character "I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours." The audience nearly threw popcorn at the screen, people were laughing so hard.

Not me. I love The English Patient but I wouldn't break up with anybody if they didn't like it. Now, if she didn't like The Godfather, or sticking with romantic films, Casablanca, it would be a different story.

HH, if I truly made up my mind about CR beforehand, why would I have seen it twice at the cinemas? (Which is a big deal for me as I'm not someone who believes in seeing films multiple times at the cinemas, no matter how much I love them. The most numer of times I would see a film at the cinemas in a short period of time is three, although I do see particular films twice.)

Last edited by Dan Same (14th Jan 2008 18:53)

I feel that the characters of Q and Moneypenny can be freshly handled, but they could do serious damage if inserted into the film with no regard. Caroline Bliss's Moneypenny in LTD for example is atrocious. LTD's my favorite Bond film but the inclusion of a 'rehashed' and not 'reinvented' Moneypenny was a bad move. Q was 'up to his usual tricks' and that was all. Samantha Bond's Moneypenny was delightfully refreshing, and a great deal of this IMO stems from the fact that the relationship between her and the Judi Dench's new M added a fun facet to the office environment, elevating Moneypenny to a position of equality and not subordination. It's when the relationships are new, not necessarily the characters, that the audience gets to enjoy fresh territory. As maligned as it is, NSNA had achieved some freshness by creating the Algernon character in place of Q. The relationship with Algernon and Bond was not one of contempt and irritation, but rather of boyish cameraderie that was rather fun to watch.

I don't mind the absence of Q and Moneypenny in CR, but their omission in Bond 22 bothers me a little. I don't think these characters have outlived their usefullness. I hope it is not merely a lack of vision that is keeping them from  utilizing them in the future.

Craig does an excellent job!  I know this is a late posting, but I just finished watching the remake of Casion Royale for the 2nd time and it is an awesome movie.  Next to Connery, Craig is the best bond ever.  He brings out more of the dark side of bond and in many ways the movie represents a defining moment for the agent James Bond.  He is tough, cold blooded, arrogant, egotistical, intelligent, lucky...an ideal agent, but he allows himself to fall in love (contrary to the advice of M) and this is his downfall and, ironically, also what drives him to succeed and track down the antagonist at the end of the movie.  He is driven.  He is a great agent because that is what he is (not necessarily what he has chosen to be)and he cannot be otherwise.  He can't have a normal relationship with anyone, because he is too good at what he does.

I'll drink to that. Welcome indeed

Well, when someone with excellent taste happens along, we want to make them feel welcome before the sharks arrive on the scene... 

Hmm...not all of it, no...     In fact, the author lost me shortly after the title   

It certainly is a lot of words, however, especially when the only apparent goal (besides a good grade?) is to grind an axe   Some valid points, with regard to the differences between the film and its source material, are all but lost in a deluge of cheap shots and snarky asides, which IMO dilute the overall thrust of the piece.   

Pity the author, whose Bond world is obviously asunder  :'(   Unfortunately, however well-annotated, it ultimately comes across as sour grapes---enough of them to keep a cheap winery in business until, well, Craig is replaced as Bond 

Last edited by Loeffelholz (29th Mar 2008 21:41)