GoldenEye vs. Casino Royale
JimmyBond0129
United States Posts: 263MI6 Agent
Which Martin Campbell Bond film do you prefer the first one GoldenEye or the second one Casino Royale? I like both films but I think I kind of prefer GoldenEye because I thought it had better pacing, Casino Royale is a great film but it was too long and it slowed down considerably after the torture scene.
Also on a personal note I think I prefer the beach scene in GoldenEye where Natalya berated Bond for being so callous, over watching Vesper warm up to Bond at the hospital in Casino Royale.
Also on a personal note I think I prefer the beach scene in GoldenEye where Natalya berated Bond for being so callous, over watching Vesper warm up to Bond at the hospital in Casino Royale.
"I admire your courage, Miss?..." "Trench, Sylvia Trench."
"I admire your luck, Mister?..." "Bond, James Bond."
"I admire your luck, Mister?..." "Bond, James Bond."
Comments
"Better make that two."
Casino Royale has a quality about it that I love, the cinematography is stunning. It's also very close (in essence) to the book, which I liked a great deal.
http://apbateman.com
- The PTS in GE has one of those spectacular Bond stunts the series used to be renowned for. Like those great PTS sequences from the Connery and Moore days, it's a largely self-contained mini-adventure that comes to a satisfying and explosive conclusion. CR's PTS consists of a boring conversation intercut with a forgettable fight; the grainy black and white photography coming across more as a gimmick than anything else.
- The plot of GE is worthy of Bond, with the fate of a whole nation hanging in the balance whereas CR revolves around trying to bankrupt a terrorist via a poker game.
- Alec Trevalian makes for a worthy and formidable adversary who is able to match Bond physically and mentally at most every turn. LeChiffre is a weak and cowardly character who's only agenda is to save his own skin; he lacks the vision and ambition of Bond's more classic foes. Also, Onatopp and Ourumov are far more effective henchpersons than Dimitrios and LeChiffre's nameless and forgettable helpers.
- Natalya is both an attractive and strong character who is actually of help to Bond in succeeding at his mission. Vesper is an annoying, weak, pathetic character who contributes very little to the story (other than her constant psychoanalysis of Bond and her refusal to help him during the poker match) and ultimately commits suicide rather than face up to her actions.
- The finale of GE inside the Arecibo satellite station is a good action piece and the villain gets a satisfying comeuppance via Bond's hand. In CR Bond wins the poker game thru literally the luck of the cards and survives his encounter with LeChiffre via a weak, deus-ex-machina appearance of a secondary character at a convenient moment.
- M is kept in check in GE. She shows up, gives Bond his assignment, and then disappears ... as it should be. Reboot be damned, I also enjoyed seeing Bond interact with Q and Moneypenny. In CR M acts more like Bond's disapproving mother, interjecting herself into the plot and scolding and second guessing him at seemingly every turn.
- Pierce Brosnan gives us a Bond who is in the prime of his career, a seasoned agent who methodically and professionally follows the clues, solves his assignment and defeats the bad guy both thru his wits and ultimately mano a mano. He is able to project toughness while also still retaining the character's sense of humor. Daniel Craig plays Bond as a surly, humorless rookie 00 with a nearly perpetual chip on his shoulder; a screw-up who fails to capture Obano, gets cleaned out at the poker table and is only saved by Leiter's intervention, gets captured by LeChiffre and only survives thru Mr. White's intervention, loses the poker winnings to White's organization (thus indirectly funding its terrorist activities) and only finds White thru yet another convenient deus-ex-machina contrivance involving Vesper's phone. In terms of successfully completing his assignment, he really doesn't do much to impress his superiors (or me for that matter).
I never really got the charm of CR. It doesn't tell a particularly memorable story and repeated viewings have only diminished what little regard I ever had for the film. The "contributions" to the script by the overrated Paul Haggis only serve to turn the film into "The Deconstruction of James Bond". About the only area in which CR comes out on top of GE is the music as I've always felt David Arnold's compositions to be superior to Eric Serra's lone effort.
I've noticed he is a hard act to follow, not because he's so good, but rather because he skirts around things a bit. That's to say, the next guy doesn't have much to work with. GE dealt with the end of the Cold War, so TND has to suss out Bond's world afresh, while no one really knows what Quantum is about at the end of CR (and still don't after QoS), he leaves it too open imo and the next guy has to sort it out.
Generally I prefer the idea of CR these days, GE just seems a bit too formulaic and non-committal from Brosnan. I prefer the look of CR. Don't care for the female leads in either. Still Tony DP missed out how the mi6 crew is better in GE!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That actually reminds me of something that was blatant in both Campbell films; M's psychoanalysis and judgements of Bond. She started in GE with the 'mysoginystic dinosaur' speech before continuing with my least favourite scene in CR; the scene in her apartment.
I know what you mean. The idea of CR, like that of LTK, sounds great to me. However, like with LTK, I don't like CR's execution. I think that the idea of Bond using a game of cards to capture a terrorist is fantastic. Like with LTK's revenge theme, it's fresh and non-formulaic.
However in the case of both films, I think that the concept is let down by the casting and screenplay. Just as I would have replaced Dalton with Connery, Brosnan or even Moore, and improved the screenplay, I would have replaced Craig with Brosnan and improved the screenplay including getting rid of the reboot.
This is actually where I start to disagree with you NP. Although GE, in theory, is not as fresh as CR, (although in practice I think it is much more fresh), I don't think that Brosnan was non-committal. IMO he gave his *second best performance (after TWINE) and the eighth greatest Bond performance of all time.
*Can this be the first time in 2009 I ranked something?
BTW, Tony, does it scare you that Campbell will be directing Green Lantern? Or does it not matter to you?
Kind of off topic but since you asked, I think Campbell will do a good job because to me he seems to bring his "A" game when tackling a property for the first time. Maybe that's why I like his first Bond and Zorro outings better than his second attempts at both. So following that line of thinking, I'm hopeful he'll do a good job on GL, if it ever gets off the ground (after a flurry of rumors, things have once again gone very quiet).
I think what people find charming about Casino Royale (2006) is the simple fact that Martin Campbell took a novel that was half a century old and updated it without straying too far from the book. If you compare the plot of the movie to the plot of the novel it's pretty close. There are some very noticeable differences to be sure but I think Campbell captured the spirit of Ian Fleming's first Bond novel.
"I admire your luck, Mister?..." "Bond, James Bond."
I agree. CR charmed the socks off me with its retro-literary take on James Bond---a true tough guy with a veneer of sophistication, who is fallible and makes mistakes, not the least of which is falling for a double agent.
The film is action heavy at the beginning, plot heavy in the middle and character heavy at the end, with an extended coda that mirrors its source novel. The spirit and intent of the book remains very much intact; and much of the criticism of the film's story and its elements are rightly shared by the book---and I wouldn't have it any other way B-)
This isn't your father's cinematic Bond---it's Fleming's Bond.* It's too bad that there's a sizable vocal minority who doesn't care to see Bond in these terms...but you can't please everyone. Personally, I'm quite happy with the state of Bond in 2009.
*Merely the opinion of the post's author; not intended as a smite upon anyone else's opinion, nor a proclamation of absolutely the last word on the subject. In some instances, may cause chafing, the condition known as 'sausage fingers,' visions of the apocalypse, hyperventilation, varying box office returns in different countries for reasons the author had best not comment upon, loose bowel syndrome, the shakes, the creeping crud, the screaming meemies, trench foot, trench mouth, a lifelong crush on Sylvia Trench, an appreciation for a darker Fleming-inspired James Bond, the heartbreak of psoriasis, acid reflux, night sweats, post-posting stress disorder, a firm conviction that Amy Winehouse is hiding under the bed with a pirate's dagger clenched between her teeth, and jungle rot. If rash develops, discontinue use.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I read CR many many years ago. It really didn't resonate with me on any level (and that may be part of the reason for my cool reaction to the movie) but quite honestly, from my recollections of the book, Craig's interpretation was different from what we got in the text in many ways. I remember the Bond of the novel as a somewhat fastidious, experienced and slightly world weary agent who enjoyed the finer things in life and partook of them when he could.
Craig's rookie Bond in CR was a Terminator-like entity who could fall off cranes, crash thru solid walls, get shot with nailguns, get whacked repeatedly in the nuts and seemingly bounce right back with only a few surface scratches to show for it. His wearing of a tux only after Vesper has one fitted for him (and his initial furious reaction upon seeing it) struck me as very un-Fleming as did his overbearing arrogance and cockiness. I never saw Craig have eggs benedict or drink coffee (two staples from the books as I recall). Craig's Bond seemed to resent his upbringing (Vesper even comments on this on the train) and even the kills he makes to get his 00 are different from what I recall of the novel. His relationship and interactions with M were also radically different and I find it hard to believe Fleming's Bond would ever break into M's house (unless he'd been brainwashed by SMERSH). And of course, Craig looks nothing like Fleming's Bond.
So to me, this whole notion of Craig being Fleming's Bond seems off base and he is to my eyes no more or less Fleming than any of his predecessors. They all shared certain qualities with the literary edition while also bringing their own facets to the character.
This is all my opinion of course, based on my recollections of CR and several other novels that I've read over the years.
Well, I understand your ongoing unhappiness with pretty much everything that's gone on with Bond since 2005, and it does sadden me somewhat. We will always disagree about Craig and Fleming, and no minds will be changed today. You enjoyed the Moore years more than I did; I couldn't wait for them to end. If you feel that Roger Moore was every bit as much Fleming as the others, all I can do is throw up my hands in hopeless surrender. C'est la guerre
Fleming's Bond wasn't a Terminator entity. All he did was: withstand having his nuts thwacked and be betrayed by a double agent with whom he'd fallen in love (CR), had a pinky finger broken (LALD), have a cliff fall on him, get the crap beaten out of him while tied to a chair, have to cut himself loose from ropes with a blowtorch, only to undergo the dreaded steam hose (MR), suffer a 'Brooklyn stomping' by guys with boots and catch a throwing knife with his torso (DAF), be poisoned by a poison-tipped shoe that found its target (FRWL)...well, you get the idea...
I think that the essential elements of Ian Fleming's James Bond has been better served by Craig, and the reboot, than anything which has come since Saint Sean The First...and history will record it thus. After DAD, the character---and IMNO the franchise---had reached a point of diminishing creative (if not financial) returns. Kudos to them for being proactive.
It's not about how he looks, not at all. Nor is it whether or not Craig does everything Fleming's Bond did in the CR novel: the coffee, the fastidiousness, the world-weariness, et al. I've come to believe that Eon's long term strategy is to get Craig's 'early 00 career' Bond to that point, over the course of his tenure---whether that's three pictures, or four or five---and then move into a 'revised status quo' with whomever succeeds him. Time will tell if I'm right, or 'off base' with that prediction.
I think Vesper's remark about Bond resenting his upbringing is something the producers have chosen to infer from the whole of Fleming's Bond...and perhaps Pearson's expansion on it? To me, it fits. What can I say? Bond's intrusion into M's home is an oft-cited example; personally, I don't think Fleming's Bond would have hesitated if, through the events of the story, Bond had thought it necessary to do so. It is also as much a reflection of our current society as anything else. Do we want our Bond to be a docile 'yes man'? Fleming's Bond certainly wasn't---he didn't shoot the sniper in the TLD short story, either,
Overall, it's certainly a melding of 'old school' Bond with modern audience expectations. The good news, for me, is that it's been accomplished while paying due diligence to the fundamentals of what literary Bond was...and if Craig does a couple more, I think there are still some major pleasant surprises in store for everyone---even his most devoted detractors.
Back on topic: While I like both of Martin Campbell's Bond films, IMRO Casino Royale is the best and most important of the two.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Not at all. As I mentioned in several threads, I liked QoS and thought it a much better and more entertaining film - given my tastes - than CR. It was a definite step back towards the kinds of Bond movies I like and Craig acted far more like the kind of Bond I gravitate to.
Take another look at my last post and you'll see that my comments were largely aimed at the quality of CR's script, who's plot, structure and characterizations just didn't do it for me. Yes, some of those weaknesses and structural issues are carryovers from the novel but that doesn't change the fact that they are still there. At no point did I bash Craig or QoS or anything that has come since.
So, other than this whole "no more Bond until 2011" business, I'm fine with where the series is and hopeful that both the films and Craig will continue to evolve into something all factions can embrace.
My last point, which when I have time I will expand on, is that Craig's Bond is not at all like Fleming's Bond. But, that is a post for another day and another thread.
Poker game? I believe you mean baccarat game
In the novel, they played baccaret, in the film Texas Hold Em, both are a form of poker, so I referred to the card games as poker.
Do you like that scene in Casino Royale where Bond and Vesper were sitting in the hospital garden? Vesper said "You're not gonna let me in there you got you're armor back on." and Bond said "I have no armor left you stipped it of me."
I don't care for that scene, I'm sort of indifferent to it because I guess it didn't leave an impression on me. As morbid as it sounds I think I prefer Vesper's death scene, just hearing that sad music and watching Vesper drown was an image I'll never forget.
By the way do you like that Carribean beach scene in GoldenEye? I do, I don't know why but I do and for some reason I think it's better than of the all romantic scenes between Bond (Craig) and Vesper (Green) combined.
"I admire your luck, Mister?..." "Bond, James Bond."
I rest my case.
http://blog.worldvillage.com/recreation/baccarat_poker.html
Sorry for the double post, but I read this after responding to Dan's assertion. T
The above quoted line is one of the all time least Fleming lines ever spoken.
Sorry Barry Nelson, but baccarat is nothing like poker. This is the first time I've ever heard someone calling it poker. There are a "few" differences.
-A pokerhand consists of 5 cards (fullhouse, straight flush etc etc) It is impossible to make a pokerhand in baccarat since you can only hold a maximum of 3 cards.
-Baccarat is always played head to head. The dealer/bank against another player (an exception is when more then one person puts up money to "banco" the dealer, but they still play as just one player, since they play just one set of cards)
-Even the cardrankings are different.
-The way to win is different, not a combination of cards (pokerhand) will win it, just make sure you are as close as possible to 9.
-The only thing baccarat and poker have in common is that it is played with cards. Baccarat is closer to blackjack. To call baccarat a variation of poker is like calling tennis a variation of baseball. Because in both you use something to hit a ball and it is both played on gravel (well a baseball infield is made of gravel anyway, but you get my point). Or that football (soccer) is a variation of long distance running because in both you use your feet.
I advise you to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baccarat
this gives a good outlining of the game. (The variation of baccarat that Bond usually plays is Chemin de fer). You will see that the blogger you are reffering to makes more mistakes than one.
And with that, I rest my case
Now on topic. I love CR, but I love GE just a bit more. Maybe because we had to wait so long for it, maybe because it has more of a "Bondfeel" to it, IMHO. Maybe because it was the first 007 movie that I saw in the cinema.
{[]
Which one the line Vesper had spoken or Bond's line?
"I admire your luck, Mister?..." "Bond, James Bond."
I view this---the price exacted on Bond for being a man of action---as a key element of the character...as written by Ian Fleming. Now, one can argue all day long that it isn't key to his/her own preference for the character...but it's an absolute fact that Fleming wrote these things, and I stand by my assertion that Craig's interpretation of the role is the only one where such things are clearly no longer 'off the table.'
To call it 'not Fleming,' though...hmm. ?:) I'll just gently continue to disagree
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't mind it nearly as much as many apparently do. Is it one of the classic lines from the film? No. But the film has many classic lines.
I disagree with that; the scene on the beach in GE is fine, but I happen to be quite indifferent to Natalya as a Bond girl, so it probably colours my perception. It's a nice flavouring for the character. Too bad Brozzer never got the chance to do what Craig's done.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yep, about to say the same thing.
"Better make that two."
I think Pierce Brosnan has had one good Bond film (GoldenEye) and that's it if I were Brosnan I would've quit after Campbell left. I would've said "I won't work with any other director besides Martin Campbell."
Anyway I think Izabella Scorupco is a slightly better Bond girl than Eva Green simply because I thought Natalya's Russian accent was more convincing than Vesper's English accent. You could tell that Green was a foreigner putting on a fake accent. Although Eva was very pretty in Casino Royale I don't know why people say she's hideous. ?:)
"I admire your luck, Mister?..." "Bond, James Bond."
Eva Green, like the Bond era in which she appeared, is fairly polarizing
Izabella is much more appealing as herself (to me) than she ever was as Natalya. It's just a taste thing. To me, she was mousy and grating in GE---not a good combination.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM