Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SZPT

Casino Royale

Recommended Posts

The only redeeming scene in District B13 is an example of this, my first exposure to it.

It's available at YouTube http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mi4_YNyxNTI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what did people think of the romantic angle? Credible or not?

Have to say, I loved this movie and that was largely because it was such a sheer visual pleasure watching Daniel Craig on the big screen. They've really gone for the female/gay audience with this one. On the other hand, the women were mostly 'elegant' and only objectified to a very slight degree. No female nudity and little hint towards it, that I recall (bikini count: 1).

Also, is this the first Bond on whom you see the very real repercussions of violence? Bond in a wheelchair in a hospital, Bond with bruises, cuts and scrapes and raw red knuckles. It's not how we're used to him and made me care that bit more during the fight scenes. Also, the violence commited on the villains

(and in one case a villain's wife who was innocent of anything more than liking bad guys & philandering)

is filmed in a far more disturbing manner, it's difficult to watch, much darker and makes Bond seem less heroic and verging on the sociopathic.

I was also quite impressed by the dialogue which, admittedly, was kept to a minimum. However, there were some classy lines in it that worked well. Frustrated by the constant product placement though (nice omega, bond). I thought the best bits were the subtleties that showed that Bond was still quite amateurish: he is spotted when tailing a fella after the baddie stops and tries on sunglasses so that he can look in the mirror at him. I also liked how they hinted at the development of characteristic traits: the aforementioned 'bond, james bond' line left til the end, and the reason for his preference for shaken martinis over stirred.

Edited by gigi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been much of a Bond fan. Most of the movies have just been too silly for me to get into. Even the Brosnan films, though much better, were still pretty silly.

Casino Royal was not silly. Maybe a cornball line here or there, but nothing so bad as the typical Bond fare. I even liked how they slipped the innuendo Bond Girl name in there with a nod and a smirk to the past films.

I liked the movie. Craig makes a great Bond. I loved the opening teaser scene, and the major action sequence that followed it. Unfortunately the rest of the movie doesn't really measure up to it's begining. Some of the action scenes felt thrown in so they wouldn't have to make the audience sit through a long boring poker game.

And I must protest the

Gas Truck chase scene at the airport. It was so close to the Raiders truck chase scene I kept expecting Bond to pull out a bull whip, and Belloq and the Nazi's to drive by.

Other than that it was fun. Not silly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the film yet, and don't know when I'll get a chance to, but I must ask: Does it keep the bit from the original novel where Bond talks about the need for an "Evil Book" (as opposed to the "Good Book", i.e. the Bible)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um... nope. Nothing of the kind.

When Bond is in the hospital after suffering at the hands of LaChifre, Mathis is pretty much out of the picture already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Francophobia? Who's afraid of the French? Sheesh, a guy can't make a good French quip anymore.

Oh, but I'm not like the French; I'm not going down without a fight. :D Enjoy!

Q. Why does the new French navy has glass bottoms on its boats?

A. So they can see the old French navy.

-- OR --

I saw a French rifle for sale. It said that it had never been fired, only dropped once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to add my voice to the accolades; this is possibly the best "Bond" film in years. The chase/action scenes were a bit front-loaded (and the

gas-tanker chase

was really as derivitive as Croaker says).

My only real complaint is that poor Vesper isn't given as much time as is really neccesary to make her a credible "love of Bond's life." But Craig and Green have chemistry, there's no denying that, and so it kind-of sort-of works.

Noticable Bourne-ification, what with the glamourless fisticuffs and all that, but Campbell gives it a uniquely 007 spin, so it's not so much derivation as expansion.

Oh. And Craig's arguably the best Bond since Connery. My opinion. 4.0/5

::bond::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said before, I'm not a big Bond fan. I find them mildly amusing from time to time.

This is the most engaging and interesting Bond film I've seen, and the action is easily the most arresting and exciting to watch.

I really, really like Daniel Craig. I think they should get the writers from the Bourne franchise to script the next one. If they do, I'll be there on opening day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Jeffrey, I am not a big Bond fan. The only reason I even went on opening night was because my date is a big Bond fan. When she and I watched Borat a couple of weeks earlier, during the previews, I asked her if she found James Bond attractive, seeing he is a philanderer. She told me, "Oh, you don't know. When I was a girl, I wanted to be one of the girls that danced in the credits at the beginning of film's credits."

I really enjoyed the film, because of much of what has already been said: Daniel Craig's Bond is more akin to Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne than he is to what I remember seeing on TBS as a kid. The people who put this film together really re-imagined the franchise. Now, that is my take, and I am not a Bond fan.

In contrast, my date criticized much of the film. What made her most upset was the opening credits, which lacked any silhouette dancing girls. She complained against a few other changes from the formula she had come to revel in. For her, it was like watching The Price Is Right without Bob Barker, Plinko, Cliff Hangers, or the Showcase Showdown. There is comfort in familiarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In contrast, my date criticized much of the film. What made her most upset was the opening credits, which lacked any silhouette dancing girls. She complained against a few other changes from the formula she had come to revel in. For her, it was like watching The Price Is Right without Bob Barker, Plinko, Cliff Hangers, or the Showcase Showdown. There is comfort in familiarity.

Having grown up on Bond films -- one of my first movie-related memories is watching Never Say Never Again and thinking it was the coolest thing ever -- I missed some of those things as well. But while I missed those things on a certain level, I didn't really miss the campiness, the gratuitous gadgetry, the tongue-in-cheek feel that came to define the Bond films. At least, not enough to hurt the film in my eyes.

Well, I kind of missed the gratuitous gadgetry, but I understand it's absence, seeing as how there was no real "Q" figure. But still, a high-tech defibrillator doesn't count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm planning to see the film (finally!) with my dad tomorrow -- and we're treating it as sort of a 25th-anniversary thing, since it was in the fall of 1981 that he took me to see For Your Eyes Only, my very first Bond movie. The thing is, I'm not sure what to expect my dad to make of this film, if indeed it IS straying from the established movie formula the way that I hear it is. I do know that my dad really disliked Die Another Day -- because of the invisible car, among other silly things -- so he might appreciate this film's more serious angle. Then again, maybe it will be TOO serious for him? I dunno. We'll see!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it for a second time tonight. It holds up. I love this film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put me in a nostalgic mode, this one did.

Also found it interesting that this was the first Bond film in almost 20 years to have a theme song sung by a guy. (The Living Daylights, with a theme song by a-ha, premiered in June 1987. Ever since then, the theme-song duties have been handled by Gladys Knight, Tina Turner, Sheryl Crow, Garbage and Madonna. Previous male-lead-singer themes include 1963's From Russia with Love (Matt Monro), 1965's Thunderball (Tom Jones), 1973's Live and Let Die (Paul McCartney) and 1985's A View to a Kill (1985); and while the opening credits to 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service didn't have any lyrics, Louis Armstrong's 'We Have All the Time in the World' has appeared on at least some compilation albums as the official theme song of that film.)

I also get a kick out of the fact that this "reboot" of the series still stars Judi Dench (who has played M since 1995) and has music by David Arnold (who has scored all the films since 1997).

And I am so glad that I saw District B13 not too long ago, otherwise I don't know that I would have "gotten" that first chase sequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh, now this was a good Bond film--so much better than the Brosnan drivel we've been subjected to over the last few years.

Craig is well suited for the role, which is a bit like Jason Bourne without angst--or as Bourne was a literary descendant of Bond, I guess its properly Bourne is like Bond with angst.

I liked that the story was allowed to roll out naturally, without trying to shoehorn every possible bit of origin myth it could have, like some other "prequels" I could name. Except for the "shaken or stirred" part--should have skipped it.

A hard, violent film--the only thing getting this movie a PG-13 instead of a more deserving R is the lack of f-bombs and the "Bond" name. So much of Bond has been video-game-ish, but here's a version that has real impact, and the sense of dread and confusion that creeps up on you in the final act is palpable.

For what its worth, I liked the shortened car chase--well done trick to head off the cliche scene. I thought the

post-Le Chiffre

stuff dragged a bit--but it could have been the turkey and lack of sleep talking. And I was left with a few plot quibbles, most notably

if you just witnessed Bond walk away victoriously from assassins, torturers, spies, etc, don't you think you might have had an ally by confiding in him regarding Mr. White's blackmail attempt? Hello, Vesper, you're smart and all that, but if you can't figure out that all you need to do is tell Bond, hey, I need some help here, then gosh--I'm not sure you've got what it takes to last. Well, as it turned out, you didn't.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buckeye, that is a problem I have as well.

Vesper is in love with French Algerian. International terrorists use her to get their lost money and then some back. To get the money, she is coerced? to bed down and seduce James. James falls for Vesper and quits the spy business. Their intitial conversation is about how each of them could read each other and other people well. So was James duped? Who did Vesper love, the French-Algerian fiancee or 007?

Why do the prideful resort to an anguishing labor of parenting lies?

Edited by Michael Todd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are so right. Craig is the best bond since "EARLY" Connery. So refreshing to see expressions etc that seem genuine. When was the last time you saw Bond laugh and have a real sense of humor. The quips are just that, quips, not something forced as they have been basically since Dr. No or Goldfinger. The film could have been tightened a bit, but at the second viewing it actually seemed to drag less.

Ahhh, now this was a good Bond film--so much better than the Brosnan drivel we've been subjected to over the last few years.

Craig is well suited for the role, which is a bit like Jason Bourne without angst--or as Bourne was a literary descendant of Bond, I guess its properly Bourne is like Bond with angst.

I liked that the story was allowed to roll out naturally, without trying to shoehorn every possible bit of origin myth it could have, like some other "prequels" I could name. Except for the "shaken or stirred" part--should have skipped it.

A hard, violent film--the only thing getting this movie a PG-13 instead of a more deserving R is the lack of f-bombs and the "Bond" name. So much of Bond has been video-game-ish, but here's a version that has real impact, and the sense of dread and confusion that creeps up on you in the final act is palpable.

For what its worth, I liked the shortened car chase--well done trick to head off the cliche scene. I thought the

post-Le Chiffre

stuff dragged a bit--but it could have been the turkey and lack of sleep talking. And I was left with a few plot quibbles, most notably

if you just witnessed Bond walk away victoriously from assassins, torturers, spies, etc, don't you think you might have had an ally by confiding in him regarding Mr. White's blackmail attempt? Hello, Vesper, you're smart and all that, but if you can't figure out that all you need to do is tell Bond, hey, I need some help here, then gosh--I'm not sure you've got what it takes to last. Well, as it turned out, you didn't.

.

post-2595-1164684071_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked that the story was allowed to roll out naturally, without trying to shoehorn every possible bit of origin myth it could have, like some other "prequels" I could name. Except for the "shaken or stirred" part--should have skipped it.

I actually quite liked the shaken/stirred part. Not what he says, which was a bit glib, but how it's followed up.

Presumably, the reason for his later insistence on shaken not stirred is because he developed a distaste for stirred because of the poisoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is the 21st installment of the Bond franchise, and since both the title and the principal action in the film takes place in a Casino, can we say -- Blackjack!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that everyone who has ever sung a James Bond theme song over the opening credits is still alive?

And so far, only two of those vocalists have been people who were born after the movie series premiered in October 1962 -- and yes, Casino Royale's Chris Cornell is one of them.

The youngest of all the Bond theme singers, to date, was Sheena Easton, who was no more than 22 when she sang For Your Eyes Only in 1981 (she is also noteworthy for being the only singer who actually appears in the opening-credits sequence herself; Madonna had a cameo in Die Another Day, but as an actress, not a singer; hmmm, have any of the OTHER musical acts appeared within the films anywhere?).

The second-youngest of all the Bond theme singers was Tom Jones, who was no more than 25 when he sang Thunderball in 1965.

At the other end of the scale ... well, Louis Armstrong doesn't really count, since his song appeared in the MIDDLE of On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969), but it's such a great song that I'd hate to skip it, so we might as well mention that he ws no more than 68 when he recorded his song.

However, the oldest person to sing a theme song OVER THE OPENING CREDITS was Tina Turner, who was no more than 56 when she sang GoldenEye in 1995. And after her, the runner-up would be Gladys Knight, who was no more than 45 when she sang Licence to Kill in 1989.

More details here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Breakpoint piece makes a statement ("And true to the book, this Bond can be physically hurt; tortured in fact.") that gets me wondering... In how many films has Bond been tortured? Not just threatened with death, not just shot at or beaten up while someone tries to prevent him from doing something, but actually tortured for the sheer sadistic glee of it?

There is the torture scene in Casino Royale, which appears in modified form in both the 1954 and 2006 versions of this story (there is even a nod and a wink to this scene in the 1967 version).

There is the cut-them-and-drag-them-through-the-water-as-shark-bait scene in the film version of For Your Eyes Only (1981), which if memory serves was actually taken from the novel Live and Let Die (the 1973 film version of which had omitted this bit). (Not accidentally, that film was also one of the most down-to-earth, non-Roger-Moore-ish of the Roger Moore films.)

My impression of the Bond novels I've read is that there is a sadomasochistic streak running through them that has largely been overlooked in the films, certainly ever since the mid- to late Sean Connery era. (I haven't seen the early Connery films in a long time.)

Goldfinger (1964) did have the laser-beam scene, which seemed like an overly elaborate way to hurt a man's manhood, but in the end it is called off, so it is not a "torture" scene so much as a "threat of torture" scene.

Oh, and the Breakpoint piece is wrong about one detail: The Bourne movies have all been rated PG-13, just like every James Bond film since Licence to Kill (1989); neither of them was R-rated.

And hey, speaking of Licence to Kill, that film had the torture and de-leg-ification of Felix Leiter, who is almost as regular a character in these stories as Bond himself. (And I believe THAT scene was also taken from a book that had been filmed earlier but had omitted this scene; come to think of it, I believe the book in question was Live and Let Die. Hmmm. Did that book really inspire two scenes in two OTHER Bond films? Or am I forgetting the book that "really" inspired one of these two scenes?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh wow.

That Cinderella paragraph is so brutally funny. When she is on, she is really on.

"Buck up you idealistic fools! Movies are hard then you die."

Classic stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked that the story was allowed to roll out naturally, without trying to shoehorn every possible bit of origin myth it could have, like some other "prequels" I could name. Except for the "shaken or stirred" part--should have skipped it.

I actually quite liked the shaken/stirred part. Not what he says, which was a bit glib, but how it's followed up.

Presumably, the reason for his later insistence on shaken not stirred is because he developed a distaste for stirred because of the poisoning.

Nice catch--hadn't thought of that. Wasn't it a different drink that

contained the poison?

Jeffrey, I read that gay angle somewhere else, but can't remember where--the comment was that this was the only Bond film where the actor appears more often in less clothing than the female costars. If I wasn't jetlagged I'd put more effort into finding out where that was.

Speaking of jetlag, how come this harddrinking middle aged secret agent can get around a bunch of continents without jetlag when me a light drinking 31 can't recover from jetlag for a week? I think I remember seeing Milan, Paris and Berlin this week, but its all a groggy blur...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...