Mr Cranky reviews Casino Royale

[carl stromberg]

From the Mr Cranky film website:

As far as I'm concerned, anything is better than the invisible car fiasco of "Die Another Day," a film that crapped all over the Bond series like an incontinent elephant.

It's pretty clear from "Casino Royale," in what amounts to a re-imagining of the Bond series, that the filmmakers felt the same way. Gone are the double-entendres, stupid women's names, and the predictable Bond phrases like "shaken, not stirred." But f**k me on a bed of nails and call me whiny if showing Bond driving a Ford isn't going too far. Sure, it's an unusual Ford, but would Bond ever get in a Ford? Quick answer: no. Even if he's traveled to Miami, he's not just going to hop in any old car they give him.

The thing that makes this film dumb is that it's set in present day and Judi Dench once again stars as M, yet it follows Bond from his early days as he learns how to be 007. So essentially, the filmmakers are jettisoning the old Bond and recreating a new Bond so that they can continue the series without having to link this one to the past. Bond starts now.

So, among the non-Bond like things that happens is that Bond falls in love and gets all weepy and quits. Bond plays poker. Bond doesn't have any Bond lines. In fact, he asks for a martini at a bar, the bartender asks him "shaken or stirred?" and Bond replies, "Do I look like I care?" This is definitely a Bond for a new era. His catch phrase is now "do I look like I care?" I'm sure teenagers all over the world will love him.

Bond sort of goes off on his own to catch Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), who is the banker to the world's terrorists and has some kind of eye duct problem that causes him to weep blood. Bond signs up for a Texas Hold 'Em tournament (what else would they play, right?) and meets Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who's in charge of giving Bond money (the tourney requires millions of dollars to play). During the course of the tournament, Bond falls in love with Vesper, becomes her bitch, and quits. Apparently, it's imperative that he be jilted a few times so his womanizing seems more believable later on.

Paul ("Crash") Haggis worked on the script, so it was quite a surprise that there weren't ten different stories and a couple dozen different characters intersecting with Bond at different times. Is this guy the most overrated screenwriter working? I don't think he gives Bond a single decent line.

As for Craig, his biggest contribution to the Bond legacy is teeth-clenching. That's what seems to make his Bond. "Casino Royale" is royal alright -- a royal pain.

[The Sweeney]

I think CR is a film that you either hate or love. There is no inbetween.

That's why on one end of the scale we have reviews claiming Craig to be the best thing since Connery, and on the other we have the handful of reviews here that state the complete opposite.

There doesn't seem to be that many reviews claiming CR to be `ok', and Craig's performance `adequate'. It's either love or loathe.

And its the same with the fanbase. One end claim CR is the best Bond films of all time, and on the other end we have a site telling fans to boycott CR.

But I still say the negative view is firmly in the minority at this present time.

[BondFan007]

From the Mr Cranky film website:

As far as I'm concerned, anything is better than the invisible car fiasco of "Die Another Day," a film that crapped all over the Bond series like an incontinent elephant.

agreed

But f**k me on a bed of nails and call me whiny if showing Bond driving a Ford isn't going too far. Sure, it's an unusual Ford, but would Bond ever get in a Ford? Quick answer: no. Even if he's traveled to Miami, he's not just going to hop in any old car they give him.

TMWTGG's AMC Hornet hatchback? FYEO's Citroën 2 CV? TSWLM's telephone repair van? LALD's Double Decker Bus? etc.

The thing that makes this film dumb is that it's set in present day and Judi Dench once again stars as M, yet it follows Bond from his early days as he learns how to be 007.

so he didn't get the reboot idea

So essentially, the filmmakers are jettisoning the old Bond and recreating a new Bond so that they can continue the series without having to link this one to the past. Bond starts now.

ah, he gets it.

So, among the non-Bond like things that happens is that Bond falls in love and gets all weepy and quits.

So he missed On Her Majesty's Secret Service?

Bond plays poker.

Yep, and Ian Fleming mentions that Bond plays poker in Moonraker

Bond doesn't have any Bond lines.

He had a few good Bond lines

In fact, he asks for a martini at a bar, the bartender asks him "shaken or stirred?" and Bond replies, "Do I look like I care?" This is definitely a Bond for a new era. His catch phrase is now "do I look like I care?" I'm sure teenagers all over the world will love him.

he also ordered the Vesper

Bond sort of goes off on his own to catch Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), who is the banker to the world's terrorists and has some kind of eye duct problem that causes him to weep blood. Bond signs up for a Texas Hold 'Em tournament (what else would they play, right?) and meets Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who's in charge of giving Bond money (the tourney requires millions of dollars to play). During the course of the tournament, Bond falls in love with Vesper, becomes her bitch,

?

and quits. Apparently, it's imperative that he be jilted a few times so his womanizing seems more believable later on.

Paul ("Crash") Haggis worked on the script, so it was quite a surprise that there weren't ten different stories and a couple dozen different characters intersecting with Bond at different times. Is this guy the most overrated screenwriter working? I don't think he gives Bond a single decent line.

again, I heard some great Bond lines

As for Craig, his biggest contribution to the Bond legacy is teeth-clenching. That's what seems to make his Bond. "Casino Royale" is royal alright -- a royal pain.

hmm, this guy needs to brush up on his Bond films and watch OHMSS. Other than that, he needs to rewatch Royale, he's missed some good lines.

[Dr. No]

Mr Carnky lives up to his name

From the Mr Cranky film website:

As far as I'm concerned, anything is better than the invisible car fiasco of "Die Another Day," a film that crapped all over the Bond series like an incontinent elephant.

It's pretty clear from "Casino Royale," in what amounts to a re-imagining of the Bond series, that the filmmakers felt the same way. Gone are the double-entendres, stupid women's names, and the predictable Bond phrases like "shaken, not stirred." But f**k me on a bed of nails and call me whiny if showing Bond driving a Ford isn't going too far. Sure, it's an unusual Ford, but would Bond ever get in a Ford? Quick answer: no. Even if he's traveled to Miami, he's not just going to hop in any old car they give him.

The thing that makes this film dumb is that it's set in present day and Judi Dench once again stars as M, yet it follows Bond from his early days as he learns how to be 007. So essentially, the filmmakers are jettisoning the old Bond and recreating a new Bond so that they can continue the series without having to link this one to the past. Bond starts now.

So, among the non-Bond like things that happens is that Bond falls in love and gets all weepy and quits. Bond plays poker. Bond doesn't have any Bond lines. In fact, he asks for a martini at a bar, the bartender asks him "shaken or stirred?" and Bond replies, "Do I look like I care?" This is definitely a Bond for a new era. His catch phrase is now "do I look like I care?" I'm sure teenagers all over the world will love him.

Bond sort of goes off on his own to catch Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), who is the banker to the world's terrorists and has some kind of eye duct problem that causes him to weep blood. Bond signs up for a Texas Hold 'Em tournament (what else would they play, right?) and meets Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who's in charge of giving Bond money (the tourney requires millions of dollars to play). During the course of the tournament, Bond falls in love with Vesper, becomes her bitch, and quits. Apparently, it's imperative that he be jilted a few times so his womanizing seems more believable later on.

Paul ("Crash") Haggis worked on the script, so it was quite a surprise that there weren't ten different stories and a couple dozen different characters intersecting with Bond at different times. Is this guy the most overrated screenwriter working? I don't think he gives Bond a single decent line.

As for Craig, his biggest contribution to the Bond legacy is teeth-clenching. That's what seems to make his Bond. "Casino Royale" is royal alright -- a royal pain.

[Kristatos]

But I still say the negative view is firmly in the minority at this present time.

At present, yes, but that could change. After all, hard as it may be to believe now, DAD was actually quite well received whrn it came out, even by some of the Bond fans who have since converted to Craigianity and feel compelled to renounce Brosnan and all his works at every turn. Critical reaction, when it follows a herd mentality as it did with CR, tends to come in three phases: build 'em up, knock 'em down and finally come to a more balanced assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of whatever is under review. At the moment, fans and critics are all falling over themselves to see who can get their tongues furthest up Craig's Khyber Pass. A few years down the line, there will almost certainly be a backlash where positive reviews of CR are as rare as negative reviews are now. Then, finally, there might be some actual debate about whether Craig and CR are any good or not.

[007]

I think CR is a film that you either hate or love. There is no inbetween.

That's why on one end of the scale we have reviews claiming Craig to be the best thing since Connery, and on the other we have the handful of reviews here that state the complete opposite.

There doesn't seem to be that many reviews claiming CR to be `ok', and Craig's performance `adequate'. It's either love or loathe.

And its the same with the fanbase. One end claim CR is the best Bond films of all time, and on the other end we have a site telling fans to boycott CR.

But I still say the negative view is firmly in the minority at this present time.

I think some of the reviews put up here as an example have said Craig is good but he isn't really Bond. My view is that Daniel Craig is a good actor and does nothing wrong in CR but he's miscast. It depends on what you want or expect from a Bond I suppose.

[ID]

I think for the sheer OUCH! factor nothing will top this review from someone on Absolutely James Bond:

Ok, here's my take...

Having followed the making of the film like most of us, I arrived at Casino Royale with certain preconceptions. I had a bit of a speech lined up beforehand actually (slips into Richard Burton voice in final scene of The Wild Geese). You'd have liked it. All about how the good the Brosnan films should have been. That moment he checks into the Manhattan suite, Brosnan's Ivy League looks nicely complimenting his surroundings. The dawn safe break in the pre-credits, where Bond escapes across the rooftops, the full panorama of Hong Kong opening up, the sun rising and glinting on the skyscrapers, the Oriental gangsters in full pursuit. The gritty car chase around Moscow and the concurrent photoshoot with Bond at Red Square, St Basil's in the background. The menacing, larger-than-life villains. The terrific songs, on a par with Live And Let Die and Nobody Does It Better. The pop-art posters adorning your wall.

Instead we got a load of muddy, mediocre, better-luck-next-time blockbusters. No wonder Craig's debut doesn't have to try that hard.

Then I was going to talk about the reboot idea - in Casino Royale Bond gets ticked off by Judi Dench's M, then beaten, brokenhearted and betrayed. He faces a boyish nemesis. Not too different from the Brosnan era, then, surely.

Finally, they were gonna revitalise the franchise using a 50-year-old novel. Which features a poker game. "You're the best player in the service," M tells him. Best player? Only player more like. Or are we to believe that Bond and MI6 take on Spooks every Tuesday evening? Maybe there's a Ryder Cup where every two years Bond takes on his friends across the Atlantic, Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer...

All this speech proves invalid when I see the film...

Two words make it invalid: Martin Campbell.

The film opens splendidly. Black and white atmospheric shots. It's almost as good as GoldenEye's opening, with the shots of the dam. You relax, knowing your in safe hands.

Bond meets the double agent. Hmm, can't hear the dialogue too well. It's a bit muffled. The flashbacks of Bond killing the contact are terrific, grainy, superb. It's a bit squirm inducing, watching this double agent patronise Bond for not being a double o, only gradually realising that he will be the one to make that right, but dramatically very satisfying.

Bond gets his two kills, but falls victim to Martin Campbell's tin ear for dialogue. Example (I paraphrase): "I know all about you Bond..." He pulls the trigger. The chamber is empty. Bond: "I know where you keep your gun."

This is a one-liner of sorts. It has symmetry: You know this, but I know THAT. But Craig is allowed to deliver this like it's totally unrelated to the previous line. I had to piece together the writers' intentions.

Same with the last word, where Bond answers how much easier the second kill is: "Considerably". This should have a dismissive, devastating finality to it, crashing down like a tennis ace smashing an opponent's volley. But Craig's inflection goes upwards, leaving the word hanging as the scene ends. He misdelivers it.

Into the credits then, and I must say I quite enjoyed the much-maligned theme, not too bad at all. A bit incrongrous against the Flemingesque Fifties visuals, but interesting. A big shot of Craig's mug at the end... Not sure he's got the Milk Tray man looks for that sort of thing. The Bond sillohette was surely a Moore era thing too, what gives?

Onto the film proper. A City of God style, that's good. Villains meet up and do business. Hmm, a bit like the DAD pre-credits isn't it? Still can't hear the dialogue too well, and this is Odeon Leicester Square. Like hearing a neighbour's noisy party start up at 10.30pm on a weekday, a wave of weary annoyance sweeps over me. How long is this going on for? Or is it a director's trick, to toy with the audience, like a softly-spoken public speaker getting you to lean forward on the edge of your seat? The same happened with Die Another Day, and this year's Dead Man's Chest. I know I'm not deaf, other films are fine eg The Departed...

The main chase on the cranes. Credit to Campbell, he knows his action. Terrific stuff. The leap Bond makes in pursuit of the bomber is a heart-in-mouth moment. We haven't had any great action directors since Campbell in Goldeneye, EON do seem to struggle with directors. Whereas the Bourne producers hit it out the park both times.

Still, I had my misgivings. It was like watching a hot and bothered Wayne Rooney chase after a young Pele. We can't help but admire Foucan's grace and atheleticism, it's not faked. Craig's Bond, we admire because he can push a button and work a winch and shoot up several stories and catch up. It's like seeing your team equalise by tricking the ref into giving you a penalty.

Watching Craig somehow catch up reminded me of Ali on the Parkinson show talking about George Foreman as The Mummy...

As written, the scene is about Bond matching his athleticism to his opponent, and getting carried away by physical exhuberance. But Craig's Bond doesn't have any physical exhuberance. He doesn't have that Errol Flynn daring-do. Henry Cavill might have. Brozzer did in GE, check out the similar final scene with Sean Bean. Craig's Bond looks like he'd cynically and patiently wait for the bomber to come down off that crane, then shoot him in the back - a stunt Connery did on pickpocket Wayne Sleep in The First Great Train Robbery. (Shock film fact: bearded, middle-aged Connery was younger in that film than Craig is as beginner Bond... )

Anyway, Bond pushing levers to go sky-high? Isn't that a Brosnan trick, like when he and Christmas Jones escape the underground missile site before it blows, or escapes Alec's gun in the satellite dish by dropping down on the ladder?

Nasty tell tale reminders of Die Another Day hang over Casino Royale, despite the revamp. The brazen product placement. The car advert, made more obvious by the fact that the camera is lingering over a crumby Ford. Bond meets a boorish fellow and gets petty revenge by smashing his car - it's like the loudmouth in Cuba Brosnan decks and puts in a wheelchair. The casual promiscous sex which seems less libertine and rather distasteful... Bond sees a couple's tiff and moves in to take advantage and shag the missus. The awful, Jinx-style love talk: "Ooh you're so good when you're BAD!"

Judi Dench is not so bad this time, but she doesn't seem such a great actress. She still does that thing where she gabbles a long sentence as if she's worried she'll forget the words, then ends it out of breath.

I'm afraid I hold Martin Campbell responsible for all this, I just don't like him as a director. Action, he's great, if a bit slick. But he just cannot do a bread-and-butter scene. Everything is unconvincing imo. He can't set up a one-liner, he has no feel for dialogue, no taste or intelligence at all.

Now, Craig's Bond. Having enjoyed him in Layer Cake, I have to say he far exceeds my expectations. He's far, far worse than I ever imagined. It's like he's fallen off the ugly tree - a Redwood, no less - and hit every branch on the way down. His face isn't so much lived-in, as made squatters' residence by a horde of crack addicts. He's aged shockingly since Layer Cake. His face has dropped. Something similiar happened to Richard Burton from 1962 - 1968 when he went from young blade to speccy, paunchy henpecked professor in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Not since a thick-set Roger Moore and toupeed Sean Connery wandered through the celluloid knacker's yard of Octopussy and Never Say Never Again have I seen so many young women planted to stop and gaze at the leading man admiringly. Yes, we get it. He's good-looking. Hmmm... You could sell lessons in spin to Fox News.

Women have drooled over Craig's magnificent body. To which I have to say, are you frickin' kidding me? As he emerges from the sea he looks like an albino stuffed sausage. He looks freakish, obscene. Like he's done steroids. He's like the sort the Soviets send to fight our hero, be it Rocky or Connery's Bond, the sort who gets outwitted because he's dulled his brain down the gym.

I kept waiting for Craig to become Ian Fleming's Bond like they say he does. For me, it didn't happen. Even Craig's lithe, taut body as seen in The Mother and Layer Cake, which was very much Fleming's Bond, is now distorted and grotesque. He looks like a bloke who worries he's short and balding and heads to the gym to overcompensate.

As for his character, he just seeems like a thug. I know he smashed the boorish guy's car to get access into the club and snoop around (for reasons I couldn't quite fathom, it's all rather baffling, much like GoldenEye), but you get the impression Craig's Bond would do that anyway, mission or not. He's a bore just like the guy he's deckin'. Being of the same generation as Craig, he just seems like a cocky bloke who wears steel soles on his shoes to announce his presence around the office.

BTW, I've got the paperback Pan books of the 50s, and Bond never looks like Daniel Craig on the cover. He's the spit of Connery on one, though. (FRWL 1958 if you must know).

Moving on. The action scene at the airport is terrific stuff. Credit where it's due. This could be the most exciting action scene of the entire series. I was a bit grudging, cos the film lost me from hello, and we're conned into thinking that lives are at risk, when it turns out to be a prototype plane, but it's gripping stuff. The way the truck careers around as Bond tries to hop on, you feel real danger.

Nitpicking though... Could Craig's real-life Bond be thrown off a 50mph truck onto concrete and just pick up and carry on?

And the final pay-off, where the terrorist only succeeds in blowing himself up as Craig watches on (sorry, I can't call him Bond). Hang on, it's still an explosion, near to the plane. With all that fuel around, wouldn't it all blow up anyway? Better to have Craig make eyecontact with the creepy villain from 200 yards away on a lone strech of runway, about to detonate, then a close up of realisation, then from a distance the boom! and smoke.

Was the guy a suicide bomber or not? Was he trying to drive the truck into the plane? So if Bond attaches the detonator to the villain, how is he to know that he'll be out of the truck? Surely better to just throw the bomb out onto the runway, not hand it to the villain? Who might win the fight and then just carry on?

Bond and Vesper. Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Craig makes a silly Moore/Brosnan comment: Every penny of it! Craig's Bond wouldn't do that. He's a romantic vulture, picking over couple's dead relationships. These characters know they lose by default. They don't make jokes that rely on their quest having a sense of humour, or obligation to laugh.

Bond's smooth insight into Vesper's character is ripped off the film Wolf, where Jack Nicolson takes Michelle Pfeiffer's little rich girl down a peg or two. Except Jack does it far better. The mutal insight into each other's backgrouind is rubbish, contrived, far-fetched. But none of it convinced me, their relationship. It's like they fall in love because they're both orphans, and get to dress each other. And the drink. It's all overwritten and clumsy, except where Bond comforts V, both fully clothed, in the shower, that's a lovely, affecting moment.

Now, the casino part in Montenegro. I really, really hated these scenes (plus ca change, I hear you say).
Why? Well Lee Tamorhi vetoed a casino scene in DAD because it slows things down. OK, Tamorhari is a bete nor for fans, not least myself. But he has a point. You want to sell me a casino scene today, I need smoke, decadence, a touch of Hotel Costes. I want hookers living it up and happy, cocaine, gilt but not guilt. I want it like Rik's place in Casablanca...

The casino interior looks like someone's converted front room. There's Matthis, a creepy bloke with traitor stamped on his forehead, there's Bond trotting over to tell him and Vesper his strategy within earhot of Le Chiffre, there's Matthis in his stage whisper explaining to Vesper what Bond is going to do next. D'oh! There's Bond telling Vesper to kiss him to make the others jealous? Yeah, I bet they're all gonna be phased by that. They all say how good looking Vesper is. Translation: she's a dog. Like Bush and the Republicans though, say the opposite and they'll believe you...

What's Sun columnist Jane Moore doing as Le Chiffre's mistress?

Well, you know how this is going. Campbell is cack-handed with his exposition. He couldn't deliver you a one-liner if If Mr Witty pulled up in an ice-cream van with 'One-liners stop me and buy one' on the side.

The scene with the fillibrator was very good.

The confrontation with Le Chiffre is ripped off True Romance and that between Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper, a much better scene. Mads even looks like Walken in that scene. Overall, there was never much sense of personal rivalry much between them, much of a relationship. Craig does good acting here, though.

Not much more. The finale is exciting, the Venice homage to Don't Look Back very good as it puts a spin on it, the action great, the death scene very moving and affecting. Except, we're not sure what kind of traitor Vesper is at that point. And I never felt it was a real relationship unfolding. It was like we got the edited highlights because it had been trimmed down for time. What idiot does a Bond film and has to cut it racically to get it to 2 hrs 20 mins. Didn't they have stopwatch?

And hang on... if Bond had held back from his shootout and maybe contacted M... that lovely Venetian building, a few million worth, would still be standing. Vesper, the love of his life, would still be alive... They'd be able to round up the villains and question them. Has this Bond learned anything? And didn't Vesper anyway leave a contact number on her phone for Bond to follow up anyway, which he does? (Mr White) Frank Drebbin is Bond!!

What about Matthis? We're meant to think he's poisoned Bond's drink. See, you get pictures with my review Presumably it isn't... Bond doesn't care, sweat him out. It could be a double bluff. He's learning our hero, except he got the wrong traitor, and takes Le Chiffre's word as gospel.

It's bad, cos Matthis was a great character in Fleming's novel, and the defining moment where a weak and deluded Bond outlines the difference between good and evil had real resonance with the mishandled war on terror today, and the difference between Saddam's violence and Bush's actions which as led to 100s of thousands dead. In the book Matthis shoots Bond's thesis down, as he could in the film, pointing out how Muslims are bombing fellow Muslims. But what a moment that would have made...

I would have made Vesper a brainwashed suicide bomber, who takes advantage of Bond's defences being down, and Matthis indulgence to infiltrate and MI6 stronghold and blow it and M to hell....! That would justify the payoff line, The bitch is dead!

Of course, EON don't want to get Al Quaida's attention. But you see, Fleming's Bond was up against real foes, the KGB, who as we have sadly seen this week have not gone away... Craig's Bond aims to be in the Fleming mould, but is up against not real foes but generic terrorists. Who we never really see blow anyone up ever.

Good things? Arnold should never write another song, but his score is wonderful and lovely. Beautiful cinematography. A classic look, could be the 1950s much of the time. Sweeping panoramic shots of Venice are terrific. And often Campbell did have a freshness to his style, though he lacks and taste or intelligence.

Bad stuff? See above! Plus Craig trying on his dinner jacket, looking like any berk pretending to be Bond. And like Connery's chameleon toupee in NSNA, Craig's skin goes from fake tan to albino throughout the film.

I'm neary done. Campbell is a canny operator. His GoldenEye is credited with reviving the series. Yet with its themes of the end of the Cold War, it was more a valediction in truth. It was left to his hapless successor to think up new enemies and angles for Bond, and we got mincing media mogul Elliot Carver...
Likewise, Casino Royale has rave reviews. But it's a coming-of-age film. Be it Footloose, Dirty Dancing or Risky Business, these films are hard to mess up. They're also equally hard to draft a sequel for. The character arc is complete, where do you take it?

Dave Arnold talked about how he tried to put the Bond theme in more, but it didn't work as you know Bond would win when you heard it start up.

In the final scene, we see Craig shoot Mr White, hos Bond back to his sociopathic ways... He delivers the line, Bond, James Bond. The theme starts up, and it sounds all wrong. It has that cocky, expansive swagger and humour that Craig is not really about. He's the Steve McQueen type, the silent type who you find out years later shagged your girlfriend.

Campbell's work is done, and his film is being raved about, just as GoldenEye was. I don't envy his successor, do you?

[The Sweeney]

There's nothing `ouch' about that review at all. It's just someone on a forum who didn't like the film. It's all down to personal taste, nothing more that that.

Should I start pulling up the countless A++, 10-out-of-10 reviews from different forums to counteract this (because there are plenty). Of course not.

Posting this here, you are preaching to the converted. Everyone here is singing from the same song sheet. You've all made your opinion on Craig perfectly clear. No need at all to reinforce it by dragging a review from another forum across.

Or was this review more for the pro-Craig members benefit who are on here?

[ID]

Have you ever heard of CommanderBond.net? It's a website where pratically everyone thinks the Bible would be a better book if it had Daniel Craig in it instead of Jesus. You'd be right at home there.

[The Sweeney]

Have you ever heard of CommanderBond.net? It's a website where pratically everyone thinks the Bible would be a better book if it had Daniel Craig in it instead of Jesus. You'd be right at home there.

I'm already on there, but don't post much because everyone agrees with the same thing. There is no room for debate.

Whereas here on the other hand.....

[carl stromberg]

Kristatos
A few years down the line, there will almost certainly be a backlash where positive reviews of CR are as rare as negative reviews are now. Then, finally, there might be some actual debate about whether Craig and CR are any good or not.

Kristatos is right here.

[The Sweeney]

Kristatos
A few years down the line, there will almost certainly be a backlash where positive reviews of CR are as rare as negative reviews are now. Then, finally, there might be some actual debate about whether Craig and CR are any good or not.

Kristatos is right here.

I'm not so sure actually. Usually when a film receives this amount of praise (and a heft amount of award nominations too) there tends to be a reason for it - mianly the film itself is top notch.

If someone can give me case in hand where a film has received this amount of critical and financial success, yet turns out to be a backlash in later years, then maybe I'll change my mind.

But if my memory serves me correct, usually when a film like this has received this global acceptance, there isn't usually a backlash afterwards. Instead, the film ends up with an all-time classic status.

[Captain Nash]

I agree with The Sweeney on this, Casino Royale is locked in. Much like GoldenEye before it, only even bigger and better.
An opposite example would be Die Another Day, which although made alot of money wasn't highly praised at the time and continues to be seen as the worst Bond film ever by many fans. I can't see that opinion changing anytime soon.

[The Sweeney]

I agree with The Sweeney on this, Casino Royale is locked in. Much like GoldenEye before it, only even bigger and better.
An opposite example would be Die Another Day, which although made alot of money wasn't highly praised at the time and continues to be seen as the worst Bond film ever by many fans. I can't see that opinion changing anytime soon.

Exactly!

Occassionally a film can gain a cult following after an initial disappointing release, and end up becoming a classic (arguably OHMSS falls into this category), but that's about it.

Usually greatness in a film is picked up immediately, especially in a case like CR, where not only did it bring in the unexpected BO volume, but it also appealed to the mass critics too (to get the 2 hand-in-hand is not an easy feat).

And the praise from the Bond fan community in general has been nothing short of CR being one of the greatest Bond films of all time, and Craig coming in at a close second to Connery. Not many films get this amount of initial praise without a very good reason. This is no DAD - far from it.

I cannot remember the last time I saw a film in recent memory, and it suddenly jumps into my top 10 favourite films of all time. I usually hate most of what comes out of Hollywood these days, and am more a fan of 60's and 70's movies than I am 90's and 00's films.

So this tells me something about the strength of CR. I've seen it 4 times now, and each viewing just gets better. I just hope I don't see it too many times, so it ends up spoiling my enjoyment of the film itself (I have this problem now with GF and OHMSS - I know every single bloody line)!!

[BondFan007]

Kristatos
A few years down the line, there will almost certainly be a backlash where positive reviews of CR are as rare as negative reviews are now. Then, finally, there might be some actual debate about whether Craig and CR are any good or not.

Kristatos is right here.

How can speculation be "right"? You may agree, but he isn't right until, if ever, it starts happening.

[Kristatos]

If someone can give me case in hand where a film has received this amount of critical and financial success, yet turns out to be a backlash in later years, then maybe I'll change my mind.

Hmm...most of the examples I can think of are in the opposite direction, films that were either panned or received a lukewarm response on their initial release but were recognised as classics later (Citizen Kane being the most famous example). But Paul Haggis's Crash (which I liked, incidentally) is already suffering something of a backlash, with the same critics who praised it when it came out now pretending that they have no idea how such a "mediocre" film won a Best Picture Oscar.

[007]

Forrest Gump. Driving Miss Daisy. Titanic.

[BondFan007]

Forrest Gump is still held in high regard, don't know Driving Miss Daisy.

[007]

Forrest Gump I think I'm right in saying, deprived Pulp Fiction of an Oscar. It made an awful lot of money but isn't held up as a great film today. It ripped off Woody Allen's Zelig.

Driving Miss Daisy won a best picture Oscar and (at the US box-office)made over $100 million in 1989. A staggering sum for a low-budget picture back then (and treble the gross of a certain Licence To Kill). All that and you've never heard of it. Some films just catch the mood of the year but don't stand up over time.

[Kristatos]

(and treble the gross of a certain Licence To Kill)

Which was also praised at the time and is often panned now (not by Bond fans, maybe, but critics often accuse Dalton of being "boring").