Mr Cranky reviews Casino Royale

[BondFan007]

(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").

It's more the other way around.

[The Sweeney]

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.

Thanks for providing examples.

However, none of these films belong in the same genre as Bond (ie. spy action flick). The fact that the Oscars often go for dramas is a formality, so often what they pick as Best picture often can end up being dismissed as dull years later (Ordinary People for instance).

But for an out-and-out action flick to get this kind of recognition is something else entirely. I don't ever recall an action flick getting this amount of critical praise before (and be a smash at the BO too).

[The Sweeney]

(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").

I don't recall LTK getting the same global critical acclaim that CR received.

[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.

Thanks for providing examples.

However, none of these films belong in the same genre as Bond (ie. spy action flick). The fact that the Oscars often go for dramas is a formality, so often what they pick as Best picture often can end up being dismissed as dull years later (Ordinary People for instance).

But for an out-and-out action flick to get this kind of recognition is something else entirely. I don't ever recall an action flick getting this amount of critical praise before (and be a smash at the BO too).

My dear Sweeney, have you just moved the goalposts? Is Titanic a drama? It had a love story but most people went to see the pyrotechnics that they knew James Cameron would throw at the screen in the last third.

[James]

Braveheart. That was another load of old cobblers that won an Oscar.

[The Sweeney]

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.

Thanks for providing examples.

However, none of these films belong in the same genre as Bond (ie. spy action flick). The fact that the Oscars often go for dramas is a formality, so often what they pick as Best picture often can end up being dismissed as dull years later (Ordinary People for instance).

But for an out-and-out action flick to get this kind of recognition is something else entirely. I don't ever recall an action flick getting this amount of critical praise before (and be a smash at the BO too).

My dear Sweeney, have you just moved the goalposts? Is Titanic a drama? It had a love story but most people went to see the pyrotechnics that they knew James Cameron would throw at the screen in the last third.

So now you are drawing parallels with Titanic? You think CR is like Titanic...?

[007]

[quote="The Sweeney]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.[/quote]

I answered that one but are you asking for different criteria now? Do you consider CR a drama or merely an action film or both? Also you said it was one of your ten favourite films ever. I'm curious to see what other films you put in your top ten. Could you provide a list?

I'd say Titanic was a well recieved film that made an awful lot of money in 1997. It isn't widely regarded as a great film now. That was the possible parallel I was drawing with CR. GoldenEye was praised to the heavens in 1995 but a lot of fans find it overrated now.

[The Sweeney]

I answered that one but are you asking for different criteria now? Do you consider CR a drama or merely an action film or both? Also you said it was one of your ten favourite films ever. I'm curious to see what other films you put in your top ten. Could you provide a list?

Top 10 films? Ok, here goes. It will be something like (in no particular order) -

1. Jaws
2. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
3. Superman
4. The Long Good Friday
5. Goodfellas
6. Back to the Future
7. The Shining
8. Beverly Hills Cop/Top Gun (can't decide)
9. Casino Royale
10. Rocky

Not sure what this means about my film tastes, but the only recent films I'd consider putting in the top 20 are Batman Begins and Bourne Supremacy. I'd also like a place for OHMSS and Goldfinger too.

[carl stromberg]

The Sweeney is a complete buffoon when it comes to James Bond punditry ( ); but he does have a good taste in films....!

[Captain Nash]

The Sweeney is a complete buffoon when it comes to James Bond punditry ( ); but he does have a good taste in films....!

He ha a good taste in Bond too carl.

[The Sweeney]

The Sweeney is a complete buffoon when it comes to James Bond punditry ( ); but he does have a good taste in films....!

Thanks Carl. I think somewhere in there is a compliment....

[BondFan007]

The Sweeney is a complete buffoon when it comes to James Bond punditry ( ); but he does have a good taste in films....!

He has different opinions than you and he's a buffoon?

[ID]

I think Carl was being tongue in cheek.

[Jedi007]

so he didn't get the reboot idea

So does whoever who have thought of rebooting James Bond.

There is only one film I have seen who use the reboot element: Batman Begins. Now, if you're someone who is concerned with the past, with the history, with the time element, you would ask, how did that happen? How did a character of the past be transported into the present without any explanation at all? That's where the reboot element enters; and along with it, a fantastical one (fantastical not being an-invisible-aston-martin sort).

In Batman, in DC Comic Universe, fans know of the existence of multiple earths and alternate realities. And for many years, the entire DC Universe and all of its characters experienced numerous history reboots. That could be easily explained since there is a presence of fantastical element (again, please refrain from talking about the invisible car a fantasy).

In James Bond world, there is no such thing as alternate realities or multiple earths. The thing that could only explain why the last M suddenly became the first, and a cold war agent suddenly become a SAS is that they have followed L. Tamahori's crazy idea that each James Bond actor is a different James Bond.

They could have repair the inconsistency between differrent actor's portrayal of the character by doing what Star Wars Expanded Universe writers have done: making side stories that explains the differences of EU literary works with the canon films. Instead, they rebooted Bond as if he belongs in Jet Li's The One.

[The Sweeney]

so he didn't get the reboot idea

So does whoever who have thought of rebooting James Bond.

There is only one film I have seen who use the reboot element: Batman Begins. Now, if you're someone who is concerned with the past, with the history, with the time element, you would ask, how did that happen? How did a character of the past be transported into the present without any explanation at all? That's where the reboot element enters; and along with it, a fantastical one (fantastical not being an-invisible-aston-martin sort).

In Batman, in DC Comic Universe, fans know of the existence of multiple earths and alternate realities. And for many years, the entire DC Universe and all of its characters experienced numerous history reboots. That could be easily explained since there is a presence of fantastical element (again, please refrain from talking about the invisible car a fantasy).

In James Bond world, there is no such thing as alternate realities or multiple earths. The thing that could only explain why the last M suddenly became the first, and a cold war agent suddenly become a SAS is that they have followed L. Tamahori's crazy idea that each James Bond actor is a different James Bond.
They could have repair the inconsistency between differrent actor's portrayal of the character by doing what Star Wars Expanded Universe writers have done: making side stories that explains the differences of EU literary works with the canon films. Instead, they rebooted Bond as if he belongs in Jet Li's The One.

Probably the only sensible thing that ever came from the mouth of this director.

I never thought the Bond of the 70's (Moore's) was the same as the Bond of the 60's. I never once thought Dalton's LTK Bond was the same as the Bond in MR, I never once thought Craig's Bond was the same as the smug one in the 90's (Brosnan's).

Some people think there is a strong continuation in the Bond franchise - whereas I don't at all. They are all individual films, that just happen to have recurring characters in them, nothing more.

The timeline in the Bond films is as loose as a drunk Thai hooker who has just discovered her bank overdraft is a bit more overdrawn than usual.

[Kristatos]

[I never thought the Bond of the 70's (Moore's) was the same as the Bond of the 60's. I never once thought Dalton's LTK Bond was the same as the Bond in MR, I never once thought Craig's Bond was the same as the smug one in the 90's (Brosnan's).

Agree with the last sentence, but all 5 previous Bonds share one thing in common - Tracy. Lazenby married and lost her, Connery went to avenge her death in DAF, Moore visited her grave in FYEO, Dalton's reaction to catching the bouquet at Felix's wedding in LTK and Brosnan's pained expression when asked if he has ever lost someone both indicate that the wound hadn't yet healed.

[The Sweeney]

[I never thought the Bond of the 70's (Moore's) was the same as the Bond of the 60's. I never once thought Dalton's LTK Bond was the same as the Bond in MR, I never once thought Craig's Bond was the same as the smug one in the 90's (Brosnan's).

Agree with the last sentence, but all 5 previous Bonds share one thing in common - Tracy. Lazenby married and lost her, Connery went to avenge her death in DAF, Moore visited her grave in FYEO, Dalton's reaction to catching the bouquet at Felix's wedding in LTK and Brosnan's pained expression when asked if he has ever lost someone both indicate that the wound hadn't yet healed.

Tracey really is the only connection to the different Bond actors. Because Tracey's death is one of those rare moments which defines Bond character.

The same way Vesper does too, although this has never been shown before on film until now.

[Skywalker]

I never thought the Bond of the 70's (Moore's) was the same as the Bond of the 60's.

What about GF? This film was more in kin to the Moore era.

I never once thought Craig's Bond was the same as the smug one in the 90's (Brosnan's).

Or the 80's, 70's and 60's.

Some people think there is a strong continuation in the Bond franchise - whereas I don't at all. They are all individual films, that just happen to have recurring characters in them.

All previous 20 bond films have had Bond. CR had the Terminator.

The timeline in the Bond films is as loose as a drunk Thai hooker who has just discovered her bank overdraft is a bit more overdrawn than usual.

Agreed.

[Captain Nash]

[I never thought the Bond of the 70's (Moore's) was the same as the Bond of the 60's. I never once thought Dalton's LTK Bond was the same as the Bond in MR, I never once thought Craig's Bond was the same as the smug one in the 90's (Brosnan's).

Agree with the last sentence, but all 5 previous Bonds share one thing in common - Tracy. Lazenby married and lost her, Connery went to avenge her death in DAF, Moore visited her grave in FYEO, Dalton's reaction to catching the bouquet at Felix's wedding in LTK and Brosnan's pained expression when asked if he has ever lost someone both indicate that the wound hadn't yet healed.

Tracey really is the only connection to the different Bond actors. Because Tracey's death is one of those rare moments which defines Bond character.

The same way Vesper does too, although this has never been shown before on film until now.

And anyone who has read the novels will know what a dramatic effcect Vesper and her death have on Bond. If some of you just give the whole new direction a go I'm sure you'll be rewarded in the end.
Or you can continue to whine and moan, without actually making any difference to the proceedings.

[Harvey Wallbanger]

[I never thought the Bond of the 70's (Moore's) was the same as the Bond of the 60's. I never once thought Dalton's LTK Bond was the same as the Bond in MR, I never once thought Craig's Bond was the same as the smug one in the 90's (Brosnan's).

Agree with the last sentence, but all 5 previous Bonds share one thing in common - Tracy. Lazenby married and lost her, Connery went to avenge her death in DAF, Moore visited her grave in FYEO, Dalton's reaction to catching the bouquet at Felix's wedding in LTK and Brosnan's pained expression when asked if he has ever lost someone both indicate that the wound hadn't yet healed.

Tracey really is the only connection to the different Bond actors. Because Tracey's death is one of those rare moments which defines Bond character.

The same way Vesper does too, although this has never been shown before on film until now.

And anyone who has read the novels will know what a dramatic effcect Vesper and her death have on Bond. If some of you just give the whole new direction a go I'm sure you'll be rewarded in the end.
Or you can continue to whine and moan, without actually making any difference to the proceedings.

Vesper's death was kinda monumental and self-defeating.
The next book Bond is very involved with the Solitaire – including feelings he never felt before.
After Tracy it was crippling.
Maybe Vesper is monumental because she was the first. If Fleming had lived who knows if he'd created another woman to be Bond's first love in some flashback or file notation.