Filmsinreview.com review of Casino Royale

[007]

http://www.filmsinreview.com/FilmReview ... sroya.html


Simply giving a guy a big gun, an Aston Martin and Dame Judi Dench as his boss doesn’t make him James Bond.

I’m in the minority here I know, but I didn’t like it. I’m a Bond fan. I’ve seen all the movies many times, and I’ve read all the books many times and I consider myself a Bond aficionado – and I didn’t like it. There are things Bond, and Bond movies, must have and do to be Bond, and this guy, and this movie, just hasn’t got any of them.

Sure he’s ruthless, dispassionate and tough as a paid killer should be, but so was Jason Bourne. It can be no coincidence that Robert Ludlum called his amnesiac trained assassin Jason Bourne – JB right? It even sounds like Sean Connery’s pronunciation of ‘James Bond’. Has the Bond franchise been bullied into hardening up the character to compete with the Bournes, Ethan Hunts and XXXs of the cinematic world? I can see the need to compete, but not to the extent of compromising the character. Don’t they realise that all the others are just wannabe Bonds? They’re trying to reach his level, so why make it easy by dropping down to theirs?

The producers would have us believe that this is a new Bond. ‘Forget the past’ they say. But how can we? I’ve often said that Bond should go back to its roots and be started all over again afresh, it needed to and this was their golden opportunity, but they’ve done it half-heartedly and made a hash of it.

It’s already established in the Bond timeline that Bond is the veteran agent (no matter who played him), that he’s been married (Lazenby wed in OHMSS, but the relationship was also referred to in The SPY WHO LOVED ME and LICENCE TO KILL, Moore and Dalton movies respectively), and that Judi Dench’s ‘M’ is the newcomer. Now we are to believe that she is the veteran ‘M’ and Bond is the newly promoted agent. If this is supposedly a new Bond, why is she even there? She links the character with the previous movies. Having a completely new ‘M’, a gruff Bernard Lee type, also would have helped enormously, Dame Judi’s presence just screws it up.

As to Bond himself, Daniel Craig, no matter how gifted an actor, is NOT Bond. The character is clearly defined and described in the books, and Craig just does not fit in any respect. The obvious starter is the fact that Bond as described is definitely not blonde. So, is this ‘Ian Fleming’s James Bond’ as claimed in the credits, or is it now ‘Micheal G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli’s James Bond’? Also this is supposed to be a younger Bond at the beginning of his 00 career. Can any of you really tell me that Craig looks appreciably younger than Brosnan?

Yes, Bond is a hired killer, and as I said earlier, ruthless, dispassionate, cruel even, but he’s also handsome (sorry Daniel), suave, sophisticated, well educated, well heeled, has good tailors and knows his food and his drinks. He has to in order to mix in the circles in which he may find himself. Bond would never respond to the question ‘Shaken or stirred sir?’ with ‘Do I look like I give a ****’. Bond was often shaken, but never stirred. James Bond was also an accomplished bullshitter. If you’ve ever read ‘The Book of Bond – Every Man his own 007’, supposedly written by ‘M’s Chief of Staff, and Bond’s friend, Bill Tanner, but actually written by Kingsley Amis, you will find examples from the books to illustrate that if Bond doesn’t know something he deftly makes up something, based on his experience, intelligence and education I hasten to add, totally feasible and believable in order to maintain his aura of total infallibility. Still bulls**t all the same, but never, EVER would he allow himself to appear to be a simple thug (unless it suited his purposes of course). This is what makes him James Bond and the character that all other movie spies have aspired to since the franchise began. Think of all the characters, movies and TV series Bond has inspired: The Man from UNCLE, The Avengers, Mission Impossible and yes, even Jason Bourne, in fact any spy character created since 1962’s DR. NO you can guarantee the creator has had James Bond at the back of his mind. If they can’t BE James Bond, they counter James Bond with characters like Harry Palmer, David Callan or Alec Leamas, or they spoof James Bond with Derek Flint, Matt Helm and Austin Powers (though how you can spoof something that was a spoof in the first place…). Bond also doesn’t live in this world, and trying to make him a part of the real world just doesn’t work. Bond lives in an exotic world, a world some of us wish we could be a part of, but our only link is through the screen. I don’t go to see a Bond movie expecting reality, human frailty, serious drama – I want to see James Bond!

It’s been famously said that Bond is the man most men want to be and the man most women want to be with. There’s a magic, a surrealism to Bond, and this movie just hasn’t got it. It’s a good movie, but it’s not a Bond movie.

Craig’s character, and I mean that quite pointedly, states at the end of the movie that ‘The name’s Bond. James Bond’. Well, sorry, but no it isn’t. It could be anybody. Maybe it was just put in to remind us what, and who, we were watching, either way it’s killed my future interest in the franchise.

Bond creator Ian Fleming’s friend and neighbour in Jamaica, Noel Coward, was asked to portray Dr. No in the first Bond movie, to which he replied ‘No, no, no!’. I now echo those remarks. So does that mean that this new revamp of Bond was the Coward’s way out? Sorry.

Such a shame.

[The Sweeney]

http://www.filmsinreview.com/FilmReview ... sroya.html


I’m in the minority here I know

About the only thing I agreed with on that review!

[007]

Another one:

http://www.russellwardlow.net/blog/arch ... and_i.html

I watched Casino Royale last night. Aside from how brutishly, gremlin-ugly Daniel Craig is, the thing that was the biggest barrier to enjoying it were the long, ultra-choreographed fight scenes. My brain just shuts off during these things. I often use the time to grab something to eat or go to the bathroom. The martial arts and other bodily movements involved are depicted as being brought off to precisely that there's no sense of danger or suspense, just of actors proud of how much work they put into contorting their bodies that way. One of the reasons I refused to see any of the Matrix sequels except on DVD, apart from not wanting to give those Wachowski jackoffs the price of a movie ticket, was that I wanted the ability to fast-forward through the interminable, absolutely pointless combat filler (so as to get more quickly to the sparkling dialogue and philosophical musings of the script, I suppose). How much more entertaining all of these movies would be if fight scenes were relegated to a few seconds of intense, and even relatively clumsy, action. Not only would this give them an added sense of realism as opposed to the semi-"bloody ballet" they end up becoming, it would also add tension and suspense to the rest of the movie by heightening the feeling of danger during those periods where the hero is not physically fighting, because it would impress upon the audience how aberrant and therefore affecting having to suddenly kill another person in personal combat is. By making the act a relative marathon of acrobatics, the audience instead feels like the hero, and by extension they, have slogged through a combination of an aerobics class and long division.

I could write a whole long piece on this if I were still blogging, but it's no surprise that it was written by Paul Haggis, the Crash guy.

The movie made Bond:

1) a brutal thug rather than a debonaire spy (e.g. "shaken or stirred? Do I look like I give a d**n", or the part where he gives out his name at the casino when checking in, or the part at the end where he *shoots the guy* and then says "Bond. James Bond.")

2) "human" and a f**kup (screws up at the embassy, loses the card game and has to get bailed out, gets himself poisoned, gets captured, gets tricked by the woman)

3) someone to be rescued/defied by "strong women" (e.g. train scene w/ hostility by Vesper [that banter wasn't sexy], heart attack scene)

It's basically the destruction of the franchise. The sophisticated secret agent has been replaced by an unsophisticated, straight ahead thug. In every aspect of the film, the refined and complex (language, tactics, gadgets) is discarded for the simple and unsubtle. Moreover, the man is (quite intentionally) made a fool of by the woman.

Bond's most heroic moment in the film is pummeling a guy to death in a stairwell. That about says it all.

[Dr. No]

Has the Bond franchise been bullied into hardening up the character to compete with the Bournes, Ethan Hunts and XXXs of the cinematic world? I can see the need to compete, but not to the extent of compromising the character. Don’t they realise that all the others are just wannabe Bonds? They’re trying to reach his level, so why make it easy by dropping down to theirs?

good point

[The Sweeney]

Another one:

http://www.russellwardlow.net/blog/arch ... and_i.html

the thing that was the biggest barrier to enjoying it were the long, ultra-choreographed fight scenes. My brain just shuts off during these things. I often use the time to grab something to eat or go to the bathroom. The martial arts and other bodily movements involved are depicted as being brought off to precisely that there's no sense of danger or suspense, just of actors proud of how much work they put into contorting their bodies that way. One of the reasons I refused to see any of the Matrix sequels except on DVD, apart from not wanting to give those Wachowski jackoffs the price of a movie ticket, was that I wanted the ability to fast-forward through the interminable, absolutely pointless combat filler (so as to get more quickly to the sparkling dialogue and philosophical musings of the script, I suppose). How much more entertaining all of these movies would be if fight scenes were relegated to a few seconds of intense, and even relatively clumsy, action. Not only would this give them an added sense of realism as opposed to the semi-"bloody ballet" they end up becoming, it would also add tension and suspense to the rest of the movie by heightening the feeling of danger during those periods where the hero is not physically fighting, because it would impress upon the audience how aberrant and therefore affecting having to suddenly kill another person in personal combat is. By making the act a relative marathon of acrobatics, the audience instead feels like the hero, and by extension they, have slogged through a combination of an aerobics class and long division.

So this reviewer wanted even more realism to the fight scenes then....

Heaven only knows what he made of invisible cars and CGI iceberg surfing in DAD.....

[Dr. No]

Another one:

http://www.russellwardlow.net/blog/arch ... and_i.html

the thing that was the biggest barrier to enjoying it were the long, ultra-choreographed fight scenes. My brain just shuts off during these things. I often use the time to grab something to eat or go to the bathroom. The martial arts and other bodily movements involved are depicted as being brought off to precisely that there's no sense of danger or suspense, just of actors proud of how much work they put into contorting their bodies that way. One of the reasons I refused to see any of the Matrix sequels except on DVD, apart from not wanting to give those Wachowski jackoffs the price of a movie ticket, was that I wanted the ability to fast-forward through the interminable, absolutely pointless combat filler (so as to get more quickly to the sparkling dialogue and philosophical musings of the script, I suppose). How much more entertaining all of these movies would be if fight scenes were relegated to a few seconds of intense, and even relatively clumsy, action. Not only would this give them an added sense of realism as opposed to the semi-"bloody ballet" they end up becoming, it would also add tension and suspense to the rest of the movie by heightening the feeling of danger during those periods where the hero is not physically fighting, because it would impress upon the audience how aberrant and therefore affecting having to suddenly kill another person in personal combat is. By making the act a relative marathon of acrobatics, the audience instead feels like the hero, and by extension they, have slogged through a combination of an aerobics class and long division.

So this reviewer wanted even more realism to the fight scenes then....

Heaven only knows what he made of invisible cars and CGI iceberg surfing in DAD.....

I do get what he means about the ultra-choreographed fight scenes.
It became the rage after the matrix. "not wanting to give those Wachowski jackoffs the price of a movie ticket" indeed.

some reviews thought teh fight scenes took away from the "realism" of CR and making it cartoon action.
which is weird remembering some of Moore's.
some liked the action and hated the rest of the movie /some hated the action because it took away from the rest of CR.
IMHO people who truly believe CR is the perfect film Bond or not/ is actually small.i'm Not saying they changed their mind or didn't liked it
but plenty of viewers seem to have a problem with some aspect of CR.

I know a few here may object saying its perfect

[The Sweeney]

Another one:

http://www.russellwardlow.net/blog/arch ... and_i.html

the thing that was the biggest barrier to enjoying it were the long, ultra-choreographed fight scenes. My brain just shuts off during these things. I often use the time to grab something to eat or go to the bathroom. The martial arts and other bodily movements involved are depicted as being brought off to precisely that there's no sense of danger or suspense, just of actors proud of how much work they put into contorting their bodies that way. One of the reasons I refused to see any of the Matrix sequels except on DVD, apart from not wanting to give those Wachowski jackoffs the price of a movie ticket, was that I wanted the ability to fast-forward through the interminable, absolutely pointless combat filler (so as to get more quickly to the sparkling dialogue and philosophical musings of the script, I suppose). How much more entertaining all of these movies would be if fight scenes were relegated to a few seconds of intense, and even relatively clumsy, action. Not only would this give them an added sense of realism as opposed to the semi-"bloody ballet" they end up becoming, it would also add tension and suspense to the rest of the movie by heightening the feeling of danger during those periods where the hero is not physically fighting, because it would impress upon the audience how aberrant and therefore affecting having to suddenly kill another person in personal combat is. By making the act a relative marathon of acrobatics, the audience instead feels like the hero, and by extension they, have slogged through a combination of an aerobics class and long division.

So this reviewer wanted even more realism to the fight scenes then....

Heaven only knows what he made of invisible cars and CGI iceberg surfing in DAD.....

I do get what he means about the ultra-choreographed fight scenes.
It became the rage after the matrix. "not wanting to give those Wachowski jackoffs the price of a movie ticket" indeed.

some reviews thought teh fight scenes took away from the "realism" of CR and making it cartoon action.
which is weird remembering some of Moore's.
some liked the action and hated the rest of the movie /some hated the action because it took away from the rest of CR.
IMHO people who truly believe CR is the perfect film Bond or not/ is actually small.i'm Not saying they changed their mind or didn't liked it
but plenty of viewers seem to have a problem with some aspect of CR.

I know a few here may object saying its perfect

If you think about it, you could find faults with just about any film. OHMSS is one of my favourite Bond films, yet there are plenty of things in the film that I don't particularly like (speeded up fight scenes, Lazenby's acting, dubbed Hilary Bray voice, etc.)

Name me one Bond film that has no faults whatsoever.....

[Count_Lippe]

[AMERIBOND]

Come on Count. How am I going to get up the will to rent and watch CR, if you keep plastering Connery's perfect Bond all over this website. I had made up my mind to rent CR for tomorrow night. But after seeing those scenes, I'll have to dig out my copy of Dr No instead. To get back on track, could someone who has seen the movie point out DC's good points? I know he is short, blond, plain, un-suave, and looks like he is always sucking on a lemon. Since he is lacking in most of the traditional James Bond traits, what does he have that Sean Connery didn''t, now that he has been called "THE BEST BOND EVER"?

[stockslivevan]

AMERIBOND, don't watch Casino Royale. Coming from the posts you've already put up, I know you're just developing too much hate for CR that will blind you enough to find it somewhat agonizing. You seem like you are sharpening your claws at all this, like preparing to jump at everything and complain about it. So why watch the film if you're going to hate every minute of it?

[Jedi007]

Another good review, this sums up why I don't like CR.

[The Sweeney]

Come on Count. How am I going to get up the will to rent and watch CR, if you keep plastering Connery's perfect Bond all over this website. I had made up my mind to rent CR for tomorrow night. But after seeing those scenes, I'll have to dig out my copy of Dr No instead. To get back on track, could someone who has seen the movie point out DC's good points? I know he is short, blond, plain, un-suave, and looks like he is always sucking on a lemon. Since he is lacking in most of the traditional James Bond traits, what does he have that Sean Connery didn''t, now that he has been called "THE BEST BOND EVER"?

I've told you all the reasons why, here - http://www.danielcraigisnotbond.com/for ... 895498e5dc

The thing he has that every other actor didn't, is that we now believe Bond is an actual real-life character. Connery was sometimes too tongue-in-cheek and humourous to believe he was a real character, Lazenby was too wooden as an actor, Moore (well I needn't say anything else) Dalton tried to flesh out Bond, but I never believed Dalton could really kick heads in, or jump onto trucks - mainly because he didn't look super fit. Brosnan too didn't look like he could kick the hell out of 7 guys in one go, and he never seemed like a believable guy. He tried too hard to look cool all the time.

With Craig, it all comes natural. When he seduces Solange, it looks like he is really trying to seduce her, when he chases the bomber, we believe he really wants to get that bomber, when he performs a stunt, we actually believe it is Craig doing it.

[Dr. No]

Ah, yes!, the, um, good? Doctor

[carl stromberg]

AmeriBond wrote:
To get back on track, could someone who has seen the movie point out DC's good points? I know he is short, blond, plain, un-suave, and looks like he is always sucking on a lemon.

His looks were a problem for me too. But he had a go and tried to do something different. I just wasn't a fan of his interpretation.

I would have to disagree with the Sweeney's view that Craig was a more realistic Bond and that he believed he could do Bondian thngs. Bond is fantasy - Casino Royale was as well: people act as if it was a Ken Loach film!

[James]

...when he performs a stunt, we actually believe it is Craig doing it.

I think everyone is well aware that the only Bond who did all his own stunts was Roger Moore

[AMERIBOND]

I watched it. Bottom line. Pretty good movie, but B- at best. Too long. Slow. In case you didn't notice, despite it's legnth, Bond spoke less words than in any other Bond movie. The movie brought out several things. Craigs lack of height is magnified. No class. No humor. No sophistication, no suave 007. No traditional Bond stuff. No super Villian. Daniel Craig has no class. Period. He may a great character actor, which is what all the DC fans have been talking about. But DC lacks everything Connery has. Bond is Bourne. Its sad but true. And whats with that lemon-sucking lips mode that DC always has on his face? Somebody needs to tell DC to lay off the lemons. Despite DC's effort, he can't make himself tall, dark, handsome, and suave. The problem is, at no time, while I was watching CR, did I ever thoink I was watching a Bond Film. The Bond was missing.

[stockslivevan]

I watched it. Bottom line. Pretty good movie, but B- at best. Too long. Slow. In case you didn't notice, despite it's legnth, Bond spoke less words than in any other Bond movie. The movie brought out several things. Craigs lack of height is magnified. No class. No humor. No sophistication, no suave 007. No traditional Bond stuff. No super Villian. Daniel Craig has no class. Period. He may a great character actor, which is what all the DC fans have been talking about. But DC lacks everything Connery has. Bond is Bourne. Its sad but true. And whats with that lemon-sucking lips mode that DC always has on his face? Somebody needs to tell DC to lay off the lemons. Despite DC's effort, he can't make himself tall, dark, handsome, and suave. The problem is, at no time, while I was watching CR, did I ever thoink I was watching a Bond Film. The Bond was missing.

Sorry you feel that way, at least you enjoyed it to an extent. I think it's one of the better Bond films, on my top 5 for sure along with Dr. No, From Russia with Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and The Living Daylights.

[The Sweeney]

I watched it. Bottom line. Pretty good movie, but B- at best. Too long. Slow. In case you didn't notice, despite it's legnth, Bond spoke less words than in any other Bond movie. The movie brought out several things. Craigs lack of height is magnified. No class. No humor. No sophistication, no suave 007. No traditional Bond stuff. No super Villian. Daniel Craig has no class. Period. He may a great character actor, which is what all the DC fans have been talking about. But DC lacks everything Connery has. Bond is Bourne. Its sad but true. And whats with that lemon-sucking lips mode that DC always has on his face? Somebody needs to tell DC to lay off the lemons. Despite DC's effort, he can't make himself tall, dark, handsome, and suave. The problem is, at no time, while I was watching CR, did I ever thoink I was watching a Bond Film. The Bond was missing.

Shame you didn't really like it, but then again, judging from the way you were so negative beforehand, I can't say I'm that suprised.

This Bond film is now my all time favourite (closely followed by GF, OHMSS, FRWL and LTK). To me, they are all the same Bond, just played by different actors.

[paco chaos]

I watched it. Bottom line. Pretty good movie, but B- at best. Too long. Slow. In case you didn't notice, despite it's legnth, Bond spoke less words than in any other Bond movie. The movie brought out several things. Craigs lack of height is magnified. No class. No humor. No sophistication, no suave 007. No traditional Bond stuff. No super Villian. Daniel Craig has no class. Period. He may a great character actor, which is what all the DC fans have been talking about. But DC lacks everything Connery has. Bond is Bourne. Its sad but true. And whats with that lemon-sucking lips mode that DC always has on his face? Somebody needs to tell DC to lay off the lemons. Despite DC's effort, he can't make himself tall, dark, handsome, and suave. The problem is, at no time, while I was watching CR, did I ever thoink I was watching a Bond Film. The Bond was missing.

well, that's more positive than I was expecting from you. but I agree with most of what you are saying. I would prefer a classier Bond myself, and CR is about a C+ on my list. had the lead actor been more convincing and the OTT stuff toned down, it could have ranked higher. but it certainly doesn't stand up to GF, FRWL, DN, TB,or OHMSS for me.

[AMERIBOND]

Anybody know what a thoink is?