What was the worst bit in Casino Royale for you?

Post by **carl stromberg** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:31 am

The tux bit would have been stupid with Clive Owen or another actor of a similar age in the role. A 38 year old James Bond trying on a tux as though he hasn't ever worn one and like it's James Bond's "superhero" costume. Quite bizarre.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:53 am

carl stromberg wrote:The tux bit would have been stupid with Clive Owen or another actor of a similar age in the role. A 38 year old James Bond trying on a tux as though he hasn't ever worn one and like it's James Bond's "superhero" costume. Quite bizarre.

But the scene before Vesper was telling Bond that "there are dinner jackets and there are dinner jackets. This is the latter"
(Refering to the one she's sized up for Bond)
How often do you put on a tux and not check yourself out in a mirror?

Post by **carl stromberg** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:01 pm

How often do you put on a tux and not check yourself out in a mirror?

Every day!

Post by **The Sweeney** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:41 pm

carl stromberg wrote:
How often do you put on a tux and not check yourself out in a mirror?
Every day!

Are you a waiter by any chance.....

Post by **Skywalker** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:00 pm

carl stromberg wrote:
How often do you put on a tux and not check yourself out in a mirror?
Every day!

I may be vain but I look in the mirror every day.

BondFan007 · Post by **BondFan007** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:09 am

Skywalker wrote:
carl stromberg wrote:
How often do you put on a tux and not check yourself out in a mirror?
Every day!

You put on a Tux everyday?

Post by **carl stromberg** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:21 am

No of course I don't wear a tux everyday! You misunderstood my "joke".

BondFan007 · Post by **BondFan007** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:24 am

And you my sarcasm

Post by **Skywalker** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:53 pm

BondFan007 wrote:
Skywalker wrote:
carl stromberg wrote:
How often do you put on a tux and not check yourself out in a mirror?
Every day!
You put on a Tux everyday?

No need I look good without a tux.

Robert Stirling · Post by **Robert Stirling** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:48 pm

There were couple of such moments. First of all the scene at the beginning of the film where Bond kills the guy with his bare hands. I presume it was supposed to show Bond's dark side and bring some reality, yet completely unnecessarily, because Bond obviously had a gun with him. In spite of being professional assassin Bond doesn't like killing people (as we know from Flemming's books, as well as from previous films), so he certainly would have preffered killing this guy using the gun, not his hands.

At the second place was the scene in which Vesper explains to Bond that "there are dinner jackets and then there are dinner jackets", with that silly
"I sized you up the moment we met". Firstly: have the scriptwriters had any idea about cloths tailoring? "I sized you up the moment we met"?! - just ridiculous. Secondly, beeing brought up in an aristocratic family, attending Eaton, then Cambridge and finally becoming high-ranked naval officer Bond should have some knowledge about dinner jackets. Wouldn't you say?

Post by **Dr. No** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:02 pm

Robert Stirling wrote: At the second place was the scene in which Vesper explains to Bond that "there are dinner jackets and then there are dinner jackets", with that silly
"I sized you up the moment we met". Firstly: have the scriptwriters had any idea about cloths tailoring? "I sized you up the moment we met"?! - just ridiculous. Secondly, beeing brought up in an aristocratic family, attending Eaton, then Cambridge and finally becoming high-ranked naval officer Bond should have some knowledge about dinner jackets. Wouldn't you say?

Hadn't thought of it that way.
Good point.

Post by **James** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:33 pm

Did anyone mention the Bond/Vesper train scene? That banter was very forced.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:28 am

Robert Stirling wrote:There were couple of such moments. First of all the scene at the beginning of the film where Bond kills the guy with his bare hands. I presume it was supposed to show Bond's dark side and bring some reality, yet completely unnecessarily, because Bond obviously had a gun with him. In spite of being professional assassin Bond doesn't like killing people (as we know from Flemming's books, as well as from previous films), so he certainly would have preffered killing this guy using the gun, not his hands.

Didn't Bond kill him in the end with a PPK?

Besides that, I'm kinda glad they brought back that side of Bond. Something we haven't seen since Connery's earlier films with him snapping guards necks, strangling with crowbars and that wire on Red Grant.

Anyway, my gripes. The sinking building wasn't very necessary. I know they wanted to have a climax. I would have done it this way: Bond enters his astin martin, a long chase ensues. They stop at a location where Bond fights off the bad guys but in the end gets captured and tortured. The ending shows Bond at the hospital and a moment later where he goes to the bedroom to find Vesper dead like in the book. All those romantic moments between him and Vesper would take place during the Casino breaks instead of having them all piled up together between the torture and climax.

That's how I would have ended it. Otherwise, I'm pretty much fine with the film cuz I'm thankful to have a great James Bond film in the ranks of FRWL and OHMSS instead of another TND or TWINE.

Robert Stirling · Post by **Robert Stirling** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:34 pm

stockslivevan wrote:
Robert Stirling wrote:There were couple of such moments. First of all the scene at the beginning of the film where Bond kills the guy with his bare hands. I presume it was supposed to show Bond's dark side and bring some reality, yet completely unnecessarily, because Bond obviously had a gun with him. In spite of being professional assassin Bond doesn't like killing people (as we know from Flemming's books, as well as from previous films), so he certainly would have preffered killing this guy using the gun, not his hands.
Didn't Bond kill him in the end with a PPK?

To be honest I managed to endure watching this film only once. But if it really was as you say the scene seems to be even more pointless. Couldn't Bond just shot the guy at the very beginning instead of rolling with him around the toilet? What was the authentic reason for this dirty fight? Only to have the ersatz of classic Bond gunbarrel?
Actually I don't mind such fights in a Bond film. But only as long as Bond himself isn't involved in them.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:28 pm

But we first arrive at that scene mid fight. Bond would've interrogated Fisher beforehand, resulting in the fist fight that we see. Or so we could easily believe.
Without seeing the whole chain of events it's impossible to say.

Max Taffey · Post by **Max Taffey** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:27 am

carl stromberg wrote: I know. Who would believe that 40 year old Craig could be a socially and emotionally backward young inexperienced Bond "on one of his first missions".

I guess the same people that would believe that a 60 year old Moore could perorm the acrobatics of an Olympic-level athlete.

Post by **carl stromberg** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:57 pm

Max Taffey wrote
I guess the same people that would believe that a 60 year old Moore could perorm the acrobatics of an Olympic-level athlete.

True Maxwell - but Casino Royale was supposed to be a little more "realistic" than Sir Roger's last two efforts!

Welcome to the forum as well!

Max Taffey · Post by **Max Taffey** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:27 am

ID wrote:1) Daniel Craig beating up and shooting three dozen soldiers in that Embassy while avoiding bullets and then blowing it up. Easily as daft as anything they put in a Pierce Brosnan film.

I don't think you were paying attention, friend. He didn't shoot one single soldier in that entire sequence, and he "beat up" two in a very well choreographed, frantic and brief scene. Finally (and hopefully for the last time!) he didn't "blow up" the Embassy. He shot a propane tank that was in a courtyard - it blew up, knocked soldiers over, and took down a flimsy awning. That was it. So really, not nearly as daft as anything in a Brosnan film.

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:44 am

for me the worst part was when the opening music started. it really set a tone of disappointment for me. chris cornell is a hit or miss singer for me, and his vocals did not fit this song well at all. if it had been sung by a female singer with a sexy voice it could have been great.
and what kind of Bond film has opening credits without naked girls doing acrobatics? seeing Bond's silhoutte without any females surrounding him makes me think this guy can't score.
and i found eva green to be a vacant female lead, with bad raccoon eye makeup.
the line with the martini was stupid and only put in the film to show how radically different the new Bond is, and yet we get a generic climax scene with a sinking building. blah.

Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:59 am

The extended action sequence at the start of Casino Royale was not what I was expecting.

Craig was simply awful. He is the focal point of the movie and therefore ruined Casino Royale for me. I understand that James Bond is not supposed to be a foppish toff (although Niven and Grant could come have come close - and Fleming would have liked those); he is not supposed to be some inarticulate stocky musclebound oaf who looks like a stock Russian mafioso enforcer (although they are probably rather taller) either.

The 40 year old inexperienced Bond did not work for me. It's miles away from Fleming's Bond: the man who was introduced to the world of the English uppper clasess at a young age: the food; the clothes; travel; clubs and restaurants; women. Fleming's Bond is a little thuggish and an outsider. The classic Bond is the juxtoposition of the charming English gentleman unambiguously "doing good" who is also a nasty piece of work. Craig's Bond excised the gentleman bit. The snobbish Fleming would be laughing at his James Bond being depeicted as socially inadequate at 40 years old!

I found it somewhat jarring that Craig's fake tan/mascara/ hair dye combination changed from scene to scene, leaving me to suspect that they tried to patch him up and look respectable before filming.