Joyless?

[carl stromberg]

From Fest21.com:


It's been a long time coming, but the producers of the James Bond series, who are descendents of the family that has maintained "artistic" control of the series ever since its inception, have finally loosened their grip ever so slightly and allowed for an attempt at reinvention. For thirty years, more or less (or to be more exact, the moment Sean Connery left), the series has struggled with staleness and predictability with few exceptions. This was never more true than with the Roger Moore era, where the daring-does of an ancient relic paled in comparison to the ever-inflated teen action movie market. Pierce Brosnan added just the right elements of athletic heroics and hyper-charged charisma to the role -- next to Connery, he did the greatest service to the iconic role of Bond.

Now comes Daniel Craig, a casting decision that was at first raked over the coals and is now nearly universally praised. Is he the Bond we've been waiting for?

Yes and no. Given the confines of the script, Craig plays the role with pitch perfect precision -- temperamental, stubborn, crazed and dangerous. The producers, though, have taken the wrong path in their Bond make-over, and forgotten the primary reason why the character is so appealing to men and women: Bond is a fantasy image for both sexes. Like any fantasy, we like him with a healthy dose of not only cunning brutism, but a sense of fun and mischief as well. That's what Craig, and Casino Royale, sorely lacks.

He's been turned into a cynical, joyless character for our cynical, joyless times. So much for escapism, which has always been the main motivation for attending a Bond film. He's predictably, painfully tortured here. Gone are the clumsy one-liners; they've been replaced with laborious psychology that illicit just as many groans. The movie is grossing an exorbitant amount of money, but aren't viewers disappointed that they're not given a good time?

On the plus side, the stunts are terrific (although the action is sporadic at best as the filmmakers have gone so far as to exclude a climax), the girls are beautiful and a few of the tentpole touches (the pop song/title sequence, the opening display of outrageous action) are intact.

The one moment when the film's tone really develops takes place in, of all things, a tender moment. Bond's beautiful sidekick buries herself under a running shower, haunted by the images of death she has just witnessed. She tells Bond, as he approaches and crouches beside her, that she can't get the blood off of her fingers. Bond takes her fingers into his mouth. In that one moment, Bond is brazen and kinkily romantic, and you chuckle at just how crisp and daring the moment is. For roughly ten seconds, you realize that after forty plus years, Bond may still have a few surprises up his sleeve. Next time, the producers would be smart to get a crackerjack screenwriter (Tarantino, anyone?) and director (Spielberg? Cameron? -- they've both expressed interest) and mine whatever life this series might have left. C

[carl stromberg]

I should add that I don't agree with everything in this review, the digs at Sir Rog for example, but on the whole another interesting take.

[ID]

Here is another one...


http://clivedavis.blogs.com/clive/film/index.html



James Bore

Well, I finally saw Casino Royale last night, and came away thinking my colleague, Cosmo (Landesman) got it absolutely right in his review:

"The film aims to be a character-driven study of how 007 was changed by this mission and meeting Vesper. But as far as I can tell, it’s the story of how a sadistic psycho who hated women became a better-dressed and more professional sadistic psycho who hates women."

I couldn't agree more. As the characterization is so perfunctory, there's next to no chemistry with the colourless Vesper (who looks more like Joyce Grenfell's niece in a WonderBra), Le Chiffre makes a dreary villain, the overblown chase sequence at the beginning is about as interesting as your eight year-old's computer game, the theme song is painfully dull, and the violence is way too extreme for a 12 certificate. In other words, it has all the faults of just about every big-budget film I've seen lately. And I noticed that not a single person in the audience laughed at Bond's attempts at wisecracks. I think that tells you something. Daniel Craig does well, though. 18 year olds will love it, I guess.

[Kristatos]

Funny, that word "joyless" is one that seems to crop up a lot in relation to Craig's Bond.

[The Sweeney]

Funny, that word "joyless" is one that seems to crop up a lot in relation to Craig's Bond.

To be expected, surely. This is a much more down-to-earth, back-to-basics, serious thriller, with about as much humour as appeared in the novels.

I appreciate not everyone will like this new tone.

Me, I love it!!

[007]

I noticed that not a single person in the audience laughed at Bond's attempts at wisecracks.

I don't think humour is Craig's biggest strength.

[Skywalker]

I noticed that not a single person in the audience laughed at Bond's attempts at wisecracks.

I don't think humour is Craig's biggest strength.

I don't think there was much humour in the script. I actually enjoyed a couple of funny moments by DC. He's certainly no Rog though. When it comes to comedy, Sir Rog is the King.

[The Sweeney]

I noticed that not a single person in the audience laughed at Bond's attempts at wisecracks.

I don't think humour is Craig's biggest strength.

I don't think there was much humour in the script. I actually enjoyed a couple of funny moments by DC. He's certainly no Rog though. When it comes to comedy, Sir Rog is the King.

And if I wanted comedy, I'd stick on an episode of Fawlty Towers, not a Bond film.....

[Skywalker]

I noticed that not a single person in the audience laughed at Bond's attempts at wisecracks.

I don't think humour is Craig's biggest strength.

I don't think there was much humour in the script. I actually enjoyed a couple of funny moments by DC. He's certainly no Rog though. When it comes to comedy, Sir Rog is the King.

And if I wanted comedy, I'd stick on an episode of Fawlty Towers, not a Bond film.....

Check out the higher admissions for LALD.

[Robert Stirling]

Funny, that word "joyless" is one that seems to crop up a lot in relation to Craig's Bond.

To be expected, surely. This is a much more down-to-earth, back-to-basics, serious thriller, with about as much humour as appeared in the novels.

I appreciate not everyone will like this new tone.

Me, I love it!!

That's the point. Desire for comedy in Bond films depends on which image of Bond we prefer - cinematic or from the novels.
If one treats Fleming books as a second Bible it's easier for him to accept the level of humor in CR. For me (and I'm bigger fan of films) in this film there's no level of humor at all. There's only the lack of it. The only lines which I found funny/amusing were those:
"Dryden: Made you feel it, did he? Well, you needn't worry. The second is...
James Bond: [Bond shoots Dryden] Yes... considerably.";
"James Bond: Very sorry. That last hand... nearly killed me."
It's definitely too litle for a good Bond film (at least by my standards).

It's obvious that those most responsible for this lack of joy are the scriptwriters. But partly it's also Craig's fault. In his performance
I couldn't sight anything which would show that he had any fun making the film. In my opinion it's one of important proofs whether the actor is comfortable with the role or not.
So of course there's no comparison beetwen Craig's and Sir Roger's delivery of funny lines.

[Kristatos]

Check out the higher admissions for LALD.

As I've said before, these apper to be the result of a statistical error. The IMDb gives the US gross as $35,400,000 and the international gross as $91,000,000, giving a worldwide gross of $126,400,000. Yet some sources list the worldwide gross as $161,800,000, which by a curious coincidence, equals $126,400,000 + $35,400,000. It looks suspiciously like someone, somewhere down the line got confused between international and worldwide grosses and added the US to the worldwide instead of the international gross. If this is the case, and the admissions figure is based on the erroneous figure, then the real admissions total, by my calculations, would be 71,558,962 - considerably lower than CR's, but higher than DAF or TMWTGG.

[stockslivevan]

The humor was much more subtle instead of blatant like the last few Brosnan films.

Bond: "I am Mr. Beach, professional gambler. You are Miss Stephanie Broadchest-"
Vesper: "No I am not!"
Bond: "You're gonna have to trust me on this."

As opposed to...

Bond: "I've always liked to keep my tip up..." *whips up his fencing sword*


If you want to name a Bond film that his joyless and humorless, it would be Licence to Kill. Dalton was far more serious than Craig's Bond. But I can understand those who cannot comprehend the subtle humor in Casino Royale. Because they are subtle; not obvious enough for anyone who has low attention span or no sense of humor.

I see Craig's Bond as sort of a hybrid of the Fleming/Connery Bond. A very serious agent but with that wisecracking attitude Connery brought. When Bond is getting tortured and asked for the password, instead of just saying no, Bond tells him "I've got a little itch down there, would you mind?" Wisecracking while getting tortured, sounds just like the tough and rescourceful Connery Bond.

But that's how I view it.

[The Sweeney]

I noticed that not a single person in the audience laughed at Bond's attempts at wisecracks.

I don't think humour is Craig's biggest strength.

I don't think there was much humour in the script. I actually enjoyed a couple of funny moments by DC. He's certainly no Rog though. When it comes to comedy, Sir Rog is the King.

And if I wanted comedy, I'd stick on an episode of Fawlty Towers, not a Bond film.....

Check out the higher admissions for LALD.

Yup! Back in 1973 I may add.....we are now in a different time, a different era.

[Robert Stirling]

The humor was much more subtle instead of blatant like the last few Brosnan films.
But I can understand those who cannot comprehend the subtle humor in Casino Royale. Because they are subtle; not obvious enough for anyone who has low attention span or no sense of humor.

You're probably right. As a matter of fact I'm totally uneducated and primitive caveman, have the lowest possible attention span and absolutely no sense of humor. But believe me, being so ashamed of my primitiveness, I was trying very hard to spot some examples of this subtle humor you mentioned. At last I've managed to comprehend some of them. To list only the most subtle, refined and sophisticated:

Vesper Lynd: I'll keep my eyes on our government's money and off your perfectly formed ass.
James Bond: You noticed.
Vesper Lynd: Even accountants have imagination.

James Bond: Now the whole world will know that you died scratching my balls!

Vesper Lynd: If the only thing left of you was your smile and your little finger, you'd still be more of a man than anyone I've ever known.
James Bond: That's because you know what I can do with my little finger...

James Bond: Vodka-martini.
Bartender: Shaken or stirred?
James Bond: Do I look like I give a d**n?

It seems that we really live and learn. Thank you for lesson.

[Skywalker]

I don't think humour is Craig's biggest strength.

I don't think there was much humour in the script. I actually enjoyed a couple of funny moments by DC. He's certainly no Rog though. When it comes to comedy, Sir Rog is the King.

And if I wanted comedy, I'd stick on an episode of Fawlty Towers, not a Bond film.....

Check out the higher admissions for LALD.

Yup! Back in 1973 I may add.....we are now in a different time, a different era.

That time will come again.

I suppose you could argue that RM saved the franchise like Brosnan after him.

[stockslivevan]

The humor was much more subtle instead of blatant like the last few Brosnan films.
But I can understand those who cannot comprehend the subtle humor in Casino Royale. Because they are subtle; not obvious enough for anyone who has low attention span or no sense of humor.

You're probably right. As a matter of fact I'm totally uneducated and primitive caveman, have the lowest possible attention span and absolutely no sense of humor. But believe me, being so ashamed of my primitiveness, I was trying very hard to spot some examples of this subtle humor you mentioned. At last I've managed to comprehend some of them. To list only the most subtle, refined and sophisticated:

Vesper Lynd: I'll keep my eyes on our government's money and off your perfectly formed ass.
James Bond: You noticed.
Vesper Lynd: Even accountants have imagination.

James Bond: Now the whole world will know that you died scratching my balls!

Vesper Lynd: If the only thing left of you was your smile and your little finger, you'd still be more of a man than anyone I've ever known.
James Bond: That's because you know what I can do with my little finger...

James Bond: Vodka-martini.
Bartender: Shaken or stirred?
James Bond: Do I look like I give a d**n?

It seems that we really live and learn. Thank you for lesson.

My apologies, I should have put it more specifically as inteneded instead of vaguely. I was directing it to IMDb punks.