Casino Royale in Review

Mads Mikkelsen as Lechiefe. in 2004 there be one commanderbond/Mi6forums member who sugest this actor. I told i whas worried he mabey turns in another graves and i like to see him between hechmen and villian. By prefer a Blofeld releated chacter. So you can say i get what i whant with Mikkelsen. Twine/GE chacter driven again. Only problem be the torture scene, but i blaim this to he script and DC.

Mr White. Another Twine releated chacter driven chacter.

Twine Cinematopgraphy. After a long time after CR i think it is enough now and it also playing against it a litle bit because i don't like the editing or part of the script. Torture scene for example, inspyred by Devil's Breath and in this you renize the hands in P&W. Meheux deliever almost the same style as whylen Adrian Bidle. Meheux returns because of Campbell.

Maintitle. When a movie faild in your eyes, some litle things you don't like you also going to complane about. Like how short the maintitle be, Dench her name to be to late on the screen. In specialy because if you already know, You Know My Name is not on the soundtrack. But the only real problem i have with it where there at it.

Judi Dench As M. I take a litle break with the Bond news. When i saw the movie i din't know about some discussion's.
No Moneypenny, No Q and No Gunbarrel i already know before i saw the movie. 7 years and 10 years later then i saw Twine i saw the movie. QOS whas the first movie since TMND i saw December, but with .

Starts problems:

Mathis
Daniel Craig.
Villiers
Solange Boyfriend


Disapointed:

Trailer. I expect another Twine. But it feels like a very agression start for the new Bond. The first Bond movie i ask quistions about the rank.

Agression on screen, Toilet scene, Madagascar end, Torture scene. Biggest problem the 24 agression at the Airport scene.
Agression in dialgue, music, soundmix, edeiting. Also after a third view and some footage stil the biggest problem for me.I stil get it on my nerves from those chooses. MY James Bond turn in to Jack Bauer. Why so serious be a good quistion for this movie with in my eyes no humor. People complanes about breath moments missing in QOS, but i mis it in CR.

Because of that agression i feels it take more then 1hr to going to be in the movie and i never get in to the movie i you ask me. Because i don't like Vesper, Eva Green and Solange too.

You Know My Name not on soundtrack

Felix. Because of QOS liked him a litle bit more in CR after third view.

Stil don't know or ??:

Need QOS. QOS: DC looks much better, act better, more subtil dialgue and humor. David Arnold learn from the mistakes of CR, like the soundmixer too.
Dryden. Don't understand a damof it to speak in DC his words. The delete scene don't make it easier. If we focus on the orgiinal scene. Why it be in black & White. What JB whant from Dryden and why. .
Vesper vs Bond. Never believed there are in love.
Chris Cornell - You Know My Name

Paul Haggis. I blame everthing of the agression to him. After QOSi must rejected this a bit, because for QOS he wrote the biggest part. But i don't see it in CR.

Must discover things your self. Mathis. I told a whole storie about Mathis and Felix on the old forums. Sorry it is gone.

Martin Campbell. What a disapointed whyle with Goldeneye the dvd be disapointed count of extra's and those days the cinematopgraphy isn't present.

Bond James Bond at the end. Again because of the agression. I whas happy the movie finished and it be the only moment Bond admit he have balls. It also end with agression with the help of a to big gun. Iam one of those people who understand why there at this again the trailer on a Blue background. It be one one of those subtil things from QOS. Stil the same guy from Casino Royale.

Introduction / tell things again subyil / Hide subtil. Highlight of this be in QOS, Dificult to see them in CR. The only thing is mabey the agression, but that is because reseach on the old Mi6 forums told me it possible have something to do with the yolt and TMWTGG novel. But the quistion be this agression already be seen before he meet Vesper. After QOS i think have something to with his past with M (Twine). I never believed CR be a reboot and what be written after QOS for example about those 2 novels and the QOS delete scene proof in my opnion there are not bissy with a reboot, but re-start. Example: I heard Bond get his first Tuxedo from Vesper in the CR novel, in the movie Vesper give him his Tuxedo. Another one what take some time: M said she gives him a 007 states and give him some trust to lead the job in Madagascar. With a subtil hint in QOS there confirmd Bond have stil problems with this M. If you whant (but stil a dificult one) you can bring this back to Twine.

Older members kno the whole Brosnan/Die Another Day thing get his thaugh on this movie also.

First view 4/10 21/21
After Second & third view 6/10 From 21/21 and 21/22.
QOS 7/10 - 14/22 Between TSWLM/LTK. Time wil tell with the first standalone in years. If a standalone (Only Quantum left) have the same highlights as some of the things of QOS, Goldeneye no longer be my number 1 movie. Personaly i expect this don't happend earlier then Bond 25 First Vesper should get with Bond 23 & Bond 24 her finaldistanation.
Goldeneye 9/10 - 1/22 (My Spider-Man of the franchise.)
Twine 8.5 - 2/22 (My Mission Impossible 2 of the franchise)

GeneralGogol wrote:

BTW, Wade, the second act was filmed in Karlovy Vary, not Prague. And it's Green, not Byrne, who plays Vesper, unless you've been looking at Byrne's naughty audition tape.

Ah. Byrne was mentioned earlier in the thread which must be why I confused the names.

Salomé wrote:

CR is your n°2 overall? :x

I'd probably but it in my top five. Most of the Bond films are crap anyway.

Jack Wade wrote:

Salomé wrote:

CR is your n°2 overall? :x

I'd probably but it in my top five. Most of the Bond films are crap anyway.

CR is Bond film for those that don't like Bond films. Personally I don't fall into that camp.

Sharky wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

Salomé wrote:

CR is your n°2 overall? :x

I'd probably but it in my top five. Most of the Bond films are crap anyway.

CR is Bond film for those that don't like Bond films.

Well!

Stilicho Bias wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

Salomé wrote:

CR is your n°2 overall? :x

I'd probably but it in my top five. Most of the Bond films are crap anyway.

CR is Bond film for those that don't like Bond films.

Well!

http://www.well.com/

Sharky wrote:

CR is Bond film for those that don't like Bond films.

Sharky is spot-on. CR was tailored to appeal to educated women, male homosexuals and the liberal-left that had previously rejected Bond, but which the producers now favoured. Convincing the existing audience that they were getting an authentic Bond as well was the clever part. The film is sexless and sinister nonsense.

On the contrary, CR is the sleekest, most sumptuous and most Bondian film since TLD at the very least. Vesper was a smart, competent woman, but she was no Rambette nor was she a feminist harridan like M in GE. And unlike QOS to follow, CR contained no America/West-bashing. If anything, the film's politics were straight down the middle if not slightly right of center. And this from a guy whose antennae are constantly twitching for signs of Leftism in all its sorry incarnations.

ambler wrote:

Sharky wrote:

CR is Bond film for those that don't like Bond films.

Sharky is spot-on. CR was tailored to appeal to educated women, male homosexuals and the liberal-left that had previously rejected Bond, but which the producers now favoured. Convincing the existing audience that they were getting an authentic Bond as well was the clever part. The film is sexless and sinister nonsense.

Depending on what level of education you're talking about, I should fall into the first group, and I don't see anything especially appealing about CR that the other Bonds lack. In fact, I think it falls well short of the 1960s heyday of the series.

In my opinion, CR is what it is because of the fact that EON realized that the success of the Bourne series meant that their core audience might expect something else from a Bond movie, only they made the mistake of awkwardly and poorly copying Bourne.

I also find it to be one of the most joyless Bond movies ever. Though QoS was even worse when it came to that.

RE: Khan. Disagree on all accounts, except politics.

Vesper was a spoilt bitch with a tiny frame, a far cry from Fleming's creation. M was a post-menstrual mother to Bond's delinquent teenager. Nothing to do with Fleming.

It's the same team behind CR and QoS. They reflect the same creative vision and core values.

Numbers 21 and 22 in my rankings, respectively,

Apparently P&W had their script entirely re-written by Haggis for QOS.

I also have good reason to suspect that Joshua Zetumer (the guy who worked as a script polisher) had a lot do with the film's politics. It's no small coincidence that he was hired a year ago to write the screenplay for Bourne 4.

I’ve just bought the rights to a series of novels, but I’m planning to make some changes in the film adaptations.

1. In the novels, the protagonist is tall, dark, aristocratic, intensely loyal and a womaniser. I propose to make him a short, blond working class leftist from the Wirral. He's a headstrong maverick who constantly rails against authority.

2. The main character’s boss is Navy, conservative, and a great patriot. He’ll be replaced by a woman who looks down on her staff, country and service, and is using her position to ‘make a fairer world’.

3. The protagonist’s recurring ally is a tall, white Texan. He will be played by a black actor most famous for winning a Tony for his portrayal of an AIDS victim.

Other exciting changes to be announced. Let me know what you think.

(I’m also working on a new version of Sherlock Holmes. Helen Mirren will play the lead with Judi Dench as Watson. There’ll be a lesbian angle, obviously. )

Sharky wrote:

Vesper was a spoilt bitch with a tiny frame, a far cry from Fleming's creation. M was a post-menstrual mother to Bond's delinquent teenager. Nothing to do with Fleming.

A couple of actresses are not enough to derail Fleming. Mikkelson, although physically different from Fleming's LeChiffre, certainly caught his spirit well enough. And the card game may well have been an improvement on Fleming--no mean feat! More important, CR managed to radiate the tragedy and the fey that are at the heart of the novel. If one carps and whines over the little things one miss the big, beautiful picture. That is what's obviously happened with the doctrinaire and reflexive despisers of so-called "nu-Bond."

ambler wrote:

It's the same team behind CR and QoS.

Well, except for the minor differences of Martin Campbell and some guy named Fleming.

Sharky wrote:

I also have good reason to suspect that Joshua Zetumer (the guy who worked as a script polisher) had a lot do with the film's politics. It's no small coincidence that he was hired a year ago to write the screenplay for Bourne 4.

That may well be right, but the malevolent presence of the Haggfish can never be discounted nor should it be underestimated.

ambler wrote:

Sharky wrote:

CR is Bond film for those that don't like Bond films.

Sharky is spot-on. CR was tailored to appeal to educated women, male homosexuals and the liberal-left that had previously rejected Bond, but which the producers now favoured. Convincing the existing audience that they were getting an authentic Bond as well was the clever part. The film is sexless and sinister nonsense.

I don't think any Bond film will ever be for educated women, male homosexuals and the liberal-left. Just because "Casino Royale" wasn't as "conservative" as past Bond films doesn't mean Bond is suddenly for pussies. It's just changing with the times as everything is. If it didn't, the masses would reject it and film Bond would likely no longer exist.

I'll agree that M has gotten irritating, but I don't think Jeffrey Wright was cast based solely on the fact he won a Tony in a play where he had AIDS. I quite like Jeffrey Wright's Leiter. Sure he's not Fleming's Leiter, but Wright has made him his own and I think he's done well with it. I'll take his portrayal over the wide-eyed, "GOLLY GEE, BOND!" Leiters of the past.

Nevertheless, I really would like to see a faithful Fleming Leiter onscreen. That means tall, thin, sandy-haired Texan with a hatchett face and wit to match. It amazes me that this character has still not been realized.

Quote :

I don't think any Bond film will ever be for educated women, male homosexuals and the liberal-left.

The Guardian would disagree. CASINO ROYALE is their Bond film.

Quote :

Mikkelson, although physically different from Fleming's LeChiffre, certainly caught his spirit well enough.

His spirit? No. The literary Le Chiffre was a glutton, a sex maniac, and repulsive in every sense. Mickelson's Le Chiffre, while a good performance in its own right, is the complete opposite. An ascetic, sexually repressed, detached, Marilyn Manson lookalike.

Quote :

And the card game may well have been an improvement on Fleming

The game in the novel benefited from being more exotic (due to it being Baccarat, not Poker), not constantly explained to the audience, and not broken up by action/suspense sequence.

Quote :

CR managed to radiate the tragedy and the fey

There is nothing fey about CR.

Quote :

If one carps and whines over the little things one miss the big, beautiful picture.

You've got it all wrong. It's the little things where CASINO ROYALE succeeds - Craig, Dench and Mickelson's performances, Baird's editing, Campvell's direction, Kleinman's title sequence, one or two cues from Arnold etc...

For me, it doesn't add together as whole, and makes for a very cold, unengaging, and artificial movie experience. Like a android that's trying to pretend it's real.

It's heart to explain, when one's dislike is instinctive, by I'm sure Ambler could clarify it.

Did Fleming actually ever limn LeChiffre's gluttony or sex mania? Of course he didn't. He merely mentioned it in passing so it is hardly part of the character's spirit. That spirit was an air of detatched creepiness that Mikkelson radiated so well. And the bleeding eye, and the inhaler served to generate much of the repulsiveness of the literary character.

Whether or not Baccarat was exotic to Fleming's readers in 1953 is an open question, but it is also beside the point. The essence of this sequence is the tension of the game, the stakes involved, the repartee, and the ambience. The film gets all of this pitch-perfect and manages to amplify it. This is without doubt one of the greatest cinematic sequences in all of Bond.

The performances of the leading man, the supporting actor and Dench are little things, eh? Alright.

I do wish they kept baccarat, not because it was in the book and that the film should have been a slave to it, but simply because I have no clue how to play poker.

I have no idea how to play baccarat or poker, but I'd rather they'd used baccarat. And wasn't it Texas Hold 'Em poker or something like that?

(hey - if it's not snap, I don't understand it.....)

Stilicho Bias wrote:

Whether or not Baccarat was exotic to Fleming's readers in 1953 is an open question, but it is also beside the point. The essence of this sequence is the tension of the game, the stakes involved, the repartee, and the ambience. The film gets all of this pitch-perfect and manages to amplify it. This is without doubt one of the greatest cinematic sequences in all of Bond.

The performances of the leading man, the supporting actor and Dench are little things, eh? Alright.

I don't think think the essence of the game, is even well handled in itself. Too much of it is based on arch, and overly self-conscious looks and stares (that becomes almost a self-parody as the game goes on), constantly being told the rules of the game through Mathis's commentary to the audience when Poker was chosen because its familiarity with Western audiences, the tension being interrupted by action and suspense set-pieces, lifeless and unimaginative scoring from Arnold that does little to amplify the drama or provide anything that can't already be inferred from the moving image alone, a lack of character development (partly due to no significant dialogue), and a general monotony to it all.

By little things, I mean those performances can be separated from the film's gestalt - its whole. The film's general ambiance on the other hand, cannot.

Ravenstone wrote:

I have no idea how to play baccarat or poker, but I'd rather they'd used baccarat. And wasn't it Texas Hold 'Em poker or something like that?

(hey - if it's not snap, I don't understand it.....)

Texas Hold 'Em was the flavor of the month then, so I understand why they used it. I was skeptical of it replacing baccarat originally, but they managed to do a good job of keeping it classy.

Sharky wrote:

Stilicho Bias wrote:

Whether or not Baccarat was exotic to Fleming's readers in 1953 is an open question, but it is also beside the point. The essence of this sequence is the tension of the game, the stakes involved, the repartee, and the ambience. The film gets all of this pitch-perfect and manages to amplify it. This is without doubt one of the greatest cinematic sequences in all of Bond.

The performances of the leading man, the supporting actor and Dench are little things, eh? Alright.

I don't think think the essence of the game, is even well handled in itself. Too much of it is based on arch, and overly self-conscious looks and stares (that becomes almost a self-parody as the game goes on), constantly being told the rules of the game through Mathis's commentary to the audience when Poker was chosen because its familiarity with Western audiences, the tension being interrupted by action and suspense set-pieces, lifeless and unimaginative scoring from Arnold that does little to amplify the drama or provide anything that can't already be inferred from the moving image alone, a lack of character development (partly due to no significant dialogue), and a general monotony to it all.

By little things, I mean those performances can be separated from the film's gestalt - its whole. The film's general ambiance on the other hand, cannot.

I liked the card game. I think they handled it as best they could.

The looks and stares are part of the strategy of poker. Even if poker was chosen because of its popularity, not everyone will know the rules, so they had to do some explaining. And the game being broken up with action can be chalked up to the attention span of modern society -- they had to do it because a good chunk of movie-goers will get bored by a half hour card game in an action movie. I really liked the stairwell fight.

I will agree that the score was underwhelming. Didn't really capture the tension and was really just boring background noise.

I have the soundtrack on CD and it is very uninspired.