Casino Royale in Review

If nothing else, SKYFALL does give the brief Bond/M scenes in CASINO ROYALE some poignancy (I'm thinking of the "I knew you were you" exchange).

I think the biggest pros I give CR credit for is it lingers over the locations, the scenery, and even smaller stuff like food and drink in a way a lot of Bond films gloss over.

How CR should have ended??

http://www.howitshouldhaveended.com/videos

lachesis wrote:

I'd have to contend there isn't really Bond in Casino Royale, it indulges the conceit of being the journey to the character we know and gives us perhaps the most generic and feckless characterisation in the series, difficult to imagine Skyfall offers even less!

Not so difficult. A lot of sound and fury acts like a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, but nothing is going to let me keep it down.

Wow, these forums are certainly a different beast than MI6C. Casino Royale is not only my favourite Bond film but easily in my top five films ever. Green and Craig and Mikkelsen are all fantastic. Can't believe some of what I'm reading on this page.

We're the Bedlam of Bond fandom.

If I haven't mentioned in a while that CASINO ROYALE is superb and wipes the floor with SKYFALL permit me to do so now.

You've already been given a permit. For life.

I think CASINO ROYALE and SKYFALL compliment each other rather nicely.

Harms livin' it on the edge.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Harms livin' it on the edge.

The controversial opinion would be to say that both CASINO ROYALE and SKYFALL are complete tosh and that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is better than either. Alas, I can't say that with a straight face.

But SKYFALL is obviously designed to act as a sequel to CASINO ROYALE (particularly in regards to the Bond/M relationship), and the ways it develops the threads planted in CASINO ROYALE makes CASINO ROYALE all the more interesting.

Harmsway wrote:

But SKYFALL is obviously designed to act as a sequel to CASINO ROYALE (particularly in regards to the Bond/M relationship), and the ways it develops the threads planted in CASINO ROYALE makes CASINO ROYALE all the more interesting.

Agreed. Yet another reason QOS may as well be erased from the Bond canon.

CJB wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

But SKYFALL is obviously designed to act as a sequel to CASINO ROYALE (particularly in regards to the Bond/M relationship), and the ways it develops the threads planted in CASINO ROYALE makes CASINO ROYALE all the more interesting.

Agreed. Yet another reason QOS may as well be erased from the Bond canon.

I may have to see Skyfall again. I skipped it when it was playing in the cinema a few weeks ago because I really didn't enjoy it when it first came out. I did, however, enjoy Quantum of Solace. Interesting.

May have to do my own Craigathon next weekend.

retrokitty wrote:

CJB wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

But SKYFALL is obviously designed to act as a sequel to CASINO ROYALE (particularly in regards to the Bond/M relationship), and the ways it develops the threads planted in CASINO ROYALE makes CASINO ROYALE all the more interesting.

Agreed. Yet another reason QOS may as well be erased from the Bond canon.

May have to do my own Craigathon next weekend.

Best of luck Kitts.

CJB wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

But SKYFALL is obviously designed to act as a sequel to CASINO ROYALE (particularly in regards to the Bond/M relationship), and the ways it develops the threads planted in CASINO ROYALE makes CASINO ROYALE all the more interesting.

Agreed. Yet another reason QOS may as well be erased from the Bond canon.

I don't see CASINO ROYALE and SKYFALL as having much to do with each other. The latter plays as though it could be set many years after the former (more than the actual six-year gap between those films being released) - this Bond and M might have had a working relationship of some ten or fifteen years. M is approaching retirement (there's no suggestion of this in CASINO ROYALE), while SKYFALL also features (unnecessarily) an "Is Bond getting old and past it?" subplot more appropriate to NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. Somewhat awkwardly, there's also a BOND BEGINS angle to SKYFALL, but it's based around the arrival of a new Moneypenny, a new Q and a new M rather than - as far as I can tell, anyway - the development of anything in CASINO ROYALE.

The joy of Skyfall for me is that it works as well as a coda to the original series than to any continuity with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace (of which I actually prefer QoS, its shorter) and while they are not my least favourite Bond's by any means anything that allows me to think CR and QOS didn't exist actually cheers me up.

How do you solve the introduction of Q and Moneypenny in Skyfall?

I pretty much enjoy CR as much as I did back when it came out. My main points being that it was a step in the right direction after the Brosnan era. Flawed, particularly in the third act, but overall a very promising start for Craig's tenure, which I expected to reintroduce the more familiar elements (Moneypenny, Q, ect) over time. SF feels a lot like a refined take on the two previous Craig films, it's much more confident and I think Craig works much better here than he did in the last two. The upstart 007 was an interesting place to look, but Craig is obviously much more suited to the weary 00-vet that has come a long way since his romance with Vesper.

Walecs wrote:

How do you solve the introduction of Q and Moneypenny in Skyfall?

Aside from the coincidence of Moneypenny actually being a 'real name' there is nothing to really suggest characters of this type didn't play a role in Bond's past (indeed the conversation with Q suggests a former member of the branch might have provided him with something akin to an exploding pen). Although my reference is more to do with the ingredients mix, tone and style of the respective films. imo Skyfall has the character of a classic Bond but with a modern twist there is a clear genetic relationship to Bond of old. Conversely Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace I find to be very generic tales and all but devoid of the quirks, characters and imagination that usually set Bond films apart - Bond, Bourne, McLane, Matrix.... the name at the heart of these films is entirely interchangeable with precious little else requiring attention.