The mystery of Casino Royale

[Veronica]

Seriously,does someone here has any idea why the hell is this movie so praised? Because it's "realistic"? *snort* no,really... the audience is fed too little information,too late(or not at all) about character motivations as well as stakes involved in various action sequences(and just about everything) to remain emotionally engaged and genuinely interested in what's going on.
And Eva Green's performance as Vesper comes across unwittingly as akward,unsophisticated. She acts like a teenager playing "grown-up". What's missing is the mature feminine poise that typifies the best Bond girl actresses(Ursula Andress,Luciana Paluzzi,Diana Rigg,Izabella Scorupco,Sophie Marceau,Rosamund Pike(and she was 22 at the time!)) A self-confessed "complicated woman" Green's Vesper remains maddeningly inscrutable to the end and her romance with Craig is just about the worst I have ever seen.
Not to mention melodramatic romance,texas hold em poker,painful dialogue etc...
Caterina Murino is just about the only interesting person here. The villain? He spent most of the time just sitting and looking and had some "tells"...lol no really... has anyone ever watched professional poker players? It takes me a while to remember his name.
So really,can somebody enlighten me here?

[dirtybenny]

Personally I think it had a lot to do with DAD being a little too "Bond". In much the same way MR and YOLT went a little too OTT so too did DAD. Now I'll defend that movie as not being nearly as bad as it's made out to be till the day I die, but it still ranks low on my list of favorites. (I think it has a lot to do with the director, but I'll save that for one of my rants) So any "subdued" Bond film would have played well. Add to that the 4 year dry spell between films and the hunger of the "General Public" (whom I mentioned in my recent rant) coupled with EON's hype of "Bond's beginnings". Also the fact that it wasn't "as bad" as it seemed it would be leading up to it's release, and there you have it

The reason it's legacy endures is it was the first Bond for many young people, or for those who don't like "Bond" it appealed to them, and a certain fondness is developed despite it's short comings.

[ml94]

Personally I think it had a lot to do with DAD being a little too "Bond". In much the same way MR and YOLT went a little too OTT so too did DAD. Now I'll defend that movie as not being nearly as bad as it's made out to be till the day I die, but it still ranks low on my list of favorites. (I think it has a lot to do with the director, but I'll save that for one of my rants) So any "subdued" Bond film would have played well. Add to that the 4 year dry spell between films and the hunger of the "General Public" (whom I mentioned in my recent rant) coupled with EON's hype of "Bond's beginnings". Also the fact that it wasn't "as bad" as it seemed it would be leading up to it's release, and there you have it

The reason it's legacy endures is it was the first Bond for many young people, or for those who don't like "Bond" it appealed to them, and a certain fondness is developed despite it's short comings.

AGREED.

[ml94]

For me, craig is the biggest problem in CASINO ROYALE.

[dirtybenny]

For me, craig is the biggest problem in CASINO ROYALE.

Personally, while I'm no fan of Craig's, he is by no means the worse thing about the current spate of films. He's a symptom of the disease, sort of the headache caused by the brain tumor. To be honest if EON had kept making proper Bond films with Craig I probably wouldn't be on this site today.

[Veronica]

For me, craig is the biggest problem in CASINO ROYALE.

He is not Bond but we already know that here. Believe me if the COMPLETELY SAME movie starred Pierce I wouldn't say it's the best...Craig is the problem but not the only one...I already wrote what the problems with this movie are.
Seriously I don't know whats with the reboot.
Come on,FREACKING QUENTIN TARANTINO wanted to do a Bond movie and then they come and tell us "Bond formula" isn't suited anymore. bulls**t!

[ml94]

For me, craig is the biggest problem in CASINO ROYALE.

He is not Bond but we already know that here. Believe me if the COMPLETELY SAME movie starred Pierce I wouldn't say it's the best...Craig is the problem but not the only one...I already wrote what the problems with this movie are.
Seriously I don't know whats with the reboot.
Come on,FREACKING QUENTIN TARANTINO wanted to do a Bond movie and then they come and tell us "Bond formula" isn't suited anymore. bulls**t!

AVTAK (MOORE)---TLD (DALTON) FANTASTIC "reboot".

[ml94]

DAD (BROSNAN)---CR (CAVILL).

[Veronica]

Personally I think it had a lot to do with DAD being a little too "Bond". In much the same way MR and YOLT went a little too OTT so too did DAD. Now I'll defend that movie as not being nearly as bad as it's made out to be till the day I die, but it still ranks low on my list of favorites. (I think it has a lot to do with the director, but I'll save that for one of my rants) So any "subdued" Bond film would have played well. Add to that the 4 year dry spell between films and the hunger of the "General Public" (whom I mentioned in my recent rant) coupled with EON's hype of "Bond's beginnings". Also the fact that it wasn't "as bad" as it seemed it would be leading up to it's release, and there you have it

The reason it's legacy endures is it was the first Bond for many young people, or for those who don't like "Bond" it appealed to them, and a certain fondness is developed despite it's short comings.

I think you are right about pretty much everything Benny(and you seem to be that very often ).
DAD got some toxic reputation over the years and I don't think it deserves it. Really,it's not AS NEARLY AS BAD as Craig fans make it out to be(and EON as well). Its like they are really trying to make us remember-IT HAD AN INVISIBLE CAR!! Yeah,okay it had an invisible car and the whole plot was a mess and yes...ultimately it's not a great movie.But it has a couple of things going for it(there's a nice article "in defense of DAD") But really it's disgraceful that the whole EON uses that movie as a blanket for "the rebooting". Its unfair to people who worked on that movie-the actors I mean. Brosnan,Pike gave great performances. I think Toby Stephens was also fun in the role.

[Veronica]

DAD (BROSNAN)---CR (CAVILL).

I think Cavill was too young for the role back then although it would be interesting to see young Bond.
But CR with Pierce directed by Tarantino?Yeah.

[The Saint 007]

Personally I think it had a lot to do with DAD being a little too "Bond". In much the same way MR and YOLT went a little too OTT so too did DAD. Now I'll defend that movie as not being nearly as bad as it's made out to be till the day I die, but it still ranks low on my list of favorites. (I think it has a lot to do with the director, but I'll save that for one of my rants) So any "subdued" Bond film would have played well. Add to that the 4 year dry spell between films and the hunger of the "General Public" (whom I mentioned in my recent rant) coupled with EON's hype of "Bond's beginnings". Also the fact that it wasn't "as bad" as it seemed it would be leading up to it's release, and there you have it

The reason it's legacy endures is it was the first Bond for many young people, or for those who don't like "Bond" it appealed to them, and a certain fondness is developed despite it's short comings.

I remember in one of your rants you mentioned how various cinematic Bond elements were milked a little too much during the Brosnan era, which I think is another factor that contributes to Casino Royale's success. There is also the new trend of film heroes being more vulnerable, emotionally complex and all that other fun stuff.

[dirtybenny]

Thank you Veronica, you are far too kind!!

I'm afraid though, I have to disagree with you about Tarantino. While I'm a fan of his work, I just don't see him as Bond material. He has a style all his own, which I feel would clash with Bond's. My personal opinion is super star and art house directors should be kept away from Bond, and only competent journeymen should be given the helm, because they won't feel the need to put their own "signature" on the film. I mean look at John Glenn, he's not the most famous or best director out there but his Bond films are all rather enjoyable and don't try to make any "statement", a-la Mendes or I'm afraid Tarantino.

[dirtybenny]

Personally I think it had a lot to do with DAD being a little too "Bond". In much the same way MR and YOLT went a little too OTT so too did DAD. Now I'll defend that movie as not being nearly as bad as it's made out to be till the day I die, but it still ranks low on my list of favorites. (I think it has a lot to do with the director, but I'll save that for one of my rants) So any "subdued" Bond film would have played well. Add to that the 4 year dry spell between films and the hunger of the "General Public" (whom I mentioned in my recent rant) coupled with EON's hype of "Bond's beginnings". Also the fact that it wasn't "as bad" as it seemed it would be leading up to it's release, and there you have it

The reason it's legacy endures is it was the first Bond for many young people, or for those who don't like "Bond" it appealed to them, and a certain fondness is developed despite it's short comings.

I remember in one of your rants you mentioned how various cinematic Bond elements were milked a little too much during the Brosnan era, which I think is another factor that contributes to Casino Royale's success. There is also the new trend of film heroes being more vulnerable, emotionally complex and all that other fun stuff.

Yes Saint, I absolutely agree, Bourne was on the cusp of that "new hero" you mention and in trying to imitate him EON accidentally rode those coat tails to relevancy.

[Omega]

I was reading responses to a movie story , Craig was mentioned and one poster thought he was a bland boring bond, , two or maybe it's just one person posting was a Craig fan boy one of his replays was something about go watch dad . What does one have to do with the other.
You can tell the guy upset anybody would not like Craig as bond, is a fan boy, a bond fan boy at that, Craig fan boy specifically by his tired arguments . Dad was soooo bad they had to reboot, come on it was the skyfall of its a day a over rated bond anniversary movie that broke records .

If you don't like Craig doesn't mean you like brosnan or Moore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Veronica]

Thank you Veronica, you are far too kind!!

I'm afraid though, I have to disagree with you about Tarantino. While I'm a fan of his work, I just don't see him as Bond material. He has a style all his own, which I feel would clash with Bond's. My personal opinion is super star and art house directors should be kept away from Bond, and only competent journeymen should be given the helm, because they won't feel the need to put their own "signature" on the film. I mean look at John Glenn, he's not the most famous or best director out there but his Bond films are all rather enjoyable and don't try to make any "statement", a-la Mendes or I'm afraid Tarantino.

Well,I don't know Tarantino is a cult director and no doubt one of the greatest of our day and yes,he has his own style...I kinda feel he would make an interesting CR.But then again you also might be right about his style clashing with Bonds...we'll never know what could have been.
And believe me I don't think that most famous director should make Bond movies as long as they know how to make one everything is okay.
I feel Mendes was brought on board because he is what criticts like to call "quality" director. I mean,he made "American Beauty" which brought him an Oscar and he is infact perfect for the high aclaim Babs is now seeking.
As for "clashing styles" I think Michael Apted is a good example. He was brought on board because they wanted "more character" and all that. I once read a review that went:"It feels like Michael is interested in working with the actors-especially with Brosnan and Marceau-but isn't particulary interested in a movie around them." I think that's a good description. I read the first cut of the movie was 160 minutes long and had more "dialogue" and "character" scenes. I think Apted(or anyone really) was never really 100% confident about making that movie.Like he wanted to go full with the two central character but then someone said there needs to be more action and a secondary Bond babe that ultimately distract from the much more interesting Elektra/Bond dynamic. In the first draft Bond connects the dots about Elektra much later and that makes him spend more time with her and the majority of the movie centers around them...which I think is the way it should have been. Anyway,I think this is the prime example of "styles clashing"...character moments coupled with action(that most of the time felt unecessary and quite boring) and it ended up with mixed results.

[ml94]

DAD (BROSNAN)---CR (CAVILL).

I think Cavill was too young for the role back then although it would be interesting to see young Bond.
But CR with Pierce directed by Tarantino?Yeah.

Craig was "young rookie" bond...BIG MISCAST.

[ml94]

Glen & campbell are my favourite BOND directors...

[Omega]

Thank you Veronica, you are far too kind!!

I'm afraid though, I have to disagree with you about Tarantino. While I'm a fan of his work, I just don't see him as Bond material. He has a style all his own, which I feel would clash with Bond's. My personal opinion is super star and art house directors should be kept away from Bond, and only competent journeymen should be given the helm, because they won't feel the need to put their own "signature" on the film. I mean look at John Glenn, he's not the most famous or best director out there but his Bond films are all rather enjoyable and don't try to make any "statement", a-la Mendes or I'm afraid Tarantino.

Well,I don't know Tarantino is a cult director and no doubt one of the greatest of our day and yes,he has his own style...I kinda feel he would make an interesting CR.But then again you also might be right about his style clashing with Bonds...we'll never know what could have been.
And believe me I don't think that most famous director should make Bond movies as long as they know how to make one everything is okay.
I feel Mendes was brought on board because he is what criticts like to call "quality" director. I mean,he made "American Beauty" which brought him an Oscar and he is infact perfect for the high aclaim Babs is now seeking.
As for "clashing styles" I think Michael Apted is a good example. He was brought on board because they wanted "more character" and all that. I once read a review that went:"It feels like Michael is interested in working with the actors-especially with Brosnan and Marceau-but isn't particulary interested in a movie around them." I think that's a good description. I read the first cut of the movie was 160 minutes long and had more "dialogue" and "character" scenes. I think Apted(or anyone really) was never really 100% confident about making that movie.Like he wanted to go full with the two central character but then someone said there needs to be more action and a secondary Bond babe that ultimately distract from the much more interesting Elektra/Bond dynamic. In the first draft Bond connects the dots about Elektra much later and that makes him spend more time with her and the majority of the movie centers around them...which I think is the way it should have been. Anyway,I think this is the prime example of "styles clashing"...character moments coupled with action(that most of the time felt unecessary and quite boring) and it ended up with mixed results.

twine first cut was 160 minutes! Did they ever release the cut scenes as a special feature?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Veronica]

Thank you Veronica, you are far too kind!!

I'm afraid though, I have to disagree with you about Tarantino. While I'm a fan of his work, I just don't see him as Bond material. He has a style all his own, which I feel would clash with Bond's. My personal opinion is super star and art house directors should be kept away from Bond, and only competent journeymen should be given the helm, because they won't feel the need to put their own "signature" on the film. I mean look at John Glenn, he's not the most famous or best director out there but his Bond films are all rather enjoyable and don't try to make any "statement", a-la Mendes or I'm afraid Tarantino.

Well,I don't know Tarantino is a cult director and no doubt one of the greatest of our day and yes,he has his own style...I kinda feel he would make an interesting CR.But then again you also might be right about his style clashing with Bonds...we'll never know what could have been.
And believe me I don't think that most famous director should make Bond movies as long as they know how to make one everything is okay.
I feel Mendes was brought on board because he is what criticts like to call "quality" director. I mean,he made "American Beauty" which brought him an Oscar and he is infact perfect for the high aclaim Babs is now seeking.
As for "clashing styles" I think Michael Apted is a good example. He was brought on board because they wanted "more character" and all that. I once read a review that went:"It feels like Michael is interested in working with the actors-especially with Brosnan and Marceau-but isn't particulary interested in a movie around them." I think that's a good description. I read the first cut of the movie was 160 minutes long and had more "dialogue" and "character" scenes. I think Apted(or anyone really) was never really 100% confident about making that movie.Like he wanted to go full with the two central character but then someone said there needs to be more action and a secondary Bond babe that ultimately distract from the much more interesting Elektra/Bond dynamic. In the first draft Bond connects the dots about Elektra much later and that makes him spend more time with her and the majority of the movie centers around them...which I think is the way it should have been. Anyway,I think this is the prime example of "styles clashing"...character moments coupled with action(that most of the time felt unecessary and quite boring) and it ended up with mixed results.

twine first cut was 160 minutes! Did they ever release the cut scenes as a special feature?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know there are some deleted scenes. As far as I know they are short and not really that important.One of them is Moneypenny driving Bond to the funeral because he can not drive and the other is "Oh the things we do for England" after he "visits" the doctor. These two should have been in a movis.And I know there is one where Bond and Elektra drive somewhere and Elektra is talking about her mother's fanily and oil.You can find thkse on youtube or on dvd.But no,I don't think they released the scenes from that first longer cut.