Favorite Bond Movie: Moonraker Goldfinger The Spy Who Loved Me
Favorite Movies: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Crazy For Christmas, The Empire Strikes Back, League of Gentlemen (1960's British film), Big Trouble in Little China, Police Academy 2, Carry On At Your Convenience, Commando, Halloween III: Season of the Witch,
its obvious you had an agenda to dislike the film before stepping foot into the cinema to watch it with your pre-release thoughts.
And you didn't have the reverse agenda? I'm not sure what other forums you are active on but I'd bet money that you've been camped on them for months prior to CR's release telling everyone that Craig is the second coming of Jesus Christ.
This guy is actually BETTER (yes better) than the big man himself, Sean Connery......
This is the type of knee-jerk fadism that weakens your argument. Better than Connery?
Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
its obvious you had an agenda to dislike the film before stepping foot into the cinema to watch it with your pre-release thoughts.
And you didn't have the reverse agenda? I'm not sure what other forums you are active on but I'd bet money that you've been camped on them for months prior to CR's release telling everyone that Craig is the second coming of Jesus Christ.
This guy is actually BETTER (yes better) than the big man himself, Sean Connery......
This is the type of knee-jerk fadism that weakens your argument. Better than Connery?
So you obviously didn't read my thoughts at the top of the review on what I now think of Craig v Connery.... I was being honest in my reflection of looking back on my review, which was written some months ago. You obviously didn't read that.
As for Craig's casting. I was skeptical as many on first casting (yes...shock! horror!)
And then I got used to the idea, and the photos, trailers, etc. began to convince me before its release. As for camping on other forums, yes I did defend Craig to the hilt against the doubters. You know why? Because no one had given the fellow a chance and had actually seen him in the film. I thought the arguments to slag him off and announce boycotts was pathetic, unjustified and childish, so I voiced my opinions on the subject to counteract it. But I never said he was the second coming of Jesus Christ. How could I? I hadn't seen the film.
But I kept an open mind (unlike some). Thankfully I was also pleased with the end result and not disappointed (which I honestly thought I would be).
Now the film is out, I don't have an issue with people saying they don't like Craig as Bond (otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time on here).
But I did have an issue with it before the film came out.
Favorite Bond Movie: Moonraker Goldfinger The Spy Who Loved Me
Favorite Movies: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Crazy For Christmas, The Empire Strikes Back, League of Gentlemen (1960's British film), Big Trouble in Little China, Police Academy 2, Carry On At Your Convenience, Commando, Halloween III: Season of the Witch,
its obvious you had an agenda to dislike the film before stepping foot into the cinema to watch it with your pre-release thoughts.
And you didn't have the reverse agenda? I'm not sure what other forums you are active on but I'd bet money that you've been camped on them for months prior to CR's release telling everyone that Craig is the second coming of Jesus Christ.
This guy is actually BETTER (yes better) than the big man himself, Sean Connery......
This is the type of knee-jerk fadism that weakens your argument. Better than Connery?
So you obviously didn't read my thoughts at the top of the review on what I now think of Craig v Connery.... I was being honest in my reflection of looking back on my review, which was written some months ago. You obviously didn't read that.
As for Craig's casting. I was skeptical as many on first casting (yes...shock! horror!)
And then I got used to the idea, and the photos, trailers, etc. began to convince me before its release. As for camping on other forums, yes I did defend Craig to the hilt against the doubters. You know why? Because no one had given the fellow a chance and had actually seen him in the film. I thought the arguments to slag him off and announce boycotts was pathetic, unjustified and childish, so I voiced my opinions on the subject to counteract it. But I never said he was the second coming of Jesus Christ. How could I? I hadn't seen the film.
But I kept an open mind (unlike some). Thankfully I was also pleased with the end result and not disappointed (which I honestly thought I would be).
Now the film is out, I don't have an issue with people saying they don't like Craig as Bond (otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time on here).
But I did have an issue with it before the film came out.
So you've retracted the better than Connery thing for now? I'm glad to hear it. If I thought CR was a really good film I would have said so. Craig is probably another matter. I was always aghast at his casting and therefore not entirely objective. The film as a whole though--I would gladly have said it was excellent if I'd liked it but I didn't. I expected it to be much, much better based on the reviews.
Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry wrote:My Casino Royale review
It only seems like yesterday that Daniel Craig paddled down the Thames and was pushed out of his dinghy in a rubber-ring by Michael G Wilson. I was thrilled because Daniel Craig has always been my favourite actor. When I say favourite actor I'm not being entirely truthful. To be honest I had no idea who he was. But anyway he was the new James Bond. He seemed a bit short for the role and his fair hair and craggy features seemed better suited to a Robin Askwith biopic than tall, dark and handsome 007. For some reason he was wearing eyeliner and enough foundation to stock a small beauty saloon. But anyway he was James Bond. He looked a bit scrawny at the press conference but when shooting began he seemed to have packed two years worth of body-building into three months. He looks like he can kill or do some damage said his supporters. Why has he done all that body-building? said the sceptics. He looks like even more of a shortarse now. But anyway he was the new James Bond. As more footage from the film was released positions became more entrenched. I became more pessimistic with every new terrible photo of Daniel Craig and his one facial expression. On the plus side I was relieved to see someone had given the poor man some eyebrows. On the minus side he looked a bit like Roger De Courcey without Nookie the Bear. But anyway he was the new James Bond.
You could tell that old Bigmouth himself, the reliably unimaginative Martin Campbell was directing the new James Bond film. He managed to insult the other Bond actors before he'd finished. After proudly trumpeting the fact that Casino Royale would feature a 28-year-old Bond who has just earned his Double-O status he ended up with 53 year-old Daniel Craig as his young rookie Bond. The young Bond contenders were just too young he said later. Yes, 22 year-old Henry Cavill was too young to be James Bond. What a turn up for the books. Makes sense really with him only being, you know, 22. Perhaps they should have tested a few more actors who were old enough to shave.
Casino Royale is seventeen hours long. It begins with a B/W sequence and then moves into a title sequence involving a very small Daniel Craig and a theme tune that was rejected by Finland when David Arnold offered it to them as their Eurovision song contest entry. Then we have the free-running sequence which is too long and a bit silly. Yes, Pierce Brosnan is still roasted for his underwater tie-adjustments and radio controlled BMW but Daniel Craig running through walls and jumping off girders is somehow humane and realistic. Then he kills three-hundred soldiers and shoots the man he was chasing for reasons that escape me at the moment. The villain of Casino Royale is Le Chiffre played by the great Madge Nicholson. He wears a black suit and looks a bit oily. And that's it. Vesper is played by the French actress Eva Green. She doesn't have an awful lot to do in this film and her acting skills suggest that wasn't such a bad move.
After the chase we get a lot of product placement and cellphone nonsense. Cell phones received enough screen time to virtually be placed on the cast list. Craig plays cards and drives a Ford Mondeo. Judi Dench gives her 'just happy to be here' performance as M. The Airport sequence, which I feel like I've seen two hundred times in other movies, felt shoehorned in to give the film another set-piece and then we move into Montenegro and the second half of the film. It won't come as a huge suprise to know that I disliked the second half of the film too. Why? In no real order:
1) The Bond/Vesper train sparring was woeful.
2) The poker scenes were drab.
3) Clunky dialogue.
4) Drink wobbling.
5) Drink wobbling.
6) Drink wobbling.
7) Contrived ending. Drink wobbling.
Daniel Craig in the lead role wanders around looking miserable and talks in a flat, monotone voice. He runs a lot and purses his lips. At no time did I think I was watching James Bond. His looks are laughably wrong for Bond and he lacks charisma, charm and a sense of mischief. I'd rather be locked in a room with a double-glazing salesman than watch Craig's Bond. James Bond is a joyless character in CR. Gone is the escapism and fun, replaced by laborious psychology and dreary production design.
I still have not see CR. The reviews that are favorable to the movie, use terms like "awsome", "perfect", "Back to basics", "old school", "retro Bond", and the usual "Craig is the best Bond ever". None of the "GOOD" reviews ever mention the fact that DC is SUAVE, SOPHISTICATED, TALL DARK AND HANDSOME, or BOND-LIKE. None of the "GOOD" reviews point out the great merits of the Bond girl or the villian in this movie. I will rent the movie very soon. I would like to enjoy it. However, without Q, Moneypenny, a Bondlike Bond, and still seeing Miss Pruneface as M, it will be a tough sell.
The mass hysteria wheeled out for Daniel Craig's predictably minimalist take on James Bond has not only passed me by but entered the atmosphere and may now be in another universe. One or two lunatics, I mean fans, have even dared suggest that Craig may displace Sean Connery as the BEST BOND EVER! I understand that the fanboys are giddy at having a new film after four long years but let's all calm down, have a cup of tea, and think about this. I knew I was in trouble when a woman on BBC2's self-important late night arts discussion 'Late Review' declared that the juxtaposition between a hulking brute of a man and his vulnerability to a piece of rope swung in the right place was a stroke of genius. I'm sure that would have some sort of pretentious merit as a comment if the torture sequence had been written in 2006 for Daniel Craig. But, unfortunately it was written by Ian Fleming a long time ago and his Bond certainly wasn't a musclebound hulk.
I'll put Craig to one side for a moment. The biggest problem with Casino Royale is not the trash-compacting of the Bond staples but the structure. I should add that ditching the staples didn't help, especially if you, like me, are one of those untrendy people who enjoy the James Bond series rather than declare that two Sean Connery films and Casino Royale aside it was all terrible. Tie-straightening underwater! Bah! That could never happen in real-life!
We are well into the film when Vesper arrives. With the novel relegated to the last part much of Casino Royale is a mix of Brosnan Bond, new flavour Coke Bond, Die Hard 2, The Transporter and an episode of Dynasty minus a Joan Collins catfight that ends up in a pond the size of an Olympic swimming pool. I have no problem with action. It's why I go to see James Bond films. I have no desire to see how 'James became Bond' as that weird tv-spot put it. Just as well because the film wouldn't have enlightened me.
The opening shot of Casino Royale could have been in the casino. High rollers, evening dresses. Think of Clive Owen's introduction in Croupier. We track through the glitter to Bond facing down Le Chiffre. I would personally have made the construction chase less silly. Yes, the gritty and realistic Casino Royale contains one of the silliest sequences in Bond history. The film has won praise for making Bond a real human being who can be hurt or killed yet the first scene of the film proper more or less establishes 007 as an indestructible Hulk type character who can run through walls and jump off cranes without a scratch. Look at the angle of the girder Craig runs up (with his harness removed by CGI). Impossible. Why does Bond climb up the scaffolding and jump off? Why not wait for the bomber to come down? Why does Bond instruct his fellow Agent to keep the bomber alive and then give chase in a bulldozer (Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan would be retrospectively slaughtered for this moment alone) and blow up an Embassy of cardboard soldiers before shooting him? Answers on a postcard...
'Bond' isn't very likeable in Casino Royale and doesn't seem very bright. He hardly speaks, gloomy monosyllabic indifference his signature. Craig's long meaningful stares and lip-quivering didn't do an awful lot for me and I still think a deconstruction of the series, if such a thing was needed, with a freshly minted 007 required a younger looking actor. Craig does his own thing with Bond to be sure; but I doubt the series as a whole would have become such a cult pop-culture phenomenon if it had elbowed the suave gentleman killer for a morose everyman strangling people in lavatories at its inception.
A faithful adaption of Casino Royale would be a period piece. It wouldn't be very long and would have a car crash and the torture scene as the major incidents. Naturally they can't do that. So we get half of a film that could have been cobbled together with material left over from an abortive fifth Brosnan script. Craig wanders around a country club looking a bit gormless and (yawn) finds that any problem he may have, or any person he needs to find, will be taken care of by his mobile telephone. That's a gadget isn't it? Am I missing something here?
Overall I would have introduced Vesper a lot earlier and I didn't like the psychological banter that introduces her to the audience and Bond. This is dialogue that sounds like a script, not people talking. Groan inducing stuff. Eva Green was alright but having Vesper turn up about an hour into the film and then sidelined by a tedious poker game wasn't the best move. And Bond is still lumbered with average action directors who lack an inventive touch. The (Liman and Greengrass helmed) Bourne films still seem sassier and more modern than Casino Royale. Jason Bourne manages to project some reality and grittiness by placing the character in a world that we can just about recognise. Casino Royale attempts to reposition its hero as a less flippant and flintier lead too, but having him leap around cranes like Spider-Man or Daredevil and waltz through a post 9/11 American city Airport check-in as if it was a sleepy train station in Tunbridge Wells doesn't make much sense. Especially when placed alongside scenes that ask us to believe Bond is a real person who has to wobble a glass of Scotch in front of a mirror after killing some faceless goon. Are we supposed to be taking this film seriously?
The murder of Dryden could have been a B/W flashback later in the film. It was simply too short for a PTS and they put the lot in the trailers. I thought the scene was well staged despite a slightly pretentious subtext of 'We're mad we are. We've put a black and white scene in a James Bond film!' And how Judi Dench is still in this series is anyone's guess. She might be great in other films but I can't be the only one who stifles a yawn whenever she pops up as M. Barbara Broccoli is clearly star-struck at working with British luvvie Royalty, even if they don't fit their parts. The much talked about torture scene was turned into something of a joke with crude dialogue completely out of place in a James Bond film. There was more suspense in the torture sequence between Steven Seagal and Henry Silva in Eighties action nonsense Above The Law, and no, that is not sarcasm on my part. The sequence where Geena Davis is questioned and nearly drowned in The Long Kiss Goodnight was more inventive and gripping.
To say that Casino Royale is better than the less than the sum of their parts Pierce Brosnan blockbusters may be a backhanded compliment. A shame that Brosnan got shabby scripts and directors. Perhaps a more interesting comparison could be made between Casino Royale and Timothy Dalton's two equally earnest stabs at de-camping the James Bond series. I'd rather watch The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill than sit through Casino Royale again in the near future.
I could nit-pick Casino Royale until I'm blue in the face. Daniel Craig's worthy but dull pursed lipped acting style seems to have floated the boats of a lot of people who don't seem to like many of the James Bond films; but, psychologically, I've never really adjusted to my fictional hero being played by a man who looks like a Gas-Fitter from Canvey Island.
Would I have loved Casino Royale if another actor had been cast? I don't know. It's hard to be objective. Anyway, there are twenty James Bond films in my DVD collection. I'll stick with them for the time being. If anyone needs me I'll be in town, zig-zagging my way through cardboard stands piled high with Casino Royale DVDS.
Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
Even though I didn't agree with it, it was a good, well-thought, well-written review, Greg.
Welcome to the forums. You'll be pleased to know, there are a few others on here who share your viewpoint. Just goes to show that you can never please everybody (although CR very nearly did!)
Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully Craig fans will get a swift trilogy they like and the rest of us will get a more traditional Bond in the not too distant future that Craig fans like too. Then peace will reign in the James Bond geek community. I think.
Greg Haugen wrote:Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully Craig fans will get a swift trilogy they like and the rest of us will get a more traditional Bond in the not too distant future that Craig fans like too. Then peace will reign in the James Bond geek community. I think.
It will all depend on the numbers generated by Bond 22 in November 2008. If it does not approach CR, and Craig becomes tired of the controversy, he could be out by 2010. I agree with most of your review and if Eon wanted a serious, non-campy, Bond, they should have done this in 1995 with Goldeneye.
Favorite Movies: Bullitt, The Long Good Friday, The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Rocky, Superman the Movie, McVicar, Goodfellas, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor, Butch & Sundance, The Sting, All the Presidents Men
Greg Haugen wrote:Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully Craig fans will get a swift trilogy they like and the rest of us will get a more traditional Bond in the not too distant future that Craig fans like too. Then peace will reign in the James Bond geek community. I think.
It will all depend on the numbers generated by Bond 22 in November 2008. If it does not approach CR, and Craig becomes tired of the controversy, he could be out by 2010. I agree with most of your review and if Eon wanted a serious, non-campy, Bond, they should have done this in 1995 with Goldeneye.
They never would have done it in 1995. It was a different time, different audience back then, and (more importantly) it was before the date that changed everything - 9/11.
Didn't Michael G Wilson intend to make a 'young' James Bond film after Roger Moore left? I think Cubby nipped that idea in the bud and eventually hired the forty-something Timothy Dalton. The Living Daylights was a very good 'return to basics' for the series and has the edge over Brosnan and Craig's debut pictures.
First, I would like to say that I'm new here. I've been visiting this site for awhile now, but never became a member until now. I would also like to say that this site is the best for allowing both pro and anti-Craig people to express their views without being hated on by the moderators. Other sites such as ajb007 and commanderbond will tolerate a little bit of anti-Craig, but not too much of it. I had a post deleted off ajb007 because of my opinions on Daniel Craig.
I've been a James Bond fan since 1983. I became a fan the same night I became a Redskins fan...after watching them defeat the Dolphins in the Super Bowl. After the game, my father was flipping through channels and Goldfinger came on. The second I saw a woman laying on a bed, buttnaked in all gold made me an instant fan. My father was already a Bond fan. He was on the set of The Man with the Golden Gun when they were filming the part when Bond steals that orange car with the hillbilly sheriff inside. I was only six-years-old at the time and James Bond were one of the many heroes I use to imitate. That was then and this is now.
In 2005, I saw in the USA Today that the new Bond would be Daniel Craig and there's a picture of him. I was highly upset. I compared his looks to Master Splinter from TMNT and Gollum. I couldn't believe he was James Bond. I wanted Adrian Paul or Clive Owen. A few months later go by and I hear that EON wanted to have a "reboot". So I go on ajb007 to find out what they meant by this "reboot". I read some of the posts and came to the conclusion that if done correctly...the reboot is a good idea.
November 17, 2006, I drive 45 minutes to a threater near Washington, D.C. to watch the midnight showing of Casino Royale. People were saying that this will be the Fleming Bond on screen. I read CR back when I was in the 8th grade and read it again a week before the film came out so that I would be prepared. I knew that the traditional gun barrell sequence was changed so I was prepared for that. What I wasn't prepared for was this drastic change that EON did to James Bond. I witnessed the death of 007 before my eyes. I wanted a grittier 007 and I got it. But I didn't want to see Rambo, Commando, Solid Snake or whoever in MY James Bond. What happened to the sophisticated and intelligent Bond I use to imitate when I was a kid? What happened to having fun afterwards...knowing that you just seen another great Bond film? Its was all over. The reboot idea wasn't done properly. If Batman Begins was the example they used for this film....why not show Bond growing up and illustrate his parents being killed in a climbing accident or his time spent in the Royal Navy. None of that! I thought they were going to do this since the running time for the movie was almost 2 1/2 hours. And at the end of the film were he says "Bond...James Bond" I got out of my seat, looked at the screen and said, "You're not Bond...you're a b*tch!" and stormed out the theater.
In closing...I don't agree with what EON has done. To me, this reboot idea was only done to suit DC's lack of talent as 007. Its a handicap for him. Its the same as a mediocre QB playing on a run-first oriented football team. He does enough to win and get by, but if the game had to be put in his hands...he would lose the game. This man isn't James Bond, period. My James Bond doesn't run through walls and leaps around like a monkey. My James Bond doesn't act like a little b*tch when he loses money in a card game thats not even his to begin with and then goes after the main villian with a steak knife. My James Bond doesn't argue with a b*tch over some d**n clothes. I feel sorry for anyone who loves this generic, soup kitchen brand 007.
Welcome to the forum Jermaine76. I agree with your general gist and you make some good points. The last time I looked at AJB I did notice a Stalinist purge had been undertaken.
The Sweeney wrote:They never would have done it in 1995. It was a different time, different audience back then, and (more importantly) it was before the date that changed everything - 9/11.
Yeah, back in '95, the conventional wisdom was that James Cameron's True Lies had made the Bond series look old and stale by comparison and they would have to up the action and special effects in order to compete. In 2006, the conventional wisdom was that the Bourne trilogy had made the Bond series look old and stale by comparison, and they would have to downplay the action and special effects in order to compete. It's the cirrrrcle of life....
"He's the one that doesn't smile" - Queen Elizabeth II on Daniel Craig
I was being honest in my reflection of looking back on my review, which was written some months ago. You obviously didn't read that.
Drink wobbling.
