Casino Royale

[Hemingway Jones]

Mori-Bond

Maybe he panicked? Let's not forget that at this point he is still very much a rookie. If this were a Brosnan film we were talking about, I'd be nodding my head in agreement with you Jones, but I think that due to the timeframe, we can be generous here. Besides, we women had the shower scene, so why shouldn't you men get the car smash?

Bond, much like Hemingway Jones, never panics; it’s unbecoming of a gentleman.

See this speaks to the unevenness of the tone; at times he is very non-Bond in panicking, in crying out in pain, or getting easily and inescapably caught, and at other times he is dispatching dangerous situations with insouciant grace. There seems to be no telling which, when or why.

Speaking of timeframes, that was one thing I did find difficult to get my head around. If this was a retrospective look at Bond, why was it set now? I can live with the female M but surely the references to 9/11 were uneccessary? Chronological ambiguity would have been preferable IMO.

I am in totally agreement with you and I think the only answer is that the communism financing plot of the book has been updated to terrorism financing, though the fellow in Africa looked more like oppressive military despots rather than political terrorists.

I deliberately avoided all mention of this in my earlier post because I think I was trying to blank it out but you're right. It was cheesy, contrived and completely insincere. If a man spoke to me like that, I'd be striving not to giggle. We're used to the rubbish Bond one-liners (IMO they are even worse when spoken by Brosnan) but some of the things Craig was given to say were apalling. Perhaps we ought to chalk it up to him not having learned anything about seduction yet?!

Yes, but it becomes a problem because it contradicts one of the central rules of the film. In all writing there are rules you set up and you should not contradict them or you go beyond the realm of the world you create or betray the premise of your project. If this Bond is a borderline sociopath and is totally emotionally inaccessible, which is what makes him good at his job would he then be so easily swayed to be this Alan Alda style romantic. It was jarring, and quickly drew snickers in our cynical Boston audience. I laughed at the film at this point. They lost me at the car crash and by this point I wish literally laughing at it, wishing it were over, and wishing that “The Good Shepherd” was playing in an adjacent theater.

Was that in Venezia? If it's the part I'm thinking of, I agree and it puzzled me too.

It was indeed and another major pitfall in the writing. They almost had me back when he almost did what he was about to do. Had he done it, they would have had me forever.

We can hope! But I'm not sure we will ever get a truly marvellous Bond film...and this was nowhere near as bad as the previous one.

Well, I respect that they tried something new in this film. They tried to achieve some of the magic of the Connery years and they came close, very close, but for all too brief passages.

They last film was ridiculous bubblegum, much like Moonracker or one of the worst of the Moore films (“For Your Eyes Only” though was one of the best films of the series and captured the magic of the Connery years), but it knew what it was, it established rules and stuck to them, and it kept the character consistent.

This film had no control over characterization whatsoever.

Jones, I am surprised you had nothing to say about Venezia!

Most of those remarks are confined to personal correspondence.

It did give me a shot in the arm to see Venice and to see that they filmed there. It is funny to know that I know that city well enough that when he came from over by the Gritti, you can see Louis Vuitton in the background, and entered San Marco, the Basilica should be in front of him, and it is for a brief moment, but then suddenly it is to his left, because he is suddenly passing through the Torre de Orologio. Of course, this is pedantry and I do not hold a film to too strict a standard. It was also nice to see them sail by the Rialto Market.

When all is said and done, I went to the cinema to be entertained by this film and I was. I wanted escapism, not realism and whilst in parts I found the film to be a tad too graphic to be purely fantastical, it did its job. It may not have been technically perfect and yes, there were flaws but I can live with that.

See for me, the flaws in character (it was simply not Bond), the bad writing, the embarrassing dialogue, the poor editing, the lack of a discernable plot, all broke the spell for me, and I was not alone.

Also, if Brosnon was looking for some kind of redemption, this film made 15% less money in its opening weekend that Brosnon’s last film. Money, sadly, is the measure of worth in the movie business.

GOK, you know I respect all of your opinions and I enjoy sparring with you, matching foils and parrying. There’s really nothing you have said that I could take great issue with.

My only hope for this series is that they work on these films a little more. With a bit of polish, this film really could have been something.

 

[scotrace]

Well, Hem, my friend, you have decided my weekend movie for me: The Santa Clause 3. My daughters thank you.

 

[GOK]

Bond, much like Hemingway Jones, never panics; it’s unbecoming of a gentleman.

It may be unbecoming but I'll wager that even the most urbane of gentlemen is merely adept at bluffing and not immune to the occasional bout of panic, given the right situation.

See this speaks to the unevenness of the tone; at times he is very non-Bond in panicking, in crying out in pain,

I know I am not exactly 'equipped' to comment but I suspect that all men would scream in pain in that situation. Most would be reduced to tears, perhaps.

I am in totally agreement with you and I think the only answer is that the communism financing plot of the book has been updated to terrorism financing, though the fellow in Africa looked more like oppressive military despots rather than political terrorists.

Of course. And yes, they did, very much so.

Yes, but it becomes a problem because it contradicts one of the central rules of the film. In all writing there are rules you set up and you should not contradict them or you go beyond the realm of the world you create or betray the premise of your project.

Agreed but...

If this Bond is a borderline sociopath and is totally emotionally inaccessible, which is what makes him good at his job would he then be so easily swayed to be this Alan Alda style romantic.

...is it so inconceivable that these were events that were at least in part responsible for his latter MO?

It was indeed and another major pitfall in the writing. They almost had me back when he almost did what he was about to do. Had he done it, they would have had me forever.

Aaahh, the synchronous mindset strikes again! I just knew that was what you were alluding to - it was the same for me. What followed was disappointing to say the least and I have to wonder if a later Bond would have done the same? One sincerely hopes not.

Well, I respect that they tried something new in this film. They tried to achieve some of the magic of the Connery years and they came close, very close, but for all too brief passages.

Agreed. I think I need to re-watch some of the old ones again actually.

They last film was ridiculous bubblegum, much like Moonracker or one of the worst of the Moore films (“For Your Eyes Only” though was one of the best films of the series and captured the magic of the Connery years), but it knew what it was, it established rules and stuck to them, and it kept the character consistent.

I suppose so and I guess one bad film out of four isn't really anything to complain about.

Most of those remarks are confined to personal correspondence.

Shame on you Jones, I was merely referring to the destruction of that casa!

It did give me a shot in the arm to see Venice and to see that they filmed there. It is funny to know that I know that city well enough that when he came from over by the Gritti, you can see Louis Vuitton in the background, and entered San Marco, the Basilica should be in front of him, and it is for a brief moment, but then suddenly it is to his left, because he is suddenly passing through the Torre de Orologio. Of course, this is pedantry and I do not hold a film to too strict a standard. It was also nice to see them sail by the Rialto Market.

Hey, if it was good enough for Canaletto.... Besides, it's not like they very obviously re-used the same sets for both London and Venezia, unlike a certain film I could mention.

Money, sadly, is the measure of worth in the movie business.

Too true my, friend. And it's damaging the whole film industry in some ways. I'm not even going to get into that conversation here except to say that one day, Hollywood may realise that there are other ways to make films.

GOK, you know I respect all of your opinions and I enjoy sparring with you, matching foils and parrying. There’s really nothing you have said that I could take great issue with.

I am pleased - I'd hate to think that you (or anyone else) would misconstrue anything I said. It's actually very refreshing to be able to debate matters and differences of opinion with people that accept that others may not share their views, and not have to worry about getting flamed for disagreeing.

My only hope for this series is that they work on these films a little more. With a bit of polish, this film really could have been something.

I like to think of it in a similar way to new series -it takes time for crew and actors to get used to working together. As they get more comfortable, the end results get better. Usually!

 

[carebear]

As far as panic goes. That's why you train.

A truly trained (and practised) person in a situation (trauma nurse, soldier, swing dancer) doesn't "think" about the technique their using, they are thinking the next step ahead and performing the technique almost autonomically.

A field operator (US SS, DSS, CIA for ones I know) will (or should) have taken a driving course similar to the Scotti or Langrip courses (open to the public if you wanted to go). You learn to drive "offensively": ramming, evasive driving, how to react to ambush. In theory, barring random tire slippage or something, if it is physically possible to deal with a driving situation, a trained driver will.

But I'm the guy who complains about characters being incompetent who aren't spies.

 

[GOK]

<snip>

As far as panic goes. That's why you train.

A truly trained (and practised) person in a situation (trauma nurse, soldier, swing dancer) doesn't "think" about the technique their using, they are thinking the next step ahead and performing the technique almost autonomically.

Yes but.....OK you're right - I can't defend him any more, can I? lol

But I'm the guy who complains about characters being incompetent who aren't spies.

In real life too or just films? Love your sig quote, BTW.

 

[carebear]

Yes but.....OK you're right - I can't defend him any more, can I? lol



In real life too or just films? Love your sig quote, BTW.

Well, I haven't yet seen the movie, there's any number of reasons he might have swerved badly, it's just that panic shouldn't have been among them. IIRC that scene is right out of the book and I seem to remember asking the same sort of question as I read it.

As far as incompetence goes... Both, but more when they're characters. There's a whole thread of my ranting somewhere online (not sure if it's here).

I don't ask that characters be perfect in all they do, just that they don't do egregiously out of character stupid things.


The sig of course is Shrek(II), a very witty movie.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

.

I'm sorry gang, I did some trimming on this thread. With this film out now and with all of the interest in it, I really want to keep it focused.

 

[GOK]

So what about his attire then? The dinner suit looked good. The final scene suit looked good, apart from the blue shirt. The rest was a bit bland at best IMO. He may exude that certain je ne sais quois but he can't beat Brosnan for sartorial elegance. Or can he?

Opinions?

 

[Hemingway Jones]

So what about his attire then? The dinner suit looked good. The final scene suit looked good, apart from the blue shirt. The rest was a bit bland at best IMO. He may exude that certain je ne sais quois but he can't beat Brosnan for sartorial elegance. Or can he?

Opinions?

Yes, did you see that tux! Did you see the way that jacket was tailored! That was one of the most amazing tailoring jobs I have ever seen. I think, in that regard, he surpasses Brosnan.

I swore to myself that I would get a tux like that! Also, that suit at the end was similarly amazing.

 

[GOK]

Yes, did you see that tux! Did you see the way that jacket was tailored! That was one of the most amazing tailoring jobs I have ever seen. I think, in that regard, he surpasses Brosnan.

I swore to myself that I would get a tux like that! Also, that suit at the end was similarly amazing.

They truly were things of beauty. If I didn't know better, I'd have said with certainty that the last one was a Tommy Nutter.

I suspect you'd look rather dashing in a dinner suit, Jones!

 

[Senator Jack]

Saw it last night with Deckard at Grauman's (Yay!) and of course we picked it apart. My thoughts:

Better than I had expected it to be.

Terrible cinematography in the opening sequence. Looked digitized and I hate HDTV because it looks digitized.

Best title sequence since Dr. No (Yes, even better than Goldfinger)

Absolutley terrible theme (song? can't really call it that. Melody completely forgotten in all of thirty seconds. Was there a melody?)

Too much time on the field telephone for all characters. Text messaging, telephone ringing - very un-Bond.

The chase/fight sequences were far too long. I imagined it would be like trying to watch an entire adult movie.

The self-abusive pyschotic Bond of the novels was captured and I appreciated that. Must have been a difficult decision for Broccoli but I commend her on making it.

Apart from the acton sequences, the plot did follow the novel. As Carebear noted, the card game was the main action in the novel. (Thought the same thing about 'Spy Who Loved Me', too, Carebear. Would love to see a VERY quiet Bond picture like that. Would also love to see Kingsley Amis' Bond adventure 'Colonel Sun')

Thought the most intense sequence was the cane chair torture which WAS in the novel. Haven't read the novel in some fifteen - twenty years or so, but I do believe Fleming had Bond screaming in that sequence.

Bond has fallen in love before ('OHMSS'), so this is nothing new.

The CR novel was devoid of gadgets, and, again, I thought there were too many gadgets in this one. (A defibrillator? How fortuitous!)

Certainly, pacing was uneven.

Liked the blackout ending. (Won't give it away here.)

I, too, complained about the sound mix. Cars roared through my ears but I couldn't hear half the dialogue.

Umm. Didn't anyone stop to think that only TICKETED passengers go through the metal detectors. Obviously, Bond doesn't have a ticket at the airport. Hate logic holes like that.

Oh yes, and Bond playing Texas Hold 'Em instead of Barcarat? Please!

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Saw it last night with Deckard at Grauman's (Yay!) and of course we picked it apart. My thoughts:

Better than I had expected it to be.

Terrible cinematography in the opening sequence. Looked digitized and I hate HDTV because it looks digitized.

Best title sequence since Dr. No (Yes, even better than Goldfinger)

Absolutley terrible theme (song? can't really call it that. Melody completely forgotten in all of thirty seconds. Was there a melody?)

Too much time on the field telephone for all characters. Text messaging, telephone ringing - very un-Bond.

The chase/fight sequences were far too long. I imagined it would be like trying to watch an entire adult movie.

The self-abusive pyschotic Bond of the novels was captured and I appreciated that. Must have been a difficult decision for Broccoli but I commend her on making it.

Apart from the acton sequences, the plot did follow the novel. As Carebear noted, the card game was the main action in the novel. (Thought the same thing about 'Spy Who Loved Me', too, Carebear. Would love to see a VERY quiet Bond picture like that. Would also love to see Kingsley Amis' Bond adventure 'Colonel Sun')

Thought the most intense sequence was the cane chair torture which WAS in the novel. Haven't read the novel in some fifteen - twenty years or so, but I do believe Fleming had Bond screaming in that sequence.

Bond has fallen in love before ('OHMSS'), so this is nothing new.

The CR novel was devoid of gadgets, and, again, I thought there were too many gadgets in this one. (A defibrillator? How fortuitous!)

Certainly, pacing was uneven.

Liked the blackout ending. (Won't give it away here.)

I, too, complained about the sound mix. Cars roared through my ears but I couldn't hear half the dialogue.

Umm. Didn't anyone stop to think that only TICKETED passengers go through the metal detectors. Obviously, Bond doesn't have a ticket at the airport. Hate logic holes like that.

Oh yes, and Bond playing Texas Hold 'Em instead of Barcarat? Please!

Regards,

Senator Jack

Well said Senator. However, I really didn't like the torture scene. Just my opinion. Can't really go into it without giving out the details of it. I guess if it was that way in the book, than it was done for accuracy. There actually were some things I liked about the scene. I liked his attitude in it.
Definitely agree about the length of the chase/fight sequences. Especially the first one.

I have read the novel, a while back. I can't imagine being able to follow or completely understand this film if I hadn't. It was incredibly dis-jointed. It was noisy in all the wrong places.

An unexpected thing for me was how much I liked Craig as Bond. He was edgy, incredibly fit, and his eyes were mystifying. As others have stated, he really wore the clothes they gave him. His tux was incredible, and the suit at the end was beautiful. He certainly was a different looking Bond, and I never thought of him as an attractive man until now. But wow, he was nice to look at.

Yes, Bond has fallen in love before. However, the dialogue in the love scenes was just too, for lack of a better word, cheesy. People in the theater were cracking up. In the past, when Bond does have affection for a woman, he is still a strong man. He still maintains his "Bondliness". In this film his love, and I'm sure this is just due to some incredibly bad writing, makes him weak. It is possible for a man to be madly in love with a woman, and still be strong character. I see, in this film, a man whose love makes him not only weak in the knees, but all over, even mentally. I just don't see the older Bond's become so overwhelmed with passion. Again, a good deal of this transformation has to do with the bad script.

Yes, he did have a few less gadgets. However, most of the movie was a commercial for Sony Erricson. Not to mention an ad for Ford. I too thought it was funny that he just so happened to have a defribulator in his car.

There were a few funny one liners that really helped to lighten up the tone. I enjoyed them. I wish there had been more of them.

But still, after having more time to reflect, I'm still not liking this film. It was just too dis-jointed. However, the last 15 minutes I liked. It was beautiful to look at the country they were in, I don't want to spoil it, but you know where they were. It was really shot there, which was very cool. A little over the top, bad CGI (?) affects, certain things that happened were just incredibly un-realistic. But, I did enjoy that scene.

Oh, and I agree with what you said about the opening sequence. I too thought it was great.

 

[GOK]

Well said Senator. However, I really didn't like the torture scene. Just my opinion.

I didn't like it - I just thought it was well executed. There was absolutely no need for anything graphic - the power of imagination is immensely strong.

There actually were some things I liked about the scene. I liked his attitude in it.

Now you see, I really didn't like that. I thought it was incredibly cheesy and (obviously) unrealistic. Also, I felt that that piece of dialogue was something that an Englishman wouldn't really come out with. It just didn't sound right at all. Now, if it had been an American delivering those lines, I'd have believed him.

An unexpected thing for me was how much I liked Craig as Bond. He was edgy, incredibly fit, and his eyes were mystifying.

Oh agreed, Daisy. Blue eyes generally don't do much for me (neither does blond hair) but I could make an exception with Craig. They were piercing. I actually wonder if he was wearing contacts because I don't recall them being that vivid in his other work.

He certainly was a different looking Bond, and I never thought of him as an attractive man until now. But wow, he was nice to look at.

I have to admit that after that Venezia scene in Tomb Raider, I was on the way to becoming a bit of a fan-girl!

However, the dialogue in the love scenes was just too, for lack of a better word, cheesy. People in the theater were cracking up.

They elicited a few sighs and shakes of the head from me too. As I said before, had someone said those things to me, I'd have sniggered. Also, when he declared himself for her, where was the feeling? The passion? To me, he sounded as though he was telling her he liked sushi or something. It was almost as though he (Craig, not Bond) was just going through the motions in reciting the lines.

In the past, when Bond does have affection for a woman, he is still a strong man. He still maintains his "Bondliness".

I love that expression! I shall have to remember it. lol

In this film his love, and I'm sure this is just due to some incredibly bad writing, makes him weak.

I didn't really see that as a problem - it happens and since he is a flawed character anyway, I just felt this furthered that notion. But it was contradicted later, as Jones and I have already discussed.

It is possible for a man to be madly in love with a woman, and still be strong character. I see, in this film, a man whose love makes him not only weak in the knees, but all over, even mentally. I just don't see the older Bond's become so overwhelmed with passion. Again, a good deal of this transformation has to do with the bad script.

Whilst I agree that the scripting wasn't terribly good, I can accept that because he wasn't yet the Bond we are used to, it was plausible that he might react in such a way. The thing I had the problem with is that there really wasn't enough build up to it. Certainly there was the banter, his obvious attraction to her but when exactly did that turn into an all consuming love?

Oh, and I have to say this....how the heck did he, y'know, with her? He'd just been almost made into a castrato - surely he'd have been a bit <ahem> tender? Still, the way that scene was handled was a refreshing change to the usual T&Bs that we see in Bond films.

Yes, he did have a few less gadgets. However, most of the movie was a commercial for Sony Erricson. Not to mention an ad for Ford. I too thought it was funny that he just so happened to have a defribulator in his car.

Yep - lots of product placement there and despite not really having much of an interest in cars, I couldn't help thinking that the Ford was wrong. But then, I don't know why he doesn't have a Spyker! And yes, the defib - hmmm, one might almost think MI6 knew what was going to happen to him and had planned accordingly.

There were a few funny one liners that really helped to lighten up the tone. I enjoyed them. I wish there had been more of them.

I have to disagree there - I've never been a fan of the one liners. I just don't find them amusing.

However, the last 15 minutes I liked. It was beautiful to look at the country they were in, I don't want to spoil it, but you know where they were. It was really shot there, which was very cool. A little over the top, bad CGI (?) affects, certain things that happened were just incredibly un-realistic. But, I did enjoy that scene.

Yes but how could you not, given where it was?

I'd still like to watch it again.

 

[Kt Templar]

I haven't had a chance to see it yet. So cannot comment on the film. But I just took a little dig around as to box office.

In the UK "Casino Royale" took more than twice as much on it's first day as "Die Another Day" did.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6157066.stm

The first weekend is even bigger, £13.49m compared to £3.42m!

And that's even with it being cut here.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

.

In the US it made $7M less than "Die Another Day" on its all-important opening weekend - $40M to $47M.

 

[GOK]

Hmmmm, does that make us less discerning than you then?

 

[Kt Templar]

Is does show how much Bond means to us Brits. That amount translates to approx US$25.73m, which is huge when you look at it against to the US takings considering the much bigger market.

The producers still will chalk this up as a considerable success seeing as thay also spent so much less on this one than DAD.

I popped in DAD yesterday, (mainly because my internet connection was down, Grrr) and was surprised that I watched it all the way through and quite enjoyed it. One thing that struck me was there didn't seem to be much "Bond" in it, he sort of came along for the ride and Jinx was just as important a character.

That being said it was a generic Bond, silly story but the action kept thing moving and there were no dull spots.

And Hallie Berry really does look good, even in ACUs!

 

[lindylady]

Not to mention...

Did anyone else take a look at Bond's brands? He's always been associated with top-of-the-line luxury. Now the writers have him driving Fords, drinking Smirnoff, and wearing Omega watches in Casino Royale. What happened to Rolex, Aston Martin, etc? I know Bond is supposed to be a newbie of sorts in this film, but I didn't think they started the double-Os off with mid-priced brands lol

 

[Blackhorse]

Well, though Astin Martin IS owned by the Ford corp. - as is Volvo, Rover, etc. - it's STILL an Astin Martin DB6 that he drives in the new Casino Royale (albeit briefly) recall the pan-in shot of the embroidered seatback with the DB6. Also, as I recall, Omega (the BOND model Seamaster (with the blue wave dial face) is still a big item with Omega) IS a traditional Bond timepiece...as is the Rolex Submariner. And, though modern tastes may have shifted, one of the Vodkas sipped by 007 in prior films WAS Smirnoff.

Of interest to me have been the spinoff ads running on TV currently for Omega, Smirnoff, etc. with heavy use of the movie cutscenes. I noted, during the film credits, there were mentions of these major companies as tied to the movie...I'd like to know what it cost them!?!

 

[GOK]

...I'd like to know what it cost them!?!

Probably at least six figures. Product placement can be hugely expensive but then from Sony et al's perspective, it's a fantastic deal.

To see Bond drinking Smirnoff, wearing an Omega and using a Sony mobile beguiles the average Joe into thinking that if he buys the same, he too can get a bit of Bondliness (yay I got to use Daisy's word!).

It's all about masstige. Joe Public can afford a swanky Sony, therefore he is likely to buy into it. People do not buy things, they buy experiences. That's why product placement is so important - and lucrative.