Casino Royale 3 disk Ultimate Edition on 06-03-08 (1 Viewer)

[Richard--W]

We're not talking about the same things.
Many people have stated that CASINO ROYALE is too long, and now they're planning to make it longer for DVD. In view of the approach the producers decided to take to the story, the addition of deleted scenes isn't going to improve it one iota. It's just a cynical ploy to squeeze more nickels and dimes out of you.

What are you babbling about?
Go climb your thumb, fool.
Don't strain your brain on your way up.

Ian Fleming's novel CASINO ROYALE is a character-driven thriller, a film noir waiting to happen. To see it reduced to an exercise in political correctness and shallow posturing is disheartening. The novel lends itself very well to the action formula, but I expected more fidelity to the underlying subtext and drama that makes the novel so memorable. The book and the movie are about two completely different sets of characters who share only the same names and a vaguely similar framework. In the film, Bond is a moron who doesn't care about right and wrong, M is a condescending nagging shrew, and Vesper is a snob and a critic with better things to do. The writers dispense with their only intelligent contribution in the pre-title sequence -- they don't have the talent to sustain genuine dramatic tension -- namely the two kills and learning the tradecraft of espionage, which should be the arc of Bond's character, so that he achieves double-o status at the very end of the film. Instead, the writers organize every scene into a criticism of the Bond concept and of his character. I've read the scripts and studied the film, and I can't buy into this new subtext for a second.

The only thing I like is the opening titles, which are inspired, among the best of the franchise, and perfectly suited to Fleming's story. The lyrics are good, too, but the song needed to be sung by someone who can.

Has anyone seen ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE ? That film strikes all the right notes. A lot of thought went into the Bond character, into the female lead Tracy, and how their relationship works. It's an intelligent story with a believable romance and plenty of non-superman action, successful as drama and very entertaining. In comparison, CASINO ROYALE unfolds like a debate between dumb and dumber.

Over the years the Bond franchise has become such an institution that each installment will make money regardless of the quality. Audience expectations are so low that if the producers stuffed a dead cat into a tuxedo and called him James Bond people like Tony J. Case would cheer it on. If that's all you want, it's okay with me. Personally I dislike CASINO ROYALE and I don't accept its message.

 

[Eric Chang]

which leads me to ask why you are in a casino royale double dip dvd thread. just so you could crap on the movie? we get it, you dont like it- and that's fine. i enjoyed the hell out of this movie, and depending on the extras, i'll be picking this up.

p.s.- what 'message' is this film trying to send? it's a james bond movie...

 

[dailW]

speaking of dead cats in suits. , if ohmss hit all the right notes , then you prefer lazenby over daniel craig ?

 

[dailW]

i love the movie. i love the pace of the film as it is now and i can take or leave extras. the next time i buy this movie it will be when i buy a blu-ray player.

 

[Richard--W]

The question is irrelevant to this thread about elongating CASINO ROYALE, but ... I like all the actors who've taken on the role, including Daniel Craig. It's not the actor, but the material he's given to work with, and the choices he makes in interpreting that material, which concerns me. Often times the actors were defeated by bad material, none more so than Roger Moore who got the worst of bad writing (the straight espionage thrillers Richard Maibaum wrote for Moore would have made edgier and better films if the producers hadn't insisted on adding all kinds of silliness and fantasy). It's true Lazenby looks like the traditional Bond is supposed to look, but Craig is a considerably more adept and experienced actor than Lazenby was (this is not a criticism of Lazenby, there's nothing wrong with his performance). No matter how the producers decide to subvert or reinvent the character, Craig has the talent to put it across to an audience. I'm disappointed he didn't fight for an honorable and intelligent Bond who functions as a good role model to the young people who flock to these films. It's possible to do that without dumbing Bond down any further than CASINO ROYALE; again, take another look at OHMSS. Craig has at least two more chances to do so, but I doubt if the idea will even occur to him.

 

[Ray H]

I think Craig is probably relishing the way Bond is portrayed in Casino Royale and likely to be portrayed in the upcoming films. From an actor's standpoint, a more fallible and imperfect Bond is probably more interesting than the usual one.

 

[Richard--W]

By the term "usual one" I think you mean a kind of superman in a tux? Understood. Fallible and imperfect, okay. Bond can be fallible and imperfect and still be a smart, confident spy with good motives and some finesse.

But ignoble, dumb and a doormat for dumber condescending shrews, No. Adding more of this subtext to the film is not my idea of improving it.

 

[Tony J Case]

You must have seen the Bizzaro-universe version of OHMSS then. Putting aside that the only reason that Blofield didnt figure out that it was 007 (desipte having just seen him in the film right before) was because he was wearing a kilt, the version *I* saw sported a pretty ludricous world domination plot.

Dont get me wrong - I still liked OHMSS, but it's it's pretty standard fair as far as the series goes.

 

[Michael Reuben]

This kind of thing isn't permitted here, and there's no justification for it under any circumstances. Take a breather, please.

M.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I'd buy a 3 disk Ultimate Edition of the David Niven Casino Royale. This, not so much.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

To be fair, the reason why that plot doesn't work in OHMSS is because they were following the book too closely - and thus retained the plot that depended on the idea that Bond and Blofeld had never met, something that was true in the novel, not in the film.

 

[Mark Hawley]

My theory on that is that up until You Only Live Twice, the Bond films had followed the novels generally closely. However, all of those had Richard Maibaum involved in writing the script, wheras YOLT was written by Roald Dahl of all people and hardly resembled the novel at all.

With OHMSS, Maibaum was back, and like the first four Bond films, generally follows the novel. So I think that maybe in Maibaum's mind, the film version of YOLT never happened (notice when Bond goes through his desk, there's mementos from the first four Bond films, but nothing from YOLT).

The novel of OHMSS takes place after the events of Thunderball and deals with Bond trying to track down Blofeld, head of SPECTRE, so if you don't want to be bothered by Blofeld not recognizing Bond, just pretend the film version of YOLT (aside from the phenomenal Ken Adams production design, it's really not that good of a film anyways) never happened and pretend that OHMSS is a direct sequel to Thunderball...and if you want a more satisfying sequel (and resolution of the Bond/Blofeld storyline) to OHMSS than the film version of Diamonds Are Forever was, just read the You Only Live Twice novel.

Of couse, another way to look at it is, since Bond is posing as Sir Hilary Bray, he wears glasses, and adopts a somewhat effeminate and socially unskilled manner, so maybe that's why Blofeld doesn't recognize him. I mean if we can accept that no one recongnizes Clark Kent as being Superman, than why not Bond!

Also, I wouldn't call OHMSS, the film or the novel, as a world domination plot.
A hold the world, or England, at ransom plot, yes, but not a world domination plot.

 

[Ray H]

Come on, guys. We've been over this before. How could Blofeld possibly recognize Bond when he was cleverly disguised as a Japanese villager during the latter half of "You Only Live Twice"?

 

[Don Solosan]

"Not a very clever thing to do, with gasoline spewing out all over the place."

What was not very clever was causing Bond to crash his car at high speed, an accident that very likely could have killed him. And who do they need alive for the access code?

 

[Osato]

3 discs is a ton of material! Very cool news!

I would guess that there would also be this new version on Blu Ray?

I really hope the other films end up on HD in 2008 as well.

 

[mdnitoil]

Just guessing, but I'd have to say that being a Sony title, it's almost impossible for this to end up on HD.

 

[cafink]

Sony has in fact released many titles in HD on Blu-ray disc.

 

[DVDvision]

I just got confirmation from Columbia Tri Star that this 3 discs edition is coming out in june 2008.


Just take a deep breath, and repeat in your head what good old master Hitchcock once said : IT'S. ONLY. A. MOVIE.

 

[PaulDA]

Wow. Just...wow. I'm a huge Bond film fan--even like the "original" Casino Royale with Niven, Sellers and, in brilliant piece of casting, Ursula Andress (I like the novels, but I've yet to make my way through all the Fleming originals, so I won't comment on how close or not the films are to the books). But I've NEVER considered them "deep" enough to carry "messages". They're all popcorn entertainment flicks--some better than others, obviously, but NOT a source of meaningful insights into anything more substantial than "how to look good in a tux". One is free to like or dislike Bond movies (individually or as a whole) but to be disappointed in their lack of substance is a bit like criticizing cotton candy because it doesn't have enough fibre and anti-oxidants.

In any event, I will admit to a willful suspension of my normal critical sensibilities with Bond films as my formative "Bond watching" years were as a kid watching them with my dad on ABC's Sunday Night Movie broadcasts (usually 4-5 Bond movies a year back then, or so it seemed), so I simply watch them "for the fun".

Just my 2 cents, but if one can't have a bit of mindless fun watching Bond movies, then perhaps they're not "for you".

 

[oscar_merkx]