Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07 - Page 4

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

John,

I'm shocked, SHOCKED! to hear this I bet it's the "uncut" R3 version of the film, too.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

Regarding Felix Leiter, as David pointed out Leiter meets Bond for the first time in the novel Casino Royale:

Directly Bond had started playing in maximums, his game had become the centre of interest at the table. As he seemed to be in luck, one or two pilot fish started to swim with the shark. Sitting directly opposite, one of these, whom Bond took to be an American, had shown more than the usual friendliness and pleasure at his share of the winning streak. He had smiled once or twice across the table, and there was something pointed in the way he duplicated Bond's movements, placing his two modest plaques of ten mille exactly opposite Bond's larger ones. When Bond rose, he too pushed back his chair and called cheerfully across the table:

"Thanks for the ride. Guess I owe you a drink. Will you joint me?"

Bond had a feeling that this might be the C.I.A. man. He knew he was right as they strolled off together towards the bar, after Bond had thrown a plaque of ten mille to the croupier and had given a mille to the "hussier" who drew back his chair.

"My name's Felix Leiter," said the American. "Glad to meet you."

"Mine's Bond -- James Bond."

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

First...an interesting story from when I saw this film in January...

I'd been wanting to see this film for a couple of months, but hadn't yet made it to the theater. After the bustle of the holidays, my wife and I finally saw it.

Keep in mind that this wasn't an opening weekend crowd filled with the denizens of Bond fan boys. Rather, it was a general audience who hadn't yet seen the film.

As the closing credits came up, the audience clapped. They actually clapped for a movie that had been out for two-months and was about ready to end its initial theatrical run! Amazing to witness that in this day and age.

...

Count me in the ranks of folks who think this is the "best" Bond film ever made. And let me explain why...

I am a big fan of the series. I have read the novels by Fleming, Gardner and the recent novels by Raymond Benson.

There have been a number of good Bond films in the series -- it is consistently a high quality series. In fact, it is one of those series that has successfully been "reinvented" a number of times.

What turned me off about "Die Another Day" (the previous Bond entry) was that they eschewed story and "realistic" action sequences for what amounted to a CGI-nightmare (which is what has happened over the past 7 years with a lot of action films).

In many respects, "Casino Royale" did for the Bond franchise what "Batman Begins" did for that franchise. It reinvented the series -- in a completely unpredictable manner -- and made it work. They focused less on CG-elements, and focused on creating a realistic look wrapped up in an interesting story.

I know that the other actors (after Connery) who played Bond were also considered "reinventions" in the 007 universe. And...like Craig...they even used the terms "gritty" and "closer to Fleming's original vision" to describe Dalton and Brosnan (believe it, or not).

Like Christian Bale in "Batman Begins," Daniel Craig works because he isn't want you expect in the role. Audiences are more sophisticated than ever before, and they like to be surprised.

So having an actor who is short, blonde and "rough looking" goes totally against type. He isn't suave or debonair, and quite frankly he is a bit homely. Yet for some reason it works.

Here is a Bond that we can all get behind. A guy that we don't "wish" we were, but the guy that "we are."

Pierce Brosnan was likely the "prototypical" Bond when you think of the James Bond stereotype. And I will admit that his outings (particularly "GoldenEye and "The World is Not Enough") were solid efforts. He never came close to Sean Connery, but he was a bit closer (in my mind) than Roger Moore, Lazenby or Dalton.


"Casino Royale" works because it combines the popular "British Crime Drama" sensibilities (of the past decade) with a spy flair.

It takes the sensibilities of the Tarantino-esque crime films that have come along since 1994, and wraps it neatly with the spy genre.

So rather than trying to look like a Michael Bay "action orgy," the film instead tries to include a little more of the style and pacing of lower budget films like "Layer Cake" or "Snatch."

They were able to create that look and style with Martin Campbell (the guy who did "GoldenEye"). He is a director that isn't necessarily known for "low-budget grit," but he pulled it off in this instance.

When you break this film down into its parts, it might seem like a fairly routine Bond movie (and a movie that shouldn't be all that great). Yet for some reason, it works incredibly well.

The film benefits from the "less is more" principle.

One of the worst moments I have seen in a Bond film was CG-Brosnan surfing in "Die Another Day" - horrid.

This film focused on a few really interesting action sequences that were fairly entertaining and avoided CG (or, at least, the CG look) and appeared much more realistic.

"Casino Royale" stands alone as a very fine entry into the overall spy genre. That's what made it my favorite film of 2006 (and a film I think was potentially worthy of more Oscar consideration).

I must admit that I had reservations about Daniel Craig in the part, but he was very good in the role.

I think it goes back to the fact that Craig looks more like a Bond villain than he does (our stereotypical impression of) Bond. He pulled off the generally cartoonish and wooden dialogue (that is common in these sorts of films) with a real panache. You believed that he believed in the material.

This film combined interesting action elements with a heart-felt story.

The question is how this film will stand up over the test of time.

I was one of the people who thought "The Living Daylights" (Dalton's debut) was pretty solid. However, I know people who didn't buy Dalton as Bond.

I know a lot of people who avoided "Casino Royale" because they didn't buy the idea of Craig as Bond.

Personally, I think this will prove to be one of the best in the series. It surprised the hell out of me when I saw it in January.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

Loved the film thru the torture scene. After that, it was all downhill for me, which is a bloody shame, as up until then, it was one of the best Bond films ever.

Well worth a watch, tho!

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

Am I right in saying that the next bond film will be a kind of sequel to Casino Royale?

A friend of mine told me the other day that Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) .

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

The next Bond film is said to be a continuation of Casino Royale. It will pick up the threads of Mr. White that were left dangling.

Martin Campbell was asked by the press if he'd return, he's left that open. Vesper is said to return too, but no details how. Presumably via scenes with her boyfriend.

Regarding the film bogging down after the torture scene, it's that way in the book. Though it didn't end like that with the action sequence in Venice.

*Spoiler removed, just in case anyone still hasn't seen this.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

That is what absolutely did not work for me. You may want to adjust the rest of your post to hide spoilers.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

Say it isn't so!

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

I can't see Ben's spoiler coming true. It would be an utter betrayal of the character, and frankly, if it were true, my interest in the film, which is currently very high thanks to CR, would drop like a stone.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

Well, affter all the good decisions made in the making of Casino Royale, I will remain hopeful that a very bad decision like that one doesn't happen. BTW, that similar type of storyline is the single aspect I hated most about Mission Impossible I.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

It did lose a certain amount of momentum during that part...

Maybe it is just because it looked incredibly painful and made me wince. I don't know for sure.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

I remember really liking GoldenEye a lot when it first came out (still do), and being so excited at the news of the next Bond film, Tomorrow Never Dies. Then it came out, and it was dreadful I thought... one of the series' very worst titles. I only saw it once in theaters and not again on DVD until very recently, that's how bad I thought it was. And I doubt I'll ever watch it again.

So now we have another Martin Campbell directed Bond film, again introducing a new actor to the part. Whatever comes after Casino Royale, I just hope it's not another Tomorrow Never Dies.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

Agreed.

"GoldenEye" in my mind is one of the stronger Bond outings.

"Tomorrow Never Dies" was very mediocre.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

Goldeneye is great, apart from the ridiculous free-falling chasing the plane off the bike sequence.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

See, I think the opposite is true. Goldeneye was sort of a generic action movie in many ways. I liked it okay, but every single scene seems to end in an explosion. It's overkill. The movie had some good moments, some good locations, but suffered from some elements of parody (Joe Don Baker).

Whereas, Tomorrow Never Dies had a cool, modern day villian, great Bond girls and great locations. And great action without overkill. I think it's the best of the Brosnan films by a mile, and the best in the series since Living Daylights 10 years before.

The other two Brosnans, World is not Enough and Die Another Day, were bad and badder, IMO.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

Count me in the loved Goldeneye, hated Tomorrow Never Dies camp. Teri Hatcher and bad plotting ruined that movie for me.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

The opening sequence is my favorite part of the whole movie.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

I liked Goldeneye just because I thought Brosnan did well in the part in his first outing. When he was first announced for ther role, during his Remington Steele days, I thought he was extraordinarily lightweight for the part. By the time he made his debut in Goldeneye, he really seemed ready for the role (Sean Bean was also effective in the film as well). Tomorrow Never Dies did not build on the impact of Goldeneye, but reverted to formula. Even though there were some fun (typical) Bond moments in Tomorrow Never Dies, the lack of chemistry between Brosnan and Michelle Yeough killed that film, IMO. It did not take long for Brosnan to seem too old to play Bond. Realistically, an actor only has an open window of 3-4 films to play Bond, as he must be mature enough and not too old foir the role. By the time they got to naming a character "Christmas" so that Bond could use the bon mot "Christmas came twice this year", it was apparent that Brosnan's era was over.

Sadly, the same thing happened with Timothy Dalton. Though Dalton was never the way I imagined Bond from the novels (too pretty), he was a good enough actor to take the character seriously, and he brought a tough intensity to the role. I quite liked The Living Daylights because it was such a departure from the dismal Moore comedy/Bonds. However, the second Dalton outing, in spite of some savage moments, reverted to Moore/comedy type (Wayne Newton, anyone?).

The makers of Casino Royale are very much in the same place they were after both Dalton's and Brosnan's initial outings. But the pressure is even greater, IMO, as this new incarnation of Bond was even more dramatic a departure than any "new" Bond that has come before. Casino Royale is the most exciting thing to happen to Bond since the Connery/Bondmania days. The pressure of delivering something equally fresh and exciting will be immense, IMO.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

Did anybody else notice that the Chris Cornell song at the beginning and the end of the movie is different on the DVD then it was in the movie?

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

How so?

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

My parents were in Boston this weekend and shacked up on the futon in my apartment. When my dad started feeling ill, it killed the previous plans. Instead, we watched Casino Royale. My mom is a big literary Bond fan, and saw all of the Connery and Moore films. When Jeffrey Wright introduced himself as Felix, her interest shot right up. "Oh, I love Felix!" It was a real pleasant surprise for her; he's her favorite character from the books. Needless to say, all the good will Casino Royale garnered in this lapsed fan would plummet if Ben's spoiler came to pass.
Jeffrey Wright's too well known of an actor for his extended cameo in this. But I'd prefer he not come back than come back in that way.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

It's the same as it was in theaters. The film features a different mix of the song than the various singles that were released.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

I can't remember for sure but I know I bombarded myself with that song before seeing it and I thought for sure I would've noticed the difference right away. Also, the song in the music video has changed which is another reason why I believe it's changed.

The differences between the two are subtle but they are there. The one on the DVD have more horns and it goes a little slower and the part where he says "I've seen diamonds cut through harder men" he says "I've seen THIS diamond cut through harder men". It's a slight difference but it just goes to show that it is a different song.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

I'm with Sam on TND. I vastly prefer it to Goldeneye.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

Thats how it was in the movies. The Movie version and the Music Video version are different, also there is the single Rock version which is also different. And the German Pop Mix single. Essentially there are 4 versions, although I believe there may be another one lurking (live performance, etc.)

1.Film Version (Same one on the DVD that you saw in the theaters)
2.Music Video Version
3.Rock Version, (On the Single)
4.Pop Mix (On German Single)

[rant]
Now talking about difference from Film to DVD, the one problem I have is that the opening trumpet/horns that play before Cornell Sings are toned down a lot. In theaters it was powerful and awesome, not so much on DVD. Although it may be attributed to lack of DTS. Someone ripped the version from the R3 DVD and it sounded like the theaters, so either that was from DTS or R1 (and maybe 2?) Have sound errors.
or it could be because theaters have 10x the amount of speakers
[/rant]

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

Wow. I couldn't put it any better myself. Thank you for coming to TND's defense. Tomorrow Never Dies is truly Brosnan's best IMO, because it is the most Bond of his Bonds. The girls, the gadgets, the classic megalomaniac Bond villain (complete with "invisible" lair), Arnold's best score (well, not including Casino Royale), how does this film not make you geek out?!?

Goldeneye was good, but hampered by a weak score, overblown action sequences, and some rather over-the-top silliness from minor villains Onatop and Boris.

The World is Not Enough, curiously enough, has the very best story of the 4 Brosnan Bonds. But it is done in by the worst casting ever for a leading Bond girl. Every time Roberts opens her critically untalented mouth is cringe-inducing. If she can't convince me she even understands what she's saying, how the hell am I supposed to buy that she's a nuclear physicist? Renard was also a less-than-menacing villain.

Die Another Day... wow. Where to begin? I'll just say, it's Brosnan's "Moonraker", complete with gratuitous Madonna. You've been warned.

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

I'd go further and say it is Brosnan's View To A Kill (the nadir of the series IMO). Halle Berry's unintentionally comical vulgarity near the end of the picture (in her fight against Frost) may be the worst moment in all 20 pictures.

My friend and I were against casting Brosnan when we first heard his name come up in the 80s. We thought he'd bring the series to a level of parody that Moore did on occassion. We were glad to see he did as well as he did in his early pictures, but I remained convinced that he was hampered by bad scripts and poor overall production. The direction the series was taking wasn't good.

I'm very glad to see the producers did an about-face and changed the tone of the series with Casino Royale. It really is my favorite in the series since the first four films. (Which is not to say there weren't other high points along the way - Spy Who Loved Me comes to mind.)

Re: Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07

Whenever anyone asks me why I hated Halle Berry (an otherwise talented actress, Catwoman notwithstanding) so much as a Bond girl, I show them that scene. Mind you, the film had already done itself in before that point. It's just the final nail in the coffin.