Bond 21 OFFICIALLY "Casino Royale"! (1 Viewer)

[Nelson Au]

I also think TWINE had some of the better acting scenes and actors that allowed Brosnan to act with. Electra King was a strong villianess and Renard was a strong villian. Quality actors there. The Denise Richards stuff was goofy.

The first 1/4 of DAD was great and the rest became average, as Brosnan himself has said. Though I really liked the sequence at the fencing club. Really liked the punchline by the Rastafarian guy at the end of the sequence when he gave Bond the note. The Q lines were good too.

GE was a great introduction to Brosnan and had many fine moments only marred by the score. TND had a much stronger score.

Brosnan was a fine Bond and I am sad to see that they are dropping him. If all the silence about the wagering on who gets the role of Bond means they selected someone, I hope it means they worked it out for Brosnan to do one more. He'd be great in a Casino Royale type story. I know he's said publically he's hung up the PPK for good due to how it was ended by the Broccolis.

I just read Casino Royale some months ago. The character of Vesper as described by Fleming conjours up Catherine Zeta-Jones in the role in my mind as I read it. If so they have to have an older actor in the role from my point of view and it seems that a lot of the candidates for the role of Bond agree, he can't be too young.

If they, the Broccolli's, and Brosnan were in similar mind that the films had to come back to Earth, and sized back down to reality, then it's a shame someone decided that they had to continue the films on that same kind of comic book over the top action direction and a younger actor to play Bond. Bond is not XxX. Clive Owen is smart to avoid this. Bond may be as written, an out of date image of a life style of a certain type of people in the 1940's and 50's, but he can't be turned into a Vin Diesel type of character either. Brosnan's Bond had a pretty good mix of the old and new elements.

 

[Sam Favate]

Actually, the Spy Who Loved Me was a rehash of You Only Live Twice. Watch those films back to back, you'll see that the plots are virtually identical. This is no doubt due to a Fleming estate issue that said the title of Spy could be used, but not the story.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Count me as very happy that Martin Campbell is returning to the director's seat. Goldeney is my favorite of the Brosnan Bonds and one of my favorites overall. There was a bit of an edge that was missing in a the follow-ons and I think Campbell is much better at shooting action scenes than Spottiswood, Apted, and Tamahori. Admittedly I really need to rewatch TND- it didn't do much for me the first time I saw it but that was during a rather stressful time in my personal life.

I've been pretty happy with Campbell's resume so far. The Mask of Zorro just gets better every time I see it and I think Vertical Limit has some great action and stunts even if the rest of it is rather silly. I admittedly haven't seen the poorly-reviewed Beyond Borders.

Looking forward very much to the Zorro sequel and Casino Royale. I do wish that Brosnan would stay on though.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Well, also, if they'd gone with the story from The Spy Who Loved Me, Bond would have been in the movie for about fifteen minutes, if I remember the novel correctly.

 

[Nelson Au]

I had a silly notion about Bond 21. The Bond series of films has a similar kind of performance that the Star Trek film series do, in a way.

It's common knowledge that the even numbered Trek films in general do better and are better films. As for Bond, I submit that every other actor to play Bond has success.

Connery was the first and the general opinion is the best.

Lazenby had only 1 film.

Connery was back for one more in the EON series.

Moore steps in and has the longest and some of the most successful films.

Dalton has the next 2 films and while his performance is closer to the literary Bond, not seen as successful to the general audience.

Brosnan then takes over after a long hiatus and has a successful run of 4 films grossing some of the highest box office numbers.

If Dougray Scott really is the next Bond, then he may not be as successful.

If Brosnan were to do Casino Royale, it could be as successful as his other films.

I suppose the style of film that Campbell does will have an effect of course. It could be closer to the style of real spying verse lots of explosions, which MGM wants.

Just a theory!

 

[Mark Hawley]

Interesting to note as well that both OHMSS and Dalton's two films were seen as attempts to get more serious and more in touch with Bond's literary roots, while introducing a new actor as Bond, and all did disappointing box office.

Whereas during Moore's run, after him doing four Bond films (and his last one being his most successful, but dismissed by a number of fans as being too silly and one of the series'worst), the filmmmaker's made a conscious attempt to get back to being more faithful to Fleming's origins with For Your Eyes Only and guess what, it was a box office hit. Also interesting to note that when For Your Eyes Only was in the drawing stages, there was some doubt as to whether or not Moore would play Bond again and they even auditioned some actors before, at the last minute, Moore decided to come on board for another.

Now since they've announced that they're doing Casino Royale, my guess is that they plan this as a way of getting back to doing more Fleming-style stories vs. the comic book excesses of the last Bond film (Die Another Day). So based on past experiences, it would be a mistake to do this while introducing a new actor would be a mistake. However, if they do it with an established Bond actor that audiences have repeatedly embraced - Brosnan, who's has one four financially successful Bond films, they might have a hit on their hands.

I think that, like with For Your Eyes Only, audiences are willing to run with a more serious, down-to-earth Bond adventure if it's with an actor they already know, love and have accepted as Bond. Do it with a new actor, like Lazenby and Dalton, then they'll feel alienated.

 

[Paul_Scott]

imo, they really can't afford not to get as far away from the 'typical' Bond formula as they can.
the problem isn't so much that the formula is stale, as that it has been soundly ridiculed and undermined for this current generation.
the Goldfinger template brings to mind Dr Evil and Mike Meyers as much as it does Bond now.

 

[Jim Barg]

I had similar thoughts yesterday while talking Bond with one of my coworkers. I really think that if Casino Royale and the new Bond don't gel for audiences, Eon might have a recurrence of what happened after OHMSS. The film isn't as successful, and Eon has no choice but to go back after Brosnan with a truckload of cash for Bond 22. (The one flaw in this argument, of course, is that I don't think Dougray Scott or whomever takes over the role will announce halfway through shooting that he isn't returning, like Lazenby did.)

Better, then, to just let Brosnan finish off his Bond career in style and count the cash coming in.

 

[TheLongshot]

Unfortunatly, it was pretty throwaway. It didn't really affect the plot much that she was killed off. Otherwise, it didn't get an OHMSS-like reaction. To be honest, you could have written her out and it wouldn't have changed much of the story.

Interesting theory about serious Bond vs established Bonds and new Bonds. Course, I do think part of the problem was people being able to warm up to Lazenby and Dalton. Also, I think Dalton had the problem of running against the end of the cold war, which drove a lot of Bond plots. It is something that is still a problem nowadays, and they have been pretty uneven in dealing with it. I wouldn't mind seeing Brosnan get one more shot if they are going to take it seriously, but I can understand Brosnan getting out now. Being Bond isn't what it used to be.

Jason

 

[Edwin-S]

I busted a gut when I saw that. It was a funnier piece of comedy writing than most of what passes for comedy in Hollywood movies.

The Brosnan Bond films have generally been some of the worst Bond films made; although, I have to admit even they haven't succeeded in reaching the depths of MOONRAKER or LICENSE TO KILL. GOLDENEYE, however, comes pretty close.

 

[Chris Farmer]

I definitely really liked the first three Brosnan films, with TWINE being my favorite, but I absolutely loathed DAD. The action setpieces were generally mediocre and marred by totally boneheaded stylistic decisions (surfing has a place in movies, but James Bond, esp. Brosnan's bond who is clearly in his 40s should NEVER surf). Rosamund Pike's character, while gorgeous, was way too uneven and all over the place, jumping from one side to the other and back again too quickly. Her actions never made sense. And don't even get me started on Halle Berry. This woman is an Oscar-winning actress?

All that said, those are criticisms of the movie itself, and not Brosnan, who I thought made an outstanding James Bond. He just "looked" like a James Bond, and played the character to perfection, with the right degree of suavity, levity, and cold-bloodedness to get things perfect. I'd love to see him come back for one more round. He deserves a better closer to his Bond series then DAD.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Love LTK. it may just be my favorite for this franchise.
Living Daylights is up there as well, and while there are a lot of things i really love about that film, i think LTK is built on a much stronger, more interesting script.

and i will always have a nostalgic affection for Moonraker.
its one of the films i'm looking most forward to getting on Blu Ray...or at least a much improved SD dvd.
one thing i genuinely like about that film is that the romantic interest has an honest adversarial relationship with Bond for most of the film, and its only after he saves her life that she displays any once of affection.
i find that to be much more believable (with Moore in the lead, and at the age he was) than, for instance, the inane subplot with Lynn Holly johnsons character in the much more highly regarded follow up.
yes the gondola scene is ridiculous, yes the double taking pigeon is ridiculous, and yes Jaws ends the film in a silly fashion- but i enjoy the subtle subversive wit of the whole thing...that film that is the capper to the 70s (and all that particular decade implies) would be concerend with the genocidal machinations of a monomanical aesthete.
that and John Barrys score make me an unabashed lover of that film.

no love for the Brosnan films though.
and i share the same sentiments about Goldeneye.
i was fully up for the film and Brosnan, but walked away very turned off.
Brosnan, in this role, gives me the same kind of vibe that Craig Kilborn did.
smug and cocksure on the outside, yet when you scratch the surface, there isn't anything interesting there.
at the core, its just bland and derivative.

 

[Andy Sheets]

That kind of sums up a lot of my problems with the Brosnan films: They like to tease you the possibility that they'll break from their formula and do something a little more substantial, but they don't. I do like Brosnan in the role but I don't blame him for being frustrated with the producers.

 

[Patrick H.]

I liked TWINE a good bit - it had some GREAT action sequences - but overall it ended up too long and convoluted for its own good. Plus it tried pass off Denise Richards as a scientist and Judi Dench as an idiot. That was annoying.

Regarding the theory about the actors, I agree it's not a good idea to take the series in a different direction with a fresh actor on board. OHMSS is the prime example, although I think Dalton's tenure was undermined more by declining production values on his two films. I liked his portrayal, though, and The Living Daylights was a solid adventure (particularly in comparison to the Moore ones right before it!), but License to Kill was just kinda weird. The tone of that movie was all over the place, and not in a good way.

One of my regrets about the Bond series is that Sam Neill, one of my favorite underrated actors, never got a crack at it. I think he was a finalist for the role multiple times during the 80s (as Moore contemplated retirement between each picture), before they ultimately settled on Dalton.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Wasn't Neill also talked up as the star of Sony's rival Bond movies before the courts squashed that? (And now, ironically, Sony is buying MGM)

 

[Shawn_McD]

Man, you are all forgetting why Golden Eye was good.


1. Pierce Brosnan first showing.

2. Sean Bean, 2nd best, or best, Bond villain of all time.





I would like to see a more "posh" as the brits say, Sean Bean play James Bond. I know Bean could do it.

 

[Phil_L]

Is Brosnan still in the running at all to return for Casino Royale or has that option been axed completely?

 

[Ben_@]

Not to get too speculative, but since this movie is actually a Fleming novel, does that leave the possibility of having it set in the 60s (as it was in the book)? I know that Bond has always been a contemporary figure, but if people understood that this was "straight from the source" (the original author) it could be done.

Although, that may lend it to being "too seriuos" and alienate the J6P viewer. I'd see it- and i skipped on the last two Bond films.

 

[Jason Seaver]

--snicker--

Oh, you're serious? It's not going to look anything like the novel. Maybe, somewhere, buried underneath all the BMW product placement, John Cleese bits, painful double-entendres, and giant explosions, there will be something that vaguely resembles Casino Royale.

But you'll need a backhoe to find it.

 

[Nelson Au]

Brosnan was asked to return for a 5th Bond after completing Die Another Day by the Broccolli's. He agreed at that time. Then over the course of the last 2 years, many things occurred that caused the Broccolli's to rethink the next Bond film. No one likely knows the true facts, Brosnan has said that they suddenly stoppped negotiations and said that they wanted to go another direction. That direction seemed to be to a younger man to play Bond. Some of it could be pressure from MGM, the uncertain future of MGM as Sony was looking to buy them and the Bourne films success. Then they recently told Pierce that it looks like they want to go with another actor. Because of that and delays with the start date for filming, Brosnan has recently gone on record in interviews that he's done with Bond, had a great 10 years, but it's time to move on. He fullfilled his contract of 4 films.

As for doing Casino Royale set in the 60's, Quentin Tarentino said publically that he had spoken to Brosnan and that he'd love to do Casino Royale with Brosnan and set it in the 60's. They were both very keen to do it. But this was during the time when it was not clear what was going on with EON (The Broccolli family company that makes the official Bond films) and the next film and Pierce was still in negotiations. No one thought it would happen. (and Casino Royale was published in 1951 IIRC)

Completely agree with Mark's eariler posting that if the next film goes in a new direction, it's better done with the actor who the audience has grown to accept in the role, well said.

If I had my way, they should let Brosnan do one last one with Casino Royale and then hang up the franchise.