Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Casino Royale

Page: 1 2 3(4)5

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

23:12 / 23.11.06

Just saw it with the family (tradition, you see). Loved it. All initial doubts about Craig are dismissed utterly. Very much enjoyed a tougher bond, a sort of Bond that instead of a kick to the stomach and a karate chop to the neck is more likely to stick both his thumbs in your eyesockets.

The stunts were absurd, but I absolutely loved the juxtaposition of Foucan's freerunning and Blond's much less artistic athleticism.

SPOILER (SORT OF)

Yes! That scene where Foucan leaps through the small opening and Craig just smashes through the drywall was great. I could have sworn I saw a brief look on his face that said "that hurt more than I thought it would". Great acting, or just my imagination? Just my imagination, probably.

And as silly as all the crane leaping was (where, exactly, are you going to go after you've climbed to the top of a crane?), I have to admit it my heart was racing. I wanted to yell out "stop, one of you is going to fall if you're not careful!" the whole time, which is just silly.

Anyway. Great fun. A little long, but great fun regardless.

23:50 / 23.11.06

Warning; Another Dumb Joke Re: Bond From Feverfew Alert:

"they'll go with SPECTRE because it's an infinitely cooler name"

Why not amalgamate? Why not SPECSH? Especially if you get Sean Connery to say it?

11:05 / 24.11.06

Dumb but funny, and sort of annoying.

11:48 / 24.11.06

I think that's the last one.

Which is interesting, because I enjoyed the film greatly. The only things I didn't really like, as I said, were the occasional hiccups in pacing and the need for Mathis to explain what was going on in every cutaway from the poker hand. That was a tension-killer, but some would argue necessary for the non-poker-playing audience.

I did like the humour of Bond through the film, and the back-to-basics way of presentation. And the final shot is brilliant, with (as other people have mentioned) the soundtrack suddenly picking up the sleaziest theme as
Craig strikes that pose.

Anyway... I really look forward to the DVD on this one.

13:09 / 24.11.06

i thought this worked very well, tho the big ending was a bit of a let down after the wonderful opening adrenalin rush right up to the embassy explosion, awesome. a house falling down in venice could't compete.

did anyone else think the film was critiquing the ruthless bastard of an old imperialist bond is, happily causing the deaths of african labourers and security guards as he chased that fella across town?

13:43 / 24.11.06

Bond didn't kill anyone in Africa, though, apart from Spider-Man. No one gets shown being squashed by machinery/girders/BULLDOZER and it deliberately shows the Embassy security forces alive by having close-ups of them coughing and spluttering right before the "oh no, where's he gone?" reveal.

15:36 / 24.11.06

I'm looking forward to see it. It will be nice to like the Bond movies for the right reasons just this time:

21:22 / 25.11.06

Politically speaking the independant terrorist group would probably be the more likely choice rather than openly linking them with the Russian government.

Yes, a devious gang of Russian assassins hell-bent on killing spies who are a threat to them is an utterly absurd idea in this post 9/11 era...

01:39 / 27.11.06

More dry wall smashing in the next film, plz.

23:03 / 18.12.06

I liked it, I liked it a lot. Great ending and all that. Could have done with a little less finger licking, but.

10:10 / 19.12.06

I enjoyed the hell out of it, even with the pacing issues etc.

and what about the gayest torture scene in a Bond flick? that surely also made CASINO ROYALE special. Le Chiffre commenting on what a pity it was for James to lose such a great body while hitting him in the nuts [how did he manage to have sex with Vesper in the hospital afterwards? his balls would be hitting the ground by then].

a lot of good insights here, specially the one about the end being depressing with Bond assuming his now I-REALLY-don't-care persona.

will try to find an instrumental version of the opening theme. Goldfrapp would have been great.

I'm very interested in the Bond continuity as a whole; how do you guys approach it? the movie is set post-9/11 and has Judy Dench as M, but it's clearly Bond's origin of sorts. I guess this particular story had never been filmed before.

so, are we supposed to ignore all the previous movies and take this as "Bond Begins" or - my preferred view - can we see the movie as the start for new agent Craig Bond, just after Brosnan Bond's forced retirement? to me "James Bond" is just a codename just like "007" and every actor can be a different character altogether, whose real names we'll never know. a similar view was shown in the satirical CASINO ROYALE from the 60s, which had a profusion of "Bonds".

a movie featuring all Bonds together as a special secret force 7 Bonds of Victory would be just great, each one playing a part - in the vibe of their old adventures - in a larger plot. I mean, there have been... 7 now? if Lazemby is still alive and you can get Woody Allen in a cameo, that is.

11:14 / 19.12.06

If you take it that 'James Bond' is just an agent code name, then presumably "Felix" must be the CIA equivalent, only applied to their black agents. This is where that (I concede appealing) view on Bond continuity falls down for me - it seems one leap too far.

13:13 / 19.12.06

then presumably "Felix" must be the CIA equivalent, only applied to their black agents.

Felix has actually been played by a different actor in every film (if I recall correctly). He's been black, white, young, and old. Once he was even Jack Lord.

13:16 / 19.12.06

Yes, a devious gang of Russian assassins hell-bent on killing spies who are a threat to them is an utterly absurd idea in this post 9/11 era...

Damn reality. Once again it makes mockery of my posts.

Hydra vs Leviathan

17:32 / 24.12.06

I was presuming this was "Ultimate Bond", just coincidentally reprising Dench as M...

Having just watched it, i'm kind of in two minds about it - one part of me thinks "actually, that was pretty cool" and the other (probably better) part of me thinks "why the hell did i waste almost 3 hours of my life watching this vile, racist, myisogynist, imperialist trash?"

(well, the latter question can be easily answered by "there was nothing else my parents thought worth going to see on Christmas Eve", but...)

in other words (and i'm sure there is some other thread on Barbelith about this debate, which someone will point me to), is Bond camp and/or satire, or is it blatantly, unapologetically, pugnaciously right-wing propaganda? Is Bond intentionally an anti-hero to the point of really being a sympathetic villain, or is he actually meant to be Good and Cool?

At first, with the Uganda and Madagascar scenes, i actually thought they just might be going to go with "Bond is officially and blatantly metahuman" as new continuity, and maybe even make him a Time Lord-like semi-immortal, but of course that was far too much to expect from a, if not the, major "conservative" Hollywood franchise...

The "love" scenes were just thoroughly nasty, exploitative sleaze IMO. I actually felt emotionally uncomfortable hearing him say the lines he was saying and knowing he was lying. I really, really wanted Vesper to kick the shit out of him for even thinking about touching her - he's worse than Owen from Torchwood, because at least in Torchwood Owen is shown to be a misogynistic, sleazy bastard with some recognition that this is Not A Good Thing...

TBH, given Bond's well known status as thoroughly pro-UK/US/capitalist propaganda, i would expect the Big Enemy Terrorist Organisation in new continuity to be Al Qaeda...

22:42 / 25.12.06

In the previous films, I think Bond is presented as rather unambiguously heroic. Occasionally they'll mention that he's a relic or something like that, but generally he's presented as the man that guys want to be and women want to be with.

However, this film is different. The whole film hinges on the fact that Bond must destroy his humanity to be a great secret agent. The job requires his bastard attitude, and the one time he does let down his guard, he winds up getting played. In the context of the film, I don't know that he's lying to Vesper, I felt like he believed her until the end, when he finds out that she was working for the evil organization.

The way I interpreted it, this film says that it's precisely because he opens his heart to Vesper and gets betrayed that he becomes the coldhearted bastard we see in the later films. The finale is simultaneously the birth of James Bond 007 and the death of James Bond the man.

Now, you could argue whether they're saying that that cold exterior is necessary or not, but in CR, it's not unambiguously supporting Bond's behavior.

Regrettable Juvenilia

06:44 / 28.12.06

Is Bond intentionally an anti-hero to the point of really being a sympathetic villain, or is he actually meant to be Good and Cool?

You are rarely going to get simple answers to this kind of question in any fiction or art that is at all interesting, Natty. "Our interest's on the dangerous edge of things / The honest thief, the tender murderer, the superstitious atheist", as Robert Browning had it. You should check out the new Clipse album, by the way.

Hydra vs Leviathan

20:12 / 28.12.06

I didn't say i wanted a simple answer. Hell, the more complex the answer the better, since it gives me something to get my ethical/intellectual teeth into. I just found it odd, if not disconcerting, that the thread didn't even seem to consider the question...

Incidentally, i will get back to that Jay-Z thread - i just don't know when - when i have sufficient emotional energy for the subject, probably. Dunno when that will be, but i haven't forgotten it...

ORA ORA ORA ORAAAA!!

02:00 / 29.12.06

Just on my way out, but one of the things that occurred to me during the movie, and something which would explain why M took him back with no questions asked, is the possibility that MI6 had set up the entire thing (i.e. knew about the algerian boyfriend, etc etc) in order to transform bond from a relatively human being into the cold-hearted monster they knew, from previous experience with bond units (or 00s in general, depending on the continuity you accept) was necessary for the job.

I can't remember what made me think this, it was something to do with the dialog on the boat, though.

07:04 / 29.12.06

Would that be the bit where M suggests to Bond that Vesper did indeed care about him?

I think you're reaching.

11:00 / 29.12.06

Is Bond intentionally an anti-hero to the point of really being a sympathetic villain, or is he actually meant to be Good and Cool?

I think this question is lurking behind a lot of what's been posted in this thread, it's just not been articulated so precisely.

The whole point of the end of the film is that it's kind of a tragedy. In order for "Bond James Bond" to be born, he had to lose a big chunk of his humanity. The ending was surprisingly morally complex for an action film, methinks.

ORA ORA ORA ORAAAA!!

12:14 / 29.12.06

I just watched it again, and I couldn't see any one line which made me think it. It was a combination of lines like the repeated 'lesson learned' and about knowing when 'you were you', which I understood to have slightly different referents for 'you' both times, and various other things which, mostly, M did.

But I can't back it up, so, I retract.

16:25 / 29.12.06

As far as I'm concerned that conversation with M serves a number of functions. First and foremost it underlines the change in Bond, from a man willing to embrace his humanity to a double O killing machine: merciless, heartless, coldblooded, efficient. The line "the bitch is dead" and M's suggestion that Vespa intended Bond to read her text messages, and therefore cared about him, juxtaposed throw the man's transformation into the light of day. This sure isn't the guy that forced open those bars and wept on the roof.
Secondly it helps consolodate what we know about the shadowy organisation that's been pulling the strings all along, and sets up the final scene at the villa. Thirdly it builds on M and Bond's relationship and in doing so works to reveal character: M asks Bond how he is and whether he needs time to recover from his ordeal and points out the phone thing - she comes across as concerned, even paternal, imo - there's a human beneath that spikey shell, and she cares about Bond more than she's willing to let on (this, of course, builds upon their almost familial bickering throughout the rest of the film), even if she is happy to welcome him back into the arms of MI6 no questions asked when faced with Bond's new attitude. Nowhere in that conversation can I see anything that suggests this was an MI6 plot. That's not to say it's entirely implausible, just that the text doesn't seem to promote the idea.

Sorry, rushed post, screaming baby...

17:17 / 29.12.06

Back briefly

What I was trying to say is that I can account, in terms of story function, for everything in that scene, and I can't see anything to suggest that more should be read into it.

09:01 / 30.12.06

Bobo is saying sense. In order for anyone to be like Timothy Dalton's Bond - or, indeed, Timothy Dalton - you would have to lose a chunk of your humanity. A big chunk.

18:49 / 19.03.07

Craig was good, but his Bond is awful, the worst ever. Damn, Timothy Dalton's Bond was more human.

If Hitler had created an action hero, it would be Daniel Craig's James Bond -- an arrogant, super-fit, blond Aryan giant with no sympathy or emotions, who murders with ease and lives for nothing but the mission at hand.

This was the only Bond film I wanted to stop watching halfway through. And the only one where I kept hoping the "bad guys" would kill Bond, so we could get a new 007.

A big disappointment; after seeing Craig in Munich, I was looking forward to this.

19:05 / 19.03.07

an arrogant, super-fit, blond Aryan giant with no sympathy or emotions

Untrue, the film is clearly about how he becomes the above, or becomes something that ostensibly appears to be the above. I'd say Craig emotes considerably more than any Bond since George Lazenby.

I appreciate, however, that your subjective experience may have been at odds with what the film was trying to achieve, and that that may indicate failings in the script/Craig's acting, although I'm at a loss to say what they might be.

19:15 / 19.03.07

Boboss, despite your critical analysis, the final answer is simple -- James Bond is supposed to be likeable. Full stop.

Craig's Bond wasn't likeable, he was hateable. I don't CARE that the filmakers were attempting to show "how Bond became the cold superspy, blah blah blah." Sad fact is, they were forty years too late. The Bond films have a firmly established canon, history, template, etc. If they wanted to show the origins of a spy, how one must become cold, etc, then they shouldn't have made a Bond film. As it is, Casino Royale has as much to do with the Bond canon as the Peter Sellers Casino Royale.

This movie made me angry. And of course there was THIS witty riposte:

Bond: Vodka martini.

Bartender: Shaken or stirred?

Bond: Like I give a damn.

Ooooh....he's not your mama's James Bond!!

20:27 / 19.03.07

Of course, this depends on what aspect of Bond you look for. I agree, in certain terms, that Bond should have an element of humour about it - and I can see how you may not have seen that in Casino - but I think it did a good job of revitalising a franchise that had played out several different aspects one-by-one, namely Moore's camp/smug wit, Dalton's seriousness, and the way the gadgets and sci-fi slowly took over Brosnan until Die Another Day became more sci-fi than spy-fi.

This theory falls down with Connery, unless you include Never Say Never Again - but who does, these days?

It's my humble opinion that the point of Craig's Bond is to simplify him down to a spy who also just happens to be a ruthless killer when he has to be - but that Casino was the early development of this ruthlessness, and as such was rough around the edges.

So - I see what you're saying, and where you're coming from, but having just rewatched the film on DVD, I think Craig does a good job - and the length/pacing somehow feels better on DVD, but that's entirely possibly just me.

20:31 / 19.03.07

James Bond is supposed to be likeable.

Whose James Bond? The director's? Craig's? Yours? In your miiiind?

Dalton's Bond was a fucking bastard, but he was still recognisably Bond.

I would also argue that Bond was extremely sexyflithyflirty likeable throughout nearly all of the film until that final upwards shot.

The film was all about Bond becoming unlikeable as a human being (although not, possibly, as a man of action) and trying to examine that, yes, Bond does things for the greater good, but not necessarily good, likeable things.

20:50 / 19.03.07

>Whose James Bond? The director's? Craig's? Yours?<

The James Bond who has been played by the preceding 5 actors.

This was the first Bond film where I was on the side of the villains. I wanted this arrogant bastard to get killed. I wanted to see him suffer. But you should be rooting FOR Bond, not against him. I thought hell, this guy is worse than the people he's after!

And again, I'm sure that was one of the muddled points of the movie. I get it, I get it. But I'm saying...it's not Bond. You don't make forty years of films with a consistent template and then decide to change it overnight.

Half the things attempted in this movie were already done (and much better) in On Her Majesty's Secret Service...which is still my favorite Bond movie, which should let you know where my sympathies lie.

But they didn't just change Bond's personality. Hell, they got rid of his snide, darkly comedic one-liners. And I KNOW the creators were purposely screwing with us on this point. Every time the "real" Bonds of the past films would've said something snide in this movie (for example when Craig stopped the runaway bomb-truck inches from the plane, or later when he shot the guy with the nail gun), the camera would pan in on his face...like he was ABOUT to say something darkly humorous*, but then wouldn't. Like the creators were just jumping up and down in their eagerness to bash us over the heads that this is a totally new Bond. Well, they can keep the heartless bastard.

*Lazenby still has the all-time darkest/best one-liner in the Bond films: "He had guts."

23:23 / 19.03.07

Going to bed, however:

"Very sorry. That last hand... nearly killed me."

If that isn't "real" Bond, I don't know what is.

I suspect if you want an unflappable, macho, honest-to-goodness guy who likes to ham with his cheese while blowing away baddies you might want to consider watching CSI: Miami.

06:43 / 20.03.07

buttergun - you mention that OHMSS is your favourite Bond film - the film in which Bond is portrayed as being the most human and most vunerable. This film is about as far removed as you can get from that portrayal, but it is also as close to Bond as you can get, in terms of the source material. My only problem with this film is the pacing and the clunky "if you were just a smile and a little finger" line (which was horrible) - the rest was fantastic. Bond is only supposed to be likable in so much as the majority of actors that have played him have tried to make him likable - Connery wasn't that nice in Dr. No, Moore was a buffon and too old for the role, Lazenby was human and Dalton was trying to be Shakespearian (with Brosnan attempting to mix the lot up and hitting and missing in broad strokes). I'd say give them a few more films to get to where you want him to be, but personally I prefer my Bond minus all the quips.

09:39 / 20.03.07

You don't make forty years of films with a consistent template and then decide to change it overnight.

Exactly the reason why it needed to change though. The ridiculous gadgetry and silly quippery were so stale as to have become fossilised. No one was watching these over-blown car adverts anymore.

I haven't enjoyed a single new Bond film since Goldeneye (which was okay). Casino Royale was the first Bond film in an age that had a storyline beyond that of a third-rate comic book (at the end there it was getting that Austin Powers was a more credible take on the Bond mythos).

This was the first Bond film where I was on the side of the villains. I wanted this arrogant bastard to get killed. I wanted to see him suffer. But you should be rooting FOR Bond, not against him. I thought hell, this guy is worse than the people he's after!

Not for me. I always wanted to see Jaws push Moore's smug face in.

I don't really see the problem with Bond presented in an anti-heroic light. His "bastard"-factor has always been a big reason why he's such a sucessful character.

I wouldn't mind some examples of exactly why CraigBond is worse than the people he goes up against in CR?

Every time the "real" Bonds of the past films would've said something snide in this movie (for example when Craig stopped the runaway bomb-truck inches from the plane, or later when he shot the guy with the nail gun), the camera would pan in on his face...like he was ABOUT to say something darkly humorous*, but then wouldn't.

That confuses me somewhat Buttergun, you criticise CraigBond for not being heroic enough but still want him to make incredibly callous comments when he kills someone.

Personally I found his little smile when the truck-bomber blew himself up much better than a swift "Well, that's gotta blow.".

13:24 / 20.03.07

>>That confuses me somewhat Buttergun, you criticise CraigBond for not being heroic enough but still want him to make incredibly callous comments when he kills someone.<<

I realize my comment on this point seemed somewhat hypocritcal. What I'm trying to say is that Bond should be both likeable AND a heartless bastard who says things like "Shocking...positively shocking" and "He had guts" when killing his enemies.

I guess what makes it okay that say Lazenby's Bond could say things like that is...well, unlike Craig's Bond, Lazenby didn't otherwise act like he read Mein Kampf with his morning Wheaties.

And also, my point is that the dark-humor quips are staples for the franchise. Even Never Say Never Again had them!

Someone mentioned above that they were glad the "high tech" stuff was toned in Casino Royale...but that was another problem I had with the movie. The creators couldn't even get it straight what kind of film they wanted to make. In every fight Craig's Bond was getting down and dirty, bleeding from the face, smashing people around, etc. General film noir type of stuff. More brutal than past Bond action scenes, less reliant on slick technology.

But then Bond would break out these too-cool high-tech pieces, electronics which in all honesty would make a rough-and-tumble character like this version of the character immaterial in the real world. I mean, the guy was able to patch himself into a conference with M overseas by what, sticking himself into his car's PC? It was just an uneven mix.

I understand we should "give the guy a chance," etc...but the whole thing smacks of what I believe is called a "retcon" in the comics biz. And they never last, do they? Or is Spider-Man still "really" a clone?

Page: 1 2 3(4)5