CASINO ROYALE -- Reactions

Message

AndyDursin · #16 Post by **AndyDursin** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:10 pm

Yup, Trevor, you called it.

It's definitely a solid opening but I hope it does not crash next weekend here...ought to play well for a couple of weeks but the kind of film it is, I do wonder if it's too "hard core" and violent for a lot of he masses who go to a Bond for some escapism. Nearly every Bond movie works to a degree on that level but this one is pretty gut-wrenching and unrelenting. I'm surprised it got a PG-13.

AndyDursin · #17 Post by **AndyDursin** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:01 pm

Wrap up report...

A bunch of lively penguins beat a newly buffed James Bond this weekend. This is bad news for Daniel Craig and good news for former Bond Pierce Brosnan. That's because "Casino Royale" took in about $7 million less than Brosnan's last bond feature.

"Die Another Day" had a $47 million opening weekend in 2002. And "Casino Royale" only did $5 million better than Brosnan's 1999 Bond outing, "The World Is Not Enough."

In fact, the world may not be enough for "Casino Royale." In the end, the over-hyped action adventure flick may prove to be less of a blockbuster than Sony and MGM were counting on.

This isn’t to say that "Casino Royale" with Craig as 007 isn’t a hit. With some $40 million in the bank domestically and solid numbers in the United Kingdom, the remake of the 1967 Bond-parody film into a serious action flick may wind up being the biggest success in the series in years.

But it’s a little disconcerting that dancing penguins could best the international spy on its opening weekend.

According to the figures, "Casino Royale" finished with $40,600,000. "Happy Feet," the Warner Bros. musical cartoon, they say took in $42,320,000.

Carlson2005 · #18 Post by **Carlson2005** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:21 pm

AndyDursin wrote:Yup, Trevor, you called it.

LOL, we both called it!

But it's a sign of how totally skewed things are when people are expecting each new big film to outgross the last. Only a few weeks ago everyone was jumping cartwheels over The Departed opening with $10m less, and yet despite Bond films never really being about the opening weekend they're already talking it down. Seriously, what were some of these people expecting, a $100m weekend?

Carlson2005 · #19 Post by **Carlson2005** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:07 pm

As expected, Casino Royale was number one in all the other 27 countries it opened, pulling in an additional $42m - in the UK, the only major territory among them, it was the 9th highest opening ever and nearly doubling DAD's debut with $25.6m. Overall it's 70% up on Brosnan's last outing internationally if these figures are correct.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/

Carlson2005 · #20 Post by **Carlson2005** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:11 am

Oh boy, the insanity is even worse than I expected over on DanielCraigisNotBond.com. Despite the $82.5m worldwide gross, the fact that Happy Feet only did $700,000 better now the final figures are in or that CR beat DAD in every one of the 27 other countries it opened at, you guessed it - they're claiming the film is a complete disaster and that their boycott was a success.

Penguins Ice Bond!
"Happy Feet" Takes # 1 at the Box Office in
the United States and Canada!
Our special thanks to everyone who
made the boycott a success!!

Rubber room time, I think!

Paul MacLean · #21 Post by **Paul MacLean** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:48 am

I finally got around to seeing it last night. I pretty-much agree with Andy -- Craig is fantastic! He's not Connery, but to my mind is better than Dalton. And for the first time, we have an actor playing Bond who could potentially transcend Connery's status as "the" James Bond. Not that Craig's better necessarily, but I think he has the potential to be Connery's equal.

The film did seem like it was about to end several times but that didn't bother me terribly, and I loved that they used the Bond theme over the end credits.

I am a fan of Judi Dench in general so it doesn't bother me they've retained her as "M". Having a woman as head of MI6 also seems appropriate as women have a slightly more prominent role in British government than they do in the US. Plus I always felt made for an interesting tention between "M" and the lothario 007.

I thought the title song was a let-down (I don't recall it having much of a melody) but Arnold's score was terrific.

I'd rate this the best Bond film since For Your Eyes Only. I hardly even consider the Brosnan films to even be Bond movies. They had little individual distinction (in fact they mostly blur into one unmemorable film for me) and Brosnan was far too pretty and delicate in his portrayal Bond (tho maybe Trevor's "diarhea" story colored my impression somewhat!). But with Daniel Craig and this grittier, more visceral approach 007 is definitely back on track!

Carlson2005 · #22 Post by **Carlson2005** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:22 pm

Paul MacLean wrote: Brosnan was far too pretty and delicate in his portrayal Bond (tho maybe Trevor's "diarhea" story colored my impression somewhat!).

Sorry about that, Paul, but you did ask...

For me the problem with Brosnan was that there was no edge - even early Roger Moore was darker. He tried for a combination of Moore and Connery, but it was very much a matinee idol Bond with little really unique to Brosnan and too much borrowed from his predecessors. And, let's face it, by DAD he'd obviously just given up and Roger Mooretis had set in.

Now the kiddies are back in school, CR has overtaken Happy Feet at the US box-office, although it's the UK where its really exceeding expectations - the weekend per-screen average over here was $50,000!

DavidBanner · #23 Post by **DavidBanner** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:29 pm

I enjoyed Casino Royale more than I thought I would, and I mostly agree with Andy's comments. I thought it was a bit overlong - you could cut out a solid 15 minutes and never miss it (other than on the DVD deleted scenes section). I don't mind the keeping of Judy Dench, and I wouldn't be surprised to see John Cleese pop up in the next one - and I wouldn't have a problem with that either. I appreciated that this wasn't yet another megalomaniacal villain taking over the entire world, and I appreciated that there wasn't a lot of the cutesy shtick that accumulated in the series over the years. (Moore was an admittedly big part of this - as he himself reveals in his DVD commentaries)

It should be interesting to see what they do with Craig's Bond next. Thankfully, they don't look like they're doing remakes. But do they go in the direction of more Ian Fleming bits and pieces, or perhaps pieces of John Gardner books?

For the record, I liked Timothy Dalton's Bond better than Brosnan's. Licence to Kill just seemed to me to be poorly thought out. I would have liked to see Dalton get another shot at Bond, but it wasn't to be. The Living Daylights was a good one - an example of what happens when you make a Moore Bond with a more intense actor. I am also a fan of For Your Eyes Only and as a guilty pleasure Spy Who Loved Me, even if it completely lifts its plot from You Only Live Twice.

mkaroly · #24 Post by **mkaroly** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:59 am

Bottom line: I LOVED THIS FILM!!!! What a shot in the arm- I think they managed to find a great Bond and resurrect this franchise with this film. I was totally into the film. Minor complaints were the title song (get a woman to sing it, for Pete's sake!) and the Texas Hold 'Em commentary (completely unnecessary- made me feel like I was watching ESPN 2 re-runs of the World Series of Poker). Great action, great stunts, no gadgets, no one-line witticisms.....I am very pleased.

Carlson2005 · #25 Post by **Carlson2005** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:50 am

mkaroly wrote: Minor complaints... the Texas Hold 'Em commentary (completely unnecessary- made me feel like I was watching ESPN 2 re-runs of the World Series of Poker).

Speaking as a non-poker player, I found the commentary was necessary, although it wasn't always as smoothly done as it could be.

And you're not the only one who's pleased with it: as of yesterday the estimated worldwide take in 10 days of release was $222.4m, prompting the looney lady at DanielCraigisNotBond.com to go into one of the most incredibly pathologically disturbed rants I've ever seen on the internet (apparently Daniel Craig is stalking her because, unlike Pierce Brosnan, he has no morals.O-kay then...).

Carlson2005 · #26 Post by **Carlson2005** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:00 am

Well, it's now up to $331m worldwide, with more openings this week. It's looking more and more likely this will beat Die Another Day at this rate.

Mind you, one thing is still bugging me - who the hell keeps a defibrilator in their glove compartment? That's the one moment that for me brought back memories of old Roge getting out of a scrap with his buzzsaw wristwatch or projectile dart cufflinks.

Carlson2005 · #27 Post by **Carlson2005** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:57 pm

It may have dropped out of the US top ten, but it's overtaken DAD at the worldwide box-office - $454m and still going strong. Some boycott, huh?

mkaroly · #28 Post by **mkaroly** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:56 pm

I'm glad it's doing well- it was a much better film than DAD.

Carlson2005 · #29 Post by **Carlson2005** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:53 am

Currently at $531m worldwide ($159m US), making it the 40th highest worldwide grosser of all time on the unadjusted for inflation list. Only three films did better in 2006 - POTC2, Da Vinci Code and Ice Age 2.

Carlson2005 · #30 Post by **Carlson2005** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:09 am

This is more by way of an experiment to see if the post disappears or not, but just to avoid it being entirely pointless, the film's worldwide gross is now up to an incredble $570m worldwide, making it the 35th highest grosser, and it's still going strong.