CASINO ROYALE -- Reactions

[Eric W.]

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.

It's a good movie and a pretty good Bond film, so IMO it deserves all the success it gets.

[esteban miranda]

Don't like digging up an old thread but I just watched this on DVD having missed it at the theater.
It certainly is a 2006 Bond.
A little messy on the plotting (I wasn't always sure who the "bad guy" was).
It shares with most other recent movies the very loud and constant sound effects. No wonder producers don't want "noticeable" music.
Also in common with recent movies, it is often difficult to understand the dialog. No wonder my wife usually watches English language DVDs with the English subtitles turned on.
It was watchable but hardly great. I did dislike the opening song.
If you like the Bourne movies or the Mission: Impossible movies (which I don't much care for), you might like this movie better than I did because it shares more in common with them than it does with most Bond movies.

[AndyDursin]

I agree Estiban, that's basically what I wrote in my review last week.

Plenty of great elements there but the last 30 minutes was messy (too many endings), and I felt the need to do this "gritty, edgy" Bond was heavily forced in places.

The movie felt like THE BOND IDENTITY in more ways than one, particularly in the torture sequence, the pre-credits sequence (which I didn't care for either), etc.

Craig was superb but I think they need to lighten up a little bit for the next one. If they do there's no reason they can't make a truly classic Bond picture. This felt a little too much like they were straining to be "edgier," more graphic and violent, and IMO came off less like a Bond movie as a result.

Don't misunderstand me -- it was perfectly entertaining and had terrific scenes, but a second viewing only reinforced some of the reservations I had about it.

[Eric W.]

I agree Estiban, that's basically what I wrote in my review last week.

Plenty of great elements there but the last 30 minutes was messy (too many endings), and I felt the need to do this "gritty, edgy" Bond was heavily forced in places.

Most noteably: The "torture" segment. Even my sister grimaced and was put off by that even though we technically didn't see anything.

What is it about a lot of these action movies lately and these drawn out torture session of the main heroes? I'm getting pretty sick and tired of it myself. We even had to put up with it in Lost during that first 6 episode prison mini arc that started this season off.

I feel like I can't get away from this crap.

The movie felt like THE BOND IDENTITY in more ways than one, particularly in the torture sequence, the pre-credits sequence (which I didn't care for either), etc.

Exactly, but "Bond Identity" isn't a bad thing.

Craig was superb but I think they need to lighten up a little bit for the next one. If they do there's no reason they can't make a truly classic Bond picture. This felt a little too much like they were straining to be "edgier," more graphic and violent, and IMO came off less like a Bond movie as a result.

Don't misunderstand me -- it was perfectly entertaining and had terrific scenes, but a second viewing only reinforced some of the reservations I had about it.

I agree 100 percent. I am 100 percent on the Daniel Craig bandwagon as the new Bond. I've read enough of Fleming's books myself to say to you: Craig comes pretty close to what Fleming's vision of Bond was like in those books...even closer than Connery in some regards.

I liked Pierce Brosnan a lot, but I think I like Craig even more in some areas.

Anyways, I think Casino Royale was a nice "Batman Begins" reset button for the Bond series as a whole and I'm very eager to see what the next movie is going to be like.

[Carlson2005]

What is it about a lot of these action movies lately and these drawn out torture session of the main heroes? I'm getting pretty sick and tired of it myself. We even had to put up with it in Lost during that first 6 episode prison mini arc that started this season off.

Pretty hard to avoid it in any remotely faithful adaptation of the novel, since it's the one thing that just about everyone remembers from it. Just be glad they didn't use the carpetbeater or the electric cattleprod that was in an early draft...

I think they got the tone right myself (though Wright made no impression whatever as Leiter) and dread the notion of them lightening up because they always misjudge the comedy in the 'lighter' Bonds. This had enough humour to keep it from being a wake, but not enough to bury the film under the weight of trying to come up with irrelevant one-liners.

[mkaroly]

If they do "lighten" it up, I hope they don't make it too light...a la Roger Moore. I thought his Bond was a bit too light and I really like the "hard edge" of Craig's Bond....as well as Dalton's THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. My personal preference is for a hard edge Bond with a little dry humor. The last thing the series needs is too much of a return to a Roger Moore Bond (not that I disliked him, but of all the dudes who portrayed Bond, I find his films the least entertaining due to the "comedy").

Just for the record, my favorite Moore Bond films are MOONRAKER (I know the special effects are goofy, but Lois Chiles and he are a great on-screen match and Barry's score is tops- too bad we can't have an expanded album of the score) and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (although Lynn-Holly Johnson is really annoying)...with props as well to LIVE AND LET DIE. Otherwise, the rest do nothing for me: the villains are too cartoonish and never pose a real threat, the bad guys' side kicks are weak, and the women are too bimbo-ish.

[AndyDursin]

Hey all I said was lighten it up a little -- I never said return to Roger Moore land!

[Monterey Jack]

The Spy Who Loved Me is vastly superior to Moonraker (Marvin Hamlisch's silly Disco score aside). If Barry had scored TSWLM, it'd nearly match some of the Connery films.

[Eric Paddon]

I still maintain that Moore was the right 007 for that era, where lighter more escapist fare was needed in the 70s and early 80s. For me "Octopussy" (the first Bond film I ever saw) remains Moore's best effort and the best Bond film post-OHMSS IMO.

I never did see "Casino Royale" and I still don't have the desire to. If anything the "reboot" has kind of given me an excuse to bail out of the franchise for good and just stick to the past (as I do with so many other things!).

[mkaroly]

Hey all I said was lighten it up a little -- I never said return to Roger Moore land!

Lol...you didn't say that. I just wanted to state my hope in no uncertain terms....no Roger Moore land!

[AndyDursin]

Yet I agree with Eric as well that OCTOPUSSY was great fun. I'm sure for Fleming purists it was an abomination, but IMO it was grandly entertaining on its own and I agree holds up as well as any of the Moore films.

I still feel we are in this period right now where every hero and franchise and comic book adaptation are being treated SO seriously. I did not find CASINO light in any regard, I found it as humorless as any Bond film, and to me it fits right in with how we're treating Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, Battlestar Galactica, etc. on screen. To varying degrees (and some of those are more successful than others), the fun has been drained away.

I also think it's one reason the two PIRATES films have done so well. They're unabashed, upbeat entertainment at a time when so many films that ought to be on the same level -- like Superman Returns -- are leaden and heavy instead.

I realize Bond isn't the same as these other franchises, yet it's still an iconic film franchise and CASINO went further to distance itself from its past than any of the other Eon films. I understand why, I love Craig, but there were portions of it that felt strained and I just think as the years go by those elements will be what holds it back from being a classic.

As it is, it's still VERY good.

[Eric W.]

^^ Good points.

I never did see "Casino Royale" and I still don't have the desire to. If anything the "reboot" has kind of given me an excuse to bail out of the franchise for good and just stick to the past (as I do with so many other things!).

Your loss. You're missing out.

I'm someone who was getting ready to write the series off as well. CR, while not perfect, gave it the much needed kick in the ass that the series has sorely needed for a while now.

See it. You won't regret it.

[Carlson2005]

I did not find CASINO light in any regard, I found it as humorless as any Bond film, and to me it fits right in with how we're treating Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, Battlestar Galactica, etc. on screen. To varying degrees (and some of those are more successful than others), the fun has been drained away.

There's plenty of humour in the film, be it Bond driving the girl to his place, the banter on the train or the shaken or stirred line, and it's more successful than the seaside postcard quips that the Brosnan and latter Moore films would always stop to make, not least because its generally well integrated into the film. For me that's a lot more fun than watching the equivalent of a drunken uncle at a party telling really bad old jokes for a couple of hours.

[Eric W.]

There's plenty of humour in the film, be it Bond driving the girl to his place, the banter on the train or the shaken or stirred line, and it's more successful than the seaside postcard quips that the Brosnan and latter Moore films would always stop to make, not least because its generally well integrated into the film. For me that's a lot more fun than watching the equivalent of a drunken uncle at a party telling really bad old jokes for a couple of hours.

I agree.

Again: This CR film was very faithful to the spirit and tone of the original source material, albeit setting it in "modern times."

What you just described IS what Bond in the Fleming novels is about and what it's like. It's not supposed to be a light farce or a romp.

I suspect they'll find a better sense of overall balance as time goes on, but yes: The CR story and novel were not "light in any regard" and that's how it should be. '

If you want a light CR, fire up the 1964 version.

[Eric Paddon]

Too much old stuff for me to go through, not just movies but loads of TV on DVD as well which is keeping me away from so many recent movies.

I really HATE the idea of Judi Dench continuing in this series on general principle. If you're going to reboot then get a new Bernard Lee for goodness sake.