# James Bond Casino Royale



## Khnelben (Feb 18, 2005)

I saw the film yesterday, it's fantastic.

Daniel really delivers it, the film has a proper feel to it. He is brutal and believable and very fit. It would be great if we could have a proper discussion on the movie.

The director's got the feel of the book, at the same time making it modern. Mind you, the book was very good. The movie has a lot of references to old James Bond movies.

The title song was a small disappointment, it starts off good but does leave an impression.

The suits on Bond are close fitted, 2 B, although I was disappointed with the collar shapes (tell me it's not T&A). Cuff-links are by Links of London (I think). And everybody wears an Omega (even the poker croupier).

All in all, a great movie.

Andrey


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

As this film has the same director as GoldenEye, how does it compare? While GoldenEye has an intersting plot, there was always something about it I didn't like. I know one thing I didn't like about it was the music. The score was so un-bond-like. I don't know if that was the reason that threw off the entire movie. I'm not sure if the reason I don't like it is because of the script or the direction. How is Casino Royale's script and direction? I think the best Bond directors are Terence Young and John Glen. I'm sure than no other Bond films would ever be able to achieve the greatness of Young's.

As this is a clothing site, can you tell us any more about the sartorial aspect of the film? I've gotten a good idea of the clothing from the trailers. One suit that is nice that I noticed is a light grey 3-button, roll to 2, with peak lapels.


----------



## Khnelben (Feb 18, 2005)

*...*

I liked the directing of the film, it's action-cut.

The thing about Hollywood editing is that you get too many close-ups and no big fighting scenes (unlike Jackie Chan). CR has nice fights, a bit of parkour added. You cannot compare the new Bonds with the old ones, they are different, CR is better than GoldenEye.

The film is very long (2.25).

On the sartorial side - Bond is classically well-dressed, both in casual clothes and suits. The wardrobe is very modern, so no sport coats and tweeds for the week-end.

Again, the collar shape on the business shirts was a disappointment. The tuxedo - that was very well-made. And there is an inside joke on the tux and the Omega/Rolex.

Andrey


----------



## harrybee (Jul 17, 2006)

*Nick Foulkes talks about 007 franchise*

See the video interview:

https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/12/sunday/main2174639.shtml


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Glad to hear the pre-release "buzz" wasn't just bull crap. Looking forward to it this Friday. As usual, here's a ton of photos from the movie.


----------



## Khnelben (Feb 18, 2005)

*Keeping this in...*

I hope more people will see this over the weekend and we'll have more opinions.

From what I have heard in Russia - the new Bond is very male, and has caught the original Fleming idea. The torture scene is supposed to demonstrate that he is a strong guy, even naked (which is psychologically uncomfortable) he still maintains the strong will to stand up to Le Chiffre.

My boss was facinated with Daniel Craig (an ultimate killing machine), but did not like the idea of the film, as not being there at all.

I was not impressed by the lead female and the title song.

Andrey


----------



## Richie_G (Jun 19, 2006)

*Pierce looks better dressed up but...*

Pierce looks better in a suit than 99.999% of the population but I think he was just average as James Bond. The new guy is in much better shape than anyone to play the role. He's doing a pretty good job as 007.


----------



## Tomasso (Aug 17, 2005)

Khnelben said:


> I was not impressed by the lead female


See Eva Green in "The Dreamers"  and I guarantee that you'll be impressed. They're real, and they are spectacular! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Tomasso said:


> See Eva Green in "The Dreamers"  and I guarantee that you'll be impressed. They're real, and they are spectacular! :icon_smile_wink:


...and they're all over the internet (PM me for links).


----------



## richstyle (Aug 14, 2006)

Khnelben said:


> I hope more people will see this over the weekend and we'll have more opinions.
> 
> From what I have heard in Russia - the new Bond is very male, and has caught the original Fleming idea. The torture scene is supposed to demonstrate that he is a strong guy, even naked (which is psychologically uncomfortable) he still maintains the strong will to stand up to Le Chiffre.
> 
> ...


Me too. I saw her in an interview and she was rather dull-in looks and personality. No sizzle on screen either. My favorite Bond girl-Izabella Scorupco (Golden Eye).


----------



## harrybee (Jul 17, 2006)

richstyle said:


> Me too. I saw her in an interview and she was rather dull-in looks and personality. No sizzle on screen either. My favorite Bond girl-Izabella Scorupco (Golden Eye).


My all time favourite is Diana Rigg as Tracy Di Vicenzo in OHMSS.


----------



## Full Canvas (Feb 16, 2006)

*The True James Bond is Back with a Vengeance.*

Finally, Bond is back. A small group, of which I am a member, attended a private screening of *Casino Royale* last night. Years of faithful patience have paid off. This film is the best since _*Goldfinger*_.

The character's just-below-the-surface menace is there in abundance. Gone is the over-the-top campiness. Special effects are better than ever. This is especially true of the early scene at a construction site. I almost needed a seat belt for that one.

I don't wish to trash any icons. However, Daniel Craig is (to me) more believable than Sean Connery in the role. I am in a distinct minority to utter this, but if Timothy Dalton had the benefit of this writing and directing, he and Craig would vie in my mind for the most believable of the Bonds. I always felt that the twinkle in Connery's eye was the give away that he was playing a comedic role rather than the subtle satire. Look into Craig's eyes and maybe you will notice what I mean.

Just go see the film. Forget about cinematic art, I went to be entertained. Mission accomplished! Likely, you will enjoy it also.
___________________________________


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Full Canvas said:


> I don't wish to trash any icons. However, Daniel Craig is (to me) more believable than Sean Connery in the role. I am in a distinct minority to utter this, but if Timothy Dalton had the benefit of this writing and directing, he and Craig would vie in my mind for the most believable of the Bonds. I always felt that the twinkle in Connery's eye was the give away that he was playing a comedic role rather than the subtle satire. Look into Craig's eyes and maybe you will notice what I mean.


I also thought that Dalton was pretty darn good. He was certainly better than Moore and would have been very, very good if it was not for the fact that the 80s were very, very bad in general for this kind of movie.

I think that OHMSS, Goldfinger and Thunderball were the three best. I am always surprised how little love OHMSS gets.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

iammatt said:


> I think that OHMSS, Goldfinger and Thunderball were the three best. I am always surprised how little love OHMSS gets.


OHMSS is my favorite. Lazenby is passable, but...



harrybee said:


> My all time favourite is Diana Rigg as Tracy Di Vicenzo in OHMSS.


...Diana Rigg makes the movie.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

I think often with 007 the attention is drawn to the character and who is portraying him rather than the storyline. That may explain why OHMSS get so little love. Personally one of my favorites was "For Your Eyes Only" because it seemed like something plausible for an agent to do; recover a missing piece of technology. No villians with worldwide designs, no over the top gadgets, just a good spy story. Unfortunately Roger Moore was a bit long in the tooth and despite his efforts it fell a little short. 

I'm looking forward to this one. Sounds like it won't disappoint.


----------



## jml90 (Dec 7, 2005)

iammatt said:


> I also thought that Dalton was pretty darn good. He was certainly better than Moore and would have been very, very good if it was not for the fact that the 80s were very, very bad in general for this kind of movie.
> 
> I think that OHMSS, Goldfinger and Thunderball were the three best. I am always surprised how little love OHMSS gets.


Lazenby never was very convincing to me.

I rest my case.


----------



## Full Canvas (Feb 16, 2006)

iammatt said:


> I am always surprised how little love OHMSS gets.


Blame George Lazenby and Diana Rigg for this. Both were miscast in my opinion.

George made his name as a fashion model in still photos. He did the cinema no favors.

Sadly, Diana is forever Mrs. Emma Peel in the hearts and minds of most moviegoers. I bought my first Lotus Elan just so I could sit in the same seat as Mrs. Peel!  
_________________________________


----------



## Tomasso (Aug 17, 2005)

Full Canvas said:


> Gone is the over-the-top campiness.


IMO, the accolades that Connery's Bond has garnered is due more to his vehicle than to his driving.


----------



## Soph (Sep 25, 2005)

I think George L. was a pretty (boy) lame Bond who was a better model than actor.

Watch Craig in the new one, and then just try to watch OHMSS. You'll not make it 15 minutes before you turn it off.


----------



## Mr. Golem (Mar 18, 2006)

I just got back from seeing the movie and it was spectacular. I was fully entertained, I think Craig played the perfect role as a newbie bond and I got the essence of Connery with a twist. The action scenes were well done and I recommend everyone go see it.

The only thing that kind of bugged me was the shameless product placement; Ford, Rolex, Omega(is that how it is pronounced like he said it? Omeega?), Sony(Eriksson phone and Vaio laptop), few others that I don't remember at the moment.

The Tuxedos and Suits were perfect, close fit, slight rope, still Brioni right?

I especially like the 3 roll 2 he was wearing and the dark navy i think it was 3 piece suit at the very end.


----------



## GentleCheetah (Oct 17, 2005)

iammatt said:


> I also thought that Dalton was pretty darn good. He was certainly better than Moore and would have been very, very good if it was not for the fact that the 80s were very, very bad in general for this kind of movie.
> 
> I think that OHMSS, Goldfinger and Thunderball were the three best. I am always surprised how little love OHMSS gets.


I also think Timothy Dalton is the best. I have seen the new Bond movie yet. But I am not terribly impressed by the screen shots and the trailer. For one thing, Daniel Craig's chest is too big. He is probably a perfect cast as a ruthless agent. But his face is a little on the gangster-ish side.


----------



## Soph (Sep 25, 2005)

Craig makes Roger, George and Pierce look like little school girls looking for Barbies. 

Craig can also act, you have to see it to believe it. The movie has some great dialogue, quite witty banter and great one liners.

Early Connery Dr. No and some FRWL is the only thing remotely close. Gritty and Raw stuff.

Pierce would look comically trying to do the fights that Craig pulled off.


----------



## Stract Troop (Nov 14, 2006)

I just returned from the movie and was not disappointed. I agree with Sophistication about Daniel Craig being able to act. Although Connery is a fine actor, IMO he did not "act" James Bond with the coldness with which Fleming portrayed him in the books. Moreover, this story captures Bond before he really became the Bond we knew from the later stories - a "formative" Bond, if you will. The scene of him seeing the results of a fine tailored garment in the mirror shows that from that point forward he wants nothing else.

I was thoroughly entertained by the movie. But, a couple of questions:

Who makes his suits? And, I noticed that both Connery and Craig wear the tux sans cummerbund/vest and shirt studs. Is this acceptable for non-secret agents?

My first post, by the way.


----------



## David Bresch (Apr 11, 2004)

I know where all you guys are coming from, and Dalton tried valiantly to get closer to the books, but he was still too handsome and sensitive for the role (more Heathcliff than Bond), in my opinion. The main problem was his movies, which were terrible. Lasenby's film was superb, with excellent chase scenes and relatively little gadgetry. He was good, but if you recall, the whole movie was shot in short clips and he actually had very few scenes when the camera rested on him or he had to deliver more than a few lines, so if he could not act, one never really saw that.

G-d willing you are right and Craig is the answer to my prayers. The books informed my childhood imagination so much , and I have always fantasized someone, somewhere, would deliver a real film version eventually.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Such a waste to have a new Bond film without John Cleese.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I have to be Mister Contrary today and say I was a bit under-whelmed by the film vis-a-vis my expectations, but overall it's a very good addition to the series. There is a 15-20 chase the airport which could have been (should have been) edited out of the film...I almost yawned during that bit and it was old-school Bond film-making...and a few other scenes were a bit sloppy or un-focused. But the rest was good and satisfying, and they are clearly trying to put some energy back into the series for the future. As usual, the supporting cast was better than the leads: I'm thinking in particular about Giancarlo Giannini (Mathis; he played the Emperor in the Dune re-make), Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre), Jeffrey Wright (Felix), and especially Jesper Christensen (the wizened fellow who played Mr. White). I thought Craig was a bit too tough perhaps, but I had no problems with Eva Green (ironically she looks more beautiful without the makeup). Best of all, however, was Caterina Murino, who played the woman Bond pumps for information (not literally). I thought the clothing didn't suit Craig, but that's just me.

Hopefully Craig gets a chance to grow into the role, unlike Dalton (such potential). But FRWL and OHMSS are still my favourites.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

David Bresch said:


> I know where all you guys are coming from, and Dalton tried valiantly to get closer to the books, but he was still too handsome and sensitive for the role (more Heathcliff than Bond), in my opinion. The main problem was his movies, which were terrible.


I am actually quite fond of the Living Daylights. I think it is great all around and what I want from a Bond film. While Dalton was great, I thought the story was well written (beyond the Fleming material) and it realistic. It was also the last one that John Barry scored, and it is his best Bond score. I find the film to be one of the best in the series.


----------



## mumbojumbo (May 13, 2006)

GentleCheetah said:


> I also think Timothy Dalton is the best. I have seen the new Bond movie yet. But I am not terribly impressed by the screen shots and the trailer. For one thing, Daniel Craig's chest is too big. He is probably a perfect cast as a ruthless agent. But his face is a little on the gangster-ish side.


IMO Connery and Dalton are the two best bond actors. And yes, big-chest Craig reminds me of Red Grant (the villain from FRWL) :icon_smile_big:


----------



## David Bresch (Apr 11, 2004)

I guess this depends on whether you want a film that moves closer to the plots Fleming compiled (like I do) or more distant.

I saw the film and I thought it was excellent. Maybe the airport scene was a little over the top and the defibrillator scene was a bit gadget-y but I thought Craig and especially Eva Green were superb. She is probably the best Bond woman since Diana Rigg, and certainly the most capable actress. The villain has been rightfully praised, but there have been excellent actors who played Bond villains before, though they had inferior scripts.

The script was really excellent, which is a first so far as I am concerned since FRWL. I agree, FRWL and OHMSS were the best, though OHMSS might have been greater than the sum of its parts.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*a dreamer is all that I can be...*



Tomasso said:


> See Eva Green in "The Dreamers"  and I guarantee that you'll be impressed. They're real, and they are spectacular! :icon_smile_wink:


humm... tres interesting, indeed.

...from paris


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

*The Costuming of Bond...*

Here's the Financial Times on costume design in the Bond movies...note the reference to costume designer Lindy Hemming beginning her Bond stint on 1995's GoldenEye with "the radical move ofeasing Pierce Brosnan out of his predecessors' _*fusty*_ Savile Row wardrobe and into bespoke by Brioni."


----------



## Notik (Jul 3, 2005)

Saw it last night and thought it was superb. Craig is a brutal, complex, and charismatic Bond. A clean and uncluttered characters. The gadgets blend entirely into the background. The defib scene was well done with real drama. All in all excellent and a great start to this Bond's run.


----------



## Soph (Sep 25, 2005)

medwards said:


> Here's the Financial Times on costume design in the Bond movies...note the reference to costume designer Lindy Hemming beginning her Bond stint on 1995's GoldenEye with "the radical move ofeasing Pierce Brosnan out of his predecessors' _*fusty*_ Savile Row wardrobe and into bespoke by Brioni."


I always thought it was because Brioni can pull off 150 suits (enough for a movie) of bespoke quality whereas the SR firms didn't have that kind of manpower/turnaround hence why they really went with Brioni.


----------



## ice (Sep 2, 2005)

*the boy-toy Bond*

This is the least masculin Bond ever. I suspect they are reinventing the whole series to appeal more to women.

This Bond is simply not manly. He starts seducing an unbelievably beautiful women, then leaves her alone in his bedroom to rush off to the airport. Would any of the old Bond have done that? Impossible! They were always willing to have their villians wait while they finished their conquests.

Then he falls head over heals in love with a beautiful, but aloof woman. A complete role reversal from the old Bond, where beautiful women fell in love with him, and he was aloof. She makes a fool of him as well, but I don't want to say more in case I spoil it for others.

There are way, way too many shots of this Bond shirtless and even completely naked, while the Bond women wear more clothes in this movie than any one since the 1960's. Instead of the tough, wiry body you would expect from a former Naval officer and current secret agent, he has a kind of inflated, fresh from the Nautilus machine, hairless, tanned body you would expect from an Abercrombie and Fitch model. Again, designed to appeal to female viewers.

His clothes emphasize the boy-toy image: undersized polos with shrunken sleeves to show off his biceps, and even boy-shorts at the beach. He takes every opportunity to rip off his shirt, or at least get it really wet so it sticks to him. He doesn't even dress himself: the female lead picks out a tuxedo for him to wear, which he dutifully puts on and preens approvingly in front of the mirror.

His emasculation is not just figurative: in a particularly disturbing scene, the villan in the movie actually destroys his manly parts by bludgeoning them as we watch, with Bond writhing and screaming in pain! Next follows a long convalescence as he is confined to a wheelchair, and the female interest, now that he is presumably impotent, finally shows interest in her new boy-toy and declares that it doesn't matter how much is left of him. Bond is grateful.

From the 60's up until the last movie, Bond women were elevated from silly sex kittens, to helpful assistants, then tough villans, then finally to action heros as smart, tough, and talented as Bond himself. Brosnan developed Bond further by showing sensitivity and heartache, and Bond's boss M was cast as a woman. In this latest movie, the women direct and control the action. Even the famous assistant Ms. Moneypenny is replaced by a hapless male character who answers the phone faithfully. The Bond serial has come full circle and returned to the 1970's but in reverse: Bond is the sex kitten.


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

*I agree with ice about the emasculation of Bond*

Saw it last night. Disappointing in many ways AFAIC.

Pros: It was enjoyable to watch and the cinematography was very good; beautiful locations; construction site scene was excellent.

Cons: Call me crazy but I miss the campy Bond with all the gadgets. No Q! 

I know critics loved it and I undertstand the whole taking the franchise into a new direction, going back to the Bond roots and the spirit of the Fleming novels... yati yata... and it may be successful from a marketing standpoint but that's not what Bond is about for me. He's not just another tough guy spy. Casino Royale was too serious a movie for Bond imo - not to mention the lame love story.

Perhaps it's because I grew up with the Moore Bond and am nostalgic for the over-the-top stories and lines but Bond can't be taken too seriously in my view. He is meant to be a parody in many ways. It's the whole, _there is no way anyone can do that_ and "oh, James! :icon_smile_kisses: Bond girls" that makes him so lovable. Who wants to see another tough guy get dirty chasing bad guys? I want to see a guy save the world and get the girl without wrinkling his shirt. Fantasizing about the superhuman Bond persona is what it's about, not another quasi-realistic hero.

Just my $.02. I am sure most of you disagree as I've read.


----------



## Soph (Sep 25, 2005)

The movie is probably one of the best overall in the series.

Brosnan, Georege and Moore=masculine NOW that is funny.

Moore and Brosnan would be more likely to get a manicure than throw a believeable punch. 

Connery is still my favorite as he can be cruel, coldblooded yet pull of the oxymoron of a character by being suave, sophisticated and romantic. (Craig's weakness is still his mugg) Craig displays a much more intriguing character though, and no doubt physically is one of the only Bonds that actually believeable as an cold blooded assassin.

Connery
Craig and Dalton all the way.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

I saw it today with Ms. M8. I think generally it's a good direction to take the franchise. I have read all of the Fleming Bond novels. This movie comes closest to the literary Bond, of all the Bond movies made to date.

M8


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Sophistication said:


> I always thought it was because Brioni can pull off 150 suits (enough for a movie) of bespoke quality whereas the SR firms didn't have that kind of manpower/turnaround hence why they really went with Brioni.


I also would assume that Brioni was willing to pay the asking amount for the product placement in the Bond films. The producers have long been known for promoting whichever product is willing to ante up the most cash (many forumites may recall the controversy over Bond driving a BMW in Goldeneye)

I also agree with M8, this is the first Bond film in a long time that has provided the feeling of the original Fleming novels that I devoured and loved as a child. In fact, I would say it is the first to stay true to the character as written in the books since FRWL and Goldfinger.


----------



## Romana1911 (Oct 11, 2003)

He took off his dinner jacket in the poker scene! Absurd! What gentleman, much less James Bond, would do such a thing!
All in all, I was horribly underwhelmed with the movie. Bond was indeed emasculated and sentimental, and despite Craig's rough looks Bond is portrayed as, deep down, a romantic patsy. thumbs down. Craig, however, acts well, though he looks out of place in his dinner jacket.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

I took some time during the San Francisco event to see the film. I was re-leaved that they had him dressed in a peak lapel dinner jacket and even a single breasted suit.

But why can't James Bond get a proper dimple under his tie knot!

And I was rather suspicious when Eva Green's character couldn't tell a Rolex from an Omega!

A little long, but I liked it (heck, I'd like a James Bond movie with Pee-Wee Herman). Good plot, better than usual dialog. I might even want to see it again!


----------



## DonV (Apr 2, 2006)

I thought it was a pretty good film overall. (I certainly enjoyed watching it). If you haven't seen it, please NOTE: THERE MIGHT BE SOME SPOILERS IN THIS POST.

Observations:

-This Bond looks much tougher. He takes abuse more realistically and is brutal in dealing it.

-This is Bond early in his career. He's a little idealistic and sometimes lets his ego get in the way (and learns to deal with the consequences).

-I have not really read the books, nor do I recall how/if this was addressed in the earlier movies, but Craig's Bond is not quite yet a man of impeccable style. He's a little more 'common,' but is coming to appreciate finer things (Example: He apparently already owned a dinner jacket, but judging from Vesper's comments, it wasn't a very good one).

-Many here were concerned about how his dinner jacket sleeves were too long in the promo stills online. It is not mentioned specifically in the film (to do so would seem oddly fussy, particularly given the way Craig portrays Bond), but as Vesper provides Bond with a dinner jacket just before he needs it, it is unlikely it would've fit perfectly. As far as I can recall, nearly everyone else at the poker game had sleeve showing.

-Le Chiffre is not very well-dressed (in terms of color). He wears a black shirt with his black dinner jacket and black bowtie, and I believe some of his other outfits were dark and monochromatic. He's a bad guy, though, so we can add this to his list of dirty deeds.

-The 'love story' sequence after Bond wakes up isn't good, but it isn't the worst thing I've seen on film (sadly). It does appear a bit un-Bondly, but I can sort of forgive it since it's early in Bond's career and in his rashness he gets attached to someone. There is the implication that he does not usually open up to people, and by the end, he's colder and more committed to his job than ever.

-There is little reliance on gadgets. Other than his first aid kit, the most complex toy was nothing more than a cell phone.

-When he is not wearing his dinner jacket, he is mostly wearing polo shirts and chinos. A lot of this is when he's in the Bahamas, though, and I believe he also had some sort of summer suit at one point. He has a pretty nice three-piece suit at the end.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Blancpain watches...*



Andy said:


> And I was rather suspicious when Eva Green's character couldn't tell a Rolex from an Omega!


hihi:icon_smile_big: Lucky for me that I'm wearing a Blancpain... and love it!!!!

Here is a link if anyone wants to know more: https://forums.timezone.com/index.php?t=threadt&frm_id=14&rid=0#msg748031

...from paris


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

Andy said:


> And I was rather suspicious when Eva Green's character couldn't tell a Rolex from an Omega!


Andy, it's not her fault. Omega paid a lot for Bond to switch, they just wanted to make a point. Anyways, she was making inferences about him, she didn't actually see the watch (she just met Bond).

I'll also echo the sentiments that the film was good, mainly beacuse it's based on a real Fleming novel and "old school" (to a point).


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I loved this movie. I felt it was more faithful to my Ian Fleming novels and I think Craig is an appropriately intense and terrific actor.

I'm going to see it again soon.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

hreljan said:


> Andy, it's not her fault. Omega paid a lot for Bond to switch, they just wanted to make a point. Anyways, she was making inferences about him, she didn't actually see the watch (she just met Bond)...


 hreljan:

You're right! Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I was rather surprised at the negative comments about Eva Green. I thought she was awfully damn scrumptious in "Kingdom of Heaven," the only vehicle I've seen her in.


----------



## TennesseeTuxedo (Oct 31, 2004)

This was easily the best Bond since Thunderball (Lazenby couldn't act his way out of a wet paper sack, which more than offsets whatever merits OMSS may have had).

It's true that the sleeves on the dinner jacket were too long, but the "roman shoulder" was very much in evidence. Let's face it, however, this Bond is not a clothes horse like Moore and Brosnan, but neither was the literary Bond. I think there is a post on here somewhere from long ago where someone pointed out that Fleming described the bad guys' clothes and jewelry in far mor detail than Bond's. 

People on this thread have criticized the love story and the torture scene; both come straight from the novel. In the book Bond falls head over heals in love with Vesper and wants to quit the service and marry her. The literary Bond does not bed every single woman he meets. In fact, he has a habit of falling for the women he meets: Vesper, the agent in Moonraker, Solitaire, and Tiffany Case all got under his skin.

As for the torture scene, there is one major difference between the book and the movie. In the movie Bond deals with the pain by taunting Le Chiffre. In the book, he passes out from the pain. If possible, Craig's Bond is even MORE manly than Fleming's, while not being a cartoonish superhero.

True, this Bond isn't as stylish as Moore or Brosnan's, but then again neither was Fleming's.


----------



## uncjam&smurfen (Nov 20, 2006)

should be good cant wait to see it myself! Daniel Craig does look a bit different from the normal bond, but seems to really look the part!

______________________


----------



## DonV (Apr 2, 2006)

TennesseeTuxedo said:


> People on this thread have criticized the love story and the torture scene; both come straight from the novel. In the book Bond falls head over heals in love with Vesper and wants to quit the service and marry her. The literary Bond does not bed every single woman he meets. In fact, he has a habit of falling for the women he meets: Vesper, the agent in Moonraker, Solitaire, and Tiffany Case all got under his skin.


I should clarify: I was not disappointed that there was a love story. However, I thought the lines during that part came off as rather corny. It does give some depth to the Bond character, though-- he's not always detached. He needs to be that way in his line of work: Getting involved with the people he meets can be dangerous or tragic.


----------



## DaveInPhilly (May 16, 2005)

I was sadly disappointed with this particular offering. Also, like Andy, I was distracted but Craig's inability to tie his tie. The movie was just, eh. I was really bothered by the deviations from the franchise. IMHO, they just took too much license with this one, and the poker game was absolutely ridiculous - what’s next Bond driving in a NASCAR race? I understand that you have to appeal to a broader market, but I think this one just went a little too far. I am really surprised to hear this film compared to films like From Russia with Love.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

Mr. Golem said:


> Omega(is that how it is pronounced like he said it? Omeega?)


For as much as I love listening to a good British accent, I just can't get used to how they pronounce Greek letters - Beeta, Theeta, etc.

I really liked the movie and thought that Craig did an amazing job of playing someone transitioning from a 'maladjusted young man' to the suave extrovert you see in later Bond flicks.

If you pay attention to the scene with Vesper on the train, how CraigBond dresses makes a lot of sense - 'from your clothes, you went to Oxford of somewhere or other but you wear but you wear them with such distain...'

I don't think he was at all supposed to be the devotee of the high life that you see in later films hence my not being able to quibble with how he ties his tie or how he wears his dinner jacket.


----------



## David Bresch (Apr 11, 2004)

Obviously, one cannot argue taste and whether this Bond is pleasing is a matter of taste. I adored the film and my wife would run away with Craig if she could.

But on a "meta" level, this film would not have been possible before September 11. After extensive and gory discussion of the fate of our 3000 countrymen, watching Bond get his balls smashed is not so shocking.

There is a great line in "The Kiss of the Dragon (to my mind, one of the greatest karate films ever made)" where the villain played by Tchéky Karyo says, "There is a time for diplomacy and a time for action. Diplomacy is dead."

During that cautious ballet we called the Cold War, suave quips were all we dared. Now, war and attack seem necessary. Even most opponents of the Iraq War, for example, never really argue against war, they argue against this war. We have profoundly changed and Bond, like the successful and enduring franchise that it is, changed with us.


----------



## mrchapel (Jun 21, 2006)

DaveInPhilly said:


> I was sadly disappointed with this particular offering. Also, like Andy, I was distracted but Craig's inability to tie his tie. The movie was just, eh. I was really bothered by the deviations from the franchise. IMHO, they just took too much license with this one, and the poker game was absolutely ridiculous - what's next Bond driving in a NASCAR race? I understand that you have to appeal to a broader market, but I think this one just went a little too far. I am really surprised to hear this film compared to films like From Russia with Love.


The original, and first, James Bond novel by Ian Fleming, Casino Royale, is what this film is based on...


----------



## Kai (Jul 30, 2003)

This was my favorite Bond movie since the Connery days. I'd put it right up there with From Russia with Love.

I'm glad they got away from the silly campy crap that had pretty much ruined the franchise. 

Craig is a terrific Bond, and joins Connery and Dalton as one of my favorites. He's perfect for the gritty script. The two Bond girls are stunning, particularly Eva Green. 

I'm going to see it again, which I would never have considered doing for any Bond film in recent memory.


----------



## mrchapel (Jun 21, 2006)

Kai said:


> This was my favorite Bond movie since the Connery days. I'd put it right up there with From Russia with Love.
> 
> I'm glad they got away from the silly campy crap that had pretty much ruined the franchise.
> 
> ...


I agree with you completely.


----------



## Soph (Sep 25, 2005)

Kai said:


> This was my favorite Bond movie since the Connery days. I'd put it right up there with From Russia with Love.
> 
> I'm glad they got away from the silly campy crap that had pretty much ruined the franchise.
> 
> ...


Agreed, the movie as a whole may actually be the best. Connery still has a slight advantage over Craig when it comes to the suave, sophisticated look department; other than that, Bond just got some respect versus becoming a a long standing joke.


----------



## DaveInPhilly (May 16, 2005)

mrchapel said:


> The original, and first, James Bond novel by Ian Fleming, Casino Royale, is what this film is based on...


Yes, I know that. I am not quite sure why you singled my post out specifically.

It's been some time since I have read any of the novels, and to be honest I'm not sure that I have ever read Casino Royal, but I am willing to bet that Bond certainly did not play Texas Hold 'Em in Fleming's version. And they certainly didn't have cell phones back when the novel was first written, so I doubt it was initially intended as the two and a half hour Sony Ericcson commercial it turned out to be.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

DaveInPhilly said:


> Yes, I know that. I am not quite sure why you singled my post out specifically.
> 
> It's been some time since I have read any of the novels, and to be honest I'm not sure that I have ever read Casino Royal, but I am willing to bet that Bond certainly did not play Texas Hold 'Em in Fleming's version. And they certainly didn't have cell phones back when the novel was first written, so I doubt it was initially intended as the two and a half hour Sony Ericcson commercial it turned out to be.


Bond didn't play poker in the novel, and I don't believe it was in any previous film either. He always played Chemin de Fer Baccarat. In both the novel and prior films. As I'm sure Chemin de fer is hardly know to most of the public, Texas Hold 'Em can relate to more people. I find the rules of Chemin de fer to be quite easy to understand, just it isn't what most people know. Perhaps if Texas Hold 'Em had a more sophisticated sounding name. I just don't think of Bond as the Texas Hold 'Em type. I'd leave that to John Wayne.


----------



## creat3cp (Apr 2, 2006)

just to add to kill 2 person in order to get your double 'O'.


----------



## andrei67 (Dec 7, 2004)

*agree*



ice said:


> This is the least masculin Bond ever. I suspect they are reinventing the whole series to appeal more to women.


I decided not to quote the whole of the message just simply not to overburden the page, but I totally agree with ICE.
I went to the premiere while in SaintPete with my future intended and she liked it much more than me. Whereas Daniel Craig is not that bad really (I believe he had to oblige to the producing team vision of reviving their franchise), I have a strong suspicion that would Clive Owen accepted it he'd be perfect.
With regard to shirtmaking I am positive that T&A made them - at least the evening ones - since I had and invitation from them back in August to order a special Casino Royale replica evening shirt...
Overall - an actioner in the modern "explosive" tradition, regrettably the Bourne movies have more original Fleming spirit than this one.


----------



## narticus (Aug 24, 2006)

ice said:


> This is the least masculin Bond ever.


Most of the comments from the "interested in clothing thread" mention their inspiration as coming from friends and family, most especially fathers and grandfathers. Bond didn't have those role models. Letting a women dress you on an ongoing basis would be emasculating; being introduced to the joys of a well-fitting garment is not. If learning to appreciate the look of a well-cut garment is effeminate "preening", then there is a serious lack of testosterone on this board.

Versper Lynd controls the action? Wai Lin (Tomorrow Never Dies) rescued Bond every five minutes in that film, and Elektra King ran the entire show in The World is Not Enough";don't get me started on Jinx. Yet "sensitive" Pierce Brosnan is more masculine? I think not. Don't tell me Roger Moore could have handled the brutality of the opening scene or the stairwell scene of this film. Moore would have looked more campy than ever, if that is possible. Maybe Moore could have borrowed Timothy Dalton's rocket launching car to take out the tanker at the airport.

Daniel Craig still needs another film or two to prove he's capable of being Bond, but these claims of emasculation are a bit too much. I agree that he should spend more time wearing his shirt, and he should never, ever be seen driving a Ford.


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

I always thought that perhaps Liam Neeson or George Clooney can be a good 007.
Although CLooney would have to work on his accent.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

David Bresch said:


> Obviously, one cannot argue taste and whether this Bond is pleasing is a matter of taste. I adored the film and my wife would run away with Craig if she could.
> 
> But on a "meta" level, this film would not have been possible before September 11. After extensive and gory discussion of the fate of our 3000 countrymen, watching Bond get his balls smashed is not so shocking.
> 
> ...


David,

That is a very interesting and insightful post.

Thanks.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

*Would the movie have worked without a reboot?*

The consensus is that the movie was good, and I agree. I liked it and the actor very much. I was even surprised how they were able to work in so much humour. Still, I'm a little nostalgic for Brosnan.

This makes me wonder if the script would have worked without going back to the beginning. Just adapting the Casino Royale story as a subsequent film after Die Another Day. He can still fall for Vesper in the same way he fell for Tracy. Who knows, with Brosnan's star power, maybe the movie could have beaten "Happy Feet" for #1 last weekend!


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

AMVanquish said:


> The consensus is that the movie was good, and I agree. I liked it and the actor very much. I was even surprised how they were able to work in so much humour. Still, I'm a little nostalgic for Brosnan.
> 
> This makes me wonder if the script would have worked without going back to the beginning. Just adapting the Casino Royale story as a subsequent film after Die Another Day. He can still fall for Vesper in the same way he fell for Tracy. Who knows, with Brosnan's star power, maybe the movie could have beaten "Happy Feet" for #1 last weekend!


The movie definetly could have worked without starting over again. No problem. The general plot of the movie could happen anytime in Bond's career. And with Brosnan, falling for Vesper would be no problem. They could have done it like For Your Eyes Only after Moonraker, and it would have been that way if Cubby were still alive. If he were still alive we would not see a reboot and Brosnan would still be Bond. Wilson tried this once before and had to wait until Cubby was no longer around.


----------



## Flashy (Mar 15, 2006)

*RIP 007*

I seem to be in the minority here, as I think Casino Royal missed the mark completely, taking into account both the previous films and the Fleming novels. Craig's Bond is nothing more than a thug who sometimes wears an expensive suit. Admittedly, Fleming's character was not a gentleman-killer. but I see Fleming's character as having much more depth than Craig's portrayal (certainly this is more the fault of the writers than of Craig's).
Fleming spends much time on Bond's reluctance to kill all through the series, but Craig's Bond had no such internal turmoil.

Completely lacking from this movie is Bond's close relationship with M. Fleming often mentions 007's love for M, as a son loves a strict father, or a soldier loves a commanding officer. Also lacking form the movie is any real connection between 007 and Vesper. The romance at the end of the movie seems too forced. All in all, the OHMSS movie was horrible, but the romance between Lazenby and Riggs, and his subsequent grief over her death were far more touching than in Casino. Further, I was disappointed by the writer's betrayal of Rene Matthais and the way Felix was short-shifted. The movie Maverick had a more suspenseful poker scene than this movie. The clothing was awful, including the dinner jacket without a cummerbund or vest. Bond spent more time in jeans than in business dress. Because of this, the baroque settings seems superficial, not as natural as the settings in previous Bond movies. Finally, Vesper was much more human in the novel, and hers suicide in the novel was much more poignant than her death in the movie.

There were some high points to the movie. I was glad to see bond in something besides a solid white or light blue shirt--though, I wasn't thrilled by the collar. The three piece pinstripe 007 wore at the end of the film was beautiful, as was the peak lapel linen suit worn in Nassau. The locals equaled to surpassed previous movies. The Salon Prive was a beautiful realization of Fleming's words. From the end of the poker match (what happened to baccarat, anyway?) through LeChiffre's assassination was the high point of the movie. but choosing the torture scene as Bond's only quips was in questionable taste.

My hopes for this movie were pretty low, but even so, Casino Royal failed to deliver.

Cheers
Flashy


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

narticus said:


> .....and he should never, ever be seen driving a Ford.


Too late. He drove a Mustang in _Diamonds_.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Isn't any Aston Martin since the 2000's a Ford?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

I saw _Casino_ last night and I must say I loved it! I've never read any of Fleming's novels so I can't comment on the character being more true to them but I really liked the way Craig was allowed to play him. He was a very interesting character and displayed a range that was at times sensitive (shower scene), cold blooded and whimsical like the Bond of Connery.

It was interesting to see him evolve, both in character and in dress. The suit he wore at the end was beautiful and I wish we could only have seen more of him like that. Perhaps in future installments. Also, is it just me or did anyone else notice that every car featured in the movie, even ones parked in lots and driven by others, were in the Ford family?


----------



## Trilby (Aug 11, 2004)

I also noticed that every car in the film came from the Ford group. The product placement was a little heavy handed - the camera lingering just a bit too long on the Ford logo - but I actually didn't object to Bond driving a Ford Focus (or whatever it was).

It's just the sort of car that you would get from an airport car rental place, especially on a government expense account. I liked how there was a plausible explanation for Bond driving a fancy car - he won the DB5 while gambling and the new Aston Martin was consistent with his cover story as a high-stakes international gambler.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

I thought there was a beautiful moment when he first tries on Vesper's dubiously 'tailored' dinner jacket in the large bathroom mirror. The camera positions directly behind him, and you can see the silhouette of the jacket perfectly in the opposite mirror. It is a beautiful Savile Row shape with the deep cut at the waist. Excellent.

The dinner jacket was a modern take on a classic style. Of course he didn't wear a cummerbund. Just as well too or he may have had a harder job breathing back into life on the seat of his Aston Martin in the car park. Bond is an action man and so surely makes such judgement calls when in the field.

Daniel Craig's jeans were always fitted at the seat and waist and the leg was always of a perfect length. I often thought his jeans looked tailored, or at least adjusted to fit him perfectly.

How anyone can flaw this film in the clothing department is beyond me.


----------



## Soph (Sep 25, 2005)

I personally like a Bond who would drown your a## in a toilet rather than shoot you to make a point. He's a killer first folks, that's not a pleasant business. If you killed someone with your bare hands or shot them, and had a license to do so, emotionally you really would have to be cold as hell and willing to get your hands very dirty and bloody at times. You'd have to be in boxer like condition. Craig makes one of the first believeable Bonds in a very long time.

If you want cheese and fake, you can watch Moore reruns and Austin Powers.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

*Really enjoyed Casino Royale*

For me, this was the best Bond since Connery. Maybe even better--and I am huge Connery fan.

Basically, the character was much closer to the type of personality who work in that business. It was summed up nicely in the scene on the train: "Former SAS men with big smiles and expensive watches." (or words to that effect.). Nice cultured sensitive guys do not get into that business. Brosnan was way too frail-looking for the part in my opinion.

I also like that they have also "re-booted" the bond girls. The women in the movie had more realistic roles. The little 105 lb Bond girls who were beating the daylights out of platoons of soldiers got as tiresome as the dopy gizmos and the predictable quips.

For the first time in decades, I'm actually looking forward to the next installment.


----------



## andrei67 (Dec 7, 2004)

I still maintain that this last producers' version (believing that it was their idea and vision rather than Craig's) has nothing to do with the original literary one - despite their claims to the opposite. There is a difference between a special agent licensed to kille and the killer.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

AMVanquish said:


> Isn't any Aston Martin since the 2000's a Ford?


But not for long. 

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17576591/


----------



## IamNear (May 18, 2006)

Does anybody have any pictures of Bond's double breasted suit at the end?


----------



## mrchapel (Jun 21, 2006)

IamNear said:


> Does anybody have any pictures of Bond's double breasted suit at the end?


It's not a double-breasted suit...it's a SB 3 piece:


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

nice suit .. but gieves n hawkes , anderson & sheppard etc etc would have done it better ! :icon_smile:


----------



## mrchapel (Jun 21, 2006)

english_gent said:


> nice suit .. but gieves n hawkes , anderson & sheppard etc etc would have done it better ! :icon_smile:


Indeed they would have. Sadly, it's come down to who can produce the number of suits required for filming? As I hear, it used to be that when a garment tore during filming, it was quickly sewed back together. But for Bond, I've heard they just get another suit out of however many suits Brioni created for that specific scene.

Still looks good though.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

David Bresch said:


> But on a "meta" level, this film would not have been possible before September 11. After extensive and gory discussion of the fate of our 3000 countrymen, watching Bond get his balls smashed is not so shocking.


I find this observation interesting, given that this scene is virtually the only one taken whole cloth from Ian Fleming's 1954 novel.



David Bresch said:


> During that cautious ballet we called the Cold War, suave quips were all we dared. Now, war and attack seem necessary. Even most opponents of the Iraq War, for example, never really argue against war, they argue against this war. We have profoundly changed and Bond, like the successful and enduring franchise that it is, changed with us.


I dare say that few of those involved in the Cold War on a day-to-day level would find the description of it as a "cautious ballet" terribly appropriate. The CIA headquarters in Langley has an entire monument dedicated to its agents that lost their lives, most in the "Cold War". 35 are represented by stars on that monument because their names still can't be revealed.

Just my opinion.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

mrchapel said:


> Indeed they would have. Sadly, it's come down to who can produce the number of suits required for filming? As I hear, it used to be that when a garment tore during filming, it was quickly sewed back together. But for Bond, I've heard they just get another suit out of however many suits Brioni created for that specific scene.
> 
> Still looks good though.


i read an article that stated that fact .. but c'mon its just product placement despite the protests of the film producers about ' no money changing hands ' .

a savile row house , given sufficient notice could produce the required amount of suits to clothe the actor , the stuntmen , replacements due to damage etc... its not as if they hired DC then started filiming the next day.

lets see bond back in the savile row suits he deserves , and if product placement money is so important to the film company ( the staggering profits they make at the box office despite the multi hundred million dollar production costs should keep them happy ) , i'll empty my piggy bank .. if a wallet full of 'crisp benjamins' gets them all juicey. :icon_smile_big:

but then again , bond might not be so deadly if he's wearing a fabulous bespoke masterpiece , i wouldnt dare get into a tear up if it ruined my savile row suit. if he's got brioni duplicates on tap i spose he can afford to be wreckless and brave !


----------



## johnnyblazini (Feb 24, 2006)

ice said:


> This is the least masculin Bond ever. I suspect they are reinventing the whole series to appeal more to women.
> 
> This Bond is simply not manly. He starts seducing an unbelievably beautiful women, then leaves her alone in his bedroom to rush off to the airport. Would any of the old Bond have done that? Impossible! They were always willing to have their villians wait while they finished their conquests.
> 
> ...


I agree. I am surprised that noone else seemed to have noticed this.

Overall, I think there are more dissenters on the styleforum, which surprises me.

The franchise did need a change of direction, but not this one...


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

ice .. this is not the 'old bond we love ' cuz daniel craig is playing a rookie bond.

people dont seem to get this.

vesper was very much guiding/assisting bond on his first mission .

we got a tantalising glimpse of the bond we are familiar with in the end scene when he utters those immortal words in that fabulous suit and the guitar choon kicks in , after kneecapping mr white.

if craig had adhered to the familar template of bond we are accustom too , critics would have attacked it as unauthentic , crying this is not how a newly promoted '00' would behave , he's jumped ahead of himself.

the bond , a suave seducer , we all know took time and many missions to get to that point.

and we see bond reaching that point and about embark on that journey after his first mission.

craig was magnificent in casino royale , he played an inexperienced agent on his learning curve , bang on. he also showed us how bond became bond.

we'll get the old bond we are comfortable with in the oncoming movies.
the final scene in casino royale showed us that.

i like craig , he's a bad ass.


----------



## The_Foxx (Dec 21, 2003)

*bond in brioni*

I think Sophistication brought up the point of Bond's brioni suit....the shoulders were very roped, seemingly much more than I am used to seeing with Brioni. Particularly evident on the train.

Just for the record, and my favorite brand's reputation, Brioni doesn't always look this severe. I just posted some photos of my recently purchased MTM Brioni suit on the styleforum, if you're interested in seeing the cut/ styling.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

This was the best Bond movie ever! What's this BS about femininity?

He's a man's man. He just ditched the Murino chick because he had to go on a mission. He can get laid later.

As for the StyleForum I would think they would want a feminine-like Bond since they are so metrosexual over there


----------



## Neo1824 (Nov 22, 2006)

I completely agree..best bond yet! I loved how he is starting out rough around the edges and the realism of the fight scenes.

Foxx...love the Brioni on SF! :aportnoy:


----------



## johnnyblazini (Feb 24, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> He's a man's man. He just ditched the Murino chick because he had to go on a mission. He can get laid later.


See, this is where James Bond usually has his priorities straights...


----------



## johnnyblazini (Feb 24, 2006)

english_gent said:


> ice .. this is not the 'old bond we love ' cuz daniel craig is playing a rookie bond.
> 
> people dont seem to get this.
> 
> ...


You are right he is a bad ass, and that is the problem, he has no class.

But his role as a bad ass isn't even well played as he falls in love with a sub-par girl. And, what's with the "single girls are not my type" thing? And, why is he being told how to dress, etc, etc, etc.

Its not a question of inexperience, he just dosen't fit.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

johnnyblazini said:


> Its not a question of inexperience, he just dosen't fit.


I thought he fit Bond quite well. If you want to see where he really doesn't fit, see him as Guy Crouchback in Sword of Honour.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

johnnyblazini ... bond is at the BEGINNING !

vesper introduces to him to fine tailoring (the tux which he admires in the mirror after initial protest and the scene on the train where she comments about his inapropriate public school dress sense) .

bond falls in love then is betrayed .. this shows us how bond became the cad and bahhhstud we all know and love... he reached out for love and a normal life while he 'still has some soul left ' , knowing it would fail so he could put it all behind him .. but he still had to reach out for it. hence the bond we are all familar with is shown its origins.

he's a brute .. wouldnt an ex SAS with minimal experience in MI6 agent be as such ?

bond is a rough diamond in casino royale and in the oncoming movies we will see the polished gem emrge. the final scene in CR showed us that. he earned his cad stripes and a broken heart morphed him into a hearltess heart-breaker.

M and vesper were mothering the noob on his first mission . they were keeping an eye on his 'perfectly formed arse'.

craig is the perfect man for the job. he's both animalistic and sophisticated. we will see more of the sophisticated .


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

*DON'T READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!*

While I don't think that this movie is beyond criticism, I am unconvinced by the criticism it is receiving here. The "Real Bond would have done..." arguments that are presented cite matters which come straight from the book, for goodness sake. The matter of Bond falling for an unseemly woman is actually toned down from Fleming's novel. In the novel he's practically a love starved school boy, willing to overlook nearly every affront she sends his way.

My criticism of the movie is that we don't see quite the transformation the book provides. This is partly because the movie tries to rehabilitate Vesper a bit. In the novel she's a true traitor who betrays her country for years, whereas the movie makes it seem as if she made some deal with the enemy to save Bond at the last minute. Therefore she comes out more likeable. Even M feels sorry for her for Pete's sake. In the book though, because she's proven the villian in the end, we see Bond's complete grief at her death being transformed as he reads her suicide note, which explains the full extent of her treachery. Then the final line in the book at the end of his report back to London ending with: "Tell them the ***** is dead."

I agree with English Gent that this is the early unrefined Bond, as he is meant to be. To criticize him because he hasn't reached his full refinement is to not understand the character.

Also, the idea that the torture scene was somehow a manufactured emasculation is also a ridiculous error, since it's one of the few scenes in the movie that is cut whole cloth from Fleming's novel. By the way, the book makes it clear that he regains full use of his...well...his abilities.


----------



## johnnyblazini (Feb 24, 2006)

Gent: I definetely like the argument you are making. But if you are correct in your assesment that this was the "teachings" of an early Bond, I would have to think that it was poorly put together. 

Anyhow, I will watch the next Bond with an open mind, but I can't say that I expect to be moved... I hope Craig will live up to his title... I suspect he will not...


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

johnnyblazini said:


> Gent: I definetely like the argument you are making. But if you are correct in your assesment that this was the "teachings" of an early Bond, I would have to think that it was poorly put together.
> 
> Anyhow, I will watch the next Bond with an open mind, but I can't say that I expect to be moved... I hope Craig will live up to his title... I suspect he will not...


have you seen layercake ?

thats the film that got craig the bond gig. especially the assassination scene of the crime boss.

craig is very smooth and gentlemanly in that. in fact i think casino royale lifted big chunks of layercake to add to CR. unless the producers of LC had an inkiling craig could be the next bond and put some very bondesque scenes in it. :icon_smile_big:

i think craig may surpass connery as the best bond in his next two contracted movies.

he's got it in spades, not since connery have we seen an actor look like he could actually kill you with his bare hands and still be a smooth style icon .

i look forward to seeing how the mr white plot develops in the next movie.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

I have read all the Fleming Bond novels. CR is the only movie thus far that even comes close to the writings.

That fight scene in the stairwell and the fight scene at the beginning of the movie were both great!

M8


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

stand out scene for myself , the scene where i actually 'got it' was the shower scene after the stairwell fight , where bond is comforting vesper.

here we see bond being gentle , tender and comforting. does this make him a wuss ??? NO.

its actually quite horrific when you think about it.

this scene shows that james bond can be brutal and murderous one minute and totally empathetic and vunerable the next. he can turn it on and off like a switch. one extreme of behaviour to the other. that makes james a MONSTER OF ALL MONSTERS.

throw in the masochistic nature of the torture scene and craig shows us the severe personality disorder of a secret service killer.

craig is bringing a whole lot to the table if you look past the crash bang of the action scenes.

i also liked the fact le chiffre was no meglomaniac looking to take over the world , but a desperate man trying to make it through. 

critics of the film said mad's performance was boring . oh no .. he displayed the poker face of man with a losing hand in life apropriately.


----------



## johnnyblazini (Feb 24, 2006)

english_gent said:


> i think craig may surpass connery as the best bond in his next two contracted movies.


Serious statement. Discussion to be continued...


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

english_gent said:


> i also liked the fact le chiffre was no meglomaniac looking to take over the world , but a desperate man trying to make it through.


I really enjoyed this aspect of the film. I'm awfully tired of the madman with satellites thing. Satellites played a key role in 3 of 4 Brosnan movies. Makes it all a bit dull. Le Chiffre was playing for real and comprehensible stakes, $100million. It made is all more approachable. Where, anyway, do evil madmen get the legions of jumpsuited henchmen that are required to operate mission control, the submarine-swallowing oil tanker, the volcano layer, etc.? Le Chiffre had none of that. He was just a guy on the other side, the wrong side. I thought it worked very well.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

its a shame robert shaw couldnt have debuted his 'red grant' oposite craig.

two vile beasts differentiated only by their allegiances but both as despicable as the other and a true match.

red grant only lost to bond in FRWL not because bond was cleverer , better , more morally good etc... its just grant had one more vice/flaw than james in that given situation , his own greed destroyed him.

thats what bond is all about .. total wars of attrition between ugly characters including our own.

where the best dont win , only the slightly worse win or in fact lose.

erm .. im getting carried away here . heh. :icon_smile_big:


----------

