Being a Bond fan generally my entire life (I was bred on the Connery flicks as a youngster) it pains me to be a part of the "Pierce Brosnan Bond generation". Outside o fGoldenEye, his role as Bond is tripe. The scripts are terrible cliches. The Bond women became Hollywood actresses that brought too much weight to a role. Villians became useless. It was all a show for Brosnan's ego and what Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson could do with the money and the hero they inherited from their father (CGI parasailing, anyone?).

To start, Daniel Craig as Bond is one of the nicest things anyone could think of. I saw Layer Cake shortly after his announcement last year and I was sold on his choice. IN Casino Royale he brings the Bond role forward; he gives a bigger hint at what Brosnan almost accomplished as Bond in the opening sequences of Die Another Day: he makes Bond believable. He can get hurt, he can get captured, and he has an ego which makes him think otherwise. Craig isn't Connery. Craig isn't Moore. Craig isn't Lazenby. Craig isn't Dalton. Craig isn't Brosnan trying to be a bastard child of Connery and Moore. Craig is his own Bond. And it's perfect. Sure it doesn't fit Ian Felming' visual description of Bond; but neither has hardly anyone else. What matters is how he portrays this government agent; and he portrays Bond as a hardened assassin. His job doesn't please him, but, as he points out later in the film, he has no other options.

After the adreline-charged first act (easily the most intense in the series) the film is set up and sticks very closely (surprisingly so) to the novel. As is well known, the game of baccarat is changed to poker; but it's not distracting enough to take you out of the story and characters. Le Chiffre is played with cunning by Mads Mikkelson; he's a very memorable vilian with serious ambitions. He's in trouble too, and that's why the character works as a villian. There are other forces outside of both he and Bond that could render danger at any moment. Eva Green is exceptionally gorgeous as Vesper Lynd and her character - per the book - is a massive weight upon Bond's ultimate soul. It's nothign short of fantastic set-up for the series as a whole. I still have a little trouble in the keeping of Judi Dench as M; mainly because this is a restart and I would have prefered a different M for continuity's sake. Perhaps Bernard Hill?

David Arnold's score is - if you've heard the album - the best of his Bond scores; hands down. After the first listening, I wasn't sold because it's tough to top the TND score. In the film, it brings a great amount of joy, it works in every scene and the action music really has your heart racing. After hearing "You Know My Name" in the opening credits (another gorgeous sequence, very retro) I had a little more respect. And hearing the theme repeated from that song throughout the picture definitely added to it's overall continuity. You'll notice that the actual "James Bond Theme" won't occur during any of the expected moments during the film; and for good reason. When it finally rears it beautifully orchestrated head in the films finale (at the perfect moment), you'll appreciate Daniel Craig as Bond even more.

I have two more viewings of this film before the weekend is over; I'm greatly anticipating each one with my girlfriend and friends, respectively, as I can't wait to watch this radically different Bond with a packed crowd.

NP> Arnold's Casino Royale (*****/*****)

[Message edited by nuts_score on 11-17-2006]

I personally didn't understand why virtually everyone was dreading what he would be like as Bond. A while back when I first saw him and read about him, I thought he would make a great Bond. Just goes to show that we shouldn't judge someone so soon.

How was David Arnold's score? Not too heavy on the electronics, I hope?

Edit:

Have you seen the soundtrack album tracklist?

How do ya like "Death of Vesper" for a track title? LOL! I haven't seen a spoiler track title like that since Gladiator and the Sixth Sense, respectively "The Emperor Is Dead," and "Malcolm Is Dead."

Funny stuff. What were they thinking?

quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoVoyager:
Have you seen the soundtrack album tracklist?

How do ya like "Death of Vesper" for a track title? LOL! I haven't seen a spoiler track title like that since Gladiator and the Sixth Sense, respectively "The Emperor Is Dead," and "Malcolm Is Dead."

Funny stuff. What were they thinking?

---

Well, as a Bond fan from way back, and having read all the books, I knew 30 years ago what happened to Vesper Lynd.

Yeah, perhaps non-fans wouldn't know, but hey, it's not like that hasn't happened before. Heck, it just happened last year with the Serenity score CD.

Man!!

Can't wait for the next film. Daniel Craig starts his debut as Bond with strength and respect for the character. He'll only get better. I'd like to add that I am a fan of Brosnan as Bond, but Craig's start here is 10x stronger than Brosnan's in GoldenEye, hands down...

Seeing it again tomorrow.

Jeron

quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoVoyager:

I personally didn't understand why virtually everyone was dreading what he would be like as Bond. A while back when I first saw him and read about him, I thought he would make a great Bond. Just goes to show that we shouldn't judge someone so soon.

---

Anyone who griped to me about the choice of Craig I immediately showed them Layer Cake (and later Munich); many of my friends changed their mind, others were still pouting over his hair color (I guess blondes don't make good secret agents, flawed logic I assume).

quote:

---

How was David Arnold's score? Not too heavy on the electronics, I hope?

---

Arnold's score was, again, phenominal. The electronics are light and hardly noticable in the film (some of the less-action packed scenes were the only notices). Since I've read the book I wasn't upset about the track title, but I'm sure it may have disappointed some unaware viewers. The album is such a joy; over 70 minutes of really good David Arnold music is a blessing.

NeoVoyager, you'd be doing yourself a disservice in not seeing the movie on the big screen. It's the only recent Bond that has really stuck with me after viewing (I just returned from the second tonight). The crowd enjoyed every second of Craig on-screen and apparently my girlfriend won't talk to me until I look as good as him (which, I'm not ashamed to say, is amazing). Craig brings a more Connery-approach to the role. He's built and thuggish, but it's not too thuggish. His physicality adds to the character, IMO. Especially in the torture scene; the way that he handles it physically and mentally is something only he or Connery could've pulled off.

NP> Arnold's Casino Royale (*****/*****)

And from a female perspective, I love Daniel Craig as Bond. His looks, charm, vulnerability, charisma, everything...he's just so dreamy and attractive. Can you tell I have a slight crush on him?

I had a crush on Brandon Routh too when Superman Returns came out. I'm just a sucker for heroes/leading men I guess. They make me swoon.

Arnold's score is great as always. Still not sure if the Chris Cornell song exactly fits as a Bond song...I like the song, but Bond songs need to be sensuous and enticing. I think Tricky, Massive Attack or even Christina Aguilera - in jazz mode - could deliver such a song. Cornell works in Michael Mann films, but not sure if he works completely in the Bond environment.

Spoilers...

Plus-side:
* Best Bond yet. Daniel Craig is great - just hope the drama-side of his career stays alive and well. His playing is brilliant throughout, but the torture scene nicely rests on his performance.
* Jeffrey Wright as 'an American friend' - the 'does it look like we need the money?' is the best line in a film this year. Hope this character builds in future episodes.
* Eva Green is the most respectable Bond femme flame yet and (surprisingly given her 'performance' in The Dreamers) manages to get through the role without having to disrobe excessively. (Good for her!)
* Giancarlo Gianini is a great actor, and even though his role is something of a 'nothing' role, it's good to see him here.
* Mads Mikaelson and the other nasties are all good, though none make too much of an impression.
* The simplicity of centering the most important section of the action around a card game... and how I wish there were more of it.
* The Pre-Credits sequence
* The African Rundown chase - some brilliant stuntwork, this replaces the patented opening action sequence from the previous films.

Negative:
* The false ending gives the audience too much time to think out what will happen next.
* I think we needed to see the 'half-sunglasses' guy at least once before he makes his first appearance, if only as a side-note.
* I felt a little ahead of the plot during the card-games...
* As always with Bonds, you can't help but feel that it wouldn't have hurt to take out $50 million from the budget... This is still pretty excessive.
* Did the airport scene really have to be there? Seemed like an obligatory action scene if ever there was one, and since the story is STILL in the first act, it wouldn't have hurt to reduce it to a 2-3 minute scene of simpler scale. When you think about it, if the film had to be shortened, then this is one of the least relevant sections to the plot.
* David Arnold's love music is insistently (and distractingly) Barryesque at times. It's almost the real thing, but you know it's not. The beach scene with Solange stands out, as does some of the Vesper/Bond scoring.
* The house falling down in Venice is a hint of other Bond film finales... why are they always so limp in the last sequence? A run-and-gun shootout through the streets of Venice with tourists all around would have been so much more interesting.
* Not the Bourne film it clearly wants to be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
I've returned to defend the film against some Mr. Conrad's cons. First off, Jeffrey Wright's "American friend"-character is actually CIA agent Felix Leiter, a prominent and important character in the Bond-verse (and sadly discarded after his unfortunate maiming in License to Kill and replaced with Joe Don Baker's continuity-killing Jack Wade, thanks again Pierce, Barbara, and Michael! ). I am very pleased that you acknowledge his many great lines throughout the poker sequences.

---

I know who he is, but since the movie seemed to be keeping this little reference a surprise, I thought I wouldn't spoil it, and I thought calling him a 'friend in Langley' would give the game away.

quote:

---

I understand where you're coming from with the false ending arguement, but I always prefer my films with false endings to have the character of 007 in them anyway. The man with the eyepatch (Gettler) appears in the novel at the moment he does in the film and is Bond's reasoning for distrusting Vesper as quickly as he does. His appearance earlier in the film might have warned uninformed viewers of Vesper's eventual betrayal.

---

Firstly, Bond doesn't see him in the film, Vesper does. Which makes it a really strange beat... like it was a decision made in editing, not in the script. The editing would have had to indicate that Bond looked at Vesper differently after seeing the man, but the shot of Bond at the end of that scene doesn't give any indication that he noticed the man, let alone is suspecting Vesper. As he said - he can't see her 'give'. (Not that he could see Le Chiffre's, mind you - Le Chiffre staged one for him, a point not enough was made of in the film.)

Secondly, I don't think you need to see him with Vesper earlier in the film - I wouldn't have minded him appearing briefly at the hotel as a suspicious onlooker in the lobby watching Bond about to attempt the knifing. His appearance there, or somewhere else, would appear to be random - just an extra. Then when Vesper saw him in Venice, we would have wondered what that man we saw earlier was doing there... not necessarily suspect her.

quote:

---

The airport scene is crucial to the plot. Le Chiffre invested the African's money in the airplane's demise (a great hint of post-9/11 paranoia). The set-up of the first act is finding out where Le Chiffre went wrong with the money (and hopefully they bring SMERSH into later films, I'm praying that Live and Let Die will live again (pun intended) as a more faithful adaptation for Craig's brilliant portrayal of Bond). So, as the action might seem gratutious to you, if the scene wasn't there, the scene in which the African's confront Le Chiffre at the Casino's hotel room might seem questionable (as well as Le Chiffre's purpose for needing the money so much since they dropped the brothel sub-plot from the novel). I also thought the stunt work and action in the sequence was top-notch and I would be disheartened to see it go.

---

I don't deny the importance of that plot point, but this way of getting it in there was far out of proportion to what was needed. I just think this film was at its best when it kept things small and personal. (E.g the knifing.) The airport scene could have been a 3-5 minute nail-baiting pursuit of a bomber without throwing in bits of SPEED and the RAIDERS truck chase, instead of being a 12 minute attempt at a (brilliantly filmed) setpiece that belonged in the excess of a Brosnan film. It betrays the producer's lack of confidence in the strength of a smaller film. (Rather like the absurd falling house imagery in the final scene - that's the wrong end of the film for a macro-catastrophe to motivate an action scene... this is the part where emotion needs to drive everything. Eva Green needs to be a direct casualty of a gunfight that Bond participates in - whether he or they shoot her - not a victim of circumstance.)

Other areas that could have been slimmed down... perhaps a little of the post-torture scene, 2 minutes at the most. I think if the overall film had been about 10 minutes shorter, it wouldn't have suffered.

quote:

---

I'm hoping you're joking about the Bourne comment; because no where in the film do I get any hint of the Jason Bourne films. This is Bond back to the basics. It certainly took the popularity of the Bourne series for Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli to realize they had wronged the franchise; but it's in no way a Bourne movie. I can also claim this as fact because the camera movements are fluid and classic filmmaking.

---

That's perhaps one thing for me... A gritty opening sequence - visible grain, strong angles, hard light at times - forshadowed something other than the very classical polite film-making that followed. But this is not a film about a polite man... so maybe something less polished might have been nice. (Though Martin Campbell doesn't do that, and I understand. This isn't a big bone for me.)

But my comparison to the BOURNE series was simpler than that. In the genre of modern espionage films, I like them more, and it's simply because rarely in those films has the budget been sufficient for the fireworks to burn out of proportion to the strength of the emotions at any given moment. I will watch those films more than this one, because I find the story and its translation more convincing. Here I feel a couple unnecessary throwbacks compromised it a bit.

quote:

---

As for Arnold's music, I'm working on a little essay about his evolving Bond scores and how much the man must respect John Barry (as we all should). I'll take any David Arnold Bond score over Marvin Hamlisch.

---

I think he must admire Barry a great deal. I found that a little distracting. I didn't mind the action stuff that much, but the love scenes were a little insistently imitative. Look forward to reading your thoughts at length.

I have no criticism to offer.

The score only got better after actually seeing the film, especially that fantastic pile-driver of an action cue, "Miami International"! WOW! And that sequence is my favourite action scene of the film. Stuart Baird's editing is impeccable and impressive, as is Martin Campbell's direction of the material. Paul Haggis found his true calling, perhaps, with 007: I have no problems with his screenplay; nothing is overly sentimental, and racism didn't push Sandra Bullock down some stairs this time around.