Already a member?
Sign in
Welcome! Wikis are websites that everyone can build together. It's easy!
Location: Casino Royale
Discussion: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Watch
 northbreed |
"Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Jul 12 2007, 5:17 PM EDT [continued from Part 2 of review] 5) Producer infamy/creative poverty: Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the film’s producers, lacking the vision and ingenuity to advance Bond’s personal timeline onscreen, reveal their creative bankruptcy by bringing 007 back to the beginning of his secret service career, presenting him in his most unflattering incarnation yet. Out go Bond’s cinematically-cultivated charm and conviction. The new Bond is an uninteresting, expressionless, muscle-bound nihilist and a disgracefully vulnerable “hero.” The producers deliberately emphasize Bond’s vulnerability by subjecting him, incredibly, to cardiac arrest(!) as well as a horrific trial of torture (this latter was a rotten, graphic part of Fleming’s original novel). Putting obstacles in a purposeful screen hero’s path makes for good drama; but these shocking “Casino-Royale” examples are an extremely sick way to challenge a hero and are certainly artistically unworthy of depiction onscreen. Considering all these points, it is clear that “Casino Royale” is neither value-driven art nor fan-pleasing entertainment. The proof is in the picture. “Casino Royale” is the highest-grossing Bond film to date. But consider: 1. This fact merely indicates the degree of public curiosity about or interest in James Bond and owes virtually everything to the franchise’s longstanding cinematic appeal and reputation (earned by much better films and performances in the series and betrayed dramatically by “Casino Royale”). 2. This fact confirms nothing about public satisfaction with or approval of this latest installment. 3. High box-office numbers neither reflect nor establish this film’s merit. The 2-disc [Region 1] DVD special edition of this movie has a handful of special features. Apart from the inclusion of Maryam d’Abo’s thoughtfully-produced “Bond Girls Are Forever” (2002) documentary, why should you care? 3 out of 23 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Dec 26 2007, 7:54 PM EST Having seen all the rest over these many years, I feel that Bond is back to being a believable ex SAS type that makes the story more realistic. He is more businesslike than past Bonds have been portrayed. Tough? you bet!, thats how he should be in such a position. So far I've heard nothing but good about the new Bond from other fans. Story line could perhaps be tightened up but I like it. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Jan 3 2008, 1:20 PM EST Since the first James Bond film I have been a fan of the ultra suave super spy. That image and facination would never have been if the previous films were as terrible as the latest Casino Royale is. The producers, and directors should be ashamed to have their names attached to such a disgrace. I am sure that Ian Flemming is rolling in his grave. This is NOT a Bond film but rather a flagrant mocery created only to entice money from a loyal following. I will never go see another Bond film until the format is returned to the original style. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Jan 4 2008, 2:51 PM EST Don't let the door hit you on the fanny on the way out. I'll bet the producers are crying crocodile tears that you're leaving--if they weren't so busy counting the money from "Casino Royale" and the critical acclaim the film garnered. The only reason Ian Fleming might be rolling in his grave is that you mis-spelled his name, Bond-expert that you are, and I'm not sure what a "flagrant mocery" is, but although a "mockery" by its very nature could be considered "flagrant" we'll assume that you were merely "piling on" by using an adjective unnecessarily. Personally I think an "ultra suave super spy" is dramatically insert (and not what Fleming intended), but that's what I get for reading the novels. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
 nmrx105 |
RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Mar 29 2008, 2:03 PM EDT BEST BOND MOVIE EVER < THIS IS ONLY FOR ME. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
 CharmOffensive |
RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Mar 29 2008, 7:31 PM EDT " The new Bond is an uninteresting, expressionless, muscle-bound nihilist."lol. 0 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Jun 28 2008, 7:05 AM EDT Basically, this is the first film where a James Bond looks indeed like a real spy, with a real past (former SAS), in real situations of danger (the torture scenes), with a fair amount of violence and kills, and at the same time with a sound love story. Yes, he's different from all the past Bonds. But worst? Get real... 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
 00seven |
RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Jun 28 2008, 9:00 AM EDT Ive read all the books...loved them better than the movies. Love the movies too though. I can enjoy each genre seperately. I think Casino Royale had to be made. I love Brosnan but i accept he couldnt have played Bond in Casino Royale. I dont think Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Lazenby, Dalton, or Craig have totally captured the Bond in the books or that eon have captured the essence of the books. Theyre all great actors though. They brought something of the book Bond to the film but the films took their own take on it further so i just enjoy the movies as they are. I do find Craigs take on Bond enjoyable though. Im glad he was chosen. Casino Royale set in the 2000's is different to Casino Royale set in the 50's. I accept that and i accept that they have a new modern audience so why not bring the first Bond book up to the present and relaunch from there. I enjoyed it. If someone could make the same movie set in the 50s i with the same actors i would love to see it but alas that will never jhappen. So as i said, accept, enjoy or dont enjoy but hang in here and see where it takes us. Adieu 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Aug 29 2008, 9:30 PM EDT cr finally cleansed the franchise of the cheap pun + silly banter i found hilarious as a child, but now find annoying + tiring at 39. the action has improved as well as the eye candy both in male + female leads. i always found connery to be the best bondjamesbond, but now find that craig has given him some serious competition. this new dude is smooth. give him some credit. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
 englandfan007 |
RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Sunday, 1:53 PM EDT northbreed you are clearly having a laugh i mean CR is the best bond movie yet it's dark,realistic and fun at the same time! 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
 CodeNamePredator |
RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Monday, 10:23 AM EDT "Ive read all the books...loved them better than the movies. Love the movies too though. I can enjoy each genre seperately. I think Casino Royale had to be made. I love Brosnan but i accept he couldnt have played Bond in Casino Royale. I dont think Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Lazenby, Dalton, or Craig have totally captured the Bond in the books or that eon have captured the essence of the books. Theyre all great actors though. They brought something of the book Bond to the film but the films took their own take on it further so i just enjoy the movies as they are. I do find Craigs take on Bond enjoyable though. Im glad he was chosen. Casino Royale set in the 2000's is different to Casino Royale set in the 50's. I accept that and i accept that they have a new modern audience so why not bring the first Bond book up to the present and relaunch from there. I enjoyed it. If someone could make the same movie set in the 50s i with the same actors i would love to see it but alas that will never jhappen. So as i said, accept, enjoy or dont enjoy but hang in here and see where it takes us. Adieu"I have read all the books (Fleming, Gardener, Amis, Benson and now Faulks) and seen all the movies. Casino Royale needed to be made for certain. I would not mind seeing Bond eveolve in the method the separate authors eveolved the character in the books, however on film, probably would not sell and film companies do not particularly care about the integrity of the character, their obivious goal is to reach the widest audience and make the most money possible. That said I think Craig's Bond is geared more the action figure character of present action adventure films rather than the integrity of the character that Fleming created. Watch action adventure films made recently and you generally have a tortured individual who needs to rise above some character flaw in the classic tale of good vs. evil. The Bond movies just do it with so much more style. If you have read all the authors, I have found that in the Fleming/ Amis books I picture Sean Connery as Bond, in the Gardener books I picture Moore, in the Benson Books Brosnan and now with Faulks I see the Craig characterization. Is this coincedence, I think not as the auther probably reflects the screen character rather than vice cersa. I think the reality is the literary Bond now more reflects the current actor portraying him, rather than the actor portraying Flemings original character. Just a thought. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Monday, 4:33 PM EDT while Casino Royale was a great movie, Bond is no longer the gentlemanly, suave, witty, charming man we grew to love. : ( Do you find this valuable? |
|
00seven |
RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Tuesday, 2:29 AM EDT "while Casino Royale was a great movie, Bond is no longer the gentlemanly, suave, witty, charming man we grew to love. : ("As i have said ive read all the books, including Bensons and Gardners, and of course Faulks. Yet to read Colonel Sun but i will soon. Anyhow my reply to anonymous is that as CR is starting Bond from the beginning of his career i think it makes sence that he will eventually become the gentlemanly, suave, witty, charming man whos return you long for. Hang in there and i think after QoS we will see a completely different type of Bond movie (as in the type of Bond we are used to or one thats heading in that direction). 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |