'Casino Royale' appears a triumph

[Kasept]

Having waited endlessly for the lightweight Pierce Brosnan to be dispatched back to his Remington Steele days, I was delighted when every indication of the direction of the Bond series was 'back to basics'. That meant the casting of a real actor with a hard and dangerous edge to better personify the true character Ian Fleming created in 1953 with Casino Royale.

With the selection of Daniel Craig, the psychotic son of Paul Newman's Irish mob boss in the pulp comic novel interpretation of "Road to Perdition", the Broccoli family took an initial step in rewarding Fleming fans for their loyalty and patience through the hapless 'Brosnan years'.

With the film prepared to open Friday, the reviews are in, and the opinion appears nearly unanimous: triumph. Below is the link to the fabulous website "Rotten Tomatoes", which links every major film review and quantifies the yeahs or nays into a "fresh' or 'rotten' verdict. With a few dozen reviews in a day early, 'Casino Royale' is being smashingly received.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/casino_royale/

For those unfamiliar with the "real" Bond of the Fleming novels and short stories, whose view of the MI6 assassin comes from the horrible screen adaptations featuring Brosnan and Roger Moore, he is not a likeable individual. And every indication is that the new film, drawn very closely from the first Bond story itself, has totally captured what Naval Commander James Bond truly is: a ruthless, vengeful, souless sadist with a taste for life's luxuries and pleasures.

While not mirthlessly written, Fleming brought to life a character pulled from his own experiences and contacts during WWII and the early Cold War era. The individual he brilliantly created was a complex and hard-living professional killer that humorlessly dispatched victims at the behest of his government: not a flippant bon vivant. It appears those that have longed for a Bond that personifies the character 'as written', will have it in Daniel Craig.

Personally, my own preferences for the screen versions of 007 run counter to those of the general public. Other than bare bones glory of "Dr. No", the "best" Bond film IS "On Her Majesty's Secret Service": the lone series installment that faithfully lets the book live as the script. The only 'love story' written for Bond by Fleming, it was unlike any other Bond in the string leaving the audience devastated at a heartbreaking ending. It demonstrated the one time the character opens his heart to anyone, and the crushing reward he receives for doing so.

It also doomed any hope for New Zealander George Lazenby, who turns in a terrific performance, continuing on in the role. Following in the impossible to fill shoes of Sean Connery, Lazenby would have been better served by producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Salzman, had his first turn at Bond been in a less complicated and "downbeat" edition of the franchise. "OHMSS" had filmgoers leaving the theater in tears, and it was immediately held against Lazenby.

Now we are back to the beginning, literally, with Bond, as this Casino Royale "introduces" the recently-promoted Royal Navy officer to audiences. Every indication is that with Bond's high stakes battle with Le Chiffre as the backdrop, (baccarat in the book, poker here), we are going to be treated to an honest, simple and straightforward version of the character that is one of the best known literary creation ever. The exciting part for those of us that are fans of Fleming's Bond is that as well known as the character may be, most will be seeing him in Casino Royale as he was meant to be.

Needless to say, I haven't anticipated the arrival of a Bond film this much since the departure of the wooden and vapid Moore. With top flight actor Timothy Dalton a step in the right direction in "The Living Daylights", it has been since 1989's "Licence to Kill' since I ran to the theater to be among the first to see a new Bond film. Many will likely be seeing their "first" Bond film ever with the arrival Friday of "Casino Royale", even if they've seen the last dozen.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Having waited endlessly for the lightweight Pierce Brosnan to be dispatched back to his Remington Steele days, I was delighted when every indication of the direction of the Bond series was 'back to basics'. That meant the casting of a real actor with a hard and dangerous edge to better personify the true character Ian Fleming created in 1953 with Casino Royale.

With the selection of Daniel Craig, the psychotic son of Paul Newman's Irish mob boss in the pulp comic novel interpretation of "Road to Perdition", the Broccoli family took an initial step in rewarding Fleming fans for their loyalty and patience through the hapless 'Brosnan years'.

With the film prepared to open Friday, the reviews are in, and the opinion appears nearly unanimous: triumph. Below is the link to the fabulous website "Rotten Tomatoes", which links every major film review and quantifies the yeahs or nays into a "fresh' or 'rotten' verdict. With a few dozen reviews in a day early, 'Casino Royale' is being smashingly received.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/casino_royale/

For those unfamiliar with the "real" Bond of the Fleming novels and short stories, whose view of the MI6 assassin comes from the horrible screen adaptations featuring Brosnan and Roger Moore, he is not a likeable individual. And every indication is that the new film, drawn very closely from the first Bond story itself, has totally captured what Naval Commander James Bond truly is: a ruthless, vengeful, souless sadist with a taste for life's luxuries and pleasures.

While not mirthlessly written, Fleming brought to life a character pulled from his own experiences and contacts during WWII and the early Cold War era. The individual he brilliantly created was a complex and hard-living professional killer that humorlessly dispatched victims at the behest of his government: not a flippant bon vivant. It appears those that have longed for a Bond that personifies the character 'as written', will have it in Daniel Craig.

Personally, my own preferences for the screen versions of 007 run counter to those of the general public. Other than bare bones glory of "Dr. No", the "best" Bond film IS "On Her Majesty's Secret Service": the lone series installment that faithfully lets the book live as the script. The only 'love story' written for Bond by Fleming, it was unlike any other Bond in the string leaving the audience devastated at a heartbreaking ending. It demonstrated the one time the character opens his heart to anyone, and the crushing reward he receives for doing so.

It also doomed any hope for New Zealander George Lazenby, who turns in a terrific performance, continuing on in the role. Following in the impossible to fill shoes of Sean Connery, Lazenby would have been better served by producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Salzman, had his first turn at Bond been in a less complicated and "downbeat" edition of the franchise. "OHMSS" had filmgoers leaving the theater in tears, and it was immediately held against Lazenby.

Now we are back to the beginning, literally, with Bond, as this Casino Royale "introduces" the recently-promoted Royal Navy officer to audiences. Every indication is that with Bond's high stakes battle with Le Chiffre as the backdrop, (baccarat in the book, poker here), we are going to be treated to an honest, simple and straightforward version of the character that is one of the best known literary creation ever. The exciting part for those of us that are fans of Fleming's Bond is that as well known as the character may be, most will be seeing him in Casino Royale as he was meant to be.

Needless to say, I haven't anticipated the arrival of a Bond film this much since the departure of the wooden and vapid Moore. With top flight actor Timothy Dalton a step in the right direction in "The Living Daylights", it has been since 1989's "Licence to Kill' since I ran to the theater to be among the first to see a new Bond film. Many will likely be seeing their "first" Bond film ever with the arrival Friday of "Casino Royale", even if they've seen the last dozen.

Thanks for this Stevo....looking forward to this one a great deal....although I will be working late the Fri. and Sat. nights...so may have to catch a Monday matainee showing next week.

[paisjpq]

are you about to add movie critic and historian to your growing list of professions?

[GPK]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

are you about to add movie critic and historian to your growing list of professions?

DOH....

*GPK tiptoes out the back door...I ain't getting in this...*

[Seattleallstar]

only thing Kev knows is golf and girls, believe me I know ive learned alot of both from the man. he gets credit as well for the way I am...lol

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Seattleallstar

only thing Kev knows is golf and girls, believe me I know ive learned alot of both from the man. he gets credit as well for the way I am...lol

there goes my reputation of the window....

[GenuineRisk]

And may I say, Daniel Craig looks quite delicious in swim trunks. Mmmrrrooowwwwrrr!

[GPK]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And may I say, Daniel Craig looks quite delicious in swim trunks. Mmmrrrooowwwwrrr!

uh....Cole...that was me babe...body double

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by GPK

uh....Cole...that was me babe...body double

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry now...

[Crown@club]

Just another opinion. I remember when Brosnan took the role over. People spoke and so did some of the actors who were involved in the production (a la Desmond Lewyllen (sp) who played "Q" for the folks at home) said that Brosnan is the closest to the way Sean Connery portrayed Bond. Ok here we go again with our new guy.

Everybody brought their own style to the role.

Connery got out because he didn't want to get type-cast.
Lazenby felt the heat from Connery fans and didn't want to do it again.
Moore felt like the role needed some comedy with advice from Spencer Tracy.
Dalton wanted it more serious. (I still remember the Charlie's Angel episode that had Dalton as the villian described of having James Bond type of style)
Brosnan - eh

The feeling I'm getting in my surroundings is that no one is interested. It has me worried, and the fact that this is James Bond's beginning to become a Double-O agent, should make Bond fans disheartened when they see Judi Dench reprising the role as "M"

Originally Posted by Crown@club

Just another opinion. I remember when Brosnan took the role over. People spoke and so did some of the actors who were involved in the production (a la Desmond Lewyllen (sp) who played "Q" for the folks at home) said that Brosnan is the closest to the way Sean Connery portrayed Bond. Ok here we go again with our new guy.

Everybody brought their own style to the role.

Connery got out because he didn't want to get type-cast.
Lazenby felt the heat from Connery fans and didn't want to do it again.
Moore felt like the role needed some comedy with advice from Spencer Tracy.
Dalton wanted it more serious. (I still remember the Charlie's Angel episode that had Dalton as the villian described of having James Bond type of style)
Brosnan - eh

The feeling I'm getting in my surroundings is that no one is interested. It has me worried, and the fact that this is James Bond's beginning to become a Double-O agent, should make Bond fans disheartened when they see Judi Dench reprising the role as "M"

you missed one, I'm ashamed to know you
Peter Sellers- Casino Royale (1967)

[Crown@club]

Originally Posted by BellamyRd.

you missed one, I'm ashamed to know you
Peter Sellers- Casino Royale (1967)

I don't consider it a true Bond movie for one. Just like I don't count Connery's crappy remake of Thunderball titled Never Say Never Again. And the spoof itself was horrible. I laughed more watching Nothing But Trouble - a horrible movie. How the Broccoli's didn't have the rights to that title at the time is beyond me.

Trying to think what puts me to sleep first.
Casino Royale (1967)
Thunderball
From Russia with Love
or
On Her Majesty's Secret Service

[GPK]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry now...

..and I love you too doll.

Originally Posted by Crown@club

I don't consider it a true Bond movie for one. Just like I don't count Connery's crappy remake of Thunderball titled Never Say Never Again. And the spoof itself was horrible. I laughed more watching Nothing But Trouble - a horrible movie. How the Broccoli's didn't have the rights to that title at the time is beyond me.

Trying to think what puts me to sleep first.
Casino Royale (1967)
Thunderball
From Russia with Love
or
On Her Majesty's Secret Service

who is the Bond girl? Honey Ryder-Dr. No, ***** Galore-Goldfinger, Plenty O'Toole-Diamonds Are Forever, Octo*****, May Day-View to a Kill
forgot the name of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman, she was hot!
Moonraker with Jaws in Space was cool

[stevepopyak]

Good flick, saw it last night ... Daniel Craig does a fine job.

[Crown@club]

Good film. Craig brings his own style. No Connery's esque. No anyone else. It had a great start, but it dragged the last 30 minutes of the film. Great torture scene. It had all elements to it, including comedy. The movie introduced all Bond characters involved in the movie perfectly, and I mean perfectly including an old friend introduced. Keeping Judi Dench was fine with the way the film worked.

I wish I had never read the reviews. I believe the one I did read was from the USA Today Tuesday or Wed. It gave away too much. Especially 2 things that I waited for during that last antaganizing 30 minutes of the film.

My wife hates James Bond. I think she hates the Bondisms. Said she enjoyed the movie until the first Bondism came out, and that happened about 90 minutes into the film. I actually find that encouraging.

It was the best Bond since Goldeneye. I had my doubts about Daniel Craig but he did the role justice.

I was kind of upset there wasn't an invisible car in this one.

[ELA]

What I thought was ironic was when I read that the original Casino Royale book was written about 8 years or so before Daniel Craig was born. Just got a little laugh out of that. I don't remember when the original Casino Royale movie was done but from what I've heard it would not have been difficult to improve off that one. LOL.

Eric

[pmayjr]

This movie rocked the f'n kasbaugh. I liked it's striped down plot more than anything. It has an open-ended ending to it too. I've already warmed to Craig. He'll have a nice run as long as there's some half-way decent writing to go along with threse movies.