Cool News
Capone Buys In At CASINO ROYALE!!
Hey, everyone. Capone in Chicago here, still giddy at seeing my name in the credits of the BNAT 8--OCTOBUTT poster. The only explanation I can think of for my image not appearing on the poster is that I play Harry's CIA counterpart Felix Leiter (or perhaps his name has been changed to Felix Light-in-the-Loafers), and it's always better not to know what he looks like until he reveals himself in the final product. Yeah…that's it. In any event, it seems appropriate that Harry has selected the Bond imagery for this year's poster since it may be the only franchise film of the year that didn't disappointment on some level. In fact, it actually exceeded all of my expectations. Read on…
The first thing you realize about the approach the filmmakers have made to tackling this latest incarnation of James Bond is that, with Daniel Craig on board, they've hired the greatest actor who has ever played the character. Hold your catcalls, please. All I'm saying is that Craig is an immensely gifted actor who is never forced to bury Bond's inner feelings of rage or uncertainty. In anything, his Bond is the most emotionally complex take on the character I can remember. He also avoids the usual trappings of this character: he's not winking at the camera or always looking for the next clever quip. I'm not saying there isn't a tiny bit of that in the film, but the focus is squarely on creating the most well-rounded James Bond the world has ever seen. Oh, and he kicks all kinds of natural ass with some of the greatest stunts and chases ever put on film. In case you couldn't tell, I loved this version of James Bond, and I loved Casino Royale to the point where it puts most other Bond films to shame.
You may argue that by removing the very elements I mentioned, the filmmakers (led by GoldenEye director Martin Campbell) have stripped away what makes Bond so much fun, and you wouldn’t be entirely incorrect. But if you think this version of Bond isn't fun, you need to double up on your therapy sessions. The film opens with a cool-as-ice, black-and-white segment in which we witness the birth of 007, as Bond kills a traitor who has been selling British secrets. In case you didn't know, Casino Royale takes us back to Bond's first case as a double-0 agent (apparently you need two kills to qualify for your license to kill; seems a bit backward, but I'll take it).
What you may not realize at first is that the case Bond is working on is not all that high stakes, end-of-the-world stuff. His target is a relatively unimportant man who raises money for terrorist organization by playing high-stakes poker with a client's money and walking away with millions more than he started with. The nasty man in question is named Le Chiffre, played with greasy intensity and with a great Hitler haircut by Danish superstar Mads Mikkelsen (if you've seen three Danish films in the last year, he was probably in two of them). This case is, in effect, Bond's starter mission, and although he gets to kick plenty of butt on his way to La Chiffre, it is Bond's talent as a poker player that will ultimately defeat him. Doesn't sound very exciting? Trust me, it is, and the reason why is Daniel Craig who owns this character. And anyone who is still crying about Craig's blonde hair, needs to get a life (besides, it's more of a lightish brown).
Bond has not yet become the flawless, smooth-as-silk super spy we've all grown up with at this point in his career. Quite the contrary. This Bond makes mistakes, gets badly bashed up more than once, falls for tricks that no self-respecting veteran spy would fall for, and lacks a certain confidence that this is the job he wants for life. The character of M (Judi Dench, the sole holdover actor from previous films) is a blessedly more fleshed out character here than in most other Bond offerings. She doesn't just dish out assignments; she advises Bond, scolds him when necessary, and provides insight when his head is cluttered with things other than business. In other words, we learn why Bond always seemed to be M's favorite agent. We also learn that M is an initial, not just a secret code rank. In fact, Casino Royale does a great job of filling in a few little tidbits of information along the way. We find out where Bond got his first Aston Martin and under what circumstances he ordered his famed martini recipe. When a bartender asks him, "Would you like that shaken or stirred?" and Bond snaps, "Do I look like I care?" you can't help but laugh. Okay, maybe there is a slight amount of winking going on here.
Let me just mention three other performances. Eva Green is both sexy and prickly as Vesper Lynd, the woman in charge of overseeing Bond's expenses during the card game. She ultimately decides how high stakes Her Majesty's government is willing to get, keeping in mind that if Bond loses, the British government will be directly and knowingly financing terrorism. Her role is significant because, technically, she's the first Bond girl, and it is through their relationship that Bond realizes how close he should allow himself to get to the beautiful women that will pass through his life. I don't want to say too much more than that. The rock solid Giancarlo Giannini plays Mathis, the local field agent who arranges for Bond to enter into the high stakes poker game in Montenegro. But the most surprising appearance of all was Jeffrey Wright as the latest incarnation of Bond's CIA counterpart Felix Leiter. I know that it's rare that the same actor plays Leiter from film to film, but I hope Wright returns for future Bond movies and is given a lot more to do.
Perhaps the biggest surprise on Casino Royale is its ending. The conflict with La Chiffre is essentially done before the two-hour mark (following one of the most painful, ball-crushing torture sequences I've ever seen). But there's still about a half-hour still to go in this film, and it's in this sequence that we see just how painful birth--even the birth of super spy--can be. And it's with these final scenes that the cold steel wall completely encompasses Bond's heart forever. Casino Royale is more than just another chapter in this decades-old franchise; it truly is a much-needed and completely successful overhaul.
Capone
-
+ Expand All
-
Can't wait to see this.
-
And Mads Mikkelsen was in that one!
-
How bad can this torture scene that I've read so much about be? In a PG-13?
-
This guy is the perfect Bond - a badass who is definitely NOT a pretty boy. I'm excited about the franchise again, and for all those who aren't, I pray for your speedy journey into a literal Lake of Fire.
-
Nice review, Capone!
-
...he sucked more than anyone has suckity sucked-sucked as James Bond.
-
Is craig owning Pierce?
-
...and it's great. Daniel Craig's Bond seems like a relaxed predator, no matter how cool he acts he seems dangerous. He pulls off the emotional scenes well making Bond seem more human but still never weak. Eva Green is a great bond girl with a lot of depth of character. LeChiffre is a Bond villain with as much at stake as Bond which is something new. It may be tantamount to blasphemy but I prefer Craig as Bond over any of the others, including Connery. Hope they can keep the standard up for the next one.
-
...to have the person who says in his "review" that "anyone who is still crying about Craig's blonde hair, needs to get a life" but starts said review with his simpering wet blowjob of a kiss-up to the Royal Fat Cheese, indeed needs to get a life. If all it takes to get you "giddy" (ya puss) is to see your fake name in a fake poster for a stupid ass low rent film festival in MOTHERFUCKING TEXAS, seriously needs to get a life. And yes, for the record, I missed the deadline to get my submission in. So there. Nyah.
-
Seriously, I can't.
-
was that really necessary?
anyway, I really wasn't up for another bond and didn't enjoy any of the Brosnan ones (even though I thought he was an amazing bond. He was just in rubbish bond films). Might have to check this out because it sounds really good! Welcome back 007 -
To Talkbacker: Hell no, it wasn't necessary, but it was fun!
And having said all that stuff...man, I'm REALLY looking forward to this movie! -
Sorry, but any film that has this bit of dialogue as a serious, character building and emotional movie, blows:
"I have no armor left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours."
And before you jump my shit, yes, I've seen the film -- it is terrible. Haggis' rewrite is god awfully boring, contains an action scene reminiscent of 1970's airport disaster movies, and whole indigestible to Campbell's limited style.
The only thing redeeming about the movie, to my horrid surprise, is that given a competent script and decent director -- who preferably don't use sweaty close-ups every five minutes for 'dramatic effect!' -- Craig can be a good Bond, a strange mix of Dalton and Moore.
Undoubtedly this movie will do good, but that's because people are sheep and will see a reboot where none exists just to be trendy. Sad, really, but at least there is a glimmer of promise by movie's end that maybe, just maybe, Bond 22 will be decent. -
"Undoubtedly this movie will do good, but that's because people are sheep and will see a reboot where none exists just to be trendy." I guess that means you, since YOU saw it already. I have not, therefore, not all of us are sheep. That being said, the previews and selection of Craig as Bond have all been brilliant moves.
-
I don't think you actually have to see a guy with his balls in a garlic press to feel his pain...
BTW, one article I read was discussing whether Craig was "inhanced" for thae swimsuit scenes. Apparantly Judi Dench commented heis the biggest Bond ever! -
penis apparently don't mix.
-
"Undoubtedly this movie will do good, but that's because people are sheep and will see a reboot where none exists just to be trendy."
Or perhaps they will go and see it because the reviews have been overwhelmingly positive. If people are "sheep" for seeing Casino Royale then what were they for watching the crap that the last two films were?
-
i saw it today, and frankly it has flaws. it doesn't carry much emotional depth and eva and daniel just dont match, especially when they talk about how well they know each other just by looking at them, comon thats a cliche. then some of the dialogue sounds ridiculous. plus daniel doesn't seem comfortable under Bond's skin. But at least this makes us feel that hes kinda distant and puts all kind of hurdles around him. Of course there are intense action and the poker thing was fun to watch. But for cryin out loud, the intro song sucks and yet i just can't get it out off my head. Plus i'm sure u guys are gonna find the intro a bit interesting, anyhow, Story is great, James Bond needs work, Pretentious intro, Lack of substance, good ending. I just would've liked a more subtle aura throughout the movie, instead of bond doing all unbelievable stunts. maybe something close to Jack Bauer action would suffice. But other than that the movie is a treat, and i liked how the story is focused on one small "gambling game", thats not somekind of Dr. Evil plan built on destroying the world. The poker game represents the elusive secretive struggle between crime syndicates and governments. the game naturally has to be won to prove to ourselves that there is hope to saving the world from terrorism. I strongly recommend the movie but keep ur expectations low.
-
I really like the look of this. I read the book a good 18 years ago and I can remember how shocked I was at how different he was in the book than in the films. I've always wantedto see that Bond on screen and hopefully this film will do it.
-
and I think its mostly because of him.
-
I'm really looking forward to this. I read the book a good 18 years ago and I can remember how shocked I was at how different he was in the book than in the films. I've always wantedto see that Bond on screen and hopefully this film will do it.
-
I've no idea how that happened....
-
Actually, the sheep comment has nothing to do with 'seeing' the movie, but rather was a snarky swipe that people will interpret/see the film in a particular way simply because AICN or Variety or Time or whatever other PRESS outlet tells them, too.
Happened with "Batman Begins," a lame duck re-boot that really didn't change or do anything (a car flying jump-flying over rooftops just screams gritty realism!), and it'll happen with this.
I think people should go see it, but I also think people should understand that while interesting, CR is a flawed and broken film that features an actor who has the potential, given the right script and director, to be a good Bond. -
are gonna be eating a lot of crow, if you know what I mean... Myself not included.
-
Good. Not great. I've read every bond book. I own every bond film and sadly know them all inside out. My favourite bond films was OHMSS, it follows the bond book the closest and is the most interesting. My favourite Bond performance however was by Dalton in Livign Daylights. He was very close to the books and it's a great film.
Onto Casino Royale. First Craig is a good Bond in the action. He is a bit uncomfortable in the sarcasm and his jokey relationship with Eva Green does not always work. But he's a good Bond. Sadly his hair colour does remind you that he is not Bond. It's not a silly thing it's just a fact. It's nothing a dark rinse would not cure. It's that simple. That's all it needs.
The film has a number of problems. The first is the reinventing of the franchise. It did not need it. It needed to lose the CGI and the world threats and it still would have worked. The second problem is that the film only works when it follows the novel. The first 2 action scenes seem put in the film just for commercial brain dead people who need explosions. And the finale action scene is pointless and should have followed the book ending EXACTLY not loosly.
But it's still a good film. When it works it's really enjoyable. The card game is great, the torture scene as good as the book.
It's good just not great. -
You can't say, "I strongly recommend the movie but keep ur expectations low." That's sending a mixed message. I almost want to see an actual bad review of this before I go see it.
-
...its the only Bond in recent years that has recaptured any sense of excitement about this series for me. Craig is superb as cold, as brutal and aloof as Connery. You really beleive this guy is a ruthless killer yet he still has the requisite style and panache needed to be a great Bond, along with a sense of depth to add a necessary new dimension to the character. I even managed to put my prejudices aside about Dench as M, who actually performs very well in this and her role makes much more sense that just the one-note joke it is in the Brosnan films. I must admit though to be not being terribly convinced by Eva Green but not to the point of distraction - but overall the stunts are great, the opening titles are excellent, Miekleson is a superb, very welcome, low-key villain and even David Arnold reigns it in a bit rather than giving us his usual hyperactive Barry-pastiche. I just hope they can talk Martin Campbell to stay on give another one and that they don't blow this excellent rebirth with a load of old warmed up gadget-laden tosh as a follow up. But is this SPECTRE waiting in the wings? Anthony Hopkins as Blofeld possibly?
-
That actually does sound amusing. Perhaps it truly will turn out to be the first good Bond film since "Licence to Kill", indeed... and perhaps Craig will actually manage to come close to Dalton's unrivalled portrayal...
-
the few who are still upset, please remember that some other names bandied about for the role during casting were Jude Law and Colin Farrell. Thank your lucky stars. (I'm leaving a vacuum for the Clive Owen people out there, I realize.)
-
Anyone complaining needs to get a life? The books clearly define Bond's hair as short and raven black. Hey, let's change Superman's hair to blonde too, while we're messing up the images of iconic characters.
-
Where does this film stand in the James Bond canon? It looks like it’s set in modern times, instead of in the ‘50s or ‘60s. Judi Dench is playing M again. She didn’t play M until “GoldenEye,” and before that the character was always male. Is this perhaps a prequel to “GoldenEye,” possibly implying that the other movies before that one were part of a different series entirely, or is this movie a complete do-over, like “Batman Begins?” The thing is, the James Bond movies rarely made sense seeing as the character never aged in the forty odd years of the MGM franchise.
-
CASINO ROYALE was shown here in the Philippines two(2) days ago, I was blown away by this film and I reset/deleted all the bond films I saw in my life except for OHMSS and the old CASINO RAYALE film starring David Niven.
-
With the media making such a big fucking deal about Craig being the first blond Bond. It got me thinking. Didn't Roger Moore have dirty blond hair? He sure as hell did not have black hair.
-
Yes it does, however, it's funny what fans pick and choose from when concerning Bond's looks. The books also say he has blue eyes, yet from what I can recall, Daniel Craig is the only one to have blue eyes. Additionally, it also says Bond has a comma of hair (which none of them really had, Brosnan came sort close in TND) and looks like Hoagy Carmichael, who none of the previous Bond's come close to looking like - Craig has a pretty good resemblance if you ask me. Blond hair, big deal. Moore had blondish hair too.
Take Mike Grell's James Bond who is based on Carmichael -- who looks like that one the most? Craig.
Carmichael:
http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v23n3/V23n3-Web%20images/hoagymug.jpg
Grell:
http://commanderbond.net/team/evan.willnow/grell_bond.jpg -
There's a reason why no one liked Timothy Dalton. What works in literature doesn't necessarily work on the big screen. Connery and Brosnan understood that Bond has to look like he's having fun at the casino or when he's ghosting some fools. Craig's seriousness might work for his first mission but for the next movie he has to lighten the fuck up.
-
I'm a dork, and I know this is off subject (is there a going one?) but this is kewl news for Bond fans...
'M' is, yes, actaully an initial not just a code, yes, but its a take off the original 'MC.'
The first head of the Foreign Section, Captain Sir Mansfield Cumming RN, signed himself 'MC' or 'C' in green ink. Thus began the long tradition of the head of the Service adopting the initial 'C' as his symbol. The real M. He was back in 1909 and everyone since has been 'C.'
Strangely, MI6 is not actually the name of the service, only in books and journals does it show up so. Its offical name is SIS. Check the history: http://www.mi6.gov.uk/output/Page79.html -
bitch about the wrong hair? Jezz, you motherfuckers need to go get laid. Damn.
-
I've only known one man to use that name. I wonder if it could be you. I had a good friend years ago that created a character called MATTMAN and a series of comic books to tell the story of his ongoing war against deep holes in the ground and untied shoelaces. Are you that same guy? Or is there room in this world for two totally different MATTMEN?
As for CASINO ROYALE...I CAN'T WAIT! -
I needed to go to the toilet halfway through this movie, and I couldn't. While it didn't reach out to me emotionally, I was completely in awe, and when the big torture scene came up...yeah. every man on the planet is going to flinch at it, put it that way. But in all seriousness, as a reboot goes my only criticism was picking chris cornell to sing the theme tune - I can think of at LEAST several other artists who would have done a better job and not sounded so bored. Craig himself is right up there NEXT to connery. not just below or just above, he actually plays bond in a way that you can see connery being the outcome of this adventure. I really am so glad they got back the feel of it being a cold war spy drama, and I'm praying the next installment introduce ernst blofeld again, cause I personally reckon this is introducing the whole specter thing.
-
Mattman returns...yes they did change Superman's hair. "Returns" featured a brown haired Superman.
Having said that, I'd buy Craig over Routh anyday -
And the film is really good, but it comes off as TOO Bourne Identity/Supremacy. What is wrong with a little wink at the camera, clever quips, some gadgets, a larger than life villain with a master plan, and some huge set pieces? Those things ARE James Bond! All the best Bond films have those things, and Casino Royale seemed to try to eliminate them. I would like to see SPECTRE and Blofeld, and especially because it has been such a long time since we have.
-
Damn you Michael Bay
-
Just saying...
-
...because the producers totally f*cked Brosnan. The Broz single-handedly rescues and resucitates the franchise, and makes the producers a ton of $$$ and gives his best to the fans, even in half-assed productions like D.A.D. The producers reward him by refusing to pay him what he's worth for Bond 21, fire him, steal his idea for a kick-ass Bond 21, and hire a low-budget no-name actor who'll do the movie for relative pennies instead of paying the Bond actor his fair wage as Bond (hence the reason no real actor wanted the role.) The to add insult to injury, they start a revisionist history media blitz about how the Broz was ruining the franchise and had to go. What Wilson and Broccoli have done is akin to business owners who hire illegal aliens for pennies, instead of paying proven workers what they're worth. Casino Royale may or may not be a good movie. But regardless, under the circumstances, i refuse to financially reward them for heartless, cutthroat capitalism which they disguise as a "creative decision" or "reboot" or whatever crap...
-
Presuming this film is a hit - and it looks like it might, where do they go next? They have already made all the stories written by Flemming. Will they be newely written stories or, because this effectively starts from the beginning, will they remake some of the books? Many of the films were only loose adaptations of the books anyway. Some you could never redo like Goldfinger but Moonraker, for example, almost only shared it's title with the book.
-
Congrats, JediCap. You've managed to write down the single dumbest thought I've ever read on this site: "Craig can be a good Bond, a strange mix of Dalton and Moore." Moore? You're saying Craig's Bond has elements of Moore's version of the character? Are you sure you saw the new Casino Royale and not the parody? Sheesh.
-
You know nothing about James Bond.
-
...I'm just saying is all.
-
not to diss Martin Campbell, but isn't the prob with Bond that they tend not to take risks in booking big, auteur directors... But blockbusters in recent years have been genuinely invigorated by the likes of Peter Jackson and Sam Raimi being able to do what they want, plus the likes of Ang Lee, Paul Greengrass and Alfonso Caron being able to take on franchises in their own individual way. Surely Bond needs to take that kind of a risk to deliver anything more than an entertaining spy caper.
-
Isn't there an inherent prob in that spy films have limitations that, say, fantasy or sci-fi doesn't have. With those, there is at least the power of allegory at teh author's disposal - as seen in anything from X2 to Star Wars. The only way spy films can me more than essentially conservative capers that uphold values of queen and country etc (see 'True Lies', where the portrayal of Arab terrorists is just embarrasing), is if they actively try to engage with the politics - in a way that Syriana and Munich, for example, did. Isn't there also a problem in that the spy caper is essentially a not very emotional genre. I mean, I loved MiIII, but was I actually pulled in emotionally to the love between Tom Cruise and his onscreen wife? Hell no. Did I shed a tear when she was trying to revive him at the end, and the music went all soppy? No way.
-
Go and see it because this approach is to be comended. Its also long overdue. Got that? GO AND SEE IT. That is all.
-
Hey guys, has anybody noticed something? CASINO ROYALE HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE. Why re-make it? It seems kinda weird. Ya dig?
-
its never been made for fuck's sake - the 1967 was a spoof and had nothing to with the book other than stealing the title and some character names. You'll find that foam, Scottish castles and 34 versions of the character are myteriously missing from the original text. This the first serious cinematic adaptation. As such it is not a remake. Any questions?
-
I agree...maybe there were a few nudges, winks, crappy innuendo and most of all but most importantly in the moore era, racism between the brutal torture scenes and sticking a guys head in a sink to drown.
-
Craig has slipped into the #2 spot as my favorite Bond, followed by Dalton and Brosnan. I wasn't crazy about Eva Green as Vesper Lynd; I would have preferred his first female interest in the movie to have been cast in that role.
-
We're all here to do what we're all here to do.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts