Brosnan Bares All For Playboy

[adam]

CR, the best Bond film ever ?!

There was huge disappointment amongst the millions of Bond fans when Brosnan abruptly left the franchise in his prime and after becoming the billion dollor Bond. This was followed by anticipation about who would get the part, would it be Owen, Bale, Jackman or Scott.

There was shock when the a short, uncharismatic, ugly, blonde no one had heard was sitting on a speed boat on the river thames. Caked in sun tan cream and with blow dried hair, DC looked as surprised as everyone else that he had got the part. The press conference was a dull affair. DC constantly looking at BB before answering questions, giving one word or short answers or refusing to answer questions at all.

The backlash amongst the media was quick. Three internet sites were set up 'DanielCraignotBond', 'Sinking Ship' and 'Alternative 007'. All with thousands of hits. DC himself admitted he was surprised at the public's negative reaction. The Bond PR machine went into overdrive to try to big up DC. Perhaps their smartest move was to ask everyone to reserve judgement until the film was released. BB knew full well the film would make money and the sympathetic British media would give it OTT reviews.

However even I was surprised at the early reviews of CR. This must be the film of the year & prove me wrong.

Alas CR is in the bottom five of poor Bond movies. The budget was half of DAD and it shows. A tacky pre title scene for some reason shot in black and white. This was quickly followed by a Jackie Chang esq chase with Bond running through cardboard walls & not ducking when being shot at, Duh. A chuck Norris esq airport action scene is next before a long wait until the climatic action scene. Which is'nt worth the wait & has some cheap special effects of a building falling down.

Onto the Bond origin/rookie Bond story. Well 'Superman', 'Batman Begins' and even 'Spiderman' were origin stories. Having Bond kill two unknown people in the first five minutes of a film is not an origin story. Apart from losing at cards (before winning) and then pressing the wrong button in his car, he does'nt seem like a rookie to me.

The film is long. This is because of DC. All angles need to be covered in the hope that some will work - the tough guy (bleeding), the fit guy (swimming trunks), the witty guy (the train banter), the caring guy (shower scene), the sensitive guy (falling in love). Yawn ? I nearly fell asleep.

I thought things could'nt get any worse. Then QOS came out. In that I did fall asleep.

[chuck007]

May 16, 2009 13:07:33 GMT -5 adam said:

CR, the best Bond film ever ?!

There was huge disappointment amongst the millions of Bond fans when Brosnan abruptly left the franchise in his prime and after becoming the billion dollor Bond. This was followed by anticipation about who would get the part, would it be Owen, Bale, Jackman or Scott.

There was shock when the a short, uncharismatic, ugly, blonde no one had heard was sitting on a speed boat on the river thames. Caked in sun tan cream and with blow dried hair, DC looked as surprised as everyone else that he had got the part. The press conference was a dull affair. DC constantly looking at BB before answering questions, giving one word or short answers or refusing to answer questions at all.

The backlash amongst the media was quick. Three internet sites were set up 'DanielCraignotBond', 'Sinking Ship' and 'Alternative 007'. All with thousands of hits. DC himself admitted he was surprised at the public's negative reaction. The Bond PR machine went into overdrive to try to big up DC. Perhaps their smartest move was to ask everyone to reserve judgement until the film was released. BB knew full well the film would make money and the sympathetic British media would give it OTT reviews.

However even I was surprised at the early reviews of CR. This must be the film of the year & prove me wrong.

Alas CR is in the bottom five of poor Bond movies. The budget was half of DAD and it shows. A tacky pre title scene for some reason shot in black and white. This was quickly followed by a Jackie Chang esq chase with Bond running through cardboard walls & not ducking when being shot at, Duh. A chuck Norris esq airport action scene is next before a long wait until the climatic action scene. Which is'nt worth the wait & has some cheap special effects of a building falling down.

Onto the Bond origin/rookie Bond story. Well 'Superman', 'Batman Begins' and even 'Spiderman' were origin stories. Having Bond kill two unknown people in the first five minutes of a film is not an origin story. Apart from losing at cards (before winning) and then pressing the wrong button in his car, he does'nt seem like a rookie to me.

The film is long. This is because of DC. All angles need to be covered in the hope that some will work - the tough guy (bleeding), the fit guy (swimming trunks), the witty guy (the train banter), the caring guy (shower scene), the sensitive guy (falling in love). Yawn ? I nearly fell asleep.

I thought things could'nt get any worse. Then QOS came out. In that I did fall asleep.

bro, face it Casino Royale is THE BEST EVER.
even Brosnan wanted in this kind of direction and script, not like his previous bland movies ;D

[alex]

Here's an interesting CR review from someone who worked for Eon...

www.wateracre.co.uk/2008_01_01_archive.html


Casino Royale (a long time after everyone else has seen it)


Whilst reading about Gemma Arterton (I promise you, I am in no way obsessed by her delightful pointy nose and Uma Thurman bob), I came across an article about her in the new Bond film which had a spoiler warning.

It then said "Although, if you're reading an article about Bond 22 without having seen 'Casino Royale', you're an enormous internet geek who learns about the plots and characters of films from Wikipedia or Empire Online and not by actually seeing the films in question. Saddo. Get out more." I'm paraphrasing.

It was pretty shocking to realise, then, that I hadn't seen "Casino Royale". Despite being a Bond fan, despite my exciting fortnight working in the EON props archive, despite what everyone said about it, I still hadn't seen it.

Well, now I have.

If you haven't seen it, this review isn't going to be much help to you, but here's a cursory run-through of the plot. (Don't worry, there's not much plot in this film.) James Bond is, like, just some dude who kills two people and then instantly becomes an impassionate, cold-blooded killer. He does some running around, is in the Evening Standard, gets told off, goes to the Bahamas, annoys some guy, wins this guy's car at cards and sleeps with his wife. The guy is working for another, more mean guy, who has a scarred face. Now, this new guy is evil. The only tears he cries are tears of BLOOD, ffs! He likes playing cards and being evil, and so invites people to play cards and maybe a little evil on the side and Bond turns up to play some cards and see just how evil this guy is. By this point, there's an accountant with Bond, who is a hot chick (who'd have thought...). He plays some cards, beats up some guys, plays some cards, gets beaten up, plays some cards, gets poisoned, dies, comes back to life, plays some cards and then wins. The lady accountant is upset by all the beatings for about thirty seconds, then gets over it. Bond and lady then get captured, and the evil, blood-weeping guy plays Flicksies with Bond's testicles. Bond is hurt pretty bad, but when he wakes up, he decides that he is TOTAWWY IN WUV with the accountant. Then some stuff happens with some other dudes who aren't related to the weepy-blood guy, there's a big finish, and a smarmily self-referential coda.

I'm not quite sure what I was expecting, but for the first ten minutes I sat there thinking "this is just like a Bond film!" It didn't feel as dramatically different as I was led to believe. They had that goofy incorporation of the gun barrel logo, and another pretentious title sequence. The parkour stunt sequence, running up the crane, fighting on the crane, falling off the crane, is bloody great. After that point, it kind of waffled on for about an hour, batting off embarrassing cameos from Richard Branson and, uh, Gunther von Hagens and doesn't really pick up until Eva Green turns up, with her smokey eyes and smirky face. I liked her in this a lot, despite the fact that - as my housemate pointed out - her relationship with Bond is pretty stupid.

My main criticism of Daniel Craig as James Bond is that sometimes director Martin Campbell shoots him in darkened rooms and in the half-light, he looks exactly like Ray Stubbs.

Because Craig looks enormous. When he first tries on his dinner jacket, prancing around a hotel room, he looks like Bongo, the bouncer from the Ink & Paint Club in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". He is clearly exceptionally muscled, as the scene in the dinky pants shows (ladies), and after forty years of a lithe Bond (apart from in "A View To A Kill", ho ho), it's quite weird to see not a gentleman killer, but a killer - like someone cast Ricky Hatton as James Bond. Bond has always been the physical underdog - think of the look on Connery's face as he sized up Oddjob. Or Moore being pounded on the head by the massive hands of Jaws. In the exhilarating parkour sequence, the villain is the leapy, sproingy lightweight, and Bond is the hulking oaf literally running through walls. And what's painful is that Craig is clearly an intelligent actor, but the script requires him to be "a blunt object". He's a thug. Maybe the theory behind the progression of this "reboot" of Bond is that, over time, Craig slims down, becoming more like the Bond we know.

(Incidentally, rather than the Bourne films, I realised whilst watching it that my enjoyment of the Bond films has probably spilled into my love of "Spooks", and I then realised that Bond should probably be played by Rupert Penry-Jones.)

Tonally, the film's a bit like watching "The World Is Not Enough" whilst someone occasionally kicks you in the head (or plays Flicksies with your testicles). The imported grittiness feels jarring, and the humour (obviously from the flamboyant purple quills of Neil Purvis and Robert Wade) doesn't sit well with the lunk they've asked Craig to be. Then there's the much-vaunted contribution of Paul Haggis, a man whose origins creating kindly-mountie cop-fluff "Due South" I will bring up every time I speak of him. I loathed "Crash", and all the cloying dialogue late in the game about how Bond has "no armour… you've stripped it from me" is textbook Haggis. Craig even speaks Haggis's dialogue with the same enormous significance as they did in "Crash" - like there's a lump of coal in his mouth, and if he gently spits it out, Tiny Tim will be warm this Christmas.

It should also be mentioned that this film is really damned long. It's two hours and twenty-four minutes. Like I said, other than the parkour chase, the opening hour is all faff, and it's only once Eva Green plonks herself unceremoniously into the seat opposite Bond on the train to Montenegro that the film hunkers down and focuses. The love story doesn't work because it is fluffy and vague - Bond has been established as a cold-hearted rogue who clearly just wants to jump Green's bones, and we're supposed to believe that, after the Flicksies, Bond genuinely is in love. It's nonsense, and again jars with the smart-arse toughnut they've spent the previous two hours setting up. And then they go all Tracy in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" with the end of the film, which hopefully sets up Bond 22's excoriating examination of Bond's misogyny… it was all Eva Green's fault! Damned women! Can't trust them as far as you can throw them down a lift-shaft!

I absolutely agree that the franchise needed a re-think after "Die Another Day", which was the frothiest piece of nonsense the Bond films have ever thrown up. The good news is that "Casino Royale" doesn't have an invisible car or Toby Stephens playing the son of a North Korean general, or Halle bloody Berry. The bad news is that the weaker writing aspects of the Purvis/Wade era are exacerbated by Paul Haggis schmaltzification, and together they have contrived to make Bond a step away from being played by The Rock. Where "Batman Begins" provided an origin movie which showed the raw potential of a man being shaped into a hero, here Bond is a lump of clay, and remains a lump of clay. The hope is that Daniel Craig's Bond continues to develop over the next couple of films into something a little… well… Bondier.

[Gambit]

May 17, 2009 10:10:02 GMT -5 alex said:

Because Craig looks enormous. When he first tries on his dinner jacket, prancing around a hotel room, he looks like Bongo, the bouncer from the Ink & Paint Club in Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Bongo the bouncer. ;D

[chuck007]

May 17, 2009 10:10:02 GMT -5 alex said:

Here's an interesting CR review from someone who worked for Eon...


I absolutely agree that the franchise needed a re-think after "Die Another Day", which was the frothiest piece of nonsense the Bond films have ever thrown up.

[alex]

That legendary Chuck wit. ;D

[adam]

Brosnan would have looked stupid starring in a CR type film. I'm not surprised BB would'nt let Jackman read the script. No doubt Bale, Owen and Scott did'nt read it either.

Be interesting to hear why Chuck thinks CR is the best ever. Maybe it's those tight swimming trunks !

[Cpt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

May 18, 2009 22:00:35 GMT -5 adam said:

Brosnan would have looked stupid starring in a CR type film. I'm not surprised BB would'nt let Jackman read the script. No doubt Bale, Owen and Scott did'nt read it either.

Be interesting to hear why Chuck thinks CR is the best ever. Maybe it's those tight swimming trunks !

I'm not surprised that Barbara refused to let anyone read the script apart from Craig. He is her favourite actor.

Casino Royale, unlike that ghastly mess Eon foisted on us last year, was competently made. It was not a great adaption of the novel. Daniel Craig playing a rookie Bond was stupid too, and it is by far the weakest of the current craze of origin movies.

It is overrated; I have read a few articles and blogs that are starting to suggest that.

[chuck007]

May 19, 2009 6:11:56 GMT -5 Cpt. Sir Dominic Flandry said:

May 18, 2009 22:00:35 GMT -5 adam said:

Brosnan would have looked stupid starring in a CR type film. I'm not surprised BB would'nt let Jackman read the script. No doubt Bale, Owen and Scott did'nt read it either.

Be interesting to hear why Chuck thinks CR is the best ever. Maybe it's those tight swimming trunks !

I'm not surprised that Barbara refused to let anyone read the script apart from Craig. He is her favourite actor.

Casino Royale, unlike that ghastly mess Eon foisted on us last year, was competently made. It was not a great adaption of the novel. Daniel Craig playing a rookie Bond was stupid too, and it is by far the weakest of the current craze of origin movies.

It is overrated; I have read a few articles and blogs that are starting to suggest that.

the story that jackman was offered the role but never get a chance to see the script,actually never happened.
if u see the interview with Martin Campbell in latino review, Jackman was never approached i think the press made it up. Clive, or Eric Bana never being discussed by Campbell and EON.
here is the link:
www.latinoreview.com/films_2005/sonypictures/zorro2/mc-interview.html

in the interview also made clear that Campbell HIMSELF THINK HENRY CAVILL WAS TOO YOUNG.
So the rumors said that Barbara reject Henry Cavill was false.

[chuck007]

May 18, 2009 22:00:35 GMT -5 adam said:

Brosnan would have looked stupid starring in a CR type film. I'm not surprised BB would'nt let Jackman read the script. No doubt Bale, Owen and Scott did'nt read it either.

Be interesting to hear why Chuck thinks CR is the best ever. Maybe it's those tight swimming trunks !

Roger Moore comment about CASINO ROYALE :
the links:
entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/london_film_festival/article4866756.ece

Daniel Craig impressed me so greatly in his debut outing, Casino Royale (and I had to buy the DVD myself, so it is praise not heaped lightly!) by introducing a more gritty, unrefined edge to the character that I thought Sean might just have to move over. Craig’s interpretation was like nothing we’d seen on screen before; Jimmy Bond was earning his stripes and making mistakes. It was intriguing to see him being castigated by M, just like a naughty schoolboy would be by his headmaster. The script showed him as a vulnerable, troubled and flawed character. Quite the opposite to my Bond! Craig was, and is, very much the Bond Ian Fleming had described in the books – a ruthless killing machine. It was a Bond that the public wanted. Damn him as well!

[James]

Here's Sir Daniel of Kregg and Dame Barbara leaving a meeting a few days ago. They look really happy don't they?

[Gambit]

That must have been the meeting where Barbara found out Sony owe her 27 gazillion dollars. ;D

[alvin]

May 16, 2009 14:15:02 GMT -5 chuck007 said:

bro, face it Casino Royale is THE BEST EVER.

I really have to compliment you on your courage and honesty. I wish I had your strength to speak so boldly about Daniel Craig and the new series. But I just get too nervous even when I log into this forum. I agree that 2006 was the best ever for the series. I see it now as a renaissance for the series. Daniel has motivated so many people, I mean just look at us. I can tell that the same thing happened with you, that Daniel changed your life as he has changed mine. You know, my buddies feel the same way as you. They don't even mind dressing up better now and emulating Daniel's soft side like what he did in CR and QOS, showing us that his Bond is in tune with the times by being concerned with his skin care.

[alvin]

That's an unfair review of CR from someone that worked at EON. But change is always hard. But I really believe CR, QOS, and Daniel Craig will catch on and all these reviewers will be forced to admit their wrong.

[adam]

Alvin, I thought you'd left. Been busy watching QOS again, eh.