It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
👏👏👏 Preach it. To me, there’s no other Bond film that quite reaches CR’s heights, and I highly doubt NTTD or any other in the future will measure up either. This one’s my favorite.
And I've mentioned this elsewhere I'm sure, but I've never seen an explanation as to why Le Chiffre tortures Bond. There's no way he'd be able to use that password for anything, and Vesper, who is apparently cooperating with him (*), could very easily route the money wherever Le Chiffre wants, and Bond needs be none the wiser. He'd just type in the password after she enters an account number. This very scenario happens anyway, but to the benefit of Mr White and his organization.
I also don't really get why Vesper kills herself. I mean, she does it because that what she does in the book, but did she go out intending to commit suicide? She did leave the message on the phone.... But did she intend to kill herself in a sinking elevator, or was she gonna wing it?
I'm not a Fleming purist by any means, but the departures from the novel with regard to some character motivations are fairly senseless in this movie.
Finally, I'm surprised the dialogue gets as much love as it does. As soon as Vesper says, "I'm the money," I just think, "oh, we're not gonna be talking like real humans at all, are we?" And indeed nobody does. Campbell delivers the franchise's second cornball beach scene replete with Star Wars prequel dialogue.
Anyway, not a masterpiece for me, then. ;) I get that it could be seen as a breath of fresh air after DAD, but I'm a little surprised that it's held up so well for fans.
(*) the film is never decisive on whether or not Mathis was a villain. But assuming he wasn't, then it was Vesper who was passing on info about the tell, etc. So why not just tell Le Chiffre she'll get him the money? Hell, why not give Bond the extra five million if you're working to ensure it gets to Le Chiffre anyway?
I never quite understood how Vesper fit in. But the major hole in the film is that Bond doesn't have to play poker at all. If the idea is to get to LeChiffre and to use his financial loss as leverage, then all they had to do let him enter the tournament, begin it, and then abduct him and hold him. Once he suddenly didn't show up, he'd lose his money. Done.
As for Le Chiffre torturing Bond, I think that's more of a sign of desperation than him actually having a thought out plan. He KNOWS he's a dead man and looking for ANYTHING to get out of his situation no matter how futile. You can tell from that one shot where he's looking out of a hole and his eyes are filled with panic.
There's probably always a simpler solution than the crazy adventure presented in the Bond films, but it's the crazy adventure we're here for, no? I have read the complaints regarding CR but I can honestly say they don't take any of the fun of the film away for me.
The Bond films have a long tradition of
But do we care in the end? CR moves fast enough for me not to worry about any of that. I'm enjoying every second with Craig as the alpha Bond. The film looks bloody good. It's not just a better film than DAD, it's Bond done right. The small inconsistencies or absurdities in the plot remain small compared to, say, the silliness of AVTAK or MR, and even those films are perfectly enjoyable. Because no one ever demanded the Bonds to be anything other than fun rollercoaster rides with story logic just one aspect under scrutiny amidst a ton of other things that we love and care about.
I see where you're coming from for sure. And I definitely think CR makes you feel what you're supposed to at all the right times. Torturing a guy for a password has the right vibe whether it makes sense or not, Vesper committing suicide sort of makes sense even if it's a bit random, and as long as you don't think about motivations or anything it all works fine.
But I'd argue that films like MR and AVTAK have far fewer inconsistencies or questions marks with regard to why characters are doing what they're doing. You obviously have to dive in and accept more fantasy aspects with those films, but within those worlds, the plots and motivations make sense. If Zorin were trying to flood Denver, CO (elevation 5280 ft, no connection to microchips), that would be more in line with what I think is nonsensical behavior from Le Chiffre.
I mean, you could go ahead and question MR with something like "How did Drax build his space station before the radar jammer was in effect", but it would be nitpicking a deliberately silly film. (You could go that route with CR too and wonder why Bond would pursue a man up a crane, or why a guy would escape up a crane in the first place--this all happens because it's a Bond film!)
CR, in contrast, is Very Serious Indeed, and the questions about its script basically boil down to: "Why do any of the central events of this movie happen at all?" and that's not something that I think can be said for any other Bond movies. It's slightly more annoying given that with a bit more thought, it all could have made sense. Though, again, the film is well made enough that it felt great on first watch. Sort of like Bond's fake death in YOLT, or the (IMO) overly-criticized contrivances of Silva's plan in Skyfall.
tl;dr I don't like plot nitpicks like one finds all over YouTube nowadays. The issues I feel exist in CR are significant and foundational
Best Bond, best Bond Girl, best action in the series, fantastic score/title song, brilliant plot and faithful adaptation of the source material
Comfortably my favourite Bond film.
What Martin Campbell may not give in overly showy pretentious flairs, he more than makes up for with immersive action, great storytelling, compelling characters and an instinctive understanding of Bond the character that we haven't had since John Glen or perhaps even Terence Young
CR really showed what Bond could be when you take him out of the comfort zone of the cheap one-liners and the expected tropes. We still got them but reintroduced subtly as the film went on. CR is still my most refreshing Bond experience since becoming a fan and hasn't lost any of that 15 years later.
Well, it showed that Bond can be a guy who murders people in foreign embassies and breaks into his boss's house for no good reason! ;)
I do have to get this one last moan in: Martin Campbell has hosted two reinventions of Bond as a generic American cop movie trope. First the "buddy cop" of Goldeneye--"Hey, remember James Bond and his long-term partner agent and all their pub-themed code words?" And second with Casino Royale and the "loose cannon who doesn't respect institutions" trope. Neither bears any resemblance to prior EON or Fleming Bonds or is really all that interesting.
CR also goes far with the theme of "Bond's ego", which is also an invention for that film. Bond has always been cocky, and supremely confident in his professional and sexual ability, but the ego presented in CR: "F--- it, I'll kill him in the embassy", "F--- it, I'll hack M's computer and go it alone after I killed a guy in an embassy" is totally novel. When people see that and think, "Yes! We're back to Fleming's Bond" or "back to Connery's Bond", I really have no idea what they're talking about. This is a new guy who happens to be called James Bond. Which is fine, of course, if you want James Bond to be different.
Now this is all down to taste, and doesn't speak to the quality of CR as its own film (although the broadly nonsensical plot does). But when you read what Fleming's Bond was feeling five minutes after Vesper's death:
"He saw her now only as a spy. Their love and his grief
were relegated to the boxroom of his mind. Later,
perhaps they would be dragged out, dispassionately
examined, and then bitterly thrust back with other sen-
timental baggage he would rather forget. Now he could
only think of her treachery to the Service and to her
country, and of the damage it had done. His
professional mind was completely absorbed with the
consequences — the covers which must have been blown
over the years, the codes which the enemy must have
broken, the secrets which must have leaked from the
centre of the very section devoted to penetrating the
Soviet Union."
--it's just a different character and a different story. Fleming's novel is only very loosely adapted here in the service of reinventing the character entirely.
I will give the CR loose canon thing more love, though. That Bond does have a resemblance to previous incarnations as far as breaking the rules and doing things on his own. And you can trace the roots of a Bond who did those things way back to Maibaum and Wilson's young Bond pitch for TLD back in the '80s as a wild, undisciplined naval officer who gets recruited to Mi6. It just took CR to bring it to life and I think it does a great job in showing how Bond had to hone his skills to become who he is.
CR '06 couldn't be a literal translation of the '53 novel, but it does just fine in bringing it into the modern day for me.
I'm not continuing an argument here, I'm expounding on a point of agreement....! :)
I'm also not against "loose cannon" stuff. For me, I think it works in LTK because Bond is given a damn good reason to act like that, based on established characters in the series. In CR, Bond does some rather extreme loose cannon stuff while on a fairly mundane mission to apprehend a bombmaker (a point admittedly made by M herself). So it just seems to be this guy's MO. Again, it's all personal taste, but I just feel we have loads of screen anti-heroes like this and there's no real need to make Bond into another one.
So I mean, they could have done this loose cannon thing, as LTK did, but justify it a bit more somehow. For LTK they maimed a long-running character and promoted the movie as being an unusual Bond film. In CR, it seems to be "so this is where the guy from Goldfinger came from" and it doesn't really ring true for me. Likewise, that plot stuff, which seems pretty significant, could have been a lot more coherent without losing anything. If the movie works with bad plotting, great, but how good would it have been with good plotting?
But obviously I'm in a pretty small minority, so EON can't have messed up all that bad!
I think CR is a superb film and a superb Bond film but I think this is a pretty spot on view of it, also. I love Craig as Bond, but he's not Fleming's Bond either. I don't see him as any really being more Fleming than Moore or Brosnan were.
No argument at all, sir. I appreciate your views and enjoy the discussion.
Loose cannon is fine. I didn't mind that Bond killed "one bomb maker" and "shot up an embassy." Problem is, he also stupidly chased him up a construction crane, in what has to be one of the dumbest foot chases in Bond history. Really, it was just an excuse to get parkour on screen and did provide a great moment of humor (when Bond crashes through the dry wall). But if Bond's motive is to apprehend him, well...once Mallaka has gone up the crane, his goose is cooked (no pun intended). There is no reason to chase after him. Just wait for him to come down. In a film that otherwise makes perfect 21st-century sense, this part didn't pass the smell test. Then again, this is a BOND FILM and no such logical interpretations are needed. ;)
I did mention the crane earlier, but included it as an example of a legitimate, but nitpicky, issue in the movie. But yeah, the whole footchase, as cool as parkour is, comes from the same place as the theme park stunt show antics of the TND motorcycle chase, or TWINE's caviar factory. A long contrivance that is as much a break from the movie as the Ford advert a bit later.
Am I overestimating the real-world consequences of Bond being filmed murdering a guy at a foreign embassy? That seems like something that gets you fired, at the very least, because you're performing absolutely terribly in your (brand new!) job, and you are surely breaking several of the most important laws that exist, regardless of your 00 status. And then, "you sure are cheeky breaking into my house and accessing my government computer after causing a front-page international incident that blackens the name of the Service"... I mean, let's pick a tone, movie.
Indeed, I see now. Yeah, it's a legit point, as is the point about the embassy. I would guess that from a geopolitical standpoint, the little country of Nambutu wouldn't be in too much of a position to raise a stink, leading to deeper questions about imperialism and the influence of the "empire."
In preparation for NTTD, I'm doing a Craig-era film every 2 weeks on Thursday nights. It should time perfectly with the release of NTTD in the UK on 30 September (if all goes to plan). So, let's begin........
I haven't watched CR since 2013 and since then - at least in the UK - the film has reached hallowed and iconic status. I thought I was about to watch a masterpiece and - as it turned out - I did not. I'll whisper it, but 'CR may have got a tad overhyped in the last 15 years.' Don't get me wrong, It's a very good film.....but there are problems. For example, as @Zarozzor points out the third act is not that strong.
My main point of contention is the lumpy structure. It struggles to really hold together propulsive plot and there are some sluggish sequences. It's not helped that the Bahamas and Casino interludes are in need of trimming.
Considering the film is now revered for being the 'gritty reboot' of Bond, I was surprised how light and entertaining CR actually is. It's definitely more character-driven, but it's also a very mischievous, sexy and charming film. There are even a few moments that are verge on the corny or absurd.
The real MVP here is Daniel Craig. This was the first time I've watched a Bond film in a while and really wanted to be Bond. Craig is simply that cool and his Bond is more of a lone wolf. It's helped that he plays an actual character. This is basically the 'bad boy' version of Bond (you know, 'the one your mother warned you about') who has a problem with authority and playing by the rules. He's naughty, sly and has a glint in his eye. He's that guy all the girls roll their eyes at and pretend to want nothing to do with, but secretly all want attention from. Though he can be a cocksure and arrogant git. 007’s got a frequently remarked upon ego, which can cause him to recklessly overreach and botch things. In fact, his aforementioned 'ego' forms a large part of his learning curve in the film.
Though - if watching Bond learn lessons about hubris sounds grating - Craig is equally as impressive as the stoic, romantic hero figure. Especially in his latter scenes with Vesper and the action. He feels so very authentic and convincing as the 'rough diamond' assassin finding his footing in MI6. The real magic from Craig comes in the emotional scenes. You see how Bond struggles with the violence and how he develops into a colder character before the credits roll.
Eva Green is simply stunning. Vesper Lynd is hardly the typical Bond girl and Green makes her an ideal match for Craig’s Bond. Their banter is so well performed and a surprise in this supposedly 'serious, modern reboot', as it feels more akin to something from a Hitchcock film. The real asset that Green brings to Vesper is a degree of complexity; she's enigmatic, elegant, vampish and - fundamentally - feels real. Her response to the violence is authentic and harrowing. If I had a gripe with the character, it would be the dumb 'little finger' scene in Lake Como. If only the film had scrubbed that wonky dialogue and added something more tender it would have sold the romantic relationship more (it's a shame as otherwise the script is actually excellent).
Martin Campbell is the ultimate master of ceremony. His combination of grand action set-pieces, claustrophobic bloody fight scenes with glitz and glamour among Europe's high flyers and criminal kingpins delivers by far the coolest Bond movie since the early 1960s. If Campbell didn't reinvent the Bond film with CR, he definitely shook it up a little, chipping away at the pastiche. The film isn't overly self-referential and it actually feels like an attempt to modernise the series for 2006 (it surprisingly hasn't aged much since either). The photography by Phil Mehuex is beautifully rich and glossy. Though, if I am to nitpick, I think the styling and camera shots of Craig at the poker table are not flattering (just too many ugly close-ups). Also, the action editing by Stuart Baird is A+.
It should be said that this isn't a 'Jason Bourne' film. Whilst the action is brutal, the tone is glamorous and the plot is far-fetched and bit daft. It's probably overly long and melodramatic. Though regardless of any fragilities on show, what makes CR an outstanding piece of work is Daniel Craig - who did nothing less than reinvent a character that everyone already knew and had thoughts on how he should be played. He totally took ownership of 007 here.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐/5
For me, Casino Royale is the best Bond film and the best debut of any actor in the role
I agree with pretty much everything here, @Pierce2Daniel. But I think much of the film has aged and not in a good way. CR is a top tier film for the other reasons you mention. DC is fantastic, and this is impressive given the scrutiny he was under. EG is close to perfection. But some scenes, in the first act, are not shot well at all. Campbell hits his stride when the film shifts to Montenegro.
Haha, @Jordo007 I honestly just never find the time.
There are some dated aspects - especially things like the phones, laptops, the hairstyles, costumes and the Dad rock title song. However, in the most part, it feels like a modern update. I think if someone was to watch it today for the first time, it wouldn't necessarily feel like an old movie nor would it feel like it was harkening back to the 1960's.
Also, I had a few other questions I was hoping for some help on....
Finally, whilst we are so used to Daniel as Bond now, you have to give Barbara props for picking him in 2005. He was such an edgy and intriguing choice that broke all the rules. I can't really think of someone quite as edgy, rough, sexy and raw to play the part next.
I took it that the bug inserted in Le Chiffre's inhaler had a limited range, and OO7 wanted to catch any discussion as soon as it started. Being nearby was essential, and he was rightly cautious to bring a gun even if he wasn't able to properly use it.
As in the book, where Vesper sought a few final moments of happiness Gettler reveals himself and likely lurks nearby. She knows she's reaching the end of her usefulness, once the money is delivered they can't let her return to the Treasury and her own life. Where she thinks her boyfriend's life is at risk, at the same time she's faithfully done the bidding of her blackmailers to block Bond winning at the table (short of not letting him die by poisoning, I hope they don't know about that). A last hope could be to sacrifice herself, asking that the boyfriend and Bond be spared. And she ends up sacrificing herself in front of Bond regardless.
My thinking was that Le Chiffre knew Vesper was assisting his efforts. But that's not crystal.
It's interesting to consider she was dealing with the higher level Quantum players like Mr. White, and Le Chiffre was unaware. Maybe better for the story and film experience to suspect all these things at film's end.
Le Chiffre was clearly misdirecting us all with his comment "I'm afraid your friend Mathis ... is really my friend Mathis." I see Vesper's abduction in the film mirroring the novel closely, Bond in the restaurant realizes Mathis wouldn't call Vesper away--he would join them in celebration with much to discuss. Bond simply smells a rat. Mathis is a pure as newfallen snow, as revealed in the next film.
My controversial opinion regarding this film is that it's the BEST movie ever made during the 2000's. I'll take it over any film that decade.
Well, stealing a substantial sum of money from the Treasury would probably preclude her from going back to her job! :))
I'd have thought Vesper had direct contact with Le Chiffre? After all, someone passed on the info about Le Chiffre's tell. If not Mathis (though to be honest, the film never actually clears him), it must have been Vesper. Which always makes me wonder why he wouldn't just have Vesper wire him the money--no need to torture Bond for a password he can't use anyway.
Le Chiffre's misdirection about "his" friend Mathis seems mostly directed at the audience. But I wonder about his other bluff: that Vesper, in the other room, will tell him the account number. Why doesn't Bond think, "Hang on, why in the world do you need the Treasury's account number?"
Anyway, I don't think I've ever seen a movie so many times without actually knowing what happened in the movie. :))
Yes it piles on for Vesper not returning to the Treasury, beyond that she likely no longer has any use to the bad guys. Game over.
Yeah I am pretty much in the same boat.