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
I still see the duplication.
RAAAWWWRR!!!
"I gotta get a new hat!"
And now here's something we hope you'll REALLY like...
b-(
If @4EverBonded and @pachazo can deliver their votes and overall thoughts today, I might be able to wrap up the DAD revisit this evening. If not, tomorrow late morning/early afternoon.
1) I disagree. He certainly gave a more relaxed performance than he did in TWINE but to his credit that was all he could do to not make a fool of himself. I feel that he succeeded in that respect. There are many, many faults to be found in this this film but I do not believe that Pierce Brosnan was one of them. He's better here than he is in GE but he's a notch below his TND and TWINE performances. He did the best he could do with the material that he was given.
2) I agree with the decision to move on without Pierce. The Brosnan era had gotten so stale and it's clear (for whatever reason) that the producers were not going to change direction with Pierce on board. Daniel Craig provided the spark that gave this series an edge again. I don't blame Brosnan for the bad scripts and middling directors that were placed upon him but I wouldn't change Casino Royale for anything in the world. In a perfect world Brosnan would have gotten the Bond movie that he really wanted (that we all wanted) but it was just not meant to be.
3) There is absolutely no justification for the horrendous CGI used in this film. Tamahori apparently saw himself as some kind of visionary but in reality he's nothing more than a hack director and it's unbelievable that EON chose him to take the helm of their sacred franchise.
4) She was certainly not worth a million dollars. The song is terrible. I've never been a Madonna fan but she has had some decent ballads in the past that would have been much more appropriate for this film. Unfortunately, she was in her "techno" phase and the results were less than desirable. As far as her cameo goes, I do not mind it because the film is so bad that it doesn't really matter to me if she's in it or not. It's not like she's popping up in the middle of FRWL or something.
5) (a)- Pierce Brosnan as James Bond - 6
(b)- Rosamund Pike as Miranda Frost - 7 (she is the best thing in the film)
(c)- Emilio Echavarria as Raoul, the Cuban sleeper agent - 4
(d)- Will Yun Lee as Colonel Moon - 3
(e)- Kenneth Tsang as General Moon - 5 (a very underrated performance)
(f)- Ho Yi as Chinese agent/hotelier Mr. Chang - 2
(g)- Rachel Grant as Peaceful Fountains Of Desire - 1 (gorgeous but had hardly any lines)
(a)- Halle Berry as Jinx - 7 (Words cannot describe)
(b)- Toby Stephens as Gustav Graves - 1 (Not a terrible actor, just got saddled with a bad script)
(c)- Rick Yune as Zao - 2
(d)- Michael Madsen as Damien Falco - 3 (I've seen him do much better in other films)
(e)- Madonna as Verity - 6
(f)- Samantha Bond as Miss Moneypenny - 5
(g)- John Cleese as Q (or it is R, I'm confused) - 4
Good questions this week @SirHenry. Certainly more entertaining than the film itself!
We now have a three way tie for first while Berry and Madonna are running away with the worst performances. Madsen, Sam Bond, and Yune are duking out for 3rd. And in a surprise I didn't expect, Toby Stephens is next to last and might turn to be the best of the worst performances!
1) Difficult to say in which Brosnan is better, TWINE or DAD; I will go with AGREE. I feel he is slightly better in DAD. (But, again let me say that I beleive TND was his full on fully fleshed out amazingly great Bond and GE was a very good Bond indeed. )
2) Really complex to think about and we have to say what ideally we would have liked rather than pracical things ... ok ... YES Brosnan should have had a 5th film; he was not too old and had it in him and deserved to go out better than the mess that was DAD. No, it should not have been CR - that is a reboot film and was perfectly cast, scripted, etc. with Craig. But yes, the 5th film for Brosnan could and should have been done, and in a more realistic way than DAD ... something back along the lines of TND which had some quite serious/sad/dramatic moments as well as spy/villain/chase etc.
3) Tamahori is rightly to blame, I feel, for the godawful amount of lousy CGI but Purvis ' Wade take some blame, too. But the producers and director could have toned that down ... and didn't.
4) Madonna was a fiasco. Not worth it. Not a worthy Bond song. At all. 10 years earlier she could have pulled out a good Bond theme, just maybe.
5) Best acting performance -
Brosnan - best, followed in order by:
Emilio Echavarria as Raoul, the Cuban sleeper agent
Rosmund PIke as Frost
Kenneth Tsang as General Moon
Ho Yi as Chinese agent/hotelier Mr. Chang
Will Yun Lee as Colonel Moon
Ho Yi as Chinese agent/hotelier
Rachel Grant as Peaceful Fountains Of Desire
Worst performances:
Halle Berry the worst BY FAR, followed (worst to not so bad):
Madonna as Verity
Michael Madsen (he annoys me)
Rick Yune
Toby Stephens
John Cleese
Samantha Bond (I always liked her Moneypenny)
1. Casino Royale- 4.33
2. Goldfinger- 4.30
3. From Russia With Love- 4.26
4. Skyfall (6/7 reviews)- 4.17
5. The Living Daylights- 4.11
6. Thunderball- 4.09
7. The Spy Who Loved Me- 4.06
8. Licence To Kill- 4.03
9. On Her Majesty's Secret Service- 3.99
10. For Your Eyes Only- 3.91
11. You Only Live Twice- 3.90
12. Live And Let Die- 3.81
13. GoldenEye- 3.80
14. Octopussy- 3.73
15. Tomorrow Never Dies- 3.71
16. Dr. No- 3.57
17. Quantum Of Solace- 3.42
18. A View To A Kill- 3.31
19. The World Is Not Enough- 3.20
20. The Man With The Golden Gun- 3.09
21. Diamonds Are Forever- 2.99
22. Moonraker- 2.96
23. Die Another Day- 2.70
Good afternoon fellow originals and guests! After @BeatlesSansEarmuffs recent review of Die Another Day came in with a score of 27 out of 50, exactly the same rating it had based on 6 prior reviews, there was no change in the score nor ranking.
My continuous thanks to everyone who has participated in the thesis questions. Participation seemed more or less as normal levels this week and this week I know that posting a response deadline was helpful. Trivia will continue.
Regarding the polling of the 6 Die Another Day thesis questions, here's this week's consensus- these must have been fairly compelling questions, as the voting was extremely close!
1. While the vast majority of discerning fans realize that no Bond actor could have done much with the script and how it was directed, there are a segment of fans who feel Pierce Brosnan gave a better and more relaxed performance here than he did in The World Is Not Enough, one closer to the performance he gave in GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies. Do you agree, or disagree with the sentiment?
By a slim margin of 5 votes to 4, the panel and guests thought that Brosnan's performance in this film was slightly better that in TWINE. Some were strong in their views one way or the other, others felt it was fairly even and more difficult to judge. My view, and one that may be shared by those who agreed, was that Pierce obviously had a lot less "meat on the bone" to chew, and perhaps that's why the scenes were simpler to do. Pierce has a great sense of humor about him and he just seems to do better in roles that call for it. And except for the scene on the hospital ship, I felt he was more on point for what I thought he should be.
2. A two part question. First, the majority of Brosnan fans often indicate they would have liked to seen him do a 5th film, mostly because they would have liked to have seen him go out on a higher note. Obviously Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson felt differently. Do you agree with their decision to go in another direction with a different actor, or should they have postponed that for one more Brosnan film, and if you said yes, then for what reason? And second, should that 5th film been the film Brosnan really wanted and felt he deserved, the remake of Casino Royale, or a different film altogether that was better suited for the acting style and skill set he had previously displayed?
By another slim margin of 5 votes to 4, the panel and guests thought that Brosnan did not deserve a 5th film, with the prevailing sentiment being that his era and the way it was trending as far as the lighter type of Bond he was portraying had simply become stale and run it's course. This was also my perception at this time so I agreed. Those in favor of one more noted that he had been handed a stinker in this film, and that he was deserving and EON should have given him the chance based on his prior efforts to go out on a better note. And that they owed him more than a phone call dismissal. Which leads us to part 2 of the question, if Brosnan had been granted a 5th film should it have been Casino Royale, which he felt he was capable of doing? And to that, it was unanimous that he should not. Various views expressed (too old to be that physical, series needed change of direction, reboot) were mentioned, and I agreed with all of them. But for me the biggest reason of all is that they needed an actor that could provide greater emotional depth and had the skill set to do so- Brosnan could have done some elements of CR well enough, but for the complete package that this script called for, I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, he simply wasn't a talented enough actor and the movie as is would not be nearly the classic it has become.
3. Another big problem and harsh criticism many fans have with the film is the excessive use of CGI by director Lee Tamahori, starting with the gun barrel and ending with kite surfing glaciers and disintegrating planes. Do you agree with the sentiments expressed that included those of Sir Roger Moore that echo this school of thought? Or was Tamahori justified in using as much as he did, in lieu of good old fashioned stunt work, due to what the script was calling for?
It was unanimous that Tamahori used way too much CGI throughout the film, and by an 8-1 margin he was not justified. The 2nd part of that question is a little tricky and while I felt some scenes that used CGI could have been done by an actual stunt person (like the Berry backwards dive off the Cuban cliff), it appeared to me that the script may have at times left him little choice but to use it. So in a way, I think that P&W and the producers should also carry a greater burden and their fair share of blame for how the film turned out.
4. The title song written by Madonna and her cameo appearance are another big point of criticism among the fan base. Looking at how her title song performed on the charts and how she performed in her small cameo, was she worth the excess of 1 million dollars they paid for her contributions when examining the resulting revenues (please review the music notes in the trivia section for how the song performed), or would the producers have done better to limit her contributions to what was forced on them (her title song) rather than compounding the issues those had with the song by hiring her to make said cameo?
For the third time by a narrow margin of 5 votes to 4, the consensus was that Madonna was worth the $1 million invested. But there was a qualifier, because no one felt that part of that money paid for her cameo was worth it, as the performance voting will further bear out. What we have to understand here with the first question is that whether we like the song or not, and it's very obvious we don't, what MGM was looking for was a successful song by a major artist that would perform as far as sales (it did well as a single) and in the charts, which it's position indicated it did as far as radio airplay and general popularity with the dance/techno crowd. So by MGM standards, she was worth the investment and returns and everyone profited both monetarily and with publicity for the film. On point #2, I highly doubt a cameo appearance by Madonna brought her "wannabes" into the theater in droves, so as far as I am concerned EON wasted their money.
5. True multiple choice question #1. Name the best acting performance-
(c)- Emilio Echavarria as Raoul 7, 7, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6, 7 (45)
(a)- Pierce Brosnan as James Bond 5, 3, 7, 6, 5, 6, 7, 5 (44)
(b)- Rosamund Pike as Miranda Frost 3, 6, 6, 7, 3, 7, 5, 6 (43)
(e)- Kenneth Tsang as General Moon 6, 5, 4, 3, 7, 5, 4, 4 (38)
(d)- Will Yun Lee as Colonel Moon 4, 4, 5, 5, 2, 3, 3, 2 (28)
(f)- Ho Yi as Chinese agent/hotelier Mr. Chang 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3 (17)
(g)- Rachel Grant as Peaceful Fountains Of Desire 1, 1, 1, 1. 1, 1, 1, 1 (8)
6. True multiple choice question #2. Name the worst acting performance-
(a)- Halle Berry as Jinx 7, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7 (55)
(e)- Madonna as Verity 5, 7, 4, 6, 5, 6, 6, 6 (45)
(d)- Michael Madsen as Damien Falco 6, 5, 2, 2, 6, 3, 5, 4 (33)
(c)- Rick Yune as Zao 3, 3, 5, 4, 3, 2, 4, 3 (27)
(f)- Samantha Bond as Miss Moneypenny 1, 2, 6, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5 (26)
(b)- Toby Stephens as Gustav Graves 4, 1, 3, 3, 4, 1, 3, 2 (21)
(g)- John Cleese as Q 2, 4, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 1 (17)
Congrats to Mexican actor Emilio Echavarria, who narrowly won the best performance by one vote over Brosnan and 2 votes over Pike. Tsang wasn't far behind, and you will see my scores at the very end that show my opinion that they all did a fine job under the general circumstances. And the big raspberry for worst performance easily goes to Halle "Yo Mama" Berry for a horrible performance that earned her 7 of 8 worst votes. Madonna received the other first place vote and Michael Madsen was third in this version of the "hall of shame". The surprising thing to me here was the amount of support Toby Stephens received- I agree with those who expressed the opinion that for the way the character was written to be a pompous and insufferable first class jerk, Stephens played it very well and should be not taken to task personally for doing his job.
That will wrap up our look back at Die Another Day, and next we will revisit the debut of our current Bond Daniel Craig in Casino Royale. It's currently ranked #1 out of all the Bond films, including the Connery classics which I personally never expected to happen when I started this poll, so let's see if Beatles' review keeps it at #1 or returns Goldfinger to the top spot. Have a great weekend everyone!
Say what you will about the folks at Eon Productions, one thing’s for sure: they learn from their mistakes. When they went too far into camp and science fiction with Moonraker, they followed it up with the most realistic of all the Roger Moore Bonds, For Your Eyes Only. When they nearly sent the franchise off the rails with Die Another Day, they followed it up with one of the best Bond films of all time: their long awaited adaptation of Ian Fleming’s first James Bond novel, Casino Royale. And taking matters one step farther, they bid farewell to their picture-perfect leading man, Pierce Brosnan, replacing him with a choice that many fans found questionable at first: Daniel Craig. I’ll admit that early promotional photos of Craig had me doubting his suitability for the role…but I never went online to broadcast that doubt. I had enough faith in the producers’ judgment -- or at least enough respect for the allied crafts of acting and film-making -- to wait until I’d actually seen Craig play the role before judging him in it. So when the movie started the first question in my mind, and in the mind of the entire audience I’ll wager, was: how did Craig do as James Bond?
BOND 5/5 From the moment Daniel Craig said, “I know where you keep your gun,” I knew the Bond series was in good hands. And half-way through the parkour chase, when Craig came crashing through a sheet-rocked wall in pursuit of Sebastien Foucan’s remarkable Mollaka, I knew that the audience was in for one slam-bang doozy of a thrill-ride. Put succinctly, I’ll rank Craig’s Bond as second only to the definitive performance of the master, Sir Sean Connery -- but brevity really isn’t something you’ve come to expect from this reviewer, so I’ll go a little bit further: in some ways, I think Craig brings aspects to the character we could never have gotten from Connery. Craig makes us believe that the Bond we see in this film IS somewhat inexperienced, but also entirely confident in his own abilities. There is an emotional distance to him, but when you scratch the surface he is still human…he bleeds, he gets angry and makes mistakes, he can fall in love and therefore be hurt by betrayal. I never thought I would see the torture scene Fleming penned put onscreen in an Eon-produced James Bond film: Connery would never have allowed himself to be shown in that fashion. No screenwriter or director would have even dared to suggest it to Roger Moore. For Daniel Craig it’s all in a day’s work. Kiss the girl? Sure. Jump from a tall building chasing the bad guy? No problem. Get tied to a chair and have your genitals tortured? You say Fleming wrote it that way? Okay, fine. Makeup…!
WOMEN: 4.5/5 I’m going to be just a little bit of a heretic here: I don’t think Eva Green is quite as gorgeous as everybody else evidently does. There is a bit of a frightened, haunted quality to her eyes that I personally find off-putting. It’s entirely appropriate for the character that she’s playing…but I just don’t find it attractive myself. She’s never going to be in my own list of Top Ten most beautiful Bond Girls. Sorry. Still, she plays the role wonderfully. The growing romance between Vesper and Bond is quite convincing. Her shocked reaction to the violent world she suddenly finds herself enmeshed in is entirely believable. I’ll give Eva Green high marks as an actress even if I personally am not as entranced by her looks as I ought to be. In that regard, I’m saving myself entirely for Caterina Murino as Solange. Holy guacamole, what a gorgeous woman! I’ll see @SirHenry’s favorite exclamation, “Sweet Tap-Dacing Oddjob!” and raise it with a “Holy Xenia Onatopuva Bicycle!” As you may have guessed, I think Murino is seven different kinds of hot. And by the way, what has Christina Cole, the beautiful and cooperative hotel receptionist, been up to since her appearance in this film? There’s another lovely actress I really must be looking up when I get the chance… Also, let’s not neglect the enigmatic Valenka, LeChiffre’s girlfiend played with just a hint of mystery by Ivana Milicevik. Maybe she belongs in the “Villains” category because she does try to poison Bond rather than sleeping with him…but there are lots of bad guys in that category. Let’s just leave her here for the time being…
VILLAINS: 5/5 There are almost TOO MANY awesome bad guys in this film! We start with Isaac de Bankole’ as Steven Obanno, an African warlord with money to invest…then we move on to Mads Mikkelson as Le Chiffre, banker to the terrorists of the world and our main villain for this movie. LeChiffre is the first of the great Fleming villains, a stastical genius whose malformed tear ducts cause him to occasionally weep blood. A cold blooded bastard of the highest order, LeChiffre is using his clients’ money to play the stock market, and when Bond starts investigating his activities, LeChiffre’s hireling Dimitrios is exposed. Dimitrios is a fine secondary villain, notable for losing both his wife, Solange, and his car, a 1964 Aston Martin, to Bond. Follwing Dimitrios to Miami, Bond learns of LeChiffre’s plan to manipulate the stock market by blowing up a plane at the Miami Airport. LeChiffre loses big bucks when Bond foils the plot, and LeChiffre’s only chance to escape the wrath of his clients is to win the money back in a high-stakes poker game. Lurking mysteriously in the background through much of this is the enigmatic Mr. White, played with subtle menace by Jesper Christensen. We will be seeing more of Mr. White in the next film…and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see him again in Bond 24, for that matter. Bottom line, the villains in this film are both creepy in the finest Fleming tradition, and dangerous in a very real-world fashion. White gives us the hint of a sinister organization working behind the scenes and continuing from one film to the next, in the very best tradition of SPECTRE. I for one could not be more satisfied with this film’s many offerings in this crucial category.
HUMOR: 3.5/5 The humor in this film is fairly understated when viewed in comparison to the rest of the series -- but that means it’s played just about perfectly in my eyes. An exasperated M tells her assistant, “Christ, I miss the Cold War!” and we laugh, but not because we are forgetting for a moment the real world consequences of the actions taking place throughout the film. Bond tells Vesper that her cover name is going to be Mrs. Broadchest, and we laugh again, because the mocking and flirting between this pair is totally in keeping with the way real people might interact at the beginning of an intimate relationship. Bond is asked at a very tense moment in the Casino if he’d like his martini shaken or stirred, and the exasperation in his voice when snarling his reply, “Do I look like I GIVE a Damn?” makes us laugh, not because he’s come up with a witty one-liner, but because the film-makers are playing with our expectations in a fashion that we can appreciate.
ACTION: 5/5 Here is where our scoring system proves inadequate to the task at hand. If I could give this category a 10/5 I would; the action sequences themselves are rousing and the plot of the movie not only incorporates a Fleming novel I’d given up hope of ever seeing adapted faithfully…but the film-makers have even improved upon the Fleming original. From the B&W introductory scene, reminding us of Bond’s Cold War origins and presenting his very first two kills, earning him the 00 status…to the astonishing free-running opening scene, culminating in Bond’s ill-considered execution of Mollaka on the grounds of a foreign embassy…moving on to the beautiful beach scenes in the Bahamas and the truly stunning airport sequence with multiple crashes and a near-catastrophe, averted by the resourceful 007 …into the Casino and the card game which is the centerpiece of the novel…and then, abruptly, off to the startling car chase and crash which nearly kills both Bond and the captured Vesper, leading to the blood-curdling torture scenes and our story’s final twist ending…this is a stunning film, one which surprises even the viewer who has read the novel several times and is fully aware of what’s likely to be coming next. Strongest possible marks are given by this reviewer to returning Director Martin Campbell, whose skill as a visual storyteller is most evident in the complex scenes incorporating Bond’s skills as a computer hacker. It would have been very easy for these scenes to have been confusing to the general audience, but amazingly, every moment is crystal clear. Why does Bond follow a trail to the Bahamas? How does he identify Dimitrios as his target? Who is this guy White and how does he fit into all of this? It’s all right there on the screen and it’s Campbell’s skill as a visual storyteller that puts it there and makes sure we can follow along with this complicated storyline. After all the complaints I’ve had with the direction of the previous film -- and, spoiler warning, will have with the next one -- it is a true pleasure to congratulate a great director for his work on Casino Royale. And yes, even the much-disparaged Purvis & Wade come in for some compliments here: as noted previously, they have managed to improve on Fleming’s original storyline. Not just by tacking on some action at the front and back of the story -- necessary but much appreciated touches for a modern film -- they have even managed to redeem Vesper’s treachery against Bond and her country. In the novel, Vesper just commits suicide off camera. Oh well, too bad, the bitch is dead tra la la la. In this movie, Vesper’s death may or may not be of her own doing -- she clearly feels the guilt of her betrayal, and she doesn’t really seem to be trying to escape her watery fate -- but she definitely leaves Bond the information necessary to track down those behind her devious actions, thereby earning her some manner of redemption, to the audience if not immediately to Bond.
SADISM: 5/5 Obanno is about to cut off Ivana’s arm and LeChiffre says nothing. He must be saving his breath for his own big torture scene with Bond. How can any reviewer give this category less than a full 5 points? Of course, these are not the only notable scenes in this category. Bond’s own actions in many of the action sequences deserve consideration as well: the look on his face while watching his opponent at the airport triggering an explosive that only Bond knows has been attached to that man’s belt, demonstrates that this is indeed a man with his own darker impulses. The spike in the face given to one of White’s confederates during the climactic Venice house-sinking only confirms the point. This Bond may be a Knight in White Armor to damsels in distress…but he’s a Dark Avenger when in battle with the bad guys!
MUSIC: 4/5 David Arnold provides another first-class sound track, full of danger, excitement, and glamour. The title track, co-written by Arnold and its performer, Chris Cornell, is one of the best of the modern age -- surprising yet affirming in the message it sends the audience. “You Know My Name.” Yes, indeed we do, and it’s good to hear the sound of an old friend back again. Arnold holds back from giving us the Bond Theme we’ve been expecting until the very end of the film -- but wait! Listen again to the sound track during the scene where Bond is putting on the “dinner jacket” Vesper has given him for the first time. Isn’t that a mash-up of “You Know My Name” with the traditional Bond Theme interspersed within the measures of that newer song? I think it is! Kudos to Arnold for cleverly working the requirements of this new Bond into the audience’s need for reassurance with notes of the familiar.
LOCATIONS: 5/5 Nothing says “Bond” like these locations. The Bahamas. The Czech Republic. Venice (and other locations in Italy as well.) Pinewood Studios. Does it matter that production never actually took place in Madagascar or Montenegro? There’s even a train. If they could have somehow made that train the Orient Express, it would have been perfect -- but then they’d have been accused of “checking all the boxes.” Please forgive me, I’m joshing a little bit. You only kid the ones you love. Bottom line, this is one gorgeously photographed film. Thinking about the next film in line, I can only assume that Campbell et al. sucked all the glamour in Bond’s world out of QoS so that they could inject some extra into Casino Royale.
GADGETS: 3/5 Not one but two Aston Martins. A tracking device implanted in Bond’s arm. And, out of nowhere, the very syringes, medicines and cardio unit that Bond will need to overcome the poison he’s been slipped in that doctored martini. Gadgets are not this film’s biggest stock in trade but that’s okay, we have plenty of other things to consider.
SUPPORTING CAST 5/5 Judi Dench returns as M even though this film is technically a reboot. This bit of casting will give the continuity mavens plenty of sleepless nights; the rest of us will be happy to see any familiar face we can grab onto in this re-imagined Bond world. I don’t have any problem with M’s second-guessing Bond at this stage of his career, he’s making too many mistakes for her to be entirely trusting of him. What I don’t agree with is her need to take a vacation in the Bahamas just so she can check out the sacrificial lamb that was Solange. Bond should have returned to London to be debriefed before moving on to Montenegro. Giancarlo Giannini is perfectly cast as Mathis. He lends a touch of Old World gravitas as well as a sly humor that perfectly suits the needs of this film and this Bond. And finally, Jeffrey Wright is probably the best Felix Leiter this series has ever seen. Maybe Leiter hasn’t been played by the same actor for all these years because they couldn’t find one that was good enough to keep without pricing himself out of the market. Wright’s got a lock on the role as far as I’m concerned. He’s cynical, caring, funny and tough all at the same time. In this film, Bond has a support staff that’s worthy of the World’s Most Famous Secret Agent…and by the end of this film, Daniel Craig has proven to the whole world that he is just that.
TOTAL AND RECOLLECTIONS: 45/50 That’s right, Daniel Craig may not look the way we’ve envisioned Bond before, but once he gets talking --or fighting -- he is unquestionably Bond. James Bond. Cue the famous music. We have a Bond, perhaps the best since Connery, and we can’t WAIT to see what he’ll do in the next film…especially because this one leaves us with a bit of a cliffhanger. Bond has caught up with the mysterious Mr. White…but who’s behind HIM? The next film gives us only PART of the answer, and the one after that takes us in another direction entirely…but I’m perfectly happy with things as they are now. I’m genuinely impressed with the guy we’ve got playing the title role for at least the next few times around, and while I might quibble with one aspect or another of the current situation, I’m a lot happier as a Bond fan these days than I have been in…quite a while. Please pour me another martini, shaken -- not stirred. I have a license to watch the next few films, and the popcorn at Casa SansEarmuffs is always fresh…seasonings to your taste. Pull up a chair and we’ll slip on the next feature!
THE END of this review
But BeatlesSansEarmuffs will return soon
To review the next film, Quantum Of Solace.
And I have to say, you and I had the same thought when we first watched Craig on James Bond. You said, From the moment Daniel Craig said, “I know where you keep your gun,” I knew the Bond series was in good hands.
And in my concluding comments of my review on this thread of Casino Royale, I stated: Honestly, Daniel Craig had me at, "I know where you keep your gun." ;)
One of the best Bond films and one that will stand the test of time, I feel sure.
Thanks @Willy. But if the pen is mightier than the sword, they don't need to know where I keep my gun. They need to find out where I keep my computer!
You may want to check the "Spoiler warning" I left regarding the Director's work for the next one in the Action category, @Chris. Or you may not... :-?
Always a pleasure to be in agreement with you, my dear 4EverBonded! :x
Review it as a CR coda, and we'll be cool.
:P
I think each film needs to be able to stand on its own. Don't worry, I won't be trashing QoS. And I appreciate the narrative device of QoS taking up about where CR left off. There are actually some good ideas in QoS, they're just not very well developed. But my real problem w/ the film is the shaky-cam, I really don't think the audience should have to be asking "What was that? Did they just --- ?" throughout the whole movie.
I was confused by the casting of Craig. I was extremely skeptical of any decision that the producers made at this point. Then I started hearing about the backlash against him immediately following the announcement. I was shocked that so many people could be this negative towards him without even having seen a single frame of the film! It sickened me, to be honest. Then I saw CR and he blew me away. The whole film did. Michael and Barbara had totally redeemed themselves! It took some growing pains but I do believe that the Bond franchise is in the right hands. Cubby would be proud.
A wonderful review once again by @Beatles. Left me smiling several times, especially about Caterina Murino. My wife was sitting between my brother and I, and her reaction to my brother and I all but drooling like horny adolescent schoolboys when she appeared on screen was comical to say the least. So to Caterina, I'll raise his “Holy Xenia Onatopuva Bicycle!” to, in the spirit of her culture, “MADONN! Holy NAKED Xenia Onatopuva Bicycle!”.
Like @chrisisall, I was much relieved to hear that you won't be trashing QOS. When I hear people call QOS the "worst" Bond film, meaning it is worse than DAD, it makes me want to puke. All over them to be quite honest. They obviously flunked the bonus course of understanding the Ian Fleming approved school of Bond fandom while studying over at Hi Fat's place. I think almost any Bond film would have been a letdown after CR. But as I'll touch on later in greater detail, it was very clear that wherever QOS was going, it wasn't headed the way DAD was, and Barb and Mike would address and fix any fault in their decision making, which they most certainly did after DAD.
So soon after DAD, I'd prefer staying far away from any exclamation that so nearly invokes MADONNA! #:-S But thanks as ever for your kind words, @SirHenry. I look forward to the Trivia and Thesis portions of our examination of the brilliance that is CR.
This thread is among the best on the entire community!
And @MrBond thank you my friend! :)