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
Now, as a non-fan of the movie, I have to wonder, what would the second movie be?
"Hey, if you loved Casino Royale, wait til you see Dr No, The Spy Who Loved Me, and The Living Daylights!" Not sure...
:-?
I know it’s sacrilege to say, but I find SF a bit… boring. Like they were so, so careful to create something that would be “iconic” and “classic” that they sucked a lot of the fun out of it.
Your defiance only encourages more love for SF. The more you hate it, the more we love it.
I just have to ask, when did liking things become fanaticism?
CASINO is a tremendous picture, the best since OHMSS, imo.
I agree. A few films rise to level of masterpiece, but not CR, which shares first place with OHMSS as the best Bond films. The strength of both films is that they take the time to develop the characters of Bond's love interests. That I don't consider it a masterpiece does not lessen its excellence. For me the Miami airport segment runs a bit too long and has always felt it didn't really belong in this film. It comes across as Die Hard meets Casino Royale. And the Venice house collapse feels a bit inflated. But these are quibbles. SC remains my favorite Bond, yet I have watched CR more than any other Bond film.
I'll, er, get my coat...
I guess they could've come up with another way for Le Chiffre to lose the money, or have it explained offscreen that he lost it to some equally bad bet that went sideways, but I don't mind the Miami section. It's definitely the weakest section of the film, but even the weakest part of CR is some of the best in the series.
This is the best part of CR to go use the toilet or mix another drink.
I think, if I'm recalling correctly, our Miami friend was just a replacement for Mollaka ("I have another man willing to do the job" - Dmitrios). I think they could have illustrated that Mollaka's job ultimately was build the bomb, take it to Miami and blow up Skyfleet with it (which I think *was* probably the original plan, the film makes it seem like Miami friend is only introduced because Mollaka is taken out). We could have had Bond foil that plot when he takes Mollaka out, and still have that scene with Le Chiffre talking to his investment banker ("I haven't yet calculated how much you've lost..." etc).
Plot-wise it just feels like the Mollaka chase and the Miami Friend chase narratively serve the exact same purpose. To put it otherwise, if the Miami chase was far enough away from Skyfleet, Dmitrios could have replaced *him* with *another* guy, and we'd have a *third* chase scene, ad infinitum (ifs and buts, but hopefully you can see my point).
However, clearly there are people who enjoy the Miami sequence, so, what do I know. I'm not going to sit here and try to say I could do a better job than Martin f***ing Campbell!
@NickTwentyTwo, basically, have it so that once Bond kills the initial bomb maker, Le Chiffre is unable to line up another person to do the job and them the prototype survives? That's an interesting idea. Then we still get to keep that sick opening sequence. B-)
I guess part of the reason for including Carlos after the fact is to show that whoever Le Chiffre is working with is very resilient and will always try to find a way to get what they want, which puts Bond in a dangerous position. He's working against a force that won't stop so easily. Some of this plotting could be viewed as padding, given how long CR itself is already and the fact that the novel starts with Bond already at the casino, but I love all the set up, the moments of escalating rivalry with Bond and Dimitrios, and of course the lovely Solange.
Exactly my thoughts.
But I agree with your second paragraph as well (and thank you for naming Miami Friend, I forgot what it was). It's obviously in there for good reason. Maybe I'll make a fan-supercut of CR, if I ever learn how to edit film...
Also, I would have preferred if Le Chiffre, instead of saying:
"Your friend Mathis is actually my friend Mathis", said something like:
"One of your good friends is actually one of my good friends". To Bond (and the audience), this still would have confirmed the Mathis suspicions, but then have been narratively correct when it turns out to be Vesper.
Of course, the line as-is could be an attempt to mislead Bond, but I don't feel Le Chiffre would feel the need to do that, as he's about to get the password and kill him.
You could actually just cut out the entire first 50 minutes of the movie and start with Bond being debriefed by M on who Le Chiffre is and what he’s trying to do. You will not miss anything because that’s essentially the real beginning of the movie. That basically brings the film down to a nice and brisk 90 minute running time. I’d actually prefer a less bloated adaptation of the novel.
Maybe you can keep the pre-title sequence, have it still serve as the introduction of the new 007 prior to his debriefing.
But as I'm thinking about it, even going with my plan, we do lose a lot of good scenes (all the ellipsis stuff, the meeting between Dimitrios and Le Chiffre), so, fair play that it's all in there. Maybe they could have just cut some of it down (did we really need Branson, BodyWorks, SunglassHut, as well as all the runway stuff?).
Do we learn enough about Bond when he gets to Montenegro for it to be justified? He still displays some recklessness but he is perhaps too far up the learning curve to really have it be as impactful.
The only way to make it a closer adaptation of the novel would be to lose the origin story element. He's already a fully formed Bond by the time he arrives at the casino, with the PTS having been set a long time before the main events of the film.
I think @CraigMooreOHMSS is right in that the film needs an action sequence there, also to justify the long card game (without much action) that is to come. For better or worse, the consequence of the Moore/Dalton/Brosnan years is that the audience expects a lot of action.
That’s the thing, I would excise the Bond Begins aspect of the film entirely, so losing all of the stuff that shows him being reckless is inconsequential for me. It wasn’t needed in the book, so I don’t really need it in the film.
A return to the more taut, fat free, running time of the first three Connery films is ideal to me. So long as it doesn’t feel like it’s on a rush like QOS was (which I think would have benefited from another ten minutes just to let the film breathe and give some atmosphere).
I know that the Craig era was isolated and separate compared to the first 20 Bond films, but if one looks at the whole Storyline or narrative of James Bond, you'll have no idea where to put Craig's Bond just to prove that they're all playing the same character.
So yes, the origin storyline didn't make sense at all to me, better to be left off.
Why not just have Bond as an already experienced agent?
CR is a great movie, but that Origin Story or 'Bond Begins' baffles me a bit because the classic films were telling you that the Bonds of Connery, Lazenby, Moore Dalton and Brosnan was just the same, they're all one man (they're playing the same guy) by having some references to the past films, then Craig suddenly arrived with his 'Bond Begins' and starts telling his own story with start and finish (killing him off), that you have no idea
if this is still the same guy.
I think the origin story was just there because of the Batman Begins.
I wished they followed the novel more by not including him being a rookie.
Edit: I also couldn't blame those people who believes in Codename Theory.
I’d keep the pre-titles with his first two kills since that’s actually something we learn in the novel, and I think that works as a standalone sequence. It’s a good way to set the tone for film. After the titles, you could cut straight to Bond being debriefed about Le Chiffre and the mission.