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
That is very true.
SPOT ON
CR is superior in every way. Plot, cast, score, direction and action.
You may think so yeah, but I don't think Casino Royale has left such a huge impact as Goldeneye has. When you look at the legacy of Goldeneye, it lead to the N64 game, the remake, four of the most memorable Bond villains, and it got a hell of a lot of people interested in Bond. Whereas with Casino Royale, it may be the film that made Bond click with audiences to a much larger degree than usual, but that's the only thing about about it. It's lasting impact isn't really anything compared to Goldeneye. Yes both films are great, and it's all down to opinion, but I just personally think Goldeneye is a better film.
Nice to see some sense on here for a change :P
couldn't have said it better myself...
+1
SPOT ON
Very good point. It takes a world class director like Boorman or Pokanski to get the best from him.
I don't think I agree but I do see what they mean. Most of his more acclaimed performances have been in colorful supporting roles, usually as dark/immoral characters. But I think he works equally well as the lead. It's not just his looks, it's his mannerisms, his charisma, the way he moves. He's just cool. He's perfect as the suave, flashy action hero, but you do also get the sense that there's someone more dangerous underneath. There are moments where the assassin comes out and Brosnan gets to show off his dramatic side, but it's different to Connery: Connery made it look cool, but when Brosnan does it it comes across as unsettling. He's not cold blooded, he's angry, emotional, etc. That's the character actor in him coming out. He could be a bit over the top in these moments but on the whole I think he's very good at reminding us through these moments that it's sort of messed up that we're rooting for him. A wolf in sheep's clothing sort of thing.
He's probably still my second favourite Bond (after Dalton) and GE and TWINE are still two of my all time favourites.
I seem to be in the minority but I actually much prefer the last two Craig films to the first two. CR I've always respected but never really, really enjoyed. It didn't blow me away in the same way GE did. I appreciated the change in direction and it is stunningly well made, cast, acted, etc.
But I've never been a fan of the reboot angle. One of the strengths of Bond is how, in the novels and the films, he came as a fully formed character, imo. It's amazing how well DN set things up for the next 50 years just by showing how he exists. We didn't need to see his origin story: the book wasn't one.
I also think it's pretty poorly paced at times. The first half starts off great but once we get to Miami it becomes a bit of a slog imo. Then the film hits its stride again but at the end what should have been an epilogue becomes a big bloated finale complete with CGI destruction and a melodramatic ending. I really hate Vesper's death, with him trying to save her and the dramatic emotional music, because I can't help but compare it to Tracy. When Tracy died it wasn't a big telegraphed moment. It was sudden, quick and came out of nowhere. It was much more understated and I think that made it a lot more affecting in comparison to Vesper, and I also thought Vesper's relationship with Bond seemed pretty rushed.
GE doesn't take as many risks but it still feels fresh. It's not perfect (the score is pretty terrible, the effects have aged badly, it does look cheap at times) but it's like TSWLM: a 'classic' Bond film but a modern take on the formula that actually plays around with it and subverts it at times (GE does this even more than TSWLM). You just get the sense that everyone involved is firing on all cylinders to make it a hit. Even watching it now it feels really fresh and exciting. One of the very best for me. Top 5 for sure.
Great analysis of CR and I've felt pretty much the same way since I first saw it. Admiration, appreciation. But never blown away.
An example being how the latest Bond films get picked apart for not explaining this thing or that thing, when much of CR is left unexplained too. Very little of Vesper's motivations are shared, and we're left to wonder when and how Quantum got to her, when she fell for Bond, if she was working with White and not Le Chiffre or both, etc. That's a big deal, considering the betrayal is so heavily a part of the film. That's one thing I think many pro-CR folks don't want to pay attention to.
The remake? Launching a computer game off the back of the film doesn't mean much to me. GE is average in everyway, a buy the numbers Bond film that does a job but doesn't really impress on any level ( satellite in space.....yawn). CR is near perfect.
Yeah, we have been too lazy on that front for far too long.
I think both Pierce and Dan have quite comparable tenures. Started both with a great entry and an instant classic, followed it by a good action flick, then appeared in a slightly too melodramatic entry and their fourth turned out to be a bit of a mixed bag with an equal amount of great and terrible moments.
I've since discovered though that, while I love GE for nostalgic reasons, CR is a far more polished film.
Casino Royale on the other hand......is amazing. The best Bond since 1965. From the black and white pre-titles, to arguably the best title sequence ever. From the African free-running chase to the beautiful interiors of London. From Judi Dench's harassed M, to the sinister Le Chiffre. From the stone-cold government killer, to the heart broken lover.
Style, sophistication, direction and Fleming are in abundance.
Like it or not I've always found it an admittedly flawed but highly entertaining film with some great standout scenes and characters.
I hate this snobbish way certain fans seem to look down on those introduced to Bond through the 90s films.
I do agree though that CR is definitely superior in terms of pretty much everything.
CR was more of a relief. After the debacle of DAD and the disgrace of TWINE, things had taken a decided turn for the worse in the land of Bond, especially as the market had changed. CR showed us that EON was serious about getting back on track. It was also a relief because everyone was comforted to see that Daniel Craig wasn't going to be the disaster many thought he would be. The situation was different with Pierce, who had been the man in waiting for 8 long years in 1995. However, nobody doubted that Bond would survive in 2003-2006 (unlike the period of 1989-1995). DAD was a massive global smash (although I make no comments about how it was critically received. I was ashamed of it, but I have read that some noted critics thought highly of it at the time).
So, from what I remember, GE was by far the more significant moment in Bond pop culture.
Well said @suavejmf. There is so much guff written about GE. A thoroughly mediocre entry - at best. I remember thinking TND was a significant improvement actually, although TWINE and DAD sealed the deal in terms of defining the Brosnan era as the worst in Bond history.
I understand that it was the first film lots of guys on here saw in the cinema but even so...
Funnily enough it wasn't my first cinematic Bond (that wasn't until TND).
But to this day I can quote the dialogue to use the phrase of a fellow online fan "down to the music cues"
The claim that its not re-watchable means absolutely nothing to me. It may be nostalgia talking but nonetheless I can't deny the influence the film had on me. It was probably my most watched film - let alone Bond film.
I'm not sure it's so much because it's the first many saw in the cinema, more that it was, as @bondjames notes above, a significant moment in Bond pop culture, not dissimilar to SF. I'm aware you also dislike that movie, so perhaps your subconscious won't allow you to embrace the more mainstream successes. Both films resonated with audiences in a way that goes beyond mere film making Imo.
Maybe it is down to memory and a bit random as well? I remember a lot of buzz for CR, both from the populace and media.With GE there was a lot of media buzz, but I don t remember anyone talking about it.
None of it comes close to TSWLM back in 77, though.