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
In the Craig era, Casino Royale is far far superior....from its first frames, Casino Royale promises to restore the trimmed-down urgency of the early Sean Connery outings as Bond. Casino Royale exceeds expectations, presenting a Bond both leaner and meaner than any that has come before. That this is the best Bond flick in nearly four decades is beyond reasonable dispute; whether it's better even than the early Connery's is a subject worthy of debate.
PS. The 'no gunbarrel' at the start of SF is unforgivable.
It is not! There is no debate there. The first 4 Connery films are untouchable. You put OHMSS on your fifth finger and you've got a hand filled with perfect masterpieces.
Besides, they were so good that we've still rambling about them many many decades after they were released. They started the whole shebang.
I don't care how good CR and SF are, and I don't care how good Craig is. He's not Connery and his films are no where near the experience of the first 4.
And I love Craig and CR and SF.
Is SF the best Bond film?
No! of course not. Unless you're talking film-school wise, technically I mean. It's got a brilliant director and cinematographer, a stellar cast and a good song. But it hasn't got a good James Bond story adventure, it hasn't got the most exotic locations, it hasn't got many quintessential elements of what makes James Bond...well...James Bond. So, is it a cracking good film? Yes, absolutely. And very rewatchable. But is the best James Bond film? No. Not in the slightest.
But I did enjoy your review immensely, @Pierce2Daniel.
It's what I rather like about Craig in the role: he never overacts and in fact his Bond barely changes expression because a man like that wouldn't. But that doesn't mean he's not conveying an awful lot: it's just that acting is more than just pulling faces.
+1
Yes.
Whoa, hold your horses there for a second.
This is a point that is very near and dear to my heart. I can see where you are coming from but don't lump all "Fleming purists" together.
I consider myself a Fleming purist, and i can see that influence very much in SF, but it's more of a spiritual connection to Fleming than a literal one. And i believe if the franchise didn't had some connection, be it literal or spiritual, to Fleming, it would be dead in an instant (as it should be, see black/female/transgender Bond and whatever crap).
EoN has always taken great liberties with Flemings writing starting from Dr. No, but they've learned their lesson somewhere down the line in my opinion. But that doesn't mean that you will satisfy everybody, every one has his own interpretation even when reading Fleming. And it will inevitably lead to endless debates in today's world.
When did I say Craig was better than Connery? Connery is clearly the best Bond. But IMO CR is ‘up there’ with the early Connery's. No other film in the series is as good as the first 4 and OHMSS I agree. But CR is ‘up there’ IMO.
Ps. Skyfall isn’t.
You didn't, old pal, I just took your lead and went with it ;)
CR would be on one of the other five fingers of the other hand :)
Don´t get me wrong, @00Agent. I fully concur that the spirit of Fleming is vital for the series and that the best films are the ones that stay close to it. In fact I consider myself somewhat of a Fleming purist myself. My comment was directly adressing those on the thread that were claiming further character exploration was somehow disrespectful to Fleming because they are not his ideas outright. They miss the point completely I think.
Just out of curiosity, would that other hand also include TSWLM, TLD, GE and perhaps either LALD or LTK?
I see, and i agree, the series can not live on by simply recycling old ideas ad infinitum but it can live on by staying true to the mood, essence and attitude of the novels, and finding new ways to express that.
I also love how articulate he is. He really convey well what he was trying to do.
Am not a fan of SF, but that was a very strong image in the film, preceded by the explosion which was also memorable!
Fair enough mate.
Great interviews.
What just dawned on me is that I have seen tons of interviews of Mendes and many others involved with Skyfall, but i never heard John Logan talk about it before.
It's something that i should definitly change.
As a little teaser i found this snippet from the Premiere.
At the end he says it, they wanted to capture the "feeling of Fleming", straight from the Books, which in my opinion they more than succeeded with.
I'm going to butt in an answer yes to all bar GE (which is my personal opinion). Apologies.
There's a great documentary that heavily features John Logan on the Blu-ray.
Is it online? The documentary is only about an hour.
Oh i must have seen it then, but probably not since 2013. I will look for some interviews later.
Glad it’s not just me! :)
Spot on.
SF is not great art house cinema and it's not great popcorn entertainment either. It's pretentious, shallow and for long stretches quite yawn inducing. Although SP might be duller still.
Some people really enjoy it: it’s silly to talk in absolutes when you’re discussing something so subjective. You might find it dull but that doesn’t mean it is, objectively, pretentious.
TSWLM is one of my least favourite Bond films, so probably not the best example to give me.
Damn it, man, get the hell out of my head ;)
Nah, you’re almost right. Almost. I have a thing for TMWTGG - go figure. But I love TLD and GE immensely. Gotta put some Craig in there, on one of the ten fingers, and that’d be CR, I think. And the tenth finger will always be for the next one. Hope springs eternal ;)
I think it was P&W attempt to revisit the end of YOLT and the opening of TMWTGG, but getting it completely wrong. As you say, a betrayal of the character. Bond comes across nothing short of a spoilt, sulking teenager, and doesn't tie in with the amnesia ridden Bond gone AWOL in Japan that Fleming wrote about, which gave far more sense and motivation.
Leaner and meaner was done way before Craig's era with Timothy Dalton.
Not at all. I just don't think having Bond suddenly becoming a traumatised character haunted by his childhood, or having Blofeld being his long lost brother is necessary. If you think it is, then sadly you are missing the point.
I'm all for character exploration, as long as it stays close to the roots. Dalton's revenge in LTK explores the emotional side, yet stays true to Fleming, as does Bond in QoS. In SF and SP Mendes took it too far, and pushed the character into areas that Fleming never explored - and it didn't add anything great to either film.
+1