In Reply to: Re: "Casino Royale:" posted by townsend on November 20, 2006 at 20:48:47:
couldn't spell "Bollinger" (or Grande Annee, for that matter) if his 00 status depended on it.
A major problem with the film is illustrated in the first scene: a seemingly endless fight in... a restroom? Is this some sort of ironic thrust at previous efforts wherein beginning scenes traditionally have been jaw-dropping? Didn't work.
Then, that truly INTERMINABLE foot chase scene after the black guy with the disfigured face. How many times did the poor stuntman have to jump on that girder? How many jumps from height?
The scene at the embassy? Embarrassing. Twenty guys with auto weapons pointed at Bond and he pulls out his little gun and KABOOM! Right.
Why not just kill the guy earlier? Oh yeah, I forgot: chase opportunity!
And that previous with the mongoose and the cobra shows another problem: it was so obviously faked that it self-destructed.
Villains: none really that bad. And enough facial problems to employ a team of medical specialists: facial disfigurement; bloody eye catarracts; some eye problem necessitating one darkened eye lens: did the American Opthomological Institute underwrite this film with an assist from plastic surgeons' guild?
The fights: it's obvious that, for all his marvelous muscles, this Bond can't fight. Every fight was a 15-rounder, yet he popped up, fresh as a daisy from each.
The scene at the airport?
NO imagination. Attack a jet with a loaded fuel tanker? I suppose that's okay for a run of the mill Hollywood film but one expects more brilliance from an arch villain. I think that "action" sequence lasted longer than the entire Keanu/Bollock runaway bus film, didn't it?
I've already remarked on the collapsing building so I needn't flay that, again.
WRITING. WRITING. WRITING.
Without it, no film gets too far and here's a perfect example.
One last point: Bond is supposed to be a sexual animal, no?
He rolls around like a high-schooler with Caterina and, for all we know, never consummates: censorship? Then, he has a longish plebeian relationship with the other. C'mon. That's what regular guys go through, not a Bond...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Killer problems with "Casino:" Craig. He acts like he - tinear 05:05:55 11/21/06 (19)
- I'll agree the first chase scene and the tanker truck scene were a bit much... - oscar 14:07:30 11/23/06 (0)
- No offense, but you were apparently watching a different movie than I. - Audiophilander 09:03:37 11/21/06 (17)
- Not "apparently" but definitely. I read all the Bond novels when they came out in the sixties. - tinear 13:58:45 11/21/06 (16)
- LOL! Well, I guess that you were shaken, but not stirred by the new Bond film. - Audiophilander 17:16:59 11/21/06 (11)
- A good example of this film's poor writing: in two key sequences, - tinear 05:01:46 11/22/06 (10)
- Like I said, we saw different movies. - Audiophilander 07:38:46 11/22/06 (9)
- Proctologist? Going into the gutter here, Auph: won't follow you there. - tinear 15:20:42 11/22/06 (8)
- Re: But - rico 07:58:32 11/23/06 (2)
- Don't forget, he read the book when it came out in the 60's.nt - jamesgarvin 08:54:53 11/24/06 (0)
- Yes, the focal point. But not 1/2 the number of pages! You think - tinear 08:09:57 11/23/06 (0)
- Hey, I'm just speculating based on the crankiness of your mood. - Audiophilander 23:13:57 11/22/06 (4)
- Quite honestly, you're hallucinating. I am attacking the Bond film, - tinear 05:08:18 11/23/06 (3)
- The "foul" comment was just a gentle gibe; for someone vigorously attacking folk's opinions you seem oddly sensitive... - Audiophilander 11:11:55 11/24/06 (2)
- I pointed out the RIDICULOUS plot elements and the more I did, the more - tinear 16:20:03 11/24/06 (1)
- "I don't mind, it's the loser's way of waving the internet white flag." - LOL! Really? - Audiophilander 23:29:48 11/25/06 (0)
- Re: Umm. Casino Royale was published in 1953. His first seven bond novels were written in the 50's.nt - jamesgarvin 14:34:07 11/21/06 (3)
- Okay, I READ them in the 60s, after JFK said he liked them. Thanks for - tinear 04:54:01 11/22/06 (1)
- Well, we would not need fact checkers if.... - jamesgarvin 07:41:29 11/22/06 (1)
- Quite right. However: William F. Buckley Jr.'s spy novels are several cuts above Fleming's. Plus... - clarkjohnsen 20:01:43 11/21/06 (0)