when I said “there is only one James Bond” I was refering to the uniqueness of the character, how irreplaceable he is. it was my statement against that ludicrous proposition of creating another spy franchise, none has come close to Bond…
I agree, one of the best films of the decade. I personally thought it had an incredible script, truly incredible. And whats up with all of the hate for Paul Haggis on this site? My lord.
It had everything it needed: enough breathing room for the characters, story, and of course the awesome action (that’s right, ACTION). Daniel Craig knocked it out of the park. There’s not really much more I can say about this movie…I wouldn’t change one thing about it. It’s probably as close to perfect as a Bond movie will ever be.
So there seems to be 2 camps here very much like the Adam West Batman vs. Burton/Schumacher/Nolan Batman. One side favors, to varying degrees, the campy cartoonish violence and wacky juvenilia of the original, while the other prefers the new versions attempt to “explore” the darker “undercurrents” of the “character”(these terms are in quotes because they are ludicrous when applied to Batman or James Bond).
Having gone through adolescence with Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns as an influence the teenager in me tends to prefer the Craig Bond over previous versions but every aspect of this argument should make it clear why none of this stuff could ever be the best anything of any decade.
What is it about film that makes people go overboard in their ratings when describing how a dumb action flick got them excited? I can’t imagine anyone saying the Casino Royale novel was one of the best novels of the decade, or week, it came out in.
Mike Spence, that’s because the film is far superior to the novel.
“that’s because the film is far superior to the novel.”
i just woke up,thanks for the laugh!
Casino Royale may not be the best of the decade, but I disagree that it was a “dumb action flick.”
I don’t understand the hate towards Haggis either.
If this is anyone’s candidate for ‘best of the decade’ I’d be interested to see the rest of the list.
I think it’s a better film in many ways to the rest of the series, but generally speaking I won’t even include it with the rest of the franchise. Why not? It’s just not the same thing. Somebody else already addressed how it’s similar to the Batman situation, and I really can’t think of a better example.
The earlier Bond films are so ridiculous and unbelievable that it’s almost impossible to compare them to Casino Royale. All the early Bond films are fun, easy to watch, and without any real sense of importance. I remember watching them all as a kid on TV at night and once I grew up and re watched them all, I didn’t gain anything new. It was the same experience.
Now, as for it being underrated…well, I’m going to have to disagree. Of course any movie being under or overrated is subjective. An underrated movie to me is just the word I get to use to describe my surprise that more people don’t think like me. But, that aside, I still think Casino Royale gets all the credit it deserves…and maybe even a little more. Hell, it already gets the title as the single best Bond movie. I know people that say that and haven’t seen any Bond movies prior to Goldeneye. I remember that once it came out I heard nothing but positive reviews, and all my friends went on and on about it. It was everywhere. It had the Star Trek effect. You know, when a franchise suddenly releases a new movie, changes the formula, and gains about 50x the fan base. So no, I can’t say it’s underrated.
And I also can’t say it’s one of the best of the decade. The decade hasn’t been the best for movies, but it hasn’t been so poor that Casino Royale makes the list. Unless it’s a top 100 list. Then it might.
Hollywood isn’t the only place movies are made.
Very very true. A modest film zhen compared to the other 20 one can even say a welcome change, but finest not even close. At first i did not agree with Daniel Craug but he actually fits nicely into the role. We will to juts see if he can make it something of his own. I mean even Timothy Dalton made it a bit different.
It’s probably as perfect a 007 film as one could hope for.
I’m not a big fan of action movies or James Bond in general, but I thought it was entertaining and worth the money spent on admission. My expectations were pretty low and they were surpassed. I can’t see myself ever having the desire to watch it a second time though, and it will never be In Like Flint. I have a feeling I’d like the original Casino Royale once I actually get around to watching it.
“The decade hasn’t been the best for movies, but it hasn’t been so poor that Casino Royale makes the list. Unless it’s a top 100 list. Then it might.”
not only this decade has offered so many masterpieces than anyone could imagine,Casino Royale wouldn’t even fit in a Top 1000 of the Decade!!!
stop criticizing decades and years in film before you’ve seen enough.
Well, I wasn’t exactly criticizing the decade and it’s pretty useless to make assumptions about the number of films I’ve seen. Anyway, the bottom line is and without debate: the issue to purely subjective and there is no way to really discuss and compare certain films with the clear hope of proving which is better.
Although I would like to see your list of 100 movies from this decade that are better than Casino Royale. Not so I can bicker with you about it, but just to satisfy my curiosity.
i can give you a top 100 of films but it changes all the time,so it will probably be an exemplary one but that’s for another thread,i hate hijacking.
in any case,i will never condemn Casino Royale as a worthless adventure..it’s fast-paced,glamorous,raw at times,a well-done supporting cast after the 50-50 successes of the 90’s periods,it’s arguably the only great Bond film so far in the 2000’s (as a century),and to top that,i don’t mind Craig as a new Bond!
ony thing is..the camp fun’s missing: not only it doesn’t compare to the mature Bonds of Moore and Connery,the fact it’s filled with action dynamites/script material doesn’t automatically label it as “rebirth of Bond” or anything….it’s pretty cool in its bulk but i’ve seen better adventures…
at least it’s not like the Jason Bourne travesties,i can give it that!
I’m incredibly biased here. I loved Casino Royale. It came out while I was exploring the slumps of senior year of high school, and by my count, I saw the film at least 17 times during that initial theatrical run (most of them during the last showing of the day; what’s a boy to do at 11 in the evening?). Not only is Royale one of the best Bond films in the franchise, but a fantastic film on its own.
Casino Royale managed to take a deeper and more concentrated look at what goes on inside Bond. Another poster mentioned earlier that Fleming’s characterization of Bond, particularly in his first outing, is incredibly pulpy. It’s not that Bond is unflinching or Herculean, he is merely a poorly written cardboard spy. After Vesper’s kidnapping (the film follows the book closely during this part), Bond thinks to himself (this is from pg. 099 of the 2002 Penguin printing of the book), “Why the hell couldn’t [women] stay at home and mind their pots and pans and stick to their frocks and gossip and leave men’s work to the men?”. I will allow that this book was first published in 1953, so sexist attitudes may have been more prevalent, but this isn’t Hollywood machoism, this is just poor writing. Craig’s interpretation of Bond was able to handle Bond’s initial sexist dissatisfaction, but he conveyed that sense of working it over. When Bond comforts Vesper in the shower, fully clothed, he must come to terms with his actions and their effect on women. This is a whole lot more than Fleming initially wrote, or what Connery or Moore ever performed.
Campbell’s action scenes were tight but managed a fine line between gritty and glamorous. Bond is not infallible, but he certainly is beyond. The stunts presented in Royale topped most of those in the previous four films. You can’t even compare the stunts to Moore’s Bond, since the better half of those films had Bond practically in a walker… The one-two-three punch of the pre-credit sequence, amazing titles, and opening chase sequence sets the film up for a win. What’s particularly interesting about Royale, is that the true climax of action occurs during a game of Texas Hold Em. No matter how much smoke you blow in the air and sweat you draw on a brow, its hard to direct an elongated card sequence, and still manage to keep the audience so in tune that you can tack on another hour of wrapping up… There’s something to be said for that. The conclusion of most previous Bond films has our hero making love to Bond Girl X in exotic location, perhaps being momentarily interrupted by M, who chuckles and signs off. I love Bond, I love camp, but that’s, simply put, lame.
Throw in Eva Green’s turn as Vesper. As another poster stated, I cared when we lost Vesper. Where is Bond without her? And then, that icy chill that goes down your spine when you realize that Vesper’s death creates the Dalton-Craig Bond, as he spits, “the bitch is dead”. The series is beginning! The score dumps, a glorious new incarnation of the theme pumps, and the lights go up in the theatre.
This isn’t cinema we’re discussing here, this is a film. This is popcorn turned up to 11. Casino Royale managed to explore something we’ve seen a million times before, managed to turn a few heads, and it kept up the fun while doing some intriguing things cinematically.
Since someone mentioned how Bond is a “misogynist brute” in Fleming’s novels..
I think it would be rather amusing to turn the genre on its head by showing Bond as a British Archie Bunker racist/classist womanizer who achieves his goals through subversion of foreign governments for British economic or post-colonial interests. That’s probably closer to what a real spy does for either the British or U.S. agencies anyhow.
I can’t believe Casino Royale is even being discussed on the auteurs.
One of the best films of the decade?!?!?! Are you drunk?!?!
Ridiculous. Of course it’s not one of the best films of the last ten years.
not even a good James Bond movie
The film did a nice job reinvigorating a stale franchise but considering it just steals its style and approach quite liberally from the Bourne films, if I had to call it the best anything, I could only call it the best Paul Greengrass rip off.
i agree with Den and The Corduroy Suit
Not going to lie, after I posted my original comment on here, I went and watched the film again, and I was blown away. I still don’t think I’d call it one of the best films of the decade (probably one of the best 1000), but damn if it did not please me left and right. I loved it, honestly. The action was intense and invigorating, the characterizations were well done, and this is one of the only films I can really think of (I could be dead wrong on this, though), where the villain is a complete patsy, and it is his own arrogance that gets him killed (ant not by who we would expect). This film has so much more plot than the typical Bond film (which I tend to admire as good action films), and I very much so appreciate it. Perfect? Not exactly, but it is a very good, and, in my opinion, great Bond film.
As my earlier posts indicates, I’m completely with Savvy on this.
Den, my man, you didn’t like this, huh? I will say that the film is not a good Bond film in that it doesn’t follow the formula. So if you like the older Bond films—particularly, the more cartoonish elements of the series—then you’ll definitely not like this film. This film removes—or at least tones those elements down—and tries for something more real and human. And it works very well, imo.
Ari said, “The film did a nice job reinvigorating a stale franchise but considering it just steals its style and approach quite liberally from the Bourne films, if I had to call it the best anything, I could only call it the best Paul Greengrass rip off.”
The Bourne films didn’t even come to my mind. I’m not sure what the film steals from the Bourne films. I do think the dialogue and acting—particularly between Bond and Vesper—are significantly better than anything in the Bourne series. These moments reminded me of Classic Hollywood films. Personally, I loved the actor who played Le Stat—and thought he was better than any of the villains in the Bourne series. Personally, I like Casino Royale a lot more than any of the Bourne films.
I thought it was terrible when I saw it in theaters. I actually fell asleep for about 20 minutes during the latter portion of it. It seemed to drag on forever. This thread is making me consider giving it another watch though.
I only saw “Casino Royale” once, and I was quite underwhelmed. It was servicable, somewhere in the middle of pack, I thought. For me, nothing will beat the charm and casual sexism of Sean Connery, especially Goldfinger, the best of the Bonds. I want James Bond to be James Bond, not a British Jason Bourne.
For my money it’s the only good Bond film. And it’s great.
@jazz yeah I like the more fun elements (the kind that Austin Powers parodied) and found this one too deadly serious and dull.
Craig imo has no charisma and the film is perhaps too real and stripped down for my liking.
Dalton and Connery had a toughness about them but they still had the charm and wit and were never boring really, I liked Roger Moore a great deal too.
JAZZ: I’m surprised you find the connection with Bourne tenuous. Even Pierce Brosnan recently admitted as much. If you recall, he was in talks with making a new Bond with QT before he was dismissed from the role. His recent quote:
“Once Paul Greengrass let Matt Damon out of the door in such an epic way, the spy genre turned on its head and my time was done."
To me, Bourne IS the Bond of the 21st century. Doesn’t mean I would say the Bourne films are one of the decade’s best, but the trilogy is uniformly great (it even improved once Greengrass took over from Liman). Bourne = far more realistic with more rough-edged action shot with hand-held cameras with a humorless and more vulnerable hero. Casino Royale reinvented Bond by using all of these elements.
Man, I hate the Bourne films even more than the Craig bond films.
Who decided that action films have to be draggy and charmless?