Jeff answered me:

"How To Keep a Spy Relevant to a post-Cold War and post-9/11 world? Would they tackle terrorism?" Orson
Well, there's still plenty of nuclear and other technology left on the table to steal, by the Chinese and others. Apparently, Clinton didn't manage to give all of it away. (Though not for lack of trying.)

True. And "Die Another Day" tackled North Korea and Cuba, while throwing in another British media hungry mogul. Delightful. But none of this tackles Islamic terrorism.

It seems unlikely that the franchise ever will. It's irrationalism is too foreign, and foreign (ie, non-Western) sales totals constitute too much of the take. Confronting The Truth is outside its tradition, anyway. Therefore, the easy prediction is to expect more creative dodging of the central conflict of our age.

Jeff rightly replies to Volkov with, No film can last more than an opening weekend on good marketing alone. True.

However, the competition has also been poor of late. Only "The Despised" offers any. This has undoubtably been to "Casino Royale's" box office advantage.

"I hadn't seen a Bond film at the cinema in years. I usually only watch them when they are shown on TV."

I can kind of relate. I've never seen a Bond film all the way through but I'm genuinely excited about seeing this one.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Volkov,

"I think I see a difference between audience and profit but you'd have to agree, that after Die Another Day (so awful that it's probably the real reason Brosnan left)..."

No, Brosnan said he wanted to do another film. He did not leave; he was simply no longer required.

"All I'm saying is the only reason this film has been seen by anyone is that it's Bond."

I hadn't seen a Bond film at the cinema in years. I usually only watch them when they are shown on TV. The reason I went to this one was because every single person I knew and every single film critic in this country was raving about it. Nevertheless, I was still sceptical it was that good before I went to see it. Then I was blown away.

Orson

"One critic suggest the conclusion leaves loose ends in terrorist financing, which forms a basis for a sequel."

I saw an interview with Craig and he said it ended that way because the sequel had already been written - and the story will continue from where Casino Royale finishes.

Almost the sole calculation that goes into producing any non-prestige film is whether the concept can be marketed effectively enough to the 18-35 y.o. male audience to make a profit on the movies costs over the first weekend of release. Almost all horror movies, "comedies" and action movies fit this mold. If people stopped going to opening night releases, the effect would be profound. Typically, several times more is spent on marketing a film than on writing and direction. I never see a film nowadays unless I know and like the director and have read the reviews, or I wait for the DVD.

Pictured is "Durp da Durp da Durpadee Durp."

"It's probably equally well know in film circles that a good film might not make money while a bad film could make a mint. This rule is probably proved true more often than not" Volkov

Man, ain't that the truth.

Jeff

I knew there was a reason I never join in these discussions... I hate getting shot down!

It's probably equally well know in film circles that a good film might not make money while a bad film could make a mint. This rule is probably proved true more often than not.

Orson,

"How To Keep a Spy Relevant to a post-Cold War and post-9/11 world? Would they tackle terrorism?" Orson

Well, there's still plenty of nuclear and other technology left on the table to steal, by the Chinese and others. Apparently, Clinton didn't manage to give all of it away. (Though not for lack of trying.)

Volkov,

No film can last more than an opening weekend on good marketing alone. If the second or subsequent weekend is healthy, it's got something people want to see. This is well known in film circles.

but you have caught me at the end of a month of arguing about this film from the bottom of a wine bottle. No, I didn't like the film but I think my main issue with it is that it has been elevated in status to that of a good film more or less by marketing alone. The fact that each new Bond film, whist getting progressively worse (CR aside...), makes more money than it's predecessor speak volumes about that market.

I think I see a difference between audience and profit but you'd have to agree, that after Die Another Day (so awful that it's probably the real reason Brosnan left) numbers would be well down without some sort of marketing spark to reignite interest.

All I'm saying is the only reason this film has been seen by anyone is that it's Bond. If this was a McG film starring Vin Diesel and Jason Statham, you'd all be panning it too.

This Bond bleeds. A lot. His face gets scarred. He gets arrested. He makes mistakes and has to answer for them. He overplays his hand. He falls in love and lives to regret it.

What makes this relaunch effective includes having a *villain* drive a classic '64 Aston Martin - which Bond proceeds to win playing cards, and romance his wife with! And having a chief villain whose hair and face reminds one of Hitler before WWII - to match the B&W introduction replete with a propeller driven seaplane - and has a defect that reminds one of the face of "Fearless Leader" (from the old cartoon series "Rocky and His Friends" [1959-1964] and "The Bullwinkle Show" [1961-1973]). And classic locales, mostly in Europe, remind one of the earliest Bond films' original exotic charms.

There are, as mentioned, flaws. The film score is unmemorable; calling it "servicable" is probably the best one can say. The centerpiece card game is uneccessarily interupted by a poisoning attempt. This blocks the building psychological confrontation at the card table and makes the film too long.

The best part of this Bond is Craig himself, together with a quality script, and a verteran director ("Goldeneye"). Craig conveys shifting emotions better than any man before him - hardly the metier of the action-adventure genre. The prickly pairing of Craig and Eva Green, an escalating partnership of one-upsmanship, culminating in consumation, is inspired. This young model-turned actress could well have a long future in film.

Volkov says:
They seem to have hit on the idea of "relaunching" Bond to try and get back a dwindling audience...Except that the last Bond was the highest grossing picture ever. And while many scenes in "Die Another Day" were good, a stealth car? The F/X had run out of any room to grow character - and this fan was tired of CGI. Thus, a return to dramatic and physical realism of the Bloody Bond was fully called for.

And "what is 'the free-running?'" The latest in extreme sports featuring in a Bond film. In this case he chases the fluid Sebastien Foucan with guts and splatter.

But my concern in any New Bond was: How To Keep a Spy Relevant to a post-Cold War and post-9/11 world? Would they tackle terrorism? They did but slyly - by engaging the underground world of terrorist financing. Unfortunately, the issue of confronting Islamic terrorism throughout the world will likely remain untouched.

One critic suggest the conclusion leaves loose ends in terrorist financing, which forms a basis for a sequel. (Craig is signed up for two more bouts of Bondage.) But another suggests remaking the failed George Lazenby film, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." I'd love to see it. With Angelina Jolie in place of Diana Rigg. But what to do about the villain, Blofeld? Make him into a bio-terror master for sale? - a Saddam without a country? Starring who?

Volkov wrote,

"They seem to have hit on the idea of "relaunching" Bond to try and get back a dwindling audience..."

It is a fact that each subsequent Bond film makes more money than it's predecessor.

If you didn't like the film, I'm sorry but it's your tough luck - it doesn't change my opinion.

I haven't seen the film yet, but if it's not at least as good as The Bourne Identity--which was very Fleming-ish in style--it won't be good enough, especially if the intention was to relaunch Bond and distance him from the schlock-filled, Austin Power-ed shag-fests that Bond films have become.

What's "free running"?

Kelly,

Have you read The Dot and the Line by Norman Juster?

Jeff

but the film is pants. While your original premise re: Ayn Rand is not one I'm going to question, Casino Royal ranks right up there with one of the biggest swindles ever. The Bond brand was quietly dying an apt death as they had nothing new (or even good) to offer. They seem to have hit on the idea of "relaunching" Bond to try and get back a dwindling audience but the film is still trite & episodic with some dismal dialogue and kitsch actions scenes (specifically the free-running which in years to come will be as cringeworthy as seeing break dancing in a modern film).

Like all major brands, there are many competitors that simply do it better (the Bourne films spring immediately to mind) but a mindless public will always return to what they know because it's easier than making a decision. I agree that this is the best Bond in while but that's not saying much.

cheerio!

I have seen those movies. I didn't think he was masculine enough. He was too polished, too smooth, clothes and hair too perfect, not primal (if that makes any sense). He didn't seem like a very intelligent, very rational, very stylish, yet could tap into being an animal at any moment (like Craig).

Kelly

No question about it: Connery was and will forever be the true James Bond. Rugged and manly, not afraid to get his hands or his clothes dirty if it gets the job done, but absolutely silk-smooth with the ladies. Any naysayers will be tried for Bond heresy and hanged

"There are no more Ian Fleming novels left to film."

Ah. Well, they could go on quite a while re-making the atrocious ones from the middle 20 years.

And there is a non-fiction book: The Diamond Smugglers that would make an excellent film.

Also, there have been some Bond knock offs. (I've forgotten the author.) Writing Bond stories isn't too difficult. Getting the character right is, but that's as much up to the screenwriter and actor, regardless of source material.

Kelly,

Sean Connery feminine? I take it you haven't seen those, or any other Connery film from pre-1965. One of the most masculine actors in the history of cinema.

I loved this movie!! Whenever I think of the Bond character now, it is this character. Somehow the other Bonds all seemed kind of feminine to me. Too sleek, over-refined, almost prissy. Pierce Brosnon was the worst, but they all had that air. Not Daniel Craig. He is ruggedly masculine, smart, tough, actually into a romance with a woman rather than just a conquest. I loved him. My only complaints are that the chase sequence was too unrealistic and the Bond girl not as pretty and hot as usual. I also loved the poker. I think they really capitalized on the American obsession with Texas Hold-Em, which I share to some extent, and I enjoyed seeing some of the card game for real.

Kelly

Well, that's not quite correct.

Casino Royale was the only book that hadn't been turned into a *serious* Bond film. Most recent Bond films have elements of all previous Bond films running through them. From the late 70s onwards, Bond-films producer Cubby Broccoli was essentially in the business of doing remakes. He even ran out of Fleming titles. Goldeneye was named after Fleming's Jamaican estate.

I'm hoping that Casino Royale will herald a renaissance of classic Bond. Or at least create a demand for it.

Bond was *never* about gadgets, big bangs, monotonous innuendo and sexual antics. Best I can do is refer you to the wonderful Mark Steyn who says all I would want to say on the topic:

Mark Steyn on Royale.

Word.

Best outcome for me as a devoted fan of Fleming's novels: TV miniseries adaptations of the original stories. I'm not holding my breath.

For those who want to experience Bond in his original written glory, I suggest you start with Moonraker. The chapters set in Blades where Bond dines with M and then gambles with Sir Hugo Drax are alone worth the price of purchase.

I agree, this is probably the best Bond movie and best Bond acting/actor.

Wm

Islam insofar as it is directed by governments, and as a measure enforced from above by any government, is to be done away with.

...I mean.

There are no more Ian Fleming novels left to film. Interestingly enough Casino Royale is the first ever Bond novel that Ian Fleming wrote. Some film critiques are calling this film tongue-in-cheek "Bond Begins". Never before filmed by "Eon Productions" (the Bond film-making company), because it was always thought that a card game was not exciting enough for an action film.

"Eon Productions" will have to invent new stories from now on. I shudder to think what might happen to Bond's character in a PC-world - so enjoy while you can. Maybe they will surprise me though

..is a non-entity by Bond standards. Only a large number like "Goldfinger" or "Licence to Kill" (by Gladys Knight) would have done the film justice. You would have had to plug Rand's ears at the starting credits – however this Bond song is quickly forgotten

Why do you say it is the last one?

Jeff

...Bond has changed

Expect a different type of film than you are accustomed to.

Haven't seen this yet.  Not a huge Bond fan (although I do enjoy the "gadget" scenes with Q).  But the original (1967 spoof w/Peter Sellers, David Niven, Orson Wells, et al) was a one of the funniest flicks I've seen!

"...I am the warrant and the sanction."