I think you meant "I liked Casino Royale."
Just fixed that.
That was the only bit of "action" in the book.
Last edited:
A James Bond Fan Reviews the Franchise
- Thread starter Admiral Shran
- Start date
Just fixed that.
That was the only bit of "action" in the book.
The film does adapt the book's torture scene. In the Book Le Chiffre uses a carpet beater while in the film he uses a rope, but the staging of it with a stripped Bond's privates hanging below a chair with its seat cut out is much the same. I recall first reading that scene and cringing in reflex. The film has the same effect.
And if I'm not mistaken Bond seeing Vesper in the road and losing control of his car is also in the book, but I could be wrong.
The book's Le Chiffre is a nastier piece of work than he is in the film. He was also somewhat obese if I recall correctly. I do think Le Chiffre's tear of blood is the same character detail in both film and book.
In the novel Le Chiffre was tied to the Russian spy service and was gambling to funnel money to help finance the Russians. Bond was sent to stop him and thus embarrassing the Russians internationally, or at least within the intelligence community. Mathis in the book works for the French Deuxieme Bureau and is definately not a double agent, but a friend of Bond's. Le Chiffre is in the end killed by Smersh for his carelessness, but curiously the tortured and barely conscious Bond isn't killed possibly because the assassin doesn't recognize him for who he is and has no orders to dispatch anyone but Le Chiffre and his accomplices. And Vesper is a Russian double agent who kills herself in the end because she can't face having to betray Bond at some future point, and because she knows she'll be killed should she betray her superiors. Bond's line, "The bitch is dead." is the last line of the book and is kept in the film.
The novel is definately a Cold War story from the early '50s that, of course, couldn't work anymore and had to be adapted to a contemporary sensibility. I must also say that I would love to see the Moonraker novel adapted in the same vein as Casino Royale. Change the name if you have to, but it could work. In the book the Moonraker is an newly developed ICBM meant to protect England, but in reality it's a weapon intended to be launched at London during its inaugural test flight. Hugo Drax is really working for Smersh in what has been a scheme years in the making. Bond is put onto Drax by M's suspicious nature because he doesn't cotton to Drax where everyone else thinks he's the ultimate patriot. It's a great book. In an adaptation the Moonraker could be a sophisticated cruise missile or some other high-tech weapon that's intended for a purpose other than what everyone thinks it is.
And if I'm not mistaken Bond seeing Vesper in the road and losing control of his car is also in the book, but I could be wrong.
The book's Le Chiffre is a nastier piece of work than he is in the film. He was also somewhat obese if I recall correctly. I do think Le Chiffre's tear of blood is the same character detail in both film and book.
In the novel Le Chiffre was tied to the Russian spy service and was gambling to funnel money to help finance the Russians. Bond was sent to stop him and thus embarrassing the Russians internationally, or at least within the intelligence community. Mathis in the book works for the French Deuxieme Bureau and is definately not a double agent, but a friend of Bond's. Le Chiffre is in the end killed by Smersh for his carelessness, but curiously the tortured and barely conscious Bond isn't killed possibly because the assassin doesn't recognize him for who he is and has no orders to dispatch anyone but Le Chiffre and his accomplices. And Vesper is a Russian double agent who kills herself in the end because she can't face having to betray Bond at some future point, and because she knows she'll be killed should she betray her superiors. Bond's line, "The bitch is dead." is the last line of the book and is kept in the film.
The novel is definately a Cold War story from the early '50s that, of course, couldn't work anymore and had to be adapted to a contemporary sensibility. I must also say that I would love to see the Moonraker novel adapted in the same vein as Casino Royale. Change the name if you have to, but it could work. In the book the Moonraker is an newly developed ICBM meant to protect England, but in reality it's a weapon intended to be launched at London during its inaugural test flight. Hugo Drax is really working for Smersh in what has been a scheme years in the making. Bond is put onto Drax by M's suspicious nature because he doesn't cotton to Drax where everyone else thinks he's the ultimate patriot. It's a great book. In an adaptation the Moonraker could be a sophisticated cruise missile or some other high-tech weapon that's intended for a purpose other than what everyone thinks it is.
Last edited:
Well, I did say the movie captured the feel of the Fleming novel. I wasn't expecting an exact replication of the book. Indeed, such a thing would be nigh impossible except in an extended mini-series based in the 1950s.
As for Le Chiffre being a "raging sadistic sociopath," it's just my preference but I prefer the movie version of the character. I've always found raging villains to be pretty boring; I much prefer sinister and cold-blooded.
Last edited:
Quantum of Solace (***)
This was a very difficult one to judge. I really want to like this movie, and would probably give it a much higher rating if I was basing the score only on the story, because it is excellent. However, even though I do want to like it, I can admit that it has its fair share of problems.
So what is it about the story that I like? Well, first off, I like that it is a direct continuation of Casino Royale. I usually love serialized storytelling and this is the first time the franchise has done so, with all the others being only loosely connected to each other. Second, it's great that they've kept the down-to-earth atmosphere in place, even though this story takes place on a larger scale than Casino Royale. Finally, I absolutely love how they appear to making the Quantum organization a current-day version of SPECTRE. The way it's handled, with Le Chiffre and Green being only minor parts of a greater and much more powerful whole is very well done. I especially liked the opera sequence where it's made clear that Quantum is hiding in plain sight.
Aside from that, I also like a lot of the performances. 1.) Craig delivers another great portrayal of Bond. He again focuses heavily on the cold, ruthless aspect of the character but still has a good helping of the tender and caring aspect, best seen when he saves the female Canadian agent from the same fate Vesper suffered. 2.) Giancarlo Giannini does a great job as Mathis. I love his and Bond's interactions and camaraderie. And, he and Craig both play Mathis' death scene perfectly. 3.) Jeffery Wright offers another good portrayal of Felix Leiter as a man torn between the job and his friend. 4.) Mathieu Amalric plays a passable villain. Green isn't as good as Le Chiffre or Mr. White, but he's still good. 5.) Judi Dench gives us her best performance yet as M. The people behind these last two movies obviously understand the type of relationship that Bond's direct superior should have with him - one of hardness yet trust. This line sums it up perfectly....
About the only member of the cast that I don't think does a good job, sadly, is Olga Kurylenko, the main Bond Girl. She does come across as a good actress, and I sure she did the best with what she was given, but the character just doesn't work for me. Camille comes across as pretty flat. I guess that's more of a compliant against the character and not the actress.
But what really harms this film are a lot of technical issues....
The camera work is just downright awful in places, like the opening car chase. In fact, most of the action sequences are shot in that shakycam style that the Bourne films made popular. I do not like this technique. I guess it's supposed to make the action look more "alive" or "frantic." I find that it only makes the action damn near incomprehensible, and if I can't understand what's going on, I'm forced to ask "what's the point?".
The various title cards. Seriously, whoever designed these cards must have been drunk. The various cards giving the locations that Bond finds himself in are just distracting - so much so that they take me out of the movie. That's not good when something pulls you out of the experience. And the subtitles are bad, just bad. In places they're just about impossible to read because they blend in with the background. If you're going to have subtitles, you really need to make it as easy as possible for people to read them.
The opening title sequence. It's not bad, but it's not good either. If anything, I'd say it's just weird. Not much else to say there.
So, the Craig era hit a snag here in it's second offering. But then again, the only Bond actor whose second movie was better than his first was Sean Connery, so I still have a lot of hopes for any future Craig films.
That's Amore: 52
Bond slept with Miss Fields. He didn't even sleep with the main Bond Girl.
I'm not complaining, but that is rather odd.
Body Count: 361 (+14)
Redshirt Sidekicks: 11
Okay, here's what I plan to do. I'll post a franchise wrap-up where I'll evaluate the franchise as a whole, determine each actor's average score, give my final thoughts on the Bond films and offer my ideas for where the franchise should go from here. It may take me a few days to get all that together, so please be patient.
This was a very difficult one to judge. I really want to like this movie, and would probably give it a much higher rating if I was basing the score only on the story, because it is excellent. However, even though I do want to like it, I can admit that it has its fair share of problems.
So what is it about the story that I like? Well, first off, I like that it is a direct continuation of Casino Royale. I usually love serialized storytelling and this is the first time the franchise has done so, with all the others being only loosely connected to each other. Second, it's great that they've kept the down-to-earth atmosphere in place, even though this story takes place on a larger scale than Casino Royale. Finally, I absolutely love how they appear to making the Quantum organization a current-day version of SPECTRE. The way it's handled, with Le Chiffre and Green being only minor parts of a greater and much more powerful whole is very well done. I especially liked the opera sequence where it's made clear that Quantum is hiding in plain sight.
Aside from that, I also like a lot of the performances. 1.) Craig delivers another great portrayal of Bond. He again focuses heavily on the cold, ruthless aspect of the character but still has a good helping of the tender and caring aspect, best seen when he saves the female Canadian agent from the same fate Vesper suffered. 2.) Giancarlo Giannini does a great job as Mathis. I love his and Bond's interactions and camaraderie. And, he and Craig both play Mathis' death scene perfectly. 3.) Jeffery Wright offers another good portrayal of Felix Leiter as a man torn between the job and his friend. 4.) Mathieu Amalric plays a passable villain. Green isn't as good as Le Chiffre or Mr. White, but he's still good. 5.) Judi Dench gives us her best performance yet as M. The people behind these last two movies obviously understand the type of relationship that Bond's direct superior should have with him - one of hardness yet trust. This line sums it up perfectly....
About the only member of the cast that I don't think does a good job, sadly, is Olga Kurylenko, the main Bond Girl. She does come across as a good actress, and I sure she did the best with what she was given, but the character just doesn't work for me. Camille comes across as pretty flat. I guess that's more of a compliant against the character and not the actress.
But what really harms this film are a lot of technical issues....
The camera work is just downright awful in places, like the opening car chase. In fact, most of the action sequences are shot in that shakycam style that the Bourne films made popular. I do not like this technique. I guess it's supposed to make the action look more "alive" or "frantic." I find that it only makes the action damn near incomprehensible, and if I can't understand what's going on, I'm forced to ask "what's the point?".
The various title cards. Seriously, whoever designed these cards must have been drunk. The various cards giving the locations that Bond finds himself in are just distracting - so much so that they take me out of the movie. That's not good when something pulls you out of the experience. And the subtitles are bad, just bad. In places they're just about impossible to read because they blend in with the background. If you're going to have subtitles, you really need to make it as easy as possible for people to read them.
The opening title sequence. It's not bad, but it's not good either. If anything, I'd say it's just weird. Not much else to say there.
So, the Craig era hit a snag here in it's second offering. But then again, the only Bond actor whose second movie was better than his first was Sean Connery, so I still have a lot of hopes for any future Craig films.
That's Amore: 52
Bond slept with Miss Fields. He didn't even sleep with the main Bond Girl.
I'm not complaining, but that is rather odd.Body Count: 361 (+14)
Redshirt Sidekicks: 11
Okay, here's what I plan to do. I'll post a franchise wrap-up where I'll evaluate the franchise as a whole, determine each actor's average score, give my final thoughts on the Bond films and offer my ideas for where the franchise should go from here. It may take me a few days to get all that together, so please be patient.
I like Quantum of Solace a lot more than I should but I do enjoy popping it in on DVD every once in a while.
I liked QoS, too, though it was clearly a bit of a step back from Casino Royale.
I still think they missed a big opportunity to start a new tradition by continuing the style of gun barrel sequence they used in Casino Royale. Instead of starting the movie off with that boring car chase sequence, they should have started the movie with Bond and M interrogating Mr. White, and then Bond chasing down the Quantum henchman. Then when Bond shot the henchman, they should have gone into the gun barrel sequence like in Casino Royale and started the opening credits.
Oh well. Now that MGM's problems are starting to get resolved, I hope they can get started on another Bond film soon. I'd like to see Craig do at least one more before he moves on.
I still think they missed a big opportunity to start a new tradition by continuing the style of gun barrel sequence they used in Casino Royale. Instead of starting the movie off with that boring car chase sequence, they should have started the movie with Bond and M interrogating Mr. White, and then Bond chasing down the Quantum henchman. Then when Bond shot the henchman, they should have gone into the gun barrel sequence like in Casino Royale and started the opening credits.
Oh well. Now that MGM's problems are starting to get resolved, I hope they can get started on another Bond film soon. I'd like to see Craig do at least one more before he moves on.
You hit my complaints with the movie pretty much on the nose. It isn't bad, but it could have been better and mostly because of technical things.
This is a big gripe of mine and not just in this movie:
It's an experimental style that just doesn't work and I wish directors would just stop using it.
I've really enjoyed your reviews, so much so that I'm thinking of revisiting particular films. I'm also interested to see your franchise overview.
This is a big gripe of mine and not just in this movie:
It's an experimental style that just doesn't work and I wish directors would just stop using it.
I've really enjoyed your reviews, so much so that I'm thinking of revisiting particular films. I'm also interested to see your franchise overview.
I haven't posted in this thread, but I have been quietly reading since the beginning and I want to say I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your reviews, Admiral Shran. They have been insightful, intelligent, and honest. I may not completely agree with you on some counts, but it has made me want to go back and rewatch the Bond movies that I have seen and to finally push myself to watch the ones I haven't (most of Moore's and a couple of Connery's).
Also, I would be interested in reading your thoughts on Casino Royale (1967) and Never Say Never Again.
Also, I would be interested in reading your thoughts on Casino Royale (1967) and Never Say Never Again.
i liked QoS but it just felt like there were bits missing. could have used more Felix and Agent Fields. i think there was actually more with Felix that was cut for some reason. i liked the opening car chase though. i think it was the best once since For Your Eyes Only.
I didn't like QoS at all. I thought is so far removed from 007 that it would better suit a Tom Clancy or somesuch-written anti-hero action thriller. This, especially the "crude oil drink on a long desert walk" bit, would probably have better suited the likes of Jason Statham...
For me Casino Royale isn't as good as its made out to be, whilst QoS isn't as bad, so I think they dovetail nicely together
Casino Royale is too long, and badly paced, they just try to jam too much into it and it doesn't always work. It's also essentially two films jabbed together, the first half and the second half. Some of the action scenes just go on a bit long (the pakour bit for example) whilst Bond's detecrtive work involves a lot of plot contrivences. So this blunt instrument can break into the head of MI6's apartment then hack into her laptop...riiight. And isn't it fortunate that Demitrius chose that moment on CCTV to send his text to the bomber (and frankly if that guy was his first choice its amazing he's stayed in business as long as he has--can you seriously see this guy infiltrating Miami airport like bomber #2 does?)
Daniel Craig is brilliant though, and he makes the film, pretty much perfect throughout (although a little too blank faced action hero in some sequences). Much like Dalton he's funnier than you think he is as well. It is to my eternal shame that I hated him when he was cast...a mistake I won't make again.
Two missteps of the film for me are Lechiffre and Vesper. Its a shame because I've seen Mads Mikkseson(sp) in other things since and he has quite a screen presense, but he's such a limp bad guy here! You should never, never have your villain sucking on his ashma inhaler that early in a film! The only time he comes alive is in the torture scene, plus you have to wonder why he's so bothered about the game once Bond has handily killed the man he owed money too?
And Vesper...is she French, is she English? Clearly Eva couldn't decide. It's hard to see why Bond falls in love with her, there is just nothing loveable about her, aside from the fact she's beautiful. I blame Fleming for this because the love makes zero sense in the book as well. Bond seems to fall for her in effect because she doesn't like him, whilst she falls for him because...well it isn't really made clear, her character just decides to fall for him. I wish the film makers had had the courgae of their convictions and had her kill herself, rather than giving us the exciting enough finale but one that doesn't fit with the tone of the film (which is all about mano a mano- snake vs mongoose, Bond vs Pakour, Bond vs Dimitrious, Bond vs Miami bomber, Bond vs Le Chiffre, Bond vs...er a bunch of goons?) It would have also cut the running time down a bit.
Have to love than final scene though!
QoS...well first off what's really good about it is that its a damn sight shorter than Casino Royale I think if I had to use one word to describe it, it would be dirty. The film's very rough around the edges. Whether this was completly intentional, or a result of the writers's strike I don't know, but there's a gritty rawness to most of the film, that even extends to the title song, which isn't great but works in the context of the film. The shaky cam I find annoying as well, though with repeated watchings I actually rather like the opening car chase. I also quite like the running joke that Bond keeps killing people he should be interorgating!
Dominic Green isn't a great villain, but I actually like him better than LeChiffre, I really hope we get a good villain in the next film though. Again he's less the villain than some sort of middleman.
I like Camile, she fits the film perfectly, and it does make a refreshing change that Bond doesn't end up shagging her! He does at least get Agent Fields!
Poor old Fields, and poor old Mathis!
I love the opera bits, the fact that Quantum (dumb name) have a plan that's both rooted in the real world and ridiculous at the same time, and the fact that they have their secret meeting in the amazing exploding hotel! Now that feels more like a Bond film!
Love the final scene where 007 finds Vesper's boyfriend and saves Detective Kate Beckett...er I mean Canadian agent woman, from the same fate.
The two films bookend themselves wonderfully. CR starts in snowy eastern europe and ends in sunny Italy. QoS starts in sunny Italy and ends in snowy eastern europe! CR begins with Bond castigated for not seeing the bigger picture and killing the bomber in the embassy, while QoS ends with Bond seeing the bigger picture to such an extent that he doesn't kill the one man he really has most cause too!
One thing I've noticed in both films, and love, is a neat little quirk that Craig's given Bond and which probably a lot of people don't pick up on. Remember the bit in CR where he smashes the German's Range Rover? He throws the keys away in a really dismissive manner, and he does it all the time! Car keys, mobile phones, guns, people (Mathis, Camile), he uses things and people them discards them. It's a lovely little touch by Craig, making Bond a man who basically seems to have no ties to anything aside from duty.
Casino Royale is too long, and badly paced, they just try to jam too much into it and it doesn't always work. It's also essentially two films jabbed together, the first half and the second half. Some of the action scenes just go on a bit long (the pakour bit for example) whilst Bond's detecrtive work involves a lot of plot contrivences. So this blunt instrument can break into the head of MI6's apartment then hack into her laptop...riiight. And isn't it fortunate that Demitrius chose that moment on CCTV to send his text to the bomber (and frankly if that guy was his first choice its amazing he's stayed in business as long as he has--can you seriously see this guy infiltrating Miami airport like bomber #2 does?)
Daniel Craig is brilliant though, and he makes the film, pretty much perfect throughout (although a little too blank faced action hero in some sequences). Much like Dalton he's funnier than you think he is as well. It is to my eternal shame that I hated him when he was cast...a mistake I won't make again.
Two missteps of the film for me are Lechiffre and Vesper. Its a shame because I've seen Mads Mikkseson(sp) in other things since and he has quite a screen presense, but he's such a limp bad guy here! You should never, never have your villain sucking on his ashma inhaler that early in a film! The only time he comes alive is in the torture scene, plus you have to wonder why he's so bothered about the game once Bond has handily killed the man he owed money too?
And Vesper...is she French, is she English? Clearly Eva couldn't decide. It's hard to see why Bond falls in love with her, there is just nothing loveable about her, aside from the fact she's beautiful. I blame Fleming for this because the love makes zero sense in the book as well. Bond seems to fall for her in effect because she doesn't like him, whilst she falls for him because...well it isn't really made clear, her character just decides to fall for him. I wish the film makers had had the courgae of their convictions and had her kill herself, rather than giving us the exciting enough finale but one that doesn't fit with the tone of the film (which is all about mano a mano- snake vs mongoose, Bond vs Pakour, Bond vs Dimitrious, Bond vs Miami bomber, Bond vs Le Chiffre, Bond vs...er a bunch of goons?) It would have also cut the running time down a bit.
Have to love than final scene though!
QoS...well first off what's really good about it is that its a damn sight shorter than Casino Royale
I think if I had to use one word to describe it, it would be dirty. The film's very rough around the edges. Whether this was completly intentional, or a result of the writers's strike I don't know, but there's a gritty rawness to most of the film, that even extends to the title song, which isn't great but works in the context of the film. The shaky cam I find annoying as well, though with repeated watchings I actually rather like the opening car chase. I also quite like the running joke that Bond keeps killing people he should be interorgating!Dominic Green isn't a great villain, but I actually like him better than LeChiffre, I really hope we get a good villain in the next film though. Again he's less the villain than some sort of middleman.
I like Camile, she fits the film perfectly, and it does make a refreshing change that Bond doesn't end up shagging her! He does at least get Agent Fields!
Poor old Fields, and poor old Mathis!
I love the opera bits, the fact that Quantum (dumb name) have a plan that's both rooted in the real world and ridiculous at the same time, and the fact that they have their secret meeting in the amazing exploding hotel! Now that feels more like a Bond film!
Love the final scene where 007 finds Vesper's boyfriend and saves Detective Kate Beckett...er I mean Canadian agent woman, from the same fate.
The two films bookend themselves wonderfully. CR starts in snowy eastern europe and ends in sunny Italy. QoS starts in sunny Italy and ends in snowy eastern europe! CR begins with Bond castigated for not seeing the bigger picture and killing the bomber in the embassy, while QoS ends with Bond seeing the bigger picture to such an extent that he doesn't kill the one man he really has most cause too!
One thing I've noticed in both films, and love, is a neat little quirk that Craig's given Bond and which probably a lot of people don't pick up on. Remember the bit in CR where he smashes the German's Range Rover? He throws the keys away in a really dismissive manner, and he does it all the time! Car keys, mobile phones, guns, people (Mathis, Camile), he uses things and people them discards them. It's a lovely little touch by Craig, making Bond a man who basically seems to have no ties to anything aside from duty.
Made perfect sense though given how Green had killed Agent Fields, and hardly the most ruthless death 007 has meted out over the years, and he did at least give Green a chance...not much of one, but a chance nontheless!
^ In fact, isn't QoS the first time where the main Bond villain dies offscreen?
I think you might be right.
I forgot to mention the other thing I give QoS kudos for above Casino Royale, it actually credits you with the intelligence to work out what's going on yourself, rather than CR which has more than a few sledge hammer moments! (at its worst with Mathis explaining what's going on with the poker game! "Look, its the TELL. This must mean LeChiffre is BLUFFING!"
I forgot to mention the other thing I give QoS kudos for above Casino Royale, it actually credits you with the intelligence to work out what's going on yourself, rather than CR which has more than a few sledge hammer moments! (at its worst with Mathis explaining what's going on with the poker game! "Look, its the TELL. This must mean LeChiffre is BLUFFING!"
Thank you.
IIRC, his role was reduced because of on-set script rewrites. He was intended to have a larger role, but most of his scenes ended up on the cutting room floor.
There were others he owed money to as well. He had been playing the stock market with all of his clients' money, not just the Ugandan general's. In fact, the lion's share of the $100 million he lost was owed to the Quantum organization.
I hadn't noticed that, but it is a nice touch. Especially when Bond dumps Camile into the arms of a bellboy and just leaves the poor guy with her.
Actually, The Living Daylights was the first. We don't see Koskov killed, but it's heavily implied that he will be executed once he's taken back to Moscow.
Ah, but then QoS must be the first time where it's confirmed that a baddie has died but where we don't see it!
They did this - it's called Die Another Day...
That's exactly how I feel about it. That stupid camera style props up in the latest Harry Potter movie and I HATE it. If I can't see what's going on then what's the point? Shran nailed down exactly what I didn't like with QOS. It was a good film that was held back from greatness because of the choice of director. That's why I feel that once EON finds a good one that they do whatever it takes to keep him for multiple films.
I'm not sure its the director's fault. Didn't they hire one of the cameramen from the Bourne films? I'm never sure exactly how much creative control directors have over a Bond film, and I suspect he was told to use the jerky camera angles. Personally I don't like it, but either they stopped using it or else I got used to it because I find I don't notice the longer QoS goes on.
