Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review

Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266627]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 05:44

Ok, now that I've read the whole CR script, this is what
I think. To begin with, it should be noted that what I came
across is a copy of the draft dated Dec. 13, 2005, so it's
quite possible, and even hoped, that a number of
desperately-needed changes have been made to it since
then.

First off, I've decided against disclosing any new major
spoilers. Any major spoilers I bring up here you already
know about from previous script reviews, i.e. Latino
Review, Stax, Merrick - that's if you've already read those
previous script reviews. If you didn't and still don't want to
know anything about this film, then stop reading here and
move on to another thread. This is not for the faint of heart.
And second off, what other spoilers are included in this
review are either minor ones that border more on quibbling
than spoiling anything, or are in reference to major scenes
that could be spoiled but about which I talk about in very
general terms without trying to ruin a good or bad time for
all. Of course, I've exercised my own prudent judgement
as to what's what, but be forewarned nevertheless that you
might end up knowing more than you'd want to know about
the film.

All right, let's take it from the start.

I like the way the first two kills are framed in the PCS. And
it seems that the toilet shot leading into the gun barrel logo,
which I've complained about as being tacky, can be easily
switched around to the other kill. In fact, it would work
better considering one of the last lines Bond uses with the
other kill. Problem is, trying to make the line fit in so that it
naturally leads into the gun barrel logo follow-up or
something like that. I know it's doable without any
extensive reshooting, just maybe a new 5-second or so gun
barrel logo sequence, but it would require a bit more thought
as to how to re-do it than I've given it or am willing to give
it at this point. I guess that's where a skilled editor can
make all the difference. If EON reversed the kill scenes with
that in mind, the PCS would come off more wicked than
tacky and have more impact as a result, so it would just
make more creative sense for them to do it that way. In all,
the PCS will mercifully come in at about 5 minutes or under
in length, none of this 15-20 minute mindless extravaganzas
nonsense.

I still have issues about the whole construction site chase
sequence between Bond and the free runner Bomber. It's
exhaustively described in the script and, by what little I've
seen of it in teaser previews so far, especially the last one,
Campbell manages to translate it perfectly onto the screen,
and I'd probably even have to say he captures it in such a
way that goes beyond what even the writers might've
imagined. The issues I have with the chase, though, is
twofold now. One is that Bond tells his partner that he
needs to get Bomber alive, but then he goes and blows him
away point blank anyway. Not only that, but according to
M, Bomber was just a nobody. So, what then was that
whole elaborate chase sequence all about anyway? Stunt
work, that's all. Nothing to do with the plot, really.
Because what Bond ended up getting from the Bomber -
and I could go into a 3-page argument about that but won't -
he could've done just as easily without all that life-
imperiling hyperactivity. Speaking of which, this brings me
to the second issue I have about the chase. Now, I can
take the free runner bit, in fact, I'd probably get a kick out of
watching it, even if it's essentially an exercise in pointless
viewing. What I can't take of this chase are a couple of
seemingly ridiculous stunts in the course of it, one
involving the crane's cable line and the other a scissor lift.
As I see them in my mind by the description of what goes
on, we find ourselves comfortably back to Pierce Brosnan
shenanigans terrain that has not much to do with a more
realistic or grounded Bond. If EON seriously wants a
grounded Bond as it claims, then just get rid of those two
stupid bits and they'll still get a pretty decent chase
sequence out of this. Seems EON just can't bring itself
away from cartoonifying Bond any chance it can get.

Later, there's another pursuit at the Miami airport. This
one is partly interesting in that the first half of it is played
out in low-key fashion, just Bond following Dimitrios
around. Not much is said throughout the first half of this
9-page spread, it's basically Bond tailing Dimitrios and
noting what he's doing. This stretch of time is a perfect
opportunity for David Arnold to use some good
background music, if he has it in him, in much the same
way that John Barry did with his atmospheric and
haunting scoring of Bond investigating some suspicious
goings-on at Shrublands one night. The second half,
though, goes a bit berserk on the tarmac, but if handled
right, some nice bits of suspense and tension could be
injected throughout this whole sequence.

By the time we get into anything really recognizable of
Casino Royale the book, about 40 minutes of screen time
has already lapsed. This is where we see Bond meet
Vesper for the first time. I would've preferred that it
had not been on a train and that it had been together with
Mathis present as in the book [if only for the dynamics
of the three together during Bond's first meeting with
Vesper], but being on the train, the meeting is one that
works nevertheless, largely due to the dialogue between
Bond and Vesper. This smacks of good old-fashioned
sparring conversation in the classic cinematic sense,
almost as if it were Bogart and Bacall coolly going at
each other, and I wouldn't doubt if Paul Haggis was
responsible for it because I don't recall Purvis and Wade
ever reaching this level of sophistication in any Bond
dialogue, especially one that included women. What
strikes me here, though, is that I kept envisioning Diana
Rigg in the role of Vesper Lynd because of how 'English'
the dialogue seems to read and how cool Vesper appears,
which makes me wonder if Eva Green is actually right
for this part now. Will her French-Swiss accent or
inflections convey the same dry English wit and
cynicism? There's also the question of whether Green's
softer look can also project that certain iciness - or
"ironical chill" as defined by Fleming - needed for the
Lynd character. Although, Lynd does melt somewhat
later on. Overall, it's a good first meeting between the
two that, if Craig and Green manage to pull it off right,
can create a feeling of initial "reserved" sparks between
them.

After Bond and Lynd arrive at Montenegro and some
time is spent there, which includes meeting up with
Rene Mathis, the casino action then kicks in. Across
about the next 30 pages of the script, nearly 25 of those
pages are spent in and around the casino, in the card
game with Le Chiffre and outside of it too, so I imagine
we'll get a good feeling of the high gambling life, so to
speak. However, I kind of like the script's description
of the casino as being "time-worn," suggesting that it
may not be exactly just another stereotypical glitter
palace, but something with a bit of character to it.
Maybe it's meant to evoke something of a casino in
Fleming's time, who knows.

Now, somewhere around the middle or just past it in
all this casino stuff something happened that just
unexpectedly cracked me up. I won't say what it is,
but there's a line that Bond says that if Craig delivers
it just right, and I imagine he might very well be able
to considering the way it's meant to be delivered after
what happened to him just prior, it could possibly
define Craig as James Bond in his own right. Whatever
tension, uncertainty or reluctance in audiences towards
fully, or even in half-measure, accepting Craig as Bond
there may be in the first half of the film just may all
fade away in the second half as a result of his mouthing
that line. Literally, he'll be breaking the ice with
audiences when he says it. At least that's my reading
of the line, and it still cracks me up when I think of it
and how perfect it is for him. And to add to it, there's
a second line that follows shortly after that's just as
funny and can perhaps be viewed as setting the tone for
Craig's own unique brand of Bond humour.

As for Le Chiffre, we meet him early on in the film
and sporadically throughout up to this point when he
begins to take up more screen time. But as written, Le
Chiffre is hugely disappointing and, as such, calls into
serious question as to whether Mads Mikkelsen is right
for the part. In fact, I don't even see Mikkelsen as Le
Chiffre in anything written of him here, I actually see
him more as one of Le Chiffre's henchmen, Kratt. It's
hard to imagine what more someone like Mikkelsen
can bring to a part that is so underwritten for a major
character. There's no real sense of malevolence or
threat or even human vileness in Le Chiffre here, just
somebody with an eye problem. Consequently, not
only does the torture scene involving him and Bond
fall apart, but it's completely laughable. The dialogue
is just awful and it beats me how anybody involved
with this scene can carry it off with a straight face.
Something definitely went askew with the torture scene.
Personally, I think Paul Haggis left the room at that
point and Purvis and Wade snuck back in to muck
things up because none of what happens here reads
polished or even well thought-out. And in the book,
wasn't the torture done at Le Chiffre's villa? Not here.
You definitely won't be seeing any fancy Ken Adams-
designed digs for the bad man. What you will get is a
more bargain basement setting than anything else -
literally. I don't know, all I can say is that if EON
doesn't do major surgery on this part of the script,
which stands out as one of the truly badly crafted
scenes in the film, then Bond's a goner as a serious
contender in any forseeable future after this film.

Finally, we get to the big climax, and talk about
another huge disappointment. I won't say what
specifically happens, but just let it be known that how
the film does end is far removed from how the book
ends, and again, needlessly so. Just think of the
prolonged destruction of the underground installation
that takes place in GE and I think you'll get some
kind of an idea of what goes on at the end of CR.
Not only that, but Vesper's death is genuinely
unsatisfying and could hardly be called a tragic
suicide, at least by my definition. And not only that,
but the immortal line "The bitch is dead" may be in
there, but it's not where it should be or how it should
be used and so is both misplaced and rings hollow. I
don't know what the problem is with EON and these
writers they hire, but I read the script and even if I
was to leave the whole mess of an ending as is, I at
least know exactly where the line should be placed
for the effect intended. The same goes with the PCS.
Why can't they see it themselves? It's so screamingly
obvious!

Okay, so overall impressions are as follows:

The script works best when it's not trying to be a
Pierce Brosnan film and all the flash and dash lunacy
that comes with that. They can have their little chases
and stunts, but just get rid of all the stupid bits.

Judi Dench still plays M, but she sounds like a more
foul-mouthed M this time around ["bastard," "ass,"
"Christ"]. Her being in the film only adds
unnecessary confusion not just timeline-wise but her
own character-wise.

And did I read that right about Mathis possibly being
a .... ? Yeah, I guess I did. Not in the book.

Eva Green as Vesper Lynd is beginning to give me
some doubts, especially with the way her character
is written. I think she needed to be played by an
English actress. And I'm also afraid that when Vesper
does begin to melt, so to speak, she does so in a way
that contradicts her earlier stronger nature.

Le Chiffre, as I've said, is a total write-off as any kind
of serious villain character for Bond to match wits with,
and as has been said of Bond and his villains: 007 is
only as good as his villains. As there is no villain here,
does this then mean there is no 007 here also?

There are also evident smatterings of scenes here and
there that are quite reminiscent of FRWL, GF and TB,
even Campbell's own previous GE.

Actually, with this script I can visualize Craig in the
Bond role, even in the stunt stuff, but that's visualizing
him in my mind under the best light. To really see him
go through the paces on screen from start to finish may
be another thing altogether and it's still hard to say
whether or not he'll be able to pull it off successfully
or even admirably. I suspect he'll be able to get away
with it quite well in some of the scenes, but his
inappropriate type of Bond face just may get in the way
of things in other scenes.

Could Brosnan have done this film? Written as it is, I
don't think so. He certainly wouldn't've been able to
do the free running bit at his age. Well, maybe, but I
don't think it would look as convincing. Besides, there's
clearly a bit of a different slant to Bond here that would
be at odds with Brosnan's previous Bonds - as if being
consistent or inconsistent really matters much to EON.

A more important question is: could Clive Owen have
done this? Possibly, but somehow I'm not convinced,
even though I would've preferred to have seen him
instead of Craig in this film. I think part of the reason
is that the script was clearly written, or more like
rewritten, to suit Craig's persona and that's probably
why Paul Haggis was brought in and neither Brosnan
nor Owen seem like they would fit into this one
comfortably.

One character that's not in this script but apparently
will pop up in the movie is Felix Leiter. I'm not sure
where he would fit into, or be forced into, in all of
what goes on here because I didn't miss his presence
in the least, so why even have him at all?

Is this the best Bond ever? No. Is it the worst? No.
It has its strengths, but its weaknesses have a heavier
weight to them, found in two of its three big action
segments, at the beginning and at the end, and in a
grossly underdeveloped main villain, along with the
mishandling of Vesper's death and "the bitch is dead"
line. These are crucial weaknesses, just about
everything else I can more or less live with.

Will Craig be loved and embraced by moviegoers as
the new Bond? No. Even if he does very well come
into his own as Bond halfway through the film via the
line I mentioned, I don't see a Bond here, especially
as he is written, that moviegoers will love. They
might like him, but they'll reserve any love for the
second or third Craig Bond, if he's lucky enough to
get that far and get any love at all.

Is this the next From Russia with Love? No. Next
what, then? Maybe GoldenEye, maybe Living
Daylights, maybe For Your Eyes Only. It at least
has the potential to be better than GE and maybe
those other two as well if they iron out all the kinks.

Best possible grading for the script while being as
optimistic as I can be: B-
Worst possible grading for the script while being
as pessimistic as I can be: D+
Median grading, which could be understood as a
realistic grading for the script: C

Think of your own C-graded Bond films and that's
about what you can expect out of Casino Royale
on the basis of this draft of the script. But anything's
possible and with serious last-minute fix-ups in all
the right places this could end up being a solid B,
maybe even a B+, Bond. Doubt if it can get any
higher than that. And there you have it - a WQview
of the CR script.

This meets the WQ Stamp of Approval -
Under No Delusions

---------------------

But of course , I could be wrong about all this.

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266628 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 06:18

Kees Boer

WQ, Would you email me? My email is keesboer [at] positive-entertainment.com

Thanks!

Kees

"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1147146261.903331.17910 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Ok, now that I've read the whole CR script, this is what
> I think. To begin with, it should be noted that what I came
> across is a copy of the draft dated Dec. 13, 2005, so it's
> quite possible, and even hoped, that a number of
> desperately-needed changes have been made to it since
> then.
>
> First off, I've decided against disclosing any new major
> spoilers. Any major spoilers I bring up here you already
> know about from previous script reviews, i.e. Latino
> Review, Stax, Merrick - that's if you've already read those
> previous script reviews. If you didn't and still don't want to
> know anything about this film, then stop reading here and
> move on to another thread. This is not for the faint of heart.
> And second off, what other spoilers are included in this
> review are either minor ones that border more on quibbling
> than spoiling anything, or are in reference to major scenes
> that could be spoiled but about which I talk about in very
> general terms without trying to ruin a good or bad time for
> all. Of course, I've exercised my own prudent judgement
> as to what's what, but be forewarned nevertheless that you
> might end up knowing more than you'd want to know about
> the film.
>
> All right, let's take it from the start.
>
> I like the way the first two kills are framed in the PCS. And
> it seems that the toilet shot leading into the gun barrel logo,
> which I've complained about as being tacky, can be easily
> switched around to the other kill. In fact, it would work
> better considering one of the last lines Bond uses with the
> other kill. Problem is, trying to make the line fit in so that it
> naturally leads into the gun barrel logo follow-up or
> something like that. I know it's doable without any
> extensive reshooting, just maybe a new 5-second or so gun
> barrel logo sequence, but it would require a bit more thought
> as to how to re-do it than I've given it or am willing to give
> it at this point. I guess that's where a skilled editor can
> make all the difference. If EON reversed the kill scenes with
> that in mind, the PCS would come off more wicked than
> tacky and have more impact as a result, so it would just
> make more creative sense for them to do it that way. In all,
> the PCS will mercifully come in at about 5 minutes or under
> in length, none of this 15-20 minute mindless extravaganzas
> nonsense.
>
> I still have issues about the whole construction site chase
> sequence between Bond and the free runner Bomber. It's
> exhaustively described in the script and, by what little I've
> seen of it in teaser previews so far, especially the last one,
> Campbell manages to translate it perfectly onto the screen,
> and I'd probably even have to say he captures it in such a
> way that goes beyond what even the writers might've
> imagined. The issues I have with the chase, though, is
> twofold now. One is that Bond tells his partner that he
> needs to get Bomber alive, but then he goes and blows him
> away point blank anyway. Not only that, but according to
> M, Bomber was just a nobody. So, what then was that
> whole elaborate chase sequence all about anyway? Stunt
> work, that's all. Nothing to do with the plot, really.
> Because what Bond ended up getting from the Bomber -
> and I could go into a 3-page argument about that but won't -
> he could've done just as easily without all that life-
> imperiling hyperactivity. Speaking of which, this brings me
> to the second issue I have about the chase. Now, I can
> take the free runner bit, in fact, I'd probably get a kick out of
> watching it, even if it's essentially an exercise in pointless
> viewing. What I can't take of this chase are a couple of
> seemingly ridiculous stunts in the course of it, one
> involving the crane's cable line and the other a scissor lift.
> As I see them in my mind by the description of what goes
> on, we find ourselves comfortably back to Pierce Brosnan
> shenanigans terrain that has not much to do with a more
> realistic or grounded Bond. If EON seriously wants a
> grounded Bond as it claims, then just get rid of those two
> stupid bits and they'll still get a pretty decent chase
> sequence out of this. Seems EON just can't bring itself
> away from cartoonifying Bond any chance it can get.
>
> Later, there's another pursuit at the Miami airport. This
> one is partly interesting in that the first half of it is played
> out in low-key fashion, just Bond following Dimitrios
> around. Not much is said throughout the first half of this
> 9-page spread, it's basically Bond tailing Dimitrios and
> noting what he's doing. This stretch of time is a perfect
> opportunity for David Arnold to use some good
> background music, if he has it in him, in much the same
> way that John Barry did with his atmospheric and
> haunting scoring of Bond investigating some suspicious
> goings-on at Shrublands one night. The second half,
> though, goes a bit berserk on the tarmac, but if handled
> right, some nice bits of suspense and tension could be
> injected throughout this whole sequence.
>
> By the time we get into anything really recognizable of
> Casino Royale the book, about 40 minutes of screen time
> has already lapsed. This is where we see Bond meet
> Vesper for the first time. I would've preferred that it
> had not been on a train and that it had been together with
> Mathis present as in the book [if only for the dynamics
> of the three together during Bond's first meeting with
> Vesper], but being on the train, the meeting is one that
> works nevertheless, largely due to the dialogue between
> Bond and Vesper. This smacks of good old-fashioned
> sparring conversation in the classic cinematic sense,
> almost as if it were Bogart and Bacall coolly going at
> each other, and I wouldn't doubt if Paul Haggis was
> responsible for it because I don't recall Purvis and Wade
> ever reaching this level of sophistication in any Bond
> dialogue, especially one that included women. What
> strikes me here, though, is that I kept envisioning Diana
> Rigg in the role of Vesper Lynd because of how 'English'
> the dialogue seems to read and how cool Vesper appears,
> which makes me wonder if Eva Green is actually right
> for this part now. Will her French-Swiss accent or
> inflections convey the same dry English wit and
> cynicism? There's also the question of whether Green's
> softer look can also project that certain iciness - or
> "ironical chill" as defined by Fleming - needed for the
> Lynd character. Although, Lynd does melt somewhat
> later on. Overall, it's a good first meeting between the
> two that, if Craig and Green manage to pull it off right,
> can create a feeling of initial "reserved" sparks between
> them.
>
> After Bond and Lynd arrive at Montenegro and some
> time is spent there, which includes meeting up with
> Rene Mathis, the casino action then kicks in. Across
> about the next 30 pages of the script, nearly 25 of those
> pages are spent in and around the casino, in the card
> game with Le Chiffre and outside of it too, so I imagine
> we'll get a good feeling of the high gambling life, so to
> speak. However, I kind of like the script's description
> of the casino as being "time-worn," suggesting that it
> may not be exactly just another stereotypical glitter
> palace, but something with a bit of character to it.
> Maybe it's meant to evoke something of a casino in
> Fleming's time, who knows.
>
> Now, somewhere around the middle or just past it in
> all this casino stuff something happened that just
> unexpectedly cracked me up. I won't say what it is,
> but there's a line that Bond says that if Craig delivers
> it just right, and I imagine he might very well be able
> to considering the way it's meant to be delivered after
> what happened to him just prior, it could possibly
> define Craig as James Bond in his own right. Whatever
> tension, uncertainty or reluctance in audiences towards
> fully, or even in half-measure, accepting Craig as Bond
> there may be in the first half of the film just may all
> fade away in the second half as a result of his mouthing
> that line. Literally, he'll be breaking the ice with
> audiences when he says it. At least that's my reading
> of the line, and it still cracks me up when I think of it
> and how perfect it is for him. And to add to it, there's
> a second line that follows shortly after that's just as
> funny and can perhaps be viewed as setting the tone for
> Craig's own unique brand of Bond humour.
>
> As for Le Chiffre, we meet him early on in the film
> and sporadically throughout up to this point when he
> begins to take up more screen time. But as written, Le
> Chiffre is hugely disappointing and, as such, calls into
> serious question as to whether Mads Mikkelsen is right
> for the part. In fact, I don't even see Mikkelsen as Le
> Chiffre in anything written of him here, I actually see
> him more as one of Le Chiffre's henchmen, Kratt. It's
> hard to imagine what more someone like Mikkelsen
> can bring to a part that is so underwritten for a major
> character. There's no real sense of malevolence or
> threat or even human vileness in Le Chiffre here, just
> somebody with an eye problem. Consequently, not
> only does the torture scene involving him and Bond
> fall apart, but it's completely laughable. The dialogue
> is just awful and it beats me how anybody involved
> with this scene can carry it off with a straight face.
> Something definitely went askew with the torture scene.
> Personally, I think Paul Haggis left the room at that
> point and Purvis and Wade snuck back in to muck
> things up because none of what happens here reads
> polished or even well thought-out. And in the book,
> wasn't the torture done at Le Chiffre's villa? Not here.
> You definitely won't be seeing any fancy Ken Adams-
> designed digs for the bad man. What you will get is a
> more bargain basement setting than anything else -
> literally. I don't know, all I can say is that if EON
> doesn't do major surgery on this part of the script,
> which stands out as one of the truly badly crafted
> scenes in the film, then Bond's a goner as a serious
> contender in any forseeable future after this film.
>
> Finally, we get to the big climax, and talk about
> another huge disappointment. I won't say what
> specifically happens, but just let it be known that how
> the film does end is far removed from how the book
> ends, and again, needlessly so. Just think of the
> prolonged destruction of the underground installation
> that takes place in GE and I think you'll get some
> kind of an idea of what goes on at the end of CR.
> Not only that, but Vesper's death is genuinely
> unsatisfying and could hardly be called a tragic
> suicide, at least by my definition. And not only that,
> but the immortal line "The bitch is dead" may be in
> there, but it's not where it should be or how it should
> be used and so is both misplaced and rings hollow. I
> don't know what the problem is with EON and these
> writers they hire, but I read the script and even if I
> was to leave the whole mess of an ending as is, I at
> least know exactly where the line should be placed
> for the effect intended. The same goes with the PCS.
> Why can't they see it themselves? It's so screamingly
> obvious!
>
> Okay, so overall impressions are as follows:
>
> The script works best when it's not trying to be a
> Pierce Brosnan film and all the flash and dash lunacy
> that comes with that. They can have their little chases
> and stunts, but just get rid of all the stupid bits.
>
> Judi Dench still plays M, but she sounds like a more
> foul-mouthed M this time around ["bastard," "ass,"
> "Christ"]. Her being in the film only adds
> unnecessary confusion not just timeline-wise but her
> own character-wise.
>
> And did I read that right about Mathis possibly being
> a .... ? Yeah, I guess I did. Not in the book.
>
> Eva Green as Vesper Lynd is beginning to give me
> some doubts, especially with the way her character
> is written. I think she needed to be played by an
> English actress. And I'm also afraid that when Vesper
> does begin to melt, so to speak, she does so in a way
> that contradicts her earlier stronger nature.
>
> Le Chiffre, as I've said, is a total write-off as any kind
> of serious villain character for Bond to match wits with,
> and as has been said of Bond and his villains: 007 is
> only as good as his villains. As there is no villain here,
> does this then mean there is no 007 here also?
>
> There are also evident smatterings of scenes here and
> there that are quite reminiscent of FRWL, GF and TB,
> even Campbell's own previous GE.
>
> Actually, with this script I can visualize Craig in the
> Bond role, even in the stunt stuff, but that's visualizing
> him in my mind under the best light. To really see him
> go through the paces on screen from start to finish may
> be another thing altogether and it's still hard to say
> whether or not he'll be able to pull it off successfully
> or even admirably. I suspect he'll be able to get away
> with it quite well in some of the scenes, but his
> inappropriate type of Bond face just may get in the way
> of things in other scenes.
>
> Could Brosnan have done this film? Written as it is, I
> don't think so. He certainly wouldn't've been able to
> do the free running bit at his age. Well, maybe, but I
> don't think it would look as convincing. Besides, there's
> clearly a bit of a different slant to Bond here that would
> be at odds with Brosnan's previous Bonds - as if being
> consistent or inconsistent really matters much to EON.
>
> A more important question is: could Clive Owen have
> done this? Possibly, but somehow I'm not convinced,
> even though I would've preferred to have seen him
> instead of Craig in this film. I think part of the reason
> is that the script was clearly written, or more like
> rewritten, to suit Craig's persona and that's probably
> why Paul Haggis was brought in and neither Brosnan
> nor Owen seem like they would fit into this one
> comfortably.
>
> One character that's not in this script but apparently
> will pop up in the movie is Felix Leiter. I'm not sure
> where he would fit into, or be forced into, in all of
> what goes on here because I didn't miss his presence
> in the least, so why even have him at all?
>
> Is this the best Bond ever? No. Is it the worst? No.
> It has its strengths, but its weaknesses have a heavier
> weight to them, found in two of its three big action
> segments, at the beginning and at the end, and in a
> grossly underdeveloped main villain, along with the
> mishandling of Vesper's death and "the bitch is dead"
> line. These are crucial weaknesses, just about
> everything else I can more or less live with.
>
> Will Craig be loved and embraced by moviegoers as
> the new Bond? No. Even if he does very well come
> into his own as Bond halfway through the film via the
> line I mentioned, I don't see a Bond here, especially
> as he is written, that moviegoers will love. They
> might like him, but they'll reserve any love for the
> second or third Craig Bond, if he's lucky enough to
> get that far and get any love at all.
>
> Is this the next From Russia with Love? No. Next
> what, then? Maybe GoldenEye, maybe Living
> Daylights, maybe For Your Eyes Only. It at least
> has the potential to be better than GE and maybe
> those other two as well if they iron out all the kinks.
>
> Best possible grading for the script while being as
> optimistic as I can be: B-
> Worst possible grading for the script while being
> as pessimistic as I can be: D+
> Median grading, which could be understood as a
> realistic grading for the script: C
>
> Think of your own C-graded Bond films and that's
> about what you can expect out of Casino Royale
> on the basis of this draft of the script. But anything's
> possible and with serious last-minute fix-ups in all
> the right places this could end up being a solid B,
> maybe even a B+, Bond. Doubt if it can get any
> higher than that. And there you have it - a WQview
> of the CR script.
>
> This meets the WQ Stamp of Approval -
> Under No Delusions
>
> ---------------------
>
> But of course , I could be wrong about all this.
>

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266630 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 08:11

JHause

Here's my review of you reviewing a script written three months before
shooting.

You're a moron.

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266631 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 11:42

booby

JHause wrote:
> Here's my review of you reviewing a script written three months before
> shooting.
>
> You're a moron.

I haven't read the screenplay but I do believe Bond's first two lines
are:

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

"M really doesn't mind us making a little money on the side, Dryden.
She would just prefer it wasn't by selling secrets."

Would I be correct in that, JHouse?

MMS

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266632 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 11:50

booby

Interesting review, Mr WQ. Must say, I think it's a mistake to have
Craig's Bond gun barrel scene set in a toilet. I do think the location
is not appropriate for an iconic character as James Bond, and it will
play into the hands of the anti-Craigers. For example:

"Not only is Daniel Craig ill-suited to play the part of James Bond but
the producers seem to agree, putting his first gun barrel sequence in a
mens room. Are the producers trying to tell us something?"

Comments like that could happen. It's a possibility. I'd rather have
the gun barrel sequence at the very beginning of the film or have the
camera fade out from the mens room and then fade in and we see Craig
against a normal gun barrel background. That would work.

As it is, we see Criag standing in front of toilet tiles! Slightly
surreal, not to meant a bit inelegant, but there we go. Perhaps Eon
will reconsider and reshoot the sequence against a conventional white
background?

MMS

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266633 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 11:55

booby

I meant WQ not JHouse when I mentioned Craig's first lines as Bond.

Interesting review, Mr WQ. Must say, I think it's a mistake to have
Craig's Bond gun barrel scene set in a toilet. I do think the location
is not appropriate for an iconic character as James Bond, and it will
play into the hands of the anti-Craigers. For example:

"Not only is Daniel Craig ill-suited to play the part of James Bond but
the producers seem to agree, putting his first gun barrel sequence in a
mens room. Are the producers trying to tell us something?"

Comments like that could happen. It's a possibility. I'd rather have
the gun barrel sequence at the very beginning of the film or have the
camera fade out from the mens room and then fade in and we see Craig
against a normal gun barrel background. That would work.

As it is, we see Craig standing in front of toilet tiles! Slightly
surreal, not to meant a bit inelegant, but there we go. Perhaps Eon
will reconsider and reshoot the sequence against a conventional white
background?

MMS

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266634 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 11:57

booby

I meant WQ not JHouse when I mentioned Craig's first lines as Bond.

Interesting review, Mr WQ. Must say, I think it's a mistake to have
Craig's Bond gun barrel scene set in a toilet. I do think the location
is not appropriate for an iconic character as James Bond, and it will
play into the hands of the anti-Craigers. For example:

"Not only is Daniel Craig ill-suited to play the part of James Bond but
the producers seem to agree, putting his first gun barrel sequence in a
mens room. Are the producers trying to tell us something?"

Comments like that could happen. It's a possibility. I'd rather have
the gun barrel sequence at the very beginning of the film or have the
camera fade out from the mens room and then fade in and we see Craig
against a normal gun barrel background. That would work.

As it is, we see Craig standing in front of toilet tiles! Slightly
surreal, not to mention a bit inelegant, but there we go. Perhaps Eon
will reconsider and reshoot the sequence against a conventional white
background?

MMS

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266636 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 12:42

booby

This is the shot in question:

http://debrief.commanderbond.net/index.php?act=Attach&ty pe=post&id=6174

Maybe a white background would be more appropriate?

MMS

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266639 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 13:35

Rich Handley

"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> said:
>Here's my review of you reviewing a script written three months before
>shooting.
>You're a moron.

Why? This wasn't his usual brand of blindly-swinging anti-Craig vitriol.
It was actually an honest attempt at reviewing a script, which was
refreshing. He was fair -- he gave credit where it was due -- and, thus,
I'm more likely to give this review credence. There's no need for you to
attack him.

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266640 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 14:21

Moo Moo Sandwich wrote:
> I meant WQ not JHouse when I mentioned Craig's first lines as Bond.

--- Yep, those are the first lines he says. While it's not a
spectacular intro for Craig as Bond, I think the scene could work
seeing the context in which it is shot and how it will be shot, in
black and white.

> Interesting review, Mr WQ. Must say, I think it's a mistake to have
> Craig's Bond gun barrel scene set in a toilet. I do think the location
> is not appropriate for an iconic character as James Bond, and it will
> play into the hands of the anti-Craigers. For example:
>
> "Not only is Daniel Craig ill-suited to play the part of James Bond but
> the producers seem to agree, putting his first gun barrel sequence in a
> mens room. Are the producers trying to tell us something?"
>
> Comments like that could happen. It's a possibility. I'd rather have
> the gun barrel sequence at the very beginning of the film or have the
> camera fade out from the mens room and then fade in and we see Craig
> against a normal gun barrel background. That would work.

> As it is, we see Craig standing in front of toilet tiles! Slightly
> surreal, not to mention a bit inelegant, but there we go. Perhaps Eon
> will reconsider and reshoot the sequence against a conventional white
> background?

--- As I said, they can leave both kills in as is, but just reverse the
finale of each kill so that the first kill leads into the gun barrel
logo, not the toilet one. It wouldn't ruin any logical sequence
between the kills. That way would work better than the way they have
it now. I think it's a good idea to have a kill shot lead in to the
gun barrel logo as a way of re-introducing Bond within the context of
just that. We all know about the gun barrel logo, but their doing it
this way is sort of like showing us "the origin" of the gun barrel
logo, so to speak.

>
> MMS

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266641 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 14:28

Rich Handley wrote:
> "JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> said:
> >Here's my review of you reviewing a script written three months before
> >shooting.
> >You're a moron.
>
> Why? This wasn't his usual brand of blindly-swinging anti-Craig vitriol.
> It was actually an honest attempt at reviewing a script, which was
> refreshing. He was fair -- he gave credit where it was due -- and, thus,
> I'm more likely to give this review credence. There's no need for you to
> attack him.

--- Just ignore him, that way he'll eventually feel like he's only
talking to himself. But yeah, like I kept saying all along about any
review or critique or praise I have of CR, I call them as I see them.
If it's good where it is, it's good, if it's bad where it's bad, it's
bad, simple as that. No point in trying to fool myself into seeing it
any other way.

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266642 ]

Di, 09 Mai 2006 17:25

JHause

Rich Handley wrote:
> "JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> said:
> >Here's my review of you reviewing a script written three months before
> >shooting.
> >You're a moron.
>
> Why? This wasn't his usual brand of blindly-swinging anti-Craig vitriol.
> It was actually an honest attempt at reviewing a script, which was
> refreshing. He was fair -- he gave credit where it was due -- and, thus,
> I'm more likely to give this review credence. There's no need for you to
> attack him.

Are you under the impression that I read his posts?

It wasn't an attack. It was putting the review in its proper context.

BTW, if it's the script Icebreaker read, the Bond/Vesper stuff has
changed a LOT.

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266649 ]

Mi, 10 Mai 2006 01:46

Kent

I only saw WQ's posting because Kees replied to him. Congrats to WQ for
finally making statements based on something other than his "gut feeling"
(read bowel movements). It should be noted though that one good post does
not make up for 6-8 months of stupid ones. sc*jo used to throw in a
reasonable post for every 100 moronic ones too, but he's still an idiot....

cheers

Kent

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266650 ]

Mi, 10 Mai 2006 02:45

Kent wrote:
> I only saw WQ's posting because Kees replied to him. Congrats to WQ for
> finally making statements based on something other than his "gut feeling"
> (read bowel movements). It should be noted though that one good post does
> not make up for 6-8 months of stupid ones. sc*jo used to throw in a
> reasonable post for every 100 moronic ones too, but he's still an idiot....
>

--- Yeah, but I was still more or less right about my original gut
feeling skepticism over the construction chase, the miscasting of Le
Chiffre and the way the film ends, going by what little was known about
them at the time. If anything really surprised me about the script it
was my being able to visualize Daniel Craig actually doing James Bond.
But that's not to be confused with *being* James Bond. We'll cross
that bridge when we finally get to see him in the finished product.
Also, I was impressed with how the first meeting between Bond and
Vesper in the script has the potential to create some sort of
magnetism. Note: I said "potential". I'm still cautious about making
any claims that it will actually come off that way. And incidentally,
all my posts are good posts.

> cheers
>
> Kent

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266651 ]

Mi, 10 Mai 2006 08:18

JHause

WQ wrote:
>
> --- Yeah, but I was still more or less right about my original gut
> feeling skepticism over the construction chase, the miscasting of Le
> Chiffre and the way the film ends, going by what little was known about
> them at the time. If anything really surprised me about the script it
> was my being able to visualize Daniel Craig actually doing James Bond.
> But that's not to be confused with *being* James Bond. We'll cross
> that bridge when we finally get to see him in the finished product.
> Also, I was impressed with how the first meeting between Bond and
> Vesper in the script has the potential to create some sort of
> magnetism. Note: I said "potential". I'm still cautious about making
> any claims that it will actually come off that way. And incidentally,
> all my posts are good posts.
>

You cross bridges like Ted Kennedy crosses bridges. All your post are
moronic, so the women-hating and psychosis barely register to the
reader, anyway.

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266661 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 03:01

Rich Handley

"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> said:
>You cross bridges like Ted Kennedy crosses bridges. All your post are
>moronic, so the women-hating and psychosis barely register to the
>reader, anyway.

Man...how quickly you and WQ are switching roles.

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266663 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 04:45

JHause

It's like a Mission Impossible movie! I pull a rubber mask off my head
and I turn out to be a woman-hating blowhard who spends pages
speculating on distorted genital perspectives!

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266676 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 11:08

Lee Edward McIlmoyle

"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in news:1147146261.903331.17910
[at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

....And there you have it - a WQview
> of the CR script.

I don't think I'm in the mood to read the reviews of your review just now.
Perhaps tomorrow. Just wanted to say Brilliant. I still am rather eager to
see how this actually comes out, but I do really appreciate the thought and
humour put into this review. I suspect it is just a working script that
will no doubt see revisions above and beyond what anyone is expecting or
hoping for.

Still, I hope that line comes off right. And I hope Green pleasantly
surprises you.

Lee Edward McIlmoyle,
smiling

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266682 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 21:40

Lee Edward McIlmoyle wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in news:1147146261.903331.17910
> [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> ...And there you have it - a WQview
> > of the CR script.
>
> I don't think I'm in the mood to read the reviews of your review just now.
> Perhaps tomorrow. Just wanted to say Brilliant. I still am rather eager to
> see how this actually comes out, but I do really appreciate the thought and
> humour put into this review. I suspect it is just a working script that
> will no doubt see revisions above and beyond what anyone is expecting or
> hoping for.
>
> Still, I hope that line comes off right. And I hope Green pleasantly
> surprises you.

--- I hope *everything* about it surprises me. But yes, it's the final
draft of the pre-production script, so it's likely that some changes
may've already been made and will still be made in the course of the
shooting of the film. I suspect - and seriously hope - that the
torture scene was only a quick filler just to get something down on
paper. Maybe they weren't sure how they were going to handle that
scene and maybe that's why it reads as terribly as it does. The script
has the makings of a decent Bond flick, though not a great Bond flick,
and it can only be more decent if they can just see the several obvious
glaring flaws it has and correct them appropriately.

>
> Lee Edward McIlmoyle,
> smiling

Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review [message #266683 ]

Do, 11 Mai 2006 21:40

Vorheriges Thema:	CR trailer video and production photos
Nächstes Thema:	Sale of Oddjob's hat by Julien's Auctions at Planet Hollywood, New York.

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 06:20:55 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05341 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.