Bookmarks

Yahoo Gmail Google Facebook Delicious Twitter Reddit Stumpleupon Myspace Digg

Search queries

why did Scabbers bite goyle, fuldataler mineralwasser, bikemate fahrradcomputer t52434 anleitung, frank zappa iq 172 liam gallagher 164, "heartbroke kid" "previous episode references", bikemate t52434 anleitung, marietta edgecombe cop out, kaufland autobatterie, nasi goreng in dosen kaufen, micromaxx mm 3544 universalfernbedienung

Links

XODOX
Impressum

#1: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-21 11:30:13 by Mac

***MASSIVE SPOILERS***






WQ,

If you'd re-post your review again, we can have some discussion. I will come
to one question you have:

>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?

It seems obvious the character of "Wolper" will be changed to Leiter, as
he fulfils the function Leiter does in the novel, and should be easy enough
to give the character another pass in the on-set re-write.

I agree with you as regards the dialogue in the showdown with Le Chiffre.
The "scratching my balls" is crude and unfunny and I am sure they've
taken another pass at that.

On the other hand, I have to say the dry martini line, with the full
"...just a moment" response from Bond lifted from the novel is great,
and the follow-ups from the other players made me laugh out loud.
--
--Mac

Report this message

#2: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-21 17:28:34 by WQ

Mac wrote:
> ***MASSIVE SPOILERS***
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WQ,
>
> If you'd re-post your review again, we can have some discussion.

--- Reposted here now. I'll remove the other one so it
at least doesn't appear in Google's forum any longer.
I guess if you remove your reply to the other one as
well, that should eliminate it completely and make
things confusion-free for everybody.

As per Mac's request, I'm reposting my "Latest Casino
Royale Script Review" of almost 2 months ago for
further discussion. And so, in the immortal words of
Elliot Carver, "Let the mayhem begin."


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.

Report this message

#3: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-21 17:33:00 by Mac

WQ wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>> ***MASSIVE SPOILERS***
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> WQ,
>>
>> If you'd re-post your review again, we can have some discussion.
>
> --- Reposted here now. I'll remove the other one so it
> at least doesn't appear in Google's forum any longer.
> I guess if you remove your reply to the other one as
> well, that should eliminate it completely and make
> things confusion-free for everybody.

I've responded to the other one. Stick with that.

Kill this one.
--
--Mac

Report this message

#4: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-21 17:47:41 by WQ

Mac wrote:
> ***MASSIVE SPOILERS***
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WQ,
>
> If you'd re-post your review again, we can have some discussion. I will come
> to one question you have:
>
> >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?
>
> It seems obvious the character of "Wolper" will be changed to Leiter, as
> he fulfils the function Leiter does in the novel, and should be easy enough
> to give the character another pass in the on-set re-write.
>
> I agree with you as regards the dialogue in the showdown with Le Chiffre.
> The "scratching my balls" is crude and unfunny and I am sure they've
> taken another pass at that.
>
> On the other hand, I have to say the dry martini line, with the full
> "...just a moment" response from Bond lifted from the novel is great,
> and the follow-ups from the other players made me laugh out loud.
> --

> > 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?
>
> It seems obvious the character of "Wolper" will be changed to Leiter, as
> he fulfils the function Leiter does in the novel, and should be easy enough
> to give the character another pass in the on-set re-write.

--- Somehow Wolper didn't even register with me and I've completely
forgot about him as being in it. I guess it'll be better with Leiter
instead, at least that will register.

> > 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.
>
> I don't have a problem with this at all. I rather like the
> cross-cutting between the kills. Bond's last line is great.

--- On the reading of it, you wouldn't think much of it. But after
seeing the teaser clip with the washroom scene leading into the gun
barrel shot, then for impact's sake the last line, which is actually
used in the office kill, not the bathroom sequence, is better used to
lead directly into the gun barrel sequence rather than having to switch
back to the bathroom and then lead into the gun barrel. That's where
it's kind of clumsy.

> > 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
>
> Bond following his suspect is great. Gives a real sense of
> intrigue and mystery. Bond is forced to use his wits. The
> action sequence reminds me a little too much of the
> RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK truck sequence, which itself
> was ripped off by LICENCE TO KILL. It'll be interesting to
> see how this is designed and shot and I imagine it will
> not be how it is written here.

--- Yes, I liked the fact that there will be some quiet time via that
trailing of Dimitrios at the airport. Not everything has to be
action-oriented and that sense of intrigue and mystery is one that can
be built up quite nicely with some effective use of background music
just, as I pointed out, it was used for Bond snooping around the
corridors of Shrublands to find out what some suspicous activities are
adding up to. And yeah, it's all in how they'll shoot that tarmc
sequence that'll determine if it'll be a great watch or another dumb
overkill stunt.


> I agree with you as regards the dialogue in the showdown with Le Chiffre.
> The "scratching my balls" is crude and unfunny and I am sure they've
> taken another pass at that.

--- Definitely the weakest part of the script, but I'm giving them some
slack in thinking that they just weren't sure how to carry that part of
it off and would deal with it later.

> The dialogue on the whole has one or two Americanisms springing
> from Bond's mouth (again) and there are scenes where it could be
> punched up a bit.
>
> On the other hand, I have to say the dry martini line, with the full
> "...just a moment" response from Bond lifted from the novel is great,
> and the follow-ups from the other players made me laugh out loud.

--- The dry martini line, like I said, will be the ice breaker for
audiences still not sure about Craig as Bond. I think it's at that
point they'll loosen up a bit and begin to relax with him. Let's hope
he doesn't screw up in his delivery of it.

But what about the big finale? Any views on that? And does Le Chiffre
really come off as malevolent and perversted as he supposed to be? And
"the bitch is dead" line... So many questions, no answers.

Overall, what's your grade of it and where does it fit in relation to
other Bonds?

> --
> --Mac





> --Mac

Report this message

#5: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-21 18:08:47 by Mac

WQ wrote:


>> I agree with you as regards the dialogue in the showdown with Le
>> Chiffre. The "scratching my balls" is crude and unfunny and I am
>> sure they've taken another pass at that.
>
> --- Definitely the weakest part of the script, but I'm giving them
> some slack in thinking that they just weren't sure how to carry that
> part of it off and would deal with it later.

I'm sure it'll have had another polish. I hope they go for smart, rather
than funny.

> But what about the big finale? Any views on that? And does Le
> Chiffre really come off as malevolent and perversted as he supposed
> to be? And "the bitch is dead" line... So many questions, no answers.

The finale is difficult to imagine, because I've never seen one of these
balloon things in a dilapidated Venetian house, but I understand why
it is there. There's no way the film could tail off like the novel, it
doesn't really work in the novel to be honest. I think this is the part
that requires most attention, as Vesper's intentions, both to her Algerian
kidnap victim and to Bond, need to be clarified in such a way that the
whole thing isn't just a load of exposition. The actors must bring an
emotional content that's not on the page. That's their job.

I forgot to mention what is potentially my favourite sequence and
what could make for a classic suspense scene. When Bond suddenly
realises he's been poisoned. It's a grabber when you're reading it,
although the "MediPac" is a bit convenient, and if it's filmed right it
could make for one of the most memorable in the series.

> Overall, what's your grade of it and where does it fit in relation to
> other Bonds?

This is a script rather than a finished film and I've seen some fuck-ups
in my time in the transition between the two, but this has the potential
to be one of the best in many a long year... maybe since 1969.

I'm willing to bet the script will have undergone changes from this
draft.
--
--Mac

Report this message

#6: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-21 18:29:14 by WQ

Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
>
> >> I agree with you as regards the dialogue in the showdown with Le
> >> Chiffre. The "scratching my balls" is crude and unfunny and I am
> >> sure they've taken another pass at that.
> >
> > --- Definitely the weakest part of the script, but I'm giving them
> > some slack in thinking that they just weren't sure how to carry that
> > part of it off and would deal with it later.
>
> I'm sure it'll have had another polish. I hope they go for smart, rather
> than funny.
>
> > But what about the big finale? Any views on that? And does Le
> > Chiffre really come off as malevolent and perversted as he supposed
> > to be? And "the bitch is dead" line... So many questions, no answers.
>
> The finale is difficult to imagine, because I've never seen one of these
> balloon things in a dilapidated Venetian house, but I understand why
> it is there. There's no way the film could tail off like the novel, it
> doesn't really work in the novel to be honest. I think this is the part
> that requires most attention, as Vesper's intentions, both to her Algerian
> kidnap victim and to Bond, need to be clarified in such a way that the
> whole thing isn't just a load of exposition. The actors must bring an
> emotional content that's not on the page. That's their job.

--- I don't know. You're asking for a lot. And the way it all just
ends for Vesper, very unconvincing I feel, and way overbloated, too. I
didn't expect the film to wrap up the way the book does because that
would really be dragging things out to an anti-climax, but I certainly
hoped they would've found a more credible exit for Vesper and also
would've used the "bitch is dead" line in a more pointed way.

> I forgot to mention what is potentially my favourite sequence and
> what could make for a classic suspense scene. When Bond suddenly
> realises he's been poisoned. It's a grabber when you're reading it,
> although the "MediPac" is a bit convenient, and if it's filmed right it
> could make for one of the most memorable in the series.

--- That scene read very clearly in my mind and one I could see play
quite well on screen.

> > Overall, what's your grade of it and where does it fit in relation to
> > other Bonds?
>
> This is a script rather than a finished film and I've seen some fuck-ups
> in my time in the transition between the two, but this has the potential
> to be one of the best in many a long year... maybe since 1969.

--- I don't know if I'd make that comparison. Maybe in terms of Bond
falling for a babe head over heels [and how often does that really
happen besides Tracy and Vesper?], but story-wise and how it would
probably be all executed on screen, I still see no better than an FYEO
or TLD. It seems to read on that level more than OHMSS.

> I'm willing to bet the script will have undergone changes from this
> draft.

--- Let's hope you don't lose that bet. But if it looks like they're
sticking with the finale, as evidenced by the building of that Venice
set, then you might.

By the way, in case you didn't know, you can remove your other posts
from my other thread by clicking on Show Options>Remove. Mine are gone
now and with yours gone, maybe the thread will entirely disappear from
Google, or just the subject heading will still be visible but with
nothing in the thread.

> --
> --Mac

Report this message

#7: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-21 18:37:52 by Mac

WQ wrote:

> --- I don't know. You're asking for a lot. And the way it all just
> ends for Vesper, very unconvincing I feel, and way overbloated, too.
> I didn't expect the film to wrap up the way the book does because that
> would really be dragging things out to an anti-climax, but I certainly
> hoped they would've found a more credible exit for Vesper and also
> would've used the "bitch is dead" line in a more pointed way.

I think the line could take on greater impact in the reading. It'll be
one of the moments where Craig is called upon to show why he is
such a fine actor.

>>> Overall, what's your grade of it and where does it fit in relation
>>> to other Bonds?
>>
>> This is a script rather than a finished film and I've seen some
>> fuck-ups in my time in the transition between the two, but this has
>> the potential to be one of the best in many a long year... maybe
>> since 1969.
>
> --- I don't know if I'd make that comparison. Maybe in terms of Bond
> falling for a babe head over heels [and how often does that really
> happen besides Tracy and Vesper?], but story-wise and how it would
> probably be all executed on screen, I still see no better than an FYEO
> or TLD. It seems to read on that level more than OHMSS.

I happen to think THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is the best Bond since 1969
with FOR YOUR EYES ONLY close behind it. :)


>> I'm willing to bet the script will have undergone changes from this
>> draft.
>
> --- Let's hope you don't lose that bet. But if it looks like they're
> sticking with the finale, as evidenced by the building of that Venice
> set, then you might.

Oh, I'm not suggesting an entirely new set-piece will have been
written. I simply mean a re-write in terms of dialogue and new
direction in terms of Campbell taking what's on the page and
adapting it to the screen.

> By the way, in case you didn't know, you can remove your other posts
> from my other thread by clicking on Show Options>Remove. Mine are
> gone now and with yours gone, maybe the thread will entirely
> disappear from Google, or just the subject heading will still be
> visible but with nothing in the thread.

I don't think so. I believe you must put that "no archive" thing on
your posts to prevent them being kept at Google.

Besides, I doubt many people will read this as they will want to
avoid spoilers.
--
--Mac

Report this message

#8: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-21 20:37:14 by WQ

Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- I don't know. You're asking for a lot. And the way it all just
> > ends for Vesper, very unconvincing I feel, and way overbloated, too.
> > I didn't expect the film to wrap up the way the book does because that
> > would really be dragging things out to an anti-climax, but I certainly
> > hoped they would've found a more credible exit for Vesper and also
> > would've used the "bitch is dead" line in a more pointed way.
>
> I think the line could take on greater impact in the reading. It'll be
> one of the moments where Craig is called upon to show why he is
> such a fine actor.

--- It's not just in the reading of the line, it's in the leading in of
the line to the gun barrel shot. The office kill sequence would
obviously have to be reshot so as to make the line work in a such a way
that it would naturally lead into the gun barrel sequence. It would be
a bit tricky to figure out if you wanted to keep the line right at that
point and it might require scrapping the scene leading directly into
the gun barrel and just leaving it at the line and then intro music and
credits, as was done with Lazenby's "This never happened to the other
fellow." I'd really have to give it quite a bit of thought as to how
to get around it so that the office kill is the one that leads into the
gun barrel sequence with the use of that line. Maybe that's why they
shifted to the bathroom sequence, this way they have it both ways: the
line in the office kill, the gun barrel lead-in in the bathroom kill.

>
> >>> Overall, what's your grade of it and where does it fit in relation
> >>> to other Bonds?
> >>
> >> This is a script rather than a finished film and I've seen some
> >> fuck-ups in my time in the transition between the two, but this has
> >> the potential to be one of the best in many a long year... maybe
> >> since 1969.
> >
> > --- I don't know if I'd make that comparison. Maybe in terms of Bond
> > falling for a babe head over heels [and how often does that really
> > happen besides Tracy and Vesper?], but story-wise and how it would
> > probably be all executed on screen, I still see no better than an FYEO
> > or TLD. It seems to read on that level more than OHMSS.
>
> I happen to think THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is the best Bond since 1969
> with FOR YOUR EYES ONLY close behind it. :)
>
>
> >> I'm willing to bet the script will have undergone changes from this
> >> draft.
> >
> > --- Let's hope you don't lose that bet. But if it looks like they're
> > sticking with the finale, as evidenced by the building of that Venice
> > set, then you might.
>
> Oh, I'm not suggesting an entirely new set-piece will have been
> written. I simply mean a re-write in terms of dialogue and new
> direction in terms of Campbell taking what's on the page and
> adapting it to the screen.
>
> > By the way, in case you didn't know, you can remove your other posts
> > from my other thread by clicking on Show Options>Remove. Mine are
> > gone now and with yours gone, maybe the thread will entirely
> > disappear from Google, or just the subject heading will still be
> > visible but with nothing in the thread.
>
> I don't think so. I believe you must put that "no archive" thing on
> your posts to prevent them being kept at Google.
>
> Besides, I doubt many people will read this as they will want to
> avoid spoilers.
> --
> --Mac

Report this message

#9: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-21 20:40:15 by Mac

WQ wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>> WQ wrote:
>>
>>> --- I don't know. You're asking for a lot. And the way it all just
>>> ends for Vesper, very unconvincing I feel, and way overbloated, too.
>>> I didn't expect the film to wrap up the way the book does because
>>> that would really be dragging things out to an anti-climax, but I
>>> certainly hoped they would've found a more credible exit for Vesper
>>> and also would've used the "bitch is dead" line in a more pointed
>>> way.
>>
>> I think the line could take on greater impact in the reading. It'll
>> be one of the moments where Craig is called upon to show why he is
>> such a fine actor.
>
> --- It's not just in the reading of the line, it's in the leading in
> of the line to the gun barrel shot. The office kill sequence would
> obviously have to be reshot so as to make the line work in a such a
> way that it would naturally lead into the gun barrel sequence. It
> would be a bit tricky to figure out if you wanted to keep the line
> right at that point and it might require scrapping the scene leading
> directly into the gun barrel and just leaving it at the line and then
> intro music and credits, as was done with Lazenby's "This never
> happened to the other fellow." I'd really have to give it quite a
> bit of thought as to how to get around it so that the office kill is
> the one that leads into the gun barrel sequence with the use of that
> line. Maybe that's why they shifted to the bathroom sequence, this
> way they have it both ways: the line in the office kill, the gun
> barrel lead-in in the bathroom kill.

I'm talking about "The bitch is dead" not the gunbarrel!
--
--Mac

Report this message

#10: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-22 02:23:46 by t_turkey

&quot;WQ&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:wq&#64;email.com" target="_blank">wq&#64;email.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;By the way, in case you didn't know, you can remove your other posts
&gt;from my other thread by clicking on Show Options&gt;Remove. Mine are gone
&gt;now and with yours gone, maybe the thread will entirely disappear from
&gt;Google, or just the subject heading will still be visible but with
&gt;nothing in the thread.

It's impossible to remove posts from the Usenet. Just because you are
removing it from Google's archive doesn't mean it's gone. Anyone using any
other program or site to access Usenet will still see the thread, since
it's still there.

Report this message

#11: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-22 04:18:09 by WQ

Mac wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt; Mac wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; --- I don't know. You're asking for a lot. And the way it all just
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; ends for Vesper, very unconvincing I feel, and way overbloated, too.
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; I didn't expect the film to wrap up the way the book does because
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; that would really be dragging things out to an anti-climax, but I
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; certainly hoped they would've found a more credible exit for Vesper
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; and also would've used the &quot;bitch is dead&quot; line in a more pointed
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; way.
&gt; &gt;&gt;
&gt; &gt;&gt; I think the line could take on greater impact in the reading. It'll
&gt; &gt;&gt; be one of the moments where Craig is called upon to show why he is
&gt; &gt;&gt; such a fine actor.
&gt; &gt;
&gt; &gt; --- It's not just in the reading of the line, it's in the leading in
&gt; &gt; of the line to the gun barrel shot. The office kill sequence would
&gt; &gt; obviously have to be reshot so as to make the line work in a such a
&gt; &gt; way that it would naturally lead into the gun barrel sequence. It
&gt; &gt; would be a bit tricky to figure out if you wanted to keep the line
&gt; &gt; right at that point and it might require scrapping the scene leading
&gt; &gt; directly into the gun barrel and just leaving it at the line and then
&gt; &gt; intro music and credits, as was done with Lazenby's &quot;This never
&gt; &gt; happened to the other fellow.&quot; I'd really have to give it quite a
&gt; &gt; bit of thought as to how to get around it so that the office kill is
&gt; &gt; the one that leads into the gun barrel sequence with the use of that
&gt; &gt; line. Maybe that's why they shifted to the bathroom sequence, this
&gt; &gt; way they have it both ways: the line in the office kill, the gun
&gt; &gt; barrel lead-in in the bathroom kill.
&gt;
&gt; I'm talking about &quot;The bitch is dead&quot; not the gunbarrel!

--- My goof. That was a rush reply before I stepped out and got the
&quot;lines&quot; mixed up as to which you were referring to, thinking the
discussion was still on the intro. Nevertheless, it doesn't change my
view of the intro, and as for &quot;the bitch is dead&quot; line, it's diluted by
the fact that an extra bit of dialogue continues and then it shifts to
another scene. The line doesn't cap off the film as it does the book.
I believe it should for that bitter punch, just as OHMSS had a
bittersweet finale. Instead, we get the line, then a little more
babble from M, then a kind of teaser ending that's now meant to lead
into the next film. Not only that, but then we're supposed to finally
&quot;get it&quot; that this is the beginning of James Bond the Real, not James
Bond the Dream that we've had for the last 40 years, with what Bond
finally says as his last line which ushers in &quot;the guitar strains of
the FAMOUS BOND THEME.&quot; Kind of corny if you ask me, grade school
material. Where's the real effect of the &quot;bitch is dead&quot; line,
regardless of whatever &quot;reading&quot; Craig might give it? It won't be
there because it'll be diluted by the nonsense that follows it, being a
dumbed-down ending for dumbed-down Bond fans, and not one on its own
terms as OHMSS did it.

&gt; --
&gt; --Mac

Report this message

#12: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-22 04:26:51 by phil.gerrard1

Damn, I'm still skim-reading as I don't have time for much else until
Sunday, but here's one quick thought:

In the torture scene, remove all of Bond's dialogue from 'Hm, I have a
little itch there...' to '..scratching my balls', then, obviously, omit
Le Chiffre's 'I died? *I* died' ( a shame because in a different
context it could have worked well), open Bond's next speech on the
words 'no matter what...' without losing the blows struck in between,
and then I think the scene is a heck of a lot stronger.

Above all, the less said by Bond in this scene the better, and it's
hard to imagine Le Chiffre's expansive dialogue from the original novel
working in cinematic terms. Best to have him merely specify what he
wants and what he's going to do if he doesn't get it, and then leave
everything else in the hands of the director.

To my mind, it shouldn't be a dialogue-driven scene. The main focus
should be on the tension which derives from the dreadful inevitability
of the next blow, and that's a director's job rather than a writer's.
It's one of those sequences where silence rather than words should be
key. Le Chiffre should say a few choice words every so often, then
there should be a mixture of almost interminable silences and
shockingly brief gaps between blows. This could (and I hope will)
still happen, and I'm not sure whether it can be judged from the
printed page how it will look on-screen.

Best

Phil

Report this message

#13: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-22 04:29:12 by The Shadow

Thomas T. wrote:
&gt; It's impossible to remove posts from the Usenet. Just because you are
&gt; removing it from Google's archive doesn't mean it's gone. Anyone using any
&gt; other program or site to access Usenet will still see the thread, since
&gt; it's still there.
&gt;




Ah...but try to fine my thread &quot;My lunch with Sean Connery&quot; anywhere on
the Usenet.

Report this message

#14: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-22 04:35:32 by WQ

The Shadow wrote:
&gt; Thomas T. wrote:
&gt; &gt; It's impossible to remove posts from the Usenet. Just because you are
&gt; &gt; removing it from Google's archive doesn't mean it's gone. Anyone using any
&gt; &gt; other program or site to access Usenet will still see the thread, since
&gt; &gt; it's still there.
&gt; &gt;

--- This I know. I just would like to have it removed from Google to
avoid any confusion, being the posting avenue used in this case. But
who cares now anyway.

&gt; Ah...but try to fine my thread &quot;My lunch with Sean Connery&quot; anywhere on
&gt; the Usenet.

--- You had lunch with Sean Connery? Do tell me about it.

Report this message

#15: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-22 04:56:40 by WQ

<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:
&gt; Damn, I'm still skim-reading as I don't have time for much else until
&gt; Sunday, but here's one quick thought:
&gt;
&gt; In the torture scene, remove all of Bond's dialogue from 'Hm, I have a
&gt; little itch there...' to '..scratching my balls', then, obviously, omit
&gt; Le Chiffre's 'I died? *I* died' ( a shame because in a different
&gt; context it could have worked well), open Bond's next speech on the
&gt; words 'no matter what...' without losing the blows struck in between,
&gt; and then I think the scene is a heck of a lot stronger.

--- One can only pray that they were only monkeying around with this
scene. I mean, seriously, Bond saying, &quot;That was good, but a little to
the left.&quot;? Well, maybe Moore, but one would think this is not what a
back-to-basics, more grounded Craig Bond would, or should, say. How
would I have rewritten what they've sloppily slapped together? Well,
I'd have it done in a barren room somewhat reminiscent of the one in DN
when Strangways showed up to pick up the caged spider, which would be
located underneath Le Chiffre's villa. There's no Le Chiffre villa in
the script, if I recall correctly without going back to re-read it.
What's a villain without a villa? Instead, we're treated to some
nondescript abandoned country house. Boring. Anyway, the setting
would be different and truer to the book than the script has it and the
scene would be written far more menacingly and wincingly, much like the
&quot;Is it safe?&quot; dentistry scene in Marathon Man. No snide remarks in
that one and a whole lot of tension. That's the way you to do a Bond
torture scene. The dialogue would have to be terse, to the point, mean
business, and Bond would have to look like he's really crapping in his
seat.

&gt; Above all, the less said by Bond in this scene the better, and it's
&gt; hard to imagine Le Chiffre's expansive dialogue from the original novel
&gt; working in cinematic terms. Best to have him merely specify what he
&gt; wants and what he's going to do if he doesn't get it, and then leave
&gt; everything else in the hands of the director.

--- Less said the better is right.

&gt; To my mind, it shouldn't be a dialogue-driven scene. The main focus
&gt; should be on the tension which derives from the dreadful inevitability
&gt; of the next blow, and that's a director's job rather than a writer's.
&gt; It's one of those sequences where silence rather than words should be
&gt; key. Le Chiffre should say a few choice words every so often, then
&gt; there should be a mixture of almost interminable silences and
&gt; shockingly brief gaps between blows. This could (and I hope will)
&gt; still happen, and I'm not sure whether it can be judged from the
&gt; printed page how it will look on-screen.

--- Sometimes I think you're just too optimistic.


&gt;
&gt; Best
&gt;
&gt; Phil

Report this message

#16: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-22 05:22:36 by phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

&gt; Well,
&gt; I'd have it done in a barren room somewhat reminiscent of the one in DN
&gt; when Strangways showed up to pick up the caged spider, which would be
&gt; located underneath Le Chiffre's villa. There's no Le Chiffre villa in
&gt; the script, if I recall correctly without going back to re-read it.
&gt; What's a villain without a villa? Instead, we're treated to some
&gt; nondescript abandoned country house. Boring.

I'm not sure here - IMHO the room in DN is a larger-than-life Ken Adam
creation and I wouldn't have thought fitting for CR. The nondescript
country house suits me fine on this occasion, but I'll have to go back
to the script to be sure about this also.

'What's a villain without a villa' deserves to be worked into the CR
theme song :-)

&gt; That's the way you to do a Bond torture scene.

To be fair, to date the depiction of actual torture is one aspect of
the books the films have avoided, so there isn't really a blueprint
here. (One only sees the aftermath of Paula's torture in TB, Bond's
torture in DAD is presented in impressionistic terms, and for the most
part Bond is mostly *threatened* with torture elsewhere, the one
exception being TWINE.)

&gt; The dialogue would have to be terse, to the point, mean
&gt; business, and Bond would have to look like he's really crapping in his
&gt; seat.

To my mind that's an especially unfortunate image given that the
chair's seat has been removed...

&gt; --- Sometimes I think you're just too optimistic.

Well, I don't know. The scene could be a total disaster, or it could
be one where Campbell racks up the tension by using sound as he did in
the GE PCS: stretches of silence punctuated by noises like the
squeaking of the wheels on the wagon or a few well-timed gunshots. At
the moment, I imagine the 'thwack' of the carpet beater as being the
loudest and most important 'voice' in the scene, and that's something
which I don't think can be read from a script.

Anyway, I'll do some more detailled analysis of the script later and
may yet come to revise or rethink some of the above.

Best

Phil

Report this message

#17: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-22 05:41:47 by WQ

<a href="mailto:phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">phil.gerrard&#64;ntlworld.com</a> wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; Well,
&gt; &gt; I'd have it done in a barren room somewhat reminiscent of the one in DN
&gt; &gt; when Strangways showed up to pick up the caged spider, which would be
&gt; &gt; located underneath Le Chiffre's villa. There's no Le Chiffre villa in
&gt; &gt; the script, if I recall correctly without going back to re-read it.
&gt; &gt; What's a villain without a villa? Instead, we're treated to some
&gt; &gt; nondescript abandoned country house. Boring.
&gt;
&gt; I'm not sure here - IMHO the room in DN is a larger-than-life Ken Adam
&gt; creation and I wouldn't have thought fitting for CR. The nondescript
&gt; country house suits me fine on this occasion, but I'll have to go back
&gt; to the script to be sure about this also.

--- Why wouldn't a Ken Adam-inspired room be fitting for CR? If you
read the description of the room in the book, one could almost imagine
it as such and, in a way, as a variation of the DN room - &quot;It was a
large bare room, sparsely furnished in cheap art nouveau style&quot; so the
description begins in Ch. 17. Stretch the imagination a little and
voila, a Ken Adam set!

&gt; 'What's a villain without a villa' deserves to be worked into the CR
&gt; theme song :-)

---I'll be looking forward to my royalties.

&gt; &gt; That's the way you to do a Bond torture scene.
&gt;
&gt; To be fair, to date the depiction of actual torture is one aspect of
&gt; the books the films have avoided, so there isn't really a blueprint
&gt; here. (One only sees the aftermath of Paula's torture in TB, Bond's
&gt; torture in DAD is presented in impressionistic terms, and for the most
&gt; part Bond is mostly *threatened* with torture elsewhere, the one
&gt; exception being TWINE.)

--- True. But if you think back to Connery literally sweating bullets
in GF at the thought of having himself split in half by a laser beam,
you think Craig will muster up just as much convincing sweat over a
carpet beater? Anyway, if EON wants to break new ground with Bond, one
way to do it is to set a blueprint for torture as it will now be seen
and in the future, not as it has been seen or avoided in the past.
Otherwise, if they're going to go with a new Bond and do nothing new
with him, then what's the point in the first place?

&gt; &gt; The dialogue would have to be terse, to the point, mean
&gt; &gt; business, and Bond would have to look like he's really crapping in his
&gt; &gt; seat.
&gt;
&gt; To my mind that's an especially unfortunate image given that the
&gt; chair's seat has been removed...

--- Remember: figurative vs. literal. But I'm sure you know that by
now.

&gt; &gt; --- Sometimes I think you're just too optimistic.
&gt;
&gt; Well, I don't know. The scene could be a total disaster, or it could
&gt; be one where Campbell racks up the tension by using sound as he did in
&gt; the GE PCS: stretches of silence punctuated by noises like the
&gt; squeaking of the wheels on the wagon or a few well-timed gunshots. At
&gt; the moment, I imagine the 'thwack' of the carpet beater as being the
&gt; loudest and most important 'voice' in the scene, and that's something
&gt; which I don't think can be read from a script.

--- By the way, who uses carpet beaters for torture these days anyway?

&gt; Anyway, I'll do some more detailled analysis of the script later and
&gt; may yet come to revise or rethink some of the above.

--- Digest it all well.

&gt;
&gt; Best
&gt;
&gt; Phil

Report this message

#18: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-22 11:40:42 by Mac

WQ wrote:

&gt; --- My goof. That was a rush reply before I stepped out and got the
&gt; &quot;lines&quot; mixed up as to which you were referring to, thinking the
&gt; discussion was still on the intro. Nevertheless, it doesn't change my
&gt; view of the intro, and as for &quot;the bitch is dead&quot; line, it's diluted
&gt; by the fact that an extra bit of dialogue continues and then it
&gt; shifts to another scene. The line doesn't cap off the film as it
&gt; does the book. I believe it should for that bitter punch, just as
&gt; OHMSS had a bittersweet finale. Instead, we get the line, then a
&gt; little more babble from M, then a kind of teaser ending that's now
&gt; meant to lead into the next film. Not only that, but then we're
&gt; supposed to finally &quot;get it&quot; that this is the beginning of James Bond
&gt; the Real, not James Bond the Dream that we've had for the last 40
&gt; years, with what Bond finally says as his last line which ushers in
&gt; &quot;the guitar strains of the FAMOUS BOND THEME.&quot; Kind of corny if you
&gt; ask me, grade school material. Where's the real effect of the &quot;bitch
&gt; is dead&quot; line, regardless of whatever &quot;reading&quot; Craig might give it?
&gt; It won't be there because it'll be diluted by the nonsense that
&gt; follows it, being a dumbed-down ending for dumbed-down Bond fans, and
&gt; not one on its own terms as OHMSS did it.

I don't agree that it's dumbed down. An insulting ending would have
featured a big-titted blond walk past Bond as he is discussing Vesper
with M and having him chuck his computer over the side to run off in
pursuit of her.

&quot;The bitch is dead&quot; doesn't have the emotional or cinematic impact
as the climax of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. The
latter features action and consequence, the former is a line
indicating a new state of mind. It's not the new &quot;We have all the
time in the world,&quot; no matter how much one wants it to be.

I can see why the tag is there. The film has a commercial responsibility
and a lesson learned from ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE's
ending. It's not an upbeat ending but, in showing Bond on a trail of
vengeance, it's a compromise. Rather then imply Bond has changed, the
script is showing it. It's one I'll have to see to decide if it works.
--
--Mac

Report this message

#19: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-22 15:22:43 by WQ

Mac wrote:
&gt; WQ wrote:
&gt;
&gt; &gt; --- My goof. That was a rush reply before I stepped out and got the
&gt; &gt; &quot;lines&quot; mixed up as to which you were referring to, thinking the
&gt; &gt; discussion was still on the intro. Nevertheless, it doesn't change my
&gt; &gt; view of the intro, and as for &quot;the bitch is dead&quot; line, it's diluted
&gt; &gt; by the fact that an extra bit of dialogue continues and then it
&gt; &gt; shifts to another scene. The line doesn't cap off the film as it
&gt; &gt; does the book. I believe it should for that bitter punch, just as
&gt; &gt; OHMSS had a bittersweet finale. Instead, we get the line, then a
&gt; &gt; little more babble from M, then a kind of teaser ending that's now
&gt; &gt; meant to lead into the next film. Not only that, but then we're
&gt; &gt; supposed to finally &quot;get it&quot; that this is the beginning of James Bond
&gt; &gt; the Real, not James Bond the Dream that we've had for the last 40
&gt; &gt; years, with what Bond finally says as his last line which ushers in
&gt; &gt; &quot;the guitar strains of the FAMOUS BOND THEME.&quot; Kind of corny if you
&gt; &gt; ask me, grade school material. Where's the real effect of the &quot;bitch
&gt; &gt; is dead&quot; line, regardless of whatever &quot;reading&quot; Craig might give it?
&gt; &gt; It won't be there because it'll be diluted by the nonsense that
&gt; &gt; follows it, being a dumbed-down ending for dumbed-down Bond fans, and
&gt; &gt; not one on its own terms as OHMSS did it.
&gt;
&gt; I don't agree that it's dumbed down. An insulting ending would have
&gt; featured a big-titted blond walk past Bond as he is discussing Vesper
&gt; with M and having him chuck his computer over the side to run off in
&gt; pursuit of her.
&gt;
&gt; &quot;The bitch is dead&quot; doesn't have the emotional or cinematic impact
&gt; as the climax of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. The
&gt; latter features action and consequence, the former is a line
&gt; indicating a new state of mind. It's not the new &quot;We have all the
&gt; time in the world,&quot; no matter how much one wants it to be.
&gt;
&gt; I can see why the tag is there. The film has a commercial responsibility
&gt; and a lesson learned from ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE's
&gt; ending. It's not an upbeat ending but, in showing Bond on a trail of
&gt; vengeance, it's a compromise. Rather then imply Bond has changed, the
&gt; script is showing it. It's one I'll have to see to decide if it works.
&gt; --

--- I suppose you can put it that way, but I think it'll be a tricky
one to pull off on screen without looking corny about it. The way it
ends, it comes across as a bad ending from an episode from the Fred
Dryer 80s TV series &quot;Hunter.&quot; The ending would've probably been just
perfect with leaving it at Bond saying the line and then M, saying
nothing in return, leaving him alone with his thoughts. Maybe a
downbeat ending, but one truer to the context of the story. The way it
reads now gives it more of a silly cheap thrills &quot;happy&quot; ending, as in
Bond is back - for the first time - and expect to see more of him!
What are they talking about, haven't we seen enough of him for over 40
years already? The final cut, indeed, will be interesting to watch.

&gt; --Mac

Report this message

#20: Re: Latest "Casino Royale" Script Review SPOILERS

Posted on 2006-07-23 00:18:22 by JHause

Great, the idiot who said getting too serious is uncommercial is now
mad that the ending isn't downbeat.

Report this message