 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sadly.Ms. Monica is too "olde' for the series*
bruce
*not for me - no way!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice work if you can get it.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neo,
I like that cool photo of the various Bonds at the card table.
One request: can you remove that Nancy boy Danny Craig?
can ya.?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 29, 2011 - 11:00 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Richard-W
(Member)
|
Outside (never-to-be compared to or equaled with) Diana Rigg’s
sublimely tragic Tracy, she’s the most pivotally important woman
in 007 history. And, for the second time (in our ever Unhumble
estimation), the film-makers got it remarkably right with beautifully
bullseye casting.
From her first unanticipated appearance on the train, Eva Green
captures Vesper Lynd’s complexity in all its compelling dimensions.
The 'hate-at-first-sight not-wanting-to-get-to-know-you-you-
arrogant-bastard' sequence is just about the best damn scene
between Bond and a (not-potential) paramour unencountered
since The Great Scot’s exemplary era. Kudos to Paul Haggis’
exquisite character structure – everything is right there via the
distinctive dialogue: the competitive disdain ( via one of our
all-tyme favorite lines: “You think of women as disposable
pleasures rather than meaningful pursuits”), icy but passionate
intelligence, shrewd insight, playfully poisonous repartee and
absolute equality of essence.
We believe Maibaum and Fleming would've proudly approved.
You have a real knack for the visual essay, Neo.
Forgive me, but I could not disagree more with your appraisal of Casino Royale. The writing is so important. The writing is everything. The script jettisons Ian Fleming's subtext and substitutes a new one that violates his intent. The characters are perverted into something they are not. Especially Vesper. It starts in that scene on the train with Vesper. Your idea of banter sounds like contempt and hostility to me. Since she's never met this man before, how does she know he "thinks of women as disposable pleasures rather than meaningful pursuits.” ? How does she know that? She's just met him on the train. Or is she talking about 40 years of feminist criticism of Bond films? Do we need that commentary in a Bond adventure? Doesn't it break the fourth wall? And if she's referring to 40 years of feminist criticism of the Bond films, what does that tell us about her character? Besides, the accusation isn't true. Actually, it's the other way around. As for the repartee, it disgusts me. It should have been thrown out on the page and started over again from scratch. Beginning with Vesper's "reading" of Bond as a maladjusted orphan with no taste who was put through college by the grace of someone else's charity. Wrong. Fleming's Bond was the son of a Scot military man and a Swiss mother who was raised in London, graduated from Eton College, and became a commander in the Royal Navy before being recruited into the Intelligence services. His sophistication and intelligence came from his upbringing.
There's a vast chasm between the character Fleming wrote and the value judgement portrayed in this film. Their motivations, background, and emotional range are entirely different concepts. Bond's reply about Vesper over-compensating was pretty sharp, but if she's over-compensating, she's not the character that Ian Fleming wrote. And the character Fleming wrote is infinitely more complex than the dumbed-down politically corrected version in this film. As for the casting, I like Eva Green better in other films. This vision of Vesper, like the vision of Bond, is pure crap, but maybe that's not her fault. If the character had been brought back into line with the novel, and if the betrayal and romance started out as a slow burn instead of an abrupt shift in emphasis, I would still find Eva Green wrong for the part.
We believe Maibaum and Fleming would've proudly approved
I seriously doubt it.
Fleming's version is the only right version and it's in his book.
He'd have shot these screenwriters on sight for the slur they cast on his story.
Maibaum was a more sophisticated writer than all the fingers in the pie on Casino Royale combined. He had impeccable taste, and this film has no taste at all. He practiced pacing, timing, character development, plotting, structure, knew how to support the clear text with an organic subtext, and most of all he understood Fleming's concepts and prose. He kept Bond's dialogue blunt, subtle, stoic, and short. The dialogue in Casino Royale is expository, declarative, repetitious, accusatory, whining, condescending, patronizing, and endless. Bond never shuts up. M is a high-pitched motormouth. You could CUT 40 minutes of utterly unnecessary chatter out of this movie and NOT miss it.
Casino Royale's biggest offense, however, was to usher in the "Stop! Or My M. Will Shoot!" era. Neither Fleming nor Maibaum would approve of the uncouth, dumbed-down James Bond nor the condescending, bitchy, male-hating M. Nor would they approve of M galavanting across the globe to teach James Bond how to be a better man and a kinder gentler spy. Nor would they approve of the excoriating tirades M subjects Bond, and the male audience, to, which are straight out of Oprah Winfrey's playbook (a lot of the dialogue in the film comes from Oprah episodes, word for word). The script writers were confused who the story is about. It's supposed to be about James Bond on his mission. It is not about M. The way M keeps popping up all the time, Bond might as well stay home.
best wishes, Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
