I always liked Bond so last Thursday I attended the morning screening of Casino Royale. I have always been curious about 007’s preferred choices. Product placements are no accidents in today’s cinema so Daniel Craig drives a Euro-Ford and the compulsory Aston Martin. He uses Sony laptops and T-50 digital camera, no wonder since it is a Sony picture. He wears Omega instead of Rolex as he points out not so subtle and he exclusively drinks Bollinger Grande Année Champagne although if you watch closely, you’ll see a bottle of Roederer Cristal in one of the Café scenes. His preferred red is a Saint-Émilion Grand Cru, Chateau L’Angelus displayed so intently in the carriage restaurant scene on a speeding train in Montenegro (that looked very Switzerland to me). I hope it’s still a good wine, haven’t had it for a decade. Daniel Craig fights, runs and shoots, does the usual Bond things, he even tells you that he is “Bond, James Bond†but I have the feeling he may not last an other sequel. Confusing story, bad editing and dragged finale didn’t help either.
Still, good enough picture, good fun but in my heart Connery is still King.
Cheers,
Attila
James Bond and Chateau L’Angelus
-
prester john
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:23 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Thanks for the review, Attila.
I, too, am a big fan of Bond.
I have to confess a little disappointment when Bond ordered Bollinger Grande Annee, yet didn't specify the vintage. This shows a lack of finesse both in the character and in the script. Previous Bonds would have shown a little more class and style in specifying the vintage; and it would always have been one of the best vintages. Therefore, I almost expected bond to order the 1996 Bollinger, but much to my chagrin this was lacking. While you may consider this pedantic, I think that a lot of the most important things in life lie at the edges and in the minutiae. I expect nothing less from my films.
This is a Bond that in some ways I didn't like yet in other ways I did like. But if you like the series, this is really mandatory viewing.
This version of the series really takes us back to an exploration of Bond which was touched upon for the first time significantly a few decades ago by the George Lazenby character in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. There, Bond was painted as a character with some feeling and a man capable of showing genuine love, falling in love and genuinely accepting love and succumbing to love. It, therefore, came as no surprise that George never played Bond again, because this is a betrayal of the Bond character. Bond is a super spy who is smooth, suave and sophistocated but is still a killing machine for Mother England. He is prepared to go to any lengths for his country: that is the raison d'etre for a '00' and that is what is expected upon being granted a 'licence to kill'. Bond is, of course, human, but his capability to love and express love is so deeply hidden that it is all but lost. That is his character and must remain sacrosanct if the series is to have a future.
This latest instalment of Bond explores this side of Bond even more deeply and overtly. Quite frankly, it was out of character and sits uncomfortably with me. I have enjoyed the interplay and the underlying tension between M and Bond in the last few films after the position of M was given to a woman, particularly since Bond must now learn to live with a female boss and to function in a 'gyno-centric' world. This is quite difficult for a man who must dominate women, but this 'touchy-feely' Bond in Casino Royale is not for me. As unfeeling as it may seem to say this, the only saving grace in this exploration of Bond is the death of Bond's love desire: she simply had to die if the Bond series is to survive, and mercifully she did.
I agree that the story was a little confusing
Oh, and don't write of Timothy Dalton. I thought he was an excellent Bond.
Best,
PJ
I, too, am a big fan of Bond.
I have to confess a little disappointment when Bond ordered Bollinger Grande Annee, yet didn't specify the vintage. This shows a lack of finesse both in the character and in the script. Previous Bonds would have shown a little more class and style in specifying the vintage; and it would always have been one of the best vintages. Therefore, I almost expected bond to order the 1996 Bollinger, but much to my chagrin this was lacking. While you may consider this pedantic, I think that a lot of the most important things in life lie at the edges and in the minutiae. I expect nothing less from my films.
This is a Bond that in some ways I didn't like yet in other ways I did like. But if you like the series, this is really mandatory viewing.
This version of the series really takes us back to an exploration of Bond which was touched upon for the first time significantly a few decades ago by the George Lazenby character in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. There, Bond was painted as a character with some feeling and a man capable of showing genuine love, falling in love and genuinely accepting love and succumbing to love. It, therefore, came as no surprise that George never played Bond again, because this is a betrayal of the Bond character. Bond is a super spy who is smooth, suave and sophistocated but is still a killing machine for Mother England. He is prepared to go to any lengths for his country: that is the raison d'etre for a '00' and that is what is expected upon being granted a 'licence to kill'. Bond is, of course, human, but his capability to love and express love is so deeply hidden that it is all but lost. That is his character and must remain sacrosanct if the series is to have a future.
This latest instalment of Bond explores this side of Bond even more deeply and overtly. Quite frankly, it was out of character and sits uncomfortably with me. I have enjoyed the interplay and the underlying tension between M and Bond in the last few films after the position of M was given to a woman, particularly since Bond must now learn to live with a female boss and to function in a 'gyno-centric' world. This is quite difficult for a man who must dominate women, but this 'touchy-feely' Bond in Casino Royale is not for me. As unfeeling as it may seem to say this, the only saving grace in this exploration of Bond is the death of Bond's love desire: she simply had to die if the Bond series is to survive, and mercifully she did.
I agree that the story was a little confusing
Oh, and don't write of Timothy Dalton. I thought he was an excellent Bond.
Best,
PJ
-
bacchaebabe
- Posts: 1222
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 5:04 pm
- Location: Sydney
I know this is a wine site and we have our own peculiarities but on other sites that are more devoted to storylines of other things like films and TV and books, if you are going to give away any part of the plot and there is a chance that someone may not already know this, you should write SPOILER somewhere before you give it away!
Thanks Dude!
Thanks Dude!
Cheers,
Kris
There's a fine wine between pleasure and pain
(Stolen from the graffiti in the ladies loos at Pegasus Bay winery)
Kris
There's a fine wine between pleasure and pain
(Stolen from the graffiti in the ladies loos at Pegasus Bay winery)
-
Serge Birbrair
Re: James Bond and Chateau L’Angelus
Attila wrote: I hope it’s still a good wine, haven’t had it for a decade.
It is. We just finished 1988, and started drinking 1995. Good and solid wine.
-
Anonymous
prester john wrote:I have to confess a little disappointment when Bond ordered Bollinger Grande Annee, yet didn't specify the vintage. This shows a lack of finesse both in the character and in the script. Previous Bonds would have shown a little more class and style in specifying the vintage; and it would always have been one of the best vintages.
PJ
Lmao... only on a wine forum 