Yeah, that does bother me as this film was nothing short of brilliant, a good adaption of the book in the midst of a very zaney satire which in my oppionion get better each subsequent viewing.
Are you serious?
The film only has vague and infrequent connections to the book it is based on, and all those plot points revolve around the Baccarat game at Casino Royale, and Vesper's betrayal. Beyond that, everything is extraneous and does not resemble the plot in the slightest.
Furthermore, I contest the use of "satire," it may apply accurately to a dictionary entry of the word, but there was nothing smart about the way that the material was handled, and the story is far too scattered to make any kind of intelligent satire of the material it was "supposed" to be satirizing. It's simply a "spoof" and a bad one at that.
Despite what people say the film makes sense, you have to watch it a half dozen times, but it does make sense.
At the very least, all films need to make sense on a very basic level. There are plenty of films that require further review to understand a joke, or to catch plot points that were missed the first time around. Casino Royale is not one of them, there is almost no cohesive narrative to follow.
This was 5 "James Bond" vignettes which had little to do with each other strung together, poorly at best, horrendous at worst.
5.1 is an extremely generous rating, especially since I generally list it in the 25 worst films I've ever seen.
"You've shown your quality sir. The very highest."
reply
share
franzkabuki
14 years ago
I kind of like the state-of-the-art psychedelic pop culture madness and how allover the place & vaguely strung together it all is, but the problem remains, it just isnĀ“t funny. Only very, very silly in a heavy handed way. An interesting, mesmerizing-looking experiment gone bad.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
reply
share
tazikhay
12 years ago
Casino Royale is to me a brilliant joke, unlike any other film I have ever seen. I liken it to a dry joke that not everyone will get, but just because not everyone gets it doesn't make it any less funny or genius. Although the humour often seems quite basic and silly, if you look at the film as a whole you will see the bigger picture. Having looked into the making of the film I see it as more of an beautiful accident than a film that is put together that is peiced together beautifully, but this is just part of its appeal.
The lack of a flowing storyline is one of the best things about this film, it sets it aside from everything else. It could be likened to some of the Beatles song that were made from merging together a verse by Paul and a chorus by John, such as A day in the life. Despite the obvious absurdity of these songs they are still great songs. And Casino Royale is a definetly a great film, maybe not appreciated by all, but those who are fortunate enough to see beyond the messy storyline are very lucky indeed.
reply
share
leonidus1956
11 years ago
"...all films need to make sense on a very basic level." I would contest that opinion, some films are fun to watch (read: entertaining) and even attempting to analyze them just diminishes the experience. For the record, I personally enjoy watching this film but would not try to defend it on its technical merits. Try to think of it as a cinematic time capsule and perhaps it will make it off your "...25 worst films I've ever seen." list.
reply
share
nutsberryfarm
10 years ago
it has its merits.
Veneration of Mark Twain is one of the roots of our current intellectual stalemate
reply
share
MooseNugget
9 years ago
I really tried to like this film. It does have a lot of my favorite actors. And it does have it's moments.
But it's just too random at times. Sometimes it's funny but most of the time it just makes me scratch my head. I get why the movie is like that though. Peter Sellers wasn't around anymore. But it was cool to see David Niven play Bond.
reply
share
brailsford
8 years ago
IAre you serious?
The film only has vague and infrequent connections to the book it is based on, and all those plot points revolve around the Baccarat game at Casino Royale, and Vesper's betrayal. Beyond that, everything is extraneous and does not resemble the plot in the slightest.
Furthermore, I contest the use of "satire," it may apply accurately to a dictionary entry of the word, but there was nothing smart about the way that the material was handled, and the story is far too scattered to make any kind of intelligent satire of the material it was "supposed" to be satirizing. It's simply a "spoof" and a bad one at that
The whole section about Evelyn Tremble was pretty much the important parts of the book, Welles was a far more enjoyable
Le Chiffre and Andress as Vesper Lynd still cracks me up. The movies brilliants lies in its lack of direction... the first time watching it really is impossible to see where its going. I see how you feel about movies so theres no real point going on as we fundamentally disagree on this point
At the very least, all films need to make sense on a very basic level. There are plenty of films that require further review to understand a joke, or to catch plot points that were missed the first time around. Casino Royale is not one of them, there is almost no cohesive narrative to follow.
I disagree and know of quite a few filmmakers who feel likewise. Part of the fun of this movie is it shows sillier side to Bond.
reply
share