René Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) James Bond Wiki Fandom
René Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) James Bond Wiki Fandom
Casino Royale (film) James Bond Wiki Fandom
Casino Royale Filming Locations: Where Was Casino Royale ...
Casino Royale (2006) - Internet Movie Firearms Database ...
James Bond 007 - Casino Royale: schauspieler, regie ...
Casino Royale cast: Daniel Craig, Eva Green; full list of ...
Casino Royale - All You Need to Know (Cast, Movies ...
Casino Royale (2006) - Full Cast & Crew - IMDb
What happened to Mathis in Casino Royale?
How did Bond know about Mathis on Casino Royale? - Movies ...
casino royale cast mathis
casino royale cast mathis - win
Film Rankings with Explanations, Ratings, and Tiers
During quarantine, I've had the opportunity to rewatch every movie in relatively short succession. I've seen them all 2-10 times and have been a lifelong Bond fan. I enjoy every Bond film, even the "bad" ones, but I wanted to try and rank them. I used a scoring system to help me, but ultimately went with my gut (e.g. License to Kill MUST be better than The World is Not Enough). I thought a tier system of ranking was useful, because it really is splitting hairs to rank some of these. Feel free to critique my ratings, my ratings weightings, and opinions! You could say I have too much time on my hands Tier 7: The Worst
Die Another Day: Best Sword Fight
- Why it's not irredeemable: For being the lowest ranked film on this list, it's not without its moments. Bond getting caught, tortured, then escaping from MI6 was interesting and novel. The ice hotel was neat, as well as the chase scene. I'll even defend the much maligned invisible car, as the Aston Martin Vanquish is quite a car. - Why it's not higher: Personally, I think Halle Berry is a terrible Bond girl, alternating between damsel in distress and super woman as the plot demands it. Moreover, Graves and the plot in general is pretty cheesy and boring. Perhaps most damaging is the deadly serious tone of the movie, which doesn't even provide the fun and excitement Brosnan's films generally provide the viewer. - Most under-appreciated part: The fencing scene is the best action scene of the entire movie. It's surprising it took Bond this long to fence, but seeing them go at it across the club was a blast. Tier 6: Disappointing
Quantum of Solace: Best Car Chase
- Why it's this high: The action is quite good, likely meriting the distinction of the best car chase in the entire series (the pre-credits sequence). Mathis is a good ally and it is sad to see him go. - Why it's not higher: My biggest beef with Craig's Bond films is that they are too serious, so when the plot and script isn't top-notch, the movie watching experience is just kind of dull. Quantum of Solace takes a bold risk in making the first Bond sequel, but unfortunately it's just not that good. Greene seems like a rather pathetic Bond villain, and his henchman (the worst in the series?) ends up in a neck-brace after getting tripped by Camilla. Also, the shaky cam is distracting and exhausting. - Most under-appreciated part: I actually thing the theme song is pretty good! Maybe I'm just too much of a Jack White groupie, but I think it rocks.
Moonraker: Best Locales
- Why it's this high: I'm pleased to see Jaws making a return, as he is an amazing henchman. On that note, the pre-credits sequence with Bond and Jaws falling out of the plane is exhilarating. Holly Goodhead is a very good Bond girl, beautiful, smart, and competent. Roger Moore always does an excellent job playing the role with suavity and wit. - Why it's not higher: Gosh it's cheesy. Particularly egregious is Jaws' love story. The theme song is terrible and Bond doesn't have any solid allies besides Goodhead and Jaws. - Most under-appreciated part: They really go all out with the settings here. Obviously, space is pretty polarizing, but I think Bond clearly should go to space at SOME point during the series. In addition, Italy and Brazil were gorgeous views, while Drax's estate is magnificent.
Spectre: Best Shooting
- Why it's this high: Rewatching this for the second time, I realized Lea Seydoux does a good job as the Bond girl, and it's actually quite believable she and James could work out, as she is the daughter of an assassin and can understand him (as Blofeld points out). Seeing Bond show off his marksmanship was quite satisfying, especially that one long shot during the escape from Blofeld's compound. Bonus points for Bond's DB10 and resurrecting the DB5. - Why it's not higher: The fatal flaw of this film is making Blofeld Bond's adopted brother. How did Bond not recognize him? How is Blofeld able to keep himself secret from British intelligence yet every criminal worth his salt knows of him? The worst part is that it actually cheapens the plot of the other Craig movies. I believe the Bond franchise should stay clear from sequels from here on out. Yes, they can weave a great story if done correctly, but it's so much more difficult to make great sequels (e.g. Star Wars only made two worthy sequels in seven tries) than to do one-offs. As usual for a Craig film, Bond has little charisma (save for his surprisingly good rapport with Moneypenny) and little in the way of jokes to lighten the mood. - Most under-appreciated part: The train fight scene with Dave Bautista is great! Gosh it was awesome to see them go at it, break through walls, and a priceless expression on Bautista's face when he knows he's done. Bautista is the first decent henchman since the 90s, so glad to see the series go back to this staple.
The Man with the Golden Gun: Best Potential, Worst Execution
- Why it's this high: This Bond movie frustrates more than any other, as it has the potential to be an all-time great. Bond's debriefing starts off with promise, as it turns out the world's top assassin is gunning for Bond! For the first time in the series, Bond seems vulnerable! M makes a hilarious quip as to who would try to kill Bond ("jealous husbands ... the list is endless"). Furthermore, the legendary Christopher Lee is possible the best Bond villain, a rare peer of 007. - Why it's not higher: Unfortunately, the movie opts to change course so that it's just Maud Adams trying to get Bond to kill Scaramanga. Goodnight is beautiful, but maybe the most inept Bond girl of all-time. They used a SLIDE WHISTLE, ruining one of the coolest Bond stunts ever (the car jump). - Most under-appreciated part: Nick Nack is a splendid henchman, showing the role can be more than just a strongman.
Diamonds Are Forever: Great Beginning and Ending, but Bad Everywhere Else
- Why it's this high: Is there another Bond with such a great contrast between the beginning/ending and everything in between? Connery shows his tough side, as he muscles his way through the pre-credits scene. Particularly good was the part where he seduces the woman, then uses her bikini top to choke her. At the end, Bond expertly uses his wine knowledge to detect something is amiss, then dispatches Kidd and Wint in style. Other cool scenes include Bond scaling the building to reach Blofeld and Bond driving the Mustang through the alley. - Why it's not higher: This is one of the films that I find myself liking less and less over time. Vegas, and especially the space laboratory scene, just seem cheesy. Connery is officially too old at this point, and Jill St. John just isn't a very compelling Bond girl. I would've preferred to have seen more of Plenty O'Toole, but alas 'twas not meant to be. Leiter is uninspired as well. Having Bond go after Blofeld for the millionth time just seems tired at this point. - Most under-appreciated part: Mr. Kidd and Wint are the creepiest henchmen in the Bond universe, but I'd argue they are some of the best. Their banter and creative modes of execution are quite chilling and thrilling.
A View to a Kill: Best Theme
- Why it's this high: Is it a hot take to not have View in the bottom five? Let me explain. I contend Duran Duran's theme is the very best. The ending fight scene on the Golden Gate Bridge is actually one of the most iconic ending set pieces in the series. The plot is stellar on paper, as the horse racing part was a very Bondian side story, and the idea of an attack on Silicon Valley actually seems even more plausible today. - Why it's not higher: It's self-evident that Moore is way too old for the part. Some parts are just mind-blowingly ridiculous, such as the fire truck chase scene through San Francisco and the part where Stacey is caught unaware by a blimp behind her. Speaking of Stacey, she may be beautiful, but she spends most of the movie shrieking whenever something goes wrong. - Most under-appreciated part: The scene with Bond and Ivanova is cool (I always like it when he interacts with other spies) and quite entertaining how he fools her with the cassettes. Tier 5: Below Average
Octopussy: The Most Characteristically Roger Moore Bond Film
- Why it's this high: Maud Adams has great screen presence as Octopussy, and her Amazonian-like women are cool to watch fight. Bond's deft swipe of the egg was nicely done. On a related aside, I wish Bond films would emphasize Bond's intellect more, as it seems the 60s and 70s films would allow Bond to showcase his vast knowledge more frequently than he does today. Gobinda is a fierce henchman, while India in general is a cool location. The plot is realistic, yet grand (war-mongering Russian general tries to detonate a nuke to get NATO to turn on itself). - Why it's not higher: This is the first Moore film where he simply was too old and shouldn't have been cast. Yes, it's too cheesy at times, most infamously during the Tarzan yell. Bond also doesn't use any cool vehicles. - Most under-appreciated part: People tend to focus too much on Bond dressing as a clown, but the scene where Bond furiously tries to get to the bomb in time to defuse it is one of the tensest moments in the series. Moore's "Dammit there's a bomb in there!" really demonstrated the gravity of the situation (I get goosebumps during that part).
Tomorrow Never Dies: Most Tasteful Humor
- Why it's this high: Brosnan really settles into the role well here. He gives the most charismatic Bond performance in 15 years or so. His quip "I'm just here at Oxford, brushing up on a little Danish" is an all-time great Bond line. Teri Hatcher is stunning as Paris Carver, delivering a memorable performance with her limited screen time. The plot is original and ages well, highlighting the potential downsides of media power, while Carver is an above average villain. - Why it's not higher: Wai Lin is good for action, but the chemistry between her and Bond is non-existent. By the end of the movie, Pryce just seem silly (especially the scene where he mocks Wai Lin's martial arts skills). There aren't any good Bond allies, as Jack Wade doesn't impress in his return to the franchise. In general though, the movie has few things terribly wrong with it, it just doesn't excel in many ways. - Most under-appreciated part: Dr. Kaufman is hysterical. At first, I thought "this is weird," but by the end of the scene I'm cracking up. I genuinely wish they found someway to bring him back for World, but c'est la vie.
The World Is Not Enough: Less than the Sum of its Parts
- Why it's this high: According to my spreadsheet, this is a top 10 Bond film, while on my first watch on this film I thought it was bottom five. I think the truth is that it's somewhere in between. I like the settings, everything from the temporary MI-6 headquarters to Azerbaijan. Elektra is an all-time great Bond girl, with a nice plot twist and character arc. The glasses where Bond sees through women's clothing are hilarious. The sense of danger is strong, with everyone from Bond to M being in danger. The return of Zukovsky is a nice plus. - Why it's not higher: I think two things really doom this film. First, Renard is totally wasted a henchman. The idea of him not feeling pain is a cool one, but he just seems boring and extraneous. I don't even think Carlyle acted poorly, he was just misused. Secondly, the ending (after Bond killing Elektra which is quite good) is rather terrible. The whole scene in the sub just isn't entertaining or engaging. - Most under-appreciated part: I'm going to defend Denise Richards as Christmas Jones. Although no Ursula Andress, Richards is absolutely gorgeous and did not actively make Bond's mission more difficult, which is more than some Bond girls can say *cough Britt Ekland. In particular, I found her introductory scene to be quite memorable and convincing. Also, the Christmas quip at the end is quite cheeky. Tier 4: Solid
The Living Daylights:
- Why it's this high: Dalton brings a breath of fresh air to the franchise here. His more serious take makes for interesting movies that seem more unique than most. I'm happy to see this subreddit appreciate Dalton more than the casual fun does, but I wouldn't go as far as the Dalton fanboys and say he's the best Bond or anything like that. I do wish he got the role sooner and did more films. Moving on to Daylights, it's got a good intro for Dalton and good plot in general. Surprisingly, Bond's fidelity doesn't bother me one bit, as it actually makes sense that Kara falls in love with James by the end, given all they've gone through. - Why it's not higher: The biggest reason is that the villain is just terrible. Whitaker seems silly and pathetic, a terrible contrast to Dalton's serious nature. I think Whitaker might be the worst in the series, and a Bond movie can't be great without a good villain. Also, Dalton doesn't have much charm and is abysmal at one-liners, which, in my opinion, IS a facet of the perfect James Bond. - Most under-appreciated part: The Aston Martin Vantage is a beautiful car, and the chase scene across the ice is great! It's both exciting and funny! Not sure why people don't talk about this chase scene and this car more; it's arguably the highlight of the movie for me.
Thunderball: The Most Beautiful
- Why it's this high: Thunderball used to be top five for me and here is why. The underwater scenes, the setting, the score, and the Bond girls are beautiful even to this day. Domino is excellent, while Volpe is a tour de force, oozing sexuality and danger. I think the underwater parts are interesting and novel, creating a staple of sorts for the franchise. The DB 5 is always welcome, and the jetpack use was quite cool for the time (and to some extent now). - Why it's not higher: Some would say it's boring, while I would more generously admit the plot is slow. Furthermore, the theme song is all-time bad (apparently they could have used Johnny Cash!!!), and there is no great henchman for Bond to dispatch. - Most under-appreciated part: Two plot ideas I liked a lot: Bond being injured and needing rehab, plus the part where all the 00s meet up and then are sent to the corners of the globe.
Never Say Never Again: Guilty Pleasure
- Why it's this high: Rewatching Never for the third time, I was struck by how fun this movie is. It's exciting, funny, and fast-paced. Basically, it's a more exciting version of Thunderball, with better pacing and better humor. I think Irvin Kershner did a great job managing this star studded cast. Carrera is a firecracker as Blush, Sydow is a convincing Blofeld, and Basinger is a classic Bond girl. Connery clearly has a blast returning to the role, doing a great job despite his advanced age. If anything, this one might not be ranked high enough. - Why it's not higher: The music is terrible. Normally I don't notice these things, but one can't help but notice how dreadful this one is. The theme is awful as well. I'd argue this is the worst music of any Bond film. - Most under-appreciated part: The humor! This is one of the funniest Bonds, as I found myself laughing out loud at various parts (e.g. Mr Bean!).
The Spy Who Loved Me: Best Intro
- Why it's this high: There's a lot to love about this one, so I get why this ranks highly for many. It is simply the best introduction, starting with Bond romancing a woman, followed by a skii chase, then jumping off the cliff and pulling the Union Jack parachute! The Lotus is a top 3 Bond car. Jaws is a superb henchman. Triple X was an excellent Bond girl, deadly, charming, and beautiful. Of course, Moore is charming and the locations are exotic (Egypt was a cool locale). If I had to pick one Moore movie for a newcomer to watch, it would be this one. - Why it's not higher: The theme song is bad, and Stromberg is a below average villain. I also think the last 45 minutes or so of the movie kind of drags. - Most under-appreciated part: The whole dynamic between Bond and Triple X is great. Whenever Bond movies show Bond squaring off against other spies (see View to a Kill, Goldeneye) it's just a pleasure to watch.
Live and Let Die: Most Suave
- Why it's this high: Roger Moore superbly carves out his own take on Bond in an excellent addition to the franchise. The boat chase is my favorite in the series, and Live and Let Die is my second favorite theme. Jane Seymour is a good Bond girl, while Tee Hee and Kananga are a solid villain/henchman duo. Unpopular opinion: I find J.W. Pepper to be hilarious. - Why it's not higher: The introduction isn't very good, as Bond isn't even included! The second climax with the voodoo isn't great. Bond blowing up Kananga has aged terribly. - Most under-appreciated part: When Bond is visited in his apartment by M and Moneypenny, Bond rushes to hide his girl from his coworkers. Finally, when they leave and he unzips the dress with his magnetic watch is one of the best uses of a Bond gadget in the series, showcasing why Moore might be the most charming Bond of them all.
You Only Live Twice: Best Blofeld
- Why it's this high: Just your classic, fun Sean Connery Bond movie. It was a great decision to send Bond to Japan for his first Asian visit, giving the movie a fresh feel. The ending set piece battle is potentially the best of this staple of 60s/70s Bonds. Tiger Tanaka is one of Bond's cooler allies. Pleasance killed it as Blofeld; when I think of Blofeld, I think of his take. In what could have been cheesy, he is actually somewhat frightening. - Why it's not higher: The whole "we need to make you look Japanese" part seems both unrealistic (who is he really fooling?) plus surprisingly impotent coming from Tiger Tanaka who seems to be a competent and connected man otherwise. Honestly though, this movie doesn't have a major weakness. - Most under-appreciated part: The fight scene with the guard in the executive's office is probably the best hand-to-hand fight in the series up until that point. Tier 3: Excellent
Dr. No: The Most Spy-Like
- Why it's this high: Nearly 60 years later, this film is still a blast to watch, due in no small part to its focus on the little things of being a spy. I adore the scenes where Bond does the little things spies (presumably) do, such as putting a hair across the door, or showing Bond playing solitaire while waiting to spring his trap on Prof. Dent. I also enjoy the suspense of Bond sleuthing around the island, while he and the viewer are completely unaware of whom the villain is until quite late in the film. It's easy to take for granted now, but this film established so many series traditions that were ingenious. My personal favorite is Bond's introduction at the card table: "Bond .... James Bond." - Why it's not higher: The film just doesn't have the payoff it deserves. Maybe it's just a result of the time and budget, but from the point Bond escapes on, it's just mediocre. Particularly egregious is the "fight" between Dr. No and Bond where No meets his demise. - Most under-appreciated part: Ursula Andress was a surprisingly well developed Bond girl, with a shockingly violent backstory (she was raped!). Obviously, she is beautiful and the beach scene is iconic, but I was pleasantly surprised to conclude she is more than just eye candy.
License to Kill: The Grittiest
- Why it's this high: On my first watch, this was my least favorite Bond film, as I thought it was too dark and violent to befit 007. By my third time watching, I've decided it's actually one of the best. Fortunately, I don't have to go on my "Ackshually, Dalton did a good job" rant with this subreddit. I liked the wedding intro and the concept of a revenge arc for Leiter (although come on he should've been killed by a freaking shark). Also, Lamora and (especially) Bouvier are great Bond girls. Bouvier is both competent and beautiful, and it's great to see Bond choose her at the end. - Why it's not higher: The theme song is atrocious, Dalton is so angry (dare I say charmless?) the whole time it's almost puzzling why Bouvier and Lamora fall for him, and Bond doesn't use any cool vehicles. - Most under-appreciated part: Sanchez is actually a sneaky good Bond villain.
For Your Eyes Only: The Most Underrated
- Why it's this high: I think Moore is a bit underrated as Bond. Yes, he was too old towards the end and yes, his movies were at times too campy, but he himself played the role admirably. He was the most charming and witty of all the Bonds, so by the time he got his first relatively serious plot to work with, he hit it out of the park. Anyhow, the climactic mountaintop assault is one of my favorite Bond action climaxes. Columbo is one of the best Bond allies, and the plot twist where he turns out to be good and Kristatos bad was well-done. - Why it's not higher: The intro is just silly. Bibi's romantic infatuation with Bond is just ...er... uncomfortable? - Most under-appreciated part: The theme song is a banger. What a chorus! Tier 2: Exceptional
Skyfall: The Sharpest Film (From Plot to Aesthetics)
- Why it's this high: One of the best plots of the entire series. The idea of an older Bond who had lost a step, along with making M the focus point of the movie, works very well. Seeing Bond's childhood home is also pretty cool. Bardem's take on Silva is delightful and a lot of fun to watch. Even the cinematography is a series peak, while Adele's them is excellent. - Why it's not higher: One thing most Craig Bond films suffer from is the lack of a Bond-worthy henchman. Skyfall is no exception. More importantly, Bond girls are mostly irrelevant to the film. Yes, Severine is both beautiful and interesting, but she's scarcely twenty minutes of the film. - Most under-appreciated part: Setting the new supporting characters up nicely. The Moneypenny backstory was well-done. Casting Ralph Fiennes as the new M is a great choice in of itself, but he also got a nice chuck of background story to help us going forward.
Casino Royale: The First Bond Film I'd Show a Series Newcomer
- Why it's this high: Craig's take on Bond feels like a breath of fresh air. In particular, his hand-to-hand combat scenes are so much better (and more believable) than any other Bond. The parkour chase scene is one of the best chase scenes in the series. Le Chifre is an excellent villain, but, more importantly, Vesper is an all-time great Bond girl. The conversation between Vesper and Bond on the train is probably the most interesting of any film. Bonus points for Jeffrey Wright as Leiter and the Aston Martin DBS. - Why it's not higher: There are hardly any humorous parts or much charm displayed by Bond in general. More importantly, the movie should have just ended when Bond wakes up in rehab. The rest of the movie feels confused and superfluous. - Most under-appreciated part: The decision to change from chemin de fer to poker makes for much better (and understandable!) cinema. The poker scenes are the best of Bond's many gambling scenes throughout the series.
Goldeneye: The Most Fun
- Why it's this high: Wow, rewatching Goldeneye I was struck by how entertaining the whole thing is. The opening jump is breath taking, the scene where Bond drives his evaluator around is hilarious, and Xenia Onatopp is a livewire. Sean Bean is a formidable villain as 006, and a great foil to James. Bond and Judi Dench's first scene together is amazing. Goldeneye feels like the first modern Bond, yet so true to the predecessors. Wade and especially Zukovsky are excellent allies. - Why it's not higher: Simonova is a forgettable Bond girl. She's not annoying, unattractive, or acted poorly, but is just below average in most regards (looks, back story, chemistry with Bond, plot). - Most under-appreciated part: the action is just so much better than any Bond before it
From Russia with Love: The Best Henchman (Red Grant)
- Why it's this high: Interesting settings, beautiful women, and an engaging story make this a classic. I'm not the first to point out that the scenes with Grant and Bond aboard the train are some of the best in the entire series. Grant is one of the few villains who feels like a match for 007. Furthermore, the addition of Desmond Llewyn as Q was crucial and Kerim Bey is one of the better Bond allies. - Why it's not higher: The helicopter scene should've just been omitted, especially when combined with the subsequent boat chase. It's just awkward to watch. - Most under-appreciated part: The gypsy scenes are quite exotic and entertaining.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service: The Most Heartfelt
- Why it's this high: James and Tracy's love story is charming, and when she dies at the end, this is the one and only time in the entire series where the viewer feels genuinely sad. Diana Rigg did an excellent job convincing the audience Bond could finally fall in love with one girl. The skiing scenes were beautifully filmed, and the score was exemplary. Personally, I quite liked Lazenby's take; however, some of his lines and jokes fall flat. To his credit, he looks and acts like Bond more than any other actor. - Why it's not higher: Honestly, it does drag at times in the first half, plus there is no theme song! - Most under-appreciated part: Bond's Aston Martin DBS is a beautiful car, combining 60's sports-car beauty with Aston Martin's elegance. Tier 1: The Best
Goldfinger: The quintessential Bond
- Why it's this high: From the opening ("Positively shocking") to the seduction of Pussy Galore at the end, this film has it all. Goldfinger is an all time great villain, while Odd Job is an exceptional henchman. Connery delivers a master performance, and drives THE classic Bond Car, ejector seat included. The reason I put it #1 is not necessarily because it is the best film (although it is great), it checks all the boxes of what a perfect Bond film should do. - Why it's not higher: I cannot think of any notable imperfections. - Most under-appreciated part: The golf scene between Bond and Goldfinger is a delight to watch, demonstrating Bond's wits for the first and only time on the golf course.
Casino Royale (2006) is a thematically faithful adaptation of Flemings influential novel, a masterpiece and the greatest James Bond movie ever made. Here is a comparison I made between the movie/novel & my thoughts on both of them.
Over the last week I read Ian Flemings first James Bond novel Casino Royale for the first time and later re watched the movie. Here are some thoughts on both, including a comparison of similarities, differences and the over all enjoyment I get out of both of these pieces. Technical aspects: Casino Royale (novel, 1953), written by Ian Fleming [27 short chapters, around 250 pages, depending on edition] Casino Royale (movie, 2006), directed by Martin Campbell [144 minute runtime] Before diving into further comparisons, there are two obvious, but also significant differences between the movie and the novel. The first being the time it is set in, both are contemporary to their release date. Meaning the novel is set in the Cold War whereas the movie is set in the 21 century. Because of the resulting differences in international relations historically speaking, you could transfer it (but you don't have to) to the second difference. Flemings novel is a political espionage thriller, whereas Campbells movie re-boot is basically an action movie. ---------- Structure: The over all plot of the movie is very similar, nearly identical to its source material. James Bond, a fresh 00, is set in a high stakes Poker game against Le Chiffre, a desperate (& near bankrupt) banker working for terrorist organizations. Bonds allies are Mathis, Felix Leiter & Vesper Lynd. Bond wins the money, Vesper & him get captured, following the torture, Le Chiffre being interrupted/killed by a member of a mysterious organization. After Bond & Vesper seek a happy life, the latter is confronted with her "real" identity/past & kills herself, leaving Bond emotionally broken & eventually cold. As said in my first paragraph, Flemings novel isn't an "action" novel. There is an early assassination/botched bomb attempt in the early chapters (similar to the airport sequence) but it's nowhere near as action heavy as the movie, which follows parkour chases, knife fights & bus/plane explosions, stairway fights & the closing crumbling house set piece. Narratively Bond meets his allies way earlier, in the movie Vesper & Mathis are introduced around an hour in, whereas in the novel already in the first few chapters, Felix Leiter is introduced very late in the movie and only after Bond is struggling in the Poker game. The whole Dimitrious, Ellipse stuff isn't in the novel. ---------- Main characters: - James Bond: Bonds portrayal is very close to the novel. He's described as a very tough man, perfectly shown by Craigs physical appearance, his hard & masculine face & the early corporal fight scenes & chases. His attitude fits the source material. Bond is smart & charming, but he can switch of in any moment to being a ruthless killer. - Vesper Lynd: A big part of Vespers character in the novel is her beauty. There are long passages describing everything about her body & face. She certainly is beautiful in the movie, played by the gorgeous Eva Green. Yet in the movie she comes across as much more independent & aware. She's smart in the novel, but much more worthy in a psychological duel with Bond in the movie. In both the movie & novel she is a double agent, who got blackmailed & had to take this identity in order to save her boyfriend, but then fell in love with James. - Le Chiffre: Le Chiffre, in both movie & novel is a scary fucking dude. There still is something a bit charming about Mikkelsen presence though. He's described as considerably ugly in the novel, and basically as the epitome of evil. In the movie he comes across as more "human", desperation etc (make no mistake he's a vicious bastard, but he's not the devil). - M: The obvious difference is the gender swap in M. In the novel, Bond respects & in some way even fears M. The Bond/M relationship of Flemings books never really translated onto the bigger screen (it's tough to find someone intimidating against the charisma of Connery to be fair) so the change is an interesting touch. While he certainly respects Judi Denchs M, there is more slick and clever dialogue coming out of the conversations. ---------- The Poker Game: The Poker game in the novel, as basically all of it, is set in France, whereas the movie jumps around Madagascar, the Bahamas, Venice & Montenegro, the latter being the setting of the poker game. Also, in the novel they play Baccarat, which was very popular at that time, in the movie they play Texas Hold 'Em, which (surprise) was popular in that time. The game itself is similar structured, back and forth until Le Chiffre wins a big one and Bond is in huge desperation but comes back in the last round winning all of it (with the help of Felix Leiters money). In both movie & novel, Le Chiffre tries to prevent/"attack" Bond during the last hand. In the movie he gets poisoned, which nearly causes him to pass out. In the novel, he is directly physically threatened by a bodyguard of the Le Chiffre with a gun under the table/chair. -------- Remarkable similarities: - Practically the entire torture scene is directly taken out of the source material. Bond gets stripped naked and tied up to a chair, then punched to the balls multiple times until the near pass out. Only difference is that in the movie Le Chiffre uses a rope, in the novel it is a carpet beater. - Some dialogue & lines are extracted out of Flemings novel. Such as the VespeMartini order. >Three measures of Gordons, one ofvodka, half a measure ofKina Lillet.Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon peel. Got it? Or the iconic line. >The bitch is dead. --------- Other differences: - The whole Mathis alleged double cross plot point only appears in the movie. - Vespers double cross, signaled by her seeing the man with the eye patch is left to a good bye letter in the novel that Bond reads after she'd poisoned herself. In the movie, she gives the man with the eye patch the money briefcase and after the shoot out in Venice, she traps herself in the elevator and drowns in the crumbling house. - In the books, the mysterious organization is SMERSH, a russian anti spy organization. In CR it is still unnamed, though in the later Craig films revealed to be SPECTRE. - The book ends very depressing as her betrayal letter is the last thing. The movie ends on a higher note with Bond capturing Mr White & ending the movie in his iconic introduction lines. --------- I have certainly missed a ton of differences of both, but I feel like I have done enough to highlight most of them. Here are some of my personal thoughts: The novel: I had a ton of fun reading it for the first time. It's certainly colder & much more serious than a lot of James Bond movies but I liked that it felt more grounded and had espionage instead of thrills. There is a lot of political subtext added by Ian Fleming that reflects on the cold war and on spy agents themselves. It also features some great insight on the Poker game as Bonds mind is on full display with mathematical & stochastically relevant information throughout every hand. I think it ends on a very depressing and sad note, setting the tone for the character to come. The movie: I have always considered Casino Royale to be one of my favorite movies of all time. I think it's head and shoulders above every other James Bond film and every time I watch it I discover new things I love about it. The way the movie starts, with the cold blooded double-O earning in a noir fashion, then goes over to the gorgeous credit sequence with so much ingenuity sprinkled across it, is amazing. I'm also amazed by the action the movie has. The Parkour chase has some terrific stunt work & innovation. Or the airplane sequence is packed with enormous tension and suspense. Or the closing Venice shoot out is packed with bad ass moments by Bond. A lot of my love for the movie also comes from the cast. It does contain my a.) favorite Felix Leiter (played by Jeffrey Wright), b.) favorite Bond girl (Vesper Lynd by Eva Green), c.) the best M (played by Judi Dench) and one of my favorite Bond villains (played by Mads Mikkelsen, who is as terrific as ever). Martin Campbell has rock solid directing, focussing on the great stuff of the source material and just like in GoldenEye knowing how to introduce a new Bond & a new way of Bond into the franchise. Daniel Craig is relentlessly amazing. He has the charms, he definitely has the looks, he is believable in the kills, he has a soul, he has a heart, he has emotion. Only Connery is better. The movie also looks gorgeous. Not only its vast settings of exotic locations, beautiful women, high class restaurants, cafes or hotels, pieces of clothing and so on, but also its sharp image and cinematography, by Phil Meheux is astounding. Despite being literally written by three people it also contains some ingenious dialogue. Especially the Bond/Vesper interactions flow so crisply and soft. It's a joy to watch every second of it and I could be talking about it for hours. All in all, Casino Royale is a great novel and in my opinion, an even greater movie which is a faithful adaptation but also adds many layers and new things to it, knowing that it already is part of a 20+ movie series and therefore adding nostalgia, references or treating its timeless main characters legacy with honor and self reflection. What do you think about Casino Royale, both the novel & the movie?
Why I feel Quantum of Solace is a better film than Skyfall
Despite the common consensus that Daniel Craig’s second outing is a weak entry in the series, I swear this film improves every time I watch it and is deserving of re-appraisal. Critically panned back in the day, and for mostly understandable reasons – Quantum of Solace had a troubled production in the midst of the 2007-08 Writer's Guild strike, that would result in the feature having the bare bones of a script and, according to Daniel Craig, leaving himself and the director to haphazardly pen scenes, in some cases on the day of shooting. Such a rushed affair does not bode well for a sequel to what is arguably the most perfect Bond of all-time, Casino Royale. And upon release, I remember leaving the cinema feeling confused and having a bit of a headache. Critics were correct to point out the at times incomprehensible editing choices and rapid cuts that made certain action set pieces feel like an epileptic fit. However, on this rewatch, I found it to be much less of an issue than originally thought and, at the risk of making everyone reading this groan with a cheap, A-Level Film Studies level insight, worked well to convey Bond’s fractured, relentless state of mind following the lingering trauma of Casino’s third-act. To begin to explain my delusional admiration for Quantum, for a film that had real problems in the writer's room, good god is this a much better script than Skyfall. Characters actually feel human and dialogue authentic – no cringeworthy, half-baked one liners in sight, no obnoxious, fourth-wall breaking references to past glories (yes I'm aware of the Goldfinger painted lady callback, but this works in the context of the scene and doesn’t feel out of place) and most notably, the relationship between Bond, his leading lady Camille and his lovably wry Kerim Bey-esque contact and friend, Mathis, believable and engaging. This does wonders for my investment in the piece and goes a long way to patch up what is admittedly a pretty skeletal plot. Like Casino, the film’s sparing use of dry humour is made all the more effective when it lands and never feels incongruous with the established gritty tone of the Craig timeline; something Sam Mendes would fail to grasp four years later. I was also impressed by Quantum's willingness as a mainstream movie to showcase a cynical, post-9/11 worldview on foreign policy, the oil industry and Western government officials casually getting in bed with terrorists and despots. Once again in the Craig era, the enemies are not goateed French bastards wishing to eradicate humankind and repopulate the earth exclusively with sexy models – it's sellout politicians enabling dictatorships and poverty profiteers. By depicting not only human relationships but also the nature of 21st century geopolitics in such an authentic light (as much as is possible within the escapist fantasy of Bond), this serves to make the stakes feel all the more real and further justify the harder-edged interpretation of the character and the world he inhabits. Despite this, Quantum never comes across as preachy – it simply treats the disillusioned reality of global affairs and entrenched corruption as a given. While Mark Kermode humourously viewed the film's relentless action as "teletubbies bouncing around in a padded cell", the meaninglessness of the violence struck me as intentional and if not, certainly worked on a thematic level. As M puts it, this is a broken Bond driven by "inconsolable rage", going apeshit and killing every lead; another body stacked up without consequence and bringing no solace, not even a quantum of the stuff, until the very end. And at this point in time, the concept of Bond "going rogue" was actually still fresh and exciting (fast-forward to the utter clusterfuck that was Spectre and I'm bloody well sick of his cavalier attitude to work). Dominic Greene may have been consigned to the dustbin of Bond villain history in popular culture, along with Kristatos and Jack Wade’s evil twin from The Living Daylights, and apparently not worthy of having his stock casting photo proudly blu-tacked to the wall of a crumbling Mi6 in a cheap effort to taunt Bond in Spectre, but I don't see why. Sure, he doesn't have some token physical disfigurement and his scheme to deprive Bolivia of its water resources isn't as fanciful as using a big bastard space laser to explode the world's nukes. His evil is one without bells and whistles or Roger Moore era camp – he's a sleazy, slippery little fucker without pomp, who deserved a belly-full of motor oil by the time the credits rolled. This I much prefer than the flamboyant, bleach-blonde and frankly misguided comic relief excuse for a villain we get in the following film. Quantum’s leading lady, Camille Montes, is easily the second most compelling Bond girl in the Craig era and she too carries her own personal demons – their relationship is one of mutual catharsis and an opportunity to ‘bond’, not over martinis or foie gras in a fancy casino, but rather discussing their dead, unavenged loved ones in a cold cave. In a way, it’s rather nice they don’t shag at the end, signifying he doesn’t view her as a disposable pleasure and has enough respect not to try it on. But to be fair, they do look very sweaty and smelly after that ferocious conflict in the desert hotel, so it would probably have been rude to assume sex was on the cards (if I were in her position, I’d want to get home, have a nice big bath, order a curry and watch a few episodes of Frasier before bed). It’s a shame they didn’t bring back Camille for future outings, as I would’ve loved to have seen her alongside Craig again, only this time joining forces in a legitimate mission. This is an extra disappointing pill to swallow considering they are bafflingly bringing back that walking piece of cardboard, Madeline Swann (no offence, Léa Seydoux) for No Time to Die – a woman who’s ‘deep’ emotional connection to Bond is entirely predicated on the fact he happened to shoot her dad in the leg with a machine gun in 2006. I mean seriously, Bond and Camille shared more chemistry in five minutes than Bond and Swann in the entirety of Spectre, ugh… Technically speaking, this film has some gorgeous visuals to admire when the camera very infrequently remains still, it features one of David Arnold’s best scores with some lush, sweeping orchestrals and the occasional ghostly callback to Vesper’s theme, and on a superficial level, Craig looks his absolute best as Bond here with some timeless sartorial choices, before they would start putting him in tiny, skin-tight suits in following adventures. There are some cool arty moments such as the Tosca shootout, that I felt elevated what could’ve been a pretty unremarkable sequence to, forgive the pun, operatic heights. Onto the bad, which I will keep short and sweet as everyone is already acutely aware of this film’s shortcomings and likes to overinflate. The theme song is a bag of shite and practically devoid of melody, the editing could’ve been a little more coherent at times, the bizarrely unsatisfying “I told you everything you wanted to know about Quantum but the audience probably won’t be interested, so let’s just skip over it” line, and the gunbarrel design looks like it was mocked up in Photoshop in two minutes and should have had its rightful place at the beginning. In my view, Quantum has aged like a fine wine but critics and many in the fan community were left cold upon release. Unfortunately, I would argue the wrong lessons were learned from these less favourable reactions and the following outing, Skyfall, would serve somewhat as a course correction for the series – swiftly undercutting the new lean, mean and down-to-earth tone for a cartoonish yet mopey pastiche of classic Bond.
I love Casino Royale but no one seems to want to discuss it in depth. Anyone game?
I love Casino Royale. I think it's easily the best Craig Bond film, one of the best Bond films ever, and one of my favourite films in general. It's got everything you want, and the cast is terrific. The plot, however, is interesting. So the first watch through, my thoughts go like this: Vesper slowls falls for Bond, Mathis betrays Bond and Vesper, Vesper makes a deal while being tortured in exchange for Bond's life, they are freed, Vesper falls for Bond, they escape, Vesper sees her contacts and has to make good on the deal. But further watchings make it seems more than that. Vesper's sudden affection for Bond, is that mostly an act? She clearly likes him somewhat, but it would seem that she is acting most of it. It is interesting how (in the scene with Bond in a chair) she is sexually aggressive on him, but after some honest words from Bond she is moved and cries a bit. As in, that's the honest side of her. It would mean that she is pursuing Bond to get access to the money to transfer it to Quantum. Which makes sense... right? Or does it? Because: She is putting in the routing number for the funds. Bond puts in the password he picked, but it does not seem Vesper has to put in the routing number for the MI6 account. So what is all that for? Why couldn't she just have put in the Quantum tracking number and left? Which makes it more confusing. If Vesper is a double agent the whole time, why is LeChiffre there? Is Vesper working higher up the ladder than LeChiffre? Why would they care who wins if it is down to Bond and LeChiffre? Vesper would just transfer over the money. Which is FURTHER confusing because why wouldn't Vesper restake Bond? It would seem that would be the best way to ensure one of the two wins. But let's assume Vesper has to put it into an account made for the tournament, and they are to transfer it from that account to MI6. And that she has to win over Bond, keep him from returning to transfer the money, get to a drop off city, then make the drop off. That whole sideplot should check out, minus why Quantum wasn't leveraging Vesper the whole time. Let's move on to a nice wrinkle added by QoS: How is Mathis NOT a double agent? Seriously, the entire structure of Casino Royale is ruined if Mathis is not a double agent. There's no way Vesper was in on this all herself. It would add all of the problems listed above, plus the whole problem of why LeChiffre mentions Mathis by name. (Personally I would have made Mathis the villain of the third film, as I thought it was terrible to bring him back, then even worse to kill him off instantly. I loved his sidekick character and thought he'd have been a great addition to the franchise as it was going. They basically had a Mathis in Skyfall anyway. Grrr Skyfall.) Casino Royale's plot just needs a little tightening I think. Vesper having a previous connection to Quantum isn't as good as Vesper making a deal with them as it happens. And I don't know what Mr. White meant to LeChiffre saying "know who to trust". It comes off a little as "We don't have a plot in mind but this is vauge but sounds meaningful." Still love the film. Wish the rest of the series had followed in its footsteps with a strong female lead with dynamite chemistry with Craig and lots of Bond in civilian locations being suave. But I'll always have it, and I'm very grateful for that.
Ian Fleming's Moonraker and Die Another Day: An examination of a bizarre adaptation
Rereading the first few Ian Fleming Bond novels with their film adaptations in mind is an interesting experience. First you have Casino Royale, which received a half-century-later film adaptation that added a new first act before getting into the novel content about an hour in, modernized things, and actioned up Vesper’s death from sleeping pill suicide to shootout in a sinking Vienna house while otherwise fairly closely following the story, scenes and characters from the novel, depicting Bond and Le Chiffre’s battle of wits at Casino Royale and its aftermath. The roles of Vesper, Felix Leiter and Mathis, the ball torture, the recuperation, going off with Vesper, "The bitch is dead," it's all there. Then there’s Live and Let Die, which received a much looser film adaptation, freely snatching some characters, settings, a few scenes and general concepts (even some surprisingly specific ones, like Mr. Big’s club having a table that sinks into the floor with Bond sitting at it) from the novel while largely making up the narrative it used these elements in from scratch. Bond film fans will also notice some plot elements from the back half of the novel repurposed for use in the movies Licence to Kill and For Your Eyes Only. Then there’s Moonraker, which received what could generously be called one of the loosest film “adaptations” in the history of book-to-film cinema. The film Moonraker shares exactly three elements with its eponymous novel: • It involves a piece of technology called the Moonraker. Only the names are shared - in the book, it is basically a new long-range missile technology. In the film, it is a space shuttle. • The villain is named Hugo Drax. Again, only the names are shared. In the book, he is a hotheaded and vulgar man with red hair who is a secret former Nazi pretending to be a British industrialist and national hero, who plans to use his Moonraker missile to destroy London. In the film, Drax is a quiet and soft-spoken French space technology magnate with brown hair who plans to gas the planet from space and live in a space station. Not only are they different, but their personalities are literally almost exact opposites. • In the ONE scene in the book adapted into the film, Drax places Bond and the story’s female hero (Gala Brand in the book, Holly Goodhead in the film) under the nozzle of a rocket so that they will burn to death when it fires. Bond and the girl cleverly escape the rocket in both, of course. Other than that, the 1955 novel Moonraker and 1979 film Moonraker share absolutely nothing, not a single scene, plot point, location, character, concept, nothing in common. But, if you use a little creative thinking and look at things from a big picture perspective, you may come to realize that Ian Fleming’s Moonraker was in fact adapted into a film a couple decades later, and many an Ian Fleming fan may be horrified to realize that film is none other than 2002’s Die Another Day. Let’s go into how this adaptation took place: • Now, first off, you may be saying “I don’t remember that part of Ian Fleming’s Moonraker where Bond was captured by North Koreans, held captive for 14 months, traded back to MI6, escaped, and went to Cuba.” And you’d be right! What you’re seeing here is the screenwriters doing a dry run at exactly the same thing they would do four years later with Casino Royale: Making up roughly 40% of a film worth of original content before getting into the story of a relatively short novel. • And that story begins at a club called Blades, where Bond goes in the book to meet and investigate wealthy British industrialist/hero Hugo Drax cheating at bridge. In the film, Bond goes to a club, also called Blades, to meet and investigate wealthy British industrialist/hero Gustav Graves (who has cheated at fencing by getting his protege Miranda Frost a gold medal at the Olympics by faking a drug overdose for the woman who originally beat her). Bond then engages the cheat Drax/Graves at bridge/fencing, beating him at his own game, revealing the angry side of the red-headed secret villain. • Also note that in the book the British government has placed a spy with Drax named Gala Brand to investigate him. In the film, the character Miranda Frost (who was called Gala Brand in the initial script and all the way through the casting of Rosamund Pike in the role) is also a spy placed by the British government with Graves. The key difference, and why I believe they changed the name, is that in the book Brand is loyal to England, in the film she actually does switch allegiance to Graves. • After beating Drax/Graves at his own game, Bond is invited to check out Drax/Graves’ new piece of technology that has supposedly been created for the peace and prosperity of the world and with the full approval and support of the government, the MoonrakeIcarus Project. (In the book, it is right there in England, it is in Iceland in the film.) Bond travels there to see the technology and meets up with Brand/Frost. (Needless to say, the book does not introduce us to this section of the story with “I’m Mr. Kil!” “Well there’s a name to die for.”) • After investigating, the truth is revealed: Drax/Graves is secretly a villain planning to use his supposedly world-benefiting technology as a weapon for evil. Why? Because he secretly a two-faced agent of a foreign country who is only pretending to be British, and secretly still working for what is, in his own twisted mind, the glory of his homeland; Drax, a former Nazi, for Nazi Germany, and Graves for North Korea, as he is North Korean Colonel Moon in disguise. • Drax/Graves, with the help of his creepy scientist henchman Krebs/Vlad, attempts to kill Bond by dropping a cliff on him. In the book, he dynamites some cliffs above a beach that Bond and Brand are on, which they narrowly survive. In the film, he zaps some ice cliffs with his space laser, which Bond parasails away from on the tsunami in some of 2002’s finest CGI. • In the end, the villain is hoist by his own petard, Drax killed by his own Moonraker missile when Bond and Brand reprogram its target coordinates away from London to the spot in the sea where he happens to be escaping with his Nazi cohorts in a submarine, and Graves by Bond pitching him in his Robocop suit into a turbine on his own damn plane. Now, the in-between of all these elements varies quite a bit from novel to film, of course. The film declines to adapt quite a bit of Bond’s investigation into Drax’s Moonraker operation, instead working in the character of Jinx, a fight amidst lasers, a car chase on the ice (the book DOES have a Bond vs. Drax car chase, but under wildly different circumstances), a sword fight on a plane, and a Robocop suit. I’m certainly not claiming we’re looking at a one-to-one adaptation here. But looking at all the evidence (and keeping in mind Miranda Frost was called Gala Brand right up through shooting), it seems undeniably that Die Another Day, not 1979’s Moonraker, is the film adaptation of Fleming’s Moonraker. If nothing else it shows in Gustav Graves, who pretty much is the novel’s Drax, a red-haired secret agent of the enemy enacting his own private revenge using a new technological weapon in the guise of a British hero, a hotheaded and quick-to-anger cheat. Now, the real question is, could they ever go back to Moonraker and do a much closer film adaptation? I say damn well of course they could. No one except huge Bond freaks like me ever would have noticed most of this in the first place, and anyway, by the time they did such a thing Die Another Day would be 20+ years old anyway. Now, it would take a clever screenwriter to approach making an action film from Fleming’s Moonraker: For one, the first action scene in the entire novel takes place almost two-thirds of the way through. But such problems are for a clever screenwriter, not a schlub like me. But there you have it: Die Another Day is a bizarre and (for better or worse… most Bond fans would probably argue worse) incredibly imaginative adaptation of Moonraker. (Oh, and one other element of Ian Fleming’s Moonraker was used in another film: Drax’s line “I should spend the money quickly, Commander Bond” when Bond beats him at bridge was slightly altered to “Spend the money quickly, Mr. Bond” and given to Kamal Khan when Bond beats him at backgammon in Octopussy.)
Casino Royale is the 21st entry in the official James Bond film series and marked the debut of Daniel Craig as Agent 007. The 2006 film, which rebooted the series, follows Bond (recently promoted to "00" status) as he is assigned a mission to participate in a high stakes poker game involving a banker who launders money for terrorist organizations. A lot of Casino Royale was filmed in the Czech Republic, although, for the most part, it was pretending to be somewhere else.There was no filming in Montenegro itself (a very country with a small railroad network). The Mill Colonnade in Karlovy Vary is the train station where Bond arrives with Vesper. Karlovy Vary features as the Casino town, with Grandhotel Pupp doubling as Hotel Splendide ... Casino Royale Bond believed that Mathis tipped Le Chiffre off about Le Chiffre's tell so Bond had him arrested and interrogated by MI6. However, Bond soon learned that Vesper was the real traitor, and in the end, M stated to Bond that Mathis has been cleared following Vesper's death. René Mathis was the cover name of a fictional intelligence operative of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS/MI6). Based on the literary character from the 1953 Ian Fleming novel Casino Royale, the character first appeared in the 2006 eponymous sequel and its 2008 sequel, Quantum of Solace. He was portrayed by Italian actor Giancarlo Giannini. 1 Biography 1.1 Casino Royale 1.2 Quantum of ... Casino Royale cast supporting actors: Giancarlo Giannini essays the role of Rene Mathis in Casino Royale cast. Caterina Murino essays the role of Solange in Casino Royale cast. Simon Abkarian essays the role of Alex Dimitrios in Casino Royale cast. Isaach De Bankolé essays the role of Steven Obanno in Casino Royale cast Casino Royale (2006) cast and crew credits, including actors, actresses, directors, writers and more. Besetzung und Stab von James Bond 007 - Casino Royale, Regisseur: Martin Campbell. Besetzung: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench. Casino Royale is the twenty-first film in the James Bond series produced by Eon Productions.It served as a series reboot, resetting its continuity to the start of Bond's career as a 00 and was the first to feature Daniel Craig as 007. The film was directed by Martin Campbell and adapted for the screen by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis.. Based on the 1953 novel Casino Royale by Ian ... Casino Royale Cast. Here are the cast members (main) of Casino Royale: Daniel Craig as James Bond (007): A British MI6 officer who acquires the 00 status who is sent on the path of terrorist financier after some revelations during a mission to arrest a bomb-make in Madagascar.; Eva Green as Vesper Lynd: Lynd is an agent of the Treasury that is sent to supervise 007 and finance the high stakes ... How did Bond know about Mathis on Casino Royale? Ask Question Asked 5 years, 1 month ago. Active 3 years ago. Viewed 37k times 11. 0. When James Bond wins the poker bet, he and Vesper go to dinner. Her phone rings two times, and in the latter, she says that Mathis needs her. After a ...