Casino Royale (2006) [DVD] [2006]

amazing

Very good moive loved it

It's a very enjoyable film

When the decision was taken in 2005 to press the reset button on the Bond series I was not surprised, this cinematic institution had back itself into a wall, the previous instalment in 2002 was a typical globe trotting gadgets laden farce of a film and subsequently current Bond Pierce Brosnan's final mission in the role. The film celebrated the films 40th anniversary with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer but it was the C.G.I para-surfing and invisible car that showed that time needed to be called on this type of thing.Back in 1999 Barbara Broccoli and her step brother Michael G Wilson had finally secured the filming rights to Ian Fleming's first Bond novel Casino Royale, Having settled a rights dispute the film was now in a position to be made by EON productions the official Bond film production company run by Brocoli and Wilson. The book had been previously filmed back in 1967 directed by a total of 6 people including John Huston at one point, the film has gained cult status over the years but bears no relation to the original series or Fleming's novel for that matter. This being Fleming's first Bond story the makers needed to make a decision would they retool this to fit an older more experienced 007 or was it time to let the current actor go and search for new talent to take on the role.While the idea of rebooting a series may sound common place now back in 2005 it had been attempted rarely but the idea was on the radar especially as Warner Brothers had rather successfully relaunched the Batman franchise earlier that year. The film while not a monster (that would be its sequel) was a big enough success to secure the opportunity for more, it stole the thunder that summer from George Lucas' final Star Wars prequel Revenge Of The Sith but more importantly appeared to wipe the memory of the hole that Joel Schumacher had dug for the series back in 1997 with the atrocious Batman & Robin. This is not to say that Brosnan final film had been a disaster it was clearly liked by the public having been at that point the most lucrative film of the series. Though the reboot option was one way to start again plus the advent of the Bourne films had changed audiences expectations of what to expect from the spy genre and also 9/11's impact can not be underestimated as a factor into why films took a darker direction in the 21st century.Back in 1995 it seemed that EON had tried to change things with Goldeneye the film did seem different to what had previously been but it was business as usual when Brosnan returned 2 years later in Tomorrow Never Dies, it was like Roger Moore never left (this is not a compliment), the series had been ridiculed by the likes of the Austin Powers franchise and the next three entries starring the Irish man seemed to be completely oblivious to this, appearing as farcical as those parodies. Could a noughties audience really take this version of the character serious again? If James Bond was to appear relevant again he would need a serious remodelling so when Broccoli and Wilson announced in 2005 that they'd found their new Bond and that they would be bring Fleming's celebrated first Bond novel to the screen with Goldeneye director Martin Campbell returning to take the helm with the reset button pressed, the expectation was huge and things didn't begin too successfully to start with.Daniel Craig a critically acclaimed stage and screen actor who had been bought to the public's attention in 1996 when he appeared in the BBC adaptation of Peter Flannery's masterful Our Friends In The North alongside future Doctor Who Christopher Eccleston and rising star Mark Strong. Craig then settled into a series of roles in acclaimed drama appearing alongside Derek Jacobi's Francis Bacon in Love and the Devil, Roger Mitchel's controversial The Mother and playing Ted Hughes alongside Gwyneth Paltrow in Sylvia. Craig also flirted with blockbusters with a supporting role alongside Angelina Jolie in the first Tomb Raider movie. Although it was been cast in Mathew Vaughn's gangster flick Layer Cake that brought him to a bigger audience and also caught the attention of Brocoli who believed she'd found her Bond.Craig's announcement wasn't received that favourably, the brick bats were out pretty quickly, the tabloids voiced their disapproval and a web site craigsnotbond was set up where Bond fans could voice their concern of his appointment, too short, too ugly and too blonde were comments that were bandied about at the time. Craig certainly wasn't typical of what had previously been seen in the role, his looks while to some immediately set up as a global sex symbol were to some just not good enough to play their super spy (incidentally many of these were male). Although what Craig did have was a strong dramatic background. EON wanted to dispense with what had gone before and felt for their new Bond they needed something far more serious than what had gone before, the attempt to make Bond more likes Fleming's character with Timothy Dalton in 1987-89 had not gone down well with the public despite Dalton's terrific but brief time in the role, the time hadn't been right for a gritty Bond. EON felt now in the 21st century some 17 years later that now they would be.The thing that strikes you about Casino Royale is that it feels like a proper film, not some cookie cutter entry in an on going series with the usual tick the box antics that audiences had just come to expect, no sense of drama or thrill it was obvious Bond was going to get out of whatever predicament he was in. Royale presented Bond as a newly minted 00 who in the pre title sequence of the film in monochrome black and white (a series first) in Prague would be introduced performing his second kill to earn his status while we flash back to him performing the first one, Craig's Bond informs Dryden (Malcolm Sinclair) a corrupt government official who seems unruffled until he realises Bond is cementing his 00 credentials as him as his second kill as he intones nervously "made you feel it did he?" Cutting back to Bond in a brutal punch up in a bathroom with an assailant. The scene switches back as Dryden says " ...you needn't worry. The second is-- " Craig cutting Dryden sentence short with a single silenced gun shot followed with a witty quip, " Yes Considerably" Craig immediately announcing his presence in the role. We cut back to the bathroom as the assailant goes to shoot Bond as we get the camera view of him looking straight at us and shooting his target as the scene dissolves into a familiar sight as the colour bleeds in as the opening credits begin.The producers choosing wisely not to begin traditionally as all the Bond films since 1962's Dr No with the gun barrel sequence as we are clearly witnessing Bond begins, instead having Daniel Kleinman incorporate into the titles a redesigned gun barrel, kleinman having grabbed the baton with aplomb back in 1995 from series titles legend the late great Maurice Binder, here Kleinman delivers his best and most striking titles to date using the card theme of the story. Soundgarden's Chris Cornell and David Arnold co written title song "You Know My Name" while not being a instant classic is definitely the best since Bono and the Edge penned Goldeneye theme sung by Tina Turner, the title of the song announcing the arrival of the new Bond with a real fan fare.The second half of the film would pretty much be a straight adaptation of Fleming's novel, the first half being original material written by Bond regulars Neil Purvis and Robert Wade with some polish been applied by Oscar winning director and writer Paul Haggis. We have brief introduction to our villian Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) as well as shadowy operative from an unknown organisation Mr White (Jesper Christensen) as details of a sinister stock market transaction are revealed, then we fling into a break neck pursuit sequence in Madagascar (actually Abandoned Motel, Coral Harbour, New Providence Island, Bahamas) with Craig's Bond pursuing a terrorist bomb maker Mollka, real life Parkour expert Sebastian Foucan, Foucan's skill adding an extra dimension to the chase sequence. After witnessing a Bond who for most of the time can't get around without the help of some gadget or other it refreshing to see Craig's Bond go at full throttle, the new post 9/11 007 a real physical presence if not a tad reckless. This new Bond is not the Bond we all know and love just yet, the idea that Purvis and Wade would introduce him as not quite the finished article, even Arnold's score would tease small amounts of the Bond theme (although not played in full till the end) to signify each time he Bond earned one of his stripes. Craig's Bond would appear impulsive and after being told by M (a returning Judi Dench) to go and bury his head after his altercation with Moloka ending in a hasty execution which unfortunately for M & Bond his documented by the worlds press. This being Bond never one to fade into the background with the Intel he acquires heads to The Bahamas.The idea of Bond's actions causing a scandal the Bond of old would seem to cause havoc with no real accountability, the writers inserting somewhat of a more real world feel than previous instalments. Craig said he watched all the previous entries for preparation for the role and then promptly forgot them. Although he presents a new interpretation of the character, there are little subtle nods to Connery and even Moore. Bond using the opportunity of been mistaken for a valet at his hotel in the Bahamas to obtain surveillance to further his investigations has more than a hint of Sean and when he says to the receptionist " What if I felt compelled to" echoes a touch of Sir Roger. Arnold teases a little of the theme out as Bond wins a vintage Aston Martin DB5 from the next suspect on his list Dimitrios (Simon Abkarian). Purvis and Wade's script touches on the literary Bond's penchant for married women, the ease of the seduction of Dimitrios' wife Solange (Caterina Murino). The film offering a welcome touch of dialogue and intrigue before Bond ends up in Miami foiling the destruction of the Skyfleet airliner in an action packed chase sequence, setting up Le Chiffre's being forced to set up a high stakes poker game to retain the money of the client he has just lost on his rather risky venture foiled by Bond. Setting up the events that would pick up Fleming's novel for the duration of the film.Murino's Solange is more typical Bond girl material although Vesper Lynd is probably the most significant female in Bond's life and evolution. Eva Green charged with the job of bringing to life on the screen establishing her relationship with Bond with a rather spiky introduction, her obvious cynicism in Bond's mission. A credit to the writers and director Campbell as the rather mundane idea of a poker match is made a tense experience interspersed with some drama and a brutal hand to hand combat. Craig and Mikkelsen spark off each other with a game of one-upmanship leading to the famous torture sequence detailed in Fleming's novel, apart from some black humour inserted this is pretty much to the letter of the book with some minor adjustments.The events of the conclusion of the book are played down with Vesper's fate but it would be churlish to expect EON to go the same route with their climax, the sinking house sequence has caused much division among fans and critics. I for one are more of a fan of this than the watered down Raiders of The Lost Ark truck sequence in the Miami segment of the film. It was always going to be the case that this moment was never going to as subtle as the book, the series was being relaunched and this was supposed to be the most significant moment that starts to mould the new Bond into the fully formed 007 and the big emotional climax was the way to go. These films are not made for a small percentage of fan boys who's wet dream scenario's would most likely have no bearing on the general public, these films are made for a mass audience and they weren't going to let their re-booted franchise go out on a whimper. It is also an imaginative sequence that also incorporates a big emotional and significant climax for Bond.Of course thing were not going to end with Bond down and out and the epilogue see's a suited and booted Daniel Craig finally get to utter the famous line in a brief but big moment with Arnold letting rip finally with the fully fledged Bond theme to close proceedings which also sets up the first full blooded sequel of the series history as the sign off tantalises of what is to come.Casino Royale is not perfect no Bond film is, the Miami sequence of the film could have been handled with something more than a generic chase sequence, it seems a little pale after the inventive parkour pursuit. Like most Bond films the script is not perfect (although better than anything seen in the series for decades), yes there are clunkers, an unforgivable piece of blatant product placement in the Bond/Vesper introduction which brings an otherwise great scene to a halt. Despite some attempt to include some subtle dry wit for the most part the little finger line would be more welcome in a Carry On flick and is as juvenile as the puerile lines in the Moore and Brosnan era. It's unclear who's to blame while Purvis and Wade had their critics and are no script writing gods it's possible Haggis is responsible although he probably lent the film the dramatic weight it needed. This David Arnold's fourth score, while most likely the best work he's produced to this point it still feels wanting, he makes good use of alternative arrangements of his and Cornell's title theme, he creates an emotional Vesper theme and seems to cope enough without having his usual safety net of the JB theme to lean on. Although at times his score just seems to be just pounding percussion with no melody and we hit an all time low when he lets loose with the blaring brass that would be more welcome in the Austin Powers franchise when the Skyfleet plane is unveiled in the Miami sequence, marring an already problem sequence of the film. Would this film have been better with a John Barry score? Of course it would, when you consider the substandard entries that Connery and Moore were afforded Barry musical gold and Daniel Craig gives more to the role than any actor in the series history and he's rewarded with Mr Arnold trying.These things aside this arguably the best entry since 1969's On Her Majesty Secret Service, choosing Martin Campbell to helm once again after he successfully did in 1995 this time getting a proper actor rather the then TV actor Brosnan. In Daniel Craig we have found an actor who has added dramatic weight unlike Pierce he approaches the role with no awe or fan boy wonder, just wanting to do an impressive job, never raising to any of the criticism flying around while this was being filmed just quietly getting on with the job and spectacularly proving people wrong who questioned his appointment a year before. He also cuts an impressive figure filling out the tux like no other actor since Sean Connery and getting as close to that panther strut that personified the Scots man in 1962. While his critics will baulk he hasn't the confidence of Connery's 007, at this point he's not supposed to . This a newly introduced Bond the films have never approached the character from this point before, it's always been an established agent, with this re-boot option we are getting to see Bond earn his stripes and although we are seeing this here it's obvious this Bond is still learning. While Connery's 007 in 1963 From Russia With Love set the bench mark for the definitive fully fledged Bond, Craig's is the most impressive all out performance of any actor in the series to date and hints at a bright future for this enduring character.*I couldn't justify a 5 star review so add an extra half to this, Amazon doesn't offer that option so 4.5 stars

With almost 300 reviews already online for this DVD, my contribution might get lost in the action, but here goes anyway for my first ever 5-star Bond movie review. (I have all the others up to this one.)This was Martin Campbell's second Bond movie. He did Pierce Brosnan's opener `Goldeneye', and here he does the same for Daniel Craig. This is not only a new Bond, but a new style of Bond - and I like it. In fact, I would go so far as to say, that Craig is arguably the best Bond so far. In this review, I hope to explain my reasoning for that statement, but for me the best thing about Craig's Bond is that he is not a likeable character. He's a trained killer with a dirty job to do; we are not supposed to like him. This was the problem with other Bonds, that made their roles so incongruous with their desire to be loved by their audience.What other reasons are there for praising this film as a breath of fresh air into the franchise? Well, the production, first of all, demonstrates a new imagination; the choice of filming the pre-credit sequence in black & white was a good idea. Next, the credit sequence itself dose not have a naked woman in sight; full marks for toning down the sexism. Then we actually see Bond get blood on his face; full marks for injecting a much needed element of realism.The film is also significant for what it leaves out. No Q - or R - hurrah! The sense of starting afresh and being rid of outdated traditions extends to other areas that might have been thought as sacrosanct: "Vodka Martini", demands Bond of the barman. "Shaken or stirred?" "Do I look as if I give a damn?" And Bond has a car crash and ends up not looking too good: this isn't supposed to happen in a traditional Bond movie.It's rare of course for bond to have deep emotions for the opposite sex, and this film certainly strays into `On Her Majesty's Secret Service' territory with the relationship between Bond and Vesper Lynd. Some have criticised this element, but over the years it's amazing how OHMSS has risen in the estimations of Bond aficionados.There are still the usual Bond thrills and spills. Watching it for the first time in the cinema, the African scenes had me almost suffering vertigo. One has to question why anyone being chased would choose to climb upwards, but the scene graphically illustrates the craze of free-running as an art form, and the choreography is fantastic nevertheless. Equally amazing is the CGI on the collapsing Venetian palazzo.And there is still some humour, as demonstrated with the parking of cars at the Bahamas hotel. The humour also strays in a more fully developed mode than usual into Bond's relationship with the leading lady. When moving towards the hotel lift, Vesper says she'll take the next one: "There isn't enough room for me and your ego." The humour is there but not in the form of groaning throw-away one-liners that plagued previous films. The humour is interactive - with Vesper, with M, with Le Chiffre - rather than solely addressed between Bond and the viewer.The one area of which I did not approve was the torture scene, which I thought went a little too far; I am amazed that the film received a 12 classification. Was this scene really needed? And surely Le Chiffre is being ironic when he states that he never understood "all these elaborate tortures". What! In a Bond movie? But the scene is so well-acted all the same. Can you imagine Roger Moore doing it? Or even Pierce Brosnan?Finally, one piece of plotting to ponder: M is surely wrong to tell Bond at the end that he was kept alive because Vesper pleaded for his life - surely he was kept alive because he had the password to the account!This is a review of the 2-Disc Collector's Edition, so here's a word about the extras. We have a 25-minute film called `Becoming Bond', which is a `making of ...' documentary. The emphasis, we learn, was to be on a tougher, harder Bond. Judi Dench as M is the only character to return from previous films; as Daniel Craig explains, she is the balance to Bond's misogyny. The feature `James Bond For Real' concentrates on the stunts - for real! `Bond Girls Are Forever' sees Maryam D'Abo (from `Living Daylights') interview former Bond girls from Ursula Andress and Honor Blackman all the way up to Halle Berry and Rosamund Pike and Eva Green. This is a very professional production, co-written and co-produced by D'Abo. Finally, there is the music video of the theme song.

Enfin ! Enfin EON, production de la saga des James Bonds a récupéré les droits du premier roman de l'agent le moins secret du monde, paru en 1953. Enfin , comme Michal G. Wilson l'avait mentionné lui même, ils ont pu faire une adaptation correcte du roman. Loin des folies de l'adaptation de 1967 ou des coupures et de la pauvreté de la production de 1954. Ici on reprend la trame principale du roman. On change d'acteur, on change de ton, on se rapproche de nouveau du ton des romans comme à l'époque des débuts ou des deux films avec Timothy Dalton dans le rôle principal. Un Bond dur, fragile et même amoureux !L'histoire d'amour ne peut que toucher, tellement elle est forte. Trop rapide disent certains … pourtant elle ne se dénoue qu'après une heure et demi de film et surtout il arrive plusieurs péripéties pendant ce temps. Détaillons d'ailleurs la logique interne de celle-ci et profitons en pour jeter un regard à la richesse des symboliques tissées dans la trame de l'histoire elle même en analysant le centre du film qui conduit au final à l'amour entre les deux personnages principaux.Ce texte est en conséquence principalement une analyse des symboliques sociologiques, alchimiques et psychologiques présentes dans le film est culminants lors des séquences analysées précitées.Analyse du la scène-pivot du film---------------------------------La proposition est faite ici d'analyser le centre du film du film, c'est à dire la scène de jeu et surtout celle de torture pour comprendre qu'elles sont les rouages symboliques qui font qu'elle sont fascinantes pour une bonne partie du public. Pour cela on montrera dans le même temps ce qui se passe à l'écran et ce qui se passe dans la compréhension et dans le changement interne au héros, qui est au fond, un processus alchimique. En changeant les éléments qui nous entourent, on se change soi même et inversement. Citons la formule alchimique "Etre dans toutes choses et que toutes choses soit en soi".Si James Bond est mis sur la trace du Chiffre c'est par M, sa Mère (dans le roman de Fleming M fait office de parents, c'est un homme qui en s'appelle M, la manière dont l'auteur nommé sa mère) pour qu'il grandisse et cesse d'être un "instrument contendant ("blunt instrument") et gagne en recul, en maturité, qu'il voit la vue d'ensemble ("the big picture").Au moment de s'asseoir à la table de poker, il se trouve en face d'un homme qui l'affronte lors d'un combat singulier (aux cartes) et dont, après avoir perdu un première fois, il finit par triompher. Entre temps il a été empoisonné et a utilisé de l'eau et du sel pour pouvoir s'en sortir. L'eau et le sel constitue une expérience alchimique basique, premier pas donc dans la transformation intérieur du personnage. Il est fini d'être sauvé par la part féminine, représentée par Vesper. D'ailleurs ils ont chacun commencé leur transformation, de manière extérieure, de l'un et l'autre en faisant en sorte chacun que l'autre est l'a stature d'un homme et d'une femme en s'offrant mutuellement une tenue de soirée. La femme a pour mission de révéler l'homme et inversement. Le combat terminé, il peut savourer sa victoire avec la femme qui lui a sauvé la vie. Vient le deuxième partieFurieux et acculé, le Chiffre, la représentation de la part sombre du personnage, donc de chacun de nous qui d'identifions au héros, décide de kidnapper Vesper, c'est à dire d'arracher la part féminine du héros. Il ne le fait pas par désir ou jalousie mais par calcul. Il souhaite obtenir le code de 007 qui lui permettrait d'atteindre les millions dont il a cruellement besoin. Notons ici que Le Chiffre calcule comment obtenir un code, un suite de nombre donc, d'un homme qui porte lui même un numéros, 007. Il s'agit donc d'une problématique portant sur une clé numéraire, et nous le verrons une manière de comprendre la mathématique universelle et donc celle interne aux humains.En effet Le Chiffre enlève et torture Bond en le menaçant de tuer Vesper, donc d'effacer son côté féminin. Il est torturé de plus de manière très particulière. Le Chiffre frappe ses parties génitales à l'aide d'une corde nouée à son extrémité. Il est attaché et ne peut donc bouger. Ceci l'oblige à prendre des décisions et donc à faire des choix importants, à se transformer. En frappant à cet endroit précis il menace également sa virilité, et même tout l'univers, car les "œufs" touchés par le Chiffre permettent la création de la vie grâce à la force vitale qu'ils contiennent. Le Chiffre met donc en danger à la fois la féminité et la virilité, le Yin et le Yang. Comme James Bond est le représentant de la virilité brute ("blunt instrument") il ne révèle par le code à sa nemesis. Ce code est la clé mathématique qui permet de comprendre les interactions universels. Il est le prénom Vesper (donc la part féminine du Soi) qui permet de ramener l'argent gagné (c'est à dire l'or, la lumière intérieure) obtenu à force de souffrance (donc grâce au souffre) pour enfin rétablir l'ordre en satisfaisant aux parents (M) et en procédant à sa propre complétude en réunissants ses énergies complémentaires (masculine et féminine), à la fois en lui-même et avec l'autre. Le fait que le code soit en réalité des lettres, nous montre aussi, que derrière celles-ci se cachent des nombres et donc des secrets mathématiques. Le secret que 007 connait, il veut le garder coûte que coûte.Bond croit même triompher en disant au Chiffre que comme il n'aura jamais le code, il va finir découper par ses employés qui voudront récupérer leur argent. Et là Le Chiffre lui fait comprendre qu'il ne pourrait pas avoir plus tort, car c'est son propre service, le MI6, qui va le protéger afin d'obtenir les informations qu'il possède. C'est à ce moment là, après être passé par un processus douloureux mais purificateur au niveau micro, que le héros comprend les choses au niveau macro en se rappelant ce que lui avait dit son patron/sa mère, qu'il faut voir la vue d'ensemble ("the big picture") pour mieux comprendre les choses. Il comprend là tout son erreur et le chemin qu'il lreste à parcourir. Il ne comprend pas encore pourquoi il va être sauvé. Le spectateur peut alors comprendre que les lignes sont brouillées. En effet le MI6, donc les amis de Bond, sont prêt à sauver Le Chiffre alors que l'organisation derrière celui-ci, le Quantum, sauve Bond. On traite ici encore du thème des apparents oppositions.Au final c'est bien son propre groupe qui tue le Chiffre, c'est à dire sur le plan psychologique et symbolique, les démons qui nourrissent les peurs du héros . Il n'a dont pas encore totalement effectué sa transformation. Mais il va pouvoir tout de même trouver l'amour, qui après cette épreuve purificatrice va surgir tel un torrent pour repartir de manière aussi brutale, d'ailleurs en terminant par la mort de Vesper dans l'eau. Notons que leur idylle commence près d'un lac, autre point d'eau, plus calme et qu'ils voyages sur un bateau jusqu'à Venise, ville d'eau par excellence.Il reste encore la question de la trahison mais celle-ci concerne plus le personnage de Vesper.Certains argueront que cette analyse va trop loin. A ceux là, je ne saurais que leur conseiller de lire une biographie sérieuse de Ian Fleming ou même de lire James Bond 2(007) ou The Bond Code.Un film complet (et cravate)----------------------------La critique de ce film ne sera pas alourdie par un texte qui s'allongerait encore de trop. Simplement rajoutons ici que le casting est excellent et que la musique de David Arnold réalise l'exploit de rester dans le ton bondien sans jouer le thème une seule fois avant la fin du film. Il se permet de distiller de temps en temps une note rappelant les thèmes anciens mais c'est bien tout.Le générique est aussi à noter et figure parmi les plus beaux de l'histoire de la saga et du cinéma tout simplement. Il fait œuvre de simplicité et d'ingéniosité avec ses à-plats représentants des cartes à jouer et autres accessoires de casino.Une analogie avec ceux qui ont gagner de l'argent le 12 septembre 2001, en pariant contre le marché, est tracée et ancre Bond dans la réalité et ses complots. Ici le terrorisme est à but spéculatif, pas une histoire de martyrs. Et pourtant personne n'a affublé 007 du sobriquet de "complotiste" … Voir cet article : [Le délit d'initié du 11 Septembre 2001][1]Deux reproches pourront être fait : le premier est de lorgner trop du côté des films de Jason Bourne, avec un héros qui repère tout, qui parfois se comporte presque comme un robot, qui note tout autour de lui mais qui étrangement commet des erreurs à une table de poker …Le deuxième concerne la durée du film et d'avoir fait trop durer, peut être, certaines séquences.Au bout du comptes ces dernières remarques n'empêche nullement de profiter pleinement de la réussite qu'est *Casino Royale*. [...]

ravie d'avoir pu enfin retrouver le grand James Bond, le premier de la trilogie est de loin le plus haletant et peut-être le meilleur de la trilogie avec Daniel Craig dans le rôle de Bond, un festival de poursuites Florence, Vénise, très coloré, j'ai revu ce film avec un grand plaisir et me plait à dire que selon moi c'est le meilleur de la trilogie, même si les deux autres sont dignes d'intérêt, notamment Skyfall servi par une musique et des décors éblouissants.

商品としては箱に描かれているそのままのセット内容で何の問題もありませんでした。しかし商品名は誤解を生む可能性があると思います。一般的にポーカーセットというとトランプ＋ポーカーチップ150枚程など、ポーカーチップを使ったポーカーが出来るセットを想像する方が多いのではないでしょうか。商品紹介には同梱内容について記載があった方がよいと思います。

Nach all den Kritiken, die hier geschrieben worden sind, muss auch ich mich in die Diskussion einmischen! Manche Bond-Fans begründen ihre Ablehnung mit fehlendem Charme, mit der Abkehr von den "klassischen" Bonds, andere mit Fehlern in der Logik, dass der junge Bond doch dieses und jenes nicht kennen konnte, dass Felix Leiter nicht schwarz sein kann und so fort. Nun, ich möchte darauf hinweisen, dass es sich bei Bond um eine fiktive Figur in einer fiktiven Welt, die nur hin und wieder mit der Realität sich überschneidet, handelt. Nichts ist hier wirklich, nichts hat irgendeine Vergangenheit, die man "wirklichkeitsgetreu" rekonstruieren müsste. Jede fiktive Figur in der Welt der Märchen, des Films, der Kunst, der Literatur vermittelt uns etwas durch ihr Handeln, und um dieses Etwas geht es, ganz allein darum, uns Zuschauern zu zeigen, wie es in einer geträumten Welt sein könnte, mit welchem Witz oder Arroganz, Coolness oder Verspieltheit, Mut oder Dummheit, Kaltschnäuzigkeit oder Leichtsinn jemand handeln kann, es geht um Liebe und Lebenshunger, um Action und um alles, was uns Menschen etwas bedeutet. Bei den Bonds geht es ganz klar um Träume, die man als Typ haben kann, um Eigenschaften, die man sich wünscht, um den Kitzel, so ein Leben auf einem Top-Level zu führen, mit allen Gefahren, die damit verbunden sind, und mit vollstem Risiko alles anzugehen und locker und elegant zu meistern, dann aber auch gnadenlos zuzuschlagen, ohne Rücksicht auf Verluste sich durchzusetzen, smart oder eben eiskalt wie der neue Bond, erfahren oder eben vital und vor Kraft strotzend wie der junge 007. Und genau diese Eigenschaften werden genial präsentiert, die Konstellationen sind korrekt, die Gesichter dabei schlicht und ergreifend unwichtig. Dass der junge Bond dieses oder jenes nicht kennen oder wissen konnte, ist uninteressant, denn es gab den jungen Bond nicht, genauso wenig wie es Superman gab oder die anderen Superhelden, auch nicht Tarzan und und und. Ich möchte mal sehen, was passiert, wenn bei allen Superhelden-Filmen die Zeit, in der das Ganze spielt laut Original-Comic, die Handlungskulisse bildet, zum Beispiel bei Batman, das wäre einfach nur langweilig! Wir leben in einer anderen Zeit als damals der Connery-Bond, auch Roger Moore hatte seine Zeit und Dalton, ebenso Brosnan, und nun halt Daniel Graig. Wenn man alles so genau nehmen würde, würde jeder Bond gegen alle Regeln verstoßen. Die Kleidung ist immer zeitgemäß, die Technik ebenfalls, was also soll man mit dem jungen Bond anstellen, ihn in den Fünfzigern zeigen? Soll man die ollen Kamelen zur Zeit des Kalten Krieges aufwärmen? Das würde sich niemand angucken! Ich bin ein großer Bond-Fan, habe sogar den letzten (missglückten!) Bond mit Brosnan irgendwie respektiert, war aber doch enttäuscht, dass die Bond-Macher diesen Unsinn mit dem unsichtbaren Wagen nicht rausgenommen haben. Und es war klar, dass es so nicht weitergehen konnte. Für mich ist Liebesgrüße aus Moskau noch immer einer der besten Bonds, da zeigte Connery Härte und Konsequenz, dann ist In tödlicher Mission klasse, natürlich auch der Hauch des Todes und Lizenz zum Töten, dann gibt es die Bonds mit Spielereien wie Goldfinger oder Der Spion, der mich liebte und natürlich die Brosnan-Bonds außer Stirb an einem anderen Tag, der daneben ging, irgendwie hatte Bond immer eine gute Balance zwischen Härte und Selbstironie, doch Brosnan ist in eine Sackgasse geraten, sein letzter Bond war einfach ein Armutszeugnis, und irgendwie mussten die Bondmacher die Notbremse ziehen, wieder Härte und Vitalität reinbringen, sonst wäre Bond ins Lächerliche abgedriftet und leise von uns gegangen... Und das haben sie genial hinbekommen! Dieser Bond schlägt richtig zu, ist nicht jede Sekunde hinter einer Frau her, hat einen Körper, dem man zutraut, diese Action-Szenen auch wirklich meistern zu können, und schauspielerisch ist Daniel Graig einfach hervorragend! Der Film ist spannend bis zur letzten Szene, verzichtet auf unnötige Spielereien, zeigt allen anderen Action-Filmen, dass Bond halt doch die Nummer Eins ist. Ich bin mit diesem Bond total zufrieden und freue mich auf den nächsten. Daniel Graig ist für mich genau das, was diese Serie gebraucht hat!

Pour avoir la collection de J. Bond avec Daniel Craig