Casino Royale

[Rolfe Klement]

I really enjoyed the entertainment! Some nice mixing of cinematic DOP styles. Overall it was excellent - there seemed to be some soft shots in the casino but otherwise very nice work.

 

Any ideas on stock and lenses?

 

Recommended!

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Arni Heimir]

I know they shot with Cooke S4's. Don't know if they used a zoom. Since I haven't seen the film. But I would bet that they used the 5201, 5205 and the 5218. I would assume they went tru a 4k DI.

[Stephen Williams]

I know they shot with Cooke S4's. Don't know if they used a zoom. Since I haven't seen the film. But I would bet that they used the 5201, 5205 and the 5218. I would assume they went tru a 4k DI.

 

Hi,

 

Fairly sure 2K DI. I shot some watches for an Omega commercial, live action scenes from the film were delivered 2K shot S35.

 

FWIW I did a test at Arri, scanning 6K downsizing to 4k & 3K downsizing to 2K then printing back to film. The 4K was clearly sharper from the front, middle & back of the cinema.

 

Stephen

[Max Jacoby]

The shot on Cooke S4s, the bokeh is very telling in the most scenes. Ah, the good old days when Bond was shot anamorphic...

 

Personally I wasn't too impressed by the film (surprise!), after Le Chiffre gets killed, the film really drags on towards an anticlimactic ending. Visually it was, well appropriate, but nothing amazing. Hated the look of the prologue though, if you want black & white shoot black & white, don't shoot color film, desaturate it and digitally add grain, it always looks fake!

[Jon Kukla]

if you want black & white shoot black & white, don't shoot color film, desaturate it and digitally add grain, it always looks fake!

 

Amen, brotha. Seems like they complain that they can't shoot b/w bc of the grain issue, then add it in later anyway, so...what's the deal?

 

Personally I hate the look of color neg>b/w, because there's always too many shades of gray. Color reversal>b/w, on the other hand, can be done well if planned out properly...

[Arni Heimir]

Without getting into an heated argument. What didn't you like about it. Was it the performance, the plot, the dialogue?

 

What kind of movies do you go for?

[Guest Tim Partridge]

As a big James Bond film fan, and a major advocate of old school British cinematography/craftsmanship, I thought this was excellent all round. Cliche as it is, it couldn't be more true: it's BATMAN BEGINS for Bond.

 

Regarding cinematography:

 

When I was told at Panavision last year that they were testing for super35, I was really disheartened, especially as anyone who has read the GoldenEye AC knows how hard Phil Meheux fought to get anamorphic on that film. I had also heard Meheux had loved the 2K DI on 80 DAYS AROUND THE WORLD, which was really concerning, given how rich and pure GoldenEye looked. When I heard about the Cooke S4s I thought they'd sold out the heritage, especially as Meheux's work on GOLDENEYE sits with the best anamorphic work of the 1990s.

 

Now having seen the film, I can understand entirely what they were after, and think the approach was spot on. This is back to when Bond was an intimate spy film, think FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and the tense use of claustrophic space with the academy ratio on that. On a personal note too, CASINO ROYALE recalls Meheux's grittiest, spherical, fast zooms, over-the-shoulder and natural light look on the groundbreaking political thriller THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY as well as WHO DARES WINS. Whereas GoldenEye was about lit up panavision vistas, CASINO ROYALE is more about grit and hit the floor. plus, Meheux and Campbell with super35 is still lightyears more visually impressive than Lee Tamahori and David Tattersall with anamorphic.

 

The DI, while not entirely natural looking, is still competent when compared to that unacceptable (even for the time) 2K disaster from DIE ANOTHER DAY.

 

It was suprising to see that Alexander Witt chose to only be credited during the main titles as SECOND UNIT DIRECTOR, and not as SECOND UNIT PHOTOGRAPHED AND DIRECTED BY. Arthur Wooster had the latter credit on all of the 80s Bond films, so it's really suprising to see Witt go for a director credit in the opening titles and cinematographer title in the end credits. Even moreso considering what a breathless job he did, not mention how talented he is in both roles.

 

I agree with Max about the opening black and white stuff. It looked pretty painful, especially the flashbacks within. I'm not sure it worked or was even neccessary dramatically. I also didn't care for the "gambling website advert" title sequence, or much of David Arnold's inconsistent and often cheapskate John Barry imitation score.

 

 

However, the biggest praise deserves to go to Martin Campbell, and with him, the legendary editor Stuart Baird. There is so much sincerity here and I often forgot the film wasn't made in the 1960s by Terence Young and Peter Hunt. That's saying something considering the movie isn't even in period!

 

Special mention as well to visual effects supervisor Steve Begg. Can anyone say seamless? Derek Meddings is looking down, very proud of his protege.

[Arni Heimir]

As a big James Bond film fan, and a major advocate of old school British cinematography/craftsmanship, I thought this was excellent all round. Cliche as it is, it couldn't be more true: it's BATMAN BEGINS for Bond.

 

Regarding cinematography:

 

When I was told at Panavision last year that they were testing for super35, I was really disheartened, especially as anyone who has read the GoldenEye AC knows how hard Phil Meheux fought to get anamorphic on that film. I had also heard Meheux had loved the 2K DI on 80 DAYS AROUND THE WORLD, which was really concerning, given how rich and pure GoldenEye looked. When I heard about the Cooke S4s I thought they'd sold out the heritage, especially as Meheux's work on GOLDENEYE sits with the best anamorphic work of the 1990s.

 

What kind of anamorphic lens did they use in Goldeneye?

[Max Jacoby]

Goldeneye was shot on the usual mix of Primos, Cs and Es.

 

I actually went to see the Korean film 'The Host' today and afterwards snuck into the 'Casino Royale' screening just as the film started. I didn't mind Bond being a bit more serious, but I didn't think Daniel Craig

pulled off the more dramatic parts. I didn't really feel any chemistry between him and Eva Green (who in some shots looked absolutely gorgeous). I guess my main complaint was that the villain (Le Chiffre) didn't seem vert threatening. He gets put under pressure and beaten up by other bad guys several times and gets killed way too early. After his death the film just drags on and you wait for the 'villain who's behind it all' to show up again and when he finally does, there's nothing to it.

[Rolfe Klement]

::SPOILER::

 

I actually thought Le Chifre did not die - I was certain Bond entered the password as "ELIPSIS" not "VESPER" and therefore thought the entire HOSPITAL scene was a set up. I thought we see Le Chifre again with the one eye sunglass in the boat in Venice scene - then he was shot in the eye but only with a nail gun - and we didn't see his floating body - we got to see the floating body before some one is actually dead :)

 

:: END OF SPOLIER::

 

The DI of making Daniel's eyes so blue also got a bit obvious at times.

 

Irrespective of what DOP's think of the film it will be interesting to see how the film performs at the box office. It is not often a film is so universally liked by critics. I read an interview with Barbara Broccolli saying she was a bit worried since usually critics are split...

 

thanks

 

Rolfe

[Max Jacoby]

::SPOILER::

 

I thought we see Le Chifre again with the one eye sunglass in the boat in Venice scene

 

:: END OF SPOLIER::

That was an other actor. Gettler is played by Richard Sammel

[Daniel Smith]

I'm off to see Casino Royale in a few hours. After what I've been hearing, I'm pretty excited about it. Craig has completely smashed what the critics were saying about him (I knew he would), and it sounds like it's going to be a pretty personal account of James Bond, something we've never seen before.

 

I wonder if it will top Goldeneye... (IMO "one of" the best James Bonds)

[Dan Goulder]

I actually went to see the Korean film 'The Host' today and afterwards snuck into the 'Casino Royale' screening just as the film started.

Did you catch the foot chase after the opening credits? That was the high point of the film. By the way, the British Theater Owners Association has put out a warrant for you. They claim if you refuse to buy a ticket, they won't show any more anamorphic...

[Arni Heimir]

I wonder if it will top Goldeneye... (IMO "one of" the best James Bonds)

 

My favorite Bond film is "thunderbolt"

[Daniel Carruthers]

I really enjoyed casino royal. I think Daniel Craig did a great job as Bond. next to goldfinger I'd say its my favorite bond film.

thought the cinematography was great, I especially liked the exterior daytime shots, on the beach and outside the hotel, really bright and colorful with high noon lighting, but not that high you could still see the actors eyes without those gross shawdows.

[Andy_Alderslade]

My favourite Bond film is On Her Majestie's Secret Service, does that make me weird?

 

:D

Edited November 19, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

[Chris Dingley]

some potential spoilers.

 

7.5/10 rating

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought it was ok...

 

I liked the cinematography, but it wasn't goldeneye.

 

As for plot... well it was for one way to long. i felt the love plot was porely exicuted. I understand they tried to show how much he "loved her" but instead of ading 20 min to the film they could have done it with 2 seconds and some eye light and some fancy music.

 

Even though the film ran close to 3 hours the ending was completely pushed. it was liek the director called out on the last day of shooting " Oh, we forgot an ending lets do one now." I did not like that at all.

 

And the thing that I hated the most was the inconsistency in the time period. this was supposed to be a prequel to the other bond films and yet they still have "M" talk about 9-11.... that is a major flaw that almost killed the entire plot for me,

 

other than that I liked the whole poker thing it was very well done, and everything else was good..

 

7.5/10 rating

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Good film, not so impressed with the cinematography.

 

I've always been a bit of a fan of Phil Meheux, BSC, simply because he lights completely different from myself. It's hard, it's old school, it's lush, it's multiple sources, and it's basically something I couldn't do. His Zorro is one of my fav lit films - fantastic old school studio feel in a 90's version.

 

But here it just felt wrong paired with the 2K and the super-35. There's a fine line between lighting with hard sources and making a film feel harsh, if you know what I mean. Take for instance the great Oswald Morris, BSC - he lit with bone crunching hard lights in most of his films, yet they never look harsh. The Odessa File, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold (BTW, there's a dolly shot in that on that I still don't know how they've done) never look harsh or even hard, despite being lit that way. Maybe it's the older and softer lenses or something.

 

The problem here is too much fill light, too many grim rims and a key light that's way to hard. And all that hair light drives me nuts (but then again I'm in my 'no backlight' period). The 2K also accentuates this with it's bzzzzzzz feel - that enhanced, digital sharpness frizziness combined with a lack of information that's always a tell tale sign of a 2K.

 

Anamorphic would have been the medicine for this. With those lenses a much needed organic feel and 'roundness' would have helped the image along and counterbalanced the hard lighting. I do still claim that Phil Meheux, BSC, would be the perfect choice for the new Indiana Jones installment - he's the logical heir to Douglas Slocombe, BSC. Kaminski's all wrong. You want that old school, Zorro feel for Indy 4 with not a Kino in sight.

[Arni Heimir]

Good film, not so impressed with the cinematography.

 

I've always been a bit of a fan of Phil Meheux, BSC, simply because he lights completely different from myself. It's hard, it's old school, it's lush, it's multiple sources, and it's basically something I couldn't do. His Zorro is one of my fav lit films - fantastic old school studio feel in a 90's version.

 

But here it just felt wrong paired with the 2K and the super-35. There's a fine line between lighting with hard sources and making a film feel harsh, if you know what I mean. Take for instance the great Oswald Morris, BSC - he lit with bone crunching hard lights in most of his films, yet they never look harsh. The Odessa File, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold (BTW, there's a dolly shot in that on that I still don't know how they've done) never look harsh or even hard, despite being lit that way. Maybe it's the older and softer lenses or something.

 

The problem here is too much fill light, too many grim rims and a key light that's way to hard. And all that hair light drives me nuts (but then again I'm in my 'no backlight' period). The 2K also accentuates this with it's bzzzzzzz feel - that enhanced, digital sharpness frizziness combined with a lack of information that's always a tell tale sign of a 2K.

 

Anamorphic would have been the medicine for this. With those lenses a much needed organic feel and 'roundness' would have helped the image along and counterbalanced the hard lighting. I do still claim that Phil Meheux, BSC, would be the perfect choice for the new Indiana Jones installment - he's the logical heir to Douglas Slocombe, BSC. Kaminski's all wrong. You want that old school, Zorro feel for Indy 4 with not a Kino in sight.

 

I agree with you. Meheux would be perfect for INDY 4. But Spielberg is known to be very loyal to his crew. So I doubt he would hire him. I think that Allen Daviau would also be a good fit for INDY 4.

 

I think that Meheux did a fantastic job. I think that the Vision2 stock is just a little to flat of a stock. Maybe that had something to do with it. I prefer his lighting style in "Goldeneye". But I was very pleased with "Casino Royale". "Entrapment" was a very well lit film.

[Guest Tim Partridge]

Good film, not so impressed with the cinematography.

 

I've always been a bit of a fan of Phil Meheux, BSC, simply because he lights completely different from myself. It's hard, it's old school, it's lush, it's multiple sources, and it's basically something I couldn't do. His Zorro is one of my fav lit films - fantastic old school studio feel in a 90's version.

 

But here it just felt wrong paired with the 2K and the super-35. There's a fine line between lighting with hard sources and making a film feel harsh, if you know what I mean. Take for instance the great Oswald Morris, BSC - he lit with bone crunching hard lights in most of his films, yet they never look harsh. The Odessa File, The Spy Who Came In From The Cold (BTW, there's a dolly shot in that on that I still don't know how they've done) never look harsh or even hard, despite being lit that way. Maybe it's the older and softer lenses or something.

 

The problem here is too much fill light, too many grim rims and a key light that's way to hard. And all that hair light drives me nuts (but then again I'm in my 'no backlight' period). The 2K also accentuates this with it's bzzzzzzz feel - that enhanced, digital sharpness frizziness combined with a lack of information that's always a tell tale sign of a 2K.

 

Anamorphic would have been the medicine for this. With those lenses a much needed organic feel and 'roundness' would have helped the image along and counterbalanced the hard lighting. I do still claim that Phil Meheux, BSC, would be the perfect choice for the new Indiana Jones installment - he's the logical heir to Douglas Slocombe, BSC. Kaminski's all wrong. You want that old school, Zorro feel for Indy 4 with not a Kino in sight.

 

I agree about the 2K, but it was still miles better than the one used on DIE ANOTHER DAY, which incidentally was also an anamorphic picture.

 

However, I don't agree with the notion that anamorpic would have solved all of the aesthetic problems. Check out the gritty LONG GOOD FRIDAY or WHO DARES WINS that were shot spherically with hard light mixed with available light by Meheux back in the early 80s. You can tell that is the look Meheux and Campbell were after ith CASINO ROYALE, a real camera over the shoulder, fast zooms approach, while also paying attention to Ted Moore's spherical work on DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

[ryan_bennett]

He gets put under pressure and beaten up by other bad guys several times and gets killed way too early. After his death the film just drags on and you wait for the 'villain who's behind it all' to show up again and when he finally does, there's nothing to it.

 

Complain to Ian Fleming as it's pretty much exactly what happens in the book. It's not anticlimatic, it's a pivotal point for Bond that virtually frames him as to what he is in the rest of the series as he was really happy and ready to settle. Right now it doesn't make too much sense because technically it's supposed to be before all the movies we've already seen you have to look at it from the grand scheme of things. I'll agree with you it looked soft focus a lot of times, also hard to understand him but to be nit picky about the black and white segments? They looked fine and were taking a chance by setting it all up in black and white and trying something different. I just wished they didn't set it in our time and kept it in the cold war and Chiffre funding SMERSH not "terrorists".

[stephen lamb]

Hey all,

I recently saw the film on a new DLP digital projection system that has been set up at one of our local theaters. I noticed that in some of the shots, the digital noise was minimal to none, and the sharpness of the image was quite spectacular, i also did enjoy the lack of scratches and dirt. However, perhaps about half of the shots in the film, or maybe 1/3, there was a LOT of digital noise. i'm talking, ant race across the screen digital noise. It tended to be in darker scenes, or close ups. Any one know why this might be? Extra DI work for thos particular shots? Anyways, it was my first digital projection experience, and i thought it was ok. To me, i would still rather see a film print, but to an average joe, hey, they probably will love the sharpness and lack of dust and scratches. hard to tell.

Overall i really enjoyed the film, and thought they did a good job keeping the Bond franchise afloat. I agree with some on this post, Goldeneye is my favorite bond film too, martin campbell is very adept at handling bond films. Has he done any others besides these two?

Cheers

[Brian Drysdale]

I'm wondering if the B & W sequence is there because of the rating. In the UK it's 12A and I hear they had to make adjustments to avoid a 15 Cert.

 

The title song didn't do anything for me, it just got lost.

 

I'm not a huge fan of 2k DI, they often seem to look soft and the highlight handling on DIs can give a video look. There are films on which the DI can be truly wonderful, but often you're left asking why?

 

There is a sag around the love story. I don't think you can blame Ian Fleming, scriptwriters should know the weaknesses of the original material. I think that train scene was too expositional: do don't say. We should have discovered the common bond (sorry) between the characters, not have been told it. Poor writing.

 

It's a return to the older Bonds. O.H.M.S.S. could've been the best if Connery had been in it, certainly it has one of the best Bond soundtracks. The love story worked better (much stronger acting from Diana Rigg).

[Emanuel A Guedes]

My favourite Bond film is On Her Majestie's Secret Service, does that make me weird?

 

:D

Yes :)

[Andy_Alderslade]

Yes :)

 

HEY! ;)

 

Well this is my case why On Her Majesty's is the best bond film.

 

1. Best soundtrack, not only does it have the Bond tunes, but also the O.H.M.S.S. theme (which is one of the best, was even remixed into techno club versions in the 90s and also used in The Incredibles trailers) and 'We Have All the Love in the World' performed by Louis Armstrong - Com'on Louis Armstrong!).

 

2. Best editing, its has some real style to it.

 

3. Actually is faithfull to the style of the books, for instance in the books the bond girls are all physicaly or mentally flawed, something which Bond finds particularly attractive in them, even Ursula Andrea's character in Doctor No has a broken nose. Diana Rigg is far from the most attractive bond girl, but the fact she's so mentally screwed up makes her immediedtly a more complex character than any of the others.

 

4. It actually has some interesting and amusing character driven scenes, as well as the action. Like Bond blowing his cover because of seducing two girls in one night, or Diana Rigg's self destructive nature. And common' that tank chase scene in Goldeneye sucks, where is the supsense of Bond running over everything in a tank.

 

5. Admit it George Lazenby isn't that bad, okay he isn't Sean Connery but even Connery's not Connery half the time, for every charasmatic Dr No performance there is a chringe worthy Diamonds are Forever.

 

6. The ending.

 

7. No product placement - okay there is an Astin Martin in it, but for goodness sake every Pierce Brosnon film was like a cable shopping channel show. Bond's next mission will probably be to Walmart.

 

8. Director Christopher Nolan rates this has one of his favourite movies (okay even I wouldn't go that far).

 

Anyway I suddenly feel 15 again.

Edited November 23, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade