comment #1

BNick says ...

Of course the BAFTAs are in the bag for Bond, for nationalistic reasons, but it's still really cool to see a near-perfect relaunching of that franchise rack up so many nods. Plus it got an ACE nomination yesterday and a nod from the Costume Guild as well.

Batman Begins, Casino Royale, and I would argue Superman Returns all show how to reinvigorate flagging franchises. I mean, when was the last time you left a Bond movie and found yourself psyched to see the next one?

comment #2

Ian Sinclair says ...

Actually, I believe this is the first time a Bond Picture has been uo for Best British film at the Baftas. I know for a fact that this is the frst time an actor playing Bond has been nominated for Best Actor. It is a tribute to the sheer quality of the picture and of the actor's performance. Would that the Academy recognized Craig as well.

comment #3

Paul8148 says ...

If Golsing was to far short or Leo splits his votes then I think Craig, not Cohan will benfit. Cohan miss out at here and the SAGS, the two places along the way that has oscar voters.

comment #4

Ian Sinclair says ...

Actually, the success of CASINO ROYALE has precious little to do with nationalism and all to do with the quality of the picture. In the 40-year history of the franchise the Bond pictures have only been nominated for a total of seven times, all in technical or musical categories, and have won only once, for the cinematography in DOCTOR NO.

comment #5

BNick says ...

Ian, I'm definitely with you on the merits of Casino Royale. I just look at virtually every other awards group (e.g. HFPA, SAG) having ignored it in all of the major categories, and I come to the conclusion that being part of the most famous British movie franchise of all time likely put it over the top at the BAFTAs.

It's almost as if, despite being the best-reviewed film of 2006 on wide release, most American critics/voters/whatever don't see it as "worthy" of a nomination, because it's a Bond flick. But with the Brits, this is actually an asset. They're not embarassed, rather they are proud, to recognize an exceedingly well-made 007 film.

comment #6

Ian Sinclair says ...

Hard to disupte your logic there, BNick. Well put.

comment #7

Colin says ...

I liked, but did not love, Casino Royale. I just wanted to note that I question that it was the best reviewed wide release of 2006. Yeah, I know that it got the "Golden Tomato" at Rotten Tomatoes, but I tend to find that metacritic is a better gauge of a film's critical reception. Over at metacritic, CR gets a 80/100 while plenty of other films widely released have a higher score.

comment #8

BNick says ...

Yeah, Colin, I was definitely basing my comment on the Rotten Tomato measurement. But I agree that Metacritic is sometimes better because it recognizes the varying degrees of "love" and "hate" while with RT it's really a thumbs up or down type of thing.

Still, 80 on Metacritic is pretty good, and without looking to confirm I'd guess that at least a few of the films considered "Oscar-worthy" are below that level.

comment #9

Ian Sinclair says ...

Well, Colin, if it's any consolation, I'm sure that your opinion will be remembered long after people have forgotten that Casino Royale won the Golden Tomato. After all, the first thing that people remember about Return of the King is not that it made a billion dollars and won eleven Oscars including Best Picture, nor that it was also won the Golden Tomato, but that Jeff Wells didn't like it very much. Individual opinions are so timeless, after all.

comment #10

Colin says ...

Ian, I wasn't saying my opinion matters at all. I was simply saying that I don't think that CR was the best reviewed movie of the year.

comment #11

Ian Sinclair says ...

I was just teasing, Colin. The best reviewed movie of the year was probably The Queen. Casino Royale was the best reviewed wide-release movie.