New Casino Royale...

jkwest · Post by **jkwest** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:16 pm

I just watched the newest Bond movie last night. I was pleasantly surprised by it!

I have to say, it is in fact, the best Bond movie I have ever seen. The storyline, the acting,the special effects, all done really well! Eva Green, stunning!! Daniel Craig, a real man's Bond, a scrapper and cocky bloke everyone ends up liking.

Nothing is waaay over the top where you don't believe it could happen, like most Bond movies IMO...

I highly suggest it to anyone who hasn't seen it yet...

/

djm · Post by **djm** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:29 pm

I was surprised by this movie too, especially since I never liked any of the other hokey Bond films. This one was more believable and left out all the previous cornball attempts at humour.

The trouble is, once you take out all the goofiness of the older Bond films, all you have left is just another ho-hum action film. On reflection, I would have to say it is an okay action film, not a goofy Bond film at all, but is that what we really want?

djm

Anglorfin · Post by **Anglorfin** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:30 pm

I don't agree with Daniel Craig as Bond. He's wierd looking. At least by the invisible standards that I hold a Bond actor to.

The movie itself was significantly darker than most Bond films and I did think that was pretty cool. But there's a certain flavor you would expect from a Bond film that just wasn't there. I felt like if they were trying to reinvent Bond they did too little and cut out too much of the classic stuff that makes it a Bond film in the first place.

hathair_bláth · Post by **hathair_bláth** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:15 pm

I really liked Casino Royale and Daniel Craig, which was really surprising. I had decided from the start that Daniel Craig was going to be a terrible Bond, they were ruining the franchise, and I wasn't even going to see it. But then I went and saw it.

It was different from your average Bond, that's for sure. Like djm said, it was more believable, grittier, and not overloaded with gadgets that could never feasibly work (though I did like the gadgets) and bad attempts at humour. I mean, when was the last time before CR that we actually saw Bond screw up as bad as he does in this one? Before, Bond didn't make mistakes.

I'm with you, jkwest. Casino Royale is up there with the best of the Bonds, and I'd put Daniel Craig up there with Sean Connery, even if he is blond.

djm · Post by **djm** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:40 pm

Is it just my imagination, or wouldn't Adrian Paul look like a good candidate to impersonate a young Sean Connery? I'm surprised no-one has asked him to do a Bond film if they wanted to restart the old franchise.

djm

hathair_bláth · Post by **hathair_bláth** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:20 am

He was one of the first people to jump to my mind when I heard they were looking for a new Bond. I think he was actually considered, but they ruled him out as being too old.

Rumour has it that Pierce Brosnan's handpicked sucessor was Ewan McGregor, but he was rulled out because he was too tall.

Henke · Post by **Henke** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:07 pm

I think it's sad that they have pissed on all 40 year old traditions.
First of all, Bond is blond. Bond is not supposed to be blond! On top of that, he's thin haired. Even the great Sean Connery was forced to wear a tupee for his last film, then this weasel comes along, blond and half bald.

Second, the girls are not Bond girls. Their names are all wrong. Bond girls are supposed to have names like Plenty O'Toole or Pussy Galore. Oh, my goodness! What in the world? is Vesper Lynd??
Third... well, where to continue? They have simple trashed it all. Bond falls in love, he doesn't order his Martini shaked, not stirred, he's lost all his charm and sence of humour, he doesn't stack an arsenal of exploding pencils, x-ray sun glasses and swiss army watches.

Right now you're probably wondering if I'm serious... Not dead serious, but yes, I do think it's sad that some things can't be left alone.

djm · Post by **djm** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 3:26 pm

Depends on what you want left alone. All the stuff you quote as worth saving was stuff that was added in the old movies. It was not part of the original books. The purpose of the new film was supposed to be about showing what the "real" Bond was like according to the books.

djm

Key_of_D · Post by **Key_of_D** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:08 am

hmmm

I thought this was definitely one of the better (if not one of the best) bond films to date. Sure, it doesn't have that string of cheese lining the film like the old ones did, but I think that's because we live in a different age then that of yesteryear - hence the bond girl's name Vesper, to me vesper sounds like a serious name.. (whatever that means) I think Casino Royale is also one of the more Darker bond films, and I kind of like it because it's new in the bond films I think, gives some more variety on the franchise.

As for Daniel Craig, I think he did an awesome job. He's a great actor in my opinion, and did Bond exceptionally. But yes, I still would have to go with Sean Connery as my favorite bond. Over all I really enjoyed the film. Honestly it's probably one of the better ones to have come out since Golden Eye. Just me though. I like all the bond films pretty much. Cheasy or not.

Tyler · Post by **Tyler** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:38 am

I was a big fan of the works of Ian Fleming growing up, and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by Casino Royale. The story is a nice update on the original story.
I don't really care for Bond movies after the Connery era; I could never get used to the over-the-top Bond culture.
The way they've done Casino Royale, in the humble opinion of this Bond novel fan, was closer to the feel of what I believe Fleming would probably have wanted to see in a Bond film as opposed to the techno hokey-pokery and comedic ham the series became associated with later on.
Of course, YMMV.

Oh and btw...
Craig haters...STFU, GBTW

Tyler · Post by **Tyler** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:32 am

Henke wrote:I think it's sad that they have pissed on all 40 year old traditions.
First of all, Bond is blond. Bond is not supposed to be blond! On top of that, he's thin haired. Even the great Sean Connery was forced to wear a tupee for his last film, then this weasel comes along, blond and half bald.
Second, the girls are not Bond girls. Their names are all wrong. Bond girls are supposed to have names like Plenty O'Toole or Pussy Galore. Oh, my goodness! What in the world? is Vesper Lynd??
Third... well, where to continue? They have simple trashed it all. Bond falls in love, he doesn't order his Martini shaked, not stirred, he's lost all his charm and sence of humour, he doesn't stack an arsenal of exploding pencils, x-ray sun glasses and swiss army watches.

Right now you're probably wondering if I'm serious... Not dead serious, but yes, I do think it's sad that some things can't be left alone.

Most of what you're complaining about aren't really "40 year old traditions" as you put them, but are conventions which were either already existant or broken early on in the franchise...

First Bond to appear without (what some Bond fans feel) the traditional brown hair was Roger Moore, who is a natural sandy blond.
Connery's last "Bond" film was not a "Bond" film, per se, but an unnofficial remake of Thunderball.
Vesper Lynd is the name of the character from the novel Casiono Royale.
Bond does not order a Martini "shaken, not stirred..." until Diamonds Are Forever which is the fourth novel, and not by Bond; bond does not order a Martini made in such a manner until Dr. No (book 6). The phrase is not uttered in the movie continuum until Goldfinger.
Bond does indeed fall in love with Vesper Lynd in the novel of Casino Royale. The inclusion of said event in the movie was intended to show how Bond becamy the misogynistic womanizer. (and if you were REALLY a Bond fan you'd already know that Bond fell in love a second time and had even gotten married....and yes this does take place within the movie continuum, no I wont tell you where, find it yourself

. If I hand everything to you, you won't learn nuthin'!)
Highly exotic gagetry was never a part of the Bond franchise until after Fleming's death (Fleming was no longer a part of the screenwriting process). Anything more exotic than things like a boobytrapped breifcase or Geiger counter wristwatch were not present in the novels either.

I do think it's sad that some things can't be left alone

I highly agree; they shouldn't have bastardized the novels so badly to begin with.

Caj · Post by **Caj** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:34 am

I dug it.

The parcour at the beginning was awesome. I think they took a lesson from the sprawling swordfight in Die Another Day, and realised that this stuff---real human stuntwork, not CG---has a much bigger "wow" factor with audiences these days.

I especially like the bit where the dude dives through a tiny ceiling window and then Bond just comes through the wall. That established in a half second what kind of Bond this guy is supposed to be.

Maybe after the Bourne Identity and its sequel, these folks realized that in the haze of gadgets and corny gags, other people were doing the secret agent movie and doing a better job. They really delivered this time, and I think that despite reservations about Bond's hair, they tried to return to some of the intrigue and complexity of earlier movies, which was lost in the gradual dumbing down of everything.

Caj

Post by **Dale** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:56 am

djm wrote:I was surprised by this movie too, especially since I never liked any of the other hokey Bond films. This one was more believable and left out all the previous cornball attempts at humour.

Well put. I thought the Roger Moore period was just beyond silly. Bad, bad casting, among other things.

tuaz · Post by **tuaz** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:52 am

I liked it, and thought Craig was a very credible Bond.

The only thing I didn't like was the [SPOILERS BELOW!]
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

....tacked-on last act of the movie (to me this was worse than the "many-endings" thing in Return of the King), where everything that happened you could see coming a mile away. It had the inevitability of a really slo-mo car crash, and it didn't even make much sense. I mean, why in the world would Vesper find it necessary to reject Bond's help and let herself drown? I didn't get it, since it was made clear that she had only betrayed Bond under compulsion, and not voluntarily.

chrisoff · Post by **chrisoff** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:00 am

Caj wrote:
I especially like the bit where the dude dives through a tiny ceiling window and then Bond just comes through the wall.

I loved that bit.

Almost as much as I loved Eva Green *sigh*

But not nearly as much as some girls I know loved Daniel Craig getting out of the water *grumble*

Overall this was the best Bond movie for a long time. While I don't mind some gadgets it was starting to get really silly again by the end of Pierce Brosnan's reign (friggin invisible cars and ice buildings). I could see it starting to go down the road that some of the same roads that the self referencing Moore ones did (you know the ones with that irritating Sheriff that seemed to be cashing on Smokey and the Bandit. The scene where he doesn't believe that Moore is the famous James Bond is one of the worst bond scenes ever).

It's good to see Bond being badass and kicking/shooting the hell out of everyone. Looking forward to the next one.