Casino Royale, Just Not Bond

S

sleepyyy

New member
Ok Sorry for another thred on this subject but after seeing this last night i just needed to get this of my chest!
As i think the film was not bad it just wasent Bond i felt cheated on watching this film.
the wrighters seemed like they never seen a james bond film before and it just never followed through.
So if you never seen a James bond film before then this is good stuff for entertainment. but i for one would leave this out of the box set.

Ok lets think about it this is the story of james bond's first mission as a double "0" agent (Licence To Kill).
Nothing said about him being in the Navy in which he was and Ranked "Commanda" (Bond).
But Director: Martin Campbell who aslo directed Goldeneye i think let some slip pass him which is Judi Dench as "M"
in Goldeneye Bond and another Mi6 agent are talking about the "New" M (Judi Dench) in which she over hears them an pulls james up about later on.
but in casino Royale she's already M and Premotes our hero to a double "0" status,
so i think they should have recast her part to a Naval officer more to the original "M" (Bernard Lee) Type of carecter.
And futher more the americans answers to bond C.I.A Agent Felix Leiter was played by a black guy? (ok this not the first time this is happened but we carnt count that as never say never again was not an offical james bond film).
first played by Jack Lord but more known as the part is David Hedison who was last Seen in Licence To Kill in 1989
in which had his leg fed to a hungry shark!!!

Too me from Goldeneye to Die another day which were on form to the 007 as we all know played by Pierce Brosnan started to go down hill even if they were all good films with ok little boo boo's like Jack Wade (Joe Don Baker) the C.I.A agent who took over from Felix Leiter (David Hedison),
Joe Don Baker already played a part in a bond film The Living Daylights 1987 the evil arms dealer Brad Whitaker.
And to skip a few films to Die another day an invisable Car
a bit to far for my liking these i can forgive.

So as far as my review go's were a long way off of Albert R. Broccoli's and Ian Fleming "James Bond" films go!
what has happened to our once true birtish icon the man who we all dreamed of wanting to be the charm the gadgets and the very nice ladies.

Bring back BOND the way he's ment to be
 
So much passion!

Whichever way you spin it, they've wrested enough from the franchise over the decades that Casino Royale failed to really excite me. Whether he's tough or vulnerable or wisecracking it's still same old same old.
 
All im sayin in the long runs is that thay should have had a different "M"
as in goldeneye bond was in chit chat with someone eles about a "M" and they didnt aprove being a Female taking over?
but in the new film she already there "AS M" and bond is just made in to a "00" agent
dont get me wrong the film was ok but it just have that follow on to the rest just all wrong!
as like meany other tv and films Prequels some how losse the plot if not done right.
if they done a little bit more jiggert pokery on it it may have been in the same class thats all im saying
to me it just didnt work
 
ok i get what you mean but you got to say it's a hard thing to do by just forgetting the rest of 20 films in fact and now were having to do a reboot on the back to the very begining which if staying true to the novels we be having remakes next how meany people going to take to the fact that Dr No, thunderball and you only live twice ect ect. are going to be.
and the fact is for a whole new novel based set of film it should have been a total recast so confussion wouldent get in the way
and for the fact that CASINO ROYALE is NOT the 21st
James Bond Film but the first based on a Noval of Ian Flemming's James Bond In Casino Royale
 
Ahh... we had this problem with people on the movie forums and Batman Begins... some people can't seem to grasp the 'it's not a prequel' concept.

It might have made it less confusing for certain people if Judy Dench wasn't M in this incarnation, but it seems a bit unfair to sack her from the role just cause some of the audience can't grasp the difference between a reboot and a prequel.
 
Well it would help if you didn't keep calling it a reboot. It may be a common term in movie buff circles but most people won't have a clue how you can reboot a film.

(BTW I thought Casino Royale was great, I just don't think you can call a film a reboot)
 
but the film is not a prequel it's a new begining?
oh god see what this film done to me :mad:

i can only say this there's only one James Bond and nothings going to change that "Sean Connery"
 
They have. They've gone back to the source - Ian Fleming. And anyone who can't see that doesn't really know much about the character of James Bond.
 
I though the pre-credits were excellent, the begining and middle were very good, and from the Aston DBS car crash onwarRAB was useless. The Sunday Telegraph's Seven seemed to agree with me giving ** (2/5). I have never seen a film where I have gone from loving it to hating it in 1 minute before. Poor.
 
Isn't "Re-Imagining" the current trendy term, or is that just for pointless remakes of already classic films? The Omen anyone ?

I haven't seen Casino Royale yet, but am fully in favour of showing Bond more as Fleming wrote him. I love the books, and whilst I enjoy the films, they were always better when based in reality, and believeable situations. For example, Die Another Day. Pre-credits sequence was excellent and I thought was really going to set the tone for a dark film. Then you got an invisible Aston Martin and the film just descended into farce. With possibly the worst CGI ever commited to film.

That's another thing - Bond should not rely on CGI. Some of the greatest stunts ever were performed on Bond films, like the ski jump at the beginning of "The Spy Who Loved Me", or the bungee jump in Goldeneye.

Looking at the trailers for Casino Royale, I think it looks very promising though. Hope to see it sometime this week.

OK, rant over. Thanks for reading.
 
I always thought the easiest way to make sense of the James Bond movies inconsistencies was to assume that
the name James Bond was a codename earned just like 007.So Daniel Craig was some some up and coming agent who after the last Bond either got killed or retired was recruited to take on the new identity James Bond and earn his 007 status.
I can vaguely remember reading about a script for the next bond film pre Pierce Brosnan in Empire magazine that was about someone kidnapping all the retired James bonRAB and having Lazenby, Moore and Connery all in the same film.

Personally I thought Daniel Craig was great and a much needed revamp of the series
 
Back
Top