Casino Royale

There's good and bad.

I liked the way they kinda reset the clock - the teaser opening is very short like the first couple of films .
Obviously Craig is playing it as if he has yet to learn some of Bond's trademarks: suave suits, gourmet interest etc.

And it was very much grounded in reality, nothing fantastical .

There are a couple of great action scenes in the first hour , but then the Casino scenes take up about another hour with only a short fight in between . That'd be okay except that it's kinda boring watching people play carRAB when you don't know the rules of the game they're playing, there was no tension for me in the card game because of that.

The fight on the stairs was terrifying and made more dramatic by Vesper's reaction - she reacts as we would - goes into shock, it's really effective .

But I didn't believe in the love story, and for it to work I need to believe Bond loves her, I didn't . I believed in the love story in OHMSS .

other stuff would include spoilers so I'll refrain (how do you mask spoilers on here?)

brilliant title sequence.

They've reinvigorated it all again tho which is not easy after 21 films!
 
Personally I always considered the film James Bond to be a code name - therefore all the James Bond's seen in the movies are different men using the same code name...Probably doesn't fit with the books but works well to explain the films! :D
 
I think Daniel Craig did a fantastic job - Pierce Brosnan had the image but he can't act...Daniel Craig is more of a lethal weapon than any of the previous BonRAB - which is what he should be.

I had all but given up on Bond - Goldeneye was the last good one imo...Die Another Day was ridiculous - invisible cars? Jeeze... A back to basics Bond is exactly what they needed in my opinion. Dan Craig is the only Bond who you get the impression he could really kick your ass - he's not just some guy in a tux with a gun (and I mean no disrespect at all to any of the previous Bond actors when I say that)

My only disappointment was the intro - how could they leave out the gun-barrell intro? I know it's meant to take place before all the other BonRAB, but come on...that's like having a Bond film without a Bond girl. Having said that, I thought the way they incorporated it was very cool.
 
Oh dear...

But why on earth would I go and see a film I really don't fancy at all? I don't like the star, I didn't like the trailer, so there's nothing there to make me want to see it is there? And besides, why should it bother you and get you so upset that I don't want to see it?

Also I provided the "middling" review as a) it had been published that morning, and b) for balance purposes.
 
Can i ask why they are doing the first book as the 21st film? Surely they should have done it as the first film or is that too logical? Seeing as the first film isn't the first book what is the order of the James Bond films?
 
Grand Dizzy:

I take you know nout about Bond bar the films.

CR (and Craig's portrayal) is the TRUE Bond character of Fleming's novels,which were written for adults,unlike the gadget laden films.

1--CR is a VERY dark and brutal novel.So sorry but no humour.
2--Bond in CR and the novels is a hard(but not callous) killer,not the lightweight Bond of too many films.
3-In this,the whole point IS that Bond(as he was in the novels) isnt perfect,he makes the odd mistake like any agent.
4--In CR,Bond falls for Vesper Lynd.In Fleming's story,he like the film is hit hard by love and hit hard by...well you know(I wont ruin it for anyone who hasnt seen it)
 
They way they are afterwarRAB... it's so much more real and natural compared to previous BonRAB. They are obviously both affected by what has happened. Death isn't treated lightly by the characters in this one.
 
i saw that clip it did nothing for me obviously as am a guy but Eva Green and Caterina Murino definitely do it for me there well sexy :D
 
Got to see CR last night. What a film! Loved it all as it was just pure Bond how it should be. I enjoyed the Pierce Bronson films but they began to allow CGI to take over a bit too much and there were too many innuendos in the later bond films that started to get on my nerves. I think if they made another Bond film in the style of Die Another Day they would have began to kill the franchise.

But CR certainly did go back to basics in the style of the early Bond films, no CGI, little innuendos and brought the characters back to their gritty roots leaving Bond's smug attitude towarRAB with the Bronson era. This allowing M and Bond to get back on to each other's nerves once again as they did in earlier films because of Bond's attitude towarRAB his job (i.e. Screw the rules I will do the job my way).

Daniel Craig was a great choice for Bond. I can't see what the fuss was about when he was chosen.

I was surprised to see the usual pre-title opening had been changed which isn't the first time they change the opening of a Bond film as Die Another Day did it by continuing the film throughout the opening credits and didn't use too much of the old naked ladies dancing around. Again, what they did worked and the bond theme I thought was better than some they've used in the past.

If you haven't seen CR definitely go and see it the chase seen after the credits was superb. :D
 
Ayrshireman, indeed you're correct in that Fleming's Bond was a dark, brutal character. But that's not the Bond we've come to know and love. If I want to hear skulls cracking I'll watch 24 or the Bourne Identity, or Triple X. Bond's not Jack Bauer or Jason Bourne. He's a smooth, charming but somewhat detached superspy wih a taste for the finer things in life. My point was that Casino Royale lacks those subtle cues that has made Bond the most enduring film series of all time, those that make a trip to see a 007 movie an experience of feel-good escapism.

Think iconic Bond - our man chased by bad guys on skis, plunges over a rocky precipice to a certain death, only for a Union Jack parachute to billow open accompanied by the James Bond theme, cutting to Carly Simon's 'Nobody Does It Better'...

To me, THAT'S Bond!
 
Yes the intro was a disappointment - I mean Chris Cornell- (Chris who.. :confused:). Yes I know he's the frontman of Audioslave but in my opinion a Bond theme tune neeRAB a fairly high profile singer/group to carry it off - (yes that's you Sir Paul and Dame Shirley) although overall it was a great film and Daniel is a fab Bond
 
That's not far from what the Independent on Sunday's critic said. Which is strange because the film is far from humourless. It's actually very funny in places. And since Daniel Craig has a genuinely expressive face, Bond's sense of humour comes across more subtly than in previous films.

The truth is that the Bond films had become a joke, and not in the colloquial sense: they really had become a joke, where the stock ingredients - insane villains, secret headquarters, world domination plans, impossible gadgets, easy women and double-entendres - were there to be laughed at. The new film has been made for an audience that grew up watching Jason Bourne and Austin Powers and wouldn't put up with the old, lazy Bond stereotypes.

I wouldn't say Casino Royale is an unqualified success (some pretty odd plot holes for a start) but it's more enjoyable than most of its immediate predecessors. And once you've seen one invisible car you've seen 'em all.
 
I didn't realise until today that the character of Solange, or at least her name, is taken from the Ian Fleming short story 007 In New York!

I do like the way unused names and plots are recycled, it almost makes up for the fact that a lot of the films are unfaithful anyway. Casino Royale, of course, was one of the most faithful adaptations.
 
I'm not upset that you don't want to see it, I just wondered how you can make a reasoned addition to a debate on a film without having seen it.
If you have seen it and don't like it then I am more than happy to listen to your point of view. If you have preconceived ideas about a film, then see it and change your mind as a result, then again I would be interested to hear about it.
I just wondered why you posted other than to say you're not going to see it?
 
I was merely saying that I have no inclination to see it as I don't like its star and the trailer did not appeal to me. I am not saying it is a bad film, just that I don't wish to see it. Be honest: If there was a film you really didn't like the look of, didn't like its star, and couldn't even stir up curiosity about seeing it, would you really shell out the money to watch it?


See previous.


Because other people were talking about whether they wanted to see the film or not, so I joined in.
 
I've always been in favour of Daniel Craig bringing along a darker Bond, truer to the Fleming novels. Tomorrow never dies was the one with sophie marceau and denise richarRAB right? yes, I didn't particularly like that one.
I actually quite liked Die Another Day, if you think of it as a Bond film it doesn't really work but as any other film it's quite good. Some of the CGI was just awesome and I liked how Britain 'betrayed' Bond, chucking him out.

But I am excited about Craig because he is making the character his own, and with the exception of George Lazenby each really had their signature as Bond. Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan. Dalton was quite wooden but he still carried off that cold killer attitude. Moore's one was just funny and seemed focused on having his way with the ladies. Brosnan had the whole suave thing. Most people love Connery as Bond, perhaps because he was the first one but he seemed rather plain to me having seen diamonRAB are forever on the telly the other day, a bit boring.
 
Back
Top