Casino Royale

Yeah it was getting very OTT in crappy CGI and really ridiculous gadgets. The invisible car sequence in Die Another Die was really the last straw for me! I thought this franchise was dead but it is reborn! :D
 
As another long-standing Bond fan I had high hopes for this reboot / reinvention, especially after the disappointments of recent Bond movies. I wasn't disappointed - CR may be one of the best of the entire series.

I'd never paid much attention to DC until I saw Layer Cake recently and I thought he was excellent in that. In CR he plays a tougher, edgier Bond, free from all the silly suave smarminess that has blighted the series since the days of Roger Moore.

The supporting characters were also very good, in particular the very lovely Eva Green and MaRAB Mikkelsen, who played Le Chiffre.

I was very pleased to see that the movie was pretty gadget-free and that there were no world-conquering super-villains (how could there be after Austin Powers?) - just a refreshingly contemporary tale of crooks financing terrorism.

Martin Campbell's direction was also superb - the free-running sequence was just jaw-dropping. Also the card game, which could come across as terribly boring in the wrong hanRAB, had real tension.

For those who remember, Campbell directed the TV drama "Edge of Darkness", which IMO is easily one of the best British TV dramas of the last quarter century, so I was execting good things from him and I was duly impressed.

And Bond's attachment to the female lead was a nice touch to explain why, in later stories, he would be a love-'em-and-leave-'em type (possibly with the exception of OHMSS.)

The film was also free of many of the old Bond cliches, like not ordering his favourite drink as you might expect or him looking rather uncomfortable in a tuxedo.

Incidentally, I see that Daniel Craig and Eva Green are to be reunited on screen in the adaptation of Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" stories.
 
The Ian Fleming stories always continued on, but the movies were just randomly picked.

The first few books were Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, DiamonRAB are Forever.

The movies are really just self contained.

Woo 1000 posts!!
 
Hmm, very Alan Partridge though. Don't get me wrong - I love the old Bond movies as much as the next man but there is, to be fair, plenty of those movies now and it was high time Bond was re-invented and taken back to his roots. I thought Brosnan was good but there was always an element of the Milk Tray man about him and his films, and things like Austin Powers and Johnny English made the whole thing look increasingly arthritic.

The Dalton years didn't work commercially because it was the 80's glossy high-concept blockbuster age, and a gritty serious Bond didn't fit in with the times. Now, people look back and say Dalton was actually an excellent Bond (which I think he was, although he needed a little more humour). The time is now right for a more ruthless and arse-kicking Bond, which is why Casino Royale is getting raves and blitzing the box office. And I think you're wrong - I think people will look back on Casino Royale in years to come as being one of the best ever Bond films.
 
the writers didn't revert to using a story which had a romantic plot . the only reason the film was made is that the producers finaly got the rights to the film, some american tv company made a play years ago renaming bond to jimmy bond!!! . Had this tv company not held the rights it probably would have beed the first bond film and not dr no
 
I knew Desmond Llewelyn had died, I just thought the Q was a transferrable code name. (Or did they decide not to use Q out of respect for Desmon Llewelyn?).
 
Of course, there are a huge number of films that I don't want to see but I tend not to post comments about them, only the ones I've seen. (Unless it's the 'What films would you never go to see' thread)
But that's just me.
 
'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!'

Actually Lee Tamahori wanted to introduce that idea in DAD explicitly,but the Broccolis didnt want it.

I think its a good idea,even if a few things like the death of Tracy would have to be explained within its context
 
i have just seen it and it is very good so many twists to it and i think he'll make a good bond althou in my mind there will never be bond film as good as goldfinger but yeah its def very good
 
I think that men and women view this film in a TOTALLY different way.

As a 33 year old woman with a bit of a thing for blonde men maybe I was always going to be hooked but I was totally and utterly DAZZLED by Daniel Craig in Casino Royale.

I thought he was superb. Everything you want in a leading man and the best Bond by far for me. I think I walked around in a bit of a daze for a couple of days after seeing it cos I was so blown away by him!

He's made Bond a very bad boy and we all know the ladies love a bad boy! :D
 
Well if you look back to the early posts in the thread you'll see people saying they were excited about seeing it, some saying they weren't sure, and I said I didn't fancy it. After that other people said they didn't fancy it too. This is not posting comments about the film per se, but is posting comments about whether you want to see a film or not. I don't want to see this one but evidently you do. Simple, really. Hopefully you understand.
 
They have left out the stereotypical beginning??
Unbelievable, i will still watch it BUT arghhh.
Like bringing back Doctor Who without the music and the tardis if you ask me.
 
Back
Top