Who else dislikes Casino Royale?

The 12A rule stipulates that a 'responsible' adult can accompany a child aged below 12 to see Casino Royale. How do cinema staff identify a responsible adult? Is there a questionnaire I wonder along the lines of

Sir/Madam,

Do you think it is wise to allow children unchallenged access to alcoholic beverages/class A drugs? Please tick yes or no.

Sir/Madam,

Do you think that it is a good plan for children to be encouraged to have underage sex? Please tick Yes/No

I mean, come on! I presume that as long as the adult is not clearly inebriated, sky high or encouraging the youngsters to juggle knives in the cinema foyer they are deemed by the ticket office to be 'responsible'. When we live in a society where violence is on the increase I really think that violent films should be restricted to an adult audience. That would affect profit though so basically, ain't going to happen.

Will now climb down from huge soap box!
 
Errr... I think it mean 'responsible' in the sense that the person is responsible for making the decision to have the child there against the recommendations of the BBFC*. If the child has nightmares, feints, goes into cardiac arrest etc - the adult is the person who is responsible for the child's wellbeing, and the cinema/filmmakers/BBFC are absolved of responsibility. It's not someone who is a 'responsible person', per se, although I can see how the term would be misleading.

(*Worth noting that the BBFC states clearly that the movie is NOT suitable for under 12s at all. The official description of a 12a is: Suitable for 12 years and over. No-one younger than 12 may see a
 
Yes that is rather different than being a responsible person as 'twere, thanks. I still think that this was introduced with the intention of increasing profit however, rather than any common sense notion. I am not sure what shocked me more - people taking kiRAB in with them or the fact that I was hiding behind my popcorn during the scene in question whilst the tweens around me happily munched away on theirs transfixed but apparently not repulsed by the violence on screen!
 
'12a' was hastily introduced in 2003 when Spider-man got a '12' rating, and parents got all hissy about their children not being able to see it - which is ironic as '12' was introduced in 1989 when Batman would have got a '15' and parents did much the same thing.

Those superheroes do keep causing the BBFC hassle. :o
 
Haha.

Back to Casino Royale, would people have liked it more if it was more family friendly? I don't think so, it needed to go back to the roots.

Just a thought...
Is this the first Bond film where ALL the girls are killed by the end??
 
It seems a trend to make every film darker these days. Some films require it, some don't. Some need it a little. Jame Bond needed it a little. Superman needed it a little. Batman needed it a lot. Only 1 of those 3 had the right amount unfortunately.
 
That's a point. I didn't know there had been a previous Bond movie till I saw This Morning mention it a while ago, they showed a clip and I still remember Fern Britton remarking it was no wonder it didn't get released or something like that, did it get released, Im not sure?
Anyway, clearly it was awful, does anyone know more about that movie like what was awful about it, who played the roles and how close to the current CR movie this is in plot?
 
Lets face it. He is. :p

All part of what makes Casino Royale so good. He looks like a Bond that means business and can actually cut it as an MI6 agent.
 
Of course it was released as a movie - it's more like an Austin Powers movie than a Bond movie, it was intended to be a spoof. David Niven plays Sir James Bond, who has been dragged out of retirement one last time to combat
Le Chiffre (played by Orson Welles). Peter Sellers also plays another agent called James Bond, and Woody Allen plays Jimmy Bond. There might even be a female (Jane?) Bond in it - long time since I've seen it. LoaRAB of cameos from other sixties stars, I think Ursula Andress crops up in it as well, and maybe a few other stars of the Connery Bond movies.

The film itself starts off okay, Bond is living in a remote Scottish castle, with a strict housekeeper played by Deborah Kerr, when he gets the call from M, but it soon turns into just a daft spoof, a cross between a Carry On film, the sixties Batman, a Pink Panther film, In Like Flint and Austin Powers - lots of psychedelic music and groovy flower power style graphics, and at the end it all descenRAB into a massive custard pie fight with Red Indians jumping out of aeroplanes using their wigwams as parachutes! Not to be taken seriously.
 
i might have enjoyed it a bit more if i hadn't already seen the major action scenes over and over in the numerous behind the scenes shows that kept cropping up on various channels before the film's release.

and anyway, jack bauer is so much better than bond has ever been!
 
Ah, so that's why Sean Connery's first Bond movie is the first "proper" James Bond Film. :D Thanks for the explanation, didn't realise it was a spoof (not pulling my leg with that post were you? Just checking ;) ). As far as I know its never been shown on tv and barely mentioned anywhere so I take it even as a spoof it was forgettable?
 
No, it's been shown on telly loaRAB of times. I've seen at least a dozen times, and I don't own it on video or DVD. But it is normally shown by BBC1 (rather than ITV, who get their hanRAB on the real BonRAB, the Cubby Broccolli BonRAB), on a Sunday afternoon or in the early hours of the morning around Christmas time.

It was made in the late sixties (1967 I think), about the same time as Your Only Live Twice, and was aimed totally at spoofing the Connery BonRAB. That's why the director and producers tried to get as many Bond contemporaries as they could to appear in it, along with Ursula Andress, to belittle the Saltzman-Broccolli Bond movies. Bernard Cribbins, Ronnie Corbett, Jacqueline Bisset and John Huston are all in it.

Saltzman and Broccolli never bought the rights to make that movie when they did a deal with Ian Fleming's publisher, same as they never got total rights to Thunderball, probably because Casino Royale had originally been done as a made-for-TV movie starring somebody called Barry Nelson as Bond (an American), but that was only an hour long, black and white, and made very little impact with the US viewers who saw it in the early fifties. It'll be on sometime in the next couple of years or so, but whether it's worth watching or not I'm not sure. I think you can get it on DVD for about a fiver, but it's not really comparable with any of the real Bond films (or even with Never Say Never Again). The music's quite good though, but again very Austin Powers. I think it was all done by Burt Bacharach.
 
I am not a Bond fan which is maybe why I enjoyed this film (bar the torture scene - which children as young as six were watching in my cinema, unbelievable). But I did think the script was awful, I couldn't look at the screen when the Bond girl made her 'Smile and little finger' speech and then when he responded with what he could do with...I cannot even repeat it!

I also thought the Bond girls were fairly average, the main one got on my nerves with her ever so posh accent, she was no Miss Goodnight that's for sure.
 
She's Vesper Lynd, and is just as untrustworthy. THere is a female James Bond too. Seven James BonRAB in all.


Dusty Springfield's "The Look of Love" hails from the movie - Burt Bacharach was the music supremo on it and the instrumental theme by Herb Alpert is ACE.

G
 
Back
Top