Casino Royale

[Gray Ghost]

I plan to go see it, but I had reservations to how it would turn out. With this being the beginning of 007, you would think that M would be played by a man instead of the woman that played it for Brosnan. It made sense, in the Brosnan Films, to me that a woman would eventually be M but with this being the origins of James Bond they would have chosen someone else. I will alway be a Connery fan and I liked how Brosnan did the character. Hopefully the new Bond will be just as good. I heard that Cary Grant was willing to do the role orginally but turned it down when he was told that they wanted him for a series of movies. He did not want to get tied down with a series and turned it down. It is a shame, he would have been great.

Gray Ghost

 

[GOK]

One thing Craig does have to his advantage: He's not Clive Owen. I really can't believe the people who keep suggesting him whenever a new actor for Bond is brought up, Owen is a dreadful (bad) TV actor with unbelievably bad veneers. Please no! He of the same ilk as Lewis Collins was in the past and he would have been just as bad a choice.

I couldn't agree more. I'm sure Mr. Owen is a very nice man but his acting abilities seem dubious at best. But having said that, he's been given some real stinkers to work with, so who knows? He may have talent. However, Bond, he is not.

Who would I like to see as Bond? Damien Lewis or maybe Kevin McKidd (Vorenus from Rome.)

Can't agree with Damien Lewis (although he is a fine actor) but I see where you're coming from with McKidd. In fact, I always used to get him mixed up with Craig.

I personally would love to see Jason Isaacs as Bond - IMO, he'd be perfect.

I liked Brosnan as Bond

Me too...and he looked fantastic in a suit!

His Bond movies were big silly pics. But in Britain that's what we expect Bond movies to be, they were often released in November as a Xmas treat for the family.

Agreed - totally silly and pure escapism. Although the last Brosnan Bond film was complete rubbish. Pop songs instead of incidental music??? No thank you - we don't need Bond to be hip and trendy; he does just nicely being urbane and cool.

I went to see Casino Royale last night and was not in any way disappointed. It was gritty. It was dirty. It was raw. And so was Bond.

I don't think the following contains any spoilers - I've tried to refrain from giving anything away.

Daniel Craig manages to exude sex appeal without even trying; you know he's dangerous to know; you know he's not a nice man; and you know you'd melt into into his arms at any given opportunity. I personally don't go for rugged men (Indy is the exception!) - I prefer men to be refined and perfect gentlemen...so why did I find myself sitting in the cinema, completely agog and lusting?! Answers on a postcard please!

And speaking of Dr. Jones - there were two (at least) Indy-style scenes in the film!

In terms of the film itself, the chase at the beginning was beautifully implemented (even if it did remind me of playing Prince of Persia!) and I found myself 'oohing' and 'ouching' on more than one occasion. It's been a long time since I've become that immersed that quickly in a film.

The retrospective parts were very well done, I thought. Again, very gritty and completely inelegant - something we're not used to seeing with Bond. Even his revolvers were huge and cumbersome compared to the usual Walther PPK. I loved the 'how Bond got...' bits; the Aston Martin, the Martini...and the seamless transition between the old car and the newer model.

I agree with that reviewer about the lack of gadgets, although obviously he had to have some technology at his disposal. The fights were harsh and lacking in finesse, therefore rather believable and frankly, I don't think any Bond has been duffed up as much as this one.

Oh and the torture scene. Non graphic but totally painful to watch.

The violence was far more realistic in this film - none of the virtually bloodless cartoon fights of previous films. Bond bled...a lot. So much so that I was surprised by the low 12A rating it got over here. I don't think I'd want a 12 year old watching it, to be honest.

Insights into his character were a nice touch and I thought the shower scene was rather touching. I liked the fact that he wasn't bedhopping all the time - it made a refreshing change to the usual fare. I can't really say any more about that aspect though, at this juncture, for reasons that will become apparent when people see the film.

The thing that I was really struck by was the music. Here is the story of the man who would be Bond, consequently there is no familiar Bond theme........until the very last part of the final scene.

I really want to see it again because I'm sure there are subtle bits that I missed.

If people are expecting a Boys' Own tale of fast cars, fast women and the usual Bond fare, you might be disappointed but if you want an honest to goodness action film that just happens to be about a character named James Bond, then this is it.

In fact, I think that's it - the film was about James Bond and not 007 starring in yet another world-saving mission.

 

[Jack Scorpion]

Casino Royale was a big winner in my book. A big winner.

 

[Mark G]

SPOILER Removed by slightly annoyed Bartender. -HJ

 

[Wolfie]

We saw the movie last evening and it was excellent. David Craig is the best Bond replacement yet. Of cousre, no one will ever do a better job than Sean Connery.

 

[Gray Ghost]

The review sounds great. I will definetley have to see it now.

Ghost, Gray Ghost

 

[flat-top]

Saw it last night, and like the rest of you guys, I loved it! The opening action sequences are so well done that you can't even believe what you're watching! Craig is a great Bond. I felt that he was kind of paying tribute to Connery in a way. He definitely has his swagger. Great job all around!

 

[Harp]

007

I'm going to try and see CR tomorrow. Craig seems to have made
a favorable impression.

 

[Solid Citizen]

The Jimmy Buffest Bond

A long stale movie series since the decades ago departure of Connery became interesting again with Mr.Craig. :eusa_clap

SC

 

[GOK]

And there I was, trying not to post any giveaways by commenting on that scene in black! <snigger>

 

[Novella]

Just went and saw it today. Fantastic film! When's the next one?

 

[lindylady]

Daniel Craig definitely is a different type of Bond. He's tough as nails, hard-core, extremely buff- not to mention blond! I'm still getting used to the new Bond, but Casino Royale is a good action-packed movie to see this holiday weekend.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Laughably Bad (THIS POST HAS SPOILERS)

I hate to be the voice of dissent here, but I was appalled at how bad this film is. If you recall, I swore I wouldn't see it because of their choice of Bond. The surprise here is I liked Daniel Craig as Bond. He is not the problem; the film is.

The pacing of this film is terrible and the tone is extremely uneven.

SPOILERS TO SOME EXTENT BEGIN HERE

It begins with a sequence in black and white for no good reason, and these scenes were encouraging. It then transitions to a more traditional and highly, make that ridiculously, implausible chase scene around a construction site that begs any thinking person to say, "Hey Bond, just wait until he comes down."

This film spends what feels like an hour at a card game. Now sure some exciting things happen in between, but some of these play like non sequiturs. This film is edited so poorly it's difficult to make sense of the transitions.

There are many jarring and odd transitions as if whole sequences of the film were removed. The sound editing is bad making it very difficult to discern Craig's mumbles and he does mumble, even as a plot device.

What really killed it for me is how ridiculously ineffectual this Bond is. He cannot even drive his car. This is shown in the preview, so it isn't a spoiler per se, but Bond is so poor a driver he cannot swerve around a girl lying in the road. It is worse than the Connery scene in Goldfinger when the mirror forced him to drive into the wall; Connery looked cool doing it; this Bond looks foolish. It's embarrassingly bad.

What brought the most derision from me is the laughably bad dialogue between him and his love interest. It seems stolen from the worst dime store romance. It is so awful, I felt shame for Craig and her for saying it.

He contradicts himself badly at the end, I won't say how because, if you haven't seen it, I don't want to ruin it. The entire plot of this film is indiscernible; it's difficult to care about any of it, that is if you figure out what is going on.

And lastly, it ended so flatly, I was amazed it was over. It didn't end; it just stopped.

It's not Criag. Craig is very good. But this Bond needs rescuing from a competent writer and director.

I beg you not to waste your time on this.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Well, Hem certainly does sum it up. This movie stinks! I found myself drifting off during parts of it.
Craig is good as Bond, I was surprised I liked him. But the dialogue, the plot, the mumbles, all terrible.
It did have a few, and I mean very few parts that I liked. But I'm so overwhelmed by how bad this movie is, I can't even remember what it was that I actually liked about this film.
Oh, and what's up with Bond be a love struck fool? Like I said, Craig was pretty good, but the character was weak, especially surprising being that he is James Bond.
Well, I wouldn't recommend this movie. Bring back the days of Connery, Please!!!!

 

[flat-top]

The idea here, ala "Batman Begins" is that this Bond is a novice, so he does trip up every so often! I agree that that the dialogue between him and the girl is cheesy, but after what happens, by the end of the movie, he IS the Bond we've come to know and love!

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

The idea here, ala "Batman Begins" is that this Bond is a novice, so he does trip up every so often! I agree that that the dialogue between him and the girl is cheesy, but after what happens, by the end of the movie, he IS the Bond we've come to know and love!

Yes, I understand that he is going to trip up. But, the movie was poorly written. They spent much too much time playing cards. The dialogue was bad. And yes, Bond is bound to trip up every now and again, especially being that he's new, but they made him much too weak. To me this was more than a slip up. I also felt that there wasn't any continuity. The writing was bad. The plot is un-known. I wasn't captivated by this movie at all. It was a big jumble of fight scenes and card games. Yes, Craig is likable, and he looks great, especially in the gorgeous tux he wears. But, not even his good looks can make up for the how bad the film is.. Just my opinion.

 

[carebear]

Yes, I understand that he is going to trip up. But, the movie was poorly written. They spent much too much time playing cards. The dialogue was bad. And yes, Bond is bound to trip up every now and again, especially being that he's new, but they made him much too weak. To me this was more than a slip up. I also felt that there wasn't any continuity. The writing was bad. The plot is un-known. I wasn't captivated by this movie at all. It was a big jumble of fight scenes and card games. Yes, Craig is likable, and he looks great, especially in the gorgeous tux he wears. But, not even his good looks can make up for the how bad the film is.. Just my opinion.

I did wonder how they would put in the cards.


{spoilers -book anyway-}









The card game was the key element of the book. Le Chiffre was given money by the Sov's to finance commie spy rings in Europe, he skimmed funds off to finance his own lifestyle and was trying to raise the replacement funds (only about $50K IIRC) by gambling. The Secret Service and the CIA and the French service gets wind of it and Bond, who is known to be an accomplished gambler, is assigned, not to kill or arrest Le Chiffre himself, but just to outgamble him so he can't win the money and thus will be either be open to be turned or be killed by the KGB (I can't remember exactly).

So the cards are key, that's the only reason he's there, to make someone else lose a card game. Much like Goldfinger... {book spoiler}





wasn't about nuking Ft. Knox but rather Auric G. smuggling gold out of Britain to resell it in India at a higher (non-government set (dang socialists)) exchange rate. Back when a nation's gold supply secured the value of its currency and export was strictly controlled that was a BIG financial gambit. The movie had to dumb it down rather than explain the finance aspects.

Don't even get me started on how cool an actual "The Spy Who Loved Me" take on that story would be.

I'll go see this Bond movie, because I go see all Bond movies. It's nice to get a different take on it, thanks Hem and Daisy.

 

[Blackhorse]

HJ! My man! I couldn't have said it better myself:

I too was amazed by the "highly, make that ridiculously, implausible chase scene" (ref. to the construction zone fight). Certainly bond films should be above the ridiculous and implausible! Hmm-m-m-m. Was that black guy Bond chased the African Jackie Chan? Ridiculous...AND implausible! Snicker.

I too, like you, was saddened to see that "Bond is so poor a driver he cannot swerve around a girl lying in the road". Must have been that darn Ford Astin Martin DB6, clipping along at 80 or 90 on that swervy country road, rounding the hairpin, launching airborn and then bearing down on "the Babe", tied up and sprawled out on the middle of the pavement. Let's see...narrow road, 80-90, quick nip of the wheel...car goes ass over teacups off into the shoulder. Just like those darn Explorer's do when you nip the wheel at 80 or 90. I think to have NOT gone A.O.T. off the road would have been "ridiculous & implausible".

Oh, wait...I guess I'm being a bit slow. Bear with me, I'll catch up soon. (I'm smiling here) OK, by George I've got it: Ridiculous & implausible are taboo in a fight chase scene...but desirable in a car chase scene! lol

Horrible film AND sound editing [huh] ...well, I didn't catch that, but then I'm no expert. I had no trouble following the transitions and segues though. The transition I noted was that of twelve bucks going out of my pocket and into the hands of the movie industry. To me, money well spent.

 

[Phil]

I also must agree with Hemingway Jones. It wasn't a terrible movie, but I wouldn't spend another $10 to see it. The one thing I really didn't like was the the ony "gadget" was the AED in the glove compartment. It just isn't Bond to me without the spiffy gadgets.

As a side note, the chase scene in the begining isn't impossible. There are people called Street Runners and/or Free Runners. They do stuff like that for fun and exercise. So, it is very possible that someone could do that.
Here's a cool video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXnZCtOASgg

 

[GOK]

As a side note, the chase scene in the begining isn't impossible. There are people called Street Runners and/or Free Runners. They do stuff like that for fun and exercise. So, it is very possible that someone could do that.
Here's a cool video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXnZCtOASgg

Wow - those boys are amazing! My muscles ached just watching that clip. The Bond scene only differed from that in that it was better edited, more polished and looked quite choreographed. I liked it.

(I'm smiling here) OK, by George I've got it: Ridiculous & implausible are taboo in a fight chase scene...but desirable in a car chase scene!

:eusa_clap <snigger!>

The pacing of this film is terrible and the tone is extremely uneven.

OK, I concede that you may have a point here...

It then transitions to a more traditional and highly, make that ridiculously, implausible chase scene around a construction site that begs any thinking person to say, "Hey Bond, just wait until he comes down."

Oh, where's your sense of adventure, Old Chap? lol

This film spends what feels like an hour at a card game. Now sure some exciting things happen in between, but some of these play like non sequiturs. This film is edited so poorly it's difficult to make sense of the transitions.

Yes, it did drag out - not so much pace as plod but it wasn't unbearably bad IMO. Well, apart from le Chiffre's bland girlfriend/wife. I know she didn't really have to say anything but she was hardly attractive (IMO) and certainly not glamorous. I think casting could have done much better there.

There are many jarring and odd transitions as if whole sequences of the film were removed.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find they had been. And I also wouldn't be surprised to find that due to deadlines, some of the editing had been rushed.

The sound editing is bad making it very difficult to discern Craig's mumbles and he does mumble, even as a plot device.

I didn't pick up on this at all actually. I found the dialogue pretty easy to follow. And let's face it, nothing can be as bad as the SE on Seven!

What really killed it for me is how ridiculously ineffectual this Bond is. He cannot even drive his car. This is shown in the preview, so it isn't a spoiler per se, but Bond is so poor a driver he cannot swerve around a girl lying in the road.

Maybe he panicked? Let's not forget that at this point he is still very much a rookie. If this were a Brosnan film we were talking about, I'd be nodding my head in agreement with you Jones, but I think that due to the timeframe, we can be generous here. Besides, we women had the shower scene, so why shouldn't you men get the car smash?

Speaking of timeframes, that was one thing I did find difficult to get my head around. If this was a retrospective look at Bond, why was it set now? I can live with the female M but surely the references to 9/11 were uneccessary? Chronological ambiguity would have been preferable IMO.

What brought the most derision from me is the laughably bad dialogue between him and his love interest. It seems stolen from the worst dime store romance. It is so awful, I felt shame for Craig and her for saying it.

I deliberately avoided all mention of this in my earlier post because I think I was trying to blank it out but you're right. It was cheesy, contrived and completely insincere. If a man spoke to me like that, I'd be striving not to giggle. We're used to the rubbish Bond one-liners (IMO they are even worse when spoken by Brosnan) but some of the things Craig was given to say were apalling. Perhaps we ought to chalk it up to him not having learned anything about seduction yet?!

He contradicts himself badly at the end, I won't say how because, if you haven't seen it,

Was that in Venezia? If it's the part I'm thinking of, I agree and it puzzled me too.

And lastly, it ended so flatly, I was amazed it was over. It didn't end; it just stopped.

I liked that though. I'd like to say more about that final scene but I really don't want to post any spoilers!

It's not Criag. Craig is very good.

Indeed he is, as are a score of other actors that get given rubbish scripts and direction (di Caprio springs to mind).

But this Bond needs rescuing from a competent writer and director.

We can hope! But I'm not sure we will ever get a truly marvellous Bond film...and this was nowhere near as bad as the previous one.

Jones, I am surprised you had nothing to say about Venezia!

When all is said and done, I went to the cinema to be entertained by this film and I was. I wanted escapism, not realism and whilst in parts I found the film to be a tad too graphic to be purely fantastical, it did its job. It may not have been technically perfect and yes, there were flaws but I can live with that.

I watched Underworld Evolution last night....now that was an incredibly dire film - I'd be hard pushed to find one good thing to say about it.