James Bond-> Casino Royale

[zinfamous]

the reviews i've read and things i've heard make me want to go see it. ancillary to my typical snobby film taste, bond flicks are a guilty pleasure of mine. even though the last 2 or 3 have been a joke; i still enjoy watching them--the first time that is. i like the idea that this bond is a bit more raw, instinct-driven and that the script follows the original novel more than any other.

while i like the typical formula of bond flicks; "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is my favorite; being rather unconventional. i think lazenby got a bum rap. connery was great of course, but poor lazenby was barely in the door before connery decided to do one more. and it was maybe the worst ever (well...besides the majority of those that the filthy roger moore appeared in).
despite the fact that this bond is a blonde; i think i'll enjoy the new one. not a gay thing...it just makes sense to me that bond shouldn't have blonde hair; plus i've heard that his chest is all shaven...so the opposite seems to be going on: bond is being gayed-up. i don't have a problem with gayness--but god damn it! is nothing sacred?!

fellini once remarked that he never understood why any of the bond films won an award; as he always enjoyed them. if he said it...then there must be something to them. of course, he is fellini and was a notorious liar...guess he can say whatever he wants..

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: OFFascist
This was the best bond movie so far.

IMO it does for James Bond what Batman Begins did for Batman.

so I take it that there are a lot of poorly-edited, indistinguishable action sequences?


While I do enjoy some of the excesses of teh recent bond movies; they are also my main gripes. Yes, they are generally considered the standard for what an action movie should be...but with better character development (would have had to start years ago), they could have been much more than that. Bond's character always allowed room for complexity and stories far more interesting than "Insert twisted villain with diabolical (and usually unfeesible) plot for world domination; mix in babes and equally twisted diabolical/unfeesible evil lair." Sure, the formula can be fun seeing just how far the writers are willing to take it...but it's rare that these films have reminded us that this guy is indeed a human.

Once I see the damn thing, I'll be sure to throw in my 2 cents...

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
apparently you didn't read casino royale. the majority of the book centers on the poker games. and there's very little action other than bond taking copious amounts of a vast array of drugs (all at once, of course), having sex, and getting the crap beat out of him by the bad guy.

You mean baccarat.

 

[VIAN]

I think Casino Royale was one of the best 007 movies I've ever seen. Thank god someone stopped Brosnan before another piss poor movie was made. Three crap movies is already bad enough.

I had my doubts about this pretty boy becoming the new 007, but my doubts were extinguished within the first few minutes. He was classy like the other Bonds, but more edgy. And that's what I like about him the most.

The movie was suspenseful from almost beginning to end. But it always seemed that when Bond was in the deepest of troubles, some person rescued him. It seemed like a cheap way out. And the last love scene seemed to take way too long. I kept asking, why are we still here? Isn't the movie over? Instead of the story twisting on you, you knew the twist was coming. And it took forever to get there.

BTW, Idk what you guys are talking about, the guy that weeps blood is the bad guy. How is that not clear? And the plot is there, I didn't find it confusing to follow.

 

[VIAN]

nm

 

[brikis98]

Review with *SPOILERS*:





i thought the first ~half of the movie was fantastic. awesome to see bond's 1st two kills, that classic "bond scene" where he turns and fires @ the camera, and he becomes a double 0. i like how rash and tough he is, the free running kicked ass and seeing him develop is awesome. it was very bourne identity like, with tight pacing, quick thinking and slick action.

and then the movie takes a turn for the worse due to random and disconnected writing. the poker took way too long and wasn't interesting. he kills the black dudes, so we lose the villain's motivation. he's poisoned, then he's fine. there's a random CIA agent. the villian is a total sissy. bond is captured in a lame way and then some1 else kills the villian.

the script then totally loses grips with a bond movie and turns into a rushed, lame ass romance story. it felt forced, totally detached from the rest of the movie and completely out of place. they then throw in a VERY lame plot twist where she betrays him and sacrifices herself for no good reason. and then bond takes on a bunch of villians who spend a grand total of <5 min in the movie.

don't get me wrong... the character development bits were great: craig is awesome, "bond, james bond" was neat, discovering the drink & car was neat, but man, the actual "plot" was very poorly written.

overall: C+

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: brikis98
Review with *SPOILERS*:





i thought the first ~half of the movie was fantastic. awesome to see bond's 1st two kills, that classic "bond scene" where he turns and fires @ the camera, and he becomes a double 0. i like how rash and tough he is, the free running kicked ass and seeing him develop is awesome. it was very bourne identity like, with tight pacing, quick thinking and slick action.

and then the movie takes a turn for the worse due to random and disconnected writing. the poker took way too long and wasn't interesting. he kills the black dudes, so we lose the villain's motivation. he's poisoned, then he's fine. there's a random CIA agent. the villian is a total sissy. bond is captured in a lame way and then some1 else kills the villian.

the script then totally loses grips with a bond movie and turns into a rushed, lame ass romance story. it felt forced, totally detached from the rest of the movie and completely out of place. they then throw in a VERY lame plot twist where she betrays him and sacrifices herself for no good reason. and then bond takes on a bunch of villians who spend a grand total of <5 min in the movie.

don't get me wrong... the character development bits were great: craig is awesome, "bond, james bond" was neat, discovering the drink & car was neat, but man, the actual "plot" was very poorly written.

overall: C+

Those "freedom fighters" weren't the villians only clients. That wasn't a random CIA agent...that was Felix. The "floating around the world" part did drag a bit.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: brikis98
Review with *SPOILERS*:





i thought the first ~half of the movie was fantastic. awesome to see bond's 1st two kills, that classic "bond scene" where he turns and fires @ the camera, and he becomes a double 0. i like how rash and tough he is, the free running kicked ass and seeing him develop is awesome. it was very bourne identity like, with tight pacing, quick thinking and slick action.

and then the movie takes a turn for the worse due to random and disconnected writing. the poker took way too long and wasn't interesting. he kills the black dudes, so we lose the villain's motivation. he's poisoned, then he's fine. there's a random CIA agent. the villian is a total sissy. bond is captured in a lame way and then some1 else kills the villian.

the script then totally loses grips with a bond movie and turns into a rushed, lame ass romance story. it felt forced, totally detached from the rest of the movie and completely out of place. they then throw in a VERY lame plot twist where she betrays him and sacrifices herself for no good reason. and then bond takes on a bunch of villians who spend a grand total of <5 min in the movie.

don't get me wrong... the character development bits were great: craig is awesome, "bond, james bond" was neat, discovering the drink & car was neat, but man, the actual "plot" was very poorly written.

overall: C+

Those "freedom fighters" weren't the villians only clients. That wasn't a random CIA agent...that was Felix. The "floating around the world" part did drag a bit.

well, the only other threat to the villain was mr. white, who i don't think was a client, but more of a boss/business partner. either way, his role until the very end was tiny, so there was a lack of motivation. and i still argue it's dumb for a guy who's in the movie < 5 min. to kill the primary villain.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: brikis98
Review with *SPOILERS*:





i thought the first ~half of the movie was fantastic. awesome to see bond's 1st two kills, that classic "bond scene" where he turns and fires @ the camera, and he becomes a double 0. i like how rash and tough he is, the free running kicked ass and seeing him develop is awesome. it was very bourne identity like, with tight pacing, quick thinking and slick action.

and then the movie takes a turn for the worse due to random and disconnected writing. the poker took way too long and wasn't interesting. he kills the black dudes, so we lose the villain's motivation. he's poisoned, then he's fine. there's a random CIA agent. the villian is a total sissy. bond is captured in a lame way and then some1 else kills the villian.

the script then totally loses grips with a bond movie and turns into a rushed, lame ass romance story. it felt forced, totally detached from the rest of the movie and completely out of place. they then throw in a VERY lame plot twist where she betrays him and sacrifices herself for no good reason. and then bond takes on a bunch of villians who spend a grand total of <5 min in the movie.

don't get me wrong... the character development bits were great: craig is awesome, "bond, james bond" was neat, discovering the drink & car was neat, but man, the actual "plot" was very poorly written.

overall: C+

Those "freedom fighters" weren't the villians only clients. That wasn't a random CIA agent...that was Felix. The "floating around the world" part did drag a bit.

That was Felix?!

oh man, i completely missed that. that actor got his life made for him for the next 2 or 3 bond flicks.

btw- wasnt Felix killed in one of the Roger Moore's Bond flicks?

and yah, i disliked the way Mr. White came in from left field. and why did he use his real name?

tracking him by the msg left on her cell phone was too easy and stupid.

 

[Paddington]

It was a great film. The best Bond since Goldeneye definitely, and perhaps one of the best Bond films ever.

Daniel Craig will do well as Bond. :thumbsup:

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: brikis98
Review with *SPOILERS*:





i thought the first ~half of the movie was fantastic. awesome to see bond's 1st two kills, that classic "bond scene" where he turns and fires @ the camera, and he becomes a double 0. i like how rash and tough he is, the free running kicked ass and seeing him develop is awesome. it was very bourne identity like, with tight pacing, quick thinking and slick action.

and then the movie takes a turn for the worse due to random and disconnected writing. the poker took way too long and wasn't interesting. he kills the black dudes, so we lose the villain's motivation. he's poisoned, then he's fine. there's a random CIA agent. the villian is a total sissy. bond is captured in a lame way and then some1 else kills the villian.

the script then totally loses grips with a bond movie and turns into a rushed, lame ass romance story. it felt forced, totally detached from the rest of the movie and completely out of place. they then throw in a VERY lame plot twist where she betrays him and sacrifices herself for no good reason. and then bond takes on a bunch of villians who spend a grand total of <5 min in the movie.

don't get me wrong... the character development bits were great: craig is awesome, "bond, james bond" was neat, discovering the drink & car was neat, but man, the actual "plot" was very poorly written.

overall: C+

Those "freedom fighters" weren't the villians only clients. That wasn't a random CIA agent...that was Felix. The "floating around the world" part did drag a bit.

That was Felix?!

oh man, i completely missed that. that actor got his life made for him for the next 2 or 3 bond flicks.

btw- wasnt Felix killed in one of the Roger Moore's Bond flicks?

and yah, i disliked the way Mr. White came in from left field. and why did he use his real name?

tracking him by the msg left on her cell phone was too easy and stupid.

I think it was one of the Timothy Dalton flicks where Felix was killed.

 

[zinfamous]

just got back from it. i like what they've done with the character quite a bit. more maniacal, brutal, efficient...about what bond should be. although, the final shot leads me to believe that he'll be sliding gracefully into "the cool" that we expect bond to be. i hope there is some of that; but not too much. i like that bond is "scarable" in this one--particularly after the airport scene. i wish the scars had remained a bit more prominent throughout.

even death isn't reated lightly here. we get the sense that there is a human compaonent whenver bond kills, and that there are emotional repercussions.

my biggest complaint is that bond is supposed to be relying on wit and instince in this one, alhtough he wouldn't have gotten out o fuganda without a cell phone. too much depending on little cell phones. anyone is tracable, and it seems to be the only device that these high-minded criminals and intelligence agents are capable of using in order to secure information. not good for movie plotting either. let's see him do some more detective work.

and yeah, mr white came out of nowhere. very poorly-written plot point i would have to say.

general gripe: blonde hair, shaven chest. seems craig is going to continue the gayification of bond that brosnan started. he also looks more russian than british.
use of ford--bad move. disgusting in fact. reminds me of the worst bond film (other than the moore flicks after his first 3)--"diamonds are forever." mustangs. what a bunch of BS.

 

[da loser]

i went to see a bond action film, and all i saw was a romance movie. bond is supposed to be about cheesy one liners, action scenes, gadgets, slick spy, apparently what all the film critics despise. casino royale must've been directed by a woman, taking out all the good things and trying to explain the bond character without filling in the necessary info to understand it. then filling it in with mundane poker scenes and floating on a boat in italy.

if you like books you don't see the movies. movies are supposed to be exciting, and lack plot development just in your face, non subtle action.

this movie tried to be a book without the time to go in depth to explain anything, so the only people that understand this pile of crap are the people that read the book.

batman returns was a good example of taking liberties so that the movie could stand on it's on.

casino royale :thumbsdown:

 

[fbrdphreak]

Just saw it :thumbsup::thumbsup: Can't wait to see it again

 

[DayLaPaul]

Originally posted by: FleshLight
Player 1 reveals nut flush.
Player 2 reveals full house full of 8s.
Player 3 reveals full house full of Aces.
Player 4 reveals Straight Flush.

WOW. Player 3 would've won the jackpot in vegas =)

What casino offers a jackpot for aces full of 6's beaten?

 

[jessieqwert]

Originally posted by: da loser
i went to see a bond action film, and all i saw was a romance movie. bond is supposed to be about cheesy one liners, action scenes, gadgets, slick spy, apparently what all the film critics despise. casino royale must've been directed by a woman, taking out all the good things and trying to explain the bond character without filling in the necessary info to understand it. then filling it in with mundane poker scenes and floating on a boat in italy.

if you like books you don't see the movies. movies are supposed to be exciting, and lack plot development just in your face, non subtle action.

this movie tried to be a book without the time to go in depth to explain anything, so the only people that understand this pile of crap are the people that read the book.

batman returns was a good example of taking liberties so that the movie could stand on it's on.

casino royale :thumbsdown:

Saw Casino Royale last night. I was thrilled by it and enjoyed the entire movie. For those that complain about dialogue and more complex plots, producers make movies like Transporter 2. This was an intelligent movie that made the viewer think about plot and connect pieces of gathered info. 4/5 stars

 

[FreshPrince]

Let me just say that Eva Green is so much hawter than that other chick.....no contest.

if you don't think so, just google image search her name and if that still doesn't work, just watch "The Dreamers"

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: da loser
i went to see a bond action film, and all i saw was a romance movie. bond is supposed to be about cheesy one liners, action scenes, gadgets, slick spy, apparently what all the film critics despise. casino royale must've been directed by a woman, taking out all the good things and trying to explain the bond character without filling in the necessary info to understand it. then filling it in with mundane poker scenes and floating on a boat in italy.

if you like books you don't see the movies. movies are supposed to be exciting, and lack plot development just in your face, non subtle action.

this movie tried to be a book without the time to go in depth to explain anything, so the only people that understand this pile of crap are the people that read the book.

batman returns was a good example of taking liberties so that the movie could stand on it's on.

casino royale :thumbsdown:

oh, i get it. you're one of those young, dumb males that is responsible for the general sh1ttiness of american films these days. are you also responsible for vin diesel? if so, i'd like his number and address so that i can round up both of you and toss you into some basement...somewhere; as mine is too crowded as is.

hehe

 

[Babbles]

I just saw it tonight and thought it was one of the better Bond films ever made.

Daniel Craig did an excellent Bond, and the movie itself was just spectacular in regards to actual plot. The whole character development thing was done very well and I found it much more riveting than the last couple of Bond flicks.

I really think that the only people who wouldn't like this movie are those that don't care for character development and plot but would rather just see dumb mindless explosions over and over again. Which is fine if you like that sort of thing - I do on occasion - but I (and apparently most other people) think there is much more to the Bond character than whizz-bang gadgets.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Why are people complaining about the Ford? The Mondeo is a great car.
http://cars.uk.msn.com/news/car_news_article.aspx?cp-documentid=1249696

Because it's blatently obvious that it's just a payoff by ford to put it in there. I mean, the only scenes its in is like a ford commercial.

Not only that, but when you think Bond car, you think "BMW" or "Aston Martin"... Bond is a classy fellow, he needs to drive classy vehicles.

Perhaps you are just totally unaware of things - well you obviously are - but Ford owns Aston Martin therefore it makes perfect sense for one movie to have different cars owned by the same company (i.e. Ford). Additionally that Ford he was driving was, from the looks of it, some rental he picked up in the Bahamas. Good lord, even in the Bahamas I doubt they have freaking Aston Martins for rentals.

Critiquing a movie is all well and good, however to complain about him driving a Ford rental during a very itty bitty minor part of the movie (which does make perfect sense in context of the movie) is a rather dumb and silly thing to complain about.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

This was a mediocre (except perhaps for the opening chase) suspense flick, it was NOT a Bond film...
Craig has no sex-appeal (the only good thing he has is his voice), the love story was contrite, the chronology had the worst twist in the whole series since Goldeneye. Let's face it, Bond only goes on because Sony bought MGM and wants to squeeze this bit of juicy cultural property... the terrible product placement was another eye-roller.

In the end, the makers of this film should've realized they're not making another "Syriana" or "Lord of War". This was a Bond movie, damn it!... not high art! It's supposed to be escapist entertainment, I want comedic moments and a killer dialogue, not S&M scenes! And for crying out loud, I just saw "Maverick" again over the week-end... those poker-playing scenes were much better filmed and more suspenseful!!!

And listen, if we're talking about a confrontation between Bond and the villain, here's a comparison in similar positions... think of the scene in which Le Chiffre attacks Bond's genitalia, using a rope, try to remember that entire scene and entire dialogue, the way it's filmed and played... now flash back to Goldfinger, the scene in which Gert Froebe's character attempts to perform a similarly gruesome operation on the same secret agent's anatomic part..."You expect me to talk? No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" Brilliant! The entire "Casino Royale" is worth less than this perfect moment on celluloid... and this comes from a movie forty years older!

I know the original novel was gritty, but this is one of the rare instances when the films and the books became totally separate entities over the years! Today, I look at the Bond films and see the spirit of the age in each of them... when people will watch this in the context of our times, years from now, they'll exclaim "How bland!"

To the team responsible for this catastrophe: I suggest at least you watch "True Lies" again, see what made it tick!

 

[PoPPeR]

Originally posted by: FleshLight
Player 1 reveals nut flush.
Player 2 reveals full house full of 8s.
Player 3 reveals full house full of Aces.
Player 4 reveals Straight Flush.

WOW. Player 3 would've won the jackpot in vegas =)

if i'm not mistaken, to qualify for the bad beat bonus you have to have an Aces over Kings full house... and that's only if their minimum isn't four of a kind like a lot of places

 

[PoPPeR]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
This was a mediocre (except perhaps for the opening chase) suspense flick, it was NOT a Bond film...
Craig has no sex-appeal (the only good thing he has is his voice), the love story was contrite, the chronology had the worst twist in the whole series since Goldeneye. Let's face it, Bond only goes on because Sony bought MGM and wants to squeeze this bit of juicy cultural property... the terrible product placement was another eye-roller.

In the end, the makers of this film should've realized they're not making another "Syriana" or "Lord of War". This was a Bond movie, damn it!... not high art! It's supposed to be escapist entertainment, I want comedic moments and a killer dialogue, not S&M scenes! And for crying out loud, I just saw "Maverick" again over the week-end... those poker-playing scenes were much better filmed and more suspenseful!!!

And listen, if we're talking about a confrontation between Bond and the villain, here's a comparison in similar positions... think of the scene in which Le Chiffre attacks Bond's genitalia, using a rope, try to remember that entire scene and entire dialogue, the way it's filmed and played... now flash back to Goldfinger, the scene in which Gert Froebe's character attempts to perform a similarly gruesome operation on the same secret agent's anatomic part..."You expect me to talk? No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" Brilliant! The entire "Casino Royale" is worth less than this perfect moment on celluloid... and this comes from a movie forty years older!

I know the original novel was gritty, but this is one of the rare instances when the films and the books became totally separate entities over the years! Today, I look at the Bond films and see the spirit of the age in each of them... when people will watch this in the context of our times, years from now, they'll exclaim "How bland!"

To the team responsible for this catastrophe: I suggest at least you watch "True Lies" again, see what made it tick!

no sex appeal? did you miss those scenes when he didn't have a shirt on? Maybe he's not the most handsome of Hollywood actors, but the guy is freakin ripped.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Until he gets to take his shirt off, he needs to make women actually get interested in him... that thin upper lip, those flapping ears, the general allure of a hoodlum... yeah, I can definitely see women swooning over him "ooh, James!":disgust:

 

[MasterOfKtulu109]

Originally posted by: Aharami
the previous bonds seemed too unreal. is this one more realistic?

not at all. i'd never seen an entire bond movie in my life until this one. they're really not my thing, and im not sure why i saw this one. the first 45 mins or so are really good, then the casino part starts and its dumb.


if you've ever seen a single poker hand in your life, then you will probably be frustrated with how unreal the hands are. the ones in the movie coud NEVER HAPPEN in real life.

and the villain/antagonist is such a pussy and we don't know a single thing about him except hes a pussy with asthma. no character development, no memorable dialogue, pretty much another bond movie.