Casino Royale 007 thread

[Raptor]

At first I had my doubts about him...

Then I saw the trailer.

Damn I wanna see this movie.

[zeo-mare]

yup, i had my doubts, but after seeing the trailer i like what i see and really want to check out this film when it comes out.

chris

[Roy Focker]

Trailer looks good and makes me want to see the move but if you tell me the movie is a James Bond film I'll think your joking me.

[eugimon]

the new movie looks great, but I'm not sure what I think about moving away from the camp that made 007 famous... this new serious/dark tone feels more like a bourne movie than a bond movie.

then again, I haven't liked james bond since I was 7 so maybe this is a good thing

[areaseven]

Only 4 days left...

[CoryHolmes]

I dunno about how Craig looks as a Bond. He looks more like the stereotypical Russian baddie they had in the earlier Bond films. Just doesn't look Bondish enough for me.

[bigkid24]

I'll be watching it Friday morning. I'll let you guys know how it is.

Personally I want Craig to work even though I don't think he has that Bond look and quality to him.

[bsu legato]

In the meantime, you can amuse yourselves with this: Every James Bond credit sequence. Ever.

http://www.cityoffilms.com/index.php?subac...amp;ucat=4&

[Skullsixx]

I'm there Friday night!!! But I'll be looking for that review from ya seeing it Friday morning!

[Roy Focker]

I ended up being first in line for the first showing.

Some Observations:

Judy’s M:

Is she a new M or isn’t she? The film is post 9/11. M hints being in the business during the cold war. This suggests she’s always been M before Bond was 007. In Bronsan’s films she came later. She’s playing the character the same way. This M keeps telling Bond that he’s a blunt instrument. In the novel YOLT Blofeld tells Bond that’s he’s a blunt instrument. The insult from Bond’s most hated enemy becomes the line of his boss. Plus the old witch has some nasty yellow teeth. I really don’t like her. My mother adored her long before she won an Oscar. I still don’t think she’s right for the part. Her being M is a case of, we got a really actor available cast them anyways. The same can said be said for Craig.

Craig’s Bond:

Yes he’s a good actor but after watching he’s not right for the part. Whether he’s best or not doesn’t matter because he’s the ‘it’ actor to get. This Bond gives a cold or cruel vibe. Craig fits Fleming’s cruel killer. There has never been an uglier looking bond since, well never. The girls want to screw him anyways not because they are attracted to his face. I’ll get to that later. One thing he lacks is that boyish charm. I doubt his Bond could convince anyone to open her legs. His Bond is cruel and dead in personality. His best bet for scoring is to find a girl who wants revenge sex or really is depressed.

Trust me I got a great ass and a decent package but I don’t feel the need to wear really tight pants to show off either. There is plenty of tits and ass shown but its all Craig. Heck most of the half naked bathing beauties are Craig too. Plus we see a wang on a dead guy! Not Craig another dead guy.

How do you make Bond grittier? Dirt and blood. This bond needs to shave and take a bath. No one wears any makeup. You can even see wax in Craig’s ear. While Craig is a new Bond most of the same people are still behind the scenes. The action is more brutal but they find ways to stick in the cinematic destruction which ends seeming out of place. Don’t get me wrong it was a good movie, with good actors but it doesn’t feel like Bond.

[Mr March]

The film is a reimagining of the franchise. All continuity is out the door as I understand it.

It's basically Batman Begins, but for the James Bond franchise. REBOOT!

[DARTHTODD]

Great movie! Admitedly, it's different than the bond movies we're used to but in a good way IMO. A lot of the cheese is gone, the gadgetry is gone but the realism, acting, stunts are a lot better. Daniel Crag is great.

I'd strongly suggest seeing this, one of the best movies I've seen all year. My 2 cents.

[Roy Focker]

Still I'm confused about the action.

There are some good realistc action scenes like the restoom, stairs of the hotels etc. Then there is these over the top chases, explosions, building falling down. Those parts look the same old Bond but with more dirt on Bond.

[DARTHTODD]

Still I'm confused about the action.

There are some good realistc action scenes like the restoom, stairs of the hotels etc. Then there is these over the top chases, explosions, building falling down. Those parts look the same old Bond but with more dirt on Bond.

The thing to remember is it is still Bond, they couldn't take all of the over-the-top stuff away. IMO, they just lessened the amount which made for a much better movie. You still have your one-liners, fast cars, great chase-scenes just like the other Bonds. But you get much more realism & grittiness with this one, for once the villian is somewhat believable & not some overblown cliche. I really enjoyed it, some will not because it is a movie that is different from what you'd expect from a Bond movie. For me, it was the first Bond movie that really captured my attention & held it for the entire movie.

[Black Valkyrie]

FYI when Ian started to write the Bond novels, he based/imagined Bond as a Piano player he knew and the that piano player looked so similar and blonde as Daniel Craig.

[F360°]

isn't this suppose to be one of James bonds first missions when he finally got the 007 Agent status? So it does make prefect sense that he dosn't act like the Jame bond in the previous other movies yet. In this movie he's still a somewhat new employee and given time his skills and tactics will improve along with his status. It seem he's so new that Mi6 don't even feel like giving him any special gadgetry yet. Give hims some time to get to know more ladies, having more sex, kill more bad guys, used more gadgetry, gets more use to his new life style and he will grow into the Jame Bond that we know so well.

Also, there was so much Sony tech in the movie that I was expecting a Ps3 to pop up at any given second.

[Roy Focker]

But you get much more realism & grittiness with this one, for once the villian is somewhat believable & not some overblown cliche.

So two different colored eyes with a scar that cry blood isn't a Bond like villian cliche?

isn't this suppose to be one of James bonds first missions when he finally got the 007 Agent status? So it does make prefect sense that he dosn't act like the Jame bond in the previous other movies yet. In this movie he's still a somewhat new employee and given time his skills and tactics will improve along with his status. It seem he's so new that Mi6 don't even feel like giving him any special gadgetry yet. Give hims some time to get to know more ladies, having more sex, kill more bad guys, used more gadgetry, gets more use to his new life style and he will grow into the Jame Bond that we know so well.

Yet in the novel he is the same Bond. The characters ability to truly love changes in them. He gains it and loses it with Vesper only to do the same with Tracy. Casino Royal was the first novel but wasn't an Origin Story. The reckless arrogant brutish thug transformation to uber spy origin would have came about during the war. Where the young James Bond is recruited by the service. There's a few Fleming short stories deals with a few of these. By the time of Casino Royal he's already Bond, James Bond.

[UN Spacy]

What does Agent ONE think of this movie?

[Roy Focker]

I'll have to find out.

[JsARCLIGHT]

What does Agent ONE think of this movie?

I believe the old line is "No Schwarzenegger, not a good movie"

I went to see this last night with my wife. We both kind of liked it. I definitely have to eat my words when I said Craig could not pull off Bond, he did a respectable job. Still not a rival to Connery but better than the recent Bonds. The only place I can fault the movie is that I felt Bond came off kind of clumsy at times. I understand it is a "early, inexperienced" Bond but it just seemed like he had spots of amazing agility and dexterity with complete command of a situation and then he suddenly has spots of extreme clumsiness and poor judgment. Another thing that sort of confused my wife and I contains a spoiler so I will ask the question in "spoiler text" below:

-spoiler question- Why did Vesper just suddenly decide lock the elevator gate and let herself drown? M clearly states she was being blackmailed into helping the baddies because they held her boyfriend captive, she even deliberately leaves her phone behind so Bond can figure out the ruse and come after her... yet when the situation is resolving itself she suddenly decides to just let herself die? Why does that totally not make sense to us? It just seemed so pointless and that it only happens to give the story an "oh boo hoo my girlfriend's dead" angle. Hell, my wife thought it would have been better (and more hard for Bond to stomach) that he DOES rescue her and then finds out she is going back to her boyfriend and that SHE played HIM like he does to so many women.-spoiler question-

[bsu legato]

-spoiler question-

Well JsARC, I havent seen the film just yet, but in the novel

-spoiler answer-when Bond & Vesper are recuperating from the preceding events, she slips into depression because of the guilt she carries about her involvement, and eventually commits suicide.

I'm assuming what you describe is the movie's way of making it a bit more action packed.

[JsARCLIGHT]

-more spoiler talk- I can buy the "depresison" angle but in the movie when the whole sequence in the crumbling building is going down, my wife originally thought her intent was NOT to kill herself out of depression or guilt but to prevent Bond from trying to save her, thus endangering himself in the process. But the way it all plays out in the movie you can't really see it as that because he dispatched all the thungs and mister two-tone glasses (which we still can't figure out if that was LeChireffe or just some lookalike) and had tons of time to rescue her from the elevator. The whole "suicide from depression" angle just does not play out too well in my mind. It seems kind of flaky. Then again Vesper is a very underdeveloped and misused character in the movie. IMHO she is just basically "there"... she is more a plotpoint, something to complicate Bond's character rather than being an actual character like LeChireffe or Mathis. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Vesper should have been handled a bit differently if they where going to play up the depression leading to suicide angle... I can see hints of where they where probably trying to do that but it just all came off very shallow and undeveloped IMHO. I guess they did not want to waste any character development or growth on someone other than Bond in this movie, after all when you look at Vesper simply as an anvil on which Bond is forged you stop caring about why she died.-more spoiler talk-

[baronv]

The movie was good, I was going in thinking how are they changing the franchise? Some scenes felt very James Bondish such as the chase for the jumbo jet, some felt more modern action such as the intro chase sequence in Africa. Overall it is suppose to be a pre-super cool Bond, remember he didn't even ask for his martini shaken, "Does it look like I care."? I like that line since it showed the film as not egging to be like previous Bond films. I think the producers were maybe trying to move away from the super stylish Brosnan Bond style into a more rough around the edges style (Kinda the Tim Dalton Bond version). I thought the more recent Bond films were cool but also kinda cheesy, Casino Royale....hmmm less cheesy.

p.s. Next Bond film needs more nekkid babes!

Edited November 19, 2006 by baronv

[Roy Focker]

Well story errors and two different Bond in the movie best decribed by the various writers and director. You had those who did the out landish Bond and someone to bring it down. Ended making like there were two movies playing at once.

[Skullsixx]

Just got in from seeing this film... awesome!!! IMO... best Bond ending ever!!!

[Mog]

Saw the movie last night. Anyone else feel like the pacing of the last third of the movie felt “off� It just felt like the movie had too many endings. Like a scene would feel like an ending sequence, and then, boom, the movie would keep going.

And why, oh why, did they have to destroy that beautiful Aston Martin DBS? WHY GOD? WHY!!!?

P.S.--Thanks for the interesting tidbits on the novel.

[myk]

And why, oh why, did they have to destroy that beautiful Aston Martin DBS? WHY GOD? WHY!!!?

Yeah, they always gotta' do that, don't they. The BMW 750 and the Z8 in the more recent Bond movies comes to memory, I guess destroying these things is tradition, more or less...

[Raptor]

I though it was great.

It just didn't feel like you were watching a James Bond movie.

[Fly4victory]

spoiler talk- After Vesper locks the elevator door she pushes herself away from James but as she starts to drown tries to say something and I thinik it was "I want to live".

It may not have been depression but fear of Mathis that she killed herself. Mathis may have been a double agent but if he was ever released by Mi6 then she would have a serious problem. Mathis suspected her and tried to have James consider that before he was zapped.

Not telling James about the blackmail is true to her charater: she did not support the second buy-in, doubted he would win the card game, and then didn't tell about the blackmail. She was beautiful, clever, but not very smart. She could have covered up the boyfriend part of the blackmail buy telling half the truth they were released so "the third party" could get the money. James still would have killed everyone, just without the heart-broken ending.

This new Bond is shoot first, shoot some more, and after there is no one to question... put the pieces of the mystery together. spoiler talk-

I like it!

[bsu legato]

I saw Casino Royale on Saturday night and it blew me away! As I had predicted, there was a lot of action added that wasn't in the book, but I was amazed at how close most of the middle act was to the novel. It wasn't word for word, mind you, since the novel devoted a lot of space to describing Bond's meals, or the ins and out of bacarat (no poker in the book, naturally). But the added opening acts in no way felt tacked on, and to the writers credit they managed to make them fit seamlessly into the original story.

-still more spoiler talk-

In regards to Vesper's death, it definitely plays out differently than the novel. Her and Bond vacation together, and she falls for him. As in the film, she'd had a lover who had been abducted, resulting in her blackmail. When she notices a SMERSH agent trailing her and Bond, she realizes that there is no escaping. She grows increasingly remote and distances herself from Bond before she finally kills herself. She leaves a note explaining her treachery for Bond and he calls London to inform M, including the phrase "The batty is dead now." but that was the end of it all. There was no money, no shootout in the sinking building, and no Mr White epilogue.

In the film, her eventual suicide seems more like a spur of the moment decision, once she's been caught in the act by Bond. It cheapens her character a bit, but ultimately I feel it serves the same purpose as it did in the novel. In both versions, Bond is deeply hurt by the betrayal, outweighing his personal feelings for Vesper, and he finishes the story with a resolve to hunt down and destroy whatever organization was behind it all. This becomes his arc for the remainder of the Flemming novels, and I assume it will become the story for the next Craig movies.

[Hikuro]

My old man and I saw it today, I missed the ending cause I had to REALLY go to the restroom, but I thought it was still going on for a lil more, thought there would be another shoot out. Then when I came back it was over and my dad told me the ending saying it was a good bond finish.

[Roy Focker]

Yeah I'd image seeing a building flood with water really increased that urge.

[Raptor]

I had to do an Austin Powers TWICE during the movie...thankfully I picked two very good spots to miss 2 minutes of movie at a time...

[yellowlightman]

I have yet to see the movie (probably will this week), but I gotta say you guys crack me up. All this talk about it "not being a Bond movie" or "Craig is a bad Bond." I can't help but remember the fact that nearly all Bond movies are fundamentally crappy films. Same thing with most of the Bond actors. If it wasn't for the nostalgia and legacy appreciation of the Bond films, they would be viewed for what they really are: campy, often times downright dumb and almost inevtiably always mediocre.

If Casino Royale is really a change from that, that's a good thing, because it means it might not suck.

[bsu legato]

"Craig is a bad Bond."

Speaking of which, craignotbond.com seems to have quietly disappeared. I'm guessing they're eating a lot of crow this week.