casino royale... wtf?

DannyinJapan

DannyinJapan

Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
5,594
I watched the first ten minutes, hit the stop button and put the dvd back in the case. I am NOT interested in the rest.
Watching some burn-victim, Ugandan bomb-making rebel do parkour all over a construction sight in the middle of the Congo just aint my cup of Bond tea.
Jeeze louise, how low do you have to sink to get a movie produced these days?
 
DannyinJapan said:
I watched the first ten minutes, hit the stop button and put the dvd back in the case. I am NOT interested in the rest.
Watching some burn-victim, Ugandan bomb-making rebel do parkour all over a construction sight in the middle of the Congo just aint my cup of Bond tea.
Jeeze louise, how low do you have to sink to get a movie produced these days?
Click to expand...


When I was a kid I loved James Bond movies with Sean Connery, a few recent ones including the last one about the Koreans were ok.
This one....
I don't mind the new actor but I could not follow what was going on, I must be simple.
I was looking forward to it and I have started watching it about 4 times and not got past the first 1/2 hour.
Maybe this franchise has run its course.
 
I have to disagree :p, although its only my opinion... I'm 25, and have always liked Bond, but never real hardcore, to the point that I will pick holes against the older movies... not that I'm saying you are, but I loved the movie for the action film it was...

Every minute of it...


Each to their own though I guess.... :D
 
And I thought it was the best Bond I've seen so far, and the only one of them I'd call a decent movie :) *hides*
 
markksr said:
Funny,that's exactly what happened to me.Then I returned it.
Click to expand...

Well I am going to RETURN to it one day :rolleyes:
I have the disc, but it might be on a rainy day when I am desperate for something to watch.
I like Judy Dench but I do not like her in the Bond movies at all.
I think I am turning into a grumpy old whiner :thumbdn:
 
Well, as a fan of Ian Fleming's writing, I was immediately put off by reports that the first 50 minutes of the film have nothing whatsoever to do with the novel. Coincidentally, 50 minutes was the runtime of the 1954 TV adaptation of the novel starring Barry Nelson; in the 50s, they could tell the whole story (sort of) in that time, but now they can't even get into the real story until then. I was disappointed, but not really surprised, to hear that they had "modernized" the story (a la The Manchurian Candidate), and that they had retained Judi Dench as M. Nothing against her as an actress, but I was hoping that they would actually cast a man this time (call me a chauvinist pig if you will). I have not seen the film yet, and am really not sure if I ever will. Listening to you guys, it sounds like more of an endurance event than a film.
 
That's strange, I thought Craig was the best Bond after Sean Connery. I guess this is one of those cases of "different strokes for different folks."
 
I also stopped watching this movie a short while into it. It seemed to me that it is directed more towards men that prefer men. I mean where are all the naked ladies in the opening?
 
I liked that they got away from the laser wrist watches, submarine cars and all that jazz. Back to basics. Having never read the books, and growing up in the Roger Moore era Bond...:barf: This is the first Bond movie I've liked in a long time.

Frank
 
One of the all time best bond movies. Definitely better than any roger moore or pierce brosnan bond movie.
 
I saw the beginning, fell asleep and woke up for the ending. I am willing to give Mr. Craig a chance.

Eric
 
Excellent movie and the best Bond yet. Modern and tailored for an intelligent audience. :thumbup:
 
I also thought it was one of the best Bonds yet. The ending was a little long, but good nonetheless.
 
Nordic Viking said:
Modern and tailored for an intelligent audience. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

I think that may be part of the problem. ;) Bond films have had their plots be able to fit on the back of a matchbox for so long that I think this movie threw a lot of people.

As to the scene of parkour, to me it was two things---a BIT of an homage to the over-the-top qualities of past Bond films, but also an announcement that that era was past. Specifically, I mean that no matter what means people have used to escape Bond in the past, be it a scuba chase, a boat chase, a hanglider chase, etc (actually etc, etc, etc) Bond is ALWAYS inexplicably a master at whatever esoteric skill is called for, strange since he should have very little time for such pursuits given the life he leads. And I dare anybody to try and put forward that all of this is part of his "training." :D In this case, the guy he's chasing is a master of skills particularly suited to helping him get away in an urban environment, and Bond keeps trying to keep up with him but is clearly the more fumble-footed of the two. He manages to stay on his heels just through being tough and persistent, but has none of the polish or finesse that Roger Moore or Pierce B. would have been shown as having. My favorite moment in that chase was when the bomb maker does his high flip over the drywall, and Bond just runs through it, in a very "I'm sick of this sh--" kind of way.

As to the rest, well...I have read Ian Flemming's stories and like them very much, but few have enough meat in them to actually suffice as fodder for a two hour movie. Personally, I would rather the extra time be used (as in this case) to further set up the coming events than on--as was already observed--gadget scenes and ten minute exposition scenes explaining those gadgets.

To each his own as others have said, but I myself am bidding a fond farewell to hollowed-out volcanoes. Actually, what I'm saying to them is closer to, "Don't let the door hit ya in the a$$..." but that's neither here nor there.
 
To be honest Casino Royale may be the movie that gets me back into Bond films. Some of the last few movies have been laughable. I can't believe that the villian in one of the latest films was an "Evil News Mogal"?

The Bond in Casino Royale didn't get though the film by having laser watches or an invisible car, he kicked the cr#p out of guys when it needed to be done.

If you didn't watch the entire movie you missed some great homages to Bond and signals that this was a different kind of Bond. When he orders a vodka martini the bartender asks "Shaken or Stirred", Bond replies "I don't give a damn..." at that point in the middle of a mission, how his martini is prepared is the least important thing to him. There's alot more stuff like that.

The opening scenes are designed to get the pace of the film off to a fast start, I loved that fact that while the bad guy had the greater ability to allow him to get away, you see Bond keeping up with him not by being a superman himself, but by quickly coming up with the smarter solution. It's a theme that carries through the movie and makes you realize why Bond is able to overcome greater odds, he has the uncanny ability to immediately acess the situation and immediately act. He's not all knowing and all powerful, he screws things up, but is immediately on top of a changing situation.

Anyway, I'll be in line to see the next one, if they stick to this formula.

Sean
 
I personally loved the movie, and I've read all the books altho I was born after Connery had already retired.

My father, who'd read the books when they were first PUBLISHED, fell asleep during the airport segment! (altho that could just have been the heavy lunch we'd had)
 
Martini said:
Well, as a fan of Ian Fleming's writing, I was immediately put off by reports that the first 50 minutes of the film have nothing whatsoever to do with the novel. Coincidentally, 50 minutes was the runtime of the 1954 TV adaptation of the novel starring Barry Nelson; in the 50s, they could tell the whole story (sort of) in that time, but now they can't even get into the real story until then. I was disappointed, but not really surprised, to hear that they had "modernized" the story (a la The Manchurian Candidate), and that they had retained Judi Dench as M. Nothing against her as an actress, but I was hoping that they would actually cast a man this time (call me a chauvinist pig if you will). I have not seen the film yet, and am really not sure if I ever will. Listening to you guys, it sounds like more of an endurance event than a film.
Click to expand...


Good point but the fact is after Connery, (and even a bit during his tenure), the screenplays bear almost zero resemblance to the novels. Ian Fleming is spinning in his grave at some of these.

They have taken the franchise to pieces and culled ever obscure sub-plots in order to justify new films. There were only 14 original titles by Fleming, and yet we are on film 24 or 25. "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "A View to a Kill" were very short stories, the first of which mentioned Bond almost in passing, not even giving his name.

That said I enjoyed the new Casino Royale, and at least it was an improvement over the over-long 3-Director 60's version with David Niven that just turned into a farce.

Truth be told, if you took Fleming's excellent physical description of Bond literally (looked like Hoagy Carmichal), then only George Lazenby in his one Bond film (On Her Majesties Secret Service in '69) would meet the criteria.

Personally, I liked Connery, Moore was OK, Dalton not at all, and really liked Pierce Brosnan who brought a lot to it. Once I can get over this guy being a blond, and if he gets some personality, I think he might be very good.

Just fast forward past the first 30 minutes Danny. Personally I liked that part, but different strokes. Once it gets into the card game it gets fun. His over the top stuff about the woman is a bit much, but hey, he's just starting out remember? :D

Norm
 
Svashtar said:
That said I enjoyed the new Casino Royale, and at least it was an improvement over the over-long 3-Director 60's version with David Niven that just turned into a farce.
Click to expand...

I had read that the original Casino Royale was a parody of the Bond films. :confused:

I haven't seen the new one, and seen very few of the recent films (I only watched The World is Not Enough for Maria Grazia Cucinotta, heh), but Connery was my favourite Bond. I do like some of the Roger Moore films though, The Man with the Golden Gun probably most of all. John Barry's themes almost always made the films better than they were too.

I've heard mixed reviews about this latest movie, but I tend to be someone that doesn't like old franchises re-invented, making them "hip and cool for a new generation". It's the same mentality that makes the films of yesterday look laughably dated to our eyes, if they were too concerned with appealing to the current generation of that time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top