casino royale... wtf?

The weird part was Bond playing Texas Hold 'Em. I always thought his game was baccarat
 
I thought I was picky....:(



Honestly...I've liked all the Bond films...yes, some are better than others...but there's something to enjoy in all of them and the entire idea is quite entertaining anyway.

I've been waiting for Brosnan to do Bond since the eighties...was overjoyed to see him do it. The techno stuff...I really love...gadgets, etc. Even when handled in a cheesy way.

And I really liked Casino Royale. It had its problems...like most films...but overall was quite entertaining..and I was very relieved to see it come back to a "Connery" type Bond...and then some...I mean, Craig is tough - no mistaking it.

The first 1/2 hr is indeed unnerving...when compared to the most recent Bond flicks...but once you get used to the pace...the movie grows on you.

Give it another shot. :thumbup:
 
I thought that he was the best bond since Connery. I liked the tougher, colder demeanor, as opposed to the free-wheeling excess of some others. I think that you should watch the rest - perhaps you'll like the rest better!

Chris
 
Absolute Deleted.....especially when compared to Ian Fleming's excellent book. The beginning storyline is confusing, the locations were wrong, the non-action sequences were boring, the actress playing Vesper Lind is greasy-looking, and Craig is a hypocrite of the first order - an antigun advocate playing a character who (gasp) USES A GUN. BTW - The gun was wrong as well....should have been a 6.35mm Beretta M418, NOT a Walther P99.
My wife rented this movie thinking I'd like it. (I'm a big Bond fan) Watched this abortion to please her - but it did nothing for me. (rant off)

TR Graham
Armory USA
 
C.S. Graves said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Great films have stood the test of time, while so many others are relegated to cable TV on the weekends, often sandwiched with infomercials for vinyl siding. I believe that most of our modern cinema, like our music, is destined to be forgotten.

BTW, the Peter Sellers/David Niven Casino Royale was definitely a spoof. And funny even.
 
I agree with the folks that say this was kind of an insult to the other Bond movies. First, where the Deleted are the nekid chics in the beginning?! That was one of the greatest parts! Next, I didn't like the fact they tried to make it more "catered to an intelligent audience" as one said. Lastly, does anyone know why Pierce Brosnan didn't do this one? He was second only to Mr. Connery. I don't mind the new guy but Brosnan was a Deleted good Bond.

My .02
 
TR Graham said:
Absolute CRAP.....especially when compared to Ian Fleming's excellent book. The beginning storyline is confusing, the locations were wrong, the non-action sequences were boring, the actress playing Vesper Lind is greasy-looking, and Craig is a hypocrite of the first order - an antigun advocate playing a character who (gasp) USES A GUN. BTW - The gun was wrong as well....should have been a 6.35mm Beretta M418, NOT a Walther P99.
My wife rented this movie thinking I'd like it. (I'm a big Bond fan) Watched this abortion to please her - but it did nothing for me.
Click to expand...

Well yes, but if you ask just about all the Hollywood types out there about it, the grand majority are anti-gun (even Brosnan and, sadly, Connery). As to the gun itself---------I mean, I'm a traditionalist too but always thought the fact that Bond chose probably the worst pistol he could as a primary weapon bespoke one of three things:
1) Bond was an idiot
2) He was rooting for the bad guys
3) Ian Flemming knew next to nothing about firearms and picked one that he thought seemed neat

I know that the idea was that Bond was "so good" that all he needed was that 25 ACP, but the simple fact is that no amount of skill will make up for the fact that the best 25 ACPs out there will have trouble staying on a pie plate past 15 feet even when locked in a shooting vice; there simply is not enough barrel length for the rifling to impart a consistent twist on the round. Couple that with the gun having an absurdly short sight radius and being very awkward in the average adult male hand due to its small size, and...well, the best race car driver in the world won't win the Indianapolis 500 if he's driving a minivan.

Again, part of keeping a movie franchise palatable to an audience is maintaining the ability to suspend their disbelief. This is a fickle requirement to be sure, because the same audience that will buy dinosaurs running around in modern day probably won't swallow the ugly guy getting the hot girl, unless it's a comedy of some kind. That said, with the plethora of action movies that the public has absorbed since the Connery days, I just don't think people today are going to do much other than roll their eyes when all the badies obligingly miss Bond with their full size rifles and pistols and then fall over as he pops off his pea-shooter at them. I mean, the Connery movies even made the conceipt of Bond carrying a 32 ACP in a Walther PPK to be slightly less ridiculous, but...

Oh, and I'll take Eva Green (the girl playing Vesper Lind) any day of the week. ;)

Ah well, at least we won't be competing for titles at the rental place. :D
 
The whole "reinventing Bond" thing is malarky. More Like "we don't want to pay Pierce Brosnan the XX million dollars he's asking so we'll find a newbie for a 1/4 of that". Then that decision being made they tweaked the script to fit the "new bond" premise.

I really like Brosnan as Bond and was prepared to dislike Craig as Bond but actually he did a decent job. However i still think Brosnan is the best Bond since Connery. And to the Craig fans don't jump the gun here, give Craig a few more Bond flicks before bestowing that "best Bond since Connery"honour upon him.

I don't mind change if it an improvement on the existing themes or something new and better, the opening credits/visuals were neither. They were weak and dissappointing.

Some think the movie is somehow better because it was less gadget oriented, well i'm sure by the next film the gadgets will be back. The anti-gadget slant was just a marketing ploy to enhance the newness factor. Guaranteed Craig will using some science-fictiony gadget in the next installments. Even Connery had his props (gyrocopters/jetpacks etc). Gadgets are part of the fun of Bond, Its only when they get too ridiculous/cheesy that they are a detriment.
Really a Bond without at least SOME gadgets is like a Bond without girls, guns, cars or interesting villains.

Regarding the original use of the 32. acp Walther PPK as the Bond gun, well check the copyright dates on the books. Most of them were written in the 1950s. The PPK was (and still is) a fairly concealable handgun.And back then there were no ultra compact 9mm's or 45's. Also the use of a silencer kinda limited your cailbre choices to sub-sonic calibres like the 32 and .380. Stealthyness (via the silencer) and concealability compactness presumably had higher priority than stopping power and magazine capacity. Remember Bonds not a commando hes a "spook".

Read the John Gardner Bond books (written after the original Fleming books) and you will see Bond frequently upgraded his weaponry to the then equivalent state of the art.

I think the movies had to eventually acknowledge the need to upgrade Bonds sidearm.Conveniently the Walther P99 came out on the market, state of the art/cool looking= problem solved.And they still get to call it "Bonds Walther" thereby maintaining a connective thread to the past.

And probably the majority of the movie audiences (most are non-gun people) think the PPK and P99 are the same gun because they are both Walthers. lol.
Personally i still think Bond should have something a little more compact like a Glock 26 but thats just me.
:)
 
antonanton said:
Casino Royale == Lame
Click to expand...

I liked it; I thought it was a good modern formula for a tired old franchise. The original Connery Bond series was popular becuase it featured over the top action stunts and errotically clad beautiful women (not something to be taken likely back when nudity was something limited to stag parties, back allies, and flickering 8mm projectors). We have come a long way since the 1960s; CGI and the stuff we are watching on prime time TV, would have caused a few of our parents a cardiac arrest back then. Bond had to change. Casino Royale has it right by giving Bond more of an edge, and I hope they go further and make the character much darker in subsequent films; just how happy-go-lucky should a mass murderer for hire really be. A true life Bond is someone who can continously lie and murder strangers without an ounce of regret; he is a true and fanatical believer in his cause; and, resembles a bomb strapping terrorist far more then a charming talkshow pansy. He should be portrayed as a scary yet necessary evil, and certainly not the kind of guy you would want living next door. He sould be the one that the authorities watch like a hawk; because even though he is the most useful tool in their arsenal, he is incredibly dangerous, and he may be just one slip away from rolling off track and blowing up NYC.

n2s
 
not2sharp said:
.... is someone who can continously lie and murder strangers without an ounce of regret; he is a true and fanatical believer in his cause; and, resembles a bomb strapping terrorist far more then a charming talkshow pansy. He should be portrayed as a scary yet necessary evil, and certainly not the kind of guy you would want living next door. He sould be the one that the authorities watch like a hawk; because even though he is the most useful tool in their arsenal, he is incredibly dangerous, and he may be just one slip away from rolling off track and blowing up NYC.

n2s
Click to expand...

you've been looking at my personnel file again. suitable precautionary measures have been initiated.

p.s. - NYC is safe, florida? if you are not n2s, i'd move before they notice the asteroid is a bit off course...... n2s, i'm just kidding. maybe.
 
I saw this movie 5 times in the theater, one of which was the 12 am premier showing at my local theater. I bought this movie the moment it came out. I think this is one of the best Bond films that has been made. It wasnt supposed to be the same as the others as it was the prequel to the other stories. The reason that the stories vary from the books is that there are only 14 books and now 21 Bond movies. These include a remake, Thunderball into Never Say Never Again. I thought it was a great movie and inspite of everyone who disagrees with that I am putting it in the DVD player right now. :^)
 
Martini said:
Oh yeah, that was my other big gripe about "modernizing" it. Like we don't see enough THE in movies and on TV.
Click to expand...

I didn't have any issue at all with this part. How many people watching a Bond movie would know a winning or losing baccarat hand if they saw it?????????
 
Martini said:
Exactly! Great films have stood the test of time, while so many others are relegated to cable TV on the weekends, often sandwiched with infomercials for vinyl siding. I believe that most of our modern cinema, like our music, is destined to be forgotten.

BTW, the Peter Sellers/David Niven Casino Royale was definitely a spoof. And funny even.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention modern music too. I think the lack of the classic John Barry style is something else that diminishes the bond films of the last couple decades. Film composers ain't what they used to be. :(
 
it was just that retarded parkour stuff.
the idea of some ugandan rebel/bombmaker suddenly becoming a French teenager who does backflips off of picnic tables...
please.
 
As I said it's no more ridiculous than a ski chase or a skydiving chase--both of which have appeared in Bond films as I recall. Again, since it's really the only scene of that type in the entire movie, I take it more as an homage or "tip of the hat" to an earlier (and let's face it, sillier) era of movies. The new ones (if this first is any indication) are going for a grittier/less comedic take on the character, but if you're looking for absolute believability and absense of glitz this is the wrong film franchise for ya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top