Casino Royale

More reliable sources for info? American Cinematographer. The most recent issue covers Casino Royale. They definitely shot this on film. I have the article right here...
 
this is impossible...... i am extremely confused now. i had a techy give me a brilliant speech about the tech they were using to shoot casino... now i feel dumbfounded... i really dont know what to believe.

Its one thing to read an article, and its another to actually be on their sets. I defnately know what i was told, but this article suggests another... i really dunno.
 
They shot on "two Kodak Vision negatives, 500T 5279 and 200T 5274, and often overexposed them slightly to add density." (From Decembers American Cinematographer) I wouldn't believe that techy.
 
PaPa said:
this is impossible...... i am extremely confused now. i had a techy give me a brilliant speech about the tech they were using to shoot casino... now i feel dumbfounded... i really dont know what to believe.

Its one thing to read an article, and its another to actually be on their sets. I defnately know what i was told, but this article suggests another... i really dunno.
Click to expand...

Maybe they were second- or splinter-unit.

Maybe they were really shooting something else.

Maybe IMDB and American Cinematographer are conspiring against you and trying to convince you that you are crazy. You've seen 'Gaslight,' right?
 
Grabs from at featurette about Casino Royale - definately 35mm film cameras:

frame1.jpg


frame2.jpg


frame3.jpg


frame4.jpg


frame5.jpg


frame6.jpg


frame7.jpg
 
I'm sorry but this film was freaking great. This is coming from a guy who doesn't like 007 flicks. Heck, this is coming from a guy who bitches about almost everything film.

Bravo!
 
Casino Royale was my favorite bond film yet. It felt like I was a kid seeing Moonraker for the first time. Craig did a great job and there was a nice balance of story and action. The bond series has been reborn.

And to all the Tom Cruise and Mission Impossible haters, MI3 was a perfect popcorn flick. Very entertaining.
 
Had a chance to see the film on Wednesday. Must agree. It's terrific. I was hoping fo a "bit" more out of the car chase scene in terms of length and scenery, but overall it was ok. The plot twist late in the movie came as some surprise which was welcome. I hadn't read the book and quite frankly, am glad I didn't know what to expect from the story.

Nicely done.
 
PerroneFord said:
Had a chance to see the film on Wednesday. Must agree. It's terrific. I was hoping fo a "bit" more out of the car chase scene in terms of length and scenery, but overall it was ok. The plot twist late in the movie came as some surprise which was welcome. I hadn't read the book and quite frankly, am glad I didn't know what to expect from the story.

Nicely done.
Click to expand...

In most Bond flicks, reading the book really isn't going to clue you into the story.

This one, however, does follow the story of the book reasonably well.
 
Wowee wow wow. I guess my initial thoughts were "They got everything right". I went back to watch some of the Pierce Brosnan flicks the other day, and I really feel like one of his problems as Bond (other than the stories/acting/well, take your pick...) was that he really wasn't allowed a wide variety of emotions.

It's almost like they made the later ones as growing self-parodies of the genre. I mean, even in Goldeneye, he's always super-cool in every situation. In Casino Royale, Bond is a much more vulnerable (and to me less jaded) character, and he was given way more in the way of emotions to play off of. That to me made the character more real, and overall way more likeable.
 
An interesting article.

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4433&catid=2
Stunt expert Gary, son of famous stuntman Nosher Powell, has a long track record on Bond films. He was Pierce Brosnan's stunt double, driving a runaway crane in Goldeneye and flipping a boat over in The World Is Not Enough.

"Daniel really took some hits on Casino Royale," he says. "I'd see him bruised and cut up, fight after fight. And he'd just say: 'Oh s***, that smarted a bit, let's go again'.

"Pierce was a lovely man. But he'd always emerge from a punchup or a huge explosion with an unruffled tie and immaculate hair.

"Someone told me recently: 'Sean Connery sweated, Roger Moore perspired and Pierce Brosnan glowed.' I don't agree but I'll add one thing - Daniel Craig bleeds. He did everything we asked of him and more."
Click to expand...

Not trying to knock Brosnan, but I think Craig is the better actor. Brosnan had a different take on Bond, and when I see his films they seem silly in comparison to Casino Royale.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Brosnan had a different take on Bond, and when I see his films they seem silly in comparison to Casino Royale.
Click to expand...
That's my take on the VAST MAJORITY of Bond films between Connery and Craig.
 
brosnan brought remington steel to james bond thats all you got out of him so it wasnt a huge jump it was too much class and not much action.
 
An average movie, in my perspective. The opening with the chase in Africa was too unrealistic "one man army fare". I was expecting a more realistic Bond. Craig is a better actor than Brosnan, no doubt. But it still was a bit cheesy. The venice bit was also too forced and over the top. No need for such ending to that plot point. ( And the first Bond girl was a heck of a lot more appealing then the lead one :) )
 
The opening with the chase in Africa was too unrealistic
Click to expand...

that scene made me wonder if they asked at the casting call, "can you climb a building unaided while wearing a back pack full of explosives?"
 
I agree with most here, Isaac great quote from the article says it all for me. This was sorta like James Bond Begins. Felt like that same way Batman had it's revisioning and telling of origin of the character (obviously less backstory with Bond but still is). Really. Got to the emotion of both characters which became almost paraodies on themselves. And no depth. Now plenty!

Craig was so gritty and great, and wow did he pack a lot of muscle! Which is good realistically would be fit and mean.

The opening yeah at one point felt like it was a chase scene in X-men or something BUT... the guy really did do a lot of those stunts. And it was a great set up for James Bonds whole character. a "blunt instrument" for sure! (loved it when the guy swiftly goes through some hole and Bond just charges through it)
And the first Bond girl OMG... when she died was so disappointed. But the main squeeze was well I liked her a lot still.

Again, best bond film since connery days for me. Totally revitalizing the franchise AND character! Again I want to call it "James Bond Begins" =)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top