Casino Royale

Favorite Bond yet. Choice of Craig finally got me to see another one of these things in the theater. That hasn't happened in about 15 years.
 
for me my favorite Bond films are as follows

1) From Russia With Love
2) Thunderball
3) Dr. No
4) Casino Royale
5) Goldfinger

I'm doing a trailer for Casino Royale for my editing class, i'll post a link to it when i'm done with it
 
I'm not a huge Bond fan, so for what it's worth- Roger Moore was the best of them, and Brosnon was a great choice too. I said that back when he was Remington Steele. As far as the new Casino Royale, I really don't like the modern timeline exploring the Cold War agent. True, Bond's character can work in any era, but the original spy was from a very different world.
 
This movie was so over the top, we couldn't stop laughing. I thought some of the funniest parts we're when he was defribulating himself in the car, or the guy with the bleeding eye, or when the woman rode up along the horse on the beach and her body was flailing all over the place. At the beginning, during the chase, my wife was asking me if they we're supposed to have superpowers.:)
I know its only a Bond movie, and they are supposed to be fun action movies, but do they do have to look like big, shiny car commercials all the time? Man, those lenses are so sharp and there is so much contrast, and the colors are so ultra saturated that I think my eyes might have bled a little.
Most of those locations we're jaw droppingly beauitful, though. It makes me want to go to Switzerland or Venice. Whoever was the location scout did their homework.
I like Craig, I am excited to see him in a non Bond film.
 
See Layer Cake, Munich, Infamous ... any number of movies. He's not that hard to find.

Agree it was over the top, but it seemed a tiny bit less so than the last few Bond entries. Then again, maybe that was partly because I believed Craig could actually do some of those things ... the defibrilation was the one point where I got annoyed with the over-the-top stuff.
 
The defibrillator bit was bad (it would have been much more interesting if he’d had to try and improvise the same effect somehow) and I thought some of the action parts, eg the opening and end chases, were a little boring, although much preferable to invisible cars etc.

I thought the worst thing about Casino Royale was the shameless product placement, bad even for a Bond flick. It was like a 2 hour Sony commercial, with ad breaks for Ford, Omega, Virgin etc. And the crass line about the Omega ("Nice watch, Rolex?" "No, Omega") surely sets a new low - I wanted to throw something at the screen at that point. Surely these films make enough money they don’t need to whore themselves quite so blatantly and distractingly to the detriment of the actual film?

Having said that, this was the first decent Bond film since Goldeneye. I’d stopped bothering going to see them in the cinema after the Jonathan Pryce one. I thought DC was quite good, if a little too scraggy looking. Less cheesy than Brosnan at least (who always seemed like a soap actor) if nowhere near Connery (no one ever will be), and I’ll always have a soft spot for Roger Moore (by far the funniest Bond).

I think it’s a shame popular characters like this are copyrighted – it would be really nice if we could see lots of takes on the character, including going back to the 50’s etc, and not just the official corporate ad-fests.
 
While I do think Craig was a very good choice for the flick, I didn't like the movie that much. Maybe it was better than the others, I don't know, but they raised the expectation bar, saying it was a more serious Bond film. So i was expecting an intelligent realistic spy movie, and not the same old super powered Bond (chase scene). DId like the beach girl, tough. Much better eye candy than the "good girl"... They really wanted to make Craig the star here...

I already knew what to expect on Pierce Brosnan James Bond Flicks. I came to the new one with high expectations, and got disappointed. More of the same, with different skin.
 
but its less technology involved and bond is able to get hurt.. the parkour parts if you notice he does all the brute force not elegant like the man who was burn its trying to show you he has to get around differently than those who shows super human feats... but parkour is is real but he didnt do anything super human. it was more commando.
 
I know I'm a day late, dollar short, but I'm just now catching up to this film. I thought it was awesome, right up to that 'mysterious stranger' rescuing him from the attack on his nuts. From there on I thought it was convoluted, hard to follow and unrealistic in several ways. I felt cheated.
 
If my nuts were under attack, I don't think I'd be picky about where rescue came from...even if it was a mysterious stranger.

Although I did think that they explained the rescue well enough.
 
I finally got around to renting this a couple of nights ago. I don't get the hype. I thought the entire first hour needed to be cut. The story doesn't really start until then. Everything before that seemed like needless action scenes that didn't push the plot forward. They were just disjointed excuses to show shiny things and explosions. Once the plot gets going, the majority of the movie had as much thrill for me as watching a poker game on ESPN.

I actually like some Bond flicks, so this was a huge letdown for me.
 
Great opening scene, but the rest was totally vapid. How does hitting a straight flush by luck prove anything about his poker reads, totally made no sense. The movie also had 3 endings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top