Casino Royale
Merkaba
Digital Harmony Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 22Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester
Digital Harmony Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 22Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester
<div class="IPBDescription">Expect spoilers.</div>Has anyone seen this yet? What are your thoughts about this latest installment of the Bond legacy? Personally I think it is by far the best Bond movie I have seen in years and years (and, I say this with a touch of smugness, I predicted it would be as soon as I heard that they were going 'astray' from Bond's previous outings).
Thank the lord the reign of Brosnan is over. The time of smirky smuggy smarmy superiority is over! The slime shall no longer shame our sets. All hail Craig as the new British Spy.
To sum up...
If it came down to a fight between the two, Daniel Craig would rip Pierce Brosnans ear off with his teeth and spit it into a ditch. Brosnan would run off crying to his lady friend, who would be comforting him but also silently wondering why he's being such a sissy, while Craig washes his mouth out at home and stares ponderously into his own eyes in the mirror - and then he would go out and buy some bread.
That kinda sums up my feelings about the contrast between the two.
The filming, the story, the acting, the script, the intro, the action......is all better. Much better - Bond actually feels like a real person this time around, even if he isn't the sort you'd run into down at the pub (well, actually..). He actually displays something approaching <i>emotion</i> at points in the movie. He does amazingly cool things and doesn't even blink or make it obvious he knows he's cool. He makes mistakes. He does not, ever, not ONCE fight a machine that has lasers and drills attached to it. There are long scenes without fighting that are actually interesting.
I could easily go on...it's just relit my joy of Bond and my excitement to see the next movie. After The World is Not Enough I just totally lost interest in the Brosnan era, knowing that whatever came along next would be predictable and trite. I really hope they keep up the freshness evident in Casino Royale with the coming movie(s)...I believe a very good thing has happened, and thats that they've emptied out the stagnating bucket of water that is what we had come to know as Bond and replaced it with mountain fresh ice cold water.
Having said all that, it's not without its flaws. But mostly its flaws are where its too obviously a Bond movie, where its displaying traits that we are used to from the previous movies. On the whole it does a very good job of keeping the action in whilst making it feel new and exciting...but there are just moments, here and there. I'm probably too relieved that it was a good movie to have noticed some flaws I would otherwise have spotted...but I'm certain that whatever flaws there are, they won't bother me much as the good has already outweighed the bad.
The intro sequence is mesmerizing and beautiful.
Oh, and whilst me and my parents were watching it someone drove into my mum's parked car, writing it and his own off. It was confusing looking for a parked car that had been towed away an hour beforehand; thankfully it was my mums work car and so not really her problem! The person who crashed into it was fine.
Thank the lord the reign of Brosnan is over. The time of smirky smuggy smarmy superiority is over! The slime shall no longer shame our sets. All hail Craig as the new British Spy.
To sum up...
If it came down to a fight between the two, Daniel Craig would rip Pierce Brosnans ear off with his teeth and spit it into a ditch. Brosnan would run off crying to his lady friend, who would be comforting him but also silently wondering why he's being such a sissy, while Craig washes his mouth out at home and stares ponderously into his own eyes in the mirror - and then he would go out and buy some bread.
That kinda sums up my feelings about the contrast between the two.
The filming, the story, the acting, the script, the intro, the action......is all better. Much better - Bond actually feels like a real person this time around, even if he isn't the sort you'd run into down at the pub (well, actually..). He actually displays something approaching <i>emotion</i> at points in the movie. He does amazingly cool things and doesn't even blink or make it obvious he knows he's cool. He makes mistakes. He does not, ever, not ONCE fight a machine that has lasers and drills attached to it. There are long scenes without fighting that are actually interesting.
I could easily go on...it's just relit my joy of Bond and my excitement to see the next movie. After The World is Not Enough I just totally lost interest in the Brosnan era, knowing that whatever came along next would be predictable and trite. I really hope they keep up the freshness evident in Casino Royale with the coming movie(s)...I believe a very good thing has happened, and thats that they've emptied out the stagnating bucket of water that is what we had come to know as Bond and replaced it with mountain fresh ice cold water.
Having said all that, it's not without its flaws. But mostly its flaws are where its too obviously a Bond movie, where its displaying traits that we are used to from the previous movies. On the whole it does a very good job of keeping the action in whilst making it feel new and exciting...but there are just moments, here and there. I'm probably too relieved that it was a good movie to have noticed some flaws I would otherwise have spotted...but I'm certain that whatever flaws there are, they won't bother me much as the good has already outweighed the bad.
The intro sequence is mesmerizing and beautiful.
Oh, and whilst me and my parents were watching it someone drove into my mum's parked car, writing it and his own off. It was confusing looking for a parked car that had been towed away an hour beforehand; thankfully it was my mums work car and so not really her problem! The person who crashed into it was fine.
Comments
I did miss not having the comedy of Q/R in the movie, but there were some extremely hilarious moments to make up for it nevertheless. Also, the ending of the movie took me by surprise. As he approached the guy and said his famous "The name is Bond... James Bond" line I was thinking <i>"Wow, now to really give it effect it would be cool if all of the sudden the movie ended just like that!"</i> Well needless to say, I didn't actually see that coming but was still pretty shocked and impressed.
"Shaken or stirred?"
"Does it look like I give a damn?"
I enjoyed Brosnan, but I still stand by my statement...Craig dominates. Maybe I just like burly men. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Goldeneye was simply flashy that's how it's going to be remembered. But in the long spread of all Bond movies. It's the same bullish. Bond gets the lady, kills the enemy, saves the world.
It's the same boring crap. At least you know all the woman he loved in this flick died horridly.
What was To Die Another Day? Another stupid movie involving a satellite. What did they just ctrl-c ctr-v the scripts made a few changes to it then called it good? I'm sick of the stupid gadgets too. "Oh here James, it's a 1987 Ford Mustang that turns into a aircraft carrier...
Yeah, the movies might of been cool when I was like 10 and practically amazed by anything involving flashy lights.
Casino Royale was a marked improvement; too bad it seemed to be swayed so far by Batman Begins, and there were a number of niggling annoyances.
It really wasn't as bad as I'd feared, but it lacked a whole lot of the things I'd come to expect from Bond. The signature drink was notably missing. He *was* very roughshod, which most would explain as simply being a 'new guy'. Given that even obtaining 00 status requires years of work in that series, he should have been a hell of a lot more refined than some common thug off the street.
The lack of Q was a minor annoyance, and M being a woman was outright aggravating; it'd been made clear that 'the new M' was a woman, far down the timeline. Being played by the same actor. I blame political correctness BS.
Also, the playing of Texas Hold 'Em was a travesty. Idiot's poker. Obviously few know the rules of Baccarat (which should have been featured, by rights), so they pulled an edit to again cater to lowest common denominator... mostly as quite a few have seen 'Celebrity Poker Challenge' or its ilk.
Better than the last few. But to me, Connery is still the only one to ever have really pulled off a <i>satisfying</i> Bond.
Brosnan was an utter hack. It might have been the writing, but the movies with him as the lead just... were overblown. Action flicks with no real intrigue or foreshadowing... you could see everything coming, as it was laid out to cater to the lowest-common-denominator. All the flair and panache of a monster truck rally.
Casino Royale was a marked improvement; too bad it seemed to be swayed so far by Batman Begins, and there were a number of niggling annoyances.
It really wasn't as bad as I'd feared, but it lacked a whole lot of the things I'd come to expect from Bond. The signature drink was notably missing. He *was* very roughshod, which most would explain as simply being a 'new guy'. Given that even obtaining 00 status requires years of work in that series, he should have been a hell of a lot more refined than some common thug off the street.
The lack of Q was a minor annoyance, and M being a woman was outright aggravating; it'd been made clear that 'the new M' was a woman, far down the timeline. Being played by the same actor. I blame political correctness BS.
Also, the playing of Texas Hold 'Em was a travesty. Idiot's poker. Obviously few know the rules of Baccarat (which should have been featured, by rights), so they pulled an edit to again cater to lowest common denominator... mostly as quite a few have seen 'Celebrity Poker Challenge' or its ilk.
Better than the last few. But to me, Connery is still the only one to ever have really pulled off a <i>satisfying</i> Bond.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Slightly confused by this. First you complain that the film isn't what you've come to expect from Bond, a type of Bond that Ian Fleming never wrote about, and then you complain that the film doesn't contain something from the book? You can't have both worlds. The drink Bond ordered was the drink ordered in the book, it <i>is</i> the signature drink, and sorry, but Bond always has been a glorified killer for hire. Also, what's the point in having a story element in a casino, if then none of the audience can follow the play? Nothing wrong with using Texas Hold'Em.
The free-running scene was marvelous. I also thoroughly enjoyed the tasteful, tactful, and <i>intelligent</i> sexual sparing match between Bond and Money Penny. It's supposed to have that edge of intrigue, not just hit you in the face with sexuality, "I got the <b>thrust</b> of it. Lots of times actually. From lots of men. Yeah, I'm a ######."
It was just so refreshing to see someone actually try to dance around it, and not charge headlong into it. Makes me think maybe there are some folks out there who can use the English language with authority these days.
A new spin on the introduction to Bond; definitely worth the coin. The scenes with his first two kills were quite well done, and portrayed Bond in a much more human light: he couldn't always have been an emotionless bad***.
I guess if I had any gripes, it was the lack of the outline of naked women during the intro song. But then again, the animations were almost enough to make up for it - almost!
The guy from HBO's Rome was also a delight. I'll be following his career, I think.
Was a hot film though definately worth the money. Can't say much else good that others haven't said except make sure you check your difibulator before you use it!
If it came down to a fight between the two, Daniel Craig would rip Pierce Brosnans ear off with his teeth and spit it into a ditch. Brosnan would run off crying to his lady friend, who would be comforting him but also silently wondering why he's being such a sissy, while Craig washes his mouth out at home and stares ponderously into his own eyes in the mirror - and then he would go out and buy some bread.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sean Connery remains the best 007 ever filmed, and frankly, Daniel Craig wouldn't make a pimple on his ######. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
Wait! Talesin and I actually agree on something?!?
(I'm no fan of Texas Hold 'em either, but it's the big thing to capitalize on in entertainment right now, so I looked past it.)
Just wanted to say the poker scenes where a little annoying as has been mentioned before, purely becuase its such a well known game these days that when hes explaining it to money penny it makes her seem a little slow, and that spoils her character (I suppose she might not watch alot of TV).
The poker scene was fine for me because I don't know squat about poker ^_^ I was confused as to why it wasn't the same game set-up I was used to though, but figured I don't actually know anything about poker especially at such a level of gaming...so it didn't bother me.
I'm glad someone else thought she was money penny! When she introduces herself as "The Money", I thought great! We get to find out why those two are so flirtatious throughout all the movies. I can't help but wonder if that deception was on purpose or not, to throw you off guard (because she obviously turns out to be <i>not</i> money penny - unless I am mistaken)
The poker scene was fine for me because I don't know squat about poker ^_^ I was confused as to why it wasn't the same game set-up I was used to though, but figured I don't actually know anything about poker especially at such a level of gaming...so it didn't bother me.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1583880:date=Dec 3 2006, 11:59 PM:name=Mantrid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mantrid @ Dec 3 2006, 11:59 PM) [snapback]1583880[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
She's not Moneypenny. She's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesper_Lynd" target="_blank">Vesper Lynd</a>. Which was why the account password was Vesper.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I realize she wasn't <b>the</b> Money Penny, but the conclusion I came to was that she would have an affect on the real. Whether that assumption is right or not is highly debatable. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Am I the only one who noticed Richard Branson's Cameo at the airport? I pointed out to all my friends but none of them noticed. He's even listed in IMDB as having the cameo so I know it was him I saw :p
i loved it saw it twice! and now for bond...cat bond.
<img src="http://www.knitemare.org/cats/yoda_proceed.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
Am I the only one who noticed Richard Branson's Cameo at the airport? I pointed out to all my friends but none of them noticed. He's even listed in IMDB as having the cameo so I know it was him I saw <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did! I didn't even know he had a cameo, and the camera was moving, and not in focus on him, but I still managed to spot it. His beard and hair are just too unique that you couldn't not see him.
The lastfew Bond movies haven't impressed me at all. The formula seems to be: ladies-cars-evil guy-gadgets.
Luckily this Bond movie avoided most of those cliches, but still kept some of the touches that the Bond movies have all been famous for.
I liked the new Bond fellow and Eva was gorgeous. The first hour or so of the movie blew me away. It kinda dragged on for a little while near the end but the ending and intro made up for it.
I saw it at the cinema and I enjoyed the entire movie.
The lastfew Bond movies haven't impressed me at all. The formula seems to be: ladies-cars-evil guy-gadgets.
Luckily this Bond movie avoided most of those cliches, but still kept some of the touches that the Bond movies have all been famous for.
I liked the new Bond fellow and Eva was gorgeous. The first hour or so of the movie blew me away. It kinda dragged on for a little while near the end but the ending and intro made up for it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
UH avoided most cliches? I believe the only cliche it didn't have was probably the gadgets. Unless of course you count his mini-difibulator or his cellphone tracking computer program as a gadget, but I don't. So it hit 3/4 cliches. He had the married french woman and Vesper, won a posh car and owned a fast paced car (which he destroyed <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />) and oh yeah, a couple of baddies on the way as per usual!
After 40 (?) years of the same formulaic Bond it was refreshing to see a more gritty, 'realistic' Bond come to the fore.
The last Bond film I thought was any good was Goldeneye. Not only did I think Casino was good but now i'm looking foward to the next one.
My one criticism was the change of pace at the end was a bit jolting, i'm not sure how it could have been done better but it did jar a bit as I watched it.
The THICK danish accent made me chuckle.
"Im the Money"
"Worth every penny"
is what made me think she was, if not the Money Penny, then at least her predecessor...
unless money penny is meant to actually be a real name rather then a title :o
I thought it was a nice touch either way <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<i>Our</i> Mads Mikkelsen did supprisingly good i believe. Iam so proud of him <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
The THICK danish accent made me chuckle.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, he did not have a thick danish accent, which surprised me cause I thought he had it when I watched the trailer.
Edit: And also, Bond was fighting against Terrorists!? Not even Terrorists who wanted to take over the world, mind you! Not even the terrorists themselves, hell, they weren't even really 'terrorists', they were insurgents(See Makavelli, the right to rebel when a government no longer serves its purpose), and again, he wasn't fighting them, he was fighting the guys who were funding the insurgents? What? It felt like these guys weren't even half-evil in comparison to every other bond villian/character-nemisis of bond. As well as the intro cinematic chase sequence being rediculously over the top. The guy was Bouncing from crane to crane 300 feet in the air without flinching! The most 'realistic' bond? Hardly! The man won the world poker tournament, jumps from skyscrapers, gives up his job over some broad he met maybe a week earlier, who ends up betraying him and screwing him over, who he continues to try and save. And who ever heard of a country giving up 100million dollars just for the hell of it?! (See CIA Agent in the movie who foots bond not only the 5 million rebuy, but gives him the winnings as well saying 'do we look like we need it') At least the other bonds took the unrealism in stride very well with the rediculous gadgets and such, the swavey attitude, and a new bond-girl every movie. This was more than a little non-bond, nor did it live up to the advertising of a more 'realistic' bond in my oppinion.
And to the comments of 'all the past bonds are repetative', That is the point, in my oppinion, if people didn't want to see more of the same, they wouldn't buy tickets for them. If you wanted to argue about repetativeness, stop buying EA's rehashed sports titles every 6 months-1 year. >.> <.<