Casino Royale - James Bond

[majorloser]

In my opinion this movie is NOT a 007 Bond movie. It was a good movie, just not a movie any 007 fan will like. To me James Bond is a suave, sophisticated lady's man that can kick some major butt while keeping his tux clean. This Bond is not that type of man. He's more of a regular guy, a bruiser that stumbles through his difficulties. There is no finess and no gadgets involved. Even the Aston Martin Vanquish S was crashed within 20 seconds (sorry for the spoiler).

No action packed opening sequence before the credits and no half visible naked ladies in the opening credits. What's the world coming to.

 

[Jack Hammer]

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't really comment on it. I thought that in this movie he was supposed to portray Bond before he became suave. When he was still learning the ropes and was relatively inexperienced. I was under the impression that they were going to mold him into that character over the next few flicks.

Personally, I think the bond films needed a makeover. They were too predictable, cliche, and the gadgets were getting too involved. I really liked the earlier films, but think that the ones from the 70's changed it to just being sillier and sillier at times. Though, he really shouldn't be made to be politically correct and he still should be a womanizer. Those are a few trademarks since the beginning of the franchise.

Jack

 

[zildjian]

I thought that in this movie he was supposed to portray Bond before he became suave. When he was still learning the ropes and was relatively inexperienced. I was under the impression that they were going to mold him into that character over the next few flicks.

That is what this film does, shows the begining of that molding process. Which I thought was cool, but it is different so some won't like it.

 

[Sheep]

I haven't seen the movie, so I can't really comment on it. I thought that in this movie he was supposed to portray Bond before he became suave. When he was still learning the ropes and was relatively inexperienced. I was under the impression that they were going to mold him into that character over the next few flicks.

Personally, I think the bond films needed a makeover. They were too predictable, cliche, and the gadgets were getting too involved. I really liked the earlier films, but think that the ones from the 70's changed it to just being sillier and sillier at times. Though, he really shouldn't be made to be politically correct and he still should be a womanizer. Those are a few trademarks since the beginning of the franchise.

Jack

Jack, I completely agree with you. Thank you for saying this, so the idiots above will maybe read the blurb about the movie, instead of shitting all over it.

This movie is pre-007. I won't go into details because I don't want to spoil it, but to say this is a shame makes you the biggest fool in the world. The bond you're thinking of didn't exist yet, but some how they killed him off...? Get a clue, and actually SEE the movie.

SheepStar

 

[Seth=L]

I agree with you SheepStar. You can't judge a book or movie by it's cover or preview.

The only thing about the movie that I didn't like was the stupid opening credits, they slaughtered it. The singer from AudioSlave, WTF, why didn't they just stick to the original plan. Naked sillouettes of women and a sexy song, that is the opening they were supposed to have. Instead we get this garbage with a song that didn't jive with the Bond soundtracks at all and 007's sillouette and cheasy effects, it was dissapointing.

As for the movie itself, good easy 3.5-4 stars.

 

[DTS]

I went to see this yesterday afternoon. I LIKED IT. I think it was time for a change. Think of it as BOND BEGINS . As for sound, pretty cool use of LFE and surrounds. Go see it!

 

[AVJedi]

I saw the movie Saturday night. I liked it, alot. I'm a HUGE Bond fan, and I came away impressed. What everyone has to remember that this is Ian Flemming's first Bond Novel. So, this is supposed to be the first introduction to Bond. I think they went back to the beginning because they ran out of original materials from Flemming, when Bronson came in as Bond. As for Daniel Craig, I think he did a fantasic job as James Bond. It just depends on who you grew up on as Bond. I will always love Sir Sean the best, because he was the first. But everyone who has played Bond has brought something different to the role. Craig's version it one of a government agent being promoted to government hitman, and expanded responibilities. He is learning the job, learning from mistakes, and BECOMING the Bond everyone knows and loves. So, it will be interesting if they remake some of the old classics Sir Sean brought to the screen, or write new stuff. But as for a movie, it's got a good plot, moves along at a decent clip, twists and turns like all 007 movies, and the use of surrounds and bass are represented well, when needed. If I was a movie critic getting paied to to this, I'd give it a solid 4 out of 5 stars.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...it will be interesting if they remake some of the old classics Sir Sean brought to the screen...

Ooooo. Controversial comment AVJedi.

 

[Sheep]

It would be nice to see some more 007 films with Daniel Craig

Answer: Here

One day you will learn how to use the interweb.

SheepStar

 

[Seth=L]

Gee that was quick, wasn't expecting to see another so soon, but they do come quick don't they?

 

[Jack Hammer]

Gee that was quick, wasn't expecting to see another so soon, but they do come quick don't they?

One of the new trends in making movies with expected sequels seems to be to film the sequels with or on the back of the original films. This keeps costs down and keeps the films release somewhat closer together. Instead of starting all over, they just keep going.

Jack

 

[majorloser]

Answer: Here

One day you will learn how to use the interweb.

SheepStar

I meant that I'd enjoy seeing DC in more Bond movies. Of course the studio will make more. That's a given. I just hope they don't try remaking existing 007 movies. Write new stories around DC's "Neo-Bond" character.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I saw the movie Saturday night. I liked it, alot. I'm a HUGE Bond fan, and I came away impressed. What everyone has to remember that this is Ian Flemming's first Bond Novel. So, this is supposed to be the first introduction to Bond. I think they went back to the beginning because they ran out of original materials from Flemming, when Bronson came in as Bond. As for Daniel Craig, I think he did a fantasic job as James Bond. It just depends on who you grew up on as Bond. I will always love Sir Sean the best, because he was the first. But everyone who has played Bond has brought something different to the role. Craig's version it one of a government agent being promoted to government hitman, and expanded responibilities. He is learning the job, learning from mistakes, and BECOMING the Bond everyone knows and loves. So, it will be interesting if they remake some of the old classics Sir Sean brought to the screen, or write new stuff. But as for a movie, it's got a good plot, moves along at a decent clip, twists and turns like all 007 movies, and the use of surrounds and bass are represented well, when needed. If I was a movie critic getting paied to to this, I'd give it a solid 4 out of 5 stars.

I finally saw this movie tonight. As you, I really enjoyed it and your comments. My sentiments exactly.
This is a new beginning for a new 007. As was stated, Bond has become a blawh movie, cookie cutter. This one really hit the spot, a revitalization.
Bond needed a new fan base. A fan base is usually not enough to keep movies in business. It needs more, much more.

 

[Sheep]

I loved the new theme song they used at the beginning. It was done my Chris Cornell from Audioslave, and its titled "You Know My Name".

SheepStar

 

[mike c]

I also watched it last night ... I must admit, I HATE the pierce brosnan 007 movies. not because of pierce brosnan (he looks the part - face wise) but because of the illogical impossibility of his gadgets. I'd sooner believe warp speed and starships than his gadgets.

this movie made a fan of me. this movie made sure I am gonna watch the next one.

then again, as a kid, I started watching the bond movies starring timothy dalton (and IIRC, liked it)

 

[stratman]

Hey BBCA (Direct TV) is showing the original Casino Royale, obviously it's a comedic farce, does anyone know if this movie is true to the story, or is the new Casino Royale true to the book? In this version 007 comes out of retirement to foil a plot by SMERSH by using various impostors masquerading as 007. It's a little boring.

 

[WorldLeader]

I just saw the 7:00 showing and I really enjoyed it. Lots of twists, action, and some kick-*** FX. I haven't seen many older Bond movies but this one was definitely different. Bond seemed very much in love with one of the girls...

Anyway, the movie reminded me more of the Borne Identity/Supremacy than other Bond movies; less super-hero and more cold killer, if that makes any sense.

Again though, no T or A so not a true Bond movie apparently


Worth your time though, a good movie.

 

[stratman]

Ok so I took my time getting to the theater.......just one question:

If this is the beginning of Bond, right when he became a double 0,
and it's obvious that it's based in this decade (post 911) that means that the cold war James Bond didn't exist---my sister in law made a great point, they should have done the movie in the style of the late 1950s or early 60s.

Does that mean that all the stories are going to be remade in a modern time line?

 

[AVJedi]

Sratman,
No the Casino Royale starring Peter Sellers from the 60's/70's is a comedic knock off like the Naked Gun, Airplane movies. It's based on the book, loosely, but they didn't have the rights to do Bond movies back then, so they made a funny movie about them.
As for the true to the book, this movie with Daniel Craig is more true to the novel. But, obviously, in present day. It will be interesting, to see how they spin the works of Ian Flemming, or write new stuff around this "new" character.

 

[stratman]

Daniel Craig as Austin Powers; Mike Meyers as 007......Huh? Might work.