James Bond 007 in "Casino Royale" Talkback (Spoilers) [Archive]

The Penguin

11-17-2006, 12:00 AM

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/MMPO/505151.jpg
M: "I knew it was too early to promote you."
James Bond: "What I understand, double-ohs have a very short life expectancy."Release Date: November 17, 2006
Studio: Columbia Pictures, MGM
Director: Martin Campbell
Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Jeffrey Wright, Giancarlo Giannini, Caterina Murino, Simon Abkarian, Tobias Menzies, Ivana Milicevic, Clemens Schik, Ludger Pistor, Claudio Santamaria, Isaach de Bankole

Plot Summary: Daniel Craig stars as "007" James Bond, the smoothest, sexiest, most lethal agent on Her Majesty's Secret Service in "Casino Royale." Based on the first Bond book written by Ian Fleming, the story, which has never been told on film until now, recounts the making of the world's greatest secret agent.

James Bond's first "007" mission leads him to Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), banker to the world's terrorists. In order to stop him, and bring down the terrorist network, Bond must beat Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game at Casino Royale. Bond is initially annoyed when a beautiful British Treasury official, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), is assigned to deliver his stake for the game and watch over the government's money. But, as Bond and Vesper survive a series of lethal attacks by Le Chiffre and his henchmen, a mutual attraction develops leading them both into further danger and events that will shape Bond's life forever.

Visit the official movie site here (http://www.casinoroyalemovie.com/).

Comments?

As the clock strikes midnight, it is officially Friday in the U.S. and the first big release of the (near) holiday season, Casino Royale, hits theaters as Daniel Craig becomes the sixth man to portray Agent 007, James Bond.

The 21st film in the series debuted yesterday in the United Kingdom setting a new 007 record, selling 1.7 million pounds ($3.2 million) worth of tickets, a 54 percent increase over comparable sales for the previous Bond film and first-day record-holder, 2002's Die Another Day. Two-thirds of all movie tickets sold in Britain were for Casino Royale. - SuperHeroHype.com (http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=4919)

Classic Speedy

11-17-2006, 12:10 AM

I'll be seeing a matinee showing either tomorrow afternoon or Saturday afternoon. Cheaper than night showings.

MarineCorps

11-17-2006, 12:14 AM

I'm torn on this movie. On one hand we have the blond Bond which I haven't agreed with since I first saw him and on the other hand if the movie looks to be classic Bond. :(

Mr Cat Dog

11-17-2006, 02:38 AM

Saw the movie yesterday, and it was really very good. It's completely different from any other Bond film, but yet it feels exactly like one. The only way to describe it is like a Bond version of Batman Begins. At the start of the film, Bond is reckless, un-suave and incredibly big-headed. But by the end of the film, he's the Bond we come to know and love.

It's definitely a retread to From Russia With Love more than Moonraker. The consensus from RT definitely sums up my opinion: "Casino Royale disposes of the silliness and overplayed gadgets that plagued recent James Bond outings, while Daniel Craig delivers what fans and critics have been waiting for: a caustic, haunted, intense reinvention of Bond."

Does it have problems? You bet it does, but surprisingly few for a Bond film. The only real problems come that there are too many villains, and the plot goes a bit awry during the third act. But really, it's all trivial, because we get a real-Bond. And probably the best played Bond since (or even beating) Sean Connery!

*****

Hades

11-17-2006, 07:50 AM

I'll be seeing it tomorrow afternoon.

dc_gothamite

11-17-2006, 01:11 PM

i'm definitely seeing it. i'm tired of people goin' off and proclaiming how they won't be watching it, strictly because Daniel Craig is blond and doesn't "look like Bond." If he can pull off a guy who's licensed to kill (and it looks like he can), he's fine with me.

Michael24

11-17-2006, 03:06 PM

My brother wants to check it out, so I might as well go along with him. We'll probably see it Sunday. I really do want to like it, because I haven't liked the series since Goldeneye. We'll see.

Juu-kuchi

11-17-2006, 05:12 PM

Great movie. More on this later though.

Suffice to say, I do like this recharging of the Bond franchise.

Classic Speedy

11-17-2006, 06:13 PM

After watching it, I can confidently say... this was my favorite Bond movie ever. No foolin'. Craig is an awesome new Bond.

There were so many moments in this that were almost anti-Bond- by that I mean different from the Bond we've been seeing in the movies for years. Heck, the movie didn't even open with the trademark "Bond shooting the screen" (well, not RIGHT away), and that piqued my interest right from the start. We don't even hear "Bond. James Bond." until the very end.

The change was good. Outstanding characterization and development from all involved, tons of backstabbing that I didn't see coming, and solid direction. By that, I mean the editing and execution was fantastic so that the action really made you jump in your seat. I could feel other people jumping in the theater when something suddenly happened, like a thug coming out of nowhere, and that's a good sign. And wow, the movie offered a great climax. Just when you think the movie's over and everything's happily ever after, the movie comes out of nowhere to offer one last twist and bang.

Well, let's just say I was very impressed. I was expecting a fun Bond movie as always, but this one took it even farther. I guess if I had to give a criticism, it's that the villains weren't too well-developed. Otherwise, I give it an A.

Ragebot

11-17-2006, 08:40 PM

Um, wow.

While the movie was valiantly meeting my expectations for the first two-thirds, the movie went on overdrive as soon as Bond was poisoned, culminating to what was probably the best final twenty-or-so minutes of a Bond film ever. Hell, I was as on the edge of my seat as I was during the ending of The Departed!

Daniel Craig was wonderful. He went in a completely different style from Brosnan's dry (sometimes rigid) sobriety and Connery's (sometimes silly) Connery-ness. One of the key reasons this movie works so well is that he's given the chance to really talk to people and carry on conversations, rather then spurt out a series of one-liners over and over. It reminded me of the best moments in Goldeneye and Goldfinger.

Classic Speedy

11-17-2006, 09:05 PM

Daniel Craig was wonderful. He went in a completely different style from Brosnan's dry (sometimes rigid) sobriety and Connery's (sometimes silly) Connery-ness. One of the key reasons this movie works so well is that he's given the chance to really talk to people and carry on conversations, rather then spurt out a series of one-liners over and over. It reminded me of the best moments in Goldeneye and Goldfinger. I think what made the humor in this movie so golden was how the jokes were handled. We had very few corny one-liners that we've come to expect from Moore onward (don't get me wrong, they crack me up, but they would've been horribly out-of-place in a film like this), but the few we DO have are well-done. I LOVED the moment after Bond was poisoned and he casually came back to the cards table, saying "That last hand almost killed me." It was timed extremely well, in that it was a breather from the intense scene that preceeded it, but also how Craig read it in that "slightly shaken from the previous events but still very collected and confident" manner. The context made it hilarious.

The long exchange between Bond and Vesper when they first meet was also gold.

BatKid

11-18-2006, 01:00 AM

Man, I don't know where to start with this film. Craig got sooo much crap from people because of his casting, and this film I feel was "sweet revenge". I liken this whole situation to the "Keaton as Batman" thing. Too young back then, but I've hears stories how Keaton got major criticism, and it wasn't until the film that made people realize how dark/serious Batman really is. And we've been set up for an encore.

Like someone said, this version actually got to hold a conversation. We got to know him for a bit, unlike in previous takes where the character did seem distanced. My only real fear about future sequels is where they take Bond from now. This take was so damn interesting that I almost don't want them to follow the regular ol' path again. Hopefully they can still make a deep character.

Oh and finally, we got to see that egotistical bastard that Bond is. Previously, he was more confident if anything. This one just went all-out. The torture scene exemplified this greatly. My audience not only cringed, but was damn near in tears with how Bond reacts near the end. My favorite short line had to be when Bond has just been saved by Vesper from a heart attack. He wakes up confused momentarily, shakes it off, and calmly replies..."are you alright?" Priceless.

Bond is back. Better than ever imo.

Mr Cat Dog

11-18-2006, 06:42 AM

after Bond was poisoned and he casually came back to the cards table, saying "That last hand almost killed me." Everyone in the cinema I was in laughed at that moment. Some of the other moments were very good, but it was that moment when everyone burst out laughing.

mookie75

11-18-2006, 12:37 PM

I've always had a take-it-or-leave-it attitude when it comes to James Bond, but for some reason I've wanted to see this movie for awhile now. (Maybe it's just because of all the whining I've been hearing around the internet from hardcore Bond fans.) Perhaps I'll get to it while I'm out visiting family in Oregon this coming week.

Michael24

11-19-2006, 06:33 PM

Just got back from seeing it. To my surprise, my brother really enjoyed it and thought it was great. It was more of a mixed bag for me, more negative than positive.

I thought the action scenes were very well done, particularly the first one of the film that leads to the construction site. (I didn't know Bond was part monkey! And I thought the guy he was chasing was a little over-the-top.) The airport tarmac sequence was suspenseful, and the big finale in Venice was very good. (But if I see one more nail gun used like a machine gun in a movie, I swear I'm gonna freak!) And I liked Vesper Lynd and the actress that played her.

I thought the first half or so moved well, but once the story moved to Montenegro, that's where I found the movie to really grind to a halt. After the poker game was finally over, I thought the movie continued to drag out too much until we finally got to the end and the final twist which, while unexpected, didn't help in my enjoyment of the movie.

I also thought the teaser was kind of boring, the black-and-white was distracting being a Bond film, and I didn't like not having the movie open with the gun barrel trademark. And a Bond film is not a Bond film without the Bond theme. And speaking of the score, someone really needs to boot David Arnold off the franchise.

And Daniel Craig? Eh. I've never seen someone look so bored playing Bond. Sorry to say, I thought he was pretty lackluster.

Final score out of five? I'll say **1/2, though I accidently checked **.

Sidewinder1984

11-19-2006, 06:48 PM

Saw it this afternoon. It was pretty damn good. Daniel Craig acted brilliantly as the new, Fleming-inspired Bond, though I still think he looks a bit too "hard". The action scenes were done superbly, and the acting was great all-round. The criticisms I have of the film are pretty much the same ones I have of the book - namely that the Bond/Vesper romance seems a little far-fetched (though the climactic scene in the sinking building was a corker) and that Le Chiffre's villain status is a little undermined by him being under constant threats by his clients (or in the novel, his SMERSH bosses). Also, while the re-jigged gunbarrel opening was a good idea, it looked weird...and should definitely be a one-off. All-in-all, just what the franchise needed after the excesses of Die Another Day.

BTW, anyone else think elements of this film will be carried forward into the next. Namely, the Mathis question?

Steven C

11-19-2006, 09:37 PM

I really liked it, my favorrite Bond movie to date.

Ragebot

11-19-2006, 10:45 PM

BTW, anyone else think elements of this film will be carried forward into the next. Namely, the Mathis question?

Oh, yes. According to this (http://commanderbond.net/article/3760) (spoilers warning), Bond 22 will directly follow Casino Royale.

Any ideas on what the film should be called? Personally, I feel Fleming's "Property of a Lady" title would work nice as a reference to the previous film.

By the way, here are the other unused Fleming titles (although it's understandable why none of them have been used yet):

The Hildebrand Rarity
Risico
Quantum of Solace
007 in New York

dc_gothamite

11-19-2006, 11:06 PM

Michael24

11-19-2006, 11:10 PM

Dr. No didn't open with the trademark gun barrel, either.

Really? I haven't seen the very beginning of it in so long, I guess I forgot. I can forgive it, though, since that was the very first movie.

And the Bond theme kicked in at the end. Considering this was his first outing and foray into the whole -00 job, it was only right that it be in the closing sequences after he says his classic, "Bond... James Bond."

It worked great at the end like that, but I still would have prefered to hear it during other parts of the movie. I know what they were going for with this movie, but I didn't see any need to purposely hold the theme back like that.

Hanshotfirst113

11-19-2006, 11:57 PM

I'm told that this adhers closer to Fleming's character. Purist that I am, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't start to dig into the books a bit. I am saddended by the removal of Q, though :crying: :(. Very saddened indeed.

Michael24

11-20-2006, 12:42 AM

Incase you weren't aware, Q (as well as Moneypenny) didn't appear because neither of them were in the original novel. If they bring them back in the next one, it will certainly be interesting to see who they cast as Q. With the new direction they apparently want to take the series, it seems like they wouldn't recast John Cleese.

Lutochris

11-20-2006, 02:38 AM

Hearing about the "new direction" and liking the idea very much, I was kind of disappointed that they didn't go all-out and put this in a classic Cold War, Brits vs. Soviets type of setting, which would have really been cool. But despite the decision to keep it modern, I was very pleased with the plot, the style, and all the performances.

Of course the real question is, is Craig better than Lazenby?

Mike Spartz

11-20-2006, 02:43 AM

Of course the real question is, is Craig better than Lazenby?Yes. Better than Lazenby, better than Connery, MUCH better than Moore (shudder), better than Dalton, slightly worse than Brosnan imo.

xokxtrunks

11-20-2006, 06:51 AM

Yes. Better than Lazenby, better than Connery, MUCH better than Moore (shudder), better than Dalton, slightly worse than Brosnan imo.

I can believe he's better than Lazenby and Connery, I'll even say he's better than Brosnan, but nobody touches Moore and Dalton.

BatKid

11-20-2006, 12:12 PM

Strange combo, those 2 are almost never uttered in the same sentence. :p

I've found that most of the old-school Bond fans have taken a liking to Craig in this one. Which is easy to see, clearly Casino Royale takes Bond back to its core. As is, I see Brosnan/Craig as the modern Moore/Connery.

Hanshotfirst113

11-20-2006, 05:01 PM

Cortez2301

11-22-2006, 03:37 AM

This movie was great! Craig really did a great job as 007.The story was very realistic compared to most Bond movies and the action was perfect.The bond girls here were hot (including the blond chick).The torture scene was a bit too much but hillarious as Bond joked about it.Good acting too.I gave it 4 stars.

Simpler Simon

11-23-2006, 10:49 PM

"Dr. No" didn't open with the trademark gun barrel either.

It did...it just skipped the pre-titles sequence and went directly into Maurice Binder's graphics.

Speaking of which...did anyone notice there were no girls in the titles for Casino Royale?

Just got back from a showing....loved every moment. The comparisons to Batman Begins work best - a brutish, arrogant hired killer that is thrown against impossible odds and learns about love and loss. And oh yeah, he just happens to be a 00 agent named James Bond.

Violence was hard, and often brutal without being over-the-top graphic. Bond really takes a beating in this one, and I love how they don't bother to hide that.

About complaints regarding the slow 3rd act - it was that way in the novel. Doesn't exactly make it right, but I like how they kept that odd bit of pacing, even if they felt the need to spice it up with action. About the only thing I didn't like in the film was the overuse of cell phones and text messages - its like every other technology-based movie that instantly becomes dated in a few years. And all the message-sending/tracing was very confusing throughout the first act.

Overall I love Craig as Bond, but I also have to note that he got far richer material than most of the Bonds ever did, so it's not a fair comparison. I really hope they go ahead with the "direct sequel" idea for the next film - there's no way they could top this otherwise.

5/5 stars.

Temple Fugate

11-24-2006, 01:24 PM

I also thought the teaser was kind of boring, the black-and-white was distracting being a Bond film, and I didn't like not having the movie open with the gun barrel trademark. And a Bond film is not a Bond film without the Bond theme. And speaking of the score, someone really needs to boot David Arnold off the franchise.The theme played during the end credits. The absence of the guitar riff was an audial hint that he hadn't completely developed into the James Bond we know and love yet. We only heard hints of the beginning of his theme during the film, but once he shoots Mr. White in the leg and says "The name is Bond, James Bond" the theme goes right into its full glory. As for the rest of the score, its bombastic tones reflect the action and fit it perfectly, continuing the tradition of integrating the opening song with the rest of the film score. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the black and white. I'm also sorry you feel we needed to see the gunbarrel before Bond had ever actually killed someone. I thought that touch was a very inspired move. Risky as well...but they pulled it off excellently.

Glad to see the Goldeneye director back for this one. It was a good decision. That "free running" guy was AMAZING! I'd like to know how much of that was digitally enhanced...I hope very little of it. Loved how they gave him specific credit in the opening titles.

Speaking of the opening titles...very original, very cool. It calls back the pre-Brosnan silhouettes we'd see in the classic openings. Only one woman's in the entire sequence (Vesper) and we don't even get a sexy body. The song was great. I had been wondering if they'd go with trying to create a "Casino Royale" song, but they didn't even bother and went with a song about Bond himself...and this time "sung" by Bond himself! Again, original and cool.

The final sequence in the film seemed too drawn-out, however. I got the feeling many people in the theater were wondering when the movie was going to end. I think if they had shortened some scenes and removed a few as well, the pacing would have been more consistent. I've seen it twice, and now I'm starting to wonder if it was written in a four-act structure, with the fourth being the Vesper betrayal. Or it just might have to do with the main bad guy being killed off before any of that starts...again, another Bond first.

I am disappointed, however, to hear the 22nd movie will directly follow Royale. Now that Bond has begun, I'd like to just get him back to where he is and keep it going. I feel no desire to see a re-introduction to Q, nor any of the other small Bond trademarks that we haven't already gotten in Royale. This was a fantastic origin movie, and we don't need another. Just give us some fun adventures with our newly polished 007.

My brother had a hard time accepting this as canon with Judi Dench playing M. I asked him how he got over Felix Lighter going from gray hair in the Connery years to young and recently-married in License to Kill, or the fact that 007 seemed to go through plastic surgery every decade. BTW, it was a delight when they revealed that Felix was in on the poker game. Quite an unexpected first meeting of the MI6-CIA partners.

Casino Royale - ****

BatKid

11-24-2006, 03:07 PM

Glad to see the Goldeneye director back for this one. It was a good decision. That "free running" guy was AMAZING! I'd like to know how much of that was digitally enhanced...I hope very little of it.
No enhancing. He does that type of thing for a living, and actually, if you do a search on youtube, there's far more fantastical things that he does.

I am disappointed, however, to hear the 22nd movie will directly follow Royale. Now that Bond has begun, I'd like to just get him back to where he is and keep it going. I feel no desire to see a re-introduction to Q, nor any of the other small Bond trademarks that we haven't already gotten in Royale. This was a fantastic origin movie, and we don't need another. Just give us some fun adventures with our newly polished 007.
Who said it would be another origin film?

I'm thrilled by the fact that it's a direct sequel, because for the first time I feel this particular era has some cohesiveness that the previous films lacked. Developing the character through consecutive films can only be good imo. Personally, I'm not interested in sequels that basically put the audience straight through "a day's work in the life of Bond".

Michael24

11-24-2006, 04:13 PM

The theme played during the end credits. The absence of the guitar riff was an audial hint that he hadn't completely developed into the James Bond we know and love yet. We only heard hints of the beginning of his theme during the film, but once he shoots Mr. White in the leg and says "The name is Bond, James Bond" the theme goes right into its full glory. As for the rest of the score, its bombastic tones reflect the action and fit it perfectly, continuing the tradition of integrating the opening song with the rest of the film score. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the black and white. I'm also sorry you feel we needed to see the gunbarrel before Bond had ever actually killed someone. I thought that touch was a very inspired move. Risky as well...but they pulled it off excellently.

Like I said elsewhere (I think), I understand what they were trying to do musically, it was just that personally it didn't work for me. I want to hear the James Bond theme when I watch a James Bond movie. I want to see the gunbarrel sequence before the movie starts. (I didn't really see a need to "explain" the gimmick.) Without it and the fact it starts in black-and-white, my brother even thought it was just another trailer until or something until they finally showed Daniel Craig in the office. Perhaps because the other films (minus the last three) are so ingrained in my mind that I just can't accept a new one that comes along and wants to starts over. And the black-and-white just seemed like nothing but "Look at us, this is how serious we're trying to be."

I'll give the film props for the action scenes, though. They were certainly well-done and I was entertained during them, particularly the airport tarmac chase and even the construction site sequence, as silly as it was. And I agree that the later scenes seemed to drag. Everytime I thought the movie was about to end, it went on for another ten minutes or so.

Maybe in a year or two, whenever the next one comes out, I'll rent the DVD and give it another watch, and maybe my opinion will change. I went into this movie knowing it would be different and really trying to keep an open mind, but in the end, I just didn't like it. :shrug:

FireWarrior

11-25-2006, 05:30 PM

Like I said elsewhere (I think), I understand what they were trying to do musically, it was just that personally it didn't work for me. I want to hear the James Bond theme when I watch a James Bond movie. I want to see the gunbarrel sequence before the movie starts. (I didn't really see a need to "explain" the gimmick.) Without it and the fact it starts in black-and-white, my brother even thought it was just another trailer until or something until they finally showed Daniel Craig in the office. Perhaps because the other films (minus the last three) are so ingrained in my mind that I just can't accept a new one that comes along and wants to starts over. And the black-and-white just seemed like nothing but "Look at us, this is how serious we're trying to be."

I'll give the film props for the action scenes, though. They were certainly well-done and I was entertained during them, particularly the airport tarmac chase and even the construction site sequence, as silly as it was. And I agree that the later scenes seemed to drag. Everytime I thought the movie was about to end, it went on for another ten minutes or so.

Maybe in a year or two, whenever the next one comes out, I'll rent the DVD and give it another watch, and maybe my opinion will change. I went into this movie knowing it would be different and really trying to keep an open mind, but in the end, I just didn't like it. :shrug:

That's too bad that you didn't like it. Oh well change is always something that's hard to get over so I understand. At least you TRIED to keep a open mind, and realized that this movie would be different. I know some people who would absolutely refuse to watch it b/c it was simply to different in their eyes to consider it a Bond film.

As for me, loved the change in pace for the movie. It really is a Bond version of Batman Begins which is a very good thing. Glad that they got Martin Campbell back, I enjoyed Goldeneye a lot so it was great to see him helm another Bond flick. I've always loved origin films, and this one did a great job. The action was really in your face and brutal, something that I've been longing for in a Bond movie. And wow Eva Green, she is definitely the most beautiful Bond girl imo. As for Craig, great job! The man knows how to act and handle the action as well, definitely splendid. Overall a fantastic Bond movie.

Greg1

11-25-2006, 08:40 PM

I only have one problem with this movie: twenty hours straight of Bond making out in different places. Yeah, we killed the bad guys, let's make out in a hospital! Now a beach! Now in a hotel! Now on a boat! Now...

Annoying.

Ragebot

11-25-2006, 09:25 PM

Temple Fugate

11-25-2006, 10:20 PM

Never seen a Bond movie before, I take it? :confused:I think he meant we had three or four consecutive scenes of Bond making out/flirting with Vesper without anything else to interrupt. Except for that Sweedish banker. I loved that guy. Always a smile on his face.

Yeah, those kissing/horizontal lovemaking/boating scenes threw me out of the movie too. That was excessive even for 007 standards. Just removing one of those scenes I think would have helped the film greatly.

screw on head

11-26-2006, 11:49 PM

Must admit I was worried at the beginning of this installment, but by the end I was thrilled! Finally a Bond movie that isn't misdirected or fractured somehow.

Storywise I loved the film. I'm glad the story ends where it did, because another half hour could've very easily been tacked on, along with some additions elsewhere and the film could've been crippled. I love the structure of the story, and that the fact it's hinged on Bond and Vesper(?) rather than some grandoise villain scheme. I love how LeChief(?) gets knocked off by surprise, and how that creates a sort of mystery to where the story is going next, though it seemed fairly obvious early on that Vesper was going to betray Bond in some fashion. I can forgive the parts of the film set in Casion Royale that get a bit too confusing for their own good, which are all sort of structured in novel form rather than in movie form which Mark Millar cleverly pointed out in a review.

There are two bizarre nonsensical bits in the first half that didn't hurt the movie but weirded me out. The first is when Bond uses that heavy construction vehicle to chase his scarred incredibly agile target. That made absolutely no sense to me, and while it might've displayed spectacle along with Bond's more reckless side, that same reckless side is displayed much better later on in a few places in the film. The other nonsensical bit that annoyed me was when Bond needed a security code to get through the aiport security door, and used "Elippsis", or whatever that code was that popped up among the terrorists, to get him through the door. I thought that was a pretty lazy bit of writing. It's not a big deal, as it's a word we the audience is familiar with, but I thought they could've scrapped the security code bit all together or did something else.

I was thrilled with Daniel Craig in this. He plays Bond just perfectly, with a certain gruff tough-guy delivery that works surprisingly well. He sells that attitude so well early on that when he's about to go off and just kill LeChief with a knife toward the middle, I totally bought it, both performance wise just as well as story wise (which was an absolutely awesome bit!).

I came in expecting another goofy slightly above par Bond movie, but I'm glad that that wasn't what this movie turns out to be. I'd gladly see this a second time in the theater, and I think I will cause there's definately more to soak in about it....

Temple Fugate

11-27-2006, 01:54 PM

The other nonsensical bit that annoyed me was when Bond needed a security code to get through the aiport security door, and used "Elippsis", or whatever that code was that popped up among the terrorists, to get him through the door. I thought that was a pretty lazy bit of writing. It's not a big deal, as it's a word we the audience is familiar with, but I thought they could've scrapped the security code bit all together or did something else.The code actually made a lot of sense to me; ELLIPSIS was the code for the security door at the airport, the terrorists were able to get it, and the text messaging that relayed the code left the evidence trail for Bond to follow. At one point, LeCheffe (sp) asked "When does ELLIPSIS expire?" which meant the security codes at the airport were constantly changing and that in 36 or however many hours, that code would no longer be useful to them. Bond employed quick thinking with some desperation, obvioulsy he wasn't totally sure it would work, but it did. If it weren't for that code, the writers would have needed another plot point to get Bond to the Ocean Club and discover the identity of the man who sent it. Plus it kept the audience guessing as to the word's meaning until the minute Bond used it.

I was thrilled with Daniel Craig in this. He plays Bond just perfectly, with a certain gruff tough-guy delivery that works surprisingly well. He sells that attitude so well early on that when he's about to go off and just kill LeChief with a knife toward the middle, I totally bought it, both performance wise just as well as story wise (which was an absolutely awesome bit!).That was a great moment. It really defined the flaw in his character and allowed for the re-introduction of Felix, which was one of the things that made the movie for me.

screw on head

11-27-2006, 02:36 PM

The code actually made a lot of sense to me; ELLIPSIS was the code for the security door at the airport, the terrorists were able to get it, and the text messaging that relayed the code left the evidence trail for Bond to follow. At one point, LeCheffe (sp) asked "When does ELLIPSIS expire?" which meant the security codes at the airport were constantly changing and that in 36 or however many hours, that code would no longer be useful to them. Bond employed quick thinking with some desperation, obvioulsy he wasn't totally sure it would work, but it did. If it weren't for that code, the writers would have needed another plot point to get Bond to the Ocean Club and discover the identity of the man who sent it. Plus it kept the audience guessing as to the word's meaning until the minute Bond used it.
Great point! I'd never looked at the code that way, I assumed early on that it was the code word that had to be typed into some doomsday-style device by the end of the film. Honestly it never clicked for me opening the security door was THE moment for the word, I thought it would've been employed in relation to something much bigger, given that it was sort of propped up multiple times prior. Looking at it that way it does work, but even still I think some expository comment by Bond would've helped to sort of do away with the importance of the code, to indicate to the audience that "that's the end of that, don't have to worry about ELLIPSIS again, it's just a code to open a door!" Works for me now though...

AdamYJ

11-27-2006, 03:10 PM

I just saw it and thought it was pretty good. It was a tougher, more hard-edged Bond, but that makes sense when you consider what a hard-boiled world espionage is. He was gruff, but he still had some charm and he wasn't completely unflappable like some other Bonds. Best of all, his relationship with Vesper made me feel that Bond was human and could actually fall in love given the chance. Previous movies had always made women seem like a recreational pursuit for him rather than anything potentially meaningful.

Simpler Simon

11-27-2006, 10:20 PM

The code actually made a lot of sense to me; ELLIPSIS was the code for the security door at the airport, the terrorists were able to get it, and the text messaging that relayed the code left the evidence trail for Bond to follow.

Thanks for explaining that...I'll admit that whole ellipsis bit left me confused, as I figured it was the codename for some terrorist group, and I couldn't figure out before why it would be the keycode for that lock. But that makes total sense now.

About Leiter - I found his introduction a little -too- understated, and the whole 'soul brother' angle seemed like a throwback to Live and Let Die, of all films. Still I hope they keep him around, and not recast him every movie like before.

DarkAngel

11-30-2006, 10:06 PM

I finally saw the movie. Amazing. I know it might be too soon to make this statement, but I'm gonna call it the best in the series. Not since OHMSS have we seen such a strong emotional core to any of the entries. And start to finish, it held my interest. A lot of reviews cited one major weakness: the running time. But honestly, I didn't feel it. In fact, when it ended, I was kind of startled since I was ready for more. None of the others I saw it with felt the length was a problem, either.

Craig was great. I'm not sure yet where I would rank him, but without a doubt in the top 3. He might be the best, but I'm not sure I'm ready to say that yet. Before seeing this, Brosnan was my favorite. Not quite sure where I stand now.

If there was anything that in particular stood out to me, it was the energy and brutality of the action sequences. I'm used to seeing big, elaborate action sequences, particularly in the Bond movies, but the scenes in CR were startlingly dynamic and kinetic. Loved 'em. And I was so glad to see the filmmakers allow the action to run its course. Too many movies feel a need to cut the action short. Glad that wasn't the case here.

The story might not have been spectacular, but it was the presentation that had impact here. This was Bond, and yet it was Bond seen in a refreshingly different light. There was plenty that was familiar, but so much more that felt different. It was the presentation that allowed this movie to work so well.

Now, one thing kind of bothered me. It's minor, I know, but I still didn't like it. After Bond, acting as the valet, crashed that guy's vehicle, he goes inside and enters the security room. When he pulls out the dvd for the day and time he was looking for, well, what are the chances he's gone find the guy he's looking for at that particular camera position? To me, that seemed beyond far-fetched. Yeah, it's possible, but what's the likelihood? Anyway, if that's the biggest "problem" that jumps out at me, I suppose I don't have much to complain about.

Bond is definitely back. I'm a huge 24 fan, and so are two of the girls I went with. But we all left the theater saying "Bond's the real badass." It's good to see him reclaim that throne, something I thought he had lost to the likes of Jack Bauer, Vic Mackey, and Jason Bourne.

CyborgRex

11-30-2006, 10:56 PM

I saw it last night and I thought it was great. The opening scene was cool. The first action scene was great. All that crazy jumping around was awesome. I also loved the little switch he pulled on that guy at the airport. The best moment in the movie had to be at the very end.:D

I actually read the book a year or two ago and I recognised a few of the minor things that they took from the book, especially the books last line. Though they did not use one of my favorite parts of the book which involves a failed asasination atempt on Bond.

BatKid

12-01-2006, 12:00 AM

Best of all, his relationship with Vesper made me feel that Bond was human and could actually fall in love given the chance. Previous movies had always made women seem like a recreational pursuit for him rather than anything potentially meaningful.
Well get used to the old route. Vesper betraying Bond was the x-factor that turned him into the sex-but-not-love manbeast we all know him to be. :p

Hades

12-01-2006, 10:54 AM

So how many people are unaware that Bond is based off a book series? I was talking to some people theother day about this movie, and one of them said, "Eh, it was just another rip off remake of an older Bond movie, and not as good."

DarkAngel, I just need to doa minor correction on your post. Bond did not put a DVD into the security machine, he put a Blu-Ray disc in there. :-)

DarkAngel

12-01-2006, 12:06 PM

DarkAngel, I just need to doa minor correction on your post. Bond did not put a DVD into the security machine, he put a Blu-Ray disc in there. :-)
:D Ah. I see. I stand corrected.

AdamYJ

12-01-2006, 01:44 PM

Well get used to the old route. Vesper betraying Bond was the x-factor that turned him into the sex-but-not-love manbeast we all know him to be. :p

Yeah, I know, I didn't expect it to last anyway. I was just surprised I found something like that in there in the first place.

Bond is more my dad's thing, actually. He's more into the '60s style action-adventure heroes. James Bond, James Kirk, various Western characters (just bought him the Director's Cut of Tombstone for Christmas). There's a certain generational aspect to that type of character. I grew up in the '80s and '90s, so I lean more to the likes of Luke Skywalker, Marty McFly and sometimes Indiana Jones (though he skews more toward the '60s style dynamic than the others). He got me and my brother to go see Casino Royale with him, but I may have to drag them both to see something more fantasy-based with a more "everyman" style hero. Maybe Eragon.

Young Justice

01-09-2007, 01:26 PM

I liked the movie but I was kind of disappointed. A few thing other people said here was some of the reasons I haven't like it in its full. But the major disappoitement for me was that Vesper was not the major villain of the movie.

Let me explain: Before the betrayal, for me, at leas, it was pretty obvious that some doublecross would occur and the probability of this double-cross comes from Vesper was high. But in the end we know that she had double-crossed Bond because of her boyfriend being kidnapped.

If one of the expertises from Bond was actually to tell when someone was lying or not, and this was why he was the best Poker player in the MI6, how come he never noticed that Versper was liying to him. If she was the major villain of the movie, we could say that Vesper was better than Bond in the arts of decieving. But she being a merely victim, there's no way Bond will not discover her lies.

One could always say that was because he was in love, but I think this answer it too much cheap and lame.

Taking apart this minor (?) detailed, I liked the movie a lot. But I think it could be better.

Conan-san

03-31-2007, 05:18 PM

Temple Fugate

03-31-2007, 06:37 PM

If one of the expertises from Bond was actually to tell when someone was lying or not, and this was why he was the best Poker player in the MI6, how come he never noticed that Versper was liying to him. If she was the major villain of the movie, we could say that Vesper was better than Bond in the arts of decieving. But she being a merely victim, there's no way Bond will not discover her lies.The scene on the beach (which I originally didn't like because it was one of the scenes that padded out the end of the film) sells me on Bond's relationship with Vesper. She asks him if everybody has a "tell," and he says "Everyone but you." Combine this with "I have no armor left. You stripped it from me" and you'll see his serious weakness. Maybe he DID notice there was something suspicious about Vesper, but he was so in love with her and wanted so desperately to believe she was loyal that he forced himself to ignore her "tell."

This may or may not be what the writers had intended, but it works for me.

Hades

03-31-2007, 10:10 PM

Finaly saw the movie.

What the france did I just see? Cause I can tell you one thing I most defently did not see, and that was a bond movie.

The villian changed so many fliping times that I lost track by the time Bond turned Jhon Rambo at the end.

This was a poor attempt at doing Bond: Year Zero, it gets 1/2 out of me, and that's only cuz I don't want to sully the 00 code name with this film.

Obviously you have never read the book, because except for minor changes, this movie is dead on with the book. This is the best Bond movie ever made. I don't understand what you mean by sully, as it is the first true Bond adventure since Dalton's movies, as Brosnan's were close to Moore crampiness.

Conan-san

04-01-2007, 03:35 AM

No, no I have never read the Bond books, I came in expecting a film about Bond: year zero and most of the bloody movie was based on that crapin' poker table.

If I wanted to watch a poker movie, I'd watch a poker movie.

And I don't know what the france you get off calling the Brosen movies crap, I'll give you Tomorow Never Dies but Goldeneye and World is not enough were brilliant.
For starters, they were action movies for crying out loud, not some long thing that only had action at the start, a BRILLIANT opening sequence (I'll give it the brillant op) a runaround of some place and then nothing but this long poker game that realy made no sence and then that whole thing at the end, WTF.

Plus the villan swaps realy REALY ticked me off and by the end, it was Pritty Damn obvous who was going to be the big bad and what a weak big bad she was. I meen what the hell with the guy with the eye patch, that might have flown years ago but this is now, and now, I hate this moive.

dc_gothamite

04-01-2007, 05:09 AM

with a title like "Casino Royale," what exactly were you expecting?

As for Brosnan's movies being crappy. As much as I liked him as Bond, his only worthwhile contribution was "Goldeneye." "Tomorrow Never Dies," "The World is Not Enough," and most especially "Die Another Day" weren't exactly strong entries in the series. With over-the-top gadgets and some cheesy action, the Bond series was heading back into the realm of self-parody.

If you were coming into "Casino Royale" expecting over-the-top action sequences, too bad... the movie brought things back to the basics.
As for the action itself, it definitely had more grit and ferocity than any of the aforementioned Brosnan films.

I dunno how someone can say it's NOT about Bond. Clearly, he's learning as he goes, and both literally and figuratively, gets his b*lls back. Personally, I like this Bond who doesn't need an invisible car or submarine to do a job... all he needs is his fists and a gun or two.

Conan-san

04-01-2007, 05:52 AM

I'm sorry, to me this was just a movie with a guy called "James Bond" in it. It lacked everything I had come to know about Bond as being good.

Hell, the only good thing about this movie was the first half hour with him geting his 00 licence, the chase to the embasy, the second it actualy hit the story of the film it just came crashing down around it's ears.

The only thing that gave this movie it's precious 1/2 mark from me was the opening which I felt was brilliant (And proved the point that it didn't need to be silloetes of nude women and such to work) and I'd like to see more of that in futre bond moives.

Ragebot

04-01-2007, 04:43 PM

I'm sorry, to me this was just a movie with a guy called "James Bond" in it. It lacked everything I had come to know about Bond as being good.

It's one thing to dislike the movie, personal opinion and all that. However, not recognizing anything in the movie as being in the style of James Bond seems to be, frankly, ignorance on your part.

I have a question: Have you seen the movies From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and (especially) License to Kill? They are more similar to both Casino Royale and Ian Fleming's original writings than the Moore or Brosnan films.

Conan-san

04-02-2007, 03:39 AM

No, No I didn't. My first experence of bond was Goldeneye (the game), then Goldeneye (the movie) which I enjoyed to hell and back, then TMD which sucked and so on.

Infact, you know how this movie could of been salvaged? If the poker was cut down by about half, then it would of been all good.
As it was it was all "I'm the badguy, lol, no, I'm the badguy. Hi guys, i'm cleashé villain with eyepatch and thus I'm the real final bad but I go down like a ton of bricks."

I repeat: The movie went into termal decline the second the actual story started, the first half hour tricks you into thinking that this would be a bond moive and then it's slaps you around for it.

Temple Fugate

04-02-2007, 10:23 AM

I repeat: The movie went into termal decline the second the actual story started, the first half hour tricks you into thinking that this would be a bond moive and then it's slaps you around for it.The Bond you knew is gone and he's never coming back. I'm sorry if you like the campy, action-oriented Bond better (heck, the movies WERE fun, I've gotta admit) but in his heyday Bond's films were much more about intellectual battles than about how fast Bond can cut through a door with his wristwatch. The poker game was the focal point of the movie, and it gave the actors a chance to act for a change instead of performing stunts.

With any luck, Ian Flemming Bond is here to stay.

Conan-san

04-02-2007, 12:47 PM

Then lets hope the battle of wits is actauly exciting in the next one.

Noukon

04-02-2007, 06:19 PM

No, No I didn't. My first experence of bond was Goldeneye (the game), then Goldeneye (the movie) which I enjoyed to hell and back, then TMD which sucked and so on.

You've only seen the Brosnan films and you're complaining that Casino Royale "isn't Bond"?

With the exception of Goldeneye, the films they saddled Brosnan with are absolutely terrible. I'd really recommend you check out the classic Connery films, since most of them are leagues better.

Damien

04-02-2007, 07:27 PM

So, apparently I'm the only one in the world who likes The World is Not Enough. That's fine.....

I saw the film CR before reading any of the books. The different take on Bond is part of what made me want to look into Fleming's literary character, and I must say that I preferred this version of Bond both before and since reading the novel. I was so thrilled with the book that I've since collected the entire Fleming series.

Still, I can understand why some would attack the new film. It breaks a forty-year-old mold. But yes, I agree, naysayers should check out the Dalton films, OHMSS, and perhaps DaF. I have not yet seen or read FRWL, and I can't recommend any Roger Moore Bond films based on the foolery I've already seen of his.

Michael24

04-02-2007, 07:48 PM

I think the closest Moore Bond to the others recommended is For Your Eyes Only. It's still got a bit of cheese in the mix, but it's mostly a down-to-Earth story with little gadgetry. To non-Moore fans, I usually tell them For Your Eyes Only is to the Moore movies what From Russia With Love is to the Connery movies.

Damien

04-02-2007, 10:02 PM

I think I've heard that, but I've also heard it about A View to a Kill, which, since you know who is the villain, I may give a chance.

Temple Fugate

04-02-2007, 10:26 PM

So, apparently I'm the only one in the world who likes The World is Not Enough. That's fine.....TWINE is my favorite Brosnan movie. Though it still saddens me to admit the pre-credit sequence (practically a short film in its own right) was the best part of the movie. That was an unfortunate problem with the Brosnan films; Each one except for Goldeneye had a stronger opening than the remainder of the film.

I think I've heard that, but I've also heard it about A View to a Kill, which, since you know who is the villain, I may give a chance.I enjoyed both films equally...though none of the Moore movies were memorable for any good reasons (theme songs excluded). But if you're going to watch older Bond films I suggest you find a way to see them all. Even though a lot of them aren't the finest examples of cinema, there is something to be said for Moore campiness just as there is something to be said for Brosnan explosiveness.

Michael24

04-02-2007, 10:29 PM

I agree, the teaser for TWINE is absolutely awesome. If only the rest of the movie could have been as entertaining.

I like A View To A Kill (I like just about every Bond movie), but it's certainly not Bond at his finest. Still, how can you pass up the opportunity to see Christopher Walken as a Bond villain? That, and the title song by Duran Duran is awesome, even if it makes no sense. (As frontman Simon LeBon even admitted. :) )

Conan-san

04-03-2007, 05:50 AM

Hanshotfirst113

04-03-2007, 10:34 PM

Actualy, the opening half hour of this moive was perfectly servicing in it's own right, I loved that part and the opening credits (including it's) song.

But actualy, I'm on the opinion TWINE was my favourte Bond film whilst I acknowlage Goldeneye was the best of that era.

Does TWINE have the longest pre-credit sequence in any Bond film? I haven't seen it in years, but I remember that scene being really long.

Michael24

04-03-2007, 11:00 PM

I'm not sure, but TWINE probably does take the honor of having the longest teaser. I remember that when the credits finally started, I was like, "Oh, I forgot we hadn't even seen these yet." :)

On the other hand, I think From Russia With Love might have the shortest teaser. Again, I'm not sure, but it does seem to be the shortest of them all. (In addition to being one of my favorites.)

Temple Fugate

04-03-2007, 11:27 PM

Does TWINE have the longest pre-credit sequence in any Bond film? I haven't seen it in years, but I remember that scene being really long.
Straight from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_world_is_not_enough):
"The pre-title sequence lasts for about 14 minutes, the longest pre-title sequence in the Bond series to date. In addition, director Michael Apted says in the making of documentaries on the Ultimate Edition DVD release that this scene was originally much longer than that."

It sure felt longer than 14 minutes. When the titles DID start, I had the same reaction as Michael24. It has TWO action sequences, and M, Q and Moneypenny all appear. Just simply unprecedented in the world of James Bond.

I think, Michael, Casino Royale breaks Russia's record for shortest teaser, but I'm not certain.

Michael24

04-04-2007, 12:30 AM

It intrigued me enough, so I just popped them into the DVD player.

Not including the studio logos, and counting from the fade-in to the final shot of each teaser, From Russia With Love is 3 minutes and 5 seconds, and Casino Royale is 3 minutes and 41 seconds. So FRWL still holds the record as the shortest teaser.

Straight from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_world_is_not_enough):
"The pre-title sequence lasts for about 14 minutes, the longest pre-title sequence in the Bond series to date. In addition, director Michael Apted says in the making of documentaries on the Ultimate Edition DVD release that this scene was originally much longer than that."

Wow! I'd like to see the complete version of that teaser. Wonder how much longer it was? It could function as the first Bond mini-movie. :)

Palin Dromos

02-25-2010, 06:20 PM

In an attempt to not throw the Superman Reboot thread too far off topic I'm posting this here, where it's more relevant.

There was a question of whether a franchise could be rebooted and retain previous cast members. I pointed out that Dame Judi Dench successfully transferred from the Brosnan era (and arguably prior era) Bond films to the 'rebooted' Daniel Craig series in this film.

A couple other posters argued that 'Casino Royale' was not a reboot, cause 'there was nothing to reboot.' As well as questioning whether anyone involved in the production ever called it a reboot.
While I haven't scoured the entire web for all the interviews and quotes from the original cast and crew to find an instance of them using the exact word "reboot", but I did find this article/interview (http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_21_campbell_reboots_bond.php3) with director Martin Campell discussing "Casino Royale" as an origin movie and the studio wanting to get utterly away from where things stood at the end of "Die Another Day."
From his perspective it seemed like it was a reboot, even if he didn't use that word, but then again we could call it a 're-imagining', or 'new interpretation,' or a 'revitalization' or a 'restart.' Buzzwords that all say 'out with the old, in with the new'.

CR was an origin story that ignored everything that had happened in the previous 20 (21) films and was billed as Bonds first mission as a Double-O. Indeed it isn't until the end of the film that we get the catchphrase or even the theme song.

I still argue that CR was as much a reboot as "Batman Begins." Both are origin stories where we see the protagonist become the icon, both disregard all previous entries in the franchise, both were a dramatic shift in tone.
As for the franchises, as they stood before the reboot. Each entry can be seen on its own, with occasional inconsequential references to previous films. There were multiple actors in the main role. Both franchises were preceived as worn down by their final entries.

And of course this is all because I wanted to point out that a piece of a franchise's previous incarnation could be transposed to a new interpretation. Dame Judi Dench was there at the end of the first 20 (21)
Bond films and at the start of the newer films.