Anyone see "Casino Royale" this weekend?

[Flaxbee]

I'm thinking of going on Thanksgiving... good reviews, bad? It's gotten a lot of good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes....

Daniel Craig was excellent in "Layer Cake" and I really don't understand all the shit he got when chosen as the next Bond.

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

1. Is there a Bond song for this movie ?

Because I have not heard it yet.

[Lautremont]

11. Worst Bond song yet!

Bland, unmemorable pap.

[Ediacara]

13. While I agree it's unmemorable, I wouldn't say it's the worst yet

[terrya]

15. I think that if you're thinking the worst, a-ha singing "The Living Daylights"...

comes pretty close.

[Lautremont]

16. There is, admittedly, a lot of competition for that title.

[Deja Q]

18. I disagree. Madonna was a disappointment... and even Tina Turner

wasn't always great; "Goldeneye" is rather cringing at times.

[Common Sense Party]

30. Madonna's "song" was a freaking travesty. n/t

[JI7]

26. not memorable but i did like the song

[ZombieNixon]

2. Yes, I did.

I liked it. Craig doesn't quite look like what we've become used to as Bond, but he was good in the part. It's a return to the feel of earlier Bond films with less of the emphasis on special effects that the Brosnan films had. If you've read the book, it might be a bit confusing at first because there's a bit of retconning of the series that goes on at the beginning, but all in all, it was good film. I'd recommend it. :)

[Deja Q]

5. Given the Bond series often cherrypicked,

I have little qualms with any retconning. Many Bond movies took scenes from actual books, or changed things in books, and in the case of "Moonraker" had nothing to do with the book, but that was it.

Time will tell...

[Flaxbee]

6. thanks!

Haven't read any of Fleming's book, actually, have just seen probably half of the movies. They were getting pretty dull, even though I do like Pierce Brosnan, but the storylines had gotten lost in the special effects and silly stupid frivolousness. Some tongue-in-cheek is good, but when the movie exists only to blow stuff up or make double entendres, well, boooooriinnng. I've heard that this one is definitely better.

[Ekirh]

3. I enjoyed it . . .

Although the Bond fan in my wishes they played Baccaret (Spelling) Insted of Texas Hold Em but I sort of understand the card game switch.


Daniel Craig gets my approval as Bond.

Judi Dench gets my approval just because she's Judi Fucking Dench as always ;)

[Deja Q]

4. From everything I've read,

I think they made the perfect choice. With all the talk of no gadgets, going back to basics, seriousness, using wits not gadgets, danger, an inexperienced Bond, a fallible Bond, a dangerous Bond who has to do what it takes to survive and all, they needed someone with far more gravitas.

Indeed, from what I've read, Judi Dench puts in a sublime performance too - partly because of the story and partly because of the higher calibre actor. The clip I saw, I was THOROUGHLY impressed. This is the same lady who was hardly the "M" I knew of for 4 panto flicks. M and Bond develop a strained relationship. Not the supportive fun'n'games garbage. (the Bond books are a total different entity to the movies; and only a small amount of movies even begin to approach what's in the books. So I know "Casino Royale" is going to be a solid success. At least in terms of how Bond ought to be and not what the mass public thinks; Money Penny can call Bond a 'cunning linguist' while Brosnan would make balloon doggies out of condoms while pressing the remote control of a "blow up the bad guy" button and people would love it and call it sublime... no!! We need an intelligent Bond, we need the suspense back, we need the danger. Not the combined 9 hours of 'Romper Room meets Family Guy' we got with Brosnan!

I have yet to see it, but I know which Bond movies I like and which are garbage. I think I'm going to be impressed with Casino Royale.

After seeing a trailer this morning after updating Windows Media Player, I was floored - I am seeing it TODAY. (didn't yesterday; too tired. :( ) I haven't been this hyped for a Bond movie since Goldeneye - and I was disappointed at Goldeneye because its teaser suggested a gripping thriller and all we got were stupid stunts and jokes that would make Roger Moore blush in embarrassment. (Moore's era was often silly and sophomoric (though 2 of his are terrific - The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only; Brosnan's era was just crude.)

BTW: The Bond movies I give any respect to are:
Dr No
From Russia w/ Love
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
The Spy Who Loved Me
For Your Eyes Only
The Living Daylights
Licence to Kill

Honorable mentions go to Live and Let Die, Octopussy, and Goldeneye (all at least tried, though Goldeneye could have tried harder...)

Goldfinger, while utterly entertaining, isn't even remotely the same beast. It's camp. Farcical. A cartoon. And the style was maintained for most Bond movies since.

[Alexander]

7. I saw it, it's excellent. I'll try not to spoil anything...

There's still plenty of entertaining action sequences, however the fight scenes and so forth are a *bit* more believable than in the Brosnan "fashion model" films. In short, he acts like a spy in this movie, which is how Bond is supposed to act.

Daniel Craig's Bond relies less on gadgets and special effects and more on wit, skill and suspicion. He's rough around the edges, but that's what Bond is supposed to be in this movie, as he just got his double-O number.

Bond is also tougher, grittier, more athletic and not invincible anymore - he bleeds a lot, gets tortured in one scene, later he is shown recuperating in a hospital, and so forth.

Since I've read all the Fleming books, I can say that almost every part of the book can be found here. In fact, there's a lot of extra stuff added to the beginning and end which was never in the book. It's almost like the book was within another book, and both were revised and updated to place the story in 2006.

But Craig, like Connery and even more so like Dalton, stays true to the book's interpretation of Bond - a cold-blooded killer whose motives are questionable but who was occasional flashes of a conscience.

And no longer are we faced with the cliche "Bond girls", where he rescues some hapless bimbo. The female lead is every bit his counterpart and they share a great deal of witty repartee throughout the film.

[Deja Q]

22. Seconded - excellent response.

I also liked how Bond was so unpredicatable and so aware of his surroundings. Like the intelligence of Picard, but the action of Kerr Avon. Craig's Bond is astute from the get-go and I was all cheers. :D

[swimboy]

8. Loved it.

I just got back from Casino Royale and it was really amazing. I thought it was excellent and smart. Daniel Craig blew the last couple Bonds out of the water. He's amazing as Bond. He's got a "cooler than Steve McQueen" thing going and a really amazing ass. It was very smart--they even found a way to get him behind the wheel of a 1964 Astin Martin, he wore a square-cut bathing costume, and his trousers were frequently tailored to show off an extraordinarily fine ass.

Lots of clever references that don't distract from the film, just make you feel clever.

Opening credits were very updated mod and the song over the titles was decent and appropriate.

And did I mention his ass?

[CanuckAmok]

9. When will they ever show Bond's Bentley?

The weird, leaky Bentley/RR hybrid drophead he built himself, and drives in the books?

[Neshanic]

10. It looks good. Daniel Craig is smoking hot.

[terrya]

14. I think Bond drove it in "From Russia with Love"

As I recall.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. In the novel "Casino Royale" he was driving a 1930 supercharged Bentley.

Probably like this one:

[CanuckAmok]

28. Yes!

Of course, when the novels were written, those were only 20 years old....

He had the same one in Thunderball, but he had been monkying with it in his spare time, and it was some freakish frankenstein of a m machine...

[Ediacara]

12. It's quite possibly the best Bond film ever; certainly the best in 20+ years

Hands down, it's fantastic. Daniel Craig has proved his hand wringing nemeses wrong (like I predicted) and delivers the most believable Bond in my opinion.

On top of that, the plot, while being complex, is not overly complicated nor absurd, which has been the major problem for many, many Bond films.

My only complaint: there is a section that's a little slow toward the two hour mark that could easily have been edited down and feels like a false ending, but it's not that big of a complaint.

[Deja Q]

17. The overall best in 16 years; in some ways THE best ever... (SPOILER WARNING)

Pros:
1. Daniel Craig - best Bond actor (Dalton is now #2)
2. Judi Dench - A good actress, she finally gets to be M in the way M is supposed to be
3. Plot twists and turns
4. Bond is a cruel bastard-like almost anti-hero. I LOVE IT. Reminiscent of Kerr Avon...
5. You don't know what this Bond is going to do. BRILLIANT.
6. He is vulnerable, knows his wits despite being a newbie, and thinks fast on his feet. This also does him a disservice on a couple of occasions, but he's new.
7. The story.
8. Great photography and editing
9. humor but no gross or campy comedy - THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10. D Craig said he was going to show off a male nude scene... indeed, the press also showed pics of him on the beach with that swimsuit. In the film, there is no frontal nudity and they clip his beach scene so we don't see the best part of his swimsuit.
11. The torture scene was cut down from the book

Cons:
1. Needs more Judi D
2. The retconning (basically it takes place in the here and now, yet this is Bond's first assignment) is annoying at first, but it quickly settles in and the production team must mean business if they're going to this length to tell us this is going to be new and different. (which means I'll readily accept this)
3. Why not Baccarat instead of Poker? Yes, more people know of Poker... OTOH, they treated it all seriously.
4. Product placement for Sony, Ford, Fed-Ex...
5. Why does the bad guy in the gas truck plant the bomb under it? Wouldn't getting it in the plane and blowing it up there be better? (the plan did go awry so maybe this was a last minute change... and Bond knows where to put the bomb, which was an awesome twist)
6. Nice ending where Bond shoots Mr White - but no death?
7. Poker scene was a little long, but there was a relevant set-up to it too...

BRAVO TO ALL INVOLVED!!!!!!!!!! Bond is re-born and if they keep THIS style, Mr Craig will be around for at least a decade and it's well deserved. When I found out they had spent 2 years finding the right guy, combined with returning the franchise to a realistic setting, we'd be getting something hopeful. And I can live with the retcon job; this movie is SENSATIONAL.

[NewJeffCT]

23. On your Pro List, #10

Is it possible there was (male/Bond) nudity in the European version? I know that previous American-release Bond movies are different from the European movies - the Euros will have nudity, but cut down some of the gadgets, while the American versions have no nudity, but more gadgets.

[Alexander]

29. Really? Which ones? I've never heard of this.

Sacrificing one gadget for another, I see.

[Lautremont]

24. I mostly agree with you.

The product placement was ridiculous: "I like your watch. Rolex?" "No, Omega." "Ah. Very nice." That's actual dialogue, folks.

But as for the bomb on the fuel truck: the fuel truck WAS the bomb, and the little detonator was just to blow up the truck, which would then blow up the plane. That was my read, anyway.

[Sacajawea]

19. Would someone please explain what "retcon" means? Thanks! nt

[Deja Q]

20. Retroactive continuity (or revised continuity)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon

Basically, they change the past or erase parts of it that interfere with a different direction. In Bond's case, they wipe out the past. The dates given in the story are conclusive, yet M and the rest act as if Bond is a new agent. Despite too many movies that unequivocally take place in the past.

Still, if this is the direction they want to take, let them revise the past. I'd like to think Brosnan's era never took place anyway. :evilgrin: None of the original movies had this mix of grit, uncertainty, and depth to the characters - not even the Dalton films, which until now were the closest to the books in terms of grit and character unpredictability. I love this new style and can't wait for the next one.

[JI7]

25. yes, and i think this Bond is wayyyyyy hottttt

he doesn't have the typical "Bond look" so i think it's a case of where the actor has to really give it their all and make something of the character. and Craig did that well.

[bridgit]

27. to me, the new guy looks like a more plausible Bond...

we're going after T-Day :thumbsup:

[Skittles]

31. it will be fhe first Bond movie I have ever wanted to see

I LOVE DANIEL CRAIG

[Frank Cannon]

32. Yeah, it was terrific

It's the best Bond movie, IMHO, since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Craig is just awesome as Bond, given the character a truly 3D-quality that not even Sean Connery could provide. (Nothing against Connery; he did, after all, originate the role. But Craig plays it his own way and he's perfect.)

There are some truly witty moments in it as well, not just the really tired dorky one-liners we've endured since the Roger Moore era.

[Deep13]

33. Good film, harsh, violent, sense that the characters were ...

... always in danger. The plot was complicated too.

[Bassic]

34. Yes and it kicked serious butt.

That is all :D

[wildhorses]

35. Loved. it. Craig is the best Bond EVER---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=5851855