|
Directed by: Martin Campbell Starring: Daniel Craig, Eva Green Here's the breakdown for you guys (yes there are spoilers, but there really isn't a great way to do this without revealing too much plot): This is supposed to be the prequel, right? It takes place in the present. I can let this go, since the gadgets make more sense in modern times. What makes absolutely no sense about it is the fact that Judi Dench is still M. The same M from the last several Bond movies.  I would prefer to either see a total recast, or none at all.Bond chases down the first bad guy, and the action is intense and awesome. There was some good stuntwork, which include classic Bond-style fights that last entirely too long. The problem came in with the obvious wirework The black dude jumps around poo poo like a loving monkey - no racist joke intended. , and poorly composited CG. When they each jump from one crane to another. The bad guy was emo as hell. Dude cries loving blood for tears?? Come on. It is a cool reference to poker (look through a deck of cards for details), but this guy does it entirely too much. His motivation is weak. He just wants money. He doesn't even care about killing Bond in the way previous villains did. The gadgets were weak. The cars were weak. The guns were weak. There was no Q character. Maybe he wasn't in the book, but if you are going to gently caress up the timeline anyway, you loving owe me a Q. Even if it is the new Q, or a ressurected zombie of the real Q. The bond girls were awesome. Boobyliscious as always, but they also had a little bit of attidute. I can't really explain well, but they were certainly chosen well for their roles. This movie makes me want to bone Eva Green until there is nothing left but bloody pulp - she is seriously hot in this movie, and was a saving grace of sorts as the main girl, Vesper. Every plot twist was extremely predictable. This is the way Bond movies work. WARNING!!! SARCASM AHEAD!!! Gee, I wonder if the one word text message at the beginning was important. Maybe it's a password or something? James will totally let the nameless henchman destroy the big important plane. The bad guy could win the first round once in a while I guess. The keychain explosive certainly won't be used as an exploding keychain. James Bond never gets captured in a 007 movie. Not EVER. Killing the main bad guy 1/3 of the way through the movie means he is dead for sure. We won't be seeing that guy for the other 1:30. Vesper would never double-cross Bond. That never happens in these movies. The list continues, and continues, and continues. The ending was emo as hell too. Vesper drowns in an elevator, by suicide. Don't ask, because it is loving stupid. She took forever to die, and locks herself in the car to keep away from Bond. I spent the whole time wondering if she could cry underwater. The bad guy doesn't even escape with the money. Summary, with rating breakdown: Crappy movie. I'm glad I saw it for free. However, it is a better 007 movie than the last one (with Halley Barry and some asian dude, and there is an ice laser or whatever). Watch it once to get it out of your system, then move on to other things. Oh, and buy all the stuff Sony spent shittons of money on to feature in the movie. I haven't read the book, so you may not like my opinion. I went expecting to see a Bond MOVIE, not a Bond Movie adaptation of a book about a character called James Bond. Witty Remarks: 1 (the ones he does pull off are all late on delivery) Bondiness: 4 (Dalton/Connery scale, with Connery being 5 and Dalton being 1) Henchmen: 3 Ridiculous Deaths: 3 Bond Girls: 5 Teh Sexorz: 4 (Of course, there is no actual sex scene. The score is based on the foreplay.) Gadgets: 1 Cars: 1 Action: 4 Cocktails: 3 (Loss of points for ordering a Long Island Iced Tea.) Overall: 2 RATING: 2 PROS: Better Bond Character CONS: Terrible Plot ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/ Got2BtheCupcake fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Nov 20, 2006 |
#
?
Nov 17, 2006 07:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
With regard to your first spoiler, you may want to read this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4954812.stm "The film, showing Belle crossing a gridlocked city via the rooftops, was shot without wires and included a breath-taking building-to-building leap, 60m (200ft) above the street."
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2006 09:47
|
|
|
I went into this expecting a much better Bond movie that "Buy Another Day," and that's what I got. However, this was not the same Bond we all grew up with on tbs and in theaters and whatnot. That Bond was dripping with confidence, had gadgets that were exactly what he needed from Q at exactly the right moment, quips and one liners for every occasion (and person), not to mention a reputation that was so well established it made me wonder why he was still allowed to be a secret agent. It also had a sense of campy fun that sometimes seemed like a comic book (invisible car chases) more than a spy movie. In Casino Royale, Daniel Craig (to me) recalls Sean Connery in Dr. No, a man new to the job who learns as he goes along and discovers what it takes to be the best secret agent in the world. This was a sharply written and directed movie, that drops the gadgets and camp in favor of a much more intense movie than we've seen in some time (Goldeneye at least, if not earlier). It also drops some of the trademarks of the previous movies and shows Bond slowly adopting them as the film progresses. Yes, the plot twists the op mentions were easily predictable, but honestly, name a Bond movie where you were completely unable to predict it as you were watching it. Bond always gets the girl, kills the bad guy(s), says a dozen pithy one liners, and saves Queen and country, if not the world. This movie lives up to that formula, and honestly, if it didn't, it wouldn't be Bond. Ultimately, the movie was far more dependent on the script and the director. With Casino Royale, they seemed to do a very careful job of showing us a much more realistic Bond in a much more gritty and dark movie. If they can't keep the same quality level for whatever Bond movies are forthcoming, we might be back to the same Bond we got in Die Another Day and The World is Not Enough (which wasn't Brosnan's fault). Final Verdict: It disposes with the absurd, just in time gadgetry and camp in exchange for a much darker, grittier and realistic outing. Craig shows us a Bond new to the job that has to learn the ropes during his first mission, especially a like of a certain trademark cocktail. I thought it was a welcome reboot of a series that had grown way too ridiculous for my taste, even if it meant losing some of the sense of campy fun I'd grown to associate with the series. If it means fewer "Die Another Day" movies, I'll gladly take the trade. However, this is not the same Bond many of us grew up with or grew to love thanks to TBS and home video. If you're looking for that Bond, I highly suggest you skip this one and rent the originals on dvd, or buy them here, here, and here. Final rating: 4.5/5. The best Bond movie in years? Absolutely. The best ever? That's a matter of personal taste. But would I see it again? Hell yes. TheBoyBlunder fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 21, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2006 12:42
|
|
|
Casino Royale is a badass tough guy James Bond flick that picks up right where Sean Connery left off, and makes you forget all the Moore/Dalton/Brosnan crap that you've had to suffer through since the 70s. Daniel Craig is perfect in this film that resets the entire 007 story from scratch and makes you remember what made him such a great iconic character in the first place. The opening sequence features an on-foot chase scene that contains some of the best "holy poo poo" human acrobatics ever captured on film as Bond chases his prey through a construction site, and pulls off some moves that'd make Spider-Man jealous. Everything about this movie is fantastic. It's a perfect action movie that doesn't insult your intelligence, and delivers a star that's tough and sexy that's appealing to men and women alike. I had my doubts about Craig in the role, but minutes in, you know he's the man to restore the Bond legacy to it's rightful place as the gold standard for cinematic excitement. Sexy babes, exotic locales, hardcore fight scenes, and impressive stunts are all here. It's all organic and fits perfectly, instead of the bullshit explosion screen savers that have plagued the former entries in the franchise's recent years. I'm ready to see it again. RATING: 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2006 15:39
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. Casino Royale kicked my rear end from here 'till Tuesday, and not all of it was punches, violence, and some Guy Ritchie protoge in a suit. I had some misgivings about Daniel Craig, but he plays the character like the grimmest of the Breznev-era Cold War spies thrown into the modern world, a lot of thinking with very little time to do it in. He's icy, and yet can say so much with so little. I've never once feared for James Bond's life like I have in this movie (in the scene where he's poisoned and rushes out to the car in a sequence that should get the cinematographer a "motherfucking awesome" award), and when he breaks down in the PG-13-rating-rationale-notice-attached-to-rating "scene of torture" it's shocking. The character progresses and develops, becoming someone Judi Dench is not only in control of but a little bit afraid of. The sequence about halfway through the film When he comforts Eva Green in the shower was genuinely touching, and the sequence in Miami was heart-pounding. The only major gripe I had was that the "third act" of the movie was too clunky. How many times do I need to see Bond and his girl kissing before I know something's going to go terribly wrong on all fronts? The final action sequence's shooting style was also just a little too gritty and whirly to establish what exactly was going on, but maybe that was the point. The theatre burst into applause when the line "Bond, James Bond" made its first appearance, and I'll challenge you not to do the same. This is, overall, a wonderfully rewarding construction of an intellectual assassin who kicks a poo poo-ton of rear end and bears both physical and psychological scars for it that he never has time to let heal from the movie's first sequence onward. 4.5/5. Certainly my favorite of all the Bond flicks so far. I'm going to have trouble going back to even "Goldfinger" after this one. "From Russia With Love" and the love-it-or-hate-it "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" are the two that it can compare most to, but it's different, and in very, very good ways. Long live the new Bond.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2006 22:51
|
|
|
I went into this movie expecting to be really impressed by a less campy Bond than the most recent Bond movies... and I was. This movie was excellently done in every regard. The plot was good (I especially liked the bit about Le Chiffre shorting the stock of the airline company) and not as predictable as the OP would have you think. The acting, especially by Daniel Craig, was superb. The script was really much better than any Bond movie in recent history (the conversation on the train was loving awesome). The poker was very well done (I didn't expect Bond to get stacked with top boat. The straight flush was pretty obvious, though) also. I walked out of the theater very impressed and there's a very good chance that I'll be seeing it again in a couple of weeks. 5.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2006 04:16
|
|
|
It should be noted that I based my review, and rating on that of the other Bond movies. It is certainly a worthwhile film, but you definitely don't need to bust your rear end to get out and see it. (We sold out every loving show today at work. Most people came out saying they liked it, but it could have been a much better Bond movie.) So the rating would be kind of like this: As a general action movie: 4.5/5 As a Bond Movie: 2/5 Defenestrator posted:With regard to your first spoiler, you may want to read this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4954812.stm Wait until the DVD comes out, and you will see what I mean. I am familiar with what those guys are capable of, and NONE of them are willing to risk it all on a jump from crane to crane, hundreds of feet in the air. That poo poo was quite obviously CG. Bond himself is the one with wires I believe, and without being too specific, there are some pretty fantastical leaps contained in the sequence in question. Got2BtheCupcake fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Nov 18, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2006 06:32
|
|
|
The pacing takes a hit about 2/3 of the way through which makes it seem long, but other than that this is flawless. I'm a huge fan of the Connery and Moore era bonds, and Craig is as good a Bond as any. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2006 06:43
|
|
|
I thought it was good. Not excellent as I sort of expected by the reviews, but good. It starts out loving awsome, and he's a cold badass. The action sequences in the beginning are awsome and you really get the feeling that he's just fresh out of the SAS or something, because he's awsome at what he does, in that he's in top shape, but he needs polishing but he has the smarts to be awsome and uses them Blowing the gas tanks after he's surrounded was brilliant. I liked it, plus he killed the guy For some reason I always have a wierd feeling, like a bad feeling whenever the main character gets involved in adultery, but he didn't do it after all, kind of too bad actually  )The first girl was hotter I thought, but the accountant was pretty cool too. There were some parts that I didn't quite understand like why they tazered this "mathais" chap, when I thought he was the good guy. And how did bond know he was not good? I thought it was perhaps because Bond told him what the bad guy's bluffing move was, and he in turn informed the bad guy. But the girl was there too so I don't know. I hated :major spoiler: watching her drown herself at the end, it was such a retarded way to die and a waste too. Did her boyfriend die then? 4.5/5 Awsome fighting and killing etc... little weak on the sexing, we're accustomed to Bond bedding 3 women per film here! And both bond girls die at the end! which sucks
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2006 08:51
|
|
Baldrik posted:There were some parts that I didn't quite understand like why they tazered this "mathais" chap, when I thought he was the good guy. And how did bond know he was not good? I thought it was perhaps because Bond told him what the bad guy's bluffing move was, and he in turn informed the bad guy. But the girl was there too so I don't know. I'm pretty sure that at some point, La Cheffre says "You thought Mathais was working for you, but he is working for me" or something really blunt like that.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2006 08:59
|
|
|
Not a review.
Somebody fucked around with this message at 17:43 on May 5, 2007 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2006 11:30
|
|
|
This was not a review.
Somebody fucked around with this message at 17:42 on May 5, 2007 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2006 18:00
|
|
|
No Q/gadgets, no theme song, no car chase. The girl was attractive, not classic hot bond girl, the hold'em scenes were annoying - I would have preferred it if he played that obscure dice game or even battleship. That being said, pretty good action scenes (except for the truck fight, excellent script (ignore the M scenes), well acted all around. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2006 18:16
|
|
|
I'm confused. All of you guys are saying this is a good movie, if you remove select parts. It is my understanding that we are judging the movie as a WHOLE. If you remove the lovely parts, all you are left with is a movie that is a 5. Furthermore, if 5 is the highest score, it would stand to reason that the movie would have to be appealing in every way, with every part of the movie accounted for. So I beg of you, rate appropriately. "Yeah it's good, but..." automatically means it can't be a 5. (Meaning don't make things sound like a big deal, if your rating doesn't reflect them as such.) [/ranting in bowflex's general direction]
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2006 20:01
|
|
|
I was expecting a great action film and a new beginning to the Bond series, and I got exactly that. The way I looked at this film was that it wasn't a prequel or anything of the sort, but that it was a new beginning to the Bond series. All that stuff that happened before never happened, and this is a new start. The film was great from start to near finish, and then again at the end. The only bump was most of the part in Venice, but even then there was some really good action. Specifically Being on the boat when he resigns, and when the girl decides to kill herself and when Bond pulls her out and everything Everything else about this movie was great, and even with those scenes, it was one of the greatest Bond films I have ever seen. I can't wait for Bond 22. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2006 23:29
|
|
|
It was good but not great. I was really, really dissapointed when I thought I was going to get a cool car chase sequence only to have it last about 5 seconds. Pretty lame. Overall I liked it but the lack of car chase is unforgivable to me, so I can't give it more than 3/5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2006 23:44
|
|
|
Got2BtheCupcake posted:I'm confused. All of you guys are saying this is a good movie, if you remove select parts. It is my understanding that we are judging the movie as a WHOLE. If you remove the lovely parts, all you are left with is a movie that is a 5. Furthermore, if 5 is the highest score, it would stand to reason that the movie would have to be appealing in every way, with every part of the movie accounted for. I don't understand you OP, first you call regular plot details not meant to surprise anyone 'plot twists' then you rant like I rated this movie a 5? also your spoiler of bad guy dying 1/3 of the way through the movie and then not being dead is completely false and misleading. You are talking about the part where LeChiffre gets attacked in his hotel room? There is nothing resembling a killing blow. We are never meant to think he's dead. Do you mean we know the attack won't succeed? That's the equivalent of saying, "The baddies shooting and missing is a dumb plot twist because we know Bond can't die!" and also spoilering it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 02:03
|
|
|
I'm going to agree with the critics on this one. Casino Royale definitely revitalizes the Bond franchise and Daniel Craig is a magnificent 007. Compared to the previous movies, Casino Royale takes a much darker tone, and I think it's a very refreshing change. Choosing Craig as the new Bond was also a good decision, he has quite an intimidating screen presence and it was awesome to see him killing dudes, wooing women, and being all around badass. Another thing I liked about this movie was the fact that Craig wasn't dependent on special gadgets to get the job done. More or less, it was him, his gun, and his brains. Rating: 5/5 Casino Royale is AWESOME. I'm really looking forward to the next one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 03:46
|
|
|
I love the Roger Moore era tongue-in-cheek Bond flicks, and the new direction this movie took seemed unnessecary. Watching Daniel Craig mope around and kill people for two and a half hours made me wonder why exactly this movie even had the 007 brand attached to it. The villian is incredibly weak, watching poker is much less fun than playing it, and observing the "human" Bond takes away from the spirit of the series in my mind. There were a couple decent one liners but all in all, the action scenes were too long, Craig's Bond is devoid of the personality of classic Bond, and the plot is tough to give a drat about. The ending with the "Bond, James Bond" gives me hope that perhaps, in future Craig era Bond movies, we will get a taste of the smooth, smiling, never a wrinkle in the suit, always winking at the viewer Bond that used to be much more fun to watch and who was much less dependent on 30 minute CGI action sequences to make it through a movie. Pros: At least it wasn't Die Another Day! Cons: Having a good cry in the shower after killing a bad guy is not very Bond. 2/5. Hopefully the Bond series will regain a little imagination and cut it out with this generic tormented hero poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 05:51
|
|
|
In regards to the first post by Got2BtheCupcake - I do believe James Bond gets captured in Die Another Day, Dr. No, and Goldfinger to name a few The movie overall was very good. I was very skeptical about Daniel Craig as 007 when i first heard the announcement, but i was proven wrong with his performance. Even though the movie was not "chronologically correct" in reality, none of the bond movies have really ever been correct in that sense because of Ian Flemming's writing style of the books. He was only originally going to write a few, then he went ape poo poo and wrote a whole poo poo load. I thought the wit in the movies was great, and I am glad to see that they are actually trying to bring the wit back into the bond movies. People were comparing casino royale to batman begins before the release, and I can see why. This was one of the better bond movies, and one of the best since Goldeneye. 4/5 Yisan fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Nov 19, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 07:18
|
|
|
Got2BtheCupcake posted:James Bond never gets captured in a 007 movie. Not EVER Then what was he doing in the North Korean camp getting tortured in Die Another Day? also:  Looks pretty captured to me. I just came back from seeing this, most solid Bond movie since Goldeneye. I hope they keep Craig as Bond for a few more. He really fit the part. 5/5 Fateo McMurray fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Nov 19, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 07:21
|
|
|
As someone who was getting sick of the over-the-top gadgets and perfect posturing of the newer, shittier Bond films, I say this is easily one of the best Bond films in ages. After the string of bland, unfunny, predictable Moore films, Goldeneye seemed to be kind of a promising return to something good, but then just went downhill all the way from there, and I'm glad we're back to making Bond movies good and at least within the scope of reality. One thing I really liked about this movie that set it apart from its predecessors was instead of the smirking, perfect secret agent adjusting his bowtie and sipping his martini as he is yet again victorious, we got to see 007, for the most part, failing over and over, with an ending only indicating a chance at success. I also really liked how, for the most part, we saw him working his rear end off fighting/chasing henchmen, as opposed to the usual *Glides past suavely on rocket-skis, taking out seven men in a row with headshots* bullshit. 5/5 for rising above the played-out gimmicks that have run the series into the ground Wolfsheim fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Nov 19, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 09:28
|
|
|
This is what the Bond series definitely needed. I have always enjoyed Bond flicks, but I’ve never considered most of them to be “good” movies. This was a good movie. The action sequences are great. The fighting was very intense, and had a great balance of hand to hand combat and gunplay. The gadgets were almost non-existent, but I completely agree with NebZ statement that it was Bond that got job done, not some stupid, ridiculously absurd gadget. More espionage would have been nice, but at least it was not a total guns a blazing explosionfest (ok, maybe it was, but that’s why it’s an action flick, right?) By far, the best thing about this film, in my opinion, was the new persona Bond was given; in this film, he was human. He made mistakes, he showed emotion, and when he took a beating, it showed. No miraculous healing from scene to scene. Scabs and scars all over his body throughout the film. He wasn’t the witty one line spewing, untouchable super hero the other films made him appear to be. He was tough, smart, overconfident, and suave as hell (stellar job by Daniel Craig, never a doubt in my mind he would be an amazing Bond). I think this Bond character was a lot closer to Ian Flemings Bond than any others so far. I will agree that this movie was not your classic Bond film, but I think that this is a good thing. 5/5 btw… one thing I didn’t like was the absurdly obvious product placement. Perhaps the film should have been titled Sony and Ford Motor Company Present: Casino Royale
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 09:55
|
|
|
There is simply nothing in the series to compare. Daniel Craig does Bond better than any of them, arguably even better than Connery. The jury's still out on the next movie to see if he can own the role and become master of the franchise. Utterly amazing job. Such a long movie and I was entertained the entire way through it. 5.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 15:04
|
|
|
NOT A REVIEW
Got2BtheCupcake fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Nov 19, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 17:08
|
|
|
The action is awesome, especially the opening chase scene involving some good old fashioned stunts of athleticism with no wire-work (as far as I could tell). If you are a fan of Bond's one-liners, gadgets, Q, hot women with pun names, and you will be very disappointed. However, by the end of the movie you'll be looking forward to the next one where Bond will be more like his old self. Excellent poker scenes with good mood and tension. Excellent fistfights, and hot babes. If the character wasn't Bond and was just a generic action star I might have rated this slightly higher, but upon first viewing I thought it was a tad drawn out toward the end and the character we have seen for the last 30 years or so really starts to be un-Bond-like. Despite any complaints it was definitely worth seeing and I think it will be more enjoyable with repeat viewings. 4.0 out of 5
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 17:10
|
|
|
All you guys going on about how he does get captured in a lot of films, contrary to the OP really need to learn sarcasm. Anyway, I really liked the on foot chase sequence but the fact that the Aston got destroyed after about 30 seconds of driving it pissed me off somewhat. However, it is a really good movie, with well orchestrated action sequences and even though I don't really know poker, that scene was really tense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 18:07
|
|
|
This, without doubt, the best action movie of all time. Suave and sophisticated yet brutal, merciless and strong Craigs Bond is everything you could want from an action hero. The 2 and half hours flew by. There has not been a Hollywood level release this good since... I can't think of a recent big movie this good. 6/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 18:34
|
|
|
Before you ask, yes, this is my review. I'm leaving a 1-paragraph excerpt in this post. The rest can be found by clicking the link. http://www.youthinkthis.com/content/view/27/41/ quote:Casino Royale was the first ever James Bond novel written. It is the origin story of the character. Casino Royale, the movie, opens up in a brilliantly realized film noir world showing how Bond gained his double-0 status. During this scene it hit me that if this director wanted to do a Bond movie completely in noir style it would be incredible. The lighting, shadows, and off-kilter camera angles just set the tone perfectly. After this beautiful introduction to the character we are treated to probably the greatest credit sequence ever created. The animation is just eye-popping and full of smart little touches.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 20:55
|
|
|
I thought the movie was a great update to the staleness of the last couple Bond movies. It was a good action movie, hot chicks, good acting, and had good tension. They really added a sense of person to Bond, and it made the movie much more interesting. The downsides for me were: Bad guy wasn't as bad as I would have hoped. Poker scenes had some tension but weren't that great. Car scene wasn't a car scene. (Oh how I wanted it to be great) Other than that though, I was entertained almost the entire time, and thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Overall Score: 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 21:26
|
|
|
This movie is a hell of a lot of fun. I haven't seen the older Bond films (I have only seen Brosnan as Bond, but am planning to correct this  ), but this one was outstanding. The action sequences are great, and Craig is outstanding. I was skeptical because I really liked Brosnan, but Craig is definitely superior in the role as far as I am concerned. The only thing that I didn't think was done very well was that every single poker hand that is shown is fairly horrendously misplayed by at least one person. This isn't a big problem, though, and the movie doesn't suffer for it very much, because the only people that will notice will think it's hilarious. I would recommend this one! 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2006 23:26
|
|
|
It's one of the best Bond movies, and a step in the right direction. The action was great, especially in the beginning, and I like the new Bond being someone who will slip up and make mistakes. I thought it dragged on for half an hour too long though, and the Vesper storyline at the end didn't need to be there at all. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2006 04:08
|
|
|
Is James Bond a codename like M? I always thought it was literally the guy's name but this movie has me confused. 5/5 still
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2006 06:07
|
|
|
Casino Royale was a great movie. What's more, it was a great BOND movie. What makes a Bond movie great? The gadgets? The girls? The one-liners and cheesy innuendo? The classic cliches? If that's the case then Die Another Day was the pinnacle of 007 Heaven. No what makes a great Bond movie is action, tension, and just how sucked in you can get. It helps if the guy playing him does it well too, and Daniel Craig does it extremely well. I think he might actually be the best of all of them. Almost everything in the movie works. The action is great - the fight scenes are merciless at times and genuinely tense. The torture scene made me cringe. And I could watch that parkour sequence for two hours alone. Craig is my new favourite Bond. He creates a fantastically watchable mix of intelligence, anger, intensity and a little bit of insanity to a part that has become horribly aged and predictable. At times during the movie I found myself genuinely questioning whether or not I should like the guy, which is exactly what you should think of someone like James Bond. Something I haven't seen mentioned much is David Arnold's score. One of the few good things about the last three Brosnan movies was Arnold's music and he's kept it up here. I loved how he drops in little hints at the Bond Theme throughout the movie, using it a little more each time until he finally lets it loose at the end. Also, it was nice to see James actually DO SOME SPYING and working stuff out for himself too. And I dont care who says what, I thought Chris Cornell's song was good, and so were the credits. And I liked the lack of the gun barrel at the start, because he wasnt 007 yet. I'll bet you money that it's in the next one. What few gadgets there were worked BECAUSE they werent silly and over the top, There werent any laser watches or poison darts being shot out of belt buckles. The in-car defibrulator was the kind of thing I'd expect MI6 to equip a spy with. I say almost everything worked, because some stuff didnt. The big one is the same thing everyone else has been down on - the "love story" sequence. Not that it didnt belong in the overall story, it did, and there was some good character development in it, I can see why it was important. It just went ON and ON and ON. WE GET IT, THEY'RE IN LOVE. A lot of fat could have been trimmed out of that sequence. The product placement. It seems like a stupid thing to be picky about, but when you see a fifteenth person in one movie with a Sony Ericson phone it gets kind of stupid. As does EVERY CAR being a Ford. There were a few too many plot twists too, it did feel at times like they were trying too hard to make the movie seem complex. cLin posted:Is James Bond a codename like M? I always thought it was literally the guy's name but this movie has me confused. Nope, James Bond is just his name. 007 is his "code name." See my copy/pasted rant from GBS below. I just wish, I PRAY that people will forget this stupid loving "James Bond is a code name they're all different guys" bullshit. The producers themselves have said no, it is the same guy. He's a fictional character, an abstract concept, continuity does not have to matter. Did these people hate Batman Begins purely because of continuity issues? They're going to loving riot in the movie theatres when Heath Ledger appears as the Joker in the next one. Anyway, overall I really enjoyed it. Much more than I have any other Bond movie. Im more than happy for them to carry on in this direction, with Craig and (hopefully) Martin Campbell leading the way. What would I like to see next? I actually like the idea of them taking the basic premise behind Tomorrow Never Dies (you know, media mogul creating disasters so he can report on them first, it's a cool concept) and make a good film out of it. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2006 06:16
|
|
|
Didn't care for all of the product placement but I understand all movies need money from other sources. Regardless, this movie blew my loving mind. I sat down in the theater expecting a "Bond Begins" kind of dark and violent film. I got that and much more and I was giddy through the entire thing. I am overwhelmed with joy that Casino Royale is nothing like the previous Bond films, it almost brings a tear to my eye. This Bond film set the stage for something new to an old franchise that quickly became tired after GoldenEye. Is Daniel Craig the new James Bond? Without a doubt. I believe in him so much that I would kick Pierce Brosnan in the balls for even suggesting Colin Farrell be the next James Bond. I've seen some Bond films in my time but this one takes the cake and eats it without hesitation. Ian Fleming eat your heart out you beautiful bastard, I want to pull your coffin out of its resting place and coat it in gold. 5.5/5.5 SHUTUP CUNT fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Nov 20, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2006 07:09
|
|
|
STOP THE DISCUSSING BULLSHIT. THIS IS FOR REVIEWS ONLY.
RabidLeper fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Nov 20, 2006 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2006 07:51
|
|
|
I'll post my review from CD: I think my main thoughts on Casino Royale have already been stated. I'm in with the crowd who's chalking it up as one of the best Bond films. Hell, the one best to compare it to was From Russia With Love and I actually thought this one was the better. First, I'm going to have to say there are so many nitpicky reviews in this thread it's aggrivating. Everyone complains about certain things that happen with Bond but you have to realize A) He's somewhat inexperienced at this point and he's becoming better with every kill (as seen in the opening). The biggest wtf is people complaining about there not being a huge climax at the end. PEOPLE: THIS IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO AVOID THIS TIME 'ROUND. I think most of the folks making these complaints have been conditioned to the last three Brosnan campfests. I too didn't like the fact that there were no naked girls in the opening, but I did love the song and thought the opening was very perfect aside from that. And oh my sweet Jesus I loved the end. I was hoping it'd end on a dark/loving awesome note. As in sniping some fucker and delivering the line I was waiting for all movie. And the theme after that... oh God I got chills. Here is my take on why they left out the opening gunbarrel sequence: he wasn't a 00 yet. As soon as he killed his first kill (his second on screen), it went to the gunbarrel shot and then to the opening. So this is when he became 007. I thought it was perfect. You have to remember, Dr. No didn't start out with a gunbarrel scene, and I liked that about Casino too. I suspect they'll put it in the next one. Overall I abso-loving-lutely loved Casino Royale. Don't read too much into any of the bad reviews here, they hold little ground outside of the product placement arguement (and it's pretty subtle at that). Just go out there and see one of the top three Bond films ever. Seriously. I'm not blowing smoke. I had loving chills throughout the whole flick. Great movie. I can't wait to see it again. Rating: 5/5.5 Oh yea and the OP is pretty retarded and shouldn't have started this thread. Somehow he missed out on the whole restart thing. :06:
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2006 08:08
|
|
|
There's nothing I like more than watching a movie that exceeds my expectations. This is the best Bond film I've seen at the cinema since.... actually it is probably the best one I've seen at the cinema fullstop. On top of that it's up there with the best of them in general. Sure, it's over-the-top and ridiculous, but it manages to do so in a reasonably gritty and (importantly for Box Office) contemporary way. It's been stripped of the campness and insanity. Gone are the super-weapons and insane villains in their underwater hideouts. There's not much for Austin Powers to mock here. The plot is surprisingly low key, which works really well, making Bond himself a more prominent character in his own films. We get to see a much more human Bond. Still learning, making mistakes, getting the crap beaten out of him on a regular basis. Likewise the action scenes follow a similar style. Over-the-top, but not outrageous. Inventive, but not so completely unrealistic as to slide the show into science fiction. Craig was great. He lacks the sophistication of previous Bond's but he's supposed to. He's a square-jawed ex-SAS commando who has (along with the Government) realised he has the skills for this kind of thing. But he hasn't got it down yet, he doesn't own a tuxedo and is still learning to play the part. For a reboot it works really well. I hope he sticks around for a few films. Unlike the static nature of the character in previous films, this guy actually has the chance to develop a character that's a little more than a cartoon. I have no idea if this is a one off or the start of something really big for the franchise. I guess it depends how well it does. Edit: Should of checked the numbers before writing this. Looks like the former, which I couldn't be happier about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2006 09:55
|
|
|
Great Bond flick. Character development, who would've thought? The only problem is that this was done in Hollywood so no matter what they will return to their vomit just like the dogs they are. At least there will have been on really good Bond film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2006 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this is the film that turns me into a Bond fan. I've always been somewhat lukewarm to the previous Bond movies, not that I didn't like the character, but I have a hard time enjoying some of the earlier movies. Who knows, maybe I've been watching the wrong ones, or maybe it's the difficulty of having 20 movies to the franchise that has always made me leery of fully investing in the story. After watching Casino Royale, however, all I could think about was Bond. I wanted to go home and start watching Bond movies until my eyes fell out. After seeing such an enjoyable and impressive new take on the character, I now fully appreciate all of the different avenues the previous films have taken, and can finally enjoy them, rather than rolling my eyes and critiquing them the whole time. I can't really explain it. It's not that I've hated previous Bond movies, in fact I've enjoyed several of them. Goldeneye is probably the one that most springs to mind, probably because it is the one I've seen the most often and the most recently. It took this movie, however, to fully throw me over the fence and into the realm of Bond fanboy. I had such a blast in the theater, and came away with a newfound love for the character. I'll agree that the movie is not without flaws, as it has some serious pacing issues in the last third, but I'm willing to not let it drag the whole down too much. I don't really understand all of the people who weren't able to follow the various twists and turns, but maybe I just 'get it' easier than some. I loved the action and suspense, and I'm quite convinced that the first chase scene through the construction area and into the embassy is one of the best action sequences I've ever watched. Since I've only had a handful of exposures to the Bond franchise, it's easy for me to instantly place this one at the top of my list. I love Craig as Bond, and while I liked Connery, I never quite was sold on his portrayal. Before this point, I actually liked Brosnan's Bond the most, unfortunately his tenure was really only worth one film, the rest were terrible. Now to go back to the beginning, and start working my way forward... 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2006 22:13
|
|
