..........I screened it Thursday night at like 2:30 in the mourning, I enjoyed it.........I'll give it ....Though he only drove that Aston Martin DBS for a total of like thirty seconds.....before he rolled it .... into a million pieces I might add. By the way, its the first Bond film that i've watched...


And I finally got to use the 007 smiley......SWEET

 

Yeah man! Saw it last night. I was impressed to say the least. I really like Daniel Craig as Bond now.

 

I gotta say it was the best Bond film since the Connery days. In fact it was better than most of the Connery films.

 

Buy the collection!

 

You Think Lots of very good Bond films out there!

Have you seen them all?

 

Except for the last Brosnan film (I didn't care for Brosnan as Bond).

 

I'll see it next week when I have a couple of days off. The teasers look great.

I've seen all the Bond movies and read all the books. I saw Dr No when I was in high school in Yokohama and took the train to Tokyo to see From Russia With Love. Wonderful memories.

Sean Connery was great-the best-but I think Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan came closest to the Bond persona in the books. There was one eminently forgettable actor-George something?-who was absolutely terrible and he only did the one film, thank God.

BTW, the books were written long before the first movie was made and in them Bond drove a 1952 Bentley R Type, and as Ian Fleming always wrote, it was capable of touring at 90 with 30 in reserve.

Bond's cars have come a long way since those days.

 

George Lazenby was Bond in "In Her Majesty's Secret Service". It also had Telly Savalas as Blofeld. It's not my favorite Bond film either.

 

you should seriously see the rest of the movies, they are by far better than this one, with the exception of the first two times they made Casino Royale

Are you mad! Better than most of the Connery films???? Bite your tongue!

Brosnan certainly isnt Sean Connery but I do think he fits the role of Bond well. But as for his Bond films, the first one Golden Eye I enjoyed, after that they all sucked, but I pretty much attributed that to the death of Broccoli after Golden Eye.

BELOW MAY BE A BIT SPOILERISH FOR THOSE THAT HAVENT SEEN IT YET!!!!!

Here is my take on this new version of Casino Royale:
First let me say that if this wasnt a Bond film it would be a pretty good movie, but that said it is BOND and this movie wasnt BOND at all. Much like the new Dodge Charger would be a sick car if it wasnt called Charger, but for crying outloud a Charger shouldnt have 4 doors, and this movie much like the Charger had things that arent true to its namesake.

Second, I know they were trying to get artsy with the idea that Bond was finding himself as the character we have known and love, and that the fact that he fell for Vesper in the novel and her betrayel is indeed what made him hard (one of the very few accurate points in the movie); but come on the novel had Bond being Bond from page one and that was the first notion of Bond ever, so how come we had to sit through this crap about how Bond became Bond just so they can have some creative, artistic cinematography. Yeah the idea of loosely and minimally playing pieces of the Bond theme throughout the movie and not playing it in its entirity until the end, as Bond finally introduces himself as "Bond, James Bond," is cool and somewhat redeeming in that it completes what they were trying to accomplish in developing Bond, but not enough so that it justifies leaving everything that is Bondesque out of the movie.

Casino Royale is not only my favorite of the Bond novels but IMO is also one of the best and this movie definately did not do it justice. I shouldve went with my initial instinct that the movie was gonna blow after they opened for the first time ever without an insane stunt/action scene and then rolled the opening credits without a single silhouette of a nude woman and got up and left. The opening song was also one of the worse if not the worse Bond theme I have ever heard. To continue with the long list of things that arent Bond or missing from the movie:

-Lets start with the biggest hole in the plot (not counting that not much of this movie is anything like the book) and that is that Casino Royale does not take place at the begining of his career but instead much later and thus we dont need all the crap about him finding himself. It is a complete waste of time, the viewer doesnt need a 2 hour and 24 minute introduction into who James Bond is, we get it right away if we dont already know.
-Only 2 cool cars, both Aston Martins, but no cool chase scenes in them and they were shown for all of what 2 seconds.
-And what the hell was up with him driving that Ford whatever it was near the begining? It looked like some Hybrid Focus, yet I didnt fully recognize it. But Bond wouldnt be caught dead driving something that lame.
-whats up with Bond not sleeping with Solange (the hot married brunette), James wouldve nailed her before flying off to Miami after her husband
-Vesper didnt instantly fall for Bond, what gives? all women fall for Bond instantly thats what makes Bond Bond
-and if I am recalling correctly but this is the first Bond film where it doesnt end with Bond hooking up with a hottie
-not a lot of whimsicle, clever one liners
-No real action scenes at all. Yes they had a couple of cool fights and that awesome foot chase, but most of the movie we saw them sitting at a fricken poker table.
-and whats with the poker, both James Bond and Le Chiffre play baccarat, oh but wait poker is hot and trendy so lets use that so more people can relate and get into it....LAME!
-James is so lost in his character that he cant even order his own drink???? First a Mount Gay and soda then something else that I cant remember what it was. At least they did throw in the Vesper Martini that Bond created in the novel....3 parts Gordons gin, 1 part vodka, 1/2 Kina Lillet with a lemon twist
-no evil villian with a diabolical plot to destroy or take over the world and no Russian spy ties, as in the novel Le Chiffre was both.
-Vesper's character is very weak in this movie and thus the plot is weakend from that of the original novel. In which she is a Russian double agent, thus making the story of her betrayel and who it was that Le Chiffre was working for and how/why James survived make some kind of sense instead of some cheap love story between her and James...gag!
-and what was with that poorly done scene of the building sinking? that set has got to be one of the worse movie sets Ive seen since Jaws....lol! At least Jaws had the excuse of being filmed when the technology wasnt around and was a low budget film.
-the complete lack of any and all cool gadgets, and wtf is with a car equiped with a difibulator? talk about plot driven, lucky James....lol oh and while on the subject of gadgets, wheres Q???

But it wasnt all bad they did get some nice easter egg points correct that were fun to watch:
-Real characters: Le Chiffre, first appearance of Felix Leiter, and Vesper
-Vesper does have a BF that was captured and his capture used to manipulate her and she does ultimately commit suicide, which leads to Bond once again becoming cold, and hard and untrusting of anyone (however we do know that he still holds a small flame for her and it does affect some of his actions in later novels)
-the use of the line from the novel "the b!tch is dead now."
-the return finally to using a double entendre as Vespers alias "Ms. Broadchester"
-the torture scene was also from the book
-the outfits and overall imagery of the movie was reminiscent of old school Connery Bond.
and......well.....thats about it.

I must leave my judgement of Daniel Craig as James Bond to be reserved for seeing him in a Bond film that actually has Bond being Bond, because I cant tell if the reason he doesnt fit the role is because the Bond character in this movie wasnt Bondish at all or because he simply isnt Sean Connery....lol. He definately doesnt look like Bond though being too short and blonde. But if the rumors are true of at least the next Bond film then it too will probably suck and we wont get that chance to see Craig as a real Bond just quite yet, being that it will either be a direct revenge sequel (LAME) or a remake of an earlier Bond film (just as LAME). But he has been slated for at least a total of 4 Bond films.

Like I said if it wasnt a Bond movie it would be pretty good and entertaining but it IS a Bond film and as one it is by far the WORST BOND MOVIE EVER!!!! (of course again with the exceptance of the first 2 versions of this movie which were both comedies and not really ever attributed as official Bond movies) and its too bad because Casino Royale has so much potential.

 

rrobello you are a James Bond purist that for sure, but you make some good points. I almost felt as if Bond "lost his nads" at a time.

Anyways, I can't say i've watch many of the Bond movies... I thoroughly enjoyed this movie even through it may stray from some of the Bond traditions.

Am I the only one who thinks Daniel Craig would make a good Steve McQueen?

 

While I respect your opinion, I stand by mine. Until Daniel Craig came along, Connery was Bond.

 

That's exactly why I didn't like the actors that followed Connery (buncha pansies! ) and why I like Daniel Craig in the role.

I see Casino Royale as similar to Batman Begins. It re-invented the character.

 

like I said if it wasnt a Bond film it was a very enjoyable movie and quite good, but it is a Bond film and from that aspect a very poor one.

I agree he would make a great Steve McQueen

I do think that Craig can be a great James Bond even though he does not look like him at all. He has the attitude and I think with a propperly scripted character he can pull it off. But there is no Bond like Sean Connery. If they want to make a movie that will sell millions then they should recast Connery, as he is and always will be the one and only true James Bond.

Yes the other actors fell way short for the most part, while each may have had something unique to qualify them as Bond none of them seemed to ever really piece it all together and have it all as Connery did.

Casino Royale isnt suppose to be a Batman Begins, nor do we need it to be. Everyone knows who Bond is and knows that he is a deviniere, cavalier, untrusting, hard, cold, womanizing playboy who has cool toys and cooler cars, always gets his man, and women and is simply a bad ****. We get that we dont need to know how he became that way, nor is it really how he became that way anyways. He was already that way, Vesper started to make him loosen up and then with her betrayel he learned to never trust again nor let his gaurd down. But he always drank Vodka Martinis shaken not stirred, drove fast rides, slept with everyone who was hotter than Hellen of Troy, got out of the water in a full wetsuit and his tux underneath and his hair remained dry, and could pull off incredibly ridiculous and unrealistic stunts that would make Superman look like a pansy. And what really makes the movie suck was that they didnt stick to any of the Bondesque ideals that we have come to love about Bond, not to mention they very loosely stuck to the story line. If they wanted to make a Batman Begins they couldve made a completely new Bond story just to do that and focused on his actual becoming a double-o and his being an orphan.

 

Nonetheless I enjoyed it far more than other Bond film in a long, long, long time.

 

While it may be a controversial movie in the eyes of many 007 officionados, I don't think it tarnishes the legacy of the films the way Godfather Part III did to that trilogy.

 

If you read the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, you'll see alot of people echoing the same sentiments that I expressed. In fact, how about this quote in particular:

or this one:

 

Literally huh? That scene was interesting to say the least.

I also agree he would be good as McQueen.

 

dude everyone is entitled to their own opinion, its ok that you like it, I am not trying to convince you otherwise, I personally didnt think it was good as a Bond movie. You will always be able to find someone to quote that will support either side of any arguement, it doesnt prove anything one way or the other, I dont follow as to why you seem to need to prove that it is a good Bond movie.

but Id like to point out again (incase anyone missed it) as far as BOND goes it was nothing like a BOND film, lets review the simpler points it was missing that makes a BOND movie a BOND movie:
-cool gadgets
-russian spies
-diabolical evil enemy with the intentions of destroying or taking over the world
-cool cars (very limited in this movie)
-cool car chases
-baccarat
-vodka martini shaken not stirred
-opening credits with silhouettes of naked women
-many hotties with funny sexual names (only mention of one quick one)
-many hotties period, whom sleep with Bond
-opening action sequence with an insane stunt
-"Bond, James Bond"
-Bond ******** some hottie at the end of the movie as the cavalry comes in too late as usual
-witty one liners that the hotties fall for and thus end up in bed with James in the following scene
-Money Penny
-Q
just to name a few, but all of which are essential to a BOND film and are missing from this movie

not to mention that they call it Casino Royale and this movie is very, very loosely based on the novel and also the novel, much like all of the other novels and movies, have all of the elements I mentioned above so why couldnt this movie since it uses the same title. If they wanted to do a Bond Begins then they shouldve used a completely new script to do so and started with Bonds actual begining as a double o and not this story line which BTW wasnt the begining of his career.

if this movie was titled something else than I would of enjoyed it a lot more, but I was expecting and wanting typical James Bond and didnt get it. I like the ridiculousness and over the topness of James Bond movies and thats what I think sets it apart from other action films.

that scene was in the original novel and Flemming is said to have based Le Chiffre on Aleister Crowley, an English occultist who had a fixation with sadomasochistic pornos and also had drawn from Crowley and his obsession to write that scene.

 

hey rrobello didn't he say "Bond, James Bond" at the end of the movie.... like right as he shot that sucka in the leg.....correct me if im wrong....

 

yes he did, as I mentioned in my first post the creators obviously used this to show that he finally has found himself and now is the Bond we know, and if you notice throughout the movie he introduces himself in several different manners as if he were searching for the "right way" to do so, as he did with almost everything he did, ie. ordering drinks. This is kinda cool in its artistic form, but I didnt really care to see that, I wanted to see good old typical Bond. And because it is done at the very end of the movie for this reason, it is not the same as him saying it during the movie. During the movie it would lend to his personality of the good old Bond that I like and wanted to see and it was this lack of his "knowing" himself to introduce himself as "Bond, James Bond" that created the lack of the Bondesque feel throughout the entire movie that I was looking for and expecting going into this movie. So thats why I included it in the list of what was missing, to me it didnt count at the end because it was too little too late, the movie was over.