The only point I was trying to make is that there's a lot of excitement out there about this movie and Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond. That's something that hasn't happened in long time for the Bond franchise. For me personally, this is the first time in a very long time that I'm actually anxious to see the next Bond film.

 

I was amped to see it too

 

Good, I want to go see it.

My favorite Bond is Sean Connery.

I've seen all of the 007 movies with Connery and Brosnan. I have seen like one with Roger Moore. I really didn't like Roger Moore as 007, that's probably why I only watched one of those movies too.

 

Humm I own every one ever made, so now I'll have to see it, although I was not liking Daniel Craig as bond. I think because he could'nt drive a stick, but now I have to be fair so I 've got to go see it to give him a fair shake.

 

I actually liked it and yes, I have seen all the Bond films MULTIPLE times. I try not to compare all the bonds, and I went in with low expectations and was very happy how it turned out.

 

I've just seen the movie. My opinion? I fully agree with these guys:

http://www.danielcraigisnotbond.com/

 

Personally I'll take the original Casino Royale with David Niven and Peter Sellers any day!



Comical spoof or not... this movie was the most insanely silly Bond flick ever made!!

 

I finally saw the movie today and I have to say that it's the best Bond movie since the days of Sean Connery, and maybe the best of them all. It was simply excellent. Granted, no Russian spies (boys and girls, we're in a different era) and no Q, and I didn't miss him or the gadgets at all. This Bond didn't need them (except for the defillibrator in the glove box, and did he ever need that!) , nor did the Bond in the pages of Ian Fleming's novels, but that's what we Bond fans have come to expect in the succession of Bond flicks. This one took an entirely different direction and I think it succeeded very well.

Also nice was the move away from the car chases and just let Bond be Bond, though it was a nice touch to see the 1964 Aston Martin appear in a cameo role. Yes, he wrecked the DBS but it wasn't a focal scene in the movie, and that was the point. This was the most personal look we've ever seen of Bond on the screen.

This was a Bond in a very different style from what we've seen since the days when Sean Connery defined the role on screen and the change has to be refreshing to anyone other than pure Sean Connery fans. I'm a Bond loyalist/purist (the one in the novels) and I think Daniel Craig pulled this one off extremely well. Frankly, I appreciated the absence of the insousiant one liners that Connery did so well. This wasn't an imitation of him or the Bond character that he created. Nor was it the polished Bond portrayed by Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnam, both of whom I also liked. Rather it was Bond in a completely new dimension and much more believable as a consequence.

In the past you had to suspend reality when you entered the theaer to watch a Bond movie, and all you could say when he pulled off an amazing stunt was yeah, I believe that. James Bond could do that. That ingredient was missing from this movie which is what sets it apart from all its predecessors.

Nice to meet up with Felix Leiter again, but in the book he was a white guy with one arm. Remember that? So what? And yes, Bond played baccarat back then and this time he played poker. Again, so what? Call it artistic license or whatever you choose. Neither distracted anything from the film. He didn't choose the card game; it was chosen for him by LeChiffre. Contemporary, and appropriate for this film in its context. And there has never been a Bond film to date that created more tension and dynamics on screen during the game than this one accomplished.

I've read pans of the scene where Craig is asked if he wants his martini shaken or stirred and replies "Do I look like I give a ****?". Not a James Bond response? Under the circumstances I thought was a perfectly fitting resonse. If you've seen the movie I'm sure you have to agree.

There was no appropriate place in the movie for Craig to introduce himself as Bond, James Bond until the final scene. It wasn't a question of finding himself, it was just a matter of circumstances and timing. But when you heard him say it, you knew that Bond was back. And you knew that this time around his name is Daniel Craig. He's the next incarnation of a legendary character, and a ****ed good one. I saw some Steve McQueen in him, and that's a good thing.

I'm eagerly awaiting the next one he makes.

 

My ***** still hurt!!!!! That was misery...

 

well both LeChiffre and Vesper were Russian Spies working for SMERSH in the novel version of Casino Royale, but being a self proclaimed "loyalist/purist" Im sure you knew that and this is just a small oversight on your part

I liked the gadgets, its one of the things that set Bond films apart from other action movies, yes Q wasnt a huge part of the novels but he did exist and since the novels have become movies, Q has become a quintisential role and was greatly missed in this movie, they didnt even hint to the existance of a Q branch, of which I am assuming that was the group that was in charge of injecting the tracking device into Bond and guiding him through the use of the defibulator, of which was tacky and overly plot driven.

another thing that I missed in this movie, again I enjoy escaping typical action films by going to a Bond film, it is different and while completely far fetched a lot of fun

once again as a purist I dont know how you can think Daniel Craig better fits the role of Bond more than anyone else who has ever played it, speaking about the Bond in the novels, he was supposed to be polished, good looking and very unthreatening in appearance. He was a salesman for Universal Exports and would blend into the background easily, not the thug looking assasin that Craig portrays. Bond was a killer by choice, not by nature, he was a patriot and a military man and killed as part of his duty and was good at it, but this did not make him a vicious killer nor did he look like one like Craig. Bond isnt suppose to be this believable thug looking guy, he was described in From Russia with Love as looking like a movie star, he is suppose to be the unsuspecting pretty boy. This movie also ignores the fact that Bond was in the Navy and a cold war hero before becoming a 00, and now he comes from MI6's SAS, more believable but more cliche and it takes away from Bonds character and the viewer/readers ability to connect more with him. Oh and BTW, Craig is BLONDE AND TOO SHORT!

Again this is the huge thing the movie was missing that made the Bond films great and set them apart from other typical action movies. Most movies are very unrealistic and unreal so what? they are movies. If this bothers you so much then perhaps you should lighten up or stick to documentaries. That said the extra extent that the Bond movies went made them fun, not just different. And the stunts were sadly missed in this movie. Oh and FYI, the insane over the top stunts in the movies werent too far fetched, unlike most movies now that use special effects to do most of their stunts the Bond films actually pulled off their more memorable stunts, making them not only believeable and yet unbelieveable at the same time but that much more outrageous and spectacular. This also went for a lot of the gadgets as well, which were unheard of at the time and things of fiction but a lot are now common every day items.

yes just another thing this movie messed up

not artistic license, cheap tactic to appeal to a wider audience riding the coattails of the recent popularity of poker, to me insulting to the audience thinking that we would not only not get the idea of baccarat but somehow thinking that we would relate to Bond more because we might have a home poker game that we induldge in.

In the book LeChiffre chose baccarat

couldnt disagree more, I was very bored during this long, drawn out poker game, it ate up a lot of time and didnt need to go on that long. not to mention it was transparent and very predictable. there were many more shorter gaming scenes in previous Bond films that were much more intense.

 

All good points, just ones we may disagree on.

When I said no Russian spies, I meant in this movie, obviously. No SMERSH, no SPECTER. It must be the times. I can live with that.

You are completely correct about Ian Fleming's Bond, but I was talking about the films. And I think Daniel Craig did a fine job in this one albeit in a very different dimension.

Hey, I took a train from Yokohama to Tokyo to see From Russia With Love. Think I don't like Sean Connery's Bond? He was great.

My comment about having to suspend reality before watching a Bond movie was not meant as any sort of criticism. I loved to do that whenever I entered the theater. Bond skydiving to catch a plane? Yeah, James Bond could do that. I loved it. I've read all the books numerous times, and have seen the movies over and over, and I loved almost every one of them. Except for the one with George you know who.

Nobody's going to agree when when a legend is portrayed in a different manner than the one we're used to seeing. My only point is that I liked this movie for the reasons I mentioned and we're going to be seeing a new James Bond in the future.