Casino Royal - Review Thread *Spoilers*
- Thread starter TheMagicPirate
- Start date
Stellios said:
That's what's confusing a lot of people, the film is set before all the rest, timeline wise. Despite being set in 2006. It's very strange how they've done it, and unnecessary IMO. As they could have easily shown Bond when he was just starting out but setting it before Dr. No, instead they deliberately set it in modern times but made it clear to the audience that Bond is just starting out on his 00 career.
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 4,021
- Location
- a crappy part of London
I can't believe people are questioning the time line, Bond was floating around in space shooting lasers 30 years ago, the absurd time line and lack of continuity (Blofeld and Felix's appearances for instance) has always been something you ignore. James Bond is his real name and it's always the same character, I thought people knew this
I got back from seeing it a few hours ago, it was pretty decent, a little slow in places didn't feel like a Bond film, was all disappointed when I realised there would be no John Cleese.
I got back from seeing it a few hours ago, it was pretty decent, a little slow in places didn't feel like a Bond film, was all disappointed when I realised there would be no John Cleese.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,496
Just got back from seeing and I thought it was great! 
There are continuity issues, but who cares, I certainly don't
There are continuity issues, but who cares, I certainly don't
Saw it last night, and loved in up until the love interest.
I thought it was protracted, and just plain ******* at times.
The fight scenes were grittier than the Bond of old, and all the better for it.
The product placement was awful.
Girl: "Nice watch. Rolex?"
Bond:" Omega."
Girl:"Nice"
Oh please...........
And when one character is dragged off, with the fronts of his shoes scraping on the ground, you can make out the red Prada stripe on his heels..... You just know he's being dragged away from camera in order to show that. It's just going too far.
Saying that, even though it fell away towards the back quarter, they pulled it back round again, and I was wanting more, which is always a good sign!
I thought it was protracted, and just plain ******* at times.
The fight scenes were grittier than the Bond of old, and all the better for it.
The product placement was awful.
Girl: "Nice watch. Rolex?"
Bond:" Omega."
Girl:"Nice"
Oh please...........
And when one character is dragged off, with the fronts of his shoes scraping on the ground, you can make out the red Prada stripe on his heels..... You just know he's being dragged away from camera in order to show that. It's just going too far.
Saying that, even though it fell away towards the back quarter, they pulled it back round again, and I was wanting more, which is always a good sign!
One thing I'd like to re-point out is that Daniel Craig wasn't actually playing Bond as we know it in this.
The whole point of the film is that it's a prequel, showing how he is like he is. Things like him not knowing how to take his vodka martini, falling in love etc. This wasn't Bond and as such, Craig wasn't playing Bond. Right at the end when the proper Bond theme comes in and Craig is wearing the blue suit, that is Bond.
I think we're going to have to wait for the next film to properly judge him as James Bond and how well he pulls it off.
The whole point of the film is that it's a prequel, showing how he is like he is. Things like him not knowing how to take his vodka martini, falling in love etc. This wasn't Bond and as such, Craig wasn't playing Bond. Right at the end when the proper Bond theme comes in and Craig is wearing the blue suit, that is Bond.
I think we're going to have to wait for the next film to properly judge him as James Bond and how well he pulls it off.
OH MY GODDDDD,
been a bond nutcase for ages, and this is a amazing bond movie trying decide hether its the bets, but i think it beats goldeneye
what people need to remember is this is bonds first mission as a 00, he isnt really the bond we know and love until the end, which is why we get the tune, ya see?
been a bond nutcase for ages, and this is a amazing bond movie trying decide hether its the bets, but i think it beats goldeneye
what people need to remember is this is bonds first mission as a 00, he isnt really the bond we know and love until the end, which is why we get the tune, ya see?
Eliot said:OH MY GODDDDD,
been a bond nutcase for ages, and this is a amazing bond movie trying decide hether its the bets, but i think it beats goldeneye
what people need to remember is this is bonds first mission as a 00, he isnt really the bond we know and love until the end, which is why we get the tune, ya see?
naffa said:
I'm not sure why everyone is having so much difficulty understanding a continuity reboot... I also think everyone is referring to classic Bond meaning the films, but that was never the intent with this series - they wanted to get back closer to the Bond of the books, and as I understand it they did a bang up job.
Rebooting franchise makes no sense. In fact nothing except revolving agent that takes on the name and license makes sense. It's not that people find it confusing, it's just bizarre idea - reboot the franchise and start from the beginning. The Bond introduced to us is not the same intelligent and quick witted guy, and most probably, due to the looks and acting maneur of Craig, he will never be any different than it is now - brutal, yobbish, rough and unpolished. The kind of Bond that needs others to save him rather than saving everyone, the kind of Bond that's not clever enough to even connect battery (no spoilers, those who saw the movie know what the battery was for). If this is reboot, it only means Bond as we know him is over. Sci-fi, hi tech Bond goes. The Rambo Bond steps in.
IMHO this is just as bad idea as casting boybandish, gay looking teenager to play the most ultimate villain in history of cinema in Star Wars and wreck 20 years of franchise in 2.5 hours.
Despite Casino Royal being pretty good action movie I wish Sony created themselves new merchandise. It didn't have to replace decades old story telling. I will miss Bond movies like we knew them.
IMHO this is just as bad idea as casting boybandish, gay looking teenager to play the most ultimate villain in history of cinema in Star Wars and wreck 20 years of franchise in 2.5 hours.
Despite Casino Royal being pretty good action movie I wish Sony created themselves new merchandise. It didn't have to replace decades old story telling. I will miss Bond movies like we knew them.
vonhelmet said:
It's not that people don't understand it, it's just it's a bit strange and confusing. Once you understand it, you're still like, "why?"
If it's a reboot, then this Bond isn't shaping himself into the Bonds of the past is he? He's starting afresh in 2006 on his first mission, and we're going to see a brand new Bond develop, probably like you said, shaped a lot closer to how he is in the books.
I guess for all intents and purposes of this film it must be an alternative timeline, the other films haven't occured in the past or the future of this film because if they did, what would be the point of rebooting Bond to present time? If they wanted to preserve his character, Casino Royale would have been chronologically set before Dr. No.
I think Daniel Craig is a new Bond, developing into something we haven't seen before, and Casino Royale is just the start of his career, the other films are of an alternative universe, so to speak.
Because:
-Its got Felix Lighter in it, and they first met in Dr No, after Casino Royale
-Its got a Aston DBS
-The cars got Gadgets
-Hes got a walther P99
Yet its a prequel to Dr No so none of that should exist
It 'feels' like a new addition to the series, but its supposed to be the very first one. To me, i get the feeling they didnt know whether they wanted it to be a new addition or a prequel, so theyve tried to make it a bit of both.No Q really got me disappointed, i really look forward to that part of the 007 films.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Firstly, maybe MI6 use the same name, James Bond, as a cover name for operatives which explains the continuity glitch.
Secondly Daniel Craig was ******* awesome. He has that dark side to him which is essential for Bond. He was not invincible in the film as we saw when he had cuts and bruises and also made himself sick when poisoned, and in the torture scene, he was fantastic.
Not since Timothy Dalton, have we seen a Bond with a real dark edge to his character. I lamented the choice of Daniel Craig initially as I thought, who ? I then watched Layer Cake in which he excelled and I am happy to say that I was very wrong about him.
He gets my vote as the new James Bond.
Secondly Daniel Craig was ******* awesome. He has that dark side to him which is essential for Bond. He was not invincible in the film as we saw when he had cuts and bruises and also made himself sick when poisoned, and in the torture scene, he was fantastic.
Not since Timothy Dalton, have we seen a Bond with a real dark edge to his character. I lamented the choice of Daniel Craig initially as I thought, who ? I then watched Layer Cake in which he excelled and I am happy to say that I was very wrong about him.
He gets my vote as the new James Bond.
The reason for the reboot is simple: The Bond films since Goldeneye have all been a bit crap. Hell, even Roger Moore's ones weren't brilliant.
As for the question of the DBS and Walter PP9 and what have you not existing at that time... do you mean as in "Casino Royale is set in the 50s, none of those things existed" or what?
As for the question of the DBS and Walter PP9 and what have you not existing at that time... do you mean as in "Casino Royale is set in the 50s, none of those things existed" or what?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
I particularly like it at the end where she drowns. This is after that really annoying scene where she *gives* herself to James Bond.
This is deffo one of the better bonds I feel, the ones with Pierce Brosnan weren't that good imo..
This is deffo one of the better bonds I feel, the ones with Pierce Brosnan weren't that good imo..
Im suprised that people are finding this all a bit to difficult to accept.
The Bond franchise has been inconsistent at best anyway, Unless you are a diehard fan then you should know that there is a few turkeys amongst the bond movies.
Starting back at the beginning was a great move, because I know that me and my friends thought the last few bonds were pretty pants. Yet this one was a massive improvement.
For time scale.. i think it would be ridiculous if it was set early with Old cars, old costumes and lack of modern technology. What would Ellipsis be read from? A captured messenger pigeon?
Craig is rugged, stronger, a bit meaner.. hes more believable as a special agent. I think people are struggling to like him because he doesnt have the dark black hair that people seem to associate with James Bond.
The Bond franchise has been inconsistent at best anyway, Unless you are a diehard fan then you should know that there is a few turkeys amongst the bond movies.
Starting back at the beginning was a great move, because I know that me and my friends thought the last few bonds were pretty pants. Yet this one was a massive improvement.
For time scale.. i think it would be ridiculous if it was set early with Old cars, old costumes and lack of modern technology. What would Ellipsis be read from? A captured messenger pigeon?
Craig is rugged, stronger, a bit meaner.. hes more believable as a special agent. I think people are struggling to like him because he doesnt have the dark black hair that people seem to associate with James Bond.