Casino Royal - Review Thread *Spoilers*
- Thread starter TheMagicPirate
- Start date
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 4,021
- Location
- a crappy part of London
Von Smallhausen said:
Nope, James Bond = real name of one person.
You can't explain the continuity at all, it went Connery > Lazenby > Connery and also villains recognise different people as being Mr Bond
frakker said:
I agree, although they probably wanted/needed to fit a lot in. It could do with some time shaving off it, as I found myself ready to leave after he goes on holiday to Venice with Vesper. The stuff after was still cool but still a little bit too long.
Do some people not realise that this film is a prequel to all the other bond films there have been? Of course he's not like the other Bond's, he's just starting out as a 00 agent and is, as M called him, "A Blunt Instrument" until the end of the film where he starts to become more refined. The Bond franchise isn't like Dr Who where you can easily explain the different actors, you just have to accept that there will be different people playing Bond and deal with it. The product placement was too much for me, by the end of the film I had a serious dislike for anything Sony.
Overall I thought it was an excellent Bond film and went back to how it was in the Connery era (the best imo), plus Daniel Craig did more action shots in 30 minutes than Roger Moore in his entire span as Bond.
One of the main criticisms was the timeline in the film, there were times it jumped around so much you didn't know how long had passed between scenes.
Have to say I had reservations about Daniel Craig but they were soon put to rest and is definately one of the better Bonds, it was good to see how by the end of the film he had finally become James Bond and was glad they layed off the Bond music and the line "The name's Bond, James Bond" it showed how he transformed from a thug into a secret agent.
Overall I thought it was an excellent Bond film and went back to how it was in the Connery era (the best imo), plus Daniel Craig did more action shots in 30 minutes than Roger Moore in his entire span as Bond.
One of the main criticisms was the timeline in the film, there were times it jumped around so much you didn't know how long had passed between scenes.
Have to say I had reservations about Daniel Craig but they were soon put to rest and is definately one of the better Bonds, it was good to see how by the end of the film he had finally become James Bond and was glad they layed off the Bond music and the line "The name's Bond, James Bond" it showed how he transformed from a thug into a secret agent.
R0551 said:
That's the thing, the way they've done the film it might not be showing how he was shaped into the Bond we know from the other films. This could be a brand new Bond character in the making, designed a lot closer to how he is in the books and then that would also explain why this Casino Royale is set in 2006 and not chronologically before Dr No.
I think Casino Royale is the new Bond, but not a prequel. More of an alternative Bond timeline, where the other films have no place in this world.
R0551 said:
Hehe, you say that like Daniel Craig was suddenly going to look and behave more intelligent from next Bond movie onwards. He's still going to be thug with stiff lower lip and clenched jaws. Just like he is in all his movies.
This is how the new, reinvented, paralel universe Bond will be now. That's what the whole "reboot" was for. I guess previous Bonds were too sophisticated for today's audience.
Suspended
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 344
I was very unimpressed. Daniel Craig was a major let down; he looks like he's making a stupid kissy face all the time and runs like T-1000. The audience audibly cringed at the romance and the whole film ran on far too long. The product placement was worse than ever, and Richard Branson? Free running bit was good, couple of funny quips. 5/10
I'd like to know whether people would have preffered the Bond films to have carried on like Die Another Day after the previous post.
I certainly didn't want them to carry on making silly, unrealistic, "super-spy", and 1 stop from XxX films.
I'm made up with the new Bond, IMO anyone who says otherwise can go sit on a catus as they have had plenty Bond films I have hated, and now there is finally one I absolutely love.
I certainly didn't want them to carry on making silly, unrealistic, "super-spy", and 1 stop from XxX films.
I'm made up with the new Bond, IMO anyone who says otherwise can go sit on a catus as they have had plenty Bond films I have hated, and now there is finally one I absolutely love.
Great film, Craig was perfect as the 'proto' Bond. Very British (yes, yes I know Bond isn't), refined until he needed to get his hands dirty, and very much a raw version of the Bond we have come to expect.
Yes, the product placement jarred a little, and some of the dialogue in the romantic scenes was overdone, but overall a highly enjoyable film, very 'Bond', and imbued with the cachet that sets it apart from other action films and recently had been somewhat lost.
Like many others, I really don't understand why people of reasonable intelligence are getting hung up on the prequel, but in 2006 situation. Every Bond film so far has been set, more or less, in the time that it was made, to change this would be a much odder decision than the one taken. You might as well ask why Bond didn't age an awful lot in the preceding 40 years of films.
Yes, the product placement jarred a little, and some of the dialogue in the romantic scenes was overdone, but overall a highly enjoyable film, very 'Bond', and imbued with the cachet that sets it apart from other action films and recently had been somewhat lost.
Like many others, I really don't understand why people of reasonable intelligence are getting hung up on the prequel, but in 2006 situation. Every Bond film so far has been set, more or less, in the time that it was made, to change this would be a much odder decision than the one taken. You might as well ask why Bond didn't age an awful lot in the preceding 40 years of films.
Suspended
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 344
Fubar said:
The last Bond film I really enjoyed was Goldeneye, the best ones are from the late 70s/early 80s though. I'm glad they've done away with invisible cars and comedy bad guys (Carver from TWINE) etc but the producers have really screwed this one up, it all came across as rather low budget.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 8,498
- Location
- Essex
Texas Hold 'em, still trying to learn it myself 
frakker said:
That was 1 gripe I had, there was no sense of time in places. Especially during his recovery, I had no idea how long he had been there and it looked, from the way it was edited, that he was in there a couple of days.
I didn't even notice Branson!
Likewise, I tend to ignore product placement. If anything, I find it more offensive if they use a whole load of made up products, because it's just plain unrealistic. I'm used to seeing Sony this and Nokia that day in day out, so it doesn't bother me to see it in films.
Likewise, I tend to ignore product placement. If anything, I find it more offensive if they use a whole load of made up products, because it's just plain unrealistic. I'm used to seeing Sony this and Nokia that day in day out, so it doesn't bother me to see it in films.
