Casino Royal - Review Thread *Spoilers*

[Amp34]

How has no one else said this, GET RID OF THAT STOMACH!!

He is way to large to play bond, he needs to tone down a bit. Other than that he was a pretty good bond. I have always liked the Dalton films the most due to the fact they are much darker than the others and this one is pretty close to them.

On improving the film, I think they do need to add more gadgets (even Dalton had at least some gadgets) and they need to mold him, perhaps over the next two films, into a more sophisticated and businesslike bond not the thug he is now. I just hope they haven't made him into a thuggy character for the US audience.

On product placement, god there was a lot of it, some of it was ok and quite subtle such as the laptop on the yacht and the bluray. But other bits were stupid, where he lifts up the phone to see the text message and all you see on the top third of the screen is 'Sony Ericsson'. The car parh by the hotel was the funniest piece though, full of landrovers, mondeos and volvos. There were just 3 types of car in the car park.

So overall a good film with a few small niggles that need sorting out in the next film to truly make Craig a good bond. My betting is they won't do them though.

Anyone else think he looked a bit like Gollom in some of the shots?

 

[v0n]

Did you have any basis for this presumption?

Well, yeah. One thing that is repeated A LOT in Bond movies, this one included, is the notion how "double o's have short life span". It just made sense to me. Doesn't really matter now, that the old franchise is dead - I guess we'll just get used to next new Bonds and the hollywood "whatever, deal with it" approach, like we accept Jack Ryan looks different, and is of different age in every movie (latest one is youngest too) or Agent Clarice Starling had a major morph inbetween her appearances on our screens

 

[Red and White]

I always presumed they all basically took the name - James Bond with the 007 license.

no. you couldnt be more wrong.

all the stories are based on one man - James Bond.

clearly wouldnt be as good as he's made out to be if he kept getting killed and replaced :/

obviously he's timeless. and questioning the time line or "wy isnt he old" etc is just ridiulous.

 

[v0n]

clearly wouldnt be as good as he's made out to be if he kept getting killed and replaced :/

Well. He's not that good really. Gets arrested, spends few years in prison. Can't connect cables together, needs people rescue him, he is but human.

obviously he's timeless. and questioning the time line or "wy isnt he old" etc is just ridiulous.

Never questioned timeline, because as I said, I always presumed it's a function, position rather than a person, so it all worked for me.
Doesn't matter if I'm wrong really, especially now, when franchise starts a new. They gonna build a new tin box full of DVDs and it's all going to be from the beginning this time.

 

[Naffa]

I've just heard, that the person Bond shoots in the leg at the end...







Is Dr No!!

Could anyone shed some light on this and if it bears any truth?

 

[iCraig]

I've just heard, that the person Bond shoots in the leg at the end Is Dr No!!

Mr White? Doubt it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._White_(James_Bond)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Julius_No

 

[Manlove is my forte]

Got fed up with reading about the timeline/is this the same bond


So I will put my answer in.

Do not think of all the bond films as "The Past". Think of them all as the "present". Ian flemming wrote a bunch of James bond spy books using references and technology from his present. The film makers have incorperated those stories into their present. If you watch a connery, or Moore bond film yes they happened in the past, and the references/technology is old. But you have to use a dose of imagination and presume that it is the present.

The Face of James Bond does change on occations but it is still the same character, Not a replacement agent, just a replacement actor.

This film for those that do not know. Is the first story in the James bond franchise. It is infact a remake. So this is acctually the begining of the James Bond story line, where he is promoted to a 00.

 

[aaazza]

Thought it was a good film, with some good actions bits and a few funny gags. Blatent product placement nearly killed it for me, but maybe that was because I was sitting next to my brother in the cinema and he absolutely hates things like that.

Craig was good I thought and I think the film will seem even better if I see it again.

aaazza

 

[Naffa]

Mr White? Doubt it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._White_(James_Bond)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Julius_No

Ah thank you.

Seen the film three times and still had no idea who Mr White was.

 

[bledd]

saw it today (finally!)

nut crackingly good (had been watching a lot of 24 this week, so the film seemed rather short, lol)

 

[barf0r]

excellent film. hope all craigs bonds can compare to that

 

[v0n]

Shaken, not stirred. Lippy does "magnum".

 

[Nitefly]

Meh, I thought they tried too hard to introduce Craig.

The intro had his face in it which I didn't like... lines like the vodka martini one and the ending of seemed to say:

"I'm bond, James bond............ and I'M HERE TO STAY "

It just tried too hard to show it was being different and it felt a bit forceful. Still, it was by far one of my favourite bonds, very good

 

[Raymond Lin]

Thought it was a good film, with some good actions bits and a few funny gags. Blatent product placement nearly killed it for me, but maybe that was because I was sitting next to my brother in the cinema and he absolutely hates things like that.

Craig was good I thought and I think the film will seem even better if I see it again.

aaazza

I know! How many times do we have to see Sony Ericsson Phones in the film? It kept coming up every few minutes, it was either his phone or a laptop.

I thought the film dragged a bit, there was a lot of talking between daniel craig and Eva Green in the middle, and I actually said "Pleaseeeeeeeeeeee" at all the love talk, it was very un-bond for me. I also notice the distinct lack of gadgets and any big stunts. Granted there was lots of running and jumping off here and there, hanging off side of buildings, rooftops and what not. But no car chases, no real gun fights. It was more realistic than the last bond (wasn't hard tbh) but i do miss some elabrate stunts.

Also the way the villian got taken out was too easy, it was a very easy way out for bond. I thought that bit was a let down. and the twist at the end was way obvious, i notice there was like 20 mins left of the film and he made a very clear declaration of his love and "trust" for her, then it became light and day what was about to happen.

Overall, enjoyablee but not as good as MI3

 

[Nitefly]

The bit that made me 'lol' was when he was on the laptop looking at a website, and an advert on the website was for the sony bravia tv

 

[BoomAM]

Overall, enjoyablee but not as good as MI3

I hope your joking.
MI3 was awful. It was just some random action film that happened to have EthenHunt in it.

I thought Casino Royal was quite good myself. Might be because all my mates were slating it something cronic though.

Interesting:

Casino Royale is a reboot of the series. The events in the film are not designed to precede Dr. No or any other Bond films, as in a prequel - rather they establish a new timeline and narrative framework.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Royale_(2006_film)

 

[fozzybear]

I was really disappointed when i watched this the other day. Maybe i was expecting too much after all the hype about it since it opened.

I thought the few action scenes were poor (especially the one at the end) and Daniel Craig didn't impress me in the slightest.

The bit were he was poisoned whilst playing poker was way over the top even for a bond movie.

I'd give it no more than 6/10.

 

[shortone]

One of my favorite bond movies defiantly on a par with Connorey , none of the crappy CGI gfx from the last film.

 

[Loki]

Well I didnt get chance to see this at the cinema so I decided to watch it on DVD thanks to those guys on the Channel Islands delivering it early . What can I say other than Bond is Back !!!

A lot was made before this film was released by Bond officionado's and film buffs alike about the relatively unknown Daniel Craig. First looks can be a little deceptive but if anyone can rescue the Bond movies from a CGI induced crap and wak storylines then he would appear to be the man. He may have the same effect on the fanchise as Bale had on Batman. Well cast albeit his dialogue is limited. The special effects are good and dare I say it appropriate to keep it real and believeable.

It's pretty action packed throughout and really does have a high tempo to it. Going completely against the genre of the action flik with it's mandatory car chase. The opening salvo is Bond chasing some guy up and down buildings, cranes, scaffolding and anything else they can put there feet on for a second or two.

This is a lot darker than any of the Bonds I have seen (all of them) and shows a pretty ruthless streak to 007 which was sorely lacking under Dalton & Brosnan respectively.

On the downside in the days of ever changing gadgets and technology there isn't a Q in this to deliver his one liners and show Bond the latest toys on offer from MI5. The villain Le Chiffre is played by Mads Mikkleson. Given more of an opportunity he could have become a real opposing adversary to Bond but his role was cast a bit too weak for my liking and he got killed off all too easy.

In conclusion Daniel Craig is no Sean Connery. He's different. On first impressions he has the clout to make the role his own for as long has he want's it. A very good film that I regret not seeing at the cinema. Good visuals and high paced.

All in all a very solid 7.5/10 for me

 

[Tute]

Just seen this on DVD, bought it a couple of weeks ago but only just got around to watching it.

Daniel Craig does a very good job, wasn't expecting him to but I admit I was wrong. As it's supposed to pre-set the other films he does a great job of portraying the new, rugged, rough around the edges Bond.

However, the person who wrote this should be hung.

No matter what anyone says, a prequel is just that - a prequel. That would make it set in what, the 60s? I don't remember reading anywhere that laptops and/or mobile phones were so widely available back then. The gadgets they could have gotten away with as they're often very far-fetched but the scenes should have been set up with attention to detail.

Even if you could look past that, what the hell was the 9/11 reference all about? That was just a silly mistake to make.

For that reason, i'm giving it 6/10 - better than some, but worse than probably all of the Bonds of the 90's, due to the quite murderous messing around with the timeline.