The One and Only "Casino Royale" Thread

[Jonathon 0]

Has anyone seen this yet?

[bob_barron 0]

Saw it tonight. Great movie. The third act dragged a little but man- Bond was awesome

[randomguy 0]

Sounds like they ditched the incredibly tired formula to some degree. This is the first Bond film I've been at all interested in in decades.

[Blue Bacchus 0]

Very, very good film. Lots of intrigue, hardcore violence, and a very realistic Bond universe, what more could you want? The reboot works and I hope they continue with the next two Daniel Craig movies the same way.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Yes, I agree. Really well done and you get some good insight into Bond's character. I hope they stay away from having it be formulaic like the older Bond movies. Needs some creativity and character development. Really well done.

[Scroby 0]

I saw it tonight and I enjoyed it.

 

I'll just say this...the first half hour of the movie......freaking awesome.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Loved it. Not just a great Bond movie but a great movie, period. Craig was hard as fuck, Evan Green was smoking hot and the film didn't insult my intelligence like pretty much the last 3 or 4 Bond films have.

[DMann2003 0]

A definite highlight and a great action thriller, what's great about it is for once Bond uses his own wits and skills, not Q branch, not the villians screw up, not a bunch of weapons or a bunch of extra agents behind him.

 

This film, first and foremost, is about BOND- not the villians, gadgets, locales, women, pure and simple this film is about what makes James Bond tick. It's not flawless, no Bond film (and few otherwise) is. My only question is, where do you go from here. I mean we do eventually need Q to come along, and brief spar with Moneypenny. But as long as those traditions come along at the service of the film and its story, not the other way around, I say with have some very good films to look forward too.

[cabbageboy 0]

I saw it today and certainly enjoyed it for a change of pace from the ludicrously overproduced last Bond movie. It's definitely the most serious Bond movie since On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

 

That said, I think Craig is basically the 2nd coming of Timothy Dalton as Bond. Dalton's first Bond outing (Living Daylights) was quite praised when it first came out for being a more serious film than the Moore films preceeding it. But the whole vicious killer Bond thing hasn't ever had legs in the long run.

 

It's funny to hear people glad that Q and Moneypenny weren't in this, since that sort of thing is what has been missing from the series practically dating back to the end of the Moore era. I still miss the original M, the original Q, and original Moneypenny. They all had an air of cameraderie with Bond that made the films fun.

 

If the next couple of Bond movies lighten the tone just a bit and retain Craig's hard ass act (something similar to the Connery movies), then they'll be really good. Or they could go off in a really mean spirited Licence to Kill direction and the public will sour on Bond again.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Saw it, thought it was great. Craig was a great Bond.

[MrRant 0]

How close was it to the book? The trailer's leave me feeling that it isn't.

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

How close was it to the book? The trailer's leave me feeling that it isn't.

 

It's not dead-on, of course..but it's surprisingly close to the novel.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Just a few changes. In the book, it takes place during the Cold War and the name of the game is Bacarrat. In the film, its modern times and they changed it to Texas Hold 'Em.

 

I haven't seen the movie yet, plan on to though. A lot of critics are hailing this as the best Bond film in decades.

[cabbageboy 0]

It wasn't as good as GoldenEye I didn't think....but it depends on what you look for in a Bond movie. GoldenEye was a much more enjoyable and entertaining film, Casino Royale a much harder edged film.

 

I think once it settles into the main story of Bond vs. Le Chiffre playing cards it's fairly close to the book. The stuff in the first 40 mins. though? I dunno so much.

[Justice 0]

It was okay. Much more character-driven, yes, but it really felt like it dragged at a few points; with all the breaks in the action, it really gave it weird pace. Along with not having any sort of 'villain', it made it hard to pay attention to at times. I didn't like the change to Texas Hold'em, because frankly Bond is supposed to be the epitome of style. I'd rather have seen Baccarat or something that's less predictable than a Poker laydown. At least Baccarat is obscure enough that it can surprise ya a little bit.

 

Daniel Craig is an excellent choice for Bond. Comparing him to Dalton is almost insulting; I never felt Dalton had the 'look' of a Bond. Craig has it, and he just oozes style and charisma.

 

The first action sequence felt pointless, but it was a really fun one (Seriously, anyone with half a brain would have just waited for the guy to come back down) and it did establish Bond in more of a 'Rookie' mode. Bond using less ultra-contrived gadgets and relying on intelligence and wit was a really great change, and I think that he's need the change for a while.

 

Overall, I thought it was a great change from the last two outings. Something needed to change, and I think this movie really got it right with a more intelligent, slightly more reserved approach. While I feel like it had pacing problems, it's good to see a 007 movie that you're not embarrassed to see.

[cabbageboy 0]

Dalton definitely had the look for Bond, if anything he might look the most like the vision of the character (whereas the blond Craig doesn't so much). Dalton's problem was that he was much too sullen and serious without coming off like a total badass. Better too be a hardcore killer badass like Craig than bland and humorless.

 

As I said, filmgoers are willing to accept a 1 movie change from the typical Bond formula. But come next movie I'd like to see Q back, Moneypenny, a crazed heel with charisma. Why not bring back SPECTRE for another go? That entire storyline was never really properly finished. How about a villain along the lines of Phillip Seymour Hoffman from MI3? A bit more realistic but still has charisma to draw you in.

[Der Kommissar 0]

Why not bring back SPECTRE for another go?

 

They can't, actually, due to some legal issues.

 

Basically, a guy named Kevin McClory claims to have come up with the ideas in Thunderball, and the organization known as SPECTRE and Blofeld. After years of legal battles, the courts finally agreed with him, giving him a certain amount of right to the characters, and allowing him the option to make a Bond film involving an atomic weapons threat(Never Say Never Again).

 

As for my opinion of Casino Royale, I thought it was okay. Much like Justice, I didn't like the pacing much. I also didn't like how the villains were underdeveloped, and, in some cases, not even named. For instance, Le Chiffre's entourage of the older Chinese woman, the blonde, and the two guys(I believe). Who were they? Why were they hanging out with Le Chiffre? What was their importance in whatever Le Chiffre was doing?

 

That said, I did like a lot of the ideas and changes to the formula that were used in this movie. I especially loved how Bond made the newspaper after he

blew up the embassy.

I always wondered what some of the fallout would be like to some of the stuff Bond has done. I also liked Craig as Bond, and feel that they have fixed a lot of the problems of the previous films. I am still not getting the "OMG! 10 out of 10! GREATEST BOND EVER!" opinions that a lot of Bond fans are giving this film though. I give it a 6 out of 10 right now, as the pacing issues just killed it for me. Assuming they work out some of the problems they had in this film, I think the next one should be awesome.

[Justice 0]

Yeah, the newspaper reviews really baffled me. This is a two star step from the last two Bond movies, but that's only **1/2 stars there. It still needs better pacing, and I felt as though things weren't even properly explained (M says

that Bond was left alive because Vesper made a deal. But he hadn't given her the code yet. I'm not saying she didn't love him... but I wish Bond had said something to that effect to follow the 'armored exterior' motiff that was playing throughout the film

.

 

Ah well. At least it's still a passable Bond movie. What they really need to do is get rid of the current scriptwriters (Who also wrote the last two). I'm convinced if they got rid of them, they'd be in a helluva lot better shape.

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

I definetely agree on the pacing problems. Once the poker and the love story kicked in, it really started to drag (especially in the 3rd act). Character development is nice but that 3rd act just stopped at a stand-still.

 

I also agree on the villains being a problem. Some of their motives were hardly explained and a lot of it seemed needlessly complicated. Le Chiffre was a decent villain but his lack of henchmen (that bald guy had promise but did nothing) and

his very weak comeuppance

spoiled him.

 

A good Bond but not great. I really like the direction this took and this was easily better than 2 of the Brosnan movies (Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies were better) but I agree with cabbageboy in that in the next movie, the traditional Bond expectations need to come back.

[Sideburnious 0]

Needed more Space battles. Needed more Golden guns...

 

 

 

 

No, I enjoyed this bond movie. I always enjoyed Craig as an actor, but yeah, I have to agree with everyone about the pacing problems in the third act. We could have cut almost 20-30mins of that.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Pacing isn't so much my issue, as I simply thought the movie went on too long. I really enjoyed up until Le Chiffre gets capped and they leave Montenegro. The last 20-30 minutes is just dull. The fight in Venice itself is interesting, but it really felt tacked on, and I didn't buy the Bond/Lynd love story. Craig himself is a good Bond, certainly more comfortable than Dalton in the role, but Connery is still the standard-bearer. Basically Craig & Dalton could play the cold-hearted killer. Moore & Brosnan could play the charming gentleman. Lazenby couldn't do either. Connery is the only one who could do it all, and pretty much at the same time at that.

[Red Baron 0]

It was enjoyable, enjoyable than most of the Bond movies, but not as good as GoldenEye.

[Rendclaw 0]

I look at it from the aspect that they had to show WHY Bond has that emotional armor. He met a woman during a mission that was his almost mirror image and he fell in love with her, only to be betrayed by her at the end.

 

If they are going with a "rookie" Bond, then certain things had to be established with that character.

 

The reason why the switched to Hold Em (aside from the popularity factor; though I was a little iffy about that whole "James Bond meet Rounders" part of the movie) is because the majority of people either don't know about Baccarat or don't care about it. Its too highbrow for most of the moviegoers. Dumbing down? Maybe.

 

Daniel Craig was downright awesome in this one. I didn't know if he could pull it off (primarily because I had never seen him before), but after seeing Layer Cake (If you haven;t seen it, do it now), I knew he could pull off James Bond without a hitch.

[cabbageboy 0]

Ironically I think the film was about 20 mins. too long as well but the end stuff isn't what I would cut. I'd get rid of the pointless opening chase scene, and pretty much everything in the Bahamas, Miami, etc. It was all pointless and had little to do with the actual plot.

 

Kahran, I'm not sure what Lazenby could or couldn't do. He was only in one movie, and it was an oddball entry with Bond in a serious romance and he spends 30 mins. in disguise. I used to think that OHMSS would be the best Bond movie with Connery in it, but having watched it the other night I don't think it suits Connery very well.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Basically, a guy named Kevin McClory claims to have come up with the ideas in Thunderball, and the organization known as SPECTRE and Blofeld. After years of legal battles, the courts finally agreed with him, giving him a certain amount of right to the characters, and allowing him the option to make a Bond film involving an atomic weapons threat(Never Say Never Again).

 

Yeah, basically because of that, the whole FYEO was their creative way of saying "Fuck you!" to McClory and IMO was the best way to do so because you can only do so much with dragging a feud. It'd like Batman Vs, The Joker all over again.

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

Ironically I think the film was about 20 mins. too long as well but the end stuff isn't what I would cut. I'd get rid of the pointless opening chase scene, and pretty much everything in the Bahamas, Miami, etc. It was all pointless and had little to do with the actual plot.

Yah but I think the opening stuff you're talking about is necessary to keeping the essence of a Bond movie. At their core, Bond movies are action movies. If people went to see a Bond movie and in 2 hours the only action that they got was the torture and the end shootout, you'd get a LOT of disappointed people.

[SuperJerk 0]

Pacing isn't so much my issue, as I simply thought the movie went on too long. I really enjoyed up until Le Chiffre gets capped and they leave Montenegro. The last 20-30 minutes is just dull. The fight in Venice itself is interesting, but it really felt tacked on, and I didn't buy the Bond/Lynd love story. Craig himself is a good Bond, certainly more comfortable than Dalton in the role, but Connery is still the standard-bearer. Basically Craig & Dalton could play the cold-hearted killer. Moore & Brosnan could play the charming gentleman. Lazenby couldn't do either. Connery is the only one who could do it all, and pretty much at the same time at that.

I can't really argue with any of that.

 

As soon as Bond

said he was leaving the secret service

, I knew that

Vesper was toast

and it was just a question of how much longer to get to the end of the movie. Everything after

the torture scene

felt like a drag after the amazing beginning and middle of the film.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Anybody know if they're going to follow up on all of the hinted at human genetic experimentation?

 

Also, can anyone explain how James went from the Bahamas to a freeway in Miami without skipping a frame?

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

Saw it yesterday; for a movie that's been out almost 2 months (somehow in my head I thought it had only been a few weeks), there was a nice amount of people in the theatre. I enjoyed it but agree it was a but lengthy with some drag, but much, MUCH better than DaD and especially TWINE (my least favourite of the 'modern' era). Some of the people I was with complained about the length and the lack of Q and/or gadgetry, but it was enjoyed by all. It was weird not having it follow normal guidelines and formula but of course that also made it very interesting.

 

A few funny things happened at the showing I went to - despite the fact every commercial and trailer before was in perfect colour, people were murmuring about something being wrong due to the black and white opening (even I was briefly - the studio logo being in B&W was a bit odd) but most figured it was the way it was made and rolled with it. One person did leave the theatre and I can only assume it was to ask someone about the colour.

 

The next incident happened after

Bond was set to give up his agent ways and settle down on a boat, sending a resignation e-mail

. A family seemed to think that was the ending and all left.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

I love how the movie was teasing SPECTRE. Now that McClory is dead, there's a chance they could get the rights back from his estate like Warner Bros. did with the use of Marlon Brando's footage for Donner's Cut of Superman II. Patrick Stewart for Blofeld please!