Casino Royale

bubba966 · « **on:** 19 Nov 2006, 08:20 am »

Just got back from it. All I have to say about it so far would be

Am seeing it again Sunday afternoon. Hopefully I'll have a better idea what to think about it then.

NealH · « **Reply #1 on:** 19 Nov 2006, 10:52 am »

I too struggle to make up my mind on it. I am thinking about seeing it again as well. It's a bit hard to follow at times. It definitely drags at times especially when they are trying to depict Bond having more interest in a woman than just a quick hop in the bed. It almost gets boring at times.

The action was good, and I thought the acting was very good. Just the script was under par. It should have been better fleshed out. I like it that it is a different movie, a different Bond - but it could have been better. The theme song was a let down too.

bubba966 · « **Reply #2 on:** 20 Nov 2006, 08:52 am »

Ok, after the second viewing I liked it a good bit better.

Why?

Because when I saw it Saturday I was expecting a Bond movie. And it's not that.

It's much more like a Bourne movie than a Bond movie.

So, watching it again knowing that it's not a Bond movie (in my opinion anyway) and enjoying it for what it is made it much easier to enjoy.

If you've not seen it yet go and see it with the expectation that it's not really a Bond movie and you should be pleased...

ecramer · « **Reply #3 on:** 20 Nov 2006, 11:00 am »

It was more like the Bond in the books then the spectical the the bond movies have become. I havent seen a better bond since the early Connery days. i Liked it alot.

launche · « **Reply #4 on:** 20 Nov 2006, 06:57 pm »

Quote from: bubba966 on 20 Nov 2006, 08:52 am

Ok, after the second viewing I liked it a good bit better.

Why?

Because when I saw it Saturday I was expecting a Bond movie. And it's not that.

It's much more like a Bourne movie than a Bond movie.

So, watching it again knowing that it's not a Bond movie (in my opinion anyway) and enjoying it for what it is made it much easier to enjoy.

If you've not seen it yet go and see it with the expectation that it's not really a Bond movie and you should be pleased...

Help me out with the translation here, what is a Bond movie? And why isn't this Bond movie a Bond movie per se?
I am not we verse on the whole Bond thing.

mjosef · « **Reply #5 on:** 20 Nov 2006, 11:17 pm »

Wasn't this the first book/story that introduced the Bond character, thus the birth of Bond???
If so then it wouldn't/shouldn't be a Bond(?)movie since this is where Bond was born. Besides after so many Bond movies, the Bond character had become somewhat ...bland?
Think Batman Begins...

John Casler · « **Reply #6 on:** 21 Nov 2006, 01:21 am »

I am looking forward to seeing this one.

I read all the books when I was a teenager, and I feel the more recent movies have gone overboard on the gadgetry and effects.

The Connery films not so much, but when Moore and Dr. Gadget took over, I lost interest.

Aston Martins,

Sexy Women,

and Megalomaniac Villains,

work for me.

95bcwh · « **Reply #7 on:** 21 Nov 2006, 01:51 am »

John, I think with all the muscles you have, you can make a good James Bond too..! aa

Quote from: John Casler on 21 Nov 2006, 01:21 am

I am looking forward to seeing this one.

I read all the books when I was a teenager, and I feel the more recent movies have gone overboard on the gadgetry and effects.

The Connery films not so much, but when Moore and Dr. Gadget took over, I lost interest.

Aston Martins, Sexy Women, and Megalomaniac Villains, work for me.

BobM · « **Reply #8 on:** 21 Nov 2006, 03:41 pm »

Saw it Saturday night. Good movie overall and a total remaking of the whole Bond genre. More true to reality (well, movie reality) than the gadgety bonds of before. He gets damaged and shows it. He's not the suave and debonair "don't mess my hair" Bond of before. Even the Bond girls are less air brushed models and more real world in this one. He even has a human side that they show effectively (the slower moving parts).

Overall this one is a must see, on the big screen or DVD if you choose. I hope it begins a remake of the whoe Bond thing. The old stuff was just too 70's for my tastes. Yes, it definitely has a Jason Bourne kind of flavor to it, but far less choppy. Plenty of plot twists to keep you thinking too.

Which one do you think they will remake next? Or will they introduce something new?

Enjoy,
Bob

launche · « **Reply #9 on:** 21 Nov 2006, 04:30 pm »

I saw it this weekend and enjoyed it. It was a bit different from the most recent stuff. Bond was less suave and more common man. I tell that ball buster scene really got to me. This is a good movie go check it out.

John Casler · « **Reply #10 on:** 21 Nov 2006, 04:45 pm »

Quote from: 95bcwh on 21 Nov 2006, 01:51 am

John, I think with all the muscles you have, you can make a good James Bond too..! aa

Quote from: John Casler on 21 Nov 2006, 01:21 am
I am looking forward to seeing this one.

I read all the books when I was a teenager, and I feel the more recent movies have gone overboard on the gadgetry and effects.

The Connery films not so much, but when Moore and Dr. Gadget took over, I lost interest.

Aston Martins, Sexy Women, and Megalomaniac Villains, work for me.

Yeah, I get mistaken for Sean Connery every day

PhilNYC · « **Reply #11 on:** 21 Nov 2006, 04:53 pm »

Quote from: launche on 20 Nov 2006, 06:57 pm

Help me out with the translation here, what is a Bond movie? And why isn't this Bond movie a Bond movie per se?
I am not we verse on the whole Bond thing.

To get a good view of Bond films, see Goldfinger and Thunderball to see the best Bond films with Sean Connery, The Spy Who Loved Me for a good Roger Moore portrayal, and Golden Eye with Pierce Brosnan. The other guys (George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton) weren't very good. Roger Moore was pretty poor for a few of them, too, but The Spy Who Loved Me was decent...

nodiak · « **Reply #12 on:** 14 Dec 2006, 08:04 am »

Went with my 15 yo son, we both really liked the action scenes. Too much time at the poker table slowed the movie down, then I guess they'd need to rename it... And if the yummy first woman would've played the part of the one he fell for I'd have understood it getting romantic. Yah, the torture scene had me clinched and covering up, oh man, evil bad guy knows how to get to the point! I liked they way they got the Astin Martin in. It was good, better if they chopped 20 minutes off tho.

klh · « **Reply #13 on:** 30 Dec 2006, 10:12 pm »

The movie was a bit long, then again, after left the theater I was surprised at how much time had gone by. As a man, it was torture just watching the torture scene. This really had a much more gritty feel. I found the opening scene surprising, too. Right then and there you knew it was going to be a different kind of Bond film.

mjosef · « **Reply #14 on:** 18 Mar 2007, 05:47 am »

Late, but just saw this.
And I like this new Bond, more gritty, more real and down to earth, and more solid than any Bond movie I ever saw. The storyline was nice and simple, not too outlandish like most of the previous Bond. Gadgets were in line with current technology and not too futuristic. Action flow was darn good too, solid and well paced.
4 1/2 stars. Almost perfect.

PeteG · « **Reply #15 on:** 18 Mar 2007, 02:47 pm »

I just seen this too. I agree one of the best Bond movies out there, kind of reminds me of the Bourne movies.

Mag · « **Reply #16 on:** 18 Mar 2007, 03:07 pm »

I have to say it, so don't read on if you are going to be offended!

While watching the movie at the theatre, I got the impression that whoever wrote the screen play was gay! The movie seemed to focus on Bond's body and physical maleness. Fine if you are a woman or gay.
However the traditional Bond is a womanizer. And this is sadly lost in this version. Gone is the sexy women that made Bond movies Bond. This is not Bond! All this political correctness in our society has finally caught up with even Bond.
Give Bond back to the heterosexual writers!!
There, I said it, and I feel better.

BobM · « **Reply #17 on:** 18 Mar 2007, 03:22 pm »

Quote from: Mag on 18 Mar 2007, 03:07 pm

I have to say it, so don't read on if you are going to be offended!
While watching the movie at the theatre, I got the impression that whoever wrote the screen play was gay! The movie seemed to focus on Bond's body and physical maleness. Fine if you are a woman or gay.
However the traditional Bond is a womanizer. And this is sadly lost in this version. Gone is the sexy women that made Bond movies Bond. This is not Bond! All this political correctness in our society has finally caught up with even Bond.
Give Bond back to the heterosexual writers!!
There, I said it, and I feel better.

The premise of this movie is that it is James Bond's first assignment as "00" agent. He hasn't yet begun to womanize. He hasn't formalized his "shaken not stirred" drink of choice yet. He hasn't solidified his persona as we know it in all the other movies. He met the girl of his dreams, and she was killed, setting up his psych for never falling for a woman again, and becoming a womanizer. This is the premise of this movie, so you are correct that it is not the Bond we know and love. It is more true to Ian fFemings books than the hollywood version that has become so well known in the movies. The sequal will probably be a bit different (we'll see).

Enjoy,
Bob

Bigfish · « **Reply #18 on:** 25 Mar 2007, 04:50 pm »

This was the best movie I have seen this year and certainly the best Bond Movie in many years. This is a must see movie and I rate it 5 stars!

Ken

JoshK · « **Reply #19 on:** 25 Mar 2007, 04:54 pm »

saw it last night. thought it was a very good bond movie. one of the better ones imo. certainly better than the pierce brosnan ones.