Anyone seen it yet?
Tsk Rico you know that any thread from that forum is useless by definition :3
I finished watching it an hour ago. My initial impression is that it feels different from the other James Bond movies in a curious but fundamental way. It's also rather oddly paced, towards the end, as if the director was going for a certain effect but unsure about it. You'll probably enjoy this very much if you're a poker fan, but the game itself didn't do very much for me ;p
Oh, and there is the very very heart-wrenching trashing of an extremely beautiful piece of hardware. To say any more would be spoily though.
I liked it very much. I actually got to see it on the company dime, as I've been given the unofficial post of movie critic (extra responsibility, no extra pay, extra hours, but I see movies for free, and I get published). I very much liked it. I'm not sure where this belongs in the James Bond franchise, as Bond movies have always been 50% action and 50% camp, and this movie is not campy in the slightest.
Frankly, I'm fine with it not fitting in to the James Bond franchise, as I've never been a particularely big fan of it, other than the fine music it produced, which again is where this movie differs from the previous ones. What was up with that theme song. It was so 80's!
It was pretty good, plenty of action. Except for the three hours of poker playing. Oh and Pundit, I nearly cried at that point...
The real trouble with it is that it went on about 15 minutes too long. Those of you who've seen it must know what I mean. Surely everyone in the cinema knew exactly what was coming? I spent 15 mins going "come on, already, get on with it!" Mind you, that was possibly partly because it was nearly 1am by that time.
M was great, as Judi Dench always is. A couple of moments really made me jump (which is more than can be said for most horror movies).
Overall, entertaining but hardly Bond as Hollywood knows him. I've not read any of the books, so I can't comment on whether they really have gone back to basics.
I was disappointed to notice a lack of Mounties and deaf wolves, given the screenplay seemed to be co-written by the dude who created Due South...
DW
the difference you're seeing is two things:
First, this is the first Bond film in a long time to not hav e a huge plot to take ove rhte wworld, or small countries, or anything. It's just some terrorists wanting money. It's not overblown. Why? Because this is based on one of the classic books, in fact, Casino Royale was the first book written.
Second, the producers wanted to bring Bond back to what he was in the books. Some loyal fans of the books think Bond has gotten too "pretty" lately, with Brosnan and ultimate-gentlemannessish and what-not.
I have read the books; I think they were pretty good compared to them.
One problem though is continuity; this is a prequel to every other Bond film. He isn't even a 00 agent in the first scene - Yet the prequel to Cold-War era films has Vaio laptops, streaming GPS cell phones, modern cars, etc. and Judi Dench as M - She wasn't M until the <i>Goldeneye</i> mission.
Oh yes, thank you for mentioning the ridiculous product placement. Enough with the bloody Vaios and cellphones already 
:">
As for the pretty and gentlemanly stuff, I suppose it's true that Bond might not have been portrayed as such in Ian Fleming's earlier work, but by the time one gets to stories like "From Russia With Love", etc, I don't know if i'd call him anything less than the living personification of suave. And is it just me or did anyone else think Bond just looked plain *old* in Casino Royale?
Sean Connery > Roger Moore > Timothy Dalton > Pierce Brosnan > George Lazenby > Daniel Craig.
That is all.
One problem though is continuity; this is a prequel to every other Bond film. He isn't even a 00 agent in the first scene - Yet the prequel to Cold-War era films has Vaio laptops, streaming GPS cell phones, modern cars, etc. and Judi Dench as M - She wasn't M until the Goldeneye mission.
It's not a prequel, it's a reboot of the series in the same vein as Batman Begins or Battlestar Galactica.
I hope nobody actually thinks that all the Sony product placement was unintentional.
I have never seen a Bond movie all the way through (other than brief bits of Moonraker). I told this to a friend yesterday and he punched me in the gut. Hard.
I take it that this isn't a good first Bond. What is? I've always felt I ought to check it out.
I take it that this isn't a good first Bond. What is? I've always felt I ought to check it out.
You should start with the first three in the series: Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Goldfinger, in that order.
I can't wait to see this, I've been looking forward to seeing Blonde in action ever since they announced him; Daniel Craig is a great actor! I don't care if there's no gadgets or frikkin' "lazer beams", I think Austin Powers has taken a lot of that and made us realise how stupid it all really is (even though that franchise is pretty dead now too), so it's about time they try and give it a decent facelift in this age where real tough guys like Solid Snake and 24 Jack Bauer set the bar.
Although truth be told, I do love the camp and the frikkin "laser beams" (after all, Moonraker and Die Another Day are my favourite Bond films).
RIP Brosnan, and Brosnans acting career (like you knew who he was before Goldeneye, or even remember who he is now). Oh well, maybe we'll get a battle of the Bonds, like they did with that Dr. Who thing where they got three or four of the doctors together... 
Sean Connery > Roger Moore > Timothy Dalton > Pierce Brosnan > George Lazenby > Daniel Craig.
Connery > Brosnan > Craig/Moore tie > Dalton > Lazenby.
I wasn't expecting to be impressed, but I damn well was. I asked myself 2 questions throughout the movie:
Why is he drowning him in the sink instead of slaughtering him?
How can he be falling in love? This is Bond! What's going to stop this from happening?
Of course, they were both answered - the first much more promptly than the last. I really liked Bond's relationship with the girl this time around.
M was great, as Judi Dench always is.
Absolute agreement here; I especially enjoyed the rant. "Christ I miss the cold war."
It's a bit of juxtaposition really. In the previous movies with Judi Dench as M, she was the new one, the person being brought in to usher MI6 into the modern, post-cold-war age. Bond was the relic of ages past who had to adapt.
Now it's the other way around, Judi Dench is the ancient relic, and Bond is the newest up and coming thing. I think they did a much better job of having M feeling threatenned by Bond then they ever did of having Bond feel threatenned by M. I think it works better this way given the age difference.
Agreed, Srol.
To HSW's second spoiler - Have you read the book On Her Majesty's Secret Service? I'm unsure about the movie, it and Thunderball are the only two Bond movies I've never seen, but in the book, he actually marries another person. She's killed, though.
Yeah, saw the movie today.
Pretty awesome, but I didn't leave the theater going "OHMYGAWD!...whoa..." as I did "Bourne Supremecy" and stuff.
All around a great movie. Craig did an awesome job as Bond, though the way he continued to pout his lips when he tried to look serious really began to disturb me after a while...
The only other flaw was that there weren't enough naked chicks in this movie!!! What, was this the first opening of James Bond not to include the sillhouetes (sp?) of nude chicks? Plus, instead of the traditional female vocalist singing the main theme, it was a male rock song...
Not that I have anything against Rock, it's my favorite genre. But James Bond isn't supposed to open to that.
I suppose "Casino Royale" marks the beginning of a Bond Revolution. A new Generation of JB.
Different- but awesome.
Wait, did Wonder place Timothy Dalton as a better bond than anybody other than George Lazenby or the new guy whom is outside of the scale of my judgement?
o.o
Elias: Not only is Live and Let Die arguably one of the better known Bond songs, it's also arguably one of Paul McCartney's biggest post-Beatles hits. No law says a Bond theme has to be sung by a woman, or that it has to be the smooth smaltzy boring fare that have plagued the previous movies.
That being said, I wasn't crazy about this theme. Too 80's for my taste.
True, Paul McCartney did do a great job with "Live and Let Die"
But, you know, it's kinda tradition, I suppose.
Most JB films got a chick singing.
"Moonraker"
"Die another Day"
"Diamonds are Forever"
and many, many others =P. Those 3 just pop out first.
Still, the song has grown to me. I mean- it's Cornell. It's Audioslave, it's Soundgarden, it's cool.
he actually marri--
NOT. CANON.
Oh yeah, I thought Craig did a great job as well.
How can an original book not be canon???
DW
because i deny it with divine fury
I thought the poker sections were the best bit (despite it being changed from baccarat).
But yeah- nice to actually see a Bond film btoh vaguely true to the books and with some character development. May it happen again.
On first thoughts, I'd rank it above most others I've seen.
Yeah, there WAS good character development in this movie, my family and I talked about that after we saw the movie.
Pretty weird and- unexpected from a JB movie, =P
