# Casino Royale - Best 007 movie in years  [some spoilers]



## horacethegrey (Nov 15, 2006)

Sorry if there were was a thread on this previously. I looked through the archives but I couldn't find any past topic on this. If there was, my apologies, but I just had to get off my chest what I felt about this flick after watching it today.

WOW.  

I mean seriously, this is undoubtedly the best James Bond film I've had the pleasure of watching since _From Russia with Love_. It's thrilling, action packed, suspense filled, and surprisingly, dramatic and very moving. 

If I were to sum up of what made this film so good, let's just say it's similar to what Christopher Nolan did with _Batman Begins_. What director Martin Campbell has done is essentially reboot the character of James Bond and remodeled him for today's audiences. Gone are the idiotic one liners, replaced instead with some very witty and winning dialogue. So too are the cheesy gadgets, as the most advanced devices you''re likely come across here are the SPOILERS tracking device M has placed inside Bond's body and the mini defiblirator he keeps inside his car  SPOILERS. The comic book villains bent on world domination also take a backseat, replaced by an adversary whose existence and goals are far more believable. 

Most of all, we finally have a James Bond who feels like a three dimensional character rather than the cartoon parody he'd been portrayed as for the last 30 or so years. I know people have been very skeptical of whether or not Daniel Craig could pull off the role. But trust me, he does, and man does he do it well. His Bond is probably the most ruthless and unrelenting secret agent since Jason Bourne. You're really convinced this guy has a Licence to Kill, judging by the heavy death toll in his wake. Yet, for all his coldbloodedness, he also displays some genuine warmth and vulnerability. How so, you might ask? Well, that would be telling, so I'll leave it to you guys to find out for yourselves.  But let me just say that Bond's sensitve side could only have been achieved by an actor of Craig's ability, which is considerable.

Oh, and no review of this flick would be complete without mentioning the fabulous Eva Green. I mean, DAMN, I knew this lady was HOT when I fist saw her in _Kingdom of Heaven_, but she achieves new levels of SEXY with her role as Vesper Lynd here. And I don't just mean those lovely features or that dynamite figure. She has spunk, wit and smarts at her side whenever she opens that beautiful mouth of hers to spar with Craig in some excellent exchanges of dialogue that feature both innuendo and intelligence. She's a breath of fresh air from the bimbos and airheads that we often see Bond pair up with. I demand Hollywood take notice of her right away!    

So there you have it. While some of you Bond traditionalists may find this change of formula a virtual slap in the face, I think it's the breath of fresh air the franchise needed. As I implied before, this is 007 Begins, and I couldn't be happier. I look forward to what new stories this new start has to offer.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 15, 2006)

I've been wishing for this sort of change for years. I'm looking forward to the movie with anticipation!


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 15, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I've been looking forward to this sort of change for years. I'm looking forward to the movie with anticipation!




Trust me, it's worth it. I was one of those ready to give up on 007 after Jason Bourne came on the scene. But with this flick, it just goes to show that there's life in the old man yet. (Truth be told though, I await for _The Bourne Ultimatum_ with baited breath as well.  )


----------



## dravot (Nov 15, 2006)

My snarky comment is that the bar was set so low, that being the best one in years isn't hard.    

But I'm glad to hear that people like it, I'm looking forward to a Bond flick again.  Yay!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 15, 2006)

Okay, new life to Bond, fresh breath of air?  I question that, as the last four Bond movies had more people in watch and made a lot of money, just look at 

2002's #12 Day Another Day: 
Domestic:  $160,942,139    37.3% + Foreign:  $271,028,977    62.7% = Worldwide:  $431,971,116  
1999's  #14 The World is Not Enough:
Domestic:  $126,943,684    35.1% + Foreign:  $234,888,716    64.9% = Worldwide:  $361,832,400  
 1997's # 10 Tomorrow Never Dies:
Domestic:  $125,304,276    36.9% + Foreign:  $214,035,826    63.1% = Worldwide:  $339,340,102  
 1995's # 6 Goldeneye: 
Domestic:  $106,429,941    30.5% + Foreign:  $242,465,680    69.5% = Worldwide:  $348,895,621   

Bond had a new life with PIERCE BROSNAN, would have liked to see him do one more.  Now having said that, I am really excided about the new movie, four years has been a long wait.


----------



## buzzard (Nov 15, 2006)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Bond had a new life with PIERCE BROSNAN, would have liked to see him do one more.  Now having said that, I am really excided about the new movie, four years has been a long wait.




While I though Brosnan was a really good Bond, he only had one decent movie in my opinion. I like Goldeneye, but the others were all lacking to my taste. The second was fair at least, but his last two were pretty much utter dreck. 

buzzard


----------



## sniffles (Nov 15, 2006)

I'm looking forward to it. I've always preferred Sean Connery's earlier films like From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. I liked Roger Moore when I was a teenager, but now I'd rather pretend most of his films didn't exist. I like Pierce Brosnan too, but I always preferred the tougher, colder Bond to the suave ladies' man. 

I'm just disappointed I won't get to see it on opening night.


----------



## delericho (Nov 15, 2006)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Okay, new life to Bond, fresh breath of air?  I question that, as the last four Bond movies had more people in watch and made a lot of money...
> 
> Bond had a new life with PIERCE BROSNAN, would have liked to see him do one more.  Now having said that, I am really excided about the new movie, four years has been a long wait.




The thing is, although they made money, the Brosnan Bond flicks just weren't very good. "Goldeneye" was good, and I thought "Tomorrow Never Dies" was excellent (I would probably rate those two equally, but Goldeneye really lost me with the Bond-jumps-into-falling-plane bit). But I thought "The World is not Enough" was pathetic, and "Die Another Day" was only marginally better.

One thing I want to know about Casino Royale: since they're using the same 'M', are we to assume that "James Bond" is just the name assigned to the current 007, and that we're essentially in the same continuity, or should we forget that which has gone before?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 15, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> One thing I want to know about Casino Royale: since they're using the same 'M', are we to assume that "James Bond" is just the name assigned to the current 007, and that we're essentially in the same continuity, or should we forget that which has gone before?




My understanding is that this is a reboot. Forget everything. This is the "first" Bond movie of the new crop.

As much as I like Judi Dench, I think it was a mistake to use her, for precisely this reason. If it's a reboot, it needs to be a reboot in _all_ respects, IMO.

Then again, if the inclusion of Judi Dench turns out to be my only major problem, it'll be a fantastic movie indeed.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 15, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> One thing I want to know about Casino Royale: since they're using the same 'M', are we to assume that "James Bond" is just the name assigned to the current 007, and that we're essentially in the same continuity, or should we forget that which has gone before?



As I said before, this is Bond Begins, a rebooting of the franchise. Pretend that all the previous Bond flicks never happened, and you'll be just fine. 

As for Judi Dench playing M again, I guess they didn't want to let her go since she is a fantastic actress (and believe me, she does a great job here). One thing though, SPOILERS her M here is very different from the Brosnan films. While the M from there was a no nonsense woman who saw Brosnan's Bond as a trusted subordinate and ally, Craig's Bond gets no such treatment, as she berates him for his recklessness and lack of judgement after a botched mission. At one point she even implies that she'll have him killed if he messes up again.  SPOILERS


----------



## Insight (Nov 15, 2006)

This is my favorite part (rumored, hopefully it's true):



Spoiler



Bond orders a martini
Bartender: Shaken or stirred?
Bond: Do I look like I give a damn???


----------



## Klaus (Nov 15, 2006)

Insight said:
			
		

> This is my favorite part (rumored, hopefully it's true):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 It is true.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 16, 2006)

I am so glad to hear this is good.  I look forward to seeing this new Bond.


----------



## Felon (Nov 17, 2006)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Okay, new life to Bond, fresh breath of air?  I question that, as the last four Bond movies had more people in watch and made a lot of money.




In what way, shape, or form do these box office totals indicate that Casino Royale doesn't provide Bond with a fresh change of pace? Popularity and quality are separate concepts.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Nov 17, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> The thing is, although they made money, the Brosnan Bond flicks just weren't very good. "Goldeneye" was good, and I thought "Tomorrow Never Dies" was excellent (I would probably rate those two equally, but Goldeneye really lost me with the Bond-jumps-into-falling-plane bit). But I thought "The World is not Enough" was pathetic, and "Die Another Day" was only marginally better.




It is interesting to see how peoples tastes differ!

I thought Goldeneye was OK with some silly bits (motorcycle chasing plane off cliff, for instance), but I thought Tomorrow never dies was ludicrous and rated it amongst the worst bond films ever (stealth ship, helicopter blades chopping up houses or something, unconvincing newspaper magnate wants to start a war).

Conversly I really liked "The world is not enough" - I liked the action set pieces in the nuclear silo and I particularly was pleased to see Bond actually putting his 00 rating to some use in the finale. I liked the general premise of the film too.

Die another day was back into la-la land, with the inconsistency of the orbital lasers power though.

(I'm not saying your views on the films are wrong, of course - just highlighting how different films can end up appealing to different people for different reasons!)

I'm looking forward to seeing what Daniel Craig can make of it, and I'm going to see it next week.

Cheers


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 17, 2006)

Many people love the old James Bond with silly gagets and all. I have no problems with darker more gritty spy movies, I just question the need to reinterpret Bond. If people really wanted more realistic spy movies then they would be more popular at the box office. Bond has 40 years of being a successfull franchise based on cool gagets and one liners mixed with suaveness. Sure sometimes the goofiness goes overboard but that doesn't mean that its heart needs to be ripped out in overcompensation.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 17, 2006)

Felon said:
			
		

> In what way, shape, or form do these box office totals indicate that Casino Royale doesn't provide Bond with a fresh change of pace? Popularity and quality are separate concepts.



Life and health of the franchise, boxoffice take means franchise will continue to see light of day, failure at boxoffice can kill the franchise.  When Goldeneye was released it was a concern that Bond was past it time and too damaged by the 80's with the Timothy Dalton's Bond, the last being Licence to Kill in 89, while not bad movies they just did not do well against the action movies of their time.  Goldeneye and the other Brosnam's Bond movies brought the franchise new life in movie goers, sponsorship, and fan base and showed that people have a preconceived myth and picture of Bond.  If that is not captured by Casino Royale and Craig the boxoffice will reflect that, they have to continue the legacy of the Brosnam Bond or surpass it or it is just a footnote.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 17, 2006)

"Breath of fresh air" doesn't mean the previous ones weren't successful. But they were successful retreading the same territory and playing to the strengths of Brosnan (himself a breath of fresh air when Goldeneye came out).

Can't wait to see this one!


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 17, 2006)

Wow - out of 92 reviews, 88 have been positive.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/casino_royale/


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Nov 17, 2006)

delericho said:
			
		

> ... are we to assume that "James Bond" is just the name assigned to the current 007, and that we're essentially in the same continuity...




Pft.

He’s a Time Lord and doesn’t know it 'cause he lost his memory – he just keeps regenerating.

Which movie had Hallie in it, walking up the beech in the bikini? I liked that one. And the one where the evil oil zillionaries, I liked that one to.


----------



## Toj (Nov 17, 2006)

I tend to avoid movies with a lot of language and nudity.

Can anyone tell me what is said in this movie, and what nudity is shown?

(The rating mentions both language and nudity)


----------



## Morrus (Nov 17, 2006)

Toj said:
			
		

> I tend to avoid movies with a lot of language and nudity.
> 
> Can anyone tell me what is said in this movie, and what nudity is shown?
> 
> (The rating mentions both language and nudity)




I think everyone uses a language.  I haven't seen it yet, though, so it's only an assumption.


----------



## Toj (Nov 17, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I think everyone uses a language.  I haven't seen it yet, though, so it's only an assumption.




 

 

You know what I meant Mister!!!


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 17, 2006)

Daniel Craig interview on - http://www.charlierose.com/


----------



## Morrus (Nov 17, 2006)

Toj said:
			
		

> You know what I meant Mister!!!




Sorry - couldn't resist!

All I can say is, new style or not, it's a _Bond movie _ - and I'm sure you've seen plenty of those.  Bond movies do bikinis, but not nudity, and don't use profanities.  If there are exceptions to this in this movie, I'd be amazed if they were even noticable.

But, like I said, I haven't seen it yet.  I'll let someone who has seen it answer your question for definite.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Nov 17, 2006)

While I don't want to defend "Tomorrow Never Dies" to the death (although it's got a good soundtrack, for whatever that's worth), the notion of a newspaper magnate trying to start a war to sell papers not only isn't implausible, it's the story of the Spanish/American War. In that respect, "Tomorrow Never Dies" has one of the most realistic villains of the entire franchise.


----------



## mmu1 (Nov 17, 2006)

It's the first movie in a long time I'm actually excited to see. 

Going out to see it... ... ... now.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 17, 2006)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> While I don't want to defend "Tomorrow Never Dies" to the death (although it's got a good soundtrack, for whatever that's worth), the notion of a newspaper magnate trying to start a war to sell papers not only isn't implausible, it's the story of the Spanish/American War. In that respect, "Tomorrow Never Dies" has one of the most realistic villains of the entire franchise.



 Plus Michelle Yeoh's character is leaps and bounds better (and better-looking) than Halle Berry's atrocious Jinx.

Plus I like Teri Hatcher better than Rosamund Pike.


----------



## KenM (Nov 18, 2006)

I just got back from seeing it. I liked it.  But I did not buy the excuse they give at the end for Bond's romantic intrest to do what she did. I can't say anymore without going into spoilers.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 18, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Plus Michelle Yeoh's character is leaps and bounds better (and better-looking) than Halle Berry's atrocious Jinx.
> 
> Plus I like Teri Hatcher better than Rosamund Pike.




Wow!  Talk about taste differences!


Neither Michelle Yeoh or Jinx came anywhere _near _ Honey Ryder or Pussy Galore, but I certaonly wouldn;t rank Michelle Yeoh above Halle Berry.  To me, Halle Berry beats Mihelle Yeoh by miles, but still falls short of a LOT of other Bond girls by an equal number of miles.

And Teri Hatcher - as Lois Lane or a Bond Girll, she never interetsed me.

Taste Difference Alert!  Honey Ryder all the way!  By about a billion miles!


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Nov 18, 2006)

I loved the parkour chase in the beginning. Should have used more of Sebastien rather than what they did...


----------



## Klaus (Nov 18, 2006)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Wow!  Talk about taste differences!
> 
> 
> Neither Michelle Yeoh or Jinx came anywhere _near _ Honey Ryder or Pussy Galore, but I certaonly wouldn;t rank Michelle Yeoh above Halle Berry.  To me, Halle Berry beats Mihelle Yeoh by miles, but still falls short of a LOT of other Bond girls by an equal number of miles.
> ...



 Oh, but Ursula Andress, Barbara Bach or Jane Seymour shouldn't even be questioned! What am I, a bloody heretic?

But I must say, Halle Berry holds no attraction to me, and I quite liked the female chinese Jane Bond they had going with Michelle Yeoh (who, incidently, was Miss Asia in the past). Now, if Jinx was played by, say, the black woman that played Joey's girlfriend in "Friends"... hubba-hubba!


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 18, 2006)

Saw it, thought it was awesome. The segment between the first climax and the second climax dragged too long, though.

And yes, with James Bond, you _can_ climax twice. 

Oh wait, I'm not at Circvs Maximvs anymore, am I? *grin*


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Nov 18, 2006)

I dunno, with this movie it was more then twice.

The music and editing was absolutly fantastic. I stuck around after the credits to listen to one of my favorite themes in the world and saw the movie was editied in avid (w00t w00t).

Really, this movie rocked. There were a FEW slow parts that seperated the action scenes just a "tad" but it was ok. The opening theme song was great too. Seeing what sinks bond into being an untrusting pit of a tool for Mi6 is great.

Oh and some of the lines and dialog!

"I have an ich.....down there...could you scratch it!!"

"Thank you thank you but, a bit more to the right!"


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 18, 2006)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> Oh and some of the lines and dialog!
> 
> "I have an ich.....down there...could you scratch it!!"
> 
> "Thank you thank you but, a bit more to the right!"




GREAT LINES. But they were topped off by this brilliant zinger:

*BOND: * Now the whole world will know that you died scratching my balls.  

The torture scene was a revelation, in that it effectively showed audiences that "this isn't your daddy's Jame's Bond anymore". Before, we had a Bond who was above it all. Nothing seemed to bother him. It was like his missions were just weekend jaunts with a bunch explosions and hot women mixed in. Plus his adversaries were a bunch of dandies he could have a glass of wine of with if they weren't trying to kill him there and then.  

Now it's diffirent. Now, he can be hurt, he can be broken (mentally and physically), and his adversary here is just one desperate and nasty guy. With these factors in place, the stakes are now real, and theres a real genuine sense of excitement. I can't wait!


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Nov 18, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Now it's diffirent. Now, he can be hurt, he can be broken (mentally and physically), ...



I'm remembering the Brosnan Bond movie that began with him being tortured in North Korea and he came out a broken man.  :\


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Nov 18, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Now it's different. Now, he can be hurt, he can be broken (mentally and physically), and his adversary here is just one desperate and nasty guy. With these factors in place, the stakes are now real, and theres a real genuine sense of excitement. I can't wait!




Thats the thing though. It WAS Different. Remember, Casino Royal is based on the first book. Its basically the origin of James Bond. Now we understand WHY he CANT be broken any longer.

And just to point something out, the movie shows he couldn't be broken physically, or mentally, he was broken emotionally. And when he realized just what happened because he let down his guard, because he let go, that was it.

He allowed himself to fall in love, and she betrayed him and got herself killed. Thats the end of the line for him. M says it best.. "You don't trust anyone do you?" 
Bond: "Not anymore...."
M: "Good, then you've learned your lesson..."

Which is exactly her point. He needed to learn that lesson. I don't expect he'll ever get "attached" again. This is why he treats women as disposabal playthings.


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Nov 18, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I'm remembering the Brosnan Bond movie that began with him being tortured in North Korea and he came out a broken man.  :\




I remember it diffrently. He never broke, never revealed state secrets. He took the torture for like 2 years like a man. Like Bond. Till he could escape. Then he went off on a personal mission of revenge.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 18, 2006)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> Thats the thing though. It WAS Different. Remember, Casino Royal is based on the first book. Its basically the origin of James Bond. Now we understand WHY he CANT be broken any longer.




Fair point. But while Bond as you say, cannot be broken any longer because of the events that transpired here, he can still feel the scars. Which is what I enjoyed about this film, it's sense of the real danger Bond faces and the consequences. The guy puts his ass on the line and has the marks to show for it. First is the fight on the stairwell with the two black guys, he has to go back to his room and clean all the blood up while downing a glass of scotch or two to dull the pain. Then there's the torture scene, where 007 gets his balls whacked repeatedly and has to spend some time to recover to get his mojo back.  

That's what most of the Bond films in the last 30 or so years have been lacking, a sense of realism in terms of the danger to Bond himself. I don't wanna see him imprisoned by the bad guy in some luxury suite just so he could dine with him and hear the baddie's master plan, after which said baddie puts 007 in some elaborate death trap of which there's some hidden flaw which Bond can exploit in order to escape. I wanna now see the bad guy imprison 007 in the darkest pit and hand him his ass repeatedly until he talks, during which Bond will proceed to piss off the baddie with a smirk and then the bad guy will put out a gun to put him out of his misery. That's the kind of attitude I want for the series as a whole.   



			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> I'm remembering the Brosnan Bond movie that began with him being tortured in North Korea and he came out a broken man.




That was actually one of the few things I liked in _Die Another Day_. It was such a change to see Bond captured by the enemy and have himself tortured for one year in an effort to fish out his secrets. Too bad the rest of the film didn't keep in line with that attitude. :\


----------



## Klaus (Nov 18, 2006)

Broken? In Die Another Day he paraded into a classy hotel, demanded a room, a tailor to make him a new suit and a fancy dinner.

Hardly "broken".


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Nov 18, 2006)

I was thinking of Goldfinger myself. You could practically see Bond wetting himself as the laser got closer to the family jewels. "No Mr. Bond, I don't expect you to talk. I expect you to die." It was pure luck that got him out of that one.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 18, 2006)

Okay back from it and it is a very good movie, a bit more graphic than some but Bond has shown us that in the past, so nothng new there.  Villian, was weak, he was well played/acted, but not really a villian, just a bad guy.  The girl, did not buy the reasons for her actions, just seemed to come out of the blue.  

Plot and story was well done and acting all around was very good.  

So, how many thought that Mr. White at the end worked for Specter?   

I liked the movie, it was a good Bond movie and Craig makes a very good Bond even with those ears, there is some sauvness missing but still.


----------



## KenM (Nov 19, 2006)

I heard they are going to get Mike Myers to play Blofeld (SP?) in the next Bond movie.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 19, 2006)

KenM said:
			
		

> I heard they are going to get Mike Myers to play Blofeld (SP?) in the next Bond movie.




And then what? He going to blackmail the world for "ONE MEEEELLLEEEEOOON DOLLARS"?  







For the record, I so hope this rumor is not true.


----------



## bytor4232 (Nov 19, 2006)

I thought this was the best Bond movie, and Craig is the best 007 ever.  Hard, conflicted, dangerous, and above all human.  Don't miss this movie, it kicked serious butt.

Oh, and the pain of watching that Astin Martin crash was just too much for me.  I cried.


----------



## bytor4232 (Nov 19, 2006)

Toj said:
			
		

> I tend to avoid movies with a lot of language and nudity.
> 
> Can anyone tell me what is said in this movie, and what nudity is shown?
> 
> (The rating mentions both language and nudity)




The only nudity is from Bond from the side, and its not meant to be "alluring" if you catch my drift.  The language is actually quite witty and intelligent, not much crass language at all.


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 19, 2006)

I saw it tonight and while I can see why so many liked it. I found it just okay. So did the people I went to see it with. We all agreed that we were glad we saw it but most likely would not be adding it to our DVD collections.

I will admit that I like all the gadgets  and the silly one liners and I like the suave ladies man. I was never really fond of Sean Connery's Bond I became a Bond fan with Roger Moore. 

As a matter of fact I desribed the movie to my roommate as Bond meets the Bourne Idenity.

I think the actor did a great job and am glad he put all the naysayers to shame.


----------



## jonathan swift (Nov 19, 2006)

Saw it yesterday with my dad and we both loved. We both made the comments that if you want a gritty bond, Daniel Craig is by far the best, even beating out Connery.

Simply great movie which I will most likely be seeing in theatres again, and buying on DVD when it comes out.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 19, 2006)

As the number guy, here are some.  Happy Feet took number 1 at 46 Mill and Bond took 2nd with 40 mill.



> "Casino Royale," introducing Daniel Craig as British super-spy Bond, fell right between the debuts of the previous two 007 flicks, which had been No. 1 and 2 among the franchise's openings.
> 
> The last Bond movie, Pierce Brosnan's "Die Another Day," holds the franchise record with $47.1 million in November 2002. Brosnan's 1999 Bond adventure "The World Is Not Enough" premiered with $35.5 million in November 1999.
> 
> "I think a $40 million-plus start for a new series of Bonds with Daniel Craig is a great beginning," said Jeff Blake, Sony vice chairman. "Casino Royale" also brought in $42.2 million in Great Britain, Russia and 25 other countries where it opened this weekend, Blake said.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 19, 2006)

Casino Royale is the best James Bond movie I've seen in a long time. 

The rest of them seem like cartoons (and BAD ones) compared to this. Liked the rough around the edges / screw up Bond and I also liked how things werent that easy to figure out. Paying attention to the little details and thinking about some of what went on after the fact made the movie resonate with me better. 

If the rest of them are going to be like this they cna count me in. Leave the gadgets and all of the other BS out of it, thank you very much.


----------



## bytor4232 (Nov 20, 2006)

What I can't believe is how meticulous the filming was.  Every piece of the set was serious eye candy.  My breath was taken away when they walked into the Casino Royale private room.

This movie was just flat great.  I loved it.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Nov 20, 2006)

Oh, something I meant to note before.  Did anyone else catch the Richard Branson cameo? Briefly, when Bond was going through Miami airport, as he passed the security checkpoint the camera shows Richard Branson getting closer examination by a TSA agent with one of those detection wands.  It flashed on the screen for less than a second.

I could be wrong, but I swear that it was him.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 20, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Oh, something I meant to note before.  Did anyone else catch the Richard Branson cameo? Briefly, when Bond was going through Miami airport, as he passed the security checkpoint the camera shows Richard Branson getting closer examination by a TSA agent with one of those detection wands.  It flashed on the screen for less than a second.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I swear that it was him.




Yeah I caught that as well. I think it was him.


----------



## Frostmarrow (Nov 20, 2006)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Oh, something I meant to note before.  Did anyone else catch the Richard Branson cameo? Briefly, when Bond was going through Miami airport, as he passed the security checkpoint the camera shows Richard Branson getting closer examination by a TSA agent with one of those detection wands.  It flashed on the screen for less than a second.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I swear that it was him.




They might be setting him up as the villain of an upcoming film. -Face it, Branson owns an island, builds space ships, and is a Ludite. Bond villain-material right there!


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 20, 2006)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> They might be setting him up as the villain of an upcoming film. -Face it, Branson owns an island, builds space ships, and is a Ludite. Bond villain-material right there!




And his grand scheme? Slipping some mind controlling drugs into his Virgin Cola.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Nov 20, 2006)

Frostmarrow said:
			
		

> They might be setting him up as the villain of an upcoming film. -Face it, Branson owns an island, builds space ships, and is a Ludite. Bond villain-material right there!



That's too funny!


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 21, 2006)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I'm looking forward to it. I've always preferred Sean Connery's earlier films like From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. I liked Roger Moore when I was a teenager, but now I'd rather pretend most of his films didn't exist. I like Pierce Brosnan too, but I always preferred the tougher, colder Bond to the suave ladies' man.
> 
> I'm just disappointed I won't get to see it on opening night.



For me Connery shall always be Bond. Moore shall forever remain Simon Templar A.K.A. The Saint. (Who _did_ have silly one liners in the original books.  )

The Auld Grump


----------



## Celtavian (Nov 21, 2006)

*re*

I just like Bond films. They are top of the line B-movie action films following a formula they created. I like all the gadgets and one liners. I hope they keep the franchise alive while I live. Be strange not to have a Bond film now and again. I grew up watching them and have always enjoyed them for what they are.

This new one sounds good. Thanks for the review.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 21, 2006)

I wouldnt say batman begins. Batman begins rebooted the franchise but batman was still batman. You can't put a tux on some dude and call it a bond movie but take away what was bond movies. The reason bond movies have not been as good as the older ones was not the premise (thats what we liked) it was the way they tried to action the movies up too much. There was far more bombs than spying going on. 

Casino royal seems to take away too much of what made bond bond, yes it was the cheesiness. Where were the cool gadgets that are used in ways unintentioned, the shaken and stirred line was a stab in the gut because thats a typical bond thing. The blond hair was silly, and equivalent to batman wearing a red cape and dungarees. Bond should try to be like Bond and not Jason Bourne.


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 21, 2006)

I always just looked at it that there were a lot of guys who took the name "James Bond" upon entering the service, and I personally doubt that the British government has "dark hair" as a job requirement.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 21, 2006)

I can't believe people complain about Bond being blond now, but never complain about Bruce Wayne nothaving black hair and blue eyes...


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 21, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I can't believe people complain about Bond being blond now, but never complain about Bruce Wayne nothaving black hair and blue eyes...




Hey Claudio, you have dark hair and dark eyes. _You_ should play the next Bond!


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 21, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I always just looked at it that there were a lot of guys who took the name "James Bond" upon entering the service, and I personally doubt that the British government has "dark hair" as a job requirement.



NOthing in the series says that James Bond is not one man, so I kinda take it like that, this is one guy. Thus its like seeing batman in a red cape. the batman in other medias is usually pretty close.


----------



## bytor4232 (Nov 21, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> NOthing in the series says that James Bond is not one man, so I kinda take it like that, this is one guy. Thus its like seeing batman in a red cape. the batman in other medias is usually pretty close.




No according to the creators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond_(character)#Alternative_biographies_and_theories



			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> Tamahori explained the theory: "My idea was basically that there have been several Bonds. It's just a prefix and a code name. Even James Bond is not the guy's name. That's the way I've always been able to view these things from when Connery left and Lazenby and Moore took over, right up to Brosnan. How could this guy be so young still? Of course to me, it is just a prefix and a code name. That means that Connery either died or retired, Moore died or retired and so on. Following that, that allows you to have possibly two James Bonds in a movie. What happened to the others? Were they retired from active service or were they killed? That's where I came from."
> 
> The theory, as well as the intent to have Connery cameo in Die Another Day, was rejected by producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson (although a televised news report during production reported erroneously that Connery had filmed a cameo as Bond's father). One and probably the only evidence to support this theory is George Lazenby's final line in the pre-title sequence of On Her Majesty's Secret Service where the Bond girl runs away after Bond is ambushed on a beach: "This never happened to the other fella." The theory is largely denounced by fans and usually discredited by the light continuity in subsequent films when Bond's wife, Tracy, or his marriage in general (from On Her Majesty's Secret Service) is mentioned (most notably in The Spy Who Loved Me when Moore's Bond reacts emotionally when the death of his wife is mentioned; in the later For Your Eyes Only he is seen attending Tracy's grave; Felix refers to Bond's marriage in Licence To Kill). The theory tends to be a hot topic that was given a boost because the latest film, Casino Royale, is a reboot of the film series and features the same female M who oversaw Pierce Brosnan's version of the character (as opposed to the male M who was in place in the original book). The idea that the James Bond name has been given to subsequent agents was also featured in the 1967 spoof film of Casino Royale, where the original James Bond is an elderly gentleman who won a VC at the Siege of Mafeking, and other MI6 agents assigned the name "James Bond 007" include Vesper Lynd, baccarat expert Evelyn Tremble and a seal.


----------



## bytor4232 (Nov 21, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Casino royal seems to take away too much of what made bond bond, yes it was the cheesiness. Where were the cool gadgets that are used in ways unintentioned, the shaken and stirred line was a stab in the gut because thats a typical bond thing. The blond hair was silly, and equivalent to batman wearing a red cape and dungarees. Bond should try to be like Bond and not Jason Bourne.




Dude, Ian Flemmings novels were NEVER cheesey.  The gadgets and silliness were added as a product of the 60's and 70's.  In fact I read somewhere that in the novels there was little in terms of gadgets.


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 21, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I
> Casino royal seems to take away too much of what made bond bond, yes it was the cheesiness. Where were the cool gadgets that are used in ways unintentioned...



Good news for me! They're issuing a dvd boxed set next year of every single Get Smart episode made. I'll get my gadgets and silliness there; I prefer my Bond gritty.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 21, 2006)

bytor4232 said:
			
		

> Dude, Ian Flemmings novels were NEVER cheesey.  The gadgets and silliness were added as a product of the 60's and 70's.  In fact I read somewhere that in the novels there was little in terms of gadgets.




The gadgets and silliness were not even part of the early movies. Watch _Dr. No_, or _From Russia With Love_, you will find a very limited number of gadgets, and not a lot of cheesiness. Every Bond movie seemed to up the ante a little bit (_Goldfinger_ had a little more gadgetry, _Thunderball_ a little more, and so on).


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 21, 2006)

bytor4232 said:
			
		

> Dude, Ian Flemmings novels were NEVER cheesey.  The gadgets and silliness were added as a product of the 60's and 70's.  In fact I read somewhere that in the novels there was little in terms of gadgets.



Lets keep this all in context. This was the 60s and 70s and when i say cheesieness that is what I"m talking about. The novels were very much cheesy compared to today and they are pretty much in line with the movies. Not saying bond's not gritty, but there are elements of a bond movie that make it a bond movie, else you just got another spy movie.


----------



## Krafus (Nov 21, 2006)

I'll take the new, grittier, less gadget-oriented Bond over outright over-the-top silliness like _Die Another Day_ any day.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 21, 2006)

My thing is when i go to see a bond movie i want to see bond. I want to see the suped up cars, over the top spy action and comic book like villians. The good movies always had a good balance of these elements and were not over the top. 

I love the more serious spy movies but if I pay to see a bond movie i want to see a bond movie, not a bond movie pretend to be like another movie.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 21, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> My thing is when i go to see a bond movie i want to see bond. I want to see the suped up cars, over the top spy action and comic book like villians. The good movies always had a good balance of these elements and were not over the top.
> 
> I love the more serious spy movies but if I pay to see a bond movie i want to see a bond movie, not a bond movie pretend to be like another movie.




Agreed


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 21, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> My thing is when i go to see a bond movie i want to see bond. I want to see the suped up cars, over the top spy action and comic book like villians. The good movies always had a good balance of these elements and were not over the top.
> 
> I love the more serious spy movies but if I pay to see a bond movie i want to see a bond movie, not a bond movie pretend to be like another movie.




Most people are tired of such things, which is why the producers opted for this, a much more serious take on 007.

And like it or not, the _Bourne _ movies pretty much changed the public's perception on what a spy movie should be. The producers would be fools indeed not to follow suit. I'm sorry if you think that isn't fair, but thats how it goes. And frankly, I'm all for it. If they can come up with more films like Casino Royale, then bring it on.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 21, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Most people are tired of such things, which is why the producers opted for this, a much more serious take on 007.
> 
> And like it or not, the _Bourne _ movies pretty much changed the public's perception on what a spy movie should be. The producers would be fools indeed not to follow suit. I'm sorry if you think that isn't fair, but thats how it goes. And frankly, I'm all for it. If they can come up with more films like Casino Royale, then bring it on.




We shall see.If it makes less than 120 Million Domestic and 350+ Million worldwide then it will be a failure compared to the old formula. So far it has debut second to Happy Feet although with a respectable number. We shall see with this weekends dropoff which way it is likely to go.


----------



## bytor4232 (Nov 21, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> My thing is when i go to see a bond movie i want to see bond. I want to see the suped up cars, over the top spy action and comic book like villians. The good movies always had a good balance of these elements and were not over the top.
> 
> I love the more serious spy movies but if I pay to see a bond movie i want to see a bond movie, not a bond movie pretend to be like another movie.






			
				horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Most people are tired of such things, which is why the producers opted for this, a much more serious take on 007.
> 
> And like it or not, the _Bourne _ movies pretty much changed the public's perception on what a spy movie should be. The producers would be fools indeed not to follow suit. I'm sorry if you think that isn't fair, but thats how it goes. And frankly, I'm all for it. If they can come up with more films like Casino Royale, then bring it on.




I'll second that.  I'll take my Bond more Bourne any day.  If I wanted to see a cheesey Bond movie, I'd rent one of the classics with Roger Moore in it.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 22, 2006)

Hopefully, this new direction will find a balance between the Bondness and the Bourneness.


----------



## Wereserpent (Nov 24, 2006)

I liked it, it just ended like 9999999999999999999999999999999999999 times.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 24, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I always just looked at it that there were a lot of guys who took the name "James Bond" upon entering the service, and I personally doubt that the British government has "dark hair" as a job requirement.




So is the name "Felix Leiter" the CIA equivalent of the psuedonym "James Bond" then? 

(Speaking of, I was glad to see that Jeffrey Wright was playing Felix Leiter. I saw his name in the credits, and kept wondering when and where he would appear. When I saw him at the casino, I was like- cool! But then he didn't do anything for so long, I couldn't understand it. When he caught Bond before he did something rash, and introduced himself, I was jazzed.)


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 24, 2006)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Lets keep this all in context. This was the 60s and 70s and when i say cheesieness that is what I"m talking about. The novels were very much cheesy compared to today and they are pretty much in line with the movies.




If you're talking about the Ian Fleming novels, they weren't cheesy at all. As bytor4232 points out, the novels had very little in the way of gadgetry and silliness (no silliness in fact). They were straight up spy novels- pretty gritty, too. The Bond from Ian Fleming's novels isn't the suave ladies man that showed up in the later movies (as mostly exemplified by Roger Moore, though Connery's sex appeal was purposely played up in his post-Dr. No movies as well). He's a pretty rough and tumble character.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 24, 2006)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> So, how many thought that Mr. White at the end worked for Specter?




I thought it would be that or else SMERSH, which was the organization from the novel _Casino Royale_


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 24, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> If you're talking about the Ian Fleming novels, they weren't cheesy at all. As bytor4232 points out, the novels had very little in the way of gadgetry and silliness (no silliness in fact). They were straight up spy novels- pretty gritty, too. The Bond from Ian Fleming's novels isn't the suave ladies man that showed up in the later movies (as mostly exemplified by Roger Moore, though Connery's sex appeal was purposely played up in his post-Dr. No movies as well). He's a pretty rough and tumble character.




Yeah, I wish they would redo every movie Roger Moore made along the lines of the actual novels.  They changed plots enough that many aren't even recognizable (Moonraker, Thunderball ...).


----------



## glass (Nov 24, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Insoght said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's just mean. I hope Insight has seen the film before he comes back to this thread.

_EDIT: That said, it was the first of many unmasked spoilers. Maybe the thread title should reflect that._

_EDIT 2: Ah, done, thank you._


glass.


----------



## glass (Nov 24, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> I thought it would be that or else SMERSH, which was the organization from the novel _Casino Royale_



As I understand it (and I must admit I haven't actually read any of the novels), SMERSH was the organisation from all the novels, and was just soviet intelligence. SPECTRE was created for the films to replace SMERSH, for whatever reason.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

_EDIT: According to Wikipedia, SPECTRE did appear in the nevels but not until later._


glass.


----------



## glass (Nov 24, 2006)

*About Casino Royale*

I saw it yesterday, and I thought it was brilliant.

But then, my favourites were The Living Daylights and OHMSS, so that probably isn't idicative of anything in particular.


glass.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 24, 2006)

Just saw it. Wow... it's George Lazenby all over again.

Seriously, though, I have mixed feelings about Casino Royale. It was a barely mediocre Bond movie, but a pretty good generic spy movie.

Lots of problems for my particular taste, though. The plot was overly convoluted (starting about halfway through) and there were too many parts that just _dragged_. I found the whole casino sequence to be twice as long as it should have been, and then again with the hospital/beach scene to be horrendously dreary as well. Other problems I had was that if this was meant to be a "re-start", then the casting of Judi Dench as "M" was a poor idea (and I _love_ Judi Dench - and she was great, with a good amount of screen time in this movie. Mixed...feelings...killing...me). But really - if you're going to have a re-start, then have a damn re-start. Finally, the idea that removing the "gadgets" to make it more "realistic" was somewhat... misguided. It was not realistic in any way, shape, or form (nor am I expecting that from any spy movie, much less a James Bond movie). Needless to say, if "realism" was their motiviation, it failed miserably.

This was no Bond movie IMO, but a reasonable facsimile thereof. It definitely was a pretty good generic spy movie. They had all the great standard spy movie tropes: Ritzy train at night? Check. Goofy slide-out car gadget? Check. Car chase? Check. One-liners? Check.

A lot of the dialogue was really great, IMO (my favorite: "That last hand nearly killed me." Heh). I also found the cinematography to be among the best out of any Bond movie, by far. That whole parkour sequence at the beginning had great wide-open camera shots with long-running takes (no herky-jerky cutaways and shaky-cam nonsense). Further, I found the music in this one to be excellent (and it's rare I notice music in a Bond movie). No surprise though - it was composed by David Arnold (Stargate, among other things).


----------



## Joshua Randall (Nov 24, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> The plot was overly convoluted (starting about halfway through) and there were too many parts that just _dragged_. I found the whole casino sequence to be twice as long as it should have been, and then again with the hospital/beach scene to be horrendously dreary as well.



I've waited the whole thread for someone to say this, so that I can say, "me too." So there.


----------



## glass (Nov 24, 2006)

*Continuity*



			
				horracethegrey said:
			
		

> comic book villains bent on world domination also take a backseat, replaced by an adversary whose existence and goals are far more believable.



I dunno. (minor spoiler)



Spoiler



Weeping blood from your tearducts


 is somewhat cartoon-villainish. This film is definitely more serious than some, but I don't think it is over serious.



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> One thing I want to know about Casino Royale: since they're using the same 'M', are we to assume that "James Bond" is just the name assigned to the current 007, and that we're essentially in the same continuity, or should we forget that which has gone before?



I always thought of Bond films as really being continuities of one. IOW, stand alone movies that borrowed names and ideas from previous incarnations but not much else. There really isn't any way to explain how all the various Bonds had a shared history (the various references to his marriage, for example) but changed his appearance every few years, and was about the same mean age for 40 years (with fluctuations in both directions). Plastic surgery is a possibility, but even that doesn't explain the changes in overall body shape/size.



			
				The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Pft. He’s a Time Lord and doesn’t know it 'cause he lost his memory – he just keeps regenerating.



This would explain the differences in body shape, but even regeneration can't explain why Bond looked like Brosnan in the flashback at the beginning of Goldeneye rather than Dalton.

I think calling this a reboot, moreso than previous movies have each been, implies that going forward there will be more continuity between movies. There will certainly be more between Casino Royale and the next film, as DC is already on record saying it is a second part of the same story. I wonder if that will continue.


glass.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 24, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> I dunno. (minor spoiler)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, the weeping blood thing  for me was inconsiquential. What made Le Chiffre such a believable villain was that he wasn't some cartoonish despot with some grand global scheme. No, he was merely a player in the spy games of Bond's world who was out to make a quick buck. The fact that he's pretty low on the bad guy food chain (as evidenced by the scene when he and his girl are threatened by those African thugs), makes him expendable and thus makes him much more desperate. He, like Bond, is not above the whole scheme of things, which suits me just fine.


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Nov 24, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> As I understand it (and I must admit I haven't actually read any of the novels), Smersh was the organisation from all the novels, and was just soviet intelligence. SPECTRE was created for the films to replace Smersh, for whatever reason.
> 
> Can anyone confirm or deny this?
> 
> ...




Yes, SMERSH is a fictional version supposedly based on the real SMERSH. I've heard / read somewhere (probably wikipedia) that so as not to risk the Cold War getting hotter, they changed Bond's nemesis to SPECTRE, since they wanted to be the third superpower. 

Virtually all of Bond's villains were from SPECTRE (up to Timothy Dalton era), headed by Ernst Stavro Blofeld (aka Dr Evil's real dad).


----------



## Morrus (Nov 24, 2006)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I always just looked at it that there were a lot of guys who took the name "James Bond" upon entering the service, and I personally doubt that the British government has "dark hair" as a job requirement.




No more so than Batman, Superman, Buffy, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Julius Caesar, Henry VIII and numerous other characters who have been played by different actors over the years.


----------



## Pants (Nov 24, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Finally, the idea that removing the "gadgets" to make it more "realistic" was somewhat... misguided. It was not realistic in any way, shape, or form (nor am I expecting that from any spy movie, much less a James Bond movie). Needless to say, if "realism" was their motiviation, it failed miserably.



I don't think 'realism' was the goal, more like removing the 'silliness' that was often inherent in the gadgetry. I mean, the opening chase scene should establish that this is not a very realistic movie. 



			
				Nuclear Platypus said:
			
		

> Virtually all of Bond's villains were from SPECTRE (up to Timothy Dalton era), headed by Ernst Stavro Blofeld (aka Dr Evil's real dad).



I thought SPECTRE was cut out right before Roger Moore took over.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 24, 2006)

Pants said:
			
		

> I don't think 'realism' was the goal, more like removing the 'silliness' that was often inherent in the gadgetry.



Whew! Well, that's a fair goal, then.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 24, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> As I understand it (and I must admit I haven't actually read any of the novels), Smersh was the organisation from all the novels, and was just soviet intelligence. SPECTRE was created for the films to replace Smersh, for whatever reason.




Both organizations were mentioned in the books, but SMERSH was used more often than SPECTRE, actually. SMERSH (as Nuclear Platypus mentions) was based on the real SMERSH organization, while SPECTRE was a wholly unique creation (although there were some controversies over who created it, part of what led to the whole Thunderball rights dispute).

SPECTRE was Blofeld's organization, and only appeared in a couple of novels- Dr. No and Thunderball were the only ones, I believe. SMERSH, on the other hand, appeared in several- Casino Royale, From Russia With Love, and... well, I can't remember what other ones, but a few more.

In the movies, they did switch from SMERSH to SPECTRE- I'm not sure of the rationale behind it, I seem to vaguely recall that it had something to do with the use of a "real" organization's name, but I'm not sure. There are still a few references to SMERSH in a couple of early Bond flicks, all the same (the one I remember offhand is in From Russia With Love, when Bond at first thinks the villain might be with SMERSH, but he turns out to be with SPECTRE).


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 24, 2006)

Nuclear Platypus said:
			
		

> Virtually all of Bond's villains were from SPECTRE (up to Timothy Dalton era), headed by Ernst Stavro Blofeld (aka Dr Evil's real dad).






			
				Pants said:
			
		

> I thought SPECTRE was cut out right before Roger Moore took over.




That's about the size of it. SPECTRE never officially appears in any of the Moore films, due to a film rights dispute between Ian Fleming and the guy who directed Thunderball (can't think of his name). The guy ended up getting the rights to Thunderball and the organization SPECTRE, and so that was the last time they appeared in the movies (not the novels, though, as those rights were different as I understand things). 

The last time we see anything having to do with SPECTRE is in For Your Eyes Only, in the teaser sequence, when James Bond drops an unnamed but obviously meant to be Blofeld (bald and with a cat) down a smokestack. Otherwise, nothing SPECTRE-related showed up at all during Moore's run, or subsequently in the Bond films.


----------



## Gunslinger (Nov 25, 2006)

I thought it was great, a much needed change from the silliness of the older movies.  Bond is a secret agent not a superhero, he shouldn't be saving the entire world from complete destruction in every movie.  I turned "Die Another Day" off when they were having that car chase on top of the glacier while the superlaser threatened to destroy the world; it was just way too cheesy.


----------



## Vigilance (Nov 25, 2006)

Not only a good BOND movie, but just a damn good movie. 

Chuck


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Nov 25, 2006)

Absolutely loved this.

Craig is a GREAT Bond.

...and I, too, loved the music. Not only the soundtrack through the movie, but the theme was great. Loved the opening sequence...and its been a while since I've liked those.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 25, 2006)

After watching the movie, I'd say I very much liked it.

Comparing Craig and Brosnan I'd say Brosnan does the charming better (though Craig got the better lines in this movie), but Craig definitely looks more dangerous and ruthless and seems to fit the job description a bit better. (But in the end, they were both fine)

I liked that the action had consequences - wounds didn't disappear miraculously, and Bond got pretty banged up, which I think makes it a bit more believable (though not realistic - when he "outran" machine pistol fire, it was a very typical action scene element)

Added bonus: It removed the silliness of a invisible car and so things, though I must admit I liked Q in the previous movies, and he might have been nice in this one, as long as he doesn't provide to many ridiculous gimmicks.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 25, 2006)

Excellent film, great genesis of Bond, good music, pretty girl(s), destruction of several sets in interesting ways -- it's a good Bond film even without all the little toys.

I did think that the "Bond In Love" sequence stretched a minute or so longer than it needed to, but that's about it.

One thing about the film really sticks with me though...

[sblock]Eva's death scene is terribly haunting. *shudder!*[/sblock]

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 25, 2006)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Added bonus: It removed the silliness of a invisible car and so things, though I must admit I liked Q in the previous movies, and he might have been nice in this one, as long as he doesn't provide to many ridiculous gimmicks.



It's worth noting that Desmond Llewellyn (the actor who played Q for so many years) passed away last year. Adding a new Q might have seemed odd.

I saw it today, and loved it. I agree that the love sequence went on a bit longer than I would have chosen, but I'm extremely pleased by how the movie came off. Thumbs up from me.

[sblock]Interesting to note that the syndicate still had Vesper's boyfriend captured, yet she killed herself anyways - thus probably assuring his death too. Was she in love with Bond (probable) and wracked by guilt? I'd guess so. But it's still a shame.[/sblock]


----------



## Villano (Nov 25, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that Desmond Llewellyn (the actor who played Q for so many years) passed away last year. Adding a new Q might have seemed odd.




Well, they did have John Cleese as the new Q in the last 2 Bonds.  I'm glad they didn't include him in this movie.  I thought he was too silly (my general complaint about the last couple of Brosnan films was that they were becoming too Moore-like and goofy).  Personally, I wish they would have brought in a new M for a totally fresh start.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 26, 2006)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> It's worth noting that Desmond Llewellyn (the actor who played Q for so many years) passed away last year. Adding a new Q might have seemed odd.




Desmond Llewellyn passed away a lot longer ago than that. He died in a car crash in December of 1999.

(Wow- can't believe it's been that long.) 

Also, I don't believe Q showed up in the novels until the second or third one, when he and M give 007 his Walther PPK. (Pretty sure it's the third, because it takes place, IIRC in From Russia With Love). So the absence of Q in Casino Royale is pretty well in keeping with the novel, which was more or less straightforwardly adapted here (as opposed to other novel/movie adaptations, like Live and Let Die and Moonraker.)


----------



## Piratecat (Nov 26, 2006)

Man, I can't believe it's been that long -- and I totally forgot about Cleese. Which, I suppose, is as good a reason as any for me not to miss him in the role.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 26, 2006)

Well, despite being a big fan of Cleese and anything Monty Python in general, I'm very glad they didn't bring him back as Q. Because, as I see it, when you make a serious spy film, casting a guy known for doing silly walks as a tech expert is a surefire sign that the audience will not take you seriously.


----------



## Michael Dean (Nov 26, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Seriously, though, I have mixed feelings about Casino Royale. It was a barely mediocre Bond movie, but a pretty good generic spy movie.
> 
> Lots of problems for my particular taste, though. The plot was overly convoluted (starting about halfway through) and there were too many parts that just _dragged_. I found the whole casino sequence to be twice as long as it should have been, and then again with the hospital/beach scene to be horrendously dreary as well.




Well, you'd probably want to take that up with Ian Fleming, since the casino sequence and the torture/hospital recovery are two scenes that are more faithful to the book. 

Different strokes, I guess, because I thought that the Brosnan movies were pretty tedious and convoluted in the plot department.  I thought it was refreshing that they scaled down the bad guys in the new movie.  Ever since the Austin Powers movies, I've had a hard time not giggling at subsequent Bond movies.  Mike Meyers did the silly Bond stuff better than Bond did. 

I'm a late comer to the Bond books by Fleming, and the earlier movies suffer more for the comparison, because I think the book Bond is a far more interesting and complicated character than the cartoons from the earlier movies.  I definitely think the Bourne comparison is unfair because Fleming wrote Bond as a more gritty character.  So I was thrilled to see that the new Bond was designed to be more like he is in the books.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 26, 2006)

I enjoyed the movie immensely.

I like Bourne.  I like Bond.  I don't want Bond to _be _ Bourne.  Bourne is Bourne.  I want Bond to be Bond.

Which, to me, keeps all the Bond things (girls, gadgets, exotic locations, cars) but tones down the campyness.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 27, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Well, despite being a big fan of Cleese and anything Monty Python in general, I'm very glad they didn't bring him back as Q. Because, as I see it, when you make a serious spy film, casting a guy known for doing silly walks as a tech expert is a surefire sign that the audience will not take you seriously.




You do know that Cleese personally _hates_ that sketch? On the other hand his favorite MP sketch (if I recall correctly) is Dead Parrot, perhaps not much of an improvement.

The Auld Grump, who would have liked seeing John Cleese as Dr. Who....


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 27, 2006)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> You do know that Cleese personally _hates_ that sketch? On the other hand his favorite MP sketch (if I recall correctly) is Dead Parrot, perhaps not much of an improvement.



Yeah, I do remember him saying that in some article. However, it doesn't change the fact that that sketch, the dead parrot and many other bits of Python silliness are what he's primarily known for. Which is precisely why he shouldn't return as Q in this new series of Bond films, as his presence alone is enough to invite snickers from a movie audience.  



			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> The Auld Grump, who would have liked seeing John Cleese as Dr. Who....



Okay... now that's taking it too far.


----------



## glass (Nov 27, 2006)

Michael Dean said:
			
		

> Well, you'd probably want to take that up with Ian Fleming, since the casino sequence and the torture/hospital recovery are two scenes that are more faithful to the book.



Did they play Texas Hold'em in the book? I would have guessed it'd be something like Baccarat.


glass.


----------



## Michael Dean (Nov 27, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Did they play Texas Hold'em in the book? I would have guessed it'd be something like Baccarat.
> 
> 
> glass.




Yeah, it was baccarat.  I was a little disappointed that it was a poker game.  Baccarat is a pretty simple game but I'm sure with the poker craze in recent years it was to be expected they would change that.  By my original comment, I meant that the casino play with Le Chiffre was a huge chunk of the book, not that they were playing the same game. Sorry if I was unclear.


----------



## buzzard (Nov 27, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> As I understand it (and I must admit I haven't actually read any of the novels), SMERSH was the organisation from all the novels, and was just soviet intelligence. SPECTRE was created for the films to replace SMERSH, for whatever reason.
> 
> Can anyone confirm or deny this?
> 
> ...





Part of the confusion probably comes from the fact that the novel order and the movie order aren't at all close. For example Dr. No, while the first movie, was well along in the book series. The Jamaican assistant in it, Quarrel, gets whacked. However he's also present in Live and Let Die, a novel which comes before Dr. No, in which he helps out Bond and that's where they get to know each other. 

I just saw Casino Royale yesterday, and found it to be a very good film. It's a fine Bond film in the tradition of From Russia With Love (which I consider to be the best Connery Bond flick). 

I've read more than half the Ian Fleming Bond novels, and will have to say this movie did a good job of capturing the Fleming Bond. The comic book Bond is not something I'll miss. I enjoyed the superhero gizmo laden Bond back when I was a kid, but it got tedious. All the efforts to one up all the previous films had driven the franchise into heights of lunacy. 

About the only thing I am sorry about in the franchise is that Brosnan never had a chance to do a really good Bond movie like this one. 

As for continuing the franchise, I concur with the suggestion that the Moore movies get re-done. For that matter even some of the Connery ones could be re-done. At a fairly early point in the series there came to be a massive divergence in plots between the books and the movies. They could easily many of the books into movies, and it would be fresh and new. 

buzzard


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 27, 2006)

Just to keep up on the numbers: Cost: 150 Million 

Domestic:  $94,223,000 (42.4%) + Foreign:  $128,200,000 (57.6%) = Worldwide:  $222,423,000 

It is doing better than other Bond movies released at same period, having a very strong second weekend.  See www.boxofficemojo.com for details. 



> ...snip...
> Down 24 percent, Casino Royale was as impressive as Happy Feet, holding better than James Bond's previous Thanksgiving titles, GoldenEye, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day, which each fell over 31 percent on this weekend. Casino Royale captured an estimated $31 million and, with $94.2 million in 10 days, has sold nine percent more tickets than GoldenEye, the last Bond reboot, through the same point.
> ...snip...




Oh, the last Bond movie Die Another Day (cost 142 Million):
Domestic:  $160,942,139 (37.3%) + Foreign:  $271,028,977 (62.7%) = Worldwide:  $431,971,116


----------



## glass (Nov 27, 2006)

Michael Dean said:
			
		

> Yeah, it was baccarat.  I was a little disappointed that it was a poker game.  Baccarat is a pretty simple game but I'm sure with the poker craze in recent years it was to be expected they would change that.  By my original comment, I meant that the casino play with Le Chiffre was a huge chunk of the book, not that they were playing the same game. Sorry if I was unclear.



No problem.

FWIW, I really enjoyed the poker sequences. I didn't think they were too long at all, partly because I was playing along, trying to figure out people's hands before they were revealed. I don't know how to play baccarat, so I don't know if that would have been as enjoyable. 

OTOH, it might have been; there was plenty going on in those scenes apart from the cards being turned over. I especially like Vesper's comment about 



Spoiler



her cover's anger about Bond losing being similar to her own


. Can't remember the exact wording, unfortunately.


glass.


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 27, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> I don't know how to play baccarat, so I don't know if that would have been as enjoyable.




They'd likely have explained it for you, since it's a fairly simple game, like they did in the book...

Baccarat is similar to playing Blackjack...  except that you are trying to get a score of 9, instead of twenty one.  Aces are one point, face cards are zero, all other cards are face value.  Dealer and player each get two cards, face down. You may ask for one more card, face up. Only the last digit of your score counts (for example, a 5 and an 8 gives a score of 3, not 13). The higher score wins, ties are replayed.

In the novel, Casino Royale, the game was Baccrat Banque, with Le Chiffre as the banker, and Bond, Leiter and several other incidentals playing against him.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Nov 27, 2006)

buzzard said:
			
		

> As for continuing the franchise, I concur with the suggestion that the Moore movies get re-done. For that matter even some of the Connery ones could be re-done.




Interestingly, I've heard rumors that the next title may be Risico, but I can't imagine what the storyline would be, since Risico was basically the story behind For Your Eyes Only (the movie; Risico is one of the short stories from the anthology For Your Eyes Only).

(As an aside- FYEO- my favorite Moore Bond movie.)


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Nov 28, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Interestingly, I've heard rumors that the next title may be Risico, but I can't imagine what the storyline would be, since Risico was basically the story behind For Your Eyes Only (the movie; Risico is one of the short stories from the anthology For Your Eyes Only).
> 
> (As an aside- FYEO- my favorite Moore Bond movie.)




The movie FYEO was also a mixup of like 3 short stories - the revenge angle, the code breaker (also used in FRWL IIRC) and something else, the mob guy?. Yeah, I have fond memories of that one like the car chase after Bond's car alarm went off and the chase on skiis a bit earlier with what sounded like the Wide World of Sports theme playing.

FWIW, my fave Bond movie is Goldfinger for the laser table scene ("You expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to -die-!").

But I've love for the other Bond movies like the pre gun barrel sequences mainly or things I could see my PC doing like rolling up the window before driving through fire in License to Kill aka  "Uh... do I get a bonus to my save?" or the St Petersburg chase scene in Goldeneye.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 28, 2006)

Michael Dean said:
			
		

> Well, you'd probably want to take that up with Ian Fleming, since the casino sequence and the torture/hospital recovery are two scenes that are more faithful to the book.



No, I will (quite properly) "take it up" with the filmmakers. I'm sure we are all quite aware that what works in a book may not work in a movie, and vice-versa (not like _that_ hasn't been discussed all over the internet a billion times...).



> Different strokes, I guess



'Nuff said.


----------



## Joker (Dec 2, 2006)

Actually, I heard the next game they were going to play was Happy Hippo.

Speaking of toys, did anyone else think that that defribilator looked like something you would find next to all the other "spy gadgets" in Toys 'r Us?


----------



## billd91 (Dec 4, 2006)

buzzard said:
			
		

> I just saw Casino Royale yesterday, and found it to be a very good film. It's a fine Bond film in the tradition of From Russia With Love (which I consider to be the best Connery Bond flick).
> <snip>
> About the only thing I am sorry about in the franchise is that Brosnan never had a chance to do a really good Bond movie like this one.
> 
> As for continuing the franchise, I concur with the suggestion that the Moore movies get re-done. For that matter even some of the Connery ones could be re-done. At a fairly early point in the series there came to be a massive divergence in plots between the books and the movies. They could easily many of the books into movies, and it would be fresh and new.




I just saw Casino Royale today and came out saying "This is what I've been waiting for for 30 years!" I thoroughly enjoyed it. 
But I would say that my regret is that Tim Dalton never got a chance to make a Bond film of this caliber. I've always liked him as an actor much more than Brosnan.

I would mind seeing some re-makes. Daniel Craig brings a very different presence to the role than Moore's patrician demeanor. He's more military-SAS than Oxbridge-high society. I think that would make for some very interesting remakes of the Moore or even Connery movies.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 4, 2006)

Just to keep everyone on the money...
Domestic:  $115,863,000 (47.4%) + Foreign: $128,760,555 (52.6%) = Worldwide:  $244,623,555

from www.boxofficemojo.com
...snip... 
_Casino Royale collected an estimated $15.1 million for $115.9 million in 17 days, and it matched GoldenEye's third weekend drop of 51 percent and held better than The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day among the previous Thanksgiving-oriented James Bond pictures. In terms of attendance, Casino still trails the last three Bonds, though it is gaining on them and continues to track ahead of GoldenEye, which as the previous franchise reboot is the most apt comparison for Casino. _ 
...snip...


----------



## Klaus (Dec 4, 2006)

And notice that Casino Royale hasn't opened yet in several worldwide markets (in Brazil it only opens on the 15th, for instance). Casino Quarter-Pounder looks poised to surpass previous 007 movies.


----------



## Brakkart (Dec 4, 2006)

Nuclear Platypus said:
			
		

> St Petersburg chase scene in Goldeneye.




I LOVE that chase scene! Bond merrily destroying his way through the city to get the girl back, whilst the Russian commander that has her is watching out the back window of the car as the tank chases them and swigging vodka from his hip flask all the while!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 4, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> And notice that Casino Royale hasn't opened yet in several worldwide markets (in Brazil it only opens on the 15th, for instance). Casino Quarter-Pounder looks poised to surpass previous 007 movies.



Will be interested to see how it finishes the run Domestic (US) only 84 million to beat Superman.


----------



## iwatt (Dec 6, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> And notice that Casino Royale hasn't opened yet in several worldwide markets (in Brazil it only opens on the 15th, for instance). Casino Quarter-Pounder looks poised to surpass previous 007 movies.




It opens tomorrow here in Santiago. I'm not sure about Buenos Aiers though.


----------



## Capellan (Dec 11, 2006)

Blah.  If this is the "new direction" of the Bond franchise, then count me out.  I found it a dull, meandering film populated by tedious, self-important characters.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 11, 2006)

The first time we tried to see it (in the second week), all the performances were sold out! That's never happened to me with a film before, ever.

So, we eventually got to see it last night, and we both thought it was a fantastic bond film. As my wife said, it was nice to see an 'intelligent' bond who was good at making snap decisions. I can't see what all the fuss about blonde hair was, because at best it looked mousey brown; if he had been Scandinavian blonde it would have looked a bit strange, but as it was - no problem.

We enjoyed the believability of the villains, the sparkiness of the dialog, and the little winks they put into the script - whether it was Richard Branson at the airport, or Bond rising out of the sea (instead of a girl rising out of the sea), or Bond winning the Aston Martin.

Product placement was a little on the heavy side (Sony Ericsson anyone?) but overall my favourite spy film yet.

(My favourite spy production ever was probably the four-part TV miniseries Brotherhood of the Rose, FWIW).

Cheers


----------



## Thanee (Dec 11, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Product placement was a little on the heavy side (Sony Ericsson anyone?)...




No kidding there... Ford, Kia, Sony Ericsson, Sony, and so forth, and so forth. 

The Ford was really the worst... so totally out of place. 


The movie was very good, though, loved the little japes, like "You're not my type." "Smart?" "Single." 
And of course... "Vodka Martini, please" "Shaken or stirred?" "Do I look like I give a damn?"

I also liked how Bond wasn't displayed as Mr Superperfect there... like in the foot chase after that acrobatic scorched-terrorist-guy.

Didn't like the refrain of the title song, though. Dunno, it just doesn't fit in there and is not very bond-like. No comparison to those absolutely brilliant songs by Tina Turner or Sheryl Crow, amongst many other. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 11, 2006)

And the numbers for the 4th week out: 

Domestic:  $128,894,000 (39.7%) + Foreign:  $195,575,283 (60.3%) = Worldwide:  $324,469,283

---------------------------

History on the last few Bonds:
2002's #12 Day Another Day: 
Domestic: $160,942,139 37.3% + Foreign: $271,028,977 62.7% = Worldwide: $431,971,116 
1999's #14 The World is Not Enough:
Domestic: $126,943,684 35.1% + Foreign: $234,888,716 64.9% = Worldwide: $361,832,400 
1997's # 10 Tomorrow Never Dies:
Domestic: $125,304,276 36.9% + Foreign: $214,035,826 63.1% = Worldwide: $339,340,102 
1995's # 6 Goldeneye: 
Domestic: $106,429,941 30.5% + Foreign: $242,465,680 69.5% = Worldwide: $348,895,621


----------



## iwatt (Dec 11, 2006)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Didn't like the refrain of the title song, though. Dunno, it just doesn't fit in there and is not very bond-like. No comparison to those absolutely brilliant songs by Tina Turner or Sheryl Crow, amongst many other.




Got to agree with Thanee here, the title song was not up to Bond standards IMO.

Other than that, I liked this movie a lot. I'm still not sure it's a Bond movie (I liked my cheesy movies), but it's a great spy thriller.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Dec 11, 2006)

Saw this over the weekend and really didn't care for it.  An hour of scripted poker just doesn't work for me...

The chase at the beginning of the movie was very good, though.


----------



## Thanee (Dec 11, 2006)

I heard the extended version will feature the full-length poker tournament... 



Spoiler



or maybe not...



Bye
Thanee


----------



## Brogarn (Dec 11, 2006)

In reference to the product placement, I totally missed it. I think I've been desensitized to ads like I am violence. So much of it and I've just gotten numb to it. Don't recall any products other than the Ford, which I don't think was product placement so much as an indicator that Bond just wasn't Bond yet.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 12, 2006)

Just to throw my vote in, having finally seen it...

It had a few pacing problems, but that's the worst I can say for it. I thought it was not only a great movie, but a great _Bond_ movie.

And yes, for all the nay-sayers, it was very much a Bond movie. No cheesy gadgets? A reduction (albeit far from a loss) of one-liners? Yep; just like the early Connery movies. Bond didn't start getting _really_ cheesy until late Connery/early Moore.

Casino Royale is, IMO, a spiritual cousin to the early Connery films, yet without the severely dated aspects and mind-numbing 60s pacing to ruin it.


----------



## Jeremy (Dec 12, 2006)

...All that over 100 million dollars?


----------



## Jeremy (Dec 12, 2006)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> The torture scene was a revelation, in that it effectively showed audiences that "this isn't your daddy's Jame's Bond anymore". Before, we had a Bond who was above it all. Nothing seemed to bother him. It was like his missions were just weekend jaunts with a bunch explosions and hot women mixed in. Plus his adversaries were a bunch of dandies he could have a glass of wine of with if they weren't trying to kill him there and then.
> 
> Now it's diffirent. Now, he can be hurt, he can be broken (mentally and physically), and his adversary here is just one desperate and nasty guy. With these factors in place, the stakes are now real, and theres a real genuine sense of excitement. I can't wait!




I really like my bad guys bad and torture is just a part of it.  It was one of the things that made me like MI:3.  At the time I saw it I felt that they were finally bringing actual consequences into play.  Bringing physical pain to Bond (staircase, torture), real emotional pain (well done Mr. Craig), make it easier to invest more in your care for the character.

Bouncing back from death I'm not sure I liked, but I don't know how Bond should have handled it differently, we don't want to see *him* crying in the shower after being defibrilated.  And he certainly had a job to do.  Just don't know if that was the time to make a joke.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 18, 2006)

Up to date Numbers Weekend ending 12/18/2006: 

Domestic:  $137,574,000 (35.8%) + Foreign:  $246,510,827 (64.2%) = Worldwide:  $384,084,827   

It has topped all but Day Another Day

History on the last few Bonds:
2002's #12 Day Another Day: 
Domestic: $160,942,139 37.3% + Foreign: $271,028,977 62.7% = Worldwide: $431,971,116 
1999's #14 The World is Not Enough:
Domestic: $126,943,684 35.1% + Foreign: $234,888,716 64.9% = Worldwide: $361,832,400 
1997's # 10 Tomorrow Never Dies:
Domestic: $125,304,276 36.9% + Foreign: $214,035,826 63.1% = Worldwide: $339,340,102 
1995's # 6 Goldeneye: 
Domestic: $106,429,941 30.5% + Foreign: $242,465,680 69.5% = Worldwide: $348,895,621


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 18, 2006)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Day Another Day



Worst. Bond movie title. Ever.


----------



## sniffles (Dec 18, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Just to throw my vote in, having finally seen it...
> 
> It had a few pacing problems, but that's the worst I can say for it. I thought it was not only a great movie, but a great _Bond_ movie.
> 
> ...



I agree with this assessment. I finally got to see it yesterday, and came away saying, yes, it was truly a Bond film. 

Of course, I've always preferred the early Connery films to any of Bond's later incarnations.   

Much as I got a kick out of John Cleese as Q in the last film, I didn't miss him this time out and I think it's time to retire that character. 

I thought Daniel Craig made a great Bond. I hope any future installments stick to this formula and avoid the excessive gadgetry and smarmy self-referential humour. I also liked it that the producers didn't feel it necessary to do any 'stunt' casting. Bond works better with lesser-known actors, IMHO. You don't need big names on the marquee to pull in an audience; just the Bond name will do that.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Dec 18, 2006)

sniffles said:
			
		

> Much as I got a kick out of John Cleese as Q in the last film, I didn't miss him this time out and I think it's time to retire that character.




I'd like to see Q in the movies still, but I hope they go back to his main role as armorer, supplying Bond with weaponry and the like, and scale back the fantastic gadgets. Some gadgets are cool, but they got to the point where they kept getting more and more unbelievable as they tried to one-up the previous movie.

They could easily just keep it more embedded in real world technologies (or even not-far off ones, if absolutely necessary). I used to really enjoy playing Top Secret back in the day, and one of the most fun parts of that game was stocking up on things like high-explosive incendiary rounds, tricking out your HK rifle, etc. Stuff like that would be cool, but not over the top.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 18, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> I'd like to see Q in the movies still, but I hope they go back to his main role as armorer, supplying Bond with weaponry and the like, and scale back the fantastic gadgets. Some gadgets are cool, but they got to the point where they kept getting more and more unbelievable as they tried to one-up the previous movie.
> 
> They could easily just keep it more embedded in real world technologies (or even not-far off ones, if absolutely necessary). I used to really enjoy playing Top Secret back in the day, and one of the most fun parts of that game was stocking up on things like high-explosive incendiary rounds, tricking out your HK rifle, etc. Stuff like that would be cool, but not over the top.



I swear I heard Bond call the guy that injected him with the tracker Q - but not very sure.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Dec 19, 2006)

Finally saw the movie a few days ago.  IMHO, it's bringing me back to the Bond franchise.

I think one of the big reasons I liked it was that this Bond felt a bit harder-edged than previous Bonds (Connery fit the bill in the earlier films).


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 19, 2006)

Casino Royale is the 3e of Bond films, bringing old fans back into the fold.

Saw it, and yes, it was like watching the early Connery Bonds. 

One of my favorite parts was when 



Spoiler



Felix Lighter co-opted Bond for the CIA. Just bought the arrest off of him, for all intents and purposes. Good to see him back, too.



The Auld Grump, who also hated the opening theme....


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 27, 2006)

Numbers as of 2006.Dec.27 - dropped to number 11 this last weekend.

Domestic:  $145,019,000  (34.1%) + Foreign:  $279,724,658 (65.9%) = Worldwide:  *$424,743,658 * 

That worldwide total means it the most successful Bond movie to-date but Domestic (USA) still only number 2 on the Bond list! The percentages are even with the last Bonds!    




			
				Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> History on the last few Bonds:
> 2002's #12 Day Another Day:
> Domestic: $160,942,139 37.3% + Foreign: $271,028,977 62.7% = Worldwide: $431,971,116
> 1999's #14 The World is Not Enough:
> ...


----------



## D.Shaffer (Dec 27, 2006)

Is there a list that adjusts for inflation? 
That's one thing that always bugs me about these lists. A lot of movies these days break older records, but what they dont mention is that movie ticket sales cost more.

I think a more 'accurate' measure would be something like total ticket sales.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 27, 2006)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Is there a list that adjusts for inflation?
> That's one thing that always bugs me about these lists. A lot of movies these days break older records, but what they dont mention is that movie ticket sales cost more.
> 
> I think a more 'accurate' measure would be something like total ticket sales.



by your request...


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 28, 2006)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Is there a list that adjusts for inflation?
> 
> That's one thing that always bugs me about these lists. A lot of movies these days break older records, but what they dont mention is that movie ticket sales cost more.



Agreed. Displaying a list of dollar values that includes older (sometimes much older) movies and not having it adjusted for inflation is useless and unhelpful.

Doing the same and then trying to make claims about "success" is dishonest.



> I think a more 'accurate' measure would be something like total ticket sales.



Exactly so.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 28, 2006)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Agreed. Displaying a list of dollar values that includes older (sometimes much older) movies and not having it adjusted for inflation is useless and unhelpful.
> 
> Doing the same and then trying to make claims about "success" is dishonest.
> 
> ...



I hope I am not on your ignore list.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Dec 28, 2006)

...Huh.

While I dont consider Thunderball the worse Bond movie, by a longshot, I would never have expected it to be the BEST selling Bond movie ever.


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 28, 2006)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> I hope I am not on your ignore list.



 Nah - I know you mean well!


----------

