Casino Royale (Bond 21)

[Brian in Mesa]

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casinoroyale/

I like the hidden things at the table, especially the poker game. Below is a direct link to the game.

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casinoroyale/game/

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

The Casino Royale trailer is to be released online tomorrow night.

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

New trailer up, looks fantastic

http://movies.aol.com/casino-royale-james-bond/exclusive-video-features

 

[Chaplin]

Looks pretty cool, although there is way too much stuff in that trailer.

 

[Scot1]

Yes, the original movie was stupid, but was trying really hard to be funny. I may own the one remaining copy of the soundtrack--has lost its appeal. But no matter how good the remake is, it doesn't have a snail's chance of creeping close to the cast quality of the original: Orson Welles (Le Chiffre!), Deborah Kerr, Woody Allen, Peter Sellars (the humor level was clearly his fault), Ursula Andress, David Niven, William Holden, Charles Boyer, Jean-Paul Belmondo--I'm not making this up-- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061452/. What a waste.

 

[Chaplin]

Yes, the original movie was stupid, but was trying really hard to be funny. I may own the one remaining copy of the soundtrack--has lost its appeal. But no matter how good the remake is, it doesn't have a snail's chance of creeping close to the cast quality of the original: Orson Welles (Le Chiffre!), Deborah Kerr, Woody Allen, Peter Sellars (the humor level was clearly his fault), Ursula Andress, David Niven, William Holden, Charles Boyer, Jean-Paul Belmondo--I'm not making this up-- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061452/. What a waste.

The new Casino Royale is not a remake of the old film. The old film was an unfaithful adaptation of the novel. The new film is a faithful adaptation of the novel. There is no connection between the two movies except for the name and the character of James Bond.

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

I cant wait to see this tomorrow! I took a quick peek at rotten tomatoes and its getting awesome ratings (even though I usually dont bother with reviews), so hopefully this movie will deliver.

 

[Stout]

Yes, the original movie was stupid, but was trying really hard to be funny. I may own the one remaining copy of the soundtrack--has lost its appeal. But no matter how good the remake is, it doesn't have a snail's chance of creeping close to the cast quality of the original: Orson Welles (Le Chiffre!), Deborah Kerr, Woody Allen, Peter Sellars (the humor level was clearly his fault), Ursula Andress, David Niven, William Holden, Charles Boyer, Jean-Paul Belmondo--I'm not making this up-- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061452/. What a waste.

Yeah, the original was a spoof that supposedly had nothing to do with the actual book. Great cast, maybe, but not focused on actually representing the book. This isn't a remake as much as it is a first adaptation of the book.

 

[Renz]

Daniel Craig seems like a Bond I can get on board with. I like that he is more of a punch-you-in-the-face type of spy instead of the dandies like Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

This is getting 96% on Rotten Tomatoes...114 good reviews out of 119.

Very, VERY good news.

Mike

 

[Mike Olbinski]

I cant wait to see this tomorrow! I took a quick peek at rotten tomatoes and its getting awesome ratings (even though I usually dont bother with reviews), so hopefully this movie will deliver.

Ooops, sorry...you posted this already.

 

[General Chaos]

I saw it tonight and really really really liked it. I definitely recommend it.

 

[TBaslim]

Saw it yesterday and also really liked it. Definately worth seeing.

Bond with a Jason Bourne-influence. Much grittier and realistic (for Bond).

Great for the franchise, especially since 'Bond' movies have become really cliched.

Torture scene is tough to watch as a guy - poor ******.

Opening chase seen is great - no special effects, but incredible 'free running' by bad guy with Bond in pursuit.

Craig is really good as Bond. Different, but good. Look forward to seeing next one with him in it.

Not as much humor - more 'serious business' kind of take. Again, a nice change for the series.

Eva Green is smoking hot. Smoking. Hot. Mmmmm.

She is also much more fleshed out (pun intended) as a character then most Bond Girls. She actually has a personality and a brain to go with the looks. That is certainly refreshing.

 

[Espo]

Great film. Completely redefines the series and opens it up to many more. I like that it got away from the outlandish gadgets and explains how Bond became Bond. Fantastic Movie.

 

[Renz]

Loved it! Daniel Craig was as good as advertized.

 

[Stout]

Saw it yesterday and also really liked it. Definately worth seeing.

Bond with a Jason Bourne-influence. Much grittier and realistic (for Bond).

Great for the franchise, especially since 'Bond' movies have become really cliched.

Torture scene is tough to watch as a guy - poor ******.

Opening chase seen is great - no special effects, but incredible 'free running' by bad guy with Bond in pursuit.

Craig is really good as Bond. Different, but good. Look forward to seeing next one with him in it.

Not as much humor - more 'serious business' kind of take. Again, a nice change for the series.

Eva Green is smoking hot. Smoking. Hot. Mmmmm.

She is also much more fleshed out (pun intended) as a character then most Bond Girls. She actually has a personality and a brain to go with the looks. That is certainly refreshing.

Preface: I'm not trying to be high and mighty or snobbish.

You haven't read the books, have you? This wasn't a Bond with a Bourne influence. It was a Bond with a REAL James Bond influence. You got some of the real James Bond with the other movies, but only a teensy, tiny bit, buried under the silly gadgets and outrageous things. This WAS James Bond. He got the crap kicked out of him all the time, he was far less than perfect, and he was a cold-hearted bastard.

I'll be the first to say it. Best Bond movie. Best JAMES BOND. Uh huh. That's right. I said it.

 

[TBaslim]

Preface: I'm not trying to be high and mighty or snobbish.

You haven't read the books, have you? This wasn't a Bond with a Bourne influence. It was a Bond with a REAL James Bond influence. You got some of the real James Bond with the other movies, but only a teensy, tiny bit, buried under the silly gadgets and outrageous things. This WAS James Bond. He got the crap kicked out of him all the time, he was far less than perfect, and he was a cold-hearted bastard.

I'll be the first to say it. Best Bond movie. Best JAMES BOND. Uh huh. That's right. I said it.

No offense taken. I should have indicated I meant "a Bond Movie influenced by the Bourne movies", as well as the 'real Bond' of Fleming's novels.

Minor details anyway - it's a great Bond movie.

 

[Stout]

No offense taken. I should have indicated I meant "a Bond Movie influenced by the Bourne movies", as well as the 'real Bond' of Fleming's novels.

Minor details anyway - it's a great Bond movie.

And how!!!

 

[Cheesebeef]

this is the best Bond movie in 20 years.

An UNBELIEVABLE reboot of the franchise, akin to the Batman Begins reboot. I wen tin with lukewarm expectations and was simply blown away. This is how I imagined James Bond becoming James Bond without ever even realizing it... if that makes sense.

Oh - and they saved the theme music and the first use of "Bond, James Bond" for the PERFECT TIME.

Seriously - for true Bond fans, this movie is a MUST and for anyone else, hell, this movie IS A MUST. One of the best action movies/spy films in decades. I didn't think Bond movies would ever be good again - I was wrong. Huge kudos to the writers/director/Daniel Craig.

 

[coyoteshockeyfan]

Absolutely fantastic movie. I saw it opening night and will probably see it again tomorrow. I went in with lofty expectations and it exceeded them all. I am a huge Bond fan and I can say that this one is easily in my top two or three Bond movies all time, and just from reading around it looks like the support from both Bond fans and casual viewers has been overwhelmingly positive. I was a bit skeptical of Daniel Craig at first, but he did an awesome job. The last few Bond films have had the problem of trying to out do the preceeding one, and it just got too ridiculous with the plots and gadgets. Now was the perfect time to do a "reboot" as others have called it, and Casino Royale nailed it. It was gritty, dark, yet still very much Bond.

It was probably the first Bond movie since Goldeneye (another one of my all time favorites) that focused more on character development and a strong plot, and it paid off. There are just so many scenes that stick out in my head as being so well done, but I don't want to drop too many spoilers. Casino Royale was the first Bond book Ian Flemming wrote, but for some legal reasons EON Productions (who has done all of the other "true" Bond films) didn't own the rights to it until recently so they could never do a movie on it until now. If you haven't seen it already, do it and you won't regret it.

 

[arthurracoon]

good movie

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Wow, I totally loved this movie. The open chase scene was great.

He made a great Bond...well done.

 

[Bada0Bing]

I just watched it. Daniel Craig was a excellent, he was a great choice. I enjoyed this one a lot and look forward to the next one already.

I was surprised when I read this on IMDB:

This is the first film in the 44 years of the James Bond series where it rains.

 

[Louis]

Sorry but...

I hated this film. It was boring. Drab. The plot moved very slow. No build up for the bad guy. We're supposed to care cause he rips off other bad guys?

Green was a horrible selection for Bond girl. The movie was much too long. The chase scene at the beginning did not belong in this film.

The Craig stunt double was too obvious.

I liked the beginning when he earned his "00" status, I thought cool, but after that the movie went down and never came back.

But Craig has showed promise as a future Bond.

 

[Covert Rain]

Let's start with the reboot idea. Not a bad idea if your going to start over. My only problem is they should have replaced Judy. As much as I like her acting and as much as I liked the story, that really bugged me. Every time I got to see her mug on the screen, instantly I thought about her scenes in previous movies. HUGE MISTAKE.

On the topic of story. This really is a reboot story which is appropriate if your going to use Casino Royale. I thought that the pace of the film was sort of dissapointing considering how much I liked the director and his work on Golden Eye. Having said that it didn't really detract all that much from the movie. We see why James Bond is the way he is because of things that happen in this film. That was great.

Also, there is no doubt that this version of Bond is more "rough". He is much more true version of Bond and as many times as he is bloodied in the movie it shows they want to go with a tougher portrayal of the character. This Bond will get his hands dirty which I think is good and more realistic.

In terms of Craig. I have mixed feelings about him as Bond. I admit that Craig is not as bad as I thought he was going to be. First off, I give him credit for making the part his own and avoiding doing impersonations of the others that came before.

Craig does a great job of making the character more real and believable from a physical stand point. He also showed the cold hearted aspect of the character in an almost scary way. Regardless of what you think about the franchise up to this point or comparing it to the books, we know that Bond's charm is a huge part of the Bond persona. This is where I think Craig lacks in his portrayal.

I think that it might be a product of how Bond is being portrayed (cold demeanor). Craig doesn't come off as someone who can pull of Charm. In fact that's the first thing my wife pointed out about the character. She said he's more of a guys Bond now. Now I don't mind him being more of a guys Bond but I think charm is a big part of the character.

Casino Royal was a great story. Craig was perfect for this story and this Bond. However, I also think the story and the nature of this story masked Craig's short cummings of his portryal of Bond. I am not so convinced had Craig been in any of the previous films if he could have pulled those versions of Bond off which concerns me.

Do I like the more brutal portrayal of Bond? Yes, but I credit the writers with making the character more true then I do for Craig's ability to portray him that way. Yes, Craig is a good fit if that is all Bond is to become here on out. However based on "M's" comments we know that's not true. Craig got to portray a more simplistic Bond IMO and I am anxious to see how he adds the other pieces to the persona of Bond. One film hardly makes him the best Bond and I so far rank him 3rd in my book so far. I guess the jury is still out but let's see how he does over the long haul before crowning him the best Bond ever. Like I said, I give more credit to writing at this point then I do Craig.