Main > Everything Else
007 Casino Royale
<< < (6/8) > >>
lokki:
Saw it last night. I really liked it.

It was more violent (and bloody) than any Bond movie I can remember. And no Q (or R for that matter) so no cool gadgets.


Craig did do a good bond



patrickl:
There was so much bad press about Daniel Craig before the bond film was out. I had no idea what the problem was. I thought he was great in Layer Cake. In the backwards netherlands I still have to wait till november 23 before the movie runs :(

BTW did anyone ever read one of the Ian Fleming books about Bond? I tried, but I would fall asleep on every page I tried to read.
Grasshopper:

--- Quote from: patrickl on November 19, 2006, 04:08:50 am ---BTW did anyone ever read one of the Ian Fleming books about Bond? I tried, but I would fall asleep on every page I tried to read.

--- End quote ---

I couldn't disagree more.

The books are very well written. However, they are totally different to the films apart from the first couple of films which vaguely resemble the books on which they're based.

In the books Bond is a far more complex and introspective character than the cardboard cutout Bond we see in most of the films. There is also quite a lot of genuine violence in the books (Bond is always getting tortured for instance) which contrasts with the cartoon-like violence you see in the films.

As long as you approach the books with an open mind you'll enjoy them.
patrickl:

--- Quote from: Grasshopper on November 19, 2006, 06:35:01 am ---
--- Quote from: patrickl on November 19, 2006, 04:08:50 am ---BTW did anyone ever read one of the Ian Fleming books about Bond? I tried, but I would fall asleep on every page I tried to read.

--- End quote ---

I couldn't disagree more.

The books are very well written. However, they are totally different to the films apart from the first couple of films which vaguely resemble the books on which they're based.

In the books Bond is a far more complex and introspective character than the cardboard cutout Bond we see in most of the films. There is also quite a lot of genuine violence in the books (Bond is always getting tortured for instance) which contrasts with the cartoon-like violence you see in the films.

As long as you approach the books with an open mind you'll enjoy them.


--- End quote ---
Well it was exactly the detailed descriptions of the violence and such that bored me to tears. It takes pages to introduce even the most meaningless person or to describe the minutest things happening. On the other hand I didn't read that much. Maybe it picks up speed after a few chapters.
shmokes:
I saw it today.  It was very good.  Better than any James Bond movie in recent memory.  Absolutely better than anything Brosnan or Dalton did.  I tend to think it's better than anything Moore did too, but it's been a long time since I've seen a Roger Moore Bond movie.  But what really sticks out in my mind with him is gold-toothed giants who can bite through pad locks and ski chases where bond catches a lip and does a 360, knocking the gun out of a bad guys hands with his skis as he spins in the air.  Goofy.

Anyway, the movie was excellent.  Craig makes a fantastic Bond.  Also, the MPAA is a ---smurfing--- joke.  That this movie sails by with a PG-13 rating is utterly unbelievable.  It is very very violent.  In fact, you could cut out every bit of violence from the entire movie aside from a single torture scene and it would still merit an R rating.  Americans are so nutso when it comes to sex and violence.

edit: By the way, obviously all the attention is on the fact that Brosnan is out and Craig is in.  Craig does, indeed, pull off an excellent Bond, but the biggest reason this film is so great is that the writing is so tight.  If they go back to ridiculous story lines with outrageously melodramatic supervillains trying to take over the world, Craig will not be able to save the movie no matter how well he pulls off the character.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page

Go to full version