007 Casino Royale

[tommy]

I've got me two free advance screening tickets of the new 007 movie for tonight, i'll let you guys know if it's worth checking out. 

[hypernova]

I was hesitant at first, but the new guy looks like a good fit for Bond.  Movie looks like it'll be good as well.  Brosnan's last few Bond movies were overly cheesy.  The first few were his only good ones.  I hope this gets the series back on track to being a little more serious.

[boykster]

There's only one true Bond IMHO....



Bond....James Bond.

[Texasmame]

Connery was the best but I'm seeing this flick opening day regardless.  I'm a total tool for all things Bond. 

[shmokes]

I was hesitant at first, but the new guy looks like a good fit for Bond.  Movie looks like it'll be good as well.  Brosnan's last few Bond movies were overly cheesy.  The first few were his only good ones.  I hope this gets the series back on track to being a little more serious.

How many Bond films do you think Brosnan made?

Anyway, this one looks really good.  Brosnan didn't make a single good Bond film, though Goldeneye was at least watchable.  Maybe.

[Dartful Dodger]

It wasn't Brosnan's fault.  Bond is dated.  The idea of a secret agent saving the world is laughable. That's why the Austin Powers spoofs are so funny. 

[grantspain]

the new bloke looks pretty hard,my wife likes him anyway

[shardian]

the new bloke looks pretty hard,my wife likes him anyway

Umm, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you aren't in America, but calling a dude "hard" will get you your ass kicked over here.   

[shmokes]

I agree that it wasn't Brosnan's fault (not entirely anyway).  He's a good enough actor.  It's much more the fault of the writer and director.

The newest Mission Impossible is a perfect example of how you're wrong about Bond simply being dated. 

Scary Movie successfully spoofed scary movie cliches, but that doesn't mean that scary movies can't be good.  For that matter, the idea of man with super strength who can shoot and swing from webs is pretty laughable.  Doesn't mean the concept can't make for a good movie if written and directed well.

Anyway, it looks like this James Bond is good.  It's at 92% on the tomatometer with more than 25 reviews which is a good sign.

[shardian]

The latter Brosnan Bond movies were horribly commercialized- Product placement everywhere. People no longer took them seriously as movies.

I thought Die Another Day was ok. Goldeneye was pretty good. The one with the Crouching Tiger Lady was the WORST with product placement.

[tommy]

Well, it turned out to be pretty good IMO. The movie did seem to be pretty slow going in a few spots but the new Bond seemed to work.  After seeing the new Bond character i had a few doubts that he would be believable but he pulled it off fine i thought.

Not a whole lot of great action scenes though, i was expecting great things in that department and feel i was short changed.

[shmokes]

That gives me hope.  The last few Bond films have been non-stop action and they're unwatchable.  You give me hope that this one is a little heavier on brains while sacrificing a bit of the brawn.  It may not be what everyone is looking for, but it's okay in my book.

[tommy]

I also saw the spiderman 3 comming attractions and that really looked awesome.

[grantspain]

the new bloke looks pretty hard,my wife likes him anyway

Umm, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you aren't in America, but calling a dude "hard" will get you your ass kicked over here.   

i have really got to be more careful about how i write things,what i meant is the new bond looks like a tough guy and my wife likes his rugged looks

[hypernova]

How many Bond films do you think Brosnan made?

Anyway, this one looks really good.  Brosnan didn't make a single good Bond film, though Goldeneye was at least watchable.  Maybe.

I wanna say 4.  Maybe 3.  I loved Goldeneye, but the quality went downhill, and Die Another Day was just horrible.  What a waste of Halle Berry's talent.

[Ken Layton]

the new bloke looks pretty hard,my wife likes him anyway

Yeh, the new guy looks more like a bad guy than a hero. I'm definitely NOT going to see this turkey of a movie.

I agree that Sean Connery IS the one and only Bond - period!

BTW, I met Sean Connery at the Showest theater owner's convention in Las Vegas a few years ago. He's a real gentleman and a pleasure to talk to.

[More Cowbell]

BTW, I met Sean Connery at the Showest theater owner's convention in Las Vegas a few years ago. He's a real gentleman and a pleasure to talk to.

Did he at any point say "Suck it, Trebek?" Please say yes, even if he didn't.

[billf]

Did he at any point say "Suck it, Trebek?" Please say yes, even if he didn't.

 

[shmokes]

Yeh, the new guy looks more like a bad guy than a hero. I'm definitely NOT going to see this turkey of a movie.

Wow . . . erm, them's pretty strong feelings about a movie that hasn't even been released and that is being pretty much unanimously hailed as the best Bond film in more than twenty years. 

Out of 69 reviews so far there are 65 good ones and 4 bad ones.  That's 94% good reviews.  I mean, maybe it'll turn out to be rubbish.  Sometimes I think a movie is no good that the critics seemed to like, or vice versa.  But it seems like, at this point, there's a lot more reason to think that it's ---smurfing--- awesome than that it's a turkey of a movie.

[Vigo]

I have to say, when I saw the new Bond choice (Daniel Craig), I was very dissapointed. I was told that the new bond film was going to be "The One" that would bring the bond series to what it was orginally ment to be, defined by Ian Fleming, and captured by Sean Connery.

When I saw this gruff, spikey-haired man who closer resembled Thom Yorke than what I envisioned James Bond to be, my excitement was extinguished. This man didn't look like a suave, sophisticated gentleman who was deserving of the title "Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang"

I am reserving judgements on the movie, but I think the most basic step in getting the movie to be what Ian Fleming had envisioned would be getting the right Bond Character.

I think they failed at that.



This is Daniel Craig and musician Thom Yorke. I think there is a resemblance.



Here is Sean Connery and Hoagy Carmichael, who Ian Fleming had said that James Bond had resembled.

[shmokes]

This is Daniel Craig and musician Thom Yorke. I think there is a resemblance.

There is almost no resemblance between Craig and Yorke that I can see. 

By the way, as the reviews continue coming in the rating just continues going up.  With 92 reviews counted we now stand at 88 good reviews and 4 bad reviews.  Tomatometer rating = 96%

I can't believe you weirdos are lamenting the loss of Pierce Brosnan.  Did you see the last three James Bond movies?  THEY.  ARE.  AWFUL.

Daniel Craig gives us the best Bond movie in more than 20 years.  He gives us a James Bond movie that is better than anything Brosnan, Dalton, or Moore were able to do.  And because he's not metrosexual enough he is deemed unworthy to wear the Bond crown?  That's just nutso.

Get a load of this (extremely minor spoiler ahead): I heard a review that said that when he orders a martini and the bartender asks him if he wants it shaken or stirred he looks at the bartender and says, "Do I look like I care?"  LMAO  It sounds to me like we're just getting a James Bond that isn't a pansy ass.

[Grasshopper]

I'm trying not to build my hopes up too high about this film because everytime a new Bond is introduced we're told that he'll be a tougher, grittier, more Connery-like character than his predecessor, and everytime I'm disappointed. That being said, all the reviews I've seen so far (including a woman at work who went to an advance screening) say it's very good indeed.

And I totally agree with Shmokes point about less being more when it comes to action. Maybe it's a sign of my age, but I'm bored with films that are non-stop action. You can only see so many car chases, fights etc. before boredom sets in. And frankly it would be a mug's game for them to try and outdo the stunts that were in the films of the 60s and 70s which I don't think can really be bettered. Those stunts were mostly done by real stuntmen who were genuinely taking risks with their lives and it shows on screen. These days the money men would insist that it was all done with half-assed CGI. A case in point is Die Another Day. The quieter first half of the film was decent, good even. But halfway through the director started swamping us with some of the most atrocious CGI action scenes I've even seen and that totally destroyed the movie for me.

[Grasshopper]

By the way, as the reviews continue coming in the rating just continues going up.  With 92 reviews counted we now stand at 88 good reviews and 4 bad reviews.  Tomatometer rating = 96%

Hmm, several reviewers are saying this film is the Bond equivalent of Batman Begins. That sounds very promising.

[NIVO]

heh..... was daniel craig singing Karma Police by chance?

[Texasmame]

Good flick.  A bit long but I really can't come up with any parts they should/could have cut out.  I guess the length is necessary here to tell the story.

Some great Bond history and also interesting to see him make mistakes (as he's new to this 00 thing).

Craig is plenty good.  Even the wife, who was dreading a blue-eyed Bond, dug him.

BTW, the opening minutes are in B/W.  I think this was a stroke of genius as it allowed you to see Craig as Bond for the first time without being "distracted" by him not looking what Bond is "supposed to look like."  You don't see him in color until the very end of the opening credits.

Overall, well done and Craig's a fit.  Can't wait for the next one. 

[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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

[tommy]

Did you find as i said there really was a lack of action in the movie?

I also thought the movie did a pretty good job at making some of the scenes funny.

[shmokes]

Actually, no.  I was really satisfied with the amount of action.  I didn't see the last Bond movie, and I would certainly agree that this one had less action than the last one I saw, but the last one I saw was terrible so that doesn't say much.  I thought this bond was much smarter.  I may have just not noticed a lack of action because I as engrossed in the smart storyline, but even as I think back I can think of a ton of action sequences in the movie.  It seems to have plenty to me.

[fredster]

The last one with that Maddona Theme was unwatchable just because of that.

I always wait for the DVD though.

[AtomSmasher]

I just saw it tonight and thought it was great.  I'm so glad they went back to Ian Fleming's novels for the storyline instead of coming up with the ridiculous ones they've been using. 

[clanggedin]

I saw this last night and it was way too slow for me. I like Craig as Bond, but I hated the movie. He was a much more physical Bond than the others. No gadgets and an ugly Bond girl killed it for me.

[AtomSmasher]

an ugly Bond girl

Ya, shes a real dog   

[clanggedin]

an ugly Bond girl

Ya, shes a real dog   

She did NOT look like that at anytime in the movie. There was one scene where you could see her mustache too.

[AtomSmasher]

an ugly Bond girl

Ya, shes a real dog   

She did NOT look like that at anytime in the movie. There was one scene where you could see her mustache too.

Well I disagree, I thought she was smoking hot in the movie.

[CheffoJeffo]

I saw this last night and it was way too slow for me. I like Craig as Bond, but I hated the movie. He was a much more physical Bond than the others. No gadgets and an ugly Bond girl killed it for me.

I wonder if there is a viewer age issue here -- I'm old enough to remember Sir Sean Connery (and Lazenby) as Bond and always felt that Sir Roger Moore, especially Brosnan and to a lesser extent Timothy Dalton were too cartoonish for my liking, especially after reading the books.

Younger folks were raised on "physical action, gadgets and effects" Bond and compared to most Bond movies of the past 15 years, this one doesn't really deliver on those grounds. It is grittier and perhaps a touch more realistic, more in line with the books.

This is my favourtie Bond movie since, say, Thunderball.

And I LOVED what happened with the Aston Martin  (post edited to remove spoilers).

Cheers

[Dexter]

Saw it last night. Excellent bond movie. I kinda missed the hi-tech global event type of story, but enjoyed it nonetheless. Craig makes a good bond.