007 --Casino Royale--

[Darth Reign]

007 --Casino Royale--

Has anybody seen the new movie? How was it?

[Commander Obi-Wan]

Yes, and it was awesome. The action and storyline was excellent. One of my favourite Bond movies, without a doubt and I plan to see it again.

 

I personally don't mind Daniel Craig being James Bond, he did a great job portraying him. He's a bit darker than the other Bonds too. I also don't mind Judi Dench being M since she did a decent job in the previous Bond films.

[90SK]

I just saw it. Definitely a fantastic Bond film. Daniel Craig is just great: he makes Pierce Brosnan look almost campy. He portrayed every aspect of Bond's character in a believable, accurate manner. In fact, all the cast members were very good. My only gripe is that it's pretty much a series reboot. Not a bad thing, just sort of unfortunate.

[Aash Li]

I hear nothing but goodness of this movie. Me being a Bond fan-girl Ill have to go see it sometime. Im glad that they remade the movie, and not as a parody.

[Jeff]

Might be the best movie I've seen this year. It was amazing. Dunno if it's my favorite Bond but it's right up there. I was glad to see Daniel Craig did very well as Bond after all the initial criticism when they announced he was the next actor.

[Aash Li]

Well you got to admit he does look like hed be a Bond villian... he just looks ebil to me. hehe

[Darth Reign]

I was not sure if I wanted to see the new movie. All I have been hearing are rave reveiws. Guess what I am going to see this weekend?

 

Thanks for the replies.

[Mav]

It was great at some times, but being a fairly hardcore Bond fan I was disappointed by some of the things that were different about this movie, I don't want to say too much and ruin the movie though so I'll reserve my judgments. One thing that struck me as odd is how the movie was supposed to be the beginning of Bond's 007 career, but they mentioned 9/11 in the movie, so that just seemed out of place to me, but what do I know.

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

It was all right, no more, no less. Definitely got a little bit of a chick-flick vibe to it, from the whole "bond-in-love" to more visible bond skin than any bondgirl!

 

Seriously, who wants to see him naked, getting hit in the nuts with rope. Just about threw up

 

 

The action elements were as good as you'd expect, I especially liked the chase scene (not sure what they call that jumping around thing, it's big in europe isn't it?) through the construction site.

 

Also I enjoyed the fact that the gadgets were slightly de-emphasized. Bond-gear, while nifty, started to feel more and more like a crutch as the series progressed.

 

Even with all the sentimental stuff it is a nice change of pace from brosnan's bond.

[Diego Varen]

I'll see it sometime. Hopefully. At first, when I heard Daniel Craig was picked as Bond, I didn't think he'd be good, but I'll go with the praise of the movie and say he's good.

[HerbieZ]

It is a fantastic film, my only problem with it was the lack of gadgets. One or two would have sufficed but the only thing in there is a portable defibrillator which i have seen on ebay go for 40 quid.

[Vaelastraz]

It's a great movie. I've seen every single Bond movie, and Casino Royale is among the best.

 

I think it was about time that they give the bond movies a new touch. Now, Bond is no longer invincible, supersmart or capable of taking out 25 heavy armed elite soldiers with bare hands.

 

And for the first time it's not a "safe the world from destruction scenario" which is good imo.

[Achilles]

I think the movie is good, but is getting much more praise than it deserves. Craig did a great job as Bond, but I had little doubt that he would do well. It has the style and eye-candy that one would and should expect from a Bond film. They could have easily cut half an hour from this movie and made it a better film. Some of the dialog had a bloated, cheesy feel to it and I can only assume that these were Paul Haggis' contributions (doesn't appear that he'll be adding his name to the writing credits for the next Bond film so I'm assuming that it will be even better than this one).

 

Also, I found it interesting that for all the fanfare about reinventing Bond, the director and 2 of the 3 writers worked on previous Bond films. Maybe it would have been okay to give some "outsiders" a shot at making a bond film.

 

Go see it. You'll have a good time. Just don't buy into all the hype

[CSI]

I didn't watch it, but I'll buy a DVD when it comes out.

[Diego Varen]

I didn't watch it, but I'll buy a DVD when it comes out.

 

Same here.

[The Doctor]

I loved how they made Bond human in this one. He just seemed so much less invincible in this time than he used to. And now we know why he's such a cold hearted killer, too. Brilliant movie, absolutely fantastic!

[Rabish Bini]

His name should be James Blonde.

I'm planning to see when it comes out on DVD.

[Lord_MalaKdoggk]

I have to pass on this one, mostly because the original Casino Royale is one of my favorites. You'd think if they we're serious about reinventing Bond they could come up with a more original title for the film.

[Theone Thewayne]

Nice movie but this james bond isn't like the rest > no shaken not stirred this time. And Q was gone also. Hope the next bond is going to be more like the older movies.

[Jeff]

This Bond movie was actually much like the classsic movies. Sure Q and the gadgets weren't there but that's how it was in the Casino Royale book. To enjoy the movie you can't let little things like that bother you.

[RC-1162]

a bond movie isnt a bond movie without the ol' gadgets. but still, im not gonna hate it till i try it. i'm going to watch it tomorrow with my friends. i hope its as good as everyone says it is.

[Commander Obi-Wan]

This one was also more of a prequel. It was before he becomes a 00 agent, too.

[The Doctor]

No, he became a 00 agent before the main story started, when he killed the mole, didn't he?

[HerbieZ]

Tbh he earns the title and the right to say the name 'James Bond' right at the end. Even though he's a double 00 after the small bit at the beginning, he still makes a huge amount of mistakes. But at the end i think he deserves it.

[montnoir]

Referencing 9-11 in a movie about Bond "before the 00" when Bond's been 007 since the sixties movie-wise is rather odd. Referencing 9-11 at large is very odd as it puts the movie in a specific timeperiod and Bond movies are "timeless".

 

There are some things that really grate in the back of my head. No Moneypenny and no Q (Q stands for Quartermaster if you were wondering btw).

 

Another thing is Daniel Craigs shaved body. Neither the litterary Bond nor the movie Bond is so vain that he would shave his body. Bond always counts on his charms and charismatic professional skills and ego to get the job done, he would never stoop to such a vanity low, as to go for body enhancements like full body shave.

It's just cheap marketting "Alright so we have a nude Bond scene? Hmm, well, this is not the 70-s, hair is not politically correct anymore so shave his arse!".

 

Then there's Craigs, Bond. His interpretation is 99% thug 1% trying to act cool. No sophisticated agent, no brains, only brawn. Nice rugged character for a thriller? Sure. But it's not James Bond.

 

The same can be said for Casino Royale in general. Good thriller with good action and serious emotional weight but it's no James Bond movie. This movie is so good that it would have stood on its own two legs it didn't need to have the James Bond name attached to it. As a Bond movie it fails. It lacks what makes Bond... Bond.