# Casino Royale



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 16, 2006)

Anyone else seen the trailer? Must admit it looks like it could be good! Been a very long time since I've said that about a Bond film.

Official Site

Wikipedia page


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 16, 2006)

It does look good.  Should be much better than the woeful Die Another Day.


----------



## llantwit (Oct 16, 2006)

THAT looks bloody EXCELLENT!


----------



## BlackSpecs (Oct 16, 2006)

I love it when the Aston Martin flies to bits....i hope this is going to be a DARK Bond , like the ones in the novels!!! can't wait!!!!!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 16, 2006)

I have to say that when I first read about Daniel Craig, my reaction was "WHO?" but I appear to have been proved wrong.


----------



## llantwit (Oct 16, 2006)

Daniel Craig's always been quality ins a slow-burning-career kind of way. He was even pretty good in Tomb Raider.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 16, 2006)

He was pretty good in Munich too.


----------



## Flashman (Oct 16, 2006)

Geordie.

Always liked him.


Looks cool.


----------



## jugularvein (Oct 16, 2006)

i saw the trailer before the departed. (departed is awesome)

this bond looks good. the *film * looked great but still hard to see if craig works in the role. i hope he does and think he will


----------



## Jim2k5 (Oct 16, 2006)

wooo bond.
wooo craig
woooooooo


----------



## BlackSpecs (Oct 16, 2006)

Jim2k5 said:
			
		

> wooo bond.
> wooo craig
> woooooooo



WORD!


----------



## The Groke (Oct 16, 2006)

!!!!!!!!


----------



## ska invita (Oct 17, 2006)

...it looks as if they may have de-punned Bond (there's bound to be one pun left) - looks a lot more "serious" than any other bond flick.

Checking the cast list there is no porn-pun characters either... Bonds finally grown up!

There wasnt any of that punnery in the novels was there?


----------



## STFC (Oct 17, 2006)

niksativa said:
			
		

> ...it looks as if they may have de-punned Bond (there's bound to be one pun left) - looks a lot more "serious" than any other bond flick.
> 
> Checking the cast list there is no porn-pun characters either... Bonds finally grown up!
> 
> There wasnt any of that punnery in the novels was there?



Apparently not. I haven't read any of them, but I was chatting to a fella the other day who's got over 600 Bond books (there are only 14 stories!), including loads of first editions. A serious collection. He said that Fleming's novels are much, much darker than the films. I'm going to start reading them.

The trailer for Casino Royale looks excellent.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 17, 2006)

Its kind of like a return to the Dalton Bonds (no bad thing IMO as they were underrated)


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 17, 2006)

BlackSpecs said:
			
		

> I love it when the Aston Martin flies to bits....i hope this is going to be a DARK Bond , like the ones in the novels!!! can't wait!!!!!


Me too, in the films hes way too goody goody.


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 17, 2006)

It's got _that _scene from the book in. You know, the one where Bond gets his plums walloped with a carpet beater:

SG


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 17, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> Its kind of like a return to the Dalton Bonds (no bad thing IMO as they were underrated)



Yep, that's my impression. The Dalton films seemed to have a bit more grit to them.

Also, @ The Groke:


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 17, 2006)

...and no one's mentioned Eva Green yet? _<swoon>_


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 17, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> Yep, that's my impression. The Dalton films seemed to have a bit more grit to them.



They've aged surprisingly well actually.  Licence to Kill actually comes across as one of the better post-Connery films, if you watch them all now.


----------



## Pie 1 (Oct 17, 2006)

I really like the look of that scene with the Aston going tits up


----------



## elevendayempire (Oct 17, 2006)

The theme's up on www.myspace.com/chriscornell.

SG


----------



## BlackSpecs (Oct 19, 2006)

its still 3 days for me to go until monsieur "double-zero-sept" puts in an appearance!   shakes fist across the channel!!!!


----------



## jodal (Nov 2, 2006)

I'm going to see Casino Royale tmrw. Can't wait.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 2, 2006)

You are? How!? It's not out for another two weeks.


----------



## jodal (Nov 2, 2006)

Screening


----------



## Utopia (Nov 2, 2006)

He was pretty cool in Layer Cake as well, loved the trailer, my girlf has always said I look like Mr Craig!!, dunno if thats a good thing


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 2, 2006)

jodal said:
			
		

> Screening



I see...look forward to reading what you thought of it.


----------



## jodal (Nov 2, 2006)

Sure thing.


----------



## BlackSpecs (Nov 2, 2006)

BlackSpecs said:
			
		

> its still 3 days for me to go until monsieur "double-zero-sept" puts in an appearance!   shakes fist across the channel!!!!



Oooppss...November NOT October !!!


----------



## jodal (Nov 2, 2006)

I actually can't wait to see this. I haven't really liked the last couple of Bonds but I think this might be a return to form.


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 4, 2006)

Just got back from the press screening...

Bloody Nora. That was fantastic. Craig's just supplanted Dalton and Connery as the best Bond, and he blows Pierce out of the water. The really impressive thing about the film isn't the winks to the audience (the vodka martinis, the first appearance of the DB5 and so forth) - it's the fact that they've actually given Bond a character arc with some emotional resonance. 


SPOILERS






Anyone who's read the novel will feel a bit of a twinge when Bond offers to give up his life of espionage to stay with Vesper; he's been offered a chance at redemption and squanders it. By becoming the Bond we all know and love - the state-sponsored killing machine - he's damned himself. It's good stuff.

SG


----------



## jodal (Nov 6, 2006)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> Just got back from the press screening...



I went to this as well and was impressed. The first 10 minutes was jam-packed with action of the highest order. Thought it lost the pace about half way through mut was still miles better than previous Bonds.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 6, 2006)

Better than all the previous Bonds or just the recent ones?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 6, 2006)

The Guardian wasn't very positive about it (surprise surprise) but the other UK papers have been, so far.


----------



## jodal (Nov 6, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> Better than all the previous Bonds or just the recent ones?


Nah, just the recent ones... of course.


----------



## T & P (Nov 14, 2006)

Just watched a Film 2006 special on the film on the BBC and Jonathan Ross was creaming his pants about it.

Most critics seem to be giving it the thumbs up. 

I usually wait for DVD when it comes to Bond movies but I must check this one out on the big screen.


----------



## Reno (Nov 14, 2006)

Thought it was ok, but it didn't rock my world. Craig is good and the actress playing Vesper Lindt is lovely, but this obviously emulates the Bourne films who do this kind of thing better by now. 

I'm getting a bit bored with all this making Bond more gritty and realistic. I miss the megalomaniac super villains, their architecturally outlandish lairs and their freakish hench people. I miss silly gadgets, groan worthy innuendo and gratuities scenes of scantly clad ladies lounging next to a swimming pool. 

Bond has become mundane.


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 14, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Thought it was ok, but it didn't rock my world. Craig is good and the actress playing Vesper Lindt is lovely, but this obviously emulates the Bourne films who do this kind of thing better by now.
> 
> I'm getting a bit bored with all this making Bond more gritty and realistic. I miss the megalomaniac super villains, their architecturally outlandish lairs and their freakish hench people. I miss silly gadgets, groan worthy innuendo and gratuities scenes of scantly clad ladies lounging next to a swimming pool.
> 
> Bond has become mundane.


Eh? The last film had an invisible car, an ice palace, a villain with a diamond-studded face and a bloody great Space Laser... What sort of world do you live in where that's mundane?

SG


----------



## jodal (Nov 14, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> I miss the megalomaniac super villains, their architecturally outlandish lairs and their freakish hench people. I miss silly gadgets, groan worthy innuendo and gratuities scenes of scantly clad ladies lounging next to a swimming pool.
> 
> Bond has become mundane.




You might "miss" all of that stuff but I have a feeling that had Casino Royale been more "silly" you would be straight on here calling it a dissaster.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 14, 2006)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> Eh? The last film had an invisible car, an ice palace, a villain with a diamond-studded face and a bloody great Space Laser... What sort of world do you live in where that's mundane?
> 
> SG



I think he's referring more to the OTT campness of the Moore era.


----------



## Reno (Nov 14, 2006)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> Eh? The last film had an invisible car, an ice palace, a villain with a diamond-studded face and a bloody great Space Laser... What sort of world do you live in where that's mundane?
> 
> SG



...and unlike most people I did quite like that one, though it didn't go nearly far enough in that direction for my taste. I suppose the thing I always liked most about the Bond films were the Ken Adam sets.

For me the best "Bondian" film of lately was actually The Incredibles, which gave me that OTT architectural thrill I've been missing in recent Bond films




			
				RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> I think he's referring more to the OTT campness of the Moore era.



The Spy Who Loved Me is my favourite Bond film.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 14, 2006)

Actually, although I am looking forward to Casino Royale, I think I would have to agree with you there.  It's just about perfect.  Moore's last few Bonds were a bit poor, but the first few were excellent.


----------



## Reno (Nov 14, 2006)

I've never been that bothered who plays Bond, because I find him a rather uninteresting character. He's an adolescent boys fantasy of what a man should be like and as such not terribly interesting to me. Bond himself is just what all the fun stuff revolves around. I actually care more about who plays the girl and the villian. Eva Green in Casino Royale was one of the better Bond girls and an improvement on the ever insipid Halle Berry from the last one.


----------



## citydreams (Nov 14, 2006)

I've only read On Her Majesty's Secret Service.  The plot was basically drink; sex; car chase; drink; sex; ski chase; drink; sex...  Maybe it was because this was the stage in Bond's life where he falls in love, but I was bored throughout.


----------



## Reno (Nov 14, 2006)

I read Dr No when I was in my teens and quite enjoyed it, but not enough to read another one. The film sticks fairly closely to the book,  but misses out a giant killer octopuss due to budgetary reasons.


----------



## BlackSpecs (Nov 14, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> . He's an adolescent boys fantasy of what a man should be like .........



You've finally got it !


----------



## Reno (Nov 14, 2006)

BlackSpecs said:
			
		

> You've finally got it !



I have no idea what you are trying to tell me by simply repeating something I said.

Why would I finally have gotten something I always knew ?


----------



## BlackSpecs (Nov 14, 2006)

What i am trying to tell you Reno is : that's why men *love* Bond!

Guns , converting lesbians ( pussy gallore moment) , explosions , fast cars , etc. 

Simple formula that has worked for ages !!!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 14, 2006)

Who's seen it then? Can anyone tell me if there's a character in it called Fisher? Is it a big part?


----------



## Reno (Nov 14, 2006)

BlackSpecs said:
			
		

> What i am trying to tell you Reno is : that's why men *love* Bond!
> 
> Guns , converting lesbians ( pussy gallore moment) , explosions , fast cars , etc.
> 
> Simple formula that has worked for ages !!!



I know that.

What I've been saying is that I like Bond films, but not necessarely for all the same reasons that most men do, so there was nothing to "get".


----------



## BlackSpecs (Nov 14, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> I know that.
> 
> What I've been saying is that I like Bond films, but not necessarely for all the same reasons that most men do, so there was nothing to "get".



Point taken .... no harm done !


----------



## emwilk (Nov 14, 2006)

Utopia said:
			
		

> my girlf has always said I look like Mr Craig!!, dunno if thats a good thing



Yes yes yes! This is a very good thing! I'm sorry but daniel craig is unbelievably gorgeous! I think you should post a pic...

Just for comparison purposes of course!


----------



## Reno (Nov 14, 2006)

emwilk said:
			
		

> Yes yes yes! This is a very good thing! I'm sorry but daniel craig is unbelievably gorgeous! I think you should post a pic...
> 
> Just for comparison purposes of course!



Daniel Craig spends quite a bit of time in the film naked, getting his balls pummeled. Very strange scene that.


----------



## Wookey (Nov 20, 2006)

Just got back from seeing this. I think I'm in lust with James Bond!


----------



## Moggy (Nov 20, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Who's seen it then? Can anyone tell me if there's a character in it called Fisher? Is it a big part?



Played by a Daud Shah according to IMDB.

Haven't seen it yet so can't really comment.


----------



## Shreddy (Nov 20, 2006)

Hot off the press from North America: something finally came along to knock Borat off the top at the box office. *A penguin movie? WTF?*  But it's pretty damn close...

Weekend estimates:

1. Happy Feet $42,320,000
2. Casino Royale $40,600,000
3. Borat $14,350,000

Daniel Craig's simply stunning. Hey, I'm a breeder male, but I think "it moved" when I saw this man naked.   At the screening, my wife - quite obviously moved herself, to the point of nearly passing out at the sight of Mr. Craig - only half-jokingly grabbed my crotch and said "Come on, this has _got_ to be causing some sort of reaction down there...". There was actually an audible gasp throughout the theatre, from both women and men, when this man "presented" himself.

I think we have a new James Bond, folks. I'm sure he'll be around for the next few, taking this franchise into a different level of suave-ness...just as Barbara Broccoli intended. Case in point: as I stated, I'm a hetero male...*I haven't even mentioned Eva Green yet*.  

Sorry Wookey, as much as you'd like to keep Mr Bond all to yourself, looks like you're gonna have to share him with the world.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 20, 2006)

i'm sorry but i still can't get over the fact that Bond is no longer dark haired, I mean Connery was silver but this new guy has the face as craggy as the Cliffs of dover and hair the colour of a 70 year old smoker.

I might be straight (just about) but I can judge a guys looks and this mofo is not pretty on the eyes.


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 20, 2006)

My favourite review of the film so far...

http://www.shinyshelf.co.uk/article/3/4/1394

"...unlike his predecessor, this Bond doesn’t need automatic weaponry or to sit in a car pressing buttons to fire missiles at you, he’ll just grab your hair and punch you in the face until you die."



SG


----------



## Ms T (Nov 20, 2006)

Wookey said:
			
		

> Just got back from seeing this. I think I'm in lust with James Bond!



Hands off - he's mine.  

I defy any man not to feel inadequate on seeing this film. The man is sex on legs, and the film is a big "fuck off" to all the critics who said he wasn't sexy enough to be Bond.  He's a great actor, too.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 20, 2006)

Moggy said:
			
		

> Played by a Daud Shah according to IMDB.
> 
> Haven't seen it yet so can't really comment.


Well yes, I know that bit - he's my brother's best mate - was just wondering whether it was worth going to see just for him - I can't be bothered if he's only in it for 10 seconds


----------



## Xanadu (Nov 20, 2006)

'parently Eva Green does some full frontal in The Dreamers...

*gets perv hat on*


----------



## Lisarocket (Nov 20, 2006)

Flashman said:
			
		

> Geordie.
> 
> Always liked him.
> 
> ...



Doh! I've just realised who he is now  (at self)

Geordie was very


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Nov 20, 2006)

Ms T said:
			
		

> I defy any man not to feel inadequate on seeing this film.



I already felt inadequate beforehand.




			
				Reno said:
			
		

> Daniel Craig spends quite a bit of time in the film naked, getting his balls pummeled. Very strange scene that.



Even stranger was the audience reaction - mass laughter  

What I don't get is the timeline - this is a new 007, right? Daniel Craig just filled the role - he gets promoted near the start of the film. Yet it's not a prequel, because this is 2006 and M is still Dame Judy. They even remark on the short lifespan of 00's. So that means Brosnan snuffed it?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 20, 2006)

Shit happens. Like the last two Brosnan films imo.


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 20, 2006)

fudgefactorfive said:
			
		

> What I don't get is the timeline - this is a new 007, right? Daniel Craig just filled the role - he gets promoted near the start of the film. Yet it's not a prequel, because this is 2006 and M is still Dame Judy. They even remark on the short lifespan of 00's. So that means Brosnan snuffed it?


Agh. The new films disregard all of the previous ones; this is a new start for a new agent called James Bond. And no, they don't pass on the bloody name along with the code number to new agents. Dench is playing a new M, too - albeit one with similar character traits to the one she played in Goldeneye and the rest. It would've saved a lot of confusion if they'd just cast a new M, too (Connery, anyone?) 

SG


----------



## BlackSpecs (Nov 20, 2006)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> A It would've saved a lot of confusion if they'd just cast a new M, too (Connery, anyone?)



Inspired!!!


----------



## fudgefactorfive (Nov 20, 2006)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> Agh. The new films disregard all of the previous ones; this is a new start for a new agent called James Bond. And no, they don't pass on the bloody name along with the code number to new agents. Dench is playing a new M, too - albeit one with similar character traits to the one she played in Goldeneye and the rest. It would've saved a lot of confusion if they'd just cast a new M, too (Connery, anyone?)



Shame. I'd already spent a fair while entertaining myself with mental pictures of Roger Moore's dying moments under a giant laser / rotating factory machinery / headlong plummet off a building / explosive decompression etc.


----------



## Reno (Nov 20, 2006)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> Agh. The new films disregard all of the previous ones; this is a new start for a new agent called James Bond. And no, they don't pass on the bloody name along with the code number to new agents. Dench is playing a new M, too - albeit one with similar character traits to the one she played in Goldeneye and the rest. It would've saved a lot of confusion if they'd just cast a new M, too (Connery, anyone?)
> 
> SG



I don't think this is meant to be a new character who takes over the Bond name like Zorro does.  First and foremost as this is a film of the first book in the series the film has to reflect that to some extend. It's clear that the B&W pre-credits sequence takes part before all the other Bond films, but there is some ambiguity as to when the rest of the film takes place. They do refer to his promotion, but this could have been a long time ago. The rest of the film never explicitly makes it clear that this is the start, it only hints at it, so you can make of that what you will. 

In the end it doesn't exactly bear thinking about too much as in terms of chronology there is a problem with filming the books out of sequence in the first place. It's better to think of the films as being loosely connected stand alone films rather than sequels that continue the same story as the Spiderman or Alien films do.


----------



## BBD (Nov 20, 2006)

I for one thought it was superb. The scene with him tied to the chair was bloody horrendous however the construction site chase at the begining was wicked. Over all Id say it was an 8 out of 10


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 20, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> I don't think this is meant to be a new character who takes over the Bond name like Zorro does.  First and foremost as this is a film of the first book in the series the film has to reflect that to some extend. It's clear that the B&W pre-credits sequence takes part before all the other Bond films, but there is some ambiguity as to when the rest of the film takes place. They do refer to his promotion, but this could have been a long time ago. The rest of the film never explicitly makes it clear that this is the start, it only hints at it, so you can make of that what you will.
> 
> In the end it doesn't exactly bear thinking about too much as in terms of chronology there is a problem with filming the books out of sequence in the first place. It's better to think of the films as being loosely connected stand alone films rather than sequels that continue the same story as the Spiderman or Alien films do.


Well, apparently this new Bond series is going to be much more interlinked than the old one; the next film deals with Bond's attempts to track down Vesper's Algerian boyfriend. I suspect that they're going to be a lot less formulaic, too; more like the early Connery films (Dr No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger all flow very differently in terms of plotting, completely unlike the subsequent films which basically take Goldfinger's plot and tweak it slightly).

SG


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 20, 2006)

I thought it was excellent too.

Craig manages to come accross as a double-hard bastard and a sensitive type without all the cheesyness of Brosnan/Dalton/Moore etc.

Who gives a toss if he's blonde? Come on. He's 007 and can kick the shit out of you if you mess.


----------



## Ned Pointsman (Nov 20, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> The rest of the film never explicitly makes it clear that this is the start, it only hints at it, so you can make of that what you will.



"I give him double O status and he celebrates by shooting up an embassy."

The best thing about it, I thought was that he genuinely felt vulnerable, there was a sense that he could fail, whereas all the brosnan films basically revolved around him being in ever increasing situations of peril that weren't worth shit in a cinematic sense because you always knew what would happen.


----------



## jiggajagga (Nov 20, 2006)

I've seen all the Bond movies and thought Connery unsurpassable but move over Mr Connery Bond, Mr Craig Bond out does you!

Classic dark, mean, moody and yes, sexy Bond. Perhaps 20 mins too long, perhaps too much product placement but well worth the watch. A good night out.


----------



## sunflower (Nov 20, 2006)

Wookey said:
			
		

> Just got back from seeing this. I think I'm in lust with James Bond!



You are definitely not the only one Wookey 

What an amazing performance from Daniel Craig....top film and as someone who isn't really a Bond film fan he has converted me.


----------



## sunflower (Nov 20, 2006)

The scene right at the very end (which i won't spoil for anyone yet to see the film) was brilliant and totally


----------



## mauvais (Nov 20, 2006)

I agree with Reno.  I don't really want gritty. As someone said, there's so many films like the Bourne Whateverity and none of them are spectacular IMO. I just want slightly ridiculous - albeit not shitty blue electric hands ridiculous, thank you very much.

Bond was undoubtedly excellent, as were most of the cast. I also imagine it was a pretty good portrayal of the book. There just wasn't much going on. Interesting start, but everything else was a bit drab - got a bit confusing, perhaps, and no sign of the flair that makes it work for me. Q, car/chopper/boat chases, nonsense action, etc - nowt.

I quite liked how some of it was more realistic - his torture, his fallibility (subtle things - for instance he fell off the roof at the start), and the attention to detail, but I didn't think it was really Bond.


----------



## Wookey (Nov 20, 2006)

> Sorry Wookey, as much as you'd like to keep Mr Bond all to yourself, looks like you're gonna have to share him with the world.



Good! I want him to get nice and famous and rich, he deserves it. 

Everyone at work today was talking about the film...I can't remember ever hearing a movie make such a ripple!!

*ripple....mmmmmm


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 22, 2006)

*Spoilers!*

Saw it last night, by far the best Bond in years but as a film it was ok but not brilliant. That said there were some very nice moments well handled (the shower scene springs to mind) and the poker game segment was excellent!

6/10


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 22, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> I don't think this is meant to be a new character who takes over the Bond name like Zorro does.  First and foremost as this is a film of the first book in the series the film has to reflect that to some extend. It's clear that the B&W pre-credits sequence takes part before all the other Bond films, but there is some ambiguity as to when the rest of the film takes place. They do refer to his promotion, but this could have been a long time ago. The rest of the film never explicitly makes it clear that this is the start, it only hints at it, so you can make of that what you will.
> 
> In the end it doesn't exactly bear thinking about too much as in terms of chronology there is a problem with filming the books out of sequence in the first place. It's better to think of the films as being loosely connected stand alone films rather than sequels that continue the same story as the Spiderman or Alien films do.



Wrong, it's definitely post-9/11. Which accounts for its tone, much darker than any of the previous films.


----------



## Reno (Nov 22, 2006)

Idris2002 said:
			
		

> Wrong, it's definitely post-9/11. Which accounts for its tone, much darker than any of the previous films.



Did you actually read what I wrote or what anybody else wrote in terms of the contradictory chronolgy of the Bond films or did you just respond to one sentence you randomly picked and decided to respond to out of context ? 

I know that Casino Royale takes place in the present, just like all the other Bond films take place in their present and reflect their own current political situation. But as it is an adaptation of the first book in the series it has to reflect that this is Bond at the beginning of his career as a "00".


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 22, 2006)

I haven't watched it yet, but I see it as a 'reboot' rather than a 'prequel', a bit like Batman Begins.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 22, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> I haven't watched it yet, but I see it as a 'reboot' rather than a 'prequel', a bit like Batman Begins.



Good way of characterising it that, I'd actually like them to go back and remake all the following books with him in this style (actually get a bit more serious and even less pro British intel propaganda too).


----------



## BlackSpecs (Nov 23, 2006)

the bad bit : Product placement !!!

-Bond driving a Ford ? F**k off !
-Virgin Atlantic all over the sky .....(Richard Branson at airport security)
-"What`s your watch ? Rolex? ...No , Omega! "  

The good bits :

-He's VERY dark . Like a manic depressive who instead of taking Prozac has a gun!

-He bleeds !

-He doesn' give a monkeys if his martini is shaken or stirred 

-He ruins the car , doesn't get the girl and calls her a bitch after she is dead !!!


i think it's good they finally changed him after 40 years , lets see where they take it from here .


----------



## Leon (Nov 23, 2006)

BlackSpecs said:
			
		

> -"What`s your watch ? Rolex? ...No , Omega! "



Bond has had Omegas for a long time, and they're right up there with Rolex watches for class anyway.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 23, 2006)

Oh yeah the Sony product placement was fucking way over the top, it felt like a bloody advert at times (especially that camera bit on the boat).


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2006)

I thought it was a bit meh? The middle section was BORING - which is a hideous sin for an action movie. And it ends so abruptly. Craig is an excellent Bond though and Green is very very sexy.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2006)

Oh, and the bloke he kills right at the beginning is a school mate - his mother must be so proud - Bond's first kill - that's movie history


----------



## Reno (Nov 23, 2006)

People who keep bitching about the product placement should remember that without it they wouldn't get the production values that are up there on the screen.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 23, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Bond's first kill


Eh?


----------



## Reno (Nov 23, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Eh?



Yup. Why not read the thread.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Eh?


It's his first kill - the beginning of the film is a flashback


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 23, 2006)

It's the bit about "movie history" that confuses me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Yup. Why not read the thread.


Who? Me or Donna?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> It's the bit about "movie history" that confuses me.


I was being a tad sarcastic but being Bond's first kill is one for the pub quizzes surely?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 23, 2006)

I've dl'ed it but it looks like it might be worth a trip to the cinema. It does look good.


----------



## Reno (Nov 23, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Who? Me or Donna?



Donna


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 23, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> People who keep bitching about the product placement should remember that without it they wouldn't get the production values that are up there on the screen.


Never mind the fact that the books are full of product namechecks...

SG


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 23, 2006)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> Never mind the fact that the books are full of product namechecks...
> 
> SG


That's for a different reason, one is product placement where they are paid money for it, the other is to try and envelop and involve the reader in a world that they only know by brand names they can't afford.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 23, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Donna


Spoiler avoidance, for one thing.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 23, 2006)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> I've dl'ed it but it looks like it might be worth a trip to the cinema. It does look good.



Definitely go and see it in the cinema. You'll get a lot more out of it that way than watching it on a wee computer screen.


----------



## Reno (Nov 23, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Spoiler avoidance, for one thing.



Ok, fair enough. 

In short: Casino Royale was the first book in the series where Bond got promoted to his 007 status and there is B&W pre-credits sequence which shows him killing for the first time. As others have pointed out this is supposed to be a "re-eboot" of the franchise in the way Batman Begins was.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2006)

Idris2002 said:
			
		

> Definitely go and see it in the cinema. You'll get a lot more out of it that way than watching it on a wee computer screen.


Do people really watch whole films on a computer screen, sat at a computer chair? They must be bonkers!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 23, 2006)

You mean he didn't kill anybody at school? I'd have thought he might have wiped out a few of the new bugs just to get the taste of it.


----------



## Reno (Nov 23, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Do people really watch whole films on a computer screen, sat at a computer chair? They must be bonkers!



I don't understand that either, especially as the quality is generally so crap. I always think a film is something that should be visually pleasurable.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2006)

It is shit if the VOD stuff I've been processing in my job is anything to go by - I couldn't watch a film as an MPG!


----------



## Reno (Nov 23, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> You mean he didn't kill anybody at school? I'd have thought he might have wiped out a few of the new bugs just to get the taste of it.



He's not supposed to be Hannibal Lecter.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 23, 2006)

*"Shocking"*

He obviously enjoys it though. Besides, isn't sadism what public schools are all about?


----------



## Reno (Nov 23, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> He obviously enjoys it though. Besides, isn't sadism what public schools are all about?



Not in the scene at the beginning of Casino Royale. The idea is that Bond is emotionally detached rather than being a psycho who enjoys killing. This is a theme in the film, by the way which makes an attempt to go a lot more into the mindset of Bond. Anyway, not much point in discussing a film you haven't seen yet if you want to avoid spoilers.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 23, 2006)

Gawd, have Bond films got _themes_ now? I thought they were just ironic.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 23, 2006)

(No Monty Norman gags, please.)


----------



## Reno (Nov 23, 2006)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Gawd, have Bond films got _themes_ now? I thought they were just ironic.




That's what I was bitching about earlier in the thread. I'm a girls'n'gadgets kind of Bond fan myself. 

Still, it's not a bad film.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 23, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Do people really watch whole films on a computer screen, sat at a computer chair? They must be bonkers!


Why, it's no different than a tv?. You're question probably should be "Do people still go to the cinema to watch films?". I normally only go if it's the type that would look good on a big screen.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2006)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Why, it's no different than a tv?.


There's a massive massive difference 
Telly:





Monitor:




Sofa: 




Computer chair:


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2006)

eh - why won't any of my monitor pics work?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 23, 2006)

I don't have a big telly, and I wouldn't shell out just to watch the odd film on it. Prehaps I'm just used to sitting in front of the computer.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 23, 2006)

You'll do your back in.
I would get so fidgety - I can't even watch YouTube clips that are more than a couple of minutes long


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 23, 2006)

I watch about 99% of my films either as torrent files or as pirate DVDs bought over here.

Mind you, I tend to wait for the good quality versions.  Never bother with these crap cam ones...


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 23, 2006)

Reno said:
			
		

> Ok, fair enough.
> 
> In short: Casino Royale was the first book in the series where Bond got promoted to his 007 status and there is B&W pre-credits sequence which shows him killing for the first time. As others have pointed out this is supposed to be a "re-eboot" of the franchise in the way Batman Begins was.


Actually, in the book it isn't his first mission, he's a well-established member of the 00 section.

SG


----------



## Reno (Nov 23, 2006)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> Actually, in the book it isn't his first mission, he's a well-established member of the 00 section.
> 
> SG



I stand corrected.


----------



## dlx1 (Nov 23, 2006)

Is it any good who seen, and what Daniel Craig like ? anyone got to be better then  Brosnan.

as above,this type of file is made for big screen not some shit 17" or 21" monitor.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 23, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Is it any good who seen, and what Daniel Craig like ? anyone got to be better then  Brosnan.
> 
> as above,this type of file is made for big screen not some shit 17" or 21" monitor.



He's a million miles better, better than Roger Moore, and that other one, almost as good as Sean Connery...


----------



## gracious (Nov 23, 2006)

> The middle section was BORING - which is a hideous sin for an action movie.



i'm so glad im not the only one that thought this... movie could have been cut by at least half an hour... i was fidgeting in the cinema waiting for some more action!! 

i'd still shag him tho


----------



## dlx1 (Nov 23, 2006)

> better than Roger Moore


 wow





> almost as good as Sean Connery



 moore or connery mm It be hard for to say who best 
Roger Moore-Live and Let Die.

well that friday afternoon fixed Casino Royale


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 23, 2006)

Roger Moore was Disco Bond, fun but disco . . .  Craig is as close to James Bond as I've seen. Interesting substitution of occasional vulnerability for the old crooner style 'smooth' – like much, that worked well.

I felt this was really well written in places, and the whole did the job of introducing, what is effectively, a new era very well. Hell of a job really given it hit every marketing demographic between 14 and 80 in every corner of the ‘movie’ world.

It really sets the franchise up for a good run, assuming they can maintain script/writing standards.

On a PC ? Do me a favour. Spend a few bob, why don’t ya. Jesus.


----------



## DRINK? (Nov 23, 2006)

liked it.....he was good better than other bonds though am not a huge fan of thefilms as it goes....interesting what they do from here....is that the books all done now?....we shall see


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 24, 2006)

Overall it's a good Bond film and it could have been even a good film full stop were it not for the totally wooden romance between him and the female interest, I practically had to stop myself from laughing at some stages it was so forced. The ending you could see coming a mile off as well. It's a different sort of Bond - a bit more like Die Hard in a tux. I really liked the parkour bits in the opening scene, and the baddie is excellent.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 24, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> I watch about 99% of my films either as torrent files or as pirate DVDs bought over here.
> 
> Mind you, I tend to wait for the good quality versions.  Never bother with these crap cam ones...




interesting , i'd say for some films not seen at a cinema you'd probably lose about a third of it's 'content.'  Bond is best seen on the big screen,  i thought Craig was good but as others have commented the romantic story line didn't really work, shame, Dench as 'M' is a winner again though.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 24, 2006)

DJWrongspeed said:
			
		

> interesting , i'd say for some films not seen at a cinema you'd probably lose about a third of it's 'content.'  Bond is best seen on the big screen,  i thought Craig was good but as others have commented the romantic story line didn't really work, shame, Dench as 'M' is a winner again though.



I know mate, I would like to go to the cinema more, it's just that to watch a new film in English, I have to trek into the middle of my city, and then pay about 4 quid, which is average for the west but loads here, and Mrs RD would complain, so I've only been to a big release film at the cinema once since I've been in China 

My Chinese is actually good enough to possibly understand a dubbed version at a more local cinema, but I hate dubbing.  It is the devil's work.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 24, 2006)

DJWrongspeed said:
			
		

> interesting , i'd say for some films not seen at a cinema you'd probably lose about a third of it's 'content.'  Bond is best seen on the big screen,  i thought Craig was good but as others have commented the romantic story line didn't really work, shame, Dench as 'M' is a winner again though.



I thought the romance element was poorly handled (apart from the shower scene which I thought was quite nicely done) mainly because it felt like it was just dropped in to justify the ending, a better change of gear in the plotting may of helped...


----------



## Reno (Nov 24, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> I thought the romance element was poorly handled (apart from the shower scene which I thought was quite nicely done) mainly because it felt like it was just dropped in to justify the ending, a better change of gear in the plotting may of helped...



For once I thought the love story really worked in a Bond film, because unlike many a Bond girl Eva Green can actually act and there was chemistry between the two.


----------



## STFC (Nov 24, 2006)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> I thought the romance element was poorly handled (apart from the shower scene which I thought was quite nicely done) mainly because it felt like it was just dropped in to justify the ending, a better change of gear in the plotting may of helped...



It was an integral part of the book, so it had to be included in the film. I agree that it wasn't done very well though.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 24, 2006)

STFC said:
			
		

> It was an integral part of the book, so it had to be included in the film. I agree that it wasn't done very well though.



Don't get me wrong, I've no probs with it being in a Bond film (especially this one that covers his formative years), just a problem with directing I guess...


----------



## BlackSpecs (Nov 24, 2006)

Right , there is one aspect of the film that puzzles me :

Towards the end Vesper hands over the money to the hench-men of Mr. White. One of the men wears glasses with one eye blacked out , the same  eye as LeChiffre's bad one. 
LeChiffre was shot earlier so why have another one-eyed dude?! is there some novel-reference/in-joke i'm missing here ?!


----------



## STFC (Nov 24, 2006)

BlackSpecs said:
			
		

> Right , there is one aspect of the film that puzzles me :
> 
> Towards the end Vesper hands over the money to the hench-men of Mr. White. One of the men wears glasses with one eye blacked out , the same  eye as LeChiffre's bad one.
> LeChiffre was shot earlier so why have another one-eyed dude?! is there some novel-reference/in-joke i'm missing here ?!



In the book, Bond and Vesper are followed by a SMERSH agent with an eye patch when they go away to allow him to recuperate from his injuries (and fallin love).


----------



## BlackSpecs (Nov 24, 2006)

STFC said:
			
		

> In the book, Bond and Vesper are followed by a SMERSH agent with an eye patch when they go away to allow him to recuperate from his injuries (and fallin love).



Cheers ... looked it up on wikipedia. His name is Adolph Gettler (a swiss watch-maker and operative)!


----------



## The Boy (Nov 24, 2006)

Watched this last night (downloaded copy but burned onto disc and watched on a BIG telly )

TBH, I had no intentin of watching this as I really can't stand Bond movies and the recent ones truly have been shite.  But, having read a bit about the movie (esp on here) about it being closer to the books I figured I would give it a go.

Not a bad film in the end.  Not amazing, but well worth a watch.  Craig is decent as bond (was it just me or did he wear the same swimming runks as in Dr No? )
Some nice touches, some slightly...umm..'clunky' bits - acting, scripting and stuff - but would defoo recommend


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 24, 2006)

Btw, did I see about 1/2 second of Richard Branson at Miami Airport (hands up, about to go through the metal detectors)?


Among much else, I wonder if blonde's will mostly be confined to be the Baddies snatch during Craig's era - not sure about the aesthetics otherwise . . .


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 24, 2006)

okay, I remembered to google it. It was Branson. chars.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 24, 2006)

Yeah, that was a bloody short cameo, wonder how long it was before edit?


----------



## dlx1 (Nov 24, 2006)

BOND is back  

happy to see, Daniel Craig play bond well, cool stunts. the start  wow crain jumping.
go a bit slow near th end to much love. 

one this that did piss me off it was like this film is sponced by X 
to many named items adverts.


----------



## moomoo (Nov 24, 2006)

We saw it today.  I've never seen a James Bond film before so didn't know what to expect.  I also hate films with lots of violence so watched most of it through my fingers  

No idea what was going on so can't comment on the story but Daniel Craig is a bit of alright - very beefy


----------



## sunflower (Nov 25, 2006)

BlackSpecs said:
			
		

> Right , there is one aspect of the film that puzzles me :
> 
> Towards the end Vesper hands over the money to the hench-men of Mr. White. One of the men wears glasses with one eye blacked out , the same  eye as LeChiffre's bad one.
> LeChiffre was shot earlier so why have another one-eyed dude?! is there some novel-reference/in-joke i'm missing here ?!



Yes!! I wondered this too, I thought he was LeChiffre and he hadnt actually died as we thought. Who was that guy?


----------



## lostexpectation (Nov 25, 2006)

I don't get it, they say that they are trying to modernise the women in the bond films, but really they did the same thing as the ever did, only one step up from the bimbo, okay she was playing him but it was still the same for most of the movie, women with sarci though exterior and then action she gets scared and impresseed by a man who can deal and and receive violence, and someone that makes her fall in love with the guy. wow someone that can protect her, a real man *puke*


okay so then she was trying to protect her real boyfriend but then this is where everybody says hte film falls apart esp when she dies? so same old same old.

yeha it set up the, he had been burned and won't do that again thing, it was cool how he had the big f'ing gun when he shot the guy

but most of the film was the same ol shite, her committing suicide was wierd,where is the boyfriend? didn't bond already lose  a wife?


----------



## Reno (Nov 25, 2006)

lostexpectation said:
			
		

> I don't get it, they say that they are trying to modernise the women in the bond films, but really they did the same thing as the ever did, only one step up from the bimbo, okay she was playing him but it was still the same for most of the movie, women with sarci though exterior and then action she gets scared and impresseed by a man who can deal and and receive violence, and someone that makes her fall in love with the guy. wow someone that can protect her, a real man *puke*
> 
> 
> okay so then she was trying to protect her real boyfriend but then this is where everybody says hte film falls apart esp when she dies? so same old same old.




I thought the bleak ending was one of the better things about the film, only happened once before.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 26, 2006)

lostexpectation said:
			
		

> I don't get it, they say that they are trying to modernise the women in the bond films, but really they did the same thing as the ever did, only one step up from the bimbo, okay she was playing him but it was still the same for most of the movie, women with sarci though exterior and then action she gets scared and impresseed by a man who can deal and and receive violence, and someone that makes her fall in love with the guy. wow someone that can protect her, a real man *puke*


Wasn’t Bond controlled by women throughout; ‘M’ threatens to have him killed/sacked, and then tutors him until he emerges at the end (of this film) finally deserving of the James Bond Theme and his signature ‘The Name’s Bond . . .’. – the final scene tells us he is now 007. Seems pretty plain ‘M’  cajoles, marks his card and generally treats him like an errant son.

By way of contrast not, Vesper controls the purse strings and decides Bond isn’t worth risking another $5 mill on despite his protestations. She also controls the development and pace of their relationship. She even saves his life.

In the end, Vesper rejects being saved by Bond and decides to die – at no point in their relationship is she not in control, except in the shower after the African dude fight when the fight for control is with herself, not Bond. Bond does support her, but then you’d except that from your boy.

And in the end – on the phone to ‘M’ - he dismisses the girlie as a “bitch” and, ignoring his resignation note, goes back to M(ummy).


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 26, 2006)

. . . and if you think analysing James Bond is sad at any time, let alone at 7.30 on a Sunday morning, you might not be wrong. In my defence, I can only claim a keen interest in sport in general, and and The Ashes in particular


----------



## marksl (Nov 26, 2006)

Just seen it, craig is no connery but he done a good job. 

If this was a connery film he would of saved the world etc etc. caught the terrorists but before all that had his wicked way with M and the other girly beauties in the film.

Craig has still allot to learn.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 26, 2006)

i've just downloaded it...   nice ish title sequence....   though  it lacks a certian style


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 26, 2006)

nice stunt work on the building site


reminds me of proper jackie chan type stuff  really using the enviroment


----------



## dlx1 (Nov 26, 2006)

^ like that stuff done on jump london, the chan style


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Nov 26, 2006)

hummm  all in all not too bad

although i kinda enjoyed the   slightly over the top mad james bonds of the past  this is a intresting new direction


----------



## Cloo (Nov 26, 2006)

Saw it last night... the first time in over a decade, and one of the few times in my life, that I've heard audience applause at the end of a film (bravua ending, it must be said).

I thought craggy Craig's Bond was a great interpretation that gave it something new without breaking totally from tradition.


----------



## STFC (Nov 27, 2006)

lostexpectation said:
			
		

> ...but most of the film was the same ol shite, her committing suicide was wierd,where is the boyfriend? didn't bond already lose  a wife?



She committed suicide in the book (OD) because she had fallen in love with Bond and couldn't handle the fact that she had betrayed him. Plus she felt guilty about doing the dirty on her boyfriend. I believe the next film will feature the boyfriend.

Bond does lose a wife, but don't forget that Casino Royale is the 'first' instalment, every else follows on from it.


----------



## lostexpectation (Nov 27, 2006)

STFC said:
			
		

> She committed suicide in the book (OD) because she had fallen in love with Bond and couldn't handle the fact that she had betrayed him. Plus she felt guilty about doing the dirty on her boyfriend. I believe the next film will feature the boyfriend.
> 
> Bond does lose a wife, but don't forget that Casino Royale is the 'first' instalment, every else follows on from it.




so she couldn't resist falling in love with bond? as I said same old same old.


----------



## Utopia (Nov 27, 2006)

The first half hour was pretty good, the rest was just dull/dire, did the poker game really need to last that long?!?!?(although it was worth it for the cheeky walk from Eva Green).
And the torture scene was....a little weird IMO.

Very disappointed after all the good reviews it got I must say.


----------



## jugularvein (Nov 27, 2006)

i want to see it in the cinema but every bloody person i know has seen it already!


----------



## Lea (Nov 27, 2006)

Saw it last night. Thought it was good but nothing outstanding. Daniel Craig played an intense Bond but was good. He also had a very buff bod but I still think that he looks more like a thug than suave sophisticated Bond. I also thought that the torture scene was a bit weird and that the poker game was a bit long.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 27, 2006)

jugularvein said:
			
		

> i want to see it in the cinema but every bloody person i know has seen it already!


Go and see it then!


----------



## jugularvein (Nov 27, 2006)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Go and see it then!



i've spent enough bloody time on my own recently...


----------



## sam/phallocrat (Nov 27, 2006)

I saw it on Friday.  Brilliant


----------



## BlackSpecs (Nov 27, 2006)

jugularvein said:
			
		

> i've spent enough bloody time on my own recently...



alone in the cinema can be pretty


----------



## Echo Base (Nov 28, 2006)

The look on Bond's face after he kills the bloke in the Lav at the start of the film tells you everything.
So glad they cost a real, proper, classically trained actor in this role. Somewhere, Brosnan gently weeps.


----------



## BlackSpecs (Nov 28, 2006)

Geek Alert !!!

Did you know that the chinese woman at the poker game is the same actress as in "You only live twice" at the beginning ?!


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 28, 2006)

I can't be arsed paying to watch a film that I've heard is fully of really blatant product placement - wouldn't mind seeing Casino Royale sometime but it'll be on bootleg DVD when I do!


----------



## ChrisFilter (Nov 28, 2006)

Saw it last night, thought it was fantastic 

Daniel Craig was excellent.


----------



## elevendayempire (Nov 28, 2006)

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/11/bond-james-boooooaaaghhh.html



SG


----------



## beeboo (Nov 28, 2006)

I really enjoyed this as a proper entertaining popcorn movie.

Spoiler-ish highlights for me included...

Gritty B&W first-kill flashback
Whole chase section with parkour (sp?) geezer - especially liked the way he relied on brut force and cunning 
Poker section (for proper bond-style glamour, and I felt it held the tension and wasn't boring as some have suggested)
Shower scene 
The car chase (I nearly screamed)
A few proper laugh-out-loud gags (like the one where he couldn't take his eyes off Vesper)

Worst bits
Romance bit just didn't ring true for me and lost the pace

I wasn't exactly sold on Craig beforehand but I was totally won over (probably by him in trunks, mrrmmm!  )


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Nov 30, 2006)

I thought ti was rubbish.

One LONG advert for sony erricsson.  Piss poor dialouge,  No character development and a loosley strung together plot.

yawn yawn 

would hav been better off watching QVC electricals for 3 hours.


----------



## foamy (Nov 30, 2006)

i loved it excellent credit sequence animation and the chasing over building sites was  

my friend sat next to me and gently wept when they trashed the aston martin. he only drove it for about 5 seconds 

tried to go see it 3 times, glad i persevered. well worth it.


----------



## Strawman (Dec 1, 2006)

really enjoyed it and I love the theme music.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Dec 1, 2006)

BlackSpecs said:
			
		

> Geek Alert !!!
> 
> Did you know that the chinese woman at the poker game is the same actress as in "You only live twice" at the beginning ?!



ah bond san

the bit where the Aston crashes holds the record for the most deliberate barrel rolls on camera  

I thought it was... good.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 1, 2006)

Thoroughly enjoyed it, altho found the end a bit anti-climactic.

The sequence with Sebastien in Africa was fucking amazing tho, genuinely excellent piece of physical drama.


----------



## Descartes (Dec 1, 2006)

SAomebody mentioned the Ford car.. well it was different: 

The 2007 Ford Mondeo sport model used in the beginning of the film is a special, one-off hand-built prototype vehicle, constructed by hand at Ford of Europe's Design Studio in Cologne, Germany, in January, 2006 and shipped to the Bahamas in secrecy for shooting. Actual production is not due to start until the second quarter of 2007.


----------



## elevendayempire (Dec 1, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> SAomebody mentioned the Ford car.. well it was different:
> 
> The 2007 Ford Mondeo sport model used in the beginning of the film is a special, one-off hand-built prototype vehicle, constructed by hand at Ford of Europe's Design Studio in Cologne, Germany, in January, 2006 and shipped to the Bahamas in secrecy for shooting. Actual production is not due to start until the second quarter of 2007.


It's still a fucking Mondeo.

SG


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 1, 2006)

And the Sierra Cosworth was 'still a fucking Sierra' wasn't it?


----------



## STFC (Dec 1, 2006)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> It's still a fucking Mondeo.
> 
> SG



He was supposed to be on holiday. Most hire cars are pretty boring, even if you're a secret agent.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Dec 2, 2006)

I loved it. First action film in a long time that i haven't sat there thinking "nah, that wouldn't happen like that" despite the temptation. Large deviations from the book but all in the right "style", a much, much darker, (imo) more human bond.

It did drag a bit for the love scene bits at the hospital, not sure how they could have trimmed it down without losing the plot.

I really did enjoy it, to the point where i'm thinking about going to see it again, first time i've even considered doing that.

*Bring me more!  *


----------



## Descartes (Dec 2, 2006)

OK a Ford is still a Ford but, GT40... mk ll, yep, a Ford.

The new range of Fords are quite impressive, the Fiesta JWRC is , well, still a Fiesta... 

There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Dec 2, 2006)

The product placement was excessive wasn't it. I don't think i'd have noticed it as much if i wasn't prewarned, as it was the "Sony Erricson" logo clearly visible at the top of the phone in one shot got on my tits a bit.


----------



## alsoknownas (Dec 4, 2006)

Just seen it.  Very much enjoyed it.  Very throwback.  Reboot aspect really confused me for a little while.  Casting spot-on (esp.  Bond and Vesper).

Highs:  
Title sequence (saw it at Rich Mix, and the animation seemed to blend in with the decor in screen 1).
Craig generally.
The violence having physical and emotional consequences.

Lows:
Last reel dragged somewhat.
Er... that's about it.

(Product placement didn't bother me.  All a little tongue in cheek, methinks).

  7


----------



## Descartes (Dec 5, 2006)

Tee hee, but the Film was made by a company owned by the Sony Corporation... you wouldn't expect them to advertise someone else's phone.. 

The cars were Ford, or Ford owned companies, Jaguar and Aston Martin. The Jaguar is now either a Mondeo or a Granada flloor pan anyway.


----------



## elevendayempire (Dec 5, 2006)

Descartes said:
			
		

> Tee hee, but the Film was made by a company owned by the Sony Corporation... you wouldn't expect them to advertise someone else's phone..
> 
> The cars were Ford, or Ford owned companies, Jaguar and Aston Martin. The Jaguar is now either a Mondeo or a Granada flloor pan anyway.


And Land Rover. I think that's Ford-owned. What's irritating about all the product placement is that it'd be _really_ cool for Bond to drive a Bentley as well (like the books), but they'll never allow it.  

SG


----------



## beeboo (Dec 5, 2006)

The title sequence was excellent, wasn't it?  

And good to have a proper, solid bond-esque theme tune as well (compare and contrast to that Madonna vocoder monstrosity)

After the really gritty opening scene, and then the fab titles, I was practically jumping up and down in my seat with excitement.

I would go and see it again, that is quite embarassing really


----------



## apie2004 (Dec 5, 2006)

The VW Audi group werent as heavily featured as Ford although there was plenty of A6s and a Bentley GT, surprised by the appearance of a rover p4 (i think). I didnt notice the sony erricson as much as i did with Ford and its empire


----------



## Descartes (Dec 5, 2006)

Ypou got to consider how much the product palcement generates for the film companies, the costof being allowed plus free use of the products...

A quick look around the square in front of the casino...jaguar pulls up just after Bond arrives 

The mass of jaguars and Range Rovers, even some oldies outside of the Ocean Club... even the Germans one..... LOL


----------



## Allan (Dec 10, 2006)

BlackSpecs said:
			
		

> Geek Alert !!!
> 
> Did you know that the chinese woman at the poker game is the same actress as in "You only live twice" at the beginning ?!



You Only Live Live Twice. That would be the one with the JAPANESE girl at the beginning seeing as it's set in Japan, would it?


----------



## sorearm (Dec 10, 2006)

Saw it last night...

overall - utter pish IMHO, 5/10 and that's generous

the opening scene was good, I did like the more brutal, thuggish Bond - as I think that's what fleming was aiming for.

good lack of gadgets

good casting of craggy-craig

however, the 'hate-you love-you' relationship between bond and the treasury lass was so trite it was unbelievable, her acting was appalling and totally unbelievable. The action scene in the collapsing venice building was laughable.

the gambling scenes went on a bit too long - in fact the whole film was pretty overlong and could have been cut by 1/2 hour at the least.

over-hyped nonsense!


----------



## BlackSpecs (Dec 10, 2006)

Allan said:
			
		

> You Only Live Live Twice. That would be the one with the JAPANESE girl at the beginning seeing as it's set in Japan, would it?



Hong Kong @ the beginning i think


----------



## AnMarie (Dec 10, 2006)

FabricLiveBaby! said:
			
		

> I thought ti was rubbish.
> 
> One LONG advert for sony erricsson.  Piss poor dialouge,  No character development and a loosley strung together plot.
> 
> ...



Gotta agree with you there...it an absolute waste of time IMO

Horrid film!


----------



## Allan (Dec 11, 2006)

BlackSpecs said:
			
		

> Hong Kong @ the beginning i think



Yes, you're right. It's been a while since I've seen it and I just looked up the actress's name on IMDB and it's a Chinese name, not a Japanese name.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 11, 2006)

JUST HEARD that in the new Bond film they have AXED THE BOND THEME! (and all minor themes)

Thats a step to far... I am boycotting New Bond! The music was always the best thing in it!


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 11, 2006)

You mean this one or the next? In this one they have and it's used well. At the end...


----------



## Reno (Dec 11, 2006)

Somebody's heard something somewhere therefore it must be right, so let's all overreact, start a petition, threaten a boycott and run around shrieking while tearing our hair out. 

Ah, the interweb, don't you just love it.


----------



## Poi E (Dec 11, 2006)

sorearm said:
			
		

> Saw it last night...
> 
> overall - utter pish IMHO, 5/10 and that's generous
> 
> ...



Yeah, agree.

Too much bloody mobile phone use, lack of fit birds (and what happened to titles mit der titties?), overlong and the villain wasn't all that tough (and some dodgy continuity with his scar near the beginning.) Just didn't have the escapist feel of other Bond films. 

Air bags didn't go off in the Aston either  No surprise there...

Daniel Craig will be alright though.


----------



## Dj TAB (Apr 4, 2007)

I thought Daniel Craig was good as bond, the script lacked any get-up-and-go so he had little to work with.

As an entire film I s'pose it was more watchable than the original with David Niven.

The collapsing building in Venice scene was a bit w*nk, and the overall plot very weak. There seemed to be little or no discernable ending - I was amazed when the closing credits rolled, I thought I'd missed something....

The positive I guess is they can only do better on the next one...


----------



## DUMBO.66 (Apr 4, 2007)

yeah, the next few should be great


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 30, 2007)

really didn't enjoy it. It got a bit better in the last 1/3 but I was actually bored for most of it, and the early part was just toss.

Is the section in Venice where he's chasing her in a red dress a deliberate Don't Look Now reference?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 30, 2007)

I don't remember him wearing a dress.


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 30, 2007)




----------



## zoltan (Oct 1, 2007)

is was OK

Opening sequence fantastic

Middle dragging on a bit - then again its hard to sex up a card game

End sequence  -  seemed utterly tacked on to give dumb viewers closure.

but overall - better that the shit we have been loaded up with for the past 20 years


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 1, 2007)

bollock torture scene makes DC unhappy


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 1, 2007)

zoltan69 said:
			
		

> is was OK
> 
> Opening sequence fantastic
> 
> ...




I found the middle bit around the card game - where there was actually some tension and Green and Craig actually got to do some acting - the most enjoyable. The beginning sequence was like a platform game based on free-running and the ending was bollocks.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 1, 2007)

I thought the card game was the boring bit - the sinking house thing was shit too.
Liked the building site bit and the bollock torture and the car crash and the prologue


----------



## wishface (Oct 1, 2007)

I didn't like it either. Give me old school Bond any day, not this drab fuckwit. He's an unthinking charmless oaf. The film wasn't much better.


----------



## London_Calling (Oct 1, 2007)

They’d obviously decided now was the time for a comprehensive re-definition of what the franchise is about, and they didn’t shy away; in that sense Casino Royale seemed seriously ambitious, not least as the ground that needed to be covered meant it was going to be long – perhaps very long for yer short attention span Bond core.

I thought they got away with that comfortably, and now the public’s expectations have been recalibrated. Fwiw, I tend to think of Casino Royale as a necessary intermediate step that will make the final evolution – whatever the next one is - pretty comfortable.

As a stand-alone film it's more okay than most Bonds, imo.


----------

