Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Merrick Thinks The CASINO ROYALE Script Is Quite A Gamble!!


...thought it might be fun to look through the screenplay of the forthcoming James Bond movie, CASINO ROYALE.

You know, the Bond film that reboots the whole damn franchise? The one that casts LAYER CAKE’s Daniel Craig as James Bond? You can CLICK HERE to find some behind-the-scenes footage from the movie.

Before reading this script, I wasn’t sure what to think about this project. I found the notion of a Bond reboot compelling, not entirely necessary – and potentially very dangerous. Beginning the franchise anew brings with it so much baggage, and so many expectations, the undertaking seemed both an inconceivable and thankless job.

Having read the script, I’m still not sure what to think. Many of its elements are quite successful, but they're not enough to overshadow what doesn't work. If I had to guess, I’d say “this reboot” was ill-advised. In the hands of an artist, perhaps it could work. But CASINO ROYALE is directed by Martin Campbell (GOLDENEYE, the ZORO movies), who I find a capable…but rarely inspired…filmmaker.

The script is surprising in many ways, but it was also disappointing. The James Bond character has been dramatically refined, yet some of the same issues plaguing the franchise (blah, uninteresting villains) persist. The action has been dialed down – brutal, hand-to-hand combat now preferred to gargantuan set pieces. The smartness of this decision hinges solely on how the picture is directed in terms of tone and subtext.

CASINO ROYALE is very immediate. It does not “feel” like a BOURNE movie, as some have feared. However, its intimate scope and emotionally driven plot certainly do evoke BOURNE sensibilities. This is a more twisty & turny kind of Bond…it’s sometimes hard to know who to trust and who to doubt, who to turn to and who to kill.

More on all of this below.

But, before we go on…





Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, DIE ANOTHER DAY, STONED), and Paul Haggis (CRASH).


A bad guy named Le Chiffre is, essentially, a banker for terrorism around the world. Bond thwarts a particular bomb plot, causing money problems for Le Chiffre, who launches an ultra-high-stakes card game to reclaim his lost fortune. Bond infiltrates the game in an effort to bring down Le Chiffre. It’s “gamble against terrorism!”


Yes – they’re starting over.

We meet a Bond who is nowhere near as experienced or refined as previous incarnations of the character. For example, we see this Bond actually earn his “Double 0” status – via two assassinations which go down in a pre-title sequence. One “0” for each person dropped = “00”. We even see Bond’s “007” ID being forged in the bowels of MI6 as part of the film’s opening titles.

This Bond isn’t used to killing…but it’s part of his job. There’s no glory in it for him, though – he’s haunted and even distracted by the ugliness of death. More on this element later.

Also, the universe he inhabits is much more…I hesitate to use the word…”realistic” than it was before; the story is grounded in a far less stylized world than previous Bonds.


M: When they analyzed the stock market after 9/11, the CIA discovered there had been massive shortings of airline stocks. When the stocks hit bottom on 9/12, someone made a fortune.

Or…when nearly everything is going wrong that can go wrong with Bond’s mission…

M: Christ I miss the Cold War.

GONE is nearly any visage of over the over-the-top action sequences we’ve come to expect from James Bond movies. There are a few large-scale set pieces, but they feel a tad derivative. They’re fine enough, but they’re oddly familiar.

An elaborate chase through (and around) a crowded airport has a DIE HARD sensibility. Bond chasing a bomber onto the scaffolding of a construction site evokes the Statue of Liberty sequence from REMO WILLIAMS: THE ADVENTURE BEGINS. Are these familiar because we’re conditioned to expect bombastic shenanigans from Bond movies…and anything less is jarring? Or, is the over-the-top nature of (many of the) previous films, in actuality, a critical component of this concept’s personality? Is Bond, simply, too closely associated with excess to divorce itself from it?

If this is the case, perhaps it’s “too soon” for CASINO ROYALE?


Prague. Pakistan. Uganda. London. Nassau. Miami. Alps. Montenegro (where the Casino Royale is located). Venice.


During Bond’s first kill, there is a shot looking OUT through the barrel of the gun held by his prey. Bond spins and shoots his victim…shooting “us”. The iconic “gun barrel”…Bond spinning to shoot at the camera…and the resultant flow of blood we know as the franchise’s graphical intro is now implied to be the James Bond’s first “0”…his first kill.

Monty Norman’s Bond theme music is referenced in the final moments of the script.

007 does introduce himself as “Bond, James Bond.” Once…unexpectedly.

Bond’s tuxedo. But he’s not used to Tuxedos; it’s a big moment for the character when he gets one. He likes the way he looks in it; sizes himself up proudly in the mirror…spinning back to check himself out again…to make sure he looks as good as he thinks he does. He seems almost…proud. There’s a “working class” quality to his reaction…someone who isn’t used to having nice things suddenly has something nice.


Its humanity. In many ways, this feels like a drama that is also a spy movie.

For better or for worse, this James Bond is a very human, extremely flawed, and utterly sympathetic character. There is no stoicism here, no square-jawed resolve. He’s lost, and alone. M is implied to be a mother figure for him, as well as a safe-haven - though neither is clearly stated. And Bond could use a little help, because CASINO ROYALE sends him through the ringer – physically and emotionally – over and over again.

This Bond is barely holding himself together. He seems like something of a cannonball…bouncing from adventure to adventure, place to place…as if looking for something bad to happen to him. One scene finds Bond marching towards a villain (and his henchmen) with a knife palmed from a dinner table; he’s going to take on three armed men at once with one shitty knife. The narrative describes how Bond knows this is suicide, but he’s doing it anyway.

Bond has enormous difficulty being close to anyone; he’s also a bit cynical. When trying to pick-up the hot wife of a man he’s observing, the woman indicates that her husband would be too upset if she went with Bond.

SOLANGE: I’m afraid I’m not that cruel.

BOND: Perhaps you’re just out of practice.

But, deep down inside, Bond truly, deeply wants to connect with someone. He simply has too many doubts, too much fear, is plagued by too much insecurity, and wears too much armor for this to happen. He systematically pursues attached (or married) women because he feels it’s cleaner…more base. VESPER LYND breaks through all of this – becomes someone for whom Bond is willing to leave behind the only world he’s ever known.

VESPER: You love me?

BOND: Enough to quit and float around the world with you, until one of us has to get an honest job. Think it will have to be you, I don’t think I know what an honest job is.

The final quarter of CASINO ROYALE is a love story. It’s a story of two people who are trying to leave an uncertain, violent reality they're simply unable to cope with any longer. They want to look for something new; they want to build something new.

CR’s emotional arc is about Bond learning that the greatest strength of all is not one’s ability to kill…and not keeping the people who care about us at bay. It's allowing ourselves to trust - and to love. Alas, it’s also about the potentially disastrous consequences of doing so. The plotline here is quite nihilistic…and almost cruel…in its treatment of Bond. It repeatedly condemns his bitterness and paranoia as weaknesses to be discarded, then turns around and reinforces (and even justifies) his misgivings in very painful ways. When we last see Bond, he’s more angst ridden, more bitter, and less trusting than ever before. And, again, he is very much alone.


CASINO ROYALE’s treatment of violence.

This is an extremely violent script, but the violence is neither glorified nor sanitized. A great deal of blood is specified; death is not pretty. Reference is made to disposing of the bodies…the carnage resulting from 007’s shenanigans is a plot point.

An effective sequence finds Vesper in the shower after a brutal fight in which she and James killed a bad guy. She has blood under her fingernails and can’t get them clean. In shock and disbelief, she just sits down in the shower, naked. Blankly…far away. Bond comes into the bathroom, notes her torment. He helps her wash the blood from her hands (he’d cleaned his own hands earlier), then holds her closely. Not sexually – just closely – together in the “warm rain.”

Death in this newly defined Bond world is a grim necessity and inescapable reality. It'll be quite interesting to see how it’s handled on-screen…in both execution and aftermath.

Also of note: A great deal of “nudity” is specified. Not gratuitous nudity, though. Bond is stripped naked for a torture scene involving testicles and a carpet beater, and there’s also “comfort” nudity – the kind of nudity shared when two people are in love (Bond and Vesper).


At one point, Vesper sizes-up James in a way he does not dispute. She tells him he’s an orphan, who didn’t come from money (which caused problems for him at school), who only succeeded via the charity of others…hence the chip on his shoulder. I don’t believe this has been conveyed in previous films…if I missed something, please accept my apologies and feel free to correct me in the Talkbacks below.


BAD GUYS are still stereotypically one dimensional. Like this one!

A great deal of effort was clearly expended on developing the 007 character into a personae (Producers? Writers? Studios?) felt would be more accessible to modern audiences. So, why not throw multi-faceted villains into the mix as well? Why not really craft CASINO ROYALE into something unusual? Give our newly defined Bond some nicely realized big bads to face?

But this doesn’t happen. There’s not a single moment of evilness, nastiness, cunning, deviousness, or wicked “bad guy” conversation that tells us these antagonists are any more challenging, any more special, any smarter, or any more unusual than the endless rabble of jerks we’ve seen in countless other Bond movies (or other cinema in general). Alan Rickman’s Hans Gruber (in the first DIE HARD movie) had a level of charisma and intellect that made him both compelling and daunting. Such a character would quite nicely with this new Bond…but no one even remotely similar can be found. This is new Bond –vs- super-clichéd, Euro-trash baddies, straight up.

BOND THE RENEGADE. Another shortcoming is the script’s over-reliance on a truly tired conceit: Bond as a semi-renegade who M is constantly irritated by, doesn't 100% trust, but tolerates in order to get “X” job done. We’ve seen this shtick before in Bond, and we’ve seen it elsewhere. This kind of notion is a one-off at best, and should not be hammered in again and again. The script writers are trying to make 007 stories more plausible…yet advancing such a tired gimmick stretches plausibility to the breaking point.

DIALOGUE. There are some wonderfully written dialogue sequences that would require a few pages to accurately recount. Some smart, sharp, witty writing between Bond and Vesper in particular. But we also have to suffer through rather desperate attempts at coolness and wit. Examples:

SOLANGE: Why can’t nice guys be more like you?

BOND: Then they’d be…bad.

Eeeeeewwww. There are also a few “bad guy” exchanges that Mike Meyers will likely embrace with giddy glee – they’re that clichéd.

LE CHIFFRE: Oh, but you are wrong! Because even after I have slaughtered you and the girl, your people will still welcome me with open arms!

This dude deserves to be shot on the merit of that line alone.


CASINO ROYALE is not the disaster some have feared. It is certainly uneven, and sometimes it’s uninspired. But it succeeds wildly in two unexpected areas: 1) This is an affective drama/love story, and 2) It successfully molds Bond into a new character, a new type of man – into someone I really liked. Although, I’m not sure this man should be called “James Bond”.

Which points to an interesting question: Who is James Bond to us? What does he mean? Will the masses embrace such a radical re-definition of an established cultural icon? Or, will they kick him to the curb – desiring someone tried and true? To me, “classic” Bond embodies the qualities we all wish we could possess. He’s cool, capable, confident, attractive, driven, smart, and fearless – but he’s not indomitable, not unbreakable, and not without compassion, gentility, and love.

If this is assessment is correct (which it may not be), will anyone out there want to be this new Bond? My hunch says, “No.” Why would we aspire to be insecure, uncertain, a little crazed, a lot frustrated, and quite lonely and sad? The new Bond is a great character, and may well work on the level of a John Carpenter anti-hero, but I’m guessing audiences’ heads will explode in spectacular, gooey unison when they realize how little of the Bond they know is recognizable in this new incarnation.

The “drama” in this story could work quite well if the film makers care enough, and are brave enough, to play it for all it’s worth. Real people (tired people) in a visceral world of deceit and ultra-violence, simply trying to find normality (and peace) could play quite nicely if performed honestly, and helmed bravely.

But this needs to go all the way…and needs to be strong…if it’s going to work. By “all the way”, I mean a hard R rating . Uncompromising. Unforgiving. Shock us. Put us into the world Bond and Vesper inhabit - the world they want to abandon. Make us want them to find something better.

Then…this might be very cool. Anything less could play as desperate, frustrating, awkward, half-assed, and even cheesy.

In the end, such mammoth changes were completely unnecessary – they aren’t required to bring a franchise a healthy shot of adrenaline or freshness. J.J. Abram’s MISSION: INPOSSIBLE III is a perfect example of this: The movie simply shifts M:I's focus to its characters, instead of starting from scratch. It gives emotional resonance to the action we’re watching – instead of settling for mere spectacle. These differences are often simple and subtle, but they are profound, and fall nicely in line with what this new Bond could have been.

We’ll see whether we end up shaken, stirred, or both, on November 17...

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 23, 2006, 11:58 a.m. CST

    Sounds good

    by bluebottle

    I'm excited by this. And if i don't like it, i can always go back and watch one of the millions of "old school" bond movies. Yes. There are millions of them. Go count.

  • April 23, 2006, 12:10 p.m. CST

    agreed, sounds good

    by robotdevil

    I mean, I agree with Merrick that it probably would be better if the bad guy was a better character, but all in all, I'm interested.

  • April 23, 2006, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Sounds like my kind of movie

    by The Pusher

    I was worried when I heard the words "reboot" and "series", but I think it's time we fixed Bond for the better. Hopefully the next Die Another Day will be 40 years off.

  • April 23, 2006, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Well done Merrick

    by butnugget

    I am very intrigued by the shift from the old (much loved because of nostalgic properties) Bond but there is also a clear need to shift from the screwing, killing, self-loving, patriarchal Bond of yore. Well done again Merrik

  • April 23, 2006, 12:16 p.m. CST

    hey, i didnt know donald rumsfeld wrote for AICN!

    by s0nicdeathmonkey

    The script is surprising in many ways

  • April 23, 2006, 12:22 p.m. CST


    by Joseph Merrick

    LOL! Crap, that was pretty bad. Poor editing on my part. Fixed. And...THANKS!

  • April 23, 2006, 12:24 p.m. CST


    by Joseph Merrick

    Thank you. Sincerely.

  • April 23, 2006, 12:28 p.m. CST

    doesn't sound to bad

    by movieman742

    I'll see it just because I see almost everything. From what I read it sounds like its promising.

  • April 23, 2006, 12:38 p.m. CST


    by c4andmore

    thanks for the well written piece, you addressed alot of the concerns I was feeling too. But we have to admit, the old bond was just crap, cliched crap. Nothing new was addressed in any of the films. They were all the same. I honestly can say I can't remember any of them ten minutes after the film ended. This series needed a reboot, badly

  • April 23, 2006, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Thanks, Merrick

    by tiredpm

    Nice script review. Now I'm kind of intrigued. Still hate the writers for their previous work, though -- between them and the producers, they caused the whole need for a reboot. Although I still think they should just have brought in a fresh crew and ignored what had gone before.

  • April 23, 2006, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Doesn't sound bad

    by moviemaniac-7

    But nothing special either. I hope the directing style goes back to the no-nonsense approach of Terence Young with From Russia With Love. Story and characters were most important in that movie and maybe because of that it's my favourite Bond movie. Sounds to me that they want to make it look like a Bourne movie too much. I, for one (and I might be in the minority), would like to see another Bond movie in the Cold War, old school Fleming/Le Carr

  • April 23, 2006, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Sounds good to me

    by MrBoinfoint

    The only good thing the last Bond movie did was make him seem fallible and mortal, at least for the first half hour, until indestructible superagent and Halle Berry took over and it turned into another mess. The villain is only as good as the actor portraying him. A shame that Daniel Craig would've made such a nice villain.

  • April 23, 2006, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Was this script attained legally?

    by Bean_

    Or does one only need to send a letter requesting the CASION ROYALE script?

  • April 23, 2006, 1:12 p.m. CST

    The Warning Sirens are Blaring Away Now!

    by Roborob

    I have heard a few rumours about Casino Royal and to be honest the more I hear The more That this is either the death of the series or a plot by S.P.E.C.T.E.R. a Love Story? The last time 007 tried that was O.H.M.S.S. with Lazemby, one of the worst stories in the series. If the producers wanted to make a different type of spy movie why not just start with a new character rather than ruin a classic Character. An Old saying comes in now; IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT!".

  • April 23, 2006, 1:22 p.m. CST


    by BannedOnTheRun

    I guess they stop adding "Ohs" to your agent number after the second kill?

  • April 23, 2006, 1:24 p.m. CST

    this sounds good imo....

    by misnomer

    but I really dont think the public are going to take to this movie. it's a dud. violence with consequences? are you mad-what man is going to fantasise about being this james bond?

  • April 23, 2006, 1:25 p.m. CST


    by kdoc13

    As someone who read the books first, and got into the movies later, I actually think O.H.M.S.S. is probably the most loyal of the books, followed closely by Dr. No. Personally, I thought the best reboot was Goldeneye. But they quickly strayed from that too.

  • April 23, 2006, 1:37 p.m. CST

    As someone who finds Bond a little bit crap...

    by ScarranHalfBreed

    ...I'm excited by this! This sounds pretty good. Some things suck, like the villians an' that, but I might even LIKE this new Bond. Sounds like they need to tweak the script a bit, though, and scrap some ideas altogether, but they're heading in the right direction to get ME in the cinema at least.

  • April 23, 2006, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Sounds like they're truer to the books

    by Giant Ape Balls

    I don't know whether thats going to make a great movie though. It could be too much of a change from what we know. Dalton would have been great in this

  • April 23, 2006, 1:43 p.m. CST


    by troutpencil

    That was a well-written review. I think the movie sounds awesome.

  • April 23, 2006, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Sounds like Fleming's bond...

    by frofropimp

    They didn't have much source material to work with as far as LeChiffre goes, unless they expanded his backstory and wasted a bunch of time. Bond being a bit renegade is a fairly frequent theme in the novels as well. He does a lot of stuff M wouldn't approve of but chooses not to report it, and disobeys MI6 orders on a hunch. It takes a few novels for M to really trust him. Bond is in fairly constant fear of getting lectured or reamed out by "cranky old M" in the novels. I wouldn't say he's a "rogue agent" but that's a theme in the novels that the movies have dropped. Just curious, is this the same revision of the script that Latino Review (Dec. 2005) reviewed or is this a newer script?

  • April 23, 2006, 1:46 p.m. CST

    Villains - *spoilers*

    by abcdefghijklmnop

    The biggest problem with the villains is that nothing is at stake. It's pointed out several times that if the bad guys get away, it doesn't really matter. Le Chiffre is just a guy who MI6 may or may not get some juicy gossip from. Why even give him the chance to win his money back, when they could just have Bond grab him from the hotel? The love story also isn't much different from what we've seen before, and is a lot weaker than the one in OHMSS. You could even argue that TWINE was the rough draft for it. (ie. Bond comforting Elektra after a near death experience.) Overall, this is a film lacking the hallmarks of a Bond film, but not much more.

  • April 23, 2006, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Giant Ape Balls

    by bluebottle

    I agree, if they had given Dalton this script when he was Bond, it would have been a perfect fit.

  • April 23, 2006, 1:49 p.m. CST


    by JD Lux


  • April 23, 2006, 1:56 p.m. CST

    The Cards?

    by Abhimanyu

    Merrick, How much poker is in the movie and how is it handled? Does it seem silly or pandering? Is it crucial or just something that shows up right at the begining and then go away for the rest of the movie?

  • April 23, 2006, 1:58 p.m. CST


    by Joseph Merrick

    You wrote: "The biggest problem with the villains is that nothing is at stake. It's pointed out several times that if the bad guys get away, it doesn't really matter. Le Chiffre is just a guy who MI6 may or may not get some juicy gossip from." ----- This is an excellent point. There is certainly a "so what" quality to the "mission". I perceived this as a byproduct of making the adventure more character driven, but there's no reason a more intense motivation/significance for the mission couldn't have supported the same characterization found here.

  • April 23, 2006, 1:59 p.m. CST


    by jackinitraw

    They've taken the obvious easy route and James Bond Jr'd the whole franchise. Balls with a sack to this shit.

  • April 23, 2006, 2:03 p.m. CST


    by Joseph Merrick

    There is quite a bit of card playing...on again/off again...throughout maybe 40% of the movie (depending on how this times out script-to-screen) . It is handled with great detail and taken very seriously. Much discussion about the machinations of card playing.

  • April 23, 2006, 2:14 p.m. CST

    I'll skip the movie....

    by moondoggy2u

    It looks like I, and most everyone of the same opinion, was right--its Jason Bourne! The only thing missing from this movie will be a Greengrass cam (ie, filming scenes so as to induce nausea and epileptic seizures). If you changed the name of the new bond character to Bourne, you would never even notice a difference. More and more, it looks as though the producers saw the money Bourne took in with a fraction of the budget and figured they would make far more money via lower production costs and the Bond sticker.

  • April 23, 2006, 2:15 p.m. CST

    Basically, they inserted Jason Bourne in a bond story

    by moondoggy2u

  • April 23, 2006, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Alarm Bells Are Ringing

    by peter skellen

    What is this,a James Bond film for people who don't like James Bond films? This isn't Bond.Merrick was spot-on when he said the best thing to do with a franchise that has gone a bit stale is pick someone to give it a shot in the arm like JJ with MI3.I can tell you now that Martin fucking Campbell is not that man.I wish people would stop saying this is Fleming's Bond.Fleming's Bond was tall,dark and mysterious not short,ugly and working-class.Bond was aspirational,someone who presented a vicarious quality,a certain lifestyle and attitude.Who on earth would want to be Daniel Craig? The stuff like showing the origin of the gun-barrel is mind-boggling.WTF? Maurice Binder invented that not fucking Barbara Broccoli.Bond tries on a tuxedo for the first time? WTF?!! As a public school boy and Royal Navy Officer surely to christ Bond has seen a tuxedo before.Does he spend the early part of the film in an old jumper with soup stains on it? A great James Bond film will only happen again when a cool director is entrusted with making one and left the fuck alone by Barbara Broccoli.Let's just hope that when that happens Purvis & Wade,David Arnold and Daniel Craig are history.

  • April 23, 2006, 2:23 p.m. CST


    by godoffireinhell

    An R-rated Bond flick? Hahahaha!!!

  • April 23, 2006, 2:25 p.m. CST

    A minor edit

    by Snuffles

    I think you mean "vestige" instead of "visage".

  • April 23, 2006, 2:26 p.m. CST

    With the Brocollis in charge

    by moondoggy2u

    Do you honestly think there is a chance in hell of an R-rated Bond flick? Oi...

  • April 23, 2006, 2:28 p.m. CST


    by EyeofPolyphemus

    It sounds like the creators regret the over the top villians that started with Goldfinger mixed with the comic book adventures of the roger Moore years. I have to agree that the last film and so many ridiculous elements (invisible car, Halle Beerry's "jive turkey" attitude, the DNA shenanigans as a plot point) that the franchise needed to be shot in the head even f that was the highest grossing Bond film ever. I like the idea of a more stylized Bond. perhaps we will get to see his progression from an inexperienced agent to the hardnosed stoic agent of past films in which he had a arrogance that allowed him to be cruel. Bond films rarely have had any character development like that.

  • April 23, 2006, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Where'd the artwork go?

    by soylentphil

    Too early?

  • April 23, 2006, 2:45 p.m. CST

    "Highest Grossing Bond Film Ever"

    by soylentphil

    Keep in mind movie tickets weren't $9 each in 1964...

  • April 23, 2006, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Merrick, watch 24 dude.

    by LordEnigma

    Since Jack Bauer is insecure, uncertain (about his existance due to this job, a little crazed, a lot frustrated, and quite lonely and sad. Yet, many, feel him to be one of the baddest ass characters ever to grace ANY screen. The entire relaunch of BOND has more to do with the UK's love of 24 as much as the staleness of the franchise with Pierce. Why else do you think they would cast a 5'10" rugged looking blonde guy as BOND? It all comes back to Jack Bauer. Watch Jack Bauer on 24 Merrick, before you doubt the new direction of an BAUER inspired Bond. Bond loses his girl. Jack lost everyone else except Kim. Johnny Drama and Cougars cant kill KIM!

  • April 23, 2006, 2:47 p.m. CST


    by Stone316

    Bond checks himself in his tux? Is troubled by the violence in is job? What the f@#%?? They made a wimpy (dare i say gay?) Bond. This smells like stinker, either they make a huge publicity saying that this is a new Bond that everything is going to change or they're gonna kill the franchise... im actually betting on the second option (although i hope im wrong). More violence?? Thats good cause Bond films should be violent (they havent been violent since the Connery and Dalton days... the rest was too PG for my taste... although Brosnan rules!). But lets face it no one wants to see a Bond who has lack of self-esteem. I mean, c'mon Bond is the epitomy of cool, suave,badass... he's everything the mortal average man isnt.... and now they're gonna change all that?? God im frightened... i actually fear for the sake of the franchise, because if this sucks then its all over more Bond (and Brosnan will be laughing his ass off) and no more Daniel Craig (and lets face it Craig is no Clooney...can any1 say Batman & Robin?). Well, at least i'll still have 40 years and 20 films of good memories. Later dudes.

  • April 23, 2006, 2:51 p.m. CST


    by Stone316

    Oh, and one more thing.... if this is a reboot those that mean we're gonna see a new Dr. No and FRWL or my favorite classic Bond YOLT? Cause if thats the plan they all i have to say is: GOOD FRICKING LUCK!!

  • April 23, 2006, 2:53 p.m. CST


    by butnugget

    It's broke dude. Its been broke for a while now. And Jack Bauer IS one of the baddest motherfuckers to grace any screen. - Every time you masturbate Jack Bauer kills a terrorist. Not because you masturbated, but because that is how often he kills terrorists.

  • April 23, 2006, 2:55 p.m. CST

    The "artwork" was really fan artwork

    by frofropimp

    From the SuperHero Hype message boards.

  • April 23, 2006, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Re: Greengrass Cam (**spoilers**)

    by abcdefghijklmnop

    According to last month's USA Today article, they will be using the same style of shaky camerawork during the chase scenes. What's more (**spoilers**), Bond's new cell phone costs around $1700. And for good reason. It's constantly in use throughout the film. I guess the writers really liked that trick Bourne pulled in Supremacy, because Bond is constantly using someone's cell phone to figure out what to do next. Lost a bad guy you're tailing? Hit redial and see if he answers. Don't know where to go next? Trace a phone call using M's computer. Curious what Vesper's really up to? See who she text messaged last. Need a way to give M more screentime? Have her call Bond on his cell. And the list goes on and on and on. Seriously, why would anyone want to see James Bond use some silly gadget, when it would be so much better to watch him flip through the menu screens of a dozen cell phones. Good thing Bond isn't going up against 006 in this one. One hit from Goldeneye and Bond would be completely clueless as to what his next move should be.

  • April 23, 2006, 2:57 p.m. CST


    by EyeofPolyphemus

    Fair enough. I don't know the ranking of Bond films adjusted for inflation.

  • April 23, 2006, 3 p.m. CST

    RE:a wimpy (dare i say gay?) Bond

    by butnugget

    Wow. Just Wow. I am amazed at the 80's mentality of 'if he's got feelin's he must be gay'. Dude, if your name dosen't refer to the WWF, then it should. That is the kind of dumbass statement that one of those cheep beer swillin, nascar race driven chicken-fuckers would say. Wow. What year is this again?

  • April 23, 2006, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Sorry, sounds like shit.

    by Uncle_Les

    Bond NEEDS to be over the top. MOONRAKER over the top.

  • April 23, 2006, 3:11 p.m. CST


    by moondoggy2u

    Are you serious? They are even applying the Greengrass cam to Bond?? Bwahahahahahaha!! And to think, there were certain idiots who said disputed the assertion that the producers were copying Jason Bourne. So, lets do the math: an uncharismatic, ugly actor to play Bond, unimaginative plot devices and characterizations, obvious Bourne derivation, and a ditching of the Bond theme (until the very end) to boot. I'm deffinitely passing on this flick!!

  • April 23, 2006, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Tarantino with Brosnan might have worked

    by indiephantom

    Anytime they try to "reboot" Bond (On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Licence to Kill) we end up with an interesting failure, and that's what I think this will be. Craig is the biggest WHO IS THAT? since Dalton, and he already lacks the "look" we expect from Bond. When you add in the lack of confidence, and this whole romantic angle you really are fucking with Bond and you're going to get bitten. Bond is a fantasy hero. The movie Bond is not the Fleming Bond. He's the cool, wisecracking, technologically adept ladies man who unseats a tyrannical mastermind. Sorry folks, but that's the only formula that is every going to work for this franchise. If you wanted to invigorate the need something audiences already feel comfortable with, and right now that would be--Pierce Brosnan as BOND in a film by Tarantino. The Q would have the smarts to bring back the feel of the earlier Connery films and still stage some beautiful stuff. He would have elevated the source novel instead of just borrowing some minor elements and his name would have brought an even wider audience to the film. People make the mistake of calling Q an auteur or an "indie" filmmaker. He is a commercial director with guts and flair. He has broad commercial appeal and he makes formalistic films as opposed to realist ones. He would have given Brosnan the juice to "reboot" the series without starting from scratch and seeing a wimp emerge from Bond academy. Seriously, this sounds like "Bond Begins". The way I see it, the producers had to the Band Apart version or continue with a formula that has always worked. Wasn't "Die Another Day" the most profitable film in the franchise?

  • April 23, 2006, 3:27 p.m. CST

    That sounds pretty awesome...

    by El Scorcho

    I just hope they don't trim down to PG-13 (which they will).

  • April 23, 2006, 3:28 p.m. CST

    could james bond take down jack bauer?

    by reckni

    The last four Bond movies sucked huge penis. Let's all hope for the R rated Bond we've always dreamed of.

  • April 23, 2006, 3:30 p.m. CST

    jack would win

    by reckni

    Tomorrow's episode of 24 looks great!

  • April 23, 2006, 3:43 p.m. CST

    I'm also worried about Campbell but...

    by Captain Katanga

    ...that sounded superb.

  • April 23, 2006, 4:06 p.m. CST

    not that I liked the idea, but...

    by omarthesnake

    this sounds like it would fit into that once-rumored "Continuity Fix" that established that James Bond was just a cover name used since the 1960s, which would have been a rationale to get Connery and Moore onscreen together. Just that the latest guy with the name is a little blonder and less suave. Because if they're talking 9/11, this can't be a prequel to the "Cold War Dinosaur" Bond.

  • April 23, 2006, 4:52 p.m. CST

    Sounds more like Bauer than Bond

    by performingmonkey

    The way they're writing Bond and the way they're treating death, it seems like they're taking a few pages out of 24's book. Also the Bourne series. Whether they can make this work and it still feel like Bond we'll have to see. But you can bet the farm that they'll tone down the violence and brutality to achieve a PG-13. It's still pissing me off a little that it's a reboot of the series but it feels half-assed. Daniel Craig is too old for a start. They NEEDED Bond to be around 30, if not a little younger, in this outing if we're to believe he's first starting out. And I'm not sure about them referencing 9/11 and placing Bond more in the real world.

  • April 23, 2006, 5:09 p.m. CST


    by Captain Katanga

    seriously, FORGET about continuity... it just doesnt exist in the Bond universe. The codename idea is a desperate aattempt to force continuity into a franchise that doesn't have it, or even need it.

  • April 23, 2006, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Dammit, we needa trailer NOW.

    by Saluki

    I tired, tired, TIRED of 'will Craig/Martin be up for the material?' being repeated in every talkback. Campbell is more than up for it, and Craig should be fine. They have a real shot at grounding this series while also being different from Baur/Bourne, both of whom would be nothing without Bond. The shower scene sounds intense as all fuck.

  • April 23, 2006, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Saluki... Amen to that

    by Captain Katanga

    well said

  • April 23, 2006, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Craig signed for multiple Bond films?

    by SantiagoAtez

    Ok, I'm just desperate for another Bond film...even if this next one is an experiment. My question: is Craig signed on for for future Bond films, or just this one for now? My reasoning: every Bond (except for Connery in Dr.No) had an underwhelming performance in their first film. For example, even though I liked Goldeneye, Bronson didn't have the confidence as he did in the next 3 films. I'd like to give Craig a chance, even if he's no a breakthrough in Casino Royal.

  • April 23, 2006, 5:47 p.m. CST

    I actually like the fan-made codename theory

    by SantiagoAtez

    Yeah, I know it's just a fan-made idea, but I actually think it's a good one...with "James Bond" as a cover name for the elite 00 agent of the time.

  • April 23, 2006, 6:23 p.m. CST


    by kuryakin

    Well that was certainly the premise of the earlier Casino Royale - that "James Bond" was an identity that an agent took on along with the 007 designation. Niven's Bond was pissed off at this new mad shagger getting all the glory and then getting killed, prompting him to come out of retirement. If they were going to do that though, I would have preferred to see "Charles" take over the reins. He's handsome, looks good in a duit, was pretty badass in the shitty VR section of the last Bond, and Resident Evil before he got sliced - would have been an interesting twist to have someone who knew and worked with a 'previous' Bond to take over. Still - I like Daniel Craig. I've seen him in a lot of great character roles and I'm actually surprised he took this on. He's a really good actor - why get stuck with Bond for the rest of your career? If you can, you should check him out in Love is the Devil, Endless Love, minor roles in The Jacket and Munich as well as a whole bunch of UK TV work. And as far as him being ugly goes - sorry lads but the ladies do seem to like the guy. What the fuck is up with you bitches anyway - you complain when silkyboys like Orlando Bloom get cast as action heroes saying there are no real men left these days - then when they cast a rugged , tough looking son of a bitch like Daniel Craig, you all go " Oh he's so ugly". basically what I want to say is that Daniel Craig is a great choice for Bond but that this film sounds like it will be a bad choice for Daniel Craig

  • April 23, 2006, 6:26 p.m. CST

    looks good in a suit

    by kuryakin

    I mean

  • April 23, 2006, 6:56 p.m. CST

    "Warm rain

    by JohnGalt2006

  • April 23, 2006, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Jonathan Glazer should have directed...

    by Christopher3

    I would have given him the franchise and creative control.

  • April 23, 2006, 7:27 p.m. CST

    I wish

    by Babyshamble

    some people would give Daniel Craig a fair chance. He's an excellent actor, he's great in Munich, Sylvia, The Mother and Layer Cake. Pierce Brosnan may have looked like a more conventional Bond yet he has a fairly limited range. He impressed me more in the Matador than in any of the Bond flicks. And as for Craig being ugly, did no one see the pictures of him in the shorts?

  • April 23, 2006, 8:18 p.m. CST

    Thank you for this review.

    by donkeypark

    This is the type of quality "cool news" I log on for! The approach to the card game sounds like Fleming's descriptive style. There is also an element of heartbreak and desperation in his writing that was apparent in OHMSS. Check 'em out if you haven't yet/easy to find for like $2 second hand and worth the search. I wasn't convinced but I'm stoked to see this realized on screen now! Great job Merrick!

  • April 23, 2006, 8:45 p.m. CST

    merrick is best addition to this site in ages

    by Exterminans

    I sincerely mean that.

  • April 23, 2006, 9:12 p.m. CST

    This Guy Is An Idiot

    by Rebeck

    I read this script too, and it's one of the best-written Bond films in ages. It's very clever and exciting. I don't know wht this asshole was expecting, but if he was a fan of the series in even the slightest way, he would be thrilled with what I read. Instead, he sounds like one of those guys who's never satisfied no matter which direction the producers go in. When you've been around as long and been as successful as the Bond series has been you have a big target on your back. Mark my words: this movie is going to be great.

  • April 23, 2006, 9:36 p.m. CST

    For A Take From An Actual Bond Fan

    by Rebeck

    And not some asshole snob who won't like the film no matter what, try this:

  • April 23, 2006, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Seems about right

    by KevOHMSS

    Seems about on the level with the novel. Bond in the novel is not the Bond we all know and love from the films. He's not perfect, he's actually quite flawed. This is the story that defines the man. He is troubled by violence on the job. He's prepared to kill, but he doesn't like to especially in cold blood. In Goldfinger Bond is practically haunted for killing someone in the line of duty (read chapter 1). I'm sure Bond 22 will take this and run with it. If CR is successful then this is what you can expect. If CR fails due to this reboot, then theres nothing really stopping them from going off and making another cookie-cutter James Bond film. Continuity is not an issue here - it's actually a joke in the films. I like the idea. Initially it was hard to swallow, but Bond has gotten so far beyond Fleming that it's ridiculous. Some are saying: "If ain't broke don't fix it," I would contend that it was broke - The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day were not good. I liked Brosnan, but after those two, it is time to start anew.

  • April 23, 2006, 9:40 p.m. CST

    better than expected?

    by Maniaq

    I'm with KDOC - OHMSS was the second best Bond film and it was the least "stylised". If George Lazenby could act it probably would have been even better than Dr No. These films, above all, were SMART - no amount of gimmickry can make up for that and it's the thing that 90% of Bond films lack. The lack of a proper villain will probably be the undoing of this film. If they don't fix that it will SURELY fail! I don't think the casting of Daniel Craig will hurt in the least bit. To me he's a return to Sean Connery's Bond. Connery wasn't Fleming's Bond - he was rugged (an ex-boxer who had to be taught how to move more gracefully) and BLOND and a whole bunch of things that were discarded when Roger Moore took the reigns. Anyhow, the big reason Craig was cast is because he rates very highly with gay audiences - and they have SERIOUS clout when it comes to disposable incomes. Gays think he's BEAUTIFUL (as do women, let's not forget) and that kind of appeal cannot hurt you at the box office. More to the point, the boy can act - let's not anybody try to pretend otherwise - and with better casting OHMSS would have SHIT ON any other Bond film and Moore would have never come on board in the first place and the franchise probably would not be in the kind of trouble it is now... Just one more thing, I think the choice of director is a good one. I for one loved Goldeneye and think it was the last good Bond flick. Obviously Campbell is up for the big set pieces (who can forget the tank chase sequence?) but is also sensitive to backstory and character development (Bean's 006 gave us some great exposition about Bond himself). Actually while I'm on the subject, doesn't it make sense that the name is just a code name, same as the number? After all, there can only ever be 9 "00" agents at any one time, which means that sometimes 001 is not necessarily gonna be your best agent (ditto 009). OK - JUST ONE MORE THING I PROMISE! Just how much do you guys think the Bournes and Bauers out there owe to the Bonds??

  • April 23, 2006, 9:54 p.m. CST

    anything is better than die another day

    by isildur29

    and on top of that bond bad guys have always been pretty cliche and bond has always had one liners so complaints about that are stupid i think it sounds good

  • April 23, 2006, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Thanks for stretching the talkback, DarthFloyd.

    by Osmosis Jones

    WHO is stupid enough to still do that?

  • April 23, 2006, 11:57 p.m. CST

    I know it's immature

    by misnomer

    but I cant help but snigger when someone does that. It's kinda like people who press every floor on an elevator, or fart at a funeral....

  • April 24, 2006, 2:15 a.m. CST

    So where's SPECTRE?

    by Uncapie

    It was in the book and the series.

  • April 24, 2006, 2:59 a.m. CST

    Bond making cuddles in the "warm rain"?

    by Laserbrain

    FUCK________ OFF_______! !!! Another vintage concept best left to memory now un-imagined out of existence by hack producers and writers. How woeful is it to see even the "gun barrell" intro justified and explained away. That's NOT imaginative- that's a fanboy dot-joining exercise. Why couldn't that just be left as a neat stylistic affectation? Because these halfwits in Hollywood confuse facile interpretation with innovation and thus totally fuck an Icon in the process. Oooh, he's a sensitive troubled Bond with issues and an ambivalence to wearing a tuxedo. Woah, and we are there at the beginning to see it. What a fucking *revelation*. Will we get to see him drink a *stirred* Vodka Martini and then make a face? Maybe it's the favourite drink of the girl he has cuddles with in the rain and he has since drunk VMs in loving tribute to her? That would awesome! Please do that. Don't leave any back story for us to imagine will you, you hack motherfuckers? We don't have imaginations, you're right, you better do it all for us. What's next, I suppose Bond will walk into a villains lair to find strippers dancing in front of film projections or swimming in giant lava lamps just so we can "get" Maurice Binder after all these years? This shit may as well be Young Bond with Orlando Bloom for all the *reverence* they've shown for the character. Eat it EON.

  • April 24, 2006, 3:34 a.m. CST

    So, James Bond, who has been frolicking in the 60s...

    by JackPumpkinhead

    ...actually began in the 2000s? Cool! Q invented a time machine! Maybe the dopes that are doing this can shoot a prequel to Zorro where we find Zorro driving a dune buggy through a Florida beach to the sounds of Limp Korn? Oh, by the way, M would not say a damn thing about "nine eleven", because that expression is only used in USA. Unless he was speaking of the hour.

  • April 24, 2006, 3:35 a.m. CST

    And M is a "MOTHER FIGURE" to him?!!

    by Laserbrain

    Oh, so "M" stands for "Mommmmmeeee". Isn't Daniel Craig 38 friggin years old? This must be Paul Haggis doing. Maybe Bond will hug a communist as well. I hope this one BOMBS harder than the Enola Gay. These fuckers have coasted for too long making a mess of 007. They need a wake up call.

  • April 24, 2006, 5:36 a.m. CST

    Hey butnugget

    by Stone316

    U like the shaft dont u?? i thought u did, since u obviously didnt come here to comment about the Bond franchise i can only assume that u're lonely and on the look out... im sorry dude, im flattered but thats just not my bag.

  • April 24, 2006, 8:26 a.m. CST

    Bond's balls

    by rollermonkey

    Do they get tortured with a carpet beater like in the book or what?

  • April 24, 2006, 8:43 a.m. CST

    You know what this sounds like?

    by HCEarwicker

    It sounds like JAMES BOND, the kind that Ian Fleming wrote, give or take a bit. It sounds very Flemingesque. I can't wait.

  • April 24, 2006, 9:20 a.m. CST

    'Working Class" Bond?!?!?

    by brycemonkey

    WTF?! So let me get this right, Bond hasn't worn a tux/plays poker/and feels bad about killing people. So if Haggis can make millions out of combining Lock Stock & Bourne why can't I? I'm surprised by the big support people are giving this. Bond has to be able to do and know things that *no-one* can, he should be arrogant. Because he is Bond. I'll give it a chance but I am pretty worried about this...

  • April 24, 2006, 10:57 a.m. CST

    There should be two Bonds...

    by cookylamoo

    Flemming's Bond with his own series of movies and Brocolli's Bond played by Pierce continuing the franchise.

  • April 24, 2006, 11:09 a.m. CST


    by harrys_site_sucks

    Um, have you never read the books. Much differnent than any of the movies. Sounds like they are taking the Bond Ian Flemming wrote about all those years ago. Sounds like a good direction to me. Bond was an asshole in the books. After that atrocious "Die another Day" i'm actually glad to hear of the this new directions.

  • April 24, 2006, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Re: TopHat **SPOILERS**

    by abcdefghijklmnop

    Warning, here be spoilers!****Ending Spoilers**** Yes, he says, "The bitch is dead." He says it while he's lounging on a yacht, talking on a cell phone with M, and staring at a laptop displaying pictures of him and Vesper- laughing and being two crazy kids. He gets all defensive and asks M, "Why should I need more time? The job is done. The bitch is dead." M even gives a little speech after he says it, trying to console him by pointing out that Vesper struck a deal to keep Bond alive. ("Perhaps she even hoped they would let her live, leave you two in peace.") It's just exactly like what Fleming had in mind when he wrote the line. Oh yeah, and Vesper is no longer a double agent. Instead, she's just a girl that was blackmailed into helping the bad guys. It seems they kidnapped her boyfriend (some Algerian guy she met while "on vacation"). As M says, MI6 should have "caught it." No shit.

  • April 24, 2006, 12:49 p.m. CST

    Then they ruined the ending.

    by cookylamoo

    "The Bitch Is Dead" is the end of Bond's rite of passage. It should be the absolute last line of the film. It's like "Murphy."

  • April 24, 2006, 1:03 p.m. CST

    I want this R-Rated Bond, but it'll get softened up.

    by alucardvsdracula

    It'll end up a PG-13 or cert 12 type movie, No way would these chicken shit fuckers want to cut their profit at the box office. They want as many people and as many product tie-in's as possible. Sorry an R-Rated Bond movie just ain't gonna happen.

  • April 24, 2006, 2:08 p.m. CST

    Not 2 Bonds... 12

    by CaptDanielRoe

    The effite, elite, Roger Moore Bond who can name the babes who stomped the chablis needs a life, he's awesome. (Guy Pearce) .......... . . . . . . The Connery, meaty, Scottish Bond bear who probably thinks a martini is a chick drink, but chooses it just so his aim will be steady, needs a life. (Gerard Butler) .......... . . . . . . The canonical Ian Fleming Bond needs, for once, to get onscreen. (Clive Owen) .......... . . . . . . The aging, surly, burly Connery Bond of Never Say Never Again needs at least one more go-round. (Sean Connery) .......... . . . . . . Etc.

  • April 24, 2006, 2:14 p.m. CST

    This review has me quite enthused...

    by Childe Roland

    ...about this movie, whereas before now I'd merely been slightly curious. It sounds like they've taken great pains to not only reboot the franchise and ground it in the "now," but they're using it as an excuse to break down the Bond we've all become so accustomed (and desensitized) to of late and rebuild him into something relevant, real and interesting. Is this the Bond we've all seen mugging for the camera and winking at the audience for thirty years? No. But -- if Merrick is right about where the story leaves him -- this is a Bond who could one day become the sort of sneering, smug and frighteningly charismatic thug that Connery was in his earliest outings (the best of the Bond bunch, IMHO). I like that we get to see the human reaction to killing from a younger, inexperienced Bond (with only two hits under his belt...makes me wonder if he'll be 00000000000000007 by the time the third film rolls around). And the idea that he's looking for love to fill some void in his life (due to his background as an orphan, no doubt) hints at a deep-seated fear of abandonment, desire to please a moither figure while simultaneously lashing out at her (the "rogue" element), all contributing to the insecurity and search for meaning Merrick hints at. What a wonderfully complex character to start with. Now give him what seems to be a love that can fill his that offers the promise of a life where he doesn't need to trade in distasteful violence for affirmation and approval (a dynamic which, no doubt, leads to the suicidal self loathing he exhibits) and then take her away from him. What are you left with? Connery's Bond. A man who believes he's already fallen so far from heaven that hell holds no fury for him. Not only will he kill now with great satisfaction (no doubt exacting retribution in his mind for the world and the life that took his love away every time he pulls the trigger on these evils who necessitate his service) but he will also be much more inclined to keep women at an emotional distance while still compulsively seeking temporary solace in their arms. It's really the perfect set up for him to become the iconic Bond -- essentially an inhuman monster -- that unempowered men dream of being while retaining that essential shred of sympathy for what he was and might yet be should he ver be compelled to seek redemption. So why clutter that up with an elaborate scheme or an equally complex main villain in the first outing? Spend this movie establishing the character. Give him an elaborate and complexly structured plot in the second outing. Then give him a villain worthy of what he's become (and, perhaps, the audience's sympathies) in a third film. WHether the film makers follow that formula (or this installment even does well enough to warrant a sequel), I'm in. I'm all in.

  • April 24, 2006, 2:18 p.m. CST

    hey merrick...

    by McLuvin

    do they address why he likes his martini's shaken, not stirred? i have heard in several places (and in a west wing episode no less) that it's because when you shake the vodka/vermouth with the ice, the ice chips, melts in the drink, and in a sense, softens it so it's not that strong. he does this on purpose so that he doesn't get too tipsy while on the job. does it make any mention of this at all in the film? oh and i think you're a great addition to this site.

  • April 24, 2006, 2:28 p.m. CST

    by BatMeister

    Why is this script surprising? It sounds like someone actually read a book *WOW* - bring it on - I've read all the bonds (Including the playboy trip to new your one) and all I can say is if you put Ian Flemmings words onscreen with the same love LOTR got it should blow your minds - Roll on Goldfinger 2.0 :)

  • April 24, 2006, 4:15 p.m. CST


    by peter skellen

    If you examine Craig's cv there is scant evidence for him being a great actor.Dull in Slyvia,dull in Archangel,terrible in Tomb Raider and still Voices.His South-African accent in Munich provided one of the comedy highlights of last year.I'm not saying the man can't act I'm just saying people are ludicrously overestimating his talent because only a blind man would say that he looks like any conception of James Bond.Stop saying this is Fleming's Bond.Fleming wanted to cast David Niven as Bond.His sketches of Bond looked posh and lean like a slightly more handsome Peter Cushing.This isn't Fleming's Bond or the film Bond.This is Barbara Broccoli's Bond and she can keep him.If this is Fleming's Bond why is the Casino in Montenegro? Why is there a Black Mask/Remo style fight on a crane? That's not in the book.There is no origin story for Bond and we really don't need one.As for people looking forward to a Martin Campbell film,if you are one of those people then God bless you...

  • April 24, 2006, 4:28 p.m. CST


    by CaptDanielRoe

    What a bunch of baloney. The amount of water added to a martini by ice chips won't save anyone the effects of the alcohol. Some martini enthusiasts don't like it shaken for fear it will "Bruise the gin," also BS. The reason Bond likes his martini shaken is because shaking and bruising sound tough and roguish. Guess he likes his booze like he likes his women and his cars.

  • April 24, 2006, 4:32 p.m. CST

    Again... oy.

    by epitone

    I don't know how this is possible. But I truly believe that all this crap is even more likely to make Ian Fleming turn over in his grave than a double-taking pigeon, immortal Voodoo master, and outer space laser battle combined. Why give him an origin story? WHY???? Post-Licence to Kill, MGM hasn't been able to lose money on a Bond movie no matter how hard they've tried. Do they really think that they need this?

  • April 24, 2006, 5:05 p.m. CST

    Just a thought on why an origin story...

    by Childe Roland

    ...perhaps because people weren't feeling a connection to the character? Perhaps because someone thought the Hollywood vision of the character had strayed too far from the character's literary roots? Perhaps for the same reason they felt a Batman origin movie was worth doing? Personally, I'm glad they rebooted the Batman franchise. If Casino can do for Bond what Begins did for Bats, I can't see it being a bad thing. And, for me, a movie is only as strong as the characters in it. He's the main character. I should give a shit about him. I haven't been able to do that with Bond since Moore took the role (came close with Dalton, though). If this script is accurate and well acted/directed, this movie could change that.

  • April 24, 2006, 5:24 p.m. CST

    RIP: James Bond

    by MondoGundark

    Bond died in the years after he was outperformed by movies like True Lies, and movies starring Chow Yun Fat, et al. Bond is no longer relevant.

  • April 24, 2006, 6:10 p.m. CST

    Bond's background...

    by patient37

    ...Bond's parents died in a skiing accident, if I recall correctly. He had a generous inheritence, and was quite used to money even before he enlisted in the Royal Navy, becoming a Commander. The entire point of Bond in the first place was to have him be a "Gentleman Spy", the sort of guy who has some social color, and can use that to get in places where normal agents couldn't. Not used to money and tuxes my dick.

  • April 24, 2006, 7 p.m. CST

    Im confused

    by aadoga7

    im sure many of you can explain my perplexities and im sorry if i missed an explanation of this specific topic, but how can this be a modern bond movie (save for the pre-title sequence) centering around a story that shapes the character of james bond into the cold-blooded killer of the cold war-themed movies? Honestly, how can they expect us to buy the possibility that james bond

  • April 24, 2006, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Frank Miller's Year One took place in the 80s

    by soylentphil

    Therefore, wtf was Batman doing running around in 1939? That makes no sense.

  • April 24, 2006, 7:46 p.m. CST

    The Villains are cheesy

    by flossygomez

    Christopher Lee as Scaramanga was the only one who was remotely interesting...except for that stupid dwarf servant bit. Even that was underwritten.

  • April 24, 2006, 10:31 p.m. CST

    Bond as Ian Flemming Bio

    by -=Shin=-

    I don't know if it was intentional, but a lot of the character aspects of this James Bond seem to be borrowed from the life of his creator, Ian Flemming. (Flemming mixed bits of himself and experiences as some kind of agent into his stories, so it fits.) Someone more informed than me could probably point out more specifics, but Flemming was a tortured man. There's stuff written about what he considered brainwashing that he went through. I remember thinking I read the killing really bothered him. His Bond stories featured a jaded, bitter character, probably most like Timothy Dalton's portrayal, but with some more sexuality. To me, this movie sounds pretty fun and a nice blend of the old novels, but not the archetypal Bond we all think of now.

  • April 24, 2006, 10:55 p.m. CST

    Bond Is Dead...................?

    by thot

    Indeed, is this James Bond at all? Where is the amusing, rakish, dangerous super-suave superspy we've come to enjoy these many decades? Gone in a blink of an eye via the likely debacle known as Casino Royale. Man,...someone save this franchise and hurry........

  • April 25, 2006, 2:32 a.m. CST

    Bond? Hmmm....

    by Colierrannd

    First off, I still think if you're gonna make the book into a movie, make the freakin' book! Screw this idea of poker just to satisfy a trend. Secondly James Bond does indeed come from money. Not only were his parents killed while skiing, his own skiing instructor was murdered by the man who owned "Octopussy" (read the short story). How many poor folk have a skiing instructor all to themselves? All this said, in the books Fleming's Bond is not thrilled with killing but does so on a regular basis and isn't so much tortured about it as opposed to regretting it. The only time I remember reading him really struggling with it was in the short story "The Living Daylights".I do believe I'm gonna wait 'til DVD for this one. I still see nothing wrong with a period Bond film.

  • April 25, 2006, 3:43 a.m. CST

    Okay, so

    by deanamatronix

    Bauer has seen his wife, best friend, and two friends who helped him stage his own death die. He killed his treacherous ex-fling. He's seen his daughter placed in more jeapordy than a chicken in Etheopia. And he kills his way to the truth every time. Nobody, NOBODY is badder-ass than Jack Bauer.

  • April 25, 2006, 10:22 a.m. CST

    For aadoga7: You know this is a reboot, right?

    by Childe Roland

    Starting the franchise over from jump, as it were. When I explained earlier how this script seems to set the stage for the character to become the kind of Bond we remember from the COnnery era, I wasn't suggesting this was a prequel to those films (I don't believe even Q had mastered time travel by the end of the last Bond film). There won't be any continuity with the Connery films, but they sure could have the character echo Connery's portrayal in future installments with an added layer of depth and complexity thanks to the development that happens in this script. That's all assuming Craig's up tot hte role and the director is up to the challenge, however.

  • April 25, 2006, 3:23 p.m. CST

    Great Work

    by Fireball XL-5

    That was the most interesting, thoughtful piece I've read in a while. Kudos, dude.

  • April 25, 2006, 3:37 p.m. CST

    the script means nothing

    by thetwat

    if you read the draft script for blade runner, you'd think it was a mess.

  • April 25, 2006, 6:13 p.m. CST

    "Fleming's Bond"

    by kuryakin

    I keep hearing about "Fleming's Bond" - Ian Fleming said if they filmed his novels, he imagined Bond being played by Noel Coward. Imagine how well that would have fucking turned out. And Daniel Craig is a very good actor - he was very good in a BBC show from a few years back called Our Friends in the North (one of these shows the BBC throws a shitload of money at every now and then) as well as in films like Enduring Love and Love is the Devil. Although he unexpectedly gets his cock out in that last one which gave me a bit of a fright. For people bitching about his acting - maybe that's because you've only seen him in Tomb Raider. It's your own fucking fault for watching shitty films then

  • April 25, 2006, 6:45 p.m. CST


    by football

    The script is the template and it sounds, at long last, we've got an interesting one. It's what happens in the direction/acting and post-production that counts. I just hope they don't use too much hand-held and at least let us see him fighting. I also hope they bring John Barry out of retirement to score this picture... it'll need something better than D Arnold's efforts. All in all, I still have high hopes for this Bond outing, but I'd also like them to release an Unrated version for once on dvd as I can't see what harm it'd do. Still, well done Merrick but i prefered what Rebeck had to say about the script!!!

  • April 25, 2006, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Noel Coward

    by KevOHMSS

    To kuryakin: Coward wasn't a choice for Bond. He was the choice for Dr. No. David Niven was Fleming's choice for Bond and he eventually got to play the role in 1967, although yeah.. it was a spoof. Just FYI.

  • April 26, 2006, 2:38 a.m. CST

    Previous evidence of "human" Bond...

    by dude_gimme_tabs

    You never know how far they are going to go. Evidence.... Dalton in TLD was going to be the new, more human Bond closer to the novels and he still found time to parachute out the back of a jeep onto a yacht containing a bikini clad beauty, and took a tricked up Aston for a spin round a frozen lake before crossing into Austria riding a cello case. Then there was LTK, a harder, more dangerous Bond out for revenge.... who was to be found barefoot water skiing behind a sea plane and pulling wheelies in trucks. GoldenEye, Bond with a personal stake and the target is London, but tank chases round Russian streets, laser watches and radio antenna's hidden under lakes still find a way in.... along with Boris' invincibility. And remember how vulnerable Bond was going to be in TWINE, when in actuality all he had a gipped shoulder and happened to shag a girl who turned out to be evil (hey, we've all done it !). And still found time to comment on Christmas' frequency ! Oh yeah, and not forgetting DAD which promised us a completely new direction, and then after the first 55 minutes made me think I was actually watching Moonraker on acid. And the script can read completely differently to how Craig, Dench etc. may actually play these scenes. I will wait to see this in the theatres before I decide. But I think it'll still be "Bond" at heart.

  • April 27, 2006, 6:12 a.m. CST

    they rebooted Jack Ryan...

    by Maniaq

    Hey you know I kinda like the idea of a period Bond film! D'ya think it's too late? Everybody knew when Sony wrestled the right to do Bond films away from MGM those silly Americans were going to kill the franchise. So do a "reboot" thing to it - it's very trendy these days - like poker... At least they're not letting "the people who brought you Independence Day" anywhere near it ....right? Oh and if you have any worries about Daniel Craig's acting, do yourself a favour, watch yourself a little film by the name of "Layer Cake"

  • March 17, 2007, 10:10 a.m. CST

    james bond

    by litlebritain

    u sed in the bit abour james bond being an orphan that there are no other references to this in other films. You are perfectly right although in the young bond book series by charlie higson they talk about james bond being an orphan at eton although his aunt that he stays with isnt rich and powerfull she is just an anthropologist( the young bond books are set in the 1930's)