Cool News
Toke Visits CASINO ROYALE!!
Merrick here...
Yeah…here we go.
Here come the reviews.
I won’t bore you with an endless preamble framing or contextualizing a film that…at this point…needs neither framing or contextualizing.
Here’s the review – probably one of many we’re likely to receive for this film. It’s by Toke, and we appreciate him taking the time to send it in. The short & sweet: “good but not great.”
VERY LIGHT SPOILERS!!
Probably nothing you don't already know!!
Managed to score some tickets for a preview screening of Casino Royale tonight at the Odeon on Leicester Square, London. Never been to one of these things before, security was as tight as it's been on our planes lately with full metal detector scans (for cameras) and everyone having their mobile phones bagged up and given back after the showing. When are these studios going to realise that it's not cam-job pirate DVDs that are lowering cinema attendance but a severe lack of decent flicks this year? Anyway, I digress...
Film opens with the black & white scene that features in the trailer, but sets up the mood for the rest of the film nicely. It's no secret that this is a very different kind of Bond flick, but only now can I see how different it is. There's no super-threat to the world that only Bond can save us from, just a lot of terrorist-money on the line. Le Chiffre is certainly a Bond villain, but Mads Mikkelson plays the part with a surprising amount of vulnerability; He's probably the most 'human' Bond villain in the series yet. Whether you prefer this kind of portrayal will depend on your personal taste...myself, I found him believable but yet no way near as imposing as previous bad guys.
Of course, whether Casino Royale can truly be considered part of the same canon as the Bond films that preceded it is debatable. Daniel Craig's James Bond shares very little in common with Brosnan's, Connery's or Moore's. But yet he fleshes the role out well, making you believe that this is Bond 1.0 - rough, reckless, emotional and unpredictable. By the time you're half-way through the film, you accept Craig in the role, even though you might not be convinced you're watching a Bond film. Credit to him though, he brings a certain physicality to the role (especially in the fight scenes) that we've not seen before. Craig's Bond acts with his fists, rather than fancy gadgets, which are surprisingly thin on the ground.
Casino Royale is fairly light on action too, with the film bookended by a fantastic one-on-one chase with a surprise ending and a great finale in Venice. There's a couple of shorter action sequences in-between (including a half-decent scene at an airport), but Casino Royale seems more concerned with characters and dialogue rather than huge big-budget action-packed set pieces. Again, whether you prefer this approach will be a case of personal opinion...given that the entire middle third in the film focusses on the poker game at the Casino Royale, you might find yourself wanting a few more explosions and a higher body count.
But you can see what the Bond team were trying for. They've wanted to dig a little deeper into the character of James Bond - The Man, rather than James Bond - The Invincible Secret Agent. Whereas half the fun of the franchise was to watch Bond handle most situations with relative ease and experience, Craig's Bond seems a little out-of-his-league at times which gives the film a new sense of tension and danger. Specific incidents in this film resonate with the audience because you know how they may have/definitely contributed to forming the character of Bond much further down the line.
Performances are strong throughout. Craig certainly doesn't look the part but once you're into the story, you can see why that was the whole idea....if he looked like his predecessors, it would have made the film a lot harder to swallow. Judi Dench as M is as good as ever, but I wasn't as hooked on Eva Green as previous Bond-girls...she's certainly easy on the eye enough, but her self-confidence comes off more irritating than seductive. Once again, I think that was the whole idea.
Other highlights include some amazing stunt-work, especially in the opening half hour, with some excellent one-liners delivered throughout from all characters. The torture scene is horrible and yet hilarious in equal measure, you have to see it to understand. The opening graphic sequence is classic Bond. The direction is good from start to finish, you can see that Martin Campbell has treated Casino Royale with a far more delicate hand than some of the previous directors. It's not arty, but it's not an assault on the senses either.
I found Casino Royale to be good but not great. It's a good reset point for the franchise and on that note it's an excellent re-introduction to the Bond universe. And yet, the film never aspires to reach the level of greatness of its history...in simple terms, it's better than Die Another Day, but nowhere near as good as Goldeneye and it is far outside the realms of any film from the Connery era. It'll attract new fans and put off old ones in equal measure, but it's definitely worth a look. Just try to take Casino Royale on its own merits and you'll find a good old-fashioned spy flick executed slickly but with a knowing glint in its eye.
Oh, and the scene at the airport, in front of the metal detectors - See if you can spot who has the tiniest cameo appearance ever.
If you use this, call me Toke.
Probably nothing you don't already know!!
Managed to score some tickets for a preview screening of Casino Royale tonight at the Odeon on Leicester Square, London. Never been to one of these things before, security was as tight as it's been on our planes lately with full metal detector scans (for cameras) and everyone having their mobile phones bagged up and given back after the showing. When are these studios going to realise that it's not cam-job pirate DVDs that are lowering cinema attendance but a severe lack of decent flicks this year? Anyway, I digress...
Film opens with the black & white scene that features in the trailer, but sets up the mood for the rest of the film nicely. It's no secret that this is a very different kind of Bond flick, but only now can I see how different it is. There's no super-threat to the world that only Bond can save us from, just a lot of terrorist-money on the line. Le Chiffre is certainly a Bond villain, but Mads Mikkelson plays the part with a surprising amount of vulnerability; He's probably the most 'human' Bond villain in the series yet. Whether you prefer this kind of portrayal will depend on your personal taste...myself, I found him believable but yet no way near as imposing as previous bad guys.
Of course, whether Casino Royale can truly be considered part of the same canon as the Bond films that preceded it is debatable. Daniel Craig's James Bond shares very little in common with Brosnan's, Connery's or Moore's. But yet he fleshes the role out well, making you believe that this is Bond 1.0 - rough, reckless, emotional and unpredictable. By the time you're half-way through the film, you accept Craig in the role, even though you might not be convinced you're watching a Bond film. Credit to him though, he brings a certain physicality to the role (especially in the fight scenes) that we've not seen before. Craig's Bond acts with his fists, rather than fancy gadgets, which are surprisingly thin on the ground.
Casino Royale is fairly light on action too, with the film bookended by a fantastic one-on-one chase with a surprise ending and a great finale in Venice. There's a couple of shorter action sequences in-between (including a half-decent scene at an airport), but Casino Royale seems more concerned with characters and dialogue rather than huge big-budget action-packed set pieces. Again, whether you prefer this approach will be a case of personal opinion...given that the entire middle third in the film focusses on the poker game at the Casino Royale, you might find yourself wanting a few more explosions and a higher body count.
But you can see what the Bond team were trying for. They've wanted to dig a little deeper into the character of James Bond - The Man, rather than James Bond - The Invincible Secret Agent. Whereas half the fun of the franchise was to watch Bond handle most situations with relative ease and experience, Craig's Bond seems a little out-of-his-league at times which gives the film a new sense of tension and danger. Specific incidents in this film resonate with the audience because you know how they may have/definitely contributed to forming the character of Bond much further down the line.
Performances are strong throughout. Craig certainly doesn't look the part but once you're into the story, you can see why that was the whole idea....if he looked like his predecessors, it would have made the film a lot harder to swallow. Judi Dench as M is as good as ever, but I wasn't as hooked on Eva Green as previous Bond-girls...she's certainly easy on the eye enough, but her self-confidence comes off more irritating than seductive. Once again, I think that was the whole idea.
Other highlights include some amazing stunt-work, especially in the opening half hour, with some excellent one-liners delivered throughout from all characters. The torture scene is horrible and yet hilarious in equal measure, you have to see it to understand. The opening graphic sequence is classic Bond. The direction is good from start to finish, you can see that Martin Campbell has treated Casino Royale with a far more delicate hand than some of the previous directors. It's not arty, but it's not an assault on the senses either.
I found Casino Royale to be good but not great. It's a good reset point for the franchise and on that note it's an excellent re-introduction to the Bond universe. And yet, the film never aspires to reach the level of greatness of its history...in simple terms, it's better than Die Another Day, but nowhere near as good as Goldeneye and it is far outside the realms of any film from the Connery era. It'll attract new fans and put off old ones in equal measure, but it's definitely worth a look. Just try to take Casino Royale on its own merits and you'll find a good old-fashioned spy flick executed slickly but with a knowing glint in its eye.
Oh, and the scene at the airport, in front of the metal detectors - See if you can spot who has the tiniest cameo appearance ever.
If you use this, call me Toke.
-
+ Expand All
-
Haven't seen too many of the recent James Bond flicks, but I'm keen on this one.
-
...has made the rounds this year, also having been saved by Supes!
-
I bet I have more chissled pecs and a bigger winkie than bond. FACT!
-
He gets his lovin' on the run...
-
If it was great I'd be able to forgive them firing Brosnan but there's nothing about this film that looks promising. It sucks because I've been a Bond fan all my life. Oh and the Sean Connery films weren't all great. Some of them were pretty cheesy, especially Diamond are Forever.
-
Thats all I have to say.
-
Why do Bondenthusiats care what Bond looks like. Craig isn't overtly handsome, but he isn't ugly. He isn't the problem. He's never been. To completely rejuvenaet the franchise you need a complete overhaul and I think Daniel Craig (fantastic in Munich) is the least of the ongoing sagas worries if they continue to hire pedestrian directors. Try someone slightly edgy. Controversy obviously isn't an issue since you've chosen Daniel Craig (good choice) but why hire a director who'd be more comfortable on the small screen. Tomorrow I will most probably be trimming the hairs on my ballbag. Maybe Martin Campbell could pop round and do an egy documentary. I could should shave real close to the sack to add 'edge', then I could go on to my chest and back. Hell he could document me shaving my body for a whole 28 months so long as it ditracts him from showing any further interest in directing another Bond Movie. Hack.
-
...at the airport.
-
not the one about shaving his body hairs. I think more franchises would be reinvigorated with celebrity directors. Have Spielberg make a Bond film or Tarantino write/direct a Star Trek movie. With that being said, I always liked the idea of Bond better than most of the films.
-
sounds like a wishlist for me. Bad guy not intent ontaking over the world? Wonderful! No Q with his fantasy gadgets? Incredible! De-emphasis on explosions? More than I could ever ask for! I feel bad for the Octopussy and Moonraker fans, but you guys have had your paper thin clown Bond long enough. It's our turn for a bit. (Though I wish they weren't playing Texas hold 'em. Sounds like he'd be wearing a T-shirt and sunglasses with the holographic eyeballs on the lenses)
-
Fleming's James Bond was not supposed to be a smirky, campy joke. The Roger Moore clown trading bad puns with Dr. Evil has run it's course. Let's get down to the real deal. Dalton came closest, but this seems even better.
-
at the airport.
-
When I read the reviewer say no where near as good as "Goldeneye" alarm bells went up. That film was OK but really just in the mold of every other half decent spy film we'd seen incl Bond. No offence to the reviewer though. And Craig does look the part - he doesn’t look the part of the stereotyped Connery rip off we've been lead to believe is the true representation. This is the real deal its good to see after 40 years we've got an actor who refuses to compromise his talents and look as an actor to be a card board cut out
-
"The plane, the plane..." He did say a tiny cameo appearance at the airport, correct?
-
Moore is my second favorite Bond behind Connery and i'll tell you why. Here's how i look at the spsetrum of the different type of Bond actor we've had so far from one end of the spectrum to the other:
Light----Both----Serious.
Roger Moore is the only only one to have played it with a lighter take on it. Meanwhile Dalton is the only one to have done it serious, closest to the novel Bond like so many have said. Meanwhile we have the people who are a mix of both, a balance, just like everything in existence always works best in balance. Connery, Lazenby, and Brosnan were lighthearted and serious. A balance is always best. I digress a little into this part and say that Brosnan didn't feel intimidating to me and was overly smug-confident in what he was doing, there was no sense of belief in his vulnerability. Lazenby wasn't really an actor but pulled it off adequately. Connery is the only one who 'nailed' it for me on what the onscreen Bond should be.
Now onto the two polar ends. However Fleming wrote the novel Bond, serious, cold, works great in his written form, in the novels. However cinema is a totally different medium -- where the novel Bond would just not have survived into what is now the most successful film franchise ever. No one wants to see a stiffas Brit onscreen. I'd rather watch a more enjoyable light-hearted approach as opposed to seriousness any day.
This isn't just my opinion, why the very master himself Terence Young knew this and he and Connery infused the movies with a humor and the post-kill quips and other light material which made it significantly more enjoyable and humanistic to watch. Of course i prefer the balance of Connery, but if i were to pick between light-hearted and serious, i'd go with light-hearted. Moore had great amounts of charm and is just plain more enjoyable for me to watch than Dalton's or Brosnan's movies. And Moore could be just as brutal as the rest of them but believable too, in TMWTGG my favorite Moore Bond, there's a lethality and perfect blend between Fleming seriousness and Moore's naturalistic approach which i've covered in a thread on this already when he shows his "dark side" with hitting the woman, saying how'd he liked to kill Scaramange to his face, almost morphing into the bad guy it seems. He still had the brutality in TSWLM when killing Sandor. Lazenby would be my third favorite solely because Moore had 7 over his 1 so we just get overwhelming more material from Moore.
All the other Bonds brought something to the table, even Lazenby. Brosnan, meanwhile brought nothing interesting. Just a nancy boy action star. After having his movies age a little bit i can see them with clearer eyes. Felt too smug and sure of himself, there being no real sense of his vulnerability, not intimidating enough and just didn't have the 'presence', feeling more like a pretty face action star. GoldenEye was a Dalton movie, so the other three were tailored for him and he just didn't do it for me, sans the water-thin plots.
I guess Lazenby got lucky since he got one movie yet it happens to be one of the most important and emotional stories of the bunch so he already had to try his best to go on all cylinders, yet he pulled if off, the end of OHMSS is a really great powerful example. And he had charm as shown in Piz Gloria, the movie really brought out a lot out of him to do well. The overreacted notion that he's "wooden" just spreads like wildfire with the people who say that don't really know why they're saying it just to justify their hollow opinion. My favorite to least 1.Connery 2.Moore 3.Lazenby 4.Dalton 5.Brosnan. I hope that Craig will be better than Brosnan when we get more of his movies but i'll wait and see.
-
...Hoagie Carmichael? Here's a pic for all of you: http://tinyurl.com/yb5cwj. I seem to remember that's what Ian Fleming intended. I don't like Craig as Bond (look only, if he acts the part I'll get over it -- isn't that why you hire actors?) but the moron who had a go at the Connery films above should be fucking flogged -- born in 1984 were we? Because that's the only reason you would dismiss Goldfinger, you wanker.
-
...because it's a disservice to everyone else that worked on the films. If you just saw A View to a Kill and Goldfinger would you think Moore the best Bond? Hell, no. However, Live and Let Die is fantastic and beats the crap out of the abortion that is Never Say Never Again -- if anyone brings up canon, a pox on them, by the way... Bond is defined by the script, director and the era. The literary Bond is a cunt, no apologies for it. You can't do that on film. You used to be able to be a misogynist and be sexist. You used to be able to shag any skirt you felt like. You used to be able to smoke. You used to be able to gun down dozens of anonymous grunts. That's all gone. Bond is a reflection of the times because he HAS to be these days until someone with some balls puts him back in the Cold War, which is where he fucking belongs. And to all those who think he would be too offensive? Explain to me how Connery STILL ranks as a sex symbol -- his image is tied to Bond and his Bond was a philandering, woman-slapping, violent, smoking, drinking bastard. And he was fucking glorious. Moore was a slut, and bless him for it. Dalton was a killer (thanks, Arnie and Sly!) and did it well. Brosnan was a Bond who had become self-aware. Craig might be the Bond we secretly want to be out there solving the difficult problems we don't like talking about. I try and enjoy the films -- if they are crap (Never Say Never Again, A View to a Kill, License to Kill, The World is not Enough, Die Another Day) then I'll slam them. If they fit their period and don't hamstring the Bond they have put forward, I'll go along with it. So while I don't like Craig based on his look, if he fits what I'm expecting and ACTS as Bond for this era, I'll buy it.
-
Not you, my friend. Scroll up to CTU Mole, the 5th poster. HE'S the wanker. :-)
-
Can someone tell me what was so wrong with this film? I don't get the hate for it. I thought it had a great intro for a new Bond; set up a new dynamic for Bond and M beautifully; nodded at the Cold War era while bringing in the 90s; had good actors in roles they could chew on; had a great centerpiece (the tank chase is as fun as anything in the Moore films) and surrounded it with some solid 90s action movie moments; and was overall a solid addition to the Bond legacy. I know many people hated the music, but I loved it -- Eric Serra can do little wrong after that and Leon, as far as I'm concerned. I HATE the beach scene between Bond and Natlaya (the crotch shot is good, though...) but the film holds up for me. Why the hate. Answers on a SASE postcard to...
-
YackBacker, you made me realize something. Dalton's Bond is consistent -- the movies he was in are not. The Bond created by Fleming would have killed everyone who went after Felix. Connery's Bond would have killed everyone who went after Felix. Moore's Bond would have gone after everyone who went after Felix's wife :-) Brosnan's Bond would have seen a therapist for 6 months and then made ironic comments. But Dalton angled his portrayal after Fleming's vision -- a cold, nasty, angry yet passionless killer. Someone just threw Wayne Newton into his story and fucked it up from there. :-)
-
I was enjoying the Bond debate and then we get a 4th grade post and an ad. Yeesh.
-
Damn you Michael Bay
-
This review is TOO POSITIVE :)
-
Is not a Bond movie. Say what you will about the others, but "Never Say Never Again" can't be entered into it.
-
This is a vast improvement on the Bond canon. Craig is both ruthless and believable in equal measure. Brosnan will look lightweight compared to this take on 007. Craig is a sensation and is more Connery than any of the others have been. My only dissapointment was the music and lack of Bond theme, which is only used at the end credits. Even Brozzy had the theme to remind us that he was Bond throughout, but poor DC only gets it at the end!! Maybe this is the one major reason that your reviewer felt it wasn't quite the Bond film he needed to remind himself it was. I dunno. Maybe he's also a dork!!
-
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14936-2437429,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/04/nbond04.xml
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=gritty-bond-renews-his-licence-to-thrill-&method=full&objectid=18043534&siteid=94762-name_page.html
The British papers are raving so far. -
The reviewers comment being light on action is laughable. Sure the film slows to draw breath and let us in on the plot points. Even in this so-called lull we have the superb machette fight on the stairs and Bond being poisoned by Le Chiffre at the gaming table. It's here that he staggers out of the casino to his Aston for one of the few gadgets used in the movie. I won't ruin it for you, but it's another great momment in CR. Make no mistake, this is a very different Bond to the Brozzy era... thankgod... and I along with countless others enjoyed it for that fact. We've now got a Bond for this century... and no cheesy one-liners!!!
-
I can`t wait for this, the trailers make it look fantastic. I think Craig will be great, Brosnan was far too smug and smarmy..the matador is only decent thing he`s ever done cause it suited the role..and Campbell is a great choice..not sure about the only suited to the small screen jibe before, not seen no escape or the zorros?..the guy can do big screen films!
-
Nov 04, 2006 7:10:40 AM CST
We always bring booze into cinemas when we watch movies
by charlie & tex
...because the majority of the crap produced these days reqiures a copious amount of piss to stomach them. When we watched King Kong last year, we put away a bottle of vodka and various other things between us - boy, did we need that! We're really looking forward to Casino Royale, though - we were never that keen on Brosnan's Bond, but hopefully now they've got a serious actor, rather than a good-looking guy with a twinkle in his eye, it'll be closer to the novels that Fleming wrote.
-
None other than Sean Connery himself. Hard to believe, and I don't even remember the source. It sure stood out in my memory though. Or maybe it's someone else entirely. I think I'll like this movie, but know several women who aren't going simply because babe-magnet Brosnan isn't in it........that might hurt box-office receipts, so we shall see.
-
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/Sir+Sean+Connery+s++Casino++cameo-9323.html
Not necessarily the same source I read months ago, but Connery did a cameo in Robin Hood, so anything is possible.
-
The link isn't working........just Google "Sean Connery Cameo Casino Royale" and it'll turn up.
Sir Sean Connery's 'Casino' cameo
6th April 2006 20:20:02
Sir Sean Connery is rumoured to be making a cameo appearance in new James Bond film 'Casino Royale'.
The former 007 - who is currently recovering following surgery to remove a kidney tumour - is said to have been offered a small role opposite new Bond Daniel Craig.
The Scottish star, 75, would reportedly play a villain in the movie.
A source said: "There is a role for Sean but it's not one fans will associate with him. It's a small part in an action scene."
"We are hoping he will do us the honour, it will be fantastic to have a veteran of the Bond films working with us."
Meanwhile, the legendary actor - who played James Bond in seven films between 1962 and 1983 - has given Craig his seal of approval - calling him a "terrific choice".
-
but thats about it. Eat your popcorn. See a few good special effects. Villain dies falling onto their creation. Go home 'not disappointed'. Which is just a shame. Bond films need a shake up beyond changing faces and level of violence. A little continuity, shadowy figures behind each films villain and a frail, hidden mastermind (can he really take out an aged and crippled friend) with admirable if anti-establishment goals. Something new, smarter or, dammit, just plain different.
-
Yack, gotta agree with you on Dalton. He's my fave Bond and The Living Daylights is my fave Bond film. The problem with Licence to Kill is that it peters out after the great set-up. I don't mind Robert Davi as an actor, but he bored the hell out of me in the film, which really took me out of the whole experience. It should've been a ruthless Bond hunting down Leiter's attackers in an unapologetic revenge story, using every aspect of his training, which is scary as premise if you think about it. Instead, we got the stock drug criminals of '80s films and lackluster action setpieces crammed into pedestrian movie. They had this great idea to make a Bond film without all the superspy trappings and then threw them all right back at us like warmed over Miami Vice leftovers. To this day, I hate the fact that they left Dalton with that film as his send off. I certainly understand while he left during the whole legal bruhaha, but I always wished they'de given him another go just to end his run right.
-
Who gives a fuck about another cheese-ass Bond flick? How about a proper tribute to a wonderful actress taken far too soon, guys?
-
http://www.shropshirestar.co.uk/2006/11/our-top-secret-look-at-new-007/
"The media pack, traditionally tough to please, broke out in a round of applause as the credits rolled, many seeking out Wilson (The Producer) to shake him by the hand." -
That's very sad news. Goddamnit.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6116286.stm
daniel craig is gonna rock. the guy is so dark, moody, intense, vulnerable..fucking dangerous and has a sort of classic vibe about him. i think he deserved this movie even though he's a big risk - i think the reward will be bigger cos of him. i think when thye se it aicn will be into it..cos the last year has mostly been about people being nervous about this film. I think its gonna pay off big time. thank fuck they took a risk cos bond should be big classic , cinematic and dangerous..not some lightweight hi tech cartoon like the brosnan films. DC is already a bit of a legend amongst quite a few people, its cool that he's got a part this big cos he;s a fucking star. a dark star. he's like bale.. we need these guys otherwise cinema would be fucking boring. theyre not perfect..but theyve got edge and dangerous glamourous darkside that burns up the screen. all i can say about this film is bring it on. this will be the bond for our generation. he can act but personally i just cant wait to see him put someones nosebone into their brain. -
With a tripped down movie I hope they have kept the over the top opening titles as seen in every bond movie.
-
In this TV Spot
http://tinyurl.com/y7slov -
It's Richard Branson so don't get to excited!
-
Nov 04, 2006 10:01:20 AM CST
HAPPY feet WILL BEAT THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF THIS
by jeanluc dickhard
.......LOL
-
Bolfeld would make him his bitch. I hope this "Bond" matures quickly and find himself leading an army of angents in a volcano soon.
-
Nov 04, 2006 10:37:28 AM CST
Frankly, I'll never see Never Say Never Again again.
by larry of arabia
Damn I'm funny.
-
The Incredibles was a better James Bond movie than all Bond movies since Goldeneye. BTW, Nothing holds a candle to Goldfinger and From Russia with Love. As for the song, I hate it. They should have gone with retro lounge/60's music since it is a casino. A classy female Vocal to belt out a great Bond tune. Michael Giacchion should have done the score.
-
Unfortunately, three out of his four films were clunkers due to awful scripts. GoldenEye is head and shoulders above the subsequent trash, and is imo the best Bond film since the Connery era.
-
THATS the problem. It's all about charisma.
-
They just gave him shitty dialogue. Despite that, the Brosnan Bonds weren't bad except for DAD, which Brisnan didn't like either. So they took his suggestion to make the films grittier, yet fired him and kept the original writers.
-
That Tarantino publicized his idea of doing Casino Royale, and the Broccoli family shot it down, and then months later, they were now doing it, but with a different director. Sure, they may have not thought he was right for it (although it obviously would draw in a huge audience), but at least acknowledge that it was his idea that led to it.
-
Thinks you're nothing but a big pussy.
-
the man was bond, and even managed to make woeful scripts watchable....damn it's so annoying I'll never get to see the casino royale I wanted to. nothing against craig of course, I can easily imagine what his Bond will be like...more attuned to the likes of bourne and a bit of dalton bond thrown in, but still pierce deserved better treatment than that. would one more film have hurt? I wasnt bored with him yet, and I think that's why craig got so much stick. But fuck it, the curtains have drawn, the people have quietened, his fate as bond rests on his own shoulders, so if anything at least the bullshits out of the way.
-
for the PS3 ala Nightfire and of course N64's goldeneye. Fuck that 3rd person crap theyre palming off on us, I want me a damn 1st person arena where I get to choose which bond skin I want....granted any developer would have to shell out the cash for the likenesses of connery, brosnan and craig, but cmon dalton and moore wouldnt cost a thing!
-
Just saying the words makes my skin crawl. Liked the Bond-being-captured thing. Hated everything else, especially the f'ing inviso-car.
-
To use horrid sales-speak food metaphors, the first run of the Bond films [all to CR] sold more sizzle than steak when compared to the source material. Now that the the diner has realized, "Hey, this isn't steak! It's soy-burger!" some of the smarter execs decided to go back to the source material and start delivering some story steaks. Isn't that what Moore and Eick did with BSG? They told an aged beloved franchise of very uneven quality and beefed it up with better writing, no? Damn it! I must be hungry . . . I also submit that the CR reset may be influenced to a more realistic spy by the very real competition of the Jason Bourne films. Now I am leaving with my pocket knife and cigarette lighter in search of a cow.
-
... like you haven't seen before. If you thought Connery was mean when he disposed of Prof Dent in Dr No or thought the FRWL train fight was gritty.... wait till you get a load of DC drowning people and shooting them dead within a blink of an eye. The review above is so-so and not a true reflection of how good this movie is compared to the last 3. Here in the uk there's been a few screens in which one I was present, and the buzz is very positive. Toke should toke some more of that shit he's been smoking and leave the reviews to the professionals.
-
EON was gonna make Casino Royale way before QT suggested it. They bought the rights to it a couple years before he started talking about it. Besides, he can't direct a film for MGM because he's not in the union.
Hey, I like the guy's movies, but he could never direct a Bond film. -
...Myers wanted to do it years ago, but the Bond people wouldn't let it happen (Pierce's bosses are always fucking with him). Now's the time to pull Dr. Evil and Mini-Me back to the big screen as Austin tries to one up the big secret agent on the block.
-
hard
-
I'm glad you also see Brosnan was the weakest of the actors who played Bond. I am not ranking the Bonds by their movie-qualities, but by the actor's themselves,it's just that i don't rank brosnan lowest because of those abominable last 3 movies of him, but himself alone, and he was such a paper-thin actor for the role. Look at GoldenEye, that was pure Dalton tailored and it shows the strength for which Dalton had more acting-chops than Brosnan. Also in my previous post where i said i prefer light-hearted Moore over Dalton, that is just me, i liked all the other actors who portrayed Bond except for Brosnan, and i think the problem lies at the root of it all: the producers. Brosnan was the FIRST actor , if i'm not mistaken, picked by the new producers after the original two: Saltzman and Broccoli had passed away. One of the ingenious methods they used to get their 'man' was spend tie with him, have the actor be guest at their mansion to see if he had 'it' that certain charisma and swagger, charm. Dalton was picked by them as early as 1968 to play Bond but he decliend saying he was too young and Connery too good to good to pass up. Brosnan was picked by the clueless daughter of Broccoli who absolutely didn't know how the shit to pick the right actors. The original Broccoli and Saltzman knew who was Bond and who wasn't and from Connery to Dalton they picked the right guys.
-
Ron Jeremy!!!
-
http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1554852,00.html
-
I'm hardly a QT fanboy, had I been aware of the knowledge that you were, I wouldn't have made the post.
-
I would give my left eye to see a taratino bond film. Screw Brosnan though. Goldeneye was he's only good bond film. World Is Not Enough was ok, pretty boring though. The other two are laughable messes.
-
Connery essentially created the role, and all of his successors have merely tinkered with the recipe: Dalton most drastically, and Brosnan just seemed to impersonate Connery.
-
Mike Myers
-
i was as stunned to find this out tonight when i found out i made 107 dollars the first night of the "holiday movie war of 2006" at my theater where i work. but, the ali-g fans have spoken. the kazakhstan reporter topped ol' saint nick and claymated rats in the first weekend of the big holiday movie season of 2006. i have to say i find borat's material obnoxious and tired, but sacha baron cohen IS funny and all those press junkets he did in charector paid off big time. and i'm a little pleased that it made that much{24 in the mil.}considering they only gave the film 837 theaters. {a few people i knew since kindergarten went to see it}and it's now, unexpectedly, the best reviewed movie of the year. also pleased that all 3 movies this holiday movie kickoff weekend made good money. {santa 3 made 21 in the mil, on par with the 1st movie's 94' 16 million 2nd place finish. and flushed away surpassed both chicken run and wallace and gromit's openings with 19 million, even though it's the last aardman movie with dreamworks and the first claymated movie with a mcdonalds happy meal promotion and the teaser poster for the "hope it's better than the second" movie of 2007, shrek the 3rd} and it's so obvious why this happened anyway, because after a whole month of shitty horror movies and a bunch of tired re-treads, people {i.e, teens and fan-boys} needed a few good laughs to hold them over till the 2 big comedies next week {flixfest and stranger than fiction} and the big holiday movie will be going on every weekend till christmas. and the popcorn's poppin, the soda's are slinging and balls are flying everywhere with no puns intended it's gut-check time, muthatruckers!!! whoooooo!!! peace.
-
I don't know what genius thought it was a good idea to release The Santa Clause 3 a couple days after Halloween but...no actually, I don't know what genius thought it was a good idea to greenlight The Santa Clause 3. Borat on the other hand, the marketing for that movie made the Star Wars prequels look like a straight to youtube.com release.
-
In talks to be next Bond after being president
-
... that of Barry Nelson, the very first James Bond.
-
everyone seems to have some sentimental view that Sean Connery is the automatic choice for the best Bond ever. tell me this - other than Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice, which Bond film did Connery do that was actually any good? all of his other ones were dull and lacking in entertainment. Bond is meant to be entertaining, no?
Roger Moore gets the rather meaningless "best Bond" title for me, as at least the majority of his Bond appearances were loaded with fun and entertainment - only The Spy Who Loved Me lagged a bit, and that was still fun.
Timothy Dalton gave it a good go, and Pierce Brosnan was hamstrung to the extreme by plots that were, at best convoluted and contrived, at worst ridiculous and lame.
the actor out there they should have approached years ago to do bond was/is Liam Neeson. he looks like he could have actually done a significant amount of military action, and is handsome enough for the posters.
i hope Daniel Craig does OK, but they need decent entertaining stories - with that, whoever plays Bond gets the easier job.
-
Honestly you guys act like he's the worst actor in the world which makes little to no sense.
-
hahahahah I kill myself
-
I have high hopes for this flick being a big fan of all things Bond - including the novels - and the one thing that I have always loved for the four minutes they were on were the animated opening tracks. This one looks FANTASTIC with what I saw on that tv trailer. My only beef, which I've stated in other talkbacks, is the song. I, too, would have rather gone with a classier, more soulful sort of track - I don't know why but Joss Stone popped to mind. She'd have that sultry voice that a great title sequence should have. At least in a case like this. Hell... I don't think it's the song that's that bad. I think that it's just Cornell's voice. It's too...um... rock star?! That same song with someone like a Joss Stone or a Tina Turner Or A Shirley Bassey - it could work. What does everyone else think about the theme?
-
And by the way? I loved Lazenby's portrayal of Bond. He's highly underrated.
-
...but I can't help feeling that if Connery had been in the flick, and played it straight, that OHMSS would be, hands down, the greatest Bond movie. (Pretty damn good as it is)
-
From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball and You Only Live Twice are classics (Dr. No is ok). Moore? Moonraker (crap), Golden Gun (crap), A View to a Kill (crap), The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only were his best films, with Octopussy and Live and Let Die being just ok.
-
Connery also made From Russia With Love...the single greatest Bond film. 007 as it should be.
-
Boring, silly, and dated - only good thing about it was the title song. The other "debut" Bond films were much better (Dr. No, OHMSS, The Living Daylights, GoldenEye).
-
I think you really need to take each film on its own merit and the time(s) they were made. As a Bond Fanatic, I find Moore's best to definitely be For Your Eyes Only--Gritty for him and rooted in reality. As for the grand daddy of all the Bonds, From Russia With Love is truly fantastic. I am eagerly awaiting Casino Royale, can't wait to see what Craig has to bring to the character. As for Brosnan, Goldeneye was a welcome return for the franchise, but his movies ALL for the most part missed their mark, especially when invisible cars and space lasers are concerned...
-
1.FRWL 2.Dr. No -- in my opinion, are theh two greatest. Goldfinger i felt they every so tad slightly made the eye/ear candy to cover the greatness of the movie for pure story and made the film a bit more family friendly over the other Terence Young directed first two. The first two, were brutal but with flashes of wit and panache, Bond's execution of Dent "you've had your six". Cold. Bond in a primal savage struggle with Grant on the Orient Express, using every dirty trick in the book for one slight wrong move and either of these two prime-assassins could have their life ended any split-second. Goldfinger was really the start of the Bond movie everyone's familiar with to this day. The first two movies' feel has not been replicated. Even with thte third Terence Young directed movie, Thunderball, was just trying to copy Goldfingner but make it bigger after Bond mania peaked, feh. That and the story of THunderball was created by two other guys along with Fleming. Now OHMSS i think works bbetter with Lazenby than it every would have beenn with Connery. The emotional and romantic story of OHMSS is not for Connery's Bond. Connery was an ass-slapping bulldog playboy which worked excellent for him in his tailored movies for him. In the context of OHMSS the younger and new faced Lazenby paired against the well known Diana "Ms. Peel" Rigg was just pure perfection, making her in turn the most equal woman in stature to 007 ever, as it should be , because she marries him. In my opinion, OHMSS is as perfect as it can ever ever ever be.
-
umm..actually british critics are very hard to please..the fact they like this Bond film and Craig is a miracle..they slated Craig all year remember. it must be a pretty awesome film. Also..loads of people think Craig is a brilliant actor and cool as fuck..they just arent all pillowbiting fanboys who live on the internet. Craig rocks, I'm sure he'll be great.. fuck the haters man - CR will make them look stupid, make them look lke they cant handle violence.. what the fuck do they want? dangerless lightweight cataogue male model Bond? wtf? DC is one of the sickest actors out there, he's got loads of support and Casino Royale looks heavy. god save me from the few little pussies who spend so much time attacking Craig - u just look scared of him. he will blow u away.
-
and beat Sean Connery over the head with it! Sure, it's a Buffy reference, but just listen to yourselves!
-
Joss Fucking Stone!....not a chance. Suppose it would be marginally better than the pile of dog shite we`ve got though. Depeche Mode would have been a good choice backed up with the nice lush orchestra..or Hot Chip
-
...it does sound like the best Bond movie ever. Good riddance.
-
I enjoyed his character. What I tired of was the preeminence of gadgets in the series. And yes, Bond is still a Commander in the Royal Navy. He served aboard the HMS Exeter and HMS Turbulent. He undertook Underwater and Aquatic Training and Advanced Commando Parachute Training before joining the Special Forces Unit. He saw active intelligence duty in Libya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Cyprus, Indonesia, China and North Korea.
-
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. My favorite Bond film is OHMSS, followed by FRWL. Loved Dr. No as well. Connery is my favorite Bond.
-
Closely followed by From Russia With Love, Dr No, Goldfinge and For Your Eyes Only.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6116286.stm
-
Everything this reviewer didn't much like actually sounds like my kinda film. Plus, the fact that Le Chiffre is a bit more nuanced rather than the 'Mwah-ha-ha!!!' previous villains should make it more interesting. Mads Mikkelsen is a wonderful actor and I can't wait to see him in this - he deserves a bigger audience.
-
It's based directly off the book, where Bond hasn't met Blofeld yet (Right after Thunderball is when OHMSS is set in the novels). So I'd argue it's a slightly different continuity from the Connery films before it.
They were going to explain it by saying Bond had plastic surgery (and thus explaining the change to Lazenby), but they didn't want to draw attention to the new Bond. -
who's doing the theme song for this one? more importantly, are there half-naked women flying through the air during the credits? I miss that!
-
Dr No: Classic Bond plus any film shot in Jamaica has to be watched
FRWL: The closets Bond to the Novel, Gritty Realistic Bond with one of the best fights. Connery in my mind was the most interesting here, but many people feel it didn’t represent the Bond formula in the way we know it. I personally disagree
Gold finger: Is one of the best Bond films and it delivers on all levels.
Thunder Ball. This feels too long and it tried to hard to be epic, but it had great music
You Only Live Twice: Great Guilty pleasure, but many regard this as Connery weakest film
OHMSS: The best film and the best Bond. I hate the line at the beginning, but everything is amazing. When people say that they do not like Bond I force them to watch this and they love it. I would have loved to see what Lazenby would have done with the character; it feels Craig will do the same. Lazenby actually looked week, but then in the fight scenes he simply was spell bounding. He was emotional which made it interesting, but he had too much baggage after Conner
Live and let Die: Funny Cashed in on the blaxploitation movies
Now I’m too bored, will someone finish this off?
-
That movie fucking ruled. I don't care if it's a remake of Thunderball, it's better. Or that Connery is older, he's written that way, and is way more bad-ass and in much better shape than he was DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (too bad he didn't keep the beard like he originally wanted though...that would have been kind of interesting I think)I don't care that it's not "officially" part of the canon. It had the coolest M, Q, Felix, and Bond villain of any of the Brocolli movies IMHO. Even Siskel&Ebert rated Klaus Maria Brandauer as the best next to Goldfinger. Don't hate just cuz it's different. Same goes for Casino Royale. Though I still think that Dench should have been cast in another role if they really wanted to keep her that bad. Totally ruins the continuity having her as M. Btw is Cleese back?
-
I always hated how Bond would stumble upon the whole HQ staff out in the field, holed up in some ancient city or the wreck of a luxury liner. Does MI6 have that small a payroll that they have to jet all these people around just to give Bond a hand wherever he might be? Bond should have to go to London to see these peeps, not the other way around.
-
Where the hell have you been and why are you making this up? There is no hate for Goldeneye. Sure, there are fringe weirdos who hate it, just like they hate everything, but the overwhelming majority opinion is that it's not only the best Pierce Brosnan film, but also one of the best Bond films overall. Browse film websites and forums and you'll see what I know to be true.
-
I have visted this site for years, and have never posted. Your story about the beer spilling in the theater made me spill my beer while laughing.
Good job. -
When Jaws got that cute little blond girlfriend...that was emotional stuff!
-
Definitely the hottest Bond-girl ever.
-
I would probably have to go with Diana Rigg in On Her Majestys Secret Service. I'm not saying Lazenby was the best Bond, but he had the best film, and the best girl. Best Bond Girls for the ohers? For Sean Connery, it has to be Tatiana Romanova in From Russia With Love. Roger Moore wise, I always thought Holly Goodhead in Moonraker was way cute - she was Roger Moores number 1 for sure. Daltons best was Carey Lowell - why he dumped her for Talisa 'boring' Soto I have no idea. Brosnan's best was Michelle Yeoh for sure. Thoughts?
-
Jane Seymour always floated my boat..still does actually...sophie marceau lovely too
-
Connery - Ursula Andress
Lazenby - Diana Rigg
Moore - Barbara Bach
Dalton - Carey Lowell
Brosnan - Sophie Marceau
-
Cool, a really boring James Bond, just what everyone wanted. -_-
-
Jane Seymour I can see, although for my money Lois Chiles is the Roger Moore chick I'd rather have hanging off my tip - apart from anything else her character had a few more brain cells than Solitaire. Bond Girls come in two categories - completely brainless (i.e. Tanya Roberts, Denise Richards) and complete with brains (Lois Chiles, Diana Rigg). Since they're always easy on the eye, I'll go with the ones I can have a conversation with whilst I'm recharging the batteries :)
-
Every other reviewer mentions there's enough action for a Bond movie.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts