Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Massawyrm Shows His Hand In CASINO ROYALE!!

Hola all. Massawyrm here. Bond is back, baby. Boy howdy is he back. And he’s going to be the most divisive Bond ever. When they set out to reinvent the series and went back to the well of the original text, man oh man did they go back. This isn’t the James Bond you’ve come to love over the years – rather, it’s the James Bond from the printed page. The “…anonymous blunt instrument wielded by a Government Department” that Ian Fleming both described and wrote about. And Daniel Craig and Martin Cambell do one hell of a job breathing new life into a long dying franchise. Let’s face it. While I love Bond, even the most ardent fans have to admit the shortcomings of the franchise. After 20 official feature films, countless parodies and skits, dozens of non-Fleming penned novels and 5 other guys playing the role…it’s gotten a bit stale and something of a self-parody machine. They ran out of adaptable material two bonds ago, and they simply began to spin the “Wheel of Bond Plots” as each film seemed to get more and more ridiculous. Even though Die Another Day was fun, you have to shrug at the bizarre plot involving the North Koreans trying to harness the power of the sun. It’s just gotten kind of silly. Hell, even the sequence with the new Q made fun of the goofy gadgets in the series. It’s safe to say that Bond, as we all knew him, was pretty much done. And it’s often been tossed around here at AICN, when the topic of Bond has come up, about how one might going about reinventing him. Harry has often mused that it should become a director showcase, with each film bringing a different visionary director in to take the helm for a single film. After all, what would Tarantino’s Bond, Rodriguez’s Bond, John Woo’s Bond or even Tony Scott’s Bond…be like? What kind of adventure would they send him on? Myself, I’ve always wondered what it would have been like if each new Bond wasn’t actually James Bond, but simply the new 007. At least then they could give each actor some room to make the charcter their own without offending those that were really attached to the old ones. Kind of like how Dr. Who has always handled the Regenerations. But no matter your opinion on how it should be handled, most everyone can agree on one thing. Bond has gotten a bit weak and needs some new blood. The question is, will this new iteration of Bond get your blood pumping for some new Bond adventures or will it upset you that they depart so much from the long established formula? Both points of view or going to be vaild and both are very much going to exist. Because this IS NOT the James Bond you grew up with on screen. Not one bit of it. First of all, this Bond is never played for laughs. He’s quite serious. He’s not a one liner, pun spitting smart ass. Instead he’s a hard core bad ass. The kind of guy the British government would go to to kill someone quickly and efficiently if they needed to. As you’ve seen Bond say in the trailer “You want someone who is part hitman, part monk,” only he hasn’t quite gotten the monk part down. No, this isn’t the Bond you grew up with. This is the Bond from the original novel. He’s not bitter yet, he’s not comfortable with his job. And he’s not weighed down by dozens of miniturized gadgets. That’s right. There isn’t a single scene with Q, he’s got no special watch, his car doesn’t fire rockets or spray water or leave oil slicks on the road. He’s got a really cool cell phone and a car with a hidden compartment and that’s about it. You won’t see a surprise parchute nor a special device that seems to only have a single purpose that Bond just happens to find useful. Nothing of the kind. Now do you see what I’m getting at? Already a whole mess of you are saying “Wait just one cotton picking minute there, Wyrm. Are you saying this is a James Bond movie without gadgets? That’s not a James Bond movie! Next thing you’ll be telling me is that there aren’t any characters with silly names.” Well, about that. There are no silly names. “Oh fucking hell! What kind of Bond movie is this?” An incredibly badass one. And one that sticks enough to formula, and sticks especially close to the original novel, that it still hits all the right marks. Long known for its amazing opening sequences, Casino Royale is no different. It opens with a black and white sequence introducing us to our new Bond on an early assignment. It’s slick, gorgeous and to the point. It is a few moments of sheer, noir cool that sets the tone brilliantly for what is to come. What follows is a classic spy tale, one that takes full advantage of everything you know about Bond. When it’s not busy ignoring some of the clichés of the last 20 films, it gets busy using the remaining ones to its full advantage. There are plenty of inventive fight scenes, beautiful Bond girls, Bond’s trademark use of surrounding environments to incompacitate foes, sweet rides, tuxedos, malevolent villains, and arrogence…a whole lot of arrogence. No, there’s enough classic Bond here to satiate your desire for it, but enough that feels fresh and updated to make you fall in love with Bond all over again. But that doesn’t by any means mean that everyone will be happy. Anyone in love with the campy goodness that is the bulk of the previous Bond films (particularly everything with and post-Roger Moore) is going to find this film nearly humorless and devoid of some of their favorite elements. And that’s the biggest hurdle this film has to overcome with the audience. Are you ready to buy into a serious Bond, a bond that feels closer to the bastard child of Jason Bourne and Sean Connery’s Bond than it feels like any other portrayal? I sure was. I absolutely adored this film. It was gritty, raw and the exact kind of slick cool that I want out of a James Bond movie. The tweaks they made to the story (like changing Bakarat to Texas Hold ‘em and changing the modus operondi of Le Chiffre) worked for me. Because there was enough Bond and an adherence to the Novel I so loved in my youth to remind me that this was, in fact, a Bond film. (For fans of the book, it even includes his infamous, bitter final line.) Daniel Craig is an amazing Bond. His take on the character is a breath of fresh air, focusing more on Bond’s trademark arrogence without ever seeming either sleazy or cheesy. And he’s one tough son of a bitch. This is a very different Daniel Craig than we’ve seen recently. He’s played tough before, but he’s never gotten so physical. It’s like the first time you saw The Transporter or The Bourne Identity and said “Holy shit! He can fight too?!?” Yes, he can. And Mads Mikkelsen gives a career making performance as one of the best Bond villains ever brought to life on the screen. He’s creepy, unnerving and possesses a quiet menace that truly makes him a worthy opponant for Bond. And, get this, he’s actually got very real motivations. He’s not some rich guy sitting behind a desk ordering goons to kill Bond while he tries to hold the world hostage. He’s actually the guy in the thick of it, sitting right there across the card table from Bond with as much at stake in the game as Bond has. But as much as I dug this, it’s not without its flaws. One complaint I heard (apart from the general lack of humor) was that there was entirely too much card playing in the movie. And while I am quick to point out that, well, that’s kind of what Casino Royale was fucking all about, I have to admit that some will get fidgety watching these guys try to read one another over the cards. And the film has a strange pacing, that while adhering to the book, steps outside of the classic three-act structure. I mean, it has an entire fourth act. The movie seems done…except that it isn’t. There’s this whole 10 minute lovey-dovey sequence followed by another pair of action sequences that will leave some people wondering when this thing is gonna get around to ending. Especially since it comes in at about two-and-a-half hours. But for my money, the payoff of the final scene of the film is so unrepentantly kickass, that I forgive, and ultimately came to like the slowdown. And of course there’s that lame ass Chris Cornell Bond song – yet another studio attempt to try and grasp at some of the old crossover hit greats like Live and Let Die, Nobody Does it Better and A View to a Kill. But two points to make about that. One: it’s not nearly as bad as Madonna’s turn at the theme song, simply forgettable – and Two: the intro animation to the film is so unique and so individually badass that it is entirely possible (I know this from experience) to completely tune out the song and simply get wrapped up in the credit sequence. Now that credit sequence screams old school Bond so bad it hurts, and coupled with the killer opening, really gets you pumped and primed for what is to follow. Ultimately, I really dug the hell out of Casino Royale and for anyone who enjoys Bond, but really is open to a toughened up retooling – this comes Recommended. Taken as a reboot, it’s one hell of a start, and if Craig can keep up this level of intensity for a few more films, he’ll easily be remembered as one of the best of the Bond’s, if not simply Bond to an entire new generation. But it can’t in any way be taken as a continuation of the series, unless you consider it a prequel. And if you’re an old school Bond nut that quotes chapter and verse and feels that an utter lack of Q, gadgets or smirked one liners is a betrayal of the franchise, and would prefer your Royale…with cheese…you’re probably going to be quite let down by Bond 21. Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em. Massawyrm
Okay, I really must apologize for any pain inflicted by that final pun. It was wrong and I’m sorry. Truly. I know now that I will forever burn in the fires of Gene Shalit hell. E-mail your pained reactions here.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:11 p.m. CST


    by Kentucky Colonel

    Eat one

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:12 p.m. CST

    now eat two

    by Kentucky Colonel

    Blah...tastes like chicken

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Timothy Dalton 2?

    by TheBigDogg

    Doesn't this sound like a similar approach to the first Dalton movie? More serious. More deadly. Cut out the jokes. I wonder if those movies were ahead of their time... or maybe they just weren't all that good but had the right idea? Can't possibly be worse than the last Bond movie. Even with that, it sounds like this is going to be good.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:21 p.m. CST

    I love Massawyrm reviews. Truly.

    by AdrianVeidt

    This just got me even more excited for the film. I love it when films reinvent themselves for the better. As I read this review, I start to feel that Massawyrm had a damn fine point. This will be to the Bond series as Batman Begins was to that franchise. Hallelujah.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:19 p.m. CST

    So what we have here is...

    by Marillion

    Bond meets The Transporter? Cool... I'm all for that.. I can handle a humorless Bond, just as long as it doesn't devolve into yet another aimless action flick.. Bond has an identity from the movies, not the books.. I know there are plenty of purists out there who go on and on about how they wish the movies are like the books, but let's face it, there are several generations of fans out there who don't know the Bond from the books, and don't care. If the movie strays TOO far from the Bond we know, it won't be successful, at least not AS successful...

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Another very encouraging review...

    by Childe Roland

    ...has me even more excited about this than I was. Sorry, naysayers, but I think Craig's here to stay.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:22 p.m. CST

    You're the bond now, dog

    by Pipple

    Go Daniel! You rock!

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Cant Wait

    by Captain RawBeard

    Goldeneye was great. and to me the last good James Bond film. the last two sucked ass. apart from the first 10 minutes of Die Another Day with Bond being captured and tortured. but this film looks amazing and will hopefully give it the reboot it needs

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Craig's List

    by Kentucky Colonel

    Hopefully will be a long one. I'd love to see a serious take on "Moonraker", because I feel like the whole world should be wiped out except for my beautiful girlfriends, hunk non-hetero lifemates and Jaws. Nobody will do it better!

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:28 p.m. CST


    by godzillasushi

    it sure sounds awesome. But heres hoping we dont have an uber borefest growing here. I want a long movie like Mission Impossible 3 that doesnt really drag.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:28 p.m. CST


    by Kentucky Colonel

    I think I meant to say non-homo hetero lifemates. Or was that a slip? I think I need to schedule some couch time with the head shrinker, excuse me....

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:30 p.m. CST

    c'mon man, spellcheck!

    by agubie

    Arrogance, not "arrogence"

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:31 p.m. CST

    see, it's funny cause it was in Pulp Fiction..

    by quadrupletree

    Nevermind. Can't wait to see this!

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Can't Fucking Wait!!

    by Saracen1

    I loved every page of the book, and it sounds like the movie...for faithful to the source material!

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Can't wait.

    by Banshee7

    I hope they re-do the previous novels from here on out, in order this time.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Sorry about the spelling

    by Massawyrm 1

    Spellcheck cleared all those words - but I just found it ignoring blatant errors. Methinks it's time to do a reinstall...

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:48 p.m. CST

    why can't this guy fucking spell!

    by King_Knut

    And frankly, a rubbish review. Tells us absolutely nothing we didn't already know, apart from "I really liked it".

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Long dying?

    by CTU Mole

    I didn't care all that much for Die Another Day but I don't think a series where each movie out grosses the last exactly dying.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Real question is...

    by idahomer

    where's your new artwork? Hasn't Harry picked it yet?

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:52 p.m. CST

    half film review/half spelling bee

    by kafka07

    "arrogence" is actually spelled "arrogance". I knew you weren't ready for this.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Is there more goodness to be mined from the books?

    by Darwyn

    If this is such a nail on the head, and even before the movie, Book-Bonders were toting the potential of Casino Royale as a movie, tell me Flemming-Geeks - is there any more of the original novels that would also work for this new Craig-reinvisioning? I'm still dimly worried that once they've exhausted the novelty of a reworking and a origin story, this will all quickly degenerate again into camp-shit. I've been wanting to stop Brosnan's Bond for a long time - I was secretly wishing that one of those supervillains would finally just snuff out his fucking life because truly it was for all intents and purposes already gone - he was a walking characture-zombie. I didn't hesitate when I heard of a Craig Bond (Layer Cake anyone?) and as optimistic as I've been about them when they actually come out, the crappy CGI and even crappier plots and characterlessness of the movies had depressed me up until now. Here's to being happy that one of the frustrating fixtures that sometimes makes it hurt to be a geek (like the curse of that Batman series before this), the insanity of the Broccoli's, has come around.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Wow Kafka...

    by Massawyrm 1

    Of all the words I misspelled up there, you chose a rather appropriate word to pick up on.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 12:59 p.m. CST

    Why can't...

    by Massawyrm 1

    King_Knut use proper punctuation?

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Cool review. Nice one Massa

    by Teamwak

    As a Dalton fan, I can only say I am excited about the dark tone this has. I liked the idea about remaking Moonraker. That sure was stinky. <p> Hey Mass, ever seen the Danish ganster flick Pusher, with Mads in it. Fan-freakin-tastic movie! Stuck with me for ages. Mads stars himself in the sequel. Not seen it yet. Killer theme to that film as well.!

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 1:09 p.m. CST

    FUCK the Cornell haters.

    by El Scorcho

    Everything the man has ever done is amazing, including this song. And even I didn't love it at first. Looking forward to the flick, and thanks for the review Mass.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Very nice review

    by georges garvaren

    One too many badasses for my liking but maybe Craig really deserves them all. Im a bit more excited now than I was before I read your thoughts and from what you’ve said it seems like the producers are combining the Bond from the Fleming novels with the various Bonds portrayed in the films. Hopefully it will be a perfect mesh but it will make a bazillion bucks so whatever.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 1:14 p.m. CST

    No gadgets = Communism

    by PwnedByStallone

    It'll never get old for me, Wyrm. Actually it just sounds like they've Americanized Bond. The Limey's may revolt.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 1:21 p.m. CST


    by The Dum Guy

    Sounds like what I've been wanting see in a Bond film for awhile. On another note, does anyone believe what Darkhorizons is saying about Bryan Singer helming the Wolverine flick, I thought Marvel would be peeved over his jumping to Superman.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 1:23 p.m. CST

    new Bond, new word

    by God Shamgodd

    It makes sense -- a totally new Bond needs a totally new way of dealing with foes: he "incompacitates" them. He's so badass, he can't be constrained by the conventions of the King's English. But I kid. The review got me excited for the movie, and the joke at the end made me laugh rather than grimace. Three and a half stars.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 1:39 p.m. CST


    by Etienne72772

    No worries.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Love it.

    by Rakafraker

    When I was a kid I loved the cheese, but now I just want an exciting film with enough action and intrigue, that makes me think. This one is shaping up to be the Bond that gets the franchise back on track. I can't wait to see what the sequel to this will be like, and I haven't even seen this one yet!

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 1:48 p.m. CST

    P.S. Wyrm...

    by Rakafraker

    Where the heck is that new pic??? I thought that was promised to us MONTHS ago. I feel so violated.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 1:48 p.m. CST

    Fleming's books are still in print.

    by sundancekeed

    So, it shouldn't be that hard to acquaint or reacquaint yourself with the original Bond. I always thought the filmmakers made a mistake by getting away from the spirit of the books in the first place. All of the gadgets and one-liners detracted from a good group of Cold War spy stories with an amoral even sadistic hero who nonetheless wound up somewhat likable. And I think moviegoers will love a retooled, retro James Bond. The series had degenerated into self-parody and Pierce Bronson looked embarrassed in the role. My vote is no more Q, no more spacewalks, no more Jaws. Put James Bond in the real world and let him kick real ass.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Thunderballs - You may be right

    by Teamwak

    At least Moonraker is memorable. You mentioned the it the two bonds I dont like. There is some good stuff. I always liked the gas in the lab that killed the scientists.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Whoa there Thunderballs!!

    by R0BTRAIN

    Moonraker more entertaining than The Spy Who Loved Me? That's like saying You Only Live Twice is better than...well...Thunderball. Now don't get me wrong, Moonraker is fucking awesome! That opening stunt where Bond is thrown out of a plane, then has to fly to get the parachute off the bad guy, and then has to fight Jaws is uber spectacular. Plus the movie has one of the best scores and is shot as well as any entry into the whole series. I don't know what it is about ragging on Roger Moore, but his movies are merely a product of their times. With incidents like Watergate and Munich not exactly having a positive impact on the spy genre, the 007 producers decided to simply make the more entertaining movies possible, which is exactly what those movies are! The Spy Who Loved Me is nonstop awesome from start to finish. Bond going over the mountain at the very beginning is one of the single greatest stunts in the history of cinema. No special effects or wires, just a dude skiing over a fucking mountain and then pulling his chute. Hell Jaws even fights a fucking shark at the end of the movie. That's fucking entertainment!

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Word, Moonraker was the tits.

    by Ricky Henderson

    Bond went everywhere--from London to California to Venice to Rio de Janeiro and the end of the movie occurs in the only location left unfilmed—outer space.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Great review

    by thecheesegrommit

    I for one can not wait to see this. I have loved all bonds to varying degrees and look forward to Craigs interpretation. I only wish the studio had given Brosnan a chance with this type material. One last thing, am I the only one who really likes the Cornell's song? I think it's great. Peace

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 2:37 p.m. CST

    Vindicated!! Mwah-ha-haaa!

    by Cat_Corporation

    I've been sticking up for Craig since this whole thing began, and I'm so stoked he's done the business (or so it seems - I won't be catching the flick myself until Friday but it seems unanimous). Can't wait to see the wicked-cool Mr Mikkelsen either, although I wish people would stop saying he's come right out of left field - he's a wonderful actor with some wonderful films under his belt, is tough (Pusher), funny (Flickering Lights) and vulnerable (Open Hearts), and although King Arthur sucked to high heaven, he was EASILY the best thing in it. Bring on Friday, woo-hoo!

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 2:42 p.m. CST

    How's This For The Next Bond Villain...

    by ripper t. jones

    /pan across card table "Jagshemash Mr. Bond..."

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 2:43 p.m. CST

    movie sounds great

    by Datascream

    and Wyrm? Great review, one of the few reviews that I could stand to read through recently. You got straight to the point and told me what I wanted to know. No bullshit "how I got to the theater and what my day was like before I saw the movie" filler that a lot of the reviewers like to spend time on. I can't wait to see this now :)

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Cat Corperation and Mikkelsen

    by Massawyrm 1

    Didn't say he came out of left field - said it was "Career making." After this, people are gonna be fighting to cast him and your average viewer will say "OH! That's the guy from Casino Royale! I love him!" That's what this movie does for him.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 2:53 p.m. CST

    The Simpsons Movie trailer

    by Teamwak

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 2:55 p.m. CST


    by Cat_Corporation

    I know - I didn't mean you, dude. I know it's his big American break. I was actually referring to all the British morning TV I was watching today - 'is it true you've been acting for like YEARS?' Just made me a bit antsy.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 2:57 p.m. CST


    by connor187

    I think its quite funny how it took a movie about Jason Bourne (which was adapted from a book which was obviously inspired from the Bond movies which in turn was adapted from a book) to kick start the franchize. This is the Bond we have all been waiting for ever since Fleming finished the book. I fucking love the Bourne films but I have to admit that it should not of took these pictures to resart Bond they should of adapted the books more closely to begin A paul Greengrass Bond would be fucking great.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Why did they never use the John Gardner novels/titles?

    by Charles Grady

    Just wondered if anyone knew the exact reason why the Bond producers, even when they had run out of official Fleming titles, never used the post-Fleming novels? Seems like since the post "Living Daylights" days, they were always stretching to come up with Bondian-sounding titles, yet they intentionally never went with any of the John Gardner stuff. It might be because the plots and novels themselves were sub-Fleming, but then they rarely used much of Fleming's plots anyway.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 3:09 p.m. CST's Badass?

    by timmyfugit

    I remember reading a couple Bonds back in the day and never seeing the correlation between them and the flicks, aside from the Connery ones. I have to assume Massa is of the same school and if he thinks anything like me, then I pretty much have to see it. How could we have known when Craig was cast that this was the direction the film would take? None of the obvious choices would have worked at all. Seems now the uproar was simply misguided.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 3:14 p.m. CST

    Massawyrm: A Very Important question...

    by AdrianVeidt

    I've read through the review twice now, so I don't think I missed it, but I need to know: Do we get a "Bond. James Bond." line or not? This is pertinent information.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 3:12 p.m. CST

    Jack Palance DIED FRIDAY...

    by the_patriot

    And there's nothing on this site about it. Damn shame. That man was a GOD. From IMDB: "Movie villain Jack Palance, who won an Oscar for best supporting actor in 1992 for City Slickers, then dropped to the stage and performed one-armed push-ups at age 73 after receiving it, died Friday in Montecito, CA of natural causes. His menacing presence terrified audiences in dozens of films, including Sudden Fear, Shane, Kiss of Fire, and The Big Knife.He debuted in films in 1950 and made his last appearance in the 2004 TV movie, Back When We Were Grownups, as a 100-year-old man." And yes, I'll be seeing Casino Royale regardless of following the book or no. Why? Because I'm watching a movie, not a book. Watching books is very tedious - especially when it just sits there on the table. :P

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 3:19 p.m. CST

    This will f*cking rule!

    by R.C. the "Wise"

    Bet on that.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Patriot & Adrianveidt

    by Massawyrm 1

    Patriot - I guess you missed the 2, count 'em, 2 obits on Friday by Harry and Quint. Adrian. Yes. You bet your ass we do.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Moonraker love

    by Vergil

    I don't understand it. If I recall correctly, the opening was a couple of guys climbing into the Space Shuttle whilst being carried on top of the 747 and taking off in a FULLY FUELED FULLY OPERATING SHUTTLE. I'm all for the suspension of disbelief, but when James was later thrown from the plane without a chute, why didn't he just use The Force and fly up the the space station (which he could see with his super bionic vision) and take over with his super psionics. I'm just sayin.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 3:53 p.m. CST

    woo's bond, scott's bond

    by cockrockinbeatz

    They both did one of those BMW "The Hire" videos, which are pretty much just Bond car chases (except Scott's was versus...the devil!!!). As much as I love Tarantino, I would not like to see him tread on sacred ground - he can keep making shit films cool, not the other way around. As for new Bond directors, it's too bad there's not a "new generation" of action directors like there is in the moment all I can think of is Len "Live Free Or Die Hard" Wiseman!! What an awful choice he would be.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 4 p.m. CST

    Xenia Onatopp!!!

    by Zeke25:17

    More female villains like Famke Janssen's lovely Xenia...Goldeneye introduced me to Famke, and damn if she still doesn't know I exist! Regarding Craig as Bond: I admit I wasn't high on him at the beginning (Clive Owen was my pick), but it looks like he kicks ass in the film. I liked Brosnan in the role very much, certainly more so that Moore, who (to me) came off as kind of a pris; Dalton always looked more like a bad guy to me, and I never saw Lazenby's take. As far as Connery goes, nothing need be said...except to add that more than a couple reviewers are calling Craig's Bond the best since Sean's. We shall see...

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Richard Kiel is awesome.

    by R0BTRAIN

    Again in the era these movies came out, audiences were just clamouring for entertainment. That's what Moonraker gave them. All of the Bond villains that people remember are over the top, and that's why Jaws remains a staple of the franchise to this very day. I also happen to like Drax, but I'll admit he's no Goldfinger or Blofeld.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 4:03 p.m. CST

    hope Craig won't try to imitate previous Bonds

    by Exeter

    that was brosnan's problems, he always said how he loved Connery's movies and yadadada and tried to be like him: NEWSFLASH , no one can be Connery, all the Bonds before Brosnan were their own characters,they weren't trying to imitate anyone, and all were excellent in their own ways, Brosnan meanwhile is the only Bondn that brought NOTHING to the role, such a shallow, smug, un-intimidating role. I hope Craig will just be himself even if he isn't like Connery.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 4:04 p.m. CST



    I wonder how this is gonna do at the Box Office... Happy Feet looks like it's going to do big numbers, then you got Deja Vu next week... Will this even crack 100 million?

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 4:05 p.m. CST

    i love Moonraker, my 3rd favorite Moore Bond

    by Exeter

    My favorite Moores: 1.TMWTGG 2.TSWLM 3.Moonraker. The pretitle sequence jumping out the plane is sweet, Hugo Drax, Jaws, in the Amazon, best parts. Heck even Moore kills two scientists accidentally whenn he leaves the deadly toxin in their lab when he goes to hide, one of the scientists bumps it knocking to the ground andn like two fucking idiots die instantly f rom the gas. lol. that's our Bond!

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 4:14 p.m. CST

    Moonraker book was excellent!

    by Uncapie

    The book was good, though it delt with a product of its time. Hugo Drax was an ex-Nazi that wanted to use his "Moonraker" missle armed with an atomic warhead to nuke London as a revenge motive. Drax was also a cheat at cards using a "shiner" that Bond discovered and beat him at his own game. But, of course he would; he's Bond! This was also the only book where 007 didn't get the girl as well.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Moonraker: Unrealistic, but fun.

    by FluffyUnbound

    It was the best "evil genius plot" in the films since Dr. No. "I want my own fleet of space shuttles so I can take my genetic supermen to my private space station and nerve gas the entire human population left behind on Earth." HELLO! Now THAT'S a supervillain scheme. Yes, it's unrealistic to have the space shuttle being transported fully fueled. True. But look at it this way: the Mythbusters guys apparently proved recently that you can in fact survive jumping out of a plane in a rubber raft. Before seeing that, I would have said that the opening sequence of TEMPLE OF DOOM was the most stupid and unrealistic thing ever. But apparently it's not. And if Indiana Jones can jump out of a plane in a rubber raft and sky down a Himalayan mountain in it, then hey - maybe one of these days they'll fly a fully fueled space shuttle on top of a 747.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 4:40 p.m. CST

    Nicking scenes

    by King_Knut

    One of the publicity photos from this film looks just like one of the climactic scenes from the Moonraker novel (i.e. Bond and Babe huddling together in the shower, fully clothed), although how the scene from Moonraker would fit into Casino Royale I have no clue.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 4:47 p.m. CST

    On Her Majesty's Secret Service

    by Kirk's Toupee

    That's pretty much what this sounds like to me. Though I think with the mood of people today an antihero Bond will sell a lot better than it did in 1969.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Sounds like my kind of Bond movie.

    by 'Cholera's Ghost

    Never liked Batman until Begins. Never liked Bond until [fingers crossed] Casino Royale. Bring it a little bit back to earth. Make it dark. Make it gritty. Make the main character a mean, soulless, badass motherfucker. Then blow shit up and kill people. Booyah--my ass is effectively in a seat.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 5:03 p.m. CST

    So where do they go from here?

    by SPECTRE Agent

    I bet this movie will do well just on the gimicky premise alone: realistic Bond. But will mainstream audiences return to the franchise if it remains grounded? A lot of Fleming's novels could be over the top too.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 5:24 p.m. CST

    Uwe Boll's take on Bond?

    by CreasyBear

    Any excitement? Anyone? Anyone at all?

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 5:31 p.m. CST

    I'm watching this tomorrow

    by Babyshamble

    at work. Can't wait, hope it's as good as the reviews say

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 5:32 p.m. CST

    no one bashes brosnan

    by misnomer

    blame the writers, but the man could act- real shame he never got a fleming novel to work with. craig is an interesting choice, but I do thik if Bond is too sadistic then he'll lose the audience. be interesting to see how this turns out. WHAT I DONT LIKE is the continuity issues- why have Judi Dench in there, why have the vanquish? to me that screams lazy, but Ill give it a go...

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 5:32 p.m. CST

    how to listen to that Chris Cornell song..

    by Amy Chasing

    enjoy it as a rock Bond theme, until the chorus where it sounds good if you don't pay attention to it. Probably, as Massawyrm says, what the opening credit sequence is for.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 5:37 p.m. CST

    Better than George Lazenby!?!

    by Billyeveryteen

    Also the shuttle wasn't fully fueled. It had enough uh.. gas to um.. go somewhere. Pigeon double-take FTW!

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 5:55 p.m. CST

    "Long dying? by CTU Mole Nov

    by jawsfan

    "Long dying? by CTU Mole Nov 13th, 2006 12:51:20 PM I didn't care all that much for Die Another Day but I don't think a series where each movie out grosses the last exactly dying." Oh, you are SO part of the problem. Just because something makes money (and recent Bond films have gotten a far heavier media, studio and DVD push than in the old days) doesn't mean it is any better (or any good). The STAR WARS prequels made a ton of money but they certainly weren't any good. I think the reference to the series "dying out" is meant to mean it is dying out creatively. Few could argue that. The Batman movies made tons of money but were getting lamer by the minute. BATMAN BEGINS, a la CASINO ROYALE, is a leaner, meaner, less over-the-top return to storytelling as a priority over superficial dressing.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 6:14 p.m. CST

    Whats next for Bond

    by King Willy

    Also who was Mads in Pusher I saw it about 10 yrs ago and it blew me away, is there a sequel?? After Goldeneye, we got Michael Apted, and a few other British directors who are great in their field but Bad for Bond. They took the cheap route of the bigger the set piece the better the action, with no intensity, or fear factor. I’ve heard rumours it will be they guy who did Notting hill. We need a young indie maverick, like Doug Liman with the Bourne Franchise, Shane Meadows anyone??

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Space Shuttle

    by Anakin Whoopass

    Vergil, to be fair, Moonraker was released two years before the real space shuttle launched. The filmmakers had so much help from NASA and Rockwell they surely knew the scene was impossible but it was a cool idea and at that point they knew most of the audience wouldn't know better.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 6:31 p.m. CST

    Tony Scott is a fucking joke

    by yepitsme

    The worst case of nepotism in Hollywood. He's never, I repeat NEVER, made a decent movie. He has no sense of character or plot--all he knows is slick, slick, slick. God help me, I think I'd rather see a Michael Bay film before a Tony Scott film.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 6:54 p.m. CST

    They ran out of adaptable material two bonds ago

    by riskebiz

    Oh? I think they have plenty novels to plunder if they start to adapt John Gardner and Raymond Benson's Bond novels. I'd much rather that than making up a script from scratch, because at least you know the source material authors "got it" when it came to Bond. Too many Bond scripts have been written based on where the Broccoli's vacation more than anything else and pretty much ignore the Bond of the novels. That's where they got into trouble ... IGNORING the novels ... even if it's John Gardner instead of Ian Fleming.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 6:55 p.m. CST

    I hated Moonraker......

    by Jimmy Jazz

    The movie version, that is.....Moonraker the novel was, IMO, the best thing Fleming ever wrote. How could the movie screw it up so badly? You had a perfect story right there in the novel, along with the greatest Bond Girl of all time , books or movies. But the movie people simply transferred the story and villain from the previous film into space and replaced GALA FREAKING BRAND with yet another vacuous bimbo with a stupid "nudge-nudge wink-wink" name. Why? Sigh. Oh well, this movie sounds kickass. And the song is actually growing on me. Craig will be a great Bond, Methinks. As for Fleming stuff I'd like to see in subsequent movies, besides a decent re-telling of Moonraker, I would also like to see them incorporate the opening chapter of The Man With The Golden Gun into some future film. The rest of the book sucked, but the notion of a brainwashed Bond trying to kill M in his/her (doesn't matter to me, really) would kick ass.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Crying Game

    by King Willy

    Guys, as great as this movie sounds it may get shitted on as the next director has no vision. I know many people here balked at Martin but he had Goldeye the 1st Zorro movie and a little known classic called No Escape with Ray Liotta (I think it may have been called Escape from Absolon). Its all about the Dir. Brosnon did not have the chops to really won the role, but under the right director he could have. John Frankenhiemer or Billy Freidkin would be a great choice

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Who above mentioned a Scorsese Bond?

    by Orbots Commander

    Because I would pay a good amount of money to see that. Harry's idea of the series being a director's showcase is spot on. Let's see a Mike Newell Bond, a Ridley Scott Bond or a Carnahan Bond.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 7:11 p.m. CST

    Umm....King Willy....

    by Jimmy Jazz

    You do know that Frankenheimer is dead, don't you? Friedkin might be interesting, though. How about Phillip Noyce? I know he on a socially relevant "important" movie kick right now, but if he could do what he did in Clear And Present Danger and apply it to the Bond formula, you would have a masterpiece on your hands.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 7:20 p.m. CST

    As far as I'm concerned...

    by John Maddening

    ..."James Bond" is the name that goes along with "007". All MI6 agents with the 007 rank are named Commander James Bond. That's pretty much established in ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE when Lazenby says "This never happened to the other fellow." That's why a reboot works just fine in modern times.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Just remember: Bond films do need a balance of humor

    by Exeter

    Movies and books are 2 different mediums. No one wants to see a stiff-ass Brit onscreen, the two most BRUTAL Connery Bonds, directed by the original Bond director, with class, had intennse brutality balanced out with post-kill quips, and naturalistic stuff like that. Connery executes Dent, then after seeing the three blind mice roll downn the hill in flames in their funeral car a worker says "What happened?" Connery:" I think they were on their way to a funeral." Or how about after screwing Miss Taro, then calling for a "cab", then screwing her again right before he walks her into the police "cab" he just called before! In FRWL the brutal dirty train fight, then offing a SPECTER helicopter "i'd say one of their aircraft is missing" You need that balance between fleming cold brutality and the humor!!! I hope to pieces they don't forget that and Craig ISN'T just some bourne/transporter fucker,but a classy BOND.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 7:32 p.m. CST

    Perfume mogul Bijan should be a SMERSH agent.

    by Uncapie

    That wacky guy in the billboards is in league with the baddies to take over the world using his company as a front.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Fleming Novels left to mine

    by frofropimp

    Bits and pieces left: Live and Let Die, Moonraker; Novels completely different from the books: Diamonds Are Forever, The Spy Who Loved Me, You Only Live Twice, The Man With The Golden Gun. Short Stories: "A View To A Kill" & "The Hildebrand Rarity". The gem left is "You Only Live Twice", especially the "Garden of Death" idea.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 7:45 p.m. CST


    by King Willy

    Bloodclot n ting, I'm gutted about Frankenheimer, now I feel like the horny kid who gets pissed and then ends up screwing their mother like in Spanking the Monkey. Anyway I think what the series needs is continuity and a arc (like Bourne> You could see ecah film and enjoy them on their own merits but as a peice they will make a solid trilogy. The misson impossible film on the otherhand a series are a complete mess. I don't want that to happen to Bond. Havind strong directors for each installment is good as long as they reman faithful to thier predacessors like Blade 2 was to the 1st. Same same but diffrent

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 7:50 p.m. CST


    by King Willy

    Thats perfect. I loved that type of humour, almost deadpan. I prefer the "cuntish" arrogant quips rather than the groaning wink wink humour. But remember this film has to be humourless so in the next few films you will see him relax and actually get more comfotable in the role (Bond not Craig.)

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 8:29 p.m. CST

    When I was a kid, I stole a toy version of

    by CreasyBear

    the Spy Who Loved Me submarine/car from the older brother of a friend of mine. I felt guilty, so I walked back and put it in their mailbox. (What, off topic?)

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 8:38 p.m. CST

    &the real battle is keeping the quality for the sequels

    by Exeter

    king Willy,yep this has been called like a OHMSS type Bond story, in the next films when he's more comfortable we'll see that character like you said. CR will be ace no doubt, just like all the Bonds' first outings were solid (with the exception of LALD), and this had 4 years to be made which is pretty much a LOCk for any Bond film to be good, but we'll see if they can keep it up for 2-year intervals without it descending into "camp shit" like said, like the Brosnan films were. I hope. That's where the real battle lies.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 8:55 p.m. CST

    Bond Humour

    by gildersleeve

    good = Connery trying to get a woman to talk be threatening to strangle her with her bikini top "There's something I want you to get off your chest" bad=the pigeon double take and the fantastic car stunt in Golden Gun ruined by a slide whistle

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 9:01 p.m. CST

    Do you wanna see a black man lynched

    by King Willy

    I worry about getting lynched here, but I love George’s performance in OHMSS. Get rid of the stupid line in the opening credits "this never happened to the other fella" and you have a great start. Remember George stepped in after Connery so no matter what happened he was going to get slatted, (but he quit before he got fired). We are used to different actors playing Bond like Hamlet. His rapport with Moneypenny was the best surpassing Sean. His fight scenes have been the most physical (haven’t seen CR yet), At the Casino with Tracy he slaps her about a bit with enough force so you know he's serious, but with enough restraint so he's not Jake the muss'.. He convinced me that he loved Tracy, but he was not pussywhipped as he still grinded all the girls under Kojacs nose. In the best ski chase ever, he holds his ski’s over the guy’s neck choking him for mins until he chucks him of the cliff. When he’s stuck near the ice rink after the ski chase he actually looks like a man trapped behind enemy lines. He had a great combination of emotion strength, charm, brutality to be in my mind the best bond

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 9:21 p.m. CST

    Howard Johnson is right! Err... I mean King Willy...

    by ckane123

    Lazenby is quite good in OHMSS - yes, he ain't no Connery (who is?) but he puts in a fine performance judged on its own merits. And this is NOT going to be a repeat of Dalton's stint - Dalton was saddled with an above-average Roger Moore script which they tweaked for him(Daylights) and his supra-realistic take in License to Kill was hindered by a lousy score, awkward pacing and some cringe-inducing stunts and ideas that broke the "realism" that Dalton was shooting for (how many Semis do you know that can pop wheelies?). Finally, the other posters are right - there are TONS of greatt characters, scenes and concepts that Fleming wrote and were never realized. Believe t or not, I wouldn't mind seeng a remake of Dr. No and You Only Live Twice just for that reason.... I'm there opening night, BTW, and thing Craig will knock it out of the park, FWIW.

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 9:24 p.m. CST


    by ckane123

    MAN gildersleeve you are EXACTLY right! My son and I just watched Golden Gun the other day and even HE cringed at that sound during the FANTASTIC stunt. It was that crap (and stuf flike using Lawrence of Arabia music or the Tarzan yell) that eventually made the Moore films more and more self parody than anything else (with one exception)...

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 9:31 p.m. CST

    FHoward Johnson and Felix Leiter.

    by King Willy

    Could someone give me a rapport on Felix Leiter. I love Jeff Wright (Basquit, Dr King Shaft, Brocken Flowers), Hes a great actor so I’m curious how he was used. Like Begins they’ve padded the film with great characters actors. How did he fair??

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 9:37 p.m. CST

    You Only Live Twice

    by gildersleeve

    that is the one Connery movie that could be remade. I like the concept of the garden of death and it might be cool to reintroduce a darker Blofeld (forget about that nasty fall down the smokestack)

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 9:54 p.m. CST

    Roald Dahl

    by King Willy

    I thought he wrote the film??

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 10:01 p.m. CST

    King Willy

    by gildersleeve

    yes Dahl did the movie adaptation, the characters from the book were the same, the plot was different

  • Nov. 13, 2006, 11:25 p.m. CST

    "Spy Who Love Me/YOLT"

    by Uncapie

    Similar plot elements. Both good flicks though.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 12:11 a.m. CST

    I love James Bond, big time...

    by Zardoz

    but the only films in the series I can watch now are the Connery ones, (with the exception of Diamonds Are Forever, which is utter shite!) and OHMSS. (Which has its flaws, but has much more in it that's truly great. Bond gets married and his wife is killed at the end? WOW! Best downer ending to a film, EVER! And I also met George Lazenby as a kid at a special screening one time, but as always, I digress) When I was younger, I loved ALL of the Bond films, but now, I can't watch ANY of the Moore Bonds; they're just so cliched and hackneyed and repetitive. (Let's face it: TSWLM and Moonraker are the EXACT SAME FILM! The only difference between the two is the locales in which they were shot) And Roger Moore is horrible as Bond. (There. I said it!) The only Moore Bond I can tolerate is FYEO, but even then Moore's so old in the part he seems like a pedophile at times considering the younger age of his female companions) I thought Dalton was good, and I do like a lot of TLD, especially the beginning of the film, which is pretty much the short story that Fleming wrote translated to the screen verbatim. (With a few additions that are mostly tolerable) And I liked Brosnan, but the films he was in were a terrible return to the status quo after the "failure" of Dalton's films. And really, the quality of Bond has been on the decline since they "perfected" the Bond formula with Goldfinger. (Even Thunderball and YOLT are low on my list, but I can still watch them and mostly enjoy them) No, the Bond that I love was in the books, and I hope that they have successfully brought him to life with Casino Royale. Bond may live forever, but it's time they killed off the formulaic cliche, and gave us a "real" super-spy for the modern world. (And BTW, the best Bond films, and the only ones I have in my collection are: Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and of course, Goldfinger, the film that perfected and "ruined" the Bond franchise at the same time...)

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 12:16 a.m. CST

    Hope they go back to the books again

    by Kenny8

    IIRC, as the series progressed EON only had the rights to the books' titles and characters, not the stories within. Hence the path the films took not long after Fleming's death. I'm sure the series was successful more from luck than good planning by EON. John Gavin?? Burt Reynolds?? I'm no fan of Moore as Bond(for me, Roger Moore will always be THE Simon Templar), but thank God "The Persuaders" flopped!

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 12:21 a.m. CST

    Remake ALL of Fleming's books?

    by Zardoz

    Y'know, I really hate re-making films that are already classics, but so many of the Bond films have absolutely NOTHING to do with what Fleming wrote in the books. I would actually like to see them re-make the Bond films and adhere more closely to what Fleming wrote in the first place. How about Dr. No with a giant octopus fight? Or Moonraker, where Drake is trying to launch a nuclear missile at the UK? Or be REALLY radical and have TSWLM told entirely from the POV of the girl that Bond rescues at the end? Discuss...

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 2:17 a.m. CST

    They could easily re-adapt Fleming's books

    by Bazka Berzerker

    All they need to changes is the title and names of several characters. Because those things were often the only things that previous adaptations kept intact. The actual stories in previous adaptations were often distorted beyond recognition, so the filmmakers could easily use them in future Bond's. An oh, this film soudnds pretty kickass. The only consistent flaw I hears is the dragging "4th act", but I think I can live with it.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 2:48 a.m. CST

    "Written by Paul Haggis" = won't pay for film

    by BitterMan23

    I'll buy a ticket for happy feet before i contribute cent one to anything Haggis is involved with. Everything he touches turns to shit. And not just any shit, shit that beats you over the head to make sure you know it's shit. I'm just curious to see what painfully obvious message he throws into the film and how unsubtley he goes about making sure people understand it. fuckin prick.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 3:35 a.m. CST

    Royale Flush!

    by David Frames

    This sounds like the Bond film I've been waiting to see for years. Brosnan's were stillborn for me - deriviative, self-parodic fluff. Please God people will see this one en mass and consign that approach to history because if word is to be believed Craig is the 2007 serious Bond fans have been praying for. I would take issue with any stroke merchant who thinks that puns and gadgets is what the thing is all about. These are supposed to spy thrillers not fucking pantomimes! CAN'T - FUCKING -WAIT.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 4:22 a.m. CST

    Craig has zero personality.

    by Shermdawg

    I'm not saying he's gonna be a bad Bond, (I haven't seen the flick) but if you saw him on Letterman you probably know what I mean.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 4:52 a.m. CST

    The Spy Who Loved Me...

    by Seph_J

    ... has never been made into a film. The TITLE was used for a Roger Moore film, but the book 'The Spy Who Loved Me' has never been touched. If you ask me, this MUST be done. It's my favourite of the books.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 5:30 a.m. CST

    A-ha, so it's "Licence to Kill II"

    by JackPumpkinhead

    The only good Bond film, with Dalton being the one real Bond. Too bad Craig isn't a pimple on Dalton's bottom.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 7:11 a.m. CST

    look at the way he efficiently kills people...

    by teh ran the trailer there's one scene at the top of a stairwell where he shoots one guy but calculatingly kicks the other one in the chest over the top of the rail and down the stairs. Brosnan once said that bond should always be the one-shot despatcher of bad guys and despised having to use machine guns to take out evil henchmen. Daniel Craig looks very convincing when kicking ass!

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 7:50 a.m. CST

    My introduction to the bond world was

    by emeraldboy

    Never Say Never Again. Which as it turned was not only a remake of Thunderball but was Connery's sawnsong as Bond and I have seen bond at the movies since that time. The only bond movies that didnt see in the cinema were the early Connery bonds because I wasnt born then or the George Lazenby On her Majestys Secret Service and the absolutely excrable Roger Moore final a view to a kill. I then continued on with the Dalton bonds. Dalton always looked very stiff to me and always looked he really didnt like doing the two bond films that he. I remember where I was when I saw Pierece as bond for the first time. It was in the just newly re-furbished Savoy on the biggest screen in Ireland, cinema No 1. Well I tell ya that scene with dam and the plane just bolted me to my seat. Goldeneye was a fun film with one of the worst endings to a bond, you know the one he is in the field with Isabella Scrupco and joe don baker and his Marines are all disguised as bales of hay. Stupid just stupid. mmmm famke mmmmm(drool).... Looking back on the Brosnan bond. One thing becomes very clear. Not only are they most commercially successfull in the franchises history Die another day raked in 400 million+ world wide but the precredit sequences became so long that they bogged and slowed down the movies. Take tomorrow never dies, not only does that have brosnan escaping from bank but there is the chase down the thames that gobbled 20 mins of screenrime. The rest of the sories couldnt sustain themselves. and then you come to Die another Day, easily the weakest bond film ever, even from the appalling madonna song, the crappy villain, the "so-called" dark scenes involving Bond being tortured and halle berry. That scene with Berry doing a homage ursula andress and bonds response was the only good thing about the movie. Casino Royale is in the hands of Audience, ie the mass populace. Some may have made there minds up last year when Daniel Craig was announced. Apart from Clooneys batman, no casting decision has ever alienated more people than this one. This is enormous gamble for the brocolli family and with bond 22 rudderless at present, who knows if they have made the right choice. Critical reaction seems to positive but as i have said it is the audience the world over that decideds whether or not Craig Can continue as bond or whether he gets just one outing.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 8:17 a.m. CST

    This Movie Owes a Lot to the Previous 20

    by DarfurOnTheRocks

    I have a good feeling about this movie. However, I think that this movie is only possible because Bond has been established over the past 20 movies. Also, just as some reviewers feel that the previous incarnations of Bond were played out, the producers of Casino Royale will not be able to stretch out the portrayal of a raw Bond forever. Finally, we can ridicule Moore's Bond's over reliance on gadgets. However, as a child those exact gadget were what defined Bond for me.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Brosnan Ruled

    by ChogWolf

    My first bond movie in the theatre was "For Your Eyes Only" therefore my childhood Bond was Roger Moore. 007 was all about the cool gadgets, the bevy of babes and the double entendres. That's what made Bond cool to me as a minute he'd be a bad ass killer, the next he'd be dropping the one liners and hooking up with the ladies.I still remember that early scene in Goldeneye where Bond drives off the cliff on the motorcycle to catch that plane..I was practically giddy that it seemed like the franchise had finally returned to form after the way too serious Dalton. Don't get me wrong..I own all the movies and love them all. I just have a different favourite Bond than most. For me it goes :Brosnan, Connery, Moore, Lazenby and Dalton in that order. That said..I will still be at the theatre for Casino Royale..It will still be Bond and I know I will probably like it..I just felt like Brosnan had a few more in him.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 8:25 a.m. CST

    Don't Call It A Comeback...

    by ryanislyin

    I'd much rather see a movie along the lines of "the Falcon and the Snowman", showing spies and secret agents for the horrible bastards they are. There's nothing sexy about spying, guys, unless you're in love with the thought of betraying your country and living in Russia for 10 rubles a month. Fuck spies. Right in their asses.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 8:26 a.m. CST

    BTW, the director-driven Bond franchise already exists

    by Bazka Berzerker

    It's called Mission Impossible series. Regardless of what you think of the relative merits of each installment, the fingerprints of each director were all over the place, for better or worse.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 8:28 a.m. CST

    I understand Fleming would not allow them to use Spy...

    by ckane123

    I read years back (may have been in the James Bond Compendum) that Fleming did not give Eon the rights to adapt Spy Who Loved Me because it was very close to him as an author (or it was unadaptable, as it is written from the female lead's perspective and Bond is barely in it most of the book). May be wrong, though...

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 8:38 a.m. CST

    What Pun? It wasn't Punny

    by hatespeech

    it was merely a comment, I see no pun. You need to go back to recognizing pun school.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 8:42 a.m. CST

    good review Massa

    by filmcoyote

    this film rocks, can't wait to see it again this weekend. Bond is dead, long live Bond!

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 8:49 a.m. CST

    Visionary director's Bond?

    by Spandau Belly

    Yes, the only thing that could destory this franchise further: Pedro Almodovar behind the camera!

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 9:36 a.m. CST

    Last night Jonathan Ross had a film 2006 special

    by emeraldboy

    He talked to everyone invovled with the Casino Royale with the notable exception of Dame Judi Dench. Ross showed a number of clips which nearly reveals real name. She shuts him up. Ross said this film is a spectacular success although he quibbled with the length of scene in Casino Royale itself dragged on. He went behind the scenes and we saw how they pulled off the finale. They were in venice to do some exterior shooting but my fucking god, they recreated venice in its entirety in Pinewood. It looks like they really pulled out all the stops for this film. We have all seen from the trailer that bit with the crane and the bit where totalled a jumbo jet. The venice bit looks like being the icing on the cake. This is huge gamble for eon we will now next week whether it has paid off.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 9:38 a.m. CST

    I remember as I young kid going to see

    by emeraldboy

    I am Roger Moore, I dont Roger Less, I Roger moore.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 9:49 a.m. CST

    The only thing that I cant get out of my mind is

    by emeraldboy

    a bond film without q. dont touch that 007. I just doesnt seem right. Being a something a bond purist my friend cant get over the whole female M thing. I understand why they had to do it. to dilute the whole sexism angle. Connery was a ladys man but being a creation of the times he pinched thier assess and gave them a good talking too and the odd slap.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Q is not in it because he wasn't in the book!

    by Jugs

    nuff said.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 10:23 a.m. CST


    by choptop

    whatever happened to you picking a new avatar, Massa?

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Anyone else...

    by Chilli815

    Really annoyed at the hatred of Die Another Day? Yes, it was cheesy... but damnit, the whole reason films like The Bourne Identity work is because they are an antidote to Bond. When I see Bond, I want to see a cheesy flick that entertains me, not a morose and tonally ass-to mouth in it's seriousness treaty on how hard it is to be a spy.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Well I hate to disappoint you Chilli815

    by emeraldboy

    All the cheese has been removed. More action, less gadgets. That seems to be the way that EON are proceeding now..... There are three action sequences in this. Big ones.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Also .

    by emeraldboy

    This apparently has more acting in it. They say.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 12:29 p.m. CST

    On the Bonds after Connery...

    by Lobanhaki

    The truth is, I can enjoy each bond for what he brought to things. Moore's bond was silly and over the top, but I grew up with him, and I like silliness, to certain point. Dalton's bond films were nice and complex. Brosnan was good, so long as they handed him scenes where the action was plot and action motivated, rather than from a need to show off some big action sequences. In that regard, GoldenEye has to be my favorite, with Die Another Day and the others following. Die Another Day seemed the better one to me in terms of the crispness of the action. When they weren't trying to sell those cars, or doing a funkily rendered CG effect it was good. Goldeneye was just frankly the most balls to the wall unhinged piece of work of just about any Bond film. If Casino Royale does that well, I'll be happy with it.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Daniel Craig

    by emeraldboy

    the best decription that I have heard is that he is one of those people who would rather act than talk all day about the nature of fame blah blah blah. The best comparison is a footballer who doesnt talk to the media but wows em on the pitch. or like van morrison who again doesnt talk to the media but lets his music do the talking. He strikes me as the kind of person who doesnt joke around. one of the stunt people said that he is very self-critical if he doesnt like something he will say it and do it until he gets it right

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Anyone up for a Spike Lee Bond?

    by Borgnine JR

    Or would it leave you all Bamboozled?

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 2:38 p.m. CST

    How about a Latin Bond girl named....

    by Borgnine JR

    ...Dirty Sanchez?

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 3:41 p.m. CST

    I Love It When Non-Bond Fans Tell Us...

    by Rebeck

    What Bond should and shouldn't be. Yeah, that's why the series has continued to thrive for almost 45 years. The formula works! I'm okay with them shaking it up and the script is great, but don't start telling me it's not the same fucking series - of course it is, you fucking idiot. Bond will go on and on and there will be many variations on the formula, but people go to a Bond film to see the Coolest Guy In The Universe outsmart the bad guys and that hasn't and won't ever change. If you're not a Bond fan then maybe you should stop watching them. I love Bourne, but that's not what the Bond series is ultimately. There will always be humor in the Bond films, that's an important part of the formula, and there IS in this script. Jesus, everybody needs to calm the fuck down. Craig is butt-fugly, but I hear he does a good job. I prefer the unflappable smoothness of Brosnan, and Craig can't just be a fucking BOUNCER in every movie, he's going to have to show a smoother side in the next one. Oh, and Q and Moneypenny WILL be back. Like I say, if you don't like the great Bond recipe that people have been eating up for decades, then find yourself some other series to your liking. I'm just so sick of the griping fanboys talking about how "gritty" it needs to be. The films were NEVER gritty, they were fucking FUN. You know? Popcorn entertainment? I love that the same fucking nerds who talk about color tights Spiderman is wearing and know entirely too much about EVERY single superhero and their "powers", think Bond is too "unrealistic". It's fucking hilarious.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 3:42 p.m. CST


    by Chilli815

    Eh, I'm gonna see it anyway, and if that trailer scene of the car flipping over is any indication, it may yet be ridiculously awesome.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Reason for not adapting the Gardner/Benson books

    by epitone

    Simple: EON, the Bond production company, doesn't own the rights to the other books; only the Fleming novels. Chances are they'd have to pay through the nose to get them, and it wouldn't really be worth it since most of them aren't all that spectacular.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Rebeck, that's not what people are asking for when they

    by FluffyUnbound

    talk about toning down the humor. To me, the best Bond ever was Sean Connery in Dr. No. That's the perfect mix of JUST A LITTLE humor with totally smooth badassery. I want to see Bond toughened up a little to compensate for the mincing performances put in by Roger Moore and the pretty-boy performances put in by Pierce Brosnan. I consider Dalton utterly forgettable so he doesn't count.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 6:17 p.m. CST


    by caltsoudas

    They abandoned Bakarat for Texas Hold'Em? Okay now that's just tacky. I'm actually seriously upset about that. Plus I'm a total Bonf fan and I'm so excited to go see his movie. I love how they made it more like the fist couple of Connery films with a tighter restraint on action and gadgets. I'm so excited. Plus, I actually liked the Madonna song. The problme with it was that the opening sequence for it was so blegh and so not Bond-like. Actually, The Worl Is Not Enough was in fact a really nicely made film and was very plausibly and realistic. Except for the villain's imunity. Yeah Die Another Day was just awful. So were the other Brosnan movies. I actually didn't like Goldeneye. Anyway, this movie will definately be kick-ASS.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 6:19 p.m. CST


    by caltsoudas

    Okay that post has a lot of typos and mistakes. Should've proof-read it.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Also, Rebeck...

    by epitone

    ...yes, of course the best Bond films (and novels) are fun; however, if you try to make one SOLELY for the sake of fun you end up with one of the Roger Moore movies, or Die Another Day. Say what you want about "stupid fanboy complaining" or whatever, but this version of Casino Royale is in many ways EXACTLY what the hardcore Bond fans have been begging for for years (even decades) and it also looks like it will be the best 007 film in quite a while. So I'm pretty glad that EON appears to have listened to that crowd and not the 13-year old boys who said "more of this, please" after seeing Die Another Day.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 7:34 p.m. CST

    Well, just seen it

    by Babyshamble

    It's only ok. The romantic elements are way too cheesy, people were laughing. But that's bound to be the English reaction, it's too long and drags a lot. However Craig is fantastic as is Eva Green. The ending seemed to piss a lot of people off. Some people liked the film but a couple of people really hated it. It'll be interesting to see how it does.

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Baccarat gone...

    by Kenny8 a shame. Where in the novel Bond studied the classier card game, now what? He works on his poker face? Typical dumbing down of Bond concepts....anyone know what "revoked" means??

  • Nov. 14, 2006, 10:05 p.m. CST

    Gunbarrel Opening Sequence...

    by Cadillac Jones

    ...please tell me this is still the standard opening? It can't be Bond without a proper, familiar Gunbarrel sequence!

  • Nov. 15, 2006, 2:47 a.m. CST

    yeah its there

    by Lewster3000

    no need to fret.

  • Nov. 15, 2006, 11:04 p.m. CST

    Craig is BOND!

    by DarthBakpao

    saw it last night, Daniel Craig is badass Bond!