Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Harry Sees CASINO ROYALE, But Wonders Where All The Japanese Schoolkids Killing Each Other Are!

First by Kristian66	Nov 17th, 2006 06:04:11 AM
MMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmm
About time.... by TheAllSeeingEye	Nov 17th, 2006 06:09:33 AM
I had no interest in seeing this Bond movie after the disappointments in the last Bond flicks. But the good press this is receiving has done the trick; i'm going tonight. Let's hear it for the Blonde Bond.
Bond 22 by emeraldboy	Nov 17th, 2006 06:10:10 AM
is going to be every hard act to follow. Ill be seeing Bond 21 tomorrow.
Aston Martin IS a Ford... by HCEarwicker	Nov 17th, 2006 06:25:40 AM
... mais n'enculons pas des mouches. Great review.
Oh I get it... by Drworm2002	Nov 17th, 2006 06:26:07 AM
A Battle Royale refrence
James a Blunt instrument by AllieJamison	Nov 17th, 2006 06:34:57 AM
that's funny
Dench M? by Bob Muttonchops	Nov 17th, 2006 06:35:12 AM
Am I the only one who's confused about which character Dench is supposed to be playing. Is this the same M that Brosnan encountered or a new one? Is this film totally independent from the others or a prequel set in 007's vague timeless timeline. If this is a total reboot then why keep Dench to confuse people. Sure she's a good actor but then they didn't bring back Pat Hingle say for Batman Begins. Fine if you want to keep M as a woman, Helen Mirren anyone? Just seems a strange idea, not that it'll matter once I've seen I guess.
Daniel Craig is James Bond by antonphd	Nov 17th, 2006 06:47:39 AM
This movie has the quote of the year. I can't say it without spoiling the movie, but, it's the best defiant quip I've heard is a very long time. The audience loved it. All I can say is, I want more. I'll be back to the theater tomorrow to catch this again. And I can't wait for 22. I'm getting happier and happier as I look back on the movie. This is James Bond for grown ups. Finally.
Let's just hope... by kwisatzhaderach	Nov 17th, 2006 06:48:12 AM
they don't wreck it all next time by hiring a hack director like they did after GoldenEye. The 3 other Brosnan films were all duds. Let's try and avoid that in future please Messrs Wilson and Broccoli? Great to see a good Bond film again.
Oh, and... by kwisatzhaderach	Nov 17th, 2006 06:49:30 AM
can't get the title sequence out of my head...just super cool. One of the great pleasures of cinema.
kwisatzhaderach by antonphd	Nov 17th, 2006 06:49:38 AM
My money is on a return for the same director. It's clear that they are going somewhere specific with this. It's the first 007 movie with a cliffhanger.
antonphd by kwisatzhaderach	Nov 17th, 2006 06:50:17 AM
Campbell said on UK tv this week that he wouldn't be doing the next one sadly...
CraigNotBond? Bitches!!! by HarryBlackPotter	Nov 17th, 2006 06:51:31 AM
Whose laughing now ya retards? Danny boy Craig, that's who. I knew he'd nail it. Ha ha. Well done Martin Campbell and Sony. Thanks for giving us the real man behind the tux - the character Flemming wrote but we've never seen before.
Bob Muttonchops by antonphd	Nov 17th, 2006 06:52:36 AM
Dench is back as M because she is almost... she so cool... they could make a series of just her character the way she's plays this time. She's so much richer in this movie than the other 4. In her first 2 minutes in this movie she out bad asses her other 4 performances. Bam. Just like that.
Dench as M by McBane	Nov 17th, 2006 06:57:35 AM
Seems they are going down the "James Bond" is the 007 code jname route. Well thats the best way to look at it if having Dench as M ruins continuity for you.
Same Question with Addition by Dersu	Nov 17th, 2006 07:03:55 AM
I asked this over at the Capone review: “Where does this film stand in the James Bond canon? It looks like it’s set in modern times, instead of in the ‘50s or ‘60s. Judi Dench is playing M again. She didn’t play M until ‘GoldenEye,’ and before that the character was always male. Is this perhaps a prequel to ‘GoldenEye,’ possibly implying that the other movies before that one were part of a different series entirely, or is this movie a complete do-over, like ‘Batman Begins?’ The thing is, the James Bond movies rarely made sense seeing as the character never aged in the forty odd years of the MGM franchise.” I didn't get an answer there. Maybe I'll luck out here. Also, it's interesting that M is a woman again in this movie, considering that in the novel, James Bond was incredibly sexist. Of course, he was sexist in the previous movies as well, but the movies didn’t play it as harsh and blunt as the “Casino Royale” novel did. Does this movie acknowledge his blatant sexism?
Best part in Casino Royale: by Darth Chode	Nov 17th, 2006 07:04:08 AM
is when Bond lays down a pair of Aces, smirks and says, "Maybe poker's just not your game, Le Chiffre. I know, let's have a spelling contest!" Awesome.
Well Holy Shit. by savagexp	Nov 17th, 2006 07:09:02 AM
Harry actually just wrote a simple review! No life story, no fucked up analogies, no blathering! Just a straight-forward review! Bravo, Harry! And well-written, to boot!
Continuity by NachoNegro	Nov 17th, 2006 07:11:41 AM
Anyone heard of a little thing called 'suspension of disbelief'? Anyway, you may remember the great Lazenby saying 'this never happened to the other guy'? That was an effort to bring some realism to the character in terms of continuity, and the public hated it. So now they just don't bother about it - and neither should you.
Oh and by the way.... by NachoNegro	Nov 17th, 2006 07:12:37 AM
Whats the chemistry like between Bond and M? I reckon there's some hard core action going on there behind the scenes.
My Dream Director for 22 by antonphd	Nov 17th, 2006 07:19:46 AM
Steven Spielberg. Let him make 007 22 like Munich. Oh. Man. With where the story can go now. That would just be awesome. Craig as Bond deserves to have A++ directors drawn to making Bond movies.
SPOILERISH my fave bit - by board shitlez	Nov 17th, 2006 07:29:14 AM
there is a point when the game appears to have collapsed around Bond - he is at rock bottom. He just grabs a knife and starts to follow the guy, intent on the kill - game or no game. It's a scene showing that Bond has lost, loses his game, and resorts to quite a base instinct and Craig does it brilliantly. All the way through the film.
Bond continuity explained: by rev_skarekroe	Nov 17th, 2006 07:38:01 AM
A wizard did it.
I remember... by biggles2_22	Nov 17th, 2006 07:53:53 AM
...wardrobe having to cover Roger Moore's old man neck-waddle in Octopussy or how about Sean Connery swapping old-man-spit with Kim Basinger in Never Say Never. The thing about the Bond series is that when it's good, it's good, when it's bad, it sucks beyond recognition. If this film gets mixed reviews, trust me, it sucks. BTW How does anyone think that the Timothy Dalton Bond flicks were even watchable?! I've seen 70's porno with better production values. Have you forgotten Wayne Newton's temple love grotto?! Danke Shane, darling! I'm an old fart and have grown up with all of the Bonds. Connery had 3 greats, Brosnan had 1, Moore? Please, those weren't Bond films they were spoofs. Dalton? 0, Lazenby? 0.
biggles2_22 by NachoNegro	Nov 17th, 2006 08:08:45 AM
Can I suggest you randomly copy the same bloody post into every single Bond - related talkback? Clown. And for the 50th time, Dalton was closer to Flemings Bond than any of the other originals. Living Daylights beat the hell out of 80% of Moores output.
FOR FUCKS SAKE NO !!!!! by Dude_gimme_tabs	Nov 17th, 2006 08:20:07 AM
NO, NO, NO, NO !!!!! James Bond is NOT a code name given to whoever has the 007 number. He is one person, always has been and always will be. Whoever suggests that one more time on any fucking talkback will be birched to within an inch of their lives..... and then one inch further. Fucktards !
Dude_gimme_tabs by NachoNegro	Nov 17th, 2006 08:21:43 AM
So how do you explain the Lazenby 'this never happened to the other guy' comment then? Birch me beee-otch if you dare!!!!
Nah by Bob Muttonchops	Nov 17th, 2006 08:24:29 AM
Continuity in bond isn't that important. Heck they didn't even make them vaguely in the order they were written. Just seemed a bit perculiar that they didn't break completely if they wanted a reboot. I'd rather they'd ditched Purvis & Wade (Bond 22) and David Arnold who uses the Bond tune (back to normal in 22 no doubt) way too much.
Nacho by Bob Muttonchops	Nov 17th, 2006 08:30:09 AM
I'm pretty sure that with OHMSS they were going to go with the idea that like Blofeld plastic surgery was the answer for it. They dropped it but they are at pains to point out it's the same guy. When he thinks of quitting he looks over all his old stuff from the previous movies. Also he has established relationships with the regular characters rather than being the new boy.
Also..... by Dude_gimme_tabs	Nov 17th, 2006 08:37:04 AM
And Moore visiting Tracey's grave in FYEO. And Leiter's short lived wife making a faux pas when she doesn't realise he was married before after the wedding. Consider yourself birched buddy..... but in a nice way, maybe with a happy finish! And the plastic surgery comment is indeed true, then they decided not to run with it as they didn't want to draw attention to the re-casting. Then they left that line in as a sop to the audience.... who hated it anyway. The Bond movies have always been a big continuation anomoly.
Thank you by Badger999	Nov 17th, 2006 08:42:40 AM
Thank you for writing a real review and not telling us about the drive to the theater. ;-) This is really the first good Harry review in a long time.
Bond-inuity by Samson_K	Nov 17th, 2006 08:43:31 AM
Yeah - I think that to even try to make any sense of it whatsoever will just give you a headache. He is the same agent no matter who plays him within the Eon series. I just think that it has been such a huge series - 21 films and been going for 44 years? It's kind of like trying to fit all that ectors who played Tarzan into one continuity. I personally find it best to just almost regard them as different takes - each actor has almost been a reboot (apart from Lazenby). Moore was never comfortable trying to do the Connery stuff, the DVD of Living Daylights that shows Dalton in a very Moore style joke (a flying carpet that out cringes the Tarzan call in Octopussy) shows that he could never have done overly camp and Brosnan rebooted it into a hybrid of Moore and Connery. This time they've kind of made it official.
Saw this in a sneak preview last night... by Lucasblows	Nov 17th, 2006 08:51:27 AM
...fucking awesome. Can't wait to go again tonight.
Saw this in a sneak preview last night... by Lucasblows	Nov 17th, 2006 08:51:49 AM
...fucking awesome. Can't wait to go again tonight.
Saw this in a sneak preview last night... by Lucasblows	Nov 17th, 2006 08:52:15 AM
...fucking awesome. Can't wait to go again tonight.
Eh by Chilli815	Nov 17th, 2006 08:56:50 AM
I go with the alternate universe of Bond's theory. Each one is a Bond, but they all exist within an alternate universe featuring similar characters. So this M is different to the Brosnan M, and if they wanted to they could have Jaws played by The Great Khali (huge, HUGE in size wrestler). Great review Harry, though Honestly... is that car bouncing scene as bad as the trailers make out?
Re: bob muttonchops by CarolinaProjectionist2005	Nov 17th, 2006 09:03:48 AM
Bob, I don't know for sure about who Judi Dench is playing either, but I have always thought of it this way: since Bond never ages from film to film, I have always thought of it as more of a role that an agent steps in to. Like, there isn't a "james bond"...that's just a name that is assigned to the number 007. After a "james bond" has been killed or retires, then an agent is elevated to 00 status, and if he takes the number 007, he becomes "james bond". I have no proof of this, and having not seen the new flick, don't know if it blows my little therory to hell, but that is the logic I've used for myself through roger moore, timothy dalton and brosnan. and since we've been through 2 Q's, 2 M's and the films have been running since 1962, unless james is immortal, this is the only thing that makes sense IMHO.
"First 007 movie with a cliffhanger" by Osmosis Jones	Nov 17th, 2006 09:11:34 AM
OHMSS kind of counts as a cliffhanger (which was resolved in the stinky DAF).
Continuity by R0BTRAIN	Nov 17th, 2006 09:18:24 AM
Look, Bond gets married at the end of OHMSS and then his marriage is mentioned over several Bonds including the Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only (where Moore is actually at her grave) and in License to Kill. If it wasn't the same person, why the fuck would Moore's Bond be at the fucking grave? Also in OHMSS, Lazenby's Bond is in one scene sitting there with props, reminiscing about the other movies. He looks at each item lovingly, as if he had been there!
NachoNegro by biggles2_22	Nov 17th, 2006 09:19:11 AM
Hey, glad it was so memorable! Nothing random about it. The Dalton movies sucked the pale beyond. Oh, wait, I just figured this out, you're 7 or 8 years old!! Hey there big fella! Does mommy and daddy know you're on the internet? POP QUIZ: Which Three's Company actor appeared in License To Kill? What recurring Love Boat actor also appeared in the same movie? Answer those questions and then tell me that LTK wasn't a waste of film. Search your heart, Nacho, you know it to be true. While Dalton is not a bad actor, he sucked as Bond.
what, no masturbation or vagina references? by TheBaxter	Nov 17th, 2006 09:21:01 AM
then who wrote this review, because it certainly couldn't have been harry
CarolinaProjectionist2005 - GET HIM !!!! by Dude_gimme_tabs	Nov 17th, 2006 09:24:05 AM
Commence birching ! Birch with extreme prejudice !!!! Birch him until he cannot be birched anymore !!!!!!!!!!
Kasparov by Mutant Leader	Nov 17th, 2006 09:46:49 AM
You know who Daniel Craig reminds me of? Kasparov,the chess champion seen in the first half hour of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. I did a comparison last night and the resememblance DOES seem very striking; were the producers intentionally trying to evoke the creepy Soviet chess player rather than a previous Bond? I think so. (BTW, I throw down with Nacho Negro w/r/g continuity; this is the fantasy world of the movies. M can be anyone you WANT her to be; Densch-and Bond-are back because we all like them. :-)
I'm gonna help you! by Captain Katanga	Nov 17th, 2006 09:49:19 AM
I've got his legs... Pin his arms down! now someone else... BIRCH HIM!!!!!!!
I hate it when people say this, but... I told you so. by brokentusk	Nov 17th, 2006 10:02:45 AM
Yes, that's right - it's all about me. Nah, a lot of other people felt this way as well so I'm just so glad that Craig nailed it like I knew he would.
CASINO ROYALE SUCKS!!! by HOLLY_TRUTH	Nov 17th, 2006 10:15:55 AM
My comments about Craig`s performance... :(
Is Roger Moore Gay? by BobParr	Nov 17th, 2006 10:17:02 AM
I always assumed he was but never quite sure. He was the worst Bond compared to the character in the books. Bond is a violent bad-ass. Roger Moore played him as a wise cracking "dandy". Even though Roger Moore was a very big guy he was never intimidating and his fight scenes were laughable.
Is Roger Moore Gay? by BobParr	Nov 17th, 2006 10:17:03 AM
I always assumed he was but never quite sure. He was the worst Bond compared to the character in the books. Bond is a violent bad-ass. Roger Moore played him as a wise cracking "dandy". Even though Roger Moore was a very big guy he was never intimidating and his fight scenes were laughable.
But Poker? by jazzbox2	Nov 17th, 2006 10:18:47 AM
C'mon, guys. James Bond playing Texas Hold 'Em? Does he do a beer bong, too? I guess it's not too bad if they get everything else right...
Itchy Balls by Dude_gimme_tabs	Nov 17th, 2006 10:23:08 AM
"Whatever happens to me, everyone will know that you died scratching my balls!"
jazzbox sucks by supermarch	Nov 17th, 2006 10:23:16 AM
I've seen people drop 7 figures playing Texas Hold'em. It's one of the few casino games that gets stakes high enough to matter in a James Bond movie. Call it a reflection of the times. You and your virgin buddies play a much more....um...pussified version. Try watching a real poker game and come back when your balls drop. Casino Royale is the best movie of 2006.
Daniel Craig as Roland Deschain by Virtual Satyr	Nov 17th, 2006 10:33:25 AM
Make it happen..now.
HARRY! OHMSS not a flop by Tai_Pan	Nov 17th, 2006 10:42:09 AM
It was made for 7mil and made 87mil worldwide, and was the 2nd highest grossing film of 1969. True, it made $24mil less than YOLT, but still, OHMSS was not a flop.
Continuity by Boromir187	Nov 17th, 2006 10:48:37 AM
It's really simple. Casino Royale is a complete reboot of the franchise ala Batman Begins. It has nothing to do with the previous 20 films (and yes, all the Bonds in those films are the same character). For better or worse, that franchise itself is over and we are starting a new one. It's just like how Batman Begins is not apart of the Burton/Schumacher Batman films. That said, it is rather confusing both to fans and to the general populace that Judi Dench is back as M. While I have enjoyed her in the role so far, they really should have recast that role as well and had a complete fresh start. Anyway, once more, this really isn't the 21st James Bond film. Instead it is basically the first in a new Bond series. Thankfully Wilson & Broccoli have some sense and have stated that they definitely WILL NOT remake any of the previous films. Instead the installments in this new series that follow Casino Royale will be original films crafted with a more concrete continuity between them.
A good review from Harry, too? by ookla the mok	Nov 17th, 2006 11:09:12 AM
I can't take it. First, Vern returns from the dead, promptly dispatches the Ersatz Vern that tried to take his place, and delivers a great return to form review. Now Harry gives a good review with no obscene sexual references (and for a Bond flick, even). Crazy, man, crazy.
All the film trailers... by idahomer	Nov 17th, 2006 11:17:40 AM
of the Bond franchise. Pretty cool. http://tinyurl.com/y4oe5o
enough with the "continuity" by BizarroJerry	Nov 17th, 2006 11:21:34 AM
Can't everyone let it go and just watch the flick? Despite the few references to JB's wife and a look back at previous missions (OHMSS and one of the Brosnan ones, too, I think) there's never really been that much interest placed on continuity by the producers.
how about "Q"? by BizarroJerry	Nov 17th, 2006 11:22:05 AM
Now, I know there's barely and gadgetry in this flick and Q doesn't appear (right?), but I hope we do see him in future installments. I liked Cleese taking that role, but I would guess they may replace him. While the previous films became too dependent on Q's gadgets, we still need some cool ones from time to time. And a little comic relief from Q is always welcome.
Bond Floats by donuts	Nov 17th, 2006 11:42:31 AM
http://www.theweeklydonut.org/ index.php/category/007/
Casino Royale is NOT a reboot: by Novaman5000	Nov 17th, 2006 11:44:47 AM
Look at how they're marketing the fucking film: "Come see how it all began" and "Come see how Bond became 007". This is an origin story, not a reboot. I saw it a couple of weeks ago and really enjoyed it. For the first time ever I'm actually looking foward to the next Bond movie.
So, is the wedding off then? by Kentucky Colonel	Nov 17th, 2006 11:47:24 AM
Where's Yoko and what's her opinion? Was this her first Bond movie? Was there too much or not enough butter on the popcorn? Who gives a rat's about the movie, Harry, we want to know how you FEEL....Ebert can tell me about the movie, but I dare him to inject his "Brown Sugar" into the mix...knowhutImean?
Spielberg by Tenenbaum	Nov 17th, 2006 12:13:14 PM
Hasn't he expressed an interest in directing a Bond film?
supermarch - a note about Poker by NachoNegro	Nov 17th, 2006 12:28:31 PM
Dude I can assure you I have / do played poker at a reasonable level - higher than you would have done. And it is certainly a game where the best man wins - over time. However, as a exercise in financing terrorism it leaves much to be desired. The swings are too great. And don't talk to me about 'cheating' - if you really believe much cheating goes on at the levels you're talking about, you're kidding yourself. There are much easier ways to finance terrorism than playing poker. But that said, I have plenty of disbelief suspension ability, so it won't get in the way of the film for me :)
Bondinuity - the truth by NachoNegro	Nov 17th, 2006 12:35:28 PM
Here's something you guys haven't thought about. The actual secret behind the Bond Continity is this - Pierce Brosnan is Daniel Craigs Dad. It's that simple. He has handed over the reins to his son, and buggered off to Hawaii. Timothy Dalton was Brosnans Dad. Moore was Daltons Dad. Etc. This explains everything in the continuity. When Moore was visiting Tracys grave, he wasn't visiting his wifes grave - it was his MOTHER. With one fell swoop, all bond continuity issues become moot. Now the real question is, Are the Moneypennys similarly related? i.e. Samantha Bond is Lois Maxwells grand-daughter? And as for Judi Dench (grand-daughter of the original M), she has simply seen Pierce retire, and now his son takes over. And just as she drank deeply from Pierces man-cup, so she shall from Craigs. It is merely a matter of time.
Anchorite... by Kentucky Colonel	Nov 17th, 2006 12:57:01 PM
Extra butter for YOUR popcorn!!!
Caught the midnight screening and it was GREAT..! by workshed	Nov 17th, 2006 01:02:57 PM
Now they should do all the books again in sequence (except Live and Let Die which is, to be frank, racist rubbish). Daniel Craig finally erased the (bad) memories of Moore, Dalton and Brosnan in one fell swoop. The stunts alone were definitely worth £5 of anybody's money. The chase sequence in Madagascar was as good as Hackman's in French Connection I. What a return to form and CRAIG IS BOND. Forever.
wow...you guys who saw early screening.... by the_shogun_gunslinger	Nov 17th, 2006 01:27:48 PM
REALLY need to cut back on the spoiler posts...fuck man, i guess i DONT have to see this today...thanks... and one last thing, and this goes for Harry too...i know Battl Royale is a great movie...i love it and i want to father its children...however, we must NEVER speak of it again no matter how much we want to...look at The THING, being remade...if we keep talking about BR they are gonna do the same to it...so plz, keep it down...nothing is sacred to those fuckers. ps. good review Harry..but did u buy orbit gum on the way there? ;P j/k
OHMSS - Not a Flop by Fearsme	Nov 17th, 2006 01:39:38 PM
Yes, it was hardly a flop. In fact, Lazenbee (sp?) was asked to return for the next film, but he turned it down, citing that people advised him to not do another Bond or he would be type cast for the rest of his career.
get a life, workshed by mrbong	Nov 17th, 2006 01:39:40 PM
Live and Let Die "racist rubbish", is it? only if you sit and watch it to nitpick away at political correctness. are you saying no black man can ever be the bad guy in a film or story, are you? and that's not racist in itself, is it? just fucking enjoy a film or story for the entertainment value and don't put your own political problems into everything, dickhead.
My favorite Bond is... by DoctorWho?	Nov 17th, 2006 02:11:36 PM
For Your Eyes Only...the best Roger Moore one. I have to laugh at the scene on the ice rink trying to run James down with a Zamboni! Those things are SO deadly.
Look.... by emeraldboy	Nov 17th, 2006 02:17:37 PM
The fact is this the only people were responsible for the decline in the Bond franchise were not the actors, not the directors(who were all hired) but EON! the fact remains that bond became a relic of the cold war which was stated in one of the Brosnan films M says I have never liked you 007, you are a sexist misogynist dinosaur. a relic of the cold war. With the cold war over Bond became a relic of a by gone era. This was quite obvious by Die another Day. M says the world has changed and Bond retorts well I havent changed. Eon failed to take account of the fact the spy genre was now very crowded, jack bauer, spooks, Jason Bourne, alias and Mission impossible have all attempted to take 007s crown. But Eon ignored all them and contiuned to make bond a relic and iam shocked it has taken this long to back to basics.
Casino Royale IS a reboot.... by SWR 77	Nov 17th, 2006 02:21:11 PM
This film may be getting promoted as a prequel to the general public, but the official movie site proves otherwise. Craig's Bond was born in 1968 and there's a timeline of his career in the 1990s and 2000s prior to becoming 007. I kind of like the idea of Bond being an alias attached to that number but that clearly isn't the case.
I asked Garth Franklin about getting qt by emeraldboy	Nov 17th, 2006 02:23:41 PM
to direct bond and he thought the idea was nothing short of an abomination!!!!!!
Bond is a creation of another time and by emeraldboy	Nov 17th, 2006 02:44:02 PM
another era. There are now things which are utterly unacceptable like the voodoo scenes in live and let Die with Snakes etc. Bond was sexist because of the times.
Favorite Bond film by WickedMonster	Nov 17th, 2006 02:49:35 PM
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. I loved that movie, for some reason. It was so cool with the gadget and stuff. First Bond Film: MOONRAKER. Didnt know what the deal was with the guy who had golden teeth. Kick-ass bond film in my opinion: THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN!!! Don't mess with the golden gun.
Timothy Dalton's BEST role... by DoctorWho?	Nov 17th, 2006 03:02:25 PM
Prince Baron in Flash Gordon! "lying bitch!"
This ain't your father's Bond...oh wait, yeah it is. by Shermdawg	Nov 17th, 2006 03:02:37 PM
I'm a bit torn on this one. I like the film, well, a good portion of it, but for someone who was raised on Dalton and Pierce, I miss the high tech escapism of the previous installments. But Casino Royale hands them their asses when it comes to dialogue...buuuttt...you won't be quoting this, like you could Goldeneye. Craig is surprisingly good in the role, although, he is still one of the ugliest mofo's I've seen. Seriously, does he have a sweet tooth for Lemonheads? Hmm, come to think of it, maybe I should have said "mopo" (Mother Pucker). Despite his looks, he'll do fine. They aren't gonna ditch him. But what they will ditch is the tone of the film. Given the next films summer release date, and the fact that Royale most likely WILL NOT play well with the younger crowd and Activision ( current holders of the Bond videogame license), I'd imagine the next will bring back a little of that escapism, but retain the awesome writing of this one. They'll have to compromise a little to ensure it's a hit across the boards. What ticked me off about Royale is that it was supposedly a realistic Bond flick, or less hokey, yet the very first action scene has Bond and the guy he's pusuing jumping around like The Morlocks from X3. I was a little unbelievable. I mean c'mon when the scarred guy runs up the side of that beam, it screamed wire work. I would have cut that shot in a heartbeat. And the fact that they even climbed up on top of a freakin' crane was a bit much. Most of that action scene doesn't mesh all that well with the rest of the film. Even Bauer wouldn't do the crane, and he's king of unbelievability. When that particular chase ends, if this was a videogame, it would have been blasted for unoriginality due to one well placed barrell. ;) It was hella cool end though! The one line of the film I thought would get a big reaction, was Jame's shaken or stirred answer, but no one in the audience made a sound. Darn it. Now, I said I liked a good portion of this thing, what I didn't dig was the reveal of who was behind the whole shebang. Or should I say, the reveal, of the reveal, of the reveal, of the reveal. It's great they are moving away from the tired as hell world domination plot, but christ, this finish seemed just as" been there, done that". There's gotta be some clever endings for these flicks, that have yet to be tried. And this certainly wasn't one of those. I mean, c'mon, if you didn't see the ending coming from a mile away when Bond turned in his resignation, if not before, then you need to school yourself in some cinema. But, no matter how much I didn't like the last half hour or so of the film (other than that last haunting gasp) it was NOWHERE near as bad as that fucking terrible Chris Cornell title theme. Honest to god, it was bad. Not Madonna bad, but it was pretty craptastic. As well as the idea that Bond would actually drive a frickin' Ford. lol. All in all, this film is worthy of me to keep wearing my trusty 007 ballcap, and I'll be looking forward to James Bond's return. I just hope Craig can turn that pucker into a smirk by then.
Is there anyone who saw this... by The Dum Guy	Nov 17th, 2006 03:16:53 PM
That doesn't like it. My expectations are getting pretty high on this one, and I only want one "bad" review to try and counteract it (expectations).
oh. I get it. by omarthesnake	Nov 17th, 2006 03:27:18 PM
you're comparing the name of this movie with Battle Royale, as if this'n didn't have the "Royale" title decades before that other movie. Ha. ha. that's funny. you're a funny man. ha.
Was thinking about giving this a miss but what the hey. by Reelheed	Nov 17th, 2006 03:37:35 PM
Can't be as bad as Crank...
i know all you younguns love moore, dalton, brozza by Exeter	Nov 17th, 2006 04:29:15 PM
my perosonal favorite is connery, i grew up with his films more than any other bond, i remember watching dr. no at 12 years old and loving it over any of the 70s/80s shit, but now you guys finally have a respectable bond to live with , craig.
for those that think this isn't a reboot: by Ky-El	Nov 17th, 2006 04:56:09 PM
You're an idiot. Batman Begins was marketed the same way and it wasn't an "origin" tale. We know this because Joker is in the second one. This is a new start to the franchise. All subsequent Bond films will be in the Craig-verse.
wow, harry gave a straightforward review & and CR owned by Exeter	Nov 17th, 2006 05:06:46 PM
no talking about waking up and doing the james bond dance, just a pure tight review, and the new bond movie is the best bond movie since 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the world's going topsy turvy!!!!
Did I see the same film? by superstar	Nov 17th, 2006 05:48:29 PM
I'm kinda puzzled by all these glowing opinions. A lot of it was good, granted. But my oh my, some of the dialogue was awfully clunky and forced. The parkour was done well, and Campbell handled the action pretty nicely throughout, but it's so done to death by now that it only dragged me back into 2006, further confusing me as to WHEN this story was taking place. The gambling scenes had a horrible commentary for us non-gamblers and dragged to the point that i had to wake my friend up when we got to last act. I was mildly entertained, but not blown away. None of the action sequences took my breath away. But, I did like seeing Bond react to the aftermath of a kill, etc. And the girl was a cool character. The title sequence stuck out like a sore thumb too - too slick and CGI for a supposedly 'grittier' Bond. Meh.
continuity by soup74	Nov 17th, 2006 06:05:08 PM
the Bond movies use 'comic book' continuity. as in, say, peter parker has been around for over 40 years, and experienced many of the major events of the last 40 years but still has only aged about 5-10 years. this is comic book continuity. the bond movies never set out to follow time strictly, so you just have to have suspension of disbelief there. a bond 'period piece' would be lame.
Harry's reviews keep getting worse and worse... by wolvenom	Nov 17th, 2006 06:26:03 PM
this one just seems too short. Others are way too long. I dont buy his enthusiasm for this bond. He has lost his art for making a creative and enthusiastic review. And I rarely ever see him give a bad review. BOOOO HARRY!!! BOoooooooo
That Tarzan comment... by llac9	Nov 17th, 2006 06:38:42 PM
..."they’re not the Tarzan I dreamed of, while reading the books." That was pretty gay.
Did I say pretty gay? by llac9	Nov 17th, 2006 06:40:29 PM
I meant super gay.
just saw it by misnomer	Nov 17th, 2006 07:02:34 PM
and was pretty disappointed. I was open-minded, and looking forward to a realistic take on bond, but the thing is...it's not that well-written. Its more like watching the "serious" parts of the brosnan movies, with a less charismatic guy as bond and no fun scenes at all. I couldnt help thinking thoughout the whole film that "wow this guy can act, hes painted this really cool character....but hes in the wrong movie, its just not bond" Its a shame but I just couldnt think of craig as james bond no matter how hard I tried....ah welll its gonna take me awhile to get used to him I suppose.
and man am I sick of reading positive reviews for by misnomer	Nov 17th, 2006 07:05:28 PM
so-so films. Wow! Borat is the funniest movie ever!...turns out its not a patch on any sketch featured on the tv show. Wow! this is the best bond movie to date!- not a patch on goldeneye....Wow! King Kong GO SEE! an awful awful film. POTC2 just as fun if not better than the first!- a film that turned out to have absolutely no plot whatsoever......and it goes on and on....FUCK YOU CRITICS!
best bond since "for your eyes only" by reckni	Nov 17th, 2006 07:29:20 PM
liked it a lot, glad they dumped brosnan for craig, he hits it out the park. i want vesper, so yummy!
harry by McLuvin	Nov 17th, 2006 07:47:13 PM
i'm seeing the movie tonight, but i love that you mentioned he has a "panic expression" that he tries to hide. i remember seeing that beautifully in every indiana jones movie, when the camera would focus up close on harrison fords face and he'd give one of thos "oh shit" looks. priceless
oh wait by McLuvin	Nov 17th, 2006 07:49:25 PM
i thought that it was bond that does that expression, not the shariife guy
let's just forget DAF-DAD ever happened by Exeter	Nov 17th, 2006 08:04:23 PM
let's clean the slate on the period between 1971-2002. stinky shit
Does anyone remember what a really "good" action movie by Rollo Tomasi666	Nov 17th, 2006 09:34:18 PM
I am so tired or reading these glowing reviews for so-so action movies. MI3 better than True Lies? Casion Royale best bond ever? Come on folks. Went and saw this at the 12:01 am show at the Chinese in Hollywood last night and while I liked the idea and approach - and I liked Craig quite a bit - there are some huge holes and problems with the story - script. We keep finding ourselves in action sequeces where we don't know what the hell is going on or what the point of the chase is. Just excuses for set pieces. The whole airport scene? What? Bond follows a guy from the Bahamas to Miami who drops off a uniform? Why was someone wanting to blow up the new plane? Wouldn't you want people on the plane if you were a terrorist? Or maybe he was working for Boeing and just didn't like Airbus. I can't get through security with nail clippers but we can have a 10 minute car chase out on the runway? And why are we playing hold'em in Casino Royale anyway? Trying to get some money from the bad guy? Why not just grab him and sieze his funds? Anyway, I know we aren't supposed to think about this stuff, but there were some really big holes here and some awful dialogue. And I hate to tell all of you - even though I really liked Craig and what he did, all kinds of people (real people, not just Bond fans) were walking out saying, "Well he sure wan't James Bond." It will be interesting to see what happens with the box office after this weekend (which is bought and paid for - just turn on the TV). Oh yeah...And NO GIRLS IN THE TITLE SEQUENCE? Even all the women in the theater were talking about that. Some very odd choices.
After the "Balls" Line... by AngelCordy	Nov 17th, 2006 10:39:55 PM
My whole theater stood up and applauded. It was one of the coolest things I've ever seen. Definitely one of the best movies of the year, though POTC2 was my fave. Madagascar scene was brilliant. Cheers to all involved. Oh, and I want Daniel Craig to father my children.
BOND by Turd Furgeson	Nov 17th, 2006 10:49:59 PM
I really liked this film..... AS A BOND FILM!!!! If this were a BORNE movie it would have sucked ass.... This was by far the best Bond movie I have ever seen......... HOWEVER, it was flawed. Not Daniel Craig, he IS AMAZING in this... He is what I imagined Bond to be, but the movie overall, B+... Didn't like Eva Green and everyone else seemed like the usual Euro trash monkeys we're used to seeing.
The List! by Tai_Pan	Nov 17th, 2006 10:50:03 PM
My list anyways: (In order, best to least) The Greats: OHMSS, TLD, FRw/L, Goldeneye, Goldfinger, TSWLM, CR , The Goods: LTK, FYEO, Dr. No, L&LD, Octopussy The "Meh"s: DAD, DAF, YOLT, The Sucky: Thunderball, TWINE, AVTAK, TND, Moonraker, (and the worst Bond film ever...)TMWtGG. "Casino Royale" is damn good, and coulda been second only to OHMSS if only the last 30 minutes wasn't so disjointed and if the last scene of the movie wasn't so lackluster... oh well! Still great!!!
Oh yeah... by Tai_Pan	Nov 17th, 2006 10:53:47 PM
I thought the Bourne films were boring and gloomy trash. I'm sick of hearing people whining about Bond films not stacking up to the Bourne flicks... those 2 films are the ugly bastard grandchildren of the Bond flicks.
Regarding Spielberg.... by Dasher	Nov 17th, 2006 10:59:54 PM
Spielberg has long been a Bond fan and has approached the Broccoli family on several occasions wanting to direct. However, he has always been turned down because the Broccolis want British directors for the Bond films. I don't understand why that rule has to be enforced so strictly, but they're in charge and that's the rule.
Rollo Tomasi666 by CTU Mole	Nov 17th, 2006 11:00:49 PM
All of your questions are answered in the film. It's not their fault if you weren't paying attention.
Harold, come on, man! by Zarles	Nov 17th, 2006 11:47:23 PM
The geekiest moment in a Bond movie in years happens and you don't even mention it? Jeffrey Wright as Felix Lighter getting a kick-ass reveal and a hilarious punchline to boot? You're slipping, my friend. ;)
Saw it tonight... by Tenenbaum	Nov 18th, 2006 12:02:21 AM
Good but not great.
damn you Michael Bay by MCMLXXVI	Nov 18th, 2006 12:30:25 AM
Damn you Michael Bay
True Lies vs. M:I 3 by BillEmic	Nov 18th, 2006 12:37:54 AM
I've never seen anybody say that Mission: Impossible 3 was better than True Lies. I don't think that kind of comment would hold up. MI3 was actually quite good (except for the weak ending) but nothing beats Ah-nold taking down terrorist trash. True Lies - minus all the comedic melodrama during the second act - is practically a cathartic experience post-9/11. Anyway, people are praising Casino Royale as a great action movie because it is, in fact, a great action movie. The opening chase sequence shows that Hollywood execs have seen Ong-Bak and have taken notes.
CTU Mole - no...those questions weren't answered- by Rollo Tomasi666	Nov 18th, 2006 12:48:44 AM
-just glossed over or with a VERY weak reason. Trust me I saw and "got" everything there....There just wasn't much to get.
It’s a pity Dan will probably only do 2 more Bond films by TJ50	Nov 18th, 2006 01:08:25 AM
The big problem with these fucking films is still the tight fisted control freak producers, as Mr. Craig has signed on for only 2 more 007 films and will understandably want more money (as Mr. Brosnan also did, hence the reason he was dumped after his 4 film contract ended) to sign up for another 3 more. Unfortunately Barbara and Michael won't want to oblige, as they refuse to offer Bond actors profit participation and want it all for themselves, therefore instead of signing Craig for 3 more films, in 5 or 6 years, they'll be looking for another new actor.
it's best movie of the year by McLuvin	Nov 18th, 2006 01:43:00 AM
hands down, best movie of the year. the action was unreal. daniel craig owns the role, and any talkbacker who doesn't like the movie can suck my balls.
Review nailed it too. by WONKABAR	Nov 18th, 2006 04:14:35 AM
I totally loved the "duel" with the parkor-master...great contrast. I dig when action scenes tell a story, and you actually get character developement beyond the usual chasing and fighting. Great stuff...cool movie. My only wish was for just one more action scene at like the ones in the beginning (the stuff in Venice was a bit run-of-the-mill)...just to balance the movie out after such a great opening and all that poker (which was also great in it's own way, with an exciting bit in the middle) but maybe it was good in that it left you wanting more. Can't wait.
And yeah... by WONKABAR	Nov 18th, 2006 04:38:37 AM
They should have recast Dench. I liked that she played it differently though...it's was almost as though it WAS recast, and I liked her work, but, it would be akin to Nolan bringing back the old Alfred just cuz he liked the actor...it wouldn't have made sense. They should have just had Dench be a different character that's above M and then introduced us to M in the next flick along with Q or something. That would have been a better way of keeping her if they wanted that bad. I mean, they could have at least had her LOOK different in this movie. But, oh well...live and let die I guess.
Spielberg & Bond directors by jabbathegriffin	Nov 18th, 2006 05:01:30 AM
Spielberg wouldn't be right for Bond. He's too personal a filmmaker and his own choices would get in the way of the bigger picture. Same with Quentin Tarantino and Peter Jackson who are also die-hard Bond freaks with aspirations to make one of their own. The whole reason the movies are successful is because of a certain style that has transferred from film to film, be it good or bad, and the directors should remain objective about. And even as Casino Royale shook everything up, it still held on to all the things that make a great Bond film without trying to reinvent the wheel. I can think of dozens of directors better then Martin Campbell, but I'd chose him over any of them when it comes to 007.
Let me explain the non american director rule by emeraldboy	Nov 18th, 2006 06:07:28 AM
It is to do British govt for tax pruposes. Eon has an exclusive deal to make Bond in Britain and has done so for 45 years. That means with the exception of Felix leighter and the backing of MGM there are no americans bar the brocolli family involved in the production side of bond movies. british cast including bond, british crews, british locales which are turned into foreign destinations, that is what is so great about pinewood, you may think you are looking at Venice but that was actually venice re-built on the sound stage. The scene in Miami airport wasnt shot in Miami at all but in a disused airfield. but i could be wrong. There are some foreign locales used for exterior shots like Prague but all the interiors are done in the UK.
Never thought I'd say this but.... by Buck_Turgidson	Nov 18th, 2006 06:07:55 AM
Excellent review, Harry
TJ50 by emeraldboy	Nov 18th, 2006 06:18:24 AM
They cannot let the brosnan thing ever happen again. so with the casting of Craig they have set down a marker/warning. two years as bond and your done. next. move on. Brosnan got to big for his boots so they dumped him.
Question for Harry, Mori and co by TheDarkKnight999	Nov 18th, 2006 08:14:52 AM
I’m just interested in hearing what you guys thought of Dalton. He really worked hard on delivering something that Craig has been given the opportunity in doing in Casino Royale. Not downsizing Craig’s accomplishment at all. But I felt Dalton really had that Idea of getting back to Fleming and mixing it up with the more successful parts of the Bond film formula. And for the most part he succeeded its just he had fairly routine scripts to work with stylistically. So unfortunately his work is kind of stomped on in popular opinion which I think is a shame. So what do you guys and indeed the other Talk backers think of Bond number 4 ?
Re dalton by emeraldboy	Nov 18th, 2006 09:10:53 AM
I thought Dalton was too stiff and far to serious to be Bond. I dont mean that he was wooden in any way when I use the word Stiff, I just mean that he seemed uncomfortable in the role and that he would rather be doing shakespeare. By relocating the whole thing to florida, Eon damaged the franchise. it had running out of steam anyway. Bond is British and licence to Kill made bond too american.
Bond is Back!!!! by punisher5150	Nov 18th, 2006 09:12:47 AM
I've read many of the books, both Fleming and non-Fleming. I took the literature Bond as a different take on the character, as the filmakers never truly "got" James Bond. But I still enjoyed them in their own right. But that has all changed with Casino Royale. I was a bit upset when they changed the card game to Texas hold'em instead of Baccarat, but it worked in this film. The book dedicated several pages to explaining the Baccarat game, and I can see why the filmakers did't want to drag out the movie by having to similarly explain it to a lergley American audience. Plus, do they even still play that game at Casinos???? Anyway, this Bond is the Bond from Flemings novels. The only thing he's missing is the scar down the side of his face. And hair color. But I can live without those traits. Craig has nailed this character. Can't wait to see him as Bond in the next couple of films. I hope they keep the realism and don't resort to the campy Bond of Connery's latter films, all of Moore's films, and Brosnan's films. Pierce made a great amalgam of Connery/Moore, but the filmmakers only used that on the first and third of his series. the other two went too far into Moore territory for me (I still enjoyed them, but not on the same level). As for Dalton, good try on his first, but still too much Moore influence. Lazenby could have been good, as his was the closest to Fleming's story of the same title. But box office failure killed his chances. Here's to a new era of Bond. Go see it. If you like the literal Bond, I think you'll love this movie.
Clarification by punisher5150	Nov 18th, 2006 09:14:57 AM
First two lines of my post should read... I've read many of the books, both Fleming and non-Fleming. I took the literature Bond as a different take on the character, as the filmakers never truly "got" James Bond. But I still enjoyed the films in their own right...
As for the car chase where Bond flips the DB5 by punisher5150	Nov 18th, 2006 09:17:12 AM
It seemed that they used different camera angles than the trailer. That scene was clearly CGI in the trailer. The scene in the film shows the flip from the back of the car and not an overhead camera shot. It looks much more realistic.
For Spielberg, Tarantino, and Jackson..... by Dasher	Nov 18th, 2006 09:17:35 AM
I think the only way they could do a Bond film is if there was another remake of Thunderball. Kevin McClory owns the rights to that one, so he can do with it as he pleases. I liked Never Say Never Again, but I'll admit that it's kind of cheesy. Why not a new version of Thunderball starring Brosnan and directed by Spielberg, Tarantino, or Jackson?
Kevin McClory was courting Sony for more Thunderball by punisher5150	Nov 18th, 2006 09:21:08 AM
remakes. Now that Sony owns MGM, I don't think they'd be interested anymore. I would like to see them remake some of the older movies, though. Particulary Dr No, From Russia..., and Thunderball. I'm very curious to see where they take Craig's Bond in the next film. Will it be completely new story, or will they adapt more of Fleming's stories? The film's have really only used titles of Fleming's stories for the latter films.
Nah. by Zarles	Nov 18th, 2006 09:22:02 AM
If there's a Bond actor that needs to be directed by Quentin, it's Daniel Craig. I loved Casino Royale, but I thought that the very few loose ends it had could've been resolved with a slightly more coherent director. I'm not slagging the director or CR at all, but Tarantino would've made that movie a masterpiece.
I GIVE MY LIIIFFEEE! NOT FOR HONOR, BUT FOR YOOOUUU... by Johnno	Nov 18th, 2006 10:49:52 AM
SNAAAAKE EATEEERRR! Anyway, Love the new Bond, and I totally dig those opening credits!
Richard Branson by hairyproductions	Nov 18th, 2006 10:51:51 AM
Did anyone else see Richard Branson, the guy who owns the Virgin brand, in this movie, when they are in the airport and the guy is going through the metal detector, Richard Branson is standing on the other side.
Yeah, Eva Green's Gorgeous, ZombieSolutions... by Jackson Healy	Nov 18th, 2006 11:05:38 AM
...but don't forget, Alessandra Ambrosio is also in the movie, and SHE'S the most beautiful woman on the planet.
Could Tarantino even make a PG-13 movie? by Westonian	Nov 18th, 2006 11:18:06 AM
Isn't that a requirement?
RolloThomas - here's why he wanted to blow up the Airbus... by Jackson Healy	Nov 18th, 2006 11:21:47 AM
...LeChiffre had shorted all his stock in this new airbus and was expecting the stock to drop the way airline stock dropped after 9'11 and Bin Laden and cronies got rich from shorting it (which I understand is an urban legend). When Bond saves the Airbus, LeChiffre loses $101 million, and has to win it all back in the highstakes card game he sets up. As for why MI-6 didn't just swoop in and take down LeChiffre - they wanted him to have nowhere else to turn after losing all his money and to willingly seek protection from them, so that he could be an informant on his terror network. Yeah, it's a stretch, but that's pretty much also how it is in the book, except MI-6 is hoping his own people will kill him if he doesn't win the money back. Why not just send in Bond, the "blunt instrument", to cap him off? Well, in the book he's just too damn protected to get near him. Plot hole? Pretty much, but ya just gotta roll with it.
Also, on Bond film action.... by Jackson Healy	Nov 18th, 2006 11:28:12 AM
Loved the movie myself, loved that Bond's a man of action and that the action's incredibly physical and so is Bond... but I still love the old Connery/Moore Bonds where he uses his wits and resourcefulness to beat the villains. The classic instance being when Bond eletrocutes Odd Job with the live wire when the henchman is pulling his hat out of the metal bars it's gotten lodged into. That's a man who uses his wits and knowledge to take down a more powerful opponent, and not simply a blunt instrument that out blunts the enemy.
first hour and 45 minutes was frickin amazing... by teddanson37	Nov 18th, 2006 11:35:49 AM
that last half hour killed it though. it was a great movie, but DOUBLE YOU TEA EFF??? I've never seen so much sappy romance in a bond film not interrupted by bullets and explosions. I know they had to set up the love story or whatever, but couldn't they have done that earlier in the film and given us an ending where lots of junk goes boom for a reason, rather than a one-cheek house falling in the water and bond crying like a little girl? wasn't there a better way to tell that part of the story? I'm watching the chase scene in madagascar and the airport scene thinking "if they're taking the excitement to this level now, I can't wait for the grand finale." and then the tension builds throughout the lengthy poker game and i'm thinking "holy crap, this is the best bond flick ever". the bond torture scene was intense, not to mention hilarious. and they built to this point, and i'm thinking the last half hour should be monkey sh!t crazy. but i was wrong. the main villain is killed in such a quick and meaningless way. it cheapened the character and completely underwhelmed me, the viewer, who was expecting some great payoff in this gritty complex villains death. then comes the sap. i'm down with Bond falling in love. I can handle it. But did we really need twenty minutes of build up and romance to believe that he really loved her? i have no problems with mushy chick flicks but the last half hour of a bond flick is not the place or time for a romantic tale. but it was good movie, i'm not saying it was not. it was in fact one of the best bond films. BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST. and further more it could have been the best if they would have split the mush up with a couple of explosions and chase scenes. love the movie. can't wait for the next one.
two more things by teddanson37	Nov 18th, 2006 11:46:47 AM
1. someone said the audience the saw it with didn't respond well to the film. not the case in the theater i was in last night. people were laughing and wincing and shocked at all the right places. 2. people who are whining about spoilers...what the f#ck are you doing on AICN anyway? If I don't want to be spoiled on a movie, I DON'T READ ABOUT IT BEFORE I SEE IT. That goes for AICN, news paper reviews, and even certain trailers and sneak peeks. you don't go to waffle house and complain about second hand smoke, you don't go to sports arenas and complain about commercialism and product placement, and you don't get on movie rumor sites and complain about spoilers. you know what fate awaits you if you read the talkbacks.
Holy product placement, eh?! by BronwynMaye	Nov 18th, 2006 12:25:58 PM
The product placement was quite distracting actually, but for some reason I now want to buy the Sony Ericsson K618.
Eva Green's phone by BillEmic	Nov 18th, 2006 01:05:43 PM
Speaking of product placement, what the hell was Eva Green's cell-phone? It looked like an iPod.
teddanson37 (spoilers herein) by drave117	Nov 18th, 2006 01:46:45 PM
I think you completely missed the point of the "sappy love story". At first, I felt as you did. Watching him declare what seemed to be perfectly honest feelings, he somehow seemed... just a little bit off. As the story finished unfolding, though, I realized that this was a deliberate choice. The ever-so-slightly frantic tone he speaks the words in, the nervousness of his eyes, like he isn't quite sure he believes what he is saying. I realized at the end that his feelings, although he was really feeling them, were not love; they were the last gasp of his humanity, as it tried to reach out and assert control one last time before being fully compartmentalized in order for him to do his job effectively. The truest moment in the movie is when he talks about getting out with whatever soul he has left, and his pleading eyes when he asks her "Is it enough?" He knows it isn't, and he knows he will never be able to really have what he is reaching out for in those moments, but he absolutely must reach out for it, and he must fail, so that he can put away that part of himself and go do his job. That is why the "love story" happened as it did, and why it felt so forced and cliche, and why it was so sudden.
the chase in the beginning by drave117	Nov 18th, 2006 01:50:52 PM
To whoever was complaining about how unrealistic the guy being chased was in the beginning, I am amused at the irony of this complaint. Search YouTube for videos of Sebastien Foucan or David Belle. The things these guys do are insane, but they are real. Why do you think Foucan gets a special credit in the beginning? "Free running stunts performed by" is there to let you know that he is the real deal. Watch his videos. He and his friend David Belle, the founders of the parkour movement, have done stuff MUCH crazier than anything seen in the film.
Bang on by blackpuppie	Nov 18th, 2006 02:23:47 PM
I grew up with Bond here in the UK ....but I always dismissed it as mere fantasy...I'm 36 now and last night I got the Bond for my years..Daniel Craig is set to take the crown; Cuts,bruises, car crashes, fuck ups, vomit, grainy footage, bruised bollocks. Bring on no.22
Nice Harry Animation by georges garvaren	Nov 18th, 2006 02:41:33 PM
Next, do one from "The Man From S.E.X"
Just saw it....simply incredible by Lago	Nov 18th, 2006 02:56:46 PM
Absolutely brillant. I could have watched it again immediately afterward. Best Bond flick since OHMSS for sure and better than 3 out of 5 of the original Connery flicks. Here's to hoping they keep with this formula. In fact, why not remake all of the original Fleming books, it's not like the films that were made after Fleming died were that faithful to the source material anyways.
Is anyone up for a resounding chorus of the... by Serenanna	Nov 18th, 2006 02:57:06 PM
'I told you so' symphony? Sorry, I have to say it, but I really did tell you so. When news broke about Daniel Craig and the first on-set pictures appeared, including those little blue swim trunks, I distinctly remember being one of the first fangirls in Talkback to jump on the blonde Bond’s bandwagon. I also said it was the eyes too, I knew it. After seeing the movie last night, I have to say it, I was so damned right! There is something very dirty to Craig’s Bond that the others, excluding early Connery, seemed to miss, and I love it! . . . Ahem, thank you. I’m going to go cackle to myself and plan world domination by rabid fangirls somewhere else now.
Aston Martin by Vi	Nov 18th, 2006 02:57:27 PM
Does Bond drive a Vanquish in this or what?
Aston Martin by drave117	Nov 18th, 2006 03:13:23 PM
I believe it's a new model, the DBS. Whatever it is, it is sexy as all get out. And I don't even like cars, but when I saw it, I said "Preeeeetty..."
As we all know by now Bond is back in cinemas by emeraldboy	Nov 18th, 2006 03:21:02 PM
And this bond is a streetfighting man, who rather uses his fists. This bond is not really the conversational type. Bond is much more rounded this time and is more vunerable, we literally see him being nakedly beaten while tied to chair. The action for the first 1:45 makes this a thrilling affair and the movie opens with short sharp bang and the action is unstaoppable from then onwards. It is only when movies shifts to Montenegro that things slow down and it pretty much stays like that for the rest untill the end and despite the best efforts of Martin Campbell who does an excellent job of maintaining the action for the first end up stalling the movie near the end., in the end the movie runs out of steam In the old days. Bond was a navy man ho rose to the admiral and then later became commander bond. This bond is more tech savy. Bond lived the high life and ate in the best hotels, knew fine wine and tonics backwards. They have compeletly despensed with that here and there is only restaurant scene in the entire movie. There is some wit or at least an attempt at wit. This is a modern bond movie, yet they have turned bond into a sneak, a house breaker and code breaker to boot. Bond was a sauve debonair man and now they have turned him into a loose cannon and someone who doesnt care either. This film didnt have the story pace to last nearly three hours. Craig is a good bond and eva green is the most beautiful thing i have seen at the movies in a long time as the actress who played solange. They should recast M immediately, Dench has turned herslf into the Ice queen. We can see where they are going with this story line and possibility of some terrorist organisation. Which to me sounded like 24 hrs. I could help thinking about Jason Bourne during this film for some reason. My friend who is bond expert, told me before the fil started when I asked him about brosnan, well brosnan did put the Bond franchise back on track financially after Daltons bond, Die another Day raked 430 million dollars world wide. We shall find out soon enough whether Daniel Craig has done enough to rescue the franchise and whether or not Barbara Brocolli gamble has paid off. For me at least It is a vast improvement on Die another Day. But that is all.
broccoli specifically stated they're not remaking by Exeter	Nov 18th, 2006 03:21:55 PM
any of the previous bonds. and i think that's for the best and brings legitimacy, weight, importance to the previous bonds and respect no matter how crappy some of them were. they could always do the stories they didn't actually get to but with different titles of course like You Only Live Twice, Diamonds are Forever, The Man w/ the Golden Gun, Moonraker are movies that had almost nothing save the title to do w/ the novels. Just give them new titles like YOLT could be called "Shatterhand" like the villain in the book etc. The Spy Who Loved Me novel won't be remade bbecause it was personal to Fleming and he asked them to only use the title for any future movies.
Er British Directors Dasher? by Mickey The Idiot	Nov 18th, 2006 03:50:07 PM
Er, neither Martin Campbell nor Lee Tamahori are British, they're both Kiwis and Roger Spottiswoode is a Canadian. Anyway, an utterly terrific movie. My only real concern is that having created the half-hit man, half monk Bond by the end, where do they go with the character in the next week. Still, dying to find out. Also nice to see the first Bond with an intact working-class edge since Connery.
and why did I type 'week' by Mickey The Idiot	Nov 18th, 2006 03:51:58 PM
and why did I type 'week' instead of 'one' in that last comment. Oh yes, IMPATIENCE. Get Craig indentured, one a year or we bring Mads and his rope back for real.
I had very high expectations by caltsoudas	Nov 18th, 2006 04:01:11 PM
I had very high expectations for this film... and it exceeded them! A brilliant return to the classic format of the early sixties Connery films. Particularly the old school narrative structure which is more episodic like the original ones and not the plot-driving American Hollywood garbage screenwriting madness that the Brosnan and Moore films followed (with the exception of Live and Let Die and The World Is Not Enough--which are really really good and underapreciated). Like Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and You Only Live Twice, this one had class written all over it. Craig really does channel Sean Connery vibes here and there yet ultimately makes it his own. The opening looked great in black and white and the theme sequence looked GORGEOUS! So original. I always hated the opening theme sequences from the Brosnan movies. They were overkill. All in all this wasn't some pathetic revamp attempt a la Batman Begins afterall (PHEW!) and instead is just a strong continuation of the franchise with a new lead that stays true to the traditions while simultaneously freshening them up. Now if only they coul get Emma Watson to play Money Penny... and ditch Q. That car moment was just...WOW. And when he said the line in the end everyone gave a long ovation. He's just perfect. Plus there was a lot of good witty sophisticated humour too, which I was delighted with. I was initially worried about that because some critics were saying that it was too serious, but they pulled it off well. Even the theme song grows on you because of how smoothly they orchestrate it into the film's score. BOND IS BACK!!!
2 1/2 hour Ford commercial... by Christopher3	Nov 18th, 2006 05:31:52 PM
But Craig's the shit.
Heh. by Zarles	Nov 18th, 2006 05:44:11 PM
Has anyone noticed that www.craignotbond.com is no longer operating? Is this a recent development, or has it been down for a while now?
Since Harry didn't mention him... by OBSD	Nov 18th, 2006 06:30:05 PM
Jeffrey Wright is the best Felix Leiter in this one! Yeah, he didn't have much screen time, but he rocked with what he was given. I hope they keep him on for a long time.
Once the new car smell wears off... by Batutta	Nov 18th, 2006 06:59:36 PM
...people will realize this film was mostly business as usual. There was much to admire -- Craig, some of the action, the torture scene, but all in all I was underwhelmed. Maybe it's a fault of the way this film is being sold, but I was expecting more of an origin story than we got. I was expecting more insight into the psychology of why Bond is Bond, like what Nolan did for Batman in Batman Begins. Next time I think they need to cast a better director, someone against type who can bring something new to the franchise, not a hack like Campbell who, try as he might, is not an innovator.
reason why LeChiffre acted SPECTREish BOND 22 SPOILER by Exeter	Nov 18th, 2006 08:08:48 PM
craig revealed in some interview about LeChiffre's organization, who is trying to destablize the world with their money in order to make even more money. He says we hopefully will find out in Bond 22 who the head of this organization is. Could it be SPECTRE after McClory and EON secretly made up and they can use the rights!?!?!?! HOLY SHITTTTT!!!!!!
Sick of people not getting it by EnglishmanAbroad	Nov 18th, 2006 08:09:31 PM
First of all as a long standing Bond fan; first of the books then of the movies; I am shocked at some of the nonsense in some of the talkbacks and reviews. First of all, Casino Royale was an amazing Bond movie. For too long people have been caught up with what a Bond movie should be instead of focusing on what Bond the character should be. In terms of the errors people make even the Guardian reviewer stated that Le Chiffre was winning the money to finance terrorism, which isnt correct. Am I the only one that realised that he had lost all his clients millions in a stock error and was winning the funds back? Mi6 was stopping him doing that to scare him into cooperating. So talkbacker " Rollo Tomasi666 " seizing his money wouldnt have done anything...there was no money to seize...that was the point. I suggest you go watch it again, and maybe dont talk on your cellphone all through the movie this time.
Defending Moore by EnglishmanAbroad	Nov 18th, 2006 08:11:37 PM
Without Moore there would be no franchise left. Do you think the cinema going public of the 70s would have watched a stuffy English spy in a tweed jacket sitting in gentlemens clubs playing baccarat? In a time of Blaxploitation and Magnum wielding cops Bond, and Moore, did what they had to do to survive.
Just read what Rollo Tomasi666 said by F69	Nov 18th, 2006 09:03:03 PM
about the construction site chase scene 'reeking of wirework'. Very funny, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
From the people who brought you... by Aragorn II	Nov 18th, 2006 09:04:28 PM
..."Episode III makes me like Episodes I and II better," comes this little admission of mine. "Casino Royale" the movie actually makes me like that Chris Cornell song a lot more. Go figure!
DAMN YOU, FANDANGO!! by StarBlitzer	Nov 18th, 2006 09:11:32 PM
Damn, what a crowd! I bought my tix online, and still had to wait in the kiosk line to get them. Not a bad movie...then again, I did see it from the front row, fukitol. In other news, this is my fave Bond flick overall ... so good to see a hand-to-hand brawl to rival GoldenEye and a torture scene to rival Die Another Day. Sore bollocks for the win.
Never seen the original by StarBlitzer	Nov 18th, 2006 09:12:57 PM
What about this movie appeared in the first version, beside Vesper and ol' Shiffers?
Good review harry... by iKon	Nov 18th, 2006 09:48:44 PM
Now all you have to do is learn to write it without spoilers or so much whimsy, and you'll be half there. :)
Why did Vesper kill herself? by LonelyComic33	Nov 18th, 2006 11:04:31 PM
I think I went to take a leak at the wrong time during the movie. Why did she kill herself?
Rollo Tomasi666 = douchebag by WhoDis	Nov 18th, 2006 11:27:28 PM
This movie was fucking awesome.
Brilliant by Rainbow Cotton	Nov 19th, 2006 02:52:54 AM
I was really surprised by this. The last 3 movies were so bad I thought Bond was gone forever, but this is the best Bond movie in decades. I enjoyed Goldeneye for its examination of Bond's psychology and place in the modern world, and this movie studies those themes on a whole new level. Every scene in this movie shows how Bond becomes who he is, but it is all very subtle and organic. Vesper is the perfect girl for this movie, the perfect, delicate flower who takes Bond's heart, and through deception slowly turns him into the cold, calculating Bond we all know. Their last scene together was truly heartbreaking. God, please let them continue on this path. If they descend into lame camp action movies again I will be so pissed. Daniel Craig is way too good of an actor for that. I hope they at least get 3 more movies in this style, we need something to counterbalance the atrocious post-Goldeneye Brosnan ones. I don't get the critics on message boards. What was wrong with this movie exactly? I guess you could say it was long, but it didn't feel like it at all. My only complaint was the lack of dancing girls in the title sequence (which is rather minor all things considered ^_^). Overall this is a great return to form for the character and I hope they don't screw it up!!!!
I aasumed he owns SPECTRE and Blofeld characters by Exeter	Nov 19th, 2006 03:57:08 AM
and i'm also finally glad that Bond 22 will have an evil organization that ARCS over multiple films like SPECTRE (or if it is even SPECTRE itself in our wildest imagainations) unlike every mad industrialist coming alongn for each bond and dying at the end which got really just snooze-inducing, every Moore, Dalton, Brosnan movie had a new bad guy, i think if anythign we need a return of SPECTRE or some similar type organization, larger entity after we no longer have the shadow of the USSR looming over we need this 'dedicated fraternity of evil' and i cann't wait!
Snuffles - People loved Bond because by HardDetective	Nov 19th, 2006 04:55:16 AM
Who the fuck are you to say what everyone wants? According to what I am reading from 'everyone' they all love the new Bond. Why? Because he's cool. Maybe he's not your definition of cool, but the vast majority of us think he's cool. And you are a fucking asshole for trying to say that to like this Bond is to be brainwashed by Bush. Go fuck yourself. For someone who wants more class you sure don't have any.
Easily the BEST Bond. by performingmonkey	Nov 19th, 2006 07:15:51 AM
I enjoyed the mother fuck out of this. Brilliant stunts and hard-ass action. Actually turning Bond into a proper character, not to mention Vesper who was the best Bond girl since ever. All the scenes surrounding the poker game were phenomenal, and the tension built during the game worked so well. When I heard some people say this is the best Bond ever or at least the best since On Her Majesty's Secret Service, I thought 'fuck off, there's no way it could be' but upon seeing CR I KNOW it's the best. Craig IS Bond. The way they slowly built him into Bond was EXCELLENT. Fuck yes.
Reboot schmiboot by Anakin Whoopass	Nov 19th, 2006 07:46:35 AM
This is hardly the first reboot. Changing to a much younger or much different actor is equally a big deal. There are multiple Bond universes: Connery (which includes Lazenby filling in for him), Moore (who is too unique to be grouped with anyone else), Dalton-Brosnan (they're different but not so different they couldn't be interchanged), and now Craig.
Bad ass movie. Loved it. by Russman	Nov 19th, 2006 08:06:35 AM
This one was really cool. I loved how brutal it was. I knew he was going to do a kick ass job, "Layer Cake" anyone? Say what you want, Tomorrow Never Dies was cool too, esp. when Bond's motorcycle lands through the roof and you see the chick ridding some guy in the background. Giggity!
Connery Who? by SkiBum	Nov 19th, 2006 08:51:33 AM
Loved Sean Connery as Bond. He has just been replaced in my mind. Great movie.
I liked it a lot by BizarroJerry	Nov 19th, 2006 09:41:36 AM
But it did keep that long standing Bond movie tradition of being about 30 minutes too long. This flick almost has as many endings as The Return of the King.
Why no Q? by Thundercats73	Nov 19th, 2006 10:43:45 AM
I understand why Moneypenny isn't in the movie. Actually, the movie brings new meaning to the Bond/Moneypenny relationship. Why no Q? There were perfect oppertunities for Q to appear. Q should be younger than previous movies. He should be more like an older brother to Bond. I have a feeling the gadgets will be limited to things like bullet proof armored car with compartments for guns and medicine/poision control. Of course the car should still have GPS and homing beacon capabilities!
BRANDON COLEMAN!!! by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 19th, 2006 11:21:53 AM
The oblivion of bannishment awaits you and your little film. Again.
every actor brings something different to bond by emeraldboy	Nov 19th, 2006 11:33:27 AM
Connery was a smooth ladies man who was rough around the edges. He was cool under pressure but the place that he made his mark was that his bond had a knowledge of fine wines and malts he loved poker and dining out. Which was something that fleming hated doing. Moore Brought the wit but unlike the other actors he had been preparing for bond all along he was the difinitive Simon Temple and he starred with Tony Curtis on tv in the Persuaders. Dalton was the serious bond and then there is Brosnan. Brosnans bond was a mixture of what went before he was cool, witty, debonair and of course he was a ladies man. apart from being a ladies man and being more technically proficient, this bond doesnt seem to have much of sense of humour and I think that is going to hurt this at box office. It is obvious to me that they are taking this this into a bauer territory. M cant stand bond anymore. IN 24 Bauer lost everything and no longer works for CTU, M says he got his letter of Resignation and says we will talk about that later and it is never mentioned again. Bauer becomes a loose cannon and I wonder will we see more of this in the next movie. This had the best action scenes of any bond that i have scene in years and i did note that his Craigs bond is quite Mafioso. People have a fixed idea about Bond and where he comes from so whether mass audience is ready for a street bond is open for debate.
here are your chinese students killing eachother harry by funnyhat	Nov 19th, 2006 12:21:38 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/ asiapcf/11/19/china.students.r eut/index.html
Top Ramen Phil - RE: "Yackbacker the tattletale..." by Mr. Nice Gaius	Nov 19th, 2006 12:22:16 PM
Yackbacker is being a "little bitch"?! You're the guy who has been asked REPEATEDLY to stop peddling your film on this site. You've even been told where you can post it = The Zone. AICN's Mods have asked you to do something within their rules. Why do you refuse to acquiesce? I'll tell you why. You're a little bitch. A little bitch who is going to be banned. Again.
Daniel craig looks like a monkey... by dundundles	Nov 19th, 2006 12:23:38 PM
in every close up shot. This may have been a good movie, but as a bond movie it sucked. Give me backmy tank chases, sub battles, and cheesy one liners.
FOOKING SWEET ASS MOVIE!!!! CRAIG IZ DA MAN!!! by alucardvsdracula	Nov 19th, 2006 01:14:21 PM
Enough of the cheap superlatives, the film is easily the greatest Bond movie for many decades. I'm more than satisfied with what that usually static work horse Martin Campbell has delivered, in fact I would comfortably place this amongst the all-time great Bond outings; 1. On Her Majesty's Secret Service, 2. From Russia with Love, and now Casino Royale. One thing though, did anybody else find the torture scene funny, as the audience I saw it with was in hysterics?
P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P. P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S by performingmonkey	Nov 19th, 2006 01:15:20 PM
Fuck you all.
Perfectly Formed Owls by bhu987us	Nov 19th, 2006 01:50:55 PM
Is it me or did I miss perfectly formed owls in this movie? Not a single nocturnal bird in one frame of the 144 minutes of the film. Was "Owls" code for something?
Remember by streakerfreak1983	Nov 19th, 2006 02:48:46 PM
Q and M are positions not people/characters. They can be played by any actor. I just wish they had some continuality anot have Dench. It could be anyone, but having Dench as Bonds first M just bothers me. No way around it. Oh and who ever said up there there have been two Q's and two M's is wrong. There were three M's. Lee, that other guy, and Dench and in a way there have been three Q's. While, the man playing Major Boothrod(sp?) is not called Q, he it's the same position, because when Desmond was in the position he was called Major Boothrod at times. So you can say there have been three Q's. Two diferent actors playing the same person(the first guy and Desmond) and Cleese being a totally different person being promted to the Q position. Oh and to everyone who keeps saying Cleese is "R" needs to go back and watch the last two. He is not R, that was just a joke.
do my eyes deceive me... by torpor_haze	Nov 19th, 2006 03:13:53 PM
or did I just see that fuckin' penguins beat Bond? Them tuxedo muthafuckas are at it again...oh wait..
YOUR CIVIC DUTY AS A BOND FAN!! by Tai_Pan	Nov 19th, 2006 03:34:31 PM
What the fuck, people? Are we gonna sit by and let a fucking CGI Penguin movie open bigger than a Bond film? Not just a Bond film, but a GREAT Bond film, and the best Bond film in A LONG, LONG TIME!? Go out and see it again this evening!!!! You can make a difference, dammit!!!!!
Fuck Richard Branson! Did anyone notice ALESSANDRA by Jackson Healy	Nov 19th, 2006 03:47:00 PM
AMBROSSIO'S cameo??? She's the hottest Victoria's Secret model, the one you always see in the angel wings, and Brazil's best export since Gissele Bundchen.
I am seeing it tommorow by streakerfreak1983	Nov 19th, 2006 04:16:39 PM
Lets get this back at the top again. Oh and I really don't count this as Bond 21. The true bond films ended with DAD unfortuantly. To me this is seperate and more along the lines of Never Say Never Again, only this is good.
be like BOND and use any method to help CR over penguin by Exeter	Nov 19th, 2006 06:02:49 PM
if youu will go to another movie like Hhappy feet or something else, BUY A TICKET for Casino Royale and just go see the other movie, do you part! It may be dirty, but heck like Bond, any means, but for the greater good of England!!!!
The Best Bond Ever by WoodyStiffer	Nov 19th, 2006 06:38:37 PM
Daniel Craig now owns the role in my eyes. This was the best Bond film, with the best Bond, that I've ever seen. Much more physical, cynical, and mean. Very nicely done by all involved!
No hyperbole here by thecheesegrommit	Nov 19th, 2006 07:14:34 PM
I saw it yesterday and wanted to wait to make sure I felt the way I did aaaand it's an excellent movie. Not just an excellent Bond movie but over all an excellent movie. This place is all about opinions an we often exhust ourselves arguing ones opinions. I'll just say this, I loved it! I wish Brosnan had had this type material. I'll miss Peirce but long live Craig!!! He brought it to Nth degree. I found the females at this showing seemed quite smittened with him. God bless the queen! Peace.
spelling by thecheesegrommit	Nov 19th, 2006 07:16:35 PM
oops exhaust
happy feet is the number one fucking movie! by jig98	Nov 19th, 2006 09:39:21 PM
it beat bond by 2.78 mil! not that surprised. anyway, the name's office. box office.
One of the best Bond flicks ever. by LordTwinkie	Nov 19th, 2006 10:23:23 PM
Seriously this was an incredible movie. The other Bond film that it reminds me of the most would from Russia With Love. Low reliance on the gadgets, brutal fight on the train, and pure spy games with the setup and double crosses and everything. Daniel Craig's Bond reminds me of Connery's first go when he shoots Prof. Dent ruthlessly. This film is decidely in my top 3 Bond films of all time. I think for many it would not be hard to think the same thing. For those nagging about continuity, calm down. Bond films have always flown a little loose with continuity. These films were based on a series of novels and although the novels built upon each other, the movies filmed them out of order. Another note, James Bond is not a codename, the man was born with that name, 007 is his codename. I think the race for #1 in America is tight, but I do believe next week that dumb ass penguin movie will drop fast while Bond due to word of mouth either not drop that much or get bigger. Its hard though because that 2 and a half hour run time kills it in ticket sales. It is #1 in 27 other countries. This Bond will make a ton of money. I hope this makes the producers and writers and everyone who took a gamble on this bond realize that the gamble payed off and not to fuck it up with some over produced shit fest. Another note Le Chiffre didn't work for Spectre in the novel, he worked for Smersh. Although I do love the idea of having a real trilogy (much like the Thunderball,OHMSS, Diamonds are Forever deal) with a secret organization with world wide ambitions. All in all this is one of the best Bond flicks ever. I just hope to god they can keep this up, I would literally give one of my testicles if it would ensure that the next one is as good. (honestly you only really need one testicle).
Best Bond in years. by DarthVerbalKint	Nov 20th, 2006 12:32:20 AM
F-ing great script too.
LordTwinkle, SPECTRE was invented for the filmss by Exeter	Nov 20th, 2006 04:03:21 AM
Even From Russia with Love was SMERSH, changed to SPECTRE in the film beacuse of there didnn' want to be real politial entanglements w/ ol' CCCP back in the day. I always loved SPECTRE in those 60s Bonds, in fact every one of Connery's films was a SPECTRE one except for Goldfinger! Dr. No was their Jamaica operative, From Russia obviously, Thunderball No.2 nuke hijack, YOLT's Blofeld in the flesh (my favorite onscreen interpretation by the great Pleasence as he played him in a creepy Himmler way), and the campy DAF had Blofeld, Never Say Never Again was Thunderball remake. Goldfinger remains thheh only one and even that they were thinking of makign him SPECTRE, he still is a bolshevik-admirer though with collaboration w/ Red China and then escape to Cuba. Aaannnyway i'im glad we're getting an evil organization for the next flick.
OHMSS by Trader Groucho 2	Nov 20th, 2006 04:43:04 AM
is generally considered the worst Bond film. Lazenby was a model who they threw into the role when they balked at Connery's stratospheric quote, and he certainly didn't fit the bill. Say what you will about the Broccolis, but since that mistake they have erred on the side of well-trained actors like Dalton and Craig or actors who had already proven themselves in not dissimilar roles on TV like Moore in the Saint and Brosnan in Remington Steele.
I still wouldn't mind seeing a couple gadgets... by WONKABAR	Nov 20th, 2006 04:57:14 AM
just here and there in the next flick...as long they don't go too overboard with it, keep somewhat realistic (invisible cars, sub-marine cars, laser-guns etc. etc.) and not something Bond is totally reliant on. You know, just some cool handy litte things that we can't get at Sharper Image. They should make Q more of a nut-job when he comes in. A real freaky guy that doesn't get out much type. Btw does anybody know how many movies Craig signed on for? I'm guessing he'll only do a trilogy, and feel that he has played the character as far as he can take it by then. I don't see him pulling a Moore.
errr...NO invisible cars etc. by WONKABAR	Nov 20th, 2006 04:58:54 AM
Just thought I'd clarify.
Not Bond by Ed Okin	Nov 20th, 2006 08:52:32 AM
As a big time 007 fan (posters all over the house, my wife has learned to live with it...), just a few thoughts... How about the fact that Bond has a defib in his car, as he just so happens to need exactly that thing on this mission to keep his well being (Q branch must be psychic), but later when he flips the thing...there's no airbag. The fact that there was no real villian was disappointing too. Le Chiffre was a pale copy of Robert Carlyle's character in The World Is Not Enough. Not particularly villianous, just kind of pathetic. And I agree with you on the end...the big bad guy is...who exactly??? And the Ennnnnndless gambling scene. It's kinda like watching the movie The Net where Sandra Bullock spends a third of the movie typing away on a computer. There is nothing inheritly exciting about watching people type away on a computer, just as watching them gamble for 45 minutes isn't so thrilling either. Lastly, on a personal note, I'm not sure I like the direction this is going in. They've removed the suavity and

Talkbacks

Harry Sees CASINO ROYALE, But Wonders Where All The Japanese Schoolkids Killing Each Other Are!