Casino Royale - 007 Movie

[Joe Siegler]

It'd be nice, but Hollywood does things like this because it has an effect on an audience similar to that of car headlights on a deer.

Well, if you knew the 52 year history of James Bond, you wouldn't care about nonsense like that. I certainly don't.

I'm overjoyed the original Fleming novel is finally being made into an official movie. And from the looks of it a darn good one.

Any true Bond fan cares about that and nothing else.

[wayskobfssae]

If you're referring to the babes... amazingly Playboy Bunnies wasn't the draw that got me into 007 (I should certainly hope not since I started watching them around age 5), but it's one of those things that just works for Bond. There's a hundred other films someone could make a similar character and it would just come off as blatantly lame sex-appeal.

Besides, I think we all know that Bond the character is an obvious master of the art in the bedroom, but he gets himself there with his charm. There's nothing suave (or Bond) about walking into a party and saying, "Hey, ma'am, have a look at the size of my package!"

[Joe Siegler]

I was referring to the marketing. Or to the point that someone is trying to make about the size of the actor's... :) None of that means a thing to me.

[Kalki]

It's a restart. Some things can change. ;)
I saw all Bond movies, I mean if I can get a chance to see them I would not switch off and I read maybe two or three novels, it is still entertaining, and I cannot even understand why George Lazenby was seen as a bad Bond actor at all, I mean it was a Bond with a really touching story and he performed really well.
I watched HMSS last night, either after a very long time or for the first time, because I didn't remember much of it. Lazenby wasn't good. Then again neither was the film. The editing was choppy (could be the version I saw) and the chase scenes tiresome. The direction was bad. Lazenby didn't have the range or experience required for Bond, not surprising considering he was barely starting out. He just didn't pull it off at times. I won't quibble about the ending but it either lacked resolution or the resolution lacked punch. This is one movie I'd like to see "restarted". I don't mind the tragedy and I know the new Casino Royale will not be averse to the more touching elements of the franchise. There was a nice TWINE refererence/origin though.

[avatar_58]

I really wish Judy Dench weren't in this movie though. It just doesn't seem "right" considering it is supposed to be a restart. Why not find another qualified actor to be M? After all in Goldeneye Valentine remarks: "I hear the new M is a lady" meaning she is supposed to be the first female boss. Kind of contradictory considering another female M is in Casino Royale.

I don't know, its silly but it bugs me still. Its like if they had Michael Gough as Alfred in Batman Begins simply because he was in the other movies.

[Jokke_r]

Agree

[Kalki]

You've got a point Avatar.

[mon2908]

It's a restart. Some things can change. ;)

I watched HMSS last night, either after a very long time or for the first time, because I didn't remember much of it. Lazenby wasn't good. Then again neither was the film. The editing was choppy (could be the version I saw) and the chase scenes tiresome. The direction was bad. Lazenby didn't have the range or experience required for Bond, not surprising considering he was barely starting out. He just didn't pull it off at times. I won't quibble about the ending but it either lacked resolution or the resolution lacked punch. This is one movie I'd like to see "restarted". I don't mind the tragedy and I know the new Casino Royale will not be averse to the more touching elements of the franchise. There was a nice TWINE refererence/origin though.

I won't deny what you say but I personally found the personal aspect really cool. Bond got married and his wife becomes killed. I mean how do you perform that? Make it a really hard revenge movie like "License to Kill" or make Bond suffer and let him make mistakes he won't do if he would concentrates on his job? I mean it was his first time personal vendetta and he appears to be a bit unexperienced in his job as agent. It is an aspect you must show in the development of a character.

There I personally see one of the biggest mistakes in the reboot of the Bond series. Daniel Craig really performs a Bond like most people want him to see on screen, but does it allow any personal development of the Bond character? I mean it is a reboot of the series. If he is all perfect at the beginning the whole thing will end up like the last twenty Bond movies, always cool, always perfect action but a really boring character that drinks his shaken Martinis and shags every female double agent (and not even that is possible because of the present time frame, I mean will they make him the first agent that suffers on HIV because of his lifestyle to make him a more interesting character?)

Did you see "Thunderball" and "Never Say Never Again"? Both the same story and both great Bond movies and although "Thunderball" was one of the best I personally find the sidekicks to the old Bond movies really great in "Never Say never again". (How to much white bread and dry Martinis can make Bonds urin, the perfect deadly weapon against other agents.) I mean in this movie, although if you can claim that it is not a Bond movie, Connery showed in amusing way what is wrong with the Bond character. Another aspect is his lifestyle and his atitude towards female characters.)

If it isn't for Judy Dench as M there wouldn't be any conflicts or dialogs that make the movie more entertaining. She's always shows her personal dislike of Bond and his lifestyle.

[wayskobfssae]

I won't deny what you say but I personally found the personal aspect really cool. Bond got married and his wife becomes killed. I mean how do you perform that? Make it a really hard revenge movie like "License to Kill" or make Bond suffer and let him make mistakes he won't do if he would concentrates on his job? I mean it was his first time personal vendetta and he appears to be a bit unexperienced in his job as agent. It is an aspect you must show in the development of a character.

There I personally see one of the biggest mistakes in the reboot of the Bond series. Daniel Craig really performs a Bond like most people want him to see on screen, but does it allow any personal development of the Bond character? I mean it is a reboot of the series. If he is all perfect at the beginning the whole thing will end up like the last twenty Bond movies, always cool, always perfect action but a really boring character that drinks his shaken Martinis and shags every female double agent (and not even that is possible because of the present time frame, I mean will they make him the first agent that suffers on HIV because of his lifestyle to make him a more interesting character?)

VERY interesting point. But Bond does make mistakes plenty of times. He gets captured, or something slips past his RADAR, etc. I think what you're talking about though is emotional/psychological development, not.. "Next time I'll make sure to check if the safety is on." I think this just isn't what 007 is about. I've never seen the franchise as being an emotional tale at all, and when you think about it, there's VERY few films that fit that bill these days. Sometimes people just want to get into a character who is the grand master of his world. Not all the time, but once in a while.

I said this same thing in the discussion about Bat Man recently. Revealing too much inner-detail about a mysterious character can take too much away from it.

[Kalki]

There I personally see one of the biggest mistakes in the reboot of the Bond series. Daniel Craig really performs a Bond like most people want him to see on screen, but does it allow any personal development of the Bond character? I mean it is a reboot of the series.

I said I liked it when it becomes personal to Bond (probably why I like Goldeneye and TWINE so much). Have you watched the trailers to Casino Royale? The female lead really gets to him and he is hardly untouchable, especially when she's about to get hurt.

Edit: Wayskie, it's when you think you have a character all figured out but then they manage to give that little bit more, that little bit extra. That's what surprises you and makes you truly appreciate the character.

[wayskobfssae]

Edit: Wayskie, it's when you think you have a character all figured out but then they manage to give that little bit more, that little bit extra. That's what surprises you and makes you truly appreciate the character.

I'm just not sure how much you could put into it without him becoming too much of an emotional mess. I mean, the guy treats love (with the one afore-mentioned exception) like a video game and plays women like they're toy pianos. How much inner turmoil could he have? If he's struggling with something, then he's doing a damn good job of hiding it behind his cool demeanor, and it's hard to imagine him opening up that much to anybody. In his line of work, there's too many excuses for him to not trust anyone.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

http://flash.sonypictures.com/movies/casinoroyale/site/downloads/FullTrailer1_mov.zip

6 meg version for those of you with crappy internet.

[mon2908]

Damned I posted the following thread twice so nevermind if I kill the first.

Go on please.

[mon2908]

I'm just not sure how much you could put into it without him becoming too much of an emotional mess. I mean, the guy treats love (with the one afore-mentioned exception) like a video game and plays women like they're toy pianos. How much inner turmoil could he have? If he's struggling with something, then he's doing a damn good job of hiding it behind his cool demeanor, and it's hard to imagine him opening up that much to anybody. In his line of work, there's too many excuses for him to not trust anyone.

I think if you haven't watched the "Bourne Identity" and the "Bourne Supremacy" yet you should watch em to see how much is possible and make the character still trustworthy/believeable. Best aspect in this movie was when Bourne tells the daughter of one of his victims the truth about the cirmumstances of her fathers death. Is it cruel, that he tries to explain himself or is his lack of emotion really this great that he does not get what she must feel for him? What was the reason for his decision to tell her anyway?

"Spy Game" with Robert Redford and Brad Pitt. Redford is faking his lack of emotion all the time towards a group of top agents and still has no trouble to tell about his relationship to the Bishop character in such emotionless way that they don't get it how he tries to free his imprisoned friend. This is one masterpiece of a movie although it isn't an action movie at all. The character play is the best I saw in a spy movie.

The best action I saw in a spy movie wasn't in a Bond movie at all (That has to do that less is in fact more if you deal with action in movies, I found the startup sequence of Goldeneye really annoying, (jump into a falling plane before it hits the ground and get away, if I want to see such nonsence I watch Mad Mission)
So the movie I mean is Alistair MacLean's "Where Eagles Dare" with Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood (I think they killed more Nazis in this movie like Harrison Ford in the whole trilogy of Indiana Jones only to find out who is an double agent and who is still okay. (I still wonder if this movie was the inspiration for Wolfenstein 3D)

But I guess I drifted to far, back to the reboot of Bond and how hard it must be to restart a successful series. Won't it be annoying for most of the Bond fans to see that they already have seen the storyline of the movie and that they get served exactly the same things again, even if it is another background? How do they want to make him attractive enough for the audience in the following movies? Do they have a new/new storywriters or are they going to take all Fleming novels update them and bring them again on big screen?

[Grande 3:16]

I watched HMSS last night, either after a very long time or for the first time, because I didn't remember much of it. Lazenby wasn't good. Then again neither was the film. The editing was choppy (could be the version I saw) and the chase scenes tiresome. The direction was bad. Lazenby didn't have the range or experience required for Bond, not surprising considering he was barely starting out. He just didn't pull it off at times. I won't quibble about the ending but it either lacked resolution or the resolution lacked punch. This is one movie I'd like to see "restarted". I don't mind the tragedy and I know the new Casino Royale will not be averse to the more touching elements of the franchise. There was a nice TWINE refererence/origin though.I thought it was one of the best. Severely under-rated. Probably the only thing I didn't like was when he said "This never happened to the other guy". There is no "other" guy. They're the same guy! :doh:

[Tetsuro]

I thought it was one of the best. Severely under-rated. Probably the only thing I didn't like was when he said "This never happened to the other guy". There is no "other" guy. They're the same guy! :doh:
It's called breaking the fourth wall. Connery did similar thing in Never Say Never Again when he winked at the camera.

Lazenby would've been in more Bond films, but he was reportedly a pain in the ass to work with.

[Kalki]

I thought it was one of the best. Severely under-rated. Probably the only thing I didn't like was when he said "This never happened to the other guy". There is no "other" guy. They're the same guy! :doh:

What Tetsuro said. The line was open enough that he could be talking about anybody, another 007 perhaps? And that was one of the few lines I found funny, coming at the beginning it made a positive impression on me. I wish I could say the same for the whole movie but I groaned one too many times in between.

[Tetsuro]

Well I think OHMSS is one of the best Bond movies to date. At least it's not boring, like A View to a Kill. However I DO think that From Russia With Love is overrated.

But like Joe said, this thread is supposed to be about the new Bond, not the old Bond.

I just hope this 'franchise reboot' won't give us a TOO bleak Bond - James Bond, I think, among the gadgets, action and babes, is about good humor. As good film as OHMSS is, the downbeat ending makes it all the more difficult to watch; here you see James Bond, genuinely happy probably for the first time in his life, and then he gets it all torn off from him.

Well okay, maybe I'm wrong; Licence to Kill is probably the most bleak of all Bond movies, and I enjoyed it a lot.

[FullMetalJacket]

Honestly though, the literary 007 of Fleming's novels is VERY dark and rough around the edges, so hopefully Craig's performance can bring some of that out. And for those that don't like Craig's appearance, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fleming007impression.jpg

Is it me, or does that look almost EXACTLY like Craig, apart from the hair color? That's the literary 007 right there.

[mon2908]

I thought it was one of the best. Severely under-rated. Probably the only thing I didn't like was when he said "This never happened to the other guy". There is no "other" guy. They're the same guy! :doh:

That only shows that the movie team around the Bond movies do not observe what they are doing to their cash cow.

So there are a lot of questions I have about this new restart and having the trailer still in mind.

What is Bond to the secret service? A real individual person or just a name and a number coming to the next employee of the secret service that fullfills the needs to work under the nickname Bond and the number 007?

Casino Royale wasn't on screen yet although it is the first novel of Ian Fleming. (I barely remember on a StarTrek NG Episode that took place in this Casino Royale and hear Riker read the letter of an past away American astronaut how terrible this novel was? So was the novel really so terrible that they have not made a movie of the stuff yet or are there other reasons why they started the series with James Bonds hunt for Dr. No? (I think I will read it to find out)

The new Bond movies take place at present day? I still saw this Vanquish/Vanish car in the trailer. Does this work for a Bond to fight the terror and not the communism and the KGB and it's agents? Most of the novels are based on the cold war? Do they want to convert all this stuff of Ian Flemings novels to fit in this time frame or does anybody know if Ian Flemings first novel and the character Bond is the only thing you have to expect of Bond and that there will be new stories from new writers for the following movies?

If they update Ian Fleming will they actually present a development of his character or maybe will there be a big greater tale within the new episodes? Something you get by chance in the first two movies and did not notice, maybe another agent another organisation that is present in the casino but isn't noticed by Bond, cause he has so much trouble with the Le Chiffre bad guy. Something you can build on and could be told as starter in new Bond episodes.
Something you can say, yes I saw it before but did not notice that it was a clue that becomes important in the new story.
(I think if the raise it up this way they could catch my attention again.)

Trailer question? I saw the storyline trailer but it seems that his new love comes to death. (I wonder if they can't create a female character other than Judy Dench and Moneypenny that will survive the action [Not that I didn't notice that the survivors will end in Bonds arms, I mean dead for the upcoming episodes]) Wouldn't it make more sence to create a female character that? A first fell in love with Bond, becomes hurt or manipulated and then tries to kill him? I mean how often did I see bad female KGB agent gets shagged by Bond at the end of the movie? Why not, build up a situation that works the other way? (Hey you bastard you shagged me the last episode and now you are going to this new hot bitch, bastard (revenge act where the female part becomes a traitor and useful for the new terror organisation)

Honestly though, the literary 007 of Fleming's novels is VERY dark and rough around the edges, so hopefully Craig's performance can bring some of that out. And for those that don't like Craig's appearance, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fleming007impression.jpg

Is it me, or does that look almost EXACTLY like Craig, apart from the hair color? That's the literary 007 right there.

Damn it, he looks thinner, less athletic, more aged, he could be a younger version of ... wait 1960s

Okay compare yourself and tell me if I am wrong? Keep in mind that Cushing played the role of Sherlok Holmes.

http://www.moviemarket.de/Peter_Cushing_P200431/
http://www.aveleyman.com/ActorsC/P00004039.HTML

[wayskobfssae]

Casino Royale wasn't on screen yet although it is the first novel of Ian Fleming. (I barely remember on a StarTrek NG Episode that took place in this Casino Royale and hear Riker read the letter of an past away American astronaut how terrible this novel was? So was the novel really so terrible that they have not made a movie of the stuff yet or are there other reasons why they started the series with James Bonds hunt for Dr. No? (I think I will read it to find out)

I remember that episode and I'm pretty sure it was the "Hotal Royale" and I don't think it was meant to be a reference to Casino Royale. No such character resembling Bond appeared in the episode, and the story definately didn't sound anything like a 007 plot to me.

[Joe Siegler]

I really wish Judy Dench weren't in this movie though. It just doesn't seem "right" considering it is supposed to be a restart. Why not find another qualified actor to be M? After all in Goldeneye Valentine remarks: "I hear the new M is a lady" meaning she is supposed to be the first female boss. Kind of contradictory considering another female M is in Casino Royale.

I don't know, its silly but it bugs me still. Its like if they had Michael Gough as Alfred in Batman Begins simply because he was in the other movies.

Irrelevant. If it's a series reboot, it doesn't matter what happened before.

Been addressed already...

As the production staff has said, "we'd be foolish to throw away an actor of that caliber just for that".

[FullMetalJacket]

Damn it, he looks thinner, less athletic, more aged, he could be a younger version of ... wait 1960s

Okay compare yourself and tell me if I am wrong? Keep in mind that Cushing played the role of Sherlok Holmes.

http://www.moviemarket.de/Peter_Cushing_P200431/
http://www.aveleyman.com/ActorsC/P00004039.HTML

Huh? Dude, Bond looks nothing like Peter Cushing. What's your point? Cushing does look like Sherlock Holmes...notwithstanding the fact that Cushing has been dead since 1994.

[avatar_58]

As the production staff has said, "we'd be foolish to throw away an actor of that caliber just for that".

Why does M portray a larger part in this movie? I never found her part to be all that great anyway. She may be a talented actress but she played a throw away character as far as I'm concerned. A new M would have been a little more interesting.

[mon2908]

Huh? Dude, Bond looks nothing like Peter Cushing. What's your point? Cushing does look like Sherlock Holmes...notwithstanding the fact that Cushing has been dead since 1994.

I do not think that I am to wrong here, you forget that I think of Peter Cushing around the year 1953. That was a time where Eric Amblers "Epitaph for a Spy" appeared on screen. Exactly the same year when Casino Royale was written by Ian Fleming.

Damn it that I do not find some better/earlier pictures from Peter Cushing but you must forget him as Tarkin on Star Wars to recognize the similarities. Nose, face, ears and hair. Then you must imagine that this character has seen the war and keep in mind that he's a navy commander. What is the average age of a navy commander or what was it in the years 1944-1953? I ask myself if it really is this hard to put the story back in the year 1953. I mean if you see him as navy commander you could easily explain why he has such extraordinary lifestyle and his relationship to women? His abilities in cardplay. International experience. This all fits perfectly well (for me it does, I do not know how you'll see it.)

[Marty]

couple of interviews at IGN
http://au.media.movies.ign.com/media/055/055899/vids_1.html
including one with director Martin Campbell with some footage of the crane fight.

doesnt come out here until Dec 7th which is f**king annoying

[Chimera]

:D :D :D off to see it in about an hour :D :D

[Chimera]

Well, went to see it last night after the cinema closed, just 5 of us in the whole place. And... it's definitely different... I liked it!


It's not Bond, not entirely sure what it is but it was very, very good. Daniel Craig is excellent - really serious. M has more of a sharp and dare I say slightly bitchy side to her, Eva Green was fantastic, not too sure about the guy playing Felix Leiter though...

Particular highlights were the pre credits bit & the parkour bit after that, very nicely done.

Again, Daniel Craig is fab, he jut seems so dangerous compared to the other Bonds... literally he'll just smile at someone and then shoot them.

Definite turn for the better :D

[Marty]

awww December 7 wont come any faster now :D

[Joe Siegler]

I'm going tonight to see it with a few 3DR staffers at a midnight showing. It technically opens tomorrow, but we're seeing it at one of those "we'll list it at 11:59PM the night before to seem cool" deals. :)

[Joe Siegler]

Just got back home from the midnight showing. Saw it with two of the other 3DR staffers. Seriously good - and as advertised, this is not like the Bond that comes before it.

Total franchise reboot.

And Chimera, Dalton was my favorite, too. :)

[Chimera]

And Chimera, Dalton was my favorite, too. :)

\o/ hurrah!

[Duke's New Chainsaw]

Same here. I remember watching those marathons they've been doing at Thanksgiving and when watching the Dalton 'era', I liked it more than any of the others for some reason.

[FullMetalJacket]

Just saw it...

Wow. WOW. WOW!!

Absolutely incredible. Easily one of the five best Bond films ever made. It's right up there with From Russia with Love and Goldfinger, as far as I'm concerned. Is it the best Bond film ever? Probably not. Is it the best Bond film since the 60s? Without a doubt! Craig was absolutely SPECTACULAR, and for the first time since Sean Connery it is difficult to imagine anyone else in the role. The relationship with Vesper is well-developed, and their banter is enjoyable and at least somewhat realistic-- no more Playboy magazine letter excerpts like they were spoon-feeding us in the Brosnan films. There's almost no gadgetry in the film whatsoever, and while I missed Moneypenny, it really wouldn't make sense for them to have that "relationship" of theirs when Bond is only just establishing himself as a Double-Oh. The film does a great job depicting how his career begins to take shape...and now I'm really looking forward to the next film, showing Craig as more like the Bond we're used to.

Run, don't walk, to the movie theater and see this flick. Now. :love:

[avatar_58]

It seems with this movie you either love it, or hate it.....with no-one in between. If you don't believe me, read some reviews and check IMDB. People are really split on this one, with the positives outweighing the negatives.

[FullMetalJacket]

If you didn't like this movie, you're either not a Bond fan or you're so deluded by nostalgia and conformity (like the fact that it's "popular" not to like Craig for some reason) that your opinions have been rendered moot.

[Needle]

Total franchise reboot.

Which makes me wonder: will we see Blofeld again?

[gt1750]

All this talk makes me want to see this movie. I think I could like it even though I liked the previous Bond movies because of gadgetry, action and a bit of non-seriousness.

[Nessus]

All this talk makes me want to see this movie. I think I could like it even though I liked the previous Bond movies because of gadgetry, action and a bit of non-seriousness.

Me too , I like the humor and love the gadgets. I must admit though I hadn't been watching the new bonds because they had gotten so ridiculous with the over the top Hollywood stupid action. Every car doesn't have to blow up like it's filled with high explosives. I also saw some shootout in a warehouse in the of the Brosnan movies and the had empty barrels stacked like 8 high so they could all come tumbling down and you could see they were empty and there for no purpose and it just reminded me of some setup in a bad FPS only even more ridiculous.

[Kalki]

Which makes me wonder: will we see Blofeld again?

How many people have played that character in the past movies?

[FireFly]

If you didn't like this movie, you're either not a Bond fan or you're so deluded by nostalgia and conformity (like the fact that it's "popular" not to like Craig for some reason) that your opinions have been rendered moot.
You're assuming a 'Bond fan' likes the series for the same reasons you do.

Anyway, I've just seen the movie, and I think it was a welcome change from the last instalment - I liked the focus on characterisation, and I liked the more realistic Bond. However Craig as Bond seemed to lack the intrinsic self-confidence that should come with the role; he didn't seem sure of himself, admitted to making mistakes and was insecure in his identity. If he gradually grows into the role then the character building will have been justified, but I just hope that they do to take him forward.

Otherwise, I thought the film lacked stand out action sequences and culminated perhaps a little too fast. What was there was very well done, and there were some pretty tense moments.

A decent film, but could have been better, IMO.

[Needle]

How many people have played that character in the past movies?
I'm not sure. Three?

[FullMetalJacket]

A decent film, but could have been better, IMO.

Not really...it's kinda hard to improve a perfection. :love:

And yes, three actors have portrayed Blofeld as a principal character-- Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice, Telly Savalas in OHMSS and Charles Gray in Diamonds Are Forever. Anthony Dawson played him in From Russia with Love (and maybe Thunderball too?) but in each of those instances you only saw the back of his head.

[Kalki]

Thanks. I hope it's one actor playing the part if they do revisit the character.

[abnormal]

holy crap this movie is awesome. eva green is so delicious and elegant lookin'. so classy. good lord what a sexy woman.

[Samji]

i reckon Jude Law would make a good Bond.

What ----???? No way, Jose.

[FireFly]

Not really...it's kinda hard to improve a perfection. :love:
So what do they do for the next Bond film? ;)

[Needle]

So what do they do for the next Bond film? ;)
The same they did for the second Brosnan Bond movie: make it crap. :p

[FullMetalJacket]

Exactly. :p

Although two solid Bond films back to back is not unheard of-- just look at From Russia with Love followed by Goldfinger or (according to some people) For Your Eyes Only and Octop*ssy. I didn't care much for those latter two films, however. Although it was nice to see Moore take the role seriously for once.

[mon2908]

The same they did for the second Brosnan Bond movie: make it crap. :p

I guess best thing that would happen to the new second Bond movie is to introduce a bad guy that will survive more than one Bond flick. Not a person you see and say, uh, that looks like a really bad guy. Maybe a person close to him, that ****s him really badly. Maybe another task that he's is unable to fullfill but hits really hard. A mix from "The Fugitive", "Behind Enemy Lines" and "Clear and Present Danger". A task not even the MI5 can help him/wants him to escape. I think they should put a bit more attention to his military background. What makes him qualified enough to be an agent of the secret service? Is he a SEAL? If he's really hard boiled he must become smarter. He must learn about the 4th generation of warfare to survive and should make friends in the enemy lines, maybe the person that manipulates him becomes a good friend to him? Becoming a double agent without knowledge would be really cool?

But please not an obvious Fleming novel! Keep it for the third or fourth new Bond. That will kill the reboot. They should mix Fleming with other great authors like Ambler or Clancy.

[FullMetalJacket]

I think they should put a bit more attention to his military background. What makes him qualified enough to be an agent of the secret service? Is he a SEAL?

Well, he rose to the rank of Commander in the Royal Navy. He's still proud of his naval heritage; in three separate movies, we've seen him in his uniform-- You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Tomorrow Never Dies.

From myspace.com/casinoroyale -

Commander Bond excelled at SC3 and Underwater and Aquatic Warfare training. Upon completion of UAW training, he commenced Advanced Commando Parachute training at Brize Norton. He earned certifications for the operation of assault helicopters, Harrier-class jets, fixed wing aircraft, hovercraft, marine assault vessels, armored vehicles, and other craft.

Bond has excelled in solitary sports. He is an avid climber, diver, swimmer, and an excellent runner and has spent time studying both climbing and snow skiing. He does not race cars, but does enjoy driving very fast.

Commander Bond served with distinction in in the 030 Special Forces Unit overseeing covert service in Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Libya, and active service in Bosnia. Upon completion of his duties in Bosnia--where Bond was credited with saving the lives of nearly 100 men from a Serbian militia in one village--he was awarded the rank of Commander.

During his tenure at Defence Intelligence Group, Commander Bond provided vital intelligence during key moments with Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, Cyprus, Indonesia, China (during the Hong Kong handover) and North Korea. Bond left the DI Group RNR after recruitment by MI6.

[Java the Hutt]

Which makes me wonder: will we see Blofeld again?

Never.

McClory has the rights to the Blofeld character. That was the reason why they killed off the unnamed Blofeld in the beginning of For Your Eyes Only. That was an indirect jab at McClory that stated that Bond did not need Blofeld or S.P.E.C.T.E.R. as an enemy. Notice that they never mentioned Blofeld or S.P.E.C.T.E.R. after Diamonds Are Forever; that was done on purpose.

[Java the Hutt]

But please not an obvious Fleming novel keep it for the third or fourth new Bond. That will kill the reboot. They should mix Fleming with other great authors like Ambler or Clancy.

How would they do that? There are no more Ian Fleming novels or short stories to base the script for the next movie.

Not sure who Ambler is, but Tom Clancy never wrote a Bond novel. Besides, Clancy writes military hack novels, and Bond is a unique British character/icon. Keep him British; do not Americanize him.

[Java the Hutt]

I was referring to the marketing. Or to the point that someone is trying to make about the size of the actor's... :) None of that means a thing to me.

What about all those idiotic TV/Hollywood insider shows that gushed about Daniel Craig in a small bathing suit?

He was shown walking out of the ocean his bathing suit for what, 3 to 4 seconds?

They really should have focused on the cool parts of the movie, like the card game or the intense fighting scenes, not on how sexy he looked in a tight bathing suit.

[mon2908]

How would they do that? There are no more Ian Fleming novels or short stories to base the script for the next movie.

Not sure who Ambler is, but Tom Clancy never wrote a Bond novel. Besides, Clancy writes military hack novels, and Bond is a unique British character/icon. Keep him British; do not Americanize him.

Everyone says that this is the new Bond of a new series, so it is likely to expect the same stories again with Craig as Bond on a different set with the same plot.

Eric Ambler?

I would say he's Ian Flemings inspiration for Bond and any other spy novelist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Ambler

[Nessus]

Well, he rose to the rank of Commander in the Royal Navy. He's still proud of his naval heritage; in three separate movies, we've seen him in his uniform-- You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Tomorrow Never Dies.

From myspace.com/casinoroyale -

Commander Bond excelled at SC3 and Underwater and Aquatic Warfare training. Upon completion of UAW training, he commenced Advanced Commando Parachute training at Brize Norton. He earned certifications for the operation of assault helicopters, Harrier-class jets, fixed wing aircraft, hovercraft, marine assault vessels, armored vehicles, and other craft.

Bond has excelled in solitary sports. He is an avid climber, diver, swimmer, and an excellent runner and has spent time studying both climbing and snow skiing. He does not race cars, but does enjoy driving very fast.

Commander Bond served with distinction in in the 030 Special Forces Unit overseeing covert service in Iraq, Somalia, Iran, Libya, and active service in Bosnia. Upon completion of his duties in Bosnia--where Bond was credited with saving the lives of nearly 100 men from a Serbian militia in one village--he was awarded the rank of Commander.

During his tenure at Defence Intelligence Group, Commander Bond provided vital intelligence during key moments with Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, Cyprus, Indonesia, China (during the Hong Kong handover) and North Korea. Bond left the DI Group RNR after recruitment by MI6.

They should have just made him ex SBS, Britians special Boat Squadron which is thier Navy SEALs http://www.specwarnet.net/europe/sbs.htm

[FullMetalJacket]

Yeah...but when it comes right down to it, you're either meant for a certain line of work or you're not. I have some buddies that have only been involved with the Army for a few months and they're more high-speed than some guys that have had vastly more training and been doing it for years.

So long story short, while Bond would certainly require specialized training to be the badass secret agent that he is, going to one school versus going to another school might not make much of a difference for him. He's just naturally good at what he does. I know plenty of people like that IRL too.

[HenryJonesJr]

How many people have played that character in the past movies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blofeld#Blofeld_portrayals

:p

[avatar_58]

Everyone says that this is the new Bond of a new series, so it is likely to expect the same stories again with Craig as Bond on a different set with the same plot.


What? I don't think so, that would be really dull. They need to come up with brand new stories for Craig's Bond. Remember - Goldeneye was not based on a novel so you don't need to rehash to have a good Bone movie.

[mon2908]

What? I don't think so, that would be really dull. They need to come up with brand new stories for Craig's Bond. Remember - Goldeneye was not based on a novel so you don't need to rehash to have a good Bone movie.

I know that, there haven't been enough Fleming novels. And I agree, it would be dull and impossible too. How do they want him to fight the cold war? Send him back in time with a DeLorean?

* Casino Royale (1953)
* Live And Let Die (1954)
* Moonraker (1955)
* Diamonds Are Forever (1956)
* From Russia With Love (1957)
* Doctor No (1958)
* Goldfinger (1959)
* For Your Eyes Only (1960)
* Thunderball (1961)
* The Spy Who Loved Me (1962)
* On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1963)
* You Only Live Twice (1964)
* The Man With The Golden Gun (1965)
* Octopüssy and the Living Daylights (1966)

So, License to Kill, GoldenEye, Die Another Day, The World is not Enough, A View To A Kill and Tomorrow Never Dies are not based on novel's by Ian Fleming.

For me, it looks like that one of the best movies "License to Kill" and one of the worst I've ever seen "Die Another Day" are not based on novels from Ian Fleming.

No, I can't really imagine what Bond will face next.

If it is a remake of "Live And Let Die" it'll show if he is better than Roger Moore. It wasn't such a political movie.

[wayskobfssae]

No, I can't really imagine what Bond will face next.

With all the conspiracy theories floating around today about evil governments? It's either that or religious terrorism is my guess. There's a lot of places you could go with that without mimicking reality too much.

[FullMetalJacket]

The Bond films tend to be pretty contemporaneous, though. Back during the Cold War-era films, obviously, Bond went up against Russians and terrorists and communist militants. So for a modern Bond film, naturally, he'd be up against terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. (a la Renard in TWINE or Le Chiffre in CR)

[Joe Siegler]

Anyway, I've just seen the movie, and I think it was a welcome change from the last instalment - I liked the focus on characterisation, and I liked the more realistic Bond. However Craig as Bond seemed to lack the intrinsic self-confidence that should come with the role; he didn't seem sure of himself, admitted to making mistakes and was insecure in his identity.

Well, duh. This is supposed to be the "Start" of Bond. he's not going to be totally sure of himself. Come on - you praise it for being different, then attack it for WHY it is different. Can't have it both ways.

holy crap this movie is awesome. eva green is so delicious and elegant lookin'. so classy. good lord what a sexy woman.

Indeed. Look up pics of her on the net. Some nice stuff. She does have a tendency to wear emo/goth makeup sometimes; that's a huge turnoff.

So what do they do for the next Bond film? ;)

The next movie will be a continuation of the story at the end of Casino Royale. The scuttlebutt is that the villian of the next one will be the folks higher up the food chain than Le Chiffre. Or so the stories go.

McClory has the rights to the Blofeld character. That was the reason why they killed off the unnamed Blofeld in the beginning of For Your Eyes Only. That was an indirect jab at McClory that stated that Bond did not need Blofeld or S.P.E.C.T.E.R. as an enemy. Notice that they never mentioned Blofeld or S.P.E.C.T.E.R. after Diamonds Are Forever; that was done on purpose.

Agreed completely on why FYEO had Blofeld. But since then McClory has lost his rights, so I'm not sure about who owns the rights to the Blofeld character. But I would expect The official Bond people (Eon/Danjaq) would not use that character even if they had the rights to. They'd probably invent a new regular villian. There's very large story on Wikipedia about the McClory Thunderball rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderball_%28novel%29#The_controversy_over_the_n ovel - it's quite convoluted.

With all the conspiracy theories floating around today about evil governments? It's either that or religious terrorism is my guess. There's a lot of places you could go with that without mimicking reality too much.

See other remark of mine. It's expected to just carry on from the end of Casino Royale.

[FullMetalJacket]

Everybody,

Here's an interesting tidbit concerning the next 007 film.

Vesper's Algerian boyfriend (for whom she betrayed Bond) will be a villain, if not THE villain, of Bond 22. http://commanderbond.net/article/3870

[Joe Siegler]

Here's an interesting tidbit concerning the next 007 film.

Vesper's Algerian boyfriend (for whom she betrayed Bond) will be a villain, if not THE villain, of Bond 22. http://commanderbond.net/article/3870

I knew that, but didn't want to say it. That is a pretty hefty spoiler for the end of Casino Royale, so don't click that if you really don't want to know.

[FullMetalJacket]

Didn't know that...sorry for being redundant, Joe. And yeah, that is a pretty hefty spoiler.

[Joe Siegler]

No need to apologize - just saying I knew that myself. Others might not. But it IS a huge spoiler for the end of the movie there.

[Destroyer]

wow this movie has a 8.2/10 rating on IMDB thats pretty good. perhalps I shall invest 10$ and go see it.

[Nacho]

I saw it on the weekend. I was really impressed with it and loved it. However for some reason I felt it was a tad to long, but when I try to think about things I'd want cut to make it shorter there's nothing! Everything was great in my oppinion, just the length which I have no idea how they could fix.

[Joe Siegler]

I saw it on the weekend. I was really impressed with it and loved it. However for some reason I felt it was a tad to long, but when I try to think about things I'd want cut to make it shorter there's nothing! Everything was great in my oppinion, just the length which I have no idea how they could fix.

Well, they probably could have cut out some of the card playing - I felt that went on a bit too long, but otherwise I agree.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

I just saw it today. Good movie.

How much did Sony pay?! Sony Laptops, cell phones, camera.... All with logo very very visable.

[phreak]

Saw it.

Thought it was perfect until the what was essentially deux ex machina. After that, the pace/rhythm of the movie died and so did its power. It's not that the content was bad, but it's presentation after that point was horrendous.

[fofo.rider]

SEBASTIEN FOUCAN (Street Run && Co) (http://sebastien.foucan.club.fr/index.htm)

http://www.virgin.net/movies/galleries/casinoroyalepreview/pix/07_main.jpg

PARKOUR wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkour)

Parkour is a physical discipline of French origin in which the participant — called a traceur — attempts to pass obstacles in the fastest and most direct manner possible, using skills such as jumping, vaulting and climbing, or the more specific parkour moves. The obstacles can be anything in the environment, so parkour is often practiced in urban areas because of many suitable public structures, such as buildings, rails, and walls.

[SonnyBonds]

Just saw this movie.. I think this is the best of the new ones, quality stuff.

It did feel somewhat off near the end there though, didn't feel as tight somehow. The story was good all the way but.. I don't know.

Anyway, great Bond movie, can't wait for the next one.

[Pansa]

You're assuming a 'Bond fan' likes the series for the same reasons you do.

Anyway, I've just seen the movie, and I think it was a welcome change from the last instalment - I liked the focus on characterisation, and I liked the more realistic Bond. However Craig as Bond seemed to lack the intrinsic self-confidence that should come with the role; he didn't seem sure of himself, admitted to making mistakes and was insecure in his identity. If he gradually grows into the role then the character building will have been justified, but I just hope that they do to take him forward.

Otherwise, I thought the film lacked stand out action sequences and culminated perhaps a little too fast. What was there was very well done, and there were some pretty tense moments.

A decent film, but could have been better, IMO.
i thought that was the whole point of the movie going from
james bond oh and a double 0
to BOND, JAMES BOND

[Pansa]

I saw it on the weekend. I was really impressed with it and loved it. However for some reason I felt it was a tad to long, but when I try to think about things I'd want cut to make it shorter there's nothing! Everything was great in my oppinion, just the length which I have no idea how they could fix.

i had the same feeling, and i figured out why...
it felt like the movie ended before venice... and then there was this huge "gap of action" which fellt like "they cant do THAT!!" but it felt like they`d let it end there... so everything thereafter felt "added" an a tad to long.
well it did till the very last scene.. which was awesome ^^.

creating such a "lowpoint" in "actual" suspence (actual (will bond do something) versus virtual (will the producers do something TO the franchise) at a point in the duration which for a regular length movie could be the end didnt work for me very well...

but all in all ... terrific movie ^^ actualy i didnt mind the "well promoted" beachscene .. everyone i knew just went "waaa what a hulk"

[wayskobfssae]

Saw it this weekend and loved it. I haven't enjoyed a new 007 film much since Goldeneye, and this kept me hooked throughout the entire film.

There's really not much at all that I can say against it, except for what others have already said, that twice near the end I thought the film was over and then it kept on going.

[FireFly]

Well, duh. This is supposed to be the "Start" of Bond. he's not going to be totally sure of himself. Come on - you praise it for being different, then attack it for WHY it is different. Can't have it both ways.
I praised the realistic characterisation and dialogue. That's not dependant on Bond lacking self-confidence.

Vulnerability can be shown in subtle ways; it doesn’t need to be so explicit, and I think you have to distinguish between intrinsic character traits - Bond's natural sense of sureness - and confidence derived from experience. It's the former I missed.

[Grande 3:16]

Just got back from seeing it. Loved it! My only complaint is it seemed to get a little bogged down in romance towards the end, but then gets revved up again to balance it out. :D

[shiranui]

Wicked movie!

[Micki!]

I watched it last week with my big brother...
It was REALLY good imo... and better than i hoped for too actually

I expected a 007 movie that worked, this was a 007 movie that actually lives up the previous ones imo (at least the ones i've seen yet)

I'm glad that good movies are still being made...

[Nacho]

Saw it again. Took my Aunt to see it for her Birthday.

[Grande 3:16]

Just got through watching the original movie. Man that was a chore! It took about 4 or 5 sittings 'cause I kept falling asleep.

Painful, embarrassing, and not at all funny. I dunno who could have thought this could possibly be a good idea.

[Joe Siegler]

Available for pre-order.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8570/casinoroyaledvd5zv.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000MNP2KI/73407921)

[Micki!]

Cool..!
Are there extra scenes in that one..?

[Nacho]

I remember a movie coming out only in 2-disc...no one discer.

Think it's this one.

Instant buy.

[Grande 3:16]

Available for pre-order.

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8570/casinoroyaledvd5zv.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000MNP2KI/73407921)

Australia FTW! :D

http://www.ezydvd.com.au/g/i/p/792071.jpg (http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/792071)

Casino Royale (007) - Limited Edition Poker Pack (2 Disc Set)

[Phait]

I wish they'd stop making Bond movies so I could buy a complete set. I have not watched any Bond movies ever, only seen glimpses.

[Joe Siegler]

I wish they'd stop making Bond movies so I could buy a complete set. I have not watched any Bond movies ever, only seen glimpses.

Get the four box sets released recently. That's the first 20 films. Looks quite nice.

[avatar_58]

I watched this yesterday and I have to say it was pretty damn good. Some of the action scenes seemed kind of gratuitous, but since they were well done and fun to watch I didn't mind.

[Scream]

The sequence at the beginning where he was chasing the bomb maker was amazing. Most of the rest of the film was forgettable, like most Bond films. Not to say it was a bad film. It was enjoyable, but pretty much the same formula as the rest of the series. I prefer the new guy to Pierce Brosnan. He has more of a Steve McQueen feel to him, which is not a bad thing.

The Sony product placement got irritating (I notice that crap a lot more now, probably because there's a lot more of it) and pulled me out the picture constantly. Guess there's no HD-DVD release for this one...

[avatar_58]

The Sony product placement got irritating (I notice that crap a lot more now, probably because there's a lot more of it) and pulled me out the picture constantly.

I noticed it, but it never bothers me. Unless a character is drinking a pepsi and shows it towards the screen with a smile, I don't mind. ;)

[Scream]

I noticed it, but it never bothers me. Unless a character is drinking a pepsi and shows it towards the screen with a smile, I don't mind. ;)


Meh, I miss the old days where movies were movies and commercials were commercials.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

The Sony product placement got irritating (I notice that crap a lot more now, probably because there's a lot more of it) and pulled me out the picture constantly. Guess there's no HD-DVD release for this one...
I just saw it today. Good movie.

How much did Sony pay?! Sony Laptops, cell phones, camera.... All with logo very very visable.

Posted that back in November.

[Scream]

Posted that back in November.


And you were correct. :)

[Duke's New Chainsaw]

Except for the part where it got slow (you all know) I thought it was very good. Especially without freaking gadgets everywhere getting him out of trouble and wacky doomsday devices. It felt (and I took it) more serious. And what's with the talking about Bond's 'rescue'? What was wrong with it? I was expecting something bad, but... did it happen like that in the novel? I need to pick up the books.

Oh, and I can't wait to see the next one. I wanted to see this in theaters, but that didn't happen.

[Grande 3:16]

Who was the guy in Venice with the one-lens glasses? First time I saw it I thought it was Le Chiffre (bung eye, one-lens), but I watched again recently and it wasn't him.

So who was it?

[FullMetalJacket]

Gettler. An assassin working for Mr. White's organization.

[Grande 3:16]

Ah. Thanks. :)

Would have been more satisfying if it was Le Chiffre and not some random bad guy though. ;)

[Joe Siegler]

The Sony product placement got irritating (I notice that crap a lot more now, probably because there's a lot more of it) and pulled me out the picture constantly. Guess there's no HD-DVD release for this one...

This is not new - 007 movies have been doing this for ages. Die Another Day took a lot of heat for having a shitload of product placements. But even that's not unique, I've been seeing it in 007 movies for ages.