-
-
Re: Casino Royale...the new Bond
No no no... slow down!! SPECTRE is not in the movie. By "represents", I meant that the terrorist organization referenced in Casino Royale and in Bond 22 rumors is drawing comparisons to what the old Connery films did with SPECTRE. For the pain and suffering I may have caused, I apologize.
This is because chronologically the events in Casino Royale takes place before what happens in Dr. No, which is the very first movie made based off the James Bond series.
KruzaLast edited by Kruza; 11-20-2006, 11:15 AM.Comment
-
Re: Casino Royale...the new Bond
I didn't go and see it yet.
My friend saw it last night and he said it was the worst Bond movie he's seen. And Daniel Craig was beyond horrific.
Kinda dampened my desire to see it a little.“Nobody in the history of the game tried what I just tried. We’re talking about on the biggest stage, in New York, playing out of position and asked to hit fourth for the New York Yankees. I mean, that’s never been done.” - Sheffield on SheffieldComment
-
Re: Casino Royale...the new Bond
Daniel Craig was AMAZING as Bond. Don't listen to your friend, he's a tard.
Comment
-
Re: Casino Royale...the new Bond
I haven't seen it either (will be going today or tomorrow) but I think this illustrates a point. The Bond franchise has turned into your typical action movie in the last 15-20 years. It's going to take a while for the younger folks to realize that Bond is deeper then some action piece. From the vibe i'm getting from most of the people here is that CR is in the mold of the Connery films and that is a VERY good thing IMO.
The Connery movies were kinda slow during the first half but they'd always pick up and by the end of it you'll say "hey that was a damn good movie". I'm willing to bet that's how CR will be for me.Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club
"Baseball is the most important thing that doesn't matter at all" - Robert B. ParkerComment
-
Re: Casino Royale...the new Bond
It's not even that. It's a NEW Bond character. He's not a complete womanizer in this movie, he has some vulnerability that has never been there before. And it's no gadgetry, he is just a gritty gritty guy who will impose his size and strength on you to win a battle, not his gadgets. This movie is Bond BECOMING Bond, so it's different than any of the others in that aspect. The movie was really good all throughout, didn't get off to a slow start at all.
He is the book Bond, not the movie Bond that everyone is used to.Comment
-
Re: Casino Royale...the new Bond
If your friend's taste is similar to yours in what a Bond movie should be like, then I guess you'd be justified in being somewhat less enthusiastic.
You need to take into consideration that everyone has a different conception of Bond, just like everyone has a different conception of what a comic book movie should be like.
There are people out there who can never take a comic book seriously and would rather see comic book movies that are tongue in cheek rather than gritty and realistic. Same thing goes with the Bond movies.
I prefer the gritty and realistic approach, and that's what Casino Royale is. That's what Goldeneye to some extent was before Brosnan's Bond movies started going over the top and reverted to too much tongue in cheek storytelling which I hope Craig's Bond never succumbs to.Comment
-
Re: Casino Royale...the new Bond
I think it's better to say Craig is the Connery Bond. People fail to remember that Connery was pretty gritty (for the time period) and didn't rely on his gadgets nearly as much as his successors. Oh and it wasn't like they never tried to be gritty or very true to Ian Flemming's Bond before. They did that with George Lazenby in OHMSS but it never got a chance to take root because he had to fill the shoes of Connery.
I honestly believe if Connery had starred in OHMSS then the series wouldn't have gone in such a comedic vein that the Moore films did. (tho The Spy Who Loved Me is in my top 3 Bond movies)Last edited by SPTO; 11-20-2006, 12:55 PM.Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club
"Baseball is the most important thing that doesn't matter at all" - Robert B. ParkerComment
-
Re: Casino Royale...the new Bond
He isn't the Connery Bond though. He is more him than the others, but he isn't him completely. Just wait until you see it, he is his own Bond. And trust me, it is a very very well played Bond.Comment
-
Re: Casino Royale...the new Bond
A little too much time at the poker table. It was OK, nothing I'd see twice. A couple of real beauties on display made it easier to watch.
Last edited by JayBee74; 11-20-2006, 01:35 PM.Comment
-
Re: Casino Royale...the new Bond
I don't know about that. Connery DID come back for Diamonds are Forever in the wake of OHMSS, and we know what a crapfest that film became. I like to put the blame on one Tom Mankiewicz, who rewrote Diamonds and then "wrote" (I use the term loosely) Live and Let Die and Golden Gun. Hard to believe that it's the same guy who wrote Superman.
As for the new flick, I just saw it on Sunday, and I LOVED it. Craig is the closest I've seen to Fleming's Bond since Lazenby (yes, I'm serious). This was the first time that I saw Bond on screen as the complete SOB he is in the books. Some say the movie was a bit long, but frankly, I didn't really notice until I looked at my watch after it was over. My only complaint was that my balls really started hurting at one point.“In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants.” - Lewis BlackComment
-
http://flotn.blogspot.com
Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club
Originally posted by trobinson97Comment
-
“In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants.” - Lewis BlackComment
Same at my theatre as well. That scene was horrific, but one of my favorites of the movie.
Comment