Casino Royale

Post by **tandino** » November 16th, 2006, 23:32

Watched this tonight and It has its ups and downs. No spoilers, just a quick review...

PROS:

Daniel Craig, Very good at being a rough round the edges kind of Bond, hard bastard who's more Jack Bauer than Roger Moore.

Excellent action scenes true to bond form.

Laugh out loud funny in some parts but not in a silly comedy kind of way.

Classic Bond moments (though not enough, see below)

CONS:

So much product placement it was fucking ridiculous, really blatant in parts too (I found it detached from the film a bit - maybe just me?).

It Was lacking a classic Bond film "feel" in a way (though it might not necessarily a bad thing when you look at how Batman Begins was, depends on the viewer).

Bond wasn't quite Jason Bourne/Jack Bauer enough at times...

No Zombies or tits.

In short, go and see it on the big screen and try and block out the advertising THAT'S FUCKING EVERYWHERE!

:starfull::starfull::starfull::starfull::starfull::starfull::starfull::starempty::starempty:

[Edited to agree with comments, state that there are next to no gadgets and agree with Lat and give it a star rating]

cashy · Post by **cashy** » November 17th, 2006, 0:40

Did they go stupid with the gadgets and stuff again by any chance? Like a pocket watch that fires heat seeking nukes? I always feel shit like this ruins the newer bond films, i just hope that because its taken from an actual book this time that they wont go silly.

Lateralus · Post by **Lateralus** » November 17th, 2006, 1:28

I've just seen this too, and agree with most of what was said by Mr tandino. I thought it was really good, and far less ridiculous than the last one. Nice opening sequence with some free-running stuff. Product placement was a bit annoying, but I managed to felcher it out fairly well without having to think about it to be honest. I think I have in-built adblock now. Sony were the worst offenders though, by a long way.

It did lack some of the classic Bond, in that there wasn't a country-destroying event narrowly thwarted by him at the last moment, but I liked it. Gadgets weren't in abundance either, and it was more about the man than the toys he was given. I missed John Cleese though. By all accounts it was fairly true to the book (although I've not read it myself). I felt a bit like it didn't really slow down much from the high-paced beginning, but it didn't fizzle out after 90mins either which is good.

Overall I thought it was good, and would recommend it to all but the most ardent Bond haters.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » November 17th, 2006, 2:15

Bastards, i've not read this thread as it's out on the 17th here. looking forward to muchly.

Sheriff Fatman · Post by **Sheriff Fatman** » November 17th, 2006, 10:54

I'm off to see it tonight, no idea why as I haven't enjoyed a Bond film in decades (literally).

After all the recent hyperbole though I figure I should at least give the franchise one last chance.

I fully expect to be disappointed.

/old cynic

/hates Hollywood

/unusually grumpy today

Post by **FatherJack** » November 17th, 2006, 13:40

Haven't seen it yet, but have been losing interest in the franchise more and more, so I watch with interest as to whether they've saved it.

Radio said it was not gadget-orientated - so no Q. This is bad, because Q was ace, but that invisible car in the last one was just stupid. Even more stupid was Bond leaving his invisible car parked right outside the baddies hideout with its engine running.

Radio also had girlie saying "I am so proud I didn't get my kit off". What? Not that I'm desperate to see teh boobzors, it just seems against the spirit of the books. Like Liv Tyler in Lord of the Rings, it feels like an actor putting their own concern above that of the film or the sense of the story. I don't think actors will ever learn we don't neccessarily like them as people, and their prima donna antics, we like what they do when they are doing their job - acting, and we primarily like the characters they play.

The last one had Halle Berry. We sat very near the front and having her looming above me was quite an experience. It made (at least) my neck ache. Unfortunately Madonna had managed to crowbar herself into the story too, so I just lost all concentration at that point.

pixie pie · Post by **pixie pie** » November 17th, 2006, 17:28

Just as I read this thread, an advert comes on the telly.. advertising some thing (Wasn't a bond film) but with the selling line "As James Bond uses" or some shit. Thought this quite ironic really.

I plan to watch this tomorrow, mainly cos I love the original Fleming stories, which this is.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » November 17th, 2006, 20:26

Well, we just went to see this and I'm thoroughly impressed.

Will try to do this without spoilers

Was everything a bond film should be.

Daniel Craig is (IMO) a near perfect bond and actually has a body to match the character's history, unlike Brosnan who just had tits.

Plot was actually good, no over-reliance on gadgets and gimmicks, mostly plain old acting.

Action scenes were present and correct, tied in nicely with the more modern feel of the film while being considerably darker than anything in a bond film before.

Filming was quite unusual for a bond, nicer camera work than usual, a lot more up to date than previous bonds.

Title sequence was very bond, but let down by a CGI barrel shot and CGI blood dripping.

Only a few niggles, but standards with most movies - some of the gun sounds were iffy and 2 of the explosions (of 3 i think) were wrong. oh. and the lack of tits, apart from Caterina Murino's which are fucking nasty (and weren't so much out, as exposed fried eggs on chest.)

Product placement was there, but really not enough to affect the film overall.

I'd give it a 7.8 or so, damn near perfect but let down by me being a picky cupcake.

If you like bond movies, it's a must see, if you like decent action movies, it's certainly worth a go.

Sheriff Fatman · Post by **Sheriff Fatman** » November 17th, 2006, 22:15

Hated it.

XXX with an English accent and slightly less impressive acting.

Walked out after forty minutes. I have given up on Bond, it has just become another Hollywood money spinner.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » November 18th, 2006, 5:24

Sheriff Fatman wrote:Hated it.

XXX with an English accent and slightly less impressive acting.

Walked out after forty minutes. I have given up on Bond, it has just become another Hollywood money spinner.

To be honest, i don't think you gave it long enough, the start was a little XXX-y, but it developed nicely into a proper movie.

Sheriff Fatman · Post by **Sheriff Fatman** » November 18th, 2006, 8:00

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:
To be honest, i don't think you gave it long enough, the start was a little XXX-y, but it developed nicely into a proper movie.

You might well be right, however I paid to see a Bond movie, what I got was another formulaic Hollywood blockbuster. It might not be a bad film in it's own right, but I was hoping for the old Bond style and swagger.

As M says in the film: "I miss the Cold War".

Post by **Joose** » November 19th, 2006, 0:50

Sheriff Fatman wrote: You might well be right, however I paid to see a Bond movie, what I got was another formulaic Hollywood blockbuster. It might not be a bad film in it's own right, but I was hoping for the old Bond style and swagger.

As M says in the film: "I miss the Cold War".

Unfortunately, by leaving early you may have managed to totally miss the point of the film. If you had stayed, I think you might have ended up quite pleased with it. I too found the first half hour or so slightly disappointing. It was a great action film, but somehow just wasnt a Bond film. It wasnt till about half way through that I twigged what they were doing.

Its supposed to be, as a film, a new beginning for the franchise. It starts off with him getting his 00 licence. So I think it was very intentional of them to make the start not very bond (bar the intro graphics) and, as he becomes more Bond-like, the film becomes more bond-like. He becomes more swave (albeit still in quite a 'bruiser' way), he starts making one liners more, theres slightly more gadget action. Like I say, to start with, I was very disapointed, but it made the end half all the better, in my opinion.

As a side note: Ive never really got the leaving-the-cinema thing. I've paid to see the film, Im going to see the damn thing, even if its just so I can be sure its genuinely rubbish and doesnt have some aspect of it in the later stages that totally changes my mind. The only time ive ever been tempted to leave the cinema was during that ruddy aweful Final Fantasy film, and that was more through boredom than anything else. I didnt care if it got better. I didnt care if it got worse. Ive heard, more than once, of people leaving the cinema for what seemed to them perfectly legitimate reasons, who then feel quite stupid when the learn of the rest of the film. For example, a friend of my sisters left the first Matrix film after about 5mins, because the fighting was unrealistic. When she later found out that it was all happening in a computer and the 'realism' was the point of the film, she went an amusing pink colour.

Killavodka · Post by **Killavodka** » November 19th, 2006, 14:54

a friend of my sisters left the first Matrix film after about 5mins

I was better i thought the name sounded stupid so chose not to watch it, only to see it on dvd and think it was the best film Evarrr.

Back on topic tho, I think franchises do have to change to suit the trends, if they didnt they would loose the bulk of the audience with only the hardcore fans left, which would end in fuck all profit (the bottom line seems to the only fucking thing driving the world nowadays

Post by **Joose** » November 19th, 2006, 15:01

Killavodka wrote: Back on topic tho, I think franchises do have to change to suit the trends

Whilst I agree with that, I dont think that really whats going on here. I think the problem was that each of the previous Bond films was trying to be more "bond-y" than the last one, with more one-liners, more daft gadgets, more silly over the top baddies. This meant that the Bond films were increasingly becomeing parodies of themselves, which (again, in my opinion) made them increasingly shit.

In this one, they havent tried to make it more Bond-y than the last film, which I think has put some life back into the franchise.

Post by **Roman Totale** » November 19th, 2006, 15:26

I thought as a Bond film it was very good. However, as a film in it's own right I thought it was merely OK. I was going to say that it didn't manage to live up to the hype, but that wouldn't be very fair.

One thing that frustrated me greatly though was the number of pre-film adverts. The screening I went to started at 5.30, but the film itself didn't start until 6.15 - and the majority of the adverts were for Casino Royale related merchandise and so contained lots of footage of the actual film. What's the fucking point in that? I don't want half the scenes in the film revealed just before the damn thing has started.

I'd probably give it 7/10 - it's a good film but it's certainly not one I'd go out of my way to watch again.

Sheriff Fatman · Post by **Sheriff Fatman** » November 19th, 2006, 15:43

Roman Totale wrote: One thing that frustrated me greatly though was the number of pre-film adverts.

Hard

I spent more time watching adverts than I did watching the film and it really was beginning to annoy me by the time the film started. This probably negatively reflects more on me than the cinema chain, but I saw enough to know that the sort Bond films I prefer are in the distant past.

amblin · Post by **amblin** » November 19th, 2006, 16:01

Fear · Post by **Fear** » November 19th, 2006, 16:11

amblin wrote:
This thread has brought me to only one conclusion: Fire up a torrent.

Sounds like a film that won't be ruined by a bit of graininess or slightly imperfect sound.

Someone told me whilst I was climbing a grape vine that the PUKKA version is the best one on the floor. The rest are shite.

Post by **Joose** » November 19th, 2006, 19:25

Roman Totale wrote:One thing that frustrated me greatly though was the number of pre-film adverts. The screening I went to started at 5.30, but the film itself didn't start until 6.15 - and the majority of the adverts were for Casino Royale related merchandise and so contained lots of footage of the actual film. What's the fucking point in that? I don't want half the scenes in the film revealed just before the damn thing has started.

Peculiar, the showing we had didnt seem to have as many adverts as normal, and none of them were for stuff that was in the film. There was that bloody annoying Chanel No 5 advert by Baz Lurman that goes on for a good ten mins though; that may have taken all the advert time by itself.

Frankly, I would have prefered some bond merchandise adverts.

Fire under my toenails would have been a mild improvement.

Sheriff Fatman · Post by **Sheriff Fatman** » November 21st, 2006, 13:02

Having watched the swept version I have to wonder if it was the same film as those in this thread who thought it was good.

Boring, episodic and devoid of any decent plot thread. Danny can't act, Eva Green is even worse.

Started of OK-ish, but then we had a 40 minute poker game followed by some ridiculous romantic bollocks and then a quick flash to the ending scene, by which time I was praying to God it would actually be an ending rather than a lead-in to the next farcical episode.

I am compelled to read the book for a comparison.

Utter dross.