Casino Royale

[MacGuffin]

here's my beef - where's the goddamn theme song? saving it till the end credits is lame. i understand the risk of overdoing it but come on, the best part of any bond film is when he just does something badass and the song explodes triumphantly. it's like the whole point of watching these damn movies. even during the 95-minute card game scene, the crux of the entire movie, that dragged on forEVER - did we get the theme song then? or any song for that matter? nope. if your movie is called casino royale and people are nodding off during the casino scene, you got problems.

I think you missed the point. He wasn't 007 until the end, hence the "Bond... James Bond" and theme song held off.

[Gold Trumpet]

A quote taken from another thread:

Bond (one of the best of the year???)

From a Bond fan to a non-Bond fan, there is a point to be made.

See, as far as movie going goes, Casino Royale was my favorite time at the movies last year. Many saw a snore fest, many saw potential for better Bond in the future and many saw a great Bond movie. I saw the last two options. I think what excites many fans is how much of a chink in the armor Casino Royale represents for the series. This film was only made possible by the horrendous reviews from Die Another Day, but back in 1977, Moonraker also received horrendous reviews while also gaining huge incomes. The producers (thinking of the longevity of the series) had the next film be For Your Eyes Only which was somewhat of a throwback Bond film. But, the series immediately went back to goofy afterward with Octopussy and A View To A Kill. When License to Kill and The Living Daylights underperformed, the idea that a serious Bond movie could ever be made again was in doubt.

Casino Royale is not only the biggest Bond hit ever, it is also the only Bond film to be based on his personal life. License to Kill and On Her Majesty's Secret Service either just have a scene or a mention to his personal life. Now the writers are promising that the sequels will continue in this trend and Bonds fans are excited and perhaps, as you likely believe, also overreacting. Yes, Casino Royale is still an action film with actioneer hallmarks of ridiculousness, but the majority of the Bond crowd is excited for the future.

I'm done with top ten lists on this site, but hell, I'd consider Bond one of the best of the year because I'd have to represent the part of me that grew up predominantly on action movies. Everyone has these genres that appeal to them so I won't stop myself from acknowledging a major shift for the longest running series ever. But, yes, many serious critics are lessening their standards. I really don't think I am. I never took X-Men: The Last Stand seriously, but Andrew Sarris did seriously review it when it came out....

[©brad]

here's my beef - where's the goddamn theme song? saving it till the end credits is lame. i understand the risk of overdoing it but come on, the best part of any bond film is when he just does something badass and the song explodes triumphantly. it's like the whole point of watching these damn movies. even during the 95-minute card game scene, the crux of the entire movie, that dragged on forEVER - did we get the theme song then? or any song for that matter? nope. if your movie is called casino royale and people are nodding off during the casino scene, you got problems.

I think you missed the point. He wasn't 007 until the end, hence the "Bond... James Bond" and theme song held off.

yes, yes i definitely missed that.

[Alexandro]

A quote taken from another thread:

Bond (one of the best of the year???)

From a Bond fan to a non-Bond fan, there is a point to be made.

See, as far as movie going goes, Casino Royale was my favorite time at the movies last year. Many saw a snore fest, many saw potential for better Bond in the future and many saw a great Bond movie. I saw the last two options. I think what excites many fans is how much of a chink in the armor Casino Royale represents for the series. This film was only made possible by the horrendous reviews from Die Another Day, but back in 1977, Moonraker also received horrendous reviews while also gaining huge incomes. The producers (thinking of the longevity of the series) had the next film be For Your Eyes Only which was somewhat of a throwback Bond film. But, the series immediately went back to goofy afterward with Octopussy and A View To A Kill. When License to Kill and The Living Daylights underperformed, the idea that a serious Bond movie could ever be made again was in doubt.

Casino Royale is not only the biggest Bond hit ever, it is also the only Bond film to be based on his personal life. License to Kill and On Her Majesty's Secret Service either just have a scene or a mention to his personal life. Now the writers are promising that the sequels will continue in this trend and Bonds fans are excited and perhaps, as you likely believe, also overreacting. Yes, Casino Royale is still an action film with actioneer hallmarks of ridiculousness, but the majority of the Bond crowd is excited for the future.

I'm done with top ten lists on this site, but hell, I'd consider Bond one of the best of the year because I'd have to represent the part of me that grew up predominantly on action movies. Everyone has these genres that appeal to them so I won't stop myself from acknowledging a major shift for the longest running series ever. But, yes, many serious critics are lessening their standards. I really don't think I am. I never took X-Men: The Last Stand seriously, but Andrew Sarris did seriously review it when it came out....

Yes, I was under the impression this was a more serious Bond movie, I don't know, more raw. I understand your points, but I still consider myself capable of enjoying a good action movie. And I just didn't found that here. I don't feel I know Bond too much, cause his love story is composed of purely common places, so maybe for the Bond fan this is new. For the non-Bond fan, this is the same thing we always see. I don't see that many differences between this one an MI3, for example. But I've never been a fan of Bond, or of Mission Impossible, or Rocky, Rambo, Bourne and all that stuff. So this movies are a hard sell for me.

When the movie started and they didn't showes the main theme with Bond walking in I actually got excited. I though "hey, maybe this WILL be different". So the dessapointment when "different" meant that the guy runs like Tom Cruise and jumps like Tobey Maguire was even bigger...

[matt35mm]

highly enjoyable up until the poker game. those cutaways to eva green and the other french dude as the peanut gallery were fucking hilarious. every time the dealer says something, he explains it to her in the most "the audience might not get this" tone, and eva greens "aha" faces are priceless.

This stood out as pretty silly to me as well.  As if Eva had not bothered to at least read a book about poker before putting herself in this position.

The movie was okay.  I was kinda hoping for more.  I think I would have like it a lot more if it didn't have those moments (like the one mentioned above) where the writers had no faith in the audience's ability to understand what was happening.  I would have liked to have spent more time seeing the love story happen organically.  I like when they meet, but I thought the shower scene was stupid and that their hearts melt for each other way too fast for who they are.  I could completely believe that their bond would be a very strong one, but they fall in love at the instant it's needed for pretty blantantly manipulative purposes.  Still, they have some good moments together.

Eva was gorgeous, of course, and I liked Craig a lot in the role.  I like the direction the series is heading in (please no more invisible cars and Denise Richards).  Everyone says that and now I've said it, too.  This movie did succeed in making me actually anticipate the next Bond movie, so that's good.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

This movie did succeed in making me actually anticipate the next Bond movie, so that's good.

Dr. No?

[MacGuffin]

Campbell kept new Bond on course
By Mike Snider, USA TODAY

Casino Royale director Martin Campbell is onmipresent in the extras on the film's DVD (out this week, $29; Blu-ray disc, $39), just as the action film veteran (The Legend of Zorro, Vertical Limit ) served as a steady presence in directing the debut of Daniel Craig (Munich) as the new James Bond. He talked with USA TODAY about the film and DVD.

Q: Casino Royale is the second Bond film you've directed (the first was 1995's GoldenEye). In the end, how does Daniel Craig stack up to Pierce Brosnan and other Bonds?

A: The truth is they are two very different Bonds. Very different Bonds. GoldenEye was simply Bond in the traditional sense. It was just really a continuation of what had gone before, whereas Casino Royale, in tone, it certainly goes back to the tone of the books, which I find very different to the way movies portray Bond. So I think to compare them is impossible because of the different tones of the two movies. Both are terrific actors as Bond.

Q: Among the extras on the DVD is one about casting the new Bond. How tough was that?

A: I think in the end we tested eight actors for the role and Daniel was one of those. Although, there was no test on (GoldenEye) because Pierce Brosnan was a slam dunk at the time. Daniel came in with such criticism, that of casting a blond Bond. Actually, he fits into (author Ian) Fleming's description of Bond far more accurately than any of the other Bonds.

Q: Another of the DVD extras focuses on the stunts and effects. Was there one thing that Daniel Craig did that surprised you?

A: Action is much trickier than it seems. It's always given a bad rap. The thought is, for an actor of Daniel's ability who's by and large done much more esoteric, if you will, sort of independent performances ... for him to sort of go headlong into what is a movie that involves an awful lot of action that there is a real learning curve for him. To begin with, he committed himself wholly to it. It did take him a little bit of time, but at the end of the movie he was totally comfortable with it. Probably what would have taken me 10 to 15 takes probably took one or two. He very quickly learned over the course how to handle himself with action. And he looked fantastic as well. ... Both (Craig and Brosnan) are extremely good at action.

Q: Even on the behind the scenes segments on the DVD, some of the stunts look pretty precarious.

A: The truth of this is you can't put any actor in any sort of danger. First of all, it's very stupid and, secondly, the insurance company won't let you do it because a twisted ankle would shut you down. (On above-ground stunts), Daniel was wired up but nevertheless he had to get to the top of that building and it does involve more than just slipping in the odd close-up and cutting to the stunt double. He had to go very high, a few hundred feet off the ground. He didn't complain, but we're all a little terrified of it when it involves heights. But he was always safe at all times and he knuckled down and did it.

Q: There's no commentary on either the DVD or the Blu-ray Disc. Is one planned for a future edition?

A: Yes, we are doing a commentary. I think (the studio) tends to milk these things (with Bond films). When I did GoldenEye, I did it with the producer (Michael G. Wilson). We'll probably do it with (the producers). There may be some deleted scenes.

Q: So far there's no director for the next Bond film (currently scheduled for 2008). Are you interested?

A: After GoldenEye, I was asked to do subsequent Bonds, but I declined because it felt as if I'd be repeating myself. But this one is based on a Bond that's more interesting. To be honest, I would just say I'd never say never.

[MacGuffin]

New DVD Edition Of 'Casino Royale' To Reportedly Contain Three Discs
To feature an audio commentary; possibly deleted scenes...
Source: commanderbond.net

After the somewhat bare-bones DVD release of Casino Royale back in March of this year, one question many James Bond fans were asking was what we could expect on the eventual ultimate edition release of the film.

According to sources for CBn, the forthcoming ultimate edition DVD for Casino Royale will reportedly contain three discs—one for the feature film and an additional two for special features.

Back in March, director Martin Campbell discussed the Casino Royale DVD with USA Today and revealed that a commentary would be in store for the next release: 'Yes, we are doing a commentary. I think [the studio] tends to milk these things [with Bond films]. When I did GoldenEye, I did it with the producer [Michael G. Wilson]. We'll probably do it with [the producers].' He also added that 007 fans may see some of the deleted scenes included as well.

More recently, in an interview with Hollywood In Hi-Def, Campbell was asked if he had begun work on any of the special features to accompany the new Casino Royale release: 'All I've done is watch the movie. I'm fascinated by the quality of it. But that's about as far as I've gone. I'm sort of busy at the moment looking at other projects.'

'Certainly I have to OK the scenes that have been cut out. That's good. I think people are fascinated by scenes that are cut out and I put most of them back into the disc. I hope there's going to be an extended documentary because they (documentary film crews) are with us all the time, doing interviews all the way through. The documentary on the existing movie (DVD/Blu-ray discs) is just a little short. I just wanted more...'

While a release date has not yet been revealed, many Bond fans are speculating that the new Casino Royale DVD could come out around the time Daniel Craig's Bond 22 hits theatres in November 2008.