Casino Royale

[pumba]

I really liked this too, especially the fight between Bond and Spider Man at the beginning.

[modage]

i was not really looking forward to this movie until this week.  i think for a long time i held the last few films, neverending casting rumors & controversy, and the fact that Tarantino wanted to do it, against Casino Royale, but with the huge wave of good buzz this week i was finally excited to see it.  the first bond movie i ever saw was Goldeneye and i really liked it.  i can recall seeing posters for one of the Timothy Dalton Bond films at a movie theatre when i was younger and having no interest or knowledge of the character.  but i saw Tomorrow Never Dies in theatres as well, liked that one and got to The World Is Not Enough and had either outgrown it or the series had gotten very goofy.  (Denise Richards/"I thought Christmas only came once a year"!)  to this day i've only seen the first 3 Bond films (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger, all great), and the first 3 Brosnans.  i didn't have enough interest in Die Another Day to get around to it / past Halle Berry.  so with that history in mind, i liked this film.  like Goldeneye, which i suppose was the last time the series got a major makeover its a mix of very old fashioned elements and very modern touches.  certain inescapable elements threaten to hold the series down despite its desire to move forward.  the biggest problem was probably the length though, it definitely has about 30 min of extra meat.  craig was good, and eva green was great to watch.  hopefully it gets even better from here.

[Gold Trumpet]

ADMIN EDIT: *SPOILERS*


Oh man, I'm on a streak of three new films being good. Flags of Our Fathers became a top contender for best of the year, Borat just one of the funniest movies I've seen and I guess the icing on the cake is that I finally got the Bond film I've been waiting for.

I'll be honest, I'm a die hard Bond fan. Any supposed rejuvanation of the series always strikes me wrong. The producers who continue to make the films will always have a grasp on the series I think will always limit it. Finally, Casino Royale is a Bond film that lives up to the expectation. I'm not thanking the producers for doing this. I'm thanking The Bourne Identity series for forcing the producers to make this film.

I always tease Star Wars fans for liking a nerdy series with little qualification. Now I also tease LOTR fans for the same thing. I see both series as only having personal endearment instead of any quality. While watching Casino Royale, I realized my history of loving the Bond films was also mainly based on just personal endearment. The most classic Bond movies really are corny. The older they get the worse they look. The series rests on the look of Sean Connery because if any other actor would have been in those films the series would have bombed. That's why (I imagine) Cary Grant only would sign to do one of them. When I watched Casino Royale, I finally realized I was loving a movie with little regret or second thinking. This movie is good entertainment.

This film also falls perfectly into the series. It still is a Bond film and not a Bourne protege. It just cleans up all of the faults. When I assumed the film would fall into an excess of action scenes, I realized there were only three and the film actually had a patient story. Of course, the story is about Bond falling for another girl. Nearly every Bond movie has utilized this effect and just repeated it. The thing is all the Bond movies have only been half ass. All were just imitative of other actioneer efforts. With this one I really did buy into the story and didn't just laugh at the scenes that tried to dig at emotional feelings. A few lines here and there were misplaced, but the emotion was believable in the vein of Hollywood stuff.

The better element of the story is that it was vein of many other Bond films. I saw the appearance of good ole Felix from the CIA plus other little Bond hallmarks that were to become standard issue in every Bond film. The difference between this film and another film like Superman Returns is that the reuse of hallmarks here never became desperate homage. This is a Bond film all in its own. I felt Superman Returns was a poor remake of the original with only some added twists. I guess the greatest hallmark in Casino Royale was in the death of Eva Green. She's became the martyr figure in Bond's life. When this was used in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, I did buy into the storyline. It mainly was because I felt George Lazenby showed good acting. I would have been embarassed to have seen Moore or Connery try to show any such emotion at their beginning stale stages. Both needed time doing other roles to improve their talents. Craig is believable to me. He's shown good stuff in movies like Sylvia and the underwhelming Speilberg film, Munich. He makes the emotional subplot work in this film.

Do I like Daniel Craig as Bond? I love him as Bond. Is he the best? I don't think it matters. Sean Connery is still the poster child for the series, but every Bond has a trait to him that makes them lovable to different people. Before Casino Royale I never faultered in identifying myself with Timothy Dalton just because his serious attitude. I think I'm trading in Dalton for Craig. One, Craig is blonde (as am I), Craig is serious (like Dalton) but unlike Dalton, Craig actually is funny. His cool confidence doesn't remind me of British pleasantry the way Dalton's always did. It reminds of American sense of humor. Brassness mixed with brutality. But always cool. I keep the series in heart because I do find indentification in the character. Liking the right actor thus becomes crucial.

I'm a happy man with Casino Royale. I finally have a Bond movie to revisit with sincere appreciation. I still watch The Spy Who Loved Me and The Living Daylights, but I have to hide my face at some of the corniness on display. Roll on with more Bond films of Daniel Craig as Bond and this improved writing in place. This could become a good series for the adult in everyone to like as much as the child in everyone liked the earlier works.

[A Matter Of Chance]

I enjoyed this, and think that along with The Prestige it makes good for two highly entertaining movies in one year.

...but the corniness is still rampant by the end, and the 'paul haggis touch' is visible.

[diggler]

..... GT please put a spoiler warning in your post

[Derek]

Liked it a lot, Craig is perfect. I think the shot of Bond and Lynd in the shower is iconic.

[Gamblour.]

Boring, so so boring. The action at the beginning was strange, because they're clearly doing Ong Bak type acrobatics at points, so I forgave that because I figured they were just setting up how the action for the rest of the movie would be. Nope. Turns out it's a slow, slow movie about a poker game, with a bit of romantic betrayal put on the neverending end. The last Bond film I liked was Goldeneye, which blended action with a pretty decent storyline. I'm not normally into action movies, but it's freakin James Bond, and he sat at a table for most of the film. Craig was good, but what's the use. I bet the next one will be great.

[w/o horse]

One of my favorite films from this year, the most enjoyable action film experience I've had in the theater since I thought the theater was for action for films.

I thought the directing was really strong.

[Ultrahip]

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. overall good but waaaay too long.

[Kal]

I liked this... it was a well done comeback for the series and it can build from here.

Craig was good, but I still would have prefered somebody else to play Bond (even Julian McMahon)... Craig makes me laugh with his constant "Blue Steel" face (or is it Magnum?)

Anyways it was entertaining, and Eva Green was great. Nothing too exciting, but good fun.

[MacGuffin]

007's Next Mission Revealed?
Pic may be based on Fleming short story.

The follow-up to Casino Royale will reportedly be based on the Ian Fleming short story Risico, which appeared in his 1960 book For Your Eyes Only.

"Bosses were so pleased with how well Casino Royale has been received that work has already commenced on Risico at Pinewood Studios," claimed a source for the British tabloid The Sun. "Some of the same characters will crop up again. But one of the main aspects will be to develop Bond's complex personality."

The problem with Risico is that its basic plot and characters was already used for the 1981 film version of For Your Eyes Only. In Fleming's Risico, 007 is sent to Italy to investigate a heroin ring and crosses paths with the likes of Colombo and Kristatos, both of whom were featured in the Roger Moore movie.

It should be noted that, although A View to a Kill (another short story in For Your Eyes Only) and FYEO have both been filmed, neither movie truly used the plots from their respective source novels. Fleming's From a View to a Kill saw 007 investigating the murder of a dispatch-rider; FYEO had M sending Bond on an "off the books" assignment to avenge the murder of his old friends, the Havelocks, by Herr von Hammerstein. The film featured the murder of the Havelocks and the inclusion of their vengeful daughter, but M's employing 007 as a means to fulfill a personal vendetta was not used.

Fleming's short stories 007 in New York and Quantum of Solace have never been referenced in any Bond film, and only a semblance of The Property of a Lady can be gleaned from the big-screen version of Octopussy. 007's investigation of a female Secret Service double agent in that story could prove an interesting challenge for Bond in the next movie, especially in light of what transpired in Casino Royale.

It seems plausible that screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade might use the gist of Risico -- 007 in the Mediterranean to investigate a crime ring -- while adding and adjusting other elements to fit with the series' newly adopted down-to-earth, character-driven approach.

Wade recently advised the BBC, "In the next film the emphasis has to be on the unfinished emotional business at the end of Casino Royale. It has to be dealt with in such a way that his character continues to have an arc. ... It can't just be he's tough and he's tempered steel and totally impervious. There are things he still has to resolve. So that's the legacy of Casino Royale and it's important to have it so the actor has something to play."

Eva Green, who played Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale, recently revealed that Vesper's French-Algerian boyfriend may be the villain of the next film, while Daniel Craig advised IGN that the sequel will see 007 going after "the threat behind the threat."

[SiliasRuby]

It really blew me away last night. Man, was I impressed with the action that didn't stop. Although, I was kicked out of the movie emotionally by a crying baby.

[Pubrick]

by a crying baby.

isn't that usually you?

[Alexandro]

Never been a Bond fan but I gave it a chance. I was inmensely bored by this. Really, to the point of actually wanting to leave, but at that time of the day, traffic jams are a pain in the ass so I stayed and tried to sleep, but it didn't work.

I don't get it. This is another action movie in which the hero and villains do humanly impossible things like jumping up to the top of buildings, with the obligatory "emotional" moments, climax, and so on...same old same old.

Craig is a fine actor and he does well, but the praise he's getting is ludicrous. He pulled it off with class after being treated like shit by the fanbase and that's cool, but that's not enough to propose the guy for serious awards. Eva Green is basically wasted. She looks hot and sexy, so? Wasn't that expected? I couldn't get into the love story cause everything is so schematic it takes away any possible leftover of surprise that could be there. Giannini again, is totally wasted too, in another of his cop/protective/know it all/relliable figure roles, and yeah you'r eright Ultrahip, everytime they cut to him and eva so he can "explain" to the audience what's going on in the poker game was laughable at best.

Following the recent trend, this is over long too.

[©brad]

so this was okay, despite being unnecessarily long and void of any good villian. daniel craig was refreshingly ballsy, bringing more grit and testosterone to pierce's over-manicured bond.

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.