|
Post by Havana on Nov 20, 2006 8:37:05 GMT -5
If you guys haven't seen it, I highly recommend seeing Casino Royale. I think it's the best Bond in years. I think it demonstrates perfectly that you need a good story, good actors and good old fashioned action to make a great action adventure film. There are no invisible cars, no silliness, and no nonsense. Even the CGI effects are kept realistic and in check which is really rare these days. Daniel Craig is great. He runs, jumps, shoots and beats the heck out of a lot of bad guys. The back to basics approach is very effective in this film. The action scenes are especially good and not cartoonishly overblown like you'd see in a Michael Bay film. If Indy 4 ever really gets made, I hope that the Indy film makers will take a similar approach.
|
|
|
Post by jweaver on Nov 24, 2006 10:31:34 GMT -5
I'll have to check that out! At first I wasn't sure what to think about Craig. IMO, he doesn't really look like "Bond", but I'll have to check him about before I really pass judgement.
|
|
|
Post by GCR on Apr 9, 2007 13:03:03 GMT -5
Old thread, I know...but I saw "Casino Royale" over the weekend, and I figured I'd add my comments here, rather than start a whole new thread.
I sort of had a mixed reaction to this movie. I didn't hate it, or even dislike it, for that matter, but I didn't love it, either. I enjoyed parts of it, and certain aspects with much more grit and realism were welcome changes over the goofiness that seemed all too common in some of the other Bond films.
I think the movie is definitely a step in the right direction, and if the overall tone or "feel" of this film holds up over the subsequent sequels, I think they will be some very enjoyable films.
However, I did think this film went on a bit too long, and the final showdown between Bond and Le Chiffre at the card table did seem somewhat anti-climactic to me. Plus, I had a hard time believing Craig as Bond. Nothing against him as an actor, as he did a fine job with the part, but, I just have a hard time accepting anyone other than Sean Connery as Bond, as he was my personal favorite (and From Russia with Love my favorite Bond film). But others have grown on me over the years...I thought Brosnan did well, though his movies were totally outlandish, and I'm sure Craig will seem more like Bond to me the next time around.
Overall, I'd recommend giving Casino Royale a watch. It was a good film, but if it is a sign of things to come for the Bond franchise, I think the next one will be even better.
-GCR
|
|
|
Post by pitfallharry on Apr 11, 2007 15:27:21 GMT -5
I wasn't happy that they cast Craig as Bond at first. Now that I've seen the film I think he is one of the best. Of course Sean will always be Bond to me and I really enjoyed Brosnan's films.
I think Craig lends an edge to the character that's been sorely missing for years. Other than Connery's Bond I couldn't see anyone elses "Bond" handling that torture scene the way Craig did.
I was surprised with the outcome of the fate of the main bad guy but it was a nice change of pace.
I really enjoyed the film and I think it's a good way to reset the franchise. I'm looking forward to see where they take it from here.
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Apr 16, 2007 23:25:51 GMT -5
I watched "Casino Royale" tonight, and have mixed feelings about the changes they made.
On one hand, I like the faster more physical nature of the action and fighting. This is the sort of thing they needed to do to keep pace with the very well done Mission Impossible series, for example. If they can successfully match the level of action, twists, use of technology, and romance that Tom Cruise has been able to pull off in those movies... I think they will have done a great job.
I can also get past the fact that this early rendition of James Bond has less gadgets, because they can be pretty hokey in these films at times. This being a reboot offers them the opportunity to steer clear of a few overdone cliche's, and this seems to be one of them so far.
I think Daniel Craig did a fine job in this movie, and certainly has the right presence to take on the higher intensity action. He even did a nice job conveying different aspects of the character from an acting point of view. I just have a hard time indentifying with him as being Bond. He doesn't carry the dressier aspects of the character well, IMO. It's also that he looks a bit more like a great Bond villain than Bond himself.
I think the movie was enjoyable, action packed, and well made. It did feel a touch too long, and had a very different pace than any James Bond movie I have seen in a while. I know they plan to continue using Daniel Craig in this role, so maybe he will grow on me more with a few more movies.
Ken
|
|
|
Post by Tyrloch on Apr 17, 2007 6:18:54 GMT -5
I have yet to see Casino Royale, but all I've heard is good things about it. I'm still having a hard time getting over what Mads Mikkelson (Le Chiffre) looks like without the beard. That's him in the movie King Arthur in my avatar...what a difference, huh?
~Jace
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Apr 17, 2007 9:03:01 GMT -5
I have yet to see Casino Royale, but all I've heard is good things about it. I'm still having a hard time getting over what Mads Mikkelson (Le Chiffre) looks like without the beard. That's him in the movie King Arthur in my avatar...what a difference, huh? ~Jace What a difference a shave and a haircut make huh? ;D He plays a pretty good villain, so I think you'll like it. Ken
|
|
|
Post by Tyrloch on Apr 17, 2007 9:10:50 GMT -5
BIG DIFFERENCE!! I didn't realize what a multitude of sins a little extra hair could hide! ;D I'll have to try that... But seriously, after I get throught the pile of 'yet to watch' movies that I have, I'm going to look into this Bond film... ~Jace
|
|
|
Post by Kaplan on Apr 17, 2007 15:02:35 GMT -5
NOBODY can do it like Connery. He just has so much charisma on the screen. I mean...he arms a bomb, rushes to a bar, sits down, lights a cigarette. **BOOM!!!***...the look on his face is priceless! (a mild couple of blinks and a slightly concerned raised eyebrow ). He's just so...suave. Over the years, I just got tired of Bond walking into a place, and everyone knowing his name. I mean...HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A SPY!!! And all of those horrible one liners that got worse and worse and worse. Plus those names...I mean, it was funny the first time with Pu$$y Galore. At least Bond's line when he wakes up; "Pu$$y Galore?...I must be dreaming!" But the names of the girls in the rest of the movies got ridiculous. I had a game of poker recently with some buddies, where we agreed that as 007 goes on in his career, he becomes a worse and worse undercover agent. I mean he gets everyone's attention all the time! He drives a more expensive car than everyone else, wears more expensive clothes, handsome as hell, hardly ever gives an alias, shows up with a different gorgeous girl every hour, and makes everything explode. I think if MI6 were smart, they would use him as a distraction, in order to let a real spy get in. ;D
|
|
agent5
Treasure Seeker
Posts: 424
|
Post by agent5 on Apr 17, 2007 15:34:10 GMT -5
AMEN to that, Kaplan! Connery IS Bond the same way Ford is Indy. And always remember...if we never had this... ...we never would have had this.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrloch on Apr 17, 2007 15:38:31 GMT -5
Yeah, Connery was the best by far, although Moore & Brosnan both did decent jobs. But no one could ever top Connery, he was just too cool..."Of courshe you are, darling"...
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on Apr 19, 2007 15:58:58 GMT -5
BIG DIFFERENCE!! I didn't realize what a multitude of sins a little extra hair could hide! ;D ~Jace Here's a flashback photo from 1992... just in case you were wondering if a shave and haircut only made a difference for Mads Mikkleson... I would have had a hard time stuffing my hair under a fedora years ago. Ken
|
|