Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Casino Royale Thread
- Thread starter liketom
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
®îçhå®? said:
I actually agree, Daniel Craig is a terrific actor.
That said, I believe Pierce Brosnan is also a great actor, and i think it's horrible they didnt bring him back. he was making some excellent movies as Bond.
The movies were fun, good and bigger than ever in box office.
so i will continue seeing them, but wish they didnt dump brosnan. I think they were just being cheap.
Time for a grittier Bond. I liked Brosnan in the role but he was too good-looking and you never felt he could get into any real danger, partly because of the storyline and his acting. Therefore, casting Craig is perfect because he embodies the ideals of a Bond you could care about, seeing as he could get hurt with the suspense and realism of the Bourne movies (which I absolutely love).
I agree... I'd like to see a more dark Bond. Recently (the Brosnan era minus Goldeney) the movies have taken on an "action hero" genre. I'd love to see the series go back to a more story-driven plot, rather than "Here are some gadgets and a car, now make a movie".
I'm excited about the movie.
I'm excited about the movie.
Casino Royale was a tongue-in-cheek Bond film made with David Niven, Woody Allen, Dahlia Lavi and others.
SmurfBoxMasta said:Actually Casino Royale was also the title of an episode of Star Trek TNG
Ah yes, and what a cheeky episode it was
I don't care about the cars. I don't even know what attracts me to Bond films anymore, barring the last few the whole series has grabbed me and I can't point where or how.
He'll be a good Bond. It's like Doctor Who, you get whingers who cry about "he's not Bond/The Doctor" but then he goes on to do a fabulous performance and make a good film. Since they started "Americanising" them from Goldeneye I just stopped caring so it makes sense to me to remake the first James Bond film - or to just use the title, I've no idea of the storyline to this one. Fingers crossed, and that.
PS. He was very good in L4yer Cake. Can't say much for the film itself though.
He'll be a good Bond. It's like Doctor Who, you get whingers who cry about "he's not Bond/The Doctor" but then he goes on to do a fabulous performance and make a good film. Since they started "Americanising" them from Goldeneye I just stopped caring so it makes sense to me to remake the first James Bond film - or to just use the title, I've no idea of the storyline to this one. Fingers crossed, and that.
PS. He was very good in L4yer Cake. Can't say much for the film itself though.
Meand my dad have seen every bond film togther apart from the early ones, I cant wait for it to come outoldnavy1918 said:
I thought the movie was a complete failure. Well maybe not completely as there were a few funny scenes and I enjoyed both Allen and Sellers in it but most of the movie was just a mess. I don't really understand why they used so many different directors either.
Anyways I've seen better parodies though that casting a chimp as one of the 007's was genius.
Anyways I've seen better parodies though that casting a chimp as one of the 007's was genius.
SmurfBoxMasta said:Actually Casino Royale was also the title of an episode of Star Trek TNG
I hope you don't call yourself a Trekkie. because that's not the title.
it's The Royale (no casino) episode 2x12 (#37)
and CR was Ian Fleming's first bond novel.
Have been catching up on all the reviews of this to date, sounds fantastic, quite simply cannot wait!!!!
Brosnan was good, I really did like him as Bond and was saddened when he didn't get his 5th outing. The only excellent Bond film of recent years however was Goldeneye, IMO.
I doubt that. It would be very short sighted of them. I have no doubt Craig is getting less than they would have had to pay for Brosnan this time round. But if Craig goes down well with the critics and the fans (which so far, he certainly seems to be. I have yet to read a review that gave it less than 4 stars) his fee for future films (apparently he's already signed up for another 2) are sure to be far greater.
I love that they're rebooting the franchise, so-to-speak, and have nothing against Craig. He'll probably be quite good.
What I do have a problem with is Dame Judi Dench! Arrrrgh!
Her inclusion in the series just destroys any sense of disbelief or contunity. In fact it's tacict admission that "James Bond" isn't a person per se, but instead, a position.
Pedantic, I know. But I'm a huge Bond buff. Having Dench return as "M" is an affront to everything that "Casino Royale" is attempting to do.
What I do have a problem with is Dame Judi Dench! Arrrrgh!
Her inclusion in the series just destroys any sense of disbelief or contunity. In fact it's tacict admission that "James Bond" isn't a person per se, but instead, a position.
Pedantic, I know. But I'm a huge Bond buff. Having Dench return as "M" is an affront to everything that "Casino Royale" is attempting to do.
OK, I'm confused. A review I just read said this Bond film (which explains Bond's origins as 007) is set in the present. Huh? Is that right? He's battling modern terrorists while we learn how he becomes the Commie-fighting agent of the cold war? Or is it full of flashbacks?
My understanding is that it's a reboot.
Think of "Batman Begins" versus the other four "Batman" films. No flashbacks. Bond earns his stripes in the here and now. The Bond continuity, as we know it, no longer exists.
Thus why the inclusion of Dench makes no sense (to me), aside from putting someone we've heard of in the film to fill seats.
I think they are doing it as a re-write of Casino Royale...the basic plot is the same but the villain is some funder of terrorists rather than the commies to bring it up to date. I have to admit that the commies made the best villains though.
Based on the trailer this film looks to be better than the last few, and I like Craig's interpretation of the Bond character.
I'm also glad that they are willing to "reboot" the Bond Franchise rather than becoming increasingly obsessed with making the movies canonical to the series. As long as it's a good movie it doesn't matter if there are inconsistencies - lets face it, Bond has been doing his thing since the 60's, so he should be as old as Connery. If you can overlook that , you can overlook the other stuff.
ahhh i love that line...
-guy- "dont worry i've herd the second kill is easier"
-bond-shoots guy- "yesss considerably"
I really likes it
-guy- "dont worry i've herd the second kill is easier"
-bond-shoots guy- "yesss considerably"
I really likes it
One more point in this movie's favor: I noticed in the trailer that Bond has gone back to the PPK...very cool.
I just hope they get back to realism, lets face it the early movies were very believable then they started getting more like scifi and to the point of near sillyness. A new Bond, thats realistic with a PPK sounds good to me.
I've had it explained thus: James Bond is the operational name for MI:6's best agent in the field. Which would explain away Dent as M still.... and weirdly this explaination sits quite happily with me...