Ally Posted November 22, 2006 Report Share Posted November 22, 2006 Thought there might have been a thread about this by now (although maybe I'm just being blind again). Anyway, I saw casino Royale last weekend. It's really is pretty good and I have to agree with the most of the critics - Daniel Craig is an excellent bond. The plot itself is perhaps a little light - I think it's really just a vehicle to establish the new boy. Having said that, the characterisation is very good and the dialogue is very well scripted. Craig has a combination of screen presence and comic timing that surpasses even Connoery, in my opinion. It should be on at the Garrison soon folks, def check it out if you get the chance. Best line (spoiler) : Bond: "Give me a vodka Martini"Barman: "Shaken or stirred?"Bond: "Do I look like I give a damn?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjolein Posted November 22, 2006 Report Share Posted November 22, 2006 I can't wait to see it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pert Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 Save your money. It's a total non-event of a film. Saw it last night. The pacing is pedestrian, the card game is really boring, and they kill an Aston Martin for no good reason. It has no climax, and dribbles to an end half an hour after you wanted to go home. It's peppered with clumsy cultural references in an attempt to bring it up to date. Clever gadgets have been replaced with mobilephones.There isn't even a secret base. Instead, Bond sits on a chair in a grotty shed and gets his stoness whipped with a length of knotted rope. God, I wish I'd just made that up... And the attempt to give the characters emotional depth fails. Top marks to the marketing team though, for convincing me it might be anything other than sharn. 0/10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted December 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 Nah nah! I can concede that it is, perhaps, a little try hard in its attempt to break from the standard Bond-by-numbers deal, but surely you can't say you disliked Daniel Craig as 007? As for the humour, the one liners got big laughs from the audience at the screening i was at, rather than the usual groans I've heard Bond's previous double-entendres provoke. Besides, could it really continue with even bigger bad guys? They've had baddie bases in space (Moon Raker), metal toothed villains... Q's latest gadget was an invisible car...what next? liquid metal bond girls? I prefer a bit of realism to be honest. Oh, and the crane jumping scene at the start was ace - much better than any hackneyed ski-slope gunfight any day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanman Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Yeh, the chase at the start was a cracker. Very entertaining film. Best bond movie ever. I was quite surprised how good it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonners Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 I was disappointed by the new Bond movie. I think it comes down to what you want from a Bond movie, and what I want is darkly funny moments. For example I liked bits when Sean Connery would kill somebody in a ruthless manner and then make a joke about it. I feel that death is taken far too seriously in this latest film. I also thought there was no chemisty between Bond and the woman. And as for scenes when they were playing cards - good grief, could it have been more boring? I don't understand poker and in fact I would go so far as to say I hate poker, based mainly on ignorance of how it works and also I associate it with fat, sweaty, husbands busy gambling away the family savings online. Ergo, crap subject matter for a Bond movie IMO. Should have been much briefer, or done better. The action scenes ranged from adequate to good - I did like the crane scene at the start. I also liked the final scene as it was quite snappy, and also the film finally ended after going on for some 6 hours - or so it felt. I couldn't always follow what was going on - this was the films fault, as I am not stupid. And the sound was crap at times and I couldn't hear what people said sometimes, and I'm not deaf and the cinema was ultra modern. That said, Daniel Craig had an impressive body, and I'm not gay. And the main baddie was crap. His big thing was that he had a watery eye when he got stressed?! This was pathetic. He may as well have had a runny nose! As for the product placement - I don't usually care about that sort of thing, but it was verging on the ridiculous. As a result I now own a Sony Ericsson phone, a Ford Focus and an Omega watch. 4/10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted December 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2006 I was disappointed by the new Bond movie. I also thought there was no chemisty between Bond and the woman. And as for scenes when they were playing cards - good grief, could it have been more boring? I don't understand poker and in fact I would go so far as to say I hate poker, based mainly on ignorance of how it works and also I associate it with fat, sweaty, husbands busy gambling away the family savings online. Ergo, crap subject matter for a Bond movie IMO. Should have been much briefer, or done better. The action scenes ranged from adequate to good - I did like the crane scene at the start. I also liked the final scene as it was quite snappy, and also the film finally ended after going on for some 6 hours - or so it felt. I couldn't always follow what was going on - this was the films fault, as I am not stupid. And the sound was crap at times and I couldn't hear what people said sometimes, and I'm not deaf and the cinema was ultra modern. That said, Daniel Craig had an impressive body, and I'm not gay. And the main baddie was crap. His big thing was that he had a watery eye when he got stressed?! This was pathetic. He may as well have had a runny nose! As for the product placement - I don't usually care about that sort of thing, but it was verging on the ridiculous. As a result I now own a Sony Ericsson phone, a Ford Focus and an Omega watch. 4/10. Dude, it was based on the casino royal book - it's set in a casino, how could they not focus on the card game? Also, he didn't have a watery eye -the villain wept blood! The film itself could perhaps be criticised as being a vehicle to establish Daniel Craig as the new bond, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonners Posted December 5, 2006 Report Share Posted December 5, 2006 Dude, it was based on the casino royal book - it's set in a casino, how could they not focus on the card game? Fair point Ally. Playing cards has to feature, I suppose. But not necessarily. They could have replaced it with some other sort of parlour game - charades perhaps would have been funny, or Pictionary maybe, haha. Maybe even some sort of futuristic game like in Never Say Never Again would have been more exciting. But I guess they were never going to ditch the poker bit - it would be a major change from the book which could anger purists and also poker is very popular these days. I just think they should have done it better. Also, he didn't have a watery eye -the villain wept blood! Blood, water, whatever - he was a drip. I think on another day I might have liked the film a bit more - I was a bit tired after a busy day and I wasn't willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt. Having said that I really don't think it deserves the critical good press it had before release - although some of the later reviews weren't that great - and the overall hype was out of proportion. But I do seem to be in a minority - most people seem to think the film was pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted December 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2006 I think you might be on to something with the pictionary idea. Maybe a game of trivial persuits or connect -4 four would be have been a suitable alternative? Agree with you about the villain, he was a bit crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted December 5, 2006 Report Share Posted December 5, 2006 I would give it 7.5/10. Liked the fact it wisna so far fetched, although a bit unrealistic that he returns to finish the game after just about being poisoned to death!. The card game in the book was Baccarat but they changed it to Poker, maybe to cash in on the populatiy of Poker at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distortio Posted December 6, 2006 Report Share Posted December 6, 2006 The card game in the book was Baccarat but they changed it to Poker, maybe to cash in on the populatiy of Poker at the moment. thank felch england got stuffed a cricket again or the next movie would be tedious n the extreme... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Weel i loved da original Casino Royale, and da book, so i wis blyde tae see dat dey managed no tae sausage either o dem up! Da baa's torture scene wis weel done, though i wis dissapoited he didna use a squash raquet (dats in da book, in case you tink i'm just a weirdo!) however, ontae da actual film review bit : it wis an excellent film, da kind dat isna made enough noo, however i didna feel lik i wis watchin a bond film. Its a good fast paced action spy flick, so see it lippenin dat an you winna be dissapointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.