StarGateWars Forums

I gotta agree. This wasn't bond. I don't think it officiall was. It was advertised as Casino Royale and not James Bond: Casino Royale.

nah it was good, more up close and personal violence, more hands on action if you know what i'm on abt. ie more fisticuffs

u gotta love the line, where he is asked how he'd like his drink and he replies

"Do i look like i *coughing* care!"

or when he gets poisoned, he comes back saying "that almost killed me"

[SGC_ReplicÅtors] wrote:the only part i liked was the embassy part where hes chasing that dude...while that dude was doing all these sorta maneuvers to get away from bond...jumping down floors sliding under things going over a small crevice in the wall...u no the gguy who was betting at the cobra vs mongoose game

That dude was doing professional parkour, although his name escapes me at the moment.

Personally, I enjoyed the film. Although I think it perhaps focused too much on setting up a story then it did involving some action. It could've done with a little less poker, a little less of the lovey-dubby bit at the end and instead replaced them with pure action.

Regarding Daniel Craig's Bondness, I think he was pretty good. Keep in mind that Casino Royale was one of the early books, so Bond wasn't the best at his job at that point, hence the lack of gadgets and brutish style of fighting.

I liked the movie

I think it was the best portrayal of bond ever and since it was the first Bond ever written and gave us a glimpse of what Bond really is.

The acting was brilliant, the character development amazing, the action realistic, not allot of special effects crap, keeping it real.

I advise anyone who was dissapointed in the last 5-6 Bonds with Pierce Brosnan and Timothy Whatsjisname to go see this one, it was amazing.

I do like how brosnan is vilified for the bond movies he did, It not like he wrote the screenplay or script you know! He just acted out what the writers had put in!

IMO Connery was the best followed by dalton followed by brosnan. Those 3 have really gone out of their way to act a good bond with what they were given in their films. The others just didnt cut it

And casino royale? I fell asleep about 40mins in and had to be woken up by the theatre staff when it ended it was the boring and non-bond like

I think it was a more intelligent script this time around, more talking, less stuff blowing up, less gadgets, not for everyone I suppose.

El TC wrote:I think it was a more intelligent script this time around, more talking, less stuff blowing up, less gadgets, not for everyone I suppose.

Lets see shall we the failings of this film :

Bond could barely fight, I mean come on he was a Navy Commander before been recruited by MI5 & is supposed to have worked his way up through the ranks so I think he'd know how to fight.

He gets double crossed no less than 3 times (that I counted) in that film, Bond may not be on the top of his game as its the first story but that's just stupid!

He leaves the service for a girl, Bond would never do that. Not for someone he has only just met and barely knows.

At the end he shoots someone with a sniper rifle from behind. Bond would never ever do that either, when he shoots you he is in front of you and in your face.

Those are 4 major things that I can think of off the top of my head, but if I were to see the film again (no amount of money or love could get me too) i'm sure I could pick out more

LanLock wrote:Wow, I'm so disapointed, that was the most boring Bond movie ever.
50 minutes of him playing cards, 5 minutes of him blowing stuff up.

Thank you! I'm not alone...
I was sorely unimpressed by the movie. It started out okay, I enjoyed the chase... and then at some point it fell apart.

El TC wrote:I think it was a more intelligent script this time around, more talking, less stuff blowing up, less gadgets, not for everyone I suppose.

Talking is good: Take the Godfather series.
Less Futuristic gadgets is Good: Take MacGyver, and homemade ones.
Less stuff blowing up is bad: Even MacGyver made mortars.

As for intelligence... You either go all out, and make up an intricate plot that is a treat to behold in-and-of-itself... or you stick to linear action.
What you don't do, is pull un-foreshadowed character reversals and backstabbing out of thin air (or for no real reason) to claim that the plot is intricate.

---------

Now, I can accept that this is a younger, gentler bond... but please, what we saw was not Bond anymore than 'The young adventures of Indiana Jones' is 'Raiders of the lost ark'.


Thumbs waaay down. I didn't even see the need for the poker part, it was like a ten minute gimmick... it should've been reworked or droped.

Kit-Fox wrote:

El TC wrote:I think it was a more intelligent script this time around, more talking, less stuff blowing up, less gadgets, not for everyone I suppose.

Lets see shall we the failings of this film :

Bond could barely fight, I mean come on he was a Navy Commander before been recruited by MI5 & is supposed to have worked his way up through the ranks so I think he'd know how to fight.

He knows how to fight, it was just portrayed as realistic as possible. That's how fights go down u know, not like you see in other movies where you get hit repeatedly and not go down. It's tough.

He gets double crossed no less than 3 times (that I counted) in that film, Bond may not be on the top of his game as its the first story but that's just stupid!

That is how a man/woman is shaped, by our experiences. The fact that he was double-crossed confirms this. The whole movie is about why Bond is Bond. Lol, and I thought you fell asleep

He leaves the service for a girl, Bond would never do that. Not for someone he has only just met and barely knows.


Indeed, he wouldn't do that now because of exactly what happened to him with Vespa

At the end he shoots someone with a sniper rifle from behind. Bond would never ever do that either, when he shoots you he is in front of you and in your face.

Just goes to show you that Bond might not have always been like Timothy and Pierce portrayed him.

The whole movie was abouts Bonds character, amazingly done. He was brutal, forceful, charming, rude, sensitive, raw etc. All these qualities brought out in the movie.

Thumps up

El TC wrote:

Kit-Fox wrote:

El TC wrote:I think it was a more intelligent script this time around, more talking, less stuff blowing up, less gadgets, not for everyone I suppose.

Lets see shall we the failings of this film :

Bond could barely fight, I mean come on he was a Navy Commander before been recruited by MI5 & is supposed to have worked his way up through the ranks so I think he'd know how to fight.

He knows how to fight, it was just portrayed as realistic as possible. That's how fights go down u know, not like you see in other movies where you get hit repeatedly and not go down. It's tough.

He gets double crossed no less than 3 times (that I counted) in that film, Bond may not be on the top of his game as its the first story but that's just stupid!

That is how a man/woman is shaped, by our experiences. The fact that he was double-crossed confirms this. The whole movie is about why Bond is Bond. Lol, and I thought you fell asleep

He leaves the service for a girl, Bond would never do that. Not for someone he has only just met and barely knows.


Indeed, he wouldn't do that now because of exactly what happened to him with Vespa

At the end he shoots someone with a sniper rifle from behind. Bond would never ever do that either, when he shoots you he is in front of you and in your face.

Just goes to show you that Bond might not have always been like Timothy and Pierce portrayed him.

The whole movie was abouts Bonds character, amazingly done. He was brutal, forceful, charming, rude, sensitive, raw etc. All these qualities brought out in the movie.

Thumps up

ok this gonna end up in one big quote triangle but here goes

1) if he did work his way up the ranks of the Navy to the rank of Commander from the bottom then he would certainly know how to fight and not get knocked around so much - Think about it for a minute? Bond gets knocked around in this film rather a lot and a Navy sailor would certainly have gotten into quite a few fights in his life and know how to defend himself, that means he wouldn't just roll over and lose like he does in this film.

2) Double crossing is part of bond movies, its a needed part of the story lines but to get double crossed 3 times?? that's just stupid, no one is that blind or naive. Bond obviously isn't stupid or MI5 wouldnt have picked him, plus the training he will have being put through will have ensured he plays his cards close to his chest & is able to spot liars.

3) no argument yet..

4) But Daltons films were films of the books, hence that's how bond was supposed to act like. You cant get closer to the authors intention than those of connery & dalton. Bond was in your face and violent yes but he was very, very honourable! shooting someone in the back and laying in wait for them to do that isn't honourable hence isnt bond

Kit-Fox wrote:

El TC wrote:

Kit-Fox wrote:

El TC wrote:I think it was a more intelligent script this time around, more talking, less stuff blowing up, less gadgets, not for everyone I suppose.

Lets see shall we the failings of this film :

Bond could barely fight, I mean come on he was a Navy Commander before been recruited by MI5 & is supposed to have worked his way up through the ranks so I think he'd know how to fight.

He knows how to fight, it was just portrayed as realistic as possible. That's how fights go down u know, not like you see in other movies where you get hit repeatedly and not go down. It's tough.

He gets double crossed no less than 3 times (that I counted) in that film, Bond may not be on the top of his game as its the first story but that's just stupid!

That is how a man/woman is shaped, by our experiences. The fact that he was double-crossed confirms this. The whole movie is about why Bond is Bond. Lol, and I thought you fell asleep

He leaves the service for a girl, Bond would never do that. Not for someone he has only just met and barely knows.


Indeed, he wouldn't do that now because of exactly what happened to him with Vespa

At the end he shoots someone with a sniper rifle from behind. Bond would never ever do that either, when he shoots you he is in front of you and in your face.

Just goes to show you that Bond might not have always been like Timothy and Pierce portrayed him.

The whole movie was abouts Bonds character, amazingly done. He was brutal, forceful, charming, rude, sensitive, raw etc. All these qualities brought out in the movie.

Thumps up

ok this gonna end up in one big quote triangle but here goes

1) if he did work his way up the ranks of the Navy to the rank of Commander from the bottom then he would certainly know how to fight and not get knocked around so much - Think about it for a minute? Bond gets knocked around in this film rather a lot and a Navy sailor would certainly have gotten into quite a few fights in his life and know how to defend himself, that means he wouldn't just roll over and lose like he does in this film.

Defend himself, yes, but these are fights to the death.In my opinion it takes allot of training and skill to kill another man with your bare hands. Yes, he gets knocked around, very realistic imho. And let's not forget that the first two kills were Bonds firsts, so a bit of a struggle might be forgiven here.This is best portrayed in the staircase scene where Vespa has to witness this ugly reality of Bonds character and what it means to be a 00. I mean do you really think the bad guys aren't highly trained as well?

2) Double crossing is part of bond movies, its a needed part of the story lines but to get double crossed 3 times?? that's just stupid, no one is that blind or naive. Bond obviously isn't stupid or MI5 wouldnt have picked him, plus the training he will have being put through will have ensured he plays his cards close to his chest & is able to spot liars.

He said it best himself:"00's life expectancy is very low". The fact that he has been around for so long confirms that he can outwit and outplay his enemies every time, even though it might not have been like this at first. He is also very arrogant, impulsive and his ego gets him in allot of trouble like when he gave his real name at the hotel.

3) no argument yet..

4) But Daltons films were films of the books, hence that's how bond was supposed to act like. You cant get closer to the authors intention than those of connery & dalton. Bond was in your face and violent yes but he was very, very honourable! shooting someone in the back and laying in wait for them to do that isn't honourable hence isnt bond

Let's not forget here that Bond's sniper round didn't kill the guy

To sum it up:

It is like the first trilogy of Starwars, finding out what happened to Darth Vader and why he has become what he has become. It was a total different portrayal of Darth Vader, one of a young Jedi who was betrayed by the Sith, being in love and all that.
The same could be said about Batman begins.

And again, if you haven't seen it yet, it's a MUST SEE

I am going to have to disagree 100% with the topic starter here. Casino Royale was the best bond film to come out in a long time. It was darker and deeper. It showed the human side of James Bond, and how he became what he was in the other films. It was well scripted and the lighting in certain scenes (eg the torture scene) was excellent. The film just draws you in and in.

Plus it has Richard Branson in, how can anything with Richard Branson in be bad??

Can't wait to see the next one. Its going to follow on directly from that movie, which is something they have never done with Bond films.

Norbe.

This bond was different to the others because it wasn't stupily far fetched. Bond didint have underwater cars, dinky aeroplanes, and luckily the exact amount of weapons to deal with his enemy.

I thought this was the best one yet, it was a lot colder, and much much much more realistic.

You thoguht it was boring? I gues that you just like different types of films then. But you dont get a good film from just explosions and gun fights.