Topic: Casino Royale

[Touti]

I know this is not gonna make me look good.......especially with Jon.......but I'm sitting here watching Casino Royale and after the introduction when the overture started with the animation and the music I went "Oh.......this is a James Bond movie " 

[Najemikon]

Eric, there are some things one should keep to ones self... 

[Touti]

Bah.....I'm not ashamed when I do something funny stupid.  I'm not a fan of Bond movies and I had completely forgotten that this was one of them.

I think the last once I watched was "The World is not enough" and that was because I ended with it after forgetting to refuse my Columbia monthly suggestion quite a few years ago.

[Najemikon]

But damn, don't those credits look pretty on Blu-Ray?

[Touti]

Ok that's it, I'm hooked on that bloody Blu-Ray thing.  43:09 into the movie, the reflection of light on the cars at the airport is just unbelievable, I've never seen a picture so clear in my life.

But I'm still highly unhappy..........43 minutes and 9 seconds............this is a James Bond movie......what happened to Q and where are all the gadgets ? 

I demand a refund !

[Najemikon]

Ha! Welcome to the club! Shall we try and get Jimmy to join? 

Casino Royale is a "reboot". Back to basics, after the complete rubbish that was Die Another Day. Brosnan shot his mouth off saying it was rubbish, Tarantino offered to write a gritty, back to basics Bond for him, but the producers said, no thanks, got rid of Brosnan then did exactly what he suggested, only with a new actor. No gadgets, and Bond makes a few mistakes too as this is supposedly his first mission. He isn't quite the finished article. Note the lack of the theme as well; he has yet to earn it... There's a hint of gadgets and maybe even someone who can pass for Q in the second one, but it still isn't a traditional Bond.

[DJ Doena]

but it still isn't a traditional Bond.

And a good one at that. Traditional Bonds are traditionally boring.

[Touti]

I agree with Karsten.  I never liked Bond movies but I really liked Casino Royale.

[Dragonfire]

I liked the ..traditional Bond movies with the gadgets and things.  Casino Royale was a good movie, but not as great as some have said.

I still liked Quantum of Solace, but not as much as many people did it seems.  I hate that so much of the jerky camera/quick cuts were used during the action scenes.  It's like the decision was made to make a Bourne movie - and for the record, I hate the jerky camera work in the last two Bourne movies too - but with Bond in it instead.  
There were hints in the movie of the future Bond with him starting to seduce women and things like that..but I miss Q and Moneypenny and the gadgets.  The gadgets don't have to be as goofy as some of them were..but Bond just isn't Bond for me without his gadgets.

[Tom]

But I'm still highly unhappy..........43 minutes and 9 seconds............this is a James Bond movie......what happened to Q and where are all the gadgets ? 

I demand a refund !

I agree with Karsten.  I never liked Bond movies but I really liked Casino Royale.

 

Are you sure, it isn't just the Blu-ray talking? 

[Touti]

I could appreciate a "gadgetted" (try to beat that Jon  ) Bond movie if they're gadgets that he carries with him all the time.  Like in Casino Royale, he's poisoned, he gets to the car where he's got high tech emergency kit, that makes sense to me.  One thing I always disliked in Bond movies is not the gadgets themselve but how conveniently it turns out that those he was given by Q at the beginning of the movie are exactly the ones he needs.

I like Batman gadgets because they're not presented to you within the five 10 minutes, when he pulls something out you assume that he carries it with him all the time, that it's part of his day to day toolkit. In traidtional Bond movies, you get to see all the gadgets early in the movie and then things turn out in such ways that they are exactly the gadgets he needs later, I always disliked that.

Are you sure, it isn't just the Blu-ray talking?

Maybe a little 

[Tom]

In traidtional Bond movies, you get to see all the gadgets early in the movie and then things turn out in such ways that they are exactly the gadgets he needs later, I always disliked that.

I do not necessarily get this feeling with the Bond movies. I just always thought, that Bond knows how and when to use his gadgets best, he was given this time around.
But in Knight Rider on the other hand it always bothered me. KITT gets some new nifty feature installed, which turns out exactly what is needed in that episode (because otherwise they would have been doomed), but is forgotten in all following episodes. I wouldn't have minded that much, if they would have let KITT keep those gadgets for later episodes.

[DJ Doena]

In traidtional Bond movies, you get to see all the gadgets early in the movie and then things turn out in such ways that they are exactly the gadgets he needs later, I always disliked that.

But in Knight Rider on the other hand it always bothered me. KITT gets some new nifty feature installed, which turns out exactly what is needed in that episode (because otherwise they would have been doomed)

I know the feeling. Everytime Clark Kent gets a new power (e.g. X-Ray vision) it's exactly that power that helps him to save his friend (usually Lana or Chloe ).

[Najemikon]

And I've said before how really we're all "gadgetted"  now, so the tools Bond has have to get more sci-fi. Invisible cars? Please. Ridiculous. I liked the more basic gadgets but always wished he could use them more because you're right. Q comes in at the start and more or less says, "here, you'll need this once during your next mission".  There are toys in the Daniel Craig films, but he uses them without introduction which makes all the difference, like the hi-tech first aid kit Eric mentioned. Don't know about you, but my in-car kit has two out-of-date plasters and that's about it! 

Casino Royale is the best Bond for ages. But better than the classic "traditional" ones like Goldfinger or Live And Let Die? Don't be absurd! The stories had much more depth and far better villains in the old days. Plus the best entries don't rip-off other films. The franchise has always been very good at adapting itself to current trends. Look at the style of Licence to Kill and consider it came out during Die Hard's reign over the action genre. Or Moonraker and it's bloody laser battle in space after Star Wars. Bourne is the current benchmark and the style of both new Bond films respects that, hence the severe shift from Die Another Day. Still doesn't stop it being a fantastic film, just not as original or as well defined as the best Bonds.

[lovemunkey187]

I still say that Timothy Dalton is the best Bond.


And  to anyone who disagree with me, cause I don't care.