Casino Royale

[Orang Utan]

Played by a Daud Shah according to IMDB.

Haven't seen it yet so can't really comment.

Well yes, I know that bit - he's my brother's best mate - was just wondering whether it was worth going to see just for him - I can't be bothered if he's only in it for 10 seconds

 

[Xanadu]

'parently Eva Green does some full frontal in The Dreamers...

*gets perv hat on*

 

[Lisarocket]

Geordie.

Always liked him.


Looks cool.

Doh! I've just realised who he is now (at self)

Geordie was very

 

[fudgefactorfive]

I defy any man not to feel inadequate on seeing this film.

I already felt inadequate beforehand.

Daniel Craig spends quite a bit of time in the film naked, getting his balls pummeled. Very strange scene that.

Even stranger was the audience reaction - mass laughter

What I don't get is the timeline - this is a new 007, right? Daniel Craig just filled the role - he gets promoted near the start of the film. Yet it's not a prequel, because this is 2006 and M is still Dame Judy. They even remark on the short lifespan of 00's. So that means Brosnan snuffed it?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Shit happens. Like the last two Brosnan films imo.

 

[elevendayempire]

What I don't get is the timeline - this is a new 007, right? Daniel Craig just filled the role - he gets promoted near the start of the film. Yet it's not a prequel, because this is 2006 and M is still Dame Judy. They even remark on the short lifespan of 00's. So that means Brosnan snuffed it?

Agh. The new films disregard all of the previous ones; this is a new start for a new agent called James Bond. And no, they don't pass on the bloody name along with the code number to new agents. Dench is playing a new M, too - albeit one with similar character traits to the one she played in Goldeneye and the rest. It would've saved a lot of confusion if they'd just cast a new M, too (Connery, anyone?)

SG

 

[BlackSpecs]

A It would've saved a lot of confusion if they'd just cast a new M, too (Connery, anyone?)

Inspired!!!

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Agh. The new films disregard all of the previous ones; this is a new start for a new agent called James Bond. And no, they don't pass on the bloody name along with the code number to new agents. Dench is playing a new M, too - albeit one with similar character traits to the one she played in Goldeneye and the rest. It would've saved a lot of confusion if they'd just cast a new M, too (Connery, anyone?)

Shame. I'd already spent a fair while entertaining myself with mental pictures of Roger Moore's dying moments under a giant laser / rotating factory machinery / headlong plummet off a building / explosive decompression etc.

 

[Reno]

Agh. The new films disregard all of the previous ones; this is a new start for a new agent called James Bond. And no, they don't pass on the bloody name along with the code number to new agents. Dench is playing a new M, too - albeit one with similar character traits to the one she played in Goldeneye and the rest. It would've saved a lot of confusion if they'd just cast a new M, too (Connery, anyone?)

SG

I don't think this is meant to be a new character who takes over the Bond name like Zorro does. First and foremost as this is a film of the first book in the series the film has to reflect that to some extend. It's clear that the B&W pre-credits sequence takes part before all the other Bond films, but there is some ambiguity as to when the rest of the film takes place. They do refer to his promotion, but this could have been a long time ago. The rest of the film never explicitly makes it clear that this is the start, it only hints at it, so you can make of that what you will.

In the end it doesn't exactly bear thinking about too much as in terms of chronology there is a problem with filming the books out of sequence in the first place. It's better to think of the films as being loosely connected stand alone films rather than sequels that continue the same story as the Spiderman or Alien films do.

 

[BBD]

I for one thought it was superb. The scene with him tied to the chair was bloody horrendous however the construction site chase at the begining was wicked. Over all Id say it was an 8 out of 10

 

[elevendayempire]

I don't think this is meant to be a new character who takes over the Bond name like Zorro does. First and foremost as this is a film of the first book in the series the film has to reflect that to some extend. It's clear that the B&W pre-credits sequence takes part before all the other Bond films, but there is some ambiguity as to when the rest of the film takes place. They do refer to his promotion, but this could have been a long time ago. The rest of the film never explicitly makes it clear that this is the start, it only hints at it, so you can make of that what you will.

In the end it doesn't exactly bear thinking about too much as in terms of chronology there is a problem with filming the books out of sequence in the first place. It's better to think of the films as being loosely connected stand alone films rather than sequels that continue the same story as the Spiderman or Alien films do.

Well, apparently this new Bond series is going to be much more interlinked than the old one; the next film deals with Bond's attempts to track down Vesper's Algerian boyfriend. I suspect that they're going to be a lot less formulaic, too; more like the early Connery films (Dr No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger all flow very differently in terms of plotting, completely unlike the subsequent films which basically take Goldfinger's plot and tweak it slightly).

SG

 

[skyscraper101]

I thought it was excellent too.

Craig manages to come accross as a double-hard bastard and a sensitive type without all the cheesyness of Brosnan/Dalton/Moore etc.

Who gives a toss if he's blonde? Come on. He's 007 and can kick the shit out of you if you mess.

 

[Ned Pointsman]

The rest of the film never explicitly makes it clear that this is the start, it only hints at it, so you can make of that what you will.

"I give him double O status and he celebrates by shooting up an embassy."

The best thing about it, I thought was that he genuinely felt vulnerable, there was a sense that he could fail, whereas all the brosnan films basically revolved around him being in ever increasing situations of peril that weren't worth shit in a cinematic sense because you always knew what would happen.

 

[jiggajagga]

I've seen all the Bond movies and thought Connery unsurpassable but move over Mr Connery Bond, Mr Craig Bond out does you!

Classic dark, mean, moody and yes, sexy Bond. Perhaps 20 mins too long, perhaps too much product placement but well worth the watch. A good night out.

 

[sunflower]

Just got back from seeing this. I think I'm in lust with James Bond!

You are definitely not the only one Wookey

What an amazing performance from Daniel Craig....top film and as someone who isn't really a Bond film fan he has converted me.

 

[sunflower]

The scene right at the very end (which i won't spoil for anyone yet to see the film) was brilliant and totally

 

[mauvais]

I agree with Reno. I don't really want gritty. As someone said, there's so many films like the Bourne Whateverity and none of them are spectacular IMO. I just want slightly ridiculous - albeit not shitty blue electric hands ridiculous, thank you very much.

Bond was undoubtedly excellent, as were most of the cast. I also imagine it was a pretty good portrayal of the book. There just wasn't much going on. Interesting start, but everything else was a bit drab - got a bit confusing, perhaps, and no sign of the flair that makes it work for me. Q, car/chopper/boat chases, nonsense action, etc - nowt.

I quite liked how some of it was more realistic - his torture, his fallibility (subtle things - for instance he fell off the roof at the start), and the attention to detail, but I didn't think it was really Bond.

 

[Wookey]

Sorry Wookey, as much as you'd like to keep Mr Bond all to yourself, looks like you're gonna have to share him with the world.

Good! I want him to get nice and famous and rich, he deserves it.

Everyone at work today was talking about the film...I can't remember ever hearing a movie make such a ripple!!

*ripple....mmmmmm

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Spoilers!

Saw it last night, by far the best Bond in years but as a film it was ok but not brilliant. That said there were some very nice moments well handled (the shower scene springs to mind) and the poker game segment was excellent!

6/10

 

[Idris2002]

I don't think this is meant to be a new character who takes over the Bond name like Zorro does. First and foremost as this is a film of the first book in the series the film has to reflect that to some extend. It's clear that the B&W pre-credits sequence takes part before all the other Bond films, but there is some ambiguity as to when the rest of the film takes place. They do refer to his promotion, but this could have been a long time ago. The rest of the film never explicitly makes it clear that this is the start, it only hints at it, so you can make of that what you will.

In the end it doesn't exactly bear thinking about too much as in terms of chronology there is a problem with filming the books out of sequence in the first place. It's better to think of the films as being loosely connected stand alone films rather than sequels that continue the same story as the Spiderman or Alien films do.

Wrong, it's definitely post-9/11. Which accounts for its tone, much darker than any of the previous films.

 

[Reno]

Wrong, it's definitely post-9/11. Which accounts for its tone, much darker than any of the previous films.

Did you actually read what I wrote or what anybody else wrote in terms of the contradictory chronolgy of the Bond films or did you just respond to one sentence you randomly picked and decided to respond to out of context ?

I know that Casino Royale takes place in the present, just like all the other Bond films take place in their present and reflect their own current political situation. But as it is an adaptation of the first book in the series it has to reflect that this is Bond at the beginning of his career as a "00".

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

I haven't watched it yet, but I see it as a 'reboot' rather than a 'prequel', a bit like Batman Begins.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I haven't watched it yet, but I see it as a 'reboot' rather than a 'prequel', a bit like Batman Begins.

Good way of characterising it that, I'd actually like them to go back and remake all the following books with him in this style (actually get a bit more serious and even less pro British intel propaganda too).

 

[BlackSpecs]

the bad bit : Product placement !!!

-Bond driving a Ford ? F**k off !
-Virgin Atlantic all over the sky .....(Richard Branson at airport security)
-"What`s your watch ? Rolex? ...No , Omega! "

The good bits :

-He's VERY dark . Like a manic depressive who instead of taking Prozac has a gun!

-He bleeds !

-He doesn' give a monkeys if his martini is shaken or stirred

-He ruins the car , doesn't get the girl and calls her a bitch after she is dead !!!


i think it's good they finally changed him after 40 years , lets see where they take it from here .

 

[Leon]

-"What`s your watch ? Rolex? ...No , Omega! "

Bond has had Omegas for a long time, and they're right up there with Rolex watches for class anyway.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Oh yeah the Sony product placement was fucking way over the top, it felt like a bloody advert at times (especially that camera bit on the boat).

 

[Orang Utan]

I thought it was a bit meh? The middle section was BORING - which is a hideous sin for an action movie. And it ends so abruptly. Craig is an excellent Bond though and Green is very very sexy.

 

[Orang Utan]

Oh, and the bloke he kills right at the beginning is a school mate - his mother must be so proud - Bond's first kill - that's movie history

 

[Reno]

People who keep bitching about the product placement should remember that without it they wouldn't get the production values that are up there on the screen.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Bond's first kill

Eh?