Kevin's Watch

The french dude is Le Chiffre.

Ok, i loved this film.

I dont see why people didnt like the bond theme either, i really enjoyed it and Chris Cornells song.

Spoiler

The opening scene in prague as also great, black and white, and flashback to the toilet kill.
The low-tech on-foot chase was much better than previous gadget ridden episodes.

The reference to 9/11 was controvertail i thought, but added to the realism i suppose.

I enjoyed the tension of the poker game aswell, even if there were a few rules ingored for the game.

I also enjoyed Bond, getting cut, sweat covered, bruised etc instead of loating through the film spotless.

Overall, Brilliant.

Great Bond Movie?

Or, Greatest Bond Movie?

Malik23 wrote:Plot holes? Like what?

I can see where someone might be skeptical of the idea that the bad guy (forgot the French name) would

Spoiler

seek refuge with MI6 if he lost the game. But he would certainly be in a tight spot nonetheless. It's at least plausible that he would trade his secrets for protection.

There were a number of unlikely events like

Spoiler

The guy in the Bahamas? making the phone call directly in view of the hotel's security camera in front of a distinctive car so Bond could track him down. Also battling the guy at the Miami airport fighting back and forth in the car changing directions and still ending up exactly next to the plane you want to blow up

However I am used to those coincidences in Bond movies. What I see as some plot holes are

Spoiler

Why did it take so long for M to inquire where the money from the poker game was. They were obviously in phone and e-mail contact while they were sailing away on the boat. Also why didn't the bad guys give the girl a bank account number that they could access wherever they wanted. She obviously didn't put in the correct account number as M couldn't find the money. Why did she have to personally withdraw the money and give it to them in cash?

Warmark - very glad you liked it, but it might be worth putting spoiler tags on at parts of your post, just to be safe.

Holes?! What holes? This was one of those "willing suspension of disbelief" flicks.

CovenantJr wrote:Warmark - very glad you liked it, but it might be worth putting spoiler tags on at parts of your post, just to be safe.

Sorted.

Best Bond movie in years. Since Thunderball. Mr. Connery's crown could well be in danger.

Wow, Duckie! Considering that Thunderball is my favorite Connery Bond film, that's quite the compliment from you. I hope to see it today, and then post any ramblings I might have. Good posts in this thread, btw, I just don't want to say anything til I've seen the film. (Yes, I avoided peeking at the spoilers.)

I just saw this over the weekend and loved it! I am a huge Bond fan (seen all the movies) and my son has even read the books and we both loved this one. Daniel Craig was a superb Bond. Not good looking necessarily but had a certain sex appeal that was undeniable.

I'm afraid I disagree with the majority here that adore Casino Royale. I don't want to spoil the good vibes in this thread too much, as many of you do seem to genuinely love this movie. So I'll keep my comments to a minimum.

Basically, I thought the opening big chase was the best thing in the whole film, a very well done sequence. After that, the rest of the movie seemed flat.

Daniel Craig was competent as Bond, but not "better" than Brosnan. I guess Brosnan was simply more my kind of 007 than Craig is.

What are the stakes in Casino Royale? Oh, poker stakes. Okay, losing lots of money is probably not a good thing. I'm sure those among you who actually play and understand the game enjoyed the poker sequence.

The theme song by Chris Cornell meant little to me.

Eva Green as brainy Bond girl? Maybe. But my impression was that she was more blatant window dressing for Bond than Halle Berry ever was in the previous Bond picture.

All this leaves me feeling very ambivalent about James Bond again. They dumped Brosnan for this? Maybe the Craig era just isn't for me.

Matrixman wrote:I'm afraid I disagree with the majority here that adore Casino Royale. I don't want to spoil the good vibes in this thread too much, as many of you do seem to genuinely love this movie. So I'll keep my comments to a minimum.

Matrix, whether you love the movie or not in comparison to the majority doesn't change the right you have to express you opinion.

Matrixman wrote:I'm afraid I disagree with the majority here that adore Casino Royale. I don't want to spoil the good vibes in this thread too much, as many of you do seem to genuinely love this movie. So I'll keep my comments to a minimum.

Basically, I thought the opening big chase was the best thing in the whole film, a very well done sequence. After that, the rest of the movie seemed flat.

Daniel Craig was competent as Bond, but not "better" than Brosnan. I guess Brosnan was simply more my kind of 007 than Craig is.

What are the stakes in Casino Royale? Oh, poker stakes. Okay, losing lots of money is probably not a good thing. I'm sure those among you who actually play and understand the game enjoyed the poker sequence.

The theme song by Chris Cornell meant little to me.

Eva Green as brainy Bond girl? Maybe. But my impression was that she was more blatant window dressing for Bond than Halle Berry ever was in the previous Bond picture.

All this leaves me feeling very ambivalent about James Bond again. They dumped Brosnan for this? Maybe the Craig era just isn't for me.

I always want to hear your opinions, MM!

As for the poker sequences - as a poker player, the hands we saw were once in a lifetime hands, and were very predictable.

I agree that the opening chase sequence was fantastic!

I liked this movie. I liked it as a Jamed Bond movie that shows Bond at the 'beginning' of his career. I liked that he was a brute.
But I agree with MM:

Daniel Craig was competent as Bond, but not "better" than Brosnan. I guess Brosnan was simply more my kind of 007 than Craig is.

I don't think Craig can be the later/mature Bond. The just isn't the suave-ness that Bond is suppose to exude. Connery had it. Moore had it (but not the lethal quality), and Brosnan was great.

About the movie specifically, I liked it.
That torture scene was great (it's hard to imagine Brosnan saying the line, "more to the left"... )
The action scenes were great, the ladies very beautiful (ESPECIALLY that dark haried goddess near the beginning who got killed in a hammok)

8 out of 10 for me.

Usivius wrote:I liked that he was a brute.

Well, I guess that's (one of) my problem(s).

I don't think Craig can be the later/mature Bond. The just isn't the suave-ness that Bond is suppose to exude. Connery had it. Moore had it (but not the lethal quality), and Brosnan was great.

There you have it. I like the suave Bond. And good of you to mention Moore in a favorable light (more or less). Most seem to have a low opinion of Moore as Bond, but I've always liked his style.

The action scenes were great, the ladies very beautiful (ESPECIALLY that dark haried goddess near the beginning who got killed in a hammok)

Haha, I thought she was Eva Green at first.

dlbpharmd wrote:As for the poker sequences - as a poker player, the hands we saw were once in a lifetime hands, and were very predictable.

I just hope this isn't some kind of trend in movies. I don't want to see Christian Bale in the next Batman movie playing an intense game of cards with the Joker for control of Gotham - though you might be analyzing the moves.

I liked Bond being a person. For too long, IMO, he's been The Unstoppable Bond Machine. I thought Casino Royale and Daniel Craig brought humanity and tension back to the franchise.

Matrixman wrote:I just hope this isn't some kind of trend in movies. I don't want to see Christian Bale in the next Batman movie playing an intense game of cards with the Joker for control of Gotham

I suspect the Joker's hand would consist entirely of jokers.

CovenantJr wrote:I liked Bond being a person. For too long, IMO, he's been The Unstoppable Bond Machine. I thought Casino Royale and Daniel Craig brought humanity and tension back to the franchise.

Point acknowledged, CJ. I have to wonder if I've become some crusty old fart who can't appreciate something new (which goes way beyond the discussion of a Bond movie). I like to think I'm an open-minded moviegoer, but maybe I've become more set in my ways than I thought. I don't know.

I suspect the Joker's hand would consist entirely of jokers.

That might kill some of the suspense!

On another note, I'm a little surprised we haven't seen a "Which James Bond are you?" quiz yet.

Watched film during the week.

I appreciated the differences to previous Bonds, but I thought the plot let it down. Too much 'where the hell did he/that come from?' for my liking. Gratuitous character re-appearances.

Matrixman wrote:On another note, I'm a little surprised we haven't seen a "Which James Bond are you?" quiz yet.

You were saying?

I'm Timothy Dalton

www.seabreezecomputers.com/bond/

D'OH! Thanks, Duckie!

I'm Timothy Dalton too!

That's fitting. I thought Licence To Kill was an excellent Bond film.

Woo hoo! I'm Pierce Brosnan.

And MM, about your Moore comment, I like him #2. Although I think a couple of his movies are the worst ever, I think he made a great bond. I rank him only a smidge above Sir Sean.