Casino Royale *overrated*

[quote name='The Crotch']The first 10 minutes of the movie > the rest of the movie. They should just make a film based on the crazy jumping-guy from the beginning.
[/QUOTE]

I might of missed something. But this first scene was alright. Im kindof anti crane jumping as it was pretty over the top...but what got me is he chases this guy around for the first 15 minutes of the movie. Risking his life jumping off of fucking cranes and skyscrapers and shit, just so he can catch the guy. So he finally corners the guy....then shoots him? wtf? someone explain if i just missed something or it is just amazing writing. (I did see this movie only once, and never plan on seeing it again, so I dont put it past myself that I did miss something)

Now, saying this movie is the best bond movie ever, doesn't really say to much to me. Growing up, my brother forced me to watch all these damn movies, and even as a little kid I thought they sucked. Saying this is the best movie is like saying its the "best army man game" or something to that extent.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']And as far as weak Bond movies are concerned, you should watch Diamonds are forever and then watch Casino Royale again. I guarantee you'll change your mind.[/QUOTE]

Critiquing a Connery Bond movie? Savvy. I would agree that it's one of the worst Connery ones, but the Rambo-fied Timothy Dalton screenplays are easily some of the worst. Personally, I thought Moonraker was the drizzling shits.

[quote name='hcamacho']That was what I was talking, the first girl he had intercourse with, what hot, hot!!!!![/QUOTE]

Well, you sure ain't Gene Shalit.

[quote name='Cracka']casino royale bored the shit outta me, i was zoning in and out the whole time. I really have no clue what happens in the movie, just seemed like an all around boring movie to me[/QUOTE]

Needs more pick'm'up trucks? Perhaps you prefer the two films that featured the character "Sheriff Pepper"?

[quote name='ITDEFX']the card game was too long. I don't know much about Poker, so I have no fucking idea what the fuck was happening. [/QUOTE]

That was one thing that bothered me about the adaptation for today's big screen. Two major changes. Le Chiffre, instead of funding SMERSH (nasty commies), is funding terrorists this time around. It's pretty peripheral to the overall plot, so it didn't bother me too much. The other major change was changing a game of Baccarat to "Texas Hold'em" Poker. I can see why (it's contemporary), but there's something about Hold'em that seems too...plebian for a man like Bond. Maybe it's the thoughts of what pro TV Poker players look like. Yech!

[quote name='ITDEFX']yes I agree it didn't feel like a bond film. We had a cocky, thick headed Bond for this movie.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Cocky, thick-headed Bond is far closer to Ian Fleming's vision, so while it may feel less like a "Bond movie," it was more authentic.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Critiquing a Connery Bond movie? Savvy. I would agree that it's one of the worst Connery ones, but the Rambo-fied Timothy Dalton screenplays are easily some of the worst. Personally, I thought Moonraker was the drizzling shits.[/QUOTE] He drives a mustang in Diamonds, doesn't he? I think that's all that needs to be said. :lol:




And, yes, I drive a mustang myself, but then I'm not James fucking Bond.
 
While I liked the movie, I was disappointed by it. The poker scenes were way too long, and than after they were recesue they had like a weird five minute of "vacation" time where nothing really happen or it seems like nothing happen, I guess the only point of that was to imput the password or whatever to get the money, and than at the end when Eva sees that one dude, I wasn't sure who he was and we never real clear idea till the end when it was just told to us. Well that's about all, I still give the movie a 7/10 though.
 
[quote name='BasketCase1080']pretty much both bond and the bad guy (been a while since ive seen the movie) had the two top ranking hands in the game of poker in the same hand. *dumber version* the two best possible hands were both involved in the same hand. Having one of the best hands in poker is about a few million to one chance, the chances of two hands is astronomical.[/QUOTE]

For me, giving a supposed top big-money poker player a
really obvious physical tell was much much more unbelievable.

(Just a mild spoiler.)
 
[quote name='camoor']The genital torture scene is actually right out of the Casino Royal book - I'd say this movie was one of the faithful adaptations (IMO "From Russia with Love" was the most authentic of the Connery films)[/QUOTE]


I agree, it was very faithful to the book in a general way, minus the contrary details which have already been mentioned. However, I think On Her Majesty's Secret Service was the closest adaptation from novel to screen, And Lazenby was probably the best Bond of any of the six when comparing them to Flemming's portrait.

the original Casino Royale was a parody, and Craig makes a great Bond, he's way better than Brosnan, who is easilt the worst Bond.
Click to expand...

Actually, the "original" Casino Royale was a live television production with the main character renamed "Jimmy Bond" to cater to an American audience. Then came the movie starring Niven, who, incidentally, was one of the original choices for Bond before Connery. Of course, Patrick McGoohan would have made all these other Bonds look like amateurs had he accepted the role, for obvious reasons.
 
Good movie, great Bond movie. If you can't understand the poker aspect or the end scene, then perhaps movies are a little too much for you. TV is nice and simple, stick with that. It was obvious it was the setup for the next film.

That said, there were two things that irked me: One, the Texas Hold'em aspect, and the fact that all the British agents kept talking in dollars. I know it's a simple thing, but it was kind of annoying.

Also, Eva Green was so much hotter because I had seen her giant breasteses in another movie. But, like most French women, she could use a shave downstairs. C'est la vie, no?
 
[quote name='hcamacho']Is it me, or was the new James Bond CASINO ROYALE, overrated?I mean, when I finished watching the DVD, I was left like, this was it?That was the best James Bond movie ever?Come on, I am not bashing the actor, it is just , that the movie left me waiting for something that never came.I didn't liked it and I am grateful that I didn't went to see it in theaters.For me the movie didnt make it, not what I was expecting after all the praise Daniel Craig got for how great the movie was.....for me that movie is on par with the weakest ones Timothy Dalton made.Sorry Bond, that movie Casino Royale, didn't made it for me.[/QUOTE]

one of the few movies i've regreted watching, if i wanted to watch an hour of poker i could've just watched some random poker tournament on espn
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I agree, it was very faithful to the book in a general way, minus the contrary details which have already been mentioned. However, I think On Her Majesty's Secret Service was the closest adaptation from novel to screen, And Lazenby was probably the best Bond of any of the six when comparing them to Flemming's portrait.[/quote]

Good point. I always liked that movie, esp with Terry Savalas as Blofeld. None of the other Bonds up to this one would ever even think of marriage.
 
I still can't figure out why they brought back Judy Dench's M for a 'renewal' of the series. They should have broken all the links to avoid conflicting continuity.

I think they should remake You Only Live Twice. The original was a complete hack job and was a much better book with a great ending - and an astonishing beginning into the next book The Man With The Golden Gun.

The films never address Bond's fallibility and humanness like the books do. And the continuity between books add so much to Bond's character that they should be remade in order this time instead of randomly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top