Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on November 18, 2006, 02:13:30 pm
-
Who here's seen it? (http://imdb.com/title/tt0381061/)
Went with some friends last night, and I was quite impressed. Didn't follow the same Bond formula that Pierce Brosnan's movies did, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
-
From what I hear, it's supposed to be a fresh spin on the old Bond story, and minus all of the gadgetry.
IMO, the only good Brosnan Bond was Goldeneye. so this would be a good thing no matter what.
-
I really liked it. It really did seem more like a spy movie than most of the Bond movies before it.
-
I really liked it. It really did seem more like a spy movie than most of the Bond movies before it.
My thoughts exactly. I was a mite disappointed that there wasn't any spectacular action with the Aston Martin (and a Bond movie isn't a Bond movie without a suitable car chase with the Bond car's shiny new gadgets). Still, I appreciated how dark it was at some points, as it really allowed for Bond's character to develop into the "Bond... James Bond" fans know and love.
Additionally, the torture scene was awesome. :D
-
i am going to need to watch that again
the plot was rather confusing, especially towards the end
it was still very entertaining tho, and 1000% better than the last one :)
-
i am going to need to watch that again
the plot was rather confusing, especially towards the end
it was still very entertaining tho, and 1000% better than the last one :)
Yeah, but the plot left it rather open for a direct sequel ( :D ), which the Bond series could really use, especially with a storyline intended to fully shape the Bond character.
I'll agree on the entertainment value, though. I'm actually planning to see it again next week with my father.
-
awesome movie, nothing more to say
and yes no techy crap in it, and the main person rocked at the bond character as much as timothy dalton and even better :)
-
Hell of an advert for Aston Martin, that bit where the car gets ****ing totalled and Bond survives.
And all I'm gonna say is that I loved it, but you shouldn't be expecting a Bond movie.
For about 2hrs of it's 2.5hr length you're left feeling like you're watching a cross between Layer Cake and The Bourne Identity - but that's the point.
He's not Bond yet. He's just some little jerk who likes screwing around and showing off and being the big man.
Then everything goes to **** and in the very-asbolute-last scene of the movie you get proper Bond.
All the way through he's just ****ing around because he gets off on the action, but in that final scene you see he realises it's not just about explosions and killing the bad guys - it's about making sure the good guys prevail and all the evil men are called to account, and that he doesn't need to go slaughtering his way into an embassy to do it.
-
The real, original Bond was in the novels...if any of you have read them
i havent seen the movie myself, but if they cut out all that techy crap, and made Bond more of a real character, that would make me very happy :D
casino royale, along with from russia w/love, have to be my favorites among the Bond books.
-
I liked the store plot but hated the new Bond... i think the guy that did the previous Bond would be much better as Bond...
Perhaps that's because I thought this guy looked like an idiot without all the cool gadgets.... what were his gadgets? A cell phone, a laptop, a silenced gun, and the thing they injected into his arm... it seems they took a step back with killing both girls... I know why the first had to die, but the movie seemed anti-Bond with the second (presumed "Bond Girl" commiting suicide) girl dying.
-
I liked the store plot but hated the new Bond... i think the guy that did the previous Bond would be much better as Bond...
Perhaps that's because I thought this guy looked like an idiot without all the cool gadgets.... what were his gadgets? A cell phone, a laptop, a silenced gun, and the thing they injected into his arm... it seems they took a step back with killing both girls... I know why the first had to die, but the movie seemed anti-Bond with the second (presumed "Bond Girl" commiting suicide) girl dying.
yess well you also have under 300 posts so whatever you say is BS :)
-
Well sorry Mme. Ashrak... i didnt grow up watching Bond movies... but my opinion stands... all the people I went to see it with (my 3 friends and my sister) all agreed that it was a good movie but it was b-grade compared to other Bond movies.
This entire movie would (for me) make alot more sense if they had stuck with the last guy that was Bond. I like the old producers more... this almost seems like something happened like EA Games made FS3 instead of :v: ... it wouldn't make much sense when you know what :v: did and how itd seem fragmented in EA's shove-it-down-your-throat and throw-money-at-it tactics. Good games but they degrade with too much cash... pplz are being paid to please managers instead of paid to be creative (though that isn't necessarially true as Maxis division are a hell of alot more creative then the rest of EA... and were kept together because they were seen as quality game-makers and very creative people).
So anyways... I would have liked if the old Bond was the Bond in Casino Royale. It would have made a hell of alot better movie, even without the fancy gadgets.
-
Bond has always been about the gadgets to some extent. Even back to the days of Sean Connery there was gadetry, some of it fairly impressive. (This reflects the real-life experience of Ian Fleming no less...read A Man Called Intrepid sometime.) To totally remove gadgets from the equation is to remove something that makes it Bondian.
-
The real, original Bond was in the novels...if any of you have read them
i havent seen the movie myself, but if they cut out all that techy crap, and made Bond more of a real character, that would make me very happy :D
casino royale, along with from russia w/love, have to be my favorites among the Bond books.
You should see this, you're going to like it. The character is much closer to one in CR book so go for it baby.
-
From the BBC News website.
Casino Royale is narrowly beaten at the US box office by an animated comedy about a tap-dancing penguin.
-
there was gadgetry here, laptops n defibrilator ;)
plenty for me :)
-
Bond has always been about the gadgets to some extent. Even back to the days of Sean Connery there was gadetry, some of it fairly impressive. (This reflects the real-life experience of Ian Fleming no less...read A Man Called Intrepid sometime.) To totally remove gadgets from the equation is to remove something that makes it Bondian.
Casino Royale wasn't supposed to be about the gadgets, though. This was supposed to be about Bond before he became... well, Bond. I think removing the gadgets made it much more a spy movie than any previous Bond movie (read any Tom Clancy book and you'll see why I think so).
Plus, there's not a whole lot you can do with gadgets in a nearly-forty-five minute sequence of a poker game.
-
Plus, there's not a whole lot you can do with gadgets in a nearly-forty-five minute sequence of a poker game.
Oh, I think some x-ray glasses or tiny cameras would be very handy in a poker game.
-
Plus, there's not a whole lot you can do with gadgets in a nearly-forty-five minute sequence of a poker game.
You mean they didn't include the rose-colored glasses? For shame.
-
I thought it was entertaining. Not bad at all. I still like Goldeneye better though I think.
-
I liked the hard-core action/fight scenes, they seemed to have taken a page out of the nitty-gritty book that many TV shows are following these days. And, I thought that Craig did a marvelous job as Bond.
However, the movie had more endings than Return of the King for pete's sake, and about 100x more confusing, to boot! And that's just the plot - forget the fact that the centerpiece to the whole movie was a green felt table.
All in all... :ick:
But the direction shows promise. :)
-
I loved it, save for the whole Return of the King vibe with the multiple endings. That vanished though when what was really going on came to focus in the final few sequences.
Overall, it's what a Bond film should be. I'm not too hopeful for the sequel though as I don't think they'll be able to keep it up...
-
i actually like multiple endings :D
it gives you that aaaaah its over dangit, oh no wait its still going YAY! feeling :)
-
Absolutely excellent film. :) I wasn't so sure for the first 15 minutes or so, but I really started getting into it after that. That whole poker game chunk of the movie was very well done. (I do have to shed a tear over that car, though. :() It's a very different Bond than I've ever seen before, and I think it's hard to compare this film to any of the previous ones, but I greatly enjoyed it. I also liked the role that Judi Dench had in this one; just like Bond, M was much more humanized. Like other people said before, the lack of gadgetry and flashy save-the-world plot really focused things in on Bond's character and how it developed; he was a very different person at the end of things than when he started out. The actress who played Vesper was terrific too; for a while there, I could have sworn that she would turn out to be Moneypenney. Overall, I like this breath of fresh air for the franchise, and I can't wait to see where it goes next.
And yes, the torture scene kicked all kinds of ass. Balls of steel, indeed. :D
Multiple endings? Da hell? I didn't get that impression at all, and I certainly didn't find it overly confusing; everything got squared away when all was said and done. The only gripe I had with it was the fact that my bladder was absolutely bursting at that point; all I wanted to do was get out of there and in front of a urinal ASAP. (Damn oversized movie sodas. :p) I absolutely loved Bond in that final scene, too.
(And, for the record, Return of the King only had "multiple endings" if you never read the story to begin with. For those of us who did, the way it finally ended was the only way it possibly could have. ;))
-
Just saw it, and I must say I'm quite impressed. It felt a bit like "24 - The Movie", which I liked for my part. It's a refreshing departure from the explosions/car chases/tech gadgets wank-fest from which the last 2 Biond movies suffered.
Also, Casino Royale illustrates that a bad guy who's trying to get 120something million $ can be a more thrilling storyline, than the ridiculous evil master plan (tm).
Craig kicks ass, but I was expecting so after seeing "Layer Cake".
-
Layer Cake wasn't that good. It was a poor attempt to rip off the Guy Ritchie style of film-making. Not terrible, but not great.
Casino Royale, on the other hand, was awesome. This is what Bond should be. Hell, he even looks like Sean Connery in certain scenes (the very last shot especiialy). My only qualm is that there was no Q. Now I understand they're going for less gadgets more gritty, and that's more than fine by me, but Q is an icon of the Bond series, he has to be in the movie even if its in a minimal role.
-
well, bond series if you talk about the movies.
My dad introduced me to all of the books early on, so im sort of a purist...i dont think many of the movies are good.
but yeah...he did give off the sean connery air often. which is good.
what was this guy's name again?
-
what was this guy's name again?
Daniel Craig. He was in Munich, IIRC.