Fashion Forum

ok, wait.

Dan -we've had this conversation already but I'm going to add my 2 cents worth;

the new bonf flick was AWFUL! it lacked all the things that make a great bond movie i.e Q and all the gagets and cars, although there was an appearance by a DBS it was trashed, and not in a good way like in the last film with the ice palace. Not to mention the bad guy in the movie was nothing special! As a bond fan I class this as the worstof the lot, Craig was not suitable to play the part and the bond girls were not up to par.

Thoughts?

I'm agreeing with corrupt. Awful. gadgets were mediocre (yay a defibulator in a car- you know every ambulance has one?), car was hardly used and then trashed. the bad guy cried (ok- it was blood but still). Bond is supposed to be clean cut and classy not tanned beach dude. and he had a disproportionate body (or it looked that way). First girl was hot, second one was mediocre as well. It just didn't do it for me. And the storyline jumped too much.

Both interesting perspectives. Have either of you read the novel by Ian Fleming? I ask because Casino Royale was a reasonably faithful adaptation of the novel (the most faithful being From Russia With Love).

While Casino Royale is not what we've come to expect of the Bond series, this film was a reboot. It was 007 earning his stripes if you like. The inclusion of gadgets could have detracted from the intended grittiness (the defribulator not considered a gadget in the script BTW), and in terms of Bond films this isn't the first to not have them. Dr. No had no major ones to speak of (Q appears for about 20 seconds and gives Bond a gun, Bond also uses a Geiger counter), On Her Majesty's Secret Service offers up radioactive pocket lint of all things, and The Man with the Golden Gun features a plastic nipple.

On some of the other points - unused cars. In GoldenEye (the film that saved the series) Bond is given the BMW Z3 with rockets under the bonnet, ejector seat and so on. It's shipped from London to the Caribbean and... he drives it down a dirt track.

Bond is supposed to be clean cut and classy not tanned beach dude.

Fleming thought the same of Connery (well not beach dude, but that he was rough and inappropriate) and hated the suggestion of Sean Connery playing James Bond. He was apparently livid at the casting. But like everyone else, eventually warmed to him.

My major point is this, Casino Royale is no different to the first 5 Bond films, it scripts itself out without any particular formula. For this, it has a few detractors. At the end of the day, without a film like this there would be no more Bond series. As enjoyable as I found Die Another Day, they simply couldn't go on making them that grandious.

It seems to me that those who are complaining about this film are the same people who have never picked up an Ian Fleming book or even watched some of the early Bond films for that matter (and if they have watched, they didn't pay attention). They don't understand what James Bond is about. James Bond is more than fast cars, gadgets, Q and Moneypenny and I think the producers realized they were veering a bit too far into a land of silliness and self-mockery with DIE ANOTHER DAY and needed to ground the character again in a legitimately good piece of film. This film values story over action and mindless entertainment and I'm thankful for that.

At this stage in the game CASINO ROYALE is the closest we're going to get to the James Bond Ian Fleming wrote about -- the version of James Bond I -- and apparently countless others judging by reviews from critics, fans and hardcore fans alike -- prefer.

Daniel Craig , the story, the villain, the girls, the locations were all excellent.

I'm not a James Bond fan boy, haven't seen most of the films, haven't read the books and didn't think that Daniel Craig didn't fit the role very well.

So my comments on the film are probably not even worth the 2cents but I really liked the film, and Daniel Craig > Pierce Brosnon

i watched plenty of bond films, but my *opinion* is that this one wasn't very good. Or I didn't like it. last time i checked i wrote that as an opinion and not a fact. I wasnt complaining I just didnt like it and didn't think Daniel Craig was right for the role.

But like Allan, i'm not a hardcore fan and i just watch the movies so obviously my comments are not valid as i have not read the books or cared to.

But the storyline still sucked and jumped all over the place.

And the second chick was still not hot.

Hear Hear to RuRu!!

Movie sucked... in my *opinion*. No i'm not into the books, but do like the movies, even the older ones. However, what bond has become and migrated to is hollywood'esqe big action, heavy gageted, gorgeous girls and a plot that may be slightly far from the original layout... but hey, thats what most people want, othewise I'd just stay home and read the damn book.

Eh... enough said.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure what exactly you though sucked about the storyline as it was one of the most coherent and basic storylines the series has had in quite sometime. Then again, I may have just answered my own question in that previous post when I said the story was "basic." There wasn't a plot to rule the world or a plot to kill everyone off and start a new breed of people, it was about bankrupting a guy who could give MI6 and other intelligence agencies around the world information to stop terrorism. However, GOLDFINGER, THUNDERBALL, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, LIVE AND LET DIE, etc. etc. all had plot lines just as simple as CASINO ROYALE's and they're considered classics.

To each his own, I guess.

While I remember...
I watched one of my fav's on the weekend...The Guru...luv that movie...

Casion Royal...loved it!