AstroEric Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 ...At least since Goldeneye, and the most Fleming-based since O.H.M.S.S. That's my opinion on first viewing. I'll be going back later this week, and I'll be able to solidify my opinion then. But Bond fans should run to theatres to see this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totte Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Sounds good bro - lookin forward to it! The movie doesn't open until next Friday over here and I've got tickets :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 ...At least since Goldeneye, and the most Fleming-based since O.H.M.S.S. That's my opinion on first viewing. I'll be going back later this week, and I'll be able to solidify my opinion then. But Bond fans should run to theatres to see this one.what do you mean by that? is it action-packed special effects good, thought-provoking good, different good, or a combination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgbaseball Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 I can't wait to see this or Borat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyMcM93 Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Borat was hilarious. I'm seeing this tomorrow. Goldeneye is ,y favorite so far, so if you think this ones better, I'm sure I'll enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroEric Posted November 18, 2006 Author Share Posted November 18, 2006 I'm a conservative Bond fan, though. Which means that I look to the books as the ultimate measure of what Bond is. ABC -- It's a mix of the two. There's a part of Casino Royale the novel that I never ever ever thought they'd put in the film, but I'll be damned if they didn't. --Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 I'm not a fan of 80% of Roger Moore's Bond, 100% of Dalton's or any of Connery's after Thunderball. Brosnan was hit and miss, but atleast it was never HIS fault the movie wasn't good. This movie wasn't what it should have been. I won't go into a long diatribe because I certainly don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but let me say this: If James Bond had a beautiful greek woman hot to trot, half naked and on her way to the bedroom, would you ever think he'd walk out because he had to leave immediatly?? I know the answer for Sean Connery: "Almost immediatly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroEric Posted November 18, 2006 Author Share Posted November 18, 2006 See, a fan of Fleming's Bond from the books would know that, not only would he leave, he might shoot her on the way out, just out of spite. Really, aside from the technological advances, the intro in Africa/Bahamas, and the chase scene at the end (which necessarily replaced a mostly passive ending), Casino Royale was lifted fairly straight from the Fleming novel. I thought that there was no way in hell that they would.... ...Take on the carpet beater scene. And yet, there it was! Fleming's glorious sadism at its most brutal.... --Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfgiantsflgators Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 at least you put "since the Connery era" in the subtitle. because even if the latter ones mr connery did weren't all that spectacular, he is the ONE true Bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 Oh, I knew what to expect from the book going into the film, however I don't think it was executed all to well. It lacked charm, it lacked tact in some cases and it lacked a believability that a) there was tension in the poker game (don't get me started on the game change) and that Daniel Craig WAS James Bond rather than someone playing him. The source material was pretty rich from which to build a great film in the 'original' chapters of the franchise Dr. No through Thunderball. Instead, they decided to take a more Batman Begins approach to presenting it. We set through 142 minutes of the film for what payoff? To get one iconic bit before the credits and one during it? I appreciate the art of setting a story, setting a franchise up with a film like this. However, 143 minutes worth deserves more than a 'wait until next time' or 'now you have the missing piece'. Musical motifs, a little more charm, perhaps a Bond diversionary mission while at the hotel, anything like that to make you say..."Yeah, this is James Bond, this is what I expect to see." I guess I just have an affinity for the Cold War Bond, sure of himself and actually IS what he tells everyone he is. Craig talked a lot like he acted the way Connery portrayed the character, but then showed a flawed, emotional and frankly, fairly gullible James Bond. It just weakened the character a bit. Needed more formula to it, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroEric Posted November 19, 2006 Author Share Posted November 19, 2006 I disagree. I think the formula, combined with the idea of James Bond as omnipotent superhero, is what's made the franchise bland for the past Brosnan years. The Fleming Bond is flawed, emotional, and sometimes gullible, and that's why I like him. He doesn't even get a chance sequence at the end of the books -- Vesper drowns herself in the ocean and leaves him a suicide note -- it's a fairly passive ending that ends with a tearful Bond saying, "Yes, dammit, I said 'was.' The ***** is dead." But what happened during the credits? I didn't sit through the whole thing, because the ushers were hitting me in the shins with their brooms trying to get to the popcorn. I hate the ushers at my local theatre. --Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxbjr Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I thought the movie was very close to the book, (well as close to books as movies go). Fleming's Bond is very cold with a somewhat disturbed past. Daniel Craig does a good job of portraying this image for his first time out. Hopefully he get some more chances to perfect this role. Of course I liked the Moore & Connery Bonds, each for different reasons. But Craig trys to create his own Bond persona instead of imitating past Bonds. Yes Craig does remind me alittle of Connery but I think that's due to his style rather then an attempt to copy Connery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuUaAn Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 Excellent movie! I'm not a big Bond fan but this has been the best Bond movie I've seen. I only started watching the Pierce Brosnan Bond so I'm sure there's better from the past as people have already alluded to. But yes, it was thrilling all the way through. It had me sweating and jumping. The Brosnan movies were ok and pale in comparison to this one. Those ones got boring in a hurry after each iteration. There was so much use of gadgetry and such. It's not a bad thing but this rough cut Bond kicks some serious ***. I admit that I was definitely skeptical before seeing this movie. I liked Brosnan a lot because that who I think in my mind Bond was. He's sauve, cunning, and very very smooth in execution. But after seeing Casino Royale, I very much enjoy the new Bond. He's rough on the edges as you can see him stumble throughout the first parkour scenes. Not as smooth but very entertaining. Not much gadgetry in this one either. Just pure brawling, making it very very entertaining. Oh did I mention that it was entertaining and fun to watch? Go see it NOW! :007: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 What a great ******* movie. Daniel Craig just owned Pierce Bronsan who made James Bond, at times, look more like a member of the Fab 5 than 007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyMcM93 Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 It was a very enjoyable movie. I would see it again and definitely recommend it to anyone. I thought it was a bit long, and they lead the story on a bit too far, but I really liked it. 4.5/5. My favorite scene had to be him driving up in a Ford, not a Mazzerati, Corvette, Ferarri or anything flashy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwentySeven Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Not to revive a thread that's nearly a year old, but I finally saw this movie for the first time. I was skeptical with Daniel Craig at first, but he was convincing. I still think that Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan were better, but Daniel Craig did a great job. The style was just a bit different from the others, and it was good. I especially enjoyed the scene in the beginning were Bond is chasing the bombmaker. That guy just moves so gracefully, you can't help but enjoy watching - it almost makes me want to run, myself. The guy wasn't an actor, coincidentally, but an athlete - he helped found the sport of free running/parkour. Look it up on Wikipedia, and then watch some of the video about it on YouTube, it's lots of fun to watch. I disagree. I think the formula, combined with the idea of James Bond as omnipotent superhero, is what's made the franchise bland for the past Brosnan years. The Fleming Bond is flawed, emotional, and sometimes gullible, and that's why I like him. He doesn't even get a chance sequence at the end of the books -- But what happened during the credits? I didn't sit through the whole thing, because the ushers were hitting me in the shins with their brooms trying to get to the popcorn. I hate the ushers at my local theatre. --Eric I agree, part of the reason that I liked this one a lot is because Bond wasn't all superpowered and everything, he showed emotion... Finally, I'm just curious, but why was there a curious lack of cool gadgets? I always enjoyed the gadgets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.