Casino Royale (2006)

[Whitestar]

Wherever did you get this idea? Remakes exist for one reason--to exploit a tried and true formula and make money.

I'm reserving my opinion until I see the movie.

And Roger Moore wasn't as bad as George Lazenby . . . but he was close.

I happen to have a cd of the music from the Bond movies--not the flashy sung "theme songs" but from the instrumental scores, and it's one of my all time favorites.

Yes, its true that the main purpose of remakes/reimagings is to make money, that's a given. But to do that, they will have to make it better than the original, otherwise, it will flop.

 

[Stenevor]

I'm 37 and have never seen a full James Bond film. When I was young my mum wouldnt have them on saying they were rubbish and a succession of girlfriends hated them too. I'm a little more interested in this though as I know Daniel Craig's a good actor. Ill give it a couple of months and see if all these early good reviews are hype and might watch it. Its really hard for me to get excited about Spys and spying though, I find it a really boring subject.

 

[Cloud]

Saw it. It was great! I give it an A-. Daniel Craig is riveting, and this one seems more "real" than a lot of the cartoonish plots and devices the Bond franchise has suffered through in the past.

He's a new "00" -- still learning, and makes a number of mistakes in this movie. A lot of the bond mythos (tuxedo, Aston Martin, martinis) is addressed here.

Ladies (and inclined men) there is a nude scene of Mr. Craig--but he's being tortured at the time so it takes some of the pleasure out of it.

Still.

 

[PTeppic]

I've always been a fan of the series, so I'm biased but it was superb. The series pretty much started the high-octane spy/thriller films in the mid sixties, with glamourous locations and women, big stunt sequences and the thrills and spills. The problem was that over the years the humour and gadgets got a little in the way occasionally. And CGI should only ever be for touching up, not creating, thank you very much Mr Tamahori.

This one is back to basics in a way that means it can compete with say the Bourne series. It leaves the Mission Impossibles of this world to run with the high gadget content and focuses on a man who works for his country, on his own (mostly) with a car and more sex appeal than every boy-band in the country.

Timeline wise the whole thing is totally screwed, and I don't think they're apologising for it. Each time they changed Bond they did it anyway, slightly, with a younger actor. What they've done is brought the whole franchise bang up to date with a young-ish actor, as the "new" Bond, in both screen time and 00 license, which means they can run with him for another four or five films if they're pretty quick and can keep the reality in the scripts.

As for the film itself, there's girls, cars, action, explosions, chases, fights, stunts, gadgets (despite the suggestions to the contrary), the Martini, and of course, when he kills (in stone cold blood), his self-introduction. Remember - he's Bond, James Bond. And about time too!

 

[j d worthington]

Just got back from seeing this one (I know, shouldn't go out in this weather with a cold -- pfui!). Yes, they do take some serious liberties with things here (I won't tell what, because I don't want to spoil anything for those who haven't but will see the film.) However, I will say that they kept the core plot pretty much intact, though upping the ante (so to speak) a bit; and, of course, there are action sequences galore. Nonetheless, this is closer to Fleming's character than I've seen -- in more than flashes, anyway -- in one heck of a long time... and I do think they lived up to the original very well, thank you.

In other words -- yes, I was very pleasantly surprised by the film, I highly recommend it to anyone who likes a good thriller (we're back to the roots on that, at least), and I like the fact that Bond is again a complex character with failings and strengths; make him a heck of a lot more interesting. And, yes, he can be a right brutal s.o.b. when he chooses, and no apologies offered. If they keep up this quality, I feel that the character is, finally, once again in good hands.

 

[SpaceShip]

Well, I reckon I'll watch the new one - I've seen all the others including the original Casino Royal with David Niven!!!!

Would be interesting to find out how much the original film cost to make and what the rebooted/reimaged one would!

 

[PTeppic]

I believe (extras on "Goldeneye" or "Tomorrow Never Dies"?) that "Dr No" was made for a million dollars. When it was successful they doubled the budget for "From Russia With Love"... but you're talking about "Casino Royale" I guess....

 

[Rosemary]

I have read all of the books and watched the movies as well. In my opinion even Roger Moore (sigh, bring back Simon Templer!) didn't make the grade as Bond. Sean Connery IS THE James Bond for me...

 

[Carolyn Hill]

I'm with Cloud and PTeppic and J.D.; I thoroughly enjoyed the latest film. Daniel Craig is excellent (and such piercing blue eyes).

But the song that plays over the opening credits is boring. And there's one dialogue exchange that bugged me: the gorgeous female lead introduces herself to Bond by saying "I'm the money," and he responds by saying "And worth every penny." That exchange seems to allude to Moneypenny, who isn't in the film, so it threw me out of the moment.

 

[Cloud]

oh, that's a clever thing to notice--perhaps it was just a tribute. A lot of the campier things we're used to in the franchise are gone. thank goodness

 

[Dave]

I just saw this, but everything I was going to post was just about covered by P'Teppic, J.D., Cloud and Brown Rat. I liked it a lot, never much liked Roger Moore's portrayal as his films began to spoof themselves. Craig is much more like a younger Connery, and there are no invisible cars or submersible cars in this, just the Aston Martin he wins in a Poker game.

There were a few other references as well as the Moneypenny part mentioned, the OO status, the martinis; he also meets Felix Leiter (though he must have the same doctor as Michael Jackson because he looks very different.) The Judi Dench as M in a prequel also rests uneasy with me.

I liked the fact it was a back-to-basics good story. I'm hesitant to say that there are no special effects, since I don't imagine that they really destroyed that building in Venice, but the effects move the story, the don't become the story.

Unfortunately there is some of the usual product placement - the new model Mondeo, Sony Vaio laptops and the Airbus. Did anyone else spot Richard Branson in the metal detector at Miami airport security? I expect that there were other Easter Eggs too but I missed them.

 

[PTeppic]

I agree Dave - having seen some of the "making of" videos a week ago (two different channels, different subjects, same production company) the effects doing things like digitisising out the safety wires when Bond and the free runner go clambering up the crane in the opening sequence. That's what I call appropriate use of CG in a Bond movie. Not kite-surfing on a broken ice-sled or destroying an aircraft whilst flying through a solar energy beam (me, have a go at Mr Tamahori, your honour?)

I thought the Branson thing was quite funny - kind of "he might be the owner of the airline but he still has to get wanded down like everyone else" and it was a blink and you miss it cameo.

I'm presuming the collapsing building (external shots) was done as a miniature (perhaps with overlay of real canal footage/people) which would have been very brave: water is notoriously difficult to scale up/down.

 

[roddglenn]

I finally got to see it last night. I thought it was absolutely brilliant. Daniel Craig brought an edge and realism that has been missing from all the previous Bonds. The fight scenes were nasty and bloody, as any fight scene should be. The action was relentless. Even during the poker games the tension was always high. Most of the gadgets were stripped away and that I think helped give us a much better insight into the persona of Bond, not to mention the events in the film helping shape the man too. Daniel Craig certainly made me believe that he was an out and out killer. Job done.

There was a lot of product placement in the film, but I didn't feel that it detracted anything from the film. I did see Branson too fleetingly. I thought he was going to have a word or two to say but it was just blink and you miss him. I too thought the use of CGI was minimal and appropriate.

 

[severian83]

Well I loved it! I went to see it on opening night being slightly Bond-obsessive (and not missed an opening night since Goldeneye), and have to say I wasn't disappointed at all. The title song is great, an edgy, rocky song to go with the newer style of Bond. The absence of Q and Moneypenny didn't bother me as much as I thought it would.
Bond has always been updated with the times, and after the appalling Die Another Day, something drastic had to be done to reinvigorate the format. I think Casino Royale is the Batman Begins of the franchise, and Daniel Craig has the potential to be a three-dimensional, more human Bond.

 

[The Upright Man]

Casino Royale: a reboot/reimaging

Roger Moore wasn't as bad as George Lazenby . . . but he was close.

You f**king what, RM is Close as being as bad as GL, did you miss Dalton there somewhere or is it my imagination that you say he was better than Moore.

Cloud take your head out of your name for a minute and consider that Mooreis ranked 2nd outa all 6 Bond, connery being first, Brosnan 3rd, Craig 4th and Dalton and Lazenby joint 5th.

 

[The Upright Man]

The absence of Q and Moneypenny didn't bother me as much as I thought it would.
Bond has always been updated with the times, and after the appalling Die Another Day, something drastic had to be done to reinvigorate the format. I think Casino Royale is the Batman Begins of the franchise, and Daniel Craig has the potential to be a three-dimensional, more human Bond.

well said there. im glad someone has something positive to say about Craig and not the usual rabble that he's not dark haired, not "Bond" enough, too macho, doesnt wear the typical Bond dress (que only 20mins of film in Hawaiian shirt and not all 2.5 hours in a tux), and drinking Rum and coke while in the Carribean and not his famous "Vesper" all the time.

i have talked to many of a die-hard bond fan that will not see this film even when released on DVD because of the before mentioned reasons and i find it pathetic. If people cast their mind back to Dalton they will see the same "mistakes" with Dalton as with Craig, except Craig can act and has Bond humour and style and chic.

 

[jackokent]

Just got back from seeing this (oh and a few hours in the pub in between) and thought it was great. I normally hate remakes but this James Bond was my favorite by far. Whilst I love all the Bond movies I am unusual in that I can't stand Sean Connery.

I loved all the action in this film, loved the actor, the only thing I found a bit weak was the amount of romance. It was a bit too much for me in such a full on action film.

 

[PTeppic]

Cloud take your head out of your name for a minute and consider that Mooreis ranked 2nd outa all 6 Bond, connery being first, Brosnan 3rd, Craig 4th and Dalton and Lazenby joint 5th.

Calm down a touch - the above ranking is only opinion: even if based on the opinion of a thousand people others may disagree. I do, for example. I'd go more for Craig, Connery/Brosnan, Dalton, Lazenby, Moore.

 

[j d worthington]

I loved all the action in this film, loved the actor, the only thing I found a bit weak was the amount of romance. It was a bit too much for me in such a full on action film.

Actually, I'd have said that was one of the film's great strengths: it shows Bond as a human being subject to the same pitfalls as any other; and it also has a lot to do with his learning to be a double-0... I thought the character development was quite essential to showing the man behind the gun, and how this experience turned him just a little colder, a little more ruthless, in his work, caused him to be more distant emotionally ... even from those he might normally have allowed in. It may sound odd to say this, but it adds a shade of realism to the character, if not the stories, of the films.

And just be glad they didn't go for the full torture sequence Fleming had in the novel ... I've a feeling that most of the male audience members would not have handled that one too well.....

 

[jackokent]

Actually, I'd have said that was one of the film's great strengths: it shows Bond as a human being subject to the same pitfalls as any other; and it also has a lot to do with his learning to be a double-0... I thought the character development was quite essential to showing the man behind the gun, and how this experience turned him just a little colder, a little more ruthless, in his work, caused him to be more distant emotionally ... even from those he might normally have allowed in. It may sound odd to say this, but it adds a shade of realism to the character, if not the stories, of the films.

I didn't mind that it was romance, not against that generally, and I didn't mind the character developement stuff but I didn't think it was as well done as the action bits. It felt a bit a stilted and contrived.

But generally I throught it was mych closer to Flemmings origional