Casino Royale (2006)

[Lucien21]

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.

I agree.

Except I'd put Connery and Craig the other way round at the moment.

Moore was comedy bond. He was just embarassingly bad.

 

[Dave]

The Upright Man - please mind your language and respect the views of others however much they may diverge from your own.

Anyway, who says George Lazenby was so bad

Speaking of which, wasn't that when he married Diana Rigg? So, Romance in Bond films is nothing new.

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

I forgot to say that I loved the character analysis and summing-up scene on the train between Vesper and Bond.

 

[j d worthington]

And, yes, On Her Majesty's Secret Service was where Bond married Tracy ... they were on the way to their honeymoon when she was shot and killed. The man just does not have good luck with women he falls in love with.....

Incidentally, that has been cited as one of the reasons that film did so poorly, and Lazenby wasn't given another chance... because people didn't want to see a "humanized" Bond. Seems we've come out of that at this point (thank goodness), otherwise the character was likely to just get flatter and flatter. Now there can be some blood pumping through those veins....

And I keep thinking ... if they actually had the chutzpah to go ahead and do remakes that were actually closer to the novels (as this one was with the basic plot and no few of the incidents) ... what a pleasant surprise it would be. Lots of surprises for those who are only used to the film version. A lot grittier, and a lot tougher ... and, whereas I never really felt anything much threatened Bond in the films so far, in the novels it was quite different. Fleming certainly didn't mind putting his character through hell on more than one occasion..... Ah, well, dream on.......

 

[ravenus]

Incidentally, that has been cited as one of the reasons that film did so poorly, and Lazenby wasn't given another chance... because people didn't want to see a "humanized" Bond.

From my experience of the film I'd say it was because the movie had a boring story and Lazenby had zero charisma as Bond.

 

[jackokent]

I have to agree. I thought Lazenby was rubbish.

I have no problem with humanising bond, I have a problem with not humanising bond well. I guess whether you thought is was done well or not is a matter of opinion.

With the latest one I did think they humanised him well but I still found some of the dialogue bits the most contrived parts of the film.

 

[j d worthington]

I have no problem with humanising bond, I have a problem with not humanising bond well. I guess whether you thought is was done well or not is a matter of opinion.

With the latest one I did think they humanised him well but I still found some of the dialogue bits the most contrived parts of the film.

I can see where that would be the case. A bit wooden, in other words. Fair point.

 

[Delvo]

I don't really get how this is a reboot or different from before...

I wonder, though, why they would do it. They're not going to pick up new fans who didn't already like James Bond before, so all they can do is lose the established ones.

 

[Cloud]

Wow, this is just my week for being dumped on here. Not sure why I continue to visit, since I seem to be pretty unpopular, but . . .

I didn't like George Lazenby as Bond at all. I'm entitled to my opinion, whether or not you agree, ESPECIALLY since I saw "On Her Majesties Secret Service" in the theater the year it was released.

 

[j d worthington]

Wow, this is just my week for being dumped on here. Not sure why I continue to visit, since I seem to be pretty unpopular, but . . .

I didn't like George Lazenby as Bond at all. I'm entitled to my opinion, whether or not you agree, ESPECIALLY since I saw "On Her Majesties Secret Service" in the theater the year it was released.

Cloud: Sorry it's been this way this week. As for your opinion on Lazenby ... Yes, you are certainly entitled to your opinion on that, and I agree that the above comment was unnecessary. I'm not particularly impressed with him in the role myself; I just thought that it was an interesting comment that I'd come across in a few places, and thought I'd share it. I think I like the idea of the film, and the plot and some other aspects ... but George Lazenby himself simply didn't fit, I agree.

 

[PTeppic]

I don't really get how this is a reboot or different from before...

I wonder, though, why they would do it. They're not going to pick up new fans who didn't already like James Bond before, so all they can do is lose the established ones.

A couple of reasons, perhaps. Firstly, the series was heading out of control up its own imagination: gadgets, humour, over the top stunts, impregnable hero etc. It was it's own cliche. Secondly they chose Casino Royale where Bond gets his 00 status. Obviously they could have rewritten that bit, but have clearly decided to go with it. By deciding to combine the two halves of the argument, spiced up with recent successes (particularly Nolan's "Batman Begins") that involved reinventing existing franchises, it was a clear path. As I've put before, although the franchise has a good history, recent films have looked creaky against the rest of the market (e.g. the Bourne franchise) which are more rooted in reality. So going for a new, leaner, more physical, slightly frailer Bond (for me) was a good idea.

 

[The Upright Man]

ye im sorry to Cloud, im having a rough week at home and i shouldnt have taken it out on you

 

[Carolyn Hill]

Cloud and J.D., just thought I'd mention that I'm with you in your reaction to Lazenby. I like the Christmas angle in OHMSS, Diana Rigg is amazing, and I'm always a sucker for romance--but Lazenby's performance seems wooden and (to me) boring. I read someplace that Diana Rigg didn't much care for Lazenby, either: didn't she eat garlic before their kissing scenes, in order to razz him?

 

[j d worthington]

I read someplace that Diana Rigg didn't much care for Lazenby, either: didn't she eat garlic before their kissing scenes, in order to razz him?

Taking the thread waaaay off-topic for the moment... Reminds me of something Joss Whedon said about Gellar and Boreanaz having a "gross-off" before their first kiss was shot ... eating garlic, onions, what-have-you, to see who would flinch first..... Apparently this is (though for different reasons) nothing new.....

And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic.....

 

[Cloud]

ye im sorry to Cloud, im having a rough week at home and i shouldnt have taken it out on you

thanks.

 

[intheknow]

i think he's the best bond yet..out with the old in with the blonde

 

[Lenny]

He's more like Connery than, say Brosnan, simply because he's taken Bond back to being the gritty, tough guy - he's not got the looks to pull of handsome, suave, sophisticated bond, but he's sure got it right for Bond who jumps in guns a-blazing.

I don't know if it's got anything to do with Dr. No, but the next Bond film may be based on Flemming's short story Risico, which Sony very recently acquired the film-rights to. I might be wrong, but isn't Risico something of a direct sequel to Casino Royale?

 

[Kanazaka]

I saw this film opening weekend, and liked it very much. Daniel Craig delivered an excellent performance, and I liked many of the action sequences (although I felt that the airport chase scene dragged on for a bit too long--nice conclusion to it, though ). I also liked the James/Vesper relationship, and Bond's dismissal of her at the end of the film really struck a nerve with me. Judi Dench as M doesn't make sense chronologically, though the filmmakers could have explained that James Bond is a code name that accompanies 007 (kind of like Kei and Yuri accompany the code name Lovely Angels in The Dirty Pair, for those of you who are aware of DP Flash).

 

[j d worthington]

He's more like Connery than, say Brosnan, simply because he's taken Bond back to being the gritty, tough guy - he's not got the looks to pull of handsome, suave, sophisticated bond, but he's sure got it right for Bond who jumps in guns a-blazing.

I don't know if it's got anything to do with Dr. No, but the next Bond film may be based on Flemming's short story Risico, which Sony very recently acquired the film-rights to. I might be wrong, but isn't Risico something of a direct sequel to Casino Royale?

No, "Risico" is one of the stories included in the collection For Your Eyes Only. While the books were a series, the connections were incidental things until you reach Thunderball; after the oddity of The Spy Who Loved Me, On Her Majesty's Secret Service was a sequel to Thunderball (featuring Blofeld again), and You Only Live Twice brought that set to a close with Blofeld's death (and Bond's amnesia). If you'd like a quick synopsis of the stories in the collection, check here:

For Your Eyes Only - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thadlerian]

Watched this movie some months ago. It was cool enough, but it didn't quite work out as a Bond movie for me. I missed all those underground bases with little monorails and electric cars, and men running around in orange overalls. Those are what defines Bond for me. Casino Royale felt more like a generic action movie; the protagonist could have been anyone else.