Anyone going to see Casino Royale?

[ALVAREZ6]

:tu or :td ???

[ALVAREZ6]

Even though the new bond looks like a douche bag and has blond hair, there are many good reviews. Some people actually think this is the best 007 movie yet.

[AlamoSpursFan]

Anyone who thinks this is the best one yet haven't seen the others.

But as a Bond freak, I fully intend to see it.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Anyone who thinks this is the best one yet haven't seen the others.

But as a Bond freak, I fully intend to see it.hmmm... and you came to this conclusion how? since you haven't seen it. Sean Connery fan are you? Personally I'm not sure this will be the best yet, but I can damn well asure you that its going to be better than the Pierce Brosnan crap of the last 10 years.

[Mark in Austin]

the only good Brosnan Bond was the first one, GoldenEye. The scripts of all his others sucked ass. I liked the way Brosnan played the character, though. He just didn't have enough to work with most of the time.

[AlamoSpursFan]

hmmm... and you came to this conclusion how? since you haven't seen it. Sean Connery fan are you? Personally I'm not sure this will be the best yet, but I can damn well asure you that its going to be better than the Pierce Brosnan crap of the last 10 years.

I do think that Connery is (and obviously should be) the standard against which all Bonds are judged, but I have enjoyed the work of all of the Bond actors (yes, even Lazenby). I just think that with a body of work as large as the Bond series to claim that the latest is the best is a bit arbitrary. Especially given the fact that most movie reviewers only base their opinions on what they've seen lately.

Although I didn't particularly care for the current Bond in the only movie I've seen him in (Munich), I will give him the benefit of the doubt and trust that the filmmakers who have thus far cranked out Bond content that I have personally enjoyed know what they were doing when they picked this guy.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I do think that Connery is (and obviously should be) the standard against which all Bonds are judged, but I have enjoyed the work of all of the Bond actors (yes, even Lazenby). I just think that with a body of work as large as the Bond series to claim that the latest is the best is a bit arbitrary. Especially given the fact that most movie reviewers only base their opinions on what they've seen lately.

Although I didn't particularly care for the current Bond in the only movie I've seen him in (Munich), I will give him the benefit of the doubt and trust that the filmmakers who have thus far cranked out Bond content that I have personally enjoyed know what they were doing when they picked this guy.
I will give you that. I also saw him in Tomb Raider, although he didn't do much there either. I'm just keeping an open mind here http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smispin.gif What really worries me is the "no artifacts" rumor going around. Is it true that this Bond isn't going to have that many artifacts to work with as in the previous ones? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Its going to be weird

[AlamoSpursFan]

Well, Casino Royale was the first novel Sir Ian Fleming wrote featuring James Bond, and they were supposedly trying to stick as close to the novel as they could. Originally, Bond didn't have any gadgets other than his trusty Walther PPK.

[ObiwanGinobili]

I do think that Connery is (and obviously should be) the standard against which all Bonds are judged, but I have enjoyed the work of all of the Bond actors (yes, even Lazenby). I just think that with a body of work as large as the Bond series to claim that the latest is the best is a bit arbitrary. Especially given the fact that most movie reviewers only base their opinions on what they've seen lately.



I agree with you (except on the lazenby part... ewww.).
I feel obligated to watch as a die hard Bond fan, I hear the script is very very good. thats a plus. But I am not looking forward to that blonde ugly dude as bond. Not to mention all the other bonds were 6'2 or there around - this guy is 5'10, almost.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I agree with you (except on the lazenby part... ewww.).
I feel obligated to watch as a die hard Bond fan, I hear the script is very very good. thats a plus. But I am not looking forward to that blonde ugly dude as bond. Not to mention all the other bonds were 6'2 or there around - this guy is 5'10, almost.Hey... I'm 5'10 http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smidepressed.gif Don't dash my dreams of becoming a succesfull box office spy! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

[AlamoSpursFan]

I agree with you (except on the lazenby part... ewww.)

I didn't say OHMSS was my favorite, but it had it's merits.

[CuckingFunt]

If there hadn't been all the buzz about what could have been, I'd probably o see this one.

But settling for Daniel Craig after getting my heart set on the rumors of Clive Owen taking over? Blech.

And, I still would LOVE to have seen the in-talks-for-years-but-never-got-off-the-ground Tarantino interpretation of Casino Royale, which would have been much closer in tone to the zany 60's film.

[AlamoSpursFan]

Clive Owen would have been bad ass as Bond.

And the zany 60's flick had nothing to do with the original book and I remember reading somewhere that Tarantino wanted to stick to the book like the current flick did. In fact I think Tarantino's interest is what sparked this Bond flick. I'd look it up, but I gotta crash. Damn working at 3 am.

[CuckingFunt]

And the zany 60's flick had nothing to do with the original book and I remember reading somewhere that Tarantino wanted to stick to the book like the current flick did. In fact I think Tarantino's interest is what sparked this Bond flick. I'd look it up, but I gotta crash. Damn working at 3 am.

Yes, I read that too. Seem to recall both rumors, actually.

But, since I love the campy 60's version (don't know why, I just do), that's the direction it would have been headed in my own little dream world.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[Zunni]

The Bond franchise has fallen on hard times. That being said, the "new guy" usually gets some interest in his first film. People slow for car wrecks, too.

[Bob Lanier]

the only good Brosnan Bond was the first one, GoldenEye. The scripts of all his others sucked ass. I liked the way Brosnan played the character, though. He just didn't have enough to work with most of the time.
:tu I actually thought Brosnan was a better Bond than Connery.

They supposedly replaced baccarat in this film with Texas Holdem Poker :vomit: , though, and I'm not sure if that's a forgiveable offense. We'll see.

[ALVAREZ6]

I saw Casino Royale last night.

Really good movie, and it's one of the best Bond movies ever made. Fully recommend it, a lot of unexpected shit happens in that movie. And it gives you a hell of a lot for PG-13.

[leemajors]

the only good Brosnan Bond was the first one, GoldenEye. The scripts of all his others sucked ass. I liked the way Brosnan played the character, though. He just didn't have enough to work with most of the time.

goldeneye was cool, but the video game was even better - one of my top 5 video games of all time. they stuck so close to the story, and the 007 level was ridiculously difficult at times. my random two cents.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

I saw Casino Royale last night.

Really good movie, and it's one of the best Bond movies ever made. Fully recommend it, a lot of unexpected shit happens in that movie. And it gives you a hell of a lot for PG-13.

Are you trying to suggest you've actually seen all the connery and dalton etc bond movies?

[T Park]

IMO

Timothy Dalton > Sean Connery, but thats just me.


Im not totally thrilled with Daniel Craig, dude kinda looks a little too creepy for Bond, but it looks interesting so we will see.

[T Park]

btw, the switching from Baccarat to Poker, is just for modern day people.

I think if they said they were playing baccarat, the audience would look at the screen like it had a weird al yankovic sex tape playing.

[Spurminator]

I wouldn't write off Daniel Craig without seeing it first. While on the surface he seems like a Dalton-like emotionless/humorless shell, if you saw him in Layer Cake, he has a dry wit that I think will work well for Bond.

Brosnon is a tough act to follow though. In my opinion, he was the best Bond of all of them.

[ALVAREZ6]

Are you trying to suggest you've actually seen all the connery and dalton etc bond movies?
Not all of them, but I'm telling you this one is pretty damn good. Of course, it's gonna be more modern with a better special effects. The plot is a little weird in Casino Royale, a lot of unexpected shit happens which sort of keeps it interesting and unpredictable to a certain extent.


Im not totally thrilled with Daniel Craig, dude kinda looks a little too creepy for Bond, but it looks interesting so we will see.
He does look weird as hell, nothing like a real bond, but you should wait to actually see the movie. This Bond is pretty bad ass.

If you think this new Bond looks like a douche bag, wait until you see "Le Chiffre" or whoever he is in Casino Royale. He is a complete douch bag.
http://static.flickr.com/56/138519212_b51b7300ba_o.jpg

[LaMarcus Bryant]

LOL
man i'd rather see The Prestige

[T Park]

He does look weird as hell, nothing like a real bond, but you should wait to actually see the movie. This Bond is pretty bad ass.

If you think this new Bond looks like a douche bag, wait until you see "Le Chiffre" or whoever he is in Casino Royale. He is a complete douch bag.


I agree, Im waiting till I see it.

A frenchman who is a douche bag?

What a SHOCKER!!!! :lmao

[DirkAB]

I wouldn't write off Daniel Craig without seeing it first. While on the surface he seems like a Dalton-like emotionless/humorless shell, if you saw him in Layer Cake, he has a dry wit that I think will work well for Bond.

Brosnon is a tough act to follow though. In my opinion, he was the best Bond of all of them.

No doubt, he was great in Layer Cake, I loved that movie. He was also really good in Munich, I think he was a better pick than Clive Owens.

[whottt]

I saw it and thought it was pretty good. It's not one of the best IMO, but it's not one of the worst either....not as good as the best Connery and Moore films but better than the Dalton and later Brosnan and Moore films.

I can't believe there was anyone who actually liked Timothy Dalton as Bond, those two movies nearly killed the franchise. The last Dalton Bond was so shitty and utterly devoid of any style, that it took nearly a decade to recover from it.

I actually like the George Lazenby Bond film...aside from Lazenby, it definitely had the best script, plot(not that you should ever go to see a Bond Film for these elements) and supporting cast of any Bond film, and one of the best songs.


I agree with the sentiment that after a strong start in GoldenEye, Brosnan's Bond films turned to shit quickly. Tomorrow Never Dies was ok,...but the last two were awful.


As for Craig...he'll take some getting used to, he definitely is charisma challenged...at the same time, he's the first Bond since Connery that actually looks realistic beating someone's ass. Brosnan and Moore were a tough sell in some of the fight scenes...Dalton was an impossible sell.

The biggest joke in the history of the franchise was Timothy Dalton barefoot skiing.


The plot deviates from the traidtional Bond forumula, and catches you off guard and because of a simple deviation I have a feeling this will be one of the more critically acclaimd Bond films. Even though it's really not any great plot element...


I, however, don't go to see James Bond films for the plot...I go for the stunts, gadgets, bizarre villians, songs, witty post death comments, and style, or to put it more simply...escapism.


This film has some nice stunts and it is pretty good stylistically, fresher somehow, LeChiffre is actually one of the best Bond villians IMO...

But the songs, gadgets and rest of the escapist elements so familiar from previous Bond films are not up to par with the series standard...and Craig does not deliver the witty lines as well as Connery, Moore or Brosnan.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

jesus christ whotttttt not you too

[Duff McCartney]

I thought it was really good and one of the better Bond flicks....certainly better than the last two Brosnan ones. Those were pretty horrible...devoid of any real plot.

But I always liked Daniel Craig...Layer Cake was a brilliant movie and he was a good bond.

[samikeyp]

Are you trying to suggest you've actually seen all the connery and dalton etc bond movies?

I have. :)

I am looking forward to seeing this. As a Bond Freak (as others have mentioned here) I will give it a chance.


This movie is actually a remake. The original was made in 1967 with David Niven in the role of James Bond and it was more of a comedy spoof.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

^^??!@?!?!?!

So its a remake AND a prequel? its a prequel remake?

Shame on you who saw this.

[theroc5]

just saw it and wow,what a great movie...ima a huge bond fan and i was very pleased with this movie. i thought this was one of the better bonds, but not the best.

[miss paxton]

I thought this movie was really good. I read the Bond books before I ever saw any of the movies (no, I'm not that old), and generally I'm not a big fan of the movies. I don't much enjoy the over-the-top weaponry and action sequences standing in for a plot. So I liked getting to see more of an actual story, even though there was plenty of action.

I thought Daniel Craig was excellent, and shallowly, very hot. I even like him better than Sean Connery (blasphemy, I know, and I'm probably at a table for one on this, but I am what I am). My husband's opinion: better than Dalton (who IMO nearly single-handedly destroyed the franchise he was so bad) and Brosnan, worse than Moore and Connery. He (my husband) definitely likes more action-less drama in general, so I think that when the next Bond rolls around and there's (probably) more action, he'll approve. I'll say that this is the first Bond movie in years that he hasn't been pissed off about how much it sucked.

I agree that Craig's Bond isn't suave or stocked with witty one-liners, but I respectfully disagree that he isn't charismatic. I think he worked with what was written, and the script just didn't have Bond as devil-may-care as other incarnations. Later installments may see that change.

So in conclusion, I definitely liked the movie. Even though we saw it with people who had apparently never been taught how to behave in public places before. Not only was there a large group of kids in front who wouldn't. shut. up, there was a couple behind me with their young child (!--this movie is pretty rough for PG-13, I thought), with him giving running commentary about everything going on. It was hard for me to believe most of this stuff needed explaining, but he apparently thought it did.

[ALVAREZ6]

this movie looks sick
Go see it.

[tlongII]

I see these movies for the Bond Girls.

[ALVAREZ6]

I see these movies for the Bond Girls.
There's plenty of Bond girl action in Casino Royale.

[JoeChalupa]

Will the Bond movies ever end?

[scott]

I thought it was great. Like many others, I was hoping Clive Owen would be the next bond and didn't know what to expect with Craig, but I was plesantly surprised. I thought he had some great lines, he was the first bad ass assassin in the role since Connery, and Vesper was one hot ass Bond girl.

I didn't like the inclusion of Texas Hold 'Em... too much of playing to a fad (a played out one at that... if this was around the time Rounders came out, it would be different). But, a great film, though I have some questions about some characters at the end.

[MoSpur]

I saw it Sunday night and liked it. The Bond girl is very pretty. I liked it better than the other ones that Brosnan made.

[JoeChalupa]

I'll wait for the DVD.

[tlongII]

Will the Bond movies ever end?

I hope not.

[MannyIsGod]

I've never seen a single Bond movie. When I told Jessica that last night, she looked shocked.