casino royale seems to be very gud..
its rated A- by the critics..
but many users feel very bad but equal number feel very good..
this BOND and plts are more realistic..
looking forward to watch this movie :D
Printable View
casino royale seems to be very gud..
its rated A- by the critics..
but many users feel very bad but equal number feel very good..
this BOND and plts are more realistic..
looking forward to watch this movie :D
what do u think 'bout the actor
\Quote:
Originally Posted by rayan36
he looks like a hench man :oops:
clive owen shud have been awesome..
but eva green :P :P :P
:rotfl:Quote:
Originally Posted by kb
Yeah I don't like him either.....What a waste...Pierce Brosnan was the Best after Shaun Connery! :thumbsup:
Casino Royale, most disappointing Bond film ever
Joginder Tuteja, IndiaGlitz [Friday, November 17, 2006]
The newest edition of 007 movies, CASINO ROYALE, has turned out to be one of the most disappointing Bond flicks ever.
The film was premiered yesterday at Delhi and it was shocking to witness the slow pace sans any chills and thrills in this 'Birth-of-Bond' movie. There are just about 3-4 notable scenes in the film and that includes a couple of excellently orchestrated action sequences in the first 45 minutes of the film, followed by a scene or two at the casino table.
Apart from this, the film tries to rely heavily on emotional moments, hence trying to show the softer side of James Bond. But in an attempt to do so, it deviates from the vintage Bond following that it has cultivated over the decades.
Things slow down considerably in the pre-climax and the story seems to be moving towards an abrupt end. Though the climax gets your attention back in for a couple of minutes, it doesn't really come with a kind of shock value. In fact, one has now got used to such twists in numerous Hollywood/Bollywood films over the last few years. A below average climax action sequence which follows, only adds on to the boredom further.
Also missing is the tongue-in-cheek humour which is normally associated with every Bond movie. Here the witty dialogues are few and far-between and there is hardly a chance for Bond to showcase his naughty side.
Daniel Craig is fine as an actor but comparisons with Sean Connery and even Pierce Brosnan are inevitable. Craig does well but the loyal followers of Connery and Brosnan would be ready with their daggers out, once the film is screened across the world.
For the first time indiaglitz has given negative review :o
coz its not selling tickets for that movie :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by great
:lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by kb
I wasn't gonna see it @ first, since I hated the New James Bond..but I saw a 1 hour Sneak Peak @ the movie yesterday where the interviewd all the artists, a few ppl who had seen the movie, and showed a couple scenes...I hella wanna see it not! :D :D :clap: Might see it this weekend. 8-)
Hey this movie seems to good !! Even i didnt like Daniel Craig as 007 but this movie seems to be different not usuall James Bond movie. There is no regular intro music heard daniel use the dialogue Bond , James Bond only once that too in the climax.
Also,
There aren't as many gadjets in this movie....usually bond just uses gadjets when fighting....in this one there is plenty of fist throwing, kicking etc! 8-) :clap:
The gadjets are supposedly kept to a minimum.
I agree....:thumbsup:...Quote:
Originally Posted by kb
but i guess this one will be good...reviews seem good...
no doubt, it'll be great!
still wish Clive Owen was the Bond instead of Craig... :sigh2: ...
He looks kinda old despite his age is below 40 :roll: I like Roger Moore better than Sean Connery but never close to Brosnan :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Surya
New Bond Blunted
by Scott Holleran
Wiping the slate clean, the heavily marketed restart of writer Ian Fleming's secret agent James Bond, Casino Royale, retains most of Bond's essence and practically none of his charms.
Plot matters less than character in this wildly successful action franchise, which had been slouching toward schlock for decades in mindlessly vulgar spectacles. Agent 007 needed a refresh and Sony and company deserve credit for trying.
Newly minted superspy Bond (Daniel Craig) is assigned by top agent M (Judi Dench) to thwart terrorist sponsor Le Chiffre's (Mads Mikkelsen) schemes. Along the trail, he falls for a buxom brunette named Vesper (Eva Green). She's there to keep him on budget, no small matter considering he has enlisted in a high stakes card game opposite the villain.
Aces are played following chases, which alternate between romance and card games. After a tangential connection is established between a vague network of terrorists and Le Chiffre, and malevolent forces dominate the action, it's back to the cards and the love affair.
This means there isn't much to gain, since the outcomes are predictable. That leaves Bond and his quest, the success of which depends upon one's predilection for the iconic hero and his values.
As to values, he has none, except Vesper, and it's easy to see what the writers (including Crash's Paul Haggis) have in store for her. Other than Vesper, with whom he generates few sparks, Bond is more muscle than brains. He may be perfectly toned and able to withstand a ballbusting (literally), but he lies to M, breaks into her home, destroys private property for kicks, and, as he smugly says, sneering at his previous persona, doesn't give a damn whether the martini's shaken or stirred.
That's as sharp as he gets and, while he looks fit in a pair of snug swim trunks and decent in a tuxedo, he is not especially bright. In virtually every encounter, from a chase in Uganda to the final push, Bond fails to achieve his goal. Playing poker, sizing up double agents, getting his man—this craggy, pugnacious Bond rarely rakes it in.
When he does earn M's promotion—and Miss Dench does her best to lift the proceedings—it is unclear what if anything has been achieved. It's as if GoldenEye director Martin Campbell went from putting the whole universe at stake in every instant to putting nothing up in its place. Campbell all but cancels the bet, throwing in a curiously flat scene of total destruction in Venice as homage to those classic Doomsday countdowns.
Destroying Venice epitomizes the movie, which aims to be edgy by eviscerating that which is beautiful, reversing the old formula. Through no fault of the actor, who is more stout than civilized in the role, this includes Bond. Even M is reduced to mouthing cliches about the Cold War.
Casino Royale spins and wins a few. Scenic locations—Italy's enchanted Lake Como, the balmy Bahamas, Venice—are gorgeously depicted, recalling the postcard quality of past Bond pictures. Whether inside a rail car or a sports car, details are rich and inviting. An airport showdown is thrilling, though it hasn't much to do with anything.
Neither does this buffed, new James Bond, who bleeds, fails and loses and who convinces the world that he is completely through being cool.
from: boxofficemojo.com
getting bad reviews all over world
my friends saw and their reviews are that its really very gud..
they are ready to go for second time 8-)
Casino Royale is the best bond movie since Dr. NO :thumbsup:
- James bond is not projected as a super human being (may be in a few scenes, but they have been picturized extremely well)
- James Bond has an ego.
- Excellent acting from the bond, underplayed his character throughout
- That famous BGM comes only in the LAST scene
- The movie just ends in 10 seconds :shock: The climax was mindblowing.
- The dialouge, The name is Bond, James Bond comes only once in the movie and that apparently is the last line in the movie
- On the negatives, the transition of the heroine and the reason for her betrayal is stupid (her boyfriend stuff, a lady who has been given such a huge responsibility wont act SILLY :evil:)
- Overall, a must watch 8-)
When watching the trailer of the movie, I had a hard time identifying James Bond and was shocked to discover that he was the one who looked like one of the extras. :roll:
Decided that the movie would be hopeless and as a James Bond (novel, not movie) fan, I thought of giving it a miss at the cinema.
Last Saturday with absolutely nothing to do, I finally decided to watch Casino Royale.
Boy, was I in for a surprise! Craig demystifies the Bond character and becomes human. Although there were many shocking betrayals - like making M a woman :banghead: and Mathis a traitor (was he or was he not? :roll: ) - the movie stuck very much to the original, except for some updatings to bring a novel set in the 1950s to 2000s.
I enjoyed the movie very much - all 2.5 hours of it. :shock: and in fact went for a second viewing last night. :thumbsup:
second at the BO
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
After reading all the reviews on the net, looks like this Bond movie is more to story. Reminds me of George Lazenby's OHMSS bond flick which is also story based.
Just thought of posting something....
the nu J bond is my best school friends 3rd cousin :shock:
NOV, kadaisia eppo 007 padam paartheeenga ? Judi Dench has been playing M since Golden Eye :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by NOV
:omg:Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
EKSI? :shock:
yes Prabhu, ages since I watched Bond on screen. am more a sean connery/roger moore type. :roll:
My gawd, monday morning, twaz very tierd at school before registration and then my teacher comes in and starts jollufying the new james bond and seems like she won't stop it for another week :banghead: She says she's in love with him :lol:
:lol: :lol: You missed a lot NOV, even though genderly M's been changed, the two M's have so many resemblance.Quote:
Originally Posted by NOV
Casino royale is really good film :) has good action and the new bond seems alright at the beginning i didn't like him aswell. Also the cars are wiked 8-)
Maybe 1 of the best bond films i seen so far.
Its a must watch film.
daniel craig is fit!
the film was enjoyable!
This bond movie is one of the best bond movie ever. Ask anyone who associated with Bond movies and they'll answer Casino Royale is far more better than Pierce's bond movies, b'cause the story came straight from Fleming's first novel and depicted in a more realistic Bond/British agent. :wink:
Wats the title of next bond film?
Haven't have the slightest idea, but it's gonna be released in 2008 for sure with Craig again. Somehow the producers seems to love him than the viewers :lol: If Connery or Moore didn't potray Bond with funny one liners, raising eyebrows and stuff we would've accept Craig, but.................
Let's hope they follow the chronological order of the books written and remake Live & Let Die next. :roll:
I was very disappointed with the movie..
my favorite movie was Spy Who Loved Me..
next bond movie is titles Bond - 22.. there have been talks that Britney might play a role in next movie..
:shock:....oh please....don't!.... :rotfl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Raikkonen
very true! :roll: ....Quote:
Originally Posted by rayan36
i know a lot of ppl who said it was a good movie depite Craig being the Bond (not many favoured Craig as Bond) and they never expected it to turn out so well...i'm quite surprised... :)
will see it this weekend!
I too love LLD. It got a different theme.........but if they're gonna do a remake OHMSS is a better choice, it suits Craig's Bond :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by NOV
Previously they had been some talks bringing Brit as Bronsons girl, but they felt she might be too young for Bronson. I hope they reject her AGAIN :argh: yuck. They'll always name new Bond movies with numbers 20,21, 22......eventually they'll change it once the production starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raikkonen
:notthatway:Quote:
Originally Posted by rayan36
OHMSS is 2nd part of a trilogy, beginning with Thunderball (remade by Sean Connery in the 80s) and ending with You Only Live Twice.
My fav is From Russia with Love :thumbsup:
It came after YOLT and it was by George Lazenby;the one time BondQuote:
Originally Posted by NOV
Have to d/l or buy all bond movies next.I've just watched one bond movie and I forgot it.It happens in Japan and is about someone who does all spacecraft missile blast,etc as a villain and bond pins him down.
Saw QOS trailer.Good one!
Am I a latecomer here? Can we make this active?
I consider myself as foremost expert on James Bond (literature and movies) simply because nobody has claimed as such.
Why is this thread so inactive?
Hello? Gee...I can hear my own echo.
I think QOS will be good, I liked CR, Daniel is the best bond after Sean & Roger.
grooucho, I have been reading bond since my teenage years and have the whole collection. :P
also the entire collection of movies in DVD. :redjump:
will be watching QoS tonight 7.30 pm show. :bluejump:
:shock: i started this thread? :lol:
The Star (malaysian daily for non malaysians) released a nice pullout on Thursday. Can't say i'm not impressed. Made me somewhat interested for QOS. Will watch it on weekend if i have time..
Okay, when I say expert, I mean in Malaysia.
I saw QOS and here is my review:
If CR is a legitimate standalone film, would QOS be Godfather II, or Star Wars: TESB? Well, sadly it would be Superman II…which is not bad, but not as good as the first.
Where do I start? Allow me to break it into elements that we normally would like to look out for in the Bond films.
Script.
Convoluted? Nope, pretty straight forward…a slight rehash of LTK, its padded with more action sequences that actually slows down the progress of the story…which is not that great either. Problem is, in CR they had great source material to work it and in QOS, they had to go back to cooking their own little dish. And this time, its revenge dish…not necessarily the first time in the films history. Not entirely original, since Fleming dealt with it in YOLT, and the filmmakers had earlier dealt with it in LTK (I am pretending that Brosnan Bond never happened, so to hell with TWINE etc).
Speaking of LTK, in QOS, M asks Bond to hand over the weapon, then Bond escapes by kicking the MI6 dudes, and jump over the balcony. Is that Déjà vu or the scriptwriters were just plain lazy.
So, you have a pretty so and so script to work with, and the problem is tossed to…
Direction
Forster did a good job, when the scenes are quiet, introspective, exploring a bit of Bond’s psyche. Marred by overlong and too frequent action scenes, this could have made a more intelligent film if there were more brainwork, instead of gunwork, involved in what could have been a wonderful sequel to CR. I hear Forster might return to Bond 23, so I hope he would pay more attention to the criticism on the action scenes, and help to come up with stronger, more intelligent film.
Action
Bourne? Before Greengrass there was Bruckheimer, Bay and West. At that time (90s seems far away now), the style was referred to as “MTV style of quick cutting and shooting”. Shaky cam included. And for you kids out there, go and watch The Rock, and you know what I mean.
And it’s the same feeling I get watching this film. Slam, bang, crashes, breaking of glasses (like one reviewer said, too many glasses were broken during the making of this film), running, shooting, jumping, thumping, spinning (on the rope), explosions, fire, its all there. My fiancé was gripping my hand during those scenes. Alas, it was the grip that kept me on focus. I was not interested most of the time. I just wanted the quieter scene.
I never say this to anyone, but I want to say this to the editor: “You are wrong”. We care about what happens to Bond during this scene. We want to see him to know if he is in pain, if he is suffering, if he likes the killing or not, if he has moments of doubt, if he cares for his life or not…none of this can be seen during these action sequences. In between milliseconds you see grim, cold face of Bond’s doing his thang.
Music.
Contrary to popular belief, there is Bond theme interspersed throughout the film. That’s a good thing. The bad thing is Arnold is still one board. He has to go. His sound evokes irrepressible awful memories of the four Brosnan/Bonds (it happened…not it didn’t…it did…). This is a rebooted Bond. This is a different world. It’s like listening to Dmitri Tiomkin in a Clint Eastwood movie.
Take a bow Arnold. Maybe the producers are nice. Please don’t take advantage of other’s generosity. Move on.
And I don’t even want to talk about the turd that is the theme song. But then, there has been many animal faeces disguised as theme songs in the history of Bond films.
Characters.
Supporting.
Leiter and Mathis are a joy. It’s good to have them back…and yes, they could have longer screentime. I want to see Bond palling around with them a lot more. There are more fun with scenes of Bond with these two then all the action scenes of both CR and QOS combined. Almaric’s Greene is boring. When he stands on top of the balcony and gives that speech, you see Carver, you see Graves (Brosnan Bond did not happen…did not happen). The others were there, I don’t know. I don’t care. Gemma Atherton is total waste. Why was she there? Why was her character sent to bring Bond back? Why not some tough agents…like they did in LTK. Oh, the scriptwriters were probably scared that they are accused of stealing ideas from past. Too late, dudes….
Main characters.
Camille.
Boring. My fiancé said, for a Bond girl, she is pretty plain looking. Well, it didn’t bother me none. But she did not add to the movie. No glamour, no danger. Nothing.
M.
Dench’s M should go. She is incompetent, emotional, insecure, insipid, and basically an idiot (betrayed by agent working 8 years with her). One scene she asks Bond, “How come we didn’t know about this organisation”? I wanted Bond to say, “It’s because you are incredibly stupid, you old hag!”
Why does she have to tag around Bond, travelling all those places? Is she in charge of Bond only? Doesn’t she have other important task to do back in the office? Also, looking at her facial expression most of the time, is she suffering from internal haemorrhage? Also, instead of the pleasure of having a Bond girl in her bathroom, we have M in her bathroom this time. What is happening, dudes?
I understand Dench is known to be an excellent actress (I prefer others, I find Dench to be dull…but then incredible dullness have been mistaken for great performance, so its just a matter of opinion). So, dear producers give her a rest. Let M go and look after an orphanage or something. Get someone more professional. I don’t care if it’s a woman, man, transvestite or a fat orange Tabby.
Bond.
Ah…the glue. The one element that holds the whole movie together. Daniel Craig is James Bond. He owns the role now. Anyone out there claiming to be Bond should be arrested and made to watch all Brosnan Bond films over and over again (no, it did not happen).
HE brings dignity to the role. He brings nobility to the role. He is not exactly Fleming’s Bond. He need not be Fleming’s Bond. Dalton was Fleming’s Bond. Connery was the ultimate movie Bond. Craig now has the advantage of being both.
Forster and the scriptwriters committed a terrible crime by not allowing Bond to have more moments for himself. More moments to reveal himself to the audience. Why a crime? Because they are using a wonderful actor. But Craig made best use of what material he has…and he added to it. I don’t mind seeing him doing even mundane things like making coffee or explaining to his maid that his eggs must be boiled three and a half minutes. That would be more exciting than the badly cut car chase in the beginning.
I beg the producers to keep Craig for more movies. If he asks more money, pay him. If he asks for a small Latin America country, negotiate with the dictator and get it for him (the scriptwriters can help, they are pretty good with the dictator thingy). I am watching this film for Craig again.
And thanks to Craig, I am giving this film 6/10 rating.