Quote :

"he was great as bond and remember this is earlier in the time period of bonds...great movie and cast "

i will do that to you next time we play Gears of War

11/18/2006 2:36:22 AM

I liked the movie. Kinda like a Batman Begins version of Bond where we get a sneak peak into how Bond became the way he was.

11/18/2006 2:38:31 AM

worst Bond movie ever due to:

Quote :

"I'm worried they're going from one extreme to another instead of getting it right"

and i could have ignored how shitty this movie was if they could have gotten the ending right--but they couldn't even do that

the "Fleming Bond" got lost behind the super Bond-like character of the first 20 minutes--James Bond doesn't run through fucking walls or drive a Ford Focus or anything owned by Ford that has a blue Ford oval logo on the car.

the torture scene was ruined by the dialogue

I didn't care that Felix Leiter was black. I did care that he acted black and said "brother" on more than one occasion.

My opinion of the movie can be summed up with M's line about missing the Cold War.

And seriously, Fuck Sony

11/18/2006 2:48:33 AM

saying "worst bond movie ever" is just stupid.

you are obviously stupid.

11/18/2006 3:04:10 AM

^^i am not suprised by that post

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 3:04 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2006 3:04:11 AM

worst bond movie ever

I liked Craig as Bond

I didn't like the Bond character that was written

Bond's not reckless in the novels, he struggles and overcomes

Not for one second did I believe that he fell in love with Vesper--maybe a little during the shower scene--but everything before and after was forced and way underdeveloped

and then they totally went and ruined it by following Vesper around and having Bond find out

the way it happens in the book is much better

The one thing they did very well was the poker game, minus the poisoning and how he's able to get back into the game

11/18/2006 3:13:08 AM

mads mikkelson



man crush. good bad guy

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 4:13 AM. Reason : poo]

11/18/2006 4:10:07 AM

The whole chase scene at the beginning was a little over the top. I understand that it is a Bond movie and that it is supposed to be a little far-fetched but after the dude ran up a verticle beam it seemed like Bond was just chasing after the Prince of Persia. I was kind of hoping for a good car chase scene too... I got all excited when they kidnapped Vesper and he jumped into the Aston Martin after them because that is what I was expecting.

Other than that it was pretty good but I still like Roger Moore better.

11/18/2006 9:24:58 AM

I think this is exactly what the series needed.

If you liked the Fleming novels, you'll like this book. Yes, they do take some liberties with the plot in places (the Jumbo Jet, the Vesper Lynd situation, etc), but it's been 53 years since that book was published, plus that novel was actually really short. Love the little touches from the book about the contents of the Vesper Martini and such.

Loved Vesper Lynd too. There was more life in her during the "dinner jacket" scene than in all the previous Bond girls from the Brosnan era combined.

At first I thought that Daniel Craig wouldn't be able to make those smart quips like the other Bonds. I was wrong. He comes up with just as many good one-liners as Pierce Brosnan and then some. He's tough, bad, anti-authoritarian, but all in all, he's successful and creative. I like.

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 10:22 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2006 10:21:29 AM

you could feel every male in the theatre writhe in pain. i tried to explain it to my fiancebut she justdidnt understand

11/18/2006 10:33:18 AM

You mean during the torture scene or the whole movie?

11/18/2006 10:36:39 AM

Quote :

"worst bond movie ever"

you sir, are an idiot.

Worst movie ever? You sound like you expected the movie to be exactly like the book, which given it was written so long ago couldn't possibly happen.

The movie may not have completely achieved a believable relationship between Vesper and Bond, but honestly, they put a hell of a lot more effort into it than the normal Bond film ("Hi I'm Bond, James Bond","Hi, I'm the hot piece of ass that got stuck in this movie for you to fuck. *Insert sexual inuendo here*", "Oh? Well, I'm a man of *insert sexual inuendo*... wanna go back to my place and fuck get a drink?").

I appreciate how they took away the things I hated about the current Bond movies. Retardedly unbelievable gadgets, lavishly overdone chase scenes and rediculous special effects that contribute nothing to the plot. Sure there were a few toys and a couple of chases.. but they were done in a way that at least made them seem believable.

And I can get over the product placement things. So he drove a Ford for 10 seconds of screentime. At least we got to see him win the Aston Martin at that poker table. If Sony donated all their gear to get some add time, meh, it looked good and wasn't retardedly overbearing.

Really, compared to the Bond movies of the past, this blows them away. If you want to make comparisons between the movie and the book, go ahead.. but I really don't think anyone but the most rabid Bond fan is going to care that it didn't match the book exactly.

Oh.. the one thing I missed.. no naked dancing ladies in the opening credits... sad.

11/18/2006 10:55:33 AM

Quote :

"Yes, they do take some liberties with the plot in places (the Jumbo Jet, the Vesper Lynd situation, etc), "

you can't take liberties with the Vesper Lynd situation--its what the entire story and Bond character revolves around

all they had to do was leave that alone and the movie would have been 10 times better



^Every Connery Movie was better than this and no Moore movie was as corny--at it's best, this was a light hearted Daltonesque movie...and light hearted and Dalton don't go hand in hand

Quote :

"but I really don't think anyone but the most rabid Bond fan is going to care that it didn't match the book exactly."

they didn't have to match the book exactly, but they needed to keep up with the themes and the plots. Int he book they play baccarat--no one today understands that so they made it poker...and it still worked out perfectly. That was about the only high of the movie. They failed at transitioning every other important part of the story.

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 11:08 AM. Reason : grrtr]

11/18/2006 10:58:13 AM

^^^ toture scene sorry, should have specified....


can't really explain the intricacies of why that hurts




it doesnt upset me when movies aren't exactly like the book

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2006 11:06:42 AM

FYI, Sean Connery drove a 71 Ford Mustang in Diamonds are Forever.

11/18/2006 12:31:02 PM

FYI

11/18/2006 1:45:52 PM

There was one guy at the poker table that looked like Chuck Amato when they showed him from a kinda sideways angle behind him. fyi

11/18/2006 2:04:59 PM

^someone said that during my screening.

Quote :

"^^i am not suprised by that post "

yes, there are plenty of idiots in the world

11/18/2006 2:31:52 PM

i didnt notice the chest

11/18/2006 2:35:02 PM

I liked it, Bond for the new era. Funny, good script and acting, and enough action.

11/18/2006 3:08:11 PM

the past 3 bond movies have averaged around 55% on rotten tomatoes.

this one is at 95%

therefore

charlie is a dumbass

I don't give a shit about your "ooh i'm l33t when it comes to bond and they fucked this movie up" bullshit.

TND through DAD sucked major ass, especially compared to this one.

11/18/2006 4:01:04 PM

this movie's been hyped as being very faithful to the novel...to Fleming's Bond

but it just isn't

sure...people like that this is a grittier, edgier Bond with a new attitude compared to what the series has been as of late

but it just isn't what they claim it to be

if you actually read the book (which i know none of you are going to do or even care to) you'd find a much better laid out series of events that is superior to the ones presented in the movie

and yes, telling the story and keeping with a modern day theme does take a lot away from what it could have been 50 years ago

but even with that in mind they could have built upon the Bond/Vesper relationship a lot better

11/18/2006 4:05:00 PM

there goes the "ooh i'm l33t when it comes to bond and they fucked this movie up" bullshit again.

i don't give a shit, it's a good movie, far better than the last three bonds. regardless of the book/movie relationship, it's not the worst bond movie ever

11/18/2006 4:08:42 PM

I've read the book and it is great. Movies based off of books are never as good s the book. You can't take everything from a book and and include it in the movie.

That being said, I loved the movie. Daniel Craig was awesome, no doubt about it. Yes, scenes were rushed and the Bond/Vesper wasn't exactly true to the novel, but they did a great job. I will venture to say that it is one of my favorite Bond movies of all time.

11/18/2006 5:45:44 PM

Pretty good film, dragged out a bit much. I found myself confused in many parts of the movie, was there something crucial that I missed? I came in at the part where he was chasing blackman through construction and breaking down walls and shit.

11/18/2006 7:46:34 PM

^that's pretty much how it starts off.

the only thing you missed before that was Bond killing someone in the MI6 department for selling secrets, earning him his Double-O status.

11/18/2006 9:47:58 PM

missed the 1st time we see le cheffre too in taht african place, no?

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 9:56 PM. Reason : hh]

11/18/2006 9:54:06 PM

Quote :

"Not for one second did I believe that he fell in love with Vesper--maybe a little during the shower scene--but everything before and after was forced and way underdeveloped"

I do agree with this part of it.

And as to Bond being like the book, he's still quite different, but he's closer than any other Bond character has been so far. Connery and Moore weren't nearly as edgy and their dialogue was just as bad in some parts.

I also thought some of the poker stuff was gay. Like the whole losing of the car...table stakes don't just get tossed aside because you both agree to it. And his "You must have thought I was bluffing" line was ridiculous considering that Bond's holding the 2nd nuts. They should have made Bond have like middle pair or some shit, and then the line would have fit in better with the situation.

11/18/2006 10:12:15 PM

Connery was a bit edgy and obviously had the novels for reference

Lazenby didn't play Bond, he played Connery playing Bond

I think Roger Moore just extended his character in The Saint and renamed him as Bond

Dalton in "The Living Daylights" was pretty much Fleming's Bond--especially during the carnival scenes with Kara

Brosnan had glimpses of it, but the writing of the plot and the character didn't allow it--I think the female leads' betrayal in Brosnan's last two films was better than it was portrayed in CR--which is sad.

And like I said before, I kinda like Craig, but I don't like how the character was written in this movie. There were some scenes where it worked very well (his dialogue on the train when he first meets Vesper was pretty much right on target, but hers wasn't).

The thing I have a big problem with is they portrayed Bond as being reckless, immature and naive and then he changes into the Bond we've come to know because Vesper screwed him over. In that respect they went more the Batman Begins route than staying true to the story. In the story Bond's not a novice, he hasn't just gotten his double-O, he was in the service in WWII so he has the experience. The Vesper betrayal is much more subtle and more powerful and affects him more intimately and emotionally in a way that I can imagine the audience probably wouldn't have appreciated if they had depicted it as such in the movie. As a fan, I'm just disappointed.

And in someways, I'd prefer an invisible car to all the ridiculous and totally unrealistic things that happened in this movie along with the super cheesy dialogue.

11/18/2006 10:39:11 PM

^I guess there's just no way to please some people.

Saw it this afternoon, and I enjoyed it very much. I haven't read the actual novel so it's impossible for me to make comparisons, but as far as these types of movies go it was definitely worth the price of admission.

I don't want to say that the plot was transparent, but the moment I saw the scene with Vesper and Bond putting in the account number and password I knew that something was off. I knew that it wasn't over quite yet and figured that Vesper was involved somehow. I didn't forsee the Mathis betrayal, though.

Quote :

"The whole chase scene at the beginning was a little over the top. I understand that it is a Bond movie and that it is supposed to be a little far-fetched but after the dude ran up a verticle beam it seemed like Bond was just chasing after the Prince of Persia."

OMFG these were my exact thoughts as well! But I'll say this much; I'd kill a man to have moves like that.

11/18/2006 10:58:36 PM

Quote :

"but the moment I saw the scene with Vesper and Bond putting in the account number and password I knew that something was off."

this is what i'm talking about...it shouldn't have been that obvious

the end of the movie should have been a big WTF?! moment instead of being built upon slowly

Quote :

"I didn't forsee the Mathis betrayal, though."

and that was just some stupid misdirection to accompany ^

[Edited on November 18, 2006 at 11:23 PM. Reason : asdf]

11/18/2006 11:22:28 PM

that black dude was baller.

11/18/2006 11:27:46 PM

that black dude is Torry Holt in 10 years

11/19/2006 12:03:55 AM

black spiderman?

I enjoyed the movie, I don't really give a shit about context in the Bond Universe.

11/19/2006 1:47:20 AM

just got back from Casino Royale. I thought it was shit hot...best bond movie I've seen.

11/19/2006 2:55:10 AM

oh dear god dont tell that to charlieefh

11/19/2006 3:14:38 AM

cue charlie

11/19/2006 5:36:54 AM

Richard Branson was in the movie as well.

11/19/2006 9:16:20 AM

^SHYEA I thought i saw him, at one of the metal detectors or something?

11/19/2006 3:25:53 PM

ha, one of the characters had my last name. That was a first.

11/19/2006 3:57:03 PM

Saw it last night. Probably 20 minutes too long but it was one of the best Bond movies in years. I like the grittier, more realistic Bond.

11/19/2006 6:26:56 PM

Bond holding the rifle at the end was sweet.

11/19/2006 7:19:09 PM

Was it a rifle? I could've sworn it was some kind of suppressed SMG.

11/19/2006 7:24:22 PM

Quote :

"more realistic Bond."

c'mon now people

11/19/2006 7:25:45 PM

Quote :

"Was it a rifle? I could've sworn it was some kind of suppressed SMG."

It was

11/19/2006 8:40:56 PM

seeing it tomorrow night

11/19/2006 10:16:54 PM

Quote :

"I liked Craig as Bond Not for one second did I believe that he fell in love with Vesper--maybe a little during the shower scene--but everything before and after was forced and way underdeveloped and then they totally went and ruined it by following Vesper around and having Bond find out"

agree, he was pretty emotionless, which makes him a good bond, but the falling in love part didn't fly except for that one scene as stated it never seemed like he had feelings (which is good normally, bad if the point was to have him fall in love)

i about wretched when i saw him in the ford... shoulda made it a cheap car from somewhere else if possible....

for the 'beginning of bond' it was a good set up I think and overall a pretty decent bond flick, not the best but better than most of the recent ones.... Golden Eye is the only recent one I think is better...

11/19/2006 11:36:00 PM

did anyone notice that the militant guy in the first scene had what looked like a block S around his neck?

11/19/2006 11:45:10 PM

double post

[Edited on November 19, 2006 at 11:53 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2006 11:49:10 PM

I enjoyed the movie. I've read the book. I've also read the other bond books. I was actually surprised how much they followed the book compared to other bond movies.

charlie is an idiot.

anyone who thinks casino royale was worse than die another day should not be allowed to post in this thread. block user.

11/20/2006 12:56:35 AM