Casino Royale

The DVD just came out, and I had seen it in theaters as well but I just watched it again and man, great movie. I'd rank it amongst the top Bond movies, probably the best. What did you guy's think?

Haven't seen it yet, maybe I'll rent it when I'm not feeling lazy...

Originally Posted by DakZhul

Haven't seen it yet, maybe I'll rent it when I'm not feeling lazy...

You should, it's just a great movie in general, I thought the ending dragged out a little too much though... oh well, all movies can't be perfect right?

I just wrote a review on this for my film class. I'd post it here, but it's over 1000 words, so probably would take up too much space.

In a nutshell, I thought it was an excellent Bond movie (easily the best of the past fifteen years or so), but a typical action movie. It was set apart (and above) in my opinion because there was actual good, solid character development for a character that's been around for over fifty years. The writers of this one took a risk (a gamble, if you will) at re-inventing the series origins in modern times, and it worked very well.
But in terms of an action movie, it was nothing new or special really. The action beats came and went to regularly you could set your watch to it. The only real memorable action was at the very beginning and the very end. And it did really drag at the end, making it seem more like a half-hour epilogue than a real ending. That was iritating. Still, I thought the lack of a car chase was a nice touch.

Overall, really excellent Bond flick, and solid, if atypical, action film.

I was a little hesitant as to watching this movie or not. I kept hearing it was really well done etc. etc. and craig makes a great bond. So i took a risk and just bought the dvd..got a little card set with it as well.

I'd have to say i am very impressed. Craig was hardcore hardly ever any humor, which all bronson was really. Thats how bond is supposed to be as said my ian fleming. The ending was a little eh slow but other than that great movie...odd how they had the same car aston martin vanquish as they did in die another day. Usually the car is the main character what did it get?? 2 mins of screen time if that lol.. oh well i'll rate this film 7.5

Unfortunately, this is one of the many films which I have had to see via bootleg. Due to the poor quality of our copy I cannot comment on the movie as a whole. What I can say is that I was somewhat disappointed with the portrayal of Bond. Bond to me is sly and witty, which Craig hardly was. I believe the best Bond is somewhere between Connery and Brosnan. There may be alot that I am not seeing due to the canted camera angle, and my opinion of this movie might improve once I have seen a decent version. As for now, however, this movie to me is a decent attempt at a bond movie.
I appologize in advance for any feelings which may have been affected by this haphazard review.
Corndogs
---
"Sua Sponte"

I'm most likely gonna pick it up on the weekend, it does look very good and the reviews of it are excellent. I'll decide what i think of it by Sunday

Originally Posted by Wolf Bane

Unfortunately, this is one of the many films which I have had to see via bootleg. Due to the poor quality of our copy I cannot comment on the movie as a whole. What I can say is that I was somewhat disappointed with the portrayal of Bond. Bond to me is sly and witty, which Craig hardly was. I believe the best Bond is somewhere between Connery and Brosnan. There may be alot that I am not seeing due to the canted camera angle, and my opinion of this movie might improve once I have seen a decent version. As for now, however, this movie to me is a decent attempt at a bond movie.
I appologize in advance for any feelings which may have been affected by this haphazard review.
Corndogs
---
"Sua Sponte"

I agree this Bond is different from the other's, but I thought that's what made this Bond different than just any other Bond movie(even though that would have been good too). Point is I thought it was good to see Bond in his early, natural stage, a good example of this is the scene after one of the rounds of poker when the bartender asks him "Shakin or stirred?" and Bond replies,
"Does it look like I give a damn?"
And I understand you haven't seen a clear form of the movie so I'm in no way criticizing your opinon

This isn't much of a spoiler, so no worries here. This Bond movie has my favourite ending of the franchise. That's all I'll say for those who haven't seen it.

Craig has done the job admirably. I look forward to a couple more films.

~ Adhamh.

I'm a really big Bond fan and I really liked that movie, Craig did a bang up job and I can;t wait til the next one comes out (sometime next year I believe) but I didn't like the ending, cause your getting comfortable and everything in the cinema and then he pops out thw words "Bond, James Bond" then the lights come back on and your like "WTF??" cos' usually in Bond films they end with the bad guy dieing but in this it was sort of like mixed up (if that makes sense) but its still a great movie!

I saw it when it came out and it was definately in the top 3 of the best Bond fims ever and what ever people where saying about Danielle craig not being right for the part was bull***, he was perfect for the part and made Bond seem more though and dangerous.

I loved this movie and it's definitely my favorite bond film ever.

This was the best Bond movie. Ever.
We got to see a James Bond that wasn't as 1-dimensional.


Yes, yes, I love Sean Connery; but wow, this Bond was hot.

The plot felt like a great departure from the all-action, no character-development junk we got in the last two Brosnan flicks, and it was a welcome departure indeed. Some things about it overall also made it feel different from other Bond movies--mostly in a good way, although there were a few continuity issues here and there that irked me, and I missed Q Branch. How was there a female M when Bond first started, if the original M was male? And how was Bond's first mission as a Double 0 set farther ahead in time then his later ones (the older movies)?

Ignoring those nitpicky things, the movie was quite enjoyable, and I was surprisingly pleased with Craig as Bond. He had both parts charm and grit, and that's what Bond had been lacking somewhat during Moore and Brosnan's runs. Along with Dalton and Connery, Craig now ranks up there as one of the best Bond actors, and Casino Royale has become one of my favorites of the series.

Originally Posted by Altamira

there were a few continuity issues here and there that irked me, and I missed Q Branch. How was there a female M when Bond first started, if the original M was male? And how was Bond's first mission as a Double 0 set farther ahead in time then his later ones (the older movies)?

It's my understanding that they weren't trying to go back to the beginning and show Bond's origins as it relates to the previous films. If that had been their intention, they probably wouldn't have used modern technology, cars, etc. Rather, I think that it was meant to be a reinvention of Bond, not going back and showing his origins, but starting the series over again. Thus why things are different than they originally were in the early films.

Originally Posted by Galedeep

It's my understanding that they weren't trying to go back to the beginning and show Bond's origins as it relates to the previous films. If that had been their intention, they probably wouldn't have used modern technology, cars, etc. Rather, I think that it was meant to be a reinvention of Bond, not going back and showing his origins, but starting the series over again. Thus why things are different than they originally were in the early films.

Ah, then I must have misunderstood some of the things I was told before the movie came out, because I constantly heard that this was supposed to show Bond's first mission as a Double 0 and how he came to establish his reputation and such as the agent he was. The continuity errors weren't that distracting anyhow--and looking at the movie in that new light as a reinvention eliminates them altogether. Thank you.