PS I'm a big 007 fan!
2006-11-21 01:29:43 · 16 answers · asked by S1ickb1g 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
if you're really a 007 fan, then you should appreciate Casino Royale. It's a throwback to the earliest Bond films (which are faithful to the Ian Fleming novels) where Bond has to use his wits to stay one step ahead of the bad guys. Bond has to make split second decisions that will either cost him his life, or terminate the enemies. The embassy scene was a classic Bond chase - no gadgets, no fancy weapons, no back-up. And a cold-blooded decision.
I didn't care too much for the plot with the big poker game being the climatic finale - but again, that how some of the books were. Being a double-0 agent isn't always flying rocket packs or driving tanks down a residential street.
I think the idea behind Casino Royale was to show how Bond got burned which is why in the future, he will trust no one. It's makes him more real - not like a comic book hero.
I liked the fact that people that Bond uses to get information end up getting killed. I liked seeing that the bad guy doesn't capture Bond and then put him in a tank with sharks, gators or piranahs. (Really, if you have the chance to kill an enemy - wouldn't you just shoot him?) The characters and their actions feel more authentic. Like the Fleming books, Bond typically gets into situations where he's dead meat, but by luck gets saved by someone else - even a bad guy.
Casino Royale isn't the best of the Bond flicks - but it's a sign and a good sign that the franchise is going back to its roots.
IMHO, the Bond films became too much about the super stunts, the tongue-in-cheek quips after someone is killed, and the over elaborate plots where satellites with lazer beams destroy entire countries. If you like that stuff then you're really a fan of the agent XXX and Harry Tasker (True Lies). There are tons of other Hollywood movies that have and continue to out-Bond James Bond.
The real Bond can be seen in Dr. No and From Russia with Love. It was in the third Bond film (Goldfinger) when gadgets became an important plot point and eventually overtook the franchise. Where villians came with menacing sidekicks (Oddjob) and women were given sexually explicit names.
If you're truly a big 007 fan, you might criticize the flim for beginning and ending too many times. You might also criticize it for some of the hokey dialogue some very intimate moments. And you could even say that the poker stuff slowed the film down. But big fans would not say Casino Royale is rubbish.
2006-11-21 02:28:37 · answer #1 · answered by legalbeagle 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it was poor than some Bond movies. The opening sequence is so brilliant the rest cannot compare.Falls flat I'm afraid. I think the Bond girls were forgettable, the bad guy is boring. I did not feel anything with the characters in this one. But I think the whole point of this movie is to show the change in Bonds personality.I will say that at the end of the movie we see that Bond looses his humanity and just becomes cold, when he walks up...(I won't give it away)
2016-05-22 06:01:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I did not think it was rubbish, I thought it was fantastic. Its Bond with a difference....an edge and Craig does this brilliantly.
No there were not many gadgets etc but it did not need them in my opinion.
As for driving a ford....yes he did but then he drove 2 magnificent aston martins as well so we can forgive him the ford- which actually was quite funny !
So no- its NOT rubbish but a great with with a great leading man....bring on the next installment.
2006-11-22 09:32:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Poor Poor film like a love story no gadgets no nothing pants... I might as well watched a poker tounament on tv.... Plus Bond drives a ford in this ....
Alansblog.co.uk gives it 3 out of 10
2006-11-21 01:39:51 · answer #4 · answered by alan88 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I actually really enjoyed it, but it did take a long time to really warm up. I thought that Daniel Craig made a good Bond. However, I don't think you can ever beat my fave, Sean Connery and there was something classy about the old ones that the new one lacked!
2006-11-21 01:32:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
they have changed their target audience...hence the love scenes drag on and there was a big fuss over that girl he liked. also q was no where to be seen..i mean what happened to all the gadgets?..was still a great film and i have always been a bond fan :D
2006-11-21 01:54:27 · answer #6 · answered by That-Boy-Craig 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What really spoils the movie, is that they used the wrong writer. You have heard of the wrong leaves on the train line or the wrong water to make whiskey, well they used the wrong writer.
I thought that they should have commissioned the reclusive American writer, Linda J Cirillo.
2006-11-21 03:42:28 · answer #7 · answered by AmandaA 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought it was quite good, but I've never really liked any other James Bond film (except Goldeneye because Sean Bean was in it).
2006-11-22 09:09:59 · answer #8 · answered by Athene1710 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No its awesome! Ok its not quite the original Bond.........buts it supposed to be a revamp though! Even if you don't like it cos its not Bond - then its still a great action film!!!
2006-11-21 01:32:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
my husband is a huge James Bond fan. We saw the new movie on Sunday. I was very impressed. it was great!
2006-11-21 01:53:16 · answer #10 · answered by njyecats 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋