I was introduced to James Bond through the movies during the late 60s. Many die hard fans (older) like the new film and many do not. I just saw the new one yesterday and have a feeling this one belongs in the discount bin of media history. Remember Casino Rolale 1967 (??? something like that) ? I would consider that and Never say never again NON-BOND films. Freaks if you will. Is it better to PUT A SERIES TO SLEEP as opposed to resurrecting it? The new one is called a reboot. No mention of Bonds military career, no memories at all of the previous 20 plots. I dont think Craig is a bad actor-he just does not fit the Bond formula. For this I fault the Bond production team. They have been weakening the series for some time. IS IT BETTER TO PUT A SUCCESSFULL SERIES TO SLEEP as opposed to improving Sean Connery? I say they sell the franchise to someone who wants it.
2007-03-17 07:23:13 · 17 answers · asked by westphalia1 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Casino Royale is definitely a Bond movie. The reason that there is no reference to Bond's past movies is because it is set as sort of prequel. The movie you are referring to, 1967's Casino Royale, was a spoof. If you watch it, you will see that it is not a serious movie by, any means, with Peter Sellers and Woody Allen playing multiple Bonds.
I completely agree with that Daniel Craig does not have the suave personality of the other Bonds. But, then again, Bond is supposed to be very young in this movie. I believe that maybe he has not developed the class and suave of older Bond. You see, in one scene, that he orders his usual vodka martini, but when asked if shaken or stirred, he answers that he doesn't give a cr**.
According to many Bond connoisseurs this movie is a lot closer to Ian Fleming's original novels. Many of the Bond movies (including all of Pierce Brosnan ones) were invented by the director rather than based on one of the original novels or invented by the man who knows Bond best, his creator Ian Fleming.
I definately agree with you that Never Say Never Again is not a real Bond movie, as it is the same movie as Thunderball only with a couple of changes.
2007-03-17 08:06:48 · answer #1 · answered by JV 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Best Bond Ever!
I am a Bond fan and have watched all the oldies. But the new Bond has jump started a dead and dying franchise. They were starting to get really cheesy and cartoonish and seriously, Madonna singing the theme song?
Daniel Craig gave a much needed macho punch to the series. He's so hard core. He's not pretty, but he is hot. Plus, the story was much more interesting and the characters were well developed.
The Bond girls wasn't your typical bond girl. I loved the whole relationship. The action scenes were really cool.
Besides, I'd never really bought Peirce Brosnan as a hard core spy. Or Roger Moore, for that matter.
This is a post-9/11 Bond. A take no ****, business over pleasure Bond.
2007-03-24 13:54:28 · answer #2 · answered by Olive 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sell it to someone that wants it? What for? If you could afford it would you buy it just to relegate the films into the same archives as "The Thin Man"? Fleming had his place in the 1950's. He introduced post-World War II English readers to the place they would occupy in the last part of the 20th century, a great nation reluctantly left without their empire. A lesson Americans may need to face soon.
The movies of the 60s showed a new world with new opponents; cold, diabolical, flashier mad men fronting ruthless philosophies and personal greed. Their plans and institutions were wild to match a wilder world. Bond stories were just some of the stepping stones from the Raj to Tony Blair.
I don't think Fleming was comfortable with all the changes, but as a journalist he could see what was inevitable and tried to find a place for an adventurist Englishman.
Bond is still vital today, but perhaps some of his 19th century ideas could be left behind and little missed.
2007-03-22 18:41:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're right. After I saw Casino Royale, the plot is very similar to the one with John Lazenby as James Bond. A total waste of time. Although I might say that Craig Daniel, although not really a Bond material is really hot.
Even the location is reminiscent of the the old casino royale. Admittedly, it got more action but it's a bit of a let down. And the bond girl are not as colourful as the girls during the time of Sean and ROger.
They actually need to work more on the stories and less on the action sequence.
2007-03-17 07:41:32 · answer #4 · answered by etang 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. It is the first James Bond written by Ian Fleming. The 1967 version was intended to be a spoof of the the Bond series. Re Craig vs the Bond formula, Fleming's choice for actor to portray Bond was songwriter Hoagy Carmichael, who is certainly not the accepted prototype. Google him for picture.
2007-03-24 07:44:06 · answer #5 · answered by u8drod 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The 1967 Casino Royale was not with Peter Sellers, it was with David Niven. The plot was that Bond came out of retirement.
2007-03-21 10:19:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I also think the quality of the Bond girls have gone WAY down hill. Terri Hatcher? Halle Berry? Denise Richards? WTF?
Rosamund Pike was the only one out of Die Another Day (and, of course, Samantha Bond: Ms. Moneypenny) who I would say stay true to the Bond Girl tradition.
Danny Craig is a fine actor. He's just NOT Bond.
The same way they (the movie studios) at one time thought of casting Nic Cage as Superman. YIKES!
2007-03-17 08:02:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
IF you read the back of the DVD it tells you that Casino Royal is supposed to be like a prequel to all the other bon movies. This would explain not referencing any of the other movies.
That being said this didn't come across very well in the movie itself and I am not a big fan of doing prequels to movies go forward not backward.
2007-03-17 07:49:17 · answer #8 · answered by mrslet02 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it replaced into between the perfect video clips. it finally went back to choose bond was once and have been given rid bond determining in the open surroned by one hundred undesirable men with weapons and killing all of them. the contraptions have been a great area of the 1st few bonds. this sort of action picture is the reason we nevertheless have james bond immediately.
2016-10-02 07:06:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is but oo7 is a new Bond. Watched it the other day and thought it was pretty good. And I thought he fit the part.
2007-03-25 06:49:49 · answer #10 · answered by Proud Nana 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋