Despite being perhaps the best overall Bond movie ever (FROM RUSSIA W/LOVE tough to beat), Bond could only manage to take 2d place, $2 million behind HAPPY FEET... Whatever the hell that's about.

CASINO is great. Daniel Craig is the real deal, the first Bond since Connery that you actually really believe could do all the things the character has to do. He is a good looking, athletic, tough guy, who looks like he's ready to punch out anyone who irritates him. He loves to make love married women because they're disposable. The fighting and killing comes off as totally realistic - gritty and bloody. In other words, he's perfect.

The villain is well cast, as are Bond's 2 love interests. The cast as a whole was excellent, as were the stunts. The bad guy in the beginning of the film is an amazing athlete, doing stunt after stunt. That Craig could keep up at all is a tribute to his ability.

There were no gizmo's, just fast cars, hot women, bad bad guys and and a guy who seems like he might actually be a real spy playing Bond. What's really neat about the film is that the bad guy and Bond are playing high stakes poker against each other for half the movie. I read some critics who thought that was boring - WRONG. It provided a neat way to get to know the bad guy and watch some interaction that didn't involve fighting or torture - which is about the only other ways a good guy and a bad guy could normally interact in an action film. The plot involves money and terrorism - pretty relevant.

This Bond relights the fuse on action movies generally and spy movies specifically. Craig's the first guy who doesn't seem to be doing a imitation of Connery. I grew up with Roger Moore and he made some fun movies, the best probably being MOONRAKER and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY - he was very smooth. Ditto Pierce Brosnan, who also had a slice of real-life toughness that Moore didn't have. His movie were buried by all the weight of Bond, the gizmo's, etc - almost a self parody. Neither of them, good as they were, equalled Sean.

Craig does. He's not as pretty as Connery, but that helps the believability. The character and the actor treat Bond as what he really would be like - "a blunt instrument." He's smooth, up to a point - Smooth as he needs to be. Just as BATMAN BEGINS got down to brass tacks, CASINO ROYALE goes back to what made the character so popular. But w/o Craig it might have failed anyway - with him, it's a lean mean blast from the past. A cold war spy movie that doesn't need the cold war. This will be playing on Spike TV for years to come - and you'll always watch it, because it's that damn good.

BOTTOM LINE: 5 out of 5 stars

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

Thanks, John.

I'll probably be going to see it this week.

Thanks, John.

I'll probably be going to see it this week.


What did you think? I've seen it 2 more times - gets better w/ every viewing...

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

I liked it quite a bit, but it isn't really a Bond movie as far as I'm concerned. Without that mystique, you've essentially got a well-made action movie, and that's about it. And no, I'm not referring to the lack of disposable Bond girls and gadgets either. It was something more intangible that I can't quite put my finger on. It's so stylistically different, that it just doesn't seem like it's part of the same franchise, and I have to wonder -- what's the point?

I thought it was quite a bit like the first few Bond movies. I do agree that the character is not as fleshed out as other Bonds, but that was the point of the flick - Bond becoming 007; Bond becoming BOND.

But you definately have a point. Part of it is, I think, the fact that Daniel Craig seems so tough, and looks like a pug fighter. Only Sean comes close to the physicality of Craig's Bond. The film, taken on its own, is one of the best pure action films I've seen. In many ways it reminded me of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK.

Best of all about the new Bond (beyond making what is essentially a cold war era story relevant) is how close in tone it was to the original books. Having read all of them when I was kid, I always wondered why the movies weren't more like books...
Now they are. :)

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

I waited to see it before reading this thread.

I've never been one to argue pro or con for the various Bonds. My personal favorite was always Connnery, but then I loved Dalton's cruel, sadistic edge, that everyone else hated. I think we get the BOND that our specific times calls for really. Each of the last Bonds was a product of their times.

And this Bond is exactly right for this time.

I LOVED the film. I haven't physically reacted to action sequnces like this since the first time I saw RAIDERS. I was flynching and dodging in my seat. (Well, I have done stunt work for films, so perhaps I'm a bit more empathetic to whats happening than most.) But really, the stunts were COMPLETELY believable, in terms of execution and presentation. They seemed 'almost' superhuman, without being too over the top. (I hate the whole crouching harness hidden wire stuff these days.)

Craig was a cool cruel tool of MI6. And it showed. I loved the fact that the Villain was so... normal. Okay, a weird weeping eye, but you know, he just needed a hundred million dollars. He didn't have 'world domination/destruction' planned by way of a laser beam/weather control device.

I think Austin Powers was so successful, because the Bond "franchise" had pretty much become a joke. May as well take it the next step. (The original Casino Royale parody notwithstanding). In the sense that this vesion is "Not like" the others in the franchise... yeah its not. The franchise is being rejuvenated, and for this I am grateful. I felt they kept the 'traditional elements' intact - opening sequence format for example - while giving just the right twist on it to make it seem fresh and new. (I actually loved the opening graphics too... I usually find them too cheesy)

Action sequences were EXTREMELY well edited. By this, I mean I was never 'lost' with what was taking place. Too many editors nowadays, are into rapid fire cuts with extreme closeups. Having choreographed, performed, filmed and EDITED fight sequences. I know when they are making up for bad coverage and poor choreography/execution. These fights and chases NEVER left me lost or confused with what was going on. In fact, as we left the theatre, my wife remarked. "Great editing!" Curious, I asked her what she meant by that. "I could follow all the fights and chases!" she replied. Point made.

Cinematography was gorgeous. Just the right amount of closeups in dialogue, AND sweeping vistas of beautiful locations with stunning natural light.

The script was mean and sharp. I LOVED the first scene between Bond and Vespia on the train. Really sharp exchange, beautifully written and executed. Worked on at LEAST three levels.

Going back to the roots for a retelling of the origin of a Myth can be a risky thing. I think they've pulled it off marvelously.

Ditto!

john
evilgeniusentertainment.com

The only thing that would prevent me from giving it a 4/5 is the ending. It confused me. It was a bit odd how they introduced a character at the very end. Someone I confused with le Chiffre actually. I kept waiting for that character to reveal himself as someone we had already met. And then when Bond disposed of him it barely registered. I really thought that le Chiffre's death had been staged and that he was still around.

I haven't seen it yet. My wife and I were going to go watch it at the Dunbar but I've had to flu for 8 days, my wife for 10 days. (We did not get flu shots.)

Woops sorry to spoil itfor youFrank. Yeah, the villain dies. Sorry about that

If I were you I would avoid the Dunbar. Those seats are like le Chiffre's torture chair.

And speaking of torture, did NOT every guy in the theatre CRINGE with that first hit????

Keith, if you see the film again, look for that character you're refering to towards the beginning of the film. They held a shot of him long enough I was waiting to see where he would pop up later on.

I'm not really a Bond fan. I've always been drawn to the various characters around Bond, but never really identified with Bond himself... until now.

Casino Royale was fantastic.

Saw it with my family this weekend and loved it. Everything in this was so much more subtle and cerebral...the jokes, the music, plot and character development...
Here's an example if you go see it again...Notice the music. For the first 2/3rds of the flick it is not the Bond music we've come to recognize. It's very good action music, and most people don't even notice it's missing, but it's not there. I leaned over and mentioned it to my 15 yr old son, who whispered back to me "that's because he's not Bond yet. Wait til the end of the film."
I think it was somewhere during the card game they very subtly introduced it, but they kept it quiet...Until, the very end.


Very Cool

I haven't seen it yet. My wife and I were going to go watch it at the Dunbar but I've had to flu for 8 days, my wife for 10 days. (We did not get flu shots.)

The Dunbar to see Casino Royale? You're killing me. I think I saw The Sound Of Music there in the 70's and never wanted to go back!

Make a day trip of it, catch a bus and get downtown to Paramount. It's cheap if you go during the day!

Bill,

I noticed the 'lack' of the Bond theme immediately on opening, BUT it seems to be present as a 'variation' in the opening chords immediately AFTER the signature "Down the Barrel P.O.V"... I'm pretty sure I heard a variation on the theme. I'll have to listen for it again though.

The wife and I were STILL talking about it at lunch today. Yeah, a REALLY good Bond story.

I'm going next week, but I don't want to go downtown. Maybe I'll bring a pillow with me when I go to the Dunbar.

I thought the board voted and passed a resolution that the bond couldn't be blond and be a bond. It's like having a blue darth vader. I just can't get past my purist descrimination. :}

Well, if Felix can suddenly be black, I guess we could have a blonde Bond. :)

I really didn't notice the blondness... Maybe it's because the opening sequence is in black and white, and his hair is 'dark'. Maybe because it's not lik he's bleach blonde... not really an issue for me.

I had not read anything prior to seeing it. So I WAS curious about how much of the 'old school'' franchise they were going to adhere to. I was pleased when they DID USE the gun barrel POV and 'graphic credits' opening... even if the theme music wasn't EXACTLY present at the open. Coupled with the black and white, it sort of said to the audience..."It's different, but the same Bond... we won't leave you without your touch points..." Since they were going back to the origins, I didn't even know if they were going to use Judith Dench as "M" or start over with a man again. I was pleased to see Dame Judith. I love her as M. Again, a nod to the fans... "The more things change, the more they are the same." I wondered if we would meet "Q". No such luck in this film, but I'll bet he's in the next. When Vespia sits down on the train, and says, "I'm the MONEY" and Bond replies, "Ever PENNY OF IT." I turned to my wife and said "This MUST be "Moneypenny". I half expected their relationship to go uncomsummated, and that she would be a recurring 'tease' in James' side. Which would have been a great device. But alas, not to be. I suspect, that MoneyPenny will show up along with Q in the next flick.

And Felix has been black in other Bond films before. A number of actors have played him. I was pleased when he showed up as well.

And then of course, ending with the familiar theme music. "Bond is BACK BIG TIME" my friends.

I already was a fan of the original CASINO ROYALE(1967) (which started the Bond franchise) with David Niven, and it was still quite good in the late 70's when I was still a child. Perhaps my child innocence was a factor in my liking it so much. However, this new version was a real overhaul, 100 fold. I loved it-so raw, so flesh and blood. At first I didn't think Daniel Craig would pull it off, but he did with flying colors.

Did we watch the same film? First off, the casting of Bond was good. Daniel Craig rocks. There´s some awesome sequences, like the Airport scene, the car chase where he´s caught in the end, and especially the opening sequence. But that´s where it stops. A film packed with cheesy dialogue, easy way outs for our super lucky Bond, and female actors that suck so much that it makes me sick, I think this film is a flop.

Now I don´t like to compare it just to other Bonds, I like to compare it to other spy films. Films like Mission Impossible 1 & 3, The Bourne films, Spy Game, XXX, even Golden Eye with good old Brosnan, they rocked. This one was too easy, too retarded in a way. Easy viewing. How lame can you get Hollywood?

But I know it´s not everyones glass of Martini, (all those parts in this film rocked. Especially where he doesn´t care how the barman makes it.) but for me, I´ll pass on the next one, the authenticity of Bond has gone out of the window and I´m sure they´re pushing their luck these days just to suck us dry...

That was my 5 cents...

Regards
Van Zijl

I don't see Dond jumping the shark anytime soon. There's such a wide range of angles and features to add to that character. Same with Mission Impossible.

I loved the movie. I am not a fan of remakes but in this case it is okay because the first wasn’t an official Bond movie. Does anyone know what format this was shot on? The beginning bathroom scene and the bathroom scene that he is drugged both look like they were shot HD but the rest of the movie looked like it was maybe super 35. Anyone know or know of a website I can look these things up on in the future.

I already was a fan of the original CASINO ROYALE(1967) (which started the Bond franchise) with David Niven, and it was still quite good in the late 70's when I was still a child. Perhaps my child innocence was a factor in my liking it so much. However, this new version was a real overhaul, 100 fold. I loved it-so raw, so flesh and blood. At first I didn't think Daniel Craig would pull it off, but he did with flying colors.

That movie didn't start the "Bond franchise."

The first screen Bond was on TV in 1954, and that, too, was "Casino Royale," starring Barry Nelson as the American agent "Jimmy Bond." Not the same thing.

The Broccoli/EON "Bond franchise," which which most Bond movies are a part, was started in 1962 with "Dr. No." Most fans consider these the "official" movies. The Broccoli Bond movie out in 1967 was "You Only Live Twice," the 5th movie in that series.

The 1967 spoof/Niven version of "Casino Royale" wasn't part of the Broccoli/EON continuity or franchise, just as 1983's "Never Say Never Again" (a remake of "Thunderball") was not.

I agree for the most part with everybody's comments.

I've been a James Bond fan since the day my father took me to see "You Only Live Twice" at the Embassy theatre in Atlantic City. I remember always having butterflies in my stomach prior to the start of each Bond film because I knew villians and their henchmen were gonna die in a bad way. I'd be on the edge of my seat as soon as the theatre darkened and the animated blue and white United Artists logo painted itself on the screen. Then I waited for all hell to break loose. The staccato trumpet blasts followed by the white dots racing across the screen and widening into the gunbarrel. The music. The violence. The fast, new model cars. I guess my estrangement with the series started with The Man With The Golden Gun. Once the franchise introduced silly humor, situations and characters, the series lost its excitement. Just my opinion.

As a man now in my 40s, I will never again feel that level of excitement at a Bond movie as I had when I was a wee lad. But that's to be expected. Life experience and age tend to dull the mystique of the Bond movies. Taking that into consideration...

CASINO ROYALE ROCKS!

Finally, a human Bond and no silly villains or henchmen (i.e. Nick Nack, Jaws). Realistic fight choreography. Good story. And yes, I cringed in my seat alot. Daniel Craig has an interesting face. Funny how they showcased his physique instead of his leading ladies! Well, with abs like that...

One thing with which I disagree: Folks like to compare Craig with Connery. Connery was ruthless, dashing and suave. And heck, he tried to be. That was the whole idea. Craig's Bond is more like everyman and actually closer to George Lazenby's Bond in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Both were very human and both relied on their own ruggedness to get out of jams. No gadgets.

I once again enjoy the James Bond franchise and will continue to do so if only they maintain the current magic.