Already a member?
Sign in
Location: Casino Royale
Threads
Posting...
Note: You can enter up to [REMCHARS] additional characters.
Did you know you can edit the content of this page by clicking EasyEdit?
Did you know you can edit the content of this page by clicking EasyEdit?
| Started By | Thread Subject | Replies | Last Post | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QuartermasterQ | The book | 1 | Dec 8 2008, 3:37 AM EST by 00seven | |||
 |
Thread started: Dec 7 2008, 1:31 PM EST
Watch
I highly reccomend reading the book, especially to those of you who didnt like the movie. I think if you read the book you will really like the movie and respect more. And for those of you who liked the movie, like me, youll like the movie 10 times more. Except then they went and ruined it with a sequel. Why?
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Anonymous | What chair idoes Dryden sit on in the opening scene? | 17 | Dec 7 2008, 2:05 PM EST by JustinAtheropinion | |||
|
|
Thread started: May 10 2008, 10:34 AM EDT
Watch
I've been trying to track down that office chair that Dryden sits on (and gets shot in) from the opening scene, it has to be the best computer chair I've ever seen, if anyone can help with details, I'd really appreciate it, cheers.
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| northbreed | "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 1 (page: 1 2 3) | 43 | Dec 6 2008, 9:41 AM EST by beatlehead | |||
 |
Thread started: Jul 12 2007, 5:14 PM EDT
Watch
“Casino Royale”: An Obituary for The James Bond Film Franchise
[warning: review contains spoilers] Ever notice that the 007 films produced after “Goldeneye” seem to get worse and worse in significant critical, creative respects like screenplay quality, casting decisions, etc.? With “Casino Royale,” the franchise hits rock bottom. “Casino Royale” is, objectively, the worst James Bond film in the history of the 007 film franchise. Why? 1) Story: Based, more or less, on Ian Fleming’s original novel, this unskillful adaptation/update is communicated with a disdain for clarity. The audience is fed too little information, too late (or not at all)—about both character motivations as well as the stakes involved in various action sequences—to remain emotionally engaged and genuinely interested in what’s going on. 2) Casting/characterization: lacks conviction and appeal • Daniel Craig (Bond). Craig’s characterization of Bond is charmless, worthless, and disturbingly nihilistic. At one point in the script, Craig’s Bond responds to a question with “Do I look like I give a damn?” The answer in “Casino Royale” is overwhelmingly NO. Why on earth, then, should the audience care about him? At another point, he tells Vesper “I have no idea what an honest job is.” Is this a credible (or creditable) moral statement to hear from a top-level government secret agent? Craig’s monotonously stoic performance is by no means compensated for by his (atrocious) line readings: he articulates rarely, mumbles often. As a result of Craig’s hollow Bond interpretation, what should have been the film’s ultimate impact moment—007’s “Bond, James Bond” confrontation with villainous Mr. White—is surprisingly anti-climactic, prompting a shrug rather than a cheer from this reviewer. [see Part 2 for continuance]
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Anonymous | Why did they create such a huge contradiction? | 5 | Dec 3 2008, 4:35 PM EST by QuartermasterQ | |||
|
|
Thread started: Nov 13 2008, 8:58 PM EST
Watch
They could EASILY have altered it slightly to keep it continuing off of the other movies. WHY did they completely disown all the other Bond movies??? I liked the series but I never saw Casino Royale and I am very much considering not seeing Quantum of Solace simply because it discounts all of the other Bond movies.
And they could have worked around it. Imagine how this could work. They could have set the movie in say, 1961, a year before Dr No, and had Daniel Craig play him. Then Quantum of Solace which takes place right after Casino Royale, would fall in right behind it. Then, once bond 23 comes out, which they already said would stand alone from Quantum and would not directly continue that storyline, have THAT one set now and then you would have Daniel Craig, As Bond in the beginning, and now, keeping everything free of contradictions and it would have been an interesting little trip back to the beginning.
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| northbreed | "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3 | 15 | Nov 25 2008, 11:56 PM EST by Anonymous | |||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 12 2007, 5:17 PM EDT
Watch
[continued from Part 2 of review]
5) Producer infamy/creative poverty: Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the film’s producers, lacking the vision and ingenuity to advance Bond’s personal timeline onscreen, reveal their creative bankruptcy by bringing 007 back to the beginning of his secret service career, presenting him in his most unflattering incarnation yet. Out go Bond’s cinematically-cultivated charm and conviction. The new Bond is an uninteresting, expressionless, muscle-bound nihilist and a disgracefully vulnerable “hero.” The producers deliberately emphasize Bond’s vulnerability by subjecting him, incredibly, to cardiac arrest(!) as well as a horrific trial of torture (this latter was a rotten, graphic part of Fleming’s original novel). Putting obstacles in a purposeful screen hero’s path makes for good drama; but these shocking “Casino-Royale” examples are an extremely sick way to challenge a hero and are certainly artistically unworthy of depiction onscreen. Considering all these points, it is clear that “Casino Royale” is neither value-driven art nor fan-pleasing entertainment. The proof is in the picture. “Casino Royale” is the highest-grossing Bond film to date. But consider: 1. This fact merely indicates the degree of public curiosity about or interest in James Bond and owes virtually everything to the franchise’s longstanding cinematic appeal and reputation (earned by much better films and performances in the series and betrayed dramatically by “Casino Royale”). 2. This fact confirms nothing about public satisfaction with or approval of this latest installment. 3. High box-office numbers neither reflect nor establish this film’s merit. The 2-disc [Region 1] DVD special edition of this movie has a handful of special features. Apart from the inclusion of Maryam d’Abo’s thoughtfully-produced “Bond Girls Are Forever” (2002) documentary, why should you care?
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Anonymous | Why the hell did they have to reboot the series???? | 11 | Nov 13 2008, 11:02 PM EST by mkfreeberg | |||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 25 2008, 5:15 AM EDT
Watch
This makes the series lose all credibility to me.
I loved the series, it's the most successful movie series of all time, and didn't need to be restarted. Batman Begins restarted a series that badly needed it, and ever since then it's like all series' seem to be jumping on the "prequel" bandwagon. Poorly. Scared to simply make a sequel, and keep continuing the story, but with better quality. Batman Begins would have been much better as Batman 5
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Cedric(006) | Added Detailed Synopsis | 0 | Oct 4 2008, 1:07 PM EDT by Cedric(006) | |||
 |
Thread started: Oct 4 2008, 1:07 PM EDT
Watch
add more to what you know to Casino Royale on the detailed syp. I might have missed some part!
Cedric |
|||||
| northbreed | "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 2 | 5 | Sep 14 2008, 10:17 PM EDT by Anonymous | |||
|
|
Thread started: Jul 12 2007, 5:16 PM EDT
Watch
[continued from Part 1 of review]
• Eva Green (“Bond Girl,” Vesper Lynd). Green’s Vesper characterization comes across unwittingly as awkward, unsophisticated. Green looks and acts like a teenager playing at “grown-up.” What’s missing is the mature presence/feminine poise that typifies the best Bond Girl actresses (e.g. Ursula Andress, Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg, Barbara Bach, Maud Adams, Izabella Scorupco, et al). A self-confessed “complicated woman,” Green’s Vesper remains maddeningly inscrutable to the end, and her romance with Craig’s Bond is ineptly developed and unconvincingly consummated. • Judi Dench. Her “M” is more unsympathetic than ever. No other actress has ever contributed less charm and more unfemininity to the Bond series than Dame Judi Dench. • Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre). In Ian Fleming’s novel, Le Chiffre is skillfully characterized as an odd, sinister presence. Onscreen, Mikkelsen’s version of Le Chiffre is unimpressive—an effete villain with a blood-weepy eye, but without the twisted charisma that typifies the best Bond screen adversaries (Goldfinger, Blofeld, Mr. Big, Max Zorin, Janus, et al). 3) Script/dialogue. Both in content and tone, the screenplay—like the novel—overwhelmingly projects malevolence: the power of evil; the stress on the tragic and traumatic; all events taking place in a world where no one can or ought to be trusted. And notice how the script flagrantly undercuts James Bond, the ultimate fictional egoist, with the inclusion of damning “anti-ego” lines thrown at him by M and Vesper. The dialogue is cynical, tasteless, and witless. 4) Original Music: Chris Cornell’s unmemorable opening-credits theme song—“You Know My Name”—lacks color, drama, and excitement. David Arnold’s unremarkable score sounds melodramatic and overly derivative, like a cheap John Barry knock off. [see Part 3 for continuance]
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| PussyGalore | i hate this film! | 13 | May 7 2008, 5:55 PM EDT by Cedric(006) | |||
 |
Thread started: Mar 22 2008, 1:25 PM EDT
Watch
I dont like this film at all. Daniel Craig isnt nice looking either.
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Anonymous | Daneil Craig | 2 | May 4 2008, 2:44 PM EDT by Anonymous | |||
|
|
Thread started: Apr 14 2007, 9:10 AM EDT
Watch
Daniel Craig ranks up the with Connery and Bosinan
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Anonymous | Nice film I mean VERYYYYYYYYYYY nice film!!!!! | 2 | May 1 2008, 6:56 PM EDT by GeorgeLazenby | |||
|
|
Thread started: Mar 5 2008, 4:28 PM EST
Watch
I very liked this film. It was very unusual bond film. but i think that we must give them a chance . But PIERCE BROSNAN RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Anonymous | Casino Royale Critics Know Nothing of Bond | 4 | Mar 3 2008, 10:56 PM EST by JustinAtheropinion | |||
|
|
Thread started: Oct 31 2007, 3:41 PM EDT
Watch
Clearly Northbred seems to be one of those wordy nerds who loves camp, not climate. Popcorn, not prestige. Flemming's characters ARE, by all lengths, meant to be eternally preoccupied with taste, overindulgence, and adolescense. They are all tortured individuals throwing their lives and happiness into an abyss of fortune and futility. Bond is himself trapped by this temptation. The audience care for these characters because the pain is engraved on their faces
You and the other fake Bond fans may wish to deny it, but Cornell's theme song IS memorable. Continue your jealous, sad, petty rants about what you THINK "Bond" is, where as critically, financially, and more, Bond movies will continue long after you die of old age...or at best the realisation you've stuck your own head up your arse.
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| step_hen | BTTF | 1 | Oct 29 2007, 11:26 PM EDT by Anonymous | |||
 |
Thread started: Jun 24 2007, 4:56 AM EDT
Watch
Bond is cool but Back to the Future Rules!!
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| Phantom008 | Best Since Goldfinger. | 1 | Jan 12 2007, 3:01 AM EST by alexberg | |||
 |
Thread started: Jan 12 2007, 1:52 AM EST
Watch
As the subject states...this film is the best Bond film since Goldfinger. And Craig is as good as Connery. He brings the human aspect of James Bond back into the films. He makes the character a man, rather than a superhero. I love this movie, and have seen it 4 times.
Show Last Reply
|
|||||
| alexberg | Opening night | 0 | Jan 10 2007, 2:28 AM EST by alexberg | |||
 |
Thread started: Jan 10 2007, 2:28 AM EST
Watch
Naturally I attended the opening night at Seattle's best cinema - the aptly named Cinerama. The house was packed. You could tell there was more than just a hint of anticipation in the air. Not quite the same as the Matrix sequels (the crowd was more attractive) but it was there all the same. And what a payoff. The intro scene - brilliantly filmed in black and white. The bathroom fight scene made it clear Craig was no Roger Moore (and thank heavans). I'm bordering on blabbering now. The movie was fantastic. The best since....Goldfinger. Without question - in the top five. Maybe top three. I can't wait to see it again.
|
|||||
