"To keep my response short and sweet, I'll just say this:

Bond has always kept up with the times. From the fast and fancy cars, to the best tuxedo you can
find. As proof of it,look at the Moore era. His fasion was not something to admire, but the times
was rapidly changing and Bond was playong "catch me up" with the time. The most equisite car
car of the 50's and 60's were the Aston Martins.

And what does Bond do? He gets his first real sports car in the DB5, and past that horrid Bently
era.

Now we come to the 21st century. And what do we have: Special Effects. There has always been
special effects, but one can say not like today. Today, movies need three componets -

1. Action
2. Romance
3. Comedy

Bond has all three, but to keep up with all three, he needs help. Special Effects is revolutionizing
the industry which we call "film making".

Casino Royale netualizes special effects in so many ways! I take it you are not a fan of it, whilst I
truely am. From the Sky Fleet Prototype scene, to pretty much everythin is awesome.

But give Bond credit, the films are starting to break away from the special effects. This is totally
James Bond For Real. For Real is much better than special effects, butBond thrived on Special
Effects for so long, it is hard to get away from it all.

Now in Quantum of Solace, Craig is doing most of his stunts, and there is much more action in
this film than the more strategic Casino Royale. It will be interesting to see if QOS completely
breaks away form the Special Effects Bond has come to know and love.

Well, look at that. Guess that was not very sweet and to the point. But hey, Im off work till Monday.
Vactions, dont you just love em'.

P.S. JustinAtheropinion and JustinApplebee. Are we brothers? lol"

"“Casino Royale”: An Obituary for The James Bond Film Franchise





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]"