Sign in or 
Location: Casino Royale
Discussion: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
beatlehead |
20. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Feb 1 2009, 3:21 AM EST
"Just about everyone who hates Craig is Anonymous. "Can you blame them? You've seen how he dispatches of those who oppose him! Do you find this valuable? |
QuartermasterQ |
21. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Feb 1 2009, 2:19 PM EST
"Can you blame them? You've seen how he dispatches of those who oppose him!"Its for their own safety I suppose. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
22. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Sep 6 2009, 10:31 PM EDT
"Since the first James Bond film I have been a fan of the ultra suave super spy. That image and facination would never have been if the previous films were as terrible as the latest Casino Royale is. The producers, and directors should be ashamed to have their names attached to such a disgrace. I am sure that Ian Flemming is rolling in his grave. This is NOT a Bond film but rather a flagrant mocery created only to entice money from a loyal following. I will never go see another Bond film until the format is returned to the original style.Such genius words... We should start a rebellion or something. Who's with me? God, I'm gonna get so many negative comments for this. But anyway, DOWN WITH CRAIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
Budjettivaje |
23. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Sep 7 2009, 6:38 AM EDT
| Post edited: Sep 7 2009, 6:40 AM EDT
"Just about everyone who hates Craig is Anonymous. hmmmm....."Well I'm here to make an exception. I also hate Casino Royale. I think it's the third worst Bond-movie. Only DAD and QOS come after it. If they decide to make a film from the Fleming's novel they should do it properly. I think Ian Fleming would turn in his grave if he saw CR. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
6-stringa007 |
24. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Sep 7 2009, 8:19 AM EDT
It's one of the best along with FRWL, GF and TB. People who don't like it seem to say how it's completely different from the Bond of before. I beg to differ. It's completely different from the Pierce Bond films, yes, but it's more in line with FRWL or OHMSS, with more emphasis on a good spy plot rather than invisible cars and bad cgi and space lasers, etc. It's more Fleming styles than the Pierce films were. Don't get me wrong I think Pierce was great too but CR was well-received critically and commercially FOR A REASON; it stripped down all the far-fetched silliness and brought 007 back to his roots of good classic espionage - the way Sir Ian Fleming created him. That's why FRWL and OHMSS are also great Bond films. Craigs an awesome Bond too.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
25. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Sep 8 2009, 6:58 PM EDT
Look how easy Bond beat the bad guys in the past movies, sure some part were hard for Bond, but in Casino Royale when Vesper dies, THAT one moment in Bond history showed not all Bond movies had to be mere copies of the ones before them!Look at the series how many times has the plot been changed? 1: Show the auidence a bit of Bond 2: Show a bit of the villains 3 Make the Villains do something 4: Make Bond find out about the villains 5: Send him after them 5.5: Have Bond have sex with a random woman 6: Have Bond find the villains 7: Have him be confront the villains 8: Have him kill the villains and stop their plot 9: Make Bond end the movie with sex...... Pow format of a Bond movie, now format of Casino Royale 1: Show Bond killing in COLD BLOOD 2: Have Bond go off on his own 3; Make him find out about a villain's plot 4: Stop THAT plot 5: Have M16 tell him about another one 6: Send him off on a mission with a woman he DOESN'T SLEEP WITH! 7: Make him play Poker 8: Have hitmen try to kill Bond 9: Show Bond actually BONDing with the woman 10: Have Bond get captured and tortured where no man should be tortured 11: Have Bond escape from that villain 12: Have all problems resolved or are they??? 13: Make Bond find out that the woman is giving prize money to another villain 14: Make Bond find her 15: Have Bond fail to save her 16: Make Bond actually feel emotions about his failure 17: Have Bond find the villain 18: Kick the villain's ass with a surpressed H&K UMP 19: End with" The Name's Bond, James Bond." Now that is a real story Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
26. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Sep 23 2009, 5:17 PM EDT
yep i totally agree, 4 a min there i thought i was the only 1 that hated the new bond films. urghg its sooo terrible it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. they killed the bond franchise when they 1. let a blonde guy play bond who 'used' to have brown hair and 2. they let him kill in cold blood, that just pissed me off. and all the catchy bond phrases that we all love, dey got rid of it and there was no intro of the flashy bond car with the cool gadgets
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
27. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Sep 23 2009, 5:19 PM EDT
"Since the first James Bond film I have been a fan of the ultra suave super spy. That image and facination would never have been if the previous films were as terrible as the latest Casino Royale is. The producers, and directors should be ashamed to have their names attached to such a disgrace. I am sure that Ian Flemming is rolling in his grave. This is NOT a Bond film but rather a flagrant mocery created only to entice money from a loyal following. I will never go see another Bond film until the format is returned to the original style.i sooo agree with u, i've boycotted the last 2 movies as well 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
28. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Sep 24 2009, 12:20 AM EDT
Royale was a good step back to bring Bond forward, but my favourites are still From Russia WIth Love and Moonraker.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Budjettivaje |
29. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Sep 24 2009, 4:58 AM EDT
Well...I guess I can't deny one fact. It was more than good that they stopped that nonsense familiar from DAD and didn't continue with it.But it's still the only good side in CR for me. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
30. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Sep 29 2009, 3:28 PM EDT
I find it funny that so many people get so worked up about this. The fact is that some people will not like CR, namely those whose favorite style of bond was the Moore bond. I also find it interesting that most of these, and bear in mind I have said most so this may not be the case for all, Moore fans tend to avoid OHMSS. I think this is down to a person who may enjoy the more escapism style of film making. less concerned with realism and more concerned with a good old yarn.The other will divert to a more gritty realism, tending to prefer the Licence to Kill, Casino Royale or Most of the Connery movies. I can understand why people may not like CR as it is such a departure from the Moore style of movies and if your view bond with an intense sense of 1980's bond nostalgia this is certainly going to leave a bad taste in the mouth. I also find it hysterical the amount of people who gripe and grouse about a film being changed from the book. For one thing how would these people have felt about a film set in 1953 where James Bond plays Bacarat against a fat, perspiring Le Chiffre. To be honest other than that, the main narative remains the same. In fact most of the key scenes are the same, the torture scene, car chase, Bonds realisation at Vespers betrayal. Do the same people moan about how Live and Let Die or Moonraker are not in the slightest the same as the books? And for that matter since when have you seen a film that remains competely faithful to the book? I for one loved CR, do I rank it in my top five, yes. I may go so far as to put it in my top 2, but this is frequently changing. However my preferences change, generally I prefer the Connery, Dalton and Craig movies, but when TMWTGG was on TV the other day I enjoyed every camp rediculous minute of it Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
31. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Oct 3 2009, 7:36 AM EDT
"Royale was a good step back to bring Bond forward, but my favourites are still From Russia WIth Love and Moonraker."Moonraker was very much the Star Wars of its day. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Posted Anonymously |
32. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Oct 15 2009, 10:19 AM EDT
The new movies rock! If you want to get lost in fantasy, follow the Harry Potter franchise. The new movies depict exactly how I would imagine Bond would be (exept for the blond hair). Have any of you “Bond fans” read the books? In the books, there are no futuristic gadgets. Bond is a hardened man with badass scars. He is totally dedicated to the mission and won’t let a piece of ass distract him from it. The old movies were made for that era. Admirably, it was damn cool back then! But it would be less ‘realistic’ today.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
33. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Oct 15 2009, 10:26 AM EDT
The 1967 Casino Royal when Pieter Sellers played bond, was a ****** one. The new Casino Royal is a straight flash.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
34. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Oct 15 2009, 3:25 PM EDT
Orson Welles was the best Blofeld of all.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
Posted Anonymously |
35. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Oct 15 2009, 7:02 PM EDT
"Orson Welles was the best Blofeld of all."Best Bond villain ever. Do you find this valuable? |
|
6-stringa007 |
36. RE: "Casino Royale": Worst Bond Film Ever, Part 3
Oct 16 2009, 8:17 PM EDT
"The new movies rock! If you want to get lost in fantasy, follow the Harry Potter franchise. The new movies depict exactly how I would imagine Bond would be (exept for the blond hair). Have any of you “Bond fans” read the books? In the books, there are no futuristic gadgets. Bond is a hardened man with badass scars. He is totally dedicated to the mission and won’t let a piece of ass distract him from it. The old movies were made for that era. Admirably, it was damn cool back then! But it would be less ‘realistic’ today. "Well said anon! The unrealistic/fantasy style of Bond probably gets used more often than the Fleming style. Bond films like CR, FRWL and OHMSS don't get done so often. There'll be one occasionally (FYEO and TLD) but more often than not it seems, they give us another "madman trying to rule or destroy the world" type of scenario, which had become pretty stale by DAD. QoS coulda been better but CR was a return to form for the franchise, reminding me of the good old Connery days around Dr. No and FRWL. Grittiness and story over action are pluses in my book. Do you find this valuable? |
