›

Goldeneye vs. Casino Royale

1…67891012»

Comments

  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    Yeah I know, CR wasn't as big a leap as alot of people make out. Dalton was doing the whole gritty darker bond thing way back in the 80s, but when CR was released everybody seemed to forget about that

    That's because there was seventeen years in-between where Brosnan brought in a dumbed-down Moore era.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    BAIN123 wrote:
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I like the ending of Royale but, lets face it, it is a crowd pleaser. I've heard fanboys say CR dumbed down the whole revenge part of the book and added in a bunch of action.

    They got as close to the book as they could. If they did exactly what it said in the book I don't think CR would've been as good. To me it would've been too boring, not enough like a bond film. CR the book was good but, it was a book. End of the day, film bond and book bond are pretty different. But I do think if they took out alot of the action like some fanboys wanted then CR could've easily been an oscar winning bond film. But I'd rather keep the enjoyable action sequences all the bond films have than get rid of them for the sake of a stupid gold trophy.

    I agree @thelivingroyale. I'm just pointing out that CR perhaps isn't as "ground-breaking" as some may say it is.

    It was indeed groundbreaking because for the first time in decades a Bond film wasn't afraid to shy away from "the formula". You know the formula that where you can bascally tick away boxes of things you expect to be there. Quite a few people told me that it felt much different than any other Bond films they've seen before.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    But it isn't REALLY though is it? It's more a reinvention. As Martin Campbell said "there's stuff we change but there's stuff we don't change".

    I will say though that on first viewing it felt very different. I missed old Bond. BUT watching it again it feels like a bit of a hark back to the days of Sean Connery in terms of style.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    But it isn't REALLY though is it? It's more a reinvention. As Martin Campbell said "there's stuff we change but there's stuff we don't change".

    I will say though that on first viewing it felt very different. I missed old Bond. BUT watching it again it feels like a bit of a hark back to the days of Sean Connery in terms of style.
  • Goldeneye95Goldeneye95
    Posts: 546
    For me it's Goldeneye. Martin Campbell brought life back into the James Bond franchise. Plus, Michael France did a great job writing the script. Pierce Bronsan was great as James Bond. He had the look of 007. Also Pierce Bronsan had that charisma & a blend of swag like Sean Connery & charm like Sir Roger Moore. Great characters, & great action. Bond was back after a 6 year absent.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2274/bond-movie-a-vs.-bond-movie-b-casino-royale-vs.-skyfall
  • toddmthatchertoddmthatcher
    Posts: 28
    Have to definitely go with Casino Royale. I think it might actually be my second all-time favorite after FRWL. The producers really went out on a limb in doing the whole reinvention and it paid off even better than I could have anticipated. Goldeneye is a solid 007 pic and nothing more, in view.

    http://toddmthatcher.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/the-007-files-casino-royale/

    http://toddmthatcher.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/the-007-files-goldeneye/
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited January 2013 Posts: 3,327
    Casino Royale, a million times over.

    GE is probably the best of the Brozza films, which isn't saying much. I watched it agan recently and it went up a few notches in my estimation, but it's nowhere near as good the early Connery and Moore flicks, Dalton's movies or any of Craig's 3 films.

    At best, GE beats the weaker Connery and Moore flicks, and the rest of Brozza's garbage.
  • dramaticscenesofQOSdramaticscenesofQOS
    Posts: 1,282
    thelordflasheart wrote:
    I recently rewatched GE and didn't enjoy it as much as when it first came out. Despite that I still did like it but because of the passage of time and the lack of context I could see it more for the film that it is. For example, we were all so excited to get a new Bond film after 6 years (in fact, there were real fears that the series was over) that that contributed to a lot of good will for the film. Also, it looked very big-budget compared to LTK and Brosnan was much better than I feared that he would be - I was expecting Roger Moore Jr.

    I think that Brosnan gives a fairly good performance in GE - he's pretty restrained (which I credit to Campbell) and although he doesn't have the confidence and presence that came with each successive film he also doesn't have the smugness or smarm. He was also at his most believable in his fight scenes and his scenes with M are quite good.

    I really liked that the film had some nice "throw-back" elements to it - the DB5, the big secret base, the bad model work when the plane crashed into the GE facility in Russia. Some beautiful cinematography too - it felt like the last "classic" Bond film like the ones from the 60s. But I found it marred by some weak humour and the weak score (although I loved the lonely sounding theme that recurs throughout the film, the one that plays as Bond pulls up to the casino). Campbell's stylish direction is a big plus but he would exceed himself with CR.

    CR currently sits at the top of my list of best Bond films. Too many great elements to mention but as a friend said it took so many elements and did them even better - better action, better cinematography, better acting, better directing...all with less of the cheese and embarrassing bits. Bonus for the fans by incorporating a lot of Fleming. But for me the best part was Craig - I thought it was a bad joke when he was first announced (to be fair CNN put up the worst picture I've ever seen of him against a very glamourous pic of Brosnan) but he took a film character that had been played by five other actors over 45 years and made it his own. And as I've said before my favourite line from a review of CR was "For the first time since watching Connery as a kid I was watching a Bond film and thought hey, I want to be that guy". And I'm the same age as Craig!

    CR was better bc the whole movie. Was down to earth with no ridiculous plot but I like how u mentioned the lonely theme that plays throughout the movie. It meshes with the whole Bond in a post cold war world at the sarcasm capital Russia plot story element. It goes to show that quality counts in every element of a film. But of course even MC was tiired of the satellite acene asking how many times one man can save the worls. Plus the fight acene was unrealistic: Bond could not possibly grab on the Alec's leg like tha without dragging himself.
Sign In or Register to comment.