Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Hardcore Bond fans and Casino Royale
I'm curious to see what the hardcore Bond fans, like me, think of Casino Royale, six years after it came out, and what your original reaction was after your first watch.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think Mr Craig pulled off a different take on the role and he is an interesting actor playing Bond.
But there are things that jar me every time I watch it. I cannot stand the Aston DB5 being in the film because it is supposed to be a fresh start and it takes me out of the movie. It did not need to be there when they had a really interesting story to tell.
I also think the film is too dark in places. The torture scene is very disturbing and a bit unrealistic because no man would have his way with the ladies after undergoing that. Doctors have said it would have been game over for those southern parts. In the Fleming novel, Le Chiffre does not hit those parts as hard and uses a different tool than a hard rope.
I actually was not blown away by the PTS. Some of the earlier Bonds had some great openers too and I did not personally think it outdid them.
I also thought the end scene in Venice was not as gripping and predictable. The shoot out and the building collapsing was ok but not wow wee!
I think they also should have shown more scenes with him and Vesper. She is central to the story and a fascinating actress. I mean when he is having dinner with Vesper, I do not get how a man as brutal as this Bond falls that easily. And she still has feeling for her ex.
But needless to say, there will be plenty who disagree with me. I actually like the dialogue scenes with Craig the most like where he meets the man in the office at the beginning before he shoots him. Craig is an actor that handles dialogue very well and is convincing. That is what sold me on him as Bond. Not just the image or action ability. He talks well and is intelligent.
Oh and the actor playing Le Chiffre was superb. He was nasty but with a cool exterior and reminded me of Marilyn Manson. Marilyn Manson also can dress well and has an almost Bond villain persona about him.
Actually I would have to disagree with you on the bolded part of your comment. On one side because there is no way to know if the rope is better or worse than the carpet beater (it depends on how you use it really) and some men go through a lot worse and manage to recover. I am notsaying there would be no damage but without going into much detail (I don't want to ruin the day of the gentlemen here) let's say that, as someone who works in the field, that's not necessarily game over (but most likely babies more difficult).
When the film came out, some urologists said his special parts would have been damaged beyond repair at the severe impact of the hard rope.
Yes, no more babies is what I meant. To this day, I find it hard as a man to watch that scene. I feel bad for Bond and it shows that being Bond is not all glamour and fun. The pain is as severe as the pleasure.
Daniel acted brilliantly that I had emotion for him. He looked like he was in the worst pain and I felt so bad for him. I had cold sweat in the cinema!
I was never that fussed about it. I liked it when I first saw it but since I've rewatched it I've felt more and more mixed about it. It's not even in my top 10 anymore now I've seen SF.
That said, it it's on telly I'd enjoy it as it has a lighter feel than other directors' Bonds, and there's always a change of locale or scene.
On to the cinema. I was scared for Craig, but determined to enjoy this new film, it had been, after all, four years. After the PTS I was sold on Craig as Bond; efficient, brutal and surprisingly wry; “I know where you keep your gun”. There were a few moments, like Bond breaking into M's home (Fleming's Bond would never have been disrespectful, like that) and the Venice climax. (Why couldn't they do it like the book?), but overall I was very impressed by Craig's performance, he made Bond feel relevant again. Dangerous. Visceral. And the way he walked through the Casino; so decisive, so purposeful. This was the film that The World Is Not Enough was meant to be. (And I love Brosnan as Bond, by the way...)
Casino Royale is the complete film; brutality, humour, violence, the action scenes were brilliant, the script is intelligent, plus the music, the cinematography, the main title theme, the main titles, and the cast members were uniformly, superb.
It's a top five Bond film for me. And age had not diminished the film.
Well, for me at least... ;-)
The book never says it was his first mission. They got rid of all the secondary characters only to reintroduce them later, and Craig doesn't look young enough to be a rookie anyway.
I think it should've just been a normal Bond film. If they were that bothered about no gadgets they could've just given Q a film off, or maybe he gives Bond his gun or does something on the computer.
:-?
Yeah, the rookie Bond I never believed. Craig is an actor that could have easily played established Bond. At 38, he was starting as inexperienced Bond and Connery ended his Eon career as Bond at 41. Mr Craig has the acting chops for sure and the reboot was unnecessary. But I don't think Craig wanted to jump into the part suddenly and wanted the idea of the reboot to ease him into the role slowly. I have already posted that interview elsewhere on this forum.
Not that 38 is old by any means. If you take care of yourself, then you are young.
I can easily see why anyone would say that, it WAS a great movie.
The sad thing is most people actually think that.
Top notch acting, great direction, excellent use of character...just...wow. It showed that after more than 40 years you could still make Bond new, relevant, and exciting. As a friend of mine who is a huge Bond fan said "Wow...it's like they finally made a Bond film for adults!". I can understand why he said that, although I wouldn't go that far. But it showed that you could have exciting action, Bond as detective, and still have interesting drama and character work as well.
Sad? I don't get it?
It's not the first Bond film without gadgets. It's not even the first Bond film without Q.
Dr No had no real gadgets and FRWL didn't have much. Q wasn't in Live and Let Die.
"Its a great Bond movie, but a disappointing adaptation of the Book"
Sure. Dr. No did not have gadgets or Q. From Russia With Love had a gadget & Live And Let Die did not have Q. Since it's such a big deal. Let me say that sometimes I get excited about certain threads & forget that certain things. Like your comments. Once you said that. I relized that happen in a Bond film. (Even though I do know my Bond history)