Casino Royale

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:36 am

Tellurider wrote:
dracomax wrote:easily the best bond since connery. maybe better.
NO ONE IS BETTER THAN SEAN CONNERY!!!

BOO! ROGER MOOR FOREVER!

Sput · Post by **Sput** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:23 am

i come from a family of bond fans, my dad a huge fangirl for ian fleming.

i reaaaaaly liked this. i was sad about Q, but it did mean he lacked nine million magical gadgets of deat. 9_9

my dad and i decided it was the best on since from russia with love.

also, roger moore has been decided between our family as the worst bond of all time.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:52 am

I miss Q too, but they did have the gadget factor, at least insofar as he had those special trays in his car. I liked that he had to cycle through them to get to the gun too. That was more realistic, or just felt that way.

Besides, whats-his-name made a damn poor Q. I've typecasted him as a comedy type, not a scientist, even a fun-loving-gadget-making one.

CaptainClaude · Post by **CaptainClaude** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:55 am

Q would have been totally against the mood of the entire movie. it's a very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very necessary sacrifice

Noise Monkey · Post by **Noise Monkey** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:53 am

so, what are you saying Claude? they should've put Q in the movie?

Rickford · Post by **Rickford** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:00 am

I bloody loved the film. For me, the difference between 'Die Another Day' and 'Casino Royale', was similar to the difference between 'Batman and Robin', and 'Batman Begins'. The only way they could avoid the continuity of silliness was to draw it back to the beginning. I suspect we're gonna see a lot of that in films to come.

I liked the lack of gadgets, and the way in which the audience got all prepared for the car chase scene before the film turned around and said, ER NO, not happening in this film, bub.

My only problem with Casino Royale, was the poker. Not the premise of the poker tournament, but the way Bond plays like a total noob, when supposedly he's the best gambler M16 has. I could whip his arse at poker if he played like that in front of me!

The Neko · Post by **The Neko** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:48 am

I don't think MI6 has "good poker-playing skills" as the top of its criterion for entry. So perhaps being the best player there isn't saying much anyway.

TheSuburbanLetdown · Post by **TheSuburbanLetdown** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:56 am

Him not being great at poker fits the film pretty well too. He's a newly promoted Double 0 and he's still over-confident and rough around the edges.

Legendary · Post by **Legendary** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:26 am

RA wrote:also, roger moore has been decided between our family as the worst bond of all time.

Worse than Neil Connery?

Although he didn't play James Bond, he played "the younger brother of Britain's top secret agent" (so technically still a Bond) in "Operation Double 007" (Yes, that's Double double oh seven) and it was on Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Webkilla · Post by **Webkilla** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:34 am

Jackhass wrote: Although I loved the poker game scenes actually...they were te best part of the movie pretty much.

they were the ONLY good scenes in the movie... desbite being horribly predictable

CaptainClaude · Post by **CaptainClaude** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:36 am

Noise Monkey wrote:so, what are you saying Claude? they should've put Q in the movie?

MIND READER!

Rickford wrote:My only problem with Casino Royale, was the poker. Not the premise of the poker tournament, but the way Bond plays like a total noob, when supposedly he's the best gambler M16 has. I could whip his arse at poker if he played like that in front of me!

Bet you couldnt

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:45 am

If they wanted to have a spy movie, and not a poker movie, they really couldn't show Bond going through several dozen hands watching his opponent and learning his tells. They pretty much had to show him seeing a tell and going with it. Likewise, they really couldn't show that Bond performed hand after hand extremely well, playing the odds correctly and reading all his opponents perfectly (like Bond would, being Bond).

I think they did pretty well. I was not amused to hear that they were changing from Bacarat to Texas No Limit Holdem, but they managed to keep it... Bondlike in quality.

Jedster · Post by **Jedster** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:00 pm

It was a great film

I'm definately a big Bond fan but after the terrible tripe that was Die Another Day (let's see... Halle Berry, Madonna, dodgy CGI tidal wave surfing... need I go on?) I seriously worried about the franchise.

*enter fanboy mode*
Casino Royale was a breath of fresh air and I didn't mind the lack of Moneypenny and Q, though Moneypenny could easily be re-introduced if she was ever needed. I liked the lack of "here's some random gadgets", I prefer the earlier Bonds where Bond was presented with stuff he'd need on the mission instead of random exploding parker pens he could use, but have no relevance to the mission. I'd like the return of Q but maybe more in a role where he's not referred to as Q (Q being Major Bothroyd, and Q just being the department), and he provides Bond with something they know he needs for the coming mission... no playing silly buggers!
*exit fanboy mode*

Um, yeah, it was a really great film in general, regardless of it being Bond or not.

CaptainClaude · Post by **CaptainClaude** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:31 pm

"I'm the money"

"every penny of it"

that was enough for me.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:30 pm

I didn't like "Casino Royalle" all that much. I think that the fact that it was directed by various directors was not good idea, all segments worked nice but they didn't fit into each other, and directors were losing threads that other directors started and all... a few competent acters really did a good job of making it worthwhile, Piter Sellers was preciouss as allways, Orson Welles and Ursula Anders were very good. I found Woody Allen segment a bit lacking though, I think that director really undermined his routine.

CaptainClaude · Post by **CaptainClaude** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:54 pm

ha ha hhhhhhhha

Mr.Bob · Post by **Mr.Bob** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:49 pm

My lonely boycott still stands.

Axonite · Post by **Axonite** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:56 pm

mcDuffies wrote:I didn't like "Casino Royalle" all that much. I think that the fact that it was directed by various directors was not good idea, all segments worked nice but they didn't fit into each other, and directors were losing threads that other directors started and all... a few competent acters really did a good job of making it worthwhile, Piter Sellers was preciouss as allways, Orson Welles and Ursula Anders were very good. I found Woody Allen segment a bit lacking though, I think that director really undermined his routine.

And what about Barry Nelson as Bond? And Peter Lorre as Le Chiffre!

(Wrong wrong Casino Royale?)

I thought (the new) Casino Royale was pretty good... Not my favorite Bond movie ever (that'd be On Her Majesty's Secret Service), but much better than Die Another Day.

Mr.Bob · Post by **Mr.Bob** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:11 pm

Well making it out to be superior when comparing it to by far the worst bond movie ever out of a vast choice of twenty two films isn't very impressive.

Col · Post by **Col** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 8:34 pm

I likes it very much. In fact, I'm trying to find a time to go see it again with Anne this time.