thank you - someone sensible but yeah, I like Daniel Craig I think he has a ton of charisma with a rough edge that makes him perfect for the role
I don't think of it as a typical "bond film" because they all had their own formula and genre. This was something different. The other films are great for what they are, but I actually liked this better than any of the previous. They can't all be Moonraker, you know. (Thank God.) Sheesh, December? I responded to a thread from December?
I never did like James bond movies, as they were just so ridiculous. Only one I ever cared for was the ORIGINAL Casino Royale. Havent seen the new one and probably never will, as I am so sick of remakes. Hollywood must have run out of original ideas with all the remakes they have made lately.
Brosnan's Bond was a prissy little shit. I mean, I like pretty much all of the Bond movies, but Brosnan's wasn't that great. Goldeneye was fun, but the problem with his Bond flicks is that they kept trying to one up and outdo every last flick and it became more about stunts and contrived plots rather than anything of substance. Casino Royale was a return to Connery-esque form where it was a bit more focused on Bond himself rather than all the gadgets and bullshit. And Daniel Craig was pretty badass as Bond.
^ Thank you! I HATE Brosnan as Bond, he's not a real man; he's a posh little poofter. It was like they went from the (old) Brawny guy to the (new) Brawny Guy
Casino Royale was good shit, definitely in top 5 bonds. It didn't have crazy-whack action, but it at least portrayed Bond in a more realistic way. Want mindless killing with explosions and car flips, watch Rambo. Awesome directing and plot, and finally someone better than pretty-boy Brosnan
I haven't seen Casino Royale so I can't comment on this one. But one of the problems with the recent James Bond movies is that ever since Ian Flemming died, the stories are not as well crafted as some of the older stories. I loved the earlier Bond films and some of the newer ones are alright but not quite as good. Some of the special effects are cool but that's not why most people are into Bond movies.
They should remake this. But that would be the 4th remake. It sucked so bad. But how often do you get to say that about a James Bond film?
Yea i thought it was pretty good. It did lack technology but it made up for it with the ashton martin db9 with the velvet dashboard.
Whaddya mean but? That's the best part. All the fuckin Brosnan ones were was technology. Fucking boring.
The 2006 Casino Royale was the 3rd movie based on that Bond story. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/search/full_search.php?search=casino+royale kkthxbye
No, that was Roger Moore. Craig brings more of a Timothy Dalton personna back to Bond. But the critics hated Dalton accusing him of taking his role too seriously. As far as Brosnan goes the reason why he wasn't given the part when he was younger is because the TV show he was in wouldn't let him out of his contract. Later Brosnan complained that he wasn't being given good enough scripts so what could he do? To me "Die Another Day" was great as it reminded me of "Thunderball". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_of_Solace
what an insane review. True, this bond film doesn't really compare with the others, for it was a huge step back to show bond becoming BOND. So, shit, if you don't like it...thats too bad.
Hi. I never saw this movie. I saw the first one with David Niven and Peter Sellers, when I was a kid. It was a comedy. Loved the soundtrack etc.
Still not making it a remake as they are separate adaptations of the novel... And the Peter Sellers one counts as much as Austin Powers.
Casino Royale (Daniel Craig, Eva Green) 2006 Casino Royale (Michael Pate, Peter Lorre, Barry Nelson) 1954