I'm a little bit confused here!
The first time I watched Casino Royale(1966 version), I just hated it.
Yesterday I watched it again and now I love it. In my opinion it's just great fun. Although it's still like a TV-series cut together with every second episode left out, it has some excellent moments. You think you've gone to toilette several times and missed something important, but you didn't move at all.
Fantastic! ...or not?
Casino Royale
Started by
boeserzwilling
, Jun 29 2002 03:59 PM
7 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 29 June 2002 - 03:59 PM
#2
Posted 29 June 2002 - 07:10 PM
I always hated CS until I saw it with an audience. Somehow it was a completely different experience, it really went over well and I loved it. Strange.
Too bad I can
Too bad I can
#3
Posted 30 June 2002 - 12:45 PM
I first saw it before the age of 10, so I didn't follow many films well. As it happens, I saw it recently and can understand why I didn't follow it very well before. I still feel there is no need for the UFO but after having watched it recently, I feel that it is an average film. Harmless, yet a little unnecessary.
#4
Posted 12 July 2002 - 01:18 AM
Its a terribly overlong film, but I like it. Some of it doesnt work for me, notably the lame ending. Other than that I have no real problem with it.
#5
Posted 13 July 2002 - 02:01 PM
You have to admit that Casino Royale has a great sixties theme tune which, although not Bondian, is very swinging. I think Peter Seller's contract ran out so he decided not to renew it which is why he disappears suddenly from the film.
#6
Posted 13 July 2002 - 02:09 PM
a harmless spoof on the Bond franchise, noting more, nothing less. good fun.
#7
Posted 13 July 2002 - 03:56 PM
Originally posted by ShockTroop22
a harmless spoof on the Bond franchise, noting more, nothing less. good fun.
I wonder if it was all that harmless? Perhaps with the spoof association with the film, EON don't want to make Casino Royale as a proper entry to the Bond film canon now? I understand that the original novel might not stand up as a plot today, but that's been the same story with other Bond novels - however they were rewritten for the films. The same could be done for Casino - with the story about Bond having to outplay Le Chiffre forming a minor part of the overall plot. So I'm guessing the only other reason must be that it has already been made as a spoof and so is now less original than a story which has never been filmed before.
#8
Posted 14 July 2002 - 02:16 AM
I think it's a case of "cuuting your nose off to spite your face."
Now that Eon own the rights to CR the legal papers will be forever buried in the vault, never to see the light of day. Eon won't want to make a movie called Casino Royale because it would be called a "remake of that 60's romp" by the press, and Eon would just hate that.
So, they'll never make it and neither can anyone else. "So there!" says Eon.
Now that Eon own the rights to CR the legal papers will be forever buried in the vault, never to see the light of day. Eon won't want to make a movie called Casino Royale because it would be called a "remake of that 60's romp" by the press, and Eon would just hate that.
So, they'll never make it and neither can anyone else. "So there!" says Eon.