278 replies to this topic

[Jericho_One]

I just hope that for Bond 22 (or Bond 23, if they go the direct sequel route with 22), they go back to the mature, sophisicated modern-day Bond. It's one thing to try a different approach, but the idea of EON actually rebooting the series and KEEPING it that way makes me a little uneasy, for some reason.

Well, all the talk of rebooting the series has mostly been chronological in nature, and that's not going to change in the foreseeable future (if ever). I think as far as style is concerned, however, there's been a conscious effort to take the best the "classic" Bond era had to offer and mix it in with the best the modern day has. If they've succeeded, which I have a feeling they largely have, I hope they do maintain that aspect of the reboot as well.

Yep, something like that . But what I do enjoy the most about this all is that little feeling I get that Bond won't be predictable anymore, at least in the upcoming movies. Just like during the best Connery days. Remember FRWL?

[dinovelvet]

Just been on CraignotBond. The only review they've had the guts to post is the one from The Observer who seemed to be trying to be too clever for his own good.

Hmm, so they're posting a review which states "Craig is the first Bond since Connery who looks more than capable of doing his own stunts, he runs like a streetfighter, falls credibly from great heights and has been practising his free running.", "Craig, always a charismatic presence", and which ends with quotes from four other glowing reviews featuring the quotes "Craig is up there with the best. His sex appeal is off the scale.", "Daniel Craig is brilliant", "Craig holds the screen", and "you can bet on Craig being a hit".

LOL! Do they even know what the point of their own site is anymore?

[Dr. Noah]

http://www.sundaymir...-name_page.html

CASINO ROYALE (12A)
FILM OF THE WEEK
Mark Adams
5/5 stars

THE STARS: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench,
Caterinia Murino.

THE STORY: The storyline takes the franchise back to before James Bond
(Craig) held his licence to kill. After two assassinations he is
elevated to "00" status and sent on a mission to Madagascar and then
the Bahamas on a terrorist trail. He finds a link to Le Chiffre
(Mikkelsen), banker for the world's terrorist organisations and is
instructed by "M" (Dench) to observe Le Chiffre while he plays in a
high stakes poker game in a Montenegro casino. Additional interest
comes in the form of government money minder Vesper Lynd (Green), but
as the stakes are raised Bond and Lynd find themselves caught in a web
of deceit, passion and violence.

WHAT'S GOOD? Bond is back, and with a vengeance! This spellbinding
re-imagining of the James Bond spy myth sees 007 back to his
bone-crunching best, with Daniel Craig brilliantly intense and
gloweringly muscular. This new Bond is no bow-tie-wearing lightweight
smoothie, but a tough and determined street fighter who doesn't know
when to quit. Part way through the film, when he is readying to go the
casino, he gets handed a smart handmade dinner suit by sultry spy
squeeze Vesper Lynd (a sexy and convincing Eva Green). He reluctantly
puts it on and is suddenly transformed into the James Bond we know and
love - smooth, brutal, sensual and darn cool. As expected, the action
sequences are top notch, from the spectacular opening chase through to
the brutal fist fights.

Great locations, stylish action and fabulous cars are all excellently
filmed by director Martin Campbell who keeps the pace up throughout the
film. Danish star Mads Mikkelsen makes for an impressively sadistic
villain, while the familiar sight of Judi Dench as "M" is a suitable
and subtle link between the Bond films of old and this new one. And
rest assured, the cars, guns, stunts and sheer sense of 007 style is
still brilliantly intact.

WHAT'S BAD? If you are looking for a Bond bearing spy gadgets and
battling tall blokes with metal teeth, then this new Bond is going in
the wrong direction for you - this time round the story is complex but
more grounded. Instead of a plethora of gimmicks this Bond simply has a
fast car and lets his fists and guns do the talking. No Miss Moneypenny
and no "Q" I'm afraid and, while the one-liners are still there, they
are more subtle. Though she looks the part, Green never quite cuts it
as a foil for this brutal Bond. Yes, it is long at over two hours, but
there is a lot to pack in and frankly you just can't get enough of this
new-look 007.

HOW LONG IS IT? A breathtaking 144mins.

FINAL VERDICT: Bond is brilliant! One of the best 007 films ever.

Opens Friday, Nov 17

[kneelbeforezod]

Dr Noah is back!

But I hope they haven't neutered you... otherwise it will feel a bit Clockwork Orange...

[Dr. Noah]

Dr Noah is back!

But I hope they haven't neutered you... otherwise it will feel a bit Clockwork Orange...

I got engaged. I was at Zion National Park for a week.

We're signing a pre-nup -- she gets half of my stuff, as long as she agrees to watch CR 39 straight times with me in two weeks.

[spynovelfan]

These are extraordinary reviews, aren't they?

Even the Observer one (always been a bit sniffy about Bond, seems to be making an over-clever point) is complimentary about Craig.

Exciting, isn't it?

Yes. Obviously, the film won't be perfect. But I'm starting to wonder if all the talk of Brosnan saving the franchsie might be eclipsed a little. Box office is one thing, but the long-term future of the franchise is also very important, and this *may* signal a new era. One where brilliant directors want to and are allowed to take part in Bond films, for example.

Just a thought.

[JCRendle]

Dr Noah is back!

But I hope they haven't neutered you... otherwise it will feel a bit Clockwork Orange...

I got engaged. I was at Zion National Park for a week.

We're signing a pre-nup -- she gets half of my stuff, as long as she agrees to watch CR 39 straight times with me in two weeks.

Congratulations mate

[Dr. Noah]

Dr Noah is back!

But I hope they haven't neutered you... otherwise it will feel a bit Clockwork Orange...

I got engaged. I was at Zion National Park for a week.

We're signing a pre-nup -- she gets half of my stuff, as long as she agrees to watch CR 39 straight times with me in two weeks.

Congratulations mate

Thanks! I was halfway expecting her to push me off the cliff.

[dinovelvet]

Dr Noah is back!

But I hope they haven't neutered you... otherwise it will feel a bit Clockwork Orange...

I got engaged. I was at Zion National Park for a week.

We're signing a pre-nup -- she gets half of my stuff, as long as she agrees to watch CR 39 straight times with me in two weeks.

Only 39? Lightweight!

Congrats!

[Dr. Noah]

Dr Noah is back!

But I hope they haven't neutered you... otherwise it will feel a bit Clockwork Orange...

I got engaged. I was at Zion National Park for a week.

We're signing a pre-nup -- she gets half of my stuff, as long as she agrees to watch CR 39 straight times with me in two weeks.

Only 39? Lightweight!

Congrats!

She negotiated it down from 80. With meals in between.

[Publius]

Yes. Obviously, the film won't be perfect. But I'm starting to wonder if all the talk of Brosnan saving the franchsie might be eclipsed a little. Box office is one thing, but the long-term future of the franchise is also very important, and this *may* signal a new era. One where brilliant directors want to and are allowed to take part in Bond films, for example.

Just a thought.

I think where GoldenEye saved the franchise commercially, Casino Royale will save it artistically.

Yep, something like that . But what I do enjoy the most about this all is that little feeling I get that Bond won't be predictable anymore, at least in the upcoming movies. Just like during the best Connery days. Remember FRWL?

Agreed. So now we have Bond being Bond and EON living up to their namesake. What's the world coming to?

And MystikTK, yes, as JimmyBond and JCRendle put it, the fact that Bond is a new 00 will likely become increasingly vague, so that, for example, Bond 22 might follow him on a mission later than his second. It'll still be a separate continuity from the others, but probably vague enough that if you can overlook the technological differences, you might still be able to shoehorn them all in together, if that's what you really want. But I don't think it's worth the trouble.

[bond 16.05.72]

These are extraordinary reviews, aren't they?

Even the Observer one (always been a bit sniffy about Bond, seems to be making an over-clever point) is complimentary about Craig.

Exciting, isn't it?

Yes. Obviously, the film won't be perfect. But I'm starting to wonder if all the talk of Brosnan saving the franchsie might be eclipsed a little. Box office is one thing, but the long-term future of the franchise is also very important, and this *may* signal a new era. One where brilliant directors want to and are allowed to take part in Bond films, for example.

Just a thought.

I think this is a great point, the fact this seems to be getting glowing reviews and the credibility of the series has returned that decent respected directors may indeed be seduced by the idea of directing a Bond flick.

Craig's casting seems to have paid off in spades and the almost majority opinion is he's the best thing about CR, ironic considering he was being called the downfall of the series before anyone had seen any footage of him as Bond.

CR shows Bond can be done classy and with some real depth, this should secure Bond's future and should have no problem with it storming into the 21st century, Directors who normally wouldn't of touched Bond with a bargepole will seriously consider that they may be able bring something to susequent entries and not have to sell their soul like Tamorhori with DAD.

Watch out Jack Bauer & Jason Bourne, the original JB's back in town and he's ready to kicks some .

[JimmyBond]

I think they mean that after this film, the fact that he is new wont really be mentioned and it will just carry on with Bond as an agent.

Right, with the possible Vesper reference every now and then replacing the old references to Bond's marraige we got in the other films (I doubt this new Bond is going to be wed the same way, been there, done that).

[Loomis]

Nice little round up here from the BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/6116286.stm

"It's Bond, but not as we've known it," according to the Telegraph.

"The guns and action are there... the girls are certainly there... but the clonking double entendres of the old days are gone - in their place is a much more teasing, smartly written prospect."

Daniel Craig had a face "like an Easter Island statue" and makes "a terrific debut", it added.

I love that face like an Easter Island statue bit. Is it meant to be complimentary? I presume it is, but it cracks me up.

[Publius]

I love that face like an Easter Island statue bit. Is it meant to be complimentary? I presume it is, but it cracks me up.

Double meaning, perhaps? That he's deadly serious, but with a rough-around-the-edges physical appeal?

[Loomis]

I love that face like an Easter Island statue bit. Is it meant to be complimentary? I presume it is, but it cracks me up.

Double meaning, perhaps? That he's deadly serious, but with a rough-around-the-edges physical appeal?

Sure, but I just find it rather funny. It sounds like a compliment that's worded in such a way that it could easily seem a diss. Perhaps it's just me, though. Of course, it's perfectly understandable in the context of a film review concerning Flemmmming's Gritty Vision Of Bond™, but it conjures the image of Babs, Mikey and co. sitting around saying "We need to find an actor who looks like an Easter Island statue". I just find it quite amusing. No biggie, though.

[MystikTK]

I think they mean that after this film, the fact that he is new wont really be mentioned and it will just carry on with Bond as an agent.

Right, with the possible Vesper reference every now and then replacing the old references to Bond's marraige we got in the other films (I doubt this new Bond is going to be wed the same way, been there, done that).

Hmmmmm...very interesting. Thanks for the replies.

I'm still undecided on the whole concept, though. As for marriage, personally, I like knowing Bond was wed. It adds even more to the human aspect that EON seems to be going for this time around. I think I'd still be happier if they just kept the CR style and went back to the Moore-Brosnan time frame for the next film or even for Bond 23.

That said, if there was a time to reboot the franchise, it's only fitting that it's now, after EON was finally able to make the film version of the first novel that they always wanted to. In that light, it makes perfect sense to go this route. I'm sure that's been said countless times before, though and, as I said, I'm still personally unsure of the whole reboot concept. I guess I'll have to give it two or three films before I decide.

Also, for the record, I just want to add that my concerns about CR (and now the future films) were only regarding the reboot. I was never one of the people against Craig. Understandably, I had my doubts, which is only natural any time someone new takes over such a beloved role. However, it seems like DC has done very well with the chance he's been given and I look forward to seeing him in action for myself in two weeks.

Edited by MystikTK, 06 November 2006 - 04:11 AM.

[blueman]

Well I think after Bond (Connery), the model Bond (Lazenby), the funny Bond (Moore), the experiment Bond (Dalton), and now the reboot Bond (Craig), Brosnan will probably become known as...not the GameBoy Bond or the TV Bond or the kitchen sink Bond but the



Seat-warming Bond. You heard it here first.

[Fro]

Not really a review, but this one is hilarious

http://www.moviehole...nkey_61106.html

This one time, at Bond Camp. I’m actually awaiting my invitation to the premiere on November 14th (the same date Clint gets to see the movie in Australia!). It’s being shown in every cinema apparently, in Leicester Square, with the ‘stars’ and guests being ushered into select picture houses. There’s been various reviews already, though most are bias. They either know Daniel Craig or have some link to the movie in some way. A pal of mine who has seen it though says that Mads Mikkelsen who plays the terrorist banker Le Chiffre in the movie is pretty weak as far as villains go and if they wanted to crank up Bond in a ‘Bourne’ way, then they haven’t succeeded. I don’t think you could ever do that with Bond. Q and Pierce had the idea to do Casino Royale and I imagine they, together, could be the only ones to make it trendier and ‘bloody up’ Bond.

So all the reviewers of the movie have been biased since they know Daniel Craig or worked on the movie? And only QT and Brosnan could make a "hip" Bond movie with blood? This guy seriously sounds like a CNBer.

Edited by Fro, 06 November 2006 - 04:31 AM.

[Harmsway]

The idea that QT and Pierce are the only ones who could make a trendier and bloodier Bond is ridiculous. Honestly, I wouldn't have ever really bought Pierce Brosnan as Bond in a darker, more serious setting - it would be like Roger Moore in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (which was gritty for Roger Moore... but it was *still* Roger Moore's Bond).

[Qwerty]

Well this is certainly shaping up to be one hell of a movie, isn't it?

[dinovelvet]

Not really a review, but this one is hilarious

http://www.moviehole...nkey_61106.html

This one time, at Bond Camp. I’m actually awaiting my invitation to the premiere on November 14th (the same date Clint gets to see the movie in Australia!). It’s being shown in every cinema apparently, in Leicester Square, with the ‘stars’ and guests being ushered into select picture houses. There’s been various reviews already, though most are bias. They either know Daniel Craig or have some link to the movie in some way. A pal of mine who has seen it though says that Mads Mikkelsen who plays the terrorist banker Le Chiffre in the movie is pretty weak as far as villains go and if they wanted to crank up Bond in a ‘Bourne’ way, then they haven’t succeeded. I don’t think you could ever do that with Bond. Q and Pierce had the idea to do Casino Royale and I imagine they, together, could be the only ones to make it trendier and ‘bloody up’ Bond.

So all the reviewers of the movie have been biased since they know Daniel Craig or worked on the movie? And only QT and Brosnan could make a "hip" Bond movie with blood? This guy seriously sounds like a CNBer.

Yeah its pathetic really. If you look at past articles they have run about CR, they've all been negative. When the AICN review ran, that site claimed that it was a plant and the real reaction at the screening was negative. And now there's a massive conspiracy with The Times, Mirror, Observer, Guardian, and everyone else on EON's payroll? Great scoop there guys. I guess the bottom feeder movie sites like this have to try to do something to try to take some attention away from the big hitters like joblo, dark horizons, AICN, etc.

Oh and he's waiting for his invite to the premiere? LOL, I'm sure Sony will be rushing to get that in the mail.

Erm, wait a minute - the writer of this article is working on The Bourne Ultimatum? Yeah, no anti-Bond bias here then, is there?

[K1Bond007]

Well he is a monkey.

[Qwerty]

Now on the CBn main page...

Casino Royale Earns Early Rave Reviews

_{Majority of critics praise the newest 007 film}

[K1Bond007]

RT updated. Currently 80%: 4 to 1 (Guardian) fresh. All reviews you've already seen. Hopefully more will be added soon. Not that this currently matters. It's hardly indicative of anything either way.

Weren't the majority of the reviews supposed to be released by this Friday or something? I think I read that here. I don't know.

[Onlooker]

I love that face like an Easter Island statue bit. Is it meant to be complimentary? I presume it is, but it cracks me up.

Double meaning, perhaps? That he's deadly serious, but with a rough-around-the-edges physical appeal?

Easter Island statues are craggy. Very craggy. It is a compliment in the sense that they think he manages to overcome his less than noble appearance.

[Jackanaples]

I love that face like an Easter Island statue bit. Is it meant to be complimentary? I presume it is, but it cracks me up.

Double meaning, perhaps? That he's deadly serious, but with a rough-around-the-edges physical appeal?

Easter Island statues are craggy. Very craggy. It is a compliment in the sense that they think he manages to overcome his less than noble appearance.

I'd say it's also a compliment in that the Easter Island statues are noted for being monolithic, mysterious, and standing out impressively from the landscape. In my opinion it's about as far away from a dis as you can get. They're saying Craig is a bit iconic.

[stone cold]

i wonder if there is a strong possibility that Speilberg will direct the next Bond movie.

With CR the series has got its edge back, a return to old school cinematic grandeur, to classic sweeping plots, exciting action.. as someone said it has - in one fell swoop - regained its artistic integrity and ability to make people excited.

also - Craig is respected and liked by some important people in Hollywood. Pure class. He and Speilberg are friends.. and Speilberg almost certainly backed him up throughout the last year - through some difficult times. I think Speilberg will be forceful in his appreciation and support for craig. I truly believe it. My hope is that having proved himself in such a trial by fire as CR..Craig will have the confidence and support now to ask Speilberg to direct - pleeeease!!! lol dream on !!!

but i can say this - i believe that Bond films will never be the same from now on. respect to EON for turning this around so smartly and boldly - Bond is back!!. dont irrationally fear the reboot - as i have said before, the hi tech lameness of the brosnan years was the misfiring reboot .. CR is a return to greatness. I hope they don;t drop the ball by backing down now.. Bond 22 needs to be great.. pure class, an era defining movie. Now Eon have upped their game i think they will go for the kill with the next movie. Like batman they have revitalised the franchise, I bet they are buzzing now they have achhieved such an inspired and solid reimagining of the series. With Craig supernova as Bond - they can do anything.

Speilberg, Michael Mann, Nolan - Campbell? - only the best will do.

Edited by stone cold, 06 November 2006 - 11:02 AM.

[stone cold]

yeah easter island statue - a good comparison. craggy, roughed up, it refers to Craigs strong features, dramatic brow and jaw.. he's quite something to behold i think. One reviewer refered to his endlessly fascinating face. I think DC is bringing back some real masculinity to cinema.. in terms of his physique and looks. I think thats exciting in a lot of ways. very interesting that craigs look has caused such a stir - it shows how sadly narrowed and commercially led alot of people have become on this front. But if anything he can turn it round, his presence is that strong. despite the nerves dont worry young people are into daniel craig - they know cool when they see it. Its so interesting cos i know people who think he is literally devastatingly attractive, handsome and sexy - and then u get people who think hes ugly because they are primed to only watch out for some groomed hottie or whatever - thats not the real world. Craig is very real, but also fascinatingly he has that star quality that makes someone come alive on the silver screen. - and that quality is unreal, i mean - something else. Hes got somethng classic about him. like the lovechild of mcqueen and brando ( ? ) with a ten ton dose of cool and more mojo than a thousand auston powers.

I dont think audiences would ever really buy into a pretty boy actor playing this kind of role - or only superficially. very rarely can certain actors draw upon real charisma when they can just do their kind of male model thing. Brosnan, however likable, came close to this kind of bland presence. Craig is part of a trend i think toward a more exciting, classic and dangerous leading man. If you think about it dark stars like Bale, Gyllenhaal, Bana, Crowe, Damon, maybe even Bernal, Peter Saarsgard. ramping up the edgyness so you never quite know what to make of them- - all have a slightly unorthadox glamour, sexy imperfection, raw charisma and brooding menace/vulnerability that makes them burn up the screen. We have become so used to airbrushed people that i think many people will welcome Craigs raw exciting presence. anyway i think thats what some of these reviews are getting at. you know..thank god they took a risk. that was the challenge wasnt it? anyone can cast a typical Bond - he had become a empty icon,a cliche, a milk tray man,a slick charmer in a suit - EON realised they had to take the risk in casting to avoid being consigned forever to tv-movie bond. thank god they did.

love the way craig says ' may i join you' or something in the new tv spot!!!

Edited by stone cold, 06 November 2006 - 11:35 AM.

[Mr_Wint]

Early reviews are almost always extremely positive (especially those from the fan community).

http://commanderbond...=Story&SID=1733

http://www.ianflemin...dayreview.shtml

http://www.ianflemin...ent/000021.html