Did it feel like A bond film?
#1
Posted 17 November 2006 - 11:01 PM
#2
Posted 17 November 2006 - 11:18 PM
#3
Posted 17 November 2006 - 11:23 PM
#4
Posted 17 November 2006 - 11:43 PM
#5
Posted 17 November 2006 - 11:52 PM
#6
Posted 17 November 2006 - 11:53 PM
Daniel Craig did an awesome job...I could not picture Brosnan in this movie (and I actually liked Brosnan's Bond).
Mads Mikkelsen was a creepy-cool villain, just as I imagined he would be.
I liked how they used the title theme throughout the movie, it still had a Bond sound to it, and you didn't hear the actual Bond theme until the end...after he says 'the line' and we see a hint of the Bond to come.
For me, this was Bond, no question. Maybe not the Bond we're used to, but Bond none-the-less.
#7
Posted 18 November 2006 - 12:01 AM
It's a new Bond for a new era and I'm gagging for the next one! Of course, there's always Sunday's viewing of Casino Royale before that.
#8
Posted 18 November 2006 - 12:07 AM
#9
Posted 18 November 2006 - 12:25 AM
This film had a proper script and a proper plot with some real emotional drive, I'm sorry if that's too much for you to take but the series wouldn't have survived much more DAD rubbish.
This film makes DAD seem like Batman & Robin to Batman Begins, which i was hoping was it's purpose, to renergise the series and make it stand out once again.
Edited by bond 16.05.72, 18 November 2006 - 12:26 AM.
#10
Posted 18 November 2006 - 01:29 AM
I didn't really think it felt like a bond film untill the very end. The movie had a lot of chases and action but it didn't feel like a bond movie. Don't get me wrong it kicked but it felt like there was something missing. Like for example the part "Vodka Martini, Shaken or Stired? Does it look like I give a damn?" thats not something james bond would say. Maybe its just my opinion but idk. Great though 5 out of 5!!!!
Did it feel like A bond film?
A big yes from me!
Let's remember this film is all about the beginning of Bond's status as a "00" agent.
I really enjoyed the "Does it look like I give a damn?" line. Playing with around the old chestnut "shaken not stirred" was good fun. Le Chiffre had just outwitted him and Bond had lost all H.M. Treasury's cash so I think it was reasonable for him to be a bit tetchy.
The end was perfect for me. The whole film was about his journey from Commander James Bond to the cool, ruthless, detached, calculating 007. When Craig uttered those immortal words, "My names Bond, James Bond" and the Bond theme kicked in it ended the film on a real high.
It was also the perfect final line of the film for Daniel Craig as an answer to all those spiteful and pathetic criticisms and boycott calls that were given a ridiculously high profile by the media.
Daniel Craig not Bond? Oh yes he f*&$ing is!
#11
Posted 18 November 2006 - 01:51 AM
#12
Posted 18 November 2006 - 02:00 AM
Craig pulled it off, he is the new Bond, no two ways about it!
#13
Posted 18 November 2006 - 02:05 AM
#14
Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:37 AM
#15
Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:45 AM
This is the new standard for what makes a Bond film, and a good one at that. It's also a better standard. I'm not complaining.
My thoughts exactly.
#16
Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:28 AM
#17
Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:30 AM
and know that the next film will probably end up having the theme throughout the film..
God I hope not. I'm sick and tired of the James Bond theme.
#18
Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:00 PM
and know that the next film will probably end up having the theme throughout the film..
God I hope not. I'm sick and tired of the James Bond theme.
Well, I've heard that to please Dlibrasnow, in the next movie they're using the "Dr Who" theme instead.
#19
Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:12 PM
Like for example the part "Vodka Martini, Shaken or Stired? Does it look like I give a damn?" thats not something james bond would say. Maybe its just my opinion but idk. Great though 5 out of 5!!!!
But remember, he already ordered a martini shaken not stirred earlier in the movie...
All in all yes it felt like a Bond movie...just a little bit different from what we're used to. And I loved it.
#20
Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:20 PM
I didn't really think it felt like a bond film untill the very end. The movie had a lot of chases and action but it didn't feel like a bond movie. Don't get me wrong it kicked but it felt like there was something missing. Like for example the part "Vodka Martini, Shaken or Stired? Does it look like I give a damn?" thats not something james bond would say. Maybe its just my opinion but idk. Great though 5 out of 5!!!!
Well if i just lost 47million in a poker game i would be that pissed off i wouldn't "give a Damn" what i'd be drinking .
#21
Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:24 PM
Why?
No Q
No Moneypenny
No gadgets
No girls in the titles
No big villain - Ian Fleming would disapprove of this story - where was it?
No locations - why not France?
No humour
No good ending - Bond should always end with the girl. Hopefully with the funny jokes
No sets - I was expecting a big battle in the Casino Royale. Wasn't it the baddie's HQ in the original?
No 007 Theme - only came at the end
No proper Bond song - you cannot have the American rock as Bond song. Bring back Shirley Bassey or Carly Simon. They would have done a good song.
Why no Blofeld or big plan? The last few Bond films suffer from this.
I think a lot of peoples have been fooled by Daniel Craig. He is good actor with good body but Bond is not Arnold Schwartzenegger. Daniel is too tough. Roger said that Bond is someone who does not like killing - Daniel does.
I'm glad that some of the peoples have agreement with me and that I am not alone.
#22
Posted 18 November 2006 - 03:28 PM
Roger said that Bond is someone who does not like killing - Daniel does.
That was Rogers opinion of his portrayal as Bond
and for your other comments, i disagree... Considerably
#23
Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:01 PM
I did not realize you like it even less than me, mharkin. What you not like about Casino Royale? I thought you did not like Craig but thought the rest of the movie was average.Roger said that Bond is someone who does not like killing - Daniel does.
That was Rogers opinion of his portrayal as Bond
and for your other comments, i disagree... Considerably
#24
Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:03 PM
#25
Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:31 PM
so when I'm watching a Connery Bond film and he's in some kind of danger or something (or if I'm reading the novels actually), in my brain, I'm screaming "James look out!" or something similar.. I always just watched Moore/Dalton/Lazenby/Brosnan in the sense that I was never emotionally attached to their view of Bond enough to get that mentally engaged..
It only took Craig a scene and a half to totally pull me in to the believability of his Bond.. during the crane scene, I had my hands half covering my face and my brain was screaming "Bond OMG JAMES!!!!".. afterwards I was like, Damn, that's the first Bond movie I've seen since Diamonds are Forever!
so yeah, nerdiness aside, this feels like the first Bond film since 1973
#26
Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:34 PM
#27
Posted 18 November 2006 - 04:45 PM
I loved both Brosnan and Moore and the old style bond films...with that said, I loved this movie too. However, it didnt feel like a bond movie to me...it was in the vein of a Bourne Identity. (Some here have said it isnt a Bourne Identity but I disagree.) As the film went along, the way it was filmed and acted, I kept thinking this was a Bourne film with the Bond things added to it. The script, the acting, EVERYTHING was superb. But, I walked out thinking it was a Bond Identity. And when you think about it, it couldnt help to be that way becuase it is the way of action spy films now. And Bond was trying to find his 'identity'.I think the people who think it's not like a Bond movie have had their view of Bond distorted by the likes of Moore & Brosnan, if it dosn't have cheesy one liners or over the top gadgets it's not a Bond film, please the series wasn't always found on this ethic, this is more of Fleming's vision and if you don't like it, then tough! cause I'm sure their's more to come.
This film had a proper script and a proper plot with some real emotional drive, I'm sorry if that's too much for you to take but the series wouldn't have survived much more DAD rubbish.
This film makes DAD seem like Batman & Robin to Batman Begins, which i was hoping was it's purpose, to renergise the series and make it stand out once again.
Craig was great. But, he was helped by a great script. This carried him as Bond because it played to his strengths in his acting. The next film will be a tell tale sign as to how he is with the Bond character. If they stay in this Bourne type film he will be awesome. If they go to far back to the old formula he could be in trouble.
This even happened with Brosnan. Goldeneye was great and then they started the 'cheesy' scripts with TND forward...Let's hope that they keep the scripts coming that play to the characters strengths so he will be accepted as Bond instead of making him fit a mold he cant equate.
#28
Posted 18 November 2006 - 05:04 PM
It felt more like a Bond film then anything since Goldeneye at least. Probably more like a Bond film than anything since Sean Connery's early days. I loved every minute of it, especially Craig's performance. And I really hope they dont go back to the uninspired crap they did in the last 3 films after CR, that would be a major let down after seeing the first real Bond movie in years.
agreed. casino royale felt much more like a classic bond film that will hopefully be treasured for years.