I will say that both my fiance and I hated the fact that they changed the game to Texas Hold 'Em. I understand why they did it, but it just kind of tarnished the film a tad to us, to play so blatantly to the audience like that.
Is the movie set in the present day?
What do they play in casinos? (I honestly don’t know, I’m actually asking… Though I do bet they mostly play hold’em.)
-FrL-
Me too. As I said in the other thread, Bond shold start trends, not follow fads.
I thought it was the best Bond film since at least the Roger Moore years. I don’t know if I’m ready to say that Craig is a better Bond than Sean Connery but I liked him. He really seemed to be trying to play the character as a three dimensional human for a change. One thing I liked was that we got to see some of the humanity beneath the facade and we saw Bond playing that suave facade AS a facade. For instance both after he kills the thugs in Le Chiffre’s room and after he gets poisoned, he has to get himself together, fix his clothes and go back to the table looking cool and unruffled. Previous Bonds just ARE cool and unruffled at all times, with Craig we see a character who is forced to project that as a defense mechanism and it makes him more sympathetic.
We also see a Bond who has to work harder, get sweaty, get bloodied, and make mistakes. I liked Craig’s take on the character and hope he can keep getting some good scripts.
The movie, as a whole, was mostly enjoyable. Some parts dragged a little and the female lead was a little wooden (I don’t think her romance with Bond was really all that believable but what bond romance ever has been?) but all in all, it was a petty good reboot for the franchise.
Does anyone know if there is any intention to keep doing more faithful adaptations of the Flemming novels?
Saw it tonight, and up until a couple of days ago, I was in the “This is going to suck so hard” camp, however, I heard an interview with the screenwriters and they said that one of the things that they wanted to do with the film is tone down the humor, that made me think that the film had a chance to be good, and it was! Very close to Connory’s best, and I think that Craig certainly has a chance to equal or better Connory with the next one. There was definately a sense that they’re still feeling their way around the character, but I had very little trouble with the rough edges.
The theme song is atrocious, however, I think that they should have snagged Shirley Bassey again and had her do a decent song. The opening credits sequence didn’t work for me at all. I didn’t mind the change from the female figures, but what they came up with didn’t work, IMHO.
I agree that the film is a bit long, and could have benefitted from trimming. It made more sense than a lot of Bond films, however, which is a strong plus. I also think that Craig needs a good facial scar for the role. It would, IMHO, add to his portrayal of the character.
jimmmy, to answer your questionBond says that Le Cherriffe had to know that something was up because of the substitution. Not something that normally happens in those kinds of tournaments, I gather.
I wasn’t too enthusiastic about this one. In short, by shifting away from action comedy and big, flashy action scenes and omitting Q and the gadgets, they’re bringing it closer to dozens of lesser spy thrillers from the past generation. Very little of it stands out, although I did like the final action scene in Venice.
I have only seen the shorts and each time I do I am struck by the number of shots where Craig looks as though he is caught in the act of blowing someone a kiss. He didn’t really register with me in any of his roles that I have seen, so I have to ask, does he keep up this pursed lip look all movie?
I thought it was entertaining. I didn’t really like the schmoopy Bond in the last quarter or so of the film. I guess I can see that they were trying to lay the groundwork for why he’s emotionally dstant in future films, but it seemed odd that he’d fall in love so quickly.
It seemed that Craig spent most of the film running, wet, in various stages of undress, or some combination of those. Not that I minded. And to be even more shallow, I enjoyed the fact that this Bond spent more time in those states of undress than the women.
I don’t know about casinos, but if you remember, Bond usually (always?) played baccarat in the books, including Casino Royale.
Yeah, who does play Jimmy in this one? 
ATTENTION - I HAVE DONE MY BEST TO ACOID SPOILERS HERE BUT THERE ARE A FEW SO IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE FILM, DON’T READ ON.
I’ve always loved the Bond films. Escapism with a certain louche charm. I always liked all the Bonds - even the male model Lazenby and that sulker Dalton.
But I really disliked Casino Royale.
I should say that I didn’t dislike - 0r at least I don’t blame - the new Bond actor, Daniel Craig. I think he does have acting ability or, if he doesn’t, enough presence to film the screen. Connery couldn’t and doesn’t act much either - but he’s worth every penny on the screen. Craig may be the same.
No, my objections to the new Casino Royale are on a number of levels:
Firstly, this is not a Bond film any more. A Bond film has certain reliable elements. It has six highpoints of excitement in its 90-120 minutes spaced out evenly; it has a mcguffin you can follow in lieu of a plot that builds to a climax; it has an operatic villain who is ‘big’ enough to stand again the superhero Bond; and it dispenses with ‘real’ psychological interplay and dialogue in return for archetypical, mythic characterisation.
This new film has very few of these things. Fair enough, Barbara Brocolli. one of the Bon producers, and the big-haired, leathery-skilled Italian diva currently driving the franchise, has said she wants a ‘more realistic Bond’ for the 00s. In general terms this is a proven mistake - the Dalton experience showed that audiences don’t want realism, they want style, with and fantasy. More importantly, what Brocolli thinks of as ‘realistic Bond’ is not original - what she wants is the recreation on screen of the new Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer ‘realistic’ heroes. They’re pretty good, I admit, but they’re not Bond and it was a Bond film I came to see.
Secondly, the film is actually badly made. It’s constructed in such a clunky and clumsy way that it seems amateurish beside The Bourne Identity and 24 and Snatch and all those other, new swirlign thrillers. Let me give you an example; in the beginning Bond and a free jumper are engaged in a chase across a dramatic industrial site. They jump vast distances, they drop from great heights, they swing from cranes. But here’s the point - it’s not Bond who is being chased by the villain but the villain who is being chased by Bond. That means the villain - who is portrayed in the film as an ordinary common or garden baddy, nobody special - gets to do all tjhe great leaps, swirls and somersaults first. All Bond does is follow him and do them again five seconds later. Any cretin can see that this removes the excitement from the chase.
There are plenty of other examples of appalling film construction throughout casino Royal - the second hour of the film is given over to a card game, possibly one of the most visually passive sights there is to see. There are two episodes of violence in that hour but they don’t add anything to the plot or even to the dramatic progress of the film.
Thirdly, the dialogue is an abortion. There’s not better word for it. The wordplay started getting naffwith the Brosnan filsm (the two scriptwriters for those films worked on casino Royale) but here it is crass beyond belief. There is no wit at all - and the prolonged, endlessly turgid ‘love scenes’ between Bond and the love interest in this move are so leaden the screen nearly collapses uinder its own weight. I’m not going to drop any quotes here just in case you have not yet seen the film This is a franchise that has used good writers in the past - from George Macdonald ro Roald Dahl. A recent Bond survey on the Biond website shows that the most memorable incident in all the Bond films isn’t an explosion or an escape or a sjhooting - it’s a line of dialogue (the ‘Do you expect me to talk, Goldfinger’ line and its devastating riposte) For christ sakes, eon, spend the money and hire Martin Amis or Patrick Marber to pep p the dialogue.
Fourthly, this is not a Bond film for traditional Bond fans (by which I mean 27 year old, corpse-skinned, pizza-stuffed, basement dwelling male virgins); its is a Bond film for 35 year old single females and gay men. This is not Daniel Craig’s fault but that iof the director. The film is a paen to the physical beautfy of Daniel Craig’s physique. In the past, other directors would conentrate on the tits and asses of the beeeyootiful laydees who passed through Bond’s arms. In Casino Royale, there are prolonged and even articficially extended scenes where Bond pointlessly takes his shirt off, stands around in pants, rises from the sea (twice) and on, and on and on. Craig’s nipples get more airtime than the chief villain, goddamit, and by the end I hated them a lot more.
Please join with me no in a heartfelt rendition of Ernst Stavro Blofeld’s (as played by the immortal Donald Unpleasance) blurted command when he hears that someone, guess who?, has fired an explosive, cigarette-launched dart into his chief executioner’s chest and then removed the top of the false volcano so a swarm of ninjas can attack his base:
‘KILL, BOND. NOW!’.
Actually, it was that kind of bloated, ridiculous scene that made me stop watching Bond films.
Actually, jimmmy and Tuckerfan, to answer the question:The first sorta Bond girl who rode the horse on the beach knew Bond’s name. She was tortured before she died, so of course LeChiffe knew Bond’s name and that he was interested in her husband. When Bond told M that the girl knew nothing about him, it was a lie, since just earlier she had called him James.
What I couldn’t understand was M’s reasoning at the end.I figured the reason they left Vesper and Bond alive was because Vesper knew the account number and Bond knew the password. If they killed Bond, how would they get the money? So why did M say it was because Vesper loved him?
You haven’ seen a Bond film for 40 years? My dear fellow, you really should. Then you’d be qualified to see what bollocks this new one is.
Your question doesn’t logically follow my statement. I needn’t have missed every Bond film for the past 40 years. You see, my use of “that kind of…scene” should have told you that I was generalizing from that particular scene to a certain type of Bond setup involving wildly improbable secret hideouts, private armies dressed in polyester jumpsuits who attack the implacable (and nattily dressed) Bond one-at-a-time, planet-threatening mega-lasers, and (God help me) explosive, cigarette-launched darts. Silly, silly, silly.
Oh, you were being sarcastic. Whatever. Sarcasm should be cutting and topical, not logically inconsistent.
I have seen every Bond film in the last forty-four years, and Ogre has it right.
I give this one an A-. As noted a bit too long, but the first really fine Bond film in many a year. And it is about damned time.
Sir Rhosis
You said you hadn’t seen a Bond film since ‘You Only Live Twice’ which came out in 1967, forty years ago. If true, then no, you’re not qualified to talk about Casino Royale which came out this year. My implication wasn’t sarcastic, it was overt. Let me make it more so; your comment was crass.
I was really hoping to discuss the film rather than perceived slights to you. Sir Rhosis, for example, really like the film. He seems to be in the majority according to the critics generally and my friends who have also seen the film. Personally, I think the Craig Bond will go the way of the Dalton Bond - lauded by the critics, hated at the box office. Only time will tell.
Say what? I said, “Actually, it was that kind of bloated, ridiculous scene that made me stop watching Bond films.” That was my only statement. Are you confusing me with someone else?
Perhaps. But it least it made sense. I’ll leave the logical conclusion of that implication as an exercise for the reader.
Then perhaps in the future you will refrain from snidely responding to a perfectly valid opinion of “classic” Bond films.
In European casinos, I understand that pot-limit omaha is the game of choice. But that would have required ten minutes of explanation for us Americans, and it would have been boring:
[River card comes.]
Bond: I bet the pot.
Bad Guy: I raise the pot.
Bond: Pot!
Bad Guy: Pot!
Bond: Pot!
Bad Guy: I’ve got less than the pot, so I go all-in.
Bond: Well, I’m getting 30-1 on my money, I’ll call.
No one wants to see that.
Oh for gods sake, shut up and get back on topic.