Casino Royale thread (open spoilers after p 4)

I agree with you. The climactic card game took up an hour of the movie and, i thought, was poorly handled. Even the film makers seemed to understand that - that’s why they had to have Mathis and Vesper standing at the rails and talking about what was going on and what was going to happen next every five minutes.

In the books, as someone has mentioned, the game played was Baccarat. This is a game of chance and so would not be very cinematically intyeresting. There is - or was - a French version which does bring skill in to play, chemin de fer.

I personally don’t understand all the different versions of poker out there - didn’t understand what was going on at the table in this film (though I knew that it would follow the normal pattern: hero wins initially - then loses as villain reveals he’s been leading him on - villain tries to cheat, hero outsmarts him - villain plays honestly relying on unnatural brainpower to win - hero snatches victory on last card).

One thing that did impress me about the gambling scenes in this Bond film rather than those in other Bond films, which are full of gorgeous models and impecably dressed men, was that in this case all the women looked like raddled, middle-aged hookers and all the men like over-successful car dealers which, from myu limited experience at Crockfords in London, is exactly how the denizens of gaming clubs do look.

Hey, come on now. I don’t like Daniel Craig either but that kind of tone is not neccessary.

Ah, I see that self-restraint was too much to ask for. Ho hum.

I liked the Craig Bond quite a bit. Much more than Dalton, Moore, or the 20 minutes I saw of “Smirky” Brosnan. Connery was good for his time, but his performance wouldn’t stand up well today.

There’s no accounting for taste. You can’t argue art, as it isn’t derived from logic, but I couldn’t disagree with you more. The Bond movies had become ridiculously bloated and predictable, with eye-rolling gadgets and stunts that were obviously fake and held little suspense.

The people around me were audibly nervous about the card game.

Did anyone else see Richard Branson being searched in the Miami airport? I laughed, and I don’t think anyone else saw it, and in this hick town, they wouldn’t know who he was even if I told them.

Oh I agree with you there. The last Brosnan film has apsects that were insultingly stupid -from the invisible car to a performance by Toby Stephens that was both so hammy and corny it could have been its own sandwich.

And yet, there were aspects to it which remain vivid and, above all, stylish - both in terms of development, dialogue and character. Let me give you just three examples off the top of my head;

Development. The bomb in the brieface full of diamonds blows up and spatters half the chief villain’s face with crystals. That’s a great idea and comes into its own when the enxt time Bond sees him is during the pirsoner exchange ion that smoke-strewn bridge. That’s strong gilm-making. You know there’s going to be revenge coming…

Dialogue; OK, I have said that the dialogue in the Brosnan films was poor so it was but at least a few of the lines are memorable. I mean, ‘Get me a new anger management specialist’ was pretty fine.

Character; the blade fight ina burning airliner between Miranda Frost and Jinx, each the almost literal polar opposite of the other was excellently memorable.

…And bear in mind Die Another Day was a pretty bad Bond film.

And yet, I can remember almost nothing at all of similar interest in Casino Royale at all.

I enjoyed it quite a bit and I thought the card game scenes were handled very well.

A friend that I went with kept turning to me every time anyone’s cards would show and he’d make his predictions on what cards may come down on the table or what the chances that Bond or the Villian had of winning with their hands.

May not seem like a big deal, but it was a MOVIE, a predictable "hero-will-win’ scenerio. Yet, he and others in the theater, were actually excited about the game.

Movie can’t be all bad if a CARD game was exciting, right?

I loved it. I have every Bond movie on DVD, and am a big fan, and this is perhaps the best Bond since… well, maybe ever.

They’ve FINALLY give James back his plot! For the last five movies at least it’s been nothing but pretty girls, ugly villains, and gadgets, and while I can appreciate these, it is indeed nice to have a plot back.

I REALLY enjoyed this movie, and I really like how un-pretty-boyesque Craig is. He’s macho and manly, and him walking out of the water in his trunks took my breath away.

I really haven’t had much interest in Bond films for the last decade or so, but I’ll certainly see the next one.

Also, FWIW, I really enjoyed the card playing scenes - I liked watching the interplay between Bond and Le Cherife - the fact that Craig has those piercing blue eyes doesn’t hurt. :slight_smile:

Also, the chase scene at the beginning was fan-fuckin’-tastic.

Moderator mode:
cranston, a comment like “shut up” is rude and somewhat jerkish in this forum. You’re fairly new here, so think of this as a friendly, unofficial unofficial suggestion to please be more polite and well-mannered in future.

As Cardinal notes, discussions of art/entertainment are largely a matter of taste. There’s rarely right and wrong, there’s just different perspectives. And, certainly, when it comes to a movie, there are a lot of extraneous factors that can (consciously or unconsciously) affect one’s opinions – your expectations, how comfortable the seat was, the actions of others in the theatre, what one had to eat, etc. So, your opinion is yours, and others may have different opinions… all equally valid. It is unlikely that anyone will convince anyone else to like or dislike it if they’ve already formed their opinion. So, we discuss, we share viewpoints, but we do it in a polite, well-mannered way. OK?

:::Note to self, start working out so I can be in shape for the Summer Stalking Season.::: Just kidding!

My Brit friends noticed, but I wouldn’t have if they hadn’t.

I LOVED this movie. And Daniel Craig is hot. I was skeptical when I heard he’d been chosen to play Bond but he pulled it off splendidly. I haven’t been so immersed in a film for awhile. The only part that I noticed was when they mentioned 9/11 - that pulled me out for a moment, because it seemed so odd that they’d mention something that would give the movie a specific place in time.

My friend whispered “M-Bond slash fanfiction!” during the scene where Bond breaks into M’s apartment. :eek: I did NOT need that image in my head.

I liked this one considerably more than most. I liked it very very much. I like them all but I’d resolved in the last few years to appreciate them on a “ooh, good explosion. Oh, he’s gonna jump the what on that scooter?” level. This one had much more depth and I liked DC in the role very much. The franchise had gotten way too glib and smoove and huge-expensive-kabloom-effects, so this does feel more back to the Connery-era Bond and something more Fleming about it. It was also nice to see the stunts and chases done on a more human level but still very well done and tense, especially in Uganda. Scrambling over chain link fences and tripping on pipes rather than 200 foot freestyle ski jumps or motorcycling the Golden Gate Bridge cables.

Well, if you found it exciting I am genuinely glad for you. For me, it was a disappointment. Especially, since it was filmed in such a pedestrian way. If you want to see how a movie can make a card game look really exciting - fast, suspenseful and dynamic - check out The Cincinatti Kid and the poker game in Snatch - one was filmed fourty years ago and the other, just a few years ago. Both of them , using different techniques turn a card game into a ral gladiatorial joust.

This is exactly my feeling. I have been, for the last several Bond movies, just enjoying them for what they were; pretty, mindless, eye-candy. I didn’t expect a story line or plot except for the most tenuous thread holding each scene together by anything but the most superficial story. This one however, actually hold it’s own quite well. Even if you weren’t a Bond fan, it would be an enjoyable film, but as a Bond fan, I was thrilled.

ZipperJJ He drove a Ford Focus when he got to the Bahamas, and after that he won and Aston Martin, and then he drove the Aston Martin M gave him, which he tragically totaled, and also which apparently does not have air bags.

Well, the Aston Martin was a 1964 model… Did the have airbags then?

I cnnot believe that I am the only person in the world who didn’t think that Casino Royale wasn’t a disjointed, poorly scripted, badly filmed version of ‘24’ made for a largely bi-curious audience?

Am I really alone against humanity on this one? Now I truly know how Blofeld felt.

Not the one in Montenegro, that was a brand new Aston Martin DBS


Cranston, I don’t think we were watching the same movie. This description would be a disappointing thing to have happened, but it did not happen like that at all. In fact, I thought it was one of the coolest parts of the movie because it was the opposite of how you describe it.

The villain was obviously much faster and more agile than Bond, and did things that Bond could not hope to do. The cool part was how the villain would do something requiring incredible agility and leave Bond behind, but then Bond would do something different requiring brute strength to overcome the same obstacle in a different way. The best example of this was when the villain jumped up, swung on a pipe, and squeezed through an opening in a wall near the ceiling. Bond could never duplicate that feat, so he just crashes through the wall. I thought it was great the way he thought quickly enough to improvise solutions to obstacles when he could match the villain in ability.

Yes. Best Bond since Connery.

The film was definitely ten minutes too long though.