[QUOTE=cormac262]
Remember that implant he receives early on in the movie ? Not only does it let MI-6 know his where-abouts, but it is also sampling his blood and vitals to provide insight into what is going on with his body.
[/QUOTE]
I thought he had to hook up a device from the car to send his vitals.
Another vote for “rocked.” To repeat what others have said, it jump-started a series that had gone beyond self parody into utter boredom. It restarted Bond, rather than continuing him as a caricature of a '60’s playboy who had survived–unaged!–into the new century. And yes, Craig did play him as a bad-ass near psycopath, but that’s what Bond should be–he’s a government hitman after all, that’s what the 00 status means. The action sequences were thrilling, Bond the lover was convincing as a charismatic man’s man in the Connery mold, rather than the pretty-boy he had become under Brosnan and (somehow) Moore. The very last scene really gave me a charge as it signified that this new Bond had finally completed his origin story.
[QUOTE=cormac262]
The one exception (and this goes with the not Bond thing) was that I was sorely disappointed with the blatant sell-out to use Texas Hold 'em, and not Baccarat as the showdown game with Le Chiffre. Although I can see the plot aspect of the strategy with the game (Baccarat has far less strategy - no bluffing). But it seemed such a blatant marketting ploy to cash in on the Hold 'em craze sweeping the nation (at least all the cable sports channels and then some).
[/QUOTE]
But without the plot killing poker game, we wouldn’t have seen Vesper, the accountant, who cannot add.
(I thought that was going to be the twist, she’s obviously not really an accountant - if she were, she would have told everyone who added two simple numbers for her to shut up already. Turns out, Britain just hires idiots to send along with their secret agents.)
It wasn’t good. It had some cool action scenes, and some amazing scenery, but not a good movie as a whole.
I enjoyed it also. Craig Daniel looked like he did some insane workouts to get that body and it made the action scenes (i.e. the Parkour sequence) that much more believable.
[spoiler]
Also, he ingested the poisoned drink, in case anyone was wondering how. For the most part, I thought the plot added up.
The only part I had trouble with was why Vesper killed herself. That seemed rather stupid and overdramatic. She loved him so much that she would betray her country and kill herself? What purpose did that serve? Couldn’t she have come clean at the end and helped Bond?[/spoiler]
Count me in the group that loved it. To me it is the best bond movie bar none.
[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
I don’t remember the attempt in the book, as it’s been a while since I’ve read it. Wasn’t it that someone tried to shoot him?
[/QUOTE]
From memory, Bond is sitting at the baccarat table opposite Le Chiffre when a heavy comes up behind him and presses a walking stick against his back. The stick conceals a gun. The heavy whispers in Bond’s ear and suggests he quits the game or else. Bond spectacularly throws his chair backwards, thus thwarting the threat. The heavy disappears and Bond continues the game.
Count me in as loving this movie - and I’m usually indifferent to James Bond movies. Daniel Craig is hotter than hot. Yet another case of YMMV and IMHO and all that.
What I didn’t like was that the best action sequence (the acrobatic chase sequence in Madagascar) took place at the beginning of the movie. I would have made it the climax.
Aside from that, I liked it.
[QUOTE=Anaamika]
I really agree with this. Bond should play Baccarat. Texas Hold’em? A British agent? Come on. Texas Hold Em is a child’s game compared to the dignity and elegance of Baccarat.
[/QUOTE]
Well maybe bridge (using the Acol system, naturally 
).
But Baccarat is a silly game, with practically no decision-making. Noughts + Crosses has more strategy. There are no good Baccarat players.
[QUOTE=Hodge]
Humph. Not only was CR one of the best Bond movies in years, it’s firmly in the running for the best Bond movie, ever, crappy theme song excepted.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Not being a hardcore Bond fan, I thought this was the best Bond movie I’ve seen, and certainly my favorite.
Plus, Daniel Craig: Damn. He’s not much from the neck up but neck down . . . hoo-boy. More shirtlessness, please!
I tried to like it. David Niven made the perfect Bond; Peter Sellers and Woody Allen, less so. Joanna Pettet in the Mata Hari outfit made my young loins ache. But, in the end–ESPECIALLY the end–the plot made no sense and the humor wasn’t funny.
Or did you mean the episode of “Climax?” Sorry, but Barry Nelson as an American “Jimmy” Bond bit the big one.
But if you’re talking about the recent version, while I haven’t seen it, I cannot imagine it being the turd the 1967 version was. Mein Gott in Himmel! Using all of the criteria I use to determine crapitude–large enough budget to do it right, a cast that couldn’t be beat, a string of good, even great, directors, but it still managed to be a reeking pile–it is a serious contender for the worst movie ever made.
Edited to add: You people should see some really crappy movies before pronouncing the merely mediocre a “turd.”
Overall, I enjoyed the film.
Some of the details that I thought were notable:
Texas hold’em? Ugh. But I guess they needed a gambling card based game with bluff as a factor to add tension. Get to see the personality clash between the two characters.
The new Bond has issues. He seems more like a dude on the edge of being a pyscho of some flavor. Makes the character seem more human, more believable. Not like some Bond films where the hero does or witnesses things horrific, then just dusts off the lapels of his tux. “Oh dear! I’ll need to get a manicure.” versus “Do I look like I give a damn?”
No over the top world ending crisis averted by a single hero. No stolen nukes, no mad scientist gonna wipe out civilisation and start anew with just himself and 10 women. And I approve more believable plots.
However:
[QUOTE=Chez Guevara]
From memory, Bond is sitting at the baccarat table opposite Le Chiffre when a heavy comes up behind him and presses a walking stick against his back. The stick conceals a gun. The heavy whispers in Bond’s ear and suggests he quits the game or else. Bond spectacularly throws his chair backwards, thus thwarting the threat. The heavy disappears and Bond continues the game.
[/QUOTE]
Ah, yes.
I completely agree that Bond as an American blew Chunks. Worse than just the idea of an American Bond was Barry Nelson’s interpretation of the role. He looked like he was acting. Okay, that’s what actors do. But a good actor should appear to be the character. Nelson looked like an actor who was playing a role. Bad.
But at least it followed the book fairly well for a one-hour made-for- (live?) TV show. And it had Peter Lorre in it. (Not his best part, and he didn’t put a lot of effort into it. And he looked older than he was. But I’ve always liked him as an actor. I wish I could get a copy of the Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode of Roald Dahl’s ‘Man From The South’ episode.)
So it had some redeeming qualities. Not a ‘turd’. Better than the farce version. But not really good. I like the new one.
As I said earlier, I’d like to see some remakes that are closer to the books. For example, Felix gets eaten (as it were) in Live And Let Die instead of License To Kill.
Oh! And the scene where Le Chiffre was torturing Bond in the hold of some ship! Creepy!
At first, I thought Bond was just pretending to like being tortured, so that Le Chiffre would give up on it. But after a bit, even I wasn’t sure…
Bond saving the “747” (as we’re calling it here), is what forced LeChiffre into Casino Royale. He had to win the money back that he promised the investors would gain, or he would have had a hit put out on him.
Texas Hold Em’ was chosen because the audience needed to able to follow what was going on. Not many people know Bacarat. Even people who don’t know Texas Hold em, like myself, could keep up with scenes.
I think this was one of the top 5 Bond films, along with Thunderball, Goldfinger, IHMSS, and I’ll leave the 5th one open.
Craig & Connory are IMO the best 2 bonds a few reasons: they were in good physical shape and looked like they could actually do the stunts in the film. Also they’re both more rugged than handsome, especially compared to Lazenby, Moore and Brosnan. Basicall, Craig looked like he could do the kind of shit he was doing.
The visit to Q’s lab had become a predictable and silly part of the formula and I’m glad they cut it from this film, making Bond rely more on his wits, stamina and skills than gadgets. I also liked that Bond got his face marked up from the action sequences. In fact, he got the shit knocked out of him in the torture scene.
Which brings us to the stunts and chases, a big part of any Bond film. In this one you have Bond chasing Bad Guy through a construction site, improvising and using what is at hand (Bulldozer, hydraulic lift) to compensate for his rival’s superior skills and running ability. Same thing with shooting out the air balloons floating the building in Venice.
Let’s compare it with an earlier Bond movie…Oh, say, Man With The Golden Gun, which was a cartoonish piece of shit if you remember. Moore drove an AMC Hornet around a loop like a hotwheels toy, accompanied by the comic relief Louisiana Sheriff J.W. Pepper from Live & Let Die and a slide whistle sound effect. And let’s not forget Scarmanga’s Car Plane, (a modified AMC Matador) and Hervé Villechaize, his tiny little henchman. Yes, I understand that this was during the period of Bond films as parodies of Bond films, but it was still terrible.
So Casino Royal was a reboot of the franchise, with the title and many details from the original Bond novel. Honestly, what else could have been done with the franchise? Maybe making it into a series of period pieces, all set in the 60’s with the Cold War and the commies/SMERSH/SPECTRE as the bad guys? There are so many parodies of Bond, all the way back to the 1967 Casino Royal and Coburn’s Flint films and the Bond formula has been done to death. I found this one refreshing.
And I’ll repeat that I thought Daniel Craig kicked ass. He looks like one tough SOB instead of a smug, aging pretty boy who’s dissipated on booze and cigarettes. At this point, who cares if he looks anything like Hoagy Carmichael?
[QUOTE=Jodi]
Plus, Daniel Craig: Damn. He’s not much from the neck up but neck down . . . hoo-boy. More shirtlessness, please!
[/QUOTE]
I saw pics of him before seeing the movie and was like “hmmm… kind of a funny looking guy.”
Then I saw the movie, and saw the way the guy moves and the whole neck-down thing. Add in the interesting-but-not-classically-handsome face and he’s definitely one of the hottest guys in film nowadays. Give me a guy who looks like a GUY, please, not these pretty boys that teen girls like to swoon over. It’s been a while since we’ve seen raw masculinity on screen, and Daniel Craig is definitely IT.
[QUOTE=Gordon Urquhart]
I thought Casino Royale was one of the best action movies I’ve ever seen, and probably ranks among the very best James Bond films.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll second that. Craig was great, the characterization of Bond was very good, and 007 was somebody I could give a damn about and root for, which hadn’t been the case lately.
This is the ONLY Bond movie made in the last 10 years.
Action or no, the rest of them were formulaic snoozefests.
I really enjoyed Casino Royale but I watchedit a second time and something just bugs me. I’ll put it inspoilers:
Bond is being tortured by Le Chiffre with that heavy rope device. Then LeChiffre is about to kill Bond and there realll is no escape…except, hurrah! Bond is saved by someone after LeChiffre who shows up just in the nick of time. How convenient. It just seemes a bit of a cheat and not the way I like to see Bond escape.