4
   

Casino Royale Sucks, Worst Bond Movie Ever

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Thu 29 Mar, 2007 01:22 pm
0 Replies
 
Don1
 
  1  
Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:16 am
Green Witch wrote:
You think Casino Royale was the worst film ever!? You have obviously never had to sit through "Ishtar" with Dustin Hoffman.


Have you ever considered that Ishtar is an anagram of "Shitar" and my god what a shitar it was
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Sat 31 Mar, 2007 07:20 am
Laughing That could also be a badly out-of-tune Indian string instrument. Well, as if you could tell.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sat 31 Mar, 2007 09:16 pm
FWIW, this was my response to a glowing review of Casino Royal:

Quote:
The new one just seems ordinary to me..

Well, the Sean Connery Bond movies were long before my time.

I grew up with a Bond brand that stood for action set-ups that were painstakingly elaborate up to and beyond the point of getting hilariously over the top - always contrasted to the hero's impeccably understated reactions. Bond was an inside joke that we could all share - the baffling array of gadgets, the cheesy oneliners that noone else in the industry but Bond and his Bond girl could deliver, the escalation of settings (ice palace anyone?), and the ever current plays on the enemy of the day's news.

And as such, I've always enjoyed it. Bond was an evening of guaranteed entertainment to indulge in freely in between serious films, as a kind of collective guilty pleasure. Had your share of Lars von Trier? Bond will give you lots of clever action scenes that were hilarious as well as gripping. No gore - no dreary shoot-outs, none of the ever more explicit torture that appears to fill Hollywood action films. You know what you get.

In contrast, the new Bond feels like a much more ordinary movie. More of an action pic like any other - the one-on-one fights, the obligatory brutal torture scene. No gadgets no inside "Bond brand" jokes, just - another action movie.
0 Replies
 
Don1
 
  1  
Mon 2 Apr, 2007 03:34 am
Ashers wrote:
I agree with Phoenix and Lightwizard, I could hardly disagree more with the original post if I tried. It's almost like I watched a different film based on some of the comments! Laughing

I'm no expert on Bond or Ian Fleming's original works but wasn't the whole idea of this film to take us back to Bond's origins, when he was a bit more raw? With regards to the relationship in the film, I felt it was great, why was Connery's bond so detached from the women around him? I assumed it was because of the kind of experiences he had earlier in his career if you like, what happens between Bond the main girl clearly rocks him and hardens him, it was refreshing. See M's comments about the lessons he'll need to learn etc.

With regards to the gadgets though, while Jeremiah seems outraged with the defibrillator being the most advanced piece of kit in the film, I thought that moment was excellent and I'd personally make a much bigger deal about the car in the previous film which could turn invisible. Come on!

I really enjoyed it anyway.


If, as I suspect you are a a film critic in the making your comments are well chosen and well articulated and you should be complemented for that ,when all that was needed was to say the film was a complete load of ******* clap
0 Replies
 
Bohne
 
  1  
Mon 2 Apr, 2007 04:17 am
What bugged me most: If this was supposed to be the first BOND case, it should have played in the 50s, not in 2006!
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Mon 2 Apr, 2007 07:28 am
But it wasn't played in the 50's so, is that any reason for it not to play at all?
0 Replies
 
Bohne
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 02:27 am
[quote="eoe"]But it wasn't played in the 50's so, is that any reason for it not to play at all?[/quote]

MAybe, I for one would not have missed it!
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 10:48 am
About the only thing one would pay any attention to would be 50's vintage cars considering the locales would look virtually the same. It's an effort to keep the franchise consistently updated. One is asked to put aside a lot of credibility factors with Bond so time displacement that doesn't show a predate to "From Russia With Love," about the only one that has any significant basis in a historical time and place during the Cold War, is something the fans of the franchise would forgive. (Well, Octopussy had Russians in it also).
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 11:04 am
Crying or Very sad We are going to watch it tonight. I shouldn't have read this thread!

Well, at least I won't have high expectations, that always helps with enjoyment. If you expect little, you can enjoy more.

Not having seen it yet, I doubt that ANY new Bond movie could satisfy Bond fans - it would be either too sensitive, too PC, or on the other hand, too old-fashined, not up to present times, too this, too that... I would not want to have the job of the producer, for sure.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 11:08 am
Lightwizard wrote:
About the only thing one would pay any attention to would be 50's vintage cars considering the locales would look virtually the same.

Well, apart from most of the film being set in independent, post-communist, corrupt-capitalist Montenegro... not quite the same as 1950s Yugoslavia in, well, any respect.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 11:25 am
Correct and the producers of the Bond series have a license to kill dated material, unless one even takes the books that seriously. Spy novels, except for maybe John Le Carre, are usually written for fun and entertainment in the first place. I don't believe anyone would want to see the "Casino Royale"
following the original book's locales and time frame any more than they wanted to see a comedy spoof made from the book, if you get my drift.
0 Replies
 
Ashers
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 07:30 pm
Don, I could never be a critic, I don't take nearly enough pleasure in criticising. Smile
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 10:32 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:


To put it in a nutshell, this Bond was a far more modern 007, geared to today's sensibilities.


Sounds like they turned this Bond movie into a "chick-flick"
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Tue 3 Apr, 2007 11:07 pm
Well, that may be. Me and littlek did watch it tonight and liked it. Daniel Craig is a fine specimen to look at (if I may quote someone from my household: "I would fall sideways if he walked up to me on the street!"), it was Bond-enough, plenty of action and twists.

We have definitely seen far worse Bond movies. Especially one... maybe littlek will remember which one that was.

On the role of the women... I don't see that changed much, sadly. The women might be smart, villainous or whatnot, but they still prance around in high heels and need protecting when it matters, get squeamish at the sight of blood. I liked that at least the main girl was a wee bit more real, though only wee bit.

Generally I got what I expected from a Bond movie. But I ain't no Bond purist, generally I don't care that much. Good flick, that's all.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Wed 4 Apr, 2007 06:06 pm
Agreed.

Which Bond movie was it that was so bad......? The drug making one? <shrug>.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Wed 4 Apr, 2007 06:26 pm
quite enjoyed it myself, fairly faithful to the book
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Wed 4 Apr, 2007 07:33 pm
A change of locale and updating still didn't deter from the fact that the essence of the book is in the film which hasn't always been the case and Daniel Craig's Bond is a deeper characterization of a spy persona.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Thu 5 Apr, 2007 05:40 am
true about the essences of the book

i found that after the connery movies especially, the franchise became more americanized, all flash and little or no substance, the last movies the worst

i would have loved to have seen casino royale be set in the time period and to see a series of films that more closely resemble the books
0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Thu 5 Apr, 2007 11:04 am
I didn't sit through the whole movie because the sound was so poor in the theatre that I could understand only half of What Judy Dench said and nothing at all of the mumbling James Bond.

As far as special effects go, in prior Bond movies the chase scenes are wonderful and, though unlikely, plausible; but in the current movie both the villain and Bond jump from one crane arm to another that is at least forty feet down and survive it without a scratch.

In previous movies the heroic Bond defeats the sociopathic enemy. In this movie Bond is just as sociopathic as the enemy, so who cares who the victor is. I think the attitude of the movie reflects the U.S. and the British aggressive attitudes toward other countries. Preemptive war and torture is fine so long as your cause is a noble one. Where have we heard that before?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/11/2024 at 08:43:23