Casino Royale Sucks, Worst Bond Movie Ever

coluber2001 wrote:

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?

i gotta say i loved the crane chase. i am pretty lukewarm about movies in general and it doesn't happen often that i sit with jaw dropped. i thought suspense in that scene was great. and, being a woman, i appreciated watching beautiful male bodies in full movement, swinging and jumping and jumping in acrobatic fashion. finally something women can feast their eyes on, too.

sociopathic? egotistical, yes. but then...show me a man who isn't...

0 Replies

I will only go to our local Orange County THX certified theaters -- they are new and their screen resolution and clarity in the sound system is superb. Nice seats, too.

My home system actually sounds even better with my THX Yamaha 9.1 sound. My CRT rear-projection 42" Mitsubishi is still one of the best pictures even though they do not make it anymore.

I can see where poor sound would really spoil any movie but you can't hold it against the filmmaker if the theater is sub-par. I got a hoot out of the crane scene -- there have been more outlandishly unbelievable stunts and effects in the previous Bond films to make it look quite credible. Besides, when one goes to a Bond film, they leave the real world and enter one bordering on fantasy. Again, these novels were written for fun and entertainment and even with the political editorializing present in this new film, I still liked it a lot. Great script.

0 Replies

I gotta say we diidn't understand them half the time either. Everybody mumbled. And we're both practically deaf.

0 Replies

My Mom, who is 91 years old, complains about any British, Irish or Scottish accents in films 'cause she can't get all the lines. I usually turn on the closed captions if they are available. I should get her a pair of wireless in-the-ear headphones as she refuses to buy a hearing aid.

I had no problem with the dialogue but I may have in a theater with mediocre sound.

0 Replies

ah, captions. yes, we could have done that. i normally don't have a problem with a british accent - that's the english i originally learned anyway - but in this movie i did... we don't have a superb sound for sure and our housemate usually decides to make pizza or bread in a breadmaker (which goes whomp! whomp! whomp!) for three hours while we watch movies. That can't be helpful.

0 Replies

Only if there is a sex scene in the film. :wink:

0 Replies

Actually, no. The guy has no rhythm. When he makes the dough or stirs something (he does a lot of stirring), he jerks it around in chaotic way, which makes it all the more irritating. If there at least was a rhythm, it would be easier. we talked with littlek how awful he must be in bed, although the thought alone - that he'd be in bed with another human- is just alarming and gross.

0 Replies

So the poor bastard hasn't been laid in how many months, at least?

(Or perhaps I shouldn't say anything...)

0 Replies

Let's see how many threads we can complain about HM#3 on at one time!

I'm not 100% positive, but I think it's been the whole time he's been here at least. So, 8 months, minimum.

0 Replies

Now I'm embarrassed.

0 Replies

you, LW? why?

we were talking about sound and hearing and mumbling. yes, they mumbled on top of their british accent, at least some of the characters did.

0 Replies

I detected no mumbling, not even a Whump! Whump! Whump! In rhythm or out of rhythm, that's no matter -- I've know some who couldn't keep any rhythm, even if you played a mambo on the phonograph. There may be mumbling in many sex scenes depending on whether they are under the covers or not.

0 Replies

Bond, back to basics.
Are you kidding? Craig redefined Bond. The same way Dalton (unsuccessfully) tried to in the 80's. But the fact is, there hasn't been a no-nonsense, rough and tumble James Bond since Connery-- and Craig's bringing him back and making him cooler than my iconRemote. Well, almost cooler-- the iconRemote is pretty cool. As for the lack of cars, did you miss the classic DB5 and the new Aston Martin that Bond rolls in the film. Those cars are about as cool as my iconRemote. And that's cool. Although there was no car chase, the foot chase at the beginning was incredible.

And Daniel Craig did an amazing job as Bond. Connery defined the role, but Craig made it his own. Brosnan represented a nice middle ground between the more serious Connery, and the more light-hearted Moore, but Craig gave Bond his balls back. Nicely done.

And no way Casino Royale sucked worse than Moonraker.

0 Replies

I'm with you. "Moonwrecker." Fun, but disposable.

0 Replies

I couldn't disagree more with the OP. The older Bond movies were far closer to the original concept of a spy thriller. With Brosnan as Bond, they've all gone along with the trend of going overboard on the action and special effects to the point that the movies felt more like action thrillers instead.

This was easily the best Bond movie since For Your Eyes Only.

0 Replies

Totally agree with that! It was as close to the ideal spy thriller as "From Russia With Love," one of the top ten in spy thriller film history. Some of the close to ideal spy thrillers: "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold," "Eye of the Needle," and "The Ipcress File."

0 Replies

omg, i LOVED it!!

0 Replies

I've always been a fan of Bond movies...I was a fan of Pierce Brosnan before he became Bond, and I thought he did an excellent job of it, so I did not have high hopes for Casino Royale. However, I must admit that I was extremely pleasantly surprised, as this is without a doubt the best Bond movie ever. The only disappointment is that M is in it. She is an annoying actor and it should be Q.

0 Replies

I agree! I don't like the new Bond. I also think Christian Bale should play Bond, but the whole Batman thing, I dont know. Everyone admires the new Bond simply for his muscles. I think Pierce Brosnan was far better than Daniel Craig.

0 Replies

Quincy wrote:

I agree! I don't like the new Bond. I also think Christian Bale should play Bond, but the whole Batman thing, I dont know. Everyone admires the new Bond simply for his muscles. I think Pierce Brosnan was far better than Daniel Craig.

Since Sean Connery, the Bonds have been pretty wimpy. Daniel Craigs character is a much more faithful revival of the original. Yes, he is muscular, but why shouldn't he be muscular? If you were jumping off trains and skyscrapers, climbing up cliffs and constantly getting into fistfights with beefed up bodyguards, you'd have to be muscular. He has more of that raw appeal. I already said I liked Pierce Brosnan -- he delivers true class, but his character is a bit unbelievable in this regard. Bond doesn't have "class". He knows how to dress, walk, and talk the part for his job...but he's always crashing the party. I think Craig pulled this off well. However, what made this movie great in my opinion was not Daniel Craig -- it was Eva Green's character. Their romance was so passionate and volatile, especially the betrayal...I loved it.

0 Replies

Casino Royale Sucks, Worst Bond Movie Ever

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know