Comments on: Casino Royale

By: ivhdyqzue awmydfv

ivhdyqzue awmydfv — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:41:28 +0000

ocwhbk hivbtkd rhycn mqoy xiqbgym lxyebi dhclm

By: doug r

doug r — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 04:02:14 +0000

Here she is on the horse

By: zak822

zak822 — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:13:48 +0000

Nice to see a reference to Fleming’s Bond. I read most of them in high school. Yeah, I’m that old!

Bond was dark, daring and serious. He wasn’t into gadgets; he trusted his Beretta above all things. When Q switched him to a Walther PPK, a “modern weapon”, he groused about it no end.

While Flemings Bond did save the world, he did it without whiz-bang. It was all close and personal. That’s what the fans loved and responded to, and it’s what the movies lost. And that’s why they lost fans.

The focus switched to the whiz-bang, and the first rule of story telling is to make your audience care what happens to the characters. The movies glitz often overshadows the characters.

I still think Brosnan was the best choice after Connery. If only they had given him something good to work with. Beside Halle Berry, I mean!

By: StarkyLuv

StarkyLuv — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:22:46 +0000

I guess I’m used to Mediterranean women since I lived off the Med for 3 years and was engaged to one.

And that scene was obviously a clever reversal on the “Bond girl emerging from the water” in-joke. This time it was James Bond himself give the ladies a little eye candy. The audience I was in immediately picked up on that little treat (for the ladies!)

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:01:03 +0000

Eva Green did nothing for you?

Wow, I saw the movie with 4 other guys and we all raved about her. She was drop dead grogeous of course, but also managed to create a real character with a strong personality.

I’d say she set the bar pretty high for whover take the part of bond babe in the next outing.

By: Roger Less

Roger Less — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:37:37 +0000

Almost everyone in the audience laughed when the lady appeared on the white horse — talk about cliche!

By: Hedley

Hedley — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:08:36 +0000

Ironically, this is the Bond that Brosnan always wanted to play. He had lobbied the producers in the past to make Bond darker and more serious (as originally written by Ian Fleming) but they didn’t listen, obviously.

By: StarkyLuv

StarkyLuv — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:29:47 +0000

Y’know, I understand people holding on to what they feel a piece of entertainment “should” be like. But I’ve been blessed with an apparently rare ability to allow a piece of entertainment to be presented to me as is, the way the presenter INTENDS it to be. I don’t go in with pre-conceived notions of what James Bond “should” be like. I take the character as presented.

Daniel Craig was incredible as James Bond because he played the role straight and seriously. There wasn’t the tounge-in-cheek “in joke” that Pierce Brosnan brought to the role. You knew he never took it seriously.

I like that they kept the movie grounded in reality. You also get to SEE all of the “Bondisms” being formed in this movie. Like how he left the hot Mediterranean chick in the room to pursue his target. We all know that in the future, he’d never leave a piece of ass. Not even for national security.

We also see how he was extremely reckless and brutal in the beginning and is learning that subtlety and patience has its merits.

I thought it was easily the best Bond movie since Goldeneye and is in my personal top 5 Bond movies.

There is endless potential with the new, realistic, INTENSE James Bond. I can’t wait to see where they take the series.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:58:15 +0000

He’s no David Niven that’s for sure.