PDA

View Full Version : "Casino Royale" to be the 21st Bond film


Lazarus and the Gimp
06-02-2005, 19:25:21
This is big news. "Casino Royale" was Ian Fleming's first Bond book, and it's a very different beast to the others. For my money, it's the only book that really stands up to scrutiny today- by Bond standards it's surprisingly hard-edged and stripped down.

There are a number of legal reasons why it hasn't been filmed (other than the 1967 spoof version starring David Niven, Peter Sellars and Woody Allen), but also aesthetic reasons too. "Casino Royale" is built around two set-pieces- an epic game of baccarat between Bond and Le Chiffre, and a lengthy and deeply brutal torture scene in which a naked Bond has his bollocks nearly beaten off his body. It really didn't fit into the standard Bonds.

Should be an interesting departure- hope they don't Hollywood it up too much.

King_Ghidra
07-02-2005, 09:42:22
i read several of the original bond books a few years back, and for the most part i was very impressed. Fleming was actually a good writer in the main, i would say his main flaw was he used to let the stories get away from him somewhat. some of his descriptive prose was excellent though, just at odds with the way the stories subsequently lurched into comedy baddies and homoerotic s&m action - for as i recall, the torture stuff was not unusual, there was defintie s&m undertone to it all, and the bond of the books is a much bigger arsehole than he has ever been in the films

still, to return to the topic, i was quite excited when i saw that this would be the 21st film, as someone who has detested the last couple of bonds, this is a chance to go 'back to basics' as john major might say

Rodgers
07-02-2005, 12:12:15
Is it Clive Owen in this one then?

King_Ghidra
07-02-2005, 13:11:57
not confirmed, he's one of the favourites i believe

Venom
07-02-2005, 14:18:39
Despite it being a hard edged book, they'll still neuter it.

Funkodrom
07-02-2005, 14:23:41
Laz mentioned that

"torture scene in which a naked Bond has his bollocks nearly beaten off his body"

Debaser
07-02-2005, 14:29:13
Doesn't Casino Royale the book also feature quite a horrific rape scene? I know one of the books does...

King_Ghidra
07-02-2005, 14:53:23
do you really know that or did you just hear it? :cute:

in the book version of Goldfinger, the pussy galore character is the leader of a lesbian gang from new york. The idea is that she is a lesbian because she was abused by her original texas redneck family and she utters the incredible line 'in texas the definition of a virgin is anyone who can run faster than her uncle'

of course bond is able to convert her with some red hot bond lovin

Venom
07-02-2005, 15:19:26
And that's so true about Texas.

MDA
07-02-2005, 15:57:37
I don't remember any of the movies following the books very faithfully at all.

Moonraker in particular.

I could swear he actually died of a poisoned shoe/boot blade kick from a SMERSH woman in one of those books.

Vincent
07-02-2005, 20:37:02
so he gets his bollocks tortured off, cures a lesbian and gets killed by a poisoned shoe. doh. Sounds like my normal day

Rodgers
08-02-2005, 12:20:34
Well, at least there will be a touch of realism in the film then

sleeping_satsuma
08-02-2005, 18:38:38
I read one of the Bonds years ago (might have been Golden Gun) and I found it utterly dull. Having said that I agree with K_G that the last two Bond films have been ridiculous- the invisible car and John wooden Cleese as Q or M or whoever did my nut in. Still I do love a bit of Judi and who can resist Pierce Brosnan? Certainly not me. I think the books are a lot more hardcore than the films. Unsurprisingly.

Funkodrom
09-02-2005, 09:12:00
I really liked John Cleese as Q - I may be the only one. And Dame Judi was great as M. It was the rest of the films that was a bit... well, too Hollywood and not Bond enough. It was a bizarre clash of styles that didn't live up to either.

Oerdin
14-02-2005, 05:23:38
I haven't seen the last two bond films because I heard so many bad things about them I wanted to remember bond when he was just mildly campy and not a total hollywoodized fuckwit.

King_Ghidra
20-11-2006, 15:57:37
...and here we are in 2006 and the reviews are very good. I'm off to see it tomorrow night.

By the by, to retrun to laz's original post, the baccarat is out and replaced by poker, but the bollock-beating is still in.

Anyone seen it yet?

Funko
20-11-2006, 15:59:28
I want to go and see it... maybe on Sunday.

Mr. Bas
20-11-2006, 16:00:57
Nope, but I'll probably see it in the near future. I said the same thing about Borat and I still haven't seen that though. Anyway, surely it can't be as bad as the last few installments and as you said, the reviews are actually rather positive.

Venom
20-11-2006, 16:30:38
I saw it Friday. It's a good movie. Gone are the ridiculous technologies. It's a good origin story for Bond.

MOBIUS
21-11-2006, 13:21:44
Yes, very good indeed!:beer:

King_Ghidra
22-11-2006, 10:42:25
I thought it was excellent.

Craig is a perfect Bond, he's the best balance of muscle and charisma since Connery.

As a re-boot of the Bond franchise it is perfectly pitched, with some clever scenes to establish that Bond is new to the 007 game and various others to re-establish and parody some of his famous cliches.

The romance aspect was really well handled, with some snappy and extended dialogue that was almost out of place in a thriller.

The action scenes were restrained (i don't recall any giant explosions) yet violent, and put over Bond well as a very hard and skilled man who can also be hurt himself.

The plot was fundamentally rather silly, but the film has enough pace to rattle along and stop you thinking about such things until it's over.

I left the cinema hoping the next one comes out nice and soon and expecting Craig to go down as maybe the best bond ever.

Funko
22-11-2006, 12:23:00
Cool, we're going to see it on Sunday.

Mightytree
25-11-2006, 01:25:05
Just came back from the cinema. I thought the movie was good but not as good as I expected it to be.

Things I disliked:

- Daniel Craig's face is just butt ugly. I'm sorry, but that's not how a man that can get any woman at any time should look like.

- I thought the story-line was too complicated. It had too many ups and downs, too many people changing sides and too many new antagonists of Bond appearing out of nowhere. It sometimes seemed like a computer game where if you kill that boss on level 1 you get the face the stronger new boss on level 2.

- It also had pacing problems at times. After Le Chiffre gets dealt with, there's at least 20 minutes of filler material where absolutely nothing happens except that we see Vesper and James as a happy couple. This really stretches the movie and makes it feel too long IMO.

- Some of the dialogue in the romance scenes was downright atrocious and so cheesy that the whole cinema was groaning loudly (no joke).

Things I liked:

- Daniel Craig. A fresh new look and style for Bond. His face may be ugly, but overall Craig is a good change. He's definitely got charisma.

- Bond is tougher, more violent and more realistic than before. Very few gimmicks, more pure down-to-earth action. Especially the first chase scene that starts the movie is really well done.

- With the exception of some romance scenes the dialogue was absolutely brilliant. Highly entertaining and definitely way above the usual level your average Bond movie has. I really couldn't believe my ears at times. Good stuff. :bounce:

- I agree with KG that the action scenes definitely felt restrained. Except for the opening chase scene there was really nothing overly spectacular that I remember. Still solid overall though.

- Le Chiffre's look and his bleeding eye. Awesome.

Overall I'd probably give the movie 7/10. It had some brilliant stuff in it, but also some things that were definitely a bit bumpy. Still very entertaining though. :)

Mightytree
25-11-2006, 01:35:58
Oh and Eva Green is adorable. :love:

mr_G
26-11-2006, 20:03:07
that new bond is kewl,
could be Dutch

Lazarus and the Gimp
26-11-2006, 22:05:16
Originally posted by Mightytree
Oh and Eva Green is adorable. :love:

Watch "The Dreamers". She gets them all out to play in it.

Funko
27-11-2006, 09:00:24
I thought it was excellent. A proper film for grown-ups. Didn't think the romance lines were that cheesy...

The action scenes being 'restrained' I thought was just because they were a lot more realistic. People got the crap battered out of them but they looked like they had.

Thought it was great that after the casino fight, rather than just having to readjust his bow tie he actually had to clean himself up and change.

The long romance bit was probably necessary because that betrayal is the main thing to explain his later attitude to women.

And can you really batter a naked man's balls with a knotted rope in a 12A?

Sir Penguin
27-11-2006, 23:24:15
Kids see that shit every day at public school.

SP

Scabrous Birdseed
11-12-2006, 09:55:18
Not sure about Craig as Bond myself. I think he's just too competent - Bond is meant to be reckless, lazy, fairly crap at doing stuff but still get by using his charm and luck. Connery used to get beat up a lot more.

Still, the film was a good piece of action entertainment - I really liked the "Le Parkour" chase scene early on.

I wonder what Poker professionals would say about some of those bets though - no-one goes All-in on a bluff on the river card, surely? "Tell" or no tell.

maroule
11-12-2006, 10:13:52
Originally posted by Mightytree
Oh and Eva Green is adorable. :love:

our new export :heart:

(SB will be happy to know her father was a swedish dentist.... married to a french TV star, how unlikely was that couple... despite all odds, the wife, Marlene Jobert, was probably even more boring than her husband)

MoSe
11-01-2007, 13:57:18
Just got out here in Italy

Originally posted by Mightytree
- Daniel Craig's face is just butt ugly. I'm sorry, but that's not how a man that can get any woman at any time should look like.
- Daniel Craig. A fresh new look and style for Bond. His face may be ugly, but overall Craig is a good change. He's definitely got charisma.


As a sheepy uncritical franchise buttlicker, I even liked Dalton and Brosnan more than Moore.
I was thus skeptical about a blond Bond, but now I'd say he was perfectly casted.
And since when, having a cute face had anything to do for "a man that can get any woman at any time"???
That said, a Clive Owen Bond would have had me too at his feet anytime, had he got bored of women :o


- I thought the story-line was too complicated. It had too many ups and downs, too many people changing sides and too many new antagonists of Bond appearing out of nowhere. It sometimes seemed like a computer game where if you kill that boss on level 1 you get the face the stronger new boss on level 2.


Complicated? I found the plot rather schematic instead.
The fact that some passages were left ungrounded, unmotivated made it jerky and ununderstandable, but that doesn't mean complicated.
e.g.: bond was the only one who got to know about Mathis double play, but after the torture they showed him barely aware. Mathis goes to visit the just reawaken bond at the lake villa, not suspecting his cover could have been blown, and suddenly MI6 men come and drag him away. It didn't feel like anyone could have had time and chance to inform them.

- Bond is tougher, more violent and more realistic than before. Very few gimmicks, more pure down-to-earth action. Especially the first chase scene that starts the movie is really well done.
agree in general, although I missed the Q character.
but one thing disturbs me:
of all the fancy equipment an agent on assignment might be provided with, why the hell almost the only thing they show should be a defibrillator (!) in the car drawer?
And, oh, what an utter coincidence! Bond gets poisoned with digitalis, something every spy should of course expect to be, and lo, that pocket defibrillator is exactly what he needed!
:rolleyes:
also, the tracking implant in the forearm seems barely functional to the plot and the action, just some useless filler thrown in


- It also had pacing problems at times. After Le Chiffre gets dealt with, there's at least 20 minutes of filler material where absolutely nothing happens except that we see Vesper and James as a happy couple. This really stretches the movie and makes it feel too long IMO.

- Some of the dialogue in the romance scenes was downright atrocious and so cheesy that the whole cinema was groaning loudly (no joke).

- With the exception of some romance scenes the dialogue was absolutely brilliant. Highly entertaining and definitely way above the usual level your average Bond movie has. I really couldn't believe my ears at times. Good stuff.

definitely agree

although, the very corny reaction to Bond's choice of password (somehow I KNEW what it was before he even entered it at the casino :)) was necessary to prepare his priceless "little finger" line, that alone was worth the ticket :lol:


- I agree with KG that the action scenes definitely felt restrained. Except for the opening chase scene there was really nothing overly spectacular that I remember. Still solid overall though.

yeah, I love action movies that don't overdo it, see for instance Ronin, or the chase scenes in The Bourne Identity.
Still, I was surprised that they showed him killing the terrorist and blowing up the ambassade ending the initial chase, yet they left the explosion of the airport terrorist completely off-screen.

The real shocker, an outrageus sacrilege, was to see a Venetian palace crumble down on the Canal Grande!
:eek:


Originally posted by K_G
As a re-boot of the Bond franchise it is perfectly pitched, with some clever scenes to establish that Bond is new to the 007 game and various others to re-establish and parody some of his famous cliches.


ah, ok, in that sense it makes more sense...
it had left me puzzled that the M character intepreted by Judy Dench gave a feeling of continuity with the previous episodes, while this was supposed to be a *prequel*, showing the beginnings of the whole Bond saga as 007...
Thinking it as a franchise *re-boot* instead, slightly eases my discomfort with that.
Just slightly.

I loved the cocktail bit, BTW

I had the chance to admire Eva Green in Betolucci's The Dreamers
:love:
Deep blue eys , black hair, as in the namesake Marguerite Duras novel, beats any more flamboyant green/tizianored combo, or the pitch black eyes and dark/reddish hair I usually prefer.

I liked very much the villain sidekick's wife too.
Caterina Murino, italian actress: never ever heard about her before! :D



In conclusion...
... now that I think to it... I *forgot* what the final picture was, after Mr.White's killing!
How does the film end???
:clueless:
:lol:

King_Ghidra
13-02-2007, 12:58:50
Originally posted by Mightytree
Oh and Eva Green is adorable. :love:

Originally posted by maroule
our new export :heart:

(SB will be happy to know her father was a swedish dentist.... married to a french TV star, how unlikely was that couple... despite all odds, the wife, Marlene Jobert, was probably even more boring than her husband)

Did ayone see the footage from the BAFTAs last night?

She looked like the bride of frankenstein:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42560000/jpg/_42560851_greenafp220300.jpg

From the ITV website:

Bond girl Eva Green sparkled a vintage red jewelled gown by Dior but some were not so impressed with her bizarre back-combed hair do.

:D

MDA
16-07-2007, 11:33:06
Watching this at home won out over leaving to see Transformers at the theater yesterday.

Loved the chase through the construction site - huge explosions that I remember were at the embassy and the airport.

The whole part where they laid her out in the road to get him to crash struck me as a bit odd - she was the one with the account number... why would they do that and how did they know he was following? Did they follow his wrist chip? How did they know he had one of those - did she tell them?

Still thought is was fantastic, just things here and there that seemed off. - the digitalis thing was pretty forced too, as mentioned.

MOBIUS
16-07-2007, 13:35:27
Noticed they used Parkour in Die Hard 4.0...

Whilst I think it's visually stunning, I don't want to see all the Hollywood movies jumping on the bandwagon and having it as the next 'fashion'.

maroule
03-12-2007, 12:05:25
Originally posted by Mightytree
Oh and Eva Green is adorable. :love:


you should like this article

http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,2219046,00.html