Casino Royale

[Captain Ben]

Too many gadgets ruin the novelty. In alot of the later Bond films, Bond relied too much on gadgets.

[peemonkey]

But seriously, there needs to be at least 2 fuckin' gadgets. This had none. What the fuck?
Also, if this was the beginning of bond, how come they used the 2nd "M"?

[Rook_PL]

omg, and if this is the first one, and it's happening now, how Bond could save the world in 90' 80' ? give me a brake, it's not documental movie! @cpt. Ben: damn right.

[jrgp]

But seriously, there needs to be at least 2 ****in' gadgets. This had none. What the ****?
Also, if this was the beginning of bond, how come they used the 2nd "M"?

Cuz the first M died like 10 years ago, and Judi Dench is a good enough actress.

[Death MachineX350]

Don't say too much about the story line or you'll ruin it. Mostly like the number of gadgets and stuff are spoiling it. I didn't think it would be too good anyway.

[karmazon]

Also I should add that it's a fucking long movie, just when you think it's ending, with all that sad music and shit, BAM! another plot unveils.

[Captain Ben]

But seriously, there needs to be at least 2 ****in' gadgets. This had none. What the ****?
Also, if this was the beginning of bond, how come they used the 2nd "M"?

But seriously, would this movie really benefit from another invisible/remote controlled/jet powered car?
If this was the beginning of Bond, then why didn't they use Sean Connery?

[Swarmer]

All bond movies have those crazy colorful hallucination sequences at the beginning credits.  The one in this movie is one of the best, imo.  One thing that's missing is the 2 circle white things that show Bond walking to the middle and shooting at you.  They did have him shooting, but not with the 2 circle things.
 
The middle was painfully long and boring.  So little action, and way too much "omg I love you lets live together forever" stuff.  It takes a good 20 minutes of dialogue between Bond and the girl before we see some explosions.

But I liked it overall.  It's a good introduction to the Bond story, and kinda sets up his personality for the future ones.


Oh and that guy Bond was chasing at the beginning was sweet.  He was like a freaking ninja.

[The Red Guy]

I think he's okay for a bond, no complaints.

[karmazon]

Well, they filmed all the books already, now they'll have to come up with their own shit. Kinda weird that, this is supposed to be the first bond, but it's set in the present, not during cold war like it should.

[Captain Ben]

You know, the Bourne Identity/Surpremacy/Ultimatum movies were all based off novels that were originally centred during the Cold War.

[karmazon]

You know, the Bourne Identity/Surpremacy/Ultimatum movies were all based off novels that were originally centred during the Cold War.

Wow strong change of topic.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

But seriously, there needs to be at least 2 ****in' gadgets. This had none. What the ****?
Also, if this was the beginning of bond, how come they used the 2nd "M"?

But seriously, would this movie really benefit from another invisible/remote controlled/jet powered car?
If this was the beginning of Bond, then why didn't they use Sean Connery?

Because then bond would already look about 70 years old?

[Your only Friend]

Only the part at the beginning with the awesome street jumping and airport bomb idea and the grey part was awesome. After that, it really sucked, why? Because of the same reasons other people said on this thread and more.

Casino Royale was not a Bond movie at all.

[Captain Ben]

You know, the Bourne Identity/Surpremacy/Ultimatum movies were all based off novels that were originally centred during the Cold War.

Wow strong change of topic.

You know, totally NOT relevant considering that the Casino Royale novel was originally set in Cold War times, LIKE the Bourne novels were, but you know, since both movies are set in PRESENT TIMES and don't mention the Cold War AT ALL, I just though I'd be totally irrelevant and say that.

But seriously, there needs to be at least 2 ****in' gadgets. This had none. What the ****?
Also, if this was the beginning of bond, how come they used the 2nd "M"?

But seriously, would this movie really benefit from another invisible/remote controlled/jet powered car?
If this was the beginning of Bond, then why didn't they use Sean Connery?

Because then bond would already look about 70 years old?

As compared to digging up the old M and using them instead of Judi Dench?

[karmazon]

You know, the Bourne Identity/Surpremacy/Ultimatum movies were all based off novels that were originally centred during the Cold War.

Wow strong change of topic.

You know, totally NOT relevant considering that the Casino Royale novel was originally set in Cold War times, LIKE the Bourne novels were, but you know, since both movies are set in PRESENT TIMES and don't mention the Cold War AT ALL, I just though I'd be totally irrelevant and say that.

Read my post again, I don't think you fully understood it.

[Atomic Hype]

I liked it. And I think anyone that would have had to play Bond in this film would have gotten the shaft.

It is Bond before he turns into a total badass. That's why there was the whole thing with Vesper (who I thought was played very well) towards the end. That's why he only fucks the one girl.

And then when she dies, he changes, and ta da; your everyday Bond is born. I just feel that no matter who played him in this movie was kinda screwed before they even had a chance.

[KaatjeVos]

Bond movie is good since it's an action.

[jrgp]

Bond movie is good since it's an action.

Good god epic necrophilia posting. I hate to lock this since it was an epic thread which brings back nostalgic memories, so I'm going to settle with warning you instead. Don't reply again unless you have something real to contribute.