0
jakee

Casino Royale...

Recommended Posts

Quote


Give me the 'honest' ad breaks any day. Yep, they're annoying - but there's something about product placement in films and TV that's really insulting to the audience's intelligence.



HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead!
:S
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead! HeadOn-Applied Directly to the Forehead!
:S



Don't get that one in the UK. And from your transcription, I'm guessing I should probably be grateful for that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PP was bad in 2 spots I noted while watching the new Bond film. The ford car was one. The other was Richard Branson going through security at the airport. Say him for only a few seconds as he turned to face the camera with his arms up. Not a long look but enough to recognize the face then the next shot (maybe 2 out from there) showed a Virgin 747 landing.. If I think back or see it again I am guessing many more can be picked out. I dont mind them if they are subtile but if they are forced into the film or in the case of the Ford shot seem out of place then I say poo poo on them...

Scott C.
"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

PP was bad in 2 spots I noted while watching the new Bond film. The ford car was one. The other was Richard Branson going through security at the airport. Say him for only a few seconds as he turned to face the camera with his arms up. Not a long look but enough to recognize the face then the next shot (maybe 2 out from there) showed a Virgin 747 landing.. If I think back or see it again I am guessing many more can be picked out. I dont mind them if they are subtile but if they are forced into the film or in the case of the Ford shot seem out of place then I say poo poo on them...

I thought that was Richard Branson! The shot was so quick that I couldn't tell. The ford thing I saw as kind of a joke: Bond is on vacation and trying to "blend in" with the tourists and he gets to drive a crappy ford sedan just like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

PP was bad in 2 spots I noted while watching the new Bond film. The ford car was one. The other was Richard Branson going through security at the airport. Say him for only a few seconds as he turned to face the camera with his arms up. Not a long look but enough to recognize the face then the next shot (maybe 2 out from there) showed a Virgin 747 landing.. If I think back or see it again I am guessing many more can be picked out. I dont mind them if they are subtile but if they are forced into the film or in the case of the Ford shot seem out of place then I say poo poo on them...

I thought that was Richard Branson! The shot was so quick that I couldn't tell. The ford thing I saw as kind of a joke: Bond is on vacation and trying to "blend in" with the tourists and he gets to drive a crappy ford sedan just like everyone else.



As I said before, this is the story of Bond becoming Bond. He starts off in a cheap rental car, then wins a much nicer car at a poker game. The cheap car, cheap clothes, etc., at the beginning of the film, versus the nice car, nice clothes, etc., at the end of the film, are supposed to be symbolic of the character arc.
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to be a HUGE bond fan, but I just couldn't get into this one. It's just too different from all the other ones. Where's the super-villan trying to take over the world? Where's his laser beam satelite? Where is Q and the gadgets? I know it's campy but that's exactly what I expect going to see a bond movie. In the end, bond defeats the villan, and gets the girl, and everyone is happy. I HATE how every movie these days has to have 17 plot twists. So and so is good, but now he's bad, but wait he's actually good but he works for a guy who is bad who is actually not who you think he even is but then he gets double crossed by so and so and then so and so gets triple crossed... It's ok to have a straight forward plot! It's not like plot twists are even twists at all, they're so expected in movies that they're completely predictable.

Bad Pre title sequence, bad title sequence (no dancing girls), a few crappy, ridiculous, way too long action scenes at the beginning, some boring stuff, World Series of Poker, cheesy love story, a crappy action scene, end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I finally saw it last night (yes, it takes a while for a quality print to get over here), and I agree with what other people have posted about the movie. I've never seen such realism in a Bond picture. The only scene from any of the 007 pictures that was on a par with this movie was the brutal hand-to-hand combat between Sean Connery and Robert Shaw in "From Russia with Love".

"Casino Royale" was very gritty and tense (I was on the edge of my seat during the card game), and the violence was up-close and personal. No sanitized stuff, no corny cliches or puns. It was deadly serious. Bond didn't polish off a bad guy without even rumpling his suit, then spout a silly one-liner. Geez, I was sick of that.

Another kewl thing - there were a couple of gadgets, but they were used sparingly as a means of advancing the plot. And the plot's premise, although a bit far-fetched, was still far more believable than all the trite "Dr. Evil" characters that have shown up over the decades.

The torture scene made the film. Bond's reaction to being Über-teabagged was an awesome piece of acting.

Daniel Craig was outstanding - he's made the role his own. He's the kind of steely killer that Fleming had in mind, and it's my opinion that he, along with the producers, have saved the franchise. I look forward to seeing Daniel Craig in this role again.

mh

edit to add umlaut. B|
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Daniel Craig was outstanding - he's made the role his own. He's the kind of steely killer that Fleming had in mind, and it's my opinion that he, along with the producers, have saved the franchise. I look forward to seeing Daniel Craig in this role again.



And intriguingly the producers have stated that the next film is to be a direct sequel of Casino Royale.

While I'm not sure I like the idea of sequels in Bondland they did end CR with a perfect cliffhanger.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As I said before, this is the story of Bond becoming Bond. He starts off in a cheap rental car, then wins a much nicer car at a poker game. The cheap car, cheap clothes, etc., at the beginning of the film, versus the nice car, nice clothes, etc., at the end of the film, are supposed to be symbolic of the character arc.



Is that why he needs a scoped carbine to bring down an elderly man from a distance he managed to walk in about 12 seconds? That's his pinnacle?

t
It's the year of the Pig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

As I said before, this is the story of Bond becoming Bond. He starts off in a cheap rental car, then wins a much nicer car at a poker game. The cheap car, cheap clothes, etc., at the beginning of the film, versus the nice car, nice clothes, etc., at the end of the film, are supposed to be symbolic of the character arc.



Is that why he needs a scoped carbine to bring down an elderly man from a distance he managed to walk in about 12 seconds? That's his pinnacle?

t



Nah, I'm sure that was a creative decision based on the look of the gun.
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0