Casino Royale Reviews

Post by **Skywalker** » Tue May 22, 2007 9:39 pm

Welcome to the forum Jermaine76

Jermaine76 · Post by **Jermaine76** » Fri May 25, 2007 12:33 am

Thanks for the welcome, guys. I look forward in squashing this "Craig is Fleming's Bond" nonsense. Its so funny how a few people say something and people follow it like sheep.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:15 am

Jermaine76 wrote:Thanks for the welcome, guys. I look forward in squashing this "Craig is Fleming's Bond" nonsense. Its so funny how a few people say something and people follow it like sheep.

Welcome indeed. This forum will be different than the others you were on. Here, speak your mind. I happen to agree with your views on DC as JB. If they truly wanted a reboot, Bale would have been the best choice. With CR, Eon threw together an eight minute segment and tried to pass it off as an origin story. I cannot understand, to this day, the euphoric response to Craig/CR. Let us see if it repeats in 2008.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:28 am

Jermaine76 wrote:Thanks for the welcome, guys. I look forward in squashing this "Craig is Fleming's Bond" nonsense. Its so funny how a few people say something and people follow it like sheep.

I look forward to reading more of your posts.
So far though they're all very similar to the usual tedious style of many of the anti-Craig brigade. Lacking any real depth, and going for a cheap attack on the actor himself.
Though of course you're welcome to your opinion, I don't share the same view as you. But to label anyone who Craigs Bond appeals to or Eons direction as 'sheep' is imo unjust. Bond fans would go better.

Get over Craigs casting already, he's here to stay for a while yet.
As for Bale bj, small problem there matey. It's called BATMAN!.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:31 am

Captain Nash wrote:
Jermaine76 wrote:Thanks for the welcome, guys. I look forward in squashing this "Craig is Fleming's Bond" nonsense. Its so funny how a few people say something and people follow it like sheep.
I look forward to reading more of your posts.
So far though they're all very similar to the usual tedious style of many of the anti-Craig brigade. Lacking any real depth, and going for a cheap attack on the actor himself.
Though of course you're welcome to your opinion, I don't share the same view as you. But to label anyone who Craigs Bond appeals to or Eons direction as 'sheep' is imo unjust. Bond fans would go better.
Get over Craigs casting already, he's here to stay for a while yet.
As for Bale bj, small problem there matey. It's called BATMAN!.

I wonder IF Batman never came along, would Broccoli have chosen Bale, or did she have her eyes set on Craig no matter what?

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:34 am

This is off topic. Save it for your 'discussion' thread bj.

Jermaine76 · Post by **Jermaine76** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:57 am

Captain Nash wrote:
Jermaine76 wrote:Thanks for the welcome, guys. I look forward in squashing this "Craig is Fleming's Bond" nonsense. Its so funny how a few people say something and people follow it like sheep.
I look forward to reading more of your posts.
So far though they're all very similar to the usual tedious style of many of the anti-Craig brigade. Lacking any real depth, and going for a cheap attack on the actor himself.
Though of course you're welcome to your opinion, I don't share the same view as you. But to label anyone who Craigs Bond appeals to or Eons direction as 'sheep' is imo unjust. Bond fans would go better.
Get over Craigs casting already, he's here to stay for a while yet.
As for Bale bj, small problem there matey. It's called BATMAN!.

I don't care what others have said. This is coming from me. Its not lacking in depth or a cheap attack...its called keeping it real. If you want to have a deep conversation about why Craig isn't Bond then we can do this. Unlike most pro-Craiggers, I don't have the same 3 or 4 reasons why Craig is Bond. You guys are basically repeating yourselves over and over. I've been on AJB for while and just joined his site the other day and you guys keep bringing up the same reasons as to why Craig is Bond. He's nitty and gritty, he's Fleming's Bond, man whatever. Anti-Craiggers have been posting detailed and informative messages as to why Craig isn't Bond. One of them is on the main page for this site. Go to For Fleming Fans Only and check it out. That dude drops it like its hot on all pro-Craiggers. Very detailed and precise. But if you love Craig, then its all good. Enjoy this generic, soup-kitchen brand Bond that acts a fool over a card game and then chases after the villian with a steak knife. Is that how Bond is suppose to be? Getting all mad over losing money in a card game that wasn't his to begin with. Connery or Brosnan would have never acted like that. Do you think Connery or Dalton would stand in a bathroom and argue with a woman over what kind of tux to wear? C'mon now! Is this suppose to be a James Bond movie or is this some daytime soup opera?

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Fri May 25, 2007 4:03 am

That's all well and good, but this thread is for reviewing Casino Royale.
If you'd like to post in the appropriate thread I'm sure that would be better for all.
Maybe this one :

http://www.danielcraigisnotbond.com/for ... cbb23#4357

Jermaine76 · Post by **Jermaine76** » Fri May 25, 2007 4:12 am

Captain Nash wrote:That's all well and good, but this thread is for reviewing Casino Royale.
If you'd like to post in the appropriate thread I'm sure that would be better for all.
Maybe this one :
http://www.danielcraigisnotbond.com/for ... cbb23#4357

Thank you very much.

Post by **carl stromberg** » Sat May 26, 2007 12:13 pm

So far though they're all very similar to the usual tedious style of many of the anti-Craig brigade. Lacking any real depth,

Yes of course: those who didn't like Daniel Craig as Bond have "tedious arguments lacking real depth".

You can speak quite freely here Jermaine; I know it seems weird after posting on the other Bond forums.....

Oddjob · Post by **Oddjob** » Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:14 pm

To repeat myself, why does an overhaul of the franchise require casting an unconventional looking Bond actor? I'm also tired of the previous films and actors being slagged off by pro-Craigers.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:11 am

I'll make it quick and short. Casino Royale is my 3rd favorite Bond film behind From Russia with Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service?

Why? Obviously it is a superior film and deserves a spot at the top 5. Daniel Craig is my 2nd favorite Bond actor. Right behind Connery while in front of Dalton.

Take it or leave it.

Post by **007** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:52 pm

I think I'll leave it.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:09 am

What could be a more fitting place to post my 1000th post.

There was a lot resting on this film, there were fans that were unhappy, and I’ll admit I was skeptical at first when Daniel Craig was announced, but I decided to give him a go, and see what he could do. And wow did he show everyone. Not Connery just yet, but he’s certainly going to give the original Bond a run for his money. Eon took a gamble with this film and it’s lead actor and it’s paid off for them handsomely . A quick yet exciting pts where we see Bond get his two kills, thus earning his licence to kill or OO status. Craig is a rookie Bond who makes a few mistakes along the way, and is not popular with M. But after he stops a terrorist attack at Miami airport and regains her trust, she sends him to stop LeChiffre (the films villain) from winning a poker tournament that will break the banker of the worlds terrorists. From beginning to end Craig gives the film his all, he might not be everyone’s idea of James Bond, but for me he nails it. The scene in the shower where he comforts Vesper is a case in point. He makes Bond more human and recognizable but then minutes before this he kills a man with his bare hands. For me he’s up there with Dalton, giving a more Flemingesque version of our favourite secret agent. Not everyone will agree with that, but that’s the way I see him. The film is long, but you don’t even realize it. Though it does feel like two halves. The opening crane fight, that is hugely enjoyable and well shot, and the following trip too the Bahamas and then Miami, are the main action pieces, then we move to Montenegro for part two, where all our character’s grow and the story unfolds. There are a few problems with all this, but these are thankfully minimal. Felix Leiter is underused in CR, and one hopes he has a bigger role (again if possible with Jeffrey Wright) in Bond 22.
And although it’s not terrible, I’m not a huge fan of the sinking building at the films climax. It is an impressive scene, and upto the typical Bond standards, I just am not that keen. Apart from that the film is a winner on every level. For me a far better film than GE, director Martin Campbell is a great man to helm a Bond film, and one hopes he will return to the series again sometime. Then there’s the excellent cast. All of whom give great performances, notably Eva Green as Vesper. Her relationship with Bond is up there with that of Bond and Tracy. You really feel that there is a chemistry between the two.
Mads Mikkelsen is also a worthy Bond foe. Not your typical megalomaniac, but a greedy man. Plain and simple. He’s almost likeable at times, but in the end is just a nasty piece of work.
And finally there’s the final scene, and the last line. A fantastic way to end the film, in which a rookie Bond is introduced. Classic.
The honeymoon for this film is pretty much over, you either like it, and like it a lot or you don’t. I myself like it. Alot.
I think it’s a great Bond film, the best since TLD twenty years previous. That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy the Brosnan years, but this is the type of film I enjoy.
Here’s to more of the same with Bond 22.

Well there you go.

Post by **Skywalker** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:46 pm

A good review Nash. I disagree with the majority of it, but that will come as no surprise.

Terry · Post by **Terry** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:20 pm

I've seen Casino Royale once, in the cinema in november. To be honest I don't think the team Eon have (Barbara, Purvis & Wade, David Arnold, Martin Campbell etc) are very good at making films. Contrast a Christopher Nolan film with the last batch of 007 films. Nolan is not an art-house director. He's actually a big Bond fan who said The Spy Who Loved Me is one of his favourite films. Casino Royale according to a lot of critics, Rotten Tomatoes and the other Bond forums is arguably the best James Bond film ever made and some sort of masterpiece. Am I living on the same planet as these people? CR was like a cross between a Jason Statham film and a Pierce Brosnan Bond with a few bones thrown in the direction of the more pretentious Bond fan. Oh look, someone said 'blunt instrument'! Oh look, Bond is bloodied! An anodyne love story was undercut by the lead actress looking like the leading man's daughter and the poker was padded out far too much. Casino scenes are just not a big thrill now. What about Daniel Craig? Just a big blank at the heart of this film. He's good at running and scowling and a decent actor but he's just meh. Doesn't look like Bond to me and no amount of body-building or running changes that. I actually found him dour. The critical response to this film I found astonishing!

Post by **The Sweeney** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:20 pm

Terry wrote: Casino Royale according to a lot of critics, Rotten Tomatoes and the other Bond forums is arguably the best James Bond film ever made and some sort of masterpiece. Am I living on the same planet as these people? The critical response to this film I found astonishing!

When you say `these people', I guess you are referring to 99.9% of people on this planet who have seen CR, right?

(the other 0.00000001% being the anti mob on here).

Terry · Post by **Terry** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:59 pm

Whoops. I called Christopher Nolan David Nolan for some reason.

When you say `these people', I guess you are referring to 99.9% of people on this planet who have seen CR, right?

It might be pushing it to suggest that 99.9% of people who saw CR thought it was brilliant. I know a lot of intelligent Bond fans who thought CR was more Jason Statham than Ian Fleming.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:31 am

Many Bond fans found CR a reach from the prior 20 films.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:38 am

Terry wrote:Whoops. I called Christopher Nolan David Nolan for some reason.

When you say `these people', I guess you are referring to 99.9% of people on this planet who have seen CR, right?
It might be pushing it to suggest that 99.9% of people who saw CR thought it was brilliant. I know a lot of intelligent Bond fans who thought CR was more Jason Statham than Ian Fleming.

Are you implying that any fan that thought CR was good and had elements of Fleming used in the film are un-intelligent?