Casino Royale

[Haggisboy]

Bartender: Shaken or stirred?
James Bond: Does it look like I give a damn?

Few movie quotes so totally capture the mindset behind a film as this quip from Daniel Craig’s 007 in Casino Royale.

Like Batman Begins, Casino Royale represents a complete re-boot of the Bond mythos, bringing us back the origin and re-laying the foundation for cinema’s longest running franchise.

The last time I saw a Bond movie in the theatre was back in the Roger Moore days. In the interim since they’ve become video fodder, mostly because they’d become larger than life in all the wrong ways. The stories, or what little of them there were, had long ago become nothing more than mere vehicles for techno-wizardry, and the Bond universe had become a perverse cliché built around the latest toys and seemingly impervious villains.

What’s refreshing about Casino Royale is that everything that had grown stale has been jettisoned in favor of a stripped down version of the super sleuth. Well, almost.

Gone are the gadgets, villans with metal teeth or razor-rimmed bowler hats. Still present are the sleek cars (albeit of the real-world variety), beautiful women, and white knuckle action scenes.

Much was written about the choice of Daniel Craig for the role of Bond. Complaints abounded that he wasn’t “refined” enough, his eyes were too blue, Bond could never be blond, or just simply that he didn’t have “the look”.

To all that I say hogwash.

Craig plays bond as a brute force killing machine who also possesses a keen level of intelligence, but must constantly check himself to use his intellectual wiles when he would more readily prefer to savagely beat a foe to a pulp, or slit his throat.

Craig’s Bond both gives and gets in equal measure. As much as he bloodies and bludgeons his opponents, he equally finds himself slashed, beaten, bleeding and poisoned.

As if a nod to the more intimate side of Bond that was briefly and (some say) disastrously flirted with in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Bond is given a human side, opening himself up with precarious results to the stunning Vesper Lynd (Eva Green - Kingdom of Heaven), with whom he chooses to give up the undercover ops and settle down to a normal life.

So, in a nutshell, how good is Craig’s performance? In my opinion, he’s the first since Connery to absolutely personify the role of Bond. And, while many won’t agree, I reluctantly have to say that I think he’s actually better than the venerable Scot.

Heresy? Perhaps. Good movie smarts? You bet.

[Seeker]

You can write what you like Haggis just don't bag The Man.

[Shampyon]

That's some high praise there.
This sounds like the bond film I've been waiting for. Back to the Bond that would strangle a woman with her own bikini!

[AntZ]

Connery >>> all other Bonds. I might change my mind after I see this take on Casino Royale, but I doubt it. My other main gripe with this review - whats wrong with villains with metal teeth?

[Elf]

Seeing Casino Royale next week. Sean Connery has been the only Bond that I have ever liked but I am all bouncy at the thought of seeing Daniel Craig's portrayal. Having watched his acting skills in films such as Layer Cake and Elizabeth and judged them to be stunning, I am excited to be seeing a film for the first time in a LONG time.

[AntZ]

Just as an "Oh fuck thats cool" note - both Daniel Craig and Eva Green are gonna be in the His Dark Materials: Northern Lights movie that is gonna be made.

[Elf]

Can't wait for that either.

[Up_All_Night]

hope this film doesnt disapoint. Sounds like it wont. Im just too worried they've been trying to make it too much like the Jason Bourne films, which are excellent, but removed it too far from being james bond. However you get that feeling the stripped back elements will start coming back in the next film, if this is his first mission and isnt the character yet...

[astro]

I'm quite interested to see how this works out. It sounds like it's going to be pretty darned good. But I only have one question... If this is meant to be the story of "How Bond got his Double-0 rating", why is it set in modern day?

[Jimma]

The best part about Bond is cool gadgets and impervious villains. The Pierce Brosnan Bond movies were all shit, I hope this one is better.

[Canalien]

I'm quite interested to see how this works out. It sounds like it's going to be pretty darned good. But I only have one question... If this is meant to be the story of "How Bond got his Double-0 rating", why is it set in modern day?

like he said, it's a reboot of the series... if you consider all the other movies as a continuity and that bond got his 00 rating in the 60's then by the time the brosnan films came around Bond was one hell of a good looking 80 year old. in terms of the movies, as time advances, so does the continuity.

[Mr Bigglesworth]

Yes .... Eva Green goodness.

:wank:

[astro]

like he said, it's a reboot of the series... if you consider all the other movies as a continuity and that bond got his 00 rating in the 60's then by the time the brosnan films came around Bond was one hell of a good looking 80 year old. in terms of the movies, as time advances, so does the continuity.
A very fair point. In that case, I shall try to walk into this movie with the most open mind possible. To be honest, I've been really looking forward to this film's release.

[Movius]

When the first trailer emerged for this I thought that it would be the 'St. Anger' of Bond films. I see nothing to suggest otherwise.

[Sbutter]

It was an interesting film. I didn't even notice the lack of gadets until I read this review, which is fairly on target. Oh, but the car did have some gadets and a couple other places, but nothing too serious.

[AntZ]

like he said, it's a reboot of the series... if you consider all the other movies as a continuity and that bond got his 00 rating in the 60's then by the time the brosnan films came around Bond was one hell of a good looking 80 year old. in terms of the movies, as time advances, so does the continuity.

Dumbass. 007 and the name James Bond is the name given to whoever happens to be 007 at the time. So there have been multiple people with the 007 - James Bond tag over time not just "one hell of a good looking 80 year old".

[Canalien]

Retard. 'James Bond' isn't a codename, it's his real name.

All those actors in the movies were playing the same person, the time-setting just gets updated to whatever is current when whichever movie comes out. In the 'movie universe' there's no definite chronology or continuity other han a few instances. The idea of the name 'James Bond' being a codename assigned to different people was entirely an creation of Lee Tamahori, who directed Die Another Day to explain the different actors and time settings throughout the series. He came up with it because he wanted Sean Connery to cameo in the movie. Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson rejected the entire concept. The other evidence of it that idea comes from the spoof version of Casino Royale from 1967, which isn't a legit Bond story anyway.

Either way, the movies are separate from the books.

In the novels Bond is his real name and he was born in the '20s. The entire movie series has become rife with contradictions and continuity errors to the point that there is no more continuity, just James Bond. The original novels is where the only real continuity exists.

The new Casino Royale is a complete reboot of the series, like Batman Begins.

[astro]

If James Bond were a codename, was Felix Liter a code name as well? No, it wasn't.

[Shampyon]

I suggested the idea of "James Bond" being a codename, but there's nothing in the movies to suggest this is so, beyond the actor changes.

[AntZ]

Controversially, Die Another Day director Lee Tamahori believed that the name "James Bond" is a codename (like 007) which is given to the best and most accomplished secret agents. The theory is meant to explain the radical changes in actors (e.g., Roger Moore vs. Timothy Dalton) and Bond's ageless ability. The idea was created so that Tamahori could get Sean Connery to do a cameo scene in Die Another Day, and thus explain how it was possible that Connery and Brosnan as Bond could both be on film at the same time.[1]

Tamahori explained the theory: "My idea was basically that there have been several Bonds. It's just a prefix and a code name. Even James Bond is not the guy's name. That's the way I've always been able to view these things from when Connery left and Lazenby and Moore took over, right up to Brosnan. How could this guy be so young still? Of course to me, it is just a prefix and a code name. That means that Connery either died or retired, Moore died or retired and so on. Following that, that allows you to have possibly two James Bonds in a movie. What happened to the others? Were they retired from active service or were they killed? That's where I came from."

So I screwed up - it isn't canon, but it does give a valid and reasonable explanation for the change of actors and how Bond managed to stay in his mid-30's during the entire run of books and movies considering the mandatory retirement age was 45 (Source for that parts from the Moonraker novel).

[Up_All_Night]

yeah that idea isnt the case but has been put forward numerous times as a suggestions, personally, eh why bother going into all that.. bond films are always just set in the present day. Plus there have been numerous references back to past movies and past actors bonds as the one characters history.

eg. The World is Not Enough, bond family motto from On her Majestys Secret Service. Bond being married once has come up a couple times as well. etc.

[Canalien]

... and Lazenby's lines in the pre-credits sequence "I bet the other guy never had to put up with this" was a joke. Not meant to suggest he was an entirely new character.

[Buffalo]

Enjoyed it