Casino Royale

Yeah, this wasn't one of my favorites. Too much Bond being angry/sensitive, it dragged on WAY too long, and in the end I ended up feeling bored and unsatisfied. Note to studios: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

VengeanceGOD said:

Yeah, this wasn't one of my favorites. Too much Bond being angry/sensitive

Click to expand...

WELCOME TO THE FLEMMING NOVELS:laugh:

it dragged on WAY too long, and in the end I ended up feeling bored and unsatisfied. Note to studios: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Click to expand...

Well they fixed it for me, Die Another Day did'nt break the formula, and it blew chunks. Time to throw out the dated gadgets and bad jokes, and in with what makes real Bond in the first place.

My own personal review of this movie is that it was the best since License To Kill in terms of everything, from pace, to depth, to acting, to Bond's inner pain, to the action delivering on a vast and quick scale. Screw the popcorn lovers, this is the Bond movie for PURISTS, and purists deserve their break for once.

It's too late anyway, the film is a success, and there going with this direction whenever you like it or not, and for once, maybe that's a good thing (no insult intended, but I really do not want the franchise going back to what the die-hards want it to be)

It takes a pretty pompous attitude to assume that Vengeance is a "popcorn lover" and that you're some elite purist. Maybe Vengeance is as big a Bond fan as ever there wuz cuz, and he just didn't like Casino Royale? I'm sure there's a ton of teeny-boppers that don't know jack about traditional James Bond that loved the movie. They must be super purists too...? Let's not start getting heavy-handed with the "L337" talk.

VengeanceGOD said:

Yeah, this wasn't one of my favorites. Too much Bond being angry/sensitive, it dragged on WAY too long, and in the end I ended up feeling bored and unsatisfied. Note to studios: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Click to expand...

Of course there are people who wouldn't like it - that's normal and I respect that . However, the question remains as to whether the Bond franchise is really broke or not. Personally, I ended up being bored and unsatisfied after all Brosnan movies except for Goldeneye. People will disagree with me, but I have to respect that.

Personally, if I wanted superheroism and invincibility, I'd watch Spider-Man or Superman.

Bolt said:

It takes a pretty pompous attitude to assume that Vengeance is a "popcorn lover" and that you're some elite purist.

Click to expand...

Never said I was an "elitist" did I? If I were an "elitist", I'd be nit-picking the movie for not doing things in the novel.

I being a purist means I don't find a problem with it as much as non-purists do, and there's no crime with being a popcorn lover, but Vengeance knew what this was going in, and then promptly tells the producers to "stick with what works", which even the most die-hard "popcorn" lover knows does'nt work anymore thanks to shows like 24. People want realism and hard-edged crime drama with flawed characters, and that is what Flemming's novels were. Asking them to stick with a failed commodity is like telling WB to rehire Joel Schumacher.

The older Bond movies are still good, but the franchise needs to address it's roots and adapt, and it has, and there's no going back now

What about Casino Royale was going back to its roots? Did you watch any Connery movies? Did any of them drag on far too long and have more endings than Return of the King? Did any of them have useless villains, no resolution, and a Bond so idiotic that he can't tell when Vesper is setting him up?

How about five poker hands that were EXACTLY THE SAME SCENE? Were those there? No, this movie didn't go back to its roots, unless its roots were XXX. Success it may be, but that doesn't mean **** for the film's actual quality. Bond can be edgy and still not suck - Goldeneye proved that. It can also be edgy and suck HARD, as was proved by The World is Not Enough and Casino Royale.

VengeanceGOD said:

No, this movie didn't go back to its roots, unless its roots were XXX.

Click to expand...

Ouch! :laugh:

Thanks, I liked that one. :laugh:

VengeanceGOD said:

Bond can be edgy and still not suck - Goldeneye proved that.

Click to expand...

I think Licence to Kill is a better example than GoldenEye, IMO. GoldenEye more or less was the standard style of a Bond, at the time they were a little too afraid to take a major risk (between the franchise's break and the "poor" reception of Licence to Kill). Licence to Kill, however, was a major departure for the series and it still managed to stick to Fleming's blueprint. Too bad the film wasn't marketed the proper way...

How times have changed... What people are praising Daniel Craig and Casino Royale for is the same thing that happened with the series when Timothy Dalton took over and he and his films went overlooked and are still unfairly maligned. The main film public couldn't fathom a realistic, gritty Bond after the camp Roger Moore movies, but we're in a more cynical time where we can't tolerate Brosnan's absurd outings and demand the type of character and film once ostracized in this series...

Dalton? The goofy-ass Bond?

I dunno, I've never watched his films. They just never really looked good.