rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Feb 23, 2008 13:22:34 GMT -5
CASINO ROYALE (2006) - ****1/2I get easily irritated with people who complain about the fight sequences in this movie being way too much like THE BOURNE IDENTITY. Certainly that Matt Damon franchise, and their massive box-office, inspired EON Productions to quit the uninspired quick-cutting with the close-up shots and body doubles to pass off the illusion that Pierce Brosnan could fight. The difference though is that while Jason Bourne reacts from behavior software with (ridiculously) quick clear precision, Daniel Craig is brutally instinctive when he slams a contact's skull into a bathroom sink. Right from the black & white opening with Craig's stone cold hit job, this clearly aint your Daddy's James Bond, or the one he's been used to. This is the violent bastard Bond that LICENSE TO KILL and Timothy Dalton so desperately wanted to be, but failed. While we still get the trademark Bondian stunts, gunfire, women, and one-liners, what's wonderfully missing is the formula of expectations. With CASINO ROYALE, the aura of danger, suspense, and cool have returned to the 007 codename. Instead of trying to cram Craig into a worn-out static mold like EON did with Dalton, ROYALE is built around him. His brooding masculinty, incredible physiqe, and blue eyes make him the most action-credible but charming Bond since Sean Connery. If Craig keeps this up, he'll become the de facto face of cinema's greatest hero. In fact, If EON has been practically remaking GOLDFINGER and its comic book adventurism for decades, Director Martin Campbell's ROYALE is more of a throwback to the classic atmospheric FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. Much like Robert Shaw, Mads Mikkelsen is a great 007 threat not because he's yet another gimmick villain trying to take over the world, but because his charisma is allowed to dictate. Consider his great chemistry with Craig, for ROYALE's most thrilling scenes might very well be the tense but rewarding finale poker game, and the torture sequence that've caused men worldwide to squirm. But if Bond is given back his potentcy with fists, ROYALE actually surprised me by putting the sex back in sex. For a character renown as a sexist symbol of man-whoring, there is genuine lust of which hasn't been so provacative with Bond since "Pussy Galore" got through the censors. Yet to compound that is how once Eva Green is introduced and has a verbal shake-down with Craig, the audience gives a damn about her. Many 007 pictures have tried to make some Bond Girls matter before, but their importance were always neutered by the formula's safety net. With that creative webbing ripped and thrown aside, Green is allowed to have an impact of which this Bond franchise "re-launch" will have a mythical foundation from which to grow from, and have ramifications for years to come, especially with the upcoming direct sequel THE QUANTUM OF SOLACE. This is ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, but better executed and more emotional. I think its praise and criticism when the movie's first serious action sequence is more thrilling and exciting than anything we've seen before in a 007 picture, followed by the equally excellent airport bomb chase, but by the Venice gunfight, I was mentally exausted. Those are two words I don't think I've said about an action movie since SPEED back in the day. Yet when the hero utters his signature line, and his iconic music is played over the credits, not only is Bond gladly back with a bloody vengeance... He's got his balls back.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Feb 23, 2008 13:25:03 GMT -5
Note: some people whined to high heaven about the fight sequences in "Batman Begins" when it came out, as well. Besides, Brosnan was too old to be Bond anymore, another one and he would have been older than Roger Moore And everyone knows how Moore's last Bond movies looked....
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Feb 23, 2008 13:29:32 GMT -5
Note: some people whined to high heaven about the fight sequences in "Batman Begins" when it came out, as well. Besides, Brosnan was too old to be Bond anymore, another one and he would have been older than Roger Moore And everyone knows how Moore's last Bond movies looked.... The fight cinematography in BEGINS never bothered me. Maybe its because after severe exposure to Michael Bay's filmography, I'm immuned probably to "shakey camera." Plus, I thought Nolan's inexperience brought raw excitement to fights of which are routine as shot by most 2nd unit directors. As for Brosnan....nah, he wouldn't have been as pathetic as Moore was in A VIEW TO A KILL.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Feb 23, 2008 13:51:59 GMT -5
Here's Roger Ebert's review...and he loved it too. Casino Royale - 4 Stars out of 4. ---August 17, 2007 "Casino Royale" has the answers to all my complaints about the 45-year-old James Bond series, and some I hadn't even thought of. It's not that I didn't love some of the earlier films, like some, dislike others and so on, as that I was becoming less convinced that I ever had to see another one. This movie is new from the get-go. It could be your first Bond. In fact, it was the first Bond; it was Ian Fleming's first 007 novel, and he was still discovering who the character was. The longtime Saltzman-Broccoli producing team could never get their hands on the rights until now, despite earlier misadventures by others using the same title, and maybe it's just as well, because it provides a fresh starting place. And it returns to the family fold; with her father's passing, Barbara Broccoli is producer. Yes, Daniel Craig makes a superb Bond: Leaner, more taciturn, less sex-obsessed, able to be hurt in body and soul, not giving a damn if his martini is shaken or stirred. That doesn't make him the "best" Bond, because I've long since given up playing that pointless ranking game; Sean Connery was first to plant the flag, and that's that. But Daniel Craig is bloody damned great as Bond, in a movie that creates a new reality for the character. Year after year, attending the new Bond was like observing a ritual. There was the opening stunt sequence that served little purpose, except to lead into the titles; the title song; Miss Moneypenny; M with an assignment of great urgency to the Crown; Q with some new gadgets; an archvillain; a series of babes, some treacherous, some doomed, all frequently in stages of undress; the villain's master-plan; Bond's certain death, and a lot of chases. It could be terrific, it could be routine, but you always knew about where you were in the formula. With "Casino Royale," we get to the obligatory concluding lovey-dovey on the tropical sands, and then the movie pulls a screeching U-turn and starts up again with the most sensational scene I have ever seen set in Venice, or most other places. It's a movie that keeps on giving. This time, no Moneypenny, no Q and Judi Dench is unleashed as M, given a larger role, and allowed to seem hard-eyed and disapproving to the reckless Bond. This time, no dream of world domination, but just a bleeding-eyed rat who channels money to terrorists. This time a poker game that is interrupted by the weirdest trip to the parking lot I've ever seen. This time, no laser beam inching up on Bond's netherlands, but a nasty knotted rope actually whacking his hopes of heirs. And this time, no Monte Carlo, but Montenegro, a fictional casino resort, where Bond checks into the "Hotel Splendid," which is in fact, yes, the very same Grand Hotel Pupp in Karlovy Vary where Queen Latifah had her culinary vacation in "Last Holiday." That gives me another opportunity to display my expertise on the Czech Republic by informing you that "Pupp" is pronounced "poop," so no wonder it's the Splendid. I never thought I would see a Bond movie where I cared, actually cared, about the people. But I care about Bond, and about Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), even though I know that (here it comes) a Martini Vesper is shaken, not stirred. Vesper Lynd, however, is definitely stirring, as she was in Bertolucci's wonderful "The Dreamers." Sometimes shaken, too. Vesper and James have a shower scene that answers, at last, why nobody in a Bond movie ever seems to have any real emotions. A review should not be a list. So I should not enumerate all the scenes I liked. But I learn from IMDb that the special credit for the "free running" scenes of Sabastian Foucan refers to the sensational opening Madagascar foot chase in which Foucan practices parkour, or the ability to run at walls and angles and bounce off them to climb or change direction; Jackie Chan could do similar feats. Which brings up another thing. Most of the chases and stunts in "Casino Royale" take place in something vaguely approximating real space and time. Of course I know they use doubles and deceptive camera angles and edits to cover impossibilities, but the point is: They try to make it look real. Recently, with the advent of portable cameras and computerized editing, action movies have substituted visual chaos for visual elegance. I think the public is getting tired of action sequences that are created in post-production. I've been swamped with letters complaining about "The Bourne Ultimatum." One guy said, "Why don't critics admit they're tired of it?" Actually, we're tired of writing about how tired of it we are. The plot centers on a marathon high-stakes poker game, in which Bond will try to deprive Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) of 10 million or more pounds that would go to finance terrorism. Le Chiffre ("The Cypher") has problems on his own, because he owes money big-time to the people who supply it to him. Director Martin Campbell builds suspense in the extended poker game by not being afraid to focus for long seconds on the eyes of the two main opponents, which is all the more effective because Le Chiffre's left eye has tears of blood, inspiring a classic Bond line. Bond's absences from the table are of more than ordinary interest. This is Campbell's second Bond picture, after "GoldenEye" (1995), but he breaks with his own and everyone else's tradition. He's helped by Craig, who gives the sense of a hard man, wounded by life and his job, who nevertheless cares about people and right and wrong. To a certain degree, the earlier Bonds were lustful technicians. With this one, since he has a big scene involving a merchant's house in Venice, we can excuse ourselves for observing that if you prick him, he bleeds. rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070816/REVIEWS/708160301/1023
|
|
Mother
Samurai Cop
Possibly a virgin... methinks he doth protest too much
There's no need for this
Posts: 2,437
|
Post by Mother on Feb 23, 2008 13:58:40 GMT -5
I wasn't TOO impressed with this movie, it was better than most Bonds I've seen, but I've never really been a fan. I grew up with Indiana Jones, who was much more badass in my opinion.
|
|
Jam
Unicron
Spiral out
Posts: 2,934
|
Post by Jam on Feb 23, 2008 14:14:09 GMT -5
I wasn't TOO impressed with this movie, it was better than most Bonds I've seen, but I've never really been a fan. I grew up with Indiana Jones, who was much more badass in my opinion. What he said
|
|
Matt Rogers
King Koopa
member is currently offline <stalking Emma Watson>
Omae wa mo shindeiru.
Posts: 11,869
|
Post by Matt Rogers on Feb 23, 2008 14:17:16 GMT -5
I love that film a lot. The two main reasons are there in that pic.
I'm gonna spent the next one weeping over Eva's absence.
|
|
|
Post by tomservo23 on Feb 23, 2008 14:22:21 GMT -5
The only thing I didn't like was the ending. I'm doing this off of memory, but I recall that Bond was put in the poker game to nab that terrorist financier. Near the end of the poker game, the CIA operative says that they're going to move in and get him, yet they allow the guy to kidnap Bond's woman, which leads to Bond getting captured. Did I mishear something, or is that a plot hole? The whole "Bond getting tortured" sequence, while good, shouldn't even have occurred, since the guy who kidnapped him should've been arrested already!
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Feb 23, 2008 14:27:34 GMT -5
The only thing I didn't like was the ending. I'm doing this off of memory, but I recall that Bond was put in the poker game to nab that terrorist financier. Near the end of the poker game, the CIA operative says that they're going to move in and get him, yet they allow the guy to kidnap Bond's woman, which leads to Bond getting captured. Did I mishear something, or is that a plot hole? The whole "Bond getting tortured" sequence, while good, shouldn't even have occurred, since the guy who kidnapped him should've been arrested already! Well, if you remember from the dialogue...they expected the baddie, without the $100 something million, to seek asylum to avoid getting chopped up to tiny little pieces. But that was the problem. The baddie didn't go to the CIA or MI6, and instead kidnapped Craig/Green to get his money (by force) from him. He still wants to keep his dayjob, but as well....I think he was still peeved that he lost that poker game to Bond. Hell, rememeber that great moment during the torture sequence? "Even after I cut up you and your girlfriend, they'll still take me in!"
|
|
|
Post by Scree is SCIENCE! ENERGY! on Feb 23, 2008 14:31:03 GMT -5
rra, I completely agree with everything you said. Absolutely loved this movie.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Feb 23, 2008 14:42:49 GMT -5
rra, I completely agree with everything you said. Absolutely loved this movie. I think its a testament to CASINO ROYALE's success when seeing that movie in theatres with my old man.... Now he was someone who saw practically most of the 007 pictures in first-run, especially the Connery flicks, at the drive-in. We see ROYALE, we come out...and he says: "That's the best Bond movie I've ever seen, and Craig is better than Connery." Now, I won't go that far just yet. But still, that's hell lot of praise, if you ask me. INTERESTING RANDOM FACT - ROYALE is the biggest 007 hit movie ever in theatres, but it never went #1 over a weekend in America. The moral? Being #1 is overrated. Its all about the long term.
|
|
|
Post by tomservo23 on Feb 23, 2008 14:46:06 GMT -5
The only thing I didn't like was the ending. I'm doing this off of memory, but I recall that Bond was put in the poker game to nab that terrorist financier. Near the end of the poker game, the CIA operative says that they're going to move in and get him, yet they allow the guy to kidnap Bond's woman, which leads to Bond getting captured. Did I mishear something, or is that a plot hole? The whole "Bond getting tortured" sequence, while good, shouldn't even have occurred, since the guy who kidnapped him should've been arrested already! Well, if you remember from the dialogue...they expected the baddie, without the $100 something million, to seek asylum to avoid getting chopped up to tiny little pieces. But that was the problem. The baddie didn't go to the CIA or MI6, and instead kidnapped Craig/Green to get his money (by force) from him. He still wants to keep his dayjob, but as well....I think he was still peeved that he lost that poker game to Bond. Hell, rememeber that great moment during the torture sequence? "Even after I cut up you and your girlfriend, they'll still take me in!" I thought I remembered the CIA operative telling Bond that he was going to move in on the baddie. I haven't seen it since Black Friday, maybe another viewing is in order. One more question though, when Bond and the girl get rescued from the kidnappers, why doesn't MI6 assume that they have a rogue agent on the loose? I mean, we do find out the girl cut a deal with the guy at the end of the movie, but why wasn't Bond under suspicion for a while?
|
|
|
Post by scottyno on Feb 23, 2008 14:50:28 GMT -5
the poker scenes sucked, the rest of the movie was really good
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Feb 23, 2008 14:56:13 GMT -5
Well, if you remember from the dialogue...they expected the baddie, without the $100 something million, to seek asylum to avoid getting chopped up to tiny little pieces. But that was the problem. The baddie didn't go to the CIA or MI6, and instead kidnapped Craig/Green to get his money (by force) from him. He still wants to keep his dayjob, but as well....I think he was still peeved that he lost that poker game to Bond. Hell, rememeber that great moment during the torture sequence? "Even after I cut up you and your girlfriend, they'll still take me in!" I thought I remembered the CIA operative telling Bond that he was going to move in on the baddie. I haven't seen it since Black Friday, maybe another viewing is in order. One more question though, when Bond and the girl get rescued from the kidnappers, why doesn't MI6 assume that they have a rogue agent on the loose? I mean, we do find out the girl cut a deal with the guy at the end of the movie, but why wasn't Bond under suspicion for a while? Because he let down his guard, and fell for her. Plus, what indication did MI6 have at that time to suspect her? Surely if this was Bond, the stone cold bastard, he would have wondered why Mr. White let them live and not the others.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Feb 23, 2008 14:56:33 GMT -5
the poker scenes sucked, the rest of the movie was really good Why do they suck?
|
|
|
Post by tomservo23 on Feb 23, 2008 15:43:18 GMT -5
I thought I remembered the CIA operative telling Bond that he was going to move in on the baddie. I haven't seen it since Black Friday, maybe another viewing is in order. One more question though, when Bond and the girl get rescued from the kidnappers, why doesn't MI6 assume that they have a rogue agent on the loose? I mean, we do find out the girl cut a deal with the guy at the end of the movie, but why wasn't Bond under suspicion for a while? Because he let down his guard, and fell for her. Plus, what indication did MI6 have at that time to suspect her? Surely if this was Bond, the stone cold bastard, he would have wondered why Mr. White let them live and not the others. My point is, Bond got kidnapped and tortured, then was suddenly let go. Either the girl made a deal (which she DID, but we didn't know it at the time), or Bond made a deal with some shady characters for his freedom, which may have involved the divulging of sensitive information. Why wouldn't MI6 assume that the second thing happened?
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,644
|
Post by Bo Rida on Feb 23, 2008 15:47:38 GMT -5
I didn't like it as it seemed to be building up to the big poker game all movie but when the game finished the movie dragged on for about another hour. To use a wrestling comparison it's putting the main event mid card. Eva Green was pretty good though.
|
|
|
Post by scottyno on Feb 23, 2008 15:50:15 GMT -5
the poker scenes sucked, the rest of the movie was really good Why do they suck? because I play poker so i notice stupid little stuff that they could have easily fixed, but probably no one else cares about. First of all I get annoyed by the fact that every hand they show is a stupid ridiculous over the top insane hand (straight flush vs full house vs full house vs flush 4 handed). The math doesnt work out on the last hand, Bond couldn't possibly have had enough chips to bust Le Chiffre (sp?) based on the amount he said he was raising, a stupid error on the writers part that could have easily been remedied if they just thought about it. And the logic on the first hand where Bond goes broke is faulty, according to the story Bond thinks Le Chiffre is bluffing, yet he goes all in anyway, a play that makes no sense which could have easily been corrected as well. Mostly stuff that if you didnt play poker you wouldnt notice or care about, but as someone who plays poker a lot it really bothers me since the things they did wrong could easily have been corrected.
|
|
|
Post by Branimal on Feb 23, 2008 15:53:10 GMT -5
I loved this movie from start to finish.
Not as much as my little brother..who saw it 5 times in the theatre.
IMO, the opening black and white scene as well as the following chase scene are among the best I've ever seen in an action movie.
I'd never been a real James Bond fan before..now, I can't get enough.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Feb 23, 2008 16:05:23 GMT -5
Because he let down his guard, and fell for her. Plus, what indication did MI6 have at that time to suspect her? Surely if this was Bond, the stone cold bastard, he would have wondered why Mr. White let them live and not the others. My point is, Bond got kidnapped and tortured, then was suddenly let go. Either the girl made a deal (which she DID, but we didn't know it at the time), or Bond made a deal with some shady characters for his freedom, which may have involved the divulging of sensitive information. Why wouldn't MI6 assume that the second thing happened? Two things. One, assumptions aren't proof. Its not like Mathis, whom Bond got from the baddie's own mouth that he was a double-agent. Two, MI6 may have had (rightfully) suspicions, and decided to simply let them go, and see where they may lead if either or both were the traitors. Its like the opening with the bombmaker. Better to capture him than outright whack him.
|
|