James Blond

[Le Rouge]

There was the parkour scene which was pretty awesome. I assume that's what you mean?

Yes, for B13. The other film relates to the scene where he is following the female actress, dressed in red. You should get "Dont' Look Now" if you are into this kind (i.e. mystery films from the 70s) of films, it's good.

[sulky_uk]

I thought it was a very so so film defo not as good as brosnan was, althou each to his own
 
eva green looked hot thou, and the best line in the film
"would you like your martini shaken or stirred" and the reply which was very reminisant of clark gable form gone with the wind "does it look like i give a dam"
 
on a side note considering that it was brosnan that approached broccili about making casio royale with quinton tarentino as the guest producer, and that they told him to ram it, one has to cinsider what the brosna/tarentino/broccili film wuld have been like, i would suggest a lot darker

[Le Rouge]

I thought it was a very so so film defo not as good as brosnan was, althou each to his own
 
eva green looked hot thou, and the best line in the film
"would you like your martini shaken or stirred" and the reply which was very reminisant of clark gable form gone with the wind "does it look like i give a dam"
 
on a side note considering that it was brosnan that approached broccili about making casio royale with quinton tarentino as the guest producer, and that they told him to ram it, one has to cinsider what the brosna/tarentino/broccili film wuld have been like, i would suggest a lot darker

Brosnan was :thumbsdownsmileyani .
and brosnan/tarentino would also be :thumbsdownsmileyani (who needs a male Kill Bill anyhow?)

[GhostMjr]

One point is that if you look at Bond from the books Dalton is indeed the closest. However he lacked the upper class background that Roger Moore had. I preferred the Brosnan films but if Brosnan had been released from his contract earlier Dalton may not have even been Bond. Craig was a refreshing change but my favourite bond film: Goldeneye in my eyes can't be beaten. Never the less i look forward to the new installment and i may even buy them all on dvd for the first time. Anyone got a set they no longer want?

GM

[ChimpBoy]

One point is that if you look at Bond from the books Dalton is indeed the closest. However he lacked the upper class background that Roger Moore had.

Huh?  How do you figure that?

[smilodon]

Okey Dokey, here we go. I was indeed asked by the Institute to take Patient: X 1326 Chimpboy on a Care in the Community Outing. Knowing that dark rooms keep him docile I thought a cinema trip would be in order. And so off we went to see Casino Royale.

This was the first of the Bond books and for me one of the best. The book had no arch villains, no submarine, atom bomb stealing Dr Evils lurking in their Cave in a Volcano. Just MI6 v the Baddies with a final show down in nothing more elaborate than a simple house. It seemed the perfect book to use to re-invent the Bond franchise.

I can see what they were trying to do although I am not sure why. With Dalton and Brosnan they producers made a serious effort to move away from the Moore cliché and back to a darker and more 'faithful to the book' Bond. They had some success with Dalton but with Brosnan the film makers couldn't decide whether to go all the way and make Bond the dark assassin of Casino Royale or take him back to the high adventure of the Bonds of the 1980's. So he fell somewhere down the middle, neither giving us the real Flemming Bond nor the spectacular blockbuster Bond. With Casino Royale they obviously chose their path. Why they ditched the traditional Bond template I'm not sure. Each of the three Brosnan films made more gross than the one that came before, so I'm not sure. That being said Casino Royale opened bigger than all the previous Bonds (bar Die Another Day) with a $40 million USA take. So they must have got something right?

Unless you have been living under a rock you will know that with this film they have cast a grittier, more physical actor in Daniel Craig. Gone is the sleek, sophisticated Brosnan for Craigs brutal thug. And if you're going to change Bond this way I think Daniel Craig is a stellar choice. Apart from being a fine actor he can do real menace. Like Russell Crowe in Gladiator  (who I think could have done the Bond role equally well) Craig has a real presence on screen and you easily buy into him being a coldly efficient, stylish killing machine. There are several nods to this films more traditional Bond predecessors, but this is all new stuff.

The film opens small scale with a brutal fist fight. Gone is the trademark spectacular opener as is the obligatory naked women dancing opening credits. For the first time ever the Bond character is seen in the title sequence. The theme is unsurprisingly playing cards. It's low key like the film and has an instantly forgettable sound track. I suspect the producers will be phasing out any more lavish opening credits with future instalments.

We then get about two and a half hours of dark moody thriller, few gadgets, no atom bombs and not a sniff of a nuclear submarine. There is plenty of action but not of the bigger is better type. It's all far more low key and personal. Fights are up close and personal affairs. You can see the sweat and bloody and feel the pain. And you also see the results of Bonds brutal profession. For most of the film Bond carries the signs of his many fights. He seems always to be sporting cuts and bruises. Gone are the days when Bond could get beaten half to death, win the fight and then with a quick adjustment to his bow tie, appear again in perfect condition without a hair out of place.

For comparison this film is far closer to the Bourne Identity / Bourne Supremacy than it is to it's own franchise. Apart from the signature Bond  soundtrack there really is nothing to link this to the old films. No Q, no Moneypenny (neither were featured in the book), no gadgets and no endless line of beauties lined up to be ravished by Bond. He sleeps with only two women in the whole film and one of them was only to get to her husband, an enemy agent.

Of the baddie Mads Mikkelsen, you may have seen him in Clive Owens King Arthur. But unless your into Scandinavian film s that will be all. He's a fine baddie who matches Craig for brooding menace. Not a world conquering megalomaniac, he plays a shady banker who funds International Terrorism. He's actually my second favourite baddie (Christopher Walken being the top slot). Eva Green is fine as the leading lady, very easy on the eye and a lot more than a simple Bond girl. I can't say more without giving away the plot. The rest of the cast are unremarkable and do their job well enough, although Judy Dench is fine as M and plays the her usual "dislikes Bond on the outside but admires him secretly" role.

The film is clearly no Bond flick. Sadly it seems that franchise is now dead and buried. As a thriller it's a quality piece of work though. I'd put it up there alongside Ronin and the aforementioned Bourne films. Maybe The Borne Identity is a little better but then maybe I am still trying to compare Casino Royale to other Bond movies which isn't really fair.

Bad stuff? Well I am sad that it seems the traditional Bond franchise is over and this film sort of has to take responsibility for that. The film does loose its way two thirds of the way through. On at least two occasions many of the audience began to start looking for their coats in expectation of the final credits rolling, then realised there was more to come. It definitely seemed longer than it's 144 minutes. The plot is complex to the point of being a little hard to follow. The main thrust of the film was simple enough - Bond must beat a corrupt banker at a game of high stakes poker to stop his funding of terrorism. But side arcs were less well explained. Who was working for who? Who was double crossing who etc? The plot in old Bonds films wasn't really important. It just strung the action sequences together. But in this film the plot was central and so maybe needed to be better dealt with. And the end of the film seemed to be rushed as if the film makers realised they were almost out of time. The final closing dialogue scenes reminded me of those Scooby Doo episodes where Thelma explains what the hell they have all been upto for the whole episode. Likewise M explains to bond who was double-crossing who and why. It would have preferred for these important reveals to have come from within the narrative rather than through simple explanatory dialogue.

So in summary I'm sad they old Bond franchise is dead, but happy that something great has hopefully be reborn from its ashes. Daniel Craig is fine as the new Bond. And I look forward to the next instalment.

8/10