Printable View
It's a split decision between Goldfinger and Casino Royale; Connelly possessing that certain swagger which oozed with brilliance. He was the classy, and tactical side of Bond, the real lady's man. However, I found Craig to be more pro-action oriented in this film, and was more a physical bond than the other ones, not sustaining the level of secrecy, quick-thinking skills, and the devotion to the mission like the others. A great Bond, nevertheless.
Goldfinger. Goldfinger. Goldfinger.
As someone who has personally seen every freaking Bond film, nothing stands up to Goldfinger.
However, the opening scene of Casino Royale was, without a doubt, the best. That dude was a ninja.
Sean Connery FTW!
Also I agree that the opening in Casino Royale was awesome.
Bond is flat out one of the greatest fictional charecters of all time, anyone who says otherwise is a terrorist... there I said it.
I've only ever seen Casino Royale. I liked it. Pretty much an action movie rather than a stealthy spy one though.
I best liked the humor and charm Roger Moore brought to the role, though I also liked Connery and, to a lesser degree, Brosnan. In my opinion Daniel Craig is the worst - his acting skills are so weak that it's as if his only asset is his looks (in fact he often acts like a parody of a male model like Zoo lander, always turning to the camera). Dalton wasn't much better, and Lazenby was pretty poor as well.
I was never a huge fan of Bond movies, but I've seen most of them, and the only one that really interested me was For your Eyes Only. I remember that me, my Dad and my sister kept watching it again and again - I think it became the family favorite.
I felt that the weakest one was Connery's limping return to the role, Never say Never; the plot and action both left something wanting. Dalton's and Lazenby's few films weren't very good either, and though I thought Brosnan's portrayal of Bond was fairly strong, his films never really grabbed me either.
I didn't like Casino Royale much at all (on top of Craig's poor acting the script felt incomplete and convoluted, and aside from the awesome chase scene early in the film - the high point - there wasn't much action to be had, or cool gadgets.) I'm not planning to see any of Craig's next Bond films, Royale was a big disappointment.
Casino Royale is definitely the best Bond film out of the newer ones.. That, and I also really liked GoldenEye.
The lack of gadgets and lack of constant action was, in part, the whole point of the film. Gadgets and chase scenes became increasingly prevalent in the films over the past four decades, to the point where they were basically the 'stars'. It was silly, unrealistic, and contrived. Royale gives a much more believeable view of what a 'spy' should be doing, in contrast to the preceding films, where Bond was like a cross between a commando and Inspector Gadget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent, Thunder God
I had no idea so many people liked Casino Royale. I thought it was bland and boring, and didn't really hold my interest that much.
In my opinion, the best Bond film is The Man With the Golden Gun, followed by GoldenEye.
At least he can turn left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent, Thunder God
But I'm going to have to agree with you; Connery and Moore owned.
Followed by Goldfinger? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Psychotic
Nah, The Man with the Golden Gun is a decent film, but I've never found many other people who liked it. On the other hand, I really enjoyed Casino Royale because, having read the novel, it was quite nice to see Craig portray Bond closer to how Flemming wrote the character (a bit like, imho, how Dalton did) as a more calculating than goofy character. It was certainly a welcome change compared to the latter Brosnan films, as I said earlier.
...and what would that be? Losing track of his mission by indulging in the pursuit of a dangerous romance which ultimately just proved a liability and ended in tragedy? Your view of what spies would really be doing implies Bond should be a relationship counselor, not a spy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Big DThe lack of gadgets and lack of constant action was, in part, the whole point of the film. Gadgets and chase scenes became increasingly prevalent in the films over the past four decades, to the point where they were basically the 'stars'. It was silly, unrealistic, and contrived. Royale gives a much more believeable view of what a 'spy' should be doing, in contrast to the preceding films, where Bond was like a cross between a commando and Inspector Gadget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent, Thunder God
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown GuruAt least he can turn left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent, Thunder God
But I'm going to have to agree with you; Connery and Moore owned.
No, what he should be doing is more low-key espionage: surveillance, pursuit, quick and clean elimination, information-gathering. Flat-out armed combat only when required, not as a standard response to everything. The later films lost track of that entirely, and Bond increasingly became, basically, a one-man army with an arsenal of deadly novelty items.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent, Thunder God...and what would that be? Losing track of his mission by indulging in the pursuit of a dangerous romance which ultimately just proved a liability and ended in tragedy? Your view of what spies would really be doing implies Bond should be a relationship counselor, not a spy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Big DThe lack of gadgets and lack of constant action was, in part, the whole point of the film. Gadgets and chase scenes became increasingly prevalent in the films over the past four decades, to the point where they were basically the 'stars'. It was silly, unrealistic, and contrived. Royale gives a much more believeable view of what a 'spy' should be doing, in contrast to the preceding films, where Bond was like a cross between a commando and Inspector Gadget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent, Thunder God
Casino Royale is far and away my favorite in the series. It's different, I'll grant it that, and while I still love Sean Connery as Bond, I like the calculating Bond as played by Daniel Craig far more. Daniel Craig's James Bond, as Heath mentioned, was a lot closer to the Bond in the novels (or which I've read several). I felt like Bond actually had substance to his character this time around and wasn't just a collection of cute one-liners and explosions. I'm especially excited for the next movie, not because it's going to have cool gadgets (which it almost assuredly won't), but because I like the direction they've taken the series and really want to see how everything plays out with Bond tracking down Mr. White's organization (which has effectively replaced SMERSH and the Soviets rather effectively). I especially appreciate how the movie managed to remain fairly true to the novel (well, at least as true as one can remain when updating the plot forty-odd years).
That's exactly what happened in the book, so yes. The only difference is that the ending of the book changed how Bond came out of that relationship. (SPOILER)The last line was, "The bitch is dead." That should give you an idea of what Flemming's Bond is like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent, Thunder God
Casino Royale is, with few exceptions, the best Bond movie since the Connery days. I would say that Goldeneye and The Living Daylights were really the only shining stars in between then and now; the rest were either awful or just decent action flicks. Roger Moore was such trash.
Pretty much everything about Casino Royale nailed what a Bond movie should be. He was no longer an invincible supersoldier. He wasn't exactly Mr. Spy, but he was cold and vicious and actually had some character depth. And the plot was great--hints at SPECTRE or some large-scale evil organization, but the main storyline was not "crazy bad guy extorting the world for lots of money." The acting was spot-on, the story was intelligent, and the action scenes were possibly the most realistic in the series, but they still delivered on the wow scale.
In fact, I daresay that if you did not like Casino Royale (unless you dislike action films in general), there is something wrong with you as a moviegoer.
Also:
That's in the movie too, somehow. I think it's the name of the music that plays as he's talking to M, or it was the title of that chapter on the DVD. I didn't know that was from the book. It's a nice homage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouch!
I like Goldeneye.