Printable View
Just watched Casino Royale for the first time, and I reckon it's one of the best James Bond films out there, so I got to thinking what you Eoffers would nominate as the top Bond film till the recent.
My vote goes to Daniel Craig's performance in Casino Royale. :)
I haven't seen too many of the older films, but of them all I'ld have to say Casino Royale despite it's lack of a psycho villain, and doomsday devices. I just loved the portrayal of Bond this time around, a more rough and tough guy. I still laugh in the opening chases scene the guy he's chasing is doing all forms of taihenjutsu and parkour to get away, while Bond just runs through the wall. :exdee:
The torture scene will also have a special place in my mind for the new Bond. I'm pumped to see the new age Bond movies now. :)
Casino Royale. All the other Bond movies are utter trash.
Daniel Craig did an amazing performance as Bond, and I look forward to his next film.
Pierce Brosnan was also a great Bond, as was the legendary Sean Connery. Lazenby was underated and Moore was overated. I don't remember much of Timothy Dalton (but he was brilliant in Hot Fuzz :D ).
Pierce Brosnan was a bit too fancy and unrealistic for my likings.
Oh man Casino Royal was the worst!
I don't remember which movie it was (for your eyes only maybe?) but I think it started off with an awesome skiing scene, had a train, and ended in scuba diving.
of course I might just be mixing together several movies, but I think it was FYEO.
I haven't seen all of casino royale yet (only like twenty minutes actually) and few of the others anyways. My dad was a moore fan so those were most of the ones he had on tape xD
Your the worst. :mad2:Quote:
Originally Posted by theundeadhero
For Your Eyes Only has the skiing and the scuba diving bit, but The Spy Who Loved Me has skiing at the start, and then a bunch of watery stuff towards the end. I don't remember a train in either, but I know what you mean about the films blending together when you haven't seen them in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by rubah
Anyway, You Only Live Twice has always been my favourite. It's got Connery, Bloefeld, crazy Cold War paranoia and a hollowed out volcano base, which makes it just about the perfect Bond film. I can understand the appeal of Daniel Craig's Bond, but if you dislike the older films because they're silly and predictable then you're missing the point.
Casino Royale was a great movie, but a bad James Bond movie. It really focused too much on the love story and not enough of crazy getaways and wacky gadgets.
Don't forget the army of ninjas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cz
It's all about the army of ninjas.
I think the top 4 are(Order of Newest to Oldest)
Casino Royale
Goldeneye
License to Kill
Goldfinger
Sure there were some good ones in between all of those such as Thunderball(the movie that is parodied the most), The Spy who Loved me, For Your Eyes Only and others, but I feel that those 4 are the best. For the most part the stories are unique and non-traditional enough to make them stand out.
Casino Royale was a great Bond film. But Goldfinger is clearly the best. I think most Bond fans would agree.
INSTANT WINQuote:
Originally Posted by theundeadhero
it was almost as bad as George Lazenby D=
ive always liked Live And Let Die
Spy Who Loved Me is really good to
You Only Live Twice = Win as it has Little Nellie xD
I've always been a fan of Bond films. I was surprised by how much I liked Casino Royale because I wasn't expecting much from it. Given the utter trash that were the latter two Brosnan films, I had pretty low expectations. However, since seeing it, I'd say it easily ranks in my favourite three Bond films, if I could actually rank them at all.
You Only Live Twice, as was mentioned, was a great film. In no small part due to the army of ninjas. I've always quite liked Goldeneye, From Russia with Love and Goldfinger. Though I like them all really. I even like The Man with the Golden Gun even though I shouldn't.
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.
I'm hoping that Casino Royale will be followed by further re-telling of the earlier stories... It'd be great to see the same approach taken with the likes of Thunderball and Goldfinger. Thunderball, especially, would be marvelous. People often forget that Bond is an experienced military man, with many years in the Navy behind him. Casino Royale made use of this, by having Bond use military martial arts during the action scenes. Thunderball would be a perfect chance to show the marine side of his previous combat training and experience.
From what I understand about the next Bond movie, it seems unlikely that this will be the case. The next movie allegedly begins literally moments after the ending of Casino Royale when Bond encounters Mr. White. They added a lot to Casino Royale to make the plot lengthy enough for a motion picture (I mean hell, the book doesn't start until he gets to his hotel), so it's possible they'll keep working based on the plots of other books. I fully expect that whatever organization Mr. White works for will be the replacement for SMERSH.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D