It was a very big surprise for me! excellent movie!

I saw this movie last night and found it absolutely fantastic. THIS IS WHAT BOND IS ABOUT.

Though it does kinda skew the timeline a bit, given that this story was written a long time ago, yet a few things appear in the movie:



And about the poker game:

Weren't they effectively rebooting the series though?

Yes, it is a rebooting of the series.

Yeah. It's close enough to be considered a prequel by most people, but it is effectively a scrapping of all prior continuity so future storylines aren't restricted by them. Which if you think about it, kind of makes sense considering how many decades of time Bond has covered throughout the series.

But yeah, it was an absolutely awesome movie. Hopefully they'll keep this new tone for the future Daniel Craig films (he's contracted for two more — yay!), although I would like to see a little more of the humour/one-liners seen in the previous films. :) :)

Awesome movie. Loved every minute of it.

Thats not as big of a deal as they make it out to be. They've rebooted the series three times prior (On Her Majesty's Secret Service, The Living Daylights and Goldeneye) though you might count a fourth one (Never Say Never Again) that really didn't go anywhere.

They reboot the series and it keeps on falling back on the crappy, pun-heavy Roger Moore approach. We will end up with another TWINE at some point, it's going to happen.

However this movie is pretty goddamned great. It gets a lot of things right (lack of gadgets, beating the crap out of people, pacing) but it's also missing obvious Bond staples, like a megalomaniac. Yes, I realize they were shooting for a more "realistic" Bond, but they've done that before and had larger-than-life villians.

Given the hype, I was rather disappointed by this movie. That's not to say that it's a bad movie. It is, however, flawed. A few of the plot points necessary to make the whole story work are confusing. A few things are unclear. But Craig plays Bond well enough (if he'd keep his shirt on more) and the story is compelling. The poker game is quite well done. The interaction between characters is quite enjoyable. I give 3.5 stars out of 5.

Were any other poker players out there dismayed at the total lack of realism in the poker scenes? It seems as if they wanted to tone down the craziness somewhat and make it more believable but come on....




Overall great movie though, Eva Green might be the hottest Bond Girl since who knows when.

Loved it! Daniel Craig, in particular, is fantastic and really refreshing as Bond. The people threatening to boycott the movie (due to Craig) are idiots. I'm really looking forward to the next one.

I appreciate that fact, and I don't disagree that that's the case, but the fact that this is also a 'reboot' means they don't need to worry about the timeline continuity issue that was raised.

James Bond has only rarely had any sense of continuity. Aside from the awful LETS HAVE OLD GADGETS scene in Die Another Day and George Lazenby breaking the fourth wall in OHMSS, it isn't like theres this constant thread.

(Wait, forgot about Bond's wife dying. They've mentioned that once or twice)

There was an author who attempted to make the name "James Bond" an operative word, which would mean that each actor was in fact playing a different person using the same code name. That was thrown out pretty quickly.

They did that in the original Casino Royal too. Pretty clever, actually...

You currently have pierce brosnan as your avatar, yet he also went for the ''pun-heavy'' approach you appear to dislike.


That is exaclty what I (and others) thought shortly after seeing the film; the villian was a little bit bland and uninspiring. I think they intended this though as we are being introduced to bond at a time when his missions aren't as large scale as they will eventually become.

I expect the next film to have a much larger scale mission/villian, without it being over of course (like Die Another Day).

All Bond movies have puns in them - its a matter of delivery. Though, yes, DAD was intolerable.

I thought the poker-playing villain was superb as far as behaviour and visual presence went, even if he wasn't as elaborate as those we'll surely see in future films. He certainly looked/acted the part though.

Too true. Also, if these people are the world's best poker players, I'd figure that you'd see some cameos by people like Doyle Brunson or Johnny Chan.



I thought the intro credits sequence needed some silhouettes of some hotties, and I thought the Cornell song was a bit bland.

And yeah, Eva Green was the hotness and her character was very likeable.

Overall, it was a very enjoyable movie, and I'm very much looking forward to more Bond flicks now.

It takes time but it grows on you. Sadly, the orchestral heavy version from the movie isn't what the released single is like at all.

Saw the film over the weekend. Generally pretty good, though the last half-hour really dragged; the big action setpieces are very much frontloaded.

But...

That arguement doesn't make any sense. Goldeneye, Living Daylights, OHMSS or Live And Let Die were all reboots that did the exact same thing this one did - but they didn't piss all over the series like you claim. Does Kevin McClory's lawsuit piss all over the Bond franchise in the same way?

Bond movies have never had a discernable continuity. They're not suppose to really, aside from generic things like Q not liking Bond or Diana Rigg's character being dead.

The problem is that it was time to ditch Brosnan - just like they did to Moore and Dalton - and it happend around a time where "Rebooting" has become popular.

They weren't reboots in the way I'm using the term. Yes, they featured new actors with different takes on the character, but they were fully in continuity with the previous films, even ones with different actors, in that they acknowledged that those movies had taken place.

For example, in OHMSS, Lazenby's Bond is shown going over gadgets he collected in previous adventures, even though he was played by Connery in those movies. Moore's Bond is shown putting flowers on his wife's grave in "For Your Eyes Only;" Dalton's Bond "was married once," according to Leiter. And Brosnan's Bond goes through a whole roomful of junk from previous films in "Die Another Day."

There are more examples, of course. "Casino Royale," like the other Bond transitions, features a new take on the character. I'm fine with that and I like Craig's Bond. I just wish it didn't start the series' continuity over from scratch.

There is no real discernable continuity. You're talking about one character who obviously spans several decades in time, from the height and then past the Cold War.

That alone speaks volumes of the lack or simply flexible continuity.

He also says "This didn't happen to the other bloke" in the very beginning of the movie. Breaking the imaginary fourth wall alone should destroy whatever credibility continuity should have by acknowledging Connery.

You made some good points with "For Your Eyes Only" and "Living Daylights" - but one could argue that the stupid gadget scene in DAD is only there for fan reference and not as to say HEY THIS JETPACK WAS FROM THIS MOVIE AND THIS BOOTKNIFE WAS FROM THAT MOVIE. It's not specific - it's what you call a "homage".

In the end, theres no evidence that they started any type of continuity in the first place, let alone over again. Why is M still played by Judi Dench? Why is Felix Lieter in here - let alone played by a black man?

Bond does have a certain number of things that make up a Bond movie - Q, nice cars, women with their tits hanging out - but because some of those things are missing doesn't mean anything. Q was in 16 out of 17 Bond movies - because he wasn't seen in that one movie, does that mean it's not a Bond movie?

It was more that it was time they got around to making Casino Royale into an official movie.
As far as I'm concerned, they haven't made a movie based on a book since Moonraker, and even that was very LOOSELY based on the book.

From that point onward, they were all original stories. The books For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy and The Living Daylights was just a collection of short story, and the movies featured their own original stories - albeit VERY LOOSELY based on those books.

Every Bond actor, as far as I'm concerned, has his OWN continuity.
Each period of their tenure as Bond follows the actor more than the story in terms of continuity, especially with the introduction of supporting characters:

Sheriff JW Pepper is in Live and Let Die, and then The Man With the Golden Gun - in which he remembers Bond from the previous time they met. That's a continuity within the Moore period.

Another example is CIA Agent Jack Wade in Brosnan's movies, first appearing in Goldeneye, and then Tomorrow Never Dies.

The execption to the first 20 Bond movies is Q, Moneypenny, M and Felix Leiter.

In Casino Royale, they really are restarting EVERYTHING. the 'original' M is now a woman, Felix is now African-American, etc, and there are introductions to every character as Bond meets them.
So Daniel Craig will have his own continuity that won't even be part of the 'overall rough continuity' of the other movies.

Reports have also surfaced from Eva Green herself that the baddie in the next Bond movie is actually going to be Vesper Lynd's lover, so that's a direct continuity with Casino Royale right there.

Has anybody read the Casino Royale book? I'm wondering how closely it follows the story, and if somebody could give a comparison. I really need to read the Bond books myself at some point. fucking school...