Bond ... James Bond

[innerSpaceman]

New Bond. New Bond movie. Discuss. :cheers:



(or rather, continue to discuss .... but please do it here, rather than in the movie musics thread. Otherise, we have an entire forum going to waste. Old movies there, new movies -- each with their own thread -- here.)

[Alex]

Out of curiosity, why is the Random Movie Musings thread over there instead of in this forum? How does being random musings about movies make it not a movie thread? Not that it really matters, I've just always wondered.

Anyway, I think about Bond much the same as you said in the other thread. That not only is the 007 number something acquired by a sequence of agents but also the name. Same with M.

[innerSpaceman]

From the other thread:

Early word that I'm hearing on Casino Royale is that is a mess. The verdict is split from there on whether it is a fun mess or just a mess.

As for Battle Royale I don't see anything particularly Japanese in its weirdness. I think we have produced equally odd things in this country and others (Shaun of the Dead is more overtly comedic but I think touches on several similar nerves and combines styles similarly).

The socio-economic mileau which drives the movie's initial setup is uniquely Japanese, but it is a country that has gone through some significant cultural and economic upheavals over the last century, but beyond that I don't see much uniquely Japanese in its execution.

I tried to read the manga on which the movie is based but didn't care for the artwork and eventually drifted away.

[innerSpaceman]

Then:

"Casino Royale"
I liked it. It attempts to make Bond more believable.
Daniel Craig is hot. Hot hot hot.
:)

[innerSpaceman]

To which I replied:

Ooooh, how did you see a pre-release of CR, GC?


I'm really glad they've returned to the hot Bonds. Sorry, but Brosnon and Moore did nothing for me. James Bond needs to be smouldering.


:cheers: Basically, I need to be stirred ... not skaken.

[innerSpaceman]

And ...
I really liked the Bond film. Here's my caveat: I don't see a lot of action films, I LOVE Bond, I don't expect a tight story and plausible sequences, and I know all of the Bond films and his history to appreciate the little references.

Daniel Craig is a different sort of Bond. He's beefy, and muscled - almost too much so - but he's rough around the edges. He pulls off the suave but his athletic scenes are great and over the top.

There are few gadgets - but, remember, this is supposed to be EARLY Bond, just after his promotion. He gets much more emotionally involved that any other Bond except in OHMSS (the only film where he gets married). I can see how Bond developed from this point into the Bond we all know and love.

[innerSpaceman]

Finally ...
I'm off to see it in a couple of hours. I like how we have Judi Dench as "M" - continuing her role, but have Craig as Bond just acquiring Double Oh status and having his first mission as such, in the present day. This goes along with the way I've groked having so many different actors in the role, and yet each remaining pretty much the same age as a sexy ladies man over a span of 40 years.

I think of them each as new agents acquiring the name and number when the last Bond retires (or exits more permanently). I just can't go along with the notion that Bond is ageless, and has these periodic face changes and strong personality shifts.

This one pretty much departs from that retardedness by having this be Bond's first mission. It gels with my notion of the series, and I appreciate that fact going in.

Review to follow. (Perhaps at 4 o'clock this morning!)

Now we're caught up. And not only does Alex's first post here make more sense now, his position about where the Movie Musings thread belongs has made sense all along.


And since I was stymied in legit efforts to move individual posts here (having to resort to quoting, bah) ... I'm going to use my pent-up moderator energy to finally move that thread where it has always belonged.



.

[Not Afraid]

I NEED some other people to see the film because I have some plot questions.

But, it appears I WILL be seeing it again with my husband - or I'll send him on a date with Fej. ;)

[Alex]

I might end up seeing it tomorrow. But it is a busy weekend at the movies (Happy Feet, For Your Consideration, Fast Food Nation, plus Babel and A Good Year) so I may pick something else.

But push come to shove I'll probably end up at the action movie.

[innerSpaceman]

Definitely seeing Happy Feet.






Then, I'll start a thread about it.





.

[Not Afraid]

I just looked up Daniel Craig in IMDB. He's been in one movie I've seen (Road to Perdition) and I don't remember him. However, he is playing Lucifer in a production of I, Lucifer (with Ewan McGregor as DeClan - which is confusing if you've read the book).

Lucifer. I, Lucifer. ;)


He's also in "His Dark Materials - The Golden Compass" which I didn't know was being made into a movie.

[Not Afraid]

Oh, and Eva Green was the sister in The Dreamers. I THOUGHT she looked familiar, but I didn't recognize her with her clothes on.;)

[Alex]

I've apparently seen him in five movies. But I can't say as I remember him.

[Gemini Cricket]

Daniel Craig = Yummy

[Not Afraid]

For GC. (http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0381061/Ss/0381061/CR_11955.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Green,%20Eva)

[Gemini Cricket]

For GC. (http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0381061/Ss/0381061/CR_11955.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Green,%20Eva)
Ooh. My favorite scene. "The Quiet Man" meets "Bond" scene.
:)

[innerSpaceman]

:iSm: I've been a Bond fan pretty much my entire life.

Most of the movies are pure crap. Some are kinda fun, a few are guilty pleasures.

A handful are fantastic.


The first Bond movie I saw in theaters was one of those. It was Goldfinger in 1965.


















Tonight I saw another one.





:cheers: :snap: :cheers: :cheers: :snap: :cheers:

I might even say (as it nears four a.m.) that

its

the

Best.Bond.Ever











so what plot points do you need help with, N.A.? Any I didn't pick up on tonight I'll catch onto during repeat viewings in the very near future.






I've apparently seen him in five movies. But I can't say as I remember him.

You will now.







.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And since I was stymied in legit efforts to move individual posts here (having to resort to quoting, bah) ... Select the posts, then select "Move Posts" from the moderation menu at the bottom of the page.

[Not Afraid]

OK, all questions in spoiler tags.

The enture opening equence confused me after the fact. He was in Prague with an old guy that he then kills. Is that guy the same one whom he shoots in the knee in the end? And, who is the guy who gets killed in the bathroom flashback? Does this tie into the film story? It was a beautiful opening, but I can't tie it into the story.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

All I know is, I heard NirvanaMan didn't like it, which means that I'm going to love it. ;) You probably think I'm kidding...

[Not Afraid]

I was actually surprised at his reaction. I left the theater pretty damn happy. I wouldn't descibe it a possibly the best Bond ever. It was a good one - but different that all of the rest.

[innerSpaceman]

He didn't like it because his ticket to the movie, the Ford Motor Company, was the butt of a very clever Bond joke of auto trading up.



.

[Not Afraid]

The product placement in the film was a little over the top for oth Ford and Sony.

[BarTopDancer]

The product placement in the film was a little over the top for oth Ford and Sony.

Doesn't that mean that Brad is going to hate it?

[innerSpaceman]

re the opening ....

This was one of the Bonds where the opening does not relate directly to the main plot of the film. A great many of them open that way.

In this case, the two men killed - though they don't relate to the terrorism finance plot of the film - strongly relate to the subplot of Bond becoming, well ... Bond. It's his first mission as a Double O. He's very rough around the edges. As the guy who gets shot explains in the opening, Bonds needs two kills to become a Double O. Bathroom fight is first kill, and the second is ... heheh, considerably easier.




I tend to prefer the darker, more brooding Bonds. Sean Connery, of course ... but my second fave is easily Timothy Dalton.





Well ... till now.







And I forgive the Ford placement because it was used as a very good joke ... the Sony Vaio stuff was just gratuitous and ... yeah, Brad would hate it if he could just get his attention off Daniel Craig for a minute.

.

[Not Afraid]

Not one peep from Brad about product placment after we saw the film. I think he was a bit, um, distracted. ;)

Thanks for the explaination, ISM.

[Gemini Cricket]

Ford
Jag
Astin Martin
Sony
FedEx
...

:D

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I've not seen all the Bond films. Of the ones I've seen, I've enjoyed them.

This one I LOVED.

One thing that really bothers me about contemporary action movies (that are not sci-fi or fantasy) is the overuse of CGI to make the action look incredible. I don't want to see action that's so incredible it's impossible and ridiculous. The stunts were amazing and intense. The sheer physicality of it all - THIS was an action movie. The opening sequence is one of the best ever captured on film. Love that crazy French dude.

And Daniel Craig...ah, how I thought he was talented and dishy in Sylvia. He's pretty weighty in everything he does, save Tomb Raider. Guess I'm going to have to rent Layer Cake, after all.

More Craig Bond. More!

Dench also was given some wonderful opening dialogue.

[innerSpaceman]

Um, Cricket, I don't know if you're familiar with James Bond films .... but the cars are not product placement. Particular vehicles - though certainly provided by the automaker for promotion - are integral to the JamesBondity (JamesBondage??) of these movies (and they're not there to gin up sales of those half-million dollar cars).

That eliminates 3 out of 5 from your list. :p


The 1964 Astin Martin, btw, was one of the more delicious homages to past Bonds - - in this case, the first of the famous gadget cars in Goldfinger.

I also loved the switch-homage that the Cricket's featuring in his current avatar - - the twist on the Ursula Andress bit from Dr. No. - acknowledging this time the sexiest player in the film is Mr. Craig as Mr. Bond. Yummy indeed.


And, heheh, my fave homage was the very modern, somewhat disturbing twist on the Goldfinger laser beam between-the-legs.
"You expect me to talk"

"No, Mr. Bond ... I expect you to die."





.

[NirvanaMan]

He didn't like it because his ticket to the movie, the Ford Motor Company, was the butt of a very clever Bond joke of auto trading up.



.

Huh?

[Alex]

At least for the Pierce Brosnan films the cars definitely were product placement. There was a lot of news when BMW bought Bond into their cars instead of Astin Martins and the last three Bond movies introduced new models.

When the Z3 was introduced in Golden Eye it was viewed as one of the most successful product placement campaigns of all time. Bond paid more than $3 million to get Bond into a Z3 and then the movie was used heavily in the promotion of the new model.

Tomorrow Never Dies introduced the 750i as well as a BMW motorcycle and The World is Not Enough introduced the Z8.

Ford paid $14 million to get their new Mondeo into this Bond movie (according to Forbes though other articles say 14 million pounds which would be considerably more than $14 million).

Now, product placement doesn't really bother me, but the cars (at least the Ford ones) definitely are product placement.

[NirvanaMan]

Um, Cricket, I don't know if you're familiar with James Bond films .... but the cars are not product placement. Particular vehicles - though certainly provided by the automaker for promotion - are integral to the JamesBondity (JamesBondage??) of these movies (and they're not there to gin up sales of those half-million dollar cars).

Umm, yeah there was. Why do you think Columbia pictures rented out an entire theatre at the spectrum for Premier Automotive Group employees and their freinds and family? ;) The event that was btw hosted by the guy who's entire job within Ford is product placement. He does not however, pay to get cars in tv and movies, but simply offers vehicles to the studios free of charge for their use.

The FoMoCo and Sony product placement was ridiculous and over the top. I don't typically have a problem with it but it was a bit obnoxious in this tepid action flick. Everwhere you turned there was a Jag, Volvo, Lincoln, or Land Rover. And of course, the requisite Aston Martin (which I have zero problem with). Even a hand-built prototype of the new european market Ford Mondeo (which did look really good and it was mildly amusing to see Bond in a rental car for once). I guess for those (like apparently Steve) who don't know that Ford owns all those brands it was not as apparent as it was to me, but I did feel it was over the top. Product placement is great for us, sure, but not when it starts to feel like a freakin' commercial. Heh, especially when you start to see all those exact same cars show up parked outside exotic locales in supposed different parts of the world.

Oh, and you'd frankly be quite surprised at how many Aston's we sell because of the Bond connection. I know it sounds ridiculous that people would buy $150-250k cars because of a movie but, well, they do.

[NirvanaMan]

All I know is, I heard NirvanaMan didn't like it, which means that I'm going to love it. ;) You probably think I'm kidding...

This is quite true. Both Babette and I came out feeling very unimpressed by the flick, but NA and GC loved it...so I definitely think its getting some mixed reaction, thought more seem to be in the 'love it' camp. For me, it was a fine action flick, but not an enjoyable bond flick.

Personally, I like my Bond's a bit ridiculous and fun. I did not care for this new 'vulnerable' side of bond and have no interest in seeing him fall in love and all that mushy crap. While amused a bit by the ocean scene, I prefer the Bond chicks to be the sex symobls (but that likely has more to do with the fact that I like boobies than anything else). I like my Bond's to be whitty, intelligent and omniscient. I didn't like seeing this new bond as rather gullible. I like it when bond knows all and has a plan for everything. I like the gadgets. This one didn't have any. Except for the one thing he needed to save his life...convenient. And while convenient gadgetry is nothing new to Bond flicks, I am more forgiving when there is a wide array to choose from and Bond invents clever ways to use it. And sin of all sins, there was no Q!

To look at it from another angle, I think they missed a spectacular opportunity here to go back and tell the backstory of bond. They could have done a lot of interesting stuff here, but they chose instead to have him go from not 00 to 00 in the next scene, and barely acknowledge it.

So in the end, I don't think it was a bad action movie. Well, maybe I do. Hmm, it was rather repetitive and extremely predictable. A bit longer than it should have been given how thin the story was. Frankly, a bit dull at times. But most of all, it just didn't feel like a bond movie to me.

I respect the efforts to make a more realistic bond, but maybe it's just not what I wanted. I think that concept worked amazingly well for Batman begins but felt it fell flat in this execution.

Bring back Brosnan and some of the more absurdities that make Bond gloriously fun to watch. Umm, but you can keep that last movie. You know the one where the Jaguar and invisibile Aston were crashing through that ice castle. That offended even my rather lienient absurdity meter.

[Alex]

It's currently at 95% at RottenTomatoes so critically it is probably the best received of all time.

I'm curious how I'll react to this one. I'm not particularly a James Bond fan and have only seen most of them because by step father was a big fan when I was growing up. Somehow I end up seeing most of them. The character itself is anachronistic and I'm mostly ready for a Jason Bourne type character to displace Bond.

But I've bene looking forward to this one more than most. But probably the best thing that could happen would be if Barbara Broccoli would die or give up control so that someone can come along and do something really interesting with the franchise.

[innerSpaceman]

Perhaps NirvanaMan is simply too young to remember when Bond was not a ridiculous laughing stock.

I, too, get a kick out of the over-the-top ones that became the defacto style ... but those are not my faves. And there's PLENTY of them. Every Roger Moore and every Pierce Brosnon, not to menton a few of the Sean Connerys. So, for fans of that Bond brand, there's plenty to choose from.

But the roots were far less absurd ... and since this one was specifically a back-to-the-beginning entry, the absurd style would not be fitting.


Not that this Bond was lacking in absurd. It was just of a different, more spy-like style. Instead of ejector seats and oil slicks, the car was filled with poison-antidotes and other live-saving devices. And there might have been more gagetry, but the car was totaled after 10 minutes

The girl-on-horseback on the beach was all silly. But I'm glad the action veered away from tank chases to foot races. The fuel tanker chase was appropriately over-the-top without getting outrageous, as was the final bit in the collapsing Venesian villa.

Oh, and there hasn't been a "Q" for a few films now ... and it was nice to see "M" have a meatier role.



But yeah, for the general public who might not be aware of the various brands owned by a single corporate overlord, the vehicle product placement was not as tacky. Again, since the type of vehicle is very important to the Bondness, it's not merely product placement for the audience to be aware of the type of car. I'm glad - - if astounded - - to learn that the high-end automobiles get some sales from these ventures ... but I maintain that a made-up car would not work at all in the James Bond context.


And the movie was wall-to-wall action. I don't know how anyone could find this film tepid. Perhaps there were no rocket-powered submarine chases or foiling of plots to crash the Moon into Washington D.C. ... but the more-realistic action (and only more realistic by outrageous Bond standards, btw) made for a much more thrilling film, in my opinion.


But Octopussy and The World is Not Enough and You Only Live Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me and Goldeneye and Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever and A View to a Kill are all out there on DVD if you want your Bond absurdist.


.

[Gemini Cricket]

Although I loved CR, my favorite Bond is still "Goldfinger". But Craig has the best Bond body period.
:D

[NirvanaMan]

Perhaps in his old age, ISM's failing memory forgets when Bond flicks were fun. :cool:


A good Bond movie left you wanting to drive fast on the way home from the theatre and tackle any evildooers along the way. After this flick, we went home and went to sleep.

While there has been no Q (his brilliance will be missed) there was an R which was his effective replacement.

I guess the movie simply wasn't fun for me, and it certainly was not thrilling. Plot "twists" could be seen from a mile away (and I'm typically bad at such things) making for very slow going. By the time they revealed each supposed twist, it had already been clearly obvious for 10 minutes. That makes for a slow moving movie. The action was rather dull and could hardly be called "wall-to-wall", except for the intro scene which would have worked better in a Bruce Lee flick than a Bond flick, but was still impressive none the less.

I did like the intro song though. Other than that, I'll just have to wait till they introduce the next Bond. Ugh, that will be a long wait.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh yeah, I liked the intro song well enough ... after hearing from many quarters that it sucked. It was not terrible, like many of the opening songs of the modern Bond era. And the title sequence was, imo, wonderful.

I don't understand about seeing the plot twists 10 minutes out. When has that ever not been the case in a Bond movie? They follow a predictable formula ... probably the most formulaic film series ever. This one followed the form to the letter ... every single plot point was by-the-numbers, hence knowable not only 10 minutes prior ... but 10 years prior.

The trick was to go through the standard Bond story with updated action style, quip style, and Bond style. I think that was handled brilliantly ... and the stylistic updates would have been less appreciated by me had they not been grafted onto what's been the by-the-book Bond story ever since Goldfinger.


To each his own, but I was hardly sleepy after seeing this movie ... and it was three a.m. when the theater let out. I am still jazzed on it 32 hours later, and intend on seeing it again before I see many a new release.



And like G.C., I have to keep Goldfinger at the top of my BestBond list, but Casino Royale is close on its heels at Number 2, with License to Kill in Third. I don't like my Bonds omnicient - where's even the pretense of danger with that? Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnon were sissy-boys, btw.


.

[Gemini Cricket]

No love for George Lazenby, eh?
:D

[innerSpaceman]

No, but On Her Majesty's Secret Service has one of the best scores, and Telly Savalas is the best Blofeld.
:cheers:



.

[€uroMeinke]

Haven't seen it yet, but I had an interesting conversation about the Bond formula:

Lisa: There were only 3 women in the film
Chris: There are always only three women
Lisa: I thought there were usually more.
Chris: No, there's, 1) The good girl, 2) The bad girl, and 3) And the victim that gets killed off early on.
Lisa: Uh...yeah

[€uroMeinke]

No love for George Lazenby, eh?
:D
George rocks, OHMSS is one of my favorites, up there with From Russia with Love. I love the early vunerable Bond, so I think I'm really going to like this one.

[NirvanaMan]

I think I would have this probably as my least favorite Bond flick ever (ok maybe moonraker was worse). And I really liked Pierce as Bond, but thought Die Another Day was rather stupid (though it was really cool to have the Jag and Aston from the movie in our office...driving up the 405 with the guns raised on the aston causes quite a stir).

Oh well, to each his own. I like Figment far more than I like Mickey and I think Toyota Camry's suck. I never claimed to have typical tastes. :)

[Not Afraid]

Don't go dissing OHMSS around me. That is my absolute favorite of the films. Although, overall, Sean is THE Bond.

I'm really tempted to go buy the new DVD sets and park myself in front on the telly for the evening.

[innerSpaceman]

Figment is better than Mickey .... but you have zero good taste in Bond, sir.


(very good taste in cars, though .... so it's not a total loss).




.

[Alex]

Ok, just got back from it, initial thoughts:

1) Too long by about half an hour, with too many false conclusions.

2) iSm may be right that Bond movies are always predictable. But that doesn't make it any more pleasant.

3) The poker portrayed in the movie was horribly stupid. Those were top poker players like Barnie is a top international diplomat.

4) But at least it was poker and not baccarat which has always been one of the stupidest Bond affectations (there is zero skill in baccarat and therefore him being good at it is like saying he is incredibly good at slot machines)

5) The retreat from camp is very welcome and Mr. Craig shows a lot of promise.

6) The product placement wasn't terrible, in my opinon. Especially on the cars. I knew the Modeo is a Ford but there really wasn't any overt focusing on that. I'm not sure what the joke at Ford was that iSm has referenced.

7) Most brutal torture scene ever in Bond. I liked it.

8) A man brought his three year old son and parked him right next to me in a stroller in the aisle. The kid babbled regularly throughout the first four hours of the movie but fortunately as the film moved into the final third, the kid starting talking so much that dad finally left with him.

9) Up above, Eliza Hodgkins says these two sentences in the same post:

I don't want to see action that's so incredible it's impossible and ridiculous.

and

The opening sequence is one of the best ever captured on film. Love that crazy French dude.

I don't see how those are compatible. The opening chase scene was fun, but was completely impossible and ridiculous. It was like a chase scene from a Terminator movie.

10) Steve thinks it was wall-to-wall action but I felt there were several slow parts that bogged the movie down quite a bit (particularly the poker scenes) and two out of three of the false endings.

11) Still, I enjoyed it more than any of the Brosnan titles. I've seen it, I'm not upset I've seen it, odds are I'll never see it again, and I'll be interested in seeing how they approach the next one. Still, have Bond fill a hit on Barbara Brocolli and replace her with someone interested in doing something really interesting.

[innerSpaceman]

Just to clarify, though, Poucous or whatever the frell that style of free-running is called, IS a real thing. Not that every burn-scarred African can ... but if Bond were to happen upon a practitioner of the craft ... that's what would ensue.

In fact, since it's obviously a good means of personal escape, it's not a bad art for criminal types to learn. I found other set pieces far less realistic, but perhaps that's cause I knew going in that Porcupine (or whatever) is a real thing.


I'll grant ... the movie's too long by about half an hour. I didn't get bored with it, but it seemed to drag in the third act ... and perhaps any Bond flick that's longer than 2 hours is by definition too long.

The poker scenes were sometimes a bit hokey (especially when the local contact felt he had to explain to the audience what was going on, which was already dummed-down obvious to begin with). But the high stakes card game is the centerpiece of Casino Royale, and you're not telling Casino Royale without it. I thought the episodes during the breaks in the game were involving though, and kept things moving along - actionwise.



And though I found it a great actioner, it was - believe it or not - as a character piece that I found the movie most rewarding. Lisa already put it best ...
I can see how Bond developed from this point into the Bond we all know and love.
In this regard, it was far better than Batman Begins ... I really felt as if this Bond was morphing into proto-Conneryness before my eyes.

[jdramj]

7) Most brutal torture scene ever in Bond. I liked it.



I find this to be a very surious thing out of your list, considering that you basically thought is was just ok(?) on a whole.

I am trying to figure out my schedule this next week so I can go on a date with my DH and see the movie. I have not missed a new Bond flick yet!

[€uroMeinke]

Saw it. Loved it. I agree with ISM, gotta count it as one of the best.

I liked the homages - the '64 Astin Martin, "Moneypenny" worked into the dialogue - and the Vesper Martini (which I whispered in Lisa's ear when it was ordered). I also liked the poker playing in the casino, which in my mind is a necessary scene for any aspiring Bond. I hope future films continue in this vien.

[Not Afraid]

I saw it for a second time with Chris and, I loved it even more! Daniel Craig is really a GREAT Bond as well as a good actor. I completely enjoyed watching his face and his Bond-appropriate subtle expression (that was never wooden a la Moore). He really is good!

Yes, it was too long. I was ready for it to wrap up right after the "gadget" scene and realized there was a good bit of twists yet to go. But, I never really got bored.

I was able to take in more of the story/plot since I wasn't distracted by the violence (I'm too sensitive with this stuff and it completely distracts me from the story.) I'd say, overaall, it i a pretty solid story for a Bond film.

When Bond first orders his first, yet-unnamed "Vesper", Chris leaned over and whispered "That's a Vesper!" He's geekier than I thought. ;)

I'm surprised at myself. I can't believe I loved the film even more after a second viewing. Such a rarity for me.

[innerSpaceman]

That was such a good joke, too ...
When he orders the Vespa so particularly with distinct
ingredients and mixing instructions ... and then - one after another - half the people in the tournament say "Oh, I'll have one, too." Heheheh.

I also like how the high-stakes game of bluff and one-upsmanship continued past the poker game to the truly ultimate confrontation between Bond and his nemesis.


This fim really set me off. I've watched three other Bond movies since Friday!



.

[scaeagles]

I loved it. I have always loved the Bond movies, but they'd lost me lately. I didn't like Dalton in the role at all, and had never seen one with Brosnan in it in the theatres, and never really liked him in the role either.

Daniel Craig, however, was exceptional. I think he may be my favorite Bond.

I will say he was the beneficiary of what I want a James Bond movie to be. Plot lines with madmen and superweapons had always annoyed me (Goldeneye, The Spy Who Loved Me, etc), and I had preferred the plots with cold war or greed as a motive (Octopussy, For Your Eyes Only, and Goldfinger, for example). This was a simple and believable plot, which made me able to look past holes or parts I found to be ridiculous (does it ever happen in real poker that there's a full house beaten by a higher full house beaten by a four of a kind beaten by a straight flush? Anyway....).

So, long live the reign of Daniel Craig as Bond.

[Gemini Cricket]

I can't believe "Happy Feet" beat "Casino Royale" this weekend. Hysterical.
:)

I'm thinking it's because HF was shorter...

[innerSpaceman]

Wow. I saw lines a'plenty for Casino Royale, and none for Happy Feet (in my scientific sampling of 2 theaters.)

Not so coincidentally, those are the two movies I saw over the weekend ... with most of America, it seems.





Happy Feet was very happy, but I'm not sure whether happy enough for its own thread.

[scaeagles]

(Took the kids to see it over the weekend, but I didn't care for it much - I fell asleep, actually.)

[Alex]

Just got back from Happy Feet and I declare it great. So my two movies this week were both good, but I'm much happier with Happy Feet than with Bond. Though I am looking forward to the next Bond movie but hope they don't feel compelled to make a second Happy Feet.

(GC, not only is Happy Feet a half hour shorter than Casino Royale but it is also on 400 more screens; on the other hand the percentage of child priced tickets was likely much higher for Happy Feet. For some reason, IMDb says Happy Feet is 87 minutes long when it is actually 108.)

[Isaac]

I can't believe "Happy Feet" beat "Casino Royale" this weekend. Hysterical.
:)

I'm thinking it's because HF was shorter...
The trailer for Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix is being shown infront of Happy Feet, so that could have influenced a couple moviegoers. The new HP trailer will be online tomorrow.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/zapppop/hp5teaserposter.jpg

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

I don't see how those are compatible. The opening chase scene was fun, but was completely impossible and ridiculous. It was like a chase scene from a Terminator movie.



Free running stunts. I'm not sure how much of it was camera tricks, but I know that the dude in the first serious action sequence is famous for doing those kinds of runs and jumps. He was in either a jeans or tennis shoe commercial where he his cohorts jump off a building by vaulting from fire escape to fire escape. His physicality is impressive and I felt the visual effects were seamless with the live action. So as far as contemporary action films go, I stand by my earlier statement that it's the most believable looking action I've seen in a good long while. It beats the pants off of Tom Cruise jumping from one skyscraper to the next in MI3.

Here's some info I found on this kind of stunt work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkour

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastien_Foucan (this is the dude form the film)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZiaCU7TGSU

He's also featured in a recent Madonna commercial, I think.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

The trailer for Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix is being shown infront of Happy Feet, so that could have influenced a couple moviegoers. The new HP trailer will be online tomorrow.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/zapppop/hp5teaserposter.jpg

The trailer was kinda lackluster. Felt a bit too tossed together. Not that I'm any less excited. Poor, A.R., Snape is looking as unhealthy and jowl ridden as he did in the second film. Yikes.

[innerSpaceman]

I haven't seen the free-running commercials, but the stuff was also featured in the recentish French film Distict B-12, which I likewise haven't seen (but it's queued up).

And the HP trailer pleased only in the respect that Daniel didn't look as poorly as he had in photographs, and he's still one very attractive Brit.


Speaking of very attractive Brits, and getting this thread back on subject...
I can't believe "Happy Feet" beat "Casino Royale" this weekend. I'm thinking it's because HF was shorter.
Actually, Bond was shorter.



Heheh, at 5'11", Daniel Craig is the shortest Bond yet ... but that doesn't stop him from being another very attractive Brit.


.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I very much want to see CR. I haven't been very good about my movie-watching, especially since going back to college, but this latest round of movies - I actually want to see some of them.

[Jughead P. Jones]

I am a HUGE James Bond film fan, and plan to see "Casino Royale" very soon!

(And, to see who the Bond girls are)

[alphabassettgrrl]

Oh, yeah, the Bond girls! :)

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Saw Casino Royale last night.

How many endings did this movie have? ;)

Loved it, loved it. I loved Die Another Day, that aside, CR's the best Bond in a LONG time.

9 Bornieos out of 10

[innerSpaceman]

I saw Casino Royale again the other night, and I guess I’m getting a little GeminiCricketish. I was kinda bugged by all the product placement this time.

Perhaps because I was looking at the displays on my first viewing, but I didn’t previously notice that every handheld device was a Sony Ericcson, the product name prominently placed above every cell phone and PDA screen -- projected, oh about 30-feet wide in a theater. I wouldn’t so much mind if all of Bond’s equipment was Sony. It could acceptably be the supplier of electronics to MI6. But why was Vesper’s cell a Sony, and the bad guys computer a Vaio? Bah.

I also wouldn’t mind product placement so much if the entire world being depicted had real brands. But in the airport scene, for example, the target airplane was from a fictitious airline, and the terrorist-hijacked fuel truck was from a phony oil company. I looked for real airline planes in the backgrounds of shots ... but only found Virgin Atlantic (presumably something to do with Richard Branson’s cameo - going through airport security).

(Actually, though I thought it was a fake airline - - there were lots of CSA planes visible. That’s a Czech airline ... that has no flights to Miami - - but lots to and from Prague, where the airport scenes were really filmed).


* * * * * * *

I suppose product placement goes hand-in-hand with James Bond. I picked up an interesting tidbit from the commentary on the Goldfinger DVD. Seems that the director, Guy Hamilton, showed up on set one morning to find producer "Cubby" Broccoli personally placing tons of Gillette products in the tiny aircraft lavatory set used for the scene where Bond freshens up on his been-kidnapped flight from Switzerland to Kentucky. Hamilton was a little peeved because the Gillette crap was all over the place, and was ridiculous.

Hamilton then made a deal with Broccoli ... the producer would present Hamilton with a list of all the companies he’d made product deals with for any particular film, and the director would fit in whatever he could without negatively affecting the story or the believability of the surroundings.
I’m not sure how successful that plan was for the remainder of the series, and certainly Hamilton was not the director on all the subsequent Bond films. Personally, I think they were pushing the credibility limit in Casino Royale with all the Sony crap. Then again, I certainly didn’t mind Aston Martins popping up all over the place.

[Alex]

Maybe I'm just used to Hong Kong cinema where the product placers get an ad in the credits.

As long as they're not holding it to the camera, pausing, and saying "on the way home from the theater, why don't you stop by your local retailer and buy some Bose speakers..." then I'm ok with it.

Alternatively, think about it as historical archiving. You know how looking at ads from the 1890s is something of a fascinating look into the past? Well, someday Casino Royale will be a look into the technology of a century earlier. Similarly, as the world changes, it makes the film ever more a product of its era and those details become more cherishable.

[mousepod]

Saw the flick on opening weekend. Loved it. As a 40-year-old Bond fan, I spent my early teen years thinking that Roger Moore, the then-current Bond, was the coolest. That lasted for longer than I'd probably like to admit, but I discovered the original novels around the same time I had the opportunity to own copies of the Connery Bonds on tape, and then LaserDisc. Connery replaced Moore for best movie Bond, but my favorite 007 was the one who was in the books. Subsequent actors have all been measured against Moore and Connery, but not until Casino Royale did I feel comfortable comparing a Bond actor to Fleming's spy. Did I mention that I loved this movie?

In the recent past, I'd leave a Bond movie and come home and fire up the DVD player and watch "You Only Live Twice" or "Diamond Are Forever" to remind myself how neat the series had been. This time, I had the urge to come home and re-read the original novel. Unfortunately, my copy of the book is in a box in the basement of parents' house in Leonia, NJ.

So I have a question for someone with a copy of the book in their library:

I know that many of the plot details came from the book, down to Bond's drink invention and even the "The bitch is dead." line. But I can't remember how the book ended. The end of the movie when Bond tracked down Mr White seemed tacked on, almost like the opening sequence of the next movie. Was it in the book? Did it go further?

[innerSpaceman]

Never read the book. Sorry. Read only one. Don't remember which. Didn't much care for it.


Different person now. Bond mania currently in me. Must find Fleming.

[Alex]

The last words of the book are:

"Yes, dammit, I said 'was.' The bitch is dead now."

The bitch is Vesper and he is telling MI6 that she was a double agent.

So far as I can tell the book ends after his discovery that she was a double agent for the Russians and she commits suicide while he is sleeping.

(This is from browsing the end of the book on Amazon and a text search shows no character in the book named Mr. White.)

Put in spoiler since iSm is apparently going to read the book.

[mousepod]

Thank you very much, Alex.

[Not Afraid]

I saw nice, quality papeerback copies of CR at B&N the other day.

[€uroMeinke]

I miss my 60¢ Signet Classics - those are the Bond Books to me - as well as most of the Sci-Fi universe

[Boss Radio]

Me too.

Remember when we made gun holsters for our jackets so we could be sixth grade Bond-like spies?

Those concealed cap guns gave us the highly respected "license to annoy."

[€uroMeinke]

Long live the Interceptors Club

[mistyisjafo]

I finally saw it and I was surprised that I liked it! Really fun, fast, entertaining and the new Bond was very likable. I've seen every Bond movie over and over so I'm a 007 fan. I was bummed when Pierce Bronson stepped down from the role and shocked about the new guy. I figured I just wouldn't like him as Bond. But he brings 007 to a new grittier, leaner, meaner kinda hero.

Course, I'm not sure why some women find him so attractive. But that's just me.

[Alex]

I find him attractive in the way I find Steve McQueen attractive (more rugged attitude than actual appearance). Actually having mentioned the name, Craig as Bond fit pretty well with how I would imagine McQueen as Bond.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

We finally saw this at our cheapie theater on Sunday. Definitely enjoyable. Great action. Craig is seriously hot. I usually don't go for pouty, squinty types, and I'm not into muscles, but he puts it together nicely.

I thought about it a lot and I can't say he's my favorite Bond. I can't pick one anyway, but it's definitely not Craig. I did miss the gadgets and silliness a tad, but not enough to affect my enjoyment. This was a different breed.

I can't believe NM and iSm liked the lame-o Chris Cornell opening song. The visuals were gorgeous (on par with the best opening credits in Bond history) and the song did not fit it at all. I felt like they made the visuals with another song in mind.

Eva Green as Vespers....my God. I'm glad I don't have to compete with her for men. So. Freaking. Hot. She was good in this and her character was just complex enough to put her in the running for best Bond girl ever.

I liked pretty much everything in the film, though it seemed longer than King Kong, what with all the endings. The endings didn't disappoint, however.

Blatant product placement has been a part of Bond since forever so I had no problem with that. If you include plugging the locales (and who wouldn't want to visit all the places he's visited throughout the years?), the amount of advertising goes through the roof. I'm fine with this type of thing because I want a wicked awesome car for him to drive, etc.

Anyway - yeah, cool, and swanky. :)