Casino Royale (2006) on 3/13/07 (2 Viewers)

[Ken Ranke]

Long time Bond fan (Saw YOLT 1st run) but I didn't get it....I think you could have given the character any name and it would have been the usual "slam-bang" action flick ie: Mission Impossible. As far as a "reboot" or re-introduction to the character of Bond why do we have the same M as his "original" boss that was introduced as "new" in GoldenEye ? Meeting Felix Leiter at the Casino ?? Nope. Felix Leiter was in Jamaica in Dr. No. I could go on and on but.... Just my 2 cents

 

[Mike Frezon]

I'm NOT a huge Bond aficionado (casual fan, I guess)...but even that was kind of screwy to me. But upon seeing the film now, it seems to be a cool way to keep some kind of continuity along the film line. Moving ahead by taking a few steps backward...but allowing a tip of the hat to what had gone before. I think the various references to Bond's drink selection throughout CR did the same thing.

 

[James Phillips]

It's a different M, who just happens to be played by the same actress.

 

[Phil_L]

Loved this film, totally changed the look and feel of a Bond film, without losing the soul of the series. I was skeptical of Daniel Craig but was completely won over. He was fantastic. Now I have to go get Layer Cake.

Did anyone pick up the Target deluxe edition with extra making-of bonus disc? I picked it up at CC and am disappointed with the dearth of extras.

 

[David_B_K]

Well, Casino Royale was the first Bond novel, and was the first time Felix was introduced as a character. As the series was a reboot, they may as well have introduced Felix that way, IMO.

 

[Ray H]

This edition turned out to not exist. Target had a book (a mini version of the "Bond On Set" book) instead of a DVD.

 

[Colby]

Yes, I bought the Target set.

Apparently, though, the advertising people at Target can't tell the difference between papers glued together and a shiny round thing. Not that the book isn't great; I just wish I hadn't gotten my hopes up for a DVD.

 

[Sam Favate]

Since the Bond films have only ever had the loosest of continuity, it doesn't bother me that Bond meets Felix for the first time here. The Bond films never pretended to be telling one story (although that may be changing if the rumors of what's in store for #22 are true), and with so many films and so many actors playing different parts (Bond, M, Q, Felix, etc.), continuity is not that important. Enjoy each film for what it is, not how it relates to the others.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Having just seen him as a British bureaucrat in Amazing Grace (albeit a different century), I think he'd be GREAT! Perfectly level of mischievousness to keep Bond on his toes.

 

[John H Ross]

Well, as suspected, a SECOND Casino Royale DVD is already in the works:

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4850&catid=2

 

[Matt Czyz]

John,

I'm shocked, SHOCKED! to hear this I bet it's the "uncut" R3 version of the film, too.

 

[Richard Gallagher]

Regarding Felix Leiter, as David pointed out Leiter meets Bond for the first time in the novel Casino Royale:

Directly Bond had started playing in maximums, his game had become the centre of interest at the table. As he seemed to be in luck, one or two pilot fish started to swim with the shark. Sitting directly opposite, one of these, whom Bond took to be an American, had shown more than the usual friendliness and pleasure at his share of the winning streak. He had smiled once or twice across the table, and there was something pointed in the way he duplicated Bond's movements, placing his two modest plaques of ten mille exactly opposite Bond's larger ones. When Bond rose, he too pushed back his chair and called cheerfully across the table:

"Thanks for the ride. Guess I owe you a drink. Will you joint me?"

Bond had a feeling that this might be the C.I.A. man. He knew he was right as they strolled off together towards the bar, after Bond had thrown a plaque of ten mille to the croupier and had given a mille to the "hussier" who drew back his chair.

"My name's Felix Leiter," said the American. "Glad to meet you."

"Mine's Bond -- James Bond."

 

[Jonny P]

First...an interesting story from when I saw this film in January...

I'd been wanting to see this film for a couple of months, but hadn't yet made it to the theater. After the bustle of the holidays, my wife and I finally saw it.

Keep in mind that this wasn't an opening weekend crowd filled with the denizens of Bond fan boys. Rather, it was a general audience who hadn't yet seen the film.

As the closing credits came up, the audience clapped. They actually clapped for a movie that had been out for two-months and was about ready to end its initial theatrical run! Amazing to witness that in this day and age.

...

Count me in the ranks of folks who think this is the "best" Bond film ever made. And let me explain why...

I am a big fan of the series. I have read the novels by Fleming, Gardner and the recent novels by Raymond Benson.

There have been a number of good Bond films in the series -- it is consistently a high quality series. In fact, it is one of those series that has successfully been "reinvented" a number of times.

What turned me off about "Die Another Day" (the previous Bond entry) was that they eschewed story and "realistic" action sequences for what amounted to a CGI-nightmare (which is what has happened over the past 7 years with a lot of action films).

In many respects, "Casino Royale" did for the Bond franchise what "Batman Begins" did for that franchise. It reinvented the series -- in a completely unpredictable manner -- and made it work. They focused less on CG-elements, and focused on creating a realistic look wrapped up in an interesting story.

I know that the other actors (after Connery) who played Bond were also considered "reinventions" in the 007 universe. And...like Craig...they even used the terms "gritty" and "closer to Fleming's original vision" to describe Dalton and Brosnan (believe it, or not).

Like Christian Bale in "Batman Begins," Daniel Craig works because he isn't want you expect in the role. Audiences are more sophisticated than ever before, and they like to be surprised.

So having an actor who is short, blonde and "rough looking" goes totally against type. He isn't suave or debonair, and quite frankly he is a bit homely. Yet for some reason it works.

Here is a Bond that we can all get behind. A guy that we don't "wish" we were, but the guy that "we are."

Pierce Brosnan was likely the "prototypical" Bond when you think of the James Bond stereotype. And I will admit that his outings (particularly "GoldenEye and "The World is Not Enough") were solid efforts. He never came close to Sean Connery, but he was a bit closer (in my mind) than Roger Moore, Lazenby or Dalton.


"Casino Royale" works because it combines the popular "British Crime Drama" sensibilities (of the past decade) with a spy flair.

It takes the sensibilities of the Tarantino-esque crime films that have come along since 1994, and wraps it neatly with the spy genre.

So rather than trying to look like a Michael Bay "action orgy," the film instead tries to include a little more of the style and pacing of lower budget films like "Layer Cake" or "Snatch."

They were able to create that look and style with Martin Campbell (the guy who did "GoldenEye"). He is a director that isn't necessarily known for "low-budget grit," but he pulled it off in this instance.

When you break this film down into its parts, it might seem like a fairly routine Bond movie (and a movie that shouldn't be all that great). Yet for some reason, it works incredibly well.

The film benefits from the "less is more" principle.

One of the worst moments I have seen in a Bond film was CG-Brosnan surfing in "Die Another Day" - horrid.

This film focused on a few really interesting action sequences that were fairly entertaining and avoided CG (or, at least, the CG look) and appeared much more realistic.

"Casino Royale" stands alone as a very fine entry into the overall spy genre. That's what made it my favorite film of 2006 (and a film I think was potentially worthy of more Oscar consideration).

I must admit that I had reservations about Daniel Craig in the part, but he was very good in the role.

I think it goes back to the fact that Craig looks more like a Bond villain than he does (our stereotypical impression of) Bond. He pulled off the generally cartoonish and wooden dialogue (that is common in these sorts of films) with a real panache. You believed that he believed in the material.

This film combined interesting action elements with a heart-felt story.

The question is how this film will stand up over the test of time.

I was one of the people who thought "The Living Daylights" (Dalton's debut) was pretty solid. However, I know people who didn't buy Dalton as Bond.

I know a lot of people who avoided "Casino Royale" because they didn't buy the idea of Craig as Bond.

Personally, I think this will prove to be one of the best in the series. It surprised the hell out of me when I saw it in January.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Loved the film thru the torture scene. After that, it was all downhill for me, which is a bloody shame, as up until then, it was one of the best Bond films ever.

Well worth a watch, tho!

 

[Ben J Loews]

Am I right in saying that the next bond film will be a kind of sequel to Casino Royale?

A friend of mine told me the other day that Felix becomes a baddie and betrays Bond
.

 

[Nelson Au]

The next Bond film is said to be a continuation of Casino Royale. It will pick up the threads of Mr. White that were left dangling.

Martin Campbell was asked by the press if he'd return, he's left that open. Vesper is said to return too, but no details how. Presumably via scenes with her boyfriend.

Regarding the film bogging down after the torture scene, it's that way in the book. Though it didn't end like that with the action sequence in Venice.

*Spoiler removed, just in case anyone still hasn't seen this.

 

[Felix Martinez]

That is what absolutely did not work for me. You may want to adjust the rest of your post to hide spoilers.

 

[Todd B]

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

I can't see Ben's spoiler coming true. It would be an utter betrayal of the character, and frankly, if it were true, my interest in the film, which is currently very high thanks to CR, would drop like a stone.

 

[Sam Favate]

Well, affter all the good decisions made in the making of Casino Royale, I will remain hopeful that a very bad decision like that one doesn't happen. BTW, that similar type of storyline is the single aspect I hated most about Mission Impossible I.