Hmf. Casino Royale went back to the original story in the book and kept close to it throughout (updated by 50 years or so). The original "Quantum of Solace" was a short story that appeared in For Your Eyes Only and had almost nothing to do with Bond.
The Bond movie franchise got way off the track starting with Moonraker and I was kind of hoping that they'd get back to basics from now on. (Not that there are that many original Bond stories left, but "The Hildebrande Rarity" is a good basis for a movie).
I disagree. The plot was weak. The climax was...barley a climax. I didn't even realize it was a climax until....nothing happened after that. You are given bits and pieces of a bigger story during the movie, but none of that materializes - only a subplot, with meager setup gets resolved. You are left hanging. I realize that they are probably laying groundwork for the next movie, but I think it was done poorly, i.e. making you think that is what this movie was about. As an example, the opening "chase" had little relevance to the rest of the movie.
But it was still a good movie. Here is how I would rank them:
@Mrrix32: Have you ever _really_ watched some of the early Bond films? I mean, with a critical eye, and not rose-colored glasses? Back in the Connery days it was all just, "Hey, there's a building that looks like it could be some supervillain's headquarters. I'll just wander inside and thwart their plans or whatever." Casino Royale showed a clear path of deduction from Point A to Point Z. There's only one point in the entire movie where a clue is pointedly dumped in his lap (Vesper's phone), and even then he almost misses it. The early Bond practically had a guided tour with a companion plot book in comparison.
I don't know what you guys are talking about. I hate Daniel Craig. He doesn't look like a Bond, doesn't act like a Bond, couldn't save his girl at the end of the last movie, has inner struggle. Come On. The "new" Bond is a pansy. Pierce Brosnan was awesome. He had the right attitude, acted suave, almost never fucked up. Just the way Bond is supposed to be. I will probably not see this movie.
@pinball21: Craig is much closer to Bond then the other Bonds were.
I guess it depends on where you want to go back to. You go back to the books (which the new movies are doing) Craig pretty much is Bond. You go back to the movie Bond and yeah, he isn't much like Moore et al.
'It was a dark and stormy night. That James Bond is a pansy with a Mr. Potatohead face,M thought while considering the disposition of current assignments.'
@RE-L: I've always thought that Clive Owen would've made a better Bond after Brosnan. But after seeing Casino Royale, Craig isn't too bad for someone who can't even drive stick. :P
ugh dont remind me that he can't drive stick. i mean seriously, i'm sure even pierce brosnan is manly enough to drive stick.
nothing more annoying than someone who needs to borrow a car, you offer yours, hand em the keys, they go out, come back 30 seconds later, 'uh, i dont know how to drive stick'. INSTANT LOSS OF MANLY RESPECT RIGHT THERE.
on a similar note, there are few things hotter than a girl who can drive stick, and do it well. in a truck. offroad. ok i just creamed my jeans brb.
@nutbastard: My gf drives stick. All of her cars have been manual transmission. It was a lot of fun the last time we went car shopping. So many a$$hole salesmen talking down to her trying to get her to pick a car with an automatic because most of them didn't even have manuals on the lot. She threw it right back in their faces and dismiss them quite brutally. One guy tried and tried to push the automatic. She asked if he was going to show her a manual car. He said no and she said, "then you're useless to me." and walked away. He tried to pursue it and I just chuckled as she completely ignored him. I like watching her when she gets mad (so long as it's not at me!)
@nutbastard: I think you would be surprised at the women who drive a standard transmission, myself included (in a 4WD and 4" spike heels). I had to order it built, as there were no standard shifts in the model I wanted on any lots within 250 miles. I havent driven an automatic since I was 21.
@Earthslide: Daniel Craig is not fit to polish Pierce Brosnan's shoes. Pierce Brosnan is James Bond. After that I can accept Connery, then Moore, maybe even Lazenby. After all of them, Craig slides in just after Dalton. Hell Peter Sellers was better than Craig. Craig's inaugural outing in Casino Royale was so bad it almost turned me off of the franchise entirely. This movie has to be better by default, simply because it couldn't get worse than the last one.
See and to me, James Bond is supposed to be cartoonish. Or at least Comic-Bookish. He isn't supposed to be leaning towards Jason Bourne, he's supposed to be leaning towards, well, Austin Powers.
@Kaiser-Machead's Cookie-Powered LEGO Machine: Except the Bourne movies had pretty much NOTHING to do with the books. The basic premise of Bourne himself and some of the titles and names were the same, that's pretty much it. Not that the movies weren't good, just that the fact that another Bourne book was released really should have no bearing on the movie franchise :)
@nutbastard: Its like any other character that has had multiple creative hands working on him over the years. You look at the original books and the current Craig Bond is much closer to what Fleming described. The cartoonish aspect is something much more in the films. He is going to be something different to most people which you've seen over the years.
Its like Batman. For some Bale's Batman is definitive and some (though probably much, much fewer) are going to perfer West's take.
@nutbastard: "See and to me, James Bond is supposed to be cartoonish."
Exactly. He's 'over' everything. Overstyled. Overdramatic. Oversexed. He's SUPPOSED to be shot at an infinite number of times without being hit. That's what makes Bond, Bond. I particularly think Casino Royale was a good movie, but not a good Bond movie. Craige is too.... dry. He's too robotic. He's an immature Bond. Bond had a taste for art and romance. What Connery did was show that Bond also ENJOYED it personally. Craig's Bond likes these things only because he HAS to in order to get the job done.
I can't agree that Craig is a better Bond than Connery. I also can't really judge until I've seen this iteration. Until then Connery-1 / Craig-0.
@N@tedog: The whole point of Casino Royale is that he wasn't really Bond James Bond until the very end of the movie. Everything else is what _made_ him Bond. That's why they basically had to reboot the series in order to do the one missing book, because there's no way to slip that in after 20-odd movies have already been released, and the rights were tied up when they decided to start with Dr. No.
I didn't read that whole post because I don't want to read the spoilers, but I do have to comment on how happy I am with the new direction the Bond films have taken with Daniel Craig in the lead role. I'd pretty much sworn off all things Bond when "Die Another Day" introduced the absurdity of an invisible car. This new direction really pleases me: more story, more intrigue, less gadgets. It's not that I don't like gadgets (and every Bond film should have at least one gee wiz gadget) but when they're so absurdly implausible they just spoil the movie.
11/13/08
The Bond movie franchise got way off the track starting with Moonraker and I was kind of hoping that they'd get back to basics from now on. (Not that there are that many original Bond stories left, but "The Hildebrande Rarity" is a good basis for a movie).
Oh well. Doesn't mean I won't go see it.
11/13/08
I disagree. The plot was weak. The climax was...barley a climax. I didn't even realize it was a climax until....nothing happened after that. You are given bits and pieces of a bigger story during the movie, but none of that materializes - only a subplot, with meager setup gets resolved. You are left hanging. I realize that they are probably laying groundwork for the next movie, but I think it was done poorly, i.e. making you think that is what this movie was about. As an example, the opening "chase" had little relevance to the rest of the movie.
But it was still a good movie. Here is how I would rank them:
1. Casino Royale (sorry nutbasterd)
2. Goldeneye
3. Quantum of Solace
11/13/08
The main problem is they changed from spy film to action film and it's gone downhill since then :(
11/13/08
Have you ever _really_ watched some of the early Bond films? I mean, with a critical eye, and not rose-colored glasses? Back in the Connery days it was all just, "Hey, there's a building that looks like it could be some supervillain's headquarters. I'll just wander inside and thwart their plans or whatever." Casino Royale showed a clear path of deduction from Point A to Point Z. There's only one point in the entire movie where a clue is pointedly dumped in his lap (Vesper's phone), and even then he almost misses it. The early Bond practically had a guided tour with a companion plot book in comparison.
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
I guess it depends on where you want to go back to. You go back to the books (which the new movies are doing) Craig pretty much is Bond. You go back to the movie Bond and yeah, he isn't much like Moore et al.
11/13/08
So the book Bond is a pansy with a Mr. Potatohead face?
11/13/08
James Bond is a pansy with a Mr. Potatohead face.
11/13/08
'It was a dark and stormy night. That James Bond is a pansy with a Mr. Potatohead face, M thought while considering the disposition of current assignments.'
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
ugh dont remind me that he can't drive stick. i mean seriously, i'm sure even pierce brosnan is manly enough to drive stick.
nothing more annoying than someone who needs to borrow a car, you offer yours, hand em the keys, they go out, come back 30 seconds later, 'uh, i dont know how to drive stick'. INSTANT LOSS OF MANLY RESPECT RIGHT THERE.
on a similar note, there are few things hotter than a girl who can drive stick, and do it well. in a truck. offroad. ok i just creamed my jeans brb.
11/13/08
11/13/08
I learned on a crappy volkswagon rabbit.
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
And what about those of us who thought Casino Royale was a steaming pile of crap?
11/13/08
11/13/08
I liked the less-cartoonish style. But didn't think it was a good, memorable story.
I also thought the Bourne movies were better.
11/13/08
11/13/08
Nuts to you? Black and blue, somewhat mushy nuts.
11/13/08
See and to me, James Bond is supposed to be cartoonish. Or at least Comic-Bookish. He isn't supposed to be leaning towards Jason Bourne, he's supposed to be leaning towards, well, Austin Powers.
11/13/08
11/13/08
Its like Batman. For some Bale's Batman is definitive and some (though probably much, much fewer) are going to perfer West's take.
11/13/08
*takes his calm pill*
11/13/08
yeah, but we all know that Dark Knight starred Heath Ledger - and co-starred Bale.
I wonder if Bale got a Best Supporting Actor award for that?
: P
11/13/08
Exactly. He's 'over' everything. Overstyled. Overdramatic. Oversexed. He's SUPPOSED to be shot at an infinite number of times without being hit. That's what makes Bond, Bond. I particularly think Casino Royale was a good movie, but not a good Bond movie. Craige is too.... dry. He's too robotic. He's an immature Bond. Bond had a taste for art and romance. What Connery did was show that Bond also ENJOYED it personally. Craig's Bond likes these things only because he HAS to in order to get the job done.
I can't agree that Craig is a better Bond than Connery. I also can't really judge until I've seen this iteration. Until then Connery-1 / Craig-0.
11/13/08
11/13/08
I think Beverly Hills Chihuahua is still playing.
Sorry. Just wanted to turn this into an IMDb thread for a moment.
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/14/08
Kevin. Conroy.
11/14/08
The whole point of Casino Royale is that he wasn't really Bond James Bond until the very end of the movie. Everything else is what _made_ him Bond. That's why they basically had to reboot the series in order to do the one missing book, because there's no way to slip that in after 20-odd movies have already been released, and the rights were tied up when they decided to start with Dr. No.
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
Good one. I gotta hand it to ya there.
11/13/08