parrotheads4

I just watched the newest Bond DVD, and was left with mixed feelings. I thought the movie was very good. But where was James Bond? You know, the guy who shoots the enemy in the head with a nail gun, and says "That should hold you!" or "get the point?" etc. And where were the silhouettes of the women in the opening sequence? Bond falls in love? Bond looks like a buff adult gay film star? Or the new singer for Judas Priest? VERY disappointing. If this film were a a hard product I'd be demanding a recall. I also think the film should have been given a rating of R. The violence was beyond PG-13. Add to all of this that the dvd was full of bugs. There is a thread about it if interested. Mulligan!!
OK. I got it off my chest. I really liked the movie though.

Jason Bovberg

You hated the things I loved about the new Bond: It's a return to the rough-and-tumble Bond, giving him some realism and a more muted sense of humor. Daniel Craig's Bond is a real secret agent instead of some wise-cracking pansy-ass buffoon like Roger Moore and, to a lesser degree, Pierce Brosnan. Yes, this Bond can fall in love, much as the character did in one of my top-5 Bond films, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service."

I'll agree with you about the opening sequence. I wanted some naked dames.

I experienced no bugs on my disc...

Subgeniusguy

I found it very refreshing for the series though sometimes it felt like I was watching Jack Bauer. As for naked dames, pop in The Dreamers and see Eva Green without the evening dress.

MovieExchange

Gone, hopefully. Bond is not supposed to be a comedy. That's why I hated the oh-so-beloved Roger Moore as Bond, because it leaned too heavily towards self-parody.

parrotheads4

I think "hate" is too strong. I simply felt there were too many "out of character" moments. It would have been easier to swallow if omitted Bondisms were included. Where was the classic Martini? Left out purposely. The writers wanted the film unBonded. I feel that by leaving out too many of the traditions of Bond films gives this film a XXX feel.
Vin Diesel could have stared in this film, and it would have been just as good.

dpz301

i knew i saw her in something a while back but couldn't remember what it was.

i liked the new bond. seemed more like an action star/action movie to me.

dpz301

i think the point to leave these types of things out because it was to be the way bond became bond, not just another bond story, but the first bond story.

darkside

Have you ever read the books? Bond is nothing like Roger Moore in the books. I think this movie is closer than any of the Moore, Brosnan or Connery films.

parrotheads4

Ok, but we all know Bond started before 9/11. Were the writers wanting us to forget this? I'm asking sincerely.

parrotheads4

Funny, I love to read, but I've never read them. Where should I start?

Fincher Fan

Say wha-?

DVD Josh

Casino Royale?

Simpson Purist

I'll admit it was a bit jarring at first to seeing a different kind of Bond movie than the ones we're so used to, but I really enjoyed the more brutal approach to Bond. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than that piece of crap Die Another Day.

parrotheads4

Originally Posted by parrotheads4
Ok, but we all know Bond started before 9/11. Were the writers wanting us to forget this? I'm asking sincerely



There are references in the movie to the events of 9/11. The stock market manipulation, for example. These references make the movie seem like the newest Bond - not the first.

Mr. Salty

Well, beyond 9/11, "Casino Royale" was clearly set in present day, which is as valid a choice as any other. All of the Bond novels were written in the 1950s and 1960s, yet all of the movies have been set in the time when they were made. (You know, there was no space shuttle when Ian Fleming wrote "Moonraker" in 1955.) Would you have preferred "Casino Royale" be set in 1953?

Suffice it to say, I disagree with every single one of your arguments, including the intimation that there is a thread about how buggy the "Casino Royale" DVD is. There is a thread about one guy who mistook a jump cut for a glitch --- a glitch that no one else has seen.

Regardless, since your post is largely about the movie and not the DVD, this thread probably belongs in the Movie area.

Here's an existing review thread: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=483879

zombiezilla

Jumped-up-Jesus-on-a-chariot, NOOOOOO!

Vin Diesel is a schlub. At best. The new Bond is simply a contemporary version of the character as Ian Fleming envisioned him. It is, IMNSHO, the BEST Bond film! And, believe me, I was ready to hate it when I heard about all the changes.

nateman

WOW! -you would hate-'this film is not yet rated'.

PopcornTreeCt

This Bond film makes me feel stupid for liking the old ones. They aren't even in the same league.

parrotheads4

I think this post supports my argument best. Think about it.

wm lopez

They need to work on Dan Craig's hair, looks too blue collar.

parrotheads4

I did watch this DVD during a big snow storm here in the northern suburbs of NYC. So maybe there were some power issues. But my equipment is very good, and that DVD was full of problems. It may be a bad disc. It may have been the storm. I'll watch it again this weekend to see.

Supermallet

Perhaps parrot is confused because this film is meant to be a reboot of the series. It's the start of a new Bond continuity, and is not meant to take place after Die Another Day or any other previous Bond. It's the Batman Begins of the Bond world.

Ronnie Dobbs

I liked it

UAIOE

I missed this at first but I liked the newer intro.

It's kind hard to take the silhouette intros completely seriously anymore after seeing both "Spy Hard" and the opening to "All my Circuits: the Movie" on Futurama.

Laser guns firing and a fembot rolling off the end of one yelling "Wheee!"

Groucho

OP should not see From Russia With Love.