DocSlinky wrote:I saw Casino Royale, last night (a friend had tix to an advanced screeining). In a word....awesome!!! The new Bond, Daniel Craig, rocks -- the best since Connery in my opinion. The story is much more complex than other Bond movies, with more twists and dealing with the background of how he became 007 and what makes him tick. And the action is like nothing you've ever seen (especially a foot chase at the beginning). On its own merits, this may be the best movie in the series. In short, I was blown away and super-glad to see it on big screen.
That would make sense because MGM is really rebooting the series going back to the first Bond book. That might be the reason why the background story was more complex or whatnot. The writers had specific guidelines about the story already, lol. I haven't seen this yet, and likely won't until it comes out on DVD, unless the buzz is so huge after this weekend that curiosity draws me to the theater.
Concerning Craig though, I've always thought he was a decent actor, but he seemed type-casted into the crazy, weak-kneed villain roles until he came out with Layer Cake. Before his selection though, I liked Clive Owen as a potential Bond. That was, until I saw more movies with him in it and realized he would have been a bit too girly for the Bond role, IMO. He's got the better Bond look than Craig though, but it seems like MGM wanted to go with a more harder, rough-edged look to attract the younger audience.
josebach wrote:What the hell happened to Michael Keaton anyway? The last flick I saw him in was White Noise. What a steaming pile that was.
After "White Noise", he was in "Herbie Fully Loaded" and then "Cars." Seems to be doing lighter, kid stuff nowadays. And yea, I agree, "White Noise" was crap. Supposed to be coming out with a supernatural thriller by the director of American History X in 2007 called "Reaper," which sounds promising.
beanoX3 wrote:Concerning Craig though, I've always thought he was a decent actor, but he seemed type-casted into the crazy, weak-kneed villain roles until he came out with Layer Cake.
Huh? How many Craig movies have you seen? When you mention villain, I guess you referring to that Lara Croft movie which I have not seen.
In the movies I've seen, he's played an unhappily married building contractor whose torn between two loves interested (The Mother), a philosophy professor who's been stalked (Enduring Love), a mental patient who's certainly not a villain (The Jacket), a protagonist Mossad killer (Munich), and a protagonist drug dealer (Layer Cake).
The movies I haven't seen are Sylvia (where he plays Sylvia Plath's husband) and Casino Royale (where he plays 007).
How again is he being typecast into a "crazy weak-kneed villain"? He wasn't a villain in ANY of those movies I've listed except the Lara Croft movie (which I didn't see).
Gritty, much more realistic than any of the Brosnan era Bond flicks...
The part I LOVED about it the most was the fact that the gadgets took second (or even third) fiddle to the plot-line and the dialogue. I mean, they're there, but they're not the focus of any single scene...
If you like Bond films, you probably won't like this one. If you don't like Bond films, you may like this one.
Me, I like Bond films. This film I don't like but I forgive. What I like about Bond films is the same thing I like about vampire and ganger films: it's based around a character that is pretty bad-ass, fairly amoral, and sauve as the day is long.
That's not this Bond. This Bond is a bright hoodlum who just got promoted from being a normal spy. He has no varnish or veneer. He also has a heart. Over the course of the movie he gains the varnish and loses the heart. In other words, he becomes James Bond. So, I forgave it for not living up to my expectations because that was the point of the whole film: for him to transform himself. But I would be upset if it was just supposed to be a standard Bond film and it was what was served to me.