I saw it tonight and I was initially expecting myself to compare Brosnan to Craig but suprisingly at the very start I forgot about Brosnan.
A funny thing was I thought for teh entire movie that Vesper (I ddin't even realize that was her name) was Money Penny. Another confusion is that M referenced 9/11, but I thought this movie was suppost to take place before all the bond movies?!
Originally Posted by mb3k /img/forum/go_quote.gif Another confusion is that M referenced 9/11, but I thought this movie was suppost to take place before all the bond movies?!
This is supposed to take place in present day. You are supposed to forget about the previous Bonds and what happened with them.
This is a Bond movie that kept my attention. The chases were thrilling, I liked the script a lot. This is a darker, more intense Bond that is like a fresh breath of air compared to the stale formula of previous movies
Just came back from the movie today and I thought the opening credits was very nice. It's definitely different from the silhouette of a woman with a gun and what not. But I think it was a change for the better.
Saw it last night and loved every second. I won't duplicate everything already said here, but I will add that the scenery is gorgeous. I'm a little confused by the ending elevator scene but that's OK. They could have trimmed a good 30-40 minutes off to clean it up and focus it a bit, but again, who cares? I was throughly entertained for the entire running time. Best Bond in years. I particularly liked how the gadgets weren't ridiculously over-the-top like they were during the Brosnan era.
Concerning product placement, Ford was definitely there but not distracting. I too thought there should have been a little more face time with the Aston but the presense of the DB5 made up for it a bit. I only noticed a Sony camera and the VAIO but again, not distracting to me.
As for Happy Feet, I'm seeing it in IMAX on Thanksgiving day.
Originally Posted by warpdriver /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is supposed to take place in present day. You are supposed to forget about the previous Bonds and what happened with them.
I'm not sure if u're suppose to forget what happened with other bond movies. In many ways, this is like James Bond's version of Batman Begins or Star Wars Episode 1,2,3. A prequel, but that doesn't necessarily mean it had to be set in a era before the first movie.
It was good but since it is technically the first movie where james bond is developing, well, james bond... it dosent fit... first are the little things, like, hey, its the year 2006 and all of a sudden on his next mission its the year 1962... oh ya and Judy Dench (aka "M", who before the 90's was always a man) exclaims how she missess the cold war... so they didnt even try to make this movie fit... also they didnt introduce Q branch at all... which i can kind of understand in a way since Desmond Llewelyn died in 1999 and he was the only character that was in almost every movie (think he was in 17 or 18 of the [now] 21 movies)...
other complaints, the opening song is NOT on the sound track... i have all 20 soundtracks from all 20 movies and on EVERY SINGLE ONE the opening song is on the sound track... now i have to buy some jack hole's cd to get one song? What?
if i ignore the other 20 movies i have watched and review the movie on how it stands alone... i stood in line for an hour to get in at the midnight showing opening day and all i have to say is it was really an excellent movie, i was entertained for all 2 hrs 32 mins of it... and will probably go watch it again... but it really bothers me how it dosent fit in properly at all with the rest of the series... oh well...
Originally Posted by flecom /img/forum/go_quote.gif It was good but since it is technically the first movie where james bond is developing, well, james bond... it dosent fit... first are the little things, like, hey, its the year 2006 and all of a sudden on his next mission its the year 1962... oh ya and Judy Dench (aka "M", who before the 90's was always a man) exclaims how she missess the cold war... so they didnt even try to make this movie fit... also they didnt introduce Q branch at all... which i can kind of understand in a way since Desmond Llewelyn died in 1999 and he was the only character that was in almost every movie (think he was in 17 or 18 of the [now] 21 movies)...
if i ignore the other 20 movies i have watched and review the movie on how it stands alone... i stood in line for an hour to get in at the midnight showing opening day and all i have to say is it was really an excellent movie, i was entertained for all 2 hrs 32 mins of it... and will probably go watch it again... but it really bothers me how it dosent fit in properly at all with the rest of the series... oh well...
Casino Royale is not intended to fit in with the existing Bond movies. It is a series reset, much like Batman Begins.
As for Q, well, he hadn't written into the Bond storyline as of Casino Royale (the book). The Q character (aka Major Boothroyd) entered in Dr. No, where Bond is forced to exchange his Beretta 418 (.25 ACP) for a Walther PPK (.32 ACP).
In real life, a gun nut Bond fan, Boothroyd, wrote in to Ian Fleming saying that the Beretta was a sissy gun, and Bond should step up to a real gun. Boothroyd wanted a S&W in .38 SPL, Fleming wanted an automatic, so they settled on the PPK. Bond had an unfortunate accident with the Beretta in Dr. No, and the PPK became Bond's signature gun.
As I understand it, prequel is not the proper term in industry lingo. Instead Casino Royale is a "reboot" which means it does not have to bear in connection to the pre-existing series. In other words, it is closer to a re-make (which it actually is) than a prequel.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
