In reference to the product placement, I totally missed it. I think I've been desensitized to ads like I am violence. So much of it and I've just gotten numb to it. Don't recall any products other than the Ford, which I don't think was product placement so much as an indicator that Bond just wasn't Bond yet.
Casino Royale - Best 007 movie in years [some spoilers]
Mouseferatu
Hero
Just to throw my vote in, having finally seen it...
It had a few pacing problems, but that's the worst I can say for it. I thought it was not only a great movie, but a great Bond movie.
And yes, for all the nay-sayers, it was very much a Bond movie. No cheesy gadgets? A reduction (albeit far from a loss) of one-liners? Yep; just like the early Connery movies. Bond didn't start getting really cheesy until late Connery/early Moore.
Casino Royale is, IMO, a spiritual cousin to the early Connery films, yet without the severely dated aspects and mind-numbing 60s pacing to ruin it.
It had a few pacing problems, but that's the worst I can say for it. I thought it was not only a great movie, but a great Bond movie.
And yes, for all the nay-sayers, it was very much a Bond movie. No cheesy gadgets? A reduction (albeit far from a loss) of one-liners? Yep; just like the early Connery movies. Bond didn't start getting really cheesy until late Connery/early Moore.
Casino Royale is, IMO, a spiritual cousin to the early Connery films, yet without the severely dated aspects and mind-numbing 60s pacing to ruin it.
Jeremy
Explorer
horacethegrey said:The torture scene was a revelation, in that it effectively showed audiences that "this isn't your daddy's Jame's Bond anymore". Before, we had a Bond who was above it all. Nothing seemed to bother him. It was like his missions were just weekend jaunts with a bunch explosions and hot women mixed in. Plus his adversaries were a bunch of dandies he could have a glass of wine of with if they weren't trying to kill him there and then.
Now it's diffirent. Now, he can be hurt, he can be broken (mentally and physically), and his adversary here is just one desperate and nasty guy. With these factors in place, the stakes are now real, and theres a real genuine sense of excitement. I can't wait!
I really like my bad guys bad and torture is just a part of it. It was one of the things that made me like MI:3. At the time I saw it I felt that they were finally bringing actual consequences into play. Bringing physical pain to Bond (staircase, torture), real emotional pain (well done Mr. Craig), make it easier to invest more in your care for the character.
Bouncing back from death I'm not sure I liked, but I don't know how Bond should have handled it differently, we don't want to see *him* crying in the shower after being defibrilated. And he certainly had a job to do. Just don't know if that was the time to make a joke.
Up to date Numbers Weekend ending 12/18/2006:
Domestic: $137,574,000 (35.8%) + Foreign: $246,510,827 (64.2%) = Worldwide: $384,084,827
It has topped all but Day Another Day
History on the last few Bonds:
2002's #12 Day Another Day:
Domestic: $160,942,139 37.3% + Foreign: $271,028,977 62.7% = Worldwide: $431,971,116
1999's #14 The World is Not Enough:
Domestic: $126,943,684 35.1% + Foreign: $234,888,716 64.9% = Worldwide: $361,832,400
1997's # 10 Tomorrow Never Dies:
Domestic: $125,304,276 36.9% + Foreign: $214,035,826 63.1% = Worldwide: $339,340,102
1995's # 6 Goldeneye:
Domestic: $106,429,941 30.5% + Foreign: $242,465,680 69.5% = Worldwide: $348,895,621
Domestic: $137,574,000 (35.8%) + Foreign: $246,510,827 (64.2%) = Worldwide: $384,084,827
It has topped all but Day Another Day
History on the last few Bonds:
2002's #12 Day Another Day:
Domestic: $160,942,139 37.3% + Foreign: $271,028,977 62.7% = Worldwide: $431,971,116
1999's #14 The World is Not Enough:
Domestic: $126,943,684 35.1% + Foreign: $234,888,716 64.9% = Worldwide: $361,832,400
1997's # 10 Tomorrow Never Dies:
Domestic: $125,304,276 36.9% + Foreign: $214,035,826 63.1% = Worldwide: $339,340,102
1995's # 6 Goldeneye:
Domestic: $106,429,941 30.5% + Foreign: $242,465,680 69.5% = Worldwide: $348,895,621
sniffles
First Post
I agree with this assessment. I finally got to see it yesterday, and came away saying, yes, it was truly a Bond film.Mouseferatu said:
Of course, I've always preferred the early Connery films to any of Bond's later incarnations.
Much as I got a kick out of John Cleese as Q in the last film, I didn't miss him this time out and I think it's time to retire that character.
I thought Daniel Craig made a great Bond. I hope any future installments stick to this formula and avoid the excessive gadgetry and smarmy self-referential humour. I also liked it that the producers didn't feel it necessary to do any 'stunt' casting. Bond works better with lesser-known actors, IMHO. You don't need big names on the marquee to pull in an audience; just the Bond name will do that.
Cthulhudrew
First Post
sniffles said:
I'd like to see Q in the movies still, but I hope they go back to his main role as armorer, supplying Bond with weaponry and the like, and scale back the fantastic gadgets. Some gadgets are cool, but they got to the point where they kept getting more and more unbelievable as they tried to one-up the previous movie.
They could easily just keep it more embedded in real world technologies (or even not-far off ones, if absolutely necessary). I used to really enjoy playing Top Secret back in the day, and one of the most fun parts of that game was stocking up on things like high-explosive incendiary rounds, tricking out your HK rifle, etc. Stuff like that would be cool, but not over the top.
I swear I heard Bond call the guy that injected him with the tracker Q - but not very sure.Cthulhudrew said:
