PDA

View Full Version : Casino Royale 007


Prelude95Si
05-03-2006, 08:50 AM
Well I've never heard of Daniel Craig, and personaly I can't picture him as Bond even after watching the teaser. I'm sure that all of people who have read the Bond novels will disagree with me here but going from the films, I picture Bond as a hansome, charming, gentelman spy. I think that these are the attributes that attract women to him. Craig looks too rugded and masculin for the role of Bond. I think he will bring that cold blooded killer idea that I guess is evident in the Bond novels. But since I have grown-up with the movies, that is were my image of Bond comes from.
But this movie might be good for action value if nothing else.



English Casino Royale Teaser Up!
Source: Sony Pictures May 2, 2006

You can now watch the English version of the teaser trailer for Sony's Casino Royale at Moviefone. Directed by Martin Campbell, the 21st James Bond installment opens on November 17.

The studio has also updated the film's official website at CasinoRoyalemovie.com, which features a countdown until a new version of the site launches. You can also watch the teaser trailer there or download the clip for your PSP.

Daniel Craig takes over the role of the legendary British secret agent, James Bond, in the highly anticipated 007 adventure thriller. The film also stars Judi Dench, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Jeffrey Wright, Giancarlo Giannini, Caterina Murino, Simon Abkarian, Tobias Menzies, Ivana Milicevic, Clemens Schik, Ludger Pistor, Claudio Santamaria and Isaach de Bankole.
CasinoRoyalemovie.com (http://www.casinoroyalemovie.com/) http://www.casinoroyalemovie.com/

urgeok
05-03-2006, 08:55 AM
ian flamings written bond was never supposed to be a good looking man ..
he's 6'1" and dangerous looking ...

it was only the films that turned him into a wise cracking pretty boy. (i still like them - but they are very different from the books)

ItsAlive75
05-03-2006, 01:04 PM
Agreed, Fleming's books were a lot more simplistic and brutal. Bond never had gadgets and flying cars, he was just a thug assassin... glad to see they're going a "rougher" route with the films.

alkytrio666
05-03-2006, 03:08 PM
The original Casino Royale was a spoof on 007 with Peter Sellers.

urgeok
05-03-2006, 05:11 PM
the origional casino royal was a made for TV movie starring an american .. from the late 50's i think

phantomstranger
05-06-2006, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by urgeok
the origional casino royal was a made for TV movie starring an american .. from the late 50's i think


"Casino Royale" aired on Oct 21 1954 on the CBS series "Climax Mystery Theater" It starred American actor Barry Nelson as "Bond" and the great Peter Lorre as the villian "Le Chiffre"

urgeok
05-08-2006, 06:54 AM
its actually included on the Casino Royal DVD (the one with sellers, niven, allen, etc)

Prelude95Si
07-18-2006, 11:59 AM
Roger Michell in Talks for Bond 22
Source: The Hollywood Reporter July 17, 2006

The Hollywood Reporter is reporting that director Roger Michell is in negotiations with EON Productions to direct the 22nd movie starring Agent 007, James Bond.

Michell, best known for directing the Julia Roberts romantic comedy Notting Hill, has worked twice previously with Daniel Craig on the dramas The Mother and Enduring Love.

Columbia Pictures has not commented on the matter.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

They must be preety confiendet about #21.

roshiq
07-19-2006, 04:22 AM
Original...

roshiq
07-19-2006, 04:28 AM
Casino Royale: Bond'21!!

Angelakillsluts
07-19-2006, 11:27 AM
won't be seeing it. I saw my dumb action movie of the year already with Mission Impossible 3, it's probably one of the best action movies I've ever seen though so I'm glad I saw it though.

Anyway, I like the handsome, charming, wise cracking,gadget using bond.

urgeok
07-19-2006, 11:30 AM
i grew up through several bonds ... whats one more :)

Prelude95Si
07-22-2006, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by roshiq
Original...


Actually the original was Fleming's first Bond novel, which makes me ask why are they doing this novel now? Because from what I know about the original novel Bond has just been promoted to the double "o" status. But in the trailer M is talking to Bond about a promotion, maybe to captain or admerial because he is curently a commander.

Action wise it should be good, and I think that the story will be decent, I mean I don't expect much from a Bond story because they are all about the same.

Prelude95Si
08-31-2006, 05:48 PM
Daniel Craig on Casino Royale
Source: Reuters August 31, 2006

Reuters has published a new interview with Casino Royale star Daniel Craig and here are a few clips:

"We have an opening sequence that is filmed in black and white, which is not to say this is old. It is just to say, 'go with us on this one. This is from the beginning,"' Craig said.

"It's huge," said Craig about taking the role. "Of course there's concern, I'm only human. I want to get it right."

Craig said he talked to Pierce Brosnan, who played the super spy in the four most recent Bond Flicks, "quite a few times."

"Pierce said 'go for it,"' Craig said. "So I did."

_____V_____
09-02-2006, 11:00 AM
Sean Connery was the perfect Bond...tall, rugged, deadly and purposeful.

Thunderball :- "My dear girl, don't flatter yourself. What I did this evening was for King and country. You don't think it gave me any pleasure, do you?"

Somehow all the rest who played 007 never measured up.

Prelude95Si
09-02-2006, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by _____V_____
Sean Connery was the perfect Bond...tall, rugged, deadly and purposeful.

Thunderball :- "My dear girl, don't flatter yourself. What I did this evening was for King and country. You don't think it gave me any pleasure, do you?"

Somehow all the rest who played 007 never measured up.

I agree that Connery set the standard, but personaly I enjoyed the way Pierce played Bond. Plus I think he had the right look for the verson of Bond he was doing. But Connery will always be the best.

Prelude95Si
09-02-2006, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Duncanature
They shoulda let Tarantino do it.


:confused: :confused: :confused:

I can't picture that. I don't think I'd go for Kill Bill meets Bond.
But I'm not a big Tarantino fan either.

Phalanx
09-02-2006, 09:42 PM
They wouldn't even be doing this movie if it weren't for Tarantino. He gave them the whole idea.
How do you figure that?
It's based on a book Ian Fleming wrote WAAAAY back when, it's one of the first, if not THE first JB full-length story...as in set before all the "old" JB films. I doubt the film will owe anything more to tarantino than the fact it'll have guns in it?

I'm ok with the "different" bond.
It's not him changing, it's (and other early books) more like how he used to be. Yes, he was an assassin, as M puts it in the trailer "a blunt instrument". It's set in the modern day which may be a little unusual, but whatever...I didn't see as many complaints about Batman Begins, more or less the same deal...
I personally hope it's a new franchise for Bond, for at least a few films, there's definately enough material to work with.

As for the comedy version, I heard it was great...I may hire it.

Phalanx
09-02-2006, 09:54 PM
The idea of prequels is hardly unheard of...besides, and even if someone DID get the idea off tarantino, big deal...
Obviously someone got off their ass and did it, whereas he didn't.
Either that or he spoiled his own chances at the same deal by being the arrogant, outspoken guy he often is...

Ideas are only ideas until someone makes them more.

Prelude95Si
09-03-2006, 12:30 PM
Copied from Wikipedia:

"Casino Royale is the first James Bond novel by author Ian Fleming. It would eventually pave the way for 11 other novels by Fleming himself in addition to 2 short story anthologies, followed by many 'continuation' Bond novels by other authors."

For starters this movie can't be a prequal because the current "M" is in it, the original "M" was a male. Second it take place in modern times. Third this is going down as BOND 21, so its part of the normal series.

Also I don't know were this comment about the other Bond stories were made-up for the movies, all of the Bond films up until "The Spy Who Loved Me" were all based on Ian's novels, the only thing that was used in this movie was the title. Then everything after "The Living Daylights" starting with "Licence to Kill" were stories for the movies with no novel influence to the story.

This is alittle bit off topic but has anyone ever noticed that whenever Bond is on TV they never show the movies in order like they do for other series. I guess some people don't know that these movies do carry elements over from the previous film. For example, "From Russia With Love", at the beginning of the movie Bond is with the Brunet that he hooked-up with in the Casino in "Dr. No" and in a meeting the SPECTER agaents make references to the death of Dr. No. In "You Only Live Twice" Bond finaly goes head to head with Blofield who is the leader of SPECTER. After not catching him Bond is still chaseing Blofield in "On Her Majesty's Secrect Service", at the end Blowfield kills Bond's wife. This storyline is concluded in "Diamonds are Forever" with Bond finaly defeating Blofield.

Prelude95Si
09-03-2006, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Duncanature
Isn't that what I said?

I thought you said that all 20 Bond movies were stories not based on Ian's novels. That the movies had no influence from the novels for the stories.

Prelude95Si
09-03-2006, 02:23 PM
Bond 22 Targeting Nov. 7, 2008
Source: The Hollywood Reporter September 1, 2006

Columbia Pictures has moved James Bond 22 -- the yet-to-be-named film that will be produced after November's Casino Royale -- to Nov. 7, 2008, rather than the original date of May 2, 2008, where it was in competition with Jon Favreau's Iron Man adaptation.

Sony Pictures Entertainment vice chairman Jeff Blake told The Hollywood Reporter that the studio, along with partners MGM and British production company EON Prods., are in talks to bring on a new director after Roger Michell (Notting Hill) bowed out of the project.

The new date also gives the filmmakers the standard two years to complete the next film -- the usual time between Bond movies.

"Eighteen months was a very short window," Blake said. "We're going to stay the course."

Daniel Craig will star as 007 in the 22nd Bond film as well.

tarcher80
09-04-2006, 07:38 PM
i personally liked the roger moore bond... as for the up-coming movie i liked the actor they casted and look forward to see a new triwst on the series

Prelude95Si
09-07-2006, 04:36 PM
A little bit about the plot.


The New Casino Royale Trailer Hits!
Source: Sony Pictures September 7, 2006

Moviefone has your first look at the new trailer for Sony Pictures' Casino Royale, the 21st James Bond film directed by Martin Campbell and starring Daniel Craig as 007. The movie, opening November 17, is based on the first Bond book written by Ian Fleming.

James Bond's first "007" mission leads him to Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), banker to the world's terrorists. In order to stop him, and bring down the terrorist network, Bond must beat Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game at Casino Royale. Bond is initially annoyed when a beautiful British Treasury official, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), is assigned to deliver his stake for the game and watch over the government's money. But, as Bond and Vesper survive a series of lethal attacks by Le Chiffre and his henchmen, a mutual attraction develops leading them both into further danger and events that will shape Bond's life forever.

Phalanx
09-08-2006, 12:32 AM
Bond must beat Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game at Casino Royale.
Yeah, he's SUPPOSED to...

Roderick Usher
09-08-2006, 08:55 AM
Love Daniel Craig in Layer Cake and Enduring Love, but I wasn't very excited about this one until viewing the new trailer

http://movies.aol.com/casino-royale-james-bond/exclusive-video-features

Prelude95Si
10-23-2006, 05:21 PM
So now that this movie turning out to look like prequal how does everyone feel about them making Bond 21 set in modern day but taking place before the days of Connery and having the current M and Q?

Prelude95Si
11-16-2006, 06:44 PM
Anybody going to see this tomorrow?

Phalanx
11-16-2006, 06:48 PM
I'll be seeing it, probably in a week or so when it comes out here...looks great...kind of like the movie equivalent for if they did an "ultimate JB" comic, origin story set in the modern day.
Looks like some awesome stunt coreography too...aren't many guys that don't end up seeing the Bond films, IMO, eventually...I'll be catching this on bigscreen, for sure.

tic
11-17-2006, 06:01 AM
Should be seeing it this weekend.

***Spolier Alert ***
(sort of)

1. A question was posed about Bonds' promotion : In this film this is where he gets his "00" status.

2. Bond does not beat Le Chiffre at the Poker table.

3. The producer's have said that Casino Royale is merely the first part of a "new" story and will be properly concluded with the next film.

4. By all accounts (recent reviews) Daniel Craig is as good as the Connery version, some say that this is one of the best Bond films yet.

urgeok
11-17-2006, 06:16 AM
just heard a ripping review on this one ..
looks like this is the Bond we've been waiting for for 40 years..

Vodstok
11-17-2006, 07:29 AM
I was really dejected about this... Then I saw the trailer. I have to admit, i will definately see it. Just not in the theater, because we never manage to get out.

I have seen every bond film to date, thoough, and I saw the piece of dogshit casiona royale that came outy in the 60s. Even if the new one was awful, it owuld have to be better....

Phalanx
11-17-2006, 09:44 PM
'Cos you're a crybaby aquafaggot, and he's not.

Vod, I haven't seen the old one, but I know that it wasn't all that close to the book...something happened with the liscensing, and they jumped on it to make a comedy version...I'm sure someone knows the specifics. I saw it at my video shop, I wasn't much inclined to get it.

Phalanx
11-17-2006, 10:12 PM
Absolutely.

Phalanx
11-17-2006, 11:21 PM
Yeah, you can suck it.

urgeok
11-18-2006, 04:09 AM
'Cos you're a crybaby aquafaggot, and he's not.

Vod, I haven't seen the old one, but I know that it wasn't all that close to the book...something happened with the liscensing, and they jumped on it to make a comedy version...I'm sure someone knows the specifics. I saw it at my video shop, I wasn't much inclined to get it.



should get it .. great burt bacharach music - and if it's the same version i have - it has the 1 hour TV version of Casino Royal from 1957.

American - but the technically the 1st James Bond ever made.

Phalanx
11-19-2006, 02:14 PM
YEAH, I'M GAY...with a girlfriend...she's GAY too...:rolleyes:

The_Return
11-19-2006, 02:48 PM
'Cos you're a crybaby aquafaggot

...scraping the bottom of the ol' insult barrel?

Phalanx
11-19-2006, 03:00 PM
If it were someone more important, they'd have deserved more...

phantomstranger
11-23-2006, 01:23 AM
If you are a fan of the gadget filled, light hearted Bond movies, then "Casino Royale" is probably not for you. But If (like myself) your a fan the Ian Fleming novels and the early Bond movies, then your in for a treat, this is the best Bond movie in twenty years. Tough, brutal and action packed. Daniel Craig proves he's the man to take on Connery's mantle. No silly gadgets, no bad jokes, just good solid acting and terriffic action. Now don't get me wrong. I've enjoyed most of the Bond films (except "A View To A Kill" that one was awful) but I'm glad they have gone back to the basics. It just proves that in a world of Jason Bourne's and Jack Bauer's that Bond is still the best.

Prelude95Si
11-23-2006, 09:14 PM
If you are a fan of the gadget filled, light hearted Bond movies, then "Casino Royale" is probably not for you. But If (like myself) your a fan the Ian Fleming novels and the early Bond movies, then your in for a treat, this is the best Bond movie in twenty years. Tough, brutal and action packed. Daniel Craig proves he's the man to take on Connery's mantle. No silly gadgets, no bad jokes, just good solid acting and terriffic action. Now don't get me wrong. I've enjoyed most of the Bond films (except "A View To A Kill" that one was awful) but I'm glad they have gone back to the basics. It just proves that in a world of Jason Bourne's and Jack Bauer's that Bond is still the best.


*******Spoilers*******************

I completely agree with you, this is certainly the best Bond, ever IMOP and I'm a fan of the movie version of Bond I've never read any of the novels so my base line was the original 20 films. But I agree that this one is a great film and I truly beleive that this is a re-start moreso than a prequal, there were just more things in the story that made the movie feel like a res-start.
There were gadgets in the film just nothing out of Q branch, everything was in the car or Bond already had it. There was no Money Penny, I don't know if she was part of the movies or if she was in the novels, same goes for Q. I ask this b/c if Casino Royale stayed fairly true to the original storyline and Bond was this cold blooded killer then Money Penny and Q would be kinda out of place I would think.

urgeok
11-25-2006, 04:00 PM
It was good, but in the future movies I really want to see Bond laying the pipe in more hoes.


this gem coming from the person who referred thusly to the porn story thread : "This thread is for peverted mongoloids."


so then .. now this thread is for people who hate women ?

urgeok
11-25-2006, 04:20 PM
Well, the "christmas porn" thread is quite preposterous. Conversely, in each of the previous 20 Bond films, it has always been James' first priority to unload his balls whenever he has the opportunity to do so. What is your point?


oh yeah, of course you arent bigloader.

Prelude95Si
11-26-2006, 10:56 AM
Watching Bond has sex was hardly ever a priority for me to watch Bond. Most people watch Bond for the action and story. The Bond girls are just eye candy, whether or not Bond was sex with them doesn't have a major impact on the course of the poilt except in your isolated cases like in TND with Elliot Carver's wife.

But Bond still "unloaded his balls" in Casino Roylae with the chick from the bank that betraied him.

urgeok
11-26-2006, 11:43 AM
i'm off to see this in about 15 min .. review in a couple of hours :)

urgeok
11-26-2006, 03:55 PM
ahhh ... now that was a good Bond. Loved it.

Roderick Usher
11-27-2006, 08:25 AM
ahhh ... now that was a good Bond. Loved it.

I really enjoyed Daniel Craig, and the first big action set piece was fucking brilliant, but the dialogue was clunky, the villian was boring and TEXAS FUCKING HOLD-'EM? could there be a more pedestrian (and prolonged) card game? The film could easily have been 1/2 hour shorter - and would have been a lean, mean, great film.

Good, fun, not great. I do look forward to another installment, because I'm a sucker for the franchise and I think Craig may be the best Bond yet

urgeok
11-27-2006, 08:32 AM
I really enjoyed Daniel Craig, and the first big action set piece was fucking brilliant, but the dialogue was clunky, the villian was boring and TEXAS FUCKING HOLD-'EM? could there be a more pedestrian (and prolonged) card game? The film could easily have been 1/2 hour shorter - and would have been a lean, mean, great film.

Good, fun, not great. I do look forward to another installment, because I'm a sucker for the franchise and I think Craig may be the best Bond yet


any card game is boring to watch on screen .. and it was the majority of the book .. i thought they did a great job.

i thought the female lead was miscast ..i didnt like her look or delivery (she was pretty - but there was something missing) .. as well as the far more beautiful 'married gal' (she couldnt act but she was gorgeous)

i liked the villian ... very low key and not as cartoonish as what we're used to .. more manacing and real in my eyes.

the shortcomings of this film were so minor to me i overlooked them with no effort.

i didnt find any part of the film slow - i liked the character developement.

it did have a bit of 'lord of the rings-itis' where it kept going whenever you thought it had ended .. but i was enjoying it so i was glad it kept going.

this is the Bond that Ian Fleming wrote ... brutal and cruel.

Vodstok
11-27-2006, 09:02 AM
Now, is this a prequal of sorts? I keep hearing that this is how Bond got his "00" status, but if that is the case, how in hell is Judy Dench "M"?

urgeok
11-27-2006, 09:20 AM
Now, is this a prequal of sorts? I keep hearing that this is how Bond got his "00" status, but if that is the case, how in hell is Judy Dench "M"?


the 1st part of the movie is a prequel,

the next part - which i thought was early on in his career - may or may not be ... because they reference 9/11

(but 'M' has some dialogue that led me to believe that it took place just after Bond got his 00 status. Also event happen to show how he developed into the hard/cruel guy he is ..

no dates are given though

Roderick Usher
11-27-2006, 01:08 PM
not really a prequel - it's a reboot.

It's all contemporary and it starts off as if there had never been any previous Bond stories. It is restarting the franchise in the same way Batman Begins did.

M is in place before Bond becomes a double-o, she's played by Judi Dench simply to provide a little familiarity and continutity to the series - and she's great in the role.

urgeok
11-27-2006, 01:31 PM
.

M is in place before Bond becomes a double-o, she's played by Judi Dench simply to provide a little familiarity and continutity to the series - and she's great in the role.



i got the impression they were trying to make her look a little younger..
whats with the cleavage !

she is good though .. no suprises there.

Prelude95Si
11-27-2006, 03:52 PM
any card game is boring to watch on screen .. and it was the majority of the book .. i thought they did a great job.

i thought the female lead was miscast ..i didnt like her look or delivery (she was pretty - but there was something missing) .. as well as the far more beautiful 'married gal' (she couldnt act but she was gorgeous)

i liked the villian ... very low key and not as cartoonish as what we're used to .. more manacing and real in my eyes.

the shortcomings of this film were so minor to me i overlooked them with no effort.

i didnt find any part of the film slow - i liked the character developement.

it did have a bit of 'lord of the rings-itis' where it kept going whenever you thought it had ended .. but i was enjoying it so i was glad it kept going.

this is the Bond that Ian Fleming wrote ... brutal and cruel.

I agree completely.

I also agree that this is a restart, the overall feel of the film was as though nothing had happened yet in the life of Bond in terms of continuity from the other 20 films. Plus this is the 1st time Bond meets Lighter, in the original Dr. No Bond meet Lighter for the 1st time there. So that kinda also made me think of this being a restart.

Now does anyone whose seen the movie think that they maybe trying bring back SPECTOR? They kept refering to a larger organization. Then there was the guy with the black lens over his glasses which made me think he was Largo from Thunderball but then Bond killed him so I wasn't sure after that.

urgeok
11-27-2006, 05:54 PM
Now does anyone whose seen the movie think that they maybe trying bring back SPECTOR? .

yeah - thats probably it ... i hope so anyway.
they could remake all the bonds at this point - if they were to follow the books.

except The Spy Who Loved Me ... horrible horrible Bond book.
Not because they tried something new - i have no problem with that - it was just blah.

Prelude95Si
11-27-2006, 06:28 PM
yeah - thats probably it ... i hope so anyway.
they could remake all the bonds at this point - if they were to follow the books.

except The Spy Who Loved Me ... horrible horrible Bond book.
Not because they tried something new - i have no problem with that - it was just blah.

I've never read the novels but I read somewhere that the Spy Who Loved Me was the one novel that Ian wouldn't let them make a movie out of, he just let them use the title.

Was the movie better than the novel?

I would love a SPECTOR come back I hated the way SPECTOR was defeated in that it came down to Bolwfield in You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Diamonds are Forever. Then I hated how he was that little crippled looking guy in You Only Live Twice, I thought he had a better look in Never Say Never even though I hated that movie. I think that was a big copy of Thunderball right?

urgeok
11-28-2006, 03:11 AM
I've never read the novels but I read somewhere that the Spy Who Loved Me was the one novel that Ian wouldn't let them make a movie out of, he just let them use the title.

Was the movie better than the novel?

I would love a SPECTOR come back I hated the way SPECTOR was defeated in that it came down to Bolwfield in You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and Diamonds are Forever. Then I hated how he was that little crippled looking guy in You Only Live Twice, I thought he had a better look in Never Say Never even though I hated that movie. I think that was a big copy of Thunderball right?



i liked never say never again .. great score. good to see connery back .. one of my favorite villians ever.

the spy who loved me was co-written with a woman (or so it says)
It takes place in an out of the way motel in new york state just south of the canadian border where a girl who runs the motel is being terrorized by 3 run of the mill criminals .. thats it.

i'm not opposed to him trying something new - and it sounds like it could work - but it doesnt. so in this one case - the movie was better than the book.

Prelude95Si
11-28-2006, 09:37 AM
i liked never say never again .. great score. good to see connery back .. one of my favorite villians ever.

the spy who loved me was co-written with a woman (or so it says)
It takes place in an out of the way motel in new york state just south of the canadian border where a girl who runs the motel is being terrorized by 3 run of the mill criminals .. thats it.

i'm not opposed to him trying something new - and it sounds like it could work - but it doesnt. so in this one case - the movie was better than the book.

That does sound preety queer.

Vodstok
11-28-2006, 10:01 AM
not really a prequel - it's a reboot.

It's all contemporary and it starts off as if there had never been any previous Bond stories. It is restarting the franchise in the same way Batman Begins did.

M is in place before Bond becomes a double-o, she's played by Judi Dench simply to provide a little familiarity and continutity to the series - and she's great in the role.

Verry cool... Which means we may see newer version of some of the old stories then, perhaps a buit more faithful to Ian Flemming's stories...

Hey, and if any of us hate them, there are still 40+ years of bond films to watch and love :)

roshiq
11-29-2006, 12:28 AM
Few years ago I read on a magazine that they would like to strat 2 trends in Bond series!! One is for a completely new one & the other one would be the remake of old bond classics and there would be 2 different actor playing the role for the 2 trends!! I personally did'nt take it seriously because that was a foreign magazine with full of gossips & the source was'nt reliable at all. :mad:
But now... after Casino Royale it seems that the magazine probably did some hell of a job~~!!:D