There must have been at least one communist in that casino.

Spoilers--


I don't know where to begin, I couldn't stand that movie. The opening scene was amazing, though absolutely unrealistic, but usually when a movie has a scene like that in the beginning it seems like the rest of the movie falls off, and that's exactly what Casino Royale did. The story moved along so slowly, sometimes I'd forget what it was Bond was after. The poker game took way too long and the commentary provided by Mathis seemed fitting only on an ESPN 6 Broadcast. Once he won the money, I was hoping for it to be over, but alas there is still plenty left to be seen. The dialogue did not impress me at all, many lines were so fake, setting up the next lines, such as "If all you had left were your smile and your little finger, you'd be more of a man than anyone I've ever met." Or whatever she said, what kind of a line is that?! All it does is set up his next line which I knew was coming, "That's because you know what I can do with my little finger." Wow, creative. Other problems were when he swerved to the right to avoid Vesper the left of his car went off the ground but it should have been the right of his car. And when Vesper was dead and he was comforting her you could easily see her throat pulsating. Was anyone else reminded of MI3 when Vesper used the defibrillator on Bond, and when Bond tried to revive Vesper after she drowned. I was half expecting him to start pounding her chest and then she revives. This is by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen in a theatre.

I can understand not likeing it, but the worst movie you've seen . . . don't you tihnk thats taking it a wee bit too far?

And the opening scene wasn't terribly unrealistic: got to youtube.com and put in free running. You'll see what I mean.

And its Bond! Of course theres going to be some unrealistic moments!

And the little finger comment is a lot better then that other Bond movie when he just got done doing the girl in the ocean, underwater, (unrealistic) and they come up and he says, "I hope we didn't scare the fish!" Wow, that sounds so much better!

I think I liked it so much because:

1. Compared to the other Bond movies, this one had substance.

2. I went into the theater expecting a crappy movie, so when it has the first inkling of being good I was pleasently surprised and therefore liked it.

I agree with Drew on the random narration by Mathis. Did the studios make them add that, or was it supposed to be funny? I've never played poker, but I didn't need his commentary to keep up with the game. It was pretty clear when something good or bad was happening.

Other than that... dude... was it really the worst movie you've seen in theaters? I mean, the things you listed aren't that bad. The car flipped the wrong way? It seems right to me, but that aside... it's a movie. In real life people don't die right away when they're shot either. I didn't catch her throat pulsating, but that's not a movie killer either. The dialogue was better than most Bond dialogue by a lot. Still goofy, but better.

I guess they never did top that opening scene, which makes the movie feel a little front heavy, but even still, the arc worked pretty well. It make a fantastic new beginning to the Bond chronology. You've gotta remember, it's the first mission. He didn't become Bond until the last 30 seconds.

I haven't seen any of the other Bond movies, so I was going in dry. But I'd still say that out of the movies I've gone to in theatres (which isn't a great number before these past couple years), it was one of the worst I've seen in theatres. It may be better than the other Bond movies by what you're saying, but still, does that merit it being a good movie?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but saying it is the worst movie, well I'm sorry but thats just wrong. I personally thought it was a terrific film. Yes it had it's flaws but it's a Hollywood movie. It is the best Bond movie I have seen, and they didn't rely on funky gadgets either. Although one thing i couldn't get my head around, is that it is a prequel, yet it's set in 2006, which is after the other Bond movies.

I know... it's bizarre. I think the entire Bond history has been reset, and now starts in 2006.

Another website said this, and I'd like to quote it:

In other words, each Bond film exists within its own reality. Continuity is a nonfactor; some things change, and some things don't. The enemies, technology, and music in each film reflect whatever year that film was released, but Bond stays roughly forty years old and never gets a promotion. If he needs to be an astronaut, he becomes an astronaut. Nobody cares. It's just a movie.

The saddest was when Goldeneye had the opening flashback dating as 1985, since that would wipe out the 2 films Daulton did, which weren't great, but was hardly his fault.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Samsuperfly:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but saying it is the worst movie, well I'm sorry but thats just wrong. QUOTE]

How many times do I have to say it? I think it's one of the worst movies I've seen in theatres, which isn't a great number of movies.

Another thing is that bond in his own way deals with real world issues. I.E. Communists and terrorists.

First off, I'm a major Bond fan. I've seen all the films, most of them more than twice. I do have ones I love (Goldfinger, From Russia with Love, The Living Daylights) and ones I hate (Moonraker, Die Another Day).

First, I can easily imagine people not liking this film. It either suited you or it didn't. For me, it suited me great.

The pre-title sequence was very good, loved the title sequence, and everything after that I loved.

I liked Craig a lot, and I was one of the few who looked forward to him from the beginning. Mads Mikkelsen was perfect for Le Chiffre (I know Fleming would have loved what he did with the role). I really liked M in the movie, Mathis, and of course Felix Lieter.

I liked how it kept the same premise as the book (which is a great piece of spy literature). The plots had little in common, but then again there is not a Bond film that had anything to do with the book.

All I can say is; no matter what you think, this film had the BEST Bond line ever:

"Everyone is going to know you died scratching my balls!"

quote:

but then again there is not a Bond film that had anything to do with the book.

Gotta disagree. The only two I read (Dr. No, From Russia With Love) were both adsactly like the movies, except that in the book FRWL there was no Helicopter sequence.

Yeah, Dr. No is a pretty close adaptation...

I think Bond is B-rate stuff at best but I'm looking forward to the new movie despite myself. HDK, surprised you like it so much, especially the Brosnan ones

quote:

HDK, surprised you like it so much, especially the Brosnan ones

Yeah, me too. The only films from my childhood I can still watch as guilty pleasures, though the first three are quite good quality films. Brosnan was 50/50. Goldeneye rejuvinated the whole series after the hiatus from License to Kill. Tomorrow Never Dies was trash, but TWINE was pretty good, though should have been better considering the great villain (with the no pain characteristic that should have been used way better). That Renard was the best villain since Max Zorin (Chris Walken). Unfortunately after Die Another Day, which was both the worst Bond film AND theme song, I'd pretty much given up on the series now. Other than Eva Green I really have no desire to see the new one or any subsequent, seems like every Bond film tries to act now like "this is the one that's kick starting the series" or making it more commercial or more like classic Bond, or like the book. Basically each new one is an excuse to forget the last atrocious Bond movie.

This is the only Bond movie I could call an actual quality film outside of the realm of Bond. It has character development, an arc, drama, plot. Normal things that bond films omit. Plus all the other cool bond stuff. And no ****ty gadgets.

It's really good.

It was awesome!!

me and Bond go way back too, Live and Let Die is my favorite one. u cant beat a freak with a hook hand feeding crocodiles

OK, I saw it yesterday.

It's not horrible, but it's not quite as good as the reviews indicate, either. This is far from the sort of bold reinvention articulated by Batman Begins. Casino Royale starts promisingly (the first 15 minutes are mostly the best), then collapses into the irrelevant, convoluted machinations of that stale trope, the 'Bond plot.' A scene with a leather whip-like implement and a chair with the seat cut out can't save the proceedings, especially since it isn't carried far enough. A midpoint car chase at an airport is loud and intensely boring. I nodded off for a bit there.

Anyway, the opening had set higher hopes than the film turned out to fulfill; the credit sequence is pretty cool (obvious nod to MGS, and the Cornell song wasn't as bad as I expected) and the parkour sequence was pretty amazing.

The director and producers should have had more confidence in Daniel Craig and Eva Green and let them carry the movie more. The acting was better than the script or the material, and a few of Paul Haggis' one-liners were wincingly bad. If this had been stripped down as much as it should have been, clocked in at no more than 100 minutes, and had about five less auxiliary characters, it would be a stronger film.

As it stands, it was moderately entertaining, but far too long, too damped-down by the stale Bond formula, and not as revisionist as I had hoped. Daniel Craig is good in the role and perhaps sequels will dispense with more of the BS that the franchise has acquired.

The credit sequence was awesome in theory, but it bugged me for some reason. It was like it wasn't finished. All the effects used in it were obvious. I was sitting there naming the After Effects techniques they used... I think they could have done a more polished version of it. But still, it was pretty damn sweet.