I went and saw it again with my family on thanksgiving. While it wasn't as much as a trip as the first time around, it was still fun to watch.

+50 cool points for re-watchability.

just out of curiosity, i went and checked some numbers:

Production Budget: $102,000,000

Total US Gross: $63,400,000

World Wide Gross: $105,600, 000

Those numbers are amazing.

They are. Not to change topics too much, but i heard these numbers today and they astounded me too, although in a different way:

Marie Antoinette:
Production budget: $40,000,000

Domestic gross: $15,600,000

Total Gross: $27,800,000

OUCH. For a movie with such a solid cast and an up-and-coming director (Regardless of your thoughts of Sofia Coppola, she definitely has some fans) that's pretty dismal. Just a thought.

::SPOILERS::

I loved it. Id love if it won best picture lol

Long story short, I think the film delivered on its promise of a harder bond, it brought depth to the character, and essentially provided an incredibly well rounded movie going experience. I was given incredible action, decent character exploration, romance and loss/tragedy, classic bond humor, decent (keeping in mind it is a BOND film)examination of masculinity in modern society, sex appeal, guns and cars, and some surprisingly creative editing and filming (once again for the kind of film it was)

I also thought the action was over the top when it needed to be and fairly realistic when it needed to be.

The chase scene in the beggining was over the top, but visually it worked tremendously and I def have never seen anything quite like that. Not even in a Jackie Chan film.

In contrast most of the hand to hand fighting was fairly realistic for a movie. Even the gun play wasn't that over the top. By keeping these action elements more grounded to reality, I thought it made it that much more intense and fun.

And from a semi-pro poker player perspecitive, as movies go, the poker was VERY well done. Yes the last hand was a bit ovre the top, but Ive actually seen crazier things at a poker table...and lets face it, you do have to exaggerate a bit to make poker dramatic for those that have very little to no interest in the game.

I also loved the fact that they totally destroyed the classic movie cliche of "tells are everything" and had Bond's over reliance on reading peoples physical tells totally F him in the Arse.

Ok Im cuttin this off now cuz my long story short didnt end up so short

quote:

OUCH. For a movie with such a solid cast and an up-and-coming director (Regardless of your thoughts of Sofia Coppola, she definitely has some fans) that's pretty dismal. Just a thought.

Except Marie Antoinette was very good and Bond was somewhat disappointing...

The fact that they were playing Texas hold 'em was an obvious concession that was hilariously out of place in the context of the game ($150 million pot...?)

My problem with the film was mainly that the plot was unnecessarily complex (blame Paul Haggis?) and a lot of the formula still remained, which dragged down the (largely decent) technical execution and the (mostly good) acting.

quote:

The fact that they were playing Texas hold 'em was an obvious concession that was hilariously out of place in the context of the game ($150 million pot...?)

Yes they modernized the entire movie, thus they modernized the poker and the game that they played was Hold'em. You can argue its a concession, or you can argue that since the film was set during modern times they simply went for realism. The most popular poker game is holdem now and is played by the majority of players.

As I said, the last hand was a bit over the top with each player going all in. The pot itself wasn't absurd because they were essentially playing a rebuy tournament. Each of the ten players bought in for 10 million and could rebuy for 5 million, thus equalling 150 million.

In the WSOP main event the buy in is 10,000 and you start with 10,000 in chips. So the winner of that tournament at the end has close to all the chips in play (plus or minus mistakes/round offs in chip races and color ups) The only difference is the WSOP divies up the prize pool to a number of players and this was for one player.

Im not sure what you mean by it being out of place in context of the game. Holdem is out of place in context of poker? What do you mean by this statement? Or is it a reference to the 150 million pot?

All I know is Im around poker almost every day of my life. I deal cards at night a few times a week, and part of my monthly income comes from playing poker. I have played regularly in Atlantic city, clubs in nyc, around my area, home games, and online. And I found most of the poker scenes to be fairly realistic. Only time Ive seen it done better was the movie Rounders. The guy wagering his car was a little unrealistic (although I liked the fact that the dealer didn't allow him to reach into his wallet and throw cash on the table)but I forgave that because it allowed for a nice cameo of an old astin martin like the older bond films.

Well, my specific issue was that I'm not sure Texas hold 'em is as popular in Europe, which is ostensibly where the film was set, as it is in the US. It seemed like a clear attempt to use the currently most popular form in the US regardless of the context of the game in the film. I could be wrong, but I don't think they'd be playing THE at a real high roller table in Monte Carlo or elsewhere in Europe.

I have no way of knowing how accurate the gameplay depiction in the film is, since I don't play and know little about it.

quote:

I don't think they'd be playing THE at a real high roller table in Monte Carlo or elsewhere in Europe.

This is off subject, but I read an article recently attributing the tech generation's difficulty with verbal communication to the rage of web abbreviations and acronyms. I don't know if THE is an accepted acronym or if it's a convenient substitute in this context, nor do I care really; it only reminded me. OMG, I need to find that article, but I'm like WTF I'm so disorganized.

Anyway, back to the CR discussion...

quote:

Originally posted by Palm Tree Armada:
They are. Not to change topics too much, but i heard these numbers today and they astounded me too, although in a different way:

Marie Antoinette:
Production budget: $40,000,000

Domestic gross: $15,600,000

Total Gross: $27,800,000

OUCH. For a movie with such a solid cast and an up-and-coming director (Regardless of your thoughts of Sofia Coppola, she definitely has some fans) that's pretty dismal. Just a thought.

wow I would be uber sad if I was her, but if I was her I'd be uber happy I'm not me..wait that makes no sense. Basically at least she doesn't have to adhere to an allowance; she could have made a google-she didn't but she could... i don't even have that capability (currently.)

I think the biggest problem with this movie is the stagnant feeling that lingers throughout the movie. All the action sequences were awesome, but of equal intensity. So the climax of the movie felt as strong as the opening scene... which made the ending seem very abrupt. Basically no rising action. Just a bunch of awesome action mixed with the scenes providing exposition.

But I think the way they handled the Bond character was awesome. He was much more interesting than all the other James Bonds and had less off those cheesy lines. But in terms of story and plot, there needed to be something more.

all those people that are saying the opening scenes are unbelievable... do a google search on le parkour. There's also a nike commercial that uses this

I agree on the point about it maintaining an even level of intensity, with no arc to it. In a way, I managed to excuse this by saying it ends abruptly because he isn't really Bond until the last 30 seconds, where he becomes the James Bond we know and love, but that's not a good excuse.

And I have a feeling the next bond (Bond #22) is going to be a direct continuation of Casino Royale.

I hope it's a direct continuation... otherwise this Bond movie was a big waste by making a whole movie about a poker game. There has to be something more.

I just got back from watching it, and yes, I do realize that I am rather late on this topic, but I suppose its better late than never..

First of all, I love Bond and this film definitely did not disappoint. Maybe I'm the only one that noticed, but I really liked the animation of the opening credits. As far the actual story is concerned, I think its one of the most realistic plots I've seen in Bond movies thus far. The stunts were a tid bit on the fictitious side, but that's to be expected and of course they are entertaining. If I could change anything about it, I would have added a little more dialouge here and there but other than that I thought it was spectacularly done. Also, kudos to David Arnold for yet another great score. =)

quote:

Originally posted by Evan Kubota:
Well, my specific issue was that I'm not sure Texas hold 'em is as popular in Europe, which is ostensibly where the film was set, as it is in the US. It seemed like a clear attempt to use the currently most popular form in the US regardless of the context of the game in the film. I could be wrong, but I don't think they'd be playing THE at a real high roller table in Monte Carlo or elsewhere in Europe.

While poker in generals big shoot in popularity can be traced back only as far as maybe 1998 with the movie rounders, the game Texas Holdem is not a new phenomenon. Holdem has been the game of choice dating back to the 1950's. Europe most definitively has holdem, and its more likely then not that you'd find people playing high stakes holdem tables in europe.

If you look at the world series of poker over the past 30 years youll see a number of europeans have played as well as won in the wsop.

Holdem is actually better fitted to high stakes then some of the other games. It allows for No Limit play which allows for big bets. Games like 7 card Stud have too many betting rounds to make no limit feasable. The most you'll see with stud is something called a spread. Like a 1-5 spread wehre you can bet in increments ranging from 1-5.

Draw poker can be played NL but its practically a dead form of poker now. I dont know of any major casinos in the U.S. that even offer tables for it. It uses more cards per person therefore less people can play. Only a maximum of 6 can play vs holdem which usually plays 10, and can fit 11 if necessary.

You can look at the holdem in casino royal as a concession or sell out to the big poker craze thats out now. And you could make a strong argument for it. But I think the stronger argument is that the poker, just as the rest of the film has been updated to modern times. Bond drives modern cars (minus the classic aston he wins =] ) and uses laptops because that is what people do in the year 2006. And in the year 2006 if you walk into a casino with poker, chances are most of the tables will be devoted to holdem.

quote:

Maybe I'm the only one that noticed, but I really liked the animation of the opening credits.

I posted this too. The first 15 minutes were the best.

I'm not a poker expert, as I said earlier, but my general impression was that THE was a modern and generally American craze. You really can't deny that it was set up that way to tie in with the recent popularity of the WSOP and associated events...

Here's what bugged me. They switched to a card game that most people know. Fine. That's cool. But then they STILL explained it with the french contact. If they were going to go C-SPAN on us they should have stayed with Baccarat. Then it would have at least needed the explanation.

Well like I said you can make a good argument that it was just to tie in with the recent popularity of the game. But as I also said you can make just as strong of an argument that they play holdem simply because that is the contemporary game of choice. They modernized the rest of the film, why not the poker?

I think a better argument for "cashing in on the poker craze" is the fact that the movie was remade in general. I wouldn't be surprised if the movie had not have been made if poker and black jack weren't big crazes right now.

I just saw it. Bond Begins, huh? What's up next, Her Majesty's Dark Knight?

Opening animation was nicely done. Action scenes cool. Paced strangely, but it was never slow.