007 casio royale -trailer-

[Cow hunter]

not sure if its been posted before, but it looks like a pretty good movie



http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/casinoroyale/



what makes no sense whatsoever is that in the description describes it as a prequel type movie, but in the trailer he drives the vanquish, and you see many modern things...



CASINO ROYALE introduces JAMES BOND before he holds his license to kill. But Bond is no less dangerous, and with two professional assassinations in quick succession, he is elevated to “00” status. Bond’s first 007 mission takes him to Madagascar, where he is to spy on a terrorist, MOLLAKA (Sebastien Foucan).

[tropical_fishy]

I dont like the look of this new Bond. Bond is supposed to be tall, dark, and handsome, which this new dude is definitely not. Although I am glad that Brosnan has retired his Bond-ness, the fur he's growing is more than a little creepy.

Sean Connery=the best Bond ever, followed closely by Brosnan (in his pre-werewolf days).

[Steelrat]

I dunno, Moore nailed it pretty well.

[BeaverEater]

Id pick moore, connery, then brosnan only for the leaps in technology.

[Cow hunter]

soooo...... no one has an explanation on why its supposed to be a prequal, but he has all the latest stuff like the vanquish?



and i agree, the new bond doesn't really look like he fits the part, like Bronsan did. i think that Connery played the part best, closely followed by moore.


/does anyone remember who played bond only once, i think it was the movie with the espirit, his name is right on the tip of my tounge...

[Steelrat]

soooo...... no one has an explanation on why its supposed to be a prequal, but he has all the latest stuff like the vanquish?



and i agree, the new bond doesn't really look like he fits the part, like Bronsan did. i think that Connery played the part best, closely followed by moore.


/does anyone remember who played bond only once, i think it was the movie with the espirit, his name is right on the tip of my tounge...

It's pretty clear that they threw the Bond "canon" out the window with the whole prequel issue. I guess the only way to avoid doing that would be to have a REALLY old James Bond, or set the movie in the 50s, neither of which must have been palatable to the producers.

I'll probably go see it. If you are looking for a logical timeline in the Bond movies, you're on a hopeless quest. They've been jacked up for a while.

[warbeak2099]

Look, this movie has needed to be made for a while now. It's the first Fleming book and yet it has never been made into a movie. After seeing the preview I personally am psyched to see it. While Craig is not the usual looking bond, he is a fantastic actor. The reduction of outrageous and unnecessary special effects is also appreciated. They are really going back to a plot full of suspense and tension. I'm glad for that.

BTW, Sean Connery was the greatest Bond ever and no one will surpass him. Roger Moore was dry and boring, and Timothy Dalton was very "un-Bond". Pierce Brosnan did some good ones, but it really ended with the World is not Enough. That North Korean one was terrible. I think Daniel Craig will be alright though.

The one thing I am concerned with is Q. If this is a prequel then it's before Q died. Well... wtf? Q is dead in real life. John Cleese better not be playing R in this. I never read "Casino Royale". Had Fleming even created Q in the first book?

[Cow hunter]

Look, this movie has needed to be made for a while now. It's the first Fleming book and yet it has never been made into a movie. After seeing the preview I personally am psyched to see it. While Craig is not the usual looking bond, he is a fantastic actor. The reduction of outrageous and unnecessary special effects is also appreciated. They are really going back to a plot full of suspense and tension. I'm glad for that.

BTW, Sean Connery was the greatest Bond ever and no one will surpass him. Roger Moore was dry and boring, and Timothy Dalton was very "un-Bond". Pierce Brosnan did some good ones, but it really ended with the World is not Enough. That North Korean one was terrible. I think Daniel Craig will be alright though.

The one thing I am concerned with is Q. If this is a prequel then it's before Q died. Well... wtf? Q is dead in real life. John Cleese better not be playing R in this. I never read "Casino Royale". Had Fleming even created Q in the first book?


http://www.amazon.com/Casino-Royale-Collectors-William-Brown-Jr/dp/6304867514/sr=8-7/qid=1162268197/ref=pd_bbs_7/002-9216944-8628045?ie=UTF8&s=video


thats who it was, timothy Dalton... i didn't like him as bond....


well it looks like they completely threw the whole movie timeline thing out the window with this one

[MarkM]

soooo...... no one has an explanation on why its supposed to be a prequal, but he has all the latest stuff like the vanquish?



and i agree, the new bond doesn't really look like he fits the part, like Bronsan did. i think that Connery played the part best, closely followed by moore.


/does anyone remember who played bond only once, i think it was the movie with the espirit, his name is right on the tip of my tounge...


The actor who played Bond the once was George Lazenby, also technically Peter Sellers played him once as well (Casino Royale) and the first person ever to play Bond was Barry Nelson in 1954 on US TV with a live version of Casino Royale.

Connery was disliked by Fleming when he was cast but he later changed his mind.

OHMSS with Lazenby was of all the Bond films the closest to any of the books. Moore was a clown in more than one way, from the way he played Bond to appearing as a clown but was brought in simply for box office results and even that nearly backfired with the character Sherrif J W Pepper.

*edit* just noticed the link above with the Barry Nelson TV version...if you buy that be warned the ending sequence is missing from that version of the video, the only version with the ending is Casino Royale: The Collectors edition, which can only be bought from the Ian Flemming Foundation, unless you find one on ebay.

[SCpoloRicker]

I'm very positive about the restart to the franchise, the move back towards realism, and Daniel Craig.

/admitted fanboi
//watching Dr No currently

[Armory]

Ok with this movie its basicly Bond before becoming a "00" Q worked at the highest levels of MI6 so only "00" would actually work with Q, hense the bonding (no pun) relationship they've had in all the books and movies. Fleming never really wrote an out for Q so that's why he simply retired and bowed out gracefully but not in Flemings style (even though it was nicely done, was honestly choked up). And as any bond fan knows Bond is timeless. Yes his toys are new but they're still just outside the realm as they where in the 50's. I frankly would like to see a new Bond film with some of the Spectre recreated or some mass villian... The last few movies have lacked that ingenious plot (they need the writers from LuckyNumberSlevin, Fight Club or Departed)...

PS. Conery was the best followed by Peirce, Moore has the agility of Frieght Train...

[warbeak2099]

I think Sean Connery should come back as the next villain.

[jenarelJAM]

lol, ^^^ agreed.

[BigEvil]

Sean Connery could probably still play Bond now and be better than any of the others :headbang:

[Fred]

I'll take the rapists for 200 Alex.

[Cow hunter]

saw it last night, and i must say, hell of a movie.

bit hard to fillow, it all pieces togethert very nicely in the end. one thing i did notice, he didnt have any gadgets, and he drove the aston martin for all of 2 minuites. this movie was alot more "action movie" than any of the others, and daniel craig did a fantastic job as bond IMO.

throwing the timline out the window aside, i liked it alot

[Sir_Brass]

http://www.amazon.com/Casino-Royale-Collectors-William-Brown-Jr/dp/6304867514/sr=8-7/qid=1162268197/ref=pd_bbs_7/002-9216944-8628045?ie=UTF8&s=video


thats who it was, timothy Dalton... i didn't like him as bond....


well it looks like they completely threw the whole movie timeline thing out the window with this one

There IS NO movie timeline. The bond books are supposed to be totally self-contained, an entity each unto itself. That's why you can have bond be young and athletic throughout the decades.

I saw the movie and it was indeed excellent. Not your typical bond film, but it's definitely a bond film. And I swear they found the PERFECT bond girl.....totally HOT when dolled up, but when not.....absolutely CUTE. Either way, it's hard to take your eyes off of her.

A most excellent bond movie. :cheers:

[spyderkiller]

Agreed. I think Craig is up there as one of the best Bonds ever...maybe even the best in my book. And yes, Eva Green was an amazing Bond girl. Great movie.

[warbeak2099]

Such a good Bond film. Saw it last night. It was perfect.

"No no no! A little to the right!" Hahaha lol.

[bentothejam1n]

meh i didnt really like it... it was too drawn out

[warbeak2099]

meh i didnt really like it... it was too drawn out

How were you not on the edge of your seat the entire time? Because it was a little more intellectual than Brosnan movies? And btw, Roger Moore films were a lot mroe boring than this one.

[bentothejam1n]

How were you not on the edge of your seat the entire time? Because it was a little more intellectual than Brosnan movies? And btw, Roger Moore films were a lot mroe boring than this one.
i just dont think playing poker for 115mil is that exciting and hen occasionally killing some people and getting ball tapped is that exciting

[Armory]

How were you not on the edge of your seat the entire time? Because it was a little more intellectual than Brosnan movies? And btw, Roger Moore films were a lot mroe boring than this one.

Glad someone else thinks that...

[Dark Side]

[QUOTE=Sir_Brass]There IS NO movie timeline. The bond books are supposed to be totally self-contained, an entity each unto itself. That's why you can have bond be young and athletic throughout the decades.
=QUOTE]


Not completely true on the self contained idea. In several books many references are made to his lovers/wife/smersh/blofeld. This movie after all seems to be made as if non of the other movies existed. As a book though the story is far to short.