posted
When I was a kid, I got into the James Bond books and movies in a big way for a year or two. And to this day, every new episode in the series brings me some serious ambivalence. I know they're going to be bad, and they always are. But the little kid in me is still excited to see them, and there's a little immature section of my brain that convinces me every time that "this one is going to be a good one." So, against my better judgement, I always see them, and I'm always more disappointed with Bond movies than I would be with a crappy movie of any other name.
So imagine my surprise when I went to RottenTomatoes today and saw that Casino Royale is at 95%.
Several years ago, I heard Tarantino talking about making this one as a '60s period piece, and I still think the studio missed out by turning that down. But it looks like they are finally trying something different, and after seeing the last few movies, different can't possibly be bad.
Is anyone else planning to see this one? And what do you suppose the odds are that they've finally made one that won't make my inner 11-year-old cry himself to sleep again?
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's got to be the dumbest complaint being leveled against this movie. I don't care if he has a green mohawk, he can't possibly be any goofier than Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan.
I saw Daniel Craig in Munich, and I'm glad they finally cast someone for charisma and acting ability rather than meaningless physical stereotypes. I'd rather see them cast Chow Yun Fat or Samuel L. Jackson than someone else from that tired old mold.
posted
It's the substance, not the style, that makes Bond. Brosnan did an absolutely fantastic job in Goldeneye, but every other film was achingly terrible. This one's from the same director, and looks to be exactly what Bond always should have been -- I can't wait to see it.
I'm there for premiere night for this one. And The Fountain next week!
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've made my plans. Me and Roomy-Number-One are taking the bus back home after the day is done and then straight to the theatre with another friend.
As a big Bond fan I'm pumped. I enjoy all the films, and consider at least five to actually be good.* I also consider all of the books save Goldfinger to be much better than their movies.
For your pleasure I've included a review from someone I trust (I'll give my thoughts on saturday):
The plot of the new James Bond film, Casino Royale, should be well-known to Bond fans by now: This is a “reboot” of the Bond canon, in which we first see 007 earn his stripes, then take on Le Chiffre, an international banker for terrorist organizations. English actor Daniel Craig is James Bond, taking over for Pierce Brosnan in a move which created a firestorm of controversy. For those more casual samplers of the 007 ouvre, a brief synopsis follows. Beware! Spoilers are scattered throughout.
Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) is running scared, having made some unwise investment decisions with his clients’ money. To restore his bank balance, he’s organized a multi-million-dollar poker tournament (which he plans to win—using a combination of his genius-level mathematical abilities, and, um…murder, if necessary). Bond’s mission is to literally beat LeChiffre at his own game, forcing him to save his life by providing information to the international intelligence community—a variation on the traditional witness-protection program.
Bond purists may have their first disappointment at the film’s opening—the traditional gun barrel opening has been changed. Instead of the opening strains of the James Bond theme followed by the white circle tracking across the screen, Casino Royale begins more traditionally with a clever black-and-white sequence, interwoven with flashbacks. The Casino Royale version of the gun barrel begins at the end of this sequence. I’m not sure, but I can imagine the series continuing this from now on—starting with a pre-credit sequence, and going from there into the gun barrel sequence. To be honest, I don't know I prefer this approach, but maybe it will grow on me.
Nevertheless, the black and white opening is an effective device, and it earns Daniel Craig his first laugh—and it’s not the one in the trailer--all the more impressive as the screening audience consisted of a dozen jaded film critics.
The credits are another departure from the standard. The “naked girls in silhouette” tradition is gone, replaced with a snazzy, retro-style animated deck-of-cards theme, and was (at least for me) a refreshing change.
The film opens with the much-publicized set piece featuring Bond in Madagascar, in an all-out pursuit of free runner Sebastian Foucan (playing a disposable baddie named Mollaka). It’s a stunner, and includes a couple of moments which elicited grunts of surprise and appreciation from the audience.
Mollaka provides the first thread of a clue--which Bond tugs on, unraveling the rest of the plot. This takes him first to the Bahamas (where he wins his Aston Martin DB5), meets and seduces beautiful Solange (Caterina Murino), and jets off to Miami “just as things were getting interesting.” Speaking of Solange, Campbell gives us a nice moment of will-she-or-won’t-she suspense that could be a textbook for creating sexual tension in film.
It is in Miami that Bond first derails LeChiffre’s plans by preventing the destruction of an aviation company’s new prototype. LeChiffre has gone a bear on the aviation company’s stock—and when Bond saves the day, LeChiffre takes a financial beating. This forces the terrorist banker to arrange the aforementioned poker tournament, in an attempt to get out from under (and not incidentally, avoid a nasty death at the hands of his irate investors).
The Miami action piece is very well done—but I must confess to a slight disappointment. Ever since “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” anything involving a fight on or in a large truck seems derivative, and evokes less-than-favorable comparisons. It’s a small thing, true, but I remember when the Bond franchise set the bar for action…
After the Miami incident, Bond gets his marching orders from M, (wonderfully played by Judy Dench) and heads off to Montenegro for the poker showdown with LeChiffre. Along the way he joins forces with Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), a British treasury agent sent along to count the beans, CIA contact Felix Leiter (under-utilized Jeffrey Wright), and French Deuxieme operative Rene Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini).
On LeChiffre’s side is Valenka (Ivana Milicevic), whom the film’s publicity department refers to as a bodyguard (lovely to look at, she seems woefully underqualified for the position).
The card sequences play well—director Martin Campbell maintains the suspense, and poker aficionados won’t roll their eyes and groan. The best part? The crucial hand (for once) is not a royal flush! Unhappily, Mathis is saddled with a few clumsy (but necessary) lines of exposition, and Leiter is almost invisible. There’s very little evidence of their burgeoning friendship, always such a pleasure in the books (and arguably the best evidence of Bond’s humanity).
After LeChiffre gets his comeuppance at the poker table (you didn’t expect him to win, did you?), we’re into the second half of the film—and to be honest, it’s not as good as the first. The film’s running time of 144 minutes is a mixed blessing. On the plus side is more character development and a better story than in previous outings. On the negative side are the occasional times when the pacing flags.
One scene which has generated a lot of pre-release press is the torture scene, wherein LeChiffre batters a naked Bond’s privates in an attempt to get information. This scene could have been dreadful, with a cartoon Bond stoically absorbing punishment and miraculously escaping with the help of a talking car or a laser-equipped shoe. Instead, we’re given some excellent, gritty acting and edgy dialogue, creating a much more realistic feeling of menace, and a scene that stays true to creator Ian Fleming’s vision
The denouement features uncertain allegiances, a final action piece in a sinking Venetian building, and a closing scene that with three words indelibly places Craig’s stamp on the role.
There are also several moments where the filmmakers nod to past 007 films. Bond’s execution of a double agent is reminiscent of Dr. No, as is his emergence from the sea in a bathing suit (although I must confess I preferred the Ursula Andress version). The Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger also shows up—at this rate, it will overtake Miss Moneypenney for the title of ‘most appearances in a Bond film’ (I must wistfully report that Moneypenney is absent from this installation of the series). Finally, we are treated to M being surprised at home by Bond, in a reversal of the similar scene in Live and Let Die.
However, the three big differences between Casino Royale and the previous films are more pronounced. First and most obvious is the casting of Daniel Craig. The producers gambled on an edgier, less-traditional-looking Bond in favor of one with some serious acting chops. Their wager has paid off. Craig’s acting is simply wonderful, and I was completely ‘sold’ on him as James Bond within minutes. And in spite of the hype that this 007 is completely dark and too somber, Craig displays moments of levity which balance nicely with his seriousness, and give us a complete, more believable Bond. In addition, he brings a physical presence and sense of contained violence to the part that has been lacking for years.
The feel of the film is the second welcome surprise. Bond is a human being, with all the faults, fears and emotions this condition entails. He doesn’t wear a cape, and for once we feel that the filmmakers are not competing for the cartoon superhero audience.
Finally, there is the story. There’s no huge amphitheater sporting a monorail, no private army dressed in primary colors, no megalomaniac with a peg leg. It’s more grounded, and therefore requires less suspension of disbelief. The relationship between Vesper and Bond is scintillating, due to the chemistry between Craig and Green. Whether they’re exchanging snappy banter, arguing fiercely, or under the sheets, their scenes together throw off sparks. Some credit is no doubt due to the influence of Oscar-winning writer Paul Haggis, who was brought in to punch up the script delivered by Bond screenplay veterans Neal Purvis and Robert Wade.
This film will undoubtedly disappoint some. Those in the audience who favor the more lighthearted approach of previous Bonds Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan may resent the new direction. Of course the shortsighted misanthropes who cannot get past an actor’s hair color will continue to whine. But for those moviegoers who, like me, have been waiting for a Bond film to be proud of, this one fills the bill, and raises the bar for the franchise. Perhaps the highest praise I can give is the comment I overheard from another critic as he left the screening:
“It’s not just a good Bond movie--it’s a good movie, period.”
I agree.
-Grant McIver
*Dr. No From Russia, With Love Goldfinger Thunderball On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Also, I'm going to go hunt down a really cool article for you all. EDIT: I Was an Extra in Casino Royale is a great read if you've got some time.
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am torn. On one hand it looks like a really good movie and my inner bond child is screaming with glee. On the other hand I realized that Tenacious D made a movie and it is showing in my town--even tho it took a week for Borat to get here.
Since I only have time to see one movie this weekend, I am torn between which one I will see. Which is stronger, my inner bond child or my inner childish adult?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So going to this tonight, bringing my Bond Buddy too. Hope nobody sits by us, we are going to talk through the movie, I'm sorry but its just one of THOSE movies.
"I totally wouldn't have done that, if he had just jumped into the taxi he could have saved 5 minutes in the time he spent trying to kill all the bad guys in the BMW and snatch the car!"
If I am alone in the theatre I shut up, if I am around people who HATE talkers I shut up (grudgingly)
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: Several years ago, I heard Tarantino talking about making this one as a '60s period piece
Let me guess, it would have been deliberately cheesy and replete with "homages" while being endlessly self-referential. In short, a product to titilate film snobs. I'm glad they turned him down.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw this last night and hated it. If you like the most recent James Bond series, with Pierce Brosnan, and all the overblown ridiculous action scenes.. James Bond as an over-the-top cartoon, you'll like this movie. Cause that's what it is.
I imagined from the previews that this one might be a little closer to the real world, and that intrigued me.
It's not -- but I know these movies have their fans.
Daniel Craig, though, is the best James Bond in a long long time.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you weren't. I'm guilty of having watched it, but sadly, it was before I even knew who or what James Bond was. I distinctly remember knowing the "Bond. James Bond." line, because I got angry at the cartoon for saying "Bond. James Bond.... Jr." I mean, they were saying it WRONG, even though I had no idea what it meant.
Posts: 9754 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just glad Ewan McGregor turned 'em down, because then I might actually be tempted to watch it.
Seriously. My dad took me to see Never Say Never (or whatever it was called) for our Sunday visitation when I was a kid. I don't know what he was thinking, other than, "Hey, I wanna take my little girl to a Bond movie." I have always frelling hated James Bond.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
And that was the worst Bond movie, a remake of a Roger Moore Bond movie, and was not done by Brocolli et al.
That's about the only Bond movie I suggest missing. It's terrible. It's also no wonder you hate Bond based on that one single experience.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The film is not out yet in Australia, but when it is released I'm definitely going to watch it. Frankly when I watch a Bond film I'm not expecting substance, so I've seldom been disappointed. Personally Golden Eye is my favourite - I've watched it a dozen or more times. It's pure style, rendered on film. That's what Bond is all about, isn't it? Gunfights in suits, cool gadgets, a bit of MI6 intrigue and a touch of erotica which you don't have to feel guilty for watching?
I disliked Die Another Day because it made me feel that the Bond aesthetic was degrading. Ice castles, flawless facial reconstruction surgery, satellites which use solar radiation as a weapon, surfboards which conceal handguns and C4? All in the same movie? Personally I thought James Bond was going down the same track as the recent Mission Impossibles - towards action crap without any remaining hint of sophistication or realism.
But I feel that the series might just redeem itself through Casino Royale. Let's hope.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "It's the substance, not the style, that makes Bond."
There is almost no substance to Bond, but it oozes style.
Agreed.
-o-
Never Say Never Again was not a remake of a Roger Moore movie. It was a remake, by Sean Connery, of a Sean Connery movie (Thunderball).
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm wrong. About Bond. What is the world coming to?
Crap.
Although I could use this to justify getting the Bond collection that I've been nagging Fahim about. I had the entire Bond collection when I was in Canada, but it was VHS and I couldn't bring it with, so I no longer have it. I miss Bond. Except George Lazenby. And Timothy Dalton. And Roger Moore, really. But I'd still watch them, because it's part of the Bond experience.
posted
I may be the only one here, but I quite liked Lazenby and Dalton as Bond.
Of course, OHMSS was so awesome, maybe it's just that no one could ruin it. With Telly Sevalis, the proto-techno score from John Barry, the mountainous girl-filled hideout, and the delightful over-the-topness of the plot (before that feature got all tired and annoying), there's nothing to dislike about it. And something about that Aussie pretty-boy's big fat mug fit the role like a glove.
Dalton was kind of in the reverse situation. He got saddled with some really bad scripts (particularly License to Kill... ouch). But I kind of liked the return to a brooding, intense Bond that his portrayal promised.
And, of course, with all the Connery adoration it must be remembered that Bond was really played by two different Connerys during its run. From Russia With Love and Goldfinger were classics. But by the time the Diamonds are Forever Connery took the role, even Roger Moore seemed a breath of fresh air.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah, RogerMoore started as a physically unfit tired old man in Live and Let Die, a Bond miscasting problem which didn't hit SeanConnery until Never Say Never Again.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw this last night, enjoyed it quite a bit.
It's a good compromise between the gritty Bond of the books and the slick Bond of the films.
Great escapist fare for the holidays.
I should add, far too many people brought their little kids (2-7 years old) to this movie...most of them screaming and crying within 15 minutes. It's rated PG-13 for a reason. It's not "family fare", unless the children have grown into this sort of material. Just sayin'.
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Never Say Never Again.
And that was the worst Bond movie, a remake of a Roger Moore Bond movie, and was not done by Brocolli et al.
That's about the only Bond movie I suggest missing. It's terrible. It's also no wonder you hate Bond based on that one single experience.
Actually, Never Say Never Again is my favorite Bond film, even if it isn't an "official" Bond film. Best villian ever, and the only one of all the bond films I've seen (never seen a Dalton or a Brosnan Bond film just because the idea of them as Bond is just wrong) that has a passably attractive villain. All the Bond villains I've ever seen have all these women hanging all over them, but they're too disgusting for even money to make them attractive. But Klaus Maria Brandauer's villain was at least not nasty ugly.
As far as the new Bond...I'd say it was a brilliant casting decision because for the first time in years, I'm actually thinking of going to see a Bond movie because, darn it, he just looks the part.
EDIT: To add part of a sentence I left out because a) it's Saturday morning and b) I'm still sickish.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
quid, I have actually seen many bond movies. I found Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan least objectionable. Even as a wee lass, I was deeply offended by the outrageous sexism of the Bond movies. I actually kind of like Sean Connory, but would gleefully cut the man parts off his Bond and feed them to him.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "It's the substance, not the style, that makes Bond."
There is almost no substance to Bond, but it oozes style.
I really disagree. Have you ever seen Die Another Day? Contrast that with Goldeneye, and again dismiss both as "style."
I'm not submitting Goldeneye as literature on film, but it's certainly more than the two-hour-long commercials the other flicks have been. It's an action movie in the Bond style, but at least there's a plot beneath the veneer -- something most of the other train wrecks of films have lacked. I hear Casino Royale's dumped the limp-wristed posing and let Bond be an agent, rather than a clothes model. I think I'm seeing it tonight!
(I would've seen it Friday, but I decided to watch the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven with my buddy. If I rent The Dreamers for Sunday, I have an Eva Green trifecta in play...)
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: quid, I have actually seen many bond movies. I found Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan least objectionable. Even as a wee lass, I was deeply offended by the outrageous sexism of the Bond movies. I actually kind of like Sean Connory, but would gleefully cut the man parts off his Bond and feed them to him.
[pats ass] Run along, baby, man talk.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw it this afternoon, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. I'd have to say that Goldeneye and this one were my favorite Bond films. This one had virtually no gadgets whatsoever. There was no Q. No Moneypenny or however her name was spelled, despite the joke in the preview. The new Bond works quite well, I think.
I agree that most (almost all, really) of the Bond films have been eye- and brain-candy. None of the relationships really mean anything, you're in it for the good guy winning in a stylish, sexy, and witty fashion. Throw in a few explosions, a few babes, and a few cool toys and it's a Bond movie.
This one was different. For one thing, super-hot nearly-naked women aren't flung onto the screen at every opportunity. There aren't even any naked women in the opening title! I know, shocking for a Bond film. There are only two love interests, and one of them doesn't even get consumated I believe. The other love interest is explored in some depth, as well as what makes someone who would be a James Bond 'tick'.
I was reminded sometimes of Serenity in the violence. Bond wins his fights, but takes a helluva licking each time. The rampant sexism is there, somewhat...but also, in this film somehow, it wasn't presented as something to be admired.
I think the best way to put it, for me anyway, is that in most of the other Bond movies, James Bond is a debonair, sexy, lady-killing womanizer (to some women, anyway, I can easily imagine women being horribly turned off by him) who is also a spy and fights the bad guys...whereas in this film, he's portrayed as a 'cold-hearted bastard' who loves violence, is very irritatingly arrogant and reckless, and maybe isn't in it for the good fight so much as to just win.
Edit: Some of the action was quite cartoonish...the first bombmaker in particular was also apparently an Olympic class track runner and gymnast, for example...but there was no car chase either! Also, for those who're worried, the card-playing stuff doesn't last very long.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's good to hear that Casino Royale doesn't dwell too much on the gadgets. Typically in Bond films, the number of gadgets and the quality of the story are inversely proportional.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying to think. The gadgets are basically limited to what is almost available for ordinary people.
There's a very chic and small defibrillator used. There's some high-tech medicine used once, and a cell-phone used to transmit blood samples to test for toxins. That's about it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only other device I can think of is the tracer that M16 plants inside Bond's wrist...hardly outside of real-world possibility. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I hate watching card games and cannot fathom why celebrity poker is a television show. But this was much more entertaining. And also, I finally get why Bond is sexy. I'm really surprised because I've never found Daniel Craig attractive at all. And the Bond character...he was entertaining and charming, but never really had jaw-dropping sex appeal for me. Somehow when you put the two together, it is a very, very good thing. Maybe I just really like arrogance. The past few movies haven't really had any depth to the character.
Anyways. I liked this one. The friend I went with was annoyed that it was long, apparently. I didn't mind. And Goldeneye puts me to sleep.
posted
I really liked this film as well. I found the writing so much more iteresting that it has been, with the exception of Her Majesties Secret Service, since the beginnning of the franchise. There was action, but it wasn't mindless. Their were great stunts, but again, not just to do them, and they looked realistic. All in all, I fnally really liked a Bond movie.
Posts: 242 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My best friend who is a die hard Bond fan got seriously annoyed with 2 things.
a 15 minute segment where its Bond and Eva Green basically romping around Europe. And apparently it ended wrong as all Bond films are supposed to end with him bedding a hot girl.
posted
Your friend must be a diehard Bond movie fan. This ended pretty much the way the book ended.
That said, I did think the pacing on the romp was a bit odd, an ending after the ending with an absurd collapsing building scene. But I liked the direction it's taking the franchise, I liked the inclusion of the last line from the book even if it wasn't the last line here (but the last line in the movie was perfect, perfect), and while the nifty glove compartment medical equipment was, amazing, just what he needed at the right time, it was much less absurd than the usual inhumanly prescient single-use gadget from Q.
Overall, really liked this movie, this Bond, and the retooling of the franchise. The drink and the car were a little forced, but it was a nice intro to the rough and ready agent who would someday be Bond. And something I especially liked, oddly enough, was this:
There's a scene where he pulls a woman from the water and begins to perform CPR. And while he gives up way too quickly for reality, he actually appears to be doing it more or less correctly. Usually actors do it utterly wrong, for fear of cracking the other actor's ribs or inadvertantly groping the victim. No such hesitation here, he was trying to start her heart. Even if it was sloppy and he stopped too soon, it was better than the standard "cradle the still-warm body and cry 'Nooooo!!'" we usually get.
The opening sequence had a wonderful retro feel, the animated scene behind the theme song felt like a Bond movie opening even though there was a notable lack of naked girl silhouettes, the opening action bit was exciting without being too unbelievable, and the bad guy was a mid-level villain who didn't even have his own secret base or color-coded army. And this Bond makes mistakes, big ones, with big consequences. All in all, very refreshing.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Your friend must be a diehard Bond movie fan. This ended pretty much the way the book ended.
That said, I did think the pacing on the romp was a bit odd, an ending after the ending with an absurd collapsing building scene. But I liked the direction it's taking the franchise, I liked the inclusion of the last line from the book even if it wasn't the last line here (but the last line in the movie was perfect, perfect), and while the nifty glove compartment medical equipment was, amazing, just what he needed at the right time, it was much less absurd than the usual inhumanly prescient single-use gadget from Q.
Overall, really liked this movie, this Bond, and the retooling of the franchise. The drink and the car were a little forced, but it was a nice intro to the rough and ready agent who would someday be Bond. And something I especially liked, oddly enough, was this:
There's a scene where he pulls a woman from the water and begins to perform CPR. And while he gives up way too quickly for reality, he actually appears to be doing it more or less correctly. Usually actors do it utterly wrong, for fear of cracking the other actor's ribs or inadvertantly groping the victim. No such hesitation here, he was trying to start her heart. Even if it was sloppy and he stopped too soon, it was better than the standard "cradle the still-warm body and cry 'Nooooo!!'" we usually get.
The opening sequence had a wonderful retro feel, the animated scene behind the theme song felt like a Bond movie opening even though there was a notable lack of naked girl silhouettes, the opening action bit was exciting without being too unbelievable, and the bad guy was a mid-level villain who didn't even have his own secret base or color-coded army. And this Bond makes mistakes, big ones, with big consequences. All in all, very refreshing.
Pretty much agree with everything you said Chris, which could be a sign that I need to reset/reconfigure my opinionatory spectrum.
Nighthawk: I didn't think of that, Ill had to bring that up in our next conversation, he works in the cubicle next door, Ill be back Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He conceded that if the book ends that way its ok the movie did it.
He already knew about OHMSS but for him the movies typically end that way, so thats how it should be.
I typically joke that the reason those movies end that way is because in CR Bond learns the dangers of commitment. OHMSS he obviously needed to relearn it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Casino Royale is the first Bond movie I've ever seen. How do the movies typically end?
To quote myself, "Bedding a hot girl."
I've always loved Brosnan as Bond, I just felt he got the worst plots. If I was a woman I would have the hots for him.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
