Quote:
Originally Posted by bananapup
I have to agree that "Casino Royale is quite a good film in its own right" and that it was definitely not a classic bond film, but it was supposed to show how Bond evolved into the Bond we came to know. In the beginning of the film he was more of a Bruce Willis than a Sean Connery, but as the movie progressed he learned and grew until the last scene when he is standing in his tailored suit over Mr. White and says to him, "The name is Bond, James Bond." with the Bond music in the background.
Hopefully this means that in Bond 22 scheduled for release in November 2008 we will find the sophisticated Bond we all knew. However, I personally hope it doesn't degenerate into the forced one-liners that we heard in the previous Bond movies. I was getting a little tired of it.
Here they seem to have achieved a combination of action and character development that could be the ticket for re-doing all of the Bond Films again, which I would like to see.
(Just in case you haven't heard about it yet, the next Bond film is supposed to start up two minutes from where this one ended and Bond goes after the organization responsible for everything that happened in the first one. Who knows, it could be SPECTRE.
|
for me personally i was glad to find casino royale so different. like other posts have said the old format was getting tired. nice to see that daniel craig proved a lot of people wrong by shining in the role. only time will tell of course, but for my money this could be the start of something exciting and keep us watching the films for many more years. pierce and sean were great, but time moves on, and so must the franchise. i am a real bond fan, can name most the villians, girls, cars, etc, but even i can see that bond cannot stay in the sixties. from other forums ive read i also note that people have said this style of bond movie is more true to how fleming wrote his books, but not having read them myself i will remain neutral on that issue.
