Casino Royale - 2006

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 31, 2007, 11:28 pm

If you have never seen Eva Green past this movie or Kingdom of Heaven watch Dreamers. She is amazing. (btw sorry for posting so late, this movie is kick ass btw.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 19, 2007, 3:38 pm

The Movie Blog is alwasy such an entertaining read. Here's some bad news from it though:

Olsen Twins To Be Bond Sluts?

After the success of Casino Royale what better way is there to celebrate ... than to ruin the follow up film. It appears the Olsen twins will be starring in the next Bond picture. We get the dismal news from M&C:

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are set to be the first Bond girl twins.

In a bid to secure the 20-year-old sibling stars, producers are offering Mary-Kate and Ashley a clause in their contracts stating they will not have to strip off or shoot any sex scenes, according to online gossip columnist Janet Charlton.

If the twosome accept the offer they will reportedly play characters who help Bond with his mission. Shooting on the movie is due to start in 2008.
This is retarded. The Olsen twins do not look like Bond girls, they look like starving wharf rats. Wharf rats with aids, that are addicted to meth. This may trump Kirsten Dunst for the worst casting ever. I do not want this movie to turn into a fucking Olsen twins caper where they help Bond get the bad guys.

Call me old fashioned. But when you have twins in a bond movie for the first time, THEY HAVE TO DOUBLE TEAM BOND IN A "ROMANTIC" MANNER. This news of "no sex scenes or nudity" is just downright insulting. Why would you even cast people that will not appear in a love scene with bond? I do not care if Gene Hackman is cast in a role - he should be prepared to do a sex scene in a Bond film if need be. I do not know what mentally challenged sea lion they have captured to do the casting for this film, but they need to club it.

I am at a loss for words and hope this is a sick internet joke. I am sure there are a number of sultry twins that would kill for this role, and instead they cast the worst duo possible. They are the worst twins on earth because we know who they are, we can't forget who they are, and no amount of "acting" they do will allow us to forget that they are the Olsen twins.

Say it ain't so.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » May 19, 2007, 4:45 pm

I can't believe I thought this was my favourite Bond film ever. I must have been fucking retarded. What the fuck?

It's average at best.

And if this is true, then it's just even worse.

Kwonryu DragonFist · Post by **Kwonryu DragonFist** » May 19, 2007, 5:03 pm

Nick wrote:I can't believe I thought this was my favourite Bond film ever. I must have been fucking retarded. What the fuck?

It's average at best.

And if this is true, then it's just even worse.

What changed your mind Nick?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 21, 2007, 11:04 am

Nick wrote:I can't believe I thought this was my favourite Bond film ever. I must have been fucking retarded. What the fuck?

It's average at best.

And if this is true, then it's just even worse.

Now you hate the first one because of an Internet rumor about the second one? That's pretty stupid.

For what its worth, I've seen no such rumor about the Olsen twins showing up in a sequel on any of the other movie sites I visit.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 21, 2007, 11:56 am

I thought this one was 'ok' at best. It had good fight scenes and that was about it. There was something about the way the movie started that I could not even get into it for around 20 minutes. It was almost like I missed some phantom 15 minutes from before it began.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 21, 2007, 3:00 pm

Boogahz wrote:I thought this one was 'ok' at best. It had good fight scenes and that was about it. There was something about the way the movie started that I could not even get into it for around 20 minutes. It was almost like I missed some phantom 15 minutes from before it began.

Just curious, which Bond movie would you rank better, and why?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 21, 2007, 3:27 pm

Rewatching this movie, I wasn't too fond of it either. The stunts were great, but honestly there was too much in there that I just didn't like. I didn't like how they basically just took a big shit over the whole Bond legacy by starting him as a brand new agent in modern times. 007 is one of the longest running reoccurring characters in cinema, and I don't see any reason to reinvent him as brand new. Would it kill the franchise if he was a different MI6 agent? Why build a character up over 40 years and then just kick all that history to the curb? No respect for the series.

I would have tried to get Connery back for the role and have an older, more cerebral Bond who used his brain and experience instead of sky surfing off of towers while firing dual machine guns and shirtless.

And I could have done with less than an hour's interlude of Bond and the chick rolling around in beds and saying how much they loved each other. Yeah, she's going to betray Bond. -WE GET IT-

And I will reiterate: James Bond does not play fucking poker, and he does not drive fucking Fords. They might as well have made him ask for a Bud Lite™ from the bartender, and had a two minute long take of how much he enjoys it's great taste and smooth body.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 21, 2007, 3:57 pm

I'm still disturbed over that nut busting scene but think it ranks up there with the best of the Bond movies.

Bond movies have been mostly kind of goofy over the years with Dr Evil types (Jaws, etc). I'd rather see a Bond movie with semi normal people. A bleeding eye wasn't too much compared to some of the wackiness of past Bond villains.

Sean Connery would have been horrible acting in yet another Bond movie. If you want to see an old timer Connery teaching a younger person that's not a senior citizen some tricks, watch The Rock. Great movie.

The movie had some good dialog and was entertaining. Glad I didn't have to sit through listening to some old fogey remembering their past...can see Connery in Finding Forrester do that as well. He was born in 1930. He's pretty fucking old. Not that it's a bad thing, I just don't want to see a 77 year old Bond.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 21, 2007, 4:15 pm

kyoukan wrote:Rewatching this movie, I wasn't too fond of it either. The stunts were great, but honestly there was too much in there that I just didn't like. I didn't like how they basically just took a big shit over the whole Bond legacy by starting him as a brand new agent in modern times. 007 is one of the longest running reoccurring characters in cinema, and I don't see any reason to reinvent him as brand new. Would it kill the franchise if he was a different MI6 agent? Why build a character up over 40 years and then just kick all that history to the curb? No respect for the series.

I would have tried to get Connery back for the role and have an older, more cerebral Bond who used his brain and experience instead of sky surfing off of towers while firing dual machine guns and shirtless.

And I could have done with less than an hour's interlude of Bond and the chick rolling around in beds and saying how much they loved each other. Yeah, she's going to betray Bond. -WE GET IT-

And I will reiterate: James Bond does not play fucking poker, and he does not drive fucking Fords. They might as well have made him ask for a Bud Lite™ from the bartender, and had a two minute long take of how much he enjoys it's great taste and smooth body.

I can see your point about the history. Question: Were all the previous Bond movies suppossed to be the same guy? I guess I never put much thought into it. I think it would've been even more awkward to do a Superman Returns-esque Bond, where all the previous films have indeed happened, it just starts over in it's own way.

All in all, it is pretty easy to restart a series when all of the previous incarnations have no connection to one another, save for 1 or 2 follow through characters. New women, new cars, new gadgets, and new world threatening bad guys every time, with no mention of the previous has never allowed them to make Bond feel like an evolving character IMO. Meanwhile, the "new" Bond has laid a very solid foundation for the character, and I get the impression we'll see him grow through the next several films.

I think a reinvention was required to really jumpstart the series. Besides, I appreciate the bold direction that was taken with this film. It was a pretty big gamble, and I like to see people take chances once in awhile in Hollywood.

It's rumored that Star Trek is due for a similar makeover very soon. I kinda hate Star Trek, but the reinvention has garnered my attention. All these latest remakes have been done surprisingly well IMO, and as long as the people that make them share a true passion about the material and keep doing a good job, I have no problems with the remakes.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » May 21, 2007, 8:16 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:I can see your point about the history. Question: Were all the previous Bond movies suppossed to be the same guy? I guess I never put much thought into it. I think it would've been even more awkward to do a Superman Returns-esque Bond, where all the previous films have indeed happened, it just starts over in it's own way.

I don't believe so. I believe 007 is merely a title, one that's filled by various shoes. I didn't see the film as "reinventing" the character, merely showing one of the many agents who has the monicker 007 at his beginning.

I still loved it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 21, 2007, 9:15 pm

And they're all named James Bond? And the same re-occurring characters all have a long history with him?