The last James Bond film, Casino Royale was a total triumph on almost every level (notice I said ALMOST). The only real weakness I found in the film was the length. That film just would have felt a lot more tight if they just trimmed like 15 minutes out of the picture.. but now I’m just being nit-picky. The biggest success of Casino Royale was in the new James Bond himself. I’ve already gone on record and stated that I think Daniel Craig is not the best James Bond ever. Take that as you will.
Now most of you know that pretty much the whole James Bond franchise has been a number of stand alone films. All completely encapsulated stories that don’t really have anything to do with any of the previous films. Looks like they’re breaking that trend now too. The good folks over at Cinematical give us this:
we do now have confirmation on one aspect of the next Bond that should please fans of Daniel Craig’s last outing as the superspy (i.e. pretty much everyone). Previous reports were correct: Bond 22 will be a direct continuation of the events started in Casino Royale. Since most Bond films have been stand-alone adventures, this should be another good way to shake (not stir) the formula.
I think this is a good idea. Casino Royale show us Bond’s beginning… and now I think we need to see him begin the process of turning into the Bond more of us remember… the more emotionally detached womanizer we all love so much. The ending of Casino Royale gave us a glimpse of that transition starting… and now it’s time to take it to the next step.
daniel craig leather jacket
http://www.celebswear.com/products/Casino-Royale-Jacket.html
Daniel Craig has played a really great role as james bond in casino royal
New subject:
Bond V Bourne
comments please!
“Casino Royale show us Bond’s beginning… and now I think we need to see him begin the process of turning into the Bond more of us remember… the more emotionally detached womanizer we all love so much.”
I don’t not love Bond as an emotionally detached womanizer. Come to think of it, I don’t think that Bond was ever an “emotionally detached” womanizer during the franchise’s 44-year history. He was a womanizer, yes. But emotionally detached? He tried. And failed, several times.
I like some of the old Bonds too, but the last couple, 2 or 3 were getting a little rediculous. This one takes it back to zero and tries to ground it in some kind of reality, not totally, but moreso than its prededcessors.
RMAGS- that was the whole point of Casino Royale to show you Bond as his creator intended. also i think this film was kinda like James Bond Begins to show you where he came from and his first steps. hence the fairly low key bad guy its all about Bond.
Best Bond in my opinion but I can see why you prefer the old bonds this film was a big step away from those.
peace
i thought bond was fine the way the had it going, this one really really REALLY killed it for me. i was and still am a huge fan of all the other ones. but when this one came out it was like, it didnt have the bond feel. except for the first chase scene, and then the last 15 seconds of the movie. THAT was a bond moment.
They are not trying to make you think M is the same M from the past movies. As far as Casino Royale is concerned, none of the other Bond movies exist. This is an origin story, if you will, and they just decided they liked Judi Dench as M. I agree it may have confused people a little, but I think by the time you see the irst 15 minutes of the movie, its all cleared up.
Cool, so we will get to see Bond address “the big picture” and find out exactly who is behind the events of Casino Royale. That is one of the things I loved about it, you got to see Bond track the bad guys up the ladder and keep finding the next clue or the next link in the chain (sometimes with help). In the end, he found Mr. White, but we realize he is just another link and not “the guy” himself. Im psyched to see the real bad guy revealed in the next one and if we find any cool connections between him/her and the events of Casino Royale.
I’m not a fan of the new Bond. The poker scenes definately kill the movie.
http://johnnyfrommexicali.com
if u watch the DVD u notice that when he picks up the surveillance dvd it says july 6 2006. so is bond supposed to be in the present day although these are his past assignment?
Now I have to put my objections to the first casino royale, and this second one. there was a loose story connection i believe on the older james bond films, when pierce brosnan started the old “M” was replaced with Judi Dench. and she was introduced as taking over the “M” position. Judi Dench’s M first met James Bond FAAAAR into his career.
Then all of a sudden she is his first boss, makes no sense and why didnt anyone pick up on this that i can see? AND the damn director of GOldeneye did this one, so he filmed two movies in which James Bond meets the New M twice.
Anyone agree??
Great news. Let the new Bond grow.
Just wandering what Nagy thought of Casino Royale It has kick-ass action, but also a heavy romantic subplot; he’s been very vocal in the past about love interests in action movies and I’d like to hear his standpoint.
Great news, indeed.
I must be in the minority here because I though the poker scenes were very well done. I thought they added layers to Bond’s developing psyche and told you a lot about Le Chiffre. I thought it was very well paced and I’ve enjoyed it everytime I’ve watched it.
5 times and counting, and I havent been bored yet.
Bring on the sequel!
I hope they keep this trend up in the James Bond series from now on. I loved Casino Royale. Didn’t like the pervious films that much.
You are forgetting that Diamonds are Forever took place right after Tracy died in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.
Tipsy McGhee,
I might be mistaken, but I believe that Craig has signed on for a multi-picture deal as Bond which if I remember correctly, would make him Bond until the 25th installment of the franchise.
I will agree with everyone on here that the poker scenes in Casino Royale were agonizingly slow, but I believe it served the purpose of creating a more psychological villain (Le Chiffe) and a more psychological Bond movie. Casino Royale definitely restarted and re-energized the Bond franchise, and as TM said, its history in the making.
As a Bond enthusiast I have to say I was a little bit bored with the long poker scenes that added no thrill or excitement to the movie. As for Daniel Craig’s performance, I think both him and Timothy Dalton have a lot in common, they’re both rough around the edges and had very short carriers as 007 (I didn’t think Craig had the charisma and panache that his predecessors have possessed). However I’m happy that there will be a sequel to Casino Royale and also hopping that Clive Owens will finally have his opportunity to play 007. I love that Roeper gave it a two thumbs up on plot and Daniel Craig’s performance. Check out his review at http://www.atthemoviestv.com.This site is great for current movies reviews for both new and old movies, with full length, high-production video reviews of movies online. Just thought I’d share since I work with Ebert and Roeper.
I just watched Casino Royale again last night. It really was an incredible movie but you are right about it being too long. I’d even say ut 30 minutes because the redundancy of them establishing he’s “in love”, the “poker for dummies” narration by his buddy and the poker itself was just agonizing. Considering the first hour was overflowing with action then its a shame that the middle got so slow.
Anyway, I can’t wait for the sequel.
thats good news…..i thought royale was the most enjoyable bond in a while….overall it was a excellent action movie (tho a bit long) but it didn’t feel like a bond film….hopefully the next movie he’ll be more “bond-like”….tho craig did a good job i feel pierce was the perfect modern bond….
peace…
That’s great news. I was hoping that the next Bond film continues exactly from where they left off as i just saw it again Friday on DVD.
I feel priviledged for being around to see the character development of James Bond. A history in the making.
Is this really news, though? It seemed obvious that the ending of Casino Royale set up for a direct sequel. I guess it had to be confirmed, but that would have been a terrible open-ended ending had they not continued it with the next movie.
Not busting your balls, John, I just didn’t realize this was something that needed confirmation or an announcement.