Casino Royale (Trailer Inside) (1 Viewer)

[cocoagirl]

Link to trailer

Now we can write more about Daniel Craig as James Bond in here.

 

[Red Apples]

eva green will be the shiznit.

go rent the dreamers.

 

[Buckychudd]

I'm starting to think he's going to be a good James Bond. Pierce Brosnan was a little too tounge in cheek sometimes.

Looking forward to the new movie.

 

[Orange Crush]

I was not looking forward to this guy as Bond or of the franchise doing a re-make. But I was messing around on google video and came across the trailer.

OMFG!!! This looks amazing!

 

[curta269]

Here is the latest link. This film looks like the best Bond film in years.

 

[Green and Gold]

It's getting excellent first reviews at rottentomatoes. Seven reviews, 100% fresh so far.

 

[The Man With No Name]

They should have at least dyed his hair (the little bit he has) dark brown, like all the other JB's.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I remember when Timothy Dalton was brought in - the mantra was that he would make Bond dangerous again (like the early Connery Bond) & less cheeky (like Moore). It never seemed to take, though. Brosnan was ok (I liked him better than Moore & Dalton), but Craig is going to be really good, I think. I think he's got the goods to pull off the "dangerous" aspect of Bond - he looks a bit psycho & not as perfect as some of the others.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

gotta wonder how much Casino Royale on the LV strip paid for the placement rights for this one ...

 

[Stingdiddy]

Just got back from Borat (laughed my ### off) and saw the bond trailer on the big screen. I've never been a Bond fan, but, Casino Royale looks excellent. Bond looks like he's got a mean streak in him. Bad ###. Looking forward to it.

Also, from what I saw in the trailer, it looks like there's alot of Poker action at the tables.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

I remember when Timothy Dalton was brought in - the mantra was that he would make Bond dangerous again (like the early Connery Bond) & less cheeky (like Moore). It never seemed to take, though. Brosnan was ok (I liked him better than Moore & Dalton), but Craig is going to be really good, I think. I think he's got the goods to pull off the "dangerous" aspect of Bond - he looks a bit psycho & not as perfect as some of the others.

this guy is a keeper... he will be best bond since connery & rejuvenate the franchise for years...

 

[flapgreen]

It looks good but movie trailers make everything look good. I'll go see it if it ends up being good.

 

[Northern Voice]

This is getting outstanding reviews up here as well. The Toronto Star critic declared Craig the best bond ever.

 

[cocoagirl]

I totally forgot about this! I purchased my tickets for Friday.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

This is getting outstanding reviews up here as well. The Toronto Star critic declared Craig the best bond ever.

Hopefully, these reviews aren't wishful thinking. I can recall every time Bob Dylan released an album from the late 70s through the mid-90s, it would be greeted with extraordinary praise - for about a week, until people actually sat down & listened to it; yep - another disappointment.So maybe "Casino Royale" will be the series' "Time Out Of Mind" - the real deal.

 

[-jb-]

Just saw it...

- Definitely a more "bad-###" Bond, which I found to be refreshing.

- Some of the trademark lines regarding martinis, etc. are poked fun of rather than inserted. Also refreshing.

- Very few gadgets...but two sweet Aston Martins ('64 DB-5, '06-07 DB-S)

- As usual there are many times that you need to willingly suspend disbelief...but it's a Bond flick - what would you expect?

- The women are racktacular.

Overall, very enjoyable...more gritty than usual without losing Bond's smooveness.

 

[scoobygang]

Caught the movie this afternoon. It's definitely the best Bond film in a very long time.

I haven't seen Layer Cake, and while I've seen Craig in a few other things, I wasn't prepared for how good he'd be. The film really stands and falls with him and he's consistently arresting.

The movie also features some really strong and back to basic stunt work, even if it is front-loaded in the first half of the movie.

It's not perfect . . .

mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

I thought the final act was pretty muddled. I couldn't tell for a while whether I was supposed to assume Bond was an idiot for not seeing what was right in front of his face, or whether he was supposed to be aware of it all and ready to turn the tables on Vesper. So while the final action sequence was fine, I didn't think it had the emotional impact they were going for.

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

All in all, however, a very strong action picture and it will definitely make Craig a star.

 

[Sulla]

The hype machine is trying (and apparently succeeding) to talk the gullible movie-going public into accepting Daniel Craig as James Bond.

Sorry, but no. I'll catch it on DVD.

 

[-jb-]

The hype machine is trying (and apparently succeeding) to talk the gullible movie-going public into accepting Daniel Craig as James Bond.

Sorry, but no. I'll catch it on DVD.

Other than the fact that he doesn't have dark hair, specifically what is it about him that you find "unBond?" This is probably the most true-to-Fleming portrayals that has been done...what do you feel is lacking? Isn't the "gullible movie-going public" the same that put Connery & Moore on the map? What am I missing? I thought he did a great job, and found the one downside to the movie to be consistent with scoobygang's spoiler.Would welcome your feedback on this.

 

[Mad Cow]

Awesome movie. Kinda lingered perhaps a little much at the end, but overall a fantastic movie.

 

[curta269]

Awesome movie. Kinda lingered perhaps a little much at the end, but overall a fantastic movie.

 

[Mad Cow]

My only real complaint is that there was some candy for the ladies, but not much for the guys. My wife said there was nudity and torture scenes according to the ratings and I conjectured, "Maybe they will be in the same scene?"

 

[thecatch]

I saw the movie today. Really enjoyed it, but it didn't have the same flair/tongue in cheek style that most Bond movies seem to have. To me it seemed more like a generic action/thriller.

 

[17seconds]

The hype machine is trying (and apparently succeeding) to talk the gullible movie-going public into accepting Daniel Craig as James Bond.

Sorry, but no. I'll catch it on DVD.

I went into the movie indifferent and came out really liking him as bond. The guy looks like Steve McQueen and he is a solid actor.

 

[malice]

Saw this last night- loved the construction chase scene and it felt like a good Bond movie. Product placement by Sony and Ford was a bit obnoxious, but it was nice to see a more physical Bond that actually had character as opposed to the comic book hero he's been in recent movies.

Only minor complaint would be last 20 minutes or so (could have been edited better)...but the rest of the movie was fairly solid.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I really thought this movie was absolute garbage. The best part of the movie was the first 30 minutes. The musical intro was awesome, the scene where he gets his second kill was awesome, and the chase scene was awesome.

After that, I thought it was terrible. It turned into a quasi-romance and I thought every word of dialogue between Bond and whatshername was incredible painful. They were supposed to be doing this back and forth, I'm smart - you're smart too, but really thought it was awful. And then after they fall in love, it was even worse. "Everyone has a tell. Except you. Maybe that's why I love you."

I thought the demasculation of Bondy was a crime, the action was mediocre, and the poker scenes were like watching an unfunny version of the Maverick (that hand with a nut flush, two full houses, and a straight flush? Real crafty Bond!).

I mean, I'm not a hater, I love the Bond movies, I really just thought this movie was terrible. And I also echo the previous posts about the movie being at LEAST 20 minutes too long. Mostly because they took 4-5 scenes to show us that Bond really loved the girl. We get it.

 

[Orange Crush]

I thought it was brilliant. Loved Craig as Bond. Loved the action. Loved the back to basics mentality. I might just go see it again.

 

[malice]

I really thought this movie was absolute garbage. The best part of the movie was the first 30 minutes. The musical intro was awesome, the scene where he gets his second kill was awesome, and the chase scene was awesome.After that, I thought it was terrible. It turned into a quasi-romance and I thought every word of dialogue between Bond and whatshername was incredible painful. They were supposed to be doing this back and forth, I'm smart - you're smart too, but really thought it was awful. And then after they fall in love, it was even worse. "Everyone has a tell. Except you. Maybe that's why I love you."I thought the demasculation of Bondy was a crime, the action was mediocre, and the poker scenes were like watching an unfunny version of the Maverick (that hand with a nut flush, two full houses, and a straight flush? Real crafty Bond!). I mean, I'm not a hater, I love the Bond movies, I really just thought this movie was terrible. And I also echo the previous posts about the movie being at LEAST 20 minutes too long. Mostly because they took 4-5 scenes to show us that Bond really loved the girl. We get it.

Not a big fan of things like plot, are you?Beating you over the head with the fact they were in love at the end was extraneous- that's what my complaint was- but I have accepted the fact that just like there are a number of people in the audience that don't understand hold 'em poker and need each hand explained in detail, there are some people that wouldn't understand the level of deception Bond feels without fully showing how much they fell for each other.It was also very faithful to the book in terms of plot and dialogue (although they switched from Baccarat since Hold 'em poker wasn't around when the book originally came out). If you loved most of the other Bond movies, I can understand why this wouldn't work for you- it required you to take a fresh look at the series and start over.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I really thought this movie was absolute garbage. The best part of the movie was the first 30 minutes. The musical intro was awesome, the scene where he gets his second kill was awesome, and the chase scene was awesome.

After that, I thought it was terrible. It turned into a quasi-romance and I thought every word of dialogue between Bond and whatshername was incredible painful. They were supposed to be doing this back and forth, I'm smart - you're smart too, but really thought it was awful. And then after they fall in love, it was even worse. "Everyone has a tell. Except you. Maybe that's why I love you."

I thought the demasculation of Bondy was a crime, the action was mediocre, and the poker scenes were like watching an unfunny version of the Maverick (that hand with a nut flush, two full houses, and a straight flush? Real crafty Bond!).

I mean, I'm not a hater, I love the Bond movies, I really just thought this movie was terrible. And I also echo the previous posts about the movie being at LEAST 20 minutes too long. Mostly because they took 4-5 scenes to show us that Bond really loved the girl. We get it.

Not a big fan of things like plot, are you?

Beating you over the head with the fact they were in love at the end was extraneous- that's what my complaint was- but I have accepted the fact that just like there are a number of people in the audience that don't understand hold 'em poker and need each hand explained in detail, there are some people that wouldn't understand the level of deception Bond feels without fully showing how much they fell for each other.

It was also very faithful to the book in terms of plot and dialogue (although they switched from Baccarat since Hold 'em poker wasn't around when the book originally came out). If you loved most of the other Bond movies, I can understand why this wouldn't work for you- it required you to take a fresh look at the series and start over.

Plot? The plot was a fine good guy/bad guy story. Not bad, but certainly not complex or entertaining enough to carry the movie. The dialogue was painfully bad, and Bond movies are generally heavy on the action - this one was noth, and I'm sorry if thinking that is a shame implies that I'm "not a big fan of things like plot". The plot was pretty generic, nothing special at all, and it was coupled with terrible dialogue and light on the action.

 

[malice]

I really thought this movie was absolute garbage. The best part of the movie was the first 30 minutes. The musical intro was awesome, the scene where he gets his second kill was awesome, and the chase scene was awesome.

After that, I thought it was terrible. It turned into a quasi-romance and I thought every word of dialogue between Bond and whatshername was incredible painful. They were supposed to be doing this back and forth, I'm smart - you're smart too, but really thought it was awful. And then after they fall in love, it was even worse. "Everyone has a tell. Except you. Maybe that's why I love you."

I thought the demasculation of Bondy was a crime, the action was mediocre, and the poker scenes were like watching an unfunny version of the Maverick (that hand with a nut flush, two full houses, and a straight flush? Real crafty Bond!).

I mean, I'm not a hater, I love the Bond movies, I really just thought this movie was terrible. And I also echo the previous posts about the movie being at LEAST 20 minutes too long. Mostly because they took 4-5 scenes to show us that Bond really loved the girl. We get it.

Not a big fan of things like plot, are you?

Beating you over the head with the fact they were in love at the end was extraneous- that's what my complaint was- but I have accepted the fact that just like there are a number of people in the audience that don't understand hold 'em poker and need each hand explained in detail, there are some people that wouldn't understand the level of deception Bond feels without fully showing how much they fell for each other.

It was also very faithful to the book in terms of plot and dialogue (although they switched from Baccarat since Hold 'em poker wasn't around when the book originally came out). If you loved most of the other Bond movies, I can understand why this wouldn't work for you- it required you to take a fresh look at the series and start over.

Plot? The plot was a fine good guy/bad guy story. Not bad, but certainly not complex or entertaining enough to carry the movie. The dialogue was painfully bad, and Bond movies are generally heavy on the action - this one was noth, and I'm sorry if thinking that is a shame implies that I'm "not a big fan of things like plot". The plot was pretty generic, nothing special at all, and it was coupled with terrible dialogue and light on the action.

Who was the bad guy? If you say Le Chiffre, you better watch it again because you missed a lot.

 

[phrozen]

I thought it was brilliant. Loved Craig as Bond. Loved the action. Loved the back to basics mentality. I might just go see it again.

I echo Crush's thoughts exactly. It was an excellent movie IMO.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I really thought this movie was absolute garbage. The best part of the movie was the first 30 minutes. The musical intro was awesome, the scene where he gets his second kill was awesome, and the chase scene was awesome.

After that, I thought it was terrible. It turned into a quasi-romance and I thought every word of dialogue between Bond and whatshername was incredible painful. They were supposed to be doing this back and forth, I'm smart - you're smart too, but really thought it was awful. And then after they fall in love, it was even worse. "Everyone has a tell. Except you. Maybe that's why I love you."

I thought the demasculation of Bondy was a crime, the action was mediocre, and the poker scenes were like watching an unfunny version of the Maverick (that hand with a nut flush, two full houses, and a straight flush? Real crafty Bond!).

I mean, I'm not a hater, I love the Bond movies, I really just thought this movie was terrible. And I also echo the previous posts about the movie being at LEAST 20 minutes too long. Mostly because they took 4-5 scenes to show us that Bond really loved the girl. We get it.

Not a big fan of things like plot, are you?

Beating you over the head with the fact they were in love at the end was extraneous- that's what my complaint was- but I have accepted the fact that just like there are a number of people in the audience that don't understand hold 'em poker and need each hand explained in detail, there are some people that wouldn't understand the level of deception Bond feels without fully showing how much they fell for each other.

It was also very faithful to the book in terms of plot and dialogue (although they switched from Baccarat since Hold 'em poker wasn't around when the book originally came out). If you loved most of the other Bond movies, I can understand why this wouldn't work for you- it required you to take a fresh look at the series and start over.

Plot? The plot was a fine good guy/bad guy story. Not bad, but certainly not complex or entertaining enough to carry the movie. The dialogue was painfully bad, and Bond movies are generally heavy on the action - this one was noth, and I'm sorry if thinking that is a shame implies that I'm "not a big fan of things like plot". The plot was pretty generic, nothing special at all, and it was coupled with terrible dialogue and light on the action.

Who was the bad guy? If you say Le Chiffre, you better watch it again because you missed a lot.

When did I imply who the bad guy was? And why are you asking that and ignoring everything I said? Generic plot, terrible dialogue, light on the action.

 

[malice]

I really thought this movie was absolute garbage. The best part of the movie was the first 30 minutes. The musical intro was awesome, the scene where he gets his second kill was awesome, and the chase scene was awesome.

After that, I thought it was terrible. It turned into a quasi-romance and I thought every word of dialogue between Bond and whatshername was incredible painful. They were supposed to be doing this back and forth, I'm smart - you're smart too, but really thought it was awful. And then after they fall in love, it was even worse. "Everyone has a tell. Except you. Maybe that's why I love you."

I thought the demasculation of Bondy was a crime, the action was mediocre, and the poker scenes were like watching an unfunny version of the Maverick (that hand with a nut flush, two full houses, and a straight flush? Real crafty Bond!).

I mean, I'm not a hater, I love the Bond movies, I really just thought this movie was terrible. And I also echo the previous posts about the movie being at LEAST 20 minutes too long. Mostly because they took 4-5 scenes to show us that Bond really loved the girl. We get it.

Not a big fan of things like plot, are you?

Beating you over the head with the fact they were in love at the end was extraneous- that's what my complaint was- but I have accepted the fact that just like there are a number of people in the audience that don't understand hold 'em poker and need each hand explained in detail, there are some people that wouldn't understand the level of deception Bond feels without fully showing how much they fell for each other.

It was also very faithful to the book in terms of plot and dialogue (although they switched from Baccarat since Hold 'em poker wasn't around when the book originally came out). If you loved most of the other Bond movies, I can understand why this wouldn't work for you- it required you to take a fresh look at the series and start over.

Plot? The plot was a fine good guy/bad guy story. Not bad, but certainly not complex or entertaining enough to carry the movie. The dialogue was painfully bad, and Bond movies are generally heavy on the action - this one was noth, and I'm sorry if thinking that is a shame implies that I'm "not a big fan of things like plot". The plot was pretty generic, nothing special at all, and it was coupled with terrible dialogue and light on the action.

Who was the bad guy? If you say Le Chiffre, you better watch it again because you missed a lot.

When did I imply who the bad guy was? And why are you asking that and ignoring everything I said? Generic plot, terrible dialogue, light on the action.

It wasn't a "good guy/bad guy" story. If you don't understand that, no wonder you called the plot generic, because it was complex if you were paying attention. Le Chiffre was only an accountant in a bigger story, and the 'bad guy' was like peeling back layers of an onion. As for the dialogue...it was no worse than any of the other Bond movies you say you love but there was chemistry there unlike previous Bond girl pairings.I guess some people see what they want to see.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I really thought this movie was absolute garbage. The best part of the movie was the first 30 minutes. The musical intro was awesome, the scene where he gets his second kill was awesome, and the chase scene was awesome.

After that, I thought it was terrible. It turned into a quasi-romance and I thought every word of dialogue between Bond and whatshername was incredible painful. They were supposed to be doing this back and forth, I'm smart - you're smart too, but really thought it was awful. And then after they fall in love, it was even worse. "Everyone has a tell. Except you. Maybe that's why I love you."

I thought the demasculation of Bondy was a crime, the action was mediocre, and the poker scenes were like watching an unfunny version of the Maverick (that hand with a nut flush, two full houses, and a straight flush? Real crafty Bond!).

I mean, I'm not a hater, I love the Bond movies, I really just thought this movie was terrible. And I also echo the previous posts about the movie being at LEAST 20 minutes too long. Mostly because they took 4-5 scenes to show us that Bond really loved the girl. We get it.

Not a big fan of things like plot, are you?

Beating you over the head with the fact they were in love at the end was extraneous- that's what my complaint was- but I have accepted the fact that just like there are a number of people in the audience that don't understand hold 'em poker and need each hand explained in detail, there are some people that wouldn't understand the level of deception Bond feels without fully showing how much they fell for each other.

It was also very faithful to the book in terms of plot and dialogue (although they switched from Baccarat since Hold 'em poker wasn't around when the book originally came out). If you loved most of the other Bond movies, I can understand why this wouldn't work for you- it required you to take a fresh look at the series and start over.

Plot? The plot was a fine good guy/bad guy story. Not bad, but certainly not complex or entertaining enough to carry the movie. The dialogue was painfully bad, and Bond movies are generally heavy on the action - this one was noth, and I'm sorry if thinking that is a shame implies that I'm "not a big fan of things like plot". The plot was pretty generic, nothing special at all, and it was coupled with terrible dialogue and light on the action.

Who was the bad guy? If you say Le Chiffre, you better watch it again because you missed a lot.

When did I imply who the bad guy was? And why are you asking that and ignoring everything I said? Generic plot, terrible dialogue, light on the action.

It wasn't a "good guy/bad guy" story. If you don't understand that, no wonder you called the plot generic, because it was complex if you were paying attention. Le Chiffre was only an accountant in a bigger story, and the 'bad guy' was like peeling back layers of an onion. As for the dialogue...it was no worse than any of the other Bond movies you say you love but there was chemistry there unlike previous Bond girl pairings.I guess some people see what they want to see.

I don't think you know what a "good guy/bad guy" story is. Just because the guy that was going to be the bad guy turns out to be a smaller bad guy compared to the bigger bad guy doesn't mean it's not a "good guy/bad guy" story. It was not like peeling back an onion, it was still boring when they revealed the bigger bad guys. It was just boring and completely generic.The dialouge was muuuuuuuuch worse than other Bond movies. There's a difference between cheesy on purpose and cheesy while trying to be serious. I find it unbelievable that some people could find that constant drabble between Bond and whatshername interesting or even mildly entertaining.

I don't get this "see what I want to see" - I wanted to see a good movie, and I saw a crappy one. I'm sorry that you think that disagreeing with you means that I am somehow biased. Not everyone likes what you like.

 

[nomarriage.com]

It was about 20 minutes too long.. aside from that i thought it was excellent.

 

[malice]

I don't think you know what a "good guy/bad guy" story is. Just because the guy that was going to be the bad guy turns out to be a smaller bad guy compared to the bigger bad guy doesn't mean it's not a "good guy/bad guy" story. It was not like peeling back an onion, it was still boring when they revealed the bigger bad guys. It was just boring and completely generic.The dialouge was muuuuuuuuch worse than other Bond movies. There's a difference between cheesy on purpose and cheesy while trying to be serious. I find it unbelievable that some people could find that constant drabble between Bond and whatshername interesting or even mildly entertaining.I don't get this "see what I want to see" - I wanted to see a good movie, and I saw a crappy one. I'm sorry that you think that disagreeing with you means that I am somehow biased. Not everyone likes what you like.

I'm not the only one saying it was good- everyone else in this thread and the vast majority of other places as well- are saying it was excellent. I'm not sure what you were looking for besides less talk and more explosions. Apparently you fall in the XXX/Vin Diesel camp of what a Bond movie should be like- which is exactly the stereotype that this reboot of the franchise was supposed to go against.And there's nothing worse than the dialogue between Brosnan and Denise Richards. Nothing.

 

[Mad Cow]

I don't think you know what a "good guy/bad guy" story is. Just because the guy that was going to be the bad guy turns out to be a smaller bad guy compared to the bigger bad guy doesn't mean it's not a "good guy/bad guy" story. It was not like peeling back an onion, it was still boring when they revealed the bigger bad guys. It was just boring and completely generic.The dialouge was muuuuuuuuch worse than other Bond movies. There's a difference between cheesy on purpose and cheesy while trying to be serious. I find it unbelievable that some people could find that constant drabble between Bond and whatshername interesting or even mildly entertaining.I don't get this "see what I want to see" - I wanted to see a good movie, and I saw a crappy one. I'm sorry that you think that disagreeing with you means that I am somehow biased. Not everyone likes what you like.

I'm not the only one saying it was good- everyone else in this thread and the vast majority of other places as well- are saying it was excellent. I'm not sure what you were looking for besides less talk and more explosions. Apparently you fall in the XXX/Vin Diesel camp of what a Bond movie should be like- which is exactly the stereotype that this reboot of the franchise was supposed to go against.And there's nothing worse than the dialogue between Brosnan and Denise Richards. Nothing.

"I thought Christmas only came once a year?""Oh, James. . ."

 

[Heavy B]

I was thinking of going to see it this weekend - in laws will be in town for Thanksgiving.

I have read two things that are of concern if they are true:

1. Full frontal nude shot of Bond standing up out of some water?

2. Torture scene from the book done in great detail - Bond tied naked in a chair getting his boys smashed with a carpet beater? What actually goes on? What do you actually see and hear?

I don't see myself sitting next to my mother in law watching either of these scenes. Is this content in the movie or was it pre-release hype?

 

[Mad Cow]

I was thinking of going to see it this weekend - in laws will be in town for Thanksgiving. I have read two things that are of concern if they are true:1. Full frontal nude shot of Bond standing up out of some water? 2. Torture scene from the book done in great detail - Bond tied naked in a chair getting his boys smashed with a carpet beater? What actually goes on? What do you actually see and hear?I don't see myself sitting next to my mother in law watching either of these scenes. Is this content in the movie or was it pre-release hype?

1. Not true2. :X

 

[Heavy B]

I was thinking of going to see it this weekend - in laws will be in town for Thanksgiving.

I have read two things that are of concern if they are true:

1. Full frontal nude shot of Bond standing up out of some water?

2. Torture scene from the book done in great detail - Bond tied naked in a chair getting his boys smashed with a carpet beater? What actually goes on? What do you actually see and hear?

I don't see myself sitting next to my mother in law watching either of these scenes. Is this content in the movie or was it pre-release hype?

1. Not true2. :X

I dunno, MC. That's why I'm asking. Here's a Google search on the topic. So no torture scene? AskMen.com had an article noting that Craig had a penis double for the naked scenes. Hype, I suppose. Google search for torture scene

So - is it "go see with an old lady" safe? Basic cussing, etc isn't an issue but naked guys, excessive sex scenes or guys getting whacked in the groin with hammers all would take this off of the Thanksgiving menu.

 

[malice]

I was thinking of going to see it this weekend - in laws will be in town for Thanksgiving.

I have read two things that are of concern if they are true:

1. Full frontal nude shot of Bond standing up out of some water?

2. Torture scene from the book done in great detail - Bond tied naked in a chair getting his boys smashed with a carpet beater? What actually goes on? What do you actually see and hear?

I don't see myself sitting next to my mother in law watching either of these scenes. Is this content in the movie or was it pre-release hype?

1. Not true2. :X

I dunno, MC. That's why I'm asking. Here's a Google search on the topic. So no torture scene? AskMen.com had an article noting that Craig had a penis double for the naked scenes. Hype, I suppose. Google search for torture scene

So - is it "go see with an old lady" safe? Basic cussing, etc isn't an issue but naked guys, excessive sex scenes or guys getting whacked in the groin with hammers all would take this off of the Thanksgiving menu.

Description of torture scene:mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

Henchman #1 cuts the bottom out of a chair and then you see a naked Bond sitting (side-view) in it. Le Chiffre starts to whip a thick rope against the chair from the underside. Without the dialogue, one would think he's just whipping his ###, but he's clearly lashing him across the balls. There's no shot of him from either the front or the back...but as the torture continues, Bond mocks Le Chiffre as he tries to hit him harder.

Best line- "...You'll die scratching my balls."

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

So really there's no nudity (male or female)...just the typical double entendres and the general uncomfortableness of watching someone being tortured.

 

[Heavy B]

I was thinking of going to see it this weekend - in laws will be in town for Thanksgiving.

I have read two things that are of concern if they are true:

1. Full frontal nude shot of Bond standing up out of some water?

2. Torture scene from the book done in great detail - Bond tied naked in a chair getting his boys smashed with a carpet beater? What actually goes on? What do you actually see and hear?

I don't see myself sitting next to my mother in law watching either of these scenes. Is this content in the movie or was it pre-release hype?

1. Not true2. :X

I dunno, MC. That's why I'm asking. Here's a Google search on the topic. So no torture scene? AskMen.com had an article noting that Craig had a penis double for the naked scenes. Hype, I suppose. Google search for torture scene

So - is it "go see with an old lady" safe? Basic cussing, etc isn't an issue but naked guys, excessive sex scenes or guys getting whacked in the groin with hammers all would take this off of the Thanksgiving menu.

Description of torture scene:mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

Henchman #1 cuts the bottom out of a chair and then you see a naked Bond sitting (side-view) in it. Le Chiffre starts to whip a thick rope against the chair from the underside. Without the dialogue, one would think he's just whipping his ###, but he's clearly lashing him across the balls. There's no shot of him from either the front or the back...but as the torture continues, Bond mocks Le Chiffre as he tries to hit him harder.

Best line- "...You'll die scratching my balls."

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

So really there's no nudity (male or female)...just the typical double entendres and the general uncomfortableness of watching someone being tortured.

Ty for the info. I really appreciate it.

 

[Trap Play]

I saw this movie last Friday, and I really enjoyed it. Even though it was completely different in tone from Goldeneye, I think Casino Royale is easily the best movie since Brosnan's debut, and perhaps since On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

I do agree that the movie lost its focus towards the end and meandered as a result.

One thing that did confuse me a bit:

mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

Was the man at the end of the film with the glasses where one lense was black and the other clear Le Chiffre?

If so, didn't he get shot in the forehead my Mr. White? It would seem an overly elaborate ruse if it was Le Chiffre.

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

 

[malice]

I saw this movie last Friday, and I really enjoyed it. Even though it was completely different in tone from Goldeneye, I think Casino Royale is easily the best movie since Brosnan's debut, and perhaps since On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

I do agree that the movie lost its focus towards the end and meandered as a result.

One thing that did confuse me a bit:

mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("

Was the man at the end of the film with the glasses where one lense was black and the other clear Le Chiffre?

If so, didn't he get shot in the forehead my Mr. White? It would seem an overly elaborate ruse if it was Le Chiffre.

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();

mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("It wasn't Le Chiffre. I believe he was in the profiles that came up on M's computer when Bond was remotely accessing her files and found Le Chiffre. He was basically the guy who was blackmailing Vesper- which was why she did a double take on the boat when she was looking through the camera lens.

*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***

");document.close();

 

[SofaKings]

Just saw it. Love the hard edged Bond. They did a good job with the new guy!

 

[FinHead]

Excellent movie and one of the best Bond films in a long time!!! The ending did seem to get a little bogged down and I wish they had used the Bond theme sometime during the movie, but those are minor complaints.

 

[Twilight]

I'll echo the comments. Craig was very good, the ending was very long and boring. And the Poker was horrible. Overall, a worthwhile movie to see in the theater.

 

[Slinger]

I'll echo the comments. Craig was very good, the ending was very long and boring. And the Poker was horrible. Overall, a worthwhile movie to see in the theater.

I agree. I like the overall story, but it got too complicated towards the end.

 

[packersfan]

I saw the movie today. Really enjoyed it, but it didn't have the same flair/tongue in cheek style that most Bond movies seem to have. To me it seemed more like a generic action/thriller.

This was my take on it as well. I thought Craig did a good job as Bond and he's clearly a more harder-edged Bond than we've seen since Dalton but I did miss some of the tongue-in-cheek remarks and the gadgets and the absence of a truly great villain for Bond to play off of. And as others have noted, the film is a good 20 minutes too long. But I also felt like I was watching more of a generic spy movie than a Bond movie. I can appreciate the fact the filmmakers were trying a different approach in an attempt to add some new spice to the series but at the end of the day there are some things I want to see and like to see in a Bond film and this one came up short.

 

[Red Apples]

I was thinking of going to see it this weekend - in laws will be in town for Thanksgiving.

I have read two things that are of concern if they are true:

1. Full frontal nude shot of Bond standing up out of some water?

2. Torture scene from the book done in great detail - Bond tied naked in a chair getting his boys smashed with a carpet beater? What actually goes on? What do you actually see and hear?

I don't see myself sitting next to my mother in law watching either of these scenes. Is this content in the movie or was it pre-release hype?

1. Not true2. :X

I dunno, MC. That's why I'm asking. Here's a Google search on the topic. So no torture scene? AskMen.com had an article noting that Craig had a penis double for the naked scenes. Hype, I suppose. Google search for torture scene

So - is it "go see with an old lady" safe? Basic cussing, etc isn't an issue but naked guys, excessive sex scenes or guys getting whacked in the groin with hammers all would take this off of the Thanksgiving menu.

when in doubt refer to the rating....PG13