Casino Royale 2006 Film Vehicles 26 Gadgets

Am I The Only Person Who Actually Watched Casino Royale?

Vennie-Stainforth, 2007-01-12 06:12:44
So many people have told me they think its the best James Bond so far! i thought it was rubbish, except for the first 10 mins or so. The story had massive flaws, bits didn't add up. Definitely not enough, weapons or gadgets and it was too long.no way is this the best james bond ever. although Daniel Craig is the first actor to play james thats looks like he could actually hurt someone, the others look like the only thing they could hurt was the olive in their martini.

2007-01-12 07:38:22 Felecia-Harrow wrote:

Yeah you are the only person.
Well Maybe not I just have not seen it yet.

2007-01-12 07:37:51 Kareem-Hincken wrote:

a friend of mine did watch it as well.
unfortunately he lked it as well.
sorry!

2007-01-12 07:40:13 Rosita-Wade wrote: I liked the film. I think the reason there were no gadgets is due to this being one of the first stories written about James Bond .apparently not as my friend has seen it too....but i havet heard much feedback from anyone else...so maybe just maybe its only two of you???

I've still not seen it yet.
Damn it!
casino royale 2006 film vehicles 26 gadgets.
So, so far, you appear to be the only person who watched it.
Interesting point about Daniel Craig looking like he could hit.
Just from the trailers I thought the same thing (OK, except for Sean Connery perhaps!) us players online no deposit casino bonuses.
Aren't there flaws to all bond films though?
I too was gutted to hear there are no gadgets.
That's one of the main ingredients to a bond film.
Is there no boxing in the new Rocky?!
free o deposit casino bonuses us players welcome.

2007-01-12 09:07:10 Rogelio-Finlay wrote: The movie is awesome..They tried to redefine Bond, start over from the beginning , without all the gadgets, make him more like the Bond from Ian Fleming's books. They succeeded, and with the exception of a couple of technical mistakes during the poker game ....it was an awesome movie...and a great way to breath life into the franchise.

2007-01-12 07:39:33 Heide-Braham wrote: It was more raw, more powerful. For me he is the best Bond so far but there will be varied opinions which is natural. Definitely a thumbs up for me and you're right, the first 10 minutes was amazing. I thought it was brilliant. Daniel Craig was menacing and looked good in a tux. It was supposed to be the start of him being 007, before he became refined and suave. It was more realistic without the gadgets and he actually got hurt in the movie. The way the bad guy was leaping and climbing - bloody brilliant and the best start to a Bond movie so far - again because it was believable.

2007-01-12 07:52:35 Werner-Porter wrote:

Very good movie !It is a rubbish film,We walked out after 44min,s what a load of rubbish!!!
I watched Casino Royale, and I really like it.
In Casino Royale, the dialog are great, the poker scene is really intense, and Daniel Craig is great in that part.
I didn't like the James Bond movie with Pierce Brosnan, which are a succession of gadgets and girls without a brain...

2007-01-12 07:39:58 Deangelo-Frankenberger wrote: ...That is your opinion on the movie and I can not change that. However despite having some flaws mainly the poker game and the relationship between james and Vesper slows things down. The film is amazing, the plot is complex and well done and its a really well done film.I personally thought it was amazing. I've already seen it three times. :D

2007-01-12 07:37:52 Fritz-Keister wrote: Yes and as you point out it's a good start toward building a more realistic James Bond.i've seen it twice and cant wait for it to come out on dvd.i think daniel craig is fabulous as a more griitier james bond and i hope he wins the bafta for best actor in a movieno i saw it as well....i thought it was the best bond film iv seen in a while..partly because there wasnt many gadgets in it (only really the mini revival kit in his car lol) but that was the whole point of the film...its meant 2 show the beginning of bond career..which is why the killing he does in the film are so messy as opposed 2 the later dated films with the perfected killing skills...plus the whole story was based on the poker game in the book...so y not in the film? and lets remember its a remake so they didnt wanna change 2 much from the old film...but wanted 2 bring the characteristics of the book back into the story...personally i think its a great film

2007-01-12 07:37:36 Grisel-Osterwise wrote:

No, you're not.
I loved it, by the way...

2007-01-12 07:39:47 Rosario-Marjorie wrote: i agree it was rubbish, and as for mr james bond himself he didnt look like a james bond to me

2007-01-12 07:37:25 Heriberto-Chappel wrote: I agree with you. He was brilliant in the part but the film itself wasnt great at all. The whole thing was basically a bunch of men sitting around a poker table acting hard...