Author Topic: Four reasons you should go see "Casino Royale"  (Read 33284 times)

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: Four reasons you should go see "Casino Royale"
« Reply #50 on: November 27, 2006, 08:56:32 pm »
btw, did any one see D Craig in Infamouse (http://imdb.com/title/tt0420609/). I'm not sure I could take another movie about Capote, but this one is suppose to be superior. It did go down a different path, taking the relationship between Capote and Perry (played by Criag) toward a romantic one.

Ooh!  Pick me!  Pick me!  I saw it.  I don't know that I'd say it was superior to "Capote," but it was as good or nearly as good in different ways.  For one, it delved quite a bit more into Perry's character.  And Harper Lee's.  And as much as I still hold "Crash" against her, Sandra Bullock was really wonderful as the latter.  Totally believable in the part, and I don't think all that much of her acting one way or the other usually.  I mean, she's OK, but she always seems to be just being herself.  Not this time.  Not at all.

Daniel Craig is virtually unrecognizable as Perry.  He wears dark brown contact lenses, and lemme tell ya, obscuring the color and light in those eyes makes him a completely different looking person.  Not unattractive - but just not - Daniel Craig.  He does a very good American accent, too - probably the most flawless I've heard from anyone across the pond.

And you're right, Nipith - it's definitely a more romantic angle this time than was taken in "Capote" which makes it all the more disturbing, to me, how much so Capote really uses him to get his story.
No more beans!

Offline Lumière

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,283
Re: Four reasons you should go see "Casino Royale"
« Reply #51 on: November 27, 2006, 09:36:31 pm »
Ooh!  Pick me!  Pick me!  I saw it.  I don't know that I'd say it was superior to "Capote," but it was as good or nearly as good in different ways.  For one, it delved quite a bit more into Perry's character.  And Harper Lee's.  And as much as I still hold "Crash" against her, Sandra Bullock was really wonderful as the latter.  Totally believable in the part, and I don't think all that much of her acting one way or the other usually.  I mean, she's OK, but she always seems to be just being herself.  Not this time.  Not at all.

When did it open in North America?


Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: Four reasons you should go see "Casino Royale"
« Reply #52 on: November 27, 2006, 09:39:28 pm »
When did it open in North America?

Oh, geez, lemme see...  I remember I had to drive a little bit to the arthouse theater to see it, and it was in its last week at the time.  I think it was in late September/early October.  It never opened "wide" - if it had, it would have played in the 20-theater conglomeration/abomination in the center of town.  It never did.  Too bad.  I think an awful lot of folks missed a really good movie and some tremendous performances.
No more beans!

Offline Lumière

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,283
Re: Four reasons you should go see "Casino Royale"
« Reply #53 on: November 27, 2006, 09:46:01 pm »
Cheers Barb!

I wonder why it didn't open wide ..  I don't even remember seeing it playing in my local theatre!
I guess I'll be waiting for the DVD!


Offline Lumière

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,283
Re: Four reasons you should go see "Casino Royale"
« Reply #54 on: December 05, 2006, 03:34:42 pm »
Do the Bumpity bump ..




Offline Lumière

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,283
Re: Four reasons you should go see "Casino Royale"
« Reply #55 on: December 05, 2006, 03:35:54 pm »
Just Because I like looking at his eyes ..   8)





Offline David

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,097
Re: Four reasons you should go see "Casino Royale"
« Reply #56 on: December 05, 2006, 05:17:47 pm »
WARNING! Spoilers


OK  I finally went and saw it today.     It was good.   Not spectacular, but good.

Definately noticed how the opening credits didn't have the usual naked ladies in it.   That was refreshing.

Footchase/construction site scene was excellent.

Did notice the authentic TSA uniforms in the Airport scene, but the screening proceedures were all wrong.    They would have ran that guys keys thru the Xray and seen the Improvised explosive device.   

Special effects were excellent thru out the film.   

As usual, the film was set in beautiful locations.    I loved the big Villa at the very end of the movie.   Or was that a castle?   It was huge.   And lake side, thats always a nice touch.

The Poker game went too long.

The ending was predictable.  You know that James may get the girl, but he never gets to keep them. 

Oh yeah,  the bad guy was creepy, but his death was too quick and painless. 

And how the heck could Bond have had sex so quickly after that torture?    I'm still squirming after that.

Overall a good film.   It did seem kinda long though.

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: Four reasons you should go see "Casino Royale"
« Reply #57 on: December 05, 2006, 06:04:10 pm »
Do the Bumpity bump ..



That's not all I'd like to do with him, but it's a good start... 
No more beans!

Offline Lumière

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,283
Re: Four reasons you should go see "Casino Royale"
« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2006, 06:32:27 pm »
That's not all I'd like to do with him, but it's a good start... 

 Bumping not enough for you eh, Barb? !   ;D


Fine, here's another shameless .. bump and grind ..   8)

« Last Edit: December 05, 2006, 06:36:16 pm by Lucise »


Offline Lumière

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,283
Re: Four reasons you should go see "Casino Royale"
« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2006, 06:48:57 pm »
The dude with the tear-duct malfunction problem!    :P