This is topic Casino Royale 2006 in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001201

---

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 11-14-2006, 08:54 PM:
 
Well, just previewed Casino Royale and I must say it's better than I dare hope. Dark undertones, snappy editing and realistic action scenes. Good story line (though does get bogged down a bit in the casino). Best of all no silly gadgets, except for the Sony product placement (not an invisible car in sight! Excuse the pun).
Daneil Craig fills the role admirably and even Eva Green palys a role befitting of her persona (Don't want to spiol the plot).
Neat twists and turns and a few jumpy moments make this well worth seeing, and from a cynic like me that's saying something.
British Cinema at its best (even if it is a Sony production!)
Watch it and enjoy!
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-14-2006, 09:27 PM:
 
I am actually looking forward to this a little bit. I think Craig was an excellent and very promising choice for a "back-to-the-roots" Bond approach. Yet, can we expect this to be a really good movie - from the same director who perpetrated "The Legend of Zorro" on the world? You seem to have enjoyed it. Let's see...
 

---

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 11-14-2006, 09:36 PM:
 
Yeah he really fits the bill. No silly stuff either but dry timly humour
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-14-2006, 09:43 PM:
 
Nearly back-to-Sean Connery Bond. Very excellent. The original "Casino Royale" was a disappointment; but not this one. Back-to-basics Bond, indeed. Great world locales, and hot women; what's not to like? Louis
 

---

Posted by Ross Oba (Member # 3433) on 11-14-2006, 10:12 PM:
 
If the tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes holds up well, this could very well be the best reviewed wide release of the year.

I am looking forward to this. Looks like they have finally found a real actor to play Bond. No disrepect to the originals.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-14-2006, 10:15 PM:
 
He was great in Layer Cake, and sort of Bond like in Munich as an Israeli assassin, so can't wait to see him in this.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-14-2006, 11:25 PM:
 
Oh no-o-o-o-o-o......Film-Techers like it, it's sure to flop!
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-17-2006, 04:54 AM:
 
Not bad for a bond movie. The plot seemed to be all over the place ad it was basically a 2.5 hour long movie about a poker game.

One question, is Texas hold'em the only poker game anyone plays anymore?
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 11-17-2006, 12:07 PM:
 
It's hard to say if Daniel Craig is the best Bond, because his character is so different from the others. But CASINO ROYALE is certainly the best Bond film ever made. It's pretty damn faithful to the book, which I appreciate, since it's my favorite book. But where it deviates (aside from the action set pieces), it seems that they are laying the groundwork for the new mythology which (hopefully) they'll build on in the next movie. Assuming it's done right, the next one should be even better.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 11-17-2006, 11:38 PM:
 


It's excellent. Daniel Craig was a great choice.
 

---

Posted by Edwin Sheldon (Member # 4001) on 11-18-2006, 11:37 AM:
 
A Bond movie, getting good reviews? That oughta put a burr up Pierce's ass.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 11-18-2006, 02:48 PM:
 
Can you imagine how good it would've been if they had let Quentin Tarantino make it?
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-18-2006, 05:03 PM:
 
Just saw this with my son (Bond fans, the both of us). EXCELLENT! We thoroughly enjoyed the driving action and hard-turn plot twists.

We also enjoyed the character interplay in the casino sequences.

Craig definitely fits the bill!


 

---

Posted by John Caswell (Member # 4024) on 11-18-2006, 06:33 PM:
 
Previewed it on Wednesday night, and loved it too! I really wasn't too sure about the choice of Daniel Craig as Bond beforehand (and not just because he's blonde, which seemed to be the main detraction for a lot of people), but after seeing him in action, have to agree he's one of the best bonds, definitely up there with Connery.

A lot more realistic, decent amount of violence, some good cheesy lines of dialogue (the 'little finger' bit, etc.), and a great Bond theme (really loved this tune). Was so glad it wasn't another CGI/Gadget fest.

Bond is most certainly back.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-19-2006, 12:36 AM:
 
Today 11/18/2006, 7:20PM, Cinemark 17 in Springfield, House #8, Christie 2K DLP on a 40' silver screen. Full house.

The movie is very good, a successful reimagining of Bond and the best Bond film in a LONG time. Kinda long, but it all paid off in the end. Daniel Craig is fine. Thank god they went with realistic action pieces and minimal computer graphics (that I could tell anyway).

I give the movie 4 stars out of 5.

DLP Presentation:

I got there plenty early knowing there would be a sellout. Noticed the port glass had tape all over it to mask the image. Then about 30 mins before showtime someone fired up the projector, froze the image on a green band, removed the tape, and adjusted the image to properly fill the screen. Who knows what it must have looked like for the previous show(s). (They thoughtfully dispensed with FirstLook too.)

This is the first live-action show in DLP for me, and I was underwhelmed. It might have a lot to do with the silver screen. It reminds me of watching an older rear-projection TV, with uneven brightness if you're off to one side like I was. The colors are off, a little undersaturated maybe, just doesn't seem right (could partly be the "print" I suppose). The image is naturally "rock-steady" but that's really the best I can say for it. That and no dirt. Overall though in this particular example it's not even as good as a decent 35mm print. Bah. Given the choice between this specific digital setup and film, I'll take film from now on.

Also, the image brightness flickered, like bad xenon. And the silver screen is still "mottled", kind of blotchy looking, like it was for Monster House 3D.

Other than that one problem, Mrs. Kennedy, did you enjoy the parade?
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-19-2006, 11:06 AM:
 
Saw it (again) last night. This Bond is good; it does, however, owe a lot to the Bourne series in tone. Louis
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-19-2006, 01:15 PM:
 
Location: Carmike 8, Lawton, OK
Auditorium: #4 THX
Format: Christie DLP, 2048 X 858 pixels (JPEG 2000), LPCM 5.1 audio

Best James Bond movie ever? Hmm...no. I don't agree with Mike Schindler on that.

However, I will say Casino Royale is the best James Bond movie release in nearly 30 years. And it's by far the best action movie I've seen all year.

The Spy Who Loved Me was released in 1977, and was the best of Roger Moore's efforts in playing Bond. Great movie, interesting characters -particularly villains, "his name is Jaws, he kills people." Goldfinger and From Russia With Love will probably always be the ground-breaking titans of the Bond franchise.

Having been increasingly disappointed with the past few Bond movies I went in with somewhat low expectations. Casino Royale director Martin Campbell also directed Goldeneye, the only one of the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies I liked at all. Casino Royale is a lot better.

This movie works because the filmmakers made at least a decent effort of being faithful to Ian Flemming's first Bond novel. This show is a little more grounded in realism and does away with many of the campy conventions in many previous Bond movies. Calling this the "Batman Begins of Bond movies" is a fair description.

Daniel Craig put in a very good performance in this re-imagining of James Bond. The Bond role will always be most identified with Sean Connery, but Craig revives the Connery tradition in a way and brings a lot of new things to the role. Daniel Craig may be the most talented actor to ever assume the Bond role. His version of James Bond is a ferocious ass kicker (like Connery), but also humanized at the same time. He watches cost and loss come from his actions and mistakes. You sense his anger and regret burning underneath. He gets hurt in fights to the death. He has to change his blood-soaked tuxedo and wash the blood out of cuts to his face and scalp. Bond regains his composure by chugging a glass of whiskey. When Daniel Craig does this you get the sense his Bond character has been through this kind of hell many times before. He's all business when he beats someone up or kills him and doesn't have a smirky one-liner to deliver when the deed is done. He's part sadist and masochist, but that comes with the territory of his dangerous job.

My only complaints with Casino Royale are somewhat minor. The movie runs about 15 to 20 minutes too long. That R&R sequence near the film's end could have been trimmed a great deal to improve the pace. The Sony VAIO product placements are too obvious. And then there's the card game itself. In Flemming's novel, Baccarat is played. The movie changes it to high stakes poker, Texas Hold 'Em style. I imagine the filmmakers made that change since Texas Hold 'Em is an easier game for audiences to follow -and is currently enjoying a huge fad.

Projection
Like David Stambaugh, I saw this in "D-Cinema." The theater where I viewed the movie doesn't have any silver screens (yet). The image brightness was very good, flicker free and completely even from corner to corner. Image sharpness was decent, but I did notice the pixel grid faintly on a tracking shot in the movie's black and white beginning. The movie was shot in Super35 and then put through a digital intermediate step by Framestore CFC. I couldn't find whether the lab did a 4K version or simply stayed with the 2K standard.

Audio
Pretty good, but seemed a bit hot and trebly -a lot like the mix for Goldeneye. The show is mixed pretty loud, but didn't seem very aggressive with the surrounds. There's a couple good car-by effects and some other stuff.

Opening Title Sequence
I loved it. This is a title sequence that actually feels relevant to the movie. It runs wild with the graphics of a card deck, turning its symbols into lethal weapons. I love sexy silhouettes of naked ladies holding guns and frolicking around as much as anyone. But that shtick was getting really old and damned goofy like a dance routine from a bad 70's variety show. Now we have rotoscoped silhouettes of men fighting, dying and falling to their doom to be shattered into diamonds, hearts, clubs or spades. The look is all very retro and new at the same time. It looked like a team of designers had a lot of fun with Illustrator, After Effects and a high end Discreet/Autodesk Inferno system.

The song, You Know My Name, performed by Chris Cornell (Soundgarden, Audioslave) is decent, but isn't in the same class as Goldfinger, Carly Simon's Nobody Does It Better or McCartney's Live and Let Die. The song may gain a good amount of popularity for being the background on those great opening titles.

I really want to see this movie again. 3.75 stars out of 4. And if I had to round up or down, I'd just say 4 stars out of 4. Great show.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-19-2006, 08:34 PM:
 
Agreed, the audio seemed too hot, not a great mix. Just ok.

The title sequence graphics are very memorable, right up there with the best of (the late) Maurice Binder's signature work for earlier Bond movies. I found the theme song utterly forgettable though.

Unfortunately I doubt the DLP system can be fairly evaluated on a silver screen (at least, not on this one). However I didn't notice any jaggies or other digital anomalies. Sharpness and detail-wise, what I saw was comparable to 35mm on the same screen. I was sitting roughly 2 screen-heights back.
 

---

Posted by Blaine Young (Member # 3992) on 11-19-2006, 10:03 PM:
 
No one will have a problem forgetting the theme song. It isn't even included on the soundtrack album.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 11-19-2006, 10:58 PM:
 
It wouldn't have mattered what medium you projected with digital or film. A silver screen is a bad idea for exactly what David mentioned in his posts.
 

---

Posted by Jason Winn (Member # 3568) on 11-20-2006, 10:17 AM:
 
I am a huge Bond fan, and I have to say Casino Royale is one of the best Bond movies ever! It ranks right up there with From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and The Spy who Loved Me. It was definitely a lot better than that crapfest, Die Another Day. This is what a Bond movie should be. No silly gadgets, no cheesy one-liners, no rediculous cartoonish villains, and no crappy CGI effects. This movie was more realistic, darker, and grittier. At first, I was a little skeptical about Daniel Craig as Bond, but he delivered an amazing performance.

I loved the opening black and white sequence where Bond kills his first two victims. That set the tone for the rest of the movie. Then, the main title sequence was amazing! It had a retro look to it. It reminded me of the 1960s Bond movies. Of course, the action scenes were some of the best of any Bond movie. The chase scene through the construction site had me on the edge of my seat.

I loved this movie. I can't wait to see it again. Just like Goldeneye revitalized the Bond franchise for the 1990s, Casino Royale revitalized the Bond franchise for the 21st century! If this is the new direction the Bond series is going in, I can't wait for the next one!
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-20-2006, 05:12 PM:
 
Not bad for a Bond movie, I haven't liked any others but I did not get bored with this one.

Edit: oops, I had just come back from vacation and didn't realize I had already reviewed this one.

[ 11-21-2006, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Chris Hipp ]
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-21-2006, 02:58 AM:
 
I dug it moderately. Not nearly as much as many others seemed to do, but then I am not really into the whole Bond thing anyway. But I appreciated that they did indeed take this "back to the roots" approach.
I found Craig very good, but maybe just a little colorless. The character is supposed to be somewhat elusive, we don't know much about him except that he comes from a rough, non-upper class background and has made it to where he is just by sheer determination and scrupulousness. Craig brings this across very well, though. His Bond is not just a dressman.

SPOILERS

I liked that he screwed up a little bit here and there and almost died from the poison.

But I also thought that the movie didn't have a good rhythm somewhow. There were some parts which sagged somewhat, and then suddenly there was a lot of frenetic action for a long time.

I would also have liked it if they had had the opening classic view through the gun barrel (yes, that round thing with the spirals is a rifled gun barrel pointing at him). They did build that in into the end of the pre-story, though, OK.

I would actually have liked at least a few gadgets, not an invisible car or nonsense like that, but some nice high tech toys. Well, at least he had the defibrillator, and that came in handy... Where was Q? Is he not in the original novel(s)?

There is one glaring mistake in the movie though: in the Bahamas, Bond drives a Ford. Come on, Bond has more taste than that...
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-22-2006, 12:18 AM:
 
I dunno, the fact that he drove a Ford means that I could actually drive a car that James Bond does now. The crowd's reaction to seeing the new Aston Martin was a resounding, "daaaaamn".

I think this movie succeeds on all levels that a movie like this should, and that includes the Bond film. I've been waiting to see a darker, grittier Bond for years, and I finally got one. Can't wait to see what they do with the series from here.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 11-23-2006, 02:11 AM:
 

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

Where was Q? Is he not in the original novel(s)

---

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

I liked that he screwed up a little bit here and there and almost died from the poison.

---

quote: Aaron Garman

---

I dunno, the fact that he drove a Ford means that I could actually drive a car that James Bond does now.

---

quote: Mike Heenan

---

I was taken aback by the Ford but then thought it was right considering he's fairly new and not "bond" yet, so to say.

---

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

glaring mistake

---

quote: Kyle Anderson

---

cardiac arrest no longer constitutes clinical death

---

??? since when? and why hasn't Wikipedia been updated

quote:

---

Clinical death occurs when the heartbeat and breathing have stopped. Since regular breathing is impossible when the heart is stopped, clinical death is synonymous with cardiac arrest or cardiac death.

---

quote: Jeremy Jorgenson

---

Fords have had an extensive history through the series.

---

The very first Mustang many people ever saw was the one driven by Tilly Masterson in GOLDFINGER. It was the first Mustang in Europe, sent specifically for the movie.

Doesn't Ford now own the Aston Martin company? It may be Lotus, but Ford owns at least one of the "Bond" car companies.
The most annoying auto product placement was in MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. I never knew there were so many AMC cars in Hong Kong, although it did allow for that cool barrel-roll jump.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-25-2006, 10:25 AM:
 
"Man With The Golden Gun" was largely filmed in and around Bangkok Thailand. I was living there at the time and the filming made the news in Bangkok.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 11-25-2006, 10:47 AM:
 
That's right! That chase with the jump was in Bangkok. My bad.

Did they have any AMC dealerships there, by any chance?
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 11-25-2006, 11:20 AM:
 
Nope! The "AMC Dealer" was created for the movie in the vacant ground floor of a downtown Bangkok office building. Any AMC cars on the road there (what few there might have been outside of the movie shoot!) were probably owned by US military personnel stationed in Thailand. There was a fairly large US presence in Thailand at that time, what with Vietnam still going on.

The Thai people in general seemed good-natured about how they and their country were depicted in the film, despite coming off as not the brightest bulbs. Needless to say the movie did boffo business in Thailand.
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 11-25-2006, 10:28 PM:
 
Fords not cool????

The Shelby Cobra never blew the Europeans off the track

And other Ford hot rods were not based on the Falcon chassis

Not that the '64-'65 Ford Falcon and Thunderbolt drag race funny cars equiped with the 427 SOHC "Cammer" never wiped GM and Mopar off the track!!!

Ford doens't own Jag???

I always love listning to blowhards like Mike Schaffer blow smoke when they don't know crap about cars!

And my folks had a 1974 AMC Hornet "232 straight 6" that they bought new and had until the late 1980's. What a hunk of crap! It was a rattle-cage and no matter what was done to adjust hinges, door locks and weatherstripping it was just a rattle cage. And the AC wa horrible...you could barely feel it...and in the Souther Arizona summer that was not fun! To make matters worse the engine compartment was a little roomy, and the distributor was mounted low on the side of the engine. You could never drive the car during a rainstorm as water on the road would easily drench the distributor from up-spray resulting in a stall...most prominent when going through intersections. The car was also very tempermental...any trip outside of Tucson city limits resulted in overheating, a radiator hose breaking or fan-belt problems...so any trip out of town included a huge spare parts kit, tools, anti-freeze, etc.!

K
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-25-2006, 11:50 PM:
 
I meant that as a joke, but maybe I was right, and Will wonderfully illustrated and elaborated on that. People obviously have different preferences when it comes to car, and it has apparently not occurred to Will that a character like Bond might or indeed should not have the same preferences as an Arizona dirt road racer. Thanks!
 

---

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 11-26-2006, 12:03 AM:
 
@ Jeremy:

Actually you're correct: "Clinical death" is the term used to define cardiac and pulmonary arrest; a term I misused - I meant biological death, the irreversible cessation of life. Must be idiots at Webster or something; dead is supposed to mean dead, not mostly dead, or not quite completely dead, right?

So "clinical death" would be what James experienced in the Aston Martin; the AED saved him from "biological death".
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-26-2006, 08:20 PM:
 
CINEMA: Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons, Sandy, UT
AUDITORIUM: 11
PRESENTATION: 35mm/DTS/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Playing a Dolby Digital trailer in a DTS room
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

The print moved overnight from another auditorium. I'm assuming THAT room was Dolby.

...So the movie ends, and...no, wait, there it goes...No...Okay, now? No. Now? No. What's going on here? Now? COME ON! THIS IS INSANE! Oh, great. Now we're getting a whole new subplot and...You're ending it THERE?!? WTF!!!

[ 11-27-2006, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Sam Graham ]
 

---

Posted by Steve Wilson (Member # 2411) on 11-26-2006, 10:00 PM:
 
I really liked this movie too, I would give it 3.5 out of 4 stars. Looking back at some old figures that I saw in the press. Brosnan was selling Very Well to have put him off the show, and probably deserved one more go around. However, when figures are ajusted for inflation, NO ONE beats Sean Connery!

Casino Royale will be watched time and time again, both at theaters at especially on HBO!
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 11-27-2006, 05:20 PM:
 
It appeared to me to be three seperate and almost distinct movies - each with different pacing and styles: (i) the two action set pieces in the first 50 minutes or so; (ii) the Flemingesque casino/card game & chair torture scene in the middle (from the book) and (iii) the rambling hodgepodge of whatever that was at the end.

Got to see it on vacation at a local plex in Florida which advertised DTS 6 track sound but the auditorium didn't even have any surround speakers.

[ 11-27-2006, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan M. Crist ]
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 11-30-2006, 03:51 PM:
 
Saw it at Muvico, City Place, West Palm Beach, FL.

Presentation was sharp though the sound dropped out a couple of times during the title song. I toured the mutliplex. It looks nice, but i can see some signs of maintenance neglect.

I liked the movie better than most Bond movies in the post Connery era. Still, I had higher expectations of it based on the fabulous buzz this was getting.

What I liked: Grittier action. No nonsense Bond. Casting of Daniel Craig.

I liked the scenery and lack of tacky gadgets.

What I didnt like:
Unbearable Chris Cornell song. Not as bad as the Sheryl Crow type songs in the past, but tedious nonetheless. .

NO TITTAYS!!! OK, so I didn't expect a full on Blame it On Rio level tittiness. But damn, not even a good side view of the tits or a nice look at some female's bare back. Bond shows more skin than Eva Green!! Heresy. The same Eva Green who showed it all in Dreamers. Hell, they didnt even show us some good T&A of the disposable bimbos early in the movie. I didn't expect Timothy Dalton level Bond chastity.

The distraught Bond towards the end reminded me a little of the distraught Cruise in MI2. Kind of annoying memory. But it was a minor nitpick considering Craig doesnt have a narcissistic vibe towards the camera like Cruise does.
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-04-2006, 01:32 PM:
 

quote: Steve Wilson

---

Brosnan was selling Very Well to have put him off the show, and probably deserved one more go around.

---

quote: Kara Tillotson

---

How do you think this would do as a second run this month?

---

..all depends of your market area. Some areas do nil to nothing with BOND films while others will bank more than one week with it.

Our area over here with the only discount (which we'll have to wait until the 2nd runs are done with it), we might do excellent bank with it due to the influx of teenagers and folks who are on a budget whom wants to get out for some cheap movie entertainment.

The big question I get though is when "Happy Feet" arrives at our 6 screen discount complex .....
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 02-12-2007, 02:12 AM:
 
This is the first Bond film that I have actually seen the whole way through. I have only caught bits and pieces from previous films. I'd have to say that I really enjoyed it. It felt slow in a lot of scenes but Daniel is so hot it didn't matter. The lead actress was just plain annoying but she made up for it in the last reel or so. I was expecting more action, just a tad more... but oh well its still worth watching.

I look forward to seeing more Bond films in the future, as long as they have Daniel starring them.

out of 5
 

---

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 02-12-2007, 02:25 AM:
 
I am with Jenifer. Its the first Bond flick I ever saw the whole way thru. Daniel was hot considering his age but the other actors and actress' were kinda lackluster in their performances. I dunno, Bond films are a little too chauvinistic for my taste. It was entertaining and by no means boring but I am not hard to please (there are only 2 movies I have ever seen in my life that I actually disliked). It also does not help that my ex was crazy about James Bond and I would have to listen to him rattle on and on about thoes damn films so even the title makes me think of my less than wonderful ex. The only reason I ever even saw it is cause it was part of a weekly film series at a performing arts center where I am trying to get the manager to let me in as a projectionist....
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-12-2007, 07:51 AM:
 
Tony, what are the 2 movies you disliked?
 

---

Posted by Tony L. Hernandez (Member # 3524) on 02-12-2007, 12:16 PM:
 
"Man on Fire"...I hated this one...for some reason, I found the violence VERY disturbing...I walked out of the theater for it. and the whole LOTR trilogy just bored me greatly. Nothing negative about those other than that...
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 02-12-2007, 11:34 PM:
 
I walked out on Man On Fire as well. It was a screening at my old job and I walked out about 15 minutes into it.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-15-2007, 02:41 AM:
 
I liked "Man On Fire" a lot. Actually, I watched that twice. I liked the non-Hollywood over-the-hill anti-hero not-continuously-grinning character Washington played ("like a big sad bear" in the words of the little girl), and I liked that

SPOILER

the movie doesn't have a "happy end".
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-18-2007, 05:23 AM:
 
Free rentals from the high-class Blockbuster chain of video stores enabled me to view this on DVD this fine evening. I must say that this seems the same as every other James Bond movie, only different. Daniel Craig isn't too bothersome, but why the hell does Judi Dench keep popping up in these movies? Somebody needs to tell her that nobody likes her and maybe she'll stay home next time. Whore. The plot was OK. Actually I didn't really care about the plot until it finally started, nearly an hour or so into the movie.

[SPOILERS!!! If you don't like spoilers, don't read!]

I loved the first hour which was mostly action and stuff. That was good. Then it is about some fucked-up boring ass poker game. Who plays poker like this? Mentally deficient people, maybe. Real men don't play cards. Real men play Pokemon. The editing in this sequence pissed me off. Here we are, and 007 comes back to the table for the first time after MURDERING people because they were not of his race, and ol' drippy eye says "You changed your shirt Mr. Bond. WTF?" Then it immediately cuts to brain-numbing scene of 007 and his bitch sitting in the shower fully clothed for no reason whatsoever. Then it immediately cuts back to the poker game where everyone is all dry and shit. WHAT. THE. FUCK? I hope whoever made the decision to include that scene hits an extra red light on the way home from work next Wednesday. And then maybe while he/she is sitting at the light, they can get arrested for editing while retarded.

For the next 4 or 5 hours we watch this lame ass poker game. Gee, I was so surprised at who won! Then we finally get to some action scenes, but they are all half-assed compared to the first hour with no running up the sides of buildings and the like. Also, why were there no space shuttles in this movie like other James Bond flicks? Unacceptable. The car wreck was really cool when he rolled that Ass-ton or whatever it was (I really don't give a shit about car makes and models). The ending was pretty stupid, but overall I'd say it was worth watching at least once.

out of 5.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-18-2007, 05:42 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

The editing in this sequence pissed me off. Here we are, and 007 comes back to the table for the first time after MURDERING people because they were not of his race, and ol' drippy eye says "You changed your shirt Mr. Bond. WTF?" Then it immediately cuts to brain-numbing scene of 007 and his bitch sitting in the shower fully clothed for no reason whatsoever. Then it immediately cuts back to the poker game where everyone is all dry and shit. WHAT. THE. FUCK?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Actually I didn't really care about the plot until it finally started, nearly an hour or so into the movie.

---

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

The "shower scene" is a flashback.

---

I was under the impression that it was the next break in the poker game. If it's not a flashback, it still feels too rushed. But if it is a flashback, then it doesn't make any sense, structurally.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-18-2007, 01:10 PM:
 
Joe's review cannot exist in this forum as the film has left theaters and is now on DVD, so therefore Joe must be severely punished by watching 24 hrs of poker with no interruption or bathroom breaks.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-18-2007, 01:44 PM:
 
It's still playing at the Brew & View here in Chicago.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-18-2007, 01:55 PM:
 
Well it's on DVD and he reviewed it from a DVD so...
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-18-2007, 06:06 PM:
 
But this is the "Movie Reviews" forum, not "Movies viewed at Movie Theaters Reviews" forum. I watch all of my movies on DVD because the technical presentation is better than any theater here in this town. Sure, I may be restricted to wimpy 480p right now, but the sound is much better than any theater here.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-18-2007, 06:23 PM:
 
To quote this Forums subtitle:

See what "reel" people have to say about the movies currently in theatrical run. (No video reviews please. See next forum.)
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-18-2007, 07:24 PM:
 
It would clutter the forum to have multiple reviews of each movie.

(PS - I'm reviewing the movie, not the DVD).
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-19-2007, 09:04 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-19-2007, 09:45 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-19-2007, 10:26 PM:
 
Aww, What the hell....


 

---