Elimination game.

[Catman]

Our mission now is to kill Casino Royale!!!!!!!!!!!

We need more people!

6.Casino Royale [5]-1

t:

 

[jimmy]

Sweet.

 

[ThrawnZA]

I'm sitting at the airport, waiting to catch the 6:00 AM shuttle, so I'm updating this way earlier than usual.

1.Dr.No [1]-1
2.From Russia With Love [16]+1
3.Goldfinger [23]
4.Thunderball [0]-1
5.On Her Majesty's Secret Service [12]
6.Casino Royale [6]+1

Thunderball eliminated.

 

[jimmy]

Dr. No is gonna get killed off before Casino Royale?

What the cock is wrong with you guys? I don't think you've read an Ian Fleming novel in your lives. Casino Royale is a good movie; but it's nowhere near the greatness that is Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger.

 

[Catman]

1.Dr.No [2] +1
2.From Russia With Love [16]
3.Goldfinger [24] +1
4.On Her Majesty's Secret Service [11] -1
5.Casino Royale [5] -1

 

[George Lazenby]

Dr. No is gonna get killed off before Casino Royale?

Hopefully.

I don't think you've read an Ian Fleming novel in your lives. Casino Royale is a good movie; but it's nowhere near the greatness that is Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger.

According to Raymond Benson, noted Ian Fleming literary scholar and James Bond novelist-- someone whose opinion certainly holds a high degree of weight on this particular issue-- Casino Royale is the first Bond movie ever to completely and faithfully capture the spirit of Ian Fleming's James Bond. Admittedly Benson himself ranks the Connery Bonds above Casino Royale, but he admits-- and I think rightly so-- that it's nostalgia (as opposed to greatness) that prompts us to hold the early movies on an untouchable pedestal. How many times have you seen Casino Royale? Watch it again if you've only seen it once-- it really is an awesome movie. I will still rank it below (what I perceive to be) the three definitive classic-era Bonds-- but I can't deny that someone who doesn't do this certainly can't be said to be out of touch with reality.

 

[George Lazenby]

1.Dr.No [1] -1
2.From Russia With Love [16]
3.Goldfinger [23] -1
4.On Her Majesty's Secret Service [12] +1
5.Casino Royale [6] +1

Eliminated

6) Thunderball
7) The Spy Who Loved Me
8) Tomorrow Never Dies
9) You Only Live Twice
10) Goldeneye
11) Diamonds are Forever
12) License to Kill
13) For Your Eyes Only
14) The World is Not Enough
15) The Man with the Golden Gun
16) Live and Let Die
17) Octopussy
18) The Living Daylights
19) Die Another Day
20) Moonraker
21) A View to a Kill

This is actually a pretty decently ordered list.

 

[Catman]

it's nostalgia (as opposed to greatness)

His theory is flawed. James Bond movies have been around since 1962. Connery is only nostalgic if you grew up in the `60s. And, none of those people are in this message board. Most of us grew up with the combo of Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnon. And, even then the Connery films stick out.

 

[George Lazenby]

James Bond movies have been around since 1962. Connery is only nostalgic if you grew up in the `60s. And, none of those people are in this message board. Most of us grew up with the combo of Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan. And, even then the Connery films stick out.

Connery's Bond movies have been on a pedestal for so long (over 40 years now) that they have attained an aura of invincibility. There is no standard of evaluation that I can see-- apart from that of classic status-- that so clearly distinguishes the best of the early Bonds from the latest one.

 

[ThrawnZA]

Jimmy, I have read the Fleming books. That's why I love Casino Royale.

Think about it: Casino Royale is supposed to be a Bond film that goes back to Fleming roots; The film, however, deviates amazingly far from Fleming's novel of the same name. The only one of few similarities that is even close to the novel is the title -- that is to say that, in the novel Bond drives a Bently, and in the film he drives an Aston Martin (producers tried to use the 1964 DB5 to get fans of the movies to think that it was, indeed, back to Bond roots, but Bond does not drive an Aston Martin in the Casino Royale novel); Bond also uses a Beretta in the novel, but in the film it's a Walther P99; The card game is Baccarat in the novel, but switched out for Texas Hold 'em; Another example: Bond gets tortured with a carpet beater in the Book, but this, also, is changed for an anchor rope.

With regards to your earlier post about the film straying from the book - of course it will! The plot of the book, as is, is outdated. The film does manage, to an astounding degree, to capture the character of Bond as Fleming envisioned him. Your statement that Bond uses a Baretta in the book, as opposed to the Walther, the reference to Bond driving a Bentley as opposed to an Aston Martin, or being tortured with a carpet beater and not a rope, is kind of grasping at straws. It's irrelevant to whether the film is good or not. And while I personally know how Chemin de Fer works (having read about it in CR and found out how to play it), I guarantee you the majority of people out there would look at a Chemin de Fer game and go "WTH?" If you dislike CR because of these reasons... well, that's your prerogative. Personally, I think you're letting your love of the books get in the way of the enjoyment of a great film, but that's just my opinion, and you're obviously quite entitled to differ. I love both the books and the films (well, some more than others.) After OHMSS, I feel that the literary and cinematic Bond took place in two different universes. Dalton did a lot to recitfy that, only to have Die Another Day (and to some extent TND) completely throw that out of the window. CR does take Bond back to its' roots, and that's why, as a film, I love it.

That said, as soon as Dr. No is eliminated (and thus only the final 4 of GF, FRWL, OHMSS and CR remains), even I'll admit CR doesn't rank higher than the other films, and I'll vote to remove it. But CR is a better film than Dr. No, in my opinion.

 

[Mr Jide]

His theory is flawed. James Bond movies have been around since 1962. Connery is only nostalgic if you grew up in the `60s. And, none of those people are in this message board. Most of us grew up with the combo of Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnon. And, even then the Connery films stick out.

Exactly! I was born in '85 and first started watching Bond films from 1990. That being said, Connery's movies imo are the best simply because they're better made movies overall that. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it.

 

[Catman]

Exactly! I was born in '85 and first started watching Bond films from 1990. That being said, Connery's movies imo are the best simply because they're better made movies overall that. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it.

You can say Connery films are nostalgic but ever since the `70s no child has grew up with Connery alone. We all grew up with a bunch of actors in the role. And, the fact that Connery sticks out says a lot about his interpretation and the quality of those films.

 

[George Lazenby]

You can say Connery films are nostalgic but ever since the `70s no child has grew up with Connery alone. We all grew up with a bunch of actors in the role. And, the fact that Connery sticks out says a lot about his interpretation and the quality of those films.

I am not denying that-- what I am putting forward is that, apart from a fondness for things old and classic, I can think of no reason to rank Casino Royale below the classic 60s era Bond films. As someone who appreciates the old films as much as anyone I feel confident expressing the opinion that what was great about them (and Connery) has been echoed once again-- to a very high degree-- with the new film (and Daniel Craig). Say what you want about all the films post Lazenby up to and including Brosnan-- I am arguing that Casino Royale captured perfectly the spirit (ie., everything that made them great) of the early movies. They really did nail it with this latest film.

 

[George Lazenby]

Reposted as its own post.

 

[jimmy]

1.Dr.No [2]+1
2.From Russia With Love [16]
3.Goldfinger [24]+1
4.On Her Majesty's Secret Service [11]-1
5.Casino Royale [5]-1

Haterz!

 

[George Lazenby]

Haterz!

The only thing getting hated on is the reluctance of some to live in the now.t:

 

[Catman]

I am not denying that-- what I am putting forward is that, apart from a fondness for things old and classic, I can think of no reason to rank Casino Royale below the classic 60s era Bond films.

I don't have fondness for old and classic. I have fondess for what I consider great movies. Years don't matter to me. Quality is whats important. And, I just prefer the Connery films. I think they're better made.

I am arguing that Casino Royale captured perfectly the spirit (ie., everything that made them great) of the early movies. They really did nail it with this latest film.

I disagree. I love Casino Royale, but it was too grounded for my tastes. I love the over-the-top and fantasy oriented James Bond. Like, in Goldfinger, the plot was to break into Fort Knox. Its nonsense but you just love it. And, the scene with Bond strapped to the table with the laser beam heading to slice him up. Its stupid if you think about it. Goldfinger you could have just blown his brains out, but instead he's gonna slice him up with a laser beam. The scene and the performances are so perfect that you just have to love it.

 

[ThrawnZA]

6:18 AM - flying back home after yesterday (finally!)

1.Dr.No [1]-1
2.From Russia With Love [16]
3.Goldfinger [23]-1
4.On Her Majesty's Secret Service [12]+1
5.Casino Royale [6]+1

 

[ThrawnZA]

Argh. Posted twice.

 

[Road Warrior]

1.Dr.No [2] +1
2.From Russia With Love [16]
3.Goldfinger [24] +1
4.On Her Majesty's Secret Service [11] -1
5.Casino Royale [5] -1

 

[ThrawnZA]

I disagree. I love Casino Royale, but it was too grounded for my tastes. I love the over-the-top and fantasy oriented James Bond.

Which explains a lot. I loved Casino Royale because it was grounded, whereas Goldfinger started the somewhat deplorable trend of over the top henchmen and pontificating villians with giant lasers. Goldfinger did it better than all subsequent films, however.

 

[jimmy]

Which explains a lot. I loved Casino Royale because it was grounded, whereas Goldfinger started the somewhat deplorable trend of over the top henchmen and pontificating villians with giant lasers. Goldfinger did it better than all subsequent films, however.

I like Casino Royale more than all of Roger Moore's films, but I don't even want to compare it with the first three films in the series.

Also, I don't think Daniel Craig has the James Bond look; although he is a damn good actor.

 

[Catman]

1.Dr.No [3] +1
2.From Russia With Love [16]
3.Goldfinger [25] +1
4.On Her Majesty's Secret Service [10] -1
5.Casino Royale [4] -1

 

[Catman]

Which explains a lot.

Don't get me wrong I love realistic films. I love films that reflect society. I love films that I can relate to. Yet when it comes to James Bond and other characters that are similar I like them to be what they are...fantasy! James Bond is male fantasy not some guy you can bump into on the street.

 

[George Lazenby]

1.Dr.No [2] -1
2.From Russia With Love [16]
3.Goldfinger [24] -1
4.On Her Majesty's Secret Service [11] +1
5.Casino Royale [5] +1