you cant kill off the villain with a mystery man and then have no explanation as to who he is. that was just awful.
ok im done.
I just saw it these eve, and was totally entertained. Loved the more rugged and rough Bond, and loved that opening chase sequence.
I also agree that the movie lags after above mentioned torture scene, but Martin, if you can't remember who the mystery man is who killed off the villain, you obviously weren't paying attention to the supporting characters from the get go, and sheds some light as to why you are nostalgic for the eye candy of the old series. I would say who it is, but I'm not going to spoil it.
I thought it was cool, I missed the fact there was no gadgets in it
What is with the "no gadgets" gripe?
What about the car glove box? What about the tracker in his arm and the equipment that installed and tested it? What about his super phone and mini tracker that he tracked the bleeding eye dude with? What about the mini ear communicators? What about the obligitory supercomuter box that the casino guy had? What about the fact that a real James Bond doesn't need a lot of gadgets. He follows the leads and kicks your fucking ass!!!!!!!!
I think a lot of people have a hard time using their imagination and they need the scene where he walks into the lab and has everything explained in detail only for the sake of the audience.
Can someone explained what happened at the end when Bond looks at the Vesper's phone on the boat...and then tracks down Mr. White and puts a slug in him? What was on the phone?
It said "To James" or "For James" and had the name "Mr. White" and his phone number. That's all James needs to track down a guy and put a slug in him.
ANOTHER SPOILER ALERT!!!
and in reference to my last post, Mr. White is the dude at the beginning of the film working with the African freedom fighters who gets Le Chiffre to hire the bombers. He is also dude who whacks Le Chiffre at end of said torture scene, because as he said they needed someone they could 'trust'.
I thought it was cool, I missed the fact there was no gadgets in it
What is with the "no gadgets" gripe?
What about the car glove box? What about the tracker in his arm and the equipment that installed and tested it? What about his super phone and mini tracker that he tracked the bleeding eye dude with? What about the mini ear communicators? What about the obligitory supercomuter box that the casino guy had? What about the fact that a real James Bond doesn't need a lot of gadgets. He follows the leads and kicks your fucking ass!!!!!!!!
I think a lot of people have a hard time using their imagination and they need the scene where he walks into the lab and has everything explained in detail only for the sake of the audience.
Yeah those were cool, but what about the wild n wacky Pen that dissolves steel? Some crazy ish like that! That's what I'm talking about. Maybe a pack of cards that shoots RaZoRs
That bleeding eye dude is pretty cool. He was an ill villain for sure.
I thought it was cool, I missed the fact there was no gadgets in it
What is with the "no gadgets" gripe?
What about the car glove box? What about the tracker in his arm and the equipment that installed and tested it? What about his super phone and mini tracker that he tracked the bleeding eye dude with? What about the mini ear communicators? What about the obligitory supercomuter box that the casino guy had? What about the fact that a real James Bond doesn't need a lot of gadgets. He follows the leads and kicks your fucking ass!!!!!!!!
I think a lot of people have a hard time using their imagination and they need the scene where he walks into the lab and has everything explained in detail only for the sake of the audience.
Yeah those were cool, but what about the wild n wacky Pen that dissolves steel? Some crazy ish like that! That's what I'm talking about. Maybe a pack of cards that shoots RaZoRs
That bleeding eye dude is pretty cool. He was an ill villain for sure.
Ehhh! THat's stuff is silly. Oh a metal pen with metal disolving fluid that doesn't disolve it self. Plus, it's always silly how the just happen to give him all the gadgets that he'll need like they could know what exact obsticals he'll have. I like the generic stuff better. A tracking device, a gun and a first aid kit!!!!! Now a Razor phone that shoots cards would be sweet!!!!!!!
In the book they were playing chemin de fer / baccarat. In the film they seemed to give in to current fads and made it Poker instead. Kinda
yeah i agree with you on that. arent ballers supposed to play baccarat?
anyway, i watched the george lazenby one 'on her majesty's secret svc' again and i think casino royale was modeled after that. bond is rugged and more physical but not at all invincible in it. it's also not so gadgety, mostly hand to hand combat, and has a heroine that dude sincerely falls for
Haven't seen it yet, but I'm going to ASAP for 3 reasons:
1. I'm a Bond fan 2. Unlike most others, I think Craig seems like a good choice (Owen would have been too) 3. To cheer for my countryman Mads Mikkelsen. He's one of my favorite local actors, and I hope he does a good job as Le Chiffre.
I just realized Mads also stars in "Pusher" which I just started watching.
I just realized Mads also stars in "Pusher" which I just started watching.
Yeah, the "Pusher" trilogy is . My favorite is #2 which actually puts focus on Mikkelsens character from the first movie. If you like those, make sure you pick up "Bleeder" by the same director (Winding Refn).
I just realized Mads also stars in "Pusher" which I just started watching.
Yeah, the "Pusher" trilogy is . My favorite is #2 which actually puts focus on Mikkelsens character from the first movie. If you like those, make sure you pick up "Bleeder" by the same director (Winding Refn).
Question: I wasn't really blown away by "Pusher." I thought it was ok for what it was but I don't have the desire to move onto the 2nd or 3rd films in the trilogy. Should I give Pusher 2 a chance if Pusher 1 didn't get me...hooked?
I just realized Mads also stars in "Pusher" which I just started watching.
Yeah, the "Pusher" trilogy is . My favorite is #2 which actually puts focus on Mikkelsens character from the first movie. If you like those, make sure you pick up "Bleeder" by the same director (Winding Refn).
I've seen the first two and have the third sitting at home right now. The first two are both excellent. Mads gets really into his character. So much so that when I saw his pics on imdb.com I was shocked that he looked like a normal person. His character in Pusher totally reminds me of a buddy I knew years ago. Both in their appearance and their ability to fuck up everything they'd do.
Question: I wasn't really blown away by "Pusher." I thought it was ok for what it was but I don't have the desire to move onto the 2nd or 3rd films in the trilogy. Should I give Pusher 2 a chance if Pusher 1 didn't get me...hooked?
Depends why you didn't like Pusher. Both are downers and filmed in similar styles but the story arc in 2 is much different. Whereas Pusher 1 was about a downward spiral Pusher 2 is about someone trying to claw their way out of a spiral. Certainly not a feel good movie although it ends on a slightly higher note than Pusher 1.
Question: I wasn't really blown away by "Pusher." I thought it was ok for what it was but I don't have the desire to move onto the 2nd or 3rd films in the trilogy. Should I give Pusher 2 a chance if Pusher 1 didn't get me...hooked?
Depends why you didn't like Pusher. Both are downers and filmed in similar styles but the story arc in 2 is much different. Whereas Pusher 1 was about a downward spiral Pusher 2 is about someone trying to claw their way out of a spiral. Certainly not a feel good movie although it ends on a slightly higher note than Pusher 1.
Yeah - I get that sense.
I thought "Pusher" was well made but I don't feel compelled to see more stories in the same style of arc.
The movie was entertaining. Didn't feel like a bond movie though. All I could think was, without M... it felt like i was watching the Bourne Identity pt. 3.
It was cool, but I can't say i'm feeling the new bond guy AT ALL.
in the end it was an good entertaining movie that didn't feel like a bond movie.
Too bad being loyal to Ian Fleming's book equates to not being a "Bond" movie.
I didn't miss the over the top gadgetry at all ... that stuff started to become a ridiculous distraction. They seldom added a real boost to the plot. And, as was mentioned above, its not like the movie was completely devoid of gadgetry.
And, thinking "practically", is M going to throw the dopest gadgets at a brand new 007?
This movie focused more on the character of James Bond. It is the first story, after all, and I think it succeeded in setting the table, so to speak. I enjoyed the psychological tension. I like how so much of the "battle" was over a game of cards, where Bond was forced to face his adversary eye to eye. And, after all the emotional trauma the character is put through, you can see how James Bond eventually becomes the cold, calculated spy guy. I guess, overall, the film was much more subtle than most of the recent Bonds.
Too bad being loyal to Ian Fleming's book equates to not being a "Bond" movie.
I didn't miss the over the top gadgetry at all ... that stuff started to become a ridiculous distraction. They seldom added a real boost to the plot. And, as was mentioned above, its not like the movie was completely devoid of gadgetry.
And, thinking "practically", is M going to throw the dopest gadgets at a brand new 007?
This movie focused more on the character of James Bond. It is the first story, after all, and I think it succeeded in setting the table, so to speak. I enjoyed the psychological tension. I like how so much of the "battle" was over a game of cards, where Bond was forced to face his adversary eye to eye. And, after all the emotional trauma the character is put through, you can see how James Bond eventually becomes the cold, calculated spy guy. I guess, overall, the film was much more subtle than most of the recent Bonds.
And, c'mon ... the intro chase scene was
I'm not saying it wasn't a bond story. I'm just in that group that didn't like the new guy. I liked the movie, it just didn't feel like I was watching James Bond, just some guy.
Too bad being loyal to Ian Fleming's book equates to not being a "Bond" movie.
I didn't miss the over the top gadgetry at all ... that stuff started to become a ridiculous distraction. They seldom added a real boost to the plot. And, as was mentioned above, its not like the movie was completely devoid of gadgetry.
And, thinking "practically", is M going to throw the dopest gadgets at a brand new 007?
This movie focused more on the character of James Bond. It is the first story, after all, and I think it succeeded in setting the table, so to speak. I enjoyed the psychological tension. I like how so much of the "battle" was over a game of cards, where Bond was forced to face his adversary eye to eye. And, after all the emotional trauma the character is put through, you can see how James Bond eventually becomes the cold, calculated spy guy. I guess, overall, the film was much more subtle than most of the recent Bonds.
And, c'mon ... the intro chase scene was
I'm not saying it wasn't a bond story. I'm just in that group that didn't like the new guy. I liked the movie, it just didn't feel like I was watching James Bond, just some guy.
I'm sure there is a group like this every time they change Bond guys.
Casino Royale was garbage (not that the first version was that great, either). They were playing poker for what seemed like an hour. Then the villain keeps wiping his eyes like he's got a skinned knee or something. The dude who played bond looked like a friggin' goon, not a british secret agent. all actors who play james bond MUST at least have a neck... the intro chase as decent, but not better than this : (after the first :30 you get the idea)
(try to ignore the fact that they could have shot this guy at any moment)
They were playing poker for what seemed like an hour.
As we've already pointed out, texas hold 'em may not be as Bondian as chemin de fer, but considering that the book was entirely centered around a card game, this shouldn't come as any big shock.
Here's another hint: The title of the book and the film was "Casino Royale".
Not a bad clip though I'd suggest that the French film (which, plot-wise was pretty "eh") is mostly borrowing from things like Tony Jaa's "Ong Bak" and Tsui Hark's "Time and Tide."
They were playing poker for what seemed like an hour.
As we've already pointed out, texas hold 'em may not be as Bondian as chemin de fer, but considering that the book was entirely centered around a card game, this shouldn't come as any big shock.
Here's another hint: The title of the book and the film was "Casino Royale".
yes, but it's also a Bond film, and it's also pegged as a blockbuster movie, so it's not out of the ordinary to expect the director take poetic license with a few explosions/gunshots that stray away from absolute fidelity of the plot of the book. this was craig's debut and i thought they would want to go bigger than they did. and the aston-martin was completely wasted. the db-9 wasn't even in a car chase for a minute before he flipped it over.
I think the card scene dragged on a little long too. What is this, "Maverick"?
That said, it wasn't unsufferable. And I could care less if the Aston Martin wasn't a major side character. I'm glad this new Bond stopped fetishizing the cars and gadgets. As many noted, that shit got to be so corny after a while.
Again, I think you both might be missing the point here. The card game was not simply a "scene" (technically it was several), it was the centerpiece of the entire plot! (and as far as I was concerned, the filmmakers all but skimped over it and chose to make it more of a second act bridge)
Done right, card games can work extremely well cinematically. In this case I think the producers got a bit nervous that a majority of the audience might not have been familiar enough with casino card games (hence the switch to the more popular poker), so they stretched out the tournament scenes and made sure there was some "real" action going on in between. I think that's telling of the producer's lack of trust in their audience's patience, and in both your cases, they appear to have been correct. Gone are the days of the early Bond films where a scene of chemin de fer will play out without a word of explaination. The audience was expected to know what was going on.
As an aside, the only place you'll see this today is in HK cinema, where there still exists a decades-old subgenre of "gambling" movies. Try to follow along with the big Mahjong tournament in "The Notorious 8" if you think Casino Royale was bad.
As an aside, the only place you'll see this today is in HK cinema, where there still exists a decades-old subgenre of "gambling" movies. Try to follow along with the big Mahjong tournament in "The Notorious 8" if you think Casino Royale was bad.
LOL! I can't even remember all the Chow Sing Chi gambling movies! Where the HK homies at? They know the deal.
Dope thread hijack time! Paul NIce and all HK movie heads.... How many late 80s early 90s HK gambling flicks can we name? I'll start........
Casino Raiders Casino Raiders 2 God of Gamblers God of Gamblers 2 All for the Winner Saint of Gamblers Saint of Gamblers 2 (God of Gamblers 3 back to Shanghai?)
These titles get confusing! LOL. I saw TOO many of these gambling movies.
They were playing poker for what seemed like an hour.
As we've already pointed out, texas hold 'em may not be as Bondian as chemin de fer, but considering that the book was entirely centered around a card game, this shouldn't come as any big shock.
Here's another hint: The title of the book and the film was "Casino Royale".
yes, but it's also a Bond film, and it's also pegged as a blockbuster movie, so it's not out of the ordinary to expect the director take poetic license with a few explosions/gunshots that stray away from absolute fidelity of the plot of the book. this was craig's debut and i thought they would want to go bigger than they did. and the aston-martin was completely wasted. the db-9 wasn't even in a car chase for a minute before he flipped it over.
Sound like you should be playing playstaion or something.
Your points are the whole of the problem with most >Hollywood< film these days that Blockbuster must = Dumbass Explosions
"Hell yeah - put more explosions and car-chases in - that will make it a better film every time....f*** the story and the script"
"godamn ...make it more easy to follow...people don't want to think about what they're watching"
"don't bother with stunt men - we can do that CGI sh**! "
....How many more gunshots and explosions did you actually need from that film ? Thought there was quite a bit of action...but also a decent plot that was actually slightly believable for a change in a Bond film.
As for this "doesn't look like a secret agent" - then I'm not sure what you mean. You think that people with a "license to kill" look like some pretty boy model off an aftershave advert ?
Bond's background is ex SAS.or similar commando ie.a hard as f**k bloke - who probably got his face stamped on playing rugby at public school
They were playing poker for what seemed like an hour.
As we've already pointed out, texas hold 'em may not be as Bondian as chemin de fer, but considering that the book was entirely centered around a card game, this shouldn't come as any big shock.
Here's another hint: The title of the book and the film was "Casino Royale".
yes, but it's also a Bond film, and it's also pegged as a blockbuster movie, so it's not out of the ordinary to expect the director take poetic license with a few explosions/gunshots that stray away from absolute fidelity of the plot of the book. this was craig's debut and i thought they would want to go bigger than they did. and the aston-martin was completely wasted. the db-9 wasn't even in a car chase for a minute before he flipped it over.
Sound like you should be playing playstaion or something.
Your points are the whole of the problem with most >Hollywood< film these days that Blockbuster must = Dumbass Explosions
"Hell yeah - put more explosions and car-chases in - that will make it a better film every time....f*** the story and the script"
"godamn ...make it more easy to follow...people don't want to think about what they're watching"
"don't bother with stunt men - we can do that CGI sh**! "
....How many more gunshots and explosions did you actually need from that film ? Thought there was quite a bit of action...but also a decent plot that was actually slightly believable for a change in a Bond film.
As for this "doesn't look like a secret agent" - then I'm not sure what you mean. You think that people with a "license to kill" look like some pretty boy model off an aftershave advert ?
Bond's background is ex SAS.or similar commando ie.a hard as f**k bloke - who probably got his face stamped on playing rugby at public school
it sounds like you should watch more PBS.
i didn't say it would make for a better movie, i said it would be more entertaining. when i walk into a Bond film, i'm not looking for Fellini, i'm looking for an escape from reality, some decent stunts, and a fly-ass bond girl.
explosions are par for the course with the bond movie franchise thus far. some scripts/books were better than others, but often there was a lot of eye candy.
Ronin was a "smart" movie, and it had one of the best car chase scenes. there can be a better balance achieved.
and you seem to be implying that Casino Royale was an amazing script with really layered and elaborate plot twists. it simply wasn't.
it's very hard to have it both ways. if you want to make it a "think" film, write a better script and have robert altman direct it; if you want to make it an action movie, put in more stunts than the first 10 minutes.
if you compare connery, moore, brosnan, etc. to this latest dude, he's like a body-builder compared to them. the whole point of bond is he uses intellect and training to wreck shit, not the ability to bench 600lbs.
Comments
I saw happy feet the next day thought, shit was ill
I just saw it these eve, and was totally entertained. Loved the more rugged and rough Bond, and loved that opening chase sequence.
I also agree that the movie lags after above mentioned torture scene, but Martin, if you can't remember who the mystery man is who killed off the villain, you obviously weren't paying attention to the supporting characters from the get go, and sheds some light as to why you are nostalgic for the eye candy of the old series. I would say who it is, but I'm not going to spoil it.
What is with the "no gadgets" gripe?
What about the car glove box?
What about the tracker in his arm and the equipment that installed and tested it?
What about his super phone and mini tracker that he tracked the bleeding eye dude with?
What about the mini ear communicators?
What about the obligitory supercomuter box that the casino guy had?
What about the fact that a real James Bond doesn't need a lot of gadgets. He follows the leads and kicks your fucking ass!!!!!!!!
I think a lot of people have a hard time using their imagination and they need the scene where he walks into the lab and has everything explained in detail only for the sake of the audience.
ANOTHER SPOILER ALERT!!!
and in reference to my last post, Mr. White is the dude at the beginning of the film working with the African freedom fighters who gets Le Chiffre to hire the bombers. He is also dude who whacks Le Chiffre at end of said torture scene, because as he said they needed someone they could 'trust'.
Yeah those were cool, but what about the wild n wacky Pen that dissolves steel? Some crazy ish like that! That's what I'm talking about. Maybe a pack of cards that shoots RaZoRs
That bleeding eye dude is pretty cool. He was an ill villain for sure.
Ehhh! THat's stuff is silly. Oh a metal pen with metal disolving fluid that doesn't disolve it self. Plus, it's always silly how the just happen to give him all the gadgets that he'll need like they could know what exact obsticals he'll have. I like the generic stuff better. A tracking device, a gun and a first aid kit!!!!!
yeah i agree with you on that. arent ballers supposed to play baccarat?
anyway, i watched the george lazenby one 'on her majesty's secret svc' again and i think casino royale was modeled after that. bond is rugged and more physical but not at all invincible in it. it's also not so gadgety, mostly hand to hand combat, and has a heroine that dude sincerely falls for
I just realized Mads also stars in "Pusher" which I just started watching.
Yeah, the "Pusher" trilogy is
Question: I wasn't really blown away by "Pusher." I thought it was ok for what it was but I don't have the desire to move onto the 2nd or 3rd films in the trilogy. Should I give Pusher 2 a chance if Pusher 1 didn't get me...hooked?
I've seen the first two and have the third sitting at home right now. The first two are both excellent. Mads gets really into his character. So much so that when I saw his pics on imdb.com I was shocked that he looked like a normal person. His character in Pusher totally reminds me of a buddy I knew years ago. Both in their appearance and their ability to fuck up everything they'd do.
Depends why you didn't like Pusher. Both are downers and filmed in similar styles but the story arc in 2 is much different. Whereas Pusher 1 was about a downward spiral Pusher 2 is about someone trying to claw their way out of a spiral. Certainly not a feel good movie although it ends on a slightly higher note than Pusher 1.
Yeah - I get that sense.
I thought "Pusher" was well made but I don't feel compelled to see more stories in the same style of arc.
with both O and Paul on this one...
Dope movie -- intense, full of twists, action-packed... This ain't your mom's 007...
It was cool, but I can't say i'm feeling the new bond guy AT ALL.
in the end it was an good entertaining movie that didn't feel like a bond movie.
I didn't miss the over the top gadgetry at all ... that stuff started to become a ridiculous distraction. They seldom added a real boost to the plot. And, as was mentioned above, its not like the movie was completely devoid of gadgetry.
And, thinking "practically", is M going to throw the dopest gadgets at a brand new 007?
This movie focused more on the character of James Bond. It is the first story, after all, and I think it succeeded in setting the table, so to speak. I enjoyed the psychological tension. I like how so much of the "battle" was over a game of cards, where Bond was forced to face his adversary eye to eye. And, after all the emotional trauma the character is put through, you can see how James Bond eventually becomes the cold, calculated spy guy. I guess, overall, the film was much more subtle than most of the recent Bonds.
And, c'mon ... the intro chase scene was
I'm not saying it wasn't a bond story. I'm just in that group that didn't like the new guy. I liked the movie, it just didn't feel like I was watching James Bond, just some guy.
I'm sure there is a group like this every time they change Bond guys.
Then you get over it.
Casino Royale was garbage (not that the first version was that great, either). They were playing poker for what seemed like an hour. Then the villain keeps wiping his eyes like he's got a skinned knee or something. The dude who played bond looked like a friggin' goon, not a british secret agent. all actors who play james bond MUST at least have a neck...
the intro chase as decent, but not better than this : (after the first :30 you get the idea)
(try to ignore the fact that they could have shot this guy at any moment)
As we've already pointed out, texas hold 'em may not be as Bondian as chemin de fer, but considering that the book was entirely centered around a card game, this shouldn't come as any big shock.
Here's another hint:
The title of the book and the film was "Casino Royale".
yes, but it's also a Bond film, and it's also pegged as a blockbuster movie, so it's not out of the ordinary to expect the director take poetic license with a few explosions/gunshots that stray away from absolute fidelity of the plot of the book. this was craig's debut and i thought they would want to go bigger than they did. and the aston-martin was completely wasted. the db-9 wasn't even in a car chase for a minute before he flipped it over.
That said, it wasn't unsufferable. And I could care less if the Aston Martin wasn't a major side character. I'm glad this new Bond stopped fetishizing the cars and gadgets. As many noted, that shit got to be so corny after a while.
The card game was not simply a "scene" (technically it was several), it was the centerpiece of the entire plot!
(and as far as I was concerned, the filmmakers all but skimped over it and chose to make it more of a second act bridge)
Done right, card games can work extremely well cinematically.
In this case I think the producers got a bit nervous that a majority of the audience might not have been familiar enough with casino card games (hence the switch to the more popular poker), so they stretched out the tournament scenes and made sure there was some "real" action going on in between.
I think that's telling of the producer's lack of trust in their audience's patience, and in both your cases, they appear to have been correct.
Gone are the days of the early Bond films where a scene of chemin de fer will play out without a word of explaination. The audience was expected to know what was going on.
As an aside, the only place you'll see this today is in HK cinema, where there still exists a decades-old subgenre of "gambling" movies.
Try to follow along with the big Mahjong tournament in "The Notorious 8" if you think Casino Royale was bad.
LOL! I can't even remember all the Chow Sing Chi gambling movies! Where the HK homies at? They know the deal.
Casino Raiders
Casino Raiders 2
God of Gamblers
God of Gamblers 2
All for the Winner
Saint of Gamblers
Saint of Gamblers 2 (God of Gamblers 3 back to Shanghai?)
These titles get confusing! LOL. I saw TOO many of these gambling movies.
Well you know I gotta start out with the SB's....
early Wong Jing badness...
then of course the more recent "Kung Fu Hustle" spoofs (yup, a spoof of a spoof), "Kung Fu Mahjong 1 and 2"!!!!!
Sound like you should be playing playstaion or something.
Your points are the whole of the problem with most >Hollywood< film these days
that Blockbuster must = Dumbass Explosions
"Hell yeah - put more explosions and car-chases in - that will make it a better film every time....f*** the story and the script"
"godamn ...make it more easy to follow...people don't want to think about what they're watching"
"don't bother with stunt men - we can do that CGI sh**! "
....How many more gunshots and explosions did you actually need from that film ? Thought there was quite a bit of action...but also a decent plot that was actually slightly believable for a change in a Bond film.
As for this "doesn't look like a secret agent" - then I'm not sure what you mean. You think that people with a "license to kill" look like some pretty boy model off an aftershave advert ?
Bond's background is ex SAS.or similar commando ie.a hard as f**k bloke - who probably got his face stamped on playing rugby at public school
the movie was aiight
bond was cut
it was aiight
fodder
it sounds like you should watch more PBS.
i didn't say it would make for a better movie, i said it would be more entertaining. when i walk into a Bond film, i'm not looking for Fellini, i'm looking for an escape from reality, some decent stunts, and a fly-ass bond girl.
explosions are par for the course with the bond movie franchise thus far. some scripts/books were better than others, but often there was a lot of eye candy.
Ronin was a "smart" movie, and it had one of the best car chase scenes. there can be a better balance achieved.
and you seem to be implying that Casino Royale was an amazing script with really layered and elaborate plot twists. it simply wasn't.
it's very hard to have it both ways. if you want to make it a "think" film, write a better script and have robert altman direct it; if you want to make it an action movie, put in more stunts than the first 10 minutes.
if you compare connery, moore, brosnan, etc. to this latest dude, he's like a body-builder compared to them. the whole point of bond is he uses intellect and training to wreck shit, not the ability to bench 600lbs.