Daniel Craig Forum

Информация о пользователе

Привет, Гость! Войдите или зарегистрируйтесь.


Вы здесь » Daniel Craig Forum » Фильмы. Movies » Казино Рояль / Casino Royale (2006)


Казино Рояль / Casino Royale (2006)

Сообщений 241 страница 270 из 467

241

Ну выбери с другими пропорциями :) или покажи, какую фотку хочешь я тебе сделаю в размер, чтобы было пропорционально.

242

Вика,
проверенный годами способ.
Открываешь Paint, устанавливаешь размер листа в размер обоев (у кого как - 600 на 800 или 1024 на 768, а то и больше), вставляешь куда-нить (левее-правее, выше-ниже) полюбившееся фото, всё остальное заливаешь приятным для глаза и подходящим к фото цветом.
Хотя, конечно, Фотошоп рулит намного больше =)

243

pinkhorse а в Фотошопе что именно делать?

244

Вика написал(а):

pinkhorse а в Фотошопе что именно делать?

приблизительно то же самое  :D

245

там просто можно более органично вписать одно в другое =)

246

незнаю было?

Having spent a considerable amount of time over the years thinking and writing about the Bond legend, I don't mind admitting that I've had a devil of a time since this past November, trying to figure out exactly where Daniel Craig and Casino Royale fit into the almost mythical, iconic James Bond canon. Watching this supposedly radical revamped reboot of the franchise, there are so many instances of back-and-forth "yes, that's right," and "no, that's completely wrong," elements and sequences in the film, that by the end of its exhausting, too-long 144 minute running time, I wasn't exactly entertained as much as I was a nervous wreck. Unfortunately, deep flaws in the conception and execution of Casino Royale keep it from being one of the great works of the Bond filmography.

http://photofile.ru/photo/daniel_craig/2370706/large/46405724.jpg

The main plot point of Casino Royale stays relatively close to Ian Fleming's original Casino Royale, the first novel in the James Bond book series. Bond (Daniel Craig), an agent with MI6, earns his "OO" (double O), license to kill by going to Prague and executing (rather messily) his initial contact man, and a money-stealing rogue agent working for "M," the head of the "OO" section in London. In Mbale, Uganda, the mysterious Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) has brought together Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), an investor and gambler, with "freedom fighter" Steven Obanno (Isaach De Bankole), in a scheme for Le Chiffre to invest Obanno's money to further fund terrorist activities. What Obanno doesn't know is that despite his demand to Le Chiffre that there be no risk to his investment, Le Chiffre plans on selling short all his stock in a new super air bus airplane, in the hopes of recouping huge gains when he blows up the plane, with the help of fellow terrorists Alex Dimitrios (Simon Abkarian) and Carlos (Claudio Santamaria), on its maiden voyage.

James Bond stumbles onto the bare bones of the plot when he apprehends suspected bomb maker Mollaka (Sebastien Foucan) in Madagascar. Assassinating Mollaka in spectacular fashion inside the Nambutu Embassy, Bond is now on the run for this international incident. Breaking into M's home, Bond is told by M that his ego will get him into trouble, and that he is a "blunt instrument" to be used by her at her discretion, and that she can't, at this moment, trust him. Told by M to hide out somewhere, Bond travels to the Bahamas, where he bests Dimitrios at poker (and wins his 1964 Astin Martin – right out of Goldfinger), while getting information from Dimitrios' wife, Solange (Caterina Murino), concerning his whereabouts. In Miami, Bond kills Dimitrios, and foils Carlos' plan to blow up the air bus. Returning to the Bahamas, Bond is met (rather inexplicably) by M, who fills him in on the rest of Le Chiffre's plot. Le Chiffre plans on recouping his losses on the air bus plan by playing in a high-stakes poker game at Casino Royale, in Montenegro. Bond, determined by M to be the best card player at MI6, is given the assignment of breaking Le Chiffre at the poker table, thereby exposing Le Chiffre to his clients who will want his head for losing their money. Then, Le Chiffre will be taken in by MI6, and "turned" for his secrets.

Accompanying Bond to Montenegro is Vesper Lynn (Eva Green) from Her Majesty's Treasury Department. She will bankroll Bond, depending on if she believes he's doing well enough at the tables to beat Le Chiffre. Disregarding his cover (Bond's ego on display again), Bond blatantly baits Le Chiffre at the tables, letting him know who he is, while trying to beat the unstoppable gambler. With the help of shady contact Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), Bond tries to negotiate his way around the high-stakes game, but eventually loses all his money to Le Chiffre. When Vesper refuses to pony up any more money for Bond, James finds backing from fellow player and "a brother from Langley," CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), who believes Bond has what it takes to ultimately beat Le Chiffre. When Bond does clean out Le Chiffre, he doesn't count on being captured by Le Chiffre, and tortured (a particularly nasty beating to his genitals, right out of Fleming's book) to find out where his gambling winnings were deposited. Will Bond ultimately triumph over Le Chiffre, and leave the Service to live with Vesper?

When discussing each Bond film's individual worth, the first point of contention, at least among fans, usually stems from the viewer's take on the actor playing Bond. There are those who grew up with Sean Connery, and who absolutely refuse to see anyone else in the role. Many kids who experienced Roger Moore as their first 007 can't see the appeal of Connery, and on it goes. I've never had that trouble. I'm open to the role being recast. I saw Connery and Moore play Bond in the theatres, and both brought their own unique appeal to the role. George Lazenby, who only did one shot as Bond in the series' best film, (oh boy, here come the emails) On Her Majesty's Secret Service was also a great Bond. I wasn't too terribly impressed with Timothy Dalton, and the less said about Pierce Brosnan the better. But I don't have an ingrained prejudice against any new actor coming along and playing my James Bond.

That being said, what the hell do I do with Daniel Craig? I've seen Craig before in other roles, and he's a gifted, intense actor. However, and this may sound superficial, he just doesn't look the part (even the casting director on one of the documentaries makes a slip, joking that she never thought of Craig as Bond -- she seems to imply that he would have been better as one of the villains). Certainly Craig has to be the most fit, ripped Bond we've ever had on screen; he looks tough enough to really take on another spy in a fight. But there is something so closed- off about his face, so scrunched down and tied off, with his small, bright blue eyes, and oddly arranged features, that it's impossible for me to take him seriously as a man who could cause every woman to deliberately turn their head, to look at him and stare. That is, after all, the very character, the very essence of James Bond – both in the books and in the movies. This is a man who, according to the lyrics of Thunderball, can get any woman he wants. And every woman, in turn, wants him. Yes, the Bond in this incarnation of Casino Royale is supposed to be emotionally closed off, but that doesn't mean the actor has to be, as well. He can let us in, if he chooses to. But Craig is locked down so tight here it's difficult to know what's more torture for him: getting his genitals knocked around by Le Chiffre, or playing Bond. I know that Craig said in some interviews prior to the release of the film that widespread protests about his looks had hurt him. But this is, after all, James Bond. It's a mythical, iconic character that is the supreme embodiment of every Western man's male fantasy figure of sex and violence. Bond, in books and films, is the toughest, as well as the most desirable, man on the planet. He's a superhero not only in the field, but also in the bedroom, and if we want that secret audience identification to work in the theatres, the actor playing him had better measure up to that ridiculous ideal.

http://photofile.ru/photo/daniel_craig/2370706/large/46405725.jpg

Craig's confusing appeal (tough as nails, but frankly, odd looking) as Bond reflects the schizo nature of the film itself. I heard much talk during the production of the film that the producers wanted to return to the hard line of the books for this reboot of the series – and I immediately smelled trouble. I'm not sure that returning the film series to the tone of the Fleming books was the best idea. After all, Fleming would have been the first one to privately admit that his spy stories were essentially sado-masochistic fantasy potboilers that owed much more to Mickey Spillane than to Graham Greene. These novels were entertainments, not serious works of literature, but the producers of Casino Royale treat the source material as if it were genuine Greek tragedy. It's almost as if the producers (and they've been with the series for decades) are embarrassed by the comic-book nature of some of the earlier films, and they're bound and determined to squelch out any fun from these new ones. As Barbara Brocolli says on one of the documentaries included on this disc, "The world has changed a lot. It's a more serious world. And we expect our heroes to, I think, fight the battles with better judgement and more responsibility, and with less frivolity." God, does that mean Bond's mandate now comes from the U.N.? I've never heard a more pretentious load of crap in my life -- particularly when you're talking about something so inherently fun as James Bond. I'm pretty sure that if her father, Cubby Brocolli, the real originator of the film series and a guy who knew how to entertain audiences in a gloriously frivolous way, had heard nonsense like that come out of one of his screenwriters, he would have booted him right off the picture -- immediately. If this serious world needs anything right now, Ms. Brocolli, it's a little frivolity, particularly in our male fantasy figure supreme, James Bond.

Perhaps the producers forgot that we were already treated to a "return to the books" mentality for previous Bond films? Certainly Timothy Dalton's tenure was marked by that specific goal – and it didn't work with audiences (which had a lot to do with Dalton's miscasting). Why, in heaven's name, does Bond have to be so serious now? I don't think anyone is asking to go back to the days of A View to a Kill, but can't we, the audience, have just a little fun with Bond's adventures here? The central romance doesn't work, partly because Eva Green is such an enervated actress, but also because their scenes together are pitched at the tempo of Tristan and Iseult. Where's the carnal abandon, the sensual pleasure that Fleming so expertly alluded to in his story of "mad love" between Bond and Vesper? With her little girl voice (and that flukey "English" accent that somehow sounds by way of Warsaw) and blank stare, Green utterly fails to register as the girl that tames Bond (if you want to see a real woman believably tame Bond, watch Diana Rigg's heartbreaking performance as Bond's wife in On Her Majesty's Secret Service). This is Bond's great romance? Director Martin Campbell can't convince us of that anymore than he can make us believe that Bond somehow gives up on Her Majesty's Secret Service because he was tortured. That whole subplot is so vaguely alluded to (there's never any mention of what he had to endure in his recovery, or if it "changed" him), that we almost miss it before it's gone. No one discusses it; not Bond, not Vesper. Only the unintentionally funny line, "I'm leaving with what little I have left," comes close to discussing this seminal (please forgive me again) moment in Bond's life.

Casino Royale tries to have it both ways, by giving us some big set pieces that are meant to satisfy our baser action yearnings, but then we have to "pay" for them with large chunks of dialogue in turgid, faux-dramatic scenes, delivered in somber tones, all about the meaning of love, duty and ego. I don't need the Bond films for large mediations on "ego" and "love" and "duty." If I want that, I'll read le Carre. The Connery and Moore Bonds did what they did because they liked it: pure sensual abandon. The black and white opening of the film seems to indicate a hyper-realistic level of violence that you don't normal see in a Bond film. And I was ready for it; finally, after Brosnan's pretty-boy reign, we have a Bond that enjoys killing. But that's soon followed by a ridiculous chase scene in Madagascar with Bond and Sebastien Foucan involved in some "free running" nonsense (with the discreet help of some CGI) all over a construction site -- a joyless excercise in logistics which plays rather like the silly later Moore films. More long, long dialogue scenes follow, and then we're treated to a badly staged Miami sequence where Bond battles Claudio Santamaria in a truck, a scene which seems to be taken right out of Licence to Kill. Casino Royale is constantly like that: here's a bone to you action-loving yokels, and here's some warmed-over Graham Greene for those of you who are embarrassed to be watching a mere piffle like a James Bond movie.

http://photofile.ru/photo/daniel_craig/2370706/large/46405729.jpg

Perhaps most distressing of all in Casino Royale is the single holdover from the previous Bond films: Judi Dench as M. I had no qualms, back when she first showed up as M in GoldenEye, in saying that her inclusion as Bond's boss was a horribly mistake for the series. And I still feel the same way today (but obviously, after hearing Barbara Brocolli talk about "responsibility" and "judgement," the Bond films aren't made for men anymore). Why should I, as a loyal Bond fan, need to hear dialogue from Dench that castigated the character I love, calling Bond among other things, a "misogynist dinosaur" (a line from GoldenEye, and an attitude that carries right over into Casino Royale, as evidenced by Dench's and producer Barbara Brocolli's own comments in Casino Royale's featurette). I thought that was one of the pleasure of going to see a Bond film – to see the gratuitous sex and violence, to revel in Bond's carefree attitude towards women, guns, drink, good food, gambling, and most sensuous of all -- death. This is, as I've said before, male fantasy time. I'm not looking for a dressing down and a lecture from Oprah when I go see Agent 007. Not only is it apparent, particularly here in Casino Royale, that her role is being beefed up to satisfy Dame Dench, it's distorting the M character beyond all recognition. M would never go out into the field to give Bond info that he could have gotten from any researcher, as she does here in Casino Royale, nor would Bond have to constantly rely on M for all the endless exposition in the film, either, to keep him up to speed.

That being said, how are we to disassociate Dench's previous turns as M, in Casino Royale? After all, this is a prequel, if you will, and M and Bond are supposedly new to each other here. But Dench's M still carries over a powerful distaste for Bond's aggressive, essentially "male" manner (hence all the lectures on "ego" she gives him), so we're treated to more disapproving looks from Dench (it's obvious she still thinks of him as a "misogynist dinosaur"). The problem with casting M as a woman is that it totally subverts the original intention of Bond and M's relationship in the books and previous movies. M's surrogate "father" role was tenuous, at best. Hardly looking out for Bond, crusty M knew what Bond could achieve and he let him do it -- but after first giving him a load of grief. M was a gigantic pain in the ass to 007; that's why Bond was always going off on his own, doing things his own way. He wasn't trying to prove anything to M, nor please him; in fact, Bond took supreme pleasure in pissing off M. But with Dench in the role, the dynamics have changed drastically. Bond now comes off as essentially a naughty little boy whose pranks are to be endured by disapproving, but ultimately indulgent, Mommy. There are constant shots of Dench giving Bond these winsome little half-smiles that say, "Everything is okay – Mummy's here," that totally undercut the ruthlessness of the Bond character. When the hell did Bond ever need a woman to tell him everything was okay? If you find that sexist or misogynist, so be it. As I wrote in my other Bond review for this site: keep your P.C. hands off Bond; get "sensitive" with some other franchise.

As for the nuts-and-bolts aspect of Casino Royale -- the violence, the real reason we go to see Bond films -- the action scenes are grave and somber, but in short supply. The hand-to-hand combat scenes in Casino Royale are tops, but frankly, there's just not enough action to keep the series' best-conditioned Bond busy. Fatally sinking Casino Royale is the main gambling sequence. Fleming, who could write about cards better than any other author, really grabbed you with his descriptions of baccarat chemin de fer, and the suspense that goes along with high-stakes gambling. But where is that sense of excitement in Casino Royale? A terribly drawn-out, and clumsily constructed sequence in the middle of the film, this casino sequence should be the highlight of the film, but instead, we're saddled with an unimaginative staging of poker, with no sense of strategy imparted by the director, on a set that frankly is unworthy of a Bond film. When I saw the private salon for this game on the big screen, I laughed out loud. Not only does it look like a bad Las Vegas gaming room, it's lit and shot in a most pedestrian manner. And if that's the way those salons look in real life, then make them look better for the movies – after all, that's what movies are for: for fantasy. Check out the casino in Thunderball and see the difference.

The whole movie suffers this way, from a cramped, dark production design that imparts no awe or "gee whiz" appreciation that "Bond look" designer Ken Adam effortlessly achieved (quite a shock here, too, coming from long-time Bond production designer Peter Lamont). Bond is supposed to inhabit a world we will likely never see, a world of luxury that he's not really entitled to enter either, except for the fact that he has a license to kill that grants him entrance to these forbidden pockets of excess. So where is that sense of scope in Casino Royale? It's frankly an ugly film to look at, with little or no sense of style to its lensing or compositions. Again, one gets the feeling that everyone involved didn't want "pretty pictures," that those big sets were somehow artistically "dishonest" in a world that now sees Bond's exploits as outlandish actions that need an apology. What a shame. I'll take the "dishonesty" of Blofeld's volcano lair in You Only Live Twice any day over the depressing, dark, small look of Casino Royale.

Okay, after that barrage of negativity, is there anything positive in Casino Royale? Yes, a few things. In no particular order, I did enjoy the performance of Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre. In no way over the top, Mikkelsen combined the right quantities of creepiness and psychosis to make a memorable, if small-scale Bondian villain. He has probably the best line in the movie; when Obanno asks Le Chiffre if he believes in God, Le Chiffre responds, "No. I believe in a reasonable rate of return," a line worthy of the best Bond villains. The opening credit sequence, resembling a computer game with Bond battling foes who explode into the various suits of playing cards, is a spectacular addition to the Bond series, and one that gets better with repeat viewings. As well, Chris Cornell's much-maligned theme song, You Know My Name really grows on you, having the proper Bondian riffs and sweep (as does co-song writer David Arnold's fine score), along with some evocative lyrics (Arm yourself because no one else here will save you. The odds will betray you. And I will replace you. You can't deny the prize, it may never fulfill you. It longs to kill you. Are you willing to die? The coldest blood runs through my veins; you know my name.). I think it's one of the best Bond themes, and combined with the sensational animated credit sequence, it's almost worth the price of admission alone.

http://photofile.ru/photo/daniel_craig/2370706/large/46405727.jpg

The DVD:

The Video:
The anamorphic, 2.40:1 widescreen video image for Casino Royale is bright, sharp and clear, with no artifacting or fuzz, and deep blacks that hold. It appears a little darker here than I remember it on the theatre screen, but that could have been a matter of projection at the theatre.

The Audio:
The Dolby Digital English 5.1 soundtrack blows your windows out; it's a very active mix, with some nice effects during the fight scenes and explosions. There's also a Spanish 5.1 mix, and a French Surround mix available. Subtitles are available in English, French and Spanish.

The Extras:
The extras for this Casino Royale two-disc release are a little on the skimpy side. I was surprised to see no commentary track on the movie itself. On disc two, there are a couple of interesting featurettes. Becoming Bond is a 25 minute look at the process of picking Craig as the new Bond, with some behind-the-scenes looks at the film's actual production. Some of Barbara Brocolli's statements might crack you up, particularly when you think about what's been left out of the documentary. James Bond: For Real is a fun 23 minute featurette on the stunts that were designed for the movie. Bond Girls are Forever is a 50 minute featurette that they used to show on AMC all the time, taking a look at all the Bond women, and their subsequent careers. It's a real hoot, especially when you hear the actresses trying desperately to denigrate the series, without getting themselves into hot water and kicked off the documentary. There's a music video for Chris Cornell's theme, You Know My Name, but the song works better with the animated credit sequence. And finally, there are some trailers for other films from Sony -- but none for Casino Royale. Brilliant.

Final Thoughts:
Even though Daniel Craig is miscast as Bond, and Casino Royale is a deeply flawed film, I've watched it three times now, and I'll probably catch it again. There's no way I'm not going to recommend Casino Royale, precisely because it is such an important step in the Bond film cycle. It's not one of the best Bonds, and it isn't one of the worst, but it's fascinating just for the crazy dynamics that are at work in it. Fans are going to want to buy it, and you should make up your own mind about Craig in the role. Who knows: he may be your new Sean Connery or Roger Moore. I'm recommending Casino Royale.

источник

247

ВЕТРЕННАЯ написал(а):

незнаю было?

не было, просто оно такое длинное  и на инглише, я не стала постить :)

248

ВЕТРЕННАЯ написал(а):

Even though Daniel Craig is miscast as Bond, and Casino Royale is a deeply flawed film

что-то мне уже расхотелось читать :D

249

Кому интересно, Дэниэл заработал за КР 1,5 млн фунтов, это около $2,896,000

250

A winning hand in Casino Royale
The new Bond gets back to the basics

By BRUCE WESTBROOK
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

Casino Royale doesn't just freshen a franchise. It reinvents it.

That owes much to Daniel Craig's bow as the first blond and blue-eyed James Bond. But it's also because this 21st Bond film accepts obligation to a "more serious world," as producer Barbara Broccoli declares on Casino Royale's new DVD.

"The world has changed a lot," she says. "It's a more serious world, and we expect our heroes to fight battles with better judgment, more responsibility and less frivolity."

That means ditching the one-liners, outlandish stunts and far-fetched plots that have made many Bond movies feel like lighthearted parodies. Although they've entertained, many stretched credibility even before the opening credits.

But Casino Royale gets back to the basics of creator Ian Fleming, who wrote the book on which it's based in 1953 as a tidy Cold War thriller.

The film is faithful to his story, while updating Bond's foe, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), to a money launderer for terrorists. This leads to a high-stakes poker game at the casino of the title, and to the best Bond romance (albeit one of the few) since 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Cast and crew assess such slants on two making-of featurettes. The 26-minute Becoming Bond shows how a tough Craig helped producers make a tough choice in casting, and the 24-minute James Bond: For Real explores the rigorous stunt work.

Also added are the cable special Bond Girls Are Forever, hosted by Olivia d'Abo, and Chris Cornell's music video for his edgy theme song, You Know My Name — and that's it.

Thus, a great film gets a sparse DVD, especially considering it's a two-disc set. Casino Royale likely will return in expanded form with director's commentary, extra footage and the like.

Until then, Becoming Bond is the best bonus. In interviews, Craig seems stoked for the challenge of proving cranky fans wrong and turning the "gentleman spy" of his predecessors into a more realistic, down-and-dirty guy.

Not to worry — he vividly passes that test. Ever since Sean Connery's brutal bout with Robert Shaw in a cramped train car in From Russia With Love, Bond has been impressive in close-quarters combat, and Craig raises the bar.

He also suffers, but he can dish it out like no Bond before. It's not about showboating but getting a nasty job done in a credible way. Action scenes are "as near to real as they can possibly be," Craig says in the stunt-focused featurette.

His Bond is fiercer and stronger in part because he's at his youngest. Casino Royale opens even before Bond has achieved his "00" license-to-kill status.

In effect, Bond's producers have rebooted the series much as Warner Bros. did two years ago with Batman Begins.

Yet this grittier Bond also has a heart, as shown in his romance with a rep for Her Majesty's Treasury, played by Eva Green. It's not substantiated enough, but for a series that's taken so much artistic license to thrill, let's cut it some slack for trying.

In short, this isn't your father's James Bond. Rather, it's more like your grandfather's Bond, restoring the driven, straight-faced spy who's more about rigorous duty than shaken martinis.

Bond is dead. Long live Bond.

Источник

251

Broccoli On The New Bond
18th March 2007

A graduate of Loyola University, Los Angeles, where she majored in motion picture and television communications, Barbara Broccoli has worked in the production and casting departments at EON Productions for many years. Together with her step-brother Michael G. Wilson, she produced "Casino Royale", the twenty first 007 adventure in the series, starring Daniel Craig and Eva Green.

Starting her career as an assistant director on "Octopussy" and "A View To A Kill", Barbara worked her way up to become associate producer on "The Living Daylights" and "Licence To Kill". She then went on to produce "GoldenEye", "Tomorrow Never Dies", "The World Is Not Enough" and "Die Another Day".

Broccoli recently spoke to FilmStew to discuss the making of "Casino Royale" and the casting of Daniel Craig in the lead role. Even though "Die Another Day" had enjoyed the largest box-office takings in the series' history in 2002, Broccoli & Wilson decided to take the franchise in a fresh new direction, and the successful of the latest film vindicated their bold approach.

"It's always a challenge because you sit down and you say, 'What journey are we going to take Bond on?'" she told FilmStew. "We were very lucky this time because we had the book and we basically just sat down, analyzed the book and thought, 'How are we going to adapt this for today?'" "I mean, it was written in 1953. I think the essence of the book is certainly in the screenplay, which is that the Le Chiffre character is banker to the world's terrorists. He is the one that enables all this money to be moved around, to fund all kinds of terrorist activity. I think that's very relevant today, because as we are all concerned about terrorists we're also concerned about how they are funded. So, strangely, it fit very well into a story that had been written in 1953. I think that the plots ARE complex, but it's supposed to be a mystery. You're supposed to be intrigued and try to figure out what Bond is up to as he's trying to unravel the mystery as well. And hopefully by the end of it you feel as if you sort of understand everything."

Some of the recent entries in the series, such as "The Living Daylights", have been noted for their complex plots, but there is no risk of the Bond films "dumbing down" to Hollywood. "I think when you make films you have to assume that people are intelligent," she argues. "I think, often, people do dumb down films too much. Audiences, I don't think, really like that. There's nothing better than when you go to a movie and, afterward, you're having your glass of wine or you're having your hot chocolate and you say, 'Why did he do that?' or 'Why does…' and you talk about it. That's something I think people like. It's a communal experience. I think people like to go to the movies and they like to talk about them and argue about them. That's part of the fun."

The most reported aspect of making Casino Royale was not the source material, the plot, the return to 007's roots or the gritty and realistic approach. Casting a new James bond created waves in the media before any decision had been finalised and anyone had seen Daniel Craig perform in the famous tuxedo.

"The REALITY was that Michael and I always wanted Daniel," she says. "He was our first choice from the get-go. The fact was we approached him and he said, 'Look, I'll consider it, but I'm not going to make a decision until I read a script.' So the time between giving him the script and announcing him was about three or four weeks. All of that other stuff was a lot of speculation. Obviously, we didn't know if he would do it, so we did meet a lot of people and we considered people, but the speculation was… dumbfounding to me. There was so much press going on, rumors about what we were doing that just were not true. We wanted him. He's the only person we offered the role to. He read the script and he agreed."

Casino Royale broke all box-office records for the Bond series around the world and work has now started on the 22nd installment, due out on November 7th 2008. Broccoli reflected on what her late father, Cubby, would have thought about Craig in the role. "I think he would love Daniel. When Daniel did that scene where he shoots the gun, I burst into tears because that's all I could think of, that 'I just wish my father was here to see him in this role.' Because I think he would have loved him."

Источник

252

http://danielcraig.2bb.ru/uploads/danielcraig/2_sm6.gif http://danielcraig.2bb.ru/uploads/danielcraig/2_sm6.gif http://danielcraig.2bb.ru/uploads/danielcraig/2_sm19.gif http://danielcraig.2bb.ru/uploads/danielcraig/2_sm19.gif http://danielcraig.2bb.ru/uploads/danielcraig/2_sm17.gif http://danielcraig.2bb.ru/uploads/danielcraig/2_sm26.gif

Ура я смеюсь и плачу сегодня 20 марта я приобрела ДВД диск Казино ройяль
вот такой
Личико
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1416/55261275iu8.jpg

Спинка

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/97/fgfdyn5.png

Отредактировано Balula (2007-03-20 23:58:16)

253

Balula написал(а):

Ура я смеюсь и плачу сегодня 20 марта я приобрела ДВД диск Казино ройяль

поздравляю!!!
ты же уже радовалась по этому поводу?! еще раз?!  :blink:  :D
чегой-то лицо и спинка больно одинаковые  :D

254

Сейчас порядок
А вот картинки с диска:Это ффильм 1.39м.б

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/6629/fdgfdbr2.png

А это бонус

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/7956/agfdzw5.png

255

Уф как я тяжело трудилась :heat:

все теперь и мне есть с кем спать и видеть сныhttp://danielcraig.2bb.ru/uploads/danielcraig/2_sm24.gif

Ветреннаяhttp://danielcraig.2bb.ru/uploads/danielcraig/2_sm3.gif

256

Balula написал(а):

Это ффильм 1.39м.б

шутишь... там не 1,36 Мб, а все 4 или 5 Мб  :D иногда и 8 бывает...

Balula написал(а):

А это бонус

оооо, вот если бы ты его могла переконвертить и выложить.....

257

Balula
противная

258

когда же у нас появится

259

ВЕТРЕННАЯ написал(а):

когда же у нас появится

Обещали,что вчера ( крайний срок 23 марта). Завтра зайду в магазин,проверю!

260

BetinaЗвеняите тетя перепутала в спешке и еще там на иврите черт это длина 139 мин :blush2:
:dntknw:

261

Ветренная написал Balula
противная

Да я такая издеваюсьhttp://danielcraig.2bb.ru/uploads/danielcraig/2_sm2.gif

262

Элен
наивная конечно может у вас в МСК у же поступил в проодажу
у нас сорри жопа полная и продавцы даже не в курске что он на 2 дисках с бонусами

263

ВЕТРЕННАЯСделайте копию и показывайте какой должен быть :good:

264

Не ну я рыдаю ,смотрю и слезами обливаюсь уже второй день, какое качество звук ,голоС ну теперь на форуме две ненормальные одна спит с книгой вторая -с диском :cray:  :cray:  :kill:

265

Balula, представь траегедию: мне не довезла подруга этот диск. А может посмотрела сама и не дает теперь, противная :mad:

266

nattaВруша твоя подруга здесь только 20 .03 началась продажа :bb:

267

Balula написал(а):

одна спит с книгой вторая -с диском

ну и как ?пришел

268

ВЕТРЕННАЯЯ до утра кино смотрела завтра должен прийти ждемс :D

269

Balula, ну все, спасибо за инфу! Во мне закипает Овенское бешенство :mad:
Вот   так на почве Крейга и выясняется, кто друг, а кто вдруг.

Отредактировано natta (2007-03-21 14:59:48)

270

nattaТока не убивай ее ты нам нужнее :D


Вы здесь » Daniel Craig Forum » Фильмы. Movies » Казино Рояль / Casino Royale (2006)