![]() Besides, one can't argue with a version of James Bond that can be enjoyed in only 51 minutes. Since this version does end differently from both the novel and the 2006 version of the film (and the 1967 film is "Casino Royale" is an even further deviation from the original story), losing the end would be a real tragedy for anyone examining how different cultures and times viewed Ian Fleming's iconic character. Without this lower quality footage, the ending would not exist. Look, at the Casino Royale torture scene, Bond can still make jokes at Le Chiffre telling. ![]() ![]() In response to several comments Ive seen over the day: Casino Royale was not the first Bond film to depict James Bond as a human who showed vulnerability and could falter or fail. One has to remember that this was once considered lost and footage was pieced together from two sources. View community ranking In the Top 5 of largest communities on Reddit. The only complaint from a viewers perspective is that there is a notable drop in video quality shortly before the end. Overall, the story is truer to the novel and seeing Barry Nelson's American "Jimmy" Bond is fascinating. There are some major liberties taken in this version of Casino Royale (most notably combining Vesper and Mathis into "Valerie Mathis," changing the torture scene, and switching up the nationalities of the characters) but very few of the changes can't be justified based on the format.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |