Reply With Quote
Even though the new bond looks like a bag and has blond hair, there are many good reviews. Some people actually think this is the best 007 movie yet.
or
???
Even though the new bond looks like a bag and has blond hair, there are many good reviews. Some people actually think this is the best 007 movie yet.
Anyone who thinks this is the best one yet haven't seen the others.
But as a Bond freak, I fully intend to see it.
hmmm... and you came to this conclusion how? since you haven't seen it. Sean Connery fan are you? Personally I'm not sure this will be the best yet, but I can damn well asure you that its going to be better than the Pierce Brosnan crap of the last 10 years.
the only good Brosnan Bond was the first one, GoldenEye. The scripts of all his others sucked ass. I liked the way Brosnan played the character, though. He just didn't have enough to work with most of the time.
I do think that Connery is (and obviously should be) the standard against which all Bonds are judged, but I have enjoyed the work of all of the Bond actors (yes, even Lazenby). I just think that with a body of work as large as the Bond series to claim that the latest is the best is a bit arbitrary. Especially given the fact that most movie reviewers only base their opinions on what they've seen lately.
Although I didn't particularly care for the current Bond in the only movie I've seen him in (Munich), I will give him the benefit of the doubt and trust that the filmmakers who have thus far cranked out Bond content that I have personally enjoyed know what they were doing when they picked this guy.
I will give you that. I also saw him in Tomb Raider, although he didn't do much there either. I'm just keeping an open mind hereWhat really worries me is the "no artifacts" rumor going around. Is it true that this Bond isn't going to have that many artifacts to work with as in the previous ones?
Its going to be weird
Well, Casino Royale was the first novel Sir Ian Fleming wrote featuring James Bond, and they were supposedly trying to stick as close to the novel as they could. Originally, Bond didn't have any gadgets other than his trusty Walther PPK.
I agree with you (except on the lazenby part... ewww.).
I feel obligated to watch as a die hard Bond fan, I hear the script is very very good. thats a plus. But I am not looking forward to that blonde ugly dude as bond. Not to mention all the other bonds were 6'2 or there around - this guy is 5'10, almost.
Hey... I'm 5'10Don't dash my dreams of becoming a succesfull box office spy!
I didn't say OHMSS was my favorite, but it had it's merits.
If there hadn't been all the buzz about what could have been, I'd probably o see this one.
But settling for Daniel Craig after getting my heart set on the rumors of Clive Owen taking over? Blech.
And, I still would LOVE to have seen the in-talks-for-years-but-never-got-off-the-ground Tarantino interpretation of Casino Royale, which would have been much closer in tone to the zany 60's film.
Clive Owen would have been bad ass as Bond.
And the zany 60's flick had nothing to do with the original book and I remember reading somewhere that Tarantino wanted to stick to the book like the current flick did. In fact I think Tarantino's interest is what sparked this Bond flick. I'd look it up, but I gotta crash. Damn working at 3 am.
Yes, I read that too. Seem to recall both rumors, actually.
But, since I love the campy 60's version (don't know why, I just do), that's the direction it would have been headed in my own little dream world.
gayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
The Bond franchise has fallen on hard times. That being said, the "new guy" usually gets some interest in his first film. People slow for car wrecks, too.
They supposedly replaced baccarat in this film with Texas Holdem Poker, though, and I'm not sure if that's a forgiveable offense. We'll see.
I saw Casino Royale last night.
Really good movie, and it's one of the best Bond movies ever made. Fully recommend it, a lot of unexpected happens in that movie. And it gives you a of a lot for PG-13.
goldeneye was cool, but the video game was even better - one of my top 5 video games of all time. they stuck so close to the story, and the 007 level was ridiculously difficult at times. my random two cents.
Are you trying to suggest you've actually seen all the connery and dalton etc bond movies?
IMO
Timothy Dalton > Sean Connery, but thats just me.
Im not totally thrilled with Daniel Craig, dude kinda looks a little too creepy for Bond, but it looks interesting so we will see.
btw, the switching from Baccarat to Poker, is just for modern day people.
I think if they said they were playing baccarat, the audience would look at the screen like it had a weird al yankovic sex tape playing.
I wouldn't write off Daniel Craig without seeing it first. While on the surface he seems like a Dalton-like emotionless/humorless s , if you saw him in Layer Cake, he has a dry wit that I think will work well for Bond.
Brosnon is a tough act to follow though. In my opinion, he was the best Bond of all of them.
Not all of them, but I'm telling you this one is pretty damn good. Of course, it's gonna be more modern with a better special effects. The plot is a little weird in Casino Royale, a lot of unexpected happens which sort of keeps it interesting and unpredictable to a certain extent.
He does look weird as , nothing like a real bond, but you should wait to actually see the movie. This Bond is pretty bad ass.Im not totally thrilled with Daniel Craig, dude kinda looks a little too creepy for Bond, but it looks interesting so we will see.
If you think this new Bond looks like a bag, wait until you see "Le Chiffre" or whoever he is in Casino Royale. He is a complete douch bag.
Last edited by ALVAREZ6; 11-18-2006 at 01:01 PM.
LOL
man i'd rather see The Prestige
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
