New James Bond

G

Gaga science

New member
Hi. I don't normally post on this forum, but does anyone know how long the new James Bond film is, and what is it like if anyone has seen it?Thanks in advance, Bombay
 
Hi I have literally just walked in the door having just gone to see it at the 'showcase' down the road.

All I will say is it is not really that good. Was very dissapointed overall as storyline very very poor, and weakest ever for a James Bond.

Even if you have seen Casino Royale like me it doesn't really make much sense especially the very last scene - as Quatum of Solice starts 20 Minutes on from Casino Royale Could of done with a few quick flash backs to help the viewer remember things that happened in Casino Royale.

However special effects overall were good and some decent action scenes, but that was not enough to save this movie. One of the worst ones since Timothy Dalton's.

Jury was out last time on Daniel Craig - this movie proves he is definitely no Bond. Bring back Pierce!
 
I don't understand this grudge you seem to bear against Brosnan. Almost every post in which you've mentioned him has had these petty swipes.

People may love Casino Royale, but few have forgotten that Goldeneye was a classic movie and still is. And I don't think that particular film would have really worked with Daniel Craig.
 
Completely disagree. Pierce Brosnan just exemplified bond, he was literally perfect for the role. I loved everyone one of his films and Goldeneye for me goes down as the best bond movie ever.

Casino Royale i have tried countless times to watch but i just cant stand daniel craig as bond. He is just is not james bond, he may stick to the Ian Fleming character but lets face it Bond has kind of moved away from the character fleming created. He is now suave, sophisticated, funny, dangerous and like a million other things mixed in. Daniel Craig is just dangerous that it, there is very little charm there and so he is just isnt bond.

I think Brosnan has gotten a lot of hassle for his films when they were very good. They went from literally amazing in Goldeneye to just sheer awesome nostalgia in Die Another Day.

I thik when it comes down to it there are two difinitive bonRAB, Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery.
 
Everyone coming out out the cinema was saying it was poor.

It was mainly the lack of any storyline that ruined it. It was so, so loose throughout it was unbelievable.

Basically the storyline was James bond getting revenge against the people who turned 'vesper' into a traitor. And literally that was it. No storyline literally just go after the bad guys and a bond girl was also going after one of the bad guys for a different reason.
 
All I will say is if anyone is thinking of gong to watch this. Watch the end of Casino Royale. Where Vesper betrays James Bond then drowns at the end in Venice and watch very, very, carefully at the drowning scene. Then the end of Quatum of Solice will make slightly more sense even though the ending is still rubbish and very very weak.

They tried to be clever but it didn't work for the casual viewers and even dieharRAB like me.
 
He's the Great Pretender of the Bond franchise.

Two thirRAB Roger Moore to one third Connery.

Plus he's physically puny when compared to the other BonRAB.

All this whinging about Daniel Craig not being right for the part.

At least he looks like he could beat someone up for real.
 
seriously though, you do need to let it go. Your endless postings on it got boring a while ago. And the Di(r)e Another Day joke is painfully unfully.

Your welcome to your opinion, it's just got a bit old.

Ps I'd say worse things about the anti Daniel Craig people
 
I am a huge Bond fan, I think my first Bond film was when I was about eight and loved them ever since but I think the franchise is more or less dead creatively-speaking. Whatever people say about Craig he is most definitely not Bond material, he wasn't even right for Casino Royale. Just to set the record straight, Paul Haggis, co-screenwriter of 2006's Casino Royale, said Bond was meant to be 28. Craig was 38!




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4256024.stm

The entire point of CR was Bond Begins starring Henry Cavill or Sam Worthington, both of the right age to be a 28 year old Bond. Craig got the role at the last moment due to Barbara Broccoli having doubts over Cavill and Worthington. But Craig was miscast as Bond in Casino Royale - Paul Haggis was writing for a much younger Bond actor.

And don't believe the nonsense about Craig being Fleming's James Bond. Fleming's Bond liked the good life, rich wine, casinos, girls, his beloved Bentley, he was sophisticated not just a stone killer. Craig's Bond has no sophistication and it's farcical to think he's like Fleming's Bond. If anything, Bond was an exaggerated version of Ian Fleming. Go check out some video interviews with Fleming - he's nothing like Craig. But my point is the franchise has run out of steam. It's apeing the Bourne franchise because it can't go self-parody, it did that with Die Another Day and many fans slated it and the producers haven't got a stylish charming Bond with Craig. Craig is just brute Bond and the Bourne route is the only way to go. Bond may still be financially successful but it's more or less creatively bankrupt.

When the producers can't even cast the right man - a 28 year old Bond became a craggy looking 38 year old actor with blonde hair - you know the franchise is in trouble. No pro-Craig Bond fan will ever admit this - they ignore the fact the producers were looking for a 28 year old actor (or someone close to that age) to be the be sixth James Bond.
 
The trouble is, you can't please everyone. Whoever you pick as Bond you'll never find someone that everyone likes. And that's down to personal taste.

Personally, I wish Pierce Brosnan did more BonRAB. I thought they were superb, including Die Another Day. That film contained more references to previous films than any Bond before it, but was in itself a good story. It's not my favourite Bond film by any means but it's always a lot of fun. But Brosnan was excellent in the role and made it his own.

So what's not to like about Craig? Blonde? Too Old? Too wooden? The truth is, Casino Royale is a film that you just cannot knock. It's world class from start to finish and it has given the franchise a tremendous boost. Not just financially but the subtle differences on screen have possibly brought Bond back to how Ian Fleming saw him. That's my opinion.

So now that we've got Craig, bring him on for more.
 
I know your not a troll, but seriously. Repeating this Ad nauseam is the exact behaviour of one.

You seriously need to let it go. Your getting painfully dull and annoying.
 
Using that shonky logic Sean Connery would never have been cast.

& Craig does do sophistication.

He just does it subtly like in the bedroom scene with FielRAB where he coyly asks her to look for the "stationery".

No doubt if he'd used a painfully unfunny double entendre to get her into bed like Moore or Brosnan he'd be saluted on here as a master of wit & sophistication. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top