Best Bond ever!!

[SLO-BOB]

Yeah I saw the other threads with less than favorable opinions of Daniel Craig as Bond. However, I wonder if those that critiqued him saw the movie? In a word-amazing.

Craig makes Connery look like he played a part trying to be Craig. He makes Moore and Brosnan look like total clowns. I never would have believed it. I grew up watching Sean Connery Bond films at the theaters. Sean was always the man. But this new guy, well, you just have to see the movie. Way more realistic and intense. It's a different, revised, way more serious James Bond.

My vote-best Bond ever, best Bond movie ever. If you saw it, feel free to debate this. If not, go see it. You'll likely be as surprised as I was.

[livi]

I have not seen it yet but to me the essence of the Bond character was always the flavor of a bit upper class, British aristocracy with a fair content of irony, gentleman behavior and coolness. Well behaved, versatile, eloquent.

Winning the battles being intellectually and socially superior, rather than rough, brutal and 'serious'. A bit more like an unrealistic adventure with all the funny gadgets and latest technology. And the story was clear cut regarding the good and the bad.

In that sense, Connery and Moore were the perfect roll figures. Elegant and eloquent rather than raw force and brutality.

But maybe Craig offers that too, as I say I have yet to see the latest version.

[svandamme]

it's just in , i'll watch it tonight

[svandamme]

movie sucks, just a continuation of the watering down of the bond frnachise, CGI spectacular exagerations, compete with XXX bollocks...

no girls in the intro opening title scene
intro tune was crap

bond dresses very "below average", really misses out in the style compartiment...

i'de write a list of things that are just poorly done, but i don't want to spoil it for those who haven't watched it... even though i don't think it's worth a cinema ticket, but i would not want to make that choice for you

so snip on my own rant

[Steve PH]

I watched this last night, wasn't sure what to expect but the end result is rather good and a healthy antidote to the direction the Brosnan films were heading in.

Having read some of the novels including Casino Royale, Daniel Craig really has the character nailed and is believable in the role, Oh and Eva Green is hoter than a stolen radioactive isotope!

Some of the stunts did stretch credibility a bit, the use of CGI is pretty minimal and from what I have seen from the brief "making of" documentary I caught by and large its simply been used to delete safety harnesses and equipment, rather than allow people to pull off imposible moves.

The film doesn't have quite the grit as a Bourne film or the first couple of series of 24 but its a world away from the fantasy fests that were the last couple of Bond outings.

Eight badly stirred Martinis out of Ten!

[SLO-BOB]

Originally posted by svandamme
movie sucks, just a continuation of the watering down of the bond frnachise, CGI spectacular exagerations, compete with XXX bollocks...

......

Just goes to show you how different perceptions can be. Every negative you cited, I would have used as a positive. I thought they made the movie far more realistic and plausable within the confines of hollywood cinema. Way short on the usual gadgetry-not ONE rocket fired from a car! Even the car itself was quite ordinary relatively speaking. And remember, this movie is about how Bond became a "00". His character was intentionally underdeveloped in the areas we have come to expect such as his cavalier demeanor and style.

As far as opening music, I'm not so sure I like any of them. The theme to "Live and Let Die" was cool for it's time and I like the theme to "You Only Live Twice" just because it captures the essence of that genre. This one featured Chris Cornell (Soundgarden etc) who definitely has had better material. None the less, I thought it was cool that he did the theme. Also, I can live w/o the goofy girl intros, frankly.

Sorry you didn't like it. I really felt it's the best one ever. This coming from someone who had at least TWO gold DB4s with ejector seats! (Corgi)

[svandamme]

Originally posted by Steve PH
I watched this last night, wasn't sure what to expect but the end result is rather good and a healthy antidote to the direction the Brosnan films were heading in.

Having read some of the novels including Casino Royale, Daniel Craig really has the character nailed and is believable in the role, Oh and Eva Green is hoter than a stolen radioactive isotope!

Some of the stunts did stretch credibility a bit, the use of CGI is pretty minimal and from what I have seen from the brief "making of" documentary I caught by and large its simply been used to delete safety harnesses and equipment, rather than allow people to pull off imposible moves.

The film doesn't have quite the grit as a Bourne film or the first couple of series of 24 but its a world away from the fantasy fests that were the last couple of Bond outings.

Eight badly stirred Martinis out of Ten!

i don't get it how people call this true to the novel
as a 00 agent , he is as blunt as a sledgehammer, and in several ways screws up as a secret agent, where in the book he is Bond, attention to detail, no dumb and dumber screwups

can't go in detail , but he makes the #1 rookie mistake of tailing a mark, twice withing 15 minutes of the movie, with different targets, twice blowing his cover, twice causing it to escalate instead of effectively finding out where his mark is going to...

as a secret agent his career was over after the intro of the movie, but M, contrary to what the spy boss would have to do, or how Fleming portrayed the Bond-M relationship, does... nothing

[SLO-BOB]

Originally posted by svandamme
can't go in detail , but he makes the #1 rookie mistake of tailing a mark, twice withing 15 minutes of the movie, with different targets, twice blowing his cover, twice causing it to escalate instead of effectively finding out where his mark is going to...

I haven't read any of the novels at all so I can't comment.

Regarding mistakes, again I say, this movie shows how Bond came to be. It shows character developement.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by SLO-BOB
I haven't read any of the novels at all so I can't comment.

Regarding mistakes, again I say, this movie shows how Bond came to be. It shows character developement.

The novels are very good, classic Cold War stuff until Fleming deviates into fantasy with Goldfinger and some others. Read the early ones.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by SLO-BOB
I haven't read any of the novels at all so I can't comment.

Regarding mistakes, again I say, this movie shows how Bond came to be. It shows character development.

a 00 is supposed to be the top of his field
he's already been on the job as a non 00 for quite some time, and should be well trained in any case

yet he screws the pooch continuously, things that if he would have done em in his pre 00 status, he simply never would have made it to 00, and more likely then not , not even been admitted to MI6 , because he is a goon

sure , less gadgets, that's great, i applaud it
but if they want to go back to the roots, they have to do it right

they didn't

the one thing that proves this , is the news paper thing
that is absolutely unforgivable for any secret agent, yet he did it... and for some reason , they felt they could actually pull it off, ridiculous

and there are many such 00 goofs in the movie...

[SLO-BOB]

FP- Thanks. I'll check those out. I can use a good read.

If you like an absence of fantasy, you might (emphasis on "might") like the new movie. Not a lot of pyrotechnique, etc. I found most of it at least possible if not probable. In this one, Bond is definitely a bit of a thug, but one with style. It's also not the first Bond movie that he's referred to as a blunt instrument-usually by a superior who frowns upon his methods. That goes all the way back to Sean Connery.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by SLO-BOB
a superior who frowns upon his methods. That goes all the way back to Sean Connery.

not that blunt and Connery had a lot more manners towards his superior, which was according to Flemings books

Connery was stylish, efficient, and a bit cheeky with M

the new guy is blunt, very inefficient, no attention to detail, and just plain rude

in the book he is a bit neurotic, and sometimes a bit to casual for M's liking, yet he always has respect for his boss, he is definately very calculated, and with attention to his surroundings and the details of those surroundings... pretty much analytic...

[Dan in Pasadena]

Bob, I agree this film was VERY well done. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Given the unbelieveability of the whole idea, I thought this was a great update of the series. I wouldn't agree with you as to Connery. He and his Bond were of another era.

I thought the crazy gizmo's and the stunts had gotten completely out-of-hand in the old series....not that that is a bad things always. I just thought they took away from the movie some.

I very much didn't like the idea of Craig when I first heard about it. Now I've got to tip my hatto the guy, great job.

P.S. They understatedthe hot chicks for an understated Bond. Well done. I thought his main love interest was hoter without all the Goth crap in the casion scenes. His Greek/Latina/etc married lover in the earlier part of the movie, well....MILF all the way!

[SLO-BOB]

Originally posted by svandamme
not that blunt and Connery had a lot more manners towards his superior, which was according to Flemings books

Connery was stylish, efficient, and a bit cheeky with M

the new guy is blunt, very inefficient, and just plain rude

"New",,,,, hello! M even said she regretted making him a "00". Room for growth and a continuation of the series which was in a death spiral. I look forward to the next Bond film now, whereas I have passed on the last 2 featuring Brosnan.

And c'mon-Bond was pretty rude with Q on a regular basis. Maybe not a superior-not sure about that, but he was constantly taunting him. He was at least sarcastic to everyone else.

I think maybe you have this opinion because you have read the novels and therefore have a different reference for the character. I thought Craig fit the bill well as far as the movies go. I sum the new Bond up in one word- "Balls".

[john70t]

It a BMW/Rolex advertisment this time, or something different?

[svandamme]

Originally posted by john70t
It a BMW/Rolex advertisment this time, or something different?

Ford and Nokia, zoned out for the rest of the flick, dunno about therest

[Steve PH]

Originally posted by john70t
It a BMW/Rolex advertisment this time, or something different?

No no get with the times man! Its a Sony, Ford/Premier Automotive Group, Virgin, Omega advert! If I'm honest the product placement was a bit OTT.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by SLO-BOB
"New",,,,, hello! M even said she regretted making him a "00". Room for growth and a continuation of the series which was in a death spiral. I look forward to the next Bond film now, whereas I have passed on the last 2 featuring Brosnan.

And c'mon-Bond was pretty rude with Q on a regular basis. Maybe not a superior-not sure about that, but he was constantly taunting him. He was at least sarcastic to everyone else.

not like in this movie
and yes they did repeat the licence to kill and die another day theme...and it was the 3rd time they pulled off that story line...
and this time it was just right after the previous movie...

and how M's credentials were compromised... as if M would ever allow such a thing in real life... 00 would be hunted down like a dog ...

M has never been so full of loathing of 007
it's actuall loathing this time where in previous movies, he was a bit ticked off in public, yet had a soft spot for Bond...
thinkg licence to kill , as his licence is revoked, and he legs it, where M actually stops the others from shooting.. so called because of innocent bystanders,...

or in that other instance (can't remember which 007 movie) where M gives 007 a scoulding rant, but when everybody leaves the room , he cheers for Bonds success and welbeeing

the old Bonds, or the bonds in the book, would never have been so arrogant to the point of breaking in to ...and using ...
Bond always was a gentlemen , sarcastic sometimes, but never rude, at least not to M

[fastpat]

Originally posted by SLO-BOB
FP- Thanks. I'll check those out. I can use a good read.

If you like an absence of fantasy, you might (emphasis on "might") like the new movie. Not a lot of pyrotechnique, etc. I found most of it at least possible if not probable. In this one, Bond is definitely a bit of a thug, but one with style. It's also not the first Bond movie that he's referred to as a blunt instrument-usually by a superior who frowns upon his methods. That goes all the way back to Sean Connery.

In one of the novels, I forget which one, Bond's controller makes him go up to the .380 (9mm Kurtz in europe) from his favorite .32 ACP. He says that the .32 has always been more than enough, but they tell him that he must move up for his own good. Both were Walther PPK's IIRC.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by fastpat
In one of the novels, I forget which one, Bond's controller makes him go up to the .380 (9mm Kurtz in europe) from his favorite .32 ACP. He says that the .32 has always been more than enough, but they tell him that he must move up for his own good. Both were Walther PPK's IIRC.

Fleming got a letter from a fan called Major Boothroyd or something, who was a gun buff
with that recommendation and why


and Fleming imidiatly incorporated that into his work in progress, dr NO

just looked up the book,

chapter 2 , choice of weapons

M says to 007 " you may not know it , but Major Boothroyd is the greatest small arms expert in the world....

they discuss things a bit more , asking the Major what he thinkgs of the Beretta .25 which 007 calls a ladies gun, easy to operate appeals to the ladies
and Bond shrugs his shoulders saying he has been using it for 15 years...

the major checks bond's posture , and measures his size up , and M asks for a recomentation .. and major recommends the PPK because of hte light trigger pull, the extensions spur ghat gives good grip, yaddiyaddi yaddi....