Cool News
A Pic Of Mads As Le Chiffre In CASINO ROYALE!!
The Hamster just sent in this photo from his local newspaper in Denmark. It’s of Mads Mikkelsen. More specifically, how he looks as the villainous Le Chiffre in the forthcoming 007 reboot CASINO ROYALE. I haven’t seen this image circulating on the net, so I thought I’d post it for your perusal.
I just saw the original (1967) CASINO ROYALE in HD…a damn peculiar film in nearly every way. I’m not sure what to make of this new movie, either. I don’t hate director Martin Campbell like some people do, nor do I find his filmmaking terribly consistent. The casting of Daniel Craig as Bond is neither here nor there for me; I think the role has proven capable of accommodating numerous actors with different styles and approaches.
However, I’m not convinced about grounding Bond in “the real” world. I’ve always enjoyed the more spectacular, fantastic Bond films…the Bonds Mike Meyers has so much fun lampooning in AUSTIN POWERS. The spaceship and underwater city kind of Bond films. Sure, they bring with them a whopping cheese factor…but to me that’s part of the fun. And, such things don’t necessarily have to be cheesy. If, for pretend example, James Cameron or Ridley Scott were directing a James Bond spaceship (or underwater city) adventure…that would be pretty amazing to see.
Bond, in my interpretation, isn’t “real” – and doesn’t belong in a “real” world. 007 is a larger-than-life archetype at home in a larger-than-life (stylized?) reality. The “spectacle” Bond template better fits my personal preference.
The problem is: We’re less likely to see “spectacle” Bond if the newly rewritten rules don’t accommodate it. This being said, I’m very curious to see how CASINO ROYALE plays out, and I’m actually quite open to it despite such uncertainties.
As a side note, I’m not clear on why Judy Dench is reprising her role as “M” if this film is a ground-up re-launch of the franchise. Sure, one could argue that Bernard Lee continued as “M” through several Bonds…but those films were direct continuations, within a set continuity. This…is starting over. Why clutter our perceptions of the “new” Bond vibe by evoking previous “noise” from the old?
Here’s Mads as Le Chiffre…
>
-
+ Expand All
-
Yawn, another stereotypical Bond Eurovillain. Well, I suppose Philip Seymour Hall was taken already.
-
he better stop using the ReNu contact lens solution
-
Apr 15, 2006 3:19:16 PM CDT
Daniel Craig - The George Lazenby of the new Bonds...
by iamjack'suserid
Only uglier but a better actor.
-
Are they trying to ape the Blofeld scar worn in You Only Live Twice?
-
Lazenby in OHMSS was quite good, and he could have been a good Bond if he wasn't such a prick by saying he'll only do one Bond film. Moore was too funny and light, but he was iconic. Dalton is hands down the best Bond ever!!! Only actor to take it seriously and never wink at the camera. And Craig will do fine. Bound to better than the awful Pierce Brosnan. So glad to have that whiff out of the Bond films.
-
just at a lower rank. But even then if this is supposed to be Bonds early years then how can she meet him twice. Especially after goldeneye where she talked about being his female boss, and how he would have to adjust to it.
-
If memory serves, Lazenby was asked to do more Bond films - but turned them down because someone had convinced him Bond would become pass
-
he may suprise you...who new connery before dr no?
-
"No Mr. Bond, I expect you to give me my eye medicine!"
-
Did you mean Philip Seymour Hoffman by any chance?
-
the book had nothing in common with the Flashy Movie Bond or even the Bond in the later books. The bad guy even tells Bond: "This is not like in the movies"
-
Bond, in your interpretation, isn
-
Personally I blame, Hostel for that...
-
Lazenby: You were expecting someone else?
-
First off: apologies, I'm obiously behind the times when it comes to Casino Royal. First I thought it was supposed to be a retro Bond movie, set decades ago...but then I just saw a pic of the new car that he'll use, and it's 21st century modern sports car...so I guess I was wrong about that. So what do they want to do with the "reboot"? Is it just like Merrick says in this article: a more realistic Bond? I agree with Merrick on this: I enjoy the fantastic and unrealistic Bond...we don't need another Bourne Identity. Bond was doing fine as Bond. Plus, Die Another Day set the box office record for a Bond film...so why in hell do they want to change the format? I thought they listen to money?
-
... as I wouldn't mind watching Batman doing some detective work - I know that I'm going to have to wait a long time for that. But why the hell change the format?. Well, usually an outrageous chapter in the Bond franchise ("Moonraker") is followed by a more sombre one ("For Your Eyes Only"). And I think that's a good idea. But I won't count with the movie going as far as Bourne territory. They didn't get an indie director with no experience in blockbusters, no. They hired the "Vertical Limit" guy, who did a good job before with 007 under difficult circumstances, and can deliver something that sounds "risque" but, in the end, will play safe.
-
Producer Michael Wilson apparently didn't like Moonraker, despite the scads of money it made. Now obviously, that flick took Bond as far out as he could go, but they followed it with For Your Eyes Only, one of the dullest, most colourless Bonds ever. It also marked the first of five successive, pedestrian films directed by John Glen. 007 was eclipsed by Indy in the 80s, and it took Brosnan and GoldenEye to bring the franchise back to its former popularity. I liked Die Another Day because it had a gritty beginning, then a Roger Moore-style finale (although the duff CGI and invisible car were a bit much). That film, like Moonraker, was a huge box office hit, but again, Mr Wilson thinks the film went too over the top. Maybe so, but I would hate for Bond to become more like the overrated Jason Bourne. Nevertheless, I am looking forward to Casino Royale, despite Daniel Craig not being my ideal choice for Bond.
-
Doctor Conjuctivitus.
-
I personally liked Bronson since he served as a nice mix of Connery rough and tumble and Moore's silly shit. Too bad he was in some of the worst movies in the franchise. Lazenby was good but he was in a great fucking movie. Dalton at least had a great outing in The Living Daylights. I sort of hoped Rupert Evert would be Bond. I mean, if people are willing to suspend belief and accept Bond killing people with watches; screwing women named Dr. Goodhead, Octopussy, and Christmas Jones; and being invunerable to every thing but a judo chop, certainly they can forget Rupert is gay. Have you heard that dude speak and have you seen him in a tux? Motherfucker was born to play Bond. Just imagine him saying "sometimes you need to slap a woman around."
-
They possibly mean having threatening villains, dangerous situations and a far less reliant on gadgets Bond and more reliant on his wits and survival instincts. Personally I can't wait for this. I'm eager as hell to see it after that tripe that was Die another day...
-
The plot centered around Bond stopping an evil genius from killing the world's chickens!! And it included a scene in which a pursued Bond sits down, terrified, and confesses to the Bond girl "there are people after me." I just about peed my pants laughing. "It's okay sweetums. Hush, now. We'll call the police" OHMSS is a great fucking movie, but in such a way that it would be even better with Tom Servo giving a running commentary.
-
Should have quotations around it. Apologies. Please do not accredit that statement to me. Thanks!
-
about keeping Superhero movies grounded in reality and away from the campy territory they occupied, while wanting to keep James Bond in a cloaked spaceship fighting Doctor Evil while constantly delivering knowing one liners?
-
Anyone else notice that Craig looks Like Emperor Claudius, the Roman emperor who took over after Caligula died? CHeck out his bust on Wikipedia--its an erie resemblance.
-
to get it up for bond films anymore. They've recently all just been so mediocre, it's sad.
-
I read that they're not bringing back Q...that blows. I thought John Cleese was the PERFECT replacement for the origial Q. Now they ditch the whole idea altogether?!?! I understand if they want to back out of the total techno-thriller genre, but they should remember that Q appeared in the Connery days with gadget, too...and those weren't the tehco-thriller days.
-
Another actor playing James Bond. Big fucking deal. It will still be a cornball plot involving a hot chick, mad scientist, world domination, yadda yadda yadda. Its become a parody of itself. Instead of regurgitating James Bond for the umpteenth time, maybe the overpaid and talentless studio hacks could come up with an original idea? Nah, wont happen. Lets just remake some more 60's movies and TV shows and the sheeple will lap it up like the well trained dogs that they are.
-
The character Q is not in the novel Casino Royale, he actually doesn't show up until the sixth novel, Dr. No (which was the first movie). I guess the filmmakers could have shoehorned him in somehow, but do we really want them to get any further away from the Flemming story than they already have?
-
Drool.
-
Matches the book's description much better than I could have hoped.
-
http://commanderbond.net/Public/Stories/3180-1.shtml
-
I think the air is coming out of the Bond franchise. Brosnan helped pump air into it for a while, but it is a little bit of a tired formula with no place to go. Maybe it needs to rest for a decade or so.
-
lamewads who overuse phrases like "it became a parody of itself"
-
I'm sorry you dont approve of my choice of words. You should snuggle up to your big strong boyfriend and tell him you need daddy to make it all better. I'm sure he'll take care of you.
-
Still holding out hope for Casino Royale, although the last four Bond films have been total garbage. The pre-Brosnan Bond flicks were fun to watch. Bring back Blofeld.
-
...it's catering to the tastes of people like you that have neutered the 007 franchise.
-
Personally, I can't wait to see "Happy Feet" on November 17th.
-
What do they mean by that anyway? I don't give a fuck if they're setting it in a martian world, what's important for me is that they stay true to the book and they've already fucked that with this absurd decision to include Poker.
Even with all these Bourne and Bauer wannabes Bond still remains the cold eyed killer du jour. If they can bring back that part of Bond it could still rock. Brosnan had it, Connery had it, Dalton had it like a motherfucker and even Moore had it. Can Craig? -
Maybe they're taking a page from the spoof version of CR and saying that "James Bond" is actually a code name that's passed on from one agent to another over the years. I'm pretty sure that even Fleming wrote in his novels that James Bond wasn't his actual name.
-
No, Philip Baker Hoffman, apparently. D'oh!
-
For those of you who love Bond as a character and have yet to check out the Fleming novels check out: Diamonds are forever, Casino Royale and The Spy who loved me. I'm a huge Bond(film) fan and when I discovered the books I was blown away. Very different from the movies but how does that manage to surprise (or anger)anyone these days? As for this re-boot? Daniel Craig was NOT even on my list of potential Bonds but he's shown some acting chops so I'm gonna give him a shot.
-
hate to be who ever gave him that wierd eye. actually come to think of it it was bond wasn't it. Well, he probably had a good reason then. I agree, more underwater and outer space Bond. But don't forget that there have been some outrageously good 'serious' Bond films..... which were then mocked later and are unwatchable today. go figure.
-
This guy doesn't look like Orson Welles at all!
-
...because you do despise me, you are the only one in Casablanca I can trust."
-
Apr 16, 2006 3:18:46 AM CDT
Al Pacino has fucking acting chops but him saying....
by iamjack'suserid
"...shaken, not stirred OOHH WAAAH" doesn't mean he's gonna make a great Bond!
-
Apr 16, 2006 3:22:11 AM CDT
Both Lazenby's Bond and his Bond film were weak as piss
by bendersshinyass
But thats what happens when you 'modernize' a franchise and the decade in which you do the modernizing happens to be the 70's. An odd film where it seems the crew all decided to go skiing and take along a bunch of film and sound equipment. And then they didn't know how to end it.... so they go the real dark ugly road in hopes it'll make for a gritty take on the film. But it didn't work. Did it? Still, it was better than 'Live and let die' in which our hero took on pink fur coat wearing black pimps. I still find to this day there is no better Bond film than 'A view to a kill'. Man, that was a classic film. Timothy Dalton was so fucking 'meh' I really can't fault his Bond. But damn, he was a long way from being the best bond. Who the hell said that? Sean Connery. Diamonds are forever. nuff said. Brosnan made some killer Bond films, and made an awesome Bond! HE DID, FUCK OFF! But the problem.... all those films kinda morph into each other and I have lots of issues recalling which one is which. Only that the 3rd one was so fucking boring. But had an awesome opener.
-
So, what
-
Whilst I love You Only Live Twice and rightly rate it as the finest Bond film ever made, I love the work Dalton did, which is essentially what Eon is trying to re-create in the new film by all accounts.
-
Good point there, I think the bond fans can be split into two camps. Those who love the cheese factor, the villains with the volcano hideout and world destroying lasers like Hank Scorpio or those that like the spy element, more cold war espionage action with stolen briefcases and assassins. I prefer the second theme myself, it's true it's been done to death recently with Bourne and the like but maybe Bond could benefit from leaping on the bandwagon.
The perfect Bond movie would be a balance between them, of course in this day and age it's too hard given the lampooning factor of Austin Powers. I'll see it in the theatres and decide then, it's too early to start hating. -
Wasn't this Casino Royale supposed to go back to the book and Fleming? So what's up with this villain who is the child of Gustav Graves and Zhao? How original! Playing Texas Hold Em in a tuxedo against this guy has as much realism to it as Heman Masters of the Universe!
-
... but I've always preferred the Moore flicks. I remember one summer almost ten years ago in which I'd rent at least two Bond flicks a week until I'd run out of them at the local video store (which didn't have the complete series, sadly). The Connery ones were good, but the Moore ones tended to be a little bit more interesting, even with the obvious camp. Remember the weird fat American stereotyped cop that showed up in a couple? But hey, we got Jaws and that opening sequence with Bond jumping out of an exploding plane, stealing Jaws' parachute and landing safely so it really can't be looked down upon THAT much. I thought "The Living Daylights" was really good but hated "License to Kill" quite a bit. I also thought that Brosnan actually embodied the character better than anyone as he was the only one who could pull off all the aspects aside from Connery. Moore wasn't intimidating enough, Connery almost came off as unaffected at times, but Brosnan was good all-around. It's too bad all his flicks were about terrorism and not about crazy world dominating super villains.
-
No I haven't read OHMSS but I did assume that the death of his wife was in the book.... hence the reason the subject is brought up in a later Bond film - with Roger Moore. I always hated continuety like that with different actors playing roles from previous films. Always rips me out of the reality the film is trying to establish. But you gotta admit, OHMSS was a shocker. they were attempting to bring a new and improved Bond to the world... but it just didn't work, as is evident in the throwback to the previous style.
-
It's coming out in November...shouldn't they have come out with at least a Teaser by now?
-
I love a web site that makes me quickly shut down the window. You know, when I see it doing wierd shit like yours just did.
-
The jason bourne films were better james bond movies than the past 8 james bond movies, i'll just wait for the third.
-
He really only made 2 good Bond films. Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies with Michelle Yoeh. The last 2 were just terrible. The last movie with him surfing on a tsunami with a car hood and a parachute made my head hurt. Utter crap. Connery was the best by far. Moore was just silly and well...stupid. I was expecting him to wear a monicle threw his films. Dalton had an intensity that only he could give. And well...I never saw a Lazenby film. But this film has me worried over all Craig's issues. He doesn't wanna use a gun, he can't drive the aston martin cause he couldn't drive stick and he got his teeth knocked out during a fight scene. It doesn't seem "real life" is treating him well so far. It may not treat Bond very well either. But I'll keep my mind open...at least try too.
-
I have to admit, I wasn't expecting the villain to look this cheesy. People like to talk about how bad the last few movies were, but how is this one going to be any different? All they've done is replaced the lead actor and removed the most popular elements (such as Q and his gadgets). If this were really an entirely new vision of Bond, then yes, it probably would be exciting. But it's not. It's the same uninspired team that gave us the last few Bonds.
-
Let me guess, he wants to rule the world, right? That is so effing interesting.
-
Both the not being able to drive stick and having all his teeth knocked out rumors were false tabloid gossip. You can't even get a license in Britain without knowing how to drive stick and Craig's teeth were not knocked out. And he doesn't like guns but of course he still uses them in the movie.
-
That's who it is.
-
Seen Layer Cake? Munich? Enduring Love? Road to Perdition? At the end of the day a good actor is a good actor, and the pics of him as old jim look fine. Martin Campbell has directed the only great Bond film since Live And Let Die, so give him a chance too. Goldeneye was on telly the other week, the man knows how to pace and coordinate action. Personally I still think Tony Scott directing a Tarantino script would be the ULTIMATE combo for a Bond film, but the Broccoli's and Wilson wont let a director individualise a Bond film, so we'll never get a truly great director in the chair.
-
I've seen all those movies, and yes, Craig is indeed a good actor. However, as someone previously stated, Al Pacino couldnt play Bond, either, no matter how good he is. Craig is not the image of Bond, nor does he possess the character's established charisma. But hey, keep telling yourself Craig works as Bond and that View to a Kill was the best Bond movie of all time.
-
Connery films and the one Pierce Brosnan movie 'Goldeneye' were great. The Timothy Dalton movies were a bit pedestrian. All in all, though, not a bad series at all. I'm sure this will fit in nicely.
-
Coming soon to a torrent near you.
From the director of Vertical Limit
Barbara Broccoli presents a game of
russian roulette with the world's
most enduring film franchise.New 007 Daniel Craig promises to bring
unique qualities to this legendary
role.Most notably a lack of height
and ginger hair.Let us be thankful
that Mr.Craig will not adopt an
accent for this film because if Tomb Raider,Munich and Some Voices are anything to go by he is fucking
shite at them. -
This guy isnt supposed to be scary. However, the 7 foot tall, orange furry monster that wears converse sneakers that he keeps in his basement is VERY SCARY!!
-
it's weird techno score was horrible.
-
...from the "Innuendo" era. I'm going slightly maaaaaad....
-
I think the real turning point in the series was You Only Live Twice. Instead of waiting for the OHMSS sets to be finished, they decided to deviate from Fleming's storyline for the first time. In doing so, they basically set the tone for the rest of the series. Personally, I also prefer the campy tone of the Moore era. Those are the films that most people think of when they think "James Bond." The gadgets. The absurd plots. The one-liners. It's far too late to expect people to regard James Bond as serious film fare. The truth is, he is a relic of the Cold War, but he survived thanks to having tradition and formula to rely own. Everyone knew the films were cliched, but they also realized that Bond was still the originator.
-
None of the actors who played Bond were bad. Yes there were some bad Bond movies, but all the actors did a great job.
-
Shane owns Bond's ass any day of the week. T pities the fool who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
-
someone got it in "thier" eye. not there. english... its the language we have all agreed upon.
-
I think you need to begin to capitalize the first letter in your sentences, my dear spelling nazi. Remember, grammar is the series of rules that govern the language we have all agreed upon.
-
The James Bond Bedside Companion by Raymond Benson did a good analysis of the films pointing out that YOLT became the template for all future Bonds: a mad supervillain w/unlimited funds, a secret base, a superweapon, a battle between 2 armies, etc. "Spy Who Loved Me" is a perfect example of a remake of YOLT. While I enjoy the film, I do recognize it as the one that began every cliche that future films contain & when fans complain about the films being redundant you can trace all that back to You Only Live Twice. Which is a shame because it is one of the better novels & the conclusion of the "Blofeld" Trilogy. It is the darkest of Fleming's stories and worthy of a remake.
-
...to me, sure it's a little bit hackneyed but I guess I kind of expect villains in the Bond universe to look like that. It's almost easy for spies like Bond to find them you see, just look for the outlandish looking villains. Easy. I could be Bond. Besides the suave charm and the licence to kill. Oh and the DB7 along with the ability to bed women within 5 minutes of meeting them. Okay so maybe I'm not cut out for Bond but at least I can spot a villain from a mile away. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if they can get the perfect mix between the ridiculous and the "real" ala Goldfinger then we're in luck. From Russia was awesome but perhaps too real. Brosnan rocked as Bond. Dalton's Bond's were awesome and in retrospect I just think Bond audiences weren't ready for that kind of Bond which attributes to their failure. Moore was fun, cheesy, campy and as a kid I devoured them. Nowadays...I still devour them, cause good or bad they all have nostalgia on their side. Which unfortunately for Die Another Day doesn't have which is why the 2nd half of it destroyed the excellent first half...
-
And yes, he does remind me of Christopher Walken.
-
How can you compare Bourne when there's only been 2 movies, the first being very good and the 2nd not-so-good? And what after the 3rd installment? Where then? As i read it Matt D is only interested in one more, before christian slater takes over with a straight to dvd finale. You only show yourself to be a pratt when you come out with puerile one liners that amount to zilch. And as for the buffoons that keep saying that the series is dead I say this: it's only dead when hollywood stops cashing in on its success by its 2nd rate bond rip-offs, which i guess will never end!
-
Those were the days of our lives. You know when looked real pale and skinny. This guy looks like him
-
You Only Live Twice may be the 1st of the spectacle Bonds including a space weapon and incredible explosions and such but it fails with the meeting of Bond and Blofeld. Remember Blofeld has been this mysterious criminal genius behind Spectre which was introduced in the 1st film, Dr No. Since then Bond has thwarted them time & again costing them manpower, bases, finances & clout. And when we finally meet Blofeld, he's portrayed as this meek, puny freak that looks like he should be torturing cats, not petting them. Hardly the mastermind behind a worldwide terrorist organization. In the book, he's a tall handsome european who's sadistic nature refuses to play it cool after the loss of the Thunderball plot & the viral attacks of OHMSS (book timeline). So he sets up a Garden of Death that becomes a favorite locale of suicides. The final confrontation of Bond against Blofeld is primal & personal. Hardly comparable the monorail scene in the film. YOLT is the 1st comic book Bond and fun but missed out on its potential.
-
...Pinkeye! And he wants to touch your face! "Does this look infected to you? Seriously."
-
See The Green Butchers and you'll find out why...another Joker candidate methinks. How could he miss in the american market with a name like Mads?
-
Damn, when I think how good OHMSS could have been had Connery stayed on for one more and PASSED on the piece of shit Diamonds are Forever intead...well my eyes bleed. As for Dalton, he was easily the second worst Bond...played the world's greatest secret agent like a conflicted Shakespeare character.
-
So much for accuracy, studio deep shits.
-
They have claimed to "start over" the bond franchise with every film since "Goldeneye". Face it: the bond producers are not interested in "starting it over", otherwise they would have allowed Quentin Tarantino to direct "Casino Royale". He even approached eon with his idea, but they turned him down. Probably, because a QT bond movie would be rated R and actually start the franchise over.
-
Yeah, they've also been trying to re-invent Bond since Licence To Kill. They need to just finally accept that they are on Bond TWENTY ONE!! Of course there's no need for any further movies, but they should stop acting as though it embarrasses them every time they make another one. They should use the character they've got and quit trying to rewrite him with each new adventure. If they want to do a different series, they should start another one. Oh wait, I forget. They don't really have the talent to do that and are currently just running someone else's series into the ground.
-
License to Kill showed a smart, manipulative & deadly Bond. Motivated purely out of vengeance for his friend, Felix Leiter, he resigns from the Service & destroys a billion dollar drug organization and potential terrorist arms seller single-handed saving the death of the villain for himself. All done through a con act and working within the criminal organization he was slowly destroying. That to me is an interesting spy flick and a pretty damn good Bond. Besides the 1st half of DAD, I never dug Brosnan.
-
Pleasance belonged in a Get Smart episode. Henderson was totally miscast - he was an english gentlemen. Savalas looked ok but didn't have that supergenius vibe. He was more of a thug. It's a testament and misfortune of the film series that Auric Goldfinger became the definitive Bond villain when it should have been Blofeld.
-
...after Bond told Christmas Jones, "I thought Christmas only came once a year." The casting of Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist was enough of a stretch, let alone lines like that. UGGGH.////On a completely different note, "Goldfinger" is my favorite Bond movie. Suave and debonair Bond, fun villain ... what's not to love?
-
I only liked Sean Connery because he played such a cold fish bastard at times. This new Bond looks like he may play it that way as well. I certainly hope so. Dalton looked the part but played it wrong, but you can blame the script/direction for that cockup.
-
I've never been able to grasp the whole "Bond" thing. Although I'm 32, I somehow never saw a Bond movie until "Goldeneye," which I thought was a reasonably entertaining if somewhat forgettable action flick. When I subsequently saw "Tomorrow Never Dies," I was a bit confused. Hadn't I already seen this flick? Did they put the wrong disc in the DVD rental case? Nope. Bond fans explained to me with remarkable composure that all the Bond films are pretty much the same. Huh? I didn't bother with any of the other Brosnan Bond flicks, but I did catch an all-day Bond marathon on cable one day (stuck at my in-laws), and as the day and films wore on, I grew increasingly baffled by the enduring appeal of these cheesy, cartoonish campfests. I'm not knocking 'em, mind you. I can enjoy a campfest from time to time, but I prefer something like "Condorman," where at least everyone involved knows it's stupid. So I'm enjoying these Bond threads and find it fascinating that some of you hold passionate opinions on the casting and plots of the series.
-
whatever happebed to middle aged or older classy villains like scaramanga, dr. no, golfinder, the spy who loved me villain etc - why of a suddenyl all these young kids playing villains - its just not the same
-
but isn't it getting a bit old to visually equate facial disfigurement with evil? people are dealing with it - young and old. It's somehow an acceptable piece of bigotry. It would be equally offensive if the only black characters who appeared in film only played criminals. If the only gays who ever appeared in film had STDs the campaign groups would be in uproar, but it's fine for people to become a symbol of evil just because SHOCK - they've had a disfiguring car accident or been in a fire. Lazy, lazy stuff.
-
If the producers are using the pretence they are returning to Fleming's vision at all - they could note that in Fleming's original it is Bond who is clearly facially scarred. Would the studio go for that? Nope.
-
Like mission impossible, with each distinctive director giving his own distinctive view on the material. that way even if the last one was a stinker, if the director of the next one was interesting there would still be anticipation for the next
-
I was making a general statement about Blofeld. Sorry if you thought I was responding directly to you. Still was never crazy about Pleasance as him. He's had such a wonderful career & better roles. His Blofeld is more of a cameo appearance and not very engaging.
-
James Bonds new cellphone costs $1700 street price http://www.ipodhub.net/articles/20060412nokia_royale.html
-
Bond would never get shot and left in the sea like a Bourne bitch. And Bond would never get hooked on smack and be sidetracked by a whiny daughter. They do both have a shot wife though.
-
new vs knew, here vs hear, they're vs there vs their - WHAT are they teaching in school these days?
-
...go back to the school yard and bully some kids, anchorite. It's where you belong as your comments are like dog's sh*t on the sidewalk... smelly, unsightly and there to avoid!! Now go wash your mouth out with sulphuric acid!!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 383 total posts 380 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 111 total posts 111 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 75 total posts 73 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 71 total posts 68 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 77 total posts 55 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 54 total posts 48 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 165 total posts 41 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 41 total posts 41 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 500 total posts 35 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 28 total posts 28 posts