Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

A Pic Of Mads As Le Chiffre In CASINO ROYALE!!

Merrick's mean cat has an eye like that...


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…









Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 15, 2006, 3:15 p.m. CST

    Christopher Walken in A View To a Kill.

    by Mgmax

    Yawn, another stereotypical Bond Eurovillain. Well, I suppose Philip Seymour Hall was taken already.

  • April 15, 2006, 3:17 p.m. CST

    eye fungus

    by Jubba

    he better stop using the ReNu contact lens solution

  • April 15, 2006, 3:19 p.m. CST

    Daniel Craig - The George Lazenby of the new Bonds...

    by IAmJack'sUserID

    Only uglier but a better actor.

  • April 15, 2006, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Donald Pleasance Blofeld Scar?

    by Thunderballs

    Are they trying to ape the Blofeld scar worn in You Only Live Twice?

  • April 15, 2006, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Lazenby was GOOD! Craig will do fine!

    by Thunderballs

    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.

  • April 15, 2006, 3:28 p.m. CST

    I Thought Dench Was Playing The Same Character

    by flamingrunt

    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.

  • April 15, 2006, 3:31 p.m. CST

    THUNDER (re: Lazenby)

    by Joseph Merrick

    If memory serves, Lazenby was asked to do more Bond films - but turned them down because someone had convinced him Bond would become pass

  • April 15, 2006, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Lay off Craig and give him a chance....

    by Deak the Geek

    he may suprise you...who new connery before dr no?

  • April 15, 2006, 3:46 p.m. CST

    "Do you expect me to talk?"

    by brycemonkey

    "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to give me my eye medicine!"

  • April 15, 2006, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Mgmax

    by Led Gopher

    Did you mean Philip Seymour Hoffman by any chance?

  • April 15, 2006, 3:54 p.m. CST

    the book

    by joee60

    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"

  • April 15, 2006, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Looks like Peter Weller with an Adolf Hitler haircut

    by DerLanghaarige

  • April 15, 2006, 4:02 p.m. CST

    by football

    Bond, in your interpretation, isn

  • April 15, 2006, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Someone got it in there eye!

    by P33KA

  • April 15, 2006, 4:07 p.m. CST

    I wan't to see his balls beaten to a pulp!

    by brycemonkey

    Personally I blame, Hostel for that...

  • April 15, 2006, 4:22 p.m. CST

    looks like a doctored photo of Willliam Fichtner

    by JohnGalt2006

  • April 15, 2006, 4:35 p.m. CST

    that doesn't look terrible

    by wingman321

    Lazenby: You were expecting someone else?

  • April 15, 2006, 4:45 p.m. CST

    what is this "reboot" supposed to be?

    by SantiagoAtez

    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?

  • April 15, 2006, 5:12 p.m. CST

    i wouldn't mind watching Bond actually spying again...

    by granhalcon

    ... 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.

  • April 15, 2006, 5:16 p.m. CST

    You know what followed Moonraker...

    by Wormie

    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.

  • April 15, 2006, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Looks like the new Bond villain is:

    by Otter

    Doctor Conjuctivitus.

  • April 15, 2006, 5:21 p.m. CST

    It should have been Hank Scorpio.

    by blessedsloth

  • April 15, 2006, 5:21 p.m. CST

    "I... WANT... James Bond... DEAD... HA"

    by Big Bad Clone

    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."

  • April 15, 2006, 5:23 p.m. CST

    I think when they mean 'setting it in the real world'

    by Ridge

    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...

  • April 15, 2006, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Lazenby was good but he was in a great fucking movie.

    by JonQuixote

    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.

  • April 15, 2006, 5:55 p.m. CST

    The title of my previous post

    by JonQuixote

    Should have quotations around it. Apologies. Please do not accredit that statement to me. Thanks!

  • April 15, 2006, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Why do people go on so much...

    by Templeton Peck

    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?

  • April 15, 2006, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Bond a roman emperor?

    by moondoggy2u

    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.

  • April 15, 2006, 6:17 p.m. CST

    pardon my misspelling of eery and Calligula.

    by moondoggy2u

  • April 15, 2006, 6:18 p.m. CST

    I just find it hard...

    by Novaman5000

    to get it up for bond films anymore. They've recently all just been so mediocre, it's sad.

  • April 15, 2006, 6:26 p.m. CST

    no more Q = bad news

    by SantiagoAtez

    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.

  • April 15, 2006, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Bond is passe. Yawn.

    by Hugh Jass

    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.

  • April 15, 2006, 6:39 p.m. CST

    re: no more Q = bad news

    by robotdevil

    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?

  • April 15, 2006, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Fwar. He's really hot.

    by lutz

    Drool.

  • April 15, 2006, 8:35 p.m. CST

    Can you say Peter Lorre?

    by frofropimp

    Matches the book's description much better than I could have hoped.

  • April 15, 2006, 8:54 p.m. CST

    Bond DVD Set Announced....

    by REDD

    http://commanderbond.net/Public/Stories/3180-1.shtml

  • April 15, 2006, 9:31 p.m. CST

    Bond Franchise is on Life Support

    by nexxus7

    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.

  • April 15, 2006, 9:33 p.m. CST

    i fuckin hate

    by Koyaanisqatsi

    lamewads who overuse phrases like "it became a parody of itself"

  • April 15, 2006, 9:42 p.m. CST

    Kumquatusi, or whatever his name is

    by Hugh Jass

    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.

  • April 15, 2006, 9:46 p.m. CST

    lazenby was great, might be the best bond movie

    by reckni

    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.

  • April 15, 2006, 10:04 p.m. CST

    To whoever said FYEO was "dull and colorless"...

    by Osmosis Jones

    ...it's catering to the tastes of people like you that have neutered the 007 franchise.

  • April 15, 2006, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Steve Buscemi?

    by abcdefghijklmnop

    Personally, I can't wait to see "Happy Feet" on November 17th.

  • April 15, 2006, 10:49 p.m. CST

    Real World My Ass

    by DannyOcean01

    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?

  • April 15, 2006, 11:26 p.m. CST

    Reboot?

    by mascan

    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.

  • April 15, 2006, 11:59 p.m. CST

    "Did you mean Philip Seymour Hoffman by any chance?"

    by Mgmax

    No, Philip Baker Hoffman, apparently. D'oh!

  • April 16, 2006, 12:36 a.m. CST

    Rick! Rick, you have to help me escape Casablanca!!

    by moondoggy2u

  • April 16, 2006, 1:17 a.m. CST

    love Bond. Keep 'em coming.

    by donkeypark

    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.

  • April 16, 2006, 2:54 a.m. CST

    owww, he looks pissed off.

    by BendersShinyAss

    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.

  • April 16, 2006, 3:12 a.m. CST

    Hey!

    by Red Ned Lynch

    This guy doesn't look like Orson Welles at all!

  • April 16, 2006, 3:13 a.m. CST

    You're right Ugarte, I am more impressed with you.

    by IAmJack'sUserID

  • April 16, 2006, 3:14 a.m. CST

    "Somehow...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...because you do despise me, you are the only one in Casablanca I can trust."

  • April 16, 2006, 3:18 a.m. CST

    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!

  • April 16, 2006, 3:19 a.m. CST

    I stick my neck out for no one.

    by IAmJack'sUserID

  • April 16, 2006, 3:22 a.m. CST

    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.

  • April 16, 2006, 5:30 a.m. CST

    Starr

    by CuervoJones

    So, what

  • April 16, 2006, 5:42 a.m. CST

    Merrick, you're partialy right.

    by Grando

    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.

  • April 16, 2006, 5:45 a.m. CST

    Not happy with the poker but...

    by DrLektor

    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.

  • April 16, 2006, 6:05 a.m. CST

    Disappointing and cliche

    by Froggertron

    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!

  • April 16, 2006, 7:19 a.m. CST

    I'm embarassed to admit this...

    by Mattapooh

    ... 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.

  • April 16, 2006, 8:57 a.m. CST

    MadMax2

    by BendersShinyAss

    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.

  • April 16, 2006, 9:38 a.m. CST

    Shouldn't a Teaser/Trailer be out by now?

    by SantiagoAtez

    It's coming out in November...shouldn't they have come out with at least a Teaser by now?

  • April 16, 2006, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Gotta hand it to you www.Galeriechappe.com

    by BendersShinyAss

    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.

  • April 16, 2006, 12:06 p.m. CST

    FUCK THIS< GIVE ME BOURNE!

    by StarUnlit

    The jason bourne films were better james bond movies than the past 8 james bond movies, i&#39;ll just wait for the third.

  • April 16, 2006, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Bronsan was...okay

    by Datascream

    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&#39;s issues. He doesn&#39;t wanna use a gun, he can&#39;t drive the aston martin cause he couldn&#39;t drive stick and he got his teeth knocked out during a fight scene. It doesn&#39;t seem "real life" is treating him well so far. It may not treat Bond very well either. But I&#39;ll keep my mind open...at least try too.

  • April 16, 2006, 12:45 p.m. CST

    Re: Disappointing and Cliche

    by abcdefghijklmnop

    I have to admit, I wasn&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s not. It&#39;s the same uninspired team that gave us the last few Bonds.

  • April 16, 2006, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Ugly guy with scar through eyeball...SO ORIGINAL!!!!

    by Missing Dink

    Let me guess, he wants to rule the world, right? That is so effing interesting.

  • April 16, 2006, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Datascream

    by troutpencil

    Both the not being able to drive stick and having all his teeth knocked out rumors were false tabloid gossip. You can&#39;t even get a license in Britain without knowing how to drive stick and Craig&#39;s teeth were not knocked out. And he doesn&#39;t like guns but of course he still uses them in the movie.

  • April 16, 2006, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Marylin Manson is "Le Chiffre"

    by Uncapie

    That&#39;s who it is.

  • April 16, 2006, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Craig is a bloody good actor

    by DirkD13"

    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&#39;s and Wilson wont let a director individualise a Bond film, so we&#39;ll never get a truly great director in the chair.

  • April 16, 2006, 2:42 p.m. CST

    Dirk

    by moondoggy2u

    I&#39;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&#39;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.

  • April 16, 2006, 3:10 p.m. CST

    I&#39;m all about &#39;real world&#39; Bond

    by Doctor_Sin

    Connery films and the one Pierce Brosnan movie &#39;Goldeneye&#39; were great. The Timothy Dalton movies were a bit pedestrian. All in all, though, not a bad series at all. I&#39;m sure this will fit in nicely.

  • April 16, 2006, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Dan Craig and the Royale Of Doom.

    by peter skellen

    Coming soon to a torrent near you. From the director of Vertical Limit Barbara Broccoli presents a game of russian roulette with the world&#39;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.

  • April 16, 2006, 4:11 p.m. CST

    You all are a bunch of retarded dinks

    by moondoggy2u

    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!!

  • April 16, 2006, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Goldeneye was great, but...

    by Shermdawg

    it&#39;s weird techno score was horrible.

  • April 16, 2006, 5 p.m. CST

    It&#39;s Bizarro Freddie Mercury

    by MCVamp

    ...from the "Innuendo" era. I&#39;m going slightly maaaaaad....

  • April 16, 2006, 6:43 p.m. CST

    Turning Point

    by abcdefghijklmnop

    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&#39;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&#39;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.

  • April 16, 2006, 7:01 p.m. CST

    In my opinion...

    by Thumper2k1

    None of the actors who played Bond were bad. Yes there were some bad Bond movies, but all the actors did a great job.

  • April 16, 2006, 8:29 p.m. CST

    FUCK THIS, give me SCARECROW!

    by RezE11even

    Shane owns Bond&#39;s ass any day of the week. T pities the fool who doesn&#39;t know what I&#39;m talking about.

  • April 16, 2006, 9:05 p.m. CST

    p33ka...

    by washisdead

    someone got it in "thier" eye. not there. english... its the language we have all agreed upon.

  • April 16, 2006, 9:43 p.m. CST

    washisdead

    by moondoggy2u

    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.

  • April 16, 2006, 11:26 p.m. CST

    You Only Live Twice is the basis for all other Bonds

    by Max Meanie

    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&#39;s stories and worthy of a remake.

  • April 17, 2006, 2:26 a.m. CST

    Looks okay...

    by LucienPierce

    ...to me, sure it&#39;s a little bit hackneyed but I guess I kind of expect villains in the Bond universe to look like that. It&#39;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&#39;m not cut out for Bond but at least I can spot a villain from a mile away. I&#39;ve said it before and I&#39;ll say it again, if they can get the perfect mix between the ridiculous and the "real" ala Goldfinger then we&#39;re in luck. From Russia was awesome but perhaps too real. Brosnan rocked as Bond. Dalton&#39;s Bond&#39;s were awesome and in retrospect I just think Bond audiences weren&#39;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&#39;t have which is why the 2nd half of it destroyed the excellent first half...

  • April 17, 2006, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Thought it was Madonna in another Bond film...

    by Anna Valerious

    And yes, he does remind me of Christopher Walken.

  • April 17, 2006, 9:59 a.m. CST

    StarUnlit you are a moran!!

    by football

    How can you compare Bourne when there&#39;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&#39;s only dead when hollywood stops cashing in on its success by its 2nd rate bond rip-offs, which i guess will never end!

  • April 17, 2006, 12:24 p.m. CST

    OMG It&#39;s Freddie Mercury his last year

    by Orionsangels

    Those were the days of our lives. You know when looked real pale and skinny. This guy looks like him

  • April 17, 2006, 12:45 p.m. CST

    YOLT has 1 major flaw - Bond vs Blofeld

    by Max Meanie

    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&#39;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&#39;s a tall handsome european who&#39;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.

  • April 17, 2006, 1:10 p.m. CST

    Oh no! It&#39;s Goldeneye&#39;s meaner younger brother...

    by Childe Roland

    ...Pinkeye! And he wants to touch your face! "Does this look infected to you? Seriously."

  • April 17, 2006, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Creepy Guy

    by flossygomez

    See The Green Butchers and you&#39;ll find out why...another Joker candidate methinks. How could he miss in the american market with a name like Mads?

  • April 17, 2006, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Lazybee was the worst thing in OHMSS

    by killdeer2

    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&#39;s greatest secret agent like a conflicted Shakespeare character.

  • April 17, 2006, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Le Chiffre in the book was a fat, sweaty middle age man

    by chien_sale

    So much for accuracy, studio deep shits.

  • April 17, 2006, 3:29 p.m. CST

    starting over

    by Stollentroll

    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.

  • April 17, 2006, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Re: Starting Over

    by abcdefghijklmnop

    Yeah, they&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t really have the talent to do that and are currently just running someone else&#39;s series into the ground.

  • April 17, 2006, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Dalton was the smartest Bond

    by Max Meanie

    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.

  • April 17, 2006, 4:21 p.m. CST

    There was never a good Blofeld

    by Max Meanie

    Pleasance belonged in a Get Smart episode. Henderson was totally miscast - he was an english gentlemen. Savalas looked ok but didn&#39;t have that supergenius vibe. He was more of a thug. It&#39;s a testament and misfortune of the film series that Auric Goldfinger became the definitive Bond villain when it should have been Blofeld.

  • April 17, 2006, 5:14 p.m. CST

    I swore off Bond

    by burningbabyfish

    ...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&#39;s not to love?

  • April 17, 2006, 11:04 p.m. CST

    The New Bond Is a Coccccksucka

    by flossygomez

    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.

  • April 18, 2006, 1:21 a.m. CST

    I watch this thread with interest.

    by Flickerhead

    I&#39;ve never been able to grasp the whole "Bond" thing. Although I&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;m not knocking &#39;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&#39;s stupid. So I&#39;m enjoying these Bond threads and find it fascinating that some of you hold passionate opinions on the casting and plots of the series.

  • April 18, 2006, 2:36 a.m. CST

    he looks to much like rupert graves in DIE -

    by Spacesheik

    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

  • April 18, 2006, 7:03 a.m. CST

    call me politically correct

    by board shitlez

    but isn&#39;t it getting a bit old to visually equate facial disfigurement with evil? people are dealing with it - young and old. It&#39;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&#39;s fine for people to become a symbol of evil just because SHOCK - they&#39;ve had a disfiguring car accident or been in a fire. Lazy, lazy stuff.

  • April 18, 2006, 7:08 a.m. CST

    and another thing...

    by board shitlez

    If the producers are using the pretence they are returning to Fleming&#39;s vision at all - they could note that in Fleming&#39;s original it is Bond who is clearly facially scarred. Would the studio go for that? Nope.

  • April 18, 2006, 10:17 a.m. CST

    They Should Have Had A New Director For Each New Movie

    by flamingrunt

    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

  • April 18, 2006, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Mad Max 2 - Blofeld post not directed towards you

    by Max Meanie

    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&#39;s had such a wonderful career & better roles. His Blofeld is more of a cameo appearance and not very engaging.

  • April 18, 2006, 11:25 a.m. CST

    HOLY COW

    by Froggertron

    James Bonds new cellphone costs $1700 street price http://www.ipodhub.net/articles/20060412nokia_royale.html

  • April 19, 2006, 5:03 a.m. CST

    Bourne... no !

    by dude_gimme_tabs

    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.

  • April 19, 2006, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Are you folks trying to spell "their"??

    by Mister Man

    new vs knew, here vs hear, they&#39;re vs there vs their - WHAT are they teaching in school these days?

  • April 23, 2006, 7:58 a.m. CST

    ....And YOUR comments are officially sh*t...

    by football

    ...go back to the school yard and bully some kids, anchorite. It&#39;s where you belong as your comments are like dog&#39;s sh*t on the sidewalk... smelly, unsightly and there to avoid!! Now go wash your mouth out with sulphuric acid!!