HI guys, Went to Casino Royale friday night in London. Good film, great for a Bond film - though I'm not a fan of the franchise on the whole. Haven't sent you guys a review since Melinda And Melinda but in full awards season mode now so might try and send a couple more soon. Anyway. CRAIG IS NOT BOND. THANK GOD! Casino Royale is a massive surprise. Not because it is a good Bond film - though it is the most satisfying of the series since Connery's first bow out - but because it opens the franchise out. MILD SPOILERS - NOT PLOT RELATED Although the film sets up classic Bond staples this is a film of raw brutal action, incredibly stunts and real characters. There are no charicatures, there is no dodgy CGI, there are basically no gadgets. And the film is all the better for it. This is a real world Bond. A well written action film with intelligent, well-thought out characterisation, that just happens to be Bond. Daniel Craig has been accused of not being Bond. And he isn't. And that's good. Because Bond, as Craig's detractors seem to see him, is a cartoon. His world is a cartoon world of supervillains, easy women, maniacal plots and ludicrous gadgets. Not any more. Craig is a great reinvention for the character because he does something Brosnan, Moore, Lazenby and Dalton could never do - he brings a genuine feeling of danger to the role. It was not necessarily the other actors' fault they didn't, they were playing the cartoon Bond. Craig is playing the real world Bond and you sure as hell wouldn't want to meet him. Sure the settings are lavish as always, the woman are beautiful, but this is grounded in a way that could really open the franchise up. And if it upsets fans of Die Another Day and recent outings, that's good, because they were poor, generic, risable jokes. Fun, perhaps, but there was no meat there. Casino Royale also boosts some of the best action sequences I've seen on film in years. The free-running sequence and a sequence in an airport are superb - up there with the car chases in the two Bourne films. Truly exhilarating. A word I'm not sure has ever been attributable to a Bond film before. It is not without it's flaws. Bizarrely it is both too long and moves too quickly! Key plot points are often thrown out and resolved so fast you wonder why the filmmakers bothered to include them. But the biggest problem is you can feel the time. It is nearly two and a half hours and it feels it. The first 30 minutes flies by but then it slows and in places all but halts completely as the pace gets lost in complex plotting. I feel churlish complaining about complex plotting. The Bond franchise rarely could be accused of such and overall Casino Royale benefits from its set-ups and characterisation but, boy, it goes on. Overall a good film and a great Bond film. Craig and the filmmakers have brought a surprisingly fresh take and reinvented the character. It gives the you the ability to ignore the existence of the previous films, and that is not a bad thing. However, it's a little too full of itself - like a kid with a new toy - and it will be interesting to see if Eon have the guts to do the same again on the next one when they don't have Fleming source material to lead them. Have a good one, Motta80
Caught this over the weekend in London, although my thoughts echo your other reviewer, so I won't be offended if you don't use this! Spoiler free review here. First things first - hands up those who thought Daniel Craig would be a terrible Bond? Come on, yes, all of you. Especially those who signed petitions online. Ok, now, if you've changed your mind having seen a few trailers, put your hand down. Ok, only a few of you. Well, if by the end of this movie you haven't changed your mind, then clearly you won't be convinced by me. But, in my opinion, Craig is a) perfect for this role and b) up there with Connery. He's not as smooth as Brosnan, but he's hard as fuck. He's gritty, he's raw, he screws up, but mostly he's bloody good at this. He's physical, cold, and methodical. He's very precise, there's no spraying of machine guns - when he shoots, he doesn't empty his clip, he chooses what to fire at and for the most part hits the target. A lot of the comparisons will stem from the fact that the script's a lot punchier than the previous movies. There aren't any kiss-off lines, not many quips, and most of the cheesy romance lines are met with sniggers and self-deprecation. He's also damned funny. He also manages to get away with I think the first utterances in Bond history of "balls" and "bitch", though not together. He's rugged, yet suave in a couple of scenes, looks amazing in a tux, yet cragged and beaten up. He's a much more vulnerable Bond, wearing scars and hospital attire, yet confident and bruising in his fighting and loving. Support from Bond girls is always tricky - for every Xenia Onatopp or Pussy Galore, exuding sexiness and murderous intent equally, there's a Christmas Jones, a Natalya, or a Madonna threatening to ruin the film. There are three Bond girls here - Caterina Murino, European and poured into a sexy dress; Ivana Milicevic, blonde and utterly useless except as wallcandy (just background - I don't think she even gets a line); and Miss Eva Green. Eva's confident and sexy, veering a little too assured and smug, but banters well with Bond, not falling for his charms too easily. They're not a classic bunch, but with enough wit in the script to give them more than just window dressing status - well, except Milicevic anyway. Mads Mikkelson plays a good enough bad guy. No big speeches or dastardly plans, just a man who needs to get something. He's got a certain amount of fear to him as well as a huge amount of desperation, which I liked, but it's a little unnecessary to have his character flaws so physically portrayed. But it's nice to see a spy movie without the superhumans. Plot wise, I loved the fact that it's not a world-domination film. It's a sensible scheme (although lack of back-up plans seems a little short-sighted.) and thus the plot's not overly convoluted. It does swerve a bit, and I found the casino bits to be less of a thrill than they could have been perhaps, but overall it's a good plot, with a few exciting chase set pieces thrown in but not overly big and bombastic. The fights are gritty and mostly punching, no smooth moves or handy gadgets to save the day. The chases are excellent, very frantic and take different turns which keeps you charged the whole way through. The script is sharp, witty and at times self-deprecating. Some of the jokes at the expense of your expectations might alienate some fans as being too on the nose, but for the most part it's much drier and more palatable than recent work, and I hope they manage to rein that in more in follow-ups. It was a little too slick at times, some of the romance I felt was forced and devolved a little from its earlier scenes, and the casino bits went on too long. The ending could have been crisper and the theme tune whilst I didn't like it on the internet and found it better in the titles, it still wasn't a memorable song. As a reboot I thought it was great - it adds a huge amount of depth to the franchise, just by reducing the character to his essentials. As a starting point for a new, inexperienced Bond I thought it was good - but I hope he doesn't become too confident too quickly. As a continuation of a franchise our interpretation is that Bond's a persona that different people step into, and that's how Dench is still M, and this I feel is a step in the right direction. As a film I thought it was great entertainment - it's got an edge to it that a lot of spy movies don't have, but it's not a ridiculous blockbuster either, which I found refreshing. As a Bond film I thought it was up with GoldenEye and most of the Connery films. Would I recommend it? Hell yes. To those people sick of CGI windsurfing and fans of the Bourne films I thought that the producers of Bond have learnt a lot. It's not perfect and certainly won't please everyone, but we thought it was a cracking film, fun, exciting, and above all entertaining without being stupid. Go see! Demographic? I'm male, 27 and a huge movie snob. I'd recommend it to most people between 14 and 50, male and female, and Bond fans who were despairing after the last few turkeys. And I definitely felt Bond was back - Craig wasn't the obvious choice, but after seeing him for almost two and a half hours, I totally forgot it was the same man from Road to Perdition and Enduring Love, and believed I was watching James Bond. He's not like his predecessors, but my faith in the franchise has been restored. Now, if only I could get people to make a public apology on those websites.. If it's of any use, protect my identity by using the humorous referential pseudonym of M is for Monkey.Bond hits November 17.
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:06 p.m. CST
by M B R
The new trailer kicked ass and these reviews give me hope. Can't wait for this!
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:10 p.m. CST
Really excited about this. Can't wait to see Bond not suck. It's been a while. Die Another Day might be the worst movie in years. However there were some great things happening in that movie. The disavowed Bond beginning was great. This sounds like it carries that level of intensity all the way through.
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:12 p.m. CST
by King Sweyn Forkbeard
This will be a solid flick. Too much comedy, not enough bad-assery in Bond films these days. A return to the cold-blooded killer of the books is long overdue.
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:14 p.m. CST
by The Equalizer
Good stuff! I wasn't entirely convinced by Craig's casting in the role. I thought Brosnan was doing a decent job in the role even if hampered by weak plots and crap SFX. I was very disappointed by the last 3 Bond films and was crying out for a revamp to bring to life the original Fleming character. Looks like me and countless other Bond-ites(?) got our wish!
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:19 p.m. CST
That was my problem with Bond of recent vintage. Brosnan was a pretty boy. Sure, Bond should be attractive, but Brosnan looked like a Bacharach catalog model. Not exactly someone who strikes fear in your heart. Craig, on the other hand, has some wear on the tires. Like he's actually been in a fight at some point in his life. He might even be able to take Uwe Boll.
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:19 p.m. CST
i always thought craig was good choice, and the book is great.
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:20 p.m. CST
suck balls craig detractors .. he can act .. he's tough .. and got grit ... can't wait
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:21 p.m. CST
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:23 p.m. CST
by georges garvaren
You must not of read any Bond books because if you had you would know that although Bond killed many, he often showed great remorse in having to. Im sure Craig will do just fine in the role; he doesnt look like Flemings idea of bond but then again none of the actors did.
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:23 p.m. CST
"do i look like I give a damn" .. that, as a line, is up there with "I don't want to be happy, last time I was happy, I was fat" .. genius
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:27 p.m. CST
If Craig's Bond is essentially a reboot, there's an opportunity here to release remade versions in order that the Ian Fleming Bond novels were released. Of course, it would be damn hard to top Jane Seymour, the 7-Up guy and Paul McCartney and Wings' theme music, so maybe we should just forget everything I just typed. <p>(Waves hand slowly across the air) These are not the droids you're looking for...</p>
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:27 p.m. CST
I think most Bond films, at least the more recent ones have some extra filler that just make portions of it drag along. It's not a Bond film without being an a 1/2 an hour too long.
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:32 p.m. CST
I think the 2nd one is honest.
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:33 p.m. CST
What are incredibly stunts, anyway?
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:38 p.m. CST
...baggage? I'd rather say one of the few things worth holding over.
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:38 p.m. CST
I knew Craig would kick ass. Bring it on!
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:41 p.m. CST
Both reviews are from people who don't like Bond films much... That will smultaneously be its greatest strength and its biggest weakness. For an interesting moderate negative review (i.e. disliking the film but also noting its strong points, including Craig's performance), see The Guardian's review.
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:44 p.m. CST
by Spandau Belly
Great! Unless you're seeing a film in a franchise because you enjoy thetrademarks of the franchise. Why not "reboot" Halloween as a romantic comedy for all those people who never liked how *cartoonish* Michael Myers was? I also never liked how the Terminator was a robot, or how Pirates of the Caribean movies were family-oriented pirate movies. Casino Royal is going to suck. If I wanted Ronin, I'd order Ronin.
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:45 p.m. CST
I'm with Merrick in reference to Judi Dench. Don't get me wrong; I love the old Dame and she really added gravitas to the Brosnan films. But, as anyone (like myself and I am sure most everyone on this site) who follows the Bond installments knows, "M" (Dench) made a point to Bond in "Goldeneye" that she was the Alpha female and, although it was not expressly stated (I think), that she was the FIRST female "M" at MI6. Now, I realize that continuity isn't exactly the first priority on this new era of Bond (no cold war, different actors as Bond, etc...) but I do think that watching Judi as "M" ordering Bond on his first double-0 mission will be awkward, what with the aforementioned history in the films. Maybe I'm beeing nit-picky, but I would have loved to have seen a new "M" along with the other new faces. I would recommend Helen Mirren. Anyone who has ever seen The Magnificent Ms Mirren on Prime Suspect or, oh, anything she has ever done, would agree. Mirren would bring the same "take no shit" attitude that Dench displays while creating a new, strong "boss" that this new, 'leaner and meaner' Bond can respect. With any luck, maybe some Bond producer is reading these Talkbacks and he/she will consider this come Bond #22. What do you think?
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:50 p.m. CST
Dont know about this one. People say they like it, but I like my Brosnan Bond. Action and pointless plots are something I enjoy.
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:57 p.m. CST
Belly: You have a point, but I have to agree with taking Bond through a re-imagining such as Sci-Fi has accomplished (magnificently, I feel) with Battlestar Galactica. Before the new version aired we heard much the same cries of outrage. But, luckily for everyone, the producers and the network stuck to their guns and the result is a fantastic show that has a skeleton created on the original while still being something different. It's high time that Bond have the same oppurtunity. Oh! And the comparison of this new Bond to the other "new" films (Halloween, Pirates, et al) isn't fair. Casino Royale is still about James Bond, an agent in MI6, trying to stop an international bad-ass while getting it on with a hottie. It's just a little less "fantastical".
Nov. 6, 2006, 1 p.m. CST
looks serious, which is what I'm excited for. ALSO, there is supposed to be a Spidey 3 trailer attached to Bond and this Spidey trailer is going to premiere this Thursday. I'm surpised this site hasn't been going apeshit on that news.
Nov. 6, 2006, 1:02 p.m. CST
by THE KNIGHT
Glad to say i wasn't among the naysayers... I always felt he had a hard/rugged look that fit the character... Hopefully the women find him decent looking...
Nov. 6, 2006, 1:04 p.m. CST
incredibly stunts, boosting instead of boasting! I am ashamed at my lack of spell checking simply because I span this out too quickly at lunchtime. Still, can't cry over spilt milk. Dench is good by the way. I was worried about her still being in it but she has a great entrance and quickly dispels any concerns about her presence. Motta80
Nov. 6, 2006, 1:33 p.m. CST
by El Scorcho
I've been with that casting from day one. Can't wait for next Friday.
Nov. 6, 2006, 1:48 p.m. CST
The story set up in Casino Roayle is set to run for the next two movies. Roger Michell was all set to direct bond 22. But creative differances put paid to that. ie barbara Brocolli was her usual bitchy self and he walked. or maybe he heard on the wires about the cruise announcement and took a hike. who knows. IN ireland it has been announced that Casino Raoyale will recieve the highest rating for Bond film ever that is 15. Hearing how bloody I thought they would have gone for 16. that would have killed its chances at the box office.
Nov. 6, 2006, 1:53 p.m. CST
by Spandau Belly
I understand that new film makers can "re-interpret" previously adapted novels. But I think by now Bond as a film icon exists in his own right apart from Ian Flemming's novels. I also think that Bond is the longest running franchise for a reason: people like it. I like it. I know its stupid and silly, but I like it. I understand that "its still an espionage action film", but tone can make all the difference in the world. I also like Ronin and Bourne but wouldn't want sequels to those movies that resembled Goldfinger so why would I want a Bond that resembles those movies?
Nov. 6, 2006, 2 p.m. CST
All the bond films at this stage. My concern is that based on the success of this movie, if it is a success, this will embolden the producers to look at an overhaul of the Ian fleming book/movies and I think that will take them on to very dangerous ground. Dr No is considrered the best bond and one of the best action films ever made. So if the brocolli family say well Casino Royale did well why dont we re-do dr no and so on. I am all for re-boots if the stories are good. You can take the idea of the reboot to far. My concern is that they will do that. By the way get ready for the day when you will see the Cruise name on the bond franchise. from the next movie onwards..............
Nov. 6, 2006, 2:03 p.m. CST
But Casino Royale is still a fun, thrill ride, just a different type. The free running sequence alone is the best thing Bond has ever done. I love some of silliness - You Only Live Twice is my favourite and that's where the silliness all began - but i hated the recent ones, they took it too far - I'm thinking CG surfing, invisible cars and Christmas Jones (Denise Richards as a rocket scientist!) This just takes it back to the early Bonds, more like From Russia With Love. The grounded ones. Honestly go, watch the free running bit which is right a the start. If that hasn't sold you walk and get your money back. That sequence sold me. It's incredible (not incredibly!)
Nov. 6, 2006, 2:05 p.m. CST
duties by Paul Haggis.
Nov. 6, 2006, 2:33 p.m. CST
That first reviewer seems to be rather dumb. If Daniel Craig isn't "Bond", then this movie should be called something else. Bond is about being smooth, getting the ladies, and having sick ass gadgets. They could have reinvented Bond and kept those things in it. Instead, we now have a movie that is a cool spy movie, but should not have 'Bond" anywhere related to it.
Nov. 6, 2006, 2:34 p.m. CST
BringingSexyBack + Barbara = 23 letters..... YOU ARE SATAN
Nov. 6, 2006, 2:37 p.m. CST
"Dr No is considrered the best bond and one of the best action films ever made." Considered the best Bond by whom? Most polls I've seen have one of Goldfinger, Thunderball and OHMSS in the #1 slot.
Nov. 6, 2006, 2:41 p.m. CST
by Childe Roland
...in that Bond as a franchise had long since crossed the line into self parody (see Galactica 1980). But, more importantly, I feel like all this "Craig's not Bond" talk should be followed closely by "yet." Craig's not SUPPOSED to be Bond yet. He's just slipping into the Double-Os. The question is, can you see in Craig the raw material for a Connery-esque super spy in future installments? I can. He's got the right combination of rugged, handsome, hard and cunning in his mannerisms and his delivery (going largely off of Layer Cake, here, as I haven't seen Casino yet) that leads me to believe he can play the sanctioned assassin with edge and attitude and, yes, even fun gadgets (but let's keep them semi-plausible, please) in future installments. This was a first step in the rebirthing of a cinematic legend and, from everything I'm hearing, it's a pretty solid foot forward for the franchise.
Nov. 6, 2006, 3:06 p.m. CST
Which was entirely unappropriate. He should have called her a "STUPID bitch."
Nov. 6, 2006, 3:27 p.m. CST
So I went to a different site. Wtached it there. Thanks AICN. The same website that didnt tell us about the Grindhouse Trailer, which was awesome. Thanks AICN.
Nov. 6, 2006, 4:18 p.m. CST
by Neo Technic
Remember when catwoman said that in Die Another Day? Wow, that was a long time ago.
Nov. 6, 2006, 4:23 p.m. CST
Bring on next weekend, woo-hoo! My bloke looks a lot like an 'Open Hearts' era Mads Mikkelsen so we are currently musing whether to put on our glad rags and try and crash the premiere.......but then I don't want to get arrested. Still, a girl can dream.
Nov. 6, 2006, 4:26 p.m. CST
The grittier, no winking-at-the-camera style for Casino Royale sounds great to me, but how can anyone disparage the hallmarks of the Bond dynasty, namely the gadgets, the ridiculous stunts, the one-liners, and the whole formulaic beauty of it all?
Nov. 6, 2006, 4:46 p.m. CST
Things just took a turn for the bizarre... http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_306192615.html
Nov. 6, 2006, 4:51 p.m. CST
Things just took a turn for the bizarre... http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_306192615.html
Nov. 6, 2006, 5:27 p.m. CST
Nov. 6, 2006, 5:44 p.m. CST
Almost everything in a typical Bond movie is in Casino Royale. Bond becomes the "007" as we know him at the end of the film. We'll probably get Q, the gadgets, and Moneypenny in Bond 22...
Nov. 6, 2006, 5:48 p.m. CST
this film is going to fucking rock. lots of action..lots of hand to hand fights, more blood than hostel. machete fights in stairwells, drowning in sinks, headshots, multiple stabbings by bond, hiding bodies like in metal gear solid..huge chases, tanker explosions, parkour crane chases..( SPOILER!! bond shoots that guy in the head too just for spitting at him )..a love story, a card game, car chases, a good script, plus daniel craig is cool as fuck, the dude is fucking dark. a legend in the making. people who cant take this film should fuck off and go watch their aeon flux dvds or whatever. i cant wait to see this guy silence his critics. i saw him on us tv and he was both dangerous, cool and a nice guy - which is quite something to pull off. plus i need a fucking proper action film with some class. thank fuck for this movie.
Nov. 6, 2006, 6:04 p.m. CST
by Jimmy Jazz
Die Another Day part deux. That movie is second only to Moonraker as the absolute nadir of the franchise. And I am someone who thinks that Bond movies in most of their incarnations had their moments. But those two are ones that I can't even defend. I cannot WAIT for Casino Royale to come and cleanse the franchise of bad memories of CGI surfing, invisible cars and Skanky Berry.
Nov. 6, 2006, 6:11 p.m. CST
But did Harry Knowles just refer to Dame Judi Dench as baggage?? That statement alone should be good for an automatic no holds barred asskicking. It's more likely that the asstastic Bond scripts and not the world renowned stage actress are the baggage. You ever though of that Harry? Idiot.
Nov. 6, 2006, 6:15 p.m. CST
I think it means "I wasn't expecting to see any but, incredibly, there were stunts!" =) <p> Seriously tho, I told you guys all along that Craig was a great choice, that he could act, and he would shit on all the other Bonds, even giving Connery a run for his money! So what if he's blond? Connery was bald by the second film!<p> A *little* disappointed tho to hear the Bourne comparisons. I remember others at the time foreseeing that one and I can't say I'm really happy about that. At least it's not 24...<p> Peace
Nov. 6, 2006, 6:22 p.m. CST
...for crying out loud please READ stuff you're criticising. Merrick posted the article, Merrick is the one who made the 'M as baggage' comment. Not Harry. Why do people feel the need to slam HARRY for everything they disagree with on this site, even when he very obviously had nothing to do with it? Having said that, I don't see a problem with keeping Judi Dench, especially since I go for the "James Bond as the 007 name that gets passed on" explanation for the franchise. So yes, I actually agree with your substantive point.
Nov. 6, 2006, 7:21 p.m. CST
by Spandau Belly
My argument is that Bond is well established film franchise built on cheesey conventions that may or may not reflect Flemming's novels but are popular and anticpated for the staples of the series. <br>Do all you people who want a serious espionage thriller deserve one? Sure! You got Munich, Ronin, Bourne, Spy Game, endless movies that show a gritty side of espionage. There are few franchises that do the silly espionage thing, and I'll be sad to see Bond turn into the Mission:Impossible franchise where we're expected to care about Cruise's new lady problem every outing. Did anybody else notice how part three avoided mention of his love interest who was still alive at the end of part 2? The M:I franchise is dead as will Bond be if they try to give some new personal story every outing. <br>I love the cartoonish aspect of Bond and don't like how they're trying to trade on the history of a cheesy Bond and the promise of serious Bond that will alienate both audiences within one or two installments.
Nov. 6, 2006, 7:49 p.m. CST
I'll be interested to see a review by someone who's actually read the books. In my view, 'Casino Royale' is an effort to bring Bond back to how Fleming originally intended (so far Dalton's been closest). No Comedy. No Gadgets (Q isn't even in the books). Even though Fleming's Bond had black hair, that rule's been violated before (Moore), and I'm not going to be so shallow as to hold that against this film or its star. I'm REALLY excited about this rebirth. It's Bond as he was originally meant to be, before it was perverted by Hollywood.
Nov. 6, 2006, 8:05 p.m. CST
Which actually hangs together from beginning to end, like a proper movie? Since when did we start accepting that a cool first 20 minutes, a bit of a thrill in the middle, and some nifty shit towards the end is enough to suffice, and we'll just turn a blind eye to all the turgid, embarrassing, clunky banality and shit inbetween? The Bourne Supremacy is the best spy movie of the past six years (unless you're one of those "the camera is moving by itself" haters) and it works from beginning to end with no silly bits. I'll reserve final judgement until I see it - but I'm betting Casino Royale will be about as memorable as a not very memorable thing in a year's time. Why? Here's a hint:- the script WASN"T READY.
Nov. 6, 2006, 8:06 p.m. CST
by King Willy
How does Bond stack up to the present set of spy movies. The quality in spy movies have improved. People feel that True Lies is still the best spy film out there (when I mean spy film I’m talking about the fiction ones not like Munich). I loved True Lies and that is maybe where the Bond franchise will go, but then it could be too close to what Brosnan was made too do with too much humour. For the record Brosnan was o.k and I heard he was very unhappy with the direction the filmmakers took him man he was out staged by Michelle YeoH in TND and he basically looked like stupid old Brit man out of his depth while his sidekick did all the work. The Bourne franchise is the shit, but again its Bourne and we want to see Bond looking cool grinding girls and all that, but it’s the reality of the films that I like. Bond is not reality based, but it has to be believable. And now we have MI3. I watched that for the 1st time last night, and I thought how the hell can Bond beat this??
Nov. 6, 2006, 8:27 p.m. CST
That is a very good sign. Brits take their Bond VERY seriously - he is an icon and a national treasure. If it's getting raves from hard-to-please UK audiences, chances are this is an excellent Bond film.
Nov. 6, 2006, 9:47 p.m. CST
by Darth Fabulous
Would have kicked some major ass with Daniel Craig onscreen.
Nov. 6, 2006, 10:18 p.m. CST
by King Willy
I heard rumours that he was going to be M anyway and I think that would have been a great chioce. Like Batman begins they need to bring in good strong character actors to add more gravitas to the film. I don't like Dame reprosing her role more for continuity rather than what she brought to the screen. That said I originally liked the idea that she didn't like Bond, but then she fell for his charns which was cop out. Helen Mirram would be great if the needed a female M. Who will the pick for Q and MoneyPenny in the next films. Maybe they'd get some batty man for Money penny to update it.
Nov. 7, 2006, 12:50 a.m. CST
What's with all the hate for MI:3? I think it was an excellent movie, the only weak part was that Cruise was in it, because I can't stand that guy. It was definitely an improvement over MI:2, unless you want to see people flying in slow motion punching each other with doves in the background. MI:3 was the best movie this summer. Great action, lots of suspense, an excellent villain, solid story, great dialogue, cool gadgets and Maggie Q. Not to mention those great sequences at the Vatican, in Shanghai and on the bridge. I don't understand the hatred for this movie. Oh and Craig will rock as Bond.
Nov. 7, 2006, 4:11 a.m. CST
"....As a continuation of a franchise our interpretation is that Bond's a persona that different people step into...." Erm NO !!! NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO ! Fucking pack this shit in once and for all. It is not a code name, it is not a persona, it is not an alias given to different agents. He is one person, always has been and always will be. Anyone who assumes this or suggests this is a fuckwit and a knob jockey to boot.
Nov. 7, 2006, 6:01 a.m. CST
I had a feeling that this movie would be great. I read the book when I first heard the anouncement amd thought that Daniel Craig was a great choice for this kind of Bond. It was really unfair of all the press and supposed hardcore Bond fans to outright rubbish him without seeing the film first and/or reading the book. If I was him, I'd hold a press confrence just to give everyone a big 'F**k you all' flip of the bird. This REALLY is James Bond now.
Nov. 7, 2006, 6:56 a.m. CST
by Spandau Belly
Come on, you know you want it.
Nov. 7, 2006, 7:27 a.m. CST
by Spandau Belly
Nov. 7, 2006, 7:39 a.m. CST
by Bill Brasky
"Here's to Bill Brasky!"
Nov. 7, 2006, 9:17 a.m. CST
...and this is the FIRST time I've wanted to see a Bond film! I equate the franchise to Harlequin Romances for women, just changing the names and locales and pretty much having the same plots, toys, lame jokes otherwise. They're so caricaturish that I consider Austin Powers to be in the same vein, not necessarily a parody. (I will admit that I have one Bond film, and THAT'S because the villain is hot.)
Nov. 7, 2006, 9:51 a.m. CST
by yeah i'm a jerk!
this movie may or may not be good, but i won't know until i see it on HBO. the same way i saw catwoman, and constantine. this dude does not look the part. and it is stupid to have judi dench playing M in a prequel.
Nov. 7, 2006, 10:58 a.m. CST
by Lost Prophet
but hoping for the best. Anything to purge my memory of the brosnan era. <p> I wish they hadn't tried to appease the "WAAH Craig is not bond" lobby by making James Bond a codename, though.
Nov. 7, 2006, 12:38 p.m. CST
They didn't make James Bond a codename you gullible ass. Unless you're talking about the Peter Sellers "Casino Royale," which genuinely sucked.
Nov. 7, 2006, 9:21 p.m. CST
by Bazka Berzerker
He's a big Bond fan and he said that this is the best Bond film ever. I don't always agree with him, but he's pretty smart about this stuff. He liked the fact that the film was raw and real, and yet gave compliments and homages to the traditions of the series. Action scenes kicked ass. Craig was one badass motherfucker. The girl was the best Bond girl ever. The villain was realistic and cool. That's his review in a nutshell. Sounds good to me.
Nov. 7, 2006, 10:54 p.m. CST
by Darth Fabulous
Where is Edward Woodward as M people?
Nov. 8, 2006, 2:28 a.m. CST
Edward Woodward as the popular 90's Jazz Funk combo fronted by Heather Small ? Is there no end to his talents. By the way, people who think or wish that Bond is a codename are still the highest form of slutmunches.
July 16, 2007, 2:56 p.m. CST
by just pillow talk
Oct. 22, 2007, 12:15 p.m. CST
by just pillow talk
drippy little whore.