Cool News
Moriarty, Notorious Bond Movie Nit-Picker And Paul Haggis Hater, Has Seen CASINO ROYALE!!
James Bond is one of those properties where everyone who’s ever seen a Bond film has an opinion about what James Bond “really” is. How do you think of the character? Do you think of the character Ian Fleming wrote, as he appears in the original books? Do you think of him as Sean Connery? Or Roger Moore? Or Lazenby or Dalton? Or have you grown up watching Pierce Brosnan play the role, with everything else just a bunch of “old movies” that your dad likes?
Because any one of those is valid. Any one of those might very well be your favorite because of the order in which you were exposed to things.
For me, James Bond started with THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. It was the first Bond film my dad took me to see in the theater, and I always associated Bond with my dad. It was something I could tell he really loved, the same way I’m sure my son will eventually figure out I’m a shameless STAR WARS nerd. He never pushed James Bond on me or told me I had to like it. But when he took me to THE SPY WHO LOVED ME at the age of seven, it seemed cooler than anything I’d seen at that point. I loved Richard Kiel as a bad guy. I loved the theme song. I loved that enormous set that Karl Stromberg’s henchmen were on. And I totally loved the Lotus Esprit underwater car scene. If you’d asked me then what a Bond film was supposed to do, I’d say, “Whatever SPY WHO LOVED ME does. That’s awesome.” Over time, though, I not only caught up with the rest of the series of films, but I also read the Ian Fleming novels in totally random order. They were always around the house, wherever my dad kept his books, along with his REMO WILLIAMS novels, his John D. McDonald books, his Mickey Spillane, his Chandler. That was the stuff I cut my teeth on, and even when I read them in random order, I had my favorite Fleming novels, and CASINO ROYALE has always been very near the top of the list for me. It’s so stripped down, so well-written, so precise in the way it sets up the character of James Bond. My fondness for it isn’t out of some blind slavish devotion to Fleming; for example, I’m painfully embarrassed by LIVE AND LET DIE’s black patois dialogue, which had to have been blatantly racist even when it was originally published.
No... I love it the way I love certain tellings of the origin of Batman or the origins of Spider-Man or the origins of Superman. I love it because of how clean it is, and how Fleming was very specific in the way he painted this MI6 officer, making him human but also heroic, cold-blooded but for a greater good.
He’s right most of the time, and that gives him license to be a prick. He’s picked for the assignment in CASINO ROYALE not because he’s “the famous James Bond,” as he obviously is in pretty much all the movies. He’s picked because he is ruthless and because he knows the rules to an obscure casino game that is the fetish of a spy that MI6 is particularly interested in, Le Chiffre. They want to put someone in against Le Chiffre, someone who can play him and beat him consistently. They need someone to take Le Chiffre’s money away from him, because they know that the money he’s playing with is not entirely his own, and they’re looking to put him into a situation from which there’s no escape. Bond takes the assignment, and for a while, he becomes the stud James Bond that we all know... the archetype. He becomes the guy in the tux at the table, and he’s starting to really believe he is that guy. Until some bad shit happens. And some more bad shit happens. And James Bond is pushed to his breaking point and beyond. He’s tested as much as any hero, any archetype, has ever been tested. And he makes a brutal, hard choice at the end of the book that proves that he is ready to push forward as an agent, ready to do something else, that he has not only survived these events... but that he has actually changed because of them. That’s the book. It’s pretty great simple iconic stuff. With one of the best last lines of tough guy fiction, a stunner that hasn’t had its impact dulled by time one little bit.
So that’s who I am as a Bond fan. That’s my own bias. That’s my relationship with the previously unfilmed novel. I’m very fond of it, and in theory, I’m all for seeing someone make a reboot of the series using CASINO ROYALE as a starting point. That’s exactly the sort of thing I think the series needs.
Still, I’ve been skeptical about this film all the way through production. I liked the announcement that Daniel Craig would be playing the lead, but everything else about the picture made me nervous.
Tuesday night, I saw the film at The Grove, and I took my co-writer Obi-Swan with me. He’s a fan of the films much more than the books, but has his likes and dislikes within the series. He feels very strongly about the franchise, and he and I both sort of fell out of love with the series a few years ago, convinced that Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson would never allow a good film to happen, even by accident, ever again. When the lights went down, we crossed our fingers and quietly prayed the Hail Mary of all optimistic film geeks: “Please don’t suck, please don’t suck, please don’t suck.”
I am flabbergasted to report that everything you’ve heard is true. CASINO ROYALE is the rebirth of James Bond, and it is the first entry in the series since ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE that can be called an excellent film, and not just a “good James Bond movie.” Somehow, the combination of screenwriting team Purvis & Wade (responsible for some of the worst screenplays in the entire series) and the dreaded Paul Haggis has resulted in a lean and efficient script. It not only effectively adapts the Ian Fleming novel, but it also expands up on it in ways that acknowledge the film’s status as a giant franchise action film without compromising any integrity. There are a few choices I’m not crazy about, but overall, I am impressed and amazed. Martin Campbell has stepped up with his best-directed film to date. Campbell is a professional, and I think he does solid work most of the time, but he’s hardly an artist. Here, I think he raises his game, and the result is something special, something with a real pulse, a vital film that absolutely rehabilitates the character and that delivers Daniel Craig to superstardom, fully formed.
CASINO ROYALE the movie gets right the things it absolutely has to get right if it’s going to be considered a real adaptation of the book. The movie is very specific in the way it depicts this MI6 officer, making him human but also heroic, cold-blooded but for a greater good. He’s right most of the time, and that gives him license to be a prick. In the film, he’s not picked for the assignment. In fact, he sort of defies MI6 a bit in his pursuit of it. At first, he’s acting on his own, following some leads and some hunches, pissing off M with his casual abuse of the rules. Once he actually puts some solid intel together, though, MI6 sanctions his actions and assign him the case.
He’s picked here because he is ruthless and because he is “the best poker player in the Service,” which makes him the best candidate to enter a poker tournament opposite a banker for terrorists that MI6 is particularly interested in, Le Chiffre. They want to put someone in against Le Chiffre, someone who can play him and beat him consistently. They need someone to take Le Chiffre’s money away from him, because they know that the money he’s playing with is not entirely his own, and they’re looking to put him into a situation from which there’s no escape. Bond takes the assignment, and for a while, he becomes the stud James Bond that we all know... the archetype. He becomes the guy in the tux at the table, and he’s starting to really believe he is that guy. Until some bad shit happens. And some more bad shit happens. And James Bond is pushed to his breaking point and beyond. He’s tested as much as any hero, any archetype, has ever been tested. And he makes a brutal, hard choice at the end of the film that proves that he is ready to push forward as an agent, ready to do something else, that he has not only survived these events... but that he has actually changed because of them. That’s the movie. Which, like I said, is a surprisingly faithful rendition of the book. It’s pretty great iconic stuff. And although I think they sort of throw away the book’s great last line, they do include it in the film, and then they add an ending that, while not Fleming’s, does something no Bond film has done since I was a kid: it makes me want to see the sequel immediately.
Many people are going to say that this film is a direct reaction to the success of THE BOURNE IDENTITY and the sequel, and that’s probably a part of it, but I think the film that is the more direct influence here is BATMAN BEGINS. Watching CASINO ROYALE, you don’t just see one movie unfold. You also suddenly see a real series ahead, a series that you’re eager to be part of. The last two minutes of this film suggest what we’ll see next time, and it’s an exciting direction. They’ll have to go off-book completely for the first time in the entire franchise, but if they follow the lead of this film, I’m confident they’ll give us another Bond that matters. Do I have some complaints? Sure. I think David Arnold’s opening theme is a decent song, but Chris Cornell is absolutely the wrong choice to sing it. Thankfully, the opening title sequence is a stylish kick, different but somehow a clever nod to the great title sequences of the past.
My biggest problem is one that I’ve had since the script stage: the change from baccarat to poker. It’s literally pointless. The poker in the film doesn’t matter, and having knowledge of the game doesn’t matter. At all. Not even a little bit. Because card games in movies are inherently boring. You know there is no chance involved because it is scripted. The cards are going to be dealt according to drama, not chance. The reason that baccarat simply works better is because it’s so uncommon. No one knows how to play baccarat. Le Chiffre has a fetish for the game because of its obscurity. And when MI6 decides to send someone in to play across from Le Chiffre, there’s really only one guy inside the agency that knows the game well enough to compete. You think it matters what cards turn over on the table between those two guys? No. What matters is what happens between them, and the film gets it right. Campbell directs the poker the best way he possibly can, by making it inconsequential. He’s got the dealer to explain every hand, so you don’t have to know anything about the game, and he directs everything so it’s about the way Bond and Le Chiffre play off each other. It’s just Mads Mikkelsen and Daniel Craig, every gesture loaded with meaning. No invisible cars, no creepy dudes shooting lightning out of their fingers, no CGI or snowboarding. Just two men, both desperate to accomplish something, depending on this civilized warfare across a card table.
Sure, there are stunt sequences. It would not be a James Bond film without them. And they are spectacular. There’s a chase right at the beginning involving Craig and Sebastien Foucan, the first stuntman I’ve ever seen billed in the opening credits as a stuntman. He’s better known as one of the co-developers of Parkour, or Free Running, and if you saw DISTRICT B13, you’ve already seen how cool it can be in an action film. Here, what starts small turns insane, but it never leaves the realm of reality. The real mark of success is that never once during the entire thing did I start thinking about how they did what I was watching. It all appears to be real, and it all looks like it’s Craig and Foucan. I’m sure it can’t be, but it looks like it, and it’s seamlessly shot, one great gag and one great beat after another and another and another. It’s the same thing with the airport set piece; the film ramps up expertly, with Craig just barely getting it done. I like the human side of his James Bond. He’s ferocious, willing to do whatever he has to, but he’s not perfect. He’s not bulletproof.
There’s a fight on a stairwell that I think approaches the brutality of one of the great fights of the whole series, the train fight with Robert Shaw in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, and what makes it so great is the intimacy of it. It’s ugly. And in the aftermath, we can see that Bond is shaken by it, but also in some way, he feels like the moment validates him. It’s what he does. He does it well. When M calls him a “blunt instrument,” she’s not making a joke.
Another thing I really like about the film, and it’s one of the things that makes this a real James Bond film and not just a generic action film using the character name, is that this doesn’t seem to be a cutting-edge 2006 film. There’s no Paul Greengrass-style shaky cam. There’s no rapid-fire flash-cut editing a la Michael Bay. This is not an edgy film. There’s a classic style to the filmmaking. Martin Campbell, like David Arnold, seems to have a genuine affection for the iconography of the franchise. The film fits into the franchise even as it turns it inside out.
Congratulations are in order to everyone involved, and not least of all to Daniel Craig, who took a lot of heat while the film was in production. He kept his head down, and he stayed focused, and the result is a film that should turn him into a superstar. He’s already proven himself to be a gifted and complex actor, but he exhibits effortless charisma in this role, and he plays every face of Bond well. Vicious thug? Check. Shameless flirt? Check. Sarcastic sophisticate? Yep. He’s got it all. As I mentioned at the start of the review, everybody typically likes the Bond they grew up on. I know Roger Moore fans, Timothy Dalton fans, and heaps and heaps of Pierce Brosnan fans. I know OHMSS snobs. I know Connery hardcores. I know people who like every single Bond film indiscriminately. For the first time ever, I can see the potential here for a Bond that can finally unite Bond fans. As long as the films use this movie as a template, things look good.
For the first time since childhood, when I saw the phrase “JAMES BOND WILL RETURN” appear at the very end of the closing credits, I actually applauded. For the first time in a long time, that’s a promise, not an obligation.
Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles
-
+ Expand All
-
seein' it tonight and can't wait.
-
I plead it.
-
I'm actually excited!!!!! Thanks for the review!!! Even if it did feel like you were review Deja Vu there for a second. This is great news!!!
-
You never know with the print reviewers out there. When I'm watching a geek movie, I want geek reviews!
-
You restated the damn plot like 15 times.
-
He's done the best two Bond flicks in over 30 years, keep him as the resident director a la John Glen.
-
see how effective of a writing tool it is?
-
Thanks for that one, Mr Moriarty. I think this is the first Bond film I have looked forward to since Goldeneye. That was partly because I like this actor Daniel Craig, but now it is also because of the many good reviews.
-
I restated the plot in the same language for a reason.
The Bond films have never really been concerned with adapting the books with any sort of attention to detail. They sort of graze some good ideas from the books, then invent a lot of big silly nonsense.
In this case, what surprised me is how they pretty much got it exactly right in terms of the things that make CASINO ROYALE so great as a story, and I wanted to express just how well they nailed down the details of it. -
Nov 16, 2006 7:02:16 AM CST
Those who grew up on Brosnan should only be killed...
by jackpumpkinhead
if they actually liked his films and still like them.
-
if it's still available in print of course.
-
My wife and I are SO there tomorrow night. Thanks Moriarty, good review as always. I'm absolutely thrilled they kept the throughline of the novel intact as well as kept the last line... Though, of course, that fact was already spoiled by the soundtrack listing, which has the most revealing track title(s) since the Episode One score ("Qui-Gon's Noble End.")
-
....
-
...more than one subject, the verb ought to be "have," not has, as in the two of you "have seen" the new movie. Too bad the 'net lets anyone be a journalist.
-
... just one subject there, Abominate. Moriarty Has Seen. That's the headline.
-
I have not seen it yet, but the press over here are saying how much better it is. You just don't know if they are saying it so the whole thing is not too cringe worthy, but to hear an American say such good things really gives me hope.
-
OHMSS. No question, followed by 'From Russia With Love'. And they way this is shaping up this could be number 3. OHMSS was a great film first, and a great Bond film second. Same with FRWL. Every other film tries to do it the other way around, and ends up fouling up both more often than not.
-
The Craig haters are gonna eat crow ehhhh..
-
..ha ha ha!
-
Casino Royale's success or failure is in the hands of the audience. I cant really understand the brosnan hate, though.
-
it's quite simple. The franchise completely derailed during his tenure. It wasn't his fault at all, but nonetheless it went completely pear shaped in his tenure in a way never before seen in the franchise. Die Another Day was absolute trash, and even Brosnan knows it. I think what annoys people more than anything else is that he was clearly born for the role.
-
can't wait to see this movie tomorrow. and i started the series with for your eyes only and my top 5 would go something like this.
1. for your eyes only
2. goldfinger
3. on her majesty's secret service
4. goldeneye
5. the spy who loved me
everyone has their own list and i'm all about seeing anyone else who wants to post theirs. -
back to back, you'll go batshit crazy
-
die another day really just gave me a big headache as i watched it. i really was pissed off with so much of the film, including just about every action scene in the last hour of that movie. although i don't have really any hate for the other 3 brosnan films. obviously i love goldeneye, i liked die another day as a descent action film (although the villan was a bit of a stretch for even a bond film), and if u take denise richards out of the world is not enough i think it's a pretty descent bond film all around. the problem was it seemed like they ran out of ideas and they felt like they were just recycling from all the other movies, and audiences started feeling the same way, and sadly pierce was just caught in the middle of it all. it has nothing to do with pierce tho, just the movies - he is still far and away one of the best bonds to date.
-
I totally got the reason for the duplicate paragraphs. They stuck close to the source material something we geeks beg for. The grammar police suck (see above). I was truly excited to see this film before now I can't wait!
-
before you even got to the damn movie. fuck it.
-
No mention of the hotties in the movie? Lol, Moriarty is teh ghey!!
-
I'm sure you've read the novel, so you know it's ridiculously easy game that's basically dumb luck (whereas hold-em at least has some skill involved). And it wasn't an obscure game when the novel was published, at least in Europe.
-
Have to agree with Mori on this one. Slight pacing issues during the last hour aside, Casino Royale is the most involving Bond film I've seen since License to Kill and my favorite since OHMSS. Like Mori said, it's not just a good Bond movie but a great movie. I was never a D. Craig hater but most certainly a doubter, but he NAILS it dead on. It just bums me out that Brosnan never got his one great Bond film. Remember in the late 90s when Brosnan and M. Campbell tried to convince Broccoli/Wilson to give the green light on an OHMSS remake? Could have been great (IMHO). If you're looking for a seriously entertaining night at the movies, CR fits the bill and then some. And if you're a Bond nut, get ready to OD on fanboy giddiness. Can't wait to see it again!!!!!! tomorrow.
-
Credit where credit is due Mori. Good review, I am really excited to see this. Thanks.
-
Erm...they've been doing that for the last 17 years. Licence to Kill... GoldenEye... Tomorrow Never Dies... The World is Not Enough... Die Another Day... were not Fleming novels. They weren't even Gardner novels. There were *references* to parts of the literature, and of course, to Fleming's Jamaican home, but they were all original filmic stories.
-
Harrys review of Die Another Day was one of the reasons why I stopped reading this site for so long. It was like he had watched a completely different film. Very few things were right about that picture. Halle Berry was awful - every scene of hers was painful to watch. The invisible car was a joke. Madonna (and her song) was hideous. The CGI was godawful. It seems to me that every long serving bond had a film where the franchise collapsed under it's own weight. Connery had Diamonds Are Forever, Moore had the borderline racist Octopussy, and Brosnan had this. Absolutely appalling.
-
If you don't count the previously filmed version of it.
-
Seriously. I can see brosnan as being "born for the role". But considering Fleming intended for double O to be a thug, who morphs into bond, Craig is the biz. When he comes out of the water and you see how muscular he is, tell me you don't think Craig would turn Brosnan inside out?
-
the movie was better than my wildest expectations :-) i was always in favour of craig, and he did us proud. this movie is to bond what batman begins is to the caped crusader franchise, a visceral punch up the bracket!
however....as a motion graphics artist...i was shocked at the abhorrent title sequence, so full of mograph cliches and n00bish use of plugins i nearly choked on my popcorn. it looked like a community arts project! why in the hell did they not get kyle cooper or yu+co to do it! i despair! but the movie was v v good none the less :-) -
I saw this movie at a screening last week with my son and was completely blown away. The review actually nails the whole thing by stating (paraphrasing) that this is 'a great film, not just a great James Bond film'. Spot on.
Personally, I have never had huge love for 007, unlike many of my friends. I don't dislike him either... just sort of ambivalent, really. However, for the first time this is a Bond movie that I not only want to see the next one of, but am dying to watch this one again!
Good review, great movie, excellent 'rebirth' of a tired franchise. -
...Texas Hold 'Em has become an obsessive sport, so it fits the character of Le Chiffre fine.
-
I actually want to see this movie. I dont see movies hardly ever.
-
A Pokemon-playing Bond would actually be kinda awesome.
-
and Roger Moore was the Bond I knew first but that hasn't clouded my vision to where I don't know that he was a foppish and towards the end a dottering old fool. Brosnan was the best besides Connery and it sucks that it was Brosnan's idea to get more gritty with the character and they took his idea but fired him. Still, I'll have to face the fact that the Brosnan era is over with the Brosnan films never reaching the potential they could have. Long live...this guy, I guess.
-
"Sharmander, I shoose you"
-
In a fistfight Connery circa Goldfinger would give Craig a run for his money. Would be pretty close though. Moore would get pwned in seconds by either of them.
-
I don't have a problem with it being poker. Just as long as there are no ridiculous 'Bond gets runner runner straight flush to outrun Quads' moments. Poker is certainly a more skilled game than Bacccarat.
-
But very entertaining and well made. Classy title sequence, good dialogue, good action, good acting. Best Bond film since The Living Daylights.
-
Got my tickets, 8:45pm, Islington, London, preceded by dinner with the fella - just can't wait! Great review by the way - once you got to the movie! But it's OK, I have a scroll wheel on my mouse ;) xx
-
i had Deva Vu while reading that review
-
A decidely mixed review to casino Royale and once again according this reviewer called Harry Guerin said that while Craig was great bond, it was the script that wasnt very good. I dont want to give anything away for people that havent seen it. I will go to see it this weekend but unlike last week I wont post a review up on this site. that is something i wont be doing again.
-
Every actor (except for Lazenby, who was in one great Bond flick and then nothing) who has played this role has been in at least one crap ass Bond flick. Roger Moore is guilty of this the most and because of "Moonraker" (god, does that suck) he'll always be my least favorite. If I had to choose, I'd say Brosnan was my favorite, because he took the best parts of the four actors before him and incorporated them into a fucking awesome Bond who had the misfortune of being in three of the worst Bond movies ever. And, while we're being honest, "Goldeneye" wasn't that fucking great either. I also don't give a flying fuck about the theme song. A sure sign a Bond flick is going to suck ass is a decent theme song. "Live and Let Die" is an awesome song, but the movie is so bad I hardly watch it. I have high hopes for Craig, because he's taking it in a direction I've been talking about for years. Back to basics, back to the books and without all the shit that has made Bond so goddamned ridiculous over the last few years.
-
Remember, he's the one with the toxic urine. One whiz on Craig or Connery and they'd be toast!
-
In Never Say Never Again
-
I'm a bond lover who has to have his Q minute even if it’s John Cleese for I loved him in the position. Yes I know this was suppose to be about his origins, a stripped down bond. But even with the trip down bonds of the series we had Q. See OHMSS, we still get some wonderful Q moments.
Second, is part of the Q problem, why oh why is Judi Dench M. I am a hardcore fan and I love the mythology of the films or I should say history. Now don't get me wrong, Judi was the best actor for the position since Bernard Lee, but the chronology is now all screwed up. We see Judi during her first days at M16 in GoldeyeEye. So the fact is they just spit in the face of all the old films. If you don't bring back John Cleese, don't bring back Judi. If they had John I could be a little more forgiving. I wish Cubby was still alive. He even said he did not want to explore Bonds beginnings. Why didn't they listen to him?
As for Brosnan, he was made for Bond and I wish I could see more of him in the series. The only problem with Brosnan was he was not put into the best bond films, not his fault. With the exception of GoldenEye of course. Here are my favorites: OHMSS, FRWL, GoldenEye, Thunderball, and FYEO.
-
Lost confidence in the series a while ago, hopefully it returns gloriously this time around. Foo-yuck?
-
Amen my friend. With the exceptions of Dr No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger and Goldeneye the Bond films are nothing but cliched, sexist, boorish crap with scripts so bad that theyre almost criminal. "I believe Mr Bond has been telling you about his Big Bang theory" "Yeah, I got the thrust of it" (wretch, puke, shudder)P.S: the brilliant Toby Stephens was wasted in DAD and Halle Berry has the talent of a steaming pile of manure.
-
I use to actually hate Moore and Dalton, but then just this month I put them on my netflix list in order so my fiancé could watch them all in order. She fell in love with the series, due to the behind the scenes special features. You know the ones where they have everyone giving the take on the film and series. Wonderful behind the film stuff, but they did not do it with the Brosnan ones. Anyways, the point it when you watch the films along with the behind the scenes one get a better understanding of why that movie was made at that time and why that actor played Bond like that at that moment in history. I learned so much watching them in order like that. I know love them all and I fully understand why Moore's films were so cartoonie. I guess I could still do with out the car flip cartoon sound or the Tarzan yell though.
-
contract. He must have seen where things were headed.
-
...calling it "[The] best James Bond film in 40 years, and perhaps the best Bond film *ever*." Coming from him, an inveterate Broccoli/Wilson-basher, that's extraordinary.
-
I hate that they changed the game to poker. Baccarat is James Bond.
If that's the main concession, I guess I can live with it. We're just lucky they didn't turn baccarat into Twister... -
...I misread the title. I didn't know who Paul Haggis was, so I figured it was someone who saw the flick with you who typically dislikes bond. Good review otherwise, I'm looking forward to this.
-
...wardrobe having to cover Roger Moore's old man neck-waddle in Octopussy or how about Sean Connery swapping old-man-spit with Kim Basinger in Never Say Never. The thing about the Bond series is that when it's good, it's good, when it's bad, it sucks beyond recognition. If this film gets mixed reviews, trust me, it sucks. BTW How does anyone think that the Timothy Dalton Bond flicks were even watchable?! I've seen 70's porno with better production values. Have you forgotten Wayne Newton's temple love grotto?! Danke Shane, darling! I'm an old fart and have grown up with all of the Bonds. Connery had 3 greats, Brosnan had 1, Moore? Please, those weren't Bond films they were spoofs. Dalton? 0, Lazenby? 0.
-
It's Notorious Bond Movie Nit Picker. Want to see the new bond film?
-
I know poker is more popular right now, but that's WHY baccarat would have been better. Bond is now a man out of time. His better films don't feel modern. The more they chase modern trends (Moonraker, Die Another Day), the worse the films tend to fare. Poker is just cheap and easy. Every cheap thug and whore knows how to play poker. Baccarat is different, its exotic, and hanging it on Bond elevates him by making him seem more knowlegable, more worldly (if only in a very superficial way).
-
Making Bond a Poker champ is like having him drink light beer.
-
That's the sentence that sums up this movie for me. I saw it last night, and every few moments I can't help but think of a new favourite bit. If only they could tone down the product placement,ah well, my eyes were on Eva, not the Sony Ericssons.
-
Please tell me the Dalton love is tongue-in-cheek. The dude was a 100 lbs. soaking wet and the films he appeared in were wretched! He looked like Larry from Three's Company fer gosh sakes. Connery has chunks of guys like him in his stool.
-
thank fuckin chrimminy
-
Quite agree with you - although I'd stick most of OHMSS in there as well (athough that had some seriously clunky moments!).
-
Clearly the absolute suck list is : - Diamonds Are Forever, Octopussy, and Die Another Day. As for Dalton, I liked him in the role. Sure he wasn't the same Bond Connery was, but neither was Brosnan. The Living Daylights was a strong spy film first, a Bond film second - and that's a characteristic of all the best Bond films. I felt he inhabited the role very well. As for Licence to Kill, like so many Bond films that was a strong premise let down by addition of a few rubbish elements i.e. Wayne Newton. They could have took all of Newtons scenes out of the movie and I wouldn't have cared less.
-
Dalton would have beat you into submission without breaking a sweat. Two hits - Dalton hitting you, you hitting the floor. Anyway, are you aware that Daltron actually screen testing for the role of Bond during OHMSS? Apparently he turned it down because he felt he was too young...
-
At first I was livid over that choice; it did feel about as right as having Bond order a Bud Light. But look at all the films in which he's played chemin-de-fer or baccarat; they can't sustain those scenes for more than a few minutes because there's so little to the game. The book of CR was able to get away with much lengthier scenes, but that had the benefit of exploring Bond's inner monologue between the card playing, and without resorting to voiceovers they can't really do that in a film. And really, making a Bond film in which a card game is the focus of the story is a highly risky move that I'm very grateful the producers had the balls to make; so in exchange for that I suppose making it a quintessentially American card game isn't the worst thing in the world.
-
But it'll probably be ten-times better. I'm looking forward to it.
-
I'm just upset this isn't showing at the Arclight Dome in LA. That almost made Die Another Day fun. Almost.
-
I'm just upset this isn't showing at the Arclight Dome in LA. That almost made Die Another Day fun. Almost.
-
You know this to be true.
-
Arclight is definitely the best theatre in LA.. And the Chinese Theatre's popcorn tastes like it's a day old so I refuse to go there.
-
Sorry dude, didn't mean to insult your whacking off material. Dalton=Larry from Three's Company-english accent.
-
I wasn't even realizing that there WAS a Three's Company actor in License to Kill!
-
clearly doesn't have a fucking clue what James Bond is supposed to be all about! Watch View to A Kill then watch the Living Daylights immediately after. See the difference. Casino Royale - best Bond movie since The Living Daylights - FACT!
-
Except he totally sucked as Bond. Makes a great villain though! See Rocketeer.
-
the same stylish thing involving a bunch of cards and other casino motifs with vibrant colours? I saw a commercial with a bunch of clips from that, and it looked wonderful, and I'd like to hope it's what is being used for the title sequence.
-
That thing's excruciating to watch. And Howard Hughes not wanting to sell his rocket packs to the US government?!? He was one of the biggest defense contractors of his time.
-
is Live and Let Die. Ergo, Moore is the best Bond. Simple really. I feel myself being sucked into the hype over this one however: hope it's as good as everyone's saying.
-
Eon really didnt like Brosnan all that much. His bonds were just excuse to make spondoolics and nothing more. Each brosnan bond made more money than its predecessor. The scripts were terrible. The uk media hype on Casino Royale is getting so big that there may be a backlash. Opening weekend will do well, people will see this film out of curiosity but expect the fall off to be big. I could be wrong. In ireland there is a magazine hotpress and their film reviwer, liked daniel Craig but said the following. if you like bond go but dont expect anything revoultionary.There seems to be a pattern to most reviewers they seem to be favouravle to Graig, the like the action but that who scene in the poker game is just too long. It all depends on whether one likes poker or not.
-
Austin Powers, Yeah Baby!
-
there was no borderline at all..it was just out and out racist
-
there was no borderline at all..it was just out and out racist
-
Yes I am that crazy. My top 5 Bond films are 1. FRWL 2. Thunderball 3. Dr. No 4. FYEO 5. LDL I'm sure Casino Royale will break into that though.
-
If so, sign me up for the sequel!
-
The Arclight in L.A. rules, but this marks at least three times this season I've been bummed that they've missed out on big movies that'd go perfectly with the Arclight crowd: THE DEPARTED, BORAT, and now Bond. The Chinese has gone WAY downhill since Hollywood and Highland became a tourist trap: Good luck finding a decent audience there OR getting out of the parking lot in under four hours. Christ, BORAT didn't even play the Chinese proper: It played the Mann Chinese 6. Now I'm all torn where to go see Bond, since Arclight and the Vista in Los Feliz aren't playing it, and they're the only places you can reasonably assure yourself a decent audience. The Grove is a typical Pacific set-up where you spend most of the 2.5 hours watching the Westside pricks walk in and out of the theater to take their phone calls. It's a nice theater in some ways, but the audience is always super-distracted/distracting, or just kind of detached.
-
(read with Homer Simpson voice)Living 1,500 miles away, I find your posting on your local cinema fascinating and want to learn more about your beliefs.
-
Spoiler. It was changed from "The bitch is dead," to "She's dead, bitch!"
-
Damn you Michael Bay
-
Then let's follow the talkback model for that film and speculate on who should play his revamped archnemesis in the sequel... BRIAN COX (doing his patented "I can't believe it's no Brando "riff) FOR BLOFELD! That is all.
-
Yup, that's the title sequence designed by Daniel Kleinmann, really cool. Best one since GoldenEye.
-
Maybe you ought to move to a real city. Just a thought.
-
Was during an interview with Michelle Yeoh I saw on Entertainment Tonight. She said the casting director called her and asked her to be in the film, and she said she wanted to be James Bond, not a 'Bond Girl'.
-
Diamonds are Forever, so any of the titles after that are fair game for a remake. In fact, I'd love to see them redo that one next. Can't wait to see CR.
-
If there is one good thing in die Another Day it is this, that kick ass car sequence on ice. Ended really stupid, but was kick as while it was going. Man I want a green Jaguar with a missile system.
-
and from then all the roger moore bond films. looking back they are all so dated. So maybe they need to be re-don for a modern age.
-
A view to a kill is the worst bond movie ever made, die another comes second.
-
I was slagging on Timothy Dalton for looking like Larry from Three's Company and remembered that one of the post-Chrissy girls, from Three's Company, was actually in License To Kill! Further testament to what an absolutely shitty movie that was.
-
But I'm definitely gonna see this. First of all because they ditched that pompous fluffer, Brosnan. His Bond always came off more preening metrosexual than bad-ass superspy. Add in the removal of the perfect-timing gadgets and going back to the basics of the books and I'm there. And if any of you cynical peons were old enough, you'd know that baccarat was not obscure but, in fact, the most popular card game around 40 years ago, so the change to poker makes perfect sense (not to mention that poker is a skill game and baccarat is mostly dumb luck, so it fits even better in the context of the story).
-
I'm watching the World Series of Baccarat on ESPN tonight! Nguyen rocks!
-
Lee Marvin punched him once and nearly broke all his fingers. Spent the next few years telling his drinking buddies that Moore was "made out of granite".
-
"No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to rock!"Now, I've never been a big Bond nut, but I've always found the character iconic and some of the films to be quite entertaining. That being said, my money has been on Craig all along with this flick. I'm glad to see that he's pulled this off and that the film is getting such praise.
-
Is she a good Vesper? Does she get kidnapped by having her dress pulled over head and tied? How did they fuck up the last line of the book? Does Bond say it like a whiny heartbroken sissy boy, instead of cold like the book? WHAT-ABOUT-THE-CHAIR?? Is it like the book? How brutal?? Jesus, if you're not going to review the actually film, then don't bother.
-
After Mori's good review, I look forward to also reading Harry and Father Geek's separate analysis of the CR film. The big problem with these fucking films is still the tight fisted producers, as Mr. Craig has only signed on for only 2 more 007 films and will understandably want more money (as Brosnan did) to sign only for another 3 more and Barbara and Michael won't want to oblige (as they refuse to offer profit participation and want it all for themselves) so in 5 or 6 years, they'll be looking for another new actor.
-
Eva Green's very good as Vesper. They've changed the character just a bit, and they cheat a little so that you're supposed to still like her at the end, but it's a solid performance, and she's still a marvel of architecture.
They just sort of throw the last line away in the middle of a scene, and then M explains a few things that you practically expect will make Bond say, "Oh, and about calling her a bitch... sorry. Didn't mean it."
The chair is great. Great scene, truly awful to watch, painful and totally low-tech. -
The World is Not Enough, for me, is the worst Bond movie ever, with Casino Royale bringing a close second. Haggis fucks up another movie with his undramatic, overplayed expository dialogue and emotion-sucking moments. This movie is schizophrenic in that it doesn’t know whether it wants a heroic protagonist, a tragic protagonist, a re-boot or re-imagining. Whichever, Campbell is not strong enough to figure out and run with; I guess Brosnan was more of a help on GoldenEye than I would’ve imagined. Lemming all you like, but by the time this sucker hits DVD, and certainly by the time Bond 22 comes out, people will realize this doesn’t really work. Oh, and (oblique spoiler) how anyone in their right mind can think ‘invisible cars’ are unacceptable but wireless phone-home defibrillators are cutting edge drama, is beyond me.
-
just because some young guys named Belle and whatever coined the terms and gave them detailed definitions. Instead, as laypeople, we should coin our own generic name for that type of motion, and we should coin a generic name in honor of Jackie Chan who is the true modern inspiration for that type of motion. How about "Chanble" ("Chan" + "amble")? For example, "he chambled through the city like shit through a goose". :-)
-
chanbling.
-
lol...I can relate. He's the most overrated hack filmmaker to come along in years..(PH, not PHH).
-
To me, it seemed like he was a bit too much of a dandy to be seen as a credible threat. Craig looks like he's seen some shit, and could do some shit. Brosnan I could believe wooing the ladies, but coldly breaking the necks of foreigners? Not so much.
-
Licence to Kill did at the box office. I think by that the whole thing was running out of steam.
-
i am so surprised to see people praising the titles, ther really are garish trash. REALLY blatant and unimaginative use of trapcode 3dstroke, any mograph artist worth his salt will choke on his popcorn looking at the low quality kleinman chuffed out on this one.
-
The movie could've been better.
-
It's how they write the Bond that matters. I had no problem with Brosnan, per se. But after the first one, and it's goofiness, I said I'd save the next one for rental. After the next one, I just gave up all together. They were just goofball, gimmicky movies. That's the fault of the writers and directors. After reading the reviews for this one, I'll be checking it out. Hopefully Hollywood will start learning that a good story gets more positive buzz than any stupid gadget. I originally got into Bond for the spy angle, not the action-adventure stuff. This give me the first good reason to go to the theater in quite some time.
-
...not only is the best made Bond movie of all, Craig gives us the most sophisticated rendition of Bond. The best Bond film, period.
-
...probably won't like this one. Slam those movies if you want, but at least he played the part seriously. I even recall once hearing that Fleming thought Dalton would be the best Bond (before he was even cast). The only problem with the Living Daylights is that they pussified Bond a little, with the no smoking and the single girl. Other than that, even if it wasn't great, I had the feel of watching a spy movie.
-
I did see the occasional Bond film in my life and was even entertained by some of them, but I've never actually watched one in the theater. Also, huge action blockbuster movies easily bore me. Nevertheless, I will watch this. This is not the first VERY good review that I've read and I really like Daniel Craig. Also, the comparison to Batman Begins really intrigues me, as that was one of the very few superhero movies that I've ever liked.
So yeah.. count me in on this film :) -
*SPOILERS*
I read months ago that the reason Bond kills Mollaka, after going to such pains to keep him alive through the embassy shootout, is becuase when he releases him to the ambassador, Mollaka turns and spits at him. Bond kills him out of spite. This viciousness, this unexpected violence, sounded brilliant when I first read of it, and I think it would have added a real edge to Bond in those opening scenes. No doubt the test audiences decreed that it made him too unsympathetic. bastards. The torture scene is nothing like strong enough, either. It's infinitely worse in teh book. -
Umm... Fleming died 4 years before Dalton ever appeared in a movie. Doubtful. Although to be fair, Dalton was screentested for Bond before Roger Moore, but decreed too young (I love that Sam Neill was once in the running too)...
-
Jesus Christ nerds can be fucking stupid. I am getting good vibes on the idea that those craignotbond assholes and various other internet idiots are getting it proven to them that they don't know shit. I remember a few things specifically I read written by "James Bond fans" in between the bitching about Craig being too ugly about how pissed they were they cast Jeffrey Wright (a great actor) as Felix Liter because he's black. They called him a ghetto street drug dealer and shit, god I hope those assholes are eating internet poison.
-
Great review Mori. I'm pumped to see this tomorrow.
-
Thanks for that honest review. Explaining your own relationship with the series (franchise) and character should be obligatory for critics writing about sequels that are part of "classic" franchises/series. One can turn James Bond's character into a big ethno-psychological analysis of our time but what counts is that everyone has his own James Bond, which is logical with a series that lasts over two generations. I've read pretty much about the new one but still....who knows how I'll like it. Actually if I start reading about the grittyness, the blood and sweat I'm already excited. Seeing a good looking leading man (probably reluctant and heroic) with some blood in his sweaty face ....was probably one of the things that made me fall in love with movies.
-
Halle Berry is the best Bond girl, followed by Ursula Andress. Of course, these people are on the crack pipes, because we all know that Xenia Onatopp's Thighs of Death trump them both. Or maybe that's just me.
-
I would argue that he was alot better than moore who I despise as bond...he just got a shitty deal. Craig though...wow. He just OWNS this shit all over the shop. I'll be seeing this again before it leaves the screens.
-
Dalton, Moore and Brosnan are all nice guy TV actors who should never anchor feature films and largely did not except for this trying-to-stay-cheap series. Connery was and is Bond but Daniel Craig's the first actor and first man to do the job since and, despite its questionable parentage, this looks like the first Bond film since around 1970 that one might enjoy for more than its kitsch value. For the record, the first Bond film I saw was "Live and Let Die" the one where Roger Moore is in the Carribean. It was fun. I was eight. It's crap now, always was. Just fun nostalgia. I can't wait for "Casino Royale"tho I too wish they'd stuck to baccarat for a different reason - Bond's cool in part because he does things you can't do - including play baccarat.
-
i juts hope the fellas in charge DONT descend into camp shit but keep up the quality of these.
-
Since when do dudes give a crap about how handsome the lead actor is? Well, I guess your screen name IS a Timberlake song....
-
of the James Bond Motion Picture Series.
1962-1969: Classy Fleming Era
1971-2002: Holocaustish Campy Austin Powers Parodybang Vomitous Green Shit
2006-???: A New Hope- Classy Fleming Era Strikes Back -
1) From Russia With Love (Bond 3)
2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service (Bond 7)
3) Casino Royale (Bond 1)
4) Dr. No (Bond 2)
5) Goldfinger (Bond 4)
6) The Living Daylights (Bond 15)
7) Thunderball (Bond 5)
8) Goldeneye (Bond 17)
9) You Only Live Twice (Bond 6)
10) For Your Eyes Only (Bond 13)
11) Diamonds Are Forever (Bond 8)
12) The Spy Who Loved Me (Bond 11)
13) Octopussy (Bond 14)
14) Tomorrow Never Dies (Bond 18)
15) Moonraker (Bond 12)
16) The World Is Not Enough (Bond 19)
17) Die Another Day (Bond 20)
18) License To Kill (Bond 16)
19) A View To A Kill (Bond 15)
20) The Man With The Golden Gun (Bond 10)
21) Live And Let Die (Bond 9)
-
Once the game is in motion, the cards are all dealt according to a movie script, so it doesn't really matter if they play poker or some other card game. It's possible that Baccarat would have worked better dramatically, and it would certainly have been more faithful to the book, but that's only half the point.
The other half, which is kind of important to the plot, is that Le Chiffre is using the card game as a source of income. In Baccarat you are competing against THE HOUSE, which has the better odds no matter how good you are. Playing Baccarat for a living makes as much sense as playing the slot machines or buying lottery tickets. (By the way, who is the best lottery player in the Secret Service?) In poker, however, you are competing against the OTHER PLAYERS, and your odds of winning will depend on how your skill compares to theirs.
Fleming never understood this distinction (or assumed his readers didn't) and expressed the romanticized notion that no matter the card game, a really good player can outsmart the odds. But in Baccarat that's not mathematically possible. -
My above post ranks my favorite 007 flicks from best to worst. "Live and Let Die" is a great theme/title song. Jane Seymour was a goddess. Other than that, Roger Moore debut film is pure shit. Unwatchable.
-
What you say is very true. However, I would have liked to have seen Omaha played instead of Holdem. a) it's a European game, sure, but more importantly b) Omaha still has an air of mystique that Holdem no longer has. Every 15 year old kid on the street knows how to play holdem to a reasonable standard, but very few know how to play Omaha well. They may think they do, but it's an entirely different game. If the game is truly inconsequential to the flow of the film (which I'm glad about to be honest, this is a bond film not the WPT) then Omaha would have suited it fine.
-
I could be wrong here, but perhaps someone could confirm it. Whenever JB plays cards in any of the other Bond films, he plays Baccarat. Why change it for this? To pander to the American audiences who don't understand the concept of the game. Anyone who has read Casino Royale will know how to play the game. I'm nigh on World Champion at it now!!
I hope I didn't sound racist by stating that it is for the American audiences, that was not my intention. But I wanted to underline the point that major parts of movies are changed because of American audiences. Look at the first Harry Potter book: The Philosopher's Stone. What is the point of changing the title to the Sorceror's Stone? And more recently, the title of Phillip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' changing from The Northern Lights to whatever the hell it is now...
Sorry for waffling, but I do get hacked off with unnecessary changes that are a detriment to the original idea. -
Or it was a year ago when they made the movie. Still, this is the only Bond film in history that I've ever actually wanted to see, so they must be doing something right.
-
at Live and Let Die!
Moore always looked like his vagina hurt during any fight sequence he was forced to pull off! There was a spark with Dalton in Living Daylights, but quickly extiguished with his follow up film.
Brosnan had some great scenes in Goldeneye, and the rest got worse by his last.
So it was indeed time to cowboy up and take Bond to a whole new level. I'm looking forward to seeing the new film. And I hope it's a great one. -
Agree with what previous poster said. They've been off-book since You Only Live Twice, though using elements of the books. The Spy Who Loved Me was a completely original screenplay, using only the title. And License To Kill was the first time they've been completely off-book, not even having an Ian Fleming title to use. Moriarty's obviously a Bond buff, so I'm sure he knows this, but I can't imagine what he means.
P.S. Bring back SPECTRE! Going back to the beginning means he could meet Blofeld, like Batman meeting Joker in the Dark Knight. -
"They've been off-book since You Only Live Twice, though using elements of the books."
See, they're still drawing inspiration from the books directly there though, so they're not 'off book' as such. -
Wow! Anyone who questioned the choice should be vilified now. This was the best bond movie in a long time. Got so sick of Bond being a gadget lad with a tux. The bond movie with the sun ray destroying crap really rankled my sack of marbles. Forget that!
Bosnan was the best in the recent past but then the Bonds went aficionado fancy style and each movie seemed to suck it out more and more.
This Bond makes me believe again in the movies. So he has blonde hair and blue eyes {which they seem to really focus on [which is marketing
piss really]} he still does a great Bond.
Sock. Soup Sock. -
You're right, they weren't off-book completely (with the exception of Spy Who Loved Me and View To A Kill which only used the titles) until Goldeneye. Even License To Kill wasn't completely off-book since it had Felix getting fed to the sharks from Live And Let Die. But none of the Brosnan movies have had anything to do with any of the books, not even using book titles. They were all total originals.
Does anybody know why they've never used any of the non-Fleming Bond novels as they basis for a movie? The closest they've ever come was when they were going to call the 2nd Dalton movie License Revoked (a play on License Renewed). Just seems strange to me. -
Yeah, they were off the Fleming Books for a while, but with some aspects of the books in the films: TLD was based on a short story that is basically the pre-title sequence, and even LTK had a scene that was lifted from the book of L&LD: Felix Leiter being fed to a shark. (Which I think they alluded to in the Connery re-make of Thunderball, NSNA? It's been a while since I've seen that one, and not really part of the Bond oevre, despite it starring a Grandpa-esque Connery in the role) And DAD had the obscure reference of Dalton's Bond claiming to be an ornithologist, which is of course, the actual profession of the author that Fleming borrowed for the name of his spy. (and the name of the book? "Birds of the West Indies")Oh, and Casino Royale kicked major ASS! Easily the best adaptation of one of the books, (despite the silly change from Baccarat, or Chemin de Fer, to Poker, which as many others have noted is the card game that Bond plays throughout the movie series as well: it's what Connery's Bond is playing when we first meet him in Dr. No, for Jebus' sake!) with great dialogue, a great story, and really great actors. I don't know what all the controversy about Craig was about: he was perfect in the part! And I saw the film with my Dad, the same person that I saw MY first James Bond film with, (Dr. No) and he thought it was the best James Bond film, PERIOD! (Even better than Connery's films; I disagree, but not by that much...) I liked it so much I'm going to see it again for sure. James Bond is dead, Long live James Bond! (Oh yeah, and
"I'm the MONEY..."
"I'm sure you must be worth every PENNY!") -
No seriously. You're a shit witted cock eating retard. This is a fucking awesome movie. Awesome. The few akward bits of dialogue are forgivable and not even worth mentioning. They dont tarnish anything. Daniel Craig is the best James Bond since Connery, and will surpass Connery period. If you dont like this movie, stop wathcing movies. You dont even like fun apparently, so what the fucks the point of you seeing movies anyway?
-
God damn, I really need to start checking my post's. I just read them again all the way up there and I could not even understand myself. Geez!
-
..everyone seems to love CR. Though more power to your critizing nature.
-
and at no 2 is Casino royale.
-
Bond will take spot.
-
Yack, if you think there's no skill involved in playing Texas Hold 'Em, then like you say, you're really not that familiar with the game. Just like the majority of really popular games, it's simple to learn but horrendously hard to master. Sure, there is some luck involved but if you rely solely on luck, you're going to luck yourself all the way to the poorhouse. Just because everyone plays Texas Hold 'Em doesn't mean that every knows how to play Texas Hold 'Em properly.
-
Was absolutely perfect. Absolutely what the Bond flicks needed. For me, The Living Daylights and Dalton as Bond are my favorites because they attempted to do what they accomplished in Casino Royale. The problem with TLD was that the script was originally written with Roger Moore in mind and, though it was toned down, you can still see some of the trappings of the previous Bond films in it. I have no doubt Dalton would've probably turned into the fan fave if he hadn't been saddled with a horrible movie as what turned out to be his final (great premise that was poorly executed) and then lost to the winds in all the rights struggles of the early '90s. Brosnan could easily have carried on ideas that the Dalton era sparked, but the producers got scared and created essentially more Roger Moore films with that slight '90s edge and better special effects. Brosnan was wasted and so that brings us to Craig. And like I said before, they accomplished in this film what they intended to do with Dalton, which is to ground Bond again, make him more human and therefore more ruthless. They pulled it off with aplomb. Casino Royale is in my top three if not my favorite of the whole series.
-
And to the guy who keeps complaining about the title sequence, they were harkening back to '60s motif and style, not gunning for technical superiority. Sure, they could've done quite a bit more technically with the titles, but that wasn't the point.
-
easy exposition. I saw the film tonight. It is the best Bond film in at least a quarter of a century. There is a lot of card playing in it and poker is a game for which most of the audiences knows the rules. I have no idea how bakarat is played, let alone spelled. The writers would have had to include a tedious expository scene explaining it.
-
because they're from that time period of strictly 50s/60s, just 20 years, well tack on some of the 40s too actually. annd i'm glad CR is done that way, from the 60s style cards title sequence which i love (reminds me of Dr. No's flashing circles) to the episodic nature of the film structure. excellent and classy, a massive Fleming Bond trait.
-
That's why I said "before he was even cast." Fleming knew of Dalton and thought he'd make a good bond. ..... I gotta say, I liked the new direction, but I found myself somewhat bored at the same time. I'm sure I'm exaggerating, but it seemed like there was an hour in the middle with nothing but his forced romance with that chic. Ten or so minutes would have sufficed. Still glad they got away from the excessive gadgetry. I wouldn't have showed up at all if it were going to be the Brosnan-style of movie.
-
Is there an apology to the screenwriters anywhere? You were pretty shitty to them in Feb - http://www.aintitcool.com/?q=node/22440 - Own up!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 273 total posts 271 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 92 total posts 92 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 69 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 151 total posts 63 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 67 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 60 total posts 57 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 484 total posts 49 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 69 total posts 42 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 120 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 183 total posts 24 posts