i hate how people bash the bond character in this. they're too stupid too realize this is the development into the bond we know.
Why he never falls in love
Why he wants them shaken not stirred
Why he wears a suit or tux
Why he cant have kids (ya lol)
How he came to say Bond, James Bond
How they track him across the globe
I loved it
Originally posted by Myth
What was cool about that was his first job, so it makes since that it was easier.
I agree, to an extent, i just thought he could have been a bit more threatening... i mean, to me, it seemed like the main reason bond was sent was because he was good at cards, not because he was a double-oh...
Originally posted by pr1983That was the main reason he was sent. He was in trouble with M because he wasn't doing as well as they thought, but he got a second chance for the sole reason that he was the best card player. He then proved himself and was able to keep his job. I think it makes it more interesting having him not perfect.
i mean, to me, it seemed like the main reason bond was sent was because he was good at cards, not because he was a double-oh...
Originally posted by Spartan005
Couldn't agree with you more.... This movie's definetely up there with Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough. Pierce Brosnan was great, and I'll always remember him as being Bond (Goldeneye was the First 007 movie I ever saw) But Daniel Craig did an excellent job, and the action was phenomenal
yikes up there with the world isnt so much a compliment. And Brosnan always remembered as bond? I guess if you started with goldeneye thats ok, but you should go back and see the old ones. Brosnan was pretty good, Craig was good, but Connery IS bond.
I thought they did Casino Royale very well. I was worried about Craig, cause I dont think he quite has the look but he did the part well, and I think I can learn to love him. Mostly I just loved the writing and everything SOOO much more then all of the recent Bond movies, which rely totally on lame 1 liners and FX shots.
Originally posted by pr1983
I agree, to an extent, i just thought he could have been a bit more threatening... i mean, to me, it seemed like the main reason bond was sent was because he was good at cards, not because he was a double-oh...
He was still made a Double 0 so he was still skilled. It wasnt like they took a guy from the mail room who could play poker and made him into super agent. Being a double 0 means your damn good, he got that mission because he happened to excell at poker and M had no choice. And getting to Le Cheffe could prove monumental in taking down some major terrorist so it was a BIG time assignment.
And it was great to see him not perfect and vulnerable. Also see why he just uses women.. how great was the line at the end on the phone with M, "the ***** is dead" He got burned once and he never trusted them again. them being women.
Originally posted by Myth
That was the main reason he was sent. He was in trouble with M because he wasn't doing as well as they thought, but he got a second chance for the sole reason that he was the best card player. He then proved himself and was able to keep his job. I think it makes it more interesting having him not perfect.
I agree with what you're saying, again to an extent... i know its an origin movie, i just would have liked le chiffre to be, i dunno... badder... 😬
Originally posted by forumcrew
yikes up there with the world isnt so much a compliment. And Brosnan always remembered as bond? I guess if you started with goldeneye thats ok, but you should go back and see the old ones. Brosnan was pretty good, Craig was good, but Connery IS bond.
i think maybe he meant fans of brosnan would always remember him as being a good bond (not on connery's level, because lets be honest, who is... but good enough).
Mostly I just loved the writing and everything SOOO much more then all of the recent Bond movies, which rely totally on lame 1 liners and FX shots.
I don't agree with that (with maybe the exception of die another day, which i thought was a bit ott in places), some of the one liners (which have been around since connery's days) are pretty good imo, and even craig had a few... alot of bond movies imo have pretty decent writing...
He was still made a Double 0 so he was still skilled. It wasnt like they took a guy from the mail room who could play poker and made him into super agent. Being a double 0 means your damn good, he got that mission because he happened to excell at poker and M had no choice. And getting to Le Cheffe could prove monumental in taking down some major terrorist so it was a BIG time assignment.
but thats part of it... i don't doubt for one second that bond is good at what he does (the chase at the start was damn good), or the value of the assignment, i was more worried about le chiffre, he just wasn't as menacing to me as he could have been is all...
'pologies for the length of the post...
i saw the movie with 4 friends 3 out of 4 said it was the worst bond movie ever,2 of them said craig was horrible,i hated the movie and i think craig was a good actor but not bond for me,i did not once feel like i was in a bond movie,i have reserved judgement because i did not see it but now that i did oh i wish i had my 2hrs and 42 minutes back
i think the script was horrible way too long and the ending was so anti climatic i dont think craig was a good bond but i think he is a good actor
Well the length of the movie could've been shortened a bit, especially because I was a half hour past curfew (not that I'm even home by curfew ever anyway). A lot of the stuff in it could've been taken out and that definately would've made it better but what can I say, I'm not a movie develope so I have no say in the length of it. Again I can't say anything about Bond because I haven't seen any of the other Bond films so I don't know if he was a good role for this or not. But from my point of view I think he was a pretty good Bond.
Just saw it this weekend.
9.5/10
F*cking Awesome. 😎
I only took .5 away for length, which could have been shortened just a bit, maybe 5 min. of the card game, and not had Mathis giving the play-by-play of how Hold 'Em works.
This IS Bond. It's Bond Begins.
I LOVED Daniel Craig in the role, he seems perfect. He's the best since Connery. (my fave)
The conversations were intelligent and well written, particularly between M and James and between Vesper and James on the train.
The action was realistic and in-your-face, with Craig being absolutely believable as the covert killer who's being honed into a fine super-spy.
I liked the pacing of the film, with intense action fights, and exposition and smart diaolouge following one another back and forth.
The movie felt like a slow burn, even with all the fighting, as the experiences James was having seemed to build on one another, and they all led up to the closing moments of the film where he became Bond.
I'm already looking forward to 2008.
James Bond Will Return! 😄
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
forgive me, but this guy was the worst james bond ever. he stunk. as for the movie, it wasnt much better.
You're forgiven your misguided opinion. 😛
Seriously though, if he's so bad and the movie stunk, then you might want to explain that to the packed house that I saw it with who all LOVED the film.
Most critics and fans are saying that this one is far better than the last 2 or 3, and more closely in-line with the Connery films of old, but with a modern update to it.
Listen up folks: If you appreciate good pacing, character development, intrigue, and walloping action being in a James Bond film, then this is the one for you.
If Keanu Reeve's performance in Constantine blew you away, then you would have the same opinion as Rouge Jedi.
😛
i just didnt like it. not everyone is gonna like it, you know? the guy just doesnt look like james bond should look. he looks like a jock. sean connery, roger moore, pierce brosnan, even timothy dalton, they all looked like james bond should look. they were all smooth, suave and sophisticated. this new guy just doesnt have it.
walloping action? there were not near enough action scenes if you ask me.
character development? he's james bond!!! the character was developed years ago!!! there is no need for character development.
ok, if you like watching james bond play poker, then i guess thats intrigue.
its not up to you to say my opinion of the movie is misguided. that is implying that your opinion is infallible. as far as a full house goes, i was the only person in the theater on a friday night watching it. what does that tell you?
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i just didnt like it. not everyone is gonna like it, you know? the guy just doesnt look like james bond should look. he looks like a jock. sean connery, roger moore, pierce brosnan, even timothy dalton, they all looked like james bond should look. they were all smooth, suave and sophisticated. this new guy just doesnt have it.walloping action? there were not near enough action scenes if you ask me.
character development? he's james bond!!! the character was developed years ago!!! there is no need for character development.
ok, if you like watching james bond play poker, then i guess thats intrigue.
its not up to you to say my opinion of the movie is misguided. that is implying that your opinion is infallible. as far as a full house goes, i was the only person in the theater on a friday night watching it. what does that tell you?