-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Christie Golden!
- “Star Trek: Voyager: 16 Seven Of Nine” Review by Deepspacespines.com
- Nana Visitor Joins Us to Talk About Her New Book – Star Trek: Open a Channel: A Woman’s Trek!
- Out Today: “Star Trek #26”
- Star Trek Strange New Worlds Asylum Book Review
- John Jackson Miller Books Ranked!
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: Headlong Flight” Review by Lessaccurategrandmother.blogspot.com
- Jumping into Adventure with “Into the Void”
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jim Johnson!
- “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Asylum” Review by Trek.fm
- Movie Related Products
- “Deadpool & Wolverine” Review
- Kevin Smith Is Getting Closer and Closer to Dogma 2
- “The Garfield Movie” Review
- Disney Said to be Considering a Surprising Replacement for Bob Iger: EA CEO Andrew Wilson – IGN
- Amazon Is Shutting Down Freevee, Its Ad-Supported Video Streamer
- “Breathe” Review
- “Transformers One” Review
- Captain America: Brave New World | Official Trailer
- Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* | D23 Brazil Special Look | In Theaters May 2, 2025
- Mattel apologizes after mistakenly printing porn site on ‘Wicked’ movie dolls packaging | CNN Business
- Music Video DB
Sure you know the difference between “casting,” “directing” and “acting?”
INMNSHO he is one of the best Bonds. He could even be the best but I’ll wait for the next film before declaring victory.
no way1
I think the fact that he is not that good for a “traditional Bond”, makes him perfect his Bond character since Solace and Royale are both early stages/pre 007. Its good that Craig doesn’t seem to have that cool/suaveness to his character.
Also, Bond is a bastard in the books. So Craig is great, he plays the Bond that Ian Flemming made.
Best Bond ever.
I’ve read a few of Ian Flemming’s books: You only live twice and The Man With the Golden Gun.
The Bond we’re fond of in the classic films is not the Bond in the books. The books portray Bond as a lot more of an ice cold killer, actually a little more like Craig. I’m fond of Connery, Brosnan, AND Craig, because each helped enrich the franchise in their own way. Fuck Roger Moore and the others.
If you haven’t read the books, then you can’t say that Craig isn’t how Flemming envisioned Bond. If you have read the books, and still don’t like Craig, that’s cool too. It’s all about preference.
My main point: You can’t accuse Daniel Craig of ruining Bond, because his interpretaion (as of Royale) is rather accurate to the original Bond.
So yeah, that’s pretty much a longer way of stating what Ben1605 stated.
a longer way of being WRONG you mean.
fuck the books, no one but hippie intellectuals read anymore anyways, amirite? I long for the days when the bond franchise stood for more then slack acting and poorly scripted plots that a four year old could write better.
I hope you aren’t serious, tiki.
I was hoping Tiki would agree with me. I’m crushed.
But seriously, Roger Moore? George Lazenby? Timothy Dalton tried, but didn’t do it for me.
Those movies got too campy for me. I suppose that makes me slightly hypocritical… since I love Adam West as much as Keaton and Bale as the Batman.
Casino Royale wasn’t badly written at all. The short selling angle enlisted by Le Chiffe was amazing. The airport scene was perfect.
The card game is a little long but the development of the character during the game is great.
If anything it was more mature and better written than 98% of all other Bond movies.
I had no problems with the acting either. Casino Royale had a more mature and realistic Bond. Not just a cold blooder killer but more so human being in an extraordinary situation. I thought Craig did a great job conveying that with the right amount of macho subtlety.
I’m dead serious. Wanna know how serious? I even wrote a shitty assed review in the comments waaaay back in the day when his first one came out :
That has to be sarcasm. Bond movies were never more than brain-dead popcorn flicks. Sean Connery flying around on a jet-pack isn’t the peak of intellectual film.
correct me if i am wrong, but according to the storyline, wasnt he supposed to be one of the very first bonds? if that is the case, then yea, he would be a rash bastard, not the suave guy like connery. it would only make sense that the first bond would have no idea how to act.
Real Bond, not “go-go gadget!” Bond, like a few previous ones.
destroyer of a franchise?
umm, you best be trolling, nigger
I have to agree with Tiki. This is the end of what was a good franchise. It’s not Craig’s fault. Blame Michael G Wilson for the franchise demise. He has actually been pushing a teen Bond idea around town ever since Cubby died. He will be the one to screw the Bond Pooch.
The new bond is more like Mission Impossible. Casino Royal; they knew who he was and what he was going to do from the beginning! Thumbs down
The new movie looks amazing.
movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809961074/video/8598268/
The end of the franchise was avoided and avoided extremely well.
The plot in Casino Royale was excellent. Le Chiffe borrows money from African rebels and shorts stock in an aircraft company. He then pays (2) bomb makers to blow up the new aircraft by the manufacturer so that the stock will plummet. Bond intervenes and Le Chiffe is out 150 million. Le Chiffe then organizes a card game for high stakes betting because he’s desperate and is resorting to his math skills to help him win. Bond gets sent in because he’s actually a good card player and they go at it. The female interest double crosses him after he falls in love with her and that explains away the misogynistic Bond qualities. Mr White, as it turns out, was actually pulling all the strings so even when Bond wins he loses and that explains why he sets off as the anti-hero agent. Because Bond isn’t supposed to be a good guy. Mr White was backing Le Chiffe. Mr White is the guy at the end who now seems to tie Casino Royale to Quantum of Solace.
Now how is any of that non existent or empty? The one complaint I’ll accept is the card scene didn’t mesh with the pacing of the rest of the movie. The “narrative” is consistent though I don’t think you were actually referring to the narrative when you used to word there mr tiki.
Bond is alive and well and even if you don’t like him expect to see Daniel Craig as Bond for quite a long time.
also @... OHMSS:
Teen Bond = James Bond Jr. A cartoon from the 80’s. I through that right in a certain someones face once when they brought up that very idea. “can he have the sweet orange fucking hobo mullet from the cartoon too?” shut him up pretty fast.
“no one but hippie intellectuals read anymore anyways, amirite?”
then how did you know what the conversation was about?
Brosnan is a tool.
Goldeneye was his only passable Bond flick and even that wasn’t as good as Casino Royale.
‘Casino Royale’ was the first Bond film that was vaguely credible as a film for decades; no contrived supervillains with ludicrous death rays aimed at the world, just real flawed people in realistic situations. A massive improvement over anything there’s been since the Connery days.
i loved Casino Royale. it was my favorite bond movie. it was more about a story and tension then the few before it which were action flicks. Craig is great
@... mAgnUS BUTTfoorson:
Yep that was Wilson’s fault. He still, to this day, wants to make a live action teen Bond film.
Daniel Craig is better than Sean Connery.
who is better than George Lazenby
who is better than Pierce Brosnan
who is better than Roger Moore
who is better than Timothy Dalton.
Daniel Craig’s the shit. Casino Royale was the best Bond film EVERâ€â€and that includes Goldfinger which is boring.
His damn duckmouth is enough to ruin the franchise alone.
There seems to be a preponderance of phaggotry on this board attacking Casino Royale. You are all just internet retards. Keep your nine dollars and don’t go to see Quantum, but just shut up about it.