61 replies to this topic

[bonds_walther]

I did think that the action scenes at the start of the film (the Parkour chase and the MIA scene) were a tad too long and perhaps too close together. On the other hand, I felt the final action scene in Venice was a tad short. If this were a 'normal' Bond film, the Parkour chase would have probably been the PTS. That might've helped to create a better balance.

I still loved the film though - these were just minor things I picked up on.

For example, when she starts tearing up and telling Bond that even if all of him that were left was only a a small finger she'd still want to be with him, you believe her, yet I found myself asking "Where did that come from?" They hadn't known each other than long, and the relationship was adversarial and controversial two days prior.

Perhaps it wasn't so clear in the film, but Bond takes WEEKS to recover from his torture, not days. I think they tried to point this out by having Bond in an electric wheelchair during his scene with Mathis, and then not during the 'You've got your armour back on,' Vesper scene.

[Mercator]

I agree with David Schofield and Gravity's Silouhette.

This was not a Bond film.

Why?

No Q
No Moneypenny
No gadgets
No girls in the titles
No big villain - Ian Fleming would disapprove of this story - where was it?
No locations - why not France?
No humour
No good ending - Bond should always end with the girl. Hopefully with the funny jokes
No sets - I was expecting a big battle in the Casino Royale. Wasn't it the baddie's HQ in the original?
No 007 Theme - only came at the end
No proper Bond song - you cannot have the American rock as Bond song. Bring back Shirley Bassey or Carly Simon. They would have done a good song.
Why no Blofeld or big plan? The last few Bond films suffer from this.
I think a lot of peoples have been fooled by Daniel Craig. He is good actor with good body but Bond is not Arnold Schwartzenegger. Daniel is too tough. Roger said that Bond is someone who does not like killing - Daniel does.

I'm glad that David Schofield and Gravity's Silouhette agree with me and that I am not alone.

[David Schofield]

I agree with David Schofield and Gravity's Silouhette.

This was not a Bond film.

I'm glad that David Schofield and Gravity's Silouhette agree with me and that I am not alone.

While you are entitled to your opinion, re-read my original post: I DO think this IS a Bond film, rather the contrary. What I take issue with is this very comment that it isn't, and the critics view we are seeing something we have never seen before. My position is that CR is NOT the radical change many have made it out to be: I am convinced that with a little tinkering (some of it for the better) it could easily have starred Brosnan.

However, I DO NO think it is the masterpiece many have slavishly and naiively called it. But it is very good, just with some very poor elements many seem not to accept, though one of those elements is not Craig's James Bond.

[Fro]

Stupid question: what would a non-00 agent do at MI6? We talk about how he was at MI6 for a while before he was promoted to 00-status...but what does a person do? Deskwork? Training and simulation? I mean, how can you be a field agent and not have a license to kill?

Thanks.

The 00 status is a discretionary license to kill (i.e., Bond can make the call to kill people). Other agents can make kills if MI6 gives the okay, or if it's an objective of the mission. There's obviously a ton of less glamorous spying work that goes on for other agents to do, intercepting communications, infiltrating different organizations, being on the ground in a country before a war, doing raids in conjunction with special forces, etc.

Generally, they o send the 00s on the assassination missions though since they're the group's elite agents.

If you read the dossier they made on the official site, you'll find Bond is extremely experienced, even at the beginning of CR.

http://www.sonypictu...ssier/index.php

Edited by Fro, 18 November 2006 - 04:03 PM.

[marktmurphy]

Well, it's not really supposed to be. He's been at MI6 for a while- such is obvious- he even tells another officer how to behave on duty. He just has to learn to temper his headstrong nature and arrogance; it's a story about an arrogant hero with serious flaws but a heart that needs opening.

Stupid question: what would a non-00 agent do at MI6? We talk about how he was at MI6 for a while before he was promoted to 00-status...but what does a person do? Deskwork? Training and simulation? I mean, how can you be a field agent and not have a license to kill?

Well, most of them. There only, what, three double-O's in Fleming's books. Are you thinking it's just them, M and Moneypenny in MI6? There's Station Chiefs, Goodnight (film) types, all sorts. Bond has been an intelligence officer for a while presumably but is upgraded to a double-O, which isn't an intelligence gathering role, it's a one man army/troubleshooter who's relied upon to make decisions entirely on his own, as opposed to in a team. And he doesn't need authorisation from M to kill a man whilst on a mission- he's trusted to make that judgement himself. It's the top tier.

I mean, yes, it's nice to have a man's man as Bond, and not a 57-year old English gentleman that allows teenage girls to kung-fu his opponents into submission, but every once in a while a "He got the boot" wouldn't hurt either. Casino Royale is a very punishing, bruising film with not much variation. At first I enjoyed Craig's intensity in the free-running sequence, but soon it just gets to be tiresome, with him turning into a one-man army, running into the embassy and assaulting people, dodding bullets and blowing stuff up.

Yes, I'd agree some boot stuff would have been nice. Although Carlos' death is fairly old Bond style.
Plus, with the free running, don't forget that while the Bomber is more skillful, Bond has to be cleverer- seeing things and opportunities others would miss; thinking laterally- which is exactly how Bond's always worked. He sees a scissor lift as a way down, a bulldozer as a weapon, the back of a van as transport, a mobile crane arm as a way up- when the bomber sees a small hole in a wall he jumps through it: Bond knows he can't but is clever enough to know a plasterboard wall can simply be broken through. He's still got Bond's smarts.

Well, it is the starting point for the entire plot- without Bond foiling the plot the poker game would never have needed to take place. Can't agree with that.

Could've been told to Bond by M.

First rule of cinema- show, don't tell. The book of Goldfinger had Bond being told, by M, that Masterson had been covered in gold paint. Is the film version better or worse?

The two best romantic relationships in Bond's history all involved getting the Bond Girl out there front and center early: Tracy and Kara.

Tracy pops up early but also disappears for about half the film when Bond goes to Piz Gloria.

Incidentally, Green is very good in just about every scene, but her character literally seems out of place in spots. For example, when she starts tearing up and telling Bond that even if all of him that were left was only a a small finger she'd still want to be with him, you believe her, yet I found myself asking "Where did that come from?" They hadn't known each other than long, and the relationship was adversarial and controversial two days prior.

Yes, I wasn't happy at that. Just like OHMSS the love declaration comes out of nowhere. It was avery believable relationship after that, though. Their fun sex scene in the hospital, Bond reaching out for Vesper's hand when the banker is talking to them, them hugging on the way to the lobby in Venice... it was very different to actually see James Bond happy. We haven't seen that like this before.

And the stairwell fight was largely irrelevant as well, as Obanno is not connected in any way with 007's mission, the two have never met, and whatever Obanno is up to is not for 007 to discover at this time.

It's his money Le Chiffre is playing with- he's one of the terrorists that the whole 'bring in Le Chiffre' plot is designed to catch.
I find all this 'this and that action scene is irrelevant' bizarre from someone who says they enjoyed the Brosnan/Dalton/Moore Bond movies. There's only really one action scene that's been properly relevant and plot-forwarding in the whole lot of them.

[marktmurphy]

I agree with David Schofield and Gravity's Silouhette.

This was not a Bond film.

Why?

No big villain - Ian Fleming would disapprove of this story - where was it?

Fleming's story was right up there on the screen. Same beginning, same middle, same end. It had some extra stuff on it, but if anyone didn't expect or want that, I'd be hugely surprised.

No locations - why not France?

No locations?! The film was set in: Prague, Pakistan, Uganda, Madagascar, London, Nassau, Miami, Montenegro, Como and Venice. It was filmed in Prague, the Bahamas, the Czech Republic, England, Como in Italy and Venice. And it all looked wonderful.
As for 'why not France?'- in the year 2006 it's really hard for just one agent to be out on his own in a dangerous situation when he's in a coastal town in northern France. It's about 100 miles away from M. She could send a helicopter full of special guys in about half an hour if Bond got in trouble.

No humour

I'm not convinced you've seen this film.

No sets - I was expecting a big battle in the Casino Royale. Wasn't it the baddie's HQ in the original?

Or any Bond film.

[J.B.]

I sort of agree with all your points, David - I do think we've had too long to overehype ourselves, and have gotten to the stage where we were expecting a film that would better FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. I think this is more like OHMSS, in a lot of ways, actually. We have a new Bond, a younger man who is more athletic than his replacement and more believably tough even than Connery (Laz was in Aussie special forces, I think? Or is that a myth?). We have an emotional Bond, a tragic Bond, a pretty faithful adaptation of a Fleming novel - less so here, but a lot of the details and spirit are there, and I think they actually improve the motivations of Vesper and Felix. We have a rich texture, a song that doesn't mention the title, some self-referencing, fewer gadgets, and loads of fantastic, classic Bond moments. But unlike FRWL - which I think is the one to beat, myself - it is inconsistent. I agree that the Bond begins stuff is rushed and irrelevant, though it doesn't immensely trouble me from any other perspective than the context of the film. Small stuff like Branson's cameo and the appearance of his planes jars with the mood of the film, and all the stuff in Uganda and with M seemed to me like Brosnan-style scripting.

But it is nevertheless a quantum leap in quality from the last four films. And I think the real joy is Craig's performance, which I think betters Connery's. Sticky-out ears and lumpen nose he may have, but for me he has all the strong points of Connery, Dalton an d Lazenby and then some. He surpassed what I expected of him, and of the role. So perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, BOND 22 will deliver a tighter script and we'll get a film that finally does rival FRWL. As it is, I don't think I'm overstating it at all to say this is the best Bond film since OHMSS.

So what did you like, then?

I can see your points as well and I agree with you on the OHMSS feel, especially at the end where Craig and Green are romancing each other. Watching it you were just waiting for the other shoe to drop and for her to die.

As I said in another thread, this was a Bourne Identity/Batman Begins type film. They took all of the strengths of these two films and they put it together for Bond rendition. Craig was difficult to look at at times, in the tux for instance, I didnt see the Bond look at all. He is more a Bourne type spy not Bond type. But, this script played to his strengths and it lifted him. And, like a great surfer riding an awesome wave, he hit a homerun. Some critics talked how long some scenes were...the action ones and the poker table ones...but, remember they were trying to make a FRWL type film and that type of film has long scenes to develop people. I thought they did a great job of mixing the action in the longer scenes to keep you interested.

[Harmsway]

For example, when she starts tearing up and telling Bond that even if all of him that were left was only a a small finger she'd still want to be with him, you believe her, yet I found myself asking "Where did that come from?" They hadn't known each other than long, and the relationship was adversarial and controversial two days prior.

Perhaps it wasn't so clear in the film, but Bond takes WEEKS to recover from his torture, not days. I think they tried to point this out by having Bond in an electric wheelchair during his scene with Mathis, and then not during the 'You've got your armour back on,' Vesper scene.

Yup. She even says "I can't resist waking you. Every time I do, you look at me as if you haven't seen me in months." There's clearly a branch of time in that period beyond the torture scene and that moment that's a considerable amount longer than a few days. That wasn't very clear, though.

No gadgets

It still had more gadgets than DR. NO or ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

No big villain - Ian Fleming would disapprove of this story - where was it?

The villain was grander than the one Fleming put into the story.

No locations - why not France?

I dunno about you, but I saw Madagascar, Nassau, Miami, Montenegro, and Venice. Sounds like locations to me.

No humour

Uh... "Stephanie Broadchest"? And the audience I was with was roaring with laughter at all the dialogue.

No good ending - Bond should always end with the girl. Hopefully with the funny jokes

Many of Fleming's novels didn't have Bond ending with the girl: CASINO ROYALE, MOONRAKER, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

No sets - I was expecting a big battle in the Casino Royale. Wasn't it the baddie's HQ in the original?

No. It wasn't the baddie's headquarters. And there were plenty of sets - what do you call the Venice building?

Why no Blofeld or big plan? The last few Bond films suffer from this.

Because big plans are tired. We've had a "big plan" so much throughout the franchise that it's time to get more inventive.

Daniel is too tough. Roger said that Bond is someone who does not like killing - Daniel does.

Did you *watch* that movie? Bond hates killing. Look at the look he gives the contact he kills in the bathroom - he finds that murder absolutely distasteful.

[marktmurphy]

It's his money Le Chiffre is playing with- he's one of the terrorists that the whole 'bring in Le Chiffre' plot is designed to catch.
I find all this 'this and that action scene is irrelevant' bizarre from someone who says they enjoyed the Brosnan/Dalton/Moore Bond movies. There's only really one action scene that's been properly relevant and plot-forwarding in the whole lot of them.

Different standards. I can't compare Moonraker to The Living Daylights, or even Casino Royale. TLD and CR have loftier aspirations, so they get judged according to whether they succeed or not. Obanno was a two-bit part, whose only contribution to the movie was to show how utterly spineless and weak Le Chiffre could be.

Indeed- Le Chiffre's cocked up massively and is in a very tight spot; blame Fleming for that plot strand if you don't like it. And don't forget the repercussions of the stairwell fight on Bond and Vesper's relationship. She even has to help Bond kill him, which provokes the next stage of understanding between them, as well as showing the audience the repercussions of violence and death on Vesper and Bond. Plus it helps us to understand just how dangerous this mission is: he's not in a town on the Northern coast of France- he really is on his own. The fight has implications.

It still had more gadgets than DR. NO or ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

Possibly even more than A View To A Kill- certainly more important ones.

I dunno about you, but I saw Madagascar, Nassau, Miami, Montenegro, and Venice. Sounds like locations to me.

You forgot Prague, Pakistan, Uganda, Como and London

[TheREAL008]

I think alot fo you are way too quick to bash Bronsan as if you can write the films yourselvs then judge the poor man onhis acting ability.

As good as Craig was as his first outing. There are going to be some people who miss Pierce. Even Bronsan HIMSELF wanted to do a Bond film that was similiar to FRWL or OHMSS and if he would have remained Bond he could have done a good job.

Don't get all hot about Pierce's performance and don't speculate. The bitter truth you don't know is that you don't know and you never will. You can imagine but you could be wrong also.

[Jet Set Willy]

I agree with David Schofield and Gravity's Silouhette.

This was not a Bond film.

Why?

No Q
No Moneypenny
No gadgets
No girls in the titles
No big villain - Ian Fleming would disapprove of this story - where was it?
No locations - why not France?
No humour
No good ending - Bond should always end with the girl. Hopefully with the funny jokes
No sets - I was expecting a big battle in the Casino Royale. Wasn't it the baddie's HQ in the original?
No 007 Theme - only came at the end
No proper Bond song - you cannot have the American rock as Bond song. Bring back Shirley Bassey or Carly Simon. They would have done a good song.
Why no Blofeld or big plan? The last few Bond films suffer from this.
I think a lot of peoples have been fooled by Daniel Craig. He is good actor with good body but Bond is not Arnold Schwartzenegger. Daniel is too tough. Roger said that Bond is someone who does not like killing - Daniel does.

I'm glad that David Schofield and Gravity's Silouhette agree with me and that I am not alone.

You are not alone.....but only just....

[kneelbeforezod]

Different standards. I can't compare Moonraker to The Living Daylights, or even Casino Royale. TLD and CR have loftier aspirations, so they get judged according to whether they succeed or not.

lol oh what a wonderfully slippery and convenient argument!

It doesn't matter how good Casino Royale is, or if Craig's follow-ups are even better: because they "aim high", you can just highlight some minor flaws and dismiss them. However, aim low (and hit the bullseye) and a demonstrably crappier film like Moonraker earns it's place on your dvd shelf.

As Jim once said, arguing with you is truly like "fighting fog".

Incidently, I don't like the somewhat sentimental ending of Schindler's List. I also think Ben Kingsley overacts slightly. Consequently I give the film 1.5 out of 5. Now please excuse me while I pop in my Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigalo dvd...

Edited by kneelbeforezod, 18 November 2006 - 11:50 PM.

[Loomis]

Clearly this film is not for me. Fair enough. I've been spoiled: I've had a good run of 3 Bonds in a row that I saw in the theater and liked (Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan), but now I know how others felt when Lazenby or Moore came along, and then spent the Moore era sitting it out at home rather than going to the theater. With that in mind, I doubt I'll see anything else with Craig in it (including the dvd), and will wait for the next actor or set of owners to come in and shake things up.

What? Even though you also write "As a stand alone film, taken on its own merits, I've given it 3 stars out of 5"? That's the same rating I myself give CASINO ROYALE, and I'm certainly not giving up Bond.

Who knows? The next one may have Moneypenny or an amusing Q scene. Hang in there.

[HildebrandRarity]

Clearly this film is not for me. Fair enough. I've been spoiled: I've had a good run of 3 Bonds in a row that I saw in the theater and liked (Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan), but now I know how others felt when Lazenby or Moore came along, and then spent the Moore era sitting it out at home rather than going to the theater. With that in mind, I doubt I'll see anything else with Craig in it (including the dvd), and will wait for the next actor or set of owners to come in and shake things up.

What? Even though you also write "As a stand alone film, taken on its own merits, I've given it 3 stars out of 5"? That's the same rating I myself give CASINO ROYALE, and I'm certainly not giving up Bond.

Who knows? The next one may have Moneypenny or an amusing Q scene. Hang in there.

Yea...and who know's, they might even get Craig to do the Peter Pan routine where 007 flies around like a ing little fairy 'a la the airplane dive during GoldenEye pretitles or the parasurfing-on-a-Happy-Feet-Penguin-type wave near the Ice Palace in DAD.

[blueman]

GS doesn't like CR??? I'm shocked!

Well not really. Can't help but think, if it had Brosnan in it he'd love it and all these "flaws" would be positives.

[Publius]

Saying that Le Chiffre is the weakest villain ever is not a minor flaw, nor is objecting to Bond becoming an "efficient killing machine". Le Chiffre is, hands down, the weakest, saddest, most useless villain of any Bond film. With LeChiffre there is no danger involved, really, because in the end one of two things will happen: he'll either go bankrupt and accept refuge with MI6, or he'll win the tournament and pay back his investors. Ooooh, ahhhhh! I'm on the edge of my seat with anticipation! LOL!

There's been worse. Klebb, YOLT Blofeld, DAF Blofeld, Stromberg, Kristatos, Koskov & Whitaker, Carver, and Renard & Elektra all come to mind.

Besides, if you were expecting an over-the-top villain, you were looking in the wrong place. If you read the novel (I remember you saying you did), you'd know that to change him from being such a low-key, dispensable weasel would have been to change the focus and point of the story.

[bond 16.05.72]

It was obvious GS wouldn't like it, you don't invest that much hate in what was his own project to discredit CR & Craig and then admit to liking it.

Some have been very honest and admitted their mistake in doubting Craig but he's too pig headed to admit it, he just wants a completly different Bond to what the majority of us wanted.

He prefers the old days, Brozzer in CR would have been a disaster and if I see that comment he wanted a script more like FRWL but never got the chance to do dark, well.....

He clearly has't the chops for this kind of Bond Craig blew him completly away in the PTS.

Well i admit the film's not perfect, what film is, considering the cheesy crap we've had to put up with for the last decade or so CR's flaws are small dots in comparrison to what the admitted profitable PB era had done to contributing to making the series unspecial and stale.

Pehaps you'd have like your Royale with cheese.

[kneelbeforezod]

lol oh what a wonderfully slippery and convenient argument!

<sigh> Honestly, do you really think Moonraker has any business being compared to Casino Royale or The Living Daylights? Moonraker is a live-action cartoon, while CR and TLD strive to be serious spy flicks.

No I understand, by all means cut Moonraker some slack because it aims so low.

But when you do this to such an extent that the film with superior acting, directing, characters, dialogue, action and storyline ends up NOT on your dvd shelf, while Moonraker does, then something has gone horriby wrong.

[Bonita]

Why I post? I dunno.

But, for those of us who have stuck through The Moore Years and The Dalton Years and The Brosnan Years, there are only two possibilities:

1. You love Bond A LOT.

Or...

2. You are not much of a judge of acting skill.

Craig was amazing. For all its minor faults in scripting (and they were minor), the film is amazing. Far and away the greatest Bond film in 40 years. If you don't beleive me, check back in a decade or two. This film is and will be remembered as legendary.

But if you want Licence To Kill or The World Is Not Enough, hey, they're out on DVD.

Keep dancing,
Bonita

[blueman]

Sorry, TLD does not strive to be a serious spy film, it strives to be an 80s Errol Flynn epic. It certainly has more in common with MR than CR (although of the two--TLD and MR--MR is easily the more watchable).

[komijul]

No I understand, by all means cut Moonraker some slack because it aims so low.

I wouldn't say aiming low. I think both films aimed for different objectives. Moonraker was a big budget blockbuster action film with some comedy thrown in the mix. It's focus seemed to be more on the big action bits, the over the top villain, Moore's comedy bits, etc., On the other hand, Casino Royale certainly had the action and the villain, but had more focus on the character development of Bond and the Vesper/Bond relationship.

With Moonraker, I am not going to ask questions like: "Was the romance between Bond & Goodhead believable enough?" or "How was the character development of Jaws? Was the story where Jaws goes from silent, metal-toothed killer to cute and cuddly romantic good guy a believable transformation?" as the film wasn't really aiming for either. I wasn't exactly expecting Shakespeare with the movie. I did get a really enjoyable action movie that I can sit back and watch on an otherwise dull Saturday afternoon. It's not the greatest movie in the world, but it achieves what I want more than a lot of other movies out there.

With Casino Royale, the questions change. This film was plot and character driven. It was trying something more than just your standard action fare, so I think a lot of the enjoyment of the movie would hinge more on things how effective I felt the Vesper/Bond romance was and less so on, say, how much I enjoyed the villain and his crew.

Obviously, you can compare the films on some merits, but both movies really feel like apples and oranges to me. It's like comparing Batman Begins to the 1966 Batman TV Show. I can enjoy both, but it would be hard to really compare the two side by side in any serious manner.

But when you do this to such an extent that the film with superior acting, directing, characters, dialogue, action and storyline ends up NOT on your dvd shelf, while Moonraker does, then something has gone horribly wrong.

Maybe the happenings in Craig's Bond universe just isn't his thing. I know myself that I wasn't terribly excited about the whole poker game as I am not into gambling myself, but a lot of other people are, so good for them. Besides, I am sure every one of us has at least one less than stellar movie in our collection, while we lack some otherwise great movie that may not be to our interests. And, hey, if you don't like one Bond film, you have 21(counting NSNA) others to choose from, other film franchises are lucky to get three movies. That's one thing I love about being a Bond fan.

[Publius]

Moonraker was a big budget blockbuster action film with some comedy thrown in the mix. It's focus seemed to be more on the big action bits, the over the top villain, Moore's comedy bits, etc.,

The sad part is, I think Casino Royale was not only far better than Moonraker at the action and epic adventure, but it was even far funnier. I just can't think of a standard on which more than three or four other Bond films even challenge Casino.

[marktmurphy]

With LeChiffre there is no danger involved, really, because in the end one of two things will happen: he'll either go bankrupt and accept refuge with MI6, or he'll win the tournament and pay back his investors. Ooooh, ahhhhh! I'm on the edge of my seat with anticipation! LOL!

His investors being evil terrorists (and we've seen be evil in the 'irrelevant' appearances by them in the film) and the money being 10 million of her majesty's coffers. It works for me- Bond can't let this happen; we even see his panic when he decides stabbing Le Chiffre is the only way out. Le Chiffre is equally panicked- and a panicked villain is more interesting than an entirely relaxed one for me. He lashes out at Bond in much the same way. It's dramatic.

[stamper]

Yeah, I say anything taken from the novel was not relevant to this James Bond. They should have jettisoned all Fleming novel scenes, to make this Bond a much truer movie to the character. That Fleming created James Bond is irrelevant. The best James Bond movies were the one like Moonraker, who rewrote the stupid Fleming storyline into something sensational.

Oh, and the sun is cold, the sky green, rain doesn't involve water. Bring Back Brosnan.

[Moore Baby Moore]

Yeah, I say anything taken from the novel was not relevant to this James Bond. They should have jettisoned all Fleming novel scenes, to make this Bond a much truer movie to the character. That Fleming created James Bond is irrelevant. The best James Bond movies were the one like Moonraker, who rewrote the stupid Fleming storyline into something sensational.

Yet as we've seen, there are those who do think exactly that. (They're also the same people who think Siegel and Shuster and Kane and Finger are total hack who didn't know what they were doing.) Thankfully, the "Fleming got James Bond all wrong" people seem to be on the losing end.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Well, he had his moments. He was excellent in the torture sequence. However, he failed in the delivery of "Allow me" when Gettler(?) told Bond: "I'll kill her!". Dalton would've delivered that line with just the right amount of contempt and sneer (God, I can't believe I'm invoking Dalton's memory as the definitive Bond).

What's wrong with that??

Indeed, that was a Tim line all the way...

[bond 16.05.72]

With LeChiffre there is no danger involved, really, because in the end one of two things will happen: he'll either go bankrupt and accept refuge with MI6, or he'll win the tournament and pay back his investors. Ooooh, ahhhhh! I'm on the edge of my seat with anticipation! LOL!

His investors being evil terrorists (and we've seen be evil in the 'irrelevant' appearances by them in the film) and the money being 10 million of her majesty's coffers. It works for me- Bond can't let this happen; we even see his panic when he decides stabbing Le Chiffre is the only way out. Le Chiffre is equally panicked- and a panicked villain is more interesting than an entirely relaxed one for me. He lashes out at Bond in much the same way. It's dramatic.

Indeed, a cornered animal is far more dangerous proposition and this is what made LeChiffre such a compelling adversary, easlily one of the most impressive performances of any villian in the series to date.


Putting him next to villians like Drax, Stromberg or even Zorin, they just pale in comparrison to Mads's subtle but sinister turn.

What I would like to see is Craig pitched against his own noughties take on Donald Red Grant, especially with Craig's love for Shaw's series best villian.

it's just getting an actor who could present that kind of intensity that still resonates today some 43 years later.

DC old Our Friend's in the North mate Mark Strong springs to mind, he could make a formidable opponent to Craig's Bond.

Edited by bond 16.05.72, 20 November 2006 - 12:20 AM.

[felixxx9999]

I have to say I was impressed by the film. My girlfriend thinks Craig is a major hotty so I think that counts for something. PB is great looking, but I don't think he has that Steve McQueen cool this guy does. (He's doing the Connery walk, but he's very much a Steve McQueen too-cool kind of guy).

I liked the film a bunch. They finally did something with the character. Finally! Maybe they changed too much? Maybe. But I think that they'll bring back more -like the gadgets and Moneypenny - in the next one. Then the missions will get bigger and bigger. That's the way to do it. Slowly progress 007 through the films. Don't just have him save the world from an underground spybase again and again.

Also, love the site. I went to danielcraigisnotbond today (don't know what your history is with them, just saw they slammed you so I jumped over here!) and was annoyed that they're cherry picking any bad news and not mentioning that the film is a financial and critical success! And they totally got Craig's sex appeal wrong. I also find it hard to believe that those guys over there are boycotting the film to see penguins. Tell me every one of them didn't go and see the film! Please.

Ranting a little bit here. But you either like the cookie-cutter films or you want something new and dangerous.

I also love this chat room. I run a film noir message board which is nothing as slick as this, but we're also having spirited discussions about the new Bond. The beginning has a film-noir look, after all... http://filmnoir.sudd...3.com/index.cgi

I say give DC another film and lets see what else they do with the series.

[David Schofield]

Just a quick thought of the Dan's a better actor than Tim thing:

Anyone prefer Tim's facial's when Saunders is killed compared with Dan's Incredible Hulk, all bulging eyes and veins, when Vesper dies.

I DO applaud DC as Bond, but it just was the perfection many suggest.

[marktmurphy]

Well, let me just say that I've come to REALLY appreciate Timothy Dalton a lot more since Friday night.

That's odd because it's made me realise what was missing with Tim's version- no feeling of self-confidence, lacking in that Bond-y arrogance.

I DO applaud DC as Bond, but it just was the perfection many suggest.

Gosh- you think he was perfection? Very generous of you!