45 replies to this topic

[stamper]

What if it's really Pierce Brosnan behind this one

[HH007]

Y'know, I love Craig's Bond and think CASINO ROYALE is by far the best film in the franchise, but this article made me laugh like no roasting of something Bond since Jim's legendary lengthy demolition of DIE ANOTHER DAY, which it reminds me of tremendously. Most of us (rightly) praised Jim's piece, so why are we all up in arms up about this one, which strikes me as very similar? (Both articles make some excellent points with hugely enjoyable turn of phrase.)

Because DIE ANOTHER DAY is a rubbish film and fully deserves to be slated, I hear you cry. Well, not in my book it isn't and doesn't - still, I had great fun reading Jim's review. I don't need to agree with a writer's opinions to enjoy his writing or even to concede that some of his points are good. And doesn't getting so cross with this piece on CASINO ROYALE show certain signs of insecurity in what we profess to believe about the film's brilliance?

Well, one, Die Another Day was a genuinely bad film whereas Casino Royale was not. And two, this bone head dissing Casino Royale couldn't even get his damn facts straight, so his article (or recap or whatever) is just a nitwit rant done by a moronic Internet troll, which deserves neither our praise nor our time.

[stamper]

He is a Ian Fleming fan, and well documented as one, therefore he deserves to have people browsing and reading his verbiage, even if it irks some. I myself was entertained by what he wrote, however stupid some of these criticism came off. It's still positive in the sense that it praise Ian Fleming's work... to bad it's at the filmmakers expense !

[dinovelvet]

Y'know, I love Craig's Bond and think CASINO ROYALE is by far the best film in the franchise, but this article made me laugh like no roasting of something Bond since Jim's legendary lengthy demolition of DIE ANOTHER DAY, which it reminds me of tremendously. Most of us (rightly) praised Jim's piece, so why are we all up in arms up about this one, which strikes me as very similar? (Both articles make some excellent points with hugely enjoyable turn of phrase.)

Because DIE ANOTHER DAY is a rubbish film and fully deserves to be slated, I hear you cry. Well, not in my book it isn't and doesn't - still, I had great fun reading Jim's review. I don't need to agree with a writer's opinions to enjoy his writing or even to concede that some of his points are good. And doesn't getting so cross with this piece on CASINO ROYALE show certain signs of insecurity in what we profess to believe about the film's brilliance?

I agree, Loomis. Casino Royale, and Daniel Craig's performance, were so hugely successful that we don't need to be insecure about anyone bashing them. That said, I haven't read this thing because it isn't really my cup of tea to read articles that exist only to tear down things that I like. Bit of a "life's too short" thing. (Yet I'm reading the thread! )

[Loomis]

Y'know, I love Craig's Bond and think CASINO ROYALE is by far the best film in the franchise, but this article made me laugh like no roasting of something Bond since Jim's legendary lengthy demolition of DIE ANOTHER DAY, which it reminds me of tremendously. Most of us (rightly) praised Jim's piece, so why are we all up in arms up about this one, which strikes me as very similar? (Both articles make some excellent points with hugely enjoyable turn of phrase.)

Because DIE ANOTHER DAY is a rubbish film and fully deserves to be slated, I hear you cry. Well, not in my book it isn't and doesn't - still, I had great fun reading Jim's review. I don't need to agree with a writer's opinions to enjoy his writing or even to concede that some of his points are good. And doesn't getting so cross with this piece on CASINO ROYALE show certain signs of insecurity in what we profess to believe about the film's brilliance?

Well, one, Die Another Day was a genuinely bad film whereas Casino Royale was not.

In my opinion, DIE ANOTHER DAY is a genuinely good film, and that's an opinion that's shared by some Bond fans (apparently not by many, though) and by some critics (e.g. Leonard Maltin gives it a very respectable *** out of **** rating in his Movie Guide, which incidentally is the same rating he gives CASINO ROYALE).

And two, this bone head dissing Casino Royale couldn't even get his damn facts straight

Apart from this dispute over the usage of the term "bowl haircut", where else does the writer get his facts wrong?

[HH007]

Y'know, I love Craig's Bond and think CASINO ROYALE is by far the best film in the franchise, but this article made me laugh like no roasting of something Bond since Jim's legendary lengthy demolition of DIE ANOTHER DAY, which it reminds me of tremendously. Most of us (rightly) praised Jim's piece, so why are we all up in arms up about this one, which strikes me as very similar? (Both articles make some excellent points with hugely enjoyable turn of phrase.)

Because DIE ANOTHER DAY is a rubbish film and fully deserves to be slated, I hear you cry. Well, not in my book it isn't and doesn't - still, I had great fun reading Jim's review. I don't need to agree with a writer's opinions to enjoy his writing or even to concede that some of his points are good. And doesn't getting so cross with this piece on CASINO ROYALE show certain signs of insecurity in what we profess to believe about the film's brilliance?

I agree, Loomis. Casino Royale, and Daniel Craig's performance, were so hugely successful that we don't need to be insecure about anyone bashing them. That said, I haven't read this thing because it isn't really my cup of tea to read articles that exist only to tear down things that I like. Bit of a "life's too short" thing. (Yet I'm reading the thread! )

Trust me, this thread is much more worthwhile than the actual article.

[HH007]

Y'know, I love Craig's Bond and think CASINO ROYALE is by far the best film in the franchise, but this article made me laugh like no roasting of something Bond since Jim's legendary lengthy demolition of DIE ANOTHER DAY, which it reminds me of tremendously. Most of us (rightly) praised Jim's piece, so why are we all up in arms up about this one, which strikes me as very similar? (Both articles make some excellent points with hugely enjoyable turn of phrase.)

Because DIE ANOTHER DAY is a rubbish film and fully deserves to be slated, I hear you cry. Well, not in my book it isn't and doesn't - still, I had great fun reading Jim's review. I don't need to agree with a writer's opinions to enjoy his writing or even to concede that some of his points are good. And doesn't getting so cross with this piece on CASINO ROYALE show certain signs of insecurity in what we profess to believe about the film's brilliance?

Well, one, Die Another Day was a genuinely bad film whereas Casino Royale was not.

In my opinion, DIE ANOTHER DAY is a genuinely good film, and that's an opinion that's shared by some Bond fans (apparently not by many, though) and by some critics (e.g. Leonard Maltin gives it a very respectable *** out of **** rating in his Movie Guide, which incidentally is the same rating he gives CASINO ROYALE).

And two, this bone head dissing Casino Royale couldn't even get his damn facts straight

Apart from this dispute over the usage of the term "bowl haircut", where else does the writer get his facts wrong?

First off, about Leonard Maltin's book. I know how he reviewed DAD because I have it. I look at his reviews for the Bond films and frankly I find them a bit baffling at times (***1/2 for DAF Leonard? Really? You thought DAF was as good as FRWL and OHMSS???). And as for the bowl cut thing, please, how can that not lose everyone reading the thing? Either the guy is lying so people who haven't seen the movie can get a ridiculous image of Craig in their heads, or he doesn't know the difference between a bowl cut and a crew cut. Either way... I stopped reading at that point as, like Santajosep stated, I thought the rest of that article would be made up of the same sort of crap.

Edited by HH007, 12 February 2008 - 08:15 PM.

[Emma]

Believe it or not. Not everyone loved CR or Daniel Craig. And I frankly I don't expect that to be the case. There are some 'fans' who can't get past not Bond being Mr. Slick and bedding every woman in sight. They are entitled to their opinion, and I don't think it should really bother us.

[stamper]

Just be secure, and have a good laugh reading his prose... amidst the bad faith writing, many things he says are actually true... like Vesper looking horrendous, vampire like in make up in Martin Campbell movies, the women looks worse than in real like because the guy have absolutely no clue how to make women look glamorous, I mean, Famke Jansen isn't sexier in Goldeneye she is ugly whereas she really looks good nature, or in the interviews section, it means the director have a problem with making women look good, Vesper only shot where she looks good, is when he is about to apply make up in the bathroom,many have noticed : Campbell doesn't know how to make women look good. The guy is right.

[Emma]

His ascribing acting credits to Rosie O

[Blonde Bond]

Yawn. That was tiresome.

I think this guy doesn't like Daniel Craig as Bond very much and it shows. First I was bored and thought I'd read some of what this guy had to say. Oddly enough, after reading very little of his Bond 22 notes, I felt even more bored than I was before I started to read through that stuff.

He just couldn't pass any chances to bash Craig.

(but it also saddens me to see Brozza being the target of stoning, by some fans nowadays)

[HH007]

Believe it or not. Not everyone loved CR or Daniel Craig. And I frankly I don't expect that to be the case. There are some 'fans' who can't get past not Bond being Mr. Slick and bedding every woman in sight. They are entitled to their opinion, and I don't think it should really bother us.

The shock! The horror! How can you say such a thing???!!!! Emma, you are officially banned.


(That was a joke.)

[Daddy Bond]

It was quite hard to go on reading past the second line, where this cosmically stupid bloke claims DC had a bowl haircut in CR (huh?), but I did for a short while, only to realise the rest was going to be as crap as the beginning, so I didn't bother. What a pile of poo.

I must admit, the bowl haircut thing gave me a chuckle. Not because it's true, but because it's so NOT true. I was sitting here picturing Craig with a bowl haircut playing poker.

Yawn. That was tiresome.

I think this guy doesn't like Daniel Craig as Bond very much and it shows. First I was bored and thought I'd read some of what this guy had to say. Oddly enough, after reading very little of his Bond 22 notes, I felt even more bored than I was before I started to read through that stuff.

He just couldn't pass any chances to bash Craig.

(but it also saddens me to see Brozza being the target of stoning, by some fans nowadays)

OK. I'll say it. I likee Brozza as Bond AND I like Craig as Bond too. I prefer Craig, but still enjoyed Pierce as Bond, and would have liked to see him in a Bond with a great script.

[spynovelfan]

Some amusing points, some astute points (I agree that they chickened out of the origin story, both with the casting of an older-looking actor and by merely hinting at the back-story of how he joined up). But in general, quite, quite mad, mean-spirited (nothing's good in the film) and not nearly as clever as it thinks it is (irrelevant quoting of famous authors and half-arsed footnotes don't make you an academic). Rather sad, really.

[MarkA]

First of all I found that article very mean spirited and a little sad, but there was one point I do agree on. Despite what Michael Wilson and Martin Campbell etc said the book Casino Royale was not about a rookie agent earning his wings, but a fully developed 007. Also Moneypenny and a Q were mentioned. It annoyed me they lied about the content of the book to retrofit the type of film they made. Thinking most of the public who had never read Fleming, wouldn't know anyway. I will give him one point for bringing up that very true point.

[Jim]

It's an opinion.

Fairy nuff.