219 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

[quote name='Tarl_Cabot' date='30 December 2005 - 19:56'][quote name='Loomis' date='30 December 2005 - 12:22']Harry Knowles raves about MUNICH, and praises Craig....

http://www.aintitcoo...ay.cgi?id=22088

....but adds: "I hate to see him prematurely dooming his career by taking on Bond."

[/quote]


"God, if MISSION IMPOSSIBLE or JAMES BOND operated on this level of cinema

[Tarl_Cabot]

"Well, yeah, but it's kind of a silly statement, no? A bit like "Wow, if only The Rolling Stones or Robbie Williams operated on the level of Mozart, we'd truly live in a better world of music".

Well, I'm happy to see The Rolling Stones operate at their peak level like say, the 70's, rather then see them try on Mozart...so, I guess I want more FRWLs and less DUDs...I dunno why he brought MI into this though(yes, daft!). I think Harry wants to say is it would be neat to see a first class director(QT) take on Bond and treat it very seriously...kinda like Bourne(here we go again ).

[Tarl_Cabot]

Anyway, did you see Munich yet? I wanna see it soon...I like that Harry refered to it as a spy genre film...drool.

Edited by Tarl_Cabot, 30 December 2005 - 08:44 PM.

[Loomis]

I think Harry wants to say is it would be neat to see a first class director(QT) take on Bond and treat it very seriously...kinda like Bourne(here we go again ).

I can see where he's coming from, but he doesn't seem to understand that the series has managed to throw up a few classics over the years without ever using auteur or "visionary" directors. Knowles is evidently a Bond fan (and he gave DIE ANOTHER DAY a glowing review), but he just doesn't seem to understand the franchise. He appears convinced that Big Name Directors would automatically mean Much Better Films, which is nonsense (I mean, I never saw Ang Lee's HULK, but I'm told it isn't exactly a masterpiece - big names **** up all the time [M:I-2, anyone?]). Yet Knowles won't be shaken in his apparent belief that the Bond series will remain nothing until a hugely respected and trendy director is unleashed on it (but like I say, he praised DAD, so his views on Bond seem to be all over the shop - still, he and his AICN cohorts always seem to be griping about the franchise*, while going instantly weak at the knees at the very thought of, say, GOONIES 2 or ROCKY BALBOA). He's called for Owen as Bond - fair enough, but also Wong Kar-Wai to direct. A more inappropriate choice I can barely imagine. More recently, he's expressed his delight that Craig is the new 007 (although he now seems to be bemoaning his supposedly ruined career as a result), but appears to feel that CASINO ROYALE is absolutely doomed purely because Martin Campbell is directing.

*Not that the same isn't true of us, of course, but we're the hardcore Bond fans, so we have a licence to do it.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I think Harry wants to say is it would be neat to see a first class director(QT) take on Bond and treat it very seriously...kinda like Bourne(here we go again ).

I can see where he's coming from, but he doesn't seem to understand that the series has managed to throw up a few classics over the years without ever using auteur or "visionary" directors. Knowles is evidently a Bond fan (and he gave DIE ANOTHER DAY a glowing review), but he just doesn't seem to understand the franchise. He appears convinced that Big Name Directors would automatically mean Much Better Films, which is nonsense (I mean, I never saw Ang Lee's HULK, but I'm told it isn't exactly a masterpiece - big names **** up all the time [M:I-2, anyone?]). Yet Knowles won't be shaken in his apparent belief that the Bond series will remain nothing until a hugely respected and trendy director is unleashed on it (but like I say, he praised DAD, so his views on Bond seem to be all over the shop - still, he and his AICN cohorts always seem to be griping about the franchise*). He's called for Owen as Bond - fair enough, but also Wong Kar-Wai to direct. A more inappropriate choice I can barely imagine. More recently, he's expressed his delight that Craig is the new 007 (although he now seems to be bemoaning his supposedly ruined career as a result), but appears to feel that CASINO ROYALE is absolutely doomed purely because Martin Campbell is directing.

*Not that the same isn't true of us, of course, but we're the hardcore Bond fans, so we have a licence to do it.

Agree about the big names or name brands; we don't need them as much as a quality script. I never heard of Paul Greenglass before or Peter Jackson before 2001....I don't mind rookies. Anyway, I guess we'd like to see our favorite franchise be a little more artisticaly ambitious...but that said I'm very pleased with the direction of Bond 21 as of now...

[Loomis]

Anyway, did you see Munich yet?

No. I don't think it opens in Britain until late January. But it's definitely a future must-see for me, along with:

THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM

THE MATADOR

MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III (although I have the feeling that Cruise will be absolutely intolerable)

ROCKY BALBOA

and, of course, a certain Daniel Craig flick that's due next November.

[Tarl_Cabot]

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III (although I have the feeling that Cruise will be absolutely intolerable)"


Hilarious. I agree with you he can be very annoying but I happend to enjoy Collateral and the much debated WOTWs very much.My DVD club is sending me those...I never thought in a million years I own a Cruise movie, let alone two!

[Tarl_Cabot]

Anyway, did you see Munich yet?

No. I don't think it opens in Britain until late January. But it's definitely a future must-see for me, along with:

THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM

THE MATADOR

MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III (although I have the feeling that Cruise will be absolutely intolerable)

ROCKY BALBOA

and, of course, a certain Daniel Craig flick that's due next November.

I heard 'Geisha sucked.

I wanna see those too and:

X-3
Supes
Posieden
Final Destination 3

[deth]

the next Bourne film comes out in 2006?

[Moore Not Less]

the next Bourne film comes out in 2006?

The Bourne Ultimatum is currently scheduled for release in 2007.

[Leiter]

I finally saw Munich today, and I must say that Steve was by the far the most interesting character.

[Napoleon Solo]

How on earth can Spielberg "call for peace" when this film will simply glorify violence and counter-violence, blood for blood?

The lead character, played by Eric Bana, grows to have doubts, coming to believe his actions are reinforcing violence and retribution.

[Napoleon Solo]

Also, besides the natural interest here about how Daniel Craig in Munich, a figure from the Bond past is in the film. Michael Lonsdale, the one-time Hugo Drax, is excellent is a supporting role.

[Colossus]

The problem is that Bond films are not all gritty like Munich.

[Timatom90]

the next Bourne film comes out in 2006?

The Bourne Ultimatum is currently scheduled for release in 2007.

Aww, dang. That means it's even farther away than Casino Royale, which is far away enough...

[deth]

Also, besides the natural interest here about how Daniel Craig in Munich, a figure from the Bond past is in the film. Michael Lonsdale, the one-time Hugo Drax, is excellent is a supporting role.

indeed. I hadn't seen him in any other films besides MR and this. Oddly, he seemed to deliver his lines exactly the same way he did in MR.....




as for the Bourne Ultimatum in 2007, I think that's good (even though I'd love it to come out sooner). Having it come out the same year as a Bond film would only go further in encouraging comparisons.....

[Loomis]

I expect there'll be a lot of comparisons between CASINO ROYALE and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, which is due in cinemas a few months before CR. I'm just inferring this from the M:I-3 teaser, but it looks as though Ethan Hunt will have a serious love interest (as opposed to his ludicrously-conceived, zero-chemistry pairing with Eyecandie Newton in M:I-2) and be tortured, and that the film will be rather more gritty and intelligent than its predecessors.

[dinovelvet]

I expect there'll be a lot of comparisons between CASINO ROYALE and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, which is due in cinemas a few months before CR. I'm just inferring this from the M:I-3 teaser, but it looks as though Ethan Hunt will have a serious love interest (as opposed to his ludicrously-conceived, zero-chemistry pairing with Eyecandie Newton in M:I-2) and be tortured, and that the film will be rather more gritty and intelligent than its predecessors.

Hmm I didn't see anything suggesting "grittiness" in the MI3 trailer, nor anything to do with torture. Still, JJ Abrams likes to steal things from DAD, on Alias we had a gene-therapy face changing villain, Rick Yune appearing as a diamond smuggling terrorist, Sydney fighting on a crashing plane, getting captured in North Korea, and probably more. So Ethan Hunt being tortured would be perfect for JJ

[deth]

damn, I hope that doesn't sour ppl on CR....

[crashdrive]

Having just seen Munich (terrific movie by the way) I'm still worried that audiences will have a hard time believing Craig as Bond. Eventhough he plays a charismatic, hardhitting, tough man of action, he's also very down to earth, unstylish and working class. I'm very excited about the prospect of seeing Craig making the part his own, but like reboot attempts in the past, I find it hard to believe that EON will go the distance of making Casino entirely different. And with Craig as Bond, you have to make an entirely different Bond film or audiences will be confused. Now we have all the exotic locations, familiar faces (Judi Dench), mind blowing stunts and Bond trademarks, but mixed with new elements like a very Unbondlike ending, violent disturbing sequences and a third act that will be unlike any Bond film in the past. I hope audiences are ready for this and most of all, I hope EON will prepare audiences before the film premieres. Casting Craig will be the biggest gamble since Lazenby. Still you gotta love the mans voice and accent. Can't wait till we hear him say his famous onscreen introduction. Can't wait till shooting starts and images arrive.

[Loomis]

I'm very excited about the prospect of seeing Craig making the part his own, but like reboot attempts in the past, I find it hard to believe that EON will go the distance of making Casino entirely different. And with Craig as Bond, you have to make an entirely different Bond film or audiences will be confused. Now we have all the exotic locations, familiar faces (Judi Dench), mind blowing stunts and Bond trademarks, but mixed with new elements like a very Unbondlike ending, violent disturbing sequences and a third act that will be unlike any Bond film in the past.

From a post I made yesterday in the thread "After Daniel" (I think it kind of replies to your comments here, crash):

Y'know, I'm gonna have to have a rare disagreement with Harmsway and suggest that CASINO ROYALE should have roughly as much humour as, say, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, i.e. next to none.

Cringeworthy puns and one-liners will doubtless be inserted, on the dubious grounds that "That's what the public wants", and because it's more or less the same team as was behind the past few Bond flicks. Haggis' involvement seems a promising sign, but I doubt that his influence will be all that extensive. I expect that the presence of Purvis and Wade will still be felt. Didn't Craig threaten recently that "This is still going to be first and foremost a Bond movie"?

The reason I say they should leave the humour behind is that I think going for broke in a "supergritty" direction and allowing Craig to really give it some welly in terms of being a "dark" Bond would be the only way to make it work. Otherwise, there seems the strong risk of a mishmash like THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, an ugly and incoherent blend of "serious" and "silly". And also Craig would almost certainly be wasted. By all means go lighter and more audience-friendly next time round, but "keep it real" for CR. Who knows? They might actually surprise people and get non-Bond fans talking about Bond again. But a blend of, say, GOLDENEYE and TWINE, with a few nods to Bourne and BATMAN BEGINS.... I suspect that's what we'll get, but not even a terrific turn by Craig would be able to knock that sort of thing outta the park.

[SteveKingCool]

Can't wait till shooting starts and images arrive.

A firm date has to come this month at some time.

[Emma]

The problem is that Bond films are not all gritty like Munich.

They would be very, very wise in taking elements from Munich and applying it to Mr. Craig's Bond. Trust me.

[deth]

The problem is that Bond films are not all gritty like Munich.

They would be very, very wise in taking elements from Munich and applying it to Mr. Craig's Bond. Trust me.

except the clothes, lol....

[Peter Franks]

I don't like Munich, the movie not the city. It shows Israelis have to question their morality when dealing with murderers. Why not show the terrorists dealing with guilt if the movie is going to make a REAL POINT. The Palestinians are shown as all nice and family oriented instead of showing us some of the real bastards sobs that exist. Without their terrorism and belief Jews should be thrown in the sea the Israelis would have no need to take drastic actions.

[V007]

I saw Munich and it was awesome! If craig keeps the same acting sytle as he did in Munich, he would be a hit as Bond. Anymore thoughts?

Edited by V007, 06 January 2006 - 12:07 PM.

[Forever007]

Keep in mind Craig is a very gifted and diverse actor so he appears different in everything he does. No role ever appears the same soit's hard to say what he did with Munich will translate into his 007 portrayal.

[Peter Franks]

Keep in mind Craig is a very gifted and diverse actor so he appears different in everything he does. 

Amazing, Daniel Craig has been raised to Marlon Brando category: gifted, diverse, different in everything like uh Tomb Raider and uh

....he's almost the same all the time.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

[quote name='Peter Franks' date='6 January 2006 - 03:39'][quote name='Forever007' date='6 January 2006 - 14:00']Keep in mind Craig is a very gifted and diverse actor so he appears different in everything he does.

[Forever007]

Tomb Raider was a single film compared to the rest of his work. I doubt very seriously you have seen all his films.