84 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

Name them.

I'd have trouble citing more than a handful, let alone fifteen. DR. NO is possibly better than CR. Ditto FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. Ditto ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. That's about it as far as I'm concerned.

And Connery is perhaps a better Bond than Craig. Perhaps.

Loomis, I thought you didn't really like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE these days. Changed your mind?

[Tarl_Cabot]

It's a top 10er easy....I still rank FRWL, Dr No, Thunderball, Goldfinger and OHMSS higher but Casino Royale is the best effort from EON in decades. It was actually better than the book. The torture scene was even better...they didn't water it down at all.That may be one of the best scenes in any Bond film.

[Loomis]

Loomis, I thought you didn't really like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE these days. Changed your mind?

I guess it's a film I admire more than like, although don't get me wrong: I do like it. It's unquestionably one of the best films of the series, although I agree with spynovelfan that it's a little overrated and does have quite a few flaws.

[Harmsway]

Loomis, I thought you didn't really like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE these days. Changed your mind?

I guess it's a film I admire more than like, although don't get me wrong: I do like it. It's unquestionably one of the best films of the series, although I agree with spynovelfan that it's a little overrated and does have quite a few flaws.

Understood. In that assessment, I agree with you.

[Seannery]

Loomis, I thought you didn't really like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE these days. Changed your mind?

I guess it's a film I admire more than like, although don't get me wrong: I do like it. It's unquestionably one of the best films of the series, although I agree with spynovelfan that it's a little overrated and does have quite a few flaws.

Loomis after the first blush you will saying this about CR. Give it a year.

[Harmsway]

Nah. CASINO ROYALE isn't anywhere near as flawed as ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Hey Harms, did you write a member review? Id so I'd like to read it.

[Harmsway]

Hey Harms, did you write a member review? Id so I'd like to read it.

Nah, I didn't. I didn't think there was much of a point in it. With the amount of love CASINO ROYALE is getting, I thought it would be somewhat redundant.

[Loomis]

Loomis, I thought you didn't really like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE these days. Changed your mind?

I guess it's a film I admire more than like, although don't get me wrong: I do like it. It's unquestionably one of the best films of the series, although I agree with spynovelfan that it's a little overrated and does have quite a few flaws.

Loomis after the first blush you will saying this about CR. Give it a year.

Well, it's possible, I guess, but look at it this way: given that I still think DIE ANOTHER DAY is an excellent film, how likely do you think it is that I'll start cooling towards CASINO ROYALE?

[Harmsway]

Well, it's possible, I guess, but look at it this way: given that I still think DIE ANOTHER DAY is an excellent film, how likely do you think it is that I'll start cooling towards CASINO ROYALE?

LOL.

Well played.

[Seannery]

Loomis, I thought you didn't really like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE these days. Changed your mind?

I guess it's a film I admire more than like, although don't get me wrong: I do like it. It's unquestionably one of the best films of the series, although I agree with spynovelfan that it's a little overrated and does have quite a few flaws.

Loomis after the first blush you will saying this about CR. Give it a year.

Well, it's possible, I guess, but look at it this way: given that I still think DIE ANOTHER DAY is an excellent film, how likely do you think it is that I'll start cooling towards CASINO ROYALE?

Because you are right about DAD!

[Harmsway]

Because you are right about DAD!

Oh, not you too!

[Tarl_Cabot]

Ah comon H, write up one or two paragraghs. You're so opinionated...give us a review!

[dee-bee-five]

Loomis, I thought you didn't really like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE these days. Changed your mind?

I guess it's a film I admire more than like, although don't get me wrong: I do like it. It's unquestionably one of the best films of the series, although I agree with spynovelfan that it's a little overrated and does have quite a few flaws.

Loomis after the first blush you will saying this about CR. Give it a year.

Well, it's possible, I guess, but look at it this way: given that I still think DIE ANOTHER DAY is an excellent film, how likely do you think it is that I'll start cooling towards CASINO ROYALE?

Because you are right about DAD!

I don't dislike DAD. I think it gets way too much stick on this site. I think TWINE does, too. But DAD is to Casino Royale what a can of Fosters is to Bollinger. I wouldn't want to drink champagne every night and some nights I'm happy with a can of lager. But given the choice...

[MattofSteel]

Agree. DAD had some marvelous scenes, ideas, and intentions - spots of it were vintage Bond, Pierce and parts were occasionally in their absolute element. I was 100% behind the movie when it came out, named it the 'best Bond ever', it just took months and years of thinking before it finally matured in my mind and I came to my true opinion.

Which is, all those nice, beautiful moments in the film just ended up beign offset by all the truly HORRENDOUS ones. DAD had the potential to be the best Bond ever (up to that point), but just tripped and fell too many times along the way.

DAD, however, is by NO MEANS the analogy to Bond's "Batman & Robin" that some people call it.

[spynovelfan]

Loomis, I thought you didn't really like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE these days. Changed your mind?

I guess it's a film I admire more than like, although don't get me wrong: I do like it. It's unquestionably one of the best films of the series, although I agree with spynovelfan that it's a little overrated and does have quite a few flaws.

Loomis after the first blush you will saying this about CR. Give it a year.

I do wonder what would have pleased you, Seannery. You absolutely loved MI:3 and started a thread rhapsodising aobut how it 'humanised' Ethan Hunt's character. You don't think, from the point of view of script, characterisation, filming, editing, location work and acting that CR was better? And humanized Bond a whole lot more than the monodimensional 'character' Cruise played? Really? Come on! Yes, the film has flaws, and it's quite easy to see what they are. But, you know, MI:3 features a secret agent cloning a guy twice his size from scratch in about two minutes, meaningless locations, the same twist as in the first film, an extraordinarily poorly conceived ending that has us believe the villain simply leaves the scene with all his men, leaving the secret agent only one man to overpower, and so on. It seems like this film was operating on a completely different set of critical criteria for you - and yet you've continually compared it to other films, like the self-evidently obvious MI:3.

Please do not say that you really thought that was better than CR. I won't be able to talk to you anymore!

[Seannery]

Loomis, I thought you didn't really like ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE these days. Changed your mind?

I guess it's a film I admire more than like, although don't get me wrong: I do like it. It's unquestionably one of the best films of the series, although I agree with spynovelfan that it's a little overrated and does have quite a few flaws.

Loomis after the first blush you will saying this about CR. Give it a year.

I do wonder what would have pleased you, Seannery. You absolutely loved MI:3 and started a thread rhapsodising aobut how it 'humanised' Ethan Hunt's character. You don't think, from the point of view of script, characterisation, filming, editing, location work and acting that CR was better? And humanized Bond a whole lot more than the monodimensional 'character' Cruise played? Really? Come on! Yes, the film has flaws, and it's quite easy to see what they are. But, you know, MI:3 features a secret agent cloning a guy twice his size from scratch in about two minutes, meaningless locations, the same twist as in the first film, an extraordinarily poorly conceived ending that has us believe the villain simply leaves the scene with all his men, leaving the secret agent only one man to overpower, and so on. It seems like this film was operating on a completely different set of critical criteria for you - and yet you've continually compared it to other films, like the self-evidently obvious MI:3.

Please do not say that you really thought that was better than CR. I won't be able to talk to you anymore!

SNF you are determined to hang MI3 around my neck. Point for point I already expressed what I thought didn't quite work for CR. Secondly I don't automatically raise a "serious" film over a popcorn one. Whichever one which works best I would rate higher. I think the popcorn MI3 works better than the more serious CR. My opinion. Now you can hate me if you wish.

[spynovelfan]

SNF you are determined to hang MI3 around my neck. Point for point I already expressed what I thought didn't quite work for CR. Secondly I don't automatically raise a "serious" film over a popcorn one. Whichever one which works best I would rate higher. I think the popcorn MI3 works better than the more serious CR. My opinion. Now you can hate me if you wish.

You're not getting out of that easily, Seannery! You think you're going to escape by labelling them as different types of film? Both aimed to be entertaining, suspenseful smart spy thrillers with psychological depth. CASINO ROYALE just did it better. Both featured a brilliant and determined secret agent using all his wits to save the woman he loves, and being tortured in the process. CASINO ROYALE did it with an astonishing central performance, while MI3 did it with some suibstance and a lot of gloss. You complain that the Vesper/Bond love story was unconcvincing. Without looking it up, tell me the name of Ethan Hunt's wife. You can't, and neither can anyone else, because she's just fodder for an okay thriller that will soon disappear from everyone's memory. You have pointed out flaws in CR and I agree with many of them (though not to the same extent). But MI3 had dozens of much bigger holes, the very least being that Hunt's relationship with his wife was so undeveloped as to make whether or not it was her or someone else we didn't care about wearing a ridiculous latex mask irrelevant.

I just want you to be honest. Yes, there are flaws in CR. True enough. But you *loved* MI3. How can you possibly have loved that film and genuinely, really, sincerely, rate this one 6 out of 10. Yes, I know, it's all subjective. But before you hide behind that ask yourself if you have really used your mind to apply the same critical criteria to both of these films. I think you had an automatic barrier to this one, because I refuse to believe that someone of your intelligence, sophistication and general good-eggness could genuinely think that MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 3 was in any way, shape, form or rubber mask better than what we all know to be, in our hearts, when we're not playing devil's advocate with nutters on the interweb, is the best Bond film in years.

[Seannery]

SNF you are determined to hang MI3 around my neck. Point for point I already expressed what I thought didn't quite work for CR. Secondly I don't automatically raise a "serious" film over a popcorn one. Whichever one which works best I would rate higher. I think the popcorn MI3 works better than the more serious CR. My opinion. Now you can hate me if you wish.

You're not getting out of that easily, Seannery! You think you're going to escape by labelling them as different types of film? Both aimed to be entertaining, suspenseful smart spy thrillers with psychological depth. CASINO ROYALE just did it better. Both featured a brilliant and determined secret agent using all his wits to save the woman he loves, and being tortured in the process. CASINO ROYALE did it with an astonishing central performance, while MI3 did it with some suibstance and a lot of gloss. You complain that the Vesper/Bond love story was unconcvincing. Without looking it up, tell me the name of Ethan Hunt's wife. You can't, and neither can anyone else, because she's just fodder for an okay thriller that will soon disappear from everyone's memory. You have pointed out flaws in CR and I agree with many of them (though not to the same extent). But MI3 had dozens of much bigger holes, the very least being that Hunt's relationship with his wife was so undeveloped as to make whether or not it was her or someone else we didn't care about wearing a ridiculous latex mask irrelevant.

I just want you to be honest. Yes, there are flaws in CR. True enough. But you *loved* MI3. How can you possibly have loved that film and genuinely, really, sincerely, rate this one 6 out of 10. Yes, I know, it's all subjective. But before you hide behind that ask yourself if you have really used your mind to apply the same critical criteria to both of these films. I think you had an automatic barrier to this one, because I refuse to believe that someone of your intelligence, sophistication and general good-eggness could genuinely think that MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 3 was in any way, shape, form or rubber mask better than what we all know to be, in our hearts, when we're not playing devil's advocate with nutters on the interweb, is the best Bond film in years.

Okay SNF this is my second attempt at a post here--my computer ate the first. Honestly these are my true views and I was totally open to CR--I was hoping it would be great. And there is a true diference between popcorn and more serious thrillers. Even if you don't like that. This comes from someone who loves films and has seen a ton. It is an intellectual straightjacket to only appreciate the serious, the intellectual, the artistic. Films of varying seriousness and ambition either work or not--totally or partially. Some films are fun and spectacle that works on a gut basic level regardless of many flaws and lack of depth. MI3 is like this--yes the wife part was shallow but it was enough to provide just enough emotion to an exciting rollercoaster. It works. More serious films have a tougher road to hoe because their ambitions demand more depth and subtlety. They are more a house of cards. A film either works as a story ,however ambitious, or not. I have said elsewhere point for point where I think CR fell short. And mind you 6 out of 10 isn't bad--I kinda enjoyed it. And i'll see it again--when I see a film a second time I sometimes bump it up a point...so we will see. Regardless I didn't hate it--just think it fell somewhat short. To use another film as example--"Commando" shallow dumb fun with many flaws has Arnold trying to save his daughter(emotional resonance even if not very well done intellectually)..and it just works. I know blasphemy Commando works better than CR. Some films just work on a basic gut level even if you looked at it from purely the mind where it can be dismissed. My other post had more but time is short. You can use your intellect to see beyond the intellect and it's leanings. Those are my honest takes on CR and films in general shortened for time considerate. You can scoff at me if you wish.

[Loomis]

No way in the world is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III a better film than CASINO ROYALE. MIAMI VICE, on the other hand....

[killkenny kid]

[quote name='Loomis' date='22 November 2006 - 12:45' post='654323']
No way in the world is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III a better film than CASINO ROYALE.


indeed.

[Seannery]

No way in the world is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III a better film than CASINO ROYALE. MIAMI VICE, on the other hand....

This is true ONLY if you think Casino Royale is really good. I'm arguing against the converted...may Daniel Bless you. With that, i'll exit stage left...for now.

[Dr. Noah]

Well, in terms of critical reaction, MI3 did okay at Rotten Tomatoes:

Reviews Counted: 201
Fresh: 142 Rotten: 59
Average Rating: 6.7/10

But here's CR:

Reviews Counted: 159
Fresh: 150 Rotten: 9
Average Rating: 7.9/10

CR has been reviewed by 50 fewer critics so far, but STILL has eight more positive reviews.

The critical reaction is nothing short of stunning for the 20th sequel in a movie series.

[the007JamesBond]

I have seen today movie and I gave my good commentars

I have never heard about the dumb of the website from craginotbond.com (this site is closed) I want to read, who is that.

I have read only book in english Casion Royale, this is orginal book better than movie, this movie is very strange another not from the novel book, I wonder that.

I could to say, Daniel Craig is good played by James Bond, it is true Mr. Bond. Hadn't believe that silenced anti-craig fans from site. *headshaked*

I have seen today this movie and I am sitting who like stopped the move and couldn't scare...very excite. And I could to say like wow!!! Ever one 21th Bond is great. But pity is not from book to movie....book wrote no death of Vesper under the water. And not one injury of the right hand with ugly wound in the movie and only book wrote it!

Ian Flemming orginal books, I haven't yet. If where is this?

I like my Pierce Bronsan fan, but not for 21th bond maybe looking stupid...Daniel is charmant, sexy, good body...blond is damage, I know real James Bond has only darker black hair and then pity for the 21th Bond movie.

but M is male from the book, I think and I don't remember now and I need to read again.

Total : 10 / 10

[VeteransAbroad]

Some thoughts on the above: I tuned out when Brosnan became Bond and only returned as a Bond fan this weekend when I saw that they were trying to go back to the Fleming novels. I never saw Brosnan as Bond personally although he looked OK enough without his shirt to believe the young women would sleep with him (incidentally, one reviewer on the Craigisnotbond.com website says the scene in the Bahamas where Craig's character is oggled by two 20 year olds is just a "fantasy" for middle-aged male viewers - this reviewer was wrong as a 38 year old like Craig could realistically date women in their early twenties and Eva Green is 26).

Brosnan was growing older, however, and may by now no longer look like he could date the 26 year old Eva Green (although more power to him and her if the attraction was there).

Therefore, his budget wouldn't have been the deciding factor.

This is a lesson to all to avoid cigarettes and too many martinis (Ian Fleming killed himself by doing what Bond always did).

Regarding the complaint that "Bond Begins" started him off as a 00:

The book starts him off as a 00 as well. In the book, Bond never kills anyone and his 00 status is already 10 years old. Bond earned his two first kills during World War Two, first by sniping a Jap code breaker through a Rockefeller Center skyscraper window in NYC (the Americans had not yet entered the war, thus allowing the Japanese to prosecute the war against the British more or less openly inside New York City) and then by killing a fellow agent from Norway who'd been proven as working for the Germans.

In the book, Bond had never yet killed anyone from "Redland".

Edited by VeteransAbroad, 27 November 2006 - 05:21 PM.