142 replies to this topic

[Santa]

Er, OK? (But I don't actually tend to feel hurt about things said on here - it's a Bond fan website, not deep, intellectual stuff and there are, as I'm sure you've noticed, plenty of weirdos). I will say though, I'm British, I worked in British TV for many years, I was familiar with his work. He was quite sweet in The Vicar of Dibley but other than that I'm not impressed.

[Zorin Industries]

Er, OK? (But I don't actually tend to feel hurt about things said on here - it's a Bond fan website, not deep, intellectual stuff and there are, as I'm sure you've noticed, plenty of weirdos). I will say though, I'm British, I worked in British TV for many years, I was familiar with his work. He was quite sweet in The Vicar of Dibley but other than that I'm not impressed.

Yes, but he's tall with dark hair. Doesn't that make him the best Bond ever?!! (I say that with sarcasm - and sarcasm that supports you Santajosep). God, some people need to look beyond their BUFFY box sets and CROUPIER Extended Editions when casting a new 007. Get over it. Eon aren't interested in what the anal fans think. And I don't bracket you in you there, Santajosep.

[Santa]

I'm still wondering why the thread starter seems to have forgotten Michael G. Wilson.

As it happens, BB, when I've made comments about people suggesting any old whoever for Bond, now or at any time, it hasn't been aimed at you personally. You may have been bracketed in it but surely you can see that some of the suggestions are rather dodgy - Daniel Radcliffe? Jude Law?

[dodge]

I'm still wondering why the thread starter seems to have forgotten Michael G. Wilson.

As it happens, BB, when I've made comments about people suggesting any old whoever for Bond, now or at any time, it hasn't been aimed at you personally. You may have been bracketed in it but surely you can see that some of the suggestions are rather dodgy - Daniel Radcliffe? Jude Law?

Well, Babs not Michael was there for Dan throughout the hellish last day's shoot. While Dan sat there buck naked for hours and hours, with his legendary jewels just inches from the swinging rope--Babs sat there, looking on, closely, very closely. That makes her boss in my book.

[Santa]

I'm not sure what that makes her, actually

[Zorin Industries]

I'm not sure what that makes her, actually

Bloody lucky in my book....! (did I say that out loud?!)

[stamper]

Just read my sig

[Bond Bombshell]

Er, OK? (But I don't actually tend to feel hurt about things said on here - it's a Bond fan website, not deep, intellectual stuff and there are, as I'm sure you've noticed, plenty of weirdos). I will say though, I'm British, I worked in British TV for many years, I was familiar with his work. He was quite sweet in The Vicar of Dibley but other than that I'm not impressed.

OK, let's go over old ground from a year ago! You had no idea who Armitage was, and had to look him up. You had a negative reaction to his photograph and claimed he had no sex appeal with women. This despite the fact that the previous year Armitage had been a huge hit with women in North and South and had just been voted the sexiest man on TV in the BBC's annual poll. You then compared him to podgy faced softy Michael Ball, while everybody else was comparing his feral looks to Timothy Dalton, Hugh Jackman, Gerard Butler and Sean Bean. Sorry, you're entitled to reject him but I don't believe your comments were based on much knowledge.

You can tell me I'm just suggesting any old British actor with dark hair if you like, and haven't put any more thought into it than that. However, I'm entitled to respond to that sort of slur, and you can't be too surprised when I point out that actually I have put some thought into it, and more so than you appear to have done. Why should I give you the benefit of the doubt about research when you did not extend that courtesy to me? What bugs me about all this is that suddenly I'm the bad guy, when all I've done is respond in kind, and yes it does bother you or you wouldn't feel the need to keep bringing it up.

[Santa]

It gets boring for everyone else when it goes on and on. I brought it up once as a kind of joke. I then looked up you and the thread because you said it was you and I didn't want to say it was without checking. You are the one who seems sore about it, not me. And I'll say again now as I said then, I didn't compare him to Michael Ball. I compared the women who fancy him to the kind of women that fancy Michael Ball. It's not the same thing. As you seem to need it explaining, what I mean is that there are women who seem to prefer a pedestrian look because it seems more attainable. As in we all know Brad Pitt and George Clooney are unattainable, but those who look more ordinary - see RA, Michael Ball, Colin Firth, just examples - seem more attainable. North & South was what I had seen him in, I checked the name because no, I don't find him memorable. I'm fairly sure he's probably also been in The Bill, Casualty etc. He has that generic look. Just as you have the right to think he's suitable for Bond, I have the same right to think he is not. Do you really want to go on about it?

And when I say people are suggesting any actor for Bond, I'm generalising. Why are you taking it so personally? Are you the bloke who thought I'm Pete?

[Bond Bombshell]

I'm still wondering why the thread starter seems to have forgotten Michael G. Wilson.

As it happens, BB, when I've made comments about people suggesting any old whoever for Bond, now or at any time, it hasn't been aimed at you personally. You may have been bracketed in it but surely you can see that some of the suggestions are rather dodgy - Daniel Radcliffe? Jude Law?

Yep, I appreciate that there were two or three other members involved in the debate, and your comments weren't aimed at just me, but as you say, I was part of it. Yep, I also appreciate that some suggestions are IMO stupid, but it's how you choose to deal with those suggestions that sets the tone of a debate. You can say I don't think this bloke is right because...., or you can just belittle the poster by telling him/her that they have put no thought into the process and are just proposing anyone with dark hair. This site would be boring if everybody was tactful all the time, but if you choose the latter option you can't complain when someone fights their corner. If someone has put in the time to watch and research their candidate, and has given some thought as to how his qualities may apply to Bond, then it's going to hurt to be told you are just suggesting any old tailor's dummy.

[Mister Asterix]

Besides everyone knows Rupert Friend will be the next Bond.

[Santa]

Besides everyone knows Rupert Friend will be the next Bond.

I thought it was Gulshan Grover?

[Zorin Industries]

Besides everyone knows Rupert Friend will be the next Bond.

I thought it was Gulshan Grover?

No, my money's on Julian McMahon. He held a gun once in an episode of NIP/TUCK. And he also drove a silver car. In fact, FANTASTIC FOUR was such a tour-de-force of box office prowess that I've already cast him in a remake of MOONRAKER with Sean Connery as the villain. Well, you've got to give the fans what they want. They know best.

[Bond Bombshell]

It gets boring for everyone else when it goes on and on. I brought it up once as a kind of joke. I then looked up you and the thread because you said it was you and I didn't want to say it was without checking. You are the one who seems sore about it, not me. And I'll say again now as I said then, I didn't compare him to Michael Ball. I compared the women who fancy him to the kind of women that fancy Michael Ball. It's not the same thing. As you seem to need it explaining, what I mean is that there are women who seem to prefer a pedestrian look because it seems more attainable. As in we all know Brad Pitt and George Clooney are unattainable, but those who look more ordinary - see RA, Michael Ball, Colin Firth, just examples - seem more attainable. North & South was what I had seen him in, I checked the name because no, I don't find him memorable. I'm fairly sure he's probably also been in The Bill, Casualty etc. He has that generic look. Just as you have the right to think he's suitable for Bond, I have the same right to think he is not. Do you really want to go on about it?

And when I say people are suggesting any actor for Bond, I'm generalising. Why are you taking it so personally? Are you the bloke who thought I'm Pete?

I had no desire to ressurect this debate, because I had long since forgotten about it and it is boring. However, there was a limit to how long I was going to stay silent when you were not only referencing it in this thread and others, but misrepresenting it. I don't think you've ever understood what my point is. It's never been about your right to reject Armitage or anybody else as a candidate. It's been about the way you do it, and if you dish it out, you can't claim unfair when similar arguments come back at you.

I've always understood your point about Michael Ball. As I said in my previous post, you are comparing Armitage to Ball, and that's true whether you are saying they look like each other or belong in the same "pedestrian looks" category. As for suddenly claiming familiarity with Armitage's career, why did you not claim this at the start of the debate when it was relevant?

I've no idea who Pete is, and you may think I'm taking things personally, but I'm just standing up for myself. You accused me (and a few others) of a lack of thought by picking out anybody British with dark hair. This implies a lack of effort and research on my part, which just wasn't true and I'm entitled to respond to that.

[Santa]

It gets boring for everyone else when it goes on and on. I brought it up once as a kind of joke. I then looked up you and the thread because you said it was you and I didn't want to say it was without checking. You are the one who seems sore about it, not me. And I'll say again now as I said then, I didn't compare him to Michael Ball. I compared the women who fancy him to the kind of women that fancy Michael Ball. It's not the same thing. As you seem to need it explaining, what I mean is that there are women who seem to prefer a pedestrian look because it seems more attainable. As in we all know Brad Pitt and George Clooney are unattainable, but those who look more ordinary - see RA, Michael Ball, Colin Firth, just examples - seem more attainable. North & South was what I had seen him in, I checked the name because no, I don't find him memorable. I'm fairly sure he's probably also been in The Bill, Casualty etc. He has that generic look. Just as you have the right to think he's suitable for Bond, I have the same right to think he is not. Do you really want to go on about it?

And when I say people are suggesting any actor for Bond, I'm generalising. Why are you taking it so personally? Are you the bloke who thought I'm Pete?

I had no desire to ressurect this debate, because I had long since forgotten about it and it is boring. However, there was a limit to how long I was going to stay silent when you were not only referencing it in this thread and others, but misrepresenting it. I don't think you've ever understood what my point is. It's never been about your right to reject Armitage or anybody else as a candidate. It's been about the way you do it, and if you dish it out, you can't claim unfair when similar arguments come back at you.

I've always understood your point about Michael Ball. As I said in my previous post, you are comparing Armitage to Ball, and that's true whether you are saying they look like each other or belong in the same "pedestrian looks" category. As for suddenly claiming familiarity with Armitage's career, why did you not claim this at the start of the debate when it was relevant?

I've no idea who Pete is, and you may think I'm taking things personally, but I'm just standing up for myself. You accused me (and a few others) of a lack of thought by picking out anybody British with dark hair. This implies a lack of effort and research on my part, which just wasn't true and I'm entitled to respond to that.

I'm sure there is some kind of etiquette against quoting oneself but I've just done it anyway:

That's fine, we agree to disagree, it would be awful if we all were after the same man but I didn't compare your bloke with Michael Ball. I said that the women that fancy him are probably the same kind of women that fancy Michael Ball. Also probably the same ones that find Prince William attractive .

From page 1 of aforementioned debate, but you decided to continue it on the other pages. Somewhere up here on this page you have accused me of accusing you of shallowness. I've checked and have never done this. You find him suitable as Bond and I don't. Why are you carrying on.

[Scottlee]

I'd like to think the Jackman thing has already been put to bed by now. I was against him being in CR and I'll probably be against him being in Bond 24. I didn't see him as a potential 007 when I saw Swordfish AT ALL, where as Daniel Craig's Bond-potential stood out a lot more for me in Road to Perdition, a film where D.C didn't even have that many scenes.

Even assuming Craig will leave the series after three films, it still seems way to early to be discussing this. Only after Bond23 has been released and Craig has categorically stated he will not be returning, will I then lose even an ounce of sleep worrying who the new Bond will be.

I'm also not keen on the idea of hiring an actor who is so old he could probably only do 3 films even if he wanted to do more. Craig might well bow out after 3, but at least he's young enough for the possibility of a 4th outing to at least remain viable should the film studios and the public (and Craig) want it.

[mtonline]

Hail the Hugh Jackman!

M_T

[mrsbonds_ppk]

Wow... The thing is most people want to piss and moan about this and that in the Brosnan era and totally blame Pierce, or Halle, or whoever else. I don't buy it. When the guy was James Bond (and still is) I bet some of you were crazy about him. I'm not saying people don't have a right to change their mind trust me they do. But you wanna sit there and blame him and NOT blame Barbara Broccoli or Michael G. Wilson, Purvis & Wade, or whoever else...pleeease. Daniel Craig is a very good actor and CR was good but the era ain't up folks. So I'll speak on it officially when it's over...or maybe not. And I ain't waiting for them to mess up either. Pierce Brosnan wasn't given a chance period because of BB when she was clearly responsible as PRODUCER for thing's like DAD. Go read the Playboy interview Pierce gave and he'll express himeself clearly. And I think everyone has a right to express themselves and feel whatever they feel..even if they don't like Daniel Craig or Casino Royale or Hugh Jackman or Miss Broccoli. I won't try and light a fire up under their .


Okay I don't hate anyone, but I had to express myself that way.

disclaimer- *no harm was done to Barbara Broccoli in this post*

Edited by mrsbonds_ppk, 05 June 2007 - 07:26 PM.

[SeanValen00V]

I like Daniel Craig as Bond... and I just got done worrying about who would be the next Bond. I don't want to worry about it until 2012.

Same here. It's waaaaaayy too early to be thinking about the next Bond. I'm sure there will be plenty of unpleasantness to keep us entertained when the time comes.

It's never too early, the next Bond actor rumour is always a topic. I know were your coming from, but the future dicussion is a free world of debate, some people are dreaming of future projects and wondering about future casting, it gives them hope, their Bond will make them happy again. I'm happy with the Bond series, it's given me so much joy, if I have to sleepwalk through the Craig movies and celebrate his end in some years time and a new actor who I like more, then so be it, and I hope the producers quit and hire some fresh talent to inject some creative energies into Bond again, because they seem sorry but Casino Royale as a reboot idea, just stinks of desperate attempts to bring quality but changing Bond's history while doing it. What happens in another 40 years time, Bond will finish? Reooot Bond again, and he's born today to fight in 2040s. I find it weird the Bond in CAsino was never in the cold war.

Many times it has been said, Bond stays the same, but the world around him changes, but they've definately changed his history.




When Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, unlike many people I did not hold my hands in despair, and wait for the inevitable flop that we all anticipated. I was willing to give him a chance, and certainly felt he could give something different to the role.

However, I came out of this film with an extreme sense of frustration. This could perhaps have been due to my high hopes for the film, and the many extremely positive reviews I had read, though I doubt it. The film in my opinion tried too hard to be different, and the end result was a totally different Bond film, but a very unoriginal Hollywoodised action flick.

Yes Craig gave a tougher, more brutal edge to Bond, but he seemed to me, to be a standard Hollywood action hero, in the same way the film was full of stereotypical needless Hollywood action.

The scene containing the free running (parkour) near the beginning epitomises this desire for great action, and little sense. If you recall, there is a moment where Bond decides to climb into some sort of demolition vehicle. Yes, it looked cool, but if we actually think about it, there was no need whatsoever, all he did was drive it through a brick wall? Why?

The free running itself was another attempt by the director to wow the audience into submission, and make them sit back allowing the senselessness wash over them for the next two hours. Once again, with the free running, there was quite literally no point to it whatsoever. Why on earth did the villain decide to go up there - "I know, I can escape him by climbing to the top of a crane" - No my friend you would have been better off finding yourself a car, instead of trying to display your parkour skills. I am not surprised this film has been received well and that it is a hit at the box office - but I'm sorry Mr.Campbell, i see through you.

I will openly admit I found the poker scenes enjoyable, and I am a big fan of Mads Mikkelsen, having felt he was the only good thing to come out of King Arthur. Yes, the actual bits in the actual Casino Royale were good, everything else was very standard.

Furthermore, the action at the end in Venice, where the building collapsed seemed highly irrelevant to me, but by this time I had been pounded into a zombie like state, just accepting whatever washed over me.

Not a bad effort, and it does indeed breathe new life into the Bond genre, but I could quite easily go down to Blockbuster, search the action section for 5 minutes and find something just as good! 5/10

[Fro]

Christian Bale is a much better choice than Jackman, and he'll only be 38 in 2012.

Maybe he could convince the producers into bringing Nolan (OHMSS is one of his favorite movies) in for a Bond movie.

Edited by Fro, 05 June 2007 - 08:25 PM.

[triviachamp]

When Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, unlike many people I did not hold my hands in despair, and wait for the inevitable flop that we all anticipated. I was willing to give him a chance, and certainly felt he could give something different to the role.

You're a liar SeanValen.

The countdown to the confirmation that the producers of Bond have gone nuts. I've never waited for a film to flop so hard in my life, we need to teach the Bond producers a lesson in admitting their mistakes on Die Another Day and failing Pierce. They will only listen to the boxoffice, the film needs to flop so the producers make the appropriate casting changes for the next film, either that or the fanchise. I love the Bond series, but this is becoming a joke, they are ruining it and I look forward to be proven right.

[triviachamp]

And why the downgrading from 7.5/10 to 5/10?

http://debrief.comma...p...st&p=576269

I'm optimisic Casino will do low numbers, and yence confirm EON's stupid choice in dumping Brosnan, the US audiences will be wondering where Brosnan is.

The box office will come from trailers flashing good pictures of the Bond girls and some action, but the coolness of Bond won't be there as if they had Hugh Jackman, or Brosnan in his never to be released swansong etc.

We need a box office failure for the producers to take a long hard look at themselfs and actually produce a Bond film with a Bond actor in the role, cancel bond 22, and go for the Brosnan unfinished swangsong film, and or go for Hugh Jackman, do two Bond films, get Brosnan's 5th out in 2007, a monkey can write a better script then DAD, and get Jackman in for 2008, and then James Bond is truely back.

So things have to get worse to get better, and everyone is in for a disappointing box office, my birthday wish, my christmas wishes, my life long mission to stop the stupidity of those Bond producers who are ruining James Bond in the 21st century!

But don't let me invade the party celebrations, just my personal opinion on what needs to be done starting with the box office and the punishement the producers must face in making us wait 4 years for a Brosnan film that never came, I'm still not over it, you do not dump a Bond actor popular in the role and wants to do one more without facing some damage, and we'll see it in the box office, the low numbers.

And

It's amusing they wanna get work underway without actually seeing how Casino will do. I'm hoping Casino will fail and they'll get Brosnan back for one more. Their living in a bubble if they think the world will like Craig as Bond, they've gone insane.

Edited by triviachamp, 06 June 2007 - 02:18 AM.

[SeanValen00V]

If Casino failed, we would of have better changes, and perhaps Sony would of convinced the producers of not doing the reboot thing.

The reboot thing will back fire after a few films, because it won't make sense, as soon as they return to moneypenny, q, etc back to normal business. They should of set Casino in the 60s! where it belonged!

Christian Bale is a much better choice than Jackman, and he'll only be 38 in 2012.

Maybe he could convince the producers into bringing Nolan (OHMSS is one of his favorite movies) in for a Bond movie.

I agree, if they can't get Christian Bale, then I would resort to Jackman.

Christian Bale is James Bond in batman begins as Bruce Wayne, his Bruce reminded me of Bond.


Christian Bale and Chris Nolen working on a Bond film, a dream for me, I'll be there, and celebrating it, those two work great together. And hey maybe make Jackman the villian? Bale and Jackman were excellent in the Prestige directed by Chris Nolan.

There's plenty of people who can make Bond films, the bond producers we are forced to respect because it's family business, but at the end of the day, I just want the best possible Bond films, and I know they are out there waiting to be made by better filmakers.

[triviachamp]

If Casino failed, we would of have better changes, and perhaps Sony would of convinced the producers of not doing the reboot thing.

Probably would have gotten worse changes Sean as CR bombing would "prove" that DAD was the way to go just as OHMSS and LTK "flopping" (not agreeing with that, that is just what everyone thinks) "proved" that "Fleming's Bond" was bad. And did you want CR to bomb or not?

The reboot thing will back fire after a few films, because it won't make sense, as soon as they return to moneypenny, q, etc back to normal business. They should of set Casino in the 60s! where it belonged!

So having Bond not age in 40 years makes sense? And how would CR in the 60s make sense? Also shouldn't it be set in the 1950s? And wouldn't a period Bond be a reboot? Also does anyone really care that CR is restart anymore?

SeanValen, you seem to be fighting old battles that have been lost. Brosnan is gone, Jackman won't be cast, Craig vanquished his detractors and CR is a reboot that was a hit and most people aren't confused by that. You don't like it but it is time to fight some new battles.

Edited by triviachamp, 06 June 2007 - 03:54 AM.

[Jim]

If Casino failed, we would of have better changes, and perhaps Sony would of convinced the producers of not doing the reboot thing.

Please.

I know this is going to look incredibly petty and I know that it's etiquette (netiquette?) not to criticise others' grammar as the internet forgives many things, and it's not, I assure you, a cheap shot because I can't be bothered to challenge your views, which are welcome if on the face of them about two years out of date, but...

...it's "would have", not "would of".

Please.

I find them tricky to read, otherwise.

[dinovelvet]

The scene containing the free running (parkour) near the beginning epitomises this desire for great action, and little sense. If you recall, there is a moment where Bond decides to climb into some sort of demolition vehicle. Yes, it looked cool, but if we actually think about it, there was no need whatsoever, all he did was drive it through a brick wall? Why?

The free running itself was another attempt by the director to wow the audience into submission, and make them sit back allowing the senselessness wash over them for the next two hours. Once again, with the free running, there was quite literally no point to it whatsoever. Why on earth did the villain decide to go up there - "I know, I can escape him by climbing to the top of a crane" - No my friend you would have been better off finding yourself a car, instead of trying to display your parkour skills. I am not surprised this film has been received well and that it is a hit at the box office - but I'm sorry Mr.Campbell, i see through you.

Good grief. If that's really the kind of thing that ruins Casino Royale for you, one wonders how on Earth you managed to make it through any Brosnan film or most of the Moore tenure without going apoplectic with rage over all kinds of less-than-logical scenes?
Somehow I knew when this thread started, it would turn out to be a Craig/CR whinefest in disguise.

[DavidSomerset]

The scene containing the free running (parkour) near the beginning epitomises this desire for great action, and little sense. If you recall, there is a moment where Bond decides to climb into some sort of demolition vehicle. Yes, it looked cool, but if we actually think about it, there was no need whatsoever, all he did was drive it through a brick wall? Why?

The free running itself was another attempt by the director to wow the audience into submission, and make them sit back allowing the senselessness wash over them for the next two hours. Once again, with the free running, there was quite literally no point to it whatsoever. Why on earth did the villain decide to go up there - "I know, I can escape him by climbing to the top of a crane" - No my friend you would have been better off finding yourself a car, instead of trying to display your parkour skills. I am not surprised this film has been received well and that it is a hit at the box office - but I'm sorry Mr.Campbell, i see through you.

Good grief. If that's really the kind of thing that ruins Casino Royale for you, one wonders how on Earth you managed to make it through any Brosnan film or most of the Moore tenure without going apoplectic with rage over all kinds of less-than-logical scenes?
Somehow I knew when this thread started, it would turn out to be a Craig/CR whinefest in disguise.

Dino, you are 100.7% right.

SeanValen - How many terrorists in the world would know parkour? Why does your namesake drop in a ACME ball near Blofeld's facilities in DAF to talk to him when NATO could have just shot a missile up Blofeld's rear? And this is naming just one of those crazy things. Dont even get me started on a serious Bond flick like OHMSS where Blofeld doesnt recognize Bond. Bond movies are best enjoyed with a bit of logic out of the window. Stick to Bertolucci and Kurosowa if you want logic. Or get back to college for LOGIC 101.

[snakes]

I like Daniel Craig as Bond... and I just got done worrying about who would be the next Bond. I don't want to worry about it until 2012.

Same here. It's waaaaaayy too early to be thinking about the next Bond. I'm sure there will be plenty of unpleasantness to keep us entertained when the time comes.

It's never too early, the next Bond actor rumour is always a topic. I know were your coming from, but the future dicussion is a free world of debate, some people are dreaming of future projects and wondering about future casting, it gives them hope, their Bond will make them happy again. I'm happy with the Bond series, it's given me so much joy, if I have to sleepwalk through the Craig movies and celebrate his end in some years time and a new actor who I like more, then so be it, and I hope the producers quit and hire some fresh talent to inject some creative energies into Bond again, because they seem sorry but Casino Royale as a reboot idea, just stinks of desperate attempts to bring quality but changing Bond's history while doing it. What happens in another 40 years time, Bond will finish? Reooot Bond again, and he's born today to fight in 2040s. I find it weird the Bond in CAsino was never in the cold war.

Many times it has been said, Bond stays the same, but the world around him changes, but they've definately changed his history.




When Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, unlike many people I did not hold my hands in despair, and wait for the inevitable flop that we all anticipated. I was willing to give him a chance, and certainly felt he could give something different to the role.

However, I came out of this film with an extreme sense of frustration. This could perhaps have been due to my high hopes for the film, and the many extremely positive reviews I had read, though I doubt it. The film in my opinion tried too hard to be different, and the end result was a totally different Bond film, but a very unoriginal Hollywoodised action flick.

Yes Craig gave a tougher, more brutal edge to Bond, but he seemed to me, to be a standard Hollywood action hero, in the same way the film was full of stereotypical needless Hollywood action.

The scene containing the free running (parkour) near the beginning epitomises this desire for great action, and little sense. If you recall, there is a moment where Bond decides to climb into some sort of demolition vehicle. Yes, it looked cool, but if we actually think about it, there was no need whatsoever, all he did was drive it through a brick wall? Why?

The free running itself was another attempt by the director to wow the audience into submission, and make them sit back allowing the senselessness wash over them for the next two hours. Once again, with the free running, there was quite literally no point to it whatsoever. Why on earth did the villain decide to go up there - "I know, I can escape him by climbing to the top of a crane" - No my friend you would have been better off finding yourself a car, instead of trying to display your parkour skills. I am not surprised this film has been received well and that it is a hit at the box office - but I'm sorry Mr.Campbell, i see through you.

I will openly admit I found the poker scenes enjoyable, and I am a big fan of Mads Mikkelsen, having felt he was the only good thing to come out of King Arthur. Yes, the actual bits in the actual Casino Royale were good, everything else was very standard.

Furthermore, the action at the end in Venice, where the building collapsed seemed highly irrelevant to me, but by this time I had been pounded into a zombie like state, just accepting whatever washed over me.

Not a bad effort, and it does indeed breathe new life into the Bond genre, but I could quite easily go down to Blockbuster, search the action section for 5 minutes and find something just as good! 5/10

I find this post above sums up the narrow minded mentality of certain 'fans' when it comes to franchises like Bond. After years of identikit movies that were far more illogical and fantastical than anything Sean is whining about above in CR (oh no Parkour, oh no a collapsing building!) and an actor in Pierce who wasn't given anything of 'quality' to work with for the very simple reason that the audience didn't expect anything that depicted the more ambigous and unpleasant aspects of the Bond character to turn up in his portrayal. The producers made an artistic decision to choose an actor who didn't fit the profile plus reboot the whole thing to take the audience out of their comfort zones regarding Bond films, and your, as someone else has stated on this thread, face it if Pierce had remained and the film was EXACTLY the same, despite Brosnan not being half the actor Craig is, you'd be praising CR to the high heavens.

[SecretAgentFan]

Okay, once again - Brosnan is a great actor who did a very good Bond IMO. Craig is a great actor who does a very good Bond that is different from Brosnan

[mtonline]

YAY HUGH JACKMAN, YAY HUGH JACKMAN, YAY HUGH JACKMAN... shall I carry on?