4815162342 Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 I saw it twice in the last week, and I loved it, both times. Daniel Craig was awesome, and funny too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90SK Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Referencing 9-11 in a movie about Bond "before the 00" when Bond's been 007 since the sixties movie-wise is rather odd. Referencing 9-11 at large is very odd as it puts the movie in a specific timeperiod and Bond movies are "timeless". I think they wanted to get the point across that it was a reboot. During the scene where Bond is going through the security tapes in the hotel, the date clearly says "2006". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 Really if you look closely all the Bond movies advance in time. In one of the Pierce Brosnan movies they say something about 1995 and they mention the cold war in several including Casino Royale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Point Man Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 I would prefer if they did not address real-world timelines, but I can live with it. You have to suspend your disbelief regarding timelines. Come on, Dr. No came out in 1962. How in the world would Bond be doing the same type of stuff for over 40 years? Look at the computers in Diamonds are Forever--mainframes with reel-to-reel--compared with Tomorrow Never Dies. You just have to take each film separately and judge it based on its own merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-1162 Posted December 2, 2006 Share Posted December 2, 2006 well, i saw it, and it was very well done, although Craig lacked the panache that Pierce Brosnan seemed to be a natural at. though i pity him for having his balls whacked so badly. overall it was a good movie and the foot-chase scene around the beginning was great. my only major complaint is that he f**ked his aston martin without even using the damn thing for a real chase before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 The only movie I've seen at the theatre so far this year. Was a bit overlong, but a good one overall. Had a grittier feel than Brosnan, more akin to older Connery. Hate to have to say it, but didn't even think about absence of Q till reading about it in this thread. Bond, like Superman, changes with the times. Also, having become used to Dench, her go at M doesn't bother me. Though her version seems less detached. Hope next movie will be even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MdKnightR Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I plan on seeing it when it comes to DVD. I hope all the good things that have been said about it are true. I just don't think that new guy fits the image of James Bond very well. I grew up with Roger Moore as Bond and he is the one that comes to mind when someone says "Agent 007", but I think that Pierce Brosnan was born for the role. I found it unfortunate that his contract on Remington Steele prevented him from getting into the role sooner (which gave us the Timothy Dalton "YUCK" Bond). I also wish he hadn't seen fit to retire from the role so soon. But, I will give the newbie a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-1162 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 the n00b does relatively well. and you'll enjoy certain parts around the beginning of the movie. go for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Obi-Wan Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I still think Daniel Craig is better than Brosnan. Brosnan was great in Goldeneye, but The World Was Not Enough was pretty bad, and Tomorrow Never Dies was okay, but I didn't really like that one. Die Another Day was so-so. I think Casino Royale was better than all four of them. Though, this is just one movie, mind you. I also like Casino Royale and Daniel Craig because they are so unique compared to the other movies and Bonds. In this movie, James Bond is actually vulnerable to being killed or hurt, unlike this one. Yet, he still seems like James Bond. Especially in the African Rundown scene, when he is chasing that guy, he just keeps on going even if he doesn't execute his moves perfectly. And he is not so "finesse" like other Bonds. For instance, during that same chase scene, the african guy is jumping and leaping off everything and Bond is just running through walls and crashing and just gets up. But, that's part of what I like of the new James Bond. Others will feel different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbieZ Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Did anyone else violently jolt everytime a gun went off in that film. Specially the end bit, i kept jumping all the way through it. Nearly came outta the cinema needing a triple bypass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastila Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Really good film, Daniel was a great Bond and I loved the ending as well, the starting was really good as well. Mads as Le Chieffie was really good, I did like the poker game bit as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-1162 Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Bond is just running through walls . my friends and i found that bit incredibly hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.