Thread starter - THE NEW BOND!

Kunal · November 21, 2006, 09:25:24 AM

Somehow I knew thatd be Sams review

Hopefully going to watch it at some point in the week. Also The Prestige.

Clock'd 0Ne · November 21, 2006, 10:17:45 AM

I loved it. Another spot on performance by Daniel Craig; an excellent action film and worthy of Bond film status. Love the direction they have taken it in - it doesnt end 30 minutes before the final scene either, its character development. Well executed battles and chases, great witty moments.

It like, totally sparkled!

4 Clockedtastic w00ts.

mrt · November 21, 2006, 10:20:53 AM

Im sooo excited, tickets booked for tonight ... cannot wait!!!!!

Sam · November 21, 2006, 10:48:03 AM

Quote from: Clockd 0NeI loved it. Another spot on performance by Daniel Craig; an excellent action film and worthy of Bond film status. Love the direction they have taken it in - it doesnt end 30 minutes before the final scene either, its character development.

Bond films should stand alone, not have 30 minutes leading to nothing which, may, possibly, perhaps, be expanded on in a future film. A few character arcs during the film is acceptable and rather desirable, but to essentially end the films story and then spend the remaining time doing the story arc is rather strange.

Daniel Craig plays his role quite well, but it loses the bond-ness for me. Yes it was more believable but so what? Bond was great because of the unruffled nature of Bond. This film, while good, is more like Bournes old brother than a Bond film, which isnt necessarily a bad film to make - but invent a new character for it.

Anyway I think the proof is in the re-watch. How many of you are really that bothered about seeing it again. I know I couldnt care less. Whereas the two best films of the year V for Vendetta and The Prestige are worthly of a instant re-viewing.

Edd · November 21, 2006, 18:34:54 PM

v for vendetta was AWFUL!

and casino royale was most excellent, it didnt have any of the relying on the gadgets and was much more real

Sam · November 21, 2006, 20:08:22 PM

It had less gadgets that doesnt mean it was more realistic. I mean the first 20 minutes of action, that was right on the dollar wasnt it. I see people doing that all the time - in Jackie Chans dance videos.

maximusotter · November 21, 2006, 20:17:05 PM

Hes no George Lazenby,but by the sound of it, Ill be renting this one. :mrgreen:

Edd · November 21, 2006, 22:00:55 PM

yea wasnt really into the action scene, afterall he is meant to be a spy, not demolition man
i think if they made it more "clandestine" itd be very good

Sam · November 21, 2006, 22:40:22 PM

They need to sack off all the ridiculous fighting. They just replaced silly gadgets with silly stunts. Then youll have a good film - Craig would play a superb cold hearted killer spy

Clock'd 0Ne · November 21, 2006, 23:23:58 PM

Quote from: SamThey need to sack off all the ridiculous fighting. They just replaced silly gadgets with silly stunts. Then youll have a good film - Craig would play a superb cold hearted killer spy

It was only really that first scene with the free running that was over the top. It was no worse than Brosnan straightening his tie underwater while driving a super speedboat down the Thames in the other films, you expect this kind of thing in a Bond film, as you would Mission Impossible.

Sam · November 22, 2006, 08:12:05 AM

Quote from: Clockd 0Ne
Quote from: SamThey need to sack off all the ridiculous fighting. They just replaced silly gadgets with silly stunts. Then youll have a good film - Craig would play a superb cold hearted killer spy

It was only really that first scene with the free running that was over the top. It was no worse than Brosnan straightening his tie underwater while driving a super speedboat down the Thames in the other films, you expect this kind of thing in a Bond film, as you would Mission Impossible.

You cant justify Bond 21 by comparing it to other ones and saying theyre worse. Im commenting on the quality of this film, yes its better than the others (well some of them) but so what, that doesnt mean its necessarily a good film.

mrt · November 22, 2006, 08:35:02 AM

Sam, I think you are on your own on this; I went with a large group of mates and each and everyone of us said this film was absolutely superb. The Bond genre is evolving and needs to get with the times, this film has much more grit and emotion as a whole. Bond had started to get a bit cheesy .. which was great for the days of Sean and Roger but did need a facelift. We all came out of this film saying wow that was really great. Just the fact that he takes a battering from scene to scene make its much more likable. It is a little different, but the overall concensus was that its right up there with the best bond movies and is definately moving with the times.

Bond rocks!!!!!!!

Sam · November 22, 2006, 09:15:54 AM

If you came out saying wow then you dont see enough films. I did give this a 7/10 which is a good rating for me !!

mrt · November 22, 2006, 09:25:45 AM

Quote from: Samwhich is a good rating for me !!

Obviously sounds like it!

And if V for Vendetta is in your top film for this year list, perhaps it is you who should watch more films

M3ta7h3ad · November 22, 2006, 11:38:42 AM

I watched it and was thoroughly disappointed in it.

No car chase, no Q at all in there whatsoever, no Gadgets except a defribulator used incorrectly (it doesnt start your heart, it stops it, if your flatlined your f**ked).

Too much bollocks in there, and boring casino playing crap.

Generally a poor film. Nothing to say about the actor who played bond, he was alright, just the entire film script was lacking.

News:

Thread starter - THE NEW BOND!