Duck and Cover

This movie was a bit odd for me because I never really imagined Bond filled with revenge from an another movie in the series. It's been awhile since I've seen casino royale but it's like a direct sequal but I didn't think it was that good. Royale had better action and stuff for the most part and a less emo bond.


Daniel Craig can't smile worth a shit and I don't know if I'm liking anymore as bond. Even though Brosnon had a few crap movies I like him better as a character.

Licence to kill with Timothy Dalton had a great revenge theme. Very different Bond film, my favorite, actually.

You should watch it probably.

Yeah LtK was made of awesome.

Daniel Craig is shit, that's why. Did he bother to say "Bond, James Bond" or "shaken not stirred" this time around? Is it less explosions and more spying? Oh, wait, it's just him half nude on steroids punching people into bloody pulp.

Guess that'll leave me as the only person who liked it.

I didn't see it. I'll see it at some point, I just very much dislike Daniel Craig and the new James Bond movies as a whole.

Your relationship with Daniel Craig is quite bethesdian.

Sorry, what? I was writing the script to the next James Bond movie. Basically he's also secretly a member of the uber sekrit special forces patrol forces of the Brotherhood of Steel and he wears powah armer.

Wolfman Walt wrote:Guess that'll leave me as the only person who liked it.

It was alright I just don't really dig this new extreme bond who gets beat up and has scars all over. It's not very british.

POOPERSCOOPER wrote:It's not very british.

Have you ever considered that maybe he's a soccer hooligan now?

After Brosnan, any new change is an improvement.

Apparently Craig's Bond is more in line with the original Ian Fleming character, who was more blunt and vicious, less suave and debonair. I loved Pierce Brosnan's Bond but never realized how cartoonish the character had gotten until Craig came along.

Are the Bond girls getting ever younger, or am I getting older?

POOPERSCOOPER wrote:

Wolfman Walt wrote:Guess that'll leave me as the only person who liked it.

It was alright I just don't really dig this new extreme bond who gets beat up and has scars all over. It's not very british.

The movie felt sorta odd to me as well, and Casino Royale is my favorite Bond movie. The first twenty minutes were just lost in action for me. It took a good half hour to understand by and large what was going on. The action editing was shit. I just wanted some clear fighting or chases, but every action sequence becomes a complete blur. The opening car chase scene was sloppily done, to the point where I actually thought Bond had fallen off the cliff. There are too many unqualified action directors doing action films these days. The fight scenes weren't even enjoyable because of constant blurring, the same problem new Batman movies have.

I did enjoy Craig as Bond in the last one, but this time he only becomes animated when beating someone. What I would like to see is this Bond go up against a more classic Bond villian. More clever dialogue, more outlandish characters. The Man With the Golden Gun had great enemies for instance. A devious midget and a top-class assassin with a gold gun.

Now those are characters. Solace's bad guys bordered on metrosexual at best. I really don't care to much for the realistic storyline either. I want some insane plot to have the moon crash into earth, or just some complete madman who wants to just kill everybody. Is that too much to ask?

Oh and did anyone else spot a vagina? I hate to sound like an old woman but don't think it's appropriate to show a vagina in a Bond movie.

Why would it be inappropriate to show a vagina in a Bond movie at all? Was it an ugly vagina?

If not, then tell me about your mother :freud:

The movie was quite good compared to modern Bond movies(see Brosnan's crap), but never as good or pwoerful as Casino Royale. Still, I'm looking forward to the next instalment with Craig : he's really great.

Why didn't they keep the same director if they planned on making a direct sequel though?

And about the vagina, I think it was hidden by a panty, no?

Why all the shitting on Brosnan? Goldeneye was the fucking shit! It isn't like the man WROTE the subsequent films.

He's too hairy.

Diamonds Are Forever had a deep revenge thing going on, if not portrayed by connery, it was there. Ernst Blofeld was most certainly being hunted down by bond for what he did in the previous movie.

George Lazenby's ending performance in "on her majesty's service" was pretty good for a beaten and wifeless Bond, especially considering he was mostly a stuntman. It was a touching bond moment, rivaled only by the remorseful performance by Craig in the end of CR.

Aonaran wrote:Why all the shitting on Brosnan? Goldeneye was the fucking shit! It isn't like the man WROTE the subsequent films.

Goldeneye was pretty good. But the subsequent movies were nothing but explosions, gadgets, and eye candy. The plots were horrendous at best, and there was little to no character development.

The lack of character development is something I took issue with in my Quantum of Solace thread a few days ago. We're introduced (again) to the super secret Quantum organization, we get to know it's supposed "leader" a bit (although it's looking like he might have just been in charge of this one operation), and then we're left hanging. The movie doesn't go into it any further. Lots of plotlines and characters were introduced in QoS, but they didn't go anywhere at all.

S4ur0n27 wrote:He's too hairy.

What the fuck ever, Connery was the hairiest Bond. Now there is Criag, the hairless Chihuahua on roids.

@King: Agreed on shittiness of subsequent Bond films. Still, it is undeniable that when provided with a adequate script, Brosnan was an adequate Bond.