Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 11:51 am, by: Mike Beck(Gold_40gt)
After the big let down with the last James Bond film, Die Another day I though this new one would be just as bad if not worse - especially with out Brosnan and the new Daniel Craig...
So Friday Night decided to see what this was like, a Day after it was released so rather packed. First impressions on the start credits was average, they had the familiar odd animations which were not too bad but the song was not quite right....
From the moment the actual film started it was very good, I was waiting for it to get worse but it was fantastic through out the entire film. I was really blown away at how much better it was than I had though prior to watching it. Plot was pretty good no complaints there - ALOT better than the last one, at least this time it was realistic and not cheap...
To sum up - One of the best Bond films Ive seen for a long time and this new Actor as James is superb, actual better than Brosnan the more I think about it.
Highly Recommended - A must see film. This film has reassured me the Bond franchise will remain decent and worth watching. In fact I feel like seeing it again soon!
Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 08:10 pm, by: Adam Lonergan(Alchemistal)
When I saw this thread I instantly thought... yeah I too thought the movie was that bad it's worth starting a thread about it. I'm pretty shocked that people here thought it was good. I'd go as far as saying it was not as bad as the original Casino Royale which is easily the worst but this has got to be close.
The credits did seem wrong and I was pretty surprised by the blood throughout the credits and the movie.
I still couldn't get over the crudeness of some of the lines, the lack of ANY form of seduction before he sleeps with any of the 'bond girls' and the lack of gadgets that we have come to expect.
The fact that he gets arrested and also caught on security camera at the embassy is at odds to most of the other films also.
I also didn't see any thing in the credits giving the name of the next bond film like there usually is... however I may have missed it as everybody got up to leave and the lights in the cinema came on. Did anyone notice this?
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 01:41 am, by: Sean Fair(Sean_fair)
I don't know.
I guess part of the reason I liked it was because they stayed away from the gadgets. This was a guy that was tough enough to BE a secret agent.
However, it certainly made him less "superhuman" as he DID get caught and he wasn't equipped with all sorts of crazy stuff. I think they did it to offer a contrast between him and Brosnan, because there was huge outcry when he was chosen.
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 08:01 am, by: Matthew Sharpe(Madmatt)
I think its meant to be a lot more like the novels, Casino Royale being the first James Bond novel written. The gadgets and B grade cliche plot lines are very much hollywoods invention.
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 09:48 am, by: Clinton Trueman(Clinton8002)
I went and saw it on thurs night and i loved it. but Daniel Craig although did a great job, he wasnt the right guy for it. he's got the body but he doesnt have the face for it. he doesnt have that charming inteligent look that bond is ment to have. he looks to me more like a villan rather than a james bond.
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 12:39 pm, by: Cihan Aday(Cihan)
Brosman, charming?
Bond should be crude, who needs fire breathing Aston Martins and lazer guns. The last Bond movie was like a 21st century depiction of Harry Potter searching for ginger juice to save the elves. It was really unbelievable and far removed from what you'd come to expect as a decent action movie.
Im looking forward to seeing Daniel Craig portray Bond as a darker character, a mortal Bond that relies on his skills, rather than go go gadgets which make him invincible.
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 04:23 pm, by: Hugh Jorgan(Soulfire)
hmm. Well, it would seem the whole point of the film was to show him becoming bond, so of course didn't have the level of support and gadgetry behind him, a bit more raw. And, well, the next movie in sequence would be on her majesty's secret service... so they didn't really need to forward sell lol. The question is what do they do with him now? They've used him as a prequel bond... They can't just go back to the end with him.
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 04:43 pm, by: Graham Dollisson(Alloyvee)
I just went and saw it. Without doubt, the best Bond movie I have seen.......and I have seen them all!! I very much liked the fact that it is so different to all the others. The old standard Bond movie was getting a bit tired.
Monday, December 11, 2006 - 09:32 pm, by: Mike Beck(Gold_40gt)
It was simply much better quality and was not all based around making everyone go 'wow special effects' and lame jokes like in Die Another Day..... Worst Bond film in History IMO.
Thank God some bright eyed chap saved this film series and put it back inline, if not in a better one!
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 01:24 pm, by: Braden Murdoch(Ribfeast)
I enjoyed it, but I liked Pierce Brosnan better as bond. This guy is too old and ugly for the role. And he didn't even get with that chick that was riding the horse Very disappointed
But good to see more plot instead of more over-the-top effects!
Previous
Very disappointed 
