StarGateWars Forums

The plot was a bit scattered and...well..messy, I got the over all gist though.
Action was good, as too were the special effects, the acting and the poignant moments.

well...it was a good film.

But it was no Casino Royale

and it was certainly not a Dark Knight. (or Star Wars...)

So the film was worse then the worst Bond film ever? That's not good

Scruffy wrote:So the film was worse then the worst Bond film ever? That's not good

Well..i am a bit muddled with it all. I mean they ARE james bond films..but they're not. They dont have the class and overall penash that generally all the previous ones had up until The World is Not enough.

Die another day was dreadful, Casino Royal was a dam good film, but not really a James Bond film...and QoS is...well..getting further from the old style, however, if memory serves the new bond films are more to what Flemming actually intended bond to be.

Well all I can say is Pearce Brosnan had the class of being bond - easily the best bond in my opinion.

I liked parts of Casino Royale but it was very boring for the most part.

Two best parts in bond that I remember is Pearce Brosnan as bond going through the wall in one film with a tank and the proper bond music playing and another moment was the small speed boat thing when he dives under water and fixes his tie those were true bond moments

I can't remember the names of either film at the moment but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about

indeed....

Goldeneye and The World is not enough.

The latter of course, being the last real james bond era film

Personally I think Roger Moore was the best bond.

and another little tid bit, Goldeneye was the last bond film to use a real flemming titles, save of course the re-make of casino royal and the title of QoS. Even then though, most of the films heavily differ from the original stories, of which most were just short stories or major chapters in a bond saga, not actual big titles.

Goldeneye was good - and i thought it meant that Brosnan as Bond was going to follow on in the style of Dalton - a grittier Bond. But let's face it, Brosnan's Bond films got cheesier one by one; The World is Not Enough was still good - but Denise Richards was a disastrous choice, and the Bond one liners throughout the film were cringe-worthy!

Then we get to Die Another Day - one of the best opening sequences, and initial moments after the titles - but ultimately, crud.

Daniel Craig brought the gritty Bond back, without gadgets and OTT one-liners, and with more belief that this could actually be a real character (and, more true to the books). Casino Royale was not a bad film, nor is at anywhere near being the worst Bond film ever. Die Another Day is worse for starters - and Tomorrow Never Dies, and not just because much of it is factually inaccurate. I'd even put it above **Filtered** and A View To A Kill, maybe a couple of others.

I can't understand why people say Casino Royale is bad; It's truer to the books, the acting is first rate, it's cut out unbelievable gadgets and got rid of camera trickery (which started to creep in during Brosnan's reign), is less commercial than the previous few Bond films were (in respects to in-movie advertising), had some good action sequences and is a good story. I tend to hear people saying it's not good because it's not like the others - but that's the point, it's not meant to be - it was a re-invention of the franchise, a more believable version of the franchise - which is why they went back to the first story. I was one of teh biggest sceptics going prior to seeing Casino Royale - but am now a firm fan!

As for Quantum of Solace - it was a bold choice to do a film of a James Bond short story (although this has been done before - **Filtered**/The Living Daylights), rather than a full novel - but I think it worked. The problem is, I think, is that it is a direct continuation of Casino Royale and I think the two of them could have been worse into a single (longer) film. It was a good film, again with some good action sequences and some cracking acting - but with possibly the worst Bond song ever - I could feel everyone in the cinema cringing at the abomination of noise spewing forth from Jack White and Alicia Keyes - and to be honest, after listening to it, it doesn't put you in a good frame of mind for the rest of the movie.

Worth going to see in my opinion.

plot is a tad confusing, definately one to watch when sober

overall, pretty good action sequences, seemed a bit long to me (maybe cos the adverts lasted forever)

worth watching tho, as are pretty much all bond films

I cannot stand James Blonde.

They ended when Brosnan stopped doing them, as far as im concerned...

...Daniel Craig, Is a brilliant actor, but he doesnt have the class, the look, or the style, to be bond. Both films are good stand alone spy films. But will not be added to my collection of bonds.

Wolf359 wrote:I can't understand why people say Casino Royale is bad; It's truer to the books, the acting is first rate, it's cut out unbelievable gadgets and got rid of camera trickery (which started to creep in during Brosnan's reign), is less commercial than the previous few Bond films were (in respects to in-movie advertising), had some good action sequences and is a good story. I tend to hear people saying it's not good because it's not like the others - but that's the point, it's not meant to be - it was a re-invention of the franchise, a more believable version of the franchise - which is why they went back to the first story.

Oh, but it's so easy, you answered it yourself!

Wolf359 wrote:I was one of teh biggest sceptics going prior to seeing Casino Royale - but am now a firm fan!

If you hated something(or atleast had a strong dislike for it) but love it now that it's had some drastic changes to it, why on earth would you expect those fans of the previous movies to also like it? They wouldn't!

Let's say I always go to Joe's Steak House and order the chicken fried steak(a real one made with real, thick, steak, not that thin fake ****), smothered in gravy with a nice big baked potato with cheese, butter, salt and bacon. But let's say they change the recipe. Now instead of using thick cuts of steak, they use that thin crap that most restaurants serve. Instead of using left over grease, they now use clean fresh veggie oil. They change the flour-to-egg ratio, change the type of flour they use and change up the seasonings. They also now boil the potatoes as opposed to baking them. You now love the meal, and I HATE it, is it really that surprising?


I really don't get why people find this surprising. If someone loves something you hate, and then it's changed drastically so that now you love it, it should be obvious to you that those that loved it before are atleast going to be agitated by a few of the changes.

buck wrote:I cannot stand James Blonde.

They ended when Brosnan stopped doing them, as far as im concerned...

...Daniel Craig, Is a brilliant actor, but he doesnt have the class, the look, or the style, to be bond. Both films are good stand alone spy films. But will not be added to my collection of bonds.

i agree with this to a point that all the bond's before Daniel Craig had a certain style and class in that he always had his extremely bad jokes or his charm in the face of imminent death, and tbh even if the new bond is closer to what Ian Fleming had in mind, i really don't care, im pretty sure a lot of people wouldn't even dream of reading his books, the films are just so much better and so popular because of what they are and not because of how Ian Fleming wanted them to be, i like the new bond films but they just aren't what they used to be

Rocky

i was disappointed to be honest, i agree with buck i don think daniel craig was the right choice at all