Tales From the Darkside IV

Waiting until CR ended its USA run was the appropriate time for me to check out this $575 million worldwide euphoric Bond flick. After viewing this, all I can say is, "What are you people thinking?" By far, this film rates off the charts, negatively, as a James Bond film, in fact, if Dame Judi Dench was not in CR, one would be hard pressed to even know this was a Bond film at all! To begin, with Craig; his shorter stature and Boris Karloff profile are totally unfit for James Bond. He is neither interesting nor enthusiastic as Bond, for he seems in a depressed mental state, as if he was on Prozac or other medications. The storyline is tedious, and does not evoke the fascination and bewilderment of the prior 20 films. Craig's so-called gritty, dirty, portayal is not that of Bond, but references the "Bourne-Bauer" mentality and look, more than that of James Bond. This film is nothing more than some Jet-Li stunts of hand to hand combat, a few explosions, and a ridiculous card game whose events are more unbelievable than Brosnan's wind surfing many here detested in Die Another Day. From almost being killed by poison one minute, to jokingly playing cards 5 minutes later, to having his private parts tortured to having a sex romp quickly after, from the opening '3 1/2 minutes' of a supposed 'exploration of Bond's 00 status' to a scene with Vesper Lynd on the beach near the end , ala From Here To Eternity, this film fails as a James Bond entity, and badly. This saga will probably mimic the Bourne saga with a continuation styled story line done as a trilogy. The world has accepted this film, or perhaps they curiously viewed it for one time only. How anyone cannot see that this film copies the other spy drama films ,from MI:I's Prague European cinematography, to the Bourne series fight scenes, to 24's terrorist undertones, is puzzling to me. I always found Timothy Dalton as the least acceptable Bond. After viewing CR, Mr. Dalton moves up a notch. I cannot explain the worldwide fascination with this film, and I am curious if the next film will be accepted as well. Times have indeed changed, tastes have changed and Casino Royale is considered a James Bond film! Perhaps sanity will rear its head and vanquish these aberrations back to oblivion. (BJMDDS MI6)

I watched the new DVD of THUNDERBALL the other day and was, once again, completely charmed by the whole film. I couldn't shake the impression that CR 2006 is nothing like a Bond film and that Craig is nothing like a James Bond--in name only, but that's it.

Please point me to the Fleming novel in which Bond runs around like the Terminator, knowing in each pre-second the correct movement to make in a whole series of rapid-fire movements? In which Fleming novel did Bond enter M's apartment without M's knowledge? In which Fleming novel was Bond continually described as looking rather like a dour thug than the handsome devil Fleming described him to be? In which Bond novel did Bond not smoke? In which Bond novel did Bond damn his martini preparation with a I-don't-give-a-damn? In which Bond novel did Bond howl with despair and remorse when his love interest died? There's more, but I won't belabor this. The point being: CR 2006 was not a Fleming Bond on the screen.

As people relax into watching the entire run of Eon films (now all released on DVD from sparkling prints), I think it will become evident what a departure CR 2006 and Craig were from the world of Bond. James Bond always manages to come back, and he still might. (Charles MI6)

A 40 year old musclebound Daniel Craig with a ginger crewcut playing a young inexperienced Bond? Not my cup of tea. Much of Casino Royale is just like a generic action film with weaker set pieces than - for example - a Jet Li film. Bond is turned into a generic action hero played by a dour Daniel Craig. (Cap MI6)

My EYES....Wow can it get any worse than this? Aboslutely lame. This is the all time worst James Bond ever. LAME story line. No cool gadgets, cheap and shameless advertising for the Ford Motor Company. If you are really into your cell phone then this is your movie. The only gadget that James has in this movie is a cell phone; Oh yeah and a cardiac defibulator, standard equipment in all new Aston Martins. I would have gladly have gone down and got smacked in the nads just to get out of the theater. (Phil Yahoo)

It didn't seem like a James Bond movie, it was more like watching a Steven Seagal movie. Daniel Craig to me seemed more like a villain. There is something missing, he just doesn't fit with me. Bonds in the past stood out but DC doesn't have the presence to play Bond. Personally I would have gone with Hugh Jackman but that's by the by. If this James Bond for the future I'll stick in the past. (Starman AJB)

I frankly don't get the whole mass "Emporer's new clothes" hypnosis here. This movie could have been any number of edgy new action flicks following in the footsteps of MI, Bourne Identity, Transporter... whatever. And "folowing" is exactly my point. This movie failed to stand on its own, as a Bond... No, I am not particularly a fan of the cheesiness of previous Bonds, but this dissolved in its own lack of direction. No significant Bond like traits were present.

AND


And the whole concept that Daniel Craig is "the best Bond ever" is not only erroneous, but almost comical. Ignorance is bliss I presume. Maybe the mass (younger?) audience don't even know what Bond is supposed to be. Don't get me wrong, I am certainly encouraged that forty-ish balding craggy-faced guys can be action heroes. It makes my bid for such things much more likely, but Bond? Please. He is a good actor, but I couldn't help but feel that his offhand persona was really reflecting his own dismay at having been picked to play the role in the first place.

Entirely lacking in sauve, or finesse, which it even admits to during the tuxedo scene this Bond flick also missed all the other marks of a thriller. Where was the ever so loved theme music throughout the movie? You know, the guitar, the big band, the personality? It did appear at the credits, but that was it... Virtually devoid of nifty gadgets and the trademark huge sets there was nothing to really make one feel that Bond was anything more than a wannabe, or self-unfulfilling parody. Even the bad guy had a small, well, boat.

So, there we have it, a good movie entirely marred by the shoes it tried to fill. Presumably it was created by commitee to get the most amount of sales, which has worked, but this still doesn't make it a Bond. Because of that I give it a "no Bond for you" score. (Fry Yahoo)

Why did they change everything?!?! The new guy sucked, he did not act like ANY of the old Bonds. Why fix something when it ain't broke?!?! Why did Q not get replaced??? (Garry Yahoo)

Disappointments: I'll keep it short...there's too many to type.

1. Gun barrel sequence. The design looks like the paper your grandmama uses to cover cupcakes.

2. The torture scene was wack. In the novel, Bond isn't talking smack to Le Chiffre it's the other way around. I wasn't amused at all. Others in the theater were...I guess they don't get out of the house that often.

3. The Aston Martin on screen for 20 seconds. What a beautiful car only to get wrecked down the road.

4. The fact that it didn't feel like a Bond film at all. One of my friends thinks that its a rip off of The Transporter and Jason Bourne movies. I don't know because I've never seen the Bourne movies and I've only seen Transporter 2. That airport scene felt like a Die Hard movie.

5. Craig's portrayal as 007. He needs some work. His acting is suspect, he runs like the T-1000 model in Terminator 2. He doesn't speak clearly. I saw the movie twice and couldn't hear what he was saying half the time.

To say that this movie is the best one ever? I find that to be suspect and don't share that opinion. I jumped on this thread immediately after coming home from the midnight showing of CR. I've read all the reviews from people on here. I've paid attention very closely to the ones that like this movie and don't understand how some of you all can say that Casino Royale is the best Bond movie ever. To say this movie is the best one ever is like me saying that Michael Jordan was the most overrated basketball player of all time. Before the movie came out, I was telling people on here to give Craig a chance first and then make an opinion. I should have kept my mouth shut because they're right. This guy isn't Bond material. Let me guess, he's the best because he can get his nuts beat on and still talk smack? Is he the best because he can fight and kill two black dudes in a stairway and get sliced up in the process? Or is he the best because of his bold and blunt statements about not trusting anyone? Don't tell me its the acting. Damn, he needs some work. The action scenes weren't original, especially the airport scene. I can go on for a while about this movie, but the main part I want to question was the whole reboot scenario. Like I said before, I embraced this idea and defended it. Now I'm regretting that mistake. If you really think about it...was it really necessary to start over from scratch? You had the pre-title sequence and then that was it. Nothing more about earning his rank, the two kills, nothing! I haven't read the novel since middle school, but I do remember James Bond already being an established agent at the beginning. (Jermaine AJB)

Casino Royale was a great movie storywise but Craig was the worst Bond in the history of the series. He is even worse than Lazenby. I think someone was drunk  when they chose Craig to be the new Bond. The  other reason the movie sucked was because Q was not in it. BRING BACK JOHN CLEESE AS Q FOR THE NEXT MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Conner MI6)

My biggest surprise is how much everyone loved this movie. I liked it but my biggest disappointment was that it seemed more like a generic action flick where any one of the current action heroes could have been the star than it did a Bond film.

I like the visuals for the opening credits but I absolutely hated the opening theme song. It had no hook or melody or anything to remember it by. It was just noise. Really awful. I also didn't think Vesper was hot at all. I thought she was badly cast.

I liked Daniel Craig in Layer Cake and I think he pulls off the action hero role well but they made him into too much of a beef-cake instead of a cool, suave tough guy.

They also made his game Texas Hold-'Em (probably because it's the hot game on TV these days) which also didn't seem very Bond-like to me.

I don't know. It just didn't feel like a Bond film. (007 AJB)

My other problem is this right here... "Perhaps with the exception of suaveness". I agree. And that's what Bond is to me, one suave smart cool-as-a-cucumber motherf--er. That to me is the DEFINITION of Bondian. It's not about who has the most muscles, scowls the meanest, any of that. And Craig, while good, is lacking this key and crucial ingredient of what Bond is to me. That's why Bond became my hero of choice and not Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson or the million and one interchangeable tough guys that followed in their footsteps. Craig has a presence, no doubt, but he still comes off like a thug. That's not Bond to me. It will be interesting to see if in the next one this Bond who is supposed to have "changed" is actually any smoother or still just the bash-your-head-in type.

I'm glad the movie is a success, but I'm also depressed. I can't believe I saw the same movie as those saying this is better than all 20 films that preceded it. Wow, I don't get that.

In a strange way it even feels like pandering. It's a Bond movie for people who have never really liked Bond movies that much. Bravo.

Of course we're just philistine idiots who know nothing of the REAL Bond. I mean, clearly, that nightclub bouncer guy with marbles in his mouth and the dead eyes is Fleming's vision, born to play the part. (BK AJB)

-I thoroughly disliked it. Seriously, this is definitely the worst Bond movie ever made, and my least favorite. Daniel Craig just doesn't fit as Bond. If I want a tough guy Bond, I'll go watch TLD or LTK. Le Chiffre was an interesting villain, but he just didn't seem evil enough.

-The product placement was absolutely gratuitous! Every time we see an electonic device there's a Sony logo on it! WTF?!

-The theme song sequence was good, the song was okay. The retro casino look, and the silhouettes I dig. But why break with tradition and not have the name of the movie in the theme song?

-The whole "prequel" thing just sucks. Seriously. It's nothing more than a way to start a whole new series of Bond movies.

Conclusion: Horrible movie, I don't consider it part of the Bond canon. The car was very cool, though. (Vroom AJB)

The worst Bond film (if you want to call it a Bond film) EVER! (Kez AJB)

The pre-credit sequence is too short and they put most of it in the trailer. What happened to the cricket match?

Eva Green was bland as Vesper. She seemed to twitch after every line of dialogue and her banter with Craig fizzled out very quickly. At times she looked so young that she could pass for Craig's daughter. The film is nearly over when Bond decides that he loves Vesper.

Judi Dench. M's office now seems to be a broom cupboard with a bunch of hotshot whizzkids outside waiting for an emergency. Whenever I saw her I expected Pierce Brosnan to walk into the room.

Bond puts the tux on!!?  Not exactly like Superman discovering his uniform is it? Didn't like these post-modern moments, like the vodka-martini joke for example.

I didn't laugh once during the whole film. Not one laugh out loud line or joke.

Didn't feel like a James Bond film. (AP AJB)

I've been a James Bond fan for many years. I had all the books at a young age, I've seen all the films numerous times and been a member of the James Bond fan club etc. I've always defended the films, always got annoyed by negative reviews and over picky fans. Now I'm afraid I must step out of line with party policy and express my dismay with current developments. Daniel Craig is not James Bond by any possible stretch of the imagination. He's fine in some po-faced British lottery film in a supporting role but 007 he is not. He looks like any old Joe average muppet you might pass in the street and yet because he has done some body-building and plays the role in a boorish minimalist style this is supposed to a huge breakthrough and great leap forward for the series. James Bond in his various incarnations is required to go after high-society criminals. He must be able to blend into these refined worlds. Craig looks qualified to blend into a transport cafe and little else. I really didn't believe that his 'Bond' went to Oxford as Vesper deduced on the train and these details, and the lead actor's inability to adhere to them in terms of his look, manner and style, made it downright impossible for me to accept that this was James Bond. Frankly, I didn't. Onto the film. You would think that Eon had delivered Chinatown if you read some of these bizarre reviews. Casino Royale is a slightly listless action/spy adventure with some hokey melodrama. It has a few good action sequences because Martin Campbell, while absolutely useless at shooting a conventional scene, is a good action director. The leads are dull; Craig couldn't be funny or charming if he was held at gunpoint and while Eva Green did one of the best South African accents I have heard in a film I must remind her that Vesper was supposed to be English. Luckily Eon had an Ian Fleming novel to use for the plot but they still managed to miss the noir aspects of the novel and (big gripe coming up) THEY MADE THE CASINO SCENES LOOK CHEAP! The film is too long and the Bond music at the end doesn't suit Craig. I can't put my finger on it but it just sounds wrong with him. Don't even get me started on the notion that this is 'Bond Begins'. Daniel Craig could pass for a fifty year old man. Bond is not Bond anymore. Q has been discarded. 'Fans' are trashing the series and previous Bond actors. I've seen every Bond film since Licence To Kill in the cinema, up until this one, more than once. For the first time ever I'll give the next one a miss. (James Yahoo)
 

 
The new James Bond has absolutely no charisma or charm, and the Bond-girls seem to have been picked up off the street (for $100 an hour). The story is typical, bland, 30minute G.I. Joe cartoon episode....rubbish. An episode of 24 or CSI is more complex and suspensful than this.. and that's coming from me.. someone who absolutely can't even stand those moronic shows!!

A large portion of the movie was their game.. except it was bloody poker! How un-classy is that!? They might as well have James Bond be MI6's Bingo champ. Not only that, but the poker game was completely uninvolving.. while there were 6 total players plus the dealer, only 2 were focused on.. and the flash wasn't in their daring poker skills.. but in the sheer amount of each bet.

This is not Bond, this is not even "Mr. & Mrs. Smith." Syriana was a better Bond movie than this; go watch that.

"Just marginally better than Die Another Day... !!" (and that was the worst Bond ever made).   (GP Yahoo)

In this movie Bond is a charmless assassin. All the wit that made the franchise fun is GONE. They replaced the endless car chase scenes with endless running scenes. And there was no chemistry between Bond and Vesper. The "I love you I'm quitting" didn't ring true. Sorry, big disappointment for me. (Verk Yahoo)
 

I realize that the overall, true character of James Bond is supposed to be a little darker than he has, perhaps, been portrayed in the past gazillion movies, but I'm sorry...James Bond is NOT supposed to be a whinny crybaby, metrosexual, torso modeling jack A** like he was in this film. I can't tell you how much I wanted my money back. (Drum Yahoo)

This movie was really terrible.

Then the ending was just stupid and screaming sequel, but to what? There was no real story. (Bird Yahoo)

Don't fall for this for all the wrong reasons. If you REALLY like Connery, Moore, or Brosnan as James Bond, you WON'T like this movie. I grew up on Bond. I read the reviews before going and was very optimistic, but I don't like where this series is headed.. Granted, the last few Bond movies have gotten a little too cheesy and gimmicky with the one-liners and all the crazy gadgets.

So I was looking for a nice change--instead we get nothing more than a dark SUBPAR ACTION MOVIE full of brash and brawn with Craig as unemotional as a robot. Aside from the opening, the lackluster action isn't exciting enough to save this movie. I feel totally duped!

What made the fomula for James Bond fun and sucessful was:

1. Charm
2. Witty dialogue
3. Sexual inuendos
4. Spy Gadgets and luxury
5. Beautiful women
6. Exotic locations
7. Memorable evil villians/elaboret death scenes
8. Breathtaking action sequences
9. Dash and Flair
10. Decent Spy plot

This movie is TOTALLY STRIPPED down of the essence of a Bond movie.
This movie lacks as a Bond movie in practically EVERY WAY!

The script is totally devoid of any of the charm and wittyness that makes a James Bond movie fun!! This movie is dark--not in a cool film noir sort of way, but literally. Most of the scenes are at night and the attitude of the movie is dark too. Dialogue is minimal, plain and drab. Craig does more talking with his fists and feet than his mouth. There is no global scale of a typical Bond movie (saving $$?). Except for an action sequence in Africa, we sit for the remainder of the movie in a boring resort casino. With poker stakes in the millions, there could have been SOME tension. I've seen more exciting cardplay at a $5 blackjack table!

The cool car is one of the few hints that this MIGHT be a Bond movie, but we can't even enjoy that because it gets totalled after only two drives! (one being a circle in the parking lot). On top of that, the only gadget it had was a measley slide-out gun tray and portable heart defibrulator in the glove-box. Talk about cheap! Who couldn't throw a gun in a glove box? In the Connery and older Bond movies at least we'd get a handful of futuristic gadgets that may or may not come into play. Here Q is gone, we get ONLY ONE gadget..and only the necessary first aid one--how convenient!

THIS ISN'T A JAMES BOND MOVIE!! I'm sorry to say. Don't fool yourselves! (GL Yahoo)

This movie was so bad that my girlfriend and I almost walked out (twice). Both times she went to the bathroom (as it was painfully long) and we agreed after that had either of us mentioned leaving we both gladly would have. LOOOng stretches of booooring nothingness of plot added to our boredom, not to mention our confusion due to all the dialogue we DIDN'T hear due to Daniel Craig's pseudo-suave mumbling. Absolute crap, all around, hated it, what a waste of money. (Bello Yahoo)
 

007 has died. The main error is in the cast. In order to replace Pierce Brosnan a new actor has been chosen, Daniel Craig. A good actor that we had the occasion to appreciate in other films and roles... but not James Bond. Craig does not have class, is without style, irony, more Van Damme, Diesel, Steven Segal. More appropriate would have been other options, as an example, Hugh Jackman or Gerard Butler. (A Castellani "Film")

Hi, I have to say I'm very disappointed by the new Bond.

The face is all wrong. Just left me
sad that they are taking Bond in this direction. I really liked Pierce
Brosnan and didn't think he was too old for the role. Just when we were
getting used to Pierce as Bond, they change the actor. This Bond just
doesn't fit the role and every actor that's ever played Bond. I guess
they're looking to shake things up, but I think it was a very poor
choice to cast this guy as Bond. Look at everyone that has played Bond,
than look at this guy. Wrong guy. He just doesn't fit in the scheme of
things.

Sorry, but that's the way I feel. (MW IMDB)

I'll say that the classical era of the James Bond Movies which consists of 20 movies and has starred 5 actors, has finally ended. The era in which many people have liked and loved the Bond character, both old and young, (unlike now where only the modern-minded ones, or rather those who like the the Jason Bourne typed-movies) has been ended by those who were lucky to have the James Bond franchise only because it was handed down from their father, totally disregarding who really was the creator of the character, Ian Fleming, by convoluting the timelines, making the character look like a villain, and replacing the male M with a female M who comes from the present times of the classical era as if she had travelled from the present to the past or rather had jumped to another parallel universe. (Jal IMDB)

It was probably time for the people behind this franchise to try something new but I can't help feeling they've lost the Bond magic in the process. There must be thousands of actors in the British Commonwealth between the ages of 25-40 so how they contrived to end up with a Peter Lorre lookalike playing James Bond is anyone's guess. One for Arthur C Clarke's bumper book of mysteries I think. (Bob Yahoo)

It was blatently obvious who paid for this movie. There was rarely a scene where they wern't advertising some type of product and it made me sick to my stomach. It would be much better if they went back to the days where they just made the movie instead of advertising Sony products in each and every scene. (TS Yahoo)

Lacks all the elements of Bond movies. No sophistication, no cool toys. And adds long romances, violence tending towards gory.

And all the cool devices and cars are GONE. Bond drives a Ford! And the leading lady's cell phone is big enough to work as a part-time hammer. Feels like the movie is one long advertisement for some very un-cool stuff. (SF Yahoo)

Oh my God,How come the average users'rating is B?
Something must be wrong. Hey those of you who rated this movie A or B, how much money did the producer of this movie give you?

By the way, wasn't there anyone else in this entire world who could replace Pierce Brosnan? Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen would be fine. (Eddy Yahoo)
 

This movie was no more than any action move and was not a spy flick. It lacked the James Bond touches, such as high tech gadgets, toys, and women. This was a 00 gone high on steriods with no brains. And I don't need to watch Texas Hold'em for 20 minute. Where was the espinoage, the great evil? And he hardly talked during the movie. (DJ Yahoo)

This is one insipid boring mess. What happened to the fantasy of James Bond?

I imagine that a lot of shills from Columbia/MGM Pix are logged in as users writing these favorable reviews. Who can put it past a studio that created a fictitious critic to give an earlier pic a thumbs up?

Talk about the single most boring Texas Holdem game ever. This movie is without stakes, excitement, effects, toys, hot Bond girls, dramatic locations, a great bad guy etc. This wasn't Bond, it was more like Speed 2. (SS Yahoo)

For those of you who enjoyed the movie, I can agree that there were some great action sequences. This movie could have been extremely enjoyable but .... to the misfortune of EON and Daniel Craig, this movie belongs to a long list of exciting, familiar, and classic movies that fall under the famous James Bond Banner.

With that said, we have to judge this movie by the same key ingredients that we love, look forward to, and get excited by when watching a Bond movie. See, it's true that every Bond movie is different, but they all share the familiar attributes, which if neglected, would throw the movie "off" and force it out of place in the famous movie series. Without further due, the following is a list of obvious and extremely blasphemous characteristics of Casino Royale, even if it was supposed to be a prequel.

1) NO THEME MUSIC DURING THE FAMOUS INTRODUCTORY "GUN BARREL" SCENE. Yes, it's true ladies and gentlemen, the famous Monty Norman piece is omitted and replaced with a retarded soft rock song. This left me uneasy and irritated throughout the whole movie, since the "gun barrel" sequence is the initial excietment generator when beginning to watch any Bond film.

2) DANIEL CRAIG? What happened to the smooth chauvinistic, arrogant, and handsome bond? Daniel Craig's acting is alright, but he is so out of sorts when compared to the rest of the Bonds. He looks more like a Manchester United hooligan or the son of an Irish potato farmer. The short, balding, blonde Craig fits the typical American desire of "stronger, faster, and new and improved", that the commercial industries love to attach to retail products. Unfortunately, for true Bond fans, he's nowhere near new and improved.

3) IS THAT A FORD FOCUS? James Bond is spotted driving a Ford in this movie. Look, I don't care if it was a rental car, Bond in a Ford is like Michael Jordan wearing New Balance sneakers. You will never spot it.

4) WHERE IS Q OR Q's REPLACEMENT? No Q, means no gadgets. Enough said. (Calli Yahoo)

A blonde villain looking Bond just does not work. He was too ugly to look at, how can anyone possibly be attracted to him, that's what my g/f stated.
I wont waste my time on Bond 22 which they are in progress of making with the same actor. (Rusk Yahoo)

This movie was not entertaining, at all. It just dragged on and on, and my friends and I kept waiting for it to END. Eva Green's performance was EXCELLENT but the "new Bond" was annoying and uninteresting. (Cator Yahoo)

Can’t believe it! The reviewers got it wrong!! This is a horrible film! People walked out in the first 30 min,,, wish we had followed them.
 
He is not a good James Bond. If he had been cast as the villain he would have been perfect. Seriously, the villain was major weak point. Daniel would have been more memorable in that role. No, he would have been fantastic!

Brosnan, Connery, Moore and the rest deserve an apology, they made it look easy. Daniel proves good acting alone isn’t enough to be Bond. (Sandy Yahoo)
 

The worst Bond film in the history of the franchise.
When people start out saying, "I generally do not like
James Bond, but I loved this one", you know you are in
trouble. I can not understand how any Bond fan
could enjoy this movie. What a trying and dull attempt.
I wish I could give it an F minus. (Strick Yahoo)

Craig is the worst Bond in the history of cinema. The 67' Casino Royale included.
From the opening sequence till the last scene. This movie was about Daniel Craig, not James Bond. Daniel Craig doesn't have the goods to be Bond. I thought he would pull it off at first. It proved beyond his reach. I lost friends over this and I was wrong.

It was difficult to sit through this film. If you a fan of Bond like me, you'll be better off for not going. Not even worth the price of a dvd. (CF Yahoo)
 

James Bond fans will be sorely disappointed. There are no Bond gadgets. There is a Bond girl. Well sort of. She isn't the classic type of Bond girl. There are no Bond lines. Even the Bond villain isn't really clear. And Daniel Craig simply does not look the part AT ALL. He's supposed to be young? As another reviewer pointed out, this guy looks ready to retire. Indeed, he does that during the movie. And I'd say good riddance except he can't be bothered to get even that right.

OK for those who have never watched a Bond film and want to see an action movie, because clearly the directors abandoned the fans of the franchise in favor of what they hope will be new audiences who want a totally different Bond:

This movie had some pretty cool action sequences, but frankly, I simply didn't buy them at all. The stuff that happens at the beginning of the film is more appropriate to Spider Man than James Bond. The acrobatics were nice to look at, but not realistic.

The acting was OK. I didn't buy the villain at all. The guy just doesn't seem very sinister until he's almost dead.

The worst part was the story. It is incredibly difficult to follow. Things kept changing and you don't know from one moment to the next who the real villain is and whats going on. It simply doesn't fly for me at all. Without giving away the plot (if you insist on viewing this garbage), bottom line, there is no clear story line from the beginning to the end. The first half has nothing to do with Casino Royale (I read the book) and then after the whole thing in the Casino, the movie keeps switching speeds and you have no clue what is going on.

If you are a Bond films fan, I'm sorry to say, mourn the passing of our beloved 007. He's gone. (Eric Yahoo)

You might not be convinced you're watching a Bond film. Craig certainly doesn't look the part but once you're into the story, you can see why that was the whole idea....if he looked like his predecessors, it would have made the film a lot harder to swallow. I found Casino Royale to be good but not great. It's a good reset point for the franchise and on that note it's a re-introduction to the Bond universe. And yet, the film never aspires to reach the level of greatness of its history...in simple terms, it's better than Die Another Day, but nowhere near as good as Goldeneye and it is far outside the realms of any film from the Connery era. (Toke AIC)

Daniel Craig would have made a good Bond rival or villian perhaps...but he's no James Bond. He's James Bland. Give me Bourne...Jason Bourne...any day over this mess!!! (MW AIC)

I'm kinda puzzled by all these glowing opinions. My oh my, some of the dialogue was awfully clunky and forced. The parkour was done well, and Campbell handled the action pretty nicely throughout, but it's so done to death by now that it only dragged me back into 2006, further confusing me as to WHEN this story was taking place. The gambling scenes had a horrible commentary for us non-gamblers and dragged to the point that I had to wake my friend up when we got to last act. I was mildly entertained, but not blown away. None of the action sequences took my breath away. (SS AIC)

 I was pretty disappointed. I was open-minded, and looking forward to a realistic take on Bond, but the thing is...it's not that well-written. Its more like watching the "serious" parts of the Brosnan movies, with a less charismatic guy as Bond and no fun scenes at all. I couldn't help thinking thoughout the whole film that "wow this guy can act, he's painted this really cool character....but he's in the wrong movie, it's just not Bond" It's a shame but I just couldn't think of Craig as James Bond no matter how hard I tried. (Mis AIC)

We keep finding ourselves in action sequences where we don't know what the hell is going on or what the point of the chase is. Just excuses for set pieces. The whole airport scene? What? Bond follows a guy from the Bahamas to Miami who drops off a uniform? Why was someone wanting to blow up the new plane? Wouldn't you want people on the plane if you were a terrorist? Or maybe he was working for Boeing and just didn't like Airbus. I can't get through security with nail clippers but we can have a 10 minute car chase out on the runway? And why are we playing hold'em in Casino Royale anyway? Trying to get some money from the bad guy? Why not just grab him and sieze his funds? Anyway, I know we aren't supposed to think about this stuff, but there were some really big holes here and some awful dialogue. And I hate to tell all of you - even though I really liked Craig and what he did, all kinds of people (real people, not just Bond fans) were walking out saying, "Well he sure wasn't James Bond." (Rollo AIC)

As a big time 007 fan (posters all over the house, my wife has learned to live with it...), just a few thoughts... How about the fact that Bond has a defib in his car, as he just so happens to need exactly that thing on this mission to keep his well being (Q branch must be psychic), but later when he flips the thing...there's no airbag. The fact that there was no real villian was disappointing too. Le Chiffre was a pale copy of Robert Carlyle's character in The World Is Not Enough. Not particularly villianous, just kind of pathetic. And I agree with you on the end...the big bad guy is...who exactly??? And the Ennnnnndless gambling scene. It's kinda like watching the movie The Net where Sandra Bullock spends a third of the movie typing away on a computer. There is nothing inherintly exciting about watching people type away on a computer, just as watching them gamble for 45 minutes isn't so thrilling either. Lastly, on a personal note, I'm not sure I like the direction this is going in. They've removed the suavity and wit from the character, and now we have a troubled tough guy who uses his brawn rather than brains. We already have that (John McLane, The Transporter movies, Martin Riggs, I could go on and on...). In short, they've taken away all the things that make Bond Bond. I know it's more "tough", and "intense" but again, we can get that elsewhere. (Ed AIC)

If you hate James Bond movies you'll like Casino Royale. (Papil Yahoo)

Like a cross between Die Hard 2 and a chocolate ad. Bond is now a sour bore. I guess people get caught up in the moment and embrace the new. (PS AIC)

I feel like a Doubting Thomas in the midst of a load of Born Agains... it's like hand over ears la-la-la-la don't want to hear it...

I guess I'm the same with Moonraker up to a point. I like the film, cos I'm taken with it, love the cinematography, soundtrack and overall feel. I can't deny that it has slapstick in it mind, and that the finale is outlandish. Personally it doesn't bug me because I am charmed enough to suspend my disbelief. I know it's not realistic. CR didn't charm me.

Judi Dench is awful in this really. I praised her before, but she just shouts and looks rather pleased that she's playing M in a blockbuster Bond film, as ever. By this point I was nitpicking like crazy... the Martin Campbell signature of having Bond injure civilians willy nilly - one or two contractors die in the chase... and how is that bulldozer meant to hit the bomber, more likely it will hit anyone else. And Bond says "I want him alive" at the beginning, then seems to do everything he can to kill him, ending up putting a bullet in him.

Anyhow, the somersaults some people go to to explain away or discount these plot holes I find a bit disturbing. (NP AJB)

But was it a James Bond movie? I can't consider this at all being a Bond film. It just hasn't to do anything at all with James Bond. So as Bond movie it is probably a 001 for me!

Yes, yes, things need a change and blah... but literally everything that marks out the real James Bond has been taken away in this movie!

Daniel Craig just doesn't fit in the picture as James Bond. He's missing the whole Bond style in my opinion.

The villains - do they even have a real plan? I had the impression it's all just about a few millions. Le Chiffre doesn't have any style at all either and then he ends up getting randomly shot by some guy that suddently walks through the door...?

Is there a big plot in the movie? No.. oh yea there is, Vesper turns her back on James - WOW!

All in all it wasn't a bad movie, but it surely wasn't a James Bond to me. I really can't see how some people can consider this as the best Bond film ever. (Taz AJB)

Yes, the movie had lots of action, but some of it was as far fetched as in any previous Bond movie. And speaking of far fetched action, will Hollywood ever learn how automatic fire sprinklers really work? Probably not, but in case anyone is wondering, they all don't go off at once with the push of a button. In fact, for sprinklers in airports, there are no buttons.

As for Daniel Craig, he certainly did a good job, but his light colored hair and blue eyes are more remaniscent of the Russian bad guy from Russia with Love than with the brown-eyed British secret service agent portrayed by Connery.

It will be interesting to see where this new story line goes, but if Casino Royale is indicative of future movies, my viewing time will stick to the past. (FF AJB)

I just want to add that for the first time, I fully agreed with the review of one of the most famous movie critics in Italy, Tullio Kezich, who writes for Corriere della Sera. CR was released today here in Italy and the title on today's Corriere says "New Bond Disappoints".

I found the article (full page, page 46 of the newspaper) quite interesting because of the fact the critic bothered to re-read the novel before going onto the movie. And makes a good analysis of the novel before getting into the movie. He starts off saying "I didn't like CR in the slightest", which certainly put me in a favourable mood towards the article, I won't deny . Anyway, found it interesting to hear a different voice from a critic I rarely agree with.

I found particularly interesting his analysis of the character. He says that Bond's character in this movie is now "light years" away from the "dignified literary origin". He also analyses how Fleming's Bond in CR had very little of a Superman, being extremely vulnerable, problematic and sentimental. But nevertheless, a killer. And that the fitting definition of Bond, at the time the novel was released, was "amoral hero". Then he proceeds to say how Craig in this movie is very far from being "amoral hero" and that he is just a cold-blooded killer who, while in pursuit of a terrorist in Madagascar, makes more athletic numbers than an acrobat at the circus. Sorry, couldn't resist putting in this one, because I, too, found the whole jumping here and there of that scene way out of line. And the whole outlook of the character in this movie to me is exactly as the critic said.

The definition and analysis of the movie, though, is what surprised me the most, since I felt like I had written it! He says "this is just a random action movie without daddy or mommy". Not sure this works in English? In Italian it means without a convincing lead author behind it. That is exactly my problem with this movie, that I don't see it as a Bond movie at all. I see it as a random action movie, not as a Bond movie. Because Bond isn't Bond to me, and because it lacks too many ingredients of the original recipe. Just my opinion of course, very personal perception.

Kezich goes on and says the movie spends its time inflating with violence and baroque-ism estrogens an inconsistent plot. Again, I agree. And he ends in a very Italian way, stating that if Fleming could see this Bond in CR today, he would feel like Geppetto when he sees Pinocchio run away on his own legs. This sentence probably works better for Italians since Pinocchio is likely the most popular fairytale we have, and a lot of everyday life sayings are based on it.. but anyway.. I find it a perfect comparison.

Anyway. I think that each of us has a very personal idea and perception of how Bond should be, and that is what makes up the difference of opinions. We'll never manage to agree on things because of this, but I find this to be one of the most fascinating things about life: how something can look totally different to different people because of how they are and how they perceive something. Glad that some enjoyed the movie, I am just not one of them! (Alless AJB)

I must have seen another movie. It was difficult to follow, and the ending was a let down. James Bond? Only if I close my eyes and imagine anyone else beside Daniel Craig. He has as much appeal as James Bond as Pee Wee Herman.  (Sparkle Yahoo)

A new Bond film usually represents two hours of enjoyable nonsense in your local theater. Some are better than others but all strive to entertain. Why has Bond lasted so long? Because they established a unique niche in the action/adventure genre. While other heroes were musclebound oafs in vests 007 was a classy, suave intelligent gentleman. An aspirational fantasy figure one might say. It was iconic and fun. Well, kiss that goodbye folks. The new James Bond is short, plain looking (bordering on the downright ugly) and looks like he cuts his own hair. He IS a musclebound oaf. Craig seems so bewildered and sheepish about his new job that he plays Bond in a monosyllabic way more akin to John Rambo than 007. I guess Barbara Broccoli must be a real sucker for those Brit thesp types. (ID Yahoo)

What is going on??? There are way better Bond movies than this, it wasn't bad but it sure as hell wasnt great. In fact it wasnt that great at all in my opinion. I love the book, but the best thing about the book was that it was short and to the point, it was more of a prelude to the other Bonds. This film was way too long and frankly underwhelming, it lacked a charismatic Bond and lacked any of the magic associated with the traditional Bond formula. The action sequences all lacked the typical 007 magic, especially the airport scene, it felt like I was watching a crappy American action film. The relationship between Bond and Vesper was underdeveloped, the film poorly structured.

The best 'serious' Bond film will always be From Russia With Love and as far as Fleming's incarnate brought to life accuratley on the big screen, that goes to Dalton.

What is all the fuss about!!!! Its not really that great and Craig might be good but he's not in the same class as the other 5 Bonds (Darth Yahoo)

I do think there is an emperor's new clothes syndrome with this film. It really isn't a great film and I suspect its reputation will diminish when the flush of the new begins to wear off. You can make a card-game tense in a film but they didn't succeed here. It's difficult, I know. I've read the book. I know Bond loses and then wins. One thing I would say is that the casino scene looked cheap and came off flat. When I see the name Casino Royale I conjure up images of smoke, beautiful women in evening dresses, color, noise, drunks, prostitutes, elegant people, chaos and the spin of the wheel. What we got was a half-dozen people playing cards in what looked like someone's converted spare-bedroom.

I don't see Craig as the book Bond or the film Bond. The film Bond is a handsome dandy and the book Bond is a handsome snob. Craig is a new take on James Bond and it seems there is no middle ground. You either love it or, like me, think he was boring, generic and dull. (GL IMDB)

This was a lousy long boring movie. I never fidget at the movies. Here I couldn't help but look around at the rest of the audience. Not surprisingly everyone was bored as me.
The action was way over done, it became stupid. Superman looked more gritty and real than this. The actor as Bond was a complete loss. I can't even remember his name, he is that forgettable.
I wish we never went to this over hyped, bloated carcass of what had been Bond. The good reviews are completely wrong, so wrong I wonder if they had the same movie we got. My boyfriend was so bored he was watching for mistakes, the guy in the row behind us as well. I was grateful for the distraction.
If you're a fan of decent movies do yourself a favor and avoid this one, unless you want to feel like you're stuck in a 3 hour church sermon. Because you'll be that aware of the time passing. For the first time I was wondering about the ceiling tiles in the theater, I'm sure they must have some special sound quality.
Now if you'll excuse me we have to find Tommy Lee Jones and see about borrowing the MIB flashy thing. (Fox Yahoo)

I don't like who they picked as Bond! I've seen every Bond movie. I like the traditional Bond! This seems like just another movie. (JH Yahoo)


007 seems to be his IQ level in the movie.
 
This is the first time that Bond is an idiot with a seemingly low IQ. On top of that he is non-cool, non-classy and non suave. In the movie, Craig is mistaken to be a valet by a hotel guest, because he really looks and behaves like one. Or perhaps like a night club bouncer.

The Bond which I have always known is a classy, (almost aristrocratic), suave, witty, polished person. I see him as Mr Brains - a person who is resourceful and finds his way out of trouble each and everytime with his quick thinking.

The latest Bond however seems to be "All brawn, no brain". He falls for all the simplest tricks and if not for his girlfriend he would have been dead !

He walks like a bouncer of a night club, and seems so stressed out, that I wonder this Bond will have an early heart attack or stress related diseases early in his career !

A very unimpressive Bond indeed.

Craig tried his best, but he is just not the right actor for the role. He is far too uncool and lacks the suaveness and gait of a Bond.

The actions were slick, but I must admit I miss the gadgets and the one liners.

The opening scene proves the new Bond to be a complete misfit for the job of a 007 agent. In the rest of the movie he goes on to confirm it. (CF Yahoo)

Sure the new 007 was good if you're into long unnecessary stares and over 15 fake endings which left you longing to go smoke a cigarette. After finally being released from the theater, I desperately wanted to take back the two and a half hours I spent inside. If you feel like having your testis pounded (literally) then I
strongly suggest that you see this disgrace to the James Bond Collection. (Jan Yahoo)
 

Wow, where can I begin? This movie is not worthy of the title of a James Bond film. Bond isn't supposed to be buff but suave and sophisticated which this actor definitely wasn't. Two of my friends fell asleep and I think that I would rather be tortured that watch it again. (Jerry Yahoo)

Was that Bond or an Arnie movie ? (Tam Yahoo)

Is this a Sony cell phone or Aston martin commercial or 007 movie? (Wam Yahoo)

If Daniel Craig is continuing this Bond Series, then this was the last new Bond movie I will have seen - ever!

No Q, no special gadgets, no stunts in the so well known and expected "Bond style" - ergo: NOT a BOND!  (Eagle Yahoo)

 
The fascination of the previous Bond films (and the reason I would put up with the blatant sexism) was because James Bond was irresistable, handsome, charming, and smooth. The new Bond does not have the same qualities. He came across as a "wanna be". Not quite the same charisma as the previous Bonds and when I saw him driving a Ford, I couldn't stop laughing. 
 

James Bond's IQ just dropped 30 points
If you like Bond, please do not watch this installment, the charming spy of MI6 has been turned into Rambo by Hollywood, no gadgets, no charm, just brute force. (Rose Yahoo)

Where are the gadgets? the sophistication? the style? the finesse? the cars?
This Bond walks like a robot! is he suppose to be a secret agent? no wits, no humor, no style! stoic! Boring! (Bone Yahoo)

 Like I said weeks ago, Craig does not embody the true essence of 007. Bitter that Brosnan is gone? More like I am bitter of how EON Productions upstaged the cinematic Bond and got rid of the upstanding features that made the series so unique.

I don't see why you say this film correlates to Fleming's Bond. In the movie Craig was jumping cranes, busting through walls, playing poker, going crazy over a woman who had him whipped. Big set pieces and explosive action does not equate to Fleming's Bond. If you want Fleming look no farther than FRWL, because it had bare bones in the action department and the story was more prevalent. I dont see any correlation of how a "thuggish" unexperienced Bond becomes Bond? It is all irrelevant because they do not tell us of why Bond does the things he does. It was just action here and there with a overdone poker scene, thrown in to obviously appeal to Americans.

Anything with the 007 license stamped on it will be successful. Lets see if Craig can continue that success in his next films, and you know most people saw CR out of curiousity and hype.

Call me a Brosnan-lover all you want, but this man came off a declining trend with Dalton and brought back the audiences as well as new fans. Brosnan did more for Bond than Craig will ever do as mentioned by the public. Brosnan truly brought back that Connery feeling.

CR is nothing but a attempt to cash in with the Bourne/Bauer spy thrillers and it will fade away when people start missing the "fun" in the films.

How did the rough and heart-broken Bond of Craig evolve into the smooth talking Connery who quips a line with a martini in one hand and a babe in another?

By the way this is how we feel about the film and we have valid opinions of why we didn't like the film nor Craig. (YOLT MI6)

My favorite movie is OHMSS. I think I know by now what James Bond is supposed to be and my opinion is that Craig doesn't have the most important characteristic. The movies can and should change, but Bond should be the constant and this guy doesn't feel like Bond to me. You can treat me like a child or say I can't handle change or insult me in a million ways, that's my opinion. Clearly I'm in the minority, but sorry, I have to go with my gut feeling and say what I think is true.

I was very respectful, I said he's a good actor, but I still feel he's basically miscast. (Ben AJB)

Am I the only one who is a little disappointed with CR?

On the plus side I welcome shift to a more gritty perspective that better reflects the original books. I am also glad to to the end of too much outlandish gadgetry...

On the down side, when in a tux, DC is more "doorman" than "gentleman" where as Connery and PB both seemed to strike a better balance in that respect. (Charlie AJB)

Craig did not behave Bond like. Why call him James Bond, why a movie called Casino Royale? Give him and the movie a new name and just call it a new Secret Agent movie. (RS MI6)

I was indifferent about Craig being Bond...and after seeing CR, I can still take him or leave him. I am, however, incredibly, disappointed in Paul Haggis. I was expecting much more than what I got from him. (DH AJB)

"Shaken not stirred" Craig: "O who the hell cares?" (MH Yahoo)

There are people (many on this site whose experienced opinions I usually respect, not just the newbies) who have written some absolute guff about both Craig and CR and should know better. They should be forced to sit through DN to GF and run their finger under every word of the script to understand how Fleming's Bond should be brought to the screen. (DS Cbn)

Craig doesn't take the gloss off Dalton, he makes him shine that much brighter. Compare what Fleming's former employer - the Sunday Times said about Craig's looks: "Gollum's younger brother" to say, what Rolling Stone said about Dalton's: "looks like he was genetically engineered to play James Bond."

Craig's "unconventional" looks could have at least been helped with a tan and a dye job. I'm suprised that he has dyed his hair dark for other roles, but for some reason did not think Bond was worthy of the effort.

I wonder if it was perhaps also a producer decision to set him apart. I mentioned the Sunday Times not soley because of the Fleming association - but because any time someone brings up Craig's looks as a detriment - they are immediately branded a kook, a "cNb-er" or what have you. There are legitimate critics out there who have issues with Craig's looks.

As long as we are throwing out maxims and sweeping statements, surely you've got to realize that there is a portion of the Bond fan and cinema going public that have a problem with Craig's looks.

Here on CBn, one of our administrators, TheSaint, refuses to see the film because of Craig.

I have co-workers who told me, and I quote "There is no way I am going to pay to see that ugly dude as Bond."

Call these people narrow minded if you will, but just as CR & Craig may represent the pinnacle of Bond to you - there are people who see him as the nadir. (DNS Cbn)

Wow, a thread bashing Brosnan on this site? Whodathunkit?

Hmm, aside from the actors spoofed and made fun of, what's the difference between this site and the Craig Not Bond site?

I remember the good old days when this site was professionally run and real debate could be had. This site should be now called: www.danielcraigisthebestjamesbondeverandifyoudontthinksoscrewyou.com. (Tin Cbn)

True to my word, I have not seen CR. And I will check out the DVD. I've seen the preview and read enough feedback to stay adamant about Craig being the wrong choice for Bond. The darker, edgier Bond is what I was wanting for years. But EON went and spoiled it by the ridiculous choice of the charmless Daniel Craig for the Bond role and the more ridiculous idea of "reboot." The fans here talk as if no one but Craig could have handled the "dark" Bond role. Well I just saw "Prestige" and my number one choice for the new Bond, Hugh Jackman, could have handled it just as well with the added charm to tie it in to the Bond tradition. EON fumbled badly here and missed a perfect opportunity by not casting Jackman. A Bond flick with Kermit the Frog would bring in a lot of Bond fans and the curious. I submit a darker Bond with still some charm (ala Jackman) would have brought in at least the same $ if not more.

Don't get discouraged by the Craig equivalents of "trekkies." They are already posting with glee how many times Craig took a dump last week.

Even Brosnan wanted to play Bond differently from Brosnan! He kept pushing for a grittier, more realistic Bond. But EON handcuffed him with the silly invisible car, etc. And now their pale excuse for casting Vladimir Putin Jr is they "wanted a grittier Bond!".... Go figure! (Frankie Cbn)

Honey They've Shrunk The Bond!

I don't think Daniel Craig is ugly at all generally but I do think he is borderline ugly for a James Bond. Eon's casting director said once that any actor who wanted to be Bond had to be tall and devastatingly handsome. Under these guidelines Craig would have been ejected from Eon HQ by security if he'd turned up for an interview.

I don't think there are enough drugs in the world to make me think that Craig is the Bond Fleming described, but each to their own.

My major problem with Casino Royale is Daniel Craig. For me looks and toughness (or ruthlessness) aren't mutually exclusive. While others will vehemently disagree (it's all highly subjective) Craig for me lacks the panache and handsome mug that (I think) James Bond should have in order to be James Bond. I also don't like a heavily muscled Bond. I'd prefer him to be tall and lean as in the books and Craig's haircut is a constant source of bewilderment to me. I can live without the black hair but a crewcut?

Is it just me or does Craig have very short arms?

I know what I think James Bond looks like but Eon have now told me to forget about that and pretend that this is the first time I've ever seen him. James Bond now looks like Daniel Craig who is absolutely nothing like my own conception of what a James Bond should look like. Surely the first rule of casting is to find someone who can embody the part they are being asked to play. It's the reason why Brandon Routh got the Superman gig. Did anyone come out of that film going "oh if only they'd hired an offbeat character actor instead of Brandon Routh...they could've brought so much more depth to the role even if they looked nothing like Superman."

This forum is slowly but surely turning into the headquarters for the Daniel Craig is brilliant everyone else shut the **** up campaign.

In this case objectivity is truly subjective. Some fans think that our auriferous Danny is the new Steve Mcqueen or Sean Connery. I don't think he looks the part. My own view is that James Bond is not a role that requires a great actor. If it does my tongue in cheek suggestion was Ben Kingsley. I'd rather have an A' list director than Craig.

Given that some fans on the forums have now dug themselves into a position that states that the part of James Bond should be played by a character actor/thesp/non-obvious/blue-collar chap not a handsome leading-man type what on earth are those fans going to do when Craig leaves the part? Campaign for David Thewlis to take over?

Perhaps they should have cast Alex O'Lachlan and got Daniel Craig to dub his voice. That way everyone is happy...I think...

As for Daniel Craig looking more like a killer. Perhaps he does. What does a killer actually look like? Call me mad but I thought there was a tangible cruelty in Brosnan's over handsome mug at times. I still think it was all systems go at some point for a young Bond film. I think Campbell wanted to find an unknown, Wilson wanted his Bond Begins thing onscreen, and Paul Haggis thought the script he had been asked to polish featured a 28 year-old Bond. At some point Barbara Broccoli threw Craig into the mix and compromised the whole thing. The more I think about a young unknown actor as Bond the more radical that idea seems.

Ross Perot is James Bond!

How anyone can look at that Empire cover and put a positive spin on it is beyond me. I think Marty Feldman would look more Bondian than Craig in that pose let alone Gerard Butler.

If anyone is interested I'll be signing copies of my book How Daniel Craig Ruined My Life at a popular megastore in London this weekend...

As something of a luddite I'm always impressed by people who have the wherewithall to put something together but if that art is official Eon stuff I would probably point out to them that Craig looks slightly boss-eyed.

Daniel is going to have win an oscar to meet even half of the frankly ludicrous expectations being placed on him. A competent, middle-aged, little known character actor has gone from being exactly that to, apparently, the new Sean Connery or Steve Mcqueen. It can only be a matter of time before someone starts comparing him to Cary Grant.

I didn't know that Pierce Brosnan took control of the Bond franchise for Die Another Day. Were Barbara and Michael completely absent? They must have been. They certainly like to pretend they had nothing to do with it. It's not as if it was them who hired Purvis & Wade or saddled Brosnan with a series of increasingly bizarre journeymen directors that they could micro-manage control-freak style. It was nice of Pierce to allow them a credit. Thank heavens Brosnan didn't get too much control. He was the idiot who wanted to ask Ang Lee or John Mctiernan to direct a James Bond film.

The other Bonds may or may not be your personal cup of tea but to varying degrees they are Lord of the Manor to Craig's handy-man in the potting shed.

Am I the only person on this site who thinks that Craig looks nothing like a young Sean Connery? I was watching Hill Street Blues last night and the resemblance between Craig and Andy Renko is quite uncanny at times. If Charles Haid reminds anyone of a young Sean Connery I stand corrected.
(JS Cbn)


The most wooden spy since Joe 90! (Frosty AJB) 

 

HOME

FORUM