From the Darkside IV
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)
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
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)
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 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
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
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
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
-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
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
Didn't feel like a James Bond film. (AP
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
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
This movie was really terrible.
Then the ending was just stupid and screaming sequel, but to what?
There was no real story. (Bird
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:
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
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)
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
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
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
Sorry, but that's the way I feel. (MW
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
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
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
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)
is one insipid boring mess. What happened to the fantasy of James
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
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
I wont waste my time on Bond 22 which they are in progress of making
with the same actor. (Rusk
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
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
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
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
Craig is the worst Bond in the history of cinema. The 67' Casino Royale
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)
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Where are the gadgets? the sophistication? the style? the finesse? the
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
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
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
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
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
"Shaken not stirred" Craig: "O who the hell cares?" (MH Yahoo)
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
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
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!
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."
forum is slowly but surely turning into the headquarters for the
Daniel Craig is brilliant everyone else shut the **** up campaign.
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
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
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
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
The most wooden spy since Joe 90! (Frosty AJB)