Bond, James Bond

[basite]

well, it's weekend, and i'm going to the cinema to see the new james bond movie,

is there anyone here who has already seen it, and what were your toughts on it?


Greets,
Basite.

[E-Stat]

...is there anyone here who has already seen it, and what were your toughts on it?

As a devoted Bond fan, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It took me a while to warm up to the new guy's smirk, but I think the movie returned to the original Fleming concept. Connery has been the gold standard and Moore the foppish joke. This guy is believable.

Forty two years after seeing my first one, I was also pleased to see the appropriate Aston-Martins. This prequel (of sorts at least set in modern day, but as newbie 007) to the entire series is a not miss.

rw

[SlumpBuster]

I really liked this movie.

But as a prequal, did anyone else catch the idea that this may not be the same James Bond? i.e. this is a different person altogether and that when one Bond is killed a new operative is hired and given the name James Bond with 007 being like a jersey number, in that any number of players can have it through out the years.

I saw the movie with about 8 people. Half thought it was supposed to be the same guy as in all the other movies, the other half saw it as a new guy. They offered lots of support too. For example, M specifically asks Bond if someone had learned his real name. He replied, "No."

So, any thoughts. Is this the same Bond? Or does the movie universe just take license with the timeline?

[icarus]

personally i thought they took more of the prequal approach to it. Returning to the beginning of Bond's carreer as a double 'O'. As a bond fan myself this bond shows great promise, and I am looking forward to the next few movies.

[basite]

i really liked it, it was different from the previous bond's i saw (all with pierce brosnan) and that was good, it was somekind of a shock though that in the n° 1 gadget movie, there were no gadgets. and maybe it wasn't the nicest women magnet, but he could act, and he was more of a bond then the previous one. Also there was somekind of a difference in the story, (i don't know for the bonds that came before P Brosnan) but there actually was more than sex, there was love, i think this is kindof new...

that said, i think that he could come back in following movies...

ow yeah, the torturing scene (where bond is being tortured by le chiffre (on the boat)) was a great laugh.

[RGA]

I am going to go out on a limb perhaps but I have seen every James Bond Film and IMO this was the best film of the lot. And to be honest I think it's much better than what is in second place!

Firstly This was the only film that didn't seem like a cartoon with an unstoppable super hero character but a real killing machine. In fact while I was watching Daniel Craig in the role I felt I was watching a human shark. He portrayed the role with ferociousness. Connery played it debonair Craig is playing it raw with tremendoue physicality. I understand he did many of his own stunts.

This film gives Bond a real personae - and for the first time a true character ark.

As an added bonus - the fight scenes in this bond actually seem realistic as if someone is really trying to kill bond and that bond could actually be harmed (and is on occasion) and not your usual "the bad guys can;t hit the broad side of a barn.

Kudos to the entire crew and to Daniel Craig for overcoming the pre naysayers. And for the first time in a long time the Bond girls are actually believable people and so for that matter are the criminals.

Not only is this a very good Bond film -- it's a very good film.

[Kam]

[QUOTE=RGA]Kudos to the entire crew and to Daniel Craig for overcoming the pre naysayers. And for the first time in a long time the Bond girls are actually believable people and so for that matter are the criminals.
QUOTE]

don't want to say i told ya so.... but.... i told ya so i'm trying to find the post (since i am so rarely accurate in my lostie predictions i do like to gloat a leeetle bit when i'm right) but i did say way back when that Daniel Craig, if given the chance to make the part his own, could be the best Bond ever. i just saw this over the weekend, and imo, he is even better than connery. at least comparing Dr. No to Casino Royale. How he holds up over time remains to be seen if he can sustain this character the way connery did, but at least from out of the gates, Craig is my favorite bond.

i think part of the new bond can be attributed to the success of The Bourne Identity. I was thinking how that movie really made a gritty-real version of the spy genre and how the brosnan bond movies were characatures and cartoonish in comparison (through no fault, i think on pierce, who i think was horribly reigned in by the producers/directors and not given a chance to make the part his own past goldeneye, the only good pierce-bond movie of his lot imo). Casino Royale is a direct reaction to Bourne making bond far more real than he's ever been.

[markw]

This movie signifies a new direction for Bond. This one is human, vulnerable, and not as affectated as to be a cartoon as Bond has devolved into over the years since Connery passed on the mantle.

He bleeds. He gets out of breath. He isn't dependent on gadgets and wages war with fancy super villians that would do Austin Powers proud. He gets the living daylights (pun intended) kicked out of him and he keeps on ticking.

My hopes are that they redo the Fleming books in the order in which they were penned with this guy, or at least with the same focus on the "new" Bond type. Real, gritty, brutal when needed and tender when proper, and vulnerable.

After the end of this one, I don't know how emotionally vulnerable he will be. But, then again, maybe that was the point of this movie. Creating a new killing machine.

[Worf101]

Underwhelmed. Casino Royale was a good movie but not a great movie. I enjoyed it somewhat. It was refreshing that there was a singular lack of gimmicks and gadgets in this one, but I though (and I'll say it) that the Bond women sucked donky scrotum in this one. I'm sorry, I spend almost three hours in a Bond movie and the only time I get mildly aroused is when that classic Astin Martin DB5 is tooling around? That just plain sucks, that's just unAmerican, it's just plain, flat out wrong... end of rant!

Might grow on me someday but not now.

Da Worfster

[topspeed]

Holy Thread Revival, Batman!

I finally saw this movie on DVD last night and have to say, this is one of the best Bond movies I've seen, regardless of who played 007. It seems if you want to revive a franchise, you start from the beginning and make the character a much darker, more flawed person. They certainly did this with Craig, with fantastic results. This was non-stop action from beginning to end, but it was done in a much grittier way that promoted the movie as opposed the the mindless stunts that seemingly were just filler in previous renditions. My only question was the choice for the ubiquitous "Bond Girl." Granted, on the "hottie" scale, it's patently unfair to compare anybody not on the cover of Victoria's Secret to Halle Berry, but Eva Green did nothing for me whatsoever. Certainly, there must have been more inspired choices available.

Without resurrecting the ghost of Lexmarks past, I'll just say the video quality was quite good, although not reference level. The sound was clean but the LFE's seemed completely over the top. Action movies, especially ones where everything is happening all around you like this one, provide a good platform for showing off surround sound. However, I felt this one was quite subdued in surround information. Either that or the LFE's simply overpowered everything.

I really enjoyed this movie and would rank it in the Top 3 of my all-time favorite Bond films. Honestly, I was unsure of what Craig would bring to the character, but he very well could end up being better than Connery.

[kexodusc]

Hey T/S, wife and I watched it Saturday night...
I agree 100% all the way - AWESOME BOND FILM!!!

I was totally expecting another lame ass suckfest consistent with the Brosnan years, but this Bond movie kicked the crap out of his contributions to Bond in the first 90 seconds, and didn't let up from there.

My favorite Bond film? Hard to say, but definitely top 3.

[Dusty Chalk]

I just saw this. I thought it was excellent, especially for a Bond film. Easily the grittiest, and I thought they took several courageous chances. Actually showing the poker game, rather than playing it off with a montage really did it for me. And they managed to make it interesting -- that's the way the books are written (except he plays Baccarat in the books, typically). I also thought it was courageous to give him some vulnerabilities, have M talk down to him (e.g., when she tells him not to break into her house, when she calls him a blunt instrument), and have him get snippy -- basically, to make him less than perfect, and more human.

And no, I don't think it was the intention at all that this is a new Bond, though there were other "double-0" agents.

The opening credits were terrible though -- where were the silhouettes of naked women? I mean, it was enjoyable and all -- would have made a great screensaver.

[recoveryone]

I saw it over the weekend, and was just as surprised and pleased as the rest. But I was more impressed with that bomber guy and his ability to jump/roll/slide/land and grip onto all those surfaces. The jump from one crane boom to the other had me a bit scared.

[Worf101]

I've some questions though...

1. Is this a "new" James Bond? A new agent with an old name? Or are they retelling the stories in a modern setting ala "Batman Begins"?

2. Do you want them to take all the books in order or cherry pick the best of the lot?

3. Has anyone been writing an "new" Bond stories since Flemings death?

4. Will we have revolving Felix Leiters?

5. Will the Bond hotties stage a comeback?

Enquiring minds wanna know!!!

Da Worfster

[Troy]

I've some questions though...

1. Is this a "new" James Bond? A new agent with an old name? Or are they retelling the stories in a modern setting ala "Batman Begins"?

2. Do you want them to take all the books in order or cherry pick the best of the lot?

3. Has anyone been writing an "new" Bond stories since Flemings death?

4. Will we have revolving Felix Leiters?

5. Will the Bond hotties stage a comeback?

Enquiring minds wanna know!!!

Da Worfster

1. Yes, he's new. Consider him the replacement for the last guy to be 007. The character mentions "Us double 0's have a short expectancy" and this plays into that.

2. I think they are pretty much out of books now anyway, aren't they? I honestly don't care about sticking to the books as much as sticking to the hard and gritty tone that this movie has. I DO NOT want the franchise to go soft and comedic like it did in the 70s.

3. I don't think so.

4. Again, I hope not. Note that this movie had no "Q" character or Moneypenny as comedic foils. Dench was there as "M" and she lends a strong sense of credibility ot the franchise, but I don't think having a series of repeat characters is what makes the franchise work.

5. There has always been sexy Bond women and I DO think that's an important part of the franchise.

I really liked Casino Royale (with cheese). As already mentioned, it was the toughest, hardest Bond film in the history of the series. The Bond films have always mirrored the times and prevailing style of action films and this one is no exception. Craig could give Connery a run for his $ as the best incarnation of Bond given a few more Bond flicks up to this calibre.

Speaking of "with cheese", I'd lve to see a Bond movie directed by Tarrantino.

[Dusty Chalk]

1. Is this a "new" James Bond? A new agent with an old name? Or are they retelling the stories in a modern setting ala "Batman Begins"?

The latter, they're just starting over. (Sorry Troy, but if you read the books, there are multiple references to other "double-o" agents such as 009, that's what he was referring to, not other James Bonds.)

2. Do you want them to take all the books in order or cherry pick the best of the lot?

I definitely do not want them doing a movie proper of Ian Fleming's book, The Spy Who Loved Me -- that one was just sick. The first half is basically an extended rape sequence, with many elements of S&M thrown in. (Admittedly, I read this as a teenager -- I might find it tame in my older age, but that was how I remember it.)

3. Has anyone been writing an "new" Bond stories since Flemings death?

Many -- I want to say Kingsley Amis was the first to take over the legacy, but yes, it's a whole thing now.

4. Will we have revolving Felix Leiters?

Sure, why not.

5. Will the Bond hotties stage a comeback?

I wish. I really missed those nudie silhouettes in the opening credits.

And to Troy's last point -- or Scorsese!

[topspeed]

That's a good point about the prevailing action sequences as I thought a lot of the stunts were very Jackie Chan-ish. There was even a bit of a Matrix quality to some of the sequences. I loved 'em .

Thankfully, they returned to Aston's a few movies ago. Brosnan had that wicked Vanquish if you'll recall. It was a real heartbreaker when they destroyed the DBS as quickly as they did. Like it or not, Bonds cars are practically characters in the movies. Who doesn't remember his DB5 with the bulletproof shield or the Lotus Esprit/submarine?

[Troy]

. . . or the AMC Hornet . . .

[Dusty Chalk]

I love the fact that one of the first cars you see him in is the rental.

[topspeed]

That actually ticked me off. Not because he was in a rental, but because it was the first time I've seen the Euro Ford Mondeo in action. That car is freakin' gorgeous! Ford is selling off Aston Martin, posting record losses, and yet while we soldier on with totally outdated Focus' and boring Five Hundred's, the Euro's get cars like this.



On an aside, you sure could see the Ford influence in the flick. All of the vehicles were Ford owned: Mondeo's, Land Rovers, Jags, and Aston.

[recoveryone]

so that is what the future of my SVT Contour looked like

[bobsticks]

First great Bond movie in decades. Moore foppish? Yes, and Timothy Dalton couldn't shine this guy's shoes. I had the same sensation as the first time I read a John Le Carre...not to be confused with engaging in "high art"(whatever that is and is worth) but terribly skilled exhibition of craft.