Before I go into my thoughts & comments....who's seen? Who hasn't?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Hasn't.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Seen it. Twice actually.
Posted by Johnny (Member # 878) on :
Have. Very good, best Bond for years(although DAD wasn't much competition..).
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I will generally agree. I gave it about...an 88%, but then, I'm an crusty old man who wants actual books to be used as shooting scripts.
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Saw it. Liked it alot. Packed a lot of movie into a short time. Best drama in an action film I've seen for a while. Without spoiling any specifics, I did think an early action sequence superseded subsequent action sort of defusing the climax. Also Eva Green == TEH HOTNESS.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Best since Goldeneye. Will see in theatres again.
Mark
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
^I'd say the best since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", and right up there with that one and the other two great Bonds -- "Goldfinger" and "From Russia With Love". I thought Timothy Dalton was great, but Craig comes closer to nailing the Bond of Fleming's novels than anyone, and provides the character with the most personality since Connery. It earned every bit of its 95% Rotten Tomatoes score.
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
I haven't yet, but am sorely tempted to pony up the money to see it in the theater based on all the reviews it's gotten.
Also, on a purely prurient level: blond Bond. Yum.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: I will generally agree. I gave it about...an 88%, but then, I'm an crusty old man who wants actual books to be used as shooting scripts.
And the first Bond book doesn't count? (I haven't seen it yet, nor read the book, so I can't really compare the result.)
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
What? Sorry BJ, I read that twice, and my dumb gland seems to be kicking in.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
...And I'm having a dull afternoon, which kicks in an urge to explain other people's statements.
S seems to say he liked the film for 88%, because he likes book adaptations.
B seems to say he thinks S disliked the film for 12% because he only likes book adaptations, and reminds S that this IS a book adaptation.
And G seems to have an easier time deciphering S than deciphering B.
Any Q?
T
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
...Now you have me wanting a BLT, TImo...
--Jonah
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Timo Johnson is right! Sort of.
My 12% deduction came from things like the updating to today from 1953 & the inclusion Dame M, the replacement of baccarat with poker, the lack of SMERSH, the not noting of Mathis as being part of the Deuxieme, moving the casino to Montenegro, & all the other things that were changed from the novel.
But hey. I'm just that way. At least this was muchly faithful. Some of them have NOTHING in common, like Moonraker & The Spy Who Loved Me.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Yeah, but The Spy Who Loved Me was at least watchable. Moonraker had one or two good bits interspaced with large segments of nap time. Probably one of the, if not the worst IMO.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Hmm.. I've always held For Your Eyes Only as the best Moore, and on occasion the best Bond piece so far (on those days I grow tired of From Russia with Love).
Maybe it's the emphasis on mundanity after the preceding half a dozen megalomania movies... The villain has a private army - of four goons. The most advanced agent technology employed is a crossbow. There are no fictional vehicles employed, and the real-world ones are employed in a real-world manner. Only one of those is a gee-whiz type (the beach crawlers). The British Empire is engaged in something befitting the scope of said Empire as of the early 1980s for a change. And the Soviets fly an actual Soviet chopper!
I rather hope Casino Royale will excel in all those points as well, when I finally get around to seeing it. (But no Soviet choppers, I take it?)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
No helicopters of any type as I remember.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I'm pretty sure there was one when the woman's body was found on the beach. Just some civvie model though.
Probably a bit easier to get your hands on Soviet choppers now than in the '80s anyway...
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
IIRC, For Your Eyes Only was the one that followed Moonraker, which was arguably the most OBAH TEH TOPP of them all. You know, huge space station, seven space shuttles, gigantic laser battles, Jaws, hover gondolas...
FYEO had the "Wet Nellie" Lotus from "The Spy Who Loved Me", but all it really did in that film was explode as a cheap joke. Otherwise, the movie was refreshingly grounded in harder spy stuff, save for the trademork Moore-era silliness. Parrot Thatcher, anyone?
Mark
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I'm going to see Casino Royale when it opens here in Japan on Dec 2. I've seen every Bond movie on initial release from 1968 (my dad took me to a double feature of "Thunderball and You Only Live Twice) until the recent Brosnans and read a bunch of the novels when I was a kid. For years, I've been saying that Bond should be a sadistic, cold-blooded bastard. I didn't much like Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan, since they were too friendly or lightweight or simply not tough enough. They didn't seem like they had it in them to snap someone's neck and enjoy it. I sort of liked Timothy Dalton, but the movies themselves were crap. From what I've heard, David Craig is the most like early Bond, so I'm hoping for the best.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
I think your hopes will be rewarded.
--Jonah
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Mark:
quote:Parrot Thatcher, anyone?
I love that segment, I bought the DVD this summer. The way Denis Thatcher looks into the camera and steals food, perfect.
Re: Moore, I'm an Octopussy guy, although I like "Spy who loved me" a lot as well.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)