Bullets 'n' Babes

I liked it.

Though, I don't see it as a Bond film. Craig just isn't Bond for me. (Too many deviations in appearance and presence to the previous Bonds - oh and Craig is way too pumped up... his head looks like a peanut )

Great film though.

A Prequel? No. This is a reimagining or restart of the entire franchise. To THIS 007 film, the previous movies doesn't exist. (Which means no problem with Dench as M).

I loved the opening though. Very cool. I didn't like the ending at all. And I'll say why (without spoiling the movie hopefully).

They use the entire movie to build up this rough and tough character, the one that doesn't like to dress up and is in your face. Then they end it with "classic Bond" - 3 piece suit and a humungous cock-replacmenet. The end would have been much better IMO (and sticking with the character) if he'd showed up in the end with his jeans and leather jacked "and layeth the smack down" on the baddies ass, instead of how they did it...

Right up until the very last minutes I said, yeah - good reinventing. A new fresher character... I can see this franchise taking off. Then when it ended... "whoa, wuss out! they are setting it up to continue the 'old' series of superspy Bond... duh".

I guess it remains to be seen. I liked this new tougher character - but I'm now terrified that Casino Royale was a "fluke" and that they'll go back to the old way with the next movies. Oh well...

gojensen wrote: I loved the opening though. Very cool. I didn't like the ending at all. And I'll say why (without spoiling the movie hopefully).

They use the entire movie to build up this rough and tough character, the one that doesn't like to dress up and is in your face. Then they end it with "classic Bond" - 3 piece suit and a humungous cock-replacmenet. The end would have been much better IMO (and sticking with the character) if he'd showed up in the end with his jeans and leather jacked "and layeth the smack down" on the baddies ass, instead of how they did it...

Well, it IS still a Bond movie...
So it's cool that they show him going from rough-edged special agent, to something more slicker and in-tune with the Bond we all know.
I certainly wouldnt like it if they lost that bit of 'glamour and class' Bond always had.

If the occasion asks for it, he should be in a suit (like when you're visiting a Casino...)

Right up until the very last minutes I said, yeah - good reinventing. A new fresher character... I can see this franchise taking off. Then when it ended... "whoa, wuss out! they are setting it up to continue the 'old' series of superspy Bond... duh".

I guess it remains to be seen. I liked this new tougher character - but I'm now terrified that Casino Royale was a "fluke" and that they'll go back to the old way with the next movies. Oh well...

I really hope it isnta fluke either. Luckily Craig also doesnt seem to like the phony James Bond stuff like we saw in the Moore and Brosnan movies... so I'm sure he'll be critical of the scripts they throw at him.
At least I hope so.

It's nice though that they brought Bond into the 21st century, without all that shitty CGI, invisible cars and out-of-this-world gadgetry that ruined many so Bond movies...

Also, Craig is a much better actor than Brosnan could ever wish to be.
Brosnan, for me, was never convincing as Bond. Just a sulky prick in a suit pretending to be a smooth special agent...
Craig has the acting abilty, and the charisma and humor to pull it all off...

I really hope we will now get a series of GOOD Bond flicks, with GOOD stories, interesting villains, and great yet 'realistic' action.

Casino Royale owes a lot to the Jason Bourne series - they really raised the bar for spy films.

@ Gojensen: Well it is as Yi says a BOND film.

@ Eva: True but then Bourne owes a lot to Bond, which came first the chicken or the egg? (Answer = neither).

bradavon wrote:@ Gojensen: Well it is as Yi says a BOND film.

@ Eva: True but then Bourne owes a lot to Bond, which came first the chicken or the egg? (Answer = neither).

Actually, the chicken came first....

I have it on good authority it was the egg....

And I liked Brosnan so bite me.

Yeah, me too.

Yi-Long wrote:I really hope it isnta fluke either. Luckily Craig also doesnt seem to like the phony James Bond stuff like we saw in the Moore and Brosnan movies... so I'm sure he'll be critical of the scripts they throw at him.

Yeah well. However. Pierce Brosnan WANTED a rougher tougher Bond ala Craig's character in CASINO ROYALE, however ... the producers at that time weren't ready for such a leap And by the time they were ready they really needed a new actor to make it believable. I think with the way they went with CR they couldn't have used any of the "old" Bonds.

Yi-Long wrote:Also, Craig is a much better actor than Brosnan could ever wish to be.
Brosnan, for me, was never convincing as Bond. Just a sulky prick in a suit pretending to be a smooth special agent...
Craig has the acting abilty, and the charisma and humor to pull it all off...

Er... let me just disagree very with you on this

Markgway wrote:I have it on good authority it was the egg....

And I liked Brosnan so bite me.

/me bites Mark: tastes like chicken...(!)

It HAD to be the chicken that came first. Somewhere along the evolution of the chicken, the new-born baby chickens were no longer grown inside the womb, but placed in a 'shell', and then obviously layed outside the chicken. The egg is an extension of the womb, so it's only logical and natural that the chicken came first, and evolved into an egg-machine.

Brosnan is too old to play the Bond in Casino Royale.

Another life form would've come way before the Chicken.

You're probably right (1 statement) Brad.

@ Yi, I agree with Mark, I liked Brosnan, so bite me too

grim_tales wrote:
@ Yi, I agree with Mark, I liked Brosnan, so bite me too

You'd like that, wouldnt you? You big nasty perv...

It's true that Brosnan always wanted to make Bond more dramatic and darker (he was always saying so in interviews) but the producers never gave him the chance so now people blame him for being less dramatic and dark than Daniel Craig. It's not terribly fair. Roger Moore on the other hand was encouraging of the jokey tone because he always saw the series as a parody of real spy thrillers and felt he couldn't play it totally straight.

I've never blamed Brosnan. It's obvious he like any actor can only (mosty) work with what they're given. He could've certainly put it his foot down more though when handed the script to Die Another Dregg.

DAD aside we're acting like Brosnan's Bonds are bad films when up until a few months back we thought anything but. Except for DAD I think the Brosnan Bonds are great stuff.

Was Brosnan contractually obliged to make DAD?

No, that was optional. The first three were contractual.

But scripts do get changed considerably on studio movies and the opening act suggested something darker than we've seen before: the torture and disavowment of Bond. Who knows when the invisible car was introduced? And no one could have known that the wind-surfing would look that awful?

Coming after Roger, I think Brosnan takes elements of both the Connery and Moore personas
And yes the first act of DAD was great.