Bullets 'n' Babes

Why the fuck can't Brad read reviews? Live and let live let please. Why would he ask questions after he'd seen the movie?? That makes no sense.
What countries have you seen TV shows from apart from the US?

Sorry

romerojpg wrote:Bradavon in a quotetastic lengthy waste of time again, quote too much and noone cares at all.

For someone who doesn't care you're spending a great deal of time replying to me.

I don't even understand the big deal. I've given my opinion on a film, oh and read some reviews before hand. Stop while the world falls down around us. You'd think both were unique to me.

Like I said if you honestly don't care what I say (which btw Grim said thanks so making your "no one cares" point of view null and void) why are you even reading it?

Is quotetastic even a word? Either way it's cool I like it

romerojpg wrote:but will say your havent got a clue about what I watch, you love to say the same Wrong things over and over again, I watch TV shows from loads of countries all over the world and buy them on dvd too, so at least get your comments a little right.

Whoopy doo for you, do they belong with all the imaginary CD WOW prices only you manage to find?

If we're going to point fingers like little children you've not got a clue what I watch too nah nah nah nah . As proven by your earlier comments.

romerojpg wrote:and you HAD NOT seen Bond when asking questions on forums and reading reviews etc..

Well no but I have since which was the basis of most of your rant. The part which you refer to now boils down to a differing opinion on you hate reading reviews before and well I don't.

It is funny to me how you're so annoyed at what I do in life, quite touching really

You've still not answered how come it's not acceptable when I read a review or watch a trailer but it is acceptable when you do? Romero Double Standards as per usual JPG.

p.s - Oh and I can't believe you're still moaning about this, you've managed to fill almost 2 pages of Bullets posts

Did you get my Stevie Ann PM Romero? You've not replied. The album is fantastic btw.

As I have said many times its not double standars at all as I dont read reviews before I see films and I avoid all trailers I can, only watch one I KNOW will be in cinemas and wont be able to avoid.

Even images I avoid, like DVDTIMES reviews (dvd and cinema) as they have spoiled many films for me with BIG spoilers revealed, yes spoilers not little plot points, I am talking about the big things. I would not read a DVDTIMES thread if you paid me, before I see the film that is.

In fact I dont even look at most threads about films until I have seen it and if I do as soon as people start seing the film I dont go back until I have seen it as dicks dont keep quiet on forums and ruin films.


and I know exactly what you watch as you always tell everyone I dont tell most people what I watch, only the odd film and TV show do I tell anyone about, did you know I just finished watching all Micael Palins TV stuff back to back, no as I never told anyone and probibly never would have until now.


Its easy to see what TV shows I watch and where from if you read anything I wrote and took notice, so I guess you dont but on the whole english language TV rules anyway, not Just american but mainly america for one BIG reason, they make more quality stuff than anyone else ever will esspecially fantasy, crime, sci fi etc.. (I rarley watch Real life shit, as hell I dont care about real life, thats a waste of time) as they have the cash and talent to make it, unlike most other countries who stumble instantly when they try.

But I have watched and owned on dvd German, French, Japanaese, Chinese, Korean, Australian, UK, American and Russian TV shows before and thats just off the top of my head. But most of its to hard to get INTO as of the many barriers put up between us and them.




and back onto topic BOND HAS MADE A LOT OF CASH so expect another film in 3 years time.


and yes I ogt that PM will be looking into it soon I am sure

I thought it was supposed to be brought forward from the usual 2 years? As Brad says the film is a 2 parter.

And that's where we differ reading reviews beforehand doesn't spoil my enjoyment (even if you don't believe me and think it does).

romerojpg wrote:and back onto topic BOND HAS MADE A LOT OF CASH so expect another film in 3 years time.

According to the director less. It's been packed out for days here in the UK so no doubt another Bond is on the cards.

romerojpg wrote:and yes I ogt that PM will be looking into it soon I am sure

Good man, check out the Youtube stuff. I'll be surprised if you're not impressed. I'm trying to work out where I can source the CD right now. CD WOW aren't interested in stocking it

p.s - Have you seen every episode of Dr Who from the last two Seasons? That is with Eccelston and Tennant.

grim_tales wrote:I thought it was supposed to be brought forward from the usual 2 years? As Brad says the film is a 2 parter.

Cambell said they "may" move it forward but yes it's either sooner or 2 years not 3.

Casino Royale 4.5/5 (maybe 5/5)

Absolutely brilliant. Loved this film. Daniel Craig is fantastic, he is not just a good Bond, he IS Bond, closer in tone to Dalton or Connery (ie a cold badass) than Pierce or Roger Moore, and has little in the way of quips. Some great action, an early fight on top of a crane reminded me of the climatic fight of 1995's excellent Goldeneye - perhaps the best Pierce outing, no coincidence that film was also directed by Martin Campbell.

I think the film is a wee bit long (145 minutes is quite long for an action film), and couldn't believe it was a 12a as some stuff was definitely not for kids.
I also noticed some comments by M that place the film in 2006 ("I miss the Cold War" etc) - still overall a cracking film. I loved the part when Bond said "Do I look like a give a damn!" when asked if he was shaken or stirred.
An unexpected moment in the scene where Bond is tortured by Le Chiffre, when Bond asks if he can scratch an itchy spot, had me and most of the cinema laughing out loud, that was great.
I liked how Bond could be vulnerable though (something hinted at in Die Another Day).

The ending with Bond's famous intro line, and close-up of his face when he hunts down the villain Mr White is brilliant as well, keeping you on tenderhooks. Unusual for a Bond film to end like that It shows he is learning, becoming a better 007

grim_tales wrote:he is not just a good Bond, he IS Bond

Nicking lines of Iron Monkey are we?

AFAIK remember Connery was never cold. He's much closer to Dalton but by far the most muscular of all of them.

grim_tales wrote:when asked if he was shaken or stirred.

I don't remember Bond being shaken or stirred

I'm pleased you liked it.

Connery was more deadpan than Moore and Brosnan, thats what I meant.
I meant Bond's drink, sorry.
The bit when Bond drove in a circle to get back to "his place" made me laugh The torture scene was unexpectedly funny "A little to the right"
Craig is certainly less suave than Connery, actually quite rude at times. But I'm sure its meant to be closer to how much of a badass he was in the books. This is an extremely good first attempt by Craig.

grim_tales wrote:I meant Bond's drink, sorry.

I know

grim_tales wrote:Craig is certainly less suave than Connery, actually quite rude at times. But I'm sure its meant to be closer to how much of a badass he was in the books. This is an extremely good first attempt by Craig.

I also read Bond was supposed to be unnoticeable which only so far Dalton (and clearly Lazenby) has been.

I've recently seen OHMSS and Dr. No both have a very strong suave Englishman feel which tbh left Bond as soon at it became the 1980's and Moore arrived. That's no longer in British society in the first place.

Moore arrived in the 1970's though? So do you mean the 70's or 80's? Moore was definitely suave, but in a rougish way, IMO.

I mean when Moore arrived so 70s if it was the 70s. The Connery and Lazenby Bonds have a suave Englishmen feel to them.

I always really LOVED dalton as Bond. Especially the sequence in Living Daylights where he has to shoot kara (he doesnt know her at the time) is especially well done.
Connery was great as well, untill he lost interest in the part and started getting lazy with it (Diamonds are Forever)

I have very high hopes for Daniel Craig. Got Layer Cake a while back and thought he was tremendous in that. Brilliant actor. I, like many, had my doubts at first if he'd make a good Bond, but I'm glad he has proven me wrong.
(It's weird... I felt Jude Law would have been a brilliant Bond... but now that I see the rawness and edgyness Craig brings to the role, I suddenly cant see Jude Law as Bond anymore. Well, I CAN, but it would be a sneakier, mure suave, and slicker Bond)

Jude Law looks too wimpish.

Markgway wrote:Jude Law looks to wimpish.

Compared to Craig's new pumped up physique!? Yeah.

Compared to the other Bonds (Moore, Dalton, Brosnan - I'm leaving out connery as he was a bodybuilder with quite a good physique himself), he'd fit right in, and unlike Brosnan, Law does have acting talent, so he could play a pretty good Bond if you ask me.
But Craig is great, so I'm glad he's gotten this chance, and has shown us a very very good and interesting Bond. Cant wait to see it.

When a new actor playing Bond came along, we would always compare him to the previous actor, say when Pierce started he was compared to Dalton. But Craig is a new actor playing a new character (if you like), he is a rookie Bond almost, and not the suave agent/playboy character we know and love from previous films.
But Craig is brilliant. I admit I didnt have high hopes from him either but he won me over.

Yi-Long wrote:Compared to the other Bonds (Moore, Dalton, Brosnan - I'm leaving out connery as he was a bodybuilder with quite a good physique himself), he'd fit right in, and unlike Brosnan, Law does have acting talent, so he could play a pretty good Bond if you ask me.

Hang on! Jude Law has acting talent? When did this happen? Seriously Roger Moore in A View to a Kill could kick his puny ass! He looks like he'd rather be getting a facial than gunning down megalomanical scumlords. Would've been worst Bond ever!

Markgway wrote:Jude Law looks too wimpish.

Agreed

Yi-Long wrote:Compared to Craig's new pumped up physique!? Yeah.

Yes and no he's to wimpish.

Yi-Long wrote:and unlike Brosnan, Law does have acting talent, so he could play a pretty good Bond if you ask me.

IMO both are good actors.

From what I could gather most didn't think Craig could be Bond because he has Blonde hair. Whoppy doo!

Indeed. I didn't see Craig as Bond either. How wrong I was
Brosnan can act

I did think it was odd that people were concerned about Craig's hair colour more than his acting ability. What I would like to see from him next time is more vulnerable emotion (not just pain, but a heart) ala Dalton. As I mentioned elsewhere the shower scene was a bit stiffer than I'd hoped. I didn't expect Craig to burst into tears, just be more humane. Hard to explain, really. But there's no doubting that Casino Royale is a good start.

3.5/5
10* better than Die Another Day and a complete redeemer of the franchise after the aforementioned mess. Action scenes were well staged, exciting and grounded in reality. Craig was very good as Bond.

Le Chiffre was a good realistic villain. Glad that he didn't fall into the stereotypical OOT laughing villain mould - i.e. a leader of a terrorist group.

It was too long though IMO. I hate recent this trend where brain-dead blockbusters have become like 2.5 hours long.

Agreed it was too long.
I liked the part where Le Chiffre said something like "I hate these elaborate schemes. Simple ways of inflicting pain are always the best" or something like that, a nod to past Bond villains

Agreed it was too long but Casino Royale is far from brain dead (that would put it in the same camp as Transporter). It's an intelligent action thriller IMO.

He never said "or something like that"

Agree, it's hardly brain-dead.