Bond. James Bond.

[Quo]

What did you guys think of the new James Bond?

I thought it was decent-- at least the action parts. It was much more visceral than prior Bond films... he got pretty bloody alot, and it was in general less campy and more gruesome. I had several issues with it though, in that it wasn't true to character in a few spots.

**************SPOILER ALERT!******************

In particular:

• Bond leaves the poker table and explains what he's doing to his compatriots. That's not Bond. Only Bond should know what Bond's doing.
• Bond leaves the most gorgeous chick in the film (the brunette at the beach) when she's all lathered up and ready for him. Any self-respecting Bond would have taken care of business first, then gone on to save the world. Get real!
• Along those same lines, Bond doesn't get laid until the final 10 minutes of the film!?!? Usually Bond gets laid every ten minutes in the film.
• They spent waaaaaaaaaay too much time trying to convince you that Bond and the heroine were in luuuuuuv. Get over it.
• Where were all the little sexual innuendos and unbelievably lame sexual jokes? i.e. "And I thought Christmas only came once a year," etc...

I think they've attempted to make Bond more gender-friendly. I guess that's the politically correct way of saying the women may like this version of Bond better... The skin shots in the movie were of him, not the Bond girls. There was more detail on emotion than cleavage.

What did everyone else think?

[Wondermonkey]

I actually thought it was one of the best Bond films in a long time. I like that they took the refined Bond and threw him out the window for a more visceral rookie, which I suppose is what he was supposed to be in the film.

He was still wet behind the ears and I liked that.

"Shaken or stirred sir?"

"What the hell do I care?"

Brilliant. Plus, he doesn't say the famous lines until 10 seconds before the film ends. That's when he really becomes Bond to me, at the end of the film. I sort of looked at it like it was his journey from 007 to Bond.

Daniel Craig is going to be a solid Bond though, I really dug his portrayal.

[Quo]

I agree with Craig being a good Bond. He's great! My complaint, if you could call it that, wasn't with him at all.

It's really more of just an observation, and obviously you saw it too. It was just different. That's a good thing in many, many, ways. There were just a few examples that caught you off guard because you're thinking "Hey! That's not what Bond would do!" Overall though, I enjoyed it, which for me is the best measure around, regardless of picking it apart.

My wife kept saying "Bond isn't blonde. That's not right!" but I had no problem with that aspect. He really did a great job with the role.

[Jon Liu]

I'm with Wonder on this one. I thought it was one of the best ones.

I think it's nice that he's not "like Bond" in some of your observations just because this is supposed to be a prequel. This is him before he's gotten into the groove of things. He gets hit more, he doesn't quite get the girl... he doesn't quite have his reputation just yet...

and I absolutely loved the torture sequence!!! Well, not "Loved" cause I wouldn't wish that upon anyone, but it was such a bad @$$ sequence.

[Quo]

Originally Posted by Jon Liu

and I absolutely loved the torture sequence!!!

Yeah, I don't see Pierce Brosnan pulling that one off...

"Left, Left!"

[MadBryan]

I haven't seen it yet. I really liked his performance in Road to Perdition though. What else has he been in besides that and Munich?

[dmiller68]

This has moved up the ranks to 2nd or 3rd best Bond of all time. I'm a HUGE bond fan and really like this one alot. It was not very bond like becuase it wasn't supposed to. He is not the bond of the modern day refined and tech advance. I liked the clean look, no rocket launchers popping out of the cars, etc. I always believe that what kind of Bond you like is based on the first Bond you see.

[Peench]

I absolutely loved it. The entire premise behind the film was that he was NOT Bond until the end of the film. It was the first story of how Bond became Bond, but set to present day. That's why he was totally different and not refined and didn't do or say the things Bond would do or say. He hadn't yet become the Bond we all grew up with.

Don't you all remember the very first scene? How does one become a double 0? He wasn't a double 0 when the movie started.

I totally dug it. Very different and very cool IMO.

[DR1ZZLE]

What am i doing here. Probably took a wrong turn at albacarcy.Just kidding its just that i havent even seen a good movie for like a year and that makes me wana

[HUFN8OR]

Okay, I love all things Bond, but I haven't seen this one yet and I've really been reluctant (I'm a Roger Moore Bond guy if that helps). However, I have two questions I need answered before I commit to seeing it.

1) Is Judi Dench (ugh) still horrible as M? Not having seen it, my first impression is they should have lost her (for lots of reasons) but also since it's supposed to be before Bond was Bond.

2) Is this one similar in any ways to the first Bond Casino Royale? You know, the one with Peter Sellers/David Niven as Bond?

All the above comments have just about convinced me to go see this one.

Later,

[Wondermonkey]

Originally Posted by MadBryan

I haven't seen it yet. I really liked his performance in Road to Perdition though. What else has he been in besides that and Munich?

For excellent Daniel Craig films, I recommend Layer Cake and Enduring Love. He is amazing in both of those, and the lead in both as well.

I hear you on the "different" feeling Quosef. I agree, I just didn't mind it. I honestly thought I would have a problem with a lot of what they were doing with this one, but I didn't. After seeing it in fact, he made Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of Bond seem too much like a cartoon character than a real person. I think they just tried really hard to make him believeable.





SPOILER

The one thing I didn't understand, was why M told him at the end that his lady friend cared about him and saved him from the torture scene because she cared about him. She saved him from the torture scene because she needed his password right?

[Wondermonkey]

Originally Posted by HUFN8OR

Okay, I love all things Bond, but I haven't seen this
1) Is Judi Dench (ugh) still horrible as M? Not having seen it, my first impression is they should have lost her (for lots of reasons) but also since it's supposed to be before Bond was Bond.

She is in it, but I thought she was pretty good as M in this one. It has a new feel to it, and I think she didn't fit at ALL with Brosnan's Bond.

Originally Posted by HUFN8OR

2) Is this one similar in any ways to the first Bond Casino Royale? You know, the one with Peter Sellers/David Niven as Bond?

The 1967 Casino Royale was a spoof movie. This one is actually a real Bond film.

[HUFN8OR]

Originally Posted by Wondermonkey2k

The 1967 Casino Royale was a spoof movie. This one is actually a real Bond film.

Yeah, but it was written by Ian Flemming (novel, not the screenplay), so I didn't know if they were similar in anything other than the name?

Thanks,

[Wondermonkey]

Originally Posted by HUFN8OR

so I didn't know if they were similar in anything other than the name?

No, I don't think anything was remotely similar. I barely remember the Peter Sellers movie, but it wasn't this Casino Royale, that's for sure. I actually totally forgot that was even named Casino Royale until you mentioned it!

[Quo]

Originally Posted by Wondermonkey2k

No, I don't think anything was remotely similar. I barely remember the Peter Sellers movie, but it wasn't this Casino Royale, that's for sure. I actually totally forgot that was even named Casino Royale until you mentioned it!

Agreed. I don't think they were at all similar.

Dench was passable in this movie... I would agree that she seemed to fit better in this one than in the Brosnan Bonds.

Spoiler
Yeah, I was confused on that too, Monkey... I may have to watch it again to try to figure that out. The plot got all wonky at the end... the kind of thing that has to be explained rather than is immediately apparent to the audience... it was kinda hard to put together what she was implying.

[MadBryan]

Originally Posted by HUFN8OR

Okay, I love all things Bond, but I haven't seen this one yet and I've really been reluctant (I'm a Roger Moore Bond guy if that helps). ,

I prefer my Bonds to be heterosexual, Huf