Comments on: Some Folks, You Just Can’t Reach.

By: MC

MC — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:03:43 +0000

I appreciated the fact that they actually did stuntwork and didn’t resort to cheating with CGI.

By: Diesel

Diesel — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 06:26:51 +0000

Sorry, MattressPolice = Diesel. Yeah, the spoof was pretty bad as I recall. SinisterDan, you must come play in my caption contest.

By: michael

michael — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 09:58:50 +0000

hi i would like to exchange my link with you if you are intersted in link exchange than email me on:-
bagde.hotlines@gmail.com
my blog url is :-
http://hollywood-premier.blogspot.com/

By: SinisterDan

SinisterDan — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:43:17 +0000

He played Sir James Bond, the retired 007 in the unwatchable spoof version of Casino Royale.

By: mattresspolice

mattresspolice — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:55:28 +0000

Didn’t David Niven play Bond in the jokey original version of Casino Royale? I’d look it up, but I’m tired.

By: Grondzilla

Grondzilla — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 03:48:20 +0000

If I was more of a fatuous internet dork I’d say something like ‘Craig was teh best Bond 3\/3r’. As it stands I must concur with the sentiments expressed thus far. Craig was a great choice to play the bond they chose to protray in this film. The tone of the film made it pretty obvious the filmmakers understood that they had to compete with the incredible success of Mr. Damon’s superspy/agent. The Parkour chase scene was at once typically bondish and over the top yet pretty damned hip and really well conceived. I’m up for the next one.

Truth be told however I did prefer Mr. Craig in ‘Layer Cake’ which was an emminently enjoyable addition to the quirky English crime film landscape.

By: j4jesus

j4jesus — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:03:48 +0000

Interesing that you compare Craig to Moore. My understanding is the Albert and Barbara Broccoli gave primary consideration to two actors before falling back onto Sean Connery: Cary Grant and Roger Moore. They opted not to go with Grant because he told them he would do only one film and they had high hopes of making a series. Moore, as I understand it, was contracted for a television series or some such thing and was unable to accept. Thus, Connery came into the roll.

I am an Alfred Hitchcock fan and whenever I see Grant in “North by Northwest” or “To Catch Thief”, I often think it would have been interesting to have seen him do a Bond film.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:08:57 +0000

I thought is was one of if not the best Bond movie, I like the character more and it is closer to the books, gritty like the Dalton films.

Far more believable for Craig to be the character than Roger Moore.

Looking forward to the next movie with Daniel, hopefully John Cleese and gang gets introduced. I agree the invisible car and Denise Richards was a bit much.

By: SinisterDan

SinisterDan — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:10:24 +0000

J4Jesus,

I would think that the point of the transformation of the franchise in Casino Royale is aimed precisely at reflecting more contemporary tastes while still trying to keep as much of the character as possible. I’m a long-time fan of the Bond movies and I’ve seen all of them, even when I could tell they were very likely going to suck. Let’s be honest, the recent legacy of the franchise was pretty awful. Invisible cars? Denise Richards? The villain with the disco ball face?

The camp was killing the movies far more than the retooling that we see now. I think that the people who will only allow for a Bond movie to be made their way miss the point - the franchise needs to be viable into the future for there to be any more Bond movies.

Plus, Casino Royale was a hell of a good film, and I went into it expecting more suckage.

By: David

David — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:03:41 +0000

Craig’s Bond was the best since Connery. And I’m a fan of Brosnan anyway.

Also, thank you for noting Keaton in Batman… I thought I was the only one who had that sentiment.

Picard > Kirk.

By: j4jesus

j4jesus — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:56:39 +0000

I don’t know. I love the Bond franchise. Casino Royale was definately a different Bond film. it felt a bit more like the second of Timothy’s Dalton’s movies (License to Kill, I believe). Much darker and sinister than the others. I enjoyed it in the movie theater, but I need to see it again at home to really process it. I had no problem with Daniel Kraig; although I did like Pierce Brosnan. But the movie - as you noted - was not typical to the formula.

The real question is this: can Bond survive the aging of the baby boom generation. I’m only 30 but when I go to see a Bond movie I’m one of the youngest in the crowd. Compare this to my experiences with my viewings of the Bourne Identity and the Bourne Supremacy where I was actually one of the older people in the audience. I don’t know what the plans are for the Bourne movies. I’d love to see several more. If they make anymore, it may well be Bond for the next generation.