EricaNo7
Full Member
I thought Clive Owen would have made a good Bond when it was first touted. I never thought much of Craig, although he was good in Layercake
I've seen Drive, I've even defended it on this forum from some who thing its crap as its a good little film, however to suggest that - on the basis of that or any other performance from him to date - you can suddenly transplant Gosling(who is a very good up and coming actor) into the role of bond is an idiotic statement if you don't mind my say so.Pfft, what do you fecks know about a good Bond. He's currently 5th favourite at 8/1 and I think he'd be quality though I'd have Hardy before him and probably Fass. You seen Drive Nev?
No, I meant Chris Isaac, you know 'Wicked Game'?I assume you both mean Jason Isaacs?
A scouse Bond? No fecking thanks.
Crap movie, great soundtrack.Pfft, what do you fecks know about a good Bond. He's currently 5th favourite at 8/1 and I think he'd be quality though I'd have Hardy before him and probably Fass. You seen Drive Nev?
That's Chris Isaak then?No, I meant Chris Isaac, you know 'Wicked Game'?
Craig is scouse.
As was said, Brosnan is Irish. I think British Isles is passable. Fassbender can definitely pass as British, he has done in a few of his films. I'm sure Farrell could too, he pulled off playing a yank well enough, he could probably do a British accent just as comfortably.Maybe it's just me, but I always think a Brit should play Bond, which ought to rule out Farrell (Irish) and Fassbender (Irish and German).
Great movie. Really enjoyed it. But why does the bad guy not just shoot when he has the chance?
Because the film would be a lot shorter and they wouldn't be able to make more?Great movie. Really enjoyed it. But why does the bad guy not just shoot when he has the chance?
I pointed this out too earlier in this thread. Seemed a bit of a mistake to be honest, almost to feed Bonds inflated ego perhaps?I didn't really get the point ofBond and two OAP's taking on Bardem and his goons all by themselves. I realise they wanted to lead him there by going off the grid, but once they got him there all they had to do was make a phone call and have the cavalry arrive. They took all of five minutes to come in with helicopters on some remote Chinese island earlier in the movie.
I understand that there were some flaws here and there in it, but the end bit of your post would indicate that Casino Royale was a flawless masterpiece when it wasn't and there were plenty of little plotholes if you analyse it closely like people are doing with this.Saw this yesterday, have to say I felt very let down as I wanted it to be better after hearing stories of 'the best Bond ever'. A few of my gripes:
Bardem was pretty much the Joker, Bond's car with its associated gadgets was never explained, he just opened a garage and there it was (I thought it was the one from Casino Royale at first),
As well as never explaining or hinting to Bardems back story it's also never explained how they managed to steal the list of Mi6 agent names in the first place, it was like we came in half way through the story…
The ending was rubbish, why did he take M to the house and put her in danger? Why not take her up the road to a random village then go back to the house - only he would have known where she was, they could still have left their breadcrumb trail for Bardem to Wayne manor...
The acting of the support cast was really bad, in particular Moneypenny, as soon as I heard that she was Moneypenny my heart sank as I realised that she would most likely be making another appearance.
I think a twist at the end with M killing herself (she was dying anyway) and Bardem would have been better; but after a better goose chase where Bond is ultimately beaten (by his own arrogance), Bardem was meant to be his equal yet also had intelligence far beyond that of Q, therefore it's not unrealistic for the bad guy to actually have won, what was unrealistic was the way he was beaten; a bit of a deus ex machina going on.
No where near a Casino Royale, ok as an action flick if not taken too seriously, certainly not worth the hype.
Yeah it made for a good action sequence, but you had to put all logical questions to the back of your mind. Q had in fact given him that radio signal thing which he used earlier in the movie that he could have easily used once Bardem and his guys were in the thick of the action.The villian brought down communications didn't he? Or not brought down but had them completely monitored, so if they had invited the SAS to come and kill instantly, he wouldn't have come out. It was meant to show how good Bond is and in that respect I think it was a really good action sequence against the odds.
Unless you're the bad guy.Like previously stated. It's movie law - if you fall into a deep body of water - regardless of how far the fall, you will survive.
It is, and will always be, the way.
Pretty much.Very average film.
Unless you're the bad guy.
I watched Les Miserable yesterday and that's how Crowe died (granted he hit a bit of concrete as well)
I have no desire to see les mis, but I'd be really pissed off if I did and you posted that, maybe edit your post saying what you are spoiling?Unless you're the bad guy.
I watched Les Miserable yesterday and that's how Crowe died (granted he hit a bit of concrete as well)