The
Sinking Ship
We'd like to know what you think. Please leave your comments so we can share your thoughts with other visitors.
**Everyone is invited here to share their opinion, we only edit out a very few things. Please no obscene or overly profane comments**
I finally saw Casino Royale and I thought it was brilliant. Only joking. They might as well cast Kermit The Frog as the next Bond. And Fozzie Bear should be Q. Malcom Arnold. (No relation)
Uwe Boll needs to direct Bond 23 if DC returns.
I finally saw Casino Royale and I thought it was brilliant. Only joking. They might as well cast Kermit The Frog as the next Bond. And Fozzie Bear should be Q. Malcom Arnold. (No relation)
Just saw the Quantum of Solace pictures. Craig looks like he's covered in bisto.
Personally, I can't make up my mind about this movie. In common with many others Daniel Craig just doesn't do it for me, he's too robotic and embarrassingly mute. I suppose it's because I've seen him previously in lots of British working class dramas so the leap to fill my favourite's (Sean Connery) shoes is the difference between cod roe and caviare I'm afraid. For me the 'lack of Bond clichés' is a vast improvement because it elevates some dreadful tongue in cheek action shots previously seen in the era's of Pierce Brosnan and my least favourite Roger Moore - to quite credible and classier stunts.
Personally, I must in all honesty admit that Daniel Craig is far from being the perfect candidate for the Bond role : 1. He is ugly, bad facial symmetry not that attractive, even if his blonde monkey face is matched with an excellent physique. 2. The script of CR sucked ass big time. What the hell was the director thinking ? 3. The movie reeks b'coz the essence of a typical bond movie i.e. fine women and gadgets are sorely lacking. The heroines are far from being beautiful, above average to average looking at best. 4. The worst part, the new Bond can't drive, is embarassingly beaten by the Albanian villian on his balls. He does not even get the girls...I mean freakin hell...this has gotta be the 1st darn bond movie where the heroine actually dies..leaving the new bond as a sore dumb ass loser !!! Whatta freakin' waste of time ! My hard money could 've been better spent on watching a rerun of an old Hong Kong dubbed 70's shaolin Kung Fu movie instead...thats just how bad CR really is.
CR totally sucks. The title song was a huge disappointment, I felt like walking out right away. Daniel Craig does not have the edge a bond character needs. Nothing beats Pierce Brosnon. Even the woman wasn't either beautiful and/or hot this time, thats unheard of in bond movies. What a frekin waste of time and money. They need to oust this dude and bring back Pierce, he's fierce.
When I saw what Babs did to the films at CR I almost ran out of the theater in disgust wanting my money back. Shamefully I stayed. Babs pussied out Bond. WTF happened to the lady killer? Now it is all about feelings and how women are his equal. Most men are not his equal and I'm supposed to believe so soft porn euro trash girl stole his heart. I guess if you'll believe eyesore leather face Craig is Bond you'll believe anything. Score one for the chumps!
If a movie is pent up to be something fantastic and everyone rushes to the theater to see it, only to disappointed, the money has already been made. When it's made available on video, people don't buy it. CR was a film that was REALLY built up and although I haven't seen it, most of my friends were disappointed saying it wasn't nearly as good as the other Bond Films.
3:10 To Yuma is the #1 film in America! What does THAT say about CR??! (Know what I'm sayin', mates?)
The worst bond movie ever! crist sake what a shit fest. fuck craig and fuck the franchise
Re: "I will never buy another ticket to another Bond movie ever again." Never Say never, ;)
Barbara Broccoli’s Bond is a loser and a thug. God forbid that the ladies man and all around charming fellow Fleming wrote show up on screen. Craig is nothing more than a football hoodlum!! Incompetent in his job and arrogant in his incompetence!! WTF happen to Bond. I thought a back to basics Bond would have been worth a look but this movie is complete and utter shite. All of the mind numbed robots repeating the talking points about Craig is awful too, I’m sure the convinced themselves that theyre right. Shame is they couldn’t of been more wrong if they tried. I’m sorry I ever doubted you Brosnan. Hell I sorry I doubted you Dalton and Lazenby. Barbara’s Bond is crappy imitation of Jason Bourne, remember when nobody used to do it better. Well now they do and he answers to the name Jason Bourne. Bond is dead Long live Bourne. I will never buy another ticket to another Bond movie ever again. Everybody is going to realize how awful Craig is only too late, they already killed the franchise its only a matter of time before the rest of the world to realize it as well.
Don't forget that Sony did a nice little trick by giving out a free copy of Casino Royal when you registered on the Playsation network.
Warner Home Video's "Happy Feet" was the top-selling DVD released in the first six months with sales of 8.6 million units. "The Pursuit of Happyness" (3.7 million units) and "Casino Royale" (3.6 million). Will Smith is still kicking Craig's ass.
Casino Royale is the worst Bond movie ever. If this is what the author intended thank the makers Cubby Broccoli had the good sense to make Bond fun. We'll miss you Mr. Bond `you died before your time.
I never saw "Casino Royale" in the theatre since I had a great dislike to Daniel Craig as Bond. But I finally made the mistake of buying the DVD (it was on sale and I was curious). But it took at least one more month before I decided to watch it and all my fears came true. The worst Bond Movie EVER. Daniel Craig is totaly miscasted. The film lacks all that made Bond what he is. Gone is the witty humor, gone is the eleganse, gone is "Q", gone is Miss Moneypenny, gone is the fantastic stories, gone is the classic Bond villain, gone is the good musical score (why can´t they sack David Arnold ?), gone is the Bond theme (the main theme is the worst ever made for a Bond movie and lacks all Bond-feeling), gone is the whole Bond carisma. This is NOT a Bond movie. I can´t even place it in the same league as the rest in the series. This is the final nail in Bonds coffin. They finally killed James Bond off. Daniel Craig is a total misfit in the role. He don´t look like Bond, he don´t behave like Bond, he don´t talk like Bond, he totally lacks the carisma of Bond (he would be better cast as the villain), he can´t even look good in a taxido. And what about his hair style ? Early stone-age ? I´m sure that if they have casted Danny DeVito as Bond we would have had a better result. "Casino Royale" is nothing else than a huge insult to all true Bond-fans world wide. Not even the story is well written. It is uneven, some parts so slow that I had to press the "forward" button on my remote control. I have never seen a Bond movie where I wished that the End Titles would arrive - but this was the one. I can´t say anything positive about this Bond-movie. But one thing is for sure. I will never watch it again. And I fear that Daniel Craig will return as James Bond. Nothing bad about Daniel Craig. I´m sure he is a fine actor and that he did his very best, but James Bond he is not and will never be. It´s only to bad that he don´t realize that himself and this painful Bond-experiment will likely to continue, and so - I hope - also the protests.
CR 61 days $39.4M rental DAD 61 day $65.1M rental CR never reached the DVD success that DAD owned and has drop faster from the publics interest. DAD had 3 weeks as the #1 rental and at the same time compared day by day had a higher rental numbers and sales. DAD's 4th rental week had better numbers than CR's first week
Shrek3 Far Far Away needs a new king, and unless Shrek can find someone else, he'll be stuck with the figazavar...
Those who rated this movie Great are Nuts! If you want to see a romantic action movie with a realistic story line, go other other action movies. Do not corrupt the Bond Genre of Action movies and Fans worldwide treasure this particular genre. Daniel Craig is too short to become Bond! Too much showing of muscles.. Lot of casual clothes and opportunity to show his body at most scenes looked amateurish. Looks like it is his first job.. Breaking into M's house - Crazy.. where is his sophistication gone? Craig has no charisma.. acting is poor.. pretty robotic.. The humor is also pretty ordinary.. action sequences are very light compared to other Bond movies.. the devices shown are available today.. so no trend setting Bond spy gagets we are used to see.. Bond girls have become intelligent (nothing wrong with it though)and lost their charm (thats a problem).. and are less playful (that defeats the whole purpose of bond girls).. I found Bond falling in love and resigning from his job pretty depressing.. No wonder job satisfaction world wide is at an all time low. The end is pretty tame.. Either make no further Bond movies or do it right.. DO NOT SPOIL THE GENRE.. WHAT'S NEXT A MEXICAN BOND, OR AN AFRICAN AMERICAN BOND, OR AN OUTSOURCED INDIAN BOND WEARING A TURBAN.. 1of 4 Stars MukherjeeSubrata
First 54 days in rent Casino Royale made $38.1M First 54 day in rent Die Another Day made $64M CR is now off the top 10 DVD sales list. Where Happy Feet is still on doing very strong sales keeping in the top 5. CR did’nt do the DVD business DAD did, and lost 2mil movie ticket sales [2 million movie goers] that had been there for DAD.
CR & DC have been completely ignored by the 2007 MTV movie awards. This is the targeted demographic of the reboot and the new ugly "Bond". DAD received 1 nomination TND had 2 Goldeneye had 2 Bourne Identity template for the new "Bond" had no nominations.
Happy Feet 3 weeks as the #1 dvd sold in America. Selling millions more than CR. Remember when DAD broke all of the sales records? Borat; 40 day rental $35.5M CR 40 day rental $34.5M Great Kazakhstan’s finest is more than a match for Her Majesty’s Secret Servant.
For $65 million ‘the 300’made $201,352,418 in 39 days in the US/ $203,500,000 worldwide. The studios heads are looking for more 300s and less Bonds. The 300 already mad more worldwide subtracting the movie cost /$340 million profit $324 Profit for CR A graphic R movie can be a popular blockbuster, why do the pg Bonds fall short and cost more?
Deep down i bet Craig hates playing Bond. He has acted alongside Hanks, Newman & Jolie and been directed by Speilberg. He's starred in lots of serious T.V. & low budget films such as 'The Mother' & 'Some Voices'. So why would he want to be seen as a sex symbol & gay icon coming out of the sea in tight swimming trunks etc. He was reluctant to take the part in the first place & after all the flak he's taken may now regret it. I suspect the big pay cheque (for him) played a part in accepting the role. He also knew he would become a world wide star & would then have then have the pick of English & Hollywood scripts to choose from. He would become a big & respected Hollywood player. So far this has'nt happened.
If there is any British movie to watch instead of CR, that would be 28 Weeks Later, which is coming out in May.
http://www.danielcraigisnotbond.com/forum/
Congratulations Craig you minimized Bond in the states so badly a Will Smith feel good flick stomps it. Does’nt look good for the future of the Bond market in America.
It was probably wishful thinking expecting established Hollywood stars like Bale, Jackman or Owen to accept the role of Bond. Bale & Jackman were already committed to the Batman & X-Men franchises. If Owen wanted to make a action film, he can make a bigger budget Hollywood film. They are all good actors who have worked with top directors. They will not want to risk getting typecast or have the constant media attention. Connery, Lazenby, Dalton & Craig were completly unknown before they became Bond. Moore & Brosnan were only famous mainly due their T.V. work. So each new future Bond will never be that famous beforehand. However this does'nt justify the choice of Craig. There were still plenty of more suitable actors out who would have probably taken the role - Butler, Mcmahon, Armitage, Worthington, Cavill etc. Craig was still the worst possible choice.
At walmart we had a big CR DVD order of all types [B-ray/WD scrn/Ful scrn] It sold ok but the end of the first week we still had plenty. Happy Feet, we got the same supply (or a little more) before Saturday both huge displays (one at the front and back of the story) were empty. Stocking the shelves last night we had under 30 HF DVDs left.
Children of Men took the top spot over CR. There are just as many if not more HD DVD buyers than BR buyers. You can't count every PS3 sold.
The producers say one of the main reasons they replaced Brosnan was due to his age. Is this a valid reason ? Brosnan fans will claim Moore carried on into his 50's, so why not Brosnan ? However Moore's Bond was in a totally different era. People were'nt so age obsessed in the 70's & 80's. I don't recall anyone complaining about Moore's age until AVTAK. Other action stars of this era, Mcqueen, Newman, Reynolds, Redford, Heston etc were also no spring chickens either. Moore looked ok in comparison to these stars. Today's action stars, Cruise, Damon, Statham, Will Smith etc are a lot younger than Brosnan. The producers obviously wanted to keep up with the time's & have a younger Bond.. They may have also been scared Brosnan may make one Bond too many & everyone will laugh at him and the franchise. Just like they did with Moore in AVTAK. Apart from Moore no other actor made an official Bond movie in his 50's. Connery's last Bond movie was 42, Lazenby 30 & Dalton 42. My view is Brosnan looked good enough & had the motivation to make one more but definatly not two.
Whether Bond 22's going to be great or not, I'm not going to see it. As I mentioned few times earlier, EON should stop making Bond movies.
I've heard rumours that the next Bond will be a continuation of CR. That is a major mistake. Most people, myself included could'nt follow the storyline in CR. A continuation will just make things impossible to follow from the start. People that understood the plot will have forgotten about it by now and will also be confused. Everyone looks forward to a brand new Bond adventure with new villans, henchmen and storylines. We may get confused half way through, but that does'nt stop the enjoyment. Bond movies never flop at the box office. They also never get panned by the mainstream critics. I remember even AVTAK got 'not bad' reviews in 85 & I never read a bad review for the Dalton & Brosnan films. However if the next movie is worse than CR, i can see the rest of the public and critics turning on Craig & the franchise.
A collage buddy of mine who manages a major retail store told me CR is not selling half as well as DAD did. At his store they ordered a glut of the CR dvds but the newer releases before and after are moving quicker and the CR 2 pack DVD with the extra collectable were the only ones moving half way decently. Comparing the sales to DAD is sorry, those flew off the shelves, 1 or more DAD dvd in the customers cart was not a uncommon sight, so far it has not been the with CR. The new release of the other Bond dvds sold very solidly considering the higher cost for the set. This is only his experience at one store out of the hundreds in the nation.
The problem with Craig's body is that he has a natuarally small body frame. His natural weight is probably less than 11 stone. Officially he is supposed to be 5.11 but i think he is smaller, 5.10 or even 5.9. Therefore no matter how much body building he does, he does'nt have the physical presence of previous Bonds. He does'nt fill the screen. He just looks like a body builder & does'nt have the natural lean & toned look of a Connery or Brosnan. Being several inches smaller than 6.2 is a major problem as many of the other characters tower over him. Once again this means he does'nt stand out in scenes or fill the screen. Women like tall men. It is hard to see why the Bond women would fall for Craig. Maybe it's his good looks !
There is only one modern day James Bond, and that’s Pierce and no other.
I thought you might find the screenstories site review interesting. A quote; As for Bond himself. This was the million dollar question. Could Daniel Craig overcome his critics? In a word, no ... Except, yes. The critics have positively wet themselves with surprised glee, admiration and probably contrition at Craig’s Bond. This universal acclaim has declared him to be the best Bond since Connery. How can this be?? I seriously wonder if I am living on an alternative planet ... Craig’s Bond was mediocre, at best (and believe me, I so, so wanted this to work and was pretty cheesed-off at the whiny media Craig-bashing pre-Casino Royale). His primary facial expression was a strangely screwed-up, pursed-lip ’thing’ which riled me throughout. His voice is, well, deep, male ... but almost entirely flat and toneless. The man, as depicted here, is devoid of personal charisma. Worst of all, he is humourless.
Madagascar 2 is running up against Bond 22 in 2008. I don’t know about this, but there might be a chance Bond 22 would take over as #1 at the box office if it goes against this movie.
Sean Connery STILL THE REAL JAMES BOND Walking back to my car yesterday after a fun lunch with Dave Hill - the first time we've met - I bumped into Sean Connery (well, his photo anyway) at the Getty Gallery. Oh, for the days of Fort Knox, Odd Job and Pussy Galore's Flying Circus. Naturally, one of the first things I did when I got home was to dig out the trailer www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LKzUETErTE . Naff compared with modern-day teasers, of course, but the film itself is a lot more interesting than the new Casino Royale. clive davis.
Saw CR today for the first time. Avoided paying for it. If it was't for the three rather lame action scenes (construction site, airport, sinking building) i would have thought this was a T.V. movie. An unknown cast, dodgy casino sets and some weak dialogue make this a rival to 'View to a Kill' as the worst Bond movie of all time. The acting was ok, there were some tense scenes and plot/character development. But if i want that i'll watch 'The Departed'. I lost track of the plot after Le Chiffe got killed. But thats nothing new as i often lose track of Bond storylines. However top notch action & set pieces, humour and a charismatic leading man usually keep me interested. CR did'nt have these. The PTS was short, naff and cheap. The theme tune was ok but no classic. Mind you, the last classic Bond theme in my view was 'Goldeneye' in 95. The construction site chase was entertaining & the airport scene was not bad. After that it just dragged for well over an hour until the final action scene which was dissappointing and unoriginal. It was obvious this was a low budget action film. I expect more from a Bond film. Especially the first one for four years. Where's all the money gone Barbara ? Craig acted & delivered his lines ok. He handled the action scenes well. Mind you that was'nt hard as he was'nt being asked to do anything difficult. However he is too ugly and uncharismatic. His voice is dull and his hair seems to be thinning. He looks old and too small and short despite his body building. How the mainstream media praised him and this film so much is beyond me.
It's best to think DC playing Bond again in the next movie with Kenny G doing the theme song. If not this, then it's best to hope that EON should stop making anymore Bond movies before this madness gets from bad to worse.
Damn right. CR is the worst piece of rubbish in the history of Bond, Including 60’s CR comedy. The trailers n clips have all of the action in one package. the movie is a drag and the action is too far apart. Save yourself time and a headache and forget about the travesty that CR and DC are together.
I’ve seen some of the clips of CR yesterday, and that doesn’t change anything. Seeing how well DC does in role didn’t impress me at all, but instead I feel rather jealous. That just kept me thinking that Pierce deserves a gritty Bond and better scripts, and he would of had the chance. DC may have done great as James Bond, but he’s no classic like Pierce or Sean. I wish Pierce had a chance to gritty Bond, but instead he was wasted by weak scripts, and now it’s too late for him to do another Bond. If there is anyone to blame, then EON and Neal Purvis & Robert Wade are the ones to be blamed, not Pierce. First EON hired Pierce and gave him a classic, GoldenEye. Second they wasted him with weak scripts, having die-hard fans(mostly DC fans) to believe that Pierce should be the one responsible for his Bonds being the worst of the series. And third, they fired Pierce and hired DC to take over as James Bond, leaving Pierce with nothing to be remembered as classics over than GoldenEye. That Barbs and her brother, along with Purvis & Wade, are not going to get away with this. Speaking of seeing some of the clips of CR, I always thought it’s a lot better this way if I don’t want to feed off money to EON.
If you are thinking about taking the risk to buy CR wait a week then check ebay & amazon. It will be dirt cheap. CR is a movie you want to watch only once.
Die Another Day was a better BO performer than Casino Royale. Considering the inflation CR's performance in the US is pathetic. Casino Royale Total in 115 days: $167.365 Die Another Day Total in 94 days: $160.701 Opening Weekend: DAD $47,072,040 CR $40,833,156 Second weekend: DAD $31,010,183: in the first week $101,379,700 CR $30,785,874: in the first week $94,053,658
With Prince Caspian and Harry Potter 6 coming out in 2008, I hope Bond 22 gets beaten by those 2 in the box office. Even DC would prove himself better than in CR, there is no way in hell I would watch that stupid sh** in theaters.
ts That was the worse Bond since Tim Dalton. The action was so fast the first 30 min. it was over before your mind understood what was happening. That was not Bond that was every other action crap on the screen today. I am not happy with Poppy being cast as Bond. Daniel Craig has never been able to carry a movie. Can you name one movie he was in? No; because he never stand out, In Munich he was just another guy in the crowded. Running around be looked like a Cave Man my husband even said he looked like Poppy at one time with his bulging forarm. Who ever is voting for this ape must be being paid by the studio because not one person I have talked to has said he is better than Pierce or Connery. First day out in rental and they are still sitting on the shelf. That speaks volumes.Casino Royal is the worse movie ever. If they make another movie with this guy the franchise will fold people who saw it in theater told me it was not good. The action was to fast to follow and the story was weak. Where is this so called boyfriend; the story had so many hold in it; it was to hard to believe.When you walk out with more question than answers you know you the story was crap. Craig need to stop mumbling also we had to turn on subtitles to understand what he was saying. Bad movie and since 8 people watched it with us we are not alone in this view tonight. Stop lying to the public and fixing the votes.
Rated R with 3,103 theaters '300' Becomes 2007's 1st Blockbuster $70,025,000 What does this say anout CR?
Need a laugh check out http://www.therealbond.com/
Referring to the article on the 4/3/07. There may have been no obvious replacement for Brosnan. However i'm sure Dougray Scott, Gerald Butler, Julian Mcmahon or Richard Armitage would have taken the role. Even without reading the script. We just have to accept that the BB & MJW made a mistake. They thought all of the public would accept Craig as Bond. But the public are'nt stupid and know when something is wrong.
Prince Caspian the sequel to The Lion the witch and the wardrobe will be out in 2008 along with several other big name money makers like Potter. Good luck danny you’ll need it
Craig's not darkly handsome – in fact, he looks more like a Chechnyan baddie than a vodka martini-sipping smoothie.
The James Bond Ultimate Edition DVDs were released in waves of 5-film boxsets in the USA - annoying some fans as the UK was treated to a 20-film attache case collectors edition. Amazon USA is now listing a new collectors edition in the USA comprising of all four boxsets, totalling all 20 films. Priced at only $179.99 (50% off the list price), this set equates to only $8.99 per double-disc Ultimate Edition movie title.
After Connery retired, Moore was considered a natural replacement. He was popular & a well known star playing Bond type characters. The public accepted him. Dalton was unknown to the public but Cubby Brocoli had known about him for over a decade. He was considered for the part in the 70's. Once he was chosen, the public accepted him. Brosnan was the publics no one choice for Bond in 86 and in 94 he finally got the part which he had cruelly missed out on before. The public accepted him. However after sacking Brosnan, there was no obvious replacement. Popular actors (Jackman, Owen, etc) were'nt allowed to see the script & so there was no way they would take the part. There was no unknown Dalton type actor who could step in to save the day. BB & MJW were never going to change their mind & ask Brosnan to come back. After what seemed like an enternity and with filming due to start, Craig was annonced. This has resulted in the CNB, SS & AB websites being set up. Need i say more.
Since DC is now being a named "The Best Bond Ever" by many critics, he is like the Anti-Christ of The World of James Bond.
Who wants reality when we face it everyday? Isn't cinema supposed to give us a break from it all? I am a huge James Bond fan and when I learned that Daniel Craig was being shortlisted as the next 007 I prayed hard that it not be true. While the press wrote about him being the first blonde James Bond, no one seemed to get at the most glaring issue --he's butt ugly!
Actually I think the Anti-Craig do keep Barbara and Craig up at night. The Pro-Craig who cares, they already know the PC are in lockstep and unlikely to cause trouble. Literally Barbara could do anything to Bond including hiring Harry Potter and the PC wouldn’t blink but continue to scream how brilliant it is. No, the Anti-Craig movement still have them concerned. The AC cost them millions. They did make millions upon millions but businesses get bothered by the ones that got away.
It was'nt a great Bond film. If you read the countless reviews on 'Sinking Ship', 'Alternative Bond', 'Tales from the Dark Side' (part of 'Alternative Bond') & 'Craignotbond' you'll see virtually all Bond fans think it's one of or the worst Bond movie ever.
boxofficemojo The Ten Best Box Office Performances of 2006: 1. The Illusionist 2. The Pursuit of Happyness 3. Night at the Museum 4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest 5. Failure to Launch 6. The Departed 7. Borat 8. Little Miss Sunshine 9. The Devil Wears Prada. 10. Talladega Nights.
Any of you Anti-Craigers have a myspace.
Great Bond film. Hit with fans and non fans alike. Look forward to many more in this refreshing uptake on the franchise. For those who didn't like the film or Daniel Craig... don't think anyone is going lose any sleep about you.
No Daniel is not Bond. I wish they would have killed Bond off instead of continuing using the name.
No more Bond movies after CR should be made. Who’s with me?
How on earth CR has made this much money is beyond me. Craig is just not bond in every sense of the word. NOT! Depressing, simply depressing.
Since there are some celebrities out there praising Craig as Bond, I'm wondering if Donald Trump would do the same thing or he would just want Craig fired from the role.
Might be worth an undeserved Oscar nomination to see Craig go off on live TV when he loses.
BB & MJW know that CR was duff and Craig is all wrong for the role. But the box office receipts and good reviews from the sypathetic and partisan British press will mean they won't drasically change anything. There trying to rush release the next movie to 2008. This is to try to get the public to get used to & accept Craig. This tactic was tried after Moore's debut & TMWTGG bombed badly. If the next movie is also dire, we can finally get rid of Craig. But we have to avoid the film. Watching it and slagging it off is no good. BB & MJW are just interested in box office receipts. So the millions of us true fans must avoid paying money to watch it. United we will win.
It doesn't matter how good Casino Royale is, and that movie doesn't deserve Oscar nominations.
CR got an amazing 9 Bafta nominations. But won only one, for 'Best Sound'. Whatever that award means. Did anyone seriously think a film as bad as CR would actually win anything. It probably only got the nominations as a sympathy vote. Bond is a British institution which has been severly criticised over the last 12 months. The Americans are'nt stupid and have'nt given CR any oscar nominations. Does anyone know if the superior Brosnan & Dalton films ever had any Bafta nominations ?
I see that Danielcraigisnotbond.com have a forum at: http://www.danielcraigisnotbond.com/forum/ Should be interesting!
"Thank God Casino Royale didn’t get an Oscar nomination." James Bond fans. Jesus.
Thank God Casino Royale didn’t get an Oscar nomination.
Craig's just won an Evening Standard award for best actor. He may even get a Bafta. This is despite him looking totalling wrong, uncharismatic and unconvincing as Bond. The British film industry are desparate for every Bond movie to make money for British cinema. What else can we crow about to the Americans ? A few awards handed out will ensure more punters go & see it & make everyone think Craig has pulled it off, which he has'nt. If he's as good as the British media are saying, why was'nt he nominated for an oscar ?
EON should stop making Bond movies before this madness gets even worse.
I think Craig will do his three Bond films - we're stuck with him. And believe me, whoever replaces him will be just as 'different'. Different meaning awful. :( I've read several posts on IMDB where people suggest Daniel Radcliffe - that's the guy who plays Harry Potter - as the next Bond. I tell you, you couldn't make this up! It's so surreal David 'Twin Peaks' Lynch should direct a Bond film!
Live And Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me did 400 mil Moonraker and Goldeneye came damn close as well. Why is it noone wants to recognize poor Roger??
RE:”The Bond films couldn't. Until now.” Bloody hell mate, starting with Connery almost every bond movie in history has done 400 mil. Brozzlers did 500 mil or better every time out. Sorry - I thought the reference to world figure was without the USA + Canada. Rest of World Casino Royale has done over $400m - the Brosnans didn't, the Daltons didn't and many of Roger Moore's didn't - adjust inflation as much as you want. But I take the point that it's done comparable business to the norm generally.
RE:”The Bond films couldn't. Until now.” Bloody hell mate, starting with Connery almost every bond movie in history has done 400 mil. Brozzlers did 500 mil or better every time out. The point they were making was in 2006-007 every action adventure does 400m and they are right. It is going to hard for Craig to compete with out the hype. the J. Bourne movies that the producers are copying are done better. Craigs CR is a shite story and a sequel to it promises to be bore and a bigger let down.
I saw a clip of the Bond premiere in China last night and for a good few seconds, and I'm honestly not joking, I thought it was an item about Vladimar Putin. Then I suddenly realised it was Daniel Craig. My hat goes off to him anyway. What a tremendous example he is to fugly weird looking people everywhere.
"The average big action movies now make at least $400 million worldwide these days, so that's not news at all." The Bond films couldn't. Until now.
The average big action movies now make at least $400 million worldwide these days, so that's not news at all. Will this trend keep up for another 6 years with this new bond? That's the key question. All this "new bond syndrome" is driving a wave of hysteria now but let's wait and see what happens when the dust settles.
"I think the anti-Craig movement, of which I am proud to say I belong, will have to admit defeat. Casino Royale has taken over 400 million dollars and Craig will return in Bonds 22 and 23. "**Shocking** to read such words! You're a realist, mate... and as such you've got no business around here.
test
Nah, I don’t see it as bad as all of that. Craig did piss poor performance in CR and if he does it again he is dead. Never has there been a more uninteresting Bond movie. Nothing poped in CR. And thanks to the hype it looks like the ugly gamble of Craig paid off today; but in 2 years will it pay off again? In 2004 the bush administration thought they had a sure thing too. Keep the protest going you never know where you’ll be in 2 years. my family will keep protesting becasue we want to see a decent Bond again.
I think the anti-Craig movement, of which I am proud to say I belong, will have to admit defeat. Casino Royale has taken over 400 million dollars and Craig will return in Bonds 22 and 23. In a bizarre way, I think Craig's greatest asset is he's not Bond. What I mean is he's not Bond handsome, not Bond charming and all the rest, but for some weird reason that appeals to people - they find it easier to relate to him, hence why people praise him as the most real Bond. It just goes to show you how weird and unpredictable life is. Go figure. Millions of people have rejected the classic Bond, the original version of the movie Bond. In life we often get what we deserve.... :(
you know, in written driving tests there are questions that you must get right, but getting those right is not enough and you must get enough of the others. CR is like that: for us, CR failed when DC was cast as JB. so we have the right to call it a failure. but even if you think he is right for the part. still, CR doesn't get enough of the other things right. CR is too long, the poker game is too boring and drags. The opening sequence is in portentous-first-year-film-school black and white (looked like Barney Gumble's film in 'the Simpson's) I thought that the film would end with 'FIN'... The film doesn't know whether it's an action-adventure (AD) or a serious spy thriller (SPT). The action in the AD part could have been done in the 80's and it's light years behind the action in films today; it also took from the seriousness of the SPT parts. The SPT part is too simplistic, and episode of '24' or the first 'MI' or 'Bourne' had much more intrigue and better storytelling. the SPT took away the fun from the AD part; SPT's should be more minimalistic and dark and AD should be more fun and visually amazing. trying to do both was a mistake, and they failed in both. Best Bond? a Masterpiece? hardly.
Craig is off base for 007. He looks all wrong. Look at pictures of real spies from the 50’s & 60’s -none of them look like killers as Craig so obviously does. Well the Bulgarians maybe— As for the fantasy use of gadgets how about a few of the soviet contraptions like the cigarette cases that fired poisoned lead pellets. That looks like a prop ‘from Russia with love’.. http://www.avhub.net/khokhlov.gun.lg.jpg http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/spies/spy.gadgets/weapons/cig.case.lg1.jpg
Most of the criticisms of the movie are correct, including the criticisms about Craig. However we can't glame Craig for everything. Having the card game last so long or having a confusing plot is the fault of Martin Campbell. Appointing Craig was BB & MJW decision. All Craig did was accept the chance of a lifetime. Who would'nt ? If somehow Craig stars in the next Bond movie things need to change. He needs to grow his hair a bit, have it slicked back & also get a leaner, less bulky body. His monotone voice must be replaced by a more commanding a distinctive voice. Craig needs to look convincing and comfortable in the role. Insert more humour and charm. He is supposed to be a good actor, so that should'nt be hard. A cutting edge, proven and talented director (Woo, Speilburg, Mann, Tarentino) must be appointed & given the resources needed to make a memorable film. If all of these things are done, a decent Bond Movie could be made. After this Craig should retire gracefully so he can continue to play the roles he was playing before & which he is most suited, ie, supporting roles (Road to Peridition, Tomb Raider) or odd ball roles (The Mother). If Craig makes two Bond movies and then goes BB & MJW can save face & claim they did'nt appoint another Lazenby. Everyone is happy
Most of the criticisms of the movie are correct, including the criticisms about Craig. However we can't glame Craig for everything. Having the card game last so long or having a confusing plot is the fault of Martin Campbell. Appointing Craig was BB & MJW decision. All Craig did was accept the chance of a lifetime. Who would'nt ? If somehow Craig stars in the next Bond movie things need to change. He needs to grow his hair a bit, have it slicked back & also get a leaner, less bulky body. His monotone voice must be replaced by a more commanding a distinctive voice. Craig needs to look convincing and comfortable in the role. Insert more humour and charm. He is supposed to be a good actor, so that should'nt be hard. A cutting edge, proven and talented director (Woo, Speilburg, Mann, Tarentino) must be appointed & given the resources needed to make a memorable film. If all of these things are done, a decent Bond Movie could be made. After this Craig should retire gracefully so he can continue to play the roles he was playing before & which he is most suited, ie, supporting roles (Road to Peridition, Tomb Raider) or odd ball roles (The Mother). If Craig makes two Bond movies and then goes BB & MJW can save face & claim they did'nt appoint another Lazenby. Everyone is happy
If Craig’s going for Bond 22, perhaps EON should hire Kenny G to do a Bond 22 theme song just to show themselves how dumb they are.
I hear the stupid critics (like Roeper) say that "he's supposed to look like an assassin". Wrong. real spies/assassins are not supposed to look like that. I've seen many documentaries featuring these people (including the guys from 'Munich') and you won't give them a second look; and that's logical since they have to blend in, they have to get close to the mark and not raise suspicion. The LAST one you would want doing such a job is someone who looks like DC. he will set off all the alarms. Actually, Bond goes after people from the jet-set, multimillionaires, who probably hang out with the 'beautiful people' and are accustomed to be in the presence of smart, handsome, suave people. therefore someone who looks like the previous Bonds would be perfect for that job, he will fit right in, and since people like to be near gook looking and funny people and women are easily seduced by them, then a handsome, suave guy IS BOND.
Ten more years of DC??? well, judging by how he looks now, and extrapolating his looks I can tell you one thing: don't expect him to do much running in the following movies, because if he tried he would trip on his face
Don’t read too much in this Bond for 10 years BS. Remember these are the same people who in 2003 swore that Pierce would be back and they had no plans of replacing him. Also the same people who said they were making 70 million dollar movie and Pierce was too expensive and would have blown the budget. We know different now. CR cost more than DAD and was a lesser effort on their part. Cheap no name actors who fizzled on screen and a movie packed full of cheap theatrics stolen from every spy movie in recent memory.
While I’m not on the verge of offing myself, it is easy understand how they feel. Craig is blood awful, the thought of his ugly mug, getting uglier as time goes, still playing Bond is too much to fathom. If DC stays past 2 to 3 movies the Bond series will be dead. What made bond special is missing from the newest craggy faced actor.
"I would kill myself if Craig stays as Bond for 10 years or beyond." Meaning if he's not replaced *after* 10 years or a little more? Or if, eight years from now, Eon announces another Craig Bond film scheduled for release in 2016 or 2017, you'd just give up and do yourself in then?
I would kill myself if Craig stays as Bond for 10 years or beyond.
"My new resolution is to get rid of carig." And you’ll DO it, my friend. ALL of us here will rid the franchise of the evil carig! Faced with our combined might, our resolve, our righteous fury, carig doesn’t have a chance. Face it, carig, you’re as good as gone!
Just saw a clip of Craig in the new Capote film. Man did he look ugly. I know he's not supposed to be good looking, but he still put me off my tea. MJW recently said Craig can be Bond for the next ten "My new resolution is to get rid of carig." And you’ll DO it, my friend. ALL of us here will rid the franchise of the evil carig! Faced with our combined might, our resolve, our righteous fury, carig doesn’t have a chance. Face it, carig, you’re as good as gone!
Just saw a clip of Craig in the new Capote film. Man did he look ugly. I know he's not supposed to be good looking, but he still put me off my tea. MJW recently said Craig can be Bond for the next ten "My new resolution is to get rid of carig." And you’ll DO it, my friend. ALL of us here will rid the franchise of the evil carig! Faced with our combined might, our resolve, our righteous fury, carig doesn’t have a chance. Face it, carig, you’re as good as gone!
Just saw a clip of Craig in the new Capote film. Man did he look ugly. I know he's not supposed to be good looking, but he still put me off my tea. MJW recently said Craig can be Bond for the next ten years and beyond. That is a terrifying thought. He already looks older than his 38 years & he's got the sort of ugly face that will get worse with age. A 50 year old Craig as Bond will be worse than a 57 year old Moore as Bond. BB & MJW need to see sense, swallow their pride and admit they were wrong. The massive anti Craig people are not going to go away. A new actor is needed - NOW !
Just saw a clip of Craig in the new Capote film. Man did he look ugly. I know he's not supposed to be good looking, but he still put me off my tea. MJW recently said Craig can be Bond for the next ten years and beyond. That is a terrifying thought. He already looks older than his 38 years & he's got the sort of ugly face that will get worse with age. A 50 year old Craig as Bond will be worse than a 57 year old Moore as Bond. BB & MJW need to see sense, swallow their pride and admit they were wrong. The massive anti Craig people are not going to go away. A new actor is needed - NOW !
Hey wanted to let you know all of you can get the new Bond DVDs used/like new at Amazon for $35.99 + $2.59 shipping. We got the whole collection for under $140- with shipping. OH, you were right about the quality packaging of our DVD release, but we bought them anyway. They did a great job restoring them and the DTS sound is to die for. http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/bc/ec/03e8024128a08d0afe4ce010.L.jpg
Hey wanted to let you know all of you can get the new Bond DVDs used/like new at Amazon for $35.99 + $2.59 shipping. We got the whole collection for under $140- with shipping. OH, you were right about the quality packaging of our DVD release, but we bought them anyway. They did a great job restoring them and the DTS sound is to die for. http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/bc/ec/03e8024128a08d0afe4ce010.L.jpg
Saw CR this weekend, it sucked. I don’t care if it makes a cool billion on its own. It sucks and Craig is the worst thing to happen in a long time. My new resolution is to get rid of carig. right now will smith or puff daddy are better choices for Bond
I saw Casino Royale and the scene where Craig comes out of the sea serves no real purpose in the film other than to say: Look everyone he's worked out! He has muscles! James Bond is not suppposed to be musclebound. Or fugly come to that.
RE:"(Craig's) tough guy act is just that." Uh, he's an actor.- We knew Brosnan was a nice guy, we knew Connery, Moore and Dalton were stand up guys as well. Lazenby we knew was an ass who threw it all away. Craig is going around like trained chimp acting like he is a 500 lb gorilla. On camera all of the other oo7’s had the tough guy/ man-man’s image. Off camera they had a quality we want to associate with oo7. This has proven too hard from craig -so he acts like a Albanian thug. Every interview he has gone out to prove how tough he is. He aint. He is a pussygalore. He hates oo7 and what oo7 stand for. From day one Craig wanted to kill bond off and do a layercake2.
Craig fans and the mainstream media seem to talk about the scene of 'Craig' coming out of the sea in his swimming trunks a lot. As if to say, 'He's got a good body, so that makes him Bond' I've boycotted the film but would like to ask , was that scene an integral part of the film's storyline ? Or was it just a way for the producers to divert attention away from Craigs other failings & try to get women to watch the film ?
I've re-read some of IF's original books, and most of them are mediocre at best, some of them can be characterized as cheap sex-novels (read FYEO). so what is so splendid in being true to them? But, this is immaterial since DC is not IF's Bond in so many ways, let's tackle the easiest one: DC just doesn't look like the books Bond (more like a Romanian goatherder). Now, DC's fanboys claim he's got JB's essence (not). Wait!! So did IF, while writing JB, have a totally wrong mental image of him!? So we have IF imagining JB talk and fight and seduce women, and all the while he is dead wrong about how the character HE INVENTED should look like??? Wow, I said he was mediocre, but an author that can't figure out such a basic thing is beyond crappy, he is monstrously horrible. It should be illegal for such a person to even hold a pen. It's like a cardiologist who can't locate the heart. Essentially, DC's fanboys parade the fact that CR is true to a terrible author and therefore to a terrible book, and then they call it the best JB ever. Laughable, simply Laughable.
Brosnan’s collaboration with B.B. and her brother remind more of bradford marsalis and jay leno. P.B had a lot more talent than he was allowed to use. Like so many other actors to work for the Broccolis “the circumstances didn’t allow” them to reach their potential. D.C.’s off the shelf everyday oo7 is like the rappers who lift a classic song and butcher it. What’s wrong with his 00* (sorry he didn’t do oo7) is it is obviously lifted from other movies who do it better. Kenny G and Craig have some talent but working in the wrong area (like jazz&bond) makes them hated by the fans. Craig couldn’t be more inappropriate as oo7 as Kenny G would be doing the Bond theme song.
In a way, that’s an apt analogy - Kenny G, like Craig, is a divisive figure in his field. Stylistically, though, Brosnan strikes me as the smooth jazz Bond: competent if unadventurous, surface attractiveness employed as a calling card. Taking this conceit further, Connery as the iconic Bond was Coleman Hawkins, Lester Young. Ben Webster, Charlie Parker and (if you allow non-saxophonists) Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington rolled in one; Moore was kind of Stan Getz and Paul Desmond: more homogenous than the original thing but handsomely-crafted and accessible to casual fans. IMHO Dalton could have been the John Coltrane of the Bonds but circumstances didn’t allow that, so I’d compare him and Lazenby to somewhat lesser jazzemen. In this light Craig is an Ornette Coleman figure: rough-edged, a departure from the norm, derided by many as too radically outside the tradition. Kenny G's tormentors despise him not for those reasons, but because his music is too pat and unadventurous.
"(Craig's) tough guy act is just that." Uh, he's an actor.
Just how has CR made so much money when it is so bad ? There are hundreds of reviews on this site, the 'Alternative Bond' site etc criticising the film & Craig. All of the criticisms are valid. The problem is all these people have watched the film which increases it's box office. We've also got lots of Pro Craig fans who go to see the film more than once. A lot of casual cinema goers will also watch CR because there is absoulutely nothing else on. The massive publicity campaign & the mainstream media unbelievably writing good reviews meant CR got off to a good start. The fact that it's a Bond movie (good or bad) will also always bring the punters in. So Craig was never going to be replaced due to poor box office. However BB & MJW must read all Bond sites. (Unless all they care about is box office takings & have no interest in what the public wants) So all we can hope for is that they are reading the constructive criticism and decide to take appropriate action. Filming for the next Bond is along way off, there is plenty of time to rectify things. So keep the good comments coming.
Daniel Craig should be better known as the Kenny G of James Bond rather than the best Bond since Sean Connery. This would describe him as the James Bond many Bond fans/moviegoers love to hate just like Kenny G being described as the musician many jazz listeners love to hate. I don't know much about Kenny, but I know there are a lot people out there hating him. Well I guess both Kenny and Craig have something in common. This is just my opinion though.
The fact this is still being talked about tells all. Craig widened the rift in the fan war. This is not going to end well for him. After seeing the film I can honestly say he the worst actor to try to play it. And I’m personally offended by him. I blame the producers for all of this mess but Craig is out there crowing like cock. He still doesn’t get what Bond is. His tough guy act is just that. Never in the history has everybody from the actor as “M” to the catering service had to come out and defend Bond. It un-Bond. But they have to come out because then Craig does it on his own he sounds like an ass. He hates everything 007 and it shows. The sooner Craig is gone the better.
I just took a look at the pro Craig site 'CraigisBond'. Obviously all the comments praised Craig and said how great he was, better than 'Brosnan' etc. However they never really backed up their support with reasons why he was so great. Unlike the anti Craig sites who give reasons why they don't like him, - too ugly, short, uncharismatic, miscast etc. A lot of supporters said they were blown away by the action and have seen the film several times. This is a reason why it has done good box office. I assume all these people also watch a Jet Li, MI or a Bourne film more than once as the action in these films are just as good. Or are they just watching CR more than once to try to stop it bombing.
HAPPY NEW YEAR from Liverpool! Keep up the good work! CHEERS!
I'm sure the critics decided to write rave reviews before CR was released. Jonathan Ross was drooling over the film months before it came out. When it was released his review was unbelievably positive. Unlike his usual reviews which are usually accurate and honest. I mean calling Craig a 'Magnificent Bond'. Everyone knows that is'nt the case. The problem is, millions of people will watch this on T.V. and then go and see the film. The ' Daily Mail' review decided to say 'Pierce Who' in their review. As if Craig's performance had blown away all of Brosnan's performances. Everyone knows that is'nt the case either. I'm sure if the critics had written accurrate reviews, the box office takings would be a lot less than they are now. All i can think is that the massive Bond franchise is somehow able to influence how a lot of people review a new Bond movie. Which is a shame.
Lots of people hail Brosnan as saving the franchise. However people tend to forgot about the crisis in the late 60's, early 70's. By now Connery hated playing Bond & the media attention it entailed. The producers boldly hired Lazenby but that plan failed. A massive pay offer lured Connery back but everyone knew it would be his last appearance. The replacement for Connery (Moore) was totally committed and desperatly wanted to play Bond. He also embraced the constant media attention it entailed. He went on to create his own style and make seven films. Most of which did well at the box office. Some of them such as L&LD, TSWLM, FYEO & O are considered classic Bond movies. Dispite being in his 40's & 50's he managed to keep himself fit and in good shape during his tenure. Something Connery was reluctant to do during his final Bond years. Everyone laughs at him in AVTOK, looking too old and bored. But the producers and director must take some of the blame for not replacing him after O & then making a duff Bond movie. I've never read an actor, director or producer say a bad work about him. He simply did what the producers and directors asked him to do. Which is perhaps a reason he lasted seven films. By the time of his retirement, the Bond franchise was in a healthy state, ready for Dalton & Brosnan.
The Essential Bond has it as late 1992….. {He [Cubby] had hired Michael France to write and research the story that would be come Goldeneye. However, a potential crisis loomed: Timothy Dalton had resigned from the role of 007.} Apparently Dalton was already gone from the series when GE was worked up, it was probably written generically and then tailored to Brosnan.
Just out of curiosity, if LTK had been marketed as profoundly as CR has been (as I read from an earlier post), it could have done better? I mean Dalton had everything; the looks, suaveness, charm, acting skills e.t.c. the whole "bond package" and LTK did just OK and here we have DC lacking in everything bond but CR is doing better than LTK did. What in the world is wrong with this picture? I can't believe DC is James Bond. I must be dreaming.
What would it have been like with Dalton in OHMMS?
I suppose only Dalton & Cubby Brocoli know for sure what happened after LTK. When Dalton became Bond he made all the right noises about making at least four movies & taking the character into another direction. The Living Daylights & LTK did okay at the box office and fans & the public seemed to like him. Cubby Brocoli was the undisputed head of the Bond franchise at this time and he seemed to be happy with Dalton. The six year gap after LTK resulted in innevitable rumours about a new Bond being appointed. It was then annonced in 1994 Dalton would not be returning. Quotes from Dalton included -' After playing this wonderful character in two films i am going to look for new and other wonderful characters to play'. ' The last James Bond film was six years ago, i feel it is a good time for a new actor to take over' . He later said ' When i saw another person wearing the Tuxedo and holding the gun, a great weight was lifted from my shoulders'. So it seems like he did quit. I am sure Cubby Brocoli liked Dalton and wanted the same actor (Dalton) to play Bond for several films, just like Connery & Moore had done before him. But Dalton in 1994, at the age of 47 had decided to quit.
Those pesky penguins keep staying vital. The birds broke 170 million yesterday & will stay on the top ten list for this weekend. 44 days after being released, HF has more staying power than first thought. It was unthinkable before to have a oo7 movie trumped by a children’s cartoon.
As far as action goes, the Bond films had it all their own way in the 60's & 70's. No one came close to being as good as Bond in creating big set piece, exciting & innovative action scenes. In the 80's the Americans started making big budget action films with Sly Stallone, Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis etc. Now we have the MI & Bourne films. The action in the MI films are more impressive than the Bond movies. Therefore to keep the public interested, it is now more important than ever to have the character of Bond as not just another action hero. He must be different from the rest, handsome, charming, suave, clever, charismatic and tough when required. So what does BB give us ? - Daniel 'bloody' Craig ! You could'nt make it up.
I wonder about this; Brozzler without question reinvigorated the franchises. All of his movie were very successful. May be I’m one of the few who remember Dalton talking about LTK being the last Bond flick. This is going to be one of those questions that haunt the franchise. Just like Lazenby’s quitting or being fired. On the OHMSS DVD there is a comment about the studio not wanting Lazenby back, and then there is Lazenby saying he quit the role. The same shadow over Dalton dismissal. There was leaked memo saying the investors didn’t wasn’t Dalton back.
I can't beleive the media hailing Craig as the best Bond ever etc. What has he done in one film to get people to say this ? Was he suave, debonair and witty. Did he handle the role with confidence and aplomb ? Is he handsome and a great, intense actor ? He is none of these things. I've boycotted CR but the bits i've seen he is simply looking mean and moody, running around a lot and saying weak dialogue in his bland voice. Mind you it was a good idea having him in swimming trunks. A lot of people have focused on his bulky body which means they can avoid talking about his face !
I read it in one of the many Bond books. Forgotten the name, but it was a comprehensive & well researched book full of information i never knew. I beleive most of the it is accurrate. GE was written or being written with the assumption Dalton would return. Cubby Brocali asked Dalton to star in GE but Dalton politly declined. Pierce Brosnan was named the new Bond shortly afterwards. I can't see any reason why he could'nt have starred in GE.
Where did you see the GE written for Dalton? I’ve been looking for it. I’ve been trying to provit to my brother. He said it wasn;t for Dalton, Daltons 3rd was going to be a diffretn story
I agree with most of what is said on this. However i think some of the pro Pierce stuff is over the top. I loved him as Bond but don't think he was the best Bond or saved the franchise. The franchise was saved by Cubby Brocali in 1977. Most people predicted the end of Bond in the early 70's. The Man with the Golden Gun had bombed and Harry Salzman had left for pastures new. The Spy who Loved Me put the Bond films back on top & they have stayed there virtually ever since. Timothy Dalton's License to Kill may not have done great box office. Partly because of it's PG rating.But it was liked by critics and Bond fans. The six year gap after this made the public hungry for Bond again. I'm sure if Dalton had starred in Goldeneye & Tommorrow Never Dies, it would have made just as much money. In fact the script for Goldeneye was written for Dalton before he resigned. Brosnan also only starred in four films. Unlike Connery who gave six great performances. Moore then gave six great performances before his lacklusture effort in 'A View to a Kill'. So i would say Brosnan was as good as Connery & Moore, but not better.
Casino Royale was Okey. Not a bond move by a long shot. It tried to be by making connection with past icons of the series. Daniel craig was decent in the role but not james bond, not even a beginning bond [can’t say young bond because he clearly is not ]. writing this now there are a shitload of problems with the movie that bother me. Can’t put my finger on it, but it bothers me. I don’t think craig will be remembered well. As a the bad guy he would have lived on famously as a one of the best. One of the best bond will never happen. He just doesn’t have it. If what he did is considered Bond [and its not] then bond has changed so much he can’t be recognized. It may prove to be one change too many.
What a pile of crap Dead simple why this movie sucks. Apart from the severe lack of gadgets, hot girls, machine guns and a decent bad guy who wants more then just money, they have ruined all the other bonds by going back in time! I now cannot watch the Sean Connery bonds because aparently in the Very First Bond (this crao movie) Bond is driving a bloody Aston Martin made in 2006 and then the next movie Sean has a crappy (but great for the time) Pistol and car!!! Couldn't they have just continued on. Would have been much better. Oh and my Girlfriend who loves Bond fell asleep half way through and thought Bond in Gay swimmers looked like a little gimp. Not the cool Bond guy! Waste of time money and effort i say!!! Sorry to be harsh but true!!!
God bless those Penguins!!!!! I got what I wanted for Christmas Craig humiliated by birds. That is all she wrote for royal. HF maintained its dominance and showed us all what CR should have been capable of.--------------- 8 Happy Feet WB $5,145,000 ------------- 11 Casino Royale Sony $3,100,000
It was a crappy Bond movie I don't know what all the buzz over this poorly acted and flat movie is about. I suspect wishful thinking is to blame. Daniel Craig lacks the charisma that is needed to make Bond come to life. The dialogue fell flat and especially the jokes. Hardly a chuckle from the audience. I'll keep this review brief. This movie is completely forgetable and in hindsite I should have walked out and asked for my money back, but I kept expecting it to get better but it never did. My parting advice, don't bother.
Happy Christmas everyone!!! The seniors have a shirt that says 2007 with the 007 like we know it should look. The slogan is never say never.too bad the class of 09 –my class- ain’t going to have anything that cool.
Well, I didn't like Casino and still don't like Craig...blah, blah, blah...but Merry Christmas to everyone here anyway! Yes, even to ol' Daniel Craig and his fans! Hope it's a good one. Btw, anyone else feel odd everytime they see 2007 written on something? It keeps catching my eye, so I'll turn expecting to see something about Bond. LOL
RE: "If you have not read the comments about the torture being ironic because MI6 and the CIA know all about ‘that’ torture, then you did'nt (sic) want to." No, seriously, I never saw those pieces. I'm not a supporter of the current US regime and absolutely don't deliberately avoid news items critical of it. And yes, the irony is apparent.
Here is the only article you need to know http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=17184
I saw Casino Royale two nights ago. A slightly wordy and overboiled script with some clunky dialogue. Action ok. Didn't like Craig because he looks like any old Joe average muppet pretending to be Bond rather than Bond himself. Why they set the casino scenes in Montenegro is beyond me. People there are apparently laughing at the cack-handed fuzzy chocolate box rendition of their country. I'd give it 6/10 at best.
"the "sport" tried to give examples of good filmmakers who are also movie critics..." Not quite. The "sport" gave examples of literary or film critics who are or were authors, one of whom also wrote several movie scripts.
34% love Craig! HA!
Box Office Prophets: What did you think of Daniel Craig as James Bond? Results: Better than Timothy Dalton, worse than Sean Connery. ( 34.0%) I haven't seen it and I won't. He's no James Bond. ( 32.3%) I have to type one-handed just thinking about it. ( 24.2%) Have you seen those biceps? ( 9.5%)
CR did $417,000,000. the bulk of it as always comes from overseas. Beating DAD’s $271,028,977 overseas total. However with inflation CR is still behind DAD. And looks like it will never catch up in some markets. Like America and Japan. The thing about talking about BO is inflation matters. All of the best money makers are from the 60’s when the ticket prices were cheaper.____________________ The very first Bond movie sold 72.1 million tickets.__________ Inflated Grosses (2006): US Gross: $125,400,000 Overseas Gross: $350,500,000 Worldwide Gross: $475,900,000__________________________________ FRWL sold 95.3 million tickets____ GF sold 130.1 million tickets_____ TB sold 166 million tickets____ YOLT sold 81.7 million tickets____ OHMSS sold 62.4 million tickets____ DAF sold 70.3 million tickets :Connery’s worst performing film.[for eon]______ LALD sold 91.6 million tickets :More then Moonraker ____
Re: Critics. I distrust critics. Superman returns was THE Best movie in ten years. It sucked big time. How did they miss it sucking. CR was a waste of space. DC didn’t become 007 as he need to. CR’s story sucked but a good actor as 007 and not the other way around could have saved it. Ebert might have been good reviewing CR because he looks at movies as a fan.
They now say that CR is a bigger movie than HF worldwide, but aren't the revenues equal to profits minus expenses? HF cost 50M$ less, and its promotion budget was way smaller. HF, as an animated movie, will make much more money in DVD sales than CR. so overall, HF has clearly bitchslapped CR.
RE:"MOST critics are not published writers" ???? No. they're not, writers = authors. of course they write in the paper, but in the context of those two guys' argument Writer means author.***** I also must add something to the debate between the "sport" and the "teenager": the "sport" tried to give examples of good filmmakers who are also movie critics; even if he succeeded there are 2 problems: 1. "if god literally writes/makes films through you", why spend time on being a critic? why feed on the work of others when you can do something much more noble? if you got talent, you won't be a critic. 2. any movie-critic must be ethical but, an ethical critic/movie maker is an oxymoron; how can you review movies done by a certain company and then try to do business with them the next day? talk about conflict of interests. so no, there cannot be many of those, and those who are, have no integrity whatsoever. basically, most critics are not be good filmmakers.
Rebooting the series is a hard sell, the critics and now the craiginites have been out there like street preachers proclaiming Craig the Mahdi. selling people religion they dont want, they liked Bond. They werent tired of it, and appreciated the escapism even more after 9/11. a new ugly Bond is not an improvement. In the best reviews admit he takes getting used to, that he doesnt seem like bond. That feeling followed me out of the CR, not alone on this either. Guess nobody wants to hear everyone is not drinking the cool aid with ‘em.
God bless those penguins. DAD made more money in less time selling more tickets. CR has not preformed well yet, Might be having the weight of all the past movies pulling it down hurts.
RE:Abu Ghraib Dear god, torturing Craig balls have made there mark in a bad way. If you have not read the comments about the torture being ironic because MI6 and the CIA know all about ‘that’ torture, then you did'nt want to. The US feels guilty about it enough. the torture taking place at a Casino on an Indian reservation is about the only thing that could make them feel worse. Going to the theater to see Craig’s acting once was torture enough for the rest of us.
"the theory of relativity is a work of genius but none of us cannot come up with it." This writer makes a very incisive point: the Theory of Relativity is an example of something thought up by a SMART PERSON with IDEAS! Unfortunately its incisiveness is undercut by the double negative that follows. A negative, one must realise, is something that negates. Therefore his/her use of "cannot" negates the negation.
"MOST critics are not published writers" ????
"All the pseudo-intellectualising and it still comes down to name calling and other petty abuse. On both "sides". Waste of time. If it fails, it's someone else's problem. If it succeeds, it's someone else's money." That's essentially true, though abuse is hardly a petty matter with me - it's serious business!
Re: "Are filmmakers the only people with ideas? How about writers?" I really get the feeling that you are a movie critic or a wannabe, hit a soft spot? good, hehehe. first of all, you still didn't answer why would a critic need good ideas? MORON (it really got to you :) so I'll continue). second, since critics are professional WRITERS there is a bigger chance few of them will WRITE a fine book, but MOVIES are a visual medium and film-making and scriptwriting are different so don't change the subject, STUPID. As for the exalted AGEE (yeah 'the African queen' :( ) - here's a lesson in logic, DUMBASS - you don't disprove a generalization with anecdotes (you can't disprove the statement that MOST men are stronger than MOST women by giving few counterexamples) - MOST critics are not published writers or filmmakers, and I don't dispute that good filmmakers could be, good critics. (MOST A are not B doesn't imply that MOST B are not A). RE: "...Perhaps not incidentally, both of those writers endorsed CR as well as its star." they might be writers (I tried to read Hunter, what a piece of crap) , but they are not good filmmakers, and my argument still holds. this is a false argument from authority. what next? Stephen Hawking endorsing DC?. And right now you have a good taste - of defeat, SPORT. (if you are an old fart, go bother your grandchildren, if you're not, your arguments sure are)
The name's England, Lynndie England. She could be the first Bond girl toting around an out-of-wedlock infant on her adventures. “Quit cryin’, ya little peckerwood, and take a nip of Jack Daniels -- Mama’s gonna do the nasty with this here English gentleman."
"The American audience especially those poor guilt ridden US audiences were turned off the torture scenes, too Abu Ghraib..." Is that an empirically-demonstrable fact, or just a notion? I haven't heard about a general outcry here in the States re the bottomless chair scene. I wonder if Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney saw it together.
NO DAD cost what it cost. -DAD could be made cheaper today with the cost of CGI going down. When attempting to compare BO you have to adjust for inflation. Remember the 70 million price tag, turned out to be a lie, then given the excuse of they ment to say 70 million GBP. Compared to other bond films CR is behind the curve. It would seem all of the changes made to attract the Canadian and us market have failed. With the history of a new Bond 1st outing being his best selling, Bond 22 is going to have less ticket sales and it will be said its doing better the CR because the prices in 2 years will be higher. The money spend on CR is outrageous for a back to basic movie of any kind. Also you need to figure the drop off the people trying the new Bond out for one movie only. The American audience especially those poor guilt ridden US audiences were turned off the torture scenes, too Abu Ghraib and Lindy English for them. There’s an idea Lindy English for craggy Bond girl.
"This low-tech, back to basics film, cost more than DAD..." But musn't one account for inflation here, too, and wouldn't doing so add to DAD's cost?
In its own way, the boycott been amazingly successful. CnB managed to completely rattle both the studio and the fans.. This low-tech, back to basics film, cost more than DAD. CR won't end its run as the most successful 007 flick ever, because you still have to account for inflation
"What point? That HF humiliated CR at the US box office? That's a fact, not point." It humiliated in into $130 million in the US in a month? Wow, they must be devastated...
All the pseudo-intellectualising and it still comes down to name calling and other petty abuse. On both "sides". Waste of time. If it fails, it's someone else's problem. If it succeeds, it's someone else's money.
Fact Brosnan Goldeneye was his best grossing movie, selling the more tickets than his others. 81.2 million tickets. CR is going to be the high water mark for Craig. And so far he is not doing that well. CR is performing worse than Goldeneye and DAD. If it eventually reaches 500 million, it still will be underperforming. As far as I’m concerned all of the recent Bond movies have been lack luster. Lion, Witch and Wardrobe [$291,710,957 + Foreign: $453,073,000 = Worldwide: $744,783,957 ] Pirates of the Caribbean 1 [Domestic: $305,413,918 + Foreign: $348,500,000 = Worldwide: $653,913,918] As is Bond barely out paces the Bourne and Jack Ryan movies. why when it is better know than all of them. If managed right it should be bringing in the big numbers. It is a mistake to reboot the series in the image of Batmen and Bourne, both series have their biggest bo 200 million under what Bond did. And both of those movies did much better here in Canada and the states.
RE:"So whatever point you guys are trying to make isn't working..."..What point? That HF humiliated CR at the US box office? That's a fact, not point.
...Which I guess means Happy Feet will outgross all the Brosnan films, too. So whatever point you guys are trying to make isn't working...
"Oh! implying his first 2 did, and all without 95% positive reviews from rottentomatoes" With rotten reviews? WOW! YOU MUST BE SO PROUD!
RE:"It's going to be the first Bond film since 1997 to be in the US Top Ten for the year. Brosnan's last two didn't make it".....Oh! implying his first 2 did, and all without 95% positive reviews from rottentomatoes. Go figure. You forgot to mention that I guess. Good going Brosnan!!!!!
RE:." and still got squashed by Happy Feet at the US box office. Can't imagine why. Sad really..all hype and no substance." It get squashed? It's going to be the first Bond film since 1997 to be in the US Top Ten for the year. Brosnan's last two didn't make it.
RE:"It's the best reviewed Bond EVER.." and still got squashed by Happy Feet at the US box office. Can't imagine why. Sad really..all hype and no substance.
"The Vaginas" - meaning that all-girl band frrom Vancouver, hard rockers with a tinge of edgy avant-garde jazz? Hey, I'm a BIG fan!
"the depths of denial... are stellar." No comment.
Are filmmakers the only people with ideas? How about writers? (and actually, good critics do more than emanate "taste;" ever heard of James Agee? Edmund Wilson? Dwight McDonald? FYI they were critics who had more than "a good taste" (sic); they exerted profound influence on the genres they covered (Agee also wrote fiction and screenplays -- so if movie-industry cred is the only creative field that matters to you, at least concede that one point). Anthony Lane (New Yorker) and Stephen Hunter (Washington Post) are but two examples of published critics who've published books - Hunter has written a dozen or so well-received thrillers, some of them best-sellers. Perhaps not incidentally, both of those writers endorsed CR as well as its star. Could it be they have "a good taste?" At any rate, your hissy fit, with its screaming all-upper case and clumsyily-made arguement, indicates I kind of got to you, old sport, and that gives me "a good taste." (If you're a teenager, I'm being unfair and I apologize; if it's just your sensibility that's juvenille the apology does not apply.)
Wow, talk about overcompensation: some of the Craigger actually claim that "He's beautiful". Dear god. it's one thing to think he's a good Bond, but the depths of denial needed to think he's gorgeous are stellar. on the other hand, the world is filled with people who love 600 pounds women, and 90 year old people, and fat hairy-backed men, and so on. so I guess there can be a group of DC lovers. You can clearly tell few things about those who are enamored by him from their writings - mildly speaking, I don't think they are big fans of the vaginas. So it's no surprise they are so in love with Buttface DC.
If you only take the U.S into count then Happy Feet, beat CR even more severly in north America. I always knew that the U.S was probably the greatest nation in history (beat the Germans and the U.S.S.R and put a man on the moon) but I wasn't quite sure. but now it's official. GOD BLESS AMERICA. CR the biggest in the (rest of) world? figures. hehehehe
RE:I'm reluctant to dignify this contribution by quoting form it so lengthily, but her it is: "A comment about the good reviews: most professional critics are pretty good at identifying quality and lack of it in movies; however, they SUCK at actually coming up with good ideas, and it figures, since otherwise, they would be moviemakers themselves." Yes, old sport, and if you had better ideas maybe you'd be a professional critic. WELL, MORON, why would a critic need good ideas? they don't CREATE anything. I said that critics DON'T have good ideas, that they just can tell (usually) quality or lack of it, If I had good ideas I would be a FILMMAKER, you MORON. we know that the theory of relativity is a work of genius but none of us (especially YOU, MORON) cannot come up with it. Critics are talantless filmmaker wannabes. The only thing you need in order to be a good critic is a good taste (so that excludes you, SPORT).
"It may seem petty to not like Craig, except it is alright to disagree with the casting...difference is one group smears the series and its actors to support the new regime." Then it's all right to knock DC, but absolutely verboten to criticize any of the other actors (especially the Brozzer)?
RE: “The Craginates the most embarrassing.” you'll not find a forum on earth where they havent behaved the way they have here. It may seem petty to not like Craig, except it is alright to disagree with the casting. No one can deny Craig goes against traditional casting. The craiginites have gone out of their way to intimidate when their arguments fail. The anti-Craig posse make better arguments about why they don’t like craig. difference is one group smears the series and its actors to support the new regime.
How are craigs more embarrassing?
The Craginites gotta be desperate. "Peirce is embarrassed by you." I imagine that both Craig & Brosnan are embarrassed. But Craig's fans are the most embarrassing if we gotta compare them. Not everyone who want Craig gone want Brosnan back. It’s stupid as saying everyone that likes Craig loved CR.. Cr is a lemon. They really could have done better. The remark about the petition number is idiotic. The favorite attack on it is “they all signed them selves.”, if its true why have there been no Craiginite petitions that come anywhere near those numbers. I didn’t sign the petition but would have after seeing CR.
I didn't care for Craig much (and I wasn't alone amongst my friends) but I had no desire to see a 53 year old Brosnan in Casino Royale. It's a bit lazy to suggest that all naysayers wanted Pierce to do it until he was ninety or something. Guess you've been peeking at CraignotBond and putting two and two together to make five. The stupidest thing about Casino Royale was this: 007 is new to the 00 section and a young, reckless Agent yet to have his heart broken but is played by a man WHO DOESN'T LOOK A DAY UNDER 45. Que?
IMDB was flooded with Craig’s supporters long before this. But that there is a topic about speaks volumes. “if not glamour, then some sort of magentism/virility/star quality.” Is over reaching. It may feel real because of the hype. There is a big disconnect with fans out there. those who like Craig and hate CR. those that hate Craig and love CR. Those that hate both. Tose who think it perfection. And its not going to get better any time soon. I was disappointed by Craig. I thought he was an odd choice but maybe he could pull it out of the hat. To me his reactions here were wrong. I blame the story more than Craig. But have to admit with another actor that actually drip charisma it would ‘nt have been as bad. Vesper was a lost opportunity. The attraction didn’t appear. Maybe it will be better on DVD. A handful of moives I hated in the theater were actually better on DVD. Can’t hold out that hope here the CR story was bad. Too many scenes didn’t work. Craig was lost as Bond. The excuse that he was ment to be lost dosent make it better. At the end of the he was as lost as the audience. That will stay with us longer than the rest of it. I won’t be in theaters in 2008 if Craig returns.
There's a currently active thread at imdb about Craig's handsomeness (or lack thereof). Some people take the position of the stalwarts of this board but the majority endorse him and find him possessed of, if not glamour, then some sort of magentism/virility/star quality. BTW I consider Dalton one of the three best Bonds, and with a longer tenure and/or better vehicles (not the automotive kind) he could have been THE best.
There are a lot of people who hated CR at IMDB, and a lot who liked it too. The question is not did CR do well (we know the answer: it was a hit) the question is what did the average punter think after? And will they go back next time for another Craig Bond film in a similiar style? The critics gushed but the average punters (like Bond fans) were not unanimous in their enthusiasm for the change. Yahoo Movies will not be an entirely pleasant experience for anyone who has decided that Casino Royale is some sort of masterpiece and proved that everyone wants James Bond to be a short craggy British character actor who looks like he's been sucking on lemons and cuts his own hair. Eon can be very happy at how it turned out but then Timothy Dalton, who was great, got the Best Bond Ever! stuff after his first film too.
The #s are likely right since the Worldwide ticket #’s stay close GE - DAD. Multiply the # of tickets sold by the current price.
Where did the numbers used for the adjusted BO come from?????
RE:” aren't you being a little hard on yourself?” Out of all that was talked about. This is the best you can come up with. Why bother? Ladies and gentlemen I give you Craig’s champion. god help him. With champions like these who needs cnb.
"Each are made up of a dozen or so po-faced berks with a big gob and not much to say with it." Self-assessment is an admirable thing, but aren't you being a little hard on yourself?
re:critics Could be a good point. A lot of critics have failed at everything else in life. Internet critics and blogers have a wide and varied intrests, when they tell someone a opinion and it don’t matter tomorrow. Life goes on and they told you what they think. Critics go back and rereview their own sthit because they need be proven right. Comeon who hasn’t been to a critically acclaimed filme that sucked in reality.
Casino Royale was never going to bomb. I don't think people quite understand how extraordinary the promotional campaign was. I've never seen anything like it here in Europe. With this and the James Bond brand name they could have cast me as 007 and made $400m+. I'm taller than Craig too! Anyway,what was I on about? Oh, yes, first Bond in four years, massive marketing campaign, the curiosity factor with the negative publicity (did you notice how they revealed the whole PTS in the trailer!), nothing, I mean NOTHING, else to see in the theater by way of a Narnia, Lord Of The Rings etc. Great reviews too. So to clarify: It was impossible for this film to bomb. However...the real test for Craig will come in 2008. Why? Because now everyone has seen him play James Bond and can make a judgment. Let's put CommanderBond.Net and MI6 to one side. Each are made up of a dozen or so po-faced berks with a big gob and not much to say with it. But go to IMDB, or Yahoo Movies and you will find, especially the latter, page after page of views that go something like this: Saw Casino Royale. Dear God, were the reviewers drunk? Tedious, pretentious drivel. The actor playing Bond was small and facially-challenged and had all the appeal and panache of getting smashed in the face with a brick. Die Hard 2 meets Jason Bourne meets a glossy chocolate advert. Let's see how the next James Bond film pans out. It will share cinemas with the next Harry Potter film.
I'm reluctant to dignify this contribution by quoting form it so lengthily, but her it is: "A comment about the good reviews: most professional critics are pretty good at identifying quality and lack of it in movies; however, they SUCK at actually coming up with good ideas, and it figures, since otherwise, they would be moviemakers themselves." Yes, old sport, and if you had better ideas maybe you'd be a professional critic.
Hey maybe one of you know why the news say CR is doing better then GE? If your right and GE did 500 in 2006 money.then cr is the first 007 flick to do this poorly.
Daniel Craig is now in a position to truly better himself thanks to the success of Casino Royale. His upcoming time off will allow him to undergo corrective surgery for his damaged nose and furrowed brow. These are both simple prodedures which would suit him well as he advances upon his fortieth birthday. He would also benefit greatly from some minor graftwork, which would provide him greater freedom when crafting his look for the next film. There is no reason why he should be forced to remain such an unattractive man. A few small steps at this stage would reap massive dividends in the long run.
CR is only $246,510,827 overseas, all of the big markets have come and gone. Now it has to nickel and dime its way up to 300,000,000. I don’t think it will happen, if it does it will take until May 2007.
dude can you fix my post? Its hard to read with out the spaces. It had spaces between admis #’s, Adj Gross #’s, Film name.
adjusted for inflation all of Brosnan’s 007 movies did 500 million. Well over 300 million overseas. The fact CR is not doing well in every county ought to be a concern. There are only a handful of countries like England where CR is very strong. CR is being beaten by "lesser" movies with almost half the theatercount.
GoldenEye US Admissions: 24.7 million Overseas Admissions: 56.5 million Worldwide Admissions: 81.2 million
Inflated Grosses (2006): US Gross: $163,000,000 Overseas Gross: $372,900,000 Worldwide Gross: $535,900,000
Tomorrow Never Dies US Admissions: 27.3 million Overseas Admissions: 48.2 million Worldwide Admissions: 75.5 million
Inflated Grosses (2006): US Gross: $180,200,000 Overseas Gross: $318,100,000 Worldwide Gross: $498,300,000 T
he World Is Not Enough (1999) US Admissions: 25.1 million Overseas Admissions: 52.0 million Worldwide Admissions: 77.1 million
Inflated Grosses (2006): US Gross: $165,700,00 Overseas Gross: $343,200,000 Worldwide Gross: $508,900,000
Die Another Day US Admissions: 27.8 million Overseas Admissions: 47.2 million Worldwide Admissions: 78.6 million
Inflated Grosses (2006): US Gross: $183,500,000 Overseas Gross: $335,300,000 Worldwide Gross: $518,800,000
A comment about the good reviews: most professional critics are pretty good at identifying quality and lack of it in movies; however, they SUCK at actually coming up with good ideas, and it figures, since otherwise, they would be moviemakers themselves. Whenever I read a review where a critic gives a positive suggestion about how to improve the movie, 10 OUT OF 10 times it would have made the movie worse - in comedy they always suggest to break the fourth wall because it is HILARIOUS. Now, JB is the ultimate suggestion provoker; I remember, ever since childhood, that after every freaking release of a new JB film, the critics came up with the same lame suggestion how to alter it; the most common one, you can guess, was to to make JB 'more like the books' more 'realistic, gritty and dangerous'. and the 2nd common suggestion was to make him gay, black or a woman (or all of the above). so many times I have heard some genius say something like "JB should be an Equadorian midget commie lesbian who fights bureaucratic corruption in south Holland". Sure he should. Basically, CR found the chink in the critics armor: if thou maketh a movie according to our suggestions, thou shalt receiveth good reviews. but like I said, their suggestions suck. I am sure that, should the producers make JB gay (like DC wants), a woman or black (and we all know it's a matter of time untill it happens, the reviews will be phenomenal. The critics get all slobbery from thinking about it, imagine the collective liquid explosion that will ensue if this movie is actually made
Wormtongue you’re an idiot! you’ve twisted 2 folk’s words around to mean what your short bus riding ass wants them to.. I never claimed I was threatened. But you probably are the guy doing it to CNB. You makeup meanings where there are non and ignore what people have actually said. The guy's comment about OHMSS and the HR. you make up to nonsense points. he didn’t say flemings bond was Agatha christy he said the story was a mix of who different books as well as a Bond story. I Havnt read it myself but I suspect he is right when someone with their head so far up their ass is so quick to make up nonsense.
T1_license_:
"if CR had been like On Her Majesty's Secret Service we might have forgiven Craig. CR is a crappy film. Its not a Bond film and is not Flemings bond. Can anyone seriously imagine Craig in the Hildebrand Rarity, for my money that story feels like pure Connery. Even though its a mix of Jacque Cousteau & Agatha Christie." First off, HR would be a rotten story to make into a Bond film -- is he even IN that story??? Second, Fleming's Bond is Agatha Christie? Third, you idiots are the only people in the world who are saying CR doesn't work! LOL
if CR had been like On Her Majesty's Secret Service we might have forgiven Craig. CR is a crappy film. Its not a Bond film and is not Flemings bond. Can anyone seriously imagine Craig in the Hildebrand Rarity, for my money that story feels like pure Connery. Even though its a mix of Jacque Cousteau & Agatha Christie. Bond of the books has a sense of humour and modesty. Risco, Quantum of Solace, From Russia with Love, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and You Only Live Twice James Bond has a sense of humour and is a likable chap. Craig’s Bond is wanton killer with no redeeming attributes sinking lower. That isn’t what Fleming intended.Its a insult to Bond’s character- because it is obviously all Craig thinks Bond is. The over buff, weird and shaven, steroid Bond isn’t of the books either, Bond was constantly cursing himself about being out of shape doing exercising [OHMSS] so he might survive an escape attempt. I really like the Bond of the books and love the Bond of the movies. Each actor had a moment where they were closer to Fleming intention. Personally Dalton did a smashing Job, too bad his last movie sucked. Craig is unimaginable as the Hero. I cannot read CR and imagine his weird mug as Bond. A the bad guy he is good. He’s got creepy down pat. Remember chapter 18 ‘A Craglike Face’. Cheers! Jamie
Why "should have?" There are few guarantees in life, and fewer in moviedom.
HF took 2nd place this weekend!!!! CR fell to 4th. Craigers probably won’t like to admit CR should have been 2nd not the HF.
The fans may hate him, but the casting of Daniel Craig has proven itself to be a stroke of genius. Sony/EON clearly knew that Happy Feet would be a runaway success, and set about to capitalize on it. Indeed, people see the diminutive actor in his tux and instantly assume his is the cartoon penguin movie all of their friends are raving about. When you consider how many unintelligent people exist in the UK and beyond, you can see how much potential there is in this strategy. Children are also proving to be quite fond of Craig, as they can identify with his many shortcomings and look upon him as a kind of misunderstood elf. The savvy among us will note that Bond 22 is currently set to open against another animated film, Madagascar 2. Surely, this is no coincidence. Even without knowing anything of the plot, I can only assume that the cast will feature some type of foolish ape which EON plans to exploit.
I thought the film was a letdown, but I also went in expecting On Her Majesty's Secret Service by way of Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me. I haven't felt this betrayed by critics since The Crying Game. (Although that one was a lot worse. Remember those "100 critics can't be wrong" ads? As it turns out, yes they could be wrong.)
re: God you people are growing paranoid in your misery//// \\\\ Um, No. I was talking about the threats made to the CNB folks kids. Everybody knows it. Acting as thick as that you are probably the one cops are looking for. Wormtongue here likes to try -n- twist everyone’s post around.-probably Hoping to kill off the talks going on in this forum.
RE:"God you people are growing paranoid in your misery"...say that again? Jeeze, I'm with the Happy Feet crew. I'm on cloud 9 what with HF trashing CR at the box office and you dare think I'm in misery? Think again.
I had nothing against Craig until his fan boys came out form under the rock they live. I am surprised anybody bothers with them. Some slime is doing their damndest to kill the discussion. I waited until after watching CR to form and opinion. And Craig needs to leave. He wasn’t good in the role, read wazn’t convincing as Bond. CR was a weak movie to start with. But after I read about the fan boy threatening people that crossed the line.
Pointing out that this site, and the anti-CR posts on the forum, preach to the choir would be obvious and not otherwise useful -- the choir has a right to be preached to. Still, the repeated citings of Happy Feet's sucecess as proff that CR has failed just draw attention to the choir's desperation for some sense of vindication. Remember what Mark Twain said about the rumors of his death...
CR is making money, making money, making money.....so what when it can't even manage to shake off those dancing penguins off his head, and for 4 weeks running now? It only means one thing, even if there were no new competition this week, those penguins will have still pottied over CR's head. Give us a break. Talk about making more money than Brosnan's movies, to give credit where credit is due, DAD had a $47 million opening weekend in the US--beat that!!!!
So wouldn't Borat be competition, then, genius? Happy Feet? You say other films are making a lot of money, then you say CR has no competition. Make up your mind.
Borat:the offender- Rated R- made $120,260,000 in the us/ca alone. Less than 10,000,000 behind CR and only cost 18,000,000 to make. Borat preformed magnificently with fewer theaters. CR should have done better. It preformed weakly and the gyrating Spheniscidae took him down. If there had been real competition, Cr wouldn’t have been noticed stuck to the bottom of the champion’s shoe.
Eva Green is very pretty, and is particularly good in the cheap European soft-porn shit she normallly does as she wanders about in the nude. But in Casino Royale she showed all the charisma of a bag of bones. She was not helped by playing the love interest of some wooden creepy looking 40 year old who looked like a sex offender.
This film kind've reminded me of the new Guns n' Roses. Both were heavily mocked and regarded as lost causes. But then people started swearing that Axl's new lineup was the best incarnation ever, much like what happened with Casino Royale. So I went to see both, but came away feeling they were just not the same. Of course, the real question is probably, "Will Chinese Democracy actually be released by the time of Bond 22?"
Nostradamus' quatrains predicted the rise of Craig. "The Eastern worm gnaws not the shining hoard, But thwarted turns instead to lightning's power And boldly daubs with fire all held within The proud, envenomed miser's tower" The 'Eastern worm' mentioned here is clearly a reference to Craig. ‘The proud, envenomed miser's tower’, Nostradamus can’t be more clear. It’s EON. There are mysteries and powers you can't even dream of, fool! -The Nostradamus Traitor
James Bond is supposed to be someone who can walk into a room full of Baddies, women and henchmen and be the focus of attention. He has the charm, charisma, style, confidence, wit and voice to do that. Craig has none of these and never will have. I've boycotted the film but from what i've seen it's trying too hard to make us accept Craig. It has him in a tuxcedo, swimming trunks, bleeding, falling in love, making mistakes, being tortured and running around a lot. It's like they are saying if this does'nt work, this will. Unfortunatly, nothing works. The action looks like a second rate MI film. If the producers wanted to take it into another direction, get another director. Not a jobbing action director like Campbell. A Michael Mann, Tarrantino, Cameron or Speilberg would make a fresh, innovative film, full of exciting scenes. But i suppose BB would never pay them what they would request.
James Bond is supposed to be someone who can walk into a room full of baddies, babes & henchmen and instantly be the focus of attention. He has the charisma, charm, confidence and voice to do that. Craig has'nt got these qualities and never will have. It seems the film is trying too hard to make us accept Craig. Having him in a tuxcedo, swimming trunks, falling in love, bleeding, being tortured, running around a lot. It's like there saying, 'if this does'nt work, maybe this will. Unfortunatly none of it works. The actions looks like a second rate Mission Impossible film. There has been good and bad Bond movies over the years, however you always felt comfortable that the leading man had that special something - The 'X' factor. Craig does'nt have it. The producers should not only get another Bond, but get a decent director. If they wanted to go into another direction, a Michael Mann, Tarantino, Cameron or Speilberg would make a completly different and innovative film. Martin Campbell is a just a jobbing action director.
What does Brosnan smoking cigars have to do with anything? I thought Craig smoked them in his GQ interview. I'm pretty sure Roger Moore and Connery did at one point too. This is why I tend to avoid message boards in general.
"Maybe I'm coming in on the middle of a conversation here" You and me both. It looks like a couple of kids arguing back and forth amidst all the posts. I wrote something about the series in general, and got called an idiot because Casino Royale is doing well. ? The lack of usernames just seems to add to the chaos.
RE"That's because you're an idiot clinging to an irrelivant website complaining about a Bond with a 95% critical approval rating that's made $325 million in three weeks."-----You should be very well pleased then that your bond is getting such rave reviews and making bucket-loads of money. Calling me an idiot?--I think I sense some inner rage there. What's the matter? We all have a right to like what we like and dislike what we dislike, and you can't change that. Somehow those reviews and $$$$ don't mean squat to me. I'll stick to my guns--Irish cigar-smoking mannequin in his mid-fifties as my bond for christmas over gollum's younger brother look-alike, and that stands. Call me an idiot if you will, but I'm quite happy with my choice.
Re: "Or... combat communism with baccarat... like the book? Maybe he should drive an invisible car to combat a North Korean You know, something more serious like that..." There's nothing serious about that at all, which was my point. The books were fantasy, which is what the films have always been as well. I just think it's silly to suddenly act as though this stuff is intended as gritty realism. Maybe I'm coming in on the middle of a conversation here, but what's hilarious about that? The idea that someone doesn't regard James Bond as serious drama? The character is better known for doing the impossible, not the mundane.
This site is too friggin' funny! You guys are hilarious!
RE: "The guy that called you guys 'Apologists' didn't talk about money at all, so how telling him how much money CR made (in your mind - certainly not in the real world) is a good answer? But, I'm wasting good logic on a delusional geek." No, you're too busy telling us Daniel Craig wants to make gay Bond films. You're a down-to-Earth realist. And money was brought up because another one of the down-to-earth realists here was saying the film is failing.
RE: "Hmmmmmmm let's see; if I had a choice as to who I want as my Bond for christmas, an Irish cigar-smoking mannequin in his mid-fifties, or "a gollum's younger brother look-alike"? I think I'll go for the Irish cigar-smoking mannequin in his mid-fifties. Thank you very much Santa! Have a merry christmas" ......That's because you're an idiot clinging to an irrelivant website complaining about a Bond with a 95% critical approval rating that's made $325 million in three weeks.
RE: "To try and suggest that it's not- or that we could combat post-9/11 terrorism with Texas Hold `Em- is just silly." Or... combat communism with baccarat... like the book? Maybe he should drive an invisible car to combat a North Korean whose DNA has been switched with an Englishman's so he can build a space laser to level minefields so the North Korean army can invade. You know, something more serious like that...
RE: "I don't think Bond as a viable franchise died in the 80's, but I do think Bond the cultural icon did. I've actually thought that long before Daniel Craig or Pierce Brosnan stepped into the role. In a way, A View To A Kill marked the end of the traditional Bond Formula- not Die Another Day. Once Timothy Dalton took over, they constantly tried to change or reinvent the franchise- rather than embracing the series' traditions the way Cubby always did." Really? You think a 60 year-old Bond chasing a getaway blimp, cooking quiche for Tanya Roberts (a "geologist"), and hanging off he back of a fire engine like a Keystone Cop had a lot to do with FRWL?
RE: "By comparison, some of the modern Bonds try so hard to copy others, they feel as if they would be more at home in a different series (Miami Vice; XXX; Bourne Identity)." Or...um...the 1953 BOOK "CASINO ROYALE"...
Bond is basically a product at this point, but then, he has been for a long time. You can market the modern Bonds to make an incredible amount of money, but they have none of the pop culture impact or relevance that the 60's films did. And even though they had lost that aspect by the 70's, they still had a certain "uniqueness" to them up until Roger Moore exited. Bond could include nods to current trends, but he was never dominated by them. As outlandish as Moonraker is, it still very much retains the feel of the Moore era. By comparison, some of the modern Bonds try so hard to copy others, they feel as if they would be more at home in a different series (Miami Vice; XXX; Bourne Identity).
I don't think Bond as a viable franchise died in the 80's, but I do think Bond the cultural icon did. I've actually thought that long before Daniel Craig or Pierce Brosnan stepped into the role. In a way, A View To A Kill marked the end of the traditional Bond Formula- not Die Another Day. Once Timothy Dalton took over, they constantly tried to change or reinvent the franchise- rather than embracing the series' traditions the way Cubby always did. (Which is understandable, since everything has to run its course eventually.) But suddenly, Bond couldn't bed as many women. Then he had to be edgy and violent. Then he had to bow to political correctness. Each new film had to have some unique premise that they could sell as a new direction for 007. Of course, Bond can easily continue as long as they are willing to change him to fit the times. But he's no longer the trendsetter of Connery's era, merely a follower.
I thought it was okay, but it was nowhere near the "best Bond film ever". I'm not even sure I could say it's one of my favorites. It had none of the classic elements that made the best Bonds so memorable. I think too many people look at something like From Russia With Love and say, "Wow, look at how down to earth that film was!" But back then, that was a pretty cutting edge spy film. Or consider Dr. No. It had women walking around half-naked, a megalomaniac's hidden fortress (complete w/dragon!), and a hero who killed people and then coolly made wisecracks after the fact. Hardly films that were vying to be "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold". I didn't really like the new guy as Bond, but a lot of that was probably the way the script portrayed Bond. They had him taking everything SOOOOO seriously, and at the end of the day, he's still...playing cards...with the bad guy. I realize Fleming wrote the character as deadly serious, but in the 1950's, the world he surrounded the character with was quite fantastic. I mean, what better fantasy than to have your boss send you halfway around the world, give you a beautiful escort to bed, and let you play in a ritzy casino? It was intended as fantasy, not Cold War realism. To try and suggest that it's not- or that we could combat post-9/11 terrorism with Texas Hold `Em- is just silly.
Hmmmmmmm let's see; if I had a choice as to who I want as my Bond for christmas, an Irish cigar-smoking mannequin in his mid-fifties, or "a gollum's younger brother look-alike"? I think I'll go for the Irish cigar-smoking mannequin in his mid-fifties. Thank you very much Santa! Have a merry christmas
Bond died in the 80's you guys. CGI killed it. 99% of what was shown in the past 12 years on JB could have been done in the 80's, and the remaining 1% isn't worth it. Bond is like the western - DEAD. who cares about those 'big action scences' that I've seen a billion times in the eighties, when you have Spiderman, the Matrix, X3 and so on. who wants to see for the nth time him chasing someone or someome chasing him etc. And making Bond more realistic doesn't help at all - first, because then it's not Bond, second because then it will be like a John Le Carre book which is also dead boring. and the solomonic solution of having him in between is as bad as cutting up the baby. The fact that 'Happy Feet' - a CGI animated movie kicked his butt is more than telling.(and HF didn't engage in the media blitz that CR had, it had much smaller publicity costs) Bond died in the 80's - it's now just a middle sized movie compared to the big kids and it will get smalller. it's like Ms. Pacman vs. Halo 3. CR, DAD et al are good movies IF IT WERE 1986, not 2006. arguing if CR or DAD is a good movie is like arguing about the quality of some Atari games, who cares anymore??? DC is certainly NOT the classic Bond, and I have to admit there is something repulsive about him. But even if you got your wish and got this designer_suits_ad-male-model-type, so what? it's like putting a handsome gunslinger in a Western or a Musical, he WON'T save the genre. Live (with it) and Let (Bond) die.
What a crappy website, get over it DC is bond. CR is the best bond film ever and is making lots of money. You lose
The guy that called you guys 'Apologists' didn't talk about money at all, so how telling him how much money CR made (in your mind - certainly not in the real world) is a good answer? But, I'm wasting good logic on a delusional geek.
Quite a number of people think the Bond series is wrapping up. Strange. My step father felt this way was about Dalton & he was right damn it! Dalton did good his 1st the 2nd killed the series. New guy doesn't have half of what Dalton brought to the role. CR's audience has a lot of 1 timers. folks checking it and not returning.
Look at those Dc crazy apologists, and like any good apologist they will use, any wexcuse whatsoever even if they contradict themselves: they now attack how PB looks, but wait! I thought it's about being "a good Actor" they also engage in false dichotomy (either-or fallacy), it's NOT either PB or DC. i do think PB is too old and someone (not DC) should be given a chance. They say he's the books' Bond, but have no problems with JB being gay, and then call people anti-gay. so if someone puts Halle Berry as Marilyn Monroe and I say that the acress should be white, then I'm a racist? yeah right. those lame excuses work in your cult copound, where no one question the leaders. your cult-talk will not work here
Some more problems the producers of JB might have with the casting of DC: Craig is not the type of actor that brings people to the theatres like Harrison Ford , Orlando Bloom or PB, they cannot trust him to bring more people, only LESS. Also, DC surely will want to be in other movies but he and/or the producers are going to have a major problem since he is only going to be cast in small movies or, as a minor character or a villain in a big movie, and if and when it happens it will confirm our claims that he is not a leading man and looks evil. PB did other films as a leading man and appeared on movie ads which were paid by OTHER movie companies, and was welcomed to many talk shows. PB also appeared in magazine ads, which again, I don’t see DC being hired to do (no “outstanding acting” needed, just looking the part). SC,GL,RM,TD and PB appeared, their faces fully and clearly shown, on the movie posters, which probably attracted some moviegoers, in contrast, Craig’s face is shady, and hidden. PB and SC were People’s magazine ‘Sexiest man alive’ and their names became synonymous with charisma and handsomeness, again, more free publicity, and a great bonus to Bond’s reputation - Something that will never happen with DC. Bond girls in PB’s era, were glamorous and attracted attention and interest (Famka, Denise Richards, Terri Hatcher and, of course, Halle.) In DC’s Bond the women cannot be too glamorous, since the producers want it to be more down to earth and the contrast between their beauty and DC’s looks will be too staggering. Eva Green looks like the pretty girl next door (if you don’t live next to the playboy mansion), she, or any future DC’s Bond girl, is unlikely to draw much attention. The tabloids are not interested in DC the way they were in PB, even worse, they like to show pictures of celebrities in their worst, imagine if they manage to catch DC without ton of makeup on his face and show it ON A FULL PAGE, The horror, The horror. The fact of the matter is that PB and his Bondgirls got a lot of positive T.V and Magazine exposure without the Bond producers shelling out even one cent, it won’t happen with DC, the only publicity he’s going to get won’t be very flattering.
Does an Irish cigar-smoking mannequin in his mid-fifties fit Fleming's description? Give everybody a break.
excuses started the moment he got off the boat. I read the books before actors started to play him. Daniel Craig does not match what Ian Fleming wrote, to imagine he does doesnt ring true. The makers have deconstructed Bond they dont realize it yet but they had sucked out the marrow of what made Bond work. James Bonds image is no longer definable. Average joe off the street is better Bond material. The renovation will not stop here. Wouldnt it would be more innovative for a female or ethnic lead? Don’t think they will not do it. Got nothing against anyone from any back ground playing the character as a one off production. But a female|asian|-insert minority here- Bond is not who the character is. in casino royale I thought something worth while would be found. Wasnt there. A average movie but a lemon as a Bond movie. As a audience member I shouldnt have to accept a actor, we should believe he is the character without doubt. many doubts plague Daniel.
Bond had a good run and now it’s coming to an end. Let it go. You all will get along fine with out it. The willing [or unwillingness] of the fans to accept a redefinition of series is going to not prolong it. for years I felt Bond was winding down. And now it follows other movies that actually innovate, Bond is following where it used to lead.
Sounds like THIS is your excuse year...
What I actually said was I will not watch a gay Bond because that is NOT the character Ian wrote. I don’t care if the actor is or isn’t. Bloody Hell! Rupert Everett gets it. Nice to see the fanboys will defend the further abomination of the character, as long as Craig says it. Craig wants a gay Bond story isn’t CnB’s invention. So far the fanboys are hands off. No one wants to talk about. At this rate 2008 is going to be a year full of excuses.
RE: "Like someone said here, I don’t care if Craig is gay wants to be gay or if his fans are gay. I will never watch a Gay Bond film. How is that Flemings Bond?" The "someone" being a lunatic with no sense of reality, who makes up gay accusations and has severe homophobic issues?
"Like someone said here, I don’t care if Craig is gay wants to be gay or if his fans are gay. I will never watch a Gay Bond film. How is that Flemings Bond?" Jesus, this guy has issues...
Like someone said here, I don’t care if Craig is gay wants to be gay or if his fans are gay. I will never watch a Gay Bond film. How is that Flemings Bond?
I think the boycott's main goal was simply to provide an outlet for the unhappy fans, which they did. If someone wanted to let Craig know they disapproved of him, they got their chance. He would've still been back, even if the film had tanked miserably. After all, even Dalton was going to be allowed to continue, despite having one of the lowest grosses ever.
"Well, the boring crap was what I was a fan of for 20+ years. Why would I suddenly be interested in a radical departure that's nothing like the past." Uh.... It's based on the first James Bond novel. The films that had nothing to do with the Bond character were Brosnan's.
"So-called millions" is sort of a clumsy phrase -- money is money. This isn't the World Cup, the World Series or the Olympics. Feet has made somewhat more US $ than Casino, but both films are outpacing everything else. I can't believe that the boycott's goal was merely to make CR #2 in the US, or to "spit in DC's face," as somebody else put it.
In my little part of the world, we are still celebrating the fact that with all the so called millions CR is supposedly making all over the world, it still could not beat those little cute dancing penguins at the box office in the US. Yes, James bond beaten "by a bunch of dancing penguins" ha!ha! Boy, does that feel good!
This review from our University paper sums up what I don?t like about CR&'DC. “As Bond learns how to do his job, it becomes apparent that Bond is very bad at his job. Sure, he’s a clever and charming womanizer, but he’s brutal, violent and clumsy. Bond isn’t even trusted with all that evil a villain And with a plot that shows 007 as more of a brash jackass than, well, James Bond..” the rest of it don?t matter. I will never go to see another Bond movie again.
The guy's personal life is his own business, but I don't think they should try to make James Bond gay.
"Go back to the boring crap that 20 sequels had devolved into" Well, the boring crap was what I was a fan of for 20+ years. Why would I suddenly be interested in a radical departure that's nothing like the past? Hey, the new Pirates movie just made a ton of money on dvd this week too, but that doesn't mean I suddenly feel an overwhelming urge to be a fan. Bond films were like Elvis movies. You didn't go expecting to see great cinema- you showed up for the formula. If they ever get back to making the films fun again, I'll show up, regardless of who's in the lead. It's not as though we'll have that long to wait. The producers are probably still trying to figure out how they managed to win over the critics. As long as Micheal Wilson is on board, I doubt the series will avoid being a fantasy for long.
Who's the troll? Has that odious berk Dr Noah been kicked off Cbn or something?
Yeah. Why stay with the Bond that just made 300 mil in three weeks and got the best critical reaction ever for a Bond film? Go back to the boring crap that 20 sequels had devolved into -- that made less money and critics hated. Good plan.
Gerry Butler would be good. Since Bond is going back to being a smooth secret agent in the next one, he would be a natural fit. Christian Bale would also be ace.
Then why didn't anybody see "The Matador" in Europe?
Sony were wise to capitalize on the film's worldwide potential. As I predicted, the overseas totals are shaping up nicely. Europe has always been easily dominated by short ugly men. [See also: Napoleon; Hitler; et al.]
Craig is no spring chicken. He really looked too old and weathered to play a fresh faced rooky agent. The showing we went to didn’t sweep the audience away. What will be curious is how the word of mouth is in a couple weeks. So far our friends & family have not been talking about CR not one has said it is a must see flick. I know we wouldn’t see it again.
Are we SURE that "half the fans still don't approve of the new 007"? Certainly DC's hiring dismayed many Bond fans, but indications are quite a few of them changed their tuen once they actually saw CR. I don't doubt that thousands still revile DC, but that 50% figure seems like a too-convenient number pulled out of the air. For myself, I'm impressed by the film and DC but I'm not trying to discredit any of the past Bonds, "desperately" or otherwise.
Yeah, let's go back to the 007 who got worse reviews and made less money. Just to see! I'm sure they're DYING to try that!
Or the fact that he's too old and the last three films were horrible.
Here is what I would do to shut these guys up. Let the Brozzer have his fifth film. He is a producer contact it out to him, licence him to make one movie using the theme music and the rest of it. if it fails its on his head. If it makes money, and it will, then the franchise loses nothing and gets the credit. Given the critical acclaim for Royale, he would do his damnedest to make a better film. We as fans would win. The only reason not to is if Brosnan really does a better job the Broccolis will look incompotent. The best reason to do it is to stop all of this whining about Craig. Maybe then Bond 22 could have some good buzz without every reporter going to CNB or talking about them.
RE: What makes this place such a target? That's why I told them to trust me. Bloggers do it all the time nobody gets in trouble. some times they do.Almost never happens. Tomatoes probably has permission. and they link to the story directly.
It sorta proves the point .with inflation and the weaker dollar CR seems to be doing better. Its going slower than DAD, 10 days for DAD to break 100 mil, 14 days for CR. adjust for inflation DAD didit even faster. To beat DAD CR has do 500 mil. ro better Next month we ll know for sure. Staying power is being tested now.
Yeah. How can Rotten Tomatoes have 170 reviews (160 raves, ten negatives -- although 7 or eight of those like Craig), and they don't get sued. What makes this place such a target?
So each film makes more because they're worse... GOD I LOVE THIS FORUM!!!
Hey dont delete the b-o story. It has the guys name and newspaper in it. Trust me it wont get you guys in trouble.
Wow, half the fans still don't approve of the new 007, while the rest are desperately trying to discredit the past actors. This pretty much sums up why Daniel Craig was probably not the best choice to take on the role. The film will still end up being the highest grosser, just as X-Men 3 completely destroyed X-Men 2's record and Dead Man's Chest blew away Curse of the Black Pearl. Records don't last in Hollywood anymore. Unless something goes terribly wrong, Bond 22 will top Casino Royale...only to be supplanted by Bond 23, etc.
Okay, if I can't post all the positive CR reviews, can I post all the negative DAD ones?
**editors note~ Please write about you what you
think.
I would have deleted those reviews regardless of positive or negative aspect.
I find it hard to believe anyone actually takes the boycott site seriously. (And really, how can you name your website after "C.H.U.D." and not have a sense of humour?) They are obviously taking the piss. Personally, I think it's a pretty funny site- especially the little James Bond grave. The craignotbond site was a little mean-spirited, but this one states its case while managing to entertain. I say more power to them.
Hey, chaps, Nostradamus Johnson here with an exclusive look at how the parallel-reality version of Casino Royale starring the fantabulous Pierce Brosnan fares in its world: *It makes 285 Billion Dollars… in its opening weekend! *Bros wins the Oscar for Best Actor! It’s a stupendous performance throughout, but goes beyond brilliant in the 59-minute torture scene: to keep his spirits up, Bros spouts the poetry of Kipling, Service, Tennyson and Yeats, then climaxes with a soul-stirring coloratura soprano rendition of “For Your Eyes Only.” Le Chiffre is moved to the point of uncontrollable weeping, and passes out from loss of blood. *That segment in it entirety is issued on CD and goes quadruple platinum. *The film is nominated for the Best-Picture Oscar, but is robbed when the statuette goes to the critical favorite My Super Ex-Girlfriend. *That insult ends up not mattering much, though, when the wise heads in Scandinavia award Brozzer’s movie with the first-ever Nobel Prize in Cinema.
I think that's my biggest complaint with the producers- that they bungled the numerous possibilities both Dalton and Brosnan presented. Dalton is a bit easier to forgive, given the lawsuit, but I still regret that he is quickly becoming the "forgotten Bond". But there's no excuse for wasting Brosnan's potential. At the very least, they should've done one last film with him in 2004. What a waste these last few years have been with the franchise at a standstill. Wasn't there (at one point) talk of the next film taking place in India or something?
Speaking of CHUD, I'm pretty sure the first rule of geekdom is that geeks can't really make fun of their own. It's like a drunk trying to judge the guy at the end of the bar. Not everyone is going to like the new Bond, just as not everyone likes all of the old ones. To each his own. I can't speak for the others here, but I can honestly say I don't think Daniel Craig was the best choice to play Bond. And I don't even fall under the banner of someone trying to boycott it, since I actually gave him a chance and went to see it. He just wasn't 'Bond' to me. I walked away thinking that Clive Owen would've probably nailed it, and avoided the whole firestorm that erupted among fans. But I don't think either guy will (or would've, in the case of Owen) be a long term Bond. Those days are probably over, especially since we're already down to only 3 films per decade. When you consider the time, ego, and money involved at this point, we probably won't see anymore lengthy Bond tenures. In a way, it's kind've sad, because they could've really done so much more with each actor who has played the role. They'll probably find some way to screw things up with Craig, too.
They did it again! CnB is back in the news! Funny how the 'all publicity is good' P-C/CR crowd can't see that any publicity for CnB helps them. CnB don't take themselves as seriously as everybody else does. I don't take CnB seriously at all. they are obviously tongue n’ cheek. With-out 'em nobody would have noticed the unhappy fans. For that they get my thanks.
**editors note~ While everyone is welcome to comment, however we will not tolerate Spamming here. The material (the reviews) have been removed partly because it was copyrighted, but more importantly because it was not conducive to a civil discourse. If there is a point to be made please use your own words and do not resort to copying other’s.
"That CHUD article is hilarious! Face it, it's just way too much fun to make fun of someone as ridiculous as Daniel Craig." Gosh, it actually reads like he's making fun of.....hmmmmm.... YOU!
A critic said 'all this time it was those other Bond who were atypical, not Craig.' or the like. One would think Ian Fleming would have mentioned it when he met Connery on the set ‘You know you need to ugly him up a bit more, right?’ Why! Oh, why! Did Ian write so many description about Bond looking movie star handsome?
"I've decided that tomorrow I'm going to post a good review of CR for every comment you guys make. Rotten Tomatoes has 160 of them, so this should last me a while..." ------------------------------------------------- Hoping to achieve...................what???? That still does not change the fact that those cute penguins beat your CR at the box office for 3 weeks in a row....that must surely hurt otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your time here. I don't like CR and I think DC was horribly miscast for the role. All your rottentomatoe reviews wouldn't change anything. Don't forget reviews are written by people...and people do have differing opinions.
"The best part is simply knowing that pro-Craig fans are still irritated that there are fans who don't support Daniel Craig. Then again, I think it's probably that interview where Craig talked about how much the criticism hurt him. THAT was priceless." NEWSFLASH: We're MAKING FUN of you. Nice boycott. Sony should ask you guys to promote EVERY movie.
"Re: I'm going to post a good review of CR for every comment you guys make. So nice to hear from the Pro-Craig ambassador. This is why the forums have driven people away and also is everything that is wrong with Bond now." Yeah: 94% positive critical rating, 93% user rating. $300 mil in two weeks -- they're staying away in DROVES! LOL
That CHUD article is hilarious! Face it, it's just way too much fun to make fun of someone as ridiculous as Daniel Craig. I just visited the craignotbond site and couldn't stop laughing at that photo of him (in the tux) that they've got on the front page. Those guys may be nuts, but God bless `em. Craig is best target for parody since Ben Affleck.
Re: I'm going to post a good review of CR for every comment you guys make. So nice to hear from the Pro-Craig ambassador. This is why the forums have driven people away and also is everything that is wrong with Bond now. If I won't drink the Kool-Aid with you, you have a fit. If I won’t go see the movie, another fit. If I see the movie and do no like Craig, or think he did a “decent” job but is not Bond -then they have a fit. The Bond fandom is tearing itself apart. For my moving going dollar Craig is not Bond, and CR is not a Bond Movie. Craig does not match my expectation and I will not lower them to accommodate him. The Bond of the Book is much more different than what Craig thinks Bond is.
Here read this...look at this link...click here...Wait a minute, what happened to, "Why don't you guys make up your own minds?" It seems to me, we have. Hey, I'm sorry I don't like your new James Bond, but that's the way it is sometimes. Sue me.
The best part is simply knowing that pro-Craig fans are still irritated that there are fans who don't support Daniel Craig. Then again, I think it's probably that interview where Craig talked about how much the criticism hurt him. THAT was priceless.
Retry: http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=8155
Good article: http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=8155
I've decided that tomorrow I'm going to post a good review of CR for every comment you guys make. Rotten Tomatoes has 160 of them, so this should last me a while...
"The biggest problem with trying to compare Craig with McQueen? Steve McQueen was not James Bond. Nor was he ever considered to be." Well, since Craig is Bond, he will be...
The people at my work all saw CR. Guess how many saw "That Matador."
Here's why CR is doing better. Read this page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/casino_royale/ ...... now read this page: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/die_another_day/
"who is the crazy guy who tries to convince us that Cr made 300 million? DAD made 400 including DVD sales and Pay per view; and CR is not as succesful as it." LOL!!! It's only been in theaters for two weeks! DAD made that over 4 years!!!
I visited the danielcraigisnotbond site today, clicked on "Sign the Petition" and instead getting the petition I received the following information: "deactivated at author's request."
When this film opened, USA Today's big story centered on Craig and how many fans rejected him in the role. It devoted the entire article to the new alternative sites, without ever mentioning the traditional ones. This is why websites like this are still relevant. They're a reminder that this guy is not fully supported by the fans. Posting here isn't going to affect the box office, since only fans know of its existence anyway. But it's nice to know that months from now these sites will still be here to represent us and be a thorn in Craig's side. Keep up the great work.
Oh, this is a drastically different landscape than when Goldeneye debuted. Bond was basically dead back in the early 90's. The closest we got to a revival were some expensive VHS releases. The lone Genesis videogame was nearly impossible to find. There were no marathons being run every few months on cable. And to be honest, no one really seemed to notice that 007 films were no longer being released at regular intervals. If Brosnan hadn't been able to make the films accessible again (to all audiences), I think Bond would've entered another very long hiatus. On the other hand, Craig was able to enter the role with every advantage. In addition to 007's popularity being at a peak, so was the marketing (including huge dvd, cable, and internet promotions). He was also given the rarest opportunity of all- freedom to play the character outside of the strict formula. The only way he could've screwed this up is if he'd played it for camp. Even then, the film would've still made a ton of money.
with all due respect, CR is an obvious attemp to transform JB into a John Le Carre film (Bourne is a classic Carre movie) - more realitstic, less explosions and chases, more brutal etc. LE Carre is the Anti-Bond so saying that DC is the real JB is nonsense.
who is the crazy guy who tries to convince us that Cr made 300 million? DAD made 400 including DVD sales and Pay per view; and CR is not as succesful as it. Also I hear that the best comparison of CR is to Goldeneye, that's not true; the best thing is to compare the DIFFERENCE between the the movie that came before the debut and the debut, i.e compare the difference between LTK and Goldeneye and to the difference between DAD and CR - Brosnan got an almost dead franchise and revitalized it, LTK was an awful movie - more of a Latin revenge movie than a JB movie, it had poor revenues. on the other hand, PB gave DC a vital franchise, his movie was big (even though DAD was pretty crappy). so no, I see a downward spiral from now on for DC
Is the The Sinking Ship, or is it Cold Comfort Farm?
Re: co-workers. Craig is not selling well over here. What has been sold is the James Bond name. Royale is a Bond movie with-out Bond & it has been noticed. There is a lack of saturation here. Theme song has not made it to the radio stations [a few have played it but it didn’ catch on]. The book & CD are not in the big stores [wal-mart*K-mart*Target*] The Feet has the soundtrack displayed in a prime position and the games [pc*ps2* & so on] are on every isle corner. Layer cake and a few of his others are available at best buy & the City. Wal-Mart had a few but didn’t sell but one copy of it and we sent the rest back.
No boycott is not going to keep the masses from their entertainment. Period. It's why they never work in getting people to stop buying Coke products or shopping at Walmart. The real power of the boycott was its ability to hurt Daniel Craig on a personal level. It got inside his head and, worse, it overshadowed his entire first year as 007. Instead of being able to enjoy the experience of having been cast, he was plagued with doubt and ridicule throughout 2006. Sony was forced to shell out more for marketing, while reporters had to find polite ways to write around the negativity. Even Craig started to sound apologetic in the press, admitting he wasn't the best looking 007 and saying he really didn't want to accept the role. And the boycott wasn't just quickly brushed under the rug back in early February, as so many predicted it would be. It remained with Craig up until the very end. Even now the stories aren't "New Bond Does Well", they're, "New Bond Does Well, Despite..." If any fans were unhappy about Craig's casting, they could've simply whined and argued about it on a message board. Or, they had the option to have their voices heard, and symbolically spit into Craig's face. As far as I'm concerned, the film could break Titanic's record and it would still have been worth it.
>>"That's funny -- everybody at my work has seen CR too -- and none of them have seen Pierce Brosnan's last few films."<< Then am I glad I work where I do rather than at your office! :-) (I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that your co-workers were also probably well-versed in films like Layer Cake...and...um...whatever else Craig has been in.)
The biggest problem with trying to compare Craig with McQueen? Steve McQueen was not James Bond. Nor was he ever considered to be. The one time he did try to play a suave character (ironically, Thomas Crown), critics suggested that he had been miscast. They pointed out that McQueen was too much of a working class guy to be believable as someone so upper class. The attempts by fans to draw a parallel to McQueen are just absurd. It's like they're saying, "So he doesn't look like James Bond...but wait! He kind've looks like *someone* famous!" Maybe Bryan Singer should cast a Yul Brynner lookalike for Superman 2? Then fans can say, hey, he may look more like the villain than Kal-El...but wait! He kind've looks like *someone* famous!"
Some of you fellows sound like Republicans on November 8... I think even the non-Yanks among you will pick up on that.
My feeling is the wheels are about to come off the franchise. Almost everyone at work has seen CR, noone is very impressed with. It was a choice of CR or nothing. Lets face it HF was competition. but Not in the same league. If there would have been anything halfway decent out there, a Potter or a Wardrobe sequel CR would have been pathetic. Worldwide there is nothing worth seeing. Sony has already moved Bond 22 to a point where it will have no competition. I am not interested in another Craig movie/ I also don’t think his movie will stand the test of time. By the time the dvd comes out this movie could be trashed. Yes that soon. My brother liked CR at first, a week later after it all sunk in and he couldn’t believe stupid parts of the movie were. The leaks about Bond 22 are just stupid, the “story arc” and bringing back Vespa. The cast doesn’t understand it either. Forget about the broke back Bond rumor/ (or is it fact now the craig said it?) I am not angry but I am letting go. I don’t want it any more. Good bye Mr. Bond, you are gone too soon. I don’t think there will be a big retuning audience for the Bond 22. Michael G Wilson’s “magic” touch is bad enough/ Rambo Bond is a close second. At lease the Bourn flicks are fun to see.
that Thomas Crowne movie crack is why I don't post to the forums.
"The question of, "Is Bond indestructible?" is an interesting one. The film's box office does not surprise me, especially given the amount of money involved. However, what does is that they were able to sell a highly unpopular choice- who was also completely unknown in the US. Even more surprising: I've yet to talk to anyone who has actually remembered that the new Bond's name is Daniel Craig. My coworkers all just referred to him as "the blonde guy"..." That's funny -- everybody at my work has seen CR too -- and none of them have seen Pierce Brosnan's last few films.
What the heck, guys? PLEASE go to other Bond sites. Are you afraid they'll make fun of you? BTW, I'm going to start my own boycott of the next Thomas Crowne movie, because with dyed hair, capped teeth and lipo scars, Pierce Brosnan is too phoney looking to compare favorably to Steve McQueen. (You know -- the guy everybody compares Craig to.)
What the heck, guys? PLEASE go to other Bond sites. Are you afraid they'll make fun of you? BTW, I'm going to start my own boycott of the next Thomas Crowne movie, because with dyed hair, capped teeth and lipo scars, Pierce Brosnan is too phoney looking to compare favorably to Steve McQueen. (You know -- the guy everybody compares Craig to.)
Darn that week US dollar! http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/ Still Biggest Bond Globally; #1 Japan This was the 3rd consecutive big weekend internationally for Sony / MGM's Casino Royale, which raked in $44.7 million for a new foreign cume $196.4 mil. Added to its $116 U.S. total, that means the new Bond has made $312+ mil worldwide so far. The pic is holding in popularity, with strength in the UK (over $70 mil so far), German-speaking territories, Scandinavia and Benelux while dominating the field in most other countries where it's playing. It opened in Japan as #1. Top weekend estimates are UK $10.4 mil, Germany $8.6 mil, France $5.3 mil, Japan $3.3 mil, Spain $2 mil, Switzerland $1.7 mil, Denmark $1.6 mil. Next weekend will bring on Australia/New Zealand and 7 Latin American territories, including Mexico.
Darn that week US dollar! http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/ Still Biggest Bond Globally; #1 Japan This was the 3rd consecutive big weekend internationally for Sony / MGM's Casino Royale, which raked in $44.7 million for a new foreign cume $196.4 mil. Added to its $116 U.S. total, that means the new Bond has made $312+ mil worldwide so far. The pic is holding in popularity, with strength in the UK (over $70 mil so far), German-speaking territories, Scandinavia and Benelux while dominating the field in most other countries where it's playing. It opened in Japan as #1. Top weekend estimates are UK $10.4 mil, Germany $8.6 mil, France $5.3 mil, Japan $3.3 mil, Spain $2 mil, Switzerland $1.7 mil, Denmark $1.6 mil. Next weekend will bring on Australia/New Zealand and 7 Latin American territories, including Mexico.
The question of, "Is Bond indestructible?" is an interesting one. The film's box office does not surprise me, especially given the amount of money involved. However, what does is that they were able to sell a highly unpopular choice- who was also completely unknown in the US. Even more surprising: I've yet to talk to anyone who has actually remembered that the new Bond's name is Daniel Craig. My coworkers all just referred to him as "the blonde guy". The most telling thing about CR is that it likely marks the end of the traditional Bond "era". Why pay an ever increasing salary to keep a popular actor, when you can simply hire someone new every few films?
Isn't it difficult to compare CR with the other recent Bond Box Office takings as the Dollar is weaker, inflation and the fact that Royale seems to be opening in new markets? Is Bond indestructible? Will people watch any Bond? Would another Bale like actor make 20% more than Craig as Bond in 2008...
"Are you idiots STILL here?" Well, apparently, we ALL are. LOL Look, no one thinks that by posting here we are somehow 'striking out' at Casino Royale. Most of us just got sick of the regular Bond fansites and don't have any interest in supporting Craig or this film. Would you rather we go to one of the other boards and bother fans there? Craig is neither the best Bond ever nor the end of the world. He's simply the flavor of the month. Is Deal or No Deal the best game show ever made? Has Jay-Z just made one of the best albums of recent years? Is Heroes the best tv show ever conceived? They're certainly doing well, and I'm sure there is no shortage of kids who would swear to those statements. People always want to think that their version of something is the best. These are just things that are in the public's eye right now. In time we'll have a new 007 and a new generation swearing that he's better than Connery. And there will probably be more sites like this started in an attempt to give voice to unhappy fans. (I'm just glad I got a whopping 20 films before having to jump ship!) LOL
Goldeneye is the most "apt comparison", save for one small fact: We were not an internet-fueled culture back in 1995. It's no coincidence that overall box office has skyrocketed over the last several years- even since the time of Brosnan's era. A major blockbuster on par with something like Pirates or Lord of the Rings used to be a relatively rare occurrence. You'd have a Star Wars or Raiders, then long dry spells while waiting for the next "big thing". Yet today we have them all the time, even when they don't even have a major influence on pop culture. Just think of how many box office records were broken this year alone. Do you really think the films were that good? Of course they weren't. They're just expensive films that are constantly hyped and marketed to kids that have basically been raised to be obsessive consumers. (Sorry, this really has nothing to do with Bond, I just find it interesting. It's always amazing to see people brag that a new film made more than something from 10 or 20 years ago, yet never bother to question why.)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2210&p=.htm Casino Royale collected an estimated $15.1 million for $115.9 million in 17 days, and it matched GoldenEye's third weekend drop of 51 percent and held better than The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day among the previous Thanksgiving-oriented James Bond pictures. In terms of attendance, Casino still trails the last three Bonds, though it is gaining on them and continues to track ahead of GoldenEye, which as the previous franchise reboot is the most apt comparison for Casino.
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/ Still Biggest Bond Globally; #1 Japan This was the 3rd consecutive big weekend internationally for Sony / MGM's Casino Royale, which raked in $44.7 million for a new foreign cume $196.4 mil. Added to its $116 U.S. total, that means the new Bond has made $312+ mil worldwide so far. The pic is holding in popularity, with strength in the UK (over $70 mil so far), German-speaking territories, Scandinavia and Benelux while dominating the field in most other countries where it's playing. It opened in Japan as #1. Top weekend estimates are UK $10.4 mil, Germany $8.6 mil, France $5.3 mil, Japan $3.3 mil, Spain $2 mil, Switzerland $1.7 mil, Denmark $1.6 mil. Next weekend will bring on Australia/New Zealand and 7 Latin American territories, including Mexico.
Are you idiots STILL here?
Die Another Day also reached that mark against stronger competition, such as Harry Potter and major hits like 8 Mile and Santa Clause 2. Casino Royale has done respectably, but as someone said, any of the other contenders would've done just as well. The script is the real star on display here. I had no desire to see Christian Bale take over the role, but I have to admit, he would've definitely been box office gold. He has the look, he's a solid actor, and he's practically worshipped by the under-25 crowd.
Well, one can hope. A lot does hinge on the next picture. Very well thought-out post!
It's kind've silly for either 'side' to be trying to claim a victory with CR. It's not as though we had anything to do with the making of the film- good or bad. The producers have made it clear that they're going to do what they want, no matter what. I think the real victory here has to go to them. If anything, this will just cause them to think they are no longer dependent on the actor playing Bond. Throw enough money at the screen and it will stick. After all, people don't hold Bond films to a very high standard anyway. Truthfully, I think this film would've been a big hit with Pierce Brosnan, Clive Owen, or just about any of the other contenders. And casting a fanboy fave such as Christian Bale would've really put it over the top. They certainly would've had much more leeway to do a full-blown origin story, rather than just a few nods to this being 007's "beginnings". I don't think Craig was the best choice, simply because he clearly divided the ranks. It may not be an even split, but the division is obviously still there. I also don't think he regards this role as a long term proposition, which would further hurt the franchise. When you consider how much convincing it took for him to accept, what's going to happen when the producers can't deliver quality scripts for him? (And let's not kid ourselves here, anyone who thinks EON can consistently deliver in that department is fooling themselves- badly.)
CR hit the $100 million mark on Thursday, its 14th day of release, slower than top grossing Bond, Die Another Day. The last Pierce Brosnan flick earned $100 million in only ten days. Adjust for inflation and CR has’nt done nothing special yet.
Personally, I'm glad it didn't make #1. Daniel Craig didn't ruin the film for me, but watching it become a sort of sacred cow among fanboys did. It's ridiculous that you can't express disappointment over the film without being heavily criticized. The absurd thing is that in a few years, everyone will be defending the newest 007, and re-evaluating CR will suddenly be fair game.
CR won't end its run as the most successful 007 flick ever, because you still have to account for inflation. They're never going to top the success of Connery's films, simply because Bond will never have that much of an impact on pop culture again.
I don't think the boycott could've really expected to do anything more than keep the film from reaching #1. It's not as though a film with that much publicity and hype could've done poorly, especially considering the lack of competition in the marketplace. (Hell, even Superman Returns managed to cross the $200 million mark, and it had quickly earned the reputation of being a disappointment.) Also, audiences are simply bigger than ever, thanks to the internet and a generation that is devoted to pop culture. Realistically, the boycott's only chance was to force the studio to do massive spin control, and hope to convince enough fans to keep it from the #1 spot. (Both of which it succeeded in doing.) You can bet that if CR had made it to #1, all the pro-Craig fans would be making a huge deal about it. The fact that so many kids are obsessed with things like tracking numbers and box office estimates just illustrates that the top prize is still highly valued.
Both films have done well, but they are still experiencing the typical drops one would expect. The real factor here is that all the other new films are either too low profile or simply doing poorly. An example of great legs would be something like Spiderman or Pirates, where their third weekends were still more than most movie's opening weekends. The boycott definitely kept the film from reaching #1, for the simple fact that not every fan went to see it. It's also worth noting that HF has managed to beat Bond while also holding off far more competition. Films like Santa Clause 3, Flushed Away, Deck the Halls, and Nativity Story, are all vying for the same demographic as Happy Feet. Bond, on the other hand, really only has Deja Vu cutting into its audience.
The boycott worked. CR didn't get the prize. The first weekend was a very close race,the boycotter made the difference and it snowballed from there. Being #1 in the world isn't much with out actually beating another movie. What the fan boys wont tell you about are the countries where CR underperformed or were knocked off the top of the list before its time.
Victory is victory, hollow or not. I was rooting for HF and they are doing quite well..god! I love those penguins!!!! 3 weeks in a row--Go penguins go!!!
Unless you're an absolute Happy Feet fanatic, isn't it pretty much a "victory" of the hollow variety? HF and CR are outpacing everything else enormously. Maybe CR won't ever be the #1 U.S. ticket seller, but as those ads remind us it's the #1 MOVIE IN THE WORLD... and appears to be on a pace to become the most succesful Bond film ever. As the poster earlier today notes, this boycott biz can't be considerd a success whatsoever. Just sayin'...
Three weeks in a row the penguins jumped all over CR. That's victory enough for me.
CR is at 115 million, in a few days it will be the #2 Bond movie. After three weeks, DAD has only 5 millions more. The "boycott" has to be considered a flop.
Happy feet has clobbered CR for 3 weekends in a row now. New results just released on Box Office Mojo. So the defeat is final. Go penguins go!!!! CR might as well give up its dream of ever being #1 in the US box office. Come next weekend it'll get shoved further down the charts.
Perhaps the anti-Craig lobby have actually helped hype up this movie and done Daniel a favour, but his real problem is the follow-up. That one will really tell if he IS the new Bond. The new Superman movie was supposed to be a blockbuster success too, but when I saw it there were only ten of us in the theatre. My kids and I thought we had the place to ourselves 5 minutes before it started. I think die-hard Bond fans need to pull back, relax, watch the DVD of Goldfinger and see CR as a scratch on the record after which the needle will return to the proper groove and start playing our favourite music again.
I mentioned Pirates because it runs -near- the same time. After checking the totals tonight for P2 – over 1 billion- I doubt Brosnan’s 5th could have done that. more around the 500-600 million mark –P2 #’s last time I checked- Brosnan’s 5th with this hype would have stormed the BO. HF wouldn’t have known what hit it. This will be the last weekend at the top for both of these movies.
Yes, new Bonds always do well, simply because people are now used to a changeover. It's also worth noting that most people just assume Brosnan retired. I've yet to meet anyone who actually knows anything about what actually went on behind the scenes. Why should they skip the film when there is nothing else out? But I agree it's reasonable to assume that a fifth Brosnan film would've done equally well in this marketplace. I think being able to tout it as Brosnan's swan song (reunited with Campbell) would've been an equally strong selling point. And of course, the biggest selling point is not who is playing Bond, but the reviews. And they are primarily the result of the producers finally working from a solid script. I don't know why they saddled Brosnan with all those one-liners and scripts that were all over the place. Brosnan was a great Bond who audiences would even accept in a film with an invisible car. When you can sell an idea like that, you can pretty much get away with anything. It's a shame they wasted the potential he had as 007. GE was hailed as a smart return to form. Instead of building off of that, they acted as if they had no idea how to make James Bond movies anymore.
Yeah, HF will probably regain the lead after Saturday and Sunday -- because it's a kid movie. The filmgoing party for CR, I'd think, is generally comprised of one to four people. A foray to see HF reguires at least one parent, 2.5 kids and often one or more additional kids. Some of those kids have already seen HF at this point. That last factor si huge because kids are more apt to want to re-experience fun events (and it gives the non-filmgoing parents a break). I'm not trolling for a fight, but I don't think Brosnan in CR would *necessarily* have sent the movie into the stratosphere. The public in general is familiar with Brosnan-as-Bond, and Brosnan in other films is a respectable, but not top-flight, commodity. The very presence of a new actor as Bond *in addition* to the publicized reboot created a lot of excitement around CR. In the general moviegoing public's POV, the presence of Daniel Craig probably neither hurt nor added to CR's initial success. But reviews and word of mouth have been more positive than not. I don't know if "stumbling" is quite the right word: this week's new movies all look as though they're bombing, and both HF and CR are comfortably ahead of the pack.
I really doubt any Bond movie could've come close to topping Pirates. It's regarded as a much fresher series and also had the advantage of a prime summer release. It's also probably the closest thing we had to a movie 'phenomenon' this year. But considering that each of his films made more than the last, I think it's safe to assume that a fifth Brosnan film would have followed suit. And assuming they had given him the same advantage of a well written script, I think it would've had very strong legs. This is because Brosnan's films didn't just do well- they did well against tough competition: Toy Story (1&2), Titanic, and Harry Potter. They were also released into crowded marketplaces, which didn't just see the top two films making money. But analysts were predicting this would be a weak winter season as early as January. This is not to take away from CR, just to point out how foolish it is to assume that a final Brosnan film would not have done well. In all actuality, it probably could've been #1 for three weeks in a row.
Both movies are stumbling to the end of their top BO run but HF is still ahead of CR. For now anyway. HF never should have been competition. HF is probably going to make more world wide than CR. With this hype Brosnan’s Bond would have been chasing after The Pirates and -eventually- come damn close.
I think "Sinking Ship" is an appropriate name on many levels. For me personally, it refers to my sinking interest in the Bond franchise. I have no desire to see this "Bond: The Next Generation" series. If that's what audiences want to see, so be it (although I personally don't think most people have a preference as to whether Bond is gritty or suave). There are many tv shows and musical artists that I think are terrible, but are still hugely popular. It's just the way things go. In time, someone will make a fun action film, and things will head back in that direction. Craig will still be the first actor I don't recognize or support as Bond. Outside of the internet (or the occasional tv spot), I have had zero exposure to Casino Royale in my everyday life. I prefer it that way.
Very bad indeed. And to think of a movie like HF giving James Bond a run for his money?? That says it all. 2 weeks running now and the Happy penguins are still dancing on top of Craig. This is history in the making. Go penguins go!!!
Both films are showing good legs. It reminds me of the current heavyweight division. You know there's weak competition when guys like Shannon Briggs and Oleg Maskaev are capturing titles. By the same token, how bad is the box office when a short ugly guy like Daniel Craig is starring as James Bond?
Looks as though the name of your website was prophetic, though not in the way you intended. It took a couple weeks, but yesterday CR beat out Happy Feet at the US box office and surpassed HF's overall take. I don't have anything against the penguins at all -- in fact I broached the idea of seeing HF to my daughter, but she declared herself too big for it (but she's not quite mature enough to see CR). In short, CR's proving itself to have box-office legs; I myself intend to see it again (without the kid, and if necessary without the wife). You can keep on insisting that CR is a Bourne movie, not a Bond film, but that horse has been beaten nearly to the point of expiration. JMHO.
I guess I'm just not a 'fanboy' anymore- if I ever really was. I thought this was one of the worst Bond films ever. Not worse in the sense that it's a poorly-made film, just that it doesn't deliver anything I look forward to seeing in a Bond film. Connery and Dalton were both serious Bonds, but they still managed to also be fun and entertaining. Craig's just an ugly guy who seems miserable the whole time, then makes the same goofy face whenever there's an action scene.
I also saw the film, although I remain in the 'unconvinced' category. The guy is just too small to be a Bond, which is probably why he was so easily injured throughout the shoot. One reason why so many doubted him was because he has always been very scrawny in his films. Even though he put on the extra weight, he still has the joints, etc. of a fairly small man.
Well it wasn't me on Yahoo but thanks at least for acknowleging that. I'm afraid you really are in a minority here - but hey that's what opinions are for but it will still go down as one of the best Bond films - as much as you try to deny that (it's a bit like Star Wars fans saying that The Phantom Menace was great when it patently wasn't) - the reviews have been extremely positive. I can tell you I wasn't looking forward to any other Bond film after the last one - just couldn't muster up the enthusiasm but after hearing that it was actually quite good, I really wanted to see it. For me, it was an excellent film. It was nice to see someone else further down the page actually own up to being a "naysayer" before seeing the film then changing their mind after seeing it "and admitting they were wrong" - they never deserved the "kicking" they got afterwards. So you don't like it - fine, but you really are in a minority (obviously people of a like minded view are going to support you but since everyone remains anonymous when posting it could be the same person for all I know.) The cinema I was in was still packed out two weeks after it came out here and several people I know have seen it and not one hasn't liked it. I know one person who has seen it twice. So its a lot more popular than you think. Anyway I came, I gave my review and now I'm going. Bye
Daniel Craig is a poor choice for Bond. Any actor that had been picked to star in this script would've done well with critics, because of the way the character is written. People act as though Craig got on set and suddenly decided that Bond would be serious, wouldn't spout one liners, etc. No, it was in the script. If it had been Clive Owen, Gerard Butler, or any of the other candidates, they would've been credited with the reinvention just the same.
Brozzer was Steel and the other opinions of the Bonds is from 2-3 different places. I’ll go as far as to say it may not be on purpose but your review is almost identical to 1 on yahoo. The book is not what the movie they made. OHMSS is the closest to the book. Mathis a traitor? Vesper with some weird accent? Le Chiffre from the book is a 100x more interesting than in this movie. The book was not a origin story. Craig does not work as Bond. Not Flemings Bond. Not the Bond of the moviez. A run of the mill action movie is not a Bond movie. Casino Royale is run of the mill. 2 many scenes were funny to the audience when they weren’t supposed to be. The talk going out of the theater was not good. Over 80% who had seen it were not happy. not saying they hated it. only not happy with it. not sold on Craig either. This movie is seriously over hyped. for a action film it was not great. I have no problem with firing Brozzer. He could have made this movie, forget about the steroid fueled opening. The bulldozer was 2 much as well. Next few weekz this movie will be know as racist for what Craig's 'Bond' did to those people.
"P.S. I've read this -honest- review posted below elsewhere before and its not new." Yeah right. I only just wrote it. Give me a link to where I COPY AND PASTED IT. Idiot. I went to see it last night. Those are my opinions and I've seen every Bond movie. "Craig is the absolute worst actor to ever claim to be Bond. He is not believable as Bond." I think you will find you are in a very small minority here. "Craig is only Bond for people who hate the Bond moviez or have never seen 1." Nope I love the Bond moviez (sic). I was so looking forward to Tommow Never Dies after Goldeneye that I got a Phantom Menace vibe after I left the theatre. World was awful - they even managed to make Denise Richards unsexy after seeing her in Starship Troopers and Wild Things. Oh and enough said about Die Another Day the better. But please don't insult me by thinking I've posted someone elses review. Those are my words and my thoughts - no-one elses and were done on the spare of the moment on the same keyboard I'm typing this. If thats what you want to think then there is really no hope for you. By the way - I suggest you read Casino Royale again with Brosnan in the lead role. Now that was never Flemings Bond. And yet Goldeneye is a fine film. I wonder where it all went wrong. PS. Movies is spelt with an "s"
The truth is Bond is dead. Craig is the absolute worst actor to ever claim to be Bond. He is not believable as Bond. He IS NOT Fleming’s Bond, not even close. I've read the books and what Craig was is to common to be compared to the depth Fleming gave Bond. CR is a long, wandering movie with no point to it. As an "origin" story it is weak. As a Bond story, its not even close. Vesper is too common to be considered special. A street walker could have wowed Craig's character. Craig is only Bond for people who hate the Bond moviez or have never seen 1. P.S. I've read this -honest- review posted below elsewhere before and its not new.
Well I said I would return with an honest assessment and review and I have. I'm sorry Craig haters but you are living in dreamworld if you think this has destroyed the Bond franchise. I don't use superlatives much but thiis is a fantastic Bond Film and there are several reasons. It has a real actor in the role. It's based on the book by Ian Fleming and above all it's ground in reality (a few exlposions withstanding). There are no megalomaniacs trying to rule the world here. There is simply a villain who wants money. Even the Fleming books were more about character and plot - Goldfinger for instance just wanted to gold - a lot of it. Casino Royale was the first Bond book and introduced the wild "loose cannon" new double-o agent. He made mistakes he got romatically and emotionally involved and it nearly became his undoing. Before I get into the film itself I'll just mention the other Bonds: Connery - terrific Bond, his films all based on Fleming's Books. Lazenby - he's not Sean Connery and yet OHMSS is a great Bond film but he's not Sean Connery - Poor George. Moore - not so great - brought a lot of humour to the films but the Films took a different turn and hardly any of them resembled the actual stories on which they were based (Moonraker being the biggest departure - and yet one of my favourites). Dalton - didn't like the Living Daylights (named after a chapter in Moonraker). I really liked Liscence to Kill. Brosnan - I remember him from "Remington Steele" and to be honest he was Remington Steel in the last three. Goldeneye is the best of Brosnan's era but the last three have been horrendous. Sorry but they have. Now if Brosnan had stayed on and done the next one - it would not have been Casino Royale - but something like "Live to Die Another Day Tomorrow." Which brings me to Craig. Sure he's not that handsome, or suave or quick with a oneliner (even Connery managed a few of them) but what he is is a damn fine actor who immersed himself in the role and brought us something different. Each Bond is different (this is why I mentioned them above) and Craig is no exception but since we are going back to his roots and his beginnings we need something different. Sure there are the usual (non Fleming) set pieces - construction chase, airport/truck/bomb, falling Venice building, but there is also a lot more character definition and an actual plot worth following. I'm not a fan of Poker, I wouldn't play it if you paid me and I vaguely understand that a Straight Flush can beet a pair of Queens. I also know that the game in the book is "Baccarat" but since the world has gone Poker mad (TV, Online etc...) then it made sense to switch the games, but watching Poker has never been so riveting, as the tension is racheted up a notch at a time intersperced with a number of "non-poker activities." which keep the casual viewer interested. The torture scene (the books most famous scene) is pretty faithful and from the moment you see the bottom of the chair being cut out, you know whats happening. If I have one critism is that the denouement (Bond and Vesper in Love scenes) go on just that bit too long. You think the film is coming to a close and it goes on and on then we get the big action climax, but that is a really minor quibble. I thoroughly enjoyed the film. My girlfriend did too and she is not a Bond fan. I think it works on both levels - if you are a fan (and I don't mean a stupid prejudiced already "I'm not going to see the film 'coz it's not Pierce" sulky ones) then it delivers Bond in spades. If your not - it's a damn good film. Is Craig the best Bond? No, that's Connery but he runs him close. Better than the others though. What will be interesting is the next film. How will Craig be with non-Fleming material and if the next film is called "Live for Tomorrow" then I would be wary. But I don't think it will be like that. Bond is back and it's about time.
It's the Ron Jeremy affect: if someone fat, with a huge nose and a hairy back can score with so many woman, then that gives the average consumer of Porn the illusion that he could also (that's why so many superheroes have a nerdy alterego) For years I was afraid that it would eventually happen to Bond, and now it did. Of course those fanboys love him, and it's not because Craig looks like Bond, it's because he looks like them.
WTF CNB was right! Daniel Craig has urged movie bosses to modernize the upcoming Bond series by including gay scenes involving the superspy. The blond Bond has reportedly made it clear to studio chiefs he has no inhibition doing film a full frontal nude scene to please both his male and female admirers in the follow-up to Casino Royale. Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it," Contactmusic quoted him, as saying.
Actually, one of my biggest complaints about this movie is the overreliance on cell phones to advance the plot. I'll be glad when this little trend is over (Bourne; Departed; etc.), because it's such lazy plotting. It's funny to watch a film from just 10 years ago and realize how often they had to write around this issue in thrillers. Ironically, it will also end up dating the films much quicker. The gadgets in Bond films have always had a certain timeless quality about them. No one can really laugh and say, "Oh, look at what a laser watch or submarine car looked like back THEN!"
I wouldn't class myself as a CNB style Craig hater but having seen the film I just didn't get the Bond vibe from him and found him rather bland. The reviews for the film are astonishing. Amazing how a gap seems to have everyone up for a new Bond film. GoldenEye was a pretty drab affair IMO and they did the same with that. I think there are a lot of younger fanboys who just wanted a James Bond film. They also run with the pack and latch onto a strand of slightly obtuse and trendy thinking which suggsts that Bond films should be serious and voilent and that Fleming's Bond wasn't supposed to be handsome so Craig is somehow Fleming's Bond. I don't agree with that. What made Bond stand out from the generic action crowd has been stripped with Craig and the film, perhaps a reason why non-Bond fan critics have been generous. Personally I want a big fun Bond film with a Gerard Butler type in the lead. Might not get that for years now if ever. One more thing, the marketing of this film has been extraordinary. In the UK the PR blitz (car adverts with a Bond tie-in, lottery tickets with a Bond tie-in, Craig on every magazine cover in the supermarket) was ten times bigger than Die Another Day. They really, really had to go overboard with this one to counter the negative feedback and they lucked out with the barren celluoid landscape. No Harry Potter or Titanic to cut into the profits. Timothy Dalton got the Best Bond Ever! hysteria in 1987 and it went pear-shaped for him in the end. We'll see what happens to Craig.
CR could have made much more money if they had put a real Bond in the role. Sony had to spend a lot of money, in order to fight the negative opinions of the fans. I (and many others) are not going to see any movie with DC, and that will cost Sony money, since he won't bring new audience to replace us (he is not Cruise of Ford type that draws people). Bond was created in the cold war, and the west won it by 'spending the commie nation to death' I think we can also win by 'spending the Sony corporation to death', when they understand they will be able to make (at least) 100M more (by bringing back the fans, and having an actor who is a star so the media will take interest of him without spending millions on ads) they will change their minds! keep the boycott alive.
Yes, if Brosnan had done Casino Royale, fans would just be pointing out the similarities between Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only. They would be acting like it was typical of the series, but they wouldn't be attacking Die Another Day the way they are. Instead, we're seeing the typical internet reaction, where fanboys think to support one film they have to rebel against another. It had with Batman. It happened with X-Men. It happened with Blade. And it usually happens whenever they think the studio has shortchanged them by switching directors or changing the tone of a series. But as mentioned, Bond movies have always been on the fantastic side. And they have always been run by the same producers. It's ridiculous.
And speaking of B&R...the film was notorious in that it was the first time the internet's opinion reached mainstream audiences. Aint It Cool News' negative reaction was picked up by mainstream media long before the film actually opened. But there was no such movement against Die Another Day, which is unusual for a film that we're supposed to believe represents the nadir of the franchise. In fact, sites such as AICN, Dark Horizons, etc. all gave it pretty glowing reviews!
Oh yes, the old 'I was a skeptic and now I believe routine' - every snake-oil salesman used that trick - there was always someone in the crowd that was the biggest "skeptic" but after trying the potion, he suddenly became superstrong and the crowd thougt "well, if such a skeptic was convinced, then the potion must work!!!". Nice try, you corporate shills, but no cigar (or PPK, or any gadget whatsoever). I saw CR (I paid to see the penguin movie and snuck to CR) and it really sucked. some people said he was like like Rocky Balboa - wrong, He was much more like a crumpled Ivan Drago (or his midget brother). The worst miscast in movie history.
I think the Batman analogy is really what all this boils down to. Fans really want to believe that this will be Batman Begins, and represent a real change for the series. But the fact that we are still dealing with the same producers of Dalton and Brosnan's films makes that hope absurd. There has been no radical makeover behind the scenes. Unlike Batman Begins, the producers are not giving full creative control to one man's vision. It's no different than if Joel Schumacher had followed B&R with a gritty take on the Dark Knight, and fans suddenly chose to blame the previous film on George Clooney's presence. You don't blame the star, you blame the director. And everyone knows that the Bond producers call the shots. Tamahori had to first get all of his ideas OK'd by Wilson and Broccoli. To compare Die Another Day to B&R or the 60's Batman is equally absurd. The film drew good reviews and was a big hit upon release. There was no online backlash on par with B&R, and with good reason. The fantasy elements that were involved were no more outlandish than what the series had come to be known for: Jetpacks; laser battles in outer space; volcano lairs; etc. True, the invisible car and parasailing drew questions and derision from some, but there were just as many fans who defended their inclusion. Fans even made a big deal when it was nearly #1 for two weeks' running. It definitely wasn't regarded as a horrendous bomb, no matter how hard fans now try to spin that angle. If it had been, audiences would not have rewarded it the way they did.
"Superman returns" has a production budget of 270 million. CR costs 150 millions. And yes, after the second (no, after the first) week every movie goes downhill. Even the Brosnan Bond's.
Craig sucked as Bond and CR is a disappointing Bond film, because it is without a Bond. The propaganda that he is Flemings Bond is BS. Flemings character is much more complex than Craig is capable of playing. What is on the screen is Sylvester Stallone as Bond. CR is not a 'reinvigoration' but a demolition[-man] of everything Bond had been. There is not once where Craig captured the essence of the character. The 'gritty' action is unbelievable, the relation ship between Vesper falls through the cracks. Craig is not a leading man & he does not connect with the ladies. For the FANS the reality realized is a disappointing movie. CR will not stand the test of time, forgetabout a 2-3 viewing. It is a dull oven blown movie with the wrong man as a Bond. With the right man as Bond it would have worked, maybe even been memorable. Craig is the most over hyped actor in the world right now & his movies are shite. CR is no different except for he has over done the workout routine and looks like a Russian thug in a tux, on steroids.
I have to confess. I was wrong. Flat-out, just plain wrong. I didn't like the idea of Craig, didn't want him in the role (I'd seen him as Ted Hughes in _Sylvia_ and in _Layer Cake_ and thought him a good actor, but not Bond). I loved Brosnan at Bond and wanted to see him continue. I'm ashamed to admit that I ranted and raved online and off against Craig, the producers, the whole bit. But I decided that I was being immature and needed to at least see the movie, so I could claim to have an informed opinion. _CR_ blew me away. It was freakin' fantastic. And Craig was a revelation in the role. I loved it so much I went back a few days later to see it again. I guess what I'm here to say is this: I was wrong. The "re-boot" of the Bond franchise was a hell of a risk, and it took guts for the producers to stand up and do what was needed to save the franchise from becoming the Bond equivalent of Adam West's Batman--and let's face it, that's pretty much where the franchise was after _Die Another Day_ (all they were missing was Bond in a utility belt, complete with shark repellent from Q division). Casting Craig was nothing short of genius. No, he doesn't have the classic Bond look, but by the time the opening sequence of the movie was through I did not care. _The man can act_, and he has without question given us the richest, most complex, most nuanced Bond to date. I'll probably get shot down by other fans for this, but I'm willing to say publically that I was wrong to jump to conclusions about Craig and about what the producers were doing. If we continued to get more Bond movies like this, then the Bond franchise is in good hands. And what's more, I believe the franchise has room enough for _both_ visions of Bond--the suave sophisticate gadget user epitomized by Brosnan and Moore, and the darker, troubled, more dangerous Bond epitomized by Connery, Lazenby, and Craig. I'll say it again: I was wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it (Bond would do no less). I hope that other Bond fans will give _CR_ a chance.
I had a similar reaction. I think by trying so hard to distance it from the past movies, they have missed an opportunity to strengthen the entire series. Instead of critics saying the formula is obsolete, they would've been saying, "Wow, it still works." Bond movies can't really be taken on a one film basis. Rather, you tend to look at them as a whole.
I had the same reaction as other hard core Bond fans when Daniel Craig got the role. I thought to myself, "What the hell were they thinking?" Then I saw Casino Royale, the first day it hit the theatres, as I have done for practically every Bond film since Dr. No. I walked out afterwards feeling that Craig had pulled it off and that it was a good flick. But I thought about this some more, over the next 10 days, and eventually came to a different conclusion. The movie was REALLY good, even with a Bond who looks, (and sometimes acts,) more like a Bond villain. So imagine how GREAT it would have been with Pierce Brosnan, or any British guy off the street, who looks and acts more like James Bond than DC!!
Counting from opening friday til second weekend CR is behind Superman returns at this time in the box office/ 109mil vs 94mi. The hype is over. It goes downhill from here. Superman never broke 400 mil. Cr has to break 400 mil to start paying back sonys 250 mil
It's uncanny how similar this is to when Timothy Dalton took over the role. Everyone was talking about how the late 80's were serious times that required a serious Bond. I remember kids at school ridiculing Roger Moore, and claiming that Dalton's take was the best portrayal ever. Even newspaper columnist were predicting that this new, younger Bond could easily go on to break Moore's record of 7 films. The general feeling was that the producers had finally learned from the past, and that from then on there would be nothing but great James Bond films. Of course, we all know what happened. Times change and so do trends. Eventually Craig's dour Bond will give way to the return of the suave, gadget-laden one that everyone associates with the role.
Things like Craig being cast as Bond, make me suspect, more and more that we ARE living in the MATRiX. Craig, the sixth anomaly, is a serious glitch in the matrix. The designers of the matrix put it because, As agent Smith had explained, people were to happy with the older Bonds, they refuesed to except them, it seem the humanity defines itself through suffering, and Craig sure is a sore issue. Daniel is the ugly solution to the anomaly inhernet in the making of the matrix. where is the one (the true one) thal will rid us of his bland reign?
The fact that Shrek II - a movie about an ugly ogre made 400 Mil. should have indicated that CR - a movie also starring an ugly ogre would have made much more money. But I guess Craig is too ugly even for the Shrek-loving people.
I don't think Casino was ever in danger of flopping. For one, there's simply nothing else out there right now- aside from the penguins. Everyone I know who saw it weren't really big fans, they simply said it was the only thing playing. It's also too high profile a film to just go unnoticed. No one would suggest that Die Another Day is better than Goldeneye, yet it made a lot more money. What changed? Movies simply continue to grow as an industry. As great as the hype was in 1995, marketing can reach much more people today. Most people thought the first Pirates was a much better film as well, yet it didn't stop the sequel from being huge.
Bond is beaten by penguins? So what? The Americans spent more then 400 Millions for Shrek II. They like animated movies. CR loses only 25% in it's second weekend. That's a good rate. So I guess, Casino will be a success
One thing I don't think anyone has considered is how long Craig will actually want to do this. For Casino Royale, I think the producers realized they had painted themselves into a corner, so they had to allow the actor, director, and writers more freedom than ever before. But I would imagine they now feel as though they can do anything they want, and the public will still line up for the name "007". The first red flag should've been their inability to come to terms with Roger Mitchell. The second is all the ideas Craig has already expressed about where he thinks Bond should go. Somehow, I don't see Michael Wilson agreeing that Bond should make you go, "F*ck, that's not nice." I also doubt they will be willing to let the actor decide if and when the gadgets return, and to what extent- as Craig has already hinted. If they thought Brosnan wanted too many changes, what will they think of Craig, who seems to regard the Bond movies as being beneath him as an actor? For producers that are notorious control freaks, I don't think this reboot will be as harmonious as everyone is expecting.
I like Brosnan but face it, he won't do Bond again - he is too old, and all the bridges between him and the producers are burnt. So, unless we have a realistic suggestion of who should replace Craig (and the sooner the better) we are just treading water. I have 3 suggestions: 1. Jude Law 2. Dominic Purcell ('Prison Break') 3. Zen Gesner - (see pictures of him in http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/6025/ They are all in the right age, all are handsome, and would be happy to play Bond.
First of all, I am a fan of the MOVIES and not of the BOOKS, so I really don't care if that's what Fleming wanted. However, even if I cared, Craig is certainly not what Fleming wanted. IN the CnB site you have a picture of what Fleming had envisioned Bond should look like. http://www.danielcraigisnotbond.com/WhosTheBetterBond.html I have to admit that the picture reminds me very much the actor Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin from 'Star Wars') see for yourself: in IMDB, or go directly to http://imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1360/Mptv/1360/3748_0196.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Cushing,%20Peter In my opinion Lazenby was the closest to the Bond I imagine in my mind. Craig doensn't look like a superspy, maybe (maybe) a mole.
I'm sorry to see the series end, but I guess it had to happen sooner or later. It's a shame that Bond is being forced to cater to fanboys- many of which could probably care less about the old films. But I guess kids are obsessed with continuity, so suddenly we have to have "true" sequels. It does feel like they have taken all the fun out of 007, especially for those of us who don't care to spend months online dissecting a film to death. But at least they did start over, like the Star Trek films, which will make it easier to view this as a separate string of films.
007 isn't any fun now! We have all those strange Daniel Craig fanatics trying to shove this odd film down our throat and saying that all the Bond films were rubbish. I'll keep my 20 Bond films; they can keep their Casino Royale! I never want to read anything by those nasty, miserable charmless people on those awful Bond forums again. Bond used to be FUN! Thank you to people like John Towers who is one voice of sanity. Is Casino a box office success? I can't keep up with the spin!
I thought that I would have to admit I was wrong after the positive reviews for Casino Royale. But the actual film was a little drab. It has silly action scences - and who was Daniel Craig supposed to be playing? Pro-Craigers are spinning the box office figures to vainly prove than Royale outdid an Penguin childrens' film. Pathetic. I hope Sony act when they realise that a real Bond film would have made 30% more. Or are movie companies charities these days?
This is probably the most disappointing film I have ever seen- although not in the way one might expect. As a film, Casino Royale is an average action film. Nothing groundbreaking, but okay. But the fact that it ends 40+ years of tradition really disappoints me. I don't have any interest in seeing a series of films that ape the Jason Bourne trilogy. I want the classy James Bond series that I grew up with to continue. I can understand how the change is probably no big deal for critics, casual moviegoers, or younger fans who have no great love for the past 20 entries. I'm sure kids must watch the 70's films and, without any sense of context, probably find it very hard to understand why they were so popular. To put it into perspective is difficult, since very few franchises have managed to run as long- let alone one based on a strict formula. I suppose it would be like a Friday the 13th slasher film that was suddenly reinvented as a more psychological horror series. Then again, perhaps the best way to express the disappointment to younger fans is this: Imagine if Craig did not end up continuing in the role, and left after only two films- or even this one. Imagine if the series you thought you were getting ended prematurely. This is exactly how fans of Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan felt when the plug was pulled. Both actors still had several films in them, and the series was cheated by their inability to continue. This is a franchise built on legacy, tradition, and the unique fact that each actor would have an entire era in which to cement his 00 status. To change all of that in an attempt to be another flavor of the month like Bourne is, as I said, disappointing.
So all of those pro-craig posts were paid for. It’s a shame they are the reason I stop going to the forums and Craig is the reason I stopped going to the Bond films. B.Broccoli got what she wanted they did their job now Bond is dead.
Now that Casino Royale has come out I notice that a selection of the most vociferous and cheerfully batty Craig luvvies on the forums have vanished, as if the job is finished and they aren't real people at all. Hmmm.
CR is not a bond movie. I will never pay to watch a Bond movie again. Most of the audience was disappointed as well. They need to fire Craig before he kills Bond completely.
I've lived in Canada for many years, and the Canadians (Albeit nice people) really have a liking to ugly people. I mean, no one of the newscasters on Canadian T.V looks even half descent, while people on American T.V are usually appealing. They constantly choose ugly women to be their Miss Canada (except for last year), or have ugly women working in high-fashion clothing stores. So it's not a big surprise that Bond was no. 1 there: those bleeding hearts probably took a liking to poor, old, repulsive, reptilian-loooking, watery-blind's-man eyes, leather-faced, puke-haired, Putinesque Craig.
Of course the critics love the new Bond - They hate the old ones, and therefore will support any change to the movies. it's like Osama giving a good review to a book about America - you know, if you like America, that you are going to hate the book. Craig looks like an S.S officer, I really don't think that JB should look like a Nazi or a 50 year old russian mob boss. How does putting someone who looks in his 50's to play the part of a 25-30 year old Bond is "Loyal" to Flemming's vision?
With all the hype Craig should have been over the 100 mark way before now, like the first weekend. If Royale stalls in the next few weeks he is gone. with all of the press wondering why. Simple math 250-91=159 He still owes the sony 159 million and they will want a shit load of cash for their trouble.
Craig - Least successful 1st Bond outing ever? Since this is Craig's first Bond film I decided to compare it to the other 5 actors first outing as the superspy. I found the box office numbers for all of them and adjusted them for inflation. The results? Take a look below: 1) Sean Connery, Dr. No = $368,042,560 2) George Lazenby, OHMSS = $435,416,719 3) Roger Moore, LALD = $714,411,711 4) Timothy Dalton, TLD = $321,417,441 5) Pierce Brosnan, GoldenEye = $443,459,357 6) Daniel Craig, Casino Royale = $91,372,510 I know CR is still in theaters but I believe it will have a hard time passing any of the others. It was beaten by an animated penguin film shortly after it's release and is losing steam every day.
Shortasre DC (5' 10" not 6' like everyone insists) races around shooting and clubbing people in his pumped up body. Is this Bond? I think not? Is this some oaf who resembles a Russian mafia type? Yep! Does he have style? No. Does anything he says sound geniune,convincing or believable? No. Does he look uncomfortable and miscast? Yes. Oh dear what a bloody mess.
OK, so lets say we give you Canada. 35 million US for CR and HF 40 million. Seriously dude does it sound better have the penguins completely humiliated Bond by 5 million? CR is looking more like a flop in the US.
Seriously, what can you expect? It's Canada! LOL But you know, the best part is knowing that pro-Craig fans are still bothered by all of this. It's hilarious!
Ha!! losers Craig was #1 in Canada, 5 mil to your sorry 2 mil for the damn penguins. Every where else CR is a hit!!!
Reviews have never made a Bond movie. Never.. Once every 10 years they like to get behind the a Bond movie and think their reviews made it a success. Critics have always been dumfounded by the public's love of the movies. These reviews may not have the desired effect. All of them talk about how different this Bond movie is. Superman returns had the same type of positive reviews it was all kryptonite after opening weekend. If CR stays on track it is set to make 130 million in the US. If it crashes like supes 100 million will be very lucky. The next two weeks will tell Craig’s future. The second weekend is the key.
Responding to what the editor posted...I was expecting to read countless stories of Bond's triumphant return this morning- much like what happened with Dalton and Brosnan's first entries. Instead, the big story seems to be about Happy Feet topping Bond. CNN even had an entire intro about how Bond had survived Goldfinger, Odd Job, and Jaws, but couldn't defeat some singing penguins. Warner has admitted they didn't expect HF to be #1, and assumed this would be the biggest Bond opening ever (because of the reviews). In the end, perhaps there were more than a few unhappy 007 fans out there after all? Let's face it, any Bond film released with that much promotion is not going to simply flop in 2006. Twenty years ago, it might've been a tougher sell, but not today when you have the internet to create massive awareness for your film.
2 things put me off of Casino Royale. The decision to reboot and the firing of Brosnan. Craig didn't bother me. Firing a Bond who wanted to continue did. Even worse was that they did it in order to erase the past and start over. I became a fan in 1985. One thing I responded to was the rich history. I didn't just care about the ones that remained faithful to Fleming. I loved watching stuff like Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, etc. Each Bond was ridiculously entertaining and like a mini-time capsule. It was the ultimate in escapism.
It also bothers me that fans and critics suddenly appear so dismissive of the franchise. Many are so desperate for Casino to be regarded as the Batman Begins of the franchise, that they continually try to label Brosnan's films as the Schumacher era. But unlike the Batman or Superman franchises, no Bond film has ever been an outright disaster. They were all popular and they made lots of money. Critics would sometimes assume that an actor wasn't working out, but that's about it. Of course, no one could possibly say that of Brosnan, so instead they try to discredit the fantastic Bond that has served us so well for decades. Everyone is also overlooking this: the same people have largely been responsible for all the Bond films. Casino does not represent a dramatic artistic change. These are the same people who gave us Brosnan's films. And some of them gave us Dalton and Moore's as well. And yet suddenly, they want us to overlook the past and regard them as the flavor of the month. It's like watching a band from the 60's try to appeal to teens. It's disgraceful that fans have turned on the previous films and actors, especially Brosnan. No one ever blamed George Clooney for Batman and Robin. They blamed the people making the creative decisions. In that case, it was Schumacher. In this one...well, you get the idea.
If their only goal was to keep people from seeing the film, then no, they were not amazingly successful. Personally, though, I don't think that was ever their true intent. No one would actually start a site expecting a film already in production to simply shut down. I think they just wanted to strike out and discredit the production, and in that, they succeeded. Everything that was written about Craig or the film had to address the fact that he was an unpopular choice. The topic completely shifted from "Bond Begins" to how ridiculed the new Bond was. Sony no longer had to sell the idea of another Bond film- they had to sell the idea of Daniel Craig. And the acknowledgement of this negativity continued all the way up until the film's release. They also managed to turn the 007 fan sites (which had always been very laid back, mellow affairs) into an angry civil war: You either supported Craig, or you were no longer a "true fan". No matter what you think of their opinion or methods, there's no denying that they made voice heard.
I wouldn't say they have been successful. The reviews are unaminous their praise and it makes their crusade look very silly indeed. I mean the rest of the world is actually laughing at them. Sure Happy Feet beat it at the box office (in the USA) but like I said, earlier - that means nothing in the long run. I haven't seen it myself yet. I tend to take a week or so before I see big films. I'd much rather see them in a half empty thaetre then one where I can't hear anything because of the 14 year old morons behind me. However I will come back and give my honest assesment of the film or a link to where I post it anyway.
270!!!WTF! What happened to the 70 million dollar movie?
I don't ally myself with craignotbond either, but I will say this for them: In their own way, they have been amazingly successful. They managed to completely rattle both the studio and the fans- and apparently continue to do so. I certainly never expected the budget to balloon so high for this (low-tech, back to basics) film, and you can bet that the early negative PR factored in to some degree. It also bothers me to read so much negativity aimed at the previous Bond films and actors. In the past, a restart did not force the entire series to be cast in a bad light. It's also ridiculous to have people putting down gadgets or fantastic plots in a Bond film- that's what made the series what it is today!
My apologies then, but since they link to you and post your thoughts then I would have a word, as they could get into trouble
**editors note~ I can’t control what they (CnB)
use or don’t use. They can use full or partial text from just about any source
as long as it is credited.
As for your concern over the use of selected text from reviews, why worry over
it?
You are welcome to post your concerns here, everyone is. Don’t let what CnB does
or doesn’t do bother you personally. In that one regard they have the utmost
success, people are wondering about what they are going to do next.
I too have an uneasiness over the use of dismissive words in reviews and the
producer distancing themselves from the past 20 Bond extravaganzas.
When the movie pundits qualify their remarks about the new Bond with caveats
such as “The best way to view this movie is to forget it is a Bond film.” Or
“You have to forget about the past 44 years to enjoy this movie.” (paraphrasing
here) is a bit troubling for a fan.
Aside from the fact I do not believe this is “Fleming’s Bond” for several
reason, the main concern is whether or not removing what I (and many others)
believe to be the key ingredients that have always made the Bond movies
successful will work in a Jason Bourne flattery.
**If you wish to continue this conversation you are welcome to write me.**
(continued from last post) I should also add that when I decided to skip Bond 21, I never dreamed that anyone else would feel the same way. I had no idea that it would become such a topic of debate among fans. But when people are going to the trouble of creating alternate 007 websites, there is obviously a portion of the fanbase that feels strongly about the decisions that have been made.
I decided to skip Bond 21 as far back as 2003, when I first heard they were thinking of replacing Brosnan. Now, I'm no Brosnan fanatic, but I didn't want to see another actor change so soon. I didn't visit any websites about it, and this was long before anyone decided to boycott. It was a personal choice, and it was my own. Now, maybe I'm just being stubborn at this point, but that's my choice too. I don't want to see an entirely new Bond series. I want to see the same one I grew up with continue. The point is, no one else has had any influence in my decision to skip Bond 21. If I allowed them to, I would probably listen to the reviews and just go see it! :) I agree with you that I can't accurately review a film I have not seen. But I have no interest in reviewing this film. I simply decided not to go.
Um, this is not craignotbond. Maybe this is something you should be posting on *that* website, or else emailing to them. Personally, I wish they had never started that site, as now anyone who disagrees with Casino Royale is automatically associated with them. The problem with your argument is that you say we should make up our own minds, yet continually point to things like Rotten Tomatoes as a reason why we should see it. We HAVE made up our own minds- that's the whole point. Now it may be based on the casting of Bond, the producers, or simply the decision to reboot. Who knows? The point is it's OUR decision. Contrary to what people like to say on message boards, it is not "prejudice" to decide whether or not you'll go see a film. People have done it for years, and it's the whole reason we have reviews and trailers. If people didn't judge a movie based on those, they'd have to go see every single film that is released. There have been plenty of series that I stopped watching due to a change I disagreed with. It's nothing new. Now maybe I missed out on something, but it was a choice I made personally. I don't care if you liked Casino Royale or not. I don't even know you. Why would you care that I decided to skip it? And I have no idea who is behind the craignotbond site. For all I know, it could be nothing more than an elaborate joke. I don't visit it, so why should I care what their content is?
Have any of you actually read Casino Royale? I have. And I'm not your Pal. I was simply stating that, your sister site DanielCraigIsNotBond.com is posting bogus reviews in the hope that the "lemmings" who follow it are going to think they are the real ones when they are patently not. I do not give a damn if the film is top of the box office or not (The Phantom Menace proves that). I'll make my own mind up. I never slag anything off before I've seen it - you know that way I can make up my own mind. You should try it. Obviously you lot made up your mind the moment the actor was cast. Did you know that Sean Connery was not Ian Flemings idea of Bond either but everyone says he was the best Bond and yes I get fed up of the "Best Bond since Connery..." rubbish but some of you are bordering on hatred for someone you don't even know. I'll say it loud and clear "You can't judge something until you've seen it" and I don't mean a trailer (Phantom Menace again)and I very much doubt most of you will see it since the object of your little crusade is to not go and see it. That would make you hypocrites if you did wouldn't it? What I do object to is putting words in the mouths of others when they haven't said what you have written down. That is fraud and libel. The two reviews that I randomly picked from the site because I can't be arsed going through them all. Unless I have been incredibly lucky and just hit on the two that were made up (but I doubt that) prove that your crusade is full of lies to get where you want (a bit like the Government).. I wonder if that was why the first site was shut down. The one on the site is one persons "view" not the "review which appears in the link above." He doesn't like it but then he's sort of given up on the franchise and he does actually say the best bit is "Craig" himself. Funny that. I'll look forward to your pathetic little crusade dying as your attempts make as much difference as a Fart in a Wind tunnel
This continues to be an interesting topic/debate- moreso than the actual film, imo. All of my friends over 30 went to Casino Royale expecting the next Goldfinger or Goldeneye. They were shocked to find it dull and lacking the kind of trademark fun of the series. However, teens seem to think it's the greatest Bond movie ever made, and far better than the jokey movies of the past. In a way, it reminds me of Superman Returns. Kids thought it was epic and powerful, while adults seemed to ask, "What's fun about this?" Bond is basically a comic book character, so it's not surprising to see him finally subjected to the modern day hero treatment. Kids today like for their heroes to be portrayed realistically and taken serious, even if it comes at the expense of sheer entertainment. I have no idea why that is, but it's interesting nonetheless. I'm sure the internet is a big factor, though. If you sit around for a year discussing the same film, you obviously need it to be taken seriously by those around you. Otherwise, you've just wasted a year of life on something you should've already outgrown. (And personally, I also blame George Lucas for starting this stupid prequel trend. LOL )
"CR comes at the expense of the previous 20 films" This sums up my feelings exactly. I have nothing against Craig. I have nothing against Brosnan. If Craig had been picking up directly from the last film (as all the previous actors did), I would've gone to see it. But it bothers me that this film seems aimed at critics, non-fans, or kids who don't really like the previous 20 films. I don't like reading things like "thank God they did away with the fantasy, gadgets, over-the-top stunts, womanizing, one-liners, etc." Sorry, but that's what the series has always been and will eventually return to. Why should we reboot the entire thing just to appease people that don't even like Bond movies?
Eat humble pie, you must be joking pal. The reason I don’t like Craig still stand, stronger than before, and yes I did see the CR shitfest. Really CR is shit. I didn’t like Brosnan as Bond but it was still fun to watch. So much is wrong with CR. Jason Bourne has more heart and better more original action. The “love” story is right out of attack of the clones. The cgi face on the stunt double is very noticeable. The story drags and bogs down. When he finally says the one line we all know he needs to say, I still don’t believe him. Not to mention having pay to see a ad riddled movie with obvious product placement. Guess what pal you world is about to pop, the movie has been over hyped. be prepared to be torn a new one when the critics try to figure out why the public didn’t see it.
Well, I have no affiliation with craignotbond's site, nor do I feel I'm on any type of "crusade" by posting here. But there are some REAL people out there who simply don't like the change of direction. I'm not surprised by the positive reviews, because as I said, every time the producers make an effort to veer from formula, the critics love it. The Living Daylights and Goldeneye were both met with high praise- there was simply no internet then to drive the point home. I think my main disappointment is that CR comes at the expense of the previous 20 films. Critics and fans act as though Brosnan wrote his own scripts, Dalton was a huge mistake, and the Moore era is best forgotten. By your own admission, you thought the last three films were terrible. I thought they were entertaining. And if you didn't like those, I'm guessing there are several in the series which you don't consider to be very good. I have always loved that the Bond films were entirely unique, and routinely confounded critics who simply thought they were subpar. Overall, I don't mind the return to basics, but I hate that they are trying to hard to distance themselves from the legacy.
Criag loses at the box office, nuff said
Actually I was curious to see how many of you were eating humble pie after the fantastic reviews (yes fantastic reviews). What I discovered was a load of lies masquerading as apparent reviews when I actually went to the sites (The Sunday Times) and (The Daily Record) lo and behold if they don't give glowing reviews: Here check it out for yourselves: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14931-2454589,00.html and here's the Daily Record one: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/therazz/moviereviews/tm_headline=casino-royale-%2D12a%2D%26method=full%26objectid=18109932%26siteid=66633-name_page.html Amzingly bearing no resemblence to the ones posted on the craignotbond website. Personally I couldn't care less if the film is any good or not (the last three have been terrible) it just made me laugh to see this rather pathetic crusade stumbling to a halt.
Sorry, but not everyone here can be lumped into the same category as the Craignotbond fanatics. Some of us are genuine Bond fans who are simply disappointed by this new direction. But if you want to point fingers, it's equally pathetic that pro-Craig fans continue to be upset that not everyone agrees with them. Why even waste your time visiting the "alternative" 007 sites if you don't agree with what they represent? In my opinion, that's no different than the anti-Craig fans who troll the main fan sites. Is it so hard to believe that not everyone shares the same opinion of Casino Royale? I have plenty of magazines from 86/87 which hail Dalton as the "best Bond ever"- possibly "better than Connery". Ditto for Brosnan in 94/95. If Rotten Tomatoes had existed during those years, you can bet they would reflect a similar freshness rating as Casino. Even glancing at the few reviews that do exist on RT (most all written in hindsight), you can see similarities between them and CR. I know CR is new and exciting for kids on message boards, but it's hardly the greatest thing to ever happen to the franchise. No matter how many links you have to convince you otherwise, Bond has been bigger (and better) in the past.
Bloody hell what a bunch of losers. The best bit I've read is the reviewers are paid by the movie companies. Year that's why my local papers all give it 5 stars. I was particularly amused by the Times review on the Craignotbond website which is online and bears no RESEMBLENCE whatsoever to the online 4/5 glowing review. Same for the Daily Record one (which I read firsthand) - you know if you want people to take you seriously then perhaps you should print the actual link to the online review. I would love those two papers to sue you as what you are printing are lies - that's actually libel and criminal. 96% Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. But you'll delete this anyway (as it will mar your perfectly vindictive message board) so I'll waste no more time on it. Yours (Someone who's laughing at your pathetic crusade)
Everyone's been talking about Craig's face & hair being wrong for the part. I agree. but his body is also not right.Seeing clips of him in the new movie show him looking like a pumped up bodybuilder. To get muscles like that he'd have to work out 5 times a week. How would he have time to save the world ? Unlike Connery or Brosnan who were naturally big, lean and muscular, Craig looks stiff, beefy and unflexible. He's also at least three inches too small.
I've never understood why the producers act as though each actor can only play Bond one particular way. There was nothing to keep Brosnan from playing a serious Bond, or Dalton from playing a more balanced Bond. It's very disappointing to me that those actors were not allowed to work with better material. In the case of Brosnan, it's particularly inexcusable, considering the level of success he brought the franchise. I've also never understood how they can rapidly go from consistency to self-parody. Both Living Daylights and Goldeneye were hailed as glorious returns to form. Yet the synopsis for Dalton's third film sounded almost as bizarre as Die Another Day. I think Craig should enjoy the critical raves, because if history is any indication, it can only go downhill from here.
I thought Moore was a disaster as Bond, so I just sat out the early seventies and came back when a new Bond took over. I've heard bad things about the Craig film, the response to "shaken not stirred" got a cheap laugh, but was derided by the critics as boorish. I probably won't bother, I'll wait to see what Bond comes along next - if any - it may be time to accept that he's about to hang up his Walther PPK.
The break from tradition has obviously struck a chord with critics, who usually prefer to simply roll their eyes at each new Bond film. And it does make you wonder why EON played it so safe with Brosnan. His popularity in the role should have given them enormous freedom to reinvent the series as early as Tomorrow Never Dies. Instead, they acted as though they could only go in one direction with him, which is utter nonsense. For nearly 10 years, everyone referred to Brosnan as an ideal Bond- a perfect balance between Connery and Dalton. It's funny how quickly the fans like to turn on whoever filled the role last. It also happened with Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton. When Bond #7 arrives, I'm sure Craig will receive the same treatment.
I have nothing bad to say against Daniel Craig, but I think everyone has failed to mention the real reason he is winning over critics. This is basically the first time an actor has been given the freedom to work outside of the typical Bond formula. Craig is not being forced to toss out one-liners in every other scene, or go through the same motions that the previous actors were required to perform. Dalton or Brosnan could've been twice as good if they had been granted the same type of creative freedom. I do think it's unfortunate that the producers were unwilling to take similar chances with Brosnan's Bond. Even though I like Craig as an actor, I still don't think he was the best choice for the role. As someone mentioned, he is easier to accept as a raw agent than a polished 007.
Lazenby average looking? http://www.licencedtokill.com/bonds/pics/lazenby.gif Slightly off-topic but felt I had to defend George. He was a good Bond. I thought so.
Bond movies have been going since 1962. The producers have made mistakes with casting before. Lazenby was too average looking & inexperienced while Moore carried on too long. But hey we all make mistakes. These mistakes were quickly and wisely rectified. But this time it seems Barbara Brocoli is not listening to huge public opinion & admitting she made a mistake. The film is out now. I'm boycotting it but have seen clips & read reviews. Craig seems to be trying to be mean, tough and moody. Probably because he can't do charm, wit and aplomb. His voice is soft and undistinctive, unlike a Connery or Moore. His face is dead pan and shows no emotion. A leading man playing Bond should have more screen presence. He seems to run around a lot. So what, even Moore did that & he was in his 50's. Brosnan could have starred in a gritty Bond, he is a very good actor & still in good shape. Everyone would have been happy if he had stayed. If he wanted more money, so what, he'd given nearly 10 years of his life to Bond. Everyone wants the same actor to play Bond for at least 10 years & we don't like changing Bond actors too frequently. But in this case it has to be done.
Why don't they make the next Bond film a one-man stage show with Daniel Craig? He could do three thoughtful monologues. Or that idiot Broccoli could sell the Bond franchise and someone could make a Bond film again.
My biggest problem with Craig is, I just can't see the agent he portrays ever evolving into "James Bond". I think he works fine in the context of a "proto-Bond" story where he isn't supposed to be a suave, fully-fledged 007, but where do you take it from there? There has to be a point where the gadgets, flirting, humour, and fantasy return, and I don't see Craig fitting into that at all.
By my count, Craig is now the fifth actor to be dubbed, "The best Bond since Connery." (I think only David Niven has been denied the honor.) If James Brolin had gotten the role in the 80's, you can bet he would've also been the 'best'. I think what people respond to most is the back to basics approach. There was similar hype and critical response prior to Goldeneye, The Living Daylights, and even For Your Eyes Only (to an extent). Each time there has been an unspoken hope that all subsequent Bond films will get things right. Unfortunately, I have seen Casino Royale, and do not share the optimism of critics. It doesn't really work as a Bond film, and what is left is an average spy film. The two things most everyone has agreed on is that Craig does not come across as a 007, and the film is far too long. If the movie does not connect with general audiences, it will likely be because of those two reasons. Overall, I think this film actually works better if you adopt the "code name" theory which was suggested in 1967's Casino Royale. Then it makes sense for Dench to be M, and for Craig to be such an unconventional Bond. Otherwise, the film is simply not any fun- unless you're simply tired of Bond the superspy. (And I doubt the people that are shelling out for those new dvds are tired of the fantasy Bond.)
Brosnan's last Bond was slightly over the top. Invisible cars etc. However it did have some gritty moments. Remember Bond having a beard & being tortured for several months ?. If the producers wanted to make the next film grittier all they had to do was make it with Brosnan still in the role. He easily had another film in him. That's what they did after Moore's Moonraker. Made a grittier film with the same actor. The producers have made mistakes before with casting. Getting an experienced and average looking George Lazenby in 1969. Then allowing Roger Moore to make one Bond too many in 1985. However the producers quickly & wisely corrected things. Appointing Craig could be their biggest mistake, simply because it seems Barbara Brocali does'nt want to admit she made a mistake and sack Craig. Reviews say Craig is serious, broody and tough. That's simply because that's all he can do. He has'nt got the charm and sexiness of Connery, the wit and aplomb of Moore or the good looks and confidence of Brosnan. His voice is weak and delivery lacks conviction. He runs around a lot & does some of his own stunts, so what ? The action looks like stuff we've seen before, fist fights, chasers etc. There is not that extra something we expect from a Bond film & the leading man is Mr Average. We can foget about Brosnan returning. He will be in his mid 50's when the next Bond comes out. But Bond fans must unite to ensure the next film has the right actor. ie. not Craig.
My pals are going to buy tickets to Happy Feet then check out CR. If we like what we see then and only then will we buy tickets for it.
Has anyone found Casino Royale on bittorrent yet? I want to download and have a scan through it. Eon are not having my money, and I can't look at musclebound botox faced Craig for three hours in the cinema.
i am not for Brosnan as such, what i would like to say is this looks like another action flick running on the Bond name, to me this is not Bond! Craig will never be a Bond no matter how many martinis and astons he gets behind, this is XXX with Bond music, terrific but not what i expect from a Bond movie and not one that will be joining my collection of Bond movies.
I could'nt believe it when i heard Craig was Bond. But assumed Barbara Brocoli knew what she was doing. Then i heard about these sites & am pleased i'm not in the minority. They say he's 6 feet, but he looks smaller. He's beefed up for the role but still looks small. Being blonde is'nt a problem for me, being ugly is. Men are supposed to want to be Bond. Well not me anymore. I've seen clips on T.V. , his voice seems soft & lifeless. His expressions limited. He's wearing expensive suits, tight swimming trunks, just about anything that will make him look good, but he does'nt. Where is the humour, the screen precence of a Moore or Brosnon. The action looks no better than dozens of other U.S. action films. The British press will try to write good reviews. After all Bond is British, we don't want the Americans laughing at us. But i don't think there will be anything new or exciting in the film. So i'll be boycotting it.
It has nothing to do with Brosnan- despite the movement to turn it into a "Brosnan vs. Craig" debate. We simply prefer the character of James Bond that led to the longest running film franchise of all time. Even Craig's staunchest supporters have admitted that he is not playing that character in this film. Instead, it's nothing more than Purvis and Wade's interpretation of what Ian Fleming had in mind. But it takes far more than brooding and a serious approach to fill 007's shoes. Bond is not just another generic action hero.
Click here for more of your comments
johntowers007@yahoo.com
Copyright © 2006 by The Sinking Ship. All rights reserved.
Revised:
09/30/08 12:31:19 -0400.
