what?? we got it first? that makes a change.Paco_the_Insane wrote:
im in america. its tomorrow.
First bad review i've read.Obiwan wrote:
I saw this movie tonight and I reccomend that no one see it. It is a huge waiste of time. I would only give this movie one * just because it is a james bond movie and that's about it. The first 40 mins of the movie was good and he did a good job being bond. Then the movie just DRAGS and Drags. I thought it was never going to end. They finally did a good job on the opening scene that leads inot the movie but that's about it. If your a big bond fan I guess you can tolerate the long draggynes of the film but I couldn't. It's almost like there is two movies in one. Anyways to rate this movie I would give it a 4 out of 10. Save your money and wait untill it comes on Tv.
Here is a link where you can check some stuff out about this movie
http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casi … site_html/
Its a James Bond film..... Its not exactly going to have an oscar winning plot now is it. Bond films are all about boobs, babes, guns and gadgets...
Its got to be better than the american version.... Triple BolloXXX
Its got to be better than the american version.... Triple BolloXXX
His name now is James Blonde.
Just like every bond move since they started to make them again, Golden eye.Obiwan wrote:
No, people will go see it anyways just because it's a james bond movie. It will make money, but it'll dissapoint most.Mongoose wrote:
but still your not gonna stop ?? million people from seeing it
yea def tomorrow paco, i guess the brits finally one upped us
Hmm, wonder why it's getting such good ratings already..
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/casino_royale/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/casino_royale/
Last edited by HaywoodJablowme (2006-11-16 10:18:52)
Pierce Brosnan=best Bond ever.
Sean Connery was a great Bond but he was too cool. He could be sitting in a plane carrying a 40 megaton nuclear warhead that was on fire and plummeting and still be sipping a martini. I didn't really like that, it was too.......movieish.
Brosnan on the other hand could be just as cool handed as Connery in at the right time, but could absoulutly explode and kick ass like someone had lit a fire under his ass. Not to mention he looked serious and realistic in his moods, attitudes, responses and so on and so forth during the right times. When I look at Brosnan, I think that's what Bond should look like.
Daniel Craig=1 step above Tim Dalton on the failure totem pole.
Sean Connery was a great Bond but he was too cool. He could be sitting in a plane carrying a 40 megaton nuclear warhead that was on fire and plummeting and still be sipping a martini. I didn't really like that, it was too.......movieish.
Brosnan on the other hand could be just as cool handed as Connery in at the right time, but could absoulutly explode and kick ass like someone had lit a fire under his ass. Not to mention he looked serious and realistic in his moods, attitudes, responses and so on and so forth during the right times. When I look at Brosnan, I think that's what Bond should look like.
Daniel Craig=1 step above Tim Dalton on the failure totem pole.
I prefer pierce, well because he was the Bond when i first seen the films.
Only bad review i've heard.The Magic Mullet wrote:
First bad review i've read.Obiwan wrote:
I saw this movie tonight and I reccomend that no one see it. It is a huge waiste of time. I would only give this movie one * just because it is a james bond movie and that's about it. The first 40 mins of the movie was good and he did a good job being bond. Then the movie just DRAGS and Drags. I thought it was never going to end. They finally did a good job on the opening scene that leads inot the movie but that's about it. If your a big bond fan I guess you can tolerate the long draggynes of the film but I couldn't. It's almost like there is two movies in one. Anyways to rate this movie I would give it a 4 out of 10. Save your money and wait untill it comes on Tv.
Here is a link where you can check some stuff out about this movie
http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casi … site_html/
not suprising really tho, is it, seeing as its about a British dude, in Britain, working for the British government, made by the British.crimson_grunt wrote:
what?? we got it first? that makes a change.Paco_the_Insane wrote:
im in america. its tomorrow.
You know what I hate? Reviews that just drag on and on about things. Like this one review I read recently for Casino Royale that kept dragging on about how the movie drags on. Lame.
I third thatspawnofthemist wrote:
Only bad review i've heard.The Magic Mullet wrote:
First bad review i've read.Obiwan wrote:
I saw this movie tonight and I reccomend that no one see it. It is a huge waiste of time. I would only give this movie one * just because it is a james bond movie and that's about it. The first 40 mins of the movie was good and he did a good job being bond. Then the movie just DRAGS and Drags. I thought it was never going to end. They finally did a good job on the opening scene that leads inot the movie but that's about it. If your a big bond fan I guess you can tolerate the long draggynes of the film but I couldn't. It's almost like there is two movies in one. Anyways to rate this movie I would give it a 4 out of 10. Save your money and wait untill it comes on Tv.
Here is a link where you can check some stuff out about this movie
http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casi … site_html/
Take a look at some reviews from IMDB
7.3 out of 10 it must be good
QFT!crimson_grunt wrote:
Wrong!!! it's is George lazenby! compare 'on her majesties secret service' to 'the living daylights' there's no comparison.SkoobyDu wrote:
Sorry I have to disagree, the worst bond has to be TIMOTHY DALTON.
No one mentioning the 1st Bond, who starred in the original Casino Royale, David Niven?
I'm surprised to hear you condemning the film so much. The reviews I've read have almost universally said it's really good.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-11-17 03:16:28)
Please post your alls comments about the movie after you see it. Flame me all you want I really don't care. It was my opinion and some will see it differently than I do. It will be interesting to see if your statements stay the same on it being a good movie after you go and see it.
Last edited by Obiwan (2006-11-17 03:17:47)
I'm not flaming. If anything this makes me want to see it more though, to find out if it's shit or not. I suspect not, because I kind of trust the legions of professional film critics who all say it's great, no offence.Obiwan wrote:
Please post your alls comments about the movie after you see it. Flame me all you want I really don't care. It was my opinion and some will see it differently than I do. It will be interesting to see if your statements stay the same on it being a good movie after you go and see it.
Last time I ignored the critics totally was with Troy. The reviews all said it was shit, but I couldn't believe that. It's the story of the Illiad, I love the Illiad. But after watching the way it was butchered by whatever retard made that film I wish I'd never watched it.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-11-17 03:22:58)
I'm just saying most will be dissapointed because they will be expecting more from the film. Let me tell you this, it is way I mean way different from Brosnan as Bond. (Maybe it's because I'm not use to the new guy so in my head I'm telling myself it's crap) who knows...
written by American/Canadian writers,produced by Americans, distributed by an American studio, assuming Hollywood provided the budgetPaco_the_Insane wrote:
not suprising really tho, is it, seeing as its about a British dude, in Britain, working for the British government, made by the British.crimson_grunt wrote:
what?? we got it first? that makes a change.Paco_the_Insane wrote:
im in america. its tomorrow.
Yes it's set in Britain with some lead actors being Brits, doesn't mean its a Brit film, if it was the budget probably wouldn't fill a shoebox.
Last edited by crimson_grunt (2006-11-17 03:29:45)
QFT, I actually thought Roger Moore was 2nd worst.SkoobyDu wrote:
Sorry I have to disagree, the worst bond has to be TIMOTHY DALTON.Iron_Sentinel wrote:
He ia actually the closest in physical appearance to what Ian Flemming originally described in the novels. But Sean Connery was preety fucking good.jkohlc wrote:
plus the actor looks crap compared to the previous Bonds...
And personally, he is a whole lot better in appearance than Roger Moore.
Quite frankly, Roger Moore would have to be the absolute low point in the Bond Series, and from what i have heard from this movie, it is completly different from the Moore Saga.
Brosnan>Connery>Moore>Dalton. Go ahead and kill me for saying Connery wasn't the best, but I think Brosnan was smoothest.
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
Wait...wait...someone explain this to me...
...the original poster says he would give it one star. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the star rating system out of four stars? So one star out of four would be equivalent to 25%, yes?
...so then how does he later rate it, in the same post mind you, four out of ten?
...the original poster says he would give it one star. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the star rating system out of four stars? So one star out of four would be equivalent to 25%, yes?
...so then how does he later rate it, in the same post mind you, four out of ten?
Daniel Craig is a great actor... While I think that Brosnan will always be "the" James Bond (even with only one decent film as Bond...) I can see the character being taken in some new and interesting directions by him.
As a side note, Connery rocked as Bond. Just wasn't as suave as Brosnan.
As a side note, Connery rocked as Bond. Just wasn't as suave as Brosnan.
Last edited by Flecco (2006-11-17 03:58:46)
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Daniel Craig is also from Chester, which is where I live.
Agreed...crimson_grunt wrote:
Wrong!!! it's is George lazenby! compare 'on her majesties secret service' to 'the living daylights' there's no comparison.SkoobyDu wrote:
Sorry I have to disagree, the worst bond has to be TIMOTHY DALTON.
Well I went and saw it last night with some friends and it was FANTASTIC!
I really enjoyed it, lots of action, and definetly not boring.
I was a little worried at first when they announced that there was going to be a new bond, but he really proved himself and I definetly prefer him to Pierce Brosnan.
Go out and watch it!
I really enjoyed it, lots of action, and definetly not boring.
I was a little worried at first when they announced that there was going to be a new bond, but he really proved himself and I definetly prefer him to Pierce Brosnan.
Go out and watch it!
I thought Pinewood Studios made most of the Bond films... When did this change?