Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:40 pm**

YAY! I'm Daniel Craig.

I'd rather HAVE Daniel Craig than BE Daniel Craig, but I'll take what I can get.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:42 pm**

You are Sean Connery
Sean Connery 85%
George Lazenby 63%
Pierce Brosnan 59%
Roger Moore 57%
Timothy Dalton 46%
Daniel Craig 43%
The original actor to play James Bond in a movie is generally regarded as the best. Sean Connery has always been the epitome of sexiness, suaveness and sophistication.

Posted: **Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:57 pm**

Daniel Craig

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:18 am**

Holy Crap!
I'm a 007 fan and I missed CR at the theatre. Boy was that a mistake. I just got the CR dvd and watched it last night. The film is excellent. I loved just about everything about it, especially what wasn't in it. There wasn't a single moment when I was thinking "that’s ridiculous". No fantastic ground burning space mirrors or flying buzz saws suspended from helicopters etc. (no CGI Bond surfing on a tidal wave...ugh...) CR was probably the most realistic Bond I'd ever seen. The only Bond I haven't seen is "In Her Majesty's Secret Service" so I can't comment on George Lazenby but Daniel Craig is tremendous. The character is dynamic in a way that I haven't seen since Connery but I'd never seen Connery's Bond perform such physical feats or show the effects of his efforts. When completing a task this bond is covered with blood, cuts, wounds, holes etc. and keeps on coming at you. I'm impressed. I think the reboot of Bond is off to an excellent start.

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:31 am**

LORD FOUL'S BRAIN wrote:The only Bond I haven't seen is "In Her Majesty's Secret Service" so I can't comment on George Lazenby...

You're not missing anything. The worst Bond ever in my opinion. Bar none.

--A

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:51 am**

There wasn't a single moment when I was thinking "that’s ridiculous".

Actually, there was, you just missed it.

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:27 pm**

me-ow ....

yep, good movie.

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:32 pm**

LORD FOUL'S BRAIN wrote:Holy Crap!
I'm a 007 fan and I missed CR at the theatre. Boy was that a mistake. I just got the CR dvd and watched it last night. The film is excellent. I loved just about everything about it, especially what wasn't in it. There wasn't a single moment when I was thinking "that’s ridiculous". No fantastic ground burning space mirrors or flying buzz saws suspended from helicopters etc. (no CGI Bond surfing on a tidal wave...ugh...) CR was probably the most realistic Bond I'd ever seen. The only Bond I haven't seen is "In Her Majesty's Secret Service" so I can't comment on George Lasnby but Daniel Craig is tremendous. The character is dynamic in a way that I haven't seen since Connery but I'd never seen Connery's Bond perform such physical feats or show the effects of his efforts. When completing a task this bond is covered with blood, cuts, wounds, holes etc. and keeps on coming at you. I'm impressed. I think the reboot of Bond is off to an excellent start.

Yep, brilliant film. As I've probably said elsewhere in this topic (I can't be bothered to check) it made a huge difference to me that this time we can feel Bond striving. We see him earning his victories and paying the price for them. That, to me, makes him more convincing and consequently more engaging.

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:30 pm**

Avatar wrote:
LORD FOUL'S BRAIN wrote:The only Bond I haven't seen is "In Her Majesty's Secret Service" so I can't comment on George Lazenby...
You're not missing anything. The worst Bond ever in my opinion. Bar none.

--A

I quite like it really, but maybe thats just a hangover from the fact that it's my favourite of the Novels.

Die Another Day is the worst in my opinion.

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:19 pm**

Despite my Scrooge-like disagreement with everyone else concerning Casino Royale, I will agree that it's this periodic "refreshing" of Bond via new actors that helps make the character such a durable movie icon.

I just didn't care for the way that Pierce Brosnan was unceremoniously dumped, since he had carried the franchise so handsomely for the past decade. I realize that has nothing to do with a discussion of Casino Royale's merits.

I'm not anti-Craig, just pro-Brosnan.

I thought Die Another Day was excellent.

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:43 pm**

Posted: **Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:19 pm**

Matrixman wrote:Despite my Scrooge-like disagreement with everyone else concerning Casino Royale, I will agree that it's this periodic "refreshing" of Bond via new actors that helps make the character such a durable movie icon.

I just didn't care for the way that Pierce Brosnan was unceremoniously dumped, since he had carried the franchise so handsomely for the past decade. I realize that has nothing to do with a discussion of Casino Royale's merits.

I'm not anti-Craig, just pro-Brosnan.

I thought Die Another Day was excellent.

There was something I didn't care for in the handling of Roger Moore's tenure as Bond that seemed to me was happening with Brosnan. To put it bluntly Moore retired from the role 2 films too late. His age was beginning to show the way it did with the orignal cast of Star Trek in the Undiscovered Country. Brosnan wasn't too old for his last outing but leaving without making a film that presented Bond as a bit too aged to be believed was a good thing if you ask me. Brosnan may have been able to pull off one or perhaps even two more films but we all should realize he was going to have to step aside sometime soon. Frankly the departure of Brosnan was the catalyst for the reboot that has made CR such a refreshing change. It is my opinion that things worked out nicely all around.

I liked Die Another Day just fine but there were moments in that film that I actually began to cringe. The Brosnan 007 films are among my all time favorites.

Posted: **Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:48 pm**

I quite liked Die Another Day, but the car was just wrong. I loathed that bit.

I think LFB makes some valid points. Brosnan couldn't have gone on much longer (wow, that makes him sound really old!

) so we were due for a change anyway.

Posted: **Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:08 pm**

Matrixman wrote: Daniel Craig was competent as Bond, but not "better" than Brosnan. I guess Brosnan was simply more my kind of 007 than Craig is.

I think both Craig and Brosnan are equally masterful as Bonds; they each bring something different to the table. Craig has a brooding darkness that makes you think he's just a bad guy working for the right people. Brosnan was more suave and aloof--definitely a "let me roll out of bed and answer the spy phone."

Ya know, the more I think about it, I don't think the Bond formula was getting tired so much as the audience was just ready for a shift. Kind of like eating vanilla for so long and then switching to chocolate (or whatever flavor you prefer).

I mean, the old Bonds were bombastic, gadget-laden; the tone was higher contrast, brighter hues; you felt like it was nearing the edges of comic book territory. But Royale is low key, a kind of murky swath of grays.

I think, in the end, neither are superior; both a gritty film and a cartoonish film can be well done. I for one know I love GoldenEye just as much as Royale.

Posted: **Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:43 pm**

Very well said, LF. Good points by all.

Hey, I liked the invisible car! It rocked!

I guess that just shows I grew up watching Roger Moore's kind of Bond - the gadget-laden and cartoonish kind, as LF said - more than anyone else's.

Bond in outer space? Sure, why not? Invisible cars? Works for me!

Posted: **Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:27 am**

My girlfriend is fond of the Moore-era camp and goofiness, whereas I prefer the gloomy snarl of Royale.

Posted: **Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:29 am**

Warmark wrote:
Avatar wrote:
LORD FOUL'S BRAIN wrote:The only Bond I haven't seen is "In Her Majesty's Secret Service" so I can't comment on George Lazenby...
You're not missing anything. The worst Bond ever in my opinion. Bar none.

--A
I quite like it really, but maybe thats just a hangover from the fact that it's my favourite of the Novels.

Nothing wrong with the story...just Lazenby as Bond.

--A

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:26 pm**

CovenantJr wrote:My girlfriend is fond of the Moore-era camp and goofiness, whereas I prefer the gloomy snarl of Royale.

Heh, I always liked the Moore movies less because they were more like science fiction than an actual spy thriller. If they had made a Moore Casino Royale, Le Chiffre's bleeding eye would have had a hidden camera in it, or maybe a hidden gun! Anyway, this Casino Royale is the best Bond film I've seen in a long, long time.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:23 pm**

Yes, I agree dAN. CR is probably the best Bond ever. I really liked Daniel Criag in it too. He was perfect.

Posted: **Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:19 pm**

dANdeLION wrote:
CovenantJr wrote:My girlfriend is fond of the Moore-era camp and goofiness, whereas I prefer the gloomy snarl of Royale.
Heh, I always liked the Moore movies less because they were more like science fiction than an actual spy thriller. If they had made a Moore Casino Royale, Le Chiffre's bleeding eye would have had a hidden camera in it, or maybe a hidden gun! Anyway, this Casino Royale is the best Bond film I've seen in a long, long time.

Le Chiffre is Warden Dios?!