So finally watched the first two Daniel Craig "Bond" movies... WTH MAN?!?!

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


Sluis Van Shipyards

Legendary Member
I saw the first three Daniel Craig Bond movies on a couple weeks back so I recorded them. I watched Casino Royale and then Quantum of Solace. This is NOT James Bond. No gadgets, no cool cars, and lame villains. He rents a KIA for God's sake! WTH?!?!? The only good thing about any of it was Olga Kurylenko and Gemma Arterton. These are just generic spy movies now! So anyway I erased the third one and didn't even bother. What were they thinking and why would whoever holds the rights to the Bond franchise allow this mess to go past two movies?
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Sluis Van Shipyards

Legendary Member
Yeah it's odd that people would post opinions on a movie in the Entertainment and Movie Talk forum... I don't know what's with some people in this forum in particular lately that respond with snarky comments to a completely normal post. Some of you need to chill out. It's just talking about movies/tv shows, not the fate of the planet.
 

Gimpdiggity

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I’m also not sure why so many people feel the need to start threads to rant about films/shows that have:
A. Been out forever.
B. Certainly have threads that already exist discussing them.

So, as I stated. Awesome, a rant thread. How original.

But, to entertain this discussion, I’d venture a guess that “whoever owns the rights” allowed these to continue past two films because:
A. They made a combined $1.2b in box office sales against like $300m budgets.
B. The first was both critically acclaimed AND well received by audiences.

The third made $1.2 billion on its own against a $200 million budget, and again was critically acclaimed and well received by audiences.

So it would seem your complaints place you in the minority, which means they continue making them because MOST people enjoy them, and they don’t care about the “This isn’t my Bond” fits that get thrown by a minority of viewers.
 
Last edited:

The Terminator

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Agreed.

Saw Casino Royale in the theater and a few times on dvd/Blu-ray after. And to this day, I have not felt any chemistry between Bond and Vesper.

At times the newer films have felt more like "Mission Impossible".
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

HMSwolfe

Sr Member
I get the disconnect between classic Bond fans and the Craig movies, but…from what I’ve heard, the direction of the Craig films is a lot closer to the source material (Ian Fleming’s books) than any of the other films. It’s just a version of the character. It’s not like these are direct sequels or remakes of any of the other Bond films. It’s like, I hate the Affleck Batman, but that doesn’t ruin The Dark Knight or the Animated Series for me. But again, I totally get why classic Bond fans don’t like it. It’s a valid opinion to have on the films, not that anyone needs or wants my two cents on how they feel about something. I would say that someday it’ll swing back around to the more traditional Bond type films, but I’m not so sure anymore. The closest I think you’d get is something like The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (which I guess I can’t really recommend anymore, thanks to crazy Armie Hammer). All I can say is I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy them, I really liked the first three Craig films, Skyfall in particular.
 

teragon

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Craig era Bonds sure have a different vibe, more inspired by the Bourne trilogy. My introduction to Bond was Goldeneye with Brosnan, so he kinda is my Bond, but I thoroughly enjoy Craig, especially in Casino Royal and Skyfall. Also, he gets the Aston and gadgets in the following films, just nothing outlandish. If memory serves there was no gadget in Dr No neither, in that aspect Casino is much closer to the very early Bond. Craig is tougher than Connery of course but can’t beat how suave that man was.
 

ScourgiousJinx

Well-Known Member
Yeah it's odd that people would post opinions on a movie in the Entertainment and Movie Talk forum... I don't know what's with some people in this forum in particular lately that respond with snarky comments to a completely normal post. Some of you need to chill out. It's just talking about movies/tv shows, not the fate of the planet.
100% agree.

I didn't care for Casino Royale at all but Quantum of Solace was just barely passable. Enjoyed Craig in Skyfall and Spectre. Bond became legendary because of his classic portrayal in the movies but that doesn't mean that they should always make him the same. Even if I did't enjoy Craig I would appreciate the fact that they went in a new direction.

I'm happy to disagree with critic and audience opinions as both are full of bs, shills and franchise/studio yes men. Review sites like IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes are a joke at this point. Bad movies often do well at the box office and critics sometimes love them. The idea that people can't disapprove of something if it makes a lot of money is part of what is wrong with our culture.
 
Last edited:

Darth Lars

Master Member
I'm also not fan of the Craig-era Bond films. After Casino Royale, they are kind of forgettable. I once started watching one thinking I hadn't ... and noticed first after a while that no: I had already seen it before.

Gemma Arterton's character and Bond are suddenly in bed after no flirting or sexual tension: A WTF moment.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

SICKLEVILLE

New Member
Well , all other points aside... ive been enjoying Bond films since I was a child , Connery did a fantastic job defining the role , Roger Moore was entertaining in a dads losing it kinda way * he never struck me as someone that could hold his own against a trained fighter ...
I'll pass comment on the others that I feel dropped the franchise into the discount bin lol
The Daniel Craig bond ?
Excellent! ... finally a guy that looks like a man that could peel the brown off a coconut lol. Craig is the most believable character in the role since Connery and the quality of the films has drastically improved . Sure he didnt have the silly gadgets that gave the film little humor but the real bond world feel was there ...
The last 3 brought me back into the franchise ... my opinion
 

Psab keel

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
My wife and I just rewatched all four of the Craig Bond films and sticking with the theme of spy films as a genre we watched the first two Austin Powers movies (both are super dated upon seeing them again.) I'd seen Casino Royale and Skyfall previous to this most recent viewing, both of which I enjoyed. Quantum of Solace was meh at best but mostly forgettable. By all accounts I should know all the Bond films inside and out considering my late step father was a die hard fan and owned all of them but I only ever saw bits and pieces, perhaps seeing Goldeneye all the way through. I was never much into Bond but I found the Craig films entertaining. I really approach these movies with a passing interest but I think I've come to appreciate them more the older I get, where when I was younger they held zero interest for me. Having not watched the classic films and being just a casual viewer I can't comment on the Craig films in context to the other films in the franchise.

I remember my step father being pretty disappointed with Casino Royale when he first saw it because it was so radically different in tone to the previous movies. He'd grown up with Sean Connery as Bond and read a ton of spy novels, one of his favorite series being The Executioner and because he was a veteran there was an inherent interest in the spy genre as a whole. Eventually he warmed to Daniel Craig as Bond and really loved Skyfall.
 
Last edited:

masterjedi322

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
To answer the OP's questions - some of the things you're talking about start appearing in some of the later movies. Casino Royale had the Aston Martin, so not sure why that doesn't qualify as a "cool car." Skyfall pokes fun at the Q Branch history, but Spectre gets back to some gadgets and starts mixing in more humor.

For the most part, I prefer the Craig-era Bond films as opposed to prior iterations, but to each their own.

Sean
 

Michael Bergeron

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
There are two different "styles" of Bond. The more serious and grounded, as well as the funny and outlandish.

First style is truer to the source material and is defined by early Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, and Craig. Second style is defined by Moore, later Connery, and Brosnan.

I get that people associate Bond with lots of gadgets and silly humour, but personally I'm a huge fan of that first style of Bond. Daniel Craig fits the role really well as someone who can be both a charmer and a killer. I think the only Bond that did that balance better was Connery.

Casino Royale and Skyfall are among my top 10 Bond films, possibly even top 5 (FRWL & Goldfinger will always be 1 & 2). The only one of Craig's films that I really wasn't a fan of was Spectre. I just wanted so much more from it but seemed to get a hint of that other Bond that always seems to leave a bad taste in my mouth. Based on that you may like it :lol:

I'm not sure where you're getting the no cool cars thing though, Bond has two different Aston Martin's in CR (and set a world record for stunt rollovers in the Vanquish).
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Sundowner

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
This was Bond very early in his 00 career in fact we see him before he is officially one. This is why it’s raw, more realistic and non gadgety. A good view of this is when he orders a martini and doesn’t deliver his refined mixing instructions.

He becomes more of the classic Bond as the series progresses.
 

HMSwolfe

Sr Member
First style is truer to the source material and is defined by early Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, and Craig. Second style is defined by Moore, later Connery, and Brosnan.
I just watched the first Dalton film recently for the first time. I’m a big fan of Timothy Dalton in general, and I enjoyed that one. But I know I’d tried watching one of the Connery ones, possibly From Russia With Love, about a decade or more ago and couldn’t get into it.
 

Michael Bergeron

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I just watched the first Dalton film recently for the first time. I’m a big fan of Timothy Dalton in general, and I enjoyed that one. But I know I’d tried watching one of the Connery ones, possibly From Russia With Love, about a decade or more ago and couldn’t get into it.

Keep in mind that the books were written in the 50's and FRWL is almost a 60 year old film now. Not for everyone I suppose, but if you're even a passing Bond fan you owe it to yourself to watch the first 4 Connery films at least once, they truly are classics in the best meaning of the word. :)
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top