Gimpdiggity
Master Member
Yep, sure it was.
My lack of self awareness is almost as astounding as your inability to comprehend my point.
So finally watched the first two Daniel Craig "Bond" movies... WTH MAN?!?!
- Thread starter Sluis Van Shipyards
- Start date
Yep, sure it was.
My lack of self awareness is almost as astounding as your inability to comprehend my point.
It was actually my opinion and you immediately went from 0-100 and became unnecessarily combative over something that was a normal post. Which led me to point that out, but instead of taking several hints you doubled down, tripled, and now quadrupled down on flying off the handle. For the third time it's titled the Entertainment and Movie Talk forum. That's it. It's not the Only Post Happy Thoughts About Movies You Love forum. It's for everything.
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
Not to me and from the responses to this thread, no one else either.
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
Last edited:
Probe Droid
Master Member
Thumbs down for me as well. I've always enjoyed Craig as an actor, but he stinks as Bond. He plays the character like it's a mob hit man. Bond kills, but he has to charm and get people to trust him as well. Craig's 007 is too cold. Eye of the beholder.
I don't enjoy Craig as Bond either. He lacks the classic charm brought to the character by Connery and Moore.
Goldfinger.
"must-watch" from the others:
Live and let die.
Licence to kill.
Goldeneye.
Connery was the greatest.
Lazenby was OK.
Moore turned the franchise into a dumb joke.
Dalton and Brosnan were dull and uninspiring for different reasons.
I liked Craig in Casino Royale because he was the first credibly masculine Bond we've had since Connery, but it went downhill fast after that.
Lazenby was OK.
Moore turned the franchise into a dumb joke.
Dalton and Brosnan were dull and uninspiring for different reasons.
I liked Craig in Casino Royale because he was the first credibly masculine Bond we've had since Connery, but it went downhill fast after that.
NakedMoleRat
Master Member
Next thing you know they’ll recast James T Kirk and make a completely different Star Trek movie!
ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
For me Connery is best in Dr. No and Goldfinger and they do well at representing the franchise. Doing a classic film education of any kind is really a great move.
I just saw Our Man Flint which is a 1966 spoof of Bond/spy movies. Not sure I'd call it a "classic." Some positives and negatives. I watched it because I thought it would be interesting to see a parody of Bond from back when the franchise was young.
The best representative of what Bond at its peak can be is undoubtedly Goldfinger. It sets the bar in the brashness, boldness, and the kind of fantastic fun every Bond film after strives to be. Bond is never meant to be "real," Fleming himself said that the books were intended to be something fun for every hot-blooded man out there.
I love Goldfinger but the best Connery has ever been as Bond is without doubt From Russia with Love. It's the film-Bond closest to "real" as it can be allowed. Bond here is stripped down and vulnerable, not some impervious super man, but still in the bold and fun vein the movie sets it up to be.
As for other of the picks from the later installments:
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is great because it's a well put-together action film, decidedly not because of Lazenby. The whole film works as an action piece, something that could still be made yesterday, because they had to edit around Lazenby. Lazenby noticeably has very little to say and do on screen if you watch closely.
I love Roger Moore's Bond, even if it's sometimes hokey and really awful; it's always fun. I actually don't care much for Live and Let Die, I actually prefer The Spy Who Loved Me a lot more. Great stunts, great fun, and for a shoe-string thin story, the movie moves fairly quickly---something some of Moore's films sometimes are really bad at. Special mention goes to Moonraker, as it's a cash in on Star Wars and extremely silly but it has one of the best opening stunts ever put to film.
Dalton had a rough start with The Living Daylights, I find it a bit too conventional and conservatively made which makes it feel noticeably slower and duller than it actually is. License to Kill is the start of Bond trying to be like other film series at the time (Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, etc) where street crime dramas with over-the-top gore was the order of the day. It got flack for it in the day but...damn it, if the film isn't actually better for it.
Brosnan: GoldenEye. That's all that needs to be said. This is second to Goldfinger in the kind of "peak performance" Bond films try to strive for. Fun, adventurous, great action, great editing and cinematography, and zippy pace with performances you can get behind in a clear-cut, simple story. This is the best of "modern" Bond: a summation and distillation of what has come before while paving a new way for the rest. Tomorrow Never Dies is comparatively more sluggish and you see the belt loosening here, but I still think it's a pretty fun watch considering.
Craig: Casino Royale. Without repeating myself too much: okay film, but certainly the best offering from the franchise since GoldenEye. Skyfall, I guess if you want, but you might as well just pop in The Dark Knight----it wants to be that movie.
Honorable mention: Not a film but a video game, it's from the Brosnan-era that I found so much like the films at the time and fun; it was for the Xbox, Everything or Nothing At All. Big all-star cast in a ridiculous story with Willem Dafoe as a Russian baddie with a giant laser tank out to do...something. Whatever. You play as Brosnan's Bond doing stupid, fun stuff. The game can be a bit clunky as I recall but it was fun, no less.
KansasJack
Well-Known Member
I prefer the Daniel Craig style Bond. He’s a genuine tough guy. I liked Roger Moore but the whole “martini in one hand while karate chopping with the other” shtick was tiresome.
Similar threads
