Decided to rent the dvd and see what it was like.I think the movie itself was different from any bond film in the past and i just dont think its the same, they have changed it beyond recognition. Daniel Craig should NEVER have been James Bond. I hope he doesnt do another and that they return the film to as it should be.
If it had just been a stand alone action/spy movie with him starring in it, fine, no problem but it just didnt work in my opinion. What do you think?
2007-07-22 01:59:23 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
Wether it is closer to the book than any other bond movie is beside the point. There was a bond formula that worked and whatever ingredients that were in past bond movies, they took it away, change isnt always better i think. I have liked most of the bonds, Sean Connery, Roger Moore & Pierce Brosnon, even George Lazenby(or something like that). The only other one i didnt like was Timothy Dalton but at least the movie was still bond.
2007-07-22 02:20:58 · update #1
Can i just say, i never mentioned Daniel Craigs hair colour. It was him generally that i think was wrong for the part.
2007-07-22 02:35:58 · update #2
schenzy ...samvines said it in a way i couldnt. There is your answer!!!
2007-07-22 03:41:33 · update #3
First off, Casino Royale was an excellent thriller. And Daniel Craig was good in the role he played in the film.
BUT...
...was it James Bond? NO.
I agree that they changed the formula so much that it could have been any other action film. It is only the character James Bond by name only. True, it is close to Ian Fleming's character in the book, but we don't pay money to see that character, only the one we saw over the past 40 years on screen.
They wanted to grit it up like Jason Bourne, but we are left with a character that isn't Bond anymore, only generic Action Guy.
2007-07-22 03:32:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
It was the only James Bond film that I have watched twice and enjoyed both times. Agree with most answers here that Sean Connery was the best, but think that Daniel Craig did a good job in the film.
Wasn't the film a remake of the original, before James Bond actually became 007? Also, wasn't this film from the first book that was written? If so, hence why the difference between this one and all the other James Bond movies.
2007-07-22 05:27:55 · answer #2 · answered by Jax 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The look of Bond has changed with each actor who played him.
To keep a series going year after year, actors eventually become too aged to play the part. I felt betrayed when Roger Moore filled Sean Connery's shoes but he played the part well as has every actor who filled the shoes of Bond...
Think of the uproar when you have a Scott (Connery), an Aussie (Lazenby), and an Irishman (Brosnan) play the part of a British spy. The only ones to play him who are actual Brits are Moore, Craig, and Dalton. Then you put a woman in the part of M...But as I said, you have to replace actors into roles that continue year after year. Either due to their age or passing.
2007-07-22 02:23:14 · answer #3 · answered by pipi08_2000 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Having read all of Ian Fleming's books, yes you are right that he looks nothing like the Bond character described in the books. But having had to endure the saggy, foppish dandy Bond of Roger Moore, the silly grin of Pierce Brosnan, and the lame Timothy Dalton, give me Craig anyday.
2007-07-22 02:18:45 · answer #4 · answered by Jon Buquor 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I prefer Daniel Craig. Brosnan is too American now and the others don't exist.
Connery and Moore were another good Bonds.
And Moore wasn't dark hair! So what's the problem with this new blond?
I adore DC before Bond. He is a super actor and good looking! And he did a great job!
2007-07-22 02:28:04 · answer #5 · answered by mrceq 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I saw this movie when it first came out in the cinema, I loved it, he showed a more compassionate side in this movie, didn't like the torture scene though and could have had more car chases, I thought Danial Craig was a very good James Bond, not as good as Sean Connery though.
2007-07-22 02:04:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Think we all agree that Sean is the quintessential Bond, wasn't overly impressed with Casino Royal, but he does a better Bond than Timothy Dalton
2007-07-22 02:08:05 · answer #7 · answered by Manc Lush 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
hmmmm. that was an odd post, because you never really say what you think James Bond should be. I am now going to answer a question with a question. What kind of qualities should James Bond have, and in what way was Daniel Craig lacking these qualities?
2007-07-22 02:05:02 · answer #8 · answered by schenzy 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
totally agree he sucked Sean Connery is the only James Bond for me
2007-07-22 02:03:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's more true to the original book than the recent formulaic Bond films and was meant to be so, that is why it was different!
2007-07-22 02:10:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋