View Single Post
Old January 26th, 2008, 12:49 PM   #11
nailsfromthething
Vintage Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 922
Thanks: 5,547
Thanked 39,292 Times in 1,150 Posts
nailsfromthething 175000+nailsfromthething 175000+nailsfromthething 175000+nailsfromthething 175000+nailsfromthething 175000+nailsfromthething 175000+nailsfromthething 175000+nailsfromthething 175000+nailsfromthething 175000+nailsfromthething 175000+nailsfromthething 175000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pharoahegypt View Post
for me personally i was glad to find casino royale so different. like other posts have said the old format was getting tired. nice to see that daniel craig proved a lot of people wrong by shining in the role. only time will tell of course, but for my money this could be the start of something exciting and keep us watching the films for many more years. pierce and sean were great, but time moves on, and so must the franchise. i am a real bond fan, can name most the villians, girls, cars, etc, but even i can see that bond cannot stay in the sixties. from other forums ive read i also note that people have said this style of bond movie is more true to how fleming wrote his books, but not having read them myself i will remain neutral on that issue.
The re-boots/cast changes in Bond always go 'back to basics' - three films in, Craig will be driving invisible cars in space again, and then the casting call goes out...

I am a huge fan of Craig himself, and I think he gave a superb performance in Royale, but I also think he was wrong for the role. The short hair makes him look like a thug (check out The Invasion to see him looking a bit more intelligent) and for ruggedness he makes Connery look like Clary. I'd actually like to see him abandon the part before it affects his 'regular' career too badly.
nailsfromthething is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to nailsfromthething For This Useful Post: