Quotesounds like a dream evening for most menOriginally Posted by Ruben Sosa
going to see it this evening at 5.10, really really looking forward to it.
Ignore Max Power, he is no more, the future is Ron Burgundy. I'd love to be Ron Burgundy but they won't let me........
sounds like a dream evening for most men
Ignore Max Power, he is no more, the future is Ron Burgundy. I'd love to be Ron Burgundy but they won't let me........
Don't forget an oddjob!sounds like a dream evening for most men
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Tallaght Stadium Regular
Don't forget an oddjob!
well some sort of job
Ignore Max Power, he is no more, the future is Ron Burgundy. I'd love to be Ron Burgundy but they won't let me........
I went to see QoS yesterday..
I thought it was ... SPOILER: very disappointed with it to be honest.. Nowhere near as good as Casino Royale. Not a great story line, useless villains and generally quite boring..
Yeah agree with this
From Russia with Love is my all time fav and also has my all time fav Bond girl. Also a big fan of Dr. No and I too like, OHMSS. Casino Royale was great but I'm worried about what I've been hearing about QoS, suppose its best if I just go and find out. Like Lazenby, I think Dalton is underrated and was far better than Brosnan. In fact all the Brosnan films were rubbish with the exception of Goldeneye.
TO TELL THE TRUTH IS REVOLUTIONARY
The ONLY foot.ie user with a type of logic named after them!
All of this has happened before. All of it will happen again.
Seeing it at 8:30 tonight.
ashamed to say that I actually quite enjoyed it. was expecting it to be crap given the poor reviews but it wasn't that bad....
"Well I think they'll be a little disappointed with that" - Matt Holland on TV3 after 5-2 drubbing by Cyprus
Went in with low expectations given the reviews and was pleasantly surprised. The beginning was incomprehensible, and the film was quite disjointed but some scenes were very well done and the middle part of the movie worked well I thought. Given that it's the 'middle movie' in a three-film story arc as far as I know, I have high hopes for the next one. It did the job anyway.
Good, but not as good as Casino Royale. I think The Dark Knight has spoiled all sequels for me. I now expect way too much..
I've never seen the original Casino Royal, so I can't offer any opinion on Lazenby, but I liked Dalton. He didn't get a good film in though.
Yes they were, though I don't think Brosnan can be particularly blamed for any of that. He was a good Bond, but most of the films he was in were badly written.In fact all the Brosnan films were rubbish with the exception of Goldeneye.
I'm in the US at the moment, so I've another 8 days of bad reviews to go before I can see QoS. At this rate, I may not bother.
You can't spell failure without FAI
Uh, the original Casino Royale was a TV film with a yank Bond, and a British Leiter. Then the first film was a horrible spook with Bond played principly by David Niven, and also Peter Sellars, Woody Allen, Ursula Andress, etc, etc.
George Lazenby was Bond for On Her Majesty's Secret Service. In my opinion, he looks most like Bond.
I agree on Brosnan and Dalton, though something like For Your Eyes Only is much worse than either film that the two had. My thinking on Brosnan, prior to Craig's emergence, is that he looks most like Bond, but for Lazenby, he is the most actiony Bond, but for Connery, he is the most suave Bond, but for Moore, and the best actor as Bond, but for Dalton. He is in many ways, the very nearly Bond. I quite like him, some of the scripts are ok, generally the dialogue works better than early Moore and some Connery; gadgets and product placement abound though, to distraction. And we got Denise Ricards in crop-top and shorts, and there is nothing wrong with that!
That question was less stupid, though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way.
Help me, Arthur Murphy, you're my only hope!
I saw it yesterday and I thought it wasn't bad though not as good as Casino Royale. It advanced the story arc further as has been said and the action scenes were well done. Craig was very good again I thought. It wasn't overlong either which was the only real criticism I had of Casino Royale.
Upwards to the vanguard where the pressure is too high.
Oops. You're right, of course.
Interesting perspective. I always found the gadgets took from Brosnan's films after Goldeneye - they just seemed a tired plot device, even if I never grew tired of watching Desmond Llewellyn showing Bond around the lab. The product placement just got obnoxious.I agree on Brosnan and Dalton, though something like For Your Eyes Only is much worse than either film that the two had. My thinking on Brosnan, prior to Craig's emergence, is that he looks most like Bond, but for Lazenby, he is the most actiony Bond, but for Connery, he is the most suave Bond, but for Moore, and the best actor as Bond, but for Dalton. He is in many ways, the very nearly Bond. I quite like him, some of the scripts are ok, generally the dialogue works better than early Moore and some Connery; gadgets and product placement abound though, to distraction.
Mmm... you nearly tempted me into my maiden post in Totty Watch there, but I'm where I dare not click on anything marked NSFW.And we got Denise Ricards in crop-top and shorts, and there is nothing wrong with that!
You can't spell failure without FAI
Really enoyed Casino Royale, thought this was bad.
Really bad.
Even the shortness of the film didn't stop me feeling bored and wishing for it to end sooner.
Bond is finished. The novelty of a new, dark Bond has worn off quickly and its now just one long fight scene/special effects, with precious little dialogue and little evidence of a clever script.
Its a poor man's Die Hard, without the witty one-liners.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks