Comments on: No Gap Between Bond 22 & Casino Royale

By: Vic

Vic — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:35:16 +0000

I think that one issue they’ll have with the next film picking up directly after the previous one will in fact be the “playboy” nature of Bond. He’s still freshly devastated over the death of the leading lady from the first film.

Vic

By: bill

bill — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:09:00 +0000

Making it a ‘fun’ movie would be most unfortunate. I think that having the character be a ‘weapon’ rather than ‘playboy’ style works best for this actor; Craig clearly has the ability to do that, given the right script. There was more action in the first fifteen minutes of CR than in the first 90 minutes of most of the Bond flicks. Overall, the character in CR was extraordinarily believable.

Like ZAR, though, and others, I’m sure that I’ll give the next one a chance — they’ve raised the bar considerably.

By: Zar1967

Zar1967 — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:53:27 +0000

Well, let’s see what they do with the character this time! Much like Vic I enjoyed Casino Royale a lot – although at first I had to get used to the concept of skinny women being “sexy”.

The only thing that I did not like was to use Judy Dench again. A slightly younger M would have made more sense. I know, she somehow connects the “older” Bond-movies with this relaunch.

But the father-son-relationship between Bond and M is one of the more interesting side-aspects in the novels. This could have been used to advantage as well.

Unfortunately, they did not stress the relationship between Bond and M clearly enough – more time for decent character development sometimes makes sense!

After Casino Royale I was wondering, what exactly IS the reason that M is protecting Bond? He’s clearly going to far when he uses her notebook without her authorisation! Something is missing.

Either they explain the relationshop a little more in the next movie OR (what I fear will be exactly the case) they just keep on going.

Either way, I’m willing to give the next movie a chance!

ZAR.

By: Vic

Vic — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:31:11 +0000

MP, oh sure, I agree! Character development and plot are huge in my book and no amount of special effects or gadgets can make up for the lack of either of those.

If you notice, I didn’t say I disliked the idea… I said I was torn.

Vic

By: MP

MP — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:16:35 +0000

By picking up two minutes after, we (hopefully) get to see Craig BECOME a more seasoned agent. If they play this right, it will all be about drama and character development versus plot for the sake of plot. Character and plot. That’s what I want.

By: Reverend

Reverend — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:01:11 +0000

Sean Connery humor would fit his character and definately fit the movie — but I think his lines would be too controversial nowadays.

Given, my favourite line out of any James Bond movie was when the lead female asks Sean if he prefers blondes or brunettes — he hesitates for a moment, looks up, and very calmly answers “Well, if the cuffs and callers match…”

The sexist humour that is James Bond would be seen as too far in today’s society, so I fear that Gary could be right, and it will be Roger Moor humour.

Rev

By: Vic

Vic — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:38:11 +0000

Like I said, in small doses and properly applied, I don’t mind. Sean Connery level humor = good, Roger Moore level humor = bad.

Vic

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:36:28 +0000

grounded in reality but “fun”
sounds like they wanto insert roger moore type humor inside a movie with a serious plot
not so sure I like the sound of that