|
Post by eakyra on Nov 27, 2006 21:29:57 GMT -5
I saw this movie last night with my brother, it was SO FREAKIN AWESOME! The new bond is the closest thing to being as good a bond as Sean Connery than anyone else. Sean Connery is THE BOND, and forever will be in all his glory of bondness, but this guy was above all the rest. And the movie just rocked out with its male chicken out.
|
|
|
Post by AshVersion2 on Nov 28, 2006 11:20:10 GMT -5
;D
|
|
|
Post by eakyra on Nov 28, 2006 14:52:26 GMT -5
I think thats rather catchy. My new catch phrase for saying something dirty without saying something dirty.
|
|
|
Post by AshVersion2 on Nov 28, 2006 16:08:43 GMT -5
Good plan. ;D
|
|
Brokenhearts
Rank 15 (On Angie's Level)
Beware, all ye who talk 2 me
Posts: 4,934
|
Post by Brokenhearts on Nov 28, 2006 17:51:21 GMT -5
hummm… he's a GR8 actor, and he actd well as james bond… but he dusnt LUK the part!!!!! he's BLONDE!!! and he's built like a body builder, nt an aristocrate or smthin… he lukd like james bond's body guard… bt the movie was amazing!!! and his actin was spectacular!!! he hasnt ruined the film like i was worried he wud
|
|
|
Post by eakyra on Nov 28, 2006 20:42:32 GMT -5
I know thats what I was worried about too. Thats what the others did. I think he looked the part, he wasnt totally perfectly fit, he was older, and so what if he was blonde. I think your right about him looking less like an aristocrat though.
|
|
|
Post by AshVersion2 on Nov 29, 2006 11:43:50 GMT -5
I thought he was a good Bond.
|
|
|
Post by eakyra on Nov 29, 2006 11:47:34 GMT -5
He was, but Sean Connery is the God of Bond. All Hail The Bond God!!!
|
|
|
Post by AshVersion2 on Nov 29, 2006 11:48:04 GMT -5
AMEN!
|
|
|
Post by eakyra on Nov 29, 2006 11:57:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AshVersion2 on Nov 29, 2006 11:58:23 GMT -5
Don't blame ya. ;D
|
|
|
Post by eakyra on Nov 30, 2006 0:27:06 GMT -5
Good...
|
|
Hunter
Rank 2 (STILL a Newbie)
Total BAMF
Posts: 154
|
Post by Hunter on Dec 1, 2006 13:44:37 GMT -5
Eh...Daniel Craig was bad pick for Bond. He looks far too old, his movements are clumsy, and he doesn't have the whole "Suave but dangerous thing" going for him. Bond SHOULD be built. A secret agent that does all the stuff he does would be in tip top shape, especially if he's going to be jumping off cranes and whatnot. This time around, Bond was just not...Bond. This is supposed to be Bond's first mission, right? So he should be young, brash, and totally badass. Unfortunately, he came across as stupid, lucky, and clumsy. I mean, honestly--forgetting to plug in a defibulator? Come on. Plus the whole thing took place in 2006. This was suppose to be Bond's first mission...they should have gone retro with it Personally, I loved the style of the movie. It was really well done in terms of action sequences and directing, and I adored the fact that they went back to the basics with the gadgets. There were none. A good movie, to be sure...but not Bond.
|
|
|
Post by eakyra on Dec 6, 2006 23:48:56 GMT -5
You are right with several points there. If they wanted to go with the whole theme they were going with, it should have been diffrent. Your totally right.
But I still thought it was a much better movie than some of the other "newer Bonds" that have been comming out.
|
|