YD Scuba Diving Forums banner
21 - 40 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Lou said:
The Ford Focus is in it briefly but his "official" agent's car is an Aston Martin DB9(?)
Its not a Focus. Its the next generation Mondeo - And looks like they've had some fun with the angles again like the original Focus.
And the Aston is a DBS.

Neither car is in production yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,557 Posts
tsw said:
Its not a Focus. Its the next generation Mondeo - And looks like they've had some fun with the angles again like the original Focus.
And the Aston is a DBS.

Neither car is in production yet.
Whatever :D Cars are cars are cars :)

I was chuffed I knew it was an Aston Martin, had no chance on the type!
 

·
This is my happy face!!
Joined
·
2,640 Posts
tsw said:
Its not a Focus. Its the next generation Mondeo - And looks like they've had some fun with the angles again like the original Focus.
And the Aston is a DBS.

Neither car is in production yet.
Not seen the film yet, but they keep showing the clip on telly, of the Aston being rolled. Almost moves me to tears!!:frown:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,557 Posts
Geoff Milne said:
Not seen the film yet, but they keep showing the clip on telly, of the Aston being rolled. Almost moves me to tears!!:frown:
It's alright, Bond survives - oops, have I given the plot away again? Or wasn't that what you were talking about? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,720 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
well looks like there isnow a few more people enjoyed this film !! and it seems it doesnt dissapoint as the viewing figures show a gross earning of just short of 14 million pounds in its first weekend ! they must have got a winning formula :teeth:
 

·
Team Erectus Domini Co-Founder
Joined
·
256 Posts
Well i thought that it was awsome, restored my faith in the bond series (which i lost watching the Pierce bond with the helicopters with ban saws underneath :rolleyes: Shocking!).

Like Batman Begins, casino royale is a rethink and modernisation of a series ruined in my opinion.

Agreed there was so much product placement, laughable in some places, but at least the technology is stuff that isnt insanely cheesey, in other Bonds, hed get a brand new gadget every time that just happened to be needed later in the film, in this the gadgets are just everyday items you would expect for him to have.

Whilst i dont think you can compare Daniel Craig to the likes of Big Sean or Moore, i think hes done a great job making the character his own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,557 Posts
So, what do they do now? No more books AFAIK to make into films, which means two equally horrible options...

They make up stories
or
They remake ones that have already been made.

Wikpedia appears to think it will be the former and will be a sequel to Casino Royale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
Lou said:
So, what do they do now? No more books AFAIK to make into films, which means two equally horrible options...

They make up stories
or
They remake ones that have already been made.

Wikpedia appears to think it will be the former and will be a sequel to Casino Royale.
wasn't Moonraker a remake based on one of the early ones? Diamonds are Forever? I think the last three of four have all been new stories, Casino Royale was remade because it wasn't part of the official bond franchise
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,456 Posts
EdHornby said:
wasn't Moonraker a remake based on one of the early ones?

Thunderball....

I love Bond Movies, go to see every one in the cinema.
Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond, darker, fresher and remember Casino royale was the first Fleming book hence lots of little things in the film that I am not going to say cause they will spoil it for folk who havent seen it yet.

Go, sit back and enjoy sheer fantastcy, forget about little mistakes in filming, forget about product placement, see a camera for a camera a phone for a phone, ignore the logos, immerse yoruself in the film.

Urban Running was spectacular, the DBS was lovely but so underused and even the Mondeo looks nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,407 Posts
EdHornby said:
wasn't Moonraker a remake based on one of the early ones? Diamonds are Forever? I think the last three of four have all been new stories, Casino Royale was remade because it wasn't part of the official bond franchise
Never Say Never Again was a remake of Thunderball. Connery was persuaded by big bucks to make a return appearance.

There have been a number of non-Fleming Bond films such as Goldeneye, The Living Daylights etc.
 

·
Scallop serial killer
Joined
·
1,311 Posts
Bollocks - it was absolutely brilliant.
Lou said:
OK, bear in mind that I was dragged to see this by C, but here are my views...

1. Daniel Craig has had a charisma bypass in this. I just didn't feel him at all. I am usually one to cry at the drop of a hat for a sad bit in a film, but not a drop welled up, when we were supposed to feel for him.

2. The usual stupid impossible stunts occur, but a couple weren't that well filmed. The foot chase of a tanker showed the tanker at two different speeds in two different camera angles, and the landing from a high jump onto a sandy roof had the footmarks from previous takes still on it.

3. The story doesn't tie together. I can't go into why without giving the whole film plot, but the final "twist" just does not work at all. If it were the explanation then the film could have ended an hour previously by the main characters doing exactly what they did, but earlier. It also required you to not query some gaping holes....

4. It was waaay too long, something like 2 1/2 hours. There are three main sections to the film and each could have done with some tidying up to keep the pace.

5. M & HQ were underused - this was all about Bond working alone and it lost some of it's class for it.

6. Product bloody placement - everything was Sony Sony Sony...I know tht Columbia are owned by Sony but couldn't they have been a little more subtle? And speaking of subtle..

7... Daniel Craig's "blue eyes", that are actually a nice pale blue are colourised in several scenes to a ridiculous level of blue. Look out especially in the night-driving scene when he is gunning it in the Aston Martin.

8. Since when did Bond play Hold 'em Poker? Since the yanks got hold of him, I guess?

9. No Q, no gadgets, no real technology - oh, apart from that available from Sony in all good electronics shops now - see point 6

On the plus side the baddie was a fittingly chill-some baddie, Le Chiffre, played by some Danish dude.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,035 Posts
StephenT said:
Connell was the drummer of Soundgarden, and is now a member of Audioslave.
Cornell was vocalist and on guitar, Matt Cameron was on Drums.

Thanks for the prompt though. I'm not going to stick on some of their finest choons. Ages since I last listened to them! :)
 

·
bored
Joined
·
2,308 Posts
OK I am a sad git, I`ve seen the film twice.

The opening free running scene is well worth watching, if footprints in the sand spoil the roof jump, dont ever watch any car chase films.Ohh see all the black lines!

I liked the lack of gadgetry in the film.
I liked Daniel Craig as Bond, I`ve rated the guy since layer cake. more thug than sauve. As one review put it the first Bond since Connery that looks like he could do some damage.
The film is a little ripe for a 12a in my book.
The `twist` at the end is exactly as Flemming`s Casino Royale, which I read some twenty odd years ago!
The product placements were a bit of a pain, Ford premier automotive group cars at every turn(jaguar, volvo, Aston), disscusing the watches(Rolex or Omega), Sony, Virgin(yes it was Branson at the airport).
I did wonder about the Bentley Continental in three consecutive outdoor shots, Flemming`s Bond drove an original Bentley Continental, also the psychadelic leaning of the opening credits made me wonder if there was a backhanded reference to the `60s Casino Royale with David Niven and Peter sellers.
Yes the film is long, but it is a good film, not just a good Bond film.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,720 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
hey james nothing to be ashamned of seeing it twice and tbh i can understand y !

i t was a great film made greater by good acting !

and a good story line !!

as well as some good funny bits especialy when he is being tortured by le chifre

and he still starts cracking the funnies lol:spliff:

its still looks like its gunna beat a few records!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,557 Posts
jamesp said:
OK I am a sad git, I`ve seen the film twice.

The opening free running scene is well worth watching, if footprints in the sand spoil the roof jump, dont ever watch any car chase films.Ohh see all the black lines!

I liked the lack of gadgetry in the film.
I liked Daniel Craig as Bond, I`ve rated the guy since layer cake. more thug than sauve. As one review put it the first Bond since Connery that looks like he could do some damage.
The film is a little ripe for a 12a in my book.
The `twist` at the end is exactly as Flemming`s Casino Royale, which I read some twenty odd years ago!
The product placements were a bit of a pain, Ford premier automotive group cars at every turn(jaguar, volvo, Aston), disscusing the watches(Rolex or Omega), Sony, Virgin(yes it was Branson at the airport).
I did wonder about the Bentley Continental in three consecutive outdoor shots, Flemming`s Bond drove an original Bentley Continental, also the psychadelic leaning of the opening credits made me wonder if there was a backhanded reference to the `60s Casino Royale with David Niven and Peter sellers.
Yes the film is long, but it is a good film, not just a good Bond film.
I do that with car chases too :D Sorry - I just can't see why they don't apy attention to those little details (not just in this film but in all films).

I really wish I could discuss the "twist" as I just couldn't reconcile it. When i described ti to my dad who had read the book years ago he seemed to think it was a little different, but if could be his memory ;)

I think the "thug" element of Daniel C could be why I don't like him. All personal preference though. Look at Timothy Dalton - apparently the most faithful screen incarnation of the literary version and folk hated him.

I totally agree about the 12A rating though. There were some very young kids in when we saw it and I really didn't think it was that suitable. Alot of realisitic violence.
 

·
Tinkering and a plethora of other pursuits...
Joined
·
881 Posts
I thought it was Branson at the airport! Thoroughly enjoyed the film and thought DC was very good in it - came across as slightly nasty as opposed to slick which was excellent.

S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,720 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
Lou said:
I do that with car chases too :D Sorry - I just can't see why they don't apy attention to those little details (not just in this film but in all films).

I really wish I could discuss the "twist" as I just couldn't reconcile it. When i described ti to my dad who had read the book years ago he seemed to think it was a little different, but if could be his memory ;)

I think the "thug" element of Daniel C could be why I don't like him. All personal preference though. Look at Timothy Dalton - apparently the most faithful screen incarnation of the literary version and folk hated him.

I totally agree about the 12A rating though. There were some very young kids in when we saw it and I really didn't think it was that suitable. Alot of realisitic violence.
my son is coming up 12 and i didnt have a problem taking my son to the film ! and as for all other bond films there will always be a certain amount of sexual content !! and sexual inuendo !!! but thats what makes bond special ! as it kinda takes the piss out of the british establishment stiff upper lip kinda thing !!!
as for the film classification its bang on the money !!!

both me and nick loved the film !!!! and hope lots of other y-ders take there kids too !!!

in fact i will put a question to the y-d massive would they take there kids to see james bond knowing that there may be certain amounts of sexual content and inuendo !!! best wishes leigh :spliff:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,557 Posts
It wasn't the sex stuff, it was the violence that conceernd me - it was pretty heavy duty some of it, and it wasn't the 10-12 years old kids, but the 7 or 8 year olds that were in there that I thought a bit on the line.
 
21 - 40 of 52 Posts
Top