not a bad film in itself but its no GOLDENEYE, and i prefered peirce brosnon as james bond.
Casino Royale
Moderator: Forum Moderators
-
Killavodka
- Cheese Lord
- Posts: 804
- Joined: June 13th, 2006, 22:09
- Contact:
ok just watched film myself, thought daniel craig didn't do that badly, but i agree with sheriff on the plot... wheres the super villains trying to take over the world?! i dont want to see 007 running around after some money and falling in love
not a bad film in itself but its no GOLDENEYE, and i prefered peirce brosnon as james bond.
not a bad film in itself but its no GOLDENEYE, and i prefered peirce brosnon as james bond.
I watched a floor copy also, the night before last, and I thought it was a good film.
I didn't think it was a great bond film, but it wasn't shit either. The plot was a bit weak - but I suppose if thats what the book said happens then that's what they had to make a film of. I didn't like the obvious gaps in the plot (designed to make you fill it in yourself) as this isn't very bondy - and I struggled with the floor copy as some parts were not that easy to pick up on.
I think it is a massive improvement from invisible cars and all that shit we had before.
I didn't think it was a great bond film, but it wasn't shit either. The plot was a bit weak - but I suppose if thats what the book said happens then that's what they had to make a film of. I didn't like the obvious gaps in the plot (designed to make you fill it in yourself) as this isn't very bondy - and I struggled with the floor copy as some parts were not that easy to pick up on.
I think it is a massive improvement from invisible cars and all that shit we had before.
All in all as a film I'd give it 7/10 as it was good, but maybe not Bondy enough for some.very weak but potential spoiler wrote:The only unrealistic thing that happened was that silly bug in his hand transmitting more detail than a full autopsy could have known.