The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[Veronica]

Though,I'd share thoughts of a close friend of mine on Casino Royale...
"With "Casino Royale," the franchise hits rock bottom. "Casino Royale" is, objectively, the worst James Bond film in the history of the 007 film franchise. Why?

1) Story: Based, more or less, on Ian Fleming's original novel, this unskillful adaptation/update is communicated with a disdain for clarity. The audience is fed too little information, too late (or not at all)—about both character motivations as well as the stakes involved in various action sequences—to remain emotionally engaged and genuinely interested in what's going on.

2) Casting/characterization: lacks conviction and appeal

• Daniel Craig (Bond). Craig's characterization of Bond is charmless, worthless, and disturbingly nihilistic. At one point in the script, Craig's Bond responds to a question with "Do I look like I give a d**n?" The answer in "Casino Royale" is overwhelmingly NO. Why on earth, then, should the audience care about him? At another point, he tells Vesper "I have no idea what an honest job is." Is this a credible (or creditable) moral statement to hear from a top-level government secret agent? Craig's monotonously stoic performance is by no means compensated for by his (atrocious) line readings: he articulates rarely, mumbles often. As a result of Craig's hollow Bond interpretation, what should have been the film's ultimate impact moment—007's "Bond, James Bond" confrontation with villainous Mr. White—is surprisingly anti-climactic, prompting a shrug rather than a cheer from this reviewer.

• Eva Green ("Bond Girl," Vesper Lynd). Green's Vesper characterization comes across unwittingly as awkward, unsophisticated. Green looks and acts like a teenager playing at "grown-up." What's missing is the mature presence/feminine poise that typifies the best Bond Girl actresses (e.g. Ursula Andress, Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg, Barbara Bach, Maud Adams, Izabella Scorupco, et al). A self-confessed "complicated woman," Green's Vesper remains maddeningly inscrutable to the end, and her romance with Craig's Bond is ineptly developed and unconvincingly consummated."

Exactly my thoughts.The story was rather poor told and therefore wasn't interesting or exciting...and it's all been said of Bondless feeling of the movie.Not to mention a moronic line that mocks one of the most iconic lines in cinema history-a song by rapper B.o.B. actually has "shaken,not stirred" in lyrics...

[bjmdds]

Friday September 4
NEW IN THEATERS
Jane Got a Gun Western Relativity Wide
Kitchen Sink Comedy Sony / Columbia Wide
No Escape (on Wed.) Action Weinstein Company Wide
The Transporter Refueled Action EuropaCorp Wide ----------No Escape is getting a wide release. Good This is Brosnan's final shot at a decent box office gross. They must promote it with late night tv appearances and daytime talk shows or else it's a waste once again. FBF, this is it for Pierce Put him in the Godzilla sequel.

[FormerBondFan]

FBF, this is it for Pierce Put him in the Godzilla sequel.

It would be a lot better if he gets a greatest hit of his own instead of a sequel to an existing series. As far as sequels are concern, I hope he's still up for EX4.

[bjmdds]

According to various reports, both wrestling superstar Hulk Hogan and international action star Salman Khan are rumored to be in the talks for appearances in the next installment of Sylvester Stallone's aging action star-packed Expendables franchise.

[ml94]

According to various reports, both wrestling superstar Hulk Hogan and international action star Salman Khan are rumored to be in the talks for appearances in the next installment of Sylvester Stallone's aging action star-packed Expendables franchise.

HULK HOGAN

[The Saint 007]

Just watched an interview with Roger Moore. Seriously,they should recommend watching his interviews instead of a Prozac.

Love his James Bond commentaries too. I just recently came across a nice rare Moore interview from The Saint years.

[video][/video]

[Veronica]

Just watched an interview with Roger Moore. Seriously,they should recommend watching his interviews instead of a Prozac.

Love his James Bond commentaries too. I just recently came across a nice rare Moore interview from The Saint years.

[video][/video]

I watched an interview with Piers Morgan. The guy wanted some dirty laundry from his life and asked questions like-"Do you think your children are still mad at you?" but Moore stayed a true gentlemen like he is. Morgan said how Moore is an "national trasure" and then someone commented how "a national trasure meets national disgrace"
"Do you ever wake up in the morning and say 'Rog,looking good babe'"
"After I finish kissing my reflection"
"They don't take pretty girl seriously,they don't take pretty boy seriously and they think you can not act-and they are right,you know." And then laughed. I don't know why he puts himself down. He had a a wonderful commedic timing and is very handsome and and charismatic. But he handled more serious moments as well. For example when Amasova in TSWLM mentiones Tracy-check his reaction or when he exaplains how he killed her lover-that's crowning moment of seriousness right there.
Wonderful as a person,wonderful as an actor.

[Veronica]

Guys,do you think that maybe some of the ratings are false on imdb? I mean,look at Skyfall. So many negative comments and yet a high rating. Casino Royale as well...
On a non-Bond side "The Great Gatsby" (2013),how the hell that got 7.3 rating?

[The Saint 007]

Guys,do you think that maybe some of the ratings are false on imdb? I mean,look at Skyfall. So many negative comments and yet a high rating. Casino Royale as well...
On a non-Bond side "The Great Gatsby" (2013),how the hell that got 7.3 rating?

The Craig era does have many fans, so a great number of the positive reviews are probably genuine. However, there's also a lot of biased fanboy/girl shenanigans on these kinds of sites. You see a lot of the younger ones who are new to the Bond series repeating negative criticisms on certain films (particularly the Moore ones) they've read from reviews, without actually watching them. There could also be people from EON who get on these sites and bump up the positive perception for Craig. The fact you can't really say anything negative about Craig without being attacked raises a big red flag. When it comes to sites like IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes, you really don't know who's writing up these reviews or voting the ratings up and down. That's why it's best to just watch the films and make your own judgment, and not treat these review sites as the gospel.

Sometimes the perception of films change. There are films that are not critically well received at first, but then gain appreciation over time, while there's other films that are highly praised at first, but slowly lose value. We'll just have to wait and see how well the Craig Bond films stand the test of time.

[ml94]

MOONRAKER now on tv here in finland.

[Veronica]

Guys,do you think that maybe some of the ratings are false on imdb? I mean,look at Skyfall. So many negative comments and yet a high rating. Casino Royale as well...
On a non-Bond side "The Great Gatsby" (2013),how the hell that got 7.3 rating?

The Craig era does have many fans, so a great number of the positive reviews are probably genuine. However, there's also a lot of biased fanboy/girl shenanigans on these kinds of sites. You see a lot of the younger ones who are new to the Bond series repeating negative criticisms on certain films (particularly the Moore ones) they've read from reviews, without actually watching them. There could also be people from EON who get on these sites and bump up the positive perception for Craig. The fact you can't really say anything negative about Craig without being attacked raises a big red flag. When it comes to sites like IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes, you really don't know who's writing up these reviews or voting the ratings up and down. That's why it's best to just watch the films and make your own judgment, and not treat these review sites as the gospel.

Sometimes the perception of films change. There are films that are not critically well received at first, but then gain appreciation over time, while there's other films that are highly praised at first, but slowly lose value. We'll just have to wait and see how well the Craig Bond films stand the test of time.

You are right about everything,Saint.The reason every time someone says something negative about Craig and his movies the fanboys turn into pitbulls.That's the reason why I don't go on those forums-primarly mi6 forum.Ajb007 is decent,I feel,though.But there are really MANY negative comments on Craig movies on imdb...thoughts on certain movies do change from time to time-OHMSS is a prime example.I also read that at the time it was released Moonraker was called the equal of Goldfinger while now it's regarded as one of the worst Bond movies...
The thing is,Craig fans just repeat the same things all over again-Craig is badass,Moore is wimpy(you forgot completely and utterly charming,elegant and humorous I would say...wimpy?Just because he doesn't look like a bodyguard like Craig doesn't mean he's wimpy...),they never exaplain why any of the Craig movies are so good-the biggest mystery for me is Casino Royale...reading their comments literally feels like something that could lower your IQ.
Also,that statement how Bond formula wouldn't work in todays world..uh,really?DAD was made not so long ago and that was like Bond on steroids and it made HUGE money and I read comments from that time and people loved it-I already wrote many rated is as Brosnans 2nd best or even best Bond movie...so,obviously no one minded the Bond formula...another example is Kingsman-a homage to real James Bond-the megalomanical plot,"manners are not optional but essnetial"...the rating is 8.0 on imdb.A blatant example that in 2015 it still works just like it worked from 1962...Babs has no excuse...

[Omega]

Guys,do you think that maybe some of the ratings are false on imdb? I mean,look at Skyfall. So many negative comments and yet a high rating. Casino Royale as well...
On a non-Bond side "The Great Gatsby" (2013),how the hell that got 7.3 rating?

I've give up on IMDb too many trolls. Studio trolls at that. I've seen a few times were new movies had too many positive reviews fora movie that has not been released


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FormerBondFan]

Pierce's Survivor slipped down to 5.7 in IMDb and still maintains 0% in Rotten Tomatoes. Now it's really the time to put a bug in Tarantino's ears.

[mcbride007]

The IMDB reviews are more interesting on more obscure things.

[Veronica]

Pierce's Survivor slipped down to 5.7 in IMDb and still maintains 0% in Rotten Tomatoes. Now it's really the time to put a bug in Tarantino's ears.

RT is a joke for me. I read an "essay" and the first line was:"The fact that Skyfall has 92% on RT and TWINE 52% is a scientific proof there's no God." And then listed what Skyfall copied from TWINE.And it really copied A LOT.

[Veronica]

Did anyone watch the Survivor? I don't get it-what's with the limited release? And what's with the PR?

[The Saint 007]

I also read that at the time it was released Moonraker was called the equal of Goldfinger while now it's regarded as one of the worst Bond movies...

I've always got the impression that Moonraker, while a financial success, was never really that well received critically. Hence the more back to basics approach with For Your Eyes Only. But even though they still get their fair share of bashing, I've noticed a little more appreciation for Moonraker and A View To A Kill recently. The Moore era has never been critically acclaimed, though. He was the Bond for the people, not the critics.

One Bond film I notice getting a bit more flak lately is Thunderball. There's a lot of complaints about too many underwater scenes, with the final one being difficult to follow, and that the film is just too slow and boring. I don't share this opinion, however, it's always been one of my favourite Connery Bond films.

[Veronica]

I also read that at the time it was released Moonraker was called the equal of Goldfinger while now it's regarded as one of the worst Bond movies...

I've always got the impression that Moonraker, while a financial success, was never really that well received critically. Hence the more back to basics approach with For Your Eyes Only. But even though they still get their fair share of bashing, I've noticed a little more appreciation for Moonraker and A View To A Kill recently. The Moore era has never been critically acclaimed, though. He was the Bond for the people, not the critics.

One Bond film I notice getting a bit more flak lately is Thunderball. There's a lot of complaints about too many underwater scenes, with the final one being difficult to follow, and that the film is just too slow and boring. I don't share this opinion, however, it's always been one of my favourite Connery Bond films.

I noticed a lot of criticism about Thunderball as well. I even read how it's the weakest Bond of the sixties or even one of the weakest of the whole series. Just look at it's rating. 7.0 while Goldfinger has 7.8. and was even at 8.0 for some time. You can also find a lot of negative comments about it on imdb...or actually on any forum...I don't get it personally I think it's a great movie. Beautiful Bond girls,Paluzzi was especially great as Fiona Volpe and I liked Domino as well. I loved the detail how due to her name she only wore black or white clothes and her bikini was black and white. Connery is at the hight of his swagger here,the PTS is teriffic and I like Tom Jones' song actually better than Goldfinger.. Bahamas are beautiful to look at and I like the whole underwater theme of the movie... The only really negative thing I can say is that the finale does tire you. I felt that underwater battle was quite unecessary...and it is difficult to follow..And although the movie is slower paced and I read quite a few times that all the important stuff happens in 20 minutes I don't find it to be boring.

As for the Moore era-I like Moore far better than I like his movies. The only really teriffic one,I feel,is TSWLM...Moonraker I felt was riding on the success of TSWLM but I read that Moonraker was critically aclaimed back then...and then after that every movie made less and less money-GoldenEye infact was the next big box-office hit after Moonraker...I read how people got tired of Bond movies being made every two years...

[Veronica]

Oh,and I have to say I find the idea of Big Ben striking seven times at 6 o'clock in TB to be brilliant...

[bjmdds]

Pierce's Survivor slipped down to 5.7 in IMDb and still maintains 0% in Rotten Tomatoes. Now it's really the time to put a bug in Tarantino's ears.

What have I been telling you for years now? This is what Brosnan must do or else retire from show business......1)Seagal dips his head in black ink to make sure no grays are showing.......Pierce now looks his age, 62. He needs a style makeover with hair color matching that in GE........2)he needs to dress in dapper attire and not be seen on the beaches out of shape with his immense wife, who is not Twiggy, and he needs to get into better shape and stop taking his wife out to restaurants all the time.............3)he should do no film unless it has a wider USA and UK release planned..........4)R-rated films are not for him. He can do PG-13 rated violence stories which suit him better......5)he should fire his manager and agent and PR team and the find the best people that will utilize his "pitchman" popularity on products and combine that with his film choices Selling products is a great asset ..........6)FBF should be his new advisor. 7)he should keep his mouth shut on Salmon and Elba being the next Bond because it makes him look like a PC moron .......do all of these things and he will be better for it. As it stands now, his career is over and going nowhere, under his current regime's advisement. He cannot be seen in public like this and be mocked and his wife needs a one piece bathing suit, not a bikini