It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
North Korean torture technique.
I think Craig still looks physically up to the job but facially I'm not impressed. I can appreciate that others may see this differently, but I cringe sometimes when seeing him in SP. I always get the impression some work has been done around the eye area and it looks as unnatural to me as Moore's eye job for AVTAK.
Well, he was 52 years old at the time, and in all likelihood there isn't a single person on this board who will look that good at that age.
God, I feel as if I could have written that article.
I rewatched the fights against Frank recently and I was not impressed with it as I used to. It felt more slapstick than brutal and a tad slow. But I think Guy Hamilton was a poor fight director overall. They often end up slow and unconvincing, with too much comedy thrown in them.
For Craig I've seen his recent pictures with his baby daughter and he looks very good for a new dad.
I'm measurably stronger than I was a decade ago (with proper training and progressive programming this will happen-- it's a way of tapping into all the chemicals and excretion of natural human growth hormones and testosterone (the likes of which "they" say diminishes with time, but, as science proves, you have to be moving, pushing and pulling to continue to release these wonderful things (and not sitting on our asses doing nothing))).
I intend to beat Connery's look when i'm 52/53, mainly because I want to keep my beautiful wife interested in "other sports", lol...
yes, obvious this guy is a beast.
But @Birdleson , you are just as sexy a beast in your own way-- can @talos7 play the guitar??? If he can, not as well as you. At least, not from where I'm standing.
The movement continues. Nice to see those outside of the Bond fan circles are taking notice and finding SF to be less than the sum of its parts, which I thought from first viewing.
Curious, just where was the slapstick or comedy?
This was the first film without Peter Hunt's fast editing, but I'm not sure it was necessarily slow. Definitely agree that Hamilton is perhaps the most lacking director when it comes to fights. It would get even worse in the Moore era. It only boosts Terence Young's credibility more in my eyes.
Maybe slapstick is not the right term, but I didn't find it as brutal as I remembered. There's that whole thing with the fire extinguisher that takes me away from it. I don't think this particular fight was slow, but overall the fights in the Hamilton movies tend to be.
I’m always gripped by the likes of the FRWL train fight but here I always find my attention wandering towards the end of the sequence when it really shouldn’t. The editing probably played a part in that plus the fact that I’m not really interested in that Franks bloke. It’s not so much slapstick as it is the relative lack of energy.
This is a good point. He's not at all physically imposing, and is sort of dressed like a middle-manager: I don't feel like he represents any great threat. If we had learned that Franks was famously feared in the underground ("you just killed James Bond!"), that might have added some tension.
I think that's what sinks it for me: that foam. It's like a pie in the face joke. It gives a comedic turn to the whole thing.
@octofinger it's like two middle aged men who had too many pints on a Friday night after work and get in a row. DAF must be quite poor overall for people to think this fight is the highlight of the movie.
@octofinger it's like two middle aged men who had too many pints on a Friday night after work and get in a row.
That’s a good comparison.
Well... it is a poor movie. I know it has its fans, but still I am always surprised when I read or hear positive remarks about it. There is just hardly anything I enjoy about it at all. I appreciate it as a member of the Bond family, nothing more.
I love how Bond is smiling as he sprays Franks' face with the foam.
Takes away the tension. And Bond is far from the lethal assassin he's meant to be there. I think I prefer the ice hockey fight scene.
@jobo DAF is like the pudgy, drunken, ignorant know-it-all uncle in a family reunion. Sure he's family, but that's all he is.
Exactly! (On both points)
Difficult to take the writer of the article serious when the first sentence reads:
Casino Royale (2006) is not only the best of Daniel Craig’s James Bond movies, but it’s the best Bond movie period. That’s just factual and not up for debate, (...)
That is a load of nonsense. You might consider CR the best Bond film, but proclaiming that’s not even up for debate is beyond ridiculous.
Nevertheless, I do agree QOS is Craig’s second best 007 outing though.
I thought you were talking about QOS and I was totally on board.
May I ask what it is that you love?
I don't rank it high, but it is a 'go-to' film of mine when I want a fun quick fix of Bond.