Douglas_H
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2000
- Messages
- 241
On disc?The boxset has been released since last October. I can get it for $44 from Amazon.
Maybe I'm a dummy but I can't find it.
On disc?The boxset has been released since last October. I can get it for $44 from Amazon.
Yes, on disc.On disc?
Maybe I'm a dummy but I can't find it.
The more I watch QoS the more I like it. It’s a flawed film, but it seems in finished. I think I remember unconfirmed rumors that Forster wanted to do another cut of the movie. But I would take anything more extra-wise if ever released.
Casino Royale is great IMO, and ranks right up there with the best of the Bonds. It's too bad the Craig films that followed never quite lived up to it.
Skyfall is my fav Craig film, and pretty close to the top overall.Fully agree. I like every Bond movie, even the bad ones. But I genuinely think Casino Royale was Craig’s best, and that each new one is he’s done has been less good than its predecessor. And yes, that means I like Quantum more than Skyfall.
Yeah, mine, too, but it seems quite a lot of people don't care for it.Skyfall is my fav Craig film, and pretty close to the top overall.
No time to die will be distributed by universal home video?
Yeah, mine, too, but it seems quite a lot of people don't care for it.
My thought with the Bond films is that if each movie is going start with them showing you that it's somehow possible to bleed inside a gun barrel, then you don't take the rest of it seriously
That's one of my big issues with Casino Royale - the whole "Bond begins" thing. Had they cast an actor in his early-20s, as was the original intention when they came up with the idea, it would have been fine. But they should have abandoned it when they decided to cast Craig, who was already in his late-30s at the time.My biggest issue is the framing of Bond’s story arc: we just finish two films where he’s constantly berated and belittled and underestimated for being too young, too immature and too inexperienced, and then as soon as this film begins, he’s berated for being too old, too out of shape and too out of touch. So when exactly was Bond actually Bond in this continuity? Who thought this was a good idea?
That's one of my big issues with Casino Royale - the whole "Bond begins" thing. Had they cast an actor in his early-20s, as was the original intention when they came up with the idea, it would have been fine. But they should have abandoned it when they decided to cast Craig, who was already in his late-30s at the time.
Connery was 31 and Lazenby was 29, and they were both playing Bond as a veteran agent.Him starting in his late-30's just makes sense.
How would he have graduated University then been in the Royal Navy long enough to achieve the rank of Commander (a senior officer) in his early 20's?
Connery was 31 and Lazenby was 29, and they were both playing Bond as a veteran agent.
That's one of my big issues with Casino Royale - the whole "Bond begins" thing. Had they cast an actor in his early-20s, as was the original intention when they came up with the idea, it would have been fine. But they should have abandoned it when they decided to cast Craig, who was already in his late-30s at the time.
Connery was 31 and Lazenby was 29, and they were both playing Bond as a veteran agent.