UPDATED: This weekend's big box office news was overseas: MGM/Sony's Quantum Of Solace, the 22nd James Bond motion picture, had record-setting launches in the UK, France and Sweden this weekend. Total Fri-Sat-Sun take was $38.6 million on 2,123 prints, generating more than $18,000 per print. The pic expands into 57 additional markets next weekend. But Bond made box office history on its opening day in the UK, taking a staggering £4.9 million and making it the biggest Friday opening of all time. 
This shattered the previous record held by Harry Potter And The Goblet of Fire, which took £4.0m. The latest 007 installment, which claims to be the longest running franchise in film history (if you don't count Godzilla or Tarzan), also beat the opening day figure of £2.9m for Casino Royale, the first to star Daniel Craig. Quantum Of Solace did £15.4 million for its UK weekend launch and the biggest standard 3-day opening of all time there, passing Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire's £14.934 million. This is 35% bigger than the £11.4 million launch of Casino Royale and a massive 70% of the UK box office this weekend. France's weekend estimate of €8.2 million beat Casino Royale's 5-day €7.0 by 16% for the biggest Bond launch ever there, and in just 3 days. MGM/Sony expect Quantum to have three great days ahead in France, with the All Saint's holiday school break running through November 5th. And Sweden's 18.1 million SEK 3-day weekend is that country's 4th biggest FSS ever, behind only Lord of the Rings 3 (20.4), and 31% more than Casino Royale's 13.821 million SEK launch. The 22nd Bond will release in the U.S. on November 14th and its first choice tracking was almost double what it was for Daniel Craig's debut as Bond in Casino Royale. But this is 007 without the established Bond cliches and stereotypes. Reviewers said the current Bond movie looked more like Bond-as-Bourne since it dropped Moneypenny, dropped Q, dropped the wit, dropped the gadgets, and dropped the line "The name is Bond, James Bond".
That said, rival studio chatter says this may be the costliest film ever made minute by minute: $261 million for a 105-minute movie, which comes out to almost $2.5 million per minute. (As opposed to, say, the $300M pricetag for 165-minute-long Pirates Of The Caribbean 3.) But Sony sources say that number is "off base by more than $60M. Plus we have tax credits from filming." Produced for EON Productions by Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the 22nd Bond was directed by Marc Forster with screenplay by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and Oscar-winner Paul Haggis. The film picks up the storyline just one hour after the end of Casino Royale, marking the first direct sequel produced by EON Productions/Danjaq, LLC, which is owned by the Broccoli family and has produced 21 Bond films since 1962.
Wait wait wait, if there’s no Q and no gadgets, there were only 3 FX companies working on it, meaning minimal effects, why the F@#% did the movie cost so much?!?
Comment by Enrique — November 1, 2008 @ 11:14 am
‘Only 3 FX companies?’ What are you talking about, Enrique? That’s a lot. Iron Man had 3 houses working on it — just for the digital stuff alone.
Comment by Steve — November 1, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
expecting to be disgusted by product placements…the Omega plug in the first one was wince-inducing, a serious howler
Comment by Cheeselord — November 1, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
and he’s so unattractive and rather wimpy…
Comment by bb — November 1, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Trash a few Aston Martins and romp around the globe in exotic locales and the price gets up there pretty fast..
Comment by Dan — November 1, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
The best statement the film makes that he is a new breed of Bond is his angry rejection of expressing a preference for either a shaken or stirred martini.
However, Bond does say his name in the only way he could at the very end of the movie when the Bond theme is also heard for the first time. This shows the link between old Bond and new Bond. I believe we will see Moneypenny and Q in following films. Why not remake an early Flemming book based Bond film or two while Craig is still young enough to pull it off?
It will probably happen.
Comment by Joe Vita — November 1, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
Double Oh! Three and a half returns.
No Q, Moneypenny, Wit, or real Bond; that is not Bond, that’s Blonde.
Barbarra Broccolli is typical of people who live in the shadow of someone succesful. She, like they, want to prove they are equal. So far, she has failed. This is not Bond, neither was the first.
Cubby, and Sir Ian are rolling in their graves.
Comment by Mark — November 1, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Way too serious….what happened to coolness..? Sean invented cool under stress, heartless retribution… ( You’ve had your six.. ), and suave masculinity…007 is Bond, James Bond…Guess I’ll go back to watching Goldfinger again for the 223rd time…” You expect me to talk “.. ” No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die..” Well, Bond has died…
Comment by Larry Conners — November 1, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
So this is the first non-”Bond” Bond movie since the series started. Dropping Q & the gadgets is putting a lot on Daniel Craig’s ability to act and capture the audience. From the reviews, perhaps he came through.
Comment by Danglars — November 1, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
I was not impressed with the last Bond film….got to see it last week on a FREE-Weekin on showtime….So glad I didn`t go pay for it.
THIS James Bond was lucky to even survie the script…
He had to be saved by his Grilfriend TWICE…he was late to discover the back-stapping plot, He fell head over heel in love with the traitor almost coming to tears ….This has turned Bond into just another “Chick Flick”
WHO? pray tell can save the Queen now???????????????
Comment by Jimmy Lewis — November 1, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Oh, so it has haggis. No wonder they’re eating it up over there.
Comment by I'mBrianFellowes — November 1, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
How many more times do we have to hear the lie that this is first direct sequel in the history of the Bond franchise? “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” ended with Blofeld killing Bond’s wife. The next film “Diamonds Are Forever” begins with Bond searching for Blofeld in order to avenge her death. Got it?
Comment by Doug Krentzlin — November 1, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Well let’s hope that’s the end of it: the end of the droppings, because that’s what made Bond “Bond”. Otherwise the franchise will become just another bloody slugfest and fade into the hazy sunset of forgotten dreams.
Do it once, fine. I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I will. However, when I pay my hard-earned money to get James Bond, I don’t want a Bourne Supremacy look-alike (don’t get me wrong, I love the Bourne series). If I want Bourne, I will see Bourne, unless Bourne introduces a new line in return: “The name’s Bourne, Jason Bourne.”
On the next one I say bring back the droppings, please, or the movie studios may find die-hard Bond fans dropping their money on other things.
Comment by justsmithers — November 1, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
@Enrique:
Don’t you know that computer special effects cost just as much as the real thing?
Or maybe $150 Million-per-picture Tom Cruise did a cameo?
Comment by justsmithers — November 1, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
No Q, no gadgets, no “Bond, James Bond…”??
These were/are part of the 007 legacy and what makes James Bond movies James Bond movies….
Those movies were actually fun and entertaining to watch, now these new Bond flicks are just like all the other super serious spy movies (Bourne, etc..) trying to be all realistic and shit… It was cool to have Bond be so unrealistic yet still be believable…
What has the Broccoli Bitch done to this cherished character? Or CHARACTERS more like it!! Ian Fleming must be turning in his grave…
Comment by Joe Public — November 1, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
I’ll take a gadgetless Bond over one that travels on a transforming gondola hovercraft any day.
Comment by Unemployed M — November 1, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
The movie cost so much because they went through so many damn Aston Martins!!!
Comment by The Warden — November 1, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Um, not to be terribly nitpicky.
The Godzilla franchise has 29 films to its credit. Bond at 22 is not the longest running film franchise.
Comment by Dave M — November 1, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
Enrique- those suits don’t come cheap.
Comment by B. Billingsley — November 1, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Theyll never be another Sean Connery but Daniel Craig is without a doubt the best James Bond since. He and the producers bring back a serious Bond with a mean streak much like the original Bond. The charm is still there but a dark side exists only found in those who can murder at the drop of a hat. Great job in bringing THE REAL BOND BACK!!!
Comment by paul — November 1, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
If they could only come up with another Connery.
If they could just stick to the proven formula.
Bond…James Bond.
No Q, No gadgets, No Fun…
DUMB…………JUST DUMB………
Ed K
Comment by edk — November 1, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
I hope that Bond girl looks better in a bikini
Comment by mark — November 1, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Just go see it and quit complaining about the cost or I’ll have to report you to the authorities.
Comment by Sigmond — November 1, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
“why the F@#% did the movie cost so much?”
Location. Location. Location…. and real action. Visual effects are cheap compared to these.
Comment by Craig is Bond — November 1, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
exotic locations + re-shoots.
And i think Craig got a bigger paycheck than we think for it.
Comment by seanH — November 1, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Parts of the movie were being filmed in Austria.
Those Austrians don’t work cheap. That’s why!
Comment by H.Peter — November 1, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
$20,000 dollar hookers and lots of cocaine is how I get my costs up
Comment by rick mave — November 1, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
Certainly does make you wonder. Apparently it’s an action-packed Bond, though (and from the number of people I’ve talked to in the UK who’ve seen it, they say the Bourne/Bond comparison is WAY off base in that it still very much feels like a Bond film).
The critical focus is sort of stupidly bent toward the lack of the Q, Moneypenny characters, etc. The filmmakers have been very clear in pre-release junkets that the characters will return to the franchise when the story necessitates it, as opposed to shoehorning them in. Apparently the Bond “line” as it were was indeed shot, but cut from the film due to that same fact - it was there for the sake of being there.
As a fan, I’m certainly not appreciating the two week gap between the UK and NA releases!
Comment by anonymous — November 1, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
If all the things that made James Bond movies what they were, why call this James Bond. Why not call it something else, after all, that is what it is.
will see it, but don’t pretend it is another in the James Bond series when it just “ain’t.”
Comment by Andy — November 1, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Why was cost so high? Probably all the location filming
But don’t forget they’ll get a lot of the money back through the lucrative (and blatant) product placement, as well as other tie ins.
Comment by rahul — November 1, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
AW take the heart out if a Bond movie..the preposterous
reality, the gajets, the wit
Miami nice
Comment by jonsone — November 1, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
I am looking forward to seeing this film in the states!
Comment by Bill Reichart — November 1, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Lump all 3 of the later Bond lead men - and the stories - together, and they wouldn’t match Roger Moore or Sean Connery in ANY one of theirs!
Nice to see the film industry subsidized with 6 million taxpayer dollars though… SHEESH!
Comment by Rebel Rouser — November 1, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
expensive locations to film. they don’t film the whole movie in canada to save money like those big action films
Comment by billy bob — November 1, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
Daniel Craig’s James Bond makes Timothy Dalton’s James Bond seem fun-loving and laid-back in comparison.
Comment by Berg, Ian Berg — November 1, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
Old dude. Hot chick. Bla. Bla.
Comment by bam bam — November 1, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
No Gadgets? I thought that this was a bond film? I hope that they don’t ruin a franchise like they did with Mission Impossible. Keep it what makes it Bond.
Comment by capn — November 1, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
How can there Bond without Moneypenny, Q, wit, gadgets, and “Bond, James Bond”. I’m lost!
Comment by Tom — November 1, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
Answer to Enrique’s Question: stunts.
Comment by Mobseven — November 1, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
They should start making 3 bond movies at a time like the lord of the rings to cut the costs 3 movies for 400 M, since there are already 22 it will never stop…
Comment by ds — November 1, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Reviewers said the 22nd Bond movie looked more like Bond-as-Bourne since it dropped Moneypenny, dropped Q, dropped the wit, dropped the gadgets, and dropped the line “The name is Bond, James Bond”.
All of that was used to excess in “Die Another Day” and it’s what ruined Pierce Brosnan’s final turn as Bond. This new Bond is fine the way it is.
Comment by Rory L. Aronsky — November 1, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
Actually, the Godzilla franchise is the longest franchise in film history (beating Bond by 8 years). But this looks good.
Comment by Steven — November 1, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
I always find it incredibly stupid to say movies break a box office “record”. The price to see a movie keeps going up, so any recent popular movie will break the record. Big deal. Why not talk about bums in seats?
Comment by John — November 1, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
“Casino Royale” was definitely the best of the post-Connery movies. Daniel Craig is at least the best Bond since Connery and, possibly, may even prove to be equal thereto.
Casino Royale was far less campy and relied far more on the quality of the script and character development than sophomoric word gags, flashy explosive special effects and stunts than any Bond movie produced to date. That was what in fact held the audience’s interest and made it a success.
If this sequel, as it is called, continues to follow the new trend of reliance upon higher quality writing as against the alleged comparative dirth special effects, stunts and worn out/overused bond cliches, then I am looking forwarding to seeing this new film. I hope that it is as impressive and “rewatchable” as this last one.
Comment by Jim — November 1, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
“But this is 007 without the established Bond cliches and stereotypes.”
HA! The reviewers state this as if it is a bad thing.
Comment by Harold — November 1, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
Give me Connery and oddjob anyday. The new Bond is a politically correct wuss.
Comment by John — November 1, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
I have to jump in here.. This and the Casino are the closest Bond movies to actually follow the style of the the Flemming books.. They are the best of the lot going all the way back to 62. Bond was a brutal assasin and Craig’s Bond is the best Bond to date. I was a fan of the books and the movies never got it right until Casino. The whole “one liner male model” thing was ridiculous. They’ve finally got it right and these are the best Bond films ever made. Those who are looking for the Hollywood simpleton crap will be disappointed and those who know the Flemming books will love the film.
Comment by Blit — November 1, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Wow. I have to admit, I have not seen this much hatred to a film in a franchise since the dreaded Star Wars prequels. I’ll throw my hat in and say Casino Royale was far and away the best Bond yet, and Quantum of Solace looks to be a worthy next step. Bravo to Daniel Craig. Ok, now commence ripping me to shreds.
Comment by Want To Keep Working — November 1, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
This is definitely the ugliest James Bond ever. Were did the producers find this guy?
Comment by Hari — November 1, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
Bond is not the longest running film franchise. Godzilla has him beat with 28 movies (vs. 22 for Bond) over 54 years (vs. 46 for Bond).
Comment by J.D. Lees — November 1, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
I like this Bond. He’s better than Pierce, who was better than Dalton. I don’t mind passing on the comedic side for awhile either. That said, there’s no Bond film I hate and I hope they make a thousand films.
Comment by Josh — November 1, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
I don’t know where this “no wit” thing is coming from. While it isn’t a quip-a-thon, the film has a good number of witty lines.
Comment by KB — November 1, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
craig may be a fine actor but looking at him I could never associate him with bond image is everything with bond!!
Comment by wcarey — November 1, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
Daniel Craig is fantastic, he’s the best bond since Sean Connery. Action, Action, Action. He’s Cool and a renaisance man. Way to Go Daniel Craig “Bond”.
Comment by tubguru — November 1, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
I’ve been a Bond fan since they began and while Dr No wasn’t that great, the follow ups, From Russia With Love was more on the latest Bond style. It was serious without much gimmicks. (the briefcase) Goldfinger, Thunderball, and You only live Twice made the series take off. From there the gimmicks became a joke and the Roger Moore Bonds were some of the goofiest. The double takes with the pigeons did it for me. Then having Q become involved with the Balloon in Octopussy made things even more ridicules. On Her Majesty Secret Serice was so boring on the first half they had to redo it on the television release in order to make it more interesting. (it only made it worse) The second half (and there was an intermission half way through whe it was released) was a little better. The Daltom movie License To Kill wasn’t to bad with the toughness dalton showed, but his others were terible. If I’m not mistaken his first was actually written for Moore. The Pierce Bond movies were ok but not what they should have been Again the gimmicks became lame. The invisible car was complete stupidity. The latest Bond has been what bond should be. Serious, and if they start to put in gimmicks, lets make them sensible. The car from Goldfinger was great, but every car since then has been a fairytale. (Underwater and throwing out a fish?) . . . come’on. Even being a big a fan of Sean Connery didn’t help when he remade Thunderball??? A total mess. I like where these Bond movies are going and hope they slowly bring the gimmicks, like a car that can actually do something before it gets destroyed? Action is what makes a Bond film and next is the gimmicks and girls. I hope they keep this Bond in a serious mode and so far it looks like Craig can pull it off. I have to admit, the only Batman movies I liked was the latest two, so you know where my serious taste stands, and forget the Superman movies, the television versions have a better sense of reality.
Comment by TM — November 1, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
CR the best bond ever Craig as a licensed to kill better than my favorite actor (in the “Untouchables) M good but just PC - No OSS or SAS background. Bond films were really getting like a cartoon. Craig is a believable killer. And how many times can you see someone fed to sharks?? Austin Powers and Bond were becoming equal. Moonraker silly.FRWL was the best before with no gimmicks. More CRAIG. No more Testicle torture for the FEMA-Nazis Lesbo’s -Unless there is equal torture of Females - Equality you know
Comment by dan — November 1, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
I haven’t seen the film, so I don’t know if I’ll like it. I may. I’m sure at least, I’ll be entertained. However…
… if it’s anything like Casino Royale, which in my opinion was disappointing on several levels - mainly, the lack of a good music theme. Can anyone even remember who sang it? I can’t. The lack of fun gadgets. The lack of a really stunning beauty as the Bond girl, or girls. Nope, sorry, that actress they picked, after she was supposed to be ‘dolled up’ was more suited as an extra in Taxi Driver or Weekend at Bernie’s than in any scene with 007 - then I’ll probably be disappointed in this one, too.
No Q, or even anything like him, No Miss Moneypenny, or anything like her, No shaken Martini, No gadgets, No Bond theme? No eyeball/barrell sequence opening?
I’m sorry. This isn’t a Bond, then. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, considered the step-child of the film series, is far more Bond than this is, then. Far more.
I have nothing against D. Craig, but I don’t think he is the essence of what makes Bond, no matter how buff he is.
I’m sorry. I realize I’m talking treason (actually, I’m not, since I’m trying to keep what little remains of this treasured gem intact).
And I do realize what they, within the castle keep of Eon were trying to do by casting him. I do. I really do. But Connery and Moore, were Bond. All others, I’m sorry, were not. Not quite, anyway.
They got close, but…
Dalton actually had potential, sometimes. But it disappeared when the camera’s started rolling. Not sure why. Kind of the opposite effect/phenomenon that Gary Cooper inspired. Remember those stories of producers, directors, crew holding their noses and thinking he was the worst actor they had ever had to put in a film, (think Susan Alexander in Citizen Kane, and you’ll get the picture) then in the screening room, watching the dailies, their jaws dropped. Somehow, the magic of the camera transformed that wooden, awkward, clumsy, limping no-talent, funny voiced string-bean into one of the biggest, best, and most talented actors to ever grace the screen.
Presence. He had presence. And the camera loved him. The rest is movie history.
Perhaps the opposite happened to Dalton. We’ll never know. Because he’s history as Bond.
Pierce Brosnan, of course, as Remington Steele was everyone’s choice to replace Moore. He had it all, all that we came to love with Roger Moore, all that we had first seen in The Saint and The Persuaders, that recurring character: dashing, vain, well groomed, meticulous scoundrel that we all loved to see in action and at rest. Our eyes had no trouble viewing him in old Venice or on a space shuttle. Punchouts were not entirely his forte, but he held his own. And, with huge adversaries, like Jaws, made us laugh.
He worked. Though not the favorite of Bond fans, he was probably the most fun. And according to legend, considered the quintessential Bond by Fleming himself.
Connery, most diehard fans’ favorite Bond, and characteristically unique, stamping a type that is repeated to this day in movies, television, and in real life. His was clearly the style they were trying to recreate with D. Craig. Clearly. They wanted to go back to the roots of Bond, and what better way than to recreate Connery?
Rough and tumble. No holds barred, rugged good looks, and a disdain for authority, much more than Moore’s Bond ever displayed.
So, here we are. It’s the fall of 2008.
Daniel Craig is now James Bond, 007, licensed to kill.
It’s nice, very nice, that the Broccolli family continues the series. I can’t emphasis enough how important things like this are to me. And I’m sure to others, as well. Modern times are far too depressing having lost so many great actors, directors, talents over the last few decades, so many fixed stars, that it is a rare treat to have something still going strong that heralded from the semi-golden age of Hollywood and beyond. A rare treat, indeed.
But, with that said, there seems to be little else connected to that greatness, besides the title of Bond and the hype. The hype and enthusiasm of course, comes because others feel as I do: we love the series. Why do we love it? Because we want to see the character very different, unlike Bond? Of course not.
When you go to see The Rolling Stones, you want to hear Mick and the boys. You don’t want to hear Eminem. There are fans for both, and many probably like both. But, when they want to enjoy The Stones, they want to enjoy The Stones.
It’s a funny thing about characters in series and the producers, directors and writers that give them life. They, the creators, are always trying to change the character. They call it ‘character development’. But, really, it’ a bunch of bosh. Nonsense. We don’t want character development, at least not to the point that we no longer recognize the character we loved in the first place, do we? I sure don’t. And I know no one who does.
This happened with Luke Skywalker. It happened with Alien(s)’ Ripley. It happened with Chief Brody in Jaws. It happened, recently, sadly, with Indiana.
My mind goes to Gary Cooper again. His daughter said in a documentary, that her father told her that he’d never play a bad guy, a villain in movies. Why not? They’re always popular, have great scenes, the roles are lucrative and memorable. She remembered that he said it was because fans came to expect something, many things from him on the screen. Even though he played different characters, of course, in different movies, he said he always tried to remain true to the principles, which he felt the audience saw in him, such as, honesty, loyalty, bravery leading to perhaps foolishness to the point of being charming. Fans expected these things, some of them, hopefully all of them each time they watched him. It made no difference if it was an exotic locale or a cheap set. If it was on the mountains of Italy or under a dining room table. Gary Cooper was Gary Cooper.
Well, Bond is Bond.
Filmmakers seem to be ignorant of this very basic principle in why films are successful, why sequels almost always are not, even though they have a built in audience, scrambling to see the latest story with their hero in it. It’s ironic that the point is lost on Hollywood filmmakers and executives, since they are constantly trying to reproduce the successes that have been proven, but never, or very rarely achieve the same level of quality and fun that the original exhibited. Why not?
The answer: character development.
What made Bond, Bond?
Sure, the gadgets were in evidence, the locales looked great, the women also looked great, and we couldn’t trust any of them.
But what else? What was it really?
It was the collective design of Bond.
Bond was Ken Adam’s designs.
Bond was John Barry’s scores.
Bond was Monty Norman’s theme.
Bond was the opening eyeball/barrell sequence.
The locales, the girls, the gadgets were very, very significant. But, contrary to the repeated copy written by repeating copiers, those three things are not unique to movies. Many films sport those three items in large quantities. Take a look at rental bins. They’re loaded with mediocre films with great locales, guns and gadgets and babes.
So, since we no longer are graced with the wonderful scores of John Barry, and their decision to omit and/or reduce the Monty Norman Bond theme to a hallow shell with the awful modern cover of it, and the omission of the eyeball/barrell opening, (to be honest, I’m not even sure it was omitted or not - I simply don’t remember seeing it in Casino Royale, so if it was there it was not memorable) we have nothing much to compare it to other Bonds, do we? Nothing to distinguish it from the mediocre action films that are cable by Christmas.
And so, with Ken Adam’s design gone, Barry’s scores gone, the Bond theme gone, the opening teaser gone, there’s no reason to keep Q, Money Penny, or anything else that made Bond, Bond. Is there?
Except the profits.
Comment by cinematedman — November 1, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
These comments are hilarious!
Biggest opening ever, 80% at Rotten Tomatoes, and the brilliant minds here are discussing what a miserable failure this film is.
Comment by Jeff — November 1, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
Blit said at November 1, 2008 @ 7:21 pm:
“I have to jump in here.. This and the Casino are the closest Bond movies to actually follow the style of the the Flemming books.. They are the best of the lot going all the way back to 62. Bond was a brutal assasin and Craig’s Bond is the best Bond to date. I was a fan of the books and the movies never got it right until Casino. The whole “one liner male model” thing was ridiculous. They’ve finally got it right and these are the best Bond films ever made. Those who are looking for the Hollywood simpleton crap will be disappointed and those who know the Flemming books will love the film.
No offense, but, it’s Fleming, not Flemming. Are you sure you know the books well?
Comment by schizoidman — November 1, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
Will the real slim shady please stand up… Well, it ain’t this new Bond. He is hardly Bond as classic or as meant to be. However, he will sell in a market lacking real movies of quality, well enough to make a profit, and more. The gal is kinda skanky, which brings to mind the real trend of women in action movies today. With gals blowing boys in high school halls, and teachers doing them as well, its no wonder the macho indifferent man with a ‘tude’ is also going after girls that are pretty much street walker material.
Comment by Johnson, Doc Johnson — November 1, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
Lazenby forever.
Comment by Mark — November 1, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
Why the hurry to drop all those clichés, people and gadgets that helped make the series sooo popular? Notice I didn’t say MADE the series, but HELPED MAKE the series so popular. They may be little things, but it’s those sort of things that give a movie its identity and in some cases, its charm. Bond films can always benefit from a little comic relief, otherwise they become nothing more than glorified killing sprees. We get enough of that in real life and in video games. The fact that Bond films never took themselves so terribly seriously had a lot to do with why I like them. There was always a bit of tongue in cheek to be had in the films. Take all of that away and it seems to me that we are being left with a cold-blooded, government-paid assassin who is more machine than man. Is that what Ian Fleming TRULY had in mind when he created Bond? I’m inclined to say no. Me thinks Bond has been reinvented to satisfy what the producers perceive as an ever-growing segment of movie-goers who have come down with a bad case of blood-lust. Slam, bang, you’re dead ma’am. Being Bond nowadays apparently means never having to say you’re sorry. And having little or no sense of humor these days means he’s not likely to ever be heard uttering the line, Rest in Pieces.
Sean, where are you?!?
Comment by Nikkofly — November 1, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Haggis and broccoli …
Comment by Jim — November 1, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
SC’s breathtaking physical beauty, real-life coldness, cruelty & bottled-up working-class rage created an icon as James Bond.
Daniel Craig is an artist w/o the giant fish&chip on his chiseled shoulder. His JB is an introspective character study. It takes vodka soaked cojones to play James Bond. The last time I checked, several hundred million patrons voted with their local legal tender that DC = JB 2008.
DC’s orbs are the most devastating aqua sizzlers since the late, great Paul Newman. He’s here to stay. Naysayers, TIvo Goldfinger or netflix.
Comment by gio — November 2, 2008 @ 12:15 am
No Ms. Moneypenny? No Gadjets?
This sounds like a Timothy Dalton James Bond movie only worse.
I’ll wait to Netflix it for $ 0.50 later next year.
Bring back Brosnan, the best Bond since Connery!
Comment by ferris — November 2, 2008 @ 12:16 am
I for one, could not be more than happier for Bond, the new Bond that is. Where the old series are just plain crap with all the silly gadgets and villians, the new ones are simply better. No, make it the best
So what if the comparison with Bourne? Wasn’t Bourne also a spy movie and to think Bond started the whole thing
Kudos Bond!
Comment by Armand — November 2, 2008 @ 12:23 am
Jeff said at November 1, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
These comments are hilarious!
Biggest opening ever, 80% at Rotten Tomatoes, and the brilliant minds here are discussing what a miserable failure this film is.
Citizen Kane and Casablanca did very poorly at the box office. Yet, Jaws 3 Chained Heat 2, and Wild Women of Wongo, all did extremely well at the box office.
I don’t think people here are discussing the monetary value of the film, but rather it’s quality quotient.
If you want to talk best bang for buck, Roger Corman is the filmmaker you want to study.
Comment by TomRoberts — November 2, 2008 @ 12:51 am
Sorry, Godzilla fans.
Tarzan has them both beat, with 40-something films, beginning in 1918. Author Edgar Rice Burroughs’ descendents still collect royalties on the trademarked literary character last seen in the 2003 WB TV series (the 6th TV series for the franchise).
Bond and the big green lizard have a lot of catching up to do (and another Tarzan film is in development).
Comment by Apeman — November 2, 2008 @ 12:51 am
In the books there was no Q, Moneypenny never talked to Bond, and he never wore a tuxedo and drank whatever was around. If Fleming watched this film he’d have no idea anything was missing.
SO WHO CARES???
Comment by Jeff — November 2, 2008 @ 12:56 am
Craig, in my book, is the worst Bond ever. I couldn’t stomach Casino Royale and have no doubt this one is any better. Bad enough that Craig came out with his anti-gun garbage early on, he then goes wussy over a small injury on set. Sure, now doesn’t that sound like a double “0″?
After reading this write up I have no interest in seeing Craig as Bond at all. Not having Money Penny, “Q”, “M”, and the trappings that made Bond special since the 60’s is a losing base. This coming from someone who has all the Bond films in my personal collection and have treated myself to a Bond marathon more than once.
Finally, Craig would be better suited to play Putin at a future date. The uncanny resemblance and attitude would be great for a later Bond to go after Craig/Putin.
Comment by John Campbell — November 2, 2008 @ 1:44 am
Sorry, Godzilla fans.
Tarzan beats them both with 40-something films, 6 TV series, and 2 radio series, with the first film in 1918. Bond and the big green lizard have a lot of catching up to do.
Comment by Apeman — November 2, 2008 @ 1:52 am
I think some of you need to watch Die Another Day again. You want to see that kind of Bond movie again? Bond was becoming a parody of himself.
You all have to remember that Daniel Craig’s Bond is still at start of his career as 007. I’m sure that Miss Moneypenny, Q and the gadgets, “The name is Bond. James Bond.”, “shaken, not stirred” will all return later on. Or maybe not.
Anyway, as for the criticism that the Bond movies are starting to resemble the Bourne movies. Well, it’s not the first time something like that happened. Remember Moonraker? Bond in space? Anyone with half a brain knew why Moonraker was made first instead of For Your Eyes Only, which was supposed to be the next Bond movie. Science fiction was hot thanks to Star Wars and naturally James Bond couldn’t stay behind. As a matter of fact, For Your Eyes Only and Casino Royale have quite a lot in common.
Comment by Satan's PA — November 2, 2008 @ 3:04 am
Jeff said:
“In the books there was no Q, Moneypenny never talked to Bond, and he never wore a tuxedo and drank whatever was around. If Fleming watched this film he’d have no idea anything was missing.
SO WHO CARES???”
–
Right. The books are entirely different beasts. There’s no comparison. They are entirely different. As is usual in fiction to film transfers/adaptations/inspirations/robberies.
I think the issue is comparing one Bond actor with another, one Bond film with those that came before. A natural tendency.
A comparison of D, Craig and the post Cubby Eon, with that of Connery, Moore, and Cubby’s Eon ( along with Harry Saltzman, for their brief collaboration) is valid, I think.
The books are the books. Most of their stories are so far from what the filmmakers gave us, it’s not even worth mentioning.
That’s why it’s important and fair to discuss the evolution (or de- evolution) of the Bond films alone as they have come to be part of popular culture and our movie going experience.
For example, if Snoopy was suddenly colored blue with a red nose and red ears, we might be permitted to cry foul. Defenders of the blue Snoopy with a red nose could easily argue that Charles M. Schultz was originally forced to draw the cartoons in monochrome, that blue and red were not available in print form. And that he may have intended it all along.
Relatives and past associates could be wheeled out to prove and disprove this assertion.
We could cross swords for hours and days over whether or not Snoopy should be blue, or shouldn’t be blue, but it would still not deny the fact that those who grew up knowing and loving Snoopy as a white dog with black ears and nose were disappointed and could not accept any other image of their favorite cartoon canine.
It’s as simple as that.
As I see it, It pretty much boils down to this: There are basically two ways you can go:
Those who don’t care so much, will go and enjoy the film as a Bond picture. It won’t matter that there is no Shaken Q, no Stirred Miss Moneypenny. It won’t matter that much or at all to them.
Those, like me, who feel it removes too much of what we’ve come to love about Bond (films, not books) has been removed or altered beyond our recognition, and so will not enjoy it as a Bond.
We may or may not enjoy it as a movie on its own.
So, it’s really up to the person. It’s just that, when you see something you grew up with change drastically for reasons you may not agree with or even understand, you don’t like it.
Time will tell I suppose, whether or not the changes matter enough to affect the bottom line. Because at those prices of production, there’s got to be return on their investment.
Comment by cinematedman — November 2, 2008 @ 3:52 am
Gio panted:
“SC’s breathtaking physical beauty, real-life coldness, cruelty & bottled-up working-class rage created an icon as James Bond.
Daniel Craig is an artist w/o the giant fish&chip on his chiseled shoulder. His JB is an introspective character study. It takes vodka soaked cojones to play James Bond. The last time I checked, several hundred million patrons voted with their local legal tender that DC = JB 2008.
DC’s orbs are the most devastating aqua sizzlers since the late, great Paul Newman. He’s here to stay. Naysayers, TIvo Goldfinger or netflix.
Hit the cold showers, buddy!
Comment by MarnieHudHustler — November 2, 2008 @ 3:57 am
Since everyone wants change, why not drop Q, all those stupid gadgets and hopefully all the guns, too! They should drop the double 00, too, because we need to stop killing and showing violence on the big screen and TV. James should work for the United Nations, not the British or US military intelligence. And why does James have to be
White? Or even a man??? We don’t need anymore McCain-Arnold
type thinking or movies! Let’s change for the sake of change! (Like this Tuesday.) We don’t need anymore Bush-Bond films! We need Obama-Bond films. Plus, only rich people will pay admission. The rest of us will get in for free! P.S. Don’t forget to vote Tuesday.
Comment by Obama-Biden — November 2, 2008 @ 4:43 am
We don’t need anymore Bush Bonds. With a new president and everyone wanting change for the sake of change, we need Obama-type Bonds. No more guns! James now will work as a peacekeeper for the United Nations. And Michael Moore can direct!
Comment by Mark Marine — November 2, 2008 @ 5:03 am
I don’t like to watch the silver screen’s fantasies mocked by the actor’s winking.The old James Bond was played by pretty boy Sean Connery with tongue in cheek. The new Bond has taken the tongue out of his cheek and the pretty out of his face and demeanor. I liked it.
Comment by Portia — November 2, 2008 @ 5:23 am
Christian Bale. Christian Bale. Christian Bale.
Bond. James Bond.
Comment by Dawn — November 2, 2008 @ 5:45 am
Yeah, what a loss. No eye-rolling, groan-inducing campy one-liners, no silly inventions as plot filler/deus ex absurdia, and no stock caricatures requiring zero development or growth. And the anti-Craigs still shrilling “but he’s blond, not Bond!” Ugh, so much mere nostalgia. Rather than critiquing the new movies on their own merits, the nay-sayers are all kvetching about “it’s missing the humour/gadgets/characters.”
Personally, I could never get through a Bond movie *until* Casino Royale. The lines quickly grew tiresome, the dependence on gadgetry got obnoxious, and the accessory characters just seemed there so that their re- and re-hashed scenes could fill up time. Brosnan’s movies nearly put me off the brand name permanently with its cartoonishness. But I gave it one more shot with Craig and now I’m actually looking forward to a Bond movie. Craig’s Bond beats the *hell* out of the bad guys, he does it without relying on hypnotizing-ink pens or submersible cars (that can’t even keep the fish out), and he does- in fact- still get in some good lines. (see “Skewered. One sympathizes.”) I loved it. It’s set in a world that seems believable, with a character I can respect as a cold, hard trouble-shooter.
Seriously, get over the nostalgia-for-nostalgia’s-sake; pining for the past just because one doesn’t like change is a weakness of the mind. Adapt; it’s what living things have to do or they become obsolete and perish.
Comment by Ken S — November 2, 2008 @ 6:01 am
Haven’t seen the new 007 picture yet, but looking forward to it. But I’ve seen all the movies (some of them several times) and read all the Fleming books and several of the non-Fleming sequels (most of which are mediocre at best).
It seems to me the conflict here is between the people who are loyal to the longtime Bond film franchise brand and the people who prefer a colder, less campy and gadget-filled Bond that is closer to Fleming’s original creation. Crucial to solving this conflict is the understanding that these are two separate fictional characters.
Personally, I prefer the current spy who skirts the periphery of my suspension of disbelief, as opposed to the Bond we’d experienced for the past two decades. In “Casino Royale,” I actually felt like something was at stake, as opposed to the last 15 movies or so, where there was great entertainment at times but never a feeling like anything mattered.
Craig, while not as conventionally handsome as any of his predecessors, is buff and rugged and (as pointed out by many before me, both here and elsewhere) closer to Fleming’s creation than anyone since Connery, and a terrific actor.
My biggest concern about the new movie is its length (105 minutes?), which suggests a series of big action set pieces and little narrative or drama, both of which were keys to making “Casino Royale” a cut above. That said, I’ll be at the screening next week, and will be sure to get there early for a center seat.
Comment by Longtime Observer, Now Removed — November 2, 2008 @ 6:14 am
To “cinematedman”: Get a life
To everyone who is defensive of Godzilla and Tarzan as having the longest streak of movies ever: Learn to read the whole article before commenting - the article says 007 is the “running franchise in film history (if you don’t count Godzilla or Tarzan).” They are giving you credit, don’t worry. Also, get a life.
Comment by turkey — November 2, 2008 @ 6:53 am
Anyone REALLY familiar with the Fleming books will know this: Fleming himself liked to mix it up a bit to keep things interesting.CASINO ROYALE(the book) was a very down to earth, realistic piece; he followed it with LIVE AND LET DIE, a book so cartoonishly pulpy bits and pieces of it were used in 3 of the movies! Fleming didn’t even feel a compulsion to make Bond the main character (OCTOPUSSY is a story TOLD to Bond; SPY WHO LOVED ME is narrated first-person by the leading lady… and have you actually read QUANTAM OF SOLACE?)People complaining about staying faithful to Fleming would be advised to remember that back in the 1960’s, the producers literally shot a TRILOGY (THUNDERBALL, ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE, and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE) OUT OF ORDER- two of the films being very close to the books, and the third (YOLT) being a total butchery. Movie Bond and Book Bond became seperate creatures early on, with occasional overlaps and duplications. (When fans complained that Bond “shouldn’t be a blonde”, I wondered why no one has ever complained about NONE of the actors who’ve played him not having the character’s distinctive facial scar…)
Comment by cst — November 2, 2008 @ 6:56 am
Best Bond movie ever, what the hell are you watching, Aston Martin are not cheap my transmission in my vanquish cost 17,000 to replace
Comment by ;tio — November 2, 2008 @ 7:37 am
D. Craig is the best Bond ever IMO. I was a Sean Connery fan, until Craig I thought he was the best Bond, bar none…Craig has reset the bar!
I’ve never read a Bond book, just seen the movies. However, Craig’s Bond is a spy, Connery’s is a movie character.
Best line in Casino Royale, “The job is done, the bitch is dead.”
Cold as a spy…..
I do hope there is some humor in this new one though. It is needed as a relief…as long as it is wry and/or dark humor.
Comment by Old-Duckman — November 2, 2008 @ 8:05 am
No Q, no gadgets - coule be a bad sign, haven’t seen it yet; Craig has to redefine Bond, not just follow in Connery’s shadow, to be successful.
Roger Moore wasn’t Bond - he was The Saint in the role of Bond - he played it the same way, and had NONE of the true Bond characteristics except the trappings.
How bad did it get? Remember MOONRAKER? Jaws and Swiss Miss prancing around in slow motion like a Sound of Music parody? THAT was rock bottom (like Phantom Menace or Crystal Skull).
Comment by Fred Mertz — November 2, 2008 @ 8:30 am
Seriously? Children settle down.
Every Bond has made the part his own.
Timothy Dalton tried to destroy the franchise by being part Sean Connery (a bad one) and part psychopath.
Bond has to change with the times. Do I miss Q? Yes however the gadgets would not be as impressive in this day and age.
The last movie’s opening chase scene alone was worth the price of of admission.
Comment by Lobon — November 2, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Craig is THE worst James Bond in history of 007.
Comment by tommy_pete — November 2, 2008 @ 9:11 am
My wife, 10 year old son & I saw it on Friday at 6.30pm. My wife thought is was just OK but my son & I were rivetted. It’s going to be one of those. For what it is worth though, the cinema was the quietest I have ever been in - no talking, fidgetting or rustling, and it was full.
Comment by Stephen Rickitt — November 2, 2008 @ 9:18 am
Citizen Kane and Casablanca did very poorly at the box office. Yet, Jaws 3 Chained Heat 2, and Wild Women of Wongo, all did extremely well at the box office.
I don’t think people here are discussing the monetary value of the film, but rather it’s quality quotient.
It’s getting very good reviews, as did CR. And if you aren’t concerned with grosses, why are you commenting on a column about it breaking box office records?
Comment by Jeff — November 2, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Ok, thus far, most of what’s been said here has had little to do with Fleming’s actual character. If you just randomly pick a Bond actor {Moore, Connery, etc.} or get too carried away with this movie or that, you’ll miss the essence of the actual character.
READ THE BOOKS!!!
If you’re upset about the lack of gadgets in Casino Royale, or the absence of Monny Penny,{the somewhat cheesy portrayal of whom, in recent years has only contributed to the departure from the author’s mindset when writing the books in the first place} then you don’t know Bond.
Bond was never intended to be *about* the gadgets, or cheesy punch lines {very unrealistic, by the way}. Fleming’s portrayal {of HIS character, mind you} was of a strong, calculating, agent capable of rising to the challenges set before him, not a slicked back pretty boy like Brosnan, waiting in the wings for his car to save him! Brosnan’s cool {and he has black hair ;}, but He’s Not Bond.
Casino Royale, as everyone knows, was Daniel Craig’s first Bond film, but what fewer people know is that it was Fleming’s first book, written in 1953. Now, obviously the setting/time period had to be changed to make the film more fitting to today’s crowd {though the plot was basically the same}. But aside from that and a few minor points, the main difference between the book and the movie is Craig’s hair color.
But Craig embodies the essence of Bond. And this is the main point. Bond is not weak {unlike the portrayals of Moore and Brosnan} and he was never intended to have the “thug” quality Dalton brings across in his portrayal.
There was some talk of Gerard Butler snagging the role, but again, I think that thug quality is what we’re trying to avoid. Hair color aside, I think Connery and Craig capture the essence of the character better than anyone yet.
And to those who take issue with these last two films’ departure from our previous servings of Bond films, I say, again: Read the books and dig a little deeper. You’ll come around…
Comment by Steve — November 2, 2008 @ 10:24 am
YUP - For Your Eyes Only was - for me - the absolute peak of JB. Eye-filling locations and romantic interest - fabulous music and musical continuity - and Roger Moore’s version of JB handsome egotistical disdain. Pure entertainment mixed with a good plot line.
All the Roger Daltry’s, and Pierce Brosnan’s - as well as this new guy Craig - just don’t measure up - may not watch the first time, certainly not a second, just like his first attempt - not WORTH a first, let alone a second look!
On the other hand, I have, and WILL watch all the Sean Connery and Roger Moore versions every time they again hit the re-runs!
This later garbage is just more senseless and unappealing spy/secret agent junk, relying upon special effects to keep the audience awake…
Comment by Rebel Rouser — November 2, 2008 @ 10:57 am
May be they’ll put some good looking broads in this one….HELLOOOO…
Comment by McCainPlease — November 2, 2008 @ 11:47 am
How many Bond movies have to come out and earn big bucks until the Connery lovers stuck in the 1960s shut the fuck up when it comes to bashing the new (non camp) movies and Daniel Craig personally? The petty sniping and ludicrous histrionics that’s altogether very tiring.
Also, the constant ragging on Barbara Boccoli (or however you spell her name) is incredibly sexist. Though not out of line as those same people are likely the ones bashing Sarah Palin six ways to Sunday.
Comment by Francine Fishpaw — November 2, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
“…it dropped Moneypenny, dropped Q, dropped the wit, dropped the gadgets, and dropped the line “The name is Bond, James Bond”.
Then it’s not a Bond movie.
Comment by David — November 2, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
…He looks too much like Vladimir Putin.
Comment by Pooty-Poot — November 2, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
Just watched Casino Royale last night for the first time.
Seemed like a chick flick. I refuse to watch another bond film made by this director until Q, Monnypenny, the wit, the gadgets, and the lines that made me bond to Bond come back.
Its almost like putting nipples on the Batman suit.
You are thinking this way too hard trying to be cutting edge and artsy fartsy with it.
Going back trough the classics, may even watch Timothy Dalton.
Comment by rocky — November 2, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Two summers ago I read all the Bond Books in proper sequence. I highly recommend this to everyone. Having already seen all the Sean Connery movies, I found that the James Bond Theme Music often played along in my brain as I read. It was quite a lot of fun.
Last night I watched Casino Royale on tv. I thought it was a decent movie, but I didn’t think it succeeded as a Bond flick. The line at the end of the book: “The bitch is dead,” truly defined the James Bond character. In the book, Vesper had commited suicide, and had left Bond a note explaining her duplicity. In the context of the film, however, where Bond is swimming around trying to save Vesper’s life but fails, the line “The bitch is dead” is nonsensical rather than defining.
Additionally, Bond’s American friend Felix Leiter of the CIA, (I don’t believe Felix appears in the book version of CR,) turns out to be a black guy, and M turns out to be a woman. I understand that we have to be politically correct these days, but this little-by-little stuff doesn’t work for me. These intrusions are unnecessarily distracting. Why not just have Denzel Washington be James Bond and get it over with?
When the new Bond flick gets to tv, I’ll watch it, but I’m not running out to see the thing.
Comment by exactamike — November 2, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
With all due respect to the greatness of Sean Connery or to David Niven, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Tim Dalton (underrated Bond), Remington Steele boy (name?) or Daniel Craig, there is no definitive James Bond. The character is based on a fictional character from a book. Because books usually give multiple impressions of its characters to the different readers, Craig’s Bond is merely another angle/impression of the character. Many have said that his and Dalton’s Bonds are more like the books.
As for the Daniel bashing here, I thought the last movie (C.R.) was a great turn, and, thus, I am more excited about seeing QoS than I have been about any Bond film over the last 35 years (I’m 49). My wife and I will be finding our way into the local cinema to see it the first day we can….sans our youngest ones, of course. Wouldn’t want to disturb the fellow cinema-goers with bathroom and concession trips, as well as “When is this over, daddy?” whining.
From across the Atlantic pond, Gerne in Houston off to shake and perhaps even stir his vodka/soda.
Some of you sound downright religious over the subject. That’s flat out comical to me.
Comment by Gerne Blanston — November 2, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
“Christian Bale. Christian Bale. Christian Bale.
Bond. James Bond.”
I’m sure Christian would have made a good James Bond. Except that he’s “Wayne. Bruce Wayne.” right now.
Comment by Satan's PA — November 2, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
I adored Connery, loathed Moore and could hardly stand the foolish toys (although some of the more subtle ones were pretty keen). Mostly though I think the books are the best, and that is why this return to roots is much better than the Hollywood flash; and the box office is showing it. People fundamentally want a GOOD STORY.
Comment by connery-craigOK — November 2, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
These two comments are hilarious:
“… if it’s anything like Casino Royale, which in my opinion was disappointing on several levels - mainly, the lack of a good music theme. Can anyone even remember who sang it? I can’t. The lack of fun gadgets. The lack of a really stunning beauty as the Bond girl, or girls. Nope, sorry, that actress they picked, after she was supposed to be ‘dolled up’ was more suited as an extra in Taxi Driver or Weekend at Bernie’s than in any scene with 007 - then I’ll probably be disappointed in this one, too.”
“Will the real slim shady please stand up… Well, it ain’t this new Bond. He is hardly Bond as classic or as meant to be. However, he will sell in a market lacking real movies of quality, well enough to make a profit, and more. The gal is kinda skanky, which brings to mind the real trend of women in action movies today. With gals blowing boys in high school halls, and teachers doing them as well, its no wonder the macho indifferent man with a ‘tude’ is also going after girls that are pretty much street walker material.”
Yeah, why can’t they be more like Denise Richards’s character in The World Is Not Enough, a nuclear scientist named Christmas Jones (*snicker*)?
I’m sure you guys would turn down the opportunity to spend the night with Eva Green or Olga Kurylenko. The possibility of such an opportunity like this would never happen in real life, of course, but I’m only hypothetically speaking here.
Anyway, I thought that Daniel Craig and Eva Green really had chemistry. They made a good couple. Haven’t seen Quantum of Solace yet, so I can’t comment on Olga Kurylenko’s chemistry with Daniel Craig yet.
Comment by Satan's PA — November 2, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
When DC opened his mouth politically he turned me right off. I may never go to see another DC 007 flick again. And he does look like VP a little bit. Its really to bad because I saw his first one twice and thought he was almost as good as SC.
Comment by Della in Clifton — November 2, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
“I say, again: Read the books and dig a little deeper. You’ll come around…”
Some of you just don’t GET it!
IF I wanted to read the book, I wouldn’t go to the movies - precious FEW movies match what was “in the book” for a wide variety of reasons. I liked the earlier Connery and Moore renditions of JB because of what they and those plots THEMSELVES provided!
SCREW Flemming and the precise rendition of the books - the books necessarily became only the framework of what the movies became, once precise actors/actresses and scenery were provided!
Comment by Rebel rouser — November 2, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
I think Craig is the best bond, these are the best bond movies, and the rest were entertaining at times, but mostly crap. This bond is the only bond i can actually believe that he’s a spy. For one thing, he SPIES! The other bond movies just bolied down to nonsensical battles with crazy villians, with very little actual espionage or intellegence gathering. Craig’s bond is all about that, and then he beats the crap out of the baddies.
Comment by InjuredPelican — November 2, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
WOW- seems like a lot of people prefer poor scripts and campy sophomoric humor. YAWN.
Casino Royale was by far the best written of all the Bond movies. Craig is great as the conflicted, impulsive, relatively young Bond at the outset of his spy career. Definitely the most intense, non-pretty boy since SC.
I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS NEW ONE.
Comment by Jim — November 2, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
I am a Daniel Craig fan. As for him as Bond, he is taking a huge risk, both with the criticism he will receive because he is different then the previous Bonds, but also potentially ruining his own future in films. This guy is giving you 140%. He is aware that you hate him as Bond, and he is doing the best he can with the horrible screenplay provided him. He understands the Bond history, in both book and film form. He can’t act, direct, write, and edit the film. He only has one role. And he’s giving it all he has, because he understands how important it is for you, as a fan, and as a member of your country.
Also, he isn’t “Bond” yet. He is evolving into what will become Bond. The Bond you know and love was a hardened man through experience. What D. Craig is showing you is how he gets to that point. Give him the benefit of the doubt until the character evolves. I think you will be pleasantly surprised when you look back on it.
Comment by Jason — November 2, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
I was just kidding about the comment that he looks too much like Vlady.. (Vladimir Putin, a/k/a Pooty-poot.) I was just bored. Actually I think he is very handsome, and looks alot like my Husband (of Russian blood too).
Got a real kick out of reading all these comments today and makes me want to read the books. As for the Bond movies, I love the older ones, always liked seeing them on t.v. every darn year. In general, I don’t like movies that came out after, say, 1975. Yep, that’s me. Besides, who needs to see Daniel Craig in a movie when I’ve got my own Bond at home?
Comment by Pooty-Poot — November 2, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
All I ask is please, PLEASE tell me this film does not include someone looking at, talking into, or otherwise using a fricking cell phone, like “Casino Royale” did.
Product placement is one thing. Making a movie starring cell phones is something altogether different. That was utterly ridiculous.
If I want to see people wedded to their damn cell phones, I’ll visit the local mall. I don’t need to pay eight bucks to see it in a Bond film.
Comment by John — November 2, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
Turkey,
The article was CHANGED after we made our comments. Nice to see that news is revised for truthfulness after it’s reported.
Moral of the story, take everybody’s self-aggrandizing press releases with a grain of salt.
Comment by Apeman — November 2, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
Fleming’s Bond was never a cold-blooded assassin. He didn’t even enjoy killing that much. He was a spy with a licence to kill. Consider his actions in The Living Daylights: In a rare instance of being sent on a mission solely for assassination purposes, Bond finds himself unable to go through with it.
Another major aspect of the character is that Fleming intended him as a male fantasy character. Would you want to be Daniel Craig? I wouldn’t. For one, I have no desire to be shorter in height.
Fleming also never pretended to be writing realistic depictions of espionage. There were other writers covering those bases at the time. Fleming’s Bond had class and charm, and didn’t go around wearing his ruthless nature on his sleeve. Consider Vesper’s description of him in Casino Royale:
“Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless.”
Notice that she doesn’t say, “This is a guy who walks in the room and acts like a cold-blooded killer.” She adds the “ruthless” part as an afterthought- as though she’s attracted to him…but senses a cruelty bubbling beneath the surface.
In other words, reducing the film version to a robotic killer doesn’t automatically make him the Bond of Ian Fleming. There has to be a combination of things at work- including wit, charm, sophistication, and a bit of snobbery. Just putting a guy in a tuxedo isn’t enough.
Does this mean I think the films should go back to the style of Die Another Day? Of course not. I think that film got the mix wrong too, and it’s little wonder. The common denominator here is that the same producers were in charge of it. And the reality is that while they are terrific salesmen, they are very poor filmmakers. Their latest offering is no exception. The script is an absolute joke, and was clearly a rush job brought about by the writer’s strike. The same thing happened to Brosnan’s second film, Tomorrow Never Dies.
Comment by Jake — November 2, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
Actually Bond enjoyed killing in the books when revenge was involved… And he looked like Hoagy Carmichael. But don’t let that stop you from ranting about a popular, critically successful film.
Comment by Jeff — November 3, 2008 @ 1:19 am
I’m sure Christian would have made a good James Bond. Except that he’s “Wayne. Bruce Wayne.” right now.
When he has time between being “Connor. John Connor.” What’s his next career move, kidnap Robert Downey Jr. and get the lead in the next Iron Man?
Comment by Craig Ranapia — November 3, 2008 @ 1:20 am
The actor who played Q, Desmond Llewelyn, was killed in a car crash in 1999. Might be a bit difficult to bring him back.
Comment by Mercuris — November 3, 2008 @ 4:42 am
I don’t like the new Bond. The last movie was a good spy movie but as many here have said it wasn’t Bond. I want the cheesy lines,the odd humor,the gadgets and the over the top opening scenes.I look forward to the time in the movie when Bond gives his famous line”The names Bond,James Bond”. If I wanted a movie like The Bourne Identity, I would watch the frieken Bourne Identity.Oh well.It seems Sean Connery still is the #1 Bond of all time.
Comment by Tony Copelin — November 3, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
Thank you for this update on how international markets are receiving Quantum of Solace. I find your discussion of the movie’s massive budget interesting; at a “rumored $2.5 million per minute,” this may be the costliest film ever made. This is especially interesting considering the film’s subject matter: Quantum is the first Bond film to take a socially conscious angle, attempting to stay relevant in these contentious times by centering on villains who are after not drugs or money, but control of natural resources such as oil and water. Is it not a bit of a contradiction to spend such an obscene amount of money to make a film championing environmental conservation and conscientiousness? I also find intriguing your comment about this being a new era of “Bond-as-Bourne” due to the film’s scrapping of characters Q and Moneypenny and the fact that they “dropped the wit and the gadgets.” Daniel Craig has been touted since day one as a rougher, tougher Bond without the slick attitude and shiny toys of earlier movies, a Bond who really gets his hands dirty. Could this mean that Sony is finally attempting to create a Bond who is, unlike the aristocratic, ivory tower Bonds of the past, more real–a man of the people? And is this even something audiences want? Do we want a hero who reminds us of ourselves and makes us uncertain that he will succeed in the end, or are we comforted by the slick, “never break a sweat” Bond who catches the bad guys without lifting much more than a trigger finger? Sounds uncannily like the election hype that has surrounded us for the past year. It will be interesting to see whether American markets respond as positively as European ones have; judging by the record-shattering box office take Quantum scored this weekend (and the election results tonight), a little distraction and a good guy who saves the world from ruin is just what we all want.
Comment by Sloane — November 4, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
The first Bond movie I was old enough to see-yes, I hate to admit it-was On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. I remember that I thought that when George Lazenby, as Bond, told the character, Tracy, that “he would never find another girl like her,” that that sounded like a corny line for James Bond. Then I read the book, and lo and behold, that is exactly what he said in the book!
I remember when Roger Moore took over, but I don’t remember the hype about him. When Timothy Dalton took over, I remember his portrayal being compared to a grumpy Indiana Jones, i. e. Indiana Bond, in The Living Daylights. He played Bond too gritty, too realistic. And, when people were dying like flies, sadly, because of AIDS, the production got criticized because they toned down the sexual escapades, thinking that maybe a “hero” might risk his life to save his country, but wasn’t stupid enough to risk it just to bed somebody. Dalton still romanced the ladies in his films, but he was a little more “gallant” about it than his predecessors. He usually waited until they signalled interest, at least. Thankfully he didn’t cut the straps off of the woman’s dress, the way Sean Connery did, or just expect a woman to fall into bed with him, or wait her turn in a closet like Roger Moore’s Bond did.
I remember Dalton saying in a G. Q. article that he read all of Fleming’s novels before he played the part. Sean Connery, of course, had the luxury of discussing his ideas on Bond with Fleming himself, although I think I remember that Fleming, at first, was not sold on Connery’s Bond, but that has been a long time ago, and I read it long after the fact.
Dalton was also gracious and sympathetic toward Pierce Brosnan about having lost the part, and I was later disappointed that Brosnan was not as nice toward Dalton when he took the part over finally, implying that Dalton had failed at the part, but the Broccollis were never dissatisfied with Dalton like they were later with Brosnan. Dalton gave up the part willingly after waiting about four or five years to play the part again, while the company was in a legal battle over the rights. Dalton left in the good graces of the Broccollis-he was one of Cubby Brocolli’s pall bearers. Brosnan didn’t know that he had lost the part until he read it, he said. That’s unfortunate, but it apparently was the way it happened, .
I hope that the future Bond movies will return to the things that make James Bond unique, and they can be done without being silly or campy. Daniel Craig seems to be doing a good job, but the supporting characters are fun, too. I thought that John Cleese was a good follow up as a new Q. I don’t remember much about Miss Moneypenny in the Brosnan movies. They changed her character along the way. She could hold her own with quips to both Connery and Moore. She was more obviously smitten with Dalton’s Bond. They should definitely put her back in, though.
I hope the movie does well here in the U. S.
Comment by Anonymous — November 6, 2008 @ 12:05 am
Why don’t we all quit the bullshit and face up to this very obvious fact: Bond is dead! And that, I’m afraid, is that. CR & QOS are very entertaining action movies, but they are not Bond movies. I’m afraid the villians in Hollywood have succeeded where Jaws, Dr No, Blofeld, Oddjob, Goldfinger, Scarramanga, Zorin, Drax & an army of others have so famously failed. Craig is a damn fine actor, I like him a lot, but lets not beat around the bush here: he’s not Bond. Clive Owen was the ideal actor to replace Brosnan, but sadly it didn’t happen. No gadgets, no Q, no Moneypenny…can’t wait to see the next Batman: no Batmobile, no gadgets, no Alfred, no cape…and now the brilliant Mr Bale is being replaced by…The Rock? Many folk come to Mr Craig’s defence by saying, “He’s a really good actor” But what about GREAT actors such as Al Pacino, De Niro, Hopkins, Cagney, Hoffman, Newman, Peck…amazing artists, I love them all…but they’re not Bond material. Face it, Bond actors need that special quality that is hard to define, and the ability to act great is not enough. Craig is an imposter. Sure, he’s got the muscles, he’s got that “Don’t fuck with me” look about him, but everything else that makes Bond so memorable & lovable is gone. As Brosnan said in his last outing as 007: “So, you live to die another day.”
This is so true. RIP Mr Bond. Hollywood killed you in a way SPECTRE would never have dreamed.
Comment by Anonymous — November 7, 2008 @ 8:16 pm