May 8, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
“Who knew that Paul Greengrass would be so great on Bourne?”
Well, he did have “Bloody Sunday” under his belt at that point, so it was all that shocking. The “who knew…?” I have to ask is who knew that the director of “The Theory of Flight” would be so great on “Bloody Sunday”?
“…so it was all that shocking.”
correction: so it WASN’T all that shocking.
My proofreading skills are about to earn me a “legally blind” certificate.
So we’re not counting Martin Campbell as talented even though Casino Royale was pretty damn good?
Stay wasn’t really anything like a Bond movie either, so he must have had one hell of a pitch. But I don’t see this as that different from giving Iron Man to Jon Favreau etc.
You should always remember, Dave, with Bond, that the director only directs the actors. All the action scenes involving Bond are normally shot by the second unit. I personally thought that STRANGER THAN FICTION was very much underrated, FINDING NEVERLAND was excellent and MONSTER’s BALL was very effective. You say Paul Haggis has delivered another script? Excellent. For my money the reason CASINO ROYALE worked as well as it did was down to the contributions by Craig and Haggis. As they are both on board again, I see no reason at this point to be anything less than chipper.
Greengrass’ problem with his last Bourne entry is that they kept shoving Damon in our faces while the lead role essentially went to Joan Allen. Damon came off more like the Clive Owen terminator in the first film… a man hiding in the shadows. Hopefully they’ll solve this issue in the third part.
And yes, Apted’s TWINE (featuring bimbo deluxe Denise Richards) is my favorite of the Brosnan series. The most confidently paced anyway.
Poland, I don’t think Apted was very effective helming Bond, the film seemed pedestrian, stale, Robert Carlyle was a henchman not a villain unfortunately (with the bullet in the brain who doesnt feel pain) – he was wasted. The real villain Sophie Marceau was easy on the eyes but I didn’t buy the twist in the end.
The opening pre-credit teaser in both Barcelona and the boat chase on the Thames was slam-bang but from then on, the film went downhill, the plot was some foolishness about Caspian oil reserves and involved a bomb in Turkey.
I loved the way Q (Desmond Llewelyn) exited the series THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, but Denice Richards as Christmas Jones (“I thought Christmas only came once a year”) was really detrimental to the film, not as much as Tanya Roberts in VIEW TO A KILL, but pretty fucking close…
The action set pieces were very blah, including the ski chase (paled in comparison to THE SPY WHO LOVED ME’s opening) and the dock action sequence not to mention the climax on the submarine.
It’s not as bloated and ridiculous as DIE ANOTHER DAY (the Brosnan MOONRAKER) but it joins it, imho, as the worst Brosnan Bonds.
I didn’t see any Directorial trademark on the film, no any auteur touch by Michael Apted, he just seemed like a director for hire. It’s not like the dialogue, non-action sequences were any more effective because of him.
I’m glad Feirstein is back (I think he worked with Purvis and Wade on GOLDENEYE and TOMORROW NEVER DIES) and hope he and Paul Haggis can inject some energy and sharp dialogue into the proceedings – it’s going to be hard to top CASINO ROYALE, but the great thing is we have the potential looming of a S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-like organization on the horizon.
I’ve seen STRANGER THAN FICTION, FINDING NEVERLAND and MONSTER’S BALL; Marc Forster is a talented filmmaker but he’s a hell of an unconventional choice for this, even more so than the original guy picked for this – who later bowed out, friend and frequent Daniel Craig Director Roger Michell (ENDURING LOVE, NOTTING HILL).
CASINO ROYALE was one of my faves last year, it was a fucking amazing reboot of a tired franchise, and hopefully Marc Forster will do a great job with BOND 22.
I think this is a great choice. I don’t know why DP’s being so negative. So Finding Neverland was a Miramax-hyped Oscar bait film, and Stay was a bomb, big deal. And if I remember correctly, DP was a Stranger than Fiction detractor as well, though I would consider that film pretty well received crtitically if slightly divisive. Forster’s work on Monster’s Ball, whatever its flaws, pulled a good performance from Halle Berry (maybe her only good one) and one from Heath Ledger that made his later appearance in Brokeback seem much more easier to go along with.
What I see from this filmography is a guy who hasn’t been trapped into one genre, and has proved adept at comedy, drama, and some period drama with a focus on setting. How is a this a bad resume? So he didn’t hit one out of the park with his thriller. If he can get a decent perf from the next Bond girl and villain that’s enough for me.
I think Peter Jackson looked worse on paper before Lord of the Rings, when he had done a small British thiller and a bunch of gross-out schlock. Who was totally convinced he was capable of giving the story the gravitas it needed? I imagine someone like Ridley Scott would have seemed like a safer, more logical choice.
Apted has made some great films, but his name alone doesn’t give me a boner at all, and when he was announced to do TWINE, I didn’t give two shits. When I saw the film I thought it was absolutely awful. Best of Brosnan? I don’t think you’d get that result if you put it to a poll or vote. I think Goldeneye would win, but if you ask me, they were all shit, and the films became generic action films instead of escapist fantasy somewhere after Octopussy. Casino Royale was the first passable Bond film in 20 years, but people were convinced for so long that Brosnan belonged in the role that they gave the films a pass. Say what you want about Roger Moore, but his films’ stories were all at least unique and had memorable scenes. The four Brosnan? Not so much.
i’ve long been fascinated with the hype when a director comes onboard. for instance, tim story, he was successful with the “barbershop” films, let’s give him “fantastic four.”
on the one hand, i’m all for director’s breaking out and trying new things, but on the other it’s like the studios don’t see a difference between the types of movies. they see successful movies and unsuccessful ones.
i can’t wait for m. night shayamalan’s “beach blanket bingo”
I agreee Lazarus, people mock Roger Moore now but he *was* Bond in the 70s and 80s, his films were action-extravaganza travelogues, were epic in scale and delivered the goods. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, OCTOPUSSY, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, were his high points (some even love MOONRAKER as well. In those days Bond films were event pictures, they had a certain epic scale to them (that was sadly missing from the Brosnan flicks) and they were easier to follow, with a central villain and a central world domination plan. Moore, in his debonair way, would go from one exotic locale to another and get involved in outrageous action scenes, but we all loved it.
Even when he got ‘serious’ (as in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY – a back to basics action thriller) he was watchable.
I know many would disagree with me but Pierce Brosnan (whose work I admire in flicks like THE MATADOR) was wrong for Bond, physically he looked the part but he came off as a poser, trying to both mix Moore’s sophistication with Connery’s action chops – it didn’t work.
In Bond, you have to bring your own thing,Roger Moore did, Sean Connery did, Timothy Dalton did – nobody complained about Dalton when he starred in the big Bond hit THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (which internationally grossed more than OCTOPUSSY and VIEW TO A KILL) but they bitched when he went all grim and hard-ass in LICENCE TO KILL (wasn’t his fault, it was the MIAMI VICE script).
Moore was great.
So, per that LA Times article a few weeks back, Forster was in the running against Jonathan Mostow, Alex Proyas, formerly Roger Michell, and… Tony Scott? Was he seriously in consideration?
I know Tony’s a love/hate director, but whatever one’s opinion, I kind of knew they wouldn’t go with someone that A-list and with that much of a personalized style. It’s the Broccolis’ show ultimately, and like others have said, a team effort where most of the action bits are done second unit.
For all the fanboy kvetching that comes around every two years– “Let Tarantino do one!” “Spielberg should direct!” “I’d love to see a John Woo Bond!”– it’s an inherently by-committe franchise where the tradition and the character definitely are more important than any auteurial intrusion.
So for that reason, Forster will do fine.
I just hope he can keep the running time DOWN. Not asking for much on that one.
Yeah, Marc Forster and Bond don’t mix well. It seems like a power play by the Producers so that they’ll be really calling the shots.
I disagree that Stay was an unmitigated disaster. It was definitely a flawed film, but an intriguing one that borrows a little too heavily from Ambrose Bierce’s “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” at the end. I definitely didn’t want to turn it off at any point though, so that says something I suppose.
My only problem with Forster directing the new Bond film is that I’d always rather see a talented director make original films, not just another chapter in a franchise. Plus, Martin Campbell did a great job with Casino Royale, why not give him another go?
I agree totally, Noah. Instead of asking why the producers would want Forster, ask why Forster would want to waste a year of his creative life working for a franchise where he’ll likely take some of the blame if it sucks, but none of it if the film is great (see: Martin Campbell).
Thanks for the Roger Moore backup, Spacesheik and Lex G. I grew up watching him, and while I certainly understand why so many prefer Connery in the role, I think Moore’s films really hold up just as well as individually entertaining installments. While Connery may have been the better action man, Moore was clearly superior with a droll one-liner, and along with the exotic locales, that tongue-in-cheek quality is what separated Bond for me from the rest of the action films. Post Die Hard, it was de rigeur for the lead to be comedian as well as a hero, but back then, not necessarily (see Steve McQueen’s much more bitter lead roles).
Along with the great ones mentioned, let’s not fail to single out The Man With the Golden Gun, which may not be one of the better films, was an interesting variation from the basic Bond plots. The film was largely about the world’s greatest assassin wanting to take down the world’s greatest secret agent. Christopher Lee was a great villain, and the showdown at the end was worth waiting for. Certainly better than Diamonds Are Forever (as are all the Moores save for A View to a Kill & maybe Moonraker).
I just purchased the now cheap older DVD edition of Live and Let Die, and again, while some may think it’s one of the lesser Bonds, it comes off as very original when compared to most of the others, focusing on a Haitian drug lord who’s importing his heroin through the black neighborhoods in U.S. The voodoo stuff may appear a little hokey, but at least it was different. The main documentary on the disc was also really informative in how Moore really tried to put his own stamp on the character. And I find it ironic that he is often referred to as a bit of a pretty boy, when the production people went out of their way to point out that he did many of his own stunts (not the alligator-hopping one, however).
I’m sure the old school brigade will be arriving shortly to tear all of this support down, and tell us what a douchebag Moore was, but I thought I’d put in a bit more steam while the thread is still new.
Forster might have been good for a Roger Moore, sci-fi style Bond — he’s consistently experimental and fond of special effects.
With gritty, Daniel Craig Bond, he’s a bad match.
Great post, lazarus.
It’s one of the most maligned Bonds, but damned if I don’t love “Man With the Golden Gun.” So many awesome ’70s elements, from the Macao backdrop to the AMC CARS to the return of THE SHERIFF to Herve Villechaize to that indeed awesome hall of mirrors/duel finale. Christopher Lee and his jumpsuits rule, and Britt Ekland looks INCREDIBLE in her bikini. There were more exotic Bond girls, but 33 years on, she ranks with Barbara Bach as one of the most beautiful. Love the Lulu theme song– it’s probably been stuck in my head for the better part of three decades.
Even the more stately later Moores like “Octopussy” and “View to a Kill” have great JOHN BARRY SCORES and incredible, distinctive production design from film to film. I liked Bronson in the role, but his run of films were very straightforward and in some ways indistinguishable not just from each other, but also from most other Woo/DeBont/McTiernan action films of their time.
The Moore Bonds, by contrast, were so gloriously swingin’ ’70s, with that Euro-meets-disco era naughtiness (Christopher Wood contributed to “Spy” and “Moonraker”) and good cheer; Yet at the same time, they were deft at mixing that Moore lightness with some pretty serious bits too– see, the murder-by-Doberman in “Moonraker,” generally considered to be the jokiest Bond of its time. Also note that beautiful scene in the rainforest in that film, with Barry’s lush score. One also gets some of that in the extensive desert sequences of Dalton’s “Living Daylights.”
For all their good qualities, the Brosnan films sadly never indulged those sorts of travelogue sequences or mood-setting bits; They were all business, all streamlined and slick. I prefer the disco-disaster movie swank vibe and outlandishness of the Moores.
Yeah, but I still say Timothy Dalton could kick all their asses.
SPOILERS –
Have to say that I have mixed feelings about this one – Monsters Ball is very overrated (Am I the only one who found back-to-back deaths of three major characters in the first half hour VERY jarring?) but I loved Stranger than Fiction – one of my favorite films of last year. How either of these kinds of films qualify him to do Bond, I have idea.
I can say that Stranger than Fiction had a great sense of location and production design which would help a Bond film.
Campbell did a fantastic job with Casino Royale and most of his other films have been crap.
I WAS on the Tarantino bandwagon a little ways back, but I have completely lost faith in the guy – no way he could deliver a PG-13 Bond film, might as well let Kevin Smith try it.
My first choice would have been Danny Boyle – probably the hippest British director out there and he has proven he can succeed in different genres.
Whomever the director, I am going to assume that Craig is Bond will succeed until he fails.
Really? Does anybody really think The World Is Not Enough is better than Goldeneye (the only palatable Brosnan Bond)?
A few thoughts.
James Cameron has done a “Bond” picture-It’s True Lies. Seriously, when I watched it for the first time I was thinking “This is what the Bond pictures are missing”.
My first Bond in a theater-when I went to go see The In-Laws, there was a trailer for Moonraker, the one where Bond gets tossed out of a plane with no parachute! I HAD to see that picture later that day.
I thought Octopussy was Moore’s best-actual acting! View to a Kill was such a disappointment.
Living Daylights was a wonderfully personal revenge story-Wayne Newton was fabulous in it.
Goldeneye was the best Brosnan-shades of the train fight in From Russia, With Love. You could see the corporate gears grinding in Tommorow Never Dies.
Casino Royale had a few corporate problems-the overdone “finale” of the building in Venice comes to mind. Overall, an excellent reboot to the series.
Oops, meant to say License Renewed (supposed to be License Revoked, another dumbing down of a title) was the wonderfully personal revenge story. Living Daylights-it was refreshing to see an ACTUAL Fleming story as the first act.
Still not right, Doug R.
It’s LICENSE TO KILL.
I remember reading a comparison of Wade/Purvis draft of Casino with Haggis and not being that impressed with the additions. He did a lot of the poker stuff which I thought was weak. People forget that the Bond writers are micro-managed by the producers the same way the directors are. Purvis and Wade were dying to reboot Bond before anyone else was. The fact that they got lead position on the credit says they deserve more of it than Haggis.
A quick aside, 20th is doing the same thing with Fantastic Four and other tentpoles. Writers are given set pieces and storylines from executives (set in stone) before they even start their work. And it shows. Of course, since that crapfest keeps making money, 20th execs will keep taking imodium.
I haven’t liked a Foster movie yet, but I always liked his direction. My one concern is that the action he does end up directing will be lacking coming off Casino. Campbell’s hand-to-hand stuff is always amazing because he does it himself.
Marc Forster? Jesus Christ… MARC FORSTER?
He is the reason I am not looking forward to The Kite Runner. I hated Monster’s Ball and Finding Neverland and thought the script and direction of Stranger than Fiction was pretty woeful. Never saw Stay thank god. Ugh.
Yet, I never thought I’d be so happy to have Paul Haggis writing the screenplay!
Purvis and Wade need to learn from Richard Maibaum, Michael G. Wilson and the Christopher Wood screenplays of the past (notably the Roger Moore era): KISS (keep it simple stupid).
The worst offender was DIE ANOTHER DAY (aka “The Shitty CGI Parasailing Bond Flick”) which involved Korean generals, face-switching, Cuban labs, etc.
LexG, Lazarus and co. – it’s interesting you guys mentioned LIVE AND LET DIE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. I have watched those films frequently and they seem like a independent entity, away from the other Moore Bond flicks, they shared similar posters, had the same supporting characters (Clifton James as Sherif J.W Pepper – I think he even replayed the same kinda role in SUPERMAN II) and if you guys notice Roger Moore was all bad-ass in those flicks, smoking a stogie, having brutal fights in dressing rooms and slapping women like Maude Adams.
Moore was pretty grim and tough in those (maybe because those scripts were written for Connery’s style).
I think also these two films in my view were the only two Bond flicks that wanted to pay homage other genres: the exploitation flicks of the time: LIVE AND LET DIE to the blackploitation flicks and GOLDEN GUN to the Asian martial arts flicks (some argue that MOONRAKER was also took the STAR WARS sci-fi route).
LIVE AND LET DIE of course had a great Paul Mcartney tune and you can’t go wrogn with Jane Seymour or Yaphet Kotto (as the villain).
Nevertheless, I think Moore came into his own with SPY WHO LOVED ME (love that flick and still have the Marvin Hamlisch score – isn’t that wild? I mean Marvin fucking Hamlisch scoring a Bond flick!).
Spacesheik – I thought the story with “Moonraker” was that another film was planned and mentioned the credits of the previous movie – was it “For Your Eyes Only”? – but after “Star Wars” did well, they decided to send 007 into the outer space with lasers, etc.? Maybe that’s just myth.
It is funny that “Die Another Day” shares some elements with the original novel “Moonraker,” which is – not at all surprisingly – completely different from the movie. Too bad “DAD” still sucked camel dick, to borrow from Wesley Willis.
You might be right, RocketScientist, I vaguely recall they switched movies around, but the one that comes to mind is the following: FOR YOUR EYES ONLY opens with Bond at his wife’s grave and culminates with a Blofeld-like character (wheelchair bound) flung by Bond’s helicopter into a Battersea Power station tower – that whole sequence was bizarre seemed like a direct sequel to ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE.
It makes you wonder if the next Bond film will make reference to Eva Green’s character (like a grave visit scene), or if we’ll just be propelled into the future of Bond’s career. In other words, will this be his second big assignment or just another day at the office like we’ve scene with all the other fims?
I’m glad to see the love for The Spy Who Loved Me, whch has been my favorite for 20 years. Without a doubt the greatest opening scene of any Bond; that parachute of the British flag–perfect. One of the top 2 or 3 Bond songs, the hottest Bond chick ever with Mrs. Ringo Starr, and that Lotus! The car turning into the submarine is the gadget of all gadgets. Egypt and Jaws. The villain’s underwater lair. And of course, the greatest last line in a Bond film: “Just keeping the British end up, sir.”
Oh, the opening of “For Your Eyes Only” is classic; he goes from mourning over his slaughtered wife’s grave to jumping about a helicopter flown by a cat-wielding wheelchair-bound chromedome.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that the fellow who played “Blofeld” in the credits is John Hollis … also known as LOBOT!
I think BOND 22 should be a continuation of CASINO. The last sequence of ROYALE has a shadowy operative about to get his comeupance.
Now I realize the late Kevin McClory had the rights to THUNDERBALL and S.P.E.C.T.R.E and Blofeld etc — are those rights in his estate or did they revert to UA/MGM?
In any case, even if those rights are not up fro grabs, BOND 22 can feature a shadowy organization without alluding to the name S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
I think it would be great for Bond to clash with them head on (ROYALE hinted at that potential confrontation). I think Bond 22 should tie in with ROYALE in some way. But it has to be done in a subtle, dead serious way and the potential Blofeld-like character has to remain in the shadows or look completely different (I think Mike Myers’s AUSTIN POWER series pretty much destroyed any chance that a Blofeld-like character could be taken seriously ever again).
Spacesheik – The return of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. would be welcome by all. I think as a result of “Never Say Never Again,” Sony actually has the rights to Blofeld & S.P.E. – uh, his organization – which would work nicely considering the current situation. I could be wrong, but I think with McClory gone the hurdles and pretty much gone, too. Here’s hoping …
I do recall reading that the supposed villain of the next film would be Vesper’s boyfriend, but then again, they also said Bond 22 would be based on “Risico,” and look what happened with that.
As one of the few people who thought CASINO ROYALE was a huge bore, and that a Bond without a sense of humor ain’t Bond at all, I’m happy to see a change. But year, what a strange choice, huh? I liked Monster’s Ball a lot, but Stranger than Fiction as fun as the actors were felt really pedestrian, like it could have been directed by 50 different people.
I guess what I’m most disappointed in is Haggis writing again – I’ve never really liked anything he’s been involved in, and feel like he totally didn’t understand the majesty and joy of Bond and just turned it into Die Hard or the Bourne Identity, just not a big fan.
And I love Daniel Craig, but Bond is not a deez dems dose guy, he’s got class. So I felt the guy was totally miscast.
OK, the haters rest.
Oh, c’mon, didn’t you see that evil smirk at the airport when the bomb went off?
“Sony actually has the rights to Blofeld & S.P.E. – uh, his organization – which would work nicely considering the current situation”
Interesting. SONY has the next Bond but then it reverts to MGM I recall reading (Sony wants to keep Bond as a franchise), so maybe the McClory rights are a good icing on the cake for the Broccoli peeps to keep the franchise in Sony (I’m not a fan of the studio’s slate but they did a good job ROYALE’s marketing).
I didn’t like Haggis’ lack of ironic humor either Carpetmuncher, but Daniel Craig overcame it–he was excellent because he, like Sean Connery, was believable as a tough guy. Sean Connery despite the fine Eton-style manners (being early in the series–Casino Royale– Daniel Craig’s Bond will get more accustomed to the ways of the Upper Class) was clearly blue collar himself. None of the Upper class Tofs were as believable as Connery, and Roger Moore, the most Upper Class, was the worst.
I also take offense at your comment “Bond is not a deez dems dose guy, he’s got class”
and blue collar men can’t have class?! :I didn’t like Haggis’ lack of ironic humor either Carpetmuncher, but Daniel Craig overcame it–he was excellent because he, like Sean Connery, was believable as a tough guy. Sean Connery despite the fine Eton-style manners (being early in the series–Casino Royale– Daniel Craig’s Bond will get more accustomed to the ways of the Upper Class) was clearly blue collar himself. None of the Upper class Tofs were as believable as Connery, and Roger Moore, the most Upper Class, was the worst.
I also take offense at your comment “Bond is not a deez dems dose guy, he’s got class”
and blue collar men can’t have class?! :<
That what was so cool about Casino Royale. The original stories had Bond as a outsider who always had a chip on his shoulder going to the good schools. He likes the good stuff, but there’s always that little bit of insecurity. The psychology of the torture scene was just like the book, even in the position he’s in, he’s still playing….
Maybe class wasn’t the right choice of word. What I meant was Bond is supposed to be a smooth operator, not a thug.
ok. I forgive you.
I think he will grow out of the slight boorishness of a novice and become smoother…