ayebatter wrote:Casino Royale - 7/10 - the foot chase sceen in the begining is awesome. We have a new edgier Bond.
I would've rated Casino Royale an 8/10, but after seeing it a couple more times, I'd rate it a 10/10. I thought it was quite lofty when a few critics lauded it as the best Bond flick since Goldfinger, but I'm convinced it is. The action sequences were first-rate and thankfully, a lot more believable and visceral than Die Another Day. The acting was great too and with a few more outings, Daniel Craig might supplant Connery as the best Bond in my book; Craig is more in line with Connery and the character from the Ian Fleming books. What makes this Bond movie stick out in quite a long time is that the plot is more involving, namely because the Bond character really develops into the persona Bond is known for.
The only gripes I had about it was the lag time up until the climax, but it served its purpose. Originally, I thought Thunderball was the best Bond since Goldfinger, but even that movie's scenes really lagged where it felt like watching a 3 hour flick. Casino Royale was about 14 minutes longer than Thunderball, but the suspense relative to TB is palpable enough to not even notice the lengthy running time. The plot needs some smoothing out, as it left a few questions unanswered, but Bond 22 is meant to be a true sequel of Casino Royale as opposed to other past Bond flicks. I can't wait for Bond 22 in 2008.
I don't like Bond flicks but this one looks good...I hate Pierece Borsonsosn
As you could probably surmise, I'm an avid Bond fan.
I thought Brosnan was a fairly good Bond as he has the balance between Sean Connery and Roger Moore, but leans more with Connery, and he wasn't as over-the-top brash as Timothy Dalton. The scripts he received weren't much good to begin with, except for Goldeneye, which was his finest hour as Bond.
Don't forget George Lazenby.
I tend to find myself debating on whether or not On Her Majesty's Secret Service would've been better with Connery reprising the Bond role or if it was indeed fine with placeholder Bond, Lazenby. I'm sure it would've been a first-rate film with Connery in OHMSS, but given that OHMSS is probably the most important and pivotal chapter in the Bond series, I couldn't imagine the cold, calculating Connery-type Bond fall in love. Lazenby seemed to be a better fit in this context. Of course, Casino Royale was the only other rare instance where Bond falls in love and I thought Craig pulled that off nicely in an area where Connery could've failed in portraying. But OHMSS was more or less flawed in other aspects of the film other than the changing of the guard in Bond, in particular, the awkward display of action sequences, some discontinuity in plots, and some rather confusing subplots.
It's kinda like the Old Cafe - http://fbc2.freeforums.net
Another American Pie revolving around a Stifler. Same rough story as with every Pie that came before it. We're not looking at anything grounbreaking in plot, acting or directing. In fact, you can guess the conclusion from the start of the plot.
But basically, there is more nudity and quite a deal of laughs with it. Still typical American Pie, it fills the niche of the movie a teenage male or early 20's will love. I remember taking a girl to see the original American Pie. You may watch this with a girl at your own risk.
Worn out from studying from finals, I sat down this afternoon and watch ed Gangs of New York for the first time. I wasn't expecting much for some reason (my roommate totally trashed it), but I actually like it. I give it an 8/10.