The Livings Daylights had some of the Roger Moore humour like Lindberg mentioned, but alas no Roger Moore so did not work for me.
[quote=āLindberg, post:360, topic:544ā]Clive Owen was one of the names mentioned as successor to Pierce Brosnan, before they unfortunately ended up with Daniel Craig
I suspect he would have been a pretty good 007[/quote]
Probably a perfect one.
But I like Craig and his films are the best Bonds ever, especially Quantum of Solace (in case I havenāt mentioned it before 
)
The Living Daylights is only a Moore Bond with a much better actor, and otherwise too conventional. I prefer License to Kill, which belongs to the best JBs.
[quote=āStanton, post:362, topic:544ā]Probably a perfect one.
But I like Craig and his films are the best Bonds ever, especially Quantum of Solace (in case I havenāt mentioned it before )
The Living Daylights is only a Moore Bond with a much better actor, and otherwise too conventional. I prefer License to Kill, which belongs to the best JBs.[/quote]
Yes, Moore isnāt one of historyās greatest thespian talents, to put it mildly
Owen could still become Bond, heās not too old for the job and somehow I donāt see Craig doing too many Bonds.
Owen could bring some of the old Connery tongue-in-cheek approach back. Actually I donāt think thereās anybody more suited to the role than he is.
But I have to admit I like Moore as Bond. He was the Bond of my youth, and we preferred The Spy Who Loved Me to every Connery Bond.
Hmm ā¦ I still do ā¦
I donāt dislike Moore either
Heās not a great actor, but he has some style and presence. A nice guy too, in interviews that is, never met him personally ā¦
Apart from Moonraker, which was terrible imo, I donāt even dislike those Moore Bonds. Theyāre very watchable, if watched in the right mood.
Moore is my favourite Bond as like his laid back style and he has such fun with the role. Not the greatest actor, but that is not everything for me.
My theory on Bond is like Dr Who, whoever you saw first was your favourite. So Roger Moore is my favourite Bond
My first Bond films were a double bill at the cinema āLive and Let Dieā and āThe Man with the Golden Gunā to this day these are still my favorite Bond films, nothing will ever change this, they seemed to go downhill after this in my opinion. Looking at all the Bond films now the best for me are the previous two mentioned plus OHMSS (probably the best of the lot), From Russia with Love and Casino Royale (not the Woody Allen one). I can watch and enjoy most of the Bond movies. But I cannot stand For Your Eyes Only & Octopussy I gave up on Bond at the time when I saw these they were the bottom of the barrel. Things have improved since.
Well, my first Bond was Connery, but heās never been my favorite (thatās Dalton), in fact I donāt like Connery at all. Some Connery Bonds are okay (Goldfinger, Thunderball, Diamonds are forever) and he is a better actor than Moore, but I still like Moore better. Donāt know what it is with Connery, but I find him often arrogant and irritating. Thereās something in his voice too that I donāt like.
i also grew up with Roger Moore, but since ten years i prefer Sean Connery. the actors which followed are only for Bond collectors. the charm of Connery and Moore is missing ā¦
Do you find him like this in other films than the Bond films ?
Not always, but often
I like him in a film like THE HILL (mentioned a couple of days ago because of Lumet), and I even liked him in a film like SHALAKO (in which he wasnāt trying, just taking the money and run), but I donāt like him as soon as heās trying to be the great Sean. I Saw The Man who would be King the other day and truly disliked it because of his performance (I must confess that I didnāt like Michael Caine in that one either, while I usually do like him)
I know what you mean about Sean Connery, he sometimes has some annoying manners
But I still like the older Bonds best because I like the Bondian feel and the 60s atmosphere they have
I think Conneryās best performance as Bond was probably in the first film Dr No
The familyās journey through the Bond franchise has now hit the Daniel Craig era with Casino Royale and I have to say it was a pretty big success with everyone, winding up joint 5th on the family rating system alongside The World is Not Enough.
I had seen this one before relatively recently but, having rewatched it now as part of a complete revisiting of the entire series, I liked it even more than when originally viewed and would certainly rate it as one of the best. (I actually rated it as my 4th favourite to date, sitting below Tomorrow Never Dies and above Thunderball) It is, of course, a big departure from its predecessors in terms of its darkness of tone and in many ways itās difficult to judge it to the previous films in the series as a result. Craigās Bond is a very different character. Colder, harder but also far more fallible. Itās interesting to note that in this film he doesnāt end up with the girl, he doesnāt successfully conclude the case and he doesnāt kill the major villain. In fact (as in the original book) when the bad guy gets done in Bond is currently tied naked to a chair with welt marks on his gonads. This would be inconceivable in any of the older Bond films and is a very brave step, I think, on the part of the producers. However, there is still enough of the old Bond features to keep you tied to him as a character and to have most of your expectations of the genre satisfied. High up in its achievements in this area for me are the fight scenes, which are brutal and very well choreographed, and the stunts, which are dramatic and genuinely thrilling. In particular the fight scene on the high cranes and connected freerunning chase sequence was spectacular and as good as anything done in a series where such things have a very high pedigree.
In general it is fair to say that this one is a high octane revision of the franchise but also delves a little deeper into the character of Bond than previous. It also has practically no humour in it at all. There are no little quips or puns at any point and, again, this is much closer to the original books. Itās also clear that the producers were aiming as much at a female audience as a male one here as the babe factor is practically zero and the obvious sex object of the film is Daniel Craig, not the āBond girlā. This was a downer for me but the wife and daughters seemed happy enough.
All in all this one got a clear thumbs up and we are all looking forward to seeing where it is taken in Quantum of Solace.
Two questions, Phil:
-
Did the wife and daughter find Daniel Craig attractive? I watched the movie too with wife and daughter, and didnāt understand how somebody like Craig could ever attract so much female attention as he does in the movie.
-
Is gonad a common term in English? I only know the term from scientific literature, I had never heard it in daily life. I checked if it exists in Ducth (it does, written as gonade), but I have never heard someone using it.
Certain words attract certain people
(The pic is clearly taken from a scientific magazine, probably The Lancet ā¦ aaaaaaiaaaiaaai)
[quote=āscherpschutter, post:374, topic:544ā]Two questions, Phil:
-
Did the wife and daughter find Daniel Craig attractive? I watched the movie too with wife and daughter, and didnāt understand how somebody like Craig could ever attract so much female attention as he does in the movie.
-
Is gonad a common term in English? I only know the term from scientific literature, I had never heard it in daily life. I checked if it exists in Ducth (it does, written as gonade), but I have never heard someone using it.[/quote]
-
No one was visibly drooling but the unqualified approval lends me to believe that Craig was considered more physically appealing than Grandad Moore had been.
-
As can be seen by the Revās perfectly placed illustration Gonad is not an uncommon term here. It is certainly more medical than slang in origin but has a certain ironic tone as a result which gives it a pleasing ring when used in a more common context. Second only to Bollocks in my favourite terms for the male ballbag.
[quote=āPhil H, post:377, topic:544ā]As can be seen by the Revās perfectly placed illustration Gonad is not an uncommon term here. It is certainly more medical than slang in origin but has a certain ironic tone as a result which gives it a pleasing ring when used in a more common context. Second only to Bollocks in my favourite terms for the male ballbag.[/quote] Damn you Phil! you stole my punchline ! 
i was going to put gonads = Bollocks! on the horror film website HMCA which is full of Amercians & Canadians and a few British, some of us now have film nights on Saturday night and we communicate with each other on Skype and they love my British Accent and always make me say āBollocksā because they say no one can say that word like the English
Well, I knew bollocks ā¦
Alas, poor bollocks! I knew them, Horatioā¦