I don't know if it was just for the perv factor or the storyline as well, but I enjoyed the movie.
I think he was a poor 007.
Bat
I liked it, although I much more enjoyed the previous one. Anyhow I like daniel Craig as James Bond.
It's a good movie, but I just don't like him as Bond. To ruff - no 'Glit'
Bat
I find most women really like him, but I'll bet it's because of the romance storyline in the first one of his.
I found this last one a good action flick, but you could drop any guy in to play it. The Bond personna is gone and the director killed it. This sequel has Bond showing hardly any emotions, too. Bah.
Well you have to realize that these movies are suppose to be prequels. They are meant to show how and why bond became bond. Hence the length at which he ordered his drink at the card table in the first movie. Instead of the normal shaken, not stirred. I haven't seen Quantum but I am sure I will enjoy it regardless. Sean Connery is still my favorite Bond, but I have a feeling Daniel will grow into the role nicely.
We liked it a bit. Liked that he worked outside of the M1 or MI circle. That was cool. We haven't watched one in years. They got to be to much the same thing over and over.
We also llike the Transporter movies with Jason Statham.
Ok there are a few things that make a bond movie...
Bond always sleeps with most of his female co-stars..
He has cool gadgets..
In Quantum he sleeps with the not so attractive bond girl and doesn't shag the hot one...
He has NO gadgets in this movie..At least Casino royale had that cool heart starty gadgety thing..
they made it too much like the Bourne movies which wasn't good...also being 1-2 years apart I had forgotten half of casino royale so was lost half way through the movie saying to myself was that dude in CR...
RANT out
Transporter's great. As for Quantum, I liked it, and didn't mind that it didn't adhere slavishly to 'the formula'. I can always go back and watch some Connery if I need a 'Bond' fix...
I'm not saying that Bond movies need to adhere. I just thought that was an interesting link.
I do think thought that Ian Flemming's work has a unique characteristic element of satire in it.
The beauty of Bond is a combination of skill with weapons, games of chance, intellect, and a skill for ferreting out the hidden information plus that unmistakable style of a proper British gentleman. Set in the most exotic locations and with the finest and most advanced the world has to offer.
Completing the picture is the gadgetry and comic satire that is a key element in every bong movie. Q branch is always good for a laugh, along with those great corny one liners, plus the character names themselves.
Remember Ian Flemming also wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and the main character was Caractakus Potts the inventor, whose love interest was Truly Scrumptious?
It's a shame to see someone take another persons work in a whole different direction. If they want to do that, make up a new character. The world is plenty big for a new character, but please add a plot.
I've only seen Transporter 1, that was plenty.
Plot = A man we don't care about smuggles a girl we don't care about and he falls in lust and decides to get away. People we don't care about chase and shoot at them. The end.
I can't believe they are on the third one of these.
Action sequences alone just don't tell a story. I'm glad we're all entitled to our own opinion.
I agree with Lois. Just keep Bond the way Bond is. That's part of his appeal. And like PM said, if they want a different character, create one.
This director said once, "I think Bond reinvents himself." No he doesn't! And you have no right to change him!
I'm glad you all liked "Quantum of Smileys".