Stevo985 Posted November 4, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted November 4, 2015 Seeing Bond tonight. Looking forward to it. Not expecting too much. I don't think they'll ever get anywhere near Casino Royale which was, imo, the best Bond film ever.But they're still good fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon_villan Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 My moneys on Tom Hardy.No chance IMO. His career is way too successful to have his hands tied by that franchise. He'd be mental to go near it.Remi Garde? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 My moneys on Tom Hardy. No chance IMO. His career is way too successful to have his hands tied by that franchise. He'd be mental to go near it. Remi Garde?Bloody Frenchies, coming over here, taking jobs from Young British actors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 My moneys on Tom Hardy.No chance IMO. His career is way too successful to have his hands tied by that franchise. He'd be mental to go near it.He's far too good for that tiresome shite.Most actors would not turn it down, and Hardy probably wouldn't either. You make a fortune, and enter yourself into legend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted November 4, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 4, 2015 Most actors wouldn't, you're right. But then most actors are not the hottest property in Hollywood with a skyrocketing career. Hardy is not most actors. He's one of a handful who don't need to be James Bond and whose careers would be hampered by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 You might be right. Craig was a virtual unknown, Brosnan's career was nosediving, and whathisname was more of a stage actor if I'm not mistaken... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Danny dyer for the next bond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PongRiddims Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Heard Ron Atkinson is going for it, all over Facebook 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_c Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I have a feeling it's going to controversially be (because he's not British) Nikolaj Coster-Waldau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted November 4, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted November 4, 2015 The only time I can ever stomach a Bond movie is when it's a send up/satire. So, Casino Royale / Our Man Flint / Austin Powers all get the massive thumbs up from me. Maybe they should just cast Rowan Atkinson and be done with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 My moneys on Tom Hardy.No chance IMO. His career is way too successful to have his hands tied by that franchise. He'd be mental to go near it.He's far too good for that tiresome shite.really ?his mad max was dreadful , his Bane nearly ruined batman and the less said about his kray Twins the betteri can't comment on his acting in Bronson as I switched it off about 30 mins in as it was a pile of pooso you could say so far I'm not a fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designer1 Posted November 4, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) My moneys on Tom Hardy.No chance IMO. His career is way too successful to have his hands tied by that franchise. He'd be mental to go near it.He's far too good for that tiresome shite.really ?his mad max was dreadful , his Bane nearly ruined batman and the less said about his kray Twins the betteri can't comment on his acting in Bronson as I switched it off about 30 mins in as it was a pile of pooso you could say so far I'm not a fan Yes, really.Mad Max was imo one of the best action movies of the last decade. Hardy didn't have a great deal of dialogue but he was brilliant in the role.How on earth his Bane 'ruined' Batman is beyond me unless you are talking about the awful sound mix on his voice? apart from that once again it was a role that required expressive physicality more than anything else (which Hardy is more than capable of).Calling Bronson a 'pile of poo' is quite frankly laughable.The only thing I will agree with is re.Legend. His Ronnie was laughably bad.I really hope he doesn't squander his talent by being tethered to a franchise as dull as Bond, but i've always made no secret of the fact that I **** hate James Bond. Edited November 5, 2015 by Designer1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Saw Spectre the other day.Sam Mendes makes a traditional Bond movie with a Moore era undertone. It's nothing special. Opens with a needless bit of dick waving by the cinematographer, one of those fake long cut scenes which doesn't achieve anything beyond stroking the filmmakers ego, it goes through the requisite Bond framework, it has absolutely absurd treatment of its female characters (Monica Belluchi is on screen for 5 minutes and in that time the plot manages to embarrass itself, and nobody, no-one at all, who doesn't suffer with social disabilities, is buying the relationship between Bond and whatever Seydouxs character is called), it has a strangely effective threatening henchman in Batista, who is probably the best thing about the movie, and Mendes gives us another underused undercooked absentee villain. Oh and it makes a really cackhanded attempt to make an overarching plot for Craig's Bond, when everyone and his dog knows Skyfall is a silly curiosity of a Bond film and makes even less sense than usual in any attempt at making a Bond continuity.It's all a bit tired. Not a bad movie by any means but this really should have been far better than it is. All the bits are there. The connective tissue of the movie is lacking though, and the skeleton in the shape of the script and plot is bollocks. It feels like it wanted the plot to inspire awe and intrigue and blow you away with its secrets, but everyone already knew all the secrets and it tosses any buildup to something meaningful away without conviction.More Quantum of Solace than Casino Royale, sadly.How can you say 'all the bits are there', but 'the connective tissue is lacking' and 'the skeleton is bollocks' - what other 'bits' are there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meath_Villan Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 My moneys on Tom Hardy. No chance IMO. His career is way too successful to have his hands tied by that franchise. He'd be mental to go near it. He's far too good for that tiresome shite. really ? his mad max was dreadful , his Bane nearly ruined batman and the less said about his kray Twins the better i can't comment on his acting in Bronson as I switched it off about 30 mins in as it was a pile of poo so you could say so far I'm not a fan Yes, really. Mad Max was imo one of the best action movies of the last decade. Hardy didn't have a great deal of dialogue but he was brilliant in the role. How on earth his Bane 'ruined' Batman is beyond me unless you are talking about the awful sound mix on his voice? apart from that once again it was a role that required expressive physicality more than anything else (which Hardy is more than capable of). Calling Bronson a 'pile of poo' is quite frankly laughable. The only thing I will agree with is re.Legend. His Ronnie was laughably bad. I really hope he doesn't squander his talent by being tethered to a franchise as dull as Bond, but i've always made no secret of the fact that I **** hate James Bond. Toms greatest role to date 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 I am watching this for the first time in years. I felt compelled to share that for some reason. Just as stupid, low brow and low budget as I remembered. Like a bad Carry-on film about a post nuclear dystopia. That's why its so utterly marvelous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 Thanks for putting me off The Avengers, I watched a Joseph Goebbels documentary instead.Hess was a half witGoerring was a bourgeois fat cat just there for the perksHimmler was a coward and sadistGoebbels was a deranged lunatic, but the most interesting and intelligent of them all, including Hitler.The more you study the Nazis, the more an undercurrent of mass homosexuality becomes apparent, very strange, especially considering gays were some of the first to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 My moneys on Tom Hardy.No chance IMO. His career is way too successful to have his hands tied by that franchise. He'd be mental to go near it.He's far too good for that tiresome shite.really ?his mad max was dreadful , his Bane nearly ruined batman and the less said about his kray Twins the betteri can't comment on his acting in Bronson as I switched it off about 30 mins in as it was a pile of pooso you could say so far I'm not a fan TBH, I don't really understand the fawning over Hardy either. He's a rugged handsome guy, but he's a bit stunted. A bit like Craig then, but better looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PongRiddims Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 I've heard rumours on the messageboards that Ron Atkinson is the next Batman, you heard it here first 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 5, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted November 5, 2015 Saw Spectre the other day.Sam Mendes makes a traditional Bond movie with a Moore era undertone. It's nothing special. Opens with a needless bit of dick waving by the cinematographer, one of those fake long cut scenes which doesn't achieve anything beyond stroking the filmmakers ego, it goes through the requisite Bond framework, it has absolutely absurd treatment of its female characters (Monica Belluchi is on screen for 5 minutes and in that time the plot manages to embarrass itself, and nobody, no-one at all, who doesn't suffer with social disabilities, is buying the relationship between Bond and whatever Seydouxs character is called), it has a strangely effective threatening henchman in Batista, who is probably the best thing about the movie, and Mendes gives us another underused undercooked absentee villain. Oh and it makes a really cackhanded attempt to make an overarching plot for Craig's Bond, when everyone and his dog knows Skyfall is a silly curiosity of a Bond film and makes even less sense than usual in any attempt at making a Bond continuity.It's all a bit tired. Not a bad movie by any means but this really should have been far better than it is. All the bits are there. The connective tissue of the movie is lacking though, and the skeleton in the shape of the script and plot is bollocks. It feels like it wanted the plot to inspire awe and intrigue and blow you away with its secrets, but everyone already knew all the secrets and it tosses any buildup to something meaningful away without conviction.More Quantum of Solace than Casino Royale, sadly.How can you say 'all the bits are there', but 'the connective tissue is lacking' and 'the skeleton is bollocks' - what other 'bits' are there?The Bits - on paper excellent cast, interesting exotic locations, good sets and art design, very good action sequences, nice 'ideas' in the plot... It has the component parts of a good Bond adventure.The connective tissue, and skeleton - the plot and script are weak, with the villains threat completely under blown, plot developments tossed aside, characters completely underdeveloped and subsequently their relationships and interactions don't work or are extremely unbelievable, it's villain is absent throughout the movie and doesn't have the presence to make up for it because of the plots failings... Etc etc.Basically there's the component fundamental parts of a decent traditional Bond movie on paper, bar a decent plot and script, so when it comes together the superficial stuff is ok but what joins it all together is weak and means it's a bit of a disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted November 5, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted November 5, 2015 I thought everyone was just being cool and snobbish by saying Spectre wasn't that great.But I saw it last night annnnd... it wasn't that great.Seemed unnecessarily long and there didn't seem to be a huge amount of, you know, plot.It looked amazing, and the action scenes when they happened were great, but that's about as good as I can say about it.A lot of it felt very forced, particularly the stuff with the women (The Belucci scene, wtf?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts