I'd like Tom Hiddleston to play a Bond villain sometime in the not-too-distant future. He could've actually had the role that Javier Bardem played. Hiddleston would've seemed more like a more typical English MI6 agent.
I'm with you. I think Fiennes could have made a great Bond. He had great edge to him in In Bruges. Maybe he just needed to play an older Bond at some point in the 2000s.
Also, The Avengers was just a horrible movie, so I don't think it is an accurate representation of Fiennes' potential as Bond.
Almost as close to a dead ringer for literary Bond as Dalton here:
Roger has always been very humble about his movies from what I've seen. Although I remember him being at the premier of Die Another Day and he gave it a 10/10 afterward!
Roger has always been very humble about his movies from what I've seen. Although I remember him being at the premier of Die Another Day and he gave it a 10/10 afterward!
I think Richard Kiel falls into that category too. He said at the premiere of Die Another Day that it was the best Bond movie ever. However, he's a bit long in the tooth.
I think Richard Kiel falls into that category too. He said at the premiere of Die Another Day that it was the best Bond movie ever. However, he's a bit long in the tooth.
I remember a Starlog interview with Kiel.....they touched on almost everything he appeared in. He had nice things to say about everyone....until they asked him about William Shatner....then he just said "No comment."
Roger Moore has been very public to support Daniel Craig as bond from the get go, he was one of the first people to find out Craig would be bond and has gone on record as saying he's his favorite and its only a matter of time before craig is seen as the definitive, overtaking Connery.
They were both regulars in the Shatner and Doug McClure TV series BARBARY COAST....Kiel had very nice things to say about McClure....but wouldn't say anything about Shatner.
They were both regulars in the Shatner and Doug McClure TV series BARBARY COAST....Kiel had very nice things to say about McClure....but wouldn't say anything about Shatner.
I don't get some of the complaints about the ending battle. For me that was when the movie when from just good to very good. Spectacular fx and spectacular cinematography! High octane, emotional, cool and funny all at once. The location looked great and personally I find the Scottish highlands very cool. Suddenly it seems like some want every Bond-movie to follow the exact same formula. Not every ending battle can take place in what most consider "exotic".
where Bond is fighting that sniper in Shanghai? Just silhouettes against that neon backdrop, occasionally lit up by the gun firing? Just wow. Deakins is the man.
I don't get some of the complaints about the ending battle. For me that was when the movie when from just good to very good. Spectacular fx and spectacular cinematography! High octane, emotional, cool and funny all at once. The location looked great and personally I find the Scottish highlands very cool. Suddenly it seems like some want every Bond-movie to follow the exact same formula. Not every ending battle can take place in what most consider "exotic".
I've got Roger Moore's autobiography and he's a surpisingly humble guy. I didn't know much about him, but he's always had this air of upper-class English toff about him - probably due to the accent more than anything else. But in his book he's quite self-deprecating and admits he took a lot of roles just because it was a cushy number of easy money. He certainly doesn't take himself too seriously at all, asides from when it comes to mentioning his charity work for Unicef which is obviously important to him.
He must have been a tough enough guy in his day too, I remember reading about some fight he had with Lee Marvin and Marvin was quote -
Although critics often accused him of not looking tough enough to play superspy James Bond, he once beat up legendary American hellraiser Lee Marvin while they were filming Shout at the Devil (1976). Marvin recalled, "The guy is built like granite. Nobody will ever underestimate him again."
Apparently you have never heard any interviews by any actor he acted with in the 60's and 70's. Everyone either says he was either a conceited jerk....or they don't say anything at all.
Apparently you have never heard any interviews by any actor he acted with in the 60's and 70's. Everyone either says he was either a conceited jerk....or they don't say anything at all.
I don't get some of the complaints about the ending battle. For me that was when the movie when from just good to very good. Spectacular fx and spectacular cinematography! High octane, emotional, cool and funny all at once. The location looked great and personally I find the Scottish highlands very cool. Suddenly it seems like some want every Bond-movie to follow the exact same formula. Not every ending battle can take place in what most consider "exotic".
For me, it's when the movie went from good to not so good.
Especially when there was no fight between Bond and Silva or the absence of any Bond girl other than Judi Dench, whom you realise is ultimately meant to be the Bond girl (and even according to the screenwriter too).
I'm not expecting every Bond film to follow the exact same formula. But I would like the 50th anniversary film to have something more traditionally Bondian. If they wanted to do this type of finale for the next movie or another one, they can. For Your Eyes Only had a slightly different type of finale too, so it's not without precedent.
Yeah, most of his Star Trek co-stars don't speak highly of him and say that he tried to get all the scenes/ lines for himself.
For me, it's when the movie went from good to not so good.
Especially when there was no fight between Bond and Silva or the absence of any Bond girl other than Judi Dench, whom you realise is ultimately meant to be the Bond girl (and even according to the screenwriter too).
I'm not expecting every Bond film to follow the exact same formula. But I would like the 50th anniversary film to have something more traditionally Bondian. If they wanted to do this type of finale for the next movie or another one, they can. For Your Eyes Only had a slightly different type of finale too, so it's not without precedent.
I dont get this mentality. This film needs to be its own and not have its story dictated by some anniversary no matter whether it is the 50th or 100th. First and foremost this film is Bond 23 not Bond 50th anniverary.
Apparently you have never heard any interviews by any actor he acted with in the 60's and 70's. Everyone either says he was either a conceited jerk....or they don't say anything at all.
I don't get some of the complaints about the ending battle. For me that was when the movie when from just good to very good. Spectacular fx and spectacular cinematography! High octane, emotional, cool and funny all at once. The location looked great and personally I find the Scottish highlands very cool. Suddenly it seems like some want every Bond-movie to follow the exact same formula. Not every ending battle can take place in what most consider "exotic".
I'm starting to wonder how Brosnan's films suddenly got a mixed reception...cause judging from some comments here and other places, his more "generic" bond films should be more loved than they are.
Haven't seen the film yet, but I'm glad they're going for something different. If there's one thing Craig's era can be commended on, its that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
