• Registered: 2006-12-28
  • Posts: 3,742

Re: Who's the best Bond?

Angela wrote:
Becky_S wrote:

Hands down Roger Moore.

It was tough not to say Daniel Craig... but that would have been based on looks not acting ability. Enough of the girl talk already!

Back to the girl talk....Pierce Brosnan  tongue tongue  tongue

Funny that you would mention Pierce, I was watching an old movie made in 1987 with him and Michael Caine yesterday...Pierce character was that of a soviet spy trying to blow up an american nuclear base in europe, Caine was the British agent looking for him....in one scene Pierce is walking by the RAH!!...I scream like a little girl to my wife LOOK...LOOK ...LOOK...that's the RAH!!....."oh ok honey I see your little place"  roll

Shred

  • From: Harrison, Arkansas
  • Registered: 2006-04-21
  • Posts: 3,155

Re: Who's the best Bond?

Icon wrote:

There can only be one Bond - Sean Connery.

The Connery Bond films set the benchmark that other Bonds have struggled to reach.

And what's all that nonsense about Roger Moore. For me he should have stuck to playing his Simon Templar role in "The Saint" - far too cheesey to be Bond.

Sadly, the more recent films for me have gone way too far with the stunts and special effects.

Perhaps we should put our owm JB forward for the remake of Gold(top)finger. cool

Have you seen Casino Royale? While the stunts are there, it definitely not what you would consider a special effects movie. Just wondering, because what that movie was loved for was its gritty and realistic take.

"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make"

My ReverbNation page for Dees & Friends - check us out!
www.reverbnation.com/deesfriends
  • Icon
  • Icon
  • Titanium
  • Offline
  • From: Stafford, England
  • Registered: 2009-02-03
  • Posts: 852

Re: Who's the best Bond?

Deezer wrote:
Icon wrote:

There can only be one Bond - Sean Connery.

The Connery Bond films set the benchmark that other Bonds have struggled to reach.

And what's all that nonsense about Roger Moore. For me he should have stuck to playing his Simon Templar role in "The Saint" - far too cheesey to be Bond.

Sadly, the more recent films for me have gone way too far with the stunts and special effects.

Perhaps we should put our owm JB forward for the remake of Gold(top)finger. cool

Have you seen Casino Royale? While the stunts are there, it definitely not what you would consider a special effects movie. Just wondering, because what that movie was loved for was its gritty and realistic take.

Well it wasn't going too badly until the sinking building finale - totally ridiculous - visually impressive, but ridiculous all the same. That was the point I was making really, that the big spectacular pieces are just way too farfetched. Today's Bond Films are less about the plot and the acting (even the Bond role) and more about the spectacle.

Nice to see Sean out in front on the vote anyway.

Please be in no doubt that this is the REAL ME! Beware imposters........................

22 Reply by Deezer (edited by Deezer 2009-05-21 05:17:15)

  • From: Harrison, Arkansas
  • Registered: 2006-04-21
  • Posts: 3,155

Re: Who's the best Bond?

Icon wrote:
Deezer wrote:
Icon wrote:

There can only be one Bond - Sean Connery.

The Connery Bond films set the benchmark that other Bonds have struggled to reach.

And what's all that nonsense about Roger Moore. For me he should have stuck to playing his Simon Templar role in "The Saint" - far too cheesey to be Bond.

Sadly, the more recent films for me have gone way too far with the stunts and special effects.

Perhaps we should put our owm JB forward for the remake of Gold(top)finger. cool

Have you seen Casino Royale? While the stunts are there, it definitely not what you would consider a special effects movie. Just wondering, because what that movie was loved for was its gritty and realistic take.

Well it wasn't going too badly until the sinking building finale - totally ridiculous - visually impressive, but ridiculous all the same. That was the point I was making really, that the big spectacular pieces are just way too farfetched. Today's Bond Films are less about the plot and the acting (even the Bond role) and more about the spectacle.

Nice to see Sean out in front on the vote anyway.

A lot of Connery's films are out there too. That's the whole point of Bond. The whole girl covered in gold paint suffocated? That's bs, they proved that wrong on Mythbusters. And the whole idea that nerve gas sprayed from about 10 planes over all of Fort Knox caused every person there to pass out? That's not ridiculous? Why does the ending seem too farfetched? What's wrong about it?

Not saying that Conner sucks at all, in fact I voted for him. But saying that Bond films are ridiculous is like saying you don't like horror movies because they're scary.

"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make"

My ReverbNation page for Dees & Friends - check us out!
www.reverbnation.com/deesfriends