quantum of solace (bond 22)

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • killa325i
    E30 Addict
    • Nov 2006
    • 427

    #31
    Originally posted by SpecM
    Awsome, Casino Royale rocked, the new 007 movies are like the new Batman movies... WAY better than the old ones with the exception of the Sean Connery ones!

    Me = stoked
    fixed
    Shoot, move, and communicate...

    ......Semper Fidelis.....

    Comment

    • SpecM
      R3V Elite
      • Oct 2005
      • 4531

      #32
      Originally posted by killa325i
      fixed
      touche

      sean connery = good stuff
      1989 cirrisblau-metallic 325i

      Comment

      • Jand3rson
        Banned
        • Oct 2003
        • 37587

        #33
        So Andrew and I just got back from this (well, we saw it this afternoon), and overall, I thought it was pretty decent. Good action, and a pretty good story, but total lack of a good villain or a real Bond girl. That guy that played the villain was a total waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles, and neither of the women really got my attention. Craig was good, and it was a decent flick, but I definitely agree with what a lot of people are saying that it's more of a part II of Casino Royale.

        But to me, my $7 was worth it just for the new Watchmen trailer. I would have paid $7 just for that.

        Comment

        • DCColegrove
          Banned
          • Dec 2007
          • 2748

          #34
          For some of us...

          Sean Connery is the only 007.

          Comment

          • Jand3rson
            Banned
            • Oct 2003
            • 37587

            #35
            Originally posted by DCColegrove
            For some of us...

            Sean Connery is the only 007.
            For that style of Bond film, yes. The new ones needed a new kind of Bond. Someone just like Connery wouldn't have fit into that. Craig is perfect.

            Comment

            • RainMan
              Member
              • Jan 2005
              • 66

              #36
              Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
              but I definitely agree with what a lot of people are saying that it's more of a part II of Casino Royale.
              That's because it is a sequel to Casino Royale. It was supposed to seem like that.

              Comment

              • Jand3rson
                Banned
                • Oct 2003
                • 37587

                #37
                Originally posted by RainMan
                That's because it is a sequel to Casino Royale. It was supposed to seem like that.
                Yes, I know it was a sequel. I'm not fucking stupid.

                What I meant was that it seemed like it could have all been one movie, and they just cut it in half.

                Comment

                Working...