In Reply to: A good example of this film's poor writing: in two key sequences, posted by tinear on November 22, 2006 at 05:01:46:
Judging from your apparently foul mood, you must've seen this Bond flick right after concluding a routine exam by your proctologist or whatever.>>> "At some point, Connery's Bond has deteriorated into fantasy. I don't recall having completely to suspend belief in ANY of his films.
Craig is 007 Spiderman or Batman, Rambo or Schawartzie." <<<I never said that I didn't like the Connery Bond films, but that's because I, like most folks, still identify Sean Connery as the first and best Bond. This new envisioning of the character is a refreshing change from recent efforts AFAIC, better than most if not all of the others save for the Connery version, but your mileage may vary.
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Like I said, we saw different movies. - Audiophilander 07:38:46 11/22/06 (9)
- Proctologist? Going into the gutter here, Auph: won't follow you there. - tinear 15:20:42 11/22/06 (8)
- Re: But - rico 07:58:32 11/23/06 (2)
- Don't forget, he read the book when it came out in the 60's.nt - jamesgarvin 08:54:53 11/24/06 (0)
- Yes, the focal point. But not 1/2 the number of pages! You think - tinear 08:09:57 11/23/06 (0)
- Hey, I'm just speculating based on the crankiness of your mood. - Audiophilander 23:13:57 11/22/06 (4)
- Quite honestly, you're hallucinating. I am attacking the Bond film, - tinear 05:08:18 11/23/06 (3)
- The "foul" comment was just a gentle gibe; for someone vigorously attacking folk's opinions you seem oddly sensitive... - Audiophilander 11:11:55 11/24/06 (2)
- I pointed out the RIDICULOUS plot elements and the more I did, the more - tinear 16:20:03 11/24/06 (1)
- "I don't mind, it's the loser's way of waving the internet white flag." - LOL! Really? - Audiophilander 23:29:48 11/25/06 (0)