Casino Royale

People seem to have this affinity with “the original”, and boo the rest. I think that’s a load of bullocks. Sean Connery was the first feature film James Bond, and he was FANTSTIC! But that was ancient history. 1962 history. We had Roger Moore for the 80’s, and Pierce Brosnan for the 90’s. Dalton, and Lazenby never got a fair chance. Daniel Craig is a NEW Bond for a NEW age, and he’s PERFECT!

No one crapped on Christopher Reeve for playing Superman, even though George Reeves, and Kirk Alyn wore the tights LONG before him!

I (along with Connery himself) would rather leave the Bond of the 60’s in the 60’s. Unless you’d like to call up the studio on your rotary phone to place your beef. This is the 21st century. Things change.

As for "things that go BOOM"... they WISHED that they had that kind of film making technology back in the 60's. This IS James Bond. He's not a super-hero, or a stunt man. He's a spy, and an assassin. If you dissagree; read a book.

"Santa Claus didn't have Rudolph when I was your age!" Get over it!

Imo, the best 007 yet.
I take in account the most modern 007's. The old James Bond movies have a good story, but looking at them now they seem so cheap and amateurish.. Its all technologies fault really...
The few latest bonds, amonst them with Pierce Brosnan was too much blowing up stuff and not so much getting into the character James Bond. I never got the feeling Pierce actually was James Bond as I did i.e with Sean Connery. Casino Roayle however was to me a great movie with not too much blowing-up-action but proper action, giving the audience the "niiiiiice!" feel not just the "oh.. the car hit the wall and blew up like an atomic bomb".
Im definately getting this one on DVD, didnt bother with the previous ones.

a nice movie

Is the fact that it's thrown out the continuity of the previous 20 films


And BTW, you do have a point about the older Bond films looking amateurish now

Great ringtones visit RINGTONESET dot NET