Sony Shaken But Not Stirred

i thought Casino Royale was a good film, though yeah i did almost snore through the touchy feely stuff but i can see why it was felt necessary to show him being a wimp. it was necessary to have him get burnt by the flames of love, so he can shed his last emotional scales, close up, become 100% steely killer

but still this is hardly brilliant news is it, a consolatary free film for 500,000 chumps?

Casino Royale (with David Niven and Woody Allen) was quite amusing in a 1960s kitsch sort of a way - and it gave rise to the first Austin Powers movie (the others were spawned by grimey Hollywood soul-sucking urchins).

This latest namby-pamby attempt at Casino Royale - on the other hand - was pants. Bond films have gadgets, right? An in-car defibrillator is not a gadget - unless you're 60 that is.

Casino Royale was s**t. Absolute b******s. The opening titles were piss. The parkour bit was superb. The rest was, frankly drivel. The poker commentary was insulting. The lack of any car chase whatsoever was drear. The gizmo being a glove-box mounted defibrillator was just b******s, unless Bond's new modus operandi is to sit around in his car waiting to have a heart attack.

I said I wasn't going to go see it, but, as I have with every single Bond movie since Live and Let Die, I found it irresistable... ZERO chance of me going to the cinema to see the next one though.

I will buy a PS3, of course. And I'll register for SonyNetLive or whatever it's called. But not because of this "incentive"...

i didnt miss the things you were clamouring for, in fact i looked forward to a bond film that didnt rely so much on the traditional bond formula.

personally i think that the traditional bond formula is as stale as old socks, and this was enough of a revitalisation to entertain me.

the theme song was the worst thing about it, cornell your glory days died with soundgarden

and surely, Resistance isnt worth the best part of 500 quid?

Spot on. If you look at past bonds, the opening title sequence has always had a timeless coolness about it, this one was terrible. And I have no problem with them moving away from the traditional, tongue-in-cheek bond. But if your going to go gritty & real, keep it that way. The defibrillator bit was just ridiculous, (Jack Bauer would of used a lamp). The only purpose of having the bond car, was the crash out of the way of the bond girl stunt. In summery it was a half assed Borne clone.

Hmmm, imagine if they made Coke, but didn't rely so much on the patented secret Coke formula. It WOULDN'T BE COKE!!!!

In fact, it would be New Coke, and that was a roaring success for 23 minutes.. then people realised that they preferred the real thing.


It's for you that they made xXx. Bond for the MTV generation.


They had the car, but they didn't havew the chase. "Bond" span off the road at the slightest provocation. That's just not Bond... Bond is an ace wheelman. New "Bond" wouldn't pass his driving theory test.

the experience of watching a film is nothing like the experience of drinking a can of coke.

maybe a game analogy would do better? its nearer than coke anyway ;)

after 20-odd MGS games say, with the same formula intact and steadfast, i will be a little bored of MGS games. i could still pass time with the 22nd, but surely the only way id really enjoy that would be if i got immense enjoyment out of plain old familiarity. of course, i do like familiarity and nostalgia (i will happily play KoFXI or something, but probably not fork out full price for it), but only to an extent, and after so many 'oldskool' bond films i felt it was about time they did a different bond movie. and i didnt think their attempt was half bad. i dont see anything odd or humiliating about that

ive never seen xXx, it looked crap and im sure is crap. i seriously dont like all the crap films you want to accuse me of liking, im not a 5-second memory span dunderhead who likes The Fast and The Furious and drives a vauxhall nova in a bodykit. i just liked casino royale, maybe if it wasnt set in the bond franchise you would have too

Absolutely. Which is the major argument I personally, and SPOnG as an organisation, have with sequels. MGS is good, but if they are still churning them out at number 20 it will be a stunning indictment of this industry.

So what Kojima-san needs to do, is create a NEW game, and not call it MGS.

But if he changes all of the basic elements of MGS, and keeps the name - well then, fans of the series will have call to complain. That is what they have done with Bond, and as a real fan of the series (I have seen every one at the movies since 1973, I own the 20DVD metal encased box-set) I feel cheated and disillusioned. Of course, this could be the death throes of a dinosaur who cannot accept change.. but that does not describe me well, I generally accept (even push for) change in most aspects of my life... but it has to be change for the better.

But although the games industry likes to think it is the same as the film industry, films have far more light and shade, far better visuals, better characterisation, and superior narratives. It is possible to keep the elements of a franchise and make very different movies... It just takes a little imagination.


Taken as it is intended, it is not a bad movie. I *honestly* prefer it to the recent Casino Royale.


I like the Fast and the Furious. Prefer it to either xXx or Casino Royale - because it's true to its aims - to make a flashy, trashy, loud and cheesy action movie.


I respect your right to like it. I just feel (for all the valid reasons I have explained) that it's a fairly poor movie, and a absolutely terrible Bond movie.

i can understand where youre coming from, its crap when you feel someone takes a s**t on a franchise you love. so lets just say we have totally different perspectives, and that MGS4 should be the last MGS for a long while. there should be a smily for the 'devil horns' hand gesture, i wouldve used it just then. maybe one day, if the SPOnG forums ever gets real live smilies :)

as for the fast and the furious, i realise it wasnt pretentious and i guess it can be applauded for that. but as for the actual content, i like action movies and it didnt engage me at all. no i know you hardly need your thinking cap on to enjoy watching the fireworks, but a good action film grabs your attention and TFATF made me feel extreme apathy

maybe its a car thing..?

It is. I'm sure. I have a Clio 182 that I am planning to Turbocharge and max to the maxxxx. And I have a 480bhp Cobra. I even tolerated Torque. Partly because I ride a bike, and partly because Jaime Pressly's incredible leather basque.

she is a good looking gal. i bet shes a dirty'un too..

theres a couple of films coming out at the cinemas that i want to see actually, Hot Fuzz (just out now i think) and Frank Miller's 300 (coming out in the states any day now). 300 was a brilliant comic.

And it's got a former Bond in it.

I'm torn... I'm not a historical epic kind of a guy, and I suspect it is going to have boatloads of inaccuracy, but Miller's name means I'll go see it. The trailer is compelling.

do you indulge in the frank miller comics?

I don't read graphic novels much at all these days. But (and I know it's cool and trendy to say it NOW) in the early/mid 90s Sin City was holy to me. I loved the movie, of course. Best comic book translation to date - but then, I loved Hulk too!

Ronin was ground-breaking.

Elektra: Assassin was good and Elektra Lives Again was awesome. Daredevil, I can leave the books as much as I can leave the film. A hero who's super-power is to be blind (and in Afleck's case, smug and annoying). Awesome!

Never been a big Batman fan, but DKR was good.