Casino Royale

Anybody here seen it(the original not the new one)? It's one of the funniest movies ever.

I'm afraid I haven't.

No I have not. I dont like Bond...
All movies are the same.

A spy fights the good guys and takes advantage of an innocent woman and then he leaves her...

He is an *S%H*

I don't like Bond films much either, but this one was one of the most boring

I cant judge that, because I haven't watched a bond movie for longer than 5 minutes.

Once I see someone shoot 100 bullets out of a rigle like M-16 without reloading I dont continue to watch...

Riddler wrote:

I don't like Bond films much either, but this one was one of the most boring

Are you sure you aren't confusing the 1967 movie with the 2006 movie?

Kenzu wrote:

I cant judge that, because I haven't watched a bond movie for longer than 5 minutes.

Once I see someone shoot 100 bullets out of a rigle like M-16 without reloading I dont continue to watch...

yeah it would have jammed at 20 overheated at 25 and done at 30

mattabesta wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

I cant judge that, because I haven't watched a bond movie for longer than 5 minutes.

Once I see someone shoot 100 bullets out of a rigle like M-16 without reloading I dont continue to watch...

yeah it would have jammed at 20 overheated at 25 and done at 30

They arn't that bad >> give it some credit it would make it to 30 before jamming >>

Diogritor wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

I cant judge that, because I haven't watched a bond movie for longer than 5 minutes.

Once I see someone shoot 100 bullets out of a rigle like M-16 without reloading I dont continue to watch...

yeah it would have jammed at 20 overheated at 25 and done at 30

They arn't that bad >> give it some credit it would make it to 30 before jamming >>

25 jamming

Kenzu wrote:

No I have not. I dont like Bond...
All movies are the same.

A spy fights the good guys and takes advantage of an innocent woman and then he leaves her...

He is an *S%H*

in my younger days i was quite the bond fan, and he did get married but some Ninjas in japan killed her (do tell if im wrong on that) and after that he swore never to get married because she would most likely be killed, and he cant have a girlfriend because she would be a liability and if you actually saw the movies you would know he is quite the gentleman (at least in the Sean Connery days). and you say he fights the good guys? so a man who tries to steal the worlds gold reserve to crash the world economy is a good guy? or what about the guy who tries to provoke a war between United Kingdom and China, is he a good guy to? and i can go on and on.....

Ryom wrote:

in my younger days i was quite the bond fan, and he did get married but some Ninjas in japan killed her (do tell if im wrong on that) and after that he swore never to get married because she would most likely be killed, and he cant have a girlfriend because she would be a liability and if you actually saw the movies you would know he is quite the gentleman (at least in the Sean Connery days).

Yeah... the gentlestud I'd say.

Ryom wrote:

and you say he fights the good guys?

The ones he fight are an evil and surreal representantion of NATO enemies during the Cold War.

Ryom wrote:

so a man who tries to steal the worlds gold reserve to crash the world economy is a good guy?

Indeed! Capitalist economy has to be utterly shattered!

Ryom wrote:

or what about the guy who tries to provoke a war between United Kingdom and China, is he a good guy to?

and i can go on and on.....

In those cases they're surreal interpretations of cold war issues. James Bond is a hero of capitalism, a defender of neo-imperialism and a playboy. - A hideous character in my perspective... And his movies... well... not only are they boring, they're distressing.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Ryom wrote:

in my younger days i was quite the bond fan, and he did get married but some Ninjas in japan killed her (do tell if im wrong on that) and after that he swore never to get married because she would most likely be killed, and he cant have a girlfriend because she would be a liability and if you actually saw the movies you would know he is quite the gentleman (at least in the Sean Connery days).

Yeah... the gentlestud I'd say.

Ryom wrote:

and you say he fights the good guys?

The ones he fight are an evil and surreal representantion of NATO enemies during the Cold War.

Ryom wrote:

so a man who tries to steal the worlds gold reserve to crash the world economy is a good guy?

Indeed! Capitalist economy has to be utterly shattered!

Ryom wrote:

or what about the guy who tries to provoke a war between United Kingdom and China, is he a good guy to?

and i can go on and on.....

In those cases they're surreal interpretations of cold war issues. James Bond is a hero of capitalism, a defender of neo-imperialism and a playboy. - A hideous character in my perspective... And his movies... well... not only are they boring, they're distressing.

you don't like bond becuse he works for a capitalist econamey?

mattabesta wrote:

you don't like bond becuse he works for a capitalist econamey?

*economy

In a majour part. Else, I don't like his "playboyness" and talking about the movies, how that man ridiculously defeats waves of enemies.. pretty much like if he was fighting an army of mental and physicaly impaired people.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

you don't like bond becuse he works for a capitalist econamey?

*economy

In a majour part. Else, I don't like his "playboyness" and talking about the movies, how that man ridiculously defeats waves of enemies.. pretty much like if he was fighting an army of mental and physicaly impaired people.

not to mention actors.
that's acton movies. it wun't be fun if the hero dide 2 minits in

mattabesta wrote:

not to mention actors.
that's acton movies. it wun't be fun if the hero dide 2 minits in

That's underztandable, but they could develop the whole trama in more intelligent ways. Anyway, I know realism is usually mitigated or completely thrown away from movies just inorder to make them fun, so, when judging a movie, it's mreley matter of personal tastes. If for someone it's not important the fact that a guy can't destroy a tank by kicking it or that a pistol has limited ammo and they enjoy a movie with such content... then go ahead and enjoy it.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

not to mention actors.
that's acton movies. it wun't be fun if the hero dide 2 minits in

That's underztandable, but they could develop the whole trama in more intelligent ways. Anyway, I know realism is usually mitigated or completely thrown away from movies just inorder to make them fun, so, when judging a movie, it's mreley matter of personal tastes. If for someone it's not important the fact that a guy can't destroy a tank by kicking it or that a pistol has limited ammo and they enjoy a movie with such content... then go ahead and enjoy it.

i don't like bond myself.
mel gibson is probably the worst kind of director with millions of historical fakings.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Ryom wrote:

in my younger days i was quite the bond fan, and he did get married but some Ninjas in japan killed her (do tell if im wrong on that) and after that he swore never to get married because she would most likely be killed, and he cant have a girlfriend because she would be a liability and if you actually saw the movies you would know he is quite the gentleman (at least in the Sean Connery days).

Yeah... the gentlestud I'd say.

Ryom wrote:

and you say he fights the good guys?

The ones he fight are an evil and surreal representantion of NATO enemies during the Cold War.

Ryom wrote:

so a man who tries to steal the worlds gold reserve to crash the world economy is a good guy?

Indeed! Capitalist economy has to be utterly shattered!

Ryom wrote:

or what about the guy who tries to provoke a war between United Kingdom and China, is he a good guy to?

and i can go on and on.....

In those cases they're surreal interpretations of cold war issues. James Bond is a hero of capitalism, a defender of neo-imperialism and a playboy. - A hideous character in my perspective... And his movies... well... not only are they boring, they're distressing.

well i have to correct a few things here
lets get to the economy part
with a world economy crash money would have no meaning, they would have no more value than the zinc or cotton/paper they were made of. and even the USSR would be effected by it, and not in a go way. look at it this way, take a coin and look at it right now im sitting with 10 DKK. which would by me a pack of gum, and why can it do that ? because its value is calculated with the amount of gold the country (in this case Denmark) have in the international reserve in the U.S, no if you could not transfer your money to gold it would have no value what so ever, so that means if the guy stole all the gold i couldnt transfer it to gold because there is none, which mean all i have is a peace of zinc with some golden paint on it with no value WHAT SO EVER.

and now to the rest
it didnt need to enemies of NATO just the U.K Ian Fleming choose USSR as the ¨Bad Guys¨ in his books because they were easier to ¨Demonize¨ than example Latin America
and the China thing was not a surreal cold war issue since the movie is not based on one of Ians books and the movie was made in 1997, and he being a defender of Neo-Imperialism is wrong, look at it this way.
If America went to war with China it would properly mean nuclear war which would be a would disaster and if the yanks went to war they would must likely drags all other in to it, just look at Iraq

Ryom wrote:

well i have to correct a few things here
lets get to the economy part
with a world economy crash money would have no meaning, they would have no more value than the zinc or cotton/paper they were made of. and even the USSR would be effected by it, and not in a go way. look at it this way, take a coin and look at it right now im sitting with 10 DKK. which would by me a pack of gum, and why can it do that ? because its value is calculated with the amount of gold the country (in this case Denmark) have in the international reserve in the U.S, no if you could not transfer your money to gold it would have no value what so ever, so that means if the guy stole all the gold i couldnt transfer it to gold because there is none, which mean all i have is a peace of zinc with some golden paint on it with no value WHAT SO EVER.

That's just awesome! That would pragmatically force people to acknowledge real economics!

Money is worth nothing but what it is made of my friend. Materials should be valued for their use, not by a ridiculous value based on gold reserves or market or whatever. Money has to dissapear! So definitely that guy had a nice idea However, gold is useful, specially for electronics and chemical industries.

Ryom wrote:

and now to the rest
it didnt need to enemies of NATO just the U.K Ian Fleming choose USSR as the ¨Bad Guys¨ in his books because they were easier to ¨Demonize¨ than example Latin America

Exactly, because UK being the good capitalist empire member of NATO really didn't have other considerable enemy. Latin America couldn't be demonized back then because it was still pretty dominated.

There's a reason for which USSR was easy to be demonized.

Ryom wrote:

and the China thing was not a surreal cold war issue since the movie is not based on one of Ians books and the movie was made in 1997, and he being a defender of Neo-Imperialism is wrong, look at it this way.
If America went to war with China it would properly mean nuclear war which would be a would disaster and if the yanks went to war they would must likely drags all other in to it, just look at Iraq

And his victory ends up in the Visctory for Ukay

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Ryom wrote:

and now to the rest
it didnt need to enemies of NATO just the U.K Ian Fleming choose USSR as the ¨Bad Guys¨ in his books because they were easier to ¨Demonize¨ than example Latin America

Exactly, because UK being the good capitalist empire member of NATO really didn't have other considerable enemy. Latin America couldn't be demonized back then because it was still pretty dominated.

There's a reason for which USSR was easy to be demonized.

i think you misunderstood me, he made the USSR the bad guys because the general public in UK already saw them as the bad guys. if Ian was writing his books today the bad guys would be Iraq or some other country down there of if he lived back in the medieval times he would have made France the bad guys . he didnt care about NATO or who they were fighting.

Ryom wrote:

i think you misunderstood me, he made the USSR the bad guys because the general public in UK already saw them as the bad guys. if Ian was writing his books today the bad guys would be Iraq or some other country down there of if he lived back in the medieval times he would have made France the bad guys . he didnt care about NATO or who they were fighting.

And that makes Bond a defender of capitalist empires and an enemy of our good guys.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And that makes Bond a defender of capitalist empires and an enemy of our good guys.

but if Ian lived during the 30ies and Bond was spying against Germany then he would a enemy of our enemy wich mean he would be our freind. or what ?

Ryom wrote:

but if Ian lived during the 30ies and Bond was spying against Germany then he would a enemy of our enemy wich mean he would be our freind. or what ?

We were talking about the movies and very specific cases

of course, sorry for moving away from subject anyways
in most of the new movies M16 (Bonds agency) sends Bond out on missions, no only to protect Britain, but to make sure that some nut case dosent throw the world in to some fourth world war, or the dark ages. and even i he is working for some capitalistic superpower, so what, if he saves my ass from nuclear war ill thank him

Ryom wrote:

of course, sorry for moving away from subject anyways
in most of the new movies M16 (Bonds agency) sends Bond out on missions, no only to protect Britain, but to make sure that some nut case dosent throw the world in to some fourth world war, or the dark ages. and even i he is working for some capitalistic superpower, so what, if he saves my ass from nuclear war ill thank him

If some nutcase had the capability to provoke a nuclear war, believe me, no one would stop him unless that nutcase was pretty silly.