Actor Pierce Brosnan tells Larry King what he really thinks about Daniel Craig's portrayal of James Bond.
Watch this full episode of "Larry King Now" on Ora TV & Hulu: http://on.ora.tv/LuarGS
SUBSCRIBE to Larry King's YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=LarryKingNow
FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/OraTV & http://www.facebook.com/LarryKing
Use #LarryKingNow to make comments & ask us questions on Twitter!
CHECK OUT Larry's daily show, "Larry King Now," on Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/larry-king-now
Comment & ask Larry questions on Twitter: http://twitter.com/KingsThings
No one has been more Bond than Pierce and Connery. They both had this perfect combination of elegance, mature attraction and mystique.
Nowday's Bond is more like sad - angry MMA fighter. It's not the mambo jumbo martial art movements that portray a Bond. A real Bond should be the man who everyone would enjoy to hang out with. He should walk around a salong and express nobility but in the same time respect and fear. He should look like a scientist and a gladiator at the same time.
Not only matcho heavy attitude.
I think it's great that the actor changes so every 10 or so years. They are all great and bring their own personality to it. There is no better or worse for me. You have to have an understanding of the era in which the films were made. Roger Moore was perfect for his time...it was just what the franchise needed. The problem with Craig is that he lacks the charisma and the twinkle in his eye. He almost NEVER smiles in his films and looks beat up, exhausted and sulky in most scenes. The character of Bond is of comic book type and needs to have a sense of "ridiculousness" about it...but they have become a weaker copy of Bourne and that's not the way to go in my opinion. Politically incorrect is what it should be and what makes it fun. Too darn serious now. Leave that to Bourne.
Even accounting for changing scripts/direction, it's interesting how different actors bring out different sides to the character. Pierce was first to bring the 'dark' to the character, while still maintaining the humor and suave. Daniel is the epitome of Bond's violent side - he exudes it even when calm, like a tiger just waiting to pounce.
Since Daniel Craig is already thinking about leaving, and they'll have to get a new Bond anyway, what about if they brought Brosnan back for one more? I mean one last hurrah for him. Basically pull a Diamonds Are Forever move. Before casting a new Bond, make a movie about bringing a sixty-something, alcoholic Bond, bitter about being fired, suddenly brought out of retirement for a new mission. The Bond girl would be Catherine Zeta-Jones or Sanaa Lathan. Maybe even get Famke Jansen back as Onatop. GoldenEye II, basically.
I like both Pierce and Daniel fine. I like how he's gracious enough to compliment his successor, considering the bad blood he has with his former employers. He's already been pretty vocal about his bitterness of being fired. I think he should have been given one last big swan song film, but life goes on.
no no no no, sorry people new bond movies aren't worth s**t. 4 movies and all he had from gadgets was a defibrillator. If i wanted to watch Bourne movies I would have watched Bourne movies. Well they are very good action movies but a James Bond movie NO CHANCE!(Quote from Arnold, Commando)
Mr, Brosnan , in my opinion, left the role at the wrong time. He mentions that he thought times had changed - yes they had! It was time for Bond to enter the more cynical 21st century - calling for a more mature, and, world weary character, still laced with humour but battle hardened. Brosnan's male model facial looks were taking on a more rugged appearance by this time - he still has what it takes, even today. Why not, it's not Doctor Who reinventing himself for goodness sake! When someone asks me which Bond did I like the most, I have to say, for different reasons, Brosnan and Moore comes to mind. But, then, I have lived through the James Bond years from Doctor No to the present day. The latest renditions leave my feeling cold and seem without soul - something is missing, perhaps the witty dialogue of years gone by, or, perhaps movies are reflecting the more sinister and dangerous world we are living in today - or maybe I'm just a silly old fart, reflecting on my own youth.
Daniel was the best thing to happen to the franchise since Dalton. Martin Campbell put the series back on track twice and the second time he lucked out with a strong actor. All of you want the silliness of the Moore era but you seem to forget that the series started out as serious spy thrillers with Connery's first 2 films Dr. No and FRWL. Craig's films hearken back to the brief period where the series was in it's infancy without the crazy gadgets and overblown action. Craig is Bond.
Daniel Craig is exactly TWICE the actor Pierce Brosnan is, or ever was. And compared with Craig's sheer physical power, Brosnan is like a choir boy. If you don't understand that, you're even dumber than I once expected. If you need even more evidence of what I'm talking about (which is obvious that you do), just read what Roger Moore said about Craig as Bond: "He IS Bond." And that's from someone who many people think was the best. Even the great Sean Connery was impressed with Craig's performance, which leaves you, and other morons like you, on the bottom rung of stupid.
Did you read what I said? JAMES BOND IS A PROFESSIONAL KILLER, FIRST. Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore are pretty English dandies, lady killers first. And to put down Daniel Craig's acting prowess shows that you know nothing about his abilities, or his past films, NONE of which either Pierce or Roger can boast. Both of these men were TELEVISION ACTORS. What part of that don't you understand??
Of course Dalton is the best, but I wish Brosnan was handed better scripts.
"GoldenEye" was really the only decent film he starred in, and
his last two would have been terrible even with Dalton in them.
Brosnan was wasted for the most part as a Bond. I would have loved to have seen him with the same quality of material as Craig has gotten. Daniel is a tremendous Bond. We've seen the character grow over the four movies. Three of the four he's made have been among the best movies the series has seen. Goldfinger, however, remains my favorite.
The first two movies with Daniel were ok in the sense that they were developing a newer more badass Bond. Then Skyfall came out and I was thrilled. Daniel knocked it out of the park and the writers put back some of the things that were missing, such as a very cool villains lair. Can't wait for Spectre to come out.
Pierce Brosnan is one of the sweetest actors and human beings I've ever had the pleasure of working with, hands down. If you're a fan, please do yourself a favor and see him in "The Matador," quite simply his greatest work... and funny as HELL.
Pierce is exactly right its a different time. Ever since The Dark Knight by Nolan almost everyone is trying to do things more realistic and darker and overall more mature. In my opinion realistic is better that way the viewer can relate in some way.
Those who think Craig is good are just little kids who love explosion scenes.Craig was lucky to have good scripts and directors(unlike Pierce Brosnan).Craig's Bond is just a muscular hitman,he cant grasp Bond's personality,he doesnt have Bond's charm,smoothness,sophistication.He is just a copy of Bourne and other modern action heros.Connery and Brosnan are the real classy Bonds.
Bearded Sailor and I get so sick of that same regurgitated crap that Craig fans Say, Craig is so much more human you can relate to him... I don't want to relate to James Bond it's James Bond and for God's sake I want to escape. I don't want to see reality I want to see an escapism world
+no hassle Agree entirely...Craig's Bond has a cold ruthlessness about him with vulnerability. You can see there is a wall protecting himself as his actions take their toll and so he is more 'human' in his portayal with the torment.
Other than Connery, the other Bond's attitude was 'I've just saved the world, a martini and sex will do the job'.
With Daniel Craig it's 'I've just saved the world but another piece of me just died doing it'....
I have to admit that I am rather surprised to hear that Lazenby would be less keen with the more - physical James Bond of today since his own Bond approach was portrayed as more a fighter then as, say, a shooter. But, then again, Lazenby had some different ideas and attributes that he could have maybe brought to the series. Twenty years ago I watched an interview of his where he eluded that he did not like the idea of having too many gadgets and special effects in the films. Could you have imagined that era's Bond films with no gadgets or big effects? The series would have looked completely different!
Every Bond had a different personality. Pierce had a lot of one-liners. I mean a METRIC TON of them! It was enjoyable; he had a certain amount of class and the way he spoke was very professional and tied with the British feeling. I think it was an amazing fit. Craig, however, was a different spin on the character. He was more violent and more antagonistic. Personally, I prefer the Brosnan Bond over the Craig. But that's just me.
+ViDeoDuDe1928 I like both Brosnan AND Craig. Brosnan was an icier, more sexual and more detached Bond than Craig. Craig's Bond is significantly less sexually active, has more "soul", and has a back story to him. It really depends on which Bond you're in the mood for as far as I'm concerned. But having said this, I think I'd take GoldenEye over any Craig Era film.
+Fernando Miranda If you don't like him then you don't like him we all have our own opinions. Did i think the remake nightmare on elm street was better than the original? And do i like Jackie Earle Haley's Freddy better than Robert's? Yes to both. and i think the world would better if it were back to the way it was before we destroyed everything because things are becoming a lot less natural because of us
I found Dalton as the most violent and serious James Bond plus Dalton IMO sucked dick. My order of favorite James Bond to least favorite James Bond would be Pierce Brosnan, Daniel Craig, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, George Lazenby, and Timothy Dalton. The next actor to play James Bond might be Henry Cavil since he was offered the role the same time Craig was and has interest in taking over the role when he gives up
Pierce Brosnan avait la classe des anciens Bond , avait ce charisme de l'homme élégant classe et assez discret !! Je pense que Daniel Craig n'est pas mauvais mais après je pense pas qu'il a pas la gueule d'un James. Par exemple pourquoi ne pas avoir pris Jason Statham ?? Lui aurai cartonné j'en suis casyment certain !. Si ca fonctionne bien avec Daniel Craig c'est parce qu'il y a plus d'action !. Mais après il manque les gadgets qui a toujours fonctionné dans tous les autres James Bond !!
+Stephen Andrews I just saw the trailer for Man From U.N.C.L.E. and my first thought was exactly what you said, he would make a great Bond. Whether it'll happen or not is doubtful, you know how actors are about being typecast.
I'm surprised that all former Bond actors like Craig. I've seen every Bond film and I don't like Craig at all. I tried to give him a chance, I really did, but to me he is completely different from all other Bond actors, especially the laconic attitude is missing. Bond has always been a character I looked up to and somehow I don't look up to Craig. Bond let himself be put in his place by Vesper in the train. He is giggling to himself in the torture scene – can you ever image Connery giggling? But it's not just Craig, they changed the entire series. Maybe I'm too conservative. Hell, they even removed the gunbarrel at the beginning. And for those saying Craig plays the character like Fleming described him, for me the true dark Fleming's Bond is Dalton.
+bighands69 no but the other guynis kinda right i like craig but he is def missing that carefree attitude and somewhat cheesy attitude, but somehow not too cheesy that it makes one cringe when they hear it
Least Brosnan was honest , I mean what can You say when asked questions like that ? As for Craig I enjoyed Casino Royale an somewhat the 2nd , but Skyfall stunk , they made Bond into a cry baby thug, He has no charm ,at least the next film sounds more promising , but then came the Sony leaks about making Him Black .
Skyfall was a joke. Anyone want to tell me how a James Bond who just got shot off a bridge and fell unconcious in to the water drifting for at least several minutes unconcious and wounded, then going over what looks like a 100' waterfall (still unconcious), then shows up in the next scene unscathed? Rubbish !
long long long time Bond fan, and I knew Pierce was meant to play Bond when he was in Remington Steele. and honestly, even today (Sorry Sean) But for me, Pierce holds the torch as The Best Bond Ever. Daniel Craig should have been a diffrent double O as he was just not Bond... Great Agent, don't get me wrong, but I only see him as like 005 or something.
True, that. But it is pretty well known that Ian Fleming was a full bore misogynist, and it shows in his characters. What about a BLACK, GAY WOMAN as the next Bond?? We could call it, "Here Comes Brown Sugar," or something like that. I smell a hit!!!
Well, Tiff. I can understand your view point, and find no argument with your choice. The Bond franchise is ready for an upgrade, just like Dr Who, from time to time. To define Bond as being a British Spy, not an English one, is, perhaps open to debate. What Fleming's ideal was, as opposed to what the Anglo-American producers envisage, gets wider as the years go by. Perhaps an American, German or Danish actor could quite well take up the role with a convincing British accent, who knows? It would, most likely, widen Bond's appeal to a larger international audience. The greatest obstacle, today, is getting past the ethnic barrier, can one accept Bond being played by an Anglo Asian, Anglo Oriental or Anglo African? All British, yet not around at the time of Fleming's era? Even a female Bond. Wow! I like a woman with a bit of spirit! All good fun. Bill.
Hi Bill. I'd think twice before tangling with an Englishman... they're crazy!! Seriously, a lot of people around here think I don't like Brosnan. I do. But I think his biggest selling point as Bond is exactly how you described him... he is "blessed with good looks." From a strictly handsome aspect, Pierce is far prettier than Craig. But I found him PLAYING Bond, not actually BEING him. There's a difference. 007 was a paid government killer first, and a playboy, second. If I had to fight either Brosnan or Craig, it would be Craig I'd be afraid of, not Pierce. That's why I choose Daniel Craig for the ultimate Bond, second only to Sean Connery, who singlehandedly invented the role. Cheers.
Pierce Brosnan had the perfect "face" for a James Bond, and the fight scene he did against 006 "Sean Bean" was a excellent fight scene. I think todays times demand a more violent bond then when Brosnan did it.
Agreed, I think it usually stems down to the Bond that one first sees and grows up on. The first Bond film I saw, I believe, was Goldfinger. And I subsequently saw the other Sean Connery films and then some of the Roger Moore Films and then Goldeneye. So when I was a child I didn't know there were other actors besides those three. At that time it was ranked Connery, Moore, Brosnan.
When I look back on it now, Sean Connery is still at the top for me (probably sentimental reasons), then Brosnan, but now it has developed into a tie for third with Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig (as they are the more mature Bonds), then it is Roger Moore due to his campness and self-parody, then George Lazenby because I feel like he didn't have enough time to explore his Bond enough and I am not totally hooked (but then again, maybe with a script revision, it could have been better).
good attitude , I grew up on Connery but each Actor who plays Him is played so for its generation .Though I skipped the entire Moore years and didn't go to the theater to see Bond again till Dalton took over, Moore's films had some beautiful girls though
Dan Reese Lol. They didn't copy any hand to hand fighting from Bourne. Craig's films hearken back to early Connery Bond. There was an intense fight scene on a train in From Russia With Love, Connery's second Bond film, which most likely inspired the Bourne films. The series started in 62 as serious spy thrillers before Goldfinger changed it all and firmly cemented the Bond formula that the Brosnan era fully embraced.
+bighands69 No Bond has nothing to do with Bourne , only that they copied the hand to hand fighting that Bourne did do justice with . Craig's Bond is no where near the books written by anyone who wrote Bond . He stands alone as His own 007
+Godzilla52 I've seen Seraphim Falls and The World is Not Enough. I haven't seen November Man yet. I like Seraphim Falls, despite the irony of 2 Irish actors playing Americans after the Civil War. That being said, I just can't buy Brosnan as a legit tough guy secret agent. He had more of a Roger Moore feel to me. Entertaining, as long as you don't take it too seriously.
Agreed. Brosnan was more a Roger Moore type "Bond". They had "the look". You look at them and say "That guy could play Bond". Had that gentlemanly handsome look. Daniel Craig...first time I saw him...I thought "Bond villain". He doesn't have that "suave gentlemanly" way about him. But his movies were good as they were trying to be "realistic"...like the Jason Bourne films.
But they lacked the physicality of Connery and Craig WITH "the look".
Also gone for many Bond films are the classic beauty of the "older" Bond women (e.g. Ursula Andress, Maude Adams, Carole Bouquet...etc.). The Italian actress in From Russia With Love who played Bond's love interest. Missing that exotic world-class beauty look. Olga Kurlenko comes close...sort of. Then there was Maria Grazia Cucinnotta...should have given her a bigger role..I think she was in Goldeneye. Sophie Morceau...
Pierce really aged here. He's on the cusp of "old looking". Loosing his handsomeness. Of course it happens to us all. But Connery's aged well. OF the Bonds I've seen. Roger Moore still sort of has his good looks.
Brosnan is completely lying on this. Brosnan kept saying he wouldn't watch the movie with Craig in it, and consistently said that he didn't like the idea he was FIRED, not just replaced but fired. I still Love Brosnan but it IS a new time guys, and Craig is not bad at all and is among the top three. But, I get how you guys get upset on Brosnan being replaced, but remember, it's not Craig's fault.
You realize that people's opinions can and do change over time right? And even if at the time of the new casting and change that he was upset, it didn't mean he hated Daniel or thought it was his fault - anyone can be upset that they've been taken out of a role they love doing but Pierce has never been cruel in his comments, I don't see how he's lying, of course he's not happy he didn't get to be Bond again but it didn't mean he hated the new films or he hated Daniel but he's also a grown man with good logical comprehension and ability to understand that in this day and time, it's a new era and things have changed and he's accepted that he's not Bond anymore
Actually Brosnan was the first person to come to Craig's aid and defend him when he was announced as Bond in the first place. Does no one remember how bad Craig was hated when he was announced as Bond. I mean there was a website even called diecraigdie dot com. Everyone complained that Bond can not have blond hair everyone ripped on Craig even I did I never went as far as diecraigdie but I did say no hes not Bond. But in 2005 when all this was going down Brosnan was the first person who publicly came out and said everyone needs to give him a chance because he was phenomenal actor and very talented. Then he mentioned a couple films fans should see with Craig to change peoples perpectives with one of the movies being Layer Cake. So yeah I seen interviews where he stated he was upset he was fired or they moved on from him only because during the period of 2002 and 2006 he was intended to return as Bond at some point before the next movie turned into development hell. Producers didn't know where to take Bond next and ultimately decided to base the next movie on Casino Royale and go with a reboot and wanted a younger Bond in the role. Brosnan was understandably upset about this because he has been waiting 4 years thinking he would continue in the role. He had nothing against Craig or hating his movies at all and I never seen him say anything Bad about him or the new series. Like I said Brosnan came to his aid was the first person to do so followed by Roger Moore.
roger moore played like 5 mores and he started when he was like in his early 30's and in his last james bond movie he was like in his 50's, and pierce brosnan did only 4 and they just kicked him, Daniel Craig arted in his 30's and now he's in his damn 40's and their making the next james bond movie, so after this one their probably gonna kick Daniel Craig
Moore did 7 films. The average time between films is about 3 years.
But i do agree Craig will probably do 2 more and thats that. which is fine. I'd hate to see a shite film like A View To A Kill, with a 58 year old Craig.
he isnt suave or attractive as the other bonds and wrong hair wrong appearance and height(bonds were generally 6'0 - 6'2) craig's 5'10 not short but only average , he's not tall.
he still does good acting though doesnt he? he had good performances in skyfall and casino
+corey washington He's horrible for the role. He's shorter (not a huge deal), he has the wrong hair, the wrong eye colour and would fit the role of a Nazi Soldier in a WWII movie better. He doesn't look like James Bond, he doesn't have the class James Bond has. It's just all around bad with Daniel Craig.
+BetaArtemis I didn't like Skyfall , but saw that they were lining up the basic characters for the series , and now are all in place for SPECTRE an noticed Bond was getting some wit back toward the end of the film . This next film will determine if I will continue to enjoy Bond films .
right, it was so much shit that it made huge box office numbers and revived what was starting to become a laughing stock rather than a national treasure....Bond has never been just the same, Bond has always been about change, if you don't understand that then you really haven't been watching Bond movies at all - each generation has a Bond that's fitting for that time, and there has been a journey how completed from Casino Royale to Skyfall in allowing Bond to go back to basics and slowly set up the classic world again which is proven since now Q, Moneypenny, and SPECTRE will all be making appearances again but in fitting in with the new era and characters rather than becoming caricatures but having real shades of grey - Skyfall and the Craig era Bond films have made Bond a household name again...hardly a mistake
You are right casino royale isnt as good as goldeneye, however casino royale was still a good film, and skyfall was ok too. but yeah brosnan connery and dalton IMO looked like bond, moore looks nothing and acted nothing like bond but however i still liked him as bond and some of his films, him and craig do not look the part, however they gave a different portrayal. craigs muscular rough and tough, dalton was a serious coldblooded killer, moore was a charming womanising agent etc. die another day sucked. i hated it. i think spectre should be good hopefully
+AmaZN97 You're right, but Casino Royale doesn't even touch Goldeneye. All Casino Royale is, is a 30 minute poker game, which was not Bond's favourite (obviously Baccarat was, which was in the novel) played by a man that looks nothing like James Bond is supposed to look like. The big three actors had this look (Moore, Connery and Brosnan). To me James Bond ended with Die Another Day. Not the best movie, but still played by a fantastic actor.
Yeah me too i watched it it was soo awesome omg rorrt! yeah M's character was good, portrayed nicely by judi dench. i remember when she called him a sexist misogynist dinosaur lol.
but yeah goldeneye was BROSNAN'S best for sure. his first and best, a very good bond film imo. tomorrow never dies wasn't horrible, but it wasn't that good, i dont mind watching that. i thought it was ok. it was pretty alright to be honest. the world is not enough was better, but it still had some problems lol, it was ok. die another day sucked lol. the beginning was ok but the rest was just ridiculous. invisible cars. lazer, that ice palace, really?. but imo brosnan acted really well in these films and had a decent cast, brosnan film's had its problems but brosnan himself wasn't the cause, he was a wonderful actor and will always be my #1 bond.
Funny you should ask that, Goldeneye was on the TV just the other day, me and my dad stayed up to 1am watching it. And loved rewatching it.
And i totally forgot how great M's character is, its clear Bond doesn't like having a female M, but she handles him perfectly. Saying "i have no problem sending you on a mission to your death... But i won't do it on a whim".
But i would say Goldeneye is the only Bond film i really enjoyed with Brosnan.
i agree. goldeneye will forever be one of my top bond films. no homo i also think hes the best looking bond too. he will be known as the 90s bond for sure. brought bond back and revived him. you seen the november man? its brilliant. pierce is still good at nearly 62
Oh I know it wasn't his fault he could have done more but they decided to go back to the early books and start over again.PB was too old for that so they needed fresh meat.Even though he only did 4 hes still legendary.And will go down as a very well know bond for the 90s.
Pierce Brosnan was The best Bond ever. He has all what a Bond needs. He was cool,smart and Real British. I only think at the Scenes with Q. I have Never so much laughed. I dont like Daniel Craig. Craig is in the Movies like Rambo or something, but not a British Agent. I hope he's coming back in a Bond Movie.
+Dan Reese When Sony gets the leaks, they didn't say that the act in Skyfall was a disaster, they were saying that it wasn't perfect, but people were wondering, will Spectre fix one of the biggest problems of Skyfall, it was a good thing that when Sam Mendes talked about making Spectre have a split with a second part of Skyfall and new adventure story/plot, it did seem like a fine idea to tell us why did the things happen in the movie, so that more Bond fans can be impressed and happy. They leaked the reports about the hackers that stole the script for Spectre.
+Dan Reese Well written, sir! It still baffles me how can anyone say "Skyfall" is the "best Bond film" whereas it isn't a Bond film at all, heck, "Quantum of Solace" had more Bondian aspects than this one. I understand Bond was injured and all, but he walked away from the service without letting them know, he could've reported back after gaining strength. But he didn't, and had MI6 not been in war with Silva, they would have classified him as a traitor. Thus, he failed his mission. The biggest disgrace falls there. Peter Morgan wrote the storyline, he could have simply retired M instead of killing her off. Then again, Spectre takes another important character away from us, in a disgraceful way yet again. By the way, going back to Benson's books, the one particular thing I love about "Red Tattoo" is that he brought back one of my favourite allies, Tiger Tanaka. In fact, my good friend, you dragged me into a mood where I should revisit Benson's books right again. "High Time To Kill" also had another great moment where the two M's (Sir Miles Messervy, Bernard Lee's M, and Barbara Mawsdley, Brosnan era Judi Dench's M) met at Sir Miles' house at a formal gathering. I think it is just me but whenever I read Benson's books, Brosnan's Bond comes to mind, additionally, when he wrote "The Facts of Death", he stated that was his attempt to write a Cinematic Bond story, which was previously titled "The World Is Not Enough" until EON wanted to get the title for their 19th entry in the series. As for "Spectre" (2015), I still have to be an optimist and wait how much they have changed the script to meet the granting standards, because the leaked version was an early stage development, anyway. Nothing better than to discuss the Bond subject with an expert.
+Michael Westen I too heard about the Sony leak on this film , not in total detail , but they said it was a disaster in the third act and the film maybe a knockoff off of OHMSS. I know they painted themselves into a corner with the direction they took on Bond. Skyfall He was seriously injured an cant even aim a pistol , even though He survived the film He still failed His mission M died . This isn't the Bond We grew up on and yes , I agree with You the film was depressing. . Im glad I met another Fan of Benson Bond books. My favorite was " The Man with the Red Tattoo". I enjoyed how He brought back old characters from Flemings novels and I too wished they would had made movies from His books , but yeah the cheapness in the Broccoli family or paying for the rights may be too high. The way audiences are nowadays they forget very fast , like the Bourne films, now that they are bring Him back , its old hat nobody cares and what does that make Bond ? Most films do rewrites as they film , they can film around stuff but they are already way behind on filming for their release date of 12-15.Well until We will see.
+Dan Reese Indeed, Bond in the 60s was very much like Marvel's Avengers, like you have mentioned. And coincidentally, HYDRA was based on McClory/Fleming's SPECTRE organization, with its leader Baron Von Strucker bears resemblance to Ernst Stavro Blofeld of the films. Although, I don't quite recall which character had the appearance of being bald with scars, because Fleming's Blofeld constantly kept changing his disguise in the books, and we got the "Dr Evil" type Blofeld in "You Only Live Twice" for the first time. Gardner's books were quite enjoyable to read, some were on, some were off. But, I am a very big fan of Raymond Benson's novels, especially "Never Dream of Dying". Sad thing is, we will not see the continuation novels being adapted to films. Because EON then have to pay the author's for using their storylines and therefore they will be receiving credit. And it will cost them. Personally, I do hate where the series are going. I know, even though being enjoyable but "Die Another Day" took things a little bit too far into science fiction, but turning Bond afterwards into a strict Jason Bourne/Nolan Knight clone was a very big mistake. And that propaganda of calling him "Fleming's Bond" always gets me. Craig is his own Bond, just like Connery was his own, and so was Brosnan and Moore. Dalton was the one resembling the literary character with a lot more experience in the field, and Lazenby was an amalgamation of Fleming's original character, and Connery's take on it. As a fan, however, "Skyfall" had me almost dismissed, and it's very close to occurrence. They transformed the entire fun-loving adventurous action spy thriller into a pathetic soap opera where everyone is depressed, life is bad and people want to commit suicide. Oh hell, I've read some of "Spectre" (2015)'s leaked script, don't want to spoil it to those who still want to watch it, but... it was utterly horrible. We lose yet another main character from the Bond universe, and in the most dishonourable way possible. I keep questioning myself whether I want to watch that film or completely stop following the fandom until a complete new direction takes over. Something that isn't pathetically "politically correct", I've had enough of it.
+Michael Westen I can level with You . your facts are quite right , the others shouldn't debate with you . Your facts are quite right. Ive read most of Flemings novels , some of Gardner's and all 6 of Bensons, and been a fan since Gold finger came out. Bond in the 60's was like the Avengers now.
Brosnan was the best Bond. I'm afraid I don't see Daniel as Bond at all. I thought Casino Royale was a great film but it wasn't a Bond film. Daniel Craig feels more Stallone/Bruce Willis/Arnold Schwarzenneger than a charming Englishman.
Take between 30 and 60 minutes (and up to 4 hours) before sex; works for about 4 hoursRecommended dose for most men is 50mgs; after that, dosage may go to as high as 100mg, or as low as 25mg, which may be prescribed for men over 65.Quickly absorbed by the body, less effective after a high-fat meal, and best taken on an empty stomach. Erectile Dysfunction Drugs Comparison Chart Compare Viagra, Cialis, Levitra
Take 1 hour before sex; works for 4 to 5 hours, and may be slightly more effective than ViagraStarting dose for most men is 10mgs a day, but men over 65 often start on the 5mg pill.Can be taken with or without food, although slightly less effective after a high-fat meal. Avoid anything containing grapefruit juice; it may make side effects worse. Cialis New Viagra for femalesAchat Cialis sans ordonnanceWhat if a woman took CialisGeneric Cialis cheapest priceBuy Viagra for cheapHow does Viagra worksViagra delivery UKCialis works goodFree Viagra order online Comes in two forms. The daily pill stays effective in between doses, but may take 4 to 5 days before it begins working. The “weekender” version of Cialis can start working in as little as 30 minutes for men who take the highest dose of the drug (20mgs); it stays effective in the body for up for 36 hours.Daily pill comes in both a 2.5mg and 5mg tablet; most men start with the lower dose. The use-as-needed, “weekender” pill comes in 5, 10 and 20mg strengths; recommended starting dose is 10mg,Can be taken with or without food. Avoid heavy drinking (5 glasses of wine or 5 shots of whiskey); when combined with Cialis, it can lead to headaches, dizziness, an increase in heart rate, and a drop in blood pressure.