Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/04/09
09/04/09
(video from article)
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
I'd reckon without any added weight a ping pong balls max speed won't be very harmful
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
11/13/08
The Bond movie franchise got way off the track starting with Moonraker and I was kind of hoping that they'd get back to basics from now on. (Not that there are that many original Bond stories left, but "The Hildebrande Rarity" is a good basis for a movie).
Oh well. Doesn't mean I won't go see it.
11/13/08
I disagree. The plot was weak. The climax was...barley a climax. I didn't even realize it was a climax until....nothing happened after that. You are given bits and pieces of a bigger story during the movie, but none of that materializes - only a subplot, with meager setup gets resolved. You are left hanging. I realize that they are probably laying groundwork for the next movie, but I think it was done poorly, i.e. making you think that is what this movie was about. As an example, the opening "chase" had little relevance to the rest of the movie.
But it was still a good movie. Here is how I would rank them:
1. Casino Royale (sorry nutbasterd)
2. Goldeneye
3. Quantum of Solace
11/13/08
The main problem is they changed from spy film to action film and it's gone downhill since then :(
11/13/08
Have you ever _really_ watched some of the early Bond films? I mean, with a critical eye, and not rose-colored glasses? Back in the Connery days it was all just, "Hey, there's a building that looks like it could be some supervillain's headquarters. I'll just wander inside and thwart their plans or whatever." Casino Royale showed a clear path of deduction from Point A to Point Z. There's only one point in the entire movie where a clue is pointedly dumped in his lap (Vesper's phone), and even then he almost misses it. The early Bond practically had a guided tour with a companion plot book in comparison.
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
I guess it depends on where you want to go back to. You go back to the books (which the new movies are doing) Craig pretty much is Bond. You go back to the movie Bond and yeah, he isn't much like Moore et al.
11/13/08
So the book Bond is a pansy with a Mr. Potatohead face?
11/13/08
James Bond is a pansy with a Mr. Potatohead face.
11/13/08
'It was a dark and stormy night. That James Bond is a pansy with a Mr. Potatohead face, M thought while considering the disposition of current assignments.'
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
ugh dont remind me that he can't drive stick. i mean seriously, i'm sure even pierce brosnan is manly enough to drive stick.
nothing more annoying than someone who needs to borrow a car, you offer yours, hand em the keys, they go out, come back 30 seconds later, 'uh, i dont know how to drive stick'. INSTANT LOSS OF MANLY RESPECT RIGHT THERE.
on a similar note, there are few things hotter than a girl who can drive stick, and do it well. in a truck. offroad. ok i just creamed my jeans brb.
11/13/08
11/13/08
I learned on a crappy volkswagon rabbit.
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/13/08
And what about those of us who thought Casino Royale was a steaming pile of crap?
11/13/08
11/13/08
I liked the less-cartoonish style. But didn't think it was a good, memorable story.
I also thought the Bourne movies were better.
11/13/08
11/13/08
Nuts to you? Black and blue, somewhat mushy nuts.
11/13/08
See and to me, James Bond is supposed to be cartoonish. Or at least Comic-Bookish. He isn't supposed to be leaning towards Jason Bourne, he's supposed to be leaning towards, well, Austin Powers.
11/13/08
11/13/08
Its like Batman. For some Bale's Batman is definitive and some (though probably much, much fewer) are going to perfer West's take.
11/13/08
*takes his calm pill*
11/13/08
yeah, but we all know that Dark Knight starred Heath Ledger - and co-starred Bale.
I wonder if Bale got a Best Supporting Actor award for that?
: P
11/13/08
Exactly. He's 'over' everything. Overstyled. Overdramatic. Oversexed. He's SUPPOSED to be shot at an infinite number of times without being hit. That's what makes Bond, Bond. I particularly think Casino Royale was a good movie, but not a good Bond movie. Craige is too.... dry. He's too robotic. He's an immature Bond. Bond had a taste for art and romance. What Connery did was show that Bond also ENJOYED it personally. Craig's Bond likes these things only because he HAS to in order to get the job done.
I can't agree that Craig is a better Bond than Connery. I also can't really judge until I've seen this iteration. Until then Connery-1 / Craig-0.
11/13/08
11/13/08
I think Beverly Hills Chihuahua is still playing.
Sorry. Just wanted to turn this into an IMDb thread for a moment.
11/13/08
11/13/08
11/14/08
Kevin. Conroy.
11/14/08
The whole point of Casino Royale is that he wasn't really Bond James Bond until the very end of the movie. Everything else is what _made_ him Bond. That's why they basically had to reboot the series in order to do the one missing book, because there's no way to slip that in after 20-odd movies have already been released, and the rights were tied up when they decided to start with Dr. No.