Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sniffles" data-source="post: 3233808" data-attributes="member: 30035">I agree with this assessment. I finally got to see it yesterday, and came away saying, yes, it was truly a Bond film. Of course, I've always preferred the early Connery films to any of Bond's later incarnations.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Much as I got a kick out of John Cleese as Q in the last film, I didn't miss him this time out and I think it's time to retire that character. I thought Daniel Craig made a great Bond. I hope any future installments stick to this formula and avoid the excessive gadgetry and smarmy self-referential humour. I also liked it that the producers didn't feel it necessary to do any 'stunt' casting. Bond works better with lesser-known actors, IMHO. You don't need big names on the marquee to pull in an audience; just the Bond name will do that.</blockquote>