I wonder if they will remake another Bond flick? My vote would be "From Russia With Love." That was always my favorite. Robert Shaw would be hard to beat as Red Grant, though.

All Bond movies are remakes. For some reason, Bond movies must be based, at least partially, on one of the Ian Fleming novels. Sometimes the resemblence is difficult to see, but it is there. For example, "Never Say Never Again" is a remake of "Thunderball."

All Bond movies are remakes. For some reason, Bond movies must be based, at least partially, on one of the Ian Fleming novels. Sometimes the resemblence is difficult to see, but it is there. For example, "Never Say Never Again" is a remake of "Thunderball."

Taking a book to film is not a remake, it's just another version; same story, different medium, kind of like the Twilight Zone movie. "Lawrence of Arabia," "Dr. Zhivago," "The Bridge on the River Kwai" were not remakes. There were several versions of "The Phantom of the Opera" and the "Hunchback of Notredam," except for the first, the rest were remakes.

The reason why Bond movies share titles with Ian Fleming novels or short stories is probably because Bond is, after all, his creation. Besides, the Bond books were extremely popular back in the '60s (JFK's favorite author), just like Tom Clancy decades later. Back then, more people actually read books, and then went to see the movie (a little different than today).

It's true that "Never Say Never Again" was a remake of "Thunderball." That's because they shared the same exact plot. However, Woody Allen's "Casino Royale" shares only the title with the latest Bond film, which therefore is not a remake.

However, "Octopussy," "Living Daylights," "Goldeneye" (and others) had no plot similarities with the short stories whose titles they share. The next Bond film will have to be a remake of a previous film or possibly just share a title with a short story that has not yet been used (e.g., The Hildebrand Rarity) and nothing more.

between two gunnies, Ken and myself. Nobody expects you (or the average moviegoer) to pick up on these esoteric innaccuracies (and it will not be on the blue book exam). I imagine that Ken and I grew up watching Westerns where the hero's 6-shooter never was empty and was never reloaded. I've been looking for one of those "magic guns" at gunshows for a long, long time, but they must all still be in Hollywood property departments!

In those days, they were more interested in making an entertaining movie than in historical accuracy, and the movies of John Ford are some of the most historically innacurate movies I've ever seen.

A good number of years ago, a friend of mine -- and some of his other friends -- were out shooting with Roy Rogers.

Rogers demurred from shooting handguns, claiming that he really wasn't very good with them. He said something to the effect that anyone who fired twenty five or thirty rounds out of a six-shooter without reloading should really stay away from handguns. The implication being that he got into some very bad habits when shooting in the movies and didn't want to show how bad he was in real life. However, he was excellent with a shotgun.

As an aside, I once restored a prop-gun to shooting condition. It was a Marlin Model 1898 12-gage.

The frame had been squeezed in a vise so that a shell couldn't be loaded into the magazine. The front part of the firing pin had been broken off and the firing pin hole had been welded over. A bolt had been welded into the chamber, and the main spring had been replaced with a piece of light springy steel cut from the steel strap you find holding things onto a pallet -- way too light to possibly set off a primer even if a shell could be chambered.

The only difficult thing about the restoration was making and heat treating a new mainspring -- and it was more time consuming than difficult.

BTW, they seem to have remade "The Hitcher," with Sean Bean in the Rutger Hauer role. Bean did a creditable job as 008 in Goldeneye (taken from a Fleming title, but not a Bond novel). Also, Bean was fantastic in the "Sharpe's Rifles" series.

From Black Beauty, to Ronin, to Lord Of The Rings, Sean Bean has proved himself to be a fine actor.

Ken V.

Outside of Craig, who was excellent as Bond-he oozed menace, I thought the movie was hum-drum. The action was okay, but there wasn't nearly enough of it for me. The card game failed to hold my interest and seemed to go on forever. Is it just me or is Texas Hold "Em the most boring card game ever created? There doesn't appear to be any skill involved at all.

Oh, and...villain in CR, Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre was terrible actor.

Not only do I agree with your assessment, I thought he was maybe the dullest Bond villian of all time. I haven't seen any of the Dalton movies and could only stomach a few minutes of a Brosnan one, so I may not be the best judge of Bond.

I can still watch and enjoy Connery as Bond, but the Moore ones, which I loved when I was younger, are pretty difficult for me to sit through.

I can still watch and enjoy Connery as Bond, but the Moore ones, which I loved when I was younger, are pretty difficult for me to sit through.

I've never seen any of the Bond movies starring anyone but Sean Connery. (With the exception of the original Casino Royale which was a spoof.)

I also find it interesting that every actor who has portrayed James Bond has been -- in his private life -- anti-gun.

Ken V.

I can still watch and enjoy Connery as Bond, but the Moore ones, which I loved when I was younger, are pretty difficult for me to sit through.

I watched Live and Let Die a couple of weeks back and couldn't believe how dated it was. Moore's performance was still good. All his dialogue was one liners and all in all he was pretty goofy but he could get cold and ruthless when required.

The twenty minute speedboat chase in the Louisiana swamps was the best chase scene of all the Bond films.

I watched Live and Let Die a couple of weeks back and couldn't believe how dated it was. Moore's performance was still good. All his dialogue was one liners and all in all he was pretty goofy but he could get cold and ruthless when required.

The twenty minute speedboat chase in the Louisiana swamps was the best chase scene of all the Bond films.

Was that his first movie as Bond? They kept getting progressively sillier the more they made. Like I say I loved them when I was 8-15 years old, but I recently tried watching Moonraker and was dismayed by how cartoonish it was.

Not only do I agree with your assessment, I thought he was maybe the dullest Bond villian of all time. I haven't seen any of the Dalton movies and could only stomach a few minutes of a Brosnan one, so I may not be the best judge of Bond.

I can still watch and enjoy Connery as Bond, but the Moore ones, which I loved when I was younger, are pretty difficult for me to sit through.

Yeah, Sean Connery was the best Bond actor, of course.

Roger Moore...? Some of his Bond movies were okay. "For Yor Eyes Only" and "The Spy Who Loved Me" were great. But "Octopussy" and "View To A Kill" were worst. They're not spy movies any more....

But Roger Moore didn't look like spy. He's huge and rugged guy. Moreover moves were slow.

Yeah, Sean Connery was the best Bond actor, of course.

Roger Moore...? Some of his Bond movies were okay. "For Yor Eyes Only" and "The Spy Who Loved Me" were great. But "Octopussy" and "View To A Kill" were worst. They're not spy movies any more....

But Roger Moore didn't look like spy. He's huge and rugged guy. Moreover moves were slow.

Bond occupies a strange place in cinema history, he become popular by being over the top and completely unrealistic during a time when movies were more innocuous in what they delivered(generally). Now that we are constantly shown the gritty realism of things, Bond is somewhat of a joke. I'm not sure the two worlds can trult exist together, although the box office for Casino Royale will probably warrant at least another sequel.