Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Casino Royale Trailer is up

Community
Search
Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Casino Royale Trailer is up

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-21-06, 03:44 PM
  #126  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Illustrious State of Fugue
Posts: 6,255
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
This was killer. It was literally James Bond Begins. (Admittedly, unlike Batman Begins, there are actually some good Bond pictures in the past.) I loved the introduction to the character. Especially his line when he earns his second "O". Craig was awesome. Le Chiffre was awesome. M was awesome. The parkour guy was awesome!!! That chase was so great.
Spoiler:
I love (LOVE) how Bond kept countering this guy's phenomenal agility with his wits (knocking the hydraulics out on the lift for example).
And I really don't see (as has been asserted) how that chase was unrealistic in any way. The most ridiculous parts were real. The only false aspect is that I doubt the actors would take chances like that for a paycheck. There was probably more OSHA related stuff going on that didn't appear on camera. But the thought that anyone would take those chances was hair raising! Great scene.
And I can't believe the sparse complaints about the lack of naked dancing girls in the title sequence. That sequence was one of my favorites I've seen yet. It was a little reminiscent of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and I was diggin' it until the falling guy turns the crosshair into a roulette table and then I was just thinking, "Oh! Now this just rocks."
I loved all the nods to the old series.
Spoiler:
His first Aston Martin
His first shaken not stirred
The brief beach scene from Dr. No

Le Chiffre was just so understated. The tear gimmick was not overused at all and very effective. The fate of Dimitrios . The defibrillator. The stairwell fight. I was the only guy in the theater that laughed when
Spoiler:
Bond and Obanno finally tumble over the rail and they have battled all the way to the ground floor.

Too much good stuff. This is probably the first Bond film I will own on DVD. (Hey. I love most of the others, but I just don't watch them often enough to own.)

My only real complaint (and it's kinda nitpicking, but gun mistakes in movies make me wince):
Spoiler:
The turncoat agent that Bond executes at the beginning should have noticed that there was no clip in the gun. Anyone who's even casually handled a firearm knows that an empty gun is signicantly lighter. If he'd popped the clip and it was a dummy filled with cement or something I would have felt better. In fact I'll assume Bond did put a dummy clip in, but they felt the audience was slick enough to figure that out. There. I feel better already.


And that Spiderman 3 trailer was cooool.

Last edited by Kudama; 11-21-06 at 04:18 PM.
Old 11-21-06, 06:05 PM
  #127  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kudama
This was killer. It was literally James Bond Begins. (Admittedly, unlike Batman Begins, there are actually some good Bond pictures in the past.) I loved the introduction to the character. Especially his line when he earns his second "O". Craig was awesome. Le Chiffre was awesome. M was awesome. The parkour guy was awesome!!! That chase was so great.
Spoiler:
I love (LOVE) how Bond kept countering this guy's phenomenal agility with his wits (knocking the hydraulics out on the lift for example).
And I really don't see (as has been asserted) how that chase was unrealistic in any way. The most ridiculous parts were real. The only false aspect is that I doubt the actors would take chances like that for a paycheck. There was probably more OSHA related stuff going on that didn't appear on camera. But the thought that anyone would take those chances was hair raising! Great scene.
And I can't believe the sparse complaints about the lack of naked dancing girls in the title sequence. That sequence was one of my favorites I've seen yet. It was a little reminiscent of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and I was diggin' it until the falling guy turns the crosshair into a roulette table and then I was just thinking, "Oh! Now this just rocks."
I loved all the nods to the old series.
Spoiler:
His first Aston Martin
His first shaken not stirred
The brief beach scene from Dr. No

Le Chiffre was just so understated. The tear gimmick was not overused at all and very effective. The fate of Dimitrios . The defibrillator. The stairwell fight. I was the only guy in the theater that laughed when
Spoiler:
Bond and Obanno finally tumble over the rail and they have battled all the way to the ground floor.

Too much good stuff. This is probably the first Bond film I will own on DVD. (Hey. I love most of the others, but I just don't watch them often enough to own.)

My only real complaint (and it's kinda nitpicking, but gun mistakes in movies make me wince):
Spoiler:
The turncoat agent that Bond executes at the beginning should have noticed that there was no clip in the gun. Anyone who's even casually handled a firearm knows that an empty gun is signicantly lighter. If he'd popped the clip and it was a dummy filled with cement or something I would have felt better. In fact I'll assume Bond did put a dummy clip in, but they felt the audience was slick enough to figure that out. There. I feel better already.


And that Spiderman 3 trailer was cooool.
regarding the unloaded gun

Spoiler:
EVERYONE does that, it's kinda annoying. I always notice it in US Marshalls, but they're not alone.
Old 11-21-06, 11:24 PM
  #128  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,656
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I wanted so badly to like this movie, after reading all the glowing reviews and positive feedback, but I really had a lot of problems with it, though mainly with the script. I really liked Daniel Craig as Bond and all of the other characters were well done, but the story just didn't click for me.

I guess I'll spoilerize since everyone else is.
Spoiler:
My biggest problem was with the whole idea of the poker game. Le Chiffre lost a lot of money because of the foiled terrorism in Miami, so wouldn't that be a good thing, something that the spy agencies would want to take advantage of? Why would they send Bond (and Felix) to potentially fund his operations? I know they made a big point of it on the train by explaining that Bond could not lose, but why were they sending him in the first place? What would be the gain, other than just taking a little more money from Le Chiffre? The money he won was only partially Le Chiffre's, the rest was from the rest of the players. And on the topic of poker, they did such a good job of setting up Bond as a guy who knows how to read people, and him explaining that you don't play the cards, you play the man. But in the end, the poker game essentially came down to who had the most amazing cards. There was never a time where Bond bluffed Le Chiffre or vice-versa; they just played poker the way most people think of it, by betting on the cards in your hand.

I will fully admit to being a complete idiot if someone can explain this next part. Who the hell was Mr. White and why did he show up again at the end? He was set up at the beginning of the movie as the contact between the Ugandan rebel leader and Le Chiffre; essentially someone who could vouch for Le Chiffre and that was it. I never got the impression that he was up to anything else other than getting people together. Was he behind the whole thing or not? That whole part was really hazy to me.

I was mostly just upset with the slack writing overall; there were a lot of things that just weren't made clear to me. With the bad Bond films, at least you understood the mission and what the objectives were. With this, the poker seemed so arbitrary and useless. Usually when Bond goes head to head with the bad guy in a card game, there is a secondary goal to find out more about his operation, his capabilities, etc. This one just had them playing cards for the whole second act of the movie, just so the winnings could be stolen later.

I have more to complain about, but I fear I might incur enough wrath with what I've said already.
Old 11-21-06, 11:51 PM
  #129  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,249
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by FinkPish
I wanted so badly to like this movie, after reading all the glowing reviews and positive feedback, but I really had a lot of problems with it, though mainly with the script. I really liked Daniel Craig as Bond and all of the other characters were well done, but the story just didn't click for me.

I guess I'll spoilerize since everyone else is.
Spoiler:
My biggest problem was with the whole idea of the poker game. Le Chiffre lost a lot of money because of the foiled terrorism in Miami, so wouldn't that be a good thing, something that the spy agencies would want to take advantage of? Why would they send Bond (and Felix) to potentially fund his operations? I know they made a big point of it on the train by explaining that Bond could not lose, but why were they sending him in the first place? What would be the gain, other than just taking a little more money from Le Chiffre? The money he won was only partially Le Chiffre's, the rest was from the rest of the players. And on the topic of poker, they did such a good job of setting up Bond as a guy who knows how to read people, and him explaining that you don't play the cards, you play the man. But in the end, the poker game essentially came down to who had the most amazing cards. There was never a time where Bond bluffed Le Chiffre or vice-versa; they just played poker the way most people think of it, by betting on the cards in your hand.

I will fully admit to being a complete idiot if someone can explain this next part. Who the hell was Mr. White and why did he show up again at the end? He was set up at the beginning of the movie as the contact between the Ugandan rebel leader and Le Chiffre; essentially someone who could vouch for Le Chiffre and that was it. I never got the impression that he was up to anything else other than getting people together. Was he behind the whole thing or not? That whole part was really hazy to me.

I was mostly just upset with the slack writing overall; there were a lot of things that just weren't made clear to me. With the bad Bond films, at least you understood the mission and what the objectives were. With this, the poker seemed so arbitrary and useless. Usually when Bond goes head to head with the bad guy in a card game, there is a secondary goal to find out more about his operation, his capabilities, etc. This one just had them playing cards for the whole second act of the movie, just so the winnings could be stolen later.

I have more to complain about, but I fear I might incur enough wrath with what I've said already.
Le Chiffre lost a lot of bad people's money and was desperate to get it back. The point of the poker game wasn't so much to take Le Chiffre's remaining amount of money, but also to prevent him from winning the whole pot. Without his poker out, Le Chiffre had no other way to get the money back, forcing him to work with either the British or the Americans in exchange for protection (or get killed). Whether Mi-6 of the CIA were in the game "funding" Le Chiffre is irrevelant. If they weren't in the game, some else would take their seats (In fact, it is stated Bond replaced someone else in the film).

I'd also say that Bond did play the man. In the beginning he learn's Le Chiffre's tell and attempts to use that to bankrupt him. But it turns out someone told Le Chiffre that Bond figured him out, and Le Chiffre uses that to his advantage. And by the last hand, Bond had nothing that could beat him, so there was no need to play the other man.

As for Mr. White, the foreshadow seems to be he's a connection to a SMERSH/SPECTRE criminal organization. The Fleming novels (of which Casino Royale was the first) and the early Bond films used this frequently. Then there were rights issues which is partly why it was dropped in the films. Le Chiffre had connections to the criminal world, which is the intel MI-6/CIA wanted. Once Le Chiffre was killed, they had no leads on the info until Bond connects with Mr. White. The idea being White is part of some larger criminal syndicate, which may be used in the future 007 films.

Last edited by Jericho; 11-21-06 at 11:54 PM.
Old 11-22-06, 12:03 AM
  #130  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Volcano Dark Pit
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Old 11-22-06, 12:03 AM
  #131  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,656
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Jericho
Le Chiffre lost a lot of bad people's money and was desperate to get it back. The point of the poker game wasn't so much to take Le Chiffre's remaining amount of money, but also to prevent him from winning the whole pot. Without his poker out, Le Chiffre had no other way to get the money back, forcing him to work with either the British or the Americans in exchange for protection (or get killed). Whether Mi-6 of the CIA were in the game "funding" Le Chiffre is irrevelant. If they weren't in the game, some else would take their seats (In fact, it is stated Bond replaced someone else in the film).

I'd also say that Bond did play the man. In the beginning he learn's Le Chiffre's tell and attempts to use that to bankrupt him. But it turns out someone told Le Chiffre that Bond figured him out, and Le Chiffre uses that to his advantage. And by the last hand, Bond had nothing that could beat him, so there was no need to play the other man.

As for Mr. White, the foreshadow seems to be he's a connection to a SMERSH/SPECTRE criminal organization. The Fleming novels (of which Casino Royale was the first) and the early Bond films used this frequently. Then there were rights issues which is partly why it was dropped in the films. Le Chiffre had connections to the criminal world, which is the intel MI-6/CIA wanted. Once Le Chiffre was killed, they had no leads on the info until Bond connects with Mr. White. The idea being White is part of some larger criminal syndicate, which may be used in the future 007 films.
OK, a lot of that makes more sense, but it did require someone explaining it to me. I still think the overall plot could have been tightened up considerably; the last act of the movie took way too long to get around to the whole double-cross element. I think I need to go see this again at a different theater; there were parts that I just couldn't understand, as in physically hear because the sound at Mann's Chinese, for how fucking loud it is, isn't balanced very well for dialogue.
Old 11-22-06, 05:43 AM
  #132  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,362
Received 324 Likes on 242 Posts
After the glowing reviews from both critics and fans, I finally got to see CASINO ROYALE last night, and was pretty disappointed with it. I'd only give it a C+ or a B-.

The pros: Craig is a good actor; the stunts/action pieces are well-designed and storyboarded (although each sequence is a bit too long); and I enjoyed the fact that Bond made a lot of mistakes and we got to see how he develops into a OO Agent.

The cons: In an attempt to make this a "serious" Bond movie, the creators have taken all the joy out of the character and the franchise. It's an obvious attempt to go after the Jason Bourne crowd, but Bond is NOT Bourne...he should have at least some spark of life to him. Craig's Bond seems like he's on anti-depressants throughout the picture. That, added to a nearly incomprehensible plot, no gadgets, no evil henchman, no Q, no Moneypenny (other than a throw-away line to Vesper)...I'm sorry, this ISN'T James Bond...it's an okay action flick, but it's NOT Bond. At least not the Bond movie goers love to watch.

I'd be interested to hear if there are any Dalton haters out there who love Craig as Bond, because Craig is simply Dalton minus a sense of humor/wit/bravado. Heck, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL look downright cartoonish compared to CASINO ROYALE.

I appriciate the attempt to make Bond darker, but I think they went TOO far taking the character the other way...hopefully Craig will be allowed to loosen up a bit when James Bond returns...
Old 11-22-06, 06:14 AM
  #133  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
I appriciate the attempt to make Bond darker, but I think they went TOO far taking the character the other way...hopefully Craig will be allowed to loosen up a bit when James Bond returns...
I thought there was quite a bit of humor in it. The dialogue in certain scenes, like on the train and when they check into the hotel, is humorously underplayed. I think the difference is that when things get action oriented, there's more of a sense of consequence and thus the film takes a substantially darker tone.

I would like a little more humor too, but it's too easy for these producers to swing it so far in the other direction that you get an overblown, campy film; so much so that I'd much rather have the film with less humor than too much.

Plus, if you are a complete James Bond fan (the books as well as the films), then you'd see this film actually isn't too much of a departure from the books. In fact, it closely mirrored the plot and mood of the book Casino Royale. On the other hand, if you're only a fan of the films, then I'd understand a dislike for this film.

I also like the simple plot being presented convolutedly - it's not being dialled in for those who prefer the obvious straight-forward line of presentation of most of the earlier Bond films and requires you to pay a little closer attention... IMO.

-ringding-
Old 11-22-06, 07:52 AM
  #134  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 45,326
Received 1,022 Likes on 812 Posts
Yeah, I thought the film balanced the necessary goofiness and one liners perfectly with the seriousness of the action. And while the similarities to Bourne is there now, I still think the movie very much conveyed Bond.

Last edited by RichC2; 11-22-06 at 07:56 AM.
Old 11-22-06, 07:58 AM
  #135  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Paul_SD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hiking the Sisyphian trail
Posts: 8,694
Received 75 Likes on 56 Posts
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
That, added to a nearly incomprehensible plot, no gadgets, no evil henchman, no Q, no Moneypenny (other than a throw-away line to Vesper)...I'm sorry, this ISN'T James Bond...it's an okay action flick, but it's NOT Bond. At least not the Bond movie goers love to watch.
Yes, where are the cliches?! We want the cliches! After 20 movies we need the comfortable familiarity of all the same old, same old.
Old 11-22-06, 08:40 AM
  #136  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,835
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul_SD
Yes, where are the cliches?! We want the cliches! After 20 movies we need the comfortable familiarity of all the same old, same old.
exactly!!

If we had all of those things again....it'd just be another Bond film and wouldn't be as good. I LOVED the film because it didn't have the above cliches....
Old 11-22-06, 09:57 AM
  #137  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Giantrobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,282
Received 1,802 Likes on 1,125 Posts
I have to agree. I really liked this movie.
Old 11-22-06, 10:21 AM
  #138  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 23,511
Received 203 Likes on 157 Posts
Nice to see it's beating the penguins in the long run right now. I hope it gets good word of mouth from its audiences. While I think it is safe to assume they will retain Craig for another film, I fear that if this one doesn't deliver the kind of numbers they want, they will try to bring the "bling" back to Bond and turn him back into the wise-cracking/CGI surfing dude he was the last time out.
Old 11-22-06, 01:27 PM
  #139  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,362
Received 324 Likes on 242 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul_SD
Yes, where are the cliches?! We want the cliches! After 20 movies we need the comfortable familiarity of all the same old, same old.
The series lasted 45 years on that forumla...why would you throw everything out the window? I knew this would be a darker Bond flick...but I didn't know HOW dark. I was hoping for something akin to Dalton's Bond. What we get is a movie that's full of action, but lacking any sense of fun.

Don't misunderstand my post...it's a good action movie, but as a BOND movie, it's sadly lacking. I can't imagine the producers will be able to stick to this darker vision of Bond for more than one or two more films...I'm betting (hoping) we go back to "classic" Bond before Craig resigns his 00 status - because he IS a good actor (he's just not given much to do in this film).
Old 11-22-06, 03:08 PM
  #140  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Very far away..
Posts: 5,002
Likes: 0
Received 88 Likes on 67 Posts
I loved the Bond that can actually kick some ass. That's been missing from the movies for so many years.
And I LOVED that there were no stupid gadgets.

Only thing I didn't like was the romance stuff. It suddenly felt like a completely different movie....and made the movie kind of just fizzle out instead of ending properly.
Old 11-22-06, 04:26 PM
  #141  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SnogBox
Posts: 8,475
Received 132 Likes on 96 Posts
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
(he's just not given much to do in this film).
...whereas i thought he had quite a lot to do. I read some stuff about Bond 22, and hope we see more darkness in the next film, with some progression. That way when 23 rolls around you'll see much more humor and this Bond will in effect be complete with his transformation into what we have come to know as Bond. Having said that I will be disappointed if we end up always getting the cookie-cutter version now that I know there is, can and was substance to the character.

Anybody know what Felix's line to his wife was in LTK? Was it
Spoiler:
"He was once in love." Or, "He was married once."?


However, I need some questions answered, or perhaps just opinions:

Spoiler:


1) Who had sent the text at the end with White's phone number? I couldn't tell if it was Veysper or M. If it was Veysper I would have expected him to notice is before he went to the bank. However, it makes sense that it would be her based on M's comment to James after "It's done. The bitch is dead." line.

2) How did James firgure out the switch? I couldn't tell if it's because he was told the money never made it back or not. It seemed like once somebody mentioned Veysper meeting with Mathis he put something together, which I didn't understand.

Old 11-22-06, 05:24 PM
  #142  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Superman07
Spoiler:


2) How did James firgure out the switch? I couldn't tell if it's because he was told the money never made it back or not. It seemed like once somebody mentioned Veysper meeting with Mathis he put something together, which I didn't understand.

Spoiler:
He figured it out when M asked if the money was going to be transferred. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out that Vesper was the guilty one - she had keyed in the account number and the password when presented with the winnings during James' recovery. At that point, the money should've gone to the British government - since M was asking as to when the money would be deposited, it would be obvious that the only person guilty would be Vesper.

Plus, she was at the bank when he received the call, which is another big hint. He had said that he had enough money, but she insisted on going to the bank.
Old 11-22-06, 09:23 PM
  #143  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,362
Received 324 Likes on 242 Posts
Originally Posted by Superman07
Anybody know what Felix's line to his wife was in LTK? Was it
Spoiler:
"He was once in love." Or, "He was married once."?
It was:
Spoiler:

"He was married once...but it was a long time ago."
Old 11-22-06, 09:35 PM
  #144  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SnogBox
Posts: 8,475
Received 132 Likes on 96 Posts
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
It was:
Spoiler:

"He was married once...but it was a long time ago."
So did we miss something? Something yet to come? I doubt. Chalk it up to bad continuity?
Old 11-22-06, 09:57 PM
  #145  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Superman07
So did we miss something? Something yet to come? I doubt. Chalk it up to bad continuity?
Huh? I believe Leiter was referring to Bond's marriage in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".
Old 11-22-06, 11:11 PM
  #146  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rizor
Leiter was referring to Bond's marriage in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".
Also referenced in: Diamonds Are Forever, The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only.


I was surprised how much material from the book they kept in the movie. Not since On Her Majesty's Secret Service have they been as faithful to the source material, in my opinion. Of course, the last time they used one of Fleming's titles was in 1987.
Old 11-23-06, 08:15 AM
  #147  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Lincolnwood, Illinois
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I thought it was pretty good. It was a nice change of pace from past few Bond flicks which were fun to watch, but got progressively more unbelievable and incomprehensible as the latter Brosnan flicks showed.

The action sequences were for the most part, amazing and over-the-top (but not in a Bond surfing over a melting icecap sort-of way). Bond was just frakking brutal in this movie (even a little sadistic at the end).

Eva Green is a hot Bond girl, and the villains were pretty good, if a little confusing (though it was probably intentional).

All in all, hooray for a "realistic" Bond and I look forward to Bond 22, which I hope will try to bring some of classic Bond conventions back but in a more interesting manner.
Old 11-23-06, 09:08 AM
  #148  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Anybody else shed a small tear when the Aston Martin DBS died? Man, that is a beautiful car...
Old 11-23-06, 10:02 AM
  #149  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Giantrobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,282
Received 1,802 Likes on 1,125 Posts
Ivana Milicevic and Eva Green
Old 11-23-06, 10:17 AM
  #150  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 45,326
Received 1,022 Likes on 812 Posts
Originally Posted by Anubis2005X
Anybody else shed a small tear when the Aston Martin DBS died? Man, that is a beautiful car...
I was completely distraught by that

Last edited by RichC2; 11-23-06 at 10:31 AM.


Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.