cathyr19355 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
cathyr19355) wrote2006-11-23 10:51 pm
cathyr19355) wrote2006-11-23 10:51 pm
Entry tags:
Casino Royale
Six o'clock seemed too early to just stay home and peck at our computers all night, so I dragged ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
esrblog out into the rain to see "Casino Royale," the new James Bond movie.
I thought "Casino Royale" was better than most of the Bond movies I've seen (though I admit to not having seen that many of the others). Daniel Craig, the newest Bond, is blond and craggy and rather more edgy and emotional than prior Bonds.esrblog compared Craig and the movie, to Christopher Eggleston and the new "Dr. Who" series respectively, and I think he has a point about that.
For once, I have no real criticisms of the movie. I do have a few more comments, which I will put under an lj-cut on the off chance someone may find spoilers in them. But you don't need to read the rest of my comments. If you like spy movies or thrillers at all, go see "Casino Royale." It's a lot of fun.
Though there was some high-tech gadgetry, most of the violence here was upfront, close and personal. There are two grim fight scenes, one in a public restroom, and one behind the wheel of a rapidly-speeding fuel truck. You could tell (and the script reinforces the idea) that Craig's Bond did not grow up as a child of privilege. He's also not the polished professional of the later Bond stories. This Bond makes mistakes that nearly get him killed, but he survives because he figures out what's going on at least a split second faster than everybody else.
I'm also told that the plot adheres more closely to the original novel than has been true for most of the movies made from Ian Fleming's Bond books, but since I haven't read any of them, I cannot confirm whether that's true. I *am*, however, thinking of reading the book "Casino Royale" to see whether that's true, and it's rare for a movie make me want to hunt down the book, rather than the reverse.
esrblog out into the rain to see "Casino Royale," the new James Bond movie. I thought "Casino Royale" was better than most of the Bond movies I've seen (though I admit to not having seen that many of the others). Daniel Craig, the newest Bond, is blond and craggy and rather more edgy and emotional than prior Bonds.
esrblog compared Craig and the movie, to Christopher Eggleston and the new "Dr. Who" series respectively, and I think he has a point about that.For once, I have no real criticisms of the movie. I do have a few more comments, which I will put under an lj-cut on the off chance someone may find spoilers in them. But you don't need to read the rest of my comments. If you like spy movies or thrillers at all, go see "Casino Royale." It's a lot of fun.
Though there was some high-tech gadgetry, most of the violence here was upfront, close and personal. There are two grim fight scenes, one in a public restroom, and one behind the wheel of a rapidly-speeding fuel truck. You could tell (and the script reinforces the idea) that Craig's Bond did not grow up as a child of privilege. He's also not the polished professional of the later Bond stories. This Bond makes mistakes that nearly get him killed, but he survives because he figures out what's going on at least a split second faster than everybody else.
I'm also told that the plot adheres more closely to the original novel than has been true for most of the movies made from Ian Fleming's Bond books, but since I haven't read any of them, I cannot confirm whether that's true. I *am*, however, thinking of reading the book "Casino Royale" to see whether that's true, and it's rare for a movie make me want to hunt down the book, rather than the reverse.
no subject
least, one of Fleming's "chapters" - and was stunned to
see that Craig is pretty much the vision I got from reading
the book.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)