Casino Royal
Mar. 17th, 2007 07:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
muck_a_luckI'm sure everybody else has already seen this movie already, but anyway...
Firstly, and I cannot emphasize this often enough, Daniel Craig is HOT! To quote Husband, "He strips off even better than Connery," though I have to say that he also looks fantastic IN clothes. There's a scene in the Bahamas where he's talking to M. They are talking some expositionary stuff, and at the end of the scene, I was like, Um, sorry, missed that entirely. And honestly, I cannot remember that *ever* happening to me. :D He was wearing a fitted black short-sleeved T made out of something shiny and silky and he had those broad shoulders and trim waist and nice arms and he was just TOWERING over M and those long, long legs.
Ahem.
Anyway, before I leave the theme, he didn't look nearly as good in his formal wear, and I think this is because he should not wear white. Though why he looks so good in black if white looks so bad on him, I'll never know. Men can get away with black for some reason.
Moving on. :D
I'd say that Craig is also by far the best actor to play Bond, with the exception of Dalton, but he hardly counts, as he was only in two and the second one is unwatchable. Of course, he gets to play a more complicated Bond, too. He still seems to get rattled by sudden violence, frustrated by setbacks, attached to the women he later throws away. Arrogant, but not entirely caught up in his own ego yet. Craig pulls it off and he's awesome.
The action sequences were mindboggling, partially because the way they were done made them look like they might actually be real, aside from a few things where Bond held on when physics seemed to suggest holding on would be impossible. The movie probably should have ended with Bond falling to his doom from those cranes at the beginning. And yet, the rest of the chase through the construction site seemed surprisingly believeable. Very fun. We are considering running that 20 minutes or so for AG33 to watch.
Weirdly, I thought that it was actually a movie AG33 could watch, with light editing. Except I don't really want him watching summary executions at his age. I think that's where the violence goes from fantasy, LOTR type violence, to real murder and crime violence, so probably he won't get to see the whole thing.
The story was plotty and the locations were gorgeous. Bond action scenes aside, the whole thing was much more subtle than usual. Better leading female role, better villians, humor that wasn't too broad, and lots of inside jokes for those who are familiar with the franchise.
I was particularly enamored of M's assistant. It's funny how something really mundane can be the funniest moment for me. When Bond calls M to tell her what is about to happen in Miami and he has to get through M's gatekeeper to talk to her. When the secretary says, I need to put you on hold, I was dissolving in giggles. :) I aspire to be Moneypenny. :)
And I will conclude with another quote from Husband. The day of the poker game, Bond is having a lot of problems. (BTW, as someone who does not play poker, I thought the movie's biggest misstep was in the handling of the poker game. I do wish she'd worn a better dress at the beginning and he'd looked better in his formal wear. *sighs*) Husband says, "He's having a very Jack Bauer day."
:)
So, possibly the best Bond ever. Certainly the best Bond I've seen. Husband will be rushing me off over the next several days to see From Russia with Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service so that I can make a definitive statement.
Firstly, and I cannot emphasize this often enough, Daniel Craig is HOT! To quote Husband, "He strips off even better than Connery," though I have to say that he also looks fantastic IN clothes. There's a scene in the Bahamas where he's talking to M. They are talking some expositionary stuff, and at the end of the scene, I was like, Um, sorry, missed that entirely. And honestly, I cannot remember that *ever* happening to me. :D He was wearing a fitted black short-sleeved T made out of something shiny and silky and he had those broad shoulders and trim waist and nice arms and he was just TOWERING over M and those long, long legs.
Ahem.
Anyway, before I leave the theme, he didn't look nearly as good in his formal wear, and I think this is because he should not wear white. Though why he looks so good in black if white looks so bad on him, I'll never know. Men can get away with black for some reason.
Moving on. :D
I'd say that Craig is also by far the best actor to play Bond, with the exception of Dalton, but he hardly counts, as he was only in two and the second one is unwatchable. Of course, he gets to play a more complicated Bond, too. He still seems to get rattled by sudden violence, frustrated by setbacks, attached to the women he later throws away. Arrogant, but not entirely caught up in his own ego yet. Craig pulls it off and he's awesome.
The action sequences were mindboggling, partially because the way they were done made them look like they might actually be real, aside from a few things where Bond held on when physics seemed to suggest holding on would be impossible. The movie probably should have ended with Bond falling to his doom from those cranes at the beginning. And yet, the rest of the chase through the construction site seemed surprisingly believeable. Very fun. We are considering running that 20 minutes or so for AG33 to watch.
Weirdly, I thought that it was actually a movie AG33 could watch, with light editing. Except I don't really want him watching summary executions at his age. I think that's where the violence goes from fantasy, LOTR type violence, to real murder and crime violence, so probably he won't get to see the whole thing.
The story was plotty and the locations were gorgeous. Bond action scenes aside, the whole thing was much more subtle than usual. Better leading female role, better villians, humor that wasn't too broad, and lots of inside jokes for those who are familiar with the franchise.
I was particularly enamored of M's assistant. It's funny how something really mundane can be the funniest moment for me. When Bond calls M to tell her what is about to happen in Miami and he has to get through M's gatekeeper to talk to her. When the secretary says, I need to put you on hold, I was dissolving in giggles. :) I aspire to be Moneypenny. :)
And I will conclude with another quote from Husband. The day of the poker game, Bond is having a lot of problems. (BTW, as someone who does not play poker, I thought the movie's biggest misstep was in the handling of the poker game. I do wish she'd worn a better dress at the beginning and he'd looked better in his formal wear. *sighs*) Husband says, "He's having a very Jack Bauer day."
:)
So, possibly the best Bond ever. Certainly the best Bond I've seen. Husband will be rushing me off over the next several days to see From Russia with Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service so that I can make a definitive statement.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-17 03:55 pm (UTC)This is the first Bond movie that I've watched were I thought Bond had a soul. I found the last scene to be as tragic as it was triumphant. He's the Bond we all know and love, but what did he lose to get there? I'm really looking forward to the next movie to see how that plays out.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-17 04:40 pm (UTC)Construction scene chase? Best sequence EVER! Wooo!
no subject
Date: 2007-03-17 05:46 pm (UTC)Anyway, I completely agree about the smoking hotness of Daniel Craig, naked or clothed, and the fabulous acting, too! (Is it wrong to be perving about the gorgeousness in the scene where he's being tortured? But they made me drool -- it's not my fault! ;-)
I did like the tux in the first scene he put in on -- when he'd bought the dress for girlfriend, and it turns out she'd bought the suit for him. Holy fuckity he looked jaw-droppingly great! Maybe because we could see all of him and it didn't work as well in close-ups? It didn't really ping me one way or the other in the close-ups.
And, yes, the poker game was annoying, with girlfriend and sidekick standing off to the side clumsily expositing "why, yes, this is what he's doing now" in a way they would never do in real life, yet still not being terribly helpful to the non-poker crazy audience.
My main problem was that I was having a bit of a cognitive dissonance with the whole movie. It's set up at the beginning to be hyper-realistic, with grittiness, hand-held cameras, etc. He didn't rely on tech and toys the way old Bond did (no Q at all!). The fights were very "bare-knuckle brawl." And, as you say, he's more realistic -- reacts more emotionally. Which I can totally get into -- an interesting new direction for Bond. But then they pull an "old" Bond stunt like the leaping from crane to crane. Or even him grabbing the bulldozer and causing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property damage on some random construction site. Jeez, I would think that the workers/bosses would have been after those two yelling and screaming and pitching a fit, especially after the runner pushed a worker off a beam! In a mindless Bond movie I handwave all the collateral damage as "Hollywood," but when Bond is more rooted in reality and more aware, I don't see him mindlessly not caring about the civilians.
The other thing that jarred me was the way the story seemed to wrap up, then went on into a honeymoon in Venice type scene and dragging on and on... And it made sense later, but I'm not sure whether there was any way to fix the pacing so it didn's seem so out of place. I dunno.
I'll go back for the next movie for more Daniel Craig, though. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 12:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 12:20 am (UTC)Yes, I agree about that component of the construction site scene. They were going for maximum thrills, but I did note that the guy just got shoved off. And also, he was dropping things all over the place, including that whole craneload of metal tubes that just fell down through the building doing who knows what damage to whom. Or what. And I found myself asking "What happened to 'I need him aliv!!!' ?"
Husband complained about pacing, too. He particularly thought the digitalis was extraneous - hence his Jack Bauer day comment. I am very willing to go with the flow with movies and very tolerant of that kind of thing. But I do see your point.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 12:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-18 12:36 am (UTC)Yes, exactly -- just thousands of dollars with off property damage and complete disregard for civilian safety. Ack!
If I'd known ahead of time... Synecdochic has been meta-ing on "contracts with the reader" and audience expectation, so it's making me think about these things a lot. But now I'll know for next time to expect a little Hollywood cartoonishness with my gritty, realistic Bond.
I don't watch 24, but good call by Husband -- that's one hell of a 24 hours that Bond had!
no subject
Date: 2007-03-20 12:56 am (UTC)I realized earlier today that I totally ignored this comment.
It's not wrong to perv. You know it was all fake. It was really just Daniel Craig, oiled up, tied up, and nekkid, nekkid, nekkid. If fantasy torture just added to the charm, well, then, that's why we call it fantasy, right?
When they came to the scene, I was peeping through my fingers at the beginning. I had heard the torture scene was soooo terrible as to be almost unwatchable. I personally found it very easy on the eyes... :D
no subject
Date: 2007-03-20 01:15 am (UTC)From someone, perhaps, of the gender with dangly bits that might crawl with sympathy while watching? It didn't really seem... real. Not that DC didn't do an absolutely perfect acting job (while oiled up, tied up, and nekkid, nekkid, nekkid -- and that will never get old!), but I've seen skin-crawling torture scenes in movies that I just couldn't watch, and this just wasn't one of them.