Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Him Yummy

Before Casino Royale, I'd only seen two James Bond movies-- Goldfinger and Goldeneye -- and I didn't care for either of them. I thought James Bond was a lame and outdated character. Which makes it all the more puzzling when I realized that I wanted to see Casino Royale. I'd never heard of Daniel Craig and I don't care for blonde guys. And yet I was like, yes please!

So Mr. Octopus and I caught the late screening in Glendale on Sunday. The bad news first: the movie is too long (almost 2-1/2 hours) and the plot is confusing. The good news: Daniel Craig is really good (just the right combination of rugged masculinity and sensitive loverboy), the story is interesting enough, and, um, Daniel Craig is really good. Me likey!

5 comments:

Octopus Grigori said...

I just remembered: what was the point of that sequence when Bond dropped a little pellet into the bad guy's inhaler during a break in the card game? Did anything come of that, did I miss something?

I kind of feel like the story wasn't worth trying to untangle -- it was so fuzzy and full of holes.

Craig is good, but he seems too rough and rugged for an Englishman. He really looks Australian or something to me.

chanchow said...

The pellet was a tracking device. Bond used it to follow the guy back to his hotel room.

Caeli said...

saw it with Kris and my dad over the holiday and my dad pointed out that Daniel Craig's character, while plenty likeable, is simply *not* Ian Fleming's James Bond in the most basic of ways...and as for the plot, huh? Couldn't they have hired, like, one staff writer from '24' to at least infuse it with some semblance of urgency? I mean, the threat of "terrorist funding" is just not that ominous in an immediate sense....anyway...

Anonymous said...

What's this about not seeing other Jaems Bond movies...??

Sean Connery - watch them all (I'm talking in a Sean Connery accent as I'm writing this.)

junebee said...

OMG, I'd never last. My attention span for a movie is 90 minutes. Tops.