In Reply to: "Casino Royale:" posted by tinear on November 20, 2006 at 16:37:47:
Not having seen the film, I will not comment on it. But I have read this post, and so will comment on it:"was anyone really captivated by this?"
Define captivated. If you mean liked or enjoyed, then I assume this was a rhetorical question, because, if you have the ability to read, you know full well that the film has been well received here.
"Craig is wooden. I am disappointed, especially after reading about his thespian prowess on the English stage. He exhibited the range of... a British Josh Hartnett"
An actor acts to the part they are playing. An actor bring the same presentation to Shakespeare than they would to Bond? You know less than I thought.
"Only folks that think tv poker is exciting will stay awake as a 24-hour poker game seems to last a week."
There you go with the insults again. You a republican? Poker on television is not exciting, it is cerebral, much as chess is not exciting, but is cerebral, and appreciated by those smart enough to enjoy.
"Are the producers of the new Bond film... gay? Is Craig being pitched to a "diverse" crowd?"
And this is a critism? Odd. I thought you, a liberal, believed in pitching an inclusive tent. Confirms my suspicion that your life and beliefs have less to do with liberalism that Victor's.
It seems your "opinions" are intended to disagree with others. I suspect you were probably beat up a lot on the playground, or the last picked to play hoops. Get over it.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: "Casino Royale:" - jamesgarvin 07:03:30 11/21/06 (1)
- " I suspect you were probably beat up a lot on the playground." Ooh! That would explain the internet bully. But what... - clarkjohnsen 12:04:49 11/21/06 (0)