In Reply to: Killer problems with "Casino:" Craig. He acts like he posted by tinear on November 21, 2006 at 05:05:55:
I'll grant that the openning scene was a little lame, but not for the reason you proffered. My problem was believing that the bathroom brawl was just the Craig-Bond's first kill and that confering the double "0" status was dependent upon two confirmed kills. It's just a little too 'cute' an idea making the openning assignment into a successful 'job interview.' Otherwise, the film was excellent.>>> "Why not just kill the guy earlier? Oh yeah, I forgot: chase opportunity!" <<<
You must've gone out for popcorn and missed part of the scene. Bond needed to bring this target in alive if at all possible because of the information he was carrying. Killing him was not a desired option except as a last resort.
>>> "...bloody eye catarracts; some eye problem necessitating one darkened eye lens: did the American Opthomological Institute underwrite this film with an assist from plastic surgeons' guild?" <<<
Same villain, or did you miss the fact that the earlier assassination was a set-up?
>>> "The fights: it's obvious that, for all his marvelous muscles, this Bond can't fight. Every fight was a 15-rounder, yet he popped up, fresh as a daisy from each." <<<
He was fighting very determined bad guys; as for popping up 'fresh as a daisy' Craig's character did reflect the injuries, both in terms of facial lascerations and the difficult recuperation after that ball-busting 'chair torture' which for decorum's sake we won't get into. BTW, all Bonds typically pop-up fresh as a daisy; it's the nature of 007, don't you think? :o)
>>> "NO imagination. Attack a jet with a loaded fuel tanker? I suppose that's okay for a run of the mill Hollywood film but one expects more brilliance from an arch villain. I think that "action" sequence lasted longer than the entire Keanu/Bollock runaway bus film, didn't it?
I've already remarked on the collapsing building so I needn't flay that, again." <<<The idea was to manipulate the stock market through the destruction of a proto-type airliner (which BTW, actually exists, and was not concocted just for the film); the suspense was effectively achieved, IMO, and tieing it into the 9/11 conspiracy theory about global terrorism being just one pice of a larger puzzle involving a marketing sham was brilliant, IMO.
Also, I kind of liked the collapsing building in Venice effects; I think that this whole sequence was very well done even if it was a trifle artificial in the stretched out suspense department.
>>> "One last point: Bond is supposed to be a sexual animal, no?" <<<
Yes, and no. My suggestion: read Ian Fleming's novels before critiquing the new Bond character (as re-envisioned) too harshly.
>>> "He rolls around like a high-schooler with Caterina and, for all we know, never consummates: censorship? Then, he has a longish plebeian relationship with the other. C'mon. That's what regular guys go through, not a Bond..." <<<
As I stated below, this Bond is more like a killing machine, focused more on the mission than himself, and borderline psychotic at times. He approaches each assignment with dogged determination; he doesn't fool around, he's all business. It's just a different take on the character, even to the point of displaying his personal flaws, self-doubts and need for affirmation by his superiors. The Craig-Bond takes himself and his job very seriously to the point of reckless independent action in order to set things straight when he screws up and gets his ear's boxed by M.
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- No offense, but you were apparently watching a different movie than I. - Audiophilander 09:03:37 11/21/06 (17)
- Not "apparently" but definitely. I read all the Bond novels when they came out in the sixties. - tinear 13:58:45 11/21/06 (16)
- LOL! Well, I guess that you were shaken, but not stirred by the new Bond film. - Audiophilander 17:16:59 11/21/06 (11)
- A good example of this film's poor writing: in two key sequences, - tinear 05:01:46 11/22/06 (10)
- Like I said, we saw different movies. - Audiophilander 07:38:46 11/22/06 (9)
- Proctologist? Going into the gutter here, Auph: won't follow you there. - tinear 15:20:42 11/22/06 (8)
- Re: But - rico 07:58:32 11/23/06 (2)
- Don't forget, he read the book when it came out in the 60's.nt - jamesgarvin 08:54:53 11/24/06 (0)
- Yes, the focal point. But not 1/2 the number of pages! You think - tinear 08:09:57 11/23/06 (0)
- Hey, I'm just speculating based on the crankiness of your mood. - Audiophilander 23:13:57 11/22/06 (4)
- Quite honestly, you're hallucinating. I am attacking the Bond film, - tinear 05:08:18 11/23/06 (3)
- The "foul" comment was just a gentle gibe; for someone vigorously attacking folk's opinions you seem oddly sensitive... - Audiophilander 11:11:55 11/24/06 (2)
- I pointed out the RIDICULOUS plot elements and the more I did, the more - tinear 16:20:03 11/24/06 (1)
- "I don't mind, it's the loser's way of waving the internet white flag." - LOL! Really? - Audiophilander 23:29:48 11/25/06 (0)
- Re: Umm. Casino Royale was published in 1953. His first seven bond novels were written in the 50's.nt - jamesgarvin 14:34:07 11/21/06 (3)
- Okay, I READ them in the 60s, after JFK said he liked them. Thanks for - tinear 04:54:01 11/22/06 (1)
- Well, we would not need fact checkers if.... - jamesgarvin 07:41:29 11/22/06 (1)
- Quite right. However: William F. Buckley Jr.'s spy novels are several cuts above Fleming's. Plus... - clarkjohnsen 20:01:43 11/21/06 (0)