I have to say welcome back to our good friend Jamshid. Your California adventure sounds like it was lots of fun. I imagine that there were parts of the story that you had to leave out (i.e., the body cavity search after being pulled over for speeding, and the $500 you lost in Vegas in a matter of fifteen minutes). Regardless, I enjoyed your story.
I saw Casino Royale last night. Without a doubt, I thought it was the best Bond movie that I have ever seen. And at this point, I am having a hard time determining if I think that it was the best Bond movie on account of its merits or on account of how bad the last couple of Bond movies have been. I imagine that it is a mix of both.
With regards to the merits, I thought the new Bond was an exceptional actor. The way he portrayed Bond as a raw and somewhat stoic agent that pursued leads with tenacity really rang true to me. I thought the writers were wise to break the mold of the past Bond movies (over-the-top villains, unbelievable gadgetry, and implausible plots), and to create a story that was dramatic, exciting, and, to a degree, suspenseful. I give the move a 9 out of 10.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I generally concur. That "Die Another Day" movie (the predecessor of "Casino Royale?") was hilarilously bad--Spike TV was showing all the Bond flicks around the time "Casino Royale" came out in theaters, and I cringed while watching Pierce Brosnan, Halle Berry and Madonna stumble through some of the worst dialogue in the history of the silver screen.
I'd give "Casino" an 8--the effect of the movie is that it leaves you saying "Wow!" (in no small part b/c of Daniel Craig--what a freaking stud--and no small feat for any movie to maintain that level of intensity for two-and-a-half hours)
But on the way home from the theater I found myself with some serious questions about the way the plot kind of imploded on itself at the end. It wasn't implausible per se, but last-minute revelations were such that it left me wondering, "how could any rational person have followed the course of action that that supposedly shrewd character did?" Also, I think the villain sucked, but then again I've thought every villain has sucked since man-crushing on Phillip Seymour Hoffman in "MI3." And the shallowness and unrealistic nature of the poker scenes was disturbing--you could go a whole life without seeing that many crazy hands.
Speaking of crazy poker hands, have you ever seen the movie Maverick with Mel Gibson? That is a movie filled with crazy poker hands. However, it seems that any movie that has poker tied into the ongoing story always seems to resolve the poker portion of the story with a final hand that could only possibly occur in a movie.
Post a Comment