Wow. An unexpected thrill tonight. Knocked off unusually early to get out and enjoy dinner in the Valley since it was unusually warm here today (it was pushing 90 degrees in LA this afternoon, just to rub it in for everyone who’s not here.) As we finished up, we noticed that Casino Royale was starting shortly at a theater near the cafe, and having forgone so many frivolous distractions for far too long, we surprised ourselves by deciding to play hookie and duck in.
Never mind that it’s the first non-political film I’ve been able to enjoy in heaven knows how many months (years?), but it turns out it is one of the best films I’ve seen in a long time. Period. Certainly in the action/thriller commercial Hollywood-a-palooza blockbuster genre…
Aside from kicking off with one of the best chase scenes I recall seeing in any movie, imagine this: Actual suspense in a movie. Not that stuff that looks and sounds like it’s supposed to be suspensful, but actual suspense. Remember that? Where you don’t know what will happen next and stuff? And the fact that it was real honest-to-God suspense in a Bond movie of all things…Well, go figure!
On the way home I was trying to recall the last time I’d actually felt any such actual, ya know, heart-thumping suspense in a film. Where I was either shaken or stirred. I had to go back to Harrison Ford in Air Force One and then about 20 years before that for Al Pacino in And Justice for All.
As to blonde, James blonde…Daniel Craig is dead on-target. I suppose we all have an affinity for the Bond we grew up with. For me, that was Roger Moore. But after Moore’s Bond jumped way over the shark into outerspace (Moonraker) — and with Timothy Dalton only momentarily returning the character to the novels’ orginal, darker roots (if not nearly enough) — Pierce Brosnan re-jumped again, in his far-too-light-for-my-taste Bond loafers. Never mind how silly the films had become by then. Craig, on the other hand, knocks it out of the park.
Big props to director Martin Campbell for pulling it all off. With honesty. The old-fashioned way.
Do yourself a favor and see this one while it’s still in the big theater with a full house (no pun intended), as it’s great to actually cheer — out loud — with a crowd at the end of a Bond movie again!
UPDATE 11/21/06 5:05pm: Screenwriter, and occassional BRAD BLOG Guest Blogger, Jim Cirile, concurrently posted his own — more detailed — review which mirrors many of the thoughts expressed above.
I remember I got verbally smacked down by a Feminist group at my High School once, for admitting I liked James Bond movies 🙂
(just trying to stave off the coming attacks fer ya ;))
great writeup!
Let’s give most of the credit to the scriptwriters, etc. Actors are the caboose on a very long train.
James Bond works for Tony Blair and George Bush!
Bond, James Bond for President!
Anyone notice how they had M repeating an entire line from “Loose Change”, just about word for word as I recall, about put options put on American and United Airlines stocks before 9/11? Funny little detail they slipped in for no good reason!
*J*
I enjoyed the movie, but I’m sure exactly how it would be considered suspenseful – it was a series of well-executed clichees and well thought-out action sequences.
The script-writers did a good job with an edition of bond that isn’t afraid of getting his hands dirty, and thinks on his feet well represents an improvement over the gee whiz arms race, even if Desmond Llewelyn is sorely missed.
I liked the movie but the CPR scene was ridiculous. When will Hollywood get it?
well, i liked it. a lot! having read all the books and seen all the movies at least twice, Craig is right up there with Connery in my book. i never doubted for a second that he was capable of all he did in the film. his Bond is closest to Flemings vision (as i read it, blonde hair and all notwithstanding), and far more three-dimensional than even Connery. and i enjoyed the conspicuous lack of gadgetry, and am so glad that they ditched the bad pun-ditry. this Bond is gritty, real, and ready for business.
just a reminder to Janus, #3, that without actors, there wouldn’t BE a film — as much as i appreciate the tremendous quality of the work done by “the screenwriters, etc.” in this case, none of it goes very far without the actor. (unless you’re making “Koyaanisquatsi”) poor acting can sink a good screemplay, and a poor screenplay can be saved by good actors. they aren’t merely “the caboose at the end of a very long train.” the entire production, with hundreds of people, pre- and post- production, marketing, press, etc. are the cars and the actor is the poor sot tied to the front grille.
but the best part was the serious mancandy — finally!
Michael Richards – “Kramer” of Steinfeld has a meltdown on stage at a comedy club when heckled by a member of the audience.
“Kramer’s” racist – rant/rage on stage.
Letterman with Steinfeld with “Kramer” does a public apology over CBS TV.
After viewing the video of Richard’s (Kramer’s) outburst. I would say he is in a bunch of f*cking trouble. There is really no excuse.
Comment #6 has noted an important point: when a cinematic franchise like “James Bond” inserts a line about how 9/11 was an inside job, you know that that fact is on a LOT of people’s minds.
If 9/11 is never investigated and we never find out who did it and neutralize them, you can be GUARANTEED that they WILL do another one. I don’t consider that a “preferred” outcome. How about you?
Paper Ballots, Hand Counted