Bonds well with celluloid

We had a marvelous evening last night (thanks for babysitting, Mom!) watching Daniel Craig bounce over a construction site in Madagascar, demolish a Venician historic house, wreck yet another Bond car, have his gonads pulverised while make witty quips and and generally portray an excellent Bond. John and I are both fans of the books, which we were given by his grandmother (she still prefers Connery) and were awaiting with trepidation the launch of the most recent film in desperate hopes that it would be at least watchable.

It was beyond watchable and soars into the realm of rewatchable and definitely get-the-video-able. Craig had a superior control of his facial expressions (likely due to his vast stage experience) and the filmmakers did an excellent job of fully utilising this ability to enhance the multi-dimensionality of Bond’s character. He’s cold, but not just cold. He’s funny, but never entirely relaxed. He’s a “blunt instrument” according to M, but you get the feeling that he and the viewer know he’s something more and that even M knows, but just doesn’t want to admit that the man is extremely clever and intuitively puts ideas and clues together in the blink of an eye.

It was an excellent movie. If you know the book at all, you’ll remember that Casino Royal has several mini-climaxes as opposed to one big blast at the end. That is the case in this rendition. Just when you thought things were over, they rolled along to another revelation.

Excellent film, fabulous action, not insanely gory, fairly true to the book (except that he plays poker as opposed to Baccarat and a few other slight modernisations like cellphones and terrorists make there ways in) and generally watchable and entertaining in just about every way.

An aside: A lot has been said about the physical attributes of Craig. I believe the phrase “eye candy” has cropped up here and there. If you like slightly bulkily-muscled men, this’ll hold. If you prefer a leaner, lighter-weight Bond, as do I, Craig’s musculature may seem a little out of place. 


4 Comments Add yours

  1. I heard he’s going to play Asriel in “The Golden Compass”. How do you think he’d be at that?

  2. rexton says:

    I’m more a fan of the books as well. It sounds like he’s closer to the books than most Bonds. Does he have the calculating viciousness that came out more in the books than in the movies (I think the worst imitation of this aspect was Roger Moore)?

    I’ve been toying with seeing it, hoping it would be closer to the original. Thanks for twisting my arm.

    Regarding terrorism and Bond, don’t forget SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) and Blofeld plus kitty. No Mini-Me’s need apply.

  3. VickyTH says:

    Heather – I’m not sure, as I’ve never read the books. I’m sure I’ll get to them at some point.

    Rexton – He’s definitely more the literary Bond than any of the others. He manages to strike a perfect balance between being a cold, calculating killer who does his job without remorse and a human being. Go see it. It was well and truly better than most.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s