?

Log in

No account? Create an account
wound tighter than a pocketwatch
the inaudible and noiseless foot of time
God, I Miss The Cold War. 
6th-Dec-2006 03:07 am
Two observations made in regards to Casino Royale, though I'm probably a bit late in keeping with the rest of the world on this:

1. Those were self-similar patterns in the opening credits, weren't they? Weren't they? Multiple iterations of the suit pips? Yes? Well done. In fact, well done overall on those opening credits. I haven't seen anything as graphically pleasing and well-crafted since A Series of Unfortunate Events.

2. Daniel Craig has a swimmer's physique. It was nagging at me through most of the movie - his posture, his positioning of his center of balance, his movements were all irritatingly familiar, but I couldn't place them. It wasn't until the torture scene that I realized what I was seeing. His body, in the chair with the seat knocked out, was curling up into a dive formation. Granted, he's not as lean as your average Olympian, but I would think that training for some of those stunts is reason enough.
Hah. I wonder if japanpeterpan caught that.
(We're going to overlook how lame that makes me, noting what manner of muscles a nekkid man has and why he would have them instead of shamelessly ogling said nekkid man.)
strange hours fractal
Illumination 
(Deleted comment)
7th-Dec-2006 05:32 am (UTC)
I don't think Daniel Craig could ever really be described as 'classically handsome,' no. But he does wear a dinner jacket alarmingly well. And, more to the point, he wears a dinner jacket alarmingly well while getting the crap beaten out of him, which makes him look better somehow. Maybe it's just my predeliction for h/c, I don't know, but his looks improve the more he's roughed up.

His Bond also has a degree of self-possession that I haven't seen in a long time. It's an admirable bit of acting/direction, since the only other things I've seen him in he has been boring to the point of nonentity more or less unmemorable. The self-possession also has the added effect of making the awful puns actually funny with their sheer dead-pan-ful-ness.

And hmmmmmmm. Yes. The torture scene smacked of homo-erotic subtext just a leetle tiny bit. (I do mean smacked, in every possible way.)
(Deleted comment)
8th-Dec-2006 05:53 am (UTC)
Thank goodness for my distinct lack of interest in D. H. Lawrence. If something's going to be ruined for me, I want to be the one doing the ruining. Normally my tastes run towards the androgynous sort that are too pretty for their own good. In this case, I merely wanted to state that Daniel Craig has the charisma and the poise to pull the roll off well, and he so did. As previously stated, I had problems ogling him properly when the movie obviously is presenting him to be ogled. I tried to make up for it today in spiralsheep's post, and I've spent more time looking at his appendectomy scar than all of his other flesh combined, heh.

You sound so certain when you speak of never being able to watch a Bond movie that I am hesitant to recommend it to you. Should you find yourself near a second-run movie theatre (do they have those where you are? The kind that show movies long after they've been released, admission usually payable with pocket change?), and are willing to sacrifice a little less than two hours of your life, I would say yes, see Casino Royale. There is something about seeing it presented in a physically larger-than-life way that makes the suspension of disbelief necessary for a Bond movie easier. Television screens don't do it. And there are also worse ways of spending two hours of your life.

(Casino Royale has the added bonus of being based on something that Ian Fleming wrote, whereas Pierce Brosnan's Bond had to suffer through strings of action sequences masquerading as plotline. Poor Pierce.)
·{ This page was loaded on August 18th, 2019 at 9:02 am GMT. }·