Movie Reviewer Fly
Yesterday I saw two movies, and as a public service (as well as something to occupy my mind) I'd like to review them for you, my loyal (read: solitary) readership.
Yesterday morning, I went to see Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. I'll say first off that it was colossally inappropriate and offensive, with jokes ranging from naked man-wrestling to rampant anti-Semitism (which is ironic since the actor/director/producer is Jewish himself). If you have a strong stomach and you can acknowledge a joke for what it is, you'll probably appreciate this movie. If you're easily offended, at all, skip it.
More exciting was Casino Royale. I've been waiting for this film for a couple of years. I became a big 007 fan around 2003, and since it's the first in the series, I read Casino Royale by Ian Fleming in Spring of '04. It was no Terminal Experiment, but it worked. Long-time readers may remember such posts as this one; I've been following the development of both the newest actor to portray James Bond and the latest incarnation of the film for quite a while.
I have to say, I think that the producers and Daniel Craig himself did a fantastic job on this film. I can't say that it was flawless, but the decision to take Bond back to his roots and finally make a real film out of "Casino Royale" was, I think, a good one. This film is a relatively faithful adaptation of Fleming's novel, with some mild adaptations: a casino in Montengegro (vice France), a terrorist financier (vice a Soviet one), et cetera. Unlike films like Moonraker and Octopussy, which share little more than their titles with the novels that supposedly inspired them, this was one of the closest book-to-film adaptations I can remember from the 007 series.
I'll be honest, Daniel Craig is a tough sell as James Bond. The Bond of both the novels and the films has been dark-haired. There's a bit of a divide beyond that: Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan all brought a certain class and sophistication to the role of James Bond; Timothy Dalton didn't make a very good Bond, although his ruthless attitude is a good take on the literary character. Honestly, George Lazenby is the only actor to date who's really come close to resembling the literary character engineered by Ian Fleming... Until Daniel Craig. I don't think that Daniel Craig looks exactly the way that I picture James Bond, but he certainly carries himself well in the role, and between the script and his style, I think the match is a good one. At the very least, I look forward to his next appearance to see whether or not he has the staying power needed to make a name for himself as James Bond.
Overall, I was very pleased with Casino Royale, and I may make an attempt to see it again soon. It was a very welcome diversion, and I was pleasantly surprised to see the expert fusion of a 1953 Cold War spy novel, a 2006 Terror War film, and a hand-picked actor.
Yesterday morning, I went to see Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. I'll say first off that it was colossally inappropriate and offensive, with jokes ranging from naked man-wrestling to rampant anti-Semitism (which is ironic since the actor/director/producer is Jewish himself). If you have a strong stomach and you can acknowledge a joke for what it is, you'll probably appreciate this movie. If you're easily offended, at all, skip it.
More exciting was Casino Royale. I've been waiting for this film for a couple of years. I became a big 007 fan around 2003, and since it's the first in the series, I read Casino Royale by Ian Fleming in Spring of '04. It was no Terminal Experiment, but it worked. Long-time readers may remember such posts as this one; I've been following the development of both the newest actor to portray James Bond and the latest incarnation of the film for quite a while.
I have to say, I think that the producers and Daniel Craig himself did a fantastic job on this film. I can't say that it was flawless, but the decision to take Bond back to his roots and finally make a real film out of "Casino Royale" was, I think, a good one. This film is a relatively faithful adaptation of Fleming's novel, with some mild adaptations: a casino in Montengegro (vice France), a terrorist financier (vice a Soviet one), et cetera. Unlike films like Moonraker and Octopussy, which share little more than their titles with the novels that supposedly inspired them, this was one of the closest book-to-film adaptations I can remember from the 007 series.
I'll be honest, Daniel Craig is a tough sell as James Bond. The Bond of both the novels and the films has been dark-haired. There's a bit of a divide beyond that: Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan all brought a certain class and sophistication to the role of James Bond; Timothy Dalton didn't make a very good Bond, although his ruthless attitude is a good take on the literary character. Honestly, George Lazenby is the only actor to date who's really come close to resembling the literary character engineered by Ian Fleming... Until Daniel Craig. I don't think that Daniel Craig looks exactly the way that I picture James Bond, but he certainly carries himself well in the role, and between the script and his style, I think the match is a good one. At the very least, I look forward to his next appearance to see whether or not he has the staying power needed to make a name for himself as James Bond.
Overall, I was very pleased with Casino Royale, and I may make an attempt to see it again soon. It was a very welcome diversion, and I was pleasantly surprised to see the expert fusion of a 1953 Cold War spy novel, a 2006 Terror War film, and a hand-picked actor.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home