Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

First: I'm not a James Bond fan. I've never seen a James Bond film. I've seen enough snippets though to know what to expect.

I saw Casino Royale last night and was honestly really very impressed. It wasn't Cheesy, there weren't gadgets flying everywhere like in a Batman movie, I never once felt icked out by the guy playing Bond. It was really honestly good.

From the comments on IMDB, I'm amazed (but not really surprised) by the number of people complaining that it wasn't formulaic enough. And their main issue with the new Bond is that he's blond and that he's TOO MUSCULAR. Apparently Bond was meant to be a pretty boy never got dirty, never got mussed, and never ever was seen actually in a physical confrontation that was matched or even where he was outmatched.

OH - and there wasn't someone pausing the movie every now and again to explain to the audience what was going on. Some of these people insist that you need to see it 3 or 4 times to understand it. I must be some sort of grand movie savant as I only saw it once and didn't leave the theater with any nagging "but who was that guy?" type questions. BASIC plot points zoomed right on past these people. I was annoyed by the bits of exposition that WERE there as they were obvious and stuck out as a "we don't think the audience will understand this bit" work around.

The movie was really good. Audiences are really really really really dumb.


Dec. 7th, 2006 07:51 pm (UTC)
I remember a reviewer saying the first Mission Impossible movie was hard to understand. My opinion was that either he was INCREDIBLY STUPID or he was confusing "confusing" with "bad".

In theory, the new bond is supposed to be closer to Fleming's original conception. That may be what's throwing people off. Oh, also the stupid.


A Non-Newtonian Fluid

Latest Month

March 2010

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow