Not the most engaging Bond ever:
November 17th, 2006 | by Craig R. Harmon |that was Connery. For sheer flair, one-line zingers and panache, Sean takes the prize as far as I’m concerned. However, Daniel Craig is a worthy successor to the Bond line. He brings an earthy ruggedness to the role that past actors have not.
The movie was pretty exciting, nevertheless, in between the sitting at the card table and watching people watch people as they play cards for millions of dollars. In spite of that, Casino Royale held me because of the usual bevy of twists and turns before arriving at the end. For those looking for a bevy of sexy “Bond girls” I’m afraid you’re out of luck. Nevertheless, I’m glad I went.
5 Responses to “Not the most engaging Bond ever:”
By Jersey McJones on Nov 19, 2006 | Reply
I’ve always been a Roger Moore guy. His tongue ‘n cheek ultra-British upper-class spy guy was the best!
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Nov 19, 2006 | Reply
Moore was pretty slick. I loved him in the old The Saint series.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Me too! I’m a complete Saint geek!
JMJ
By tos on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
I guess Daniel Craig shook you up as opposed to stirring you up.
By Craig R. Harmon on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Heh! Not to give too much away if you plan to see the movie, but a waiter asks if he wants his martini shaken or stirred. Bond’s response, “Do I look like I give a damn?” Great line. Thing is, this movie, being the first of the books, is our introduction to James Bond. He’s not yet the smooth, debonnaire gentleman spy that we’ve come to think of him as. He is, as M. calls him, “a blunt instrument” fresh off of his second kill (thus earning his double ‘0′ status).
Also, by saying “not the most engaging Bond ever”, I meant that Craig’s Bond was not as engaging as, say, Connery’s. The movie itself was one if the best Bond movies I’ve seen in many a year largely because of the fact that it was not dependent upon gadgets — Q. doesn’t appear in this movie — but upon Bond’s wits.