![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpI will eventually run out of John Sandford novels about Lucas Davenport, which will be both a good thing and a bad thing. Good, from the point of view that my life won't be turned topsy-turvy just because I happened to innocently start reading one of his books (I finished Secret Prey yesterday after everyone else had gone to sleep); bad, from the point of view that, well... there won't be any books left to turn my life topsy-turvy.
Ah, well.
For the first time ever, we hung on to a kiosk-vended DVD for a second night, in light of Natalie's visit and her desire to view Casino Royale. Natalie noticed the difference immediately, even if it did take a moment or two to get her bearings.
Things I noticed about this film included (and I try to not include spoilers, but you can never tell...):
1. A short, brief opening sequence that was very spare, involved no far-out hardware, yet managed to segue smoothly into the trademark Bond "turn-and-shoot" gesture.
2. A completely revamped set of opening credits that are completely bereft of nude female silhouettes.
3. Not a whiff of Q branch, really, except for the RFID chip, which was more for M's benefit than Bond's. (Can anyone tell me what role the chip played, other than to have some high-tech in the film?)
4. Apropos of Q branch, no tricked-out car, though it was nice of the writers to hearken back to a '64 Aston Martin.
The cognitive dissonance I mentioned in an earlier post comes from the fact that in Casino Royale, Bond has only just been selected as a double-oh in the modern day (2006), whereas his boss in the film, the ever-present "M" - played by the wonderfully apt Judi Densch - is already familiar to us in films featuring Pierce Brosnan's Bond (starting with Golden Eye). It's enough to make your head spin, if just for a moment or two.
The role written for Daniel Craig (the actor who plays Bond) doesn't let him try to imitate his predecessors, I suspect because his character is still an outsider to the double-oh tradition. So you don't get all the blasé sophistication of the early Bond or the bad puns and affectations of the later Bonds that you've come to expect - and endure - in previous outings (the example I have in mind is the response to the bartender's "Shaken or stirred?" question when our hero ordered a martini). On the other hand, it's hard to imagine Craig's Bond as a Commander in the British Navy (as a senior noncom, yes, but not an officer).
The result is something that seems to be a cross between a noir whodunit where people jump into and out of taxis more often than kids at a swimming pool on a hot day, and an episode of Spencer, For Hire shot in plusher surroundings.
I enjoyed the film both times I saw it.
Time to hit the sack. Tomorrow's assignment is clear.
Cheers...
Ah, well.
For the first time ever, we hung on to a kiosk-vended DVD for a second night, in light of Natalie's visit and her desire to view Casino Royale. Natalie noticed the difference immediately, even if it did take a moment or two to get her bearings.
Things I noticed about this film included (and I try to not include spoilers, but you can never tell...):
1. A short, brief opening sequence that was very spare, involved no far-out hardware, yet managed to segue smoothly into the trademark Bond "turn-and-shoot" gesture.
2. A completely revamped set of opening credits that are completely bereft of nude female silhouettes.
3. Not a whiff of Q branch, really, except for the RFID chip, which was more for M's benefit than Bond's. (Can anyone tell me what role the chip played, other than to have some high-tech in the film?)
4. Apropos of Q branch, no tricked-out car, though it was nice of the writers to hearken back to a '64 Aston Martin.
The cognitive dissonance I mentioned in an earlier post comes from the fact that in Casino Royale, Bond has only just been selected as a double-oh in the modern day (2006), whereas his boss in the film, the ever-present "M" - played by the wonderfully apt Judi Densch - is already familiar to us in films featuring Pierce Brosnan's Bond (starting with Golden Eye). It's enough to make your head spin, if just for a moment or two.
The role written for Daniel Craig (the actor who plays Bond) doesn't let him try to imitate his predecessors, I suspect because his character is still an outsider to the double-oh tradition. So you don't get all the blasé sophistication of the early Bond or the bad puns and affectations of the later Bonds that you've come to expect - and endure - in previous outings (the example I have in mind is the response to the bartender's "Shaken or stirred?" question when our hero ordered a martini). On the other hand, it's hard to imagine Craig's Bond as a Commander in the British Navy (as a senior noncom, yes, but not an officer).
The result is something that seems to be a cross between a noir whodunit where people jump into and out of taxis more often than kids at a swimming pool on a hot day, and an episode of Spencer, For Hire shot in plusher surroundings.
I enjoyed the film both times I saw it.
Time to hit the sack. Tomorrow's assignment is clear.
Cheers...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-19 08:20 am (UTC)I can't see Craig as a Naval Commander, unless there's a SEAL type unit in the British service, but I think that's all pretty much covered by SAS isn't it? SAS commander I could see. For some reason I've always thought of the British navy as a bit fey.