|
|
..the producers didn't show
sufficient respect for the
formula.
|
National Review Online
nationalreview.com
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Casino Royale
By John Derbyshire
Saw the new Bond movie. As Bond movies go, I'd give
it 7 out of 10. This new guy is good—possibly second to
Connery. He doesn't look quite right, though—too "cut"
and beefy. This diminishes the gentlemanly quality that
Connery carried off so well. Gentlemen are not "cut."
Being "cut" speaks of vanity and trying too hard, both
distinctly ungentlemanly. He is also a bit too hard—the
balance not quite right there. (Though commentators
who have actually read the Bond books—I have never
even opened one, Bond is strictly a cinematic character
for me—say that this guy is closer to the Fleming
original.)
And the producers didn't show sufficient respect for the
formula. There've been enough Bond movies now that
there is a Kabuki aspect to the thing—certain traditional
characters and scenes we expect, and notice the
absence of with irritation or distress. Where is Q?
Where is Moneypenny? Where are the improbable
gadgets?
Oh, and the movie is definitely, noticeably too long, with
padding.
Posted at 9:14 AM
|
|
