Aaaaaaaalrighty....
So, I just started to watch the new-ish James Bond 007 flick, Casino Royale.
Forgive me if this pseudo-review is disjointed... I'm about 15 Grolsch's into the night ;)
Anyhoo...if I remember correctly, 007 is/was a suave, debonaire, ladies man, acheiving his goals more through social hacking than through action (although never one to turn down a good scrap or gunfight). At least, this was how Ian Fleming originally wrote the character. IIRC.
This new Daniel Craig (?)-driven flick, however, caused me physical pain. Honest truth, I couldn't get past the first 15 minutes of it. Staging, acting, everything, is *terrible*. Dialogue delivery is unbelievable, scene cuts disoncerting and confusing, initial story line incomprehensible.
If there's one saving grace within the first 15 minutes, it's that Chris Cornell (Sound Garden, Radiohead) performs the new main theme; unfortunatley even that falls flat.
Outside of all my (no details required) editing, storyline, directing, blah, blah, blah issues with the film (as much as I could bear to watch of it, of course) is the casting.
I'm sure by now that everyone has heard of the title actors statement of wanting to do a gay scene in the next Bond film. Big whoop-de-doo, who cares. As anyone who knows me in real life can attest, I give a rat's ass about anyone's sexuality. James Bond, in my opinion, is no different; as a spy of his calibre, I assume he would use whatever techniques which are at his disposal, including mano-y-mano trysts. I have no real prolem with that, in concept.
The problem for me, from the outset, is that the actor portraying bond *scream*, not gay, not homo, not any of the non-pejoritives, but flaming, queer, queen, etc. From the opening action, there can be little doubt as to 'Bond''s preference.
Okay, I really hate to end on that note, and make it seem as though my biggest issue(S) with this film is it's subvertly overt homosexuality (did that make any sense), but, guys and gals, I'm completely fucked-drunk, and have no idea what I was trying to say.
What it comes down to is, if you are a Bond fan, don't even bother renting; it will give you the plague, cause your children (even those already born) acute elephantitis and Downs, and spread leprosy throughout your neighborhood. If you are *not* an Ian Fleming's James Bond fan, you will experience rapid onset of IBS (irratable bowel syndrome), hepatitis, and acute dandruff.
I really wish I could have gotten through the whole movie, so as to give a fair review covering the whole story, effects, etc. It pains me that I have to give such a snap judgement upon seeing so little; believe me when I say that even waht little I saw cause me to contemplate hari-kari, seppuku, whatever form of ritualized suicide you choose.
AVOID THIS MOVIE LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!
So, I just started to watch the new-ish James Bond 007 flick, Casino Royale.
Forgive me if this pseudo-review is disjointed... I'm about 15 Grolsch's into the night ;)
Anyhoo...if I remember correctly, 007 is/was a suave, debonaire, ladies man, acheiving his goals more through social hacking than through action (although never one to turn down a good scrap or gunfight). At least, this was how Ian Fleming originally wrote the character. IIRC.
This new Daniel Craig (?)-driven flick, however, caused me physical pain. Honest truth, I couldn't get past the first 15 minutes of it. Staging, acting, everything, is *terrible*. Dialogue delivery is unbelievable, scene cuts disoncerting and confusing, initial story line incomprehensible.
If there's one saving grace within the first 15 minutes, it's that Chris Cornell (Sound Garden, Radiohead) performs the new main theme; unfortunatley even that falls flat.
Outside of all my (no details required) editing, storyline, directing, blah, blah, blah issues with the film (as much as I could bear to watch of it, of course) is the casting.
I'm sure by now that everyone has heard of the title actors statement of wanting to do a gay scene in the next Bond film. Big whoop-de-doo, who cares. As anyone who knows me in real life can attest, I give a rat's ass about anyone's sexuality. James Bond, in my opinion, is no different; as a spy of his calibre, I assume he would use whatever techniques which are at his disposal, including mano-y-mano trysts. I have no real prolem with that, in concept.
The problem for me, from the outset, is that the actor portraying bond *scream*, not gay, not homo, not any of the non-pejoritives, but flaming, queer, queen, etc. From the opening action, there can be little doubt as to 'Bond''s preference.
Okay, I really hate to end on that note, and make it seem as though my biggest issue(S) with this film is it's subvertly overt homosexuality (did that make any sense), but, guys and gals, I'm completely fucked-drunk, and have no idea what I was trying to say.
What it comes down to is, if you are a Bond fan, don't even bother renting; it will give you the plague, cause your children (even those already born) acute elephantitis and Downs, and spread leprosy throughout your neighborhood. If you are *not* an Ian Fleming's James Bond fan, you will experience rapid onset of IBS (irratable bowel syndrome), hepatitis, and acute dandruff.
I really wish I could have gotten through the whole movie, so as to give a fair review covering the whole story, effects, etc. It pains me that I have to give such a snap judgement upon seeing so little; believe me when I say that even waht little I saw cause me to contemplate hari-kari, seppuku, whatever form of ritualized suicide you choose.
AVOID THIS MOVIE LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!
5 comments:
Chris Cornell - Soundgarden, Audioslave. Mano a mano = hand-to-hand (not "man and man"). And it's harakiri ~not~ "Harry Kari" or whatever you were hallucinating about. Wow, you were pretty drunk.
Lord it's fun proving you wrong. But only 'cause you think you're always right. Thanks for the blog for me to flame you on. (It's hard to flame if you write nothing, such as on your myspace - R.I.P.)
Damn. Got caught...although I'm pretty dure you're the *only* person reading this, Miss Hiss ;)
Chris/etc., yes, I was dead drunk, and dead wrong (see, I can admit it :D ) But I *did* mean Audioslave! To be honest, not a big fan of *either* band (Audioslave, Radiohead), and was introdused to both at the same time, so maybe that's my confusion. After Soundgarden, I hdn't heard of Chris being active except for the Mother Love Bone tribute album other than hearing him on college radio and in the college apartment I was staying in in Boston (3 girls from Boston College, plus 1 part time drug-making/dealing (ketamine) punk chick who worked at Tower), and never caught, or really cared, which band was which. Sucks, because I think his voice is great, his intensity is decent, and his lyrics are okay, but everything post-MLB fell flat for me, to the point that remembering if he was Audioslave or Radiohead was irrelevant.
Or something.
Hari Kari, (a) common Anglo spelling. IF I were trying to be Asiatically correct, I would probably have tried 'seppuku' instead.
'Mano-y-mano' - a culturally (Anglo), if not linguistically, correct (at least understood to mean) for man-on-man. Maybe you had to have grown up in the 70's for the cultural aspect though, to be fair.
So phhhhttttt :PPP
:D
Can't edit comments...another neg for Blogger :(
Anyhoo...lots o' typos, I know they're there, and would correct, so...assume I've corrected them :D
Damn there being no perfect blog system.
Oh, wait, I just noticed...I *did* include 'seppuku' in my original post (and I still stand by my Anglicization of hari-kari :P ).
Wow it took three of your posts to shoot my one down.
But still, "Harakiri". It may be "understood" that "hari kari" or your "Harry Carrie" or whatever means "Harakiri". Just as it may be "understood" that you're pretty straight, though I could say "you're burnt out as a used buncha fags". Sorry, ignorance is no excuse, here. If you're going to pretend to be perfect - then you best - uh - type like it. Not be like one of those freaks that use the wrong "their" when they're trying to say "they're". It's simply icky. It's like some arsehole coming along and spelling "seppiku" as "septic poo" and then mentioning, somewhere else in their blog "harakiri". Does it make them any more correct? Almost - which I'm sure in your sage age still only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenadoes. *wink*
With Radiohead - it depends on the mood you're into. There's a handful of really good ones out there, and I personally love "Paranoid Android", yet even I myself am not a huge fan of all the rest.
Post a Comment