Friday. Yeah Friday.
Dec. 1st, 2006 11:41 amSaw Casino Royale very late on Wednesday night. Need to see it again because it was almost 2:00 a.m. by the time it finished and there may have been martinis involved. (M. and I try to tailor the cocktails to the theme). However, Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond, far closer to Fleming's version of a blunt instrument and I'm pretty tickled with the reimagination of the franchise. I didn't get a lot of joy from the books, but I read a bunch of them when I was going through my 60s British Mod phase (watching the Avengers, reading Bond and Modesty Blaise) and I like Fleming's vision of Bond.
Casino Royale is even weirdly less sexist than earlier films because Bond's charm is very... earthy, very visceral and the women he fixates on are more fleshed out, less cartoonish. They're flawed and real and complex and his issues are clearly at the forefront. He's a killer, and they're so honest about that and it makes a world of difference.
In other news, if I were to perhaps expand the SG-1/SN crossover, I may possibly need some plot related assistance if anyone were willing to help me as I bandied around some ideas. Volunteers would be greatly appreciated.
Casino Royale is even weirdly less sexist than earlier films because Bond's charm is very... earthy, very visceral and the women he fixates on are more fleshed out, less cartoonish. They're flawed and real and complex and his issues are clearly at the forefront. He's a killer, and they're so honest about that and it makes a world of difference.
In other news, if I were to perhaps expand the SG-1/SN crossover, I may possibly need some plot related assistance if anyone were willing to help me as I bandied around some ideas. Volunteers would be greatly appreciated.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-01 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-01 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-01 08:15 pm (UTC)It does actually strike me as having more in common with some of the darker British crime and spy drama on TV these days, which, when you think back to the first few movies, doesn't seem unreasonable - the franchise began growing out of the look and feel of British spy television of the time.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-01 08:22 pm (UTC)Also, email about cats?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-01 08:24 pm (UTC)And I'm so bad, I haven't sent the e-mail. I'm gonna be gone from 12/21-12/26. I'd just need you to stop by every other day, feed them and chase 'em around a little:)
no subject
Date: 2006-12-01 08:31 pm (UTC)I just require keys... and, well, probably a tour of where the cat food, litterbox, etc. are. =) (Er, and a refresher of exactly where your apt is... I mostly remember, and could probably find it, but I can figure out most anything eventually...).
no subject
Date: 2006-12-01 08:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-01 08:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-01 08:40 pm (UTC)And thank you!!
no subject
Date: 2006-12-01 09:53 pm (UTC)Casino Royale is even weirdly less sexist than earlier films because Bond's charm is very... earthy, very visceral and the women he fixates on are more fleshed out, less cartoonish. They're flawed and real and complex and his issues are clearly at the forefront. He's a killer, and they're so honest about that and it makes a world of difference.
what was particularly impressive was that it was not just an exception to the Bond rule but to action movies generally. i wonder whether the gradual, slow effect of things like Buffy and Alias has raised the bar for what a female adversary or ally might need to be for the most mainstream appeal... the only other great woman i can think of in an action flick primarily geared towards men would be thandie newton (?) from MI2, but i could be forgetting someone.
wow do i need some bond icons. also, did you read