Semi-Daily Journal Archive

The Blogspot archive of the weblog of J. Bradford DeLong, Professor of Economics and Chair of the PEIS major at U.C. Berkeley, a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

Monday, November 20, 2006

Texas Hold-em?!?!

Hmmm. I actually thought Daniel Craig made a better Bond than Sean Connery. Heresy, I know, but there it is:

Armchair Generalist: A New Bond Isn't A Bad Thing: 1 I wanted to quickly tell you two things about this new Bond movie "Casino Royale." First, Daniel Craig makes an interesting Bond. The movie's trying to show you how Bond became the smooth, hardened killer/lover that Sean Connery played - why does Bond like martinees, Aston Martins, and good clothes - it's all here. Craig plays it well - he's muscled and quick, a much different character from "Layer Cake" - and while he's no Sean Connery, he's going to be better in the next Bond movie.

The movie is about a half hour too long - the director really wanted to make a point about how Bond lost his innocence and became the tough professional, and they really didn't need to drag the movie out so long (2 1/2 hours). The Sony product placement is hardly subtle - the Sony laptops, digital cameras, and personal organizers are all embossed clearly for the audience. But the movie is worth seeing - a Bond who sweats and bleeds and gets messy in fights, and who uses no fancy gadgets or gimmicks. This is not a Roger Moore/Pierce Brosnan Bond model...

But Texas Hold-em? No.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home