Failure to Bond
All my trans-hemispheric meeja mates are posting on their blogs about how they've been to see the new Bond flick, Casino Royale (or The Thighs Who Loved Me, if you're UK Rach).
Anyone who knows my email address will have spotted that I'm a massive Bond fan, and I've been looking forward to seeing how this one turns out, so it's heartening to hear positive rumblings about Daniel Craig's spin on the suave super-spy.
Less heartening, however, is that it's not in cinemas here until December 7. If I still had my old job I'd be watching it tomorrow.
Since I don't I'll have to try another day.
(Just getting my coat now)
posted by Pete Kempshall at 3:50 PM
4 Comments:
I LOVED it! Even though still confused as to how this all fits in one timeline ...
I think we just have to accept the timeline won't ever make sense. We've had men of differing ages, hair colour and acting ability playing the same bloke -and we accept that. I'm seeing it as a clean slate really, so much about Bond had got slightly ridiculous (invisible cars anyone)and now I think it's back to it's best. Hurrah!
Ah, but there's something peculiar to Doctor Who fans that you absolutely must make everything fit into one single, inviolable timeline, no matter how much things contradict what comes before or after. Anything that doesn't fit must be given an explanation to make it fit, or be dismissed as 'non-canonical'.
Anyway, it seems obvious to me that 'James Bond' is a merely codename inherited by any number of different agents, explaining the changes of face and the way he's not 80-odd years old now.
Right?
It was the first time I ever gnawed the arm rest off in pure, unadulterated lust after watching a bloke walk up the beach in budgie smugglers.
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel.
Post a Comment
<< Home