Friday, November 17, 2006

I am such a genius. Well, not exactly. If you happen to be reading or have already read today’s Today paper and if you had read my previous post, you will realise that I am right in my theory of the latest James Bond film. And to set the record straight, I did not know the plot at all until I was sitting in the cinema for 2 and ½ hours.

Read this excerpt which I took this from Today’s edition of Plus (17 November 2006), written by Neil Humphreys.

‘So, the Bond-making Broccoli family have made the only decision available: Take him back to the beginning.

Casino Royale is the first Fleming novel and the only one that has not been mad by an official Broccoli production house. It is the ultimate prequel: The story predates 20 other movies to depict the birth of an assassin.’

And from the same edition of the newspaper, here is an excerpt from a film review by Felix Chong, who gave a summary of the entire film.

‘Cruel rather than cool, street-smart rather than suave, his is a Bond who’s equal parts vulnerability and menace. He makes mistakes. He has an uneasy working relationshipwith his boss, M ( Judi Dench). He gets hurt in fisticuffs. He doesn’t just dust himself off, as Roger Moore once did, with a wink and a wisecrack.

This is where Casino Royale holds the trump card: 007 is flawed and – gasp – actually human.’

So, we all know.

They say this of love, “Once bitten, twice shy.” In Bond’s case, many times shy.

I also realised that many of the Bond Girls never did have a happy ending.

Oh well, how else are we going to get such a good plot? Haha!

Did I mention before that Daniel Craig is a good actor and that he has a very lean body even though he has a craggy face? No offence, Mr. Craig.

Cherio!