The Nut Hand

Posted on November 20, 2006 by Timothy Burke

Just a quick note as long as I’m in a pop-culture frame of mind: go see Casino Royale.

I think it’s actually the best Bond film ever, and as I’m a certified worshipper at the temple of the Connery Bond, that’s saying a lot.

This entry was posted in Popular Culture. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Nut Hand

  1. Russell Arben Fox says:
    November 21, 2006 at 12:15 am

    I’m fairly certain we won’t be able to get out to see it, as we’re short of babysitting options at the moment. But still–that good? Everyone’s been singing its praises, and I’ve no doubt it deserves it…but better than From Russia With Love? I mean, that’s not merely the best Bond movie, but one of the best Hollywood thrillers ever. High praise indeed.

  2. Timothy Burke says:
    November 21, 2006 at 8:02 am

    At least as good as.

    Plus I think Goldfinger is better than From Russia With Love.

  3. Jesse A. says:
    November 21, 2006 at 5:30 pm

    I agree about Goldfinger, but do you mind explaining what you think was so good about Casino Royale? I enjoyed it alot, and think that a number of interesting decisions were made (though I’m not entirely sure they were all decisions, only future Daniel Craig Bond movies will tell), but I’d be hard pressed to say that it is better than Goldfinger, or even Dr. No, for that matter.

  4. meg says:
    November 24, 2006 at 12:39 pm

    Can I appeal to your authority the next time I get stick for thinking that Craig is a better Bond than Connery?

  5. bbenzon says:
    November 24, 2006 at 7:14 pm

    The title sequence is the best ever.

    But I thought the film dragged on at bit. And having Bond REALLY fall for the lady, and then all the nonsense required to get him out of it — that was excessive.

    YES to Craig.

  6. Timothy Burke says:
    November 25, 2006 at 1:10 am

    Naw, Bill, that’s the whole point–it explains the later misogyny of the character beautifully, rather than just making it a fashion accessory.

  7. bbenzon says:
    November 25, 2006 at 5:30 am

    He was mysogynous at the beginning of the movie, no explanation needed. Bond’s just a type. No need to explain or justify the type, just take it for what it’s worth at face value.

    So why throw that little dance into at all? It wasn’t convincing when it happened because it was out of character with what had already been establlished on-screen through the first hour-and-a-half. It was rather an add-on and explains nothing, though it may betray a lack of confidence in handling the longest running franchise in film.

  8. meg says:
    November 25, 2006 at 5:27 pm

    bbenzon asks, “Why throw that little dance into it all?” The easy (for anyone but a humanitiesarian, anyway) answer is that it’s in the book. This was all very faithful to Fleming’s original, unlike the David Niven/Orson Wells/George Raft version.

    That said, I agree that some of the scenes went on too long — esp. at the poker table. Also true to the book, however, which is why *CR* isn’t one of my favorite Bond novels.

  9. bbenzon says:
    November 29, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    Ah, the book! Hadn’t thought of that. Don’t know whether I read that one, though I read a bunch of them back when the Connery’s were first coming out and Ursula Andress graced the pages of, um, err, Playboy.

Comments are closed.