Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Nina the Bartina Pt II

My full review of Casino Royale as heard on the Jenny M Show on Kristal FM this morning:

  • Daniel Craig is definitely a Bond for the ladies
  • ‘Ard as, on the outside, but soft as on the inside
  • Similar to his character XXXX in Layer Cake, or Dennis Waterman’s character Terry in that British gangster series “Minder”. At some points he actually reminded me of Bruce Willis in DieHard!
  • Pecs similar to mine… if seen in certain light lah
  • Still cannot beat Sean Connery in my book
Highlights:

  • Vertigo inducing chase in Madagascarian construction site
  • The sarcastic exchange when he first meets Vesper Lynd (ooo ladies love it don’t they?)
  • The “Stephanie Broadchest” line made me chuckle
  • The poker game was intriguing but still can’t figure out Texas Hold’em Poker
  • The scenery was gorgeous esp. Bahamas and Montenegro… WOW
Lowlights:

  • The Pout.. gets annoying after a while
  • Bit slow esp. the bits where he’s playing lovey dovey with Vespa. Felt like I was watching Gone with the Wind at one stage… The ladies must’ve loved it
  • What happened to all the gadgets?? Feels kind of weird to not have all those gadgets. The Aston Martin DBS was sweet though.
  • At one stage I thought I was watching an episode of House when Bond administers Digitalis to himself and tried to defibrillate himself
  • The female co-star was not my type. Apparently Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron were strongly considered for the role. Give me Halle Berry any day! Ok if must be English, then Kiera Knightley will do nicely fanks!
Emma refers to a ball breaking sequence in the film in her review… well it definitely gives new meaning to the word “nut-cracker”

My rating: 7 out of 10 (minus 1 for lack of gadgets, minus 1 for leading lady, and minus 1 for the gone with the wind stuff.. urrghhh if I wanna watch love story I’ll watch Pride and Prejudice)

Here’s a parting thought… Wonder what it’d be like if the next bond movie was directed by Quentin Tarantino? Sweeet!

8 comments:

Jewelle said...

After reading yours and Emma's review of this movie, I can conclude that this is a Bond movie made for the girls. Smart move ;-P

Anonymous said...

I heard your review on my way to BLNG today. Good one. I'm lost for words coz whatever you say most of them were not in my vocabulary. Keep it up bro. And same goes for the lambshank review as well.

s.a.s said...

Quentin!! Absolute whiz!!

Anonymous said...

I agree with you, the women are nothing to shout about. In fact i rate them less-than-average. What happened to all those gorgeous women????? This is a Bond movie! Not a Bean!

btw did you read the review on Singapore's ST..said the new Bond looks more like a construction worker than a spy.
abruneilifer.blogspot.com

JACQ said...

After reading your comments on this movie, I think I'll make a pass on watching it on the cinema.

And I TOTALLY agree about Bond looking more like a construction worker than a spy! I should know; I work in a construction company LOL!

Jewelle said...

Eh, nothing wrong with construction worker what! Rugged and you KNOW that they can handle rough work. I like this Bond. Although Pierce is more suave, I think a rugged manly Bond is so much more appealing.

AnakBrunei said...

JACQ: Heheh I must admit, I wouldn't go watch it on the big screen a second time... maybe if Kiera Knightley was the leading lady heheheh!

jewelle: Construction worker definitely CAN handle the rough job one! Look at Phua Choo Kang!! Huahuahua!

amyheidi said...

Haha, Daniel Craig is hot! His arse is way sexy.
I read somewhere that the lack of gadgets in this film was due to criticizing remarks on how Bond films rely too much on special effects than plot development, and it was supposed to be a prequel.