edited by Moisés Chiullan

The Third Man (Criterion Blu-ray)
This title in particular has been the subject of a good deal of controversy on Elsewhere (among other sites), message boards, and email lists across the web. No one seems to talk about much aside from the "Grain Issue." Since the grain (or overabundance thereof) is the obvious elephant in the room, I'm going to address it before getting on to the additional content on display here, of which there is much to see and thoroughly enjoy. (continued)

Upcoming

December 31

Defiance

Good

January 2

Cargo 200

January 7

Silent Light

January 9

After Dark Horrorfest 2009

Bride Wars

How About You

Not Easily Broken

The Unborn

Yonkers Joe

January 16

Chandni Chwok to China

Cherry Blossoms

Hotel for Dogs

My Bloody Valentine 3-D

Notorious

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

January 21

Of Time and the City

Bond as McQueen

email this story
read comments (63)
post a comment

"I caught Casino Royale on Sunday. Something kinda stirred in the back of my mind as I watched Daniel Craig do the moves, and about a half hour into it I realized what it was. Craig reminds me of Steve McQueen. In fact, he's channelling him.

"Not that he absolutely looks like the guy (although he does, somewhat) but something in the Craig equation -- the steely understated machismo that McQueen had back in the mid to late '60s, and shot into a James Bond vessel -- is why the movie works. Maybe. Just a thought." --- Jeff Burton, St. Paul , Minnesota, with slight augmentations from Jeffrey Wells.

Lee, Schulberg, Louis<< previous | next >>Box office fortunes = Oscar heat

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 28, 2006 at 9:59 AM

comment #1

christian says ...

it's a clear deliberate nod to BULLITT when he checks himself out in the mirror.

Posted by christian at November 28, 2006 10:11 AM

comment #2

Mike Schaefer says ...

A number of critics have made that comparison in the past month, so this is not exactly new.

Posted by Mike Schaefer at November 28, 2006 10:12 AM

comment #3

MathewM says ...

Daniel Craig is the main reason Casino Royale works. While the script is much better than previous Bonds it is Craig's appeal that makes you remember the film a day later. With the previous films I pretty much forget the thing on the way out to the parking lot.

Posted by MathewM at November 28, 2006 10:29 AM

comment #4

Colin says ...

Matthew, I agree with that, and although many disagree with me, I felt the same way about Timothy Dalton. Of course, much like the last Bond film that really worked for me -- License to Kill -- there were also actually stakes involved that made Bond's plight resonate (the killing of Felix).

Posted by Colin at November 28, 2006 10:38 AM

comment #5

JD says ...

Judging by the two images above, the resemblance is eerie.

Posted by JD at November 28, 2006 10:51 AM

comment #6

BNick says ...

You beat me to it, JD.

Posted by BNick at November 28, 2006 11:01 AM

comment #7

tholl-yung says ...

See what happens when you're russian?
They're both hotter'N hell.

Posted by tholl-yung at November 28, 2006 11:06 AM

comment #8

cjKennedy says ...

It's kind of funny...funny in a sad, pathetic "well at least I'm not that big of a douche" kind of way...over at danielcraigisnotbond.com, they're crowing over the complete critical and box office failure of Casino Royale as evidence that they were on the right side of history all along and that their little boycott actually worked.

Apparently it's Opposite Day in some corners of the Web.

And way to come out in defense of one of the more maligned films in the Bond franchise Colin! I personally had a lot of problems with it but I do like Dalton's Bond, it had plenty of great bits and a approve of the stab at a darker tone.

Posted by cjKennedy at November 28, 2006 11:15 AM

comment #9

BNick says ...

Ditto on License to Kill for me. That film took the character in a completely new direction, albeit not a welcome one for most fans.

But it took guts to make that movie with Timothy Dalton. Casino Royale resembles LtC in a few ways, the most obvious of which is the colder, more sadistic Bond.

Posted by BNick at November 28, 2006 11:28 AM

comment #10

T. S. Idiot says ...

Craig outscores McQueen in sheer intensity, but Steve leaves him far behind in effortless cool. If you want your Bond to be real for the Age of Terrorism, Craig is the best yet. If you want Jimbo to be a cartoon, Connery is the best. I've just watched Goldfinger and Thunderball for the first time in years, and except for Connery's grace and humor, they are painful to sit through: bad acting, stodgy direction, unimaginative. That underwater battle in Thunderball goes on three times too long. Casino Royale is wonderful on many levels, especially because something recognizably human--rather than the usual fate of the world--is at stake.

Posted by T. S. Idiot at November 28, 2006 11:40 AM

comment #11

renorambler says ...

I agree. Dalton wasn't as bad as people like to make him out to be. Craig is the s**t though. Looking forward to the next couple Bonds and I can't even remember thinking that before about the Bond franchise.

Favorite Dalton movie: Flash Gordon! :-)

Posted by renorambler at November 28, 2006 11:43 AM

comment #12

The Movie Man says ...

I agree T.S. and I've never much cared for Thunderball, it was never too exciting and the underwater element bogged the entire thing down. Goldfinger is, of course, camp, but I think its camp of the highest order.

Posted by The Movie Man at November 28, 2006 11:43 AM

comment #13

cjKennedy says ...

This is heresy I know, but as far as the cartoon Connery Bonds go, I like You Only Live Twice.

For Bond as an actual human being, have another look at From Russia With Love T.S.

And thanks renoramble for ensuring the theme song from Flash Gordon would be stuck in my head all day! Flash! Ah-ahhhh!

Posted by cjKennedy at November 28, 2006 11:49 AM

comment #14

christian says ...

well you guys are wrong as wrong about GOLDFINGER and less so on THUNDERBALL.

watch GOLDFINGER in a theater and the charge the audience gets from the opening is electric, more than any moment in CASINO ROYALE. the music alone carries you. and odd job is a great villain and their fort knox battle rules.

THUNDERBALL is bulky but there are wonderful moments of connery cool and he's even cut down by fiona lewis with her great anti-bond speech. and the bad guy is also killed by a woman. and these films have the perfect patina of jet-set playboy glamour devoid of the 70's and beyond bonds.

LICENSE TO KILL was a major groaner. i loved dalton more menacing, but the film is poorly made and looks like a big budget episode of MIAMI VICE.

Posted by christian at November 28, 2006 11:51 AM

comment #15

christian says ...

but yes, connery plays the most human bond in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

Posted by christian at November 28, 2006 11:58 AM

comment #16

Rich S. says ...

I was just about to comment that Casino Royale most resembled From Russia with Love. Relatively low stakes (for a Bond film), very human Bond, most brutal fights.

I did greatly enjoy Casino Royale, and I liked Craig a great deal, but I'm not sure I enjoyed Craig as Bond, if you know what I mean. As Craig himself said, Connery is still the prototype. Most of the Bonds got the suavity right, without the cruelty. Craig gets the cruelty right, but falls a little short on the suavity. I'm sure that will come as he grows into the role.

As to the McQueen comparisons, I can definitely see them. But I just watched The Magnificent Seven again on HDNet and there is no actor working today that's in McQueen's league. Like Bogart, Grant, Stewart, etc., when they made Steve, they broke the mold.

Posted by Rich S. at November 28, 2006 12:06 PM

comment #17

cjKennedy says ...

The thing for me about Thunderball for me is that when I was a college Freshman...like my first week of college...I saw a screening of Thunderball on campus. At this point I was still a pretty serious fan and what happened? The audience laughed at it. Not with it...at it. It was so 'old fashioned' and so sexist and so silly to them and a switch went off in my head. Something I admired was now foolish. It was like looking at that optical illusion that's both a witch and a pretty woman: at first you only see it one way but as soon as you see the other image, you can never unsee it.

Anyway, to this day I can't watch Thunderball the same way and it's probaby why Casino Royale was the first Bond film I'd seen in a theater since License to Kill.

Posted by cjKennedy at November 28, 2006 12:08 PM

comment #18

Colin says ...

Rich S., it's pretty interesting how the stakes are reversed in Casino Royale. Usually you have high global stakes (the end of the world threatened) and low personal stakes (Bond killing some more people and romancing some disposable women). In Casino Royale, you have low golbal stakes (blowing up a new plane before passengers are on it, money falling into the wrong hands), but high personal stakes (Bond making his 1st kills, Vesper).

Posted by Colin at November 28, 2006 12:12 PM

comment #19

BNick says ...

Rich S., I agree and I think the lack of "suavity" is intentional on the part of Craig and the filmmakers. We don't get the "Bond, James Bond" line or the famous theme music until the last frame of the picture. It's almost a signal that Bond has gone through what he needs to have gone through in order to become the suave yet detached spy that M needs him to be.

I also agree that McQueen is awesome in The Magnificent Seven....but then again so are all those guys.

Posted by BNick at November 28, 2006 12:16 PM

comment #20

renorambler says ...

cjKennedy,
What's not to love about Flash Gordon! Queen does the soundtrack and Max Von Sydow in his finest role...cough, cough

"Go, Flash, Go!"

Posted by renorambler at November 28, 2006 12:23 PM

comment #21

christian says ...

well, i also taught a college class on 60's films and showed GOLDFINGER to an overall good response. but i set up the films with cultural content. all agreed that connery was the man.

there's nothing worse than modern audiences laughing at older films with superiority. that shouldn't change your mind about a film based on other's limited response...

Posted by christian at November 28, 2006 12:30 PM

comment #22

christian says ...

oh, i also showed BULLITT and many were bored. they all loved mcqueen tho.

Posted by christian at November 28, 2006 12:31 PM

comment #23

sardine says ...

Craig is the better actor.

Posted by sardine at November 28, 2006 12:36 PM

comment #24

The Movie Man says ...

I have to admit that BULLITT bored me also, and I've never been much on another film with a very famous car chase, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, both films are well made, but they've never done much for me, they just seem like cold procedurals.

I think From Russia with Love and Goldfinger are the best Bonds (that camp comment was not meant as an insult) but I would put Casino Royale as number three, (admittedly haven't seen Lazenby yet) I find the majority of Roger Moores are unwatchable, the later Sean Conneries coasting on the charm of the first few and Dalton is just a bore. I think Craig mixes the best of Connery with the seriousness that Dalton was going for and just nails it. Dalton tries to be a hardass, Connery and Craig ARE hardasses. I expect you guys, especially christian, to eat me alive, but I'm standing by it.

Posted by The Movie Man at November 28, 2006 12:40 PM

comment #25

T. S. Idiot says ...

One cannot let references to Flash Gordon pass without quoting one of the greatest lines in all of cinema: "Oh, no, not the boreworms!"

Posted by T. S. Idiot at November 28, 2006 12:43 PM

comment #26

The Movie Man says ...

Connery is still Bondo numero uno though.

Posted by The Movie Man at November 28, 2006 12:44 PM

comment #27

cjKennedy says ...

If I'd known my day was going to be filled with spontaneous Flash Gordon eruptions, I would've gotten out of bed much earlier.

I've been thinking Movie Man et al. (though you'd never know it from some of my posts) that one small reason for the enduring popularity of the Bond franchise is that it's a big goddamn tent and there's a Bond for just about everybody.

Each guy brought something a little different to the table and everyone has their favorite.

A lot of it depends on what you were exposed to as a kid, although I grew up with Moore but like Connery better, go figure.

Posted by cjKennedy at November 28, 2006 12:52 PM

comment #28

Joe Leydon says ...

I still say Timothy Dalton's 007 could bitch slap any other Bond and get away with it. Trouble is, I think he was too much of a badass coming in the immediate wake of Roger Moore. It was too big a leap for some fans -- most fans? -- to take.

Posted by Joe Leydon at November 28, 2006 1:11 PM

comment #29

jeffmcm says ...

Thunderball is the worst of the Connery Bonds by far. It's sluggish. Goldfinger has its flaws but it still holds up quite well.

Posted by jeffmcm at November 28, 2006 2:07 PM

comment #30

CambridgeCat says ...

The McQueen comparisons were made way back when LAYER CAKE came out.

Posted by CambridgeCat at November 28, 2006 2:11 PM

comment #31

christian says ...

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is objectively the worst connery bond in terms of his absolutely lazy performance. he hated doing bond at that point and i had a chance to ask the film's publicist if this was true. he said connery was bored, hated the press and film and wanted out. it's quite clear. plus, he becomes japanese in one of the most ridiculous bond scenes of all time.

of course, i love everything else about YOLT as it's got a great style and one of barry's best scores. not to mention the first time americans saw ninjas.

THUNDERBALL is connery's most assured bond performance. and in those 1965 shades, the coolest. that said, the underwater stuff is excessive. but it's great when bond tells fiona lewis post-sex: "what i did tonight i did for queen and country."

Posted by christian at November 28, 2006 2:24 PM

comment #32

Monument says ...

"The McQueen comparisons were made way back when LAYER CAKE came out."

So, there's no reason to ever talk about it again? Seriously, you internet minutiae miners take the fun out of everything.

Posted by Monument at November 28, 2006 2:33 PM

comment #33

Mgmax says ...

"A number of critics have made that comparison in the past month, so this is not exactly new."

Not to mention-- my comment on this very site, nine days ago: First thought when I saw Craig had been chosen: "Well, I suppose it was inevitable sooner or later that Steve McQueen would get the part." Like McQueen, totally convincing when he's not saying a damn thing, more variable when his lips are moving and sound is coming out.

Posted by Mgmax at November 28, 2006 3:11 PM

comment #34

The Movie Man says ...

I don't know guys, I think Daniel Craig is a much better actor than Steve McQueen. McQueen's got the whole untouchable, unfakable god of cool thing going on, but Craig I think even has a shot at rivaling him in that department: MUNICH, LAYER CAKE, and now CASINO ROYALE all illstrate an effortless camera commanding authority in Craig. And Craig's got McQueen beat in the actual personality department.

Posted by The Movie Man at November 28, 2006 3:42 PM

comment #35

cjKennedy says ...

I skipped Layer Cake because it seemed like another Lock Stock knock-off so my only other exposure to Daniel Craig was in Wells' much beloved Munich. The McQueen comparison is new to me but I like it. It's way to early to suggest Craig will become that kind of icon, but he's got a certain somethingsomething about him. In Casino Royale, he's much rougher around the edges than McQueen (smooth with a tough guy interior vs. Craig's tough guy with a suave sonuvabitch yearning to come out), but I could imagine some of those wrinkles getting ironed out as the Bonds continue.

Posted by cjKennedy at November 28, 2006 3:44 PM

comment #36

Dixon Steele says ...

McQueen may have been the epitome of cool, but the stage-trained Craig is a far better actor than SMQ ever was. No comparison, although McQ was the quintessential "Movie Star".

Posted by Dixon Steele at November 28, 2006 4:50 PM

comment #37

cjKennedy says ...

I think "Movie Star" and "Actor" is an important distinction Dixon and comparing McQueen to Craig in that way is maybe a little unfair to both men. McQueen was one of the last of an older style of performer who was as much a persona as an actor. McQueen didn't lose himself in a role, the role lost itself in McQueen....and it liked it! That style is pretty much dead and buried, but it's sure fun to watch.

Posted by cjKennedy at November 28, 2006 5:10 PM

comment #38

Dixon Steele says ...

It really wasn't a put-down of McQueen so much. Just an acknowledgement that, at least technically speaking, Craig's skills are sharper.

But, yes, Steve had that "It" quality that can't be faked, which is why he's still considered an icon, in a way Craig probably won't be after he's gone.

Posted by Dixon Steele at November 28, 2006 5:39 PM

comment #39

actionman says ...

anyone who skipped the terrific Layer Cake because it reminded them of Lock Stock is doing themselves a disservice

Posted by actionman at November 28, 2006 6:39 PM

comment #40

Bandersnatch says ...

I haven't watched much McQueen, so somebody who has can enlighten me: did McQueen ever give a performance that was as on-the-edge psychotic as Craig's in Munich? I think it was the most disturbing thing about that film for me.

Posted by Bandersnatch at November 28, 2006 7:09 PM

comment #41

cjKennedy says ...

Disservice acknowledged. Correction imminent.

Posted by cjKennedy at November 28, 2006 7:10 PM

comment #42

renorambler says ...

There was an element of the psychotic in McQueen's performance in Papillon (a film that I believe is underrated). Probably not quite the same kind of psychotic you're talking about though.

Still, Papillon is worth checking out. Admittedly, you have to be in the mood for a 3 hour prison film that pretty much only has sweaty men in it. Except for the nun...yikes! Dustin Hoffman is very good in the film as well.

Posted by renorambler at November 28, 2006 7:18 PM

comment #43

renorambler says ...

Lots to love about Layer Cake. Not least of which is Sienna Miller...raaaaar!

Posted by renorambler at November 28, 2006 7:22 PM

comment #44

cjKennedy says ...

Papillon: Now there's one I haven't seen in almost 20 years. I think when I saw it I was expecting some kind of rousing Magnificent Seven/Great Escape kind of picture and boy was it not that. I'm not saying it wasn't good, but you know how expectations can screw with your ejoyement of a movie. Another one I ought to revisit.

Posted by cjKennedy at November 28, 2006 7:28 PM

comment #45

Dixon Steele says ...

By coincidence, right now ENDURING LOVE is on cable. That's the one where Rhys Ifans (the goony roommate from Notting Hill) creepily falls in love with and stalks...Daniel Craig.

Posted by Dixon Steele at November 28, 2006 8:23 PM

comment #46

CambridgeCat says ...

"The McQueen comparisons were made way back when LAYER CAKE came out."

So, there's no reason to ever talk about it again? Seriously, you internet minutiae miners take the fun out of everything.

I guess it depends whether or not you had the conversation(s) three years ago or not. Talk about whatever you like, I was just surprised to see this presented as a new concept.

Posted by CambridgeCat at November 28, 2006 8:44 PM

comment #47

The Movie Man says ...

actioman beat me to it but its worth saying again, as someone who finds Guy Ritchie films irritating, LAYER CAKE is the real deal. A lean, tougher than hell crime thriller with a terrific cast, its on a par with some of the iconic British gangster thrillers of the 1970s. Really worth a look.

Posted by The Movie Man at November 29, 2006 5:29 AM

comment #48

Rich S. says ...

I'm glad you guys made the actor/movie star distinction, which I think hits it right on the nose. I really liked Craig in Casino Royale, and in his small role in Road to Perdition, but a comparison to McQueen really is almost apples to oranges. cjKennedy's observation about inhabiting a role versus a role inhabiting the actor is dead-on.

I'm not saying that the more naturalistic style of acting isn't acceptable or even preferable, but I do think it's one of the reasons that fewer "stars" can open a movie these days. Up until the method upset the apple cart, the idea was to create a screen persona and then tailor the project to that. In that way, the icons were born. McQueen is one of the last of those. I won't argue that he's a better actor than Craig (though he does fine work in movies like Papillon, Junior Bonner and Tom Horn). But I doubt Craig will ever reach his iconic status, or that of Sean Connery, whose Bond was built along those same "Old Hollywood" lines.

Posted by Rich S. at November 29, 2006 5:30 AM

comment #49

nola says ...

Craig is an excellent actor. I rented THE MOTHER, very strange movie but he is great, as usual. I agree with the other posters about LAKER CAKE. Re: MUNICH everytime he was on screen I forgot about the rest of the cast.

He is something rare today, a smart, solid actor who burns up the screen. Craig is old school to me. A man's man. Thank god.

p.s. I also find him incredibly sexy. ha. I am actually looking forward to the next Bond. Can't remember the last time I said that.

Posted by nola at November 29, 2006 7:03 AM

comment #50

The Movie Man says ...

nola-I'm with you in that I'm actually looking forward the next 007 movie. Usually I walk out of the theatre, semi-fulfilled at best, and feel that I can easily wait another 3 or 4 years before I sit through the next one. Not so in this case.

It was mentioned above already but Craig is quite good in Enduring Love (though the performance to watch in that movie is Rhys Ifans, startling work) and that was directed by Roger Michell, more famously of Notting Hill and Changing Lanes, he also did The Mother. Enduring Love's only real distinction from the fatal attraction genre is that its slower, but the mood and performances are strong. Michell's a pretty strong director who doesn't get much attention it seems.

Posted by The Movie Man at November 29, 2006 8:16 AM

comment #51

Colin says ...

I thought that Daniel Craig was the best part of The Jacket as well.

Posted by Colin at November 29, 2006 8:25 AM

comment #52

Ahmed Hassan says ...

It was the best Bond since the 60's, but why the heck didnt they set the movie in the early 60's when Bond actually became a Double-O? We could have the Soviets back to battle (who actually WERE trying to take over the world). We could even have a young M and a hot Moneypenny and cool 60's cars and all the characters could smoke like real men. Dang.

Posted by Ahmed Hassan at November 29, 2006 11:12 AM

comment #53

Dixon Steele says ...

Great year for Craig. He was also outstanding in INFAMOUS as the killer Perry Smith. Both human and scary.

Posted by Dixon Steele at November 29, 2006 1:29 PM

comment #54

Mgmax says ...

Good question, Ahmed. I suppose they think modern audiences don't want to see historical movies, or it'd be too Austin Powers-y. But if you look back at other iconic characters there's definitely a moment when they switch from being contemporary to being set in a certain time and place. People set Sherlock Holmes in the present day until the 40s... since then he's always Victorian. Philip Marlowe was still a modern character in the 60s and then a full-blown retro one just a few years later. Properly, Bond should be a Cold War character; I think as close as they dared come to that was putting him in a setting which is subtly stripped of most things identifying it as a specific time period; apart from the cell phones there's little about the scenes set in the Bahamas, a Montenegrin casino, or Venice that couldn't have been in Dr. No.

Posted by Mgmax at November 30, 2006 7:25 AM

comment #55

JeanneValJean says ...

There's nothing wrong with the nod to McQ (Thomas Crown, not Bullett) but this guy has heat! I didn't think anyone could ever outdo Robert Patrick running (Term2)but wow - Daniel C can run with the best of them. He's got that animal grace and it is beautiful. The intensity is good, the sandpaper manners and edge is very good, the speedo scene could have spent a few more seconds in its minimal nod to Ursula Andress (Dr. No) and my buck's on a remake of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," being the only original Fleming book that was a severe Bond-bomb at the box office. The franchise is building back-story. They're creating what he was before the cynical, jaded, cold, removed, distant, aloof Bond of the 60s. If you start with the rough edges in Casino, experience shapes him into killing machine. I am excited about the next one. And nods to Nola, I didn't think I'd be saying that - ever.

Posted by JeanneValJean at November 30, 2006 2:38 PM

comment #56

christian says ...

contrary to myth ONHMSS was not a bond bomb. it made plenty of money around the world, opened at number one in america and elsewhere. but it was almost three hours, the longest bond film which meant fewer showings. and it had a non-connery star along with a tragic ending.

pauline kael even gave it a good review but she noted that people hissed at the ending.

again the producers still haven't bothered to read fleming's books or they could have really re-booted bond the right way.

one fucking scene of bond testing his gun or practicising cards in his room over a bourbon woulda done it and been visually cool. instead, we get bond e-mailing m his resignation in one of the dumbest bond movie moments...

i implore the lot of you to read CASINO ROYALE if you haven't then see how much better a story it is with great dialague dropped in favor of groaners like "if there was only a smile and finger left of you..."

Posted by christian at December 1, 2006 6:48 AM

comment #57

The Movie Man says ...

Christian- We all know the pain of disliking a movie everyone else flips for (all of my friends loved Superman Returns and the newest X-Men, I found the former to be a pretentious bore and the latter joyless hackwork) but are you sure you're not being a tad grinchy in your continual CR bashing? Yes, the film has a few ridiculous lapses into the current (product placement, Texas Hold 'em being two of the more blatant) but the movie works. It's tense and entertaining, has a great Bond, sexual tension that feels legitimate and not just obligatory, and a story that, especially for this series, more or less makes sense. The film, especially in a climate where we sit through mindless $200 million dollar explosions every weekend, had at least some human current. Stupid? Of course, but you know, when you break it down, a guy with a killer tophat and a plot to rob Fort Knox isn't exactly the model of sensible plotting. As a movie lover (and of course you know this, but I'm going to say it anyway) you have to have a taste for a fairly large amount of pure malarky and sometimes just go with it. Against high odds, the movie machine cranked out a thriller that actually thrills for once.

Posted by The Movie Man at December 1, 2006 10:14 AM

comment #58

christian says ...

i'm being hard on CR as i wanted to love it and had hopes they would reinvent bond for new audiences and old fans.

i didn't find it that entertaining. my test for a good film is one i want to see again. i don't have any desire to see CR again. there's no moment i want to revist outside of a couple of craig moments. if it wasn't a bond film i would find it as bland and uninteresting as a bourne film except for craig, who i have praised repeatedly. he's just not playing ian fleming's james bond, which would have given him inifintely more to do with the role.

i didn't think the action scenes were exciting or well-choreographed -- the b&w opening looked like a "24" episode. it was tv direction all the way through. i applaud the producers for trying something new, but to me, it was calculated to appeal to FHM readers and TITANIC fans. and people who love cell phones.

in the end, i don't understand the point of taking a character from novels that have been reprinted dozens of times around the world and throwing it out to appeal to cynical marketing needs. the fact that the producers turned down spielberg and tarantino shows the limits of their imagination and even their business acumen.

i'll go see the next one, but i can wait. maybe then i'll find my grinchy heart growing...

Posted by christian at December 1, 2006 11:49 PM

comment #59

The Movie Man says ...

christian-fair enough, and, truthfully I agree with much of your reasoning, I just thought the film, in spite of all of that, somehow worked, and left me mildy buzzing as I was leaving the theatre.

Posted by The Movie Man at December 2, 2006 4:44 AM

comment #60