“The name’s Bond. James Bond.”
-The last five words you’ll hear from 007
"Arm yourself because no one else here will save you
The odds will betray you
And I will replace you
You can't deny the prize it may never fulfill you
It longs to kill you
Are you willing to die?
The coldest blood runs through my veins
You know my name..."
-Chris Cornell, discussing the life of 007
“Craig, always a charismatic presence, often looks unsettled by that dislocation; his sex scenes are more energetic than those of his predecessors but even less convincing; he is hardly allowed any comedy. As a result, by the end of a curiously back-to-front film, when he finally gets his theme tune and introduces himself - 'Bond. James Bond' - he, like the creaky franchise itself, seems profoundly unsure whether he is coming or going.”
-Tim Adams, The Observer
-The last five words you’ll hear from 007
"Arm yourself because no one else here will save you
The odds will betray you
And I will replace you
You can't deny the prize it may never fulfill you
It longs to kill you
Are you willing to die?
The coldest blood runs through my veins
You know my name..."
-Chris Cornell, discussing the life of 007
“Craig, always a charismatic presence, often looks unsettled by that dislocation; his sex scenes are more energetic than those of his predecessors but even less convincing; he is hardly allowed any comedy. As a result, by the end of a curiously back-to-front film, when he finally gets his theme tune and introduces himself - 'Bond. James Bond' - he, like the creaky franchise itself, seems profoundly unsure whether he is coming or going.”
-Tim Adams, The Observer
"I never thought I would see a Bond movie where I cared, actually cared, about the people. But I care about Bond, and about Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), even though I know that (here it comes) a Martini Vesper is shaken, not stirred. [...] Vesper and James have a shower scene that answers, at last, why nobody in a Bond movie ever seems to have any real emotions."
-Roger Ebert, on "Casino Royale"
There’s very little left to explain about James Bond, the secret agent who has basically kickstarted an entire genre. Even if you’ve never seen a Bond movie in your life, you’ve hopefully at least heard of Bond, are familiar with the tuxedo-donning, high-speed-racing, gadget-wielding, rooftop-jumping, cloak-and-dagger, master marksman and agent of Her Majesty’s Secret Service, heralded only by his simple introduction of “Bond. James Bond.”
The world’s most popular and prolific secret agent has a career spanning almost fifty years, with a series of novels spanning even longer than that. James Bond made his debut in Ian Fleming's 1953 novel Casino Royale, and went on to make his first big screen appearance in the 1962 film “Dr. No.” Since then, he’s been in nearly twenty-five films, with portrayals by a half dozen actors (twice that many, if you count the 1955 and 1969 versions of “Casino Royale”). Fans have debated which of the Bond actors has portrayed the best Bond, which Bond girls are the hottest, which villains are the most compelling, etc.
Personally, my first foray into the world of 007 was with a movie and a Bond many fans have eviscerated—specifically, “The Man With the Golden Gun,” one of the campier 70’s films featuring Roger Moore. This particular film featured one of the most reviled Bond girls ever, Mary Goodnight, a supposedly skilled government agent who was basically there to get rescued. As a teenager, I never really saw anything wrong with that.
The three main Bonds that typically come to mind are Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan. Oh, and that new guy, too. Sean Connery, as the original flavor, is typically viewed as the best of the Bonds, creating a character who was both suave and cultured, and a cold, efficient killer. Roger Moore was the more comedic brand of Bond, playing the character with a certain amount of class while milking his situations for every joke he could get. Brosnan came in during the 90’s to carry on the Bond franchise as an action series, and regardless of his own strengths and weaknesses, is still the face of Bond for many people.
Of course, the shortcomings of the Brosnan era became apparent as the tone grew closer to the campier Moore films, and the films became more tech-heavy and reliant on gimmicks than the interactions between the characters. After the critical failure of “Die Another Day,” both the filmmakers and the audience were looking for something different. So the first thing they went for, needless to say, was a blond Bond…
The two latest Bond films, “Casino Royale” (the 2006 version) and “Quantum of Solace” are meant to evoke a more down-to-earth feel, with a James Bond who is more flawed and closer to the original version created by Fleming. The plots are less about the gadgets and action pieces and more driven by the basic thematic elements surrounding the character of Bond. Rumor has it that another film is in production, and due for release some time in 2012. But of course, we are getting ahead of ourselves…
Daniel Craig plays 007 at the beginning of his illustrious career. His films are set in a contemporary period, but as evidenced by the grisly opening of “Casino Royale,” Bond has just earned his license to kill. Craig’s Bond is rougher around the edges, and is outright labeled as a “blunt instrument” by Judi Dench’s M. You get a real sense of the man behind the monster (and vice versa), a closer look at his vulnerabilities as well as an ego unchecked by even MI6. He’s a man who’s unsurpassed at what he does, but as he himself admits, he’s someone who would never be able to hold down an honest job.
Craig has drawn criticism from some Bond fans precisely because he’s so different from his predecessors. Worlds away from the classy spy made famous by Connery, Moore, and Brosnan, I can see where these criticisms are coming from, due in no small part to the fact that Craig’s Bond is a blunt instrument, a hired killer and thug who tears through a city leaving nothing but destruction in his wake…and he never gets fired. The old school Bond is someone who can make the impossible happen, in a world that desperately needs saving. The new Bond is basically a cowboy cop of the breed found in so many action movies, except on a more global scale and with no qualms about leaving an embassy in ruins. As M puts it, “I miss the good old days when a rogue spy would at least have the decency to quit.”
The old world of Bond was a world where the victory of good over evil was a given. The new world of Bond is where a blond menace with a chip on his shoulder is allowed to wreak as much havoc as possible. Within fifteen minutes of “Casino Royale,” it’s become clear that, in trying to reflect a more flawed Bond, the film’s creators have gone too far in the other direction by creating a flawed Bond and then enabling him. They have created a world where Bond is allowed to pursue his “quantum of solace”…with a vengeance!
The threat of Bond himself is exacerbated by the sheer lack of presence on the part of the so-called villains. Le Chiffre, the mastermind behind “Casino Royale,” is basically trying to get his money back in a poker tournament while staying one step ahead of the “repo” men. Dominic Green was…what was he trying to do, anyway? That’s one of the pieces of info I honestly missed the first time around in “Quantum of Solace.” (It probably doesn’t help that he screams like a girl whenever he throws around that axe.) Both of them are despicable individuals in their own right, though, and I will say that they fit the overall tone of the new movies. In any case, “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” aren’t really villain-driven movies anyway.
Are the latest two movies politically correct? No, because the Bond series in general isn’t politically correct. It never has been politically correct. The Bond movies are still a world where you can have a “good” Bond girl and a “bad” Bond girl…or in the case of the latest two films, a “dead” Bond girl and the one who manages to get away. In the latter case, “Casino Royale” gives us the one who got away, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who ends up becoming the love of his life, while “Quantum of Solace” gives us a Bond girl who, in the mold of several other movies, is a woman out for revenge and a match for 007 himself. Both Vesper and Camille are reflections of 007, one reflecting the lover, the other mirroring the killer.
Daniel Craig’s Bond benefits from a more down-to-earth series of films which have grounded 007 in reality, and given us a fresh take on a film series almost fifty years in the making. However, his flaws include being a cowboy cop of the highest caliber, and removing much of the charm of the older Bonds, making what can seem to be little more than a series of action films. “Casino Royale” was a new beginning, with a new Bond, in a new world. “Quantum of Solace” builds on this reboot, giving us a tale of revenge as Bond seeks to avenge the fallen Vesper. Already, the Craig series is falling into its own “formula”: 007 gets mad, people die. It’s a formula that’s worked for years, if not centuries. However, with the revenge plot unfolding, Bond is fast on its way to becoming “just another action film."
Note: The Brewsky is...a man who takes care of business. He makes...contributions. He...reviews movies. He's what you might call...a half-monk, half-hitman. And when push comes to shove, the "half-monk" can slide.
The world’s most popular and prolific secret agent has a career spanning almost fifty years, with a series of novels spanning even longer than that. James Bond made his debut in Ian Fleming's 1953 novel Casino Royale, and went on to make his first big screen appearance in the 1962 film “Dr. No.” Since then, he’s been in nearly twenty-five films, with portrayals by a half dozen actors (twice that many, if you count the 1955 and 1969 versions of “Casino Royale”). Fans have debated which of the Bond actors has portrayed the best Bond, which Bond girls are the hottest, which villains are the most compelling, etc.
Personally, my first foray into the world of 007 was with a movie and a Bond many fans have eviscerated—specifically, “The Man With the Golden Gun,” one of the campier 70’s films featuring Roger Moore. This particular film featured one of the most reviled Bond girls ever, Mary Goodnight, a supposedly skilled government agent who was basically there to get rescued. As a teenager, I never really saw anything wrong with that.
The three main Bonds that typically come to mind are Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Pierce Brosnan. Oh, and that new guy, too. Sean Connery, as the original flavor, is typically viewed as the best of the Bonds, creating a character who was both suave and cultured, and a cold, efficient killer. Roger Moore was the more comedic brand of Bond, playing the character with a certain amount of class while milking his situations for every joke he could get. Brosnan came in during the 90’s to carry on the Bond franchise as an action series, and regardless of his own strengths and weaknesses, is still the face of Bond for many people.
Of course, the shortcomings of the Brosnan era became apparent as the tone grew closer to the campier Moore films, and the films became more tech-heavy and reliant on gimmicks than the interactions between the characters. After the critical failure of “Die Another Day,” both the filmmakers and the audience were looking for something different. So the first thing they went for, needless to say, was a blond Bond…
The two latest Bond films, “Casino Royale” (the 2006 version) and “Quantum of Solace” are meant to evoke a more down-to-earth feel, with a James Bond who is more flawed and closer to the original version created by Fleming. The plots are less about the gadgets and action pieces and more driven by the basic thematic elements surrounding the character of Bond. Rumor has it that another film is in production, and due for release some time in 2012. But of course, we are getting ahead of ourselves…
Daniel Craig plays 007 at the beginning of his illustrious career. His films are set in a contemporary period, but as evidenced by the grisly opening of “Casino Royale,” Bond has just earned his license to kill. Craig’s Bond is rougher around the edges, and is outright labeled as a “blunt instrument” by Judi Dench’s M. You get a real sense of the man behind the monster (and vice versa), a closer look at his vulnerabilities as well as an ego unchecked by even MI6. He’s a man who’s unsurpassed at what he does, but as he himself admits, he’s someone who would never be able to hold down an honest job.
Craig has drawn criticism from some Bond fans precisely because he’s so different from his predecessors. Worlds away from the classy spy made famous by Connery, Moore, and Brosnan, I can see where these criticisms are coming from, due in no small part to the fact that Craig’s Bond is a blunt instrument, a hired killer and thug who tears through a city leaving nothing but destruction in his wake…and he never gets fired. The old school Bond is someone who can make the impossible happen, in a world that desperately needs saving. The new Bond is basically a cowboy cop of the breed found in so many action movies, except on a more global scale and with no qualms about leaving an embassy in ruins. As M puts it, “I miss the good old days when a rogue spy would at least have the decency to quit.”
The old world of Bond was a world where the victory of good over evil was a given. The new world of Bond is where a blond menace with a chip on his shoulder is allowed to wreak as much havoc as possible. Within fifteen minutes of “Casino Royale,” it’s become clear that, in trying to reflect a more flawed Bond, the film’s creators have gone too far in the other direction by creating a flawed Bond and then enabling him. They have created a world where Bond is allowed to pursue his “quantum of solace”…with a vengeance!
The threat of Bond himself is exacerbated by the sheer lack of presence on the part of the so-called villains. Le Chiffre, the mastermind behind “Casino Royale,” is basically trying to get his money back in a poker tournament while staying one step ahead of the “repo” men. Dominic Green was…what was he trying to do, anyway? That’s one of the pieces of info I honestly missed the first time around in “Quantum of Solace.” (It probably doesn’t help that he screams like a girl whenever he throws around that axe.) Both of them are despicable individuals in their own right, though, and I will say that they fit the overall tone of the new movies. In any case, “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” aren’t really villain-driven movies anyway.
Are the latest two movies politically correct? No, because the Bond series in general isn’t politically correct. It never has been politically correct. The Bond movies are still a world where you can have a “good” Bond girl and a “bad” Bond girl…or in the case of the latest two films, a “dead” Bond girl and the one who manages to get away. In the latter case, “Casino Royale” gives us the one who got away, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who ends up becoming the love of his life, while “Quantum of Solace” gives us a Bond girl who, in the mold of several other movies, is a woman out for revenge and a match for 007 himself. Both Vesper and Camille are reflections of 007, one reflecting the lover, the other mirroring the killer.
Daniel Craig’s Bond benefits from a more down-to-earth series of films which have grounded 007 in reality, and given us a fresh take on a film series almost fifty years in the making. However, his flaws include being a cowboy cop of the highest caliber, and removing much of the charm of the older Bonds, making what can seem to be little more than a series of action films. “Casino Royale” was a new beginning, with a new Bond, in a new world. “Quantum of Solace” builds on this reboot, giving us a tale of revenge as Bond seeks to avenge the fallen Vesper. Already, the Craig series is falling into its own “formula”: 007 gets mad, people die. It’s a formula that’s worked for years, if not centuries. However, with the revenge plot unfolding, Bond is fast on its way to becoming “just another action film."
Note: The Brewsky is...a man who takes care of business. He makes...contributions. He...reviews movies. He's what you might call...a half-monk, half-hitman. And when push comes to shove, the "half-monk" can slide.
As a great lover of the Bond films I would have to say that Daniel Craig is head and shoulders above the others.He's a genuine actor and offers a much deeper look into 007s psyche.The films were becoming over reliant upon tricks(invisible cars?)and playing out a set formula.Craig's two films have a similar formula to the rest of the franchise but a much better storyline.A chance to discover what and how Bond was made.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt about that. The Bond movies were really starting to lose their kick and Craig definitely brought that kick back. He plays a more human Bond, though a human Bond who is a ruthless and efficient killer who can chase someone on foot through an island. Still, I was impressed with his work, and with CR and QoS as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I think many people had, and the problem I had to some extent, was that he was a trained thug. He was a more human Bond, but he was lacking the..."finesse," I guess...that a lot of people have come to expect from Bond. It caught me offguard at first, even as I saw the Bond in the beginning grow into the Bond at the end of "Quantum."