Mere minutes into the latest 007 caper, Quantum Of Solace, I realized that the James Bond I've known and loved since childhood was dead and gone. In its place; a humorless, steroid-popping bull in a china shop. Gone is any trace of nuance, subtlety or class that made James Bond the pride of Her Majesty's Secret Service.
For two hours, I was struck dumb by what I was seeing on the screen as the moviegoers around me sat transfixed, barely able to breath (but, strangely, still able to shovel popcorn into their pie holes). By the time the end credits rolled, they were up from their seats, happily exhausted from the brainless thrill-ride they'd been taken on and anxious to ride again. And they will, too. Just pack the next Bond flick with tons of explosions and not-even-close-to-being-possible chase scenes and they'll be happy.
In a day and age where we've got enough brain-dead movie franchises for the masses, I really see no need for the 007 series to join their ranks. Fuck, Transporter 3 is a more subtle and intellectually challenging slice of celluloid than this new Bond flick. And, truth be told, Jason Statham makes a better Bond, by far, which is saying something because, well, he's no Sean Connery, if you catch my drift.
Make no mistake, I'm not asking for much. But I'm certainly not asking to be shown James Bond in a moment of self-abuse. What the fuck is that about? The reason we all fell in love with James Bond was because we knew - without having to be beaten over the head with it - that Bond wasn't perfect. We knew that when his lady bought the farm that he hurt inside. We knew he wasn't a machine. We also knew that he was absolutely the best at what he did and that nothing would stand in the way of him being Bond, James Bond and completing his mission.
The new Bond, by comparison, is a mono-syllabic thug with a face only a mother could love. There is no grace or humor to anything he does. He is Rambo in a tailored suit.
What a disgrace.
3 comments:
I'm no Bond-o-phile, but I kinda think your last few complaints are more valid than your first few. Are you seriously acting like Bond movies of yore were full of subtlety, nuance, and believable criminal exploits?
Just 'cuz the special effects in Moonraker suck shite doesn't mean you can give them a pass. What you call "nuance, subtlety or class" I call, more often than not in Bond's history, "cheeeeeeze" with a capital Velveeta.
The last flick was successful because it had a gravitas and intensity that previous incarnations sorely lacked. And now that they (apparently) tried kicking that up a notch in QoS, everyone's panicked that the fun Roger Moore parts are gone forever.
Can't have your cake and eat it too. You keep your Octopussy if you like. I'd rather rewatch Royale.
Billy, you're right. The early Bonds did occasionally venture into cheese territory and a couple of them are, indeed, quite painful to watch.
Truth be told, my personal fave, and the template for all Bond flicks IMHO, is the first Casino Royale. The difference between that and the Daniel Craig Royale illustrates quite well the difference between prime James Bond and a complete impostor masquerading as such. Craig's Royale may have been an okay flick, but the only thing making it a Bond flick was the recognizable 007 logo.
The women love the new Bond. My Wife thinks the new bond is the second best bond, next to Sean.
So as long as he is marketable to women, he will probably be in a few more.
Post a Comment