Brother cerebus666 over at the 'Glass Walking Stick' posted today that the financial troubles at MGM have been settled. This opens the way for another James Bond movie to be made sooner rather than later.
I love the Bond franchise. The series has always been goofy fun. Each actor who plays the James Bond character bring something different to the role. In the wake of films that the 'Bourne Identity' series, the people who made 'Casino Royale' and 'Quantum of Solace' went in a new direction with the character. Daniel Craig is no 'wanna-be' playboy. He is a thug, the blunt end of the knife. Here is what I wrote about him all those years ago.
Even my repost are golden.
"To my surprise I find that Daniel Craig is the Bond I have been waiting for since Sean Connery ('Diamonds are Forever' was the first drive-in movie I ever saw). Tough, damaged, dangerous and lets me honest; a bit of a prick. These are the exact character traits I look to in my super spies with a licence to kill operating in a global conflict for the highest stakes imaginable. Stripped down to its essentials Craig's Bond feels unburdened by continuity and silly toys and gets the heart of a hero. It's a full meal as opposed to a snow cone - nutritious and filling.
While I enjoyed Peirce Brosnon's Bond alot, he was a necessary transition from the horrible, gimmicky Bond movies that don't stand up as well over time. He was the perfect model for the Bond of the novels which is why he wore the role so well - a role he was born to play since we first saw him on 'Reminton Steele'. We wouldn't have Daniel Craig if Bronson hadn't shorn up the foundation of the creeky Bond "house".
Roger Moore was too much of a fop and dandy to be considered dangerous and that more than anything lowered the quality of the Bond films that he starred in. I won't even go into the Timothy Dalton movies.
I am a big fan of Judi Densch as M. She is the strong bridge connecting the last two Bonds. The weight of her qualities as an actress only add to the atmoshere.
Her 'M' character may have personal feelings for Bond but that never gets in the way of her realizing and accepting that while he is a "blunt instrument" he is the best man for the worst kinds of jobs.
Bond doesn't need her respect or approval to do what he does so well but she remains the only one whose opinion of him and his job performance count. That is the highest level of respect he can give anyone. She is the one person he never wants to let down.
She may scold him like a disobedient child for his refusal to do things the "official" way but it seems tempered more by her desire to protect him than to bend him to her will. He is not just another employee. She uses her skills and experience to make him a better spy AND most importantly a better man.
I see in her the hope that he will live long enough to succeed her and pass what he knows onto another protege in the future; a parent passing the company onto her offspring. The fact that Bond is an orphan only strengthens my argument.
%20(002).jpg)
.jpg)
9 comments:
Your thoughts on Craig's Bond echo mine exactly, Cal - it'll be good to have him back!
Bond always should be played as a cold blooded killer underneath, Connery and Craig did that with great success. Moore was just playing the Saint as 007, Lazenby and Dalton just never got the time to grow into the character but Lazenby played Bond with a brute force that Craig uses. Brosnan (who i liked as Bond) made Bond too "P.C." and caring too much for others and that made Bond weak in my eyes.
2012 is the 50th anniversary of the Bond film series.
How better to celebrate that milestone than to release a fresh Bond film.
Great minds must think alike. I have been working on a post addressing my James Bond withdrawal. I'm very excited to see them getting the production moving again.
Geez, I've liked all of the Bonds -- especially Dalton and Lazenby, the three films between the two of them ranking very high in my personal Bond film pantheon. Even Moore had a lot of fine moments -- his scripts were generally the worst of any of them, but he made do with what he could until he finally got a couple of good scripts starting with For Your Eyes Only. Of course Connery is good, but I've never found him definitive, and his films are more uneven than a lot of people think -- especially Diamonds are Forever, which really started the whole campy-Bond thing of the 1970s rolling.
I just wanted to stick up for Dalton and Lazenby, though. I think both were terrific.
I like how everyone can find something to enjoy about all the films and actors who have played Bonds. That is what is so great about the character in the first place. When I wrote that piece way back in the day ('08??) I had watched all the films one after the other. I sure that colored my opinions at the time.
What I really miss is the "fun" of the Connery era. The over the top scale on everything, but then Moore's era of goofiness insured we'd never see that again. The times have changed too much to go back to that I guess.
I don't even think Roger Moore's Bond was a trained assassin. I think MI-6 just found a suicidal playboy, and told him they'd finance all his dangerous trips if he'd agree to do some simple investigative work for them while he was at it.
In any event, Judi Densch needs to come back as M. Whether its Bronson or Craig, she was always a great foil for Bond.
I read all the Ian Fleming 007 books as a kid and have been hooked ever since!
A friend of mine started complaining about Daniel Craig 'killing' the Bond franchise (BEFORE Casino Royale was released), mostly because of stupid, nit-picky things that weren't translated over from the novel to his satisfaction, and because Craig didn't fit the 'physical mold' of Bond.
I told him the best way to look at it is that James Bond, 007 is a job position within MI-6. Whoever gets placed into the 007 slot becomes James Bond until they die or retire back to their former identity.
That actually worked for him. . . go figure :D
Post a Comment