Timon
Posts: 14541
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: directorscut
James Bond 1962-2002.
RIP.
Oh for God's sake DC. If you can praise Die Another Day and then slam Casino Royale, some is definetly foul in the state of Denmark.
People are often quick to say that the literary James Bond and the cinematic James Bond should be two seperate entities but these are often the people that really enjoy the campier aspects that Moore bought to the role.
James Bond IS a secret agent with a licence to KILL. He is not a buffon with a spasmotic eyebrow.
Craig revitalised a series that was on its knees and I'll tell you the reason why it was. It wasn't overuse of CGI, it wasn't bad scripts (well partly)...it was Austin Powers.
Austin Powers showed the Bond franchise up for what it had become - a franchise that placed spectacle and gadgets over the character, something that thankfully has been fixed.
People can credit Paul Greengrass and the Bourne series all they want for revitalising Bond, but know that the character of Bourne, Bauer et al would be nowhere without Bond. The character has had a few stumbles cinematically over the years - Diamonds Are Forever, Moonraker and Die Another Day but it looks like he's back to being the cold hearted bastard (Yes, he is meant to be a bastard. Not a centrefold for GQ) that Ian Fleming intended.
For me, while Sean Connery may be the quintessential Bond for many, it's been Timothy Dalton that's portrayed Bond how I have always seen him in my mind and in Fleming's books. A man who enjoys women but doesn't care for them in his life, who is good at his job but isn't overly fond of it and a man who can be cold and callous.
Brosnan tried to get a lot of this across and for one really enjoy the first three Brosnan films. Sure certain aspects are overblown but there are little moments where Pierce nailed the character - his inner anger at 006's betrayal, his execution of Paris's killer in TDN and the way he kills Elektra. Coldly.
Roger Moore was all about spectacle and his films are clearly a product of their time - humour over story, style over substance, one liners over actual spy work. Saying that though, For Your Eyes Only is a fantastic Bond film and one where the film makers tried to take the character back to its roots after the silliness of Moonraker.
As for Lazenbry. I like him. He plays most of the film as a dithering professor that doesn't help, but when he's cradling Tracey in his arms - all sins are forgiven.
The likes of Darth Silas and DC may point out the failings of the more 'serious' Bond films at the box office but that's because the general audience and by that I mean the Americans, are used to Bond dispatching goons with a one-liner and then bedding the nearest piece of skirt. For those that know and love the character, they can appreciate what Dalton, Connery, Craig and even Brosnan brought to the role.
An edge. Bond is an orphan. A man who is often alone (after making the mistake of becoming attached to one person before), kills without compassion and does his best for Queen and country. He's not Bourne who is out essentially for himself and the two shouldn't be compared.
Bond is an institution and hopefully will be around for a long time to come. After all, you all know the name and the number.
"I might ask if all those vodka martinis silence the screams of all the men you've killed... or if you've found forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women for the dead ones you failed to protect?"
< Message edited by Timon -- 3/1/2008 4:30:02 PM >
_____________________________
"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."
Twitter: @timonsingh
|
Printable Version
RE: James Bond Series - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread