(I've always liked the fan theory which explains the replacement 007s thus: "James Bond" doesn't exist, it's a cover identity the British Secret Service assigns to their top agent. And that would work if not for one or two things in the movies that fuck up the continuity)
Not sure why I waited, really-I'm a Bond fan, as you can easily tell
, and this one got very good reviews. I think, somehow, I sensed this one was to please the "serious" fans. The ones who probably hated Desmond Llewelyn.
And, as I've said, I've recently done a 180 on the "silly" Bond movies, like Diamonds Are Forever and Moonraker I once renounced. Okay, I know the Moore movies sometimes overdid it, but I do like a little more wit in my Bond scripts.
I think this whole thing just had kind of a glum vibe, and that's not what I'm looking for from my Bond scripts.
That said, taken on it's own, the film is beautifully made. Speaking of beautifully made...
It has been remarked that I have an appreciation for beautiful women. There are women who can be so beautiful onscreen I find it almost impossible to rate them as movie stars, because every time I look at them all I'm thinking is: Pretty...
Anne Hathaway...
Nicole Kidman...Eva Green.
Mother of god, she's life itself. She doesn't even have to be showing anything but her face and no heterosexual man could stop himself mentally cataloging a few carnal pleasures.
You put her in a dress that shows off her wow! of a body and have her walk away from the camera, and strong men could be forgiven for passing out.
Speaking of strong men (Ben Varkentine, king of the segue), the stunts of this movie remind you of the days before action sequences meant overpaid actors riding CGI explosions on bluescreen.
And it's not that the script doesn't have jokes, they're just not terribly witty in the playful sense. Nor are they supposed to be.
The film succeds at what it was trying to do, which was to "reinvent" a starker, post 9/11 Bond for 12-year-olds of the 21st century.
I was 12 in the 1980s, therefore, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton are my men.
As Bond, Daniel Craig is fine, but he'll never be "my" Bond. Like favorite Doctors Who, that's just a function of your age.
8 comments:
Aw, c'mon, Ben- Moonraker?
Hm. I was 12 when Moore did his first Bond, so I guess that puts me on the cusp. I like Moore, really I do, but Connery was The Man as Bond. And I liked the first three Moore Bonds OK; Golden Gun more so than Live and Let Die and Spy Who Loved Me. But as Moore got older, the scripts got sillier and Moore looked sillier acting them out.
But boy did I hate Moonraker. It was awful from the opening credits.
Dalton didn't make much of an impression on me, but I kinda liked Pierce Brosnan.
And you are oh so correct about Green! Plus, Kidman has been looking Zellwegger-ghastly the lst few years anyway...whoever's giving her advice should be fired.
I talked about Moonraker here:
http://varkentine.blogspot.com/2007/06/high-upon-hillside-preacher-tells-story.html
(sroll down til you see the poster)
I cheered Dalton in The Living Daylights, in fact I applauded the whole movie, which is still one of the ones I most like.
His only other, though, was all wrong.
I did think Pierce Brosnan was good.
That's no "fan theory" -- it's the premise of the original Casino Royale in which David Niven, Peter Sellers, Terence Cooper, and Woody Allen are all James Bond. Of course you knew that already, but you may have young readers who might be easily confused. As you know, the 1967 version is absolutely glorious and I advise your young readers to check it out at the earliest opportunity.
To tell you the truth I didn't know that already, never having seen the 1967 version. I knew there were muliple Bonds in it.
And I do remember something from an interview with frequent Bond screenwriter Richard Maibaum.
When they replaced Connery, they considered but dropped the idea of having the new Bond found at a plastic surgery clinic...
You're kidding.
Oh, that needs to be fixed. Just as a comedy fan, let alone a Bond fan; this is the film that Mike Myers was trying so hard to emulate with Austin Powers, but he fell far short of the mark. David Niven especially is a joy to watch. He understood that in the best comedy the actor plays it completely straight as if it's a serious film. His performance as the original Sir James Bond -- resentful that HMSS has assigned his name to a succession of sexaholic libertines to create the illusion of an indestructible 007 -- balances out an otherwise surreal comedy in the tradition of the best Carry On films. (In my humble opinion Casino Royale is better...but those films have sacrosanct status for many, so I tread softly in that claim.)
What do I need to say to get you to watch it? That it has gorgeous babes? It does. That Warren Ellis loves this film? He does. I haven't seen it since the "proper" version came out, but I think knowing the real story would only enhance one's appreciation of the parody.
I think this is the first positive assesment of the film I have ever read.
That, plus the fact that it was such a famous nightmare of a production-six directors, three credited writers plus seven (!) uncredited ones-probably kept me from seeing it.
But, maybe the next time I'm looking for something to balance out my vid store's two-for-one night...
I was born in the 80s, but Daniel Craig is my Bond now.
It's not when you were born, it's when you were 12...and that may just count for boys.
Post a Comment