Continued from Part 2…
- So, it’s been six years since the last James Bond movie. You’ve got a new actor in the role, a new Moneypenny, and M is a woman now (a mother, even); and you’ve got no more Cold War. What to do?
Well, first of all, you have to have a plot involving Soviets, even though the USSR doesn’t exist anymore, so make the bad guys a bunch of traitors to the new Republic.
Then, to assure the audience that this is in fact James Bond 007 License to Kill, insert the following elements into the first 10-15 minutes after the opening credits:
1. 1964 Aston Martin DB5
2. Bollinger Champagne
3. Black Tuxedo with Black Bow-Tie
4. Baccarat
5. Sexual Innuendo
6. “Vodka martini; shaken, not stirred.”
7. “Bond, James Bond.”
8. Curiously named woman (Xenia Onatopp)
9. Commander Bond
10. Banter from Moneypenny - But, at the same time, you have to put a modern, more cynical stamp on things, because it’s the 90s now; so you give Moneypenny a new, liberated attitude, and have the new female M tell Bond that he’s a “misogynistic dinosaur” and “a relic of the Cold War”.
- If it sounds like I’m hating on this movie, I don’t mean to. Just pointing out the truth I notice. Frankly, it’s a refreshing return to form for the franchise, directed by Martin Campbell (who we’ll come back to later).
- I know when I talked about ‘Octopussy’ I said that I prefer Bond movie intros to be unrelated to the main plot, but I will make the greatest exception for this one, because it gives us something that no other 007 film has, which is two 00 Agents on a mission together.
- The two weaknesses in particular for ‘Goldeneye’ are most of the score (non-traditional electronic noise by Eric Serra), and the romance stuff seems forced and lacking in purpose.
- Oh, and just to make super sure people know it’s a James Bond movie, make sure Q is still around, make sure the Walther PPK is still carried, make sure there’s a watch laser, and make sure he gets picked up by the CIA and some Marines at the end of the movie.
- As big as the movie was, ‘Goldeneye’ was an even bigger videogame (relative to each market). Truly an indelible part of my generation’s childhood.
- The movie itself may not rank near the top, but this does have one of my favorite 007 openings. It’s not every day you see someone ejected from one jet into another.
- For a plot about an evil news mogul, I think the story holds up quite well, and I think Elliot Carver is an underrated villain in the series. Sure, he’s a thinly-veiled pastiche of Rupert Murdoch, but that’s fine.
- One Bond movie must-have they couldn’t find a way to shoehorn into ‘Goldeneye’ was some underwater photography. It’s not nearly as beautiful as anything that’s come before, but it’s done competently enough for this film.
- Michelle Yeoh is an interesting choice for a Bond girl, but I like what she brings as a friendly rival agent.
- The action in ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ is by far the strength of the movie. From the BMW battle in the parking garage, to the helicopter vs. motorcycle chase, to the Royal Navy getting their own back against a stealth boat, it all looks and feels great.
- The one major weakness again comes in the romance/seduction portions, and the overall tone of the movie feels a little too serious for what it is.
- I feel like I keep saying, “This is the end of an era,” but this actually is the end of an era, because this is the last film of Desmond Llewelyn, who played Q for 36 years, and appeared in 17 007 films, more than any other actor to date.
- It’s hard to describe why this one doesn’t work as well as almost every other Bond movie, especially when it has so many things going for it. From a stunts, effects, and locations standpoint, this might be the best-looking movie of the franchise, since it’s the last one before the CGI revolution got a hold of 007 (we’ll get to that…). Perhaps they were so concerned with making a great-looking movie that they forgot about what else makes a movie good, like story and characterization. Or, perhaps the tone feels wrong because 007 from the 80s is out of place in the 90s. Or, perhaps not having a consistent creative team took its toll. I don’t really have an answer; I just know what my heart tells me.
- It’s interesting to see them address Bond movie staples as the Brosnan movies went on. This one features 007 in an extended boat chase and skiing down a mountain.
- I wish I had more to say about this one, but in the end I was left feeling rather numb, like the villain Renard.
- I guess George Lucas said it best, “A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing.”
- Fonzie jumped the shark; Indiana Jones nuked the fridge; and James Bond surfed a literal CGI wave. Even the most willing audiences have their breaking point.
- To be fair, ‘Die Another Day’ is not all bad. It actually has some pretty great moments (like that fencing scene), and I like the overall story, but the movie as a whole is absolutely ripe to be pilloried.
- What’s truly sad is that ‘Die Another Day’ is the 20th film in the Eon 007 series, and represented the 40th anniversary of the franchise, and it is just not worthy to carry either of those mantles. It was nice to see so many of the past gadgets and gizmos in the Q branch scene, but it barely lasts for a minute. Hardly a fitting tribute; and the invisible car is just too much (in the worst way).
- This was the first Bond movie done post-9/11, but it still feels very pre-9/11. Some sets look like they were borrowed from ‘Batman & Robin’. We’d have to wait til next time for our “gritty reboot.”
- However, as over the top as ‘Die Another Day’ is as whole, it’s interesting that it does address real-life espionage issues, like spies being disavowed after being captured, being burned when they’re considered an unreliable asset, etc. I mean, we’ve seen 007 in the hands of the bad guys plenty of times, but never before on an indefinite basis.
- The gritty reboot for the post-9/11 world. One reason most of the Pierce Brosnan movies didn’t work was because they were trying to recapture past magic in a present world, but they couldn’t balance out the equation. “Casino Royale’ ably adapts to present sensibilities while still holding on to certain Bond movie staples.
- Martin Campbell, director of ‘Goldeneye’, is back again to resurrect the franchise.
- Daniel Craig’s 007 is a “blunt instrument.” The fight scenes have a certain brutality to them that was not usually present before.
- The 1964 Aston Martin DB5, Bollinger Champagne, and the black tuxedo in the casino, all to remind us that this is James Bond, but he doesn’t care if his martini is shaken or stirred, because this is a new Bond with a new attitude.
- “The Big Picture.” ‘Casino Royale’ hints at a larger story that we are not privy to yet. Perhaps that will come soon (‘SPECTRE’).
- Eva Green’s Vesper Lynd may be the most complicated Bond girl we’ve had. As 007 puts it, “Everyone has a tell, except you.”
- Overall, this is among the best of the franchise; no question.
- When it comes to movies, few things make me more frustrated than wasted potential. This movie could have been a great sequel, as “From Russia With Love’ was for “Dr. No’, but they placed it in the wrong hands. I’m not sure how much blame lies at the feet of director Marc Forster, but I can say with certainty that this movie was, as Mike Tyson would say, edited “into Bolivian.”
- Not only is the editing too fast for human consumption, but exposition is often blasted through like a kid through Halloween candy. Anybody who says they don’t like this movie is perfectly justified, although it’s not all bad.
- “We have people everywhere.” Once again, a larger, sinister organization is hinted at in “Quantum of Solace”.
- Poor Gemma Arterton. She’s barely in the movie, but her character is killed off [off-screen] in one of the most brutal (and visually stylish) ways possible.
- Like George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan before him, Daniel Craig’s Bond goes rogue, but of course is proven right.
- Hostile Cousins: 007 has sometimes tried to tender his resignation with MI6, but he’s never had any trouble from his pals at the CIA, until this movie, that is.
- CEL-E-BRATE GOOD TIMES, COME ON! It’s a celebration; 50 years of 007 on the silver screen. ‘Skyfall’ puts the larger plots of ‘Casino Royale’ and ‘Quantum of Solace’ on hold in order to celebrate the franchise’s Golden Jubilee in grand fashion.
- Story-wise, ‘Skyfall’ is essentially ‘The Wrath of Khan‘ of James Bond movies. The hero’s dealing with getting older and having to face the no-win scenario, plus, well, you can figure out the rest. I’m totally fine with it.
- If ‘Quantum of Solace’ was handled by amateurs, ‘Skyfall’ was handled by total professionals. I never would have imagined that Sam Mendes of all people would be the one to helm 007 into the second decade of the 21st century, but here we all are. Thankfully, he brought along Roger Deakins as director of photography, giving us an absolutely gorgeous looking film that couldn’t be further from the shakycam mess that was ‘Quantum of Solace’.
- In a feat of inspired casting, Javier Bardem, who played one of the top two movie villains of the previous decade (Anton Chigurh in ‘No Country for Old Men’), was brought on to be the baddie in this one, and he is exceptional; equal parts humorous, villainous, and just plain creepy.
- It’s a celebration of the franchise, so naturally we get the 1964 Aston Martin DB5 (complete with machine guns and ejector seat) and surf guitar Bond theme, and a new Q, new Moneypenny, and new M. It’s as if the end of the movie is saying, “Let’s get back to business as usual.”
Final Thoughts and Conclusions:
- Ultimately, the James Bond franchise is meant to be solid entertainment, and when it strays too far from that center, either too serious (‘The World is Not Enough’) or too campy (‘Diamonds Are Forever’), that’s when things start to break down. Most of the time, the movies are crowd-pleasing, which is all they really want to be.
- I don’t think enough can be said for how much of a family business these movies are, at least the Eon series, particularly back in the Connery-to-Dalton epoch, when you had a core group of creative people throughout, and each new director was promoted up from editor/second unit, so everyone was always on the same page.
- A lot of people like to point to James Bond being more lucky than good, and that’s sometimes true, but probably not as often as you’d think. I mean, he’s a fictional superspy; what do you want?
- The same goes for the Q gadgets. People love to think of them as some sort of deus ex machina, which you will surely find examples of, but, most of the time they are set up before 007 goes off to a particular place, or he’ll call for certain items when he’s out in the field.
- Finally, movie nerds love to quibble about some sort of Unified Theory of James Bond, either that each actor is playing the exact same character and every movie is connected, or each actor is playing a different man taking up the title of “James Bond 007”.
Both are wrong.
Here’s my take, which is right:
The Eon movies from 1962-1989 feature four actors playing James Bond, and, even though it doesn’t make sense that a superspy would be operational for 27 years, they are intended to be the same character, unified by James Bond’s late wife, Tracy. They get married in ‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’, starring Gearge Lazenby, Bond’s out for revenge for her in ‘Diamonds Are Forever’ (this is not explicitly stated but heavily implied), starring Sean Connery, she’s mentioned in ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’ and James visits her grave in ‘For Your Eyes Only’, starring Roger Moore, and, in ‘Licence to Kill’, starring Timothy Dalton, Felix Leiter says of Bond, “He was married once, but that was a long time ago.”
So, Lazenby, Connery, Moore, and Dalton are all meant to be the same character.
Where do Brosnan and Craig fit in?
Well, you have to look at ‘Goldeneye’ and ‘Casino Royale’ like ‘Star Trek’ (2009). They are there own continuties, and the only reason Desmond Llewelyn and Judi Dench, respectively, are there, is for marketing, and to assure the audience that it’s James Bond, just like how Leonard Nimoy is in the new Star Trek.
So, there you have it. The entire James Bond film saga up to ‘SPECTRE’, which I’m so excited for, I might not be able to breathe (click here to read that review).