I was one of the few people who didn't like Daniel Craig's stab at James Bond - okay it was a good movie but that's all it was - a run of the mill action movie. It could have been anything from Die Hard 5 to Lethal Weapon 26.
It certainly wasn't James Bond - not the character that has evolved through a series of unique movies nor the character Fleming originally created on the printed page. I'm eager for the arrival of the new movie, Quantum of Solace this October but early indications are that they are moving even further away from what makes Bond distinct from other action adventure films.
And once the dust has settled on Daniel Craig's tenure I think it will become clear that this was the biggest casting bollock drop in cinema history. Sure, he's a fine actor but he really isn't James Bond. He plays him as a cross between Grant Mitchell and Vinnie Jones.
The film makers have taken away everything that as made the Bond films such a successful series, the things which set them apart from other action films. Sure they can be corny but we expect them to be and the villains are so much larger than life, the women are physical representations of juvenile male sexual fantasies, the plots are outlandish and the action borders on the improbable but that's how it should be. To my mind Casino Royal equates to rebooting Superman but taking away his power of flight. Oh yeah we've got a gritty realistic Bond but that's not what we want and it's nothing we've ever had before.
You see Superman wears his cape and flies about, taking care of justice and upholding the American Way - that's what defines the character. James Bond wears a tux, is impossibly cool, uses and casts women aside and never has a hair out of place. It is what distinguishes him from Martin Riggs, John McClain and John Rambo.
However, anyone wanting the real James Bond
will have to go back to the original Fleming canon. But the film Bond has evolved in such a way that he is distinct from the character as Fleming originally created him. And don't forget the author was not averse to a bit of larger than life mayhem.(Pictured above - The author lives out his own Bond fantasies)
******************************
The new Bond trailer:
To clarify I did enjoy Casino Royale, I found it a great action movie, I felt Daniel Craig added gravity to the film but I didn't feel like I'd seen a James Bond film and Daniel Craig doesn't convince as 007. I'll be first in line to see Quantum when it opens and I'm hope this one will change my mind but I'm dubious to say the least.
The film makers say they have gone back to the Fleming books but have they? Casino Royale the film did, in all fairness, follow the book fairly closely but Craig doesn't come close to the Bond described in the book. He was tough but he wasn't a thug, he was suave rather than causal, and physically the actor and the man on the page are worlds apart. I believe that the movie Casino Royale was such a success because it did seem fresh and in the context of Bond's cinematic world it was like a kick of adrenaline after the poor Die Another Day but the next film will be the test and prove if Daniel Craig has the legs to carry the franchise onwards into the future.
When it became clear that Pierce Brosnon was not returning I'd hoped Clive Owen would have taken over and I think he very nearly did. But something happened and the role went to Daniel Craig.
Clive Owen would have been superb but it'll always be easy to say that. People said the same thing about Lewis Collins and most of the other actors who came close to getting the part but, for one reason or another, didn't quite make it.
However Daniel Craig is a brilliant actor and I hope the next movie lays my fears to rest and that the franchise will continue onwards and upwards. But if Craig is to continue in the role sooner or later they're going to have to bring the humour back as well as the outlandish plots. Not to mention Q and Moneypenny and please let's see Mr Blofeld on the rampage one more time.
James Bond will return.
No comments:
Post a Comment