Connery, Moore, Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig ....
All of them had their stake and left their own unique mark.
The movies are fun. There's action with sexy women with sexy cars and sexy gadgets. As the enterprise continued to advance, the Bond empire continued to be more innovative. The cars did more, the gadgets were more tricky and the characters found themselves in space, under water and rescuing the world over and over again.
But as the empire continued to roll, the character could almost become predictable. Peril + girl + gadget + action filled escape = successful Bond movie.
It wasn't until Pierce Brosnan's tenure that we started to see a different Bond emerge. He was upset - feeling betrayed - a little darker - feeling more than going through the typical stunts and falls.
Daniel's version of Bond finally added depth to the character. We had a Bond who has issues. We had a Bond who was complicated. Daniel Craig's Bond got rid of the gadgets and the over-the-top invisible car ... the VANQUISH ..... ooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh....
What Daniel did in Casino Royale was to bring Bond back to reality. Beating his counterparts using his brawn, smarts and a bit of Bond luck. He didn't need the gadgetry to save him like the infamous jet pack or the laser beam that can fire from his watch. Don't get me wrong - I like some of that stuff. It's fun - but after awhile it just felt over used.
And so ... if you haven't seen the last couple Bond films (Quantum of Solace and Skyfall) - you may want to reconsider reading any further. I don't want to spoil the plot for you.
....
....
....
....
Are you sure you're ready?
....
....
....
....
Last chance ....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
Alright.... Quantum has been dubbed Craig's mistake in the Bond spectrum. While I can see some of the complaints ... honestly - if we forgave Pierce and the disappearing car ... we can give Daniel a little leeway too.
So here comes Sam Mendes to direct the latest film Skyfall. Sam is very popular and well known for his work with American Beauty, Road to Perdition and Jarhead. He's done good work and I think he brought a different perspective when he was asked to lead Bond on another adventure. The problem with Skyfall wasn't Mendes, wasn't Craig, Dench or Javier (who made a really great villain.)
It was the story.
Not everything was bad ... as there were elements I liked. Bond having a hard time bouncing back after his last assignment, recovery not quite as smooth as it had been for other Bonds. He was real ... just as I have grown to like him in Casino Royale and Quantum.
But ... there were times in Skyfall where I felt like we were starting to embrace the earlier Bond methods. I'm not sure if this was Mendes' way to pay homage to Daniel's former brethren ... but it just didn't seem to mesh with the Bond I've come to really enjoy.
Yes - it's great to see the famous Aston Martin again. Yes - it was even great to see Q again.
Where as in Casino and Quantum ... we got to know the villains more. We learned more about their history and how they got to be evil. Javier's character barely had one segment to explain why he was in a bad mood and wanted to take down the agency. It felt flat even though Javier did an incredible job trying to rescue the character.
Even with that ... I felt I could be okay with the movie ... until ....
...the very end. The last 5-7 minutes seem like a cop out. Right down to Eve Moneypenny, the cushioned door leading into M's office .... and it just felt like Daniel's Bond had been transformed into something - less - than what he's capable of. The build-up of what Sam had done up until the last part of the movie - was unraveled by this "blast from the past" kind of familiarity reunion thing.
I'm sure the Bond franchise is eager to start building on Skyfall's popularity. The movie has gotten rave reviews and has been a good money maker for the Bond empire. It's sad that the bottom fell out at the end of a really good movie. I'm not saying their unexpected plot twist with M was bad ... it's probably really good for the stories to come ... but we didn't need to come back to Bond circa 1960.
What Mendes and Broccoli should've realized is that it's okay to be an advanced modern Bond and an advanced MI6. It's okay to be weak, vulnerable and human with all of the failings that follow. The Bond empire didn't need to revert or put the jacket back on from long ago. It's okay to step out of the shadow of the old Bonds ... and make the Bond that resonated the most with the Ian Flemming character.
In short - as some reviewers have said - it's not a bad movie ... but it's just not a great Bond movie. I do hope that the next Bond movie can step back on the Path they started before ... or else I'm in for another disappointing 2 1/2 hour movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment