10 comments

• 

  Brutus

  2 years ago

  The Bond franchise is probably the only subject about which I can indulge in the ridiculous fanboy aesthetic this site specializes in. So much has been written about Bond movies that there is precious little novel commentary to make. I agree that the Brosnan series was almost as much a caricature as the Moore series. But Dalton had previously tried (and failed) to bring Bond back to his roots in Fleming's fiction.
  
  A feminist deconstruction of Bond is a wholly misplaced emphasis, IMO. The whole point of Bond, whether clown or cold warrior, is escapist fantasy. Of course he beds every woman available -- that's a standard male fantasy, to which plently of women respond, too. Making the Bond girls more substantial may quiet a few PC folks, but that doesn't make the preposterously enjoyable characters ring any truer.
  reply
• 

  egoboss

  2 years ago

  craig is excellent as the latest incarnation of bond.
  
  however, casino royale was a very poor film.
  
  they need to take tarantino up on his offer to make a bond film.
  reply
• 

  estiv

  2 years ago

  Good stuff. Watching Dr. No (1962) a few years ago, I was struck by the scene in which Bond explains to his two companions in the swamp what techniques they'll need to use to elude the bad guys. The only problem is that we know that Bond has been in that swamp about a day, while his two companions are both resourceful and hard-bitten survivors who have lived there their whole lives. But they are (1) a woman and (2) a black man, so they need the God-like figure of Bond to assist them. It was a film made in a different world, and not a better one.
  reply
• 

  Melissa McEwan

  2 years ago

  The whole point of Bond, whether clown or cold warrior, is escapist fantasy.
  
  Indeed. One might note, however, (she suggested politely) that the piece in question ends with the observation that it nonetheless remains an effective escapist fantasy, even having lost the misogyny, which is not, strictly, just about "bed[ding] every woman available." Thusly is the film an effective escapist fantasy for feminist women and men, too. Bond has a new club--and it's not just a boys' club anymore.
  
  Someone quite cynical might suggest that there are those for whom this particular development is the real rub, as it means not only that Bond is no longer the exclusive propriety of those unbothered by womantoys, but also that he, maddeningly, stands to pass judgment on that history, and, worse yet, on them. (The nerve, after all their years of devotion!) But I am not that cynical person. I am generous, and believe only that some people simply evolve more slowly than others.
  reply
• 

  Ralph

  2 years ago

  If my memories serves me, the two Bond films staring Timothy Dalton were the first post-Aids 007 films and it shows. While Connery and Moore slept around with Russian spies like so many salted peanuts -- Dalton only sleeps with one woman in 'Living Daylights' who I think was also his love interst. That shocked me when it came out.
  
  Never saw even one of the Brosnan films, but the new one has Bond, again, only sleeping with one woman - the love interest.
  
  I don't agree that Casino Royale was a very poor film. I enjoyed it. It was entertaining. It's James Bond. What do you expect, Oscar worthy material? Sheesh!
  reply
• 

  egoboss

  2 years ago

  ralph - 'poor' is only my (and my wife's) opinion; only craig's impressive screen presence saved it for us. with the right vehicle he could become a classic bond. this was not that vehicle, in my opinion.
  
  i don't expect a gravitas laden script (nor want one for a bond film) but i do expect to be entertained, intrigued, excited - this failed in all those respects; there was no visceral thrill at any stage. it 'looked good' which seems to be the modern film makers priority - all sizzle, no steak.
  
  indeed, i agree, one shouldn't expect oscars from a bond film: so, why on earth was it nominated for oscars in the first place?
  
  get tarantino in.
  
  ;-)
  reply
• 

  Tom Watson

  2 years ago

  Craig was ok - not as good as Connery, better than Moore. The script was slow. The card scenes were endless. Two very well-staged chase scenes were the only thrills. It looks like a 2.5 hour advertisement for fine watches and Fords.
  
  I have to say that I didn't find this Bond and his lady any more liberated, any more feminist than Connery's bond - sure there was more sensitivity, but the super-man theme was still there.
  
  The Bourne movies are far better spy flicks these days - they've tried to update Bond but it fails, in my mind.
  reply
• 

  Dan Leo

  2 years ago

  Anyone else notice some dreamlike weird editing lags in the casino section? I think it was after Bond bumps off the two dudes in the stairwell. I was all "Wha? Wha's goin' on?" But enjoyed it immensely anyway despite this little nod-off section which was perhaps intended as a de facto intermission so people in the theatre could take a piss or grab some popcorn.
  reply
• 

  Claire

  2 years ago

  And after making her point that she doesn’t cede the upper hand to anyone, Vesper promptly turns Bond’s request to use her feminine wiles on its head—by walking into the room wearing that dress directly in front of him, instead of his competitors. He admonishes her that she was supposed to distract the other fellows, not him. “Was I?” she asks coyly, making those words for all the world sound like the coolest “Fuck you” ever uttered.
  
  Hell yeah, I loved this scene. I finally saw this, cramped in an airplane seat, hurtling towards Chicago at an alarming rate, and really, really liked it.
  
  I think Taratino would be an awful choice to direct a Bond, though. Too much ego.
  
  Good re-post, Shakes.
  reply
• 

  Alex

  2 years ago

  Thank You
  reply