Well, this Samizdatista finally donned his false beard and shades to spy on the latest James Bond epic, Die Another Day at the weekend. After stumbling out of the cinema, my ears still ringing after nearly two hours of loud bangs and eye-scortching special effects, here are my random thoughts about it.
My first thought about the film is that the franchise has become so entrenched as a formula that they resemble cartoons more than films with real people. I like Pierce Brosnan, who plays Bond with a certain wry wit and swagger (though he ain’t a patch on Sean Connery), but overall the film just doesn’t have that certain X-factor, that sense of style and sophistication, which made the early films so much fun. I miss the John Barry scores, which created a haunting background tone of their own. There is virtually no connection any more between the Bond of the cinema and the complex character that Ian Fleming created all those years ago in the Cold War.
I quite liked the opening sequence, even the bit where our Jim gets roughed up in the North Korean prison (glad to see one of the Axis of Evil nations getting ragged in the movies. George W. Bush will love it). You don’t get much of this in most Bond films, where the hero seems to pass through all manner of combats with nary a hair out of place. For once 007 gets a hard time. I sensed some members of the audience got a bit uncomfortable about that. But I thought it gave the film a bit of an edge we haven’t seen before, and the film-makers deserve some credit for that.
But the basic plot idea, of an errant North Korean bad boy plotting world domination via a scheme to harness diamond tech. to vaporise the West, was, well, so damn implausible that it lost me. In fact, quite a lot of the film was pretty much like outright science fiction. Now don’t get me wrong – I like science fiction. But the key to the best Bond films was ability to keep just this side of plausibility. The trouble with this one is that it falls right off the edge. Admittedly the makers may believe they have to create a diabolical villain while skating over the hottest current world controversies so as not to offend unduly. I cannot quite imagine 007 being pitched against Al Qaeda just yet. We tend to forget Bond started out going after the Russkies, but right from the start the film-makers have downplayed any ideological issues. Sometimes this means they come up with some very contrived villains. In this film none of the baddies really make a lot of sense.
The special effects and action scenes are great, but many of them are done at such high speed that you almost have no time to appreciate them. The film is not well paced. Arguably the best Bond film ever, Goldfinger, was able to mix up the rough-house stuff with slow-moving scenes such as the famous golf game with Goldfinger.
James Bond movies will probably roll on for a while yet. They make fantastic amounts of money and the makers know that barring disaster, they won’t lose their drawing power yet. But wouldn’t it be nice if just for once, we could tone down the gadgetry and try to make something that resembles the vision of its literary creator? I am not holding my breath.
Two good reasons to go see the new Bond movie
Bollocks! Sean Connery is a vastly over rated blowhard. I much prefer Brosnan.
But yes, it is nice to see the communist bad guys shown as… BAD GUYS. The film is sort of a remake of ‘Diamonds are Forever’ but with communists.
I am surprised you did not mention Halle Berry and Rosamund Pike, who are rather splendid. I just loved their fight at the end!
It was a great Bond film, it does exactly what it says on the tin. The one liners are, er, well, Bondesque in their mixture of sleaze, tack and speed. Wonderful.
As to the plot, hey, who expects a credible plot from a Bond film?! Yeah, like Dr No, or Goldfinger, or any other Bond film plot does not require suspension of a belief or two (or more). I always saw the Bond film plots as no more credible than Mr James Bond himself.
Go and enjoy a couple of hours of sheer escapism in these troubled times. It’s good to see that the good guys win and do so in style.
Yes, Bond has become both cliche and cookie-cut. That is why so many lovers of the genre prefer Jack Ryan, who’s films still have as much of Clancy’s complexity as you can reasonablely fit is a two hour film.
At least Bond gets to drive a proper car this time.
Bond film was not as good as the tradition demands.
But in a shameless plug. I would suggest reading my friend James Chapman’s “License To Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films”, available at all good book shops.
Capitalism at work.
Right on about Jack Ryan. I’ll take “Hunt for Red October” or “Clear and Present Danger” over any ten Bond films. Though of the Bonds, Connery was the best.
Buddy o’ mine had a fantastic idea.
Imagine a James Bond movie as a period piece. Optimal time I think would be around the time of the Kennedy Administration.
Bond goes up against actual KGB agents in East Berlin, maybe throw into the story the Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kruschev, stuff like that.
Do up the clothes, the cars, the thin neckties, the whole bit.
I think it could be done really really well, if done right. I’d love to see it.
Whilst I think Tom Clancy is a fairly good author, he is, like Sean Connery, vastly over rated. Also his books have yet to make a really good screen play. I found all the ‘Jack Ryan’ movies very average and the recent ‘prequel’ was dire.
Have to agree about Jack Ryan stories. Could have been written by a computer. As for Sean, his early films were the best. His last two – Diamonds are Forever and You Only Live Twice – had too much silly humour. Though DF contains the brilliant line where Bond, after having been told by a curvy woman that her name is Plenty O’Toole, replies, deadpan, “Of coursh you are”.
Perry, don’t let your view of Connery be coloured by his daft Scottish Nat views! Mind you, he once hilariously asked folk on a SNP Party political broadcast to “visit our webshite”.
I notice that Madonna was in this last James Bond movie…
lars
ugh.
“[Jack Ryan stories] Could have been written by a computer.”
And Bond movies couldn’t? Their plots are invariably far-fetched (often outright impossible) and worse, boring. Jack Ryan movies are silly action movies, which (unlike every Bond movie I’ve seen) are very entertaining*. They are also leagues more realistic than Bond movies.
As for Sean Connery, I don’t like him because of his tremendous acting talent. In point of fact, I’ve never been able to identify any acting talent in him at all. I find his accent extremely funny (“Now the west will tremble before the shound of our shilenshe”), and whenever he speaks I think of his epic performance in the greatest movie of all time** Zardoz (“I love it when I kill, for then I am one with Zardosh”).
*Except “The Sum of All Fears,” which, while mildly entertaining somehow missed the boat.
**Note: For any of you who haven’t seen the movie, I’m being facetious.
Connery and Brosnan are both above-average. but not great, actors running grossly below their station in Bond movies.
I willingly enjoyed the latest Bond flick, but I couldn’t help myself and so panned the film’s laughable gun handling in a piece on my site.
I loved the sword brawl, however, even as ridden as it was with bad practice.
Lucas says Connery has no acting talent. Eh? The man has a great presence on the screen. Okay, he’s not a luvvie in the Gielgud mould, but that doesn’t make him a dud actor.
Of course, many of the Fleming books were a bit formulaic, but not nearly as much as most of the films. I just think the most Flemingesque films tend to be the most enjoyable. Call it personal preference.
Oh, I should have mentioned the Aston Martin. I am in love with zat car!!!!