:: stops to fight a maddened Vin Diesel; destroys half the city in ensuing battle; limps back to computer, weeping like an Oklahoman ::
Sorry about that. Given that the great Judi Dench appears in the last Brosnan effort and the two Craig flicks, are they meant to take place in the same continuity? That is, in the movie universe, is “James Bond” the character’s real name, or is it a pseudonym used by whoever the current 007 is? Because M seems to have soem genuine feeling for the Craig Bond (for gossake, she actually calls Blond!Bond James), as opposed to merely tolerating the Brosnan version (whom one suspects she would happily feed to flesh-eating mutant ostriches if she had both a reasonable excuse and a supply of flesh-eating ostriches).
The pre-Dench M, as well as Q & Moneypenny, were played by the same actors over several Bond changes as well–but James Bond is supposed to be his name, not his assigned 007 pseudonym (though in Diamonds are Forever, Bond’s reputation is known worldwide, not just in the intelligence community)
Summer and Bond, James Bond are of a kind. The best move of these is the Daniel Craig Casino Royale which is a good movie on all counts with the best acting interpretation by Craig. The older ones are all campy to one degree or another, but Goldfinger is probably the most iconic. My personal favorite of the campy ones is The Man With The Golden Gun because it is really campy and the villain gets his comeuppance in a classic tip of the hat to hubris. And the villain is Count Dooku and the original Mini Me.
Yeah, Bond is a particular person, not an alias that other agents inherit. Casino Royale though was a complete reboot of the series with Bond having just earned his 007 designation.
About the relationship between M and Bond, traditionally, dating back to the Connery movies, they always had a cordial, professional relationship. Bond was the best agent that M had at his disposal and he appreciated that. When Judi Dench took over the role Brosnan’s Bond was supposed to be a veteran in the field and I think the idea was that she didn’t always appreciate his “unorthodox” methods in tackling missions. I always thought that, over the years, she had simply grown tired of dealing with his shenanigans. Craig’s Bond is young and still, relatively speaking, inexperienced. It’s feasible that over time Craig and Dench’s characters will develop the same kind of relationship, or a completely different one.
The second-most-recent movie was intended as a reboot, not a sequel (Bond is depicted as a new 007). But the Bond movies were never big on continuity anyway.* A principal character is played by the same actor as in previous films because one does not replace Dame Judi Dench lightly.
Definitely a proper name, although in the 1967 Casino Royale (has anyone mentioned what a bad movie that was?), several individuals are designated “James Bond 007” as part of what passes for a plot.
Exhibit A: “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” depicts Bond and Blofeld as not having met before, although they had in the previous movie. True, they were played by different actors, but that’s not really a good explanation.
No – Leader of organizxation (it was supposed to be Blofeld in The Spy Who Loved Me, but they ran into legal problems with Wjhittingham) builds a sea/oceangoing device that traps subs/spaceships from both the US and the USSR, hoping to precipitate nuclear war. Bond and a female spy break into the bad Guy’s hideout and free the trapped US and USSR crews and lead an army of fighters to free everyon and blow up the hideout.
Well, Bond and female spy sneak aboard bag guy’s hidden satellite as he’s about to exterminate humanity and there’s an army of (space) fighters for the battle scene…
Overall, From Russia with Love is the best Bond film. It’s more rooted in reality, and has two of Bond’s most dangerous villains (Rosa Klebb and Red Grant). The briefcase gimmick also makes sense.
Goldfinger is a decent second. Goldfinger and Oddjob are pretty good, and the plot has some neat twists. It’s also at least a little bit grounded in reality.
That was really the high point of the series. There were some decent movies, but these are the only two that stand alone as top-notch films. About the only later films that rised above mediocre is The Spy Who Loved Me – mostly for Richard Kiel as Jaws, a terrific henchmen (he showed up later, but was turned into a good guy).
I find the reboot in Casino Royal a complete failure. The original Casino Royale film was a mixed up mess, but at least had some entertaining moments. Changing the game in Casino Royale from baccarat to Texas Hold 'Em was a complete disaster dramatically and the plot absurdities – a fixture of all Bond films except Russia – don’t work when you’re doing a “gritty” version of Bond. You can wink at the audience and have Bond, say, escape by running over the backs of crocodile if the story is a comic strip. But when you’re going for a more serious tone, absurdities only ruin it all.
But most of the films are entertaining, if absurd. Just don’t have any high expectations.
No, but the similarities are closer in my btwo examples, if only because of the magical vehicle-kidnapping device.And in those two, the goal is nuclear war, not the destruction of all human life.
It struck me as pure movie-poker, i.e. despite all the lip service about how it’s a game of skill, not chance, the “better” poker player is always the one with the more monstrous hand: “See how good I am at this game - full house!” Bond’s never shown bluffing - in fact I don’t recall ever seeing him folding - because he’s just that good, dammit!
Of course, the whole premise didn’t make any sense - it would be far easier to just kidnap Le Chiffre (unlike the novel, he has no bodyguards at all), hold him in a safehouse for a week until the financial problem he was trying to avoid has turned into a complete meltdown, then say “Okay, you can work for us or we’ll just let you go in Paris at high noon, tell everyone in the world where you are, and you can take your chances.”
Exactly. Also, with baccarat, it’s pure chance. That ramps up the tension. Also, there’s no folding – you cannot drop out of a bad hand to husband your resources.
The change to poker was pretty much to give audiences something they were familiar with. But baccarat rules are very simple; people can catch on in 30 seconds:
You add together the value of your cards. Ace = 1, face cards = zero. Totals over 9 drop the tens digit (e.g., 16 becomes 6). Highest value hand wins.
I thought Dr No, aside from Bond correctly tapping Prof. Dent twice, was too much of the ridiculous mastermind fantasia, and Thunderball really started the ball rolling on the camp, smirk, and wink descent into fatuity that found its nadir in the Roger Moore outings. (I was a freshman in college when Thunderball hit the theaters, and as a fan of clever wordplay I began to write the series off when Bond quipped, “I guess he got the point” after spear-gunning a baddie. All downhill from there.)
Although, I must confess that Diana Rigg will make me watch On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. That, and the kilt. As a kilt-wearer I have had some experiences not too different from the lipstick ploy.
In defense of Moore: Until The Living Daylights, a rather important thing about Bond’s history was that he’d begun his career in WWII, so there was a reason for him to be creaky and old. The problem with the Moore movies wasn’t so much Moore himself as the stunningly bad jokes that were inserted into the films (The sound effect in the car’s barrel-roll in Golden Gun, the Beach Boys song in the opening sequence in View to a Kill, the recurring redneck sheriff, etc.). It was as if the scripts were written by aging Penthouse cartoonists. Watch Ffolkes to see Moore unhampered by the franchise’s idiot baggage.
Since we’re getting into debating the various movies’ merits - what do all of you think of what I’ve always found to be the huge plot hole in Goldfinger - the entire climax depends on Bond banging Pussy Galore onto the path of righteousness? When I saw the movie as a kid, I didn’t understand it, and when I finally realized that’s what happened, I couldn’t believe it.
Casino Royale - 80
Dr. No - 85
From Russia With Love - 85
Goldfinger - 90
Thunderball - 95
You Only Live Twice - 85
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service - 95
Diamonds Are Forever - 85
Live And Let Die - 70
The Man With The Golden Gun - 70
The Spy Who Loved Me - 75
Moonraker - 50
For Your Eyes Only - 60
Octopussy - 75
A View To A Kill - -10
The Living Daylights - 80
License To Kill - 80
GoldenEye - 90
Tomorrow Never Dies - 70
The World Is Not Enough - 75
Die Another Day - 70
Casino Royale - 85
Quantum of Solace - 85
