This has been an interesting run with the world of Bond this time out. Quite surprising, really. But unlike a well paid critic, I'm not blown away.
I've followed the series since I saw Moonraker in the theaters when I was 7. And though stones may be cast, I must in good conscience ensure that these boards represent a wholly inclusive reflection of authentic reaction, even from an admited simpleton. See, I didn't even spell admitted right.
I despised Casino Royale.
This should not be inflammatory. I take no pleasure in saying that. Well, maybe alittle.
My review could not be up to the current CBN standard if I tried and would only resemble a perceived trolling which would result in endless disection, point by point. Good fun I might add, if the deck were not so stacked against me here. Why is that?
To qualify my rant, being my first post here in a while, I wanted to go on record, not to piss on anyones clean clothes here, but rather to just say I love Bond films, I was blown away when I first saw OHMSS at age 18, a long time ago. Particularly because I avoided it for so long. Lazenby grew on me in the first act. I was in the theater when Moore bowed out and likewise when Dalton had his first close-up. I endured the legal desert that followed LTK. Moore was my Bond as a kid yet Goldfinger my favorite film. Picking one over the other was redundant even as a kid. I thought Brosnan was the best choice at the time even though I've never walked out of a Brosnan Bond entirely satisfied. Not like when I've just finished watching FYEO. Point is, I never gave up on him or said something so stupid as to suggest putting the series to pasture. Only from the visionless do we here that particular sentiment. And I support him still, although my fervor is now running on fumes. I'm not the enemy when I say... (or maybe I am)...
...I despised Casino Royale.
I loathed almost everything about it. Even DC. Sorry chaps, this is the counterfeit Bond in its fullest manifestation. My opinion is that THIS IS NOT FLEMINGS CHARACTER AND CUBBY WOULD BE HORRIFIED.
I am in knots over how to spare Mr. Craig's feelings and yet voice that I find his Bond incorrect. Daniel Craig belongs in a Bond movie, undoubtedly, BUT NOT AS BOND.
I do applaud the courage to rethink the series and as Pierce might have said, "give it a kick in the pants". But dear blokes, this was arguably the dreariest affair I've ever witnessed. It's pretty obvious to me that the makers really no longer understand what we see in those old films. Nor do they understand the all important coolness factor in context with the times they inhabit. Cigarettes and alcohol are far more edgy and politically incorrect now days than blood and thunderous scores. Dark is clique if the truth be told. It's as clique as Bond going on another personal vendetta. Edgy would be to go against everyone's jaded parodies and make another SPECTRE story. Ah, but that would be a little TOO realistic, wouldn't it? Fire Dave Arnold. Please. His music is not good. It's not even music really. Barbara, instead of replacing the next Bond, replace yourself. You've made your point. A strange fate for Bond to be on the marrionette strings of a woman. Still, I believe he'll get out of this one, he always does.
And on a related note, make M a man again. Enough already. We need him now more than ever.
And the real reason I am posting is not to stir the storm of controversy but rather to voice my utter disbelief at the appalling lack of constructive and uncompromising appraisal. The vibe here is like a Brazilian election and reminiscent of a message board in Stepford. It's decideldly un-Bond. And I really do expect more from this fraternity. Are we now making Bond films for Philistines AND THEIR WIVES. Is this really what you wanted? Really? Not me. I actually despised Casino Royale. So for what its worth, and for all the intolerance to any views to the contrary, ...HERE'S TO BOND 23!
Talk to you later, Chanoch.
Edited by chanoch, 15 March 2007 - 02:15 AM.