Shaken or stirred sir? Does it look like I care?
From the first glimpse of the trailer, I have said I would hate the new Bond film, and hate it I did. My reasons for hating it are not what most would think though. I hate it because I loved it so very much.
James Bond films fall squarely in the category of popcorn flicks. You can’t think about them too seriously, or analyze them with the same scale you would say a Departed, or anything that’s telling you about characters. Further, you can’t use the exact same scale that you use for a silly adventure film like Pirates, or for whimsy like Prestige. Bond films by nature of the longevity of the franchise stand on their own scale. (Although I sometimes judge other spy movies by the Bond scale.) Right, I’ve wandered a tad off the path. This was an excellent example of how a Bond film should be done. Even with the little bit of sloppy storytelling in the last reel. Its existence validates for me just how God awful bad the Pierce Brosnan movies were. It was all trash, pure trash, and that’s the rub for me. I wanted Brosnan to be treated with respect by the franchise, and he wasn’t, along comes this new comer and he gets, he gets, a damn fine, fun film to watch. And that’s the kicker I liked Pierce’s Bond, he had all the makings of a good Bond in him and he deserved a movie of the quality of Casino Royal. Ah well.
Did you get all that I loved the movie as judged only on its predecessors. It was a top-notch showing. Daniel Craig worked for me his hair colour was irrelevant.
Oh and the line ‘Your brother from Langley.’ Has four double meanings at last count. No I won’t tell you them all, use your own brain.
James Bond films fall squarely in the category of popcorn flicks. You can’t think about them too seriously, or analyze them with the same scale you would say a Departed, or anything that’s telling you about characters. Further, you can’t use the exact same scale that you use for a silly adventure film like Pirates, or for whimsy like Prestige. Bond films by nature of the longevity of the franchise stand on their own scale. (Although I sometimes judge other spy movies by the Bond scale.) Right, I’ve wandered a tad off the path. This was an excellent example of how a Bond film should be done. Even with the little bit of sloppy storytelling in the last reel. Its existence validates for me just how God awful bad the Pierce Brosnan movies were. It was all trash, pure trash, and that’s the rub for me. I wanted Brosnan to be treated with respect by the franchise, and he wasn’t, along comes this new comer and he gets, he gets, a damn fine, fun film to watch. And that’s the kicker I liked Pierce’s Bond, he had all the makings of a good Bond in him and he deserved a movie of the quality of Casino Royal. Ah well.
Did you get all that I loved the movie as judged only on its predecessors. It was a top-notch showing. Daniel Craig worked for me his hair colour was irrelevant.
Oh and the line ‘Your brother from Langley.’ Has four double meanings at last count. No I won’t tell you them all, use your own brain.