Casino Royale (2006)

Vesper Lynd: All right... by the cut of your suit, you went to Oxford or wherever. Naturally you think human beings dress like that. But you wear it with such disdain, my guess is you didn't come from money, and your school friends never let you forget it. Which means you were at that school by the grace of someone else's charity: hence that chip on your shoulder. And since your first thought about me ran to "orphan," that's what I'd say you are.
[he smiles but says nothing]
Vesper Lynd: Oh, you are? I like this poker thing. And that makes perfect sense! Since MI6 looks for maladjusted young men, who give little thought to sacrificing others in order to protect Queen and country. You know... former SAS types with easy smiles and expensive watches.
[Glances at his wrist]
Vesper Lynd: Rolex?
James Bond: Omega.

Vesper Lynd: Even accountants have imagination. How was your lamb?
James Bond: Skewered! One sympathizes.

A stunning entrance for Daniel Craig as James Bond. Craig brought back a lot of the classic feel by going for a more vulnerable and icy Bond than Dalton. My only critique is the lack of chest hair. (I am sure that others will disagree but...)

I think often there is misalignment between a directors and producers vision and the decisions of an actor. I think of Thor 1 when I write this. It was clear that Chris Hemsworth wanted to be bombastic, but the director wanted to play it straight like a shakespearean court drama, it works but only kinda. In the case of Casino Royale (CS), the opposite is true. Daniel Craig wanted to be blunt, efficient, and cold. I imagine his director working with him on if he could actually be colder.  Then they went through and wrote in every metaphor they could for brute strength/club. It's basically too much. But, then again there's no such thing.

Now that I am going through all the Bonds, I like the call outs to the villain from Thunderball and the Dr. No on the beach entrance in the Bahamas.

Unexpected high point on this viewing was how creepy and unrelenting Claudio Santamaria is as the silent airport bomber.  I wish him luck in his career and want to see him in more productions.

Expected low point , as with every time I see CS, the movie completely drags after the death of Le Chiffre. The betrayal of Vesper Lynd is important, but it might have made a better opener than a closer. The timing just makes CS seem so slow.

On a scale of High Card winner to Aces over 6's losing, I give Casino Royale 3.67 out of 5 stars.

oh yeah the parkour seems so silly a decade on.  It looks good, but all it does is make me say "Parkour!"

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

Dr. Christmas Jones: Wait a minute. Are you going to do what I think you're going to do?
James Bond: What do I need to defuse a nuclear bomb?
Dr. Christmas Jones: Me.

In my mind The World Is Not Enough (TWINE) is the clear second best Bond of the Brosnan era. My only real critique is that Denise Richards is terrible. Awful.

It's a kind of a testament to creativity, that the writers of TWINE can maintain a semblance of a plot while really just providing a backdrop for sexual puns and getting women into wet t-shirts or tight one piece body suits. TWINE may have been actually written backwards with base needs arrived at first and the story created to fulfil those needs. The story they got to ain't half bad. -it's got oil, Russian gangsters, Stockholm syndrome, a man who feels no pain, and a threat of atomic bombs. So it's very much in the acceptable category of Bonds.

But what I want to talk about is the absurdity that is the parahawk fight/chase sequence.  It's a little strange that James Bond always ends up unarmed on skis while other men on skis chase him, but TWINE is the clear winner in ludcrocity.

Flying fan-powered snowmobiles.  Yup. I did not mistype.

Part of me says "That's cool.", but another part of me asks...."who invented those? and why? Isn't it just stupidly difficult to control them and impractical for all scenarios?". Yes and likely yes.

Finally, I will always tip my hat to Robbie Coltrane. Valentine Zukofsky will be missed.

On a scale Bond Villain to SGU, I give The World Is Not Enough 2.77 out of 5 stars. 

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Elliot Carver: The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success.

Tomorrow Never Dies (TND) is a highly mediocre Bond, but is perhaps the most prescient and visionary of James Bonds. Watching 20 years on, it's a little like watching Network. Our current state of affairs is actually stranger than the future TND tried to show.

So in terms of strict allegory, our main villain Elliot Carver is combination Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch. And the plot is one of using fake news to create real outcry to create confusion, and money. Yup, the plot of James Bond is now just reality. Yikes.

I also can't help but notice the not so subtle pivot to Chinese viewers without actually sending Bond to China.  He teams up with a Chinese counter-part (Michelle Yeoh), and the British tussle with the Chinese (at least in way that requires no visuals). But actually, ol' JB ends up spending the movie in Vietnam. So, much like in MWTGG, Bond goes to Asia and deals with China, but does not go to China.

I just recently went to Saigon and it was interesting to see at least how the city was portrayed 20 years ago. It was full of bicycles and traditional hats on screen in 97'. Today the city is full of cars and buses and highways -just like any big city. I have no reference to what the city was like in 97, but I have to wonder and expect that TND is selling an orientalist fantasy of South Vietnam 20 years ago. The images presented certainly could be and are more accurate to then than now, but I have to think that it wasn't like it was at anytime.

I thought the whole Dr. Kaufman plot to be useless and the torture to be uninspiring.

To the writers, congrats on getting a stealth boat to be a major plot point.

On a scale of Night Rider to Night Boat, I give Tomorrow Never Dies 3.14 out of 5 stars.

Goldeneye (1995)

"I am invincible!!!" -Boris

Goldeneye was where my Bond journey began.  I think I saw it in 1996. I played an enormous amount of the video game.  To say that I have favourable attachments is an understatement. So be it.

As Bond's go, it still holds up, but it has aged and lacks a lot of the luster that once made it special. Now it's just an exemplary member of a group.

Pierce Brosnan is like 1/2 Connery and 1/2 Dalton. 0% Moore.  It's a decent play. Less sexist than Connery -though still sexist, and more humorous than Dalton.

The physics of going after a falling plane don't work. So, what? It's awesome!

I think what is lost on me now is the portrayal and writing of a movie about post-soviet Russia. The Union only dissolved in 1992, so this the first Bond of a new age.  Russians as implacable well trained adversaries are one thing. The exploration of corruption, betrayal and power vacuum is way more interesting. Well done, writers.

I don't like Jack Wade.  Bring back Felix Leiter please. *They may have done this simply because of Felix's brutal murder in LTK.

Robbie Coltrane as a Russian gangster Valentine Zukovsky was a stroke of genius.

Lastly, when I think back on it now, I am sure that producers jumped on the chance to send Bond to Russia -this is the first time.  The soviets probably did not allow or like the idea of Bond destroying their country, but the new Russians were likely looking to show how open they were to the West -probably got some money too.

Yeah so Bond basically destroys St. Petersburg with a tank.  I wonder if there are Russians my age or older who consider Goldeneye a black stain on their history and a victory dance on the grave of their nation?

On a scale of terrorist to freedom figher, I give Goldeneye 3.65 out of 5 stars.

License to Kill (1989)

"He disagreed with something that ate him." -Note on Felix Leiter

James Bond: I help people with problems.
Franz Sanchez: Problem solver.
James Bond: More of a problem eliminator.

Thus ends the Timothy Dalton Bonds, and I have to say that all in all they are completely decent Bonds. No shame, some glory.

That said, License To Kill (LTK) is a Bond aberration. It's grizzly and gruesome. The trick of a James Bond is that it glosses over some of these messy details with fun, zingers, and sexist machismo. No other Bond actually shows the level of blood and murder like LTK. It's honestly a little jarring. LTK is like if a western were reverse made into a ronin samurai story. I say this because usually Bond has a mission and in general respects the orders of M etc. -if cheekily disregards their advice. But, LTK is a strict revenge pic -with a side plot of drugs etc. (The story with Wayne Newton and the drugs is pretty confusing and superfluous.)  So, yeah it's a little out of character for Bond to go rogue.

There were some strange trends and historic points I have to touch on with LTK.

1. Moving on from the Russians
1. So, The Russians had been the heel of Bond films since 64', so why abandon the formula? Here are some ideas. I wasn't quite sure. 
1. Producers just wanted to be different. *This time no Russians
2. The writers were Cassandras and realised that the USSR would be collapsing at right about LTK's release
3. Maybe they just thought that Bond fighting with the Mujahadeen against Russians went to far. -It even makes Bond seem a little like Rambo.  Heroes need to differentiate. 
2. Ladies that can join the fray
1. Carey Lowell as Pam B is the first Bond girl I can recall that actually joins in fight and is not a helpless damsel. It took 25 years, but here is where it starts. 
2. I actually think the idea of a Miss Lowell led revenge pic might have been better than LTK.
3. Hong Kong connection
1. Why was there a complicated Hong Kong vice plot? It was a ring of fire drug play...but
2. I feel sorta bad for Diane Lee. She is featured heavily in the opening sequence, but is only in the movie for like 10 minutes, dies, and has maybe 1 line. 
4. Business strategy for movies
1. Copycatting is a time-honored tradition. I think everyone in the 80's copied Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indy's truck chase after the arc. Bond is no different.  It isn't original, but it works well. 
2. What I am curious about is why the shift to a more gruesome Bond? Lots of other films and genres attempted to move in a darker more gritty direction to locate a new audience?*Look to my post on the Black Cauldron, but another example is Robocop.  
1. Was this new direction financially successful? The results were positive, but not dramatic, but I do think that the lesson gained by producers etc was that explosions, and a little more blood are better for finances than exposition. 

Oh here is a quote from Benicio Del Toro (Yes, he is in LTK) 

-License to Kill is not one of the great Bonds.

On a scale of 1 ronin out for revenge to 47 ronin, I give License to Kill 3.18 out of 5 stars. 

The Living Daylights (1987)

Kara Milovy: What happened?
James Bond: He got the boot.

James Bond: I know a wonderful little restaurant in Karachi. We should get there just in time for dinner.

[James Bond and Kara Milovy snow-slide through customs in a cello case]
James Bond: [yelling] We have nothing to declare.
Kara Milovy: [yelling] Except this cello.

I've now moved into the Timothy Dalton era of Bond.  To be honest, I am not sure why Timothy Dalton gets a bad rap. I actually enjoyed him and The Living Daylights (TLD) a great deal. The song by A-ha is really catchy. I like that Timothy Dalton's growly Bond with more assassin less playboy.

And I will basically watch anything with John Rhys-Davies -even Sliders.

Here is what really could set people off about TLD.  Bond teams up with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to take on the Russians.  -Rambo does this in Rambo III too.  But, in reality this is James Bond teaming up with the Taliban and proto-Al-Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden types.  My my my did we have a different opinion of them in 1987.  They even show up as Kara's guests of honor at an end of film concert.

What about 2017 films will seem off putting in 2047?

My own tastes not tending towards the flashy/gadget and one liner driven Bond movies. TLD is highly enjoyable. Confusing, but enjoyable.

On a scale of a Stradivarius cello named Lady Rose to a cello name Sue, I give The Living Daylights 3.22 out of 5 stars.  

A View to a Kill (1985)

James Bond: And what if I'm thrown?
Max Zorin: Then you lose.


Stacey Sutton: I only have a few leftovers in the fridge. I'm a pathetic cook.
James Bond: Well, I'll lend a hand.
Stacey Sutton: You can cook?
James Bond: I've been known to dabble.

So Roger Moore's last Bond is likely his best. (Or at least in contention with TSPWLM). A View To A Kill (AVTAK) had everything that was required for good James Bond and a decent movie in general.  Christopher Walken and Grace Jones are spectacular.

It is painfully obvious at this point in 1985 that Roger Moore was too old to play JB. It's not that he didn't do a good job, it's just that the age difference between him and the Bond girls is over the line.

I was unclear about why there was a horse racing plot, but it didn't seem to matter. What matters is the great blimp chance to the showdown on the Golden Gate.

Here's somethings I noticed and thought about while watching AVTAK.

1. For 1985, AVTAK is almost nostradamus like in predicting the power of the Bay Area and computers in general.
2. AVTAK actually spells out the plot for Goldeneye at one point
3. AVTAK was much better in terms of practical and inventive gadgets, vehicles, and props.  Huge fan of the firetruck ladder sequence. I hope that the director of Terminator III got his inspiration from here.  It seemed to track with what they did for Arnold. 

From Jenny Flex to Elsa Schneider, I give A View To A Kill 3.2 out of 5 star.