Change Your Image
bmldb5
Reviews
The Living Daylights (1987)
Licence to Steele
After Moore's final Bond in 1985, EON was on the hunt for their fourth OO7. The famous gun barrel was pointed directly at Pierce Brosnan but due to the revival of Remington Steele, a contract Brosnan was still tied too, EON turned their sights towards Timothy Dalton. The Living Daylights has all the elements that make a classic Bond, a script that uses Flemings original short story within the overall plot.The cast, locations and action sequences are all there but its Daltons portrayal that makes this Bond film one for todays fans. At the time, Daltons performance was not fully accepted by the movie going public, a far more ruthless, cold blooded interpretation of Bond, which was very different to Moores previous character. With todays audiences thirst for originality, Daltons decision to return to Flemings original has eventually paid off, a style that can be mirrored to Daniel Craig"s. EON must have been disappointed that NBC had a "licence to steele" Brosnan back but in hindsight, it was one of the luckiest scenarios in the series, providing the franchise with an actor that Fleming would have approved of.
Moonraker (1979)
No Mr Bond, I am your Father!
I have always wondered how Moonraker would have been created if the world was never introduced to Star Wars. The eleventh Bond film was changed from the scheduled For Your Eyes Only to tie in with the phenomenal success of George Lucas's action packed Sci-fi. But if that Galaxy was further away, the film version of Flemings third Bond novel could have been very different and in my opinion would have been better if the original story was followed. The film itself is a good entry with Ken Adams sets being the best feature. His design for the space station is incredible and must be one of the best film sets ever created. The storyline is pretty much a duplicate of the previous Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me with a toxic substance depleting the human race rather than nuclear war. EON was definitely influenced by the force, which unfortunately deprived the fans of one of Flemings best stories.
Die Another Day (2002)
A Sad Farewell
Die Another Day was produced in a year that coincided with an anniversary for the franchise, the 40th year of 007 being on the big screen. In Bonds case Rubies do not shine as brightly as Gold. The pre & post opening title sequences are the best part of this film with a fantastic surfing opener leading to a great hovercraft chase sequence. It is at this point we are introduced to a side of 007 that we have never seen before, a helpless, desolate individual, which was unique to the series at the time. Unfortunately the rest of this entry looses its way with to much embarrassing, cringe worthy innuendoes, a criminal use of CGI and to much emphasis on a nostalgia trip. You can forgive the production team for wanting to provide some nods, due to the 40 year milestone, but the "Vanish" was a step to far! Providing a Aston Martin V12 Vanquish with a cloaking devise, just so the script can re-create the classic DB5 introduction scene in Goldfinger, is to much. 40th anniversary or not, this is a Bond film, not StarTrek! CGI is a big feature in this edition, the most you will see in the franchise. Like Indiana Jones, Bond films are well known for their live stunts and I believe if you can't create a scene in a Bond film without using CGI, then you should go back to the drawing boards. The windsurfing scene in DAD is were I rest my case!!! When Cubby handed the rains over to Michael and Barbara, his advise was if they ever got stuck for ideas, always return to the original format. This advise was not taken for DAD, a sad ending to Brosnan's tenure as 007.
Spectre (2015)
The Bond Identity
Who is James Bond? After fifty three years on the big screen you would think we would have a good idea, right? Well this Bond fan is not so sure anymore. During the first forty years our man has seen a few changes to his overall character. From the coolness of Connery, our first adaptation to the thuggish quality of Lazenby, Moore's humorous take on the British agent to Dalton's original with Brosnan' s suave, Gillette glamour Bond, wrapping up the first four decades. Then came the re-boot, enter Daniel Craig, taking on the role in the first serious film adaptation of Flemings Casino Royale. Finally a chance for EON to bring the character of Bond back to his roots, a blunt, rough, colder OO7 just as Ian Fleming had penned in the fifties and early sixties. Like Dalton before him, Craig played the character closely to the original as possible and he didn't disappoint. Along with the change of character, the settings of the films have also seen a shift. No over the top villains with their larger than life lairs and henchman, no gadgets and gadget loaded cars etc. For the first time I can see Bond in a believable, real world. Six years on, another two films added to the franchise and I am still a happy fan. Craig's adaptation of Bond is still consistent all be it a more scarred individual after the events of Casino. Certain elements of the classic formula have also been blended in well with the introduction of Q and Moneypenny. We also have M back in the traditional Whitehall setup. Three years later and we have SPECTRE, the 24th Bond film but wait, where's our man? Where is James Bond? I can see Daniel Craig on screen but where is the blunt, rough, cold assassin that I was introduced to nine years ago? In his place there seems to be a combination of Lazenby, Moore and Brosnan. Now don't get me wrong, I have the up most respect for the said actors, who I believe, played the role within their respected periods very well but this is the re-boot! Why go to all the bother of peeling back the cinematic lairs of the character, to get back to Flemings original idea, just to abandon it in favour of the classic formula Bond? Wait a minute, the answer is staring me in the face. It's the setting; the setting is classic formula Bond. Suddenly we have a return of the villains lair, the villains silent brute of a henchman, the go go gadget car, the go go gadget watch, (even though we were told in no uncertain words by Q in the previous film that they don't go for exploding pens anymore, so why a watch?) The re-booted version of Bond would never have fitted into this setting. So, who is James Bond? Is he classic formula Bond, the witty, humorous, suave,glamour Bond with the lairs, henchman and gadgets? Or is he the re-boot Bond, the blunt, rough, more colder OO7, who lives in the real world, without the need for gadgets, who takes on villains who don't need over the top henchman and lairs, who uses his skills as a driver to outwit his pursuers not flame throwers and ejector seats. The classic formula,perfect for its time, has had its day. For OO7 to survive in this post Bourne world, the character and style of the re-boot needs to be the foundation of the franchise. But the truth of the matter is it's not me that should be asking who James Bond is, its Wilson, Broccoli and everyone at EON.