Okay, James Bond. I do not ask for much from a James Bond movie, and last week when I told my buddies that “Casino Royale” was a good James Bond movie but a bad James Bond movie, they understood what I meant. James Bond has a specific brand formula now. Watching David Niven due it as a comedy is nice…once. Watching Daniel Craig due as a sort of hodge podge between Jason Bourne and a John LeCarre adaption is nice…once. We can call that the role of movies called “Casino Royale.” Get rid of the formula and let us see another kind of Bond.
Not yet having seen “Quantum of Solace,” I would hesitate to comment on whether it is a good movie or not, but the reviews I have seen are essentially an echo of what I said about the first Craig movie: good movie, bad Bond. Actually, they have not said that. They’ve said, “Bad movie. Who are you and what have you done with James Bond?” My reaction is this: Timothy Dalton. Those were some bad movies. Also, they were indifferent Bond. I mean, the element were there, kind of, but they never stripped the Bond babes down to a bikini or had Bond sleep with anyone, and the villain in “Licence to Kill” was played by Wayne Newton. Wayne Newton, who is camp all on his own, but come on.
The current movie apparently does not even pay lip service to Bond tropes. If you are going to make a bad movie, you had better make it good Bond which includes five main factors.
First, you have to start with a chase. And it had better be improbable, stupid and have nothing to do with the main plot. See “The Spy Who Loved Me,” which is the point in the Bond series where they just sort of gave up on having plots and went for the Bond tropes as a justification for the movies.
Second, you need a Bond babe with some ludicrously suggestive name like Plenty O’Toole or something. And you should probably put her in a bikini. Carey Lowell is a ridiculously beautiful woman with a rockin’ bod, and not only did they not stick her in a two piece, they named her “Pam Bouvier.” I’m not saying they should have called her “Honey Potts” or something, but this is a James Bond movie, dammit. (Maryam d’Abo is incredibly beautiful, but not terribly voluptuous, would not have looked good in a bikini. Well, okay, in real life I would probably slice off my own thumb to see her in a bikini, but by Hollywood standards…)
Third, you need a comically insane villain who is trying to do the whole take over the world shtick. “Licence to Kill” had a drug dealer. I realize that was the 1980’s, but James Bond does not work for the Reagan administration. The annoying thing was that Wayne Newton was there on set. You cannot get more over the top than Wayne Newton. He was friends with Elvis.
Fourth, you need gadgets. After almost fifty years, if James Bond does not have a pen which turns into a laser or a watch which doubles as a buzz saw, something is amiss.
Five, James Bond kills people. He has a license to kill. That’s what he is for. He racks up a body count,
Oh, and “Quantum of Solace” means “particle of comfort,” so I am guessing the plot of the current movie has something to do with Bond getting comfort for some tragedy. I do not mind that because of the scene where Roger Moore puts flowers on Diana Riggs’ grave in “For Your Eyes Only.” However, that led to someone trying to blow up his chopper and 007 killing someone. I will see “Quantum of Solace” because I’m a guy who grew up after 1965 and that’s the law. But I will whine about it if it is both a bad movie and bad Bond. (And yes, he should introduce himself as "Bond. James Bond." And he does not drink lager.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment