FauxPolitik

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

The Name is Bond: A friend, who knew me when I was a James Bond fanatic, e-mailed to ask what I think of the new James Bond, Daniel Craig. I'll give it to you as straight as I gave it to him.
Christ, I so do not care. 20 years ago Pierce Brosnan might have saved this franchise from total self-parody. Now he looks nearly as old and effete (not to say homosexual) as Roger Moore did back when, flitting around as some ridiculous, over-the-hill "superspy" who's supposedly a sex machine with all the chicks. ("Hold on there as second, Fanny Spreadeagle. [Not a bad name for a Bond girl, eh?] You can seduce me after I unhook my colostomy bag.")

No matter who they get to replace him, this character is done. They've milked the humor to the bone, and the action you can get anyplace now. There hasn't been a decent Bond flick since "For Your Eyes Only," and that was the first decent one following a decade of crap. ("Moonraker"? "The Spy Who Loved Me"? Jesus. Did anyone at the home office bother to read these abortions they called scripts?)

So thanks, but no more helpings of this shit-n'-humiliation casserole for me. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll just stay at home, with my kleenex boxes on my feet, and watch my DVD of "The Man with the Gold(en Gun) Fingers Dr. No's Thunderballs" (or whatever) again.

Uh, me? Bitter? Why do you ask?

Or, as I remarked to Razor:
A blond Bond? They might as well have picked a chick.

1 Comments:

  • And as I replied, "Isn't Bond supposed to be good looking?"

    The problem with the movies is that the formula as recently envisioned, doesn't sell anymore. Gadgets for their own sake, meaningless chase scenes, babes bedded by allusion only, and the usual shoot-em-up conflagrations that lose their impact after the 100th bullet goes "whinging" by.

    What would be far more interesting is a look into Bond's mind - make a more intimate movie. This is what the Bourne movies have done. Like them or become nauseated by their herky-jerky photography, at least you're interested in the character. Bond never evolves in the movies, which is not how the books were written.

    He becomes a plasticine creature, which desperate producers keep using miscast effetes to portray someone who is supposed to be quite the rugged rogue (albeit one with impeccable taste).

    This is probably as much a problem with Hollywood as it is with anything else. Seen any Sean Connerys in a movie in the past 15 years? All we get are mimbos or clowns....

    By Blogger Razor, at 8:41 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home