Fair enough. But CR is as close as we've gotten to a Fleming Bond since the early Connery films.
I don’t know much of the original Fleming novels, so the statement could probably be true. Basing on the reviews and schools of thought about James Bond that I have read, Bond is supposed to be dark, which, as we have seen in CR, was done.
However, I will remind you, that it is not the Fleming novels that brought James Bond to these days and to the level of fame the character has; it was the movies. It was the films that has define James Bond into a character we know today and we are supposed to see.
But then, that doesn’t mean we have to discard Fleming’s original idea. In fact, the suave film side of Bond was present in Dalton’s portrayal, as well as Fleming’s dark version of his brainchild.
Brosnan wanted to do that, but all the producers could do was to sell Brosnan’s bloody charms. Brosnan could be gritty, as evident from other of his films.
Craig’s performance could probably be the closest to Fleming’s novel version, but Craig’s Bond also has its own revision of the character. He was arrogant, egoistic, and at some point, dumb.
Connery’s Bond wasn’t like that; in fact, I think Connery’s cool and charms is what made the producers to make Moore’s comedic. That was people’s entertainment, not this over dramatic, muscle-bounded energetic film.
I guess being in love with Pierce Brosnan's Bond full of senseless action, no plot, invisible cars, cringe-worthy delivery of one-liners, and bad acting then you would hate the new Bond.
Senseless action? What about the parkour chase scene that has endangered the lives of those construction workers? And those who made Bond drive an invisible car is those who wrote the script for CR. And they even need the help of Paul Haggis for that.
(Wade and Purvis=5%. Paul Haggis=93%. Haggis, Wade and Purvis=98%. That would probably explain that rating in Rotten Tomatoes.)
