Blog: Bond must get back to what makes 007 great

[Blowfeld]

Blog: Bond must get back to what makes 007 great
[BBvideo 425,350][/BBvideo]
Blog: With an Oscar-winning actor playing the baddie, and an Oscar-winning director at the helm, the signs are certainly looking good for the 23rd James Bond film, which starts shooting next month, writes Carl Jones.

Javier Bardem showed his sinister side in a magical role as a hitman in No Country For Old Men, which will whet the appetite of Bond fans yearning a return to days of larger than life evil megalomaniacs. The Spaniard’s got to the potential to be one of the best Bond villains ever.

And Sam Mendes, who is in the director’s chair for film we’re all expecting to be called Skyfall, has shown enough in acclaimed projects such as American Beauty and Revolutionary Road to suggest he has the credentials to make another amazing and fascinating 007 film.

And let’s face it, we need one.

After Daniel Craig’s stylish reboot of the series in Casino Royale, the Bourne-style follow-up, Quantum of Solace, was a frenetically edited, disjointed mess.

For me, it was the worst Bond film ever made. No sweeping vistas, no memorable one-liners, and no villains worthy of a place in the hall of fame.

This latest film, after a protracted period of legally-mired hibernation, will be released at Shropshire cinemas in October next year to mark the 50th anniversary of Bond’s screen debut.

Even by 007 movie standards, the hype will be stratospheric.

In true secret agent style, of course, details about the new film are currently for their eyes only.

All we know is that Craig’s back for his third crack as Bond (more humour, Daniel, please), Judi Dench reprises her role as M (less globetrotting, ma’am, please), and Ralph Fiennes is linked to the project in a mystery role (a shady descendant of the Blofeld dynasty, pretty please).

Craig said today that he’s excited at the new script, and keen to reintroduce more of the tried and tested Bond ingredients into the series. That’s as close as he’s come to acknowledging Quantum of Solace’s shortcomings.

So, this latest film surely must involve Q and Moneypenny. British actress Naomie Harris is reported signed up as the latter, but there’s (mercifully) no sign of John Cleese being dragged back as Desmond Llewelyn’s replacement. His was one of the worst pieces of miscasting in the Bond series history. We need a gadgetmaster at secret agent HQ, but portrayed as a boffin, not a buffoon.

[BBvideo 425,350][/BBvideo]
Blog: Bond must get back to what makes 007 great

Wednesday 12th October 2011, 12:49PM BST.

Blog: With an Oscar-winning actor playing the baddie, and an Oscar-winning director at the helm, the signs are certainly looking good for the 23rd James Bond film, which starts shooting next month, writes Carl Jones.

Javier Bardem showed his sinister side in a magical role as a hitman in No Country For Old Men, which will whet the appetite of Bond fans yearning a return to days of larger than life evil megalomaniacs. The Spaniard’s got to the potential to be one of the best Bond villains ever.

And Sam Mendes, who is in the director’s chair for film we’re all expecting to be called Skyfall, has shown enough in acclaimed projects such as American Beauty and Revolutionary Road to suggest he has the credentials to make another amazing and fascinating 007 film.

And let’s face it, we need one.

After Daniel Craig’s stylish reboot of the series in Casino Royale, the Bourne-style follow-up, Quantum of Solace, was a frenetically edited, disjointed mess.

For me, it was the worst Bond film ever made. No sweeping vistas, no memorable one-liners, and no villains worthy of a place in the hall of fame.

This latest film, after a protracted period of legally-mired hibernation, will be released at Shropshire cinemas in October next year to mark the 50th anniversary of Bond’s screen debut.

Even by 007 movie standards, the hype will be stratospheric.

In true secret agent style, of course, details about the new film are currently for their eyes only.

All we know is that Craig’s back for his third crack as Bond (more humour, Daniel, please), Judi Dench reprises her role as M (less globetrotting, ma’am, please), and Ralph Fiennes is linked to the project in a mystery role (a shady descendant of the Blofeld dynasty, pretty please).

Craig said today that he’s excited at the new script, and keen to reintroduce more of the tried and tested Bond ingredients into the series. That’s as close as he’s come to acknowledging Quantum of Solace’s shortcomings.

So, this latest film surely must involve Q and Moneypenny. British actress Naomie Harris is reported signed up as the latter, but there’s (mercifully) no sign of John Cleese being dragged back as Desmond Llewelyn’s replacement. His was one of the worst pieces of miscasting in the Bond series history. We need a gadgetmaster at secret agent HQ, but portrayed as a boffin, not a buffoon.

Other than that, we’re led to believe there will be a major action set piece on a fast moving train in South Africa, and a climactic battle at a Scottish castle – perhaps Bond’s family home, since his literary father was from the Highlands?

Craig will never be the best Bond in my eyes. I still reckon the role should have gone to Hugh Jackman when Pierce Brosnan was ordered to hand in his Walther PPK.

But there’s no disputing Craig’s commitment, intensity, and determination to give of his best in an era where spy thrillers are more Jason Bourne than Johnny English.

Let’s just hope Craig’s no-nonsense approach can be blended a little more with some of the Bondian traits which have made the franchise such a success over the past five decades.

[FormerBondFan]

If that's the case, then this is not good on our side.

[FormerBondFan]

You might well have Carrot Top as Bond.

[Dr. No]

[BBvideo 425,350][/BBvideo]
I had forgotten how painful it was to watch Craig's spy

He has some points here Criag has never met the standard all the Bonds used to have.

[FormerBondFan]

Great or not, screw Bond 23. WE WANT THE HOBBIT! BJ...are you with me on this?

[carl stromberg]

After Daniel Craig’s stylish reboot of the series in Casino Royale

[Blowfeld]

I do think the problem is Daniel is incapable of a classic 007 performance most fan are hungry for at this point. All of the comments and critiques after QOS have been for a return to the old way of Bond, something I believe Daniel lacks the skill to accomplish, we got Jason Bourne for the last two films because Sean Connery was impossible for the man hired for the job.

Craig will never be the best Bond in my eyes. I still reckon the role should have gone to Hugh Jackman when Pierce Brosnan was ordered to hand in his Walther PPK.

Jackman would be a good mix, a good Bond, could still be a good 007. Odd how a homophobic Barbara Broccoli discriminating against one of the most versatile actors of our age is ignored by the press, then they (the press) go to bat for a man incompatible with the role as established by Ian Fleming and Cubby Broccoli. This my be a case of beware your fair weather friends, I do think there is an element of disdain for 007 as it was for 40 years and willingness to applaud the radical departure no matter what because if was so different. CR and QOS as films out side the Bond cannon are quite unremarkable, if anything they are subpar to most of today's spy films. Where as most of the films in the 40 years of the Cubby franchise even without the Bond reputation are enjoyable romps that would have been noticed on their own merits, as we see the films that have copied the Cubby feel like Iron Man, Sherlock Holmes, X-Men came in their own.

[shaken not stirred]

After Daniel Craig’s stylish reboot of the series in Casino Royale

Seriously...cregg stylish what kind of crap are they trying to pull, tony stark in ironman is stylish, old bond is stylish, what's stylish about playing practically a 2 hour game of texas holdem, you put in poker commentary and replace it over the audio of crassino borale and that's really all you get a very boring card game...oh intense , maybe when Connery and some other older bonds played cards it was stylish because they've got what's that thing called that crap actors like cregg don't have...oh that's it style.