Bond, James Bond

When I was a young lad I loved James Bond. Even though I was born pretty much as the Bond franchise entered its long drought of no new films, you could always be guaranteed a classic OO7 caper on Saturday afternoon television. For me it was the thrill of the gadget packed chases, filled with British (and a bit of American) patriotism that really made them great spectacles and they inspired any number of spy games between me and my friends (though we always had a plastic spud gun rather than a Walther PPK). Back then I was always facinated by the Roger Moore films in particular as they were always the most gadget packed, the most fun, the most cartoonish, and being a youngster I was blissfully unaware of most of the dodgy innuendo that characterised so many of his films. Genius.

My interest in Bond continued when Pierce Brosnan took over with Goldeneye and I revelled in being part of a generation that actually had its own Bond (since it seemed that wouldn't happen). However, three things happened which changed my appreciation of Bond films. Firstly the Pierce Brosnan films went progressively more and more ridiculous (in a way that the Roger Moore outings somehow managed to avoid). Secondly, as Bond was entering the world of the completely bonkers (Die Another Day being the worst of the lot - lasers and invisible cars. Why?) I was starting to take a great interest in much more clever films. Basically a bit more arty, plot based, beautifully shot films, films that seemed to push boundaries - American Beauty being just one example. Then, to almost kill my interest in Bond I became a Christian and with that gradually began to become more and more put off the films by the way in which Bond interacts with women.

So it was that for most of my time at Uni Bond films dissappeared off my radar. Just as I was beginning to think that that was it though, along came Casino Royale, a film that completely restored the notion of a Bond film as a proper film in its own right, no longer trading of the success of the Bond franchise. Here was a secret agent cut more in the style of Jason Bourne. Hurrah I thought - finally a good reason to watch Bond! Indeed, even the typically mass of innuendo had all but gone. Great stuff! Then Quantum of Solace came out and continued the revitalised Bond genre.

And it is that film, Quantum of Solace, that has brought me to write a Bond blog. I saw the film in cinemas back in the summer of 2008 and I left thinking that it was a pretty good film. Not brilliant but certainly not bad. I then spoke to friends who had seen it who felt that it was awful, a complete rejection of the Bond tradition. That placed question marks for myself on whether I hadn't really left the cinema with a good impression of just how good or bad it was. So, when I saw the dvd on special early release price at Tesco a few weeks back I jumped at the opportunity and bought it.

It was a good decision. What a great film! Watching it a second time gave me an even greater impression of the film. It really is a Bond for our times and I think it needed to be ultra realistic to iron out some of the creases of the later Brosnan films. Like Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan rescued Batman from the terrible cartoonish Val Kilmer and George Clooney years, so Daniel Craig and various directors are working wonders on Bond.

Indeed, I enjoyed watching Quantum of Solace so much that when in HMV the other day, having noticed a Bond dvd sale, I indulged in Thunderball, one of the classic orignal Sean Connery Bonds. And how good was that! I tended to avoid Connery films as a child as they seemed a bit dull compared to Rodger Moore. Watching them now though I can really appreciate just how good a film they were. They were proper films, well written, well produced, extremely well acted. Thunderball even won an Oscar! Can you imagine that happening now?

Watching Thunderball though also gave me some food for thought about Quantum of Solace and Daniel Craig's bond. The Craig films are a real throwback to the Connery era. Comparing the current Bond to Jason Bourne is a bit of a misnomer as Sean Connery's bond was almost as realistic (it goes a bit wrong with You Only Live Twice - space rockets, underground volcanic layers - but still) and just as ruthless. However Connery's bond had the humour and sillyness of Roger Moore and Brosnan. Daniel Craig hasn't yet pulled that off.

If theres any conclusion to this post, its that I am most certainly appreciating James Bond more these days, and that I really, really like whats going on in the world of Bond cinema right now, even if its not as good as Connery. Why? Well it seems that it not going to the case that there will be a Bond film up to the standards of the original, but each successive Bond captures some of the original ingrediants and pushes that to the fore. If you look at the series as a whole you end up with a nice balance. Connery had a it all, George Lazenby took he ultra serious way, Roger Moore produced the escapist silly Bond, Timothy Dalton took us back to ultra serious, Pierce Brosnan started off seriously then went for zaney crazyness and Daniel Craig is taking us to serious again. I would imagine that some sillyness is heading out way soon.

Thanks for reading. :)