Bond, James Bond.
Those immortal words so coolly uttered at a card table across from an intoxicating seductress in 1962’s “Dr. No” began a pop phenomenon that has manifested itself to the world as the James Bond movies.
Of all the movies I have seen, which add up to more than I could possibly imagine, my favorite series is the James Bond, or 007, films. That suave spy with the license to kill, who travels to exotic locations, beds ravishing women, drives the sleekest cars and operates futuristic gadgets, is the everyman’s hero. Several debonair men have portrayed 007, including Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, and beginning Nov. 17 a new Bond era will begin.
Daniel Craig, who you may recognize from recent films such as “Munich,” “Road to Perdition” or “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider,” has the demanding task of not only being the sixth official James Bond, but also portraying the character from his beginnings with the British secret service.
“Casino Royale,” opening in theaters this Friday, is the latest in a long series of movies – 21 to be exact – that has spanned more than four decades. Unsure of exactly what the newest movie is, “Casino Royale” is something of a prequel, reboot and retcon all in one.
Eon Productions, the handlers of the official James Bond series, have done this sort of thing in the past, but never to this great an extent. It is almost necessary when working with the same character for 45 years.
At the height of “Bondmania,” following “Goldfinger,” “Thunderball” and “You Only Live Twice,” the producers decided to scale things back a bit while breaking in a new actor for the role in 1969’s “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.” Poor box office returns and an initial rejection of George Lazenby as the star resulted in audiences dismissing a small scale Bond movie. Since its release, time has been good to “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” along with the fans of the film, who now declare Lazenby’s only outing as 007 to be one of the highlights of the series.
Following the success of “Star Wars” and “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” in 1977, the Bond producers decided to turn their spy into an astronaut with the filming of “Moonraker” in 1979. “Moonraker” was given the largest budget of any previous Bond movie and was a financial success, but the producers decided to come back down to earth with their next story.
“For Your Eyes Only” told the simple tale of a lost military encryption devise Bond must retrieve before it is sold to the Soviets. This time audiences were much more accepting of the simple, gadget-less Bond movie.
In the long run, Bond producers are two-for-two when it comes to changing up the formula that creates a Bond movie and reconstructing the series. “Casino Royale” will be their third attempt to do so. In it they will unveil a new lead actor, dismiss the principal characters of Miss Moneypenny and Q, avoid advanced technology such as invisible cars and laser watches and take the audience down the path of how James became Bond.
2 comments:
You are right that Lazenby should be cut some slack. Roger Moore was smart enough to take the series in a different direction than Connery did to make it his own. Too bad that direction was down a slapstick path with clowns and dimwitted blondes strewn about like daisies.
In my opinion, the order in which the actors who portrayed Bond from best to worst were Sean Connery, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore and George Lazenby, but Moore only gets the lead because he carried the series for seven films.
If I had to predict where Craig is going to end up I would say straddling between Connery and Brosnan or Brosnan and Dalton. It really depends on the material he is given for the next few years. It is kind of unfair to rate him with this one movie because it is the one Bond movie fans have been waiting for.
Doesn't anyone want to know how James became Miller???
Post a Comment