James Bond films have always sailed close to the wind in, say, product placement, going with new ideas or reverting to old ones, as well as weaving in triggers of various sorts.
An example of an idea which would have passed most moviegoers by but which was very well understood by certain sections of society at the time, was Gustave Graves' laser weapon, which just happened to have its control centre in the Icelandic wastes, the next stage after the brilliant pebbles. Note the motif of light-shedding power.
Similarly, this current movie plays on a sub-theme which never would have seen the light of day, [the morning star of publicity, so to speak], even three years back - the notion that the old money in Europe is crooked - then shies away from that by having the audience believe it's just an interlocked, monopolistic network of finance and free enterprise - greedy perhaps, in the light of the current RL revelations but basically just cold, calculated business in the end.
The real nature of it all, the actual agenda of state socialism [the nation being the European bloc rather than traditional identities], together with its very weird spiritual base, arcane priests et al, would hardly do for a Bond film - that would be more suited to a gothic horror flick with all its gory-orgies and mock-resurrection claptrap. And yet you only need return to the second last reich for the blueprint.
Dame Judy Dench's line, which is destined to be a classic, in response to Mr. White's: "The first thing to know about is that we have people everywhere," goes: "What the hell is this organization, Bond? How can they be everywhere and we know nothing about them?"
From internet gaming through to the present day crop of films, the themes have been getting darker and darker, as the noose tightens on the teeming masses worldwide and on their sustainable resources and this has led, albeit indirectly, to questions within the Bond afficianados' camp itself [or rather two increasingly separate camps].
There are those who prefer the wham bam, gadget saturated, Roger Moore style Thunderball rollercoster ride, with its wisecracking and humour ... and then there are those who prefer their Bond darker - the From Russia With Love, Connery/Craig Bond, [if not the Dalton persona], in the spirit of Licence to Kill.
Ask a roomful of Bond devotees to rate their favourites and you'll get, not so much a diversity of opinion at the top end but two schools of thought on the matter. This blog is caught somewhere in the middle between those two extremes. Yes to the exotic locations, yes to Q, the gadgets and one liners, yes to a bit more humour please but also yes to the grittier, less vacuous storyline.
IMHO, Casino Royale was not only the best Bond ever but was a film which could hold its own even were it not part of the franchise. This sequel looks pretty good but for how long can Bond sustain the scowling, revenge obsessed persona which Timothy Dalton, as the box office underlined in 1989, can only take so far before one tires of it?
To a comparison of the Bonds, Craig has every bit of the menace of Connery, every bit of the charm and the quick thinking, with added muscularity and athleticism. A friend said yesterday that it was not so much Bond himself as the script writers who make a Bond look good.
The answer is that they make him look good when they vaguely follow the Fleming magic. On their own, as they are in this film, it is a little harder to sustain the momentum. Very good but not necessarily great. Anyway, November 14th at London's Odeon West End might answer that question.
An example of an idea which would have passed most moviegoers by but which was very well understood by certain sections of society at the time, was Gustave Graves' laser weapon, which just happened to have its control centre in the Icelandic wastes, the next stage after the brilliant pebbles. Note the motif of light-shedding power.
Similarly, this current movie plays on a sub-theme which never would have seen the light of day, [the morning star of publicity, so to speak], even three years back - the notion that the old money in Europe is crooked - then shies away from that by having the audience believe it's just an interlocked, monopolistic network of finance and free enterprise - greedy perhaps, in the light of the current RL revelations but basically just cold, calculated business in the end.
The real nature of it all, the actual agenda of state socialism [the nation being the European bloc rather than traditional identities], together with its very weird spiritual base, arcane priests et al, would hardly do for a Bond film - that would be more suited to a gothic horror flick with all its gory-orgies and mock-resurrection claptrap. And yet you only need return to the second last reich for the blueprint.
Dame Judy Dench's line, which is destined to be a classic, in response to Mr. White's: "The first thing to know about is that we have people everywhere," goes: "What the hell is this organization, Bond? How can they be everywhere and we know nothing about them?"
From internet gaming through to the present day crop of films, the themes have been getting darker and darker, as the noose tightens on the teeming masses worldwide and on their sustainable resources and this has led, albeit indirectly, to questions within the Bond afficianados' camp itself [or rather two increasingly separate camps].
There are those who prefer the wham bam, gadget saturated, Roger Moore style Thunderball rollercoster ride, with its wisecracking and humour ... and then there are those who prefer their Bond darker - the From Russia With Love, Connery/Craig Bond, [if not the Dalton persona], in the spirit of Licence to Kill.
Ask a roomful of Bond devotees to rate their favourites and you'll get, not so much a diversity of opinion at the top end but two schools of thought on the matter. This blog is caught somewhere in the middle between those two extremes. Yes to the exotic locations, yes to Q, the gadgets and one liners, yes to a bit more humour please but also yes to the grittier, less vacuous storyline.
IMHO, Casino Royale was not only the best Bond ever but was a film which could hold its own even were it not part of the franchise. This sequel looks pretty good but for how long can Bond sustain the scowling, revenge obsessed persona which Timothy Dalton, as the box office underlined in 1989, can only take so far before one tires of it?
To a comparison of the Bonds, Craig has every bit of the menace of Connery, every bit of the charm and the quick thinking, with added muscularity and athleticism. A friend said yesterday that it was not so much Bond himself as the script writers who make a Bond look good.
The answer is that they make him look good when they vaguely follow the Fleming magic. On their own, as they are in this film, it is a little harder to sustain the momentum. Very good but not necessarily great. Anyway, November 14th at London's Odeon West End might answer that question.
