Monday, November 10, 2008

Essentially Bond, but Which One?

Watched the latest bond movie ‘Quantum of Solace’ on the last Friday. I started writing this on the Firday itself, but couldn’t complete it. So I am completing it now.

The movie is good, worth watching once. (This means I am going to watch it at least twice.)

Release of a Bond movie has been always a special event in my life. I haven’t missed a single Bond movies since ‘Golden Eye’. When ‘Golden Eye’ released, I was some 13 years old and didn’t know much about English movies. Actually before watching ‘Golden Eye’, I didn’t even know that some great series of Bond movies existed and I hadn’t had slightest inkling about who Ian Fleming was. The only English movie I remember watching before ‘Golden Eye’ is ‘Jurasic Park’ (A separate post is required to narrate the experience). Of course I had watched a few Jackie Chan Karate movies but they never seemed Hollywoody to me. You see I am talking about the quintessential grand Hollywood action movie.

I still remember the walk I took from the Mamaji Talkies (an old theater in Bhusawal where I grew up) to my home after watching ‘Golden Eye’. Totally impressed by this handsome hero (which I later came to know was Pierce Brosnan). I even remember trying to suck in my cheeks a bit to create the hollow cheeks effect that Pierce Brosnan had. But since I was such a plump kid I never managed to imitate the look (and I guess one also need features like Pierce Brosnan to get that look. Ah! The disappointments of life.)

After that I never missed a single Bond movie and I have watched all of them (except for Quantum of Solace) at least three times each. I also watched quite a few Bond movies that were released prior to ‘Golden Eye’ but didn’t like them that much. This is the crux of the problem. Pierce Brosnan has become 'the' James Bond for me. And I have grown to identify the ‘Pierce Brosnan Bond movies’ as the Bond movies.

What was great about the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies is that they were out and out formula movies with only one objective: to entertain the viewer. There was no false pretense to touch the heart of the viewer.

Ever since Daniel Craig has took over as James Bond, the creators of the movies have tried to bring more emotional depth to the character of James Bond and to the movies too. I mean all this emotional depth and stuff is OK. But guys what about E.N.T.E.R.T.A.I.N.M.E.N.T. Most of the times the things like emotional depth translate to boring and the likes.

All I want to ask is: What is wrong with an out and out formula film? If I want to watch emotionally moving action flicks, haven’t I have got Clint Eastwood? Sometimes I think, this is what makes Steven Spielberg great. He understands the difference between an entertainment film and an emotionally rewarding film. He makes them both with equal dexterity.

1 comment:

  1. I agree with you the Mr. Brosnan was probably the best Bond ever. he was smooth he was charming but somehow even in spite of all the pretty girls he some how always seemed just a lil gay to me. Daniel Craig, in my opinion is the best Bond because 1. he is uncut unfeeling and truly gives credit to the 'man with the license to kill' 2. to become as smooth as the Brosnan Bond you have to grow and attain maturity and taste and time which Daniel Carig as the initial Bond shows that Bond was not born with. 3. If you want to see a movie just for the special effects which over shadow any character, story, screen play you should just go and buy yourself a Play Station 3 . the best part about Quantan of Solace was the absence of (or near less of) super gadgets that would put batman to shame.