Bond? James Bond?

I’ve been a James Bond fan literally since I was a kid. I’m dating myself here, but I saw all of the Connery Bond movies, from Goldfinger onward, at the theatre. I had all the paraphernalia too, from trading cards to a gold Aston Martin Dinky toy with retractable machine guns and bulletproof shield. I even had a 007 attaché case that fired plastic bullets and came equipped with a built in camera that actually worked. I was obsessed with all things Bond.
My interest began to wane when Roger Moore took over from Sean Connery. I was never able to come to terms with Moore in the role and, to this day, Connery defines Bond for me. It didn’t help that most of those films were mediocre at best, especially when held up against the first four of the series (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball), which are my personal faves.

Much to my surprise, I quite liked the Pierce Brosnan era Bond films (Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, World is Not Enough). I never thought much of Brosnan prior to that, but he had just the right mix of qualities to pull off Bond. Those films ushered the franchise into the high tech world of the new millennium and placed it squarely in the big budget action genre. Most importantly, they remained true to the well established formula and tone of the past (including the late Desmond Llewelyn as M), while integrating new faces like Judi Dench and John Cleese who breathed some fresh air into the proceedings.

I finally got around to checking out the most recent era Bond with a viewing of Casino Royale on the weekend. This is a meaner, nastier Bond in the form of Daniel Craig. Craig is a fine actor in his own right, but I didn’t for one minute buy into him as Bond. He has the requisite suave when called upon, but the panache is missing in action. It’s probably unfair to criticize Craig, since he was probably just playing the characterization that was drawn for him. Maybe it’s the hair color, but I couldn’t help but think that Clive Owen would have made a perfect Bond. In any case, I think the script and direction, not the acting, are the main culprits. They assembled all of the traditional Bond ingredients, and sucked the fun right out of them. Part of the Bond charm is that it never took itself too seriously – there was always a nudge and a wink to the audience. The cheeky humor and double entendres have given way to outbursts of brutal violence. The torture scene towards the end of the film is a perfect example. Can you imagine Dr. No wailing away on Bond like that? I think not.

Taken on its own merits, Casino Royale is actually a decent action flick, but it could just as easily have been called Bourne Royale. It bears little resemblance to its predecessors, and I hope it doesn’t represent the beginning of the end of the innocence for 007. Either way, I won’t be bothering to find out whether the trend continued with Quantum of Solace.