Bond died in the 80's. Live with that

Rating: 1/10 (7 December 2006)

Enter Casino Royale  The only way The producers could escape the inevitable comparison between their movie and the new kids on the block, is going more REALISTIC, i.e. if you cannot beat them, beat other people. The solution was to make Bond more like another type of spy movies which is much more realistic, even brutally so. Theirs is a reality where people are more frail, no big action scenes, the scenery is grayer, the chases are done in small streets with ordinary cars, every blow can kill, every car accident kills half of the passengers, you cannot trust your bosses, and the world is filled with ordinary clerk-like people living their small lives and pettiness and intrigue rule the day. This is basically the ANTI-BOND type of spy movie or novel (whose most notable writer is John Le Carre). 'The Bourne Identity' belongs to that genre. The advantage of this kind of movie is that, due to the overarching sense of frailty, every punch, every car chase, every gun shot can cause a great amount of suspense, since you don't find yourself comparing it to the more fantastic action movies. Think about that: if in real life a pugilist suffers a heavy punch it's a reason to worry (if you like him), but in a Van Dam movie you know it's just getting him madder and it doesn't raise the same amount of concern.
O.k. so after deciding that this is the direction they wanted to take Bond to, they had to cast a new kind of Bond  Enter DC. DC is short, blond and looks like the villain, he is certainly not the Bond of the movies and, as one who have read some of these books, is not Fleming's Bond (and since Fleming's books were crap - the man wasn't a literary genius, having a Fleming's Bond would have just made things worse). But THAT IS THE POINT Craig is supposed to be the anti-Bond, a John Le Caree's Bond. But of course the producers won't say that, and given that they clearly cannot say he's the movies' Bond they say he's Fleming's. They do that because they don't want to give ammunition to the anti DC crowd, because 'going back to the origins' always sounds impressive and because they want to cash in on the success and prestige of the previous movies (while crapping on them at the same time  It's like the alien in 'Men In Black' who put on the skin of the man he killed, thus both defiling him and pretending to be him). So the anti-DC crowd are right: He is NOT the classic Bond, but If they think that casting a male model type (the manly type that does the cigarettes or designer suits ads) and having him do the same old stuff is going to make a good movie are deluding themselves - for the reasons I've already mentioned.
O.k. did it work? Predictably, NO.
First of all, I am not a big fan of the John Le Carre (JLC) style and find it too anachronistic (also died in the 80's), The Bourne Identity is fine, but I really don't understand the hoopla. Now, moving Bond totally into that direction will really take the Bondiness out of Bond, it will take all the distinctive features out, and will be Bond only in name. So they couldn't go all the way, which is the main problem of the movie  it is stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea: on one hand, in order to preserve the Bondiness they have to have the outlandish action scenes, bigger than life stories, colorful characters etc. which again brings us back to the realm of the CGI movies and, again, causes Bond to look very bad. On the other hand, making it more JLC like, takes some of the unserious charm of it, the winking to the crowd; bringing a gray and non-suave man like Craig denies us of being around someone cool, good looking and with roguish sparkle in his eyes, and everyone would rather be around that kind of person than with the DC kind. CR tries to have the best of both worlds but remains with none. Here is an example: in the movie DC has to swerve with his car and it overturns, in the old JB movies he would be unscathed, in a JLC book he would die or spend nine months in hospital, here he is a bit shaken. So we are denied the charm of the indestructible Bond, but are not instilled with a sufficient sense of frailty to really feel afraid for him  a double miss. So no, this is a good movie IF IT WERE 1986, but IN 2006 it's not; and it didn't save the series, you can't save it. The old Bond cannot compete with the CGI movies, and you cannot make Bond too JLC or it won't be Bond. Bond should go the way of the movie-musicals and the Westerns, both genres are all but dead today, and for good reasons. They cannot be modernized without changing their distinctive features, hence they cannot be modernized.
Still, is it the best Bond ever? Well, since Bond depends very much on special effects, then I'd guess 'Octopussy' is the best (like I said, JB died in the 80's) if you compensate for technological ability (like you do for inflation) then 'Goldfinger' is. In a sense, it's like asking 'Is it the best Commodore 64 game ever?', it might have meant something in the 80's, but today, in the age of PS3, X-Box and Wii, Who cares.