Bond after Bond

Rating: Null/10 (19 December 2008)

I've always followed the Bond series in my film life. First by tracing the old ones, and than by following the Brosnan flicks as they got out, and now watching these new Craig phase. The Bond franchising, for the options it always took, stylistic and commercial, as well as for the longevity it has by now, is perfect for us to trace how the notions of action for grand masses tastes have evolved. The Bond films probably never invented the notions which wrapped all the films, instead they've always stick to the popular conventions in its moment. Sometimes, though, they created great films in their own moment. So, someone interested in 'archeaolgy' of action films, will necessary have to go through the Bond films, and maybe intersect them with important groundbreaking films (from North by Northwest to the Bourne franchise).
This film clearly corresponds to what i described above. It is an action film fully in the mood of what action-film goers seek these days. The roughness and cruelty in the fights (a certain 'realism'), the editing as a confusing yet engaging element, which does not allow us to see the whole thing from the outside, instead brings us closer to the film. The inner depths of the main characters matter these days, and so we have Bond finding himself.
We have all that here. Is it competently done? To my eyes, yes. Is it enough for the film to be 'good'? To the same eyes, no.
Why? The whole Bond series is so diverse in terms of the stylistic approach, personality of the Bond actor, political and social context of that moment's 'real' world, that all the films would sound just disconnected if it wasn't for something that would bind them together. That thing was the elements of the character, Bond, and the surrounding elements that would support the whole constant mood of the thing (the gadgets, Q, the girls, the globe trotting stories...). In Casino Royale those elements were absent or distorted, and that was OK because the film was about digging and (re)inventing those elements, something like what 'Batman Begins' had done the year before. So we played along that game, wanting to find out. Bond was visceral, unsophisticated, but finding himself. No decided step forward was taken in this film. It lingers between the Bond film we know will come, with the 'real' Bond everybody knows, and the previous Casino Royale where we accepted the roughness of the character as part of a process. There could have been a transition, but i should have felt that something had evolved from 'casino..' to this one. I didn't.
My opinion: 3/5
http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com