Letter not spirit

Rating: Null/10 (6 November 2008)

The movie has just been released in Kolkata, India today. I will update my comments after I see it. I just want to put on record a fact which seems to have been overlooked by all the comments I have read so far. The last time before CASINO ROYALE a Bond movie used a Fleming title and also elements from the story which had that title was in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. However, already before that the habit of taking the title and Bond and nothing else from Fleming's story was seen in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. (Not having read all the Bond stories, I can't say whether the same applies to MOONRAKER. OCTOPUSSY, I think, just about takes the octopus in the aquarium from Fleming, and nothing else. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY cannibalizes elements from the short story 'From a View to a Kill' and the novel LIVE AND LET DIE.)In QUANTUM OF SOLACE, we are back to the THE SPY WHO LOVED ME mode - Fleming's title and absolutely nothing more from that very Somerset Maughamish short story (which I rather liked when I read it, and which of course would be unfilmable as a Bond movie). What would be the title of the next Bond movie? THE HILDEBRAND RARITY? They might choose to retain the murder of a man by shoving a fish down his throat from the story! See everyone again once I have caught the movie. By the way, another bit of interesting Bond movie trivia for all fans from outside India. Till ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, every Bond movie had an 'A' certificate (i.e. below 18 not admitted). Suddenly George Lazenby was graced with a 'U', and the same followed for Connery in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER and Moore's first Bond outing LIVE AND LET DIE. Back to 'A' after that for all Moore Bonds till OCTOPUSSY, for which, of course the producers wanted a larger audience as it is partly set in India. So 'U/A', a newly invented censor certificate, suggesting not just parental guidance but actual adult accompaniment in the movie hall. Not to be outdone, Connery secured the same certificate for his NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.Back to 'A's for Brosnan (someone correct me if I'm wrong; did GOLDENEYE get a 'U' or a 'U/A'?)till Craig was once again blessed with a 'U/A' for CASINO ROYALE. I still don't know how they have certified QUANTUM. Cheers! OK, caught the film yesterday, 11th October 2008. The following points struck me: 1. I agree with the user that in some of the action scenes you can't make out who's hitting whom at some points, and you don't know whom to cheer. Particularly true of the early sequence where Bond chases the man who tried to shoot M. Is this deliberate on the part of today's filmmakers? 2. Refreshing that Bond doesn't hop into bed with Camille. Given his state of mind, I would have found it more acceptable if he hadn't had it off with Strawberry Fields as well. After all, in CASINO ROYALE, the only fling he had was prior to l'affaire Vesper. 3. I take it, every Bond movie aficionado noted the deliberate throwback to GOLDFINGER in the way Strawberry Fields' dead body is shown.\? 4. Chronologywise, both ROYALE and QUANTUM are pre-DOCTOR NO, right? So, I would like to join all who are wanting Q back in due course. The technology we saw in QUANTUM is impressive but faceless, and a very poor substitute for John Cleese. 4. On the whole, left less of an impression than ROYALE. But that may be because I have got used to the new bond.