Generic Action Guy

Rating: 5/10 (11 November 2012)

James Bond's thinly veiled cover had been either that of an aristocratic playboy or business man. Using this cover he was able to interact with wealthy jet-setters as one of their own. Woman and Men alike are attracted to his charm, wit and boundless knowledge of fine living. In retrospect, many of the early films seemed more like travelogues for tourist and less like action films. This pretense accomplished a couple of objectives; it allowed blue collar types like me to see behind the veil of wealth power and privilege. And moreover, OUR AGENT, James Bond will ultimately show these aristocrats up, giving them their well-deserved comeuppance.
The world has change and become more corporatized and generic. However, human nature being what it is, we know there are still restaurants, casinos and other venues where most of us would be spotted as interlopers and summarily ejected. We still need James Bond. I think Daniel Craig capable of pulling off that sort of nuanced performance. He just hasn't been provided that sort of script. What did they get right: Daniel can wear a tailored suit well. And, Javier Bardem's mad man was appropriately distant and sinister.
This film is a disservice to Ian Fleming, who's stories expanded on F. Scott Fitzgerald's words: "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different."
007 is a blue collar wolf disquised as a blue blood, not a Scottish prince.