the next Bond is the leader of an underground revolution...unavoidable

Rating: 5/10 (7 November 2015)

The English and American mainstream cinema is a factory where everyone can get used to upcoming political and economic events. Combined international security organizations - if it does not happen already - is the theme of the new Bond. A provocative theme that is translated on story level in a Bond, opposing his ultimate enemy. This is also a dangerous theme. Because ... this is a series. What in the next Bomd? another second-level 'baddy again? To put it shortly, this colossal of a too big production goes down the drain. For the above problem is not the only problem that the production of this Bond has. There is also the issue of, or rather the struggle with the genre. Who is Bond? This question really should be given to the creators so they can make a story out of it that shows us that question on story level, as well executed in Casino Royal. But this question is now shared with us within the story itself. The creators are now struggling with us, viewers. Thus we suddenly enter into the genre of a psychological thriller. But that's not Bond. So, in order to give us the old feel, the makers introduce - completely unnecessary after the healthy changes in Casino Royale already executed - a series of ridiculous references to the old genre. Not only small references, but big action scenes. The scene with the aircraft is the most idiot and outdated example.
The biggest problem is the script itself. The first half of the film is an illogical sequence of some semi-contemplative scenes without any power, the edit is far too slow, especially in Rome in the car-chase scene and after the embarrassing plane-scene, it is not getting better. the end of the movie is embarrassing on too many levels to be worth mentioning. Then the bond girl. She is suddenly 'in love', which at script-level is totally implausible and unnecessary. Monica Bellucci is used as fresh statement (be it in a stupid sensual scene with Craig) that an older woman can be sexually attractive, but then gets too little screen time to prove this statement and grant her her presence in the story.And so on and so on...
The introduction of the villain seems hopeful. Not a bad scene. But still .... there is an itchy feeling of discomfort to this Bond, where even good scenes are not really 'doning' it (the first scene and edit in Mexico already give me this feeling). Bad guys were in the 70s and 80s still the grotesque figures as portrayed in many Bond films. But with a movie like the Matrix there is a ​permanent break with the old idea of ​​evil as a dark force, somewhere on an uninhabited island. The evil is in us. Bond tackles this trend with Craig - Casino Royale - and transforms the villain into a more human figure and gives Bond something of a dark past. But in the next Bonds it goes back to wrong again with villains in spacy hotels in the middle of nowhere, and, how horrible, a whole island of ruins, plus a bleached head. Back to nothing again. Walz doesn't escape this mistake and has a totally useless complex available to him in Africa and recites cliché reflections on life and his view of humanity. Boring....already done....
C says: Bond had its days. Incidentally, this is the most annoying phrase in the entire film, which is also repeated constantly and is so outdated. Because its not true. It makes only sense since the scriptwriters make Bond outdated! Bond as a character isn't. Certainly not with the introduction of Craig, who I believe is the best Bond ever. Casino Royale shows that there is a Bond 3.0.
But ... there also lurks something dark in my soul. If M says that the human element of warfare should not be forgotten, it sounds in these times almost grotesque. We are really entered another time when we as citizens have lost complete control in the democratic processes and there is no more room for this kind of old-fashioned romance. That seems a road of not return and the only role for a plausible hero - in a movie that is not under the influence of political powers- seems the role of the underground rebel. Bond seems to be the representative of the powerless citizen. He must go off grid now permanently to be able to do something good. Perhaps Bond, as we know him, is, with that, buried forever. As democracy in the world, in fact, is buried. We just do not know it yet.
The next bond? fighting another grotesque villain that is conquered by one man? No. The next Bond can only be written when Bond is the leader of an underground revolution.
A Neo.