Bond is Back. Again.

Some will see it as the best news ever, some will roll their eyes and think to themselves, ‘not another one’, while some will simply be indifferent. Whatever your reaction, next year there will be no escaping the name Bond, James Bond. Newly revived MGM, with brand new owners after their brush with bankruptcy, have announced the release date of the next 007 movie as 9th November 2012, at the end of a year which will see the evergreen British agent celebrate his 50th anniversary. Expect the working title to be Bond 23. I know, imaginative.

Daniel Craig has confirmed he will play the British agent for the third time, revisiting the darker, colder, blonder Bond he created for 2006′s Casino Royale. But the really interesting news is that British director Sam Mendes has agreed to helm the movie. Mendes, director of the excellent American Beauty and Road to Perdition, is one of the higher profile names to step behind the camera for a Bond movie, and his presence should promise something above and beyond. Who knows? Perhaps a trend for assigning star directors to the franchise will emerge after this. Perhaps even Steven Spielberg will get his long-coveted chance to direct the English secret agent.

Despite the outcry from some die-hard Bond fans, culminating in the ridiculous craignotbond.com site, Daniel Craig’s previous two movies have revitalised what had become a tired, creaky and worn-out franchise. Stripping the character of the crappy wisecracks, tedious womanising and overall smugness gave Bond back to an audience who had grown fond of the grittiness and realism of Jason Bourne and his contemporaries, and a lot of the credit for this has to go to Craig.

I haven’t been this excited by a Bond movie since…okay, I haven’t been this excited by a Bond movie. I’m looking forward to this one. And since it’s almost traditional to ask this question when discussing 007, who is your favourite James Bond?

Bond. His is bigger than yours.

.

.


13 people thought reading “Bond is Back. Again.” would be a good idea. Stranger still, they left messages...

  1. Superbru43

    Yay, coant wait for this. Just when you think hi-tec cant get any higher, another Bond movie comes blazing in with new gadgets, mor speed and eviler evil doers. And Bond is as cool, calm and accomplished through it all as usual. I WANT TO BE HIM…. I think there is a conspiracy thing going on and this is the way new gadgetry gets introduced to the world. Hmmm makes me wonder.

    Anyway, favorite JamesBond would always be Sean Connery. He epitomises James Bond. Worst would be Pearce Brosnan. Just did not fit the Bill. He should stick to singing in musicals.

    Great post, great news. Thanks Richard

    Reply
    1. Richard Post author

      Hmmm, I’ll be looking out for the new iPhone during Bond 23, then. ;-)

      Yep, Sean Connery is usually the most popular choice. I thought Timothy Dalton was the best, myself. I wish he’d done more than two movies. And I agree about Brosnan. He was okay, but not the best by a long shot. I actually think Craig’s Bond could be up there.

      Thanks for commeting, Superbru. :-)

      Reply
  2. King Uke

    My all time favourite Bond has always been Connery, but I have to say that Craig is easily up there with him. For me the hard Bond wins hands down, and Craig is the closest we’ve got to the Bond of the original books. I had heard that the latest film was in jeopardy but it’s good to hear from your post that they’re out the other side. I’m really looking forward to it.

    I know it’s controversial, but what about George Lazenby? He had great potential. Granted, he had a poor taste in clothes…

    Reply
    1. Richard Post author

      Welcome to Celluloid Zombie, King Uke. :-)

      Ah, George Lazenby. He wasn’t that bad onscreen, to tell the truth, but he was such an insufferable ass offscreen that he never made it past the first movie. And he was pretty smug, never the mark of a great Bond.

      Reply
  3. Hm

    To be fair to Pierce, his turn in Goldeneye was very good. He was much more rough around the edges then, combining charm with a ruthless efficiency that he never quite managed in any subsequent film. My preference is Sean Connery, Daniel Craig in Casino Royale, Pierce in Goldeneye, Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore, George Lazenby. Though Roger really was a product of the 80s and almost unwatchable today.

    I think considerable credit needs to be given to Martin Campbell for directing Goldeneye and Casino Royale, both of which reinvented Bond in masterful fashion. Subsequent sequels have never been as good, with both Tomorrow Never Dies and Quantum of Solace failing in many areas. Directing a Bond film probably looks easy, but it actually requires someone with considerable experience and appreciation for the character, and Martin has proven himself in that department twice.

    Reply
    1. Richard Post author

      Agreed, Pierce did do a very good job in Goldeneye. But he descended into caricature for the other movies. And yes, Campbell does deserve more credit for his work on the franchise. If only he’d been around to give Dalton a better start.

      I had a conversation with one of the script editors of the Bond movies a few years ago, and he told me the hardest part about making a Bond movie is directing the lead actor. ;-)

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>