What Makes a Bond Movie a Bond Movie or Why Daniel Craig Isn't Bond

Well, I'm back after a long hiatus and with an issue that is sure to stir up some love/hate amongst you readers. I've been pondering this one for months because when I tell someone that I haven't liked the last 3 (ok, really the last 4) Bond movies, I had a hard time articulating why. I have issues with Daniel Craig as Bond for reasons outside of the movie itself (comments he has made to the press concerning Bond), but that's not all it is. I feel it is the whole movie structure and the insistence that they "modernize" Bond.

Everything (well ALMOST everything) that is wrong with the franchise can been summed up in the cover of the colleciton:

I'll give you a moment to see what is the issue.

30 more seconds...

See it? And no it isn't that Craig is in the center or that Lazenby and Dalton are seen as the red-hheaded step childs of the franchise by putting them off in another color (although...).

Look closely at the guns and what they're wearing. A machine gun? A haphazard suit? This is BOND not Jason Bourne! Why don't they just have him say "Bourne, James Bourne" and get it over with? Since the series had started to wain at the box office during Brosnan's tenure as Bond, they desperately tried to find some way to make Bond fresh and new to a modern audience and with the success of the Bourne franchise, it was decided that aping some of the tropes of Bourne was the way for Bond to go. Problem is, Bourne aped from Bond to begin with so now we have a 2nd generation watered down Bond. Don't get me wrong, the movies are generally decent (and fairly entertaining) action movies, but action does not a Bond movie make. Here's what is missing:

Two things wrong in current Bond movies that are evident from the get go. The first is the gun barrel fade being moved to the end of the movie which has always STARTED the movie. Even if the movie didn't have a teaser opening sequence before the credits like "Dr. No" we've always had it start off the movie. The other thing is the theme song and opening credits itself. Now, the first two Bond movies didn't really have theme songs per se and the sequences had evolved greatly over the years, but there is a certain feel to them that had been missing in the past few, but made a glorious return in "Skyfall". The music hadn't been right since "The World Is Not Enough" (still one of my favorite themes) and "Casino Royale" completely dumped the style of the credits. I feel these kind of set you up for the movie. You know now what you're getting into.

Other things are more subtle, but they get me annoyed none the less. Bond rarely drinks his famous martini anymore. He drinks Heineken. The cars haven't been fun (with the exception of the Astin Martin returning for a cameo in "Skyfall"). The gadgets (and therefore "Q") have been gone. Basically most of the "spy" has been removed from the series. Watch "Archer" and you see what you should be seeing in the Bond movies, which boils my bottom.

So...if much of this is back into "Skyfall" with the exception of the fade, that should make the new one better right? Not really. Those are minor quibbles. What follows is the real meat and potatoes.

We'll start with where Bond was cheeky and would say things with a twinkle in his eye, there's a much more hard and arrogant tone to his words. Most of this one I place solely on Craig. I know they want a more emotional and darker edged Bond, but the lines that are supposed to add a little levity just make me dislike the character more. Speaking of "Dark Bond", it annoys me that they did the same thing with Timothy Dalton (who could still pull off the levity) and the public raked him over the coals! I thought Dalton was ten times the Bond Craig is. They've also made him TOO vulnerable and quote-unqote emotional. Part of the fun of Bond is that he's so calm, cool, and collected when things are getting out of control. The clothes shouldn't be all disheveled and nary a hair should be out of place. This is getting a little better, but still a problem.

Plot structure is a issue too. Like the Mission Impossible movies did for part 2 (though I LOVED Ghost Protocol FYI), they are starting to value the action sequences more than the spy elements (hence the machine gun up top). In previous Bond movies (prior to "Die Another Day") there were usually only 2 (or maybe 3) big action sequences (usually a vehicle chase and a big fire fight) with a fist fight here and there just to break things up. Now it just seems there is a setup, action sequence; setup, action sequence; setup, action sequence; rinse and repeat every 15 minutes until the movie is over. I guess it is because I don't have ADHD that I actually get bored with this structure. Especially when the last 30 minutes is just some long extended action sequence with very little pay off in the end.

I've gone on quite a long while, but stay with me for a couple more.

I know this is a little cliche, but bring back the damn Russians (or at least Communists) and SPECTRE. Very few "successful" Bond movies have strayed out of that concept. It works. And more and more writers are realizing that since they're creeping back in as the villains (well Communists).

And bring back the Bond girl. We throw that term around quite a bit, but what IS a Bond girl? I won't go into it much, but there should be 3 in the movie. The "throwaway" that really doesn't have much to do with plot, but is just there to prove just how suave he really is (I know that's a bit chauvinistic, but that's  kind of what the character is, but her character is usually balanced by the next two); the "damsel in distress" who usually ends up surprising Bond and the audience with her intelligence and "balls" before the end; and the "femme fatale" who generally cannot be trusted and ends up turning on him. Sure there may not be all three, but if there aren't, it usually means 2 and 3 are rolled into one (as one first then the other). I do have one question, though, where are the female villans? There have been several good female henchmen like Xenia Onatopp or Pussy Galore, but no main villains.

Speaking of the villain. This has been the biggest problem as of late. I think it very much has to do with the fact that with the exception of "Casino Royale", the movies are no longer based on Ian Flemming novels. They've run out of his material. Some of them have been based on other writer's works that are considered "cannon", but mostly it's some writer thinking they are making up a good Bond story and they aren't. There's supposed to be a henchman you think is the main villain who is usually very eccentric and cool, then you meet the man behind the scenes in the third act who is just so damn calm cool and collected. He rarely does any of the dirty work himself. He's the brains behind the operation and more often than not, the food chain even goes higher than him (generally to SPECTRE). In "Skyfall", Silva always seems like a henchman to me and never the true villain. He's a Jaws, Oddjob, or Baron Samendi not Goldfinger, Scaramanga, or Kananga. And save Le Chiffre, I'm sure you can't name a Bond villain probably back to "Goldeneye", but back to "The World Is Not Enough" at least. That, to me, is a problem.

I'm not saying I'm done with the franchise, but I think it is very telling that I didn't see "Skyfall" in the theater. I ALWAYS see a new Bond when it comes out, but the previous 3 had left me so disenfranchised that I didn't really care if I saw it immediately or not. Hire Tom Hardy and we'll talk again, Sony.