A couple of weeks ago, I had the audacity to write an article that was slightly less than adoring of the latest James Bond movie, Casino Royale.

Basically I wrote that, while Casino Royale is a good film, it is not a traditional Bond movie. I suggested that some of the old charm was lost:

"The wisecracks, the over-the-top bad guys and the goofy gadgets are all part of what make a James Bond movie a James Bond movie. It's what distinguishes a 007 film from, say ... some other grittier spy thriller." Read the full article.

Well, a number of readers were more than happy to tell me that I'm not as double-oh-so-smart as I think I am. Here's some of what you wrote to me. Names have NOT been changed to protect the innocent. (Always think twice before you hit that "send" button!)

George wrote:

"You get your money damned easy. This Bond film IS closer to the original character ... and IS far better for it. Once we had reached the heady heights of Roger Moore floating around in space firing Laser guns, all credibility had been lost."

I'll give you that, George. Moonraker and several of the Roger Moore movies were pretty silly. And, by the way, I don't get paid that much.

A lot of you thought I was crazy for not loving Daniel Craig. Like Marc:

"He [Craig] was fantastic. He looks and acts like the real deal."

And Charlie:

"Craig is great as the new Bond .... I was totally tired of the wimpy skinny Brosnan, or any other Roger Moore type. I ... really like the new athletic, strong, no frills Bond. That's how a undercover operative with license to kill should be."

No doubt DC is pretty buff. But I didn't think Brosnan was that wimpy. Certainly not as decrepit as Roger Moore in A View to a Kill or Sean Connery in Never Say Never Again. (I know, a lot of people don't count that as a true "Bond" movie.)

Several people think I missed the point completely. Like Archie:

"I think that you did not quite understand the movie. Casino Royale is not truly a Bond movie. It is the movie that tells how James Bond becomes the 'James Bond' that you and I know. You will notice that the James Bond theme only comes at the end of the movie."

Or Andrew:

"You are concentrating on all the wrong things. Daniel Craig is playing the transition Bond. It's like starting all over. He doesn't use crazy gadgets because he is not there yet. He doesn't even have his drink down until the end."

Well, Archie, I did notice that the traditional Bond music was absent until the credits rolled. And Andrew, if you're right and this is a transition film, will we see a cheesier Bond next time?

A few of you actually agreed with me. Like Gwen:

"I agree 100% with your article. I saw the movie. I think they should bring Brosnan back. I have seen all the 007 movies. But like you say only box office returns will tell the story."

And Tom adds:

"I have the same question as you -- why fix something that wasn't broken -- i.e. they replaced Pierce Brosnan. He was great in the last Bond movie and he still looks and acts great."

I agree, Tom. I like all of Brosnan's movies. (YES, INCLUDING Tomorrow Never Dies!!!)

Tom makes another good point to all the Bond purists out there:

"I read all the Bond books back in the 1960s and Judy Dench isn't the M for the current plot/movie. She's a name and a great actress but this isn't Star Trek TNG. Space-time anomalies really should know their place."

One of the most informed responses was from Mike, who wrote:

"The franchise became too tongue in cheek and out of hand. Bond isn't meant to be a satire, it just ended up growing into that.

"Casino Royale did justice to its source. After [On Her Majesty's Secret Service], the producers basically took the titles of the books and stripped the stories from them.

"Charm and goofy gadgets was a by-product of the sixties, the cold war, Moore, and escapism. The character of Bond is mandated by the times we live in, hence Craig's portrayal."

I agree, Mike, especially about the films not being true to Ian Fleming's work. But rightly or wrongly, the Bond movies became campy long ago (pretty much everything after From Russia With Love) and are really a separate entity from the novels. I think James Bond movies have become synonymous with goofy gadgets, insane villains and unbelievable plots.

Maybe Linda sums it up best:

"It's all make believe anyway but it was an enjoyable movie."

Thanks to everyone who wrote me. I try to answer as many as I can. Drop me a line anytime.

Ethan Morris: "Not always right, but never in doubt." Go ahead and write me.

Recommend (0)

|  Comments (0)

|  Email

|  Share

Share  Facebook Digg del.icio.us