die another day (2002)

die another day is arguably so bad that it killed a franchise that had, at the point, lasted forty years and produced hundreds of millions of dollars of profit. it was out of morbid curiosity that this title was picked up, alongside the very first bond flick, dr. no, as part of the "buy bond, get bond" free offer thats currently in commision.

the sight of james bond surfing whilst holding onto a parachute is one that i will not forget in a hurry, though not necessarily for the right reason. add to this the concept of an invisible car (surely the deus ex machina of gadgets) and you have a film that is so bloated and smarmy that its no surprise that the producers went back to the beginning for the next film.

comparisons to joel shumacher's 'batman and robin' (1998) and the manner in which that too killed its respective franchise are apt, as both are great examples of a thoroughly modern phenomenon - the franchise with an ego. its fairly common for a filmmaker or a star to be accused of being self-indulgent with projects, but it was the hyper marketing of the nineties that brought with it the egotistical brand. at least the batman and bond franchises have been saved in recent times, but i cant help but think that this is cycle that will come around every few years with certain franchises.

quantum of solace (2008)

the follow up to casino royale, a film reviewed below and enjoyed immensely by this viewer, is perhaps best viewed with its predecesor fresh in the mind. as i had only seen casino royale for the first time two days prior to seeing this i appeared to enjoy it much more than the person i attended the screening with, who hadnt seen casino royale since its theatrical release two years ago. the story follows on literally one hour after the previous film ended. herein lies the first major difference between previous bond sequels, as its the first genuine- continuity driven sequel in the series. the concept works a charm, with quantum of solace feeling more like casino royale part 2 than a stand alone film. while many people have been quite vocal about this not being the direction that they personally would like to see the bond films going in, i have to disagree entirely. alongside the benefit of adding real emotion to the bond films, this new wave of bond flicks has added depth (although emotion and depth are largely the same thing, especially in this context). that is to say that i genuinely care about seeing the next film in the series, in fact i would hasten to add that im actually looking forward to seeing it, which is a first for me, as prior to this recent experiment in bond viewing i had little experience with the series. its worth pointing out that while i have enjoyed my brief flirtation with bond i still consider them to be very much throw away entertainment, and cant see myself ever taking them too seriously or being a real fan.

casino royale (2006)

the film that not only breathed life into a dead franchise, but actually made the franchise in question much more interesting, martin campbell's ''casino royale'' (not to be confused with the david niven film of the 1960's, although admittedly that would be fairly unlikely) may draw many lazy comparisons to the bourne films, but i feel that its much closer in tone to the french connection (1971). gritty reinvention is nothing new, but with the bond franchise it actually opened up one of the largely ignored aspects of the original source novels, at the same time as serving a major plot purpose - the concept of a wet behind the ears bond, that would sooner kill than slow down and react ''properly'' to a scenario is one that not only makes perfect sense structure-wise but also conceptually applies to a large number of the intended audience. the emotional engine that the previous films lacked is front and centre in casino royale, gone are the over the top gadgets and the carry-on style humour, a necessary sacrifice in this post-austin powers universe. put simply the bond series couldnt carry on as it had been doing prior to royale, the concept had dated so badly, and had been pastiched to death. it is the aforementioned emotion that is the narrative string that i look forward to following through this new generation of bond films.

goldeneye (1995)

the second in my bond season of sorts, goldeneye, was the one that was most anticipated by myself. like most of the series i hadnt seen the film prior to this screening, aside from the occasional section here and there, but was aware of the tone of the film.

the pre-title sequence was perfect. in fact i wouldnt hesitate to presume that there isnt an opening sequence quite as good. at some point in the future i'll explore the concept of the pre-title sequence, alas it is practically eleven thirty and i have another review to write tonight!

sean bean as borderline-generic bond villain number 314 is a charm too, easily the most effective of the villains iv seen so far, and the strongest element of the film. the concept of a rogue double-O agent is presumably the injection of originality that the series needed, although my relative lack of knowledge of bond etc means that i cant be sure of this. as a concept alone tho, it is fairly post-modern, and definately telling of the time it was produced. theres a part of me that cant help but feel that this film was actually a much more successful attempt at relaunching the bond series than casino royale was. the tone and charm of the series was retained, without neglecting the areas that casino royale arguably did. casino royale was a much more successful film and an all-round better picture, but as a james bond film, goldeneye was the greater success.