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.

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.