My James Bond belongs to the past and John Cleese agrees

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/John-Cleese-James-Bond-Films-Have-One-Fatal-Flaw-43594.html?fb_action_ids=10152664555878054&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B728014633903477%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

I grew up with James Bond, ad this James Bond was at the time Roger Moore. Suave, charming, 100% professional, he roamed the movies right ahead, like my father used to say, withut disturbing his hairdo and whatever the stunts. He was and still is the quintessential "pulp" hero. We know next to nothing about him, other than the actions he undertakes during his missions. I was even surprised to learn that in the first Sean Connery movies, he had a home, and even a girlfriend that soon disappeared from the scenery.

Moore perhaps wasn't the character from the novels, but for once I was glad he wasn't. I didn't like the books, I loved the character from the movies, a complete fantasy. He accomplished the most outrageous stunts, was irresistible to women, and saved the world at the end of the story, all that with a broad smile and humor. Bond had become, or was, a purely cinematic myth. Yes, there was the occasional "grittier than usual" Licence to Kill, but it was precisely what was interesting, it was the exception, not the rule.

Already at the Pierce Brosnan era, I was beginning to feel the end of an era. Bond wasn't allowed to have women in distress besides him anymore. It had become shameful. After Goldeneye and the russian computer expert, the feminine characters were Bond's equal, and almost didn't need him at all. M was now a woman, no problem with that, but she treated Bond as a mysoginist dinosaur.

Comes Daniel Craig. Casino Royale is well made, but it's not anymore the fantasmatic Bond, without being either the one from the novels (Ian Fleming envisioned David Niven to play Bond, we're far from the thuggish hedgehog-hairdo guy). Brutal fight scenes, cold-blooded executions, torture scenes, and a Bond in love? For the first time, Bond seemed to follow a trend initiated by Jack Bauer in the 24 tv series, and by Jason Bourne in the movies. Casino Royale, as the two following movies, is an equilibrium exercise, more "realistic" on one hand, while keeping impossible scenes, like this one where Bond gets better in a few minutes after a heart stroke. It's a success at the box-office, so good thing for them. For me it's at best a short-term calculation. Bond ceased to be special, he's now drowned among the action movie mass, free-wheeling until complete stop? We'll see. To be honest there's still no sign of fatigue of this new formula. Anyway, it's not for me anymoren sadly.

John Cleese, who played the new Q in the last two Bonds starring Pierce Brosnan, apprently agrees since he says in the article linked above: "I believe that they decided that the tone they needed was that of the Bourne action movies, which are very gritty and humourless. Also, the big money was coming from Asia, from the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, where the audiences go to watch the action sequences, and that’s why in my opinion the action sequences go on for too long."

John Cleese, my hero...

"Has anybody said to you that you share the initials of John Carter?"