Quantum of solace

I don’t think there was a soul on this planet that wasn’t disappointed with Quantum of Solace upon its release, especially after the Bond franchise was riding high with Casino Royale two years earlier. But I have since changed my view. While I’d never argue that it’s the best Bond film, I will certainly argue that it might be the most interesting one.

But we should get this out of the way: the editing is atrocious. While the action makes more sense on second or third viewing , it presents itself as a mess on the first. Which is a shame because Quantum of Solace is a very fine looking film. It’s up there with one of the best in the franchise. While I think the filmmakers were going for a more rugged and frantic style that I think was in vogue at the time, they did themselves a disservice. Even by 2008, that look had overstayed its welcome. My biggest complaint with the movie is that they didn’t let shots linger and worse yet I hated some of the clunky transitions. Some have often wondered if there is missing material that, to my knowledge at least, has not been shown to the public. If that’s the case, then Marc Forster deserves to have his director’s cut.

But most of the complaints from the time were with the script and the rather low stakes that Bond finds himself in compared to other films. It’s not about world domination this time. The villain just wants control of Bolivia’s water supply. That’s pretty unsexy all things considered. But in retrospect, it’s the script (that I think was “hampered” due to a writer’s strike) that I quite like. Bond doesn’t go to his usual uppity Mediterranean stomping grounds. This time he’s in often overlooked locations like Port Au Prince and the aforementioned Bolivia. And I think that these unusual places (for Bond) works in the movie’s favor. This isn’t the usual travel log that we’re used to seeing. One thing that was never explored in these movies is the often cynical and political nature of clandestine operations. We’re only shown the sexy side. So I think Marc Forster did an excellent job at contrasting the luxurious high life of James Bond with the poverty stricken lives of real, discarded nations that we typically want to ignore.

But this leads me to a problem: should James Bond be political? While I don’t have an issue with the film itself being political, I could argue that it would be somewhat out of character for James Bond to be cognizant of these issues. As I’ve always said, James Bond is a dangerous man who’s found a profession that works for him. There shouldn’t be a political bone in his body. Obviously they wanted to expand the character under Daniel Craig, which I think was a rousing success. But some of the issues brought up in the script sounded like they were from Craig personally (I believe during the writer’s strike he had some input into the screenplay) and not something organically from Bond. But I digress. I can see both sides of the issue.

But what I liked best about Quantum is how many of the trends in Bond pictures are bucked. Despite killing numerous people, Bond doesn’t directly kill the bad guy OR the object of his revenge. Additionally, he doesn’t sleep with the leading lady (a very underrated Bond girl in my opinion) and the one woman he does sleep with, he later gets yelled at by M for taking advantage of her. There are many times where this outright doesn’t feel like a 007 picture and it works for me.

I think the best way to view Quantum of Solace is to see it as an extension of Casino Royale. In fact, watch it immediately after Casino Royale. While I praise Marc Forster, I think it was a shame that Martin Campbell didn’t return for Quantum. I think that would have added a degree of stylistic continuity that viewers missed in 2008. But as it is, I think Quantum of Solace deserves a rewatch.

Aaron Taylor Johnson

If y’all can remember, Eric Bana was “officially” announced as James Bond by several major news networks prior to the naming of Daniel Craig. So while nothing, insofar as I can tell, has been released by the Broccolis or Eon Productions regarding the casting of the next James Bond, I think there’s enough smoke around Aaron Taylor-Johnson that we can safely assume he’s probably the new 007. If not, then it’s April Fools’ Day, so…April Fools.

But I support this choice for a few reasons. For starters, he has a pretty big penis. And secondly, his wife is over 20 years older than him. So salute. But that’s enough about the man himself. How would he perform as the world’s most famous secret agent?

I should state that I’ve only seen Taylor-Johnson in two movies. So maybe I don’t have the most informed opinion on his abilities. But he looks like the kind of guy that can handle the humor.

I’ve been revisiting some of the Roger Moore films. While he’s not my favorite Bond, nor my second favorite, and probably not my third favorite, he did bring a certain levity to those movies that I miss. If I have a criticism of Craig, and there’s not many, is that he might have been too much a brute. As much as it pains me to say, Craig was far from the funniest Bond. But what he restored to the part was a sense of danger which was sorely missed during the Moore and Brosnan eras. That’s one aspect from Craig years I hope the producers don’t jettison. As obvious as it seems now, James Bond needs to LOOK like he can handle himself in a fight.

Taylor-Johnson, again, coming from an uninformed opinion, appears like he’s the best of both worlds: both bruteness and levity, which seems like a nice change of pace given our current times.

And he has a big penis.

Yolo

Every night I wake up in a pool of my own sweat then look into the mirror to stare into the eyes of a man I don’t recognize. Life has become a meaningless void; an absolute senseless abyss where joy, love, and happiness are only a mirage. “Who am I” I ask myself. “Must every waking hour be so painful?”

Where does the suffering end?

It’s for this reason why I find so much comfort in 1967s You Only Live Twice, the fifth installment of the James Bond series. It’s old timey racism, antiquated attitudes towards women, and nonsensical plot that was written by the champion of the British Empire and captain of nonsense himself, Roald Dahl, that really highlights the madness of existence.

It was at this point in the series where Sean Connery gave up. Clearly just there to fulfill contractual obligations, Connery meanders through the film as someone who would obviously rather be on the golf course. Personally I prefer his lackadaisical performance in Diamonds Are Forever, but it was clear here that Connery still cared, however slightly, about his physical appearance. Quite frankly, his acting fits the film perfectly; it’s easy for the audience to emote vicariously through Connery. How else are we to react to producers and screenwriters clearly giving up their creative integrity for what amounted to an obvious cash grab?

The film starts with astronauts being hilariously kidnapped and the supposed “death” of James Bond. I have a lot of questions about this cold open. Bond is introduced as he’s making out with a “Chinese girl” (Miss Moneypenny’s words) and seconds later he’s gunned down. The police show up, pronounce him dead, with one of them saying “at least he died on the job” and the other responding “he would have wanted it that way”.

First off, how the fuck would those officers know what James Bond wanted? Did he know these guys?! Later, when Bond is revived, it is revealed that the death was staged by MI6. So was the Chinese girl in on the operation? Did the gunmen know?! I mean, it appeared as though they were firing real bullets. So was the Chinese girl acting as a double agent, baiting the gunmen into a scenario where they thought they would kill James Bond but she secretly knew that the whole thing was staged? That’s the only sensible explanation but she acted as though she was also trying to kill him!

And then, after Bond is revived on the submarine, M asks something along the lines of “any adverse effects?” which I assume means that Bond was drugged from the time of his faked death to the moment of his arrival on the submarine. So was he out the entire time? Was 007 so drugged that it fooled the doctors during his autopsy?! How long does it take between being pronounced dead and one’s funeral? Three days to a week? Did Bond not drink or eat the entire time? Who the hell was in on this thing?!!!

It is well established that Bond is a commander in the Royal Navy and M is a former admiral, and while on the submarine both are in uniform, but is Miss Moneypenny an officer too? Why does she have a uniform? I guess it makes sense given the confidential information she handles, but no where is her service to the Royal Navy ever established!

And the reason for James Bond’s published death is so that, according to M, 007’s enemies will pay a little less attention to him so that he can focus on the mission at hand. The problem is, if memory serves, at this point in the franchise’s history only SPECTRE is his enemy, and, as is established only 20 minutes later in the bath scene, it appears that Bond suspects SPECTRE is behind the incident from the very beginning. Did Bond not share this with MI6 before they dropped him off in Japan? He already killed Goldfinger, his only other enemy. Did Bond think he was going to capture SPECTRE by surprise? What was the point in faking his death?!

If the point was to get SPECTRE off his scent, then he did a very, very shitty job. Being a 6’2 Scotsman in Japan, Bond was going to stick out like a sore thumb. In fact, he is spotted by Japanese intelligence almost immediately while walking around openly in Tokyo. Sure, they were expecting him but maybe they should have chosen a less conspicuous rendezvous point than a sumo match.

And folks, this is just in the first 15 minutes.

Later, a little over halfway through the film, Bond takes a wife and his physical appearance is altered to appear more Japanese. And ladies and gentlemen, none of this serves the plot whatsoever. In fact, it’s completely abandoned almost as immediately as it’s introduced.

Directed by Lewis Gilbert, what’s great about You Only Live Twice is that its plot (or the lack thereof) is basically repurposed two more times within the franchise, both times directed by Gilbert. So Lewis Gilbert has the distinction of being the only director to make the same film three times. Producer Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli watched this movie and thought “yeah, I want to do that again. And once more for good measure.”

But personally I think that the crowning achievement of You Only Live Twice is that the filmmakers took a long hard look at life and their involvement in James Bond, realized it was all bullshit, said ‘fuck it, let’s get paid’, and turned it into spectacle of the highest order. As a result, cinema has never been the same.

*Note: Okay, so I forgot about the scene with Mr. Henderson who explains that a Japanese corporation could possibly be behind the disappearance of the space capsule. This might be where Bond begins to suspect SPECTRE. But still, it’s a shitty plan to fake your death and then walk around in public just days later.

It’s been a minute since I’ve had some good ass dreams. I think that’s why I’ve been going through a creative rut; my subconscious just kinda crapped out. That is until last night when I dreamt about Dustin ‘Bustin’ Diamond (resurrected from the dead. RIP) reprising his role as Screech for American Legend: A Saved By The Bell Story. It’s entirely possible that I was confusing Screech with ‘Landry’ from Friday Night Lights, as Screech was a Texas high school football placekicker who gets an athletic scholarship to UCLA where he unlocks his secret athletic prowess by switching to wide receiver and becoming a fucking legend. I might run that one through AI and see what it comes up with because I sure as shit ain’t writing that. But I did have another interesting dream, this time involving continuity in the James Bond universe. Obviously there’s been multiple actors that have played the role. Are they all the same James Bond? It’s an age old philosophical question. The solution that my brain came up with is that they are the same character, but each actor represents a different personality because James Bond secretly has dissociative personality disorder. This came to a head, because, in my dream of course, I was James Bond and while on a mission in Berlin, I fought an apparition of Daniel Craig who was actually an internal representation of my mental instability. Fortunately, I was saved by the Bond girl because the apparition was actually a result of an epileptic seizure.

The offense

Sean Connery went through an awkward phase immediately after leaving the James Bond franchise. It wasn’t until the 1980s, when he started getting the “elder mentor” roles, that he finally got his groove back. So I think it’s best if we forget most of the crap he did in the 1970s.

That being said, there was one bright spot:

I’m of course talking about The Offense, released in 1973 and directed by Sidney Lumet. The only reason why United Artists agreed to make this picture was to lure Connery back into the James Bond franchise. As a result, Connery returned for Diamonds Are Forever, which I think we should all be thankful for because Connery was in PEAK physical form.

Although the 70s were mostly a wash for Connery, his strongest performance did come in The Offense. In the film, he plays a seasoned police detective who suddenly has a mental breakdown while investigating a child predator. As a result, he beats a suspect to death during interrogation.

At the time, Connery was interested in breaking away from the shadow of James Bond. The result was a performance that we never really saw from him again. This is probably the only film where the Scottish actor actually demonstrated his range.

The highlight of the film, of course, is the interrogation scenes with just him and actor Ian Bannon. Both actors really run through the gambit of emotions, both getting the better of each other at different points. The often quoted line from this scene comes from Bannon’s character: “Nothing I have done can be one half as bad as the thoughts in your head.”

The screenplay by John Hopkins really carries the day, but one thing that I wasn’t expecting was how well the film looks. The production design combined with the cinematography creates a brooding atmosphere that seems to mirror the mind of Connery’s character. If I have one complaint though, it’s Sidney Lumet’s direction. It’s a minor issue, but the movie feels a bit too staged as actor’s movements sometimes appear over choreographed. This is especially apparent in the scene where Connery belittles his wife. The script is based on a play so it’s understandable why the movie feels like a theater production, but still, film is a different kind of medium and directors should better adapt the material for the screen.

Nevertheless, this is a great movie as it provided Connery with an opportunity to ACT as opposed to relying on his natural charisma.

To my readers: now that I’ve finished my book, I will begin the process of getting caught up on ALL of your blogs. Thank you for your patience and support 🙏🙏🙏

Whatever

Not quite sure why people are fearing AI so much. It’s art is mostly shit. I mean, take a look at this trash:

If you think this crap is gonna put artists out of work then perhaps they deserve it 🤷‍♂️

Not another shit post!

Fuck you!

I don’t have the time to write you an essay every day! Who do I look like?

Susan Sontag?!

As a spry 102 year old, I have mouths to feed: five kids in the states and another family I started in Vietnam while in the Marines (during the 90s, of course). So my time is VERY valuable.

That being said, one thing I find very satisfying is a good performance on screen. Even if it’s a minor role. So while I was sitting on my ass, at work, and watching the second best James Bond film (with Timothy Dalton) -License to Kill– I was reminded of an actress that understood the assignment and nailed it: Teresa Blake.

Don’t remember her? She played the role as “ticket agent” at the airport when Bond was moving on to his next assignment. The place was covered with police officers and she informs 007 that “some big drug dealer just escaped.” Understanding what that meant, Bond rushes away, leaving her hanging. “Your ticket!” she exclaimed.

This was the best performance of the movie. Yes, even better than Robert Davi’s.

Teresa Blake went above and beyond what the role called for. I’m sure director John Glen and producer Michael G. Wilson simply told her “just look hot and say the lines.” But Blake (probably) told them to stick that piece of direction up their ass because she was gonna add some subtly to the role.

Usually in these small exchanges, the attractive woman is supposed to ogle James Bond. But that’s not what Blake does. Instead she plays it like she’s just doing her job. She couldn’t care less that a “big drug dealer just escaped” and that there’s a tall, handsome British agent standing in front of her. Yet even then, her delivery of the “escaped” line fits in perfectly with the James Bond Universe. Blake is aware of why she was cast and leans into it. She plays it like a Bond girl without the needless sexual innuendos.

But her finest moment was the delivery of “Your ticket!” Clearly John Glen saw what I saw. He could have easily put that line on the cutting room floor but left it in because Blake absolutely sold it.

So shout out to Teresa Blake. It’s a shame that she doesn’t have more credits but at least we have her 20 seconds in License to Kill.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson

Let Kick-Ass be the next James Bond. I don’t give a shit.

It probably won’t be him though. Barbara Broccoli and Michael “G” Wilson are likely to pull another Daniel Craig and go for an actor you might’ve seen before but didn’t suspect. As they should, by the way. The Craig maneuver was controversial at that particular moment, but it paid off.

In all likelihood, it will be a non-white actor. Anti-SJWs have bitched about this, but it’s really not that big of a deal. Yes, in the books, the character was white. But let’s be honest: except for From Russia With Love and Casino Royale, the books are kinda shit. James Bond has been a way more influential cinematic character than a literary one. Really the only prerequisite for an actor to take over the role is that they be from the British isles or a former protectorate (except the US or Canada). And it should always remain that way. I will riot the day they announce a Canadian James Bond. So in all honesty, the only actor I’d LOVE to see as 007 is Idris Elba, who has unfortunately aged out of the role. He’s about as Connery-like as one could be.

I will say this for the 32-year-old Taylor-Johnson however: he’s married to 55-year-old director Sam Taylor-Johnson.

He’s a man of my own taste.

The 90s Reevaluated

Sorry, still sick so here’s another phoned in post.

Pierce Brosnan has been blowing up my news feed for whatever reason. I guess he’s playing some superhero or whatever, but I don’t watch that stuff. Unfortunately this has created a lot of (likely clickbait) opinion pieces that reevaluate his James Bond tenure.

I’ve always placed Goldeneye in the top 5 Bond films, which is where most 007 fans have historically placed it. But there’s a massive drop off with Brosnan’s other three films. The consensus is that while Brosnan could have been a great James Bond, his movies were either mediocre or terrible.

Or, I should say, this WAS the consensus during the Daniel Craig era.

Now that Craig’s moody and brooding Bond is dead and gone, perceptions on Brosnan’s portrayal have shifted. Craig’s 007 matched the times while Brosnan’s seemed clownish by comparison.

But after two years of a pandemic, record high inflation, and superhero movies flooding the theaters, audiences seem primed for a more tongue in cheek James Bond. So the Daniel Craig era is looking more passé by the second.

People are looking to return to a simpler time. And the most (relatively) simpler times in recent memory is the 1990s. At least this is my best explanation for why Pierce Brosnan is undergoing a micro-renaissance.

As a side note, the Star Trek: Next Generation films (which were also released in 90s) are being reevaluated. This is probably due to the cast returning for the final season of Picard. So Generations, released in 1994 and which infamously killed the original Captain Kirk, is being discussed again.

Why I bring this up is because a fourth “Kelvin era” Trek film, starring Chris Pine as nu-Captain Kirk, has stalled for probably the 10,000th time (thank god). While that (hopefully) means we won’t ever see Zachary Quinto as Spock and Karl Urban as McCoy again, that does NOT mean we won’t see Pine as Kirk again.

Why?

Because as any Trek fan can tell you, while Shatner’s Kirk was killed in Generations, technically his existence is preserved in some “ribbon” that floats around in space where time doesn’t mean anything blah blah blah. And this “ribbon” hasn’t been mentioned in Star Trek since.

So you can see where I’m going with this: when another Trek film makes it to the streaming services sometime this decade, the original Captain Kirk will be pulled out of this ribbon to be played not by William Shatner but by, you guessed it, Chris Pine.

Anyways, enjoy the 2020s, aka the 90s Reloaded.

fckn fans man

My go-to site for nerdish bickering is Trekmovie.com. One of the writers for Star Trek 09 and Star Trek Into Darkness, Roberto Orci, infamously jumped onto fans there a few years ago. For internet anthropologist/historians like me, it’s a goldmine.

Trekkies just aren’t used to having nice things. And Strange New Worlds is a nice thing. Sure it’s not perfect, but overall it’s pretty good Star Trek.

But the latest episode involved a species called “the Gorn” who were first introduced in TOS way back in the sixties. If you’re not a Trek fan, you probably know who they are because a member of that species was involved in one of the most parodied scenes in all of science fiction:

In SNW, the Gorn were updated to look more terrifying and were introduced to Starfleet earlier than what canon allowed (SNW takes place before the adventures of Captain Kirk). This predictably caused a shitstorm with the fans.

Look, I can roll with the best of Star Trek nerds. But to most sane people, this is a big nothing-burger.

This is also why the James Bond series is the most underrated of all the long-running franchises. The producers simply don’t give two shits about canon. Each film can theoretically take place in its own timeline. They just don’t get bogged down in the details because their purpose is to entertain.

Arguably, Star Trek serves a different purpose. Still though, fans are missing the forest for the trees. The larger question should be: was it a GOOD episode?

Personally I thought they killed off Hemmer, a very solid character, too soon. But his death did provide a good character arc for Uhura (and laid the foundation for Spock’s most infamous decision in Star Trek II). Obviously they were going for an Alien feel in this episode (which is okay, science fiction series often steal from one another) but overall it was pretty good.

Some fans are angry because the writers aren’t inventing new species to explore. But this “alien of the week” method that Trek fans have become accustomed to makes the series feel paper thin. I like it when writers take the time to explore an existing world. It adds depth.

But this latest Star Trek struggle session only highlights what is perhaps my biggest annoyance. Just because something is old and established, that doesn’t make it holy. The people behind TOS, to include Gene Roddenberry, were making shit up as they went. Besides, no television writer will want to pour through 9 million hours of Star Trek just to make it all add up. Hell, except for myself and Mike Stoklasa, NO ONE would want to do that. And this not only goes for Star Trek, but also for the Bible, Plato, Aristotle, Karl Marx, etc etc. They are all products of man and they can be changed by man.

As fans, we should have only one question: is it good storytelling?