Wait, You Were In That? (#1)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you:

Starring:

Kate Winslet
(5-Time Oscar Nominee)
(5-Time Golden Globes Nominee)
Daniel Craig
(Bond, James Bond)

Alright, who knew they were in this movie?
No cheating. Raise your hands, don't shout out.

That's Enough, Mr. Bond

I don't understand all the love for James Bond movies. Apart from a few in the middle, I've seen most of the Bond franchise. Each of the movies have their scenes. The New Orleans funeral ceremony that opens Live and Let Die is worth buying the DVD. Some of the movies have their memorable characters. Oddjob's my personal favorite. From Connery to Craig, the lead role has successfully been passed numerous times over the past fourty-six years. There's gadgets, beautiful women, action scenes, cool cars, espionage, and tons of other stuff that's supposedly been tailor-made for people like me.

A middle-class white male, age 17-25, is supposed to love these movies.

But I don't. The Goldeneye 007 game did steal many, many hours from my high school years. Goldfinger was a fun movie when I was twelve. Every time a new Bond theme gets released, I listen to it. But honestly, most of them are as boring as the movies they're made for.

I understand the love for the idea of Bond. He's a spy that travels all around the world saving humanity from the super evil bad guys with increasingly outlandish plots from world domination. He meets women named Dr. Holly Goodhead and Pussy Galore (I wish I was making those up) and wears jet packs and Rolex watches equipped with lasers. It makes sense that a lot of people would want to watch this guy's movies. It makes sense that a lot of people would want to star in this guy's movies.

I understand the love of the idea of Bond but it's the execution that refuses to entertain me.

James Bond is about as captivating as Superman, in my opinion. An unbeatable hero, completely able to handle every situation thrown at him, with weaknesses coming in at slim-to-none. What makes a hero interesting are his weaknesses and how he deals with those shortcomings. Luke has daddy issues. Indy was afraid of snakes. Hell, even Jesus had food allergies. What? You think he just ate bread and fish for fun?

Movie after movie, decade after decade, audiences have packed theatre screenings to watch how Mr. Bond beat the odds. I guess the excitement can be found in the how. Happy endings are nothing new but is it too much to ask for an inkling of doubt? Strapping our hero to a table with a slow-moving laser creeping up his thigh hardly calls for face covering and nail-biting. That being said,

Casino Royale made a lot of needed changes to the Bond series.

A darker, more serious installment, Royale attempted to update the James Bond image. The film's opening action scene followed our hero scaling walls, climbing high structures, and jumping around like it was District B13 day on the set. The violence is more graphic, the action definitely holds its own against the other Ian Flemming adaptations, and the card table scenes are...just as boring as ever.

Who decided that these action films need live coverage of the World Championship of Poker tournaments? Remember Goldfinger? Oh, remember that one hand-shocking video game Bond had to play? Every inkling of pace and flow are pushed aside for these scenes. Why? Maybe it's just a weak attempt to keep Bond classy.

Other action series such as the Bourne films grab a hold on my interest and the next thing I know, the end credits are rolling. Like I said, the idea of a Super Spy taking out two thousand henchmen with a bunch of awesome gadgets sounds great to me. But between the invincibility of the Bond character and the repeated slowing down of the narratives, I'm continually left with a bad taste in my mouth. After twenty-plus movies, this stuff gets a little old.

Am I the only one who doesn't really understand why the Bond movies get so much love?
Am I completely wrong for not loving them myself?
Let me know what you think.