SPECTRE (2015)

"Information is all, is it not?"" 

Ok, perhaps this isn't quite as good as its predecessor, but that's a very high bar, and this is nevertheless a fine Bond film. And a highly satisfying payoff to all the long-running plot threads that have been playing out since Casino Royale. Needless to say... spoilers!

It's a huge thrill to see Bond, gone just rogue enough, chasing all the pre-existing clues to an organisation that was always going to be SPECTRE, and an end of level boss, played superbly as always by Christoph Waltz, who was always going to be Ernst Stavro Blofeld. The backstory is nice, though, with "Blofeld" being Bond;s childhood stepbrother who regards him as a "cuckoo". The fact that his mother's maiden name happens to be Blofeld does, admittedly, feel a little forced... but, dammit, rule of cool.

The set pieces are awesome, right from the start with the Day of the Dead in Mexico City, right through Bond's infiltration of the mysterious organisation's headquarters in Rome through to the final showdown with "Blofeld". Andrew Scott's secondary, bureaucratic baddie ("C"... yes, I get the allusion!) is fun. And there is, of course, a very real subtext to it all with us all merrily handing over our personal data to those evil, MAGA-loving tech bros. In the real world, sadly, there's no 007 to save us from our fate.

The ending is, with the very obvious difference that Madeleine gets to live, somewhat redolent of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, with Bond falling in love and choosing love over the job. But, of course, there's one more film of this era to go. If it's anywhere near as good as this, I can't wait.

Skyfall (2012)

 "You were expecting an exploding pen?"

And so here we reach unexplored territory for me- until yesterday, I hadn't seen any James Bond films since Quantum of Solace because... well, you know. But this, the very next film, is an absolutely superb return to form, and I'm not only talking about the brilliant theme song.

One of the things you tend to notice at the start of a film, before you get "used" to it, is the artiness of the direction, the composition of the shots, the camera angles, that sort of thing. And yes, Sam Mendes shoots this film very creatively. And yet at no point does he forget that he's shooting an action film. The set pieces, the action sequences, they're particularly magnificent in this film and that's down to Mendes.

The script is superb too, though. This is a Bond who's getting older, past his peak, but determined to keep going. We have a new Q, more of a computer whiz than a purveyor of gadgets- nice idea, but let's see how long that lasts. This is M's swansong, of course, with Judi Dench doing a bloody good death scene and Ralph Fiennes taking over as the new M to whose name, shockingly, we are actually made privy.

Oh yes, and there's Eve. I like the reveal about her at the end... and it's a new spin on the character to have her be a former field agent. Even the villain has motives that are closer to home. Indeed, while this is in some ways a typical Bond film on the surface, with big action sequences in Istanbul and Shanghai, it's fundamentally more about character, with the climax being a siege in Bond's rather posh childhood home. And yet, still, it never forgets that it's an action film.

This is the best Bond film in a very long time.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

 "Bond, if you could avoid killing every possible lead, it would be appreciated."

Finally I've caught up in my Bond marathon. I saw this film at the cinema in 2008, but I haven't seen anything since. All things Bond from this point forward are new territory for me. 

As for this one, though... it surprised me. Oh, I'm not saying it's one of the better Bond films because it certainly isn't. It deserves praise for it's non-excessive run time, but it has flaws. The many action set pieces are entertaining but don't come remotely close to equalling those of Casino Royale. Olga Kurylenko impresses as Camille, a character with depth who earns Bond's respect, while Gemma Arterton is also good as Strawberry Fields(!) who, as tradition dictates, falls for Bond, but ends up dying with a touch of the grand guignol. And yet...

The villain, the plot, the scheme- to engineer a coup in Bolivia and profit from control of the nation's water- lacks a certain excitement. Bond is cut loose from MI6 and on the run, albeit with M's role being ambiguous.. but how many times have we seen this? Compared to its predecessor, this film ends up seeming lacklustre by comparison.

And yet...none of that makes it a bad film, just a flawed one. And, on this second viewing,hot on the heels of seeing Casino Royale, I can see what they may have been trying to do. Yes, Daniel Craig's Bond lacks the flippant charm of his predecessors, but the character has depth. The fim sees him working through his feelings about Vesper, finally forgiving her (and himself), as urged by Matheson's dying words, and we end with him finally getting revenge.

And, across both films together, a shadowy organisation is set up- no spoilers, please, but perhaps SPECTRE?

All of this may well be going somewhere. If so, this film may be more quietly impressive than it appears on first glance.

Casino Royale (2006)

 "That last hand nearly killed me..."

I'm doing lots of different film marathons where I blog each film in order, in some cases veeeeery slowly, something I'm actually quite proud of. Because my blogging of the Bond films is gleefully slow, at a snail's pace, having started in 2015. Yet it proceeds inexorably on. 

Casino Royale, though... yes, it'a little too long and bloated, as blockbuster films from the present century inevitably are, but objectively it's very good indeed. I enjoiyed it. I'll be honest, though: while there's much to admire I found it dragged at times on this viewing, but perhaps for reasons which are not entirely the film's fault.

Daniel Craig is superlatively good as a more nuanced Bond, one with much more interiority, but still absolutely the Bond we know. And, of course, he gets a real character arc here, more so than since On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Importantly, though- and the word is much overused, but it's literally so here, although the continuing presence of Judi Dench as M does make one wonder. Bond begins the film earning his promotion to 00 status, in delightfully artily shot scenes. The Bond theme is not heard until the end. Bond has yet to think of a name for his dry martini, shaken, not stirred.... (crikey, spirits are complicated. I stick to real ale and wine) and,of course, there's the last line of the film.

Yet much of the film is a very well done tromance between Bond and Vesper, starting out sparring and eventually falling in love with her, resigning and proposing to spend her life with her. Of course, we know what happened to Trace well back then:Vresper's death is no shock. But the manner and circumstances of her death are truly heartbreaking. No wonder Bond, I assume, will harden his heart and be wary of attachments from now on.

There's lots of action, loads of set pieces, and all with a more realistic tone, devoid of the slight excess of gadgets we've seen in the recent past... although, that scene...? Ouch.

So yes, the film is a little overlong, but very, very good. And yet, so much screen time is devoted to playing poker and... well, this is just me, but I find gambling so very boring. Not that I'm in any way puritanical... it's just dull.

I accept, though, that this is just a matter of taste. Overall, this is a highly effective and affecting relaunch.

Layer Cake (2004)

"England. Typical. Even drug dealers don't work weekends."

I'd wager this film was not entirely without influence in Daniel Craig winning a certain high profile role a couple of years later, but it deserves recognition for far more than that. The directorial debut of Matthew Vaught after producing Lock, Stock and Snatch, it superficially resembles them with its gangster subject matter and its fast, witty directorial style.

Except it’s more than this. Layer Cake is certainly a fast-paced gangster film with a complex plot full of layers upon layers of motives and double crosses in the dangerous, impossible to escape world of criminality. But it’s unnamed protagonist is deliberately different from the stereotype- middle class, educated, professional and unflashy, he’s only in crime because of the money to be made from the drugs trade, and intends to make his fortune and then retire. Naturally, he isn’t going to be allowed to do this for all sorts of reasons involving various British character actors.

It’s amusing to see the character of the Duke as a contrast; clearly intended as a piss-take of the typical British cinematic gangster, he’s a joke, out of his league and inevitably doomed. Our protagonist is different, right?

Over a riveting couple of hours we slowly discover that no, he isn’t really, in spite of his smarts and his apparent sense. This is not a world from which one can ever escape, or expect a long life to expectancy. However clever he is, however he may run rings round his many sudden enemies after an ecstasy deal gone wrong, this world will kill him- and it’s fitting that he should be killed over a girl, randomly, after he thinks he’s got out.

What adds even more depth, though, is that the film is about something. Once there was cops and robbers, then along cane the drugs trade. As the opening narration says, one day all this will be legal. But, for the past several decades, prohibition has spawned a shocking amount of unnecessary crimes and innocent victims. And that’s the moral of this film; prohibition has blood on its hands.