What is there to say about a film like this? James Bond, the biggest franchise in cinema history, has been modernized yet again. Still, whether or not you like the character and his adventures, the Bond films are significant — the key reason that you can see so much change in society by reviewing how the character and the material have changed.
Indeed, you can talk about how different actors have shaped the role in different ways, and wonder how much reflects their personality and how much reflects the times we are living in. The Bond we find in Daniel Craig is radically different from most other Bonds in one simple aspect — he is a workaholic.
From the get-go, M looks at the young Bond as someone inexperienced and is cautious about having promoted him to double 0 status. Bond has always been a pseudonym, and all his predecessors have long since died or retired. And yet, he willingly shows off his abilities by breaking into M's house.
Everything Craig does throughout the film reflects training and drive. In one of the early sequences, he tracks a man with a backpack, and in the course of the chase, he is repeatedly undermined by the man's strength and ability, but Bond is fully aware of his limitations and will often look for a quicker way to obtain his objective. He works smarter, not harder. And, uncomfortable with the thought of relying on others, he does everything himself.
That said, as with most Bond films, the technology has once again been updated, but instead of the usual scene with Q handing Bond a whole bunch of new gadgets which will come in handy throughout the film, he is simply set to his task. Of course, while the use of text messaging and the equipment used to restart his heart was clever, it was hardly cinematic when compared with submarine cars, the Moonraker, and satellite weaponry.
Article comments
1 - Johnny 5
Bond is not a 'pseudonym'.
This movie is simply a reboot and an origin story rolled into one i.e. it takes place in a different 'continuity universe' to the previous movies, much as events in 'Goldeneye' disregarded the continuity of the Roger Moore movies.
If you're going to review a movie, at least do your research. That's not asking much.