While I partially agree with you, Juanita, I still saw a darker element to this latest Bond movie. I think it was entirely to do with Bond himself. Daniel Craig is not classically handsome or particularly well-poised. He really played the “tortured” sociopath well. There was no comparison between his Bond and Pierce’s.

I can think of at least four or five other Bond films that had a similar tone. For example – FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, LICENSE TO KILL and quite possibly, GOLDENEYE. And despite its plot, the Bond gadgets and meglomaniacal villain, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME has a serious tone – especially in the movie’s frst half set in Egypt and in the relationship between Bond and Anya Amasova.

And it also seems to me that the gritty portrayal of spies featured in recent movies and TV series – THE BOURNE TRILOGY, MI-5 (SPOOKS), 24 and RONIN – may have originated with Timothy Dalton’s portrayl of Bond in the late 80s. Personally, I think he was simply ahead of his time.

I also noticed the comments regarding Connery. Quite frankly, he was never my favorite Bond. I never really had a favorite Bond . . . until I saw Daniel Craig’s peformance in CASINO ROYALE.

“Connery brought a depth to the character that I haven’t seen since.”

What an interesting comment, considering my own views of Connery. Aside from his performance in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (which I consider his best), his Bond never struck me as having much “depth”.

In the end, I find it a shame that most Bond fans are unable to appreciate what each actor (who worked for EON Productions) had brought to the Bond character. I must honest. I never really liked the literary Bond. I have always considered the cinematic Bond – regardless of the actor – as an improvement on Fleming’s characterization. I realize that I cannot order people to appreciate all six actors who have portrayed Bond. But it would be nice to encounter someone else who does.

I can think of at least four or five other Bond films that had a similar tone. For example – FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, LICENSE TO KILL and quite possibly, GOLDENEYE. And despite its plot, the Bond gadgets and meglomaniacal villain, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME has a serious tone – especially in the movie’s frst half set in Egypt and in the relationship between Bond and Anya Amasova.

And it also seems to me that the gritty portrayal of spies featured in recent movies and TV series – THE BOURNE TRILOGY, MI-5 (SPOOKS), 24 and RONIN – may have originated with Timothy Dalton’s portrayl of Bond in the late 80s. Personally, I think he was simply ahead of his time.

I also noticed the comments regarding Connery. Quite frankly, he was never my favorite Bond. I never really had a favorite Bond . . . until I saw Daniel Craig’s peformance in CASINO ROYALE.

“Connery brought a depth to the character that I haven’t seen since.”

What an interesting comment, considering my own views of Connery. Aside from his performance in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (which I consider his best), his Bond never struck me as having much “depth”.

In the end, I find it a shame that most Bond fans are unable to appreciate what each actor (who worked for EON Productions) had brought to the Bond character. I must honest. I never really liked the literary Bond. I have always considered the cinematic Bond – regardless of the actor – as an improvement on Fleming’s characterization. I realize that I cannot order people to appreciate all six actors who have portrayed Bond. But it would be nice to encounter someone else who does.

I will read the second post eagerly as well, I guess.

The end, where he tries so hard to cut himself off emotionally by saying “the bitch is dead” just kills me.

Btw, I will get to the meme, I’m just being a bit lazy at the moment.

Connery brought a depth to the character that I haven’t seen since. After his exodus, Bond seemed to coincide with “Slick” in the minds of Hollywood, and the character was continually emasculated by writers who don’t understand the inevitable conflict between Good and Evil and their inherent ideologies that actually create true believers who take sides. Given the Hollywood pathology, I’m not the least bit surprised.

So now, I have to rent it. Afterwards I will re-read your review and comment.

Personally, I can’t make up my mind about this movie. In common with many others Daniel Craig just doesn’t do it for me, he’s too robotic and embarrassingly mute. I suppose it’s because I’ve seen him previously in lots of British working class dramas so the leap to fill my favourite’s (Sean Connery) shoes is the difference between cod roe and caviare I’m afraid.

For me the ‘lack of Bond clichés’ is a vast improvement because it elevates some dreadful tongue in cheek action shots previously seen in the era’s of Pierce Brosnan and my least favourite Roger Moore – to quite credible and classier stunts.

It seems that quite a few scenes were cut from the U.S. version of the film to make it less violent and get the rating they wanted, here is the list:

Pre-cut (MPAA) “PG-13 Theatrical” release (144:12 min). Cut-list as follows (all info by Michael Mackenzie/Whiggles):
- After an overhead shot of Bond and the contact smashing down a wall, the first and last few frames of a shot of Bond elbowing the contact in the chest are removed.
- Directly after, a shot Bond smashing the door into the contact’s face is completely removed.
- After Bond gets to his feet, he kicks the contact in the face. This is missing from the US version.
- Directly after, we see Bond grabbing the contact, who in turn grabs a garbage can, which he hurls at Bond. In the US version, we only get the last few frames of this.
- When Bond hauls the contact to his feet and manouevres him towards another sink, the start of a low angle shot showing the contact’s face as he struggles is cut.
- The drowning of the contact is dramatically shortened. First, a close-up of the contact as he is held under is replaced with a shot of the contact’s legs kicking.
- Directly after, a close-up of Bond’s intense face is removed.
- Following this, we cut back to the contact as his struggles weaken. This is missing in the US version.
- The high shot showing Obanno’s bodyguard hitting the ground below after being thrown over the banister is removed. This shot is placed between Bond and Obanno fighting.
- A close-up of Obanno as Bond smashes his head into a window, shattering it, is missing from US version.
- Directly after, a wider shot of Obanno recovering and attacking again is cut due to the previous trim.
- The first few frames of Obanno being thrown into a wall are missing in the US version.
- Obanno grabbing Vesper’s leg as she tries to run away is completely removed.
- The following shot of Vesper falling but stopping herself in time is cut due to the previous shot’s removal.
- After we see Vesper try to open the emergency exit, a wide shot of Bond shoving Obanno back is missing from the US version.
- Directly following, a wide shot of BG2 falling back is also missing.
- Afterwards, Obanno reacting as Bond kicks him is too cut.
- Obanno rams Bond against the wall, but not in the US version.
- When Bond and Obanno struggle on the floor, Bond chokes BG2. The second angle of Obanno’s feet kicking is removed.
- After we see Obanno’s face, we see him reaching for the gun on the ground. Missing from the US version.
- A wider shot of them struggling is cut directly after.
- The next shot, Obanno reaching for the gun again, is cut. In the US version, we only see Obanno reaching for the gun just before Vesper intervenes.
- A shot of frightened Vesper breaks a shot of Obanno’s legs starting to stop kicking. In the uncut version, the legs starting to slow is in one continuous shot, followed by the frightened Vesper shot….ends.

Would this have made an enormous difference to the viewer’s perception? Who knows.

Incidentally, I happen to have the complete Ian Fleming collection in hardback with dust jackets – I’m just sick they aren’t all 1st editions.