tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16743003.post1160454427665640935..comments2024-03-28T01:06:38.596-07:00Comments on Maya Reynolds: A Quantum of Solace Brought NoneMaya Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12791278987339976101noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16743003.post-53208510803937770072008-11-19T08:04:00.000-08:002008-11-19T08:04:00.000-08:00I always thought Adrian Paul would make a good Bon...I always thought Adrian Paul would make a good Bond, and he even looks a little like Connery.poetica in silentiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06881374793984239361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16743003.post-19846018187587462962008-11-18T20:33:00.000-08:002008-11-18T20:33:00.000-08:00David!!! It is so good to hear from you. But I g...David!!! It is so good to hear from you. <BR/><BR/>But I gotta say, I am not a purist when it comes to James Bond. I LOVED Casino Royale. Daniel Craig is the first Bond since Connery who made my heart go pit-ta-pat. And, brother, does he!<BR/><BR/>But then I am a sucker for blue eyes and a brooding expression [grin].Maya Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12791278987339976101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16743003.post-7310305794681074642008-11-18T06:21:00.000-08:002008-11-18T06:21:00.000-08:00I have to say, Maya, that I’m unimpressed by the s...I have to say, Maya, that I’m unimpressed by the so-called Bourne Franchise. Matt Daymon if fluff compared to Bond, James Bond – all of them, including pretty boy Bond, Roger Moore. But, I may be the only one on the planet with this opinion. I thought Richard Chamberlain’s Jason Bourne was far more convincing…and far more true to Ludlam’s character, than Daymon could ever hope to be. And as for the book bit, The Daymon films had little more in common with Ludlam’s novels than the titles. I know because I’ve read all of them – several times.<BR/><BR/>It’s a common enough thing. Look at Jurassic Park – Lost World. Not much in common with Creighton’s book, and even opens with a scene from the first book.<BR/><BR/>But, here’s what really bugs me about the new Bond films. ‘M’, artfully played by Dame Judith Dench, is introduced in GoldenEye, as the new kid on the block to Pierce’s Brosnan’s seasoned double-oh. Much is made of this. “I hear the new ‘M’ is a lady” – Robbie Coltrane’s Valentin Dmitrovich Zukovsky– a former Bond nemesis (“I gave him the limp”).<BR/><BR/>This pithy exchange between the new boss and her experienced underling emphasizes all this:<BR/><BR/>“M: You don't like me, Bond. You don't like my methods. You think I'm an accountant, a bean counter more interested in my numbers than your instincts. <BR/>James Bond: The thought had occurred to me. <BR/>M: Good, because I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War, whose boyish charms, though wasted on me, obviously appealed to that young woman I sent out to evaluate you.”<BR/><BR/>Suddenly in Casino Royale – an otherwise magnificent Bond offering, we’re supposed to accept the role reversal. Dench as the seasoned, experienced manager who gives new kid Bond his double-oh status.<BR/><BR/>I’m not saying I don’t like the concept, or that Dench should be dumped, only that someone else should have been ‘M’ for the sake of continuity.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I know – it’s just a movie.poetica in silentiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06881374793984239361noreply@blogger.com