PIERCE REALIZES THAT HE'S TOO OLD FOR THIS SHIT, SO HERE'S HOW TO FIX JAMES BOND

So according to Entertainment Weekly's web site, Pierce Brosnan has played James Bond for the last time (via AP story). The 21st Bond movie is scheduled for release in Fall 2005, and now they need to recast. And really, my entire reaction is simply ... oh well.

No matter how sorry it makes me to say this, I think Bond is over; at least, if they keep making Bond films the way they have been for the last several years.

I'm not knocking Brosnan; he's been a perfectly adequate Bond in his four outings: still not as good as Sean Connery at his best (From Russia With Love and Goldfinger, but better than Roger Moore at his worst (A View to a Kill). Of course, the most wasted Bond was not George Lazenby in the underrated On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but was in fact Timothy Dalton who has received unfair criticism for his portrayal of the character when the problems with The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill had much more to do with shitty scripts and bland direction.

In fact, Dalton could have been the best Bond had he been given the opportunity to appear in a film based on one of Ian Fleming's original novels. (The Living Daylights was the last Bond film to be based on original Fleming material, but it was a short story.) Dalton's darker, more serious and less suave portrayal may not have been as popular as Connery's, but it was more true to the character Fleming created. Ironically, the one Fleming novel to never receive the real "serious" Bond treatment is the one that devotes the most time to establishing the many dimensions of the character: the very first Bond novel, "Casino Royale". The Bond in the "Casino Royale" novel has much more in common with Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe than simply being a high-tech British dandy. But the only film treatment of this book was a bizarre, slapstick spoof from 1967 featuring an amazing cast and multiple directors but not really having anything to do with Fleming's story or the character. Rather, it was simply an attempt to capitalize -- in a comic manner -- on the success of the first four Bond films (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball).

It's a shame, though, because Casino Royale is a great book and a fascinating examination of the Bond persona. On Her Majesty's Secret Service, with it's more emotional examination of the character, comes closest in film terms to exploring what a straightforward adaptation of Casino Royale might look like. And Dalton would have been marvelous in such an adaptation. However, such a film has never come to pass, and instead, the Bond series has basically been bastardized into looking like any other generic big-budget action movie, only one with a very specific and long-beloved (and watered-down) character at its center.

Believe it or not, Quentin Tarantino has often discussed his desire to see a proper treatment of Casino Royale come to the big screen; he's so into the idea that he wants to make the film himself. While Tarantino has a propensity to go over-the-top, I actually think he'd be a great director to re-energize this franchise with a serious adaptation of Fleming's most sober story. At Cannes, he told the BBC that he still wants to make this film (thanks Everything Tarantino.).

They're doing it with Batman; they're trying to do it with Superman – going back and reconsidering the earlier days of such superheroes. Why not do it with James Bond? The character also exists in a universe where he never really ages; they can redo an early, younger, tougher Bond, and use the one story which keeps screaming to be adapted properly.

Who should play him? That's tougher. If they go with Hugh Grant, it might help relieve Dalton's rep as the least-favorite Bond. He'd be awful. I'm not into the idea of Heath Ledger either, and while I love Hugh Jackman – and X-Men proves he can play tough – for some reason he doesn't excite me. Ewan McGregor and Colin Firth would both be interesting, and I'm sure Jude Law is a favorite idea of the producers much as Brosnan was even when they had to use Dalton instead. Still, I think my top choice would have to be Clive Owen who has many of the same qualities – a certain cold toughness mixed with tall, masculine good looks – that Dalton had. But the way I look at it, if I could make anything happen, Clive Owen as James Bond in Casino Royale directed by Quentin Tarantino could quite possibly be the best Bond film, and best spy action thriller, ever. Come on Ms. Broccoli and Mr. Wilson: you can thank me later.

Comments

[Ron Mwangaguhunga]

There have been reports swirling that no one knew how to graciously make a break with Brosnan. Now I hear echoes in the ethers of a project of a "Young James Bond" at Oxford, with, possibly orlando Bloom.

Maybe it's just over. I mean, so is the British Empire.

[Aaron]

Well, there was the story recently that Miramax Books was going in with the Fleming estate and some other author to write "Young James Bond" novels, although they refuse to acknowledge any films being in the works yet. I think that's a terrible idea.

I'm fine with it being simply over. The last thing I want to see is a 60s era Young JB at Oxford, or some modern day JB fighting in Iraq.

[alkali]

Now I hear echoes in the ethers of a project of a "Young James Bond" at Oxford, with, possibly orlando Bloom.

Try as I might, I just can't see a Bond film with a young girl as the lead.

[acewhiplash]

I agree with your choice of Clive Owen but I think another alternative is Damian Lewis, of Band of Brothers fame. He resembles Steve McQueen a bit.

[Mike]

What about Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck? I think he'd be perfect for the role if they could work out the scheduling.

[cushie]

I say Ioan Gryffudd. He's getting around (currently playing Lancelot) and is the right age. Plus they haven't had a Welshie yet as far as I know, even though they usually trawl the British Isles.

[Stephen, from Tagline]

The formula for choosing a new Bond is simple: go with the guy you almost went with last time.

Sean Connery - picked over Roger Moore
Roger Moore - picked over Tim Dalton
Tim Dalton - picked over Pierce Brosnan

All we have to do now is figure out who was passed over when Brosnan took it.

(No smart-ass comments about George Lazenby either, thank you.)

[Aaron]

Actually, Timothy Dalton was Welsh. I like Gruffudd, and I thought he was a decent Lancelot, but watching him alongside Clive Owen in King Arthur actually just solidifies the idea of Owen in my mind. His performance contains far more depth and complexity.

I don't think Julian McMahon is really that strong an actor. He kind of does one thing and one thing only, and while he does it well, it's fairly basic sexy brooding, and that's it. His performance on Nip/Tuck as a ladies man plastic surgeon isn't really all that different as what he did playing the half-demon Alyssa Milano plaything on Charmed ... but maybe it should have been? He's good at what he does, but I think Bond could be a reach for him, even if he is an Aussie.

Damian Lewis is a really interesting idea, except I must admit: I don't think the red hair and fair skin works for Bond. Is that stupid? Yeah probably, but I still like the idea of darker and more brooding. He's a great actor though.

[Filmbrain]

Ugh! Keep QT AWAY from Casino Royale!

[Aaron]

It really is shocking to me that for someone who actually finds value in Vincent Gallo that you could hate QT so much, especially when it comes to material that could be conceivably perfect for him. You know I'm not a blind QT fan, but still, he'd actually be good for this.

[Filmbrain]

Why would QT be good for this? Wouldn't he just fill it with "quotes" from other films, as he's done all along?

Perhaps if he approached it as he did Jackie Brown (which, though not as referential as his others, still tried too hard to have a blaxploitation feel to it) it might be interesting.

Would it be a better Bond film than the crap they've been churning out for the last decade or so? Yes. But better than the original? No way.

For the record, Gallo, as pretentious as you may find him, is at least original in his ideas/execution.

[Aaron]

I don't want this comments thread to turn into a Gallo or QT discussion, however, one of your (at least I believe it was you as well as someone else) big positives about Gallo was how he "subtly" (supposedly) quoted other filmmakers in "Buffalo 66" such as Ozu, so I wouldn't necessarily just call QT a referential hack, even if "Kill Bill Vol. 1" (and 2, although slightly less-so) was just that. And Gallo's stuff isn't so original: there are plenty of boring movies with grade B dialogue which must have influenced him. Making a movie in which nothing interesting happens isn't exactly original. And mood-wise, he's definitely going along the Terry Malick sentiment in "Brown Bunny," which I know you haven't seen yet. I'll take David Gordon Green over Gallo any day. Besides, I don't mind reverential or referential filmmaking at all if it's done well. I love early Brian De Palma film, and there's no argument he was ripping of Hitchcock, but he created new twists and modern (for then) elements to the films that made them a ton of fun. (I still think "Dressed to Kill" has one of the scariest moments I've ever experienced watching a film.)

As for why QT would be good: I think he would bring a grittiness mixed with a modern pop-culture sensibility and a more modern look (without necessarily being too MTV) to the film. "Casino Royale" the book, as I remember it, is a smaller story, and from what I've heard him say, he wants to keep it that way and true to the book.

[Filmbrain]

Couple of points --

There's a WORLD of difference between QT and someone like DePalma -- i.e., between homage/influence and outright copying. QT lifts plots, lines, shots etc. (I recently watched Lady Snowblood and he even lifted the chapter headings idea!) Gallo doing the Ozu 360 thing is much more subtle than....oh, let's say copying Ringo Lam's City on Fire for Reservoir Dogs.

I've said it before -- QT can write wonderful dialog. If only he could apply it to something truly his own. (His war movie idea interests me more than anything else.)

True, haven't seen BB yet (will soon though) but B66 was indeed very original, even if to you it was dull, slow, pretentious, etc.

Also -- I'm going to buy the Fleming novel. (Never read any of his stuff -- this should be interesting.)

[Filmbrain]

But you're right -- the thread should go back to Bond.

Hugh Grant would be a Hugh-ge mistake!

I second your choice of Clive Owen. Well, him or this guy.

[sac]

Yep, Clive Owen is perfect.

[Nene]

Hi,
Let's just stop all of this. The best Bond to be is Ardian Paul. You all know a"Highlander". There is no other. He's tall,dark, clever, smart and handsome.

[Aaron]

Hmmm ... Adrian Paul, huh? I think I can comfortably say that I would absolutely, positively vote against Adrian Paul getting anywhere near even an audition for the role of James Bond. Sorry, I'm definitely not a fan. I find Paul pretty boring, and his acting talent isn't within the same league of Owen or several of the others on the list. His fans are people who enjoyed the syndicated series version of "Highlander," and I will say OK, Paul is a better actor than Christopher Lambert.

In fact, I can't even believe I spent this much time addressing the idea of Paul in the role.

[Jayeh]

Definitely Owen. His acting in the BMW shorts for the web was just perfect to picture him in the Bond role, although I wonder what he would be like playing the "ladies man" Bond role. Tough, yes. Handsome and dark, yes. Witty seducer, hm, maybe. (thinking in the line of Connery)

[dalton hilliard]

True about Timothy Dalton. He was a darker and the best Bond. Brosnan was just a remake of Moore, and his movies were all about the high tech special effects than about anything else. Timothy is a better actor, and if he was given more publicity and better scripts, he would have gone down as the best Bond ever.

[Kim]

I myself am tired of Remington Steel trying to pass of as Bond. We have had two great Bonds in our time. Sean Connery for one and the gentleman who played bond before Pierce. Out of the list of Bonds to be, I want some one who is english (since the guy is suppose to be british) He also needs to be physically fit (obviously) and have martial are training (like 007 should have). Not look like baby Huey and speak true english tongue. Hmmm out the the list of runner ups. I think Adrian Paul is the best choice. Sorry Nene, but I want to be able to enjoy the movie not GAG over the movie like I have been since pierce double O dork took over. Plus, women are suppose to find the guy incredibly sexy, not so ugly that their pleading " please dear god leave your clothes on.