To me, Casino Royale is the closest thing to a 1960s Bond we've had in more than 30 years. It's more character driven, reliant on Bond's mettle as a man rather than as an icon, and thoughtful with the dialogue and character motivations and interactions. It may not quite be the Bond formula -- though I really don't think it strays that far from it -- but it is definitely a Bond movie. It's so good in this regard that the action sequences are what seem anomalous to me . . . they are almost too "modern" for the rest of the movie, though I enjoy them. I do wish they'd spent a little more time on the romance, the only real flaw I see in the movie.
I've just gone through a mini-marathon, and after all is said & done, I must say the the majority of the Bond movies are simple mass entertainment.
IMHO, the 'best' Bond movies are DN, FRWL, TB, TLD, and LTK.
All the rest are in the 'fun' category for me.
Connery's later movies turned into 60's Batman Bond. Lazenby was the deer-in-the-headlights Bond, Moore was the Saint Bond,
Brosnan was the 'Remington Steele' Bond, and Dan's movies, as serious as they are, are 21st Century CGI-filled Bourne derivative Bond.
Now, I love Bond movies, most all of them, but I felt the need to be all controversial here.
*ducks*
)
Sure they are simply mass entertainment - it's what Fleming was trying to accomplish after he wrote CR.
He was serious about wanting CR to be the "spy story to end all spy stories" and it's obvious that when reading it he was being deadly earnest about making a real, nasty and intriguing plot It seems he never initially intended there to be a series of novels about Bond, but changed his mind and just went with it. From then on, and as the books progressed and there was the possibility of turning them into television or film projects, he began writing them purely as mass entertainment.
He mentions this on and off during his career - saying he is not in the "Shakespeare stakes" and that the aim of his stories " lay somewhere between the solar plexus and, well, the upper thigh.".
There were moments when he did put more literary effort into his stories after CR - FRWL, OHMSS, TSWLM, - but he still had his eye on the bottom line.
So, yes, the Bond series is absolutely made as mass entertainment. Most commercial films are. It's just that they are some of the highest quality in cinema history which is another reason they continue to appeal.
Comments
+1
Sure they are simply mass entertainment - it's what Fleming was trying to accomplish after he wrote CR.
He was serious about wanting CR to be the "spy story to end all spy stories" and it's obvious that when reading it he was being deadly earnest about making a real, nasty and intriguing plot It seems he never initially intended there to be a series of novels about Bond, but changed his mind and just went with it. From then on, and as the books progressed and there was the possibility of turning them into television or film projects, he began writing them purely as mass entertainment.
He mentions this on and off during his career - saying he is not in the "Shakespeare stakes" and that the aim of his stories " lay somewhere between the solar plexus and, well, the upper thigh.".
There were moments when he did put more literary effort into his stories after CR - FRWL, OHMSS, TSWLM, - but he still had his eye on the bottom line.
So, yes, the Bond series is absolutely made as mass entertainment. Most commercial films are. It's just that they are some of the highest quality in cinema history which is another reason they continue to appeal.