The Living Daylights

The Cold War once saw fierce international antagonists, cautious regarding thermonuclear war, but still aggressively advancing opposing ideologies. 

Both sides demanded zealous loyalty from civilians, professionals, and soldiers, and should you even joke about defection grand bureaucratic impositions would immobilize you.

Seeking international fluidity a Soviet informant risks defection in The Living Daylights, the British Government open to emancipatory accommodation should he share with them compelling intel.

An elaborate plan is put into place and the tenacious traitor finds his ticket West, ebulliently awaking in celebratory high spirits in a theoretically safe house in the United Kingdom. 

Yet the Soviets condemn the treachery and swiftly come calling for the disloyal comrade, boldly snatching the foolish hamstring from right under MI6's smug noses.

But was it the Soviets who destructively acquired him or is someone else playing an even riskier game?

Duping intelligence agents around the world.

With the audacious hopes of selling contraband.

I always thought Timothy Dalton was given a raw deal with the James Bond franchise, I rather liked The Living Daylights and find it a thrilling engaging spy film.

It would have been tough to overcome the impression held amongst the public at the transitionary time, that Pierce Brosnan would make a great Bond after his performance in Remington Steele. 

Still, don't let the outcome cause you to overlook The Living Daylights, it's a hidden gem that's easy to dismiss since it obscurely contends between auspicious giants (saw it in Prince Edward Island). 

In a lot of Bond films you quickly discover what the terrorist agents are up to for instance, but The Living Daylights keeps you guessing with fast paced reversals and indelicate election.

In contemporary times, it's been 4 years without a Bond film that's a sacrifice of at least a figurative billion, doesn't the franchise make hundreds of millions every two to three years and if they don't release a film haven't they awkwardly eclipsed themselves?

Ah well, a new film is to be released but not till 2028 states Google. 

Cool to see Denis Villeneuve directing. 

Hopefully he also gets the next Star Wars franchise.

Thunderball

Bullseye backwater Northern discretion metropolis moxy rummaging rituals, ye olde Big Smoke exclamatory bastion jamboree janglinter-stellargo sweepstakes. 

Strategic caution animate build-up ignited anticipation stepping-stone schema, stoic exactitude creature coagulate disciplined doctrine autumnal cloak. 

Sugarbeat sway bungalow diphthong arrhythmic mojo soaring centennial, intrepid ensemble offbeat syncopation novel Nostromo depth-conradicals. 

Nuclear Norbert surmiser stealth dragon-boat bulletin infernal ruckus, metallic mechanized Mordecai mocha silicon stammer electromagnetism. 

Caribbean swagger cephalopodlings reflexive rambling cicada flutter, lakeside loceanic non-chalant nestle invigorating voyage intricate mission.

Icy exterior fermenting frost indelicate disposition streamlining fleuve, extracurricular severe centigradiant ewokkie-talkie treetop tenacity.

Ballroom maneuver freeflowing rush serendipitous shakedown acute commiseration, deputized famished disintegration gargantuan glade embowering silchouette. 

Embellished chou-fleur stuffingerlineage poetatomtomahawk squashtonbaby, gravelveetartartan pumpkinkstandardice rollcutivivation turkeenerf-herdermal.

Scoop-gobbledegook disproportionate pita puffin fastiduitedious stilts, clement vocalibre exseedentary boogie-woog nerverdure modest matriculates. 

Blastercine hommage home run derbeelze ladda-scrabba-blue-jabba crucible crunch, intermittent Ojibway incremental Algonquin Thanksgiving inninjas Six Nations stride. 

Forestéd-talons feverish flights supersonic swoop aerodyne lather, take-off-eh-sucré heightening exhibition skydomicîle-sambience Roger's zentripetals. 

Felicitous sentier trailblazing teamwork warlockerroom staff efficacious bearings, integral artistry verge virtuosos orbitathletism inherent fun.

 Nice to see the leaves changing colour.

Chlorophyll candour.

Neticulous nesting. 

Many thanks family and friends. 

It's been a good year.

Many animal sightings. 

No Time to Die

*Spoiler Alert.

Love's rewards having proven too enticing to ignore, James Bond (Daniel Craig) cultivates a continuous relationship, only to be surrounded one afternoon by the newfound henchpersons of a former rival, he doesn't understand how he's been discovered, and instinctively suspects betrayal.

He finds a new location el lobo solo off the grid, and settles into bitter retirement, trying to prosper through idyllic recreation, unable to placate his volatile will.

Meanwhile, a terrorist network steals a pernicious bioweapon which was developed by MI6, and uses inchoate Borg technology to specifically target individualized DNA.

But it even take things further and finds more widespread applications for the malevolence, intending to unleash it on the unsuspecting world, with genocidal morbid reckoning.

Bond lambastes M (Ralph Fiennes) (having returned) for having sponsored its dissimulated production, who naively thought it would save lives by making assassination more precise. 

To make things worse, the belovéd belle whom he left behind with regret and pain (Léa Seydoux as Madeleine), is sought after by the terrorist leader (Rami Malek as Lyutsifer Safin [who spared her life when she was a child {Coline Defaud}]), and Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) knows their secret.

Without much time with shocking immediacy Bond reflexively engages.

An international incident caught in the crossfires.

Along with his unknown offspring.

The dangers of manufacturing lethal weapons to make the world a safer place, are epically brought to bear on irresponsible bureaucrats lacking accountability. 

It seemed like things were progressing so peacefully for such a long time sustainéd equanimity, but a small fraction of the global population still preferred mutual animosity. 

Becoming more influential and less and less discreet resurgent jingoism renewed latent fears, and wiser ambitions to forge international consensus lost public ground to reckless profit. 

But their reckless ambition didn't only awaken narrow-minded prejudice and unrestrainéd self-absorption, but extremist elements seeking radical shifts to pursue alternative constructs were also empowered.

No Time to Die pits radical evolution against traditional desires to slowly change.

Both ambitions are in need of reclarification. 

Looking forward to checking out News Nation.

*First Bond film I haven't seen in theatres since 1989.

**Still hoping Daniel Craig stars in 7 Bond films to tie him with Roger Moore and Sean Connery, although it doesn't look like it's going to happen (if you count Never Say Never Again).

Spectre

Audaciously challenging his most cunning reanimated nemesis, Bond, James Bond (Daniel Craig), must reflexively disconnect an intrusive network of terrorist and governmental spies, threatening to legally monitor all of Great Britain's online activity, disguised as freedom fighters, to facilitate limitless access to all.

Blofeld's (Christoph Waltz) back, and it soon becomes clear that he's cacopheinated every catastrophe Daniel Craig has averted thus far, Spectre having returned to the franchise's fore in transition, with the intent of legitimizing vigilant maniacal longevity.

Bond must stop them, and M (Ralph Fiennes), Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), and Q (Ben Whishaw) assist him along the way.

It's nice to see Q out in the field and Moneypenny continuing to play a more vital role.

There's a clever subplot where M must counter governmental representative Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott) who's in league with Spectre and hoping to shut down the 00 program permanently.

M knows that fighting terrorism still requires a human touch and although disappointed in Bond for (sort of) disobeying direct orders and stealing, still adamantly cheers as he recklessly takes Spectre on.

The film's alright, but I'm ranking it third in the Daniel Craig Bond films, much better than Quantum of Solace, but not as strong as either Casino Royale or Skyfall.

It's like it spent too much time trying to recapture the essence of the Connery films, and although this did appeal to my love of that epoch, it still seemed like it didn't focus enough time on continuing to quintessentially complicate Daniel Craig's.

He's been in 4 now and I think it's safe to say he's the best Bond since Connery.

I'm hoping he's back for a fifth.

He deserves the money.

Look at what they pay Schwarzenegger for the Terminator films.

Also, I've seen more exciting opening sequences, the opening sequence should really function as an outstanding separate short film with the potential for integration in the main narrative still standing on its own merit, The Living Daylights perhaps providing the best example.

Spectre's desert base suffers from Jupiter Ascending syndrome as well and destructs far too quickly near the end.

Nevertheless, Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista) is a classic giant of a foe, Waltz and Craig forge a chilling familial dynamic, its contemporary analysis of invasive information gathering behemoths fits well with the times, Blofeld lives to die another day, and Madeleine Swann (Léa Seydoux) is an exceptional Bond Girl.

With the best Bond Girl name ever.

According to Citizenfour, terrorist organizations didn't help governments establish omnipresent online access you know, they completed that task on their own, although, since they justified said completion on the grounds that they established such networks to fight terrorism, it's as if the terrorists were responsible for causing democratically elected governments to treat their own citizens like terrorists.

That's solid Bond.

Even if people are held accountable, it does seem like such networks are here to stay.

I'm already imagining old man conversations where I discuss the ways of the 1980s with a youthful generation of the future, discussing how there used to be a concept known as privacy which faded as the years passed to uproarious thunderous applause.

It's like hip Orwell.

That's how the West reimagined 1984.

Constant surveillance coupled with limitless access to anything you could possibly be interested in worldwide, exceptions pending.

I can't imagine Trudeau's Liberals using such tools to land their opponents in prison on trumped up charges sensationalized in the media, which is what it seemed like Team Harper was eventually going to do.

Perhaps they can neuter them to the point where scenarios like the one just suggested can never be enacted?

Or just scrap Bill C-51, and the TPP.

I bet that's what James Bond would do.

Perhaps Prime Minister Trudeau II is like James Bond?

Slash Jedi.

Skyfall

Really enjoyed Skyfall.

It's a great James Bond film, perhaps ranking in the top 3, although I'd like to rewatch my favourites, Thunder Ball, You Only Live Twice, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale, to be able to attach a more current and uniform critical perspective (more substance) to my claim. I should likely watch Skyfall again to justify this claim as well because I remember liking Die Another Day after my first viewing (no doubt due to my childhood love of the franchise) only to be seriously disappointed when I saw it again. Undaunted, Skyfall's not only a great James Bond film either, it's a great action spy movie, as opposed to a great intellectual spy flick like Tinker Tailor Solider Spy, and might also impress those who feel they're being dragged to a/nother silly James Bond extravaganza, although fans of the franchise will likely get more out of it.

Impressive points: Daniel Craig. He's become my favourite Bond and I love the ways in which he suavely handles himself with an unconcerned, explosive, gritty, incisive, everyperson's charm, more like a glacier bear than a bulldog, in my opinion. While the emotional displays made prominent in Casino Royale are limited to one brief lamentation, his character still receives more depth structurally as his personal history becomes integral to the plot.

Nice.

Origins. Skyfall sophisticatedly maintains a competent balance/conversation (overtly and covertly) between the old and the new throughout, set up by Bond's introduction to the new Quartermaster (Ben Whishaw), simultaneously seeming as if it's constantly, sigh, moving forward, while never leaving behind or disregarding its foundations.  Thus, we have an unambiguously principle gay villain, who, being the villain, reflects certain conservative stereotypes, yet, through his first conversation with Bond, it becomes apparent that Bond himself is not adverse or may have had homosexual relations, an openly unprecedented development, which should not be underestimated.

The brutal lines from the previews that made me not want to see the film are actually alright when placed in context, writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan successfully finding a balance between hackneyed clichés and hardboiled wit, which isn't easy to do.

Rather than focusing on international politics, Skyfall situates much of its action in London, no doubt, the film, if, um, James Bond films are seen as a barometer of British socio-political attitudes of sorts, recognizes, ah, a certain, role, that Britain often didn't play so heroically in 20th century history (see Argo), which functions as a bit of cultural introspection that is both welcome, and appreciated.

Which brings me to the film's most notable scene, wherein Skyfall's various dynamics reach a quasiclimax which hopefully doesn't end there.

So, basically, M (Judi Dench) screws up royal by being in charge when a hard drive containing the names of every MI6 field agent (which never should have been created) is stolen.  This leads to an internal review of her leadership which becomes public. Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), an ex-field agent who has taken on a sympathetic yet stubborn bureaucratic role (youth becomes age), diplomatically tones down the irate politician who castigates M during a public inquiry, which ends with M quoting Alfred Lord Tennyson.

Poetry in Bond?

Nice touch!

It doesn't actually end there (don't read if you're not looking for spoilers). It ends with Silva (Javier Bardem), the principal villain, breaking in and trying to kill M whom he blames for accidentally saving his life after he was captured and his hydrocyanide tooth failed to kill him (while ravaging his insides [he vengefully seeks to ravage MI6's insides in turn]).

Silva's prowess in MI6 was comparable to Bond's and M was willing to sacrifice both for the organization's sake.

Bond holds no grudge.

Ergo, as defined by M's rousing speech, which claims that in the age of the internet individuals are becoming a serious threat, thereby covertly supporting attempts to sturdily monitor and police individual interent activities, due to the secretive nature of her operations and the life threatening consequences of details potentially leaked during public inquiries (some governmental documents should remain secret), she's somewhat taken aback by the proceedings, which are applying a similar level of oversight to that which guided her decisions to sacrifice Bond and Silva, which are then interrupted by Silva's rampage.

Obviously the activities of agencies like MI6, due to their necessarily clandestine nature, need to remain generally secret, as long as other countries continue to maintain similar outlets. At the same time, if they operate entirely in secret there's no telling what sort of methods might be utilized, meaning a minimal degree of public scrutiny, though vexatious, within logical parameters, which must take various prickly contexts into consideration, makes sense.

Don't know if that's helpful.

I find the idea of (computer savvy) individuals being some of the greatest threats to the 21st century, however, somewhat misleading, for the following reasons.

It's kind of silly to begin with, scum like Hitler and Stalin being particularly deadly individuals long before the age of the internet, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Yes, computer savvy individuals can cause a lot of damage I'm sure. These exceptions can, I don't know, hack into banks, defence systems, etc. I know someone else has my IP address because I often receive a message on my computer screen that another computer using my IP address is operating on the same network. I don't know what to do about this besides get a new IP address and I don't want to bother because someone will just do it again.

It's annoying.

But if because of these exceptions, legislation is being introduced giving law enforcement agencies the power to monitor everyone's online activity, and the majority of everyone's activity is moving online, it's like law enforcement agencies are being given the power to monitor everyone's activities all the time. What stores they go to, what newspapers they read, and so on. It's kind of totalitarian in my opinion and is at risk of being 'naturalized' for future generations without much mature parliamentary debate in some countries. I mean, shouldn't you have to get a warrant to monitor someone's online activity? Doesn't that make sense?

And, as my computer keeps indicating, someone else has my IP address and is using it online. How would I be able to prove that I'm not that person in a court of law?

Cybercrime is similar to physical crime. If someone wants to rob a bank online, I suppose they hack in. If someone wants to rob a physical bank, I suppose they find a way to go about doing it. If you're worried about someone robbing a bank in the physical world, I suppose you get a warrant and follow them around town. If you're worried about someone robbing a bank online, I think you should have to do the same thing because the principle isn't that different, it's just an alternative environment.

Yes, a Silva may arise, but there will also be a James Bond to stop him or her.

Nevertheless, I did enjoy Skyfall and think it's a great film.

I hope my analysis hasn't been too offhand and that it hasn't engaged in too much puerile speculation.

(My favourite part is Q's scrabble mug.

I'd love to play him.

Would probably end up with multiple u's, c's, and v's at key moments, but, whatevs, I'd keep playing).

Oh, and I've been getting into film noir and hardboiled detective fiction again lately. A Bond film with the edge of a Dashiell Hammet, James M. Cain, Raymond Chandler, or Patricia Highsmith novel worked into what team Skyfall's already proved they have the creative energy to ameliorate would be amazing.

So amazing.

Quantum of Solace

Marc Forster's Quantum of Solace is an excellent example of a film wherein the content does not skillfully match the form. There's a car chase followed by a foot race followed by a boat chase followed by a plane chase with lots of explosions and fighting and flesh. But I've come to expect more from a Bond film, Casino Royale having generated a strong desire to see their dimensions cohesively expand.

And these dimensions do slightly expand, it's just matter of the ways in which they unreel. There's a poignant scene where Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) and Bond (Daniel Craig) exchange chides regarding whose country has exploited impoverished nations more prominently, each drinking away their remorse; the villain (Dominic Greene played by Mathieu Almaric) seeks to control Bolivia's water supply as opposed to their oil, an acknowledgement of the hypothesis that water will be the most sought after resource of the 20th century (and a critique of the privatization of water); villainous Greene seeks the CIA's support in overthrowing the Bolivian Government and states that a pseudo-tyranny is better than having a Marxist distributing oil profits amongst the people, Hugo Chavez's critics placed within a somewhat vituperative frame (the CIA operative who does not support these goals eventually receiving a promotion); and Bond-Girl Camille (Olga Kurylenko) has a disfiguring burn mark on her back (a sign that perhaps Bond girls will slowly stop being played by super models) and valiantly defeats the misogynistic ghoul General Medrano (Joaquín Cosio) during the final battle. At the same time, Dominic Greene is posing as an environmentalist, meaning that while writers Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade are deconstructing Bondian motifs, they are still working within their established guidelines (and by doing so subtly promoting centrist politics).

Unfortunately, the film is basically a randy action movie, complete with the aforementioned chase scenes and pandering gratuitous sex (although the pandering nature of this scene may be ironically lampooning fans searching for this kind of thing). The dialogue is strict, reticent, and acute, but often full of clichés and implausible realizations (notably the scene where Greene is introduced and Camille doesn't become irate even though he admits he just tried to have her killed). Greene's introduction works well insofar as he's the film's villain and there's no pomp and circumstance, and his character isn't prominently developed within (meaning that villains perhaps should not receive the same amount of attention as Bond standouts Le Chiffre or Max Zorin). But Bond's character isn't developed either and a lot of the action just shows him having blunt conversations (or not) before he kills someone. True, within he seeks to avenge the death of Casino Royale love interest Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), and providing someone blinded by rage with eloquent, dainty dialogue could slightly diminish this reality. However, this form could mean that the film's uninspired content is meant to connote that if one finds their motivations through revenge, they resoundingly risk living in a quantum of solace.

Casino Royale

As a child James Bond films were the best. Bond after Bond after Bond, he kept winning, outwitting and defeating villain after villain, nemesis after nemesis, until their was nothing left but Pierce Brosnan. By which time I'd grown critical. I really tried to enjoy those films, tried hard, terribly unqualified for my job yet still at work givin’ my all everyday; but it simply couldn't happen. Those films capital Sucked, hold the bacon, and pretty much ruined the franchise for me. That and becoming critically aware of the rampant imperialistic misogyny within its subnarrative.

Nevertheless, David Craig is an excellent Bond and Casino Royale's well crafted. I'm not sure if it's Craig's gritty working class edge (that immediately distinguishes him from Brosnan's pretentious aristocratic qualities), the quick witty dialogue, the fact that this is one of the only Bond films where Bond is permitted a license to display some humanity, or his charming, enticing smile, but Craig's got what it takes to play Bond and may just be able to bring some respectability back to the franchise. The scene where he's tortured allows him to display a degree of emotion never reached by Sean Connery or Roger Moore. Damned intense. The intensity is magnified by Mads Mikkelsen's chilling portrait of Le Chiffre, one of the only Bond villains to lose his agency half way through the film, adding a surprisingly human quality to his character. Le Chiffre quaintly tortures Bond after having lost everything to his resilient rival, filling the scene with that raw kind of cornered-wild-animal charisma that few get the chance to revel within.

Other interesting moments: Bond relishes in his womanizing only to be reprimanded narratively later on after one of his conquests ends up in a body bag. Morality within Bond? Editing used to display meaning within Bond? A direct critique of womanizing within director Martin Campbell's text? Also effective is the scene where Bond's honest love interest is found crying in the shower, unable to deal with his hardboiled realities, only to be comforted by Bond, once again displaying emotions his character is generally denied. We also learn how he came up with his signature drink and see him lounging throughout Venice in a moment that takes us back to the closing scenes of From Russia with Love. Tight paced acute action throughout intermingled with human beings attaining superhuman heights, with more of a focus on character than flesh.

But come on! How can M miss the cold war if this film takes place before Dr. No? How can Felix Leiter be walking? It’s nice to see him again, but it doesn't make any sense. I love seeing Judi Dench play M but how can she fill the pre-Dr. No and post-Die Another Day roles unless M isn't only a designation managed by one individual but is in fact maintained by several people, working unbeknownst as to the identities of the others?

Okay. Enough said. Don't know what more to say. It’s taken us 21 films to finally get to know why Bond is the way he is, and now, in the end, which is the beginning, the question remains regarding whether or not the exposed version of Bond will be as popular as his predecessors, a different version of my theory that if the Leafs finally win the Stanley Cup, everyone in Toronto won't know what to do, and may stop attending games; hence it’s in management's best interests to never win the Cup, so that their profitable pattern is never interrupted (in the same way your partner loses interest in you once you provide answers to the questions you stubbornly refused to answer before: your partner will likely know the answer already but appreciate playing fantasy with you throughout the years as you pretend to contain a clandestine dimension to your thoroughly penetrated personality; hence, if you spoil the fantasy with reality, the mythology governing your relationship comes crashing down).

It’s likely that Bond films will continue to make millions of dollars, the Leafs will continue to sell tickets after winning the Stanley Cup, and you and your partner will find different fantasies to embrace after unravelling your romantic dreamscape, adapting, researching, growing.