How Good is James Bond?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Setlew
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Setlew

Guest
…books + movies, from a moral standpoint. I have not seen any of them, but would probably go more for the older ones (Connery + Fleming). Have heard that there is nonmarital sex and gratuitous violence in some of them.

Thoughts? Opinons?
 
Setlew said:
…books + movies, from a moral standpoint. I have not seen any of them, but would probably go more for the older ones (Connery + Fleming). Have heard that there is nonmarital sex and gratuitous violence in some of them.

Thoughts? Opinons?
Click to expand...
Try constantly, in all of them. The man is a professional assassin. Terrible from a moral standpoint.
 
Sigh… Pierce Brosnan,… the only man my mother and I can agree on.
 
LilyM said:
Try constantly, in all of them. The man is a professional assassin. Terrible from a moral standpoint.
Click to expand...
He’s not merely a professional assassin. A mere professional assassin just hires his gun arm out to the highest bidder, regardless of who it is. James Bond, on the other hand, fights international criminals and terrorists and Communists. And he uses all sorts of fantastical and highly unrealistic gadgets and methods to do it.

And for the record, Sean Connery is the best Bond.
 
All of Connery’s Bond films were good and the early Moore films also weren’t half bad either. Especially liked “Live & Let Die” and “The Spy Who Loved Me”.
LilyM said:
Try constantly, in all of them. The man is a professional assassin. Terrible from a moral standpoint.
Click to expand...
He’s NOT a professional assassin … he has a license to kill in the name of turth & justice – big difference.

The “moral” issue is that he sleeps around violating the 6th commandment.
 
Sir_Knight said:
All of Connery’s Bond films were good and the early Moore films also weren’t half bad either. Especially liked “Live & Let Die” and “The Spy Who Loved Me”.
Click to expand...
I know this is off-subject, but even though Roger Moore isn’t my favorite Bond, I do like For Your Eyes Only – because Topol is in it.

I have to admit that the Sixth Commandment issue is problematic. I find the killing less so, because it’s not random, and he doesn’t kill when it’s not necessary, even if he is under orders to do so (e.g., in The Living Daylights, when he refuses to kill the blond sniper even though he was told to, because he realizes she doesn’t really know what she’s doing).
 
Short answer; Heavy on violence, exceptional on the action, surprisingly light on the sex…for a Bond film. Morality?-this is a Bond film!?

Longer response: Thou shalt not kill…well, that caps it for the majority of movies unless you want to debate the boundries in the “Just War” angle. Infidelity, promiscuity?-yup…but established by dialog more than any previous Bond film i.e., everyone kept their clothes on for these scenes! Violence-a rollercoaster of it. Athletic on-foot stunt chase scenes-phew. This is a highly physical film. Except for Connery, the other Bonds were too “pretty” for the portrayed action. This new Bond is physically matched for these scenes. Opening motion graphics: retro, well done, and a lot of work.

The film harkens back to the first Bond film, he makes mistakes and needs assistance, though I’ll confess to some visual confusion: if this is the first Bond (because they went through the trouble of showing how he got his “00” rating and I believe it was the first book of the series), Q (Judi Dench) is present day not a younger portrayal, so are they starting/updating the storyline? WIll we now see (gulp) a spate of remakes?

BTW: the lead female character’s dialogue does mention, in passing, to having a Catholic background. If you read my sig. this is what this character did not do, yet she is the only character to display any remorsefulness/regret, (still misguided?) then promptly dies.

Despite the glitz (both vintage and current Aston Martins) and glamour, this Casino Royale is a more subdued and very worldly film. The portrayed reality is closer to the mark than the fantasy. It’s a smarter Bond film and has more film craft guiding it. You can “feel” this film, but so too the pain, deception, and loss. This may leave you more depressed than wanting to go out and sign up to be a spy esp. if you’re aware of the Litvenyenko story.
 
LilyM said:
Try constantly, in all of them. The man is a professional assassin. Terrible from a moral standpoint.
Click to expand...
Actually he is not a professional assassin. He works for MI6, the British secret service organization and is actually a reservist in the Royal Navy. He’s no more of a professional assassin than an American CIA agent would be.
 
They are all fun escapist movies. I’m uncomfortable with the gratuitous sex. But if one is going to watch movies it’s little different from a majority of movies out.

The remake of Casino Royale is excellent as Bond movies go. I like this new guy as much as I liked Connery. He’s a very good Bond.

CDL
 
lak611 said:
Actually he is not a professional assassin. He works for MI6, the British secret service organization and is actually a reservist in the Royal Navy. He’s no more of a professional assassin than an American CIA agent would be.
Click to expand...
Except that in the course of his work he kills an awful lot of people, and is given free permission to do so - a ‘Licence to Kill’ - many of them die mainly for the reason that their activities aren’t in his government’s interest. Doesn’t say a lot for his morals.
 
LilyM said:
Except that in the course of his work he kills an awful lot of people, and is given free permission to do so - a ‘Licence to Kill’ - many of them die mainly for the reason that their activities aren’t in his government’s interest. Doesn’t say a lot for his morals.
Click to expand...
The bad guys that he has a licence to kill are typically Communists (from the older Cold War era films) or terrorists. He also works with an American CIA agent in almost all of the films. So, his government’s interest would be in keeping with the morals/values of the typical American. I don’t have a problem with his morals in terms of who he kills. His womanizing is probably more morally objectionable than anything else.
 
So what gun does Bond carry these days? Is it still the PPK? If so, I at least hope it’s a .380 model instead of the one chambered in .32 ACP caliber.
 
lak611 said:
Here’s a link to the review of the latest Bond movie “Casino Royale” by the USCCB: usccb.org/movies/c/casinoroyale.shtml
Click to expand...
  • A-I – general patronage;
  • A-II – adults and adolescents;
    *** A-III – adults;**
  • L – limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. (L replaces the previous classification, A-IV.)
  • O – morally offensive.
    … they gave it an “A-III” rating.
 
Setlew said:
Have heard that there is nonmarital sex and gratuitous violence in some of them.

Thoughts? Opinons?
Click to expand...
Some of them? hehe

More like all of them. That’s what those movies are known for.

Go to USCCB.org, and look at the reviews from the US conference of Catholic Bishops, if you want to know about possible moral issues with the content.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top