對007電影的評價英文

『壹』 如何評價電影《007：無暇赴死》

終於，在推遲了一年半後，距離《007：無暇赴死》的上映，進入到了倒計時。在這部電影正式和我們觀眾見面之前，一些影評人已經看到了這部電影。他們在網路上分享了他們的反應。有趣的是，許多影評人都認為，《007：無暇赴死》雖然有著自己不可避免的問題，但是這仍然是一部值得觀看的電影。

舉報/反饋

發表評論

發表

評論列表（30條）

油門可以再加一點

說實話我覺著最符合邦德形象的是皮爾斯布魯斯南

09-29 23:28

回復

6

德國の戰車cbf

他太紳士太有風度了，老肖看著最完美

09-30 07:10

回復

贊

新農民歐邁戈

老肖呢？

09-30 04:47

回復

贊

全部3條回復

毛娜娜GP

這哥們更像個打手，少了太多文藝氣質

09-30 08:20

回復

4

沙加007_726b8

看看007原著小說就有標准了

10-01 01:39

回復

贊

紀梵希JL

007沒有標准…只存在個人認知形象而已…

09-30 17:57

回復

贊

全部3條回復

機器貓和虎妞

皇家賭場好看

10-01 15:14

回復

1

小希撩影視作者

娛樂領域創作者

女主角好看~

10-01 16:25

回復

贊

龐太師

戲夢巴黎

10-06 14:35

回復

贊

大皮肚力屋3a4257

我是沖著阿湯哥去的,我會說?

09-30 06:55

回復

2

張小鳳2008

走錯片場了

09-30 20:02

回復

贊

德國の戰車cbf

碟中諜片場出門右拐

09-30 07:11

回復

贊

鄒鄒哥哥

007本應優雅紳士，還是最欣賞皮爾斯•布魯斯南

09-30 09:21

回復

2

弓浩渺00T

看來你喜歡衣冠楚楚的假特工

10-29 16:50

回復

贊

水提醇沉

這片子引進來票房也會凄慘，男主太丑了

09-30 08:14

回復

1

朝花夕拾xcq

你去演個試試

10-01 02:19

回復

贊

牛與老孫

上一部幽靈黨，真尬死了！最後摩托艇能追直升機，關鍵是還用手槍把直升機干下來了！

09-30 08:44

回復

4

旅行愛好攝影者

丹尼爾系列，我是沒有一部喜歡，自從他演007後，我就放棄追該系列電影。但願新角上來能讓我回歸。

10-01 01:08

回復

3

敏清暉03i

這傢伙把007毀的淋漓盡致，還是羅傑摩爾 肖恩康納 和布魯斯的好看

10-31 18:05

回復

2

wwwsysysy

超喜歡硬漢灑脫的丹，布魯斯南偏軟了些

10-30 12:00

回復

5

弓浩渺00T

丹尼爾飾演的007是兼具鐵漢柔情和青春熱血的 真男人真實而有安全感

10-29 16:48

回復

1

雨枋潔6q

克雷格中校！

09-30 09:07

回復

4

老油條XL

應該改名為：厲害了我的007，我和007，你好007，007和罪犯們。抓賊記。票房絕對翻倍。

10-05 22:58

回復

1

木易日華1

結局007好像死掉了…

10-05 17:55

回復

2

淦飛雙3Z

丹尼爾的007的確不同於布魯斯南的風格，感覺更難演繹。

09-30 08:40

回復

2

Sh

1

fish

沒有更多啦

作者最執導《被詛咒的孩子》了

廢話少說！克里斯汀·斯圖爾特厭倦了關於《斯賓塞》的各種問題

摩西效應？巨石強森透露，為何還未製作《速度與激情》衍生劇續集

相關文章

007 詹姆斯·邦德帶我們看過的各國風景，全世界都在眼下

『貳』 如何評價《007：無暇赴死》這部影片

我認為這部影片拍攝得非常成功。

作為007系列的最終篇，詹姆斯邦德的時代也落下了帷幕。在影片的結局，詹姆斯邦德死了，他並沒有逃出生天，而是永遠留在了那個島上。他的情人以及女兒非常傷心，但也只能接受這樣的結局。據了解，詹姆斯邦德的扮演者和公司的合約已經到期，此次的結局是在意料之中，以後都不會有相關的電影了，這意味著一個時代的結束，但對於影迷來說，不僅僅是一個時代的落幕。007系列的電影給我們帶來了非常多的驚喜，詹姆斯邦德這一角色形象讓很多影迷們都非常喜歡。系列的電影總是會有結束的那一天的，以這樣的形式結束，影迷們比較容易接受，至少在合約到期之前，還拍攝了最後一部系列的電影。

1、該影片是成功的。

在中國大陸上映之後，收獲了廣泛的好評，這和主演人員的努力是分不開的。觀眾的期待比較大，然而導演也沒有讓大家失望，即使邦德離開了，但是他的007精神永遠在我們的心中延續著。

你認為這部電影拍得怎麼樣？你去電影院觀看這部電影了嗎？你覺得和上一部相比，此次的電影有沒有給你帶來驚喜呢？

『叄』 如何評價電影《007:大破天幕殺機》(Skyfall)

被索尼拯救後的MGM在最恰當的時候為我們准備了邦德的歸來。

為什麼說最恰當的時候，原因有三點：
a- 今年是007系列電影誕生50周年
b- 今年英國的秋天是狗屎一樣的天，除了電影院，基本沒有其他娛樂項目
c-今年 蝙蝠俠退休了，蜘蛛俠才上幼兒大班，在小兒科吸血鬼當道的時候，該是讓一個真正的男人出場的時候了。
果然，人生第一次看到早上9：30的電影出現滿場，第一次鑒證電影完畢後群眾起立鼓掌，索尼大喜，今晚島國將有超過兩百萬的群眾在電影院度周末。

如果按照皇家賭場與量子危機的套路，這可能不是一部你想像中的邦德片。因為站在邦德電影50年之際，這是一部在轉折點上的邦德：」面對新時代的各種挑戰，邦德應該何去何從？」 - 電影用一種流暢的風格轉變給了我們答案。

這種轉變首先體現在人物塑造上，山姆門德斯用很山姆門德斯的方式告訴我們：邦德首先是個人，然後才是個特工；M首先是個人，然後才是一個老闆；Silva 首先是個人，然後才是一個惡人；Q 博士首先是個人，然後才是一個天才。

隨後山姆大叔又說：既然都是人，那他們的共同點就是：人都是有過去的，人都是有情感的，人都是會犯錯誤的。

在007系列電影誕生50周年之際，山姆為我們揭開了邦德神秘的童年，那個寧謐幽靜的地方叫做SKYFALL， 那地方在蘇格蘭偏遠的山地(Buachaille Etive Mor)，一片空谷幽冥的世界。冬天飄一場銀雪，春天則是滿山的樹林傳來揉葉子的聲音，邦德的童年似乎在他成年的歲月里沒有留下一點痕跡，但電影用很含蓄的方式告訴我們，邦德也是有過去的，他的父母葬在Skyfall 附近的禮拜堂，看門人還像當年對待小屁孩跟他親昵，槍也是爸爸留下的，點的還是火柴。雖說邦德並不是傳統意義上懷舊之人，歲月也可以漸漸把不愉快的過去撕去，但好的傳統還是需要保留的。正如電影里重復的主題：Sometimes Old ways are the best! 果然邦德最後回到了小鬼當家的年代，連馬丁車也是從康納利那裡借來的BMT216A 。

再說M，她才是這部影片真正的女主角，之前在GQ上攻勢洶涌的邦德女郎，原來都是煙霧彈，法國香艷美女出場時間不到15分鍾便冤死。而M呢，從始至終， 她才是真正的邦德女郎。她與Silva 的角色遙相呼應，顯現出一種邦德與她的特殊關系：一個母權主義者，一個專橫冷酷的女蜂王，一個讓邦德心甘情願的Sadist。一個母親的角色，兩個男孩，她都可以在關鍵時刻舍棄，不是嗎？不同的是一個選擇背叛，一個仍然堅持忠誠。最後，這個真正的邦德女郎流露出了她人性的一面，哪怕是一條臭著臉的狗，也多少是一種情感的暗示，那一種最隱秘晦澀的愛，一種英國人最能懂的迷霧重重的黑色幽默。我不懂山姆為什麼最後讓邦德流淚，他捨不得是母親對他特殊的驕傲與信任還是母親時代的結束？英國人本來就是一種特殊物種，腹黑的錢鍾書一針見血：英國人承認頑固，醜陋，愚笨，肯把喇叭狗（bulldog)作為國徽，但這種坦白包含著袒護，是一種反面的驕傲。

至於Silva， 我覺得Javier Bardem 演得好極了。那種斯堪的納維亞半島的壞人扮相與充滿西班牙風情的挑逗，一白一黑，形成了一種強烈而有趣的對比。他從五十米開外的電梯有節奏地走來，優雅地描述那段關於老鼠的故事的時候，他緩慢地解開邦德潔白的襯衫鈕扣，用指尖輕輕觸摸著他，在肌膚上劃來劃去，一大一小的鼻孔里出著輕氣，秋波流轉, 鶯聲燕語，嘴巴里的吐出的台詞基情四射， 靠！觀眾在下面樂呵呵地悶笑，我在一旁感嘆，這個強大的時代啊，強大到能把這個世界上最後一個純爺們也感化成基佬了。這真邦德電影里是一種顛覆性的轉折。在Silva 人物塑造上，門德斯再一次苦口婆心地告訴我們，這個Silva，他首先是一個人，然後才是一個惡人，他的動機就是他的過去，他需要弒母復仇才能解除他對M的恨，以背叛還背叛，這傢伙雖說嘴皮子圓滑，但做事一點也不馬虎，去哪裡都帶著訓練有素的小分隊，各種大規模武器裝備，大飛機，大警車，手榴彈，機關槍，飛檐走壁的，附帶法國boom boom boom 的俏皮配樂,最後死得時候還不忘表現一聲獅吼，一張猙獰又滑稽的鬼臉，嗚呼哀哉....
他若和小丑對決還不知道要怎樣火星撞地球呢！肯定的是，今年的惡人排行榜，他鐵定甩了Tom熊扮演毫無情趣的Bane幾條馬路了。但唯一不符邏輯的是，英國人是不可能找一個西班牙人當特工的吧。

最後再說說小試牛刀的Q， Ben Whishaw 向來是名好演員，他沒有經過刪選就直接上了劇組，可算是個門德斯的保送生。他出場的時候，我記得特別清楚，那是在 Trafalgar Square 的National Gallery 國家畫廊，那幅畫是Joseph William Turner 1839年的名畫，一艘勝利歸回的戰船，象徵著對凱旋英雄們的拜謁與敬意，同時隱喻著一個新的時代的到來：一個小青年穿著睡衣在家裡進行間諜戰的時代，顯然邦德是不屑一顧的他說: Youth is no guarantee for innovation。果然， 小青年第一次熒幕任務就犯錯誤了，幸好他悔改得及時，沒有讓大叔在田野里白等。

其他元素的轉變也同樣精彩，Thomas Newman 接替了David Arnold成為新邦德的音樂人，他的靈感似乎被Han Zimmer 在The Dark Knight Rise在橄欖球場爆破場面的配樂激發，除了標志性的小號與圓號，鼓成為幾段令人難以忘卻打鬥場面的配器：有一段是在上海高樓的藍色霓虹里，還有一段是在蘇格蘭的冰湖下。可貴的是，無論怎樣，新元素的融入並沒有吞噬舊的經典。Adele 的歌聲更是在典型邦德的調調里不露痕跡地流露出邦德陰霾的童年。

另外值得推薦是金像獎提名專業戶Roger Deakins的燈光攝影效果，與近兩部的007相比，顯得迷離柔和許多：那007在游物體熒光里打鬥的背影，與其說是在打鬥不如說是在舞斗，那藍色霓虹折射下的玻璃把鏡像切成千百個碎片，讓人頭暈目眩。那千百盞燈籠照耀下流光飛舞的澳門湖面(其實不是澳門而是在英格蘭叫Paddock Tank的攝影棚），那金色紅光下007側影跨過的龍頭，美到至極。那蘇格蘭黑夜裡火光染紅的樹林，朦朧惆悵，讓人不得不懷疑攝影是不是張藝謀上身了。我本來覺得這在007片里顯得很突兀而格格不入，一部純爺們的片，需要這些嗎？但細細一想，這何嘗也不是一種新的轉變，把主題襯托得恰到好處：一個老派的爺們，在新時代進逼之時，他該何去何從？從純影像里我們就可以找到答案：他會以一種懷舊的方式來柔化新時代的稜角。

是的，這些苦心設計的轉變中的元素，在不斷地暗示著我們，時代在轉變，世界在改變，像Looper所預示的那樣未來應該在霓虹閃爍，高樓起伏的東方，那麼老牌工業革命帝國應該怎麼辦，還要不要肉身特工，還搞不搞人肉情報?

門德斯用一種很007的方式告訴我們：許多辭舊迎新的東西要映襯的恰恰是一個懷舊的主題：車還是要開老的好，刀還是要比槍管用，特工也還是老的好，英國子民們請放心吧：時代在變，邦德卻是萬萬不會變的，用最傳統的方式面對新的未來或許也是一種革新。於是在片尾我們看到：未來的邦德回到了50年前的辦公室，M 歸回為男身，MoneyPenny 也從加勒比海的女妖穿越而來，克雷格哥也還有好些活要干。

或許再過50年，007系列電影100周年時，最受歡迎的邦德不再是肖恩康納利而是克雷格大叔了。（註：英國Shortlist雜志最新的民意調查 Sean Connery 以45%榮居榜首，成為最佳邦德，Daniel Craig 27% 第二，可見英國人之念舊了）

『肆』 007英語介紹

When we last spied James Bond, at the end of the forceful if oddly-structured Casino Royale, he announced his name while pointing a submachine gun into the sky above Lake Como. The image said: he's back, and nothing if not well-endowed.

Quantum of Solace begins minutes later, with the elusive killer Mr White (Jesper Christensen) now in the boot of Bond's Aston Martin, and a breakneck pursuit in progress which makes claims of a different kind for this new Bond and his supersized franchise.

This film catches Ian Fleming's hero on the run, keeps him running, and zips along with a jolting, almost offensive velocity, catching its ragged breath in the rare opportunity for dialogue. Fans of the series who like to slow down and savour the scenery, enjoying a drip-feed of dodgy innuendo, may consider this a rude awakening - it's the shortest Bond movie to date, and easily the most terse.

But consider how many of the pictures, to include Casino Royale, run out of steam as they drag themselves across the two hour mark, if not long before. Quantum of Solace may hurtle through its own (sketchy) plot as if it's not quite the point - there have been more satisfying narrative pay-offs than we get here - but its best sequences bring you up short in the best way, adding up to the giddiest straight ride since The Living Daylights.

In a career filled with diligent but pedestrian Oscar-t (Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland), it's a true surprise that director Marc Forster has come up with the goods as often as he does. Working with many of the action crew, among them editor Richard Pearson, who made the Bourne series so snappy and exhilarating, he closes in on the set pieces with refreshingly creative skill.

The starting point can be nonsense - when Mr White, murderer of Eva Green's Vesper Lynd, is sprung from captivity in a ngeon beneath Siena, it's too, too Bond that it happens to be on the day, hour and very minute of the Palio horse race.

The gambit of cross-cutting from bolting nags to scarpering baddies starts out strident and doesn't seem necessary. But Forster is biding his time with this skittish prelude: we emerge into the crowd for a chase on foot, across rooftops, and down some scaffolding in a church, and the ensuing scramble with ropes, swinging girders, and out-of-reach revolvers leaves you gasping with its constricted tension and vertigo.

It's briefly to London for some Paul Haggis-scripted soundbites about our changing planet, and then to Haiti, where we meet pouting Bolivian agent Camille (Olga Kurylenko) and villain jour Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a petulant eco-criminal busily finessing the oil and water reserves of South America for his own gain. Amalric, who with every goggle-eyed smirk cements his credentials to star in a Roman Polanski biopic, brings a wickedly childish spite to this role, certainly proving a more interesting foil to Bond than his latest foxy-but-cross female sidekick.

James, of course, is still hung up over the betrayal and demise of Vesper in the last instalment, motivating a morose six-martini binge while he's flying across the Atlantic, as well as his avoidance here of any serious entanglements, save those in stray lengths of rope dangling from the roofs of Tuscan churches. He isn't alone: Camille, having had her family raped and burnt alive by a deposed Bolivian dictator, also has her mind on other things. Instead, there's a just-for-fun fling with MI6 emissary Gemma Arterton, who pitches up looking like a John le Carré strippogram in a trenchcoat, and exits in a homage to Shirley Goldfinger Eaton which had me reaching for bad oil puns. Crude? Unrefined? It's not exactly slick.

What's clever, and slick, and even a little ingenious about the movie, though, is how it postpones Bond's Vesper vendetta by submerging it beneath his present tasks - he gets an angry kick out of scuttling this international cabal of utility profiteers, who in the barmiest conceit get to negotiate through earpieces while seated for a state-of-the-art proction of Tosca.

If there was any remaining doubt that the world is bartered and sold by people who can afford opera tickets, it's roundly dispelled, though how Amalric persuades his backers that Haiti, of all places, is some kind of model example for neocapitalist progress leaves us just a little foxed. "I don't give a s--- about the CIA," announces Judi Dench, inimitably, but it's not the best line in the movie: those are all the ones on Daniel Craig's face, particularly the deep vertical groove between his eyebrows when he's found yet another score to settle.

Quantum of Solace offers next to no solace, if we mean respite, but in plunging its hero into a revenge-displacement grudge mission, it has the compensation of a rock-solid dramatic idea, and the intelligence to run and run with it.

2
Pleasurable and Satisfying

Be prepared for a few changes in this new entry of the Bond canon. James Bond is back, and this time it』s extremely personal. The rugged, harsh, and rough agent picks up exactly where he left off in another striking thriller that leaves you feeling exhausted, if not exhilarated.

Up to this time, the Bond canon entries have been a series, but Quantum of Solace is actually a sequel. Still raged by the death of Vesper Lynd in Siena, bereaved and blooded James Bond (Daniel Craig), goes after the shady international organization he holds responsible, even when M (Judi Dench) orders him to stand down. As promised at the end of Casino Royale, the film opens with a spectacular car chase before the revelation that Quantum, with agents in Her Majesty』s Government and the CIA, the organization that blackmailed Vesper, is far more labyrinthine and intricate, let alone momentous and far-ranging than anyone had imagined.

Forensic evidence of an MI6 traitor leads him to Haiti, where he meets Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who then helps him find ruthless businessman Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) who is the chairman of Greene Planet, the legitimate cover for Quantum. His intention is to use his government contacts to help overthrow the current regime in Bolivia, and place the exiled General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio) as the head of state. In exchange, The General will give him a barren piece of land, which will actually give them total control of the nation』s water supply. Hazardously mixing revenge and ty, Bond promptly gets involved with Greene』s mistress, the beautiful yet mysterious Camille, when he saves her from an attempt on her life. However, Camille has a her own mission of vengeance so they team up to take down Greene and General Medrano while keeping one step ahead of both the CIA and MI6, which involves the action ripping across Austria, Italy, and South America. Meanwhile, Bond must try to keep his desire for retribution over Vesper Lynd』s death in check.

There』s still a sense at the end that Bond』s mission has scarcely begun and he』ll need a few more Bond canon entries to work his way up to annihilating the obviously indestructible Quantum organization. What makes Quantum of Solace captivating, compelling, and appealing is that this is the first of the 22 Bond movies where the plot flows in a natural and structural manner from the last installment, and this sequel looks a far stronger picture for this rare connected whole.

By far, there』s no better actor at bottling rage than Craig. He continues to be his own man as Bond, not just because he is a darker and more bare-knuckle Bond than any of previous Bonds. Having finally settled into the role of Bond, does Craig not only make it completely his own, but also brings a slightly softer side that his elegant predecessors have been deficient in. Never before have we seen him tenderly hugging a dying male comrade before disposing of his corpse in a mpster. Bond in this sequel is also human enough to start worrying about how regularly his girlfriends get killed. Moreover, viewers get to question his motives for pursuing a crusade. Is he being ultimately altruistic to helping drought-deteriorated Bolivian peasants? Or is he totally selfish to get his own back on the one directly accountable for Vesper』s predicament? Keep in mind that this is Bond at the beginning of his journey. Predictably, Craig will become the most popular 007 with the younger generation.

Stealthy and sensuous Kurylenko is superb as stunning Camille and her inexorable and determined quest for vendetta leads to one of the best scenes where Bond advises her on professionally assassinating the extremely unpleasant would-be dictator who slaughtered her family. She wants to bring to a bloody conclusion, with or without the hero』s help. She is in fact so fixed on murdering her enemy that she practically should not be counted as a Bond girl. Though given awfully little screen time, Arterton is equally good as effortlessly foxy Agent Fields who appeals to the better side of the wounded anti-romantic. There』s also decisively excellent work from Dench as witheringly unimpressed boss M and strong support from Wright and Giannini. All memorable Bond adversaries are amply endowed with unconventional and peculiar behaviors and Greene is no exception. As Greene, he is a suitably repulsive character and Amalric exemplifies a wonderfully humble conceitedness as the hypocritically earnest environmentalist.

In spite of its minor flaws, Quantum of Solace, a visually imaginative follow-up to the series relaunch, to much the same level of quality as Casino Royale, remains overall pleasurable and satisfying with strong performances, a realistically uncompromising script, and intense Bourne-modeled action sequences. It continues Craig』s authentic and conceivable reinvention of the character and throws him into an all scenario of concrete plausibility against an indistinct, deeply secret organization that bypasses politics and democracy to control economies, governments and necessary resources. And, as usual, no one but 007 can stop them.

3
Starring Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench, Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright. Directed by Martin Campbell. 144 minutes. At major theatres. PG

You have to wait for it. And that's hardly surprising because so much of the glorious Casino Royale is a departure from past 007 movies.

But when newcomer Daniel Craig finally identifies himself as "Bond. James Bond" late in the picture, you might well find yourself sharing his satisfied smile.

By this point he's more than proven himself worthy of the name, vanquishing not just innumerable foes but also doubts about his suitability for the role. In the Internet age, everybody's spitball has a global reach.

It is one of the curiosities of moviedom that even though we know James Bond to be a fictional character, the most storied of British spies, we have grown to think of him as a real person. We act as if the reassigning of 007's licence to kill should require Parliament's approval, or a least a wave from the Queen.

And yet each age gets the James Bond it needs, regardless of welcome. Sean Connery launched the series in 1962 and defined the Swinging Sixties style of heroism and hedonism. Roger Moore went for the tongue-in-cheek swagger that typified the 1970s and early 1980s. Pierce Brosnan sought to bring a serious actor's gravity to more recent times — at least until the sex puns got the better of him. (Let's leave aside the brief interregnums of George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton, which matter not.)

Now comes Craig, the first real 007 of the post-9/11 era. The debate will continue as to who constitutes the best Bond, but there's no question that he is the right Bond for these times.

It's a world where shadowy terrorists no longer live elsewhere, where wars are fought for murky reasons and where even a humble pop bottle represents potential airborne disaster, doomsday visions are no longer confined to the movie screen and nationhood, and patriotism, seek new definitions.

This is something author Ian Fleming realized with uncanny prescience back in 1953 when he launched the legacy with the publication of Casino Royale, introcing Bond as a man of strength and style, but also possessed of self-awareness. A man astute enough to observe that, "History is moving pretty quickly these days and the heroes and villains keep on changing parts."

The rough-hewn Craig is the most credible incarnation to date of Fleming's flawed sleuth. His Bond stalks and kills like the "blunt instrument," as Judi Dench's spy boss M describes him, yet he is human enough to bleed from both the body and the heart. Craig isn't pretty — he "impersonates the ugly," as was once said of rocker Rod Stewart — but intelligence and depth reside behind those cold, blue eyes.

He meshes beautifully with the other players and elements of Casino Royale, which returning director Martin Campbell (GoldenEye) directs with a maximum of intensity and a minimum of pretense, aided by an uncommonly smart screenplay by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis, who pay e tribute to Fleming.

Gone or reshaped are most of the conceits that have made Bond movies seem like an exercise in parody and nostalgia.

There is no kitten-stroking villain in an island lair, plotting to blow up the world or to claim the sun, the moon and the stars as his own. Instead we get Mads Mikkelsen's suavely chilling Le Chiffre, an obsessive gambler who brokers financial deals with terrorists to fund his adventures at the poker table. Le Chiffre's main quirk, apart from a penchant for torture, is a tear ct that involuntarily bleeds. "Nothing sinister," he assures us.

The femmes are not quite as fatale as in Bonds past. Eva Green's spy accountant Vesper Lynd and Caterina Murino's flirtatious foil Solange are every bit as beautiful as Bond girls go, but they aren't out to prove their own killer instincts. Yet they are more intriguing and alluring than ever before.

And, for the most part, they have to keep those bikinis unfilled and those bedroom eyes wide open, because this Bond isn't wasting time making idle love. Craig's 007 is undeniably virile, but he's paradoxically the least sex-crazed of Bonds since David Niven's satirical elder incarnation was embarrassing the franchise with the rogue Casino Royale movie romp of 1967. (Freudian analysts will have a field day parsing a torture scene where 007's manhood is more than just shaken and stirred.)

Craig's Bond sprints faster — gasp at an early chase scene with parkour (free running) champ Sébastien Foucan as a fleet-footed bomb-maker — and fights harder than any of his predecessors. He loves harder, too, being the first Bond since Lazenby's cerebral spy of On Her Majesty's Secret Service to make a serious commitment to a woman.

The gadgets this time are modest and realistic, just enough to fill the glove compartment of Bond's trusty Aston Martin, which is nowhere near as tricked-out as usual. There is no hapless Q (farewell, John Cleese) to admonish Bond for being reckless with government property.

There is still M, played by Judi Dench as she has since GoldenEye, and finally given a script worthy of her talents. She is much more involved in Bond's training and development, having promoted him to "00" status despite misgivings about his judgment and his apparent inability to rein in his ego.

The above may make Casino Royale sound like serious dramatic fare. It is indeed, and all the better for it.

But director Campbell retains the exotic locales, zipping from Madagascar to Miami to Montenegro, to relieve the potential claustrophobia of the gaming tables that consume much of the story.

There is also humour to savour, although none of the sniggering sex talk that for too long has made Bond seem like a Playboy cartoon character. The wit is often visual: check out the age of the man in M's bed, when she is rudely roused from her slumber, and watch the reaction of the rich oaf who arrogantly mistakes Bond for a parking valet.

Follow the raised eyebrows of Jeffrey Wright's CIA mole Felix Leiter and Giancarlo Giannini's MI6 undercover man Mathis, as they try to figure out exactly what Bond is up to. They are standouts amongst an excellent supporting cast.

『伍』 誰能給個007系列電影的英文介紹

Use field 007 to code for the physical characteristics of an item. You can also use 007 to code for the physical characteristics of the parts of an item such as accompanying material. (007 is valid in all formats for this purpose.) OCLC has implemented the following 007 fields: Electronic Resource
Globe
Map
Microform
Motion Picture
Nonprojected Graphic
Projected Graphic
Remote-sensing Image Sound Recording
Tactile Material
Video Recording

Guidelines Use an appropriate 007 field if you are cataloging microforms, motion pictures, nonprojected graphics, projected graphics, videorecordings, etc., that are published separately. In addition, use field 007 for electronic resources, globes, maps, microforms, motion pictures, nonprojected graphics, projected graphics, remote-sensing images, sound recordings, tactile materials and videorecordings that are components of kits.
Nonmicroform reproctions If you are cataloging a nonmicroform reproction of existing graphic material, use an 007 field for the type of material of the reproction (e.g., use the 007 field for Videorecording for a video ).

Locally made changes to the physical form of the item The physical description in the master record should reflect the condition or form in which you received the item. For example, if you regularly cut filmstrips and mount the indivial frames as slides and you want the local cataloging to reflect the local form (slides), use the following instructions:

Input a master record for the item as published.
Edit the record for local use.
If a record already exists, edit the record for local use.

Motion pictures and videorecordings If you are cataloging several versions or variations of a work in separate records, use one field 007 in each record to describe that version or variation. However, if you are cataloging versions or variations in the same record (i.e., if the same TMat code applies), use multiple 007 fields to describe the multiple versions or variations.

Projected and nonprojected graphics Use one 007 field to represent multiple items with identical characteristics. For example, a set of 46 slides requires one 007 field if the slides share the same physical characteristics.

However, use multiple 007 fields to represent physical characteristics that differ between items in the same set. For example, if you are cataloging a set of ten filmstrips and six have accompanying sound, use two 007 fields, one for the sound filmstrips and one for the silent filmstrips.

Sound recordings accompanying projected graphics Sound recordings that accompany filmstrips or slide sets and provide a sound track for the filmstrips or slide sets are an integral part of the item. Do not use separate 007 fields for the sound recording. However, use a separate 007 field for sound recordings if it is an independent component of a kit.

Primary and secondary support materials for graphics Provide codes in field 007 for primary and secondary support materials of the item. Primary support material and secondary support material are the base on which graphic items are mounted, drawn, printed, etc.

For example, the primary support for a slide is the film that bears the image. The secondary support is the slide mount, which is usually cardboard or plastic. For art prints, the primary support is usually paper. If the print is in a frame, the frame is the secondary support. If the print is dry mounted and matted, the mounting and mat board are secondary supports.

You may not be able to determine the composition of primary and secondary support materials. If in doubt, do not enter codes for support material in the 007 field

Kits Kits are items containing two or more categories of material, no one of which is predominate. Kits may also be single-medium packages of textual materials (e.g., lab kits). Use visual materials format (Type code o) if you are cataloging a kit. Apply the same rules and definitions to 007 fields used in kit records as you would to 007 fields used indivially in other records.

『陸』 如何評價電影《007:幽靈黨》

如果非要用一句話評價這一部「007幽靈黨」，我大概會首先稱贊其炒得一手好冷飯。導演薩姆·門德斯甚至應該憑藉此片獲封「超級間諜片超級老梗王」榮譽稱號。

摸著良心說，這絕對是對此片的稱贊而非嘲諷，畢竟對於007邦德這樣已有足足50多年歷史的系列電影來說，如何炒好冷飯，把老梗炒出新鮮炒出滋味炒出爽片應有的格調，理應是頭等重要的技術活。

甚至可以說，這對所有商業類型片來說都是一樣，對傳統的重復和對新鮮噱頭的挖掘，二者對類型片的市場生命力來說永遠缺一不可。

那麼在此片中又有哪些老梗獲得了逆襲和顛覆重生的機會呢？

1. 「幽靈黨」？「魔鬼黨」？

此部007續篇的英文名叫SPECTRE，中文將其譯為幽靈黨，從字面的意思來說這翻譯並無大礙。但由於我所查得的幾部60年代及70年代初的邦德電影里，普遍都將SPECTRE譯作了「魔鬼黨」，（雖然豆友」馬爾他之鷹「在評論里提醒我說80、90年代出版的007小說里有將SPECTRE譯作」幽靈「 ）所以這個翻譯上的差異就顯得十分有趣。

是的，即使幽靈黨聽起來蠻文藝又很新鮮，但SPECTRE在邦德系列中顯然不是個什麼新被發現的反派組織。即使在71年的「007之金剛鑽」之後幾乎沒再出現過，在伊恩·弗萊明的原著小說中和幾乎所有60年代的邦德片中，SPECTRE也一直是那個幕後終極大BOSS，基本上世界上所有壞事兒到最後都會追溯到它那兒去 - 類似福爾摩斯里Moriarty領頭的組織， 也類似復聯里的Hydra。

有意思的是，SPECTRE這個組織並不能算是完全虛構。很多人都樂意把前蘇聯的特務機構SMERSH當做SPECTRE的原型。不僅因為斯大林一手創立的這個特務機構跟幽靈黨/魔鬼黨的名字特別像，更因為弗萊明寫作和電影邦德系列伊始時的歷史背景：

彼時正值冷戰期間，國際基本格局就是西方諸國和前蘇聯的對立。那麼英國特工的眼中釘自然是前蘇聯特工，那麼SMERSH被文學加工妖魔化成終極大boss SPECTRE似乎也很說得通。

但是對於SPECTRE的解讀依然還有另一種截然相反的觀點：弗萊明在邦德系列中虛構的這樣一個邪惡得純粹的機構，恰恰緩和了冷戰時西方與前蘇聯對立的緊張情緒。為什麼這么說呢？

因為通過陰謀論世界上有這么一個神秘組織，它是一切惡事的罪魁禍首，那麼現實中原本錯綜復雜，難辨是非的政治格局就得以簡化為簡單的善惡對立。在007系列的第二部「俄羅斯之戀」里，即使是前蘇聯的特務們也同樣深受魔鬼黨SPECTRE這個幕後大boss的陷害。SPECTRE因此也變成了使邦德和他的俄國邦女郎共同的敵人。

那麼就終於要說到在這最新一部的「007：幽靈黨」中，SPECTRE這個老油條到底經歷了怎樣的重新包裝。顯然，現在的世界格局跟冷戰時期已經大不一樣了：所以這部電影把SPECTRE跟全球化聯系在了一起。

好吧，其實這顯然是一個巨大的槽點。大家都知，全球化早已經是一個老掉牙的議題了，即使這電影講的是信息和安全系統全球化，那也只在20年前算是新鮮。 再退一萬步說，你說這電影是把大boss定位為全球聯網的監視系統。。。Excuse me? 。。美國隊長2里Hydra不是早已經承包了這檔子事了嗎，更不提還有美劇POI疑犯追蹤里的機器呢。總之，把SPECTRE總部重新包裝為一個大型網管基地，明顯不是一個很新鮮的嘗試。

相比之下，這部電影對Christopher Waltz演的SPECTRE頭頭的重新塑造就要有趣多了。在弗萊明原著及60年代的007電影中，SPECTRE的頭頭叫Blofeld，大多數時候觀眾都看不到他的正臉，一般他不是背影出鏡，就是鏡頭對准他坐著的下半身（不好意思聽起來污），然後他抱著膝蓋上的一隻白貓一直撓它毛。白貓這個梗在這一部新007電影中也出現了，只是這回它跳上了James Bond的膝蓋。

而導演和編劇顯然也好好地玩兒了一把「大boss正臉一般人看不到」這個間諜片老梗: Christopher Waltz作為SPECTRE頭頭出場的時候，很有逼格的坐在逆光中，講話也磨磨唧唧地通過他身邊的保鏢傳達，看起來十分神秘。但就在觀眾大概都以為不能見到其廬山真面目的時候，他輕易的就從逆光中轉臉過來，大喇喇對著邦德say了個hello。

大boss這個超出007預期的行為，顯然也顛覆了大部分觀眾的預期。在這個信息「透明」，視覺超載的大時代，連大boss也不屑掩藏自己的臉了。

片中還有一處明顯向1967年的"007之你只能活兩回」的致敬：「你只能活兩回」中的SPECTRE頭頭露了正臉，那時候他就是一個半邊臉有傷疤的男子。

只不過弗萊明的解釋是Blofeld作為反派大BOSS的自我修養就是應該像怪盜基德那樣時刻偽裝自己，即使作整容手術也在所不辭，所以60年代電影里臉上的傷疤大概只是此BOSS的私人美學。

而在新007中，Christopher Waltz的左臉上在後半段也出現了長長的傷疤，有趣的是，這次倒不再是因為偽裝，而是真的受傷了。

2. 我是誰？我為什麼是我？

整部電影想要表達的內涵其實可以簡要地用M對他的上司C說的一句話來概括：特工被賦予的殺人的權力，同時也是不殺人的權力 （the license to kill is also the license not to kill)。 所以最後邦德選擇不殺大BOSS，既是在回應M說的中心句，也是在同時點明主題：真是十分標準的高考高分作文格式。

更具體一點說，如果說天塌揭露了隱藏在一個被神話的「超級特工」形象背後，邦德作為「人」的童年和過去；那麼幽靈黨就是在強調超級特工的「人性」有怎樣的力量。如果冰冷無情的遠程監視機器對應的是極權，那麼007作為一個有血有肉的人，對應的就是民主和對個人獨立意志的尊崇。

與現代科技戰爭中無差別殘暴的遠程殺戮武器相比，他能親歷現場，切實的感受暴力；他有判斷復雜情境，而非只懂非黑即白的思維能力；他不是冷血的殺人機器，他有「溫情」和「人性」。這種"實地偵查」（ground work) 相對遠程監視的優越, 也在劇情中得以體現，無論是在這部電影里復制了一遍復聯局長Nick Fury遁地大法的M，還是money penny和Q醬，都不再枯坐在辦公室里，只盼著007去出生入死。

這部電影嘗試回答一個略嚴肅的問題：特工這個行業到底有什麼社會意義？

這某種程度上是隔空回應了諜影重重1(Bourn Identity)里所體現的特工身份危機。作為超級間諜類型片歷史中顛覆傳統之作，諜影重重系列總是用晃到觀眾吐的手持攝像和深切的左派懷疑主義，專注給007系列插刀。失憶的傑森波恩不斷找尋自己是誰的過程，其實也是在不斷地理解特工/殺手存在的意義：作為特工，聽從指揮不斷殺戮的意義到底是什麼？真的永遠是代表正義消滅邪惡么？怎麼確定那個不斷給出專斷指令的上司和特工機構就一定是正義的，而不是腐敗而殘暴的？

007這部新片，給出了一個相當樂觀和理想主義的回答：即使你所在的機構腐敗了，你還有愛你的耿直上司（M），愛你的同事（moneypenny和Q醬），你還有頭腦清晰的你自己。所以不管那個上級權力機構怎麼編排你，特工擁有自己獨立的意志，有自己判斷和決定到底殺還是不殺的權力。

至於 「沐浴在愛的教育下的特工一定能反抗權威，做出正確的判斷」，到底是不是過於理想化，大概也就看眾影迷願不願意把007永遠當做值得信任的英雄了。

3. 邦女郎和女權主義之間的虐戀情深

這僅僅是我猜測，稍微有點女權主義傾向的觀眾在看此片片頭的時候，心情大概都猶如嗶了dog：即使朱迪丹奇這個強女人版「M」已經不幸領便當，我也是沖著蕾雅賽杜那張帥T臉來的，你就給我看這個？

是的，雖然片頭曲里騷姆的假音銷魂入骨聽得我跪了，但不可否認，這個片頭真的無比的復古無比的老梗：女郎們裸露的，柔軟的手臂像章魚的觸須一樣在丹尼爾克雷格同樣裸露的壯碩肩頭上起舞，再加上一些五毛火焰特效，氣氛堪比夜總會。

特別是，導演（像被漫威傳染了一樣）在片頭特意加入了皇家賭場中的女神Eva Green柔弱地墜落這一虐心鏡頭；那位看不清臉的新邦女郎，在跟邦德的剪影瓊瑤式纏纏綿綿時，似乎也身姿綽約小鳥依人。

這一切無不讓我驚恐地想起了觀看幾部最早期邦德電影里女性角色的尷尬回憶：比如在1964年票房大賣的「007之金手指」，裡面名叫Pussy的金發邦女郎幾乎總是搖晃著豐腴的身姿等待著邦德的解救。

不可否認，我們欣賞邦女郎的時候肯定期待她有美麗的身體和臉蛋，但我相信即便不是所謂的女權主義者，現在的大眾影迷對總是等著被解救的，無腦花瓶式女主的忍耐度也已經十分有限了。

我們期待看到性感的邦女郎同樣有性感的大腦，最好還能有點兒能打的武力值。所以，之後的劇情中，當邦德答應邦女郎的父親會「保護」他的女兒，當邦德告訴蕾雅賽杜她父親的死訊，面部線條硬朗的法國姑娘甚至還面露脆弱差點兒梨花帶雨，講真我的內心確實是有點兒崩潰的。

但大概因為蕾雅賽杜剛在電影」龍蝦」中扮演了燒死異性戀的酷炫FFF團團長，不知是好事還是壞事，她的臉還是讓人無法相信她可以是一個柔弱無骨，始終被保護的花瓶。果然，關於她人設的反轉終於在她和邦德在火車上的一段對話中降臨了：

邦德給了她一把槍。

她說：我討厭槍支。

邦德皺眉，似乎一副「拿你這個聖母心的柔弱小女子沒辦法」的樣子，接著耐心教她槍的構造，和開槍時不要閉眼。

她又重復了一遍：我討厭槍支。

但隨後，邦德無奈地勸她一定開一槍試試，蕾雅賽杜卻帥氣地挑挑眉，熟練地卸下彈夾和槍膛里的兩顆子彈，對著天花板放了一記空槍。

當邦德露出刮目相看的表情，並戲謔道「你其實並不需要別人教你用槍對不對」的時候，我也正式地對此片導演刮目相看了：他其實也並不需要被按頭科普直男癌的危害。他之前一系列對蕾雅賽杜柔弱，需要保護的一面的塑造，明顯不是在復辟花瓶邦女郎的老傳統。

相反，他恰恰是在通過重演和反轉的模式，來調戲，諷刺，最終顛覆這種傳統。

這樣的反轉在臨近結尾的時候又出現了一次：

當邦德需要離開蕾雅賽杜去執行最終任務的時候，蕾雅賽杜為難地小聲說道：我不能... (I can't) 。這時候，相信大多數觀眾都會像電影里的邦德一樣，第一時間誤解她是在說她不敢一個人呆著的：就像出現在電影前半段，在交歡後懇求邦德不要離開的寡婦（莫妮卡貝魯奇）一樣，她是在驚惶地請求邦德的陪伴。

然而當邦德結巴著安撫她，建議她留在這兒之後，他的大男子主義保護欲瞬間就被打臉了：因為隨後邦女郎立刻表示她完全不是在求他留下，而是在提出永遠的分手。那麼這次，邦女郎的經典台詞「我不能」，暗示的不是依賴，而是獨立。

當然，再之後的劇情還是沿襲了傳統的發展，邦女郎還是需要被彷彿阿湯哥附體的丹尼爾克雷格以完成mission impossible的方式解救：唯一值得慶幸的是，在幾乎是邦德和邦女郎的標配「船戲」中（起碼「俄羅斯之戀」和」皇家賭場「里都有邦德和美女一起乘船的橋段），蕾雅賽杜起碼是站著而非躺著的，看上去還能讓人有點兒她在跟邦德並肩作戰的幻覺。

最後的最後，當她和邦德坐上那輛007標志性的戰斗車，似乎開往幸福的新生活的時候：我認為其實這也是在致敬007系列中的一個經典老梗。

『柒』 007英語語段翻譯

"007," is all the rage of a series of spy films, 007 is not only the name of the film, but also the hero agent James Bond in the code. James Bond is the leading role of a series of novels and movies name. Novel, the author is British author and former MI6 agent Ian Fleming. In the story, Bond is the British intelligence agency mi6 agent, code-named 007, was awarded to remove any obstruction of the power of the action.
Cold but affectionate, his wit and brave, and always in the most distress LLC, also can always encounter a romantic love. Successive 007 is big handsome boy, coupled with the sexy and beautiful bond girl, as well as engaging storyline, let the film until today will still be people to love. In 007, the first 007 film was broadcast on October 5, 007 film series is popular all over the world, until today, after more than 50 years of rability.

『捌』 看英國電影《007》的觀後感

《007：大破量子危機》觀後感

2008年11月5日10：30，參加了晚報組織的《007：大破量子危機》電影評審團，免費觀看了《007：大破量子危機》（35元一張電影票）。
故事講述的是：戀人維斯帕的死，在詹姆斯·邦德（丹尼爾·克雷格）心中縈繞不去。為了窮究真相，揪出幕後黑手，替維斯帕報仇雪恨，邦德和老上級M女士（朱迪·丹奇）聯手審訊險些逃脫的懷特，卻由此得知敵手網路遍及四處，遠比想像中更為復雜陰險！
一張銀行支票、一樁暗殺和鑒證部門的調查，將英國軍情六處的目光引向了加勒比海岸。據情報，某神秘犯罪組織在海地銀行開設帳戶，其中詭異甚至牽涉到軍情六處中的內鬼。已初現大將之風的邦德，被派前往海地。然而，在帶走死者留下的手提箱時，007卻險些陰溝里翻船，成為美女卡米耶（歐嘉·柯瑞蘭寇）的槍下冤魂。不過這次險情並沒有白費，通過卡米耶，邦德認識了一個叫多米尼克·格瑞（馬修·阿馬里克）的神秘商人，案件終於有了些眉目。
輾轉奧地利、義大利和南美，邦德逐漸摸清了對手的底細。格瑞不但是個謹慎冷血的財團巨鱷，還暗地操縱英美情報內部的隱線，串通中東產油國的反叛組織首領，以支持對方奪權作為交換，全面控制該國的土地和自然資源。
為復仇窮追猛打不擇手段的邦德，很快便招致美國中情局不滿，惹起外交風波，軍情六處女特工菲爾德（傑瑪·阿特登）因此受命護送他返英。然而一夜風流之後，菲爾德卻被害慘死，邦德備受打擊。前有罪惡財團壟斷陰謀，後有中情局蓄意擋路，就連上級命令也成了絆腳石，一心復仇的邦德只得和神秘的卡米耶聯手，趕在各方勢力插手之前，用非常手段粉碎格瑞的陰謀，為慘死愛人雪恨……
在一個半小時的影片觀看中，飛刀看到了不亞於成龍影片的打鬥場面，新版007演員不苟言笑的酷樣、壯碩的肌肉，令人屏住呼吸的山路飆車，激烈的海上賽艇，槍林彈雨中的穿梭廝殺，驚心動魄的飛檐走壁，令人目眩的空中追逐，火光漫天、爆炸四起中的格鬥與營救……一幕比一幕精彩、刺激！
影片甫一開場，映入眼簾的就是瘋狂的轎車追逐，在窄小而過往車輛眾多的隧道里，幾輛轎車疾馳著緊緊跟著007的坐駕，並且頻頻開槍射擊。撞車冒出的火花，扣人心弦的超車場面，讓人驚心動魄的撞車場景，動感的沖鋒槍掃射的立體音響。讓觀眾一開始就把心提到嗓子眼兒了，眼球緊緊盯著刺激駭人的追逐槍戰畫面。事後飛刀通過網上查詢得知，為了這場追逐槍戰戲，兩個替身演員在車禍中受傷，其中一名還是重傷。007和對手高空蹦跳、飛檐走壁以及腳手架打鬥的場面絲毫不亞於功夫巨星成龍。跳躍的驚險動作一個接一個，在高樓間急速飛奔。腳手架上的拼打更是緊扣觀眾心弦，危險動作迭出，而且相當逼真，讓觀眾不禁為演員這么賣命的演出擔心。事後，飛刀通過網路查詢得知，007的飾演者丹尼爾-克雷格以5000萬美元（約3.7億人民幣）接下《007：量子危機》等餘下3部007新片，身價暴漲5倍以上，成為「身價飆升最快的邦德」。不過他賺的全是血汗錢，片中親自跳樓、飛車、飆船，每次拍片都弄得全身是傷，目前他還吊著受傷的手臂到處宣傳新片，相當賣命。 為了《皇家賭場》和《量子危機》，克雷格與健身教練連續對掐了三年，這種可怕訓練還將繼續持續下去，據說他為了讓肌肉擴散式飆長，曾一度只吃蛋白質粉，每天器械練習4小時。尼爾-克雷格在拍《皇家賭場》時受傷嚴重，折斷過肋骨，扭傷過腳。這次拍《量子危機》，他先是被一名演員踢到了臉，到醫院縫了8針；然後是拍一場動作戲時從高空落下跌傷了手臂，幸運的是那是全片最後幾場戲，當時他忍痛拍完了所有的戲，然後我到醫院做了手術。
看完了以上介紹，我們知道片中的許多追逐打鬥鏡頭都是真實的，而不是全靠電腦特技製作的。主演連拍3部007系列影片掙了3.7億元人民幣的高額收入，但也是以傷痕累累為代價換來的。
通觀全部影片，《007：大破量子危機》給人更多的真實感，拳拳到肉的格鬥，高空懸垂的廝打，尤其是隧道內外的飆車追逐槍戰,都是驚險而逼真的場面，看的人如臨其境。不愧007系列影片的最新之作。實在是一部富有激情和個性的動作驚悚影片。

『玖』 急求007黃金眼的英文影評

Much had changed for James Bond since Sean Connery first took the role in 1962. The series had taken a turn for the worse in the seventies, when five films were made but zero good ones were. Still, the public was willing to grant Bond limitless amnesty that decade, even as his escapades grew less and less exciting and more and more campy with each new film. The 70s came and went, ushering in the 80s, which kicked off well with 1981's "For Your Eyes Only." However, it went all downhill from there as the public finally stopped tolerating the bad movies and his popularity tanked in favor of superior competition. Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger became mega stars ring that time, and the emergence Indiana Jones was making Bond look ll and decrepit by comparison. Tim Burton's summer sweep of the cinemas with "Batman" in 1989 exacerbated Bond's woes, and when legal disputes arose between the proction company and the studio shortly thereafter, it appeared that Bond had finally died his horrible but well deserved death.

When the legal issues were finally put to rest in 1994, it was announced that another Bond film was going to be made, but not with erstwhile incumbent Timothy Dalton. Pierce Brosnan was given the role after being forced to reject it in the late eighties, and proction began. The success of the film was crucial. If it lacked spark or came across as campy, it was likely that Bond would be finished forever. With the stakes in mind, the Broccoli family (the Bond procers) hired an all-new creative team and set to work re-establishing 007 in a new era.

I knew none of that when I first saw the film in 1999. It was my introction to the world of James Bond, and was a truly an exceptional first handshake. Knowing what I know now, and seeing the Bond films I have seen now, I still find it as worthwhile as I did then, and I am forever thankful that it was made well enough to not only resuscitate Bond, but propel him into the nineties with the momentum of a blazing fastball.

The film opens in the eighties, ironically, with a scene depicting the Bond and Agent 006, real name Alec Trevelyan, being detected inside a Soviet chemical weapons factory. This section also introces the character of Ourumov (Gottfried John), who murders Alec seemingly on a whim.

Nine years later, Bond meets an appealing young lady (Famke Janssen) while driving...make that playfully racing, near Monte Carlo. Suspicious, he follows her to a nearby casino where he finds out that her name is Xenia Onatopp and she carries ties to the Janus crime syndicate in St. Petersburg. He chases Xenia when he suspects an imminent crime, but is not in time to avert her theft of the Tiger--a helicopter that is hardened to all forms of electronic interference.

Back at MI-6 headquarters, the Tiger is spotted via satellite at Russian satellite control facility, and it soon becomes obvious that the copter is merely part of a grander scheme to steal a scary satellite weapon called GoldenEye. What it does can be described with words, but not with as much clarity as seeing it in the movie (there are lapses in the visuals here, but the sight is so impressive that they hardly matter). Bond then departs for St. Petersburg to find the Janus head man (Sean Bean) and stop him from using GoldenEye on a more vulnerable target. Much mystery surrounds the identity of Janus, but it is in the trailer and I suspect most people know it by now.

There are several reasons that "GoldenEye" is the best Bond film made in many, many years. The first is the tone, which has ushered out all of the giddy goofiness of Roger Moore's films and assumed one reminiscent of the earliest Bond films. The sets, the camera work and the dialogue all come across as subtle, subconscious reminders of why Bond became so beloved to begin with.

I always felt there were two major problems with the Bonds of the seventies and eighties. The first is the inane tone (exception: "For Your Eyes Only,"), a point I am driving into the ground. With the same exception, they also featured uniformly unexciting (read it: bad) action plus horrendous acting. There are light moments in "GoldenEye," as there should be, but the correct tone is never compromised.

The only problem is that there is a little too much padding in the middle. The story is well told, although there is a meeting with Bond and Valentin Zukovsky (reprised by Robbie Coltrane in "The World is Not Enough") that has no significance to the advancement of the story. It is unnecessary and causes the film to drag some. After Bond meets Janus, though, prepare for the film to take off, as there will be little rest from there on out.

Just like in the early Bonds, the acting transcends the genre. Pierce Brosnan is the clear focal point, and is mostly successful. He seems too reserved at times, as if he is a little timid at acting his best for fear it might look bad. He does not lack charm, though, because there is something about Pierce that makes him the ultimate ladies man on screen and off.

More successful is Sean Bean as James's opponent. Bean brings cold, subtle intensity to the role that shows off the acting skills that got him cast in "The Fellowship of the Ring." General Ourumov, who is in bed with Janus, provides a second bad guy. Gottfried John portrays him as a demonstrative brute, and his style provides a fine foil to Bean's controlled anger. Alan Cumming plays an evil computer nerd who provides most the light moments I referred to earlier. Fellow X-Man Famke Janssen's character is downright demented, and will not be forgotten easily.

My friends, I have just explained why "GoldenEye" is a most superior Bond film that brought Agent 007 back from the dead and won over a new generation of fans. The best way I can think of to conclude this review is to comment on the film's conclusion. At one point it involves a brawl between Bond and Janus (who is referred to by his real name by that time) that buries just about every other one in the series. While it does quite not take the gold from the fistfight that opens "Thunderball," is does serve as a final reminder that Bond is indeed back, and that he is once again a force best not ignored.

Die Another Day (2002)