HULK VS. JAMES BOND - DAY 4

READ DAY 1 HERE, DAY 2 HERE AND DAY 3 HERE. 

HULK VS. JAMES BOND: STARING INTO THE ID OF A BONER INCARNATE - DAY 4

IT'S THE LAST DAY, EVERYBODY! AND FOR THE LAST DAY WE WILL TACKLE THE 90'S, MR. BROSNAN, INVISIBLE CARS, THE DANIEL CRAIG ERA, NUDITY, THE FUTURE AND SOME OTHER CONCLUSIONY-TYPE THOUGHTS!

17. GOLDENEYE (1995)

HULK CAN HEAR TINA TURNER NOW: "GOLDENEYYYYYYYYYYYE."

CAN YOU HEAR IT? WAIT, WHY IS THAT THE THING THAT MOST STICKS OUT IN HULK'S BRAIN?

ANYCRAP, AFTER SIX YEARS OF AILING HEALTH AND THE AFOREMENTIONED RIGHTS FUTILITY, THE BROCCOLI FAMILY FINALLY GOT THE BOND SHOW BACK ON THE ROAD (CUBBY WAS IN POOR HEALTH, BUT STILL WORKING WITH A DUTY THAT HAS BEEN PASSED ON TO HIS LOVELY DAUGHTER BARBARA AND HER HALF-BROTHER MICHAEL, NOW WORKING WITH BOND UNDER THE UNITED ARTISTS BANNER ). AND SINCE EVERY BOND FILM IS AN OVERREACTION TO THE LAST ONE, AND DOUBLE-SINCE THE NEGATIVE PUBLIC REACTION TO LICENSE TO KILL WAS LEFT TO STEW ON SUCH A LACKLUSTER STATE FOR SO LONG, LET'S JUST SAY THAT THEY REALLY, REALLY, REALLY HAD TO DO A GOOD JOB OF GETTING BACK TO SOME MORE CLASSIC BONDAGE...

WHAT?! NO! THE OTHER KIND!!!

THAT MEANS TOEING THE RIGHT LINE OF TRADITION AND MODERNITY, ALL WHILE MAKING A GREAT MOVIE FIRST AND FOREMOST.

AND IT ALSO MEANS WE GOT A NEW BOND!

WELL, HELLO THERE, HANDSOME.

SO THE THING THAT IS BOTH GOOD (AND EVENTUALLY BAD) ABOUT PIERCE BROSNAN IS THAT HE MADE BOND SEEM EFFORTLESS AGAIN. HE WAS LIKE CONNERY IN THAT REGARD, ONLY HE ALSO HAD A BIT OF MOORE'S DEBONAIRNESS... AND HE WAS PROBABLY WAY MORE FUCKABLE THAN THE LAST COUPLE OF GUYS TOO? HE LOOKS PRETTY DAMN FUCKABLE. BUT HOWEVER YOU CLASSIFY IT (AND MANY DO LIKE THAT), THERE IS NO DENYING THAT BROSNAN JUST OOZED SUAVITY AND CAPABILITY. HE WAS (QUITE LITERALLY) THE KIND OF GUY WHO COULD PILOT A TANK WITHOUT GETTING HIS SUIT RUFFLED.

THIS ACTUALLY MAKES FOR A MORE INTERESTING CINEMATIC EFFECT THAN MOST PEOPLE MIGHT REALIZE, NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT SO READILY MAKES HIM SEEM INHUMAN TO US, BUT BECAUSE IT INADVERTENTLY CREATES A "FEAST OR FAMINE" DICHOTOMY WITH ANY GIVEN BOND MOMENT. TO WIT: WHEN ONE OF BROSNAN'S TYPICAL BOND MOMENTS WORKS, WHETHER IT IS A GOOD ACTION BEAT OR A FUNNY QUIP, HIS EFFORTLESS DEMEANOR HAS THE EFFECT OF CHARMING THE PANTS OFF US. BUT! WHEN A BROSNAN TYPICAL BOND MOMENT IS CONSTRUCTED POORLY? THEN HIS EFFORTLESS NATURE AND CONFIDENCE CAN'T HELP BUT MAKE THE WHOLE EXERCISE FEEL LACKLUSTER OR MAYBE EVEN HOLLOW. THIS IS JUST ONE OF THOSE WEIRD THINGS ABOUT MOVIES. SO MUCH OF THEM DEPEND ON CHEMISTRY, CONTEXT AND UNDERSTANDING OF INTENTION. THE IDEA OF BROSNAN BEING SUCH A PALPABLY COOL AND UNFAZED CAT IS SO CRITICAL TO THE CHARACTER, BUT IT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS WHY YOU REALLY NEED SHADES OF THOSE OTHER QUALITIES TOO (THIS ISN'T TO IMPLY BROSNAN DIDN'T HAVE THAT RANGE, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT HIS MODUS OPERANDI AS BOND). SO THE FACT THAT BROSNAN PLAYED EVERYTHING SUPER COOL INADVERTENTLY MADE HIM, UNLIKE CONNERY AND MOORE, MUCH MORE BEHOLDEN TO THE STRENGTH OF THE MATERIAL SURROUNDING HIM. AND SADLY THAT MEANS THAT HE ULTIMATELY HAD A BIT OF A TOUGH GO AS BOND, GIVEN THAT MOST OF THE MOVIES HE ENDED UP STARRING IN WERE NOT ALL THAT STRONG.

BUT LUCKILY FOR US, GOLDENEYE IS FLIPPIN' GREAT.

FROM THE INCREDIBLE BUNGEE-JUMP OPENING TO THE GONZO ENDING AT THE RADAR INSTALLATION, THIS IS A FILM THAT SEEMED TO SPAN THE COLLECTIVE RANGE TO HIT EVERY MARK IN TERMS OF WHAT BOND CAN BE. AND UNLIKE LICENSE TO KILL, WHICH FEELS HAPHAZARD IN ITS TONAL JUMPS, THIS FILM MOVES US GRACEFULLY IN AND OUT OF THOSE BOND-Y POSSIBILITIES WITH REAL CONFIDENCE. THE MUSIC SHIFTS WITH ACTUAL FORETHOUGHT, FROM SUMPTUOUS ROMANCE TO ELECTRONIC SILLINESS TO CLASSIC BOND NOTES. IT SEEMS LIKE SUCH A WIDE RANGE SHOULDN'T WORK, BUT IT SOOOOO DOES BECAUSE THE FILM HAS A SENSE OF TACT AS FOR WHAT THESE BEATS ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. HECK, EVERY SCENE ALMOST FEELS LIKE ITS OWN MINI-WORLD, BUT IT KNOWS TO TAKE ITS DAMN TIME TO ACCENTUATE ITSELF. EVERY SCENE ALSO BREATHES WONDERFULLY WITHOUT EVER MEANDERING. SURE, IT TAKES 50 MINUTES FOR THE CONCEIT TO EVEN COME TOGETHER (TAKE THAT SCREENPLAY RULE SNOBS!), BUT IT SOOOO DOESN'T MATTER. WE FOLLOW THE MOVIE AND FOLLOW BOND AS THEY MOVE RIGHT ALONG IN ROMANTIC ALLURE. PUT SIMPLY: THERE'S A REAL SENSE OF CRAFT HERE, BEST EXPRESSED THROUGH LITTLE TANGIBLE THINGS LIKE THE FILM'S GREAT USE OF SOUND. SERIOUSLY, THE FILM HAS FOUR INCREDIBLE MOMENTS WHERE THE PRETTY SOUND DROPS RIGHT OUT AND IT PULLS US INTO A CINEMATIC MOMENT BEAUTIFULLY. IT MAKES US FEEL IN AWE OF THE STUNTS AND ALLOWS THE ACTION TO COME TO THE FOREFRONT. THE WHOLE FILM OFFERS US AN INCREDIBLE EXAMPLE OF DEFT DIRECTION BY SHOWING US THAT SEEMINGLY DISPARATE ELEMENTS THAT COULD WORK TO MAKE A MOVIE FEEL OUT OF CONTROL, CAN ACTUALLY FEEL IN CONTROL IF YOU KNOW HOW TO CONVEY THEM WITH PURPOSE.

THERE ARE EVEN A FEW DARK, THOUGHTFUL LITTLE NUGGETS AT THE CORE OF THIS STORY THAT, UNLIKE LICENSE, ARE WORKED IN A TOTALLY FUNCTIONAL WAY TO THE STORY. FOR INSTANCE, EVERYTHING ABOUT SEAN BEAN! HE PLAYS ALEC TREVELYAN AKA 006, FRIEND AND PARTNER TO JAMES BOND. AFTER BEING LEFT FOR DEAD IN THE OPENING MISSION, THE MOVIE NICELY TURNS THIS EVENT INTO A BACK-DOOR ORIGIN STORY FOR THE BAD GUY, COMPLETE WITH A HISTORY LESSON ABOUT THE BRITISH TURNING THEIR BACKS ON THE LIENZ COSSACKS BY SENDING THEM BACK TO RUSSIA TO DIE. IT'S AN INTERESTING MOMENT, ONE THAT REFLECTS A MUCH MORE MODERN POLITICAL SENSIBILITY (AFTER WATCHING ALL THESE FILMS BE AS PATRIOTIC AS CAN BE, HEARING BOND SAY "Not our finest moment" IN REGARDS TO BRITISH HISTORY GENUINELY MEANS SOMETHING). IT'S WHOLLY A REFLECTION AWAY FROM BLACK-AND-WHITE IMPERIALISM OF YESTERYEAR AND INSTEAD CLARIFIES HOW MODERN THREATS COME FROM WITHIN AND ARE BORN FROM PAST MISDEEDS (A MODERN POLITICAL THEME IF THERE EVER WAS ONE).

IN DOING SO, IT REFLECTS A REAL GROWING MOMENT FOR THE BOND FRANCHISE. IT'S TRYING TO SHOW US THAT BEING MORE "ADULT" IN THESE MOVIES ISN'T ABOUT PUTTING IN SHARK BITES AND HEAD EXPLOSIONS, OR EVEN LAYERING A GRITTY TONE TO THE WHOLE THING, BUT INSTEAD RELYING ON THE POWER OF THOUGHTFULNESS AND CLARITY OF ENVIRONMENT. AND REALLY, MODERNITY PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE ENTIRE FILM. IT EVEN PERVADES THE ENTIRE CULTURE AROUND BOND, AS SO MANY COMPATRIOTS CALL HIM A DINOSAUR AND THE LIKE. BUT UNLIKE SO MANY BOND FILMS WHICH ARE SECRETLY JUST TRYING TO PROVE "THE DINOSAUR IS RIGHT!" IN A FIT OF REACTIONARY THOUGHT AND RAGE AT THE MODERN WORLD, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST FILM IN THE SERIES TO REALLY SAY "NO, THE MODERN WORLD IS RIGHT TOO, MR. BOND," AND THUS WE GET THE FULL PICTURE OF WHAT THE FILM IS TRYING TO DO:

THE WORLD HAS CHANGED, BUT BOND HAS NOT.

HE'S STILL THE OPPOSITE OF UGLY, FOR ONE.

AND RATHER THAN MAKE THAT FACT SOME HORRIBLE OBSTACLE OR INCONGRUENT IDEA FOR THE CHARACTER, THE FILM INSTEAD BECOMES ABOUT THE VERY SYMBIOSIS OF THAT GULF BETWEEN THE TWO. SOMETIMES IT'S A LITTLE CLUNKY, BUT IT'S REALLY ONE OF THE FIRST FILMS THAT'S INTERESTED IN EXPLORING THE INHERENT INDULGENCE OF JAMES BOND (OR AT THE LEAST THE FIRST SINCE ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE). AND OUT OF THAT INTEREST THE FILM DEFTLY NAVIGATES THE WATERS OF HOW TO PORTRAY THE CHARACTER. IT'S INTERESTED IN THE THINGS THAT MAKE HIM AWFUL AS WELL AS THE THINGS THAT ARE STILL CLASSICALLY ROMANTIC. AND PLEASE DON'T MISTAKE IT FOR BEING A SUBVERSIVE OR INVERTING TAKE OR ANYTHING, AS ULTIMATELY IT SEEKS TO UPHOLD BOND IN THE NAME OF HIS GOOD ASPECTS, BUT IT IS STILL COMMENDABLE THROUGH AND THROUGH.

OUTSIDE OF APPRAISING THE FILM FOR ITS IDEOLOGY ALONE, THERE'S JUST SOMETHING DOWNRIGHT FUNCTIONAL ABOUT ALL THE FILM'S WEIRD DECISIONS TOO. LIKE THE BEST THING ABOUT THE SEAN BEAN CHARACTER (ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT HE'S FUCKING GREAT IN THIS) IS THAT IT INHERENTLY MAKES FOR A BETTER STORY WITH ARC AND FUNCTION INSTEAD OF THE SAME OL' EXTERNAL CONFLICT OF "GENERIC MADMAN WITH A THREAT!" AND IF WE'RE GOING TO PLAY WITH HULK'S ONGOING THEORY OF HOW THE BEST BOND FILMS ARE ROMANCES, IT WOULD BE HARD TO ARGUE THAT SEAN BEAN DOESN'T MAKE FOR ONE HELL OF A LOVER SCORNED (INSERT BROMANCES JOKE OR WHATEVER). AFTER ALL, THE CONCEPT OF ROMANCE GOES FAR BEYOND THE STANDARD MALE-FEMALE HETERO RELATIONSHIP IN THESE FILMS AND INTO SOMETHING SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT TO MALE CULTURE: LOYALTY. HISTORY. DEBT. HONOR. THESE ARE THE EMOTIONAL CURRENCY OF DISTANT MEN. SO WE HAD TWO AGENTS. PARTNERS AND FRIENDS. AND WHAT GOES WRONG HERE PROVIDES GREAT FUEL FOR A SOLID STORY. THIS IS BASIC STORYTELLING STUFF, FOLKS AND IT'S REMARKABLE HOW OFTEN THE BOND FILMS CHOOSE TO GO WITHOUT IT. IT'S AMAZING HOW OFTEN THEY EMBRACE THE SAME OLD HOLLOW CONVENTIONS WITHOUT REALIZING WHAT MAKES THE DRAMA ACTUALLY WORK. WHAT JUST MAKES IT KIND OF FUNNY IS THAT GOLDENEYE IS THE SUCCESSFUL AMALGAMATION OF WHAT LICENSE TO KILL ACTUALLY TRIED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE: IT SUCCESSFULLY MIXED BOND WITH A SENSE OF MODERNITY AND SERIOUSNESS, ONLY IT DID SO BY OPTING FOR INTELLIGENCE, MEANING AND SUBTEXT OVER GRIT, POSTURING AND TEXTURE. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THEY WERE STILL ABLE TO MAKE A SERIOUS BOND FILM WHILE STILL MAINTAINING THE CRITICAL SENSE OF FUN THAT THESE MOVIES NEED, TOO.

SPEAKING OF FUN: FAMKE JANSSEN.

IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM RECENTLY SHE'S A FUCKING MARVEL. EVERY DECISION ABOUT THIS IS FUCKING BATSHIT PERFECT. AGAIN, MAIBAUM SAID BOND WORKS WHEN YOU PLAY THE JOKE STRAIGHT. AND XENIA ONATOPP IS PLAYING THE JOKE-IEST JOKE AS STRAIGHTLY STRAIGHT AS POSSIBLE. HER CHARACTER'S LIKE SOME SORT OF HELLBENT CROSS OF FIONA VULPE WITH SOMETHING OUT OF A RUSS MEYER MOVIE. NOT ONLY IS SHE COMPLETELY INSANE, BUT HER CHARACTER LITERALLY GETS OFF ON MURDER, GUNPLAY AND PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. SHE'S THAT FAMILIAR BOND TROPE OF THE PRAYING MANTIS FIGURE (WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A BAD TROPE AND STUFF WHEN HANDLED WRONG), BUT SHE SOOOOO PUSHES THE ENVELOPE THAT YOU CAN'T HELP BUT GO ALONG WITH IT AND SEE THE SEAMS IN THE EXACT RIGHT WAY. IT'S THE PERFECT KIND OF DELIGHTFUL INSANITY THAT LETS YOU KNOW THE FILMMAKERS TOTALLY GET IT AND THAT THIS IS ACTUAL SATIRE. IT'S A KNOWING WINK WITHOUT ACTUALLY WINKING CINEMATICALLY LIKE HAMILTON DID (SHE'S LIKE THE FUCKING MACHINE SEQUENCE, WRIT REAL). AND JANSSEN IS TRULY INCREDIBLE IN THE FILM... WAIT, KNOW WHAT? EVERY TIME HULK SEES JANSSEN IN SOMETHING HULK IS ALWAYS TAKEN ABACK BY HOW GOOD SHE IS AND HER SURPRISING RANGE, AND PERHAPS HULK'S SURPRISE JUST FEEDS THAT NOTION, BUT SHE NEVER REALLY IS GIVEN CREDIT FOR THAT. EITHER WAY, XENIA ONATOPP IS PROBABLY HULK'S FAVORITE BOND GIRL VILLAIN, A PERFECT ENCAPSULATION OF THE LURID INSANITY THESE FILMS CAN ACHIEVE WHILE STILL MAKING A FUNCTIONAL MOVIE AROUND THEM.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST ONATOPP THAT CLUES US INTO THE FILM'S AWARENESS. NOTICE HOW MUCH TIME THE MOVIE SPENDS WITH NATALYA SIMONOVA (PLAYED BY IZABELLA SCORUPCO) AND HOW MUCH OF HER PRESENCE IS THE KEY TO MAKING THE FILM WORK. EVEN THE FACT THAT WE ARE INTRODUCED TO HER OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF BOND! (A HUGE RARITY IN THESE FILMS). BUT IT'S CLEAR: SHE HAS HER OWN AGENCY AND WORLD. HER VERY SURVIVAL PROPAGATES THE PLOT, HER KNOW-HOW IS INTEGRAL TO THE CENTRAL MISSION, AND ULTIMATELY THEY ARE GOING AFTER THE ENDGAME TOGETHER, AS A TEAM. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO USE MUCH OF OUR NOW-FAMILIAR SLIDING SCALE: NATALYA IS SMART, CAPABLE AND EVEN KIND OF NORMAL (FOR THESE MOVIES). BUT IT ALL FEEDS DIRECTLY BACK INTO THE COMMENTARY OF UNDERSTANDING HOW BOND MUST FIT INTO THE MODERN WORLD AND THAT MEANS BEING FOILED BY THE KINDS OF FEMALE CO-STARS THAT ACTUALLY HELP MAKE HIM A BETTER PERSON. IT'S THE MONEYPENNY THEORY ALL OVER AGAIN (THOUGH WE'LL GET TO THE BROSNAN ERA'S TREATMENT OF THAT PARTICULAR CHARACTER LATER).

THE RECENT RE-WATCH OF GOLDENEYE ALSO REVEALS SOME WEIRDLY FUN DETAILS OF DATED SENSIBILITIES. IT'S SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT MID-90'S ERA WHEN HOLLYWOOD THOUGHT COMPUTERS WERE MAGIC (COUGH COUGH THE NET). IT BRINGS UP SEXUAL HARASSMENT AS IF IT WERE SOME HOT NEW TOPIC ON THE BLOCK (WHICH IN MOVIE TERMS, HULK SUPPOSES IT WAS). THERE'S ALSO SOME NEAT STUFF WHERE THEY DID AWAY WITH THE NOW-STAID FELIX CHARACTER (OR PERHAPS JUST WEREN'T SURE WHAT TO DO GIVEN THAT HE GOT EATEN BY SHARKS IN THE LAST ONE) AND INSTEAD EMBRACED JACK WADE, A SURLY AMERICAN PLAYED BY THE GREAT JOE DON BAKER (ANOTHER BOND DOUBLE CASTING! HE WAS THE BAD GUY IN DAYLIGHTS! JUST TWO MOVIES AGO! ALSO, WHY DID HE NOT WORK MORE THE LAST DECADE? HE'S ALWAYS GOLD). BUT THE WHOLE CAST OF THIS FILM IS DOWNRIGHT SPECTACULAR. THERE'S A GREAT BIT WITH ROBBIE COLTRANE AS AN ARMS DEALER. THERE'S ALSO ALAN CUMMING, WHO IS PURE SCENERY-CHEWING SMARM AS A CARTOONY RUSSIAN PROGRAMMER. EVEN Q'S SCENE OF GADGETRY DISPLAY PLAYS LIKE GANGBUSTERS ("That's my lunch!"). AND MOST OF ALL? DAME JUDI DENCH COMES TO THE TABLE, GUNS BLAZING (AND ENSURING SHE WOULD BE THE ONE CONSTANT OF BOND FILMS GOING FORWARD). AND GOING BACK TO THE EARLIER TEXT, HER CONFRONTATION OF THE BULLSHIT PSYCHO-SEXUALITY OF JAMES BOND IS SO CRITICAL TO GIVING THE FILM A BASE OF UNDERSTANDING. THERE IS JUST SO MUCH GOOD STUFF IN HERE. SO MUCH IN FACT THAT IT MEANS ONLY ONE THING...

THE REAL STAR OF THIS FILM IS MARTIN CAMPBELL.

IT FEELS SILLY TO EVEN GET INTO IT NOW, BUT HE IS SUCH A GOOD MATCH FOR THE SERIES THAT HE ENDS UP SAVING THE BOND FILMS FROM RUIN TWICE. LOOK AT EVERY COMMENT HULK JUST MADE AND HOW MUCH OF THEM HAVE TO DO WITH TONE, PERFORMANCE AND DEFT EXECUTION. HE DIDN'T KNOW JUST HOW TO MAKE A BOND MOVIE, HE KNEW WHY. AND SO FOR NOW, THERE IS NO DOUBTING THAT HE WOULD HAVE LEFT HIS MARK ON THE LEGACY OF THE BOND SERIES WITH THIS ENTRY ALONE, NEVER MIND WHAT IS TO COME...

LIKE THE FAMILY PORTRAITS!!!

WITH THAT LEGACY IS ONE THING THAT HULK JUST HAS TO MENTION IN TERMS OF THE FILM'S CULTURAL IMPACT: THE GOLDENEYE VIDEO GAME FOR NINTENDO 64 IS ONE OF THE BEST AND MOST IMPORTANT GAMES EVER MADE.

NOTE: THIS WAS ONCE REVOLUTIONARY.

REALLY, THAT STATEMENT IS NOT HYPERBOLE. NOT ONLY DID IT PERFECT THE FIRST PERSON SHOOTER WITH MISSION-BASED SET-UPS, IMBUING IT WITH STORY AND OBJECTIVE-BASED MISSION TACTICS OUTSIDE OF THE NORMAL "SHOOT EVERYONE" MANTRA AND KEYCARD-FETCHING MECHANICS, BUT IT BASICALLY HELPED CREATE THE SOCIAL FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. REALLY. THE IDEA OF HAVING FOUR PEOPLE PLAYING AT ONCE WAS AWE-INSPIRING AND DICTATED EVERYTHING ABOUT HOW FRIENDS PLAYED GAMES TOGETHER. EVERYTHING ABOUT IT WAS JUST LIGHT-YEARS AHEAD OF THE COMPETITION. AND BECAUSE OF THIS HULK SPENT, QUITE LITERALLY, YEARS PLAYING THAT GAME. IN THE PROCESS HULK GOT VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY GOOD AT IT. SERIOUSLY. PEOPLE WOULD CHALLENGE HULK REGULARLY, BEING THE BEST OF THEIR GROUP OF FRIENDS AND HULK WOULD REGULARLY ANNIHILATE THEM. 3 ON 1. KEEP IN MIND THIS WAS BEFORE THE INTERNET ERA AND THERE WAS NO WAY TO TELL WHERE HULK FIT IN THE LARGER SCHEME OF THINGS, BUT HULK WAS TRULY OUTSTANDING... BUT WHATEVER. THE SAD POINT OF ALL OF THIS IS THAT HULK WILL NEVER BE AS GOOD AT ANYTHING AS HULK WAS AT GOLDENEYE.

SAD POINT IS SAD.

BUT GOLDENEYE THE MOVIE IS GREAT!

MOVING ON!

18. TOMORROW NEVER DIES (1997)

A FEW GIVENS, IF HULK MAY... 1. WHILE HULK MAY DESCRIBE MOVIES IN EITHER TECHNICAL OR SPECIFIC TERMS, MOVIES STILL KIND OF HAVE AN ETHEREAL ENERGY AROUND THEM; A LIFE TO THEM, IF YOU WILL. AND WHILE YOU NEED THE TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING OF CRAFT TO TRANSLATE THAT SPIRITED INTENTION ON SCREEN, WE OFTEN UNDERRATE HOW CRITICAL THAT SPIRIT IS TO THE FILM ITSELF, FOR IT REALLY ENDS UP BEING THE VERY THING THAT FOSTERS A HUMAN CONNECTION WITH THE AUDIENCE. WHICH IS TO REALIZE THAT MOST OF US CONNECT TO MOVIES THE WAY WE CONNECT TO OTHER HUMANS. WE LIKE THEIR PERSONALITY. WE LIKE THEIR STYLE. WE LIKE THEIR HONESTY. WE LIKE THEIR SENSE OF HUMOR. WE LIKE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. AND JUST LIKE PEOPLE, WE WILL OFTEN OVERLOOK THEIR FAULTS IN THE NAME OF EMBRACING THE THINGS WE LOVE ABOUT THEM. AS A RESULT, HULK MAKES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ALL THE TIME: "FILMS HAVE SOULS." THEY REALLY DO. AND FOR ALL THE RELATIVE SHORTCOMINGS A FILM CAN HAVE, THE NEED TO EXHIBIT "A SOUL" IS OFTEN THE MOST CRITICAL.

2. AT SOME POINT IN THE PROCESS OF FINDING A DIRECTOR FOR THIS FILM, EVERYONE WAS PRESUMABLY SITTING AROUND BRAINSTORMING AND SOMEONE SAID THE WORDS: "HEY, HOW ABOUT THE GUY WHO DID STOP OR MY MOM WILL SHOOT!" ... AND THEN, SOMEHOW THROUGH THE BIZARRE PROCESS THAT IS MOVIE DEVELOPMENT, THAT GUY GOT THE JOB.

THOUGH THAT'S PROBABLY NOT HOW IT WENT.

AND IT ISN'T EVEN TO SAY THAT SOMEONE MAKING A BAD MOVIE INSTANTLY MEANS THEY CAN'T EVER MAKE A GOOD ONE. NO, THAT WOULD BE A SILLY, NARROW THING TO IMPLY. NO, ALL HULK REALLY WANTS TO NOTE HERE IS THAT THIS MARKS A DECIDED SHIFT IN HOW BOND FILMS FOUND THEIR DIRECTORS. WHEN THE SERIES WAS UNDER THE WATCHFUL EYE OF ALBERT BROCCOLI, THE BOND DIRECTORS WERE OFTEN SELECTED FROM WITHIN THE RANKS AS PART OF THE FAMILY BUSINESS. SO WHAT STARTED WITH TERENCE YOUNG ALL THOSE YEARS AGO THEN BRANCHED OUTWARD. SECOND UNIT DIRECTORS WERE PROMOTED TO DIRECTOR AND GUYS LIKE JOHN GLEN WERE PROMOTED FROM EDITOR. SURE, THIS PRACTICE WAS MORE COMMONPLACE FOR HOLLYWOOD MOVIES BACK IN THE DAY, AS IT WAS MUCH BEFORE THE PUBLIC STARTED CARING ABOUT HYPE AND PRE-PRODUCTION DECISIONS AND ALL THAT STUFF. BUT AFTER THE PASSING OF ALBERT AND THE ASSIMILATION OF EON PRODUCTIONS INTO UNITED ARTISTS, THE FAMILY BUSINESS MANTRA PRETTY MUCH WENT OUT THE WINDOW (EXCEPT FOR A FEW KEY PLAYERS). IT WAS LIKELY CORPORATE PRESSURE FROM THE NEW OWNERS. OR MAYBE IT WAS JUST CHANGING TIMES. MAYBE IT WAS THE  CREATIVE FAILURE OF LICENSE TO KILL THAT GAVE THEM THE IMPETUS TO NOW DO THINGS "THE STUDIO WAY." OR MAYBE, EMBOLDENED BY CAMPBELL'S DEFT DIRECTION AND OUTSIDER STATUS (AS HE WAS FROM NEW ZEALAND, NOT THE U.K.), THEY FELT LIKE THEY WERE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND COULD CONTINUE TO BRANCH OUTWARD. WELL, WHATEVER IT WAS THAT MADE THEM THINK SPOTTISWOODE WAS THE GUY TO HANDLE THIS NEW MOVIE - MAYBE THEY LIKED SHOOT TO KILL (GOOD!), MAYBE THEY LIKED TURNER & HOOCH (BAD!) - IT ULTIMATELY WASN'T THE RIGHT DECISION.

FOR AS HULK HAS HOPEFULLY PROVEN SO FAR, THE SUCCESS OF A BOND ENTRY IS LARGELY DEPENDENT ON THE BALANCING OF SEEMINGLY DISPARATE ELEMENTS. AND AS HULK HAS ALSO HOPEFULLY PROVEN, DIRECTORS MATTER MORE IN ACHIEVING TONAL BALANCE THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE BOND FILMMAKING PROCESS.

WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO THE SUBJECT OF TEXTURE.

HULK KNOWS HULK KEEPS USING THAT WORD AGAIN AND AGAIN, BUT THAT'S JUST BECAUSE IT IS A REALLY GOOD WORD THAT HELPS US TAP INTO A LARGER EXPLANATION OF THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORM AND FUNCTION IN STORYTELLING (A DIFFERENCE WHICH MIGHT MAKE SENSE IN THEORY, BUT IS HARDER TO IDENTIFY IN PRACTICE). SO LET'S TRY TO MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE: WHEN MOST PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE "FEELING" OF A MOVIE, THEY ARE OFTEN TALKING ABOUT THAT THING WE CALL "TONE." NOW, THERE ARE TECHNICALLY A LOT OF THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO TONE, BUT THE POPULAR AGREEMENT AS TO WHAT IS THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR WOULD BE THE STYLE - I.E. AESTHETICS OF THE FILM. THAT WOULD BE THE LOOK OF THE THING, OR THE EVOCATIVE NATURE OF THE SOUND, OR EVEN THE RHYTHM AND PACE. THESE ARE THE PALPABLE, VISCERAL QUALITIES THAT LAUNCH RIGHT OFF A SCREEN AND INSTRUCT OUR BODIES ON HOW TO FEEL ABOUT WHAT WE ARE SEEING, OFTEN WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. AND TONE IS SUCH A VASTLY POWERFUL THING THAT, WHEN HANDLED PROFESSIONALLY, IT CAN READILY CONTROL OUR EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE.

NOW, TO TALK ABOUT TONE IN THE CONTEXT OF BOND, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE "FEELING" OF THE FILMS IN A DESCRIPTIVE WAY. FOR INSTANCE, TERENCE YOUNG'S FILMS HAVE A SWEATY, PALPABLE SEXUALITY AND THIS GREAT 60'S COLOR PALATE. THERE'S EVEN A REAL EYE-LEVEL QUALITY TO THE SHOTS, BRINGING US INTO INTIMATE SPACES AND BEHIND VEILED CURTAINS. BUT LATER ON WHEN WE GOT TO LEWIS GILBERT / GUY HAMILTON PRODUCTIONS, THE COMPOSITIONS WERE BROADER, MORE FULL OF A PLASTICITY AND BRIGHTLY-LIT, HIGH-KEY STYLES. SURE, THERE WAS NOW SOME BIG DEPTH AND SCALE TO ENVIRONMENTS, BUT RARELY WAS THERE ATMOSPHERE. THUS, OUR CHARACTERS COULDN'T HELP BUT FEEL LIKE ANIMATE DOLLS IN A DIORAMA PLAY SET.

NOW, EVEN THOUGH BOTH OF THESE TONES ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE FEELING OF THEIR RESPECTIVE MOVIE, AND EVEN THOUGH THEY OUTRIGHT CONTRIBUTE TO THE EXECUTION OF EACH MOVIE, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE UNDERSTAND IT IS STILL NOT THE CRUX FOR WHICH A MOVIE'S REAL SUCCESS IS MADE. TONE IS MERELY ONE ASPECT OF THE FINAL EXPRESSION. NO, WHAT MAKES A MOVIE TRULY FUNCTIONAL ARE THE SAME THINGS THAT HULK'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS WHOLE TIME: THINGS LIKE THE STORY ITSELF. THINGS LIKE ACTUALLY BELIEVING IN THE CONVERSATION OF TWO CHARACTERS. HAVING CLEAR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. VALUING CHARACTER CONSISTENCY. UNDERSTANDING CHARACTER PSYCHOLOGY. AND THEN PUTTING ALL THOSE VALUES INTO DRAMATIC AND CONFLICTING SITUATIONS THAT WE UNDERSTAND, BOTH LOGICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY. REALLY, ALL THIS STUFF IS JUST A MATTER OF SUBSTANCE, WHICH IS QUITE DIFFERENT. CONSIDER THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH HULK TALKED ABOUT THE TONE OF THOSE FIRST TWO GROUPS OF DIRECTORS, A SLIGHT LACK OF SUBSTANCE CAN MAKE THUNDERBALL FALL A LITTLE FLAT DESPITE THE EVEN-HANDED CONTROL. OR, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT'S WHY THE SUDDEN EMOTIONAL TURN OF JAWS IN A DUMB, CARTOONY MOVIE LIKE MOONRAKER CAN STILL KIND OF WORK IF IT HAS ENOUGH SUBSTANCE UNDERNEATH IT.

PICTURED: NOT THE SUBSTANCE PART.

IF HULK WERE TO PUT IT INTO A BROAD METAPHOR, TONE IS LIKE CLOTHING: CERTAINLY IMPORTANT, A HUGE A SIGNIFIER OF YOUR INTENTIONS, TOTALLY KEEPS YOU FROM BEING NAKED... BUT IT'S NOT WHO YOU ARE.

BUT THE REAL PROBLEM FOR AUDIENCES IS THAT TONE, LIKE CLOTHING, IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN SO READILY ATTUNE TO. IT'S THE THING THEY CAN IMMEDIATELY EXPERIENCE ON THE SURFACE. AND THEY, LIKE, KNOW HOW THEY'RE FEELING, DAMMIT! AND BECAUSE OF THAT CERTAINTY WE CAN'T HELP BUT MISS THE IMPORTANT PARTICULARS OF SUBSTANCE ALL THE DAMN TIME. IT'S JUST THE LESS OBVIOUS LANGUAGE AT PLAY IN MOVIES. SO REALLY, IT'S LIKE READING HUMANS WITHOUT A PSYCH DEGREE. BUT MUCH LIKE THE NATURE OF PSYCHOLOGY IMPLIES, HULK ARGUES THAT THIS WHOLE "SUBSTANCE" THING IS STILL THE THING THAT IS REALLY AFFECTING US. DRESS UP A FUN MOVIE IN A LIGHT AND FLUFFY TONE ALL YOU LIKE, BUT IT WILL ULTIMATELY GO IN ONE EAR AND OUT THE OTHER. OR DRESS IT WITH ALL THE ROMANCE, GRIT, YELLING OR HEARTACHE YOU LIKE, BUT IF IT'S NOT BUILT ON GENUINE SUBSTANCE AND UNDERSTANDABLE MEANING TO THE CHARACTERS / STORY, THEN YOU ARE GOING TO TUNE OUT MORE OF THE AUDIENCE THAN YOU CARE TO (LEAVING ONLY THE PROJECTORS TO LOVE IT). HULK REALIZES WE COULD SIT HERE AND DEBATE THE FINER POINTS AND WHICH MOVIES USE EXCELLENT TONAL CONTROL AS A MASK FOR LACKING CONTENT (HULK NOMINATES AMERICAN HUSTLE, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN FILMS OR MAN OF STEEL), OR EVEN IF THAT'S SUCH A TERRIBLE THING, AS BLINDLY ENJOYING A MOVIE IS NOT AN EVIL INFRACTION IN AND OF ITSELF, OBVIOUSLY. BUT THE CORE PRINCIPAL OF THIS SUBSTANCE / TONE STUFF IS SOMETHING HULK BELIEVES IS TOO CRITICAL TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF NOT JUST HOW WE CONSUME MOVIES, BUT HOW WE MAKE THEM TOO.

THAT'S BECAUSE FILMMAKERS HAVE BEEN REALLY GOOD AT ACHIEVING CONTROL OF TONE FOR MANY YEARS NOW. IT'S CERTAINLY THE EASIER OF THE TWO... THOUGH, THAT'S NOT TO IMPLY THAT IT IS EASY BY ANY MEANS. IT TAKES A WHOLE TEAM OF PEOPLE BEING ABSOLUTELY LOCKED INTO THEIR CRAFT (WITH A GOOD DOSE OF LUCK) TO BE IN CONTROL OF TONE. BUT NAILING THE INS-AND-OUTS OF PURPOSEFUL STORY COHESION? HULK ARGUES THAT IS FAR MORE DIFFICULT, AND IT'S ALSO THE REASON MOST MOVIES FAIL TO REACH US IN THE LONG RUN (TO WIT: THE LIST OF GOOD SCRIPTS, POORLY-EXECUTED IS A SHORT ONE). BUT HULK ISN'T REALLY INTERESTED IN THE BLAME GAME. THE POINT OF ALL OF THIS IS THAT WHEN TONE IS ALIGNED IN COMMON WITH THE PURPOSE OF SUBSTANCE, THE TEXTURE BECOMES AN EXPRESSION OF THOSE FEELINGS INSTEAD OF A ROADBLOCK OR DISTRACTION. WHEN IT COMES TOGETHER, WE GET THE BEST MOVIES HOLLYWOOD HAS  TO OFFER AND MOST OF THE MOVIES YOU TRULY LOVE. FOR IT'S NOT ONLY WHAT MAKES MOVIES "WORK" FOR US, BUT WHAT MAKES THEM LAST IN OUR HEARTS AND BRAINS.

OH GOD OH GOD OH-

AND SO WHILE WE COULD TALK ABOUT THE FINER POINTS OF FORM AND TEXTURE, HULK WANTS US TO CONCEDE THAT EVERYTHING THAT TRULY MATTERS, EVERYTHING THAT SPEAKS TO FILMS AS HAVING A "SOUL," IS STILL ROOTED IN FUNCTION. FOR IT'S WHAT GIVES US A REASON TO BELIEVE IN THE THING WE ARE BEING MADE TO FEEL.

AND GIVEN THAT HULK HAS GONE ON AT LENGTH ABOUT ALL THIS FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW YOU MAY EXPECT HULK TO OBVIOUSLY ARGUE THAT TOMORROW NEVER DIES IS ONE OF THOSE CASES OF A FILM BEING ALL FORM, NO FUNCTION...

BUT HONESTLY, IT KIND OF SUCKS AT BOTH.

THE KEY MATTER OF IMPORTANCE, HOWEVER, IS THAT NOW WE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO SUSS OUT WHICH PROBLEM IS DUE TO WHAT.

* * *

FUN FACT: ROBERT ELSWIT IS ONE OF HULK'S CINEMATOGRAPHY HEROES.

THIS GUY

HE MAY NOT HAVE THE EASILY IDENTIFIABLE STYLE OF MASTERS LIKE GORDON WILLIS, ROBERT RICHARDSON, JOHN TOLL OR CONRAD HALL. HE'S EVEN LESS IDENTIFIABLE ON SIGHT THAN A GREAT WITH SOME DEXTERITY LIKE ROGER DEAKINS. BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MAKES ELSWIT SO WONDERFUL: HE'S A TRUE CHAMELEON. HE'S ALL ABOUT FUNCTION AND FITTING IN WITH THE CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT ITSELF. AND LOOKING THROUGH HIS FILMOGRAPHY YOU SEE A GUY WHO COULD AUGMENT HIS M.O. TO FIT WHATEVER KIND OF FILM HE WAS WORKING ON AT THE TIME. AND IN TURN, MAKING IT THE BEST (I.E. MOST APPROPRIATE) THAT IT COULD BE.

HE ALSO SHOT TOMORROW NEVER DIES... WHICH MANIFESTED IN AN INTERESTING RESULT.

BY ALL TASTEFUL ACCOUNTS, THE FILM LOOKS GREAT. IT HAS CLASSIC COMPOSITIONS. THE IMAGE IS ALWAYS CLEAN, BUT WITH JUST A NICE TOUCH OF GRAIN TO REMOVE ANY OVERT FEELINGS OF SURFACE PLASTICITY. THERE'S DEXTERITY TO THE COLOR DEPENDING ON THE SCENE - I.E. SEX SCENES ARE SHOT ROMANTICALLY, BATHED IN A SUMPTUOUS YELLOW LIGHT (WITHOUT BEING OVERBEARING) WHEREAS VILLAINOUS CARICATURES ARE MUTED AGAINST DARKNESS WITH GORGEOUS, CLEAN PURPLES AND BLUES. AND EVERY TIME YOU ARE WATCHING THE SHOTS UNFOLD FROM A CLEARLY STORY-BOARDED SEQUENCE IT ALL CUTS TOGETHER BEAUTIFULLY WITH SUCH A FUNCTION. WHICH ALL SERVES TO THE ARGUMENT THAT THE FORM OF THIS FILM IS SPOT ON... BUT THEN YOU ALSO WATCH THE WAY THE MOVIE COMES TOGETHER FROM COVERAGE AND IT CAN'T HELP BUT KEEP FEELING CLUNKY. WHICH HELPS REVEAL A GREAT POINT THAT NO MATTER HOW MUCH A GREAT CRAFTSMAN LIKE ELSWIT CAN BRING TO A FILM'S AESTHETIC... HE'S STILL AT THE MERCY OF THE DIRECTOR.

AND IT MAKES THINGS REALLY DIFFICULT WHEN YOUR DIRECTOR IS TONE-DEAF.

LET'S START WITH A DIRECTOR'S PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY: THE PERFORMANCES, WHEREIN THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THIS FILM IS WHAT WE CALL A LACK OF MOMENTARY INTENT. FOR INSTANCE, YOU WATCH A SCENE AND JONATHAN PRYCE'S VILLAIN SHOULD BE COMING OFF AS ALTERNATELY FUNNY AND MALEVOLENT, DEPENDING ON THE MOMENT OR LINE ON THE PAGE. BUT INSTEAD, EVERYTHING IS DELIVERED WITH ONE SETTING, RESULTING IN THIS WEIRD, SINGULAR AND MINCING TONE HE APPLIES TO ALL DIALOGUE, WHICH IN TURN MAKES HIM INEFFECTUAL FOR ALL OF IT. AND TERI HATCHER (WHO WAS ACTUALLY GOOD IN LOIS AND CLARK AND A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER STUFF IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER) IS SUPPOSED TO COME OFF AS A BIG-TIME SCORNED EX WITH A HINT OF ALLURE STILL UNDERNEATH, BUT SHE INSTEAD HER WHOLE BEING PUT OFF AND DESPONDENT ACT IS IN EVERY SINGLE SCENE AND THUS RENDERS HER INTO SOMETHING COMPLETELY WOODEN. NOW, IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS IN TERMS OF RESPONSIBILITY, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HAS THIS IDEA THAT ACTORS JUST MAKE UP THE MOVIE AS THEY GO ALONG AND ARE THUS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING. BUT ANYTIME YOU SEE SUCH CLEAR MISTAKES OF INTENTION FROM TALENTED PEOPLE (WHO HAVE ALREADY PROVEN THEY CAN DO THE EXACT THING YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SEEING), THEN HULK BELIEVES THE RESPONSIBILITY IS SOMETHING THAT FALLS BACK ON A DIRECTOR (EITHER DUE TO AN EDITING CHOICE OF TAKES, OR BY NOT MAKING THE INTENTION CLEAR TO AN ACTOR IN THE FIRST). YOU COULD THEN SUPPOSE THE ACTOR JUST WASN'T ABLE TO BRING IT TO SET, BUT AGAIN, PRYCE PULLED OFF THIS EXACT KIND OF THING ALL THE TIME AND HATCHER HAS DONE IT HER ENTIRE TV CAREER. SO WHAT HAPPENED? SUDDENLY, THEY ARE PLOPPED INTO THIS FILM AND CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE? IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING CHARACTERIZED WITH A BROAD, ONE-SIZE FITS ALL MENTALITY OF THE FILM ITSELF WHICH, WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IT, IS THE EXACT SAME THING WE SAW FROM MOST OF GUY HAMILTON. AND IN THAT CONTEXT, PRYCE BECOMES A CARTOON. HATCHER BECOMES AN ICE QUEEN. AND THE FILM LETS GO OF ANY HOPE AT REVEALING SUBSTANCE.

THIS IS ALL PART OF THE "TELLING IT STRAIGHT" IDEOLOGY THAT MAIBAUM PROFESSED WAS THE KEY TO THE SERIES. BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE AN ACTOR ACT AS IF EVERYTHING IS A JOKE, THEN AN AUDIENCE WILL EMOTIONALLY FEEL LIKE EVERYTHING IS A JOKE. BUT IF AN ACTOR IS PLAYING A SCARY MOMENT AS SCARY, OR A NEW MOMENT AS A SURPRISE (AND PULLS IT OFF), THEN AN AUDIENCE WILL BE IN A POSITION TO RESPOND. COUPLE THIS WITH UNDERSTANDABLE REASONS FOR ALL THIS BEHAVIOR BASED ON THEIR PAST ACTIONS AND YOU GOT YOURSELF SOME CINEMA!

BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE THING. THE ENTIRE MOVIE ISN'T WORKING ON AN OPERATIONAL LEVEL. THE PERFORMANCES FALL FLAT. THE MOTIVATIONS RING HOLLOW. THE JOKES PLAY TOO BROAD. THE AESTHETIC AND INTENTION IS ALWAYS AT WAR WITH ITSELF. ACTION SCENES JUST SEEM TO START WITH NO BUILD UP AND END WITH NO CRESCENDO. THERE SEEMS TO BE NO UNDERSTANDING OF DRAMA AT LARGE, FOR THE PACING AND PROPULSION BELIE THE MORE EGREGIOUS PROBLEM THAT THE MOVIE ZIPS AROUND WITHOUT ANY IMPORT. IT'S ALL HURRIED, BUT THERE'S ZERO ACTUAL URGENCY. AGAIN, ELSWIT IS SHOOTING US SOMETHING COHERENT, BUT THE MOVIE ITSELF LACKS THE SAME CLARITY.

WHICH SUCKS BECAUSE THERE SO MANY GREAT TANGIBLE DETAILS IN THE FILM'S FAVOR. LIKE RICKY JAY, OR THE SURPRISINGLY RACY SEX SCENE WITH THE DANISH PROFESSOR (RACY FOR BOND, THAT IS) THAT WORKS PRETTY WELL. BUT THERE'S OTHER STUFF TOO...

LIKE THE FACT THAT MICHELLE YEOH IS FUCKING IN IT.

SHE'S FUCKING IN IT!

NOW, IN CASE YOU ARE NOT AWARE, HULK ADORES MICHELLE YEOH. SHE'S AMAZING AND AWESOME AND BADASS AND ZOMG HAVE YOU SEEN SUPERCOP? AKA POLICE STORY 3? HULK'S SEEN IT A THOUSAND TIMES. ANYWAY, SHE WAS STARTING TO RISE IN AMERICAN POPULARITY SO OF COURSE THAT MEANS SHE GOT PLOPPED RIGHT INTO A BOND MOVIE. AND "PLOPPED" IS AN APT DESCRIPTION BECAUSE SO OFTEN SHE HAS NOTHING TO DO EXCEPT KICK THINGS/PEOPLE FOR NO REASON. HER ENGLISH WASN'T AS STRONG AS IT IS NOW SO YOU SENSE THE HESITANCY, BUT IT'S LIKE THEY DIDN'T EVEN TRY TO EITHER A) GET AROUND THAT OR B) GIVE HER DIALOGUE THAT ISN'T SO IMPORTANT TO SELLING THE STORY OR THE EMOTION. SO OFTEN THE FILM IS LIKE "HERE'S THE SCENE WHERE SHE BEATS UP PEOPLE!" OR "HERE'S THE SCENE WHERE SHE IS SUPPOSED TO SELL FUNCTIONAL PLOT-BASED DIALOGUE AND IT'S JUST AN IMPOSSIBILITY!" AND IN THE END IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE SURFACE-LEVEL EFFECT OF THE FILM. THERE IS NO LINGERING ROMANCE OR  EVERYTHING PRESENTED IS ONLY ABOUT WHAT IT IS ABOUT ON FACE LEVEL. WHICH IN TURN JUST TURNS THE THING THAT IS GREAT ABOUT BOND MOVIES INTO A SERIES OF STERILE ACTION SCENES THAT MEANDER WITHOUT INTENTION.

PLEASE NOTE: THIS SHOULD BE UTTER PROOF THAT BOND MOVIES CANNOT AND WILL NOT WORK AS PURE ACTION MOVIES. THEY ARE REALLY ABOUT SO MANY OTHERS THINGS... AND WE WILL WANDER INTO THIS PROBLEM AGAIN.

WHAT (KIND OF) STINKS ABOUT ALL THIS IS THAT TOMORROW NEVER DIES IS ACTUALLY ROOTED IN A (KIND OF) INTERESTING IDEA, BEING THAT IT IS A NOT-SO-VEILED SHOT AT BOTH RUPERT MURDOCH AND THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996. A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON FOR THE UNAWARE! THE ACT WAS ESSENTIALLY A PIECE OF LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO HELP BRING TOGETHER CELL PHONE COMPANIES FOR THE NECESSARY PURPOSE OF BREAKING HARD-LINE COVERAGE MONOPOLIES / DISTRIBUTION ROADBLOCKS ON A LOCAL LEVEL AND MAKING THEM FUNCTIONAL FOR A NATIONAL LEVEL (THAT'S THE BROAD VERSION). THIS WAS A WHOLLY NECESSARY THING, BUT THE ACT ENDED UP ALLOWING FOR MEDIA CONGLOMERATION WITHOUT US LEGALLY CALLING INTO TO QUESTION THE NOTION OF AN EVEN BIGGER MONOPOLY OR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. BASICALLY, ALMOST EVERYTHING ABOUT MEDIA WAS ALLOWED TO COME TOGETHER UNDER SINGULAR BANNERS IN AN INSTANT AND SUDDENLY WE HAD DESTROYED THE VERY NOTION OF INDEPENDENT MEDIA AND INDEPENDENT NEWS. WHICH IS ACTUALLY BEYOND HORRIBLE. WHY WERE WE SO DESPERATE TO EMBRACE THIS CONGLOMERATION? WELL, IT WAS LARGELY AN OVERREACTION TO THE PERCEIVED THREAT OF "THE SIX COMPANIES" MODEL FROM JAPAN WHICH WAS SO SUCCESSFUL AT THE TIME (AND HAS SINCE KIND OF COLLAPSED). BUT IF WE HAD EVEN A HINT OF FORESIGHT OR PATIENCE WE WOULD HAVE WATCHED THAT HAPPEN AND WOULD HAVE ABSOLVED FROM EVEN TRYING, BUT INSTEAD WE CONTINUE THE LONG MARCH TO DEEP CORPORATE CONGLOMERATION WITH ITS INFINITE PROBLEMS.

UHHHH, SORRY - ENOUGH DEPRESSING REALITIES! THE THING IS THE MOVIE WAS ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THIS STUFF IN A PRETTY TIMELY MANNER AND MEANT TO DO IT IN A MAINSTREAM, EASILY PALATABLE WAY, ONLY INSTEAD OF INGRAINING SOMETHING SERIOUS TO THE VILLAIN (LIKE GOLDENEYE DID WITH THE COSSACK HISTORY MOTIVATION), THE MOVIE MAKES THE MISTAKE OF GOING FULL-BOND VILLAIN.

YES, HULK IS TALKING ABOUT THE TROPIC THUNDER JOKE. THE SAME LESSON ACTUALLY APPLIES HERE. YOU SEE, BOND VILLAINS HAVE TO EXIST IN THIS SWEET SPOT OF WEIRD/FUNNY BUT ALSO ACTUALLY SCARY WHEN NEEDED. THIS IS PERFECTLY EMBODIED BY DONALD PLEASENCE'S BATSHIT PERFORMANCE IN YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (AND FOR A MORE RECENT EXAMPLE, BARDEM IN SKYFALL). NOTICE THAT THERE ARE NO BOND VILLAINS WEIRDER THAN THOSE TWO, BUT THEY STILL ARE CLEAR TO GIVE REAL MENACE AT TIMES AND CERTAINLY UNDERNEATH. NOW, PLEASE NOTICE THAT ALL THE GUY HAMILTON VILLAINS NEVER HAD ANY OF THOSE KINDS OF MOMENTS AND INSTEAD WENT FULL-BOND VILLAIN ... AND THUS NEVER REALLY WORKED. HERE WE MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE. AND THE THING THAT SUCKS IS JONATHAN PRYCE IS OBVIOUSLY AN AMAZING ACTOR, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE HE SPENDS THE ENTIRE TIME BEING FORCED TO GO FULL-BOND VILLAIN. NOTE HOW MANY TIMES HE'LL HAVE AN AWKWARD PAUSE, TURN PRETTY MUCH RIGHT TO THE CAMERA, AND THEN, IN HIS BEST JONATHAN HARRIS IMPERSONATION, MUTTER "DELICIOUS!" WHILE, AGAIN, STARING RIGHT AT US. THIS IS A DIRECTION THING, FOLKS.

AND YUP. HE WENT FULL-BOND VILLAIN.

THAT SCOWL.

* * *

WHY TALK SO MUCH ABOUT FORM AND FUNCTION IN THIS ESSAY?

GIVEN THE EVENTUAL CONTENT OF THE ANALYSIS IT MIGHT HAVE SEEMED LIKE A WEIRD DECISION, AS IT DIDN'T PERFECTLY CLARIFY ANY OF THE REAL POINTS HULK MADE ABOUT CINEMATOGRAPHY OR ACTING. WHAT IT DOES DO, HOWEVER, IS FRAME THE CONVERSATION IN A WAY THAT PREVENTS US FROM TALKING ABOUT ALL THE WRONG THINGS. COMBING THROUGH REVIEWS OF THE MOVIE THERE'S SO MANY TANGIBLE DETAILS DISCUSSIONS THAT REALLY DON'T GET AT WHAT HULK FEELS THE FILM'S PROBLEMS REALLY ARE. CLARIFYING WHAT DIRECTION REALLY MEANS AND HOW IT AFFECTS US IS SUCH A NUANCED THING ANYWAY. BUT TALKING ABOUT THE LARGER IDEAS HERE WILL BE REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT IN GOING THROUGH THE REMAINING MOVIES. BUT ALL WE HAVE TO REMEMBER IS THAT THESE FILMS CAN DO THE CRAZIEST THINGS IN THE WORLD (AND GOLDENEYE IS CRAZY) BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT HOW YOU TRY TO SELL THOSE THINGS.

FOR "DON'T IMPRESS ME, CONVINCE ME" IS AN OLD ADAGE OF HOLLYWOOD.

IT IS ONE OF HULK'S FAVORITE SAYINGS BECAUSE IT HIGHLIGHTS HOW MUCH STORYTELLING SHOULD BE ABOUT CONVINCING AN AUDIENCE OF SOMETHING. WHO IS THIS PERSON? WHAT DO THEY WANT? WHY SHOULD WE CARE? WHY DO THEY CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER? ASK THESE QUESTIONS AND YOU'LL BE IN FERTILE GROUND TO GROW. AND THEN YOU CONVINCE AN AUDIENCE OF THE ANSWERS BY BRINGING THOSE MOMENTS TO LIFE. YOU SELL THE ACTION. YOU SELL THE BAD GUY. YOU SELL THE ATTRACTION... YOU JUST CAN'T COAST. YOU CAN'T JUST FIGURE THAT EVERYONE WILL ACCEPT THE JOKE. YOU CAN'T USE SHORTHAND. YOU CAN'T EVEN JUST TRY TO IMPRESS THEM WITH BEAUTIFUL CINEMATOGRAPHY, HOT IMAGERY, KICK-ASS STUNTS AND ALL THE ACTION YOU CAN MUSTER (THOUGH THOSE THINGS CERTAINLY HELP). DIRECTING IS THE ART OF SELLING THESE "COOL" MOMENTS IN A BROADER CONTEXT. AND MR. SPOTTISWOODE, FOR WHATEVER GIFTS HE MAY HAVE ELSEWHERE, COULD NOT BRING THIS FILM TO LIFE.

IT'S A LESSON BOND FILMS NEED TO LEARN TIME AND TIME AGAIN. WHETHER IT IS A DIRECTOR TRYING TO OVER-RELY ON THE COMEDY OF INHERENT SILLINESS, OR THE HURRIED AESTHETIC OF ACTION, OR THE NATURAL SEXUAL ALLURE OF PRETTY WOMEN, THE THING YOU REALIZE IS THAT ANYONE WHO IS NOT WORKING THEIR BUTT OFF TO MAKE THOSE AREAS OF THESE FILMS COMPELLING IS JUST ULTIMATELY LETTING THOSE SAME THINGS FAIL. SO IF THERE'S EVER A CASE TO BE MADE FOR THE FACT THAT DIRECTORS REALLY DO IMBUE A FILM WITH PERSONALITY AND EXUBERANCE, IT'S EVIDENT IN TOMORROW NEVER DIES. BECAUSE THIS IS A BOND MOVIE THAT SEEMS PROFICIENT ON THE SURFACE, THE TANGIBLE DETAILS, THE TOP FLIGHT TALENT AND MAYBE EVEN AN INTERESTING PREMISE, BUT THERE'S NO PASSION, NO ROMANCE...

... NO SOUL.

19. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (1999)

SO THIS IS THE FILM THAT REALLY COMPLETES THE "90'S-IFICATION" OF BOND.

MEANING IT IS THE HOLLOWED-OUT CORPSE OF HAMILTON'S TONE, ALBEIT WITH LESS CAMP AND MORE OVERBLOWN, INCOHERENT ACTION AND POSTURING THAT BEFIT THIS ERA (TO THE POINT THAT IT PRACTICALLY FEELS LIKE CAMP NOW). AND WHILE THERE WERE HINTS OF IT IN THE LAST ENTRY, THIS IS THE FILM THAT SIGNIFIES THE TURN WHEN AUDIENCES STARTED READING BROSNAN AS INEFFECTUAL. REMEMBER HOW HULK SAID BROSNAN IS ULTIMATELY DEPENDENT ON THE STRENGTH OF THE MOVIE AROUND HIM? HOW HIS ABILITY TO MAKE THINGS SEEM EFFORTLESS ONLY WORKS IF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MOMENT WORKS? BUT IF THE MOMENT SUCKS THEN HE COMES OFF AS GROAN-WORTHY. WELL, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LOT OF UNDERSOLD MOMENTS IN TOMORROW NEVER DIES, BUT THEY WERE MOSTLY SOFT LANDINGS WITHOUT BEING JARRING. BUT THIS ONE? OOF. THERE ARE SO MANY POORLY CONSTRUCTED MOMENTS IN THIS FILM THAT IT BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO NOTICE.  AND FOR THAT, IT IS WIDELY REGARDED AS BROSNAN'S FIRST BAD ENTRY IN THE BOND SERIES.

THE WEIRD THING IS THAT HULK ACTUALLY LIKES IT BETTER THAN THE LAST ONE.

IT'S JUST THAT THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH IS A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF "BAD" THAN ITS PREDECESSOR. YOU COULD ARGUE THAT TOMORROW NEVER DIES IS A FAR MORE PROFICIENT FILM, BUT IT'S EMPTY AND HOLLOW, DEVOID OF ENGAGING MOMENTS. LIFELESS. SOULLESS. AND IN THE VERY LEAST THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH HAS SOME REAL VARIATION IN IT, EVEN A FEW COMPELLING OR OUTLANDISHLY FUN MOMENTS. THUS, THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO FILMS GIVES US FODDER FOR THAT AGE OLD QUESTION OF "WHAT'S BETTER: A MIXED BAG VS. A PERSONALITY-LESS-BUT-PROFICIENT EXERCISE IN FILMMAKING?"

HULK DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT HULK WILL TAKE THE MIXED BAG EVERY TIME.

PARTICULARLY THE CASHEWS.

WHY NOT OPT FOR SOMETHING WEIRD AND MEMORABLE OVER SOMETHING WE WILL FORGET IN TWO SECONDS FLAT? PRIOR TO THE RE-WATCH, HULK HADN'T SEEN EITHER FILM SINCE THE THEATER AND IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE THAT SO MUCH OF THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH WAS STILL LODGED IN HULK'S BRAIN WHEREAS HULK HAD FORGOTTEN ALMOST EVERYTHING ABOUT TOMORROW NEVER DIES COMPLETELY. KEEP IN MIND THAT HULK ISN'T ABOUT ENJOYING THINGS IRONICALLY. IT'S ABOUT READING INTO HIGHS AND FUNCTIONALITY AND PERSONALITY AND WEIRDNESS. THERE'S SO MANY STRANGE THINGS ABOUT THIS ONE. LIKE HOW JOHN CLEESE SHOWS UP AND ACTS LIKE THE MOST BUFFOONISH VERSION OF JOHN CLEESE IMAGINABLE (BY THE WAY, HULK MISSES FISH CALLED WANDA JOHN CLEESE WHERE HE WAS A QUASI-STRAIGHT MAN). THEN THERE'S THE WEIRD CHOKING BONDAGE FUCK MACHINE TORTURE SCENE (TOTALLY PLAYED STRAIGHT!). OR HOW ROBERT CARLYELEYELLEYEE IS ACTUALLY PRETTY EFFECTIVE AS THE ALTERNATELY SCARY AND SILLY VILLAIN (COMPLETE WITH BRAIN BULLET TAKING AWAY ALL HIS PAIN!). THERE'S EVEN A THROWBACK SCENE IN TERMS OF INDULGENCE WITH UBER-GROSS BOND BEHAVIOR IN THE DOCTOR WARMFLASH AFFAIR. THERE'S EVEN THE LUMINOUS SOPHIE MARCEAU, DOING HER DAMNDEST TO SELL IT AMIDST ALL THE NOISE. THESE ARE ALL WEIRD THINGS ABOUT THE MOVIE, SOMETIMES FUNCTIONAL, SOMETIME HORRIBLE, BUT THEY IN THE VERY LEAST MAKE THE FILM DISTINCT.

THANKFULLY, THE FILM IS ALSO IN MUCH LESS OF A HURRY THAN ITS PREDECESSOR. IT TAKES ITS TIME AND TELLS THE STORY STRAIGHT. THERE'S EVEN SOME THEMATIC / SOCIAL THOUGHT PUT INTO THE BAD GUY'S PLAN (WHICH IN RETROSPECT IS ACTUALLY A REAL STAPLE OF THE BROSNAN BONDS, THOUGH EACH TIME IT IS USED TO LESS PRODUCTIVE ENDS). THIS TIME IT IS ALL ABOUT OIL DEPENDENCY BEING THE SECRET MOTIVATOR OF EVERYTHING BAD (AND NOT TO GET POLITICAL, BUT PRETTY MUCH, YEAH). AND LIKE MOST TOPICAL BOND FILMS, THIS METAPHOR IS CLUNKY AS HELL AND WOULD BE MUCH BETTER SERVED WITH A STRONGER MOVIE AROUND IT. BUT IN THE END, IT'S JUST MORE FODDER FOR THE IDEA THAT THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH IS TRULY WELL-MEANING. THE JOKES ARE A LITTLE TOO GROAN-WORTHY, IT SEEMS A LITTLE STILTED, BUT THE ACTION IS STILL FUNCTIONAL (IF LACKING SOME UMPH THAT WAS A STAPLE OF THE SERIES). YOU KNOW, PERHAPS THE FILM IS BEST SUMMED UP IN THE DISPOSITION OF FILM'S DIRECTOR MICHAEL APTED, A STODGY OLD BRITISH MAN WHO FOR SOME REASON HAS BECOME A GO-TO FOR CURRENT BRITISH BLOCKBUSTERS THAT DESIRE A HINT OF VENERABILITY WITHOUT MUCH PERSONALITY BEYOND THAT (THOUGH HULK IS OBVIOUSLY A HUGE FAN OF APTED'S UP SERIES AND HAS MUCH LOVE FOR GORILLAS IN THE MIST).

YOU KNOW, THE WAY HULK'S DESCRIBING ALL THIS, IT ALL DOESN'T SOUND TOO HORRIBLE, DOES IT? NOT REALLY, NO. SO WHY IS THIS FILM OFTEN REGARDED AS ONE OF THE WORST JAMES BOND FILMS, EXACTLY?

WELL, THE ONE THING EVERYONE POINTS TO IS THE EXACT SAME:

LIKE A DEER IN HEADLIGHTS... DENISE RICHARDS AS DR. CHRISTMAS JONES.

BUT LET'S GET AWAY FROM ALL THIS BULLSHIT IMMEDIATELY.

BECAUSE THE CONVERSATION REGARDING DENISE RICHARDS IN THIS MOVIE IS SO CHOCK-FULL OF HORRIBLE GENERALIZATIONS AND UGLY STATEMENTS THAT HULK IS GOING TO ZERO IN ON THE RIGHT QUESTION IMMEDIATELY:

WHO IS REALLY TO BLAME HERE?

THERE IS NO DENYING THAT DENISE RICHARDS IS NOT VERY GOOD IN THIS FILM. THERE IS ALSO NO DENYING THAT DENISE RICHARDS ISN'T THE KIND OF ACTRESS WHO HAS ANY REAL THESPIAN QUALITIES, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE DICKS ABOUT IT. BUT THAT ISN'T MEANT AS A BARB. TONS OF ACTORS DON'T. BUT UNLIKE MANY PROFESSIONAL ACTORS, RICHARDS DOESN'T REALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO AUGMENT A ROLE, SHE CAN'T COAST ON PERSONALITY, SHE CAN'T CREATE SOMETHING FROM NOTHING... BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN SHE CAN'T BE EFFECTIVE, EITHER. TO WIT: THERE ARE TWO FILMS THAT HULK FIRST NOTICED HER WHERE HULK WOULD ARGUE THAT SHE WAS WHOLLY EFFECTIVE. GRANTED, ONE OF THEM WAS PAUL VERHOEVEN'S SATIRICAL MASTERPIECE STARSHIP TROOPERS AND A GOOD PORTION OF HER PERFORMANCE WAS MEANT TO HAVE A HOLLOW SOAP ACTORY QUALITY, BUT THERE'S NO ARGUING SHE WAS GREAT AT DOING THAT AND IT'S PRECISELY WHAT HELPS HIS SATIRE SUCCEED. SHE WAS WORKING EXACTLY TO HER DIRECTOR'S PURPOSE. BUT ALSO, DON'T FORGET ABOUT DROP DEAD GORGEOUS, WHERE SHE BROUGHT REAL GUSTO TO THE FILM'S VILLAIN AND ACTUALLY HAD A BUNCH OF FUNNY STUFF TO DO. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? THE SAME GOES FOR HER ROLE IN WILD THINGS WHERE SHE TOTALLY DID WHATEVER SHE NEEDED TO DO TO MAKE THAT ROLE WORK (TRASHY AS THE FILM IS, SOMETIMES IT'S TO GOOD TRASHY ENDS). IT'S ALL PART OF THE SAME THING HULK TALKED ABOUT WITH CONTEXT. THERE ARE ROLES THAT PEOPLE CAN DO. THERE ARE ROLES THAT PEOPLE CAN'T DO. AND THE DIRECTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CASTING AND CRAFTING THE CONTEXT FOR ALL OF IT.

WHICH MAKES IT KIND OF HORRIBLE THAT SHE PERSONALLY GETS ALL OF THE SCORN. THE ROLE IS TECHNICALLY "WRITTEN" (NOT VERY WELL) FOR THIS TOUGH AS NAILS, SEXY, SMART SCIENTIST - AND SHE JUST CAN'T PULL IT OFF. EVEN THE OUTFIT IS ALL WRONG. REALLY, WHO THOUGHT SHE WAS THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR A NUCLEAR SCIENTIST? WAS THIS INTENDED AS A GUY HAMILTON-ESQUE JOKE ON WOMEN? OR WAS SHE ERRANTLY INTENDED TO HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS VERHOEVEN'S CHOICE? BUT WHY DO THAT IF THE REST OF THE MOVIE DOESN'T? WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THE CHOICE? DID THE DIRECTOR NOT GET WHAT HE THOUGHT HE COULD GET OUT OF HER? WERE THEY CONVINCED SHE COULD DO MORE? DID THEY EVEN CARE? AND MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, IS IT REALLY DENISE RICHARD'S FAULT FOR TAKING A ROLE LIKE THIS? IT'S A BIG BOND MOVIE AND A GREAT OPPORTUNITY, SO WHY WOULDN'T SHE TAKE IT? AND DID SHE NAME HER CHARACTER DR. CHRISTMAS JONES PERSONALLY? DID SHE WRITE THOSE LINES? DID SHE CAST HERSELF AS A NUCLEAR SCIENTIST?

SO EVEN IF SHE IS THE TANGIBLE THING THAT DOESN'T WORK IN THIS FILM, THE QUESTION REMAINS: CAN WE REALLY BLAME DENISE RICHARDS AS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE?

IT'S ALL JUST PART OF WHY HULK MAINTAINS THAT ACTING IS THE MOST DIFFICULT THING TO TRULY EVALUATE IN THE UNIVERSE, OUTSIDE THE DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF GUIDING THE PROCESS. WE ALWAYS INSTINCTIVELY KNOW WHO IS BAD OR GOOD OR CHARISMATIC WHEN WE WATCH A MOVIE, BUT THAT IS JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW THE VALIDITY OF OUR OWN EMOTIONS. BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WE ARE BAD AT ARTICULATING AND CONTEXTUALIZING. WE HAVE REAL TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THE HOW AND WHY WE GET TO THOSE EMOTIONAL PLACES. HULK TRULY BELIEVES THAT ACTING IS THE SUBJECT THAT THE MOVIE-GOING COMMUNITY (AND EVEN THE CRITICAL COMMUNITY) SEEM TO KNOW THE LEAST ABOUT IT. AND SO THE LESSON OF THIS MISCONCEPTION THAT DENISE RICHARDS RUINS THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH AND ZOMG SHE'S SUCH A BAD ACTRESS IS THAT HULK'S PRETTY SURE IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT DENISE RICHARDS BUT THE WHOLE SET OF GENDER CIRCUMSTANCES / EXPECTATIONS THAT BROUGHT HER INTO THE FILM IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND IT REVEALS EVEN MORE ABOUT EVERYONE'S ATTITUDE WHEN IT CAME TO WANTING SOMETHING MORE OUT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE. BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT? HULK IS PRETTY SURE THE FILMMAKERS WRESTLED WITH THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT TO CAST HER IN THIS ROLE, BUT THE END RESULT AND FINAL ARTICULATION MAKE IT SEEM LIKE THEY DIDN'T. IT WAS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE BOND SERIES THROWING UP ITS COLLECTIVE HANDS AND CASTING SOMEONE BASED ON LOOKS DESPITE HER BEING ALL WRONG AND THEN THINKING IT WOULDN'T MAKE A LICK OF DIFFERENCE (HINT: IT DOES. IT ALWAYS DOES). SO AGAIN, WHO'S TO BLAME?

THE REALITY IS HULK'S NOT GOING TO BLAME ANYONE. ULTIMATELY, THIS JUST HAS TO BE MERE DIAGNOSIS. THE FACT THAT RICHARDS CAN'T BRING WHAT IS NEEDED TO THE INTERACTIONS IN THE FILM LET EVERY MOMENT FALL FLAT AND RENDER BOND HIMSELF INEFFECTUAL. IT'S JUST HOW IT IS. IT DOESN'T SELL THE MOVIE. IT POINTS TO THE HOLLOWNESS WITH A BIG RED ARROW. BUT GIVEN THAT THE FILM IS ALREADY FULL OF SO MUCH WEIRD AND DISPARATE CRAZINESS IT JUST BECOMES ANOTHER THING THAT PREVENTS IT FROM WORKING (EVEN IF HULK FINDS IT INTERESTING). AND TO OUR PURPOSES, IT'S ANOTHER PIECE OF THE BOND SERIES PUZZLE THAT REVEALS JUST HOW MUCH CERTAIN THINGS MATTER, LIKE HAVING A FUNCTIONAL FEMALE LEAD WITH HER OWN AGENCY. WHICH REVEALS THAT BEYOND THE ENJOYABLE ASPECTS OF MIXED BAGS, THE BAD FILMS CAN ACT AS ANOTHER ROSETTA STONE FOR OUR DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SERIES.

AND IF WE ARE GOING TO BE HONEST, THEN THESE KINDS OF COMPARISONS ARE IMPORTANT. HULK TALKS ABOUT EVERY FILM BEING AN OVERREACTION TO THE LAST ONE, BUT MAYBE HULK'S GREATER LIKE OF THIS FILM OVER ITS PREDECESSOR IS INDICATIVE OF THE SAME CHRONOLOGY. WOULD HULK BE AS HAPPY WITH IT IF IT CAME ON THE HEELS OF A GREAT FILM LIKE GOLDENEYE? PROBABLY NOT. BUT HULK WILL HOLD STEADFASTLY TO THE IDEA THAT EVEN A MIXED BAG IS SOMETHING THAT IS LIFELESS AND BORING, SOUND AND FURY SYMBOLIZING NOTHING. AND AGAIN, PERHAPS THE BEST WAY TO MAKE A COMPARISON TO TOMORROW NEVER DIES IS TO REALIZE HOW MUCH MORE THERE IS TO BE GAINED FROM A MOVIE LIKE THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH IN TERMS OF WHAT WE CAN REALLY LEARN. AND MAYBE THAT'S EVERYTHING.

ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE ARE TWO LAST THINGS THAT STAND OUT...

1. IF WE'RE GOING TO BE SENTIMENTALISTS ABOUT ALL THIS BOND SERIES BUSINESS (AND HULK ARGUES WE SHOULD), THEN THE BEST THING THIS FILM GAVE US WAS Q'S AWKWARD, BUT ULTIMATELY FITTING LAST MOMENT IN THE SERIES. ONE MADE BITTERSWEET BY HIS ACCIDENTAL DEATH A FEW WEEKS BEFORE THE FILM'S RELEASE:

;

2. HULK HAS A TERRIBLE CONFESSION. HULK KIND OF ADORES THE LAST LINE.

... IF ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONE TIME THAT HULK HEARD AN ENTIRE AUDIENCE GUFFAW WITH INCREDULITY.

20. DIE ANOTHER DAY (2002)

SO HULK THOUGHT OF, LIKE, TWENTY OPENING LINES FOR THIS ESSAY ON DIE ANOTHER DAY. HERE ARE JUST SOME OF THEM:

1. SAY WHAT YOU WILL ABOUT GUY HAMILTON, THE DUDE AT LEAST KNEW WHEN HE WAS MAKING A STUPID MOVIE!

2. IMAGINE IF GUY HAMILTON'S ZOMBIE CORPSE ROSE FROM THE GRAVE TO MAKE A MOVIE STARRING EVERYONE ELSE'S CORPSE!

[GOOGLES GUY HAMILTON AND DISCOVERS HE'S STILL ALIVE... LEAVES THIS JOKE IN BECAUSE IT'S TOO GOOD A FOOT-IN-MOUTH MOMENT].

3. IF BOND MOVIES ARE THE SILLY PLAYED STRAIGHT, IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY COULDN'T STOP CRACKING UP THE ENTIRE DURATION!

4. HEY EVERYONE, CHECK OUT MADONNNA'S FEATURE-LENGTH BOND MUSIC VIDEO!

5. LEE TAMAHORI IS THE HITLER EQUIVALENT OF...

EH, FUCK IT. YOU GET THE IDEA.

PICTURED: THE IDEA.

THE THING ABOUT ALL THESE SARCASTIC, MEAN-SPIRITED, OFFENSIVE LINES IS THEY MIGHT BE ACCURATE OR FUNNY OR WHATEVER, BUT JUST DUMPING ON THINGS SARCASTICALLY IS NOT REALLY HULK'S BAG. SO LET'S DO WHAT HULK DOES AND EXPLAIN THE JOKE.

THE PROBLEMS WITH DIE ANOTHER DAY ARE, QUITE OBVIOUSLY, MANIFOLD. IN FACT THERE ARE SO MANY BAD THINGS THAT IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE THAT IT IS WIDELY REGARDED AS THE WORST BOND FILM EVER. BUT THERE ARE PERHAPS A COUPLE BIG UNDERLYING REASONS FOR THIS SENTIMENT. THE FIRST REASON IS THAT IT IS JUST HOW RECENT HISTORY WORKS, AS MOST OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE MAKING THIS CLAIM PROBABLY SAW ALL THE OTHER TERRIBLE BOND FILMS BACK WHEN THEY WERE KIDS AND IT WAS ON TV OR SOMETHING. AND IT'S NOT JUST THIS CHILDLIKE LENS THAT MAKES US OVERLOOK CERTAIN KINDS OF BADNESS. THIS HAPPENS BECAUSE IT IS SO FAR REMOVED FROM WHAT HULK WOULD CALL THE ADOLESCENT THEATER-GOING EXPERIENCE, WHERE WE HAVE A WHOLE EMOTIONAL ARC OF EXPECTATIONS, PROMOTION, REACTIONS, ELATION AND LIKELY DISAPPOINTMENT. THUS, THE REAL REASON THIS FILM STANDS OUT AS WORST IS MERELY THAT IT IS THE MOST RECENT BAD BOND FILM - BUT PEOPLE ALSO REMEMBER HOW IT AFFECTED THE LARGER BOND / MOVIE-GOING CULTURE, TOO.

THE OTHER REASON WE SAY THAT IS BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING TERRIBLE.

THERE IS JUST NO NICE WAY TO PUT IT. HULK KNOWS HULK SAYS TO NEVER HATE A MOVIE. AND TO THAT PURPOSE, HULK QUITE HONESTLY DOES NOT HATE THIS MOVIE. REALLY, THERE'S NEVER ANYTHING TO BE GAINED BY HATING A FILM LIKE THIS. MOSTLY BECAUSE THIS IS AN ANTI-MOVIE. AND NOT IN THE GOOD COEN-Y WAY WHERE THEY ARE CLEARLY UNDERCUTTING STORY EXPECTATIONS TO COMMENT ON HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND DEEPER MEANING. INSTEAD, DIE ANOTHER DAY IS THE KIND OF FILM THAT IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN UNABASHED GLUING TOGETHER OF ROTE STORY PIECES / MOMENTS / ICONOGRAPHY / AND TEXTURES WITHOUT A SINGLE WELL-INTENTIONED REGARD FOR ANY REAL PRINCIPLE OF STORYTELLING, WHETHER IT CONCERNS DRAMA, CONTEXT, MEANING OR IMPORT. THIS LIKELY SOUNDS LIKE A HARSH APPRAISAL, BUT IT'S JUST THE REALITY OF THE THING.

AND DUE TO THE SHEER INCOMPETENCE ON DISPLAY, THE ESSAY THAT FOLLOWS IS PRETTY  UNWIELDY, RAMBLING AND UNFOCUSED.

WHICH MEANS IT BEST REFLECTS WHAT THE MOVIE IS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

PICTURED: CONFUSION REFLECTING OUR OWN CONFUSION

WHEN MOST PEOPLE START CITING THE REASONS DIE ANOTHER DAY IS TERRIBLE THEY, OF COURSE, DO THAT THING WHERE THEY POINT TO THE TANGIBLE DETAILS. BUT HULK WOULD ARGUE THE BADNESS OF THIS FILM HAS NOTHING REALLY TO DO WITH THE INVISIBLE CAR, OR V.R. TRAINING SESSIONS, OR WEIRD DIAMOND FACES, OR OVERLY-COIFFED BAD GUYS OR ANY OTHER SURFACE-LEVEL CRAZINESS. AFTER ALL, THIS IS THE BOND SERIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'VE SEEN THE RIDICULOUS SURFACE-Y THINGS WORK ON US TIME AND TIME AGAIN. HULK MEAN, IS AN EJECTOR SEAT SUPPOSED TO BE TOTALLY RATIONAL? IS A MAN WITH A GOLDEN GUN THE PINNACLE OF SANITY? OF COURSE NOT. SO, AS ALWAYS, MAIBAUM'S RULE APPLIES: BOND IS THE RIDICULOUS TOLD STRAIGHT. MEANING THE SUCCESS OF ANY GIVEN BOND MOVIE IS DEPENDENT ON MAKING THE INVISIBLE CAR WORK, SO TO SPEAK.

THUS, THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT THIS FILM JUST DOES NOT MAKE THE INVISIBLE CAR WORK, NOR MUCH OF ANYTHING WORK, NOR DOES IT EVEN TRY. IN FACT, IT JUST MIGHT BE THE LAZIEST FILM HULK HAS EVER SEEN. A POORLY CONCEIVED AND WHOLLY UNINSPIRED PRODUCT OF A FILM THAT COULD STAND AS THE IDEAL EXAMPLE OF JUST THROUGH THE MOTIONS. BUT WHAT COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATIVE TEAM TAKING SUCH A LAZY APPROACH? HOW DID THEY DROP THE BALL?

WE CAN BLAME OUTRIGHT INCOMPETENCE (AND HULK WILL), BUT ONE OF THE KEY NUGGETS OF MISGUIDANCE SEEMS TO BE WHOLE EUPHORIA OF THE 20TH BOND MOVIE! MANTRA THAT GOT THEIR BRAINS WORKING OVERTIME. SUDDENLY, THIS PREVIOUSLY COMPETENT GROUP OF PEOPLE GOT TOGETHER AND HIRED THE WRONG DIRECTOR, THEN THREW OUT ALL THEIR RULES OF STORY AND COMPETENCY AND INSTEAD ADVOCATED AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KIND OF MOVIE... DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN HULK SAID THAT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH TOMORROW NEVER DIES IS THAT IT GOES FULL-BOND-VILLAIN? IN THAT IT EMBRACES THE SINGULAR, FULL-BLOWN TONE OF CHARACTERIZATION THAT GOES ON TO DEFINE THEM?

WELL, THIS FILM GOES FULL-BOND-MOVIE.

MEANING IT DELIVERS TWO HOURS PACKED TO THE BRIM WITH REFERENCES TO THE OLD MOVIES, DOUBLE ENTENDRES, MAGIC GADGETS AND DIALOGUE THAT FEELS LIKE EVERYONE-IS-DOING-NOTHING-BUT-STANDING-THERE-TRYING-TO-COME-UP-WITH-ONE-LINERS-AND-DOESN'T-EVEN-CARE-IF-THEY'RE-GOOD. REALLY, BOND ONE-LINERS AREN'T EXACTLY THE PINNACLE OF WILDE-IAN WIT, BUT THESE ARE UNIQUELY TERRIBLE. NOT IN THE GROAN-WORTHY "I thought Christmas only comes once a year" WAY, BUT IN A FAR LAZIER WAY. HALLE BERRY CAN BARELY SAY THE LINE "Wow, there's a mouthful" WITHOUT VISIBLY HATING HERSELF OR BREAKING THE FOURTH WALL (PROBABLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON FOR HER CHARACTER TO ACTUALLY SAY THAT). HULK MEAN... JUST... GOOD LORD. A DOUBLE ENTENDRE IS USUALLY REQUIRED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF WIT OR PURPOSE BEHIND IT. OR AT LEAST SOME CONTEXT AND SET-UP. AND IT'S A PLAY ON WORDS SO THERE SHOULD BE A SENSE OF, LIKE, CRAFT. OR AT LEAST THE DEDICATION TO SELL THE CRAFT. BUT THIS MOVIE IS LIKE PEOPLE JUST WALKING AROUND BEING LIKE "I'M TALKING ABOUT YOUR COCK!" OR "LETS PUT OUR THINGS IN OTHER THINGS!" (WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY BE A FUNNY TACTIC AND LARGELY WHAT THE AUSTIN POWERS FILMS DID). AND THAT DOESN'T EVEN COUNT WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN SUM UP THE WILL TO ACTUALLY SAY THESE LINES WITH ENERGY OR EMOTION (BROSNAN MOSTLY SEEMS DEFEATED). AGAIN, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO TELLING IT STRAIGHT HERE. NO COMMITTING. THEY ARE STILL JUST WINKING DIRECTLY AT THE AUDIENCE. EVEN WITH WITH PRODUCTION DESIGN AND ACTION SCENES, THE MOVIE FEELS LIKE A SHOPPING LIST OF REFERENCES. GO BACK AND WATCH THE Q BRIEFING FROM GOLDENEYE AND YOU'LL SEE A SCENE THAT HAS A SENSE OF TIMING AND INTEREST IN FARCE WITH ALL THESE THINGS HAPPENING IN THE BACKGROUND, ALL BUILDING TO THE HILARIOUS CAPPER OF "That's my lunch!" THERE'S A RHYTHM TO IT ALL. BUT WHEN YOU WATCH THIS Q SCENE IT'S A MOMENT-TO-MOMENT WINKFEST. THERE'S NO CRAFT. JUST AIRLESS PRESENTATION:

WHAT MAKES IT ALL THE WORSE IS THIS MOVIE SCREAMS "PLASTICITY" WITH EVERY FIBER OF ITS BEING. THE AESTHETICS ARE A COOL-BLUE HAZY NIGHTMARE, THE FILM LOOKS LIKE ITS PRODUCTION WAS DESIGNED BY THE BASTARD THREE-WAY LOVE CHILD OF VINCENT PRICE, LIBERACE AND HOW-HULK-IMAGINES-A-REAL-HOUSEWIFE-OF-WHEREVER-DECORATES-THEIR-HOUSE-AND-SORRY-HULK-WISHES-THE-ANALOGY-WAS-BETTER-BUT-HULK-DOESN'T-WATCH-THAT-SHOW. HULK REALIZES THIS COULD ACTUALLY SOUND KIND OF FUN, BUT IT'S JUST UGLY, GARISH AND FLAT. AND IT COULD JUST BE THE BLU TRANSFER, BUT THE FILM EVEN SOUNDS UGLY, FOR IT HAS QUITE POSSIBLY SOME OF THE WORST A.D.R. THAT HULK HAS EVER HEARD IN A BIG BUDGET MOVIE (GO BACK AND WATCH THE JINX MEETING AGAIN) EVEN THE SCORE, WHICH DESPERATELY ATTEMPTS TO IMBUE THAT WHOLE "ROMANCE" THING THAT HULK SAYS IS SO IMPORTANT, BUT IT PASSES RIGHT THROUGH ROMANCE AND INTO OUTRIGHT SAP. SOMETIMES MORE THAN SAP. THERE WILL BE A PERFECTLY NORMAL CONVERSATION AND THEN THERE'S ALL THIS SWOONING MUSIC AND HULK'S LIKE "WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!??!?!" IT'S NOT LIKE THE CINEMATOGRAPHY IS JARRING ENOUGH WITH THE STRANGEST RATIO OF SHOTS TOO FAR AWAY FOR THE ACTION AND CLOSE-UPS THAT ARE WAY TOO CLOSE FOR THE ACTION; IT'S DOWNRIGHT BIZARRE. HULK KNOWS THE DIRECTOR CAN OVERRIDE A LOT OF STUFF, BUT WAIT, WHO SHOT THIS THING ANYWAY?

OH SHIT, IT'S THE GUY WHO DID THE PREQUELS. THAT HAS ALL SORTS OF DEEP RAMIFICATIONS FOR CULTURE ANDOHSHITHULK'SGETTINGOFFTRACKHERE...

SORRY. HULK DOESN'T WANT TO START BLAMING FOLKS, PARTICULARLY CREW MEMBERS FOR ANYTHING. HULK'S JUST TRYING TO BUILD UP TO A FAMILIAR POINT: IT'S NOT THE CINEMATOGRAPHER. OR THE SOUND EDITOR. OR THIS ACTOR. OR THAT ACTOR. WHILE THE DIRECTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING, IT'S STILL A LARGER ISSUE THAN THAT. LIKE THE INVISIBLE CAR, IT'S NOT THAT THE DEVICE ITSELF IS INHERENTLY PROBLEMATIC, IT'S THE ATTITUDE OF THE COLLECTIVE APPROACH.

FOR INSTANCE, DID YOU NOTICE THAT WHEN THEY TROT OUT THE CAR THERE IS THIS WHOLE "ISN'T THIS IMPRESSIVE?" PRIDE TO THE MOMENT, BUT BY PUTTING THE EFFECTS THEMSELVES FRONT AND CENTER YOU CAN ONLY NOTICE THEY ARE KIND OF TERRIBLE? IT JUST HAS THIS REMARKABLY STILTED AFFECTATION THAT'S SYMBOLIC OF THE ENTIRE FILM'S APPROACH. AND DID YOU NOTICE HOW MUCH LIP SERVICE IS GIVEN TO MODERNITY IN THAT SCENE? THE FILM IS BASICALLY OBSESSED WITH GETTING BOND TO EMBRACE MODERNITY AND STOP LOOKING AT HISTORY, BUT THE FILM ITSELF IS ALSO SO OBSESSED WITH THAT SAME HISTORY, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY HAVING NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE DYNAMIC OF MODERNITY/HISTORY WHATSOEVER. IT'S BIZARRE; JUST ONE BIG "LOOK AT THE NEAT THINGS WE CAN DO!" AND "THIS IS SORT OF BASED ON REAL SCIENCE AND REAL THINGS, BUT WE'RE JUST MILKING THAT FOR ALL IT'S WORTH WITH NO PRETENSE!" ODDLY ENOUGH, THE END RESULT IS A FILM THAT IMMEDIATELY DATES ITSELF IN THE GOOFIEST WAY POSSIBLE. INSTEAD OF GETTING A COOL SENSE OF ALL THE THINGS IN THE HISTORY AND CULTURAL SENSE OF JAMES BOND, IT'S ALL A BUNCH OF WINK, WINK, NUDGE, NUDGE REFERENCES TO THINGS FROM THE OTHER MOVIES AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LIKE THEM JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE FUCKING THERE AND BEING POINTED AT AS CHARACTERS NOD AND SMILE AT US AND... AND... AND...

... SORRY. HULK IS GETTING SMASHY.

IT'S JUST THE MOVIE REALLY IS ONE OF THE LAZIEST FILMS HULK HAS EVER SEEN. HULK'S SURE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE BEING SO CLEVER, BUT THE ARROW OF THIS FILM JUST DOESN'T HIT THE MARK, IT HITS THE GUY SITTING IN THE THIRD ROW. EVEN THE MUCH-BALLYHOOED "COOL" PRACTICAL SWORD FIGHT IS RUSHED, LACKING IN DRAMA AND VISUAL STORYTELLING SENSE. EVERY MOVE IS THE SAME KIND OF REPETITIVE INTENSITY, IT'S SHOT WITH APPROPRIATE DISTANCE YET STILL LOSES GEOGRAPHY BECAUSE IT BREAKS THE LINE TO NO TANGIBLE PURPOSE LIKE 500 TIMES, AND OH YEAH... THE ENTIRE REASON IT STARTS HAPPENING MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE IN THE NARRATIVE. AND THEN THE HILARIOUS "That's enough!" CONCLUSION JUST SEALS THE DEAL TO ITS PURPOSELESSNESS. SO NO. IT'S NOT A COOL FIGHT SCENE. THERE IS NO REASON FOR IT ON ANY LEVEL. IT IS A COOL FIGHT THAT SERVES NO FUNCTION BEYOND "HEY, YOU THINK THIS COOL, RIGHT?"

THE FILM EVEN DOES THE BROSNAN BOND ERA THING WHERE IT FOCUSES ON SOME KIND OF WORLD ISSUE TOPICALITY, BUT THIS TIME THERE IS NO REAL IMPORT TO IT. JUST SOME TINY LIP SERVICE TO CONFLICT DIAMONDS, BUT RATHER THAN DEAL WITH THE IMPLICATIONS EVEN IN A METAPHORICAL WAY, WE END UP GOING FULL-BOND-MOVIE AND THE BAD GUY GETS DIAMONDS IN HIS FACE OR WHATEVER. EVEN THE PLOT ITSELF IS A WEIRD DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER RIP-OFF THAT HULK HONESTLY CAN'T REMEMBER THE INTRICACIES OF. WHICH ALL JUST MAKES THE FACT THAT THEY BLINDLY CLUNG TO CONFLICT DIAMONDS AS A SOURCE OF LEGITIMACY ALL THE MORE HORRIBLE BECAUSE THEY JUST END UP BELITTLING THE ENTIRE ISSUE. SAME GOES FOR THE SUPER SERIOUS NORTH KOREA OPENING THAT THE FILMMAKERS WERE SO PROUD OF ('CAUSE, LIKE, SERIOUSNESS!), WHAT WITH THE TORTURE AND ALL THAT ('CAUSE OF COURSE). NOT ONLY IS THIS A TERRIBLE IDEA FOR MOST BOND MOVIES, BUT IT DOES NOT FIT ANYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IN TERMS OF TONE OR STORY OR ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. BECAUSE WE SHOULD ALL WANT OUR SILLY, POPULAR MOVIES TO OPEN WITH SHADES OF AUDITION?... ACTUALLY, HULK JUST MADE THAT SOUND WAY COOLER THAN IT IS.

THE POINT IS THAT EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS MOVIE MAKES NO SENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REST OF THE MOVIE. IT'S NOT EVEN THE LOGIC OF EVENTS (THOUGH THERE'S THAT TOO), BECAUSE THE REASON IT MAKES NO SENSE IS THAT IT HAS NO CORE STORY IDENTITY OR GOAL. IT IS SIMPLY TRYING TO COMPILE BIG MOMENTS THAT ARE EITHER COMPLETELY DIFFERENT OR SERIOUS OR CLASSIC FOR THE SERIES, BUT REALLY IT'S JUST LAZILY EMBRACING ALL THE MOST ROTE ASPECTS OF THE SERIES. BUT SINCE IT GOES FULL-BOND-MOVIE IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE THAT FOR A TINY AMOUNT OF THE FANDOM OUT THERE...

THIS IS ACTUALLY THEIR FAVORITE BOND MOVIE EVER.

FIGHTING WORDS!

LOOK. HULK IS NOT TRYING TO BELITTLE ANYONE'S OPINION. REALLY. THIS IS JUST A WEIRD SERIES OF MOVIES. AND BECAUSE IT IS SO WEIRD AND INDULGENT, HULK MEETS PEOPLE ALL THE TIME WHO HAVE THE EXACT OPPOSITE OPINION ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE FILMS. AND SOMETIMES THEIR ARGUMENTS OF SUCH OPINIONS ARE TOTALLY FINE. SOMETIMES THEY FIND THE TRAINWRECK NATURE OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS AMUSING. OR MAYBE THEY CAN SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THE RACISM OF LIVE AND LET DIE AND EMBRACE ITS TOUR DE FORCE CINEMA. OR MAYBE THEY SOMETIMES LIKE THE GRITTY "SERIOUSIFICATION" BECAUSE IT JUST HELPS SELL THEIR FANTASY. BUT GIVEN EVERYTHING HULK HAS TRIED TO CONVEY ABOUT HOW HULK THINKS THESE MOVIES WORK AND WHY, WELL, ALL HULK CAN SAY IS THAT THE APPROACH OF DIE ANOTHER DAY JUST DOESN'T WORK FOR HULK. IT'S TOO LAZY TO EVEN BE TRASHY FUN. MOSTLY BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A HINT OF EARNESTNESS FROM ANYONE EXCEPT A FEW OF THE BAD GUYS (ROSAMUND PIKE'S MIRANDA FROST REALLY HAS TO BE SINGLED OUT FOR GIVING IT HER ALL. SHE'S NOT ONLY THE BEST PART OF THE MOVIE, SHE LAPS EVERYONE ELSE LIKE FORTY TIMES). AND AGAIN, YOU'RE WELCOME TO LIKE THIS FILM AND EXPLAIN YOUR REASONS WHY, BUT TO HULK'S IT'S NOT EVEN REALLY A MOVIE.

IT'S AN INDULGENCE FACTORY.

AND IT INDULGES EVERY MOMENT IT CAN FOR THIS, THE MOST INDULGENT MOVIE SERIES OF ALL TIME. AND IN THAT PROCESS IT GOES TO SOME VERY UGLY PLACES. WHETHER IT IS UNDERMINING SERIOUS WORLD ISSUES OR SAYING TERRIBLE THINGS ABOUT WOMEN, THE FAULT, LIKE EVERYTHING IN THIS DIRECTOR-DEPENDENT SERIES, HAS TO LIE WITH LEE TAMAHORI. BECAUSE, HEY, THE WRITERS ARE THE SAME GUYS WHO WROTE ALL THE BROSNAN BONDS, RIGHT? WHICH DOESN'T MEAN THEY DIDN'T DROP THE BALL HERE, BUT IT ALSO COMES DOWN TO TAMAHORI'S CHOICES WITH THIS FILM.

BUT DOUBLE-HEY, SOMETIMES SEEMINGLY GOOD DECISIONS CAN CREATE PROBLEMS, TOO. FOR INSTANCE, IF WE'RE GOING WITH THE THEORY THAT EVERY BOND FILM IS AN OVERREACTION TO THE BIGGEST CRITICISM OF THE LAST ONE (THE DENISE RICHARDS DEBACLE), THEN IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE THAT THE PRODUCERS WERE LOOKING FOR A REALLY STRONG ACTRESS WHO COULD COME INTO THE SERIES AND NOT ONLY MAKE IT SING, BUT MAYBE EVEN BE BOND'S EQUAL IN EVERY WAY.

THUS, THEY WENT RIGHT FOR HALLE BERRY.

LIKE, RIGHT FOR HER.

ON PAPER, EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS DECISION IS GREAT. SHE'S STRONG-WILLED. MODERN. CONSIDERED A "POST-RACIAL" FIGURE (A MOVING TARGET OF A WORD IF THERE EVER WAS ONE, SO PLEASE ACCEPT THAT AS THE WORD POP CULTURE WAS HELL-BENT ON USING). SHE WAS EVEN COMING OFF AN OSCAR. HER STAR WAS TRULY BRIGHT. AND SHE PROJECTED THE KIND OF HEART AND ETHOS THAT THIS SERIES DESPERATELY NEEDED AT THE TIME. HULK EVEN REMEMBERS ONE OF THE PRODUCERS MAKING A DIANA RIGG COMPARISON AND WANTING TO HEARKEN BACK TO ALL OF THAT.

... THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT THEY GOT ALL OF IT WRONG.

IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE THAT THERE ARE ONLY A FEW STALWART EXAMPLES OF BOND GIRLS IN THIS ENTIRE SERIES. AFTER ALL, USUALLY THE BOND GIRL IS AN UP-AND-COMER OF SORTS, WHETHER A YOUNG ACTRESS OR FAMOUS MODEL OR SOMETHING. BUT WHAT MADE DIANA RIGG STAND OUT WAS THAT SHE WAS 1) A TRUE BLUE STAR 2) A GREAT ACTRESS 3) WRITTEN AS AN ACTUAL WOMAN AND 4) INTEGRAL TO THE PLOT AND CHARACTER ARC. BUT REALLY, SHE WAS A FORCE OF NATURE. A VIBRANT PERSONALITY WHO COULD GO TOE-TO-TOE WITH BOND IN THE VERBAL ARENAS, DRIVE A MEAN GETAWAY CAR AND EVEN BE HEARTFELT AND ROMANTIC... CUT TO A FEW DECADES LATER, THE BOND TEAM IS FINALLY IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY WANT TO MAKE HALLE BERRY'S CHARACTER "JINX" BE JAMES BOND'S EQUAL, TOO. BUT RATHER THAN THINK ABOUT THEIR CONFLICT OR DYNAMIC OR ANY OF THAT GOOD STUFF, THEY BASICALLY JUST HAVE HER KICK PEOPLE (I.E. MADE STRONG IN A SINGULARLY DUMB MASCULINE WAY) AND HAVE HER BE JAMES BOND'S SIDEKICK WITHOUT ANY REAL PERSONALITY OR EMOTIONS OF HER OWN.

UGH.

ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THIS IS DOWNRIGHT MISGUIDED, AND ALL PART AND PARCEL OF THE NONSENSICAL WAY WE THINK ABOUT MODERN FEMALE EMPOWERMENT (IT HAS TO DO WITH HOW KICK-ASS THEY ARE! YOU KNOW, LIKE GUYS!). IT IS ALSO A COMPLETE WASTE OF HALLE BERRY AND HER SKILL SETS. HERE THEY WERE, WANTING TO CAPTURE EVERY BIT OF HER "IT GIRL" (IT WOMAN) STATUS AND GIVE HER TONS OF SCREEN TIME AND THEY DID EVERYTHING, SAVE WRITING HER AN ACTUAL ROLE. IT'S ENRAGING. AND PERHAPS THE MOST TELLING PART IS THAT THEY WERE SO COCKSURE ABOUT HER CHARACTER AND HOW KICK-ASS SHE WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SPIN HER OFF INTO HER OWN CHARACTER'S MOVIE SERIES. HECK, SHE EVEN SHARED THE POSTER WITH BOND...

LOOKING BACK ON IT ALL NOW IT SEEMS SO INFINITELY HOLLOW, DOESN'T IT? IT WAS ALL CALCULATED BEFOREHAND, WITHOUT EVER BEING WRITTEN OR MADE REAL. HULK CONSIDERS THIS THE VERY DEFINITION OF MISGUIDED ENTERTAINMENT. WE REALLY HAVE TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE LIKE AND RESPOND TO. BECAUSE THIS IS NOTHING BUT HYPE AND ASSUMPTION OF EMPATHY. IT'S ALMOST A SOCIOPATHIC APPROACH TO CHARACTER AND PROPERTY CREATION.

WHICH KIND OF JUST MAKES IT A GREATER SHAME BECAUSE, AGAIN, ROSAMUND PIKE IS GREAT IN THIS MOVIE. TAKE A LOOK AS SHE CHEWS THE WALLS:

NOTICE HOW EVERYTHING AROUND HER IS PRETTY TERRIBLE, BUT SHE'S NOT LETTING THAT SHIT STICK TO HER? HULK WOULD LOVE TO CONVINCE YOU THAT THIS IS SOME OF THE MOST INCREDIBLE ACTING YOU CAN DO. AND IT'S WHY HER PERFORMANCE IN THIS FILM FASCINATES HULK.

THE PROVERBIAL FLOWER GROWING OUT OF THE SHIT PILE.

* * *

IN THE END, THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH DIE ANOTHER DAY MIGHT BE THE LEGACY IT LEAVES FOR BROSNAN. HIS BOND CAME OUT OF THE GATE SWINGING, WHAT WITH THE INCREDIBLE BUNGEE JUMP AND THE TERRIFIC FIRST MOVIE THAT FOLLOWED. THEN WE GOT A POLISHED BUT HOLLOW EFFORT. THEN A MIXED BAG OF AWKWARDNESS. AND THEN FINALLY, A GENUINELY TERRIBLE ENTRY IN THE SERIES. AND THE SAD THING ABOUT ACTORS IN THE BOND MOVIES IS THAT WE REALLY DO LARGELY REMEMBER THE HURTFUL STING OF THEIR LAST EFFORTS. FOR SOME FOLKS, CONNERY IS DEFINED BY THE SAD RAMBLING OF DIAMONDS OR ESPECIALLY NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. WE ALSO REMEMBER LAZENBY THROUGH THE FAILURE OF OMHSS. WE REMEMBER TIRED, OLD ROGER MOORE FROM THE HOLLOW A VIEW TO A KILL. AND WE REMEMBER DALTON BY THE GRIM AND UNEVEN LICENSE TO KILL. THESE FILMS STICK WITH US GOOD OR BAD. AND SADLY FOR BROSNAN, HE WILL BE LARGELY DEFINED BY THE WAY HIS FILMS FAILED TO LIVE UP TO THE PROMISE OF THE FIRST ONE. WHICH, AGAIN IS TOTALLY NOT FAIR BECAUSE HE WAS ALWAYS BRINGING IT IN TERMS OF WHAT HE DOES. IT'S JUST THAT WE ALSO ESTABLISHED THAT HE'S THE KIND OF BOND WHO IS TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON HIS MATERIAL. HULK WOULD LOVE TO REMEMBER HIM JUST FOR GOLDENEYE, BUT HULK KNOWS THE STING OF DIE ANOTHER DAY WILL LAST WITH SOME PEOPLE FOREVER. NONE OF WHICH IS HIS FAULT. IT'S JUST THE WAY THIS SERIES GOES.

YOU KNOW, PERHAPS THE EVOLUTION OF THE BROSNAN ERA CAN ALL SUMMED UP WITH THE FOLLOWING SUPER-CUT OF ALL OF HIS SCENES OF SAMANTHA BOND'S MONEYPENNY. NOW YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT HULK HASN'T TALKED ABOUT THE BROSNAN ERA MONEYPENNY AT ALL IN THESE ESSAYS. THAT'S BECAUSE, WHILE HULK LIKES SAMANTHA BOND A GREAT DEAL, TO BE HONEST, HULK ACTUALLY  FORGOT THAT SHE PLAYED MONEYPENNY IN THESE FOUR FILMS AND DURING THE RE-WARCH, IT WAS NECESSARY TO WAIT TO TALK ABOUT TILL NOW. SO WATCH THE WAY THIS ALL MOVES AND TELL HULK IT'S NOT SYMBOLIC OF HOW THE BROSNAN BONDS EVOLVED. WE GO FROM THE FIRST SCENE'S GREAT AND POINTED BANTER TO SOME LAME COCK JOKES TO... WELL, JUST WATCH.

THAT LAST SCENE...

THAT LAST SCENE EMBODIES ALL OF HULK'S PROBLEMS WITH THIS FILM.

AND WHEN HULK TALKS ABOUT INDULGENT, THIS IS WHAT HULK IS TALKING ABOUT. YOU FIGURE THEY WERE ALL HIGH ON THEMSELVES AND LOOKING AT HISTORY WITH THIS BEING "THE TWENTIETH BOND" AND SO THERE WAS A LAST MINUTE CHANGE OF SCRIPT WHERE THEY WERE LIKE "HEY, LET'S JUST FINALLY SHOW BOND FUCKING MONEYPENNY! EVERYONE WILL LOVE IT AND BE LIKE 'FINALLY!' AND STUFF!" ... AND THEN OF COURSE IT'S ONLY A V.R. FAKE-OUT. EVEN THEN, IT'S STILL THE MOST SHORT-SIGHTED, INDULGENT THING EVER. NOT JUST BECAUSE THE IDEA OF THE 2OTH BOND IS COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS TO US NOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN 23 OF THEM (THIS WHOLE NUMERAL VALUE IS HYPE AND CIRCUMSTANCE AND PROMOTION). IT'S THAT THE SCENE IS APROPOS OF NOTHING AND SERVES NO NARRATIVE FUNCTION OTHER THAN "OH SNAP!" AND FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY, TO SIMPLY GIVE INTO ONE OF THE GREAT UNSPOKEN RELATIONSHIPS, EVEN ON A FAKE LEVEL, IS HORRIBLE, NOT JUST BECAUSE IT'S A CHANGE OF THE ESTABLISHED ORDER, BUT BECAUSE IT SO INTENSELY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP IN THE FIRST PLACE.

HULK EXPLAINED IT BEFORE WITH THE DEPARTURE OF LOIS MAXWELL, BUT THERE IS PURPOSE TO THAT DISTANCE. THERE IS PURPOSE TO HER FLIRTING AND DISAPPROVAL. TO ALL OF IT. AND SO TO DO WHAT THEY JUST DID, TO MAKE THE FANTASY EXPLICIT IN A WAY THAT UNDERMINES HER ENTIRE IDENTITY, AND TO DO IT IN SUCH AN INDULGENT AND THOUGHTLESS WAY... HULK BELIEVES IT IS THE SINGLE MOST INDULGENT DECISION IN THE MOST INDULGENT MOVIE IN THE MOST INDULGENT MOVIE SERIES EVER MADE. MONEYPENNY REALLY DOES MATTER. SHE IS THE VERY EMBODIMENT OF HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FEEL ABOUT JAMES BOND.

SO IF YOU DO IT WITH MONEYPENNY, YOU'RE REALLY JUST FUCKING YOURSELF.

21. CASINO ROYALE (2006)

LET'S SHAKE THE LAST ONE OFF, SHALL WE?

* * *

THE WORD "REBOOT" HAS BECOME A STRANGE ONE IN OUR CINEMA-GOING VOCABULARY. IT'S FUNNY TO THINK JUST HOW DIFFERENT THINGS WERE AS LITTLE AS NINE YEARS AGO. LEST WE FORGET, A REBOOT WAS PRETTY MUCH A FOREIGN CONCEPT TO MOVIE AUDIENCES AT THE TIME. AND WHILE THE DEVICE WAS A FAIRLY COMMON TACTIC IN COMICS (ALBEIT WITH FIRST ISSUE LANGUAGE), HULK REMEMBERS REGULAR MOVIE-GOERS HAVING TO BE EXPLAINED THAT NOLAN'S NEW BATMAN FILM WOULD ACTUALLY BE STARTING THINGS OVER. WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE ENTIRE REASON WE GOT A LAME, ON-THE-NOSE TITLE OF BATMAN BEGINS. TO BE FAIR, IN THAT CASE, THE REBOOT WAS TRULY NECESSARY. WE WERE COMING OUT OF THE BLOAT OF 90'S SEQUEL FATIGUE AND BATMAN AND ROBIN HAD DONE SO MUCH (CONCEPTUAL) DAMAGE THAT THE SERIES NEEDED TO START FROM SCRATCH. AND AFTER THE ROUSING (CONCEPTUAL) SUCCESS OF THE FILM, STUDIOS FELT INSPIRED (AND KEEP IN MIND HULK KEEPS SAYING CONCEPTUAL BECAUSE IT WAS PERCEIVED AS A SUCCESS DESPITE FLYING OFF THE RAILS WITH THE ACTUAL EXECUTION AND NOT DOING AS SOLID BUSINESS AS PEOPLE THINK). SADLY, THE INSPIRATION DIDN'T LAST THAT LONG, AS REBOOTING SOON BECAME HOLLYWOOD'S QUICK-FIX FOR ANY FRANCHISE THAT WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A ROUSING SUCCESS AT THE TIME. MEANING NINE YEARS LATER AND WE'VE GOT A CASE OF REBOOT FATIGUE THE SAME WAY WE DID WITH SEQUEL FATIGUE. THIS SIMPLE FACT ILLUSTRATES THE ONGOING PROBLEM OF HOLLYWOOD: THERE IS NO CONCEPT IN FILMMAKING THAT IS INHERENTLY PROBLEMATIC, THERE IS ONLY OUR UNDERSTANDABLE FATIGUE WITH HOLLYWOOD RUNNING THOSE CONCEPTS INTO THE GROUND IN A HOLLOW AND UNJUSTIFIED MANNER. JUST MORE FORM OVER FUNCTION, FOLKS!

BUT BACK WHEN WE WERE IN THE GOLDEN AGE OF REBOOTS (WHICH ALMOST LASTED, LIKE, 2 WHOLE YEARS!) IT WAS CASINO ROYALE THAT ACTUALLY SERVED AS THE BEST EXAMPLE OF HOW TO DO IT WELL. THE PRODUCERS LOOKED AT THE OVERT-CGI JOKE-FEST OF DIE ANOTHER DAY AND REALIZED THEY NEEDED TO GET BACK TO THE CORE OF THE CHARACTER. AND NOT IN THE GADGETS AND GIRLS SENSE, OR WITH CHEESY REFERENCE-Y SENSE OF HISTORY, BUT JUST BY MAKING A REAL FUCKING MOVIE WITH ACTUAL CHARACTERIZATION, IMPORT, STAKES AND ALL THAT OTHER GOOD STUFF. THEY BASICALLY SALTED THE EARTH AND RE-CASTED EVERYTHING (SAVE JUDI DENCH) AND BROUGHT US RIGHT INTO THE GENESIS STORY, COMPLETE WITH THE DAWN OF BOND BEING MADE A DOUBLE-0 AGENT. BUT THIS WASN'T JUST A LOGIC THING. THE FILM UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SENTIMENTALITY OF WHAT MAKES BOND "BOND" WAS AN ORGANIC THING THAT WE HAD TO REDISCOVER. THE KNEW THEY COULDN'T JUST CREATE BOND USING THE REFERENCES TO THE STUFF HE DID IN THOSE OTHER MOVIES, AND INSTEAD THEY THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT HOW TO CREATE BOND IN AN EFFECTIVE CHARACTER SENSE. AND THAT MEANT FIGURING OUT WHO BOND IS, WHAT HE WANTS, WHAT HE FEARS, WHAT HE MEANS TO US, AND HOW HE IS GOING TO EVOLVE. AND  IN DOING SO, THEY CRAFTED A GENUINE CHARACTER, A BOND WITHOUT OBLIGATORY NEEDS, OR GESTURES, BUT INSTEAD HIS OWN REALITY.

THE CHOICE PAID OFF... BECAUSE HULK AND A LOT OF OTHERS FUCKING LOVE THIS FILM.

IN FACT, HULK THINKS IT'S THE BEST BOND FILM IN FOUR DECADES, PUTTING IT JUST BEHIND ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE AND FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. AND WHO KNOWS? MAYBE TIME WILL BE EVEN KINDER TO IT. BUT TO BE HONEST, HULK HAS NO INTEREST IN REALLY DISCUSSING THE MERITS OF "ZOMG, WHAT'S THE BEST BOND!?!?! LET'S ARGUE!!!" THAT GAME JUST SEEMS LIKE NO FUN AND LESS PRODUCTIVE.

SO INSTEAD LET'S TALK ABOUT WHY THIS FILM WORKS SO WELL.

LIKE HOW BOUT THIS GUY.

LOOKING BACK, IT'S HILARIOUS THAT ANYONE THOUGHT DANIEL CRAIG WOULD BE A BAD BOND. DO YOU REMEMBER THE RIDICULOUSLY INSANE "CRAIG NOT BOND" CAMPAIGN? THE ONE PREDICATED ON THE IDEA THAT DANIEL CRAIG COULDN'T BE BOND BECAUSE HE HAD BLONDE HAIR?!?!?! WELL, IF ANYTHING EVER HELPED ARGUE FOR HULK'S THEORY THAT MOST POPULAR CRITICISM IS BASED ON TANGIBLE DETAILS (AND ALSO THAT THE BOND SERIES IS SO INDULGENT THAT IT HAS HYPER INDULGENCE-CRAVING FANS), IT WAS THAT WEIRDO CAMPAIGN; ONE THAT ACTUALLY GOT A STRANGE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION AND SUPPORT!

THAT IS UNTIL THE MOVIE CAME OUT AND EVERYONE REALIZED THAT DANIEL CRAIG WAS FUCKING AWESOME. BUT, KUDOS TO THAT SITE, BECAUSE THEY SURE KEPT AT IT! SERIOUSLY, AFTER THE RELEASE THEY KEPT ARGUING THAT THE FILM WAS TERRIBLE AND THAT THE FILM'S MASSIVE SUCCESS WASN'T ACTUALLY MASSIVE BECAUSE IT KEPT "LOSING" AT THE BOX OFFICE TO HAPPY FEET. YEAH. CRAZY STUFF. AND GUESS WHAT? THE SITE WAS STILL ACTIVE THROUGH LAST YEAR! AND IT'S PRETTY DUMBFOUNDING... HOW TO PUT IT... SO HULK IS ALWAYS WAAAAAAAY HESITANT TO ACCUSE PEOPLE OF THE FOLLOWING DYNAMIC, BUT THE PEOPLE RUNNING THIS SITE REALLY SEEM TO JUST BE OPERATING ON THE ACCEPTED GIVEN THAT ALL DANIEL CRAIG THINGS HAVE TO BE BAD AND THEN JUST WORKING BACKWARDS WITH EVERY BIT OF NEWS OR WHATEVER AND CRAFTING ARGUMENTS THAT FIT THAT LOGIC. THEY'RE LIKE THE FOX NEWS OF BOND WEBSITES.

ANYCRAP, THE POINT OF HULK MENTIONING ALL THIS ABSURDITY IS THAT, BY ALL CONCEIVABLE OBJECTIVE RATIONALE HULK CAN THINK OF, CRAIG IS UNQUESTIONABLY GREAT. ON THE SURFACE, SURE. HE'S ATYPICAL OF THE ROLE. A BRUISER WITH CRACKED FEATURES AND PIERCING BLUE EYES (HONESTLY, HE'S MORE OF AN ARCHETYPAL FIT FOR THE JACK REACHER NOVELS THAN JAMES BOND). BUT THE OBVIOUS KEY TO HIS SUCCESS IS THAT CRAIG'S JUST A GREAT FUCKING ACTOR. HE DOESN'T HAVE TIMOTHY DALTON'S AIR OF PRESTIGE, OR CONNERY'S CHARM OR BROSNAN'S EASE, BUT HE CERTAINLY HAS A HECK OF A LOT MORE DEXTERITY THAN ANY OF THEM. CRAIG'S BOND CAN CONVINCINGLY BE ANYTHING: SMART, WITTY, STUPID, BRUTISH, SMOOTH, VULNERABLE, TRAGIC, TRIUMPHANT, EVEN A RUNAWAY FREIGHT TRAIN OF ACTION IF THE MOMENT CALLS FOR IT.

AND WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IT, BUT HIS GREAT PERFORMANCE WORKS FOR THIS SERIES LIKE A MAGIC ELIXIR. WHICH MAKES IT ALL THE WEIRDER THAT WE ALWAYS THOUGHT ACTORS CAN COAST BY ON PERSONALITY IN THIS SERIES. IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE THE OPPOSITE BECAUSE IT TAKES A LOT TO SELL THE RIDICULOUS AND PLAY IT STRAIGHT. AND CRAIG'S PERFORMANCE PROVIDES THE PERFECT BACKBONE TO TRULY MAKE US BELIEVE IN THE REALITY OF THE MOMENT. WHICH AGAIN IS SO CRITICAL TO FILMMAKING IN GENERAL, BUT ESPECIALLY HERE BECAUSE BOND FILMS ARE INHERENTLY DRIPPING IN UNREALITY. MEANING, YES, CRAIG SELLS US THE INVISIBLE CAR. AND THE MOVIE IS SO SMART IN KNOWING HOW EXACTLY TO TOE THE LINE IN ACCORDANCE. INSTEAD OF GOING FULL-BOND-MOVIE, IT TAKES ALL THOSE FAMILIAR CONVENTIONS AND MAKES THEM FEEL LIKE MERE FLIRTATIONS. THE BAD GUY'S BLOODY EYE, THE VODKA MARTINI JOKE, THE CONVO ABOUT THE UTTERANCE OF HIS NAME, ALL THE BONDNESS IS CERTAINLY PRESENT AND DISCUSSED, BUT NEVER OUTRIGHT META. THE MOVIE SIMPLY PUSHES IT TO THE EDGES SO THAT THE MOVIE ITSELF CAN STAND OUT. WHICH MAKES IT THE MOST PROPER REACTION TO DIE ANOTHER DAY POSSIBLE. WE GO FROM ANTI-MOVIE TO ACTUAL MOVIE. AND LUCKILY FOR US, PART OF MAKING A REAL-DEAL BOND MOVIE MEANS THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN THE GRAND HOLLYWOOD TRADITION OF ENTERTAINING US WITH THINGS ONLY HOLLYWOOD CAN DO.

LIKE GIVING US SOME ACTION SEQUENCES THAT ARE FUCKING INCREDIBLE.

THE FIRST BLACK-AND-WHITE BATHROOM FIGHT, WHILE NOT DESIGNED TO "WOW," IS INSTEAD HELLBENT ON BEING FUNCTIONAL AND VISCERAL IN ORDER TO RIGHTLY ESTABLISH THE NEW TONE. BUT THEN THE PARKOUR CHASE COMES IN RIGHT AFTER AND BLOWS THE DOORS OFF EVERYTHING.

SWEET JESUS.

WHILE IT'S SAD THAT PARKOUR KIND OF BECAME A FAD ACTION TACTIC, IT WAS DONE HERE WITH SO MUCH TACT AND GREAT BEAT-FOR-BEAT MOMENTS THAT IT IS EASILY THE MOST EXHILARATING ACTION SEQUENCE HULK HAS SEEN IN THE LAST DECADE. MAYBE MORE. AND IT'S NOT SOME OVERTLY MODERN, CGI-LADEN CRAP-FEST. INSTEAD, IT'S SUBTLE, COMPLETELY ALLOWING IT TO EMPHASIZE THE GRAND TRADITION OF BOND STUNTS! WITH EXCLAMATION! HOW RARE IS IT THAT EVERY JUMP MAKES YOU GENUINELY FEAR FOR THE CHARACTERS? SORRY, HULK CAN'T SHUT UP ABOUT THE PERFECT CRAFT OF THE SEQUENCE: CLEAR INFORMATION WITH GREAT VISUAL A-TO-B STORYTELLING, WONDERFUL PUNCTUATION MARKS, AND PROPULSIVE-BUT-NON-AGGRESSIVE EDITING. WHAT'S FUNNY IS THAT AT THE TIME A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKED ABOUT THIS FILM BEING MADE IN THE IMAGE OF THE BOURNE MOVIES, BUT THAT'S JUST A CASE OF POPULAR BUZZWORDISM. WHEN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE STYLE THE CONNECTION COULDN'T BE ANY MORE DISTANT, BOTH IN TERMS OF THE ACTION ITSELF AND THE KIND OF MOVIE THEY WERE MAKING. THIS FILM IS ITS OWN.

AND FOR THE SECOND TIME IN THE SERIES, WE HAVE MARTIN CAMPBELL TO THANK.

THANKS!

HE SAVED JAMES BOND TWICE. ISN'T THAT KIND OF REMARKABLE? AND REALLY, HE'S HAD A FASCINATING CAREER, HASN'T HE? HE EMERGED OUT OF TV WITH SOME FORGETTABLE LEGAL THRILLERS AND A RAY LIOTTA DYSTOPIAN PRISON MOVIE AND SOMEHOW GOT THE GOLDENEYE JOB. HULK PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED JUST HOW ACUTELY THAT FIRST FILM BALANCES TONES TO WILD SUCCESS, BUT IT'S WORTH SAYING AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND IN THE WAKE OF THAT FILM HE MADE THE CHARMING-AS-ALL-HELL THE MASK OF ZORRO. AND THEN ADMITTEDLY HE GOT TRIPPED UP WITH A MOUNTAIN CLIMBING ACTIONER IN VERTICAL LIMIT (WHICH ACTUALLY HAS SOME NICE STUFF IN IT), AS WELL AS ANGELINA JOLIE'S VANITY VEHICLE BEYOND BORDERS. THEN ONE ZORRO SEQUEL LATER, HE RETURNED TO THE FRANCHISE TO MAKE UNQUESTIONABLY THE BEST FILM OF HIS CAREER. WHERE GOLDENEYE WORKED BECAUSE IT TURNED THE TANGIBLE CRAZINESS INTO A GAME OF SPINNING PLATES, CASINO ROYALE SUCCEEDS WITH A LARGELY STRAIGHTFORWARD, CLASSIC APPROACH TO STORYTELLING. AND WHILE THE MOVIE PLAYS IT STRAIGHT,  DO NOT THINK FOR A SECOND THAT IT PLAYS IT "GRITTY" OR "REAL" OR "DOUR." THE MOVIE IS AS MUCH ABOUT THE ROMANCE OF JAMES BOND AS IT CAN BE, IT JUST GETS THERE WITH CAREFUL CHARACTERIZATION AND THOUGHTFUL IDEAS. AGAIN, IT'S ALL FUNCTION.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE STORY; IT'S WHAT THAT STORY MEANS.

THROUGHOUT THE LAST FEW YEARS, HULK KEEPS MAINTAINING THAT THE WAY TO MAKE A TRULY GREAT FILM THAT ACTUALLY STICKS IN PEOPLE'S BRAINS IS TO REACH THEM WITH RESONANT THEMES AND IDEAS. SOMETIMES PEOPLE ROLL THEIR EYES AT HULK SAYING THAT, THINKING THAT THEME AND SYMBOLISM IS NOT ALL THAT CRITICAL. BUT WHEN A MOVIE NOT ONLY ENTERTAINS US, BUT SPEAKS TO US, OR HAS SOMETHING INTERESTING TO SAY, EVEN IF WE ARE LARGELY UNAWARE OF IT, THEN HULK TRULY BELIEVES THAT IT BECOMES WHAT COMPELS US MOST. IT REACHES DOWN INTO US AND COMMENTS ON OUR EXPERIENCES. WE SUDDENLY HAVE A WAY OF SEEING THE WORLD MORE CLEARLY. AND OFTEN THESE SORTS OF THEMES GO FAR BEYOND THE CLUNKY TOPICALITY OF THE BROSNAN MOVIES (DIAMOND TRADING IS BAD!), BUT INSTEAD ENGAGE US IN MORE INTERESTING WAYS.

WHICH ALLOWS US TO REALIZE THAT CASINO ROYALE IS A FILM ABOUT MASCULINITY.

IT'S ABOUT MASCULINITY IN NEARLY EVERY CONCEIVABLE FORM. WE ARE INTRODUCED TO JAMES BOND THE FREIGHT-TRAIN. COCKY. UNSURE. BARGING THROUGH WALLS. HE EVEN HAS HIS FIRST FIGHT SLAMMING ANOTHER DUDE INTO A URINAL. THERE'S NO PLACE TO PUT IT, IT'S ALL ERUPTING OUT OF HIM. BUT THIS IS THE CONFIDENCE OF YOUTH. IT'S BRASH. UNCONTROLLED. LACKING NUANCE AND POLISH. BUT SOON HE STARTS TO GROW, THROUGH THE MEETING OF A SELF-ASSURED WOMAN. THROUGH HIS EXPERIENCES OF LOSS AND SUFFERING. BUT PLEASE DON'T MISTAKE THIS FILM FOR ONE ABOUT THE MAKING OF A COMPLETE MAN. REALLY, THIS IS AN HONEST LOOK AT THE CREATION OF A DAMAGED MAN. A MAN WHO LOSES AS MUCH HUMANITY AS HE GAINS. A MAN WHO QUITE LITERALLY HAS HIS MASCULINITY BEATEN FROM HIM... YOU KNOW, LIKE WHEN HIS COCK GETS REPEATEDLY BATTERED AND HE'S LEFT IN A WHEELCHAIR? YEAH, THE MESSAGE IS NOT EXACTLY SUBTLE, BUT IT ISN'T MAKING THE MISTAKE OF VERBALIZING THIS STUFF THROUGH DIALOGUE EITHER. THIS IS THE STORY OF HOW A MAN COMES TO DEAL WITH JUVENILE ANGST AND FILTERS THAT ANGER INTO HIS SITUATION, BOTH TO GOOD AND BAD EFFECT. IT'S ALSO ABOUT HOW THAT ANGER MAKES HIM DIRECT THINGS INWARD. AND HOW THAT INWARD RAGE CAN PROJECT OUTWARD IN ALL MANNERS OF MASCULINE BEING.

... THIS IS THE STORY OF HOW JAMES BONDS ARE MADE.

AND WHAT THE FILM REALIZES IS THAT THE OTHER HALF OF THAT STORY IS ABOUT VESPER LYND.

GOOD ODIN...

BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE: VESPER IS NOT A WAIF OF VACUOUS PROJECTION, NOR MERELY A VOLUPTUOUS OBJECT OF AFFECTION, NOR A HARPY, NOR A PROP OF FEMININITY, NOR AN AWKWARD SYMBOL, NOR AN IMPOSSIBLE FOIL FOR OUR MAIN MAN TO REALIZE SOMETHING. SHE IS A PERSON, FULLY-FORMED. AND YET SHE IS BOTH STRONG AND FEMININE. NOT IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE OPPOSITES, BUT STRONG AT TIMES IN THE WAY MEN ARE STRONG AND STRONG IN THE WAY THAT WOMEN ARE STRONG IN THE GENDER NORMATIVE SENSE. SHE HAS MOMENTS OF WEAKNESS IN BOTH THOSE NORMS TOO. STORY-WISE, SHE IS A FEMME FATALE, BUT SHE ALSO DESPERATELY DOES NOT WANT TO BE ONE. SHE IS BOTH UN-POSSESSED BY JAMES, YET HOPELESSLY POSSESSED TO THE CONDITIONS OF HER SITUATION. AND YET HER EMERGING LOVE FOR JAMES IS A REAL KIND OF LOVE, AT LEAST AS CLOSE AS  JAMES MAY EVER SEE. AND FEW THINGS FIT JUST HOW FAR JAMES COMES IN THIS MOVIE, AND HOW FAR HE MAY NEVER GO AGAIN, AS WHEN HE TRIES TO SAVE HER IN THAT WATER, ONE OF THE FEW IMAGES OF JAMES BOND DESPERATELY GRABBING FOR A HUMAN CONNECTION... AGAIN, IT'S NOT AS IF HULK IS TRYING TO ARGUE THAT VESPER LYND IS THE MODEL FOR MODERN FEMINISM, BUT SHE IS INSTEAD A COMMENT ON BOND GIRLS THEMSELVES. FOR VESPER IS SOMEONE WITH TRUE HUMANITY BEING FORCED INTO AN UGLY ROLE. SOMEONE WHO IS PUNISHED FOR LOVING AND FORCED TO BE A PAWN IN A LARGER GAME. THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF HOW IT IS, THIS IS A STATEMENT OF HOW AWFUL IT IS. AND IT COMES TO FRUITION THROUGH THE FACT THAT SHE IS A FULLY-REALIZED CHARACTER. ONE WHO SO CLEARLY BOTH PLAYS INTO AND EVISCERATES JAMES BOND'S ILLUSIONS OF MASCULINITY, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY EVISCERATING THE NOTIONS OF THE SACRED FEMININE. AND ALL THE WHILE, EVA GREEN IS ENRAPTURING, MESMERIZING, EASILY THE BEST BOND GIRL SINCE DIANA RIGG. IF HULK KEEPS SAYING THE BEST BOND FILMS ARE ROMANCES, THAN NEEDLESS TO SAY THEY FIGURED OUT ONE HECK OF A BRILLIANT THROUGH-LINE FOR THIS EFFORT.

THE FILM IS THE MOST HONEST KIND OF ROMANCE THE SERIES CAN OFFER: DEEPLY FELT, COMPLEX, TRAGIC AND ALWAYS HINTING AT THE LARGER FORCES AT PLAY. LIKE ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, IT IS WILLING TO DIG INTO THE DEEP TISSUE OF WHO BOND IS AND GET REAL ABOUT THE SERIES' TREATMENT OF WOMEN, EVEN TRYING TO CREATE A RESPONSIBLE APPROPRIATION FOR IT. AND IF THAT APPROPRIATION IS FLAWED, IT'S LARGELY BECAUSE THE WORLD IS FLAWED IN THE SAME WAY. FOR THIS APPROPRIATION IS ONE THAT BOTH UPHOLDS THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE CHARACTER AND YET ULTIMATELY TRANSFORMS THE MESSAGE SURROUNDING HIM.

IN THAT RESPECT, IT IS BRILLIANT.

"WE GOT THIS"

ALL THIS GLOWING LOVE FOR THE FILM'S THEMATIC COHERENCE IS NOT TO IMPLY IT IS WITHOUT PROBLEMS. IN FACT, IN PURE STORY TERMS THERE ARE QUITE A FEW. THERE'S A GOOD DEAL OF AWKWARD STRUCTURING. IT'S SO HEAVILY IMBUED WITH THE CULTURAL INTERESTS OF 2006, LIKE POKER AND PARKOUR (THOUGH THE PARKOUR IS MORE SUCCESSFUL, CINEMATICALLY SPEAKING). AND THE NARRATIVE UNHINGES WITH A FINAL SEQUENCE THAT IS BLOATED, CONFUSING AND OVERLONG (WHILE STILL AT LEAST HITTING THAT GREAT THEMATIC MARK). BUT THIS ONLY HELPS YOU REALIZE JUST HOW LITTLE THIS KIND OF STUFF ACTUALLY MATTERS TO PEOPLE. DESPITE SOME CRITICS' MODEL OF EVALUATION, PEOPLE DO NOT LOOK AT FILMS AS A CHECKLIST FOR VARIOUS QUALITIES. THEY SIMPLY WANT TO BE ENGAGED. AND CASINO ROYALE IS A FILM THAT ENGAGES. IT UNQUESTIONABLY GIVES US SOME OF THE BEST HIGHS IN THE ENTIRE BOND SERIES. WHAT IT DOES WELL, IT DOES SPECTACULARLY WELL. AND IN DOING SO IT CAPTURES SOMETHING THAT HADN'T BEEN PRESENT IN THE BOND SERIES SINCE 1969 - IT MAKES BOND FEEL ORGANIC AGAIN. FOR A SERIES OFTEN OBSESSED WITH FITTING IN WITH MODERNITY, THE FILM IS MODERN IN THE TRUEST SENSE: SMART, COMPLEX AND, DESPITE UNDERSTANDING ITS ORIGINS, IT'S WHOLLY UN-ANACHRONISTIC. SO EVEN IF THERE ARE A FEW NOTICEABLY FLAWED ASPECTS OF THE STORY CONSTRUCTION AND TONAL IDENTITIES, WELL, THAT'S NOT WHAT MATTERS.

BECAUSE CASINO ROYALE ISN'T EVERYTHING WE COULD EVER WANT FROM A BOND FILM.

IT'S WHAT WE NEEDED.

AND EVEN MORE.

WHICH MAKES IT TOO BAD ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED NEXT...

22. QUANTUM OF SOLACE (2008)

DON'T WORRY, DIE ANOTHER DAY! SOCIETY'S PROCLIVITY OF RELYING ONLY ON RECENT HISTORY ALSO DICTATES THAT QUANTUM OF SOLACE IS ONE OF THE WORST FILMS IN THE BOND SERIES, IF NOT THE WORST. SO YOU'RE NOT ALONE!

THE THING IS THAT HULK WILL HAPPILY ARGUE THAT IT'S NOT REALLY A BAD FILM OR EVEN A BADLY MADE FILM. IT'S JUST THAT IT ONLY WORKS IF YOU THINK OF IT AS A PURE TACK-ON ENDING TO THE PREVIOUS FILM OR, AS AN EVEN GRAVER OFFENSE, JUST AS A PURE ACTION MOVIE.

MEANING THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THAT THIS IS NOT A BOND FILM.

MEANING FOR ALL HULK'S TALK ABOUT TRYING TO GROUND THESE MOVIES IN SOMETHING REAL, THERE IS SUCH A THING AS GOING TOO FAR WITH IT. THE WHOLE CORE IDENTITY STILL MATTERS. WE CAN CHANGE THE TONE, CHANGE THE ACTION, LOSE VILLAINOUS LAIRS AND EVEN STRIP DOWN THE GADGETS - BUT BOND MOVIES STILL NEED TO BE BOND MOVIES. AND WHILE WE ALL HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS ON WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS, BY EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE STANDARD WE EACH HAVE, WHETHER TANGIBLE, TONAL OR FUNCTIONAL - QUANTUM IS THE LEAST-BONDY BOND MOVIE EVER MADE.

SO OF COURSE PEOPLE DISLIKE IT.

THE FILM WAS HELMED BY JOURNEYMAN DIRECTOR MARC FORSTER, WHO IS A DIRECTOR HULK FINDS TO BE COMPLETELY, UTTERLY DEVOID OF BOTH SOUL AND DISTINCTION. IT'S A TRICKY APPRAISAL TO JUST THROW OUT THERE LIKE THAT. AFTER MAKING WAVES WITH THE BEYOND-DOWNTRODDEN AND GRIM (BUT STILL WHOLLY INSIGHTFUL) MONSTER'S BALL, HE JUST STARTED JUMPING FROM PRESTIGE PROJECT TO PRESTIGE PROJECT IN AN EFFORT TO BOTH MAKE GOOD WORK AND APPEAR AS SOMETHING OF A GENRE-HOPPING CHAMELEON. ON PAPER, HULK LOVES THE IDEA OF A SERIOUS FILMMAKER ENGAGING THE WIDE RANGE THAT FILM HAS TO OFFER. THE PROBLEM IS ONE OF THOSE PROVERBIAL WOLF-IN-SHEEP'S-CLOTHING THINGS. HE'S IMITATING TONES AND STYLES, BUT NEVER IMBUING THEM WITH ANYTHING BEYOND THE POINT-AND-SHOOT AESTHETICS - EVEN THEN NOT DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB WITH THEM. BUT IT WOULD ALL BE SERVICEABLE WERE IT NOT THAT ALL OF THESE FILMS DROP THE BALL WITH THEIR CENTRAL MISSIONS. THERE'S THE STORY-LESS FINDING NEVERLAND. THE TONE-DEAF STAY, THE SACCHARINE BETRAYAL OF THE THE KITE RUNNER, AND HIS MOST OFFENSIVE ENTRY WAS OF COURSE THE D.O.A. APPROACH TO STRANGER THAN FICTION, A CLASSIC THAT NEEDED A DEFT COMIC HAND AND ABILITY TO COME AT A WORLD DIFFERENTLY IF THERE EVER WAS ONE (THINK WHAT THE COEN BROTHERS DO TO "REALITY"). AGAIN, IT'S NOT THAT FORSTER HAS TO HAVE HIS OWN VOICE THAT HE FORCES INTO EVERYTHING, IT'S THAT HE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO IMBUE A FILM WITH ITS OWN VOICE. BUT THERE NEVER SEEMS TO BE ANY REAL PERSPECTIVE IN HIS WORK. NOR URGENCY. NOR MOTIVATION. NO MATTER WHAT A GOOD ACTOR SEEMS TO BE DOING WITH A MOMENT, HIS FILMS ALWAYS COME ACROSS AS HOLLOW. MEANING HE NEVER UNDERSTOOD WHAT ANY OF THESE FILMS REALLY NEEDED TO MAKE THEM WORK. SO OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO COULD HAVE BEEN GOOD CANDIDATES FOR CHAMELEONS, IT TURNS OUT HE SHOULD HAVE STUCK WITH ON-THE-NOSE SERIOUS, GRIMY MOVIES. BECAUSE, WELL...

PARDON HULK'S FRENCH, BUT THE REST OF HIS WORK ARE LIMP-DICK MOVIES.

BUT REGARDLESS OF HULK'S FEELINGS, HE EVENTUALLY TOOK THAT "IMPORTANT FILM" PEDIGREE RIGHT INTO THE BOND SERIES, AS SUCH. PEOPLE PUT SO MANY HIGH HOPES ON HIS INVOLVEMENT. AND WHO KNOWS, HE MIGHT BE THE NICEST GUY IN THE WORLD AND HULK IS BEING A MEAN-LITTLE-JUDGMENTAL-FARTY-PANTS (PROBABLY TRUE), BUT EVEN HULK WAS TERRIFIED-YET-SECRETLY-HOPEFUL ABOUT HIS INVOLVEMENT. BUT SOON AFTER THE RELEASE OF QUANTUM, IT ALL BECAME TOO CLEAR. LOOKING AT THIS FILM, YOU MIGHT IMPLICITLY UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT HULK MEANS ABOUT HIS FILMMAKING AT LARGE. BECAUSE BOND FANS WERE AGHAST. HECK, IT WAS SO EGREGIOUS HE WAS EFFECTIVELY FORCED INTO DIRECTOR JAIL FOR A FEW YEARS AND EVENTUALLY FOLLOWED IT UP WITH A GERARD BUTLER MOVIE THAT HULK HAS LITERALLY NEVER EVEN HEARD OF.

BUT THE STRANGE TRUTH IS THAT QUANTUM IS ALSO A MORE INTERESTING FAILURE THAN PEOPLE GIVE IT CREDIT FOR. FOR ALL THE WAYS IT TRIED TO BE THE LEAST BONDY-BOND, SOME OF THOSE THINGS MADE IT SEEM LIKE THEY WERE TRYING TO BE SUBVERSIVE IN THAT REGARD. FOR INSTANCE, BOND NEVER SLEEPS WITH HIS MAIN BOND GIRL (A FIRST! USUALLY IT'S HIS BIG REWARD). AND THE BAD GUY IS JUST A SUPER-CORPORATE JERK WITH A FAIRLY COMMONPLACE REAL-LIFE BUSINESS PLAN (IT'S ABOUT THE FIGHT FOR THE WORLD'S FUTURE WATER SUPPLY). IT EVEN GETS INTO THE IDEAS OF MONOPOLIES AND THE RESOURCE-STEALING OF THIRD-WORLD COUNTRIES. AND ON THE SUBTEXT LEVEL WE GO "YUP, THESE ARE THE REAL-LIFE EQUIVALENTS FOR THE REAL MEGALOMANIAC BOND VILLAINS THAT WE'RE USED TO." AND THE IDEA ITSELF IS ACTUALLY PRETTY INTERESTING, AN ATTEMPT TO GET AT THE MODERN SUBVERSIVE TRUTH BEHIND OUR BOND LORE.

BUT BY PURSUING ALL OF THESE IDEAS AT ONCE, WHILE STYLISTICALLY DE-EMPHASIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE MOVIES, IT BECOMES A DEATH KNELL.

BECAUSE FORSTER HAS NO IDEA HOW TO MAKE ANY OF THESE IDEAS EITHER DRAMATIC OR CINEMATIC. EVERY ONE OF THESE REALITIES IS UNVEILED WITH A SHRUG. MEANING NOTHING ABOUT THESE PEOPLE OR THIS WORLD SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND OR CARE THAT THEY ARE IN A BOND MOVIE. THE MANIFESTATION OF REALISM IN THIS FILM IS NOTHING BUT ANTI-CLIMAX AND ANTI-FILMMAKING. WHICH JUST MEANS THIS FILM IS REALLY THE MOST UNROMANTIC WAY TO APPROACH A BOND FILM AS POSSIBLE. HELL, IT'S ONE OF THE MOST UNROMANTIC MOVIES POSSIBLE. COMPARE THIS TACK TO CASINO ROYALE, WHICH DEALT WITH REALISM BY INGRAINING THE CONCERNS INTO THE LARGER TONE OF BOND MOVIES. BUT QUANTUM? INSTEAD OF A ROMANTIC LIE, IT'S A BLUNT BULLET. A STRAIGHT-THROUGH SHOT OF GRIT AND ANGER, BUT IT JUST COMES ACROSS AS HOLLOW DETERMINISM BECAUSE OF FORSTER'S TONE-DEAF SHINY AESTHETIC. BOND HAS NO CHARACTERIZATION. NO DEXTERITY. NO PERSONALITY. NOTHING, REALLY, ASIDE FROM BEING A STONE-COLD MURDERER UP UNTIL A FINAL ADMISSION. LIKE HULK ALLUDED TO, THE ENTIRE PLOT IS ONE BIG CHASE SCENE IN THE NAME OF VESPER LYND. MEANING NOTHING ABOUT THE MOVIE ITSELF COMPELS US. ISN'T JAMES BOND AT LEAST SUPPOSED TO HAVE SOME INDULGENT PART OF HIS CHARACTER? ISN'T THERE SUPPOSED TO BE A SENSE OF ESCAPISM? EVEN IF IT'S EVENTUALLY CONTEXTUALIZED INTO A BROADER, MORE-RESPONSIBLE IDEA?

IT'S JUST ALL WRONG.

PICTURED: THE REALIZATION OF WRONGNESS.

SO WHY DID THEY MAKE THIS KIND OF FILM? WHY MAKE ANY OF THESE CHOICES? IT WAS, OF COURSE, THE STANDARD OVERREACTION TO THE LAST ONE. ONLY THIS TIME IT WAS THE PERCEIVED SUCCESS. PEOPLE LOVED CASINO ROYALE AND THE POPULAR NARRATIVE AS TO WHY WAS BECAUSE THEY UPDATED THE SERIES WITH THE POPULAR BOURNE SENSIBILITY (WHICH HULK ALREADY ARGUED WAS BUZZWORD BULLSHIT), SO FOR THIS SEQUEL, THEY DOUBLED-DOWN AND MADE IT TWICE AS BOURNE-Y (IT PRACTICALLY TAKES THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOURNE SUPREMACY BEAT FOR BEAT, RIGHT DOWN TO THE LAST CONFESSIONAL SPEECH). MOST PEOPLE SAID THEY LIKED THAT THE LAST FILM STRIPPED AWAY A LOT OF THE BOND CONVENTIONS, BUT EVEN IF THE TANGIBLE THINGS WERE GONE, CASINO WAS STILL TOTALLY UPHOLDING THOSE CONVENTIONS IN CHARACTERIZATION, INSTEAD OF LAZILY ASSUMING THE CONVENTIONS WOULD DO ALL THE WORK (LIKE THE LATE BROSNAN ERA DID). BUT HERE THEY STRIP AWAY THE CHARACTERIZATION TOO. THEY EVEN STRIP AWAY THE IDEA OF THIS FILM ACTUALLY HAVING A STORY IN THE NAME OF... HAVING A BIGGER STORY?

YUP! WELCOME TO THE PRIMARY EXAMPLE OF SERIALIZATION BULLSHIT.

OKAY, NOT PRIMARY...

WE THINK OF CONTINUING A STORY INTO A SEQUEL AS MAINTAINING SOME KIND OF "EPIC SCOPE" ACROSS MOVIES, CREATING CONTINUITY AND IMPORT. BUT THAT ONLY WORKS IF YOU ARE TELLING FULL STORIES WITH EACH MOVIE. SO INSTEAD OF FEELING LIKE THE NEXT CHAPTER IN A LARGER STORY, QUANTUM IS MERELY A HALF-ASSED CONCLUSION TO A PREVIOUS STORY THAT MAY NOT HAVE TECHNICALLY CONCLUDED WITH THE EVISCERATION OF A WHOLE ORGANIZATION, BUT WAS ALREADY EMOTIONALLY CONCLUDED TO BE SURE. SERIOUSLY, DO YOU REALIZE THAT YOU COULD LITERALLY PUT THE FINAL CONFRONTATION SCENE OF QUANTUM WITH THE BOYFRIEND WHO STARTED IT ALL RIGHT AT THE END OF CASINO ROYALE AND IT WOULD CHANGE NOTHING? MEANING THE ENTIRE FILM IS JUST A TWO-HOUR CLIMACTIC FIGHT SCENE TO ANOTHER MOVIE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS THE DANGER OF SERIALIZATION. YOU BEGIN TO USE TV CLIFFHANGER THINKING AND THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN JUST TEASE THINGS OUT OVER TIME. THIS IS A COMPLETE FAILURE OF REALIZING THAT MOVIES ARE DIFFERENT. THERE IS SO MUCH TIME BETWEEN THEM THAT CLIFFHANGERS DON'T WORK. THE EMOTION DRAINS OUT. YEAH, CONNECTIVITY AND EVOLUTION IS GOOD, BUT YOU STILL NEED TO GIVE A FULL-COURSE MEAL THAT IS GOING TO SATISFY. PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO COME IN MORE-OR-LESS BLIND AND DINE WITH A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF AN EMOTIONAL ARC. AND THERE IS LITERALLY NO UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IN THE FILM. IT IS JUST WHEEL-SPINNING.

POOR EXECUTION ASIDE, HULK CAN'T HELP BUT KEEP THINKING ABOUT THE FILMMAKERS' INTENTIONS: WHAT DID THEY THINK PEOPLE WOULD GET FROM THIS BOND? WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO DO? WHICH OF COURSE TAPS INTO THE LARGER QUESTION HULK'S BEEN ISSUING FROM THE VERY BEGINNING:

WHAT DO WE WANT FROM JAMES BOND?

NO, BESIDES THIS.

BECAUSE GOING THROUGH THE LAST 22 FILMS WITH YOU, HULK HAS BEEN TRYING TO ANSWER THAT VERY QUESTION. HULK KNOWS THERE'S A SPECTRUM TO WHAT WE WANT. SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE BEEN MORE PARTIAL TO THE COMEDY, SOME OF YOU MIGHT HAVE FOUND THE GADGETS A LITTLE COOLER THAN HULK DID, OR MAYBE YOU MORE LIKED THE NAKEDLY INDULGENT BITS A LOT MORE THAN HULK DID. BUT WHATEVER WE EACH WANT, HULK HOPES THAT THIS MOVIE CONFIRMS THAT WE DON'T JUST WANT A STRAIGHTFORWARD ACTION MOVIE. THAT WE DON'T WANT A MOVIE THAT SHRUGS OFF THE ROMANTIC CONVENTIONS OF THE SERIES IN THE NAME OF REALISM. THAT IS PROOF WE WANT SOMETHING MORE MOVIE-LIKE THAN THAT.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT QUANTUM YOU CAN SEE THE RUMBLINGS OF A TREND THAT HULK HAS BEEN KIND OF WARY OF FOR SOME TIME NOW. WE USE LOTS OF WORDS TO DESCRIBE THE PHENOMENON: CALL IT THE DESIRE FOR MAINSTREAM FILMS TO BE MORE GRITTY. TO BE MORE SERIOUS. OR TO BE MORE ADULT. THE PROBLEM ISN'T JUST THAT WE DISAGREE ON WHAT THAT ACTUALLY REALLY MEANS. NOR THAT WE ALWAYS JUST MISTAKE THE FORM OF GRITTINESS FOR THE FUNCTION OF IT. WHICH HELPS REVEAL THAT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THAT OFTEN WE WANT THESE KINDS OF ACTION / ADVENTURE / COMICS PROPERTIES TO BE GRITTY AS NOTHING BUT A LAME EXCUSE TO MAKE OUR HYPER-INDULGENT TASTES SEEM VALID IN A LARGER SOCIETAL CONTEXT. IT'S NOT THAT WE CAN'T HAVE ADULT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT OUR CHILDLIKE IMPULSES, IT'S THAT WE CAN GO SO FAR AS TO DRESS UP OUR STUFFED ANIMALS AND BRING THEM TO A FANCY DINNER. WE CAN'T JUST WANT TO MAKE OUR CHILDISH THINGS SEEM ADULT.

AND THIS ISSUE IS REALLY GOING TO MATTER FOR WHAT'S NEXT...

23. SKYFALL (2012)

YOU KNOW, WHEN HULK STARTED WRITING THIS PARTICULAR ESSAY, IT WAS RIGHT WHEN SKYFALL WAS RELEASED (YEAH, THAT LONG AGO) AND, IN CASE YOU DON'T REMEMBER, IT WAS IMMEDIATELY BEING REGARDED AS ONE OF THE BEST BOND FILMS EVER MADE.

BECAUSE OF THIS, HULK STARTED WRITING ABOUT IT RATHER... CAREFULLY. THERE'S JUST THIS WEIRD HYSTERIA THAT CAN HAPPEN RIGHT DURING A FILM'S RELEASE, LARGELY BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A KIND OF EMOTIONAL HIGH FROM IT. WHICH ALSO MEANS THEY'RE SPEAKING FROM A MORE EMOTIONAL PLACE THAN USUAL, WHICH IN TURN MAKES THE CONVERSATION MORE DIFFICULT THAN USUAL (PUT IT LIKE THIS: IT'S NO ACCIDENT THE MOST DEFENSIVE OPINIONS EVER ALWAYS COME FROM PEOPLE ATTACKING "ROTTEN TOMATO PERFECT SCORE RUINERS" FOR FILMS THEY HAVEN'T SEEN YET, WHICH IS BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE MOST EMOTIONAL STAGE OF FILM-GOING POSSIBLE: THE ANTICIPATION STAGE). AND WHEN HULK LOOKED BACK AT WHAT HULK WROTE ORIGINALLY FOR THIS ESSAY, T'S AMAZING HOW HESITANT HULK WAS TO COME RIGHT OUT AND EXPLAIN THE REACTION IN THE CLEAREST MANNER POSSIBLE. HULK WAS INSTEAD SO QUICK HULK TO PRAISE THE FILM'S POSITIVE ASPECTS AND NEEDLESSLY CONTEXTUALIZE THE HARSH PARTS. BUT AS MUCH AS HULK WAS AFRAID TO BE DIRECT ABOUT IT THEN, HULK WAS CLEARLY TRYING TO PROGNOSTICATE THAT TIME WOULD NOT BE SO KIND TO THE FILM. THAT SOON OTHER PEOPLE WOULD START TO VOICE THEIR PROBLEMS AMIDST THE FERVOR. AND THAT EVENTUALLY MANY WOULD SEE THE PROBLEMATIC SEAMS OF THIS FILM AFTER SOBERING UP, SO TO SPEAK. AND NOT THAT IT MATTERS FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN HULK PATTING HULK'S OWN BACK, BUT THIS CHANGE OF OPINION REALLY DID HAPPEN.

IN FACT, SKYFALL HAS GONE ON TO BECOME PRETTY DIVISIVE.

WHAT COULD ACCOUNT FOR SUCH A SHIFT IN THE POPULAR PERSPECTIVE? WAIT, IS THE SHIFT A VALID CONVERSATION? AND EVEN IF IT IS, COULD THERE BE TOTALLY VALID OPINIONS ON BOTH SIDES? WE WILL GET INTO THE MERITS OF EACH ARGUMENT IN A BIT, BUT HULK JUST WANTS TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE IS A WEIRD DYNAMIC AT THE HEART OF OUR DISAGREEMENT: BECAUSE SKYFALL IS GENUINELY EXCITING, PRETTY AND DOES ALL THAT OTHER "OBJECTIVE" STUFF REALLY WELL, IT CREATES A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE THE RELATIVE PRAISE AND SCORN FOR THE FILM GETS RIGHT AT THE HEART OF THE CENTRAL QUESTION WE KEEP ASKING OURSELVES TIME AND TIME AGAIN: "WHAT DO WE WANT OUT OF A BOND FILM?" OR PERHAPS A BETTER LEADING QUESTION IS THIS, "IF WE KNOW WHAT WE WANT FROM JAMES BOND, HOW DOES A FILM BEST VALIDATE WHAT WE WANT?"

WITH THOSE QUESTIONS IN MIND, LET'S GO BACK TO OUR TWO ESTABLISHED GENERAL RULES FOR THE BOND SERIES:

1. EVERY BOND FILM IS AN OVERREACTION TO THE PREVIOUS ONE.

2. THE BEST BOND FILMS ARE ROMANCES.

SO IF QUANTUM WAS NOTHING BUT A SERIES OF WELL-COMPOSED YET MEANINGLESS ACTION SCENES WITH VERY LITTLE BOND-NESS TO IT, THEN SKYFALL WOULD CERTAINLY TRY TO REVERSE ALL THAT, RIGHT?

RIGHT INDEED. AFTER A BIG MGM BANKRUPTCY KERFUFFLE THAT'S TOTALLY UNIMPORTANT TO OUR DISCUSSION, THE PRODUCERS STARTED OFF RIGHT WITH THE HIRING OF A SMART, VISUALLY-DRIVEN FILMMAKER IN SAM MENDES. NOW, WE COULD PROBABLY HAVE AN ENTIRE SIDE-ESSAY ABOUT THE RELATIVE MERITS OF HIS FILMS, BUT IT'S SAFE TO SAY HE'S AT LEAST AN INTERESTING FILMMAKER; OR AT LEAST ONE WHO CAN MAKE A PRETTY-LOOKIN PICTURE. BUT RATHER THAN DELIVER A LOFTY MEDITATION ON BOND OR HIS CENTRAL THEMES, MENDES COMPLETELY WHETTED THE APPETITE OF THE PRODUCERS WHEN HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE MAIN INFLUENCE ON HIS VISION OF BOND WOULD BE A CERTAIN UBER-PROFITABLE MOVIE THAT RHYMES WITH "THE NARK DIGHT."

HOW PROFITABLE? IMAGINE THIS WASN'T BURNED.

OF COURSE, IT'S NOT JUST THE WHOLE CRAZY SUCCESS THING, BUT LARGELY BECAUSE THE DARK KNIGHT WAS (STILL IS?) THE STANDARD BEARER FOR ADULT-MINDED-YET-ACCESSIBLE-SERIOUS-PG13-FARE-THAT-VALIDATES-YOUR-SILLY-FRANCHISE-YET-IS-STILL-TOTALLY-A-GREAT-MOVIE-WITH-COMPLEX-THEMES-AND-THOUGHTS-SO-IT-IS-ALL-OKAY. AND BECAUSE OF THAT STATUS, THE FILM SPENT A NUMBER OF YEARS AS THE LIGHTNING ROD MODEL FOR "NEW" BLOCKBUSTER THINKING (OFTEN TO DISASTROUS RESULTS. SEE PRIOR FORM / FUNCTION DISCUSSIONS). BUT EVERYONE REALLY FELT LIKE IT WAS THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR THIS (SOMETIMES) VILLAIN-CENTRIC SERIES AND SOUGHT TO USE THE FILM'S MODUS OPERANDI COMPETENTLY HERE (IF NOT PRETTY BLATANTLY ON THE PLOT LEVEL). BUT PART OF TAKING THE PROPERTY SERIOUSLY MEANT BRINGING IN HEAVYWEIGHTS LIKE MASTER CINEMATOGRAPHER LIKE ROGER DEAKINS AND A TRULY GREAT WRITER IN JOHN LOGAN. TOGETHER THEY ALL SOUGHT TO MAKE A GREAT, BEAUTIFUL MOVIE THAT GOT US BACK TO THE ESSENCE OF THE BOND FRANCHISE.

AND ON ONE LEVEL, BOY HOWDY DID IT WORK.

FOR IF STORYTELLING IS ABOUT LENDING WEIGHT, CONSEQUENCE AND THEME TO EVENTS OF THE STORY, THEN SKYFALL SUCCEEDS ADMIRABLY, PARTICULARLY ON THE MOST TANGIBLE SURFACE LEVEL. WE REALLY GET A DEEP SENSE OF HISTORY TO THIS ONE, EVEN ALLOWING FOR THE RARE MOMENT OF GETTING INTO BOND'S ORIGINS. WE GET A HUGE-PERSONALITY BAD GUY WHO IS ALL FULL OF MENACE AND ALLURE, RIFE WITH A SIMILAR SENSE OF HISTORY AND A QUEST FOR VENGEANCE. HE'S PROBABLY ONE THE BEST VILLAINS SINCE PLEASENCE... WHICH IS PROBABLY FITTING AFTER QUANTUM ESSENTIALLY FEATURED A VILLAIN WHO WASN'T MUCH MORE THAN AN INEFFECTUAL SAD-SACK WITH A GOOD BUSINESS PLAN. AND IT'S NOT JUST THAT, COMPARED TO QUANTUM, THE ACTION OF SKYFALL IS MOSTLY QUIET AND TASTEFUL. IT DOWNPLAYS ALL OF THE BANG-BOOM KINETICISM IN FAVOR OF MOOD AND TENSION. HECK, THE BEST ACTION SEQUENCE IN THE FILM (SHANGHAI) ACTUALLY BORDERS ON AN ARTISTIC STATEMENT, FOR IT PUTS THE VISUAL STYLINGS OVER EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE SCENE, WHILE STILL SOMEHOW BEING EFFECTIVE (BELIEVE HULK, IT TAKES A LOT OF CRAFT TO MAKE FLUORESCENT STATIC SHOT SILHOUETTES NOT ONLY SEEM UNPRETENTIOUS, BUT EXHILARATING). BUT AGAIN, MENDES DIDN'T JUST MAKE A PROFESSIONALLY CRAFTED MOVIE HERE, BUT ONE THAT WAS INGRAINED IN PURPOSE. LOOK AT ALL THE KEY THEMATIC DETAILS: THE NOTIONS OF SACRIFICE AND REBIRTH IMAGERY. THE WAY IT HINGES ON A CENTRAL IDEA OF TWO SONS, AND THE IDEOLOGIES THAT SPLIT THEM ALONG A SIMILAR EXPERIENCE, OR EVEN THE GHOSTS THAT HAUNT THEM. LOOK AT THE WAY IT PLAYS THE DEATH OF M. OR THE WAY IT LEADS TO THE RISE OF THE NEW M (WHICH WAS DONE EXTRAORDINARY SLEIGHT OF HAND, BY THE WAY. THERE'S NOT AN OUNCE OF CHEAPNESS THERE). ALL OF THESE DETAILS ARE BROUGHT TO LIFE IN AN ORGANIC, SERIOUS AND MEANINGFUL WAY TO THE CHARACTERS, ALL RESULTING IN THE SUCCESSFUL "CREATION" OF THE BOND ICONOGRAPHY.

... YOU KNOW, IT'S BEGINNING TO SOUND LIKE HULK LOVES SKYFALL.

WELL, THERE'S STUFF TO LOVE.

AND OF COURSE HULK IS TOTALLY WILLING TO ADMIT THAT IT'S A WELL-MADE AND WELL-INTENTIONED MOVIE. WHICH SORT OF MAKES IT ALL THE SADDER THAT MOST ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE FILM HAVE COME IN THE FORM OF NITPICKY PLOT-HOLE STUFF THAT SO DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL. SO WHAT IS REALLY BOTHERING THEM? WHAT IS REALLY BOTHERING HULK? THERE IS SOMETHING UNDERNEATH ALL THAT PLOT AND EXECUTION STUFF THAT GNAWS AT YOU WHILE WATCHING. IT'S JUST HARD TO SEE BECAUSE THE FILM IS SO "FLAWLESS" (AS IN THE ABSENCE OF A NOTICEABLE FLAW) WITH SO FEW NEGATIVE TANGIBLE DETAILS TO POINT AT, THAT IT FEELS SILLY TO THINK ABOUT IT. BUT THERE'S A REAL NAGGING PROBLEM THAT IS TOTALLY THERE, JUST UNDER THE SURFACE...

WHAT COULD IT BE? WHAT COULD BE SO TROUBLING?

WELL, LET'S PUT IT LIKE THIS: WHILE SKYFALL LEGITIMIZES THE BOND ICONOGRAPHY, IT ALSO WORSHIPS SAID ICONOGRAPHY TO THE POINT THAT IT ALSO LEGITIMIZES THE SHITTIER ASPECTS OF JAMES BOND AND EVERYTHING UGLY THAT HE REPRESENTS, THUS GIVING ALL THE NEEDED AMMO FOR VALIDATING THE MOST INDULGENT QUALITIES OF ITS FANS.

... UH OH.

* * *

SO LET'S GO BACK TO THE SECOND "RULE," WHEREIN HULK HAS ARGUED THAT THE BEST BOND FILMS ARE ROMANCES.

IT'S THE KIND OF STATEMENT THAT SEEMS OBVIOUS WHEN LOOKING AT AN INANE, HUMORLESS FILM LIKE QUANTUM, BUT IT GETS MORE COMPLICATED WITH SOMETHING LIKE SKYFALL. BECAUSE EVEN IF IT IS INDEED A GRITTY OR HARD TYPE OF FILM, THERE STILL IS A KIND OF ROMANCE TO IT. IT'S JUST THAT IT'S THE ROMANCE OF NOSTALGIA. FOR THIS IS A FILM THAT IS IN LOVE WITH WHO BOND IS. SERIOUSLY, LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY ROMANTICIZED: BOND'S ORPHAN ORIGINS. HIS LONERISM. HIS DESPONDENCY. HIS OLD SCHOOL NATURE. HIS DISTASTE FOR MODERN INFORMATION-BASED SPY CRAFT. HIS (EFFECTIVELY) GETTING ONE OVER ON HIS BOSS. HIS ABILITY TO SEX-HEAL DAMAGED WOMEN WITH HIS COCK. HIS COMPLETE DISINTEREST IN WOMEN OTHERWISE. AND EVEN HIS UGLY, GRIM DETERMINISM. WHERE OTHER EFFORTS CASINO ROYALE OR GOLDENEYE ACKNOWLEDGED THESE ASPECTS, THEY CONTEXTUALIZED THEM WITHIN A SOCIETY THAT DISAPPROVES AND INSTEAD ROMANTICIZED BOND'S MORE SENSITIVE UNDERPINNINGS. SURE, HE WAS GRUFF AND COCKSURE, BUT THEY ALSO HIGHLIGHTED WHY THOSE WERE HIS WORST TRAITS, ALONG WITH SHOWCASING HOW IT WAS OKAY FOR HIM TO BE EMASCULATED (OR AT LEAST SOFTEN UP) FOR THE GREATER GOOD. THE CENTRAL IDEA IS THAT BOND, HOWEVER USEFUL AS A BLUNT INSTRUMENT, IS LIMITED. AND HOWEVER MUCH HIS RESOLVE SAVES THE DAY, STILL NEEDS TO BE A PART OF A LARGER DICHOTOMY.

BUT SKYFALL SECRETLY ARGUES THAT THOSE SENSITIVITIES ARE FOR FUCKIN' PUSSIES.

PEW! PEW!

THAT MAY SOUND HARSH, BUT HULK SWEARS THAT'S WHAT THE FILM'S TEXT IS TRYING TO CONVINCE US OF IN EVERY SCENE. THERE IS AN OVERTLY MASCULINE, BEGRUDGING TONE TO JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. THE BELIEF THAT NO, BOND WAS RIGHT TO BE THE COLD LONER AND EVERYONE SHOULD JUST THANK HIM FOR BEING HIM, EXACTLY AS HE IS! AND YOU SHOULD BE PUNISHED OR LEARN YOUR LESSON IF YOU DO NOT THINK SO!

NOW. HULK ALWAYS TALKS ABOUT WHAT A MOVIE BELIEVES OR ARGUES, AND SOMETIMES THAT'S CONFUSING FOR PEOPLE (UNDERSTANDABLY). THERE'S AN INSTINCT TO THINK "BUT THE MOVIE IS SO DEBONAIR AND RESERVED AND PRETTY AND ADULT IT DOESN'T 'FEEL' LIKE IT WOULD TRY TO SAY SOMETHING THAT UGLY OR BAD!" BUT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S JUST A TONAL THING, NOT A TEXT-BASED THING. SO HERE'S A SIMPLER WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT:

IMAGINE THAT THE WORLD OF THE MOVIE HAS A VERY REAL "GOD" AND THAT GOD USES THE KARMA OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT MOVIE - I.E. WHO IS ULTIMATELY JUSTIFIED OR MADE FUN OF OR SUPPORTED OR KILLED OR WHATEVER, AND THAT SUM TOTAL OF THOSE CONSEQUENCES RESULTS IN WHAT THIS GOD OF THE MOVIE'S WORLD "BELIEVES." WELL, SINCE THE WRITER IS ACTUALLY THE GOD CONTROLLING IT, IT IS WHAT THE WRITER BELIEVES TOO. NOW, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A MILLION SHADES OF GRAY AND ARGUMENTS IN THERE - LIKE THE FACT THAT WHAT THE MOVIE'S GOD BELIEVES MAY NOT BE WHAT THE AUTHOR ACTUALLY BELIEVES, AS THAT BELIEF COULD RESIDE WITHIN THE CHARACTER'S STRUGGLES ON THE NATURE OF SAID UNIVERSE - OR THAT A CHARACTER'S BEHAVIOR MAY NOT REFLECT WHAT THE MOVIE BELIEVES AT ALL (THE BEHAVIOR OF BAD GUYS FOR INSTANCE) - OR EVEN THAT SOMETHING THAT IS THE BUTT OF A JOKE MAY NOT BE PART OF THE CONTEXT BELIEF EITHER  - OR ON THE FLIPSIDE, PEOPLE WILL SAY THE JOKE ISN'T MEANT TO BE PROBLEMATIC, BUT IT TOTALLY IS... HULK COULD GO ON AND ON. THERE'S TONS OF LAYERS TO IDENTIFYING THE AUTHOR'S INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL BELIEFS, BUT THE THING IS THAT YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY PARSE OUT WITH A LITTLE ANALYSIS OR EVEN JUST FOLLOW ALONG NATURALLY WHILE WATCHING. SERIOUSLY, IT'S NOT THAT HARD. IN FACT, IT'S ACTUALLY THE BASIC WAY WE BOTH CREATE MEANING AND ACCEPT MEANING IN STORYTELLING. GOOD FILMMAKERS / WRITERS DO IT ALL THE DAMN TIME. THEY KNOW HOW TO ACT AS THE "GODS" OF THEIR UNIVERSE AND DRAMATIZE THESE EVENTS TO CREATE SOME KIND OF STATEMENT OF THEME. AS CONVOLUTED AS THE EXPRESSION CAN GET SOMETIMES, IT'S ALL REALLY QUITE BASIC AND INSTINCTUAL FOR US. IT IS AN ACTIVE COMPONENT OF ALL OUR STORYTELLING.

AND NO MATTER WHAT THESE BELIEFS / MESSAGES / THEMES ARE, IT’S ALWAYS THERE.

BECAUSE EVERY MOVIE DEALS WITH ACTION AND CONSEQUENCE. MEANING EVERY MOVIE IS SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT THE CHARACTERS’ WANTS AND NEEDS… THUS EVERY MOVIE SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT HOW LIFE “WORKS” WHETHER YOU MEAN IT TO OR NOT.

NOW, YOU COULD ARGUE THIS UGLY THEMATIC STUFF IN SKYFALL IS INADVERTENT AND THUS LESS INSIDIOUS AND PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE FAIR. YOU COULD ARGUE THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO CAPTURE SOME OF THE CLASSIC ICONOGRAPHY AND SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS CAME WITH IT BY ACCIDENT. OR YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THIS FILM SHOWCASES A LESS-SENSITIVE BOND BECAUSE THE CHARACTER’S EVOLUTION FROM SENSITIVE PERSON IN CASINO TO THE HARDER, MORE CONNERY-ESQUE BOND (OR WORSE, “FLEMING’S BOND”). BUT WHETHER INADVERTENT OR A RESULT FROM LOGICALLY-DRIVEN PURPOSE, IT ALL JUST GIVES OUT ON THE MORAL LEVEL WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT THIS IS A WELL-MADE MOVIE THAT IS TRYING TO LEGITIMIZE ALL OF THE UGLIEST IDEAS THROUGH A FALSE ADULT TEXTURE.

… SOUND EXTREME?

OKAY, LET’S TALK ABOUT THE SEX WORKER.

IN THE FILM BOND FOLLOWS HIS LEAD TO A MACAU CASINO WHERE HE ENCOUNTERS SEVERINE, A MID-LEVEL BOSS IN THE VILLAIN'S LARGER OPERATION. WE'VE SEEN THIS KIND OF HENCHWOMAN CHARACTER POP UP LOTS OF TIMES IN THE SERIES. SHE'S USUALLY A FEATHER-HAIRED PERSON SCARED OF THE BIG BAD AND USUALLY ENDS UP IN THE SACK WITH BOND. AND IN THIS FILM, SEVERINE STARTS PLAYING BACK AGAINST BOND PRETTY HARD IN A VERBAL TÊTE-À-TÊTE IN THE GRAND TRADITION OF THE SERIES. BUT THE SCENE SUDDENLY TAKES A RIGHT TURN WHEN BOND STARTS LAYING A PSYCHOANALYSIS OF HER RIGHT ON THE TABLE. HE GUESSES ABOUT HER HISTORY, HIGHLIGHTING THE FACT THAT SHE WAS LIKELY A SEX WORKER AT A YOUNG AGE WHO GREW UP WITH AN INCREDIBLY HARD-AS-SHIT LIFE, PASSED FROM OWNER TO OWNER, FULL OF EVERYTHING YOU CAN IMAGINE. AND YOU CAN SEE IN HER EYES THAT IT'S ALL TRUE. AND AT FIRST, THIS MOMENT READS LIKE A MOMENT OF RAW HUMANITY AND A REAL ATTEMPT TO BRING SOME REALISM TO THESE KINDS OF THROWAWAY ROLES. TO HIGHLIGHT THE DANGEROUS WORLD OF ORGANIZED CRIME AND WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A WOMAN IN THIS ARENA, AND BOND BEING UNAFRAID TO HIGHLIGHT THE SENSITIVE REALITY OF ALL THIS AND SAID SENSITIVITY SORT OF LEADS TO THEM MAKING A DEAL AND THE PROMISE THAT BOND CAN PROTECT HER FROM HER EMPLOYER. THERE'S A WEIRD MENACE TO BOND'S TONE IN THE SCENE, BUT IT REALLY DOES SEEM LIKE A MOMENT OF SENSITIVITY FOR A WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN PASSED AROUND BY THE WILL OF AWFUL MEN, WITH THE PROMISE OF GETTING HER OUT OF THAT.

AND THEN BOND SNEAKS ONTO HER BOAT, SHOWS UP IN HER SHOWER UNANNOUNCED, AND FUCKS HER.

LITERALLY NOT AWARE HE'S BEHIND HER.

OKAY... YOU MAY NOT REALIZE IT, BUT THIS IS DEEPLY PROBLEMATIC. SURE, BOND IS "THE GOOD GUY," SO OF COURSE SHE SLEEPS WITH HIM! BUT WATCH HOW THAT SCENE IS PLAYED. IMAGINE SOME GUY SHOWING UP IN YOUR SHOWER LIKE THAT. THINK ABOUT HOW HE JUST TALKED ABOUT BEING SENSITIVE TO HER PAST OF BEING SEXUALLY MISTREATED AT THE WHIMS OF POWERFUL MEN. THINK ABOUT THE POWER BOND HAS IN THAT SITUATION. THINK ABOUT HOW HE SAYS HE LIKES HER BETTER WITHOUT HER GUN (I.E. HER POWER, WHETHER THREATENING OR DEFENSIVE), LOOK HOW SHE GIVES IN FATALISTICALLY FOR A MOMENT. THINK ABOUT HOW FUCKED UP THAT ALL IS. AND NO, IT'S NOT A COMPLEX, ADULT TREATMENT OF THE ISSUE THAT'S FULL OF SHADES OF GRAY (PUN INTENTIONAL). IT'S NOTHING BUT THE SAME OLD "BOND'S MAGIC COCK" THING, ONLY INSTEAD OF TAKING PLACE IN SOME MAGICAL ROMANTIC ABSTRACT UNIVERSE WITH COLORED JUMPSUITS WHERE IT WOULD BE SILLY, IT TAKES PLACE IN THE REAL WORLD WHERE BOND WOULD JUST SHOW UP IN A WOMAN'S SHOWER TO FUCK HER AFTER JUST TALKING ABOUT HOW SHE'S SEXUALLY ABUSED IN A LARGER POWER STRUCTURE OF CRIMINALS AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO FUCKING CELEBRATE IT!??! HULK'S SORRY, BUT IF YOU WANT YOUR FILM TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY W/R/T SEXUALITY, THEN YOU CAN'T TURN AROUND AND DICTATE TERMS AND TELL US IT DOESN'T MATTER WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING HORRIFIC IN A MOMENT THAT'S JUST BULLSHIT FANTASY (ONE RENDERED ALL THE MORE UGLY BY NATURE OF RESCUING A TRUE-BLUE VICTIM). AND NO, THE SCENE DOESN'T PLAY AS "COMMENTARY" ON THESE ISSUES. IT JUST EXPLOITS THEM. AND ON EVERY MORAL CONCEIVABLE GROUND, IT'S A THOUSAND TIMES MORE OFFENSIVE TO HULK THAN THE EASILY-IDENTIFIABLE DINOSAUR THROWBACKS OF MAN TALK AND A BUTT SLAP... BECAUSE THIS IS SOME REAL INSIDIOUS SHIT.

WORSE, ANY ATTEMPTS TO RECONCILE THIS STATEMENT IN SOME HUMANE WAY ARE CUT SHORT JUST MOMENTS LATER WHEN THEY REACH THE ISLAND AND SILVA (THE VILLAIN) TAKES HER ASIDE (REVEALED HANGING BOOBS FIRST) AND POINTS A GUN AT HER HEAD AS A TEST TO BOND. THE ENTIRE SCENE PLAYS OUT COMPELLING AND WITH GREAT TENSION BECAUSE OF BARDEM'S PLAYFUL PERFORMANCE, BUT THINK ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED BETWEEN BOND AND SEVERINE AND WATCH FOR WHAT IT MEANS TO BOND'S CHARACTERIZATION, NOT THOSE OTHER PURPOSES...

IT WHOLLY BACKS UP THE IDEA THAT BARDEM'S VILLAIN IS A MONSTER, BUT IN TERMS OF BOND IT READS AS THE MOST FUCKING CALLOUS THING EVER.  ASIDE FROM ONE SLIGHT GRIMACE, BOND DOESN'T SEEM TO GIVE TWO FUCKS THAT IT EVEN HAPPENS. EVEN IF HE'S JUST TRYING TO KEEP UP HIS "HARD" GUISE HE UNDOES THAT LITERALLY ONE SECOND LATER BY TURNING HER DEATH INTO A TONE-DEAF QUIP ABOUT SCOTCH AND THEN ATTACKING THEM ANYWAY INSTEAD OF STOPPING IT TO BEGIN WITH? THINK TO THE SCENE BEFORE - IS THIS WHAT HE MEANT BY PROTECTING HER? WOULD HER DEATH ONLY SERVE AS A MOMENTARY CHANCE TO GET THE ONE UP? AND IS HER LOSS THEN TURNED ON ITS HEAD BY HAVING THE CAVALRY ARRIVE COMPLETE WITH BOND MUSIC CUES DROPPING IN CELEBRATION? AND IS THIS ENTIRE THING IS FOLLOWED BY NOT A SINGLE REQUIEM OR CARE FOR HER CHARACTER AFTER ALL THAT UGLY BUSINESS? IN THE END, WAS SHE JUST AN ATTRACTIVE PROP FOR GIVING THE FILM A REAL AND GRITTY FEELING, BEFORE TURNING HER INTO A PROP FOR THE SAME MAGIC COCK / RAPEY BULLSHIT, BEFORE JUST TURNING HER INTO AN EXAMPLE PROP FOR HOW BAD THE BAD GUY IS, WHILE INADVERTENTLY SHOWING BOND / THE MOVIE TO BE JUST AS CALLOUS REGARDING HER ENTIRE EXISTENCE?

AGAIN, THINK ABOUT ALL THIS IN TERMS OF WHAT A GOD OF THIS MOVIE'S UNIVERSE WOULD SAY. DON'T THINK ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE WOULD PRACTICALLY DO. THINK ABOUT WHAT THE STORYTELLERS MAKE PEOPLE DO. LOOK AT THE TEXT OF THE STATEMENT ITSELF. IT'S NOT LIKE THE FILM NEEDS TO HAMMER HOME SOME HUMANE MESSAGE ABOUT THIS, BUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BROADER CONTEXTUALIZATION, NOR ANY CINEMATIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE TRAGEDY AT PLAY. SHE IS DESCRIBED AS BEING TRAGIC BY THE WRITERS, A MERE COG IN THE MACHINE. BUT THE FILM DOESN'T EVEN TAKE A SECOND TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT BEYOND THE INITIAL REALISTIC DETAILING OF THAT. INSTEAD, THE FILM UNWITTINGLY TURNS HER INTO JUST ANOTHER COG. ANOTHER SET OF MEN PASSING HER AROUND. AGAIN, IF YOU'RE STRIVING TO BE ADULT, THEN DON'T BE A PRIMARY EXAMPLE OF THE THING YOU'RE CLAIMING TO DENOUNCE. TRANSCEND IT OR CONTEXTUALIZE IT. BUT INSTEAD, THIS SEQUENCE CONTEXTUALIZES FUCK ALL.

BECAUSE WHAT IS THIS REALLY ABOUT?

WHEN IT COMES TO THESE KINDS OF SEXUAL POLITICS APPEARING IN MOVIES, IT'S HARD TO SAY WHERE IT ALL COMES FROM. IT'S NOT LIKE WRITERS SIT AROUND THINKING "WHAT CAN WE SAY THAT'S THE MOST HORRIBLE!?!?" AND HULK WOULD NEVER WANT TO IMPLY THAT. IN FACT, HULK WOULD WAGER FROM EXPERIENCE THAT IT WASN'T INTENTIONAL. BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE AT LEAST AWARE OF A PROBLEMATIC ISSUE, YOU SHOW SOME SIGN IN THE MOVIE THAT YOU AT LEAST CONSIDERED IT. VERY FEW MAINSTREAM FILMMAKERS WANT TO SAY TROUBLING GENDER THINGS; MOST WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE. MOST HAVE NOTHING BUT GOOD INTENTIONS GONE AWRY (COUGH COUGH SUCKER PUNCH). BUT YOU NEED SOMEONE TO MAKE EVERYONE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM OF A CERTAIN CHOICE. AND THEN YOU REALLY NEED TO HOPE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. BECAUSE HULK'S BEEN IN "THE ROOM" BEFORE WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO A ROOM FULL OF NINE GUYS WHY MAGIC COCKS FOR VICTIMS ARE BULLSHIT, OR WHY RAPE REVENGE IS JUST ABOUT MORE MALE BULLSHIT AND NOT A TICKET FOR WOMEN TO LIKE YOU BACK, AND SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T TAKE. SOMETIMES "THE ROOM" HAS NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND THEN THEY JUST GO BACK TO TALKING ABOUT HOW ANY RESERVATIONS ARE WHAT MAKES THE SEXUAL STUFF  "COMPLEX", "INTERESTING" OR "NUANCED." AND OF COURSE IT'S NONE OF THOSE THINGS... BUT THEN AGAIN, MOST ROOMS DON'T EVEN HAVE SOMEONE BRINGING IT UP :(

NOW HERE'S THE THING: IF THIS WERE A CONVERSATION ABOUT ONE SCENE GONE WRONG, HULK WOULD LIKELY FORGIVE IT. MOVIES ARE WEIRD SWIRLING MESSES OF INTENTION AND CERTAIN SCENES CAN JUST BREAK IN WEIRD DIRECTIONS. BUT IT'S FAR FROM THE ONLY EXAMPLE OF THE FILM PUSHING THE TEXT INTO DARK-AND-GRITTY LAND TO PROBLEMATIC RESULTS. IT'S ALL PUSHING TO THAT PLACE. THERE'S THE VISCERAL STUFF LIKE THE GENUINELY DERANGED AND MURDEROUS ATTITUDE OF THE VILLAIN. THERE'S THE CREEPY FACE DROOP MOMENT. THEN THERE'S THE WHOLE RAGING AND TOTALLY-NOT-SUBTEXT-BUT-OUTRIGHT-TEXT OEDIPAL THING. BUT THESE FLASHES OF REAL DARK STUFF ARE NOT THE PROBLEM IN AND OF THEMSELVES. HECK, MOST GOOD BOND MOVIES HAVE THESE SUDDEN WEIRD AND SCARY MOMENTS. THE CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE IS THAT SKYFALL TAKES THE TONE OF THESE SCENES AND APPLIES IT TO EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE MOVIE. THE GRIM DOURISM. THE PARANOID FEAR. EVERYTHING ABOUT THE FEELING OF THIS FILM REEKS OF THE OVERWHELMING DESIRE FOR EVERYTHING TO BE TAKEN DEAD SERIOUSLY WITH EVERYTHING THEY PURSUE. IT'S EXACTLY LIKE THE SINGULAR-ACTION-APPROACH OF QUANTUM OF SOLACE ONLY THEY JUST HAPPEN TO BE EXPLORING A SLIGHTLY MORE FUNCTIONAL APPROACH. BUT BOND FILMS NEED MORE DEXTERITY THAN THAT. AND THE PROBLEM (OR EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY) WITH THIS PARTICULAR KIND OF OVERT-SERIOUSNESS IS IT SO READILY CREATES A TWO-PRONGED, DIVERGENT RESPONSE BETWEEN THOSE BOND LOVERS WHO WANT EVERYTHING TO BE SUPER-SERIOUS TO JUSTIFY THEIR INTEREST AND THOSE WHO FIND THESE SERIOUS EFFORTS TO BE JUVENILE AND UNNERVING.

IT'S ALL ABOUT WHAT WE WANT.

FOR THOSE WHO LIKE THE UBER-SERIOUS TONE, IT COULD HONESTLY JUST BE A TEXTURAL THING. MAYBE THEY ALWAYS FOUND JAMES BOND TOO INHERENTLY SILLY (EVEN WHEN PLAYED STRAIGHT) TO FALL INTO THE ROMANCE OF IT ALL, SO THEY NEEDED THAT SERIOUSNESS TO KEEP THEIR BELIEVABILITY / INTEREST. MAYBE THEY'RE NOT THINKING MUCH OF THE THEMATIC IMPLICATIONS AND JUST WANT TO APPRECIATE A GOOD YARN. THAT'S FINE HULK SUPPOSES. IT LEADS TO FALLING FOR THE INSIDIOUS, BUT HONESTLY HULK IS MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY LOVE JAMES BOND AND LIKE THE SERIOUS TONE THING BECAUSE THEY NEED THEIR LOVE OF JAMES BOND TO BE VALIDATED. THEY SUBCONSCIOUSLY NEED TO MAKE HIM AWESOME AND BADASS AND MODERN AND REAL TO EXPLAIN TO THE OUTSIDE WHY THEY WANT TO BE HIM SO BADLY... AND ONE SUREFIRE WAY TO DO THAT IS WITH GRITTY NONSENSE. IT ALL GOES RIGHT BACK TO THE FUNCTION / FORM THING. WHEN A MOVIE FEELS GRITTY AND HAS SHOCKING MOMENTS AND STUFF IT GIVES THE OKAY FOR AN AUDIENCE TO FEEL THAT WAY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS HAPPENING... BUT THINK, WHAT IS JAMES BOND ALL ABOUT? HE'S A VEHICLE FOR MALE INDULGENCE. HE'S ALL ABOUT FUCKING AND FIGHTING AND BEING A REBELLIOUS JUVENILE BADASS... SO TO TAKE ALL THAT AND PUT THOSE KINDS OF POINTS IN TONE OF "HEY! THIS IS REALLY, REALLY SERIOUS STUFF!" AND IT IS NOTHING BUT MASKING JUVENILE THINKING WITH "ADULT" AND "DARK" CONCEPTS.

IT'S LIKE THE 14 YEAR OLD KID IN A SLIPKNOT T-SHIRT WORKING AT THE MALL.

HULK JUST REALIZED THIS IS PROBABLY A WAY DATED REFERENCE, BUT IN '98 THAT'S HOW HULK FELT ABOUT THE YOUNGINS.

WHICH SORT OF MAKES ALL THIS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE GUY HAMILTON EFFECT. INSTEAD OF TAKING THE SILLINESS AND PLAYING IT STRAIGHT, YOU'RE GOING A STEP TOO FAR AND TELLING THE AUDIENCE "THIS ISN'T SILLY! THIS IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT! TAKE IT MORE SERIOUSLY!" WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF BEING JUST AS FREAKING WEIRD. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IF YOU WANT THE FILM TO BE MORE SERIOUS, YOU CAN'T VACANTLY INDULGE. YOU HAVE TO DO IT LIKE HOW CASINO ROYALE MANAGES TO GET AT A GENUINELY ADULT FILM WHILE TRYING TO CONTEXTUALIZE BOND'S SEXUALITY IN A BROADER SPECTRUM, BUT IN SKYFALL IT'S REFERENCING DARKER IDEAS BUT REALLY IT'S JUST TRYING TO HOLD UP AND LEGITIMIZE THE OLD ARCHAIC NOTIONS OF CONNERY'S BOND... WHICH IS A GROSS TACTIC.

AND IT ALL GOES BACK TO A ROOT MISCONCEPTION OF INFLUENCE.

BECAUSE WHAT MADE THE DARK KNIGHT SUCCESSFUL WAS THAT IT WAS A THOUGHTFUL, INTERESTING MOVIE ABOUT HOW MODERN SOCIETY WORKS. YEAH, EVERYONE WAS HAPPY BECAUSE THEY WERE MAKING A GRITTY, MORE ADULT BATMAN. BUT IT WASN'T POSTURE. THE THEMES BROUGHT BATMAN INTO A BIGGER, TRULY ADULT WORLD. CORRUPTION. TERRORISM. FEAR. SOCIETAL MOB BEHAVIOR. IT ALL MADE SENSE AS ONE GIANT BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF GOTHAM AND THE CHARACTER OF BATMAN MADE REAL SENSE WITHIN THAT BATTLE. IT WASN'T ABOUT HOW COOL HE WAS. IT WASN'T ABOUT PROVING BATMAN RIGHT. IT WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT THE IMMENSE COST OF DOING THE RIGHT THING. IT WAS ABOUT HOW SAD AND UN-INDULGENT REAL HEROISM CAN BE. BUT INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING REAL, SKYFALL IS TAKING THAT GRITTY INSTINCT AND JUST PLACING IT IN AN INDULGENT CHARACTER AND GOING ABOUT IT IN AN INDULGENT WAY. IT'S A MOVIE THAT WANTS TO DRESS LIKE AN ADULT, BUT STILL HAS THE SAME JUVENILE WANTS UNDERNEATH IT. AND IT'S THE SAME WITH LOADS OF OTHER MOVIES. TRANSFORMERS. GREEN LANTERN. THE NEW TMNT. AND HECK, THEIR TARGET AUDIENCE FALLS FOR IT ALL THE TIME (LIKE THE 14-YEAR-OLD KID IN THE SLIPNOT T-SHIRT ACTUALLY THINKS HE'S DARK AND ADULT). IT ALL RESULTS IN A GET-RICH-QUICK APPROACH TO STORYTELLING WITH ANY TEEN-AIMED BLOCKBUSTER THESE DAYS. AND DEVIN'S WRITTEN ABOUT IT BEFORE AND HULK'S HAD THIS ONGOING PROBLEM THAT'S MUCH DISCUSSED WHERE PEOPLE WANT DESPERATELY FOR THEIR CHILDHOOD FANDOMS TO BE VALIDATED. TO BE MADE ADULT BECAUSE IT JUSTIFIES CONTINUED INTEREST. WHEN REALLY ALL THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS A SIMPLE ACCEPTANCE THAT THERE IS INDEED SOMETHING SILLY ABOUT BOND, OR THE TRANSFORMERS, OR NINJA TURTLES OR WHOEVER. BUT IT'S NOT FORGETTING CHILDISH THINGS AND LEAVING THEM BEHIND, IT'S ABOUT REALIZING THE CHILDISH NATURE OF THINGS IS OKAY. SILLY THINGS ARE FUN. AND INDULGING YOURSELF IS OKAY WHEN YOU KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING. BUT WHEN WE DESPERATELY WANT VALIDATION FOR THEM IT ALL GOES WRONG. LIKE HULK HAS SAID TIME AND AGAIN, LOOK AT THE ARC BETWEEN WANT AND NEED. WHEN YOU TRY TO TURN BOND INTO A "REAL" MOVIE, YOU IGNORING THE LIE YOU NEED IN FAVOR OF THE ONE YOU WANT.

AND IT'S WHY SKYFALL FINALLY PROVIDES THE CONTEXT AND UNDERSTANDING WE NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THE BEST BOND FILMS ARE TRUE ROMANCES.

BECAUSE BOND IS AN INHERENTLY INDULGENT AND SILLY FIGURE. HE'S A SPY RESCUING THE WORLD IN A TUXEDO, BANGIN' BROADS, AND USING HIS REAL NAME ALL THE WHILE FOR POOP'S SAKE. BUT WE'VE ALSO ESTABLISHED YOU CAN'T TURN INTO THE SILLINESS AND GO OUTRIGHT COMEDIC BECAUSE THEN YOU LOSE THE DANGEROUS EDGE THE FILMS ALSO NEED TO WORK AS ACTION MOVIES. AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN YOU GO TO GRITTY YOU INHERENTLY JUST HIGHLIGHT ALL THE WAYS YOUR MOVIE SERIES IS ACTUALLY RATHER SILLY, WHETHER IT BE JAMES BOND'S MAGIC PENIS, CRAZY GADGETS, HIS UNSTOPPABLE CAPABILITIES OR EVEN THE DEEP-TISSUE MORAL QUANDARIES HIGHLIGHTED BY THE SEX WORKER EXAMPLE...

BUT WITH ROMANCE? AND BY THAT HULK MEANS THE ROMANTIC NOTION OF CINEMA ITSELF, THE DEATH-DEFYING-STUNTS, THE MAGIC EDITS, THE INVISIBLE CARS, THE IDEA THAT TWO HOT CHARACTERS COULD JUST BE DOWN TO FUCK WITH NO MORAL QUANDARIES, AND YES, EVEN THE FULLY-TEXTURED IMPLAUSIBILITY OF LOVE ITSELF IN SUCH A WORLD. EVEN THE KIND OF LOVE THAT CAN BRIDGE A GAP BETWEEN THE FEMININE SENSIBILITIES AND THE SMALL PLACE FOR THIS AGGRESSIVE MALENESS... WELL, IT MAKES EVERYTHING THAT BOND IS IN TERMS OF THE INDULGENCE WE ACTUALLY NEED, TRULY COME ALIVE.

MEANING THE REASON SKYFALL FAILS IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ROMANTICIZE THE THINGS IT NEEDS TO... THERE'S NO SWELL. NO MAGIC. NO COMPASSION. IT JUST REPLACES ROMANCE WITH AN ARCHAIC SENSE OF NOSTALGIA, WHICH IS A DEAD-END REACTIONARY ROMANCE IF THERE EVER WAS ONE. IT'S A LOVE AFFAIR WITH A PAST VERSION OF YOURSELF AND THE THINGS YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD. NOSTALGIA, WITH IT'S PANG OF HAPPINESS AND HOPE, IS A SAD THING BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SEE THAT SAME HOPE IN THE WORLD BEFORE THEM. IT IS A LONGING FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN NEVER HAVE AGAIN (AND MAYBE NEVER EVEN EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE) AND WHILE SKYFALL'S NOSTALGIA IS NOT AS PLASTIC IN THE FORM'S APPRECIATION AS WE SAW IN DIE ANOTHER DAY, IT OFTEN FEELS JUST AS CHEAP. SKYFALL FEELS LIKE A FILM THAT DIDN'T REALIZE IT DID MORE TO SELL US ON ITS NOTION OF "CLASSIC BOND" WITH DANIEL CRAIG JUMPING INTO A TRAIN AND FIXING HIS CUFFLINK THAN IT DID WITH ALL THE BACK-BREAKING EFFORTS TO SHOVE IN ASTON MARTINS AND ANALOG REFERENCES AND MONEYPENNYS AND Q'S PUT TOGETHER.

BUT WHAT'S PERHAPS THE MOST FRUSTRATING THING OF ALL IS THAT MOVIE INSTINCTIVELY SEEMS TO KNOW BETTER AT TIMES. PROBABLY BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO HAVE EVERY OTHER CAPACITY OF GOOD STORYTELLING DOWN PAT. IT HAS GUILE. BEAUTY. DEPTH OF PERFORMANCE. PERFECT EXECUTION OF DRAMA. BUT IN THE END HULK CAN'T GET BEHIND IT BECAUSE IT MAKES HULK FEEL PRETTY DAMN ICKY. SKYFALL, IN ITS HEART OF HEARTS, SEEKS TO VALIDATE BOND THE DINOSAUR. AND SO ALL THE GREAT THEMATIC STUFF ABOUT MOTHERS AND SONS FALLS BY THE WAYSIDE AS THE FILM REALLY JUST SEEKS TO TELL US THAT MODERNITY IS WRONG, AND TO EXPOSE ALL THAT MODERN SENSITIVE AND FORGIVING STUFF MERELY AS A PARENTAGE THAT HAS FAILED US. AND WHERE CASINO ROYALE FACED MODERNITY HEAD ON AND TRY TO INTEGRATE HIM INTO SOCIETY (JUST AS DID ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE DID YEARS BEFORE), THIS FILM IS DOING EVERYTHING IT CAN TO CONVINCE YOU THAT SOCIETY IS THE ONE THAT IS WRONG. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE SHOULD THANK OUR LUCKY STARS FOR JAMES BOND BECAUSE WE OWE HIM AND EVERYTHING OLD-SCHOOL HE REPRESENTS.

AND HERE'S ONE LAST BIT TO PROVE THAT:

HULK ALWAYS TOLD YOU THAT ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS ABOUT MONEYPENNY IS THAT SHE WAS ESSENTIALLY THE "KEY" IN UNDERSTANDING HOW THE FILMMAKERS FELT THAT FEMININITY (AND MAYBE EVEN PROPER SOCIETY AT LARGE) SHOULD REGARD BOND. GO BACK AND WATCH THE FLIRTATIONS OF GOLDENEYE AND YOU'LL SEE THE KIND OF SOCIETAL INTEGRATION HULK IS TALKING ABOUT.

BUT IN SKYFALL, ASK: WHO IS MONEYPENNY AND WHAT DOES SHE MEAN?

WELL, HULK'S NOT SURE HOW MUCH THEY MEANT TO SAY THIS, BUT LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE TEXT ARGUES: SHE'S A SOLDIER WHO ACCIDENTALLY SHOT BOND AND "KILLED HIM" AND WHAT HE REPRESENTED (BUT REALLY SHE WOUNDED HIM), NAY PENETRATED HIM. EMASCULATED HIM LEAVING HIM TO NURSE HIS WOUNDS ON A BEACH IN THE ARMS OF ANOTHER WOMEN. AND ULTIMATELY, SHE IS A SOLDIER WHO COULDN'T CUT IT IN THE FIELD. SO NOW MONEYPENNY IS NOW BEHIND THE DESK AND IN BOND'S DEBT.

... JUST WHERE A WOMAN SHOULD BE HOW AND HOW SHE SHOULD FEEL?

NAY, JUST WHERE WE SHOULD BE?

INADVERTENT AS THE SENTIMENT MAY BE, THAT'S THE UNFORTUNATE ARGUMENT OF THE TEXT... WHICH IS JUST UPHOLDING THE DINOSAUR, Y'ALL.

UPHOLDING THE DINOSAUR.

CONCLUSION: JAMES BOND AND THE FOUR LINGERING QUESTIONS...

SO HERE WE ARE. THE END OF THE ROAD. AND NOW AT LAST YOU HAVE HULK'S TAKE ON THE 23 CANONICAL BOND MOVIES.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SO MANY OF THE INS AND OUTS OUT THIS SERIES. WE'VE SWUNG BACK AND FORTH IN A MILLION DIRECTIONS. AND WE DID OUR BEST TO NAVIGATE THE EVOLVING CONTEXT OF OUR RELATIONSHIP TO ONE OF THE MOST PRESENT FIGURES OF OUR ICONOGRAPHY. AND IN LOOKING BACK AT ALL THIS, HULK HAS HOPEFULLY IDENTIFIED THE FOUR LINGERING QUESTIONS THAT WILL NOW ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD.

QUESTION ONE: "Hulk! What if we have really different opinions about these films?"

OF COURSE YOU DO!

CHANCES ARE SLIM TO NONE THAT YOUR OPINIONS OF EACH FILM LINE UP EXACTLY WITH HULK'S TAKE. THAT'S TOTALLY OKAY! AGAIN, THIS IS A WEIRD-ASS MOVIE SERIES THAT'S FULL OF ALL SORTS OF DIFFERING MOTIVATIONS AND DIFFERING PROCESSES. AND LIKE ANY PIECE OF MEDIA, YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO FEEL HOWEVER YOU FEEL. ALL HULK IS TRYING TO DO IS CONTEXTUALIZE THOSE FEELINGS IN A WAY THAT WILL HOPEFULLY ALLOW YOU TO TURN THEM INTO SOMETHING MORE PRODUCTIVE. WHILE HULK BELIEVES PASSIONATELY IN WHAT HULK HAS SAID HERE, IT'S NOT ABOUT INDOCTRINATION. HULK SIMPLY WANTS TO GIVE YOU THE AMMO YOU NEED IN ORDER TO ZERO IN AND ASK "WHY DO YOU LIKE THE FILM?", "CAN YOU ARTICULATE WHAT THE FILM MAY BE ARGUING IN A DIFFERENT WAY?", "WHAT ARE YOU GETTING OUT OF THIS?" AND HOPEFULLY HULK DID A GOOD ENOUGH JOB OF TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHAT EACH MOVIE IS IN A LARGER SENSE (OR AT LEAST WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO), SO THAT YOU CAN BEST DO THAT.

AND BECAUSE OF THIS MORE DIAGNOSTIC INTENT WITH THE SERIES COLUMNS, HULK'S NOT GOING TO END IT ALL BY RANKING THE BOND FILMS, OR BY MAKING SOME LIST OF THE BEST AND WORST OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. FOR ONE, YOU CAN PRETTY MUCH GATHER WHICH FILMS HULK LIKED AND DIDN'T LIKE. BUT FOR TWO, HULK HAS DISCOVERED THAT ANY SUCH LIST-MAKING JUST LEADS TO INFIGHTING AND DISTRACTION FROM THE ABOVE PURPOSE OF DIAGNOSTIC INTENT. BECAUSE WE ARE NOT MERELY TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS GOOD, BUT INSTEAD TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS. AND FOR ALL OF HULK'S RESERVATIONS, CRITICISMS AND WORRIES OF INDULGENCE AND GENDER ISSUES IN THE BOND SERIES, THE NEXT QUESTION SHOULD PERHAPS BE OBVIOUS.

QUESTION TWO: "If that's the case, then what is it about all these movies that most works for you, Hulk?"

HULK HAS TO SAY THAT HULK'S FAVORITE THING ABOUT THE BOND MOVIES IS THEY WAY THEY REPRESENT TRUE-BLUE HOLLYWOOD CLASSICISM.

FOR ALL THE ARCHAIC WAYS IN WHICH THE SERIES IS A PROBLEMATIC THROWBACK, THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS IN WHICH THE OLD-SCHOOL APPROACH TO BIG-BUDGET FILMMAKING TRANSLATES IN A LOVELY WAY TO OUR MODERN AUDIENCE. IN AN AGE WHERE WE CGI EVERYTHING TO DEATH AND PIT NON-EXISTING ARMIES AGAINST EACH OTHER WITH NO STAKES, THE BOND MOVIES ARE AN EVER-RELIABLE MONOLITH OF PRACTICAL EFFECTS FOR THE MOST PART. AS IN THERE'S REAL EMPHASIS ON HIGH-GRADE PRODUCTION CRAFT AND AMAZING STUNT WORK. THEY EVEN LIKE TO PUSH THE ENVELOPE IN THAT REGARD, ALL PART OF THE ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE NEAR-IMPOSSIBLE BECOME POSSIBLE. THEY PUT STUNTMEN ON THE SIDES OF FLYING PLANES, HAVE THEM JUMPING OFF DAMS AND DIVING BETWEEN CRANES. SUCH EFFORTS NOT ONLY IMPRESS US THROUGH THE PURE NATURE OF SEEING STUNT-AS-PERFORMANCE, BUT BECAUSE THEY REALLY, TRULY HELP US BELIEVE IN THE GREATER MYTH OF JAMES BOND. AND BEYOND THE STUNT-WORK, THE SERIES ACTUALLY HAS A PRETTY GOOD TRACK RECORD WITH ACTION SCENES ON THE WHOLE. HULK KEEPS SAYING THAT ACTION IS SECRETLY JUST VISUAL STORYTELLING AND THUS NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE SAME LINKING WAY OF THIS LEADS TO THAT, WHICH CAUSES THIS, BUT THAT LEADS TO ANOTHER THING, ETC. MEANING ACTION NEEDS TO BE TOLD LIKE A STORY, COMPLETE WITH CHARACTER BEATS AND CALL-BACKS AND INVERSIONS. AND WHEN THE BOND SERIES TAKES  ALL THE GADGETRY AND INSTINCT TO SHOW HOW COOL BOND IS AND ACTUALLY INGRAINS IT INTO SOMETHING CHARACTER-DRIVEN, OR MAYBE EVEN FUNCTIONAL, THEN IT WORKS LIKE GANGBUSTERS. LIKE THE FOOT CHASE IN CASINO ROYALE, WHICH HIGHLIGHTS BOND THE BRUISER WHO WILL BURST THROUGH WALLS, OR MANY OF THE IMMACULATE AND GRACEFUL SKIING SEQUENCES, OR THE WAY THE "CHEKHOV'S GUNS" OF THIS SERIES MANIFEST IN WRIST DARTS AND EJECTOR SEATS. THE GREAT THING ABOUT BOND FILMS IS THAT THEIR VERY NATURE BREEDS A SENSE OF LOGIC AND INVENTIVENESS, MAKING THEM TRULY THE OPPOSITE OF THE CHAOS CINEMA THAT DEFINES MOST OF OUR CURRENT ACTION.  INSTEAD, THEY RECOGNIZE THE POWER OF MOMENTS.

BUT AS MUCH AS HULK CAN PLACE LOVE IN THE MERITS OF PRODUCTION AND VISCERAL THRILLS, HULK LOVES THE BOND MOVIES WHEN THE CHARACTER HIMSELF ACTUALLY WORKS.

PUT IT LIKE THIS: IF BOND IS IRREVOCABLY GOING TO BE THE CLASSIC MALE SUPERHERO (WHATEVER THAT MEANS) THEN HOPEFULLY WE'VE SEEN ALL THE WAYS THAT CAN ACTUALLY MANIFEST TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCE MEMBERS. FOR INSTANCE, THERE'S THE "MAN TALK" DEMAGOGUE THAT BECOMES THE HERO TO ARCHAIC THINKERS WHO COULDN'T HAVE LESS REGARD FOR THE OPPOSITE SEX (BEYOND SEX ITSELF). THEN THERE ARE THOSE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH OUTRIGHT MISOGYNY, BUT STILL LIKE THE WAY IT UPHOLDS CLASSIC GENDER ROLES (OR SOMETHING). THEN THERE ARE THOSE WHO LIKE THESE HARD EDGES NULLIFIED, BUT STILL DESIRE THE INDULGENT NATURE OF THE WHOLE CHARACTER'S ETHOS... AND THEN THERE ARE THOSE OF US WHO LIKE WHEN ALL THIS CLASSIC MALENESS IS ACTUALLY CONTEXTUALIZED BY THE MOVIE ITSELF. WHO LIKE IT WHEN THE MOVIE TRIES TO RECKON WITH THE VALUE OF THE DINOSAUR IN THE MODERN AGE. HULK LIKES WHEN THEY EXPLORE HOW HE EXISTS IN A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE SEEM TO GET WHO HE IS, AND FOR WHATEVER FAULTS HE MAY HAVE, BOTH TAKE WHAT THE DINOSAUR CAN OFFER US AND HOPEFULLY ALLOW HIM TO GROW IN THE PROCESS. AND HULK BEST LIKES WHEN THAT INTENTION IS ACTUALLY REFLECTED THROUGH FEMININITY OR SOCIALIZATION AND CONTEXTUALIZES ALL OF THROUGH A NON-INDULGENT RELATIONSHIP  WITH A FEMALE CHARACTER. AND PLEASE DO NOT MISTAKE THIS FOR THE P.C.-IFICATION OF JAMES BOND... NO, THIS IS JUST GOOD STORYTELLING.

AFTER ALL, IT IS NO ACCIDENT THAT HULK'S APPRAISAL OF WHAT WORKS IN THESE FILMS COMPLETELY LINES UP WITH WHAT MANY CONSIDER TO BE THE BEST BOND FILMS OF ALL.

LET'S LOOK AT THE LIST OF HULK'S PARTICULAR FAVORITES: FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (NOT ON PAR WITH THE REST, BUT GETS INCLUDED FOR BEING THE BEST MOORE OUTING), THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, GOLDENEYE AND CASINO ROYALE.

WHAT'S THE COMMON TRAIT OF ALL OF THESE?

IT'S THAT THERE'S A GENUINE ROMANCE BETWEEN BOND AND THE CENTRAL MAIN FEMALE CHARACTER, WHEREIN SHE DRIVES THE BULK OF THE PLOT AND IS PRETTY MUCH THERE FOR THE ENTIRE RUNNING TIME. SHOULDN'T THAT COMMONALITY BE REVELATORY TO US? SERIOUSLY, LOOK AT HOW A RICH, TEXTURED LOVE STORY IS AT THE CORE OF ALL OF THESE FILMS (WELL, RICH FOR A BOND MOVIE), COMPLETE WITH A PLOT CENTERING AROUND THEM THAT IS WHOLLY INTEGRAL TO THE FUNCTION OF THESE FILMS. LOOK AT HOW THESE WOMEN ARE ACTUAL CHARACTERS WITH THEIR OWN STUFF TO DO: THE BETRAYED YOUNG SPY FEELING LIKE A PAWN IN LARGER GAME, THE SECRETLY FEMINIST DAUGHTER GIVING BOND WHAT'S FOR AND REVEALING HER OWN AGENCY, OR THE RIVAL AGENT WITH FIGURATIVE GHOSTS THAT HAUNT HER AND HER BURGEONING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MAN WHO KILLED HER EX, OR THE EMBATTLED CELLIST CAUGHT IN A LARGER WAR, OR THE DUPLICITOUS FELLOW AGENT PULLING THE STRINGS ON BOND AS SHE'S BEING BLACKMAILED FROM BEYOND. YES, ALL OF THESE STORIES ARE ABOUT THEIR EVENTUAL ROMANCE WITH THE DINOSAUR JAMES BOND, BUT NOTICE HOW ALL OF THEM HAPPEN TO BE THE MOST MULTI-FACETED BOND GIRLS IN THE ENTIRE SERIES.  NONE OF THEM CAN BE NEATLY TUCKED INTO THE OTHER ARCHETYPES. NONE ARE STRICTLY THE DOE-EYED INNOCENT, NOR THE HENCHWOMAN PUNISHED/REWARDED WITH A MAGIC BOND COCK. INSTEAD, THEY ALL BATTLE NOTIONS OF PAST LOYALTIES AND ARE HAUNTED BY THEIR OWN DEMONS, EVEN OFTEN SCARRED BY NONE OTHER THAN BOND HIMSELF. AND IN A SERIES WHERE THE WOMEN ARE OFTEN TREATED LIKE PROPS, AN EASILY DISPOSABLE SERIES OF ENDLESS FUCK-TARGETS, THEN THE MORE POWER A DYNAMIC PERSONALITY HAS MEANS SOMETHING. HECK, IT MAY JUST BE AS SIMPLE AS THEY HAVE STUFF TO DO. REALLY, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE BASIC RIGHT TO BE TREATED LIKE A PART OF THE STORY.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE LARGER QUESTION OF WHAT YOU WANT: IF YOU WANT THESE THINGS TO BE NAKED VEHICLES OF INDULGENCE, OR A CHUCKLE AT INSENSITIVITY ITSELF (AS MOST COMEDIANS DO WITH THIS FILM), THEN YOU CAN GET IT QUITE EASILY WITH THE PROP TACTIC OF FEMALE CHARACTERS. BUT IF YOU REALLY WANT THE BOND FILMS TO BE GOOD MOVIES BEYOND ALL THAT? THEN THESE CHARACTERS NEED TO FIND A PLACE OF BALANCE WITH BOND'S TRADEMARK SWAGGER. THEN THESE FILMS NEED TO KNOW WHEN TO UNDERCUT BOND'S BONDNESS FOR DRAMA / THEMATIC RESONANCE AND WHEN TO LET BOND BE AWESOME FOR CATHARTIC PLEASURE. AND THE TRUTH IS THAT IF WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WANT, THEN IT REALLY ISN'T THAT HARD, FOR WE'VE BEEN CRAFTING HERO-CENTRIC POPCORN FARE FOR DECADES NOW. ALL WE REALLY HAVE TO DO IS MAKE BOND PLAY BY THE SAME RULES THAT EVERYONE ELSE DOES. YEAH, TONY STARK IS AWESOME. BUT A FILM WHERE TONY STARK IS JUST AWESOME ALL THE TIME WITH NO REAL CONSEQUENCES FOR HIS BAD CHOICES? THAT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO US. HE NEEDS TO LEARN SOMETHING AND GROW... SO WHY IN TURN WOULD EVERYONE JUST GIVE JAMES BOND A PASS? BECAUSE HE'S WHO HE IS? ARE WE JUST GOING TO ACCEPT IT? IS THIS JUST LIKE THE CHARLES BARKLEY AND TIGER WOODS COMPARISON FROM THE INTRO? SHOULDN'T THE DIFFERENCE OF HOW LAX WE ARE ON BOND STORY STANDARDS BE A REAL INDICATOR THAT HE SHOULD PLAY BY THE SAME RULES AS OTHER CHARACTERS? ISN'T THIS THE 21ST CENTURY? SHOULDN'T WE BE ABLE TO ESCHEW THE MORAL COMPLICATIONS OF INDULGENCE (I.E. ABSTAINING FROM PAPER THIN PORTRAYALS OF WOMEN, CASUAL RACISM, ETC) SO THAT WE COULD INDEED MAKE A TRULY GREAT BOND MOVIE? ISN'T THAT THE GOAL?

AND IF IT IS, WE JUST HAVE TO SEE THE SEAMS OF HOW IT ALL WORKS.

QUESTION THREE: "Yeah, okay we have to stop going all out with the Bond we indulgently want, but is it okay to be sexually interested in the world of James Bond?"

YOU KNOW, HULK WORRIES HULK MAY HAVE GONE TOO FAR WITH ALL THIS DANGEROUS INDULGENCE TALK. BECAUSE AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS COLUMN SERIES, HULK ALSO ARGUED THAT IT WAS OKAY TO CONSUME SOMETHING THAT WAS PORNOGRAPHIC AS LONG AS YOU ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD IT WAS PORNOGRAPHIC. MEANING AS LONG AS YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE CONSUMING, HOW YOU WERE CONSUMING IT AND WHAT ITS VALUE (REALLY) IS TO YOU, THEN YOU THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEPARATE THOSE POSITIVE / VISCERAL AFFIRMATIONS FROM THE SPACES IN YOUR BRAIN THAT CAN TURN IT INTO SOMETHING DESTRUCTIVE. WAIT, YOU ASK, HOW CAN INDULGENCE BE DESTRUCTIVE EXACTLY? THE SAME WAY IT ALWAYS IS. WHEN PEOPLE JUST NONSENSICALLY SHOVEL THE THINGS THEY WANT OR MAKE THEM FEEL GOOD INTO THEIR BODIES WITH NO THOUGHT OF NEED OR WHETHER IT IS GOOD FOR THEM, THEN PROBLEMS ALWAYS OCCUR. AND THAT MAY MAKE SENSE TO YOU ON A PHYSICAL / DIET LEVEL OR SOMETHING, BUT IT'S ESPECIALLY TRUE ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL LEVEL. WE NEED TO FEED OUR BRAINS WITH MEANINGFUL CONFLICT AND HEALTHY RESOLUTIONS WITH THE SAME EXACT KIND OF EFFORT. OTHERWISE, YOU CREATE A KIND A UNREALISTIC PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPECTATION FOR THE WORLD AND WHAT IT "OWES" YOU. YOU LEARN TO PLACATE YOURSELF INSTEAD OF OVERCOME THINGS. YOU AVOID. AND IT JUST BREEDS MORE SEPARATION AND DISCONTENT (THIS IS JUST HULK'S PROJECTION ON THE SITUATION, BUT LOOK AT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ELLIOT ROGER AND THE WAY HIS EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT HE WAS "OWED" MANIFESTED IN HIS ABILITY TO LIVE / INTERACT). AND SO IT IS WITH AWARENESS ITSELF THAT YOU CAN STOP YOURSELF FROM MEDIA-AS-MERE-PLACATION DIET AND STOP USING INDULGENCE TO VALIDATE OTHER EMOTIONAL NEEDS. IT IS ONLY THEN THAT YOU CAN SEPARATE IT FROM THE OTHER KINDS OF ART THAT REALLY HELP YOU IN A LARGER EMOTIONAL SENSE AND JUST CONSUME IT FOR THE SEMI-PORNOGRAPHIC EXPERIENCE THAT IT IS.

BUT YEAH, ONCE YOU HAVE ALL THAT UNDERSTANDING DOWN, ONCE YOU CAN SEPARATE IT AND UNDERSTAND THE IMPULSE, THEN YOU CAN ENGAGE THE QUESTION: IF 1) JAMES BOND IS A BONER INCARNATE AND 2) BONERS ARE TOTALLY OKAY THINGS TO HAVE, THEN HULK HAS TO AGREE THAT TALKING ABOUT THE JAMES BOND SERIES IN A DIRECTLY SEXUAL CONTEXT CAN INDEED BE TOTALLY A HEALTHY THING.

SO LET'S TALK IT OUT.

HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT HULK RARELY TALKS ABOUT SEX, ESPECIALLY NOT IN A SEXY WAY. YEAH, HULK MAY TALK A LOT ABOUT GENDER OR SEXUAL POLITICS OF A GIVEN ISSUE, BUT RARELY DOES HULK GO INTO SPECIFICS OF SEXUALITY ITSELF, NOR DOES HULK TALK MUCH ABOUT THE LOOKS OF ACTRESSES, NOR GO ON AND ON ABOUT THOSE WHO HULK THINKS IS PURTTY. THIS RELATIVE OMISSION SHOULD NOT BE MISTAKEN FOR HULK THINKING THAT WE SHOULD SHAME SEX, OUR BODIES, OR REFRAIN FROM TALKING ABOUT THE THINGS WE FIND ATTRACTIVE. HECK, IF YOU SUPPRESS THAT STUFF IT TENDS TO WORK OUT PRETTY BADLY FOR YOU (JUST LOOK AT THE KINDS OF CULTURES THAT SHAME SEXUAL EXPRESSION - YIKES). NO, HULK FULLY AGREES SEXUALITY IS CRITICAL TO OUR VERY NATURE. AND IN YOUR LIFE, YOU WANT TO FIND THE THINGS THAT MAKE YOUR KNEES WEAK AND LEARN TO EXPRESS THE THINGS THAT MAKE OTHERS' KNEES WEAK. BECAUSE FINDING YOUR SEXUALITY AND EXPRESSING IT IN A COMFORTABLE, COLLABORATIVE WAY IS SO DAMN IMPORTANT TO PUTTING YOUR SOUL AT EASE AND BECOMING A FULLY INTEGRATED PERSON. AND WHILE IT IS IRREFUTABLY IMPORTANT...

THE PROBLEM IS THAT PEOPLE STILL MAKE IT MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN IT IS.

OR AT LEAST WE LET IT COMPLETELY INVADE THE OTHER ARENAS OF OUR LIVES, OFTEN TO DAMAGING RESULTS. BECAUSE WHILE SEX IS INTEGRAL TO OUR VERY BIOLOGY, WE HAVE THIS UNFORTUNATE HABIT OF LETTING IT OVERTAKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN OUR BEHAVIOR. AND WHILE EVERYONE ON THE PLANET HAS THE CAPACITY TO DO THE FOLLOWING, HULK IS GOING TO FOCUS ON HOW THIS IS EXPRESSED AS A MALE BEHAVIOR (HOPEFULLY, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS). BECAUSE ON THE WHOLE, MEN HAVE AN UNFORTUNATE, OFTEN SUBCONSCIOUS HABIT OF LETTING SEXUALITY DICTATE OUR FEELINGS ABOUT PEOPLE IN NON-SEXUAL CONTEXTS. MEN LET IT DICTATE THE KINDS OF PEOPLE THEY WANT TO SPEND TIME AROUND, EVEN FOR NON-SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS. THEY LET IT AFFECT THE KINDS OF LIMITS THEY PLACE ON WOMEN, FOR WHEN MEN CLASSIFY SOMEONE SEXUALLY, THEY TEND NOT TO LIKE IT WHEN PEOPLE HAVE REAL PERSONALITY AND NUANCE OUTSIDE THAT SEXUALITY. CONVERSELY, WHEN WE MEN DEFINE SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF A SEXUAL CONTEXT, WE DON'T LIKE THEM TO SUDDENLY HAVE A SEXUAL CONTEXT EITHER. ULTIMATELY, THIS CREATES AN UNFAIR EITHER / OR BINARY.

TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT HULK MEANS WITH ALL THIS, THINK HOW MANY MEN REGARD THEIR FEMALE FAMILY MEMBERS. PRETTY CLEAR CUT, RIGHT? HULK IS OF COURSE TALKING ABOUT NOTHING MORE THAN THE STANDARD MADONNA / WHORE COMPLEX, WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SIMPLE COMPARTMENTALIZATION OF THE WAY THE MALE BRAIN MAY MAKE THINGS EASIER ON ITSELF. YES, OUTSIDE OF SPOUSES, SOCIETY DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS SEXUALLY AND FOR GOOD REASON. OF COURSE IT DOESN'T. BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE MALE LIZARD-BRAIN TAKES THAT PERSONAL NEED OF THEIRS AND THEN SUBCONSCIOUSLY DICTATES IT EVEN FURTHER TO THE POINT THAT THOSE FEMALE FAMILY MEMBERS CAN'T HAVE A SEXUAL EXPRESSION IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. WIVES MUST BE RIGIDLY DEFINED, SEXUALLY SPEAKING. AND DAUGHTERS MUST BE SEXLESS ALL TOGETHER. REALLY, THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME! IT'S PRACTICALLY THE MOST COMMON VIEW IN THE UNIVERSE. WE SEE IT ON EVERY BIT OF POPULAR MEDIA, DAD-BASED SITCOMS AND EVERY TIRED TROPE IMAGINABLE. AND THIS WHOLE BIT OF COMPARTMENTALIZATION WREAKS HAVOC ON OUR GENDER INTERACTION AND CREATES AN IMPOSSIBLE DOUBLE-STANDARD FOR WOMEN TO LIVE WITH (BECAUSE HOW DO YOU WIN WHEN BOTH OPTIONS ARE TERRIBLE / IMPOSSIBLE?). OBVIOUSLY, A FAR MORE FUNCTIONAL OPTION WOULD BE THE BASIC ACCEPTANCE THAT ALL WOMEN CONTAIN THE ODIN-GIVEN RIGHT TO BE BOTH SEXUAL AND NON-SEXUAL AT ONCE (AND HERE'S A TIP: THAT MAKES IT FAR EASIER ON THE MALE BRAIN IN THE LONG RUN TOO).

AT THE CENTER OF ALL THIS IS THE FAR BROADER GOAL THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED A WHOLE RANGE OF HUMANITY: THE RIGHT TO BE SMART, SILLY, SEXUAL, ANGRY, DEFENSIVE, LOVING, CAPTIVATING, BORING... EVERYONE DESERVES A SPECTRUM.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO WOMEN IN THE LIMELIGHT, WE CAN'T HELP BUT TALK AD NAUSEAM ABOUT LOOKS, ATTRACTIVENESS AND SEXUALITY. AGAIN, IT'S NOT THAT WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THEM. IT'S THAT IT IS ALL WE TALK ABOUT. IN FACT, WE'VE GONE SO FAR AS TO CREATE AN ENTIRE SYSTEM THAT PROPAGATES THOSE LOOK-BASED VALUES AND TELLS WOMEN THAT'S THE WAY TO APPROACH THE LADDER OF POWER. AND IT'S SOMETHING MEN ABSOLUTELY DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IN THE SAME WAY. CUE THIS GREAT VIDEO OF KEVIN SPACEY NOT BEING ABLE TO GO A MINUTE ANSWERING THE KINDS OF QUESTIONS THAT WOMEN GET ASKED ON THE RED CARPET. OR THE WAY MINDY KALING HAS TO HAVE ALL HER QUESTIONS ROTATE AROUND HER IDENTITY POLITICS WHILE WHITE MALE SHOWRUNNERS JUST GET QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR ART. AS MEN, WE TEND NOT TO SEE THIS STUFF (WE'RE SIMPLY FOCUSING ON OUR OWN EXPERIENCE). BUT WE REALLY DON'T REALIZE HOW MUCH SEXUALITY SEEPS INTO OUR DAILY INTERACTION. WE DON'T SEEM TO NOTICE THAT WE CAN'T COMPLIMENT WOMEN WITHOUT MENTIONING LOOKS, AS IF OMISSION WOULD IMPLY LACKING SOME CRITICAL COMPONENT. WE TAKE SEXUALLY LIBERATING ETHOS OF "YES! WE SHOULD BE OPEN ABOUT OUR SEXUALITY!" AND USE IT AS A BLUNT FORCE INSTRUMENT TO TURN THAT SAME SEXUALITY INTO THE POWER AND CURRENCY OF GENDER. WE GO SO FAR AS TO EXPECT THAT SEXUALITY TO CATER TO US AND NOT CATER ACCORDING TO OUR MOMENTARY INSTINCT. AND IN THAT SPACE, WE ARE DENYING OUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS THE RIGHT TO SHOW THE FULL RANGE OF THE SPECTRUM.

AND NOWHERE IS THAT DENIAL MORE OBVIOUS THAN IN THE BOND SERIES.

AS HULK MADE CLEAR IN THE ROMANCE SECTION, IT IS A SERIES WHERE WOMEN WERE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY HIRED FOR THEIR LOOKS. NOTE THE SPECIAL WAY THE SERIES HAS OFTEN TAKEN PRIDE IN THE HIRING OF EXOTIC MODELS AND NON-ACTRESSES FOR ROLES, AS IF IT WAS AN OUTRIGHT BEGGING FOR KUDOS IN THAT REGARD (AND HISTORICALLY-SPEAKING, HIRING NON-ACTRESSES HAS YIELDED PREDICTABLY BAD DRAMATIC RESULTS). AND THUS THE BOND SERIES, AT MANY TIMES AT MANY TIMES HAS FELT LIKE LIKE AN EVOLVING SERIES OF DOLLS THAT CAN FIT A SET NUMBER OF BAD ARCHETYPES. AND EVEN AS HULK COMPLAINS ABOUT THIS, PLEASE DON'T MISTAKE IT FOR CRITICISM OF THE INDIVIDUALS THEMSELVES. NO, THEY CANNOT BE BLAMED WHATSOEVER FOR TAKING HIGH-VISIBILITY, HIGHER-PAYING JOBS THAT THEORETICALLY GIVE THEM MORE INDUSTRY POWER TO DO WHAT THEY WAY. BUT SADLY, BLAMING THEM IS WHAT MANY WILL DO ANYWAY (THINK BACK TO THE DENISE RICHARDS DEBACLE). THEY BECOME THE FOCUS OF IRE FOR NOT BEING "MORE" THAN THE PROVERBIAL DOLL OR FOR NOT MAGICALLY BRINGING A TERRIBLE SCRIPT TO LIFE THROUGH THE POWER OF MIRACLES THAT WE DID NOT EXPECT THEM TO POSSESS WHEN WE HIRE THEM (IN FACT GOING OUT OF OUR WAY NOT TO). IT'S FUCKING ABSURD, DAMMIT. BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE PEOPLE, IT'S THE SYSTEM. IT'S THE WAY THE CREATORS NAKEDLY GIVE INTO THE MOST BASE ASSUMPTION OF "WHAT PEOPLE WANT" AND END UP PROPAGATING THE IDEA THAT THIS IS THE ONE MOVIE SERIES WHERE THE PORNOGRAPHIC, LOOK-BASED IMPERATIVE IS NOT ONLY THE RIGHT CHOICE, BUT THE ONLY ONE NECESSARY.

WHICH IS PARTICULARLY TERRIBLE BECAUSE THE GREAT IRONY OF ALL THIS IS THAT THESE FILMS ACTUALLY RELY ONT HE COMPLETE OPPOSITE TACTIC.  AS HULK HAS TRIED TO CONVINCE YOU OVER THE LAST 80,000 WORDS OR SO, IT'S THAT ALL THE BEST BOND MOVIES ARE THE FULLY FLESHED OUT ROMANCES, POPULATED WITH WOMEN THAT ACTUALLY SHOW MORE OF THE SPECTRUM THAN THIS LIMITED SEXUALITY. TRULY, ALL THE BEST BOND MOVIES TAP INTO SOME KIND OF BASIC HUMANITY BEYOND THIS BLIND, OBLIGING DYNAMIC. THEY OFFER REAL CONFLICTS, CHARACTER ARCS AND THE WHOLE 9 YARDS.

BUT WE NEVER SEE THAT.

SO YEAH, SURE. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE AESTHETICS OF BEAUTY. WHETHER IT IS THE FIST-GNAWING FIGURE OF A BIRTHDAY-SUITED LANA WOOD, THE COOL 60'S ALLURE OF SEXUALITY IN THE TERENCE YOUNG FILMS, THE FORMATIVE HULK-MEMORIES OF A NAKED CAROLE BOUQUET, OR EVEN HULK'S CRUSH ON A CERTAIN YOUNG CELLIST WHO WAS ONE OF THE D'ABOS. AND YEAH, WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT WHO WE THINK IS THE PRETTIEST AND / OR BEST BOND GIRL, WHETHER IT'S TANIA MALLET, EVA GREEN OR THE GREAT DIANA RIGG. WE COULD HAVE A MINOR CONVERSATION OF BEAUTY SYMMETRY AND BODY AESTHETICS. WE COULD TALK ABOUT ALL THE ACTRESSES (AND ACTORS) WHO APPEARED NUDE AND WHO AND WHAT OUR PARTICULAR FAVORITES WERE. WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALL THE LOVELY BOOBS, BUTTS, PENISES AND VAGINAS WE WANT. WE CAN GO OVER OUR RELATIVE ATTRACTIONS TO EACH OF THESE BODY PARTS AND EXPLAIN WHO EXEMPLIFIES OUR FAVORITES OF WHATEVER. OR WE COULD GO TONGUE-IN-CHEEK AS HULK'S HAPPY TO START MAKING "HULK COCK" JOKES, OR HECK, WE COULD JUST TALK ABOUT IT PLAINLY. WE COULD EVEN TALK ABOUT THE POLITICS OF "TYPE" OR HOW HULK DOESN'T HAVE A TYPE AND HOW PERSONALITY IS SO HELPLESSLY INGRAINED TO WHAT HULK FINDS ATTRACTIVE. AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT HOW THAT'S NOT THE BIG MORAL STANCE SOME PEOPLE THINK IT IS AND JUST ANOTHER PREFERENCE, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER. WE COULD TALK ABOUT ABSOLUTELY ANY OF THESE THINGS. AND IN AND OF THEMSELVES, THEY ARE ALL MORE OR LESS FINE.

REALLY. ASK AWAY.

BUT THE LARGER POINT IS STILL THIS: IF YOU GO INTO ANY BOND FAN FORUM, OR REALLY ANY PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE MOVIES AND THE ACTRESSES THAT STAR IN THEM, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS LISTED ABOVE ARE THE ONES THAT HAPPEN EXCLUSIVELY... THAT'S THE WHOLE THING. WE'RE IGNORING THE REST OF THE SPECTRUM. AND THAT'S WHY HULK DOESN'T REALLY HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. WE ARE JUST LETTING THIS CONVERSATION OF SEXUALITY (AN INDULGENT TOPIC IF THERE EVER WAS ONE) COMPLETELY DOMINATE OUR OTHER SENSES AND NEEDS WITHIN GREATER MEDIA AND THEIR BEST POSSIBLE FUNCTION, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO WOMEN'S IDENTITIES.

SO THE VERY LEAST WE CAN DO IS TAKE THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SEXUALITY AND TRY TO TURN THEM INTO SOME KIND OF BROADER CULTURAL CONVERSATION, WHETHER IT IS THROUGH THE REFORMING IDEA OF ANDROGYNY AND GENDER NORMS, OR THROUGH A CONVERSATION ABOUT PUBIC HAIR AND THE INFANTILIZATION OF WOMAN TO MAKE THEM SEEM LIKE YOUNG GIRLS AND THE RELATIVE DAMAGE THAT HAS DONE (THOUGH APPARENTLY THAT SEEMS TO BE SWINGING BACK THE OTHER WAY, AS CULTURE TENDS TO DO), OR MAYBE WE TALK ABOUT HOW THAT DOESN'T MATTER AND HOW IT'S MAYBE MORE IMPORTANT NOT TO LET PERSONAL PREFERENCES LEAD TO CHASTISING ANYONE WHO DOES WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR BODY FOR THEIR OWN REASONS. OR MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT CRIPPLING NATURE OF THE DOUBLE-STANDARD WITH MALE / FEMALE NUDITY, WHICH READILY MAKES WOMEN PUT THEIR SEXUALITY OUTWARD, BUT WITH MEN WE HIDE ACTUAL PENISES FROM SIGHT WITHIN OUR POPULAR MEDIA AND INSTEAD INSTRUCT THEM TO SHOW THEIR VIRILITY THROUGH OTHER SOCIAL BEHAVIORS (TOUGHNESS, INDEPENDENCE, SUPERIORITY), WHICH ENDS UP DOING NOTHING BUT CREATING A CULTURE OF FALSE POSTURING, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY TEACHING FEAR OF ONE'S BODY (WHICH IS DISASTROUS FOR US, PSYCHOLOGICALLY SPEAKING.)

IT'S WEIRD TO SAY THE SOLUTION FOR MAKING BETTER GENTS IN A COCK-CENTRIC SOCIETY IS TO ACTUALLY SHOW MORE COCKS IN POPULAR MEDIA, BUT IT'S WEIRDLY TRUE.

AND AS FOR PORTRAYALS OF WOMEN? WE ACTUALLY NEED MORE OF THIS:

BUT WITH MEN, HULK SWEARS TO YOU THAT WE REALLY NEED TO SHOW MORE COCKS AND GET COMFORTABLE WITH OURSELVES AND HOW WE FIT IN WITH "THE GREAT BIG BALL OF DICKS IN THE SKY" AS SOMEONE ONCE PUT IT. BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE SIDE THAT'S ALREADY HYPER-SEXUALIZED AND ONE SIDE THAT IS DEEPLY INTERNALIZED, AND BOTH NEED A BIG HELPING DOSE OF POPULAR BODY NORMALCY. IN FACT YOU WILL NOTICE THAT ALL THESE CONVERSATIONS HAVE TO DO WITH THE IDEA OF NORMALIZING. I.E. GIVING PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO EXIST AS THEY DO ON THE SPECTRUM AND STILL FEEL NORMAL.

SO HOW DO WE DO THAT?

HOW DO WE TAKE THESE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS AND SHAPE THEM IN A WAY THAT IS PRODUCTIVE? HOW DO WE SHY AWAY FROM THEIR TITILLATING NATURE AND ENGAGE THE BROADER PURPOSE OF ART? HOW CAN WE BE TRULY HELPFUL? WELL, HOPEFULLY, WHATEVER THIS COLUMN WAS, IT WAS AN EARNEST ATTEMPT TO SHY AWAY FROM ALL THE MORE PROBLEMATIC CONVERSATIONS OF THIS MOST PROBLEMATIC OF SERIES, AND ATTEMPTED TO FIND THE SPECTRUM OF FEMININITY WITHIN THE SERIES...

EVEN IF THE SERIES ITSELF DOES NOT :(

AND TO BE HONEST, IT'S AN ENDLESSLY COMPLEX WORRY, ONE THAT BOTH TIES DEEPLY INTO SOCIETY ITSELF, AND ALSO LEADS TO HULK'S FINAL BLOW-IT-ALL-UP THOUGHT:

FOURTH AND LAST QUESTION: "How the fuck do we reconcile all this going forward?"

THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXCERPT FROM IAN FLEMING'S NOVEL GOLDFINGER:

Bond came to the conclusion that Tilly Masterson was one of those girls whose hormones had got mixed-up. He knew the type well and thought they and their male counterparts were a direct consequence of giving votes to women and 'sex equality.' As a result of fifty years of emancipation, feminine qualities were dying out or being transferred to the males. Pansies of both sexes were everywhere, not yet completely homosexual, but confused, not knowing what they were. The result was a herd of unhappy sexual misfits – barren and full of frustrations, the women wanting to dominate and the men to be nannied. He was sorry for them, but he had no time for them.

AT OUR MOST ACADEMIC, WE CAN SIT BACK AND EXAMINE MR. BOND'S RUDIMENTARY, UGLY CHARACTERIZATION OF WOMEN AS BEING THE ACTUAL CHARACTERIZATION OF MAN'S OWN UGLINESS. WE CAN TAKE THESE WORDS AND DIVORCE OURSELVES FROM THEM AND POINT THE LIGHT INSTEAD RIGHT AT BOND. BUT REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT WE CAN DO THAT, THE PROBLEM IS THAT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE AUTHOR, NOR THOSE WHO CURATE THE BOND LEGACY AND BRING IT TO SCREEN. THESE FILMS ARE RARELY ANALYTICAL OF THEIR CORE APPEAL. AND AT THEIR WORST, THE INTENT IS TO HEARKEN BACK TO THAT CENTRAL UGLINESS OF "IAN FLEMING'S JAMES BOND" WITH A NOTION OF PRIDE. EVEN IF THE CREATIVE FOLKS ARE UNAWARE OF THIS INTENT, THERE IS THE PERPETUATION OF THE INEVITABLE ADVOCACY THAT THIS ARCHAIC ATTITUDE IS SECRETLY RIGHT. AND BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THE AUDIENCE IS UNAWARE THAT THAT IS THE SECRET REASON THEY COME TO ENJOY THIS PROPERTY (NOR WOULD EVER ADMIT THAT THAT IS THE REASON), THE CURRENT AIMS OF JAMES BOND ALL BECOME A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO PARSE OUT, LET ALONE RE-CONTEXUALIZE INTO A MORE MODERN WORLD. BECAUSE AT HIS CORE, RIGHT DOWN TO HIS VERY ESSENCE, IT IS THE ATTITUDE DESCRIBED ABOVE THAT MAKES BOND, WELL, JAMES BOND.

1. THE TACIT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THE PERFECT BOND MOVIE DOESN'T EXIST.

2. THE TACIT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT PERFECT ENTERTAINMENT DOESN'T EXIST EITHER.

AGAIN, HULK CAN'T HELP BUT LOOK BACK AT ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE AND THE WAY IT "FAILS" IN AS MANY WAYS AS IT SUCCEEDS. HECK, SOME FOLKS OUTRIGHT HATE THAT FILM AND HULK'S NOT SURE THEY'RE EVEN WRONG. BUT FOR HULK, IT ALL GETS TO THE ESSENTIAL CRUX OF THE IDEA THAT BOND IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY, A FEVER DREAM, SOMETHING THAT'S UNDEFINABLE BECAUSE IT SO QUICKLY TAPS INTO DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF HUMANITY IN SIMULTANEOUSLY PLEASING AND DISPLEASING WAYS. WHICH IS WHY THE MOST SATISFACTORY BOND FILMS TO THE POPULATION ON THE WHOLE ARE ALWAYS THE ONES THAT SEEMINGLY ENCAPSULATE "JUST ENOUGH" OF WHATEVER IT IS WE INDIVIDUALLY LOVE ABOUT THE CHARACTER, WHILE STILL PROVIDING 1) A SOLID-ASS FILM WITH A FULLY-FLESHED-OUT RELATIONSHIP AS THE BACKBONE AND 2) SOME KIND OF DISPLAY OF RESPONSIBILITY IN UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS ALL EGREGIOUS WHILE 3) NOT LETTING THAT STOP US FROM ENJOYING THE PULPINESS OF THE MOVIE EITHER.

IT MAY ALL SEEM LIKE THE MOST GRAND CONTRADICTION, BUT LOVING BOND IS A CONTRADICTION BY ITS VERY NATURE.

BECAUSE ON THE SURFACE, WE ALWAYS ARE IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO BUY THE INVISIBLE CAR. AND UNDER THE SURFACE, WE HAVE TO SOMEHOW BUY THE IDEA THAT UNDERNEATH ALL THAT UGLINESS OF MASCULINITY THERE IS A REAL PERSON UNDER THERE WHO SEES OTHER PEOPLE AS REAL TOO... AND YEAH, OF COURSE IT'S A LIE.

BUT THAT'S WHAT MOVIES ARE.

THEY ARE LIES. FABRICATIONS. ILLUSIONS THAT ARE SOLD. WHICH JUST MEANS THAT THERE IS NO COASTING. NO WINKING. NO DISMISSING OF THE GOAL ITSELF. FOR MOVIES ARE NOTHING BUT A RESPONSIBLE COMMITMENT TO A NEW REALITY, DRAWN FROM OUR OWN SENSE OF OUR OWN REALITY, REACHING FOR A SLIVER OF A HOPE OF A TRUTH. AND NO MATTER WHAT FORM OF CINEMA IT MAY TAKE, FROM THE MOST SEX-DRIPPING PORNOGRAPHIC OF EXPLOITATIONS TO THE MOST ESOTERIC OF INTELLECTUAL ANOMALIES, THEIR GOAL IS TO REACH INTO SOME PART OF OUR BODY AND DO SOMETHING TANGIBLE TO US. THEY'RE ALWAYS AT ODDS WITH THE HOWS, THE WHYS AND THE WHATS OF WHICH BODY PARTS TO AIM FOR, BUT THAT SINGULAR IDEA REMAINS. AND ANY WAY YOU SLICE IT, YOU HAVE TO GET PAST THE LIE IN ORDER TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. AND THUS IT'S NO ACCIDENT THAT POPCORN CINEMA HAS BEEN TELLING THE SAME KINDS OF PROBLEMATIC LIES SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING. LIES OF HEROES AND DUTY AND GRANDNESS AND LOVE AND THE BIG SWEEPING CONTRADICTIONS THAT HAPPEN TO HAVE BEEN WORKING ON AUDIENCES FOR GENERATIONS.

WE JUST HAVE TO BOTH UNDERSTAND IT AND ALSO BE OKAY WITH IT.

BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT'S JUST A PIECE OF CANDY. A GLASS OF WINE. A BEER AFTER A HOT DAY. IT'S THE STUFF THAT'S ALL TECHNICALLY BAD FOR US, BUT THEY ARE ALSO THE MOST LOVELY, REFRESHING BITS OF INDULGENCE IMAGINABLE... AS LONG AS WE UNDERSTANDING THE BROADER CONTEXT OF THESE THINGS AND OUR OWN ABILITY TO HANDLE THEM. FORGIVE THE OBVIOUS, BUT CANDY BEGETS OBESITY. BOOZE BEGETS ALCOHOLISM. AND EVEN WITH SOMETHING LIKE CINEMA, IT'S ALL PART OF THE SAME DYNAMIC: THERE'S AN UNDERSTANDING OF CONTEXT FOR INDULGENT BLOCKBUSTER MOVIES WITHIN A BROADER DIET. AND DON'T GET HULK WRONG, THERE ARE PLENTY OF NUTRITIOUS, MORALLY CONSCIOUS BLOCKBUSTERS. BUT THE INDULGENCE OF THE BOND MOVIES ARE OUR CINEMATIC CONFECTION. AND THE FEELING IT GIVES US, RIGHT DOWN TO THE BIOLOGY OF VISCERA, CAN BE EQUALLY REMARKABLE.  LIKE ALVIE SINGER ALLUDED TO IN RELATIONSHIPS, WE GO TO THIS KIND OF CINEMA BECAUSE WE NEED THE EGGS.

AND WHEN FALLING IN LOVE WITH THE LIE OF JAMES BOND, THE LIE SHOULD BE RAPTUROUS ENOUGH FOR US TO BUY IT.

FOR OVER 50 YEARS OF FILMS WE'VE BEEN CHASING THAT VERY IDEA. AND IT'S NO MYSTERY AS TO WHY WE HAVE THIS WHOLE CYCLICAL NATURE OF BOND HAS US OSCILLATING BETWEEN TOO-GRITTY AND TOO-CAMPY LIKE A FIGURATIVE GOLDILOCKS. WE OVER-CORRECT OUR ERRORS, RARELY FINDING THAT PERFECT SWEET-SPOT WHERE ALL SEEMS WELL WITH SOMETHING THAT IS IRRECONCILABLE TO BEGIN WITH. AND LIKE HISTORY ITSELF, WE SWING BACK AND FORTH TRYING TO FIND THE LIE WE AGREE UPON.

WHICH JUST MEANS THAT AFTER ALL THESE WORDS, AFTER AN ENTIRE BOOK OF BOND ANALYSIS, WE TECHNICALLY STAND AT THE SAME PRECIPICE WE DID AT THE BEGINNING.

BUT WITH ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN, HOPEFULLY IT IS THE READER'S UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IMPASSE THAT IS DIFFERENT. DISAGREE OR NOT, HOPEFULLY YOU ARE CARRYING A NEW AWARENESS AND A NEW HOPE OF TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING MEANINGFUL OUT OF THE ASHES OF ENDLESS ANALYSIS.

AND THUS IT IS HERE THAT HULK WILL ADMIT THAT THERE'S TWO BLATANT REASONS THAT HULK KEPT CALLING THIS THINGY A "BOOK" EVEN THOUGH IT'S CLEARLY JUST A BIG-ASS COLUMN SERIES. THE FIRST IS JUST BECAUSE HULK REALLY LIKES EMBRACING THE INTERACTIVITY OF "BOOKS" AND GETTING US TO REDEFINE WHAT THE WORD EVEN MEANS. BECAUSE A BOOK IS A BOOK AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S MADE OF PAPER, AN EBOOK OR ONLINE. BUT THE SECOND REASON HULK IS CALLING IT A BOOK IS BECAUSE IT LED TO THE FOLLOWING COMMENT FROM A FRIEND: "Wait, why would you write a book for free? Cause the pictures and video links and it's too hard to go through Amazon hoops? If you're afraid to charge people or whatever, you should set up a suggested donation tab or something."

... GOOD IDEA, ONLY HERE'S WHAT WE DO INSTEAD:

GIVEN THE PROBLEMS OF THIS BOOK'S SUBJECT MATTER, GIVEN THE TROUBLESOME IDEAS THAT THE SUBJECT MATTER PROPAGATES, AND GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THE SERIES' MOST ASSOCIATED ACTOR, TAKE THAT SAME EXACT FIVE DOLLARS YOU WOULD HAVE SPENT ON THIS "BOOK" AND DONATE IT TO THE NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR, IF YOU PREFER LOCAL IMPACT, DONATE IT TO YOUR REGIONAL WOMEN'S SHELTER. AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE SMALL AMOUNT. PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS AFRAID TO DONATE SMALL AMOUNTS, AS IF IT COMMENTS NEGATIVELY ON THEIR GENEROSITY OR SOMETHING. WELL, HULK ASSURES YOU IT MEANS MUCH MORE THAN ZERO DOLLARS.

IN TRUTH, IT MEANS EVERYTHING.

BECAUSE IF THERE IS ONE THING THAT WE CAN DO WITH AN INDULGENT BOOK ABOUT THE MOST INDULGENT FILM SERIES OF ALL TIME, IT'S TRY TO TURN IT INTO SOME KIND OF TANGIBLE GOOD. LIKE OUR APPROACH TO THE SERIES ITSELF, MAYBE ALL WE CAN DO IS TRY TO FIND THAT SWEET-SPOT ON THE SPECTRUM OF OUR OWN HUMANITY. HULK KNOWS THAT SOUNDS SILLY, BUT SO WHAT. AND MAYBE THAT'S WHATEVER WE CAN DO IN OUR ENSUING CONVERSATION TOGETHER, TOO. IT'S THE ONE LIE THAT WE CAN MAKE REAL; A LIE BEST WHEN DONE IN THE SPIRIT OF THIS OH-SO-TROUBLING-YET-ENTHRALLING HERO. BECAUSE IN THE END, HULK CAN'T HELP BUT WANT THE LIE, FOR THAT IS WHAT HULK HAS ALWAYS WANTED OUT OF MOVIES, AND WHAT HULK HAS ALWAYS WANTED OUT OF THIS SERIES...

TO GET SWEPT UP IN THE ROMANTIC LIE OF JAMES BOND.

JUST THIS ONCE.

AND FOREVER AND EVER AGAIN.

<3 HULK... FILM CRIT HULK.