Matt Damon doesn't like James Bond films. He recently reiterated his contempt for them. I think he is right on the money with branding Bond as a misogynistic, imperialist, Martini-chugging murderer. However, I think it is a cheap shot and futile one at that. First of all, Bourne movies - in my ever-so-humble opinion - will take the Bond movies to circus and leave them as appetizers for the lions (bad metaphor, but it's still too early). As for the futility of the jab, I don't think Bourne movies will ever replace the Bond movies in film history, now will they ever threaten their legacy. Yes, they are both spy films, but can they be any more different?
It is true that the last two Bond movies took a lot of inspiration from the Bourne franchise, broke many a box-office record, and received critical applauds across the board, but they are not quintessential Bond movies. I don't hide the fact that I am not a Bond fan and I actually prefer the last two films - in purely cinematic sense - to the earlier ones by a mile (with the exception of the brilliant Goldfinger). Yet, they feel so alien in terms of what the Bond franchise stands for. They are no longer escapist fantasies (yes, politically incorrect, but what is really politically correct about Hollywood cinema?), but gritty, I-will-punch-you-in-the-nose-till-you-bleed-to-death-while-I-don't-sleep-with-this-incredible-Ukrainian-beauty action-fests.
I prefer Bourne films, but I think comparing them is not necessary and, like I said before, futile. It is like comparing The Godfather and GoodFellas - two gangster movies that are completely different in their appproach to the genre. And no - I am not comparing Thunderball with The Godfather.
The Bru
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment