An Open Letter to EON Productions

 To Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson:

Can we have a little talk about the future of OO7? I know I'm a cranky old man who technically isn't the target audience for movies anymore, but I've been a Bond fan for most of my life. I've seriously watched the movies for almost 45 years and I'm only 50. I'm not the only old Bond fan out there. You'd probably be surprised at the number of us old heads there are who still go to these movies. I have one friend older than me who only goes to the movies when it's a new Bond film. So, yeah, there's quite a number of us out there.

So you've done your Daniel Craig miniseries of Bond movies. All in all, Craig was plenty good as Bond. A couple of the movies were really terrific, too. Casino Royale was the best, and oddly the one that most felt like old school Bond. Probably because it was actually based on an Ian Fleming book. Anyhow, Craig is done. You brought an end to the story. I wasn't initially happy with the ending, but I'll get over it. I'll give it another chance and end up buying the Blu Ray when it comes out. I buy all the Bonds, even the ones I initially don't like, and give them a second chance. But now that the Craig run is over, you're going to reboot the series again. So let's talk about this for a moment.

First off, don't do like Spider-Man or Batman and have another origin story. Bond doesn't need an origin story. Casino Royale didn't need to be an origin story. Just because it was the first book doesn't mean it was an origin. Bond in the book was already fully formed. Bond in the Dr. No movie is also fully formed. He can just be James Bond without an origin. Actually, no origin makes him more mysterious and interesting. So let him just Be James Bond. He drinks vodka matinis shaken not stirred, he drives fast cars, he has a license to kill, the whole nine yards.

Second, can we please please please drop the "this time it's personal" angle? The character existed for 27 years before doing a personal story. The problem is, every film has been personal since then. Simply have a villain out to take over or destroy the world like OG Blofeld, Goldfinger, Largo, etc. He has a large henchman like Oddjob or Jaws who gives Bond a hard time. Bond is literally the only person in the world who can stop the villain. He meets some women with hilariously inappropriate names like Pussy Galore or Holly Goodhead along the way. Maybe even give him some crazy gadgets. Certainly give him some crazy stunts.

I'm talking about the Goldfinger formula. The formula that Cubby Broccoli followed for years. I know, I know. Some crazy SJW is going to scream that you can't do Goldfinger anymore. Yes, you can. Know why? Because people still love Goldfinger. People will still go see Goldfinger and enjoy it. Revival showings of that movie and Thunderball are always popular. Yes, you're going to have an SJW or two howling on the internet, but they won't keep the real fans away.

You almost had the Goldfinger formula right in Spectre. It had all the elements up until "James, I am your brother". Take that goofy twist out and you've got a classic Bond. And guess what? Spectre is actually a pretty damn good entry in the series. I liked Christoph Waltz. I loved Bautista. I just hated the unnecessary twist.

By the way, you might consider dumping Purvis and Wade: Richard Maibum they aren't. I know that you try to be loyal, but all these guys do is borrow material from the earlier films without doing it justice. It's one thing to follow a formula, it's another thing to just keep recreating scenes like a cosplayer. And get a director who is more respectful of the legacy of the series than Cary Fukunaga. I mean, seriously, you've had American directors like Spielberg, Scorcesse and Taranatino ask you to do a Bond film--guys who genuinely love the series--but you let the first American director be a guy who disses Sean Connery's Bond as a rapist? Do better, guys.

Bond is a legacy. He's gone longer than any other movie character except for Godzilla. And his movies have been a heck of a lot better than Godzilla. Live up to that legacy. You Can do this: I've seen it. Goldeneye is wonderful. Casino Royale is wonderful. Spectre is almost wonderful.

By the way, can we pick up the pace of release again? Cubby got them out basically every other year. Roger Moore did 7 films in 12 years. Craig did 5 in 15. Four to six years between movies is a LONG time. Even if you can't do every two years like Cubby did, at least go for every three. 

One more thing: whatever else you do, don't reboot the series again when the next guy leaves in two-five movies. One thing Cubby did was make it all one guy. All one guy in a floating timeline works. It worked for 40 years. It can work again.

Ghost Busters (2016)

I'll be the first to admit that the internet gender war over Ghostbusters isn't particularly interesting to me. Neither the Social Justice Warriors who demand that it is every woman's responsibility to see this movie nor the Anti-Cootie Brigade's demand that it is every man's responsibility to not see it concerns me. After all, at the end of the day the new Ghostbusters is just another in a fairly long line of remakes of movies from the 1980s. Truth to tell, so many remakes of 80s movies have been done in the past 7 or so years that I sometimes feel I am reliving the decade.

Oh, I get that absolutely nothing I write in this review is going to change your mind if you're one of the people who has already decided if this is good or not. The battle lines have been clearly drawn for two years and people who have not even seen it or are even likely to see it already know everything they want to know about it. However, if you're one of those few people in the world with the intelligence to know that you can't really have an informed opinion on a movie without seeing it, please feel free to read on.

The real questions that needs to be asked of this movie--indeed the only ones that should be asked--is "is it good? Is it funny?". If the answer to that is yes, then gender doesn't really matter, now does it?

Point in fact, the answer does happen to be yes. This is a good, funny movie.

Is it as good as the original? Don't be absurd. Of course it isn't. But I would point out that none of the 80s redos have been, either. It helps that its not a beat for beat remake. It does take some ideas and cameos from the original but it is also its own thing.

Dr. Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) is about to make tenure at Columbia University when a ghost from her past comes back. In this case the ghost happens to be a book she wrote years ago with a friend, Abigail Yates (Melissa McCarthy). Yates has republished the book much to Gilbert's dismay. When Gilbert goes to ask Yates to pull the book, she gets dragged along to investigate a haunted mansion by Yates and her new assistant Jillian Holtzman (a wonderfully unhinged Kate McKinnon). When a video of the investigation goes viral--ending with a slimed Gilbert declaring her belief in ghosts--the trio gets fired and decides to set up shop hunting ghosts. They are shortly joined by former MTA worker Patty (Leslie Jones) and dumber than a brick secretary Kevin (Chris Hemsworth). Things get complicated by the usual bureaucrats trying to shut them down while a creepy janitor wants to unleash the Ghostpocalypse on the city.

I won't claim as others have that this is funnier than the 1984 original. Then again, the original is one of the top ten comedies of the 1980s with three top comedians at the top of their game directed by a comedy director at the top of his game. It's an impossible bar to measure up to and even the original cast fell short with Ghostbusters 2 in 1989.

That said, this version also has four top comics at the height of their game directed by a comic director at the top of his game. If this film falls short its not for want of trying. Its just that the original is just that classic. But this movie has nothing to be ashamed of. It has plenty of laughs, especially from Hemsworth, who threatens to steal the show from his four co-stars.

All of the surviving stars make cameos along with a few of the ghosts. After a while the cameos become slightly distracting which is probably the biggest knock on the movie. Some of them sort of work while others just plain fall flat. Dan Akroyd's unfortunately falls into the latter category.

But perhaps the most interesting and fun aspect of this is the 3-D. Unlike many modern 3-D movies, this one actually bothers with gimmick shots! Imagine that! Ghosts and Proton beams go flying out of the screen with fair regularity. It's not quite as insane as an 80s 3-D movie and it would look a bit better if it had been actually shot in 3-D as opposed to being a conversion, but it also doesn't shy away from what makes 3-D fun. It's actually well worth watching in 3-D, something that can't always be said nowadays.

But then again, it's just plain worth watching. While it's not going to make you forget the original, it's also not the disaster the ACB was hoping it would be. It's a good, fun time at the movies during the summer that, since it runs under two hours, wisely doesn't overstay it's welcome.

I hope this movie does well at the box office. NOT to vindicate the SJWs and make the ACB look foolish, but simply because it deserves to.