Best James Bond movie

[Reply #200 on:]

I prefer From Russia With Love to Goldfinger, mainly because Bond is slightly less rapey in FRWL, and Red Grant is the high water mark for henchmen.... I think.

If you're working your way through the franchise, you should've bookended the series, started with Dr. No, then watched Skyfall, worked towards the middle, this will give you a good flavour of how far the series has come, and finishes on For Your Eyes Only, which is one of the better Moores.

[Reply #201 on:]

Why would he want to watch the Daniel Craig movies out of order if he's never seen them before, considering they actually have some serious continuity?

And I don't know if I'd put it as "how far the series has come" as if it's been a steady upwards progression. In my opinion, the Brosnan era has all the terrible cheesiness of the Moore era but without the tongue-in-cheek attitude that makes the Moore movies enjoyable. They have their moments for sure, but I think it was probably the weirdest moment in time for the series, in a franchise that's pretty much defined as having lots of weird moments in time.

The Connery era is more ambiguous. You can praise them for how innovative they were for the action genre and creating many memorable moments (that the series would go on to emulate over and over again), but they've probably aged the worst, especially in terms of how horribly paced they are.

[Reply #202 on:]

I like the Roger Moore era the best, so far. They're the ones that have a handful of scenes that I really enjoy despite not working as full-length films.

Sean Connery's Bond is too much of a prick for me to get behind. He just really doesn't seem like a very pleasant human being - even if you ignore all the rape.

[Reply #203 on:]

but they've probably aged the worst, especially in terms of how horribly paced they are.

I disagree. Well, I guess you might be right for the crappy ones like Diamonds Are Forever and Thunderball, but I've always thought Dr. No and Goldfinger felt about 20 years newer than they are.

[Reply #204 on:]

I always enjoy Diamonds Are Forever. 

Why would he want to watch the Daniel Craig movies out of order if he's never seen them before, considering they actually have some serious continuity?

The only movies in the series which have any continuity are Casino Royale and QoS, in fact I suggest watching those two together in a four hour sitting, as it makes QoS a better film.

The hasn't been a steady progression, the series is up and down, the peaks and troughs (according to them) of which can be seen which the series "resets" and goes back to Fleming.  For example:

1st time reset:  You Only Live Twice, bonkers, and the main inspiration for Austin Powers - especially Dr. Evil.  Reset and goes back to Fleming for, On Her Majestys Secret Service, one of the best Bond movies, starring - unfortunately - the worst Bond - "This never happened to the other fella" (a line which makes no sense, considering he's the same guy)...

2nd time reset:  Moonraker, first Bond in space, parody of Star Wars, Close Encounters, etc... - still my favourite, but an enjoyable mess.  Reset to For Your Eyes Only, a more grounded Bond adventure with nods to his wife, and features the final dispatching of Blofeld

3rd time:  Die Another Day, invisible cars, ice castles, diamond faces, Halle Berry, Madonna...  Reset and go back to Fleming for, Casino Royale.

If you take the series as individual Bond missions, then what order you watch them in is irrelevant, save for the following which contain references to previous events, namely Bond's wife:

On Her Majestys Secret Service:  Death of Bond's wife, Tracy.
For Your Eyes Only: Visits Tracy's grave.
Licence To Kill: "He was married once...."

[Reply #205 on:]

SPECTRE teaser trailer.....   Actually looks good and some good nods back to Fleming.   Clues to Bonds upbringing after the death of his parents.   No action in this trailer, but Mr. White, Monica Bellucci, and the ominous "Oberhousen" are all present....

In other news, I'd like to recommend "Icarus", a fan-edit of Die Another Day.  It dispatches the invisible car, the tsunami kite-surfing, pretty much all of the corny quips are gone....  It makes for a far better movie.

[Reply #206 on:]

I'm really glad they're not going for the campy tone anymore. 80% of the Bond films have aged really poorly as a result.

Also, I'm surprised people would even bother doing edits of Die Another Day. It's a piece of crap with or without the invisible cars... and at least the invisible cars are amusing.

[Reply #207 on:]

To be fair, it's all relative...  DAD is a terrible movie, taking out a lot of what made it terrible makes it far better, which by Bond standards is still some way off the best in the canon.  Which is Casino Royale.  Even though Moonraker is still my favourite (when this came out, I was 7.  And to a 7 year old, it's awesome.... So I still like it).

[Reply #208 on:]

Eh, I guess it's a matter of perspective. I personally find that AVTAK is the best example of an utterly generic, uninteresting Bond film that has nothing to make it stand out from the rest. Die Another Die at least has some amusingly ridiculous stuff in it.

I don't care to argue that point any further because to be honest I hate them both.

I have to disagree - AVTAK has lots of great stuff to make it stand out. Examples being the best ever villain (Max Zorin), the awesome mine scenes, and the terrific golden-gate bridge finale.

DAD on the other hand is an utter fail.

[Reply #209 on:]

I'm just going to list three of my favourites (not necessarily my top three, just three that I want to say I enjoyed) for the moment.

I'm going to do this again:

A View To A Kill
This, as with the others in my previous list, isn't a good Bond movie, or even a good movie. But I like it. I like it for the fire engine chase, I like it for the female leads, and I like it for the ridiculous airship fight. But I absolutely love it for the bad guy and the completely bollocks evil plan that he has.

You've got to love something that totally crazy.


Goldeneye
This one isn't a particularly great film, but it's a good outing for Bond, and he's on top form with women, cars, gadgets, one-liners, and a particularly awesome bad guy in the form of Sean Bean. Although, it's also a fantastic N64 game, which probably helps with my fond memory of it.

Anyway, you have to enjoy something that's so ridiculously non-stop action-packed and at the same time falls far short of the standards of unbelievable insanity that other films in the franchise seem to hold themselves to.

Skyfall
Again, this isn't a brilliant Bond film, but this one's a good movie in its own right. It works with Bond as the central protagonist, but could just as easily have introduced the world to another secret agent character, if the Bond franchise had been canned.

It's subdued, dark, and significantly less nuts than other Bond films (still nuts by anybody's standards though), and although there are problems with the villain, the main plotline, and the stupidity displayed by MI6 of all people, it's still a fun watch. As long as you ignore some of the darker implications which pop up. Plus, it helps set up the next Bond film, and hopefully marks a change in the direction of the series towards darker, more believable, films that rely less on one-liners, gadgets, and the standard Dr. Evil-esque plots that Bond has previously found himself foiling almost as a matter of routine. The next film looks set to introduce a longer, multi-film arc again that'll take a while to resolve and turn out to contain schemes within schemes.

Which should be good.

[Reply #210 on:]

I'm just going to list three of my favourites (not necessarily my top three, just three that I want to say I enjoyed) for the moment.

I'm going to do this again:

A View To A Kill
This, as with the others in my previous list, isn't a good Bond movie, or even a good movie. But I like it. I like it for the fire engine chase, I like it for the female leads, and I like it for the ridiculous airship fight. But I absolutely love it for the bad guy and the completely bollocks evil plan that he has.

You've got to love something that totally crazy.


Goldeneye
This one isn't a particularly great film, but it's a good outing for Bond, and he's on top form with women, cars, gadgets, one-liners, and a particularly awesome bad guy in the form of Sean Bean. Although, it's also a fantastic N64 game, which probably helps with my fond memory of it.

Anyway, you have to enjoy something that's so ridiculously non-stop action-packed and at the same time falls far short of the standards of unbelievable insanity that other films in the franchise seem to hold themselves to.

Skyfall
Again, this isn't a brilliant Bond film, but this one's a good movie in its own right. It works with Bond as the central protagonist, but could just as easily have introduced the world to another secret agent character, if the Bond franchise had been canned.

It's subdued, dark, and significantly less nuts than other Bond films (still nuts by anybody's standards though), and although there are problems with the villain, the main plotline, and the stupidity displayed by MI6 of all people, it's still a fun watch. As long as you ignore some of the darker implications which pop up. Plus, it helps set up the next Bond film, and hopefully marks a change in the direction of the series towards darker, more believable, films that rely less on one-liners, gadgets, and the standard Dr. Evil-esque plots that Bond has previously found himself foiling almost as a matter of routine. The next film looks set to introduce a longer, multi-film arc again that'll take a while to resolve and turn out to contain schemes within schemes.

Which should be good.

I'll drink to those 3

[Reply #211 on:]

I just recently watched Never Say Never Again for the first time (I've always avoided it, especially after seeing clips).   But I'll say this....

It's a damn sight better than Thunderball (the movie it's a remake of), Connery is sleepwalking less in this than he was in Diamonds Are Forever (and is in better shape) and Klaus Maria Brandaur is absolutely brilliant as Largo.  One of the better villains.

[Reply #212 on:]

Might as well post this, it's been out a little while, looks good


Christoph Waltz guys, Christoph Waltz!

[Reply #213 on:]

You've been out a little while.

But yeah, that looks good. I'm hoping it lives up to the trailer. I'm also hoping that it's not Daniel Craig's final outing as Bond.

[Reply #214 on:]

Craig is contracted for one more after Spectre.  I think the trailer looks awesome, and hopefully up there with Casino Royale.

Waltz will be great, especially if he IS Blofeld.

[Reply #215 on:]

I might have to try watching the films in this order.

[Reply #216 on:]

That makes no sense. At all. Why would The Spy Who Loved Me be after Moonraker? Because of Jaws, it quite obviously isn't.

The Daniel Craig movies are a hard reboot for the series. The only real continuity is between those ones.

[Reply #217 on:]

The Daniel Craig movies are a hard reboot for the series.

They carried a lot over, in that case. It's the first hard reboot I've heard of re-using continuity elements from the previous incarnation of the franchise. That's normally the sort of thing that you avoid when re-starting from the beginning again. You can't say "okay, we're at the beginning of the journey, but we've also already visited some of the places and we're not going to tell you which ones we're planning to visit differently this time whilst not even acknowledging that this journey has been done before but expecting you to be reasonably familiar with it because we know it has".

That just confuses and irritates people.

I admit that the order presented isn't perfect, but I find it intriguing enough to give it a go and see if it fits without too many of that sort of hole. It might need some re-arranging to fit better.

[Reply #218 on:]

The Daniel Craig movies are a hard reboot for the series.

They carried a lot over, in that case. It's the first hard reboot I've heard of re-using continuity elements from the previous incarnation of the franchise. That's normally the sort of thing that you avoid when re-starting from the beginning again. You can't say "okay, we're at the beginning of the journey, but we've also already visited some of the places and we're not going to tell you which ones we're planning to visit differently this time whilst not even acknowledging that this journey has been done before but expecting you to be reasonably familiar with it because we know it has".

That just confuses and irritates people.

I admit that the order presented isn't perfect, but I find it intriguing enough to give it a go and see if it fits without too many of that sort of hole. It might need some re-arranging to fit better.

I'll admit that it's been a while since I've seen most of the old movies, but from what I remember it's only really the supporting characters that crossed over to Craig's movies.

M, Q, Moneypenny and Felix Leiter are pretty much Bond's traditional pals and it makes sense to cross them over in a re-imagining. And of those four, M is the only one who wasn't significantly different from prior versions of the characters.

Unless that's changing with Spectre. I actually haven't been keeping up with that, because for once I wouldn't mind being surprised by a movie.

[Reply #219 on:]

...from what I remember it's only really the supporting characters that crossed over to Craig's movies...

The James Bond series has had different actors playing the same characters, different characters played by the same actor, characters which the audience are meant to pretend are played by only one actor but that actor then makes a reference to the previous one ("This never happened to the other fellow."), characters not recognising each other even though they've met before, and a whole host of other weird oddities.

Then Casino Royale came along and rebooted the entire series. Except it sort of didn't, as you still have M played by Judi Dench. Then Skyfall comes along and we have Moneypenny and Q back, plus the same Universal Exports office as used in the Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton era. So the reboot regressed.

It means you can't really presume that James Bond is one man or different agents going under the same name, neither theory is air-tight and in the end it doesn't matter.

The character M was played by Judi Dench in both continuities, and in the "second" continuity referenced events from the "first" as well as saying that he's been "playing the game" for a long time. As do other characters, including Bond himself. The events of the "previous" continuity are nodded to in all of Daniel Craig's outings as Bond, in fact.

Even some of Bond's toys have made the jump, with the fancy car from Skyfall being a relic of his outing with Goldfinger. The films have made a concerted effort to reference toys, characters, and events, from previous outings in order to provide a connection to the wider film series - including referring to George Lazenby's Bond having been (briefly) married.

There's also that line from the Spectre trailer about Christoph Waltz playing the "architect of all [Bond's] pain", which is likely a reference to the end of that marriage.

It's a soft reboot if it's any kind of reboot at all. So soft you could use it as a pillow. It's fucking squishy.

James Bond has been the same character in the same universe throughout the different eras and actors which have lent defining traits to him over the course of the last few decades. It's long been a popular fan theory that each Bond is a different man who merely adopts a codename, and it's long been denied by the rights holders. They've insisted that the same character in the same universe is the one having all of these different adventures.

Which has led to the less popular and more bonkers fan theory that James Bond is in fact a completely delusional mental patient who invented a fantasy reality for himself one day, and is now an old man pottering around a nursing home somewhere, thinking that he's still in his prime and is working as a super spy. The women he meets are all improbably attractive and are all very willing to drape themselves all over him. The villains are all magnificent caricatures. The gadgets and the plots are larger than life.

He's living out stories inside his head. Whilst strapped to a metal gurney, probably. Or straitjacketed inside a rubber room so that he doesn't upset other inmates by fucking a potplant under the impression it's Monica Belluci, or flinging his shit at a doctor whilst believing that he's fending off a murderous assassin with a few well-placed bullets.

I mean, if you're going to go with fan interpretations of the series rather than taking it at face value, then go big or go home. You want to get nuts? Let's get nuts.

One suggestion I've read was to say that you can play fast and loose with continuity and allow for some jumping around because these stories are meant to be selected episodes from Bond's career with no real chronological order imposed on the majority of them. You could start piecing together your own timeline with Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace at the beginning, Skyfall at the end, and the various anachronisms presented by the series jumping through time and actors as it changes around simply being an artefact of the stories having been told at different times by different people.

Or you can go the other route completely and say that Bond is simply a mythical archetype, and that these are the collected exploits of spies in general, told through archetypes within a shared continuity in order to build the engagement of the audience and allow for a more structured flow to this particular ongoing work of entertainment.

But don't try calling it a "hard reboot" when it's explicit in particular that all of the other Bond movies have already happened within the timeline of Skyfall.

[Reply #220 on:]

"This never happened to the other fellow."

This kind of thing isn't something I'd take as evidence that they're connected. A long-running franchise, especially one as famous for recasting the main character as Bond, is bound to lean on the fourth wall a little bit every now and then.

Except it sort of didn't, as you still have M played by Judi Dench.

This is true, and probably the best argument against whatever point I'm trying to make. But one actress returning doesn't necessarily mean we should treat it as the same continuity. And Skyfall confirmed that "M" and "Q" aren't just characters, they're titles (which is another reason I find the suggested order above kind of weird).

and in the "second" continuity referenced events from the "first"

Such as?

as well as saying that he's been "playing the game" for a long time.

I wouldn't consider that to be compelling evidence, either. A phrase like that is often used to make it clear that they're experienced and know what they're doing. It doesn't have to be on-screen experience.

The events of the "previous" continuity are nodded to in all of Daniel Craig's outings as Bond, in fact.

Again... such as? A lot of throwaway lines and easter eggs are there for the audience's sake and not meant to be taken as cryptic world-building.

Even some of Bond's toys have made the jump, with the fancy car from Skyfall being a relic of his outing with Goldfinger. The films have made a concerted effort to reference toys, characters, and events, from previous outings in order to provide a connection to the wider film series

Which, when you consider what kind of movie Skyfall was and the way it was marketed, doesn't mean these gadgets are included with the intent of setting up continuity. Skyfall was hyped up as a celebration of the Bond franchise. It coincided with the 50th anniversary of Dr. No and, as a result, is packed to the brim with fan service and cute little references.

There's also that line from the Spectre trailer about Christoph Waltz playing the "architect of all [Bond's] pain", which is likely a reference to the end of that marriage.

Well, that's possible but it's still open to interpretation. Keep in mind that like I said, I haven't actually seen the Spectre trailer so if there's some kind of colossal breakthrough that annihilates my argument then I have no idea.

It's long been a popular fan theory that each Bond is a different man who merely adopts a codename, and it's long been denied by the rights holders. They've insisted that the same character in the same universe is the one having all of these different adventures.

Yeah, I've heard this theory before and I don't buy it. In the opening of one of Roger Moore's films (I think it was "For Your Eyes Only", but don't quote me on that) he visit's the grave of George Lazenby's dead wife, which doesn't really fit that theory at all. Additionally, Skyfall reveals that Daniel Craig's Bond's parents have the surname of Bond. Unless this codename also involves renaming any close relatives that wouldn't make a lot of sense.

Which has led to the less popular and more bonkers fan theory that James Bond is in fact a completely delusional mental patient who invented a fantasy reality for himself one day, and is now an old man pottering around a nursing home somewhere, thinking that he's still in his prime and is working as a super spy. The women he meets are all improbably attractive and are all very willing to drape themselves all over him. The villains are all magnificent caricatures. The gadgets and the plots are larger than life.

He's living out stories inside his head. Whilst strapped to a metal gurney, probably. Or straitjacketed inside a rubber room so that he doesn't upset other inmates by fucking a potplant under the impression it's Monica Belluci, or flinging his shit at a doctor whilst believing that he's fending off a murderous assassin with a few well-placed bullets.

Is there any work of fiction out there that doesn't have the "They're insane and it's all in their head" theory? I'll admit that it makes for interesting hypothetical scenarios, though.

But don't try calling it a "hard reboot" when it's explicit in particular that all of the other Bond movies have already happened within the timeline of Skyfall.

I guess whether Casino Royale is a prequel or a reboot is something that's up for debate, but it's not just the continuity that leads me to believe that's it's a straight reboot (Although the fact that it mostly keeps to itself is a big thing in my opinion). Mostly it's the vastly different tone and direction that the Daniel Craig era adopted as it trailed off all that ridiculous bullshit that Die Another Die had (not the mention the Austin Powers movies, which I'm sure played a big part in having Bond shy away from the campiness).

And if my phrasing of "hard reboot" is wrong to you, then let me just downgrade that to "reboot". I was mostly just trying to make it distinct from something like X-Men: Days of Future Past which is what I'd consider to be a soft reboot for that particular franchise.

I've almost forgotten what I'm trying to say. I'm not even particularly passionate about Bond and yet here I am typing like a maniac.

[Reply #221 on:]

I'm not even particularly passionate about Bond and yet here I am typing like a maniac.

Right back at you.

Such as?

I don't feel like watching the entire Daniel Craig run to date with a notepad and pen, looking specifically for every time they refer to events within the other films. However, there are a few of them in Skyfall.

Here are three selected examples (one seems too few, four seems too many. I like lists of three). Go look for more if you don't like these; I'm not your personal performing monkey.

1. Q refers to Q Branch no longer providing exploding pens. Such as the one Bond used in Goldeneye (when he was played by Pierce Brosnan). For that matter, it's also noted at some point that he's effectively the replacement for an older gentleman who has left the service. Who is of course, Desmond Lewellyn's Q.

2. M says she misses the Cold War. Whilst serving as M to Brosnan, she made similar remarks (although she did also castigate Bond for being a "relic" of the Cold War), and generally seems to have been a product of that era. She talks about "past exploits", making it clear that she disapproves of Bond's methods but admires the results. She also refers to her own management of Bond, fitting nicely with her upbraiding of Brosnan's Bond.

She's the same character from the same universe. She has the same conversational bullet-points, and is the same M who sent Bond to stop Alec Trevelyan. It's a wealth of small details in conversation between the two that add up to this being very much the same M as Brosnan's M, and Brosnan's Bond being the same man as Craig's.

3. Bond's Aston Martin. Yes. I'm going to keep harping on about that. Same registration number. Same gadgets. Same vehicle. Tricked out by MI6 for his mission in Goldfinger, this is one of the most iconic vehicles of the Bond franchise, and one of the surviving bits of Q Branch's previous legacy.

This car demonstrates that the Bond who took delivery of it in Goldfinger is the same man who put it into storage after the mission (presumably having bought it for himself, since he makes it clear it's not a "company" vehicle any longer). The Bond who drives M up to Scotland in it knows the vehicle's secrets. Since he's the guy who used them all in that film.

And Skyfall confirmed that "M" and "Q" aren't just characters, they're titles.

We've known that for a while. M replaced the previous M in Goldeneye. Q was training John Cleese as some sort of replacement in another Brosnan movie (and his department is called "Q Branch". It's pretty obvious).

This has been one of the main reasons people keep insisting that James Bond is a codename, rather than a single individual.

I guess whether Casino Royale is a prequel or a reboot is something that's up for debate, but it's not just the continuity that leads me to believe that's it's a straight reboot (Although the fact that it mostly keeps to itself is a big thing in my opinion). Mostly it's the vastly different tone and direction that the Daniel Craig era adopted

You could argue (as has been done in the past) that the Bond franchise is a "series of film series", with each actor giving their own take on the character, and each set of adventures being connected in some way, but all ultimately taking place in separate canons. It's something that the rights holders (Eon, I think) have been intentionally vague on for decades, so I doubt that we're going to settle the issue here and now. If they do make a definitive statement on it, I suspect that they'll come down on the "seperate canon" side of things, and state that each Bond is a new version of the same character, with some of the elements of previous outings making up part of his backstory. Like the different interpretations of Batman.

But the tone and direction of Bond films are slightly different from one to the next, even within Craig's block of movies. I prefer the tone of the current block, but that could shift a little with the next film to come out after Spectre. Which I am still excited to see.

[Reply #222 on:]

Spectre was really good; with lots of action and references to each of the other Daniel Craig era Bond films... as well as nods to several others.

[Reply #223 on:]

Okay, I rescind everything I said about it being a single continuity. The Craigverse is a seperate timeline. Has to be, now that I've seen Spectre. Everything that hinted otherwise was obviously just the directors fucking with the audience.

This makes me a little angry. But only a little, because Spectre was bloody well done.

[Reply #224 on:]

The Craigverse is a seperate timeline. Has to be, now that I've seen Spectre.

Hah, eat it! Victory is mine!

...Spectre isn't out yet in Australia (still a few more days. At least we're not waiting months like we did for Skyfall) so in the meantime, let's enjoy a gif of all Bond's gun-barrel shots:



The one from Casino Royale is definitely my favourite. And the Die Another Day one is the worst. Who aims for the gun when trying to kill someone?

[Reply #225 on:]

6 years later...

Firstly, I apparently never posted my review of Spectre back in 2015, so here's my one-word-review:

Poop.

Okay, now onto No Time to Die. It took a lot of interesting and unexpected turns that really leave me curious about the future of the franchise. Rami Malek was awesome, though I have no fucking idea what his motivations were meant to be. Still, I was entertained and the action sequences were great.

Probably the third-best Craig movie.

[Reply #226 on:]

Thanks for bumping this thread, UrL, because it reminded me:

I recently watched all the pre-Craig Bond movies for the first time ever (or, in the case of the Brosnan ones besides GoldenEye, for the first time in a long while), and while I had a good time overall, I was surprised at the range of my reactions.
 
Most discussions of the franchise that I had heard before centered first and foremost on people ranking the movies by comparing the merits of the different actors playing Bond. While this seemed to make sense because
a) there is indeed a different tone to each actor’s portrayal of the character and likewise to the tone of his associated movies collectively, and
b) all of these movies are made of pretty much the same sorts of formulaic elements anyway,
I nonetheless found that my enjoyment of each movie varied wildly, and that this variation was not at all split mainly among the different Bond-actor-eras like I expected, but that it really depended on the specifics of the plot and the other characters. Apparently, one oversexed international espionage action story is not just as good as another!

Also, and I’m only half-kidding when I say this, it seemed like how much I liked any given Bond film was inversely proportional to how much I liked its opening theme song.