James Bond

[Rigel]

I'll be honest... I did NOT grow up watching James Bond.

In fact, my introduction to him (theatrically) was Pierce Brosnan. The first one he was in was the first Bond film I'd seen start to finish, and I saw it in the theater.

Wow, was I disappointed.

In fact, I couldn't understand why everyone liked this character so much... It was like the Dr Who of the spy world, incredibly campy and cheesy, but without the self-awareness (or tongue-in-cheekiness) that makes such things enjoyable.

However, I was listening to a recent episode of the Filmspotting podcast (which WOULD be excellent if not for time constraints... Seriously, you have to be DETERMINED to listen to the whole thing every week, it's just way too long) and they had a clip from one of the early Connery Bond films (I think it may have been the very first Bond film, but I'm not certain about that). And I began to wonder if perhaps I have judged too harshly, and I should go watch the originals.

Now, to clarify, my favorite Bond films have been the Daniel Craig ones, but even those I feel fall short. They have potential, but something about them never clicked for me... I think perhaps it could be the history of the character; these films ask you to enter their world with a whole history and set of preconceptions about who he is that I don't have, and frankly I find them rather pretentious. In spite of that I found them to be "good, not great."

So, back to my point at hand: would visiting the original Bonds, perhaps even in order of production, be a worthwhile endeavor? Or should I relegate them to their place in history, an odd byproduct of a bygone age?

[Avatar]

Hahaha, there is no way to answer that question that does not involve you watching at least a couple of them. I think you have to watch at least the first 3 produced, Dr No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger.

a) They're iconic and...no...that's it.

Of course, I personally recommend reading the original Fleming books, they're quick and easy reading, and fun. And more gritty than the original films.

And Daniel whatsisface is not a good Bond.

--A

[wayfriend]

I have an odd fondness for the Timothy Dalton version of Bond.

My favorite Bond movies, however, have been with Roger Moore's Bond. Live and Let Die; The Man with the Golden Gun; Moonraker; For Your Eyes Only.

[dlbpharmd]

I have an odd fondness for the Timothy Dalton version of Bond.

So do I. "The Living Daylights" is my favorite non-Craig Bond film.

[wayfriend]

In preparing for the role, Dalton [...] was keen to portray the character as accurately as possible, reading up extensively on the books before his role in The Living Daylights (1987).

Dalton's Bond was a serious one: dark, cold, emotional stern, ruthless, showing little humour, and focused as a killer with little time for fun and indulgence. Dalton's interpretation of the character came from his "desire to see a darker Bond", one that was "less of a womaniser, tougher and closer to the darker character Ian Fleming wrote about". James Chapman also considered Dalton to be closer to Fleming's Bond than the previous actors, writing that Dalton was "clearly less comfortable ... with the witty asides and one-liners ... so he becomes something closer to the Bond of the books, who rarely develops a sense of humour".

Then along came Craig.

Despite the negative press on his appointment, Craig was widely praised by critics and former Bonds after the release of Casino Royale, believing him to have been the first actor to truly nail Fleming's character in the book: Todd McCarthy, reviewing the film for Variety, considered that "Craig comes closer to the author's original conception of this exceptionally long-lived male fantasy figure than anyone since early Sean Connery" [...] Paul Arendt, writing for the BBC, agreed, observing that "Daniel Craig is not a good Bond. He's a great Bond. Specifically, he is 007 as conceived by Ian Fleming—a professional killing machine, a charming, cold-hearted patriot with a taste for luxury. Craig is the first actor to really nail 007's defining characteristic: he's an absolute swine".

"First?" It's like they forgot about poor Timothy.

[aTOMiC]

I think I enjoy the Daniel Craig films the most now having seen every bond film multiple times. I grew up with Roger Moore as Bond and had to experience Sean Connery in re runs (until Never Say Never Again - the less said about that film the better). As a kid I loved Moonraker and will still stop and watch when I run across it on cable. Now I feel Moore's take on Bond is the most un-Bond-like given that most of the other actors portrayed Bond with more intensity and less style.

Dalton's Bond was oddly off-puting to me. Transitioning from Moore to Dalton was a bit jarring. Perhaps it was the films themselves that seemed a little off.

Bronsnan seemed to look and act the part very well but aside from Goldeneye I didn't feel the rest of his films were particularly good.

George Lazenby's Bond had no chance with me. I've only watched On Her Majesty's Secret Service once and that was enough for me. The film felt like a train wreck on many levels. I realize there are some of you who feel OHMSS is the best Bond film made I just don't happen to agree. No hard feelings.

Since I had to catch up with Bond by watching Connery second hand I feel the experience would indeed be helpful in fully understanding the character however I wouldn't go any further than Thunderball as I believe that was the last Connery Bond that isn't riddled with flaws.

IMHO of course.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

My (hastily assembled) list of favs:

1. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2. From Russia with Love
3. Goldfinger
4. Casino Royale (2006)
5. The Spy Who Loved Me
6. Live and Let Die
7. Skyfall
8. Quantum of Solace
9. Moonraker
10. Dr. No
11. You Only Live Twice
12. GoldenEye
13. License to Kill
14. The World is Not Enough
15. Octopussy

Honorable Mention to Diamonds Are Forever for the Vegas car-chase which is one of the few highlight in this dull affair.

[Avatar]

I realize there are some of you who feel OHMSS is the best Bond film made...

Surely not?

Moore was also my "growing up" Bond, and I used to like him best, but in retrospect Connery was better.

Wasn't too impressed with Dalton, maybe if he had done more films it would have been different. Brosnan should have been good, but wasn't. And the less said about Lazenby and Craig the better.

--A

[Savor Dam]

Not sure why David Niven is consistently omitted from the list of actors who have played 007.

[Avatar]

That wasn't a proper Bond film?

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

You should definitely see Goldfinger, the film which is probably most Bond fan's favorite even after more than 40 years.

After Moonraker, Roger Moore's films became more "campy", something which was already evident in Live and Let Die and Man with the Golden Gun (trivia: MwtGG is the only Bond movie where Bond is not featured in the pre-credit scene). Because of this, Dalton was a breath of fresh air. It is merely unfortunate that times were against him and so he got only two films, both of which were much grittier than anything that had come before.

I liked Brosnan in his first two films--presuming you can get past the overly thick and wildly fake Russian accents in Goldeneye--but Die Another Day....yeesh don't even get me started on that travesty. The opening sequence has some pretty good action but after that the film is such a parody of itself that it becomes almost impossible to watch.

Daniel Craig has done an excellent job in his three films to date, managing to capture Bond more closely to the novels like Dalton did as well as being quality films in their own right.

If you want to experience the history of Bond films without sitting through all of them that I advise Goldfinger, Thunderball, Diamond are Forever, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Man with the Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, Living Daylights, License to Kill, GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall.

The original Casino Royale doesn't count--it was a spoof film done as a spoof on purpose. Still...it is worth watching because it is a good movie.

[peter]

For me the grittiness of Craig's films does the franchise a disservice. Bourne does it better, and while it may be more in keeping with Fleming's books, I think this is a case where the films have gone beyond the authors original intent. The toung in cheek, the stunts, the girls and the gizmos have become what bond is and the sooner we get back to them the better!

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I have to say, Spectre was a disappointment.

[aTOMiC]

I have to say, Spectre was pretty much what I expected. I didn't at any time believe it was possible to match or surpass Skyfall so I wasn't at all disappointed. Spectre ended up being (IMHO) a superior Bond film that if it has been released before Skyfall would have been arguably the high water mark for the Daniel Craig films in many respects. Spectre simply cannot shine will full illumination standing in the shadow of Skyfall.

On the whole the Daniel Craig era of films, even with the inclusion of Quantum which I happened to like in spite of its shortcomings, has been fairly consistent in quality of production, acting, direction and writing.

As a lifetime Bond fan I am pretty pleased.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I don't know. I was hoping for more depth out of the Spectre plot since it's such an important Bond trope.

Spoiler

Handing the blame for all Bond girl mortality in the past over to Spectre seems a bit cheap and exonerates Bond somewhat, which undermines the culpability that has been invested in the character during the Craig epoch.

[peter]

The generally less than rapturous reception of the film has led to calls for the franchise to be mothballed. I guess that's not happening anytime soon, in the light of which I repeat my observation above.....

[deer of the dawn]

The early Bond films are unbearably silly to me now, especially the first Casino Royale. I like Connery, but can never unsee that orange romper he wore in Goldfinger. My kids were like WHAT IN GOD'S NAME IS HE WEARING when they saw that!! :LOL:

Roger Moore creeped me out. He seemed to bumble his way through international intrigue, marking time between sluts.

Brosnan was good but none of his films was really that great. Same for Dalton.

I had my doubts about Craig but I think he's the best Bond yet.

[Avatar]

I haven't watched any of the Craig ones except the first. Don't really expect that to change.

--A

[aTOMiC]

It took a very long time for me to finally see On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I am not old enough to have seen it at the theater and the film was largely ignored in reruns and Bond marathons until about 10 years ago or so. From the moment I first heard about it I was determined to see it and when I discovered it was part of a Bond DVD compilation I bought it immediately.

Then I sat down to watch it and was instantly appalled.
From the opening sequence which felt like a clumsy train wreck I almost couldn't believe my eyes. The editing was dodgy. A clear attempt to create energy through quick cuts and speeding up footage (a technique used in previous films much more effectively )
My first reaction to George Lasenby was that he certainly looked the part but his fighting technique seemed unusually clumsy and then he breaks the 4th wall and Says something like "This never happened to the other guy."
Kojak as Blowfeld didn't help matters.
Everything just seemed way off until the final act when a James Bond movie suddenly broke out.
All in all I was not happy with the film and haven't watched it a second time.

IMHO of course.

[Avatar]

I didn't mind Kojak as Blofeld, but I didn't have much Kojak exposure. But Lazenby...

--A