It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The top 5 seems to be pretty consistent. For the rest of the top 10 I've decided to give my personal favourites a spot, despite the weaknesses they might have.
Absolute favourites
1. The Living Daylights
2. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
3. From Russia with Love
4. GoldenEye
5. Licence to Kill
Other favourites
6. Goldfinger
7. Thunderball
8. The Man with the Golden Gun
9. The World Is Not Enough
10. A View to a Kill
Good, but not a personal favourite
11. Casino Royale
12. Skyfall
13. For Your Eyes Only
14. Dr. No
15. Tomorrow Never Dies
Ok, though not entirely engaging throughout
16. The Spy Who Loved Me
17. You Only Live Twice
18. Octopussy
19. Live and Let Die
20. Never Say Never Again
21. Diamonds Are Forever
22. Moonraker
23. Quantum of Solace
Subpar, some good aspects don't make up for major problems
24. Die Another Day
25. Spectre
Darn right about that.
But seriously we like all the same things about TB. It has my favorite overall group of Bond girls.
Thanks Birdie! And no worries, I still enjoy those entries ;)
Especially TSWLM and LALD, but I find the Liparus and Underground Lair finale a bit dragging. QOS’s problem in my mind is its rushed pace and the much maligned editing.
Nevertheless, they all have more good than bad aspects. Only DAD and SP have things the other way around so far.
With regard to Bond girls: I absolutely love Fiona Volpe as the franchise's first and best femme fatale. I guess, Domino is an average Bond girl. She is very beautifull but does not do so very much. The same applies to Paula who rather serves as a sacrificial lamb but does not have any further relevance to the plot. Maybe her character could have had a bit more depth. Unfortunately, her suicide does not seem to have a big impact on Bond and her character is forgotten soon.
The extra 5-minutes of too much underwater time in no way abolished the rest of a masterpiece. :)
The coincidences are a mild issue. I have a much bigger problem with the horrific dialogue/acting in the previous movie's Hoods Convention and a much bigger problem with Bond turning Japanese in the next film with ninjas storming volcanoes filled with nukes.
2. OHMSS
3. The Living Daylights
4. Goldfinger
5. Goldeneye
6. From Russia With Love
7. Live And Let Die
8. Octopussy
9. Casino Royale
10. You Only Live Twice
11. The Spy Who Loved Me
12. Thunderball
13. The World Is Not Enough
14. The Man With The Golden Gun
15. Diamonds Are Forever
16. A View To A Kill
17. Tomorrow Never Dies
18. For Your Eyes Only
19. Die Another Day
20. SPECTRE
21. License To Kill
22. Moonraker
23. Skyfall
24. Quantum of Solace
I watched TSWLM last night as a matter of fact. The first 3/4 are top notch material for Bond, but it's the whole tanker finale which brings it down for me. After such a thrill ride for 90 minutes, I just want a nice crisp ending to top it off, but the whole climax is ridiculously drawn out for my liking. I think the big problem is that Stromberg's plan really isn't that interesting (nor is the man himself IMO), and the film got away with keeping that in the background until now, but when it comes time for it to take centre stage and become the main threat, I become disengaged. While the sets are impressive, and seeing hundreds of extras running around, jumping into the water and such, I'm just not that invested in anything much story-wise. Bond uncovering the mystery early on is superb, some of the best stuff Bond can offer, and the lurking B story of Anya working with her lover's killer is handled brilliantly. But once it all becomes a simple matter of stopping Stromberg's plan by reaching here in time, diffusing this, escaping that etc. I don't care anymore because again, the plan and the man behind it have leave no impact on me. And as a consequence, the film as a whole becomes hollow for me. It's a shame because each time I watch it I make it 3/4 of the way through thinking, "this is better than I remember it!" And then the climax arrives and suddenly I remember, "ah that's why it's not a top ten Bind film (for me)".
I get your point though.
I agree, the film does end on a high note in that submersible. Such a cool ending, I love how the shooting the cork off the bottle released a whole films worth of tension, brilliant! (it's not often that Bond and Bond girls lives are intertwined from pretty much the first scene). It's not that there isn't stuff to enjoy, but it's so spread out compared to the 90 minutes full on thrill ride and cinematic ecstacy that came before.
I also read your theory and I concur. It's clear that the makers of MI and other franchises are taking direct cues stylistically from Bond, and I think Bond has two options. Either Bond comes back strong and simply does it better than everyone else (not been the case for the last few years if you ask me), or EON concede the ground to the MI and Kingsman teams and moves more into the prestige, artful blockbuster film territory, that are as much about critical acclaim as about mass appeal. This model has proven successful to the extent that they have pursued it so far, it'll be interesting to see how them position themselves next.
As an example, that photo from MI6: Fallout which shows Cruise hanging from a mountain evoked FYEO for me and really got me interested. MI can get away with that because they are a competing franchise. If we saw a Bond actor doing the same thing in a future Bond film I'm sure some of us (certainly I) would get upset because I would see it as a direct rip off of a prior film within the series. Such was the case with SP where I saw many things which evoked prior films (such as the Hinx fight and car chase) but weren't done as well. Additionally, when Cruise does these things, he does them very well. He's not half-assed about it. That makes a huge difference too.
I have no doubt that the old (and consistent) Bond team under Cubby had a better grip on these elements than the current crew, who seem to be jumping around from place to place with new approaches but not really finding their voice (imho). There is a degree of passion missing in my view, which they are relying on the directors to fill. This is one reason why I want Nolan on the job soon. I think he can establish a clear vision for what and who Bond is going forward. He's got the chops to do it.
I never thought of that, great point. MI and others are still the new kids on the block, given how long Bond has been going. And like older brothers, you expect more of them.
I especially like that last point you make there. It's exactly right, if Nolan can take Schumacher's Batman and turn it into TDK trilogy, then he is man to be at the helm of this currently flailing and identity-less franchise. For the past 5 years Bond has been reliant on nostalgia and goodwill as one of its main draws, and that simply can't be the case forever.
Having said that I wouldn't have a problem with a journeyman. I think it would bring a fresh style after the last decade and perhaps some consistency. Nothing wrong with the John Glens or Martin Campbells of this world.
The one potential hiccup I see is that we've got less talent on the whole nowadays in the rest of the phases of the filmmaking. Part of the reason why the direction of Young, Hamilton, et. al sufficed was down to John Barry and Ken Adam and Peter Hunt and Maibaum, etc. Each of the Apted, Spottiswoode, and Tamahori efforts would surely have made a more lasting and favorable impression if the talent around them had been elevated.
Glen and Campbell are somewhat exceptions. They made it work, to an extent, without some or, in Campbell's case, any of those geniuses. But Glen and Campbell each had a knack for action, and relied on that to get them through; action-aside, the rest of their films lack something. Both Forster and Mendes (for different reasons) handled the action comparatively poorly, but they did put back into the fabric of the film some of the panache or elegance which had been missing through the 80s and 90s (even, I think, in Campbell's efforts). Maybe the recent reliance on 'auteurs' is compensation (in addition to its being somewhat fashionable at the moment for more artsy directors to do blockbusters).
Quite agreed, and this is where the Babs (and most notably, Craig's) influence is clear. I don't think Cubby would have gone for this approach, but this is what we have now. I for one have had my share of it (it was nice while it lasted) and would greatly appreciate a return to the mundane (for lack of a better word) and consistent. I sincerely hope that Babs doesn't let her less than critically applauded time during the Brosnan era cloud her judgement about the benefits of quality and consistent formula. It can be done imho, but it must be done well and with passion. You have to believe in it.
---
EDIT: just to clarify my earlier point as well - I think a journeyman works best if he/she operates under tight producer control, or if he/she has been brought up with the 'family'. Hunt and Glen are examples of the latter to a degree, but they also had Cubby's guidance and oversight. The risk with a journeyman otherwise is that they deliver something too predictable (e.g. Spottiswoode). Campbell appears to be an exception, in the sense that he is the one journeyman who has been able to give us reasonably decent (and highly praised) Bond films under the current leadership regime.
I think Harry deserves mention, as well. We all might have seen in various spots online that Harry and Cubby used to trade principal producing duties back and forth, alternating pictures. (Anyone know if Barbara and Michael do/did this?) Mankiewicz said that DAF was Cubby's. I'm not sure when they started passing duties back and forth like that. Presumably not from day one. But tracing it back even part way means Harry would've been at the helm for at least OHMSS, perhaps TB (who knows how McClory affected that one, though), and potentially FRWL. (The only 60s film where Cubby's name comes first in the credits is GF. Not sure how/if that ties in.) Anyway, that's not a bad (plausible) track record. Plus LALD, which is arguably the best of the post-60s/pre-partnership-dissolution entries.
Obviously Cubby did fine on his own when the time came, and Harry's attention never seemed to be 100% on Bond, but Harry obviously knew what Bond should be, and it was he and Cubby's partnership that managed the most consistent period of Bond—six wonderful efforts in just eight years.
This is all to say that maybe Eon's giving the director more control in the last decade or so is less a willingness than a necessity. Given the sheer force of two guys like Cubby and Harry, plus Barry, Adam, Hunt, and Maibaum, the role of director almost has to be a journeyman type. No way an 'auteur' could work within a system that stocked with creative talent. The vacuum created in the absense of these sorts of perennial visionaries now creates a kind of void in which directors can naturally have much more control and, quite frankly, need to.
2. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
3. Goldfinger
4. The Spy Who Loved Me
5. Skyfall
6. Dr. No
7. From Russia with Love
8. GoldenEye
9. Thunderball
10. Licence to Kill
11. For Your Eyes Only
12. Live and Let Die
13. You Only Live Twice
14. The Living Daylights
15. Quantum of Solace
16. Octopussy
17. Tomorrow Never Dies
18. A View to a Kill
19. The World Is Not Enough
20. Spectre
21. The Man with the Golden Gun
22. Diamonds Are Forever
23. Moonraker
24. Die Another Day