Bond movie ranking (Simple list, no details)

1159160162164165242

Comments

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited February 2018 Posts: 7,136
    New year, new ranking.
    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
  • Posts: 12,473
    TB has jumped up to my #9 as of now. Epic win for a classic.
  • Posts: 12,473
    Close! It’s awesome.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    TB has been my #2 for almost a decade now. I realize it has its pacing flaws, but there's so much to like in the film. Does a Bond actor matter? I believe he does, and in this instance Sean Connery is just too good.
  • Posts: 12,473
    bondjames wrote: »
    TB has been my #2 for almost a decade now. I realize it has its pacing flaws, but there's so much to like in the film. Does a Bond actor matter? I believe he does, and in this instance Sean Connery is just too good.

    Darn right about that.
  • Posts: 12,473
    @Birdleson you are right on everything.
  • Posts: 12,473
    Yeah I know.

    But seriously we like all the same things about TB. It has my favorite overall group of Bond girls.
  • Posts: 12,473
    @Birdleson I'm sorry. One day I hope to recover. Please forgive me.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited February 2018 Posts: 7,136
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Sad to see you're not overly crazy about TSWLM, LALD and QOS, like I am, but otherwise very good rankings.

    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.
  • Posts: 12,473
    In my latest Bondathon, DAD took the bottom spot extremely easily, and no other EON film comes close to its level. It was a total disaster. I liked maybe 4 scenes.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    I have never realised that TB has many pacing problems. I really like he underwater scenes and the underwater climax. I rather find the writing of the health spa scenes a bit sloppy. In my mind there are just too many coincidences. Does anybody believe that Bond is coincidently there at the same time as SPECTRE?

    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.
  • Posts: 19,339
    TB sits happily in 5th place in my rankings,i love it.
  • GBF wrote: »
    I have never realised that TB has many pacing problems. I really like he underwater scenes and the underwater climax. I rather find the writing of the health spa scenes a bit sloppy. In my mind there are just too many coincidences. Does anybody believe that Bond is coincidently there at the same time as SPECTRE?

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited February 2018 Posts: 8,400
    1. Dr No
    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
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Top 10 is solid @Mendes4Lyfe. I would have preferred a little more love for TSWLM & TB but still, it's a good list and a bit different.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    bondjames wrote: »
    Top 10 is solid @Mendes4Lyfe. I would have preferred a little more love for TSWLM & TB but still, it's a good list and a bit different.

    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)".
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    I can understand that. I like the tanker sequence personally (I prefer it to the volcano lair scenario in YOLT, which is the one that drags for me), but can see why others may not. The film peaks with the Lotus chase in some ways. Having said that, I really look forward to the Jaws encounter on Atlantis followed by the finale on the submersible (just love Moore's look as the cork pops). In that respect it's similar to MI:RN (a film which I see as a spiritual successor) which also has a bit of a limp finale, but I wait for that fight between Ilsa and Janik every time.

    I get your point though.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can understand that. I like the tanker sequence personally (I prefer it to the volcano lair scenario in YOLT, which is the one that drags for me), but can see why others may not. The film peaks with the Lotus chase in some ways. Having said that, I really look forward to the Jaws encounter on Atlantis followed by the finale on the submersible (just love Moore's look as the cork pops). In that respect it's similar to MI:RN (a film which I see as a spiritual successor) which also has a bit of a limp finale, but I wait for that fight between Ilsa and Janik every time.

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can understand that. I like the tanker sequence personally (I prefer it to the volcano lair scenario in YOLT, which is the one that drags for me), but can see why others may not. The film peaks with the Lotus chase in some ways. Having said that, I really look forward to the Jaws encounter on Atlantis followed by the finale on the submersible (just love Moore's look as the cork pops). In that respect it's similar to MI:RN (a film which I see as a spiritual successor) which also has a bit of a limp finale, but I wait for that fight between Ilsa and Janik every time.

    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.
    I agree, but I have to say though that the MI & Kingsman films have far more operating flexibility than Bond. They have room to manoeuvre. Not only are expectations not as 'set' within the fanbase and with the general public (there are still many casual viewers who associate the Bond character with Connery and Moore despite neither of them being in the role for multi-decades - such is their legacy), but we tend to be (rightly) more critical.

    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.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    @Mendes4Lyfe The tanker finale is also my reason for not putting TSWLM any higher, though I also like the final encounter with Jaws. Pretty much on the same page there.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can understand that. I like the tanker sequence personally (I prefer it to the volcano lair scenario in YOLT, which is the one that drags for me), but can see why others may not. The film peaks with the Lotus chase in some ways. Having said that, I really look forward to the Jaws encounter on Atlantis followed by the finale on the submersible (just love Moore's look as the cork pops). In that respect it's similar to MI:RN (a film which I see as a spiritual successor) which also has a bit of a limp finale, but I wait for that fight between Ilsa and Janik every time.

    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.
    I agree, but I have to say though that the MI & Kingsman films have far more operating flexibility than Bond. They have room to manoeuvre. Not only are expectations not as 'set' within the fanbase and with the general public (there are still many casual viewers who associate the Bond character with Connery and Moore despite either of them not being in the role for multi-decades - such is their legacy), but we tend to be (rightly) more critical.

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    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.
    I'm sure there are others who can do it too, but I really believe they need a hands on director who will commit to more than one film and set about establishing a new approach for these films and for this franchise going forward. The sooner they get to this, the better imho.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't want a director committing to more than one film. I don't want to see any one person's vision or any more overreaching arcs. Give me a one-off filmmaker (if it works out, hire him back) and a traditional stand-alone film. A journeyman will do.
    That's a good point actually. I'm just a bit disappointed with the inconsistency of the product these days (even if I may have liked successive recent films, they have had different feels to them). I realize that is because the producers are different from the past and their approach is different, with what seems like more of a reliance on the director to chart a course. Switching from one to another therefore also results in noticeable shifts in tone and approach.

    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.
  • Posts: 684
    Having got three more director-dominated efforts in a row, I'm mostly in agreement with the journeyman approach for the next one.

    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).
  • Posts: 12,473
    Sometime this week I should have my newest ranking. Going to watch GF tonight - one of the best!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Strog wrote: »
    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.
    Very true @Strog, but I also believe a major factor that has been missing is Cubby Broccoli's oversight. Sometimes I sense a tendency here to downplay his impact and sort of lump Babs in with him (given the obvious family connection). Cubby kept very tight 'formula' control over that ship and his guiding influence was clear, even when the directors changed hands and even when the likes of Barry, Adam etc. weren't in the frame (FYEO or LTK as an example). I don't think it's coincidental that GE is the last time (imho) that a formula Bond was delivered with excellence. There was a consistency there, which is what I was referring to in my earlier posts about being missing these days.
    Strog wrote: »
    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.
  • Posts: 684
    bondjames wrote: »
    Very true @Strog, but I also believe a major factor that has been missing is Cubby Broccoli's oversight. Sometimes I sense a tendency here to downplay his impact and sort of lump Babs in with him (given the obvious family connection). Cubby kept very tight 'formula' control over that ship and his guiding influence was clear, even when the directors changed hands and even when the likes of Barry, Adam etc. weren't in the frame (FYEO or LTK as an example). I don't think it's coincidental that GE is the last time (imho) that a formula Bond was delivered with excellence. There was a consistency there, which is what I was referring to in my earlier posts about being missing these days.
    I should've mentioned Cubby, @bondjames. I would definitely consider as part of the talent that surrounded and elevated those journeyman directors.

    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.
  • Posts: 12,473
    1. Casino Royale
    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
  • Posts: 684
    Never like to see DAF and MR scraping the bottom like that (below SP no less!) but I can't really fault that top 10, @FoxRox.
  • Posts: 12,473
    QOS and TLD are quite close. Sorry for the dislike of DAF and TMWTGG; the just have too many issues for me to have them higher right now. There were a fair amount of changes this time around. I hate ranking the Top 12 since I love those ones so much in particular.
Sign In or Register to comment.