Goldfinger
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
From Russia With Love
Casino Royale
Goldeneye
The Spy Who Loved Me
Skyfall
Tomorrow Never Dies
No Time To Die
Dr. No
Licence To Kill
For Your Eyes Only
Thunderball
You Only Live Twice
Moonraker
Live And Let Die
The Living Daylights
The World Is Not Enough
Quantum Of Solace
Spectre
Octopussy
The Man With The Golden Gun
A View To A Kill
Diamonds Are Forever
Die Another Day
Sir, you are serving impeccable taste👏 My main difference would be to move Octopussy up a fair few notches… just for Louis Jourdan uttering ‘Octopussssssy, Octopusssssy’… instantly iconic!
Such attractions can often lead to an appreciation of qualities which are not immediately apparent.
I started out just liking DAF–it was a Bond film that always engaged me, and which I did not turn from before it finished. But I did not think it was worth critical exploration.
But the fact that I returned to it made me probe/poke the movie: were there some deeper structures or forms? Many times these further viewings come up empty. But once in a while–and DAF may be my poster child example–I do discover something–a thread I pull on that reveals riches.
Another example: MOONRAKER. No, Lewis Gilbert did not suddenly unveil himself as an auteur, but all the pieces of a Bond movie come together in MR with just enough tweaking/updating, to make it a most satisfactory experience (Moore was completely at ease as Bond, and the money spent on the production definitely helped).
“Satisfactory” is a good word for Moonraker: it always delivers for me. Partly that must be nostalgia, as it was my first big-screen Bond (but not my first-ever Bond), but also MR is just so polished and glossy and high-end that it’s somehow comforting to my aging eyes. Plus it knows exactly what it wants to do and does it, in contrast to many later entries that seem to want to be all things to all people, and end up neither fish nor fowl. I certainly appreciate that what MR wants to be – and is – isn’t some fans’ idea of what a Bond film should be, but it certainly succeeds at what it attempts, if that makes sense. You can fault it for being misguided, but you can’t say it’s incompetent.
I can’t ever manage to get that engaged with DAF because I don’t really feel like anyone in the film is that engaged with it. It has its moments, but it’s the first of the Hamilton triad of “budget” Bonds, and I miss the sense of opulence and visual grandeur I normally associate with the franchise.
Maybe I should give QoS another try, too, since by now I’ve read enough posts here to think maybe I finally understand what it was about. Maybe it’ll be more fun if I go in with a full understanding of the plot already, instead of expecting the film itself to relate it in a way that makes sense to me. In general, though, it occurs to me the Craig entries spend more time on the shelf than any of my other discs. I don’t necessarily dislike them, but I never feel particularly compelled to rewatch them, either.
I’m not against the Craig era’s approach at all, but it’s clear to me Moonraker type films are a thing of the past. That’s why I appreciate them all the more.
I recommend it. Funnily enough, Quantum is currently ranked last in my Craig rankings, but it’s perhaps the movie I’d put on first. It’s the shortest of his and gives me a quick hit of that era, while still being a decent movie. I don’t think it’s anywhere near the worst in the grand scheme of things.
Perhaps it is about depth, it’s probably why the Brosnan movies don’t resonate as much with me, I find them very surface’. There is emoting, that’s true but it’s all rather shallow. Problematic of a lot of 90s popcorn cinema and some of the 80s stuff too.
Moonraker comments on the previous entry and big budget cinema in general, the cheeky tone is there from the director who has knowingly remade his own movie twice in the space of 4years.
It pastiches Bond and action hero’s in general and pokes fun at is own product placement. Let’s blow up one our sponsors! Let’s have MooreBond dangle on a cable car in Gucci slip-ons.
QOS dares to not have a sexual relationship between Bond and Camille, it would cheapen both of their motives for doing what they do. The shots of the collateral damage of ordinary people sucked into the affray is quite powerful. The propulsion of the film is reminiscent of FRWL. There are brave choices here and as much as the swimtrunk scene in CR, the shooting whilst dangling from a rope in Italy, cements CraigBond and Craig as a credible James Bond.
DAF has a lot to say about the rampant consumerism that took over the hippy ideal of the 60s, reminds me of the last shot of madmen when Don Draper brings that ideal to the mainstream to sell Coca-Cola
As I’ve said elsewhere, the Craig era is a mixed bag for me, but one thing I do really like is the relative dearth of “casual sex.” Dalliances are relatively infrequent in his tenure – certainly compared to the “it’s been 10 minutes already, where’s my next partner” attitude of the Moore era – and I have to say I miss them a lot less than I thought I might. In fact, when Craig does get around to bedroom scenes I tend to find them boring at best and disagreeable at worst. The Vesper stuff works because Bond actually feels something for her, and that fact is the point of the film. Solange works because Bond is ruthless and wants something from her. But his Bond is not believably from the school of “how do you kill five hours in Rio if you don’t samba”, so the hookup with Strawberry Fields feels wrong. He doesn’t love her and she’s already on his team, so what’s the point? The shower scene with Severine is reprehensible and whatever that is with Sciarra’s widow is just creepy. Meanwhile the “romance” with Madeliene is baffling as there’s no chemistry between those two, but at least I get that on paper they’re in love, so I’ll give it a pass. The point being, Craig’s Bond seems capable of physical intimacy either when his emotional barriers are penetrated or when he’s ruthlessly manipulating a woman, but otherwise he just can’t be bothered, and shoe-horning in the traditional “Pleased to meet you Mr Bond, let’s have sex” silliness simply out of tradition would be disastrous.
Anyway I agree one thing QoS has going for it is that it would have cheapened, maybe even ruined the characters of Bond and Camille to have them say, “Whew! Well now that’s over, let’s get it on.” (Just as it earns a huge “WTF” when Bond and Wai Lin hook up at the end of TND).
Honestly, even the first time around, I was cool with QoS whenever it stopped moving for dialog scenes. But then soon enough there would always come another action scene and I felt like I was back on the Tilt-A-Whirl after downing a bottle of Scotch. I remember thinking I’d have liked it better if they’d saved all the money they’d spent on stuntwork and instead just held up cards that said things like “Insert boat chase here.”
Also agree about the Brosnan entries feigning “depth.” They’re all split by a desire to introduce “meaningful” themes of betrayal, loss, etc and the simultaneous desire to showcase over-the-top action scenes that would make even Wile E Coyote say, “Oh come on.” In that sense, they’re harbingers of the Craig era, which will go much deeper into the emotions zone but still keep one foot in cartoon physics. But on the whole, I prefer the Craigs since the split isn’t strictly 50/50. Maybe more like 70/30.
This is a valid point and likely a factor in the appeal of MR and entries like it: they are “safely” in the past, and from that safe distance they are more lovable. I know there were Bond fans who were horrified by MR in 1979 (but not the general public), and a lot of that comes from living in that moment. You’re thinking not only “this is not for me” but also “Good Lord, this is what this series has become and where it intends to keep going!” It’s not just the disappointment of one film, but the “threat” that your favorite thing is evolving in a direction you will never like again. 40+ years on, it’s much easier to look back and say, “Well, now that I know it was NOT the beginning of the end, I guess it is kind of fun in its own way.”
Also, as someone who quite liked that film from the beginning, it’s comforting to have something trapped in amber, just the way you like it, forever. Nothing that happens today or next year can change what it was, is and will be. And to a large extent, every entry that exists already at the time we join fandom gets a free pass, while any that come after that point will always be judged more harshly. For instance, when I jumped on the Bondwagon, we were already on Bond actor #3, so I was cool with recasting from the get-go, whereas some fans who started with Connery could never accept a replacement, and never will.
The great thing about Bond films is something many journalists (and fans) never seem to learn: there is always a reset with the next one. The style always changes, even within tenures. QOS was nothing like CR. And yet journalists cried out: oh, no, Bond now is Bourne. Then came SKYFALL. And so on.
I remember how the older fans hated MOONRAKER and the younger ones (including me at that time) were absolutely thrilled. But those who said “Bond is now so much over the top, it will never be like Fleming again” had to find out that FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was not another space fantasy.
But hey, the mock outrage seems to be too much fun.
1979: “Moonraker is too over-the-top and just like two other Bond films. We’ll never see a grounded thriller or original idea again.”
1981: “FYEO is too dialed-back and unambitious. Where’s the big villain base and the battling armies?”
1985: “AVTAK is the same-old, same-old, emphasis on the 'old. We need young blood and new ideas.”
1987: “This new Bond is too serious. Where are the jokes? Why does he only sleep with one woman? We miss the old formula.”
2002: “This formula is so tired, and this film is too goofy. We’ll never see a grounded thriller or original idea again.”
2006: “They threw out everything we used to love!!”
2005: “Wait, THAT guy is going to be Bond? He looks all wrong! I’ll never watch another one.”
2021: “Craig is leaving? But he was perfect! I’ll never watch another one.”
1999: 35-40 year old men (who were in their teens or 20s in the late 70s), Mom can you drive me to the movie theater so I can see Episode I like I did when I was a kid?
A few hours later in 1999: Ahh, Jar Jar Binks and pod racing?! You’ve ruined my childhood!!!
2002: Oh man another Star Wars, I’m so pumped!
Also 2002: You hate sand?! Anakin is an emo teenager?! Damn you, George Lucas, you’ve ruined my childhood again.
2004: Digitally adding Hayden Christensan to RotJ? You’re dead to me, George.
2005: Oh yes, Episode III, I can’t wait. We’re finally gonna see how Anakin becomes Darth Vader!
Mock anger in 2005: It was because he didn’t have the high ground?! You’ve ruined my childhood…(you said that one already)
2012: Disney bought Star Wars? This is great, maybe they can finally fix Star Wars.
2014: The Force Awakens looks awesome! Can’t wait, Star Wars is back! Yay, Han and Chewy!
2015: Yes Star Wars is back! It’s just like when I was a kid! (It’s just nostalgia, all they did was copy the original) Shut up, my childhood is more important and this reminds me of that, also I’m almost 60 now. Also, you made the main characters a girl, hispanic, and black? You’ve ruined my childhood again again!
2017: The Last Jedi? This is awesome, yes please?
toxic people in 2017: Rian Johnson, off with your head! You’ve ruined my childhood! (We’ve been through this already) Rey is a nobody?! Snoke is a nobody?! (Who was Snoke again?) Luke dies!? That’s it I’m done with Star Wars. Having an Asian woman as one of the leads in the last, ultimate, final straw.
2018: Abrams is back as director? Hell yes! He can fix what TLJ and the social justice warriors broke! What are you talking about, I never complained about his film being a rip-off.
2019: RoS trailer and Palpatine laughs? YESSSSS!
End of 2019: Dafuq? They completely ruined everything!!! How did Palpatine comeback? Oh right, Fortnite. Another Death Star? Lando wants to bang his daughter? How did we get here? Maybe the last one wasn’t so bad. Dammit Disney, you’ve ruined my childhood!!!