Detailed Bond Film Rankings

Acknowledged. You get a tiny bit of slack sir.

hegottheboot wrote:

Acknowledged. You get a tiny bit of slack sir.

Ha! I'll take whatever slack I can muster.

I'd love to read a detailed ranking from you, HGTB, if you can find the time.

As would I. More the merrier.

I don't think I've put my scorings for the films down. Only just realised I had it on my spreadsheet...well, see if this works transferring.

2009-15 2009-2010 2008 2007 2012-14 2015
Dr No 10/8 7.5/10 .7/10 8.5/10 9/10
From Russia With Love 10/9 .9/10 .9/10 9.5/10 9/10
Goldfinger 10/7 .7/10 .7/10 7/10 7/10
Thunderball 7.5/10 .6/10 .5/10 7.5/10 8/10
You Only Live Twice 10/7 6.5/10 .7/10 6.5/10 6.5/10
OHMSS 10 .10/10 .10/10 10/10 10/10
Diamonds Are Forever 10/5 .5/10 .6/10 6.5/10 7/10
Live & Let Die 10/6 .7/10 .7/10 7/10 6.5/10
TMWTGG 3.5/10 .3/10 .4/10 4/10 3/10
The Spy Who Loved Me 10/7 .7/10 .7/10 6.5/10 6/10
Moonraker 10/7 .6/10 .6/10 7/10 7/10
For Your Eyes Only 10/8 7.5/10 .8/10 8/10 8/10
Octopussy 10/8 .8/10 .8/10 7.5/10 8/10
A View To A Kill 10/6 .6/10 .6/10 6/10 6/10
Living Daylights 10/9 9.5/10 .9/10 9/10 9/10
Licence to Kill 10/9 .9/10 .9/10 9/10 9/10
Goldeneye 10/4 .5/10 .5/10 7/10 6.5/10
Tomorrow Never Dies 10/6 .7/10 .7/10 6.5/10 6/10
The World Is Not Enough 10/6 .6/10 .7/10 6.5/10 6/10
Die Another Day 10/3 .4/10 .4/10 6/10 6/10
Casino Royale 10/6 .7/10 .9/10 6.5/10 6.5/10
Quantum of Solace 10/5 .6/10 N/A 5/10 4/10
Skyfall N/A N/A N/A 8/10 8/10
Spectre N/A N/A N/A N/A 8/10


I'll come back when my laptop isn't so slow. Taking forever to type.

See how this goes, I was never much good at this detailed ranking stuff.


that's based on my /10 scores.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)/From Russia With Love (1963), 10/10

How every Bond film should be or aspire to be. Everything clicks. OHMSS is as perfect a Bond film can be, as close to the book source as any will be. FRWL is as Bond as Bond can be like OHMSS. Both have charismatic allies, both have strong Bond performances, strong women and a decent score. Never bettered.

Dr No (1962), The Living Daylights (1987), Licence To Kill (1989), 9/10

Still on the threshold of what makes a Bond film a Bond film. Dr No is the blueprint of everything that has followed. A detective story wrapped up in a spy thriller. Exotic locations, late 50s/early 60s cinematic know-how and a director who was more Bond than Bond himself, so they say. Connery playing the role with no real measure of what Bond should be but for the novels.
Dalton playing Bond as Bond was written. Taking Bond from the pages in every sense, the grim faces, the love perhaps and even smoking cigarettes. No place for humour but who cares, he is the complete package. LTK is the best example I think of Fleming's Bond. It feels feasible that had his books continued, had he not died in '64 at any rate, Fleming might well have pieced a similar story or one where Bond goes to get someone. Both TLD and LTK are helped by a superb supporting cast in terms of performances with one or two weak links but the whole is better than the parts.

Thunderball(1965), Octopussy (1983), GoldenEye (1995), Skyfall (2012), 8/10

still close to brilliance. Brilliant certainly with enough flashes of Fleming's Bond to carry the film into the higher echelons. TB and OP have their faults but the whole is better than those faults it must be said. Skyfall feels like it's done with an understanding of Fleming or at least past Bond's and GoldenEye was enough to bounce high in my rankings. I looked past the music for a change.

Diamonds Are Forever (1971), 7.5/10
not perfect but there's enough in DAF to carry the film along.

Goldfinger (1964), Tomorrow Never Dies (1997), The World Is Not Enough (1999), Die Another Day (2002), 7/10

The veneer is shining off but there's still enough in these films to entertain, and hint at greatness beyond. DAD is probably too high but looking at what I was watching after, it sort of bubbled upwards.

Moonraker (1979), View to a Kill (1985), 6.5/10

not the best films and yet with flashes of goodness. Moore has his moments, the Bond girls aren't bad, the villains are excellent but the whole tends to be worse than its part. Something more even and maybe different Bond's, they'd be higher.

You Only Live Twice (1967), Live and Let Die (1973), The Spy Who Loved Me (1977), 6/10

Fading fast. Long lost the attraction they might have had once. Bored actors, inferior villains (well, Kotto does his all), weak women acting-wise (XXX), not entirely memorable scores and still having some moments that can't quite save the film.
N.B, curiously all three have Shane Rimmer and it's the lattermost film that benefits most from his presence. RIP.

Casino Royale (2006), 5/10

New era, old troubles. The energy faded by  the time I reached this. The old enthusiasm where a friend and I excitedly talked about it whilst at a boozy house party, long past. Not enough in this to rescue it points wise.

Spectre (2015), 4/10

As falls from grace goes, the worst. In the four years since I last saw it, just not worth the effort sadly. A hideously bad example of what could've been. Waste of the talent behind and in front of the cameras.

Quantum of Solace (2008), 3/10

gets worse as it goes. Nothing can redeem this film. Feels like any other action film merely with the addition of a chap called Bond. Plot utterly insignificant, flash cuts, bland soundtrack, characters you either don't care for or don't connect to.

The Man With The Golden Gun (1975), 2/10

Looking at it, probably marginally better than QOS and yet every viewing I am progressively as angry as everyone but Lee and Ekland seem to be making it. Critics at the time said the fact this series had lasted this long was surprising. If only they saw the next forty odd years.

No. 1, Timothy Dalton, (1987-89)

It seems the Bond's who did the fewest are the best if not the ones that involve the words 'what if'. What if Dalton did a third film? What if there wasn't the troubles MGM had and there were films in say 1991, 1993 and 1995?

Well, as it is Dalton fits Fleming's Bond to a 't'. Helps he read the book and seemed to have an understanding of what made Bond. Injecting one-liners was ill-judged. Not that Dalton can't do humour (say, Rocketeer) but he clearly felt it wasn't right. With a different director imagine what could've been. A Dalton GoldenEye would've been incredible (not taking anything from what we've got).

No.2, George Lazenby (1969)

Can one man make that much of a difference in 2hrs16? Yes. It's weird. Growing up I was inundated with Connery and Moore films and yet OHMSS bubbled to the top. The film always was a good film to me whereas, say, TSWLM and other films plummeted like Kananga. For a man with no experience, he manages to inject Bond's weakness, his emotional state and his hardness all in one. He moves with a way that you think, well this man looks 'normal' enough but could easily kill someone. The fact he read the book helps and especially for Tracy's death. Boo hoo Bond cries, what do you expect of a man who's had the love of his life blown away? Read YOLT, it knocked him for six. The greatest Bond what if, is Lazenby. A seven film contract. Imagine if he did seven, that's until 1983. He'd get better, he'll do other 'big' films in between and by 1983 who knows.

No.3, Sean Connery (1962-67, 1971)

It feels sacrilegious to include him here but that's not to slight Connery. He was the original. Dr No and FRWL. He is the benchmark for everyone after. No pressure in 1962, whereas by 1971 there had been enough.

No.4, Pierce Brosnan (1995-2002)

took Bond from the 90s into the noughties but missed the film that would've given him the edge. Would a CR in say 2004 have made the difference? Possibly. Would a Tarentino film have helped? POssibly. There is enough in his films to present a whole picture. It's a case of what might have been sometimes.

Roger Moore (1973-85)

Classy as he was, gentlemanly as he was, Sir Roger doesn't quite fill the gaps as Bond. FYEO and OP represented as good as it got.

No.6, Daniel Craig (2006-2020)

It feels hard to feel anything from his Bond. Skyfall elevated the role a little but the other films are a cultural black hole. Humour doesn't come off right, it all feels disjointed.

Excellent summary, except YOLT's score "not being entirely memorable". How many glasses of red you drinking, you old devil?!

As for GoldenEye's music, well. The only track one can make a case against is Ladies First, but it works in the context of the film. Everything else is superbly ambient and/or so romantically lush (We Share The Same Passions, What Keeps You Alone in particular!).

Disjointed. Good word to sum up Craig's era.

Goldfinger alongside TND and TWINE is truly something I can subscribe to, even if I rate them all much more highly.

I can't do a ranking. The first twenty films are so near to my heart, I just like them all.

Brief comments on the lot:

DN - Wonderful adventure film. Somehow still feels energetic and fresh all this time later. First one I ever saw on cable tv around the holidays. Sitting there in the warm glow of a big floor model CRT aged 12 and watching this is one of my fondest memories and honestly changed my life. Sylvia in heels with her legs in the foreground of the shot as Bond bursts into the room made me the man I am today.

FRWL - Found this one greatly boring as a kid. Less so now -- but I was on to something. Train journey does drag. The Bond-Grant fight is terrific but then it ends too many times. Overall it holds up because it is a 60s Bond.

GF - Easy to see why it achieved and still remains the quintessential one. Even if, as fans who have watched it a million times, we might see the flaws. It's not perfect start to end looking at it after the fact (24 films later and nearly sixty years of cinema) but it offers just about as good of an experience as a film can. Follows on DN much better than FRWL.

TB - I'm pro-TB. I know it's divisive. I get the complaints about the underwater stuff slowing it down, and I even agree, but at the same time it's just about everything Bond ought to be. Can you imagine what a treat a film like this would be now?

YOLT - Terrible script but that's always been Bond's weak point. An amazing thing to just sit back and watch. Bond fighting off the attackers on the roof, the photography as Bond walks the streets of Japan to Barry's score, Adams' volcano lair. I can't say I feel like watching it often but whenever I do I never regret it.

OHMSS - I like it but not as keen on this as the Reassessment says I should be. Hunt does a great job getting a passing performance from Lazenby, but he can't make him a leading man. I think that's what makes this one a little damp for me. The rest of the film is just strange enough -- Hunt really pushing the editing and sound, the psychedelic plot, Bond getting married -- to give it some charm but at the same time further alienate it from the others.

DAF - Pre-titles are awful and the finale on the oil rig is flat, but this is the one I have rewatched the most. I find constant enjoyment in it. I think it's hilarious, and Connery's great.

LALD - A solid start for Rog. I appreciate the supernatural elements, which really grab hold of the imagination. Probably the film doesn't do as much with that as I'd like, but I always walk away wishing I watched it more often yet for some reason I never do.

TMWTGG - Reminds me of that Stephen Leacock story that starts, "He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions." The film has great energy but nothing directs it into a form. Possibly my favorite Roger Moore performance.

TSWLM - Have long found this one dull. Apparently so dull as to not have much to say about it. Perhaps that means I owe this one a revisit.

MR - A marvel of set design, photography, music, even editing. We'd be lucky to get a Bond film with half as much confidence (and competence). I think the worst parts of the film are Rio, not space. I love the detective work throughout. The ending with Bond having to chase down and destroy the globes before they enter the earth's atmosphere is incredibly tense.

FYEO - Glen's inexperience makes the film feel fresh. I think it's a good job weaving unused Fleming bits together. However, tonally a mess. I'm massively nostalgic for all these 80s films. When I was a kid this was my favorite era. As an adult I can't stand Mike Wilson's sense of non-humor humor.

OP - I think the India parts are ridiculous. Everything else is a great romp.

AVTAK - My favorite of Glen's films. Pure pop 80s. Don't know what it's so rewatchable, but it just is.

TLD - With Rog gone, Bond needed reinvention. TLD didn't go far enough. In addition to Dalton they needed new writers and direction. As for Dalton, I like him but I've always been in the camp which felt he lacked big screen presence and that his Bond suffered some in consequence.

LTK - Again, I'll watch it any time. But LTK is sloppy start to end. Glen must have known he was on the way out. Still can't believe this one features ninjas, Felix's bride being raped, a laser beam, and a man's head bursting on camera.

GE - The first third or so of this one is on par with being as good as Bond ever got. It gets decreasingly excellent from there, and I do not like Trevelyan as the villain at all, but it's become an all timer.

TND - Feels like it is crying out to be just a bit better here and there the whole time but what we're left with is a good contemporary imagining of classic Bond. No real complaints aside from the tedious bullet laden finale.

TWINE - Biggest complaint is that the action scenes are pretty by the numbers and don't really flow into the story at all. I love the design of the film. The original Eon material which most feels like the literary stuff. Denise Richards gets too much hate, she's fine in lots of senses.

DAD - Some truly awful decisions here. But twenty years later, a lot can be forgiven because the highlights are pretty high, namely Brosnan's performance.

Maybe I will update this with the Craigs soon. They are just so different, with completely different interests than these ones.

Good stuff, Somerset. Agree with a lot of that.

Great post Somerset! I'll respond to some of what especially resonates or mystifies:

Somerset wrote:

DN...Sylvia in heels with her legs in the foreground of the shot as Bond bursts into the room made me the man I am today.

Singlehandedly my favourite image in the series. Says so much about what James Bond is about.

Somerset wrote:

FRWL...Train journey does drag.

It's a masterclass in tension building, in my opinion. The dinner scene onwards particularly.

Somerset wrote:

TB... it's just about everything Bond ought to be. Can you imagine what a treat a film like this would be now?

It's the travelogue aspect and sense of joie de vivre I think. It's a visual holiday, really. And you pose an interesting question - not just in the current climate of Bond fans, but in wider cinema. A film so sensual and brimming with tension and yet so leisurely.

Somerset wrote:

YOLT - Terrible script but that's always been Bond's weak point.

I disagree with the bold. You can make a case with most of the films in the 70s and 00s onwards but the sharpness of the other 60s Bond films, the 90s trilogy and Skyfall suggest otherwise. Throw in a couple of 80s films too.

Somerset wrote:

OHMSS - Hunt does a great job getting a passing performance from Lazenby, but he can't make him a leading man.

Lazenby commands the screen! His walk into the casino, the proposal scene, his scenes with Moneypenny... He holds his own. Top 3 Bond actor - right behind Connery and Brosnan for me. And top 4 film!

Somerset wrote:

TSWLM - Have long found this one dull.

Never cracked my top 15 either. Some great stunts and action set pieces but it features a plot and villain so juvenile and cartoonish and a Bond girl unable to step up to the task the script demands of her.

Somerset wrote:

MR - A marvel of set design, photography, music, even editing. We'd be lucky to get a Bond film with half as much confidence (and competence). I think the worst parts of the film are Rio, not space. I love the detective work throughout. The ending with Bond having to chase down and destroy the globes before they enter the earth's atmosphere is incredibly tense.

You may be right about Rio but Jaws in the alleyway is the only time in this film he displays genuine menace. And you're bang on about Bond shooting down the globes. Like Octopussy (though more satisfying there), we leave on a good note.

Somerset wrote:

FYEO... However, tonally a mess. I'm massively nostalgic for all these 80s films. When I was a kid this was my favorite era. As an adult I can't stand Mike Wilson's sense of non-humor humor.

The bookends aside, I'd say it's fairly consistent. And to be honest I quite like that Thatcher scene!

Somerset wrote:

OP - I think the India parts are ridiculous. Everything else is a great romp.

I agree more or less. The second half of the film is genuinely thrilling.

Somerset wrote:

AVTAK - My favorite of Glen's films. Pure pop 80s. Don't know what it's so rewatchable, but it just is.

YES! Welcome to BAB!

I'm not sure which I prefer as Roger's best Bond film: FYEO or AVTAK... But I tend to reach for this one the most. I think what makes it so rewatchable is the care taken to create some of the characters - a product of, perhaps, the Chantilly-set scenes... It does little to propel the story forward but in exchange the characters are able to flesh out a bit more than usual, and actually lends the film with a greater sense of a spy's work.

Somerset wrote:

TLD - With Rog gone, Bond needed reinvention. TLD didn't go far enough.

How far would you have gone beyond changing up some key creatives? I think the tonal shift worked well enough. TLD fights for a spot in my top 10 because it's pretty close to a perfect Bond film in my eyes but  I think it would have greatly benefitted from Brosnan's charisma.

Somerset wrote:

GE - The first third or so of this one is on par with being as good as Bond ever got. It gets decreasingly excellent from there, and I do not like Trevelyan as the villain at all, but it's become an all timer.

"Decreasingly excellent" ? Am I correct to interpret that you feel the end is still excellent?

The PTS is as good as it gets but I'm really drawn to Bond's arrival in St Petersburg, how his dynamic with Natalya develops, the final act... I am a Bond fan who places this one in his top 3 so I can't say I see a dip in consistency.

What is it about Trevelyan you don't like?

Somerset wrote:

TND... what we're left with is a good contemporary imagining of classic Bond. No real complaints aside from the tedious bullet laden finale.

I can live with that!

Somerset wrote:

TWINE.... I love the design of the film. The original Eon material which most feels like the literary stuff. Denise Richards gets too much hate, she's fine in lots of senses.

I take it we have another TWINE fan here, too! Look out for a soon-to-be-written Christmas appreciation thread!

Somerset wrote:

DAD - Some truly awful decisions here. But twenty years later, a lot can be forgiven because the highlights are pretty high, namely Brosnan's performance.

Yes! Brosnan is fantastic, as is Arnold's score, some of the action scenes, the scenes in Hong Kong, Raoul, Chang, Q, Miranda Frost and a frostier M, travelogue in Cuba and the general through-line of Bond tracking down Zao to expose the mole in MI6 and NK invading the South.

And the Ice Palace is a gorgeous set.

Somerset wrote:

The first twenty films are so near to my heart, I just like them all.

I take it Craig's aren't?

Impressive list indeed.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Singlehandedly my favourite image in the series. Says so much about what James Bond is about.

That's exactly it.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

The dinner scene onwards particularly.

I'm happy with that scene through the fight.

There's something about FRWL that is more (not entirely) old fashioned than the rest of the 60s films. Think of the map of Bond's journey being superimposed over the train chugging along. That part of the soundtrack is even more "classic movie music" than anything Barry did after.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

A film so sensual and brimming with tension and yet so leisurely.

A great way to frame it, and instantly makes me want to throw it on!

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

I disagree with the bold. You can make a case with most of the films in the 70s and 00s onwards but the sharpness of the other 60s Bond films, the 90s trilogy and Skyfall suggest otherwise. Throw in a couple of 80s films too.

OK, OK. I should have said "plot" because "script" is too broad. (DAF, for example, is one I'd say that has an amazing script but the plot is eh).

I don't mean the plots are generally bad. Only that I generally don't watch Bond films for the plots -- set design, the music, the photography, the stunt work, the beauty, the -- as you mentioned -- joie de vivre. Plot is way down the list of what I care about.

FWIW, I also think plotting was Fleming's weak spot, insofar that he had one, so perhaps there's something fundamental here.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Never cracked my top 15 either. Some great stunts and action set pieces but it features a plot and villain so juvenile and cartoonish and a Bond girl unable to step up to the task the script demands of her.

I do have to give it a watch as it's been a while but that seems to sum up my feelings.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

You may be right about Rio but Jaws in the alleyway is the only time in this film he displays genuine menace.

That scene is horrific -- as are the dogs chasing Corine through the forest. MR has that thin strand of horror running through it, which I like.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

The bookends aside, I'd say it's fairly consistent. And to be honest I quite like that Thatcher scene!

Any scene with Bibi, honestly -- that character should've stayed in the background as a hint towards some perversion with Kristatos. Bringing her to the front and playing her for laughs, which I realize doesn't amount to a great number of screen minutes, still mucks with the movie too much. Mood and tone are fragile.

The two other things that come to mind are Bond scoring people in the hockey net and for some reason Max providing Bond with the answer of where Kristatos fled always irritates me.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

YES! Welcome to BAB!

I'm not sure which I prefer as Roger's best Bond film: FYEO or AVTAK... But I tend to reach for this one the most. I think what makes it so rewatchable is the care taken to create some of the characters - a product of, perhaps, the Chantilly-set scenes... It does little to propel the story forward but in exchange the characters are able to flesh out a bit more than usual, and actually lends the film with a greater sense of a spy's work.

I'd never considered that. It does feel like we get to know Stacey a great deal more than a lot of other Bond girls pre-Brosnan. And I always enjoy Rog playing Bond playing the Smythe character.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

How far would you have gone beyond changing up some key creatives? I think the tonal shift worked well enough. TLD fights for a spot in my top 10 because it's pretty close to a perfect Bond film in my eyes but  I think it would have greatly benefitted from Brosnan's charisma.

This is probably a topic all its own. But yes new writer(s) and director, for sure -- hard to say exactly how the film would differ as it would be entirely different. Perhaps this is where Cubby should have stepped away. What they ended up doing for GE, basically. There's too much hangover from Rog's last three in TLD. I'm not sure they were successful in shifting the tone. I'd be sympathetic to the argument that AVTAK, which has a lot of violence, is a darker film than TLD. The fact they even filmed that magic carpet scene betrays the same brains at work behind the scenes. (I am convince they nixed it not because it didn't suit Tim but because Bond had only just escaped similarly in a cello case!)

Brosnan could have pulled off lines like, "Salt corrosion," much better -- and there again I think the film runs into itself over what it is trying to be.

But I'm ultimately glad he didn't do the film. I really don't think he would've been Bond in 1995 if he had.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

"Decreasingly excellent" ? Am I correct to interpret that you feel the end is still excellent?

Yes. That first act is just so good though.

Quote :

What is it about Trevelyan you don't like?

Of the "shadow Bond" archetype we've gotten in other villains like Largo, Scaramanga, Sanchez, even Graves...I just think Trevelyan is less interesting. His backstory is good but the film doesn't do much with him after his monologue.

I wonder if it would have been interesting to see him as equally conflicted about killing Bond as Bond was about killing him.

Thing I like best is probably his ability to anticipate Bond's moves (which they later drew on for Silva).

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

I take it we have another TWINE fan here, too! Look out for a soon-to-be-written Christmas appreciation thread!

Yes, I am a big Brosnan era fan. He's my favorite Bond.

And please do the Christmas thread.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Yes! Brosnan is fantastic, as is Arnold's score, some of the action scenes, the scenes in Hong Kong, Raoul, Chang, Q, Miranda Frost and a frostier M, travelogue in Cuba and the general through-line of Bond tracking down Zao to expose the mole in MI6 and NK invading the South.

And the Ice Palace is a gorgeous set.

Only thing I might add to that list is the color palette. I'm not a huge fan of the color grading in the Korea stuff, but the rest of the film is great. Tattersall did a great job. It's kind of refreshing after GE and TWINE which were more muted. Even TND, which is also great, had lots of smokiness. This is just crisp and clean.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

I take it Craig's aren't?

Thank you for the testosterone boost.

Nah, the Craigs are a completely different adaptation of Bond imo. It's like you have CR '54, CR '67, NSNA, the Eon classics, and the Eon Craigs. Just completely different interests. Doesn't speak at all to what I first fell in love with, actually, during the hiatus between DAD and CR. Four years of watching those 20 films over and over again and getting them into my bones before CR came out. Cemented that line between them in my mind.

Somerset wrote:

There's something about FRWL that is more (not entirely) old fashioned than the rest of the 60s films. Think of the map of Bond's journey being superimposed over the train chugging along. That part of the soundtrack is even more "classic movie music" than anything Barry did after.

Part of the charm, I think. Helps keep the movie going.

Somerset wrote:

OK, OK. I should have said "plot" because "script" is too broad. (DAF, for example, is one I'd say that has an amazing script but the plot is eh).

I don't mean the plots are generally bad. Only that I generally don't watch Bond films for the plots -- set design, the music, the photography, the stunt work, the beauty, the -- as you mentioned -- joie de vivre. Plot is way down the list of what I care about.

FWIW, I also think plotting was Fleming's weak spot, insofar that he had one, so perhaps there's something fundamental here.

Not sure I agree with that. Perhaps some plot elements couldn't work in Fleming's works (i.e. Goldfinger stealing the gold) but overall I find them to be mostly compelling, from the villain's schemes to the intricacies of the plots and later, when Bond had his inner struggles to compete with (i.e. mourning Tracy).

In terms of the films, I watch the Bond films for all the reasons you do too but I'm finding myself drawn more to the character moments and two-handers. For example, I get the same thrill watching the GE PTS as I do, for instance, watching Bond and Draco meet, or Klebb briefing Tanya, the Remember Pleasure scene in TWINE, or M briefing Bond in various scenes throughout the series. Granted there's some seriously shoddy plotting and structural issues in the likes of DAF or CR06-- at least in the former, as you allude to, there's some cracking dialogue, music and a sense of joie de vivre that elevates it to something watching.

Somerset wrote:

I'd never considered that. It does feel like we get to know Stacey a great deal more than a lot of other Bond girls pre-Brosnan. And I always enjoy Rog playing Bond playing the Smythe character.

100% agreed about Moore playing Bond playing Smythe. It's the perfect cover and I'll never tire of that.

And agreed about Stacey! You might like this thread:

https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/t3582-the-stacey-sutton-tanya-roberts-appreciation-thread

Somerset wrote:

This is probably a topic all its own. But yes new writer(s) and director, for sure -- hard to say exactly how the film would differ as it would be entirely different. Perhaps this is where Cubby should have stepped away. What they ended up doing for GE, basically. There's too much hangover from Rog's last three in TLD. I'm not sure they were successful in shifting the tone. I'd be sympathetic to the argument that AVTAK, which has a lot of violence, is a darker film than TLD. The fact they even filmed that magic carpet scene betrays the same brains at work behind the scenes. (I am convince they nixed it not because it didn't suit Tim but because Bond had only just escaped similarly in a cello case!)

Brosnan could have pulled off lines like, "Salt corrosion," much better -- and there again I think the film runs into itself over what it is trying to be.

But I'm ultimately glad he didn't do the film. I really don't think he would've been Bond in 1995 if he had.

It probably is. I'm going to think about this over the next few days.

Somerset wrote:

I wonder if it would have been interesting to see him as equally conflicted about killing Bond as Bond was about killing him.

That's a very interesting concept. Perhaps it's at Ouromov's urging but Alec is hesitant.

Somerset wrote:

Nah, the Craigs are a completely different adaptation of Bond imo. It's like you have CR '54, CR '67, NSNA, the Eon classics, and the Eon Craigs. Just completely different interests. Doesn't speak at all to what I first fell in love with, actually, during the hiatus between DAD and CR. Four years of watching those 20 films over and over again and getting them into my bones before CR came out. Cemented that line between them in my mind.

Similarly, I find CR/QOS/SP to be completely different to the series I fell in love with. But SF sings out so much to the James Bond legacy and feels like a latter Fleming novel that it could be a spiritual sequel to where the series was in 2002. This thread also might be of interest.

https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/t3305-brosnan-in-skyfall-could-it-have-worked

Thanks for those links. I'm gonna check both those topics out and see if I have anything worth saying.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Not sure I agree with that. Perhaps some plot elements couldn't work in Fleming's works (i.e. Goldfinger stealing the gold) but overall I find them to be mostly compelling, from the villain's schemes to the intricacies of the plots and later, when Bond had his inner struggles to compete with (i.e. mourning Tracy).

I think the usual bone people pick with Fleming's plots -- again, doesn't bother me such that it affects enjoyment -- is the amount of coincidence he relies on.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Perhaps it's at Ouromov's urging but Alec is hesitant.

I think I can visualize that, but not entirely...I will watch out for that next watch.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Similarly, I find CR/QOS/SP to be completely different to the series I fell in love with. But SF sings out so much to the James Bond legacy and feels like a latter Fleming novel that it could be a spiritual sequel to where the series was in 2002.

SF is interesting. It's connected to the classic series in the sense that it plays with a lot of the ideas Eon have been work-shopping since LTK. It's also more considerate of Fleming's works (particularly the later works, as you note) than the other Craigs. It's meta commentary on the series itself also ties it into those original films more. All that makes it attractive as a coda to the first twenty. Brosnan would have been great.

At the same time it's not the sort of thing I can picture as one of the novels. Fleming wrote adventure fiction, and SF lacks that sense -- it's too much of a drama. The navel gazing in CR and QOS continues. I think TWINE, as I mentioned before (and obviously SF draws a lot from that one) does a better job balancing some of the ideas at play in SF and in Fleming's stuff while also retaining the sense of adventure. (I really like TWINE more and more over time.)

I also think SP was an attempt to do what TWINE did but they completely botched the execution -- I think they had a real chance there if they hadn't been so concerned with tying the era together.

I do enjoy the fact that SF is more of a drama than action film. My favourite scenes from the movie could very well be those two handers as I mentioned above: Bond and M, M and Mallory, Bond and Severine, Bond and Raoul. It's all organic drama so it doesn't feel like navel gazing - CR/QOS and SP certainly feature self-indulgent, forced conflict but SF's feels rooted in truth. Take a look at how CR and SF both handle Bond breaking into M's apartment, for instance.

I do agree TWINE captures the spirit of Fleming's novels, and on the whole I think it's slightly more successful overall in capturing and combining the literary and cinematic versions of Bond, but Skyfall isn't far behind, in my opinion.

There's so much wrong with SP I don't know where to begin right now.

And please do check out the links, Somerset, if you haven't already. Would love to hear your thoughts.