James Bond vs The Rest

I find this to be an interesting, and well to me, delicate topic . James Bond has been a part of my life for about 9 years now and for about 5 of them, I have a transformed into more of a devotee.

How do they compare to other films though? With some films, part of the antagonism towards it stems from it not being what they would expect from a OO7 movie. For example, Moonraker is set in space, which not many people like to associate Bond with. On the other hand, in The World Is Not Enough and Casino Royale, some don't agree with the characterisation of the protagonist. However, if we were to rid of the notion that they actually are James Bond films, would you still find them to be awful movies? I hope I'm making sense here. Again, using The World Is Not Enough, would you have a different perspective on it, if it wasn't a James Bond film?

Do you find that the Bond films boast brilliant aspects of film-making? The script? Cinematography? Acting? Scores? How do the costumes and set compare to that of Gone With The Wind? Casablanca? The Young Victoria? Die Hard? Are the directions of each film better than the likes of Chinatown or What's Eating Gilbert Grape?

To me, I find the Bond films have a certain charm, which is what attracts me more than other films. James Bond did guide me to my keen interest in film outside the world of OO7, but I find myself wanting to watch You Only Live Twice over 30 Seconds Over Tokyo, Precious or Inglourious Basterds despite them all being better crafter films that YOLT. I'd easily take the sets, score and cinematography of these three, but the story does lack, especially compared to the compelling nature of Precious.

Does mood play a part in that? Would you rank your top five Bond films the same as your top five non Bond films?

How does the OO7 franchise compare to other films?

There are a handful of Bond films that can go out to bat against great cinema. FRWL, Goldfinger, OHMSS... and that's about it.

You could make an argument that Casino Royale is a very strong tentpole within the context of 2006. Which it is.

I mean, I love The Living Daylights, love it to bits. Always have a blast when I'm watching it. Is it one of the all-time great films? No way in hell.

The James Bond series is unlike anything else in the cinema. They are unique. As much as the formula may be ridiculed, it is because of this formula that the Bond series has survived. I can't think of any of any other film series that has a formula. Or at least one that has worked so well. From roughly Goldfinger in 1964 to Licence To Kill in 1989 Bond followed this formula.
Pre titles sequence.
First Bond girl.
Major Bond girl.
Villain
Henchmen
Ally who would most likely become the obligatory sacrificial lamb.
A gadget that Bond would be shown, then deploy to save himself.
A face off with the villain.
And a race to stop the villains plan.
Finally ending by defeating villain, and winning the girl.

FieldsMan wrote:

Do you find that the Bond films boast brilliant aspects of film-making? The script? Cinematography? Acting? Scores? How do the costumes and set compare to that of [u]Gone With The Wind[/u]? Casablanca? The Young Victoria? Die Hard? Are the directions of each film better than the likes of Chinatown or What's Eating Gilbert Grape?

You be careful, Fieldsman. I can get violent.

I agree with what FourDot said about only some of the Bond films being great cinema. FRWL and OHMSS being those, and I would put TLD well over any of the best popcorn flicks such as The Dark Knight and Inception, simply due to personal preference.

I see what you're saying about how we might view the movies if they weren't Bond films. Honestly, I would probably be less forgiving to some of them as opposed to more. The fact that a movie is a Bond film gives me a large amount of automatic forgiveness for whatever grievance the film might make.

As far as specifics, I can say I'd rather watch most Bond films than your run-of-the-mill romantic comedy and the like. Maybe even your average comedy.

Quote :

How do they compare to other films though?

Hmmm.... I can very favourably compare the older Bond films with modern films, as modern films do very little for me. Music, colour, cinematography, lenses, cameras, fashion, physical special effects/sets, style and old-school values have a lot to do with that. But compared to what I consider to be classic cinema, I don't really rate any Bond film high enough to compete with say, my top 100 of all-time, as there are a few flaws here and there which make many Bond films far from 100% perfect or bona-fide classic IMO, though that's not to say that there aren't what I'd call "classic" Bond films solely within the context of their own series or possibly even genre (DN, OHMSS, FRWL, TB for example).

Quote :

However, if we were to rid of the notion that they actually are James Bond films, would you still find them to be awful movies?

Yes and no, I suppose. Can I still enjoy DAF for what it is, despite the fact that James Bond in this film is definitely not what I want him to be in light of the previous film? Yeah, it's a fun, silly, witty romp in it's own right, and i'd still find it such even if you took the Bond name out of it. But if you took the name James Bond out of say, TND or TWINE, I'd probably still find the former to be something of a routine Hollywood action movie and the latter to be a woefully misjudged mess. With a film like QOS, I could definitely see that film basically playing out the same on an "enjoyment" scale if you take the Bond name out of it, as I feel it functions on many of the same levels action-wise as films such as Bourne and Taken, heck even stuff like The Transporter.

Quote :

using The World Is Not Enough, would you have a different perspective on it, if it wasn't a James Bond film?

As above. I'd still find it a bafflingly misjudged attempt at (poorly) shoving soap opera drama into what also wants to be a big dumb action flick.

Quote :

Do you find that the Bond films boast brilliant aspects of film-making? The script? Cinematography? Acting? Scores? How do the costumes and set compare

Many of the 60s films succeed on most of these levels, while I've also script admiration for later Bonds such as OP and TLD, as well as cinematography respect for MR. The sets Ken Adam designed were by and large absolutely fantastic in the older films, though I do like some of the other stuff such as the "War room" in OP. Costumes? Yep, I'm still appreciative today of the classic 60s suits, though Bond's fashion went a bit hit and miss in the 70s and 80s. And, needless to say, I'm far more than happy with the scores for practically every Bond film of the Cubby era. On these levels, Bond more than holds his own with most other cinema fare, though more back in the "good old days" than now.

Quote :

Are the directions of each film better than the likes of Chinatown or What's Eating Gilbert Grape?

While some of the early Bond directors (translation: Young, Hunt) left a noticeable directorial mark, I'd definitely hesitate to put their work up there with the best of Roman Polanski, but those films are certainly better director work than Gilbert Grape IMO. Though it's probably Grape for the win over the last six Bond films (possible exception of some elements of the last two, though those two still have blatant flaws IMO), as Grape perhaps achieves exactly what it sets out to achieve better than those six films do, and with more consistency.

Quote :

To me, I find the Bond films have a certain charm, which is what attracts me more than other films.

Yep, there's definitely a charm in someone such as Connery, Moore or Lazenby when it comes to old-school blokes putting it about. Even the more intense Dalton has charm IMO, he's kind of a Buchanite romantic leading man as well as a world-weary agent. I find Craig to be more about brute force than charm, but it still engages enough. The grey area for me would likely be with Brosnan, in that I find at least his first three films to suffer from smugness in their central character which negates any charm for me; Though, that said, the same applies to some extent to Connery in GF and YOLT, plus Moore in certain stretches of LALD and TSWLM. John Barry brought a lot of charm to the first 25 years of Bond though, and IMO lent some charm to films which otherwise mightn't have had that much of it.

Quote :

James Bond did guide me to my keen interest in film outside the world of OO7

In which case I can definitely understand your passion for those films which got you interested in films to begin with, although, like many of my generation, I've more Star Wars to thank for that. But I've no doubt that many before me were similarly converted to cinema through some of the earlier Bond films.

Quote :

but I find myself wanting to watch You Only Live Twice over 30 Seconds Over Tokyo, Precious or Inglourious Basterds despite them all being better crafted films that YOLT.

Even though YOLT is still "a Bond film", and admittedly has elements I do admire (the score, the sets, the photography in the second half, the well-staged action finale), there's an awful awful lot of non-Bond films I'd be far happier sitting through than YOLT, as it disappoints me on more than just the level of (IMO) not being a particularly good Bond film. I find it tiresome and unengaging, with a lack of enthusiasm and commitment from it's leading man which just leaves me disinterested far too much of the way through, as well as a reliance on bloated gimmickry and spectacle over engaging, bracing narrative drive and character.

Quote :

How does the OO7 franchise compare to other films?

As above, the franchise definitely compares well with many modern films. How does it compare with other franchises? Well, I'd definitely take the Star Wars trilogy over Bond, as they hit home harder for me on an imagination and creative level, as well as emotionally. The Rocky franchise, while somewhat patchy, would probably also come out higher than Bond for me, again those films, by and large, hit harder dramatically and emotionally for me, as well as the fact that I'd be a completely unfit and overweight middle aged man heading for an early grave had I not seen those films at an impressionable age. So those are close to my heart too, probably moreso than Bond. Back To The Future, Superman and Indiana Jones had superb opening films in their franchises, but would I take the smaller collections of each of those film franchises over the entire Bond franchise? Hmm, not too sure, I'd probably take Raiders over the 22 Bonds if I could only keep one or the other.... Actually that's a tough one as I probably prefer Superman The Movie over any Bond film too. OHMSS is the film which makes things tricky for me when comparing Bond to other franchises, as it's only OHMSS which makes anything near what I'd call a dent on me on a level slightly above being merely just great well-made entertainment. OHMSS has something extra for me, and I'd likely find the series on the whole a lot easier to relinquish in comparisons if it wasn't for that film.

Lazenby. wrote:

Well, I'd definitely take the Star Wars trilogy over Bond, as they hit home harder for me on an imagination and creative level, as well as emotionally.

So would I, if I had to choose. Star Wars is just a huge part of my childhood, even though I don't watch the films as much as I once did. Yet my unwillingness to part with any bit of my Star Wars collection, my tendency to quote it in every day life, and my very frequent usage of it as an example while teaching my students, keeps it a very real part of my life.

I became a Star Wars fan around the age of 8 or 9, but I didn't even watch a Bond film until the age of 14, and I didn't finish watching the Bond films until I was 17...So in a way, Star Wars was more of a childhood obsession, and James Bond more my "adult" one. The good Bond films are made for adults, anyway, and the books certainly are. That's probably why I watch more Bond than Star Wars these days....

Fieldsman wrote:

especially compared to the compelling nature of Precious.

PRECIOUS is exploitative, racist, sensationalist sh**e.

Sharky wrote:

Fieldsman wrote:

especially compared to the compelling nature of Precious.

PRECIOUS is exploitative, racist, sensationalist sh**e.

But superbly photographed, no?

On my list of 100 favorite films, you'd find DN and FRWL.

Both have excellent qualities, not only just within the Bond realm, but within the world of cinema. FRWL, overall, is a great Cold War/spy flick. DN is a great detective film, with some B-movie characteristics through out. I think they're both great movies, alongside being great Bond adventures.

Makeshift Python wrote:

FourDot wrote:

I mean, I love The Living Daylights, love it to bits. Always have a blast when I'm watching it. Is it one of the all-time great films? No way in hell.

"One night after shooting FYEO I went out with the rest of the crew to a nightclub. I danced with one of the girls featured in the film. Named Tula. I got to grind with her and she gave me an erection. That was a great night."

Apparently on FOR MY EYES ONLY that's a true story, and he is not ashamed of it.

Or the book was heavily ghost written. I want to read that book sometime just for morbid curiosity on the mind of a dullard of a man.

The Bond franchise is clearly unique to theatre with 24 films. The Bourne series is also making a run and is very good.

Haven't kept up with Bourne, I'm afraid. Haven't seen the last two, which I've heard aren't as good as the original trilogy. Same could probably be said about Bond, but there's a certain appeal from Bond that isn't rooted in the deep'n'gritty that is plaguing contemporary cinema. The last Bourne was particularly terrible, I've heard.

I should stop hearing things and just watch them and make up my own mind.