Bond Revisited

BuilderPlumber

Over Christmas, I watched a lot of the Bond movies in no particular order, mixing From Russia with Love, Casino Royale, Octopussy and OHMSS at random. What I've noticed is that most all the Bonds are very entertaining films and even the 'poorer' ones pleasantly surprised me.

1st off, you have to accept each Bond actor's interpretation of the character. Comparing Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig is futile as they all brought their own elements to it.

I think that the recognised classics like Goldfinger, FRWL, Skyfall, Dr No, TSWLM, and Casino Royale are justifiably remembered as such by most. But there is also a tendency to underrate others that I regard as just as good in their own way: Thunderball, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, FYEO, Octopussy, AVTAK, The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill and TND among them. Also, Moonraker is a very entertaining and enjoyable film that gets too much hate. Goldeneye is a great film too.

Some films of the franchise are often criticised for borrowing from other sources. For example, Live and Let Die is Bond's answer to Shaft, Moonraker is Bond's take on Star Wars, Octopussy is Bond's answer to Indiana Jones, Licence to Kill is Bond's take on drug-based cop series and films like Miami Vice or Lethal Weapon, and Quantum of Solace is very Mad Max inspired. But if Bond borrowed from these, all these also borrowed concepts from Bond too, Indiana Jones especially. The second Jones film returned the favour and borrowed elements from Octopussy too. Also, in Bond you will see the films copying elements from itself. Look at the Goldfinger-style chase in TLD or the whole range of OHMSS-style situations in FYEO. Look at how the YOLT plot was revived in TSWLM and TND.

The one that surprised me most was TMWTGG. It was way better than I had remembered. TWINE came out okay enough too, but a leading baddie would have helped because all we have is a mixed up girl and a henchman type. The non-official NSNA also was good and predated Dalton's style.

Die Another Day was by far the worst of them I revisited. As remembered, the first minutes were excellent but there was too much distractions like the invisible car that pointed it towards the ridiculous.

Craig's Bond rescued the series but division on what was the best era of Bond remains. Overall, in the grand scheme of things, there has not been a truly awful Bond movie (I am not including Casino Royale 1967 as that is not a real Bond film!!). Die Another Day is the worst of the bunch but even this is watchable once you get beyond the daft parts! A series would not have had over 25 films spanning nearly 60 years as well as a set of books spanning over 60 years if it was not good.

mynameis905

Always enjoy your take on the Bond movies BuilderPlumber. Have you gone to see Spectre yet? If not we'll have to do a quick whip round and send you off to the nearest Omniplex

splashthecash

Coming off of Skyfall which I really enjoyed, I thought Spectre was a bit limp...not enough meat on it for me. It had a few nods to ye olden days but just didn't ever catch up to the intensity/action of Skyfall, or Casino Royale. Waltz was a great casting but again, I don't feel he had the best dialogue and the last 5-10 mins felt a bit rushed for me

BuilderPlumber

splashthecash wrote: »

Coming off of Skyfall which I really enjoyed, I thought Spectre was a bit limp...not enough meat on it for me. It had a few nods to ye olden days but just didn't ever catch up to the intensity/action of Skyfall, or Casino Royale. Waltz was a great casting but again, I don't feel he had the best dialogue and the last 5-10 mins felt a bit rushed for me

Looking forward to SPECTRE. Did not get around to seeing it yet. There are a lot of mixed views about it but I will keep an open mind.

Another thing I have noticed is that the non-Fleming Bond books have not been made into films. Are there reasons for this?

The quality of these books of course varies wildly. Some are excellent and some are poor. The two best ones imo are Colonel Sun and Devil May Care. Natural sequels to Fleming's book. Most of John Gardner's ones on the other hand are awful. I remember one being set in Dublin and Kilkenny and apart from that curiosity, it was a pretty poor read. Raymond Benson's ones were generally good. Have yet to read Carte Blanche, Solo and Trigger Mortis.

syklops

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Looking forward to SPECTRE. Did not get around to seeing it yet. There are a lot of mixed views about it but I will keep an open mind.

Another thing I have noticed is that the non-Fleming Bond books have not been made into films. Are there reasons for this?

The quality of these books of course varies wildly. Some are excellent and some are poor. The two best ones imo are Colonel Sun and Devil May Care. Natural sequels to Fleming's book. Most of John Gardner's ones on the other hand are awful. I remember one being set in Dublin and Kilkenny and apart from that curiosity, it was a pretty poor read.

License to Kill was written by John Gardner.

BuilderPlumber

syklops wrote: »

License to Kill was written by John Gardner.

Licence to Kill was written as a screenplay by Richard Maibaum and Michael G Wilson and novelised by John Gardner. Gardner did the same for Goldeneye. Raymond Benson wrote the novelisations of Brosnan's films. Gardner wrote Licence Renewed but this is not in any way related to Licence to Kill.

syklops

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Licence to Kill was written as a screenplay by Richard Maibaum and Michael G Wilson and novelised by John Gardner. Gardner did the same for Goldeneye. Raymond Benson wrote the novelisations of Brosnan's films. Gardner wrote Licence Renewed but this is not in any way related to Licence to Kill.

I read the novel/novelisation of License to Kill. I didnt realise it was based off the screenplay. That explains why its probably the only Bond book Ive read that was similar to the movie.

BuilderPlumber

syklops wrote: »

I read the novel/novelisation of License to Kill. I didnt realise it was based off the screenplay. That explains why its probably the only Bond book Ive read that was similar to the movie.

It was fashionable for a time that a novelisation of the latest Bond film came out at the same time as the film. All of these were either identical to the film or very very close to it. The first of these books were written by Christopher Wood and were called James Bond, The Spy Loved Me and James Bond and The Moonraker to differentiate from Fleming's original books. Wood also wrote the screenplays for these 2 films. These were more or less faithful to the films although there were some slight changes. Next, Gardner wrote LTK and Goldeneye and Raymond Benson wrote the novelisations of the last 3 Brosnan films. Again, these were almost if not identical to the films. In this case, neither Gardner or Benson had anything to do with writing the screenplays although Benson's Bond novel Nine Below Zero involving an attempt to start a war involving China is very like Tomorow Never Dies which he also novelised. Have to check which came first?

TerrorFirmer

License to Kill is a great movie, and totally different to pretty much every other movie in the franchise, far closer to the Craig films. Only Bond film to be rated 15 by the BBFC and it shows.

BuilderPlumber

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

License to Kill is a great movie, and totally different to pretty much every other movie in the franchise, far closer to the Craig films. Only Bond film to be rated 15 by the BBFC and it shows.

It is a great film and different to all the others in the series. Apart from the jokey scenes with Q, the rest is totally different to the films that came before and after it. Perhaps the main reason for that was Dalton's desire to play a serious, revenge focused Bond and director John Glen's desires to bring Bond back to basics. Glen directed the last 3 Moore and the 2 Dalton films, each of which I think are very good and underrated. Of these 5 films, 4 were traditional format Bonds but LTK was not. But the world back then was not ready for it.

But why was LTK so different? I think the year 1989 when it was made tells us a lot. This was the time of the end of the cold war. The cold war featured in most Bond films to some extent before this apart from OHMSS and LALD. So, it was the perfect opportunity to take Bond out his comfort zone and put him into a different setting.

The other reason why it was so different is that the 1980s was packed with many action classics both on film and TV. LTK takes note of all of them. The obvious drug dealer theme is pure Miami Vice or Lethal Weapon. The climax where the drugs facility blows up and everyone commences a chase is Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. The truck chase is similar to the one in Mad Max 2.

Franz Sanchez is in the running for most violent and vicious villain Bond ever came up against. He is a millions miles away from the sophisticated upperclass Bond villains we have become used to like Dr No, Largo, Blofeld, Scaramanga, Stromberg, Drax and Khan. He also is very different to the psychotic Zorin. Perhaps only Goldfinger, Grant, Dr Kananga/Mr Big, and Whitaker could be comparable but he takes things to a new level of blunt savagery only a drug dealer can do.

At the time, it was up against stiff competition in the cinema from Batman and Indiana Jones is what was a particularly good year for action flicks. It did poorly compared to other Bonds but if the makers had been braver, perhaps they could have tried another one like it but it was never to be. Most other Bonds were really revamps of either the Goldfinger, Thunderball or YOLT plots but LTK went away completely from this.

To many, LTK is viewed as a precursor to Craig's Bond. This is one way of looking at it. It was ahead of its time but who knows? If it had been released in the Autumn rather than on top of Indiana Jones and Batman, then it may have took on and this type of film established earlier. 2 more from Dalton would have been excellent and the planned one I read about called The Property of a Lady sounded impressive.

_Kaiser_

All this talk of LTK (completely agree with the above - definitely one of the most underrated films of the series) made me look up the similarly excellent theme:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQKaujX6R-U

80s decade is best decade

(but because I'm now all nostalgic.. some more thoughts)

I grew up in the era of the Moore films so for me he is the original Bond. Moonraker and AVTAK would be another 2 of my favourites from the series. I've since seen them all of course and while I've come to appreciate Connery's efforts (YOLT being another favourite), I still prefer Moore I think. Brosnan started well in GoldenEye but the quality dropped dramatically from there for me. Craig is a more "modern" take on it (by which I mean "realistic" - for a Bond movie - "gritty", "dark" etc.. the buzzwords that define "proper" films these days)

But Bond was never meant (at least not in film) to be that.. it's always been a humorous, glamorous, just-go-with-it kinda series in my opinion.. something to be watched and enjoyed for the gadgets, the girls, the supervillains and the exotic locations - not picked apart for how realistic it is. LTK is indeed more in tone with the Craig era, but even then it did it with a bit of 80s style.

BuilderPlumber

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

All this talk of LTK (completely agree with the above - definitely one of the most underrated films of the series) made me look up the similarly excellent theme:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQKaujX6R-U

80s decade is best decade

(but because I'm now all nostalgic.. some more thoughts)

I grew up in the era of the Moore films so for me he is the original Bond. Moonraker and AVTAK would be another 2 of my favourites from the series. I've since seen them all of course and while I've come to appreciate Connery's efforts (YOLT being another favourite), I still prefer Moore I think. Brosnan started well in GoldenEye but the quality dropped dramatically from there for me. Craig is a more "modern" take on it (by which I mean "realistic" - for a Bond movie - "gritty", "dark" etc.. the buzzwords that define "proper" films these days)

But Bond was never meant (at least not in film) to be that.. it's always been a humorous, glamorous, just-go-with-it kinda series in my opinion.. something to be watched and enjoyed for the gadgets, the girls, the supervillains and the exotic locations - not picked apart for how realistic it is. LTK is indeed more in tone with the Craig era, but even then it did it with a bit of 80s style.

There are a lot of totally underrated Bond films. LTK and The Living Daylights are among those and are exactly what we appreciate today by Craig. They were excellent action thrillers that brought in a very contemporary feel to things like drug dealers (be they TLD's Afghan heroin dealers (al Qaeda?) or Sanchez's portrayal of a Latin American cocaine king).

Moonraker has got to be the film that gets the most (undeserved) bad press. This is an excellent film actually, full of great action and trend setting in the series. Not just the space setting but I think Jaws turning into a good person adds to the story. For the first time, we see a henchman who can think for himself and he concludes what he is working for is wrong and a threat to him and his girlfriend who he recognises is more important than Drax's money. AVTAK is also a great film and Zorin is in the top 5 best Bond villains ever. Like Jaws, Mayday is another person who works for the bad guy and then turns into a hero, sacrificing her own life for the greater good. As with Jaws, this is often criticised by Bond fans but imo it is good to see Jaws and Mayday as more complex characters, good people at heart who do the right thing in the end. We have seen our share of evil henchmen/women like Grant, Rosa Klebb, Oddjob, Tee Hee, and Gobinda, so it is nice to see some that are basically good people for a change who their boss do not suspect as such.

The current trend is to remember Connery as the best older Bond and Craig as the best new Bond. One cannot argue that both actors are great and have done great films. But there is a tendency to underrate all that's in between. OHMSS is a classic too and Lazenby did a great job. Moore's Bond has been underrated and while there was humour, a lot of people forget all the great action too in these films. Octopossy remains another gem that is totally underrated. FYEO is another. Dalton as said did 2 excellent films. Brosnan did a great Bond and Goldeneye is justly remembered. Tomorrow Never Dies is even better imo and is another of those excellent but underrated Bond films. Fans of YOLT or TSWLM should love this.

My advice is to go and buy or rent all the Bond films. Then watch them all and make up your own mind. There are many great films there, some officially lauded others not so but still great.

Wedwood

Because the Bond movies span 50+ years, they inevitably have been made in the style of the time, so from here on, different Bond styles will be in or out of fashion at any given time.

Some people deem particular movies or actors as bad because the style of the time doesn't match the current. Because they were made in different eras doesn't mean they're better or worse, just different.

Most of the Bond movies were well received and successful at their time of release which is a better way to judge them, not 30+ years later when tastes have changed.

BuilderPlumber

Wedwood wrote: »

Because the Bond movies span 50+ years, they inevitably have been made in the style of the time, so from here on, different Bond styles will be in or out of fashion at any given time.

Some people deem particular movies or actors as bad because the style of the time doesn't match the current. Because they were made in different eras doesn't mean they're better or worse, just different.

Most of the Bond movies were well received and successful at their time of release which is a better way to judge them, not 30+ years later when tastes have changed.

That's it exactly. A lot of things changed over that timeframe too. Look at the countries mentioned or where Bond was set that no longer exist. You can categorise the films like this perhaps:

1962-1971: Corresponds with the Connery and Lazenby era. I will call these films the SPECTRE Bonds. In all but one, the main enemy in each is SPECTRE and one could imply Goldfinger was a SPECTRE associate too if you like (it is not said but could be implied only SPECTRE had that power outside of the USA or USSR to organise major operations). Blofeld is the main enemy during this period. Dr No and Goldfinger remain the only Bond films named after the villain himself in them. Elements in FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball and YOLT inclusive of train fights, gadget car chases, underwater battles and shootouts in the villain's layer all were used again and again. OHMSS may be the most different with Bond getting married and ending with his wife's death. It remained the only Lazenby Bond and Lazenby the only one-time Bond actor thus far. DAF brought this era to a close, the last Bond to feature Blofeld as the main enemy until SPECTRE and the last official Connery Bond. By then, the formula of the climatic end shootout at the villain's layer, the mix of humour and action was set, along with the additional bit of action after the climax (this would pop up again) with the last fight with Wint and Kidd. Usually, a theme here was Bond preventing a war between superpowers or a nuclear attack by terrorists.

1973-1974: LALD and TMWTGG comprised of a transition period where there is no SPECTRE, Blofeld or world domination plots. LALD reprised the after climax henchman fight, this time between Tee Hee and Bond on the train. TMWTGG did the same with the Knick Knack and Bond fight on the boat. These were Moore's first films but different in style to his later ones. Perhaps, these 2 films were the first to take note of non-Bond action franchises too, this time blaxploitation and martial arts films.

1977-1987: TSWLM is where Moore really made Bond his own and introduced the concept of the West and the USSR working against common enemies. Like the 1962-1971 era, nuclear war/attacks and world domination came back into focus. It was the first to feature Gogol, the Russian equivalent of M. Moonraker repeated TSWLM in style and added in space elements. Star Wars was the obvious inspiration. FYEO showed West/USSR rivalry and opportunistic villains cashing in on this. The Margaret Thatcher scene at the end not included, this was less humorous than other entries of its time and had the feel of FRWL in some ways. Octopussy was the first of 2 Bonds to include power struggles within the USSR with hardliners desiring to use violence to meet their ends. The film carefully differentiates the good Russians and the bad ones and lets the good Russians (Gogol) take care of their own while Bond and Octopussy take care of the other baddies. Elements of Indiana Jones are present here and the second Indiana Jones released a year later most likely borrowed from Octopussy too. It is the first and only film to be named after the Bond girl. AVTAK is the last film to feature Moore and is interesting that it featured one of the scariest villains in Zorin (the late David Bowie was originally cast btw), who like Kristatos and Khan in the previous 2 films, was one of the shadier associates of rogue KGB elements. Gogol is shown as not impressed by Zorin's misuse of the KGB. The plot here is pure Goldfinger, with Silicon valley replacing Fort Knox as the target. It features perhaps the most unique climax with Zorin killing all his own men. Though this was Moore's last, TLD (Dalton's first) wraps up this set of films imo. Like Octopussy, we have rogue USSR generals trying to cause a war and like Octopussy, the Russians deal with their own as Bond deals with the other baddies. It is the last film to feature Gogol, although Pushkin has replaced Gogol in that role by this film. Gogol features in the cameo role at the end. It also was the first film to deal with events that were creating the new world, like Afghanistan's war.

1989: Licence to Kill has to be taken by itself as an era in itself. It is a first across many lines. The first to feature a non-Fleming title (although like the last 4 films, elements of Bond short stories are used). The first not to feature a direct assignment. The first film to be purely revenge focused. It is the last of the first incarnation of Bond and the last until Skyfall to feature a male M. It is the most violent Bond film too and the first to feature not much cold war themes apart from brief mentions of Cuba. This film in many ways echoed Craig's approach and predated it.

1995-2002: For a long time, LTK looked like it may end up as the last Bond. Dalton was due to do one more at least but legal wrangling and other delays proved it was not to be. Brosnan wanted to play Bond but was unavailable in the past. He ws ready to do so by 1995 and his first, Goldeneye, proved a classic revival of the series and the first to be set and filmed in Russia. It was the first post-USSR Bond film and the first to feature rogue 00 agents. And M is a woman this time! TND was another solid entry that cemented the new Bond films were going well. The plot is YOLT and TSWLM. It is the first to recognise China as a significant power and China replaces the USSR here with Bond and a Chinese agent teaming up to stop a mad newspaper magnate starting a war between the UK and China. The next film, TWINE has many good elements but perhaps lacked a compelling villain. Die Another Day is the weakest of the series due to some silly far fetched inclusions none worse than an invisible car. Had the series gone too far? Was this to be it?

2006-: Casino Royale and Craig totally updated the series with a more vulnerable and imperfect Bond. We saw this before with Dalton but the world was then not ready for this type of Bond. The excesses of Die Another Day were gone (it is hard to believe the script of both are written by the same people) an replaced with a Bond at the start of his career. M remains a woman but it is implied this is a different incarnation of Bond to Brosnan's, who may or may not be a different Bond to the original 1962-89 incarnation. It was the first Fleming title since TLD and based very much on the book. QOS proved to be the first direct sequel to a Bond film and the last Fleming title used so far. It is the first where the terrorist organisation which Bond is fighting is in the title. Quantum are really SPECTRE of course. Skyfall is the first since Goldeneye to have a former 00 agent as the main bad guy. It is a great film and full of twists and turns. SPECTRE I have yet to see but it brings things full circle. We are back with Blofeld and the series is at a crossroads. Remake older films' elements or stay with original material?

cowboyBuilder

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Over Christmas, I watched a lot of the Bond movies in no particular order, mixing From Russia with Love, Casino Royale, Octopussy and OHMSS at random. What I've noticed is that most all the Bonds are very entertaining films and even the 'poorer' ones pleasantly surprised me.

1st off, you have to accept each Bond actor's interpretation of the character. Comparing Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig is futile as they all brought their own elements to it.

I think that the recognised classics like Goldfinger, FRWL, Skyfall, Dr No, TSWLM, and Casino Royale are justifiably remembered as such by most. But there is also a tendency to underrate others that I regard as just as good in their own way: Thunderball, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, FYEO, Octopussy, AVTAK, The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill and TND among them. Also, Moonraker is a very entertaining and enjoyable film that gets too much hate. Goldeneye is a great film too.

Some films of the franchise are often criticised for borrowing from other sources. For example, Live and Let Die is Bond's answer to Shaft, Moonraker is Bond's take on Star Wars, Octopussy is Bond's answer to Indiana Jones, Licence to Kill is Bond's take on drug-based cop series and films like Miami Vice or Lethal Weapon, and Quantum of Solace is very Mad Max inspired. But if Bond borrowed from these, all these also borrowed concepts from Bond too, Indiana Jones especially. The second Jones film returned the favour and borrowed elements from Octopussy too. Also, in Bond you will see the films copying elements from itself. Look at the Goldfinger-style chase in TLD or the whole range of OHMSS-style situations in FYEO. Look at how the YOLT plot was revived in TSWLM and TND.

The one that surprised me most was TMWTGG. It was way better than I had remembered. TWINE came out okay enough too, but a leading baddie would have helped because all we have is a mixed up girl and a henchman type. The non-official NSNA also was good and predated Dalton's style.

Die Another Day was by far the worst of them I revisited. As remembered, the first minutes were excellent but there was too much distractions like the invisible car that pointed it towards the ridiculous.

Craig's Bond rescued the series but division on what was the best era of Bond remains. Overall, in the grand scheme of things, there has not been a truly awful Bond movie (I am not including Casino Royale 1967 as that is not a real Bond film!!). Die Another Day is the worst of the bunch but even this is watchable once you get beyond the daft parts! A series would not have had over 25 films spanning nearly 60 years as well as a set of books spanning over 60 years if it was not good.

Good post, I also had fun working out all the acronyms !