Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

The future of James Bond

  • 26-05-2016 12:49am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 BuilderPlumber


    With the reality that Daniel Craig may not play Bond again (or even if he gets an offer he can't say no to, he will only do one more), what style of films do people want to see next? Craig has played a very serious, driven, often substance dependent Bond who is excellent at his job but often completes it in unorthodox ways. Humour is used sparingly and the focus is on more realistic missions. The earliest Sean Connery films (Dr No, From Russia with Love and Thunderball) and Timothy Dalton's second film (Licence to Kill) followed a similar approach. Revenge sometimes reared its head. Other Bond films notably The Living Daylights had a bit more humour but were mostly realistic and serious plotwise.

    The other type of Bond was the all action all stunts hero who engaged in humour and showcased the most elaborate gadgets. This started in Connery's later films, was carried through in the earlier parts of George Lazenby's film, was perfected in Moore's tenure and even was present to a certain extent in Dalton's first film and was revived bigtime in Pierce Brosnan's films. More often than not, the plot centred on a madman who wanted to destroy the world or a city unless he got money or in order to create a new society. Space and underwater themes were often in place and an all-gadgets car (or helicopter!) was often featured in a chase.

    Which of these 2 types of Bond would one want to see? Does one want to see a film like The Spy Who Loved Me and Octopussy or a film like Casino Royale and From Russia With Love? Should Bond follow the more lighthearted action approach akin to Indiana Jones or should he focus on a serious, unorthodox Jason Bourne approach?

    What type of a Bond film would you like to see next when Daniel Craig departs? 299 votes

    Continuation of the Craig style of Bond
    8% 26 votes
    A more humorous approach akin to many of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s entries
    91% 273 votes


«13456722

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,190 ✭✭✭ Mister Jingles


    I strongly believe like a lot of people that the Bond franchise wouldn't of went the way it did since Casino Royal only for the Bourne movies. It was pretty much the kick up the arse that the franchise needed badly.

    I'll be sad to see Craig go if it is a definite that he won't be returning. Of the six actors who have portrayed Bond I would consider him as been one of the most influential.

    Back in 2005 when he was chosen to take over the roll, I remember the tabloids printing headlines such as "James Blonde" and what have yeah. Then when CR was released the tables almost immediately turned when it was realised that how serious and suited to the Bond he was.

    I don't think going back to the old Moore/Connery style of Bond would necessarily tarnish the franchise but is something that is probably best left alone at the moment.

    Another way of looking at the last question in the OP could also be, Cold War Bond or Modern Day Bond.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,343 ✭✭✭ tigger123


    I think if the franchise is to survive (and thrive) it needs to move with the times. Bond definitely went in the Jason Bourne direction and is much better for it. It may be heresy to some here, but I'm in my 30's and never cared about a James Bond movie until Casino Royal. With CR it became gritty, more real and a bit more believable and human. A move to the older themes and campy mood would be a step backwards.

    In terms of moving with the times, if you look at The Force Awakens (the latest in the 40 year Star Wars franchise) I don't think it's a coincidence that it has a woman and a person of colour as it's heroes/protagonists. I think there's more diversity creeping into the blockbuster roles and cinema in general is all the better for it IMO (and the film has been a massive commercial success). So in that sense the recent talk of Idris Elba or (it's never going to happen) Gillian Anderson playing Bond is great. I'd love to see either of them take it on.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 9,081 Mod ✭✭✭✭ ziedth


    God I don't know about that. Just off team bat (and I could he wrong here) but I don't believe the casting call for Finn in SW looked for someone black it was just sex, age and a brief description of the character.

    I wouldn't be behind changing James Bond just to keep with the trend with Ghostbusters and so on. I actually like Ibris Elba as an actor so I could fully get behind him as James Bond but I would have to draw the line with changing the sex.

    Don't get me wrong apart taking Ghostbusters as another example changing the sex of those characters doesn't bother me in the slightest apart from it adding fuel to my belief is that one of life's great mysteries is that why Melissa McCarthy is so famous.

    James bond shouldn't go down that route. The overhaul it got from Casino Royale was badly needed following the decline in quality of the Bosnian led movies.

    If they want Gillingham Anderson to play a British Spy (and it's a good idea as I like her as an actress too) then they should have their own film to do it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,126 ✭✭✭ blue note


    Does anyone else think that idris Elba is too old to start paying bond? For me bond should be someone early 30s to early 40s. If you gave it to Elba now he'd probably be about 46 by the time the first one comes out. If you're keeping him for 3/4 he could be late 50s and still doing the role. It just wouldn't seem right to me that he'd be going around beating people up and bedding women in their 20s at that age.

    I think a black bond wouldn't actually be a big deal any more. But now that the part has come up I just don't think he's the right age for it. Same for Hugh jackman or Clive Owen or the likes.

    Michael fassbender would be a good choice, but I'd hope he'd turn it down to be honest, he's too good an actor for it. Tom hardy or James mcevoy would be good choice in my view. Or possibly Sam Worthington.

    I'm not entirely against the idea of a female bond either. Probably not though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,343 ✭✭✭ tigger123


    How old was Daniel Craig when he did his first bond?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,862 ✭✭✭ McLoughlin


    I would like to see the film set in the past like the 60s or even earlier

    Daniel Craig was 37 when he first played Bond, Dalton and Brosnan were 42.
    Connery was 31 and Lazenby 29, Moore was the eldest he was 45


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,126 ✭✭✭ blue note


    McLoughlin wrote: »
    I would like to see the film set in the past like the 60s or even earlier

    Daniel Craig was 37 when he first played Bond, Dalton and Brosnan were 42.
    Connery was 31 and Lazenby 29, Moore was the eldest he was 45

    I think that would be 3 films Daniel Craig had under his belt by the time he reaches the age elba would start at.

    Moore is my least favourite bond and I thought he was a ridiculous at the end.

    I think it's a shame Brosnan didn't get it when he was first supposed to. Partly because he got the dud films with the exception of goldeneye. He could have been great in licence to kill.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,343 ✭✭✭ tigger123


    blue note wrote: »
    Does anyone else think that idris Elba is too old to start paying bond? For me bond should be someone early 30s to early 40s. If you gave it to Elba now he'd probably be about 46 by the time the first one comes out. If you're keeping him for 3/4 he could be late 50s and still doing the role. It just wouldn't seem right to me that he'd be going around beating people up and bedding women in their 20s at that age.

    I think a black bond wouldn't actually be a big deal any more. But now that the part has come up I just don't think he's the right age for it. Same for Hugh jackman or Clive Owen or the likes.

    Michael fassbender would be a good choice, but I'd hope he'd turn it down to be honest, he's too good an actor for it. Tom hardy or James mcevoy would be good choice in my view. Or possibly Sam Worthington.

    I'm not entirely against the idea of a female bond either. Probably not though.

    Can't say I agree with Elba being too old. He's in great shape, and young enough to pull it off I reckon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,126 ✭✭✭ blue note


    tigger123 wrote: »
    Can't say I agree with Elba being too old. He's in great shape, and young enough to pull it off I reckon.

    I think he'd be perfect now. But I don't think he will be perfect to do more than 2.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,977 ✭✭✭ brevity


    I know I'll feel old the day the actor who plays James Bond is younger than me.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,191 ✭✭✭✭ Dial Hard


    ziedth wrote: »
    If they want Gillingham Anderson to play a British Spy (and it's a good idea as I like her as an actress too) then they should have their own film to do it.

    I'd rather Anderson than Jamie Bell, quite frankly. Good God, he's a horrendous actor.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,700 ✭✭✭ tricky D


    Fyi/fwiw Aiden Turner (Poldark, The Hobbit x3)touted as an insider's tip on Popbitch.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,345 ✭✭✭ Oafley Jones


    blue note wrote: »
    I think he'd be perfect now. But I don't think he will be perfect to do more than 2.

    That's the thing, he hasn't got the legs for the role in the long term. He missed his shot. You know they won't cast an age appropriate female lead in these and nobody wants a return to an old lecherous dynamics of the later Moore movies.

    Loved him as Stringer Bell, but he's disappointed me in everything since... I've yet to get around to Beasts of No Nation though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 35,003 ✭✭✭✭ LuckyLloyd


    Periodise it. A Bond film set in the 60's would be fascinating imo. Keep it gritty and play with the politics of the era and retro styling. Now that would be a Bond movie I'd be excited about.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 824 sheep?


    tricky D wrote: »
    Fyi/fwiw Aiden Turner (Poldark, The Hobbit x3)touted as an insider's tip on Popbitch.

    I think Tom Hiddlestone is also a hot favourite, probably because of Night Manager.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,086 ✭✭✭✭ Harry Palmr


    Bond film have always moved with the times even if Bond himself has changed much more slowly which is understandable unless you get in a new fella every two films. Take films from 62, 73, 85, 95, 06 and they have only the handful of "meme's" and bare plot structure scaffolding in common.


  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭ Wedwood


    Not sure what I'd like from the next Bond, what's left that hasn't already been done ?

    We've had Connery's perfect Bond, Lazenby's bizarre Bond, Moore's tongue in cheek Bond, Dalton's serious Bond, Brosnan's smooth Bond and Craig's gritty Bond.

    Are we going to get Hiddleston's wimpy Bond ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,086 ✭✭✭✭ Harry Palmr


    How about casting a chimp for Brooke Bond.....


  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭ Wedwood


    How about casting a chimp for Brooke Bond.....

    Or in the age of equality - Panti Bond.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,687 ✭✭✭✭ Zubeneschamali


    Marty Whelan is Bond, Prize Bond.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,343 ✭✭✭ tigger123


    Marty Whelan is Bond, Prize Bond.

    Made me lol.

    Marty would be a great Bond actually. All suits and one-liners.

    ISIS trying to destroy the Eurovision and 'Prize Bond' saves the day.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,254 ✭✭✭ Glico Man


    Read an article online somewhere ages ago that suggested that the name 'James Bond' become a codename, and as such the old double 0 become the number of that certain Bond. In theory a different actor could play Bond in each subsequent film, just given a different double 0.

    If the role of 'M' can change from Dame Judi Dench to Ralph Fiennes in Skyfall, then perhaps it wouldn't be so farfetched that Bond can change in a different film.

    Thought it was a different and interesting proposition, though I don't know how fond of the idea I would be if it came to fruition.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,343 ✭✭✭ tigger123


    Glico Man wrote: »
    Read an article online somewhere ages ago that suggested that the name 'James Bond' become a codename, and as such the old double 0 become the number of that certain Bond. In theory a different actor could play Bond in each subsequent film, just given a different double 0.

    If the role of 'M' can change from Dame Judi Dench to Ralph Fiennes in Skyfall, then perhaps it wouldn't be so farfetched that Bond can change in a different film.

    Thought it was a different and interesting proposition, though I don't know how fond of the idea I would be if it came to fruition.

    Pretty sure you're referring to an article on cracked.com, which was fascinating.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,135 ✭✭✭✭ Mitch Connor


    tigger123 wrote: »
    Pretty sure you're referring to an article on cracked.com, which was fascinating.

    Was a great theory but skyfall killed it, bond is his name, not a codename.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 BuilderPlumber


    Bond film have always moved with the times even if Bond himself has changed much more slowly which is understandable unless you get in a new fella every two films. Take films from 62, 73, 85, 95, 06 and they have only the handful of "meme's" and bare plot structure scaffolding in common.

    I think that is very true. We all look back on earlier Bond films and we view them in today's terms. Now, each actor who was with the franchise for a long term consolidated trends. SPECTRE and Blofeld defined Connery's and as a result Lazenby's era. Up to and including Diamonds are Forever, all the early films bar Goldfinger featured Blofeld or SPECTRE.

    Moore's Bond really consolidated itself in The Spy Who Loved Me with General Gogol and the Minister of Defence character and the UK/USSR/USA collaborations against common enemies. This seeped into Dalton's The Living Daylights as well.

    Brosnan's Bond introduced elements like a female M and Joe Don Baker's CIA agent replacing the severely compromised Felix Leiter. JDB was one of few to feature as both the good and bad guy in Bond. He was the baddie in The Living Daylights. Robbie Coltrane's character also was part and parcel of this Bond.

    Craig's Bond was the one where all 4 films can be seen as a continuation of the same story. In this case, it really is useful to have watched his first 3 before watching SPECTRE to understand all the issues.

    The series of course has been excellent at keeping up to date with audiences of the times. It has gone through many reinventions and one reboot so far. Some Bond like Dr No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, The Spy Who Loved Me, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye and at least 2 of the Craig films are remembered as classics but what about the others. The others are in my view often just as good. Here's a quick review:

    You Only Live Twice: Any Bond with Connery is worth watching and this film for me anyway ticks all the boxes. Great fights, chases, shootouts and a great climax. What is there not to love? YOLT should be regarded as one of the best of the best. The Spy Who Loved Me took many elements of course from here too. 5/5.

    On Her Majesty's Secret Service: Another solid early entry to the series, this film and Lazenby has gotten unfair reviews for decades. For years, it was the forgotten Bond. There is great fights, ski chases and a great climax that are among the best ever in the series. It also sported the best pretitle sequence so far in the series. The middle part where Bond goes 'undercover' was overlong and for over an hour we do not get any action. That is the only issue I would have. As for ending it Love/Hate style with Bond's wife dead, it was brave and different. 4/5.

    Diamonds Are Forever: Connery's last official film is one of the most underrated of the series. The revenge focused pretitle sequence is good and shows us a personal Bond. The idea to have the twist where the main bad guy is actually Blofeld - who Bond thought was dead - hiding behind a kidnapped businessman was very clever. The climax is very good and the Amsterdam fight is one of the 5 best fight scenes in the series. Some have criticised it for being humorous but it is no moreso than its predecessor. This is the last Bond for some time to feature Blofeld as the main enemy. 5/5.

    Live and Let Die: No Connery. No SPECTRE. No Blofeld. No world domination plot. This film was different to the 5 that went before it and showed Bond could go into new directions. Moore plays him excellently here and it is the first film where the enemy is the dictator of a country (fictional San Monique). The clever revelation that that dictator and an American drug dealer are one and the same adds to proceedings. Tee Hee is the best henchman since Oddjob. This is a very good entry to the series and shows us how the series can work without SPECTRE and world domination plots. 4/5.

    The Man With The Golden Gun: the downside is that the villain really hasn't done anything to merit the work of 007. Even the bullet with Bond's name sent to MI6 is sent from the villain's girlfriend and not the villain in a plan to get Bond to kill the villain. Once past that, this film is surprisingly entertaining with a violent martial arts fight and the like. The climax though may have been a bit of a letdown compared to what we are to expect. 3/5.

    Moonraker: The very mention of the word often will get arguments of why it is the worst Bond film ever made. When one looks at it, it clearly is not. In fact, it may be one of the best. It features one of the best fights (Venice), the best boat chase in the franchise (Brazil) and one of the best henchmen in Jaws. That Jaws became good at the end enhances the film and it is a first to see a henchman turn against his boss for once. Many criticise the ray gun shootout and climax in space. Well, if Thunderball can have the action underwater, Moonraker can have it in space. Overall, it is a very entertaining Bond film and has the feel of the Blofeld era entries. 5/5.

    For Your Eyes Only: This will be no doubt remembered by most as the Bond film with the parrot talking to Margaret Thatcher! True, this is a scene that is unique and very different to any other scene from a Bond film. But, it is ironically one of the few humorous distractions in what is a taut spy thriller with plenty great action scenes and is a great entry to the series. 5/5.

    Never Say Never Again: Back then, Bond was a two horse race: Connery and Moore. Connery then did the unthinkable and made an unofficial remake of Thunderball that manages to be taut and entertaining and does not copy Thunderball religiously either. It is another new entry and a good one. What we have here you could say is an early precursor to Dalton or Craig. Connery shows he still had it. 5/5.

    Octopussy: My favorite of the Moore films and one that gets way too much negative reviews for again vague memories of some of the scenes. It will be remembered by many as the film where Bond is disguised as a clown. But what is not remembered is WHY: he is at a circus where a bomb is about to go off chased by cops who think he is a criminal. He disguises himself to get the cops off his back and to get close to the bomb. There is terrific action here and a tense cold war detente era plot that would be further explored in The Living Daylights. Gobinda is one of the best henchmen too. It is also the first film to cover events related to the Afghan civil wars, with the main baddie being an ex-Afghan royal family member. Should be regarded as one of the better of the Bonds. 5/5.

    A View To a Kill: Many people hate this film inclusive of Roger Moore himself. Fair enough, Moore is right when he said he was way too old for the series at this stage. But this film is actually a good one. Zorin is the best villain of the entire series arguably. Walken plays him excellently and his psychotic nature and scant value for life is revealed throughout. It may well be the only film where the villain outshines even Bond himself. There is great action throughout with the pretitle and the Golden Gate San Fran climax being particularly good. Mayday becoming good is a nod to Jaws and it works well to see an ex villain become a hero. 4/5.

    Licence to Kill: A great, revenge focused film that is the most un-Bond of all Bond films. Dalton took over as Bond in 1987 and debuted in the excellent and well respected The Living Daylights. His 1989 film did not receive the same praise though. And it remains one of the most underrated. The film with its drug dealers and drug related revenge killings feels like Miami Vice and it answered the question of could Bond thrive in a personalised mission setting. LTK was unlucky to run into Batman in 1989, the major summer hit that year. Dalton played Bond excellently here and one wonders if he had done 2 more in 1991 and 1993, what he had in him to become. 5/5.

    Tomorrow Never Dies: Brosnan suffered the same fate as Dalton. He does an excellent and well regarded opening film and then an excellent and not so well regarded followup. TND is an excellent traditional style Bond film very much in the mould of You Only Live Twice or The Spy Who Loved Me. If this was made in the 1970s, it would be considered a classic. TND has everything: plenty of action, a great pretitle and climax, an eccentric and vicious villain, a great henchman and a taut, tense plot. It should be regarded as a classic. 5/5.

    The World Is Not Enough: A better Bond than is remembered, TWINE took Bond in a new direction where he faces a female main villain and even shoots her! This is also the first Bond where M is more than just the person who sends Bond on a mission and takes part in a good deal of the action. The climax is rather poor. 3/5.

    Die Another Day: yes, this is the Bond with the invisible car. In what is easily the most bizarre vehicle Bond ever drove, the series left the thriller genre for science fiction. It may be the poorest of the Bonds in many ways as it redid scenes from earlier films and a poor enough climax and the invisible car spoiled things. But is had its moments and the early POW part brought about a different type of scenario to the norm. 2/5.

    Quantum of Solace: As with Dalton and Brosnan, Craig went from an excellent and respected opener to a very good but less respected followup. QOS may have a plot based around resource scarcity that works better in a Mad Max film than a Bond film but the high quality action is very entertaining and the decision to make it a direct sequel to Casino Royale was a first for the series. Only fault is it was way too short. 4/5.

    SPECTRE: Following up Skyfall was always going to be difficult. But SPECTRE does a fairly good job with that and while it has its flaws (the main one being the Blofeld backstory), it still is enjoyable fare that would please most. 4/5.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,506 ✭✭✭ FunLover18


    With the reality that Daniel Craig may not play Bond again (or even if he gets an offer he can't say no to, he will only do one more), what style of films do people want to see next? Craig has played a very serious, driven, often substance dependent Bond who is excellent at his job but often completes it in unorthodox ways. Humour is used sparingly and the focus is on more realistic missions. The earliest Sean Connery films (Dr No, From Russia with Love and Thunderball) and Timothy Dalton's second film (Licence to Kill) followed a similar approach. Revenge sometimes reared its head. Other Bond films notably The Living Daylights had a bit more humour but were mostly realistic and serious plotwise.

    For me, this bit in bold only applies to Craig's first too films. Skyfall and Spectre veered much closer to the outlandish missions and humour while still sparing is still much more prevalent in those latter films. I agree that Bourne gave Bond a much needed kick up the arse but Skyfall was return to the old ways, it's been acknowledged by the makers that they wanted to make it as classic as possible given the occasion and Spectre continued that trend with more nods and winks to the golden oldies. I watched all 4 of Craig's films there recently and the difference in tone between the first 2 and the second 2 is staggering. To me it really feels that CR and QoS are standalone, a failed reboot, where Skyfall and Spectre would be much more at home in boxset with the Connery, even Moore era films. I'd love to see them drop Blofeld and Spectre again and return to the grittiness of CR and QoS, it will be interesting to see which direction they take because with Spectre they tried to replicate what worked which made Skyfall such a success and it was not as well received.
    Glico Man wrote: »
    Read an article online somewhere ages ago that suggested that the name 'James Bond' become a codename, and as such the old double 0 become the number of that certain Bond. In theory a different actor could play Bond in each subsequent film, just given a different double 0.

    If the role of 'M' can change from Dame Judi Dench to Ralph Fiennes in Skyfall, then perhaps it wouldn't be so farfetched that Bond can change in a different film.

    Thought it was a different and interesting proposition, though I don't know how fond of the idea I would be if it came to fruition.

    No, I hate this theory. It makes no sense. 007 is the code name, why would an agent need two codenames? Personally I wouldn't mind if they ditched 'James Bond' and made it a '007' franchise, it would make far more sense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,661 ✭✭✭ Theboinkmaster


    I think that is very true. We all look back on earlier Bond films and we view them in today's terms. Now, each actor who was with the franchise for a long term consolidated trends. SPECTRE and Blofeld defined Connery's and as a result Lazenby's era. Up to and including Diamonds are Forever, all the early films bar Goldfinger featured Blofeld or SPECTRE.

    Moore's Bond really consolidated itself in The Spy Who Loved Me with General Gogol and the Minister of Defence character and the UK/USSR/USA collaborations against common enemies. This seeped into Dalton's The Living Daylights as well.

    Brosnan's Bond introduced elements like a female M and Joe Don Baker's CIA agent replacing the severely compromised Felix Leiter. JDB was one of few to feature as both the good and bad guy in Bond. He was the baddie in The Living Daylights. Robbie Coltrane's character also was part and parcel of this Bond.

    Craig's Bond was the one where all 4 films can be seen as a continuation of the same story. In this case, it really is useful to have watched his first 3 before watching SPECTRE to understand all the issues.

    The series of course has been excellent at keeping up to date with audiences of the times. It has gone through many reinventions and one reboot so far. Some Bond like Dr No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, The Spy Who Loved Me, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye and at least 2 of the Craig films are remembered as classics but what about the others. The others are in my view often just as good. Here's a quick review:

    You Only Live Twice: Any Bond with Connery is worth watching and this film for me anyway ticks all the boxes. Great fights, chases, shootouts and a great climax. What is there not to love? YOLT should be regarded as one of the best of the best. The Spy Who Loved Me took many elements of course from here too. 5/5.

    On Her Majesty's Secret Service: Another solid early entry to the series, this film and Lazenby has gotten unfair reviews for decades. For years, it was the forgotten Bond. There is great fights, ski chases and a great climax that are among the best ever in the series. It also sported the best pretitle sequence so far in the series. The middle part where Bond goes 'undercover' was overlong and for over an hour we do not get any action. That is the only issue I would have. As for ending it Love/Hate style with Bond's wife dead, it was brave and different. 4/5.

    Diamonds Are Forever: Connery's last official film is one of the most underrated of the series. The revenge focused pretitle sequence is good and shows us a personal Bond. The idea to have the twist where the main bad guy is actually Blofeld - who Bond thought was dead - hiding behind a kidnapped businessman was very clever. The climax is very good and the Amsterdam fight is one of the 5 best fight scenes in the series. Some have criticised it for being humorous but it is no moreso than its predecessor. This is the last Bond for some time to feature Blofeld as the main enemy. 5/5.

    Live and Let Die: No Connery. No SPECTRE. No Blofeld. No world domination plot. This film was different to the 5 that went before it and showed Bond could go into new directions. Moore plays him excellently here and it is the first film where the enemy is the dictator of a country (fictional San Monique). The clever revelation that that dictator and an American drug dealer are one and the same adds to proceedings. Tee Hee is the best henchman since Oddjob. This is a very good entry to the series and shows us how the series can work without SPECTRE and world domination plots. 4/5.

    The Man With The Golden Gun: the downside is that the villain really hasn't done anything to merit the work of 007. Even the bullet with Bond's name sent to MI6 is sent from the villain's girlfriend and not the villain in a plan to get Bond to kill the villain. Once past that, this film is surprisingly entertaining with a violent martial arts fight and the like. The climax though may have been a bit of a letdown compared to what we are to expect. 3/5.

    Moonraker: The very mention of the word often will get arguments of why it is the worst Bond film ever made. When one looks at it, it clearly is not. In fact, it may be one of the best. It features one of the best fights (Venice), the best boat chase in the franchise (Brazil) and one of the best henchmen in Jaws. That Jaws became good at the end enhances the film and it is a first to see a henchman turn against his boss for once. Many criticise the ray gun shootout and climax in space. Well, if Thunderball can have the action underwater, Moonraker can have it in space. Overall, it is a very entertaining Bond film and has the feel of the Blofeld era entries. 5/5.

    For Your Eyes Only: This will be no doubt remembered by most as the Bond film with the parrot talking to Margaret Thatcher! True, this is a scene that is unique and very different to any other scene from a Bond film. But, it is ironically one of the few humorous distractions in what is a taut spy thriller with plenty great action scenes and is a great entry to the series. 5/5.

    Never Say Never Again: Back then, Bond was a two horse race: Connery and Moore. Connery then did the unthinkable and made an unofficial remake of Thunderball that manages to be taut and entertaining and does not copy Thunderball religiously either. It is another new entry and a good one. What we have here you could say is an early precursor to Dalton or Craig. Connery shows he still had it. 5/5.

    Octopussy: My favorite of the Moore films and one that gets way too much negative reviews for again vague memories of some of the scenes. It will be remembered by many as the film where Bond is disguised as a clown. But what is not remembered is WHY: he is at a circus where a bomb is about to go off chased by cops who think he is a criminal. He disguises himself to get the cops off his back and to get close to the bomb. There is terrific action here and a tense cold war detente era plot that would be further explored in The Living Daylights. Gobinda is one of the best henchmen too. It is also the first film to cover events related to the Afghan civil wars, with the main baddie being an ex-Afghan royal family member. Should be regarded as one of the better of the Bonds. 5/5.

    A View To a Kill: Many people hate this film inclusive of Roger Moore himself. Fair enough, Moore is right when he said he was way too old for the series at this stage. But this film is actually a good one. Zorin is the best villain of the entire series arguably. Walken plays him excellently and his psychotic nature and scant value for life is revealed throughout. It may well be the only film where the villain outshines even Bond himself. There is great action throughout with the pretitle and the Golden Gate San Fran climax being particularly good. Mayday becoming good is a nod to Jaws and it works well to see an ex villain become a hero. 4/5.

    Licence to Kill: A great, revenge focused film that is the most un-Bond of all Bond films. Dalton took over as Bond in 1987 and debuted in the excellent and well respected The Living Daylights. His 1989 film did not receive the same praise though. And it remains one of the most underrated. The film with its drug dealers and drug related revenge killings feels like Miami Vice and it answered the question of could Bond thrive in a personalised mission setting. LTK was unlucky to run into Batman in 1989, the major summer hit that year. Dalton played Bond excellently here and one wonders if he had done 2 more in 1991 and 1993, what he had in him to become. 5/5.

    Tomorrow Never Dies: Brosnan suffered the same fate as Dalton. He does an excellent and well regarded opening film and then an excellent and not so well regarded followup. TND is an excellent traditional style Bond film very much in the mould of You Only Live Twice or The Spy Who Loved Me. If this was made in the 1970s, it would be considered a classic. TND has everything: plenty of action, a great pretitle and climax, an eccentric and vicious villain, a great henchman and a taut, tense plot. It should be regarded as a classic. 5/5.

    The World Is Not Enough: A better Bond than is remembered, TWINE took Bond in a new direction where he faces a female main villain and even shoots her! This is also the first Bond where M is more than just the person who sends Bond on a mission and takes part in a good deal of the action. The climax is rather poor. 3/5.

    Die Another Day: yes, this is the Bond with the invisible car. In what is easily the most bizarre vehicle Bond ever drove, the series left the thriller genre for science fiction. It may be the poorest of the Bonds in many ways as it redid scenes from earlier films and a poor enough climax and the invisible car spoiled things. But is had its moments and the early POW part brought about a different type of scenario to the norm. 2/5.

    Quantum of Solace: As with Dalton and Brosnan, Craig went from an excellent and respected opener to a very good but less respected followup. QOS may have a plot based around resource scarcity that works better in a Mad Max film than a Bond film but the high quality action is very entertaining and the decision to make it a direct sequel to Casino Royale was a first for the series. Only fault is it was way too short. 4/5.

    SPECTRE: Following up Skyfall was always going to be difficult. But SPECTRE does a fairly good job with that and while it has its flaws (the main one being the Blofeld backstory), it still is enjoyable fare that would please most. 4/5.

    You left off 2 of the best recent ones - Goldeneye & Casino Royale.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,758 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Not wanting to sound like a troll, but ignoring the financial realities that there will of course be a new Bond one way or the other - simply because of the ludicrous money Lifestyle brands pump into these productions - is there even any point to new Bond films?

    There are already 24 official films so far, 25 if you count Never Say Never Again, and personally it's hard to see where the franchise could go that wouldn't simply be rehashing the same ideas over & over. We've already had the gritty & serious angle, the camp & comedic angle, the Cold War setting, the Modern setting, and so on; technology-wise the pendulum has swung from simplicity to ... well, invisible cars.

    I'd almost argue the fact there are page columns dedicated to 'modernising' Bond, be it via race, gender or whatnot, seems less like PC gone mad and more of a franchise that has run out of ideas. Like I said it's an insanely bankable franchise all right, but personally Bond feels less a Blockbuster event & more a financial obligation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 BuilderPlumber


    You left off 2 of the best recent ones - Goldeneye & Casino Royale.

    I left out these 2 and others because these are generally considered to be highly rated. The ones I discussed were the underrated and overlooked films in the series as well as the 'poorer' entries.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭ dr.fuzzenstein


    I left out these 2 and others because these are generally considered to be highly rated. The ones I discussed were the underrated and overlooked films in the series as well as the 'poorer' entries.

    No sorry, giving Moonraker 5/5? No. Just no.
    Besides, it is missing the James Bond hooter. No JB film is any good without the hooter.


Advertisement