James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

[Mr Sausage]

This IS getting a little absurd, but am I not in the "James Bond in general" thread? I was just expressing my enthusiasm for the continuation of the series in what will likely be a new direction, and what Villeneuve might do with it. I fully accept that you are more of an authority on action pictures in the new century, and certainly the Bond films since the reboot. I have not studied the genre in that capacity, and was offering what I guess are incorrect and offending opinions, that are no doubt rooted in equal parts nostalgia for the franchise and personal disdain for earmarks of what I view as enshitification of genre I used to enjoy. I don't wish to waste your time any longer, but I did take a look at the Casino Royale scene reference, and while I think it is certainly accomplished and well paced I find it does suffer from the relentless close-focus movement and overall exhaustive tendencies for "crowding the frame with as much extraneous visual debris as possible and endless cutting that I associate with the types of films I posted before. I remember this getting worse as the series went on, but I'll accept my opinion is uninformed, and I'm sure you are correct that my enjoyment, and ability to discern the quality accurately is due to my own limitations.

Ok, I don’t want to fight with you, so let me walk back my overstatement earlier: your participation here is welcome and your opinions are valid. We just disagree on some things, and that’s more than fine. Sorry for coming on so strongly.

[The Curious Sofa]

I don't have an issue with people having preferences. What gets frustrating is seeing the same tired argument repeated: that a character, like Bond (or Batman) can’t be treated more seriously without it being considered a mistake or emo. I never understood the argument that action films don't need character development. For me, at least, character development makes action films more engaging.

I find the Bond series to be an interesting cinematic time capsule precisely because it is essentially always the same film. Each film hits the same essential beats: exotic locations, cutting-edge gadgets, glamorous women, sleek cars, and larger-than-life villains. This consistency over six decades makes even small changes in tone, aesthetic, or ideology much more noticeable. To me, this creates something akin to conceptual art, a series as much about what stays the same as what evolves.

These films originated in a time when international travel was a luxury and consumer goods were aspirational. Bond was a fantasy of power, wealth, and sophistication. Watching how those ideals shift across the decades and reflect changing geopolitical, gender role, and fashion norms is an engaging form of cultural analysis. This has nothing to do with "marketing copy. and it isn't about claiming the films are perfect or beyond critique; it's about recognizing what makes them culturally distinctive.

Finally, turning someone’s argument around on someone to score rhetorical points is always a cheap move.

[thirtyframesasecond]

The Craig films were all generally diminishing returns and Craig seemed less enthusiastic with each film. No Time To Die might've been better had Boyle directed it, but given the franchise expectations tend to neuter what makes the "star" directors interesting, they're better off using journeymen directors like Martin Campbell or John Glen, who have no discernable personality or style.

[The Curious Sofa]

The Craig films were all generally diminishing returns and Craig seemed less enthusiastic with each film. No Time To Die might've been better had Boyle directed it, but given the franchise expectations tend to neuter what makes the "star" directors interesting, they're better off using journeymen directors like Martin Campbell or John Glen, who have no discernable personality or style.

This is another complaint that has been levelled at all the Bond actors who had a long run and having just re-watched all the Bond films over the winter, it's largely projection. They all age in front of the camera, but the notion that after a few films, like surly teenagers, the Bond actors act out in protest, is a myth.

I thought Sam Mendes did a fantastic job with Skyfall, it is not only the best looking Bond film, its one of the most beautiful looking action films ever made. And while Spectre isn't in the same league, I still think its a perfectly fine Bond movie. Of the Craig movies I only regard Quantum of Solace as a disaster and No Time to Die would have been better had the tightened up the last act.

[Monterey Jack]

I'm eager for him to get out of the franchise ghetto and make something like Arrival or Prisoners again (he's got a couple of original projects in "pre-production" according to IMDb, but perhaps he can reboot Bond in an interesting way. And maybe keep it under two hours.

Yeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh, that will never happen.

[domino harvey]

Time for my annual Bonding. Thunderball (1965): Once more we get a boring dubbed international actor as the villain, and while I enjoyed the detail that Celi keeps a swimming pool filled with sharks, the payoff to it and most everything else here is lame. A lot of this already feels old hat and recycled from previous installments, though we do get the rapiest “seduction” yet, so I guess it has that going for it. On the plus side, Auger is given some moderate agency as the main “Bond Girl” and I appreciated that the film allowed her the final heroic action.

But I kept getting distracted by how little this film (and this series thus far) thinks of the audience. For example, I found the penny-pinching SPECTRE board meeting an amusing distillation of capitalism, with the main baddie quibbling with his cronies over comparatively nickel and dime returns. But then shortly thereafter a member of the conspiracy makes a highly unlikely play at getting paid more (with zero leverage, since he is no longer necessary to the plan the moment it is pulled off), but when the rube is inevitably rubbed out he takes his $100k with him to the grave. Based on what we’ve seen, wouldn’t this organization want this back? I guess what’s better is to just hope no one watching thinks about it. And in a better film I wouldn’t. I don’t need an action film to be logical to the real world, but it does need to adhere to its own internal logic. One more example, and it’s petty but it reveals the level of care exhibited here: Bond is brought in to help with the nuclear recovery plot, but he is not anticipated to be a major factor in the mission (as evidenced by his imminent assignment to Canada). Yet when every agent receives a sealed dossier on the suspects, all of the documents in Bond’s folder are clearly original (in color, well-used, etc) and not copies. Why would every other agent get a copy and he gets originals? Functionally I know why, because it looks better on-screen. But within the logic of this plot, why? And that’s the problem with movies like this, especially bad ones: I find myself asking nitpicky practical questions instead of worrying about the bomb going off

I see the next one is scripted by Roald Dahl… that’ll be something, at least, he says with limited conviction

[knives]

The next one is also less than. In like four films you might get something you like.

[Mr Sausage]

You didn't mention my favourite quibble: when they're setting up the underwater tent, they anchor it to the bottom by hammering stakes into the sand(!) like they're going camping in the woods instead of, you know, weighting it. Given all the underwater experts and professional divers working on the movie, you think someone would've pointed this out.

[cdnchris]

Considering the budget and scope of Thunderball, it is one of the duller ones. I might actually prefer Never Say Never Again, despite how horribly dated it is (the video game show down is something). Brandauer at least makes a better Largo, as does Carrera as Fatima. I'd also say Basinger"s Domino is more interesting. But the whole plot was never terribly involving; steal nukes, ask for ransom, drawn out for 130 minutes.

[domino harvey]

They remade this one? At least that title is better— did I miss what a “Thunderball” even is (other than something for Tom Jones to purr out over the credits)?

[therewillbeblus]

I can't really imagine anyone getting into those old Bonds if you didn't catch them as a kid. Most of what I get out of Thunderball are inside jokes from back then. I think the card game is hysterical. Largo gets more and more frustrated and intense as Bond gets more and more lax, winning by exactly one point every hand on luck, as if God(/Bond) is taunting Largo. And he knows he's going to too, because he knows he's lucky and invincible and the star of the show. The same goes for how he shoots the plate without looking. I think it's a great self-reflexive parody of the idea that Bond had become by this point, in ways that the other films around it don't resort to - but I also agree that, objectively, it can be dull and uses its devices in ways that could disappoint

[knives]

Considering the budget and scope of Thunderball, it is one of the duller ones. I might actually prefer Never Say Never Again, despite how horribly dated it is (the video game show down is something). Brandauer at least makes a better Largo, as does Carrera as Fatima. I'd also say Basinger"s Domino is more interesting. But the whole plot was never terribly involving; steal nukes, ask for ransom, drawn out for 130 minutes.

I agree the remake is significantly better probably aided by having a halfway decent director at the helm.

[jt938]

I've never understood why Thunderball is so beloved by Bond fans and I agree with cdnchris and knives that Never Say Never Again is better. I rewatched the entire series recently and thought Thunderball would be far better, nope, it was just as dull and plot hole ridden as I'd remembered it being.

[therewillbeblus]

Is it beloved? Most Bond fans seems to cite it amongst Connery’s worst

[jt938]

Is it beloved? Most Bond fans I know cite it amongst Connery’s worst

I see a lot of older Bond fans cite it as one of the best but it's reception has kinda dwindled over the years.

[therewillbeblus]

I think people just like Connery so they place all his early entries in a bundle near the top. But if asked about individual films, I doubt most die-hard Connery fans are going to name it among the franchise’s best. Same with Diamonds are Forever and probably Dr. No

[beamish14]

Is it beloved? Most Bond fans I know cite it amongst Connery’s worst

I see a lot of older Bond fans cite it as one of the best but it's reception has kinda dwindled over the years.

It’s fun but not on the same level as You Only Live Twice

Never Say Never Again is pretty great. Irvin Kershner was a seriously underrated filmmaker who was very adept at handling action set pieces, and there is a terrific motorcycle chase.

[jt938]

Not sure how unpopular it is but I also much prefer Never Say Never Again to Octopussy (even though I enjoy it as well).

[cdnchris]

They remade this one? At least that title is better

Yes! It's actually the main reason for most of the legal issues that have popped up through the years and the reason the series would have to stop using certain elements, including Blofeld as a villain until Spectre (he shows up in For Your Eyes Only briefly, but his name is never mentioned). The TLDR is basically Fleming wrote it with Kevin McClory and McClory claimed he owned the rights to the story and therefore part of Bond, so he went to Warner Bros. to remake it as Never Say Never Again, and they convinced Connery to come back (it went up against Octopussy). The title is a reference to Connery once saying he would "never again" play the character. There's way more to all of it, and it was only resolved like a decade ago or so.

Connery is too old (and his toupee is too obvious), but as others have said it's a better made movie, though the story is still not all that exciting. And on top of the other actors it even has Max von Sydow as Blofeld, though he doesn't really get much to do.

did I miss what a “Thunderball” even is (other than something for Tom Jones to purr out over the credits)?

If I recall it's just the name of the mission. But even Tom Jones didn't know what the fuck it meant, but this was when they still figured they had to fit the title into the song somehow.

[Orlac]

I believe Thunderball is the military term for the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion.

[HJackson]

right now we have two more Roger Moores to go.

I'm sorry you have to go through that.

Those are my favorites!

I kind of have to give you your flowers on this - I cannot condone A View to a Kill but Octopussy is much better than I remember and, although it isn’t my favourite of his entries, it may just be the “definitive” Roger Moore outing.

I’ve just got done watching the 20 classic Bond movies over the last two weeks, for the first time since at least 2012 when I started logging films on Letterboxd. It’s a testament to how many times I must have watched these films as a kid, and how well they’ve stuck with me, that I still remember them all so vividly after such a long break.

High level findings: there are four stone cold classics (Goldfinger, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me, and GoldenEye) and four full blown stinkers (Man with the Golden Gun, Moonraker, A View to a Kill, and Die Another Day).

The biggest disappointment was Thunderball, whose lush location work probably lured me in as a younger viewer despite the drawn out plot and plodding action, and the biggest positive surprises were For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy - which I’d previously written off as “the boring one” and the most mediocre of mediocre Bond movies respectively. Moore also looks so much better in Octopussy than he would in View to a Kill after his botched facelift, despite showing his age. Maud Adams is a good pairing for him in ‘83 since she is stunningly beautiful but also doesn’t look like his grandchild.

One weird thing about the Moore run is the lack of Bond cars other than the great underwater Lotus Esprit in Spy Who Loved Me. He enjoys cutting around in random street cars, and enjoys a casual carjacking…

I’m still not a Moore fan but I have gained appreciation for him over this watch through. I have however done a complete 180 on Timothy Dalton, whose films are quite good in spite of his absolutely joyless performance. People always seem to say he’s closer to the Bond of the novels but I just do not see it, unless you reduce “the literary Bond” to the last four words of Casino Royale. The Bond of the novels isn’t making constant quips and playing with toys and there are dark moments, but he’s not as humourless and miserable as Dalton is either.

Even when you get the small touches of Epicureanism in these scripts, it doesn’t come off. When Dalton changes the contents of the Harrod’s basket in Living Daylights, it feels less like an expression of his own refined taste and more a frustrated administrative correction of a mistake. When he plays blackjack in Licence to Kill, it’s like a robot working a system instead of the work of a skilled recreational gambler and spy. There is no charm to him at all and he doesn’t seem to take any pleasure in life. No rizz and no aura.

I can see why the public never warmed to him and I do wonder how Pierce would have done in Daylights in the mid 80s had he not been prevented by Remington Steele. Brosnan was my favourite going in and coming out - he is so effortlessly cool, credible in the action scenes, capable of having an edge when he needs it, and great at the shagging bits. I’m probably biased because he was “my” Bond growing up, but even putting on my objective hat I think he hits the same sweet spot as Connery for what I want in a cinematic Bond, and stacks up well against the OG.

[Walter Kurtz]

Brosnan is a charter member of my wife and I's ideal dinner party list (most of whom we know but not all) ---

Boys: Brosnan, Walken, Nighy, Law, Farrell and Damon
Girls: Mirren, Cruz, McAdams, Buckley, Beer and Blunt

[The Curious Sofa]

Sorry to dissappoint, HJackson, but Octopussy is my second least favourite Roger Moore Bond after The Man with the Golden Gun. I thought Maud Adams was the only good thing about that movie but her surprisingly brief and insubstantial lead role in Octopussy is a disappointment.

But I'm pretty much on board with all his other Bond movies. In A View to a Kill Christopher Walken and Grace Jones are great pair of villains, the Golden Gate climax rocks and I love the sheer 80ness of the whole thing. There is something to like about every era and I don't really dislike any of the Bond actors. I thought Dalton was not so much joyless, but maybe a more human, sensitive Bond and I would have liked him to stay on a little longer.

[MichaelB]

Is it beloved? Most Bond fans seems to cite it amongst Connery’s worst

I suspect the "beloved" impression stems from the fact that it was the biggest Bond hit of the 1960s, and adjusted for inflation may still be one of the biggest.

I've never understood it either; I started watching all the Bonds in chronological order a few years ago, but got bored during Thunderball to the point where I switched it off and planned to get back to it later, but never did. (I'd seen it before in its entirety, but it never made much of an impression on me then either.)

[The Curious Sofa]

Thunderball is the dullest of the Connery Bond movies, that underwater battle is both incomprehensible and interminable. It has always been considered a drop in quality after the first three movies but the early Connery movies seem to be popular by default. And I would agree that Never Say Never Again is an improvement.

On my recent rewatch I was surprised how much I enjoyed Diamonds Are Forever. Probably the least acclaimed of the Connery movies, it is certainly a lot more fun than Thunderball or You Only Live Twice. I love the tacky 70s Vegas setting, there is some great brutalist architecture on display and Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd are the best henchmen ever.