James Bond

Because we need this thread. 'nuff said.

I'll begin by breaking down the Bonds...

• Sean Connery: The original and the standard by which all others are judged. He brought smoothness and suave wit to Fleming's literary creation, as well as keeping the wolfish sexuality that was present on the page.
• Roger Moore: Didn't like the predatory angle of Bond, adopted a more comedic bent. Which is fine, if one likes one's spy thrillers served with a side order of humor. Moore served adequately in most of his films and occasionally ascended to brilliance. His quirky take on our favorite superspy wasn't always bad, yet wasn't always good.
• George Lazenby: No one talks about him and there's a reason. His film is an orphan; On Her Majesty's Secret Service possesses a certain oddball charm but on the whole doesn't satisfy.
• Timothy Dalton: Too villainous. Bond's supposed to be the hero and Dalton largely forgets this. That and the films he was given...well, the premise is starting to show its age, let us just say that.
• Pierce Brosnan: Started with a bang, and began whimpering soon after. It isn't the actor's fault that his personal life fell apart soon after he accepted the role, not to mention the new Moral Guardians putting their greasy fingers on his character (Bond smokes! Deal with it assholes!). All the names with "Die" or "Death" in them seem prophetic to this Bond fan.
• Daniel Craig: Fuck the haters, "Casino Royale" was the series re-boot all fans were waiting for. From the opening notes of Chris Cornell's amazing theme to the ending credits, this is Bond as Fleming meant him to be; tough, savage, raw and witty. If Craig had been born with black hair, no one would have had a complaint.

Oh, and as to my fitness to comment? I've been a Bond fan for twenty years, seen every movie and own a half-dozen of Fleming's novels. Bond was my superhero, fuck Superman right in his Spandex-clad behind.

edited 31st Dec '10 3:31:11 AM by drunkscriblerian

Personally, while Moore isn't that far above Lazenby on my "worst Bond" list, I think he could've done better if he wasn't saddled with such silly scripts like Moonraker. Yeah, there's the cheese factor, but that's not enough to sell it for me, as a serious Bond film (as opposed to the spoof that was the original film version of Casino Royale).

As for Brosnan, I never thought even his later Bond films were all that bad, though like the OP I was annoyed at the PC-ifying going on. James fucking Bond scoffs at silly shit like "political correctness".

I'm of the Daniel Craig is fine, but Casino Royale sucked crowd. Then again, I'm really more of one to watch James Bond for my friends that to seek it out, but it still didn't seem like a real James Bond movie to me and I just couldn't get into all that drama for a stupid card game. Quantam Of Solace was better to me.

I didn't know Lazenby and Dalton existed ^__^;

Neither Connery nor Brosnan stand out to me, but I dislike the Moore films. They're not terrible, just not my thing. Might be Seinfeld Is Unfunny.

I don't really have an opinion on the earlier Bonds, but Daniel Craig is by far my favorite. Maybe it's because his films give Bond more of an origin story than the other ones, but he brings more depth, and interest to the character. His films are really the only ones where we get a strong sense of what kind of a person Bond is, and why he is that way.

Craig's Bond is cold and arrogant. He beds women without showing any particular interest in them, just to one-up their husbands/boyfriends or show that he can; this is what makes it so clear that he's truly in love with Vesper in the restaurant scene when he simply says that her boyfriend is a very lucky man, and doesn't try to seduce her away from him.

He's arrogant about his work in the same way; he really doesn't like losing. That's why he follows the African bombmaker into the embassy, that's why he's angry and desperate enough to just try to kill Le Chiffre when Vesper cuts off his money supply, that's why he gets pissed off when M tries to make him stop he vendetta against quantum. The political-ish reasons he gives - "I thought one less bombmaker in the world would be a good thing", "Le Chiffre's going to win, continue financing terrorism and killing innocent people", accusing MI 6 of only being interested in oil in Quantum of Solace - are just excuses. He's unwilling to fail at anything, even if his success won't actually achieve anything, because it's a blow to his ego. Both M and Vesper point this out in Casino Royale and, while he denies it, I think it's the reading of his character that fits his actions best.

"All fans"? I hate Craig as Bond. I know Bond, Bond was a friend of mine, and he ain't Bond.

There is a reason James Bond isn't Jason Bourne or Die Hard or whatever. His movies are supposed to be absurd. They were supposed to be inspired by current events without being tied to the real world, ever.

This is another reason why I'm not terribly fond of the Dark Knight trilogy. The instant you put a guy in a cape and cowl with little bat-ears, we are no longer in reality. So the creators should stop pretending it's "just like the real world".

I havent seen the Craig Bond movies, but I guess it depends on who the fan is that likes them or not. I myself am a fan of the Sean Connery verisons of bond as well as Goldeneye.

I have problems with the James Bond series right now. To paraphrase Guns'n'Roses, where does it go now? The Cold War's been over for decades, and Britain's not the superpower it once was. All those exotic locations Bond went to are now much easier to reach, all those beautiful women he keeps bedding can be seen on Google pretty much whenever, the movies' action has been topped numerous times by other franchises, and frankly, after almost half a century of movie-Bond, they're running out of ideas to use.

I know this was all lampshaded in Golden Eye, and that was still a good movie, but the series ended up just as over-the-top as before with Die Another Day, so I think Casino Royale was a transplant the series desperately needed. It's hard to keep following style over substance when your style has...gone out of style, so giving Bond actual motivations beyond "grr, I'm awesome" was a very, very good idea.

Connery was the definitive Bond. Comparatively speaking, I didn't like Moore and the campy movies he was in, but he was James Frickin' Bond and that was enough. Plus, Moore was too old. On Her Majesty's Secret Service might get a remake as it is a good story and Bond gets married. . .for like a day. I looked forward to Dalton because he was a Shakespearean actor but I was disappointed. I worried about Bronson because he was such a pretty boy but he won me over which may be his acting or the writing. He is number 2 on my list and Daniel Craig was threatening in Casino Royale but lost out with Quantum of Solace because it is such a crappy movie in the grand scheme of things. Craig is, however, the closest to Connery although he is more brooding and loses his cool on a regular basis.

What does everyone think of the runners up in the Bond lottery?

Clive Owen, Gerard Butler, Liam Nesson et al.

I wanted to see Nesson as Bond but he is too old for the part now. He was super slick as Schindler and he kicked everybody's ass in Taken, so he was certainly up for the job.

I liked The Living Daylights (Timothy Dalton's first film).

Licence to Kill, on the other hand, isn't even a Bond film.

Golden Eye and Casino Royale are by far my favourites.

I was really disappointed by Quantum of Solace though.

To me, Quantam Of Solace was more like the other James Bond movies than Casino Royale, including the Connery Movies. The only problem with Quantam was the poor pacing, too much info in too little time.

Say what you will about George Lazenby, but he was a much better physical actor than Connery or Moore. Compare the fight scenes from any one of their movies with On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It's mostly because Lazenby was in some sort of Special Forces, but still.

I actually liked Die Another Day, as badcheesy as it was. ;_;

I have yet to see all of Quantum of Solace, but I really liked Casino Royale. It probably has a lot to do with my not being as much of a fan of the earlier Bond movies. Besides that though, I thought that like another Craig film I'm fond of, Layer Cake, it had a really nice, if bleak humor to it.

I do agree though with the Batman Begins comparison- when you take something that is kind of ridiculous at heart, it creates problems when you get too serious about it, but I didn't think Casino Royale had that problem.

I think Connery('s Bond) is a sexist jerk. I can kind of see why Craig's Bond would be compared to him (he's definitely a jerk, if not a sexist one), but IMO, he comes across in an odd way as more sympathetic  ^*

edited 1st Jan '11 10:12:53 PM by Jordan

Craig's Bond is definitely sexist; Vesper hit the nail on the head in the train scene where they first met. He tends to see women (at least attractive women) as ways of one-upping other men or of showing off, rather than as people who should be respected. That's why, as he says to Vesper, he prefers women who are married/in relationships. His attitude towards Vesper (after she saves his life, but before she takes the money) and Camille is an exception to the rule for him.

Say what you will about George Lazenby, but he was a much better physical actor than Connery or Moore...I's mostly because Lazenby was in some sort of Special Forces, but still.

I don't agree by a long shot, but spot on that last point. Lazenby could certainly jump.

Better than Moore, Connery he could be considered even depending on how you want to define "physical actor". Moore on the other hand looked like a doofus in fight scenes.

Are there any Non-Action Big Bad?

The guy in Casino Royale, I forget his name. I don't think whipping a guy when he's tied up and helpless counts as actiony.

^ Le Chiffre

I am partial to the Craig Bond, and don't mind Quantum of Solace. Or rather, I forgive Qo S of its flaws, because they all derive from the writer's strike.

Non-Action Big Bads probably can't get more so than Koskov in The Living Daylights, and to a lesser extent Whitaker from the same film (Whitaker has a skirmish with Bond, though it's mainly using his own gadgets and running around).

I rank the Bonds - Connery (the definitive balance of professionalism, suave and humor), Moore (on a good day, as in For Your Eyes Only), Brosnan, Lazenby (underrated), Moore on a bad day (A View To A Kill), Dalton and Craig.

As popular as Casino Royale is for making Bond a more "fallible" character, I think Craig is much too gruff, even for a rookie 007. "Harder edged" is fine, but I feel for the sort of missions the character is given, Bond needs to at least have the facade of being "high class" about him; I think that aspect of the character, facade or not, is indicative of Bond, and I think Craig barely conveys that, if at all.

Absolutely massive Bond fan here, love it to bits and like every single (official - yes, Never Say Never Again and the 1960 version of Casino Royale can kindly die in a fire) film. Haven't read the books for ages, but I really want to read the Gardner ones. Thanks to me having read a Virgin Books guide to Bond cover to cover about 40 times, I know every major point about them all anyway.

The Bonds, rated:

1. Dalton: Controversial, but I think he's massively underrated and the scripts he got to blame for the problems associated with the man himself. Well okay, and he tried too hard to bring the books' Bond into the films when they're clearly very different characters (case in point: his line "If [M] fires me, I'll thank him for it." That would have fit much better in the books) Still, he's dark and edgy while remaining high class, so covers everything for me.

2. Connery. Goes without saying, the original and very debonaire while retaining Bond's essential ruthlessness (particularly in Gold Finger's intro and in his execution of Dent in Dr No).

3. Craig. See Dalton. A very different approach to the character, at a very different time in his career, there's no saying the high-class elements wouldn't/won't come into play later on in his life after he's settled down a bit. Dark and edgy/ruthless = important for Bond to me, so I like it.

4. Brosnan. A little too high class at the expense of the rawness of the earlier Bonds, probably over-compensating a little to avoid a repeat of Dalton while still not avoiding the mess of Moore. Very good and watchable though, and the best showing bar-connery of the tuxedo-clad charmer that we love in a Bond.

5. Lazenby. Yes, controversial, and he was far from great, but I think that the backlash against the fact that he wasn't British and wasn't Connery contributes to the issues with him. Watched with an open mind, OHMSS is better than you'd think.

6. Moore. Too urbane, none of the ruthlessness we expect from Bond, too lighthearted really. And stayed in the role well past the age of an effective agent. I don't despise him, I just think he's the worst of the (real) Bonds. Brosnan and Connery were far better at the high-class angle, and pure comedy just doesn't work in Bond.

EDIT: Going to do a runthrough of my opinion of the films too, but wanted to post this first.

edited 3rd Jul '11 1:28:06 PM by CaissasDeathAngel

What movie would you start someone off on?