James Bond 007 film-by-film thread

Yeah, that was my reaction when I watched it on DVD. (I don't recall it standing out much when I saw it at the theater.) It came across like a low budget action scene from an episode of MacGyver. But watching it more recently I thought it was a bit better than that, but still not quite high caliber major motion picture stuff.

 

The 80's were pretty much hit & miss for the franchise.

Beginning with Moonraker from '79, I think this is where things first started to get a bit wobbly. A pure attempt to cash in on a trend at the time, nothing more.

After that, John Glen took over the director's chair for the rest of this period. It started out fairly well, For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy had their merits. Each had a different approach to the Bond film esthetic, the former as straight forward espionage, the later as tongue-in-cheek adventure. But out of the remaining three films, only The Living Daylights stands out, and in the end the series had become pretty tired.

(I see Never Say Never essentially as "Boring Bond" and don't think it worth much consideration beyond a kind of sideshow in the Bond movie world.)

At this point I think the franchise was at a similar point as it had been following the aftermath of OHMSS; drop in box office, uncertainty about the Bond character and who to portray him, and a lack of focus in the production of the films.

Bond needed a serious kick in the pants...

 

I vividly remember watching Goldeneye at the theater...it was a blast.

It had been so long since I honestly had a great time "going to the movies" and seeing a Bond film (Live And Let Die and The Living Daylights had been memorable). Goldeneye signalled a return to form.

Good story, great action, fun to watch; overall a purely entertaining Bond film. I'm sure anyone is going to find imperfections, but I'd say, overall, it delivers in revitalizing the franchise. It brought the Bond film into a genuinely modern context.

Also, one might argue, for good or bad, that Pierce Brosnan represents an idealized image of Bond. Maybe not the edgy, cool, and rough persona offered by Connery in his heyday, but a more slick, controlled, stylized version. Over the course of the next few films that character portrayed by Brosnan gets refined in a few ways, but I've never had an issue with him in the Bond role.

For me, top tier Bond.

 

Goldeneye
This isn’t one of my favorite Bond films, but it’s pretty good and feels like the right direction for the franchise at the time. It offers a nice mixture of Dalton-era slickness and realism and Moore-era over-the-top silliness and fun. The story and characters are pretty good, but not quite as engrossing as some of my other favorites. The slick, large-scale action is welcome, but the film teeters on the edge of overreliance on these things. Pierce Brosnan is an okay Bond, but he might be the worst one IMO (I don’t think there’s ever been a bad one).

 

I really like "Live and Let Die". It may not be perfect but it nicely combines Bond with a Blaxploitation film. Moonraker is much, much worse IMHO and belongs in the bottom of the barrel with A View to A Kill.

I enjoyed Diamonds Are Forever and have a fondness for a variety of reasons--most of them personal.

 

Part of that is the lack of production values in the first 2/3s of the movie.

 

Oh, absolutely. Bond films require that underlying sense of epic filmmaking. This one definitely cuts back on that. Not that it can't work (see Dr. No), but you need a genuinely solid storyline and direction behind it.

 

Don't value any post 1969 Bond movie,cept 2006..Casino Royale

 

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) investigates a media mogul when a British ship is attacked by Chinese planes.

My old complaint with this movie was that it was an anonymous, generic action film. There was nothing particularly Bond about it. I think that complaint mostly stands. I switched my brain off and went with the flow. It's a solid, competent action film of no distinction. It's okay. The plot is nothing to write about, the baddies mediocre, the Bond girls bland and the whole thing just rather indifferent. The action climax on the stealth boat went on too long. I’m being generous in my assessment of it because I was in a good mood and I was not looking for anything more than what I got.

Above average


Best to worst IMO (films ranked as I watched them so this list has some weight to it)


Live and Let Die (1973)

The Living Daylights (1987)

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Licence to Kill (1989)

Goldfinger (1964)

Dr No (1962)

Thunderball (1965)

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

Moonraker (1979)

The World is Not Enough (1999)

Goldeneye (1995)

Octopussy (1983)

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Casino Royale (2006)

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Never Say Never Again (1983)

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Die Another Day (2002)

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

You Only Live Twice (1967)

Skyfall (2012)

Spectre (2015)

Quantum of Solace (2008)

A View to a Kill (1985)

From Russia with Love (1963)

 

This was David Arnold’s first Bond score and I think he did a great job. Obviously a student of John Barry he put his own twist on Bond music. My only complaint with the music is that “Surrender “ by KD Lang and Arnold should have absolutely been the title track. Cues from it are repeated several times during the film. I never warmed to the Sheryl Crow song, but she was the flavor of the month at that time, so she got the nod.

 

LICENCE TO KILL was billed as a return to toughness for the franchise but it is ultimately undermined by inappropriate comic touches and an overall flatness of style. It does feature a credible villain in Robert Davi as drug lord Sanchez, and a reasonably complex plot but is never as gripping as it wants to be. Part of the problem is the use of American actors known primarily for their television roles, such as Anthony Zerbe, David Hedison and Priscilla Barnes. Hedison especially kills it for me--it just doesn't compute that he and Bond are friends, and the subplot with him getting married is just embarrassing. It keeps the level of drama firmly at the television level and that just isn't right. Taliso Soto is also particularly bad but is an uncommon beauty which somewhat makes up for it. Carey Lowell is good, although she is never really given anything to do.

I come back to this one every couple of years thinking I'm going to like it more, but I never do. LICENSE TO KILL could have been a Guy Hamilton picture, and that isn't good. The truck chase at the end is admittedly well done, but the majority of the film features coverage, not artistry.

This was the first Bond film not to be based in any way on an Ian Fleming source story or novel. It's good that the filmmakers tried to do something different but the missteps outweigh the good things. The plot is constructed around Bond's vendetta against a bad guy who did harm to his friend Felix Leiter--he is grievously injured (by alligator) and his wife killed. Leiter was working on bringing Sanchez down, you see. The entirety of Bond and Leiter's relationship falls flat because we have never seen Bond and Leiter be such close friends--they are already best buds when the film opens. Sure, they've been business associates on a couple of cases, but close personal friends? Granted the pair are reasonably close in the original books, but for dramatic purposes, it all feels forced and unmotivated. The history just isn't there and without it the film can never take off. We see Bond go through the motions but we never connect emotionally with why he is doing so. This leaves the film somewhat hollow at the core. You may question my quibbling with a lack of emotional center for a Bond film, but this is what the filmmakers were trying for--a more human Bond. I get it, but it just didn't work in this film.

Additionally, the filmmakers tried a different approach to the action scenes. Rather than spread big set pieces throughout the film, they saved them for the end. This approach works well for the most part as the end is undeniably well done. If we had any emotional investment it would have been killer, but as it is it's merely good.

LICENCE TO KILL pretty much tanked at the box office when released, making only $35 million in the US, which was down about $20 from DAYLIGHTS.

Stuff To Like:

• Timothy Dalton gives a good performance. Too bad the script lets him down.
• Robert Davi is one of the more interesting Bond villains, if decidedly lower-rent than say, a Dr. No or Goldfinger.
• Carey Lowell is good in this.
• The ending is one sustained action scene and it works well.
• Location work is decent.

Stuff to Dislike:

• David Hedison is easily 25 years too old for this role.
• Priscilla Barnes should not be in a Bond film.
• Wayne Newton doesn't help things at all.
• The visual style is flat and uninteresting--it almost looks like a TV movie.
• Taliso Soto is borderline embarrassing in this film.
• Maggot farm is unconvincing.
• Anthony Zerbe's exploding head is out of place in a Bond film.
• No chemistry to speak of between Lowell and Dalton. Their first coupling especially is hard to take.

 

I have a personal fondness for Moonraker. While I can look at it and objectively say it's pretty mediocre, there's something about it that keeps me from placing it at the bottom. If you overlook some of the blatant visual gags (the Venice hovercraft sequence, etc) and slapstick humor, the film is a pretty solid detective film up until the third act when they go into space, at which point everything just flies off the rails. It's got a great score, probably one of John Barry's finest. The cinematography is great, and the visuals combined with Barry's lush score give the film an almost surreal, dreamlike quality that lacked in the 80s Glen directed 007 films. Moore is decent, he isn't phoning his performance in like he will in his last couple of outings, and there's a couple of moments where he actually does some solid acting, for instance after he escapes the centrifuge, you can sense Bond is quite shaken by this near-death experience, which is a refreshing moment compared to most Moore escapes, when he kind of just smirks his way out of every situation and never seems to really take anything too seriously. I also find the pre-credit sequence to be really great, it holds up remarkably well compared to more modern pre-credit sequences. I could list all of the film's weak points, but I'd be typing all day.

But that's ultimately how these lists go, there's always someone who will champion the bad films. Even Golden Gun has its fans.

 

Just watched OHMSS for the very first time as I work my way through the Blu-ray set, really was pleasantly entertained by it, enjoyed the casting, pacing for the most part, storyline, Lazenby's performance, humor and the music.

Now 1/2 way through Diamonds are Forever - Dr. No, OHMSS and DAF were the only three I hadn't seen before starting this set. Great job on the restorations by Lowry, incredible fine detail on these BDs.

 

License to Kill – when I walked out of the theater I felt like I had just watched a TV movie. It was the quickest Bond movie ever, like it had lasted only an hour.

I like it better than Daylights, even though I think the last half of the movie could have been better. I did not care for either of the Bond girls, though I do like “Teri”.







Remember to vote for her in the poll:


http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/threes-company-janet-chrissy-cindy-or-terri.542787/page-2#post-14369451

 

LTK is actually based on Live and Let Die and they steal several scenes from the novel.

Goldeneye was a mixed bag. It's clearly a rough for what the director achieved much better with Casino Royale 10 years after.

The scene where Natalia try to open the door by repeating her name and breaks up is ridiculously played. I hate the Bond girl, she is the stupidest in the franchise, and also the worst dressed. A year after True Lies, and they give us this? True Lies action was how this Bond should have been done.

 

I have always liked GoldenEye a lot, although it does have at least two things that drive me nuts: The problem with the opening sequence previously mentioned, where somehow Bond descends through a dam and military compound and emerges at the top of snowy mountain peaks; and the BMW Z3 placement.

The title sequence and song together is one of my favorites. I also love the following Aston Martin/Ferrari car chase. Ourumov and Onatopp make a good pair of villains.

 

I haven't seen many of the movies after Goldeneye, so here's my ranked list of the Bond films I have seen. I may come back and rank/review the other films if I bother to (re)watch them, but this is it for now.

The Living Daylights
From Russia With Love
You Only Live Twice
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
Diamonds are Forever
The Spy Who Loved Me
Live and Let Die
Goldeneye
Goldfinger
Dr. No
For Your Eyes Only
License to Kill
Thunderball
Moonraker

 

There was a six year gap between LICENSE TO KILL (1989) and GOLDENEYE (1995). The reason for this began all the way back in the 1960's. Producer Kevin McClory worked with Ian Fleming in the late 1950's on a proposed James Bond movie that was not based on any of the books. When the movie didn't materialize, Fleming used the plot in the 1960 novel THUNDERBALL, without acknowledging (or paying) McClory. This led to a lawsuit that resulted in EON Productions (the owners of all the other stories except for Casino Royale) and McClory joining forces on the 1965 THUNDERBALL film. Additionally, McClory retained the rights to the story and certain elements that were introduced in it, notably Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E.

Flash forward to 1990, where MGM/UA was sold and the new owners decided to put the rights to the Bond franchise up for sale. This began a series of legal battles over who had the rights (due to both issues with CASINO ROYALE and THUNDERBALL) that were resolved when MGM/UA was again sold and the new owners decided to keep the franchise. Work began on the next Bond film finally began in earnest in 1994, at which time Timothy Dalton announced that he was stepping away from the role. A search for a new Bond was started and the role was ultimately offered to Pierce Brosnan, who accepted it.*

GOLDENEYE represented something of a new beginning for the series since many of the faces behind the scenes were different. Richard Maibaum, who had a hand in writing 13 of the Bond films up to that point, died in 1991. Martin Campbell ware hired to direct meaning the 5 film streak by John Glen was ended. Campbell brought an entirely new energy to the series, straddling the line between escapism and realism better than most directors tasked with helming a Bond film. John Barry was either unavailable or not asked so the music chores were handled by Michael Serra, who brought a decidedly 90's sensibility to the score. The script was handled by two new writers, Jeffrey Caine and Bruce Fierstein, and they concocted a tale that contains equal parts realism and escapist fun.

GOLDENEYE has an exceptional cast. Brosnan excels as Bond, bringing a truckload of charisma and presence to the role. He's more reminiscent of Sean Connery's physicality than any of the other three actors who had played the role up to that point. He could not quite pull off the physical presence that Connery had, but he brought a real swagger back to the role and is always believable in the fight scenes**. He also is shown frequently doing many of the stunts. Sean Bean makes for a different kind of Bond villain, and the backstory between he and Bond works well for the film. The film also features two attractive female leads in Izabella Scorupco and Famke Janssen. Janssen especially is a memorable villain and brings real panache as Xenia Onatopp. Lastly, this was the film that introduced Judi Dench as 'M'. She would go on to appear in the next six Bond films.

With the "Goldeneye" killer laser satellite, the plot brought a global threat back to the series for the first time since OCTOPUSSY and it was a welcome return. The visual effects, incorporating both miniature work by Derek Meddings and some early CGI helped sell the story immeasurably. (The CGI effects have dated far worse than Meddings' work, which I think is outstanding. Of course, I am partial to such miniature work so your mileage may vary.)

Also welcome is GOLDENEYE's humor, which is more somewhat more sophisticated. Bond's interactions with Onatopp are especially humorous. Played down are the pithy one-liners that Moore made famous (and that Dalton could never quite bring off), with most of the humor being decidedly situational in nature. It's a welcome change, although this too would change as the Brosnan years progressed.

All in all, GOLDENEYE seemed to hint at greater things to come. Unfortunately, the Brosnan films (for me) never quite live up to the potential on display here.

Stuff To Like:

• Great special effects add immeasurable scope to the proceedings. This would prove to be Derek Meddings final film, and he went out on a high note.
• Brosnan brings an entirely different energy to the part than Timothy Dalton. Dalton was never cool, but Brosnan is.
• Action scenes are well handled. Especially the tank chase.
• Famke Janssen steals every scene she is in, in a good way.
• Humor veers away from the puerile.

Stuff to Dislike:

• Bond is seemingly always confronted by bad guys who can't aim well. While not as bad as the subsequent Brosnan films, GOLDENEYE nevertheless set the path towards the increasingly laughable action scenes for Brosnan in the role. The escape from the Russian prison is ALMOST too much...almost.
• CGI really dates the film to the mid-1990's.
• Eh, not really a fan of Serra's music score.

Notes:

*Brosnan had been offered the role in 1986 but NBC refused to release him from his Remington Steele television contract. This was a dick move since NBC had previously announced that the series had been cancelled. However, when Brosnan star heated up due to the Bond talk they un-cancelled the series and held him to his contract. In hindsight, this was probably a good thing as he may have been too young for the role in 1986. Nine years later he was aged both in years and personal tragedy, and both worked well for him in the role.

**This is something because Brosnan is not a muscular guy. There is the odd shot in GOLDENEYE where you see how slight a build he really has, at least at that point in time.

 

With Goldeneye, as is often the case, the "bad" Bond girl (Jansen) is way hotter than the good one (Scorupco).

 

Like yeah right, the jet is going to crash right into the building.

There are so many things wrong with Goldy, but what especially bugs me are why the satellite dish buildings are full of flammable liquids. That makes no sense.

They cut down the dumb humor in this film, but there are too many “yeah right” moments to take it seriously.

For me, the next 2 Brosnan movies are his best.

 

My dad told me to invest in bonds, so I bought the 23 movie Blu-ray collection.

 

The World is Not Enough (1999)

James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) investigates terrorist threats against a pipeline.

It's competent but a tad bland. The story isn't overly interesting, the villain and Bond girls are indifferent and the action scenes are oddly lacking in thrills. The big exception is the opening pre-title sequence which is exciting and impressive in scale. It's almost certainly the greatest pre-title sequence of all the Bond films. It's a shame the rest of the film can't compete with it.

It washed over me pleasantly enough but apart from the opening it made little impact. Blandly competent but oddly ineffective with little punch to it.

Above average

Best to worst IMO (films ranked as I watched them so this list has some weight to it)


Live and Let Die (1973)

The Living Daylights (1987)

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Licence to Kill (1989)

Goldfinger (1964)

Dr No (1962)

Thunderball (1965)

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

Moonraker (1979)

The World is Not Enough (1999)

Goldeneye (1995)

Octopussy (1983)

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Casino Royale (2006)

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Never Say Never Again (1983)

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Die Another Day (2002)

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

You Only Live Twice (1967)

Skyfall (2012)

Spectre (2015)

Quantum of Solace (2008)

A View to a Kill (1985)

From Russia with Love (1963)

 

You rarely find Bond fans who agree on a top five, and you often find certain films that simply polarise opinion. Tomorrow Never Dies appears to be one of these. I've been working my way through rewatching all the Brosnan films, some of which I have not seen for many years. As such, I was approaching them from an objective viewpoint. Maybe they're not so bad as I remember, I thought. I'll give them a chance.
Sadly, my disappointment remains. I agree with some of The Hermit's earlier comments (on the "crackerjack action sequences" and Michelle Yeoh holding her own), but for me, Tomorrow Never Dies is weak. A huge part of the problem is that it was made just before the world was transformed by the internet, so looking at it now, Carver's assertion of his global dominance of "TV, news, magazines" (magazines?!?!) sounds really lame. It must be one of the most quickly dated Bond films of the entire series. Unlike something from the Connery era, it's really incongruous to see a modern film - okay, it's twenty years old, but in fairness, it doesn't look twenty years old - about media played out without any internet seems very odd. Also, as someone pointed out at the time, there is something definitely lacking in a Bond villain whose quest is for TV rights in Asia. Sure, it's a not insignificant goal, but it's hardly in line with planning to create a super race in space, or to contaminate the gold at Fort Knox.
I like Jonathan Pryce, but he's terrible in this. Elliot Carver is a pure pantomime villain, even down to the frenetic typing on his portable keyboard. All he's missing is a manic cartoon villain laugh. If he is a high profile mogul, running a global media empire, why does he even need to be on the stealth ship? Presumably just so he can come to a sticky end, along with his band of caricature minions, Henry Gupta, the dishevelled cyberterrorist and Richard Stamper, the bleach blonde dial-a-thug.
Teri Hatcher's Paris is an utterly thankless part, so much so that she went on record as regretting doing the film, describing her role as an "artificial type of character". I'm assuming the understandable allure of being in a Bond film made her overlook how two-dimensional the part was on the page. The idea that Bond is supposed to have had some sort of meaningful relationship with Paris is ludicrous, not least since it comes completely out of left field. Vincent Schiavelli's Dr. Kaufman character is a huge misstep. He should be sinister. He's just another caricature.
Michelle Yeoh is a massive saving grace, possibly even more rewarding on my recent viewing, though I always hated the walking down the wall sequence, which seemed like it was shoehorned in just so Bond could give a bemused reaction. The motorbike chase is excellent, and even watching it now, while there are shots where the bike seems to be going ridiculously slowly, there is still much to be admired for its "realism", something which is lost now in the age of CGI-created action sequences. Although why the bike sequence had to be almost immediately followed by another action scene always seemed bizarre to me.
The Sheryl Crow song is terrible. It's like a throwaway b-side that she recorded for fun as a Bond theme pastiche. She's not even trying to hit the notes. I think k.d. lang was robbed.
I'd give it two stars. The fact that I hadn't felt compelled to watch it in years speaks volumes. It's not totally without merit, but it's minor Bond for me.

 

I really like The World Is Not Enough, particularly Sophie Marceau who is a great Bond villainess, and makes my shortlist top 3 for hottest ever "Bond Girl'. Yes, the Christmas Jones character was absolutely ridiculous, but the final joke "I though Christmas only came once a year!" is memorable. This is my favorite of the Brosnan Bond films.

 

Pick up pretty cheaply these days.