Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Moore, Connery and Brosnan had the right demeanor for those movies, IMHO. All were looking cool while holding a gun
I don't particularly care for Craig - not his look, nor his acting. Since he had signed on for two future Bond films, meaning he will star as 007 in at least five films - I might change my mind ...
Two more Craig Bonds? Excellent. I know a lot of people don't like him. Before CR was released, I didn't think I would either.
But, I do prefer him because he plays it straight - a serious spy; exactly the same reason I hated Moore. When they do stop motion and reverse the film in order to get a dog (? or was it a pigeon) to do a double take, that is the lowest of the low for me. Add to that the multiple reappearances of Sheriff Pepper. Or an otherwise sealed underwater car, that comes up onto the beach and Bond rolls down a window to drop a fish outside the car. Just too silly for my spy taste. For me, if the producers can't take the material seriously, neither can I.
Brosnan did a "silly bit" in Tomorrow Never Dies... Chuckling and having fun while causing mayhem in the BMW 7 Series in the Parking Tower - but to me, that fit in with his character as a sociopath. I did think it went too far when he tossed the car off the roof into the car rental shop where any number of innocents could have been killed.
Timothy Dalton - was so boring - I don't even remember his movies.
George may have actually been a good bond, but I never have seen OHMSS from beginning to end.
And that leaves Mr. Connery who could do no wrong because he invented the screen character.
Hmmm, an interesting observation between Daniel Craig of liking him because he plays it straight as a serious spy (perhaps we should say a serious Bond because how effective of a spy can you be if you are James Bond) and then calling Timothy Dalton boring.......because he was playing a book Bond which is a serious spy.
Now, to each their own, this is not being critical.
Roger Moore once commented about how Bond is a fantasy figure because how effective can one be as a spy when every bartender in the world recognizes who you are and knows what you drink.
There are at least three things to a Bond flick. First of all, we the audience know that Bond is a spy, but does the world inside the movie know that he is a spy? Perhaps they recognize him as a playboy or an adventurer. Someone who shows up in all the fancy places, lives high on life, and attracts the ladies right and left.
These little suggestions are here and there in the various "earlier" movies. In Thunderball, when 007 is asking Domino to spy for him, right before the truth is revealed, Domino is reacting like he is a playboy that has had his fling but now it is over. In Octopu**y, Kamal identifies Bond as "an adventurer" before he really knows who he is.
Now this approach is upset a little bit in Goldfinger where Mr. G tells 007 when he is on the table that he has been recognized by one in his business. Up to that point, of course, Mr. G is taking 007 as an adventurer, but why doesn't this recognition occur more often in the films. Probably, story wise, for two reasons. First is perhaps in the world of these movies, the "secret service" world, despite all its exposure done by Bond, is a shadowy world that most people don't know exist, that recognition is a low probability thing. I know, that theory takes a lot of disbelief but consider the franchise of movies we are talking about. Secondly, there was suppose to be a line in OHMSS where Bond had gone through plastic surgery, but it was never used. Had it been, it might have helped these concepts a lot..............but, oh well!
Further, one needs to look at the TV-movie background of the 60s through the mid 70s to see how the audience might be influenced this way to have this thought in the back of their mind. On one side, we did have flashy spies such as "The Baron", The Man from UNCLE", and "Danger Man" but we also had a lot of adventuring Playboys such as "The Saint", "Jason King", "Primus", and "The Persuaders!". Handsome men with all the toys and cash who didn't work for anyone (sort of in that JK was an ex spy, The Persuaders were, I think, commissioned by a judge, and Primus worked for someone official at times) but always seemed to turn up in the places where the action was.
So while we the audience, at the time, know that Bond is the spy, we have the conditioning in the back of our mind to perhaps see or at least accept him as something else.
Secondly, a Bond flick is almost never a detective movie. He is practically at the front door of the villain in the beginning scenes and even if he is not convinced that the villain is the man, the villain then does something to convince him. There are exceptions here and there, such as with TWINE and perhaps in a view with CR, but usually that is not the case, and the audience needs to keep that in mind.
The audience needs also to keep in mind, thirdly, that one is watching a spy movie.
I often seen comments of where people criticize a movie based on things of face value. Take YOLT for example. Bond tells Moneypenny that he took a first in oriental languages; so why does he need Tiger to read the Japanese language files he stole?
There are least three spy reasons. First, Bond knows what is on the files because he read them but now he is testing Tiger to see if he will be truthful to him. Secondly, Bond could be diplomatic to his host by not bragging his knowledge about Tiger's country. Third, Bond could be exercising the benefit of using local knowledge by having Tiger interpret the files (that's in the "LOX" exchange).
Are they always "spy movies" or spy movies all the time? Well, no, as might demonstrated by AVTAK, but it is probably something to keep in the back of the mind.
SO WITH ALL THAT SAID, how we view various Bond flicks, various Bond actors, can vary by our experiences. That's where the fun is! As it is, I have read all the Fleming Bond books, including TSWLM (where 007 doesn't show up till around page 80) and The Living Daylights which is actually a short story in the book For Your Eyes Only. Of course, not all the movies are anything like the books but there is no surprise there. It is as I said, how we see them often comes from our experience..............
.....................and, of course, to each their own.
"On Her Majesty's Secret Service" with George Lazenby has always been my favorite Bond.
Who could forget Diana Rigg?
Watch this one carefully, and don't diss it out of hand...
Always liked that one too.
A lot of it was filmed at Piz Gloria in Bernese Oberland Switzerland, upper cable car station that was just built at the time, so they were able to film before it was opened to the public.
Glorious scenery, beautiful girls (including a very young Joanne Lumley),
and Telly Savalas playing the villain, can't beat that.
Oh yeah, and Diana Rigg too.
I like Sean Connery, when he got into a fight it was believable ...Roger Moore, not so much.
That being said, Roger Moore was good too. Sometime a bit too silly.
A lot of it was filmed at Piz Gloria in Bernese Oberland Switzerland, upper cable car station that was just built at the time, so they were able to film before it was opened to the public.
Glorious scenery, beautiful girls (including a very young Joanne Lumley),
and Telly Savalas playing the villain, can't beat that.
Oh yeah, and Diana Rigg too.
I like Sean Connery, when he got into a fight it was believable ...Roger Moore, not so much.
That being said, Roger Moore was good too. Sometime a bit too silly.
After that it's all meh to me.
My favorite Bond films far and away were those starring Connery and Craig. Moore? Too campy. Brosnan? Too fey. Lazenby, too forgettable.
At the heart of it were two things: The raw masculine energy that Connery and Craig brought to the role (and Moore and Brosnan didn't), and the 'Bond girls' in those movies. Honey Ryder/***** Galore/Domino/Jill Masterson/Helga Brandt/Vesper Lynd/Severine>>>>>>>Christmas Jones/Holly Goodhead/Jinx Johnson/Solitaire. No contest there.
1. Casino Royale (2006)
2. From Russia With Love (1963)
3. Goldfinger (1964)
4. The Living Daylights (1987)
5. Live & Let Die (1973)
Craig is my favorite, followed by Dalton and Connery. Moore and Brosnan seem like nice people in real life, but they were just not tough nor dangerous enough to play Bond. Laz looks like Bond, does well in the fight scenes, but when he opens his mouth.....sorry, he was not an actor.
I really like 2015's Spectre. Actually, I liked it better than the mega-hit Skyfall. Plus, I had read that Spectre didn't live up to expectations, etc., however, after seeing it, it surpassed my expectations. Also, I really liked the 'family'(meaning consanguinity) aspect of this film and which was a continuation of Skyfall.
Dalton's last Bond film is the best last Bond film - 'License to Kill', and also his best Bond film. If you read the books Dalton gets the closest to Bond. That's an excellent film.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
