Reviews Film / James Bond

The Connery Years: A Retrospective and Ranking

Over the last two years I've reviewed every official James Bond film that's been released. It was a good experience that probably took longer than it should have, but I feel like I learned a lot about writing reviews in that time. Now that I've covered all of them I want to give some thoughts on the various eras of the franchise as a whole. So naturally, I'll start back at the beginning.

The Connery years are distinct in that they're the only time when the film franchise was not reacting to the current trends of the day. Instead, they were the trendsetters. Bond movies weren't trying to cash in on the popularity of anything beyond the books they were based on, and even then they drifted further and further from the source material as time went on. Instead this era was focused mainly on one thing: making James Bond cool. Overall the films succeed in that goal, even if it occasionally came at expense of the film itself. A big part of their success in that regard was the performance of Sean Connery. Connery was simply the perfect man for that time and place, able to switch from playfully winking at the camera to deadly serious exactly when needed. While he noticeably checked out as the films went on, his first three remain the standard by which all other Bond performances will be judged.

That did wind up being a detriment to the series at the tail-end of his tenure though. As we know, he declined to return for On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Instead the role was played by novice actor George Lazenby. Sadly, audiences at the time rejected Lazenby's portrayal and Connery was wooed back for the seventh film with a massive payday. The resulting film, Diamonds Are Forever, played better with audiences of the time than the last one, but it was still clear that a major shake-up was needed. Diamonds was hardly a fitting swansong for the actor, trying (and failing) to recapture the glory of Goldfinger rather than blazing its own trail. Still, the meteoric rise of the series was unprecedented, and it wouldn't exist today without the groundbreaking achievements of this era.

There are definitely legitimate criticisms of this era though. Particularly note-worthy is its depiction of women. While some of this can be attributed to the attitudes of the time, there are excesses that feel out of place even for the 60s. Goldfinger and Thunderball in particular have examples of Bond assaulting women in a way that is incredibly uncomfortable to watch. Even at its best, Connery's films treat the women more as disposable objects than legitimate characters. The only real exceptions to this rule are Domino from Thunderball and Diana Rigg's Tracy di Vicenzo, who is of course killed to cause Bond misery. Domino at least gets her own character arc and presumably lives on after her adventure with Bond, so there's that. There's nothing inherently wrong with Bond having the flaw of being a womanizer, but the films need to acknowledge it as a flaw rather than promote it as an attitude to aspire towards. The series wasn't quite ready to make that leap just yet though.

An interesting demonstration of forward-thinking though comes in the creation of SPECTRE. In the novels Bond mostly tangled with the Soviet spy agency SMERSH, whereas SPECTRE was an international terrorist organization. In fact, throughout Connery's entire run Bond does not directly face Soviets even once. The primary threat is either SPECTRE or an industrialist mogul. This detaches Bond from the Cold War in a unique way that has allowed the character to remain relevant long after the end of that conflict. At the time it was a decision made more for the sake of being able to appeal to Russian markets, but that doesn't change the fact that the filmmakers were looking at the Soviets as something other than an enemy to be feared and hated. It was a good start for its time, even if it would lead to some weirdness later on.

That about covers everything I wanted to say about this era as a whole, so now the only thing left is to rank the films. Since I've already reviewed them I won't go into too much detail about why they're placed where they are, but I will give a brief address to each of them. Starting from Worst to Best:

7: Diamonds Are Forever

It's a film that doesn't know how to make camp fun. It's not offensive or stupid, it's just boring.

6: Thunderball

It's more exciting than DAF, but that's not saying much. It really needed a half-hour trimmed off.

5: Dr. No

As the first film in the series, Dr. No does a good job of setting up the main character and the storytelling tropes of the series. It would go on to be surpassed, but every house needs a strong foundation to build upon. This movie provides it.

4: From Russia With Love

An improvement over its predecessor, but a tad overrated. It could have used less action sequences and more time developing Tatiana.

3: You Only Live Twice

A film that thrives on audacity and ridiculousness. While a more energetic performance from Connery would've been better, the rest of the film more than picks up the slack.

2: On Her Majesty's Secret Service

A wonderful first attempt at turning Bond into a human rather than a larger-than-life figure. In another timeline Lazenby might have become one of the all-time great Bond performers.

1: Goldfinger

The standard by which every Bond film is measured, and for good reason. It's a delightful adventure that perfectly juggles its tone and characters.

That wraps up this portion, but next time we'll take a look at the Roger Moore era and its various ups and downs. See you there!