Now we reach the last era of the film franchise, at least for the time being. At the time of this review (mid-January 2024) there is no word on who will be the next Bond or when we can expect a new movie. In fact the only spot where the franchise hasn't been quiet recently is the novels. So for all intents and purposes, the end of Craig's era is at this moment the end of the film franchise. So let's finish our look back at the series with this final retrospective.
It's a bit hard to believe now, but in 2005 the series had fallen on hard times. Die Another Day was successful at the box office, but nowhere else. Fans and critics panned it for being too ridiculous, especially in the aftermath of the more realistic and grittier film The Bourne Identity. Between the success of Jason Bourne in the movies and Jack Bauer on television, it was looking like Spy fiction's original JB had lost his touch. It also didn't help that bankruptcy and company mergers behind the scenes were making it difficult to get funding for making any movies. If Bond was going to come back, he needed to do so in a way that spoke to the feelings of a post-9/11 world.
But as luck would have it, one of the good things that came from the various behind the scenes issues was that EON Productions wound up getting the rights back to the one Ian Fleming novel they hadn't used yet: Casino Royale. Without a doubt the most down-to-earth of all of Fleming's novels, this presented EON with a unique opportunity to do something that had never been done before: tell the origin story of James Bond.
This didn't come without problems though. The unfortunate reality was that if they were going to do this, it would mean letting Pierce Brosnan go. It's a shame because the problems with his films were never his fault, nor was the state of pop culture at the time. But the reality is that a younger actor was needed if they were truly going to reboot and refresh the series. To this day Brosnan remains the only Bond to be fired rather than to leave on his own terms, and I think that's a real shame. But if it came down to Brosnan or the continued health of the franchise and all who worked on it, losing Brosnan was the best of two bad choices. It's not fair, but neither is life.
What's also unfair is the reaction to Daniel Craig's casting. It seems ridiculous now, but the backlash against him was so bad that people booked entire websites (at least one of which is still up) just to rage against this casting choice. And why did they do this? Mostly because he had blonde hair. No, seriously. Thankfully the production and publicity teams paid these protests the amount of attention they deserved: nearly none. Instead they focused on making a good movie.
The results speak for themselves. Casino Royale was a triumph, and its emphasis on the humanity of James Bond was exactly what the franchise needed to survive the new millennium. Daniel Craig proved he had what it takes and then some, turning in the best Bond performance of the entire franchise.
Its that emphasis on Bond's humanity that would serve the series well throughout all of Craig's tenure. Even with all of the era's ups and downs, the heart of these movies was exploring what it meant to be James Bond in a more realistic world. It was exactly what the franchise needed and why Daniel Craig has gone on to become one of the most beloved Bond actors.
That said, this era had its faults too. While it wasn't as affected by trend-chasing as the Moore years, it did have its own problems with that. The stretch of Quantum to Spectre showcase this flaw the most, as they were clearly trying evoke the Bourne series and Christopher Nolan's work. Taking inspiration from them is one thing, but trying to be them is another. Unfortunately those three often fell into the latter.
Let's move on to how the series treated women in Craig's tenure. They took an interesting approach this time. Rather than trying to progress the character's treatment of women, they instead walked it back. Craig's Bond is rather chauvinistic and cavalier in his relationships with women. However, I don't think this is a step backwards for the series itself, and here's why: it knows Bond's wrong. Bond's treatment of women in this era isn't celebrated, it's criticized. Judi Dench's M calls him out multiple times, and two of his leading women turn him down. It's also clear that his distance from them is partly a defense mechanism put in place after Vesper's death. He won't risk being emotionally close to another woman because he can't risk losing her like he lost Vesper. It's a flaw in his character that he doesn't truly overcome until near the ending of No Time to Die. Tragically, just as he starts to warm up to the idea of being a family man he has to give up that life to ensure that his daughter and the woman he loves can live. It's an interesting part of his journey, and I'm glad the films took the time to explore it.
So let's wrap this up with the ranking. From Worst to Best:
A film of grand ambitions that doesn't fully achieve everything it sets out for. Still, it gets 85% of it right, and that's impressive in and of itself.
And that wraps up the retrospective. I might do a full ranking of the series, but I've covered pretty much all of my in-depth thoughts about it and the movies themselves. But as of right now I have covered every official Bond film that exists. I'd like to thank you all for coming along with me on this journey, and I hope that in the coming years we'll have plenty of more Bond films to look at.
The Daniel Craig Years: A Retrospective and Ranking
Now we reach the last era of the film franchise, at least for the time being. At the time of this review (mid-January 2024) there is no word on who will be the next Bond or when we can expect a new movie. In fact the only spot where the franchise hasn't been quiet recently is the novels. So for all intents and purposes, the end of Craig's era is at this moment the end of the film franchise. So let's finish our look back at the series with this final retrospective.
It's a bit hard to believe now, but in 2005 the series had fallen on hard times. Die Another Day was successful at the box office, but nowhere else. Fans and critics panned it for being too ridiculous, especially in the aftermath of the more realistic and grittier film The Bourne Identity. Between the success of Jason Bourne in the movies and Jack Bauer on television, it was looking like Spy fiction's original JB had lost his touch. It also didn't help that bankruptcy and company mergers behind the scenes were making it difficult to get funding for making any movies. If Bond was going to come back, he needed to do so in a way that spoke to the feelings of a post-9/11 world.
But as luck would have it, one of the good things that came from the various behind the scenes issues was that EON Productions wound up getting the rights back to the one Ian Fleming novel they hadn't used yet: Casino Royale. Without a doubt the most down-to-earth of all of Fleming's novels, this presented EON with a unique opportunity to do something that had never been done before: tell the origin story of James Bond.
This didn't come without problems though. The unfortunate reality was that if they were going to do this, it would mean letting Pierce Brosnan go. It's a shame because the problems with his films were never his fault, nor was the state of pop culture at the time. But the reality is that a younger actor was needed if they were truly going to reboot and refresh the series. To this day Brosnan remains the only Bond to be fired rather than to leave on his own terms, and I think that's a real shame. But if it came down to Brosnan or the continued health of the franchise and all who worked on it, losing Brosnan was the best of two bad choices. It's not fair, but neither is life.
What's also unfair is the reaction to Daniel Craig's casting. It seems ridiculous now, but the backlash against him was so bad that people booked entire websites (at least one of which is still up) just to rage against this casting choice. And why did they do this? Mostly because he had blonde hair. No, seriously. Thankfully the production and publicity teams paid these protests the amount of attention they deserved: nearly none. Instead they focused on making a good movie.
The results speak for themselves. Casino Royale was a triumph, and its emphasis on the humanity of James Bond was exactly what the franchise needed to survive the new millennium. Daniel Craig proved he had what it takes and then some, turning in the best Bond performance of the entire franchise.
Its that emphasis on Bond's humanity that would serve the series well throughout all of Craig's tenure. Even with all of the era's ups and downs, the heart of these movies was exploring what it meant to be James Bond in a more realistic world. It was exactly what the franchise needed and why Daniel Craig has gone on to become one of the most beloved Bond actors.
That said, this era had its faults too. While it wasn't as affected by trend-chasing as the Moore years, it did have its own problems with that. The stretch of Quantum to Spectre showcase this flaw the most, as they were clearly trying evoke the Bourne series and Christopher Nolan's work. Taking inspiration from them is one thing, but trying to be them is another. Unfortunately those three often fell into the latter.
Let's move on to how the series treated women in Craig's tenure. They took an interesting approach this time. Rather than trying to progress the character's treatment of women, they instead walked it back. Craig's Bond is rather chauvinistic and cavalier in his relationships with women. However, I don't think this is a step backwards for the series itself, and here's why: it knows Bond's wrong. Bond's treatment of women in this era isn't celebrated, it's criticized. Judi Dench's M calls him out multiple times, and two of his leading women turn him down. It's also clear that his distance from them is partly a defense mechanism put in place after Vesper's death. He won't risk being emotionally close to another woman because he can't risk losing her like he lost Vesper. It's a flaw in his character that he doesn't truly overcome until near the ending of No Time to Die. Tragically, just as he starts to warm up to the idea of being a family man he has to give up that life to ensure that his daughter and the woman he loves can live. It's an interesting part of his journey, and I'm glad the films took the time to explore it.
So let's wrap this up with the ranking. From Worst to Best:
5: Quantum of Solace
I wish this film had lived up to its potential, but unfortunately it doesn't. A for effort at least.
4: Skyfall
Much like GoldenEye, I can see some of the appeal of this movie, but I just don't love it the way others do.
3: No Time to Die
A film of grand ambitions that doesn't fully achieve everything it sets out for. Still, it gets 85% of it right, and that's impressive in and of itself.
2: Spectre
An enjoyable action romp for most of its runtime. It runs out of steam once the 'Brofeld' twist is revealed, but those first 90 minutes are solid fun.
1: CasinoRoyale
The pinnacle of Bond films.
And that wraps up the retrospective. I might do a full ranking of the series, but I've covered pretty much all of my in-depth thoughts about it and the movies themselves. But as of right now I have covered every official Bond film that exists. I'd like to thank you all for coming along with me on this journey, and I hope that in the coming years we'll have plenty of more Bond films to look at.