Film 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:
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.
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.
Film The Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan Years: A Retrospective and Ranking
It might seem odd to combine these two together, but if I were to do them separately it would turn out fairly short for both. Besides which, I think the Brosnan years are an interesting reaction to the Dalton duology, so there's a good reason to cover them together.
The Dalton phase of the franchise was an interesting one because I don't think anyone at the time was really ready for what he was going to bring to the table. The script for The Living Daylights was pretty clearly written for a generic Bond, and it was obvious that the series and the audience needed some time to adjust after seven outings with Roger Moore's more lighthearted take. Unfortunately Dalton didn't get that time. Due to some behind the scenes issues involving copyright lawsuits and the poor response from audiences and critics to Licence to Kill Dalton departed the franchise with only two movies under his belt. It's a shame, because he is a talented actor who brought a bold new take on the character. His darker, harder portrayal was ahead of its time. Sadly, it would take a few more decades before his time in the tux would start to see the praise it deserved. I tend to prefer the more light-hearted and bombastic Bond films to the darker and more realistic ones, but I quite enjoy the edge that Dalton brought to the series, and I consider LTK to be one of my favorite Bond films. I don't think there's ever been a truly bad Bond, at least not in the official series. I wish things had worked out better for Dalton, but that's not the world we live in.
Instead Pierce Brosnan took over the role in 1995, and his portrayal ushered in a resurgence in the franchise's popularity. While I personally may not be the biggest fan of his debut feature, I can't deny that Goldeneye was the right film at the right time. Audiences needed to believe that James Bond could work in a post-Cold War world, and Goldeneye showed them just that. I do think it's worth pointing out though that Goldeneye benefited from the preparation the series had been doing since its inception for a time when the Soviet Union was not the biggest enemy of the Western world. From the beginning the movies had taken steps to ensure that Bond could be a timeless hero. Goldeneye didn't reinvent the wheel because it never needed to.
What Goldeneye did do, however, was carry over some interesting hangovers from the Dalton phase. It's no accident that it's the darkest film of Brosnan's tenure. The others flirted with darker elements, but Goldeneye committed to them the most. That kind of darkness fits a harder-edged Bond than Brosnan ended up portraying, and I'm convinced some of it was there because of Dalton's leftover influence. The writers couldn't be sure what Brosnan would bring to the table, so they hedged their bets.
Speaking of what Brosnan brought to the table, let's address that. It's a common criticism of Brosnan's performance that he wound up being a jack of all trades, master of none. I myself one thought the same. But going back through his tenure with new eyes I can see that this isn't the case. On the contrary, he's quite strong in the role. He brings an air of debonair sophistication to the character that none of the others were quite able to capture. Other Bonds may look good in a tux, but Brosnan looks like he was born in them. Amazingly, this never comes off as snobby. Brosnan's Bond would leave a generous tip for the staff, but do so quietly to avoid drawing attention to himself. That said, he's perfectly capable of selling the gun-toting action hero this era tried to make Bond. I'm still not convinced that was the right direction to take the character, but Brosnan does pull it off and looks cool doing it. I'm glad I got this chance to look at his tenure with new eyes, because Brosnan has shot up to become one of my favorite takes on the character.
That doesn't mean his films are without criticism however. The unfortunate reality is that most of his films failed to live up to his performance. I can't really say I unequivocally enjoy any of them, as even my favorite of the bunch feels more like a 90s action thriller than a true Bond movie. The trend-chasing of the series hurt it in this department. No matter how good Brosnan was, he will always be the Bond that drove a tank through St. Petersburg in broad daylight. Cloak and dagger espionage these films were not. It also doesn't help that many of the films more exciting and risky ideas are often underplayed or walked back entirely. I think the reason for this is the tepid reception Licence to Kill received on its initial release. Many critics and fans felt it went too far into darker territory, so I can understand why the filmmakers wanted to play things more safely afterwards. Unfortunately it means that the majority of Brosnan's films don't really stand the test of time. Still, they kept the series afloat and allowed it to survive to reach new creative heights later.
But now let's touch on how the films handled the women in Bond's life. There's an interesting contrast between the Dalton and Brosnan eras in this regard. Even if you didn't know that the AIDS crisis influenced the decision to cut back on the number of lovers Dalton's Bond had in his tenure, you would probably be able to intuit it. Dalton's Bond seems to be less interested in romance in general, as it's almost always the women who initiate the romantic encounters with him. That said, when it does find him he seems to also value those relationships more, at least until after the end credits. His romance with Kara Milvoy in The Living Daylights in particular feels very sweet and genuine. If there's any problems its that the films carry on with the tradition of dropping the previous Bond girl in the next movie without so much as a reference to what happened to them. It undermines the romance when we know it's not going to last. Still, Milvoy in particular marks a major step forward for the franchise as she has her own character arc and becomes quite capable of defending herself by the end of the movie.
Unfortunately the Brosnan films would mark a step backwards. Brosnan's Bond might just be the horniest of them all, and the films are less interested with developing their characters, with the exceptions of Natalya from Goldeneye and Elektra from TWINE. The fact is that this era trended back towards disposable women, which is a shame considering the progress the series had been making. It leads to an interesting development during the Craig years, but we'll touch on that next time.
That finally wraps up my thoughts on the two eras, so let's tie things off with the ranking! From Worst to Best:
I am a lifelong pun-lover, and this film made me dread hearing another one. I will never forgive it for that.
Comes so close to greatness, then backs away in fear.
4: GoldenEye
A good film, but too shaky for me to call it great.
It's not the best start Dalton could've had, but it is an enjoyable film.
The most testosterone-heavy and adrenaline-pumping film in the franchise.
A dark tale to be sure, but a well-made one. The performances of Dalton and Robert Davi elevate this to become a truly impressive tale.
That wraps up our look at two eras of the franchise. Next time we'll go over the final one (for now) as we look at the Daniel Craig years. See you there!
Film The Roger Moore Years: A Retrospective and Ranking
So now we enter the Roger Moore era of the franchise. Modern fans of the film series tend to look down on this period and Moore's Bond, but I'm more forgiving of it. The first Bond film I ever saw completely was Film/Octopussy, so that might have a hand in why Moore is my favorite Bond, but I think the real reason ultimately comes down to the fact that he is always there to give the audience a good time. No matter the quality of the film, Moore always did his best to make sure the audience was having fun. That's a philosophy and work ethic I can appreciate. There's a good-natured charm to his take on Bond that contrasts with Connery's more brutish portrayal in an interesting way. He comes off as more of a gentleman adventurer, and it's a take that the series would use well throughout his run.
That said, there's no denying that the quality of the films during his turn fluctuated wildly. Some were absolute train-wrecks, others became franchise staples. Some of this is owed to the fact that his tenure was definitely the most reactionary to modern (at the time) trends. Blaxploitation is growing popular? Let's do it with James Bond! People love Enter the Dragon? Put a karate school scene in! Star Wars is a massive hit? Let's send Bond to space! There's a lot of trend-chasing in these movies, which is kind of sad considering how the Connery era was a defining cultural touchstone of the 60s. Now instead of being a trendsetter, the series was a trend chaser. This would be reduced later on, but its never fully gone away.
Let's move onto how this era of the franchise treats women. Admittedly, the first two films of Moore's tenure are not a good start. In the first one Bond sleazily manipulates a woman into sleeping with him, then in the second he brutalizes one of the main villain's victims for information before later locking a female co-worker he was about to sleep with in a closet so that he can sleep with said victim. It's pretty bad, and there are several points early on where you can tell that even Moore is uncomfortable with what the script is asking him to do. But by the third film there was a definite shift in how the series was going to handle women going forward. Barbara Bach's Anya Amasova was clearly written to be Bond's equal for the majority of her film, and the trend of capable main love interests with their own character arcs would continue throughout the rest of Moore's run, barring the last film. Moore's Bond is also generally less forceful with his romantic partners, relying more on the actor's natural charm. You believe that the women are making the choice to sleep with Bond of their own free will rather than because the script says so. It's definitely not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
Now that I've covered my main thoughts about this era, let's move onto the ranking. From Worst to Best:
Christopher Lee and Herve Villechaize do their best to prop up this disaster, but there is no saving this movie. Its attempts at comedy are painful and its action is tepid. The worst Bond movie, bar none.
6: Film/Moonraker
The first two thirds of the movie are mostly enjoyable if you're willing to accept it as more of a parody of Bond than a serious spy movie. But the final stretch is simply too ridiculous and too self-serious for it to fully work.
It's better than its reputation suggests, but its not one of Moore's better outings. Christopher Walken is underutilized, and the juxtoposition of him and Grace Jones against the clearly aging Moore does the film no favors. It's not bad, but it isn't the swansong Moore deserved.
A solid introduction to Moore's Bond and an enjoyable film.
3: Film/Octopussy
A fun film that probably should've been Moore's last. It has some moments where it tries too hard for a joke, but for the most part its heart is in the right place.
A welcome return to more grounded spy heroics. Moore proves here that he has more range as Bond than many give him credit for.
The perfect distillation of the Bond formula. My personal favorite of the entire franchise.
That wraps up my look at the Roger Moore era. Next time we'll combine the Dalton and Brosnan runs and see how they shake out. See you there!
Film 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!
Film Series Ranking
Alright everyone, let's do this one last time. From Worst to Best:
25: The Man with the Golden Gun
24: Diamonds Are Forever
23: Die Another Day
22: Thunderball
21: Quantum of Solace
20: Moonraker
19: A View to a Kill
18: The World Is Not Enough
17: Skyfall
16: GoldenEye
15: No Time to Die
14: Dr. No
13: Live and Let Die
12: From Russia with Love
11: The Living Daylights
10: Spectre
9: Tomorrow Never Dies
8: Octopussy
7: Licence to Kill
6: For Your Eyes Only
5: You Only Live Twice
4: On Her Majesty's Secret Service
3: Goldfinger
2: CasinoRoyale
1: The Spy Who Loved Me
So in compiling this list I was pleasantly surprised to find that all 6 Bonds are represented at some point in my top 10. I didn't plan for that, it just happened to shake out that way. Anyway, there's the final list. How many Bond fan heresies can you spot? ;-P