Best/Worst James Bond Movie

Sorry, but it's like people who claim to be Man United fans but have never been to Old Trafford to watch a match.

James Bond was Ian Fleming daydreaming in the third person. So to fully appreciate Bond one really neeRAB to read Fleming.

Listen, if you like the movies without reading the books, that's fine. But, believe me, you're missing out on a hell of a lot if you don't read the books (not the John Gardner continuation abominations, though...)
 
This is actually another myth. OHMSS made headlines in its first week because of the good box office returns it was making. But it was longer than any other Bond film which limited the number of times it could be shown in any one day and this had an inevitable cummulative knock-on effect at the box office. OHMSS cost approximately $7 million to make. It made
 
Although OHMSS is the best Bond by far I wouldnt say it has EVERYTHING required.

Lazenby could have been better but all the other ingredients come together so perfectly his lacklustre performance gets ignored - and he is superb in the action/fight sequences
 
Best

The Spy Who Loved Me
Live and Let Die
You Only Live Twice
Goldfinger


Yet to see, but never get into, not sure if they qualify as worst

Thunderbolt
From Russia with Love


Best Bond
1. Roger Moore - The coolest of the lot with best cars, foes and girls.
2. Sean Connery
3. George Lazenby
4. Pierce Brosnan
5. Timothy Dalton
 
Firstly, please go back and read my post. At no point did I refer to OHMSS as a flop. My worRAB were : "...and the movie, for a Bond film, performed poorly."

I think this is fair considering that, in inflation adjusted box office gross, OHMSS reached a worldwide sum of $317 million. Thunderball, incidentally clocking in at just ten minutes shorter, made $807 million. Only two Bond movies have performed worse than OHMSS on a worldwide scale; A View to a Kill and Licence to Kill. When a film makes half as much as the preceeding film in the franchise (You Only Live Twice; twenty minutes shorter) it's a disappointment.

Don't let any of this put newcomers off. OHMSS is a solid Bond movie.



This is a bizarre statement. I've read Fleming and I'm sure you, like me, have come to the conclusion that the Bond in the novels shares very little in common with the Bond that we see in many of the movies. To say that you can't fully appreciate something just because you haven't experienced it in an entirely different medium represents an extreme case of snobbery.
 
It's, uh, Thunderball :) and it's not bad, a sort of warm-up to You Only Live Twice. Slightly overlong, some of the underwater sequences and the ending is a mess...but it's mainly good fun.

From Russia With Love is definitely worth a look; very different to the usual Bond formula but a very interesting plot and sticks close to the source material.
 
Best: Toss up between Goldfinger/Tomorrow Never dies. Goldfinger set the template for the films that followed. TND was topical and it was nice to see the return of the meglomaniac villian

Worst: Toss up between OHMSS and Die another Day. George Lazenby was terrible in it and as for the frilly dress shirt. The Vanishing car looked daft and there was too much reliance on CGI, the surfing skit was laughable, and as for the vanishing car :cry: enough said!
 
I'm surprised not many people rate The Living Daylights, as I think its a really taut action film. The Gibralter scenes, the car chases and especially the climactic fight from the back of the plane are all great.

Die Another Day is one of the single most depressing and cocked-up films I've ever seen. Invisible cars? Surfing tidal waves? CGI??
 
Snobbery is apposite, since we're talking about Fleming who was once famously accused of peddling sex, sadism and snobbery. And I have no compunction about admitting to being a snob myself; it usually means one has standarRAB.

Alas, in this case it's not an accolade I can claim. Nowhere have I claimed that one cannot appreciate the film Bond without reading the Fleming books. But even allowing for the fact that, as you suggest, the film character has increasingly less to do with the literary Bond, film-Bond could not have existed without Fleming's Bond. Ergo, one cannot FULLY appreciate the film character (ie his roots and history) without reading the literary incarnation.

I understand there is a subtle difference between what you accuse me of suggesting and what I actually did - a difference which some might not be able to grasp - but it is there nonetheless.
 
i agree with everything you say here, The Living Daylights is a classic, Timothy Dalton was a realistic Bond who washed our mouths off that slap-stick comedy Roger Moore injected! My only bad comment about TLD was the weaker actors who played the bad guys!!

Die Another Day was more interested in see-ing how many SFX they can do in 2 pain-steaking hours Moving away from having an actual story!!
 
While your figures are, largely accurate, I hardly think any film which made $317 million today would be considered as performing poorly. But I will agree with you that that it might be regarded as underperforming for a Bond film.

We do, however, seem to be arguing about a film we both admire, which seems to be pretty bizarre.

What is a shame is that Licence To Kill, which is probably the bravest of all the Bond films, also underperfored. And it's also curious that any Bond film released at the end of a decade - OHMSS (1969), Moonraker (1979), Licence To Kill (1989) and The World Is Not Enough (1999) have been particularly controversial amongst fans.
 
Best: I have two top favourites, Live and Let Die, and For Your Eyes Only.

Worst: Humm, I like something in every Bond movie, A View To A Kill would be a contender, but Christopher Walken is in it and it has a fabulous music score so it moves away from worst.

Can't think of one.
 
Back
Top