James Bond has been around more than 50 years, and as yet, shows no signs of quitting, which I think is great. Its past has, however, been somewhat checkered over the years. For all of the entries that are legitimately good, there are at least two others that might make a person cringe upon watching. I tend to be pretty lenient when it comes to Bond films, and enjoy watching most of them fairly often, perhaps even more frequently than I watch Star Trek, but that will be our little secret. I figured since it’s been a little while since I did a list, that I’d go ahead and kick off the summer with one, and list off what I believe to be the sterling entries in the Bond franchise.This was a pretty arduous undertaking as there are, to date, 24 films in the Bond franchise, just counting the official entries. Hence, in order to whittle things down a bit, I came up with some specific criteria that I looked for that made these particular choices stand out above the rest. Those criteria included minimized use of cheese, having a good villain that has a somewhat believable plan and isn’t a Mary Sue, use of a legitimate theme in the film, and attempts at giving Bond more depth as a character. I also made a genuine attempt to cover the majority of the Bond eras as I feel that each portrayal by each different actor lends at least a little something to the richness of the universe. Will your list differ? Most definitely! Will you agree? I hope not! But, to minimize confusion somewhat, I recommend that you take a look at my film identity article so that at least we can be close to the same page when it comes to criteria.With all that in mind, let’s take a look at my top 5 Bond films! In no particular order, by the way....
#5: From Russia With Love:
I feel like this film would be at home on any “Best of Bond” list. I say this because I really feel like this is the film where Bond really hit its stride as a franchise. Not to knock Dr. No, which is a great film in its own right, but the elements that we typically associate with Bond films really started to come together in this entry. There’s a hauntingly beautiful theme song in the form of the eponymous track sung by Matt Monro. In fact, the track lends itself to the rest of the score, which only heightens the experience, and set a definite trend for Bond films incorporating their opening credits song into the score. The pre-credits sequence was really well used in this film on account of its bait-and-switch tactics. Portraying a SPECTRE agent hunting down and killing a Bond lookalike was a nice touch, although once you know, if you go back and look at the makeup used on Connery for the sequence, they did try to subtly make him look like he was wearing a mask the entire time. That’s a nice touch. I also applaud the decision to show Morzeny playing chess at the beginning as he takes a potential loss and turns it into a victory. This sets the tone for him as a brilliant tactician, and they didn’t have to spell it out verbally, but it also establishes the metaphorical chess match that SPECTRE and Bond were about to undertake. This film also uses the “West vs. Soviet” scheme that would later get played out again in so many other films. Was this original even for the time? Maybe not, but it set the stage for a tried and true Bond formula. Interestingly, this film is definitely paced more like a suspense movie than an action film. In a lot of the later Bond films, the tendency toward action became more of a driving force, but in this film, and in the bulk of my subsequent entries, time is taken for the viewer to watch the scheme unfold alongside Bond. Now it wouldn’t be Critical Mass unless I found some fault with the film and in this case, I’m going with the score. There are definitely original cues that were written for the film, but it seems like a lot of cues were reused from Dr. No, perhaps as a cost cutting measure. At any rate, at times, the score seems extremely disproportionate to the action that’s being portrayed. Nonetheless, this is a great entry in the franchise and a fantastic place to start if you’re unfamiliar with Bond.
#4: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service:
I realize that this might be a fairly controversial entry for some. I just want to preface all the rage hate with this: Sean Connery himself said that this was the type of film he wanted to make for the Bond franchise, and it’s the most faithful adaptation of a Bond novel to film ever done to date. Now, what’s so special about this film? It sticks with the tongue and cheek that had begun to take hold in the franchise from previous films, but does it in a George Lazenby way instead of a Sean Connery way. That’s important to note as it would have been really easy for the writers, the staff, and Lazenby to just copy what Connery had done beat for beat. This film started to incorporate elements that would eventually become standard fare in Bond films; things like slow motion, and use of synthesizers in the score. Blofeld’s diabolical plan is more complex in this film, but still believable. Using biological weapons to decimate the world food supply is more plausible today than it was in the 60s. Now let’s really look at the elephant in the room for a moment. This is George Lazenby’s only Bond movie. Some attribute that to poor performance from Lazenby himself. Others claim is was bad box office sales. The real reason can’t be attributed to any one thing, but yes, it did perform slightly less well than previous films, failing to break $100M by a mere $13M. That mostly boils down to bad marketing. The other reason Lazenby never came back was simply because his lifestyle while he was playing Bond became very self-destructive. He was contracted for seven years as Bond and chose not to return. All that said, he killed it as Bond. He brought a sensitivity to the role that Connery just couldn’t match. There was motivation behind his love interest beyond sex. It was money to start with, but the chemistry between the two leads is such that when Bond legitimately starts falling in love, it feels organic. And he kills the final scene! Sitting in his Aston Martin on his wedding day, lamenting the murder of his new bride that just took place, the emotional impact is huge and I’m not sure that Connery could have pulled it off. There are a few flaws, for instance, some of the edits are choppy jump edits that are really noticeable, but in all, it’s a well made film.
#3: License to Kill:
Okay, so if the last entry was fairly controversial, then some folks may want to crucify me after this one. To be fair, I really grappled with this one. I looked at several aggregate websites while compiling this list and there are definitely other, higher rated films in the franchise. But, I really wanted to cover as many Bonds as I could, and my runner up, The Spy Who Loved Me is basically one of those many rehashes of the plot of Russia so I’m sticking to my guns. Go blow up the comments section. If this was such a struggle, then why did I go with it? Well, primarily, and the biggest reason is that it gave us a short lived glimpse of what Bond could be. It took a very realistic (for Bond), and a more gritty approach to the character. It’s an approach that we wouldn’t see again until Daniel Craig took the reigns. Say what you will about Craig’s Bond, but it certainly fits the two previous descriptions. Another strength of the film is that it didn’t completely drop the Roger Moore cheesiness altogether. I know I said that minimal use of cheese was a criteria, and that aspect was dialed way back for this movie, but it’s still there. That has a lot to do with how Timothy Dalton came to play Bond in the first place. Moore was slated to do The Living Daylights, but felt he had gotten too old. The script was done, but no Bond. So Dalton was tapped, again (he had been approached as far back as 1969 to play Bond), and took the role with the script as is. Hence, Daylights is a Roger Moore Bond film with Tim Dalton in the lead. But, License was all Dalton and it shows a great deal of wisdom on his part to leave the levity intact even though he clearly wanted to take a much different approach to the character. Now, the flaws are pretty glaring in this one. For example, some of the performances for the supporting cast can be pretty cheesy at times. Also, this film took the list of standard 80s action movie tropes and just went straight down the list. It was pretty much a pro-war-on-drugs PSA, but from those flaws come a number of strengths. This movie was released during the winding down of the cold war. Russia, for all intents and purposes, was no longer a threat, to say anything about still being an enemy. The decision to explore the war on drugs was socially relevant at the time. That decision also make the main protagonist, Sanchez, a slightly better villain. His huge scheme is simply to flood the world markets with cocaine. Pretty straight forward if you ask me. I also really appreciate that at some point, Bond drops a tube of C4 and no one makes a big deal about it. There’s no panic, and there shouldn’t be. Go research that yourself, but that’s a huge pet peeve of mine.
#2: GoldenEye:
This film came about at a really interesting time for film. Computer graphics were starting to become a more feasible tool for filmmakers, the Soviet Union had actually collapsed, and the Internet was starting catch on as a thing. Appropriately, this film asks the thematic question, “Does the world still need James Bond?” It’s a theme that unfortunately would be rehashed again, badly, in Skyfall, but I get ahead of myself. Beyond the relevance of Bond, this film banks heavily on the themes of betrayal and deceit, and I give it kudos for even using a theme at all beyond vengeance. The film manages to take some potential weaknesses and turn them into strengths. Remember what I said about CGI? Well, the film really makes decent use, for the time, of this tool in order to deliver bigger stunts. For better or worse, this would become a hallmark of Pierce Brosnan Bond movies. It also takes advantage of the burgeoning Internet and uses that as a primary tool for the villain and his cronies to do their thing. You could say it was one of the first uses of legitimate cyber terrorism as a plot device. The tone does manage to remain somewhat dark in this film, most likely because those involved didn’t want to totally upend the feel of the franchise coming off of the previous film. I really appreciated that the main villain, Trevelyan, had believable motives. His axe was perhaps a little dated, but revenge on behalf of one’s parents is usually a passable motive for villainous activities. I also appreciate that in keeping with the primary theme of obsolescence, the movie took a lot of opportunities to point out Bond’s archaic methods and the extent of his inadequacies. It really highlighted the need for Bond to adapt to a drastically changing world of espionage. There were a few flaws that need pointing out, but they are few. The biggest flaw I noticed is that certain performances were just a little too over-the-top, namely Xenia Onatopp. I felt like Famke Janssen took the whole sadist shtick just a little too far and it made her scenes uneven to the tone of the rest of the film. On the flip side of that coin, however, Dame Judi Dench really nailed her role as M. She brought a ferocity and command of respect that was unheard of at the time and I really enjoyed her performance. Say what you will about Brosnan’s subsequent outings in the franchise, this movie really revitalized the property on the whole and is a pivotal reason that we’re still getting Bond movies today.
#1: Casino Royale:
Was there really any question that this movie would end up on this list? As with Russia it’s right at home here. In fact, according to most aggregate sites, it’s the highest rated Bond film of all time, and it really deserves the honor. This film was yet another attempt to reboot the James Bond franchise. After three dismally over-the-top Brosnan films, the world had seen enough, and it was time for James Bond to pursue another track. The decision to take Bond back to his roots was a brilliant one. To say that I love this movie would just be a colossal understatement, but I’ll try not to geek out too much. There were a lot of interesting ideas that made it into this film and really helped to set the tone for new Bond. For example, the use of black and white at the beginning of the film really lends great contrast that helps to establish that the old was being made new again. And during that sequence, the flashback scenes to Bond’s first kill are excessively grainy. It’s a small touch, but it really helps to set those sequences apart from the main sequence and pushes the grit of the situation that much further offering more impact. For that matter, even the opening credits try to convey that the viewer is getting something new and special from this film. They’re simple and they allude to the main premise of the film for those who have read the novel, or at least know the story, not to mention, they tie into the overall story quite nicely. Overall, the story is a fine blend of action, suspense, intrigue, romance, and humor. True, it was kind of light on the humor, but the producers were trying to set Bond up in a more real world sandbox, for better or worse. I can appreciate that there were undertones of a larger machine at work in the background of this film. It has the effect of giving the viewer just enough to satiate their curiosities about the situation at hand, but it teases just enough that we all know that Bond is going to have to come back in another film in order to figure out the bigger conspiracy, and it does so beautifully. Along that line, it’s great to see a villain that’s down-to-earth and who makes mistakes along the way. I also love that there were so many locales used in this film, and they were gorgeous! Every establishing shot used is a breathtaking vista that opens up Bond’s world and helps the viewer feel like they’re right there. The pacing hearkens back to some of these older films. It doesn’t play like an action film so much as it does a spy movie. Once again, the story takes its time in developing organically and taking the viewer on a trip, giving us an experience as it were, as opposed to simply trying to download the information into our brains in the most mindless and flashy way. The whole movie wears this polish and confidence that really comes through in the finished product. That’s in stark contrast to Daniel Craig’s Bond, which is a blunt object at this point. The decision to make Bond a rookie was a really effective one as it allows the audience to watch him grow into the Bond that we’re more familiar with. I think the biggest win for this particular film is that I could totally see a younger Sean Connery in the role. The whole movie felt like a Connery Bond film as we could expect to see it aided by the technology of today. Having put a critical eye to this movie, I can start to understand why Daniel Craig has gotten tired of participating in the franchise. All of his films have definitely been downhill from this one. To be fair though, this movie really did set a high benchmark.
Well, that about does it. Is this list authoritative? Not in the least bit, but in this guy’s opinion, the films on this list set certain benchmarks that helped to shape the overall Bond franchise along the way. They also played a hand in developing Bond as a character. They gave us all a taste of what a Bond movie can be when all of the elements are blended perfectly. I don’t expect to get movies like these every time that a new Bond movie is released, but these leave me rabidly curious whenever a new one is announced as to what they’re going to do next. Because of the entries on this list, I will continue to give my money freely to the James Bond franchise because, to me, these films demonstrate that when Bond is done right, it’s an experience more than it is just a film., Drop by next week where we’ll take a look at a former tentpole genre of the summer blockbuster repertoire!
No comments:
Post a Comment