It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Not that the other two are necessarily bad. My main gripes are (since 2008) the hectic editing of QOS and (since 2015) the stupid Bloberhauser foster-brother jealousy concept in SP. Yes, it is still there in NTTD, but they had to unravel that mess somehow before sending the Craig Bond off. I still prefer both over most other Bond films over the ages. Just not over the three mentioned above, and not because of their rewatchability.
Mind you that CR, SF and NTTD (sorted alphabetically here) are joined in my top group of JB movies only by FRWL (still my No. 1) and GF (the most iconic Bond film ever). Eat your hearts out, Rog and Tim and Pierce. Oh, yes, there was also George.
Why is FRWL your number one and GF the most iconic?
I agree on GF. I'll never forget being in a darkened cinema and hearing those horns for GF. I know many think GF is overpraised, but it's not. And I do love FRWL.
I believe I have reached the point that I will no longer rank the films. FRWL, GF, OHMSS, and CR are simply the best and each is my number one when I watch them.
As to the question. CR. I've lost count how many times I've seen it. For me great films are those you can keep coming back to whether you find something new or not.
QOS was not from the novel, so I appreciated it more... perfect coda IMO, though not a perfect stand alone film.
SF was kill-M-simplistic crap- I have a hard time believing it's considered a better film than even QOS. But yeah, it's beautiful to look at....
SP was DAF level stupid, but just as fun.
NTTD I have NTTWatch.
That’s Craig-Bond’s sweet spot in my opinion.
Least is definitely SF (just never clicked with me!) and NTTD ( Though recent viewing was great, so can see me watching it a lot more than SF!)
SP in the middle, still enjoy it, but Craigs first two are unbeatable!
Rewatchable is very inportent. Casino Royale was last DVD i bought in 2021. I have Casino Royale two weaks before it leaves cinema, possible one of the members here who watch it in 2007.
Daniel Craig era is creatieve era but very taff too for Bondfans. The line of rewatching it fast is broken by lack of extra's but also lack of excitement/joy that Brosnan era brings. My top 3 are Brosnan era, QOS comes not higher then 14. SF is last. SP based on my mood sharing with DAD, what i don't like i thanks to SF.
I love Casino, it's my favourite Bond film so its an easy rewatch for me. I'd watch all Craig Bond's (aside from NTTD) before I'd watch a Sir Roger Bond to be honest.
Very out of character for me.
But @mtm made some very interesting observations about Moore that started to give me pause. The biggest one being that he may’ve been the best Bond to undertake OHMSS (something I didn’t imagine before (Connery and Craig are my favourite Bonds)).
Revisiting the Moore films has been very enjoyable, and I think mtm has won me over in thinking that theoretically, Moore would have been a great choice for OHMSS!
But all this is an aside.
In the past two years or so, NTTD is my most watched Craig-Bond film, then SF, CR…. QoS and finally…. Spectre.
The book engaged me more than watching the film.
I can read the book many times, but I can watch the film depends on my mood.
Don't get me wrong, the film is great, but the book is a lot more engaging where it really lets you to get inside and feel the pureness of it, not by aesthetics.
It's like I felt that I'm at home while reading the book, I felt comfortable, than watching the film, where my emotions and even my mind somehow got all mixed up.
The film is great, but the book caught my heart more.
Roger Moore is fine for me too, but I don't liked anyone for OHMSS, leave that film as it is.
And if Roger Moore was available in 1969, there would be no OHMSS, the original plan at the time was to hire Moore and do The Man With The Golden set in Cambodia.
After that it's CR simply because it has the rewatch factor for others (the number of times I've been round someone's flat or whatever and suggested they watch it is quite high). QOS probably after that. Then it's NTTD followed by SP.
Yes, out of all Craig's Bond films, Skyfall is also the film in his era I liked the most.
It got the action, drama, and great filmmaking all right, and in balance.
I think younger viewers gravitate towards it more than the older ones, especially amongst Bond fans. Honestly, I prefer it to CR and find something new/different in it each time, so it's the type of film I'd prefer to sit down and watch alone (compared to when I'm with others and want to put something on to pass the time as I mentioned).
It's one of those Bond films I think going forward the series will try to emulate the success of. Heck, even in the later Craig films I get this sense in stuff like Safin's revenge motive which isn't dissimilar to Silva's, or indeed the general fatalistic themes etc.
It's weird isn't it? I found me and the Mrs being pulled towards the Pierce era during Christmas. He's not my favourite Bond, but he was my era growing up. It was very nostalgic rewatching them
@mtm has definitely made me think twice about Moore's era. I'm still not a fan of lighthearted Bond, but I do think Sir Rog would have worked in OHMSS
I almost never watch SP in it's entirety.
Will you please stop this! :-w
@SIS_HQ ... It's just an opinion.
OHMSS is top tier Bond. But the weak link, although he gave it a genuine go, was Lazenby.
It's a great "what if?..." Conversation.
What if Lazenby wasn't cast as Bond? Which other Bond actor could have done a good job?
I always assumed Connery.
But @mtm and his suggestion that Moore's approach to the character might have worked best, really stopped me in my tracks. It was something I considered while watching Moore's films again-- especially his first two... And not only do I not discredit the suggestion, I have to agree with it, lol!
Of course with Connery, it wouldn't have worked given that his possible (most realistically situation) would be partner was Brigitte Bardot, that wouldn't have worked, and considering the early drafts were of Blofeld being Goldfinger's brother, and the one scene with saving Tracy using an Aston Martin turning Submarine, so a no for me 😅.
The thing is, the Producers would not likely to give a damn because they would likely to rely on Connery carrying the film, so they wouldn't likely to put an effort into it, possibly we would get another YOLT treatment.
There's a possibility that Lewis Gilbert would continue directing Bond in 1969.
With Moore, I'm interested in what would be The Man With The Golden Gun set in 1969 Cambodia would have looked like?
It's said that they're planning to cast him, but those obligations with The Saint kept him from doing it.
Now, imagine if Moore was freed from his The Saint contracts, and agreed to play Bond in 1969, that means, we would likely to get TMWTGG as early as in 1969, as the Producers originally planned.
Who would have played Mary Goodnight? Would it be Diana Rigg? Jacqueline Bisset? Who?
Who would have played Scaramanga?
When would OHMSS get possibly filmed?
If OHMSS would be filmed in the 70's, there's a possibility that it would deviate from the source material, given the director would likely to be different too (whether it's still Moore playing the role or not).
@SIS_HQ It's just my opinion
OHMSS is a great film, my favourite Blofeld, gorgeous cinematography, one of my favourite Bond girls and a wonderful score, but truthfully I can't stand Lazenby's performance. It's one of the only things I'd change about the film.
It'd have been like casting Cavill in CR rather than Craig
As for lighthearted Bond, I just don't gel with it. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for enjoying it (more power to you) but it's not for me. If I want to watch a funny film, I'll stick a comedy on, rather than sticking on a camp Bond film. That's just my thoughts
Yes, I know it's your opinion.
I'm just talking about the consequences (the possibilities) that would likely to happen if Moore was cast back in 1969.
Or how the film would have changed with Connery in the role.
There's a possibility that OHMSS would stay the same as it is, if they had cast a different actor after the Production set up had completed, I mean look at those other men in the lineup with Lazenby, there's Hans De Vries, or John Richardson for example, then possibly.
The same for Brosnan being in The Living Daylights, which for me sounds interesting given the tone and style of that film, but there would be also some changes.
If Cavill replaced Craig in CR, nothing would have changed, the plan was already set in Barbara's mind, there's no uncertainty.
So if Cavill played Bond in Casino Royale, it would still be the same as what we've got, just different actor.
It’s just a “what if?….” … we are not really changing history, we are just imagining a similar story with Connery in the role… or Moore… or whomever.
It’s really just a game.
Is it me or Quantum of Solace plot felt like another rehashed of Goldfinger?
I mean Goldfinger's plot had been recycled many times, in A View To A Kill and in The World Is Not Enough, but I always felt that Quantum of Solace somehow used that plot structure again:
Monopolizing the water in Bolivia?
I see what you mean. I guess you have a point. But the rest of the film is very different, don't you agree?