Big Mi6 James Bond film ranking game - A few stats!

1356724

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,109
    Dwayne wrote: »
    To reiterate @DarthDimi's disappointment that CR'67 was ruled out, while totally bonkers it is not without its charms.

    In addition to future Bond “girls” like Caroline Munro and Angela Scoular and a Dr. No’s own Ursula Andress, we have:

    Barbara Bouchet
    6e22abcd16415315fb5db0c3aa66ae18.jpg
    Daliah Lavi
    daliah_lavi_11-h_2017.jpg?w=1296
    Jacqueline Bisset
    9fe939202e14c7dd1993cbed4fe62c09.jpg
    and Joanna Pettet :x
    177e16aae7f44b049db00c8e9c13eba2_xl.jpg
    … not to mention a great score by Burt Bacharach.
    Oh, well.
    :))

    Accidentally returning to @Dwayne's post during work, made me blush.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,071
    I can relate, CR67 is a top-notch film on that account.

    As for this list, I haven't come around counting yet. It's been quite busy, I think I'll be able to get to it when I have some time off soon. If anyone still wants to participate, feel free to pm your list to me. I will post here whenever I have started counting it.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited July 26 Posts: 7,071
    Okay chaps, Tuesday I will start counting all your rankings. Thanks for your patience :)

    Should anyone have missed this and want to partecipate, please pm me your current EON only Bond film ranking before Monday 0.00 CET.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,071
    Okay chaps, I'm now halfway the count. I expect that I'll be able to reveal our bottom finish the day after tomorrow.

    In the meantime, as you all know the non-EON Bond adaptions were not considered for this game. Should you want to discuss them, now would be a good time.

    NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (1983)
    Directed by Irvin Kershner

    s-l1600.jpg

    CASINO ROYALE (1967)
    Directed by John Huston, Kenneth Hughes, Val Guest, Robert Parrish, Joseph McGrath

    casino-royale-67-2022-fan-casting-poster-259321-large.jpg?1668553986

    CASINO ROYALE (1954)
    Directed by William H. Brown

    crtv.png
  • Posts: 3,913
    Not sure how I’d rate these against each other. Likely CR ‘54 at the bottom (only seen it once many years ago, and even then I may well have not even finished it. I like old Twilight Zone and Hitchcock Presents episodes but this is a little dated by comparison).

    CR ‘67 is utter madness, but I feel there’s little hints of genius in there. NSNA has its moments I guess but it’s just not a very exciting film to watch.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,109
    I'd put the '54 CR play at the bottom as well. Despite a few interesting elements--Lorre being one of them--it's just not something I feel compelled to go back to often.

    NSNA comes next. While not a terrible film in total, there are things going on in it that I severely dislike. I also consider the film squandered mostly potential.

    CR67 is the silly result of an out-of-control production, mainly caused by my guy Peter Sellers acting up all the time. It's a circus, a wild collection of incompatible vignettes thrown in a pot, blended, and served up for dinner. BUT, despite the utter madness that is this film, it somehow works in a time when Dean Martin broke the fourth wall as Matt Helm and James Coburn was fighting evil mothers in space as Derek Flint. The power of CR67 resides with its delicious cast, including tons of gorgeous ladies and more big Hollywood cameos than any other film, as well as its fantastic sets and juicy Bacharach score. I've got the look of love too when I watch this film simply because I fell in love with it ages ago when I stopped treating it as a Bond film and started thinking of it as just one of the other perfectly innocent '60s spoofs. Crazy though it is, I find the film quite entertaining as a drug-induced fever dream that should have been the movie Blake Edwards made immediately before or after he did The Party.
  • edited August 1 Posts: 7,304
    I was greatly disappointed with NSNA, when I saw it Christmas '83, coming after the highly entertaining OP, which just seemed to have higher production values and better action. But its grown on me a lot over the years and it's more watchable than some of the official entries, mainly for its cast!
    CR '67 is indeed a mess, can't remember when I first saw it, but it's an enjoyable mess, a wild cast list and great music ( I probably listen to the soundtrack more than watch the film!)
    My upgrading of my CR'67 to bluray has given me the bonus of CR' 54! I had only seen it once, and didn't remember much of it, but surprisingly it is very enjoyable as a curio, and it's short and sweet!
    Now that I have it on tape, it will be a regular watch! Of the 3, I would have to pick NSNA, as it's the one that's closest to a proper Bond movie!!
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited August 23 Posts: 7,071
    All three are very different beasts, with NSNA being the only one I can rank amongst the rest, CR54 is a live tv show and CR67 is indeed more a zany 60's comedy than a proper Bond film.

    CR54: I can be short here. An American as Bond is like a pizza with pineapple or a carbonara with cream, so I'll skip. One thing that does work though is the great Peter Lorre as Le Chiffre.

    CR67: as @DarthDimi pointed out, it works rather well as long as you don't look at it as a Bond film. And as such, I have come to like this one quite a bit. The music, the sets, the craziness. Moreover I am a big David Niven and Barbara Bouchet fan.

    NSNA: I was never a hater and that hasn't changed. Not quite a match for either TB or OP, but I certainly take it over my bottom 3 or 4 EON's. I like Brandauer and Carrera, and I consider Bernie Casey my favourite Felix of them all.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,894
    CR54: I dig it for the most part. It's fun to see such an early adaptation of CR, and as a TV production performed live? Quite impressive, all things considered. As mentioned, Lorre as any Bond villain (but especially Le Chiffre) makes it worth a viewing every couple of years for me.

    CR67: Enjoying it purely as a dazzling, colorful comedy, it's much easier to swallow and enjoy. As a Bond film though? Not so much. It works better with its parody style and juggling of huge stars, but it gets so outrageous and nonsensical at times that I can clearly tell why it's not for everyone.

    NSNA: Here's where I commit one of the bigger Bond sins out there when I say I genuinely enjoy this one more and have a lot more fun watching it than I do TB. Sure, the title song is abysmal, it's a little heavy on the comedy, and Basinger isn't among the best Bond girls, but Connery looks to be having a load of fun, it's hilarious, the action is constantly exciting, it has arguably my favorite portrayal of Felix Leiter in the series, and Klaus Maria Brandauer is honestly one of the better scenery-chewing villains in the entire franchise. I have a soft spot in my heart for this one and always will.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 1 Posts: 3,785
    CR '67: Clearly the least Bondian of the lot, given the all star cast being gathered all together in one mess of a script, it's a straight up parody, it's not even funny, it tried to be funny, but it's not, I could laugh at Austin Powers and Johnny English, but not this, but the comedic aspects in this film were too much or I'd say, very excessive, convoluted storyline, it's a bad comedy film for me, not even funny, and let alone enjoyable given some confusions that this film offered, some scenes were downright confusing for me, the theme song is good, but again, not Bondian enough, the only redeeming quality of that film is Peter Sellers, I think it's even obvious to his face that he's stuck being in a bad film and wanted to be taken seriously as Bond (I think he did kinda resembled Fleming's description of Bond).

    CR '54: I don't know if this one belongs in here at all, I mean, it's an episode of a TV series (Climax!) To even compete with the other two (NSNA and CR '67), but in its own quality, it's okay, I think this show made it as closer to the book as possible (like Peter Lorre being close to the book Le Chiffre than Mads' version), I liked the 50s noir setting that really captured the book's atmosphere and setting, suddenly some characters got switched up like Mathis being a woman when she's supposed to be Vesper Lynd 😅 although she got the British nationality right which is really in the book, but Jimmy Bond is American, yep, the closest thing we could see an American Bond. Linda Christian was beautiful and I think she's a good actress, but we don't understand her motivations unlike what Vesper does in the book, Barry Nelson, he's okay, I guess, but not Bond, but he's miles better than all of the Bonds who have played in CR '67 😅 (maybe except Peter Sellers).

    NSNA: The only decent Bond outing in this list, the only I'd say is a proper Bond film, it got all the Bond elements right sans the Title Sequence, and for me, it did better than what Thunderball done (Celi's Largo was not intimidating that Brandauer's Largo managed to portray, the treatment of Domino's brother instead of cloning, which for me was really silly in the original 1965 film, here in 1983, it did a better job by succumbing Domino's brother to drugs), Fatima Blush was good, although a bit overacting at times, and not as dangerous as Fiona Volpe, I think it has something to do with Barbara Carrera's acting, I think Fatima Blush on paper was meant to be menacing as Fiona Volpe but Carrera undersold the role by being OTT in her portrayal, Sean Connery's performance was for sure, much better here than he did in both YOLT and DAF, so that's a plus, good to see him energized in the Bond role again, even if it's unofficial, the theme song was bland, then so the soundtrack.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,071
    Good that you're here @SIS_HQ, I sent you a pm about this game. Turns out you ranked DAD twice and forgot to include YOLT. Could you modify that, please? :)

    We are btw almost done, if I get SIS's final ranking, I'll be able to proceed with the first reveal tomorrow morning CET.
  • Posts: 9,840
    My ranking

    1. Casino royale 54
    2. Never say never again
    3. Casino Royale 67
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,785
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Good that you're here @SIS_HQ, I sent you a pm about this game. Turns out you ranked DAD twice and forgot to include YOLT. Could you modify that, please? :)

    We are btw almost done, if I get SIS's final ranking, I'll be able to proceed with the first reveal tomorrow morning CET.

    Already sent my pm..... Thanks 😊
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,109
    @SIS_HQ
    I recall from Michael Richardson's great book "THE MAKING OF CASINO ROYALE (1967)" that Sellers wanted anything but to be taken seriously as Bond. It was he who goofed everything up, who acted like a diva and made it almost impossible for anyone to take him seriously. I love Sellers, but the author's extensive research indicates that Sellers is a big reason for CR going off the rails like it does.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,071
    Personally I think David Niven was excellent as the elderly 'anti-Bond'. Niv had that dignified quality in every role he played. Even in the chaos of CR67, he remains an elegant fellow.
  • Posts: 7,304
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Personally I think David Niven was excellent as the elderly 'anti-Bond'. Niv had that dignified quality in every role he played. Even in the chaos of CR67, he remains an elegant fellow.

    I agree, David Niven is always classy, and one of the better things of the film. I've read Michael Richardson book on the movie, and indeed, Peter Sellers was indeed a lot of trouble, for example being intimidated by Orson Welles so much that he wanted his scenes with him shot separately!
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 1 Posts: 3,785
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @SIS_HQ
    I recall from Michael Richardson's great book "THE MAKING OF CASINO ROYALE (1967)" that Sellers wanted anything but to be taken seriously as Bond. It was he who goofed everything up, who acted like a diva and made it almost impossible for anyone to take him seriously. I love Sellers, but the author's extensive research indicates that Sellers is a big reason for CR going off the rails like it does.

    That's kinda bad though, but if my memory serves, the original idea for Casino Royale as Charles K. Feldman had planned was to make it as closer to the book and have Connery play as Bond with Elizabeth Taylor in talks to play Vesper, but Connery demanded so much money that the plan didn't came to fruition, so Feldman just kinda let it go and it resulted into the mess that's the film we have now, it was written by multiple scriptwriters too if I get the fact right......from my old knowledge 😅, (and may have possibly directed by many directors too, although I'm still yet to confirm this part). So maybe long before Sellers came, the film was already made that way or maybe his attitude just added up to the shortcomings of the film that resulted in the way it is.

    I don't know, but thanks for the info 😊👍
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,109
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @SIS_HQ
    I recall from Michael Richardson's great book "THE MAKING OF CASINO ROYALE (1967)" that Sellers wanted anything but to be taken seriously as Bond. It was he who goofed everything up, who acted like a diva and made it almost impossible for anyone to take him seriously. I love Sellers, but the author's extensive research indicates that Sellers is a big reason for CR going off the rails like it does.

    That's kinda bad though, but if my memory serves, the original idea for Casino Royale as Charles K. Feldman had planned was to make it as closer to the book and have Connery play as Bond with Elizabeth Taylor in talks to play Vesper, but Connery demanded so much money that the plan didn't came to fruition, so Feldman just kinda let it go and it resulted into the mess that's the film we have now, it was written by multiple scriptwriters too if I get the fact right......from my old knowledge 😅, (and may have possibly directed by many directors too, although I'm still yet to confirm this part). So maybe long before Sellers came, the film was already made that way or maybe his attitude just added up to the shortcomings of the film that resulted in the way it is.

    I don't know, but thanks for the info 😊👍

    You're welcome. And yes, having multiple directors each contribute one or two segments to something that was supposed to neatly click together in the end, is not the best strategy, if you ask me, especially when things were changed on the spot.
    The original idea was, indeed, to make a more serious film, closer to the EONs.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited August 1 Posts: 7,071
    In the end Val Guest had to film additional scenes to try and save the end product. An unthankful task, if you ask me...

    He was offered the credit "supervising director" or something in that area, but he refused. That's why the last credit in the title sequence reads:

    "Additional sequences by Val Guest"
  • Posts: 3,913
    I genuinely think there’s a really good idea for a film hiding in CR ‘67. You’ve got David Niven’s Bond who is meant to be the ‘real’ version of the film character. If they’d run with the idea of the character being retired and wanting to make amends for his womanising/past life due to how the films depicted him, that could have been a great idea for a spoof. Niven had the comedic and acting chops to be in such a film. As it is, the film deals with too many threads after a point, the humour can be a bit hit or miss, and you have Sellers ruining his portion of the film behind the scenes.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @SIS_HQ
    I recall from Michael Richardson's great book "THE MAKING OF CASINO ROYALE (1967)" that Sellers wanted anything but to be taken seriously as Bond. It was he who goofed everything up, who acted like a diva and made it almost impossible for anyone to take him seriously. I love Sellers, but the author's extensive research indicates that Sellers is a big reason for CR going off the rails like it does.

    Yeah, Sellers was a great comedy actor, but a sorry excuse for a human being, even if he likely suffered from some sort of mental health/personality issue. This was likely around the time that his drug and alcohol use began to get worse too, and it only messed him up more into the 70s.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,071
    @SIS_HQ, sorry to bother you again, but can you please check your pm again, afraid DN also got ranked twice :)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,211
    007HallY wrote: »
    I genuinely think there’s a really good idea for a film hiding in CR ‘67.

    A serious Bond film where Bond is retired but finds himself called back to MI6, meets the new 007, we discover he's had a daughter and he travels to an island at the end to stop a madman with a deadly bioweapon who has kidnapped her, only for Bond to die at the end? Nah that'd never work.

    007HallY wrote: »
    You’ve got David Niven’s Bond who is meant to be the ‘real’ version of the film character. If they’d run with the idea of the character being retired and wanting to make amends for his womanising/past life due to how the films depicted him, that could have been a great idea for a spoof. Niven had the comedic and acting chops to be in such a film.

    Yeah that could have been fun, it's a nice idea. Just to concentrate on one idea would have been a good start.
    The odd thing is that it's a Bond spoof which doesn't really spoof the Bond films at all, except in a couple of brief places.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,071
    It's more of a spoof of the 1960's in general, I feel...
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,109
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    It's more of a spoof of the 1960's in general, I feel...

    Of course. The "Bond" part was gradually lost in favour of a broader comedic exploration of the times. That's what makes the film harmless in my opinion. It's not an attack on the EON Bond, nor attempted competition. NSNA, by contrast, was.
  • Posts: 3,913
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I genuinely think there’s a really good idea for a film hiding in CR ‘67.

    A serious Bond film where Bond is retired but finds himself called back to MI6, meets the new 007, we discover he's had a daughter and he travels to an island at the end to stop a madman with a deadly bioweapon who has kidnapped her, only for Bond to die at the end? Nah that'd never work.

    007HallY wrote: »
    You’ve got David Niven’s Bond who is meant to be the ‘real’ version of the film character. If they’d run with the idea of the character being retired and wanting to make amends for his womanising/past life due to how the films depicted him, that could have been a great idea for a spoof. Niven had the comedic and acting chops to be in such a film.

    Yeah that could have been fun, it's a nice idea. Just to concentrate on one idea would have been a good start.
    The odd thing is that it's a Bond spoof which doesn't really spoof the Bond films at all, except in a couple of brief places.

    Yes, there's definitely shades of NTTD in there! And I guess it's not really even a spoof as such in one sense, true (or at least in its best form it didn't need to be). It could have instead been an interesting Bond pastiche/meta comedy film, with a lot of broad and rather stupid humour (always good). Or as @GoldenGun and @DarthDimi said, more a parody of the 60s rather than a poke at EON simply by using the James Bond name.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,813
    mtm wrote: »

    A serious Bond film where Bond is retired but finds himself called back to MI6, meets the new 007, we discover he's had a daughter and he travels to an island at the end to stop a madman with a deadly bioweapon who has kidnapped her, only for Bond to die at the end? Nah that'd never work.
    :)) =))

    One way of looking at Casino Royale ’67 is to view it not as a direct Bond spoof, but instead to view it more as a caricature of how the public had come to view Bond by the mid-1960s. And (IMO, of course), it you view it that way, it is possible to have fun with it. Notice I didn’t say that all of the film’s jokes were funny, just that I can giggle at some of the tropes of “the swinging 1960s.”

    In any case, CR’67 makes for a nice double feature with the prior year’s “What’s Up Pussycat” – also produced by Charles K. Feldman. I could also add “After the Fox” (1966) to this list of films which work better if you view them as a kind of time capsule of the middle "mod" years of that decade.


    PS: Like CR’67, "What's Up Pussycat" it has more than its share of eye candy: Romy Schneider, Capucine, Ursula Andress and Paula Prentiss.

    @GoldenGun : How are you tabulating this? Are you using a spreadsheet or calculating it by hand.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,071
    I probably won't be able to post the first reveal today, because I'm still waiting for one member to modify their ranking :)
  • Posts: 1,223
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    It's more of a spoof of the 1960's in general, I feel...

    Of course. The "Bond" part was gradually lost in favour of a broader comedic exploration of the times. That's what makes the film harmless in my opinion. It's not an attack on the EON Bond, nor attempted competition. NSNA, by contrast, was.

    I think YOLT's box office was hurt a little by this movie but that's something we'll never know.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,109
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    It's more of a spoof of the 1960's in general, I feel...

    Of course. The "Bond" part was gradually lost in favour of a broader comedic exploration of the times. That's what makes the film harmless in my opinion. It's not an attack on the EON Bond, nor attempted competition. NSNA, by contrast, was.

    I think YOLT's box office was hurt a little by this movie but that's something we'll never know.

    Possibly. And other films too. Our Man Flint, The Silencers, ... Spy spoofs were all over the place.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,071
    Dwayne wrote: »
    @GoldenGun : How are you tabulating this? Are you using a spreadsheet or calculating it by hand.

    Sorry forgot to reply to this. So I'm putting all the numbers in an Excel spreadsheet. For example (this example I made up btw), DN has three 1st places, two 2nd places, etc. So that's three times 10 pts, two times 9 pts, etc. After adding everything up per entry, I rank the entries by total scores.

    In case of a tie, I use the following tiebreakers by order of importance:

    1: amount of 1st places
    2: amount of top 3 finishes
    3: amount of top 5 finishes
    4: amount of top 10 finishes
    5: amount of last places
    6: amount of top half finishes (top 13)
    7: amount of bottom 3 finishes
Sign In or Register to comment.