Rate the Bond films, best to worst

[Paul MacLean]

I don't think we've ever had a thread like this, have we?

Anyway, how would you rate the Bond movies from best to worst?

Here is my list (I've included the non-Eon pictures as well)...

1) On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (10/10)
2) Goldfinger (10/10)
3) Thunderball (9/10)
4) Casino Royale (Craig version) (9/10)
5) The Spy Who Loved Me (9/10)
6) Skyfall (9/10)
7) Dr. No (9/10)
8 ) Licence To Kill (8.5/10)
9) Moonraker (8/10)
10) You Only Live TwIce (8/10)
11) The World Is Not Enough (8/10)
12) Tomorrow Never Dies (8/10)
13) The Living Daylights (8/10)
14) For Your Eyes Only (8/10)
15) Octopussy (7.5/10)
16) Diamonds Are Forever (7.5/10)
17) Live and Let Die (7.5/10)
18) From Russia With Love (7/10)
10) Never Say Never Again (7/10)
20) A View To A Kill (7/10)
21) The Man With The Golden Gun (6.5/10)
22) Goldeneye (6/10)
23) Quantum of Solace (5.5/10)
24) SPECTRE (3/10)
25) Die Another Day (3/10)
26) No Time To Die (1/10)
27) Casino Royale (Niven version) (0/10)



What say you?

[Eric Paddon]

1-On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2-Goldfinger
3-Dr. No
4-Octopussy
5-From Russia With Love
6-The Spy Who Loved Me
7-Thunderball
8-Diamonds Are Forever
9-Goldeneye
10-You Only Live Twice
11-For Your Eyes Only
12-Live And Let Die
13-The Man With The Golden Gun
14-The World Is Not Enough
15-Moonraker
16-Die Another Day
17-The Living Daylights
18-A View To A Kill
19-Tomorrow Never Dies
20-Never Say Never Again
21-Licence To Kill
22-Casino Royale (Niven)

The Craig films are the bottom five (and I won't see the last one). For me the franchise ended with Brosnan.

[AndyDursin]

This is much easier to do with the Bottom 5 than the top portion.

1. Goldfinger
2. OHMSS
3. Dr. No
4. Octopussy
5. For Your Eyes Only
6. Spy Who Loved Me
7. Living Daylights
8. Live & Let Die
9. Licence to Kill
10. Thunderball
11. Casino Royale Craig
12. Moonraker
13. Diamonds Are Forever
14. Skyfall
15. From Russia With Love
16. Tomorrow Never Dies
17. You Only Live Twice
18. Goldeneye
19. Never Say Never Again
20. Die Another Day
21. A View to a Kill
22. Man With the Golden Gun
23. The World is Not Enough
24. Casino Royale 66
25. Quantum of Solace
26. SPECTRE
27. The Daniel Craig Vanity Project [aka No Time to Die]

[Monterey Jack]

Top-tier:

1.) Goldfinger
2.) From Russia With Love
3.) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
4.) Skyfall
5.) Casino Royale
6.) The Spy Who Loved Me

Rock-solid:

7.) The Living Daylights
8.) For Your Eyes Only
9.) Licence To Kill
10.) You Only Live Twice
11.) GoldenEye
12.) Thunderball
13.) Dr. No

Uneven, more fun than not:

14.) Octopussy (first 007 in a theater, aged nine)
15.) Tomorrow Never Dies
16.) Spectre
17.) Live & Let Die

Middling:

18.) Moonraker
19.) The World Is Not Enough
20.) The Man With The Golden Gun
21.) No Time To Die

Pretty damn bad:

22.) Quantum Of Solace
23.) Diamonds Are Forever
24.) A View To A Kill
25.) Die Another Day

[AndyDursin]

I hadn't thought much about THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH which I also didn't care for until I saw it high on Paul's list. It's remarkable how many of its elements -- not just the plot but locations too -- are reprised in SKYFALL, a movie I find solid but also overpraised.

I found this list on Reddit of their shared similarities which is interesting. Granted, shared plot elements in Bond movies are common -- but all the locations as well, all at the same time? It's a little eye-opening.

-Both have Bond falling from a great height in the pre title sequence, being injured, and removed from active duty until cleared by MI6.

- Both have M as an advanced role.

- Both have Bond's mission to protect someone.

- Both have a large proportion of the story in London.

- Both involve an old friend of MI6.

- Both have a large proportion of the story in Istanbul.

- Both the third film in the series for their respective actors.

- Both have scenes in Scotland, the only two films that do.

- Both have scenes in the MI6 headquarters that aren't Q scenes.

-In both films, MI6 moves to a temporary HQ after being attacked

- Both involve a villain being stabbed at the end.

- Both involve the end for highly respected MI6 characters, Q and Judi Dench's M respectively.

-Both movies introduce a new Q

- Both titles are derived from things of Bond's past.

[Paul MacLean]

^^ Interesting.

I just found The World is Not Enough to be one of more entertaining Bond movies, plus it has one of the best (and best-scored) teasers. Sophie Marceau's character brought an interesting twist, as it initially seemed she was to be the "Bond girl" -- but instead turned-out to be the villain.

It seems that so far we are all mostly on the same page regarding the Bond movies, except for one or two titles. I would agree with Eric that the Craig era was worst -- but in my case, not because it was terrible across the board, but because it never lived up to its initial promise. I thought Casino Royale was the most impressive Bond actor's debut since Dr. No. The problem is the Craig era degenerated into this obsession with Bond's "inner demons" -- and never resolving them. I maintain Skyfall is phenomenal film, but Quantum of Solace makes no sense unless you've just watched Casino Royale, SPECTRE was uneven in tone and unsatisfactory. No Time To Die was unspeakably bad from top to bottom.

[AndyDursin]

Unfortunately that descent in terms of quality really denigrates Casino Royale. Because the Craig films are all connected it's impossible to accept one without knowing where the material goes, and where it goes is the bottom of the proverbial barrel over Spectre and No Time To Die. You can't watch Casino Royale now without being aware of how strenuously unsatisfying his arc is.

[Monterey Jack]

Because the Craig films are all connected it's impossible to accept one without knowing where the material goes, and where it goes is the bottom of the proverbial barrel over Spectre and No Time To Die.

This has always been the Achilles Heel of modern franchise filmmaking...everything is so tightly connected that, if one sequel fails, it's like an anchor dragging down even the good films that preceded it. Back in the day, you'd roll out for the latest 007, Indiana Jones or Dirty Harry movie, and it literally did not matter if you had seen the previous movie, or two, or five. Each one offered up a completely self-contained adventure, and if it sucked...hey, maybe the next one would be better. Now the incessant serialization of franchises means if you pull out the wrong Jenga block, the entire tower comes crashing down. I mean, look at Alien 3. That movie sucked HARD, and was a crashing disappointment compared to its two predecessors, and yet James Cameron's Aliens offered up such a resoundingly satisfying and self-contained finale for Ripley's character arc that it didn't matter. Alien 3 can simply be ignored, as many fans have done over the last 30 years. But, imagine if there was a "stinger" scene at the end of Aliens showing that alien egg (how did it get there?) on the Sulaco, and a Back To The Future-style "To Be Continued..." title card. Then, you would NOT be able to disconnect it from its sequel, and it would be kind of ruined. It's why I hated the second and third Pirates Of The Caribbean sequels.

[Paul MacLean]

Because the Craig films are all connected it's impossible to accept one without knowing where the material goes, and where it goes is the bottom of the proverbial barrel over Spectre and No Time To Die.

This has always been the Achilles Heel of modern franchise filmmaking...everything is so tightly connected that, if one sequel fails, it's like an anchor dragging down even the good films that preceded it. Back in the day, you'd roll out for the latest 007, Indiana Jones or Dirty Harry movie, and it literally did not matter if you had seen the previous movie, or two, or five.

For me it's easy to enjoy Casino Royale since it came first -- I can "tune-out" the sequels with no problem. And even Skyfall is a pretty independent entity (though it helps to be familiar with Bond's contentious relationship with M -- in the Brosnan films!). But the rest are just "torsos" which are meaningless if you don't know the context.

The Craig films are a lot like the original Planet of the Apes movies -- the original is terrific, and self-contained. The sequels are largely terrible -- and make no sense unless you've seen the previous movies (so I just ignore them).

[AndyDursin]

Big Caig rant incoming

All the Craig movies are overrated for me. CASINO ROYALE is certainly good, but was also hugely "influenced" by THE BOURNE IDENTITY in how Martin Campbell shot all the action scenes. It's good, but people act like it reinvented the spy genre when it was a product of its era, and was stylistically indebted to the Matt Damon films. I also got tired of the endless "look how tough Craig's Bond is!" torture scenes, which felt like a function of Craig himself. "This isn't your father's James Bond, we're edgy!" Got it. But they went on too long. SKYFALL is also certainly good but parts feel like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS had been cribbed on it. Another climax where M gets kidnapped or whatever -- that was something out of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH also.

That means 3 out of the 5 Craig movies stink -- and they absolutely do. QUANTUM OF SOLACE is barely a self-contained movie -- the thing was, what, shot during the strike so the script wasn't finished/developed properly? Either way it's a completely useless wedge between two better films. Then the cappers blow. SPECTRE is agonizingly slow and painful. NO TIME TO DIE I've said enough about.

The "worst" Bond movies from other eras at least offer SOMETHING -- a good score, actual locations of note, attractive women, whatever...what am I supposed to enjoy about SPECTRE? That craptastic song? The tedious, boring, unthematic scores written by Thomas Newman? And let's face it -- Newman did a hugely disappointing job. If that score had a generic composer's name written on it, FSM board posters would've been all over it. Instead it's like he got a free pass because of his reputation -- but his scores for the Mendes movies are bland, dull and add nothing dramatically. What theme did he write? I must have missed it. The only time his music did anything was when he orchestrally arranged the Adele song for some underscore in SKYFALL -- which, again, he didn't even write. He never even tried to have "fun" writing tracks that fit the milieu of the series. Even Hans Zimmer understood what kind of score to write, and frankly, wrote a far better and effective score that at least paid homage to classic Bond.

In fact I'm good with probably never revisiting any of the Craig films. His sour mug and pouty demeanor make him by far the most uninteresting inhabitant of the role. He makes Dalton look like a stand-up comic. And his diva like obsession with introducing his political ideology not only colors the last two films in the series, it also shows that he thought he was larger than the role. Decades of self-contained Bond films became a poorly-drawn serialized storyline wherein a reborn, feminized Bond goes out blowing himself up. Says much less about Bond than it does Daniel Craig himself. What a hero.

[AndyDursin]

This has always been the Achilles Heel of modern franchise filmmaking...everything is so tightly connected that, if one sequel fails, it's like an anchor dragging down even the good films that preceded it. Back in the day, you'd roll out for the latest 007, Indiana Jones or Dirty Harry movie, and it literally did not matter if you had seen the previous movie, or two, or five. Each one offered up a completely self-contained adventure, and if it sucked...hey, maybe the next one would be better. Now the incessant serialization of franchises means if you pull out the wrong Jenga block, the entire tower comes crashing down. I mean, look at Alien 3. That movie sucked HARD, and was a crashing disappointment compared to its two predecessors, and yet James Cameron's Aliens offered up such a resoundingly satisfying and self-contained finale for Ripley's character arc that it didn't matter. Alien 3 can simply be ignored, as many fans have done over the last 30 years. But, imagine if there was a "stinger" scene at the end of Aliens showing that alien egg (how did it get there?) on the Sulaco, and a Back To The Future-style "To Be Continued..." title card. Then, you would NOT be able to disconnect it from its sequel, and it would be kind of ruined. It's why I hated the second and third Pirates Of The Caribbean sequels.

I agree with this MJ, and the thing with ALIENS is that it IS self contained. Cameron's movie is basically in its own little universe and people have written novels and comic book continuations of THAT movie -- which is why it's so profoundly stupid Fox never went back there and kept it going, even with a good, even belated idea like Blomkamp's. Instead they allowed Walter Hill and the Brandywine people where to go with the series with ALIEN3 (bad idea) and much later Ridley Scott to dictate where to take the franchise and we saw where that went. That whole franchise is basically an exercise in how many poor decisions you can make in trying to maintain a successful film series. Maybe Disney and their relationship with Cameron (if they have one -- maybe they can't wait to be done with him) will explore that ALIENS run-off we never had on-screen.

The only thing PIRATES did right -- unlike ALIEN3 -- was making a final movie that gave those characters the proper happy ending they didn't get with part 3. Sure, the magic had faded by then, but if you stuck through the whole series, at least they tried to put a satisfying end on the story which 3 absolutely did not give viewers. (And I agree there also, those back-to-back sequels that were interconnected were an issue because while the first half was fun and very successful financially, it was degraded by 3 being such a hot, dismal mess). In that instance I do give Disney credit, because the 5th movie while being kind of tired, was basically made for the hardcore fans, to give a proper conclusion to the original characters. It wasn't even a "soft reboot" that was setting sail for another round of sequels.

On the other end, the sameness of Marvel's movies have enabled them to keep making consistent box-office performers, mostly because it's not so much "Movie X" is opening Friday, it's that it's a new MARVEL movie -- like the latest episode in a TV series. But in the history of movies previously that wasn't really a model that people had tried (I mean you had cliffhangers in saturday matinees back in the 30s and 40s, but that was a whole different, pre-TV era thing). Even when something WAS shot back to back like BACK TO THE FUTURE II & III, those movies are basically self-contained, very different stories. Yes Part II has a cliffhanger ending, but otherwise, that story and its particular, time-travel-zipping momentum is basically resolved. Part III is a western, very different than what came before it, and only goes back into time travel at the end as a means of ending the series. Structurally and even tonally, they are very different films despite the cliffhanger and simultaneous shoot (and all the same people making them obviously)...yet even with people knowing there were 6 months between the release of them, folks were SO ticked off by the end of Part II and especially the trailer for Part III tagged onto it. Made them feel like they were just watching a warm up for the next one (the trailer in hindsight was a bad idea).

I hope Bond gets back to being a standalone franchise. That's really the beauty of it, that you can drop in and out, see a big star in the villain role or a specific set of locations. I'm fine with there being some light inter-connectiveness but they did such a poor job in the Craig movies trying to dabble in serialization when the entire franchise never had before, that it would be a mistake to go back to it.

[AndyDursin]

OK I've had my coffee and I'm moving along lol

[Paul MacLean]

Andy, there are times I almost get the sense you don't like Daniel Craig.

Anyway, I'll just ad that, while cribbing from the Bourne movies can be fairly criticized, it isn't completely without precedent -- there were nods to Blaxploitation in Live and Let Die, the marital arts craze in The Man With The Golden Gun, the "Joel Silver" action flicks in Licence To Kill (right down to the Michael Kamen score). I'm not necessarily defending "The Bond Identity" -- -- but I guess I'd gotten accustomed to this type of "acknowledgement" to popular genres over the years.

I have a love-hate regard for Craig's work, because he is a demonstrably great actor -- I just wish he had been content to simply act, instead of trying to "evolve" the character over the years. The irony is that Craig's Bond in Casino Royale is very much the Bond of Fleming's books -- but Craig's "creative influence" ultimately reduced the character to something that was anything but the Bond of the books!

[AndyDursin]

No you're right, I don't much care for Craig. I don't think he's much of an actor either, and has a very limited range. He has roughly a single emotional gear and about as many expressions. I've never found him interesting really in any film. COWBOYS AND ALIENS anyone? He's a LOAD of fun in that one.

Anyway, I'll just ad that, while cribbing from the Bourne movies can be fairly criticized, it isn't completely without precedent -- there were nods to Blaxploitation in Live and Let Die, the marital arts craze in The Man With The Golden Gun, the "Joel Silver" action flicks in Licence To Kill (right down to the Michael Kamen score). I'm not necessarily defending "The Bond Identity" -- -- but I guess I'd gotten accustomed to this type of "acknowledgement" to popular genres over the years.

I understand fully and it doesn't bother me specifically. I'm just responding to many fans who think CASINO ROYALE is this trend-setting film that basically reinvented the wheel for the genre. But it's not a trend setting film at all. It's a response to a specific type of filmmaking that was in existence at the time, and owes much to it, which a fair amount of Bond fans seem unwilling to acknowledge.

[Monterey Jack]

Anyway, I'll just ad that, while cribbing from the Bourne movies can be fairly criticized, it isn't completely without precedent -- there were nods to Blaxploitation in Live and Let Die, the marital arts craze in The Man With The Golden Gun, the "Joel Silver" action flicks in Licence To Kill (right down to the Michael Kamen score). I'm not necessarily defending "The Bond Identity" -- -- but I guess I'd gotten accustomed to this type of "acknowledgement" to popular genres over the years.

Don't forget the "Star Wars Bond", Moonraker. They even threw in a CE3K touchpad chime! Also the severely early-00s xXx/Fast & The Furious Bond, Die Another Day, with its heavy reliance on crap CGI and "hip" editing tricks. The Bond films have always chased whatever's currently "in" in terms of action cinema trends. Only the Connery films really established trends that other movie franchises emulated or spoofed, by the time Moore took over, the producers basically glommed onto whatever was popular at the time, because none of the actors after Connery really possessed his raw charisma and sexual magnetism.

As for franchises in general, the strict serialization of modern sequels is what makes them impenetrable for "newbies" to fully appreciate. Imagine if you had never seen an MCU movie, but wanted to give them a shot. You would have to wade through, what, THIRTY movies by this point? Plus a half-dozen D+ TV shows? Even watching one a day, that's a MONTH's worth of viewing! And you can't even just pick one hero and only watch their movies, because you'd be lost by the second films when they started referencing major, world-changing events that happened in-between movies. You have to be "all-in" to understand the full breadth of the storytelling. It's the reason I never read superhero comics as a kid, because, even by the early 80s, a Marvel book like, say, Iron Man, was already up to issue #200 or whatever, and that's not including "annuals", crossovers and cameos appearances. And this was long before Wikipedia, where you could at least get the gist of what you missed. Imagine some 80s kid trying to get the complete. 200-issue run of something like Thor or Spider-Man, all on their pittance of a weekly allowance. On the other hand, you could roll into a matinee of Indiana Jones & The Temple Of Doom even if you hadn't seen Raiders, and it would not matter a lick, as it was a completely self-contained adventure with an all-new cast and location. Yeah, a handful of in-jokes might fly over your head, but it wouldn't matter, because you wouldn't be taken out of the movie by them.