Most classic/essential Bond film for noob?

[Curiosity1]

I'm an alien to James Bond in general, having only seen bits and pieces of films in childhood. I want to watch one film in the genre if for no other reason to know what it's all about besides, "he has sex with lots of girls", but obviously I have no idea where to start. I'm not asking for the "best" Bond film, or a good starting point for the series. I want the most "pure" Bond experience, the one right in the middle of the pack (while preferably still good) that best conveys what the franchise is about on a good day, and gives me the best crash course without really shaking up the formula. Any ideas?

[Kristatos]

Hmmm...I think I see what you're asking, but I would say that the films that most perfectly encapsulate the Bond formula, Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me, are also among the best entries in the series. I hope that helps.

[carl stromberg]

I agree with Kristatos, but if this question was asked on the other Bond forum posters would probably suggest Casino Royale (2006).

[dirtybenny]

I agree with Kris too, I might also suggest Tunderball as well. But if you want the absolute hands down, condensed, "one shot one kill" definitive Bond I would have to say Goldfinger is it.

[Omega]

Everyone seems to love goldfinger, I guess it depends your generation, I like dalton and Brosnan era better but that where I started only catching glimpses of the other bonds in reruns, although on her majesty's secrecy service is now another favorite.

Now if you approaching it from a classic movie buff pov I'd say pick the best of each bond. It didn't used to matter which film came fist.
Dr no is the first movie but not the first book view them however you like really,

I think the living daylights and goldeneye are good entries for Dalton and Brosnan bonds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kristatos]

I agree with Kris too, I might also suggest Tunderball as well. But if you want the absolute hands down, condensed, "one shot one kill" definitive Bond I would have to say Goldfinger is it.

I didn't think of Thunderball. It is often criticised for being the first Bond film not to add anything new to the formula, but if the aim is to find the most "typical" Bond film. that might actually be a point in its favour.

If you want a more recent example, you could also make a case for Tomorrow Never Dies, arguably the most traditional of any post-Moore Bond film.

[Count_Lippe]

The Bond series is actually very uneven and only a few films can be considered classics/representative.

Dr No was a fantastic first film, but of course they hadn't quite found the formula yet, some stuff is still missing.

FRWL is out of step with the rest of the series. Although the filmmakers added a pre-credits scene, secret agent gadgetry and more action scenes, things that would become essential part of Bond films, the story in FRWL is too contrived and not spectacular enough.

GF and TB are truly representative, big budget spectacular films from the height of Bond-mania. Perhaps younger viewers might find them too old and a bit dated though?

YOLT is too outrageous and the space scenes are very dated, it's a fun film for some fans but regular viewers today will probably find it silly and odd.

OHMSS is likewise a strange bird, the story is solid but the film is not representative of the series for a number of reasons.

Most of the 70s, 80s and 90s films are not even worth mentioning, I agree Spy is a classic and a good film to watch for a noob, maybe also TND since it's more up to date for a younger viewer.

[Count_Lippe]

The Living Daylights is a well made film, but not quite representative either. It's more a good film than a good Bond film I would say.

[Count_Lippe]

It's a shame they didn't film OHMSS and YOLT in the correct order. YOLT could still have had a space race plot but it needn't have been as outrageous though.

There are too many films from the 1970s, DAF, LALD and Golden Gun are too similar and too crappy. Spy and Moonraker are also similar, but they're very well made lavish films that had a sense of continuity about them. Same with GF and TB in the 60s, they also had a sense of continuity about them.

A new actor should have come sooner taking the series in a more serious direction after Roger Moore and the 1970s, nothing wrong with Moore and the late 70s films, but there were too many so-so films in the early to mid 80s, films that were mediocre and didn't add anything new whatsoever.

Too bad Dalton didn't make at least a couple more films, in the early 90s if he hadn't come sooner than he did. Instead there was the six year gap and then Brosnan and the first reboot film which I've always found to be very overrated. TND was better but still only so-so, and after that there's been a steady decline for the last 20 years.