Poll: Rate the Bond films.

[stockslivevan]

Dr. No - 5 of 5
Classic start, sets the standard for Connery Era.

From Russia with Love - 5 of 5
The best of Connery, perfect execution by Young and Crew.

Goldfinger - 4.5 of 5
Classic and fun, although pales in comparison to Young's work.

Thunderball - 4.5 of 5
Effective Bond film, everything goes smooth.

You Only Live Twice - 2.5 of 5
Despite technical achievements, it sags because of a bored Connery and a sub-par script.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service - 5 of 5
Proves you don't need the best actor as long as everything else shines enough to remain a classic.

Diamonds Are Forever - 3.5 of 5
Despite a loose Connery and campy direction, the writing has so much charm, if only executed by a better director.

Live and Let Die - 2.5 of 5
Moore is good, but everything else seems as slow as those unnecessary slow dipping mechanisms.

The Man with the Golden Gun - 2 of 5
Despite an excellent villain, most of the film is just flat out silly and unnecessary.

The Spy who Loved Me - 3 of 5
Fun entertainment, average yet not too good.

Moonraker - 3.5 of 5
When it comes to Moore, this is my second favorite.

For Your Eyes Only - 4 of 5
Brings back the seriousness of the Connery Era but Moore lacks the acting chops for this kind of Bond. Dalton was needed.

Octopussy - 3.5 of 5
Entertaining, Moore looks comfortable and we have a few good action sequences. Still this is below good.

A View to a Kill - 1.5 of 5
Pretty bland although Christopher Walken and Grace Jones make some worthwhile screentime. Roger Moore overstayed his welcome.

The Living Daylights - 4.5 of 5
Brilliant acting and a down to earth feel that the Moore era lacked.

Licence to Kill - 4 of 5
Good revenge film, Dalton really outdoes himself here and establishes himself as a well dedicated actor.

GoldenEye - 4 of 5
Brosnan does good as a servicable Bond with a Dalton film feel that almost works and of course Xenia.

Tomorrow Never Dies - 2 of 5
The first half is good but after that it goes down the sh***er.

The World is Not Enough - 2 of 5
It tries to be more than it is but fails with so many character and plot inconsistencies with too much redundant action (helicopter buzzsaws sequence the most blatant)

Die Another Day - 1 of 5
Not only does it have the worst directing, acting, action and so on, but carries the worst script on a Bond film... EVER. At least Moore bothered to put some effort delivering bad lines unlike Brosnan.

Casino Royale - 4.5 of 5
Probably the most refreshing Bond since Dalton's debut. Craig play the role coldly but with a cool attitude reminiscent of Connery.

Using my film ratings alone, I will average out each Bond era:

Connery - 4 of 5
Moore - 2.5 of 5
Dalton - 5 of 5
Brosnan - 2 of 5

I ruled out Lazenby and Craig, otherwise they'd have the others at an unfair advantage.

[007 Roger Moore]

Dr. No - 8
From Russia With Love - 10
Goldfinger - 10
Thunderball - 7
Casino Royale (1967) - 0
You Only Live Twice - 10
On Her Majestys Secret Service - 8
Diamonds Are Forever - 10
Live And Let Die - 10
The Man With The Golden Gun - 10
The Spy Who Loved Me - 10
Moonraker - 10
For Your Eyes Only - 10
Octopussy - 10
Never Say Never Again - 6
A View To A Kill - 7,5
The Living Daylights - 7
License To Kill - 7
Goldeneye - 7,5
Tomorrow Never Dies - 6
The World Is Not Enough - 6
Die Another Day - 6
Casino Royale - 0

[Moore]

Dr. No - 6
From Russia With Love - 9
Goldfinger - 3
Thunderball - 1
You Only Live Twice - 4
On Her Majestys Secret Service - 3
Diamonds Are Forever - 4
Live And Let Die - 9
The Man With The Golden Gun - 10
The Spy Who Loved Me - 10
Moonraker - 9
For Your Eyes Only - 9,5
Octopussy - 8
Never Say Never Again - 2
A View To A Kill - 10
The Living Daylights - 6
License To Kill - 7,5
Goldeneye - 7
Tomorrow Never Dies - 8
The World Is Not Enough - 9
Die Another Day - 10
Casino Royale - 0

[Kristatos]

Ok, I've been putting this off because it will take time, but it’s the weekend, so here goes. Many of these will be repeats of comments I’ve made elsewhere. Think of it as an “edited highlights” post. I’ve only done the EON films, because I feel that comparing CR67 and even NSNA (to a lesser extent) to a “proper” Bond film is slightly unfair. These films are oddities, and it wouldn’t be comparing like with like. Apples and oranges in the case of CR67, apples and apple pies (similar but different) in the case of NSNA.

Doctor No: 3 out of 5. A good introduction to Bond, but the series hadn’t quite yet found its tone, and its production values are noticeably lower than those of other 60’s Bond films.

From Russia With Love: 5 out of 5. Connery had really grown into the role of Bond by this point. The style is more Hitchcockian than other Bond films, with a clear North by Northwest influence. Hey, if you’re going to steal, steal from the best.

Goldfinger: 5 out of 5. The film that defined the Bond style more than any other. Cool Connery, cool gadgets, cool villains, cool soundtrack and Shirley Eaton gets the most memorable death in the series’ (if not cinema’s) history.

Thunderball: 4.5 out of 5. The series was still at the height of its power, but to me, there’s a touch of sequelitis about this film. Goldfinger was such a runaway success at the box office that there’s an element of trying to replicate that success, taking the elements that made Goldfinger a hit and making them bigger and better. It obviously worked, since Thunderball is the biggest-grossing Bond film of all (adjusted for inflation), but Goldfinger seemed much more effortless to me.

You Only Live Twice: 5 out of 5. The first Bond I saw, so I’m a little more indulgent of it than most fans. Plus, as a sci-fi fan, I’m more tolerant of Lewis Gilbert’s more science-fictional take on Bond. Ken Adam outdoes himself with Blofeld’s volcano lair and John Barry provides one of his best ever scores. It’s also the last time we would see Connery in his physical prime as Bond, so it marks the end of an era.

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service: 4.5 out of 5. Had this starred Sean Connery instead of George Lazenby, it would have been a 5. As it stands, Lazenby’s uncomfortable debut performance as Bond lets the film down badly, but it’s still a welcome attempt to make a darker, more violent, more emotional Bond film without totally reinventing the series. This is how it’s done, Mr. Haggis!

Diamonds Are Forever: 2.5 out of 5. The first 70’s Bond, with all that entails. An older, greyer Connery returns, phones in his performance and collects his record paycheque. The film does contain a couple of memorably creepy villains in Mr. Wynt and Mr. Kidd, though.

Live and Let Die: 4 out of 5. Another film I’m more fond of than most fans, having seen it at a suitably impressionable age. There’s a noticeable drop in production values from previous Bonds, but Roger Moore makes a confident debut as Bond, making the role his own in a way that Lazenby never got to do.

The Man With The Golden Gun: 1.5 out of 5. Oh dear. The film where the descent into farce really began in earnest. Christopher Lee is great, as always, but the film is notable for containing the debut performance of the Bond comedy slide whistle, not a welcome addition to the cast, in my book.

The Spy Who Loved Me: 4.5 out of 5. Roger Moore’s best Bond film. Denounced as a “greatest hits” compilation by some, but a distillation of everything that made the series great to others (including me). Only the lack of a John Barry score prevents me from giving it a perfect 5.

Moonraker: 1 out of 5. OK, before all the Moore fans start deducting reputation points left, right and centre, I want to point out that my marks out of 5 are relative to other Bond films and that even the worst Bond film is better than most Hollywood action films. But this is the film where everything got out of control: the comedy, the sci-fi (this was in the wake of Star Wars, after all, but ray guns don’t really belong in a Bond film) and the gadgets.

For Your Eyes Only: 4 out of 5. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and the excesses of Moonraker caused EON to take a step back and return to Flemingesque basics. There are a couple of silly bits, and a terrible disco score, but it does show that Moore can handle a more serious Bond film nonetheless.

Octopussy: 2 out of 5. Tarzan yells. Comedy tennis matches. Roger in a clown suit. The lessons of For Your Eyes Only didn’t last long.

A View to a Kill: 2.5 out of 5. Moore was starting to show his age by this point, and everyone involved seems to be just going through the motions, including a sadly wasted Christopher Walken and Patrick Macnee. It’s a bad sign when the music video for the theme song is more fun than the actual film.

The Living Daylights: 4.5 out of 5. Another “end of an era” film: it marked the last Bond in a Cold War setting, John Barry’s final Bond score and the last PG-rated Bond film. But it was also the film that brought Timothy Dalton into the role; the most underrated Bond actor in one of the most underrated Bond films, bringing a more serious approach to the role.

Licence To Kill: 4.5 out of 5. Like The Spy Who Loved Me, this would have got a 5 if it had a Barry score. Dalton is the most ruthless Bond ever, a rogue Bond operating outside the secret service, but you’d still trust him with your life.

Goldeneye: 3 out of 5. A new Bond takes the new Bond series into a new era. Did I mention that it was new? True Lies had upped the bar for special effects and action in spy movies, and Goldeneye set the tone for the Brosnan era, ramping up the action quotient and the effects budget at the expense of other aspects of the Bond formula. It was the last film that Cubby Broccoli oversaw, (which at least meant we got Pierce Brosnan as Bond and Sean Bean as the villain, instead of the other way round) and the first time a Bond film had been directed by someone outside the Bond “family”. As well as a new Bond, we got a new M, a new Moneypenny, a new opening credits designer and a new (and thankfully short-lived) style of background music, with Eric Serra somehow managing to compose a score even worse than For Your Eyes Only’s.

Tomorrow Never Dies: 4 out of 5. Brosnan had grown into the role of Bond and this was something of a return to form after the slightly disappointing Goldeneye. Jonathan Pryce makes a wonderfully hammy villain (a thinly disguised Rupert Murdoch, with a touch of Bill Gates thrown in for good measure), and David Arnold makes a strong debut as composer. My favourite of the Brosnan Bonds.

The World is Not Enough: 3.5 out of 5. Sophie Marceau is the best thing in this film, playing a more than usually complex Bond woman.

Die Another Day: 2.5 out of 5. A real curate’s egg this. Some very Flemingesque scenes jostle with invisible cars and Madonna cameos.

Casino Royale: 2 out of 5. Could have been a 5 with a more Bondian lead actor and Purvis and Wade’s original script, but Daniel Craig is miscast and Paul Haggis creates a new character who just happens to be called James Bond, but whose approach to spying is more reminiscent of the scene in Team America: World Police where the “heroes” destroy most of Paris in their bid to catch a single terrorist. Whilst the film is an adaptation of Ian Fleming’s last unfilmed (by EON) novel, it is at its best when it is freed from the constraints of Fleming’s book and ventures into its own original territory.

[james stock]

Ok, I've been putting this off because it will take time, but it’s the weekend, so here goes. Many of these will be repeats of comments I’ve made elsewhere. Think of it as an “edited highlights” post. I’ve only done the EON films, because I feel that comparing CR67 and even NSNA (to a lesser extent) to a “proper” Bond film is slightly unfair. These films are oddities, and it wouldn’t be comparing like with like. Apples and oranges in the case of CR67, apples and apple pies (similar but different) in the case of NSNA.

Doctor No: 3 out of 5. A good introduction to Bond, but the series hadn’t quite yet found its tone, and its production values are noticeably lower than those of other 60’s Bond films.

From Russia With Love: 5 out of 5. Connery had really grown into the role of Bond by this point. The style is more Hitchcockian than other Bond films, with a clear North by Northwest influence. Hey, if you’re going to steal, steal from the best.

Goldfinger: 5 out of 5. The film that defined the Bond style more than any other. Cool Connery, cool gadgets, cool villains, cool soundtrack and Shirley Eaton gets the most memorable death in the series’ (if not cinema’s) history.

Thunderball: 4.5 out of 5. The series was still at the height of its power, but to me, there’s a touch of sequelitis about this film. Goldfinger was such a runaway success at the box office that there’s an element of trying to replicate that success, taking the elements that made Goldfinger a hit and making them bigger and better. It obviously worked, since Thunderball is the biggest-grossing Bond film of all (adjusted for inflation), but Goldfinger seemed much more effortless to me.

You Only Live Twice: 5 out of 5. The first Bond I saw, so I’m a little more indulgent of it than most fans. Plus, as a sci-fi fan, I’m more tolerant of Lewis Gilbert’s more science-fictional take on Bond. Ken Adam outdoes himself with Blofeld’s volcano lair and John Barry provides one of his best ever scores. It’s also the last time we would see Connery in his physical prime as Bond, so it marks the end of an era.

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service: 4.5 out of 5. Had this starred Sean Connery instead of George Lazenby, it would have been a 5. As it stands, Lazenby’s uncomfortable debut performance as Bond lets the film down badly, but it’s still a welcome attempt to make a darker, more violent, more emotional Bond film without totally reinventing the series. This is how it’s done, Mr. Haggis!

Diamonds Are Forever: 2.5 out of 5. The first 70’s Bond, with all that entails. An older, greyer Connery returns, phones in his performance and collects his record paycheque. The film does contain a couple of memorably creepy villains in Mr. Wynt and Mr. Kidd, though.

Live and Let Die: 4 out of 5. Another film I’m more fond of than most fans, having seen it at a suitably impressionable age. There’s a noticeable drop in production values from previous Bonds, but Roger Moore makes a confident debut as Bond, making the role his own in a way that Lazenby never got to do.

The Man With The Golden Gun: 1.5 out of 5. Oh dear. The film where the descent into farce really began in earnest. Christopher Lee is great, as always, but the film is notable for containing the debut performance of the Bond comedy slide whistle, not a welcome addition to the cast, in my book.

The Spy Who Loved Me: 4.5 out of 5. Roger Moore’s best Bond film. Denounced as a “greatest hits” compilation by some, but a distillation of everything that made the series great to others (including me). Only the lack of a John Barry score prevents me from giving it a perfect 5.

Moonraker: 1 out of 5. OK, before all the Moore fans start deducting reputation points left, right and centre, I want to point out that my marks out of 5 are relative to other Bond films and that even the worst Bond film is better than most Hollywood action films. But this is the film where everything got out of control: the comedy, the sci-fi (this was in the wake of Star Wars, after all, but ray guns don’t really belong in a Bond film) and the gadgets.

For Your Eyes Only: 4 out of 5. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and the excesses of Moonraker caused EON to take a step back and return to Flemingesque basics. There are a couple of silly bits, and a terrible disco score, but it does show that Moore can handle a more serious Bond film nonetheless.

Octopussy: 2 out of 5. Tarzan yells. Comedy tennis matches. Roger in a clown suit. The lessons of For Your Eyes Only didn’t last long.

A View to a Kill: 2.5 out of 5. Moore was starting to show his age by this point, and everyone involved seems to be just going through the motions, including a sadly wasted Christopher Walken and Patrick Macnee. It’s a bad sign when the music video for the theme song is more fun than the actual film.

The Living Daylights: 4.5 out of 5. Another “end of an era” film: it marked the last Bond in a Cold War setting, John Barry’s final Bond score and the last PG-rated Bond film. But it was also the film that brought Timothy Dalton into the role; the most underrated Bond actor in one of the most underrated Bond films, bringing a more serious approach to the role.

Licence To Kill: 4.5 out of 5. Like The Spy Who Loved Me, this would have got a 5 if it had a Barry score. Dalton is the most ruthless Bond ever, a rogue Bond operating outside the secret service, but you’d still trust him with your life.

Goldeneye: 3 out of 5. A new Bond takes the new Bond series into a new era. Did I mention that it was new? True Lies had upped the bar for special effects and action in spy movies, and Goldeneye set the tone for the Brosnan era, ramping up the action quotient and the effects budget at the expense of other aspects of the Bond formula. It was the last film that Cubby Broccoli oversaw, (which at least meant we got Pierce Brosnan as Bond and Sean Bean as the villain, instead of the other way round) and the first time a Bond film had been directed by someone outside the Bond “family”. As well as a new Bond, we got a new M, a new Moneypenny, a new opening credits designer and a new (and thankfully short-lived) style of background music, with Eric Serra somehow managing to compose a score even worse than For Your Eyes Only’s.

Tomorrow Never Dies: 4 out of 5. Brosnan had grown into the role of Bond and this was something of a return to form after the slightly disappointing Goldeneye. Jonathan Pryce makes a wonderfully hammy villain (a thinly disguised Rupert Murdoch, with a touch of Bill Gates thrown in for good measure), and David Arnold makes a strong debut as composer. My favourite of the Brosnan Bonds.

The World is Not Enough: 3.5 out of 5. Sophie Marceau is the best thing in this film, playing a more than usually complex Bond woman.

Die Another Day: 2.5 out of 5. A real curate’s egg this. Some very Flemingesque scenes jostle with invisible cars and Madonna cameos.

Casino Royale: 2 out of 5. Could have been a 5 with a more Bondian lead actor and Purvis and Wade’s original script, but Daniel Craig is miscast and Paul Haggis creates a new character who just happens to be called James Bond, but whose approach to spying is more reminiscent of the scene in Team America: World Police where the “heroes” destroy most of Paris in their bid to catch a single terrorist. Whilst the film is an adaptation of Ian Fleming’s last unfilmed (by EON) novel, it is at its best when it is freed from the constraints of Fleming’s book and ventures into its own original territory.

I think Diamonds are Forever is one of the worst Bond movies.

Connery is a plus but its far too camp and has a dissapointing conclusion

[Kristatos]

I think Diamonds are Forever is one of the worst Bond movies.

Connery is a plus but its far too camp and has a disappointing conclusion

OK, so let's see your Bond ratings.

Incidentally, I found it really hard to think of anything at all to say about TWINE, which is probably worth remarking on of itself. I didn't have that problem with any of the other films. I guess that makes TWINE the most average of all Bond films. It isn't good, it isn't bad, it's just...there. Again, I'm talking relative to other Bond films, I'd still rather watch it than most films.

[james stock]

I think Diamonds are Forever is one of the worst Bond movies.

Connery is a plus but its far too camp and has a disappointing conclusion

OK, so let's see your Bond ratings.

Incidentally, I found it really hard to think of anything at all to say about TWINE, which is probably worth remarking on of itself. I didn't have that problem with any of the other films. I guess that makes TWINE the most average of all Bond films. It isn't good, it isn't bad, it's just...there. Again, I'm talking relative to other Bond films, I'd still rather watch it than most films.

Dr No 3 out of 5 Good start, Connery is great and of course the theme.
From Russia 5 out of 5 - Good story and the terrific fight between red Grant and Bond.
Goldfinger 5 out of 5 - The best of the Connery Bonds, introduction of Q and gadget we all know and love.
Thunderball 3 out of 5- The weakest of Connery Bonds, muddled finale were you cant quite make out whos fighting who.
You only Live Twice 4 out of 5 - Great over the top Bond Film with fantastic production design
OHMSS - 5 out of 5 - Underated Bond film, Lazenby is fine in this and i think he plays the final scene brilliantly
Diamonds Are Forever 2 out of 5 - Terrible Bond Movie, camp and the weakest villian ever seen in a Bond film, some moments save it from being a total loss
Live and Let Die 5 out 5-
Moore is not less in a fine opening with terrific stunts.
Man with Golden Gun - 4 out 5 - Good Bond film with arguably the best villian in Scaramanga.
TSWLM - 5 out of 5 - Perhaps the best Bond film certainly one of Moore very best.
Moonrker 4 out of 5 - Great special effects and a winning togue in cheek approch make this film great entertainment.
FYEO - 5 out of 5 - Bond back down to earth in Roger Moore finest Bond performance.
Octopussy- 3 out of 5 - Great opening sequence, Roger is as good as ever but it seems little lacklustre.
AVTAK - 3 out of 5 - Great opening sequence and Walken giving a gloriously hammy performance.
Living Daylights - Tim Dalton is Excellent as Bond and adds a bit of brooding edge to him which indicates a bit of self loathing. 4 out of 5
Licence to Kill - 5 out of 5 - one of the strongest Bond movies with another excellent Dalton performance and chilling villian in Sanchez
Goldeneye - 5 out of 5 - Brosnan is the perfect Bond, Tough and cunning in a rollercoster of a movie
TND - 4 out of 5 - Plent of action and Brosnan is even more assured as Bond but a weak villian as fine an actor as J pryce takes it down a notch.
TND - 5 out of 5 Brosnans best Bond film, more of emotional story which hints at what a great Bond he could of been.
TWINE - 3 out of 5 - Effects laden but unevan film with another excellent Brosnan perfromance
Royale minus 5 out of 5 - This isnt Bond!!

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Dr. No - 4/5

From Russia with Love - 5 of 5

Goldfinger - 5 of 5

Thunderball - 4 of 5

You Only Live Twice - 4 of 5

On Her Majesty's Secret Service - 4 of 5
.
Diamonds Are Forever - 4/5

Live and Let Die - 4/5

The Man with the Golden Gun - 3/5

The Spy who Loved Me - 5/5

Moonraker - 5/5

For Your Eyes Only - 3/5

Octopussy - 4/5

A View to a Kill - 4/5

The Living Daylights - 4/5

Licence to Kill - 4 of 5

GoldenEye - 4 of 5

Tomorrow Never Dies - 3 of 5

The World is Not Enough - 4/5

Die Another Day - 3/5

Casino Royale - 1/ 5

[mcbride007]

I chose Licence To Kill, You Only Live Twice, Live and Let Die and Goldfinger.

[MichaelZWilliamson]

OHMSS is a problem for me.

Lazenby was a neo, and poor actor. -2

The movie was a stupid romance. -10

Lazenby wore a kilt. +20

(If you don't think a kilt is manly, pop on over to Arthur's Hall of Viking Manliness and we will mock you and educate you)

Lazenby was a serious badass brawler. +10

But, the movie as a whole really wasn't that good.

I'm going to post this same discussion in The Hall I mentioned. Is it within the rules to post a link here so interested parties can check out the POV?

I just enjoy it for itself.


Anything with Connery gets bonus points. End of discussion. I can't imagine anyone debating that. If you're considering it, don't.

Moore's acting was left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised, both eyebrows raised, offended aristocratic expression. They also gave him really lame movies, and even managed to destroy MWTGG with the "Solex agitator" and the stupid penny-whistle sound over the greatest car jump ever done. He admits himself he was too old for a believable Bond. He was much better in a related role in Ffolkes.

Dalton clearly studied the books and tried, too hard, to be cold, just coming across as stiff. But, he had good movies. Definitely a step up from Moore.

Brosnan brought a serious touch of class to the role, and was great, despite having the the most ridiculous films short of Moonraker to act in. For that alone he gets points.

I really don't have a problem with Craig. The blond hair crap is a stupid argument. The movie gadgets weren't in the book, so if the HAIR COLOR is such a huge issue, those should be killers. Besides, why are men concerned about hair color? That certainly raises questions.

My serious complaint about Casino Royale was the lengthy romantic interlude on an otherwise powerful film. That, and the flight line fuel truck chase was stupid. Once cover was blown, any professional would have aborted the mission, because obvious sabotage would be far less effective at lowering stocks. I did like the sociopathic Bond. I did like the tension between Bond and command.

But, then Quantum of Solace came along, with an idiotic PC greenie socialist message, no gadgets, horrific photography (did they hire epileptics?), no Bond flavor whatsoever, and a plot that was amusingly stupid because SOMEONE ACTUALLY DID BUY BOLIVIAN WATER RIGHTS in the 1980s. Duh. Cubby Broccoli must be spinning in his grave, and if he's in phase with Ian Fleming, we've just solved the world's power shortage. Utter, unbelievable crap.

[Kristatos]

I really don't have a problem with Craig. The blond hair crap is a stupid argument. The movie gadgets weren't in the book, so if the HAIR COLOR is such a huge issue, those should be killers. Besides, why are men concerned about hair color? That certainly raises questions.

Actually, the only people who go on about hair colour are the pro-Craigers. The blond hair thing is a silly strawman argument designed to belittle our many and varied objections to Craig as Bond by reducing them to a single, relatively trivial complaint. Blond hair would be at or near the bottom of my list of reasons why Craig isn't Bond, and I'm pretty sure most of us here feel the same way.

[bjmdds]

If hair is no big deal why not have a bald Bond then? It IS a factor. Four decades of films has established the premise that Bond should be tall(Cregg is not), suave(Cregg is not) and handsome(which of course Cregg is not), and not have hair spiked in the back with a putrid facial profile, as Cregg does have.

[MichaelZWilliamson]

I really don't have a problem with Craig. The blond hair crap is a stupid argument. The movie gadgets weren't in the book, so if the HAIR COLOR is such a huge issue, those should be killers. Besides, why are men concerned about hair color? That certainly raises questions.

Actually, the only people who go on about hair colour are the pro-Craigers. The blond hair thing is a silly strawman argument designed to belittle our many and varied objections to Craig as Bond by reducing them to a single, relatively trivial complaint. Blond hair would be at or near the bottom of my list of reasons why Craig isn't Bond, and I'm pretty sure most of us here feel the same way.

That's odd. I see hair color and looks mentioned all over this site.

For some of us, the issue is the fact that he looks so unlike any of the previous actors to play the role or any general conception of James Bond.

Craig clearly has the wrong looks to play the role of Bond.

I'm sure a blond could play James Bond, but not somebody who's so ugly and uncharismatic as Daniel Craig.

http://www.danielcraigisnotbond.com/hea ... nery3.html

I'm sorry, but Daniel Craig just doesn't have the right looks.

repeated about 47 times.

It seems to be a major issue for people.

And I say again, anyone obsessing over his looks should also be obsessing over the idiotic juvenile gadgets--that weren't in the books--and Moore's prettyboyism (and he was rather light-haired, too).

Having read the books, I thought he captured Bond's essence well. CR wasn't bad--they played the romance too long and it was a little over the top, but far less than say, anything Moore or Brosnan was in.

QoS was utterly not Bond and garbage, but that had far less to do with Craig than with the writing, directing, producing and camera work.

I personally would have preferred a Brosnan with better movies. Looks like we'll have to wait a bit longer for that.

I do think Clive Owen or Jackman could pull it off. Jackman would be better, I think. He was almost a steampunk James Bond in Van Helsing.

[Kristatos]

Yes, but "he doesn't have the right look" is not the same statement as "he has blond hair". He could have dyed his hair black or dark brown as the producers originally asked him to, but he still would look more like a surly nightclub bouncer than like Bond to me. Whereas, as you say, Moore's hair was a fairly light shade of brown, but he still had a Bond look.

[MichaelZWilliamson]

Sure, but even if Moore looked the part, he never convinced me. He was a better Bond in Ffolkes than in any Bond movie.

And I still think Craig did a decent job.

I've read most of the Bond books, and what I came away with was that Bond was a sociopathic thug, the key being he had government sanction. He was a smoker, drinker, misogynist, and a killer.

Connery dressed it up beautifully as a man who had studied every detail of being classy as a cover for the roughness. He wasn't classy, he just knew how to PRETEND to be classy--the right wine, right clothes, etc.

Brosnan lent an inherent air of class, and they wrote that into the movies and they suffered a bit--like when he hesitated before killing Renard. PUHlease. You're a sanctioned assassin, the man is a killer, point the gun and gap the @#$ and be done with it. Potentially much better than they were, but definitely watchable.

And Craig did. He also delivered the best one liner Bond EVER had, about scratching of balls.

I'm interested in seeing if 23 is any better. Obviously, if it's as bad as QoS, we'll see the trend you speak of. But I'll blame the idiotic director first.

I've re-watched CR several times. I'll never own QoS or Moonraker, or Octopussy.

CR is not as good as the brilliant camp of YOLT, or the fresh machoness of the first three. But it is watchable, and I think my standards are fairly stringent.

[MichaelZWilliamson]

And I do wish they'd managed to hang onto Lazenby another round, and gotten Brosnan when they first wanted him.

Of the names tossed around, I do want to see what Jackman can do, but he's pretty short, also.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

And I do wish they'd managed to hang onto Lazenby another round, and gotten Brosnan when they first wanted him.

Of the names tossed around, I do want to see what Jackman can do, but he's pretty short, also.

Do you think George would have been good in Diamonds Are Forever? Or would you have liked to have seen a slightly different movie for George's second outing?

[craig1234564]

Dr No 5/5 amazing film ahead of its time, opening sequence not developed like the other films yet.

From Russia with love 5/5 classic bond

Goldfinger 5/5 the best james bond film

thunderball 5/5 great again

you only live twice 5/5 really great and abit of sci fi thrown in

on her majestys secret service 2/5 what where is bond? who is this guy he is a wally!

diamonds are forever 5/5 welcome back mr bond !! we missed you!

Live and let die 5/5 wow this new guy can be a good bond too

the man with the golden gun 5/5 liked it great locations

the spy who loved me 4/5 very good abit silly in parts

moonraker 5/5 daft but i like sci fi and bond

for your eyes only 5/5 classic bond

octopussy 3/5 bond starting to look to old for this

a view to a kill 2/5 too old for bond

the living daylights 5/5 yeah a good new bond and wow a hot hot bond girl !!

licience to kill 3/5 over long and boring in parts

Goldeneye 3/5 good to have bond back this new guy loves himself abit tho

tomorrow never dies 2/5 not great but watchable

the world is not enough 3/5 smarmy bond does ok again

die another day 1/5 time to go smarmy, ripping off ursula andress scene , cheesy

casino royale 0/5 whats this , where is bond , who is this blond guy who looks like a tramp? is he gay why does he not shag the birds? whats going on?

quantum of solace ?? dont know as i refuse to watch it until the proper bond is restored with gadgets Q, M and bond girls who actually sleep with bond.

[Dr. No]

Welcome Craig!

You seemed to like the Moore era quite a bit. I was alittle surprised you rated some of them so highly, but I agree you cant beat Connery

TLD, you know I like this one better than his last, I love the intro for teh new Bond. Maryam d'Abo was a fun chocie as well.

[P.Brosnan]

Hello Bond-Fans!
I've read the posts in this forum for some time now, and i'm very glad there are still other bond-fans who didn't fall in line with: daniel craig is the best bond of all, so much like ian fleming would have wanted, so reminiscent of connery, casino royale is the best picture, blah, blah, blah... Not true at all!!!
So finally i'd like to post my all-time favourites of the bond-films on this forum, too.

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

21. Never Say Never Again (very hard to compare with the others, since it's not an eon-production.)

[22. Casino Royale]
[23. Quantum Of Solace]
If you'd count the latter two as bond-pictures at all.