Canon-Strike X: Bond, James Bond

[Neon Ignition]

Next year will mark the 60th anniversary of the James Bond film franchise, the first film basing itself on Fleming's book from three years prior and it launching a massive spy action franchise that this year releases its twenty fifth official entry starring the sixth Bond actor in his final appearance closing a self-contained arc that began fifteen years ago in the same actors first turn as the character.

The films were once well known for being standalone entries where their connective tissue largely rested on shared elements rather than any real story arc across entries though that's not to say it doesn't exist within them. Now seems a good time to build up to next months release of the new film and its ending of an era within the series by revisiting the Bond legacy.

Movie 01 - Dr No
Sean Connery sets the bar as his suave yet cold take on Bond, who arrives in Jamaica to investigate the death of an MI6 Station Chief and find himself allied with Honey Ryder in discovering the presence of Dr No and the mysterious organisation he works for S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Despite its age the film sets up many of the hallmarks of the series that would become iconic as the years went on, least of all of them being the Bond theme itself. In this film we meet Bond and through Connery quickly learn how he operates and see why agent 007 is so renowned. Despite its success reviewers were mixed on the film upon its original release however.








Were the less praise worthy critics right about the film not being so great?
Does the film lend itself to being a critical point in establishing the Bond franchise we all know beyond being the first?

[Asura]

Were the less praise worthy critics right about the film not being so great?
Does the film lend itself to being a critical point in establishing the Bond franchise we all know beyond being the first?

I came to the Bond series through a weird route, in that I saw Goldeneye in the cinema as a kid and that may have been the first one I saw, followed by all the Brosnan entries day-and-date, and I didn't go back and watch the rest until the late 2000s.

Consequently I was really surprised that Dr. No wasn't anything like how I expected it to be. Ironically when watching the movies, I didn't get the "classic Bond" fix until I watched Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice back-to-back, which collectively have all the elements which show up in, say, Austin Powers - spy car, supervillain, henchmen, volcano lair, daft "leave him to die unsupervised" moments...

So honestly I didn't really get the fuss about Dr No., and I'm not sure, culturally, it was what cemented the character or his adventures. I think the above movies were really what did that, just based on what they've imparted to pop culture.

[wakka]

I like Dr. No. It's not a brilliant film, but it's a decent one, and it was innovative for the time.

When you think of the spy films that pre-date this (The 39 Steps, The Man Who Knew Too Much, various noirs, etc), they're normally more realist, and terribly post-war/early Cold War - smoky bars and dodgy blokes being rubbed out in shadowy alleys of European cities, Checkpoint Charlie and alcoholic washed up ex-spooks.

Dr. No imagined a different type of spy world altogether, of glamorous locations, sexy people, and comic book supervillains. That's what the fuss, I think, would have been about in 1962, and partly why it spawned those initial sequels that you mention Asura.

While it doesn't contain every Bond trope that we would come to know, a lot of the core stuff is in place. The ideas that it's missing - the more extravagant gadgets and villain lairs, and so on - were largely expansions of the the themes set down by Dr No, so I think as a foundation for the franchise its importance shouldn't be underestimated.

Not a film I love, but I think you've got to accord it the proper credit for starting such an outrageously successful series. It's much better than many of the other entries, too.

[Neon Ignition]

I was the same in that I picked up the DVD set with Bond 1-20 when it came out in the early 2000's and despite how often ITV have shown Bond films on weekends in my childhood it was the first time I'd sat through Dr No in full.

In a way now it's more notable for what's missing rather than what's in it. The absence of humour, gadgets, characters like Q etc feel a bit strange but it's also more slowly paced. A lot of the film surrounding the Jamaica part is fairly boring, though you do start to get some of that Bond vibe once you get to the facility section of the film. Having spent much of the last year watching 70's films it's notable as to how solid Dr No is but I'd agree that these days it being the first film is pretty much the most notable thing about it.

[Neon Ignition]

Movie 02 - From Russia With Love
Despite the legacy of Bond films not being interconnected, this second film does loosely follow on from the previous film with SPECTRE looking to get revenge on Bond for the death of Dr No as he aims to protect Tatiana Romanova. With agents after him who have been specifically trained on methods to kill him Bond walks into the trap aboard a train and we get to meet some of the other seniors of SPECTRE and a hint of their leader Blofeld. This second film is also the first in which Q is introduced, a much straighter played turn than later ones would become. Other than being an odd choice of entry to base an EA action game around, FRWL was an expansion of the previous film and a much bigger success for it.





Was the second film in the franchise an improvement?
Does it add anything to Bond's character?

[Neon Ignition]

It's been years since I saw this one but I have the memory of enjoying it more than Dr No and to be honest more than Goldfinger too. I couldn't really tell you why but I have a sense it was a better made film than Dr No even though probably less sequences in it stand out in my mind. Great theme too

[Neon Ignition]

Movie 03 - Goldfinger
Aka the one with the laser, the gadgets and the golden girl - no, not those Golden Girls. Dialling up the humour, the action, the cheese and the trappings that the series would become infamous for later, this entry is for many the best of them all. It's also the genesis point for some of the elements that led to eye rolling as the series goes on so arguably shares some of the blame for detractors also. For every person who adored the laser table, someone else rolled their eyes at the mention of Bond getting Pussy Galore.







Do the additions to the formula in Goldfinger elevate the experience or do they detract from what should have always been a more straight-laced spy series?

[wakka]

I don't remember From Russia With Love at all really, and I'd like to revisit it (probably one of those ones where it all comes flooding back as you start watching it).

Goldfinger I do recall. I agree that this is where we got some of the most enduring Bond tropes, and tonally it's where the films started to diverge more fully from the books and become their own thing (no bad thing at all - a lot of the Bond books are pretty crap anyway).

It's also where the gap between Bond and other spy films of the day becomes even more pronounced. This was released around the same time as The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, and there could hardly be a starker comparison.

Whereas that is a typically mid-century spy story with the protagonist very much a pawn of amoral forces in Government, Bond in Goldfinger is master of his universe more than ever before. He becomes a true fantasy figure. He's almost the cinematic Marvel superhero of his day.

Goldfinger is not necessarily the best Bond film, although it's up there, but I'd say it's probably the most important one. It built successfully on Dr. No to solidify the key tropes of the character and franchise.

Bond has been pulled in all sorts of directions since - the cartoon humour of Moore, the sombre and basically boring po-faced stuff in Quantum of Solace, etc - but I think every single one of those films has a whole bunch of elements that can be traced back to this one.

[Neon Ignition]

With Goldeneye, there are bits I like and it's definitely the first entry that feels like an outright Bond film as we know it now, but it's never been one I've been too fussed with either. Goldfinger himself is a pretty poor villain and overall much of the film feels a bit dull. It's one of those where when a good moment hits it does so very clearly, like it's a string of iconic moments but the bits between are a bit of a drag.

[Neon Ignition]

Movie 04 - Thunderball
Fought to be made by Eon for a while, they finally got onto it and Connery returned again. From the poster featuring Bond surrounded by scantily clad women to the formula of the film, we're fully in place in the template the franchise would stick to for the majority of its entries for the next two decades to come now. The film was a massive success with only some criticism weighing in on the underwater sequences and the film coming in long.






What are your thoughts on the entry that was hard fought to come to screen, a let down after Goldfinger or an entry so good they made it twice?

[teddymeow]

I love Bond as a series. Except for the Roger Moore films.

Also, I will fight anybody who doesn't think that Shirley Bassey should have sung every theme song ..

[Neon Ignition]

I've never been that sold on Thunderball, it's kind of nice having the Blofeld element moved along but Bond underwater sequences have always been boring and this entry drags along quite a bit. Up until this point, of the four, it's possibly the one I'd class as the weakest.

[QualityChimp]

It's funny, but without dissecting them too much, the Connery films are a bit basic, Moore's are the most entertaining, Dalton was gritty but ahead of their time, Brosnan was increasingly silly, Craig's are progressively grumpy.

I should revisit the Connery ones as I came in at Moore, so he's my Bond and haven't given Connery enough attention.

I do love Bond as a series, though.

[wakka]

I would love to see the next generation of Bond do a riff on the Roger Moore style. A more lighthearted feel would be most welcome. The utter seriousness of the Craig films gets on my wick.

[Neon Ignition]

That's part of the trouble, setting out to emulate Bourne but now having done it so long after that style has been left behind. Every Bond film is now just a bland beige repeat