This is literally the first video I made for this channel and I've come a long way since then, so you might enjoy one of my newer Bond videos a bit more: ruclips.net/video/zYnWELBd2k8/видео.html
One thing the Connery bonds had that Craig misses, is that Bond enjoyed life. The jokes, the toys, the women, all part of that. That's why when Bond gets married, it means so much. He's forsaking some of that part of his life to "settle down". Craig misses that. And I think you have shown why. It's part of the journey that the writers set out for him starting in Casino Royale.
One thing Connery fans do not understand, is Ian Fleming who created the character of James Bond did not write him as Connery portrayed. Connery played James Bond as a clever Mr. Suave ladies man. The jokes, the toys, the woman, Bond enjoying life and getting married, well it is all enjoyable and does make for a good character, however it is completely inaccurate and not how the character was originally written. Ian Fleming who created the character James Bond described Bond as a blunt instrument. He is not Mr. Suave. He is a only slightly clever cold-blooded killer who doesn't let anyone close to his heart because of an interior brokenness. He is not seeking to enjoy life, he is looking to fulfill duty to Country, and uses things in life like alcohol and woman to dull the interior pain, not because he enjoyed these things in and of themselves like Connery's character did. The older Bond movies are not bad, and fans of them who prefer Connery's portrayal of Bond are not wrong to prefer them over Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond. Preference is fine, we all have our preferences. They are wrong though to think Connery is the more accurate Bond, because Craig plays the Bond that Ian Fleming created. Connery portrays a good, but inaccurate character that they prefer. So the best portrayal of Bond is the one that is most accurate to the character created by Ian Fleming. That is why Daniel Craig is the best Bond. He is the only accurate one. And if Ian Fleming wrote Bond as a clever Mr. Suave who loved the finer things in life, then Connery would obviously have the more accurate portrayal and therefore be the better Bond. I hope this helps.
@@Steve_Milo Many bond fans don't actually know the novels, as you can easily see through many ignorant comments under that video right here. They think Bond is just defined by gadgets, or the character being some superhero fighting against cartoon character villains and that's it.
I love that you called out Q for connecting to an unknown device! As time has gone by, the shear stupidity of that from a cyber security standpoint has grown to haunt me.
Quantum of Solace isn't a stand alone James Bond movie. I used to not like Casino Royale, I always felt it was unfinished. Then I thought that QoS was very strange indeed, like a total different take. Then I viewed Casino Royale and QoS together... it hit me. Casino Royale is one half and QoS is the second half of the same film..... it makes sense to me then. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this.
I think if Quantum Of Solace had been handled by the same director, it would have probably been just as epic as Casino Royale. But it just turned out to be one big misfire. I understand that Bond was meant to be both pissed off and grieving his loss in the film. But did they have to make him so one dimensional and utterly boring. Craig himself looked bored. The editing also let the film down big time. I found myself having to look away during the action set pieces as they were literally starting to make me feel woozy. The Bond girls were also totally wasted. I've watched Quantum Of Solace four times now in the hope that something will make me like it. But I'm afraid each and every time I've watched it, it's felt like a chore, and watching a Bond film should NEVER be a chore. I'm sure others enjoyed QOS, but I ain't one. I just hope and pray that 'No Time To Die' gives Daniel Craig a fitting send off.
@@heeeeeresrossy thanks for your reply. I disagree that the bond girls were wasted in the movie, I think they were used really well. Strawberry Fields is the naive, fresh agent who is abiding by the rules and expects to bring Bond back in. Bond is one dimensional in this film for the first 2 acts as he is consumed and driven by revenge. This is obvious from the start due to his erratic behaviour and actions not following his stated intentions (e.g. totally over Vesper, focused on the job, blah blah blah but takes a photo of Vespers boyfriend from the dossier in the first 10mins.) Bond uses the naive Fields for his own ends, seduces her to get her to help him infiltrate Greene's party. The character of Fields is used to get him to realise the consequences of his actions, her death is what stops him being one dimensional in this film. Similarly, Camillie is an emotional character developer for Bond. A Bond girl who is basically Bond but, unlike Bond who is just starting out, has travelled down the revenge path for many years. Bond recognises himself in her, but also that she is honest about her intentions, whereas he is still lying about his own "bound to duty" intentions. Take a look at QoS a fifth time.... But this time, watch Casino Royale directly before. View them as two parts of the one movie, CR starts Bond's character development, QoS completes it.
And the marketing team rally missed the opportunity of a thousand years, they should have released both films in 2007. You’ll never get a year ending 007 for another thousand years. Where were they on that one?
@@douglasvermeeren9112 Very true, I never thought of it like that, I focus more on the films themselves but yes if both were released in 2007 that would have been fantastic
I totally agree with you with this statement. I feel aside from Quantum of Solace & Casino Royale '06, there are other Bond films in which they feel like their bookends (or being each other's half). Think about Dr. No & From Russia with Love or The Spy who Loved Me & Moonraker. While some people can see the Bond movies as stand alones, there are some that share a similar energy/tone like a part one and part two. Although Goldfinger is next in line, it would not fit in the same field as Dr. No and From Russia with Love. But it would fit with Thunderball. And since we're on the topic, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty Secret Service, and Diamonds are Forever are the Blofeld trilogy.
this was good, and insightful. I agree that Casino Royale and Skyfall were the best of the Craig era, but honestly, Skyfall feels contrived and lacking in *everything* compared to CR. I am a devout James Bond fan (my initials are JB, so I've internalized this since I was very young), but I don't have a lot of expectations going forward
the contrivances in Skyfall's plotting is the film's biggest weakness but it still succeeds in the same way of Casino Royale in regards of having a more fragile and vulnerable James Bond, subverting the usual 007 tropes and an interesting villain as well.
Bond was always a celebration of masculinity with the suave spy always having a handle and getting the girl so to speak, old school hollywood. Casino Royale was an amazing different take, probably my 2nd favorite Bond film.
I honestly love that too. It celebrates both positive and toxic traits of masculinity, and has enough self-awareness to acknowledge that the toxic traits are bad(without having to say it out loud and that shows how well written most bond films are) I mean, that's how you get an interesting movie franchise that will stand the test of time. Same can be said about the original Star Trek and The Next Generation. Both got amazing writing that explores the personalities of each character. And like, they have flaws. Which Bond does too. Sorry for the short essay, I just love film. Both cinematography and good writing.
I would say that there is more to it than just having Bond lose someone that matters to him to making a good story. This analysis perhaps suffers from looking too specifically at modern Bond films, the Craig era being very different to the more similar previous Connery to Brosnan era. There are highly rated films in there that don't feature these qualities, what this analysis needed was a look at one of those films, in comparison with Casino Royale, AND a bad film to see what that one is missing. Because there's probably at least one of those bad films that does have a personal connection to Bond with the villain, a loss for Bond, a focus on Bond, etc
I would add a point. Maybe under "Action Serves a Purpose". "The hero is NOT invulnerable or allmighty." We want the hero to succeed in the end. He has to accomplish his mission. He has to do his stunts. But he has to work for it. He has to almost fail at it to be entertaining in the long run. Look at the Mission Impossible movies. I like the first movie and "Ghost Protocol" the most. In the first movie Ethan Hunt begins as a competent but arrogant agent. Then he got the rug pulled from under his feet and he is at his lowest. The rest of the movie he fights an uphill battle against the mole, his own agency and the criminals the mole works with. He is victorious at the end of the movie and achieved some crazy stunds. But at any point he could have lost. Any battle he barely won and any stund barely made. In "Ghost Protocol" he and his team are without resources, must work with falty equipment and have no backup. They safe the day but not without defeats. They have to constantly adapt to the situation and have the odds against them. Compare this to "Ghost Nation". In that movie Ethen Hunt is a true Mary Sue. Only in the beginning of that movie Ethan Hunt has one scene where he has a defeat. After that the rest of the movie is a pure power fantasy without any real tension. Every fight, every stunt he accomplishes with flying colours. There is no real suspense is that movie. In my opinion the better Bond movies are true to this rule. In "Goldeneye" Bond is betrayed by his partner, M critics him in nearly every sentence and his mission is almost lost. In the later Pierce Brosnan movies Bond gets more and more Mary-Sueish. He can do anythig and everything and that with a smile. In "Licence to Kill", one of my favorite Bond movie, Bonds best friend is almost killed, the wive of his friend is murdered and Bond is out for revenge without help from MI6. Everything he does in that movie is a struggle. At almost any point he could have failed. In short: the hero must succeed and be victorious in the end. But there must be struggle to achieve his goals. He must bleed for it. When the hero can do anything without struggle, without consequences the action gets boring.
A well presented video, even if I'm not sure I agree 100%. Having an arc for Bond can work out well, but I don't think it's a requirement. In spite of how poorly the treatment of women may have aged in them, many of the Connery and Moore era films are the ultimate in carefree entertainment. Here, Bond, as a character, may not necessarily feel particularly deep or complex, but his charm and charisma invite the audience to revel in the excitement, the glamour and the gags. This makes for fun escapist movies that have no trouble being more or less than that and once in a while that is just so liberating to watch. Now, as I mentioned above, more serious and character driven Bond movies can be excellent as well, but movies like Casino Royale and Skyfall are successful in a completely different way than the likes of Goldfinger or The Spy Who Loved Me. My bottom line is: What makes a good Bond movie? There's more than one way.
Er.. no, Vesper is phenomenal and is one of the best film leading ladies of the series. But there were many other more female characters who stood up to Bond. Holly Goodhead, Natalya Simenova, Octopussy, Pam Bouvier, Wai Lin. Also if NTTD turns out to be a dogs dinner, then Fleabag is the first to get the criticism.
@@spaceodds1985 I understand, however she is meant to be over the top as far as portrayal as many of the characters are or can be. Bond is meant to be escapist fantasy after all. With that said Xenia does stand out as the one bond girl who starts as a major villain and remains so throughout the film. She's also probably one of if not the most psychotic of the bond girls, certainly the most blood lust The only other bond film Ive seen have a bond girl as one of the major villains is Thunderball.
@@PentexProductions If only Dalton played the role as originally intended, I feel it would have been a much better film. Moore was just too old at that point.
In the hotel scene in Quantum of Solace I really wanted to hear him say "The name's Bond. James Bond" in Spanish. It would have been a nice twist and he could have still done the teachers who won the lottery joke after that. One of many missed opportunities!
3:22 I’m gonna stop you right there. I like Vesper fine, but she’s just a clone of (the actual best Bond girl) Tracy, from On Her Majesty’s Secret service, and the idea of giving Bond one true love and then ripping it away was already done (and done much better) in On Her Majesty’s Secret service.
Quantum Of Solace & Spectre sucked. Your critique of both movies was spot on. Skyfall is good, but Casino Royale is a damn near masterpiece. CR is not only the best Bond film (in my opinion), but it's also a great standalone actioner. I've actually lost count how many times I've seen it.
@@brucesnow7125 I think mess was the wrong word to use. As a film Skyfall is arguably the best Bond film however given the personal stakes (Bond’s resurrection, fighting in his childhood home etc.) it’s not a great template to use when making a great Bond film. If you look at the structure of Bond films like Goldeneye, Goldfinger and Casino Royale they are great examples of the James Bond formula. I would say Skyfall is a great film but not a great Bond film, if that makes sense.
@@suckyurmum4646 not sure how is it ''not a great Bond'' film. Skyfall does similar things that Casino Royale did in regards of subverting the usual 007 tropes.
15:48-Yup, I was right to have walked outta _that_ one after that goofy car chase! Looks like it only got goofier! Daniel Craig on the strength of _Casino Royale_ is my favorite Bond-this Bond _hurts_ in that one, but gets stuff done…what a letdown…
Great video. I would argue James Bond should just barely be a 3 dimensional character. I think the Daniel Craig films are trying to be all things to everyone. Imo, Bond is about action, travel, silly puns, charm, and women. By the end of the movie we don't know much more about him than when it started. And the next movie is a complete reset. Not saying this is how all movies should be, but bond is a popcorn flick. Delving deeper into the characters changes the movie into something completely different. Not necessarily bad, but not Bond. Great video btw, thanks for uploading
Thanks for watching, glad you enjoyed it. Very good points - I broadly agree with the sentiment that Bond is and always has been action/popcorn escapism first, but I think what sets the best of them apart is their ability to balance this with character - not just Casino Royale and Skyfall as I talked about in the video, but others like From Russia With Love, For Your Eyes Only, Licence to Kill, Goldeneye all strike the character note just right. I do agree that the Craig films being one long story is one of their weaker points - I'd prefer each film to be standalone otherwise you end up with Spectre ret-conning, etc. Thanks again for watching and sharing your feedback!
I agree. Politically correct is the rule now, and Bond doesn't fit very well. I suppose they didn't want to alienate a part of your adults, so "everything to everyone" they did.
I really don't think Rotten Tomatoes is a fare way to rate James Bond movies. Octopussy does not deserve a 43%. Nor does Tomorrow Never Dies deserve a 56%. I think a sense of fun and joy are what makes Bond films unique. Bond being in on the joke and self aware and winking at the audience is important. These attributes comes in handy in the action sequences as well.
"Deserves to finish on a high note".... And they turn Bond into an aging family man suffering from depression who gives up on life and commits suicide. Thanks No Time To Die.
Spectre was just SKYFALL 2.0 focus the story on M and Bond is almost redundant in his movie. like if in Raiders of The Lost Ark, you take Indiana Jones and Marion out of the story it would turn out the same with the Nazis finding the Ark in Tanis, taking it to the island and die at the end.
Funny how I came here after watching "Why Quantum of Solace Is A Perfect James Bond Movie | Video Essay" from Filmspeak and seeing how it's both talking about "Bond" as a character, and yet, have different opinions on the same movie.
My issue with QoS was more about the action sequences and a few clunky scenes, as opposed to the character stuff. I prefer it to Spectre though, and agree that it works best as a direct sequel to Casino Royale, and enjoy that it picks up some of the loose plot threads from it. I just don't think it was particularly well-written (possibly due to the writers strike at the time), and feel if the script and story had been given a final revision it could have been much stronger, especially if they had also eased up on the shaky-cam action.
Intentionally bringing in feminism to specifically make bond look old and laugh at him is going to backfire. It's an obvious nod to the current culture and couldn't possibly mix worse with the bond franchise.
The same phenomenon with Disney remakes, and they haven't learned a damn thing yet. People don't want virtue signaling, and Hollywood's efforts aren't genuine. "Updated for modern audiences" 🙄 oh please.
The Daniel Craig bond movies never hit me as James Bond movies. Always gives me the feeling I'm just watching a random action movie. Its like watching a machine playing James Bond : no charm, no style, no class. And its not about Daniel Craig acting because I have seen him in many other movies. The Daniel Craig 's James Bond is badly written. Who wrote them doesnt know James Bond.
@@j.j.nightcrawler Thanks! I'm just starting out so hopefully after a few more videos more people can watch and share their thoughts. Feel free to subscribe so you know when I post my next video. Thanks again for watching.
Thanks, it's the advantage of being a small channel! It's really great to get feedback on the videos, helps me learn and makes future ones (hopefully) better.
This is a very subjective analysis of those both movies. How can you blame Quantum Solace for not making Bond say his famous line but Royale is brilliant for subverting the Martini scene. How is the throwback with the oil in any way less artificial than any of the other references to the old movie. You just pick and choose what you liked not what objectively works as a tribute to the old Bond movies. In the same how is it not in your words a criticism of the Burj Khalifa scene that you technically call it pointless. Especially given that the scene is well enough explained as to why he needs to go from the outside and thus climbing. There are way better criticisms of this scene like how no one saw him or why they don't let him climb from a higher point so it doesn't take that long. In the end especially with the gadgets it has more of a James Bond feel to it than the simple fighting scenes in most of Craig's Bind films, they may be well choreographed but that doesn't lift it up from any other films with good action. One of the biggest problems of the Craig Bond movies is Craig himself he can do action and even emotional scenes at times but in none of the movies he gives off the feeling that he is THE Gentleman spy. Many of the scenes from older Bond movies don't necessarily share the values of how we think women should be treated but at least there Bond uses actual charm and charisma to woo them. Craig is as blunt as a rusty butter knife and if he hadn't has his looks it wouldn't make sense how he would be able to get with any of the women he's with. This bluntness isn't just present with the women but also how he pursues his missions Bond should behave precise and calculating like a scalpel but Craig is more of a Machete. This is not even my observation even people like Q and M ridicule him for his shoot first ask questions later mentality. Aside from that these movies supposedly show his beginnings and unlike the other movies carry on one distinct narrative through them all. However most of the time James is either thinking about or actually in retirement. In Royale we see him get his "License to kill" along with his double 0 status and only two movies later and after two seperate retirements in Skyfall he's already seen as a relic from a bygone era only to then see him retiring once again in Spectre only for him to come back yet again in No Time To Die only for him to retire in that movie for maybe the final time since it's already known the 007 title while be given to a costar of Craig in the movie. We never see Bond at his height he either starting out, retiring or coming back. Skyfall with all its changes made us think they finally understood and turned Bind into who he is with his DB5 and changing M into a man (supposedly the one M we see in the old movies, with a sort of closed timeloop) but that gets all washed away by Spectre and will most likely continue with No Time To Die.
I made two No Time To Die videos; the first isn't so much 'analysis' but more how I felt about the ending: ruclips.net/video/pJQGu7HQb5w/видео.html The second addresses the 'heritage' argument for what makes a good Bond film: ruclips.net/video/9blqdDcbz2A/видео.html Have no current plans for Goldfinger specifically, but never say never...
@@PentexProductions I watched the No Time to Die video with the heritage references and really enjoyed it. I had caught a few of the references but you pointed out many I hadn't noticed. I'm not sure if I've seen the first No Time to Die video but I will if I haven't. I would find a Goldfinger video very interesting because Goldfinger is often considered one of the best if not they best Bond movie, the Gold Standard you might say, and it created the template for Bond in general. Granted Goldfinger is dated in its depiction or Bond's relationship with women, it is still a good movie and I was curious of your take on it. I've been impressed with your Bond videos and your analysis of them.
Slight disagreement: Bond in Spectre being unfazed by all the chaos around him is part of the first part of Spectre having Bond out of synch with the world. I believe Spectre was about a Bond who had lost his humanity (see robot-like killing machine in mexico) and only reclaimed it over the second part of the film, after he met White's daughter Swann. I liked that; that he was slipping away, practically undead, and she pulled him back.
That's an interesting way to look at it that I'll bear in mind next time I watch. Personally I think No Time TO Die developed Madeline much more, and I think that'll make it easier to revisit Spectre.
I like your analysis. You're perceptive and articulate and, which makes for an informative AND pleasant video. Here's my opinion of Bond. Bond is the perfect "guy movie" for everyone. And the Bond character is the perfect combo of a "cool idea" in a "great story". For a Bond movie to be good, both have to be present. So: 1) First and foremost, it demands a great Bond actor. Daniel Craig is IMHO the perfect Bond. He has that thousand-years look while being sexy debonair when required, and also very physical. He's totally believable. 2) An over-the-top-but-believable villain. His master plan and the means by which he intends to materialize it have to make sense within the Bond universe. Which is why Skyfall is a failed Bond movie to me. It's sole "raison d'être" is to get rid of M so a new M can be introduced. From Casino Royale on, they are rebooting the franchise, so I understand things have happen. They wrapped it beautifully, but it was a cheap way to do it. And Bond should NEVER be cheap. And the gets-put-in-prison-so-it-can-wreck-havoc-from-inside-and-escape plot is a cheap plot device. 3) Super cool gadgets, including the cars of course. It's good there's more of Q. I hope it stays that way in the next movies. 4) Sexy women. Nowadays, PC is the rule, so Bond girls have to have some brains to go with the bikini. But the sexy atmosphere is part of the Bond charm, and I don't see how it could happen without pairing him with sexy women (Goldeneye did it beautifully). Unless they make him a narcissist fawning over himself in front of a mirror? 5) Exotic locales. Bond movies are a form of escapism. They have to take you somewhere. Goldeneye did it beautifully and so did Moonraker. Bond should remain a fantasy character, while also being believable. It's a tightrope. Which is why I much prefer for the scripters/directors to take their time and come up with a great movie. I'd hate for Bond to become another cheap franchise.
Goldeneye is definitely one of the best Bond movies for all the reasons you gave. To me Brosnan was the best bond as he had the wit, the charm, was suave but extremely dangerous without looking or feeling like a brute like Craig does. Plus you got the locations, the action scenes and chases, the gadgets (who can forget the clicking pen), plus great set of villains from Sean Bean as an equal to Bond as 006, plus the extremely sexy but extremely sadistic Xenia Onatopp, plus the comical computer programmer Boris.... I am invincible!!!
Taste and deduction. There are certainly many reasons to choose Skyfall over Specter. And you list quite a few of them. But if the organic implementation of action and misplaced humor are objective criteria, it becomes difficult to follow the argument. While the malfunctioning gadgets during the car chase might plausibly underline that Bond has to act a bit like a fish out of water because of his unofficial status, to me, it seems much more difficult to explain why a house in the middle of nowhere that you travel to without taking at least a few weapons with you, should be a sensible place for a trap. An homage to Home Alone that seems completely seperated from the rest of the film, right down to the moment when the highly intelligent head of a secret service waves a flashlight around while escaping through the night. You make some excellent points, that being said. But sometimes throwing bad points after good ones weakens the argument as a whole.
For me the perfect Bond film must have a car chase scene with Bond having a Q car with gadgets. I've enjoyed films that didn't have that element but always feel slightly cheated.
@@railerswim Well, the recent efforts of other well known franchises to follow certain agendas, if followed by the Bond franchise, are, I would agree, not promising. However, I am willing to keep an open mind on the next Bond film and will decide whether it is good, or not, when it it is released.
Russia Today... sorry Rotten Tomatoes is not really a source I would read up on, after Noah in 2014, I question them. I’d choose Bond over the MCU anyday, IMO the latter is just so dull.
@@PentexProductions This is why I like reddit, you find gems from new RUclipsrs. I have to say I don't have much knowledge of the old James bond guys, but I do love the recent movies and It was the only movie I was looking forward to apart from Tenet. Subbed ✌🏾
Thanks so much, that means a lot. The older Bonds can be a bit inaccessible unless you're used to older films, but they have a special place in my heart because I grew up with them. From Russia With Love, For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, and Goldeneye are the ones to check out if you want more realism. Thunderball, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Tomorrow Never Dies for something more outlandish.
You really should have highlighted more than just the Craig Era films to demonstrate what makes a good Bond film. As much as I enjoy the Craig Era of Bond I don’t think you need to shit on the old films to lift the new.
Nah, Craig is not a very good Bond... These new bond films just miss the mark with everything that makes bond (his character, the locations, the one-liners etc) what it is. To me, Craig is just some thug with the name James bond. :)
I am sorry but who give's a fuck about what the critics think? Movies are subjective, like I like, Die Another Day, some people don't . it comes down to a person's point of view , I like all of the James Bond films
Skyfall is the most overrated movie of the franchise, it's lazy, silly, unrealistic, and so full of plot holes it beggars belief. The Bond gadgets are mostly missing and what isn't missing is horrendously laughable, the Bond babe gets a couple of minutes on screen and then her corpse is tossed away and nobody cares, the Bond car is beatiful as f_ck but it's underused and then destroyed, etc. I remember how Spoony made a review of it and he started by saying he liked it very much, but by the end of the review he made a remark to the effect of the longer he thought about it the movie seemed shittier and shittier. Seeing that transformation in real time was more amusing then the movie itself.
You lost me when you called Skyfall Craigs best movie. Casino Royal does the amazing task of sticking to the novel while being in our present time. Skyfall’s villain is weak and more bitter than evil, and there is no Quantum or Spectre. At the end of Quantum of Salus we wanted to see more about this organization established in Casino Royal and Quantum.
NTTD destroyed the franchise… just because all the re writing due to Covid and PWB involvement, and also because DC didn’t want to come back, they KILLED JB!!!
I'm not disputing that Daniel Craig's James bond are good films. They probably are but after watching the 1st one it just doesn't feel like a James bond movie so I can't watch the rest and see them as James bond films. I'm used to how James bond used to be and they ain't James bond
Skyfall is a terrible mess. Silvas' ridiculous plan comes third after the Dark Knight and the Avengers, with the difference that James Bond was not supposed to be a superhero movie and the suspension of disbelief was set on a different range.
These movies became horrible the moment Bond was turned into a fundamentally sad man. Bond has been angry, outraged, offended, even racist (in some novels), gluttonous, alcoholic, sex driven, vengeful, bored, but he has never been sad or "mopey". Sorry, but emo Bond is horrible, and that's EVERY CRAIG MOVIE AFTER CASINO ROYALE. Some modern kids might be "doomers" but Bond isn't, in fact he enjoys every moment of his life that he can, right down to overeating, smoking three packs a day, drinking everything behind the bar, and hitting on women to kill time. I get that every modern male hero has to be sad and guilty, but 007 isn't young in this time. He represents enjoying the moment in the height of adversity, not moping and being sad, or having a complex personal life. Write some new heroes instead of twisting one thing into another.
@@robinanwaldt Absolutely not. I want my Bond villains purely evil and not even close to deserving revenge. Don’t get me wrong. Revenge by practically definition is the perpetuation of evil. But it would have been better if it was a villain that was not wronged and driven by greed and power. Shame really cause that actor was an incredible villain in No Country For Old Men. Anyway that why Skyfall fell short of Daniel Craig’s high quality Bond movies. I never though another actor would be as good as Connery and than here’s Daniel Craig being almost as human as Connery.
@@blabbermouth777 The point of Bond’s arc in Skyfall was to demonstrate that Sylva was unjustified for wanting revenge. Isn’t evil completely uninteresting when it’s just for the sake of it? Sylva felt justified, that’s what makes him interesting.
@@robinanwaldt I also liked that he was going against super sinister organizations like Quantum and Spectre. Than again I love Goldfinger and he’s not Spectre.
High stakes, but not a card game. Cold War. Get a Soviet defector out of East Germany. Then get yourself out. Cold War Bond worked better than "take over the world" bad guys.
Oof- if you want to know how to make a good James Bond film- Daniel Craig's tenure is the LAST place you should be looking. Among many, MANY problems with them, their idea of heritage callbacks are the most contrived and distracting the series has ever been, a Bond film can move away from Bond for big chunks at a time (See Goldeneye, and to a lesser extent TSWLM and FYEO) and still kick ass. It's NOT all about Bond. And man- pitting Craig era Bond against any Mission Impossible after MI3 is not something you want to try, believe that... Bond is never gonna win that battle. Also I'm just gonna say it. Silva sucked. Super contrived (and impossible!?) moment that sent him down his dark path, absolute omniscience, and his grand plan after his escape was to... walk in to a room and just shoot M? An M who endangered herself and everyone in her entourage by appeasing her own pride and staying in the room after the warning reached her? That's just pathetic. Definitely agree that Casino Royale was great, and that QoS absolutely sucked, though.
Octopussy, a bad Bond movie? You must be kidding lol. RT doesn't really mean anything especially becuz all marvel movies are post-2008, way after RT was created, and most Bond movies are way b4 it was created. which means that all reviews of old movies are generally not gonna be as good as the popular new movie for which every reviewer wants to provide a score and the company makes sure to try to get good scores for it. I mean the Connery films are the ones the reviewers flock to who aren't fans of the series becuz they're generally thought of as 'the REAL Bond movies' by critics or whatnot.
Totally cool to feel that way - what I love about the Bond franchise is that there's so many films and eras that everyone can choose their favourites, and enjoy them just the same.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
This is literally the first video I made for this channel and I've come a long way since then, so you might enjoy one of my newer Bond videos a bit more: ruclips.net/video/zYnWELBd2k8/видео.html
Actually Godzilla is the Longest running film franchise with over 40 films since 1954.
One thing the Connery bonds had that Craig misses, is that Bond enjoyed life. The jokes, the toys, the women, all part of that. That's why when Bond gets married, it means so much. He's forsaking some of that part of his life to "settle down". Craig misses that. And I think you have shown why. It's part of the journey that the writers set out for him starting in Casino Royale.
One thing Connery fans do not understand, is Ian Fleming who created the character of James Bond did not write him as Connery portrayed. Connery played James Bond as a clever Mr. Suave ladies man. The jokes, the toys, the woman, Bond enjoying life and getting married, well it is all enjoyable and does make for a good character, however it is completely inaccurate and not how the character was originally written.
Ian Fleming who created the character James Bond described Bond as a blunt instrument. He is not Mr. Suave. He is a only slightly clever cold-blooded killer who doesn't let anyone close to his heart because of an interior brokenness. He is not seeking to enjoy life, he is looking to fulfill duty to Country, and uses things in life like alcohol and woman to dull the interior pain, not because he enjoyed these things in and of themselves like Connery's character did.
The older Bond movies are not bad, and fans of them who prefer Connery's portrayal of Bond are not wrong to prefer them over Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond. Preference is fine, we all have our preferences.
They are wrong though to think Connery is the more accurate Bond, because Craig plays the Bond that Ian Fleming created. Connery portrays a good, but inaccurate character that they prefer.
So the best portrayal of Bond is the one that is most accurate to the character created by Ian Fleming. That is why Daniel Craig is the best Bond. He is the only accurate one.
And if Ian Fleming wrote Bond as a clever Mr. Suave who loved the finer things in life, then Connery would obviously have the more accurate portrayal and therefore be the better Bond.
I hope this helps.
@@Steve_Milo Dalton was pretty close too, but people just weren't ready for it
@@Steve_Milo Dalton might even be closer to how Ian Fleming wrote him than Craig
@@LordSluggo Timothy was excellent!
@@Steve_Milo Many bond fans don't actually know the novels, as you can easily see through many ignorant comments under that video right here. They think Bond is just defined by gadgets, or the character being some superhero fighting against cartoon character villains and that's it.
I love that you called out Q for connecting to an unknown device! As time has gone by, the shear stupidity of that from a cyber security standpoint has grown to haunt me.
Lol, yep! I was previously doing residential IT work in a small, 2-man shop and even we didn't plug in unknown devices to our main network. C'mon Q!
Quantum of Solace isn't a stand alone James Bond movie. I used to not like Casino Royale, I always felt it was unfinished. Then I thought that QoS was very strange indeed, like a total different take. Then I viewed Casino Royale and QoS together... it hit me. Casino Royale is one half and QoS is the second half of the same film..... it makes sense to me then. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this.
I think if Quantum Of Solace had been handled by the same director, it would have probably been just as epic as Casino Royale. But it just turned out to be one big misfire. I understand that Bond was meant to be both pissed off and grieving his loss in the film. But did they have to make him so one dimensional and utterly boring. Craig himself looked bored.
The editing also let the film down big time. I found myself having to look away during the action set pieces as they were literally starting to make me feel woozy. The Bond girls were also totally wasted. I've watched Quantum Of Solace four times now in the hope that something will make me like it. But I'm afraid each and every time I've watched it, it's felt like a chore, and watching a Bond film should NEVER be a chore. I'm sure others enjoyed QOS, but I ain't one. I just hope and pray that 'No Time To Die' gives Daniel Craig a fitting send off.
@@heeeeeresrossy thanks for your reply. I disagree that the bond girls were wasted in the movie, I think they were used really well. Strawberry Fields is the naive, fresh agent who is abiding by the rules and expects to bring Bond back in. Bond is one dimensional in this film for the first 2 acts as he is consumed and driven by revenge. This is obvious from the start due to his erratic behaviour and actions not following his stated intentions (e.g. totally over Vesper, focused on the job, blah blah blah but takes a photo of Vespers boyfriend from the dossier in the first 10mins.) Bond uses the naive Fields for his own ends, seduces her to get her to help him infiltrate Greene's party. The character of Fields is used to get him to realise the consequences of his actions, her death is what stops him being one dimensional in this film. Similarly, Camillie is an emotional character developer for Bond. A Bond girl who is basically Bond but, unlike Bond who is just starting out, has travelled down the revenge path for many years. Bond recognises himself in her, but also that she is honest about her intentions, whereas he is still lying about his own "bound to duty" intentions. Take a look at QoS a fifth time.... But this time, watch Casino Royale directly before. View them as two parts of the one movie, CR starts Bond's character development, QoS completes it.
And the marketing team rally missed the opportunity of a thousand years, they should have released both films in 2007. You’ll never get a year ending 007 for another thousand years. Where were they on that one?
@@douglasvermeeren9112 Very true, I never thought of it like that, I focus more on the films themselves but yes if both were released in 2007 that would have been fantastic
I totally agree with you with this statement. I feel aside from Quantum of Solace & Casino Royale '06, there are other Bond films in which they feel like their bookends (or being each other's half). Think about Dr. No & From Russia with Love or The Spy who Loved Me & Moonraker. While some people can see the Bond movies as stand alones, there are some that share a similar energy/tone like a part one and part two. Although Goldfinger is next in line, it would not fit in the same field as Dr. No and From Russia with Love. But it would fit with Thunderball.
And since we're on the topic, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty Secret Service, and Diamonds are Forever are the Blofeld trilogy.
this was good, and insightful. I agree that Casino Royale and Skyfall were the best of the Craig era, but honestly, Skyfall feels contrived and lacking in *everything* compared to CR. I am a devout James Bond fan (my initials are JB, so I've internalized this since I was very young), but I don't have a lot of expectations going forward
the contrivances in Skyfall's plotting is the film's biggest weakness but it still succeeds in the same way of Casino Royale in regards of having a more fragile and vulnerable James Bond, subverting the usual 007 tropes and an interesting villain as well.
I still can't wrap around how sam mendez who directed the best bond movies, came out with spectre
I think Spectre's issues were mostly in the script, not the direction. He was working with what he had.
@@PentexProductions ooo, I thought director was involved with the script
12:07 he does not say bond james bond in
From russia with love
Thunderball
You only live twice
And
Licence to kill
Bond was always a celebration of masculinity with the suave spy always having a handle and getting the girl so to speak, old school hollywood. Casino Royale was an amazing different take, probably my 2nd favorite Bond film.
I honestly love that too. It celebrates both positive and toxic traits of masculinity, and has enough self-awareness to acknowledge that the toxic traits are bad(without having to say it out loud and that shows how well written most bond films are)
I mean, that's how you get an interesting movie franchise that will stand the test of time. Same can be said about the original Star Trek and The Next Generation. Both got amazing writing that explores the personalities of each character. And like, they have flaws. Which Bond does too.
Sorry for the short essay, I just love film. Both cinematography and good writing.
I would say that there is more to it than just having Bond lose someone that matters to him to making a good story.
This analysis perhaps suffers from looking too specifically at modern Bond films, the Craig era being very different to the more similar previous Connery to Brosnan era.
There are highly rated films in there that don't feature these qualities, what this analysis needed was a look at one of those films, in comparison with Casino Royale, AND a bad film to see what that one is missing.
Because there's probably at least one of those bad films that does have a personal connection to Bond with the villain, a loss for Bond, a focus on Bond, etc
I would add a point. Maybe under "Action Serves a Purpose".
"The hero is NOT invulnerable or allmighty."
We want the hero to succeed in the end. He has to accomplish his mission. He has to do his stunts.
But he has to work for it. He has to almost fail at it to be entertaining in the long run.
Look at the Mission Impossible movies.
I like the first movie and "Ghost Protocol" the most.
In the first movie Ethan Hunt begins as a competent but arrogant agent. Then he got the rug pulled from under his feet and he is at his lowest.
The rest of the movie he fights an uphill battle against the mole, his own agency and the criminals the mole works with.
He is victorious at the end of the movie and achieved some crazy stunds. But at any point he could have lost. Any battle he barely won and any stund barely made.
In "Ghost Protocol" he and his team are without resources, must work with falty equipment and have no backup.
They safe the day but not without defeats. They have to constantly adapt to the situation and have the odds against them.
Compare this to "Ghost Nation". In that movie Ethen Hunt is a true Mary Sue. Only in the beginning of that movie Ethan Hunt has one scene where he has a defeat. After that the rest of the movie is a pure power fantasy without any real tension. Every fight, every stunt he accomplishes with flying colours. There is no real suspense is that movie.
In my opinion the better Bond movies are true to this rule.
In "Goldeneye" Bond is betrayed by his partner, M critics him in nearly every sentence and his mission is almost lost.
In the later Pierce Brosnan movies Bond gets more and more Mary-Sueish. He can do anythig and everything and that with a smile.
In "Licence to Kill", one of my favorite Bond movie, Bonds best friend is almost killed, the wive of his friend is murdered and Bond is out for revenge without help from MI6.
Everything he does in that movie is a struggle. At almost any point he could have failed.
In short: the hero must succeed and be victorious in the end. But there must be struggle to achieve his goals. He must bleed for it.
When the hero can do anything without struggle, without consequences the action gets boring.
A well presented video, even if I'm not sure I agree 100%.
Having an arc for Bond can work out well, but I don't think it's a requirement. In spite of how poorly the treatment of women may have aged in them, many of the Connery and Moore era films are the ultimate in carefree entertainment. Here, Bond, as a character, may not necessarily feel particularly deep or complex, but his charm and charisma invite the audience to revel in the excitement, the glamour and the gags. This makes for fun escapist movies that have no trouble being more or less than that and once in a while that is just so liberating to watch.
Now, as I mentioned above, more serious and character driven Bond movies can be excellent as well, but movies like Casino Royale and Skyfall are successful in a completely different way than the likes of Goldfinger or The Spy Who Loved Me.
My bottom line is: What makes a good Bond movie? There's more than one way.
Er.. no, Vesper is phenomenal and is one of the best film leading ladies of the series. But there were many other more female characters who stood up to Bond. Holly Goodhead, Natalya Simenova, Octopussy, Pam Bouvier, Wai Lin. Also if NTTD turns out to be a dogs dinner, then Fleabag is the first to get the criticism.
Let's not forget one of the hottest, but most deplorable bond women - the villain, Xenia Onatopp. That said, she always did enjoy a good squeeze...
@@MrDirigible Actually I found Xenia was one of the most annoying Bond girls. A woman who tries too hard is not worth it.
@@spaceodds1985 I understand, however she is meant to be over the top as far as portrayal as many of the characters are or can be. Bond is meant to be escapist fantasy after all. With that said Xenia does stand out as the one bond girl who starts as a major villain and remains so throughout the film. She's also probably one of if not the most psychotic of the bond girls, certainly the most blood lust The only other bond film Ive seen have a bond girl as one of the major villains is Thunderball.
How dare you say that octopussy is bad!
I acknowledge A View To A Kill is not the best Bond movie but it probably is my favorite since I've lost count on how many times I've watched it.
It has one of my favourite Bond scores, and it's certainly not Moore's worst film.
@@PentexProductions If only Dalton played the role as originally intended, I feel it would have been a much better film. Moore was just too old at that point.
In the hotel scene in Quantum of Solace I really wanted to hear him say "The name's Bond. James Bond" in Spanish. It would have been a nice twist and he could have still done the teachers who won the lottery joke after that. One of many missed opportunities!
wait how's matt damon in interstellar a fanservice ?
Ya it definitely didn't "take me out of" the movie. I thought his casting was a masterstroke.
3:22 I’m gonna stop you right there. I like Vesper fine, but she’s just a clone of (the actual best Bond girl) Tracy, from On Her Majesty’s Secret service, and the idea of giving Bond one true love and then ripping it away was already done (and done much better) in On Her Majesty’s Secret service.
Personally Tracy is the best Bond girl
Man I wish there was a time machine so I could go back in 2006 to watch Casino Royale in theaters.
Saw it four times. Wish there could have been more!
Quantum Of Solace & Spectre sucked. Your critique of both movies was spot on. Skyfall is good, but Casino Royale is a damn near masterpiece. CR is not only the best Bond film (in my opinion), but it's also a great standalone actioner. I've actually lost count how many times I've seen it.
Casino Royale was good but Skyfall was a bit of a mess compared to many other classics you could have chosen like Goldfinger or Goldeneye.
I utterly disagree
@@brucesnow7125 I think mess was the wrong word to use. As a film Skyfall is arguably the best Bond film however given the personal stakes (Bond’s resurrection, fighting in his childhood home etc.) it’s not a great template to use when making a great Bond film. If you look at the structure of Bond films like Goldeneye, Goldfinger and Casino Royale they are great examples of the James Bond formula. I would say Skyfall is a great film but not a great Bond film, if that makes sense.
Skyfall is grossly overrated.
@@suckyurmum4646 Mixing it with Home alone was surely not helping.
@@suckyurmum4646 not sure how is it ''not a great Bond'' film. Skyfall does similar things that Casino Royale did in regards of subverting the usual 007 tropes.
15:48-Yup, I was right to have walked outta _that_ one after that goofy car chase! Looks like it only got goofier!
Daniel Craig on the strength of _Casino Royale_ is my favorite Bond-this Bond _hurts_ in that one, but gets stuff done…what a letdown…
I wouldn't trust critic scores on Rotten Tomatoes even if i could only gain from it.
Otherwise, you do great work.
Great video. I would argue James Bond should just barely be a 3 dimensional character. I think the Daniel Craig films are trying to be all things to everyone. Imo, Bond is about action, travel, silly puns, charm, and women. By the end of the movie we don't know much more about him than when it started. And the next movie is a complete reset. Not saying this is how all movies should be, but bond is a popcorn flick. Delving deeper into the characters changes the movie into something completely different. Not necessarily bad, but not Bond. Great video btw, thanks for uploading
Thanks for watching, glad you enjoyed it. Very good points - I broadly agree with the sentiment that Bond is and always has been action/popcorn escapism first, but I think what sets the best of them apart is their ability to balance this with character - not just Casino Royale and Skyfall as I talked about in the video, but others like From Russia With Love, For Your Eyes Only, Licence to Kill, Goldeneye all strike the character note just right. I do agree that the Craig films being one long story is one of their weaker points - I'd prefer each film to be standalone otherwise you end up with Spectre ret-conning, etc. Thanks again for watching and sharing your feedback!
I agree. Politically correct is the rule now, and Bond doesn't fit very well. I suppose they didn't want to alienate a part of your adults, so "everything to everyone" they did.
Came from the Rock/bond vid. Looking forward to watchin your vids to come
"James Bond is the longest running movie franchise in history"
Godzilla: Am I a joke to you?
I really don't think Rotten Tomatoes is a fare way to rate James Bond movies. Octopussy does not deserve a 43%. Nor does Tomorrow Never Dies deserve a 56%. I think a sense of fun and joy are what makes Bond films unique. Bond being in on the joke and self aware and winking at the audience is important. These attributes comes in handy in the action sequences as well.
"Deserves to finish on a high note"....
And they turn Bond into an aging family man suffering from depression who gives up on life and commits suicide.
Thanks No Time To Die.
Spectre was just SKYFALL 2.0 focus the story on M and Bond is almost redundant in his movie. like if in Raiders of The Lost Ark, you take Indiana Jones and Marion out of the story it would turn out the same with the Nazis finding the Ark in Tanis, taking it to the island and die at the end.
Casino Royal is a Master piece
Funny how I came here after watching "Why Quantum of Solace Is A Perfect James Bond Movie | Video Essay" from Filmspeak and seeing how it's both talking about "Bond" as a character, and yet, have different opinions on the same movie.
My issue with QoS was more about the action sequences and a few clunky scenes, as opposed to the character stuff. I prefer it to Spectre though, and agree that it works best as a direct sequel to Casino Royale, and enjoy that it picks up some of the loose plot threads from it. I just don't think it was particularly well-written (possibly due to the writers strike at the time), and feel if the script and story had been given a final revision it could have been much stronger, especially if they had also eased up on the shaky-cam action.
Oh hey, I'm glad to see that you're still reading new comments, watched the video I mentioned, and replied. Cheers.
Ive always been a Quantum of Solace apologist and eagerly await the critique
Intentionally bringing in feminism to specifically make bond look old and laugh at him is going to backfire. It's an obvious nod to the current culture and couldn't possibly mix worse with the bond franchise.
Absolutely. It was a huge mistake letting political activists hijack showbiz (and more).
So the Mary Sue’s vs the Gary Stu’s?
The same phenomenon with Disney remakes, and they haven't learned a damn thing yet. People don't want virtue signaling, and Hollywood's efforts aren't genuine.
"Updated for modern audiences" 🙄 oh please.
The Daniel Craig bond movies never hit me as James Bond movies. Always gives me the feeling I'm just watching a random action movie. Its like watching a machine playing James Bond : no charm, no style, no class. And its not about Daniel Craig acting because I have seen him in many other movies. The Daniel Craig 's James Bond is badly written. Who wrote them doesnt know James Bond.
"The two best films from the Daniel Craig era" that's gonna be hard to find
What do you think makes a good James Bond movie?
I think your ideas are great. It's a shame how underrated your channel is
@@j.j.nightcrawler Thanks! I'm just starting out so hopefully after a few more videos more people can watch and share their thoughts. Feel free to subscribe so you know when I post my next video. Thanks again for watching.
You can NOT take the critical response to anything Disney at face value. Especially in an age where reviews are largely bought and sold.
1. Not Daniel Craig. 2. Irreverent fun even in the face of certain death. 3. Charm
Inventive set-pieces and impressive stunts, mainly.
So about that Quantum of Solace (ugh) video. Yes please.
Spectre was BORRRRIIING.
All in good time - maybe I'll call it 'How to Make a Bad James Bond Movie'
I’m really excited to see what else you will put out I really love your videos and you seem really in touch with your community
Thanks, it's the advantage of being a small channel! It's really great to get feedback on the videos, helps me learn and makes future ones (hopefully) better.
Goldfinger is still in top 5
This is a very subjective analysis of those both movies. How can you blame Quantum Solace for not making Bond say his famous line but Royale is brilliant for subverting the Martini scene.
How is the throwback with the oil in any way less artificial than any of the other references to the old movie.
You just pick and choose what you liked not what objectively works as a tribute to the old Bond movies.
In the same how is it not in your words a criticism of the Burj Khalifa scene that you technically call it pointless. Especially given that the scene is well enough explained as to why he needs to go from the outside and thus climbing. There are way better criticisms of this scene like how no one saw him or why they don't let him climb from a higher point so it doesn't take that long. In the end especially with the gadgets it has more of a James Bond feel to it than the simple fighting scenes in most of Craig's Bind films, they may be well choreographed but that doesn't lift it up from any other films with good action.
One of the biggest problems of the Craig Bond movies is Craig himself he can do action and even emotional scenes at times but in none of the movies he gives off the feeling that he is THE Gentleman spy. Many of the scenes from older Bond movies don't necessarily share the values of how we think women should be treated but at least there Bond uses actual charm and charisma to woo them. Craig is as blunt as a rusty butter knife and if he hadn't has his looks it wouldn't make sense how he would be able to get with any of the women he's with.
This bluntness isn't just present with the women but also how he pursues his missions Bond should behave precise and calculating like a scalpel but Craig is more of a Machete.
This is not even my observation even people like Q and M ridicule him for his shoot first ask questions later mentality.
Aside from that these movies supposedly show his beginnings and unlike the other movies carry on one distinct narrative through them all. However most of the time James is either thinking about or actually in retirement. In Royale we see him get his "License to kill" along with his double 0 status and only two movies later and after two seperate retirements in Skyfall he's already seen as a relic from a bygone era only to then see him retiring once again in Spectre only for him to come back yet again in No Time To Die only for him to retire in that movie for maybe the final time since it's already known the 007 title while be given to a costar of Craig in the movie.
We never see Bond at his height he either starting out, retiring or coming back. Skyfall with all its changes made us think they finally understood and turned Bind into who he is with his DB5 and changing M into a man (supposedly the one M we see in the old movies, with a sort of closed timeloop) but that gets all washed away by Spectre and will most likely continue with No Time To Die.
License to Kill 1985 was good
3:13 Nah man, I love it!
all of this is why Goldeneye is my favorite. It ticks every box
It's an excellent Bond film
I'd love to see an analysis of Goldfinger and No Time to Die
I made two No Time To Die videos; the first isn't so much 'analysis' but more how I felt about the ending: ruclips.net/video/pJQGu7HQb5w/видео.html
The second addresses the 'heritage' argument for what makes a good Bond film: ruclips.net/video/9blqdDcbz2A/видео.html
Have no current plans for Goldfinger specifically, but never say never...
@@PentexProductions I watched the No Time to Die video with the heritage references and really enjoyed it. I had caught a few of the references but you pointed out many I hadn't noticed. I'm not sure if I've seen the first No Time to Die video but I will if I haven't. I would find a Goldfinger video very interesting because Goldfinger is often considered one of the best if not they best Bond movie, the Gold Standard you might say, and it created the template for Bond in general. Granted Goldfinger is dated in its depiction or Bond's relationship with women, it is still a good movie and I was curious of your take on it. I've been impressed with your Bond videos and your analysis of them.
Slight disagreement: Bond in Spectre being unfazed by all the chaos around him is part of the first part of Spectre having Bond out of synch with the world. I believe Spectre was about a Bond who had lost his humanity (see robot-like killing machine in mexico) and only reclaimed it over the second part of the film, after he met White's daughter Swann. I liked that; that he was slipping away, practically undead, and she pulled him back.
That's an interesting way to look at it that I'll bear in mind next time I watch. Personally I think No Time TO Die developed Madeline much more, and I think that'll make it easier to revisit Spectre.
What a great channel - very excited to watch them all
Thanks, hope you enjoy.
I like your analysis. You're perceptive and articulate and, which makes for an informative AND pleasant video. Here's my opinion of Bond.
Bond is the perfect "guy movie" for everyone. And the Bond character is the perfect combo of a "cool idea" in a "great story". For a Bond movie to be good, both have to be present. So:
1) First and foremost, it demands a great Bond actor. Daniel Craig is IMHO the perfect Bond. He has that thousand-years look while being sexy debonair when required, and also very physical. He's totally believable.
2) An over-the-top-but-believable villain. His master plan and the means by which he intends to materialize it have to make sense within the Bond universe. Which is why Skyfall is a failed Bond movie to me. It's sole "raison d'être" is to get rid of M so a new M can be introduced. From Casino Royale on, they are rebooting the franchise, so I understand things have happen. They wrapped it beautifully, but it was a cheap way to do it. And Bond should NEVER be cheap. And the gets-put-in-prison-so-it-can-wreck-havoc-from-inside-and-escape plot is a cheap plot device.
3) Super cool gadgets, including the cars of course. It's good there's more of Q. I hope it stays that way in the next movies.
4) Sexy women. Nowadays, PC is the rule, so Bond girls have to have some brains to go with the bikini. But the sexy atmosphere is part of the Bond charm, and I don't see how it could happen without pairing him with sexy women (Goldeneye did it beautifully). Unless they make him a narcissist fawning over himself in front of a mirror?
5) Exotic locales. Bond movies are a form of escapism. They have to take you somewhere. Goldeneye did it beautifully and so did Moonraker.
Bond should remain a fantasy character, while also being believable. It's a tightrope. Which is why I much prefer for the scripters/directors to take their time and come up with a great movie. I'd hate for Bond to become another cheap franchise.
Some interesting points, glad you enjoyed the video. Hope to make another Bond one before No Time To Die's release (whenever that will end up being).
Goldeneye is definitely one of the best Bond movies for all the reasons you gave. To me Brosnan was the best bond as he had the wit, the charm, was suave but extremely dangerous without looking or feeling like a brute like Craig does. Plus you got the locations, the action scenes and chases, the gadgets (who can forget the clicking pen), plus great set of villains from Sean Bean as an equal to Bond as 006, plus the extremely sexy but extremely sadistic Xenia Onatopp, plus the comical computer programmer Boris.... I am invincible!!!
The first thing to do is to not kill off your hero
_First video on your channel?!_
Not bad, not bad at all!
Number 1. Don't kill him...
Bro, I just came here from your rock video. Loved it.
Taste and deduction.
There are certainly many reasons to choose Skyfall over Specter. And you list quite a few of them.
But if the organic implementation of action and misplaced humor are objective criteria, it becomes difficult to follow the argument.
While the malfunctioning gadgets during the car chase might plausibly underline that Bond has to act a bit like a fish out of water because of his unofficial status, to me, it seems much more difficult to explain why a house in the middle of nowhere that you travel to without taking at least a few weapons with you, should be a sensible place for a trap. An homage to Home Alone that seems completely seperated from the rest of the film, right down to the moment when the highly intelligent head of a secret service waves a flashlight around while escaping through the night.
You make some excellent points, that being said. But sometimes throwing bad points after good ones weakens the argument as a whole.
For me the perfect Bond film must have a car chase scene with Bond having a Q car with gadgets.
I've enjoyed films that didn't have that element but always feel slightly cheated.
5:01 the fact that she was brought on to “polish” the script is already selling me on not seeing this movie. It’s going to be preachy
Exqctly
Not necessarily. Time will tell.
@@patl709 history allows us to predict
@@railerswim Well, the recent efforts of other well known franchises to follow certain agendas, if followed by the Bond franchise, are, I would agree, not promising. However, I am willing to keep an open mind on the next Bond film and will decide whether it is good, or not, when it it is released.
Brilliant, thank you. M.
Russia Today... sorry Rotten Tomatoes is not really a source I would read up on, after Noah in 2014, I question them. I’d choose Bond over the MCU anyday, IMO the latter is just so dull.
Nah, there really is some great MCU gems like the first Iron Man even if it made the formula. Bond Vs MCU is basically old hollywood vs new hollywood.
Damn, I hate that Casino Royale has such a bad rating on RT, it's an excellent spoof and has some brilliant moments and a wonderful cast
It was Austin Powers three decades before Mike Myers.
Can you do the same video for other James Bond eras? For example the Pierce Brosnan or the Sean Connery era?
Top work
I really love this penguin 🐧🐧
Subscribed m8
Think Diana Rigg as Tracy Draco was a good supporting female character
liked and subbed great content
Pretty cool channel you got here bro... You got my attention
Thanks mate, glad you're enjoying the videos.
@@PentexProductions This is why I like reddit, you find gems from new RUclipsrs.
I have to say I don't have much knowledge of the old James bond guys, but I do love the recent movies and It was the only movie I was looking forward to apart from Tenet.
Subbed ✌🏾
Thanks so much, that means a lot.
The older Bonds can be a bit inaccessible unless you're used to older films, but they have a special place in my heart because I grew up with them. From Russia With Love, For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, and Goldeneye are the ones to check out if you want more realism. Thunderball, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Tomorrow Never Dies for something more outlandish.
Makes one wonder what we were watching all these years.
15:12 id put money on that fact making things worse.
You really should have highlighted more than just the Craig Era films to demonstrate what makes a good Bond film. As much as I enjoy the Craig Era of Bond I don’t think you need to shit on the old films to lift the new.
Longest running huh Godzilla has James Bond beat it has over 33 films since 1954
And a great theme song my fev you know my name
The Daniel Craig franchise is a separate time line. A remaining
Eva Green in Casino Royale is still my gold standard for women.
Nah, Craig is not a very good Bond... These new bond films just miss the mark with everything that makes bond (his character, the locations, the one-liners etc) what it is. To me, Craig is just some thug with the name James bond. :)
Don't forget to like the video.
But can you have Bond lose someone he loves in every movie?
Woop woop
Skyfall is the worst movie I've ever seen
None of Craig's Bonds could be described as gpod. Not by a long chalk.
The Octopussy circus clown scene is a scripting leftover from the season when Jack Lemmon was abortively cast.
Step 1: don't let Daniel Craig play Bond
I am sorry but who give's a fuck about what the critics think? Movies are subjective, like I like, Die Another Day, some people don't . it comes down to a person's point of view , I like all of the James Bond films
Skyfall is the most overrated movie of the franchise, it's lazy, silly, unrealistic, and so full of plot holes it beggars belief. The Bond gadgets are mostly missing and what isn't missing is horrendously laughable, the Bond babe gets a couple of minutes on screen and then her corpse is tossed away and nobody cares, the Bond car is beatiful as f_ck but it's underused and then destroyed, etc.
I remember how Spoony made a review of it and he started by saying he liked it very much, but by the end of the review he made a remark to the effect of the longer he thought about it the movie seemed shittier and shittier. Seeing that transformation in real time was more amusing then the movie itself.
😃🎉🎉🎉
You lost me when you called Skyfall Craigs best movie. Casino Royal does the amazing task of sticking to the novel while being in our present time. Skyfall’s villain is weak and more bitter than evil, and there is no Quantum or Spectre. At the end of Quantum of Salus we wanted to see more about this organization established in Casino Royal and Quantum.
I like the old bond movie girls... dont mind one bit.
NTTD destroyed the franchise… just because all the re writing due to Covid and PWB involvement, and also because DC didn’t want to come back, they KILLED JB!!!
I've just binged thru a load of your vids - they are excellent - you deserve way more subscribers than you have - consider me one more at least.
i was about to write a similar comment just now but you beat me to it! You have a new sub in me as well!
Thank you so much, I'm glad you enjoyed them. Welcome to the channel!
Welcome!
I'm not disputing that Daniel Craig's James bond are good films. They probably are but after watching the 1st one it just doesn't feel like a James bond movie so I can't watch the rest and see them as James bond films. I'm used to how James bond used to be and they ain't James bond
Skyfall is a terrible mess.
Silvas' ridiculous plan comes third after the Dark Knight and the Avengers, with the difference that James Bond was not supposed to be a superhero movie and the suspension of disbelief was set on a different range.
Love your videos, but bad start saying Skyfall is in the top 2 Craig Bonds. Yikes. It has a veneer of quality, but... that's it.
What's second then?
These movies became horrible the moment Bond was turned into a fundamentally sad man. Bond has been angry, outraged, offended, even racist (in some novels), gluttonous, alcoholic, sex driven, vengeful, bored, but he has never been sad or "mopey". Sorry, but emo Bond is horrible, and that's EVERY CRAIG MOVIE AFTER CASINO ROYALE. Some modern kids might be "doomers" but Bond isn't, in fact he enjoys every moment of his life that he can, right down to overeating, smoking three packs a day, drinking everything behind the bar, and hitting on women to kill time. I get that every modern male hero has to be sad and guilty, but 007 isn't young in this time. He represents enjoying the moment in the height of adversity, not moping and being sad, or having a complex personal life. Write some new heroes instead of twisting one thing into another.
Worst villain is Silva. It’s probably why Skyfall was worst of Daniel Craig.
You’re kidding, right?
@@robinanwaldt Absolutely not. I want my Bond villains purely evil and not even close to deserving revenge. Don’t get me wrong. Revenge by practically definition is the perpetuation of evil. But it would have been better if it was a villain that was not wronged and driven by greed and power. Shame really cause that actor was an incredible villain in No Country For Old Men. Anyway that why Skyfall fell short of Daniel Craig’s high quality Bond movies. I never though another actor would be as good as Connery and than here’s Daniel Craig being almost as human as Connery.
@@blabbermouth777 The point of Bond’s arc in Skyfall was to demonstrate that Sylva was unjustified for wanting revenge. Isn’t evil completely uninteresting when it’s just for the sake of it? Sylva felt justified, that’s what makes him interesting.
@@robinanwaldt obviously he over reacted big time! But he wasn’t totally not justified.
@@robinanwaldt I also liked that he was going against super sinister organizations like Quantum and Spectre. Than again I love Goldfinger and he’s not Spectre.
Rotten tomatoes? Seriously????
Quantum of Solace was superb! Whatever! Spectre was truly bad!
High stakes, but not a card game. Cold War. Get a Soviet defector out of East Germany. Then get yourself out. Cold War Bond worked better than "take over the world" bad guys.
How many actual Cold War Bond movies are there?
Oof- if you want to know how to make a good James Bond film- Daniel Craig's tenure is the LAST place you should be looking. Among many, MANY problems with them, their idea of heritage callbacks are the most contrived and distracting the series has ever been, a Bond film can move away from Bond for big chunks at a time (See Goldeneye, and to a lesser extent TSWLM and FYEO) and still kick ass. It's NOT all about Bond. And man- pitting Craig era Bond against any Mission Impossible after MI3 is not something you want to try, believe that... Bond is never gonna win that battle. Also I'm just gonna say it. Silva sucked. Super contrived (and impossible!?) moment that sent him down his dark path, absolute omniscience, and his grand plan after his escape was to... walk in to a room and just shoot M? An M who endangered herself and everyone in her entourage by appeasing her own pride and staying in the room after the warning reached her? That's just pathetic.
Definitely agree that Casino Royale was great, and that QoS absolutely sucked, though.
Can't stand Vesper Lynd.
Octopussy, a bad Bond movie? You must be kidding lol. RT doesn't really mean anything especially becuz all marvel movies are post-2008, way after RT was created, and most Bond movies are way b4 it was created. which means that all reviews of old movies are generally not gonna be as good as the popular new movie for which every reviewer wants to provide a score and the company makes sure to try to get good scores for it. I mean the Connery films are the ones the reviewers flock to who aren't fans of the series becuz they're generally thought of as 'the REAL Bond movies' by critics or whatnot.
Dude you would’ve creamed your jeans if it was Connery. This is cope
Daniel Craig Bond films is the least Bond out of all Bond Films👍
Totally cool to feel that way - what I love about the Bond franchise is that there's so many films and eras that everyone can choose their favourites, and enjoy them just the same.