Much like Desmond being the best Q, I think 99.9% of Bond fans would agree that Martin Campbell is the best director. It's astonishing that, as you said, he can introduce a new Bond and reinvent the series TWICE and give us one of the best films in the series BOTH times. I certainly wouldn't complain if he got brought back for Bond 26.
After seeing Green Lantern and The Foreigner, I think it's safe to say he's far past his prime at this point. If EON brought him back I'd be extremely worried.
Still think John Glen ought to be number one but he'll forever be underappreciated by the fandom. His admittedly workmanlike approach gave Bond the stability it needed durng the 80s McClory fiasco, he's still the best at shooting action setpieces and chases (License to Kill's finale is one of the best, ever) and I appreciate that he experimented with comedy and tone when others wouldn't dare. His biggest flaw was that he consistently surrounded himself with mediocre talent, specifically DPs and production designers, who made his films look cheap. If it weren't for Glen (and Campbell too) the series may not have lasted this long.
Glen is my favourite, the Bond films don't need to look flashy and overly stylish. Alan Hume was a great DP, FYEO still looks beautiful imo. Glen brought back the seriousness and could create suspense better than nearly any of the other directors. It really annoys me when I see people saying he shouldn't have done Dalton's two because one of the reasons they're so fresh is because he (along with Dalton) fought for a serious creative direction.
Sebastian Fitzptraick I don’t think Bond films need to be super stylish either (Glen is my favourite director as well), yet it’s hard to deny that Glen’s films - despite being in the same budgetary ballpark as Spy and Moonraker for example - look so much less attractive and dynamic than those films overall. Hume and Alec Mills’ Bond photography suffer from the same aesthetic problem: the set pieces outside and those done by the second unit look great overall, but once they go into the studio it’s all shot like a sitcom, complete with duller colours and the flattest lighting imaginable. Certain sets, like the inside of St. Cyrill’s and the mujahideen fort in Daylights, look really rickety. The production designers are to blame too, naturally, and Glen’s laissez-faire approach to dialogue doesn’t help. Considering the films that came before and after, though, one has to wonder why Glen’s films appear as flimsy as they do.
He’s my favourite too. Did you know he was one of the 2nd unit directors on Superman. He shot the scenes of Lois Lane’s red car in the desert during the earthquake
@@DreBourbeau I think his best visually are FYEO and TLD. I love the shot of the Mujahadeen riding over the dunes. The shutter speed is set high to darken it down, as with alot if the second unit exterior scenes in the late 70s and the 80s Bonds (See Bond meeting VJ in India in Octopussy) I always took the studio scenes’ camera angles to be a hangover from theatre and older filmmaking. It really does just expose the sets to criticidm by filming them like that. The door in Kara’s apartment in TLD always gets me, the rest of the apartment looks very nice for behind the iron curtain but the door has been painted poorly to imitate wood, and ends up looking filthy for some reason. Licence To Kill is so cheap in places, I hate the audio in particular, but visually its significantly poorer than TLD, as brought up by Gene Siskel. I think its cos they moved from Pinewood to Mexico and had to apparently upgrade the Mexican studio facilities immensely. I hate the bare walls everywhere. In particular, the Bimini bar and the Isthmus hotel room look awful. Compare the Tangiers hotel rooms and Bond & Kara’s Mujahadeen quarters in Living Daylights to the sets in Licence To Kill and you can see the production value drop. I remember on the Inside Licence To Kill documentary, they cut from a scene of Bond and Karim Bey in From Russia With Love to President Lopez in Sanchez’ office in Licence and the set just looks so much worse. Even the Moneypenny desk scene looks a good bit worse than the one in A View To A Kill.
I'm a huge mark for visuals in film, and I would put OHMSS and FYEO as the two most beautiful-looking films in the series. Glen felt constrained in his later films (they increasingly looked/felt like television), but, like Hunt, he could shoot a gorgeous backdrop when the film was written for the scope. Honorable mentions: Gilbert's TSWLM and Moonraker. I don't know what happened after 1981, but the series got so much less visually-ambitious.
I loved how in the 60s movies, they kept Blofeld a mystery. You only heard his voice and saw his hands. Until YOLT. The modern film has none of that mystery and then they make Blofeld and Bond adoptive brothers.
If I was the director of Spectre, I would have quit on the spot to hear that the writers wanted to make Bond and Blofeld brothers! And YES, because it was ripped off from Austin Powers, but that film was SUPPOSED to be a ridiculous storyline!!
Sam Mendes once said making a Bond movie is "not a healthy way to work." Considering he made Calvin's favorite Eon-produced Bond film and followed it up with his least favorite, I can believe that.
I like Spectre, but it certainly feels like a much more lethargic film made by burnt out people. Craig looks bored as fuck through most of it (or maybe that's just his face lol).
The directing was one of the stronger aspects of Spectre. It was the writing that held it back. Usually, great directing can compensate for mediocre writing, but sometimes the plot is just so bad that there is no way for a director to make it look believable.
In my opinion, I'd have to say Terrance Young. He set the tone, look, and style with Dr. No and From Russia with Love. Then continued it with Thunderball, while building off of Guy Hamilton's work in Goldfinger and his own work. Most underatred, John Glen. Generally, he gave solid job to each of his movies and his action sequences are really well shot. Least favorite, Michael Apted. I don't think he really had a grasp on that story or action sequences for The World is Not Enough. Strangely, I did enjoy his 3rd Narnia movie.
The Starter: Terrance "Backdrop and Speed Edit" Young One Hit Wonder: Peter "Emotional gut punch" Hunt High Scale Spectacle: Lewis "Lost in the background" Gilbert
Always thought Goldeneye was just a sequel to Licence To Kill with Dalton recast rather than a reboot. For example: after the pre-title sequence (set in the 1980's) it jumps forward to the present where Bond is under "evaluation". Why would he be under evaluation? Because he just went rogue in Licence To Kill.
@Louise Sea Shame. I think Skyfall is one of the best bond movies. Spectre though, has a disastrous script, ans I wish they threw out everything that had to do with that movie in No Time To Die. Blofeld and Swann are pretty lame characters, and I'm not looking forward to seeing those again.
Glen is my favorite. I like how his films were more realistic instead of grandiose and bombastic like the ones prior to his arrival. Him and Dalton were a perfect match.
Roger Michell revealed that he was offered Quantum and was told to start storyboarding straight away. He asked if the script was finished and was told it was no where near finished. He said he knew it was not going to work and walked away.
I’d take Forster over Tamahori myself - those slowdown/speedup bits really do annoy me, as does his mentality that CGI just makes everything better (in a series which, for the most part, does everything practically, which is perhaps why it’s so aggravating) plus I think Forster got better performances from his actors than Tamahori did. Yes Forster’s artistic flourishes are annoying, but they don’t bother me too much, at least not as much as Tamahori’s flourishes do. But I’m not in disagreement that both deserve to be at the bottom of the ranking, just, if I had to pick a poison, I’d take Forster’s arty-farts over Tamahori’s excessive cheese™.
Yeah after seeing some of the comments on here I might be in the minority with my ranking of those two but I think we'll all be in agreement that they deserve to be at the bottom. I do have a specific dislike for directors who try so desperately to be arty-farty and fall flat doing so. M Night is a director who I find often falls into that category, though, more hilariously so than Forster!
@@calvindyson If we had the Lee Tamahori of "Once Were Warriors" and "Mulholland Falls," audiences would've been well served. Both are character driven works with hard-hitting violence. The obsession w/celebrating the franchise's anniversary and this need to embrace contemporary (for 2002) film techniques and technology, really hurt this film. I still say the Tosca scene in QOS is the high point of QOS and it's Forster at his best. The visual storytelling of Bond infiltrating the opera, disrupting Quantum's meeting and confronting Greene was stellar. David Arnold's "A Night at the Opera," is my favorite cue from his tenure on the series.
I maintain that the biggest issue with QoS is the editing, which means that- in theory- you could come out with a studio cut or something that tells the exact same story but in a much better, more comprehensible way. Whereas with Die Another Day, the problem is much more with the script and the tone, and that is much harder to fix. QoS is a decent film that was ruined in post; DaD is just mediocre from start to finish.
Jonathan Campbell QoS did have a lot of script issues though, due to the fact it was rushed to get it finished before the Writer’s Guild Strike started. I think it certainly could’ve done with another script polish - for instance, the whole thing with the geologist in Haiti is rather convoluted, and Mathis turning out to be a codename is an odd story beat that doesn’t add to anything. Apparently scenes were re-written by Marc Forster and Daniel Craig because they weren’t allowed to hire an actual writer because of the strike.
I'd LOVE to see a Bond film directed by Denis Villeneuve & again shot by Roger Deakins. Their pairing in Sicario & Blade Runner is one of the most underrated in cinematic history. The tension in Sicario built from slow, lingering shots that are quickly broken by short, harsh and incredibly violent sequences would lend itself well to a retelling of more classic Bond stories & a more faithful interpretation of the Fleming source material.
I very much appreciate the film-making knowledge you bring to this video in particular - your familiarity with the language of film is evident and has helped me to understand some of the reactions I've had to the different approaches taken by Bond film directors. Oh, and the presence of Mrs. Bell is ALWAYS welcome!
OHMSS is so gorgeous to watch that it hurts to think what could have happened had Hunt been allowed to take Bond into the New Hollywood 70s. Grittier, more realistic, more mature stories, but with a period flair that (at least for us yung'uns) would still feel like a natural extension of the 60s. By 1977 they still could have passed the torch to Sir Roger and given us the disco-era high camp. But I would sacrifice Diamonds, LaLD and Golden Gun for three more from Hunt, easy.
Oh I wouldn't! After the bombast of YOLT and, to a much lesser extent, OHMSS, I think guy Hamilton coming back and doing 3 lower key bond films was a nice pallete cleanser. Though I am one of those who would without hesitation put Live and let die and man with the golden gun in their top 10. The only thing I would want changed about the bond film history is for Diamonds are forever to be a return for lazenby, again directed by hunt, and effectively be a revenge film (kind of like a much less violent license to kill) that tidies off SPECTRE and Blofeld's chronology.
Even if Hunt stayed on board, the tone of the films would not have been gritty. The spy craze was dead by the late 60's and audiences stopped taking "Spy Fi" stuff seriously.
The series was kinda at rock bottom with the Man with the Golden Gun, critically and financially. Not a terrible movie. OHMSS was very polished and elegant, like the newer Bond movies, also very serious in tone and gritty. The action scenes were cutting-edge and dynamic.
@@jamesatkinsonja Love the direction but the pace and story telling is too boring and slow IMHO. Its also way too depressing at the end of a note to go out on when it is supposed to lead into another Bond that is continuing off this and this was always a one off. I dont hate it all it is not a entertaining one to watch but there are many scenes and action set pieces mainly the entire snow sene that are pivotal to watch.
I’d put Terrance Young above John Glen - Young’s films have more flair to them, and I think Young understood the Bond character better. Though I do think Glen did a better job with Dalton than he did with Moore, though perhaps that was just because he had more experience by TLD. And whilst I think John Glen did a good job with his films, I think it’s a shame that Timothy Dalton never got to work with any other directors, I would’ve liked to have seen another director’s take on Dalton’s Bond, one with a bit more style than Glen. According to MI6-HQ, John Landis of ‘The Blues Brothers’ and ‘An American Werewolf in London’ was touted for ‘Bond 17’, which I think could’ve been very cool (those two are some of my favourite films), as was Ted Kotcheff (‘First Blood’) and John Byrum (uh... no idea. You can IMDb him yourself).
Dalton's films suffered from a certain malaise for me because it never quite felt like they'd entirely left behind the tone of the later Moore films. I think Dalton's Bond would've benefited from a new director like Martin Campbell who could've injected some stylistic flare.
@@SolarDragon007 Indeed, I would argue that Glen's films succeeded predominantly due to the action set pieces on display that were impressive in and of themselves, rather than how he depicted them. His films stylistically tend to have quite a flat, occasionally televisual feel to them which make them seem antiquated even for the time. Licence to Kill suffers especially from this as it's clearly riding the coattails of Miami Vice, yet while a perfectly enjoyable film, I struggle to conjure a single frame that does justice to its themes. For a film centred entirely on revenge, it should've been moody as hell in an 80's neo-noir sense with cool lighting and flair. Instead everything is lit far too well with no texture or depth to shots.
As I stated in the previous video, John Glen always struck me as more of a technician than an artist. His films were well produced but they lacked flavor and I think Dalton would have benefited from a director with vision.
@@stuffedsheepshead Glen's films did lack a dynamic quality but I wouldn't say that Glen's films had no pleasing visuals. The Living Daylights featured some excellent photography, especially those magic hour shots.
Great video Calvin, you displayed a lot of knowledge of film techniques in this video. My ranking would go like this : 1. John Glen - I think a lot of the darker elements now present in Bond were brought in by Glen. He really brought the spy and thriller elements back. I absolutely love FYEO, TLD and LTK. All top 10. He knew what worked about Bond and utilised them perfectly. 2. Martin Campbell - Another director who understands how to craft a Bond film. He reinvented the series twice and made two of some of the best Bond films. He's a legend. 3. Peter Hunt - OHMSS is the most beautiful looking Bond film. The shots are full of texture and beauty. He really should've done more. 4. Lewis Gilbert - His films have the sheer action spectacle that defines Bond. All really consistently great films as well. 5. Terence Young - Really sharp behind the camera, also created the Bond cinematic identity. 6. Guy Hamilton - Not a big fan of any of his films but he's consistent, his films are the kind I'd marathon in one night. 7. Roger Spottiswoode - He was good, could've done more films and I wouldn't complain. 8. Michael Apted - You were right, his direction is one of the weaker parts of the film. 9. Sam Mendes - He has a good visual style but he's also extremely pretentious. If he'd just done Skyfall, he'd be way higher. 10. Lee Tamahori - His direction is probably the worst part of DAD, all the early 2000s motifs are awful. 11. Marc Forster - Pretentious and has no clue how to make a Bond film. Should never have been hired.
Goldeneye and Casino Royale are by far two of my favorites Bond movies. So ranking Campbell as your number one feels very good to me. Thanks for this ranking!
In Mr. Foresters defence, he didn’t actually really have script to work with, because of the ongoing writers strike, he Daniel Craig and a few others, were essentially making the whole thing up as they went along.
Spot on list! I read something about Forster wanting there to be four main action sequences in Quantum representing the four elements - surely that was a major red flag that the guy was not suitable for the job.
Ohh damn, now as you say it! Chase on the rooftop of Sienna - Earth The Plane chase - Air Boat chase in Haiti - Water The Finale in the Hotel in the desert - Fire Yeah, noticable how well that worked out in the movie...
Lewis Gilbert is my favorite, his Bond movies are simply grand and epic in scale thanks in no small part to Ken Adams iconic set designs. No other Bond directors have reached that level since and honestly we could really need another Bond epic after the dreary Craig era.
Best video you've ever made, extremely informative, well-written and precise and shows your deep understanding of the material. Martin Campbell is the GOAT. Did you see The Protege yet? Michael Keaton kind of plays James Bond in it
I just rewatched Spectre last night, and was surprised just how enjoyable I found it. The story is a bit rough and made some choices I wouldn't agree with, but Spectre felt fun to watch.
1) Martin Campbell Both Goldeneye and Casino Royale are some of the best looking entries in the series and MC brings an infectious flair to his action sequences (Ex. The Tank Chase in Goldeneye, the Parkour chase in CR). Truly the complete package as far as Bond directors are concerned. Hopefully one of these days he'll be brought back to do another one. 2) John Glenn Even though his directing style could be accused of being workman-like; I always appreciated the level of efficiency showcased in Glenn's Bond entries. He was also second only to Campbell when it came to filming action sequences and the two Dalton films are his finest achievements in that regard. The Tanker Truck chase in LTK still remains to this day my absolute favorite action sequence in the franchise. 3) Sam Mendes It honestly surprises me how divisive Mendes tends to be in the Bond fandom. Both Skyfall and Spectre are the most visually gorgeous entries in the Bond franchise. He's great with actors for the most part and has also delivered some neat action sequences along the way (Ex. The climax of Skyfall, The Day of the Dead opening in Spectre). While I still enjoy Spectre to an extent, it's questionable narrative beats and odd editing does bring down Mendes' place in the countdown. 4) Terence Young Young deserves a lot of respect for helping lay down the foundation of the franchise in terms of visual style, tone and the cinematic Bond in it's formative years. He always brought a nice sophisticated style to his entries that I feel has never been captured again since. I always felt his primary weakness tended to be action sequences though, especially fist fights. 5) Lewis Gilbert YOLT, TSWLM and MR contain some of the best set designs of the series. 6) Peter R. Hunt Even though he only directed one entry (OHMSS), Hunt does reasonably well behind the camera and delivers one of the more visually-arresting entries inofthe 60's Bond era. Would be higher if OHMSS didn't suffer from some very choppy editing. 7) Guy Hamilton Goldfinger was great and one of the most iconic Bond entries. The three movies he did afterwards (DAF, LALD, TMWTGG) have their moments but always felt cripplingly work-man-like and blandly forgettable. 8) Marc Forster While I do enjoy QOS, it could have benefited if it had a different director. Forster is great with actors and QOS does have some neat sequences (Ex. opera scene) but the disorienting editing during the action sequences is frustrating. 9) Roger Spottiswoode/Michael Apted It's a shame Campbell didn't return to direct any of the post-Goldeneye Brosnan flicks because one of my primary problems with both TND and TWINE is that they are both suffer from bland overly-sterilized direction. The both lack the polish, gloss and tight editing that made Goldeneye so enjoyable. 10) Lee Tamahori Gosh DAD has not aged well at all, especially when it comes to it's early 2000s XXX-style direction and it's super fake-looking Ice Hotel sets. Also there is the CGI surfing scene.....yeah.
Personally I consider Peter Hunt the best Bond director since imo OHMSS is a near perfect film and I love his visual style. Martin Campbell is definitely a close 2nd though!
@@exittored But Hunt's directing career outside Bond can be best described as 'solid but unspectacular' and went into serious decline in the 80's [including Wild Geese 2 and a couple of poor Charles Bronson films]. He was offered 'Diamonds' but was unavailable-it would have been interesting to see if he could have kept the same quality with a much weaker script.
John Glen is easily my favourite! First because he directed Octopussy which is my favourite Bond movie! Second, out of all the directors, John Glen directed the most movies. Third, he directed non stop during an entire decade and fourth because he also directed some of the best movies in the series!
The last statement doesn't have a lot of weight since most bond older directors they don't have much of a career aside from the franchise amd Glen falls into that since he followed licence to Kill with that Columbus the discovery. He is certainly one of the better directors of the franchise, FYEO, TLD and LtK make my top 10 favourite bond movies and also i have a spot of octupussy, it's highly entertaining and definitely his weakest is a view to a kill witch i find mediocre!
Considering how he successfully resurrected/reinvented Bond twice, I really don't see how he couldn't be #1. Why his other movies aren't that great (Green Lantern) is an enigma - maybe he just gets Bond and feels more inspired by that particular material.
@@MoviesPlease Uh, he directed some good movies inside and outside of Bond. He directed The Mask of Zorro, The Foreigner, Edge of Darkness outside of Bond.
I'm feeling like David Walliams right now....Lee Tamahori better than Marc Forster!!?? I think you're right about Skyfall's plot holes. The film flows so well that if you don't stop to overthink it and Spectre is...the opposite.
I'm much more forgiving of lazy/schlocky direction than I am pretentious direction, I think... I treat Mendes as a case study for my own tolerance for such pretentiousness. Skyfall works just right for me but Spectre goes the other way.
Skyfall’s a very good example of what Hitchcock called ‘Icebox Films’: it’s full of moments that don’t make sense, but you don’t notice when you’re watching it at the cinema. To quote Hitchcock: “It hits you after you’ve gone home and start pulling cold chicken out of the icebox.” So I guess you’d call them ‘Fridge Films’ today.
For me, the plot holes in Skyfall and the co-incidences do detract somewhat from the film, but yes, the flow generally is really good. Spectre just doesn't flow as well.
The plot holes and dodgy themes of Skyfall always take me out of it. The action and the flow don't save it for me. I found it to be a deeply frustrating movie experience.
Great list and I agree with those rankings. I especially agree with Peter Hunt's ranking as OHMSS is in my opinion one of the more stylized Bond films, gaining the admiration of other directors such as Christopher Noland and Steven Soderbergh. It's a shame that Peter Hunt wasn't kept on as director or editor. In the book The Making of On Majesty's Secret Service, there is a letter from Richard Maibaum to Broccoli/Saltzman protesting the hiring of Guy Hamilton for Diamonds over Hunt.
Apparently Hunt was offered Diamonds and wanted to do it but would have needed filming to be moved to allow him to do it-probably not something feasible with Connery's schedule.
Sam Mendes is the Lana and Lilly Wachowski of prestige filmmaking. A revolutionary, game-changing, visually compelling director who never got the love/recognition he deserves.
@@themasher4821 Lana and Lilly both had a great film that was very personal for them but squandered their vision with the sequels. To be fair, I never watched the sequels as I heard it was bad so I focused only on the first film's impacts. Also, they fucked up their career. With every Sense 8, there's always a Jupiter Ascending.
Outstanding video, as usual. Really enjoyed all the behind the scenes footage. If I’d just read your ranking as a list I may have taken issue with a few placements but after your explanations I think my list is your list.
Calvin, this is an excellent video - probably your best one. Intelligent, concise analysis, an original subject (I've never seen much discussion of the merits of the various Bond directors before), and nice insights into the personalities and styles of the guys. Maybe worth devoting a full-length video to the way the directorship of the series changed hands over the decades and the impact that it had on the films?
All of Calvin’s videos are incredibly insightful, but this one really hit the next level. It really gave me some new things to think about in terms of these directors! Nothing short of brilliant! Well done
My Bond director ranking: 1) John Glen 2) Martin Campbell 3) Irvin Kershner 4) Peter Hunt 5) Sam Mendes 6) Terence Young 7) Lewis Gilbert 8) Roger Spottiswoode 9) Guy Hamilton 10) Michael Apted 11) The directors from the 1967 Casino Royale flick 12) Lee Tamahori 13) Marc Forster Yeah, I personally think John Glen is the best Bond director. I like his emphasis on plot and giving his Bond films a bit of a hard edge and darker tone, yet managing to add some humor and fun into them. He really finds the proper balance between the hard edge and the fun gags, and I feel all of his Bond movies have been pretty solid.
Been waiting a long time for you're ranking video of you're inputs on the Bond directors so thank you :) I always knew you would put the directors for Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace at the bottom two which I completely agree with you :)
Something worth mentioning with Glen was how LOW the budgets are during his era, and yet his TV background was perfectly suited for stretching every dollar. Great list, probably my ranking as well.
Calvin, great video. Have to say your director ranking the whole way through is absolutely spot on and the rationale behind your reasoning is eloquently and intelligently put across.
I'm fascinated to see where Fukunaga lands on this list. From what I've seen I think he has top 5 potential but we'll have to wait and see. My list: 11. Lee Tamahori 10. Marc Forster 9. Roger Spotiswoode 8. Guy Hamilton 7. John Glen 6. Michael Apted 5. Lewis Gilbert 4. Terence Young 3. Sam Mendes 2. Peter Hunt 1. Martin Campbell
Interesting list! Nice to see Apted love! I felt a bit bad for dogging on him in this video but, as I say, the leap from the bottom two on my own list to the next one is huge and I still think Apted did a good job!
Calvin Dyson I think Apted does the emotional scenes really well. I like the more stripped back, emotional side of Bond Apted depicts, especially his relationship with Elektra.
Your assessment of Tamahori is spot on. I honestly thought he was just handed a checklist and told to follow that and try to make it as big as possible to the point of stupidity. It's bizarre because he's known here in New Zealand for the film "Once Were Warriors" which is seen as one of his best films he's directed for and its a very dark and grungy film and basic in comparison to Die Another Day. Depending on who you ask, Once Were Warriors is either a New Zealand cult classic film, or literally just some shots of domestic abuse, alcoholism, gang affiliations and sexual assault edited to make a film.
I have to pick John Glen as my favorite. Every one of his Bond films rank among my favorites and all make my top ten (1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 specifically) when ranking the Bond films.
For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill are, in some order or other, your top three? Octopussy as 4, but A View to a Kill as the sixth-best Bond film of all time? Really?
1. Terence YOUNG Young created the cinema Bond with an incredibly stylish vibe of excitement, elegance and eroticism; while staying faithful to the books, he added a sardonic humour and was the best at capturing the atmosphere of his locations. I take my hat off, bow to and kneel before the Man of Style, the most brilliant director the franchise has ever had and will ever have. 2. John GLEN He was overall very consistent yet versatile and delivered the best action sequences in the whole series. Glen knows exactly what a James Bond film - and the character that is Bond - is all about. His films are endlessly re-watchable; his first one and the Dalton ones are absolute highlights. 3. Martin CAMPBELL He directed the best outings of two Bond actors - a great accomplishment (with regards to Brosnan's tenure, that's not saying much, though). While I will never be the biggest fan of "GoldenEye", "Casino Royale" is a masterpiece. Campbell just understands Bond and should come back after Craig is done. 4. Guy HAMILTON The ultimate "camp" director! "Goldfinger" is legendary, and I love "Live and Let Die". Hamilton brought a completely different direction to James Bond: His films are loud, colourful and, most of all, funny. Hamilton is completely unable to do action; it's always played for the laughs, but unlike with some other directors, you actually do laugh. 5. Lewis GILBERT He shot the same film three times - one version is good, one is mediocre, one is bad: Enough to earn him the fifth place. He knew what Bond has to look like on the big screen, his films had the best cinematography. I don't think he cared much for Fleming's character, though. 6. Peter HUNT I may have put him higher had he done more films... I kind of like "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", like many former editors he was great with action scenes. I'm not sure if he handled Lazenby the right way, or if he should have cast him in the first place. Mixed feelings! 7. Roger SPOTTISWOODE "Tomorrow Never Dies" is a generic 90s action movie, and not necessarily among the better ones. It's mostly Bruce Feirstein's script though - Spottiswoode's direction is solid if generic. He did what he was asked to. Very superficial entry, but good action. 8. Sam MENDES I don't think Mendes knows what a James Bond film is. Mendes delivers kitchen sink psychoanalysis instead of espionage; his "action" is terribly dull. The "Home Alone" ending of "Skyfall" has to be one of the worst in Bond history; then Bond cries over M's death: This kind of drama has no place in a Bond picture. "Spectre" is altogether rubbish. His over-polished films look beautiful on screen, but they exhaust you and get worse with each viewing. 9. Lee TAMAHORI The CGI criminal. Responsible for the most embarrassing, artificial Bond film. 10. Marc FORSTER Hopelessly out of his depth with a James Bond film. 11. Michael APTED Hopelessly out of his depth with a James Bond film.
Thanks so much for taking the time the type this out! Great list and thoughts. We differ on a few views but I love hearing other opinions and perspectives on Bond. All contributes towards a rich and diverse fan base! THANK YOU!!
Well my top 3 would include 1. Peter Hunt, 2. Lewis Gilbert and 3. Martin Campbell. OHMSS is just such a beautiful, atmospheric film where I never feel my attention wandering at any point. Gilbert is who hooked me on Bond as a child. I appreciate FUN! Campbell got a very solid action training on shows like The Professionals. His films just feel very sophisticated to me. I'd put Michael Apted higher - I just feel his sensibility is very English and I like his rather measured (for want of a better term) approach. John Glen I would agree I appreciate more now.
Something I realised recently is that it’s the Guy Hamilton films that have the ‘ambush by surviving villain in the epilogue’ scenes rather than a love scene or something. I don’t know how much that has to do with the director though if it’s in the script.
spyboy1964 yes of course you are right, I guess I overlooked that because the gondola love scene comes after. I do think Hamilton was more likely to play these bits for laughs
Guy Hamilton is my pick. Guy always has a sense of fun with his films, and was clearly a passionate fan of 007. Even Diamonds and Golden Gun are enjoyable films. Also love Martin Campbell as well.
Charlie Jeffery Hood Skyfall I feel was the first Bond movie that shows that these movies can not just be entertaining, but have some real artistic filmmaking in play
Hans Michael Fanunal that’s one of the reasons I love it so much, I love it when a film (especially a blockbuster) takes itself seriously in every aspect
John Glen is one of directors, who is seriously underrated. He found the right ingredients for Bond and carried the torch for the franchise singlehandedly during 80s. I am surprised he isn’t knighted for his contribution to Bond films. Terence Young and Guy Hamilton are the pioneers who went beyond 60s filmmaking and predicted what to come for action films. To be fair, Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman also contributed to the direction of the films as much as every director did.
I wonder where Cary Joji Fukunaga would rank in your list now that you've seen NTTD, Calvin! As far as I'm concerned, there it goes for me : 1) Martin Campbell (absolute no-brainer, GE and CR are my two favourite Bond films, and it just can"t be understated how incredible a feat it is to reinvigorate the franchise not once, but twice) 2)Lewis Gilbert (yes, you could argue that he basically did three times the same film, but he did more in superb fashion each time, delivering three absolute classics) 3) Terence Young (I do agree that his presentation might be rough at times, but his films have a flair to them that is second to none, and characterization-wise, I think he did the best job out of all the Bond directors) 4) Peter Hunt (I won't hold the Blofeld plothole against him, but the middle of the film drags a little bit, which is the only reason why he is not on the podium. OHMSS is otherwise a masterpiece, in no small parts thanks to Hunt himself) 5) John Glen (I almost feel bad for not putting him higher, given how much he gave to this franchise, but while I enjoy each and everyone of his films, they tend to lack the magic that the previous four in this list were able to put in theirs) 6) Sam Mendes (tough choice. Had he done only SF, he would probably be at least #3 or #4, but regardless of the plot, his direction on SP is so lethargic that I can't put him higher) 7) Guy Hamilton (Goldfinger is as perfect a 007 film as you can get, and it shaped the entire series in so many ways. But his other three entries are some of my least favourite Bond films, so...) 8)Cary Joji Fukunaga (he did a more than decent job, especially considering the circumstances he came in to the film, but the last 1/3 of NTTD feels so much like it's veering into The Dark Knight rises that I forgot I was watching a Bond film. And his comments on Sean Connery's Bond rubbed me the wrong way. Still, I wouldn't be mad if the Broccolis call him back!) 9)Michael Apted (his lone film might be the most schizophrenic of them all, but it's also one of the more memorable, so kuddos to him. I wish he had come back too) 10) Roger Spottiswoode (I agree that he probably made the best out of a troubled production, and while I love TND, it's as basic as they come, and the 2nd unit stuff and the acting that truly stand out to me) 11) Marc Foster (I still dislike QoS a lot, but it has grown slightly in my estimation recently, and there are a couple of scenes where his admittedly pretentious and incoherent shtick delivers. But they are few and between...) 12) Lee Tamahori (the wrong man for the job. His vision was absolutely not what the series needed at the time. Shame he had to bring down Brosnan with him)
I personally would switch Forster and Tamahori, and Apted with Spottiswoode. But otherwise...yeah. I think you hit a great list, here. I also think Glen is very underrated, although I do sort of see some of his style as kind of flat.
I was just cleaning my Glock 42 when I was looking for a youtube video to listen to and I saw this one. Just now, I looked through the stripped barrel in front of a light just to see the spiraling rifling(as in the 007 gunbarrel effect)
This is a great video - thoroughly enjoyable - very little I'd disagree on - I watched this after watching your really old DAD review which left me unhappy that Tamahori was left carrying the baby so to speak - I was relieved to find that in the intervening years there had been some reappraisal and found this evaluation of his contributions extremely fair by comparison.
Sam Mendes is much better than what you are saying. Skyfall is a top 3 Bond Film and I think Spectre is underrated. Yeah it isn't as good as Skyfall, but with all the references to the old films it is pretty nice. I don't really see the plot holes in Skyfall you were saying, I think the whole story being a reborn of Bond and the following of Tennyson is just really cool.
@@sickpup820 Dalton stood on his own way. A fabulous actor, maybe the best actor of all the Bond actors. But it seems he mistook theatre with the big screen sometimes; they're different mediums. John Glen was right when it came to all the decisions on which they disagreed.
As usual, a concise, well reasoned list with plenty of insights. As an aside, I am one of those who like Die Another Day. It’s a little (ok, a lot silly) but it seems to fit in the Brosnan canon for me. I liked many of the camera angles, and find the flow to be brisk. And Halle Berry is terrific. Not as good as TWINE, but still watchable. my least favorite of that era is Die Another Day. I tend to fall asleep watching it, and am bored by Pryce, who I loved in Ronin. Speaking of, I’d like to see your analysis of that movie, if you haven’t already.
Terence Young definitely is above Guy Hamilton for me. I know people love Goldfinger, but something about Hamilton's Bond films lean a bit too much into spectacle and camp over espionage and class. I'd rank Mendes a bit higher up, in part because I think Spectre's problems are more as a creative team whole and not him, and the man knows how to stage a gorgeous scene without pretension.
The nit pick with Lgilbert is that in tswlm, was In the hotel roger explained to Barbara va b how he killed her lover, there was great tension and one of Rogers best performance I feel. However in the next scene its all blown away by Roger grinning at her on a helicopter winch, totally destroyed the tension.
Yeah I used to feel the same; big, bombastic and dripping with money. However, as time as gone on i've found his films...knackering to watch. As in the emphasis on big spectacle and, in the case of YOLT and Moonraker, too much of a travelogue in places. I still love his stuff but as time has gone on he's the only bond director i've majorly changed my opinion on.
@@whatamalike There is actually not much travelogue in You Only Lice Twice as it stays in Japan for much of the film. Moonraker is the worst in that regard because it's all so random. YOLT and Spy Who Loved Me are independent films, with similar but distinct plots. I prefer YOLT but in some aspects SWLM is better. (Stromberg's goal makes more sense than Blofeld's, who'd just in it for the money.) Moonraker OTOH is just a repetition of the formula, mostly SWLM with some YOLT mixed in. (No wonder, since it was made at short notice.) The last bit is beautifully produced and the music among the best but the entire plot is just silly. Imagine that Drax would have succeeded if he hadn't stolen back the shuttle in the beginning, whereas the kidnapped capsules and submarines in the other two movies couldn't be avoided.
I knew Campbell was your number 1 before watching but I also agree! As for Peter Hunt, I sure wish he got to do Diamonds Are Forever. OHMSS has a great style and from a purely filmmaking perspective I'd consider it the best Bond film. The visual style and production value is classic Hollywood without looking dated or low-budget like some of the other Bond movies that surround it.
What a fantastic video! Thanks for this Calvin, can always count on you for great Bond content. I’m a filmmaker (hence the name) and want that to be my job so this video particularly interested me. So really great picks and well justified. Stay safe and take it easy mr Dyson!
One of your best. Great video. Whether agreeing w/rankings or not, this is so well researched and presented. You really have a knack at dissecting the directing. Unlike others, you are never pretentious or ego first in these 007 offerings. Kudos.
Agree. Hunt and Campbell were the very best. So glad you put Hunt up there. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was one of the very great achievements of the Bond Films. As was Goldeneye and Casino Royale. As usual though (and I think this will be a neverending source of controversy) Quantum of Solace and Marc Forster's direction was under-rated. Quantum of Solace was a great Bond film (though not Casino Royale or Skyfall) and Forster (notwithstanding the plot holes) did a great job of directing a tough embittered Bond characterisation. This was a believable hard edged Bond. The big question is whether, like Hunt, Forster will be re-evaluated in future years? But I understand if people disagree. That is the point of these forums. Thanks Calvin!
Good list. It's very hard to rank the Directors that only did one movie, but Peter Hunt did a very good job in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I think he should have casted an actor with more experienced than what George Lazenby had at the time though. Some of the other lower ranked once time Bond directors other had some bad luck during the pre-production and/or production of the movie . I really like the Terence Young movies, especially From Russia with Love. I would probably rank him higher, but then again I didn't watch the laserdisc commentary and maybe a lot of the credit should go to Peter Hunt.
Nailed this list. 100% on Martin Campbell for number one. _GoldenEye_ and _Casino Royale_ are my two favourite Bond movies. Picking a favorite between those two is like picking a favourite child.
Although Quantum isn't a great film and some of the action scenes are incomprehensible; I liked some of the fast-paced editing, location texts and scene transitions like with the MI6 calling America map while the car is going to the plane.
Your assessment on Marc Forster was spot on, however I like the way he shot and edited the opera shoot out. Agreed 100% on Martin Campbell as the best director.
I'm pretty much on board with with your rankings (and your reasoning), but I would've moved John Glen up to 2nd. It wasn't his fault he had to direct a geriatric in an action role. Moore should've bowed out 2 films earlier.
I’m glad there is a good discussion on the directors who are supremely undervalued. But I would argue that you took the Criterion commentary the wrong way in regards to Young. His films have that element of danger, excitement and tension not to mention sensuality that none of the others do. By refusing to shoot coverage and purposely skipping certain elements he ensured two things like the best of the great directors particularly John Ford who was a good friend of his. This gave the director full creative control as there was nothing for producers or studios to re-edit and it also forced them to pony up with more time and money to do things properly instead of rushing through. That’s why Young and Hunt discuss it in a very puckish manner like naughty schoolboys. It was a different time for picture making and I also think Young was purposely trying to drive the action further by specifically leaving things out. He is without a doubt the guiding force of the series and occupies the top spot for me always. That being said the Hamilton dynamic is very important and the differing styles form a yin and yang the series has forever bounced back and forth. Hamilton could work within the boundaries much better and be on time but never got the same intensity Young did. On the other hand he achieved a richness and could do both dramatic and lighter flourishes with aplomb. Hunt was astonishingly good as director and it’s a shame he never did another-even when both he and Young were courted to do FYEO. I hate that post Bond none of the directors ever had the same strong niche to make further great works. Gilbert wound up always drawing the big epic scale straw and did quite well despite not having that background. It’s amazing how well the character moments and setpieces are integrated. Glen is an extraordinarily underrated craftsman and the only criticism I can level is that the films are expertly crafted and put together but the direction lets everything else sink or float on its own in terms of performance. This is what likely led to Dalton getting frustrated in LTK. Campbell had a good background with things like Edge of Darkness and GE still works well from a directing standpoint. But with all the modern directors it’s really a different sort of series and doesn’t have the same core team of the classic period. Spottiswoode did an incredible job with the scripting and production troubles. TND is cut and edited on a dime and works perfectly so you don’t stop to question things. Apted was an interesting choice but the character first unit material never fully meshes with the second unit action set pieces. Most of the oddball stuff in DAD seems to be entirely from Tamahori wanting to push the envelope and getting carte blanche. Some sequences still work well but there is a definite off feeling throughout. Bringing Campbell back was a very smart move but I’ve never felt any of the new era films work at all. Quantum was practically derailed by its production issues but I did appreciate some of the more human elements Forster tried to inject into it. As for Mendes I have no idea why he was tapped. These two pictures have all of the boredom of some of his other works with no narrative drive which is so crucial to a Bond film.
I think another thing with Young was he was working around the censorship of the time. He knew he couldn't show graphic violence, but he could make you feel it. Young is also undervalued for how much Connery's portrayal of Bond is down to him. Young personally molded the actor into the role, taking him from being a working class Scottish hard man into being a British Gentleman, complete with educating him in food, drink, cards and clothing. Others have said that Young was himself Bond, without the killing, and so Connery's Bond is him imprinted into the film. You can't get more auteur than that. Without Young, we wouldn't have had the Bond films that followed, because his would have tanked. The "Bond, James Bond" and hiding Bond until the reveal was his idea as well. Just to answer your question about Mendes, he was tapped by Daniel Craig who asked him before he'd mentioned it to Eon. Craig had worked with him on 2002's The Road To Perdition.
David James I think it also matters that all the early directors had served in the war and had a definite military background that influenced their connection to Bond as a character. Young had a sense of globetrotting and being an observer being born outside the UK and Hamilton had been a commando. I think Young was the one to most closely identify with and fully realize Fleming’s world onscreen particularly in his physical realization of Fleming’s detached observational dry wit and sardonic humor. That’s right I forgot about Road to Perdition. Which brings up another issue that of actors perhaps having too much creative input and control....
apted's reluctance to seamlessly incorporate vic armstrong's sublime work is actually his strength for me - a lesser director might have tried to cut it excessively or reshoot it to smooth out the edges, to the detriment of the action. apted was smart enough to realize what he had was very good and let it stand on its own merits, which is hugely admirable i think.
André Bourbeau that’s an interesting take. I suppose that could have been the idea in the final editing but coming right after TND being so polished definitely makes it feel disjointed to me in comparison.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader apted clearly wasn't confident shooting action if his filmography is any indication, thus why he deferred so much of it stylistically to the second unit, while spottiswoode obviously didn't have that problem. but i'd take apted's approach, a much rougher cut with stronger dramatic material, over a tighter and stabler cut with less thematic heft. that's not to diminish TND though -- spottiswoode shot some of the series' very best setpieces and leaned heavily into camp (which i love), and i wish he did another film after it.
My top 5 are: 1.) Martin Campbell (Goldeneye and Casino Royale are in my eternal top 3) 2.) Guy hamilton (though not a big fan of DAF) 3.) John Glenn (just cos he's consistently decent) 4.) Lewis Gilbert (still love his stuff, but growing out of them a bit) 5.) Sam Mendes (Skyfall is my second fave ever, Spectre is decent) Terence young and peter r hunt can compete for the 5th place with mendes for me. But mendes just pips it cos skyfall
I'd give Lee Tamahori a bit more credit- the whole "turning up the dial to 11" is probably about the most reasonable thing one could have done with the script. I can imagine that, just as the editor takes cues from the director, the director takes cues from the script.
I have to give the top spot to Martin Campbell. Casino Royale is by far my favorite Bond film. But honestly I think Spottiswoode did a great job with Tomorrow Never Dies despite production problems and studio interference.
21:26 Yes, bit disappointing we only got 2 Bond films throughout the 2010s. As opposed to 6 films in the 1960s, 5 each in the 70s and 80s and even 3 each in the 90s and 00s. Wonder how many more we'll get in the 2020s after No Time to Die covid/omicron permitting. And wonder if Cary Joji Fukunaga will return as director.
Yeah Campbell is number one no question. I would rank Mendes higher though, I don't share the same vitriol for Spectre a lot of people do, it has at least two great action scenes imo in the Mexico opening and the train fight with Hinx and he fills his films full of gorgeous, atmospheric visuals. I also think Bond's scenes alone with Madeline are directed really well, he gets good performances from Craig and Seydoux, despite a rather thin screenplay which goes off the rails. And Skyfall is just on an artistic level, the best Bond film ever, even if I don't think its action scenes top Casino Royale's.
Before watching I guessed Lee Tamahori would be last but I can't quibble too much with your choice of Marc Forster especially after hearing your reasoning
Totals agree with Peter Hunt at No 2 , an amazing film and considering Hunt was working with an inexperienced actor in the lead roll its a great achievement on his part .
Despite On Her Majesty's Secret Service being one of my absolute favorites, every time I watch it, I forget how actually insane the directing is. It blows me away, every time.
When it comes to Terence Young, he’s a director really brought down a lot by the low budget and short scehdules he had to work with - some of the scrambling of scenes was really due to having to shoot at a breakneck speed (especially From Russia with Love). Not helped that his Director of Photography, Ted Moore. Ted was “famous” for being fast and cheap - and boy does it show! Moore is a very uninspired DP, shooting flat, high key scenes with little mood or flair, not helped by the quick production schedule - and there the visual storytelling really suffered.
I think FRWL and DN look pretty decent all things considered, hell FRWL even won a cinematography BAFTA for whatever that’s worth lol. Ted also won an Oscar for Man of All Seasons and I love the way that movie looks :P where’d you read that about him?
the "cheap and fast" look of young's films aren't necessarily a ted moore issue - his other thrillers he made with bronson in the 60-70s (especially Cold Sweat) look like widescreen TV episodes. moore, when given the right budget, could really pull out the stops too - thunderball and diamonds still for the most part look amazing, with rich colours and lots of depth that bring out the most of their settings.
From Russia With Love and Goldfinger certainly did not look cheap. I suppose it's the film stock utilized that made the colors look so crisp and attractive. Dr. No had a small budget but there are some pretty attractive shots and I actually captured some the better frames myself: photos.app.goo.gl/bVjw3i13tkBzUc5p9 From onward Thunderball however, that stuff looked pretty cheap and ugly.
Ricardo Cantoral eh, i don’t think Dr No looks “cheap” either, but even those shots you posted point to a production that had to stretch every dollar in its budget to the absolute limit. it’s cool to see how those budgetary limitations led to some creative choices, though
@@DreBourbeau I honestly don't see how those frames suggest a tight budget. If anything, those pics obfuscate the fact that the film was shot for peanuts. I'd frankly take this photography over the orange and teal garbage you see in movies today.
Interesting video because recently I have noticed a little reoccurring theme between a lot of the reoccurring directors or at least an idea that some like to focus on whether they are Fleming ideas or not: Terrence Young likes to focus more on the idea of the nature of spying idea that Fleming liked to do a lot. Guy Hamilton likes to focus more on the male power fantasy angle of the character and finding ways to challenge it. Lewis Gilbert liked to focus more on the idea of comradeship between Britain and another nation. You Only Live Twice had Bond team up with Japan, The Spy Who Loved Me had Bond team up with Russia and Moonraker has Bond team up with America. Martin Campbell is sort of like Young in a way with the whole nature of spying idea and even Hamilton with the male power fantasy angle to his films except he likes to go for a more decontructionist angle to them. Sam Mendes likes to focus on the different aspects of family. “American Beauty” being a film about decline and imprisoning nature of the American nuclear family, “Road to Perdition” being about father-son relationships, “Skyfall” being a metaphor for motherhood and "Spectre" I guess was trying to be the natural follow up to "Skyfall" with the effects of fatherhood......even if it comes off as an extreme afterthought. The only reoccurring director who I can't really grapse on a thematic motif on is John Glen.
I'm agreement with you for the bottom 5, but my Top 6 goes a bit differently 6 - Guy Hamilton 5 - Lewis Gilbert 4 - Peter Hunt 3 - Martin Campbell 2 - Terence Young 1 - John Glen.
Even planks of wood do a good job of holding up a sideboard. Could you add yet another top 10 to your long list to cover? Id love to see your alternative James bond top 10, from Cary Grant to Peter Pervis, from Sam Neill to lord Lucan. Also, I hear most Spanish films are dubbed, so since you have all the DVDs, which dub of Bond sounds the most like him? Shimpley shocking.
@@davidjames579 Some are press rubbish. OHMSS casting was wide spread as the producers arrogantly thought anyone could play James Bond so were even advertising in army journals [given they had to pay Connery and then Moore fortunes later this was hubris] which explains some of the odder names. Patrick Mower [aka Rodney from Emmerdale!] said he had screen tests for Harry Palmer [to replace Michael Caine in a cancelled sequel] and James Bond back in the day.
Roger Spotiswoode probably stayed calm by knowing that even if Tomorrow Never Dies was released unfinished, it would still be better than Stop or My Mom Will Shoot
Much like Desmond being the best Q, I think 99.9% of Bond fans would agree that Martin Campbell is the best director. It's astonishing that, as you said, he can introduce a new Bond and reinvent the series TWICE and give us one of the best films in the series BOTH times. I certainly wouldn't complain if he got brought back for Bond 26.
I would imagine there are a good few Terence Young fans out there too but yeah Campbell's reputation amongst much of the fandom is super high!
After seeing Green Lantern and The Foreigner, I think it's safe to say he's far past his prime at this point. If EON brought him back I'd be extremely worried.
I liked John Cleese as Q
In Goldeneye he didn't "reinvent the series".
@@DreBourbeau I thought Foreigner was ok, but not great. But the actual direction was still quite good. I'd definitely give him the chance with Bond
Still think John Glen ought to be number one but he'll forever be underappreciated by the fandom. His admittedly workmanlike approach gave Bond the stability it needed durng the 80s McClory fiasco, he's still the best at shooting action setpieces and chases (License to Kill's finale is one of the best, ever) and I appreciate that he experimented with comedy and tone when others wouldn't dare. His biggest flaw was that he consistently surrounded himself with mediocre talent, specifically DPs and production designers, who made his films look cheap. If it weren't for Glen (and Campbell too) the series may not have lasted this long.
Glen is my favourite, the Bond films don't need to look flashy and overly stylish. Alan Hume was a great DP, FYEO still looks beautiful imo. Glen brought back the seriousness and could create suspense better than nearly any of the other directors. It really annoys me when I see people saying he shouldn't have done Dalton's two because one of the reasons they're so fresh is because he (along with Dalton) fought for a serious creative direction.
Sebastian Fitzptraick I don’t think Bond films need to be super stylish either (Glen is my favourite director as well), yet it’s hard to deny that Glen’s films - despite being in the same budgetary ballpark as Spy and Moonraker for example - look so much less attractive and dynamic than those films overall.
Hume and Alec Mills’ Bond photography suffer from the same aesthetic problem: the set pieces outside and those done by the second unit look great overall, but once they go into the studio it’s all shot like a sitcom, complete with duller colours and the flattest lighting imaginable. Certain sets, like the inside of St. Cyrill’s and the mujahideen fort in Daylights, look really rickety. The production designers are to blame too, naturally, and Glen’s laissez-faire approach to dialogue doesn’t help. Considering the films that came before and after, though, one has to wonder why Glen’s films appear as flimsy as they do.
He’s my favourite too. Did you know he was one of the 2nd unit directors on Superman. He shot the scenes of Lois Lane’s red car in the desert during the earthquake
Glen and Campbell? Riding out on a horse...
@@DreBourbeau I think his best visually are FYEO and TLD. I love the shot of the Mujahadeen riding over the dunes. The shutter speed is set high to darken it down, as with alot if the second unit exterior scenes in the late 70s and the 80s Bonds (See Bond meeting VJ in India in Octopussy)
I always took the studio scenes’ camera angles to be a hangover from theatre and older filmmaking. It really does just expose the sets to criticidm by filming them like that.
The door in Kara’s apartment in TLD always gets me, the rest of the apartment looks very nice for behind the iron curtain but the door has been painted poorly to imitate wood, and ends up looking filthy for some reason.
Licence To Kill is so cheap in places, I hate the audio in particular, but visually its significantly poorer than TLD, as brought up by Gene Siskel. I think its cos they moved from Pinewood to Mexico and had to apparently upgrade the Mexican studio facilities immensely. I hate the bare walls everywhere. In particular, the Bimini bar and the Isthmus hotel room look awful.
Compare the Tangiers hotel rooms and Bond & Kara’s Mujahadeen quarters in Living Daylights to the sets in Licence To Kill and you can see the production value drop. I remember on the Inside Licence To Kill documentary, they cut from a scene of Bond and Karim Bey in From Russia With Love to President Lopez in Sanchez’ office in Licence and the set just looks so much worse. Even the Moneypenny desk scene looks a good bit worse than the one in A View To A Kill.
You’re a very underrated RUclipsr, Calvin. Keep up the great work.
“Do you expect me to comment? No Mr. Bond, to subscribe!”
Thanks very much, VulKus! That’s very kind of you to say... I may also have to steal that last line as a sign off for my videos for the future haha 😂
Calvin Dyson Maybe replacing “comment” with “watch” would work better XD
Think this one on the directors is likely to be a big hit with lots of views and discussion comments also help boost the alogs of RUclips.
@@calvindyson where does Terrance Young rank Cal?
@@SB992REBORN watch the video?
I really have a soft spot for John Glen, and Majesty's Secret Service, is my favorite Bond Film, so that puts Peter Hunt quite high for me.
I'm a huge mark for visuals in film, and I would put OHMSS and FYEO as the two most beautiful-looking films in the series. Glen felt constrained in his later films (they increasingly looked/felt like television), but, like Hunt, he could shoot a gorgeous backdrop when the film was written for the scope. Honorable mentions: Gilbert's TSWLM and Moonraker. I don't know what happened after 1981, but the series got so much less visually-ambitious.
LTK certainly doesn't look cheap, the tanker chase, plane fish hook and plane water skiing is amazing balls to the wall action. I agree with m riggs.
I’m pretty sure John Glen was the 2nd unit Director of Majesty’s
I’d like that movie if they had bothered to cast a better actor to play Bond, or just tell Sean to get on with it ya cry baby
Everything you said I agree with exactly.
17:19 Dear old Terence Young trying to put his sunglasses into a non-existent shirt pocket always makes me smile.
No, he just had an itch. :-)
He might as well be wanting to clean it. But I see your point. :-)
I loved how in the 60s movies, they kept Blofeld a mystery. You only heard his voice and saw his hands. Until YOLT. The modern film has none of that mystery and then they make Blofeld and Bond adoptive brothers.
If I was the director of Spectre, I would have quit on the spot to hear that the writers wanted to make Bond and Blofeld brothers! And YES, because it was ripped off from Austin Powers, but that film was SUPPOSED to be a ridiculous storyline!!
Sam Mendes once said making a Bond movie is "not a healthy way to work." Considering he made Calvin's favorite Eon-produced Bond film and followed it up with his least favorite, I can believe that.
I like Spectre, but it certainly feels like a much more lethargic film made by burnt out people. Craig looks bored as fuck through most of it (or maybe that's just his face lol).
@The Logomaker Eh, Nicolas Winding Refn is good, but most of his movies tend to be a bit too slow-paced for my liking.
@The Logomaker I'll give him this: his movies look amazing
@The Creator Winding Refn doing a major film would be interesting but he seems to prefer doing low budget films where he has more creative control.
The directing was one of the stronger aspects of Spectre. It was the writing that held it back. Usually, great directing can compensate for mediocre writing, but sometimes the plot is just so bad that there is no way for a director to make it look believable.
In my opinion, I'd have to say Terrance Young. He set the tone, look, and style with Dr. No and From Russia with Love. Then continued it with Thunderball, while building off of Guy Hamilton's work in Goldfinger and his own work.
Most underatred, John Glen. Generally, he gave solid job to each of his movies and his action sequences are really well shot.
Least favorite, Michael Apted. I don't think he really had a grasp on that story or action sequences for The World is Not Enough. Strangely, I did enjoy his 3rd Narnia movie.
Terence Young was fantastic and he was the most relevant director of Bond movies, no doubt about it. Current Bond with Craig I simply ignore.
Worst: Marc "Jumpcut" Forster
Best: Martin "Reboot" Campbell
Resourseful: John "Pigeon-jumpscare" Glen
The Starter: Terrance "Backdrop and Speed Edit" Young
One Hit Wonder: Peter "Emotional gut punch" Hunt
High Scale Spectacle: Lewis "Lost in the background" Gilbert
Always thought Goldeneye was just a sequel to Licence To Kill with Dalton recast rather than a reboot. For example: after the pre-title sequence (set in the 1980's) it jumps forward to the present where Bond is under "evaluation". Why would he be under evaluation? Because he just went rogue in Licence To Kill.
@Louise Sea Pervis and Wade. Not Mendes.
@Louise Sea Shame. I think Skyfall is one of the best bond movies. Spectre though, has a disastrous script, ans I wish they threw out everything that had to do with that movie in No Time To Die. Blofeld and Swann are pretty lame characters, and I'm not looking forward to seeing those again.
Glen is my favorite. I like how his films were more realistic instead of grandiose and bombastic like the ones prior to his arrival. Him and Dalton were a perfect match.
Roger Michell revealed that he was offered Quantum and was told to start storyboarding straight away. He asked if the script was finished and was told it was no where near finished. He said he knew it was not going to work and walked away.
I’d take Forster over Tamahori myself - those slowdown/speedup bits really do annoy me, as does his mentality that CGI just makes everything better (in a series which, for the most part, does everything practically, which is perhaps why it’s so aggravating) plus I think Forster got better performances from his actors than Tamahori did. Yes Forster’s artistic flourishes are annoying, but they don’t bother me too much, at least not as much as Tamahori’s flourishes do.
But I’m not in disagreement that both deserve to be at the bottom of the ranking, just, if I had to pick a poison, I’d take Forster’s arty-farts over Tamahori’s excessive cheese™.
Yeah after seeing some of the comments on here I might be in the minority with my ranking of those two but I think we'll all be in agreement that they deserve to be at the bottom. I do have a specific dislike for directors who try so desperately to be arty-farty and fall flat doing so. M Night is a director who I find often falls into that category, though, more hilariously so than Forster!
@@calvindyson If we had the Lee Tamahori of "Once Were Warriors" and "Mulholland Falls," audiences would've been well served. Both are character driven works with hard-hitting violence. The obsession w/celebrating the franchise's anniversary and this need to embrace contemporary (for 2002) film techniques and technology, really hurt this film.
I still say the Tosca scene in QOS is the high point of QOS and it's Forster at his best. The visual storytelling of Bond infiltrating the opera, disrupting Quantum's meeting and confronting Greene was stellar. David Arnold's "A Night at the Opera," is my favorite cue from his tenure on the series.
@@calvindyson Maybe Forster is better when he isn't trying to be artsy? I did kinda like Christopher Robin.
I maintain that the biggest issue with QoS is the editing, which means that- in theory- you could come out with a studio cut or something that tells the exact same story but in a much better, more comprehensible way.
Whereas with Die Another Day, the problem is much more with the script and the tone, and that is much harder to fix. QoS is a decent film that was ruined in post; DaD is just mediocre from start to finish.
Jonathan Campbell QoS did have a lot of script issues though, due to the fact it was rushed to get it finished before the Writer’s Guild Strike started. I think it certainly could’ve done with another script polish - for instance, the whole thing with the geologist in Haiti is rather convoluted, and Mathis turning out to be a codename is an odd story beat that doesn’t add to anything. Apparently scenes were re-written by Marc Forster and Daniel Craig because they weren’t allowed to hire an actual writer because of the strike.
You should do a Ranking for the best to worst Bond Film Movie posters
Agree
I'd LOVE to see a Bond film directed by Denis Villeneuve & again shot by Roger Deakins. Their pairing in Sicario & Blade Runner is one of the most underrated in cinematic history. The tension in Sicario built from slow, lingering shots that are quickly broken by short, harsh and incredibly violent sequences would lend itself well to a retelling of more classic Bond stories & a more faithful interpretation of the Fleming source material.
I very much appreciate the film-making knowledge you bring to this video in particular - your familiarity with the language of film is evident and has helped me to understand some of the reactions I've had to the different approaches taken by Bond film directors. Oh, and the presence of Mrs. Bell is ALWAYS welcome!
Wow, thank you! Really appreciate this, Charles. I'm happy you enjoyed the video and pleased to see my film degree is paying off in some way!
OHMSS is so gorgeous to watch that it hurts to think what could have happened had Hunt been allowed to take Bond into the New Hollywood 70s. Grittier, more realistic, more mature stories, but with a period flair that (at least for us yung'uns) would still feel like a natural extension of the 60s.
By 1977 they still could have passed the torch to Sir Roger and given us the disco-era high camp. But I would sacrifice Diamonds, LaLD and Golden Gun for three more from Hunt, easy.
Oh I wouldn't! After the bombast of YOLT and, to a much lesser extent, OHMSS, I think guy Hamilton coming back and doing 3 lower key bond films was a nice pallete cleanser. Though I am one of those who would without hesitation put Live and let die and man with the golden gun in their top 10.
The only thing I would want changed about the bond film history is for Diamonds are forever to be a return for lazenby, again directed by hunt, and effectively be a revenge film (kind of like a much less violent license to kill) that tidies off SPECTRE and Blofeld's chronology.
Even if Hunt stayed on board, the tone of the films would not have been gritty. The spy craze was dead by the late 60's and audiences stopped taking "Spy Fi" stuff seriously.
The series was kinda at rock bottom with the Man with the Golden Gun, critically and financially. Not a terrible movie. OHMSS was very polished and elegant, like the newer Bond movies, also very serious in tone and gritty. The action scenes were cutting-edge and dynamic.
Hunt's 70's films were solid but his 80's films were poor and he stopped directing in the late 80's.
@@jamesatkinsonja Love the direction but the pace and story telling is too boring and slow IMHO. Its also way too depressing at the end of a note to go out on when it is supposed to lead into another Bond that is continuing off this and this was always a one off. I dont hate it all it is not a entertaining one to watch but there are many scenes and action set pieces mainly the entire snow sene that are pivotal to watch.
I’d put Terrance Young above John Glen - Young’s films have more flair to them, and I think Young understood the Bond character better. Though I do think Glen did a better job with Dalton than he did with Moore, though perhaps that was just because he had more experience by TLD.
And whilst I think John Glen did a good job with his films, I think it’s a shame that Timothy Dalton never got to work with any other directors, I would’ve liked to have seen another director’s take on Dalton’s Bond, one with a bit more style than Glen. According to MI6-HQ, John Landis of ‘The Blues Brothers’ and ‘An American Werewolf in London’ was touted for ‘Bond 17’, which I think could’ve been very cool (those two are some of my favourite films), as was Ted Kotcheff (‘First Blood’) and John Byrum (uh... no idea. You can IMDb him yourself).
Dalton's films suffered from a certain malaise for me because it never quite felt like they'd entirely left behind the tone of the later Moore films. I think Dalton's Bond would've benefited from a new director like Martin Campbell who could've injected some stylistic flare.
@@SolarDragon007 Indeed, I would argue that Glen's films succeeded predominantly due to the action set pieces on display that were impressive in and of themselves, rather than how he depicted them. His films stylistically tend to have quite a flat, occasionally televisual feel to them which make them seem antiquated even for the time. Licence to Kill suffers especially from this as it's clearly riding the coattails of Miami Vice, yet while a perfectly enjoyable film, I struggle to conjure a single frame that does justice to its themes. For a film centred entirely on revenge, it should've been moody as hell in an 80's neo-noir sense with cool lighting and flair. Instead everything is lit far too well with no texture or depth to shots.
As I stated in the previous video, John Glen always struck me as more of a technician than an artist. His films were well produced but they lacked flavor and I think Dalton would have benefited from a director with vision.
@@stuffedsheepshead Glen's films did lack a dynamic quality but I wouldn't say that Glen's films had no pleasing visuals. The Living Daylights featured some excellent photography, especially those magic hour shots.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Martin Campbell brought such an energy to both his Bond films that I found was lacking in Dalton's films.
Great video Calvin, you displayed a lot of knowledge of film techniques in this video. My ranking would go like this :
1. John Glen - I think a lot of the darker elements now present in Bond were brought in by Glen. He really brought the spy and thriller elements back. I absolutely love FYEO, TLD and LTK. All top 10. He knew what worked about Bond and utilised them perfectly.
2. Martin Campbell - Another director who understands how to craft a Bond film. He reinvented the series twice and made two of some of the best Bond films. He's a legend.
3. Peter Hunt - OHMSS is the most beautiful looking Bond film. The shots are full of texture and beauty. He really should've done more.
4. Lewis Gilbert - His films have the sheer action spectacle that defines Bond. All really consistently great films as well.
5. Terence Young - Really sharp behind the camera, also created the Bond cinematic identity.
6. Guy Hamilton - Not a big fan of any of his films but he's consistent, his films are the kind I'd marathon in one night.
7. Roger Spottiswoode - He was good, could've done more films and I wouldn't complain.
8. Michael Apted - You were right, his direction is one of the weaker parts of the film.
9. Sam Mendes - He has a good visual style but he's also extremely pretentious. If he'd just done Skyfall, he'd be way higher.
10. Lee Tamahori - His direction is probably the worst part of DAD, all the early 2000s motifs are awful.
11. Marc Forster - Pretentious and has no clue how to make a Bond film. Should never have been hired.
This is my new favourite channel, I started binge watching during lockdown
I been on this channel since around 2018. Love the Bond podcast select few folks
Goldeneye and Casino Royale are by far two of my favorites Bond movies. So ranking Campbell as your number one feels very good to me. Thanks for this ranking!
In Mr. Foresters defence, he didn’t actually really have script to work with, because of the ongoing writers strike, he Daniel Craig and a few others, were essentially making the whole thing up as they went along.
This was one of the best videos on Bond I have seen in a long time...so on point, well discussed, and thought provoking. Calvin, you did it again!
Spot on list! I read something about Forster wanting there to be four main action sequences in Quantum representing the four elements - surely that was a major red flag that the guy was not suitable for the job.
Ohh damn, now as you say it!
Chase on the rooftop of Sienna - Earth
The Plane chase - Air
Boat chase in Haiti - Water
The Finale in the Hotel in the desert - Fire
Yeah, noticable how well that worked out in the movie...
Too much of the artsy-fartsy crap! It could be done, but to announce that intention is massively pretentious!
Lewis Gilbert is my favorite, his Bond movies are simply grand and epic in scale thanks in no small part to Ken Adams iconic set designs. No other Bond directors have reached that level since and honestly we could really need another Bond epic after the dreary Craig era.
Best video you've ever made, extremely informative, well-written and precise and shows your deep understanding of the material. Martin Campbell is the GOAT. Did you see The Protege yet? Michael Keaton kind of plays James Bond in it
I knew about Martin Campbell a fair bit, but not much about the other directors so thanks for the in depth analysis of their work. Really fascinating.
I just rewatched Spectre last night, and was surprised just how enjoyable I found it. The story is a bit rough and made some choices I wouldn't agree with, but Spectre felt fun to watch.
1) Martin Campbell
Both Goldeneye and Casino Royale are some of the best looking entries in the series and MC brings an infectious flair to his action sequences (Ex. The Tank Chase in Goldeneye, the Parkour chase in CR). Truly the complete package as far as Bond directors are concerned. Hopefully one of these days he'll be brought back to do another one.
2) John Glenn
Even though his directing style could be accused of being workman-like; I always appreciated the level of efficiency showcased in Glenn's Bond entries. He was also second only to Campbell when it came to filming action sequences and the two Dalton films are his finest achievements in that regard.
The Tanker Truck chase in LTK still remains to this day my absolute favorite action sequence in the franchise.
3) Sam Mendes
It honestly surprises me how divisive Mendes tends to be in the Bond fandom.
Both Skyfall and Spectre are the most visually gorgeous entries in the Bond franchise. He's great with actors for the most part and has also delivered some neat action sequences along the way (Ex. The climax of Skyfall, The Day of the Dead opening in Spectre).
While I still enjoy Spectre to an extent, it's questionable narrative beats and odd editing does bring down Mendes' place in the countdown.
4) Terence Young
Young deserves a lot of respect for helping lay down the foundation of the franchise in terms of visual style, tone and the cinematic Bond in it's formative years. He always brought a nice sophisticated style to his entries that I feel has never been captured again since.
I always felt his primary weakness tended to be action sequences though, especially fist fights.
5) Lewis Gilbert
YOLT, TSWLM and MR contain some of the best set designs of the series.
6) Peter R. Hunt
Even though he only directed one entry (OHMSS), Hunt does reasonably well behind the camera and delivers one of the more visually-arresting entries inofthe 60's Bond era. Would be higher if OHMSS didn't suffer from some very choppy editing.
7) Guy Hamilton
Goldfinger was great and one of the most iconic Bond entries. The three movies he did afterwards (DAF, LALD, TMWTGG) have their moments but always felt cripplingly work-man-like and blandly forgettable.
8) Marc Forster
While I do enjoy QOS, it could have benefited if it had a different director. Forster is great with actors and QOS does have some neat sequences (Ex. opera scene) but the disorienting editing during the action sequences is frustrating.
9) Roger Spottiswoode/Michael Apted
It's a shame Campbell didn't return to direct any of the post-Goldeneye Brosnan flicks because one of my primary problems with both TND and TWINE is that they are both suffer from bland overly-sterilized direction. The both lack the polish, gloss and tight editing that made Goldeneye so enjoyable.
10) Lee Tamahori
Gosh DAD has not aged well at all, especially when it comes to it's early 2000s XXX-style direction and it's super fake-looking Ice Hotel sets. Also there is the CGI surfing scene.....yeah.
I like John Glen’s direction very much. His set pieces were unforgettable...as was the humour.
Totally agreed.
If we forget the Tarzan scream and the beach boys song then i agree
Personally I consider Peter Hunt the best Bond director since imo OHMSS is a near perfect film and I love his visual style. Martin Campbell is definitely a close 2nd though!
@@exittored But Hunt's directing career outside Bond can be best described as 'solid but unspectacular' and went into serious decline in the 80's [including Wild Geese 2 and a couple of poor Charles Bronson films]. He was offered 'Diamonds' but was unavailable-it would have been interesting to see if he could have kept the same quality with a much weaker script.
John Glen is easily my favourite! First because he directed Octopussy which is my favourite Bond movie! Second, out of all the directors, John Glen directed the most movies. Third, he directed non stop during an entire decade and fourth because he also directed some of the best movies in the series!
The last statement doesn't have a lot of weight since most bond older directors they don't have much of a career aside from the franchise amd Glen falls into that since he followed licence to Kill with that Columbus the discovery. He is certainly one of the better directors of the franchise, FYEO, TLD and LtK make my top 10 favourite bond movies and also i have a spot of octupussy, it's highly entertaining and definitely his weakest is a view to a kill witch i find mediocre!
I’ve got to agree with you, Martin Campbell is definitely my number 1
Considering how he successfully resurrected/reinvented Bond twice, I really don't see how he couldn't be #1. Why his other movies aren't that great (Green Lantern) is an enigma - maybe he just gets Bond and feels more inspired by that particular material.
@@MoviesPlease He directed Edge of Darkness, which is one of the greatest TV thrillers ever. And you don't like The Mask of Zorro?
@@MoviesPlease Uh, he directed some good movies inside and outside of Bond. He directed The Mask of Zorro, The Foreigner, Edge of Darkness outside of Bond.
@@thebadfella5296 He's done some good work outside Bond, I agree.
I'm feeling like David Walliams right now....Lee Tamahori better than Marc Forster!!??
I think you're right about Skyfall's plot holes. The film flows so well that if you don't stop to overthink it and Spectre is...the opposite.
I'm much more forgiving of lazy/schlocky direction than I am pretentious direction, I think... I treat Mendes as a case study for my own tolerance for such pretentiousness. Skyfall works just right for me but Spectre goes the other way.
Skyfall’s a very good example of what Hitchcock called ‘Icebox Films’: it’s full of moments that don’t make sense, but you don’t notice when you’re watching it at the cinema. To quote Hitchcock: “It hits you after you’ve gone home and start pulling cold chicken out of the icebox.”
So I guess you’d call them ‘Fridge Films’ today.
@@BenCol I see Skyfall as an excellent Film but not as good as a Bond film. I think its just Mendes' direction of his films.
For me, the plot holes in Skyfall and the co-incidences do detract somewhat from the film, but yes, the flow generally is really good. Spectre just doesn't flow as well.
The plot holes and dodgy themes of Skyfall always take me out of it. The action and the flow don't save it for me. I found it to be a deeply frustrating movie experience.
John Glens Bond films started of dark then went more lighthearted then went dark again. Interesting
Shows his versatility, he can direct a grounded action thriller like LTK or a fun romp like Octopussy.
@@sebastianfitzptraick7395 ALL of Glen-directed entries are dark - at least compared to the ones helmed by Lewis Gilbert and Guy Hamilton.
Great list and I agree with those rankings. I especially agree with Peter Hunt's ranking as OHMSS is in my opinion one of the more stylized Bond films, gaining the admiration of other directors such as Christopher Noland and Steven Soderbergh.
It's a shame that Peter Hunt wasn't kept on as director or editor. In the book The Making of On Majesty's Secret Service, there is a letter from Richard Maibaum to Broccoli/Saltzman protesting the hiring of Guy Hamilton for Diamonds over Hunt.
Apparently Hunt was offered Diamonds and wanted to do it but would have needed filming to be moved to allow him to do it-probably not something feasible with Connery's schedule.
Hmm, Brosnan and Craig had the worst directors, but also the best director.
Sam Mendes is the Lana and Lilly Wachowski of prestige filmmaking. A revolutionary, game-changing, visually compelling director who never got the love/recognition he deserves.
@@themasher4821 Lana and Lilly both had a great film that was very personal for them but squandered their vision with the sequels. To be fair, I never watched the sequels as I heard it was bad so I focused only on the first film's impacts. Also, they fucked up their career. With every Sense 8, there's always a Jupiter Ascending.
@@themasher4821 Because the way he shoots movies gives people headaches.
@@sickpup820 But i love Speed Racer...
RIP Michael Apted (1941-2021)
Outstanding video, as usual. Really enjoyed all the behind the scenes footage. If I’d just read your ranking as a list I may have taken issue with a few placements but after your explanations I think my list is your list.
Calvin, this is an excellent video - probably your best one. Intelligent, concise analysis, an original subject (I've never seen much discussion of the merits of the various Bond directors before), and nice insights into the personalities and styles of the guys. Maybe worth devoting a full-length video to the way the directorship of the series changed hands over the decades and the impact that it had on the films?
All of Calvin’s videos are incredibly insightful, but this one really hit the next level. It really gave me some new things to think about in terms of these directors! Nothing short of brilliant! Well done
My Bond director ranking:
1) John Glen
2) Martin Campbell
3) Irvin Kershner
4) Peter Hunt
5) Sam Mendes
6) Terence Young
7) Lewis Gilbert
8) Roger Spottiswoode
9) Guy Hamilton
10) Michael Apted
11) The directors from the 1967 Casino Royale flick
12) Lee Tamahori
13) Marc Forster
Yeah, I personally think John Glen is the best Bond director. I like his emphasis on plot and giving his Bond films a bit of a hard edge and darker tone, yet managing to add some humor and fun into them. He really finds the proper balance between the hard edge and the fun gags, and I feel all of his Bond movies have been pretty solid.
Really good analytical look at the directors.
Been waiting a long time for you're ranking video of you're inputs on the Bond directors so thank you :) I always knew you would put the directors for Die Another Day and Quantum of Solace at the bottom two which I completely agree with you :)
Something worth mentioning with Glen was how LOW the budgets are during his era, and yet his TV background was perfectly suited for stretching every dollar.
Great list, probably my ranking as well.
Calvin, great video. Have to say your director ranking the whole way through is absolutely spot on and the rationale behind your reasoning is eloquently and intelligently put across.
I'm fascinated to see where Fukunaga lands on this list. From what I've seen I think he has top 5 potential but we'll have to wait and see. My list:
11. Lee Tamahori
10. Marc Forster
9. Roger Spotiswoode
8. Guy Hamilton
7. John Glen
6. Michael Apted
5. Lewis Gilbert
4. Terence Young
3. Sam Mendes
2. Peter Hunt
1. Martin Campbell
Interesting list! Nice to see Apted love! I felt a bit bad for dogging on him in this video but, as I say, the leap from the bottom two on my own list to the next one is huge and I still think Apted did a good job!
Calvin Dyson I think Apted does the emotional scenes really well. I like the more stripped back, emotional side of Bond Apted depicts, especially his relationship with Elektra.
@@HunterJ1999 Apted has always been a more "cerebral" director. Thunderheart is one of my most favourite films.
Your assessment of Tamahori is spot on. I honestly thought he was just handed a checklist and told to follow that and try to make it as big as possible to the point of stupidity.
It's bizarre because he's known here in New Zealand for the film "Once Were Warriors" which is seen as one of his best films he's directed for and its a very dark and grungy film and basic in comparison to Die Another Day.
Depending on who you ask, Once Were Warriors is either a New Zealand cult classic film, or literally just some shots of domestic abuse, alcoholism, gang affiliations and sexual assault edited to make a film.
I have to pick John Glen as my favorite. Every one of his Bond films rank among my favorites and all make my top ten (1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 specifically) when ranking the Bond films.
For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill are, in some order or other, your top three? Octopussy as 4, but A View to a Kill as the sixth-best Bond film of all time? Really?
1. Terence YOUNG
Young created the cinema Bond with an incredibly stylish vibe of excitement, elegance and eroticism; while staying faithful to the books, he added a sardonic humour and was the best at capturing the atmosphere of his locations. I take my hat off, bow to and kneel before the Man of Style, the most brilliant director the franchise has ever had and will ever have.
2. John GLEN
He was overall very consistent yet versatile and delivered the best action sequences in the whole series.
Glen knows exactly what a James Bond film - and the character that is Bond - is all about. His films are endlessly re-watchable; his first one and the Dalton ones are absolute highlights.
3. Martin CAMPBELL
He directed the best outings of two Bond actors - a great accomplishment (with regards to Brosnan's tenure, that's not saying much, though).
While I will never be the biggest fan of "GoldenEye", "Casino Royale" is a masterpiece. Campbell just understands Bond and should come back after Craig is done.
4. Guy HAMILTON
The ultimate "camp" director! "Goldfinger" is legendary, and I love "Live and Let Die".
Hamilton brought a completely different direction to James Bond: His films are loud, colourful and, most of all, funny. Hamilton is completely unable to do action; it's always played for the laughs, but unlike with some other directors, you actually do laugh.
5. Lewis GILBERT
He shot the same film three times - one version is good, one is mediocre, one is bad: Enough to earn him the fifth place.
He knew what Bond has to look like on the big screen, his films had the best cinematography. I don't think he cared much for Fleming's character, though.
6. Peter HUNT
I may have put him higher had he done more films... I kind of like "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", like many former editors he was great with action scenes.
I'm not sure if he handled Lazenby the right way, or if he should have cast him in the first place. Mixed feelings!
7. Roger SPOTTISWOODE
"Tomorrow Never Dies" is a generic 90s action movie, and not necessarily among the better ones. It's mostly Bruce Feirstein's script though - Spottiswoode's direction is solid if generic. He did what he was asked to. Very superficial entry, but good action.
8. Sam MENDES
I don't think Mendes knows what a James Bond film is. Mendes delivers kitchen sink psychoanalysis instead of espionage; his "action" is terribly dull.
The "Home Alone" ending of "Skyfall" has to be one of the worst in Bond history; then Bond cries over M's death: This kind of drama has no place in a Bond picture.
"Spectre" is altogether rubbish.
His over-polished films look beautiful on screen, but they exhaust you and get worse with each viewing.
9. Lee TAMAHORI
The CGI criminal. Responsible for the most embarrassing, artificial Bond film.
10. Marc FORSTER
Hopelessly out of his depth with a James Bond film.
11. Michael APTED
Hopelessly out of his depth with a James Bond film.
Thanks so much for taking the time the type this out! Great list and thoughts. We differ on a few views but I love hearing other opinions and perspectives on Bond. All contributes towards a rich and diverse fan base! THANK YOU!!
Well my top 3 would include 1. Peter Hunt, 2. Lewis Gilbert and 3. Martin Campbell. OHMSS is just such a beautiful, atmospheric film where I never feel my attention wandering at any point. Gilbert is who hooked me on Bond as a child. I appreciate FUN! Campbell got a very solid action training on shows like The Professionals. His films just feel very sophisticated to me.
I'd put Michael Apted higher - I just feel his sensibility is very English and I like his rather measured (for want of a better term) approach. John Glen I would agree I appreciate more now.
Brosnan's Campbell impersonation had me in stitches.
Something I realised recently is that it’s the Guy Hamilton films that have the ‘ambush by surviving villain in the epilogue’ scenes rather than a love scene or something. I don’t know how much that has to do with the director though if it’s in the script.
Terence Young was the first to do that in From Russia with Love
spyboy1964 yes of course you are right, I guess I overlooked that because the gondola love scene comes after. I do think Hamilton was more likely to play these bits for laughs
@@FroMarty - yes, Hamilton did it in all of his Bond movies while Young only did it once
Guy Hamilton is my pick.
Guy always has a sense of fun with his films, and was clearly a passionate fan of 007. Even Diamonds and Golden Gun are enjoyable films.
Also love Martin Campbell as well.
Campbell. It's amazing he rebooted the series w 2 different Bonds and made 2 different styles of movie.
That Peggy Mitchell edit had me in stitches 😂
Gotta go with Sam Mendes since Skyfall was the movie that made me wanna explore and study film
Charlie Jeffery Hood Skyfall I feel was the first Bond movie that shows that these movies can not just be entertaining, but have some real artistic filmmaking in play
Hans Michael Fanunal that’s one of the reasons I love it so much, I love it when a film (especially a blockbuster) takes itself seriously in every aspect
A latter-day masterpiece (despite the Home Alone finale).
John Glen is one of directors, who is seriously underrated. He found the right ingredients for Bond and carried the torch for the franchise singlehandedly during 80s. I am surprised he isn’t knighted for his contribution to Bond films. Terence Young and Guy Hamilton are the pioneers who went beyond 60s filmmaking and predicted what to come for action films. To be fair, Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman also contributed to the direction of the films as much as every director did.
I wonder where Cary Joji Fukunaga would rank in your list now that you've seen NTTD, Calvin! As far as I'm concerned, there it goes for me :
1) Martin Campbell (absolute no-brainer, GE and CR are my two favourite Bond films, and it just can"t be understated how incredible a feat it is to reinvigorate the franchise not once, but twice)
2)Lewis Gilbert (yes, you could argue that he basically did three times the same film, but he did more in superb fashion each time, delivering three absolute classics)
3) Terence Young (I do agree that his presentation might be rough at times, but his films have a flair to them that is second to none, and characterization-wise, I think he did the best job out of all the Bond directors)
4) Peter Hunt (I won't hold the Blofeld plothole against him, but the middle of the film drags a little bit, which is the only reason why he is not on the podium. OHMSS is otherwise a masterpiece, in no small parts thanks to Hunt himself)
5) John Glen (I almost feel bad for not putting him higher, given how much he gave to this franchise, but while I enjoy each and everyone of his films, they tend to lack the magic that the previous four in this list were able to put in theirs)
6) Sam Mendes (tough choice. Had he done only SF, he would probably be at least #3 or #4, but regardless of the plot, his direction on SP is so lethargic that I can't put him higher)
7) Guy Hamilton (Goldfinger is as perfect a 007 film as you can get, and it shaped the entire series in so many ways. But his other three entries are some of my least favourite Bond films, so...)
8)Cary Joji Fukunaga (he did a more than decent job, especially considering the circumstances he came in to the film, but the last 1/3 of NTTD feels so much like it's veering into The Dark Knight rises that I forgot I was watching a Bond film. And his comments on Sean Connery's Bond rubbed me the wrong way. Still, I wouldn't be mad if the Broccolis call him back!)
9)Michael Apted (his lone film might be the most schizophrenic of them all, but it's also one of the more memorable, so kuddos to him. I wish he had come back too)
10) Roger Spottiswoode (I agree that he probably made the best out of a troubled production, and while I love TND, it's as basic as they come, and the 2nd unit stuff and the acting that truly stand out to me)
11) Marc Foster (I still dislike QoS a lot, but it has grown slightly in my estimation recently, and there are a couple of scenes where his admittedly pretentious and incoherent shtick delivers. But they are few and between...)
12) Lee Tamahori (the wrong man for the job. His vision was absolutely not what the series needed at the time. Shame he had to bring down Brosnan with him)
I personally would switch Forster and Tamahori, and Apted with Spottiswoode. But otherwise...yeah. I think you hit a great list, here. I also think Glen is very underrated, although I do sort of see some of his style as kind of flat.
I was just cleaning my Glock 42 when I was looking for a youtube video to listen to and I saw this one.
Just now, I looked through the stripped barrel in front of a light just to see the spiraling rifling(as in the 007 gunbarrel effect)
I love how much you know about the James Bond series! It is truly amazing. I don’t think anyone knows more than you.
This is a great video - thoroughly enjoyable - very little I'd disagree on - I watched this after watching your really old DAD review which left me unhappy that Tamahori was left carrying the baby so to speak - I was relieved to find that in the intervening years there had been some reappraisal and found this evaluation of his contributions extremely fair by comparison.
Sam Mendes is much better than what you are saying. Skyfall is a top 3 Bond Film and I think Spectre is underrated. Yeah it isn't as good as Skyfall, but with all the references to the old films it is pretty nice. I don't really see the plot holes in Skyfall you were saying, I think the whole story being a reborn of Bond and the following of Tennyson is just really cool.
John Glen behind Martin Campbell. Glen was able to handle vastly different tones and themes
Underrated director, doesn't get half the credit he deserves.
Dalton hated Glen.
@@sickpup820
Dalton stood on his own way. A fabulous actor, maybe the best actor of all the Bond actors.
But it seems he mistook theatre with the big screen sometimes; they're different mediums.
John Glen was right when it came to all the decisions on which they disagreed.
As usual, a concise, well reasoned list with plenty of insights.
As an aside, I am one of those who like Die Another Day. It’s a little (ok, a lot silly) but it seems to fit in the Brosnan canon for me. I liked many of the camera angles, and find the flow to be brisk. And Halle Berry is terrific. Not as good as TWINE, but still watchable. my least favorite of that era is Die Another Day. I tend to fall asleep watching it, and am bored by Pryce, who I loved in Ronin. Speaking of, I’d like to see your analysis of that movie, if you haven’t already.
Can't disagree with Martin Campbell as number one. Great video as always and really enjoyed the behind the scenes segments.
Terence Young definitely is above Guy Hamilton for me. I know people love Goldfinger, but something about Hamilton's Bond films lean a bit too much into spectacle and camp over espionage and class. I'd rank Mendes a bit higher up, in part because I think Spectre's problems are more as a creative team whole and not him, and the man knows how to stage a gorgeous scene without pretension.
I would say my favourite is Lewis Gilbert, as I really like his style of bond movies
But he did directed a movie with the same basic plot 3 times. But they are okay.
The nit pick with Lgilbert is that in tswlm, was In the hotel roger explained to Barbara va b how he killed her lover, there was great tension and one of Rogers best performance I feel.
However in the next scene its all blown away by Roger grinning at her on a helicopter winch, totally destroyed the tension.
@@ginger-jc7ti Roger Moore grins ruined more than one scene in several movies.
Yeah I used to feel the same; big, bombastic and dripping with money. However, as time as gone on i've found his films...knackering to watch. As in the emphasis on big spectacle and, in the case of YOLT and Moonraker, too much of a travelogue in places.
I still love his stuff but as time has gone on he's the only bond director i've majorly changed my opinion on.
@@whatamalike There is actually not much travelogue in You Only Lice Twice as it stays in Japan for much of the film.
Moonraker is the worst in that regard because it's all so random.
YOLT and Spy Who Loved Me are independent films, with similar but distinct plots. I prefer YOLT but in some aspects SWLM is better. (Stromberg's goal makes more sense than Blofeld's, who'd just in it for the money.)
Moonraker OTOH is just a repetition of the formula, mostly SWLM with some YOLT mixed in. (No wonder, since it was made at short notice.) The last bit is beautifully produced and the music among the best but the entire plot is just silly. Imagine that Drax would have succeeded if he hadn't stolen back the shuttle in the beginning, whereas the kidnapped capsules and submarines in the other two movies couldn't be avoided.
Great picks man. I maybe would have bumped up Terrance Young a spot or two, but mostly you’re just bang on
I knew Campbell was your number 1 before watching but I also agree! As for Peter Hunt, I sure wish he got to do Diamonds Are Forever. OHMSS has a great style and from a purely filmmaking perspective I'd consider it the best Bond film. The visual style and production value is classic Hollywood without looking dated or low-budget like some of the other Bond movies that surround it.
I lost it at Peggy as M. Maybe the M stands for Mitchell? 😂
What a fantastic video! Thanks for this Calvin, can always count on you for great Bond content. I’m a filmmaker (hence the name) and want that to be my job so this video particularly interested me. So really great picks and well justified. Stay safe and take it easy mr Dyson!
One of your best.
Great video. Whether agreeing w/rankings or not, this is so well researched and presented. You really have a knack at dissecting the directing. Unlike others, you are never pretentious or ego first in these 007 offerings. Kudos.
Agree. Hunt and Campbell were the very best. So glad you put Hunt up there. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was one of the very great achievements of the Bond Films. As was Goldeneye and Casino Royale. As usual though (and I think this will be a neverending source of controversy) Quantum of Solace and Marc Forster's direction was under-rated. Quantum of Solace was a great Bond film (though not Casino Royale or Skyfall) and Forster (notwithstanding the plot holes) did a great job of directing a tough embittered Bond characterisation. This was a believable hard edged Bond. The big question is whether, like Hunt, Forster will be re-evaluated in future years? But I understand if people disagree. That is the point of these forums. Thanks Calvin!
Good list. It's very hard to rank the Directors that only did one movie, but Peter Hunt did a very good job in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I think he should have casted an actor with more experienced than what George Lazenby had at the time though. Some of the other lower ranked once time Bond directors other had some bad luck during the pre-production and/or production of the movie .
I really like the Terence Young movies, especially From Russia with Love. I would probably rank him higher, but then again I didn't watch the laserdisc commentary and maybe a lot of the credit should go to Peter Hunt.
Nailed this list. 100% on Martin Campbell for number one. _GoldenEye_ and _Casino Royale_ are my two favourite Bond movies. Picking a favorite between those two is like picking a favourite child.
Skyfall and Spectre are gorgeous to look at. Yes, there are plot holes with each, but the directing is great
Spectre is ugly
Although Quantum isn't a great film and some of the action scenes are incomprehensible; I liked some of the fast-paced editing, location texts and scene transitions like with the MI6 calling America map while the car is going to the plane.
Watching behind the scenes from the 60s is so heartwarming
Your assessment on Marc Forster was spot on, however I like the way he shot and edited the opera shoot out.
Agreed 100% on Martin Campbell as the best director.
The problem with Spectre is not the direction. It's the script. The film is actually directed very well. Mendes should be higher.
I'm pretty much on board with with your rankings (and your reasoning), but I would've moved John Glen up to 2nd. It wasn't his fault he had to direct a geriatric in an action role. Moore should've bowed out 2 films earlier.
I’m glad there is a good discussion on the directors who are supremely undervalued. But I would argue that you took the Criterion commentary the wrong way in regards to Young. His films have that element of danger, excitement and tension not to mention sensuality that none of the others do. By refusing to shoot coverage and purposely skipping certain elements he ensured two things like the best of the great directors particularly John Ford who was a good friend of his. This gave the director full creative control as there was nothing for producers or studios to re-edit and it also forced them to pony up with more time and money to do things properly instead of rushing through. That’s why Young and Hunt discuss it in a very puckish manner like naughty schoolboys. It was a different time for picture making and I also think Young was purposely trying to drive the action further by specifically leaving things out. He is without a doubt the guiding force of the series and occupies the top spot for me always.
That being said the Hamilton dynamic is very important and the differing styles form a yin and yang the series has forever bounced back and forth. Hamilton could work within the boundaries much better and be on time but never got the same intensity Young did. On the other hand he achieved a richness and could do both dramatic and lighter flourishes with aplomb.
Hunt was astonishingly good as director and it’s a shame he never did another-even when both he and Young were courted to do FYEO. I hate that post Bond none of the directors ever had the same strong niche to make further great works.
Gilbert wound up always drawing the big epic scale straw and did quite well despite not having that background. It’s amazing how well the character moments and setpieces are integrated.
Glen is an extraordinarily underrated craftsman and the only criticism I can level is that the films are expertly crafted and put together but the direction lets everything else sink or float on its own in terms of performance. This is what likely led to Dalton getting frustrated in LTK.
Campbell had a good background with things like Edge of Darkness and GE still works well from a directing standpoint. But with all the modern directors it’s really a different sort of series and doesn’t have the same core team of the classic period.
Spottiswoode did an incredible job with the scripting and production troubles. TND is cut and edited on a dime and works perfectly so you don’t stop to question things.
Apted was an interesting choice but the character first unit material never fully meshes with the second unit action set pieces.
Most of the oddball stuff in DAD seems to be entirely from Tamahori wanting to push the envelope and getting carte blanche. Some sequences still work well but there is a definite off feeling throughout.
Bringing Campbell back was a very smart move but I’ve never felt any of the new era films work at all. Quantum was practically derailed by its production issues but I did appreciate some of the more human elements Forster tried to inject into it. As for Mendes I have no idea why he was tapped. These two pictures have all of the boredom of some of his other works with no narrative drive which is so crucial to a Bond film.
I think another thing with Young was he was working around the censorship of the time. He knew he couldn't show graphic violence, but he could make you feel it.
Young is also undervalued for how much Connery's portrayal of Bond is down to him. Young personally molded the actor into the role, taking him from being a working class Scottish hard man into being a British Gentleman, complete with educating him in food, drink, cards and clothing. Others have said that Young was himself Bond, without the killing, and so Connery's Bond is him imprinted into the film. You can't get more auteur than that.
Without Young, we wouldn't have had the Bond films that followed, because his would have tanked. The "Bond, James Bond" and hiding Bond until the reveal was his idea as well.
Just to answer your question about Mendes, he was tapped by Daniel Craig who asked him before he'd mentioned it to Eon. Craig had worked with him on 2002's The Road To Perdition.
David James I think it also matters that all the early directors had served in the war and had a definite military background that influenced their connection to Bond as a character. Young had a sense of globetrotting and being an observer being born outside the UK and Hamilton had been a commando.
I think Young was the one to most closely identify with and fully realize Fleming’s world onscreen particularly in his physical realization of Fleming’s detached observational dry wit and sardonic humor.
That’s right I forgot about Road to Perdition. Which brings up another issue that of actors perhaps having too much creative input and control....
apted's reluctance to seamlessly incorporate vic armstrong's sublime work is actually his strength for me - a lesser director might have tried to cut it excessively or reshoot it to smooth out the edges, to the detriment of the action. apted was smart enough to realize what he had was very good and let it stand on its own merits, which is hugely admirable i think.
André Bourbeau that’s an interesting take. I suppose that could have been the idea in the final editing but coming right after TND being so polished definitely makes it feel disjointed to me in comparison.
@@DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader apted clearly wasn't confident shooting action if his filmography is any indication, thus why he deferred so much of it stylistically to the second unit, while spottiswoode obviously didn't have that problem. but i'd take apted's approach, a much rougher cut with stronger dramatic material, over a tighter and stabler cut with less thematic heft. that's not to diminish TND though -- spottiswoode shot some of the series' very best setpieces and leaned heavily into camp (which i love), and i wish he did another film after it.
I’d love to see Martin Campbell direct the next Bond introduction, talk about making a great Bond trilogy.
My top 5 are:
1.) Martin Campbell (Goldeneye and Casino Royale are in my eternal top 3)
2.) Guy hamilton (though not a big fan of DAF)
3.) John Glenn (just cos he's consistently decent)
4.) Lewis Gilbert (still love his stuff, but growing out of them a bit)
5.) Sam Mendes (Skyfall is my second fave ever, Spectre is decent)
Terence young and peter r hunt can compete for the 5th place with mendes for me. But mendes just pips it cos skyfall
I'd give Lee Tamahori a bit more credit- the whole "turning up the dial to 11" is probably about the most reasonable thing one could have done with the script. I can imagine that, just as the editor takes cues from the director, the director takes cues from the script.
I have to give the top spot to Martin Campbell. Casino Royale is by far my favorite Bond film. But honestly I think Spottiswoode did a great job with Tomorrow Never Dies despite production problems and studio interference.
21:26 Yes, bit disappointing we only got 2 Bond films throughout the 2010s. As opposed to 6 films in the 1960s, 5 each in the 70s and 80s and even 3 each in the 90s and 00s. Wonder how many more we'll get in the 2020s after No Time to Die covid/omicron permitting. And wonder if Cary Joji Fukunaga will return as director.
The best way to describe Martin Campbell's direction is expressive, but not pretentious.
Yeah Campbell is number one no question. I would rank Mendes higher though, I don't share the same vitriol for Spectre a lot of people do, it has at least two great action scenes imo in the Mexico opening and the train fight with Hinx and he fills his films full of gorgeous, atmospheric visuals. I also think Bond's scenes alone with Madeline are directed really well, he gets good performances from Craig and Seydoux, despite a rather thin screenplay which goes off the rails. And Skyfall is just on an artistic level, the best Bond film ever, even if I don't think its action scenes top Casino Royale's.
Martin Campbell and Terence Young are tops for me. Directed three of my favorite bond films, Casino royale, Goldeneye, and From russia with love
Before watching I guessed Lee Tamahori would be last but I can't quibble too much with your choice of Marc Forster especially after hearing your reasoning
Totals agree with Peter Hunt at No 2 , an amazing film and considering Hunt was working with an inexperienced actor in the lead roll its a great achievement on his part .
Despite On Her Majesty's Secret Service being one of my absolute favorites, every time I watch it, I forget how actually insane the directing is. It blows me away, every time.
Sam Mendes would be higher for me, just because of the smoke effect when the guns are fired
Sam Mendes would clearly be fighting Lee Tamahorii for the rank at the bottom of my list.
@The Logomaker Personally I wouldn't say he is one of the best of all time, but for me he's still amazing snd underrated l.
@The Logomaker Dude, calm down! What's the matter with you, is he your best buddy or what?
@The Logomaker I mean, it's all personal opinion and preference.
Skyfall, 1917, American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Revolutionary Road! He is such a great director just he was 50/50 for Bond Films
When it comes to Terence Young, he’s a director really brought down a lot by the low budget and short scehdules he had to work with - some of the scrambling of scenes was really due to having to shoot at a breakneck speed (especially From Russia with Love). Not helped that his Director of Photography, Ted Moore. Ted was “famous” for being fast and cheap - and boy does it show! Moore is a very uninspired DP, shooting flat, high key scenes with little mood or flair, not helped by the quick production schedule - and there the visual storytelling really suffered.
I think FRWL and DN look pretty decent all things considered, hell FRWL even won a cinematography BAFTA for whatever that’s worth lol. Ted also won an Oscar for Man of All Seasons and I love the way that movie looks :P where’d you read that about him?
the "cheap and fast" look of young's films aren't necessarily a ted moore issue - his other thrillers he made with bronson in the 60-70s (especially Cold Sweat) look like widescreen TV episodes. moore, when given the right budget, could really pull out the stops too - thunderball and diamonds still for the most part look amazing, with rich colours and lots of depth that bring out the most of their settings.
From Russia With Love and Goldfinger certainly did not look cheap. I suppose it's the film stock utilized that made the colors look so crisp and attractive. Dr. No had a small budget but there are some pretty attractive shots and I actually captured some the better frames myself:
photos.app.goo.gl/bVjw3i13tkBzUc5p9
From onward Thunderball however, that stuff looked pretty cheap and ugly.
Ricardo Cantoral eh, i don’t think Dr No looks “cheap” either, but even those shots you posted point to a production that had to stretch every dollar in its budget to the absolute limit. it’s cool to see how those budgetary limitations led to some creative choices, though
@@DreBourbeau I honestly don't see how those frames suggest a tight budget. If anything, those pics obfuscate the fact that the film was shot for peanuts. I'd frankly take this photography over the orange and teal garbage you see in movies today.
Interesting video because recently I have noticed a little reoccurring theme between a lot of the reoccurring directors or at least an idea that some like to focus on whether they are Fleming ideas or not:
Terrence Young likes to focus more on the idea of the nature of spying idea that Fleming liked to do a lot.
Guy Hamilton likes to focus more on the male power fantasy angle of the character and finding ways to challenge it.
Lewis Gilbert liked to focus more on the idea of comradeship between Britain and another nation. You Only Live Twice had Bond team up with Japan, The Spy Who Loved Me had Bond team up with Russia and Moonraker has Bond team up with America.
Martin Campbell is sort of like Young in a way with the whole nature of spying idea and even Hamilton with the male power fantasy angle to his films except he likes to go for a more decontructionist angle to them.
Sam Mendes likes to focus on the different aspects of family. “American Beauty” being a film about decline and imprisoning nature of the American nuclear family, “Road to Perdition” being about father-son relationships, “Skyfall” being a metaphor for motherhood and "Spectre" I guess was trying to be the natural follow up to "Skyfall" with the effects of fatherhood......even if it comes off as an extreme afterthought.
The only reoccurring director who I can't really grapse on a thematic motif on is John Glen.
I'm agreement with you for the bottom 5, but my Top 6 goes a bit differently
6 - Guy Hamilton
5 - Lewis Gilbert
4 - Peter Hunt
3 - Martin Campbell
2 - Terence Young
1 - John Glen.
Even planks of wood do a good job of holding up a sideboard.
Could you add yet another top 10 to your long list to cover? Id love to see your alternative James bond top 10, from Cary Grant to Peter Pervis, from Sam Neill to lord Lucan.
Also, I hear most Spanish films are dubbed, so since you have all the DVDs, which dub of Bond sounds the most like him? Shimpley shocking.
Peter Purves, as in the Blue Peter presenter? Was he considered? Lord Lucan? I've heard of method acting, but.....
@@davidjames579 Some are press rubbish. OHMSS casting was wide spread as the producers arrogantly thought anyone could play James Bond so were even advertising in army journals [given they had to pay Connery and then Moore fortunes later this was hubris] which explains some of the odder names. Patrick Mower [aka Rodney from Emmerdale!] said he had screen tests for Harry Palmer [to replace Michael Caine in a cancelled sequel] and James Bond back in the day.
Roger Spotiswoode probably stayed calm by knowing that even if Tomorrow Never Dies was released unfinished, it would still be better than Stop or My Mom Will Shoot