I think the only Bond films worth watching are...

JimmyBond0129

Dr No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill, GoldenEye, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. The rest of the Bond films are bunch of stinkers in my humble opinion.

7289

+1

But I'd would not include "Goldeneye", I'd replace it with OHMSS.

Wouldn't exactly call the other films "stinkers", but if they were "lost" I wouldn't look awfully hard for them.

JimmyBond0129

7289 wrote:

+1

But I'd would not include "Goldeneye", I'd replace it with OHMSS.

Wouldn't exactly call the other films "stinkers", but if they were "lost" I wouldn't look awfully hard for them.

GoldenEye is a good Bond film, so I don't know why you have a problem with it. I mean Martin Campbell the same guy who directed Casino Royale also directed GoldenEye back in the day, so it can't be THAT bad.

Dan Same

-1 :v

The Bond films which I think should not be missed are DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, LALD, TSWLM, FYEO, OP, GE and TWINE.

DN-TB, OHMSS and TSWLM are IMO the six best Bond films of all time, just not in that order. GE and TWINE are both IMO among the greatest Bond films of all time, and are also IMO Brosnan's two best films. LALD, FYEO and OP are among the all-time great Bond films, as well (along with the already-mentioned TSWLM) Moore's best films. I would not recommend either a Dalton or Craig film. :v

Regarding the Bond films I did not mention:
YOLT- fun film, but I think that TB and TSWLM should be seen instead.
DAF- a wonderful performance from Connery and a few other terrific elements, but too disappointing to be essential viewing.
TMWTGG/MR- both have their merits, but it's not the end of the world if one doesn't see them.
AVTAK/TLD- should be avoided at all costs.
LTK- not as terrible as the two previous films but should still be avoided. However, if one wants to see a Dalton film, this should be it.
TND- enjoyable, but there are numerous other Bond films which are more essential.
DAD- should only be seen on DVD so as to skip to the fencing scene and the scenes at the hotel; otherwise should be avoided.
CR- in terms of quality, I would recommend that it be given a miss. However if one wants to see a Craig film, this should be it.
QOS- should be avoided at all costs.

JimmyBond0129

Dan Same wrote:

I would not recommend either a Dalton or Craig film.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I think the Bond films that should be avoided at all costs are all seven Roger Moore films, DAF, YOLT, TND, TWINE, DAD and OHMSS because the stories are horrible and so are the performances. :007)

I can't think of Roger Moore as James Bond because he wasn't cool enough. And George Lazenby wasn't a good replacement for Connery because he had very little acting experience. Pierce Brosnan was great in GoldenEye but his other Bond films stunk because of the script and the director.

7289

What no instant consensus?

I am shocked!!!

Why did I leave "Goldeneye" off my list ..... two words Pierce Brosnan.

I am NOT a fan of his.

00-Agent

They are all good movies. Some are better than others but I would not call any of them stinkers. I find the ones I enjoy rewatching the most are often not my favorite films. I have seen all the great bond films to many times and enjoy watching some of the lesser films more because I have not viewed them as frequently.

JimmyBond0129

7289 wrote:

Why did I leave "Goldeneye" off my list ..... two words Pierce Brosnan.

I am NOT a fan of his.

So what? It doesn't change the fact that GoldenEye has a decent story.

Dan Same

JimmyBond0129 wrote:

Dan Same wrote:

I would not recommend either a Dalton or Craig film.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I think the Bond films that should be avoided at all costs are all seven Roger Moore films, DAF, YOLT, TND, TWINE, DAD and OHMSS because the stories are horrible and so are the performances. :007)

I feel the same way about the the Craigs and the Daltons. :v

JimmyBond0129 wrote:

I can't think of Roger Moore as James Bond because he wasn't cool enough.

I can't agree with that, as the crocodile scene in LALD shows IMO just how cool he could be.

JimmyBond0129 wrote:

And George Lazenby wasn't a good replacement for Connery because he had very little acting experience.

He wasn't great at all, but his physicality was wonderful, as was his handling of the final scene. But really, I think that OHMSS offered numerous delights that went beyond the quality, or otherwise, of Lazenby's performance; the screenplay, the direction, the action/chase scenes, Tracy, the cinematography and the music, not to mention arguably the greatest ever Blofeld.

JimmyBond0129 wrote:

Pierce Brosnan was great in GoldenEye but his other Bond films stunk because of the script and the director.

TWINE was also great. I also didn't mind TND. The less said about DAD, the better.

Loeffelholz

To answer the question posed in the title of the thread...

All 22 of them. That's right, they're all worth watching---from the classics to the near-failures (Bond has never failed B-) )---acknowledging that one fan's near-failure is another fan's classic. I never fail to be entertained by my extreme least favourite Bond film(s)...so, a bit of comfort for fans of the beleaguered Sir Roger Moore

I love James Bond.

Period.

The End.

:007)

Thunderpussy

100% in agreement Loeffelholz,I simply can't understand all the negative posts either about how some of the Bond Movies are stinkers,how hated Brosnan is,and the abuse poor old Sir Roger gets.I too am a Bond fan, I still love the movies that I think they could of done a better job on.
I'll find faults with the movies but even the weaker films in the series I still watch over and over again,I don't hate any Bond film and still think that even one of the weakest Bonds is still a better nights viewing than some of the other rubbish Hollywood puts out for the audiance.
as for saying OHMSS has a crap story when it one of the best fleming books is,CRAZY.
I've been a Bond Fan since I was 13 and I'll die a Bond fan, May the series go from strength to strength. -{

Napoleon Plural

JimmyBond0129 wrote:

Dr No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill, GoldenEye, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. The rest of the Bond films are bunch of stinkers in my humble opinion.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/EPH/9810~A-Ray-of-Sunshine-Posters.jpg

Come on, NP--you know better than to post something like that here! HB

bigzilcho

Count me in with Loeff and Thunderpussy.

I am REALLY getting bummed out the number of negative posts that offer nothing more than a simple dismissal of the series. JimmyBond's opinion is his own, and that must be respected, of course, but at the end of the day my response to a post like this is...so what?


2/3 of the films in the series are "stinkers'? Jimmy Bond, with all due respect, are you really a James Bond fan? But of course you are. It just LOOKS like you're not.

The series is flawed, lets not kid ourselves, and to say otherwise is unrealistic. Criticism (constructive or otherwise) is necessary. But JimmyBond's take is self-defeating. We are here at this site (and others) to celebrate James Bond.

Blindly? Of course not.

Criticize all you want...but back it up, thats my beef. "Stinkers"? With nothing more to add? Come on, JimmyBond, you can do a LOT better than that.

In my humble opinion,JimmyBond (and with no hard feelings I hope)...your opinion "stinks".

Does that make me right? No...its just my opinion.



"In Washington, the President said he was entirely satisfied---"
"That makes two of us."

Higgins

JimmyBond0129 has a tradition in starting numerous threads, wich IMHO are far below the usual quality, which I am used to find here on AJB.
Just checkout this list and you find a few "gems":
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/search/topics/user/11220/

examples:
"Dr. No or Casino Royale?"
"Vesper's death vs. Tracy's death"
"If Dalton was in FYEO"
"Would you prefer Bond Films or Games"
"Is LTK a better 1989 film than Batman?"
"Are the first 2 Bond films better than the last 2"

Anyone seeing a pattern here?

I am amazed about the numbers of people replying to them, so, here is my reply on the recent one:







.



Loeffs, can we add the term "Rubbish thread" to the glossary

Mister White

I actually thought that "Dr. No or Casino Royale?", "Vesper's death vs. Tracy's death", "If Dalton was in FYEO", "Is LTK a better 1989 film than Batman?" and "Are the first 2 Bond films better than the last 2" started an interesting discussion. Not nescesarily so by the first post, but most of them ended up being interesting.

But to use jimmybond0129's own vocabulary, this one is a stinker.

blueman

Thunderpussy wrote:

100% in agreement Loeffelholz,I simply can't understand all the negative posts either about how some of the Bond Movies are stinkers,how hated Brosnan is,and the abuse poor old Sir Roger gets.I too am a Bond fan, I still love the movies that I think they could of done a better job on.
I'll find faults with the movies but even the weaker films in the series I still watch over and over again,I don't hate any Bond film and still think that even one of the weakest Bonds is still a better nights viewing than some of the other rubbish Hollywood puts out for the audiance.
as for saying OHMSS has a crap story when it one of the best fleming books is,CRAZY.
I've been a Bond Fan since I was 13 and I'll die a Bond fan, May the series go from strength to strength. -{

As the films have strayed so far from the source material, makes sense that fans have their own "line in the sand" as to what is an acceptable Bond film. IMHO one could rename the main character in at least half the EON Bond films and not miss out an anything "Bond."

Dan Same

Bondtoys wrote:

JimmyBond0129 has a tradition in starting numerous threads, wich IMHO are far below the usual quality, which I am used to find here on AJB.
Just checkout this list and you find a few "gems":
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/search/topics/user/11220/

examples:
"Dr. No or Casino Royale?"
"Vesper's death vs. Tracy's death"
"If Dalton was in FYEO"
"Would you prefer Bond Films or Games"
"Is LTK a better 1989 film than Batman?"
"Are the first 2 Bond films better than the last 2"

Anyone seeing a pattern here?

I am amazed about the numbers of people replying to them, so, here is my reply on the recent one:







.

) The funny thing is the arbitrary nature. "Is LTK a better 1989 film than Batman?" is the perfect example. Why Batman of all films? Should GE be compared to Die Hard With a Vengance? )


As usual, Big is absolutely right. Although I do think that there are Bond films which are more essential to watch than others, as I noted in my above post, the truth is however that every Bond film has something going for them, and I would rather watch my least favourite Bond films than plenty of other non-Bond films. (As a matter of fact, I might be seeing QOS again very soon.)

thesecretagent

Guys - come on! Six Bonds, 22 official films, a time span of nearly 50 years and a fan demographic of infinate multiples of ages, cultures, genders and personal tastes!
A truly rubbish post and rubbish thread.

Alex

JimmyBond, If you want your opinion respected, be prepared to return the courtesy.

DangerMouse

For me, the only Bond films worth watching are...

- Dr. No
- From Russia With Love
- Goldfinger
- Thunderball
- You Only Live Twice
- On Her Majesty's Secret Service
- Live And Let Die
- The Spy Who Loved Me
- For Your Eyes Only
- Octopussy
- The Living Daylights
- Licence To Kill
- Goldeneye
- The World Is Not Enough
- Casino Royale

Napoleon Plural

It depends. For most of us the Bond films are like hanging out with a mate or a shagable bird. Doesn't matter if one evening is not much cop, it's the company you keep. But to introduce someone not in the know, there are only a few films that really stand up as good movies generally. Some films do seem a bit tacky - but I like that.

DaltonFan1

Obviously, all Bond films are worth watching. Some just aren't worth watching more than twice(DAD). But I do feel that certain films do stick out as absolute classics such as, FRWL, OHMSS, LALD, TLD, LTK, GE and CR. But to for a genuine Bond fan, every one of them is essential viewing.

RJJB

DaltonFan1 wrote:

Obviously, all Bond films are worth watching. Some just aren't worth watching more than twice(DAD). But I do feel that certain films do stick out as absolute classics such as, FRWL, OHMSS, LALD, TLD, LTK, GE and CR. But to for a genuine Bond fan, every one of them is essential viewing.

As far as I'm concerned, there are only 5 "essential" movies in the series: DN, FRWL, GF, TB and OHMSS.
If I had to limit my viewing, those would be the 5 I would select.
And I am just as much a genuine Bond fan as anyone else. I really like TLD, LTK, GE, TND and CR, but they are in the same league as the others I mentioned. The only movies that I own, but never plan to watch again are DAD and TWINE.
I do not own any of the Roger Moore comedies as they are pure garbage. I wasted enough of my life watching them in the past and I will not repeat the horror.

Krassno Granitski

DaltonFan1 wrote:

But to for a genuine Bond fan, every one of them is essential viewing.

Well I consider myself a "genuine Bond fan" and will be very content to never view DAD again. Nothing in that film stands out that has not been done better elsewhere in the series. As far as the other 21 (and NSNA) are concerned I can watch and enjoy them very much, I just like some better than others.

thesecretagent

Krassno Granitski wrote:

DaltonFan1 wrote:

But to for a genuine Bond fan, every one of them is essential viewing.

Well I consider myself a "genuine Bond fan" and will be very content to never view DAD again. Nothing in that film stands out that has not been done better elsewhere in the series. As far as the other 21 (and NSNA) are concerned I can watch and enjoy them very much, I just like some better than others.

Don't you consider Bond's escape from the ship and the Hong Kong hotel scene, Cuba, the underground facility for forgotten agents or the ice palace to be stand out scenes? If there was one thing wrong with DAD it was the villian, closely followed by Jinx. If the bad guy wasn't like some villian from spiderman, and the cgi effects overload it wouldn't be that bad of a film...

Higgins

thesecretagent wrote:

Don't you consider Bond's escape from the ship and the Hong Kong hotel scene, Cuba, the underground facility for forgotten agents or the ice palace to be stand out scenes? If there was one thing wrong with DAD it was the villian, closely followed by Jinx. If the bad guy wasn't like some villian from spiderman, and the cgi effects overload it wouldn't be that bad of a film...

+1

TonyDP

I just love these threads that serve absolutely no purpose other than to incite people when somebody disses a movie that somebody else likes. Our tastes are pretty much set in stone and no amount of arguing will change our opinions. And so the thread devovles into another gripe session. What's the point?

Every Bond film is a potential masterpiece and simultaneously a potential stinker, given an individual's particular tastes. Show me someone who thinks DAD is a turkey and I'll show you someone who thinks Goldfinger is overrated tripe. Show me someone who thinks Brosnan couldn't act his way out of a paper bag and I'll show you someone who thinks Lazenby is the most underrated Bond of all. I happen to think CR is a turd, a complete waste of film that should be shot into the coldest depths of space; yet I like QoS, even though they're both essentially one long story. Go figure.

Bottom line: the films are all out there to be enjoyed or ignored as you see fit. Watch the ones you like, ignore the ones you don't. What more needs to be said.

Higgins

TonyDP wrote:

I just love these threads that serve absolutely no purpose other than to incite people when somebody disses a movie that somebody else likes. Our tastes are pretty much set in stone and no amount of arguing will change our opinions. And so the thread devovles into another gripe session. What's the point?

Every Bond film is a potential masterpiece and simultaneously a potential stinker, given an individual's particular tastes. Show me someone who thinks DAD is a turkey and I'll show you someone who thinks Goldfinger is overrated tripe. Show me someone who thinks Brosnan couldn't act his way out of a paper bag and I'll show you someone who thinks Lazenby is the most underrated Bond of all. I happen to think CR is a turd, a complete waste of film that should be shot into the coldest depths of space; yet I like QoS, even though they're both essentially one long story. Go figure.

Bottom line: the films are all out there to be enjoyed or ignored as you see fit. Watch the ones you like, ignore the ones you don't. What more needs to be said.

+1

Blackleiter

I must say that as a Bond film fan, there are very few Bond films that I think are not worth watching at all. As was stated earlier, most of them have something interesting, entertaining or otherwise noteworthy going on. I am NOT a fan of the Roger Moore era, so if I was going to skip any Bond films it would be his (although I would recommend seeing For Your Eyes Only for Moore's best performance as Bond). Moore is a decent actor and very good with a quip, but he NEVER, EVER came across as dangerous or menancing (the closest he came for me is when he kicked the car off the cliff in FYEO). I enjoyed both of Timothy Dalton's Bond outings, although I agree with others who feel that Dalton's portrayal was too devoid of humor. Not that I liked the overly jokey and sometimes downright silly Roger Moore-style Bond, but a little humor every now and then would have improved Dalton's Bond. I would not skip ANY Bond film starring Sean Connery, not even the appropriately maligned Diamonds Are Forever. DAF was by far Connery's worst Bond film, but I was still thrilled to have him back in the role after OHMSS. (Hell, I even liked him in Never say Never Again!) -{And speaking of OHMSS, that film was worth seeing for several reasons. First, I think it was overall one of the better Bond scripts. Second, I think the roles of the Bond girl and the villain were well-played (Diana Rigg as Tracy and Telly Savalas as Blofeld were both excellent). And lastly, I thought it was interesting to see another actor tackle the role of James Bond. Although George Lazenby's lack of acting experienced showed, I don't think he was half-bad. In my opinion Pierce Brosnan was an excellent Bond, and all of his films, even the mostly dreadful Day Another Day, are worth seeing for his skillful portrayal. Too bad his Bond scripts were so weak (not so for Goldeneye and about half of TWINE). Finally, both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are worth seeing to experience the "re-booted Bond" in the guise of Daniel Craig. CR was a great Bond film and QOS was middling, but definitely entertaining.

Krassno Granitski

thesecretagent wrote:

Krassno Granitski wrote:

DaltonFan1 wrote:

But to for a genuine Bond fan, every one of them is essential viewing.

Well I consider myself a "genuine Bond fan" and will be very content to never view DAD again. Nothing in that film stands out that has not been done better elsewhere in the series. As far as the other 21 (and NSNA) are concerned I can watch and enjoy them very much, I just like some better than others.

Don't you consider Bond's escape from the ship and the Hong Kong hotel scene, Cuba, the underground facility for forgotten agents or the ice palace to be stand out scenes? If there was one thing wrong with DAD it was the villian, closely followed by Jinx. If the bad guy wasn't like some villian from spiderman, and the cgi effects overload it wouldn't be that bad of a film...

Seen it twice, once in the theater and once on the DVD I bought and sold for $2.00, yes I feel like a thief for getting such an amount of money for that piece of....you know. No need to see it again.

DaltonFan1

thesecretagent wrote:

Krassno Granitski wrote:

DaltonFan1 wrote:

But to for a genuine Bond fan, every one of them is essential viewing.

Well I consider myself a "genuine Bond fan" and will be very content to never view DAD again. Nothing in that film stands out that has not been done better elsewhere in the series. As far as the other 21 (and NSNA) are concerned I can watch and enjoy them very much, I just like some better than others.

Don't you consider Bond's escape from the ship and the Hong Kong hotel scene, Cuba, the underground facility for forgotten agents or the ice palace to be stand out scenes? If there was one thing wrong with DAD it was the villian, closely followed by Jinx. If the bad guy wasn't like some villian from spiderman, and the cgi effects overload it wouldn't be that bad of a film...

Sorry, DAD is an horrendous film. A crime against Bond. It has a henchman called Mr. Kill, a ludicrous borrowing of most of DAF's ideas, Brosnan's worst performance as Bond, a very poor cast, John Cleese as Q, a villain's death stolen from Air Force One, and a makeover clinic that turns Korean murderers into Toby Stephens.