Would you say that all Bond films from the 60's are the best of all?

JohnMasterson

I won't say that they're the best but I will say that things were a lot simpler back then. -{

Hardyboy

Four classics: Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, and--though I know many disagree--On Her Majesty's Secret Service; one good entry: Thunderball; and one interesting failure that still set a visual standard for the series: You Only Live Twice. I guess I'd have to say that the '60s were, indeed, the best!

Peppermill

When I look at my top 22 I can see I have a preference for the early Bond movies. FRWL and OHMSS are no. 1 & 2 on my list, YOLT is very high too (a guilty pleasure, I know it has its flaws, but for some reasons I still like it a lot) and GF and TB are middle tier.

Thunderpussy

Bond is as much a part of the 60's as the Beatles and grainy Black and white television. )
Best Bonds by far. -{

Le Samourai

You question could be interpreted a few different ways.

If you mean to ask if all of the '60s Bond films are better than any of the later films, then no. The strongest of the later films are better than the weakest of the '60s films, in my opinion.

If you are doing decade-by-decade comparisons, then the '60s come out way ahead. I'm not a fan of YOLT, but otherwise you have five very good 007 films.

I think the reason that the '60s Bonds are so good is that they are quite faithful to Fleming's novels, with the aforementioned exception of YOLT.

Peppermill

Le Samourai wrote:

(...)

If you mean to ask if all of the '60s Bond films are better than any of the later films, then no. The strongest of the later films are better than the weakest of the '60s films, in my opinion.

If you are doing decade-by-decade comparisons, then the '60s come out way ahead. I'm not a fan of YOLT, but otherwise you have five very good 007 films.

(...)

Very well said!

DEFIANT 74205

Hardyboy wrote:

Four classics: Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, and--though I know many disagree--On Her Majesty's Secret Service; one good entry: Thunderball; and one interesting failure that still set a visual standard for the series: You Only Live Twice. I guess I'd have to say that the '60s were, indeed, the best!

I agree, -{ except I wouldn't call You Only Live Twice a failure.

I like all of the above films, You Only Live Twice included, and I don't understand why many here don't like it. Yes, it's the weakest of the 60s films, but it wasn't that bad. When you're in the company of five of the greatest Bond films ever made, being the worst of the decade isn't such a bad thing.

As far as my personal preference goes, only 2 films from after the 60s are in my top 8 (ahead of You Only Live Twice): Casino Royale and The Living Daylights. So while it's not exactly accurate to say that all 60s films are better than the later ones, I'd say the 60s was a pretty good decade for Bond films overall.

Mister Greene

I agree, I think the 60's films were more in line with the novels and the era was just right for the movies. without the early Bond films I dont think we would have a lot of the movies that are made now. and when someone talks about Bond I immediatley think of the early Bond films as the standard

Golrush007

Yes I would say that the 60s was the most consistenly 'good' decade for the Bond films - with the exception of YOLT in my opinion, which happens to be my least favourite Bond film. Whilst every decade has at least one film which I regard as a true classic, the 60s has four (DN, FRWL, GF, OHMSS) and one near classic (TB).

If I was to nominate a second-best decade, I would choose the 80s. I like the fact that the John Glen Bonds have a more down to earth feeling than the 1970s films, and the scripts reflected a slightly harder edged style - especially when Dalton came on board.

Hardyboy

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

I like all of the above films, You Only Live Twice included, and I don't understand why many here don't like it. Yes, it's the weakest of the 60s films, but it wasn't that bad.

I called it an interesting failure, and I didn't call it bad. What fails is the story, which is illogical, nonsensical, and has no good parts for the actors to play. But the movie looks great and has an incredible soundtrack--like I said, YOLT also set the standard for many of the films--and it's also fast-moving and entertaining. It's a guilty pleasure of mine, and I like it for what it is. . .though the Flemingist in me objects!

JohnMasterson

Hardyboy wrote:

I called it an interesting failure, and I didn't call it bad. What fails is the story, which is illogical, nonsensical, and has no good parts for the actors to play. But the movie looks great and has an incredible soundtrack--like I said, YOLT also set the standard for many of the films--and it's also fast-moving and entertaining. It's a guilty pleasure of mine, and I like it for what it is. . .though the Flemingist in me objects!

Well, You Only Live Twice couldn't follow the novel for obvious reasons. It was a revenge story when it was first published in the UK on March 26, 1964. And they hadn't filmed On Her Majesty's Secret Service yet because they had just got done filming Thunderball and OHMSS would've been very similar to it in tone if they had done so, plus I also heard that they couldn't find any good winter locations to shoot in at the time. I know it doesn't excuse them for filming YOLT and Majesty out of sequence but at least they had their reasons, stupid reasons but there are still reasons for doing something no matter how illogical it is.

Predator

Comparing any film of the 60s with its counterparts from later decades is - in my opinion - terribly unfair. Whereas later films could expand the horizons with special effects and extensive budgets, the 60s films had a simplicity. To many this simplicity is endearing and worthy of the status of "classic movie", but I think you can still appreciate the increasing budgets and aspirations of the 70s and 80s Bonds (and beyond).

However with Connery dominating the 60s, Moore the 70s, Dalton the 80s and Brosnan the 90s, we are also not comparing apples with apples ...

(In saying that, the elegance of FRWL is always going to compete strongly with any other Bond film!)

Hardyboy

JohnMasterson wrote:

Hardyboy wrote:

I called it an interesting failure, and I didn't call it bad. What fails is the story, which is illogical, nonsensical, and has no good parts for the actors to play. But the movie looks great and has an incredible soundtrack--like I said, YOLT also set the standard for many of the films--and it's also fast-moving and entertaining. It's a guilty pleasure of mine, and I like it for what it is. . .though the Flemingist in me objects!

Well, You Only Live Twice couldn't follow the novel for obvious reasons. It was a revenge story when it was first published in the UK on March 26, 1964. And they hadn't filmed On Her Majesty's Secret Service yet because they had just got done filming Thunderball and OHMSS would've been very similar to it in tone if they had done so, plus I also heard that they couldn't find any good winter locations to shoot in at the time. I know it doesn't excuse them for filming YOLT and Majesty out of sequence but at least they had their reasons, stupid reasons but there are still reasons for doing something no matter how illogical it is.

Where in my post do I complain about the film being made out of sequence? If you object to the points I make, fine; but please don't counter me on a point I clearly did NOT make.

DEFIANT 74205

Hardyboy wrote:

I called it an interesting failure, and I didn't call it bad.

My apologies, I misunderstood.

JohnMasterson

Hardyboy wrote:

Where in my post do I complain about the film being made out of sequence? If you object to the points I make, fine; but please don't counter me on a point I clearly did NOT make.

Well, I was simply trying to justify why Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman decided to make You Only Live Twice nonsensical and illogical. It almost seemed like after four Bond films Broccoli and Saltzman wanted to make their own Bond film with it's own self-contained story even though they still had more novels to adapt from....I guess they probably thought after the success of the four previous Bond movies that they could do anything with Bond and it wouldn't have mattered and they still would've made a profit. It only took them until The Spy Who Loved Me to realize that Sean Connery and Guy Hamilton do not a good Bond film make hence why Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, and The Man with the Golden Gun were so bad. I know Connery wasn't in the ladder two but if they could've gotten Sean to come back for those films they would have. Now, I know nothing I've said so far has related to your previous post but like I already said in this follow-up post I was trying to justify why Broccoli and Saltzman did what they did. I know I didn't say that outright the first time around but it was implied.

SilentSpy

JohnMasterson wrote:

I won't say that they're the best but I will say that things were a lot simpler back then. -{

I would say that they are the best or top of the Bond series. Any Bond fan needs these films in his/her collection. The Connery films can't be touched to this day. You Only Live Twice is the first big fantasy type Bond film and it's still pretty cool when viewed as a larger than life fantasy spy film. In fact there isn't a better run of Bond films than the 60s period. Only the two Dalton films come close.

walther p99

i would agree that Connerys first four Bond films are the pinnacle of the series that have yet to be matched

Napoleon Plural

Another point - quite a lot of directors weren't there? Young, Hamilton, Gilbert, Hunt. Latterly in the late 60s, I think it helped Bond to become an iconic figure, at the expense of his personality or the feeling we know the guy, which I think is a current problem or situation with Brosnan and Craig having so many different diretors. It strengthens the brand, but we don't feel we know the guy personally.

For sheer entertainment value however, and being brought up in the 70s, I very much enjoy the DAF - MR decade also. Less so the John Glen decade, as it felt a bit samey, even with Dalton on board.

pyrat

If we look at the characterization and the focus of the films I'd say most but not all of the early films are at the top of the list. IMHO, HardyBoy had it right.

oscar rubio

I would say the Connery-era films are different, but exciting

thesecretagent

I think Dr. No through to Thunderball are the best in terms of comparison to the novels, simplicity of plot (although decent) and substance. I like all the films for different reasons, but the journey they have taken has altered greatly.

Blackleiter

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment (and while YOLT may not be one of the best, it is certainly one of the most entertaining and I re-watch it often). Where I disagree slightly, however, is with the notion that only the Dalton films come to close in quality to the 60s era films. I would also put Casino Royale in that category.

SilentSpy wrote:

JohnMasterson wrote:

I won't say that they're the best but I will say that things were a lot simpler back then. -{

I would say that they are the best or top of the Bond series. Any Bond fan needs these films in his/her collection. The Connery films can't be touched to this day. You Only Live Twice is the first big fantasy type Bond film and it's still pretty cool when viewed as a larger than life fantasy spy film. In fact there isn't a better run of Bond films than the 60s period. Only the two Dalton films come close.

SilentSpy

Blackleiter wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment (and while YOLT may not be one of the best, it is certainly one of the most entertaining and I re-watch it often). Where I disagree slightly, however, is with the notion that only the Dalton films come to close in quality to the 60s era films. I would also put Casino Royale in that category.

Not so much the quality but the consistency. If Daniel Craig only did Casino Royale then I would view it like OHMSS. The biggest problem I have with Casino is that Bond isn't really Bond till the end. He might not really be Bond till the end of Quantum of Solace. We need to see Skyfall and see how that goes.

Blackleiter

Good point.

SilentSpy wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment (and while YOLT may not be one of the best, it is certainly one of the most entertaining and I re-watch it often). Where I disagree slightly, however, is with the notion that only the Dalton films come to close in quality to the 60s era films. I would also put Casino Royale in that category.

Not so much the quality but the consistency. If Daniel Craig only did Casino Royale then I would view it like OHMSS. The biggest problem I have with Casino is that Bond isn't really Bond till the end. He might not really be Bond till the end of Quantum of Solace. We need to see Skyfall and see how that goes.

Alex

The first four PPK shots. One per year. Everywhere across the board is quality. Greatest Bonds off all time.

Gazooks. And that beautiful technicolour from the swinging 60! (Why do Craigs films have a depressing blueish tinge to them?)

Dalton Craig

The thing I love about the 60s Bond pictures is just how definitive the elements of the Bond series are in them. Everything we associate with Bond appeared in those movies for the first time and they feel truly like they were never quite used as well again. The underwater sequences of Thunderball, the space scenes of You Only Live Twice, the ski chases of OHMSS and the gadget laden car chases of Goldfinger. Many of the following films did them very well too, don't get me wrong, but there's a charge to them in the earlier movies that feels fresh and original. I think later movies may have taken the chance to explore Bond The Man than Connery got a chance to, but you got to hand it to the Connery movies in the 60s, they set a gold standard not just for the remainder of the franchise, but to action cinema in general.

CmdrAtticus

I have a love/some dislike for those films, and it unfortunately has to do with the old saying about familiarity breeding contempt. They all seem so dated to me now (especially Dr. No), and as much as they thrilled me growing up (and they are still in my top films), it kills me with each revisit of how much better they could have been. I would have loved to have seen a more Fu Manchu look to Dr. No, and have seen Bond vs. the giant squid (I know..they didn't have the budget...still...), and throw out the stupid Disney film like reactor and have Dr. No buried in the guano. I would have loved to have seen Quarrel as a true friend of Bond and not just a local -not too bright fisherman that Bond had "fetch his shoes". I would have loved to see the villains in FRWL be SMERSH and have no SPECTRE yet. I did not need the boat and helicopter chase spectacles thrown in, or the nonsense opening scene with the victim in a supposed Connery mask, or any of the other SPECTRE nonsense. Goldfinger was probably the best Connery film, though Thunderball still holds up (the whole idea of bad guys stealing nuclear bombs is still pretty scary) and Celi was a wonderfully sadistic villain, though making SPECTRE look like a bunch of modern day international CEO's instead of a group of mobsters and ex Iron Curtain agents makes it seem too Austin Powers like. I enjoyed YOLT when it first came out on the big screen..great spectacle, but that overshadowed Bond too much (and disguising him as Japanese..ohhhh Lorrrrd). It was too illogical and a by the numbers action film for me - no room for Bond's character any longer. I have a hard time watching it any more, though the title song is still one of the best (along with the whole score).

JohnMasterson

CmdrAtticus wrote:

I have a love/some dislike for those films, and it unfortunately has to do with the old saying about familiarity breeding contempt. They all seem so dated to me now (especially Dr. No), and as much as they thrilled me growing up (and they are still in my top films), it kills me with each revisit of how much better they could have been. I would have loved to have seen a more Fu Manchu look to Dr. No, and have seen Bond vs. the giant squid (I know..they didn't have the budget...still...), and throw out the stupid Disney film like reactor and have Dr. No buried in the guano. I would have loved to have seen Quarrel as a true friend of Bond and not just a local -not too bright fisherman that Bond had "fetch his shoes". I would have loved to see the villains in FRWL be SMERSH and have no SPECTRE yet. I did not need the boat and helicopter chase spectacles thrown in, or the nonsense opening scene with the victim in a supposed Connery mask, or any of the other SPECTRE nonsense. Goldfinger was probably the best Connery film, though Thunderball still holds up (the whole idea of bad guys stealing nuclear bombs is still pretty scary) and Celi was a wonderfully sadistic villain, though making SPECTRE look like a bunch of modern day international CEO's instead of a group of mobsters and ex Iron Curtain agents makes it seem too Austin Powers like. I enjoyed YOLT when it first came out on the big screen..great spectacle, but that overshadowed Bond too much (and disguising him as Japanese..ohhhh Lorrrrd). It was too illogical and a by the numbers action film for me - no room for Bond's character any longer. I have a hard time watching it any more, though the title song is still one of the best (along with the whole score).

You forgot to mention On Her Majesty's Secret Service as it had come in 1969, although I guess it was the beginning of a different Bond era with a revolving door of actors. I really wish Sean had done Majesty because I think the 60's should have been Sean Connery's decade and Connery's decade alone......Too bad Sean didn't see it that way and as it is Connery shares the 1960's decade with George Lazenby.

Mr Beech

I love them in a very unique way. When I think of the best Bond movies, it tends to be Casino Royale (2006) paired with Connery in the 60s, so I guess those are my favorites.

hegottheboot

I can usually narrow it down to 10, and that includes all the 60's films along with LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM and TLD.

The original films had both the Fleming canon to mine and the talent capable of doing so. Once people started departing one by one, things began to take a slightly downward turn.

To me, it's the editing, direction, pacing, and story that really make the Bond film work. And then there's Peter Hunt cutting like a madman.

And what happened to the look of a Bond film? There hasn't been a great shot since TLD's Afghan desert.

CmdrAtticus

hegottheboot wrote:

I can usually narrow it down to 10, and that includes all the 60's films along with LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM and TLD.

The original films had both the Fleming canon to mine and the talent capable of doing so. Once people started departing one by one, things began to take a slightly downward turn.

To me, it's the editing, direction, pacing, and story that really make the Bond film work. And then there's Peter Hunt cutting like a madman.

And what happened to the look of a Bond film? There hasn't been a great shot since TLD's Afghan desert.

Having been a DP on independent films myself, I understand your feeling. Directors usually work with DP's they know and have worked with before, whether they suit the "look" of a Bond or not. Alex Mills is one of the great DP's.
That shot you referred to is know as a "chocolate box" shot because of it's artistic framing and the way it's lensed and or lighted.