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.
I probably should have mentioned OHMSS since it was in the 60's, but from the comments it sounded like everyone was referring to Connery's films. To me (being a Fleming purist) it is one of my favorites because it stuck close to Fleming's novel as did FRWL. I've had this interesting ability for most of my life of being able to actually visualize scenes from films with a different actor in them (say, Tom Selleck instead of Ford in the Raiders films). I actually don't think Selleck was a bad choice - he would have been a little different in his take but it still would have worked. Unforunately, I can't feel the same about Sean in OHMSS for one main reason...how he appeared in YOLT. He was obviously overweight and out of shape in it (and even worse in DAF), despite the staging and editing in the fight scenes. He just looked tired to me. When I picture him in any scene in that Lazenby did, I get the same feeling..that he would have seemed too old and worn out for the part. He would have been 39 in that film, and that's not really that old, but I thought he looked older than that. Lazenby was nearly ten years younger, and I though his younger look and extra physical energy helped his performance. I know he was hampered by his lack of acting skills (and it did not help the director was not an "actor's director" - thank heavens he had seasoned actors like Rigg to rely on for advice), but still I thought he did remarkably well under those circumstances. In fact, when I read the novels I can see him as Bond as I do Dalton. I understand it would have been a convenient way of keeping the 60's the Connery-Bond decade had Sean done the film, but unlike many, I'm rather glad he did not. I was actually dismayed when he did DAF. It was a huge letdown when I saw it the first time in the theater, because of how old Connery looked (as well as how silly the film was). Sure he could still throw punches in the fights, but when he just stood around in the exposition scenes, he looked to me as if he just showed up to collect his paycheck. I was shocked when he did Never Say Never! He was older and yet no longer looked tired and was really fit. He must have went for a long stay at Shrublands before he actually went to it in the film!
The 60s Bonds had a consistency of quality that none of the other decades have managed. From DN through to OHMSS the films were consistantly good. Yes YOLT had nothing to do with the Fleming novel and was totally OTT but it was of its time and at least had the benefit of taking itself seriously which is more than can be said for some of the later entries. For me the rot set in with DAF. Since then no actors tenure has had films which were consistantly good. RM went from TSWLM and FYEO at one end of the scale to the total crap that was MR at the other. PB had the same starting with GE which is one of my favourite Bond movies and finishing with DAD which is well near the bottom of the list. Even DC with two movies under his belt has gone from one extreme to the other with the excellence of CR to the wasted opportunity that was QOS.
The 60s Bonds had a consistency of quality that none of the other decades have managed. From DN through to OHMSS the films were consistantly good. Yes YOLT had nothing to do with the Fleming novel and was totally OTT but it was of its time and at least had the benefit of taking itself seriously which is more than can be said for some of the later entries. For me the rot set in with DAF. Since then no actors tenure has had films which were consistantly good. RM went from TSWLM and FYEO at one end of the scale to the total crap that was MR at the other. PB had the same starting with GE which is one of my favourite Bond movies and finishing with DAD which is well near the bottom of the list. Even DC with two movies under his belt has gone from one extreme to the other with the excellence of CR to the wasted opportunity that was QOS.
Which is why I wished they could keep the same director and writers from film to film. What if QOS had been directed by Campbell? I know it had the same writers..except there is an uncredited one named Joshua Zetumer. Is it any of his ideas that soured the script? At least the directing and editing would have been better. The other problem is CR was Fleming's idea and story, mainly starting with Montenegro. The rest was dreamed up by the writing team. They did a nice job, but they can't beat Fleming and now the problem is unless they keep mining his ideas from the novels they're going to end up just doing non-Fleming scripts like QOS, so we're going to keep getting films just like QOS or DAD. Instead of inventing a totally new "Bond like" story and shoveling in a few scenes from the Fleming novels, they should actually redo a novel or short story or combine two, change it just enough so it doesn't appear to be a blantant remake, THEN throw in their own ideas to flesh it out. That's why I enjoyed LTK (they basically combined TMWTGG and LALD), FYEO (used Risico and TSWLM), etc.. They use a lot of Flemings' dramatic elements and kept the rest of the script anchored to those. When they try to write and entire story and just sprinkle in one or two of his ideas, it just never achieves the quality I'm looking for.
Overall I would agree that the 60s are the best of them all, the only real weak one was Connery's 5th outing
Dr No - a bit dated compared to the others as expected but a great start to the series!!
From Russia With Love - Bond now on his feet and the foundation of certain elements setup for future Bond films as we now know and love.
Goldfinger - superb, and worthy installment introducing more classic elements into the series!
Thunderball - My personal favorite of this era, exotic location, beautiful ladies and great film from a basic story (goes to show complex story lines and scripts not required)
You Only Live Twice - damn awful, in fact its hard to believe the films above preceded it. Connery looks half the man in it (I watched this yesterday and watching him run was quite funny in one scene, he just doesn't look the part in my opinion) however I think half the problem is also the storyline and whole Japan thing bores me, the making Bond Japanese thing was pretty cheesy. I feel this film could have easily been a Roger Moore film, it has that look, story and feel. Dare I say it - a lot of Moore era kind of cheese that we were not used to seeing in Connery films so far? Maybe Moore should not get slated so much as this film sort of showed where Bond was heading with exception to the next film...
On Her Majestys Secret Service - real pity that Sean didn't do this one when he was younger, the story and film is great. To be fair I thought Lazenby didn't do a bad job, his action scenes were quite good. I rate this very highly in my Bond list the only things that annoy me are the clothes Lazenby wears in some scenes and one of the Bond girls not appealing and in fact annoying (Ruby) however maybe that was the point of her (intended)
they can't beat Fleming and now the problem is unless they keep mining his ideas from the novels they're going to end up just doing non-Fleming scripts like QOS, so we're going to keep getting films just like QOS or DAD. Instead of inventing a totally new "Bond like" story and shoveling in a few scenes from the Fleming novels, they should actually redo a novel or short story or combine two, change it just enough so it doesn't appear to be a blantant remake, THEN throw in their own ideas to flesh it out. That's why I enjoyed LTK (they basically combined TMWTGG and LALD), FYEO (used Risico and TSWLM), etc.. They use a lot of Flemings' dramatic elements and kept the rest of the script anchored to those. When they try to write and entire story and just sprinkle in one or two of his ideas, it just never achieves the quality I'm looking for.
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.
You know, I probably should have mentioned this, before, but complaining about the low budget in the first Bond film is sort of like complaining about the low budget in the first Terminator film by James Cameron. I mean, yeah, it sucks that both of those films had a low budget but the studios didn't know what they had. If they had known what they had, they would have thrown more money at it.
Anyway, I now believe that it's futile to complain about the first four Bond films not adhering closer to the novels because it's pointless to create a slavishly, loyal, film adaptation of a book. Because what works in a book, might not work on film, and if you honestly want to see the full story of the book, on the silver screen, you might as well not even watch the movie in the first place. You should read the book again if that's what you want. Because what's the point of watching a film adaptation of a book when you know everything that's gonna happen?
If you're doing a film based on a popular novel, it's important to have the flavor of the book in your adaptation, but it's also important to have a slightly different interpretation of a novel, just to keep the audience interested in it. They can't know what's going to happen just yet. You have to keep them guessing.
"Goodbye, my son. Our hopes and dreams travel with you." Jor-El ~ Man of Steel (2013)
60's, yeah, some worthy ones... but each decade has a bad egg. 60's can get a bit dated, but they are still alot of good fun. I like the 80's as my fav, but 60's is probably second
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Of course they were the best of all. Completely fresh and exciting. The producers would love to be able to duplicate the impact of those movies again. They are the foundation that have enable the series to be successful for 50 years and are the blueprints for every movie that came after them. They may only seem dated because Bond had never gone out of style. They are only dated the same way any classic movie can seem dated.
Comments
I probably should have mentioned OHMSS since it was in the 60's, but from the comments it sounded like everyone was referring to Connery's films. To me (being a Fleming purist) it is one of my favorites because it stuck close to Fleming's novel as did FRWL. I've had this interesting ability for most of my life of being able to actually visualize scenes from films with a different actor in them (say, Tom Selleck instead of Ford in the Raiders films). I actually don't think Selleck was a bad choice - he would have been a little different in his take but it still would have worked. Unforunately, I can't feel the same about Sean in OHMSS for one main reason...how he appeared in YOLT. He was obviously overweight and out of shape in it (and even worse in DAF), despite the staging and editing in the fight scenes. He just looked tired to me. When I picture him in any scene in that Lazenby did, I get the same feeling..that he would have seemed too old and worn out for the part. He would have been 39 in that film, and that's not really that old, but I thought he looked older than that. Lazenby was nearly ten years younger, and I though his younger look and extra physical energy helped his performance. I know he was hampered by his lack of acting skills (and it did not help the director was not an "actor's director" - thank heavens he had seasoned actors like Rigg to rely on for advice), but still I thought he did remarkably well under those circumstances. In fact, when I read the novels I can see him as Bond as I do Dalton. I understand it would have been a convenient way of keeping the 60's the Connery-Bond decade had Sean done the film, but unlike many, I'm rather glad he did not. I was actually dismayed when he did DAF. It was a huge letdown when I saw it the first time in the theater, because of how old Connery looked (as well as how silly the film was). Sure he could still throw punches in the fights, but when he just stood around in the exposition scenes, he looked to me as if he just showed up to collect his paycheck. I was shocked when he did Never Say Never! He was older and yet no longer looked tired and was really fit. He must have went for a long stay at Shrublands before he actually went to it in the film!
Which is why I wished they could keep the same director and writers from film to film. What if QOS had been directed by Campbell? I know it had the same writers..except there is an uncredited one named Joshua Zetumer. Is it any of his ideas that soured the script? At least the directing and editing would have been better. The other problem is CR was Fleming's idea and story, mainly starting with Montenegro. The rest was dreamed up by the writing team. They did a nice job, but they can't beat Fleming and now the problem is unless they keep mining his ideas from the novels they're going to end up just doing non-Fleming scripts like QOS, so we're going to keep getting films just like QOS or DAD. Instead of inventing a totally new "Bond like" story and shoveling in a few scenes from the Fleming novels, they should actually redo a novel or short story or combine two, change it just enough so it doesn't appear to be a blantant remake, THEN throw in their own ideas to flesh it out. That's why I enjoyed LTK (they basically combined TMWTGG and LALD), FYEO (used Risico and TSWLM), etc.. They use a lot of Flemings' dramatic elements and kept the rest of the script anchored to those. When they try to write and entire story and just sprinkle in one or two of his ideas, it just never achieves the quality I'm looking for.
Dr No - a bit dated compared to the others as expected but a great start to the series!!
From Russia With Love - Bond now on his feet and the foundation of certain elements setup for future Bond films as we now know and love.
Goldfinger - superb, and worthy installment introducing more classic elements into the series!
Thunderball - My personal favorite of this era, exotic location, beautiful ladies and great film from a basic story (goes to show complex story lines and scripts not required)
You Only Live Twice - damn awful, in fact its hard to believe the films above preceded it. Connery looks half the man in it (I watched this yesterday and watching him run was quite funny in one scene, he just doesn't look the part in my opinion) however I think half the problem is also the storyline and whole Japan thing bores me, the making Bond Japanese thing was pretty cheesy. I feel this film could have easily been a Roger Moore film, it has that look, story and feel. Dare I say it - a lot of Moore era kind of cheese that we were not used to seeing in Connery films so far? Maybe Moore should not get slated so much as this film sort of showed where Bond was heading with exception to the next film...
On Her Majestys Secret Service - real pity that Sean didn't do this one when he was younger, the story and film is great. To be fair I thought Lazenby didn't do a bad job, his action scenes were quite good. I rate this very highly in my Bond list the only things that annoy me are the clothes Lazenby wears in some scenes and one of the Bond girls not appealing and in fact annoying (Ruby) however maybe that was the point of her (intended)
Agreed.
8. TMwtGG 9. AVtaK 10. TSWLM 11. SF 12. LtK 13. TND 14. YOLT
15. NTtD 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. GF 19. SP 20. DN 21. TB
22. TWiNE 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
You know, I probably should have mentioned this, before, but complaining about the low budget in the first Bond film is sort of like complaining about the low budget in the first Terminator film by James Cameron. I mean, yeah, it sucks that both of those films had a low budget but the studios didn't know what they had. If they had known what they had, they would have thrown more money at it.
Anyway, I now believe that it's futile to complain about the first four Bond films not adhering closer to the novels because it's pointless to create a slavishly, loyal, film adaptation of a book. Because what works in a book, might not work on film, and if you honestly want to see the full story of the book, on the silver screen, you might as well not even watch the movie in the first place. You should read the book again if that's what you want. Because what's the point of watching a film adaptation of a book when you know everything that's gonna happen?
If you're doing a film based on a popular novel, it's important to have the flavor of the book in your adaptation, but it's also important to have a slightly different interpretation of a novel, just to keep the audience interested in it. They can't know what's going to happen just yet. You have to keep them guessing.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming