James Bond
Table of Contents
You can't expect movie critics to be reliable guides, if only because they aren't truly unbiased, but what a disappointment when you go see some dud on a critic's recommendation. It's still irritating to think of some of those stinkers, many years later.
Chronological List of Bond FilmsFrom Russia with Love (FRWL) — 1963
You Only Live Twice (YOLT) — 1967
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (OHMSS) — 1969
Diamonds Are Forever (DAF) — 1971
Live and Let Die (LALD) — 1973
The Man with the Golden Gun (TMWTGG) — 1974
The Spy Who Loved Me (TSWLM) — 1977
For Your Eyes Only (FYEO) — 1981
Never Say Never Again (NSNA) — 1983
A View to a Kill (AVTAK) — 1985
The Living Daylights (TLD) — 1987
Tomorrow Never Dies (TND) — 1997
The World Is Not Enough (TWINE) — 1999
Why do we even have critics, when most of them can't figure out works like Barton Fink, Eraserhead, The Getaway (1994), or November (that suspense movie with Monica from Friends)? Roeper, though, looked like he had November pegged. I didn't see the follow-up, but he had that look of discovery when he said he'd figured it out, and he'd explain it later.
The best bet is a critic that seems to like the same sort of movies you do. A critic might be right that a movie is objectively good, but if you don't like the same things he or she likes, it's pointless. Also, its important to find a critic who isn't a sell-out, but how can you be sure of that? Tough, indeed.
As far as ratings, a strict rank, number 1, number 2, etc., often doesn't make sense for categorization of movies, music or art. It happens that there are works of equal quality.
I don't know if anyone still even listens to radio anymore, but I remember as a young whippersnapper, listening to radio countdowns like, "The Top 1000 Songs of All Time." I think "Don't Be Cruel," "Hey Jude," "American Pie," "Stairway to Heaven," "Bridge over Troubled Water" and "Just the Way You Are" were all number ones at one time, which makes the idea of number one, number two... nonsensical. Better, "Most Requested," "Best Selling," which are real measurements.
But if you divide an assessment into tiers, you get a little closer to objectivity. Following that principle, I've divided the rankings into top tier, second tier, and so on, with multiple films possible per tier.
There's an element of psychology when considering the Bonds. If you are hoping to see thrilling action, and you get served up humor, slapstick or satire, well, depending on your mood and personality, you may feel cheated, or just annoyed, or disappointed.
The truth is, if it's a good, original story, most everyone will like it. In general, people have gotten used to to having some humor mixed in the Bond films which helps give them their character and stops them from becoming overly dark. But it's another simple truth, that a good story isn't so easy. And the Bond films became progressively more outrageous, and formulaic, to near self-destruction.
The same judgment that couldn't discern a good story, couldn't discern when they were pushing it too far with bad quips, unlikely situations and overly stupid and repetitive plots. Not the prescription for an enjoyable spy adventure. It's no surprise, that the rebound from bad Bonds, Casino Royale, did so well, when it was a kind of a clunker, because at least it changed things up a bit.
There was a sweet spot, before things went off the rails, where you could enjoy both humor and adventure. So these ratings feature a "goofy fun" subcategory for each tier.
We're not including the 1954 made-for-TV Casino Royale with Barry Nelson, nor the miserable 1967 satire/farce Casino Royale with David Niven, which I don't know how the hell got made. Based on a perusal of its history, we can only conclude it was an act of spite, perhaps the most costly ever. The holder of the film rights to the book, Charles Feldman, couldn't make a deal with Eon (maker of the Bond series) to produce it for him. So he sought vengeance by belittling the Bond series with a satire, knowing he couldn't compete with Eon on quality.
A hundred million of today's dollars later... he choked up this hairball. It wasn't intended to be so costly (and he probably could have competed with Eon if he'd known in advance he'd spend double his original budget), but things went wrong and costs added up (because they don't add down).
Still, it amazingly made three and a half times its budget. It must have had an inspired ad campaign.
The Rankings
Top Tier
From Russia with Love
Touches all the bases, and certainly the most credible Bond.
Terrific settings, sustained tension, lower-key, more down-to-earth antics. Bond barely scrapes through some battles with tough opponents. Just for the great story-telling alone, FRWL is a winner.
How Does It Compare to the Book?
Like the movie, no plans to dominate and destroy the world here, except on a slow burner by the Soviet commies of SMERSH, "Death to Spies." In fact, the movie is a close adaptation of the book, while glossing over the details. In the book, the events of FRWL follow the events of DAF.
The book spends much time with Red Grant, and we learn he is a psychopath, and quite mad. But the Russkies channel his raging bloodlust. Tatiana and Rosa Klebb get a lot of space, and we discover their inner thoughts and secrets, which, like Grant's, were not explored in the movie.
Grant is asexual. Klebb, villainess head of the Otdyel II, the Department of Torture and Death, thick and dumpy, with "wet, rubbery lips," is lesbian. Sounds like they'd make a cute couple.
We were introduced here to Spectre — oops, Spektor — but this is the translating machine that Tatiana uses to bait London into accepting her as a defector.
It is a fun book, and they were smart to stay faithful in the adaptation.
Dr. No
First ever, and a breakthrough in spy films, particularly with those Ken Adam sets and Terence Young direction. It probably changed movies forever, too. Fun how Bond turns the tables throughout. He knows how to take care of business, just how we like our Bonds.
Not where the term, "Watch your six," comes from, but it could have been.
How Does It Compare to the Book?
The story's roots were in a 1956 screenplay for a proposed television show entitled Commander Jamaica. The concept failed, so Fleming revised it into a book. The movie is mostly faithful the book's plot, with a main difference being that Dr. No runs a guano mine, digging up old bird droppings, very valuable as fertilizer. Bond ends up burying No in guano at the end of the book.
In the books, Dr. No follows the events of FRWL.
Top Tier Goofy Fun
Diamonds Are Forever
Probably my personal favorite, favorite song, favorite Bond girl, Lana Wood as Plenty O'Toole. Best comic henchmen, best fight in an elevator. Good balance of humor and tension.
Sadly, it falls apart at silly climax, the villain inevitably thwarted again. Which is fine, but must he be made to seem like an impotent nitwit? He didn't get this far in life being a dope. Megalomaniac, yes. Like in SPECTRE, you have to wonder if Blofeld is really a softie, with no appetite for "wet work," except at a distance, and just mixed up in all of this mischief for the attention it brings!
DAF is "an original," someone said. Astonishing atmosphere (the score accounts for a lot of this). Also Vegas is enchanting here. Most effortless Bond.
Even the most ardent fan must understand that there are no actual super-spies really running around dispatching super villains and saving the world, and movies like the Bonds (and the other super-spies) are essentially fantasy. What there are, are stoolies, traitors, rabble-rousers and bagmen bringing bribes to corrupt officials, as made plain in a The Register article. (Note: The British secret service is called, Secret Intelligence Service, SIS.)
So far from pistols, chop-socky or irresistible sexual magnetism, a normal SIS officer's primary tools for motivating foreigners to do what he wants are bribery, bullshit and in certain circumstances blackmail. The only Bond-like quality a normal SIS officer will be required to show is the ability to drink heavily and remain functional, as any diplomat must on the embassy cocktail circuit.
This movie embraces the fantasy, with a purely fanciful and thus entertaining Bond. They screwed up on the last act partly because it wasn't as originally planned, but at least we have that great final scene where Wint and Kidd are scuttled, and the amusing discovery that Wint likes it rough. We'll miss those giggling bunglers.
How Does It Compare to the Book?
Far different from the book, the film mixed and matched various ideas, vignettes and characters from the written story, which was a sort of old-time gangster tale, rather than the grandiose attempt of Bloefeld at total control and devastation. The mud baths of the book morph into Bloefeld's clone-creation chamber (or whatever that is), where Bond drowns the guy in mud (actually colored mashed potatoes).
The movie changes the book into a science fiction tale. In the book, the diamonds are simply the contraband of a smuggling operation, not crucial components for a space laser.
The story follows how Bond eliminates the crooks along the diamond pipeline. Along the way there are crooked jockies, a ghost town and rigged blackjack to pay off an undercover Bond. Bond is found out and badly beaten but manages a long escape on a railway push-car with Tiffany. Bond derails a train that's chasing them. Somehow he kills Wint and Kidd in the dopiest way imaginable, after crashing his body into their ocean liner cabin from outside, through the porthole, having just been lucky enough to have the cabin directly above them. Overall, readable, but a little bit dull and unmemorable, and it's easy to see why they revised it for the movie.
Goldfinger
Directed by Guy Hamilton. Many believe this to be the most important Bond.
It is iconic, perhaps unqualified top-tier, depending on your mood, but gets somehow draining on re-watches, as you recognize various flaws. Maybe it's the "hard-boiled gangsters." ("What the Dickens is going on here, Goldfinger?" "Yeah, Goldfinger, I hope there's no hanky-panky underway!")
Maybe it's Pussy Galore's unlikely all-girl air squadron. Maybe it's Goldfinger's madcap plan to make all the gold in Fort Knox radioactive. He could just steal the gold since he was in there anyway, or, it was pointed out, bomb the fort from an airplane.
Nevertheless, one can imagine how exciting it must have been to see it in the theater at the time of its first release.
How Does It Compare to the Book?
The movie salvaged the book. By the time Fort Knox rolls around, Fleming must have been asleep or on a bender or going cuckoo, probably all three, and soils the page with prose poorly designed and incoherent. There are some antics at the airport and on a plane that aren't worth the trouble to decipher or explain.
Pussy is won over from the clutches of lesbianism by Bond's pure manliness, becoming all kittenish and prancing around sexily in next to nothing, as lesbians tend to do.
There's no spycraft here — except perhaps when Bond sends a message in a bottle — what a disappointment. Fleming's occasional failure to put together a coherent story with a satisfying and sensible ending can be tiresome. Of course these books had become just a lark for him, as he's indicated previously.
Second Tier
Thunderball
One of the best if you're rating by a points system, but boring in spots, probably due to the hard to track underwater sequences, though technically they were a breakthrough.
But another sheer winner in its day.
The screenplay the book and movie were based on was a collaborative effort between Fleming, Jack Whittingham and Kevin McClory, and some others. The collaboration gave rise to "Bloefeld," the head of criminal organization SPECTRE. It also gave rise to legal issues when Fleming wrote and marketed the book, based on the screenplay, on his own, and McClory had to sue. This led to McClory winning the rights to make his own version of the story, and hence, NSNA, much later on.
GoldenEye
Great debut for Brosnan, whom I didn't think I'd like in the role. The ending seemed anticlimactic to me, and the Sean Bean character was one that shouldn't be so callously dispatched. They throw away their own opportunities — he could have been captured and imprisoned to create havoc another time, another movie. What excitement if some of his old goons teamed up to take on Bond.
The worst was the try-hard attempt to make Bond a studly lady's man from jump. They shouldn't force these things. I think one of the reasons the Jason Bourne movies were so well-received was the relief of the audience at not having to put up with that. Instead, audiences got fed pure action. Yes, there was a romance, but it wasn't overplayed.
Goldeneye is the original name of Ian Fleming's estate on Oracabessa Bay, Jamaica. He never wrote a book called GoldenEye, but there is a novelization of the film by John Gardner.
Second Tier Goofy Fun
SPECTRE
Mostly well-paced. Bautista elevated this one, playing a ruthless, soulless thug.
I enjoyed the references to past films, but I don't like what Bond did to the DB10. Okay, here we go with the Fantasy Football version: He should have used a special driver's ejection seat and as he blasts off we see, from Hinx's perspective, a blinding ball of flame shooting out of the rockets of the seat, cracking his windshield to smithereens, while the Aston Martin calmly pulls off to the side and stops itself.
Of course the plot and motivations were dopey, but we've come to expect this in Bond films. And, we have the troublesome issue of Bond running around complacently with two holes in his head, without even the benefit of a 00-designated band-aid to salve his wounds. This confirms something many of us have suspected, but dared not say: We thought he was just an impulsive, over-sexed lush, but James Bond is really Fearless Fosdick in disguise.
And, again, a weak villain. Why can't one of the Blofelds really give Bond a good thrashing, on his own, to at least make a showing that he's a worthy adversary? And certainly the big-deal spymasters at MI-6 must've known that Blofeld and Bond are foster brothers.
No? Nuh-nuh-no?
No?
Even Bond himself doesn't seem to be aware of it. Maybe Bond feels he needs a foster brother like he needs a hole in the head, ha ha ha.
You Only Live Twice
YOLT is also iconic, good gadgets, effects, of course the Adam sets were revolutionary.
But it is slow in parts. No, sleep-inducing in parts. I don't like when the villain is too helpless under pressure — did I say that already? — Pleasance is a good villain, but Savalas' Blofeld more of a menace, which is needed to give some suspense.
How Does It Compare to the Book?
Book Bond is sullen and morbid since the murder, by Bloefeld, of his new bride, Tracy, in OHMSS. He is somehow even more drunken and about to be fired by M. He's given a chance for redemption in Japan, to act as a diplomat to get Tiger Tanaka to provide intelligence information to Britain. When it turns out Bond has nothing to bargain with for the information, he's offered a mission to kill Dr. Shatterhand who runs a "Garden of Death" in a restored castle that people flock to, to commit suicide. Bond accepts reluctantly. He identifies Shatterhand as actually Bloefeld and infiltrates, hoping for vengeance. He is subsequently recognized, leading to a battle with Bloefeld, whom he kills.
Bond blows up the castle and escapes, but with an injury that leaves him with amnesia. He is believed dead by the rest of the world, but lives on as a Japanese fisherman with a pregnant Kissy Suzuki. At the end of the book, he gets it in his head to travel to Vladivostok to help restore his memory.
Needless to say, only character names, some sprinkling of details, like Bond's fake obituary, masquerading as an Asian fisherman, and the setting of Japan survives in the movie.
Sci-fi trappings seem a standard go-to when adapting the Bond books for the screen. Science fiction, when disguised, often sells in movies. Books too, when disguised. Stephen King talked about how he would never want to be known as a sci-fi writer, it's a dead end, though he writes some sci-fi stories.
Since it has a bad name, but often interesting ideas, we have the situation that many films are secret science fiction, where people enjoy the fantasy aspect without even realizing it is sci-fi.
Moonraker
Also known as, 007 Against The Death Rocket (Brazil and Portugal).
I don't understand the criticism, goofy fun, remember? Maybe the cruelty of how the French helicopter girl, Corrine, is dispatched was a misstep not in keeping with the general tone of the movie.
I do have a geeky confession to make. I remember my excitement after watching the original release, that Bond might be going to Mars next. I don't know. And don't ask me what the fiddlesticks he was supposed to do on Mars.
But, someone, please, explain Drax's logic in attempting to kill Bond, right in his shuttle factory when Bond comes to do some cursory research. At that point no one suspected him of being involved in any wrongdoing, or stealing his own vehicle. Isn't that just going to bring more attention down on him?
Actually, people have noticed it's exactly the same plot as TSWLM, the previous movie! Except instead of underwater, it's in space. This was a huge example of money-grubbing, rushing MOON into production, displacing FYEO, to take advantage of the Star Wars craze. Still, the details were different enough that people didn't care and it did very well at the box office.
How Does It Compare to the Book?
Moonraker, the novel, showcases a card-cheating and arrogant Drax building an ultimate defense missile for Britain, not a space/moon shuttle, and the bulk of the story is Bond getting bashed about in various mishaps and scraps while defending Drax's installation. Bond's love-hate relationship with Drax turns solidly to "hate," when he finds out Drax is a Nazi who is going to turn the missile against London.
Bond doesn't get the bombshell girl this time, though he does seem to have inordinate good fortune in encountering all the women who are "the most beautiful in the world."
Could the books be adapted, as-is, to new screenplays for subsequent movies? They'd need some twists and surprises salted in, but they probably could. They're sufficiently distinct from the film adaptations. Anything's better than what they've produced recently.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service
OHMSS is the one where Bond marries Mrs. Peel, for a million pounds (i.e.: six months' booze money). OHMSS benefits from repeated viewings, if only to help get accustomed to Lazenby. He was decent as Bond, and I wouldn't consider him a "bad actor," as some say. Diana Rigg preferable as Mrs. Peel, but, again, not that bad. She has little sex appeal despite the hype. Well, maybe that one scene in the lingerie. Someone said there was no spark between James and Tracy, but they're British! — that was passionate fireworks between the two, for Brits.
Quirks and flaws, it has. But there is some solid action and humor in the story. And it's not all goofy fun, with the romantic/tragic subplot. This one is really outside the usual mold for Bonds. Tracy has to come running to his rescue, while he cowers around like a little byatch!
But how much are people going to tolerate — is it the same Bond, the same Bloefeld? Why is there such studio resistance to having Bond 007 be simply a code name for various agents? Then LazenBond goes and breaks the fourth wall and addresses the audience anyway, referring to, "The other fellow..."
Why couldn't this Bloefeld be brother to the one from YOLT? A comic book publisher used this trick to resolve the issue with the similar characters Brutus and Bluto in the Popeye cartoon.
Sure, there is a reason to maintain the continuity. People feel more at home with a continuing character, already established with considerable goodwill. It's a comfort spot for people, who like a familiar groove.
Don't really care for a weepy, broken Bond, but they cleverly ended the movie at the point of his breakdown. Through some work of genius or trick of fate, the producers had their cake and ate it too. Bond too sniveling? Out with him and back to unflappable Bond, scooting any baggage neatly out the door!
How Does It Compare to the Book?
The prose version is similar to the movie, but the events up in the chateau are much more straightforward. Bloefeld's motives to be "recognized" with a royal title aren't explained well. This seems to be another of the "by the numbers" Bonds that Fleming cranked out, seemingly bored, with little interest or energy.Third Tier
Casino Royale
Please, do not say how good CR is. I think people were told to like it with unrelenting hype, so they did. Unpolished Bond, magical gadget for transparent plot service, but otherwise a lack of gadgets. Gadgets make Bonds fun and are almost expected/required. Too much worship of the Vesper Lynn character, too, with the personality of a wet corn chip.
Liking this flick perhaps depends on what sort of character you want to identify with.
Sometimes one thing can ruin it. The clairvoyant gadget in Casino Royale, the "defibrillator," qualified. "Oh, by the way Bond, you're going to have just the opportunity to use this. Just waltz back to the car whilst dying, hook up, and give yerself a zap. Easy-peasy!"
Absurd. Unintentionally funny, too, when Bond has to go to hospital for testicular recovery of the old double-Os. Maybe, in this case, they shouldn't have stayed true to the book. If they'd used the defibrillator to torture Bond, that would make sense.
Also, an unnecessarily boorish, callous, brutish Bond soured this movie. If it's the same Bond, he's not going to suddenly become suave, debonair and sophisticated if he's previously a lout!
Oh yes, you can't jerk a steering wheel and make a car flip over sideways multiple times. Or there'd be a lot of jerks upside-down on the side of the road. Just dopey.
How Does It Compare to the Book?
The concept and plot are essentially the same in film and book, with Bond setting out to bankrupt Le Chiffre. In a silly change from the book, Bond plays poker rather than baccarat. There's no real reason to make the change, except for the producers thinking they could capitalize on the poker craze.
The Living Daylights
TLD is not horrible, but I don't like Dalton's over-emoting, particularly when the plane he's in is going to crash, which sticks in my mind. New York Times said he often looks uncomfortable in the role — yes.
How Does It Compare to the Story?
In the story by the same name, Bond has to kill a sniper, who turns out to be a KGB cellist girl he takes a fancy to. He shoots to disable her and his liaison says he should have killed her. Bond defends himself, saying that, having the living daylights scared out of her, she will be out of the snipering business for good. So the movie only sampled bits and pieces of the short story.
Licence to Kill
LTK is the second and last Dalton Bond, which descends somewhat into viciousness and sadism. Good for people who want to see a grittier Bond, but you have to wonder if they went this way to "beef up" Dalton with some street cred. Maybe they should have used this story for a non-Bond movie. Wayne Newton may have been the best part of this flick.
This was a first for a Bond movie: the first not to have a title or story line from one of Ian Fleming's works. But Bond's friend, CIA man Felix Leiter, tossed to a shark, Bond's revenge, and the Franz Sanchez drug smuggling operation were borrowed from LALD.
For Your Eyes Only
FYEO is too scattershot, inconsistent, with Bond careening from one goofy situation to another. Not consonant with what we expect from Bond. Ruins the atmosphere. And Bibi fits right into the ruination. Contrast this with DAF, where they maintained a sophisticated, together, Bond, despite the asylum antics around him.
It's like there were ten different directors, and Bond's here, he's there, he's everywhere.
Putting flowers on the grave of Lazenby's dead wife; at the pool, dodging transsexuals and getting into awkward scraps; in the snowy mountains, dodging marksmen's bullets and hockey pucks; at the beach trying to rescue a woman who came out of nowhere (idea for this scene pulled out of OHMSS?) and is suddenly the love of his life; skidding downhill in a flimsy mini-car; underwater perils (hello, TBALL — also the henchman Vargas from TBALL is very similar to Locque); getting dragged along in the water as shark bait and damaging the coral; kicking cars off of cliffs; scaling a mountain. Henchmen galore, but no Pussy Galore.
Bond's stretched too thin and the screwy plotting and diverse settings contribute to a lack of harmony. Which is strange, because usually a globe-trotting Bond is fun. My impression was, he was not really globe-trotting though, just moving between indeterminate locales.
How Does It Compare to the Story?
A new subplot plus the plots from two of Fleming's short stories, For Your Eyes Only (Melina's plot) and Risico (the smugglers' plot), along with inspiration from the climax from the novel, Live and Let Die were stirred together to make this movie's structure. No wonder it's disjointed.
Third Tier Goofy Fun
The Man with the Golden Gun
I should like TMWTGG, what with the beautiful tropical island setting, good ol' Nick Nack, many fun parts and good ideas. Another one that's perhaps too disjointed, the girl too annoying... Boring in spots. Could be an all-time great with a complete script rework and different Bond girl.
Instead of setting their own path, as the first movies did, Bonds began following the trends of the day. Of course the Craig era tried to emulate the Bourne series. Here, we have Bond borrowing from the popularity of the Kung-Fu movies as Bond takes on a martial arts school.
How Does It Compare to the Book?
Oh, cripes, another old-timey gangster tale. This one is mostly readable as straight farce, because it makes no sense. Scaramanga is the most flamboyant and unlikely hitman ever, and his interactions with Bond are preposterous.
Anyway, Bond has come back from visiting Vladivostok after YOLT. And guess what? He's been brainwashed by the KGB to kill M. Luckily, M has a Get Smart-style plastic window he drops between himself and Bond to prevent the poison from hitting him.
M reads report that Scaramanga may be impotent and gay because he can't whistle! M tries to whistle.
Then, after electroshock "therapy" on Bond 24 times, now Bond's all fine.
M then cruelly sends Bond off to kill the nuisance and number one pistolero Scaramanga, though it's probably a suicide mission.
The whole thing turns into just a slow slog. There's another train crash. WTH is this fetish Fleming has with crashing trains, along with his other weird quirks, hmm? Freudian? So, sketchy as the movie is, it considerably surpasses the book.
Live and Let Die
Moore's first Bond. Story is wacky, absurd at times, but somehow LALD is somewhat successful, particularly in its return on investment, despite or because of its off-the-wall lunacy. Interesting as a period-piece farce or spoof. Don't really care for Jane Seymour's character, too haughty or something. Rosie was very poorly written.
I don't agree with another reviewer about, "the fine acting of Yaphet Kotto as main villain Dr. Kananga/Mr. Big." He hammed it up until he couldn't ham any more, then he was inflated to death and blew up like a big balloon! But in this farce, hamming it up is good. Another demerit: Bond has to go and say, "He always had an inflated opinion of himself." No-no-no! You say (if you're ever in this situation), "I figured he was full of hot air."
It's certainly an original. It's hard to say if it was intentional to have Bond as a "fish out of water," out of his element dealing with the brothers in the 'hood. In fact, it's hard to tell what was going through their minds.
How Does It Compare to the Book?
LALD is a direct and unassuming little tale of dealing with gold smugglers in Harlem and Jamaica, which the movie adapted as drug smugglers. Bond flirts with Solitaire, there's some nice descriptions of land and sea, but the supernatural aspects the movie emphasizes are hardly to be found.
In truth, there's scarcely enough meat here to build a movie around, and we're hammered with the pandering praise of the "giant negro genius," Mr. Big, who comes off as even dopier than the "Mr. Big" portrayed in the film. He doesn't even bother to investigate the trap that Bond forthrightly tells him he's set. At least he isn't turned into a giant negro beach ball in the book.
A View to a Kill
In AVTAK, Bond takes on a rich megalomaniac industrialist with a sinister plan to blow up Silicon Valley, ho-hum, nothing original there. Grace Jones has to try single-handedly to save this picture. But there are too many missteps along the way. Killing off John Steed (and offscreen!) only one of its sins. It left a bad taste in my mouth when Bond sappily spends a sleepless night watch in a chair defending Tanya Roberts. Weak. (They repeated this in SPECTRE, one of many "homages," but I didn't hate it as much, perhaps because Whatshername didn't play so ditzy a character?)
Weird thing to be bothered by, but the movie unnecessarily clipped off the theme song a couple of notes before the song actually ended (at the end of the opening credits of the movie). Who is the dumb bastich who did the music editing?
The final act with the dirigible was a little too obviously staged. Were they pressed for time, having to rush through the filming of the movie? Because, just a few installments back, they did that spectacular skydiving stunt in Moonraker, so they know how to do perilous scenes.
How Does It Compare to the Story?
The Ian Fleming short story, From a View To a Kill, is a detective tale, where Bond has to solve the murder-theft of some secret government dispatches, set an ambush, and bring glory to the 00 section.
Octopussy
I didn't like this one at first, probably because it was jarring to see Bond as a pathetic clown looking helpless trying to defuse that bomb, that same pall as when he fought the hockey toughs in FYEO. That circus all-girl army was somewhat annoying, especially the robotic "Bond girl" character. Still, I have warmed to the film somewhat.
How Does It Compare to the Story?
The story has little to do even with Bond, who only appears in a few paragraphs. He is doing some investigating of the main character, an older, retired Royal Marines major. Major Smythe happens to be a murderer who gets his comeuppance at the tentacles of his pet octopus(sy).
Never Say Never Again
NSNA has aged somewhat poorly. It didn't help that we'd seen that story before somewhere... Oh right, TBALL! They made a decent effort at a rework though, so it wasn't too obvious a copy.
The chief villain Maximillian Largo, played by Klaus Maria Brandauer, was a great casting choice, but, again, dispatched too easily/stupidly, not used to full advantage. Lots of creepy fun with that druggie putting in his fake retina and the detonation of Fatima Blush's cartoonishly enormous ego, though.
The debate goes, "Is it James Bond?" Some argue that it isn't in the "continuity," and of course it isn't an Eon Productions effort. But Eon doesn't follow any sort of continuity, except halfheartedly, so that's moot. Of course it's a James Bond story. It has all the official blessings, so it's an authorized film. It lacks some of the mood and tone and polish of Eon's work, but it's not really a disappointment, just a bit other-worldly.
Say it's a parallel universe Bond, but still Bond, and let it go at that.
The Spy Who Loved Me
TSWLM is that one with "Stromberg." Most of the lesser Bonds are at least okay, but again, we're given the weak villain, the dopey concept (Stromberg thinks he's Aquaman and wants to rule an underwater kingdom). Good opening, fun "underwater car." It has an aura that a lot of money was spent on the film.
How Does It Compare to the Book?
Only the title remained, because Fleming was so unhappy with the plot of the book, he only gave permission for the title to be used in a movie! The movie was then novelized by Christopher Wood.
Fourth Tier, Worst
No Time to Die
As a movie, NTTD was entertaining, yet it is not memorable, not even a single scene. No emotional resonance. The fallout is, NTTD is just depressing. More Hollyweird-style slop thrown in our faces. Self-serving, vapid, incompetent and insipid.
So, we've run the gamut with this Craig iteration: My Fair Lady Bond, gay Bond, sensitive Bond, self-sacrificing Bond and, thankfully, dead Bond. But, ultimately, an unforgivable Bond.
He cemented himself as worst Bond ever, after this. He cruises gay bars to avoid "dick-swinging machismo?" Oh, my, all that machismo is so terrifying! Sequester! Sequester! Here's a tip: Stay the hell out of all bars, then, Creampuff!
No, there was never any magic in the last five Bonds, just ham-handed trash. Sure, there'll be some fans, especially for those whom Craig is their first Bond. And of course, it's hard to fault the producers for trying to find a formula that works for today, that isn't dated. But they also needed something that doesn't soil the legacy. Naturally, they had to go and crap the bed. Got to love how they think killing principal characters, which didn't work in Skyfall, will work here.
Needed: some good writers, instead of vicious drones without thoughts of their own. The producers don't have a sense of propriety or of the tone that Bond films should bring. In fact, they're frenzied animals, with the only goals of bringing in the bucks and propagandizing. They have no instinct when they've gone too far, as with killing Bond, then saying "James Bond will return," as though they are mentally ill.
Regarding how contradictory it seems that it still had entertaining aspects, well, that's what you get with state of the art hack writing to a formula. There's a thrill at first sight, then the sickening reality of the repetitiveness, poor structure, the old themes and tropes pushing what is really only propaganda.
Hilarious example of that "hack writing" is when Bond suddenly, completely out of character, starts strangling Bloefeld, saying, "Die, Bloefeld!" in a plot artifice. Craig couldn't even do that convincingly. They needed some physical contact so Bond could pass on some contaminant to Bloefeld, so they barf that idea up. Bond's supposed to be cool. Now, you know how I hate to criticize. Well, I don't criticize without offering an alternative, so it should have been Bloefeld who grabbed Bond, having somehow gotten loose from his restraints, and has the upper hand, when he suddenly suffers from the effects of the poison.
(For the sticklers, yes, Bond choked Bloefeld and said exactly that in the original story for YOLT, but that was under different circumstances, in a pitched battle against Bloefeld and his henchwoman, so they misappropriated the idea.)
Ultimately, there is no need for Bonds anymore if NTTD is their best effort for a quarter of a billion dollars.
Some Notes
- NTTD was a scorched earth purge of James Bond. It's a cheap, insulting trick, like, say, "The Death of Superman," that any louse can pull, relying on the goodwill of fans to let it slide when the character is inevitably later resurrected
- they sure put a lot of stock in Bond as a clearly lobotomized himbo, overconfident and excelling only because he's so far above his enemies and MI-6 cronies and peers, who are even more lobotomized
- new 007 woman a cipher, a placeholder set there only to rile the masses for publicity, and thrill the wokesters
- got to love Bond's "career path" and "retirement," where he comes in a novice, does two or three missions, depending on how you count them, then is retired
- they seem to have set out to make a woman's movie, not understanding a woman might also like a pure man's adventure without the inserted angst and forced BS "relationships"
- to really be depressed about NTTD, look at FRWL in comparison, at the storytelling there, with its solid push from start to finish, always staying authentic and believable
Fake News
The numbers are charted on the Summary Table, but one has to ponder. Are they for real? Sales seem awfully high for a time where everyone is hunkered down at home, hiding under his or her bed in fear. It is so easy to tweak these figures with questionable reporting to make the franchise seem that it's flying high.
No surprise there, since entertainment news is the biggest pack of lies. Outrageously, some news site stated that Craig was playing coy before he agreed to come on board as "Bond," stipulating that "he wanted Bond to die when he left."
An actor is a peon. He stands and waits for instruction and then does what he's told, he doesn't come in and dictate.
So, he's going to demand they scrap the whole franchise on his whim when he leaves? Throw away their whole business? Suuuurrreeee he is.
Only Sean could dictate, and he was the whole franchise. SuperCraig couldn't even tell the writers to throw out the putrid idea where he spazzes out and attempts to strangle Bloefeld. Shows Craig doesn't understand the character at all, nor do the writers.
Actors have always been pawns, to a shocking degree. One website says they don't even own those homes they showcase them in. They don't even own the clothes on their backs! They are controlled and had better do what they're told, except for the very few superstars who are so good they are above the fray. Some who aren't at that level are just fired. Even good ones. John Amos got the boot from an old hit series, Good Times, and it actually ruined the series, but the producers didn't seem to care. Apparently he objected to fathers being portrayed as dupes and dopes, and of course, this was a fatal insult to woke Hollyweird, even in the 70's.
On the other hand, red alert to actors: Yes, do make demands when things become freakin' stupid!
Another Word about Critics
For a large part, "critic" is just another word for low-lifes who don't want to do real work, sitting around pontificating their senseless, imbecilic thoughts for pay. A very similar profession to politician. Now, if they did real work as a producer, director or, especially, writer, then they can be an actual critic, sometimes. No surprise to see a recent explanation by an artist, that art critics weren't actual artists themselves, and don't have a clue what is good art or not (hence all those "priceless" pictures of something where they throw a bucket of paint at a canvas), but just want to retain their cushy positions as self-styled experts. So when a real artist comes in to critique, they tear into him like a pack of hyenas. Yeah, he was griping about it, justifiably so.
So that's how we get all the senseless praise for bad movies, like this plop. At least it had Ana de Armas for eye candy.
About the Bastich Producers
They never even acknowledged Sean's death with a dedication or something. WTH is wrong with these people? Maybe it's for the best, Sean hated Cubby, with good reason, so there you have it.
Die Another Day
The start of the movie is maybe the best opening of all Bonds! So why so crappy overall? Because it didn't continue the story from there. They should have proceeded within the scary setting of North Korea. I can see them brainwashing Bond to work for the N. Koreans and he turns into a prolific assassin for "their side." The story relates how they get him back into the fold of Perfidious Albion, M having to fight and scheme on his behalf since the higher-ups feel there's no choice, and send snipers and other assassins to kill him. There — this stuff almost writes itself.
She's a lousy M who left a trail of destruction, but a good actress, and that would have been a great opportunity for her to do more in a film, and maybe we would have been spared that cringe-worthy scene in Skyfall where she recites poetry to the Brit government.
The invisible car was dumb, though they did the best they could have with it. Wasn't this the one with the Chinese guy with all the diamonds embedded in his face? Oh yeah, it was bad.
Of course it's not an original title from Fleming, but it's a good, evocative title that he would have approved. But just a title alone doesn't cut it. You've got to wonder why they don't have a panel of people, with all the billions they've made off these shows, to tell them straight up when something is terrible.
They should do a show based on Broccoli, the (now deceased) producer, and any time someone tries to tell him his movie idea stinks, he pitches a fit, throws rotting broccoli at them, and tries to blow up the world and corner the broccoli supply. Now that's a story we all want to see!
Skyfall
Too vicious and contrived. Quite boring, I have no desire to watch it again. Stupid M and stupid Moneypenny, who killed Bond with her trick shot. Stay behind your desk, please, Moneypenny. I guess he came back as a ghost, which is why the later movie is called SPECTRE.
I generally don't like movies with (non-super) characters that are too obviously superhuman (though we should note that the majority of movies are essentially superhero movies, with the character inevitably doing something superhuman at some point, usually the climax).
Too many scenes dark, monotone or hazy in the cinematography.
I don't know why M's death was supposed to be a shocker, she has been a worthless leader since the beginning when she stupidly hobbled Bond from investigating and preventing that spy plane theft in GoldenEye. She was the dinosaur she accused Bond of being. Of course no one's ever going to replace Bernard Lee as M. Also, Silva should have escaped, to plague Bond another day.
Did M's death make you at least a little misty-eyed? No, I didn't think so. That indicates a flaw with the script. If you're going to kill off an iconic character, at least make it a tear-jerker. This could have been set up by making M more sympathetic in Die Another Day, as explained above.
There was no Fleming Skyfall book or story, this is all newly concocted material.
Tomorrow Never Dies
The villain had potential, and was hilarious when he mocked the Chinese girl's martial arts moves, but I hated they once again had to dilute him to a weak cuck. Could have been a good story, since it did satirize a real person, the Brit mogul, Robert Maxwell, but it was a piss-poor story too.
Naturally, this was not a Fleming tale.
Quantum of Solace
Fleming's completely different story was pretty good, this movie blew chunks.
Something I just really noticed. Flunky tag-along Bond, like an extra in his own movie, or a hitchhiker the girl picked up (look at the last picture in the strip above). They know exactly what they're doing, and every image and scene is scrutinized, so they're intending to make Bond look like a stooge (easy to do with their raw materials, admittedly).
This is one of the under-performing Bond movies, and the shortest, which is just as well. We, the suffering viewers, are the ones that need a "quantum of solace" due to that mess.
The World Is Not Enough
Denise Richards as a "Nuklar Fizzicist?" (It's said "studio pressure" forced her in there, whatever that means [ahem]casting couch[ahem].) I don't care for Elektra either. Has its moments, but still basement-tier.
A lot of times, these films lose value due to a poorly developed atmosphere that ruins the idea of a light, breezy Bond film, without the payoff that would make such a thing necessary.
Die Another Dame
Actually, all these films have their moments. Unfortunately, moments alone don't make for a great overall movie. I guess we can't complain too much, they haven't reached anywhere near their nadir, yet. In an exciting new "green-lighted" script, it is revealed that Bond has been living a lie. A surgeon is consulted to make "the change" for Bond to finally, triumphantly, embrace his — er, her true inner self identity. He — er, she is titled by the Queen — er, King — oh, this is all so confusing! Now, the gloves are off, and Dame James is revealed as the most effective fighter of the Patriarchy, evah! Only in theaters!
Summary Table
| TIER | NAME | YEAR | BUDGET | WORLD SALES | GROSS PROFIT | MULT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | From Russia with Love | 1963 | 17,000,000 | 676,000,000 | 659,000,000 | 39 |
| 1 | Dr. No | 1962 | 8,570,000 | 517,000,000 | 508,000,000 | 59 |
| 1 | Diamonds Are Forever | 1971 | 48,100,000 | 774,000,000 | 726,000,000 | 15 |
| 1 | Goldfinger | 1964 | 25,400,000 | 1,060,000,000 | 1,035,000,000 | 41 |
| 2 | Thunderball | 1965 | 75,000,000 | 1,180,000,000 | 1,100,000,000 | 15 |
| 2 | GoldenEye | 1995 | 105,000,000 | 623,000,000 | 518,000,000 | 5 |
| 2 | SPECTRE | 2015 | 328,000,000 | 953,000,000 | 625,000,000 | 2 |
| 2 | You Only Live Twice | 1967 | 76,000,000 | 891,000,000 | 815,000,000 | 11 |
| 2 | Moonraker | 1979 | 123,000,000 | 836,000,000 | 713,000,000 | 6 |
| 2 | On Her Majesty’s Secret Service | 1969 | 60,000,000 | 611,000,000 | 551,000,000 | 9 |
| 3 | Casino Royale | 2006 | 135,000,000 | 788,000,000 | 653,000,000 | 5 |
| 3 | The Living Daylights | 1987 | 94,500,000 | 452,000,000 | 357,000,000 | 4 |
| 3 | Licence to Kill | 1989 | 92,000,000 | 342,000,000 | 250,000,000 | 3 |
| 3 | For Your Eyes Only | 1981 | 88,000,000 | 614,000,000 | 526,000,000 | 6 |
| 3 | The Man with the Golden Gun | 1974 | 41,000,000 | 570,000,000 | 529,000,000 | 13 |
| 3 | Live and Let Die | 1973 | 43,000,000 | 1,000,000,000 | 957,000,000 | 22 |
| 3 | A View to a Kill | 1985 | 75,000,000 | 381,000,000 | 306,000,000 | 4 |
| 3 | Octopussy | 1983 | 73,800,000 | 503,000,000 | 430,000,000 | 6 |
| 3 | Never Say Never Again | 1983 | 97,000,000 | 430,000,000 | 333,000,000 | 3 |
| 3 | The Spy Who Loved Me | 1977 | 63,800,000 | 844,000,000 | 780,000,000 | 12 |
| 4 | No Time to Die | 2021 | 250,000,000 | 770,000,000 | 520,000,000 | 2 |
| 4 | Die Another Day | 2002 | 208,000,000 | 632,000,000 | 424,000,000 | 2 |
| 4 | Skyfall | 2012 | 230,000,000 | 1,280,000,000 | 1,050,000,000 | 5 |
| 4 | Tomorrow Never Dies | 1997 | 182,000,000 | 561,000,000 | 379,000,000 | 2 |
| 4 | Quantum of Solace | 2008 | 287,000,000 | 739,000,000 | 452,000,000 | 2 |
| 4 | The World Is Not Enough | 1999 | 214,000,000 | 575,000,000 | 360,000,000 | 2 |
| TOTALS | 3,050,000,000 | 18,600,000,000 | 15,500,000,000 | 5 |
MULT(iple) — is (gross profit)/(budget). Click column header to sort by column.
This (figures in 2021 U.S. dollars, rounded from the-numbers.com) data leaves no argument which are the real blockbusters, the earliest Bonds.
With a miserly budget for LALD, it still made 22 times its investment. Nice.
It is difficult to believe that they need to make triple the budget to break even, due to distribution and promotion costs, as I read somewhere. I would think that promotion, etc., is not going to reach or exceed much above one hundred million. That rule must be for films that are low budget.
Don't tell me they're going to gripe about 600 million, like SPEC, even though they less than doubled the investment. If they really have to make triple, it must be one of the biggest disasters of all time.
NSNA "lost" against OCTO, costing more and earning less, but it was hardly a failure.
It's interesting that my assessments pretty much coincided with the way the numbers shook out.
The Bonds, Rated
Connery (of course, without peer), Moore, (Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig) (all about the same). I would have had Craig last, but warmed to him in SPECTRE. Edit: The NTTD fiasco was cause for a reassessment: Connery was Bond, Moore was acceptable, and the rest were non-Bonds, Craig now firmly the worst of the bunch.
It all comes down to personality. It's essential, but it's like finding a needle in a haystack to get an actor with real presence to play this sort of character, really leaving only Connery and Moore. Lazenby might have made it at some point, with some coaching, but the rest, no.
Which taints the films. It has to be said that the Dalton, Brosnan and Craig Bonds are simply not rewatchable. No, not even GoldenEye, which is cringe with things like the opening "road race," sauna fight with tranny girl, botched ending with death of 006, etc.
Moore ranks high because of his presence, and very British manner. He said he deliberately played as differently from Connery's Bond as possible, by, for one example, smoking cigars not cigarettes.
Lazenby is likable enough, and somewhat went his own way, but of course has to be recorded as the only Bond actor to take career guidance from his shoe-shine boy. George Lazenby really wasn't bad at all, but the script left him hanging out to dry and there was no comeback possible for that iteration, after his heartbreak.
I don't like the way Brosnan says, "Bond, James Bond." I wonder how many times he practiced it in front of the mirror. Not enough, however many.
On Further Reflection...
Loki Tom Hiddleston could make a good Bond... he even looks a bit like Fleming's original conception. Bulk him up a bit... have him work on presenting as "harder-edged," and you're good to go. Even then, he'd probably be better as more of a thinking man's Bond than a rough-and-tumble Bond like Sean.
Licence to Wedgie: Using Multiple Bonds
NTTD has a similarity to LTK and TLD: all are somewhat entertaining and not that bad as movies, but really bad Bond movies.
Look at the Bourne movies. The Renner movie, The Bourne Legacy, was an excellent one, where you had a sort of a Bourne of a different stripe and a very entertaining story. And they didn't have to try to say Renner was Damon! It was mostly panned by the "critics." Certainly it must be a little too close the truth of what the government spook labs are actually trying for the liking of said spook labs.
No, Dalton, Brosnan, and especially Craig had no place as Bond. The solution would have been simple: As 008s or 006s, or such, suddenly the three also-rans would be okay. If they had foresight, there would have been a series about 00s, starting with 007 James Bond Sean Connery, then Lazenby as 008, Moore as 009, etc. Would have been ideal, and would have made sense, and you could have multiple 00s working together — or at odds. From the perspective of an author, consider the possibilities! It's unfair to the audience to have to choose. It's unfair to the actors who have to play second fiddle. It's cruelty to the actors and audience in service of the producers' big profits and hinky message politics.
Speaking of which, the delay between films makes no sense when they could push these things out once every couple of years in the past. Three to four years spacing would be probably optimal. The huge gaps only make sense if they're waiting for their marching orders, on what sort of subversive political screed they're going to try to push this time.
The Songs, Rated
Again, we need a tier system. Lots of songs here that are just good songs, period.
You may be interested in the playlist of rejected Bond themes, many of which are excellent. Of particular interest (but it seems to have fallen off this playlist), is the Alice Cooper song for TMWTGG, which either came in a little too late for consideration or was rejected by John Barry. Can't they even get something this simple, straight? Also very cool, the Radiohead version of the SPEC theme, the Shirley Bassey theme for QOS, plus several others. Anthony Newley singing "Goldfinger," was considered "too creepy."
Top Tier
"Diamonds Are Forever"
By the great Shirley Bassey, who also sang the themes to Moonraker and Goldfinger.
It's said Cubbie Broccoli had to convince him to use the DAF theme because co-producer Saltzman felt the lyrics were "too dirty." Oh, please. The films are about a guy who is flopping into bed with every perfumed floozy he can latch onto between cocktails, and we get fed a tale of supposed moralizing over a unique, lovely song that is about diamonds? As Daffy Duck says, "Easy, stomach, don't turn over now. Easy does it."
Interesting to read in Harry Saltzman's bio that he was secretly a spook. He worked for the U.S. Army's Psychological Warfare Bureau and the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor of the CIA. All this was kept secret until 2002, when it was revealed by James Bond production associate David Giammarco in his book.
"A View to a Kill"
Brilliant, may be Duran Duran's best song. Should have been the one to set the pattern for future themes, as "Goldfinger" did 11 movies back.
"James Bond Theme"
Inspired. What even comes close except the Mission: Impossible theme and Moby's "Extreme Ways?"
"Goldfinger"
Yes, someone griped about rhyming "Goldfinger" with "cold finger," and he's absolutely right, especially when they could have written, "such a cold stinger, poisons you, within his web of sin," but Shirley sells this song and brings it home so well, it's pretty much a moot point.
Top Tier Romantic/Soft
"You Only Live Twice"
Atmosphere. What a great tune to embody that era, and to correspond with what transpired in the opening scene. Of course we know Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang isn't really dead — or is he? He already died once in the opening scene of FRWL! Gulp! We probably won't get any more songs like this. The world's not like that anymore.
"Moonraker"
Talk about easy and relaxed. It sets the stage for a generally fun movie.
Second Tier
"Die Another Day"
Original, innovative, fits with a more modernized Bond, great tie-in to the opening of the film. Don't judge the song by Madonna Ciccone's misjudged placement as a fencing instructor.
"Thunderball"
That's a Bond theme. Tom Jones fainted, holding that final high note. Fun, almost comical lyrics. Have to pace yourself though; like the movie, it doesn't bear much repetition.
"GoldenEye"
A little discordant, with that jarring switch-up in the 2nd stanza ("You'll never know...," etc.), similar to what LALD did wrong, otherwise could be top tier.
"Tomorrow Never Dies"
Nice surprise, good exemplar of how to go contemporary while still being "Bondish." Too bad the movie didn't live up to it.
Second Tier Romantic/Soft
"From Russia with Love"
Some might criticize it, but it complements the movie very well. Smooth little '60s jingle.
"For Your Eyes Only"
Why is this a Bond tune, when songs like "All Time High," and "Writing's on the Wall," aren't fit for that duty? It's in the title, "For Your Eyes Only," an allusion to classified documents, and there's the double meaning of romantic involvement, and what's Bond without that?
It didn't hurt that the song had all the makings of a hit, and Easton looked stunning singing it. Great theme for a romantic type of Bond movie.
Third Tier
"The World Is Not Enough"
Nice enough, no real complaints.
"Live and Let Die"
Didn't like this at first. McCartney's singing is weak sauce here, but it's grown on me over the years. Guns N' Roses coaxed out a welcome little bit of "Highway Star" in its cover.
Fortunately, it qualifies as a "Bond song," with that driving orchestral arrangement and of course the iconic chord at the end.
"License to Kill"
Not bad at all. Doesn't seem to fit with the content of the movie very well, though.
Third Tier Romantic/Soft
"The Living Daylights"
Catchy pop riff, but needs more punch.
Meh
"The Man with the Golden Gun"
Trying to be "sexy" here? "He's got a powerful weapon..." Lulu shows she's got a better voice when the song slows down, but otherwise she's all over the place. No spunk, they weren't thinking when they used this dud.
"On Her Majesty's Secret Service Theme"
Has its moments, but uninspiring. Note that "We Have All the Time in the World" is not the theme song of OHMSS. I think they call that type of thing, "Love Theme from OHMSS."
"Another Way to Die"
(Quantum of Solace) Are they trying to imitate Madonna or McCartney with this vanity project? No one seems to forget it's a Bond tune like Keys and White. Except Rita Coolidge.
"Never Say Never Again"
The cringe... it burns. Recycled soap opera mood music set up with lyrics.
Not Really a Bond Song
"You Know My Name"
(Casino Royale) "Pop/contemporary," stuff like this needs an strong edge to fit with Bond, which only comes in the closing notes here.
Many of these songs are deceptive, since the title sequence elevates them, particularly noticeable with this film. Best to just listen without the video to evaluate how the song stands on its own.
"No Time to Die"
This is similar to "Skyfall," but somewhat better. Still, I am against these new-style Bond themes, evolving into dirges.
"Skyfall"
"And the Skyfall And we tumble And the Skyfall And we fall down We will stand tall Face it all TOGETHER... AT Sky FALL."
What the ever-lovin'...? Lazy. Most uninspired lyrics ever. This is considered "great" by some? Should be called "Glue," 'cause they can stick it. Makes, "But if this ever changing world in which we're livin' Makes you give in a cry..." sound like the works of Shakespeare.
A little muddy, too. Autotune? Yes, Autotune. Contrast this with the clear notes when Shirley Bassey sings live. What a voice she has.
It would be nice if they would stop using these flash-in-the-pan sensations and cut out the emo. These attempts at "classic," almost operatic, Bond songs are trying ineffectually to replace the bombast and quality of the earlier tunes with this overdone, formulaic stuff. But it seems like the musicians just aren't of the same caliber as in the past. Quite likely the producers are cheaping out on investment, just to milk the Bond franchise for higher profit margins.
They squeeze blood out of a stone and all entertainment is a big-money business. You have to expect that sometimes, they'll have something on the shelf, "Well, it's not quite a hit, but we can make it one, with publicity or exposure, let's slot it into this film or that film." Maybe tweak the lyrics a little, and you're done. Sure, sometimes it's not a good fit, but they know how to promote things beyond their merit. They use all the tricks.
"Nobody Does It Better"
(The Spy Who Loved Me) A Carly Simon song, this loses points for having no effort put in to make the song a "Bond theme," that is, utilizing some chords or stylings from the original James Bond theme, or adding some dramatic passages, like you'd expect to set the stage for an adventure movie.
"All Time High"
(Octopussy) Same problem as "Nobody Does It Better," another cute, poppy, song, not a Bond song. Rita Coolidge sings probably the least Bond-like, to the point of silliness, theme. Yep, one must wonder how long this and the previous had been gathering dust before they decided to stick Bond with them.
"Writing’s on the Wall"
(SPECTRE) Trying to imitate — or mock? — "Skyfall?" Did I just hear, "I won't be afraid...?" Violins? Could be a pretty song with a few tweaks, but altogether too sucky for Bond. It's what happens when they want to use a currently designated "star" for promotional effect, however unsuited.
WTH this song has to do with Bond, I don't know. Received an Oscar, and deserved it... an Oscar Mayer, ha ha ha ha ha.
Comments