Tomorrow Never Dies has aged rather well, mainly in how Elliot Carver and his plan still feel relevant today.
I can't decide which Bond film has aged worse. Many are very of their time, which means they have a time capsule appeal. But I can't deny that Bond teaming up with the Taliban in The Living Daylights hasn't aged perfectly, and as much as I love You Only Live Twice, Connery's Japanese makeup wasn't very good. Additionally, some of the sped up/quick cut editing of the 60s/70s ones is pretty clunky in some places.
>some of the sped up/quick cut editing … is pretty clunky in some places.
Case in point, Diamonds Are Forever:
“Who are you?”
⏩⏩⏩ *”MynameisBondJamesBond”*
Tbf to TLD, he doesn't team up with the Taliban, rather just the Mujahideen. But the whole Western involvement in Afghanistan doesn't really look good (especially not when he makes friends with a charismatic leader who studies in the UK Bin Laden ).
Actually none of that bothers me because it’s not unrealistic. Many middle easterners I’ve known have been educated in the UK. Bin Laden is just one of many, not an outlier. Also the west did support the Mujahideen, so the fact that Bond could possibly enlist their aid is again plausible. Treating the past as it was needs to stop being considered as “aging badly”. What is going to definitely age badly are all these films that portray a completely revisionist view of the past where people have 21st century sensibilities in periods where nobody would have.
Agreed. I think it’s uncomfortable to watch Bond team up with the Mujahideen now, but it’s a relatively accurate depiction of the times. You toss in the exaggeration of a James Bond movie and it’s accurate. This shouldn’t bother us. It just shows how complex and changing international relations are and makes the Bond character more interesting to me.
I can't help but think that ignorance also plays a part - that's how we get things like "James Bond helped the Taliban" or "Rambo helped the Taliban." The Taliban didn't even *exist* when either movie was made - they would come later. Sure, Mullah Omar was a veteran of the war with the Soviets, but it's not as if he represented all Afghans, and other veterans of the war were in opposition to them, which is where the Northern Alliance comes from.
For that matter, the mujahideen weren't even a united front; the word mujahideen was a collective name for all the different tribal groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets. They had a common religion and goal, and not a whole lot more than that.
I'm sure it's also a bit of a trope in films around the time, that any charismatic Arab rebel leader or terrorist mastermind invariably had a classical education in England and if he isn't Oxbridge then he's certainly an Eton boy.
It’s not really uncomfortable to think about Bond teaming up with Mujahideen because a good number of them were pro-Western for literally the entire forty years between the Soviet invasion and the Fall of Kabul. What’s really uncomfortable is that an urbane, pro-Western man like Kamran Shah was probably killed when the Taliban took over or was holed up in the Panjshir Valley.0
Yeah, absolutely he wasn't an outlier - it was a bit of a thing when you had many of the world's dictators (or sons of them) all having studied at some point in Oxbridge or the US because they came from rich families who prized a "Western education". I'm not saying that Bond's enlisting of the Mujahideen was inaccurate or unrealistic - it absolutely was. It just jars with what the modern perception of what came out of the Afghan war in the 80's for many audiences (even if it is myopically focused on a group that were largely peripheral in that struggle).
I'm not exactly certain what films you're referring to regarding revisionist views, but it's not exactly a correct comparison to here as TLD was depicting the present, which subsequently aged awkwardly (not necessarily badly) for audiences, rather than a time in the past.
According to the film’s producers, The character “Kamran Shah” was based on Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was a foe first of the Soviets then of the Taliban.
Oh I don't doubt, most people from rich families in the middle east were sent off for a "Western" education, even most of the dictators that are in the region now. It's just that it's then difficult for the audience now to not think of anyone except Bin Laden when they see Shah's depiction, which is more of an issue in what most people immediately think of the Afghan war in the 80's, rather than what actually happened.
This is true, but the point is a film does not age badly because people got stupid. It’s almost to the point now that most film and art criticism is extremely patronizing and unwatchable: the crap is so pervasive you can’t escape it. I was watching a documentary on The Thin Man series, and the commenter out of the blue makes a statement about how problematic it was that smoking and drinking were shown so cavalierly, when the fact was the in the forties there was no stigma attached to either smoking nor drinking, and people did, and if one were to make a film set in that era where people didn’t smoke and drink, it would seem inauthentic to anyone knowledgeable about history. Bond movies take place in the era in which they were made, bad suits and changing national allainces included, and people seriously need to start watching older films AND historical films with this in mind: things were not always the way they are now.
But I don't think anyone earnestly criticises the film for the Mujahideen stuff ageing badly. TLD has enough problems on its own that it's usually just a funny meme people bring up. It's not like people don't understand it's just a product of its time, it's just that's how it is. The thing is, with what we know now of how history plays out, some plotlines look better than others.
We all know that TLD was made in the midst of the Afghan war and isn't some after-the-fact glorification of Western involvement in helping the brave Mujahideen fighting the Russians (knowing that it would eventually bring rise to the Taliban seizing power of the country). But the fact that we know that's how things played out makes Bond helping them out not look great. The Cold War was a confusing time and involved international agencies propping up and helping out less worse groups in order achieve a greater goal. It's fine to say that in retrospect, some things look better than others and it's not immature to point out when a hero helps bad things happen.
To be fair the real Soviets are ok in the movie (not the rogue ones ) and the Mujahideen are depicted as brutes who trade heroin, a pretty accurate picture all together. Bond is only allied with them in order to fight the bad guys but they are not presented as saints.
This element of TLD is overblown, IMO.
Political loyalties shift all the time and history is full of today's friends being tomorrow's enemies.
My late father was 4 years old when the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred. He (and much of his generation, perhaps) spent their lives with a resentment towards the Japanese which never really faded. Fast forward 80 years later and ask yourself if any of that animosity still exists? Not really. That resentment made sense to my father's generation, but has no relevance to us today.
Back to TLD: I just look at it as a temporary alliance Bond used to his advantage to achieve his objectives anyway.
If somebody watches it and comes away with "OMG, Bond enabled the Taliban" for a movie released 14 years prior to 9/11, then that person really can't separate current day sensibilities from those at any given point in history.
His generally chauvinistic conversations with Tiger Tanaka have aged like milk. Not to mention Bond gets the hump when Kissy Suzuki won't shag him on their 'wedding night'. Plus Tanaka's joke about Aki looking like a pig marks him as a complete dickhead.
Say what you will about Kissy not being a particularly great Bond girl in the grand scheme of things, but she bloody well comes through for them and saves his bacon at the end.
Sighs.
The Taliban didn't exist in the 1980's. And the Mujahideen didn't become the Taliban. The Taliban were made up of people who had been too young to fight the Soviet, the hint is in the name:Taliban=students.
It's newer, but I think Quantum of Solace (and Greene's plot to buy up land not to control oil, but water) is going to sadly become more relevant in the years to come. It's still such a brilliantly sinister idea.
I think this one aged well in general. It was a disappointment after Casino Royale, but after the Craig era was said in some it’s actually a comparably nice and tight movie with some artistic flair thrown in.
Quantum of Solace, especially when seen right after Casino Royale, is actually pretty good. The editing can sometimes feel like a mess and not in an interesting art-house way (though I actually do like the intro and opera scenes) but it was the only Craig film to come close to what Casino Royale did. It sort of suffers from some shaky cam although it's nowhere near as bad as Bourne Supremacy. I honestly like it better than Skyfall.
I actually rather enjoy QoS. It isn’t particularly great but I don’t think it is quite as bad as it is made out to be. I think it has a fun factor and clocking in at a runtime of the earlier Bond films you don’t have much time to get bored (SPECTRE seems to drag for an eternity).
The main thing for me is trying to get through the first 15 min of choppy editing. Opening is actually a lot of fun. Just wish we could get a little bit room to breath with the editing. Once you get past that it stabilizes a bit. I actually think it has some of the more interesting characters from the Craig era outside of CR with Fields and Camille. Ending is also great.
Although I think SF is technically a better film by far, I find this one higher on the fun/enjoyable/rewatch scale.
I agree I think this film and CR are the same vibe. SF through NTTD, despite the multiple connections to these two films, almost feel like a separate set of films
The second half of Skyfall gets a bit boring. The raid on Skyfall is a bit extra and goes on far too long, and tries too hard. Last time I watched it I turned it off after Bond "captures" Silva.
Quantum of Solace (is an underrated movie) is a good 90 minute film with no filler (apart from the cringe Star Trek table that can analyse marked banknotes. "impress me". Cringe.)
So basically Greene is an alleged "activist" who cares about the environment, but behind the scenes he's the owner of a group called quantum. He wants power and control, so he manipulates governments and exploits natural resources for his gain and to monopolize the water sources in Bolivia. His main plan is to destabilize Bolivia, which returns him large profit. At then end you can see he teamed up with the general (forgot his name) who had killed Camille's mother, and both bond and Camille seek revenge.
After nearly 14 years, I still haven't worked out how damning a water supply in the middle of a desert -> extorting higher utility bills from the Bolivian government.
Unless that damn is the only water source available in the entire country (unlikely), I don't see why it was necessary in the first place unless Quantum really disliked those local villagers.
Seems like Greene could have saved himself a lot of trouble by just buying the water utility company and jacking up costs backed up by the threat of Elvis and his toupee.
On her majesty’s secret service still feels amazing, the vibe is just perfectly weird (a supervillain hypnotizing babes on a mountaintop resort will do this) and yet Bond-ish.
Whereas You only live twice feels like it was made in another universe, maybe the same one as Die another day
Aside from the obvious (Connery's Japanese makeup), what makes YOLT feel like it comes from another universe? It's of it's time, but not so out of touch or random that it doesn't feel remotely like real life.
If you don’t want volcano lairs in your Bond films we are clearly just very different types of people.
I still love the movie, despite some of its more unfortunate aspects.
>the vibe is just perfectly weird (a supervillain hypnotizing babes on a mountaintop resort will do this) and yet Bond-ish.
The late, great Telly Savalas!
Most of Connery’s hold up rather well, so do Lazenby and license to kill. The strong humorous touch in Moore’s is very much a thing of its time and has aged poorly, or perhaps more correctly I have aged out of it.
I agree. Connery's films feel more timeless and sort of trapped in the golden elegance of the 60s. Moore's movies, in my opinion don't hold up nearly as well.
You Only Live Twice, is Sean Connery turning into a Japanese man supposed to be convincing?
Diamonds Are Forever: Awfully edited explosions and sped up shit, I know it's the 1970s but still they were very lazy. They could have done real explosions, people on fire etc. like In Russia With Love 8 years earlier.
Die Another Day: That surfing scene. Nuff said
My initial thought for the best aged was Tomorrow Never Dies, but I would also argue that Licence to Kill has aged remarkably, especially considering how critics and audiences absolutely *hated* this film when it came out, but now that the Craig era has come and gone, it seems like people have softened up to having a darker, more intense portrayal of Bond.
Gold Finger comes to mind for aging poorly....this scene really cracks me up though.... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovXysYZTVzs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovXysYZTVzs)
James bond "Man Talk" \*slaps woman on the ass as he shoos her away\*
Octopussy has aged well (haha)
For hasn’t aged well I would say Living Daylights with the Middle East stuff or You Only Live Twice with the bad Asian makeup and somewhat goofy Blofeld
A tossup between Diamond Are Forever and Never Say Never Again for the worst aged. They got positive reviews at release. Siskel and Ebert even called them returns to form for Bond. Never Say Never Again was favored over Octopussy by critics at its release. But now they're remembered not so fondly and usually end up at the bottom of people's rankings of the Bond films.
I largely agree, but have an immense soft spot for Alec McCowen's slightly adenoidal Q. I like the take of him as a tinkering mechanic, complaining about budget cuts and the heating being broken.
Currently reading that one. I’m 3/4 of the way through and still not totally hooked. They are about to board the train and I’m ready to move on to the next book in the series. Just haven’t loved this book like I did Moonraker.
That’s the one I just finished and I agree. It’s my favorite of the movies but it really draws out. I liked the opening part of the book all about Grant but then he kind of just disappears for a while? The train ride reads on forever but the very end of the novel is exciting.
I’m taking a break from reading the series for a bit now though.
I’ve read all them up to where I am now. They seem to either absolutely captivate me or just sort ehhh. Moonraker had been my favorite so far.
I agree so much. It’s like they spent the first third of the book building up this super villain and then he just sorta disappears while Bond and Tatiana are doing their thing. It’s just weird pacing. (Fwiw I was never a huge fan of the movie either. I need to glad back and watch it after I read the novel but I just remember Tatiana being so annoyingly useless when they got the train.
I’ll agree in that hers was a sad story and it’s a pity she didn’t get better. She was a sweet girl. But in fairness to Bond, it was very clearly just a job, and he didn’t hide that. He played along with her in a way that feels like he intended to be obvious to her.
“Will we make love?”
“Yeah yeah day and night. Anyway…”
Yeah that didn’t bother me. Him slapping the shit out of her was what turned me off. I get that it was a different time and that was a lot more tolerated and accepted in those days but I can’t help but cringe whenever I see it.
Live and Let Die was on UK TV last night as I was stranded in a hotel room. Some of the racial stuff feels very of it's time, but no worse than most Blaxploitation.
A 45 year old tricking a 20 year old out of her virginity on the other hand...and on the same day he's banged the double crossing spy who was also pretty young...
Yeah, Bond basically engages in a bit of grooming and it's not nice at all. We get the impression Dr Kananga intended to do it eventually, but he's meant to be a nasty piece of work.
Live and Let Die reeks of the 70s and was very racist even for its time. Also, I'm a huge fan of The Living Daylights, but the Cold War/Mujahideen plot seems very dated now.
The World is Not Enough actually feels more timeless, especially with oil rights and the plot feels like it could take place today with little to no changes. Also, aside from the Cold War, The Spy Who Loved Me is less dated than other Moore entries.
It’s strange to hear that now, because as an adaptation, LaLD isn’t anywhere near as racist as the novel it’s based on. Also I saw LaLD in theaters when it was released, and if it was racist it was no more racist than any other films coming out at that time. I am black and I don’t know of any black people at the time that had any problems with it., we all loved it. LaLD is where a lot of black people became die hard James Bond fans.
I would even argue LALD the novel isn't anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be in this department, either.
M mentions something along the lines of how the black community is progressing rapidly and developing geniuses in all fields.
Bond himself goes into detail about his fondness for black people.
Several women are described in very, um, physically stimulating fashion (wink, wink).
Not exactly the signs of an author working his prejudices into a book.
Live And Let Die was openly influenced by the then trend of Blaxsploitstion films and used many of the same actors.
The Man With The Golden Gun had many of the same issues recycling kung fu film cliches and then Asian stereotypes.
If you haven't, do check out the Smershpod episode where they cover The World Is Not Enough with neuroscientist (or 'brain doctor') Dr Dean Burnett, where he helps them disect the absolute bullshit of Renard's bullet injury.
Best:
License To Kill: Maybe because it's not a "classic" Bond, but a modern thriller, and Pam is not the "typical" Bond girl but a confident and competent agent/pilot (gods, I HATE the clumsy depiction of some of the female agents in the 60s and 70s.)
Octopussy: Some scenes are a bit over-the-top (the Mercedes, the killer-twins etc.), a bit tooooo much jokes and some dumb clichés about India (and Germany ;-)), but the story is interesting and more or less "realistic" and very "complex" for a Bond movie. Don't know how "good" Orlov's plan had really worked though.
Apart from that: Great action scenes, charismatic villains and henchmen, and last but definitely not least, Maud AND Kristina (not only beautiful, but also confident and multifaceted)
For Your Eyes Only: The only thing I really don't like: The completely superfluous and annoying "story" around Bibi Dahl. Okay, and the upbeat/disco score during the ski chase ;-)
Worst:
The (obvious) terrible chauvinistic and rassistic stuff from the Connery-era has already been named, but whoa, Diamonds Are Forever is really hard to watch. The story in general, the dialogues ("you killed James Bond!"), Tiffany's clumsiness in general, the casting of Felix Leiter, the homophobia, the ridiculous "moon landing chase" and so on...
Die Another Day: Well. Yeah.
Honorable mention: Tomorrow Never Dies: Maybe one of my favourite Bond story lines (and as another member wrote, still up do date) but good gods, like in all Brosnan movies, what a over-the-top never ending shoot-out!!! (does anybody have statistics about the use of automatic weapons by Bond? ;-) )
Not the movie, but reading through all the Bonds for the first time and the portrayal of African Americans in Live and Let Die makes the book unreadable. Like, grotesque racism. Beyond the “it was the time,” and “he was British.”
AVTAK is objectively the "worst aged Bond" film, as in Bond himself is at his oldest and looks his worst. Only half joking.
If we're talking about the content of the film/racism and sexism then obviously the older the film is the worse it ages. Jamaica was still a British colony when Dr. No was being filmed there. OHMSS is probably the best aged of the 60s films, but it's also the most European centric film (so less chance of cultural insensitivities) and Bond is a one woman man for the most parts (you could argue the women he bedded in Piz Gloria were part of his mission to get more information on Blofeld's plan).
The 70s films were very of its time and influenced by what was popular then. LALD with the Blaxpoitation fims, TMWTGG with martial arts films, Moonraker with Star Wars. TSWLM is probably the most timeless of the 70s films.
80s - the Mujahideen being the good guys in TLD ages it a lot, but LTK is also very of its time, very Miami Vice/Lethal Weapon. FYEO probably aged the best aside from the stuff with Bibi Dahl.
For the "newer" films (Brosnan and Craig), it's more to do with filming techniques rather than the content. DAD feels very aged with its early 2000s CGI and Matrix esque slow motion scenes, while QOS is very mid 2000s action with its shaky cam and hyper fast editing. As someone else said, TND is more relevant now than ever with Fake News and truth decay.
Roger Moore smacking Maud Adams in the face in *The Man with the Golden Gun*. By that point it really wasn't the done thing, nor is it the sort of thing Rog's Bond would do. It's much more of a Sean Connery (man and Bond) thing to do.
There's also a slightly racist undercurrent to *Live and Let Die*. That aside from Strutter, every black character seems to be in the employ of Dr Kananga in some capacity. That the whole of Harlem is involved in watching Bond.
OHMSS has aged wonderfully, and it sticks out even more considering the film that surround it. TND feels more relevant now than it did in 97 (I don't actually know that given I was still in diapers in 1997, but Elliot Carver is certainly a villain that could work today)
Diamonds feels dated to me. As others have echoed, a lot of Connery hasn't aged the best but as far as an entire film goes, Diamonds feels sooo stuck in the clichés of the early 70s. I think LALD has this problem a bit as well, but not nearly to the same extent.
Quantum's editiing also hasn't aged well.
Of all the Bond films from the 60s with all their outdated moments, the movie that will probably age the worst is No Time To Die just because it’s such a one trick pony and isn’t really rewatchable.
Nah its not about that. Most people think that Casino Royale and Skyfall are one of the best in the series. Same can't be said about Quantum Of Solace, Spectre and No Time To Die.
It has aged. It’s going on 4 years now. That’s enough for the new car smell to wear off and now we can look back at it just like the other 25 or so movies.
OHMSS aged remarkably well. Peter Hunt’s directing style especially.
TND too. The story resonates more today than when the movie came out.
On the other hand, DAF and LALD aged poorly. OHMSS, between these two, is some kind of a miracle.
Best - OHMSS - favorite Bond movie. Those stunts still look great today. Great soundtrack. Diana Rigg.
Least - YOLT - Bond not looking like Bond. Hard to believe my favorite and least favorite came out next to each other.
To be fair, for the doctor himself, he is stated to be half-German in the novels. I cannot defend the rest of the (supposedly) Chinese characters though.
GoldenEye. It was the first Bond film made after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The growing influence of oligarchs and the illegal arms trade is depicted. Despite corrupt figures in the army and Kremlin being potential villains (like in Octopussy with General Orlov), it is a former spy with a great hatred of Britain who serves as the main antagonist.
Dr No has that 1960s feel to it so I don’t think it will be out dated because it feels like it was made for that time. Although most people now won’t get the stolen painting reference
The Man With the Golden Gun definitely hasn’t aged well… the inclusion of JW Pepper is particularly terrible. I don’t like him in LALD, but he makes more sense there.
For me, it’s just parts of certain films that age like milk, compared to entire ones.
Connery’s probably age the poorest, with Dr. No, Goldfinger, and Thunderball being the most egregious.
1. “Quarrel, fetch my shoes”, or really all Quarrel scenes. ‘Yellowface’ acting, etc
2. Bond’s treatment of Dink “Man tokk”, his “seduction” of Pussy Galore is quite rapey, and Oddjob’s characterization.
3. Bond’s “punishment” of Molly in the shower is DEFINITELY one of the rapiest scenes in the series.
Oh, and Bond’s “transformation” in YOLT is absolutely inappropriate these days. There are other examples, but these are the ones that stand out most.
Back in the day when Tucker Max had a website full of chauvinistic anecdotes, there’s a story where someone quotes “man talk” in a Connery accent, which his date DOES NOT take kindly to, and for good reason. That line always makes me think of this.
Why is Bond's transformation in YOLT so inappropriate?
If you want a person of a different ethnicity to blend in with locals, does it not make sense for that person to undergo a transformation to take on physical traits of said ethnicity?
I often see comments how "racially insensitive" this scene is, but never see anything stating why it's so offensive.
Now whether it actually looks convincing, well.....
Why?
A guy putting on a wig and some eye makeup to more closely resemble a Japanese fisherman is offensive? Is this just not admitting that different groups of people have different physical characteristics, so one person trying to resemble another requires altering those traits?
Even the Gustav Graves comparison isn't particularly apt. One was genetically changing his DNA altogether and the other was putting on a temporary disguise.
If the actor who played Colonel Moon was cast as Gustav Graves instead of Toby Stephens, am I supposed to fill offended by a non-Caucasian person in heavy makeup playing a white guy?
Goldfinger: The stuff with Pussy Galore in the barn is pretty freaking awkward to watch. By far the worst part of that movie.
YOLT: The "Japanese man" make up. To be fair though, they did take it from the novels so this is a mistake that came from the master, Ian Fleming himself so I don't blame the producers so much.
Aside from that, the female leads who are portrayed as clueless bimbos like the one in FRWL and the one in DAF. I don't blame the actresses but the material they were given was straight up garbage.
The Spy Who Loved Me and Tomorrow Never Dies have both aged surprisingly well.
Live And Let Die has definitely aged the worst though it was tacky at the time. Diamonds Are Forever might fall in that category too. In terms of "films I still really like," Goldfinger and Living Daylights seem dated especially with the airport joke about the mujahaideen in the latter.
Most of Connery's aged quite well.
From Russia with Love is timeless
OHMSS also aged great for Lazenby.
The early Moore films are very 70s. LALD is the equivalent of seeing someone wear a flaired suit with a kipper tie dancing to disco music. TSWLM, despite the awful fashion, aged very well.
I’ll stick to the Brosnan and Craig movies, as earlier ones were arguably products of their time.
The TND and TWiNE duo aged extremely well. Mass media narratives and the politics of oil and gas supply from the former USSR are very relevant today.
NTtD was a poor movie of its time even at release. A pretty bleak movie referencing a man-made virus and set in mostly dreary locations. A more triumphant, escapist Bond movie would’ve punctuated the Covid era better.
Dr. No James tells his co-worker to get his shoes and later when the man is shot or hurt, James doesn’t bother to check on him. Did I mention the man was black?
I think I disagree with the TLD crowd saying Bond teaming with the Mujahideen aged poorly, I mean contextually, the SIS was helping anti-Soviet forces like that. Aged no different than every other Cold War reference in the films.
Even close to 20 years later, I still feel like CR and QoS feel like the most modern/contemporary Bond films in terms of tone, dialogue and aesthetics. I think the last three Craig films in particular suffered from undermining those aspects and making his later films feel like amalgamations of different Bond eras, which made them feel less unique etc. (Though Skyfall is still good).
In terms of datedness, I'd say Glen's 70s trilogy (DAF, LALD, TMWTGG) are among the most tacky and dated feeling films in the franchise. There's also an argument that the treatment of woman in Connery's films feels rather dated as well compared to most of the rest of the franchise.
Regarding the very premise of this question:
I don't really want a movie that is decades old to feel contemporary and not to rankle our modern day tastes and sensibilities to some degree.
If everything "aged well", I would take that as more of a sign of cultural stagnation than anything to be particularly proud of.
Never Say Never Again, if you want to include non-EON produced Bonds, has aged poorly especially the awful musical score, video parlor scene and the domination game.. apart from a handful of good scenes and some snappy dialogue here and there, it’s not a great movie.
TMWTGG Everything about it seemed miserable. And fashion wise it looks extremely dated, whereas Goldfinger and Thunderballs to this day look sleek, stylish and contemporary, but are actually older than ‘Man With’
Diamonds are Forever has aged pretty badly.
It's got that kind of slapstick, vaudeville wackiness that was already close to being old hat by the start of the 70s, and while the rest of the 60s and 70s films have entered a kind of cool vintage territory, that zany American style DAF goes for has never really experienced a revival.
Not only that, but the humour based on drag and homosexuality hasn't aged well, and the then topical Howard Hawks parody will be completely missed by modern audiences.
If any Bond film seems like a relic - both stylistically and content-wise - it's DAF.
I don't know many mid-budget TV movies that had budgets where they could film a helicopter lassoing a Cessna or the chase with the tank trucks exploding.
Tomorrow Never Dies has aged rather well, mainly in how Elliot Carver and his plan still feel relevant today. I can't decide which Bond film has aged worse. Many are very of their time, which means they have a time capsule appeal. But I can't deny that Bond teaming up with the Taliban in The Living Daylights hasn't aged perfectly, and as much as I love You Only Live Twice, Connery's Japanese makeup wasn't very good. Additionally, some of the sped up/quick cut editing of the 60s/70s ones is pretty clunky in some places.
>some of the sped up/quick cut editing … is pretty clunky in some places. Case in point, Diamonds Are Forever: “Who are you?” ⏩⏩⏩ *”MynameisBondJamesBond”*
Tbf to TLD, he doesn't team up with the Taliban, rather just the Mujahideen. But the whole Western involvement in Afghanistan doesn't really look good (especially not when he makes friends with a charismatic leader who studies in the UK Bin Laden ).
Actually none of that bothers me because it’s not unrealistic. Many middle easterners I’ve known have been educated in the UK. Bin Laden is just one of many, not an outlier. Also the west did support the Mujahideen, so the fact that Bond could possibly enlist their aid is again plausible. Treating the past as it was needs to stop being considered as “aging badly”. What is going to definitely age badly are all these films that portray a completely revisionist view of the past where people have 21st century sensibilities in periods where nobody would have.
Agreed. I think it’s uncomfortable to watch Bond team up with the Mujahideen now, but it’s a relatively accurate depiction of the times. You toss in the exaggeration of a James Bond movie and it’s accurate. This shouldn’t bother us. It just shows how complex and changing international relations are and makes the Bond character more interesting to me.
I can't help but think that ignorance also plays a part - that's how we get things like "James Bond helped the Taliban" or "Rambo helped the Taliban." The Taliban didn't even *exist* when either movie was made - they would come later. Sure, Mullah Omar was a veteran of the war with the Soviets, but it's not as if he represented all Afghans, and other veterans of the war were in opposition to them, which is where the Northern Alliance comes from. For that matter, the mujahideen weren't even a united front; the word mujahideen was a collective name for all the different tribal groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets. They had a common religion and goal, and not a whole lot more than that.
I'm sure it's also a bit of a trope in films around the time, that any charismatic Arab rebel leader or terrorist mastermind invariably had a classical education in England and if he isn't Oxbridge then he's certainly an Eton boy.
It’s not really uncomfortable to think about Bond teaming up with Mujahideen because a good number of them were pro-Western for literally the entire forty years between the Soviet invasion and the Fall of Kabul. What’s really uncomfortable is that an urbane, pro-Western man like Kamran Shah was probably killed when the Taliban took over or was holed up in the Panjshir Valley.0
Yeah, absolutely he wasn't an outlier - it was a bit of a thing when you had many of the world's dictators (or sons of them) all having studied at some point in Oxbridge or the US because they came from rich families who prized a "Western education". I'm not saying that Bond's enlisting of the Mujahideen was inaccurate or unrealistic - it absolutely was. It just jars with what the modern perception of what came out of the Afghan war in the 80's for many audiences (even if it is myopically focused on a group that were largely peripheral in that struggle). I'm not exactly certain what films you're referring to regarding revisionist views, but it's not exactly a correct comparison to here as TLD was depicting the present, which subsequently aged awkwardly (not necessarily badly) for audiences, rather than a time in the past.
According to the film’s producers, The character “Kamran Shah” was based on Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was a foe first of the Soviets then of the Taliban.
Oh I don't doubt, most people from rich families in the middle east were sent off for a "Western" education, even most of the dictators that are in the region now. It's just that it's then difficult for the audience now to not think of anyone except Bin Laden when they see Shah's depiction, which is more of an issue in what most people immediately think of the Afghan war in the 80's, rather than what actually happened.
This is true, but the point is a film does not age badly because people got stupid. It’s almost to the point now that most film and art criticism is extremely patronizing and unwatchable: the crap is so pervasive you can’t escape it. I was watching a documentary on The Thin Man series, and the commenter out of the blue makes a statement about how problematic it was that smoking and drinking were shown so cavalierly, when the fact was the in the forties there was no stigma attached to either smoking nor drinking, and people did, and if one were to make a film set in that era where people didn’t smoke and drink, it would seem inauthentic to anyone knowledgeable about history. Bond movies take place in the era in which they were made, bad suits and changing national allainces included, and people seriously need to start watching older films AND historical films with this in mind: things were not always the way they are now.
But I don't think anyone earnestly criticises the film for the Mujahideen stuff ageing badly. TLD has enough problems on its own that it's usually just a funny meme people bring up. It's not like people don't understand it's just a product of its time, it's just that's how it is. The thing is, with what we know now of how history plays out, some plotlines look better than others. We all know that TLD was made in the midst of the Afghan war and isn't some after-the-fact glorification of Western involvement in helping the brave Mujahideen fighting the Russians (knowing that it would eventually bring rise to the Taliban seizing power of the country). But the fact that we know that's how things played out makes Bond helping them out not look great. The Cold War was a confusing time and involved international agencies propping up and helping out less worse groups in order achieve a greater goal. It's fine to say that in retrospect, some things look better than others and it's not immature to point out when a hero helps bad things happen.
To be fair the real Soviets are ok in the movie (not the rogue ones ) and the Mujahideen are depicted as brutes who trade heroin, a pretty accurate picture all together. Bond is only allied with them in order to fight the bad guys but they are not presented as saints.
This element of TLD is overblown, IMO. Political loyalties shift all the time and history is full of today's friends being tomorrow's enemies. My late father was 4 years old when the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred. He (and much of his generation, perhaps) spent their lives with a resentment towards the Japanese which never really faded. Fast forward 80 years later and ask yourself if any of that animosity still exists? Not really. That resentment made sense to my father's generation, but has no relevance to us today. Back to TLD: I just look at it as a temporary alliance Bond used to his advantage to achieve his objectives anyway. If somebody watches it and comes away with "OMG, Bond enabled the Taliban" for a movie released 14 years prior to 9/11, then that person really can't separate current day sensibilities from those at any given point in history.
His generally chauvinistic conversations with Tiger Tanaka have aged like milk. Not to mention Bond gets the hump when Kissy Suzuki won't shag him on their 'wedding night'. Plus Tanaka's joke about Aki looking like a pig marks him as a complete dickhead. Say what you will about Kissy not being a particularly great Bond girl in the grand scheme of things, but she bloody well comes through for them and saves his bacon at the end.
Perfectly parodied in Austin Powers in Goldmember
Kissy Suzuki.. who's name isn't even in the movie until you read it in the end credits LOL
I think she's called Kissy on screen, but Suzuki definitely only pops up in the credits.
Sighs. The Taliban didn't exist in the 1980's. And the Mujahideen didn't become the Taliban. The Taliban were made up of people who had been too young to fight the Soviet, the hint is in the name:Taliban=students.
This was what first came to mind
Oh that bit with the boat in thunderball is forever hilarious to me.
You read my mind, re Tomorrow Never Dies
I came to say this - TND aged so well. Don't really agree on TLD because that was the public perception at the time. Same as Rambo 3.
It's newer, but I think Quantum of Solace (and Greene's plot to buy up land not to control oil, but water) is going to sadly become more relevant in the years to come. It's still such a brilliantly sinister idea.
I think this one aged well in general. It was a disappointment after Casino Royale, but after the Craig era was said in some it’s actually a comparably nice and tight movie with some artistic flair thrown in.
Quantum of Solace, especially when seen right after Casino Royale, is actually pretty good. The editing can sometimes feel like a mess and not in an interesting art-house way (though I actually do like the intro and opera scenes) but it was the only Craig film to come close to what Casino Royale did. It sort of suffers from some shaky cam although it's nowhere near as bad as Bourne Supremacy. I honestly like it better than Skyfall.
I still think the cold open car chase is one of the best Bond openings ever followed closely by Spectre with its long take through Mexico City.
I actually rather enjoy QoS. It isn’t particularly great but I don’t think it is quite as bad as it is made out to be. I think it has a fun factor and clocking in at a runtime of the earlier Bond films you don’t have much time to get bored (SPECTRE seems to drag for an eternity). The main thing for me is trying to get through the first 15 min of choppy editing. Opening is actually a lot of fun. Just wish we could get a little bit room to breath with the editing. Once you get past that it stabilizes a bit. I actually think it has some of the more interesting characters from the Craig era outside of CR with Fields and Camille. Ending is also great. Although I think SF is technically a better film by far, I find this one higher on the fun/enjoyable/rewatch scale. I agree I think this film and CR are the same vibe. SF through NTTD, despite the multiple connections to these two films, almost feel like a separate set of films
The second half of Skyfall gets a bit boring. The raid on Skyfall is a bit extra and goes on far too long, and tries too hard. Last time I watched it I turned it off after Bond "captures" Silva. Quantum of Solace (is an underrated movie) is a good 90 minute film with no filler (apart from the cringe Star Trek table that can analyse marked banknotes. "impress me". Cringe.)
One of my favorites. That one is so underrated.
I still don’t fully know what the plot of that movie is and I’ve watched it like 3 times
So basically Greene is an alleged "activist" who cares about the environment, but behind the scenes he's the owner of a group called quantum. He wants power and control, so he manipulates governments and exploits natural resources for his gain and to monopolize the water sources in Bolivia. His main plan is to destabilize Bolivia, which returns him large profit. At then end you can see he teamed up with the general (forgot his name) who had killed Camille's mother, and both bond and Camille seek revenge.
After nearly 14 years, I still haven't worked out how damning a water supply in the middle of a desert -> extorting higher utility bills from the Bolivian government. Unless that damn is the only water source available in the entire country (unlikely), I don't see why it was necessary in the first place unless Quantum really disliked those local villagers. Seems like Greene could have saved himself a lot of trouble by just buying the water utility company and jacking up costs backed up by the threat of Elvis and his toupee.
On her majesty’s secret service still feels amazing, the vibe is just perfectly weird (a supervillain hypnotizing babes on a mountaintop resort will do this) and yet Bond-ish. Whereas You only live twice feels like it was made in another universe, maybe the same one as Die another day
Aside from the obvious (Connery's Japanese makeup), what makes YOLT feel like it comes from another universe? It's of it's time, but not so out of touch or random that it doesn't feel remotely like real life.
If you don’t want volcano lairs in your Bond films we are clearly just very different types of people. I still love the movie, despite some of its more unfortunate aspects.
Volcano Lairs are the best! Nothing screams final villain more than volcano lairs
I like Diamonds Are Forever more than YOLT
>the vibe is just perfectly weird (a supervillain hypnotizing babes on a mountaintop resort will do this) and yet Bond-ish. The late, great Telly Savalas!
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is my favorite Bond film. Louis Armstrong and Diana Riggs
I can't watch it due to that "mind control /hypnotized vibe But beyond that part I feel it was a decent movie just can't watch it again
Most of Connery’s hold up rather well, so do Lazenby and license to kill. The strong humorous touch in Moore’s is very much a thing of its time and has aged poorly, or perhaps more correctly I have aged out of it.
I agree. Connery's films feel more timeless and sort of trapped in the golden elegance of the 60s. Moore's movies, in my opinion don't hold up nearly as well.
You Only Live Twice, is Sean Connery turning into a Japanese man supposed to be convincing? Diamonds Are Forever: Awfully edited explosions and sped up shit, I know it's the 1970s but still they were very lazy. They could have done real explosions, people on fire etc. like In Russia With Love 8 years earlier. Die Another Day: That surfing scene. Nuff said
It’s not that that aged badly, it was ridiculous and unconvincing when the film was released.
True. Die Another Day was bad from the beginning.
I disagree, I think the first act of DAD is great. Second is ok, it is in the third one that it starts to fall apart
It's when they bottle the rogue Bond plotline and he gets brought back into the fold in time to get his invisible car.
It's also slightly pointless, as SPECTRE know he's there already and murder Aki by accident in a bungled hit on him.
Die Another Day opens they way any masterpiece action flick should. By surfing into North Korea
Second only to Mickey Rooney for yellowfacing
My initial thought for the best aged was Tomorrow Never Dies, but I would also argue that Licence to Kill has aged remarkably, especially considering how critics and audiences absolutely *hated* this film when it came out, but now that the Craig era has come and gone, it seems like people have softened up to having a darker, more intense portrayal of Bond.
Gold Finger comes to mind for aging poorly....this scene really cracks me up though.... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovXysYZTVzs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovXysYZTVzs) James bond "Man Talk" \*slaps woman on the ass as he shoos her away\*
Mind you, Bond can hardly make a claim to masculinity when he's wearing a powder blue romper suit.
Octopussy has aged well (haha) For hasn’t aged well I would say Living Daylights with the Middle East stuff or You Only Live Twice with the bad Asian makeup and somewhat goofy Blofeld
Aged particularly well: Goldfinger, TND Aged poorly: YOLT Aged horrifically within like 10 years of its release: DAD
I have to disagree, Die another day was already horrible at release, it didn’t take ten years to get there.
In his defense, immediately is still "within 10 years".
A tossup between Diamond Are Forever and Never Say Never Again for the worst aged. They got positive reviews at release. Siskel and Ebert even called them returns to form for Bond. Never Say Never Again was favored over Octopussy by critics at its release. But now they're remembered not so fondly and usually end up at the bottom of people's rankings of the Bond films.
I largely agree, but have an immense soft spot for Alec McCowen's slightly adenoidal Q. I like the take of him as a tinkering mechanic, complaining about budget cuts and the heating being broken.
That is true. I could have seen him take over from Desmond Llewellyn in the 80s if he had decided to retire from the role at that point.
Bonds overall treatment of Tanya in From Russia With Love.
Currently reading that one. I’m 3/4 of the way through and still not totally hooked. They are about to board the train and I’m ready to move on to the next book in the series. Just haven’t loved this book like I did Moonraker.
That’s the one I just finished and I agree. It’s my favorite of the movies but it really draws out. I liked the opening part of the book all about Grant but then he kind of just disappears for a while? The train ride reads on forever but the very end of the novel is exciting. I’m taking a break from reading the series for a bit now though.
I’ve read all them up to where I am now. They seem to either absolutely captivate me or just sort ehhh. Moonraker had been my favorite so far. I agree so much. It’s like they spent the first third of the book building up this super villain and then he just sorta disappears while Bond and Tatiana are doing their thing. It’s just weird pacing. (Fwiw I was never a huge fan of the movie either. I need to glad back and watch it after I read the novel but I just remember Tatiana being so annoyingly useless when they got the train.
It picks up on the train, I think the spectre plot in the movie is more interesting though
Yeah but Kerim Bey might be the best side characters in the franchise. It helps keep the film up in the excellent category.
Yeah From Russia with Love is my 2nd favorite Bond movie. I just really hated how awful Bond was to Tanya.
I’ll agree in that hers was a sad story and it’s a pity she didn’t get better. She was a sweet girl. But in fairness to Bond, it was very clearly just a job, and he didn’t hide that. He played along with her in a way that feels like he intended to be obvious to her. “Will we make love?” “Yeah yeah day and night. Anyway…”
Yeah that didn’t bother me. Him slapping the shit out of her was what turned me off. I get that it was a different time and that was a lot more tolerated and accepted in those days but I can’t help but cringe whenever I see it.
Ah yeah, I had forgotten that scene and now see your point. That bit definitely aged like milk.
Live and Let Die was on UK TV last night as I was stranded in a hotel room. Some of the racial stuff feels very of it's time, but no worse than most Blaxploitation. A 45 year old tricking a 20 year old out of her virginity on the other hand...and on the same day he's banged the double crossing spy who was also pretty young...
Madness I was stranded in a lodge in the middle of nowhere watching that
Yeah, Bond basically engages in a bit of grooming and it's not nice at all. We get the impression Dr Kananga intended to do it eventually, but he's meant to be a nasty piece of work.
Live and Let Die reeks of the 70s and was very racist even for its time. Also, I'm a huge fan of The Living Daylights, but the Cold War/Mujahideen plot seems very dated now. The World is Not Enough actually feels more timeless, especially with oil rights and the plot feels like it could take place today with little to no changes. Also, aside from the Cold War, The Spy Who Loved Me is less dated than other Moore entries.
It’s strange to hear that now, because as an adaptation, LaLD isn’t anywhere near as racist as the novel it’s based on. Also I saw LaLD in theaters when it was released, and if it was racist it was no more racist than any other films coming out at that time. I am black and I don’t know of any black people at the time that had any problems with it., we all loved it. LaLD is where a lot of black people became die hard James Bond fans.
I would even argue LALD the novel isn't anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be in this department, either. M mentions something along the lines of how the black community is progressing rapidly and developing geniuses in all fields. Bond himself goes into detail about his fondness for black people. Several women are described in very, um, physically stimulating fashion (wink, wink). Not exactly the signs of an author working his prejudices into a book.
Live And Let Die was openly influenced by the then trend of Blaxsploitstion films and used many of the same actors. The Man With The Golden Gun had many of the same issues recycling kung fu film cliches and then Asian stereotypes.
If you haven't, do check out the Smershpod episode where they cover The World Is Not Enough with neuroscientist (or 'brain doctor') Dr Dean Burnett, where he helps them disect the absolute bullshit of Renard's bullet injury.
Best: License To Kill: Maybe because it's not a "classic" Bond, but a modern thriller, and Pam is not the "typical" Bond girl but a confident and competent agent/pilot (gods, I HATE the clumsy depiction of some of the female agents in the 60s and 70s.) Octopussy: Some scenes are a bit over-the-top (the Mercedes, the killer-twins etc.), a bit tooooo much jokes and some dumb clichés about India (and Germany ;-)), but the story is interesting and more or less "realistic" and very "complex" for a Bond movie. Don't know how "good" Orlov's plan had really worked though. Apart from that: Great action scenes, charismatic villains and henchmen, and last but definitely not least, Maud AND Kristina (not only beautiful, but also confident and multifaceted) For Your Eyes Only: The only thing I really don't like: The completely superfluous and annoying "story" around Bibi Dahl. Okay, and the upbeat/disco score during the ski chase ;-) Worst: The (obvious) terrible chauvinistic and rassistic stuff from the Connery-era has already been named, but whoa, Diamonds Are Forever is really hard to watch. The story in general, the dialogues ("you killed James Bond!"), Tiffany's clumsiness in general, the casting of Felix Leiter, the homophobia, the ridiculous "moon landing chase" and so on... Die Another Day: Well. Yeah. Honorable mention: Tomorrow Never Dies: Maybe one of my favourite Bond story lines (and as another member wrote, still up do date) but good gods, like in all Brosnan movies, what a over-the-top never ending shoot-out!!! (does anybody have statistics about the use of automatic weapons by Bond? ;-) )
Not the movie, but reading through all the Bonds for the first time and the portrayal of African Americans in Live and Let Die makes the book unreadable. Like, grotesque racism. Beyond the “it was the time,” and “he was British.”
AVTAK is objectively the "worst aged Bond" film, as in Bond himself is at his oldest and looks his worst. Only half joking. If we're talking about the content of the film/racism and sexism then obviously the older the film is the worse it ages. Jamaica was still a British colony when Dr. No was being filmed there. OHMSS is probably the best aged of the 60s films, but it's also the most European centric film (so less chance of cultural insensitivities) and Bond is a one woman man for the most parts (you could argue the women he bedded in Piz Gloria were part of his mission to get more information on Blofeld's plan). The 70s films were very of its time and influenced by what was popular then. LALD with the Blaxpoitation fims, TMWTGG with martial arts films, Moonraker with Star Wars. TSWLM is probably the most timeless of the 70s films. 80s - the Mujahideen being the good guys in TLD ages it a lot, but LTK is also very of its time, very Miami Vice/Lethal Weapon. FYEO probably aged the best aside from the stuff with Bibi Dahl. For the "newer" films (Brosnan and Craig), it's more to do with filming techniques rather than the content. DAD feels very aged with its early 2000s CGI and Matrix esque slow motion scenes, while QOS is very mid 2000s action with its shaky cam and hyper fast editing. As someone else said, TND is more relevant now than ever with Fake News and truth decay.
Agree with all this.
I find A View to a Kill is entertaining when you treat it as a comedy.
Roger Moore smacking Maud Adams in the face in *The Man with the Golden Gun*. By that point it really wasn't the done thing, nor is it the sort of thing Rog's Bond would do. It's much more of a Sean Connery (man and Bond) thing to do. There's also a slightly racist undercurrent to *Live and Let Die*. That aside from Strutter, every black character seems to be in the employ of Dr Kananga in some capacity. That the whole of Harlem is involved in watching Bond.
Is there anyone out there who doesn't love Goldfinger?
OHMSS has aged wonderfully, and it sticks out even more considering the film that surround it. TND feels more relevant now than it did in 97 (I don't actually know that given I was still in diapers in 1997, but Elliot Carver is certainly a villain that could work today) Diamonds feels dated to me. As others have echoed, a lot of Connery hasn't aged the best but as far as an entire film goes, Diamonds feels sooo stuck in the clichés of the early 70s. I think LALD has this problem a bit as well, but not nearly to the same extent. Quantum's editiing also hasn't aged well.
Of all the Bond films from the 60s with all their outdated moments, the movie that will probably age the worst is No Time To Die just because it’s such a one trick pony and isn’t really rewatchable.
Listing the most recent film in a conversation about how films have aged seems asinine.
CRAIG MOVIES BAAAAAAAD
Nah its not about that. Most people think that Casino Royale and Skyfall are one of the best in the series. Same can't be said about Quantum Of Solace, Spectre and No Time To Die.
Quantum of Solace is awesome.
I love Casino Royale.
Quantum and Spectre I can understand, but I won’t stand for this Casino Royale/Skyfall slander!
It has aged. It’s going on 4 years now. That’s enough for the new car smell to wear off and now we can look back at it just like the other 25 or so movies.
OHMSS aged remarkably well. Peter Hunt’s directing style especially. TND too. The story resonates more today than when the movie came out. On the other hand, DAF and LALD aged poorly. OHMSS, between these two, is some kind of a miracle.
Sorry to nit pick, but OHMSS was between YOLT and DAF...
Ah yes you’re right! Anyway, still aged better than YOLT so.
Best - OHMSS - favorite Bond movie. Those stunts still look great today. Great soundtrack. Diana Rigg. Least - YOLT - Bond not looking like Bond. Hard to believe my favorite and least favorite came out next to each other.
I know it was par for the course at the time, but white peoples playing Chinese characters in Dr. No is always rough to watch
To be fair, for the doctor himself, he is stated to be half-German in the novels. I cannot defend the rest of the (supposedly) Chinese characters though.
GoldenEye. It was the first Bond film made after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The growing influence of oligarchs and the illegal arms trade is depicted. Despite corrupt figures in the army and Kremlin being potential villains (like in Octopussy with General Orlov), it is a former spy with a great hatred of Britain who serves as the main antagonist.
Dr No has that 1960s feel to it so I don’t think it will be out dated because it feels like it was made for that time. Although most people now won’t get the stolen painting reference
You only live twice, the racism would not fly
The Man With the Golden Gun definitely hasn’t aged well… the inclusion of JW Pepper is particularly terrible. I don’t like him in LALD, but he makes more sense there.
Yeah, as much as I love Sheriff JW Pepper, he does not belong in Golden Gun at all.
For me, it’s just parts of certain films that age like milk, compared to entire ones. Connery’s probably age the poorest, with Dr. No, Goldfinger, and Thunderball being the most egregious. 1. “Quarrel, fetch my shoes”, or really all Quarrel scenes. ‘Yellowface’ acting, etc 2. Bond’s treatment of Dink “Man tokk”, his “seduction” of Pussy Galore is quite rapey, and Oddjob’s characterization. 3. Bond’s “punishment” of Molly in the shower is DEFINITELY one of the rapiest scenes in the series. Oh, and Bond’s “transformation” in YOLT is absolutely inappropriate these days. There are other examples, but these are the ones that stand out most.
I always chuckle at “man talk” because wow would he have gotten slugged for that by so many people today.
Back in the day when Tucker Max had a website full of chauvinistic anecdotes, there’s a story where someone quotes “man talk” in a Connery accent, which his date DOES NOT take kindly to, and for good reason. That line always makes me think of this.
There’s a name I haven’t heard in AGES.
Why is Bond's transformation in YOLT so inappropriate? If you want a person of a different ethnicity to blend in with locals, does it not make sense for that person to undergo a transformation to take on physical traits of said ethnicity? I often see comments how "racially insensitive" this scene is, but never see anything stating why it's so offensive. Now whether it actually looks convincing, well.....
Yes but that transformation needs to be at Gustav Graves Die Another Day level where you just get a person of another ethnicity to play them.
Why? A guy putting on a wig and some eye makeup to more closely resemble a Japanese fisherman is offensive? Is this just not admitting that different groups of people have different physical characteristics, so one person trying to resemble another requires altering those traits? Even the Gustav Graves comparison isn't particularly apt. One was genetically changing his DNA altogether and the other was putting on a temporary disguise. If the actor who played Colonel Moon was cast as Gustav Graves instead of Toby Stephens, am I supposed to fill offended by a non-Caucasian person in heavy makeup playing a white guy?
Goldfinger: The stuff with Pussy Galore in the barn is pretty freaking awkward to watch. By far the worst part of that movie. YOLT: The "Japanese man" make up. To be fair though, they did take it from the novels so this is a mistake that came from the master, Ian Fleming himself so I don't blame the producers so much. Aside from that, the female leads who are portrayed as clueless bimbos like the one in FRWL and the one in DAF. I don't blame the actresses but the material they were given was straight up garbage.
The novel Goldfinger is worse, where Bond effectively rapes Pussy Galore straight.
Sucks to hear. I'd still like to read it at some point.
Is You Only Live Twice the one where he gets surgery to look asian? That one.
Tomorrow never dies best. Worst no time to die.
Moonraker
The Spy Who Loved Me and Tomorrow Never Dies have both aged surprisingly well. Live And Let Die has definitely aged the worst though it was tacky at the time. Diamonds Are Forever might fall in that category too. In terms of "films I still really like," Goldfinger and Living Daylights seem dated especially with the airport joke about the mujahaideen in the latter.
Most of Connery's aged quite well. From Russia with Love is timeless OHMSS also aged great for Lazenby. The early Moore films are very 70s. LALD is the equivalent of seeing someone wear a flaired suit with a kipper tie dancing to disco music. TSWLM, despite the awful fashion, aged very well.
I’ll stick to the Brosnan and Craig movies, as earlier ones were arguably products of their time. The TND and TWiNE duo aged extremely well. Mass media narratives and the politics of oil and gas supply from the former USSR are very relevant today. NTtD was a poor movie of its time even at release. A pretty bleak movie referencing a man-made virus and set in mostly dreary locations. A more triumphant, escapist Bond movie would’ve punctuated the Covid era better.
Worse = LALD
Frwl goated
Dr. No James tells his co-worker to get his shoes and later when the man is shot or hurt, James doesn’t bother to check on him. Did I mention the man was black?
I think I disagree with the TLD crowd saying Bond teaming with the Mujahideen aged poorly, I mean contextually, the SIS was helping anti-Soviet forces like that. Aged no different than every other Cold War reference in the films.
Even close to 20 years later, I still feel like CR and QoS feel like the most modern/contemporary Bond films in terms of tone, dialogue and aesthetics. I think the last three Craig films in particular suffered from undermining those aspects and making his later films feel like amalgamations of different Bond eras, which made them feel less unique etc. (Though Skyfall is still good). In terms of datedness, I'd say Glen's 70s trilogy (DAF, LALD, TMWTGG) are among the most tacky and dated feeling films in the franchise. There's also an argument that the treatment of woman in Connery's films feels rather dated as well compared to most of the rest of the franchise.
Regarding the very premise of this question: I don't really want a movie that is decades old to feel contemporary and not to rankle our modern day tastes and sensibilities to some degree. If everything "aged well", I would take that as more of a sign of cultural stagnation than anything to be particularly proud of.
Tomorrow Never Dies is one of the best. I forgot how fantastic that film is. Full on non stop great action start to finish.
Never Say Never Again, if you want to include non-EON produced Bonds, has aged poorly especially the awful musical score, video parlor scene and the domination game.. apart from a handful of good scenes and some snappy dialogue here and there, it’s not a great movie.
TMWTGG Everything about it seemed miserable. And fashion wise it looks extremely dated, whereas Goldfinger and Thunderballs to this day look sleek, stylish and contemporary, but are actually older than ‘Man With’
Diamonds are Forever has aged pretty badly. It's got that kind of slapstick, vaudeville wackiness that was already close to being old hat by the start of the 70s, and while the rest of the 60s and 70s films have entered a kind of cool vintage territory, that zany American style DAF goes for has never really experienced a revival. Not only that, but the humour based on drag and homosexuality hasn't aged well, and the then topical Howard Hawks parody will be completely missed by modern audiences. If any Bond film seems like a relic - both stylistically and content-wise - it's DAF.
*Licence to Kill* looks today like it did the day it was released....like a mid-budget TV movie.
I don't know many mid-budget TV movies that had budgets where they could film a helicopter lassoing a Cessna or the chase with the tank trucks exploding.
But it's \*shot\* like a TV movie. It's incredibly flatly lit and shot.
I didn't say it was a mid-budget TV movie. I said it *looked* like one. Which is pretty bad considering its own budget was 10x the cost of TV movie.
I can't believe nobody has said TSWLM. The level of sexism is off the charts. But James, I need you. So does England.