Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the longevity of films. As I have gotten older and talked about movies with today's youth, such as my company's interns, I have been shocked about the movies they have not seen. At first, I thought the problem was with them or with their parents for doing a bad job raising them. But sadly, I can no longer delude myself into thinking that's the case. I think I am just getting old...and I've reached the point in my life where the movies that everyone has seen are...well, movies that a lot of people have actually not seen and maybe haven't even heard of. Some of the younger people I've talked with do have a vague notion of the popular movies of my day. They've at least know Back to the Future, even if they haven't seen it. But there are a lot of movies they just haven't heard of. For example, just picking two hit movies at random: The Usual Suspects and Four Weddings and a Funeral were both award-winning films and big financial and critical successes. When I mention these two films to the next generation, I am met with blank eyes.
So what makes a movie stand the test of time? And I don't mean to film buffs, but to the everyday, average person. Of the most successful films of 1942/1943, why is Casablanca the one that has gone down in history? Why not Random Harvest, Reap the Wild Wind, Road to Morocco, Song of Bernadette, or Somewhere I'll Find You. ALL of those movies were bigger hits than Casablanca (according to Wikipedia). Now, I know that is an extreme example. Casablanca has became part of the culture, inspiring imitations ranging from Neil Simon to Bugs Bunny. But it is still an interesting question. In 1948, Samson and Delilah made $28 million dollars. That is almost $300 million today. And I think most people will not have heard of that movie, much less seen it. And I don't mean to equate money with longevity, but it is crazy to me that a movie that was that big of a hit has started to vanish in the public consciousness. I've asked young men and women if they have heard of Ghost. The answer is no. Ghost made $217 million dollars in 1990. In 1990, that is HUGE. Today, that is $419 million. The film was also nominated for five Oscars, included Best Picture, and it won two of them. And it has completely disappeared?
I suppose what this all comes down to is, I owe my parents an apology. Because I was one of those kids. I must have made them feel so old when they talked about the popular movies of their day. When I was young in the 1980s, they would tell me about a movie... something like Tammy and the Bachelor, and I would laugh and say there is no way that was a big movie. I would have heard of it if it was. Tammy and the Bachelor, by the way, was a romantic comedy starring Debbie Reynolds and Leslie Nielsen and it was an Oscar nominated hit that spawned three sequels. Three sequels. All erased by our cultural amnesia. And it is shame because a lot of great films are being lost. Yes, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca and The Godfather will always be with us. But what about the lesser movies? What about the movies that aren't even classics, but are just fun rides? What about strange curiosities like The Vikings?
First, let's establish the credentials. The Vikings was the sixth most successful movie at the box office in 1958 and was fairly well reviewed. It had a big enough impact on Hollywood that the early 1960s were littered with cheesy ripoffs like The Long Ships and Erik the Conqueror. The movie also had a terrific cast, featuring Kirk Douglas (Spartacus), Ernest Borgnine (Marty), Tony Curtis (Some Like It Hot) and Janet Leigh (Psycho). It was directed by Richard Fleischer (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea), shot by brilliant cinematographer Jack Cardiff (Black Narcissus) and written by Calder Willingham (The Graduate). That is an excellent team.
It seems the epic Kirk Douglas film that has stood the test of time is Spartacus, and there is good reason for that, but let's not ignore The Vikings because this movie is one helluva good time. I would never call it a classic, but it certainly deserves to be remembered.
The Vikings is the story of two half brothers: Einar (Douglas) is the handsome, popular son of the Viking chief Ragnar (Borgnine) and Eric (Curtis) is a slave in the village, and the unknown son of Ragnar and the English queen he had raped two decades earlier. The new English king, the villainous Aella (Frank Throng), now watches the coast warily for another Viking attack. When Einar captures Aella's bride-to-be, Morgana (Leigh), events spiral out of control, setting the two half-brothers against each other and the English crown.
I do want to make it clear that this movie is not perfect. There are some really goofy and dated things in this movie. For example, I don't really buy the love story between Eric and Morgana. While Eric is a prince, neither he nor Morgana know that, and I have trouble believing the princess would fall in love so quickly with a slave, even if he is played by Tony Curtis. The whole subplot is convenient in a very 1950s way where chaste love will always win the day. There are also some uncomfortable spots where it seems the film is condoning the abuse of women. Are we supposed to be laughing along with Ragnar when he tells his son that if a women struggles against his advances, that makes the conquest more worth it? That really bothers me, and is hard to overlook. But then again, I understand that this very well may have been what the Vikings really felt - pillaging, murder and rape were basically in their job description. So I understand that, but at the same time, it makes it hard to sympathize with certain characters when they talk like that.
But ultimately, in other ways, the treatment of the Vikings themselves is what makes this movie so interesting, and better than many 1950s films of this genre. Most period adventure films of the period were clear in their villains and heroes. Everything was very black and white and easily digestible. And The Vikings does have this element. Eric is the brave and handsome slave who is really a prince. Aella is the villainous and scenery chewing king who sits on Eric's rightful throne. Morgana is the wholesome princess who needs rescuing. All very 1950s adventure. But the difference with The Vikings is actually the titular characters - the rampaging Northmen themselves. They are the ultimate wild card. They are not heroes or villains. They are, well, Vikings. And yes, they raid and pillage the poor and innocent English. But they also bring the booty back where it is distributed to families in their own village. They aren't a cartoonish tribe. They have a society and a culture, neither good or bad. They just exist. And it may be hard not to judge them by our modern standards, but it is impossible to classify them into classic movie archetypes. In short, the movie gives us as realistic a depiction of Viking society as they can, and implant it in the middle of this silly 1950s adventure. A lot of research went into this film. The clothes, ships, buildings and weapons were all created to be as historically accurate as possible, and the hard work pays off. These Vikings feel sort of authentic. Not completely authentic, of course. It is still a movie, after all, and there is only so realistic you can be in Hollywood. But it is still pretty impressive to see these characters and not know how they fit into the puzzle or what actions they will take.
I also admire that the movie is surprisingly brutal for a film from this era. A bit of a SPOILER alert here, but I was not expecting Einer's eye to get gouged out. And I certainly didn't expect Eric's arm to get hacked off. The movie isn't particularly graphic. This doesn't happen on camera, but still...I was genuinely surprised. And I don't get surprised easily.
I also have to take a second and mention the climactic battle at the end, when the Viking army assaults Aella's castle. This bloody attack is terrific, well staged by Fleischer and superbly shot by Cardiff. I especially respect the final duel between Einar and Eric, an energetic and dangerous fight on top of the castle's tower that looks way too high to be safe for either the actors or the crew.
So all in all, despite its flaws, The Vikings is a fun and exciting movie, featuring a cast and crew at the top of their game. Is it a classic? Definitely not. But does it deserve to be forgotten? I don't think so. There are hundreds of movies that are slowly fading into cultural oblivion. Movie lovers out there can't let that happen. We have to tell our family and friends, and pester them until they see some of these movies, and hopefully continue to pass them on to the next generation. There are a lot of fun, forgotten movies out there. I hope The Vikings does not become one of them...
MVP:
There are a lot of things I like about The Vikings, but I have to give the MVP to cinematographer Jack Cardiff. Cardiff is one of the best directors of photography in Hollywood history, with a career spanning seven decades. Cardiff does magnificent work on this film, but what seals the deal for me is the scene when the Viking ships travel across the North in a deep, deep fog. And then as the sun is rising with that gorgeous morning light, we see the three ships emerge from the fog - imposing and ghost-like. It's a truly stunning image, and it won Cardiff my MVP!
BEST LINE:
Einar: I want this slave to live. The sun will cross the sky a thousand times before he dies. (turns to Eric) And you'll wish a thousand times that you were dead.
TRIVIA:
One of the more entertaining scenes in The Vikings was the oar walking sequence - where the Vikings would run alongside the outstretched oars of the ship and try not to fall into the freezing water below. This was a game that the real Vikings really played, and the director Fleischer commented at the time that they were filming something that hadn't been seen in a thousand years. The stunt men practiced for weeks and even Kirk Douglas got in on the fun. That's really him, not a stunt man, skipping across the oars in the scene. I thought that was a fun bit of trivia. And looks like a fun game that I wouldn't mind trying someday!
I know movie theaters are hurting these days. Home theaters are just getting better and better, and a lot of folks are choosing to watch movies in the comfort of their home instead of going out to the movie theater where they have to deal with expensive tickets, crying babies and rude jerks talking on their cellphones.
And I get it. I personally like the communal aspect of seeing a movie in the theater, but also do get annoyed a lot. So why deal with other people when you can chill back on your comfortable chair, eat and drink what you want, and pause the movie whenever you need to? And honestly, home theaters are good enough that a lot movies are going to be just as good as if you saw it in the theater.
But not every movie. Not 2001: A Space Odyssey. Sometimes the experience truly is different on the big screen. Now, let me backtrack a little. A couple of years, I wrote a review of Gravity. I had seen the film in the theater and I was in awe of Alfonso Cuaron's filmmaking. And as you can see in that review, I was just smacked silly by the movie. But fast forward a few years and I watched Gravity again on TV. And it was...fine. I was still impressed with the filmmaking. I still loved Sandra Bullock's fantastic performance. But I was not in awe of the film. The experience had changed. It was truly a different and more powerful film in the theater.
So let's take that experience and multiply it by 50. Because that is what happened with 2001: A Space Odyssey. When I first saw 2001, I thought it was just okay. I respected it and I recognized its place in film history. But I generally reduced my feelings about the film into this sentence: "2001 is four different movies. The monkey movie is okay, the space trip movie is intensely boring and kinda pointless, the HAL movie is pretty cool, and the last movie, the psychedelic space trip, is just weird." Looking back now, I feel almost embarrassed with myself!
Parts of that description do still apply. There is no overarching traditional narrative to 2001 and the film is indeed broken into those four parts. But there is a single narrative theme. 2001 is the story of human evolution itself. Starting with the dawn of man and then fast forwarding through time to our explorations of space, 2001 is about an ambitious a movie as you can get. Conceived by Stanley Kubrick (The Shining) and renowned science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 attempted to do something new. Science fiction up to this point was basically fantasy - all UFOs, lasers and alien invasions. Some of it was very good, some of it was very smart, but it was hardly realistic. But Kubrick and Clarke did their homework and really tried to show what space travel would be like. Remember that this movie was made before we landed on the moon. And yet so much of the imagery of space travel and technology is pretty spot on, from the spinning space stations to the experience of zero gravity to artificial intelligence and even the use of ipads. Even the handling of the alien presence is handled pretty realistically because, well, it makes no sense. Which, to be honest, if we ever did make contact, do we really think we would understand what was going on? It would be so foreign to us, possibly even something our minds couldn't comprehend, confusion that Kubrick captures extremely well. In 1968, audience minds must have been blown.
But this brings me back to my experience. My mind had not been blown. I saw the film, respected the film and was content to not really see it again. And then I had a chance to see it on the big screen...and my brain just exploded. It is interesting because as I was watching it, I could still feel the length. 2001 is sslllloooowwww. My butt was falling asleep. I was not necessarily enjoying myself. And then the movie ended and I turned to my friends, and said, "damn, I just went through something. I think that just blew my mind." And I felt invigorated because I suddenly got it. This was a film that changed cinema forever, and I didn't just acknowledge that objectively, I could now feel it.
Let's take that boring space journey, for example. A ship is floating through space to the strains of beautiful classical music, slowly making its way to the space station. This journey feels endless and when I saw it the movie at home, I fought hard to stay awake. Sure, the ship looked neat...for the first 10 seconds. But I had what felt like another 15 hours of watching it before we moved to the next scene. In the theater, on the other hand I thought, geez, that looks incredible. How did they get that shot? And how did they get that shot? And wait, in 1968, how the hell did they get that shot?!? I could see the details of the model work and the special effects that mostly look as good as anything we have today (I do say mostly because there are spots that definitely don't age so well). All in all, this was just incredibly impressive. And I don't think audiences in 1968 were necessarily bored, because they had never seen anything like this before. I imagine their eyes were glued to the screen the whole time.
On the big screen, I even caught little jokes I had missed before - like the instructions on how to use a toilet in space! Of course, the joke isn't that there are instructions, but that they are so long!
I feel like I have been rambling and haven't even gotten to some of the more memorable parts of the film, such as astronauts Dave Bowman and Frank Poole (Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood) and their journey to Jupiter aboard a giant ship that is run by the computer HAL 9000. HAL has become probably the most enduring part of the film, a character that has entered pop culture as one of cinema's great villains, and certainly one that has been imitated or parodied multiple times. This is the part of the film that I have always enjoyed, probably because it takes advantage of an actual narrative with a true conflict, life and death situations and some really great acting and writing.
I could keep going, but I should think about wrapping this up. I'm not going to say the movie is flawless. It is still too slow and I still can't say I necessarily enjoy stretches of it. But it is brilliant masterpiece. And the only way to properly watch it is in the movie theater. Your mind will explode, and you will thank me for it!
SPOILER:
So what about that psychedelic trip at the end? Is that still just weird or is that part better, too, now that I have seen it on the big screen? The newly restored film is so vivid and the colors are so powerful that I was even in awe of this sequence. And again, I found myself asking, how did they put on this light show without the benefit of computer graphics? In 1968?! It's crazy to me. It does go on for a bit too long. Once we start seeing the negative images of desert landscapes, I feel it's time to move on. But the sequence kept me entranced up to that point. And again, you start to notice details intercut in this light show that foreshadow the ending of the film - the birth of the star child, the next stage of human evolution. Is this sequence symbolizing the act of conception as astronaut Dave Bowman enters the star gate? Within the light show, there are certainly shots that resemble sperm and eggs. I think we are literally witnessing the creation of this new being. I had never noticed that before. I may have even fallen asleep in that earlier viewing (this sequence does go on for awhile!).
MVP:
I don't think there can be any doubt. You can credit Arthur C. Clarke, HAL 9000, Douglas Trumbull, and even Johann Strauss...but if there is a true MVP for a film that changed movies forever, then it has to be the man who pulled it all together: Stanley Kubrick. I've always been a bit mixed on Kubrick. I love some of his movies, but others leave me cold, and I've heard stories of erratic behavior or perfectionism to the point of craziness (he did make Tom Cruise walk through a door 95 times during the production of Eyes Wide Shut!). Or while I know he wrote a lot, he also often worked with other screenwriters who did not get any credit, which really bothers me. But there is no doubt that as a filmmaker, he was brilliant. With 2001, he was involved in every aspect of the production. He even won the Oscar for Best Special Effects, which weirdly is the only Oscar he ever won. He never won for directing or writing. No, one of the cinema's most famous directors won his only Academy Award for Special Effects, which is crazy to me. And it is well deserved; as I mentioned, those effects still hold up today! In any case, it is clear that Stanley Kubrick is the MVP here, the man who pulled all these pieces together into something innovative and crazy, and yes, a little dull at times, but oh so brilliant!
BEST LINE:
This one will take some context because it is also one of my favorite shots of the film. I have another spoiler alert coming on this one! Most of the film, when we hear HAL speaking, we see the now iconic closeup of his red eye. But during the climactic confrontation between HAL and Dave Bowman, we also keep cutting to this other shot instead:
It was kind of an odd choice, I felt. We have our now famous dialogue: "Open the pod bay doors, HAL." "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I cannot do that." And the two continue to have their tense exchange, cutting between Dave in his space pod, HAL's eye and this random shot of the pod bay. And finally Dave threatens HAL to leave the pod and enter the space ship through its emergency airlock, and HAL replies:
HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.
And then you see it. And you understand why Kubrick has been cutting to this wide shot of the pod bay throughout the entire scene - you have been staring at Dave's red helmet the whole time and didn't even realize it. I think that's pretty amazing filmmaking, and definitely my favorite line of the movie! TRIVIA:
This is funny and I really hope it is true and not some amazing urban legend. So when Samsung released their version of the tablet, they were immediately sued by Apple who claimed they were stealing their idea of the iPad. The trial went to court. And when it came time for Samsung's lawyers to defend themselves, they pulled out exhibit A - shots from 2001: A Space Odyssey, which clearly show the astronauts watching videos on a tablet.
So really, if anybody owns the design of the tablet, it is Warner Brothers, the studio that produced the film! And Apple was just using a design that had already existed for decades. In any case, Apple lost that lawsuit, and I like to think this bit of trivia had something to do with it!
Produced to be one of the great “prestige” pictures of 1965, The Agony and the Ecstasy must have seemed like a sure bet. The film was partially based on a best-selling novel by Irving Stone, epics were still doing good box office (and winning lots of awards) and the director was Sir Carol Reed, who had directed the classic post-war thriller The Third Man. The cast included one of the biggest stars of the period, Charlton Heston, and Rex Harrison, fresh off his big Oscar win for the blockbuster musical My Fair Lady.
But The Agony and the Ecstasy was only a mild box office success, and while it did pick up a few Oscar nominations, it really failed to make much of an impression and remains largely forgotten today. Which is a shame, because while flawed, The Agony and the Ecstasy has a lot to offer and deserves to be remembered.
The Agony and the Ecstasy tells a story of the painting of the Sistine Chapel, or rather how Michelangelo (Heston) was forced to paint the Sistine Chapel by Pope Julius II (Harrison). But the film is about much more than that. This is a battle of wills between two stubborn men; it’s also a depiction of the violent politics of the Renaissance Era Papacy, which in many ways was more like an independent kingdom than a religious institution.
I think one problem with The Agony and the Ecstasy is that it might be a bit too wrapped up in its own importance. Or putting it another way, knowing the story lacks any major battles or exciting set pieces, the movie doubles down on its own “importance.” This becomes obvious almost immediately because the film actually begins with a 10-minute documentary explaining why Michelangelo is so influential to art history and why we should all pay attention once the movie starts. That’s, uh, not a good sign of things to come. And sure enough, the movie is dense with “important” moments. Audiences don’t like to be lectured to. That’s not why we go to the movies. That’s what school is for.
And yet, I also admire the movie for trying to tackle complicated subject matter without dumbing it down for the audience. It is fascinating to me that there was an actual warrior Pope who led armies into battle in the 1520s. And the acting from Heston and Harrison is truly superb. Michelangelo is not a painter, and he doesn’t want to do this painfully difficult project, but he still digs his heels in to create a masterpiece, one incredibly slow step at a time. Julius II wants a monument to the glory of God and also to his own rule as Pope, but would like for it to be finished cheaply and quickly, and certainly before he dies. He chafes under Michelangelo's arrogance and slow progress. And when the two start arguing, the film elevates into a thing of beauty. There are few actors who can dominate the screen with such righteous fury as Charlton Heston. Whether you like him or not, it’s hard to deny that he commands the screen. It takes a special kind of actor to take Heston’s punch and punch back just as hard (see Yul Brynner in The Ten Commandments), but Rex Harrison rises to the occasion.But there is one big difference between the confrontations in the The Ten Commandments and The Agony and the Ecstasy, and this is where I applaud Heston as an actor - Michelangelo can’t win. He can be stubborn, scream and try to intimidate, but in the end, he has to lose, and Heston understands that. The Pope always has to win, and it needs to be believable. And in the middle of their endless bickering, Heston knows the exact moment when to wilt before Harrison’s authority. Sometimes he even slouches over and pouts like a toddler, which is a hilariously perfect acting choice for the character.
I know I am talking a lot about these arguments between Michelangelo and Julius, but there is a reason. These scenes are where the heart of the movie lies, it is when the film truly soars, and everything else just pales in comparison. Unfortunately, when Harrison and Heston are not on screen screaming at each other, the movie largely falls apart. Michaelangelo has an odd love story with a DeMedici countess (Diane Cilento, Hombre) who clearly loves the conflicted artist who could never love her back (because of his obsession with his work, the movie states, clearly skipping over the fact that Michelangelo was most likely gay). And Pope Julius finds himself arguing about Italian politics that are never fully explained and would require a PhD to fully decipher. The movie tediously plods along, waiting to be shocked back to life by another Heston-Harrison fight.
Since the movie is wrapped up in its own importance, it also tries too hard to inspire – with sometimes laughable results. In what is supposed to be a high point of the film, Michelangelo climbs through the Italian Dolomites, looking to escape from his commission to paint the ceiling. And then he looks into the sky as the sun is rising and in the shape of the clouds he sees God touching Adam's finger - the image that is to become the centerpiece of the Sistine Chapel. And he is divinely inspired in a moment that is supposed to be transcendent and beautiful, and just ends up being laughably bad. I understand that this was the 1960s and special effects have come a long way since then, but those clouds look silly in any decade. It's an over-the-top moment that is made even more over-the-top by overwrought music and then just to top it all off, Michelangelo starts narrating passages from the book of Genesis for the audience. It's all supposed to be grand and important, but it is trying so hard. The movie so wants this moment to bring tears to audience's eyes...it wants it SO BAD! And it is completely ineffective.
The movie doesn't need to try that hard. It needs to take advantage of its assets - in this case, Heston and Harrison. There is a moment of transcendent beauty in The Agony and the Ecstasy, but it is a smaller moment, a moment of quiet tranquility when Michelangelo and the Pope quietly look at the depiction of God on the great ceiling by candlelight. The Pope's simple question, "Is that what he looks like to you?" leads to reflection on the true nature of God and eventually to grudging acceptance and mutual understanding between the two men. It's a short scene, with beautifully restrained music and a remarkable portrayal of two men who act like giants but are now realizing their own insignificance before a greater power. It might be the best scene in the film, and it doesn't need to act "important" to move the audience.
I am sure there would be more to say about The Agony and the Ecstasy, but I feel it would get repetitive. Whenever Heston and Harrison share the screen, which is admittedly a lot of the movie, this film could be considered a classic. But the rest of the movie just can't equal these scenes and knocks the whole thing down a peg. I would still absolutely recommend it because during the moments when the movie is flying, it truly does soar.
MVP:
Spoiler Alert! I am about the ruin the beginning of The Agony and the Ecstasy. The film begins with a battle over a small Italian city. Underneath a barrage of cannon fire, one army advances to the town, led by an imposing knight in black armor, who slashes his way through his enemies and down the narrow streets of the city. The army converges on the central plaza of the town, and quickly realizes that all resistance has ended. The battle is won. The black knight surveys his victory and stands before his men. Attendants race up, take off his helmet and then place the papal robes over his shoulders. His army bows, and the Pope blesses his men for the victory they have just won. This is Pope Julius II.
Now, that is an entrance.
And the scene is a clear example of the complexity of Pope Julius II as a character and Rex Harrison’s performance. It would have been easy to play Julius as a corrupt and violent man concerned only with his own legacy. It would have been just as easy to play Julius as a just and holy warrior of God. Julius is an interesting because he is both. His character is full of contradictions. He has just led an army into battle, but he celebrates with a genuine blessing for his soldiers and granting forgiveness for the sins they have just committed to win. But at the same time, the cause of this war has nothing to do with religion. It was just a small piece of the political struggle for 16th Century Italy that included the Papal States, France, Venice and the Holy Roman Empire. He is not fighting for the glory of God; he is fighting to maintain domination over central Italy and the tax and land resources that supply his power base. He understands that the Papacy of the time was in many respects a political entity just as much as a religious one, and he sees himself as just the man for these complicated times. It’s a difficult balance to strike, but I think Rex Harrison triumphs in the part. I don’t doubt for a second that his Julius II is a man who loves God. He is having the Sistine Chapel painted for the glory of God, after all. But he is also a man of the world who is not above selling church offices, bribery, bullying, lying, stealing and launching wars, and committing all sorts of corrupt acts in order to maintain power. Rex Harrison plays all these complex shades to the hilt, displaying more range than I’ve seen from him before. I’ve always liked Rex Harrison, but feel his diverse talent has been a bit overshadowed by the iconic status of his most famous role, Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady. But it is worth exploring his other work. He was a terrific actor, and he is just brilliant in this role. Forget about Higgins. Harrison's finest performance is in this movie. He's the clear MVP.
BEST LINE:
Michelangelo (showing Julius II his plans for the Sistine Chapel): You see, I couldn't give you something mediocre...even if it is what you asked for."
TRIVIA:
The mountain quarry where Michelangelo flees when he is seeking "inspiration" for the Sistine Chapel is the actual Carrara in Tuscany. Carrara was close to Michelangelo's hometown and was the source of all the marble for his sculptures.
Wow, so it took a lot longer than expected, but we have finally gone through all the Eon-produced Bond films. Of course, as a new film is released, I will be sure to promptly review it and rank it in its proper place. And someday I would like to review the "unofficial" Bond films, such as Never Say Never Again and 1967's Casino Royale, but I think it is a time to take a short break from our British super spy!
Watching all the films again, in order, was truly a fascinating experience. For better or worse, the franchise changed with the times, accurately judging the latest fads that audiences were into and capitalizing on them. Sometimes that meant you were getting lean and hungry spy thrillers, and sometimes that meant James Bond was going to space!
This flexibility is also what allowed the franchise to survive longer than any other. Historically, most film series would chug along until the studios felt the audiences had lost interest, and then they would be put out to pasture. Bond was different. When Cubby Broccoli felt the audiences tuning out, he would tweak the formula to get them back in. We see this phenomenon more often today, as old franchises are rebooted for modern sensibilities. But Eon Productions was ahead of the curve; they’ve been playing this game and playing it well for over half a century.
First things first, here is my final ranking to all the Bond films, as well as links to their individual reviews. I don’t feel entirely confidant about the middle of the list, as some of these films really shift in their spots depending on my mood. But I am confident about the films that are in the bottom, and even more confident about Casino Royale being at the top. It really is that terrific.
I also wanted to rank the actors who played Bond themselves. I have already spent some time going into this, but thought it would be important to official rank them here at the end. The good thing is that I feel the Bond producers have almost always hit the mark with their lead character, only having missed the target once. I truly do not like Lazenby as Bond, even though I have liked him in other films. The rest of the performers playing the iconic role have been excellent choices – though only two have been the perfect package.
1. Sean Connery – the first, the best, the man who made Bond what he is. Connery perfectly embodied all the elements that Bond needed – he was ruthless and believable as both a spy and a warrior, he was charming and debonair, he could handle a good pun and was completely at home flirting with the ladies. He is universally considered the best, and for a good reason.
2. Pierce Brosnan – the man born to be Bond. He is the only other actor who I feel really embraced all the different elements of the character. I do feel that he took a different approach to the character, however. As mentioned in earlier reviews, I always felt that Connery was a fighter who taught himself to be a suave man of the world. Brosnan seems to me to be the opposite. He was a charming and roguish prep school kid who then learned how to fight. However you come into the role, I still feel these are two actors who most embodied everything Bond could and should be. People discount Brosnan sometimes because his movies were not the best (and two of them are close to the worst), but they should really revisit those films just to observe Brosnan himself. He truly was born to play the role.
3. Daniel Craig – another bruiser who became debonair, like Connery. No actor has so fully embraced the flaws in Bond’s character, especially his arrogance, as Craig has. His Bond is not a role model. He has deep rooted problems. Craig is dangerous and is excellent in action mode. Admittedly, I don’t think he is as strong in the lady and comedy department. While part of this is because his films are more serious, he has had some opportunities to show off Bond’s lighter side. And he is fine at it, just not remarkable. Can he nail the one-liner like Connery, Brosnan and Moore? Sometimes he can, but sometimes the jokes fall a bit flat. And his Bond is also missing one important component – Bond has a certain joie de vivre. He genuinely enjoys his work. Craig’s Bond really seems to hate it, which might be why he tries to leave MI6 every single movie. I know that is a character decision and not necessarily the fault of Craig’s performance, but on the other hand, good producers also know to play to their actor’s strengths. Creative teams see what their actor is good at and they build around it to reinforce those strengths. And Craig’s brooding anger is a huge asset that you can build around. It just doesn’t necessarily vibe with a character who just loves being a spy.
4. Roger Moore – talk about someone who loved being a spy! Moore was the perfect Bond for the 1970s. He could play up the absurd, and was terrific at delivering a pun. And his flirting with the ladies was always entertaining. Look, could anybody in real life get women to swoon the way Roger Moore’s Bond did? No, absolutely not. It is completely unrealistic. But in the context of the insane world that Roger Moore’s Bond inhabited – with its iceberg submarines and hovercraft gondolas – yes, I absolutely believe all of these women wanted to sleep with him. Yes, the world was crazy, but Moore’s Bond was in on the joke and winked at the audience through seven movies. Could I take Moore seriously as a dangerous spy? Not really, though he had his moments. Were Moore’s fights sometimes clunky and not particularly exciting? Definitely. Moore was better at throwing a quip than a punch. But it is hard to deny that the man was having fun, and we were having fun with him.
5. Timothy Dalton – Dalton was the polar opposite of Roger Moore. Until Daniel Craig arrived on the scene, Dalton was easily the most serious Bond, and certainly the most dangerous. In fact, if you were to think about which Bond actor fits the mold of a real spy, I would pick Dalton hands down. I totally believe Dalton as a Cold War superstar, whether it is assassinating KGB agents or stopping heroin smuggling in Afghanistan. Where he faltered was the other part of Bond's character. He wasn’t particularly funny, and his romantic scenes always seemed forced. I do understand the producers wanted to tone down Bond’s promiscuity as the headlines of the late 1980s were dominated by the AIDS crisis. But that doesn’t change the fact that Dalton’s Bond just looks uncomfortable with the ladies. He just doesn’t want to be there. He’s acting like he is begrudglingly sleeping with these women because he knows it is expected of him, and he would really rather be off somewhere else, beating up bad guys. Dalton’s Bond can be a complete stick-in-the-mud (which Craig can also be guilty of). Though he does sometimes enjoy himself like a true Bond should (look at the sheer pleasure he gets from sliding down the side of a mountain on a cello case in The Living Daylights), that is only the case when he is in the thick of the action, which I feel is only half the equation.
6. George Lazenby – the only terrible Bond. I like all the other actors who have played Bond. They may have some flaws, but I enjoyed all of them and thought they brought something cool to the role. But I really do think Lazenby is awful. And it is nothing against George Lazenby himself. I’ve seen him in a few other movies and he is fine. I think he is downright hilarious in his cameo appearance in Kentucky Fried Movie. But as Bond, I just think he is dull and flat. Maybe I can give him a pass because this was his first movie and he just didn’t know what he was doing yet. Maybe if he had accepted that multi-picture deal, he would have grown into the part and developed into a worthy 007. But in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, he’s just dull and I feel he brings the whole picture down with him. I don’t believe him as a dangerous spy for a second, he’s not particularly suave or charming, he can’t really deliver a joke, his romantic scenes with Diana Rigg seem forced (apparently, the two actors didn’t like each other very much). I will say that the man clearly knows how to throw a punch. So I guess there’s that.
Okay, now that we got that out of the way, let’s go into a few other iconic Bond “elements” that I didn’t really get into during my reviews. There are a lot of pieces of the James Bond formula, aspects that have now become just as iconic as the character himself, and it would irresponsible for me not to mention them!
Best Bond Song:
The Bond films are now famous for their opening credit songs. As every new film goes into production, people wait with anticipation to see which artist has been Selected for the opening credits. It’s a brilliant marketing ploy to build buzz, sell soundtrack CDs, and potentially bring a new audience to your movie. Seriously, how many hardcore Adele fans do you really think would have seen Skyfall if she hadn’t performed the opening number?
Just like the films themselves, the Bond songs have kept up with the popular trends of the day, and a number of huge hits have come out of the franchise. I generally prefer the brass-heavy or faster-paced songs, but the franchise is just as well known for its slower ballads. There are some truly great songs in the canon: Diamonds are Forever, You Know My Name, Skyfall, Goldeneye and A View to a Kill - the last of which gets a special nod because the first 20 seconds are the coolest James Bond has ever sounded. The whole song is good, but those first 20 seconds...brilliant!
But in the end, these songs (except for the aforementioned 20 seconds) are just honorable mentions. There are two true titans of the franchise, two songs are so good they need to be separated from the rest of the pack. These songs are not just the best Bond songs, but should be considered among the best songs written for any film ever.
Paul McCartney’s Live and Let Die is so dynamic and thrilling that it was used as the soundtrack for the entire film, and was somehow perfectly appropriate for both the love and action scenes.
And then there is Goldfinger – the perfect Bond song - full of towering brass and featuring the titanic vocals of Shirley Bassey. This was also the first time that the song was dedicated to the villain of the film, which I think is just hilarious.
Opening Title Sequence:
For better or worse, the franchise has also become famous for its elaborately designed opening credit sequences, popularized by the late, great Maurice Binder. Stylized and always heavily symbolic, these opening title sequences ranged from octopus tentacles engulfing the screen to footage of the characters projected on gold-painted belly dancers (and yes, it is just as weird as it sounds). The title sequences were probably most famous (and infamous) during the Roger Moore years when they truly went off the rails – often featuring blue-tinted nude silhouettes dancing, bouncing on trampolines, swinging off of giant gun barrels (with the guns often serving as the ultimate phallic symbol). They are bizarre and often unintentionally funny, but I wouldn’t call them good, necessarily.
For the best title sequence, I am going to have to go with Goldeneye – it features all the hallmarks of the Bond title sequences (tinted colors and silhouetted dancers), but they are dancing on top of crumbling monuments of Cold War Russia – and in some cases, smashing these monuments apart with giant hammers. What is a perfect symbol of the uncertain era that Bond is about to enter – a chaotic new world where it isn’t always as clear who the good guys and bad guys are. It’s pretty brilliant.
Best Pre-Credits Sequence:
Bond was also the first franchise to feature a pre-credits tease, a little mini adventure for audiences to enjoy before the film actually gets started. Sometimes these pre-credit sequences are connected to the main plot, sometimes they are completely random. But you can always count on a Bond film to start with one. There have been a number of truly superb sequences, including the stylized black & white scene in Casino Royale where a newly minted 007 gets his first kills. But for my money, you have to go back to Goldfinger for the best. This short adventure is Bond at his most iconic – everything we know about Bond’s character and the formula that has served is his character so well for decades is featured in this tight 5-minute sequence.
Bond sneaks into the villain’s base in a wet suit, plants some explosives and then peels off his wet suit to reveal a tuxedo underneath so he can go to a swanky night club nearby. We have some sneaky spy work, a few well-choreographed fights and even some spare time to make out with the local belly dancer. And who can forget Bond giving one of his best Bond puns. After electrocuting a bad guy at the end of a fight, he looks around in disgust, mutters “shocking” to himself and walks out. If there is a sequence that manages to literally define everything Bond is about in under 5 minutes, this is it.
Best Bond Villain:
I know the answer is supposed to be Ernst Stavro Blofeld. As the leader of SPECTRE, Blofeld is Bond’s ultimate nemesis and has plagued him for multiple films. But honestly, I feel the franchise has always sort of missed the mark with Blofeld. He was at his most terrifying and powerful when he was not seen, when he was just a faceless, intimidating voice in a Board Room full of villains. As soon as he started appearing in the films, he somehow became less scary. Whether it was Telly Savalas, Charles Gray, Donald Pleasance or Christoph Waltz, I never thought Blofeld was a truly credible threat. Instead, Blofeld’s henchmen were always more menacing – Dr. No, Red Grant, Fiona Volpe, even Mr. White and Silva in the Craig movies (following the logic that both worked for SPECTRE). But they all pale in comparison to the greatest henchman in the Bond movies, and maybe in any movie: the unforgettable Oddjob!
I have loved Oddjob, played by Hawaiian actor (and Olympic medialist!) Harold Sakata, ever since I saw him crush those golf balls with his bare hands in Goldfinger. The guy doesn’t have a line of dialogue, but his silence, with that “I am better than you” smirk permanently plastered on his face, is sublimely and menacingly perfect. I love that he has an unbelievable weapon (a killer hat he throws at people) that is somehow made believable by his badassness. And I love that Bond truly cannot defeat him. He just can’t. Oddjob mops the floor with him. In order to win, Bond has to cheat. I’ve always loved that. So for me, this really isn’t a difficult choice. Oddjob is my favorite villain, hands down.
Best Bond Stunt:
The franchise has also become famous for its stunt work. Lately, thanks to the vast improvements in digital effects, Bond's stunts have become a bit less flashy. But back in the day, there was a lot of buzz about the next big stunt - whether it was the record setting bungie jump in Goldeneye or the 18-wheel tractor trailer that pops a wheelie in License to Kill...or the entire winter sequence in For Your Eyes Only that is more imaginative and stunt-laden than most chase scenes today.
But there are a few amazing sequences that rise to the top. Here are my picks for top three stunts in Bond history below:
Coming in at #3, is The Spy Who Loved Me. While the franchise had employed a lot of fantastic stunt work in the past, this is the film where they really said, "hey, audiences, guess what? We are about to blow your mind!" And when James Bond skies off that mountaintop (another record-breaking moment for the franchise) and deploys his Union Jack parachute, audiences were given one of the most iconic stunts in movie history. And minds were indeed blown!
Then at #2 - we have what is easily the best car stunt ever, featured in Man with the Golden Gun. This stunt is important in movie history because it was the first stunt to ever be conceived and calculated with a computer program. There was some debate among my friends about whether this stunt was real or not, but I assure you it was. This was an actual car with an actual driver, a driver who thought he was going to die, and who refused to do a second take when the first take miraculously went off without a hitch. So enjoy this awesome car stunt. I urge you to watch this with no sound, because the stupid slide whistle pretty much ruins the whole thing!
And now, at #1, the best stunt in James Bond history! The cargo net fight in The Living Daylights. Sure, in the tighter shots, this is Timothy Dalton fighting in a studio. But for the wide shots...those are literally two stunt men hanging off the back of a cargo plane...this is an incredibly dangerous and awe-inspiring stunt once you realize what those stunt men are actually doing and how life-threatening it is...well, I'll just let the video do the rest of the talking:
Best Bond Girl:
Last but not least, the Bond Girl has become an enduring and iconic part of the franchise. The Bond Girl has become such a key ingredient of the franchise that there is actually an entire documentary about the phenomenon (Bond Girls are Forever). It’s an exclusive club – though in fairness, these actresses were often given nothing to do except to look pretty and get rescued. There is certainly a lot of sexism in these films, and watching how many of the female characters are treated, especially in the older films, can at times be uncomfortable. But there are also a lot of empowered and progressive Bond Girls – badasses like Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman), Xenia Onatopp (Framke Janssen), Tracy (Diana Rigg), and Agent Mai (Michelle Yeoh) who go toe-to-toe with Bond and serve as equal partners or powerful villains.
So who is the best Bond Girl? I know I am supposed to say Ursula Andress in Dr. No. She was the first, and she has that famous entrance as she walks out of the ocean with a knife in her belt, like some sort of armed Venus de Milo. It's an iconic moment, and rightly so. And for that beach walk alone, she probably should go near the top of the list. But I would never put her at No.1 because after that iconic entrance, she kinda…doesn’t do anything. She’s just there, serving no purpose and adding nothing of value (except for her looks, of course). So who would I pick in her place?
It's also tough to choose just one because the Good Bond Girls and Bad Bond Girls are so different and hard to compare to each other. So I will pick a favorite in each of the three categories.
For the Bad Bond Girl, I love Fiona Volpe (Luciana Paluzzi) from Thunderball, one of the few truly dangerous villains in Bond’s rogue’s gallery. One could argue that she is actually smarter than Bond; she’s almost always one step ahead of him.
For the Good Bond Girl, I would say Vesper Lynn (Eva Green) is terrific in Casino Royale; she is the one Bond Girl that I honestly believed the character could fall in love with. Her arc in that film is positively heart-breaking.
But wait, I hear you say, you mentioned three categories. Was that a typo? Definitely not! There is of course the important third category, the Bond Girl That I Would Most Likely Fall In Love With...and that is without a doubt Solitaire from Live and Let Die, played by Jane Seymour. Because it is Jane Seymour. And...well, yeah, there really isn't much else to say about that. It's Jane Seymour.
So there we go. That’s it. This series of reviews is over! This has been a fun experiment, and while I hope you enjoyed revisiting this franchise as much as I did.
But I’ll be honest, I do look forward to reviewing other films again!
