Aside from Casino Royale everything else has been mostly lackluster. Skyfall does have a decent fan following though.
shareLove Casino Royale a lot, and Skyfall is great, though flawed.
Spectre was okay. It's sorta middle of the road. It'll throw out something great (Monica Bellucci, ski fight) and then it'll pitch in something really stupid like a counterweight (Bond-Blofeld connection, Spectre is responsible for *everything* in the last three films...!?)
I hate Quantum of Solace.
So as far as Craig's whole tenure as Bond, I think he's got two top action-spy movies, one midline, and one bad.
This is pretty much thoughts. I'd just pull back on calling Skyfall great. I think it's solid, but there's just something about it that makes me never really want to rewatch it. Casino Royale is always a good time, though.
Spectre was a mess but has its moments. As you say, it's okay.
And yes, QoS sucks. Terrible movie.
Ranking and grade:
Casino Royale (A-)
Skyfall (B)
Spectre (C+)
Quantum of Solace (D)
My actual grades for the films would depend on whether or not we were comparing the films to other Bond films (graded based on how good of a Bond movie they are) or if we were just talking about how good of a movie in-general the movies were.
As an action movie, I'd begrudgingly give Quantum of Solace a D or D+, but as a Bond movie I'd basically give it a flat F, or *maybe* a D- for the opera scene...
I frankly have never been a huge Bond fan and the Craig films, for the most part, are the only ones I watch.
The Connery and Moore eras produced some good films, but they just feel so dated today. The Dalton era wasn't much of an era. The Brosnan films have their moments but overall are a little too silly for my taste. I thought Craig was a great Bond in CR though, and I liked the overall style and action, so I was interested in seeing what he'd do next.
Now he's done. We'll see what is now in store for the franchise, but I fear that racial and gender politics may sink it.
Writing stories for political reasons almost never works. Yeah, if they alter Bond's formulae and personality to conform to some agenda, it will be very, very bad. Frankly, I might wait for a review or two before I decide if I'm seeing this one. If the initial reports are that they're selling Bond out to set up a new character (Lashana Lynch's role) to be the "new 007", I doubt I'll go see the movie.
shareCR hasn't aged very well either. People liked it in 2006 because it was new and different. Now it's been tainted by the rest of Craig's interconnected cinematic universe. I like CR less every time I watch it, so I just don't watch it anymore because it really was among my favourites when it first came out and it's sad that I'm starting to turn on it.
shareWhat made CR great in 06 is we all thought this movie would show how James Bond becomes 007, the super suave secret agent. Instead the Craig's Bond never developed into James Bond, he stayed a thuggish brute void of any emotion or humor.
shareI have to admit I agree it didn't age well. I do have hopes NTTD will be good when it comes out in 4 months.
shareI just saw that 15 second teaser promoting the official trailer on Wednesday, and I think there are concerning signs. Lashana looks like and Bondian type character in that luxury car with her sunglasses on, so the rumours are probably true that she is now 007, even if only temporarily. The woman firing a machine gun into the camera is also in line with the latest Hollywood trend of depicting women as violent psychopaths which is supposed to be empowering or something like that, so this movie will certainly be pushing that particular political and social agenda.
shareSlowly but surely the pendulum will swing back where everybody is treated as equal. But right now, the media needs to make money by dividing and conquering us all.
shareIs this movie even gonna have a Bond girl? Lashana clearly isn't. I don't know what is going on with Ana De Armas characters. Who even knows how long Madelyn Swan is going to be in the movie.
shareI don't know if there are any other UK viewers here but one amazing fact is that if you are ever browsing the Blu Rays / DVDs of Charity shops then wherever you go it's absolutely guaranteed you will see copies of Casino Royale! Often multiple copies. Always makes me laugh.
I suspect people saw this in the cinema and thought "wow, what cool reinvention of the franchise. Love this ugly Sid James brute they have given us!", so they bought the Blu Ray / DVD. However when they then went to watch it again they realised that it had absolutely zero percent rewatchability factor. It then sat on their shelves for many months before the burning shame made them head down to their local Shelter shop and hope they could discretely palm off their copy of the vile film to some old dear who was too blind to read the casing.
I've watched CR multiple times and I enjoyed it every time. As a matter of fact, I think Daniel Craig's Bong movies are much more re-watchable than most of the other bond movies, since the action is much more realistic.
shareWeird. I would say that CR is easily the MOST REWATCHABLE of all the Craig Bond films. It's definitely the one that I've seen the most.
Speaking of which, it's probably about time to watch it again. Hell, maybe I'll even go through all the Craig films leading up to NTTD.
I'm glad you chaps are enjoying rewatching them 👍 I'm sure many people do. I was just putting forward a theory as to why so many copies of that film in particular have been discarded...
I do suspect for the majority my idea is correct - I mean you can watch Roger Moore set pieces like running over crocodiles / union jack parachute / "fill her up please" / wrestling Jaws mid-air over and over again but how many people really want to watch the thug "Bond" fighting beside urinals or never ending parkour chases? I think that's why copy after copy of Casino Royale lie discarded around the country...
These are good points, and I don't think people realize how huge Bond used to be on a global scale way before globalization and the modern internet era, and how irrelevant Bond is nowadays with Craig in the role. People just look at the box office numbers and see that the films are grossing more and more every single time with few exceptions, but that's like saying the economy grew during a massive recession; technically correct, but meaningless in reality. Nobody knows or gives a shit about who Daniel Craig is outside of the Anglo-sphere. Connery on the other hand was an international celebrity before such a thing existed.
In these last five years with no Bond films, have you ever heard the average person who isn't a super fan ask when the next one is coming out? No, because they don't care and probably don't even know that this series still exists.
I got into the series because of the rewatchability factor. My dad still watched the classics from the 60s and 70s, so eventually I started watching them too in the early 00s. I highly doubt that kids 12-13 years old right now are watching Bond films anymore because over time fewer people are watching the classics and nobody is re-watching the Craig films.
That's a good point re box office. I remember seeing on another board someone had taken the inflation adjusted Box Office and adjusted it even further by taking the World Population on release date into account - the Daniel Craig films' Box Office was considerably further down the rankings on that basis.
And they were huge - e.g. I remember the anticipation people had of what the pre-credits stunt was going to be. You literally had people laughing and clapping at the brilliance of what they did in the cinemas in those days. You never really get that anymore.
I think it's possible to manipulate those numbers in whatever way people want. Another thing to consider is how many actual people are watching the film. Tickets cost a lot more nowadays even with inflation adjusted for, so it's possible to get a big box office number with fewer people watching compared to when tickets were a dollar or two. I definitely think more people were making the effort to go to the cinema for Bond films decades ago.
Watch the documentary about the making of YOLT for example. That was the height of the series' popularity. Connery was stalked by Japanese paparazzi everywhere he went. Japan only 20 years after the war, a non-English speaking country with an extremely inward-looking culture became obsessed with James Bond. If Daniel Craig went to Japan now, nothing would even happen. A few entertainment reporters would show up and take his picture and he'd quickly be on his way. Connery was so sought after that he couldn't even have lunch in the hotel's restaurant without being bombarded by fanatical media and fans. Also during that production, people from all over the UK made road trips to Pinewood Studios just to see the volcano lair set which cost over $1,000,000 in 1966 currency. Literally just to look at a big fake volcano. Who would make that effort to go see a Bond film being shot now?
Now they are just dime a dozen dark, moody action movies like all the others. People are going to get their ticket, buy some popcorn, think it was meh, and then forget about James Bond for the next 5+ years until Daniel Craig decides he doesn't want to cut his wrists anymore and comes back for one last swan song. In that time none of those casual fans are going to buy the movies on home video, buy merchandise, re-watch the series, share it with their kids when they're old enough, listen to the soundtracks at home, or ever think about when the next film will come out and who the villain will be or anything. The series has just lost its momentum in the Craig era.
It's one of the least rewatchable because it is too serious and plot driven. CR is a film to watch once or twice a year. The other classics like TLD, YOLT, OHMSS, and FYEO can be watched over and over again and they never seem to get old.
shareYou probably see a lot of copies because people are probably upgrading. Like going from DVD to Blu-Ray or Blu-Ray to 4k. That or people are going the way of digital and want to have a digital movie library. Digital is growing more and more each year (I'm staying with my physical media though, just recently had a situation where I'd be screwed if I relied on Netflix or some kind of digital library since I was without internet for 3-4 days). I bet the people making the jump to digital are probably those people that think everything will stay on Netflix permanently and they can use Netflix as some digital movie library, although all movies and TV shows that aren't made by Netflix themselves are timed exclusive. They could be on Netflix instant streaming for a month to a year or two. I bump into people all the time in stores and overhear them telling their kids who want to buy a movie that the movie is on Netflix and they can watch it through there and "own" it through Netflix, so there is no point of the DVD or Blu-Ray. I think one movie was Moana. Kids weren't allowed to buy Moana because it was on Netflix. Now it's not. Can't always rely on Netflix. I'm sure though that maybe people are getting rid of the movie because they don't care about it anymore and stuff, but with the direction technology is going and with physical media having a new format, either they are jumping from DVD to Blu-Ray or Blu-Ray to 4k, or they are going digital and are getting rid of their physical discs.
shareLol, this is kind of the situation with public libraries in Canada. Go to any library's video section and I guarantee you will find a DVD of Casino Royale within no more than a minute. Lots of copies, but not many people borrowing them anymore.
shareIt is a matter of time before producers realize James Bond as an idea is very 50's/60's, not fully timeless unless it gets constantly updated, even beyond recognition, What makes me wonder why they haven't made James Bond stories set on other planets, other worlds, exploring completely uncharted territories and themes. It may take the next posterity that is the children of these producers perhaps, to realize how stuck in the past their ancestors have been all along. DanielCraid, although never seen any of his Bond films, not planning to, he is certainly a reflection of the time, like the others, the era of everything needing to be serious, dark and realistic + emotionless. A quite cynical era, if I may say so, in my view reaching its gradual end, I think the next Bond is going to be a quite drastic turn to something more emotionally expressive and authentic without wearing a mask of insecure masculinity hiding those emotions, I wouldn't be surprised if his latter Bond films have already went more in that direction anyway. It's just Daniel Craig himself is by nature the way he is, the casting itself is the key to how Bond films turn out to be, the tone and nature of them. Many people have never watched some Bond films only because of the Bond actors themselves. I've never seen any films from the last 3 Bonds myself. I believe this franchise has been far more popular, with the wider demographics, in the 60's and 70's than anytime since then.
shareBond movies were the same formula for decades and now they've adapted to an ever changing world/audience. In the U.S. more women go to the movies nowadays than men so you gotta expect some pretty drastic changes.
shareI hate his run. The connected story they cooked up is just annoying, but I certainly find it interesting. As a filmmaking exercise, it's quite special. I don't think his films will be looked back on over fondly though. We just want to see our immaculately dressed hero sling drinks and slay poon tang and kill the baddies. Don't over think it.
shareThey are boring.
He looks like a dull alcoholic.
These have been ruined by the "realistic" nonsense that was going on when the first one came out. So, he has no special equipment and no science fiction going on.
Bond movies are typically science fiction stories that are near future, meaning the science is something just coming. You can have a real science fiction film without it being silly. I'm sure DARPA has all kinds of things they are working on that would be surprising. This guy would have that stuff.
Craig doesn't look handsome, or thuggish, as Bond is supposed to. At times he looks like a waddling monkey with severe alcoholism.
Plots, a lot of the plots in these films are just stupid and boring. Sky Fall was retarded. They need details plots that maybe go across several films, like Marvel. SPECTRE is a great idea for that.
I find it amazing that the Craig films are by far the most unrealistic Bond films ever made with absolutely bonkers impossible stuff happening (a villain orchestrating a train falling on Bond at a precise moment), and yet these films are touted as "realistic" and "gritty" compared to the older ones. Just about any Roger Moore Bond film is more realistic and down to earth than a Craig film despite the campiness and occasional absurdities. Nothing that has ever happened in the Craig era is realisitc. Nothing.
share