HELP fellow James Bond fans

[Lonemagpie]

If he likes 24, Casino Royale is a must - and bear in mind that, more so than any other Bond movie, this one is designed to draw in the newbies. It's intended for folks like your boyfriend.

I'd go for either The Living Daylights or The World Is Not Enough as well.

[Captaindemotion]

I think the recommendation to start with a more recent one and work backwards is a good idea, as the older ones might seem slow and old-fashioned to a 007 newbie.

My votes would be

Casino Royale a good intro for someone from the Bourne/ 24 era

Goldeneye - although relatively recent, it's very much a classic Bond, putting all the ingredients in (then shaking, not stirring, hohoho) and provides an interesting contrast with CR in how to relaunch the series and introduce a new Bond. One going for a totally new approach, the other picking the best bits and pieces from a classic formula

The Living Daylights - I personally prefer Dalton's second and final Bond movie, Licence to Kill, but TLD is more of a Bond movie; LTK may seem like a generic 80s action movie. I think a Dalton film should follow the Craig and Brosnan ones - he's in some ways like a prototype cross between those two incarnations of 007.

Goldeneye - the definitive Bond movie. Nuff said.

Dr No. End with the beginning, as Quentin Tarantino might say. I know a lot of people might vote for On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but I think your b/f ought to see Connery's introduction, his first 'the names Bond ... James Bond' and Ursula Andress rising from the sea.

If you can fit in one more, then go for OHMSS, for the sake of completion, try and get in a Moore effort, either The Spy Who Loved Me (in some ways as important a template for later 007 as Goldfinger was) or For Your Eyes Only. Probably better to go for TSWLM - if he's already seen a Craig and a Dalton movie, may as well give him some escapism instead of grit.

Happy viewing.

[RaymondJames]

I guess I should go more modern first so purhaps Goldeneye, I would start with Casino Royale but I just watched it like less than 48 hours ago.

[Aragorn]

So, uh.... Moonraker, A View to a Kill and Die Another Day?

[captcalhoun]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

I think the recommendation to start with a more recent one and work backwards is a good idea, as the older ones might seem slow and old-fashioned to a 007 newbie.

My votes would be

Casino Royale a good intro for someone from the Bourne/ 24 era

Goldeneye - although relatively recent, it's very much a classic Bond, putting all the ingredients in (then shaking, not stirring, hohoho) and provides an interesting contrast with CR in how to relaunch the series and introduce a new Bond. One going for a totally new approach, the other picking the best bits and pieces from a classic formula

The Living Daylights - I personally prefer Dalton's second and final Bond movie, Licence to Kill, but TLD is more of a Bond movie; LTK may seem like a generic 80s action movie. I think a Dalton film should follow the Craig and Brosnan ones - he's in some ways like a prototype cross between those two incarnations of 007.

Goldeneye - the definitive Bond movie. Nuff said.

Dr No. End with the beginning, as Quentin Tarantino might say. I know a lot of people might vote for On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but I think your b/f ought to see Connery's introduction, his first 'the names Bond ... James Bond' and Ursula Andress rising from the sea.

If you can fit in one more, then go for OHMSS, for the sake of completion, try and get in a Moore effort, either The Spy Who Loved Me (in some ways as important a template for later 007 as Goldfinger was) or For Your Eyes Only. Probably better to go for TSWLM - if he's already seen a Craig and a Dalton movie, may as well give him some escapism instead of grit.

Happy viewing.

you put goldeneye twice. presumably the second time should say 'goldfinger'?

[Aragorn]

^ He was probably mixed up with the upcoming Bond 23 -- FingerEye.

[Captaindemotion]

captcalhoun wrote:

---

you put goldeneye twice. presumably the second time should say 'goldfinger'?

Oops. Yes, I did. Sorry about that.

[Starkers]

From Russia With Love, OHMSS, Live and Let Die, The Living Daylights and Goldeneye...

[bigdaddy]

The first 5.

Never seen James Bond? He's a disgrace...

[Maestro]

Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger are considered more spy noire than the rest of the Bond flicks, as they were intended to be more straight-up adaptations of the novels. When Thunderball came along, then Bond transformed into a cinematic action hero.

I definitely think that any Bond movie fest must include one of these, with that knowledge. It's really a whole other style of movie.

OHMSS is the first real solid combination of the action hero/spy noire genre that we see in the series. The Living Daylights is another example of this, and while it is very true to the short story of its name, it also gives a cinematic picture of the late Cold War in the Soviet Satellite countries.

The Pierce Brosnan movies, much like all of the post Man with the Golden Gun Moore flicks, are really big budget, implausible, cheap sci-fi-esque crap.

If I were you, I'd be showing Dr. No, On Her Majesty's Secret Serivice, Live and Let Die, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale.

[KB24]

I tried converting my husband with Goldeneye and he fell asleep. Nice to see that almost everyone has that on their lists though. He just watched Die Another Day (eh bad) and is will to watch Brosnan's other two, but he refuses to watch the three Bond pics I've got on the dvr: From Russia with Love, Diamonds are Forever, and For Your Eyes Only. Go Fig.

I agree with Goldeneye, Dr. No, Goldfinger, maybe The Spy Who Loved Me. I personally do love Dalton's too as well.

[RandyS]

RaymondJames wrote:

---

oh I know and he hasn't even watched Star Trek besides the Abrams movie or Stargate Sg-1

Then put aside Bond, a great movie series, yes, but getting him into Star Trek is five times more important.

But if you want good films from each actor, show him these:

Connery: Thunderball
Moore: Moonraker
Dalton: The Living Daylights
Brosnan: The World is Not Enough

Those are my top four favorites. Picking one from Lazenby is easy, and Craig's two were filmed in order. Personally, I's wait till last to show your boyfriend those.

[RandyS]

Aragorn wrote:

---

Whatever you show, do it in order by year. Maybe show six Bond movies -- one from each actor. I guess Moore's best would be... Live and Let Die?

No, that was his worst. His best was Moonraker. Then The Spy Who Loved Me, then The Man With The Golden Gun. Of all the Bond actors, Moore has the singular distinction of both coming in, and going out on bad films. Although, even A View to a Kill was better than Live and Let Die. Ugh.

[Starkers]

Maestro wrote:

---

Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger are considered more spy noire than the rest of the Bond flicks, as they were intended to be more straight-up adaptations of the novels. When Thunderball came along, then Bond transformed into a cinematic action hero.

I definitely think that any Bond movie fest must include one of these, with that knowledge. It's really a whole other style of movie.

OHMSS is the first real solid combination of the action hero/spy noire genre that we see in the series. The Living Daylights is another example of this, and while it is very true to the short story of its name, it also gives a cinematic picture of the late Cold War in the Soviet Satellite countries.

The Pierce Brosnan movies, much like all of the post Man with the Golden Gun Moore flicks, are really big budget, implausible, cheap sci-fi-esque crap.

If I were you, I'd be showing Dr. No, On Her Majesty's Secret Serivice, Live and Let Die, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale.

To be honest only The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker are completely ridiculous Moore films. For Your Eyes Only is a pretty straight spy thriller, and even the schemes in Octopussy and A View to a Kill aren't that sci-fi and implausible really (especially compared with the last two Connery's for example--aspaceship eating rocket launched from a hollow volcano, and lasers in space- or even, and it pains me to say it, OHMSS)

[Starkers]

RandyS wrote:

---

No, that was his worst. His best was Moonraker. Then The Spy Who Loved Me, then The Man With The Golden Gun. Of all the Bond actors, Moore has the singular distinction of both coming in, and going out on bad films. Although, even A View to a Kill was better than Live and Let Die. Ugh.

What's wrong with a Live and Let Die?

I would agree that Bond's tend to go out on less than steller entries (except Lazenby who went out on a high, and maybe Dalton)