I'm a huge mark for visuals in film, and I would put OHMSS and FYEO as the two most beautiful-looking films in the series. Glen felt constrained in his later films (they increasingly looked/felt like television), but, like Hunt, he could shoot a gorgeous backdrop when the film was written for the scope. Honorable mentions: Gilbert's TSWLM and Moonraker. I don't know what happened after 1981, but the series got so much less visually-ambitious.
Still think John Glen ought to be number one but he'll forever be underappreciated by the fandom. His admittedly workmanlike approach gave Bond the stability it needed durng the 80s McClory fiasco, he's still the best at shooting action setpieces and chases (License to Kill's finale is one of the best, ever) and I appreciate that he experimented with comedy and tone when others wouldn't dare. His biggest flaw was that he consistently surrounded himself with mediocre talent, specifically DPs and production designers, who made his films look cheap. If it weren't for Glen (and Campbell too) the series may not have lasted this long.
Glen is my favourite, the Bond films don't need to look flashy and overly stylish. Alan Hume was a great DP, FYEO still looks beautiful imo. Glen brought back the seriousness and could create suspense better than nearly any of the other directors. It really annoys me when I see people saying he shouldn't have done Dalton's two because one of the reasons they're so fresh is because he (along with Dalton) fought for a serious creative direction.
Sebastian Fitzptraick I don’t think Bond films need to be super stylish either (Glen is my favourite director as well), yet it’s hard to deny that Glen’s films - despite being in the same budgetary ballpark as Spy and Moonraker for example - look so much less attractive and dynamic than those films overall. Hume and Alec Mills’ Bond photography suffer from the same aesthetic problem: the set pieces outside and those done by the second unit look great overall, but once they go into the studio it’s all shot like a sitcom, complete with duller colours and the flattest lighting imaginable. Certain sets, like the inside of St. Cyrill’s and the mujahideen fort in Daylights, look really rickety. The production designers are to blame too, naturally, and Glen’s laissez-faire approach to dialogue doesn’t help. Considering the films that came before and after, though, one has to wonder why Glen’s films appear as flimsy as they do.
He’s my favourite too. Did you know he was one of the 2nd unit directors on Superman. He shot the scenes of Lois Lane’s red car in the desert during the earthquake
@@DreBourbeau I think his best visually are FYEO and TLD. I love the shot of the Mujahadeen riding over the dunes. The shutter speed is set high to darken it down, as with alot if the second unit exterior scenes in the late 70s and the 80s Bonds (See Bond meeting VJ in India in Octopussy) I always took the studio scenes’ camera angles to be a hangover from theatre and older filmmaking. It really does just expose the sets to criticidm by filming them like that. The door in Kara’s apartment in TLD always gets me, the rest of the apartment looks very nice for behind the iron curtain but the door has been painted poorly to imitate wood, and ends up looking filthy for some reason. Licence To Kill is so cheap in places, I hate the audio in particular, but visually its significantly poorer than TLD, as brought up by Gene Siskel. I think its cos they moved from Pinewood to Mexico and had to apparently upgrade the Mexican studio facilities immensely. I hate the bare walls everywhere. In particular, the Bimini bar and the Isthmus hotel room look awful. Compare the Tangiers hotel rooms and Bond & Kara’s Mujahadeen quarters in Living Daylights to the sets in Licence To Kill and you can see the production value drop. I remember on the Inside Licence To Kill documentary, they cut from a scene of Bond and Karim Bey in From Russia With Love to President Lopez in Sanchez’ office in Licence and the set just looks so much worse. Even the Moneypenny desk scene looks a good bit worse than the one in A View To A Kill.
I’d take Forster over Tamahori myself - those slowdown/speedup bits really do annoy me, as does his mentality that CGI just makes everything better (in a series which, for the most part, does everything practically, which is perhaps why it’s so aggravating) plus I think Forster got better performances from his actors than Tamahori did. Yes Forster’s artistic flourishes are annoying, but they don’t bother me too much, at least not as much as Tamahori’s flourishes do. But I’m not in disagreement that both deserve to be at the bottom of the ranking, just, if I had to pick a poison, I’d take Forster’s arty-farts over Tamahori’s excessive cheese™.
Yeah after seeing some of the comments on here I might be in the minority with my ranking of those two but I think we'll all be in agreement that they deserve to be at the bottom. I do have a specific dislike for directors who try so desperately to be arty-farty and fall flat doing so. M Night is a director who I find often falls into that category, though, more hilariously so than Forster!
@@calvindyson If we had the Lee Tamahori of "Once Were Warriors" and "Mulholland Falls," audiences would've been well served. Both are character driven works with hard-hitting violence. The obsession w/celebrating the franchise's anniversary and this need to embrace contemporary (for 2002) film techniques and technology, really hurt this film. I still say the Tosca scene in QOS is the high point of QOS and it's Forster at his best. The visual storytelling of Bond infiltrating the opera, disrupting Quantum's meeting and confronting Greene was stellar. David Arnold's "A Night at the Opera," is my favorite cue from his tenure on the series.
I maintain that the biggest issue with QoS is the editing, which means that- in theory- you could come out with a studio cut or something that tells the exact same story but in a much better, more comprehensible way. Whereas with Die Another Day, the problem is much more with the script and the tone, and that is much harder to fix. QoS is a decent film that was ruined in post; DaD is just mediocre from start to finish.
Jonathan Campbell QoS did have a lot of script issues though, due to the fact it was rushed to get it finished before the Writer’s Guild Strike started. I think it certainly could’ve done with another script polish - for instance, the whole thing with the geologist in Haiti is rather convoluted, and Mathis turning out to be a codename is an odd story beat that doesn’t add to anything. Apparently scenes were re-written by Marc Forster and Daniel Craig because they weren’t allowed to hire an actual writer because of the strike.
I’d put Terrance Young above John Glen - Young’s films have more flair to them, and I think Young understood the Bond character better. Though I do think Glen did a better job with Dalton than he did with Moore, though perhaps that was just because he had more experience by TLD. And whilst I think John Glen did a good job with his films, I think it’s a shame that Timothy Dalton never got to work with any other directors, I would’ve liked to have seen another director’s take on Dalton’s Bond, one with a bit more style than Glen. According to MI6-HQ, John Landis of ‘The Blues Brothers’ and ‘An American Werewolf in London’ was touted for ‘Bond 17’, which I think could’ve been very cool (those two are some of my favourite films), as was Ted Kotcheff (‘First Blood’) and John Byrum (uh... no idea. You can IMDb him yourself).
Dalton's films suffered from a certain malaise for me because it never quite felt like they'd entirely left behind the tone of the later Moore films. I think Dalton's Bond would've benefited from a new director like Martin Campbell who could've injected some stylistic flare.
@@SolarDragon007 Indeed, I would argue that Glen's films succeeded predominantly due to the action set pieces on display that were impressive in and of themselves, rather than how he depicted them. His films stylistically tend to have quite a flat, occasionally televisual feel to them which make them seem antiquated even for the time. Licence to Kill suffers especially from this as it's clearly riding the coattails of Miami Vice, yet while a perfectly enjoyable film, I struggle to conjure a single frame that does justice to its themes. For a film centred entirely on revenge, it should've been moody as hell in an 80's neo-noir sense with cool lighting and flair. Instead everything is lit far too well with no texture or depth to shots.
As I stated in the previous video, John Glen always struck me as more of a technician than an artist. His films were well produced but they lacked flavor and I think Dalton would have benefited from a director with vision.
@@stuffedsheepshead Glen's films did lack a dynamic quality but I wouldn't say that Glen's films had no pleasing visuals. The Living Daylights featured some excellent photography, especially those magic hour shots.
Great video Calvin, you displayed a lot of knowledge of film techniques in this video. My ranking would go like this : 1. John Glen - I think a lot of the darker elements now present in Bond were brought in by Glen. He really brought the spy and thriller elements back. I absolutely love FYEO, TLD and LTK. All top 10. He knew what worked about Bond and utilised them perfectly. 2. Martin Campbell - Another director who understands how to craft a Bond film. He reinvented the series twice and made two of some of the best Bond films. He's a legend. 3. Peter Hunt - OHMSS is the most beautiful looking Bond film. The shots are full of texture and beauty. He really should've done more. 4. Lewis Gilbert - His films have the sheer action spectacle that defines Bond. All really consistently great films as well. 5. Terence Young - Really sharp behind the camera, also created the Bond cinematic identity. 6. Guy Hamilton - Not a big fan of any of his films but he's consistent, his films are the kind I'd marathon in one night. 7. Roger Spottiswoode - He was good, could've done more films and I wouldn't complain. 8. Michael Apted - You were right, his direction is one of the weaker parts of the film. 9. Sam Mendes - He has a good visual style but he's also extremely pretentious. If he'd just done Skyfall, he'd be way higher. 10. Lee Tamahori - His direction is probably the worst part of DAD, all the early 2000s motifs are awful. 11. Marc Forster - Pretentious and has no clue how to make a Bond film. Should never have been hired.
Spot on list! I read something about Forster wanting there to be four main action sequences in Quantum representing the four elements - surely that was a major red flag that the guy was not suitable for the job.
Ohh damn, now as you say it! Chase on the rooftop of Sienna - Earth The Plane chase - Air Boat chase in Haiti - Water The Finale in the Hotel in the desert - Fire Yeah, noticable how well that worked out in the movie...
Lewis Gilbert is my favorite, his Bond movies are simply grand and epic in scale thanks in no small part to Ken Adams iconic set designs. No other Bond directors have reached that level since and honestly we could really need another Bond epic after the dreary Craig era.
In Mr. Foresters defence, he didn’t actually really have script to work with, because of the ongoing writers strike, he Daniel Craig and a few others, were essentially making the whole thing up as they went along.
Personally I consider Peter Hunt the best Bond director since imo OHMSS is a near perfect film and I love his visual style. Martin Campbell is definitely a close 2nd though!
@@exittored But Hunt's directing career outside Bond can be best described as 'solid but unspectacular' and went into serious decline in the 80's [including Wild Geese 2 and a couple of poor Charles Bronson films]. He was offered 'Diamonds' but was unavailable-it would have been interesting to see if he could have kept the same quality with a much weaker script.
Outstanding video, as usual. Really enjoyed all the behind the scenes footage. If I’d just read your ranking as a list I may have taken issue with a few placements but after your explanations I think my list is your list.
Great list and I agree with those rankings. I especially agree with Peter Hunt's ranking as OHMSS is in my opinion one of the more stylized Bond films, gaining the admiration of other directors such as Christopher Noland and Steven Soderbergh. It's a shame that Peter Hunt wasn't kept on as director or editor. In the book The Making of On Majesty's Secret Service, there is a letter from Richard Maibaum to Broccoli/Saltzman protesting the hiring of Guy Hamilton for Diamonds over Hunt.
Apparently Hunt was offered Diamonds and wanted to do it but would have needed filming to be moved to allow him to do it-probably not something feasible with Connery's schedule.
Something I realised recently is that it’s the Guy Hamilton films that have the ‘ambush by surviving villain in the epilogue’ scenes rather than a love scene or something. I don’t know how much that has to do with the director though if it’s in the script.
spyboy1964 yes of course you are right, I guess I overlooked that because the gondola love scene comes after. I do think Hamilton was more likely to play these bits for laughs
@@sickpup820 Dalton stood on his own way. A fabulous actor, maybe the best actor of all the Bond actors. But it seems he mistook theatre with the big screen sometimes; they're different mediums. John Glen was right when it came to all the decisions on which they disagreed.
Guy Hamilton is my pick. Guy always has a sense of fun with his films, and was clearly a passionate fan of 007. Even Diamonds and Golden Gun are enjoyable films. Also love Martin Campbell as well.
Your assessment of Tamahori is spot on. I honestly thought he was just handed a checklist and told to follow that and try to make it as big as possible to the point of stupidity. It's bizarre because he's known here in New Zealand for the film "Once Were Warriors" which is seen as one of his best films he's directed for and its a very dark and grungy film and basic in comparison to Die Another Day. Depending on who you ask, Once Were Warriors is either a New Zealand cult classic film, or literally just some shots of domestic abuse, alcoholism, gang affiliations and sexual assault edited to make a film.
The nit pick with Lgilbert is that in tswlm, was In the hotel roger explained to Barbara va b how he killed her lover, there was great tension and one of Rogers best performance I feel. However in the next scene its all blown away by Roger grinning at her on a helicopter winch, totally destroyed the tension.
Yeah I used to feel the same; big, bombastic and dripping with money. However, as time as gone on i've found his films...knackering to watch. As in the emphasis on big spectacle and, in the case of YOLT and Moonraker, too much of a travelogue in places. I still love his stuff but as time has gone on he's the only bond director i've majorly changed my opinion on.
@@whatamalike There is actually not much travelogue in You Only Lice Twice as it stays in Japan for much of the film. Moonraker is the worst in that regard because it's all so random. YOLT and Spy Who Loved Me are independent films, with similar but distinct plots. I prefer YOLT but in some aspects SWLM is better. (Stromberg's goal makes more sense than Blofeld's, who'd just in it for the money.) Moonraker OTOH is just a repetition of the formula, mostly SWLM with some YOLT mixed in. (No wonder, since it was made at short notice.) The last bit is beautifully produced and the music among the best but the entire plot is just silly. Imagine that Drax would have succeeded if he hadn't stolen back the shuttle in the beginning, whereas the kidnapped capsules and submarines in the other two movies couldn't be avoided.
Your assessment on Marc Forster was spot on, however I like the way he shot and edited the opera shoot out. Agreed 100% on Martin Campbell as the best director.
One of your best. Great video. Whether agreeing w/rankings or not, this is so well researched and presented. You really have a knack at dissecting the directing. Unlike others, you are never pretentious or ego first in these 007 offerings. Kudos.
As usual, a concise, well reasoned list with plenty of insights. As an aside, I am one of those who like Die Another Day. It’s a little (ok, a lot silly) but it seems to fit in the Brosnan canon for me. I liked many of the camera angles, and find the flow to be brisk. And Halle Berry is terrific. Not as good as TWINE, but still watchable. my least favorite of that era is Die Another Day. I tend to fall asleep watching it, and am bored by Pryce, who I loved in Ronin. Speaking of, I’d like to see your analysis of that movie, if you haven’t already.
Good list. It's very hard to rank the Directors that only did one movie, but Peter Hunt did a very good job in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I think he should have casted an actor with more experienced than what George Lazenby had at the time though. Some of the other lower ranked once time Bond directors other had some bad luck during the pre-production and/or production of the movie . I really like the Terence Young movies, especially From Russia with Love. I would probably rank him higher, but then again I didn't watch the laserdisc commentary and maybe a lot of the credit should go to Peter Hunt.
Agree. Hunt and Campbell were the very best. So glad you put Hunt up there. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was one of the very great achievements of the Bond Films. As was Goldeneye and Casino Royale. As usual though (and I think this will be a neverending source of controversy) Quantum of Solace and Marc Forster's direction was under-rated. Quantum of Solace was a great Bond film (though not Casino Royale or Skyfall) and Forster (notwithstanding the plot holes) did a great job of directing a tough embittered Bond characterisation. This was a believable hard edged Bond. The big question is whether, like Hunt, Forster will be re-evaluated in future years? But I understand if people disagree. That is the point of these forums. Thanks Calvin!
I'd give Lee Tamahori a bit more credit- the whole "turning up the dial to 11" is probably about the most reasonable thing one could have done with the script. I can imagine that, just as the editor takes cues from the director, the director takes cues from the script.
Guy Hamilton is my favourite. Commentary on live and let die is excellent and informative. I still enjoy man with the golden gun even if it does get maligned.
Despite On Her Majesty's Secret Service being one of my absolute favorites, every time I watch it, I forget how actually insane the directing is. It blows me away, every time.
Lee Tamahori's direction for Die Another Day comes across as a John Woo impression from Mission Impossible 2. That makes sense as MI2 was one of highest grossing film of 2000 but looks really dated now, especially as MI2 is usually regarded as the worst of that series.
Very interesting observation. I personally enjoy MI2 as a guilty pleasure but I do see the influences it had on Die Another Day, although MI2 has no CGI driven scenes unlike Die Another Day. Both movies are early 2000s fun action movies that are not to everyone's taste and are considered the worst in their series yet I don't hold the same opinion.
Martin Campbell is without question workmanlike but it’s blood and guts workmanship. He gets great performances out of his cast, delivers on story and utilises fancy shots and atmosphere where necessary.
When it comes to Terence Young, he’s a director really brought down a lot by the low budget and short scehdules he had to work with - some of the scrambling of scenes was really due to having to shoot at a breakneck speed (especially From Russia with Love). Not helped that his Director of Photography, Ted Moore. Ted was “famous” for being fast and cheap - and boy does it show! Moore is a very uninspired DP, shooting flat, high key scenes with little mood or flair, not helped by the quick production schedule - and there the visual storytelling really suffered.
I think FRWL and DN look pretty decent all things considered, hell FRWL even won a cinematography BAFTA for whatever that’s worth lol. Ted also won an Oscar for Man of All Seasons and I love the way that movie looks :P where’d you read that about him?
the "cheap and fast" look of young's films aren't necessarily a ted moore issue - his other thrillers he made with bronson in the 60-70s (especially Cold Sweat) look like widescreen TV episodes. moore, when given the right budget, could really pull out the stops too - thunderball and diamonds still for the most part look amazing, with rich colours and lots of depth that bring out the most of their settings.
From Russia With Love and Goldfinger certainly did not look cheap. I suppose it's the film stock utilized that made the colors look so crisp and attractive. Dr. No had a small budget but there are some pretty attractive shots and I actually captured some the better frames myself: photos.app.goo.gl/bVjw3i13tkBzUc5p9 From onward Thunderball however, that stuff looked pretty cheap and ugly.
Ricardo Cantoral eh, i don’t think Dr No looks “cheap” either, but even those shots you posted point to a production that had to stretch every dollar in its budget to the absolute limit. it’s cool to see how those budgetary limitations led to some creative choices, though
@@DreBourbeau I honestly don't see how those frames suggest a tight budget. If anything, those pics obfuscate the fact that the film was shot for peanuts. I'd frankly take this photography over the orange and teal garbage you see in movies today.
I feel like that Quantum of Solace interrogation sequence could have been so much better if we’d just heard the Horse Race. With the way Quantum of Solace is filmed, I get the sense Marc Forster or the film’s DOP, Roberto Schaefer, really wanted to be Brian De Palma
I 100% agree. Hunt made such a great film, and your contrast of him and Forster makes sense. I like Quantum a lot for many of its elements (the idea of Quantum, the set design, costumes and Amalric) but I'd forgotten how poorly directed/shot the opening few scenes are. Egads.
Would you conciser reviewing the fan edit Thuderball:Warhead? I think it fixes alot of the problems you have with the film and fan edits in general are a fascinating untouched subject on youtube that I find really interesting.
It's not easy to evaluate or classify a director because we tend to like those who directed good films and dislike those who directed bad films, when actually a film's success cannot be entirely attributed to the director alone, and obviously he is not solely to blame for a film's failure. Separating the director's work from the film's critical and financial accomplishments is the tricky part.
13:23 actually it's pretty easy to calculate, the track only goes in one direction and in one spot and the train runs on a schedule... What I don't understand is how is the train traveling on a level that would make it go through the arch of the aqueduct
Great list. Having thought about it, Lewis Gilbert hugely improved in the years between You Only Live Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me. Both brilliantly directed, but for some reason Gilbert seems like he had a better grasp of Bond in '77 than in '67 and is far more accomplished as a director.
Your criticism seems fair and constructive, so I will let it go that I think Forster did a real decent job with what he was given. I do concur with your criticism of his "art over story" attitude.
Actually, directors and actors are always working together because how the character is developed depends on whether the characteristics of the actor are perfectly matched with the role. The actor has to apprehend the expectations and requirements of the character. How is the character expected to be expressed in the movie? The styles of how actors play the roles should be matched with the characters. The actor should possess all types of qualifies required to be the role. Therefore, casting is of paramount importance to the role.
HOWARD W. says > Although Guy Hamilton is my personal favorite Bond director, I agree with your choice for #1 - Martin Campbell because I`ve always said that Casino Royale is the best acted and directed Bond film of all. Peter Hunt was also great but there`s a few things in OHMSS that I would have changed. But Casino Royale is almost a perfect Bond film and there`s nothing I would change except maybe a John Barry score.
Wow. Watching this video, I thought FOR SURE that Peter Hunt was gonna be given a low ranking. But no, he was second! And here is a list of my three favorites: 1. Peter Hunt (he actually had potential to make Diamonds Are Forever a great movie, like On Her Majesty's Secret Service.) 2. Terrence Young (What I like about him is casting Eunice Gayson as Sylvia Trench, Lois M. Maxwell as Miss Moneypenny, Benard Lee as M, Ursula Andress as Honey, and most importantly, not only did he cast Connery as Bond, he also considered Moore, which helped for Live and Let Die. Also, here's a fun fact: Lois Maxwell was going to be casted as Sylvia Trench, but Gayson played her instead, and Maxwell played Moneypenny. Also, the M in Lois's name before stands for Moneypenny. No, not really. But it should.) 3. Guy Hamilton (He directed Goldfinger, one of the best Bond Films, and Live and Let Die, which is seriously underrated. The reason I take Young over Hamilton is because Hamilton also directed Diamonds Are Forever, and DAF needs improvement if it could get it. But I didn't really judge Hamilton's mistep for DAF, because other than that, he has success.) So there are my personal rankings.
Great video as always. Personally, I'm fond of the Terence Young films, so I would rate him higher. Overall, I share your thoughts on these filmmakers.
I would place Terrence Young higher on my list, simply because Dr No and From Russia With Love established a formula that every subsequent Bond film has copied. He is arguably the most important and influential of all the directors on the series.
It”ll always be weird to me that the same person who made one of the best bond movies(Skyfall) in many people’s eyes also made one of the worst(Spectre). I don’t think Spectre is as bad as people tell it is but the Quality difference from Skyfall is undeniable. But I think it’s clear that he knows how to make a movie look absolutely gorgeous.
Calvyn Dyson, it is inconceivable that you would rate Terence Young so low. Young was the conceptualizing director. He created the tone and attitude, the visual stylization and atmosphere, the graceful choreography of physical character interaction. He told definitive Bond stories with definitive Bond characterizations with definitive small-scale action. He was required to deliver more bang for the buck in less time and with less money than any other director. You overstate the "not shooting enough footage." He had a purpose in leaving inserts for the editor to shoot. Not because he was leaving the film unfinished, but to give his friend Peter Hunt the building-blocks of a directing career. It came out alright in the end. In contrast Guy Hamilton was a ponderous, mediocre, paint-it-by-the-numbers hack who discarded the stylization and conceptualism and reduced suspense into bubbly comedy and infantile kitsch. Peter Hunt said in his commentary that he didn't Goldfinger was being made very well. He spoke to the producers about it (and they spoke to Hamilton) and essentially saved the film in the editing. They were not friends, Hunt and Hamilton. Hamilton was the worst director of the series. Here in the USA his southern sheriff comedy is seen by many as condescending and snobbery. A lot of people are offended by Sheriff Pepper and believe, like Jaws, he should not be in the films at all. You're just wrong about Terence Young, Calvyn Dyson, he was the best Bond director. He was #1. That's a fact. 1 - Terence Young. 2 - Peter Hunt 3 - Martin Campbell, maybe.
Casino Royale is superb but I'm not so keen on Goldeneye. My favourite Bond director though has to be Terence Young. I simply love all 3 of his films. I've often wondered what a Young directed Goldfinger would have looked like. Not so glitzy I presume. Frobe and Sakata would probably have been toned down a tadge too.
1) Terence Young 2) Guy Hamilton 3) Peter Hunt 4) Martin Campbell 5) John Glen 6) Lewis Gilbert 7) Michael Apted 8) Roger Spottiswood 9) Cary Joji Fukunaga 10) Sam Mendez 11) Marc Foster 12) Lee Tamahori
1. Martin Campbell 2. Peter R. Hunt 3. John Glen 4. Lewis Gilbert 5. Sam Mendes 6. Guy Hamilton 7. Terence Young 8. Michael Apted 9. Marc Forster 10. Roger Spottiswoode 11. Lee Tamahori
Quantom of Solace and Forster might have been too influenced by the Jason Bourne movies, which were a huge success at the time. It feels like a copy of a Jason Bourne movie.
My list 11. Marc Foster 10. Lee Tamahori 9. Michael Apted 8. Roger Spottiswoode 7. John Glen 6. Guy Hamilton 5. Terrence Young 4. Sam Mendes 3. Peter Hunt 2. Lewis Gilbert 1. Martin Campbell
I have a few conditions of new bond: (1) Bond has to save the world. No more bumbling around like an incompetent private detective trying to just find out something about someone who's done some vague bad thing. Have a clear threat of a cataclysm unfolding and you can definitively say "Bond saved us all". This is SO IMPORTANT as it justifies all of Bond's flaws, for all his failings the world would be a far worse place without him being him. (2) Bond must be ACTIVE in the plot. Casino Royale is quite rare for a Bond story as he has a clear goal early on and is very clear what he needs to do to achieve it, this is totally against the usual Bond formula where Bond is entirely passive where he's just ordered to go somewhere and just reacts to what happens around him. Bond has to have say in what missions he goes on, he has to have say with M on the types of missions, how they are done and exert some authority from his 007 rank. He supposedly has a licence to kill... but they don't trust him to make any decisions. We've done the moping executioner Bond, it doesn't go anywhere. (3) Bond has to be mysterious The books show what's going on in Bond's head, turns out what's going on in his head is that he's an arrogant snob who complains constantly. Bond does not need a character arc every film that's going to get incredibly jarring. If Bond has an arc for every film in an ongoing series then it'll end up a total mess, Bond needs to enable the character arc in others, particularly the quoteunquote "Bond Girls" who shouldn't be supporting characters but true co-stars. They should be the audience most relate to. (4) Bond has to have friendly interaction everyone, even villains I'm sick of the dour misery-guts Bond who is clearly irritated by everyone around him, where is the banter with Q? Where is the cordial relationship with M? When M calls Bond a "sexist misogynist dinosaur" it should come across less as a put down from a superior but some "home truths" from a trusted friend. Why is Craig's Bond such a humourless twat? When he's offered an unusual drink by a bartender in an alcohol free bar why does he have to be such a twat to the barman telling him to pour it down the toilet... the man is only trying to do his job and he insulted the low-wage worker to their face knowing that they can't answer back. Bond is just a fucking Karen. Bond should have responded by trying it then make some witty remark about how it's "actually rather nice, this could be the perfect hangover cure" with the teetotaller bartender despairing that this rake could have such an unwholesome use for a wholesome beverage.
Here is my ranking of the James Bond film series directors. I just wanted to point out that I included Irvin Kershner on this list. I know that Never Say Never Again was an unofficial Bond film, but since I think some directors in the official franchise did a worse job I decided to include it. 1. Peter Hunt (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service) 2. Lewis Gilbert (You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker) 3. Martin Campbell (GoldenEye, Casino Royale) 4. Terence Young (Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Thunderball) 5. Sam Mendes (Skyfall, Spectre) 6. John Glen (For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights, License to Kill) 7. Guy Hamilton (Goldfinger, Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, The Man with the Golden Gun) 8. Roger Spottiswoode (Tomorrow Never Dies) 9. Irvin Kershner (Never Say Never Again) 10. Michael Apted (The World is Not Enough) 11. Marc Forster (Quantum of Solace) 12. Lee Tamahori (Die Another Day)
I’m still waiting on the best allies list. Because in your Weekly Bond series, you kept saying “One of the best allies of the whole series.” Yes, I remember that.
Quantum at least had a few good aspects like the German opera and Mathieu Amalric, who received controversy for saying he based his portrayal "on the crazed eyes of Sarkozy." Lol.
An outstanding list very well thought out, thanks. My only suggestions are that Tomorrow should be downgraded, on the basis of the chase scene in Hong Kong, which feels like a video game and I find it completely disengaging - the worst in the series, even beating Quantum. Secondly, for Dr. No, the "casting" also includes Ken Adam...need I say more?
If I had to do a personal ranking it would be: 1. Young 2. Hamilton 3. Hunt 4. Gilbert 5. Glen 6. Campbell 7. Spottiswoode 8. Apted 9. Tamahori 10. Forster 11. Mendes
If Sam Mendes had only done Skyfall, I'm sure there would have been many comments saying 'I wish he'd return'. I see a lot of that with Peter Hunt but his non-Bond directing career was very mixed [especially his 80's output]. It would have been interesting if he'd directed Diamonds [which would be the same script the finished film has given the draft with the 'revenge' aspect was rejected for being sub-par] and see if he could have hit the same heights with a weaker script [something which seemed beyond Sam Mendes, not helped by the troubled production].
I always feel it's rushes towards the end. If you look at the pacing earlier on, the scenes on the Stealth Boat don't match, they belong to a shorter film.
Many people find that a “cultured” director like Marc Forster or Sam Mendes does inevitably feel a personal duty, when hired for a 007 film: to ennoble and to refine this kind of franchise. That’s why those people prefer the so called “workmen” like Terence Young, Peter Hunt, John Glen, Martin Campbell… But from my very personal point of view it is quite clear that the cultured and introspective Bond-film (or at least the one that looks like this: Skyfall) seems to be the most beloved one, as permanent top 5 or even 3 material - at least for younger generations. With Quantum, Marc Forster tried to replicate an action-movie according to the easiest concept an artistic personality can develope after being asked to direct it: it has to be quick and fast like a bullet! He surely achieved that, but the result was mostly disappointing - or maybe better said, absolutely not comparable to Casino. After the onerous Skyfall, Sam Mendes tried to make a Bond-movie independently from every single special task (reboot the franchise, develope the story after Vesper’s death, meta-question about 007 in the 21st century, conclude Craig’s era) and blatantly following an old-fashion style. As a result, Spectre was mostly received as a big flat disappointment unable to honour Skyfall’s pledge. So, I may be wrong but honestly I find all this stuff quite fascinating: almost everybody is criticizing the artistical presence of Marc Forster and Sam Mendes with their scarves on set, but actually the most beloved movie among their overall three is exactly the most cultured and ambitious one. Skyfall.
Maybe Martin Campbell wouldn't be as strong at directing a "continuance" Bond film, say with already established characters like in Quantum. Just a thought! (He has also directed Green Lantern, so his run isn't flawless.) What do you think?
Completely agree! That’s why I judged this purely on Bond films rather than anything else. Campbell’s non-Bond work has been steady but nothing has ever really blown me away. I liked the Zorro movies though!
@@calvindyson His Zorro movies were fab! Thanks for the reply. Your videos are top notch and well-argued (and I love the Nightfire music in the background)!
He apparantly only wanted to direct 'Bond's first time' for each actor so turned down Brosnan's sequels and Quantum [a film which he later described as dreadful].
Wow, I must say i'm loving that Peter R Hunt is ranking so highly on so many peoples lists! Seriously, if there was one bond film that seems to receive almost universal praise now but was disregarded at its time of release it's deffo OHMSS. It's great so many people are beginning to really appreciate it. And I do think Lazenby looks hard as fuck in the fight scenes! Especially when he's escorted to drago's office.
@@davidjames579 Damn right! Though connery was much more facially expressive when throwing punches. I mean his fight with red grant is like a clash of titans!
Here is my James bond film directed raking list number 8 peter r hunt number 7 guy Hamilton number 6 uriving cershone number 5 Mark foster number 4 sam medos number 3 John gleen number 2 terrace young number 1 Lewis Gilbert
I think Marc Forster is a 'poor man's artsy film director'. Having a film that is trying to deliver subtext, themes, is slow pacing and/or is shot in a particular way can work really well - when do right. Some of my favourite film Director's are probably considered 'artsy' i.e. Peter Greenaway, Terrence Malick etc. However, the reason I say Marc Forster is a 'poor man's artsy film director is because the way he does it in Quantum all felt very 'early film student' and 'amateur'. His presentation of the 'artsy' film style doesn't sit well in a action-packed Bond film like this - the fancy edits, slow pacing can work but it all felt very busy. It was like he remembered everything that he was taught at film school about angle-shots, editing, cinematography etc. and just chucked it all in - it felt both unstructured and pedestrian. Also, where he was trying to provide subtext - what was it's purpose? We didn't need to see the 'subtext' regarding the horse race because it didn't add to the a) the story b) a character or c) themes. I don't think trying to explore theme's is really needed in a Bond because it's just not that kind of franchise - I mean it can be attempted to be done but as a Bond fan I would prefer to see themes regarding Bond aging or 'getting too old' because it would sit well. But generally Bond doesn't need that treatment - I'm watching James Bond not Terrace Malick's 'Tree of Life'.
I would put Sam Mendes above John Glenn. They both arguably have top tier and bottom tier films but I would saw Mendes has higher highs and Glenn has lower lows.
Much like Desmond being the best Q, I think 99.9% of Bond fans would agree that Martin Campbell is the best director. It's astonishing that, as you said, he can introduce a new Bond and reinvent the series TWICE and give us one of the best films in the series BOTH times. I certainly wouldn't complain if he got brought back for Bond 26.
After seeing Green Lantern and The Foreigner, I think it's safe to say he's far past his prime at this point. If EON brought him back I'd be extremely worried.
The Starter: Terrance "Backdrop and Speed Edit" Young One Hit Wonder: Peter "Emotional gut punch" Hunt High Scale Spectacle: Lewis "Lost in the background" Gilbert
Always thought Goldeneye was just a sequel to Licence To Kill with Dalton recast rather than a reboot. For example: after the pre-title sequence (set in the 1980's) it jumps forward to the present where Bond is under "evaluation". Why would he be under evaluation? Because he just went rogue in Licence To Kill.
@Louise Sea Shame. I think Skyfall is one of the best bond movies. Spectre though, has a disastrous script, ans I wish they threw out everything that had to do with that movie in No Time To Die. Blofeld and Swann are pretty lame characters, and I'm not looking forward to seeing those again.
