Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Perhaps not "geek media", per se, but... people seem to really like James Bond. For some reason, I have literally never ever seen a single James Bond movie of any kind.

Is Casino Royale a good starting point, or does the current guy not make a great James Bond?

Alternately - is Jason Bourne a better series? I've never seen any of those, either.

I like them both.

For Craig's bond saga you definitely don't need to watch older movies from the same franchise as it's basically a reboot. Previous Bond movies were much different though, more like a silly cartoon, the current saga is much more realistic and dramatic. Pretty close to modern Mission Impossible movies in multiple aspects, while Brosnan's Bonds are more like Fast & Furious in terms of vibe. Older ones match the 60s, 70s and 80s styles of funny spy stories, with a strong comedy feature (which is almost completely absent in Craig's Bond), they were never too serious.

Jason Bourne is more american style, involving corrupted politicians/military, conspiracies and revenge. Protagonist is the typical Matt Damon's good character. I'd just suggest avoiding the spin off (The Bourne Legacy), it's really bland and doesn't add anything to the franchise.

But both franchises are basically aimed for the same kind of audience.

Craig’s Bond is probably the closest to a reboot. So yes, you can absolutely start with Casino Royale, and then enjoy that line of story telling, because the movies with that Bond are a self contained universe unto themselves.

While I grew up with the old Connery and Moore Bond portrayals, I would say give them a go if you are (were) an Austin Powers fan - kind of ties that whole generation/theme together. Otherwise, yes, Craig's Bond is much more gritty and action-oriented, which is the way of all action movies now.

Yes. I would watch the Craig ones in order.

Then, after you are done with those and you want a much more relaxed and leisurely pace to your spy movies you should watch Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, and then Thunderball.

If you still want more Bond, then watch On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Casino Royale is great, but Bond is like Dr. Who. You don't and probably shouldn't try to watch them all. Look up the best, watch just one per actor even. If something really clicks watch more. There's not really an overarching narrative or anything to follow, just a bunch of movies with similar beats of wildly varying quality.

Yeah, Craig is personally my favourite Bond and his run constitutes the closest thing the series has to a coherent narrative. Many people say Connery was their favourite almost by reflex, but I do struggle with some aspects of his films that are very much "of their time" that can be a little jarring now.

Equally, I think a lot will cite Skyfall as the best Craig movie, but I think Casino Royale is the stronger film, it just wasn't as commercially successful. Mads Mikkelsen is always great, and I could watch Eva Green read a book. It's also got probably my favourite Bond Car of any of them.

I really think you'd lose nothing if you skipped Quantum Of Solace completely, Skyfall is very good, Spectre is not as good but it is needed for a lot of the events in No Time To Die to have a context. As for NTTD itself, I saw it almost two weeks ago and frankly I'm still not sure. I think it is a good Bond movie in a macro sense, but there's a few narrative decisions I'm conflicted about. Plus a lot of the fun is in all the nods to other films that would mean nothing to someone who hadn't seen them.

Just remember if you go back to the Connery Bond, be prepared for a lot of sexual assault!

The action scenes are still amazing and the films are a lot of fun, but they are very much of their time.

The Craig bond films were something of a reaction to Bourne I think, in terms of the cinematography and the pacing of the action.

However, with the exception of the Moore films, each actor tends to start with a few pretty serious films with minimal goofing about, and then they tend to get very silly. Moore was all about the tongue in cheek from the start. But on the other hand he gets to go into space in Moonraker, so he definitely wins in some ways

Another good place to start might be Goldeneye. It helped that it had an amazing tie in wit a popular video game, but it is still a pretty modern rendition and doesn't have all the utter madness that crops up in the later Brosnan films.

Thanks for all of that guys. I am basically planning for next week when I am on break - I will take a gander.

I've seen most James Bond films and I'd say Casino Royale is a great entry point. My personal favorite is Lazenby but I think Craig is an excellent fit. The problem is after Casino Royale the writing for most other Craig films takes a nose dive, starting with the writers strike in Quantum of Solace.

Casino Royale is still a fantastic movie and worth the watch. Hope you like it!

What are you watching for?

I’d you just want a good spy/action movie, Casino Royale is as good as any.

If you want to find out what all this Bond stuff is all about, it’s not so good. You’d be better off starting with Connery.

Little of column A, little of column B, I'd say.

I would definitely say you could start with Craig's Casino Royale, especially seeing as how the bond-verse isn't so neatly chronological from actor to actor.

For Bourne movies, I'd say that if viewed on their own they are OK to good spy flicks. . . but, if you go and read the novels they are based on, be prepared, as the novels are miles and miles better than the films (but at the same time, don't work on the social frame of the days that the films were made)

 Ouze wrote:
Little of column A, little of column B, I'd say.

Please give us your thoughts when you have seen one or more Bond movies.

I actually recall going to the theater as a young kid to see Moore in Live and Let Die - I was blown away, as I had not until that time really paid attention to James Bond and had not seen a Connery Bond film. Moore was probably the most wooden of all Bonds, but he fit the English spy mold really well.

So, needless to say, LaLD was my first and probably always be a sentimental favorite, but yes, super silly...

"A secret agent??!!! On who's side??!!!"

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Little of column A, little of column B, I'd say.

Please give us your thoughts when you have seen one or more Bond movies.

Won't be for a while, am trying to plan my work shutdown - but I definitely will!