Having thought about it for some time and over the years, I have to say that IMHO On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the best of the Bond films.

I like the batchelor Bond that George Lazenby played, I thought there was an interesting story, lots of action, neat bits like the shot of Diana Rigg being taken away that reflects in the window, Bond reading Playboy, the night spent in the barn, etc. I have a friend who thinks the film is confusing, but I disagree.

I did for many years think that You Only Live Twice was the better film. It had set pieces like the rooftop fight and helicopter battle among others, but what ultimately killed it for me is that it also had plot holes and it went into self-parody at the end with the volcano erupting and Bond and company swimming away in fast motion. If you are able to see a clear 35mm widescreen print of this film projected, however, you will have to admit that every shot is just beautifully composed, it is a better looking film than OHMSS, it just has less interesting content.

I don't care for the Terence Young Bonds. Dr. No is fine, but From Russia With Love and Thunderball just don't work for me. This will baffle people who love these films, but I do feel this way. The helicoptor business in FRWL just seems a re-do of the cropdusting scene from NBNW but much more poorly done. The two gypsy girls fighting is fun, but that's about it. Thunderball has 2 good bits, cutting the pilot's air hose and Bond coercing the girl at the spa into sex. Beyond that it's nothing.

Goldfinger directed by Guy Hamilton has much more going for it than the Young Bonds. Diamonds Are Forever is watchable but nothing special.

The Moore Bonds are fun but none of them is really special. The Spy Who Loved Me is unwatchable, just beyond bad. Octopussy and Moonraker probably come off best.

Beyond that, I think FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE is the second-best Bond film, for the restraint it shows, particularly in the quiet, professional lethality of Robert Shaw's Red Grant, and its more romantic tone, from the casting of the rather sweet Daniela Bianchi to the use of its Istanbul locations.

GOLDFINGER may be, however, the most enjoyably "Bondian" Bond film, in that it hits all the right notes flawlessly, with a flamboyance that seems to dovetail seamlessly with the 1960s notion that Britain, from Carnaby Street to the inspired antics of The Beatles in A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, was the center of the pop-cultural universe. GOLDFINGER was also, sadly, the last Bond film in which Sean Connery seemed to enjoy himself in the role, before he began to give the distinct impression that he thought he had more important things to do elsewhere...

I also agree that Timothy Dalton made a very fine Bond. He is, without doubt, the best-trained actor to ever play the role, and is the only one, besides Connery, to capture Ian Fleming's intention that Bond, at some sadistic level, actually enjoys killing...

It's too bad that LICENCE TO KILL (a great title; the film was initially -- and more accurately -- to be called "Licence Revoked" [shockingly, the producers were afraid that not enough people know what the word "revoked" means!] then "Licence Renewed," before the producers settled on the final one-size-fits-all title LICENCE TO KILL) is such a terrible movie (due, in no small part, to the fact that it has a thoroughly uncharismatic drug-lord villain, and the dullest pre-title sequence of any Bond film), but its predecessor, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (a dreadful title) is, in fact, a crackerjack adventure in the best Bond tradition (with the exception of the Afghanistan sequences, which are too redolent of the Roger Moore entries in the series). The film's great strength is that, in addition to the pleasures afforded by a good Bond film, it also works on the level of simple spy-thriller, an essential aspect of the concept that the producers and studio too often forget.

It's a great shame that Dalton couldn't continue in the role, as the current films are hamstrung by Pierce Brosnan's lightweight flippancy, the movies' fatal lack of sophistication in comparison with the earlier films in the series (including even the Moore films), and the degeneration of the franchise into the mold of simple-minded action films, virtually indistinguishable from other movies competing in the marketplace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by James Phillips:
Remember when ABC-TV first broadcasted OHMSS? My neighbors heard me screaming as I went off on one of my rants when the editing and programming geniuses butchered this film by having someone do a voice-over posing as Lazenby doing Bond, having the ski chase escape in the beginning of the film, and making this a two-night presentation. At that point, I swore off watching any Bond film on ABC.

---

UNBELIEVABLE!....and I thought it was bad when the Gumbolt Safe sequence was taken out!!

The other was when Bond dropped his kilt and Ruby started to giggle, "it's true, it's true."

One of the great missed opporunities for a Bond quip came (or didn't come) as 007 was being pursued through Ellot Carver's (Jonathan Pryce) printing plant in TOMORROW NEVER DIES.

I don't remember what silly words the writers placed in Bond's mouth, but as his pursuers fell to their deaths within the giant, churning newspaper-printing machinery, he should have deadpanned:

"What's black-and-white and red all over...?"

Nevertheless, "perfect" should not be taken as synonym for "best," because OHMSS, with its loftier ambitions, achieves more, even with its occasional failings, than does the obviously more simplistic GOLDFINGER.