JAMIE DIBS

I watched the five Daniel Craig-starred James Bond movies in sequence over four nights, and I found the viewing extremely satisfying. Indeed, I liked these films more as a bundle, watched for the second time, than as individual movies seen over the years in a theater. Not because I prefer home viewing to a cinema, but because these films work best in concert. They are sufficiently intertwined to make back-to-back watching a fuller experience. The Craig years stand up well.

Most James Bond films, like Ian Fleming’s source novels, are episodic. They feature recurring characters – M, Moneypenny, Felix, Blofeld – but little in back story or plots that tie one story to the next. The only exception I recall from the novels was The Man with the Golden Gun, which kicks off with Bond attempting to murder M, after being brainwashed at the end of the previous book, You Only Live Twice. This was thrilling because it provided a dramatic continuity that deepened Fleming’s universe. It was fun. It was also a one-off.

The movies were the same. They didn’t reference one another, except to showcase a few encore turns, such as Jaws’s return in “Moonraker”. Blofeld was a recurring villain, but he lacked continuity. This devolved into a weak joke in the opening sequence of “For Your Eyes Only”, when Bond drops him down a smokestack. The sequence is unrelated to the rest of the film.

The span of the Craig films

The Craig movies were different, although the casual moviegoer loses a lot of the continuity. He debuted in “Casino Royale” in 2006. It’s not our world. James Bond runs around with a Sony Ericson clunker: the iPhone came out a year later. The final film, “No Time to Die”, came out in 2021, by which point the real world had gone through the global financial crisis, bitcoin, Brexit, and Covid. But tech was the biggest change. By the time the Craig series concludes, the digital world has fully encroached Bond’s universe.

The movies mirrored the rapid pace of change in the real world. This made continuity in the Craig years harder to maintain. I experienced these movies as individual amusement-park rides, not as a coherent narrative.

Movie producers have good reason to avoid story arcs. Episodes are easy, sustained narratives hard, and producers never want to risk scaring off an audience that hasn’t invested its time in the previous installments.

Besides, the most explicit attempt to tie the Craig films together didn’t work. The Grand Guignol of the last act of “Spectre”, Craig number four, wraps the previous three villains into Blofeld’s conspiracy. Ditto for all of Bond’s women problems. The earlier movies had already hinted at connections, but “Spectre”’s blunt claim felt strained, and a little desperate.

A quantum of story

The Craig movies are still episodic, but watching them in quick succession illuminates the movies’ continuity. They establish a distinct, novel-like unity – a quantum of story, should I say?

The continuity rests on a shaky foundation, however. The hinge character is not Blofeld or M, but a minor henchman, “Mr. White”, who appears in three of the movies. He has a daughter, Madeline Swan, played by Lea Seydoux, who features in the final two films. I did not remember or recognize White in the later films. Only by watching the films together did I understand his purpose as connective tissue.

And I enjoyed realizing how White adds to the story. Why? I suppose for the same reason that I got a buzz when Fleming linked You Only Live Twice and The Man with the Golden Gun. It brought some depth to the characters and the story. The Craig filmmakers understood this; perhaps they were influenced by the rise of story arcs in T.V.: “The Sopranos” had been running since 1999.

Without connecting these dots, White’s character comes off as random in later films. It degrades the experience of the movies: this guy feels random, a writer’s cheap trick to advance a silly plot. I could see their quality better when the plot made better sense. It is a partial salve to the heavy-handed storytelling at the end of “Spectre”, too.

Casino Royale

Huge teams create movies, one by one. A novelist can write a series from the sparks in their own head. Craig’s Bond benefited from having a team of writers who saw these projects through, along with the influence of Daniel Craig and the franchise’s steward, the Broccoli family. These producers had a clear strategy to reboot 007 as Craig’s James Bond as a self-contained package designed for their decade, with a beginning and an end. Their ethos: back to basics.

It worked: “Casino Royale” was a delightful surprise. The new-old Bond was built on strength and wits rather than over-the-top gadgets. The villain, Le Chiffre, was (as Bond villains go), recognizable as a money launderer rather than a madman in a cave with rockets and an army of gun-toting henchmen. Sharp writing, thrilling casino scenes, very physical chases. Jeffrey Wright endowed Felix Leighter with a fun gravitas. Judi Dench (the one holdover from Pierce Brosnan’s turn) was her concise self as M.

And then there was Eva Green’s Vesper Lynd, one of the greatest Bond Girls of all time.

The best Bond girl

She was so luminous, and her character sufficiently drawn, that she provided a rare example of a love interest matching Bond for on-screen presence. Some Bond girls are hotter (a hill I will die on: Barbara Bach in “The Spy Who Loved Me”) or cooler in a fight (Michelle Yeoh!) but none establish a character whose memory resonates beyond her film.

Even Diana Rigg’s Tracy, from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, was only given a bare nod in the follow-up movie. Riggs was one of the most memorable of the Bond girls—the only one whom James Bond marries, both in the book and the film, before Blofeld and his sidekick murder her. Fleming used Tracy’s death in his next book, You Only Live Twice, to portray Bond as a bitter drunkard. Bond kills Blofeld but is briefly transformed into a traitor for Golden Gun. After this experiment, Fleming returned to episodic writing. The movies didn’t try.

In contrast, Vesper’s betrayal and death at the end of “Casino Royale” set an emotional template for the rest of the Craig movies, one that resonates much better when the films are watched as a suite, all the way to the opening of “No Time to Die”. Madeline is back as Bond’s woman, itself an innovation in the franchise. She sends Bond to visit Vesper’s grave, for she knows they won’t have a future if he cannot make peace with his past. Spectre has, of course, wired the tomb with a bomb.

M and Blofeld: Un-hinged

The later films reveal the strengths and limits of putting arcs in James Bond films. He inadvertently kills Blofeld halfway through the final movie, but a new villain had already neutered Blofeld. Similarly, the conspiracy Spectre supersedes Quantum (introduced in “Quantum of Solace”, the second film). More coherent writing would have made Spectre the antagonist earlier. More, the baton passes in slapdash form via a single ring stamped with an Octopus icon. Yes, we have returned to Moore/Brosnan pastiche.

The character M provides another example of jerry-rigged storytelling. Ralph Fiennes takes over from Dench. His character does not plumb her depths but he is given moments to be an action stud. However, although I am a fan of Fiennes, I do not think he was given the best material. His M supports episodic story, not a narrative arc. The writers insert him here and there like a widget.

A novelist with plans for a series of books would not have structured things this way. Blofeld is the antagonist; the hierarchy of villains and secret organizations should make sense. The overstretched plotting of “Spectre” is a symptom of this failing. It should not left to using a minor entity, Mr. White, to try to tie things together. Dench’s arc as M dead-ends halfway through.

Bond villains

Let’s stay with M a bit longer. The third film, “Skyfall”, proved to be the most popular of the quintet. In it, Dench gets to transform M into something akin to a Bond Girl – or perhaps a Bond Mum.

She takes center stage in the final sequence. The villain is a former Double-0 whom M betrayed to the Chinese, back in the day. Played with controlled flair by Javier Bardem, this psychopath, Raoul Silva, has a personal vendetta that we can sympathize with; and it lends Dench’s M a hard edge. Fans love “Skyfall” because of the time it gives to M and her relationship with Bond, as well as for its epic showdown at the Bond family home in the Scottish Highlands. But the reason it works is because Silva is a genuinely creepy and threatening villain with real personal stakes.

Blofeld doesn’t cut it in comparison. Played by Christopher Walz, he comes off as anodyne. “Spectre” is not a bad film: in fact, its first two thirds are fantastic. The opening tracking sequences in Mexico City are sheer bravura. Bond and Madeline’s train journey in Morocco is romantic until disturbed by a hulking killer who delivers a fantastic fight sequence. Things bog down at Blofeld’s secret lair, mostly because of the invented backstory: James, orphaned, was adopted by Blofeld’s family and young Ernst Stravo didn’t like the sibling rivalry. The motivations are thin and contrived, especially after “Skyfall” set the template for long-simmering revenge plots by crazy-scary former comrades.

Again we witness the weakness of the film-making process versus a novelist’s ability to control the story arc. (A legal dispute also prevented the producers from using the Blofeld character in the earlier films.) And so, watching the Craig movies together, we bump into the limits of the series.

Quantum of Solace and Spectre

Overall, however, I was struck by how much I enjoyed these James Bond films. Even the goofier elements help cohere Craig’s spin into a five-film story. The moviemaking is often excellent (with budgets to match), and brims with exoticism, action, glamor, and wit galore. The writing is usually tight, minimalist even, with plot twists riding on a quick line or visual. The first three films offer plenty of spectacle without getting bogged down in over-the-top sequences. “Spectre” loses the plot only in its final half hour; “No Time to Die” is long and sometimes feels long, but brings grandeur to the trope of the villain’s lair.

“Quantum of Solace”, the most overlooked of the quintet, is actually much better when put in context of the story arc. It shows brilliance in scenes such as a Bond’s exciting fight with M’s treasonous bodyguard, and the gathering of Quantum (Spectre) agents at a performance of Tosca. “Spectre” must also do the heavy lifting of portraying a Bond broken by the death of Vesper. Bond therefore does not sleep with his female counterpart, Camille (although he’s allowed a quick romp with Strawberry Fields).

“Solace” also has a lot of work to do to connect “Casino Royale” to “Skyfall”. Bond hunts down Vesper’s ex-lover, a Spectre agent, and reconciles with another M16 agent, Mathis, who appeared in “Casino Royale” as a possible traitor. Meanwhile Solace’s villain, a squirmy eco-extortionist, is well suited to a world of Verdi operas but not so intimidating as a combat enemy in the Bolivian desert.

I say all of this to note that I have upgraded by opinion of “Quantum of Solace” as a rather good James Bond movie, beset mainly by its narrative tasks. The Craig films are all good. Which are great?

No Time to Die

“No Time to Die” has pacing issues but provides a satisfying ending for Bond, and for Madeline. Among its excellent action sequences, the centerpiece is Bond’s teaming up with Ana de Armas, a junior CIA asset. I’d say she even outshines Vesper; she certainly steals the scene from Craig. De Armas makes excellent use of her brief screen time. She is stunning and surprising, and fills her character with bubbly precocity. After their breathtaking fight scene, Bond shakes her hand.

On second viewing I also liked better Lashana Lynch’s portrayal as the new 007. The writers handed her an impossible mission. Of course her predecessor must upstage her. Lynch is sufficiently bad-ass to make the character work and survive the affair with dignity.

Skyfall

“Skyfall” deserves its status as the crowd-pleaser. It’s got the best villain and the final sequence deepens Bond’s story to his childhood origins as well as to his connection to M and her own past demons. What it doesn’t do is tee up Blofeld. Silva is portrayed here as a standalone baddie, and “Spectre”’s mistake is to try to turn him into a Quantum operative after the fact.

“Skyfall” felt like the end of a trilogy. Whereas “Casino Royale” could lay the groundwork for the next film, “Skyfall” was not allowed to foreshadow Blofeld and the final two films. It should be the Craig series’ hinge, but this movie stands alone. “Skyfall” is one of the greatest James Bond movies, but it is, ironically, the weakest link if we think of the Craig films as a self-contained whole.

Revelation

“Casino Royale” is still my favorite. The other Craig movies succeed thanks to the edifice that “Casino Royale” built. Compared to its successors, “Casino Royale” is a fairly simple, straightforward tale. Its action sequences (and a torture scene) depend on Craig’s physicality, not on Q’s inventions: the only gadget is a defibrillator in Bond’s Aston Martin. The denouement creates new questions, leading us to the next chapter. Most importantly, Vesper serves as a heroine who haunts Bond through the later films, a task that Eva Green achieves superbly.

Craig’s Bond was a revelation. The franchise had previously attempted something like a hard-nailed, old-school Bond with Timothy Dalton, but those films didn’t work. Not only did they not work, but the franchise flagellated itself by following the Dalton duo with the very mid, pretty-boy Pierce Brosnan period. Craig is sometimes compared to Sean Connery but I think Craig’s Bond transcends his predecessors. Craig was fortunate to be given a franchise that attempted to deliver a cohesive series in which he could flesh out Bond’s character for the contemporary audience.

Being a James Bond fan

There will be a James Bond franchise after Craig. It is now owned by Amazon, not the Broccolis, which is not a good sign, but who knows? Expectations for the Daniel Craig years were also low. But they were low because Bond had drifted into bloated mediocrity. Now that he has been restored as one of our greatest cinematic heroes, new versions must jump a high bar.

I’ve been a James Bond fan my whole life. I sometimes forget this. Watching the Craigs back-to-back served as a reminder. My Dad took me to see “Moonraker” in 1978. Commercials for the movie showed its final scene in space, with laser guns. Seven-year old me was hooked on “Star Wars” as if it were a narcotic. I thought “Moonraker” was going to be like that. It wasn’t; it was something else! Maude Adams was a lot sexier than Princess Leia and Jaws was almost as scary as Darth Vader. Thus began a long tradition of me going to see Bond movies with my father. As a teenager, I devoured the Ian Fleming novels. During my thirties, when I was traveling the world, I re-read many of the books and appreciated them for Fleming’s cosmopolitan elan.

I ended up writing the Penny Lee series as a sort of tribute to Bond: what he might be like had he been a woman, or perhaps, Fleming-like tales told from the Bond Girl’s perspective. Penny’s opening sequences – shootouts in glamorous Dubai hotels and a helicopter chase over the city – and the various intrigues she lands in, from Tokyo to Paris, can find inspiration nowhere else.