The Storytelling Masterpiece of Daniel Craig's Five James Bond films

When I started, I just wanted to watch Casino Royale again... but I ended up seeing all five of Daniel Craig his Bond films in two days. So, let's break down the entire quintet. Because - spoiler alert - it turns out that watching them as a connected, five-part package actually makes them better the second time around. To the point of becoming a masterpiece. Spoilers ahead... Let's shake it!

The story package is better than the individual parts

Casino Royale (The Craig one, not the Peter Sellers one...) is my favorite Bond film of all time. Sure, when challenged, I too veer back to Sean Connery, and try to look really intelligent when I state platitudes on Dr. No and Never Say Never Again. I too raise one eyebrow when I state Pierce Brosnan is the perfect Bond... just too bad about the films. I eloquently show my soft spot for Roger Moore, just like all of you, before I cough 'Moonraker', wink and roll my eyes. And of course I agree that Timothy Dalton delivered two fantastic films.

Yet the honest answer is that Daniel Craig's Casino Royale beats all of them in my book. That of course, is my personal opinion that you may disagree with... but that's not why we are here. Were here because I was amazed when watching them. I'd love to give a complete rundown of all five of Craig's films, laced with personal preferences, but also add objective narrative observations that we can learn from.

My first observation is the most important one: experiencing the quintet is actually a lot better than seeing the films individually. When the films first came out, often many years apart, they were judged on the merits of one single movie at the time (with Neal Purvis, Robert Wade writing on all five). That makes sense of course. And while Casino Royale (film 1) passed with flying colors, and Skyfall (film 3) got the 'decent' thumbs up, the other three - Quantum of Solace (film 2), Spectre (film 4) and No Time To Die (film 5) got criticized, despite doing well at the box office.

Experiencing them again so many years later, I think the criticisms still stand and are basically still the same, with one or two exceptions. Yet their negative impact is vastly diminished, now that you can basically see the five of them as if you would a season from a show. The story is consistent through the whole thing, and so is the tone, which is quite serious and often deeply dramatic and deep. In the end, with Bond ultimately dying himself, I felt I had experienced something far cooler and greater than I had when I watched them individually at launch.

And that larger feeling of course starts with easily the best film of the five, Casino Royale, which we'll get to in a second.

Narrative Background of the Villain

Now, let's get one thing out of the way first: all action films, especially Bond films, can usually be graded on the strength of the villain. It's a paradox; the more relatable a villain is - the more human essentially - the better the film. Having villains go about doing evil thingies while cackling and stroking a fuzzy cat only works in comedy, where clichés are the norm and one-dimensional characters are preferred because they are easiest to make fun of. In a serious film, it usually doesn't work. Of course there are exceptions, such as Sauron in The Lord of the Rings, but there are other reasons for that, which we also discuss on these pages when looking at evil in story.

The general rule of thumb though is that it's best not to make your villain completely evil, and leave some relatable 'good' traits intact. It creates a better Bond by creating a better bond: if you understand someone, it is easier to judge them. This is why of the bad guy Silva is the best villain of the quintet. We can understand his anger towards M: left behind enemy lines, discarded by the very things he was willing to die for. It's also why Safin, played by Rami Malek, is so bad: his motives are just poppycock. Nothing in his background justifies, or even motivates horribly poisoning the majority of the human race, no matter how softly spoken your threats are.

Of course, this is never a judgement on the actors (Rami blew me away as Freddy Mercury!) but always on the script and the writing. I do feel it is tricky to write a Bond villain though, so here too I don't want to judge too harshly. The writers need to walk a fine line, since the first villain of the series Dr. No was literally stroking a cat and Dr No is still seen as one of the best films of the entire franchise.

Bond villains need something maniacal, something threatening on a larger scale. Yet they also can't escape one of those golden principles of storytelling: don't make your bad guy to distant. Which brings us to Le Chiffre, who strikes the perfect balance.

Casino Royale - Storytelling Lowdown

Motivations such as greed, or chasing a thrill in high stakes poker, are easy to understand. Le Chiffre isn't very sympathetic but he's also not twirling his mustache. We get what he's doing, we understand why we need to stop him, and he's scary enough with his bleeding eye. Paradoxically, he actually becomes more relatable while he's torturing Bond, as we know he's under great pressure from those waiting for their money, and he respects Bond for surviving terrible pain to his underparts.

Here of course, we get to the first moment Spectre comes in, with Mr. White killing Le Chiffre and surprisingly sparing Bond his life in a deal with Vesper (with Eva Green putting down one of the very best Bond girls of all time). This setup would ultimately last throughout five films.

What I love about Casino Royale is the style, the tone. I love the scenery in Italy. I love the class. I love the introduction to Craig's Bond but also the other early players Felix, Mathis and M, while leaving Q and Moneypenny in the background. I love the tuxedos, the car joke on the roundabout and I love the high stakes poker game, which is such a good analogy for the life-altering pressures these people are under.

But I especially love the twist.

Of course, the first time you see the film, you have the feeling you are watching the ending when a 'happily ever after' is playing out with Bond recovering, with the hot Vesper by his side. We've seen this many times over and we're now just waiting for the end credits... although it is a bit strange just how close they seem to get. Little did we know then she was forced to double cross him, ultimately giving her life away, so he can live, out of love. It's a brilliant play on our expectations and elevates an already great Bond film into my all time favorite.

Looking back at all five of them, I love that they choose to do this, because it gives you the highest stakes not just for this film and the next, but for the entire quintet. It shapes all Craig's films. Casino Royale tells you: "Where not going to do ordinary Bond, we are going for heartbreak, all the way." Little did we know then, they would ultimately give Bond the same decision as Vesper had, giving his life, out of love, so his daughter and Madeleine may live.

But... we're not at that point yet.

Quantum of Solace - Storytelling Lowdown

When Quantum of Solace came out, the criticism was quite heavy. We had such an excellent first film, with mysteries still intact and a highly motivated Bond, out for revenge. What we got with number two was a run-of-the-mill film, with a bland bad guy, a weird plot about water, and an uninspired set piece at the end, despite the nice explosion. And you know what, I kind of felt the same at the time. I liked that Bond wrapped up the events from the first film, but it left me thirsty for something better, pun intended.

Looking back though, as part of the quintet, Quantum of Solace fits surprisingly well. The atmosphere is brooding as we never know if and when Bond will snap and go totally haywire. Plus, the main Bond girl Camille (played by Olga Kurylenko) and Bond are both grieving. And apart from a delayed short kiss, simply don't share a bed. Again, this is a great play on the expected, and it really makes sense. It gives you the feeling these are real people, who, although their circumstances are abnormal, make the same kind of choices you and I would make, here in the 'normal'.

I was surprised how much I liked it this time around. Sure, I was still annoyed by its much-discussed flaws, but even the villain Greene was better than I remembered: still not well written, still within a strange plot, but the actor Mathieu Amalric really did make it work. Plus, all the motivations, all the drama... it was all because of Vesper her death. That gave the whole thing heart.

Skyfall - Storytelling Lowdown

Which brings us to arguably the most intriguing of the five, Skyfall. This film has the most layers of the quintet, and I appreciated watching it again, and being able to see more of the details and undercurrents on second viewing.

First though, let's get something else out of the way: the one-cut, monologue entrance of Silva, played to an absolute tee by Javier Bardem, is hands down the best entrance of all the Bond villains ever. He plays it so brilliantly, I had a hard time accepting this was the villain. I felt it was just one of the good guys, on a bit of a weird bender or something. Everything about that scene, the innuendo to sex between them, the really empathetic jokes, the recognition of a fellow double O... even Bond seems surprised by how warm our villain comes across.

This brings me to my one niggle with the film, which I see as a missed opportunity. Silva is cruel in the next scene, like all the Bond villains ultimately are. Looking back though, it would have brilliant if he had actually made an effort and let the Bond girl Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe) live, making him even more likeable. His motivations towards M and MI6 are so crystal clear, that adding cruelty to someone who didn't choose to be there, actually takes away from his character a bit.

Having said that... it's just one niggle. The rest of the film is excellent. The symbolism of the 'fall' when Bond is shot down by Moneypenny and disappears. The attack on the 'archaic' MI6 by modern, digital ways. The attack by the new generation of politicians on the old spies. The fall of M, who is the main Bond girl in this film (a brilliant, brilliant choice). The symbolism of the old family castle burning down. The use of the knife as the final weapon... I could go on.

In the end, all the choices, all the events, all the emotions... it is all understandable, deeply relatable, profoundly close to your heart, even if it is a spy story. I'd go as far as saying that although it is not my favorite Bond film, it is possibly the most fascinating one ever made. No Bond film has ever gone deeper into the emotion than this one. Not even The Living Daylights went that deep.

And that depth is also the reason why Spectre ultimately falls flat.

Spectre - Storytelling Lowdown

On paper, Spectre is quintessentially Bond. Reading the script, it ticks all the boxes, works on all the levels. And the build-up of three films hinting at something bigger looked set to bring in a perfect pay-off, especially with the excellent Christoph Walz picking up the mantle of Spectre's leader Blofeld. But it wasn't seen that way when it came out. And now, looking back at all five, I think I understand why: they made a convoluted 'brotherly' connection between Bond and Blofeld. That was a mistake.

There are other criticisms worth mentioning, such as the perfect brawler Hinx (Dave Bautista) not getting enough screen time and a few too many over-the-top mustache-twirls. There are also plenty of good, even great parts. The first scene in Mexico is mindblowingly action-packed, and quite funny when that building comes crashing. It is also a superb set-up for the quiet, eerie funeral that follows. The main villain walking in for the first time during the meeting, with an entire theater so hushed you could hear a pin drop, was really impressive, fantastically shot and truly deserving of the best Bond bad guys.

Yet, looking at the quintet, we just had a 'brotherly' dispute with Silva, that was far more profound. We just had the whole digital-versus-analogue theme too. We just had a family-like complicated relationship ending in the death of beloved 'mother' M. And we had just gone back to Bond his family past in Scotland at the castle of Skyfall. In other words...we had just wrapped all of this up... better than this.

I feel that if it wasn't for this brother-bond, Spectre could have done the best thing possible after the first three, deeply emotional, films: a palette cleanser with a straightforward spy-exploration and fight against a straightforward hushed evil organization, with a straightforward Bond doing his not-so-straightforward job.

So yes, I was disappointed at the time, thinking it was a weaker outing. And yes, I was still disappointed now. Yet now in full quintet-mode, one thing starts to shine much brighter than it did at the time: Bond's relationship with Madeleine (Léa Seydoux).

Plus, the ending of Spectre does make up a lot. The character of C - whom I wished had more airtime - gets his 'dues' and Bond ends up in the middle of a bridge with two choices. He can choose to kill Blofeld or not. And whatever he chooses there, shapes the choice of either walking back to MI6 and the new M (Ralph Fiennes) on one side of the bridge, or choosing the woman on the other side. He chooses the woman, walking away from the spy life forever. Perfect scene, perfect visual depiction of choice. And perfectly understandable choice as well.

No Time To Die

I always assumed that double O agents don't get a happy-ever-after, that all of them get killed in action at some point. We just never get to see it. And in many ways, Craig's Bond actually did get several happy-ever-afters, as in the five films he quits his job surprisingly often to spend happy times on some tropical island somewhere.

You're catching my drift. We all know these agents die young. But in the 26 films before No Time to Die, we just never saw it actually happen. Now that we finally do, it ends up saving the film.

On the plot itself, I guess we can be brief. It's standard stuff. The bad guys do impossible thingies with tech-doodles, the ultimate villain is a soft-spoken douche-bag with no motivation, living on a clichéd island base, plotting to kill basically all of humanity because someone pissed him off or something I can't even remember.

It would have been better if he had an actual mustache to twirl on.

The 'controversy' at the time with a female, black 007, is irrelevant looking back at it now. It was a thing back then because of heightened tensions with MeToo, Black Lives, a backlash to 'woke' going too far, and the veil of a pandemic.

While all important discussions and events in their own right, none of it matters even in the slightest now. With the controversies in the rear window, we are left with a perfectly logical thing that has nothing to do with any of the above: Bond was out of the game, so someone else became 007. Nothing strange about that. In fact, from a script point of view, it would have been nice if they had build more on the Nomi/007 (Lashana Lynch) character.

And that kind of sums it all up actually: it's a bit of a bland affair. Most of the characters aren't fleshed out. The set pieces are sometimes great (the Vesper grave scene and what follows a particular standout, as well as the staircase fight copied from Daredevil) but most are kinda average. The emotional hits - even with Felix Leiter his death - just don't hit that hard. By God, even Ana de Armas as Paloma - the perfect Bond girl if ever there was one - just says 'see ya later' after they shot up some place together. No sex. And I don't just mean between them. I mean it as the film itself having little to no sex appeal for much of its runtime.

It shouldn't have worked. But it turns out, none of it matters. Because there I was, the second time around, again trying not to cry when Bond meets the inevitable fate all secret agents must face. And it's because of the previous four films, even if their setups are flawed, that I'm still left sobbing on the couch. Each of the four films gave the puzzle pieces for this fifth finale, which now, in hindsight feels like a carefully, delicately and beautifully crafted five-part masterpiece.

Sure, it's flawed. But you know, whatever. Because from the moment Bond met Vesper and found love, it was always going to end this way. However good or bad all the blood-bound and extended family stuff was represented, they gave the orphaned James Bond the ultimate gift, the ultimate paradox, the ultimate motivation, the ultimate sexiness and the ultimate stakes at the poker table of life...

A family.

Love, as always,

Rogier

And check out my book The Whole Story - The Ultimate Guide to Storytelling!

The Whole Story - The Ultimate Guide to Storytelling - Rogier van Kralingen