007 and cigars

[Ken Gargett]

Here’s every cigar James Bond has ever smoked

He may not have been an aficionado, but Bond – from Moore to Brosnan – has still sparked up several times on screen

Words: Jonathan Wells

There is a scene in Die Another Day that likely had Bond enthusiasts tearing their hair out. It’s 2002 and Pierce Brosnan’s suave take on the super spy has just watched Halle Berry channel Ursula Andress – sashaying out of the ocean – before he offers her a sip of his drink. But the drink in question isn’t his classic martini. It’s not the Scotch-and-soda or old fashioned 007 favoured in the books. It’s not even a Craig-era Heineken. No. It is – prepare to shudder – a mojito.

But we can see why. Before Craig, Brosnan’s Bond was the only incarnation to set foot in Cuba, and he did it twice (in both Die Another Day and Goldeneye). So, the rum-based, sun-soaked cocktail – while having little footing in Fleming’s fiction – is forgivable. It’s what’s in Bond’s other hand that will really rile the purists: a fat Cuban cigar.

Because devout readers of Fleming’s books will know that, in all of the author’s 12 novels and two short-story collections that feature the spy, 007 never once lights up a cigar. In fact, Fleming seems to have a personal vendetta against them. He uses the smell of cigar smoke as a byword for cheapness or sadness throughout his works – and even has the villain of Thunderball, Emilio Largo, deploy a Corona brand cigar as a device of torture.

It’s nasty stuff. And the Bond of the books, as Casino Royale reads, was a cigarette man. He went through around 70 a day, smoking “a Balkan and Turkish mixture made for him by Morlands of Grosvenor Street”. But he wasn’t overly fussy. Bond smokes Chesterfields in the Bahamas, Royal Blends in Jamaica, Diplomates in Istanbul and Shinseis in Japan. But never, ever cigars.

And yet, Eon’s ongoing film franchise has never shied away from cigars. Brosnan was seen to entertain them everywhere, from the Cuban coast to the banks of Bilbao. Connery even sparked up once – albeit in the non-official Thunderball remake, Never Say Never Again. And Roger Moore, across his seven films, nearly made cigars synonymous with Bond. So, that’s where we’ll begin…

The Montecristo Especial No.1 Cigar

When Roger Moore stepped into the iconic role – for 1973’s Live and Let Die – he had one of the film industry’s most outrageous riders in history written into his contract. During his tenure as the man from MI6, who would go on to total seven films, he demanded an unlimited supply of fine cigars. Not only that, he also wanted his Bond to be the first to eschew cigarettes and plump for cigars instead.

His chosen brand? Montecristo. And he smoked several on screen during his time as Bond. But perhaps the most popular was the Especial No.1 – which makes its fiery debut in Live and Let Die when Moore’s Bond uses it to light a spray of aerosol aftershave to kill a snake. Seconds later, he uses the same cigar to burn the wrist of rogue CIA agent Rosie Carver. It’s a memorable sequence. And, thanks to the cigar’s trademark earthiness and wet-wood aromas, also a memorable smoke.

The Montecristo No.3 Cigar

Of course, there was a murmur of discontent from literary fans. And, whether producers heard their qualms or simply didn’t want Bond’s cigars to become too cartoonish, by the time Moore returned in The Man With The Golden Gun, his cigars had shrunk. They still weren’t as small as the Montecristo Media Coronas the actor favoured in real life – but the more manageable No. 3 cigars made for realistic smoking on the big screen.

In the film, Bond can be seen lighting up and discarding a No.3 outside the infamous Bottoms Up Club, in Hong Kong, moments before he meets Scaramanga’s henchman, Nick Nack. We also catch Bond enjoying a No.3 when he deftly pickpockets a Lebanese belly dancer in Beirut, as well as when he and Lieutenant Hip break into Hai Fat’s Bangkok compound.

The Romeo y Julieta Churchill

In 1965’s Thunderball, Q offers Bond a Romeo y Julieta. There’s no cigar to be smoked, however, as the aluminium case is simply a disguise for an underwater breathing gadget. But while Connery may never have lit a Romeo y Julieta on screen, the brand still shares strong links with the series.

In the novel You Only Live Twice, M is found dining at Blade’s Club. And, although the spymaster is known for smoking a pipe, his dining companion, Sir James Molony, is sold on the idea of a Romeo y Julieta by the head waiter, Porterfield. “The best of the Jamaicans are quite up to the Havanas these days,” Porterfield says. “They’ve got the outer leaf just right at last.”

On screen, Bond is all set to enjoy a Romeo y Julieta Churchill in the pre-title sequence of The World Is Not Enough, at a bank in Bilbao. However, before he can light up, 007 has to make his escape with the fortune of British oil tycoon Sir Robert King. It’s only in Die Another Day when Bond eventually sparks a Churchill alongside that mojito we mentioned above.

[Ken Gargett]

sadly, all the pictures have been arbitrarily deleted. pierce Brosnan i don't mind but halle berry is cruel. 

[riderpride]

Was it Golden Eye where he had a 'delicados'? Assuming Partagas SdC no1, except the rg was pretty far off as I recall. Never Say Never - I've tried to repress this monstrosity. Right up there with Octopussy 

[Ken Gargett]

12 hours ago, riderpride said:

Was it Golden Eye where he had a 'delicados'? Assuming Partagas SdC no1, except the rg was pretty far off as I recall. Never Say Never - I've tried to repress this monstrosity. Right up there with Octopussy 

i think you mean down there with octopussy. for me, octopussy really was the pits, although No Time to Die comes very close. a shocker. what was anyone thinking? not sure 007 will ever recover. 

the delicados were die another day, from memory. but i always thought they were fictional cigars (although no doubt many producers immediately added them to the portfolio). 

[riderpride]

Lol - those sticks were definitely fictional. Someone heard a vitola and facts be damned from there. 'No Time' was an interesting action film similar to 'On Her Majesty's' - it'll have no impact to other films except how Blofeld offered Bond a delicatessen in stainless steel. 😉 

Cheers!

 

[Pvalue83]

Whilst obviously Bond declines the cigar offered (so has nothing to do with 007 smoking a cigar), this thread reminded me of this scene in Goldfinger, which always makes me smile (much like the whole movie come to think of it).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Li Bai]

12 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

the delicados were die another day, from memory. but i always thought they were fictional cigars

The delectados iirc, cigars that were forbidden because they would last forever, just like a sleeper agent.👍

[BrightonCorgi]

21 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

i think you mean down there with octopussy. for me, octopussy really was the pits, although No Time to Die comes very close. a shocker. what was anyone thinking? not sure 007 will ever recover. 

the delicados were die another day, from memory. but i always thought they were fictional cigars (although no doubt many producers immediately added them to the portfolio). 

At least in Octopussy, 007 saved the world in my old Alfa GTV6.

[Ken Gargett]

On 12/30/2024 at 3:24 AM, BrightonCorgi said:

At least in Octopussy, 007 saved the world in my old Alfa GTV6.

yet another reason to rank it ahead of no time to die. 

On 12/29/2024 at 1:46 PM, riderpride said:

Lol - those sticks were definitely fictional. Someone heard a vitola and facts be damned from there. 'No Time' was an interesting action film similar to 'On Her Majesty's' - it'll have no impact to other films except how Blofeld offered Bond a delicatessen in stainless steel. 😉 

Cheers!

interesting take. never thought of it like OHMSS but there are some links i guess. but for me, i think way more different than similar. in the novel, bond marries the Contessa and she dies. no time to die does not have that background.

i just think it is an awful film. so many reasons. the most milk toast villain of all. a real pain in the arse bond girl (even some of my French friends say they can't stand her) with an acting range extending all the way from a to b and the pair of them so utterly unbelievable as a couple, especially her as the one with whom he would walk off into the sunset (a little bit of a link there to OHMSS i guess). she treats him like dirt for a day and then falls head over heels (okay, this film not alone in that) but for no legit reason and then they split after a week for several years but she is still the one? no one is buying that. giving him a kid? did these muppets ever read a bond book? they spend three films setting up Blofeld as the all time villain and then completely waste it. the nonsense of that eye that sees all from his cell? really? the invisible car was more believable. that DNA targeting weapon, what a load of crap. and did anyone really know what he wanted? as for killing bond, spare me. i did like the cameo of the Cuban girl. that was good fun. 

i thought it an absolute insult to Daniel craig to give him that as his farewell. 

[riderpride]

4 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

interesting take. never thought of it like OHMSS but there are some links i guess. but for me, i think way more different than similar. in the novel, bond marries the Contessa and she dies. no time to die does not have that background.

i just think it is an awful film. so many reasons. the most milk toast villain of all. a real pain in the arse bond girl (even some of my French friends say they can't stand her) with an acting range extending all the way from a to b and the pair of them so utterly unbelievable as a couple, especially her as the one with whom he would walk off into the sunset (a little bit of a link there to OHMSS i guess). she treats him like dirt for a day and then falls head over heels (okay, this film not alone in that) but for no legit reason and then they split after a week for several years but she is still the one? no one is buying that. giving him a kid? did these muppets ever read a bond book? they spend three films setting up Blofeld as the all time villain and then completely waste it. the nonsense of that eye that sees all from his cell? really? the invisible car was more believable. that DNA targeting weapon, what a load of crap. and did anyone really know what he wanted? as for killing bond, spare me. i did like the cameo of the Cuban girl. that was good fun. 

i thought it an absolute insult to Daniel craig to give him that as his farewell. 

Fair point about the Contessa - I just assume any Bond love/marriage movie is part of the multiverse. It may be acknowledged later, or it may not. 

I wholeheartedly agree that the last movie was an absolute disappointment. I'm torn on worst villain - Drax has a solid chance as does the writer for Octopussy. I can't tell if Drax is poorly written, cast, or performed. It may not matter.

Muppets don't read. I remember a tale by John Bernthal when he was cast as The Punisher. He went to a comic book shop to pick up a bunch of issues for research.  An employee/owner recognized him and knew his role so he told him to put everything down and to buy certain issues. It fundamentally changed his approach to the role and made a great series. In the case of Bond - no one is doing research and no one of influence is looking out for the franchise. 

Cheers Ken!

[Ken Gargett]

25 minutes ago, riderpride said:

Fair point about the Contessa- I just assume any Bond love/marriage movie is part of the multiverse. It may be acknowledged later, or it may not. 

I wholeheartedly agree that the last movie was an absolute disappointment. I'm torn on worst villian - Drax has a solid chance as does the writer for Octopussy. I can't tell if Drax is poorly written, cast, or performed. It may not matter.

Muppets don't read. I remember a tale by John Bernthal when he was cast as The Punisher. He went to a comic book shop to pick up a bunch of issues for research.  An employee/owner recognized him and knew his role so he told him to put everything down and to buy certain issues. It fundamentally changed his approach to the role and made a great series. In the case of Bond - no one is doing research and no one of influence is looking out for the franchise. 

Cheers Ken!

interesting you say drax. for me, at least there was a rationale, even if a silly one for drax. destroy humanity and start again. he kept within the boundaries of that. 

i'd argue against cast/performed. for me, Michael Lonsdale was a truly great actor. it was a coup for them to have him. he has a huge body of work, mostly French of course. i first saw him as a kid in day of the jackal and i think it was the first time i ever thought i had seen a great performance (i was young, but...). moonraker had a silly premise but it is hardly alone in that.

there have been some seriously good actors over the years. judi dench another. one of the minor MI6 characters was another for me, Michael Kitchen. only minor roles here. most famous for Foyles War. good show but hardly a challenge for him. always thought it was a bit of a waste of his talent. when i lived in London, he did a great deal on the London stage and i would see everything he did, usually twice. Shakespeare, an extraordinary play on hogarth for which he won all manner of awards, plenty of other stuff. he was mesmerising. on stage in London at that time, the only one i saw i'd put ahead of him was Anthony Hopkins.  

also interesting, the thoughts on looking after the franchise. a good mate of mine works for Bollinger and he was the link to the films (Bolly still don't pay a cent for their champagne to appear, despite suggestions of ten mill a film. they simply provided several cases of the wine they want included. it could get a mention and high vis, like moonraker or goldeneye or others, or possibly an appearance so brief you can hardly spot it, like the last one - they never know till the film comes out). he was terrific in providing me with inside info. and some great stories. also not a fan of the final bond girl. but from talking to him, absolutely no doubt that they take great care and know how valuable what they have is. they would research and investigate the way to go very carefully, but obviously do not always get it right. the last film a perfect example. but they do other projects and they have been in absolutely no rush to get on to the next one. you have to suspect that having painted themselves into a corner, they won't come out until they have an actor/director and plausible story that they believe will knock it out of the park. it might be quite a few more years before we see the next one.

happy new year. 

[Li Bai]

4 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

a real pain in the arse bond girl (even some of my French friends say they can't stand her) with an acting range extending all the way from a to b

Yeah, agreed. She's neither that popular nor seen as a major actress here in France, which I think is fair 🤔

[BrightonCorgi]

Amazon and the Broccoli family are butting heads on the direction the 007 franchise should go. This is the longest in the franchise history without a movie. Amazon wants it to be a Prime series with spin offs. They want to kill the grand theatrical releases and the 007 of old. 

[Ken Gargett]

10 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Amazon and the Broccoli family are butting heads on the direction the 007 franchise should go. This is the longest in the franchise history without a movie. Amazon wants it to be a Prime series with spin offs. They want to kill the grand theatrical releases and the 007 of old. 

no, this gap is nowhere near the longest - even the gap between spectre and no time to die was longer - 2015 to 2021. also licence to kill to goldeneye was 89 to 95. a way to go yet. but it is obviously in a difficult period. the people behind Bond have never been afraid of a big gap.

that said, not sure you can publicly call your partners f****** idiots and expect things to go well. easy to understand amazon wanting to turn bond into more money via streaming and tv series and spinoffs - that is basically their reason for being - but it would spell the end for the films and of him being the icon he is. you can't turn him into Mr Monk and expect him to maintain legendary status. when amazon officials are saying they don't see him as a hero but just a womaniser, you can't expect barbera broccoli to have much faith in what they would do. and she has no intention of allowing them to downgrade Bond. 

as she says, 'did you read the contract?'. she and Michael Wilson (which is basically eon, i believe) have creative control and they are not interested in what amazon wants. their way or no way. i can see amazon eventually deciding all too hard and better to make what we can and selling the thing. possibly back to the family, if they can raise the cash. eon are doing Daniel Craig as Othello at the moment so they are obviously in no hurry. no new Bond actor and i really doubt they have seriously looked. no new director. no new script.

i suspect that it is stalemate until eon gets its way. 

[Ford2112]

If they ruin Bond I will revolt!

[Ken Gargett]

13 minutes ago, Ford2112 said:

If they ruin Bond I will revolt!

you and billion more of us. it would be unforgivable.

for mine, if somehow amazon got its way, i would expect an entertaining but largely forgettable series, with a touch too much woke to make anyone comfortable, which i and squillions of others will never see because there is no way on earth i would ever subscribe to their services if they did that.

in the other corner, Broccoli and Wilson will hold out to make blockbuster movies - two or three a decade. they will surely, as they have, send it down distressing detours as they have definitely done before (octopussy, invisible cars, john cleese as whatever he played, making jaws immortal, getting his clues from talking parrots, that idiotic nonsense with thatcher, appointing whoever directed quantum, everything about no time to die), but at least they do get things back on track. they have my vote. i'd rather a regular dud and 3-4 crackers than spinoffs and a Moneypenny series and a striped gay and/or trans whale as 007 and lord knows what other crap they will concoct. 

 

[BrightonCorgi]

Spin offs are fine for Amazon prime, but 007 needs to be a theatrical blockbuster. I like the gritty style of Daniel Craig. Casino Royale is a masterpiece for Bond films.

[BrightonCorgi]

7 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

no, this gap is nowhere near the longest - even the gap between spectre and no time to die was longer - 2015 to 2021. also licence to kill to goldeneye was 89 to 95. a way to go yet. but it is obviously in a difficult period. the people behind Bond have never been afraid of a big gap.

With no script, direction, actors, etc. How long will it be before the next 007 film? Ten years from No Time to Die (2021)?

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Spin offs are fine for Amazon prime, but 007 needs to be a theatrical blockbuster. I like the gritty style of Daniel Craig. Casino Royale is a masterpiece for Bond films.

absolutely. 100% agree. for me, the best of all bond films. 

[KCCubano]

4 hours ago, Ford2112 said:

If they ruin Bond I will revolt!

I'm afraid it's only a matter of time.

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, BrightonCorgi said:

With no script, direction, actors, etc. How long will it be before the next 007 film? Ten years from No Time to Die (2021)?

not in the industry so just speculation but the delay will mostly be about sorting out the dispute. once that is done, they can start. script and director the most pressing. an actor can follow and adjustments made. a director should not take too long. the script is key. presumably a few months minimum. then the actors and into filming which seems to take the best part of a year. i would think that if they started today/very soon, we'd have the new film Christmas 2026. they seem to like the Christmas release. but realistically, who knows when they'll start. amazon is not going to be happy that the jewel in the MGM crown for which they paid serious dosh is not earning megabucks. that might prompt them to negotiate. unless Eon haemorrhaging dosh, and they seem to be fine though who would really know, they can hold on. that fact that there has been plenty in the papers of late suggests that someone somewhere is getting antsy and wants things resolved. 

[riderpride]

On 1/1/2025 at 3:43 PM, Ken Gargett said:

interesting you say drax. for me, at least there was a rationale, even if a silly one for drax. destroy humanity and start again. he kept within the boundaries of that. 

i'd argue against cast/performed. for me, Michael Lonsdale was a truly great actor. it was a coup for them to have him. he has a huge body of work, mostly French of course. i first saw him as a kid in day of the jackal and i think it was the first time i ever thought i had seen a great performance (i was young, but...). moonraker had a silly premise but it is hardly alone in that.

there have been some seriously good actors over the years. judi dench another. one of the minor MI6 characters was another for me, Michael Kitchen. only minor roles here. most famous for Foyles War. good show but hardly a challenge for him. always thought it was a bit of a waste of his talent. when i lived in London, he did a great deal on the London stage and i would see everything he did, usually twice. Shakespeare, an extraordinary play on hogarth for which he won all manner of awards, plenty of other stuff. he was mesmerising. on stage in London at that time, the only one i saw i'd put ahead of him was Anthony Hopkins.  

also interesting, the thoughts on looking after the franchise. a good mate of mine works for Bollinger and he was the link to the films (Bolly still don't pay a cent for their champagne to appear, despite suggestions of ten mill a film. they simply provided several cases of the wine they want included. it could get a mention and high vis, like moonraker or goldeneye or others, or possibly an appearance so brief you can hardly spot it, like the last one - they never know till the film comes out). he was terrific in providing me with inside info. and some great stories. also not a fan of the final bond girl. but from talking to him, absolutely no doubt that they take great care and know how valuable what they have is. they would research and investigate the way to go very carefully, but obviously do not always get it right. the last film a perfect example. but they do other projects and they have been in absolutely no rush to get on to the next one. you have to suspect that having painted themselves into a corner, they won't come out until they have an actor/director and plausible story that they believe will knock it out of the park. it might be quite a few more years before we see the next one.

happy new year. 

I had no idea he had such a successful career, I recall seeing Ronin but don't remember much of it. I don't associate the Moore era with serious acting, though Christopher Lee is certainly a fine actor. Moonraker is difficult to take seriously and to take an actor seriously in. Perhaps viewing from that lens tints my vision.

Interesting story about Boli - well done on their part to get the airtime!

Cheers!

[Ken Gargett]

5 hours ago, riderpride said:

I had no idea he had such a successful career, I recall seeing Ronin but don't remember much of it. I don't associate the Moore era with serious acting, though Christopher Lee is certainly a fine actor. Moonraker is difficult to take seriously and to take an actor seriously in. Perhaps viewing from that lens tints my vision.

Interesting story about Boli - well done on their part to get the airtime!

yes, not many great actors in the moore era. plenty for connery. 

my understanding about the Bolly deal was that Cubby Broccoli was sick of dealing with big companies all wanting product placement - there is a bit of that throughout Bond. they tried to stick to the books, early days - Taittinger was a great favourite of Fleming. and then moved to Dom P, but in one of the films, i think OHMSS, they use the 1957 vintage of Dom P, never made. so Cubby got annoyed, asked around to try and find a top notch but smaller family operation. was recommended to talk to Bolly. rang them up and arranged a lunch - by then, i assume Madame Bolly was gone and her nephew would have been in charge (he was followed by several nephews etc - including Ghislain de Montgolfier who was a lovely man and i had quite a bit to do with him - if i remember, i will tell the story of a lunch with him in the famous dining room some years ago next video - bit too long to write it all up). he was also a direct descendent of the Montgolfiers who invented flight in the hot air balloon. 

anyway, they had a great lunch and at the end, Cubby said he wanted a small quality house. they would never need to pay for the exposure, just provide a couple of cases of whichever champagne they wanted featured, but there was never an obligation that it must be featured. they shook hands and it has been a handshake deal ever since. 

[Fuzz]

On 1/1/2025 at 12:36 PM, Ken Gargett said:

yet another reason to rank it ahead of no time to die. 

interesting take. never thought of it like OHMSS but there are some links i guess. but for me, i think way more different than similar. in the novel, bond marries the Contessa and she dies. no time to die does not have that background.

i just think it is an awful film. so many reasons. the most milk toast villain of all. a real pain in the arse bond girl (even some of my French friends say they can't stand her) with an acting range extending all the way from a to b and the pair of them so utterly unbelievable as a couple, especially her as the one with whom he would walk off into the sunset (a little bit of a link there to OHMSS i guess). she treats him like dirt for a day and then falls head over heels (okay, this film not alone in that) but for no legit reason and then they split after a week for several years but she is still the one? no one is buying that. giving him a kid? did these muppets ever read a bond book? they spend three films setting up Blofeld as the all time villain and then completely waste it. the nonsense of that eye that sees all from his cell? really? the invisible car was more believable. that DNA targeting weapon, what a load of crap. and did anyone really know what he wanted? as for killing bond, spare me. i did like the cameo of the Cuban girl. that was good fun. 

i thought it an absolute insult to Daniel craig to give him that as his farewell. 

Insult? Please. Daniel Craig had complete creative control of NTTD, so if there is anyone to blame it is him. It was the only way EON and Barbara Broccoli could get him to return the do the film.

[Ken Gargett]

5 minutes ago, Fuzz said:

Insult? Please. Daniel Craig had complete creative control of NTTD, so if there is anyone to blame it is him. It was the only way EON and Barbara Broccoli could get him to return the do the film.

well, i'm sure the umpteen million didn't hurt. $25 mill, on top of the $60 mill he already had from previous roles, plus who knows what with endorsements. fuzz, i simply do not believe that eon/Barbera Broccoli would have allowed him to dictate that bond was to be killed if they were not on board (although lord knows why they would be). in fairness, craig had talked about killing off bond for years but i still don't believe he would have got his way if they had insisted otherwise. also, these projects are absolutely massive. to think that craig has his main job as the leading actor - in almost every scene and with the physical demands of that role, that he is also overseeing "complete creative control". no way. don't buy it. 

i know he talks about resetting, but you have a collection of seriously good actors in supporting roles - fiennes, ben Whishaw, harris as Moneypenny? so unless they shoehorn someone in as a new james bond and peddle some crap about the name goes with the number, what happens to them? and if they do, how weak is that. 

if it is not an insult to craig, it most certainly was an insult to millions of fans.