Bond, for sure. The MI films are terrible.
I would choose the Bourne stuff over MI, actually...
I won't watch Tom Cruise, and the MTV quick cuts in
Bourne tire me out. The first
Bourne film years before the current series was better because it relied on suspense rather than car chases and special effects.
I liked the Bond films back in the beginning with Connery and hung on a little way into the Roger Moore treatments until they became just too silly. Strangely enough, Ian Fleming, author of the Bond books, once said that Moore was closer to his original concept of James Bond while Connery was too fit.
To me, the James Bond books and movie series were strictly products of the 1960s and haven't aged well at all, especially when the UK is not as forceful a world power as she was in the first half of the 20th century. I look at James Bond books and films as odd symbols of the '60s just like films of Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer books were odd reflections of the 1950s culture. Besides, Woody Allen's spoof of
Casino Royale with him as the latest in a long family line of James Bonds sort of capped that series for me.
The best spy movies I've ever seen have been 1-film affairs, like Richard Burton in
The Spy Who Came in from the Cold and especially James Mason as Ulysses Diello, code name "Cicero," in Otto Lang's 1952 film
Five Fingers, based on a real life person--Hungarian-born Elvesa Bazna, valet to the British ambassador to Turkey in 1943-1944 who photographed British secret papers for the Nazis. Bazna was one of the most famous spies of World War II and lived by his wits. The film about him has no fist-fights or shoot-outs or car chases, just a well-written script filled with suspense.