I started watching the 007 films again from the beginning. The 1st, DR. NO, while flawed, has grown on me slowly, and probably most resembles an Alfred Hitchcock thriller. Sean Connery is his youngest, thinnest, and most cold-blooded-- both with the women and the baddies.
"Let me put something on." "Oh don't go to any trouble on my account." (he suddenly grabs the girl and kisses her) "Please!" "Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I was invited up here to enjoy the view."
Later, after he has the woman hauled away by the cops (presumably for conspiracy to commit murder, as 3 Jamaicans in a hearse tried to run him off the road she gave him directions to drive on), someone shows up and pumps 6 bullets into what looks like an occupied bed. Bond gets the drop on him. When the guy goes for his gun and tries to shoot Bond again, we see something that may have inspired Clint Eastwood...
"That's a Smith & Wesson. And you've had your six."
BLAM!
BLAM!
(Yeah-- he shot the guy a 2nd time, IN THE BACK, after he was lying on the floor!)
I keep having these fantasies about how these films COULD have or should have been made, in some better, alternate, reality. DR. NO's big "mystery" is the villain is using a nuclear-powered radar beam to "topple" missiles, screwing up their guidance systems. In the book, this is revealed in a single paragraph 75% of the way into the book. Bond's boss tells him 10 minutes into the film, destroying any hope for a "mystery".
The story began as an aborted film project that was then turned into a novel. The villain was created so author Ian Fleming's cousin, Christopher Lee, could play an evil oriental. (The FU MANCHU movies were quite a few years later!) Lee would have been more menacing than Joesph Wiseman-- but perhaps not as "cool" and "slick" as the producers tended to be over the years, sadly almost always going for "style" over "substance".
I'm probably one of the only men on Earth who DOESN'T think Ursula Andress as "Honey Rider" is THE sexisest Bond girl of all time. She doesn't even rank in my top 10-- maybe not even 20. The character Honeychile Rider in the book was possibly my favorite Bond girl, but Andress just isn't cutting it with me! Plus, it turns out they had to dub her entire performace with another actress' voice. Shame!!! Given the early 60's, I'm not really sure who could have been right for it, but then, producers Broccoli & Saltzman had a running habit of casting unknown or just foreign actors, to make things more "exotic" while also keeping the BUDGETS down.
Finally, the climax is a let-down. Bond escapes a cell, fighting thru an electric grill, a tube filled with boiling water & steam, only to find the reactor room, set something to overload and fight it out with the villain. But Dr. No in the book was MUCH sicker than the guy in the film. He liked doing warped psychological studies on human victims, and the whole thing of Bond crawling thru the pipe was PLANNED to study his reactions to different stresses, and to see how long he could survive before-- invevitably-- buying the farm. At the end of tube, Bond falls into a fenced-in lagoon, and finds himself fighting for his life against a GIANT OCTOPUS!!! (When Fleming wrote the story in '56, he'd just seen 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA, which came out 2 years earlier.) Broccoli & Saltzman didn't have the budget for that. So-- no octopus.
Then of course there's the score... Monty Norman was contracted, but his music was deemed unsatisfactory. Orchestra leader John Barry was asked to write additional material, but because of the existing contract, he had to do it UNCREDITED, on the promise that if the film was a success, he'd have a steady job on the series.
Half of the score is by Barry-- NONE of his work is on the soundtrack LP, which is all Norman-- and half of that was cut from the film. "Soundtrack album" is really a misnomer in that case!
But "The James Bond Theme" has LONG been in dispute, mostly by fans, sometimes by Barry. It's been said by some that Barry wrote a "new arrangement" for Norman's theme. I don't think that's quite right. Something I've never seen mentioned is a track on the LP titled "The James Bond Theme" (on side 2) which is a completely different melody-- but has a suspiciously-similar musical arrangement to the famous tune. I suspect this different melody was what Norman wrote-- and Barry kept the arrangement but wrote a new melody to go with it.
But Norman continues to get credit-- and presumably, the royalties. Pretty good deal for something he may not have even done, eh? But then, the music biz is littered with songs credited to producers because some songwriters were just "hired hands".
Posted by armsfalloffboy on :
I need to go back and rewatch Bond. At least, Sean Connery Bond. Don't really care for Moore.
Posted by matlock on :
I would love to see the Fleming Bond novels refilmed in the proper sequence and done as period pieces. In other words, no lame gadgets, stale one liners or other bits of junk that have attached themselves to the film series over the years.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
The books were actually much better than the movies. The closest one to the book was From Russia With Love, and it was also the best, in my opinion.
Still, you have to admit that it took two factors to make the character stay alive this long, the Sean factor, and the fact that it was almost non-existant when JFK said Fleming was his favorite spy author.
Does anyone remember the "playhouse" with the americanized "Jimmy Bond"?
Posted by matlock on :
Never saw it but I've heard of it. Isn't there a remake of Casino Royale afoot? I can't say for sure but I thought somebody wanted to redo it without the comedy elements in the 1st theatrical version. I hate to say, because I realize it's the first of the novels but CR is pretty tedious reading in parts. Unless you really like to read about people playing cards.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
It was much more of an intellectual suspense type of thing. I think, and this is just my opinion, he culled the slower elements and amped it up in the other books. And the movies took the parts that worked best with movie-goers and amped them up. Thus, you have two variations working. Both worked well for the different mediums. But the movie formulas had grown a little worn by the time the best Brosnan was made, and that was goldeneye. Not so many farfetched "hideouts", and the action was very intense, especially the last fight with Bean.
Posted by profh0011 on :
I was in the unusual sitiation of having started reading the novels at least 3 years before seeing my first 007 film. As a result, a number of them were colored for me regarding how accurate translations they were-- or not. I didn't have trouble with GOLDFINGER, the 1st run by ABC, because I hadn't read that far yet.
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was a relatively simple revenge plot, with the KGB plotting to kill Bond for his interfering in various money-raising schemes in 3 previous books (CASINO ROYALE, LIVE AND LET DIE and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER). Fleming took greate pains to craft something that could be more respected in literary circles, after many labeled his first 4 books the work of a "hack". It was also Bond's version of Sherlock Holmes' "The Final Problem", as Fleming was tired of Bond and decided to KILL HIM OFF as a surprise ending. Luckily, like Conan Doyle (and even ERB on TARZAN), he changed his mind after-the-fact. Good thing, the next book, DR. NO, has long been one of my favorites!
As far back as '59, it was felt for the sake of international sales on a potential film series, that Russians should NOT be recurring villains, hence the creation by Fleming & McClory of S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and its leader, Ernst Stavros Blofeld. The initial project fell apart, but Fleming published their film treatment as a novel, THUNDERBALL-- and was subsequently sued by McClory! While things were up in the air (the suit dragged on at least 2 years) the deal with Broccoli & Saltzman came together, and with THUNDERBALL unavailable, they picked the PREVIOUS film proposal, DR. NO, to start with-- tacking on S.P.E.C.T.R.E. in the process.
I believe the lawsuit was STILL unresolved when FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was made, and the film is TWICE as complex as its book source, mainly for adding S.P.E.C.T.R.E. as the real villains. I had trouble following it originally-- I had the novel in my mind (and I don't LIKE changes!); on TV, commercial breaks got in the way; and on reruns, ABC cut the film mercilessly, whole scenes yanked out to fit more commercials in. BLASPHEMY!
But around 1978 I got the chance to see FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and GOLDFINGER on a double-feature at the Woodcrest Cinema (I think it's a pizza parlor now). Uncut! Uninterrupted! On a BIG SCREEN as God and Cubby Broccoli intended! Something happened that night-- my appreciation for the film rose IMMENSELY, it surpassed GOLDFINGER in my eyes (which until then had been my favorite 007 film), and it became my favorite Sean Connery film. It still is!
Robert Shaw almost reminds me of HALLOWEEN's Michael Myers in this. He appears throughout the movie, but until he joins Bond on the train in the guise of "Nash", he NEVER utters a word! He just keeps turning up, KILLING people, and disappearing.
"The first one won't kill you. Nor the second. Not even the third. Not until you crawl over hear and KISS my FOOT!" (As Bond asked-- "What lunatic asylym did they find YOU in?")
So... sweeping changes from the book aside, I've come to feel this film is SO good-- SO close to perfect-- I would only change ONE thing if it were physically possible.
You have to see this uncut & uninterrupted to notice that almost every scene "fades" into the next. The film story "flows" so naturally, it overcomes its own complexity. But there was always ONE abrupt "cut", when Bond meets Tania on the ferry boat. Decades later, I found out WHY. There's an entire scene missing! En route to the ferry, Bond & Kerim Bey are once again followed by the Bulgars (working for the Russians). In an alley, the lead car jams its breaks, the Bulgar crashes into it. A 3rd car crashes into that, jamming it in. A 4th car drives up, Bond & Kerim transfer to it. But before leaving, Kerim leans over the Bulgar driver, taps his cigar ash on the guy's suit, smiles, and says, "That, my friend-- is life!"
Reportedly this was considered Pedro Armendariz' best scene in the film as Kerim Bey. But at the initial preview, one of the children of a production team member commented, "Hey! That driver was KILLED earlier at the mosque!" Yep-- I'm guessing the film was shot out-of-sequence, and NOBODY noticed this discepency until that moment. As the guy at the mosque was referred to as having been KILLED more than once later in the film, I guess they felt it couldn't be brushed off. They yanked the scene-- and the "flow" of the film has always been disturbed slightly ever since.
Damn shame-- as, on the soundtrack album, one of my favorite tracks is a light, upbeat piece titled "The Golden Horn". It took multiple viewings of the film before I realized it's NOT in the movie. I'll bet it was written for that car-crash scene-- which is why it's missing, too.
What's funny about this is, I'd SWEAR I see Krelenco (the man who "kills for pleasure") at the train station when Bond, Kerim Bey & Tania flee Instanbul. He's standing right next to Benz, the Russian security man, who runs to catch the train. But Krelenco was shot and killed by Kerim Bey SEVERAL scenes earlier. Maybe the train scene was ALSO shot out-of-sequence?
John Barry (with Lionel Bart, who wrote the title song) did, in my opnion, one of the BEST scores in the entire series, and really set the tone and style for almost everything to follow. There's a lot of variety in it-- unlike some later scores built around one song-- to the point where the original soundtrack LP may be the best in the series, as it works on its own even without the movie. Possibly my single favorite opening title music is this one-- "James Bond Is Back--From Russia With Love"-- which actually combines 3 different pieces, a new one by Barry, a dynamic, instrumental version of the Bart song, and the "James Bond Theme" (credited to Norman, natch). Maybe more 007 films should have INSTRUMENTAL title sequences?
Posted by Outdoor Miner on :
Your pop culture knowledge never fails to impress, prof. This is a lot of stuff I never knew.
I've got to admit, as much as I like the movies, I preferred the books as well. Remakes that stuck close to those books could work. The only problem I see is the fact that the Bond of the books is in some ways less likable than the movie versions, because the Book bond is more honest about and aware of his manipulation of people.
Posted by profh0011 on :
"Your pop culture knowledge never fails to impress, prof. This is a lot of stuff I never knew."
Thanks!
"I've got to admit, as much as I like the movies, I preferred the books as well. Remakes that stuck close to those books could work."
I've felt that way for AGES!
"The only problem I see is the fact that the Bond of the books is in some ways less likable than the movie versions, because the Book bond is more honest about and aware of his manipulation of people."
See the 2 TIMOTHY DALTON films-- especially THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. My God-- THAT's the Ian Fleming version of James Bond!!! His 1st film became the biggest-seller of the series at the time, and both were HUGE worldwide-- but NOT in America, where people don't know how to read. It's similar to what happened with MIKE HAMMER-- the Stacy Keach version is possibly the LEAST like the books, yet, JUST like Sean Connery, his characterization was specifically tailored for general audiences. It's funny-- back in '86, my brother told me, "Until now, George Lazenby was my favorite Bond." (Amazing what even a 1st-time actor can do if the SCRIPT is good enough!)
By the way-- LIVE AND LET DIE is the only Bond book I read TWICE. The film MUST be appreciated strictly on its own terms, and if you do that, it's funny as hell. But as a "Bond" film, it's an abomination-- yet not nearly as much as DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and MOONRAKER. It's the only one of the "comedy Bonds" that's actually FUNNY. Meanwhile, so little of the book was utizlized, that the unused bits later turned up in both FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (my favorite Roger Moore film, a real tribute to Ian Fleming!) and LICENSE TO KILL ("He disagreed with something that ate him.").
Posted by profh0011 on :
"Does anyone remember the "playhouse" with the americanized "Jimmy Bond"?"
Regardless of what some have said... EXCELLENT!!! Sure, they made Bond an American, and Leiter a Brit, but PETER LORRE as Le Chiffre was one of the BEST Bond villains EVER!!! What a shame CASINO ROYALE wasn't the start of a big-budget FILM series instead of a live TV broadcast. Also, they LEFT OUT the 2nd half of the book-- which, frankly, I found a HUGE improvement! The climax of the story takes place halfway in-- after that, Bond spends the entire 2nd half of the novel recovering and having a love affair with Vesper... until he discovers she was a double agent all along.
On the phone: "Yes, I said WAS. The bitch is DEAD now!"
Clearly this was Fleming's tribute to Mickey Spillane's climax of the 1st Mike Hammer, I THE JURY.
BLAM!!! "How COULD you?" "It was EASY."
Posted by Greybird on :
Thanks for the commentaries and book-to-film contrasts, Prof. I've been a fan of the films for 30 years, but only managed to read two of the novels. (Well, one novel, "From Russia With Love," and the set of short stories that was "For Your Eyes Only.")
From all I can see, Dalton -- who was not intended as Bond originally, but was pulled in for the unavailable Brosnan -- has the cruel edge and cynicism that Fleming's creation possessed, and which no one else (except "You've had your six" Connery in "Dr. No") has quite managed to convey. It's a shame that he only did two films.
Connery and, slightly behind him, Dalton are my own favorite Bonds. Moore and, again slightly behind him, Lazenby are the second echelon. Brosnan is competent and charming, but never had quite the same spark.
Here's my own ranking of the films I've seen, favorite first, with their Bonds, and some of what's memorable about them:
1 "Dr. No" (Connery) ... the perfect cool, Ursula Andress 2 "Goldfinger" (Connery) ... the silly laser, the car, the hat, Honor Blackman 3 "The Living Daylights" (Dalton) ... the insurgents, the cello, Maryam d'Abo 4 "From Russia With Love" (Connery) ... Venice, Karim Bey, Lotte Lenya 5 "The Spy Who Loved Me" (Moore) ... Barbara Bach, that sea-castle, the flag parachute 6 "For Your Eyes Only" (Moore) ... the kid, the aerie, the professional (spy) courtesy 7 "You Only Live Twice" (Connery) ... the pearl divers, Bond dying in the first scene 8 "Tomorrow Never Dies" (Brosnan) ... Michelle Yeoh, villain hoisted on his own missile 9 "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (Lazenby) ... Diana Rigg -- 'nuff said 10 "Diamonds Are Forever" (Connery) ... Jill St. John, the two gay assassins 11 "Thunderball" (Connery)* ... underwater scenes 11 "Never Say Never Again" (Connery)* ... he still looked great! 12 "Live and Let Die" (Moore) ... the bayou chase 13 "License to Kill" (Dalton) ... that underground lair, Bond's revenge motive 14 "Octopussy" (Moore) ... the reverse harem, the circus 15 "GoldenEye" (Brosnan) ... the Russian settings, Judi Dench as "M" 16 "Die Another Day" (Brosnan) ... Halle Berry 17 "The World Is Not Enough" (Brosnan) ... y'know, I can't remember, but still liked it
* Essentially the same film, but each has its charms
I never saw -- yet, or in full -- "The Man With the Golden Gun" (the villain was strange), "Moonraker" (it shouldn't have gone into orbit), or "A View to a Kill" (too preposterous a geology plot, even for Bond films).
I thought the parody "Casino Royale" was a hoot, but it's really not on the same planet as those above. Did I hear correctly that the Broccoli family is considering a straight-faced remake? I hope it happens. (I wonder how that book escaped their grasp originally.)
Here are the best Bond original songs or music:
1 "Nobody Does It Better," Carly Simon 2 "Live and Let Die," Paul McCartney & Wings 3 "Goldfinger," Shirley Bassey 4 "You Only Live Twice," Nancy Sinatra 5 Combined score to "Dr. No" 6 "Diamonds Are Forever," Shirley Bassey 7 "We Have All the Time in the World," Louis Armstrong 8 "Tomorrow Never Dies" ... no, not Sheryl Crow, but k.d. lang under the END credits 9 John Barry score to "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" 10 "Thunderball," Tom Jones 11 "All Time High," Rita Coolidge 12 "From Russia With Love," Matt Monro 13 "For Your Eyes Only," Sheena Easton
And all-time kudos to Bernard Lee as "M," Desmond Llewelyn as "Q," Lois Maxwell as Moneypenny, and the Monty Norman (or whoever's-it-was) plucked-string theme, all of whom and which are irreplaceable. In this 007 fan's mind, anyway. (Okay, Judi Dench comes close. Very close.)
Posted by Bevis on :
You know Tom Jones almost passed out recording Thunderbal. He insisted that he couldn't possibly get the note towards the end and hold it for as long as they wanted him to but they kept at him until he did it. The sustained note almost caused him to faint from lack of oxygen though, and he said he barely managed to finish recording the song. As with most really good artists though the final version is all from one take despite that, which is quite cool.
Plus I like the fact that Shirley is the only artists to do multiple Bond theme songs.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
The funny thing is, Bevis, i think he would make an Excellent Bond villian. The one i am thinking of is the Laird of Murcaldy, in Gardner's first Bond book, License Renewed. Granted, the villians discriptionin the book is vastly different than Jones, but now he has the seasoned, matured look to him that could play well.
I have to say, though, that so far, i am preferring Benson's Bond to Gardners. Though he did good stuff in his first bond novels, his later books seemed a little to "desperate" for a breakout star villian. I think Benson manages to capture the more realistic, human side, but at the same time there is an element of the surreal in some of his stuff, like the brain lession thing. But he mixes in the brutal side of Bond well.
Just some thoughts, anyway.
Posted by profh0011 on :
Talk about comparisons...
THUNDERBALL / NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN
Try this...
GOLDFINGER / OCTOPUSSY
I'm not kidding!!! (Think about it...)
Posted by profh0011 on :
Growing up in the 60's, I watched THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E., GET SMART!, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, and later on, reruns of THE WILD WILD WEST. But because my parents didn't want to expose their kids to "SEX and VIOLENCE!!!", I never saw a Bond film-- until ABC ran GOLDFINGER for the first time in 1973. WOW!!! What a COOL movie!!! Sean Connery is SO cool. The villains! The gadgets! That CAR!!! Etc.
Eventually, I read the book. Like many others, the film made DRASTIC changes. Like, Jill Masterson-- my favorite of all the Connery Bond girls (despite her being onscreen maybe 5 whole minutes-- i just loved her personality) is killed while Bond is there, which really hurts. In the book, he doesn't find out about it until Tilly tells him-- weeks or months (?) later.
2/3rds of the book passes before Bond becomes a prisoner, and is almost killed by a ROTATING BUZZ-SAW (YIPES!!!). But Bond is a prisoner for more than half-- almost 2/3rds of the film.
Pussy Galore (the ULTIMATE Fleming Bond-girl-name!) has much more screen-time in the film and becomes more of a full partner with Goldfinger, instead of being one of many gang leaders. She's also specified as a lesbian in the book, and apparently gets involved for some time with Tilly, who doesn't get killed until the raid on Fort Knox at the book's climax.
The gangsters are NOT butchered wholesale in the book-- and Mr. Solo gets bumped off by falling down a flight of steps! This scene turned up in A VIEW TO A KILL. An unused sequence involving a "Picto-graph" machine later appeared instead in the film FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. The climax, where Oddjob is SUCKED OUT of the decompressing airplane, while Goldfinger GOES DOWN when the plane crashes, was used somewhat more authentically in OCTOPUSSY.
The BIGGEST change to the film, however, was the result of fans & critics complaining BITTERLY about the "implausability" of the main plot. For GOLDFINGER stands apart from most 007 stories, as unlike most (which are "espionage" tales of some sort), this one's a HEIST film-- of the grandest order!!! The film-makers actually took the specific criticisms about how IMPOSSIBLE it would be to actually ROB FORT KNOX-- and included it in the script when Bond tells Goldfinger, "It won't work, you know." And the villain smiles and says...
"Who mentioned anything about removing it?"
At the time GOLDFINGER was being made, THUNDERBALL was still in the hands of Kevin McClory. Apparently, by the time the 3rd film hit theatres, he'd seen the hand-writing on the wall and made a deal with Broccoli & Saltzman, because in the end credits it says, "James Bond will return in 'Thunderball'". But this may not have happened until late in the game. By having Goldfinger plan to use an atomic bomb to contaminate America's gold supply-- and mention the threat that if the authorities try searching for it, it may go off elsewhere-- like Miami, etc.-- the film is actually stealing the "McGuffin" of THUNDERBALL, and to some degree undercuts the main point of what eventually became the following film! (Like the 1940's Sherlock Holmes series, you wind up needing a score card to remember what bits of which movie came from which book.)
Like THE MALTESE FALCON, GOLDFINGER is a case of near-PERFECT casting. Gert Frobe as Auric Goldfinger; Harold Sakata as Oddjob; Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore; Shirley Eaton as Jill Masterson; Burt Kwouk as the Red Chinese spy. Despite my normal loyalty to books over film versions, this film is SO DAMN GOOD, in a different universe I'd leave it just as it is-- with one minor exception. Cec Linder is terrible as Felix Leiter.
My favorite Felix has long been David Hedison (imagine my joy & shock when he became, bizarrely, the only actor to play the part twice). But Jack Lord was damn good in DR. NO. What the HELL kept them from getting Jack Lord to come back as Felix? WHY have they consistently cast a different actor EVERY time Felix appears? I'm a bit up in the air about this-- Hedison or Lord? But since Lord played it first, I guess I'll stick with him. Next time you watch the film, just picture "Steve McGarrett" in place of the guy they're trying to pass off as Bond's "CIA counterpart".
I can't close without a comment about Shirley Bassey's SCARY vocals on that title song. Without this, we may have seen more instrumental 007 themes. It's not my favorite Bond theme by a mile, but it suits the picture. Anybody ever hear writer Anthony Newley's "demo" version? It turned up on the "25th Anniversary" CD set, and ever since I heard his wimpy, limp-wristed vocals, I've jokingly called it the "GAY" version of "Goldfinger". Oh yeah-- HE'S THE MMMMAN-- who LLLLOVES ONLY GOLLLLD (not women). And here, we all thought Pussy Galore was supposed to be the gay character in the story?
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
My favorite villianess was the redhead from thunderball. She attacked the role with a genuine lust for it. The remake, Never say never again, had barbara carrera. And while i lusted for her then, the redhead ( I used to know her name and now can't recall it...ah, the ravages of age) really stood out.
Posted by profh0011 on :
Luciana Paluzzi as Fiona Volpe. (Watching it today!)
She was also in TO TRAP A SPY, the "expanded" color theatrical re-edit of "The Vulcan Affair", the pilot for THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. (Strange but true-- they added several subplots for the movie version that were never seen on the TV show.) And, she was also in THE GREEN SLIME, a really cool, fun US-Japanese sci-fi space horror film written by Bill Finger.
Posted by profh0011 on :
"The one i am thinking of is the Laird of Murcaldy, in Gardner's first Bond book, License Renewed."
My best friend Jim and I used to read each new Gardner Bond book as they came out. The game we liked to play was trying to "cast" actors as the various characters, all the while wishing they'd do movie versions, while Broccoli & co. repeated stressed NO interest whatsoever in doing so.
For example, we BOTH thought of Veronica Hamel as the "bad" girl in NOBODY LIVES FOREVER (the 5th book), and Caroline Munro as the "good" girl in the same story. I also thought of Joe Don Baker as the CIA guy in ICEBREAKER (my favorite Gardner novel by a mile)-- what a surprise when he actually turned up in virtually the same role in GOLDENEYE!
Posted by profh0011 on :
The first 2 times I saw THUNDERBALL, I found it hard to follow, and later, I couldn’t recall what it was about. This never happened with the other 007 films. In my reading, I caught up with the book—and enjoyed it IMMENSELY. One of Ian Fleming’s best works, I felt. Nice, tight, fast-moving plot… which all left me wondering what the problem was. Then I saw the film on ABC a 3rd time. THAT’s when I knew.
“Too many cooks.”
THUNDERBALL started out in 1959 as a film project intended to bring James Bond to the screen for the 1st time. It was thought for worldwide ticket sales that an international crime syndicate—S.P.E.C.T.R.E.—would make better recurring villains than the Russians. The plot went through at least 12 scripts before the project fell apart. As he’d done twice before, Ian Fleming turned the story into a novel (and was promptly sued by Kevin McClory over it!). Can a book be called a “novelization” if it’s based on a film that was never made?
Now, I don’t know exactly what was in all those script drafts, but Fleming must have pruned that tree right to the bone. The book is SO simple, direct, and easy to follow—yet loaded with all the typical Fleming personal touches, details, and fully-fleshed out characters. The eventual film, however—based more likely on the earlier scripts than the novel—is a bloated, overstuff MESS that seems too proud of all the girls, gadgets, dangers and plot twists. Add commercial breaks on ABC and severe CUTS in reruns, it’s no wonder I couldn’t follow the plot of this on TV!
As an example, the book has 2 girls—Pat, the therapist, and Domino, the sister of the dead pilot & mistress of Emilio Largo, SPECTRE #2 and mastermind of the criminal plot. The film has 4 girls! The additions were Paula, Bond’s “assistant” in Nassau, and Fiona Volpe, SPECTRE #6, the red-headed Italian assassin! (WHOO-HOO!) In one of the ’59 scripts, she was named “Fatima Blush”; the name would be reused in the ’83 remake. In addition, it’s Domino’s brother who sells out to SPECTRE—whereas the film has him murdered and impersonated by a double, who double-crosses his bosses and is ALSO murdered. The whole “double / plastic surgery / man in bandages” thing just strikes me as the film-makers trying too damn hard to say, “LOOK how clever we all are!”
Then you have about a 45-minute sequence in the middle of the film which TOTALLY deviates from the main plot of the story. It starts when Bond is picked up by Fiona, continues when Paula is kidnapped by SPECTRE goons, Bond goes to rescue her but finds she’s already dead, has a cat-and-mouse game at Largo’s house Palmyra, then runs into Fiona in his hotel room—eventually being captured by SPECTRE goons, escaping, and running all over the “Mardi Gras” parade before she’s accidentally killed by her own men. (OOPS!) It’s no surprise that the very next scene has James & Felix in a helicopter searching for the missing plane & bombs—EVERYTHING with Fiona could be CUT, and the film would move much better, and have a lot more room for character development.
It’s a sad thing that THUNDERBALL has so many good actors in it—and NONE of them have enough screen time to do anything! This even includes Bond. Unlike the 3 previous films, Sean Connery appears to be just walking thru this. He shows no emotions, no anger, no sadness, no humor. The whole thing’s just become a job to him! Considering his talent as an actor, this is the real crime of the picture—not somebody stealing 2 atomic bombs!
So, while some have complained about the “slow” underwater sequences, to me, it’s everything else that’s the problem. In some alternate reality, I can envision what this film COULD have or SHOULD have been like.
Let’s start with the beginning. It took me decades to realize the pre-credit sequence is really ripped off from the CLIMAX of the book, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE! Bond goes after somebody who’s wearing a disguise for the murder of someone he knew. In the fight, he breaks their neck with a fireplace poker—then escapes INTO THE SKY! (No wonder I sometimes think you need a “score card” to tell what came from where.)
10 minutes into the film, as soon as we see Bond at Shrublands, the whole film cranks to a halt. So much goes on there, intercut with other scenes, it’s rediculous. I suggest scrapping the entire pre-credit sequence, and replace it with a very tightly-edited health club sequence. Bond’s there for therapy, sees Count Lippe, who recognizes Bond as an enemy of SPECTRE and decides to bump him off. Meanwhile, Fiona has seduced the pilot to work for them—thereby increasing her sexual prowess in the story—and warns Lippe not to do anything that might draw attention to their current plans. He tries to kill Bond anyway, fails, Fiona contacts her boss and gets orders. We then see Bond on the road, Lippe about to ambush him—several shots fired, cars swerving everywhere (it should be much more exciting than it was in the actual film), when out of nowhere, this black motorcycle appears, BLOWS Lippe to HELL, then disappears while Bond is driven off the road and barely escapes with his life. Some ways off, we find the cycle rider is Fiona—as she dumps the cycle in the lake, the “underwater” opening credits with Tom Jones’ song fades in.
The SPECTRE board room scene is one of the best in the film. The only flaw is, we never get to see Blofeld, who was described in great detail in the book. I picture going direct from this to the Vulcan bomber hijack, without any intercutting with other scenes (see above). Bond could have seen Domino’s brother talking with Lippe—he needn’t have seen him “dead” as stated in the film as an excuse to go to Nassau.
Connery once said Felix Leiter was “forgettable”—sure, when he’s played by a different actor in every film, and never given any decent screen time. The lengthy sequence where Felix skulks around, a bad redo from DR. NO, was probably left over from the earlier scripts. What we needed was a scene of Bond arriving at the airport, met by his best buddy Felix, who’d say, “When I heard you were coming here I KNEW this was where the action would be, so I had myself assigned here too.” Then when Bond meets Domino the first time, it could be Felix in the boat with him. I’d dump Paula entirely. She adds nothing to the story, and exists only as an excuse for Bond to traipse around Largo’s house at night and fall into his shark pool. There’s enough sharks around the Vulcan bomber, and later during the climactic battle—we didn’t need that pool sequence!
My one problem in restructuring this story is Fiona. I’m tempted to just follow the book, except Luciana Palluzi is SO good, I’d want to keep her—especially if by dumping some extraneous things she could have more screen-time, too. I’d say she should run into Bond in his hotel room and seduce him, WITHOUT his having gone to save Paula. Later, I’d have her shot at the Kiss Kiss club—but only injured, and wanting Bond dead even more. Later, on the beach, I’d have her sneak up on Bond & Domino—and get it with the spear gun. It was a much more memorable death, after all, and would have allowed her to stick around until just before the start of the climax.
The rest of my changes all involve the cast. Last year, I began thinking a lot about this, and got double-visions as I watched it, as I pictured who SHOULD have played certain parts. To begin with, Ernst Stavros Blofeld has NEVER been cast properly. I’ve read that CURT JURGENS would have been perfect. In fact, he almost did play the part—until a McClory lawsuit over THE SPY WHO LOVED ME had Broccoli thumb his nose by changing the villain’s name to Stromberg. When I saw Jurgens as a German general in THE LONGEST DAY, I knew he should have played the part. For consistency, I’d have had him appear in EVERY film—FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, THUNDERBALL, ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. (I’m getting ahead of myself here, I you get the idea.)
Next, while suave & “cool”, Adolpho Celi is too old and “stiff” to play the virile, action-oriented Emilio Largo. Plus, they had to dub his voice (with the same actor who also dubbed a policeman in DR. NO, Tanaka in YOLT, and the guy pretending to be Blofeld in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY). My choice? TELLY SAVALAS. It’s been said Savalas was all wrong for Blofeld in OHMSS. I agree—but the script he had and his performance was SO good, he’s become my #1 favorite Bond movie villain of all time. Even so, I’d be willing to recast him here for a better fit, and even more screen-time!
Then there’s Domino. RAQUEL WELCH, an expert swimmer and one of the icons of the 60’s, was actually cast for the part. I’ve even seen a photo of her in the bikini Claudine Auger wears. But her studio took advantage of the 007 publicity and then yanked her out to appear in something else. Shades of what happened to Pierce Brosnan in 1986!!! Auger’s pretty, but not “tough” enough. Just imagine HOW MUCH MORE memorable Welch would have been, and how much better the film would have been with her in it!
For Felix, obviously, JACK LORD. While Rik Van Nutter has been described as the “closest” in appearance to the character in the book, he doesn’t get a chance in the film to show if he’s got any personality or not. Even without any, Lord has more presence.
Finally, the nuclear physicist, Kuntz. George Pravda was wonderful as the chief of police in the DOCTOR WHO story, “The Deadly Assassin”. Here, he seems too wimpy and in some scenes reminds me of Peter Lorre. My choice? DONALD PLEASENCE! Sure, I loved him in YOLT, but he was even more wrong for Blofeld than Savalas. Had HE played Kuntz, it would have been a perfect fit—as seen in the character he played in FANTASTIC VOYAGE (opposite Welch, as it happens).
Try picturing all this in your mind next time you watch the movie. It could have been SOOOOO good!!!
Lastly… you know how from THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS to TOMORROW NEVER DIES 4 films in a row had 2 songs—a “villain” song and a “romantic” song? THUNDERBALL almost had a song by the name of “Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” over the opening credits. The lyrics were SO silly, however, and sanity prevailed, so at the last minute the song Tom Jones sang was hastily written & recorded (and Jones reportedly DID faint after he finished it in one take—heehee). I think any DVD releases of this movie should have a video tacked onto the end of what could have been an end credit song—if end credits were as long back then as they are today. It was recorded by Shirley Bassey—too shrill for me—and Dione Warwick—which I’ve come to love. I’d go with that one. Ah, what could have been…
Posted by Chaim Mattis Keller on :
Thunderball - I've always thought of Claudine Augur as the sexiest of the "primary" Bond girls.
(Primary - Bond's main love interest in the film Secondary - Bond dalliance within the film with a girl who serves the main adventure plot in some capacity but is not the primary Tertiary - Dalliance with a girl who is nothing more than sexy window dressing)
I'm one of those rare folks who has seen all of Bond andlikes Moore the best. (Which is not to say I think all the Moore films are gems - Moonraker was an abomination, for example) I like the lighter touches amid the heavy intrigue, and no one did those better than Roger.
Posted by profh0011 on :
MOONRAKER has long been at the bottom of my list, scraping out below DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. It's frustrating, because when you look at the story and the scope, it had such potential! An article in 007 magazine even pointed out how it was THE SPY WHO LOVED ME redone without the plot problems. But it has 2 MAJOR drawbacks. It's IDIOTIC-- the style of humor is completely out of place, moreso when you consider how they worked so hard to find a proper tone in the previous film. But-- and I forgot about this for years-- it's also BORING. None of the action scenes are exciting. They all seem to be taking place in slow motion, and with an air of detachment.
I can't talk about the film without mentioning Derek Meddings' STUNNING effects work on the space shuttle lift-off. NASA had delays with the real thing, and when they finally got one off the ground (almost 2 years later), I saw the photo in TIME magazine and thought, "Hey! Derek Meddings got it ABSOLUTELY right!" Imagine if HE had done the spaceship work in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.
On the other hand, that space station... AAAAAUGH! Not only is the design confusing and meaningless, WHOSE bright idea was it to show it generating "artificial gravity" by rotating-- while the floors are all in the same direction? If we're to believe they were generating centrifugal force, as in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, then everyone would have been thrown to the outside edges of the structure. The kind of "artificial gravity" used in this space station was more of the LOST IN SPACE Jupiter 2 or STAR TREK Enterprise variety. I could accept that-- but the spinning just makes NO SENSE at all.
There's a reason FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is my favorite Roger Moore film... a LOT of reasons!
Posted by Chaim Mattis Keller on :
Yes, but the primary reason,no doubt, is because it's the most Connery-like Bond Moore played. On the other hand, I love Diamonds Are Forever, one of your bottoms, partially because it's the most Moore-like of Connery's films. And your other bottom, Golden Gun, is my favorite (although the reason is that I think Scaramanga was an awesome villain...there were definitely some things wrong with it)
Moonraker, on the other hand, was just absurd. It was so clearly done to rip off the popularity of Star Wars. Whatever level of realism exists in any Bond film were thrown out the window here, from the way-too-easy shuttle launch (no ground control???) to the apparent existence of a U.S. military space corps with laser weapons. It's one thing to have Q give Bond a special technology weapon, it's quite another to put these things into the hands of the regular military.
Posted by profh0011 on :
It's a shame MOONRAKER wasn't one of the earliest films made. I've always liked the book. So typical of the "mix and match" mentality of "adaptations", the climax of the book turned up in the movie THE SPY WHO LOVED ME-- so "obviously", it couldn't be used in the film supposedly based on it 2 years later.
As a fan of the books, I can't help but feel that Roger Moore-- and the producers' approach during his run-- were just WRONG for the character of James Bond. As a fan of THE SAINT (I've read 25 of the books so far and have ALMOST every film & tv episode on tape), I'd have much rather seen all that effort going into making big-budget "epic" SAINT films in the 70's with Moore, a character he at least seemed a good fit for, and apparently had more respect for. I can't understand his continual refusal to take Bond seriously-- while it turns out he often played Simon Templar TOO seriously for that character! (What went on there??)
Never mind Connery-- I've NEVER been able to visualize him or "hear" his voice in my head when I read any of the books (Fleming or Gardner). FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, made the way it was partly due to a backlash against MOONRAKER, returned to the Fleming source material BIG-TIME. There's a 20-minute sequence right in the middle that is an ACCURATE adaptation of the short story "Risico" (except for killing Lisl, which only happened in the movie). In addition, I counted pieces of at least 5 other Fleming stories used in the film, including the previously-missing climax of LIVE AND LET DIE. I also think Bill Conti did a much better job on the score than John Barry had done on anything since 1969. (Barry would not really return to form until 1986-- when he did his only score for a Timothy Dalton film!) And finally, it features my #1 favorite Bond girl-- Lynn-Holly Johnson! (You can tell this is personal taste-- she ALWAYS gets overlooked in any Bond girl retrospective.)
Posted by lancesrealm on :
The thing I hated about Moonraker was the battle in space. You could SEE the laser beams! You can see a laser beam from the side only if:
a) there is something to reflect the beam, such as dust particles
b) there is an atmosphere, and the excited electrons in the path of the beam generate light in the visible spectrum
Did no one tell these people neither of these conditions exist in space?
Posted by profh0011 on :
I'm just trying to picture in my head who would make a good Sir Hugo Drax, that famous British Nobleman scientist struggling to bring England into the space age (when in reality he's an ESCAPED NAZI WAR CRIMNINAL bent on destroying London with a missile loaded with an ATOMIC WARHEAD), if they ever made a "proper" period adaptation of the book. Usually I'm at a loss for "current" actors, but right now, the 1st person who came to mind was Anthony Hopkins.
Any thoughts on casting "period" Bond films with current actors? (Or past actors-- this was a fun game at the DC boards with the JSA.)
Posted by profh0011 on :
Probably no Bond film ever got less respect than ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE.
In the wake of the THUNDERBALL lawsuit, which dragged on at least 2 years, Ian Fleming wrote THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (an “experimental” novel he was so ashamed of he forbid Broccoli & Saltzman from doing an adaptation of it) and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (which ran in a competeing newspaper than the one running the 007 comic-strip, resulting in THUNDERBALL getting yanked 1/3rd of the way in—was there a CURSE on that story?). Right around the time he signed the deal with B&S, he decided to write a sequel to THUNDERBALL. In that, he’d introduced S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and Blofeld, and made great strides to make Bond more “human” than he’d been in the earlier books. OHMSS continued the new trend. We see more of Bond's “personal” life than ever before, and he actually falls in love and (GASP!) gets married. Meanwhile, he tracks down Blofeld (wanted by the authorities after that atomic bomb incident), meets him face-to-face for the first time, has to escape, but then comes back and blows his plans all to hell. Except the villain escapes—and gets revenge.
Peter Hunt had edited the previous films, and really wanted to direct. When THUNDERBALL became Kevin McClory’s film property, OHMSS was planned as the 4th in the B&S 007 series. It got pushed back when McClory made his deal with B&S. By all rights, it should have been the 5th film—but for a variety of reasons, none of which really make sense to me, they decided to do the SEQUEL to OHMSS first, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. They also decided the plot, which focused on a travelogue of Japan and Bond’s personal revenge on the man who killed his wife, was “unfilmable”, and so spun off instead an epic of action, violence and visual spectacle. It gave Connery (or anyone else) little to do as an actor. How ironic that the NEXT film, without Connery, would have the best script in the entire series?
First-time actor George Lazenby was cast, and he proved even more expert with the fight scenes, though far less with most else. He also had the INCREDIBLE stupidity to decide that by 1969, spies were “on the way out”, and announced before the film’s release that he wasn’t planning to come back for another. The producers got pissed, decided not to promote the film properly, it naturally did disappointing business at the box office, and for most of the 70’s became “the forgotten Bond”.
When HBO ran their Bond festival in 1980, they ran Connery’s 6 films, and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. No OMHSS. Earlier, ABC ran the 6 Connerys and several Moore films before running OHMSS. But how they ran it was a disgrace. They decided it was “too long”—and so split it up over 2 nights. But not 2 consecutive nights—over 2 consecutive MONDAY nights. There was a WEEK between halves of the film! As a result, since the film follows the book, they decided the first half was “too slow”—and so they took the ski chase from the middle and tacked it onto the beginning, turning the entire first half into a series of “flashbacks”. This was on top of all the severe CUTS they made, like trimming the intial 90-second fight scene down to 45 seconds (I timed it once).
I was just about caught up to OHMSS in my reading but wound up reading it not long after seeing the film on ABC. I’ve long had a thing for the Winter Olympics, so a film involving snow, ice skating, skiing and a tobaggan run naturally grabbed me big-time. Once I realized JUST how close the film was to the book, it rose even higher in my view. Over the years, it became my #1 FAVORITE 007 film. And amazingly, around the 11th time I watched it (having long before gotten an UNCUT copy), I suddenly realized that, for once, ALL the changes they made were serious IMPROVEMENTS! Director Peter Hunt & writer Richard Maibaum had taken one of Fleming’s BEST books—and made it EVEN BETTER!!!
The book opens with Bond fighting some thugs on a beach, getting beaten & captured. He spends the next 3 chapters thinking how he got into this predicament. These events are shown in the film, except they take place in the order we see them. Somebody must have figured film audiences would get confused by “flashbacks”. 4 years later, ENTER THE DRAGON followed Fleming’s lead and outdid him, including flashbacks WITHIN flashbacks. Nobody seemed to mind.
Following Bond’s fling with Tracy & meeting her father, Bond is brushed aside by M when he tries to tell him he finally may have a lead on Blofeld. In the book, Bond considered resigning; in the film, he has Moneypenny draft a letter of resignation! He’s then surprised when M grants him a 2-week vacation instead. M, always eavesdropping on his secretary, tells her, “What would I do without you, Miss Moneypenny?”
On leave, Bond becomes more involved with Tracy, and her father tips him about a lawyer who may be connected to Blofeld. After a little B&E, Bond visits M at his home, and this time is reassinged to track down Blofeld officially again. Bond then travels undercover to a “research institute” located at the very peak of a Swiss Alp, Piz Gloria. As villains’ HQs go, this has to be the most amazing in the entire film series—and it’s REAL! The producers kept delaying when they couldn’t seem to find a suitable location to match the one in Fleming’s book. By incredible luck (and only slightly bad timing), they discovered a restaurant was being built and struck a deal. They’d help finish & furnish the place, plus build a REAL helicopter pad, in exchange for being able to shoot there before it opened.
Bond meets the director of the institute—really Blofeld—as well as 12 gorgeous girls, all there for alergy treatment. As O.F. Snelling said in his 1964 book, JAMES BOND: A REPORT, “Of course Bond doesn’t get to sleep with ALL of them—that would be too much, even for Bond!” But he does bed 2 of them, with the exact same dialogue (the nerve of some people). In the book, he suspects they’re onto him and escapes. In the film, he’s caught—but finds out what Blofeld’s plans are, THEN escapes! This change allows for much more screen time with the villain, eliminates a “slow” point later on, and allows for almost a FULL HOUR of action to follow!
Bond is almost caught again when Tracy appears. In the book, she was in the area seeing a specialist (she’d suffered from depression). In the film, she’s there because she got her father to tell her where Bond was and wanted to help. This makes her a much stronger character, and ties her in much more with the main story. The book often seemed like 2 “parallel” stories that only intersect here and there. Pursued by car, the book has Bond cause the baddies to go crashing off a cliff. I’m guessing the producers figured we’d already seen this in DR. NO and GOLDFINGER. Instead, Tracy steers into a stock-car rally, which quickly turns into a demolition derby thanks to her and their SPECTRE pursuers, who barely escape with their lives when their car explodes after overturning.
In the book, Bond & Tracy make it back to England, where he proposes marriage. Blofeld’s plans are discovered, and Bond decided—on his own—to go back and stop him. This is where the biggest change in the film takes place. Still in Switzerland, Bond & Tracy are stuck in a snowstorm, take refuge in a barn, and it’s there he proposes marriage. The next day, though, Blofeld & henchment are again in ski pursuit, eventually causing an avalanche—one of the most spectacular action scenes in the film. (Shades of FLASH GORDON CONQUERS THE UNIVERSE !) Blofeld sees Tracy’s still alive, and orders her capture. BIG mistake! Back in England, M refuses to mount an assault, telling Bond “This department is not interested in your PERSONAL problems.” Bond calls up Tracy’s father, crime lord Marc-Ange Draco, and mounts one without official sanction. The difference is, while they both have “very good reasons” for doing it, rescueing Tracy makes it PERSONAL! Oddly enough, this kind of situation had appeared in the books CASINO ROYALE, LIVE AND LET DIE, MOONRAKER, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, and DR. NO—but not OHMSS. This was the first time it happened in a Bond film, but by whatever luck it repeated in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, LIVE AND LET DIE, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and MOONRAKER—but never as good as it was here!
The finale is possibly the finest in the entire series. I get chills every time I watch it. The suspense just builds and builds as the “Red Cross” helicopters approach Piz Gloria. Tracy recognizes her father’s voice on the radio and decides to “distract” Blofeld until it’s too late. The assault team finally arrives and ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!!! And while the “epic” quality of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE’s climax may be unmatched, that was done on a fantasy sound stage—THIS one’s on a real location!
Fighting, shooting, killing, explosions everywhere! Draco takes Tracy away while Bond goes to find info to stop Blofeld’s scheme. Blofeld takes pot shots at Bond, then runs as Bond chases after him. They get out of the building—JUST as it’s BLOWN to pieces! Then follows an incredible chase on a pair of tobaggans, as Blofeld & Bond shoot at each other while desperately trying to keep control and not fly off the run. It finally gets up-close and personal here, until a low-hanging tree branch tears the villain away, apparently breaking his neck. Too bad nobody checked to make sure.
The film ends with the wedding—followed quickly by Tracy’s murder. What a shock. What a DAMN SHAME they never did a proper follow-up to this, as Fleming had.
OHMSS has possibly the best cast in the entire series. Gabriella Frizetti as crime-lord Marc-Ange Draco; Ilse Steppat as Fraulein Irma Bunt; George Baker as Sir Hillary Bray; Bernard Horsfall as Bond’s assistant in Switzerland; the girls—all those girls, including Angela Scoular as Ruby Bartlett (my favorite of the 12), Catherine Schell (later a regular on SPACE: 1999), and Joanna Lumley (later of THE NEW AVENGERS and much later of ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS). And then there’s Diana Rigg, already famous as Mrs. Emma Peel on THE AVENGERS, who plays Tracy, “the” Bond girl of all Bond girls. Reportedly, Bridget Bardot would have been a better fit, but she was off making a western with Sean Connery at the time (!!!), and I’ve never really seen one of her films so I have no idea what kind of an actress she is.
And let’s not forget Telly Savalas as “Balthazar, the Count De Bleushamp”, alias Blofeld. I’ve read so often he was “all wrong” for the part—but between the script and his acting, he’s become my #1 FAVORITE Bond movie villain!
It’s just possible the producers cast 2 such highly-established actors as Rigg & Savalas, AND cranked up the amount of screen-time they’d have (compared with the book) as “insurance” against George Lazenby’s lack of experience. In any case, for the ONLY time in a Bond film, characters from a book get MORE screen-time instead of less, yet without sacrificing time for action. In fact, this movie has more of THAT, too. Incredible. With such a good script, there really wasn’t any way for Lazenby to screw things up. Had HE been in something as totally action-oriented as YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, he might have been an even better fit that Connery, who looked bored throughout that and its predecessor, THUNDERBALL.
So… to me, for once, this film is SO good… SO PERFECT on virtually every level… I wouldn’t change a damn thing about it. Except, just maybe, for 2 members of the cast. Yep—no matter how good he was, JUST IMAGINE how much BETTER Connery would have been in this, with a script that would have allowed him once agan to really ACT. And also, despite Savalas being my favorite villain here, I’d rather he’d have been Largo in THUNDERBALL. Earlier in 1969, THE ASSASSINATION BUREAU had featured (among others) Rigg & Savalas, which showed off the real chemistry between them. But also in that film was CURT JURGENS. It’s a shame they didn’t get HIM for Blofeld. If OHMSS had featured both Connery AND Jurgens… oh wow, how good could it have been then?
Posted by profh0011 on :
It should have been the big epic finale. It almost was—but not quite.
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE was Ian Fleming’s follow-up to his epic OHMSS. While that seemed designed with making it into a movie in mind, YOLT was something else. Fleming’s health was failing after 2 years of that lawsuit and a heart attack, and this is probably reflected in the dark, sombre tone of the book. Following the murder of Bond’s wife, he’s so depressed his chief yells at him to pull himself together, as he has a “most important” mission for him. This proves to be opening up lines of communication with the Japanese Secret Service, and its leader, “Tiger” Tanaka. Almost the entire first half of the book is virtually a “travelogue”. Then Tanaka asks him for a favor to close the deal.
It seems there’s a growing fad among the youth of Japan for suicide. Some foreigner calling himself “Dr. Shatterhand” has set up a “Garden of Death” where people can go to kill themselves in a wide variety of horrific ways. Tiger feels this is an embarrassment that must not be allowed to go on. He has no legal way of stopping it—so he asks Bond to go in and KILL the son-of-a-bitch. As there must be no official connection, it must all be strictly secret and undercover. To this end, they do their best to make Bond look oriental (all those Fu Manchu and Charlie Chan movies must have proven how well this can be done with Europeans!). As further cover, he also goes through a ritual of marriage to a local “Ama girl”, who make their living diving for pearls. All this is done so no one will suspect an official of the government is sanctioning MURDER!
Just before leaving on his mission, Tiger shows Bond the only known photograph of Shatterhand. He looks, memorizes, and hands it back. And he DOESN’T tell Tiger he recognizes the man is the really Blofeld—the man who murdered Bond’s wife! (NOW it’s PERSONAL!!!) Bond sneaks into the villain’s castle, but is caught up by a trap door and captured. Confronted, about to be fried by an active geyser, he admits his identity. Blofeld’s sanity is not what it was, either, and he goes on espousing his “philsophy” on life and death. But then Bond gets loose, and the two engage in a swordfight—with Blofeld dressed in full samurai armor! Bond gets the better of him, and winds up KILLING him—by BREAKING HIS NECK with his BARE HANDS!!! (Now THAT’s “personal”!!!)
Bond escapes via a balloon, but somehow winds up with amnesia. When he fails to return, he’s assumed lost, and the British newspapers report his obituary, which contains the fact that he was half-Scottish (the influence of Sean Connery, no doubt). But in truth, Bond is now living as a Japanese fisherman with his “wife”, ex-movie star and occasonal agent “Kissy Suzuki”, though troubled by memories of having a connection with… Russia. (What a way to end the book!)
Broccoli & Saltzman reportedly felt this book was “unfilmable”. RIGHT. The guys who did the British newspaper comic-strip apparently didn’t agree, and did an EXTREMEMLY accurate adaptation of it, which was JUST reprinted in one of Titan Books’ collections. (Highest reccomendation!!!)
For whatever the reason, when 1967 rolled around, the film-makers decided to do YOLT instead of OHMSS next. This is the equavalent of filming RETURN OF THE KING before THE TWO TOWERS, or RETURN OF THE JEDI before THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. Screenwirter Richard Maibaum was unavailable, and instead children’s book writer Roald Dahl was recruited. He was given a run-down on what details to include, and he apparently followed their instructions to the letter. This included having 2 main girls, one who would die partway through the picture, and the other who’d come in for the rest. Dahl’s story essentially jettisons 90% of the book in favor of a “completely new” story. Sadly, this would become the standard for most Bond film “adaptations” from then on.
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, in many ways, is a celebration of the 60’s. It’s been pointed out the plot in many ways is a remake of DR. NO on a much bigger scale. S.P.E.C.T.R.E. has a secret underground base on an island, and are interfering with the space program—this time of both the US and Russia, for the purpose of starting a nuclear war, on the pay of Red China. While Bond’s OBIT appears in the film, it’s at the beginning instead of the end—and the whole idea of faking his death so his enemies will be put off their guard actually comes from the Dean Martin-Matt Helm film, MURDERERS ROW. Similarly, the volcano-crater base—a set built in England for the cost of the entire budget of DR. NO—looks very much like the underground base from THE SILENCERS, only much classier, and on a much grander scale. Bond tackling a crime organization operating on a Japanese island is strikingly similar to a 2-part SECRET AGENT story, “Koroshi”. The spaceship whose front opens up like alligator jaws to swallow a smaller space capsule is straight out of the 2nd episode of LOST IN SPACE, “The Derelict”! When we finally get to meet SPECTRE #1 face-to-face, his bald head and the scar running down one side of his face and around his eye looks suspiciously like Baron Wolfgang Von Strucker, HYDRA #1 from the Jim Steranko run of NICK FURY, AGENT OF S.H.I.E.L.D. in STRANGE TALES!!! Like—weren’t there ANY really “original” ideas in this whole movie?
There is a LOT of terrific stuff in this film. So much so that, given a choice, I’d rather keep as much as possible in any “fantasy” alternate-universe version of it I could envision. But there’s also a lot of problems—though none, I think, that couldn’t be fixed.
While YOLT is very “episodic”, unlike THUNDERBALL each big sequence seems to flow naturally into the next. You may have trouble following it with commercial breaks, but without them, the films holds together much better than its predecessor. If only it made as much logical sense!
As with TB, YOLT has a lot of terrific actors in it, almost all with little to do. Henderson (Charles Gray, much better here than he was in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER) is needlessly bumbed off less than 5 minutes into his appearance. Akiko Wakabayashi, who plays Japanese agent Aki, is also bumped off pointlessly 2/3rds thru the film, after clearly falling in love with “Bando-san”. (Life must really be CHEAP in Japan—the body count in this film is unbelieveable!) Mie Hama (who has a much bigger part in KING KONG ESCAPES), plays “Kissy” (whose name is ONLY ever mentioned in the end credits—NOT anywhere in the dialogue!). Hama had trouble with the English language and just before filming swapped roles with Aki. She gets my vote for the most beautiful Japanese girl I have ever laid eyes on—but while she’s there for the action, we hardly get to know her character at all. Ed Bishop (CAPTAIN SCARLET, UFO) and Shane Rimmer (THUNDERBIRDS, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME) both have bit parts as NASA techs, while Burt Kwouk (A SHOT IN THE DARK, THE BRIDES OF FU MANCHU) serves the same role for SPECTRE. Teru Shimada as industrialist Mr. Osato, could have been the main villain here—instead, he’s only a front. Karin Dor (THE FACE OF FU MANCHU), his red-headed German assistant, seems to be here only to fill Luciana Paluzzi’s role of would-be seductress & assassin. Both she AND her boss wind up bumped off by THEIR boss for gross incompetence (failing to kill Bond).
One other actor, whose name I don't know, appears briefly as one of Tanaka's ninjas. He's the guy who shows off such skill with a samurai sword-- and he was one of THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN-- the character, in fact, who was later played by James Coburn in the US western version of the story!
Only Tetsuro Tamba as Tiger Tanaka really gets to shine in this picture. He’s Japan’s answer to Nick Fury—head of the Japanese Secret Service AND, during the climax, at the front of the fighting when he and 100 Ninjas storm SPECTRE’s secret base. When we first see him, he speaks in sinister tones, saying, “Welcome to Japan, Mr. Bond!” As seen in the film’s coming attractions, one is inclined to think he’s the head bad guy—when in fact, it’s quite the opposite. Classy, stylish, confident, filled with more than a little pride in himself, his organization and Japan and its culture in general, he fills a similar role to that of Kerim Bey in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. One could easily picture a whole series of films starring this guy. And yet, this is despite the fact that his entire performance was dubbed—and by the SAME actor, Robert Rietty, who dubbed Emilio Largo in THUNDERBALL, a policeman in DR. NO and about 95% of the male characters in the Italian film THE LAST DAYS OF SODAM AND GOMORRAH. If they dubbed HIM, why the “need” to find Japanese actresses who could speak English at all?
But the guy who gets all the BEST lines in the film is… Donald Pleasence. After not revealing his face in 2 previous films, the producers were somehow at a loss as to who to cast as SPECTRE’s “#1”. In fact, more than half the picture was shot without him, including half of the scenes he appears in! Reportedly, Harry Saltzman cast Czech actor Jan Werich in the role, but onset Broccoli found he didn’t look villainous enough, and had poor English. Pleasence was brought in at the last minute, and dubbed any scenes shot earlier where you couldn’t see his face. I really love him in this film—and yet, if it were possible, I’d rather have seen Curt Jurgens. (I wonder what HE was doing in ‘67?)
In wondering how more of the book could be salvaged while maintaining the spectacular action set-pieces of the movie plot, I started with the idea that the film, first and foremost, SHOULD have been made after OHMSS. This would have allowed the “personal revenge” plot to remain intact. Also, imagine a Bond depressed at the death of his wife, having to pull himself together for his most important, desperate mission. What an opportunity this could have been for an actor of Sean Connery’s abilities! I’m picturing Bond having to go through his paces, clearly not all there—somewhat like Kurt Russell’s character in STARGATE. There was really no reason for the “fake death” subplot. Also, there is no logic to Bond early on saying Osata is only a front and SPECTRE is probably behind him. The revelation that Blofeld & SPECTRE were the villains could have been held back, as it was in the book.
One of the things that bugs me the most about YOLT is the casual way Aki is murdered and cast aside for Kissy. They spent so much time building up Aki’s character and her growing relationship with Bond, yet he hardly reacts at all when she’s killed! Imagine if she’d ALMOST died—but didn’t. How much more emotional impact would it have had if, after seeing Tracy killed, Bond had managed to save Aki’s life. This could have been the thing that brought him out of his depression, and given him a new lease on life. There really never should have been 2 main girls in the film—only 1. Given the choice, I’d have taken Mie Hama, but if her English was such a detemining factor, Akiko Wakabayashi could have had the entire film to herself—and Hama instead could have played Osato’s assistant. (What WAS a red-headed German girl doing in Japan, ANYWAY???)
The whole “Bond turns Japanese” thing could also be jettisoned. A lot of English actors can make convincing Orientals—SEAN CONNERY is NOT one of them! Now, for all that’s been made of the “wedding” sequence, it’s one of the things taken straight from the book that, in the context of the film, MAKES NO SENSE at all. It could have—but only if the girl he was “marrying” was someone he’d been getting to know as well as he had with Aki.
The one thing YOLT excels at is its action sequences. Every time I watch the helicopter battle, it thrills me. But that’s nothing compared to the climax, inside the hollowed-out volcano that’s been turned into a hidden spaceship launch pad. I’d want to keep as much of this intact—while adding emotional contect that just wasn’t there before. Imagine the scene where Bond is brought before Blofeld. Instead of being a first glimpse, it could have been a final confrontation. Bond, desperate to stop SPECTRE and prevent a World War from happening—but ALSO wanting to get the man who killed his wife! Instead of getting away at the end, this should have been Blofeld’s LAST appearance. Try combining the fight with the samurai sword from earlier in the film (in Osato’s office) with the pre-credit sequence fight in THUNDERBALL where Bond fights hand-to-hand before breaking the guy’s neck. THAT should have been HERE! In the structure of the film’s climax, perhaps the best place for this to fit would be where Blofeld shoots Osata and then gets away. This would leave room for Bond’s fight with Hans over the control-room key (where the guy goes into the pirahna pool) to remain as-is.
With SPECTRE’s biggest scheme stopped and their leader DEAD, YOLT could have been the epic spectacle climax to end all epic spectacle climaxes. Bond could have even been serious about “retiring” to Japan and being married to Kissy (or Aki, take your pick of character name). What a way for Connery to have gone out! The series could have ended on the highest possible note. Instead, it went on, to mixed results. Ah well…
Posted by lancesrealm on :
Encore had a JB festival a few weeks ago, so I've watched all the movies recently. I was appalled by the special effects in YOLT. Yuk.
Posted by profh0011 on :
Technically, the space stuff is the ONE thing that really lets it down. Damn shame, considering what Derek Meddings was doing (THUNDERBIRDS, CAPTAIN SCARLET) around the SAME TIME. Even the outer-space stuff on LOST IN SPACE tended to be better than this. Jump ahead 12 years and Derek Medding's effects on MOONRAKER were the ONLY GOOD THING about that movie.
Now if somebody could pull a "George Lucas" and redo the spaceship stuff on YOLT...!
It had an AMAZING music score, didn't it?
Posted by profh0011 on :
"Pretty-- but dumb."
The above line is from HEAVY METAL. But it sums up the film I just watched-- THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.
To think, this used to be one of my favorite movies... in fact, it was my #1 film of 1977. Yet now...? I'm afraid that article some time ago in 007 magazine really ruined it for me. It's like, some movies have the occasional plot hole or lapse in logic. Not this one. In this, EVERY SINGLE SCENE has something in it that just DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!! Apparently, they tried to cover this by being bigger, more spectacular, more exciting, and, unlike the 3 previous films (the "Tom Mankiewicz trilogy", you could call them) about 90% of SPY is played VERY seriously. I do wish the rest of Moore's films had had this general tone. It's almost dead serious until the Karnak Temple scene, when Jaws needelssly starts to rip apart the van. For a few moments there, with Moore's dialogue, you'd almost think you were watching a Burt Reynolds comedy. I mean-- it's really funny!!! --but if you think about too much, forget it. It continues on it's "epic scale" and "played straight" ways (in spite of the multitude of utterly illogical things going on) until the end, when, between the electro-magnet stunt (stolen straight from MURDERERS' ROW, just as the "Well now that you're dead" routine in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE was) and the "Keeping the British end up sir" and the blaringly loud chorus of singers that follows, you'd think you were watching a Dean Martin movie.
Shane Rimmer (the voice of Scott Tracy) has a pretty big role in this-- yet in the credits, he's reduced to merely the anonymous top name on the list of "US Sub Crew" actors. (No wonder nobody seems to remember his character's name.)
And of course, my personal pet peeve about SPY is... Caroline Munro got ripped off. After THE GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD and CAPTAIN KRONOS, VAMPIRE HUNTER, she had far more experience and screen presence than the rather wimpy Barbara Bach. (Compared to Anya Amasova, Holly Goodhead in MOONRAKER seemed a lot tougher!) They should have switched roles...
Posted by profh0011 on :
More on THE SPY WHO LOVED ME... and it's not pretty!
After GOLDEN GUN, Saltzman sold out his share. I can't imagine why anybody would do a thing like that, unless he thought the series was bottoming out and he needed a sudden influx of cash to finance something else. Seems to me I read his film career flounded after he split with Broccoli.
NOBODY knew what to do with SPY. Fleming had it in the contract they could use the title and NOTHING ELSE. They hatched an idea to bring back SPECTRE, and in fact have a young group of anarchist-terrorists assassinate the board of directors and take over the organization for world-destructive reasons. They changed their mind-- too scary perhaps?-- and decided to bring Blofeld back again, since he really hadn't been killed off properly in that abomination that so many seem to love so much, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER.
The 10-year grace period with Kevin McClory had run its course since THUNDERBALL, and with no original ideas in mind, he decided it was time to do a remake. He put out a court order against Broccoli to prevent him from using Blofeld & SPECTRE. In retaliation, Broccoli sued him for... something. (Don't ask me what!) Broccoli thumbed his nose as McClory, eliminated SPECTRE and changed the villain's name to Carl Stromberg. Too bad, Curt Jurgens would have finally been able to play the part he was really, really right for. Dumb, stupid lawsuits...
SPY became "James Bonds's Greatest Hits". It doesn't feel like it was written, it feels like it was assembled-- and by the stunt arrangers. Take all the "best" scenes from the previous movies, and redo them-- BIGGER!!! The ski chase (including a guy going off a cliff) from OHMSS. A big craft swallowing a small craft (YOLT). An indestructible henchman (GOLDFINGER). A fight on a train (FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and LIVE AND LET DIE). Meeting the baddie followed by a car chase (YOLT). Underwater battle (THUNDERBALL). A guy trying to start WW3 (YOLT-- let's face it, SPY is a REMAKE of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE!!!). What nobody ever mentioned in any article I ever read was the idea of a tanker swallowing a submarine came from the 007 comic-strip adaptation of-- THE SPY WHO LOVED ME! (That part certainly wasn't in the book. Comics continue to get no respect.)
I believe someone pointed out the absurdity of a guy skiing off a cliff while wearing a parachute. Was he planning to go that way? Otherwise... WHY?
Stromberg goes to insane lengths to have people killed. First, he shows the 2 scientists the way he kills his secretary, who stole the blueprints. Then, he has their helicopter blown up.
At the pyramids, WHY does Fekkesh run away from the safety of a crowd to an isolated spot, making his murder so much easier? What was he doing with a key to that tomb? Doesn't it seem stupid of Anya to have TWO guys she's talking with walk away only to be killed? Did James & Anya really think Jaws was unaware of them jumping into his van? Why go ALL the way out to the Karnak Temple? When she had the drop on him, WHY didn't Anya SHOOT the bastard? Why did Jaws WASTE his time ripping the van to pieces, all the while never once touching the people he appears to be trying to kill (apart from the fact that it allowed Roger Moore to rattle off the funniest string of one-liners in the film)?
WHAT is M, and an entire contingent of Q Branch, doing in Egypt? Why did James & Anya travel by train, when Q travelled by boat (apart from creating an excuse for the train fight)? If Stromberg knew they were spies, why not kill them when they were still at Atlantis? Back on shore, there's a motorcycle, a car AND a helicopter, waiting in sequence along the roadside. Were they so sure the previous killers would fail? Why does Naomi HOVER directly over the car? If Anya stole the plans of the Lotus, WHY does she appear frightened when James drives off the pier?
Now, I'm willing to let the BIG question of how is it possible for a gigantic tanker NOT to sink when you open up the entire front to the ocean. This is "science fiction" to some degree, maybe (like the rotating control tower of FIREBALL XL5) we can assume SOMEBODY figured out how to manage it. But if they could disable the American sub, WHY bring it onboard with all those men alive? Why were the crews of the 2 previous subs still alive? (Auric Goldfinger would not have approved-- look what HE did to his gangster "partners".) Why design a control room as if a siege with enemy soldiers was in mind? (The blast shield in YOLT made sense-- there was a spaceship launch pad right outside, after all!)
WHY does Bond SIT DOWN when Stromberg invites him to? HOW does Bond shoot Stromberg THROUGH the glass tube if a gun is ATTACHED to it at Stromberg's end-- and WHY is that tube there anyway??? WHY does Jaws fight Bond when, obviously, his boss is already dead? WHAT is that stupid ELECTRO-MAGNET doing hanging over a shark pool? And-- can't that STUPID Russian girl make up her freaking mind if she wants to KILL Bond or have SEX with him?
Incredibly, I think the guy who pointed all this out (in 007 magazine) suggested that MOONRAKER was like a remake of SPY-- only without all the logic problems. Maybe so! But that film was MUCH more stupid, in so many OTHER ways... and slow-moving and boring to boot.
Posted by Sketch Lad on :
I haven't read all of this thread, but I just wanted to post that we had a mini Bond festival this evening... the Daniel Craig Bondfest!
Watching Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace back to back was very much like watching one long movie and I was quite entertained by all the Bond-ness of it all.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
Didn't know that Quantum was out. Will have to pick it up.
As for all the things wrong with the bond movies...i tend to seperate the movies from the books. I'm pretty good at compartmentalizing.
I do think that its fun to find all the things that went on, and all the parts left out, or changed, but I judge each movie on its merits in a timely fashion. By that I mean that I don't judge say OHMSS by todays standards, but by the standards of when it actually came out.
Like Dalton. Liked him in Flash Gordon, liked him in other things, but I can't watch his bond without thinking that he's constantly going to cry. WTF?
The later Moore movies nearly sunk the franchise. Dalton might have done it for the worldwide market, but he couldn't pull in the american market. Brosnan is now being, wrongly I feel, placed in the Moore later period because of that rather lame Die Another Day (Madonna...dear god somebody chop her head off and let the body go on running for a few years, she might be worthy of being cat crap then), when Goldeneye was very good, The World is Not Enough was fair, and tomorrow never dies was just fun. Michelle Yeo...oooooohhhhh. Homer liiiiiiiiiiiikes donuts!
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
Okay, I really enjoyed Quantum at the movies, and I have seen it on a site on the puter', but watching the DVD (I bought it, so, no stealing for me)I got a much better flow for the movie. I left the theater thinking that it was almost too much of an action movie and there was no depth to it, like CR.
I guess it was just the first viewing and selective memory, because it played on DVD so damn much better it ain't funny.
It played so much better, I even kinda liked the theme song this time.
One thing, and it is a stupid, minor, extremely minor quibble. Apparantly, he has a healing factor, lol. Cuts and scrapes on his face seem to completly heal in a days time.
One other thing, was Fields supposed to be nekkid under that trenchcoat? I mean, its central america, which is hot and muggy from humidity, and she's wearing a trenchcoat? Tres Kinky!
Strawberry Fields forever!
Posted by duck458 on :
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: Okay, I really enjoyed Quantum at the movies, and I have seen it on a site on the puter', but watching the DVD (I bought it, so, no stealing for me)I got a much better flow for the movie. I left the theater thinking that it was almost too much of an action movie and there was no depth to it, like CR.
I guess it was just the first viewing and selective memory, because it played on DVD so damn much better it ain't funny.
It played so much better, I even kinda liked the theme song this time.
One thing, and it is a stupid, minor, extremely minor quibble. Apparantly, he has a healing factor, lol. Cuts and scrapes on his face seem to completly heal in a days time.
One other thing, was Fields supposed to be nekkid under that trenchcoat? I mean, its central america, which is hot and muggy from humidity, and she's wearing a trenchcoat? Tres Kinky!
Strawberry Fields forever!
Having just watched Quantum on DVD it is a much denser movie than I realized watcing it in the movie theater. Lots of interesting bits, as in just what is Mr. White up to?
I am looking forward to one day having the time to watch Royale and Quantum back to back.
Fields was quite hot. Red hair, trench coat, nose in the air. >>>panting<<<
Posted by kidflash2fan on :
my dad looks like the new James bond...so i cant wacth them all i think when i see that is 'well damn.. my dad looks cool doing that.'
and my dad is kinda scary.. he's 50+ and could kick a lot of peoples asses if he wanted..
so for all i know.. my dad could be 007
Posted by Chaim Mattis Keller on :
Oh, great...now he'll have to kill you to preserve his secret.
Posted by Jerry on :
My late partner, David, was a big Bond fan. He was always eager to see any new Bond movie the weekend it was released. I decided to stick my head in the sand and not go see Skyfall just to avoid the sadness and memories. Then I started to hear the reviews. Some critics are calling it the best Bond film ever. I decided to buck up, and check it out.
I'm so glad I did. I won't dive into the "best Bond film ever" debate, but I have no hesitation in saying this is a damn good movie and recommending it highly. It definitely forges new ground, and has some entertaining elements that will keep the interest of none Bond fans. There are enough fun and clever Easter eggs and hat tips to the past for the traditionalists to be satisfied. The story is told in a way that makes it clear that they are trying to update things, but does so in a respectful manner. Daniel Craig continues to master the role. This performance adds fuel for those who want to argue that he is the best Bond actor. Again, a debate I won't engage in, but I will give him a thumbs up. Judi Dench gets a much meatier role this time around, and gives an excellent performance.
[ November 12, 2012, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Jerry ]
Posted by lancesrealm on :
I went to see Skyfall a few nights ago. I loved it! I don't know if it is the best Bond movie ever, but it ceratainly would be among the top contenders. Very enjoyable film!
Posted by Reboot on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerry: It definitely forges new ground,...
I don't know about that - I enjoyed it, but it struck me as a very "genie back in the bottle" movie. Casino Royale gave us a Bond who was learning to be "Bond, James Bond". Now, after the digression that was Quantum of Solace (where they didn't use The James Bond Theme... why?), Skyfall completes the trip - with a new Q (who, as in the original Q's debut, just gives him a gun), a new Moneypenny, and replaces Judi Dench with an M entirely in line with Bernard Lee, the original cinematic M. Add in stuff like the Goldfinger DB5 (and why was that tricked out since this is a reboot? He won a DB5 in CR, but I doubt that involved an ejector seat...), and this was a Bond movie that wanted to be 60s Bond at the core.
Posted by Jerry on :
For me, the forging ahead took place on several levels. I didn't see it so much as putting the "genie back in the bottle" but as cleverly acknowledging that the genie can't really be put back in the bottle. I found myself thinking a lot of Rachel Maddow's book Drift while watching the movie. Maddow spends some time in the later chapters arguing that much of what we used to consider to be the job of the military has shifted to the intelligence community - in effect changing the role and purpose of intelligence. The exchanges during M's testimony and Bond's conversations with the new Q brought some of that out. Are we at a point in time where nothing exists in the shadows or where everything of substance exists in the shadows? Fascinating stuff to think about. This film asked those questions transparently, and in a way that I haven't seen a movie do before. These are questions that are relevant for both the real world, and the Bond franchise.
Beyond that, the special effects moved to a more modern level. The whole issue of spies using over the top gadgets was both made fun and honored with a clever balance. It kind of gets to the heart of the question regarding whether these elements are essential to a Bond film. It's a question that has to be addressed for the franchise to move forward.
Posted by Legion Tracker on :
I've never been a big Bond film fan, but Jerry, your commentary has piqued my interest in this one.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
Just got back from it.
No secret I'm a huge fan of the books and movies.
Skyfall...was disappointing. It had some good moments to be sure, but overall... meh. Yes, some superficial changes were made. I guess Ms. Dench's contract was up or something. Bardeem was wasted, I thought. This Bond movie seemed as... weepy... as the last Dalton movie did.
The plot was a bit retreaded from both Brosnan's debut and Craig's. I was glad to see the goofy gadgets kind of fade away, but like Reboot said, some things didn't fit.
I'd give it a C.
Posted by Reboot on :
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: I guess Ms. Dench's contract was up or something.
Eh? Dame Judi is 77 - her M would have been retired a decade earlier in real life! (Plus she's going blind - she can't actually read scripts any more, she needs them read to her).
Finnes is, at just shy of 50, actually on the young side.
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: This Bond movie seemed as... weepy... as the last Dalton movie did.
*liked Licence to Kill*
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: I was glad to see the goofy gadgets kind of fade away,...
Eh? There was more gadgetry in this film than either of its two immediate predecessors.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
quote:Originally posted by Reboot:
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: I guess Ms. Dench's contract was up or something.
Eh? Dame Judi is 77 - her M would have been retired a decade earlier in real life! (Plus she's going blind - she can't actually read scripts any more, she needs them read to her).
Sorry to hear that. Always liked her.
[QUOCTE]Finnes is, at just shy of 50, actually on the young side. [qb]
Okay.
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: [qb]This Bond movie seemed as... weepy... as the last Dalton movie did.
*liked Licence to Kill* Okay. I thought he looked like he was about to cry all the time.
quote:Originally posted by rickshaw1: I was glad to see the goofy gadgets kind of fade away,...
Eh? There was more gadgetry in this film than either of its two immediate predecessors.
What gadgets? Other than the oddly refitted car after the CR reboot, he had a gun and a radio. Not really gadgety in my book. I thought the phone was more along those lines in CR. But compared to Moore's and Connery's, yeah, they've faded away.
Posted by rickshaw1 on :
>sigh< I hate code. tried reply with quotes, didn't work so well.
![[LOL]](graemlins/lol.gif)