Then and Now; This Week - Spectre

1356720

Comments

  • Posts: 11,189
    @DarthDimi.

    That review sounds just like my current thoughts on GE.
  • Posts: 2,022
    For those of us lucky enough to have seen those original Bond films in a theater, TB was the last Bond film to thrill me when the main titles and title song played. Like GF,
    TB was big and brassy. Tom Jones title song was crazily over the top. There is so much
    I like about this film. But then as now, sloppy editing and bad SPX always dampen my enthusiasm a little.

    The opening sequence with Bond recognizing the woman is actually a man is not especially engrossing. And then, as now, the jet pack sequence is just plain silly.
    The rear screen projection is lousy, and the sequence itself doesn't make a bit
    of sense. Damn good thing someone thought to leave it where Bond found it.

    I dislike like the Leiter editing screw up, as well as Bond's disappearing wound and changing legs. He dripped enough blood on the road and the float to need a transfusion.
    And the sped up boat action is preposterous.

    Fiona is one of my favorite villains. The interplay between Fiona and Bond in the bed
    is marvelous.

    Despite a number of flaws, it still ranks among my favorites.
  • Posts: 11,119
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Thunderball

    Some people say this one is boring.
    Some people say this film is poorly made.

    But not me. TB was the first Bond I sat through from start to finish as a child and I loved every moment of it! This is the Bond that got me hooked instantly, that introduced me to the man, his manners, his enemies, the formula and the music. As a child, I would not have accepted a single bit of criticism towards TB.

    Nowadays, I realise the film is not as perfect as I once thought it was. But I'm still a big fan, probably in part because of my nostalgic love for the film. I would go for stale, but since it's more helpful to choose something, I will choose

    then

    I'm a big fan of TB too. I don't know exactly why, but despite S.P.E.C.T.R.E. being depicted as a larger-than-life syndicate, all other aspects of the film felt....way more realistic as opposed to GF. Largo IMO is a great villain....possibly because when I first saw him as a kid, I was kind of scared of his eyepad. But it's not only that. When Fiona and Largo are shooting clay pigeons, you really feel their psychotic character traits. And it's not only that, when Bond basically 'looses' from Fiona after they went to bed with each other -"YOU havin' a failure. What a blow it must have been!"- was delicious acting! In those scenes you can also feel Bond's anger, mixed with humour. Simply put, the characters in TB felt way more lively, believable and rounded as opposed to Goldfinger and Pussy Galore. I loved that.

    I also think Sean's best portrayal of Bond can be seen in TB. In GF Bond was way much an instrument of the events, but in TB he was way more in tighter control of his mission, combined with delicious humour -"No, but I know a little about women". After TB Sean never upped that portrayal anymore.

    Also, I firmly believe that the Terence Young Bond films should be seen as a trilogy. Just watch DN, FRWL and TB after each other, by skipping GF, and you will feel that these three Bond films deserve the same kind of treatment as Christopher Nolan did to his three Batman films.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I'm a big fan of TB too. I don't know exactly why, but despite S.P.E.C.T.R.E. being depicted as a larger-than-life syndicate, all other aspects of the film felt....way more realistic as opposed to GF.

    I think that's a fair point, especially when you consider the GF finale. Outside of the finale, though, I think TB is no more or less realistic.
    Also, I firmly believe that the Terence Young Bond films should be seen as a trilogy. Just watch DN, FRWL and TB after each other, by skipping GF, and you will feel that these three Bond films deserve the same kind of treatment as Christopher Nolan did to his three Batman films.

    I think that's somewhat dismissive of Hamilton's contribution and ability. You can sense Hamilton's impact on TB. I love Young as much as the next man, I think DN was his masterpiece, but I think Hamilton brought an enormous amount to the franchise. There's so much to adore about GF, it's head and shoulders above TB and personally I'd take it over FRWL. So many beautifully shot and directed scenes, and a level of class and opulence that would build on the work of Fleming and come to define the series.
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    I'm a big fan of TB too. I don't know exactly why, but despite S.P.E.C.T.R.E. being depicted as a larger-than-life syndicate, all other aspects of the film felt....way more realistic as opposed to GF.

    I think that's a fair point, especially when you consider the GF finale. Outside of the finale, though, I think TB is no more or less realistic.
    Also, I firmly believe that the Terence Young Bond films should be seen as a trilogy. Just watch DN, FRWL and TB after each other, by skipping GF, and you will feel that these three Bond films deserve the same kind of treatment as Christopher Nolan did to his three Batman films.

    I think that's somewhat dismissive of Hamilton's contribution and ability. You can sense Hamilton's impact on TB. I love Young as much as the next man, I think DN was his masterpiece, but I think Hamilton brought an enormous amount to the franchise. There's so much to adore about GF, it's head and shoulders above TB and personally I'd take it over FRWL. So many beautifully shot and directed scenes, and a level of class and opulence that would build on the work of Fleming and come to define the series.

    Hmm, it's all a matter of opinion I guess :-). For me TB trumps GF.

    Recently I watched GF again. And as a matter of fact it's quite a damn good adaptation of the novel. But perhaps GF wasn't my favourite novel. The whole thing -making the Gold supply of Fort Knox radio-active- for me sounds way more farfetched as stealing a bunch of nuclear missiles.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    I'm a big fan of TB too. I don't know exactly why, but despite S.P.E.C.T.R.E. being depicted as a larger-than-life syndicate, all other aspects of the film felt....way more realistic as opposed to GF.

    I think that's a fair point, especially when you consider the GF finale. Outside of the finale, though, I think TB is no more or less realistic.
    Also, I firmly believe that the Terence Young Bond films should be seen as a trilogy. Just watch DN, FRWL and TB after each other, by skipping GF, and you will feel that these three Bond films deserve the same kind of treatment as Christopher Nolan did to his three Batman films.

    I think that's somewhat dismissive of Hamilton's contribution and ability. You can sense Hamilton's impact on TB. I love Young as much as the next man, I think DN was his masterpiece, but I think Hamilton brought an enormous amount to the franchise. There's so much to adore about GF, it's head and shoulders above TB and personally I'd take it over FRWL. So many beautifully shot and directed scenes, and a level of class and opulence that would build on the work of Fleming and come to define the series.

    Hmm, it's all a matter of opinion I guess :-). For me TB trumps GF.

    Recently I watched GF again. And as a matter of fact it's quite a damn good adaptation of the novel. But perhaps GF wasn't my favourite novel. The whole thing -making the Gold supply of Fort Knox radio-active- for me sounds way more farfetched as stealing a bunch of nuclear missiles.

    Yeah, it's a far-fetched denouement. TB, for me, is like going out and overindulging at a great restaurant, but feeling a bit sick on the way home. With GF, I feel like I've had the perfect amount. Sometimes I do like to overindulge.
  • Posts: 15,218
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Thunderball

    Some people say this one is boring.
    Some people say this film is poorly made.

    But not me. TB was the first Bond I sat through from start to finish as a child and I loved every moment of it! This is the Bond that got me hooked instantly, that introduced me to the man, his manners, his enemies, the formula and the music. As a child, I would not have accepted a single bit of criticism towards TB.

    Nowadays, I realise the film is not as perfect as I once thought it was. But I'm still a big fan, probably in part because of my nostalgic love for the film. I would go for stale, but since it's more helpful to choose something, I will choose

    then

    I'm a big fan of TB too. I don't know exactly why, but despite S.P.E.C.T.R.E. being depicted as a larger-than-life syndicate, all other aspects of the film felt....way more realistic as opposed to GF. Largo IMO is a great villain....possibly because when I first saw him as a kid, I was kind of scared of his eyepad. But it's not only that. When Fiona and Largo are shooting clay pigeons, you really feel their psychotic character traits. And it's not only that, when Bond basically 'looses' from Fiona after they went to bed with each other -"YOU havin' a failure. What a blow it must have been!"- was delicious acting! In those scenes you can also feel Bond's anger, mixed with humour. Simply put, the characters in TB felt way more lively, believable and rounded as opposed to Goldfinger and Pussy Galore. I loved that.

    I also think Sean's best portrayal of Bond can be seen in TB. In GF Bond was way much an instrument of the events, but in TB he was way more in tighter control of his mission, combined with delicious humour -"No, but I know a little about women". After TB Sean never upped that portrayal anymore.

    Also, I firmly believe that the Terence Young Bond films should be seen as a trilogy. Just watch DN, FRWL and TB after each other, by skipping GF, and you will feel that these three Bond films deserve the same kind of treatment as Christopher Nolan did to his three Batman films.

    This is one of the many reasons why I find TB superior to GF: Bond is very passive in GF, almost a witness to the story more than a protagonist, while in TB he is at the center.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Thunderball

    Some people say this one is boring.
    Some people say this film is poorly made.

    But not me. TB was the first Bond I sat through from start to finish as a child and I loved every moment of it! This is the Bond that got me hooked instantly, that introduced me to the man, his manners, his enemies, the formula and the music. As a child, I would not have accepted a single bit of criticism towards TB.

    Nowadays, I realise the film is not as perfect as I once thought it was. But I'm still a big fan, probably in part because of my nostalgic love for the film. I would go for stale, but since it's more helpful to choose something, I will choose

    then

    I'm a big fan of TB too. I don't know exactly why, but despite S.P.E.C.T.R.E. being depicted as a larger-than-life syndicate, all other aspects of the film felt....way more realistic as opposed to GF. Largo IMO is a great villain....possibly because when I first saw him as a kid, I was kind of scared of his eyepad. But it's not only that. When Fiona and Largo are shooting clay pigeons, you really feel their psychotic character traits. And it's not only that, when Bond basically 'looses' from Fiona after they went to bed with each other -"YOU havin' a failure. What a blow it must have been!"- was delicious acting! In those scenes you can also feel Bond's anger, mixed with humour. Simply put, the characters in TB felt way more lively, believable and rounded as opposed to Goldfinger and Pussy Galore. I loved that.

    I also think Sean's best portrayal of Bond can be seen in TB. In GF Bond was way much an instrument of the events, but in TB he was way more in tighter control of his mission, combined with delicious humour -"No, but I know a little about women". After TB Sean never upped that portrayal anymore.

    Also, I firmly believe that the Terence Young Bond films should be seen as a trilogy. Just watch DN, FRWL and TB after each other, by skipping GF, and you will feel that these three Bond films deserve the same kind of treatment as Christopher Nolan did to his three Batman films.

    This is one of the many reasons why I find TB superior to GF: Bond is very passive in GF, almost a witness to the story more than a protagonist, while in TB he is at the center.

    I actually like the fact he's an observer. He's still key to the story, unlike something like 'Raiders' where Indy is quite literally redundant. Without Bond, GF's plan succeeds. It's a perfect platform for Connery's nonchalance. Yeah, he's seemingly in control in TB, but the narrative is pretty linear. It's all very convenient. He's at Shrublands, while the greatest threat to international security has its roots at the airbase just down the road. I can roll with it, but with GF there's at least a little sense of intrigue, plus GF himself is far more imposing than Largo. The friction between them at GOLF smashes the meeting between Bond and Largo, where Largo is made to look incredibly weak, conceding he'd like Bond to buy Domino a drink.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Thunderball

    Then:
    When I first saw it on television as a kid, it was a so-so Bond film for me. Not quite as over the top as YOLT, and without the fancy Aston from GF (although I realize it makes a small appearance in the pretitles) I found it average. I was too young to fully appreciate Volpe's charms, Domino in a bikini, or the fantastic dialogue/lines. Connery seemed the same as he did in the other films of his that I watched. Largo seemed a boring villain.

    Now:
    It's one of my favourite Bond films and one of my top two of Connery's (along with FRWL). I now can appreciate Volpe/Domino in all their glory. Largo is a fantastic villain, because we know that he is #2 to the even more diabolical Spectre #1. Moreover, I really am impressed with Connery in this one. Confident, smooth, suave, and as cool as can be, I rank his work in this film as one of the most sublime Bond renditions of them all. I am 100% in agreement with @Gustav_Graves that this, along with DN & FRWL represent a brilliant Connery/Young trilogy, with GF (iconic as it may be) as the odd one out. The lines in this film (and their delivery by all the actors concerned) are a standout for me, yet to be topped in the franchise. There is a reason why this is still the most successful Bond film of all time. This one is the height of Bondmania for me.

    Now
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,164
    Thunderball

    Then
    It took me a while to actually see TB as a kid. It was often on ITV at some point, but I always seemed to miss it fully. I remember the first time I saw it, I found it a little slow. slightly boring. Took along time to get going, then when it did, it didn't last long.
    Nothing terrible. Just a mediocre film at the time. I was used to some amazing stunt work, and more action.

    Now
    Despite having a pace that is a little all over the place, I rank TB as one of the early gems of the Bond series. Beautiful locations, even more beautiful women. A screenplay to die for, with some of the best lines in any of the Bond films. Some stunning cinematography and Terence Young back in the directors chair. Whilst Hamilton does a good job in GF, I find that TB has a little more of the darker tone established in DN and FRWL. Connery may have less spying to do than he did in previous films, and the technology was really starting to take over here, but he's still the coolest man alive in the film. In short a splendid film all round.

    Now
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    First saw this in the cinema during a 25th anniversary Bond film festival in 1987. Compared to the other 60s films, I found it to be a slight disappointment. I think I even dozed off at some time during the one hour long underwater battle.

    Now I appreciate it a lot more. Now as then, I find Blofeld to be his most sinister here. Ever. (Let us hope SPECTRE can deliver.) It is still Connery, still the 60s and Barry is on top form as usual.

    Even though inferior to the first three, it is at least as good as YOLT.

    I vote now.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited July 2015 Posts: 7,314
    It's difficult to remember the first time I watched Thunderball. I have vague memories of it being on during a family gathering when I was very young. I didn't have the patience for it back then but I do recall being a little awestruck during some of the more spectacular moments.

    So, for the purpose of this exercise, I would like to focus on when I absolutely adored Thunderball. I was around 13 or 14 and to me, at that time, no Bond film could match it. Connery was beyond cool, the women were stunningly gorgeous, the locations were exotic and the stakes were high. Barry's epic score didn't hurt either. What wasn't there to like?

    Regarding the Young trilogy, I used to prefer DN and TB by a wide margin over FRWL. Nowadays, it's DN and FRWL with TB being the odd man out. Not that I dislike it, of course. It's just a little plodding at times and the editing can leave a lot to be desired. It has some truly wonderful moments but there are times when you could take a nap and not miss a thing.

    I strongly agree with @RC7 that Hamilton's influence can be felt in this film. There was no going back after Goldfinger and Young tried to (or was told to) incorporate some of those elements into TB, with mixed results. I'm going to give this a THEN.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    Quite wonderful chaps! Keep 'em coming
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    Posts: 260
    Thunderball is a particularly interesting Bond for me because while there are elements which I suppose "bother" me (such as the incredibly amateurishly put together boat finale), this is the one "if I had to pick just one", would be my favorite Bond.

    When I first saw it in the theater in the 80s (rerun/festival) it resonated with me, but I did not at that time regard it as particularly iconic.

    Today I seriously get goosebumps when the title sequence starts and I hear the horns blare out the first few notes of the song. From there I get sucked right in as the plot starts to unfold, expertly dovetailed with the very entertaining Shrublands chapter. From there, once Fiona Volpe is on the screen (wickedly played by Paluzi) and we hit the tropical splendor of Nassau, I am totally sold out for the piece. The pageantry of the casino, the repartee between Bond and Domino, and yes even the seemingly endless underwater sequences add up to Bond at its best for me.

    A solid NOW in my estimation.
  • Posts: 1,596
    Then

    When I was a kid (up until a few years ago) I would've always ranked this as the 4th or even 5th worst Connery film. I found it slow moving.

    Now

    I love that it moves a bit slow and takes its time. It's my favorite Bond film. An easy choice here:

    NOW
  • Posts: 11,119
    Then

    When I was a kid (up until a few years ago) I would've always ranked this as the 4th or even 5th worst Connery film. I found it slow moving.

    Now

    I love that it moves a bit slow and takes its time. It's my favorite Bond film. An easy choice here:

    %5
  • Posts: 11,119
    Then

    When I was a kid (up until a few years ago) I would've always ranked this as the 4th or even 5th worst Connery film. I found it slow moving.

    Now

    I love that it moves a bit slow and takes its time. It's my favorite Bond film. An easy choice here:

    NOW

    Me too, what's wrong with some slower takes nowadays? Everything needs to be edited like it's the next "Fast and Furious" film, which is a pity IMO.

  • Much as I hate repeating myself, I can’t expect that anybody’s actually keeping track of what I’ve posted previously regarding this topic. So: my first real introduction to Bond was a triple bill of DN, GF and TB in the mid sixties, before YOLT had even been released. The impact of those three blockbusters back to back is something that simply cannot be equaled. Therefore, my vote in this case is unmistakably a vote for THEN.

    That said, even back then I had a few obvious reservations regarding this particular film. I wanted more of the jet pack, those few seconds we got in the PTS were nowhere near enough to satisfy me after all the jet propelled hype I‘d seen prior to getting into that darkened theatre! I thought the accelerated action sequences in both the PTS and the boat fight at the end of the movie were unnecessary. I didn’t have any problem at all with the speed of the underwater footage; quite the contrary actually. Nowadays, I can pick holes in this film all day long (Why is Paula sitting back in the hotel room reading a magazine while Bond & Leiter are racing a deadline to find those atomic bombs???) but I really have no desire to do so. It’s a Top 10 Bond film for me…even if sometimes I have to expand that 10 into a 12 to really make all my favorites fit!
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    As with others, when I first saw this as a kid, I found it rather dull in places, very slow and easily lost my interest. It's only as I've got older that I have learned to appreciate more and it is definitely now in my top 10.

    Now
  • Posts: 11,189
    (Why is Paula sitting back in the hotel room reading a magazine while Bond & Leiter are racing a deadline to find those atomic bombs???)

    As Mr Dalton later said "it's a man's world" ;)
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited July 2015 Posts: 1,731
    Hehe... :D
    I follow this thread but still don't have the faintest idea how on earth the scoring works... Ignorance is bliss :-j
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    You don't need to, just regal us with your Bond memories ;-)

    *If you prefer a film when you first saw it, vote "then". Or if you like a film more today, vote "now".
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited July 2015 Posts: 1,731
    Ok... well, used to think TB was a bit 'boring' because of the slow pace (when I saw it as an 11 year old). But I rate it much higher these days.
    It is the perfect antidote to the modern Bondfilm, as I love how it builds the story around the Bahamas. Plus Connery just has a whale of a time with some of the best lines in the whole franchise imo.

    I only really started to appreciate how great the script is once I was older. It just seems so slick and well written. So I'd def say it is far better 'now' than it was 'then'
  • Posts: 533
    My second favorite Connery film. My only real problem with this film is that the combination of the underwater sequences and John Barry's score nearly put me to sleep.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,399
    i'll get myself caught up here..

    Dr No

    Then - 1
    Now - 0


    From Russia With Love

    Then and Now - 1

    Goldfinger

    Then - 1
    Now - 0


    ok, now were up to speed..

    THUNDERBALL

    Then - I remember I first saw this one when my school teacher let me borrow the VHS - he was a big Bond fan as well, and he was more than happy to usher me into the world of Bond with the Connery classics - it seemed i was bringing home a new VHS each week to watch, and rewatch before I returned it for another.. When I eventually got to Thunderball, I loved it.. it felt so big and outrageous compared to the previous films.. I loved seeing the return of SPECTRE - all the bahama locations, it was just a terrific watch when I was still a babe in the woods when it came to Bond.

    Now - while I still rate the film really high, I think my "love" for it has wained a bit. I still praise Connery's performance in the film as him at the top of his game. But I think the film suffers from being a little too long - or at least feeling like it.. some of the underwater stuff drags the pace of the film down a little.. and anymore, if i sit down to watch this one, i find myself being too easily distracted by other things.. still love the movie, i just don't love it anymore.

    Then - 1
    Now - 0
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,164
    *Bump*

    Is it not time to move on to You Only Live Twice yet?

    Hint hint ;)
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,423
    Your wish is my command dear @Benny

    You Only Live Twice

    Then –
    Like Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice is part of the landscape of cinema. I can't remember seeing it, but images of You Only Live Twice were floating around in my memory. But certainly I very much enjoyed it. I mean what's not to love? Japan, ninjas, the volcano base, Sean Connery, Blofeld, and that music. It was the first musical score that I distinctly remember. When I was collecting the Bond's on VHS, I managed to get You Only Live Twice, The Man With The Golden Gun, For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy on the classic tapes, circa 70's and 80's. How I wish I didn't give them to a friend, when I got all of the Bonds on the late 90's VHS's. See, I'm a completeist. It was no good having different eras/versions of Bond on VHS in my collection; it all had to be homogenized.

    Now –
    You Only Live Twice is a ten year old boy's perfect 007 film. But as one gets older, the problems start to appear. Ah, to be ten, again. Still, the production values shine through.

    Then - 1
  • Posts: 15,218
    Easy this one:

    Then: loved it. Thought it was oh so brilliant. Loved the action, the locations, the effects, the scheme, Blofeld's appearance, Donald Pleasence as Blofeld, everything.

    Now: I think some dialogues, particularly the ones between Bond and Blofeld and between Bond and Tanaka, are great. The music is gorgeous. That's it. The rest is at best average. The first serious misstep of the series.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2015 Posts: 23,883
    YOLT

    For me this one is easy too.

    Then: Loved it. Connery's version of the outrageous Moore Bonds (which I saw first). It was one of the earlier Connery Bonds I watched. I really liked Blofeld, the volcano, Nellie etc... I also really liked the early parts in Japan with Aki, Henderson, Sumo etc. It reminded me of TMWTGG. Even Pleasance's Blofeld was interesting back then.

    Now: It's fallen down the ranks every time I've watched it since. The special effects, which appeared cool then, are surprisingly dated. All the green screen work is somewhat cringeworthy only because it is so apparent with the Blu Ray technology, and because there is so much of it in this film (unlike say DN, where it's only apparent momentarily, like in the car chase with the Sunbeam). Pleasance seems far from threatening now. Connery seems less assertive, and indeed does appear bored, especially in the later parts in Japan post-Aki's death. As has been noted elsewhere, Powers killed this film by sending it up 3 times with his Dr. Evil etc.

    Then -3
    Now - 0
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2015 Posts: 15,722
    YOLT for me gets better with each viewing.

    Then -3
    Now - 1
Sign In or Register to comment.