It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Agreed, it's a great amusing way to finish. What I do miss about Bond films like this was the henchman returning for a final reel showdown!
LALD has one of the best. TeeHee is a great character! (And SP missed a trick by not having that excellent scrap with Hinx for the finale!)
One film has:
For thee the hammer on the anvil rings
For thee the poet of beguilement sings
And the other film has:
By the powers invested in me by this parish I do hereby commandeer this vee-hee-kul and all those persons within. And that means you, smart***!
Yet they are both great, in their different ways.
It was quite an experience............ and I got Roger to sign a copy of the script for me at the same time, which I had gotten from make up artist Rick Baker a few weeks before.
I was in my early 20s.
I see, what you are referring to, and I have to admit, you are right. The Connery movies up to YOLT did not need these characters, but still had humourous and funny moments, same with OHMSS. In DAF, as you said, you can spot the direction, Bond would take in the Roger Moore era - my "first time" Bond movie was OP.
On a sunnier day I’ll be in the mood for LALD (plus J.W. and his shenanigans). It’s all good!!
The first part is a bit slow sometimes and Rosie is annoying bit afterwords it is a fantastic ride.
If one wants to interpret Baron Samedi at the end as this mythical character who cannot die then so be it. In fact when Samedi performs during that fire show in San Monique doesn’t the announcer introduce him as “the man who cannot die” or is my mind playing tricks on me? In any case you can take that for what it’s worth. Personally I see Samedi on the train at the end as a sort of cool tag to a film. Just like we have the opening credits here we get the closing credits with Samedi in it. When Samedi appears on the back of the train at the end notice how at that point the theme song kicks in, essentially signaling the end of the film. So basically the film is over and they just stuck Samedi in there because he’s such a cool character and that iconic laugh of his is such an awesome parting shot. That’s how I see it anyway, as opposed to thinking he’s still alive. A sort of breaking the 4th wall kind of thing. But ultimately it doesn’t matter. I don’t dwell on it. Either way it’s a cool final shot and I wouldn’t have it any other way!
If you had something like this these days in a Bond film the internet would absolutely explode!!!! Of course it does help that LALD has that voodoo/mythical vibe to it, which certainly helps with scenes like these!!
It reminds me a bit of the 1970s trend for bloopers to be included in the closing credits of films. No one would do that today (not for a major action genre release anyway) because audiences have become more serious, I think.
From time to time I have to remind myself that the individual Bond films were made in specific historic contexts. LALD was made in 1973. It was written for the 1973 audience and was meant to be the sort of film that 1973 audiences would enjoy and understand. It was intended to be seen in a 1973 cinema (that means through a haze of cigarette smoke probably) and it included tropes and shots that a 1973 audience would easily have ‘got’ but which, looking back nearly 50 years later, make us go ‘eh?’
Baron Samedi on the train is an example. We think it’s a bit weird. It takes us out of the movie. But we are 2020, not 1973, and perhaps 1973 audiences actually enjoyed being taken out of a movie.
On the other hand (I will undermine my own point here) I enjoy taking the shot seriously, more seriously than the filmmakers intended. Baron Samedi is the closest thing the Bond films have ever got to a truly supernatural character. They introduce him as a character who cannot be killed, and it turns out to be true! he cannot be killed! Even Bond cannot kill him. I like that.
But that’s enough supernatural stuff for Bond, we don’t need any more.
So, I could have done without that Tarot stuff and the "007" playing cards and Solitaire's ability to prophesise and her supposed reliance on remaining a virgin and stuff, as well as Baron Samedi sitting on the bumper of the train's engine at the end. I'd give it a pass for that, but I'm glad that no other Bond film played the supernatural angle. Not saying they were all credible (invisible cars and tsunami surfing, anyone?), but at least they didn't try to explain it by way of voodoo.
Still, I always enjoyed LALD immensely...just maybe not for the same reasons I enjoyed those Bond films I consider superior (quite a few).
Any chance you'd share a photo with us?
Interesting take. I think the voodoo and tarot really add to the film and the marketing campaign really benefits from it.
And to be fair, the novel also features voodoo, Solitaire does have her abilities in the book, although without the virginity angle, and Samedi has a presence, so it's not a bad thing to have as it really separates the film in that way from others in the series while still paying tribute to Fleming, which was fast becoming a rarity in the series.
The film doesn't age well in my opinion. I didn't like how Bond tricked Solitaire into bed. He also plays on Rosie Carver's fear and takes her to bed. In light of the metoo movement it plays even worse now.
The plot itself is rather uninspired. Kananga is going to be a heroin mogul? I don't think that really holds up.
Some things I like are M crashing Bond's flat. I enjoy the delectable Miss Jane Seymour. She is in my top 5 for leading ladies.
Sorry to not contribute to the love in.
I never liked Hamilton's approach but it does give his films and LALD a distinct feel, and I love his villains, particularly in LALD, so while I don't love this film, its a good contrast to the others
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the Roger Moore films and growing up he was my favourite Bond. However, I agree with the aforementioned comments regarding the humour. The films I would consider the best in the series - DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS - have more subtle and dry humour, whereas the films following were written more tongue-in-cheek and almost winked at the audience to laugh along. That being said there were moments in those films that extremely Fleming and more in line with those earlier films.
I appreciate the candor as I also rank LALD about where you do.
Funny how LTK constantly gets dinged for being about a drug dealer and few if any criticisms of LALD say the same for Kananga and his scheme. Richard Maibaum said he'd have liked a crack at it, calling Mankiewicz's plot "cooking drugs in the jungle" or something along those lines.
Another criticism in the past mentioned it's one long chase movie. It's like the film is constructed around set pieces of Bond being pursued in one mode of transportation or another for most of the film. This is where the atmosphere and imagery really benefit it.
Really? I've heard that criticism since when it was released with people complaining a drug dealer shouldn't be worthy of James Bond's attention, followed by the Miami Vice comparisons. I think people were disappointed that it was closer to real life and not a madman with some odd physical characteristic.
I think now more people have reevaluated the character and Davi's portrayal and it's gained more appreciation.
The hatred had little to do with the realism/dark/gritty aspect contrary to popular belief. Yes, the quality of filming was television-like but that's because ever since the studio had overspent on marketing Moonraker and producing it, the budget was increasingly narrowing over the next decade with subsequent films. That's what allowed John Glenn to bring in his grounded grit as a contrast for the series to be able to move forward so that they wouldn't make the budgetary mistake of making a poor-set sci fi movie. Besides, the sci fi Bond films like MR and DAD are not liked period. Neal Pervis apologized to me personally for the way DAD turned out.
This isn't the first time such a traumatic event occurred to tarnish the reputation of one film whereby the misconception of its realism is the factor people rush to judge: QoS was not overmarketed like SF was. Yes, the writer's strike did not help and there were not enough dramatic scenes to balance all the action.
But mix the overmarketing of SF with a distraction in DC's own style by having brought in more gadget reliance and all these Bondisms like the Aston Martin from Goldfinger as opposed to the one from CR, which is a bit disrespectful and you get.....a non original Bond film.
LALD had its sense of originality despite its flaws and the way in how women leads were depicted among a couple of other issues like Kanaga's balloon fate.
The closest I can recall is when Bond pretends to be Domino's masseur in NSNA and then it's played for a bit of a lark.
Creeps me out a bit to see the lengths he takes to bed the women of this film. A shame too because I like Seymour and her portrayal. I end up feeling my sympathy for her cause she's just a pawn that Kanaga and Bond seem to have no trouble manipulating or using for their own means. Even the whole "Did you mess with that!" When do we call a woman "that". She's referred to as property.
This alone docks the movie several points with me.
You can't really defend it from a moral standpoint, but Bond isn't supposed to be pure. It's really not any worse than Connery's Bond forcing himself onto some of those women from the 60's films now is it?