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
He is merely a throw away character who gets bond from point a to point b in both films. Bruce Feinstein's kerim bey, a native Felix. one who could perhaps die in the interest of preserving Mathis and Felix for further adventures.
And how about Zukowski's so-called drowning in caviare? An embarrassing scene.
Going back even further, that card game Elektra plays to pay off Zukowski in the casino... terrible. It's neither fascinating, exciting, cool, smart or anything else. It's far-fetched. Again: coincidence. Right at the moment when Bond visits Zukowski, Elektra drops by. P&W had no idea where to take this script, did they?
In GE, I could buy him as a mobster. In TWINE, he was P&W's backup plan for when they were struggling with their messy screenplay again.
While I disagree with your observations, I take it this thesis comes forth from your personal dislike me thinks?
Don't take me wrong I find this a brilliant thread, it is only rarely you come out n this thread and really say what you think no bars hold.
I still think that Ronin could have been the most brilliant 007 movie ever, so what do I know.
And I'm not even disagreeing with that. ;-)
That seems to be the way with many Bond allies. If you get brought back in a mission (Zukovsky, Mathis), you get killed off in the second film.
Of course, the exception is Leiter (and Wade, who is basically Leiter-lite).
Thesis 137: Disagree also as i thought VZ was great in both movies.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Guy Hamilton never took the Bonds seriously.</b></font>
There is some truth in this statement in that he certainly provided us with lighter, more fun-filled , campy Bond adventures. However, he wasn't afraid to go down the dark alley with his movies. Whether it is Jill Masterson covered in gold paint, Tilly getting her neck sliced, Mrs. Whistler getting drowned, the voodoo acts of San Monique, Andrea Anders bullet to the chest, or Bond threatening to kill Scaramanga, he could be very serious when he wanted to be.
With the exception of DAF, I disagree.
GF, LALD and TMWTGG were fairly serious Bond films, sure they had there share of silly moments, but there were still serious.
Why thank you, my good man!
I understand where you are coming from on that, but I for one think that DAF had just as many silly moments and serious moments in balance as did TMWTGG. Such scenes like the killings of Mrs. Whistler and Shady Tree, the fight with Peter Franks, and the discovery of Plenty's dead body in the pool are enough to include it in the list. TMWTGG didn't feature more than DAF did on that note, really only Bond's interrogations of Andrea and Lazar, Scaramanga killing Hai Fat, the death of Andrea and the dinner table scene.
To an extent I sort-of agree. There are the definite lighter elements in the stories to his films, and that is what makes them memorable in a lot of ways. Everyone knows that Goldfinger was the film that started the big, extravagant Bond plots, and DAF is just full of camp. I do think that with the exception of DAF, his films embraced the larger side of Bond in terms of tone, but they never forgot what they were, and there was always a few scenes in there to bring them back down to where a lot of people might feel they should be.
Goldfinger 1964 - Dull, Boring and Lifeless, serious Bond for the most part, not an over emphasis on humor
Diamonds are Forever 1971 - Uneventful, inappropriate Bond, hardly serious, a lot of nonsense going on, more comedy than straight faced
Live and Let Die 1973 - Great film, Good Bond, serious for the most part, different, humor not as widespread as some of the same releases in it's vicinity
The Man With The Golden Gun 1974 - still serious Bond for the most part, classic lines, great villain, some absurd and ill advised moments, good watch overall
All said, it appears Hamilton went about his directorial duties with a straight face, not so much emphasis on humor as later names such as Glen or even Gilbert. Only Diamonds are Forever truly stands out as a nonsense entry. Thesis is incorrect
The Man With The Golden Gun. Roger Yolt, but i prefer above Yolt. This is in specialy because of the end, the story and the villan.
Diamonds are Forever. After FRWL & Yolt Sean Connery his best performing as Bond. With FRWL Sean Connery performe very good because of other people be good too, with Yolt his part is good because of good spying and some humor of Connery. With DAF he saved the movie for a big part. Finaly more then in Yolt standalone Connery humor.
Goldfinger. This is a Bond eat out of his nose movie. Bond looked bored and me as audince get bored too after a whyle. There are a couple of good scene's but after the humor of FRWL. Also Dr No is more entertainment then this one. I prefer A View To A Kill where Roger Moore Bond do more with his time, better villian, better allly. Felix actor is to old in Goldfinger that i don't see him as Felix.
I disagree, the producers have a big say in what there whant.
Perhaps he is a bit fickle, because even though he did provide us with the lighter-hearted, fun-for-the-family Bond movies, he wasn't afraid to unleash the serious side of 007, especially in LALD and TMWTGG.
<font color=blue size=7><b>QoS' scepticism towards British politicians doesn't fit Fleming's legacy.</b></font>
Fleming never majorly touched on corruption within British establishment as his books were of a particular mindset. After the war, focus was on the enemy abroad, not the enemy at home. Naturally enough, as times change, so do your enemies (thinking of GE tagline) so while I agree that it didn't fit with Fleming, it works for Bond now.
Agree.