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
As a sequel to OHMSS
Its tragic. And not in a good way.
As it’s own stand alone film
Its campy fun with some fun dialogue, a great Barry score and some fun performances - especially Whyte. Charles Grey as Blofeld is underrated.
True. True. True.
Couldn't agree more.
DAF works better for me when I watch the film at a random time. As the one to follow OHMSS, it's a nightmare. My fiance had a caustic reaction to this film when I marathoned the Bonds with her--and she hadn't seen any of them besides two Brosnans and Skyfall. The jump from YOLT to OHMSS was like whiplash to her but she responded well to the film. And I guess that, despite my warnings, she had half expected OHMSS to set a trend for several more films just like that. So immediately after the PTS of DAF, what with the "Making mud pies, 007?" and Blofeld's "my give up" Jar Jar Binks moment, she looked at me, visibly wondering if this was "that spoof film" I had been talking about. No honey, that was Casino Royale '67; this film is to be taken seriously. :p
And yet, it isn't. DAF is a bundle of joy, silliness as an art. In fact, if it weren't for Jane Seymour being the loveliest Bond girl EVER, I'd rank it above LALD with ease.
I barely remember Columbo.
Says it all, really. IMO, of course. (I guess a part of the reason is that I’ve seen FRWL many,many times over the years, while I’ve seen FYEO - which is my favorite Moore film, actually - perhaps only four or five times. Whaddya want, those Connery films, as well as he himself in the role, was very instrumental in me becoming a huge Bond fan about 25 years ago...)
Totally agree. I always found him really overrated among Bond directors. If he had only directed GF, then sure, I could see the immense praise. He’d be almost as good as Peter Hunt, were he a one-timer. But no, as he went on, he kept pushing Bond more and more into the ridiculous. Only Gilbert and Tamahori went more silly.
I vastly prefer Terrence Young, not to mention Martin Campbell, John Glen, as well as the previously mentioned Hunt.
Also, yeah, Hamilton is overrated. I l know he gets tons of credit for pushing Bond films to a more popular level with GF, not taking that away from him, but if I'd like to see a scenario that didn't come true it would be Terence Young's version of GF. I much prefer his harder-edged style.
My favourite Guy Hamilton film isn't even a Bond film: Evil Under the Sun. Though I'd agree GF is very good and I've always had a soft spot for TMWTGG.
Funeral in Berlin for me. I think it's as good as, if not better, than GF.
This is an insightful post.
Once GF hit (and I think GF is one of *the* turning points of the '60s), I'm not sure there was any going back to the DN/FRWL template, and I think you can feel that tension in TB (as if Young had watched his baby grow into an awkward teenager).
OHMSS tried to go back to it and failed (commercially), then we had a long, long wait until CR.
True.I double billed YOLT along with DAF once and it worked like gangbusters.
GF brings us Miami hotel background projection in all its fake glory and rather dull Kentucky ranches or diners. You'd think Switzerland would make up for that but even that beautiful country doesn't feel as magic as it felt later on in OHMSS. GF does a lot right, but atmosphere isn't its strongest point.
For me it took DAD to beat DAF in terms of awfulness. But I'll give it something : it was what the franchise needed at the time. Not OHMSS quality, not a new Bond, but exactly what we got. Oh and I told that controversial opinion before, but Sean Connery in DAF is the worst looking Bond.
Was it really what the franchise needed at the time though? It didn´t totaly flop, but it was not a particular succes either, and it´s not like it created a new boom for the franchise in any way. The Connery fanatics got to see him one last time in the role. Apart from that, I think you could easily erase the film from history without it making a big difference for the franchise.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I love FRWL. Just never really thought Kerim was that interesting.
Agreed on Hamilton. His films don't really show any directoral flair. Even Goldfinger is fairly pedestrian looking. Terence Young clearly had a great eye for a shot and Lewis Gilbert had the David Lean-esque wide shooting in TSWLM and YOLT. Even Jon Glen at least showed some skill in the action scenes of his films.
Not sure that particular aspect was Terence's fault. He directed what was on the page. And the setting obviously helps, but TB was far more visually sumptuous than GF.
It had the franchise going on for a little longer. But sometimes I wonder if audiences would have accepted a straight revenge story as long as Connery was playing Bond. Whatever approach they'd taken, they needed him.
I think a good way to go through the series is to watch DN to YOLT in order, skip OHMSS, then watch DAF to TMWTGG. This way you see all the official Connery films in sequence followed by the two Moore Mankiewicz/Hamilton films that are closest to DAF in mood and atmosphere. Then watch OHMSS followed by FYEO, then TSWLM-MR, then OP through LTK and you get the John Glen era(both as editor/2nd unit director and as director) as well as the direct references to Mrs. Bond after her death(FYEO, TSWLM, LTK).
Then watch the Brosnan/Craig era GE-SP in order.
I don’t think Young is at fault, other than walking off the film after filming finished. EON wanted a GF type film with TB so that’s what Young delivered to the best of his ability.
I think you underestimate his work in GF. His later work was no doubt lazy, but he was a very good visual director with GF, like how he gave the dinner scene visual cues to underline the exposition of gold smuggling.
I'm not sure, buddy. Whilst GF does have a lot of strengths, I think there's nothing particularly strong visually, about it.
True, but he had an excellent eye for the action scenes, if nothing else.
And also look at the pacing of GF, and that he had a smaller budget than most, if not all, of the films that followed. In GF Hamilton amazingly zips along, creating iconic moment to iconic moment along the way--sea bird on head to "Positively shocking" to gin rummy game to Golden Girl to golf game to Aston chase to Oddjob/Tilly to laser scene, and on and on and on.
I think it's fair game to slag Hamilton for his latter films...but not GF.
Arthur Wooster deserves that credit.