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
2. All of the Bond actors' tenures would age better than Moore's (yes, even Connery), Moore films just aged worst, because of jokes, puns, commercial replacements, hairstyles and fashion (think of the designs in 7Up billboard in Moonraker) and even the Production designs (DN, TB and YOLT looked timeless in comparison to all of the Moore Era Bond films).
3. Die Another Day is not the worst Bond film, in fact, in comparison to DAF and TMWTGG, it has way more positives: Jinx was at least not as bimbo as Goodnight and Tiffany Case, Gustav Graves was great for the film's first half of the film, Charles Grey's Blofeld is just beyond ridiculous, Christopher Lee, for how great he was as an actor, but Scaramanga's motivations for killing Bond doesn't makes sense, is DAD still a bad film? Yes, but nowhere near the worst.
OHMSS is not overrated, it's properly rated and in some ways, underrated, it's one of the best in the series.
Romanova / Bianchi did good in FRWL but then again she was played by an Italian actress. Suppose for good measure Natalya was portrayed by a Swedish one, not sure there's ever been a Soviet / Russian Bond girl who was actually from the country in question. I don't have much time these days to go through all existing releases to confirm, it's just standard recollection.
DAD for me ISN'T the worst, that accolade sits with either QOS or NTTD. Sure you got the introduction of an "invisible" road vehicle and ill-advised CGI effects but it was kind of to be expected as Bond and movies in particular moved into a new century. Lack of realism even in Bond was always going to become more prevalent than the straight laced adventures of once before.
OHMSS, first and foremost - Lazenby did OK. In fact he did a stellar job in the role and I wouldn't swap him with any other for that years release. Sean Connery would never have worked in that particular release and while it was slightly ahead of Moore's time in the role, Rog just wouldn't have worked out either. Many suggest Lazenby put in a poor performance that year or was so far detached from the Fleming creation you had to wonder what we was doing there, but believe these judgments arise from those who have never actually seen the title enough times to provide a fair reasoning. Either that or they're simply not James Bond fans or enthusiasts (to provide a fair or comprehensive assessment)
Natalya was played by Izabella Scorupco, a Polish actress/Model, so at least she's a Slavic one.
But again, it doesn't matter if they're played by an actress/actor of actual nationality or not, I've seen famous Hollywood actors took on a Russian/Soviet roles and they did fine.
We only have three Russian/Slavic Bond Girls in the series (or four, if we count Pola Ivanova), none of them to me, are convincing enough.
Daniela Bianchi did sounded better as she was dubbed by Van Der Zyl (although the accent was still not that right though), but if my memory serves, Tatiana Romanova was a Corporal (oh, yes, Soviet Army Intelligence Corporal) and it's something where Bianchi went down, she's more like a naive hired asset than an experienced Russian Military Reservist Spy, I think it would've been better and interesting had she showed that side of Tatiana, that experience and knowledge.
Barbara Bach, my goodness, this one, she's not dubbed and for the worst of it, her attempts at Russian Accent was silly, then hampered by her wooden acting, the least convincing Russian in the series (and probably one of the worst Russian Portrayals).
Pola Ivanova, exaggerated, silly Russian accent, do I need to say more? She didn't even looked like a Russian 😅, she's like an American doing a Russian Parody.
Really, the only convincing Russian Bond Girl is Izabella Scorupco as Natalya Simonova, not just the accent (which was great), but she's entirely believable as a Programmer, she's like this nerdy geek, but not over the top, she's very professional, her acting was very realistic, she's serious without bordering on exaggeration.
She's ended up caught up in the nasty world of SMERSH and is scared by the nasty woman at it's head and nasty job that they do. Ultimately that's why SPECTRE/SMERSH choose her; she's innocent in a seductive way and they use that to appeal to Bond. I don't think the story works with a more world-weary Tania, because at that point she wouldn't believe all her orders, question some of the logic, etc.
Completely agree on the dubbing though. I don't Van der Zyl did Tania (Wiki says Barbara Jefford), but there's still points where a German accent shines through more than a Russian one.
Been watching too much tiktok.
Roger would have been great in it; it would have suited him very well. His Bond was more romantic and human, in that film he'd have worked much better. The film opens like an episode of The Saint, which he was obviously pretty adept at. He'd even have had a comedy bit in the middle with the Sir Hilary stuff which he'd have handled way better than Lazenby could.
Lazenby did do okay, the film is more than watchable with him there, but I think 'stellar' is a bit too far- he's far from a star.
Sir Sean’s edge would be the fact that his Bond is the same guy we saw in the last five adventures. This seemingly infallible figure shown at his most vulnerable not just romantically but even in moments where he’s being cornered in the snow village. I can imagine that shifting of gears after YOLT would actually engage Connery for the first time since his early films.
But we’ll never know. I do think Sir Rog would have delivered.
No one really knocks down Connery just to prop up Lazenby though. I just have a hard time seeing a scenario where a Connery led OHMSS would’ve been better than what we ended up getting, unless they filmed it in the early 60’s like initially planned.
I wish Oliver Reed would’ve been cast for OHMSS, I have no doubt that he would’ve delivered a better performance in the film than the likes of Connery, Lazenby, and perhaps Moore.
It’s hard to sell knowing what we now know about Reed but back in the 60’s? I certainly think the picture would’ve fared better with Reed than with Lazenby.
But who knows, can anyone site an example of a movie where they think Oliver plays a character that displays a personality suitable for James Bond?
I agree Roger Moore would have been ideal for OHMSS and have no doubt that if Sean Connery had decided to do the film he would have given a good account of himself
For me Lazenby is Ok, neither as bad as his detractors make out (I think he did quite well for a novice actor), nor as wonderful as his fans imagine him to be. His main problem was that it is always nearly impossible to follow a legend. Only Moore was really in a reasonable position to carry it off, having aleady established his own "International Man Of Mystery" credentials as the Saint.
Have you watched “The Assassination Bureau”? It came out in 1969 starring Reed, alongside both Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas. It’s a nice little insight into what his version of Bond could’ve looked like. Curt Jurgens also stars in the film as well.
Is that the case in the book? Because what I mean is like Bond, the professionalism, I've read the book many months ago, but my interpretation of her actions there was seemed to be doing what she's asked to do as if being professional, I don't know, maybe there's a still a hint of vulnerability, but also professionalism that like Bond or Anya, she's just doing what she's asked to do because of her job, she's made to act that way, but she's part of the system, she knew it all well, and that's where her loyalty lies.
Maybe I'm wrong with my interpretation.
But in the film for me, she acted more like a fish out of the water in the situation, not as a hired person inside the business, that's just for me.
She acted like she's deceived in the film, in the book, I've felt like although she fell in love with Bond, there's still a baggage within her that she belongs in where she's working in which is the MGB, and she's sent to Consulate (she could do the same like in the film, but in the book, she's been sent there for further investigation, further highlighting what she have in store when it comes to her connection with her agency and SMERSH), there's still a sense of Professionalism, she's more than a pawn, she's sent as a foil, just like how Bond are being sent against his enemies and seduce the women.
That's my reading of Tatiana's role in the book, Ian Fleming made that in reference when he's interviewed about the role of women in Espionage, particularly, Mata Hari.
No, but I'll keep an eye out fot it
Thanks
The dubbed Lazenby isn't enough to sink the film. Think his performance was good. Portrayed a more vulnerable Bond (he looks genuinely terrified of Blofeld's goons) and it was needed in this type of film. Never saw it as a 'gritty thriller', more the correct blend of spectacle/grit with a serious romance permeating it.
Purple casino, though, you are right about. Even Prince wouldn't gamble there. Bleugh.
The 'montage' sequence is correct as it paces the film nicely, and introduces Louis Armstrong's beautiful masterpiece. It's obvious they have feelings for each other (Rigg is outstanding in her understatement here) with her crying 'breaking' her down, showing she isn't the 'mental case' hitherto assumed but a woman wanting of affirmative love.
Hardly blubbing over a dead M, is it?
As for the effects, I don't think they're
perfect but we cannot seriously argue they worse than TB or YOLT.
I very much agree, but the effects of OHMSS was definitely an improvement, actually the effects are better than even DAF and the first three Bond films of Moore.
The Montage is a way of developing Bond and Tracy's relationship that was hugely lacking in the book (I don't buy the romance in the book because of how rushed it was), OHMSS is a difficult book to adapt because it has three stories: the one with Tracy and the one with Blofeld, and James Bond finding a way to get back into the game, the romance was probably the hardest one to adapt because it happened all of a sudden, how to make it believable but still giving a way for the other stories (Blofeld and those two stories connection to Bond's self reflection and growth) to flesh out and develop.
This is where NTTD failed, it had too many plots but none were developed really well, the stories were patched altogether to make a narrative, but it became suffocating if looking at how the film handled those stories at the same time and in a little duration.
The Montage was pretty perfect, don't have any problem with it, it's a great significance to make their romance real, it made a big deal of making the most impossible, possible, making the romance of Bond and Tracy deep, sincere, and believable.
To be honest, when the romance of Bond and Tracy are taken into context (as how Fleming wrote it), there's nothing much showing to it: Tracy was only a catalyst to reinvigorate Bond to get back into the game, kinda like his energizer or booster to inspire him to go back to work, a motivation, but not definitely a romance thing, nothing there was romantic: Bond found her, they have sex, then they've used each other: Bond used her as an inspiration to enthusiasts himself in his work, Tracy used him to make better of herself and move on, then wedding and bang, she's killed, then as Bond had moved on from Blofeld and wanting to leave his job, her death once again, served as a catalyst to have him remain and stay in Espionage to capture Blofeld.
That's how I can describe Bond and Tracy's relationship.
If Bond was still at the top of his game like in the earlier books, I doubt he would be attracted to Tracy, so, there's nothing sincere and deep love there, Bond just used her just as Tracy used him, they're using each other, I doubt they would last had she was not killed, as they would've probably later realized that their so called love was built upon the facades of their feelings, they don't have nothing in common.
So, the original structure of the relationship was really impossible, the believability of that romance was as shallow as a flat earth theory.
It's not a believable romance, especially comparing it to likes of his relationship with Vesper, Tiffany, Vivienne, and Gala Brand which are more sincere in comparison.
The Montage was just right for me, the romance in the film was sincere romance.
Bond crying over M makes sense because we've seen how loyal he is to her and how much he respects her; it doesn't come out of nowhere. Their relationship is actually depicted, unlike with Tracy falling in love with Bond- he chases after her, wipes her tears, says a fairly corny platitude, and then two minutes later we have to buy that she's completely in love with him. The song is lovely, sure, but that doesn't make it good storytelling.
On the other hand, Bond falls in love with Tracy because he sees how strong she is when she helps him escape Piz Gloria. It's a bit trite, but it is at least a process we're allowed to see happening and developing: it's not just like a switch is thrown. They may as well put up a caption saying 'SHE LOVES HIM NOW' instead of the montage, it's basically the same thing.
It works in the films as the books already had Bond in love.
The explanation you provided shows how Bond and Tracy work for each other, which is a crucial tenet of any relationship.
Audiences didn't like it and revelled in the Lazenby/Rigg tabloid rift. They got their fill with Plenty O'Toole and Tiffany Case in DAF. Vapid wheezes whose absence of depth makes one wonder if they were even shallow.