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
I think this has to do with Blofeld being kept in the shadows for so long, an elusive presence, which makes him far more menacing IMO. In a way, Blofeld is a Dracula figure in OHMSS, as I mentioned in other threads. Both novels have a lot in common. Even the character's motivations are similar.
I agree with 00Beast really, and early on in the film there are a lot of scenes, a run of three really, that just don't work for me. I mean, the casino thing isn't too bad I guess, but then the whole sleeping with Tracy doesn't sit right to me, the chemistry isn't there and she isn't the hot-blooded Mediterrean of the book, who finds a good man to give her a good seeing to, as Draco says. I recall the events of the book more, where Bond walks down the hotel corridor feeling quite inadequate, that sits with me.
There are a lot of fights with Draco's men, but I really can't see how it makes sense. I mean, in a Bond film we accept it cos everyone is trying to kill Bond, but if Draco sets his men on any guy who tries it on with his daughter, trying to kill him, no wonder she is a little pissy - it's the new era of permissiveness and she still can't get laid! A line by Draco explaining that they thought the famous Bond of the secret service was trying to inveigle his way in with her as leverage, or maybe in the last year she had been subject to a dangerous stalker and they thought Bond was him, that would work. But unlike the book, Bond does actually kill one of Draco's men, so there is bound to be some froideur.
It makes no great impact for me so when Bond joins forces with Draco's men for the climax I sort of forget they are the same guys there at the beginning, it should feel kind of like, hey, we used to be enemies and now we are on the same side, sweet.
When Draco's men kidnap Bond at gunpoint and the car goes over the bridge, it feels weird and you'd need Connery's charisma do make gold out of lines like 'Mystery tour, eh? I'd think we'd be much happier if you put that away...' It just feels really odd.
Then, the scene at Draco's office is for me the most boring scene in the entire film, real send you to sleep stuff. I have seen it many times and simply cannot recall what he is saying, somehow that Tracy got married, is that right? What happened there? The actor's voice just seems subdued and a scene that crackles with electricity in the book doesn't work here.
Again, a great actor could convey subtext, Connery would show that he is just going along with Draco to nail Blofeld and not committing himself, and Draco should be more desperate and volatile to make such a daft offer to a bloke like Bond.
Then, when Bond and Tracy meet at the bullfight, it is Bond who should suddenly feel real horror and remorse when he realises it looks like Tracy has been duped and made to feel like a bargaining chip. When he goes after her it should have the kind of urgency that Connery could bring (though might not have) but with Lazenby it just looks like a corny guy goes after the gal thing, it might be Cliff in one of his movies.
It starts with a bookish fellow travelling in Romania to the Count's castle, but public transport (a horse and carriage) will only take him so far, he has to go the rest on foot. When he checks in, the Count is not there to meet him, but later it is made clear that every attention should be paid to him, to help him with his studies uninterrupted.
It soon becomes clear that the visitor is there under false pretences and is really out to investigate the nefarious doings of the Count, however he is very much on his own in this deserted spot. You don't get Count de Bleauchamp's belles of hell, though you feel it's not for lack of trying, he knows how to get women into trouble!
It seems to me that Fleming was very much doing a take off of the whole thing in OHMSS, but it doesn't play so well in the film because of Savalas' American accent, to fit in with the Dracula vibe you'd need either Pleasance (though he didn't seem exactly sexual) or Gray in his Hammer Devil Rides Out mode.
I do feel OHMSS would have been better with that eerie Hammer horror vibe, instead the whole Piz Gloria thing to be seems a bit cheesy. Having the women in Piz Gloria come under his hypnotic spell would seem better with a sinister actor like Lee, with Savalas it doesn't quite have that exotic, sinister power. The Hammer vibe would have felt ominous so that the death of Tracy would have felt foretold somehow, whereas in the movie it just seems to come out of the blue imo.
An awesome, awesome film.
No it isn't overrated. ;)
The score is ridiculously good. One of Barry's top 2 or 3. And it has the great Louis Armstrong...
The introduction of the new Bond in the Aston is very well done. I love the fight sequence on the beach and even enjoyed him breaking the 4th wall (Connery was such a legend by then that he almost had to).
The ski sequences are the standout to me. Insanely good all the way down to the village of Lauterbrunnen and the Tracy tryst. The cinematography at Piz Gloria is absolutely outstanding.
It has its flaws (Lazenby's dubbed voice, the editing is off in some of the fight sequences, Draco/Tracy did not seem related to me, and I did not particularly like Savalas as Blofeld)
Despite these flaws, it's a very enjoyable, and different Bond movie. A little slow in places, but still very good.
That sherif….geez.
Awesome film altogether.
The big problem for LTK was the 15 rating it was given drastically cutting its potential audience numbers. Also Dalton had a very hard job, to replace the much loved Sir Roger, and at the same time try and take the films back to their harder edged less humour filled beginnings.
I love both films, being a fan of the books, I really like how OHMSS kept as much of Fleming's brilliant story, and LTK trying to inject some Fleming back into the character. :)
It's even that more difficult if the Bond you are replacing has more on-screen charisma than you do (definitely the case with both Sean vs. George & Roger vs Tim) irrespective of their relative acting abilities.
Only Dan has managed it recently, and that's because he's at least on par with Pierce for charisma and some elements of the Bond public were longing for a change in tone after DAD's excesses - i.e. the timing was right. Perhaps Tim would have been more accepted if he started with FYEO, following MR's excesses, and similarly George if they asked him to replace Sean & make OHMSS (continuity aside) only following Sean's DAF. I think Tim in particular would have been excellent for FYEO, although Rog did a great job on that one.
As they say, 'timing is everything'.
I agree, although it's notable the ease with which DC replaced Brozzer.
We do sometimes exaggerate the negative response to DALTON as well. He got positive reviews for TLD in particular. Had he done another one or two, perhaps more in line with the tone of TLD, who knows how the general public might have ended up seeing him.
After LTK Dalton said he wanted the next one to be more lighthearted and I am sure EON would have been thinking the same thing. To be honest, with a few tweaks GE was tailor made for Dalts.
Still love Bros though; go ahead, make fun. :-@
I can see a number of rather lacklustre scenes in that film really crackling with Dalts in the lead.
You are to Dalton what Gustv Graves is to SF.
Glad you both have different traits to admire,otherwise I would feel quit overwhelmed! ;)
Perhaps George would have been accepted if he wasn't such an @$$ on the movie.
He left of his own accord - idiot.
I say that as someone who would have liked him to have done one more at least.
Just as a first, George would not shave his beard for the american press tour, so they left him back in Europe.
Utterly retarded behaviour without a doubt.
Lazenby says he was presented with a doorstop of a contract going into all the stuff he could and couldn't do if he signed as Bond... very daunting. I do wonder if that wasn't a bit of kidology by the producers to get him not too sign, as they found him a pain in the a$$. That said, and I know others disagree, I can't see the Bond franchise lasting had Lazenby continued, it needed Moore's humorous transatlantic 1970s style cool imo, so I can see why Lazenby thought he was on a hiding to nothing there, and could have used the film as a launch pad for another kind of career, like Kim Basinger did for starring in NSNA, and a few other Bond girls (though not too many) as well, Jane Seymour for instance.
But once you get a reputation for being difficult, you are sunk. The whole thing as a nobody on a movie is no matter how crap the film is, you have to make nice to get the chance to do another one. Explains why Simon Pegg was so crap in rubbish like How to Lose Friends, as the star he could have kicked up a fuss and made it better but then he wouldn't have been allowed on the set of these mega blockbuster films he's done since.
Lazenby says he was presented with a doorstop of a contract going into all the stuff he could and couldn't do if he signed as Bond... very daunting. I do wonder if that wasn't a bit of kidology by the producers to get him not too sign, as they found him a pain in the a$$. That said, and I know others disagree, I can't see the Bond franchise lasting had Lazenby continued, it needed Moore's humorous transatlantic 1970s style cool imo, so I can see why Lazenby thought he was on a hiding to nothing there, and could have used the film as a launch pad for another kind of career, like Kim Basinger did for starring in NSNA, and a few other Bond girls (though not too many) as well, Jane Seymour for instance.
But once you get a reputation for being difficult, you are sunk. The whole thing as a nobody on a movie is no matter how crap the film is, you have to make nice to get the chance to do another one. Explains why Simon Pegg was so crap in rubbish like How to Lose Friends, as the star he could have kicked up a fuss and made it better but then he wouldn't have been allowed on the set of these mega blockbuster films he's done since.