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
It was lightning in a bottle. Terence Young put it all into play, but energized pacing was not his thing. Guy Hamilton had the energy, but tended to cinematically wander around, untethered. Hamilton attempting to mimic Young in this effort was a perfect combination. A tight script helped.
Bond. James Bond.
That's a Smith & Wesson, and you've had your six.
World Domination, same old dream.
Red wine with fish. Well that should have told me something.
Shocking. Positively shocking.
An ejector seat? You're joking!
We are playing strict rules, so I'm afraid you lose the hole and the match.
Do you expect me to talk?
I must be dreaming!
Then there's literally all the dialogue from Thunderball, in particular his repartee with Largo throughout the film.
"Wait til you get to my teeth".
+1
"Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
"No, I know a little about women."
So many iconic moments;- the tux under the wet suit, the Ken Adam sets, the tricked out Aston Martin, the exotic henchman Odd Job, the deadly lazer... and being a kid I failed to notice the complete lack of logic to the events relating to the gangster summit at the ranch.
The theatre was called the Civic, and is decorated in fairytale middle-eastern pastiche, the walls fringed with towers and spires, complete with a fake sky of plaster, which fades to black, studded with starlights, when it's time fot the show to begin. The stage itself is flanked by two golden lions, whose eyes glow red as the lights go down.
It all added up to a magical experience, which began my lifelong facination with the Bond franchise, the movies first, but also later the books, and with secret agent related entertainment in general.
RIP Sir Sean
"Looks terribly difficult"
"no it isn't, is it?"
Seldom has a main villain been more stylishly been irritated.
@Seve that's anamazing memory. For me GE was the first I saw in the cinema, and I'm afraid it wasn't as glamourous as yours. It was in a stylish cinema, but somehow the junk of many films before (it was the last showing) didn't help much. Neither is it as magical as yours was.
Every Bond fans first theatrical viewing is magical, no matter the film or location.
Oh that it is. I just vividly remember the setting, sitting between piles of old popcorn next to my father and brother. Seeing this amazing jump off the dam. GE was a good theatrical start ;-)
^ Seconded. ^
Lovely, wonderful memories shared on this thread.
And what special experiences @delfloria. I really value your comments here. And how I would have loved to have a little time with Pierce and Jane Seymour.
So, end of December now. Let me apologize for my delayed return. I was waylaid by other things in life. Life is okay for me, no worries. I just get tugged away, like by a riptide at times.
Here's a lovely parting shot of Sean and Shirley during the making of Goldfinger.
I'll have to say bye for now, because I cannot commit to when I shall return ... but like the man himself, really, "I never left" (in spirit). See you round the forum sometime. Take good care, enjoy your New Year's safely. B-)
This was still back in what was the dark ages as far as getting info on a new film unless you were part of a fan club, which I wasn't until later in the year. Had to check the tidbits section of Starlog Magazine each month and even then it was just things like "Jaws will not be a villain in the new James Bond movie." I did get the Marvel Comics adaptation ahead of time, both in the magazine-size and paperback but didn't read them to stay spoiler-free.
As most new movies were released on Fridays back then, the local newspaper ran a Sunday preview ad with the infamous legs with Moore aiming the Walther, in all its unedited glory. The thing that struck me from that ad, beside the legs and thong, was the name Bill Conti rather than John Barry under the music. I had a few of the soundtracks at the time and Barry was already a favorite.
It had already been a great summer for movies as we'd already seen Raiders of the Lost Ark and Clash of the Titans just the week before at the same drive-in, the Melody Cruise-in, that FYEO would replace the next week. I may have even seen Superman II that month, although I don't recall. But it was all just a build-up to Bond.
It was a family friend who was a big Bond fan that took my brother and I to the Melody that night. It was unusual for a Bond film to premiere locally at a drive-in, but wasn't the first time as YOLT and LALD both were at a drive-in on the same street I lived on. This one was clear across town.
Our friend described the gunbarrel as "Here come the balls" as I guess he didn't know that's what it was. Conti's Bond theme was different from the traditional Barry but energetic and got things off on a good note, so to speak.
MR's combination of spies and sci-fi really got my interest. Of course, I was 12 at the time, the age-group that a film like that was aimed at. So in comparison, FYEO didn't offer the same experience, especially after the freshness of Raiders prior to it. It wasn't a disappointment by any means, but the film still ranks in the lower part of my favorite Bond films. OP just two years later would more than make up for it.
I saw FYEO 1.5 more times at the Melody that summer and on cable the following summer. I wished I had my driver's license as I said I'd go watch FYEO every night, but I was just 14 at the time.
On another personal note, this started my trend of seeing a new Bond film on the Saturday after its Friday release, almost always in the evening, with the sole exception being OP, which I saw on opening day during the first showing.
And glad this thread is still alive, even though I hardly visit these boards anymore.
Cheers, CommanderRoss. I'm like Rain Man with dates in some ways. Yet my wife has to constantly remind me of something she asked me to do earlier in the day. Call it selective memory, I guess.
I was actually surprised in posting that FYEO memory how inactive this thread has been over the last 6 months or so. It's one of the areas I enjoy reading about as a fan since there are so many eras represented here and so many experiences. It's more satisfying than moaning over the wait for NTTD.
Definately. as an eighties' kid I may've been an odd 40 years late to be an Original, but what I love about this thread is that ego's don't play a role in the discussions. It makes for far more interesting reading. That combined with personal experiences of course. I hope the other Originals will return here soon enough so I've got a reason te return to MI6HQ.
A joke that comes and goes here in the family: My wife always complaints about two things: One, that I never listen, and something else.
You mentioned this a few pages back.
Are you trying say that he repeated himself. Something I'm sure he would never do.
The only thing I would never do is to never say never...again.
Well, I'm almost sorry to admit it, but in 1983, my allegiance was to Sir Sean. I never really saw Roger Moore as a dangerous man, and his incarnation of James Bond was just a little too camp for my tastes. I could believe him as a sophisticated romantic leading man -- but I just didn't believe him in the fight sequences. Now, Connery -- HIM I could believe throwing punches OR trading kisses. Whether he was going up against the likes of Oddjob or in the clinches with Fiona Volpe, Connery was just more convincing to me than was Sir Roger. So I wanted to see Connery's Bond wipe the floor with Moore's incarnation of 007 and I didn't care who knew it.
Today, I have come to a more ...nuanced... approach to the issue. OP is simply a better Bond film than NSNA. Both films have a bit too much forced humor for my tastes... but while OP shows Roger's Bond swinging through the trees and voicing a Tarzan yell, NSNA gives us Sean dancing a furious tango with Kim Basinger while sternly intoning, "Your brother's dead...keep dancing!" OP at least finally has Roger admitting, "I'm not a clown, I'm a British secret agent!" while NSNA features Sean replying to the news that his clothes have gotten wet with the injunction that "my martini's still dry!"
Connery is Connery, of course, and his version of 007 is still my favorite hands down... but he doesn't seem to have much rapport with Basinger as his leading lady... or for that matter, much animus for Klaus Maria Brandauer's incarnation of Largo. And as for Max von Sydow as Blofeld -- well, he's there, but just barely. The only performer who seems to engage Connery's interest is Barbara Carrera as Fatima Blush, and the two of them almost make the film worth watching when they're on-screen together. But Rowan Atkinson as an agent of the British Foreign Office? Really???
Roger Moore's leading lady in this go-round is Maud Adams, who briefly lit up the screen in The Man With the Golden Gun -- and she seems to bring out the best in Roger. Louis Jordan and Kabir Bedi are both excellent as Kamal Khan and Gobinda, while Steven Berkoff chews the scenery masterfully as the over-the-top General Orlov. Vijay Armitraj is just endearing in the usually-throwaway role of the sacrificial lamb. "No worries," indeed. Kristina Wayborn nearly steals the show (as well as the Faberge egg) as Magda... and Desmond Llewelyn gets to come out into the field as Q, having a bit of fun with Octopussy's circus girls. What's not to like here?
On the other hand: What's not to like about NSNA? Simply put, the reason for making the film in the first place. Kevin McClory seems to be attempting to assert whatever "rights" he thought he had secured to the very character of James Bond 007...and Sean Connery looks like he's just doing it to spite Cubby Broccoli and/or Harry Saltzman. I'll not bother to argue these points: everyone involved is dead by now. But I WILL discuss one more point that poisons this movie forever in my eyes...
Unlike most other Bond films, I can tell you exactly how many times I've seen NSNA: Three times. Regarding all the other Bond films, frankly, I've lost track. With this one, I saw it once on the big screen when it was released... I saw it on video several years later, just before reviewing it for this thread... and I watched it again, one last time maybe a year or so after that viewing, just to make sure of what I had seen. WHAT I SAW, that makes me Never want to See This Film Again: the horse. The horse that Connery and Basinger appear to ride off a cliff and into the sea. That horse looks SO terrified of the jump that it is being forced to make...the expression in its eyes is so very, very alarming...that I never want to see this movie again. And neither should anybody else, as far as I'm concerned. Not long after the release of this movie, that line about No Animals Being Harmed in the Making was added to the credits of most commercial films. I wouldn't be surprised if this sequence was at least partially responsible for the existence of that disclaimer. As it is, I'll just try to remember Algernon's (not Q's) line regarding hoping for "some gratuitous sex & violence" now that 007 has been assigned to this case...and I'll try my best to still find it funny.
Which means you always say never 🤔 🙂
Don't you have any gratuitous sex & violence to contribute to the discussion? ;))
NSNA is the only Bond film I don't currently own. I bought it when it came to Blu-ray, but a few years after when it went out of print, I sold both my copies of it for around $60 apiece. I couldn't resist.
Lastly, I think there was some small controversy at the time of NSNA's release about the horse jump. I'd have to look back at my clippings of the time, but that does jog the memory of others being concerned about that issue.