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
You are bordering on spam. If you take the trouble to re-read your posts in even this last page, ask yourself what contribution they make to the discussion and even more so, who on Earth would want to read them?
Example:
Well, sir, good for you but next time you can post that sentiment in a previous post of yours. (We have the edit button for that.)
There's even a post of yours where you merely quote other posts but add nothing!
Do you even think for a split second that anyone on an adult Bond forum wants to read this? Do you even think for a moment that anyone here cares? This younger brother nonsense sounds awfully familiar too. If you don't want anyone to suspect anything, then don't feed those suspicions!
A gazillion flags have gone out concerning posts of yours over the past two days. We can hardly keep up processing them. You PM'd me a few hours ago but quite frankly it all makes sense to me now.
Stop this nonsense right away, please. Think before you post, learn to use the edit button and consider this: the forum isn't interested in one sentence sentiments that hardly cover any serious ground. People flag your posts because they are considered an annoyance, spam and in some cases a bundle of lies. You're not helping your own case and you can't take advise, as you so aptly demonstrate.
All told, it's actually a decent watch. Fun, entertaining, lots to get involved in. But the bottom line is, Moore was simply too old for the part by 1983 and someone else should of come in after For Your Eyes Only. The pre credits sequence in the acrostar jet is one of the best of the entire franchise and Louis Jourdan makes for a memorable villain, but the ending is always poor, it has to be said. A bit of a letdown after all that came before it, but still a decent Bond movie, although nothing overly special. It simply can't stand on the same plateau as some other releases such as From Russia With Love, Casino Royale, The Living Daylights and The World Is Not Enough for example
So George behaved like a twat on set? Not very professional but I dont see what it has to do with his performance. Plenty of people are arseholes off camera but deliver once its rolling. Utterly irrelevant.
Well depends what you are classing as performance. Clearly you regard the globetrotting playboy aspects of the character more important than portraying Flemings real and vulnerable man.
You could say TB was Seans best performance in this respect (personally I prefer GF) but the point is moot anyway as neither come close to Ian Flemings character.
Sean in DN and FRWL is exceptional as Flemings Bond but in GF (largely thanks to Hamilton) he veers off into the cinema-Bond later perfected by Rog. Now I'll grant you his performances in GF and TB are slick and oozing charisma but to argue they are great acting is pushing it somewhat. Hes just doing what he always did from GF on - playing Sean Connery. In DN and FRWL he wasnt a star so he had to act but by GF he could afford to switch on the autopilot as he had made it and from there he built a career on it. The films in which he actually acts (The Hill, The Offence, The Name of The Rose) are not as frequent as those in which he just plays himself (and I'm afraid I'm with Sickboy on the Untouchables Oscar).
You are of course correct when you say a motivated Sean in OHMSS would be the best Bond ever but as all we were getting from Sean by that stage was him turning up to pick up his cheque then I far prefer what we got from the chocolate model than what the coffin polisher would have turned in.
But it seems clear from all your barbed comments about his womanising, drinking and fighting (none of which have any bearing on his acting ability - presumably you also think Oliver Reed and Richard Harris were terrible as well?) that you are unable to divorce your hatred of George the man with what we get on screen. Sean is hardly a saint - hes been in a few rumbles and lets not forget his 'its fine to hit a woman' interview - but it seems hes beyond reproach.
Sorry to report but despite any rave reviews you may have garnered in the local rag for your seminal performance in Kiss Me Kate with the Tunbridge Wells players it doesnt make you an authority on anything. Its still just an opinion.
If you mean by 'accomplished actor' he has made a living from it then fine but to compare Brozzas CV with say Daltons is ridiculous. His pre Bond CV pretty much bears out your comments about him basically being a GQ model (something which is fine apparently - as is being Mr Universe (well third) or a knitwear model. Apparently its only chocolate modelling that you have a downer on. Or is it that George just walked ino the part without ever having taken acting classes that really rankles? There but the for the grace of God and all that... You could have been a contender?) with a handful of minor parts before Remington Steele (which I doubt would have even stretched George). I'll grant you post Bond some of Brozzas performances have been reasonable but I dont think he will ever go down as anything but a slightly lesser Rog in terms of acting ability.
So we come to Rog and I heartily agree with your points here. Rog may not have a CV in terms of quality a la Dalton but in terms of quantity he must have done something right to work constantly for 50 odd years.
Good observation about him consciously not wanting to copy Sean and making the part his own in order to succeed.
And he could act when required - which brings us to OP (so all this has been tentatively on topic!?). The scene with Orlov on the train and the defusing of the bomb are for me Rogs finest hour in the role. He really sells it (and could any other actor get away with that clown suit?) and his performance in the Germany section of the film goes a long way to making OP my favourite Rog film. With OP you really have the best of both worlds - a taut, dare I say Flemingesque, cold war climax in the circus tent but before hand a classic Rog romp. 'Fill her up please' is a master at the peak of his trade and lines like 'Sit' and 'That'll keep you in curry for a few weeks' only Rog could get away with. Genius.
Thats a curious definition of the word plateau you are using there. I have never seen a plateau with such a deep valley running through the middle of it.
OP is not on a par with the big 3 of FRWL, OHMSS and CR for sure but it batters TWINE to the floor in every department (well except that Marceau is way hotter than Adams or Wayborn).
Watch Hitchcock's Marnie, which Connery made just before GF, and you will swear it's Connery's Goldfinger Bond, moonlighting as Hitchcock's American businessman-lead Mark Rutland.
Connery incorporated a lot of what he learned from Hitchcock into GF. The resemblance between the two characters (Rutland and GF-Bond) is uncanny. Not only the exact same look, but also walk, inflections, posturing, facial expressions.
Thank you. That's all I was looking for.
Yes, I've heard people mention this before but I've never seen the film. Thanks for bringing it to my attention again. I'm going to check it out as soon as I get the chance.
Yes, thanks for this, too. I'll have to check this out, too.
Apparently you and George's supporters seem to think that being an action star qualifies as acting. I don't and it doesn't. Martial arts type films are a different genre. It's far less complicated compared to what the other Bond actors have done professionally. George was hired for three reasons, none of which have very little to do with being an actor. One, he tested well in the action sequences, which is what an action star excels at. Two, all an action star has to do is say their lines. They don't have to be convincing, just passable. Just like Chuck Norris, who is as awful as George, except, well, obviously he managed to make a career out of being awful. Three, he aped Connery's look and style and aggressively pursued the role until Cubby and Harry hired him. A huge mistake on their part in my estimation not to hire one of the actors up for the role, but as the Sicilians say, you can't put the s**t back in the donkey. I'd love to describe George as a "one hit wonder" as Bond, but even that would be a stretch as OHMSS in 1969 and 1970 was anything but in the eyes of the world, and George was anything but a wonder as his career shows. As far as I'm concerned, he might as well have been reading his lines from a teleprompter. So what if a few lines here and there he said were convincing? Almost anyone could say a line with the correct intent and inflections if coached by an accomplished actor and given enough takes and time to get it right.
You also seem to think I hate George as a man. Far, far from it if you'd read my comments about his real life gravitas and balls. I would have loved to have gone out drinking and wenching with him because we were kindred spirits like that and that's what I did on a near daily basis myself for about 13 years during my time as an active and public musician. He was rock star like that and people can tell very similar stories about my antics, so no doubt we would have been excellent wing men for the other. Everything I said about George's lack of professionalism on the set is true, which you should well know. And I maintain he should have been taking the role a lot more seriously and studying to get better instead of thinking "I got the job, I'm going to be a big star", which Dana Broccoli tried to set him straight on. The only things I have negative to say about George the person, things he no doubt recognizes in hindsight, is that he was professionally lazy, let his ego get in the way, and wasn't smart enough to make sound decisions regarding his career. I'm sure if the clock were turned back he would have done these things differently, and perhaps he would have grown into a competent actor while he was at it.
Like Pierce or not as Bond, in which my stance should be clear to anyone who reads my posts that he wasn't my cup of tea, he was an actor long before he took the role. His GQ looks may have similarly played a role in his hire, but the fact is he was also an actor and not a model with no credits or training that made his hire professionally sensible. I thought he mostly acquitted himself much better than George in his first two films. He showed me he had some acting skills, not at the level of the others save George before him or Craig following, but still he was far advanced and good enough to continue working and making a living at it before, during, and after his time as Bond. Where can George claim the same? His resume surely doesn't reflect his proficiency as such. His legacy as Bond far outweighs George's and is similar to Sir Roger's in style as well as rescuing the franchise at a low point, something George failed to do with a similar opportunity, and that isn't even debatable according to history. A member of the holy trinity of Connery, Dalton, and Craig? Now that is laughable.
That's it from me, further debate is pointless.
Now THIS is about acting and things someone with knowledge of the subject would post. I always thought myself that Sean was in "Marnie" mode and noticed these same similarities. His performance in TB to me was an ideal mix of his first three and his best showing as Bond.
The only thing that matters in this debate is his performance in OHMSS and Connery's performance in his movies, whatever your opinion of those may be.
Sure, why not carry over the suits from Woman of Straw, if they fit that well.
Also seems like FRWL soldified Connery as a major star, leading to his handsome leading-man status with Gina Lollobrigida in Woman of Straw and Tippi Hedren in Marnie.He was probably feeling pretty good about himself by the time he strolled onto the GF set. :)
I must confess, I've never seen Woman of Straw. I am now going to hunt it down. This looks like prime-time Connery celluloid.
http://thesuitsofjamesbond.com/?cat=98
Lets get it back on track please, and if you feel the need to continue discussing GL, SC or any of their films, then use the appropriate thread.
Thanks.
I have a hard time finding things that I did not like about OP. It fits well in the Moore / 1980's era of Bond and Moore got a lot of flak for the clown disguise but I had no problem with it. Hiding in the gorilla suit was very funny.
As for the Tarzan yell that scene ended with him landing in a river and coming out with leaches stuck to his chest. That mix of comedy and gritty realism at play here.
Magda's exit from Bond's bedroom was very cool too.
And the dinner scene at the palace with Khan eating his smothered head of lamb. Classic.
Back to OP. I said my peace earlier.It's one of my favourites. I like that it combines a hard edge to offset the camp and more escapist elements. That's the magic of Bond IMO, finding that camp/danger balance.
Even FRWL manages the feat. It is one of more grounded Bond films, but it still features Spectre and Blofeld, Spectre island etc.
OP combines outrageous plotting and characters, with some serious suspense and violent action. Rog's final tussle with the 2nd twin was quite well done.
I did enjoy the OP display at the Designing Bond exhibit which continues to tour the globe. The OP baccarat board was on display along with the little dice cups, the actual loaded dice and one of the faberge eggs. The items were all resting on the baccarat board, which sat on a table, flanked by mannequins of Kamal Khan and Rog sporting their actual outfits from the game.
I wanted to hold the egg and roll the dice but the security guy was sitting right beside the table, and told me no. Damn!
The action is inventive, locales stunning, the screenplay is intriguing and it has great cast; Moore, especially has some fine moments, defusing the bomb, squaring up to Orlov, the death of Vijay; very touching and sombre. Plus Moore has a great chemistry with Maud Adams. Silly humour infiltrates into a few scenes, the Tarzan yell, for example, but the overall theme from For Your Eyes Only is retained.
My heart says Spy, when I'm deciding on my favorite Moore film, and my brain says FYEO; OP is a perfect combination of them both.
And I can never understand people banging on about the clown disguise, it's just lazy journilism that has been regurgitated by people to criticise this film. People complain about Bond not acting like a real spy, yet wearing a clown disguise at a circus seems like a pretty logical thing to do, you just can't win!
It is possible though that as part of his Mi6 training, Bond had some background in the art of clown make-up and costuming, just in case. :)
Alternatively, there may have been a clown make-up helpful-guide picture pasted on the wall for quick reference. Then Bond would only have to match the colours with the design. Like using a colouring book, except your face is the book.
Wriggling into the costume, shouldn't have posed much difficulty either.
There, it all hangs together just fine.
I think youre just being facetious here and picking on the make up because you know your argument is on shaky ground and the scene is actually a classic and the best bomb countdown of the series. The only criticism I've ever seen of the clown suit is over the whole idea of Bond dressed as a clown - period - which some people are unable to look beyond and that's fair enough I suppose but to criticise the scene because of the make up is rather fatuous.
Yes the make up is too perfect (as the bomb got down to 1 second Bond must have thought to himself 'I wish I hadn't spent so long doing those tears down my cheek') but this is a minor detail that can be overlooked in the whole suspension of disbelief you need to employ in watching a film - particularly a Rog Bond film.
I've never seen anyone complain that it just happens to be the Junkanoo, Rio carnival or the Palio on the very day Bond rolls into town (and presumably Bond turning up at Oberammergau would coincide with the once in a decade passion play being performed). No one moans that the DB5 or the Lotus couldnt possibly contain all those mechanisms and armaments and still be driveable as a sports car or that Q just happens to supply gadgets suited to the very scenario Bond finds himself in in a particular film. Even the 'reslistic' SF has these moments - its very convenient that a train just happens to be coming at the exact moment Silva blows the tunnel or Bond just happens to survive a fall that about 95 times out of 100 would be fatal.
This is what happens in films - they operate in a heightened state of reality. How dull would the tube scene in SF be if after Silva blows the tunnel a TfL announcer is heard saying 'there are minor delays on the District line' and Silva just legs it and we don't have the train crashing through the wall?
Go and watch a Mike Leigh film if true reality is what you want.
Edit: "Mike Leigh, British writer and director of film and theatre.......known for gritty kitchen sink realism." Yuk. No thanks.
Bond fans have been having fun with Rog's quick-change clown get-up for years. Like for 30 years.
It's not a deep serious complaint. It's something to have fun with.
Of course, you have to suspend disbelief when watching a Bond film. That's not news.
1. Tarzan scream
2. The chase in Deli - Seemed so hackneyed.
3. The short amount of time Bond got into the clown outfit.
4. The overuse of humour.
Otherwise it was the one the most Flemingeque Bonds in content and in context.
That music at the end really annoys me just after he stopped the bomb got it stuck in my head I'm going insane! =))
Indeed. It certainly is a successful mix of part Bond film adventure and part Flemingesque suspense-fest. Having said all of that, of course, there's very little from the pen of Fleming actually in it.
To me the movie has tonal issues. After MR, Cubby made a deliberate attempt to make the next movie more realistic and less fantastical. The film was also a departure for Moore as his Bond always seemed more self-aware and FYEO was a much more serious affair.
The big issue with FYEO was that it was relatively sombre a Bond film, I think OP was a slight reaction to that as the film seems intent on having a little more 'fun'.
The overall effect is jarring, the film wants to be taken seriously but at the same time is overly camp and silly. The film wants to exploit the goodwill of FYEO of having a story in a similar vein but also satisfy Moore's more comic, self-aware performance, and it doesn't work. Furthermore, it has not aged well. I think once Glen got rid of Moore, he came into his own with his 2 Dalton movies as he had a Bond which matched the tone he was after - Moore was an uncomfortable fit.
We should really be ignoring this movie and not celebrating its anniversary.
I agree on the tonal differences. I was trying to kind of say that in the post above, to no avail. I see no problem in celebrating it, though, even if it is something of a curate's egg if you'll pardon the pun!
Though Moore isn't entirely to blame, surely someone should have looked at the script and saw that there were far too many silly disguises and bad jokes in it. Also Peter Lamont needs slap for the production design of this movie.