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
Though my new year Bondathon has, well derailed and my personal life has gotten much busier of late, I just felt like watching Octopussy last night. So I did.
I've tried to think of a film (or series really) that gives me so much, like OP and the Bond films give. Yes, other franchises are hugely re-watchable, but Bond is like no other for me. I honestly cannot say how many times I've seen OP, but it's a frightening amount.
Yet , I still get thrilled, I still get entertained, and I still find new little bits that I'd never noticed before. For me, it truly ranks as one of the all time great Bond films. Yes it has some appalling gags and humour. But it's a true roller coaster ride from start to finish. You could rarely say you were bored watching it. Compared to the other Bond film released in 1983, OP shits all over Never Say Never Again...and I actually like that film.
The Bond theme is used in a way that the modern Bond fails with. It should be used when Bond does something Bondian, like driving a car onto railway tracks!
The Craig Bond's have for some reason lost sight of this. It is the Bond theme after all.
I wont go into detail, but there is some much to enjoy in OP that it's a film that I could go and watch again today. It might not be a FRWL, or a OHMSS. But it's right near the top for me. One might say an all time high. ;)
One of the very best. It is only the Blofeld rambling that brings it down a little.
Brosnans best IMO
I watched NSNA yesterday whilst listening to an amusing commentary on the film from a YouTube film channel. It's ropey at times though the movie has its moments and Douglas Slocombes work looks fantastic, alas some of the second unit work pales in comparison and the change in quality is obvious.
This list is from a few days ago, immediately I am thinking what the... Sir Roger IMO has too many good films in the bottom tier.
I watched TSWLM 3 times last year. Once on my regular Bondathon, once in the cinema after Rogers passing, and once on a long distance flight, and every time i got bored. The movie never did much for me and i couldn't understand the cult factor it had.
Having watched LALD and TMWTGG the last two weeks, the first thing i noticed today was how much bigger and larger everything in TSWLM is. It looks like the budget must have quadrupled after the last one. Also, to my own shame i must admit that i never noticed before how amazing the cinematography looks. Especially in the Sardinia scenes. I kept thinking this movie looks like a moving painting. To my amazement i just found out that the cinematographer was Claude Renoir, the grandson of famous painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir, make of that what you will.
Second, the Liparus set is amazing, the first shot of it is very reminiscent of Kubrik, and i know that he was involved in the lighting of it, as a consultant of sorts.
Roger was solid, and played Bond more iconic here, Bach's shoddy acting and line delivery really did not bother me as much this time around, Roger was carrying the movie for the both of them, and she's still nice to look at. By the way there is quite a number of beautiful women in this movie.
For the first time i was able to understand what huge waves this movie must have made in 1977. EoN was throwing everything they had at the screen and then some.
I think my new found appreciation for this movie might also have had something to do with the adaption from Christopher Wood which i read a couple month ago for the first time, but i can't tell how exactly. Overall the movie has climbed quite a few numbers in my ranking.
Bond: My parents died when I was young.
Swann: Really? How old?
Bond: Old enough to remember.
Swann: How, may I ask?
Bond: In a climbing accident.
Swann: So who brought you up?
Bond: Someone else. Humour me. How does one train at Oxford and the Sorbonne, become a consultant, spend two years with Medicins san frontiers, and end up here?
The last line (Bond's) comes up very, very unnaturally in the script. It just doesn't work - awkwardly transitioning between Bond's background to Swann's background. A minor annoyance on its own, perhaps, but there are many, many moments like this throughout the entirety of the picture, where dialogue just doesn't flow convincingly. We get a number of scenes where a faux dramatic moment is forced: Madeleine's big pout after the snow plane set-piece, the woefully misjudged "finish it" shtick on the bridge, etc.
On a number of occasions, the script seems to set up for classic Bond one-liners, which seem to always fall flat (the humour in SP is another weak point). A good example is when Bond has just dispatched the two assassins, and the only thing the writers could come up with is "What a view." (I recall on first viewing, I was expecting a quip on life insurance, although I admit it would not have been much better). Also, part of the problem is that this is Craig's worst performance; the quips have to be tortured out of him.
There are also an abundance of cliches riddling the script, which lowers SP on a narrative front. Moneypenny's "I think you're just getting started," is another line that makes no sense in the scene its in, and is just in there for a meaningless trailer line. I take issue with the lack of class in SP's script. Moneypenny telling Bond to get a life is just not something that belongs in a Bond picture.
SP's story is rather misjudged in a lot of ways. The film needs a lot more scenes to actually show the villain's plot. I would have liked to see some of those terrorist explosions in action, but unfortunately they're all pushed to the background. SP's villain reveal takes a cue from DN, by having the villain show up only in the final quarter, but misses the point. In DN, the villain's lingers in every frame, even when he is not actually present. His menace is set up early on with the masterfully simple scene where Dent goes to Crab Key and receives the tarantula. You get the feeling he is masterminding everything in the shadows. In SP you really do just forget about Oberhauser until he shows up at the meteorite.
Of course, there is the meeting scene in Rome, which is rather an anachronism. It's odd - Spectre is supposed to supersede Quantum, but I remember Quantum as being a much smarter organisation, that communicated internally in much less ostentatious ways. And without all its members at the same location.
As for the central love story, I'm not sure anyone really believes it? It's very, very heavy-handed, and Madeleine is never the three-dimensions she's supposed to be. Bond pictures pre-Craig didn't set out to craft a thorough heroine, so we didn't care. Since they do try here, it's more disappointing when it fails.
There are a lot of other things I could go on about story-wise - Madeleine's confusing backstory concerning the man who came to her house, the furious retconning and merging of previous storylines (particularly SF), Blofeld's intention of staging a 'reunion' with Bond and Madeleine after just sending Hinx to kill them, etc. - but it's a neverending Pandora's box of plot holes.
SP's score is also among the least of all the Bond pictures. Most of it is ambient rubbish or just generic action/suspense scoring. Huge swathes constitute a lazy copy-paste job from SF. Some parts I do like are: the snow plane set-piece (against popular opinion) and C's death.
I'm afraid I also take issue with the cinematography. Hoyte van Hoytema is no amateur, obviously - take the first tracking shot, rather brilliant - but a lot of the shots are simply not to my liking. He uses a lot of mediums that really don't sit well with me - for a good example, rewatch the first scene with M and Bond in the office. It should look like the classic scenes from the Connery era. It doesn't, because there are no wides when we need them, as well as a lack of close-ups, just a lot of indifferent mediums. The filter doesn't bother me as much as with others on this board, although I agree the film would have looked better without it. SF is an example of a film that used its filters to great effect, creating a sharp and visually involving product.
The final major problem with SP is the action, and its glaringly disappointing. There's that very first foot chase at Mexico, where Mendes echoed a much superior scene in TB. The comedy of the car chase is so forced that the set-piece as a whole is impossible to enjoy. It's also very poorly paced, with a weird Moneypenny detour where we become more concerned with her boyfriend (what was the point?) than the immediate conflict. The shootout at the crater base is just plain stupid - the torture machine's effect on Bond's hearing and balance seems to have backfired and given him perfect accuracy. This would explain his godlike capabilities during the boat chase where he downs a moving helicopter during night with a handgun - not sure if anyone can defend that one.
There are occasional sequences I do enjoy, however, and I note them as follows:
-the first tracking shot is excellent stuff, immersing us right in the world of Bond and promising a great adventure (rather misleading)
-the title sequence is very effective, second in the Craig era after CR, a bit better than SF and far superior to QOS; I dig Smith's Writing's on the Wall
-Bond entering and snooping about in Mr White's hideaway. Very creepy and well directed. Does not rely on SP's usually poor dialogue.
-Bond's talk with Mr White. This scene has the best written dialogue of the movie, and Christensen gives the movie's best performance.
-The plane chase is decent, even if it makes no sense.
-I appreciate the scenes in L'american, and the train scenes. The train fight is the best part of the movie. I like how the instrumental for WOTW was used, but it was not used enough (could have fit very well for the bridge scene at the end as Bond leaves Blofeld).
Unfortunately, SP ends up limping to the finish line in the protracted London finale. A lot of cliche rubbish becomes the climax of the movie (save her, or live with the pain! mwahahaha!) What's worse is that Bond relies on divine miracles and illogical happenings to save the day, as opposed to his brain. Namely, a curiously convenient net to help anyone who needs to quickly escape a soon-to-be demolished building (comes with a complementary boat!) and Madeleine helpfully screaming to help him know where he is. I wonder how she did so, with a gag in her mouth? Very good, sir.
Cracked open a beautiful bottle of red (Stag's Leap Cab/Sauv 2015-- for anyone who loves wine, this'll knock your tastebuds through the roof), and joyfully watched this masterpiece unfold.
It's as good now as the first time I watched-- just as chilling/shocking. My wife was floored by the tension and she did something unexpected: she was talking to the screen, scolding Josh Brolin at every turn (she especially hated how he was chewing his gum-- wonderful performance!)
Edit: just woke up and realized I put this in the wrong thread-- blame this on the Stag's Leap! Ha!
Hadn't even thought of Brosnan as "boyish" in GE, to be honest.
TLD is Dalton's better performance; hard-edged, grounded, but gives in to levity when necessary. He takes the role seriously, and embodies the class expected of Bond's character. Further, he has excellent chemistry with D'abo. That Kara is the sole Bond girl is also a refreshing decision; the story is also stronger as a result.
Henchman Necros is always enjoyable (however, he is very, very much inspired by Red Grant). Unfortunately the other villains are not to this same standard. Both are founded on fairly inventive ideas (the smarmy general whose defection is faked, the war-hungry arms dealer) but Koskov doesn't have the menace of a Bond villain and Whitaker doesn't get nearly enough screen time or any sort of relation with Bond to exploit.
Give the writers credit for finally going back to the Bondian roots of espionage; TLD works like a detective story, with Bond uncovering more and more clues in an evolving plot. On the other hand, the story is overplotted - too muddled to really work. I still don't get all facets of the story - much less the stakes if Bond fails.
Now, some have said that TLD's Afghanistan scenes were boring; I must contend that this has been greatly exaggerated. The actual battle at the air base was boring, I'll give you that - but the rest is all up to standard. Except perhaps the embarrassing fight in the jail. I enjoy all the horseback scenes.
The car chase is one of the best in Bond.
The score is for the most part another excellent (although different) Barry effort; however, there were occasional parts that I thought didn't have the intensity required of certain action set-pieces.
LTK is another great outing, but hampered by a number of issues. Firstly I take issue with its production values. In some scenes it looks as if it were done on the cheap, cinematography-wise. Secondly, the plot is functionally inoperable. The main crux of the story consists of Bond covertly infiltrating Sanchez's inner circle (a man who rewards loyalty more than money). He does this in the span of about two days. And it should be impossible, because at this point, he has exposed himself to Sanchez's lackeys at the Bimini Bar.
In other places, I also take issue with the plotting. Pam's introduction is very underwhelming. The scene on the boat comes too early. Lupe's infatuation with Bond "I love James, so much" is ingratiating.
Adding onto that, there are quite a few performances in LTK that are either bad (both Bond girls' actresses) just too on-the-nose (Killifer).
Negatives out of the way. I insist Kamen is one of the better of Bond's secondary composers. He did something new, and for that matter did new things with the Bond theme that no other composer has done. The action scores are consistently impressive. However, he did not weave Knight's theme into the score.
Sanchez is a fantastic villain, his actor gives a great performance, there are no weak or questionable moments.
The stunts are outstanding, and the Wavekrest sequence, which goes from underwater, to over water, to into the air, is wonderfully dynamic, and one of my favourite Bond action sequences. The tanker chase is also a treat, although it becomes excessive.
And I quite enjoyed Q's expanded role!
I would like Fleming's TMWTGG to be adapted (for real), although I suspect it would turn out a clone of this movie.
Another awesome viewing of this modern Bond classic. The question really struck me this time of why they would never try a similar film tllike this again in the last twenty years. No gimmicks, no weird angles, just a straight up Bond romp, like the classic era. They don't make Bond films like this anymore, even though 006 can be considered a minor gimmick element in the mix. I think the "this time it's personal" mantra first started truly with License to Kill, and perhaps it can be said that the relationship between Bond and Kara in TLD was a first attempt at deeper emotional depth and characterisation. I just miss the days of Bond films that feel like true Bond, not homages. I think GE and TND are the last which took those aspects seriously.
BTW, the World Cup once again messed up with Bond. The planned repeat of GE tht was scheduled to air after TND was replaced, once again, by a documentary about "Les Bleus". Ain't it always the way ?
TB later this afternoon. I sent some pictures of Domino as incentive.
You and me both.
My friend gave it a 9.5/10. He preferred GF by just a hair. We'll get YOLT done sometime this week.
True. I did consider that. I’ve been trying to find ways to switch it up instead of doing the usual chronological order, which I probably will return to leading up to Bond 25 next year.