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
Here here. The space station reveal, along with Barry's ethereal masterpiece, really is most stunning.
Although, I have to disagree with you about MR's most grievous weakness - that would be the overt humour, IMHO.
Still, with a little editing, MR would be fantastic. If Sean Connery's tour de force was TB, then Sir Rog's would be MR.
Ah, YOLT. For me the memory of this film is actually better than the film; I tend to forget how silly the plot is, for example.
But not this time. Sure I've enjoyed YOLT in the past, but never to this extent. In fact I've been enjoying, not only YOLT, but all the Bond films, enormously. It's like I'm a kid again. I blame Skyfall.
There a lot to enjoy with YOLT; Ken Adam's stupendous sets; John Barry's melodic, beautiful music; Freddie Young's gorgeous cinematography, inventive set pieces: Lewis Gilbert's stylish direction, and the first half is imbued with a certain From Russia With Love style intrigue and the whole film is so darn iconic.
Ian Fleming said “go beyond with is probable, but never the impossible”, I always try to judge the Bond’s film plot by this mantra. However… it was the space race, it was the 60’s, a time when people were not so cynical. So, regrading the special effects, judging it from a 60's point of view, and not a cynical modern viewpoint, the special effects were fine. The film makers were using the tools of their time. Besides, where Adam and Barry are concerned, I can forgive a lot.
However, the plot is quite implausible, the screenplay is erratic, Donald Pleasence is certainly iconic, but not threatening in the slightness (imagine Pleasence's Blofeld going to get some stamps, for example) and Sean Connery is on auto pilot.
*Don't you feel sorry for Kissy;not only do you have to wait until the end credits to find out her name, but she climbs up the volcano, and then down it, swims to fetch Tiger, and then poor Kissy has to climb that sodding volcano again!
One of the finest Bond movies of them all, this one is the height of the more serious, espionage-based entries, a model that would be followed by movies like For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale. Nearly everyone is in top form here, from Sean Connery to Eunice Gayson, and the villains are some of the greatest in the series, including the first incarnation of Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Red Grant.
The movie's plot is one of its stronger aspects, a true rarity in the Bond series, but it has very good action sequences as well. The fight between Bond and Grant is truly the best in the series, and the gypsy camp scene, helicopter fight, and the boat chase, while not adding much to the plot, are certainly enjoyable sequences.
This is the second-greatest movie in the series, behind only the movie that I am about to watch, Goldfinger.
That's not the efforts of Ms. Chiles, it's the efforts of her hairdresser. ;)
I had the opportunity to watch Goldfinger yesterday, which is the fastest I've watched two Bond films in a long time, after Friday's viewing of From Russia With Love. Goldfinger remains my favorite Bond movie and the absolute standard-setter from top to bottom.
On this viewing, I admit that I saw some of the flaws that are pointed out. Bond doesn't do a lot and his behavior in the beginning isn't always optimal, Goldfinger's explanation of his plot is contrived, and the troops' suddenly falling down is a bit silly. But all these things are minor points. It's certainly better to have Bond fallible than effortlessly running roughshod over his enemies, as in Thunderball and some of the Brosnan movies, and given that Goldfinger's plan is to detonate a nuclear bomb at the site of Fort Knox, some senseless evil gloating isn't beyond the pale.
Goldfinger sports many classic Bond tropes, and either originates or provides the finest example of many of them. Bond's car is something the series is still copying, and the scene with Bond and the laser lives on in many different films. The action in the movie is strong, as are Gert Frobe, Connery, and Honor Blackman.
In the inevitable comparison between Goldfinger and From Russia With Love, I must side with Goldfinger. While From Russia With Love is more consistent, Goldfinger's best moments are better and its influence more lasting. From Russia With Love has its weaknesses too, including an occasionally slow middle third and a needless helicopter and boat chase near the end, seemingly tacked on just for some extra action.
It lacks the exotic nature of DN, the gritty spy plot and raw brutality of FRWL and the tension and risk of TB. I appreciate it for the PTS, the imagery of the golden girl, the laser table scene, that amazing Prince of Wales three piece suit Bond wears while in Kentucky and the climax, but I find the aforementioned three films to be far superior. I guess I just don't like how Bond acts sometimes, more laid back and accepting of his own capture than earnest and tactically preparing a daring escape to save the day. His time with Goldfinger at the stud ranch becomes more like a work holiday instead of a serious mission to him that has serious implications for the Americans, though he's a Brit after all so I guess he doesn't need to care that much. And I swear, you could made a drinking game out of this film: take a swig every time Bond is knocked out. I have a love and hate relationship with the film, I guess. Sean's presence saves it by and large, and I question how much I would like it without him in it. It's one I'll have to revisit soon, to see how I stand with it now. It's one of the few Bond films where I can't say with confidence just how I feel about it, good or bad, and I often shift in my opinion of it any given day.
Thunderball- absolutely amazing, and certainly reaffirmed its place in my mind as a top-3 and THE quintessential Bond film (sorry GF, you don't have Blofeld or SPECTRE). Claudine Auger is beautiful and not annoyingly damselly as many other early Bond girls, the unseen Blofeld manages to be still a top-3 Bond villain, Adolfo celi as Largo and Rik van Nutter as Felix have a great screen presence, and Luciana Paluzzi as Fiona Volpe is simply stunning-the original Bond femme fatale. I think this along with GF and FRWL is Connery at his best. Couple that with some gorgeous locations and drool-worthy Ken Adam sets, you have an easy 10/10. I feel like this one, while usually not bashed, is much, much better than the 12th or 13th spot it usually gets (it's #3 for me).
TLD-Much better than I remembered. I never disliked it, but I always though "meh." After this weekend, it has moved up on my list. Forget about the boring main villains and remember Necros, who is a very underrated henchman, and think of all the real-world links in it and TD's down-to-earth performance, and you have a top-12er. I always have said that this and OP were the best-grounded in current events of the series. I also found Kara much less annoying than I remember (although just as stupid). 8.5/10, currently #9-11 for me.
YOLT-meh. not that great. Connery gives his worst performance (though not his fault, he was being hounded by the press and fans during filming), forgettable plot that was done much better 10 years later in TSWLM, and dull girls and villains (i was never a fan of Pleasance's Blofeld for the same reason i'm not a Sir Rog fan: it comes off as self-parody). I do like Helga Brandt, who is a blatant cash in on Fiona Volpe, but in a good way (though you can't beat the original) and Tanaka, who is in my top-10 allies. If anyone tells you someone has a more baller-ass life than Tanaka, they're wrong. 7/10, currently #17 for me.
AVTAK-not particularly good, but not the antichrist it's made out to be. Positives: May Day and Max Zorin, who are easily the best villain and henchman of the Moore era, great theme by Duran Duran, a great Bond ally in Tibbett, kickass locations. Negatives: a shoehorned in appearance by Gogol and the KGB, the most annoying Bond girl of all time in Stacy, and Roger Moore's age (13 years past mandatory retirement age for 00's i might add). The harebrained villain scheme (a man made earthquake-then a flood? or does the flood cause the earthquake? and how exactly would this make Zorin rich?) can be forgiven because Zorin is a total psycho who definitely would try that. Currently #18 for me, 6.5/10.
Interesting take. Thunderball has seemed to me to be too bloated and almost a victim of its own success. Nothing seems truly inspired, the plot plods along, Bond runs roughshod over Largo, and then the underwater scenes quite literally slows everything down. Fiona Volpe is the one character who makes Bond truly seem vulnerable, and that is one of the film's undisputed high points. In Goldfinger, Bond constantly seems to be in danger. First there's the attack by Oddjob, then there's the chase in the facility, then of course, the laser table. While he's in captivity, he's clearly calm and waiting for his opportunity to strike, but it's clear that Goldfinger's plan is always coming closer to succeeding.
I very much enjoy Dr. No and From Russia With Love, but they lack the over-the-top grandeur of Goldfinger. While their realism is one of their greatest strengths, I prefer Goldfinger's trips into fancy and over-the-top action and adventure, not to mention its strength in villains and girls, which I consider stronger than any of Connery's other movies, although Dr. No and From Russia With Love nearly match it in villains. I am biased toward Goldfinger, of course, as it's the movie I watched to get back into the franchise, but I don't see it moving from the top spot any time soon.
A perfect, epic Bondian adventure, featuring Sean Connery at his most virile best. All the elements work; the plotting, sets, action, music, tension, violence, sex and the quips. I’ve complained before about the hijack of the Vulcan, saying it’s too slow and Young’s direction is anal, particularly the shots of the frogmen nailing the net in place, but not this time. It is an epic film, it’s only on for two hours, that’s time to be spent in Bond's world, so what’s the rush? I just let the film wash over me, savouring Thunderball’s magnificent “epicness”.
Always a favorite! No nonsense, no silly hijinks, no cartoonish humor, just a straightforward 007 adventure bent on accomplishing the mission. Simple yet intriguing plot? Check! Unique characters? Check! Dazzling locations? Check! A foot-tapping soundtrack? Check! Glittering action sequences? Check! Roger Moore as 007? Check again! All the proper elements are in place here. There's hardly ever a scene that I question as to its relevance in the movie, with the exception of all the Bibi Dahl and Jacoba Brink stuff- I still do not understand why they are even a part of the movie, but hey, one flaw out of a 2 hour movie? Fine with me- FYEO gets it done!
Current Bondathon Movie Ranking
1. GoldenEye
2. License to Kill
3. SkyFall
4. A View to a Kill
5. Tomorrow Never Dies
6. For Your Eyes Only
7. Live and Let Die
8. Octopussy
9. The Living Daylights
10. The Spy Who Loved Me
11. From Russia with Love
12. Thunderball
13. The World is not Enough
14. The Man with the Golden Gun
15. Dr. No
16. Goldfinger
17. Diamonds Are Forever
18. Casino Royale
19. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
20. Quantum of Solace
21. You Only Live Twice
22. Moonraker
It's funny, this film almost feels too sophisticated to be part of the largest film franchise around. In fact it's probably even better when viewed simply on its own (I suspect it's one of the few films in the series that's likely to appeal to non-Bond fans). OHMSS is definitely Bond at his very best: when the gimicky hardware is stripped away but the style and sense of epic adventure remains. Despite Lazenby's obvious shortcomings (some of his line readings really are cringy on occasions), there were were other sections when I have to admit to really liking him this time round. He's believable as an atheletic, well-trained yet entirely human figure. If only he'd just been a bit more experienced as an actor.
The photography and action are both top notch and Rigg and co are all superb. Nothing new that I can say really. Easily top 5 material.
9/10
DN
OHMSS
MR
FYEO
TLD
LTK
CR
Bond's penis saved the American economy!
If Bond didn't seduce Pussy, then Grand Slam would have been a success. All joking aside, I think Bond mentioned that Delta 9 was fatal, and so Pussy switched sides. Anyway...
Of the first four Connery films this is my least favourite. Why? Compared to its brothers it lacks that slightly callous and hard edge. Then again it hits a sublime balance between the world of Fleming and the cinematic Bond. The style of Goldfinger is more stylised than the Terence Young's films that bookend it. This is the first Bond film that paints Bond in a "superhero" light. Bond is more refined, more witty and more sophisticated, and is the result of Paul Dehn and Guy Hamilton, who shaped the way that audiences see Bond. Hamilton provided the interpretation that Bond would be know for; cool, lethal and always ready with a quip. In fact, Hamilton's Goldfinger would be so successful, and his take on the Bond persona in particular, that it would be used as a template for many of the upcoming Bond adventures. Hamilton, then, would focus on Bond's sophistication and wryness, and less on the coldness and brutality.
This is reflected in Sean Connery's performance as 007 who is in magnificent form as 007. Every line, every movement is perfect. In Goldfinger, Connery is really a pleasure to watch.
While Goldfinger may represent an artistic turning point for the series, it took its cue from Fleming's novel which, for me at least, is his most laid back and expansive. In the novel we get an iconic set of characters brought straight to the screen, not to mention Bond's first spy car and an extra emphasis on the hardware. Of course the way the film utilises these is really the difference between the cinematic and literary Bond's, but the spirit of Fleming's writing is retained, even if the context has been altered.
Some things grate in this film; the over use of back projection makes the film seem overly cheap, while both the dialogue and acting in the Hood's convention is dire and the pace lags when Bond is being held captive, at the stud farm, in Kentucky.
Still, Goldfinger has just the right proportions of escapism, coolness, sexiness, danger, tension, romance and espionage. In short, Goldfinger is one of the most perfectly balanced films in the canon, and we get a superb Bond/M exchange, golden roles fleshed out by some great casting and Barry and Adam get into their stride. I adore the 60’s Bond movies because of these two geniuses.
DISCLAIMER: I actually have Goldfinger at #8, and by no means do I think it is bad, but I will probably get fired up while typing this review (I need to get a life) and be more blunt than I actually feel about what I will discuss. So don't hate me.
see, I was never very impressed by Goldfinger. While it's head and shoulders above all of Moore (except maybe TSWLM) I never quite understood why people love it so much. It puzzles me much more why people call it the quintessential Bond! Its locations are boring (Switzerland..in the summer); I never really was drawn to Pussy Galore (half the time I was trying to figure out if she was British or American); and..come on...how can you be quintessential Bond if you don't have SPECTRE or Blofeld? Connery just comes across as creepy and looks drunk for half the film (Lovely schport). Goldfinger's plot is acceptably grand, but I never felt like there was any real danger (which is a mistake on part of the screenwriters, because in theory I should get the sense that something must be done, NOW, like in Thunderball and YOLT). The best thing Goldfinger has going for it is the Aston chase at Goldfinger's factory.
I also think the villains are not nearly as good as those in the films preceding and succeeding. Goldfinger himself, to me, is just boring. Gert Frobe gets the facials right, but Michael Collins's voiceover ruins the character for me. He switches accents, like, 8 times throughout the film and his delivery sounds like guy in an elevator talk to me. Harold Sakata's Oddjob is thoroughly outclassed and outmatched by Robert Shaw's Red Grant and Luciana Paluzzi's Fiona Volpe (who is one of the best femme fatales in cinema history). Pussy Galore would have been far better had she not slept with (read: raped by) Bond and turned good. Still wouldn't have come close to Fiona. Rosa Klebb and Blofeld in tandem easily beat Goldfinger (although he does somewhat redeem himself by gassing the most annoying mobsters in the history of the mob).
Bond's allies are stupid and boring. Felix continues to be his boring self, even more so than usual, the CIA give off a Boy Scout-like vibe, Tilly Masterson's existence is forced, and Bond's caddy is way too obvious with Bond about switching Goldfinger's ball. Pussy is painfully uncool as a Bond ally (I didn't really find her all that interesting as a villain) (the irony of that sentence is not lost on me).
As a film altogether, Goldfinger is a letdown for me after From Russia with Love and is far inferior to Thunderball. Its campiness is painfully unfunny (except for Goldfinger's grandmotherly factory guard), there is far too much of it, the action sequences get less and less exciting after the PTS, and the music (when there is any) NEVER fits what's going on. Ken Adam's sets are all over the place style-wise. many of them don't feel like ken adam. (I consider this to be his weakest film) and we don't get a really good one until the Depository (aesthetic boner). Insulting Shirley Bassey's theme would probably get me struck by lightning, and anyone who does so has zero credibility, though I have to say that this is the only one of the themes she did that actually fits her. IMO, Thunderball does everything Goldfinger does, but better, grander, and with Blofeld.
By this point, I've probably insulted 98% of the world, so i'll stop here.
Bloody brilliant movie. As a whole film, it's the best Bond movie since OHMSS. Everything about this movie is first class and one can't help being persuaded that Fleming's material and Craig's casting, coupled with Campbell's stewardship is to thank.
The production values, the set designs, the acting, the locations, the visceral and brutal action, the glamour and opulence, the Bond girls, the humour, it has it all, which is why I still rank it as not only Craig's best entry but easily the best since OHMSS. Even Arnold really stepped up his level of consistency with the score and Cornel's theme is just brilliant. This movie deserves every accolade it got and every bit of critical acclaim. It's not just a fantastic Bond movie but it's a spectacular movie in general and a massive middle finger to all the haters and doubters. I don't know if Babs was thinking with the space between her legs but her conviction to push for Craig's casting was/is a massive coup.
The only blemish on the film is, Brioni. Most of the regular-fit suits they provided for Craig were terrible fits for Craig's body and even though his dinner suit was supposed to be a tailored-fit, the trousers at least could have been more form fitting. Thank God Tom Ford makes the slim-fit and tailored-fit suits now because they look so much better. When Bond wears a suit, he's supplied to WEAR it not the suit wearing him.
Then followed by the PTS of FYEO. Solid flick, enjoyed every minute. Though it does drag a couple times. Mainly at Piz Gloria but that doesn't ruin my enjoyment of it.
AVTAK 15 spots ahead of OHMSS, eh? Hm!
PS--Hope you're doing well, Willy Galore. Hospital is no place to be during the Christmas season.
From Russia With Love is a very cool movie, very sixties chic. For me Connery may well have delivered the greatest Bondian performance; suave, professional, poised, decisive, charming, virile and ruthless, and has a great sense of savoir-faire. Connery represents the ideal blend of both the cinematic Bond, and the literacy 007. Every Bond actor would try to live up to the high standard that Connery had reached. Terence Young really brings the best out of Connery, he and Connery continued to work on the character of James Bond, combining Fleming's cold, but charming, original, with the cinematic version of machismo and sophistication; thus creating the definitive “Bond style”. Moreover Connery's “rough edges” he displayed in Dr No, have been smoothed over – Connery really was the ruthlessly elegant, bon vivant. Compare this to Goldfinger. Both are a master, Connery, at work, but in Goldfinger, he is full of filmic swagger.
Anyway, back to Russia, need I mention the brilliant writing, the superb translation from book to screen, towering performances from the greatest ensemble cast in any Bond film - in fact From Russia With Love has one of the most superlative cast's of the Bond series. Each actor plays their roles quite superbly, especially Pedro Armendariz who is the personification of charisma, as Kerim Bey, Head of Station “T”, Turkey. Ian Fleming wrote that Bey had a “face full of vitality”, and Armendariz lives up to that wonderfully.
The climatic battle aboard The Orient Express is superb and very tense. Young and Hunt bring us a master class of directing and editing. One of the best fight scenes, ever; it’s so brutal, really evoking Fleming’s novel. It’s been building to this for the entire movie. Bond, so decisive and authoritative usually, is played as a mere pawn, and Grant has executed the plan brilliantly. Grant is the most realistic and frightening Bond villain’s ever. He’s more than a match for 007, and only Bond’s quick thinking and resourcefulness saves the day.
From Russia With Love is a prefect James Bond film; right from the start it is an unadulterated joy; the locations are stunning and claustrophobic, all at the same time; Young's direction is assured and exquisite, full of effortless chic; Hunt's editing is kinetic; the screenplay is full of danger, intrigue, romance and complexity, put together with care and class, and it's enlivened by the peerless cast, most notably, of course, Sean Connery as the masterful, impeccable James Bond.
It's me fav, so I had to go all out, on that review.
P.S. That "Bond.James Bond" delivery at the end is gold and it solidifies Craig as Bond.
This film never fails to amaze me, and I'm glad after being initially disappointed with it that it really grew on me. Highly entertaining from beginning to end with some excellent stunts and scenes from beginning to end. I think Bardem absolutely shines in this. Wonderful movie.
Every time I re-watch it, though, it really solidifies the choice I'm going to attempt to make in avoiding nearly everything come 'Bond 24' filming. I want to tease myself with the teasers and trailers and leave it at that. There's not a better time around these forums than sharing my excitement with you lot, but after having so much pieced together and spoiled for me unwillingly when SF was amping up, I don't think I can do that again. I don't want to expect this to happen, then this, then know this is coming up. I want to watch the trailers a few times, know the cast/plot, and that's it. It'll be tough, but the payoff will be amazing.
Terence Young commented that three things made Dr No so memorable; “Connery, Connery, Connery”. Although Sean Connery commands the screen with his presence and charm, Young is being too modest. In fact it should read, “Connery, Connery and Young”.
Young delivers a film that is loaded with bags of style and sophistication and is detailed and pacy. Young worked closely with Peter Hunt, editor on Dr No and four films after, to give the film a unique sense of movement, an internal energy, that is the trademark of all early Bond films. Hunt was adamant that Bond was decisive and he wanted his editing to reflect that.
Young, himself an erudite and sophisticated man, took Connery and knocked him into shape. The alliance of Young and Connery proved irresistible; Young turned the rough diamond Connery, into a ruthlessly elegant bon vivant, which embodied all the hallmarks of Fleming's 007; charming, yet very lethal.
Connery himself had a natural strength and aggression, tempered with a calm authority, great grace and elegant poise. In addition to his smooth, sexual magnetism and wry charm, Connery's Bond was underpinned by a real sense of danger.
Dr No is a very pared down type of film, no gimmicks or gadgetry, which allows the film to be about Bond, and what Bond does best, being unbelievably and undeniably cool and subtly arrogant and menacing.
Dr No is a marvellous film, which belies it's modest budget of $1 million, thanks largely to the contributions from Young, Moore and Adam. It feels and looks like a much bigger, expensive film, reflecting Cubby's and Harry's determination to put every penny up on the screen.
The only thing disappointing about Dr No, is the musical score, provided by Monty Norman; it has a feel of a 1930's stage show. Still Norman gets the Jamaican flavours down pat, and he gives us the immortal, electrifying James Bond Theme, orchestrated by the inimitable John Barry.
With a towering performance by Sean Connery; a great ensemble performances from each of the main cast; the visual flair provided by Terence Young's stylish direction; Ken Adam's futuristic sets and Ted Moore's exotic and sumptuous photography, Dr No was a breath of fresh air when it was released. Dr No introduced a new type of anti-hero, and enthusiastic fans clamoured for more; little did Ian Fleming know they would be clamouring for 007 over half a century later.
And so concludes my Bondathon. Six months have elapsed, and I enjoyed revisiting each and every one of the Bond films. In fact, I have not enjoyed the Bond movies more, since I was a teenager, and I "blame" Skyfall for this; it's made me proud, and excited to be an aficionado.
I always say, catching up with the Bond films is like catching up with an old friend. Well, thats it. I think I can make it through to 2015 when I'll watch the Bond films again, in anticipation for B24.
When it comes to Bond film openings, ignorance truly is bliss. I wouldn't go into the theater any other way.
edit: Also this movie really lacked good villain.