Tom Mankiewicz Appreciation Thread

MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
in Bond Movies Posts: 4,703
There’s no denying that Tom Mankiewicz left a mark on James Bond, in more ways than one. Did he help or hurt Bond? We know that he help make Superman 1 & 2 classics and make superhero movies a valuable property. His Batman script was truly unique and could have been a effective movie, that should get a graphic novel adaptation one day. Did Guy Hamilton and his cynical direction hurt his writing reputation? Where does Mankiewicz rank on your Bond screenwriters list? I’d rank him in the middle. His campiness could be cringeworthy by today’s standards. He was a bit hypocritical about Superman’s original campy script, by Mario Puzo and the Newmans. His Bond work could be just as campy. So overall, what do you think? Was Tom Mankiewicz a truly great asset for Bond writing? I think we should be grateful for his openness on his Bond and Superman adventures!
«1

Comments

  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,086
    Wouldn't a single thread suffice?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,233
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    He was a bit hypocritical about Superman’s original campy script, by Mario Puzo and the Newmans. His Bond work could be just as campy.

    To be fair, Bond and Superman had very different objectives in terms of approach due to their directors. Guy Hamilton pushed for campiness, so Mankiewicz complied to that directive, just as Maibaum complied with his initial drafts (which included Blofeld being mauled by Persian cats).

    When Donner was directing Superman, he wanted a sense of earnestness and verisimilitude which wasn’t apparent in the Newmans/Benton drafts (that’s where the infamous Telly Savalas cameo originated). In fact, if I’m correct, the Newmans/Benton drafts were actually under the purview of Guy Hamilton’s direction when he was still on board, so you can see why the previous draft was geared toward campiness.
  • edited August 5 Posts: 4,310
    I think Mankiewicz was a good thing for Bond in the long run. DAF, while a very strange and even silly film, was quite fresh when compared to the previous entries. The dialogue is actually really witty, and characters like Wint and Kidd are written with a flair to them. LALD as well has that element to it. I recently talked on these forums about how his initial drafts of TMWTGG were more focused on the Bond/Scaramanga rivalry as well.

    I think if anyone's to 'blame' for the direction and some of the more noticeable faults of those 1971-74 Bond films, I'd look more towards Hamilton and the producers. Not to say any are terrible films incidentally, and they know what they're about.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,703
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Mankiewicz was a good thing for Bond in the long run. DAF, while a very strange and even silly film, was quite fresh when compared to the previous entries. The dialogue is actually really witty, and characters like Wint and Kidd are written with a flair to them. LALD as well has that element to it. I recently talked on these forums about how his initial drafts of TMWTGG were more focused on the Bond/Scaramanga rivalry as well.

    I think if anyone's to 'blame' for the direction and some of the more noticeable faults of those 1971-74 Bond films, I'd look more towards Hamilton and the producers. Not to say any are terrible films incidentally, and they know what they're about.

    Yes, please don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Tom Mankiewicz’s work on Bond and Superman. He definitely wrote some great lines for the villains. He should have gotten a screenplay credit for TSWLM. I think that Cubby and Harry’s tensions and Guy Hamilton’s quite often cynical with a mix of campy direction really shows in the early 70s movies. Also, Mankiewicz, Hamilton and the producers knew how to make a Bond. Unlike Richard Lester, the Salkinds and the Newmans. At least cinematic Bond has recovered. Superman hasn’t since Richard Donner’s firing. Mankiewicz’s Batman screenplay would have been interesting if made under the right director. Donner, Joe Dante and Ivan Reitman were apparently all looked at. They could have made some magic happen. The modern day Batman movie franchise started with Michael Uslan’s dream, and Tom Mankiewicz’s script. I will be forever grateful.
  • Posts: 4,310
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Mankiewicz was a good thing for Bond in the long run. DAF, while a very strange and even silly film, was quite fresh when compared to the previous entries. The dialogue is actually really witty, and characters like Wint and Kidd are written with a flair to them. LALD as well has that element to it. I recently talked on these forums about how his initial drafts of TMWTGG were more focused on the Bond/Scaramanga rivalry as well.

    I think if anyone's to 'blame' for the direction and some of the more noticeable faults of those 1971-74 Bond films, I'd look more towards Hamilton and the producers. Not to say any are terrible films incidentally, and they know what they're about.

    Yes, please don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Tom Mankiewicz’s work on Bond and Superman. He definitely wrote some great lines for the villains. He should have gotten a screenplay credit for TSWLM. I think that Cubby and Harry’s tensions and Guy Hamilton’s quite often cynical with a mix of campy direction really shows in the early 70s movies. Also, Mankiewicz, Hamilton and the producers knew how to make a Bond. Unlike Richard Lester, the Salkinds and the Newmans. At least cinematic Bond has recovered. Superman hasn’t since Richard Donner’s firing. Mankiewicz’s Batman screenplay would have been interesting if made under the right director. Donner, Joe Dante and Ivan Reitman were apparently all looked at. They could have made some magic happen. The modern day Batman movie franchise started with Michael Uslan’s dream, and Tom Mankiewicz’s script. I will be forever grateful.

    Oh I think I've read that Batman script (it's the one that starts with Batman as a kid and making a hologram or something). Very weird, not as good as Darren Aaronofsky's unused Batman script, but I can see why pre-Burton it was important.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,703
    007HallY wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Mankiewicz was a good thing for Bond in the long run. DAF, while a very strange and even silly film, was quite fresh when compared to the previous entries. The dialogue is actually really witty, and characters like Wint and Kidd are written with a flair to them. LALD as well has that element to it. I recently talked on these forums about how his initial drafts of TMWTGG were more focused on the Bond/Scaramanga rivalry as well.

    I think if anyone's to 'blame' for the direction and some of the more noticeable faults of those 1971-74 Bond films, I'd look more towards Hamilton and the producers. Not to say any are terrible films incidentally, and they know what they're about.

    Yes, please don’t get me wrong, I enjoy Tom Mankiewicz’s work on Bond and Superman. He definitely wrote some great lines for the villains. He should have gotten a screenplay credit for TSWLM. I think that Cubby and Harry’s tensions and Guy Hamilton’s quite often cynical with a mix of campy direction really shows in the early 70s movies. Also, Mankiewicz, Hamilton and the producers knew how to make a Bond. Unlike Richard Lester, the Salkinds and the Newmans. At least cinematic Bond has recovered. Superman hasn’t since Richard Donner’s firing. Mankiewicz’s Batman screenplay would have been interesting if made under the right director. Donner, Joe Dante and Ivan Reitman were apparently all looked at. They could have made some magic happen. The modern day Batman movie franchise started with Michael Uslan’s dream, and Tom Mankiewicz’s script. I will be forever grateful.

    Oh I think I've read that Batman script (it's the one that starts with Batman as a kid and making a hologram or something). Very weird, not as good as Darren Aaronofsky's unused Batman script, but I can see why pre-Burton it was important.

    Yes, I am grateful for Tom Mankiewicz writing an earlier Batman film screenplay. There are a few flaws in it, definitely. There were way too many characters in it, for one. I know The Penguin and Robin were surprise appearances who were cut, in later rewrites. They were originally setups for the sequel, I know. Also, NO WAY would The Joker be that faithful to a leader over him for that long! He would eventually kill his leader and takeover everything himself. So he was a bit out of character here, especially if Jack Nicholson was going to play him from the beginning. The script itself doesn't strike as something would direct in his style. It was basically a mix of Batman '66, Superman '78 and traces of TM's Bond writing style (even the Aston Martin makes an appearance)! As I said, it would take a unique director to adapt it properly. But, it is truly an interesting read, that isn't boring. I like his choice to play The Penguin: Peter O'Toole. Interesting choice. So all in all, TM actually did help Batman find his cinematic feet.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,491
    Does anyone know if any of his ideas for TSWLM made it to the final script? I had heard he either helped write a draft or was brought in to fix before he flew off for Superman...see what I did there?

    As for his contribution to the series. He had a way with dialogue and all his movies have some great, quotable dialogue. I love that he fought to keep the "Alimentary my Dear Dr Leiter." in the script. To me that encapsulates his screenplays. They never insulted the audiences intelligence and were full of word play that made sense.

    I could quibble with his odd choices, the movie plot of LALD makes little to no sense with the free drug angle. But overall I think his pluses outweigh the negative.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,703
    thedove wrote: »
    Does anyone know if any of his ideas for TSWLM made it to the final script? I had heard he either helped write a draft or was brought in to fix before he flew off for Superman...see what I did there?

    As for his contribution to the series. He had a way with dialogue and all his movies have some great, quotable dialogue. I love that he fought to keep the "Alimentary my Dear Dr Leiter." in the script. To me that encapsulates his screenplays. They never insulted the audiences intelligence and were full of word play that made sense.

    I could quibble with his odd choices, the movie plot of LALD makes little to no sense with the free drug angle. But overall I think his pluses outweigh the negative.

    According to Sir Roger Moore in his autobiography, he said that basically every page seemed to have TM trademarks on them. TM also said that he didn't receive screenplay credit because of British production tax cuts or something along those lines.

    Yes, he did have a way with witty quotes. While a bit campy at times, he did help Bond writing out at a time that it needed it. Campy, but realistic villain plots. He could have helped a few of the Bond movies lightning up, after he left. Even though it was the easy way, he purposely left Bond he said because it was the easy route. Ironically, his dad was a bit disappointed after awhile because Tom became so focused on commercial movies. He left Superman after Richard Donner was fired, and didn't return out of pure loyalty to him. Same with future Bond editor Stuart Baird. Even when WB pleaded with them. That's respectable, in more ways than one. So, TM can say that he truly had a unique writing career.
  • Posts: 2,922
    The Bond films he scripted or polished definitely have their share of witty dialogue, and I'll always appreciate his reference to La Rochefoucauld in DAF (which Cubby wanted to cut). So points for dialogue. But story? Barely any. Characterization? Negligible. He would have likely done better with a different director than Hamilton (who Mankiewicz considered the most cynical man he ever met) and the demands of the producers, who were content to rehash past glories on lower budgets.

    True, DAF and LALD were hits, but that primarily because one was Connery's return and the other Moore's debut, but TMWTGG was regarded by everyone involved as a disappointment, and when he returned for TSWLM it was mostly to polish dialogue. I wouldn't have minded him returning just for that, so long as other people handled the other aspects of the scripts. In any case, I consider the Mankiewicz/Hamilton era a pretty mediocre one for Bond.
  • Posts: 1,462
    DAF has a great plot.

    I love TSWLM but "the story" wasn't that new or original.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    Revelator wrote: »
    In any case, I consider the Mankiewicz/Hamilton era a pretty mediocre one for Bond.

    Tend to agree, it's a bit of a low point for 007 I think. Without TSWLM reinvigorating the series I'm not sure it would have been going anywhere good. It was as crucial a turning point as CR.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    DAF has a great plot.

    I love TSWLM but "the story" wasn't that new or original.

    The plot for DAF is terrible. It's confusing and full of holes. Plus it changes as it goes along from wanting to hold the world to ransom to having an auction for nuclear supremacy. The character of Tiffany Case goes through a similar transition from a tough and credible character to a joke of a character falling off an oil rig. DAF is a real low point of the series, only DAD is a worse film.
  • edited August 15 Posts: 1,462
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    DAF has a great plot.

    I love TSWLM but "the story" wasn't that new or original.

    The plot for DAF is terrible. It's confusing and full of holes. Plus it changes as it goes along from wanting to hold the world to ransom to having an auction for nuclear supremacy. The character of Tiffany Case goes through a similar transition from a tough and credible character to a joke of a character falling off an oil rig. DAF is a real low point of the series, only DAD is a worse film.

    It has a lot of holes but the story is fine and It was original at the time.
    Many Bond movies don't have that. LALD has a lame story for example. TSWLM is everything but original.

    OP is confusing too but it's a fan favorite. Nobody cares about the holes if you like the movie.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    DAF has a great plot.

    I love TSWLM but "the story" wasn't that new or original.

    The plot for DAF is terrible. It's confusing and full of holes. Plus it changes as it goes along from wanting to hold the world to ransom to having an auction for nuclear supremacy. The character of Tiffany Case goes through a similar transition from a tough and credible character to a joke of a character falling off an oil rig. DAF is a real low point of the series, only DAD is a worse film.

    It has a lot of holes but the story is fine and It was original at the time.
    Many Bond movies don't have that. LALD has a lame story for example. TSWLM is everything but original.

    OP is confusing too but it's a fan favorite. Nobody cares about the holes if you like the movie.

    That's true. Octopussy is one of my favourite Bond films but the plot is a bit of a head scratcher, especially the stuff about the real and fake Fabergé eggs. I think LALD does have a plot (monopolising heroin distribution) but it rather takes the back seat to all the chases, stunts, action and humour in the story. TSWLM is of course a remake of YOLT.
  • Posts: 859
    BTW, can someone explain me the rat line in DAF? Maybe because I'm not English/American, I don't understand it at all.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    BTW, can someone explain me the rat line in DAF? Maybe because I'm not English/American, I don't understand it at all.

    If one smells a rat, something is not right. Rotten in Denmark in a way....
    And TMWTGG is a fine entry! A pox on those who feel differently!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,264
    I like some of the jokes he brings. I'm not sure who wrote the line about Goodnight being an efficient liaison officer, but I'd believe it if it was Mankiewicz. :-)
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,491
    Connery seemed to have an affinity for Tom. I recall him speaking highly of the script for DAF. Course he was breaking the bank to play the character, but he seemed genuine in the interview.

    DAF makes some sense in terms of plot, however I never could understand why Wint and Kidd had to kill the smuggling ring? It would only draw in the authorities. How does Mi6 know that these deaths are part of a ring?

    LALD Kananga gives away heroin, that just makes those who are addicted more addicted. I don't see it creating the kind of customers he espouses. I don't get this plot at all in terms of making much logical sense. He'd only create more addicts for all who supply heroin.

    TMWTGG has an interesting idea for a story but is poorly executed.

    I think these three movies may be some of the most quoted by me and I truly enjoy the word play, and panache of them.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Tom Mankiewicz was the worst thing that ever happened to Bond! Sacrifizing all sense, story and character just to shoehorn in some ridiculous, asinine jokes? His stint represents the dark age of the series.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,491
    Paraphrasing Mr. White "Mankiewicz isn't for everyone."

    I don't agree with your assessment but understand that differences makes the world go around. How much do you put on TM and how much do you put on Guy Hamilton?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,264
    I think Mankiewicz and Hamilton came up with great ideas. Conceptually, many of those could have worked splendidly well. I think the films lacked in execution, though. Something wasn't always "clicking". And many things were missing. Especially LALD and TMWTGG feel smaller than small in terms of scope, sets, ambitions, action, ... They are the most low-key additions to the series, in my opinion. So while I appreciate their combined efforts, I think Hamilton and Mankiewicz ended up forgetting to put the oomph back in Bond. TSWLM makes that very obvious in an almost whiplash-inducing way. I don't always need the Bonds to be fantastical and over-the-top spectacular, but I want them larger-than-life. I'm afraid LALD and TMWTGG are too subdued for my taste. In comparison, DAF holds up very well. But what I find most disappointing is that Hamilton, who had directed the excellent, exciting, exquisite Goldfinger, seemed far from interested in repeating that grandeur one way or another.

    Was it entirely their fault? Perhaps not. But between OHMSS and TSWLM, Bond hit its lowest points for me.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    Yeah someone asked recently what the most low point decade the Bonds had, and I went for the 70s because, although I do have affection for those films and there's great moments there, up until '77 you're kind of looking at Bond in decline- the films are getting smaller and sort of nastier and losing their way a bit. 007 basically got rebooted in TSWLM almost as much as it did with CR, and it was a turning point back on the path to being the biggest movies around and giving the series another ten years of life. If they'd done another TMWTGG I feel like it might have dwindled out a bit.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    jobo wrote: »
    Tom Mankiewicz was the worst thing that ever happened to Bond! Sacrifizing all sense, story and character just to shoehorn in some ridiculous, asinine jokes? His stint represents the dark age of the series.

    Sadly, as a Bond fan, I find it very hard to disagree with any of that. Tom Mankiewicz ushered in some crass elements and characters. Query: Should James Bond films be full-blown comedies? I'm not so sure they should. Of the films he wrote or co-wrote LALD is the only one that stands up to much scrutiny for me. DAF and TMWTGG are pretty weak tea.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited August 23 Posts: 2,187
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Tom Mankiewicz was the worst thing that ever happened to Bond! Sacrifizing all sense, story and character just to shoehorn in some ridiculous, asinine jokes? His stint represents the dark age of the series.

    Sadly, as a Bond fan, I find it very hard to disagree with any of that. Tom Mankiewicz ushered in some crass elements and characters. Query: Should James Bond films be full-blown comedies? I'm not so sure they should. Of the films he wrote or co-wrote LALD is the only one that stands up to much scrutiny for me. DAF and TMWTGG are pretty weak tea.

    I couldn't agree more. Also, maybe the 70s needed more of Lewis Gilbert, since Hamilton lost his golden touch. Although, one can see that even in GF, Hamilton made Connery do a Moore-esque thing...the cell break, with Connery smiling and winking at the guard and all that. It seems Hamilton was someone with a natural love for goofy things, so with Mankiewicz, he found his better half. Plus, Moore wanting to go light with Bond, was the perfect opportunity for Hamilton and Mankiewicz to amp up their zaniness to notches too high and unnecessary even for Moore's lighter take on Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    I think Hamilton seemed to have some odd ideas, about women particularly, judging from his 70s efforts. GF was obviously brilliant, but he might be my least favourite Bond director away from that.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    mtm wrote: »
    I think Hamilton seemed to have some odd ideas, about women particularly, judging from his 70s efforts. GF was obviously brilliant, but he might be my least favourite Bond director away from that.

    Yes, he definitely peaked with Goldfinger. He never reached those heights ever again. DAF was an attempt at bringing back all the successful elements from GF but it didn't work as the story was poor and the budget wasn't big enough for the ambitions of the laster satellite weapon. A chemistry set puff of smoke didn't really do it and it looked ridiculous. I remember reading in an interview with Guy Hamilton in Adrian Turner's book on Goldfinger that he wished he hadn't done the two Bond films with Roger Moore. Three Bond films in a row was probably too much for him and he'd used up most of his creative ideas by TMWTGG. All three films had the tagged on henchman returns ending so they were getting quite repetitive by the time of TMWTGG.
  • edited August 23 Posts: 4,310
    Hamilton was an odd director. Even on GF Peter Hunt felt the film wasn't being properly made and claimed there was quite a lot of 2nd Unit work. I remember reading he had particular gripes with the car chase, and he cut it in a very specific way to salvage it... tricky to tell of course without specifics, but it kind of makes sense when you account for the rather slow, underwhelming pace of the Vegas chase in DAF, or how drawn out the otherwise fun boat chase is in LALD. I suspect Hunt may well have sped things up through his editing, giving it more oomph.

    I suspect Hamilton didn't have much eye for detail as a director unfortunately. Even with the lower budgets some of the filmmaking in DAF-TMWTGG is pretty atrocious, with DAF having the worst examples in the PTS alone - bad, slow fight choreography during the first Blofeld/Bond fight, the weird sped up 'Bond, James Bond', a close up of a man not saying anything and yet this requiring dubbing (all of which could have been fixed with alternative takes/some alternative editing or ADR presumably). There are many more examples. His humour and creative direction fitted GF, but I think only in tandem with a very good team behind him (by DAF no one like Hunt was there to put that much needed life into the editing/pace, and Mankiewicz obviously leaned much more into that cynical, darkly humorous and zany direction).
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Tom Mankiewicz was the worst thing that ever happened to Bond! Sacrifizing all sense, story and character just to shoehorn in some ridiculous, asinine jokes? His stint represents the dark age of the series.

    Sadly, as a Bond fan, I find it very hard to disagree with any of that. Tom Mankiewicz ushered in some crass elements and characters. Query: Should James Bond films be full-blown comedies? I'm not so sure they should. Of the films he wrote or co-wrote LALD is the only one that stands up to much scrutiny for me. DAF and TMWTGG are pretty weak tea.

    Just like we look at today's films, I don't think these scripts were ever written in a vacuum. Or on spec. I imagine they had plenty of script meetings, and the writers of this era delivered scripts based on discussions with their bosses (?).
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,491
    I consider the Mankiewicz trilogy to be something of a guilty pleasure. Sure all three films have their faults but they do have some redemption within them too.

    DAF
    • I give Tom all the credit in the world for the wonderful dialogue within the film. The Bond meeting Case scene, the ride to the Slumber funeral home, even the exchange between Bond and Blofeld in the penthouse are all well done and delivered.
    • Connery looks a little more at ease and having fun in the role, something that looked unlikely to happen after YOLT. While he isn't in FRWL, GF and TB territory He acts and the script highlights his strengths.
    • The fight in the elevator is a great bit of action. Whether it was Hamilton or Mankiewicz who came up with it is moot. It has some danger, and it's an unique setting for fisticuffs.

    LALD
    • Some more great dialogue here. Bond getting driven Uptown in the Taxi. Kananga delivers some wonderful lines and brings back the glamour of the Bond villain. The chemistry between Bond and Leiter here is strong and in some ways the script facilitates that.
    • Sherriff JW Pepper is a fine bit of social commentary and while he's a buffoon and clearly a charactiture of a southern sheriff, he is well played by Clifton James. This portrayal got us to Jackie Gleason in Smokey and the Bandit.
    • Again some unique action sequences with the airplane chase with Mrs Bell being another unique bit of action. The boat chase goes on for far too long but has some great moments.

    TMWTGG
    • here comes the dialogue again...the briefing scene with the bullet, meeting Lazar and the dinner scene at the end of the film, all well delivered and well written.
    • They played a bit with the tropes of the films with Hip's nieces holding their own while Bond merely watched. Bond is seen having to use his smarts at the end to overcome an equal, lets also say that Chris Lee delivers as the villain and gives you a sense this guy just might knock off our agent.
    • We see a film where Roger does some un-Roger like things. Interesting to see him being in this light. It is a side we won't see again till FYEO and it's a welcome change of pace.

    These are a few highlights in each film for me. They are a mixed bag overall and while not in my top 10 Bond films, they each hold a special place in my heart.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited August 23 Posts: 9,511
    thedove wrote: »
    I consider the Mankiewicz trilogy to be something of a guilty pleasure. Sure all three films have their faults but they do have some redemption within them too.

    DAF
    • I give Tom all the credit in the world for the wonderful dialogue within the film. The Bond meeting Case scene, the ride to the Slumber funeral home, even the exchange between Bond and Blofeld in the penthouse are all well done and delivered.
    • Connery looks a little more at ease and having fun in the role, something that looked unlikely to happen after YOLT. While he isn't in FRWL, GF and TB territory He acts and the script highlights his strengths.
    • The fight in the elevator is a great bit of action. Whether it was Hamilton or Mankiewicz who came up with it is moot. It has some danger, and it's an unique setting for fisticuffs.

    LALD
    • Some more great dialogue here. Bond getting driven Uptown in the Taxi. Kananga delivers some wonderful lines and brings back the glamour of the Bond villain. The chemistry between Bond and Leiter here is strong and in some ways the script facilitates that.
    • Sherriff JW Pepper is a fine bit of social commentary and while he's a buffoon and clearly a charactiture of a southern sheriff, he is well played by Clifton James. This portrayal got us to Jackie Gleason in Smokey and the Bandit.
    • Again some unique action sequences with the airplane chase with Mrs Bell being another unique bit of action. The boat chase goes on for far too long but has some great moments.

    TMWTGG
    • here comes the dialogue again...the briefing scene with the bullet, meeting Lazar and the dinner scene at the end of the film, all well delivered and well written.
    • They played a bit with the tropes of the films with Hip's nieces holding their own while Bond merely watched. Bond is seen having to use his smarts at the end to overcome an equal, lets also say that Chris Lee delivers as the villain and gives you a sense this guy just might knock off our agent.
    • We see a film where Roger does some un-Roger like things. Interesting to see him being in this light. It is a side we won't see again till FYEO and it's a welcome change of pace.

    These are a few highlights in each film for me. They are a mixed bag overall and while not in my top 10 Bond films, they each hold a special place in my heart.

    I'm of a very similar mind as you, @thedove . Thanks for those mini-thoughts on each. Not my favoBond films, but always entertaining and they give a little tickle to the gut.
Sign In or Register to comment.