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
@Ludovico, very much agreed. I can appreciate Pussy for the right kind of feminist statement she makes (before man hating was all the rage), and Honor is just one of my favorite people period. I do think that Auger's Domino is a very nice challenge to her though, because she has a very shocking sympathetic presence. There's one shot where, after Bond reveals everything that Largo has done, the camera goes right in on Auger's face and you just see a tear trickle down her face and hear her heart crack. For a woman who'd had only minor film roles in the early 60s and was only known for being in a beauty pageant, I'll be damned if she doesn't sell that character's emotional arc and inner torment.
The subtext of the film and all the creepy implications of what is going on with her and Largo, and what Largo does to her when she acts out, also adds so much to that character's tragedy and "kept" nature; a slave to a man who can't appreciate her. Bond was going to show her she was a woman worth pleasuring the right way, and boy does he.
Pussy is a great character and I enjoy the spin so early in the series of a woman who really didn't give a damn about Bond or his flirting, but I do think the script failed her in major ways. We never really know how connected she is to Goldfinger's plans, and no kind of statement is made on how she morally feels about all the messed up things he's doing (which she has to know about). The epitome of this issue is the barn scene that leaves nothing to the imagination of when that film was made. For a film that seemed keen to portray overtly obvious examples of female oppression by male figures like Goldfinger and Oddjob, having a quasi-lesbian overtaken by the ultimate symbol of masculinity who wants to turn her to his side gives the movie a sad patriarchal bent that I honestly don't think it intended to have. It's all a bit too weird to me, and the scene was only there for Bond to get his jollies off. Fleming forbid if Bond and Pussy simply had a straight-up conversation about how Goldfinger had to be stopped, where 007 actually had to convince the woman to aid him without the aid of his walloping penis.
He doesn't have to do that with Domino, as she's written as a woman willing to do anything to get back at those who used and killed her brother. From the very moment Largo came into her life he's taken her over and used her life force as his own, and you feel that resonant tragedy in her; her life is not her own, and she wants to take it back. By the time Bond explains all he's done to her and others in secret, she's ready to unbottle the fire that threatens to singe her from the inside. We see her moral reaction to Largo, feel her distrust in him and feel caution for her as she stands against him without Bond needing to sex her into helping him. The result is that she feels like a more fully-formed, dimensional and "raw" character than Pussy ever has the chance to under that rather poor script.
I know, @royale65, but because the argument was being made that TB has a bunch of characters that some feel aren't developed, I was making an argument for why I thought that wasn't the case, and how GF actually beats it out as a movie full of unnecessary characters and moments.
I could edit the hell out of GF, and whittle it down to nothing if I was to take out everything that added nothing to the story. People complain about TB being slow, which I don't get, but you cannot argue that every shot in that movie doesn't tell you everything you want to know about what is going on. We clearly see what SPECTRE and Bond are doing at all times with no room for confusion, and the way the movie juxtaposes the mutual sabotage of each group on the other adds so much to the experience. TB like no other Bond movie outside of FRWL really lets us follow the villains as we get to know them and their plan intensely.
In GF we get some looks at what is going on, but it all feels there because the script needs it to be. Nothing in Goldfinger's briefing room needs to be there, for example, and even as the raid on Fort Knox happens none of what is happening makes any sense, down to the people collapsing who wouldn't know the nerve gas fake-out and how Bond acts so bored and lifeless. It's hard to give a damn about anything.
In comparison, TB's threat makes Goldfinger's scheme look like a pillow fight, and that's even if Auric's plan would've worked how he said (science disagrees, however). A dirty bomb versus two nuclear warheads? Har har.
@JamesBondKenya, I think TB is the culmination of all the amazing work Terence Young did with the Bond character, which still has no equals over 50 years on.
TB takes the strengths of DN and FRWL (Bond as a detective, villains whose scheme we see unfold, high-stakes and tension, raw and real Bond girls, hard-edge and uncompromising villains, strong structuring, etc) and adds another blockbuster layer to all of it that is unmatched. You can see how much Young has learned about moviemaking through his approach to making TB, taking all the experiences on DN and FRWL to amp everything up all the more.
On a logistical level alone, TB embarrasses DN and FRWL. GF isn't even in this conversation, as that film barely has anything off the Pinewood sets, another reason why it's so weak. In TB the underwater shooting would already be enough of a hurdle to outmatch anything that had to be done for Young's previous films, but add to that the shooting of all the other sequences including the Junkanoo chase (which was essentially an endless stream of floats and people that were filmed in motion for hours of film), the bomb theft creations, the scenes using live and pissed off sharks around stunt men, and that's not even considering the massive amount of extras and props that constantly had to be kept track of for the shooting to be successful.
People think the underwater finale is limp, but it couldn't be any more exciting to me. We are seeing what was approaching several dozens of extras fighting to the death with one another using the same amount of props, all while real sea life that could've murdered them were slinking around. It's so large in scope, so epic in visual power as we see movie blood streak the water and bodies sink to the bottom of the sea bed, that I lose my mind. I marvel at how the team ever shot that sequence in the first place with all the effects and logistics needed to see it through, and it's the perfect example that proves a strong Bond production team could outclass any other one working in the industry with their hands tied behind their backs.
On the set of TB alone EON's associates and employees did more movie magic than all the three movies before it, and that's staggering considering those films. They were able to focus hundreds of extras, control crowds that threatened to ruin shots, constantly moved over a dozen tons of production equipment around the massive Bahamas, staged insane sequences underwater where their communication and ability to move was restricted, and created props for the film (including the jetpack, subs and Q gadgets) that actually worked as advertised, with no fake movie magic to speak of. TB stands for that reason as the Bond blockbuster to end all blockbusters to me, the perfect example of when a spy thriller matures into a spy epic. This was the nascent boy of DN grown into a machismo-bleeding brute, and it shows.
the plane carrying nukes on a training flight,
SPECTRE killing every henchmen for no real reason,
SPECTRE agents don't care at all about hiding their identity,
all the coincidents at the health spa,
Bond managing to be at Jacque Boitier's place before him,
Bond revealing his own identity to the henchman who was about to kill him in his bathroom and letting him go (after punching Leiter when he was about to reveal Bond's identity).
I also find that Bond's investigation methods are very illogical. I mean going to the Bahamas simply because Duvall's sister lives there is just too far-fetched. They could have made this motivation more believable. And what did all the other 00 do? I mean if you build up this scenario with all the 00 agents and even the film is named after this operation why do you not make any use of it later on in the film?
I like GF's overall plan more because I think it is more clever. It is even better than in the GF novel where the plan was to steal the gold. Radiating it is a much more creative plan. I also like that the villain's plan is not already revealed in the very beginning which I find to take away most of the suspense. In TB we are always a bit better informed than Bond whereas GF's plan is presented to us closer to the end which keeps us guessing along with Bond what this mastermind Goldfinger is actually going for.
The pilots would have to be able to operate the planes with the very real thing in tow. I think this happens/happened more than we'd like to think as citizens. There's all kinds of stories you hear about real nukes falling from aircraft during test runs or transport routes that thankfully didn't go up and have a chain reaction when they hit the ground. The military would have fail safes in place to stop detonation from happening in the device even those cases, though.
There's also the implication that Kutze is there as part of the SPECTRE team to partly make the nukes "operational," essentially activating them for later detonation through only the device Largo desires. The military ensured that the nukes were then unable to be activated until a nuclear physicist with the knowledge of the bombs made it so, which is exactly why Largo sought Kutze for assistance in the first place.
They had to kill everyone. If anyone survived they could get back to the military to report what had gone on, fingering Domino's brother and leading the investigation to Domino and then Largo. Of course the impersonator of Domino's brother only died because he asked for more money, and SPECTRE chose to kill him to avoid it coming back on him, wiping that loose end away. The only way to get in and kill Duvall was to kill all the others first, naturally.
By killing everyone and camouflaging the crash site, SPECTRE were ensuring their secrets would be kept. With the crash site unknown to the government, they would then be unable to estimate where the nuclear weapons were taken to until they found the craft. Which they never do.
That's the whole point of the film, though, and of Blofeld and SPECTRE in general. They are so ostentatious, so proud of themselves that they wear insignias that link them to their criminal enterprise, a symbol only they would know the meaning of. The members have all the power and resources and flash their symbol to the foolish passersby who are ignorant of how much control they have over anything they want.
When Bond comments to Fiona that, "Vanity has its dangers," that is exactly what he means. SPECTRE get off on their ability to hide in plain sight, but once Bond is aware of their presence he is able to spot them through their vain rings. Up until that point, nobody but those members inside SPECTRE knew what the rings were or that they even existed. Essentially, in TB Bond is a whistleblower exposing the existence of the organization to the rest of the world, a world full of people who are way behind him and need catching up on the threat posed by SPECTRE.
After Bouvar leaves the church Bond is aware that he is disguising himself and isn't dead like assumed, Bond and the agent he's with go to Bouvar's residence, where Bond uses the jet pack (I don't know why he had it) to get over the property barrier and into the home to wait for his target to arrive. It's why Bond "randomly" comes upon a jet pack on the catwalk just outside the door he runs out after killing Bouvar: we can only assume that he used it to get to that spot in the first place.
I do concede these points, and a better explanation could've been used to make it less of an obvious coincidence. You could possibly have a scene open the film after the PTS where M tells Bond that his health is bad (looking at a file of his recent training examinations or something), and so under the cover of getting better at a clinic M orders him to watch over a man named Lippe, a known Red Tong who may be in town for a devious operation. Bond would then have a reason to be there, and would stumble onto the NATO plot through his investigation into why Lippe is at the clinic.
I again concede. That's just a weird moment.
What was Bond supposed to do? MI6 was facing a nuclear threat, so Bond was needed (like the other 00s you see in the briefing room) to travel to places of interest in order to look for clues that could tell them where the nuclear weapons were and where they'd be launching from so they could find them and get them before the negotiation deadline with SPECTRE was up.
Bond is essentially a detective in this movie, like every Young film, and like any private dick, he's got to get leads. To get leads, he needs to start focusing on small details to see if they lead to bigger fish. He knows that a man he saw dead at the clinic has a sister in the Bahamas, and so he thinks that's a perfectly good place to begin his investigation (as do I). While in the Bahamas he could track the sister and press her for information on the man to find out who he kept company with, who he was working with lately, if he was being suspicious, etc, all in order to find out if the man's death at the clinic could be tied to the NATO theft. Bond already knows something is up, considering that a man who should've been dead in a crashed aircraft out in the sea actually ends up dead in a random clinic. The gears are turning in his head, and he smells a conspiracy.
If, by any case, Domino proved to be of no use to him, Bond would've just gotten on to another lead. He had to start somewhere, though, and so after her he went as he anticipated the best immediate results would come from her. And what do you know, he was right.
I respect this perspective, but I like that TB is different. We know almost the entire scheme SPECTRE are planning in FRWL too (except the plan to shame Bond), yet people seem to be fine accepting the approach to storytelling in that film.
I just enjoy having two films out of 24 where we get a front row seat with the villains to watch them scheme against Bond and his people every single step of the way while that plan is actualized. We would never get to see this much of our villains these days, as it's looked down on as hogging the screen from Bond, but I really respect the approach Young and the team took to structure the stories of FRWL and TB to offer us this unique perspective.
I guess keeping some of Goldfinger's plan secret is an advantage that film has, but it takes forever to get to that reveal and when it does it's a rather poor one anyway, so I'm not taken back by it. The staging of it makes no sense, the dirty bomb wouldn't even work as Auric wants, etc. The ending then feels very choppy and nonsensical in that way, like it's writing things to happen just to finish the movie off at any cost. And that is essentially GF's script in a nutshell: "This thing will happen next because it has to, not because it makes any sense for it to happen this way."
I have some issues with the script overall, but I think GF's problems far overshadow it. TB almost overshares too much, but GF really doesn't make much sense after Switzerland. There's a lot of padding in the script too with whole stretches of film only there to make the film longer or lazily explain things to audiences in an illogical fashion, and it would be very easy to chop the film down to a very short runtime because of the superfluous content that balloons it. Part of that issue is that nothing of great consequence ever really happens in it, and certainly nothing terribly exciting in comparison to the play-by-play structuring of TB with so many things happening and events going in motion. I'm never bored during TB, but I'd be lying if I said GF didn't make me nappy watching it.
I also like that, though it can be convenient at times, TB at least has fun with itself and openly jokes about some aspects of its own plot. This is seen in the little dialogue Fiona and Bond share following their wild drive. Bond points out that the pair are staying at the same hotel, to which Fiona replies, “What a coincidence.” Bond returns with, “Yes, so convenient.” The writers were aware of some of the little leaps they were demanding audiences to take with them, but kept marching on regardless to tell their story. It's easier to accept for me, because I respect the movie and how it was produced from the ground up, where I really don't with GF. It's a disappointing script with dull action/choreography, largely uninspired cinematography, no visual mood or atmosphere, almost zero true location shooting, etc.
It's the most artificial and lackluster film of the first 4, and that's a shame for a movie that features radiant gold. I always make the comment that the movie often feels like a block of pyrite essentially masked by a very thin layer of real gold paint that chips off every time you hold it, revealing the false core beneath it. A very labored metaphor, but you catch my meaning.
I find all the characters more appealing (especially the female ones, who are a very important component of a Bond film to me). I find the locations more exotic and Bond-like (again, a very important element for me). I find the main villain more sinister and dangerous (yes, I think Celi's Largo is a more credible foe to Forbe's chunky Goldfinger, who just seems like a big bragging buffoon to me). I much prefer the dreamy score in the later film as well (I think this is around the time that Barry really came into his element, and that genius carried uninterrupted through to DAF).
Most importantly, as I've said numerous times before, I think the fundamental difference is in Connery. He is way too goofy (for lack of a better word) in GF, whereas he is deadly charming and lethal in both measures in TB. There are subtle differences in his approach in the Young films vs. how he acts in the Hamilton entries, and I much prefer what Young is able to bring out of him. I prefer Hamilton's work with Moore.
Thanks for your comments. Yes I agree that there are inconsistancies as well in GF. You mentioned the most obvious one with the killing of the gangsters who were actually supposed to be business partners. This scene is in my eyes more plausibly remade in AVTAK.
I agree that the locations are overall more glamorous in TB and that the cinematography is better but I also find the Fort Knox set impressive.
@GBF, I appreciate you asking them. I'm currently editing a review I did of TB a while back and sitting down to think on the things you thought didn't add up made me feel like I'd just rewatched it all over, so that's helped me immensely. You bring up good points, well argued.
I very much agree, @bondjames, especially in regards to Sean in GF. I think he looks the best there than he ever did in any other role, but as a character, Bond is very hard for me to like in that film because he does so little, and what he does do is very reckless and not professional in the slightest. It's as if the whole script is just beating you over the head with how horrible an agent he is, and you could seriously make a drinking game out of all the times he's either knocked out, captured or embarrassed. I'm fine with Bond facing failure or a villain matching him, as that creates needed tension and a sense of risk, but this script has nothing but that except a few minor examples, and it just doesn't feel credible. Young's Bond would have never made those kinds of a minor league mistakes.
I make a comment in a GF review I did about how Sean plays a very child-like Bond in the film, right down to how he interacts with the rest of the cast. There's a scene in Switzerland where he sits on the boot of Tilly's car, and I just can't get the image out of my head of a little boy doing a naughty laugh flirting with a girl he's teasing. At times it's too much, and then there's all the wacky moments, like the creepy look he gives to the guard outside his cell. It feels so out of place and awkward, making the film even more tonally confused as to what it's trying to be. We go from moments shot like a horror film (Jill dead in bed) to unnecessarily cartoonish ones like the above. It is such a mismatched film in my mind, and there's not enough good things in it to distract from the negatives.
In TB we get Bond as a man again who actually does his job, and plenty of massive positives that allow me to forgive any lapses. Hell, just the two scenes with Bond and Fiona at the hotel and then at the Kiss Kiss club give me more entertainment as a viewer than anything in GF's entire run. It's sad, but true.
I don't know what precipitated my wavering views of GF, but now I can't really go back to how I used to be with it. I see so many issues, so many obvious failures and shocking mistakes that it jars me every time. It doesn't feel made by the same team that did DN and FRWL, and certainly not TB. Maybe Young just had that magic, I dunno.
I'd be interested to find out how much of GF's script Maibaum worked on, because my understanding is that Paul Dehn took the movie and ran with it after he did a draft Saltzman disliked, and then was brought back after Dehn's draft was criticized by Connery. It just doesn't feel like a Maibaum written film to me, so I get the sense that his vision was muddled with Dehn's and whatever Cubby and Harry wanted.
One point that I forgot to mention: You are right that TB and FRWL have a similar style of story telling. They both spend much time with SPECTRE in the beginning in order to tell us what they are planning. I am still not really sure whether I like it or not. On the one hand, I think that because of that the main villains are wonderfully introduced and especially Blofeld is great as the unrevealed mastermind. On the other hand I think that the plot becomes less suspensefull because we are continously ahead of Bond in both these films.
I think one could have followed a mixed approach: Introducing the villains and telling parts of their plans but still leaving some other parts unrevealed.
@GBF, in that regard I think FRWL far more than TB has its cake and eats it too. We see a lot of the plot forming, but there is a surprise on Grant's end, as we only find out until the very moment it's revealed what he plans to use the tape for. Despite the fact that we know SPECTRE want the Lektor, we find out with Bond in the moment the extra villainy of the staged suicide with a planted note and sex tape that the organization also have planned, in a nice bit of payback for the agent's killing of Dr. No in the last film.
In TB, it's more of a "what you see is what you get" scheme, and I think that's why you're a little harder on it. In FRWL some of the plan is still hidden to surprise us, and I think that because part of the SPECTRE plan is engineered to purposefully get back at Bond and MI6, it feels more personal, since Bond himself is singled out as the victim. In TB, however, Bond is simply stopping a possible nuclear incident to help anyone in danger, but the plot itself isn't motivated to get back at him or anything of the sort. Therefore, it's not as dramatic or as shocking an impact on him, and also not on us.
Part of the dark kick of FRWL is seeing Bond shocked every time at how foolish he'd been to be tricked, and in TB you don't really have that. If anything, the Bond of TB is almost too good. He gets all the leads, destroys Largo personally and in his scheme, and wipes out all opposition with flair. So because the Bond of TB is written to be so prepared and able to face SPECTRE at every turn but he doesn't spot the organization's plan in FRWL, I think for some the effect is that in the former film you never expect him to fail and so the plan you're witnessing comes together feels even more uninteresting, since you know there's no danger for Bond. In the latter film, however, you understand that unlike TB Bond doesn't know SPECTRE yet, or can't identify its mark easily, so he is more likely to be duped by their plan, which he is. The added drama and danger of what could happen to Bond in FRWL after failing in comparison to the relative lack of consequences Bond experiences in TB then makes the former plot more consumable and acceptable to many than the latter, despite them being structured similarly.
Does that make sense?
No complaints about Sean's stellar performance on either film but once again I think that he seemed more "natural" and suave in Thunderball. The writing certainly helps and he gets great scenes w/ girls; Fiona and Domino (possibly the best overall pair OAT).
What's lacking in Thunderball (vis-a-vis to GF) is an iconic villain and a worthy henchman. Although Oddjob is one of the best and Vargos has little screen time so it's no competition there. Largo is great but the eye-patch and his shark pool is almost a parody. Almost.
Thunderball's cinematography (esp. underwater) is amazing when you consider that it was shot in 1965! GF pales in comparison. Similarily the directon in Thunderball is great which is why the scenes with Bond and Domino/Fiona work so great. Not saying that Hamilton's attempt is sub-par but he didn't get as much out of Sean as Young always has.
I think most people (I hope get this), but arguments crop up because select films are exempt from that kind of criticism, even though they deserve to be treated with the same critical eye as the others. Nostalgia is usually the culprit.
SF is a big victim of getting calling a plot filled mess, for example, and I could easily argue that GF and OHMSS's scripts absolutely outnumber any one moment in SF for plot issues in gigantic ways. I don't mean to discount those films, especially the latter which I love, but I think people far too often treat the old films as untouchable and perfect while treading on all the new films that do what they did 50 years earlier, but worse.
I'm all for fairness in criticism is all.
Great post. Hamilton cant compete with Young.
Hamilton was like the Beatles. He created history.
Lolz.
Boner fuel
But the PTS is one of the worst in the series and the action in general is pretty poor imo. The underwater scenes are visually stunning but they do go on way too long. Largo is fine but compared to Dr No, Grant and Klebb and Goldfinger he's pretty poor, and Vargas is so forgettable that even after reading the book, watching the film multiple times and being a Bond fan for over 25 years and an active member on a fan forum for six, I still just found myself having to google his name. It's the only one of the 60s films that feels really safe and lacking in energy imo. The plot sounds good on paper but imo is terribly executed: they actually manage to make preventing WW3 feel low stakes, mainly because it's hard to feel like we're on a countdown to armageddon when Bond is off snorkelling and lounging around on beaches. I know it'll be seen as blasphemy to say that the Brosnan era did anything better than the immortal Young/Connery pairing but compare this to TND where there's a real sense of danger and urgency. I also think that despite the impressive location shooting, it is oddly cheap looking at times. The main issue though in my opinion is that it's a mystery where we already know who did it. Bond as a detective worked in DN because while we saw the cold open, we were still learning along with him. Bond as a detective in this one doesn't work because we're not just one step ahead of him, we actually saw every stage of SPECTRE's plan in a bunch of long, drawn out, boring scenes. To be fair a lot of this is down to the original novel, the same issues are there but it works on paper because of Fleming's detailed and gripping descriptions (although to be fair even in the book I don't remember the first few underwater scenes of hiding the bomb going on quite so long). The film doesn't have that luxury. I think in most cases the films that are faithful to the books also make enough changes to actually be improvements (OHMSS, GF are both better than the source material despite being very faithful imo) but in TB they follow the novel pretty rigidly and it suffers for it. The only real changes are the GF hangovers (jetpack, Aston, etc).
I'm slagging it off a lot but I do really enjoy the film. It used to be my favourite Connery. But even though on paper it sounds better, it just doesn't have the same spark that GF has imo. It's a big, epic sexy but bloated and messy follow up. A lot to enjoy but not really one of my favourites anymore.
(Packs up canned goods and heads into the bomb shelter.)
The Shrublands sequence is.
The first half hour of TB I find ponderous. Ok, the PTS is ordinary but that's less of an issue than the Shrublands sequence. Which looks grey and flat. Lippe is not much of a villain. I also think the plastic surgery complication makes it convoluted. This may be blasphemy but I think the NSNA Shrublands sequence is tighter and more engaging and Derval feels more like a tragic figure. A man willing to sell out his country for heroin. Plus the NSNA fight is great.
My opinion- I dont rate Chris Lee as Scaramanga. Never have, never will.