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
Thanks!
I could have said more about most of these films, of course, but it was two in the morning. I can add that this was actually my best viewing of TWINE, and I can't easily say why it doesn't engage me at all. With the one obvious exception, the performances are good across the board, and again, I'm including Pierce here. When I mentioned above that these films exaggerate themselves in the imagination, part of it is that when a lot of people think of Pierce, they only remember the hurt acting and melodrama, which he does a lot of here, but only a few times between being a cool and convincing Bond.
Watching TWINE, I kind of understood better how a lot of people feel about Spectre (which I love). I get the impression that a few bad decisions in the script overshadow everything else because everything else just doesn't grab the viewer, like the Rome car chase or the airplane scene being underwhelming. That's what I had here. I asked myself more than once, "Why am I not enjoying this?" Maybe next year I'll like it more.
That said, it was, again, my best viewing of the film, and you can imagine that in a way, it's gone from "24th with extreme prejudice" to just 24th. :D
Well done. Good assessment of the 6.
Love what you say about LTK and Dalton. Couldn't agree more!
Regards TWINE. the title sequence is about the best thing in it for me!! (Apart from the wonderful Sophie Marceau...wasted on Brossa..she would have been terrific with Dalton!)
Same here.
Thanks for the nice comments!
I have to give myself some kudos here, actually. :D I outlined why I had gone for this order in an earlier post, but without going on about it too much, these movies are matching up nicely. I hadn't even considered the "captive woman" angle of SF which is also echoed in the two movies I watched today.
THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
This movie is like a delicious cake someone dropped on the floor. It's a great recipe, it's got all the right ingredients, and you can still taste what it should have been like, but there's a lot of floor crap mixed in there now. It's an odd movie. It's for this reason that TMWTGG has always fluctuated in my rankings, sometimes closing in on the twenties, usually in the low to mid-teens, and I think recently I had it low in my top ten.
First, the problems. TMWTGG starts off I think quite nicely, with some proper detective work and Bond following a trail of evidence. It's sort of like DAF in that sense, and also in that it kinda goes off the rails (though not to the extent DAF does). For me it's probably when a masked Nick Nack and a pair of sumo wrestlers attack Bond in Hai Fat's garden. I could rant for paragraphs about how stupid this is, but I can't imagine it's necessary.
This is followed by the karate school and the karate girls, and while none of it is great, it's not offensive, and some of the action is mildly entertaining. JW Pepper aside (I don't even want to go there), I think the film somewhat finds it's footing again for a while after that.
But that damn solex agitator keeps coming up again and again, and I can't imagine any viewer cares. Why did they do this? After Bond kills Scaramanga, did any audience member think "Okay, now what happens with the solex?" No.
All that said, this film has great stuff. This might be my favorite film in terms of set work, and that goes a long way with me. But every scene in Macau is a joy to look at--I could stare at Lazar's studio or Andrea's hotel room all day. The funhouse, Scaramanga's living quarters, the Queen Elizabeth, all marvelous. The only weak link here is the solex-related cooling room (or whatever it is) at the end. Once again everything the solex touches turns to crap.
Scaramanga and Nick Nack are for me up there with Goldfinger and Oddjob or Zorin and May Day as great villain/henchperson combos. Whenever one of them is onscreen, this is a good movie. Unless there is also a sumo wrestler onscreen.
You can really imagine a much better movie being made out of a lot of this material: like top five stuff. Excise the solex, dial down a little of the silliness (but not too much), and just flesh out the Scaramanga/Bond stuff. And hell, maybe even a little more Nick Nack. I love that guy.
Not really sure where this one will end up in the rankings when this is done, but it felt like kind of an iffy watch.
The good: It's an attractive film, and I tend to like Guy Hamilton's pulpy comic book style.
The bad: Why is everybody so goddamn angry in this film? Moneypenny snaps at Bond, Bond snaps at Goodnight, M wants everyone around him to die. Jesus.
The ugly: Whoever did that horrible dub of "SHUT UP." at the end of the movie was not Roger Moore, and sounded nothing like him. Was he even English?
TOMORROW NEVER DIES
This has generally been in the #22 position on my list, but I thought this was a good enough time today and wonder if it won't creep up a bit. (Watching YOLT tomorrow, which may be a good opportunity for TND to lurch away from the bottom!)
This movie is extremely dumb. Nothing about Carver's plan makes very much sense, and you get these little mistakes like the missile in the PTS being out of range to deactivate, but not out of range to get a signal from its camera. (What?) But the action is memorable, Brosnan turns in a strong performance when he's not conveying physical or emotional pain, and it's very well paced. That was a quick two hours.
I can kind of accept some of the dumbness here, but the bigger issue for me is that this thing is a tonal mess in the middle hour. In particular, everything with Paris (which is way too melodramatic, as is typical in this era) is punctuated by comedy, such as with Dr Kaufmann, or the parking garage. The film simply shouldn't have been written or assembled this way.
I should note that I live in Hamburg, so it's also kind of fun for me to see familiar places in a Bond film....
The good: Classic PTS. Slightly connected to the plot but not too much, and a novel escape for Bond at the end. Wonderful.
The bad: What's with all the ****ing machine guns?! They've popped up from time to time in the past, but here, there's virtually no pistols. And why did Bond have to use TWO? Who watches Bond movies for that?
The ugly: I believe OHMSS had a spot of slo-mo for dramatic effect when Bond is knocked out, and LTK had a moment for a joke in the PTS, but I think this is the first time pointless little slo-mo touches were added throughout a Bond movie. Just no.
Rankings so far:
LTK
LALD
OHMSS
SF
DN
TMWTGG
TND
TWINE
Next up is the monorail trilogy of YOLT, TSWLM, and MR.
Probably going to start a Bondathon soon. Been a long time, probably over two years. Something like that. Any suggestions on an ordering?
My next one is going to be first film for each actor, then second and so forth. I've seen it done a few times here, and I wanted to try it myself. So it would go:
1. Dr. No
2. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
3. Live and Let Die
4. The Living Daylights
5. GoldenEye
6. Casino Royale
7. From Russia with Love
8. The Man with the Golden Gun
9. Licence to Kill
10. Tomorrow Never Dies
11. Quantum of Solace
12. Goldfinger
13. The Spy Who Loved Me
14. The World Is Not Enough
15. Skyfall
16. Thunderball
17. Moonraker
18. Die Another Day
19. Spectre
20. You Only Live Twice
21. For Your Eyes Only
22. Diamonds Are Forever
23. Octopussy
24. A View to a Kill
Thanks for the rec.
I like it.
QUANTUM OF SOLACE ('08)
Note: this is not a "review" in the traditional sense, having some experience with film criticism. This is more response, observation, reactions. More personal and informal and crude and instinctual. So forgive my inelegant prose, please and thank you. Also forgive my long windedness when it comes to these "blog entry" style posts.
Brief history with the picture: after seeing it in the cinema in 2008, I was shocked at the mediocre response. I was on a 007 high. The honeymoon period. I maintained, until around 5 years later, that it was in the upper echelon of Bond films. Gradually, I soured on it until I was convinced it was one of the worst in the canon.
One of my biggest issues with the film is still technically intact after today's viewing, which is that I don't believe QoS is all that strong as a "Bond film." It also still feels unnecessary. It seems apparent that Forster and the 3,000 screenwriters were attempting to plumb some of the depths of Bond's character with QoS, aiming for a continuation of the introspective angle that CR successfully introduced in 2006. The issue, in my opinion, is that all of what we see in QoS as far as introspection, the outcome, and character development was more or less established at the end of CR. We know the trajectory. By the end of the film, as he saunters up those stairs and the Bond theme finally plays for the first time the message is pretty clear: now he has become James Bond. The smirk appears. And QoS, for the sake of convenience, decides to ignore the thematic/character implications of the previous film's coda and essentially draw out a single thread for an entire film. I don't buy it.
Furthermore, Craig's performance is very, very strong, but to me this plays as a far cry from Bond, primarily as written by Fleming, but also the filmic incarnations we've gotten up to this point as well. When Arnold's Bond theme sneaks its way into the score, it feels foreign, as if it doesn't belong in this film.
All of that said, I was wrong. As a piece of cinema (and I mean that in the most explicit terms -- the marriage of image and sound) Quantum of Solace is powerful, electrifying. Bond is like a wave of pure destruction moving through the film, leaving only blood and fire and death in his wake, and the film mirrors this stylistically. It is lean and visceral, the hyper-cutting occasionally murders Schaefer's cinematography, but by and large its sense of brutal gesture and impression. Forster and Schaefer accomplished something here - I may go so far as to say QoS is the most tactile Bond film. A sensory cinematic experience (you can almost feel the splashes of water as they rise up to hit the lense during the boat chase). Schaefer's use of odd, oblong angles further heighten the experience, either situating us within Bond's tortured psyche or simply elevating an otherwise banal expositional moment into something aesthetically compelling.
The color palette is similarly provocative and evocative of Bond's mental/emotional state (as well as Camille's, a nice touch of parallelism regarding her trauma and Bond's enraged grief that runs as an undercurrent throughout the picture). It's all brown golds, or golden browns, depending on how you look at it. Dry heat. Vast, barren deserts. More heat, occasionally broken up by the merciful blues of the life-giving water. As poor as the screenplay is, I appreciate Forster's commitment to a coherent and compelling aesthetic. It's no coincidence that the climax takes place where it does, with what seems like the world erupting around them.
Few more things:
The long shot of Bond and Camille walking in the desert is an all-timer in the Bond canon -- they're ghosts in their own life, clinging to the lives of others they have lost, unable to live their own until a catharsis is reached.
The Slate fight is incredible in its economical brutality. Beautiful camera placement, choreography, and editing. Blunt. Fast. Lethal. Quiet. No score from Arnold (his best, by a country mile I should add). Someone is dead. The curtains blow softly in the wind.
On this viewing, the only action sequence that bugged me was Mitchell's first betrayal, followed by some moments once they're out on the rooftops in which the editing seriously disorients and betrays a lack of spatial awareness from the editing team. Other than that, the gestural quickness of it worked for me on a visceral level this time through.
I'm still not sure it's a great "Bond film," but this was a very happy rewatch for me. Honestly, while Skyfall is certainly lit better, cinematographically this one often gives it a run for its money in terms of searing imagery. I haven't even mentioned how incredible the Tosca escape is, or the editing in of the horse race in Sienna.
SUMMER 2018 BONDATHON RANKINGS:
1. Quantum of Solace
Hey, @ThighsOfXenia and thank you! I greatly enjoyed your review as well. Not a bit of 'inelegant prose' as you called it. Very well written. (Glad to see you're on to your Bondathon, too, however sporadic it might end up being.)
You brought up something I wanted to address in my write up a few weeks back, but I wasn't sure exactly how to say it. I've thought it over a bit more, so I'll hesitatingly take a crack.
The "Now he's Bond...but wait, no now he is!" also bothered me a long while. But then I had a thought: Is QOS still depicting Bond becoming Bond?
Or is it rather depicting everyone else realizing who Bond is?
The film begins scant minutes after the character at last locks in his identity as, "Bond. James Bond." How's M to know in practice that her rookie agent of the previous film has morphed into legend? She doesn't. It takes her the time of the film. (As it does the other characters -- Beam, Greene, Mr. White, though Felix seems to have a good idea.) Throughout, M is in part the audience surrogate. Standing over Fields oil-covered body Bond tells her, "It was Greene." M says, "No doubt. But why?" "It's just misdirection," Bond replies, his mind on the assignment. But M says: "I mean, why her, Bond?" and her mind is on her version of Bond. Later she tells him she is glad to have him back, but he "never left." Like M, we're meant to realize this. Ninety minutes ago he was "Bond. James Bond," and he has been ever since. Cue the gunbarrel -- which ends the film for the parallel reason that, "Bond. James Bond," ended CR. As Bond's iconic introductory phrase has always been his in-world way of identifying himself, so has the gunbarrel always been the non-diegetic way for the audience to identify him. At the end of CR Bond mostly knows who he is, but it takes until the end of QOS for everyone else to catch up.
An excellent observation. I've been trying to make sense of this part re: its status as an homage to TSWLM. The other nods in QOS to earlier films are not simply nods but references that take on new meaning when viewed in relation to their reference point. This one has always appeared to me as existing simply for the sake of working in some more TSWLM. But you've managed to put it beautifully, and not solely in relation to what it means in the film but also what it could signifying in its reference, tying in the idea of QOS's renovation of the franchise: the earlier film a ghost in the life of QOS, which is unable to live on its own until a catharsis is reached.
Daniel Craig is the ideal Bond. He encapsulates everything that Bond is and has evolved to be since 007 first emerged into existence from the smoky Royale-les-Eaux casino in Ian Fleming’s 1953 novel Casino Royale. Craig’s portrayal of Bond is not only the closest representation of Fleming’s literary super-operator (minus the 60-a-day smoking habit and blonde hair), but he has created the Bond for the 21st century. Craig entered the Bond legacy in his own hard-hitting, back-to-basics style.
The Cold War-esque elimination of the secret-selling Dryden in the opening sequence of Casino Royale, marking Bond’s second 00-qualifying kill, shows Craig can deliver the smooth operator side of Bond, quipping immediately after firing a single, lethal round into the traitor’s head. Mixed in with this scene is Bond’s brutal assassination of Dryden’s contact in a toilet. This is the hard-edged warrior side of Bond that was not as apparent in the other portrayals; and in one opening sequence of a Bond film.
Craig’s Bond portrayal is nothing short of a renaissance for the series, which had become somewhat tired and hackneyed after Brosnan’s spate of wielding the Walther. The references had become overbearing, Q was a member of Monty Python, and the plots Bond found himself involved with were on par with the most ludicrous of the Moore era. Bond was just a brand which was wheeled out every two years for some popcorn-munching blockbusting fun. The true meaning of Bond had been lost to poor scripts, silly fights and daft gadgets. Craig’s Bond would blow away, in just one film, all the tropes and criticisms levelled at the 007 series since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.
What puts Craig ahead of some of his predecessors is that his portrayal stands up not just in cinematic terms, but also when looking at Bond’s literary history. Craig captures the essence of Fleming’s Bond, a hot war fighter battling in the shadows where the lines between friend and foe are not clear-cut. Fleming’s Bond is not an Übermensch, capable of withstanding anything thrown at him. There is a vulnerable and emotional side to the character, a certain fragility hidden behind the armour he shrouds himself in, the same armour that is stripped away by Vesper in Casino Royale.
What makes Craig unique is that his Bond is a human being. Admittedly, he is an exceptional human being, trained to high standards and exacting tastes (caviar, champagne, martini's, tailored suits are still all there) – but he can still bleed, and that is what we see. Brosnan’s Bond hurt his shoulder, but no Bond except for Craig had been tortured to the point of castration before the machinations of organised crime ironically saved his life *this is also straight from Fleming's novel). Craig’s Bond is the pinnacle of physical ability, trained to drive and shoot to the elite levels, but he’s also just a man alone, isolated. Twice in Casino Royale, Bond nearly dies except for fortuitously timed interventions by others (Vesper with the defibrillator and Mr White killing Le Chiffre). This also mirrors Fleming.
And no matter how hard he fights, how fast he drives or accurately he shoots, he can’t totally protect the ones he truly loves, as we see in Casino Royale and Skyfall, and it’s that haunting loss and fear of failure that runs deep through both Fleming’s and Craig’s Bond – more so than any other Bond to date.
What sets Craig apart from the rest of the Bond actors is that he draws on the best elements of his predecessors, and then makes the character his own through his portrayal, adding in the supreme physicality combined with the armoured yet still vulnerable humanity. He has the coolness/ screen presence of Connery, the emotion of Lazenby, the smoothness of Moore, the hardness of Dalton and the charm of Brosnan. But most of all, Craig has Fleming’s Bond at the core of his performance. Even in Quantum of Solace, one of the least critically-acclaimed of all the Bond films, he embodies the cold cruelness at the heart of the original short story, a novella that barely even featured Bond. Though the film was ravaged with production issues (including a writer’s strike), Craig plays the character correctly, as a man whose soul has been hardened by betrayal.
Craig is a Bond for all ages, appealing to all demographics, and has created some of the most iconic moments of the series. Yet he still embodies the military officer, public school boy persona within a well tailored suit.
His portrayal is not only the (arguably - I favour Connery) best cinematically but also, when matched with Fleming’s original creation, he is the closest to embodying the Commander’s vision of the ultimate intelligence agent.
Another "blog style" response, more or less conversational, no editing for style:
Seems as if by chance that I'm beginning this Bondathon by popping in the second film from each actor. I typically watch TMWTGG early on in these marathons, because it has long been my pick for weakest of the Roger Moore entries.
While I'm not sure that will be changing (time will tell) I did find more to appreciate this time around, namely the strong current of perverse sexuality running throughout the entire film. It opens with Andrea Anders washing Scaramanga's legs, a bizarre and atypical but certainly sexual act. The sexual overtones are heightened by the camera's lingering on his third nipple. Bond later highlights that this is seen by some as indicating "sexual prowess" (I believe those were his words).
Although most of the Bond films are sexual, some are more explicitly so than others, and TMWTGG definitely ranks up there, particularly in the abnormality of its sexual overtones. Lulu's title song needs no further analysis (it's all innuendo). "It comes just before the kill" and "who will he bang?" are two of the most explicit references. Similarly, the titles heavily feature watery images of women caressing the golden gun's barrel. This image is repeated in the film itself later on -- after Scaramanga shoots Gibson, he returns to the bedroom on his boat and runs the barrel of the golden gun along Andrea's body, caressing her with it, poking the end of the barrel down her nightgown along her breast and then against her cheek. She's clearly disgusted, and withdraws. The film cuts to Scaramanga's reaction and Lee's eyes quietly burn with rage (phenomenal performance, I should add). The circumstances surrounding the gun are the inverse of the opening titles (the women were actively seeking it out and touching it in the opening titles, and here Andrea clearly is disgusted and non-consensual).
Furthermore, the film takes great lengths to establish the parallels between Scaramanga and Bond (the with the former admiring the latter, and repeatedly mentioning how similar they are). Apparently in the original script the feature length duel between the two was going to be dominant, and it's a shame we never got to see that. Bond's impersonation of Scaramanga is a highlight here, attaching the third nipple, hilariously talking up Bond's reputation in front of Hai Fat, suggesting a sort of sexual envy. Scaramanga's lair (beautiful production design) looks like something Bond would crave in a slightly alternate version of the character. Not to mention, Bond and Scaramanga have sex with the same two women in the film (it is implied, I think, that Scaramanga probably had sex, whether consensually or not, with Goodnight), with Bond always "going second." He's also the second to attach the third nipple (and the camera similarly obsesses over it).
(I'm rambling at this point, just more observations, apologies)
Scaramanga's laser that he shoots Bond's plane with is so obviously phallic, his funhouse (and history with the circus) can also easily be read as a distortion of norms (up to and including sexual norms, but of everything). It's a distortion of reality. It's telling, I think, that Scaramanga keeps the wax statue of Bond in the heart of the funhouse. The most striking shot of the film (Ted Moore's cinematography is quite strong throughout, earthy and inviting) comes when Bond is pursuing Scaramanga in the funhouse, and pauses, the plethora of mirrors around him creating an image similar to the one digitally depicted in Skyfall's opening titles. However, this image is more compelling, because the various reflections of Bond are distorted in size and shape and distance. There are dozen or so of them. Bond seems convicted in his beliefs, the way he talks shit about Scaramanga at dinner, and he seems convicted that what he is doing is right, so I'm not suggesting that the image, which does perhaps indicate a struggle with identity or direction, is meant to convey some grander meaning. Because I don't think the film as a whole is.
Furthermore, I highly doubt the filmmakers were suggesting homoerotic undertones, but they are there nonetheless between the two main characters. The way they mimic each other. Their sexual "conquests." The sexual violence in the film (the way Bond dominates Andrea as he interrogates her, the aforementioned golden gun barrel against Andrea's breast) is bizarre and provocative and compelling. I mean, this might be a stretch, but when Bond lands on Scaramanga's island, he is greeted by Scaramanga firing a bullet at the bottle of champagne which literally erupts in a hilariously ejaculatory manner (he follows this bizarre greeting up by telling Bond how lonely he is on the island).
All of these words aside, I don't view TMWTGG as some subversive arthouse picture, but I do find some of its themes and motifs compelling, whether intentional or otherwise. A few more bullet points:
- Lee's Scaramanga stands as one of the series' best villains, and I like Roger's performance to match Lee's viciousness (this, I think, is far and away Moore's "harshest" turn).
- The first half is certainly better than the latter half, and I think the first hour+ are really quite strong.
- I think a lot of the action falls flat.
- I think J.W. Pepper is really egregiously bad here, as well, although I do find him hilarious in LALD.
- I love how the slanted MI6 base in the sunken ship mirrors Scaramanga's funhouse in a way. Just another clever connection between the two men that I really appreciated on this viewing.
- Once Bond kills Scaramanga the film completely runs out of steam. This also seems like a good time to mention that Eckland isn't great, but the character she's given is an absolute abomination and that really hampers the film as well.
- The scene where Goodnight is tucked away in the closet and forced to listen (or try to sleep) while Bond has sex with Andrea is yet another example of the sexual perversity on display.
- Barry's worst score. Not bad. But hardly as inspired or powerful as his better work.
- When I was younger, I hated what I considered the "cheesy" design of the funhouse, but now I really appreciate it as a distorted reality where Scaramanga hones his skills and lures his victims.
Feel free to take me to task if I've read too far into what is clearly a piece of escapist blockbuster cinema, but I do think some of these observations are valid and supported by the text of the film. There's more to say but this post is far too long as is. MY APOLOGIES.
BONDATHON, SUMMER 2018 RANKINGS
1. Quantum of Solace
2. The Man with the Golden Gun
I have nothing further to add except to point out the two things I do disagree with in your post.
One: I don't think it's implied Scaramanga had anything sexual to do with Goodnight. The possibility is left open for sure, but it's not implied. There is a scene in which Cra caresses Goodnight, which suggests the possibility of something devious happening to her, but right then and there, not before. So that "going second" hypothesis I don't share.
Two: I don't think it's Barry's worst Bond score. I think either Octopussy or FRWL are, and they're more deserving of those adjectives you used to describe TMWTGG. Golden Gun is in fact clever in how it takes the main theme and uses it in a variety of different but effective ways throughout the score. Some fleeting parts of the score are admittedly less developed than they could've been (time constraints likely played a factor in that), but the score is full of great little musical moments, many of which are sadly absent from the soundtrack album.
Just my two cents on these two points. As I said, terrific post!
We are also in complete agreement regarding artist intent. Nicely said.
As I mentioned in my original post, given more time, I could probably form a stronger thesis and supporting argument regarding my thoughts on the picture, but as is I was mostly brain dumping with only minor after thought. If I do write something with more consideration I’ll post it somewhere on the forums.
Scaramanga was presumably planning on killing Bond at some stage. How dependent on love before killing was he? Was he anticipating Bond's arrival? On being radioed that Bond was approaching, did he try anything with Goodnight? With someone else? Is a lack of sex before the ending duel a sort of 'spiritual reason' he himself fails and is killed?
Well said. This is also where I try and come from. Some things are intentional, some are entirely operating subconsciously (or even mythically), and so long we can see the difference and keep them rooted, talking about them is not only fair game but almost necessary for wholly chewing over what a film is.
You definitely should. And keep going in here, btw. Great stuff so far.
I've always felt it was the most Carry On'esque of the Bond films. There's indeed a certain trashy raunchiness to it, but I didn't realize how far it ran until I read your analysis. I'm now wondering if that's actually one of the reasons why I like the film. Perhaps I'm subconsciously drawn to the 'sexual perversity' that you mentioned. Hmm...
I personally like many of the elements that you aren't fond of, including the hotel threesome, Barry's score, JW etc. etc. Some of it might be nostalgia though (I think this was one of the earliest Bond films I saw. I recorded it when it was broadcast on ITV and may still even have the tape around somewhere. I recall I wrote the title down in green ink on the sticker).
Like Strog and mattjoes I too never thought that anything sexual happened between Scaramanga and Goodnight, but will look out for that along with the Scaramanga/Bond parallels that you mention next time around too.
Thanks! Very Much appreciated.
I should clarify that I do quite like barry’s score. I just happen to think it’s his weakest, which really isn’t saying much. He was the master.
It's quite late and I'm quite tired, so I don't have any particularly insightful takeaways or observations from this viewing, but this is a stone cold classic. Connery is absolutely on fire, here. His ability to mix lethality with pure charisma and charm has yet to be matched in the series. It likely never will be. Other actors have been able to manage one, or the other, or even both in the same film, but never at the same time, as Connery manages here. The film's low budget is somewhat apparent if you pay close enough attention, especially compared to installments to come, but simply watching Connery be Bond is completely thrilling in and of itself.
This isn't to say the film around him is weak at all. Just the opposite. Terence Young/Ted Moore/Peter Hunt create a picture that somehow feels like Fleming's prose, which must've been a difficult tone to achieve. All of Young's three Bond films achieve this, I'd argue. The danger. The earthiness. Bond's panther-like qualities, but never losing sight of his humanity, no matter how buried it may be (the fight with Grant in FRWL, him being badly wounded by Volpe and her men in TB come to mind). Young and Moore capture the atmosphere of Jamaica in a way that feels authentic. You can almost feel the heat in certain sequences, my particular favorite is the cut away to the spinning ceiling fan as Bond and Taro lie down on the bed, kissing.
Dr. No himself is one of the series' stronger villains, and Andress perfectly captures Honey's archetypal Fleming woman (severely wounded, yet strong and fierce). Moore's cinematography radiates sense of place and danger, and his camera movements are quite lively for the time.
Love this movie. Forever one of the best. Connery is pure sexual, lethal magnetism. The character feels lived in. Connery's energy levels are at their highest here, less relaxed, less settled into the role, but full of searing vibrancy and virility.
BONDATHON, SUMMER 2018 RANKINGS
1. Dr. No
2. Quantum of Solace
3. The Man with the Golden Gun
Because of Boyle exiting B25 I'm afraid the movie might be delayed (but that would be awful after so long a wait) and I decided to postpone it until they start filming.
It was a warm and cozy experience. GE, YOLT, GF, AVTAK, Mr and TLD were particularly enjoyable this time around. My appreciation for the other films either stayed the same or increased slightly.
QoS is among my least favorite entries but I liked it better this time. Except for the confusing action scenes and M's overpresence in the field, I found it to be a well-made, well-plotted, well-written and artistically coherent and interesting film. My relative lack of enjoyment of it has less to do with quality and more with it not being my ideal type of Bond film. It offers a degree of fascination to me in that it has so many of the typical Bond film ingredients (espionage, villain with evil plot, girl, action), but feels so different from so many of them. I may prefer Greene to Silva as far as villains are concerned.
FRWL is a fine film indeed. It strikes a pleasant balance between a serious spy feel and a sense of fun. There are some dramatic moments but they're kept short and to the point. Two things I'd change: Showing just a bit more of Tatiana's conflicted feelings about her mission and her love (lust?) for Bond. Also, I'm not sure how I'd pull this without hurting the fantastic train scene, but I'd consider having Grant make it to the end of the film. He's a fantastic character. Just going by the film, it's interesting to speculate about how his training being geared around Bond probably increased his curiosity about the man, and may have fueled his psychopathic tendencies toward him.
Fellow users were saying elsewhere that GF's Kentucky section is rather slow. I actually find it quite enjoyable, and prefer it to the Switzerland part of the film (pre-Auric Enterprises). Goldfinger is one great villain. I actually find a great deal of his charm comes from his ego. Cheats at cards and golf, has to be seen (but just that) with a beautiful woman, etc.
Thunderball's third act needs more tension. That's about the only thing I'd change about the film.
YOLT is comic-booky perfection. I've always loved the character of Tanaka, ever since I was a kid. While watching YOLT, I didn't want to be Bond. I wanted to be Tanaka, the character you might not think much of at first, but who proves to be reliable and skillful. And cool.
Mr was a particularly pleasant audiovisual experience. The film is friggin' gorgeous. Fine cinematography, lovely set design and music. Magnificent. I also timed the long stretch in Venice in which there is no dialogue. It was some weeks ago so I don't exactly remember how long it is but I believe it adds up to seven minutes (in my NTSC DVD running at 29.97 fps). IIRC, that would be if you start measuring the time right after the gondola chase, and stop when Bond says "play it again, Sam" after dealing with Cha (or is it Chang? I'm a little confused).
My appreciation for Roger Moore's Bond is at an all time high.
Zorin is probably among my top three villains. He's just superb. It's a blessing that Christopher Walken got to play a Bond bad guy.
That's about all I have to say for now. As I said elsewhere, I now need a rest from watching Bond films. That and a cigarette.
Thank you.
I've enjoyed some of your writeups on this thread, too.