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
For me, in FYEO, Carole Bouquet was the perfect Melina. I did buy into Moore's Bond and her Melina as something that grew and she was far more mature than Bibi. So the age difference, although true in reality, did not bother me at all for this film. I loved their pairing and thought it was tastefully done and fit the story quite well.
Bibi was an immature, sexually obsessed, flirty, bubblehead (almost pre-teen attitude) - purposely a complete contrast from Melina. I think Bibi did add balance to the film; she was not a problem for me as a Bond fan.
Moore was in great form in FYEO and also shone in Octopussy. He should have stopped there. Although he did well in AVTAK in many scenes, he was definitely too old for the role at that time. Still many of us had fun seeing AVTAK. But FYEO and Octopussy were just wonderful Bond films that Moore can be proud of, in my opinion.
Bibi was fun IMO and added to the story. It put Bond in more of a real life-kind of situation. In real life, even s a playboy, there are limits.
Then Blofeld. Well, for me, he died in DAF, so here it's just his twin brother seeking revenge.
Then there's the age discussion. Well, it all depends on to many factors. We still judge a woman of 40 with her 19 y/o toyboy, whilst praise the man with his trophy girl. personally, at 32, I enjoyed girls 10 years younger. But then again, I look younger too. I find it hard tio judge people, even if the difference is 30 years nd she's 20. As long as there's two party's benefitting...
I'm 43 and slept with a 26 year old last year....it's not all bad being an old perv ;)
If she's woken up during it, you'd have been in big trouble...
You clearly then are not in the league of this aging metal head- meaning me :))
A classic!
1. Casino Royale- 4.33
2. Goldfinger- 4.30
3. From Russia With Love- 4.26
4. Skyfall (6/7 reviews)- 4.17
5. The Living Daylights- 4.12
6. Thunderball- 4.09
7. The Spy Who Loved Me- 4.06
8. Licence To Kill- 4.05
9. On Her Majesty's Secret Service- 3.99
10. For Your Eyes Only- 3.91
11. You Only Live Twice- 3.90
12. Live And Let Die- 3.81
13. GoldenEye- 3.75
14. Octopussy- 3.73
15. Tomorrow Never Dies- 3.63
16. Dr. No- 3.57
17. Quantum Of Solace- 3.42
18. A View To A Kill- 3.28
19. The World Is Not Enough- 3.17
20. The Man With The Golden Gun- 3.09
21. Diamonds Are Forever- 2.99
22. Moonraker- 2.96
23. Die Another Day- 2.70
Good morning fellow originals and guests! The ratings remain exactly the same, but not really. To clarify, the previous one point difference between FYEO and YOLT was due to a tiebreaker point. The tiebreaker is determined by eliminating the highest and lowest scores and averaging the middle. @Beatles recent review of FYEO rendered the tiebreaker unnecessary and made the 3.91 score official.
Continued thanks to everyone who has participated in the thesis questions. This week's questions and the answers to those were particularly enlightening to me. It truly gave me some food for thought and resolved some of the minor issues I had with the film, and I hope everyone who participated or read found similar value.
Regarding the polling of the three For Your Eyes Only thesis questions, which will include my views-
1. Regarding the confrontation between Bond and Gogol at St. Cyril's, the general perception was that despite the current political climate between the Soviets and the Western powers, Gogol's quick decision not to kill Bond was the correct one. Most felt that there was a level of respect between the two and that EON wanted to continue his character, and also accepted a third hypothesis put forth by @WillyGalore that he and the Soviets were more than willing to pay for the ATAC from a third party but didn't want to be officially involved, and killing Bond would have crossed that line and fueled the tensions. My personal view was that I felt these thoughts were excellent reasons to ignore the real life politics.
2. While not everyone who commented found Blofeld's PTS death particularly satisfying in the manner in which it was done, everyone agreed that the arguments of those supporting a "Blofeld revival" in this context regarding his possible survival were nonsense and that they were convinced enough that he was indeed dead. And that it resolved that he did indeed survive the DAF oil rig finale, although it was obvious that he was crippled as a result. The question of if a rebooted Bond is justification to bring him back in regards to what we saw here, and how it might be justified, will appear when we revisit QOS, so everyone has plenty of time to think about that. Personally, I found the DAF conclusion concerning Blofeld to be as unsatisfying as the glaring neglect there of not mentioning Tracy nor her death and I was really glad to see Bond visiting her grave as well as getting a more proper revenge on Blofeld that was sorely needed. All things considered, I was well satisfied that Blofeld was indeed "put to eternal rest" here and have not felt the need to see more of the character since.
3. This last thesis was one I thought would be a slam dunk against the Bibi Dahl character, and was surprised that not everyone agreed with that. Of the 6 opinions, four were against her character and agreed with the thesis that her inclusion was a concession towards the fans of Moore's lighter hearted version due to the more serious nature of this film compared to it's two predecessors, she was not necessary to the story narrative, and they would have preferred the character was not included. The two dissenting views felt Dahl's inclusion was good because even with the comic relief, she had her strengths as far as bringing a strong counterbalance to Melina's maturity and serious nature that thematically matched that of Colombo and Kristatos, thus also deflecting criticisms that both actresses were in reality one year apart in favor of Bouquet, and making Moore's Bond seem less like a "lecherous old pervert" in this context. Personally, I found the "daddy issues" part of the Dahl character and her teenaged giddiness were grating at best and turned the film into a bit of a joke save the St. Cyril's scenes which seemed more in line in what I would have hoped for the character. Turning her focus more towards the realization that she was trapped by needing Kristatos' sponsorship money, turned off by his innuendos, and seeing Bond as a way out (rather than primarily as a romantic interest) may be a bit cliche when compared with the likes of Miss Anders and more recently Severine, but it would have made more sense to me to concentrate on this aspect. Nonetheless, the views in favor also made sense in their rationale for having her there and for using the sex angle, and for me certainly shed some positive light on Dahl I had not previously considered.
That's all for now until we revisit Octopussy, although as I understand it, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs also plans to give us a potentially highly humorous review of the unofficial "Never Say Never Again" that competed with Octopussy for viewer dollars in 1983 first. I don't know which he plans to do first, and they could possibly be at the same time. So even if this is redundant to the views I have previously expressed elsewhere, I want to make several things about NSNA extra special and abundantly clear to all our originals and guests, especially those who might feel the urge to come here and argue with the below points and for it's inclusion. One, I do not see NSNA as one of the official 23 films and wholly disagree with those who consider it so just because Connery returned as "James Bond". Despite the fact that EON has since purchased it, to this day they have made their stance well known that they agree the film is an independent standalone not part of the series, nor that it should be treated any differently than the 1954 and 1967 versions of Casino Royale, despite Connery's appearance and the name of "James Bond" as the title character. Two, this film will have no thesis questions posed for it. Three, it will not count in the ratings for the above reasons. Four, I have agreed to allow @BeatlesSansEarmuffs to do it strictly for laughs and nothing more. He can break down the film in any format he chooses, personally I would prefer and will ask both publicly and privately that he not include points. I want to avoid any and all comparisons to the official films that way, and feel the use of points could invite such a point of view from those who would disagree with it's exclusion as an official film.
Have a great weekend everyone!
Well, you'll have ample time after Beatles finishes up to discuss your thoughts and give your personal 1-23 list. Just not now. I promise that when the time comes, you can go first. Yours represents a bit of a problem as far as what my future plans were because you were picking up the slack from Kerim. For everyone else, like Kerim was doing for himself as he went along, I'm also keeping track of their individual scores per film and compiling an order for them in a similar fashion, and will present those so that each panelist can discuss how the group ratings compares to their personal list. Hopefully it will encourage everyone who doesn't already have a list already fashioned to define one for themselves. The only reason I didn't ask you to do every film, just as a reminder, was out of great respect for Kerim for his many contributions here and elsewhere, even if it is likely "in memoriam" :(
If he should ever reappear and finish 1995-present, I will most certainly give you the opportunity to go back and do the films 1962-1989. Personally, I actually have TLD at #5 and am surprised at times how the poll oddly mirrors my own rankings in many instances.
NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN
I had originally intended to give this film a quick, humorous review -- but now that I’ve seen again it for the first time since its initial release, I can’t find much that is honestly funny to say about it. Everyone is familiar with the disclaimers that have run in the credits of movies made after 1983, to the effect of “No animals were harmed in this making of this film,” right? Well, the need for that disclaimer can be partially laid at the feet of Never Say Never Again. (In all fairness to NSNA, Heaven’s Gate can also be blamed with inspiring the need for this particular policy.) The horse that Connery and Bassinger are riding when they all jump off a tower and land in the sea far below…that horse was pretty obviously harmed in the making of this movie. Watch that scene, I dare you…and watch the look of abject terror in that falling horse’s face. If only someone could have passed legislation in the wake of NSNA, promising that no audience member would be harmed in the screening of a movie, then perhaps we wouldn’t have been subjected to any more threats regarding Kevin McClory attempting any more wretched Thunderball remakes.
I’m sorry, but that’s the sort of humor a viewing of NSNA inspires in me. That joke just wasn’t very funny, true; but then, neither is this movie. At base, the magic that one expects to find in a Bond film is almost entirely absent from this picture.
Don’t get me wrong, there are certain aspects of NSNA that I found enjoyable. It’s always a pleasure to see Sean Connery portraying James Bond. Barbara Carrera is a hoot and a half as Fatima Blush, one of the most over-the-top femme fatales in cinema history. Bernie Casey makes a fine Felix Leiter --a black man as Leiter, who’da thunk it? Maybe somebody could try that tack again sometime… Bond’s motorcycle chase against the minions of SPECTRE was exciting enough, and his battle against the assassin in Shrublands has its moments… but too much of this movie is just unspeakably lame.
Bond’s video-game battle with Largo is totally absurd, and his big dance number with Domino which follows immediately is even more ridiculous. “Your brother is dead…KEEP DANCING!” What more can we expect from a script credited to Lorenzo Semple Jr.? Admittedly, there are some lines which I personally found amusing -- Algernon (aka Q) gets a good one off when he expresses the hope that we’re in for “some gratuitous sex & violence” now that Bond is on the job….Connery confiding to the terribly miscast actress playing Moneypenny that he’s been assigned to “eliminate all free radicals” is also worth a smile…but for the most part, the humor in this film makes Moore’s work shine by comparison. I hadn’t even remembered that Rowan Atkinson appears as a bumbling agent in this film until last week when I re-watched NSNA for the purpose of this review. I hope somebody out there appreciates my sacrifice…
I thought Klaus Maria Brandauer was a pretty weak Largo, but Edward Fox an even weaker M…and Max Von Sydow the weakest of them all as Blofeld. Kim Bassinger is certainly one of the most beautiful women ever to walk before a camera, but I just didn’t find her at all convincing as Domino. Most of the movie’s soundtrack was mercifully erased from my memory by the passage of time…but I did remember the theme song. I don’t think it quite as dreadful as some may -- but it doesn’t stand up to even the weakest of the Eon Bond themes. And for the last bit of this movie that was totally erased by the passage of time: the set for the “Tears of Allah” underground lair. It might have worked decently for another remake of “The Mummy” but it seemed pretty much pulled out of thin air in a remake of Thunderball.
And here’s where we get to the real nitty-gritty: the only reason this movie came into existence is because Kevin McClory held a very specific right: the right to remake Thunderball once a certain amount of time had passed. The problem is, if you’re going to re-make an earlier artistic work, be it a movie, a song, or what-have-you, you need to satisfy two mutually-contradictory impulses: you have to evoke the original well enough to satisfy those who already have an appreciation for the seminal work…and you have to bring something, fresh, exciting, and different to the project as well. If you accomplish both of those goals, you’ve got a chance -- but only a chance, no guarantee -- of success. If you accomplish only one of those goals, you’re likely to be considered an interesting failure. If you accomplish neither, then you’ve got a bona fide flop on your hands. In my opinion, NSNA accomplished neither of its goals. It is therefore a flop of substantial proportions.
While the box office “Battle of the Bonds” between Octopussy and NSNA was reasonably close, with OP coming out on top by a few paltry million dollars, the verdict of history puts Octopussy as the overwhelming victor. NSNA had so much going for it, not the least of which was the return of Sean Connery to the role that made him famous. Moore had already been expected to retire from the role of Bond, and reportedly it was only the presence of Connery in a competing Bond vehicle which kept the folks at Eon Productions from replacing him at this time. But Connery’s considerable magnetism notwithstanding, Octopussy is a substantially more enjoyable film than NSNA…and if anything, we have Connery to thank for Moore’s continued presence in the role of James Bond, both in Octopussy as well as in A View to a Kill.
Nice review though!
I remember Fatima Blush as a hoot, Kim as lovely, Sean as well, older yeah and just okay ... I felt uncomfortable mainly because this movie did not feel like a real Bond movie to me, so therefore I felt uncomfortable with Sean in it, even though I love him ... it's a vicious circle, really. I deplored Rowan's character, the other main characters were weak and not interesting to me ... and yeah the horse falling ... shudder.
All in all, I appreciate your words: "... just unspeakably lame." Yep. That sums up NSNA quite well, thank you.
On to the far more refreshing and Bondian Octopussy! ;)
The point you brought up about the horse I had completely forgotten about and it made me sick to my stomach. It should be a vivid reminder of how heinous and wrong animal abuse is. I can only hope that poor animal did not suffer injury or even worse, no wonder it looked scared half to death and rightfully so. And this was done in the name of "entertainment"? It's even more reason for EON to disassociate the film from their films, in my mind for an even bigger and better reason than either of the earlier CR's.
People who want to include this film in their rankings and show support for it's inclusion in the official canon, if you're reading this, really ought to take a look in the mirror and reconsider that position of yours given the horse incident alone. I now firmly more than ever find it to be unconscionable.
Or even another CR'67! ;-)
[-(
@Willy- If my memory serves me correct regarding how it looks on screen, and you must keep in mind here that it has probably been at least 20 years since I last saw it, it did look more akin to the gloss of LTK as far as the use of cheaper facilities and quality of film. It is amazing to think how much better Octopussy does indeed look as a film made at the same time.
Connery's toupees :))
@Chris- NSNA might as well have been CR68 no worries there brother ;). I was telling Beatles via PM the other day that CR67 has been on cable a lot recently and that I've turned it on at different times. I can't take more than 5 minutes of it at a time before my mind starts turning to mush. Of the three non-official films with the Bond character I actually think CR54, even with our fellow American Barry Nelson, is probably more likable than the others. At least it seemed like some sort of honest attempt at the novel rather than resorting to spoofing or rehashing.
I can actually handle a lot of the nonsense in the film... except the trudging-through-mud pace of the final 30 minutes. ~X(
I agree, it is mostly dreadful and passe. I don't own a copy and never will. The horse incident alone is reason not to contribute any of my money. I don't think I could even accept a free copy now.
For my fellow Americans, the Encore movie channel will be running a Bondathon from Dr. No through Octopussy on 9/1, and NSNA was unfortunately included as the last film. The films will also appear on the other Encore channels over the course of September. I did see TWINE was scheduled later on but none of the others just yet, but I suspect the Dalton films and others from the Brosnan era may appear later in the month. I don't think they have the Craig films yet but those appear enough elsewhere and Skyfall is now off on PPV so I suspect it will be available shortly for free viewing. Enjoy!
I have 4 thesis questions regarding Octopussy ready and raring to go pending Beatles' review of the film.
1 Yes. She was the hottest ever in a Bond PTS.
2 No. I found it fairly easy to ignore, besides, everyone was doing it that year. Chewie even did it in ROTJ.
3 Not at all; in fact I loved it. People seem to miss the ironic juxtaposition. I don't even mind that he seemed to have donned it too quickly.
4 Yeah, I bought it. And just 4 films later he'd do more than simply hang on to one.;)