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
I'm thankful that the Producers moved on from him though, those films have really the same plot and style, as much as I liked Moonraker, Gilbert was not a good and right director for Bond, I could easily say that Glen was even more of a better director than him, in my personal rankings, I would rank him above Hamilton (if he only followed Goldfinger with three good quality Bond films, he would've been near at the top), and Tamahori and Foster, at least, sorry, no offense, he's in my bottom 4 of Bond directors.
If we're talking about Moore's serious film, it's definitely For Your Eyes Only, if not for it being lowkey and soap opera like made for TV film, it's his most serious, after all, it's the film I'm wanting to like but just can't, I think it's a missed opportunity of a Bond film for me, there's a lost potential for it to be Moore's best.
The thing that bugs me most about TSWLM were those line deliveries by Moore himself that should comes off as funny (those one liners) but didn't land, like "can you swim?" Line from him, it's meant to be funny, but his line delivery felt forced or phoning it in, and it's not sitting right well with me, it's just unfit, and there are many one liners there that didn't land and lacking his usual charisma when it comes to his delivery, those come off as flat, for all of the faults regarding Dalton delivering those humorous lines in TLD, at least he's trying and was in the mood to do it, with Moore in TSWLM, it's like he's not in the mood to speak those lines.
And the less said about the acting of the rest of the cast, the better.
All three films have the same plot 😅, that's Gilbert for us.
Conclave trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX9jasdi3ic
Who would be against a Bond 26 in this tone?
Again, read my edited post, and no it doesn't resembles a Brosnan film, it's far.
The style that the Brosnan films relied on were those from the Connery Era, specifically, Thunderball.
Unsuccessfully, then.
Actually I'd say Gilbert was objectively the right director for Bond. Look at how successful TSWLM was compared to Moore's previous films (and it was a very pivotal film for the series. If it had underperformed like TMWTGG or OHMSS it would have been very bad for the franchise). He's also credited as being the one to hone Moore's interpretation of Bond, making him more gentlemanly/human.
I like GF, but I don't think Hamilton was ever able to get the best out of Moore's Bond. In terms of filmmaking he's miles behind Gilbert as well. DAF has some very odd technical and shooting issues, for example - ie. Connery's 'Bond, James Bond' delivery being sped up for some reason, the slow and bad choreography during the PTS, the lack of effective dubbing. Even in LALD the slowness of the boat chase is often cited as a flaw. I know Peter Hunt even criticised his workflow when editing GF. Gilbert's films by contrast are generally tight and very stylish. Some questionable dubbing/delivery from Anya and Goodhead, but otherwise his direction is very polished. He was also a very experienced director prior to Bond (look at how successful Alfie was). For me he's one of the top directors of the series, regardless of whether or not you like his films.
The only reason he wasn't asked back was because they simply couldn't afford him by the 80s. That's effectively why Glen was promoted to director.
Looks like a very stylish movie. I'll try to catch it in November.
That's just typical Bond nonsense to be honest (which any director needs to understand and embrace to direct one). It's really not something audiences would think about in the moment, and it's the best way of depicting it visually.
Or not. It's a little bit lazy.
Yeah, like what I've said, Hamilton has only one good Bond film and that is Goldfinger, the others were not quite good enough, that's why he's behind Gilbert for me, yes.
No argument on that, but that's where it also lied on Gilbert, he had failed to bring out the usual Moore charm and humor (to which became a trademark of his Bond), like what I've said, some of his one liner deliveries (in TSWLM, for example) came off as forced or 'not in the mood', and lacking the usual charm that Moore had, for example, in LALD, or in TMWTGG (the line I would give you as an example is "Ever heard of Evel Knievel?") compared that to his one liner delivery in TSWLM ("Can you swim?"), there's a big difference, in TWMTGG, he had delivered that line in an effortlessly charming, lively, natural and funny manner, but in TSWLM, the charm that aided Moore's Bond sense of humor was lacking, it's not there, it's all stripped off.
And he failed to give his villains personalities (even Blofeld in YOLT), the only one he had got it right was in Hugo Drax in MR, but those two previous villains, it lacked the menace and personality to make them compelling as villains.
Although I need to give Gilbert credit for bringing Bond to success, after the failure of TMWTGG in the box office, he had rejuvenated the series back with TSWLM, I'll give him that.
Am.....okay 😅
But in my opinion, Glen did it better, look at the Monastery fight in the finale of FYEO and the mountain climbing part, as much as I'm not a fan of FYEO, I need to give credit to Glen for bringing out the suspense in those scenes, and Moore is really at his best in those, like what I've said, if one may fix FYEO, especially in aesthetics, it could've been Moore's best Bond film, and that's all down to Glen, especially in action scenes, there's a sense of danger in all of Moore's action scenes in the Glen Era, even in AVTAK (with that Golden Gate Bridge fight with Zorin), something that Gilbert failed to do, there's no sense of danger and tension in his films, and the action scenes were all for fun, no tension or danger, personally, those action scenes in the three films never kept me tight in my seat, the closest would be the Venice Glass Museum Fight scene in Moonraker with Chang.
The only Glen Bond film that failed on me, in my opinion, is Octopussy, although I liked the scene of Bond lurking at Khan's palace from the exterior walls, especially the moment where he saw Magda ik her bedroom.
Not sure I personally see any of that about Moore’s Bond. He’s quite uptight at points of TMWTGG and while Moore’s doing his best he’s interpreting a weird script. The Evil Kineval line from what I remember is even a sign of Hamilton’s strange directing - from what I remember Bond says that line as the car is driving up to the bridge and we don’t see Moore say it. It’s very much a ‘blink and you’ll miss it’ line. Very strange.
Not a fan of Pleasance’s Blofeld but I think Gilbert going with him over Jan Wrench showed good instincts. For better or for worse that’s the image we associate with Blofeld. Stromberg’s not a compelling villain anyway in terms of the script, but I think the way he’s set up/depicted is sufficiently menacing, and it’s the same with Jaws (some of those early scenes with him are frightening). As you said Drax is a cool villain. For me it’s FYEO and TLD that has bland villains.
Gilbert and the rest of the team evince tremendous creativity and professionalism. The practical achievements of the film are beyond amazing. Moore's charm and arguably one of Barry's strongest scores ever complete the list. The result is a film that perhaps qualifies less as a Bond film than a technical marvel with beautiful locations and an atmosphere that tastes like a luscious wine. My fondness for MR is, in a sense, unusual given my struggles with some other less serious films in the series, and yet, I'll defend this film even if it costs me my reputation as a Bond fan.
Euphemistically stated, MR is an adventurous effort to get us to the big climactic set pieces as soon as possible. What lends it an air of dignity is that it guarantees many quality moments before we get there. California, Venice and Rio are not mere dots on the map from the opening scenes to when the film finally tries to eat some of Star Wars' cake; they are small vignettes replete with memorable bits of action, inspired sets, excellent sight-seeing and delightful contributions by John Barry.
Anyone who questions Roger Moore as an actor ought to give MR another watch someday. Part of what keeps this film from being an insultingly ludicrous piece of garbage is the ease with which Moore manages to navigate its inherent challenges. He finds the proper balance between "going with the joke" and not surrendering to pure clownish behaviour. Even if MR is hardly a Bond film, Roger Moore is still James Bond in it. At least, he convinces me of that. As an aside, I also think he never looked better than he did in MR. During his nocturnal adventure in Venice, he's all dressed in black. He looks fit and dangerous. When confronting Holly in her hotel room, he leaves a cool yet playful impression, a curious combination that Moore handles to great effect. He is James Bond, the iconic epicentre of a film that plays more like a Derek Flint fantasy than a 007 thriller. Moore effectively keeps this film from slivering over into straight-up parody.
MR is also the reason why I disagree with recent outcries concerning the budgets spent on the last few Craigs. I wouldn't mind a less expensive Bond film, but big spenders aren't necessarily set up for failure either. MR is one of the most costly endeavours in the history of the Bond series, but the money is on the screen -- every penny of it! Financially debaucherous though it was, MR does epic things with its resources. At least in that regard, it serves as a "Bond film" that competes with some of the greats in the series in terms of entertainment value and sheer visual splendour. The icing on the cake? How about the fact that despite its respectable age, MR hasn't lost any of its impressive technical magnificence yet? I have spoken, now take me around the world one more time.
I liked that Bond evolved as character in this film, from rejecting Holly due to her gender, to finally respecting her when he saw how skillful and independent she is, and I liked the brutal fight in the Venice Museum against Chang, filled with tension and danger, and the same for the Rio scenes at night with Manuela, even the Amazon Jungle scenes has the touch of danger to it.
But I'd rather have the lasers in this film than the one in Die Another Day, it's basically a Matrix Spy kids film combined in one (at least in the second act).
Holly Goodhead isn’t my favourite Bond girl but I like what they were trying to do with the battle of the sexes thing. It’s not as interesting as what they did with Bond and Anya, and it’s not exactly the deepest character arc, but it gives the characters a good dynamic.
Maybe a different actress could have given Holly something a little more dynamic. But Chiles was so monotone. Her delivery so weak, she sounded bored.
No matter Bach’s shortcomings as an actress, the character’s story in Spy, and her relationship with Bond, was baked into the script and was far more interesting, with real stakes. I mean, not only are they on competing teams, James Bond murdered her lover. That’s a great set up!
With Holly it was just trying to one-up each other. Kind of funny at times, but even that wore thin.
I don't mind another MR but CGI ages faster and I don't think the movies will look as good in the future.
I wish they would spend the money on gigantic sets but that seems like a thing of the past.
But then again, we have Anya (in the script, or as directed) fell in love with Bond so easily, that when Bond met Naomi (Stromberg's henchwoman and a pilot), and saw that Bond was smitten with her, I see it even through the broken screen that she's somewhat a bit jealous (and showing her irritation at that), and that made their supposed rivalry ran dry.
And their supposed rivalry isn't even that tension filled or heated because most of the time, Anya kept relying on Bond (an example of this was when Bond found an information and Anya told Bond that she would report it to Gogol, like Bond was supposed to be her rival, yet why trusting him?) I don't know, are they really supposed to be rivals or allies? More like the latter, to me.
About murdering her lover, it has potential, I guess, but again, what's played up was Anya choosing to sleep with Bond in the end, I guess that aspect could've been played in a later film where people would not be shocked with the subverting of expectations by turning down Bond because he killed her lover.
But still, for an agent, she's pretty much a damsel (with the silly fake russian accent, I guess this could've been fixed with a dubbing).
Acting wise, no one is better than them, they're fair and square to me, but in terms of character, Holly at least does the 'Bond's equal' better despite that she's a CIA (but again, she's doing her work, and Bond was a stranger to her, why trust someone she doesn't even know to begin with?)
Anya has potential, for sure, a KGB with a vendetta for her lover's death, a typical like Melina Havelock is a cool concept, but did they've messed it up big time? It's not given focus in the film at all, only in the first 1 hour of the film or two.
It's still a Bond film from a certain era, and therefore it's expected that the love interest actually, you know, falls in love with Bond.
In the end, you're kind of talking around what I said, and specifically where Holly fails: the actor in the role was dead-eyed and delivered montone line readings, and the character vs Bond was nothing more than a comic strip relationship, like the old spy vs spy series.
At least in TSWLM there was a superior set up: Bond and Anya are not just on opposing teams; Bond killed her lover.
That's just superior to anything MR gave us between Holly and Bond.
But then so Barbara Bach, that monotone line readings and mannequin like style that she possessed throughout the film added with her silly fake (unconvincing) russian accent, she's no better, at least Lois Chiles have facial expressions for very much of the film, Bach has none, she has one facial expression and it became like that for very much of the film (don't give me that she's a trained Russian spy, the Russians and their soldiers in Goldeneye and TLD are both at least were more lively than Bach's, even Wai Lin has more facial expressions too than her, and she also came from a Communist country and a trained spy in there too).
I remember someone said in a YouTube comment section that Bach, "with her cold (demeanor) face belongs more to the horror movies" or something like that, and I couldn't agree more.
And that's the thing, the set up in TSWLM was cool, it's great! But it also disappointed me because it didn't turned out the way it should've been, it's the film at first I have high expectations, but when I've watched it, it went down to below zero.
Moonraker at least did what was needed to be done, it didn't disappoint me because I know what I'm expecting, and just watch my way all throughout, with TSWLM, it always hurts me because the film have so much cool concept and great potential, yet it never reached to the fullest.
I liked the concept, but I could never watch it without being disappointed because they've pretty much dropped the ball.
I liked the concept of losing her lover, I liked it, in fact, a very personal and unique one for a Bond Girl, but even with the given time, I think having her slept with Bond at the end stripped off the tension regarding her revenge, especially with Bond being held responsible, if they have that concept, they should be brave enough to get into the concept even the means of subverting expectations, you have a Bond who owed a debt to this Bond Girl for losing the life of her lover, but then this Bond Girl and Bond fell in love, isn't that a bit off with the given narrative? It's a missed opportunity, Cubby should've been wiser and spared that for another, later film.
And yes, I'll admit the lack of chemistry between Holly and Bond, but then, are there any Bond Girls who has chemistry with Moore's Bond? The closest one maybe Octopussy, maybe because most of his Bond Girls were half of his age.
I've missed having some discussions like this 😅.
I didn't say that Bach was better than Chiles, just to be clear.
There was a far superior set-up between Bond and Triple X, and in spite of Bach's limited talent, it led to more interesting scenes for us as an audience (when/will she find out that Bond killed her lover? What will she do? This is an example of excellent writing: the writer lets us know information that the two lead characters aren't fully informed about (in this case Bond knows he killed a Russian agent recently, yet has no idea it was Anya's lover; Anya doesn't know the man she's working with (against), is her lover's murderer, but we know all of this, and it unconsciously raises suspense and tension for us. This dramatic irony didn't happen, not even close, in MR)).
I agree that Octopussy has the most chemistry with Moore...
(I have this in my newly edited post) :
I liked the concept of losing her lover, I liked it, in fact, a very personal and unique one for a Bond Girl, but even with the given time, I think having her slept with Bond at the end stripped off the tension regarding her revenge, especially with Bond being held responsible, if they have that concept, they should be brave enough to get into the concept even the means of subverting expectations, you have Bond who owed a debt to this Bond Girl for losing the life of her lover, but then this Bond Girl and Bond fell in love, isn't that a bit off with the given narrative? It's a missed opportunity, Cubby should've been wiser and spared that for another, later film.
I'm not saying that Anya should've killed Bond, but just have them parted ways in the end, not just shrugging it off, like this woman have been mourning from the death of his lover, then finding the man responsible, then after that, with a one wink from Bond, it's all done? They've got a great idea, a great concept, only to have it screwed.
Or at least have Bond talk it to Anya in the end, maybe a very deep apologize from Bond before they make love, at least create some resolution, not just shrugging it off like "forget it darling, let's make love, I have my champagne here!"
Cubby should've known better that things like this would be impossible in the given time, that angle of her dead lover should've been given more depth, but given the time period, it's just in the background, and it's inclusion in the scene only happened like an afterthought (when Anya saw Bond's lighter, which doesn't hold that much weight, if you ask me, for one, how it's easy to blame Bond just because he has a lighter from Austria and he's an MI6 agent, when she clearly had no strong evidence to back up her claim, although I must rewatch the film to see if Bond told Anya his previous mission there).
I think this thing would've worked out in later 80s Bond films of the Dalton Era, but it's impossible in the Moore Era (given the nature of his tenure and the time period).
I liked the idea, but it's not given that much focus that I think should've been given more.
Well, they were in an era of light entertainment. Yes, they involved a serious element, it was believable in the scope of the film, and, I think very well dealt with. At the time, they couldn't veer off tone. This wasn't LICENSE TO KILL, or QUANTUM. They wove this narrative into SPY, but really didn't need to go dark to wrap up this thread. It was expected that Anya and Bond would, in spite of this history, get together by the end. But at least it wasn't the usual Bond takes the woman out for dinner and they end up in bed.
And Anya was sleeping with her counterpart, originally, as part of her job. To seduce Bond into letting his guard down, and eventually, it was clear they were growing fond of each other, and just as they are, the truth comes out.
That's really brilliant writing. It's a plot twist that changes the dynamic of their elationship, and for the worse.
It's surprisingly crafty and effective writing.that was missing in Bond's relationship with Holly.
Where TSWLM lacks is toward the end. I always kind of forget that Anya wants to kill Bond in the end. I feel like there needed to be a beat where they remind us of her mission against Bond--somewhere between when they're lowered into the submarine and the bathysphere at the end.
I know what you mean. Maybe an extra beat with Bond acknowledging that trying to rescue her might lead to his death by her hand. That said I’ve always felt the conflict’s there.
It’s such a great idea for a Bond film though - Bond killing the Bond girl’s lover. Always loved the way Moore played the scene when Anya finds out and the dialogue in it.
Bond thinks that he could get away with it, thinking that Anya killed Stromberg and she's already on his side, but he's mistaken, because he's reminded of the debt that he owed to her for killing her boyfriend.
But the confrontation would be distracted by the crumbling lair, so they need to get out of there, but there's still Jaws, they would confront him once again, Jaws' focus was Bond, they're both fighting, with Anya in confusion, pointing her gun (similar to Tatiana pointing her gun towards Bond and Klebb fighting), she fired her shot at them but missed, and even created a hole in the wall that caused the water to flow faster, potentially drowning them more, this where Anya realized she had made a mistake and she's shocked at it, then Bond asked for Anya's gun (because Jaws destroyed Bond's gun earlier and thrown it away) as Jaws is on the verge of killing Bond (strangling Bond with Jaws' bare hands) Bond pleads to Anya more, Anya was reluctant at first, but due to the situation, she had thrown her gun at Bond and Bond killed Jaws, once and for all.
As they've got away from Stromberg's lair and heads to the pod, Bond sees Anya's tears silently dropping from her face, Bond made an explanation and apologizes, made a resolution, then in a dramatic moment, they would forgive each other and make love.
No champagne popping thing!
If my memory serves, it's done the second time in SPECTRE with Bond killing, this time, a husband of a Bond Girl, only to seduce the widow.
Bond killed Marco Sciarra in the PTS, then later heads to Italy only to seduce Sciarra's widow, Lucia.