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
Now I do rate Barry, we all do. It's a matter of taste however.
Rationally I know that the OHMSS theme is very good. But I just don't quite like it, it's a bit formal, or straitlaced. I think, like GF, it is probably better in analogue tbf. Actually, it's probably intended by Barry to be an alternative Bond theme, problem is it works really for Connery, and not Lazenby at all. When you have Bond skiing down the mountain, it's a Connery moment with that theme, but as it is the sexy sinister vibe to it belongs more to Spectre imo. It just doesn't match Lazenby imo.
We Have All the Time in the World. Now, I know this is a good song. But it is misused a bit in the film that awful slow mo stuff like watching two newly wed Royals on walkabout, it's awful. I have to also confess that I don't dig Barry when he tries to be emotionally moving in some Bond films, same with the romantic theme in TLD, it's euggghhhh. Slushy. Take If I Had a Man and put it in a Barry compilation however, and it is superb. Same goes with We Have All... it works well after that Girl With the Sun in Her Hair song. I never bought the chemistry between Rigg and Lazenby anyway, so the theme bombs a bit for me.
Problem is, the above theme is used a lot, it's seen as kind of Lara's Theme for the film, for a romantic setting, military (while Bond is strutting about his Piz Gloria room) and so on, and I just don't fancy the song, each to its own. It's awfully overused.
Flight to Piz Gloria is fantastic, as in the safe cracking music,
Sunset at Piz Gloria is a superb piece, lovely - again it's one for a compilation because somehow it doesn't get shown off in the movie very well, I discovered it by buying the soundtrack.
And finally, I like Barry because he lends gravity and depth to the somewhat shallow Bond films of Connery and Moore. Once the films get more emotional, with Lazenby and Dalton, he does make them more heavygoing than I'd like. I'm not saying I'd erase Barry's work on OHMSS, in many ways it has the edge on his other films, but imo his work enhances other films like FRWL, GF, DAF, MR far more than on this.
I don't think it's overrated. It's not the best James Bond adventure ever, granted, but it deserves to be talked of in such high regard from some areas or reviewers
While I couldn't disagree with you more Beast, I always get a good laugh by your utter disdain for this movie. I appreciate the zeal. I suppose I could see where your coming from: there's the romance montage scene in the beginning with Bond and Tracy, and then once up on the Alps, we see mostly Bond frollicking about for a while with the girls as if he's on holiday. But I know you're an action guy, so you don't find the ski/car/bobsled chase finale extravaganza even a bit enjoyable?
Maybe when you're older it will be more to your taste.
Boredom sets in when Bond gets his meeting with Draco. (I mean, anyhow, he sets off for morning golf, gets kidnapped and it's dark by the time of his arrival. So how far away is the place, they've been driving for minimum six hours!) By this time, Bond hasn't actually encountered any real villains, though we are supposed to be really intrigued and provoked by sexpot Tracey who seems to lead Bond on, then gets him beaten up. But it never really gets me in that way, I just find it a bit flat.
Really? There's no intrigue regarding what Blofeld is up to, and why exactly he has engaged the college of arms to sanction a heraldic title? Unless you had read the book first, I'd argue it's one of the most intriguing plot lines in the series. OHMSS is a slow burner, but it was always intended that way. I don't actually see how action is necessary in the first 90 minutes. I admire Hunt, for stepping away from Bond convention and forcing the story to speak for itself. It didn't need action shoe-horning in, like Little Nellie in YOLT. It stands out precisely because it tried to do something different, that is primarily why it gets the credit, that in my opinion it deserves.
Of Barry's abilities, there was no doubt!
Well, the heraldry stuff is still fairly late in the movie, maybe an hour has past by that point? Okay maybe less. I didn't find it interesting personally, because it did seem a weak link in the novel. Just why would Blofeld want a title? ~And the whole snobbish thing doesn't really fit with the guy we saw in the film YOLT. The thing is, at least in the books it makes a tad more sense, because there Blofeld had a sort of one-off deal with ad hoc organisation Spectre for the Thunderball operation, and hadn't blotted his copy book too much. But in the films of course, Blofeld is head of Spectre and it's a long-running criminal operation, a big deal, taking part in Dr No and FRWL adventures. So it's just less likely to me that the guy could ask for a blank slate, or even desire a title, it seems so out of character.
I have to say I prefer the novel far to the movie, it has a lighter feel to it ironically.
I never really thought about the continuation. To me OHMSS isn't in any way related to YOLT. It's not the same incarnation of Blofeld.
Over the years it has been seen as a great and classic Bond and one that has attained a cult status among the Bonds.
It placed a STRONG FOURTH in the MI6 poll of the Bond films for the 50th anniversary. so with that being said...
No. the film is not overrated.
Are you sure you dont mean 'since TB' or have you really never gone to see a Bond film at the cinema in the past 47 years, yet are still enough of a fan to come on this site? Very odd.
Yeah I suppose so. Perhaps English isn't his first language. Maybe I'll let him off then - I must be ill or something.
=))
I would say that where the term 'overrated' is used it's being implied that a person disagrees that the film deserves any positive praise period. It's a form of rhetoric or sarcasm rather than said point in fact.
As for whether I believe OHMSS is overrated? Does it matter? Subjectivity (s someone else in this thread noted) rules the day and the box office. I for one despise the Craig one dimensional character building trilogy, and the entire lack of imagination and humor present in every Bond up until Craig entered the picture. I dislike the Brosanan era and the Dalton era even less, but in my honest (subjective) opinion I think the outlandish, spectacular, epic Bond film as we knew it, and admired it, and looked forward to it ended with 'Moonraker' degrading into lesser quality of product until shifting gears to become purely a marketing machine aimed at a particular movie going bracket that does not seek to appeal to the HC fans that truly admire fine wine over soda pop and Xbox.
If you were to ask me I would tell you that the DC trilogy of films thus far are extremely overrated and that I believe the social marketing tools and expertise of the marketers being paid to lull critical favor is more refined than its ever been. How else can I explain someone posting here that OHMSS is a dull film by comparison?
As some of the more discerning have noted its likely due to the immaturity of the viewer or reviewer (take that youtube video review someone posted for example). OHMSS is make no mistake an adult themed Bond, and a film that I could have watched and enjoyed were there not one car chase or explosion. It's that good. The score, the atmosphere, the era, all bring nuances that you can only appreciate if you're an aficionado for the nostalgia and the mood. Some might not like jazz, or classical music in the same way. They require a learned appreciation. And as some have noted I think OHMSS is a film that grows on you and only gets better like a fine Beaujolais.
Oddy, It was the very first Bond film I saw and theatrically at that, and possibly that has added to its nostalgic value, but moreso it really does pack an emotional impact and is in my opinion a true epic Bond film in every sense of the word. Just enough humor, just enough action, and just enough emotional content with perfect chemistry between actors I don't know that I've seen as effective in any other Bond film since. . but there was a while where I preferred the Moore films, and then the Connery films (minus NSNA), and as things have settled into place I'd say I can truly rank them in order of preference from a logical and emotional perspective all things considered. How would I rank them? I'll save that for another thread...then again I might have a different opinion by then. None the less OHMSS will always be in my top 5, if not favorite sentimental choice. A true underrated classic. That's my two subjective quid.
Oddly, Silva does bear an uncanny resemblance to Blofed....irony or inspiration?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpi7-ylg89U
Those triple feature re-releases in the early seventies were great and my first experience of the first six films, able to watch them back to back in sets of three as they were meant to be seen on a big theater screen. Of course watched in this fashion one immediately notices in OHMSS that Bond and Blofeld should recognize each other from their last meeting (YOLT) but don't. . . .the producers upon getting the new Lazenby considered a scene where Bond would be injured and required plastic surgery, but ultimately rejected it. They decided to just ignore the problem (I also hated it when they brought back previous actors especially from the dead to play different roles)
This can be got round by thinking of OHMSS as a "reboot" and then in Diamonds Connery is trying to avenge his wife, and onward to the references to Tracy Bond in Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only.
The last few viewings of OHMSS I've tended more to note Lazenby's inadequacies and move it down the list of favorites . . . also as I watched found myself imagining a Connery performance in OHMSS based on if the film had happened after Goldfinger or Thunderball as originally projected by the producers. Logistical problems prevailed, mostly lack of snow in the desired filming areas, and OHMSS was put off until after YOLT. Imagine the Thunderball era Connery in an OHMSS made in 1965 or 1966, though it is doubtful OHMSS's Peter Hunt would have directed that early, so it would have been an entirely different film. Also if Connery had stayed on after YOLT and done OHMSS, would his performance have been as listless as it was in YOLT and the later Diamonds? Though I still tend to rank Diamonds fairly high, maybe because it was the first Bond I ever saw and it has Jill St. John in her, uh, prime.
<I for one despise the Craig one dimensional character building trilogy>
ditto . . . also Craig has the acting chops but not the look. . . he looked so decidedly strange in Skyfall I found it hard to watch and was thinking he would be better off in the Hobbit film! Skyfall is hugely overrated and actually has as many dumb plot problems as some of the Roger Moore films. From Russia With Love and Goldfinger are the closest the series is ever going to get to the perfect Bond. . . and a Connery OHMSS would probably be added to that list just because of the story.
the Moore films are silly but enjoyable . . . can't really say I enjoyed any of the Craig movies though I own the first two just to keep up the collection. Despite their problems Live and Let Die, Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only were perfectly acceptable Bonds. L&LD contains some now cringeworthy blaxploitation, and even at the time I hated the execrable disco soundtracks of Spy and Eyes (which is the worst of all time, Conti's or Serra(Goldeneye)'s?) Man With The Golden Gun is easily the worst Bond movie, not because of Moore who was still playing it straight but due to exhausted writers (even John Barry the composer said he couldn't really get into i). and pandering to the public with return of Sheriff Pepper. It is said a lot of the problems were due to Harry Saltzman going stale on ideas and the subsequent breakup of the partnership. Whatever promise Moonraker had was destroyed by turning Jaws into Wile E. Coyote and half the time it looked like Lois Chiles eyes were about to cross.
I go back and forth on Dalton, then as now. His two were at least believable compared to some of the Moore outings. I agree with one reviewer of the time however, who said that it seemed like Dalton's Bond would spend his evenings curled up with a Reader's Digest or catching the latest episode of Moonlighting.
I thought Goldeneye was good and a respectable resurrection of the series (as is ultimately 2006 Casino Royale even though it bores me), but I never really got on with Brosnan especially as it was followed by two of the most forgettable Bonds. I agree with another reviewer that the first half of Die Another Day is classic Bond, but that it starts falling apart with the ice mansion followed by the cheap, execrable CGI effects (the "windsurfing" scene being especially insulting). When it opened I had a hard time with the idea of JAMES BOND being held in prison for over a year, but it is akin to the books where Bond is taken by the Russians and brainwashed into attempting to assassinate M at the beginning of Man With The Golden Gun (book).
Brosnan complained publicly that he got the worst of the double entendre clinkers in the series (I agree). Going back to Moore, Octopussy could have been as good as From Russia With Love, dynamite plot until they added all the stoopid things like the tennis player, the tarzan yell, bond in a gorilla suit. Some would add putting Bond in a clown suit, but I thought it was legit in that setting how 009 and 007 would disguise themselves to achieve their purposes.
A lot is being made of Craig's Bond having sex with the sex slave in Skyfall, which is a little out there but really no different from how Moore eventually serviced Sacaramanga's compromised sex slave (Adams) in Golden Gun, after she asked for his help. I also didn't have a problem with the idea in Skyfall of an "unfit for duty" Bond, which was akin to Thunderball where 007 had to convalesce and suffered one of his most vulnerable moments on the traction machine.
Where Skyfall really falls apart are the "genius" Q letting the hacker virus anywhere near the mainframe, Bond unnecessarily putting M in harm's way, the "Home Alone" feel of the defenses at Bond's childhood home . . . all conjured up to replace Judi Dench as M because Judi's eyesight is failing! I also don't understand the revival of the Goldfinger car, since it was announced that the Casino Royale reboot would not mean prequels and that the new series would have nothing to do with the old. Apart from which, Daniel Craig was not even alive in the early 60s (he was born in 1968), Q would not be providing that car by the time Bond went into the service in his 30s (the 90s or later!). Then again, Bond producers never actually had to make sense, did they.
However, they failed miserably because Lazenby's acting was too limited and he wasn't able to show us any form of change in Bond as the movie went on. You always had the impression that Tracy was just a one night stand to him, so much that her falling in love with him just seems absurd. That Diana Rigg seems to find it hard to disguise her disgust of Lazenby for most of their scenes and you have a tragic ending that, somehow, seems more like a relief. A relief that Tracy has gotten out of spending her life with this "sexist, misogynistic dinosaur", and a relief that we, the audience, don't have to watch any more of those horrible slow-mo, lovey dovey scenes ever again!
Criticise Brosnan all you like, but his brief relationship with Terry Hatcher in TND was like Burton and Taylor compared to this painful experience.
I believe this is the car he won in Casino Royale, not the one from Goldfinger.
The car situation is an oddity. I got the impression that after Bond won the car in CR, he gave it to Q branch to add the gadgets. That it's an older car would be less relevant there. Perhaps his normal company car, the DBS, was being repaired again after he wrecked it in Italy?
As to Q, I put that down to youthfulness and arrogance. Arrogance that he could deal with any problem that Silva could through it his computers, wrong as he was. The Home Alone final act is more difficult to come to terms with. If they were so concerned with a mole in MI6, why not send M abroad to be looked after by the CIA, DCRI or BND, rather than one agent kidnapping her off the map and holing up with a crazy pensioner in somewhere miles from anywhere that offered the perfect target without any armed forces interference? Of all the Bond films, that moment is the least consistent of any, including the sillier Moore era films.
Great cast, good plot taken from Fleming novel, wonderful visuals, fantastic, realistic stunts, and a truly masterful soundtrack.
Shame our ignorant TV network ITV here in UK, often neglects to show this film when running a Bond series!
No need to worry. They can't even do that now!
Skyfall too has areas of horrid pace - the ending itself could have been at least 10 minutes earlier - but goes on and on and on.......