↑ interesting stuff. I've never seen any of The Saint but your write up certainly makes sense.
I think that Moore gives such a good performance in TMWTGG because he's surrounded by a bunch of mates or at least connected people he is very comfortable with in Lee, Adams and Eckland. Paired with a pretty good script and plenty of places for Moore to shine in terms of lines to deliver, Moore is given plenty to work with.
LALD he's not really given much because I'd say that purposefully they didn't want him to work too hard and to just give off an effortless vibe. TSWLM and MR he's just pretty much going through the motions of carrying the film (pretty well I might add). FYEO he is good in some spots, like with Topol and Cassandra Harris, but the rest of the film requires him to be a daddy figure, while trying to play John Glenn's tonal dithering (hard vs silly). OP he's great because the movie is a heap of fun and he's working with some good actors who vibe with the style. AVTAK...I reckon he's pretty damn great even though he'd had enough.
Going into this viewing, I've long held that the two 'great' Moore films are TSWLM and FYEO, and I've ranked them pretty closely in my ratings. I'll need to see how FYEO plays this go round but TSWLM went up a notch. It's not perfect:
The pacing is off in the second half and could stand some tightening up.
Barbara Bach, as an actress, is not up to the task here. She's adequate but someone with a little more oomph, like a Diana Rigg type actress, could have really rocked this role.
But everything else is pretty great. I'd like to specifically call out the truly excellent model work that was done with the Liparus and the submarines...those are pretty convincing. Atlantis is also quite good but it's unfortunately betrayed by the size of the water droplets pouring off of it when it rises from the ocean.
Best pre-title sequence? I'd say so.
Best theme song? I'd argue it's in the conversation.
Best non-John Barry soundtrack? Absolutely.
Just a great quality effort from everyone. Now, on to a personal favorite...MOONRAKER.
One reason @HarryCanyon may enjoy TMWTGG may lie in its similarity to his fave, OHMSS, in that in both films Bond seems to be on his leisure time, somewhat cursorily dispatched by a very disgruntled M to sort out some personal business re some guy he has a beef with, like it's personal. We don't quite see him on a pressing Govt mission, the actual threat to national security emerges late in the movie.
As for the model work in TSWLM, there is surely one terrific example that never ever gets a mention and I hesitate to do so here because I don't want to spoil the illusion. It took me decades for it to even occur to me.
Now, here's the deal: I loved this when I saw it theatrically and then, like most people. ragged on it for maybe 25 years as being stupid. About 15-20 years ago, the film clicked for me and has worked beautifully ever since.
This viewing was a blast. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the whole Venice gondola sequence should have been excised completely as it does nothing to advance the plot (it's merely an action break) and is tonally discordant with where the film is at that point of the narrative. Other than that, it's pretty much flawless.
Why is it flawless? Because, as ridiculous as the film gets in the third act:
Everyone is playing the film perfectly straight, especially once they get into space. The more absurd the film gets with logic bombs, the more serious everyone acts their roles.
The John Barry score, arguably his best Bond score, is magnificent and again...plays perfectly straight. It's majestic and dramatic in all the right ways. The music cue when they first blast off into space is magnificent, and the music cue when they're chasing down the three murder pods is intense.
The narrative throughline is strong. Things happen for a reason and Bond does a great job of investigating and uncovering clues to take him to the next location. Things don't just happen 'because movie'...there's an explanation for everything.
Dr. Goodhead is actually essential to the plot. Most Bond girls are window dressing or are there to be rescued by Bond. Dr. Goodhead holds her own and is an equal partner in the third act shenanigans. I wish that Lois Chiles had played her a bit more dynamically but that's a minor complaint.
The model work is really pretty solid, especially in the first two acts. Some of the stuff when they get into actual outer space doesn't hold up but it's not bad enough to sink anything.
There are lots of stuff in that third act that you simply have to roll with.
How could you build that space station without anyone noticing? I mean sure, it's radar invisible as a finished product, but it would not be radar invisible while being built.
Speaking of radar invisibility: being radar invisible doesn't make you invisible to the naked eye. Anyone with a working telescope would be able to look up and see the thing.
The station itself is not set up on any sort of logical spin access to generate gravity via centrifugal force. There's no logic to the station's physical construction to give it gravity in any portion of the superstructure via spinning.
But who cares. Roll with it. Have fun.
Love it to death. It's not a 'best' Bond by any means but it's a personal favorite.
You're correct to point out how good the espionage elements are at the start of the film and the globe trotting is justified.
I agree, skip the Venice Gondola and the cable car stuff in Rio.
It's interesting how they couldn't resist this sort of stuff. Have to remember they're movies made for the cinema at the time and it was all about having a good time!!
I don't mind the Rio gondola sequence as it's honestly pretty great as an action break.
That said, both the Venice hovercraft sequence and the Rio cable car sequence would make international headlines...hardly the desired outcome for a spy trying to fly underneath the radar.
FYEO is one of the great ones. It features a particularly strong narrative throughline where actions and scenes flow logically together with minimal gaps in logic. The narrative requirements go great with Moore but would have also worked nicely for Connery and Lazenby with minimal tweaking. Indeed, this film is the most Connery-like of the Moore run of films.
I really only have two complaints with the film, and they're unfortunately big enough that they keep the film from the top echelon in my ranking:
The Bill Conti score is absolute pants. Marvin Hamlisch created a marvelous interpretation of the classic Bond score with TSWLM but Conti is all thumbs here, delivering something that was dated upon release and makes the endeavor feel really cheap. The theme song is great but that's about it.
The epilogue with fake Margaret Thatcher should have been excised completely. One of the great strengths of the film is that everything is played extremely straight (with a few exceptions, usually involving Q), and that ending is tonally discordant with everything that came before it. It's not even funny which makes it worse.
But it's great otherwise. I'd argue that Moore probably does his best job of acting in this picture and still 'looks' the part, even though he's aging (I think he was like 53 here). The supporting cast is strong, the action sequences are good, and the overall narrative flow is solid and consistent. This is John Glen's best Bond film.
OCTOPUSSY is one that is close...close...to being one of the great ones. The plot is fun with a narrative throughline that holds up pretty well without too many logic bombs, but there's a campy undertone that creeps in in unwelcome places that reduces the film in my eyes. Lewis Gilbert in MR might have made this work but John Glen isn't up to the task.
The good:
Whenever the film is playing things straight, it's quite solid.
The locations are interesting and well utilized.
The supporting cast is strong, and it's always fun to see Steven Berkoff in full villain mode. Lots of lovely ladies too.
The John Barry score is great.
Some of the stuntwork is fantastic. I love that climactic scene on the back of the airplane.
Some really great cinematography.
The not so good:
The Tarzan yell. It's as bad as the slide whistle in TMWTGG, possibly worse. There are other spots in there where an otherwise great scene is ruined by a campy element to complete cut everything off at the knees.
Roger looks old and the stunt doubling here is even more apparent than in the prior film. FYEO really should have been Moore's final turn at bat but I understand they wanted him here specifically to be counter-programming against NSNA. While that was probably a wise move at the time, in retrospect...Roger was done.
The climactic assault on the Monsoon Palace is weak. All of the guards are completely incompetent and get overwhelmed by the circus performers far too easily. Also, having Q swoop in with a balloon is just all kinds of silly. There's no tension and there's no flow, it's just supporting characters flailing about. The fight choreography is really poor, too...some of the punches and kicks miss by an obvious mile.
All that said, it's still a fairly enjoyable entry and lightyears ahead of the one that follows...
^ While I agree about Conti's score being dated because of the full on early 80s disco vibe (Alan Parson's Project and Streisand/Gibb Guilty album tones in here) I think it's absolutely brilliant. He has a very creative use of the Bond theme and it's lush, fun, detailed and a major part of the film. I find it more memorable and part of the film compared to Hamlisch's score.
The Thatcher bit is totally out of place but I still find it funny, I do wish it was removed though. Again - the filmmakers playing to a UK cinema audience at the time.
On OP...I think they tonally get this film really bang on. The silliness and adventure elements of it are all totally inspired by Indian Jones which allows the campy stuff to fit in so well. The juxtaposition of things works too, like Moore in a clown costume, the sheep head for dinner, the saw blade weapon being funny but also very scary etc..
Yes, the Tarzan yell is a disgrace (it's a bad dub at that), and not only that, the swinging on the vines is already dumb. As you say, compared to the slide whistle, at least that somewhat fits in with the soundtrack?
So yeah, A VIEW TO A KILL. This is barely a film...the narrative throughline is terribly underwritten/underplotted and nothing really interesting happens.
The bad:
The direction is perfunctory at best, pretty much 'point and shoot' without any really interesting shot compositions.
The acting is uniformly terrible from pretty much everyone with almost every scene playing like an unrehearsed first take. Even actors that I've seen be good elsewhere, like Patrick Bauchau, are terrible here. Walken feels lost in terms of what to do with his character. Especially bad is Tanya Roberts, easily the worst of the Bond girls. Denise Richards gets a ton of crap for TWINE but she's Judi Dench compared to Tanya Roberts. Do a drinking game where you take a shot every time Tanya says 'James' and you'll be underneath the carpet by the time the climax comes arount.
The action sequences lack punch. The climactic fight on the Golden Gate Bridge is a great location for something to happen, but the delivered fight is nothing but swinging a fire axe around. The terrible fire engine chase gets undercut by terribly unfunny Keystone Kops crap all the time. Prior to that chase, you have an uninspired elevator escape where John Glen has simply no idea where to put the camera to generate any tension. The mine shaft shootout is just a mess with bullets and arms flailing about without any rhyme or reason. The pre titles sequence is ok but we've seen better skiing in other films (like TSWLM, for instance), but the introduction of snowboarding is cool...get rid of that Beach Boys cover and you'd have something. The Eiffel Tower chase is a wasted location because both Moore (and his stunt double) and May Day (and her stunt double) are moving too slowly...again, no tension. The worst fight is the Moore/MacNee fight with the thugs when escaping the stables. I mean, come on.
The humor rarely works.
Roger Moore is clearly too old and only in about 30% of the film (his stunt doubles are doing the heavy lifting).
It's not a total loss, though. The good:
One of the best theme songs. Duran Duran delivered a real winner here.
The John Barry score is actually really strong too.
Roger, while looking old, also looks in better physical shape than he did in OP. He's much trimmer. Nothing you can do about his neck, though.
The Roger Moore/Patrick MacNee character stuff is genuinely funny and does a lot of heavy lifting in terms of making that first act work at all. Roger and Patrick were clearly both having a great deal of fun here.
Roger hated the film. I understand why.
THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
My favorite of the two Dalton films (I'm not a fan of LTK, which we have on deck for tonight). This one improves immeasurably on AVTAK by going back to a much richer overall 'look' ala OP. The plot still feels underwritten but at least there's something there to latch onto and provide a necessary motivation for Bond to carry out a mission.
The good:
Again, better cinematography. The flat, cheap look of AVTAK is gone. There are several shots in the film that really stand out, especially when they get to Afghanistan.
Better direction overall. There's a better sense of geography to the action sequences here and things just generally flow better with more oomph.
Dalton looks the part. He carries the dramatic scenes with aplomb but also pulls off all of the physical requirements with ease. The stunt doubles aren't as frequent and they don't stand out as obviously here when compared to the latter Moore films.
Love the Aston Martin V8 Vantage. Probably my favorite overall Bond car.
Decent theme song. Not the best, not the worst.
Nice John Barry score, and I appreciate his use of more stylized 80s beats to update the sound somewhat.
The not so good:
Maryam D'Abo can't act. She has a couple of good moments here and there but she's pretty weak and is not convincing when miming playing a cello.
Joe Don Baker is terrible here. I wish they'd played his character 100% straight so that he felt like more of a threat. He should have been a serious counterpoint to Krabbe's aloofness. There's no tension with the character and that climactic battle between him and Bond has no teeth.
John Terry is the worst Felix Leiter. Thankfully he has minimal screentime here but he stands out as being quite bad.
The keen-eyed among us will have noticed that Ms @HarryCanyon is not getting mentioned much in his reviews any more, which raises red flags, as Mumsnet would say. Perhaps it's time for a fortnight of Dirty Dancing/When Harry Met Sally/Bridget Jones-type stuff?
Ha! No, she's having fun with this franchise rewatch and is fully onboard with doing them all. We're pretty much in agreement in our rankings too as she also grew up with Roger as 'her Bond'.
Of note: we were laughing at all of the really bad line readings in AVTAK last night. As bad as the film was, we were having a fairly good time at the it's expense. I'd never write it off completely and skip it during a franchise rewatch because...well, you never know when a film might suddenly click and work for you.
I'd give the edge to FYEO as the 'best' of the 80s Bond films but TLD is definitely second...a close second at that. FYEO has a better plot and the villains are stronger, amongst other things. Just my opinion, of course.
Yeh, it is a close call @HarryCanyon I prefer Dalton's performance to anything Sir Roger did in the 80s which swings it for me. I agree the villains and the local assistance are ropey in TLD, but I am rather taken by Maryam D'Abo - she was at the BFI screening a couple of years back and still looking gorgeous ! When you look at the two, it is odd they both have 3 villains [Kristatos, Locque, Kriegler - Whittaker, Koskov, Necros] and each seemingly has different motivations for being involved in the story. Neither trio works very well; Leopold Locque's silent assassin / fixer is the best.
I really like AVTAK but what can I say... so much great stuff, like the death of Tibbet and the Barry score. Lovely settings, I visited Chantilly because of that, had a great time. I admit the photography isn't lush. I think that was standard for mid-80s blockbusters.
I've historically been pretty down on this one for various reasons (mainly the cack acting and the overall look) but this viewing experience was the best that the film has ever played for me. I still wouldn't rate it as being a particularly good entry but it's out of the basement now.
The good:
It's honestly a pretty strong narrative and the throughline taking the viewer through said narrative is decently constructed.
The villain is strong. I have issues with a lot of the acting in the film but Robert Davi nails Sanchez. He's appropriately charismatic, arrogant, and intelligent. Benicio Del Toro, in a small role, is effective as Dario as well.
I like that the film plays up the fact that Bond is intelligent. There are plenty of action sequences to be had but seeing Bond plan ahead and work at sowing doubts in everyone's heads is good stuff.
That final truck sequence is pretty strong and the explosions really pack a punch.
Q is a hoot.
The not so good:
The acting from everyone not named Dalton, Davi, Del Toro, or Zerbe is terrible. Flat out terrible. Cary Lowell and Talisa Soto are never convincing in any of their line deliveries. I've seen Lowell in other things and she can be decent so I chalk things up to her being a novice (and poorly directed) in this movie. I have no idea on Soto. They're gorgeous but that's it. The rest of the supporting cast is really duff as well, especially Everett McGill, another actor I've seen do better work.
The look of the film is that overly lit 80s bland aesthetic, aping countless Canon group or Golan/Globus productions.
The Michael Kamen score is ok at best, not really noteworthy. It's appropriate considering the 80s vibe, though.
Elements of the plot feel underdeveloped/underwritten. The whole bit with the Hong Kong narcotics squad feels like it got really edited down to almost nothing, for instance. Same with the deal on the stingers.
There are plot gaps that are really quite jarring. How do Sanchez's men find Bond and the Hong Kong crew so quickly? How do they have any idea of their location? In the final battle, Lowell's character finds a rogue trailer cab. That was set up 5 minutes prior when Dalton unhooks that cab but there was never any follow up on that sequence...the cab disappears and then reappears later. If you're going to set something up like that, you need to show that cab again (barrelling down the hill or similar) or otherwise make that cab look memorable so that the audience immediately remembers where it came from.
Bond is rogue. He's just been cut off from MI-6 and opts to go out to the WaveKrest. OK, cool. Where did he get that giant manta contraption? If he's truly on his own without any resources from Q branch (until Q shows up later), then show him struggling.
But most of my complaints, acting aside, are nitpicky in nature. Again, this played pretty well last night. I think TLD is a better overall film still.
Current ranking on this rewatch:
OHMSS
FRWL
TSWLM
MR
FYEO
DN
TLD
YOLT
TMWTGG
OP
TB
LTK
GF
DAF
LALD
AVTAK
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,880Chief of Staff
Bye bye, John Glen. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
GE: If you're going to do a soft reboot after a 6 year gap, this is the way to do it.
The good:
Martin Campbell has a much better compositional eye than John Glen. Shots consistently look great throughout the film, aided by having a real cinematographer provide some dramatic lighting. It's great to see a movie look like a MOVIE again.
The quality of the acting is much, much better. Gone are the terrible 'first take' line readings of the John Glen era. Each actor delivers, no matter how small the role. To that end, the casting of actual ACTOR actors throughout the film helps immeasurably, with Dame Judi Dench and Robbie Coltrane making the most out of their screentime to class up the joint.
The plot is solid with a strong narrative throughline. The script takes the viewer through the necessary plot machinations without any confusion, and Campbell is effective in terms of telling the story visually. There are a few logic holes here and there but nothing that wrecks the flow.
The humor works, for the most part.
Brosnan is solid and is allowed to immediately play to his strengths as an actor. He feels pretty fully formed right from the start, playing about 80% Moore and 20% Connery. I still think he's a bit too slight looking physically but that's a nitpick. He's got the requisite charm up the wazoo, something that Dalton was noticeably lacking.
The villains are strong. Having a rogue 00 agent was a great plot hook and Sean Bean is awesome. He hams it up a tad but that's ok...it's fun. Xenia Onatopp (Onattop? Onatopp!) is delightful. Alan Cumming is a lot of fun as Boris as well.
Natalya is a good Bond girl. Beautiful and effective.
The action scenes, for the most part, really work. I have some complaints which I'll go into below though.
The not so good:
That score by Eric Serra is absolute pants with only a few exceptions. Bleep bloop bong. The Aston Martin/Ferrari car chase is particularly cringe worthy.
Some of the model work does not look great. When the Semarnaya station is blowing up, it never really looks great. There's a particularly bad shot of a model Mig flying into the radar dish which is laughable.
Some of the action scenes go on too long. That whole Semarnaya sequence goes on forever, especially when Natalya is trying to escape. The finale on the dish also goes on forever. Some tightening up on things would really help.
I have some issues with the fact that most of the Brosnan films turn into machine gun fests. That's just a personal complaint.
The existence of the radar dish in Cuba makes no sense. I have the same complaint here that I have with the space station in MR: this would have been noticed while being built. I mean sure, fill it with water to hide it after the fact, but US surveillance would have noticed the construction process of the dish before it was filled with water.
Jack Wade doesn't really work as a character. I get that he's the new Felix Leiter and is there to provide a fun touch, but he's played too broadly for my tastes.
Overall, it's pretty great though.
TND:
I actually prefer this one to GE. It lacks the Campbell flair but the overall execution feels more Bond-like.
The good:
Roger Spottiswoode is a decent workmanlike director. He's had a few duff films that I've seen but also some good ones (he did the really, really solid SHOOT TO KILL, for instance). He's not an auteur or anything but he has decent compositional skill and knows how to tell a story visually.
Brosnan is great here. I'd argue that this is his best overall performance as Bond...he was really good in GE but he feels 100% dialed in here and more confident.
The narrative, similar to GE, is solid. Very few lapses in logic to ruin immersion.
The action sequences are all good. There's nothing particularly great but nothing particularly bad either. Nothing really goes on too long with one exception (the ending fight).
Michelle Yeoh is awesome. She has an easy presence and charm, fitting in well with Brosnan. They're great together, with the Vietnam sequence in the Chinese secret base (where Brosnan is playing around with the Chinese gear) being a lot of fun.
The David Arnold score is good. It's not up to John Barry standards but it's positively Mozart compared to the Eric Serra score from the prior film.
Elliot Carver is a good villain. He's even better today (almost 30 years later) considering what's happened in real life.
The not so good:
Stamper is kinda a weak henchman in terms of presence. Kinda blah.
Too many machine gun action sequences. That said, Brosnan looks really skilled with the gunplay here compared to in GE, especially in the climactic action sequence on the stealth boat. I'm no expert in firearms but he really looks like he knows what he's doing.
The climactic fight on the stealth boat goes on too long. Also, the interior set of the boat is visually uninteresting...just a wide open shell.
The Sheryl Crow theme song is pretty weak. The k. d. lang song is much better. Indeed, it's interesting how the overall Arnold score utilizes the chord structure from the lang song instead of the Crow song.
That's about it for nitpicks on TND. Sometimes you don't need to reinvent the wheel...you just need to make a really great wheel.
On Goldeneye I see that jumping directly from the tired feeling Glen 1980s...and a 6 year jump anywho...would present the film quite favourably.
I do agree that the narrative is good but I do think that the storytelling is poor and Campbell meanders. Too many scenes drag for such a long time fully telling the story, almost telling the story too heavily that it gets bogged down.
FINALLY when they get to Cuba and there's a final fight with running and jumping around does the film feel like it gets going.
I personally find it quite slow and boring after all these years.
GE kinda does feel like it's overcompensating for the Glen years... It still works for me overall but yeah, it frequently goes into 'too much' mode. I think that's why I prefer the more focused TND.
Comments
↑ interesting stuff. I've never seen any of The Saint but your write up certainly makes sense.
I think that Moore gives such a good performance in TMWTGG because he's surrounded by a bunch of mates or at least connected people he is very comfortable with in Lee, Adams and Eckland. Paired with a pretty good script and plenty of places for Moore to shine in terms of lines to deliver, Moore is given plenty to work with.
LALD he's not really given much because I'd say that purposefully they didn't want him to work too hard and to just give off an effortless vibe. TSWLM and MR he's just pretty much going through the motions of carrying the film (pretty well I might add). FYEO he is good in some spots, like with Topol and Cassandra Harris, but the rest of the film requires him to be a daddy figure, while trying to play John Glenn's tonal dithering (hard vs silly). OP he's great because the movie is a heap of fun and he's working with some good actors who vibe with the style. AVTAK...I reckon he's pretty damn great even though he'd had enough.
"Better make that two."
We did TSWLM last night.
Going into this viewing, I've long held that the two 'great' Moore films are TSWLM and FYEO, and I've ranked them pretty closely in my ratings. I'll need to see how FYEO plays this go round but TSWLM went up a notch. It's not perfect:
But everything else is pretty great. I'd like to specifically call out the truly excellent model work that was done with the Liparus and the submarines...those are pretty convincing. Atlantis is also quite good but it's unfortunately betrayed by the size of the water droplets pouring off of it when it rises from the ocean.
Best pre-title sequence? I'd say so.
Best theme song? I'd argue it's in the conversation.
Best non-John Barry soundtrack? Absolutely.
Just a great quality effort from everyone. Now, on to a personal favorite...MOONRAKER.
Oops, forgot rankings:
Current rankings:
One reason @HarryCanyon may enjoy TMWTGG may lie in its similarity to his fave, OHMSS, in that in both films Bond seems to be on his leisure time, somewhat cursorily dispatched by a very disgruntled M to sort out some personal business re some guy he has a beef with, like it's personal. We don't quite see him on a pressing Govt mission, the actual threat to national security emerges late in the movie.
As for the model work in TSWLM, there is surely one terrific example that never ever gets a mention and I hesitate to do so here because I don't want to spoil the illusion. It took me decades for it to even occur to me.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
MOONRAKER.
Now, here's the deal: I loved this when I saw it theatrically and then, like most people. ragged on it for maybe 25 years as being stupid. About 15-20 years ago, the film clicked for me and has worked beautifully ever since.
This viewing was a blast. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the whole Venice gondola sequence should have been excised completely as it does nothing to advance the plot (it's merely an action break) and is tonally discordant with where the film is at that point of the narrative. Other than that, it's pretty much flawless.
Why is it flawless? Because, as ridiculous as the film gets in the third act:
The narrative throughline is strong. Things happen for a reason and Bond does a great job of investigating and uncovering clues to take him to the next location. Things don't just happen 'because movie'...there's an explanation for everything.
Dr. Goodhead is actually essential to the plot. Most Bond girls are window dressing or are there to be rescued by Bond. Dr. Goodhead holds her own and is an equal partner in the third act shenanigans. I wish that Lois Chiles had played her a bit more dynamically but that's a minor complaint.
The model work is really pretty solid, especially in the first two acts. Some of the stuff when they get into actual outer space doesn't hold up but it's not bad enough to sink anything.
There are lots of stuff in that third act that you simply have to roll with.
But who cares. Roll with it. Have fun.
Love it to death. It's not a 'best' Bond by any means but it's a personal favorite.
Rankings:
Thanks for that unashamed support of MR @HarryCanyon
+1 on all your points. I too cannot help but love it, faults n all.
Great write up. I love Moonraker too.
You're correct to point out how good the espionage elements are at the start of the film and the globe trotting is justified.
I agree, skip the Venice Gondola and the cable car stuff in Rio.
It's interesting how they couldn't resist this sort of stuff. Have to remember they're movies made for the cinema at the time and it was all about having a good time!!
"Better make that two."
I don't mind the Rio gondola sequence as it's honestly pretty great as an action break.
That said, both the Venice hovercraft sequence and the Rio cable car sequence would make international headlines...hardly the desired outcome for a spy trying to fly underneath the radar.
You say that, but they didn't have smart phones in those days.
Anyway, Craig's Bond sticking around to mourn Vesper while a ruddy great Venetian building has crashed into the drink isn't exactly subtle.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and OCTOPUSSY
FYEO is one of the great ones. It features a particularly strong narrative throughline where actions and scenes flow logically together with minimal gaps in logic. The narrative requirements go great with Moore but would have also worked nicely for Connery and Lazenby with minimal tweaking. Indeed, this film is the most Connery-like of the Moore run of films.
I really only have two complaints with the film, and they're unfortunately big enough that they keep the film from the top echelon in my ranking:
But it's great otherwise. I'd argue that Moore probably does his best job of acting in this picture and still 'looks' the part, even though he's aging (I think he was like 53 here). The supporting cast is strong, the action sequences are good, and the overall narrative flow is solid and consistent. This is John Glen's best Bond film.
OCTOPUSSY is one that is close...close...to being one of the great ones. The plot is fun with a narrative throughline that holds up pretty well without too many logic bombs, but there's a campy undertone that creeps in in unwelcome places that reduces the film in my eyes. Lewis Gilbert in MR might have made this work but John Glen isn't up to the task.
The good:
The not so good:
All that said, it's still a fairly enjoyable entry and lightyears ahead of the one that follows...
Current ranking on this rewatch:
^ While I agree about Conti's score being dated because of the full on early 80s disco vibe (Alan Parson's Project and Streisand/Gibb Guilty album tones in here) I think it's absolutely brilliant. He has a very creative use of the Bond theme and it's lush, fun, detailed and a major part of the film. I find it more memorable and part of the film compared to Hamlisch's score.
The Thatcher bit is totally out of place but I still find it funny, I do wish it was removed though. Again - the filmmakers playing to a UK cinema audience at the time.
On OP...I think they tonally get this film really bang on. The silliness and adventure elements of it are all totally inspired by Indian Jones which allows the campy stuff to fit in so well. The juxtaposition of things works too, like Moore in a clown costume, the sheep head for dinner, the saw blade weapon being funny but also very scary etc..
Yes, the Tarzan yell is a disgrace (it's a bad dub at that), and not only that, the swinging on the vines is already dumb. As you say, compared to the slide whistle, at least that somewhat fits in with the soundtrack?
"Better make that two."
A VIEW TO A KILL and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
So yeah, A VIEW TO A KILL. This is barely a film...the narrative throughline is terribly underwritten/underplotted and nothing really interesting happens.
The bad:
It's not a total loss, though. The good:
Roger hated the film. I understand why.
THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
My favorite of the two Dalton films (I'm not a fan of LTK, which we have on deck for tonight). This one improves immeasurably on AVTAK by going back to a much richer overall 'look' ala OP. The plot still feels underwritten but at least there's something there to latch onto and provide a necessary motivation for Bond to carry out a mission.
The good:
The not so good:
Overall, it's a really solid entry.
Current rankings for this franchise rewatch:
AVTAK is so bad....it's great!
"Better make that two."
Very good write ups @HarryCanyon glad to see the love for TLD, best of the 80s Bonds, and the disdain for AVTAK is spot on.
The keen-eyed among us will have noticed that Ms @HarryCanyon is not getting mentioned much in his reviews any more, which raises red flags, as Mumsnet would say. Perhaps it's time for a fortnight of Dirty Dancing/When Harry Met Sally/Bridget Jones-type stuff?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Ha! No, she's having fun with this franchise rewatch and is fully onboard with doing them all. We're pretty much in agreement in our rankings too as she also grew up with Roger as 'her Bond'.
Of note: we were laughing at all of the really bad line readings in AVTAK last night. As bad as the film was, we were having a fairly good time at the it's expense. I'd never write it off completely and skip it during a franchise rewatch because...well, you never know when a film might suddenly click and work for you.
I'd give the edge to FYEO as the 'best' of the 80s Bond films but TLD is definitely second...a close second at that. FYEO has a better plot and the villains are stronger, amongst other things. Just my opinion, of course.
Yeh, it is a close call @HarryCanyon I prefer Dalton's performance to anything Sir Roger did in the 80s which swings it for me. I agree the villains and the local assistance are ropey in TLD, but I am rather taken by Maryam D'Abo - she was at the BFI screening a couple of years back and still looking gorgeous ! When you look at the two, it is odd they both have 3 villains [Kristatos, Locque, Kriegler - Whittaker, Koskov, Necros] and each seemingly has different motivations for being involved in the story. Neither trio works very well; Leopold Locque's silent assassin / fixer is the best.
Yeah I totally agree that FYEO is the best of the 80s with TLD pretty close.
FYEO still has the dripping in cash feel about it. The budgets certainly tank after it.
"Better make that two."
I really like AVTAK but what can I say... so much great stuff, like the death of Tibbet and the Barry score. Lovely settings, I visited Chantilly because of that, had a great time. I admit the photography isn't lush. I think that was standard for mid-80s blockbusters.
But hang on? No Never Say Never Again?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
we might circle back on NSNA when we finish NTTD. I still really only consider the EON 25 to be the 'proper Bond films'.
We did LICENSE TO KILL last night.
I've historically been pretty down on this one for various reasons (mainly the cack acting and the overall look) but this viewing experience was the best that the film has ever played for me. I still wouldn't rate it as being a particularly good entry but it's out of the basement now.
The good:
The not so good:
But most of my complaints, acting aside, are nitpicky in nature. Again, this played pretty well last night. I think TLD is a better overall film still.
Current ranking on this rewatch:
I must insist on you viewing Casino Royale ’67 too…😁
Well, if that what it takes…☺️
The next one's GoldenEye, @HarryCanyon It's the first to star Pierce Brosnan...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
yep, I know. We did GE and TND over the last two days. I'll write those up later on today.
GOLDENEYE and TOMORROW NEVER DIES
Bye bye, John Glen. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
GE: If you're going to do a soft reboot after a 6 year gap, this is the way to do it.
The good:
The not so good:
Overall, it's pretty great though.
TND:
I actually prefer this one to GE. It lacks the Campbell flair but the overall execution feels more Bond-like.
The good:
The not so good:
That's about it for nitpicks on TND. Sometimes you don't need to reinvent the wheel...you just need to make a really great wheel.
Current ranking on this rewatch:
Probably agree with most of that 😃
On Goldeneye I see that jumping directly from the tired feeling Glen 1980s...and a 6 year jump anywho...would present the film quite favourably.
I do agree that the narrative is good but I do think that the storytelling is poor and Campbell meanders. Too many scenes drag for such a long time fully telling the story, almost telling the story too heavily that it gets bogged down.
FINALLY when they get to Cuba and there's a final fight with running and jumping around does the film feel like it gets going.
I personally find it quite slow and boring after all these years.
"Better make that two."
GE kinda does feel like it's overcompensating for the Glen years... It still works for me overall but yeah, it frequently goes into 'too much' mode. I think that's why I prefer the more focused TND.