Watched it last night, with my sister. It's good stuff - she noticed that when Bond encounters Gogol in Egypt, it's Lee's M who delivers the ominous phrase 'We've been expecting you' as if to upend reality more. And that on the train Bach wears the same kind of dress as Lia Seydoux on the train in Spectre - not sure that's quite true.
There does seem to be confusion about the hijacking of both submarines, because we only see one - the British one - go missing and hear of the Russian one second hand. We don't ever see what happened to the Russian crew of that sub, do we? In Christopher Wood's novelisation it might be a sadistic detail that Stromberg had them all shot - I can't recall - but if so, why didn't he shoot the Brit crew? Why keep them alive? And in any case what is the strange technology that allows Stromberg to raise subs from the depths, allowing him to scoop them up? We never find out.
And why does he scoop up the final third sub? He doesn't need it, it's not employed for his mission. Maybe it would come in useful later? But otherwise why build a supertanker that can hold three subs on the off chance that you might want a chat with a British spy explaining everything you're doing at a later date, just before the mission? Why not just sink the sub this time? It's not like he intends to negotiate.
And even more so in Moonraker, which is on the face of it more ludicrous, Stromberg's plan seems odd, if he wants to establish a kingdom under the waves, why not get on with it? Who's going to stop him, aside from - as one critic put it - 'some displaced turbot?' I guess the background of Captain Nemo made this more believable at the time. But the obedience of his underlings is even more unaccountable, how do you get folk to sign up to this mad plan in which nobody seems to benefit, I mean, what's in it for them? At least with Drax's gang you felt it was a bit of a cult, a sort of Neo-fascist thing, you don't get any of that with the Spectre-type crew here who presumably didn't read their contract.
How did Jaws get a job after this? Perhaps he left it off his CV, like Truss being Prime Minister briefly.
Jurgens is a boring villain, no question but he's underwritten as at some point he was meant to be Blofeld, I guess, and he doesn't need explanation - in fact that would make sense as a big sour up yours finale from Blofeld, to destroy the world. As it is, you wonder what kind of bloke in his late 70s would pull such a stunt given he might not live very long to see the consequences of the chaos - oh.
Bach is very attractive but her delivery is flat - in earlier days she'd be dubbed. Munro is the business, of course. Moore is very good but even then there are flaws - him smirking when pressed up against Anya on the helicopter drop after he's just told her he's killed her boyfriend isn't very nice when there could be an opportunity for a bit of awkward tension.
The Lotus dive is made better and more credible by an aerial shot that looks like something from a rough bit of footage, from a documentary film.
Now, you could address some of these points about the submarines but I don't quite know how, as it wouldn't make for a better or happier movie but other Bond films have a plot that happens to hold up throughout its duration.
Is there a website that deals with the fashions and outfits in the Bond movies? My sister was commenting on how everything in fashion that time was beige or cargo pants like All Saints, and that's why Dench's M had a beige tunic whereas later in the decade everyone wore black.
This touches all the right bases and has plenty of characters but is never really believable for me and the jokes are quite rubbish. It's like a big budget trailer for a new Bond film. It's hard to know where to place it - I mean, Spy is kind of nonsense too but doesn't ask you to believe it too much, it slips down quite smoothly but maybe that was just as odd and a greatest hits package in its day as GoldenEye was/is.
The chemistry between Bond and Natalya isn't there - they have only just met and he blows up a helicopter then a train and then they snog. Oh, they cut out the entire sauna safe sex scene with Onatopp on this showing. In this film there really isn't time for any real development between Bond and a woman, it's all quite perfunctory and a bit tasteless.
I didn't care much for the Brosnan villains, none of them stand out. I do see why I liked TWINE best when it came out, it feels like it is trying to be realistic in the OHMSS tradition even if you don't buy the Elektra King story. I like the reappearance of GE's Kitchen and Coltrane, too. It's the only one that seemed worked out properly before filming started. None of the other Brosnans felt like that to me.
That's a brilliant website - but I meant one that references the women's outfits. My sister is always going, ooh, look at that outfit, isn't that marvellous, and so on, it's an angle that I never really considered.
Whatever I don't care for in GE, at least it offers a pleasingly superficial entertainment with things a person can pick up on and enjoy, even for outsiders, but with its predecessor LTK, I didn't bother to tune in with my sister because I knew I couldn't sell it, even as a movie to criticise - y'know, Bond's not terribly credible and oft cast mate Leiter gets mauled by a shark early on, Bond goes on a revenge mission. It echoes a point I make about those kind of one-theme movies - if you don't like the plot, there's really nothing else to fall back on.
Sinclair Mackay, who wrote The Man With The Golden something or other, an appraisal of the films up to CR, did bring me up short when he wrote that there are two types of fans, those who believe in it and those who know it's all rubbish but enjoy it knowing that, and neither feels duped. LTK appeals to the former (and I enjoyed it on its initial release) and GE appeals to the latter. People like me get actively offended when they find they can't actually believe in the film.
I caught most of CR the other night. I just love this film. Craig was sublime in this one. It’s just a shame that they couldn’t build on this but then again it’s probably unfair to think that they could. It was just that good.
One thing that struck me was that despite the film being nearly 20 years old now it doesn’t feel dated. The Aston Martin for example looks as fresh now as it did then.
My theory/guess is that this is the film DC had the least input into seeing as it was his first film. He was so good in this that I don’t like to criticize too much but maybe if he had less input in the last two films they might have been a lot better.
Yes. Considerably!
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,890Chief of Staff
My theory/guess is that this is the film DC had the least input into seeing as it was his first film. He was so good in this that I don’t like to criticize too much but maybe if he had less input in the last two films they might have been a lot better.
This is subjective though…they could have been far worse 🤷🏻♂️ I’m no big fan of SPECTRE, but I’m happy enough with NTTD - yes, there are some elements of it I’m not happy with…but I love the ending 🙂
I could put this on Bond Twitter as they've been bitching about Brian Viner's feature in the Mail, but I thought I'd post it here.
All this stuff is arguable of course and I don't find his choices particularly contentious, even though I'd have Moonraker as second best and not last, it's hardly controversial.
Obv drag it on to your desktop to enlarge.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 30,890Chief of Staff
Must have been a slow news day over at The Mail…👀😁
Well, contributers to Bond Twitter would probably bitch about a list that exactly matched their own. It isn't a bad order, although I would reverse a few choices. His reasons are subjective, as are all these kind of 'lists'.
There's a very rough consensus about which Bonds are considered best and which worst, but the middle is often up for grabs. And since no one's taste will exactly align with any consensus, every list will have wild cards in the best, worst, and middle categories.
I like reading “favourite” lists rather than “best” lists. Too much needs to be considered for the latter, while the former ticks every box for the writer of the piece. Always fun to poke holes in those lists, too 😁
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
Caught a bit of it when I was channel surfing. Its a movie that as I get older annoys me more and more. It had the potential to be a good action thriller but it was ruined by the stupid humour when drama was sacrificed for juvenile laughs.
I agree @Mailfist I also caught a few minutes last night, the end of the appalling Tiger hunt chase and Bond's infiltration of Octopussy's Island. All spoilt by inappropriate and daft humour. Worse, during Bond's initial confrontation with Octopussy, Roger Moore keeps one hand in his pocket the whole time. Hardly ready for action is he?. Given he's in high humidity India, to have the hero kitted out with the gear he wears, especially given he's 'swimming' to the place, is just ridiculous. It shows no spycraft and even less of the debonair Sir Roger's interpretation of OO7. The clunking dialogue throughout just grates - OP jumps from one subject to another as is half thier discussion hit the editing floor. I couldn't cope either and cut loose to watch the snooker.
It's amazing how often 'favorites' and 'bests' don't line up. My list from my latest watchalong has a ton of personal favorites in there (including my beloved MOONRAKER) ranked much higher than they probably deserve.
Saw a fair bit of AVTAK and I do love the pre-credits, I just love the way the action unfolds in this movie, and the neat mostly unobtrusive humour.
My observation is the May Day stuff, for once Moore looks out of his depth with the love scenes in this, he's just going through the motions and I'm not saying it's worse for all that... but originally there'd have been sexual tension between Bond and May Day, okay you'd have to go back a bit, to when Connery was in TB and alright, you can't imagine Connery going for her, so maybe Moore in LALD where he had a black love interest and didn't seem too middle aged. In this, there's no sexual tension, just tension and when they get into bed, it's just a plot point. Likewise, when you see her play fighting Zorin, the idea is that we see how fit she is, and she'll be later tested in a fight with Bond when she tries to whup his ass. But that's just never going to happen in this film, because she is in her prime and he's 57 or so. (Oddjob humiliating Bond in GF is fun and exciting, May Day humiliating an older Bond in this would be just humiliating.) So it's like one of those scenes where Bond has a car with gadgets but doesn't get to test them - the BMW in GE, say. So Moore's Bond has more of a Patrick Macnee as Steed vibe going on here, which is ironic, lots of lovely women around but he's somehow uninvolved, from today's perspective his dalliance with Stacey Sutton is both okay and just odd.
The PTS could have been great but it was ruined by the use of the Beach Boys track which totally killed any sense of Bond being in danger. It had a good plot and two great villains in Christopher Walken and Grace Jones but it was let down by Moore just being too old. He went through the entire movie looking like he had been embalmed. The fight between Bond and Tibbett and the two guards looked like a punch up at a retirement home, and there was never going to be any creditability if Bond had beaten May Day in a fight, the best stuntman couldn't have pulled that one off. Besides you can't ever imagine Roger fighting a lady, he's to much of a gentleman. As for the love scene I was worried Bond was going to put his hip out . 😀
Oh dear! DAF is being broadcast on ITV1 this afternoon and I'm afraid to say that on point of principle I won't be viewing it: it won't have been the last Bond film I've watched. Inevitably, ITV cuts DAF's key moments of graphic violence, untethering the film's light comedy and satirical longeurs. Such censorship tames the film, skewing audience response and deepening the film's unfavourable reputation with every broadcast. For me, DAF is a firm favourite and I'll only ever watch it unedited.
Ed: Okay, okay... I couldn't resist a peek, and the elevator fight is surprisingly unscathed! The ad breaks are an issue of course, though they do serve to underline how DAF's vignettes, many with their own punchline, function with a serial kind of TV-ad aesthetic of their own.
I think we ought to let Mr Barry carry the load from hereon out...
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
It was my birthday so I watched The Spy Who Loved Me on telly with my sister and a bottle of rose.
My sister got irritated with Barbara Bach's vocal delivery which is very dull once you notice it, in some instances it seems she's been asked to dub herself again. That said, she does have some very good moments, in particular the comedy between her and Naomi. She looks great, one of the view genuinely erotic Bond girls - but there were a few in this, weren't there, including Caroline Munro and an oddly and amusingly underused Valerie Leon, who I believe was in Casino Royale 67 and unrecognisable and Americanised in Connery's swan song.
Moore is a proper movie star in this, with a far greater star range than in his previous two movies which seem to have niche appeal in comparison. That said, he still has a camp air and can be patronising in a way we don't see in later movies.
Talking of 'bumps' mentioned in @Revelator 's Richard Maibaum thread, there are bumps aplenty here, noticeably in the pre-credits where it's assumed Triple X is the George Lazenby lookalike but of course it's Barbara Bach who leans forward to reply to the music box.
It's a greatest hits package, as has been observed, and more enjoyable over a drink and with company than by yourself, where the lack of depth and lack of John Barry is more noticeable. For as good as it is, there is something missing about the film. It's not just that the crew of the Russian sub is never really mentioned or shown, indeed in the pre-credits call to Gogol - is he a general, or the president - it isn't obviously clear that a Russian sub has been hijacked given his response, he could almost be responding to the missing UK sub as he seems to almost be gloating. Triple X never shows any concern for her own Russian crew or mentions them or the sub.
On top of which, it isn't clear how Bond could get a meeting with Stromberg - it's implied that like an episode of The Avengers, such things can just be arranged by their superiors, but what makes sense at Osato Chemicals - he's trying it on as a businessman, they're a business - doesn't make sense as just some random marine biologist meeting a billionaire recluse.
Another repeat of YOLT is Bond and Wet Nellie as opposed to Little Nellie - but while is tour of the volcanoes made sense in YOLT; he wants to spot if anything is amiss; admittedly it doesn't make sense that having noticed nothing, Spectre helicopters attack him, that said maybe they think he might have noticed something... Here, he has already infiltrated Atlantis, so what is he returning to find in the underwater Lotus? He doesn't find anything out so any attack... Okay, I'm taking it too seriously but he doesn't uncover anything does he. Was he looking to?
What are they hoping to achieve, going out in the sub at the end?
As one critic observed - in the fab Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang review book - what is Stromberg hoping to do? The underwater city shown in model form doesn't amount to much. Who'd want to live there? Why are all his crew on board with this? At least in Moonraker the scheme - while more outlandish - made sense in a Logan's Run sort of way. As our critic observed, if Stromberg wants to set up his underwater city, why can't he do it - who's going to stop him aside from 'some displaced turbot'?
I suppose Bond dropping the fish out of his Lotus is a bit of trolling of Stromberg, given how fond he is of them. Jurgens does little with the role, he just doesn't seem mad enough though I was struck by his resemblance to another fishy and fishily named character, my ex MP Chris Grayling. The reason he doesn't shake hands is his webbed fingers - does Bond ignore Naomi's entreaty not to shake hands done to be deliberately annoying? But the film never seems to show or mention his webbed fingers. The character's sheer oddness just doesn't come through
So as enjoyable as it is, The Spy Who Loved Me seems to have an empty core.
When Bond returns to Atlantis in Wet Nellie he does see the crew standing around the map of the globe, and naturally, any villain with a world map in their lair suggests they're planning world domination.
Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
True! Luckily I don't have any maps on the wall at home.
One other thing - I wouldn't trade the late Marvin Hamlisch's score in for Barry on this but it is augmented by a few classical pieces like Chopin, which is kind of cheating. (Chopin pops up as Drax's sheet music in the next film, doesn't it). What goes beyond cheeky when you think about it is the use of Maurice Jarre's Lawrence of Arabia theme in the desert, because it is head and shoulders above any other orchestral piece in the film and makes the scene beautiful - so it's not really parodic, they just nicked it. Imagine if you nicked Barry's Out of Africa theme for another movie and tried to pass it off as a parody.
I don't think I've seen this all the way through since I got it on DVD. What to say? The directing, music, editing, lighting, cinematography etc. is top-notch. so is the acting. The problems it has are almost entirely in the plot. I chose to see Bond's death as a given since I don't think this movie would've been made without it. I still think Blofeld should've been the main villain. Hove the Herakles poison Madeleine brings to the prison be targeted on the guards except one. The one guard has been told his who extended family will meet horrible deaths if he doesn't help Blofeld escape. Safin gets henchman status. Ideally Madelaine should've been pregnant at the end of the movie, not a mother. Just say the time between the Italian PST and the rest of the movie is a few months, not four years. This way we can have Bond dreaming of a normal life and a family without subjecting us to actually seeing "dad Bond". Third i want Nomi to be killed in the poison garden raid (the world is at risk and one of two 00-agents is sent away from the action? doesn't make sense). The movie also needs a better ticking clock. Have the Chinese bomb the island at a given time, and the MI6 find out when this will happen. This could be an alternative job for Nomi. I do miss one or two really impressive stunts.Those are the main fixes I would like to have seen, but there are smaller ones too. I've made my peace with Bond's death. Now knowing NTTD is the last EON Bond movie has made it easier to accept. All in all I enjoyed watching the movie.
My sister was watching Spectre when I came in from work, it's one of our favourites. I like it still, the way it unfolds and the dialogue and top notch British acting talent in it - Fiennes, Wilshaw, the Moriaty actor - but to adopt that woolly concessionary phrase, I can see why others don't like it. Here's the thing: if you don't like Spectre, you won't like Spectre. It's just one thing. Other Bonds I dislike - Skyfall, for instance - I can come to terms with and just enjoy it with a glass of red and watch the scenes unfold, I still don't like it but there are things in it and I can enjoy grumbling about it too, the same goes for others like The Living Daylights (great pre-credits, the cello ski chase and Aston etc) and so on, I think NSNA is one with no redeeming scenes to speak of imo... Many offers up a change of scenes or something to look forward to but if you're not buying Spectre, you son't. Moonraker might be similar in a way, and Thunderball... they have a singular angle and attitude and if you like it, great, but if you don't...
I concede that it's a bit of nonsense when Q analyses the ring and it's all helpfully laid out for anyone who nicks it the whole of Spectre's set up, helpfully set out for the cinema audience with pictures of the individuals we've already just scene in Moneypenny's files, coincidentally, with tentacles or spider's legs each pointing to a known villain from the recent movies, nothing there to not understand, nobody else pictured we don't know about... simples.
'You have to watch out for people creeping up behind you' says Bond before Hinx does just thaton the train. Other passengers shown just beforehand eerily disappear and are never seen again, nobody pulls the alarm. It has that odd feel of The Shining about it. Some say Bond died on the table in DAD and the rest is an afterlife dream, I wonder if this could be said of Bond in Spectre, much of it has that eerie, dreamlike life flashing before you slowly feel about it.
It's a licence to kill and not to kill, M explains. Bond does a fair bit of that, walking away from Hinx and not killing him, then later Blofeld.
We never saw Connery, Dalton or Craig's Bond skiing (though Dalton did waterski I suppose).
Someone on Twitter pointed out that it only just occurred to them that Dalton goes to a restaurant with Kara in Afghanistan wearing just one boot following his hustle with Necros.
Hard to believe nobody has written in this thread since 9 August - have we all stopped watching James Bond?
I played a revisit to GoldenEye last night because I couldn't sleep. Late night showings on ITV at least mean the film isn't chopped about for a daytime audience, so we got Onatopp doing her squeezy-on-top thing as well as her assassin's orgasms. Very fetching. I quite like Famke Jansen in this, all that leather and vermillion, lovely. The Bond girl is a step in the right direction too. Natalia is much more active than some and plays an important role at several points in the movie. The villian on the other hand... Well, at least Sean Bean hides his accent, just about. But honestly, why make things so complicated. Even Bond says it: "You're just a common thief." So why do we need the connection between MI6 and Janus and the Lienz Cossacks. It's a neat little triangle for sure, but totally unnecessary for the basic Goldfinger style plot. Janus is trying to get rich quick; okay, he's messing up the global economy and Britain's inparticular, but all the Cossack revenge stuff is a bit much isn't it? This was a recurring theme with Bond in the Brosnan-Craig eras and I get sick of it these days. Just give me a nasty, crazy, megalomaniac who loves diamonds or oil; I don't need my villains to be soured and scorched by past betrayal / abuse / perceived slight. Blofeld's motivations were never explained, other than an egotistical need to be recognised as the world's greatest criminal mastermind.
Back to the film proper. Lots to like in the action stakes. Brosnan is good, much better than I remember him. Dench too. And she stays in her office. I didn't like the Q scenes. Robbie Coltrane's Zukovsky is wasted, and it feels as if a whole section of the film has been edited away - Coltrane's Zukovsky would have made a great villain for this movie, opening the way for a better life-and-death struggle between Bond and Onatopp. Maybe the filmmakers had not reached the point where Bond could fight a woman on equal terms. Jake Wade is completely pointless. Why is Bond talking to the Amercians? Does MI6 not have operatives in Russia and Cuba? Not sure about Bond seduciing his psychological assessor; seems bit inappropriate and unnecessary. Fleming would never have done it. The whole point of the Aston Martin-Ferrari chase is to introduce the sexual friction between Bond and Onatopp, having a wailing woman in Bond's passenger seat disturbs the eroticism. I guess the filmmakers didn't want it too obvious they were reimagining the opening scenes of OHMSS and DN, but it is fairly clear that is what they are doing, blending the car chase and the baccarat game into an introduction to Bond and Onatopp. Pity, as I say, that she is wasted as a villainess. Fione Volpe is still the top girl in that respect.
The music score, which I hate in isolation, is much better on screen. Brilliant credits. PTS a bit too much silliness a la Sir Roger, but it starts excellently with probably Brosnan's best stunt; certainly lays a marker of achievement from the off. Solid unflashy direction. Basically, a very good product, amusing and exciting, but with lots of annoying hitches and glitches which hamper my overall pleasure. If you haven't watched it loads, they probably don't matter much. In fairness, I did enjoy it.
Goldeneye was my last watch as well but I was lucky enough to see it in the cinema when it had a limited release to celebrate the 30th anniversary. Was great to see it on the big screen again.
IMO one of the best Bond movies. Brosnan nailed it from the first scene. Played Bond as if Bond actually enjoys being Bond.
Good plot. Trevelyan a good villain as essentially the flip side of Bond and Onatopp full on psycho with the added advantage of being seriously sexy.
Great PTS and the tank chase was a nice variation on the usual car chase.
Hope more are released to celebrate anniversaries. Can't beat seeing them on the big screen.
Comments
Watched it last night, with my sister. It's good stuff - she noticed that when Bond encounters Gogol in Egypt, it's Lee's M who delivers the ominous phrase 'We've been expecting you' as if to upend reality more. And that on the train Bach wears the same kind of dress as Lia Seydoux on the train in Spectre - not sure that's quite true.
There does seem to be confusion about the hijacking of both submarines, because we only see one - the British one - go missing and hear of the Russian one second hand. We don't ever see what happened to the Russian crew of that sub, do we? In Christopher Wood's novelisation it might be a sadistic detail that Stromberg had them all shot - I can't recall - but if so, why didn't he shoot the Brit crew? Why keep them alive? And in any case what is the strange technology that allows Stromberg to raise subs from the depths, allowing him to scoop them up? We never find out.
And why does he scoop up the final third sub? He doesn't need it, it's not employed for his mission. Maybe it would come in useful later? But otherwise why build a supertanker that can hold three subs on the off chance that you might want a chat with a British spy explaining everything you're doing at a later date, just before the mission? Why not just sink the sub this time? It's not like he intends to negotiate.
And even more so in Moonraker, which is on the face of it more ludicrous, Stromberg's plan seems odd, if he wants to establish a kingdom under the waves, why not get on with it? Who's going to stop him, aside from - as one critic put it - 'some displaced turbot?' I guess the background of Captain Nemo made this more believable at the time. But the obedience of his underlings is even more unaccountable, how do you get folk to sign up to this mad plan in which nobody seems to benefit, I mean, what's in it for them? At least with Drax's gang you felt it was a bit of a cult, a sort of Neo-fascist thing, you don't get any of that with the Spectre-type crew here who presumably didn't read their contract.
How did Jaws get a job after this? Perhaps he left it off his CV, like Truss being Prime Minister briefly.
Jurgens is a boring villain, no question but he's underwritten as at some point he was meant to be Blofeld, I guess, and he doesn't need explanation - in fact that would make sense as a big sour up yours finale from Blofeld, to destroy the world. As it is, you wonder what kind of bloke in his late 70s would pull such a stunt given he might not live very long to see the consequences of the chaos - oh.
Bach is very attractive but her delivery is flat - in earlier days she'd be dubbed. Munro is the business, of course. Moore is very good but even then there are flaws - him smirking when pressed up against Anya on the helicopter drop after he's just told her he's killed her boyfriend isn't very nice when there could be an opportunity for a bit of awkward tension.
The Lotus dive is made better and more credible by an aerial shot that looks like something from a rough bit of footage, from a documentary film.
Now, you could address some of these points about the submarines but I don't quite know how, as it wouldn't make for a better or happier movie but other Bond films have a plot that happens to hold up throughout its duration.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
GoldenEye, or most of it tonight.
Is there a website that deals with the fashions and outfits in the Bond movies? My sister was commenting on how everything in fashion that time was beige or cargo pants like All Saints, and that's why Dench's M had a beige tunic whereas later in the decade everyone wore black.
This touches all the right bases and has plenty of characters but is never really believable for me and the jokes are quite rubbish. It's like a big budget trailer for a new Bond film. It's hard to know where to place it - I mean, Spy is kind of nonsense too but doesn't ask you to believe it too much, it slips down quite smoothly but maybe that was just as odd and a greatest hits package in its day as GoldenEye was/is.
The chemistry between Bond and Natalya isn't there - they have only just met and he blows up a helicopter then a train and then they snog. Oh, they cut out the entire sauna safe sex scene with Onatopp on this showing. In this film there really isn't time for any real development between Bond and a woman, it's all quite perfunctory and a bit tasteless.
I didn't care much for the Brosnan villains, none of them stand out. I do see why I liked TWINE best when it came out, it feels like it is trying to be realistic in the OHMSS tradition even if you don't buy the Elektra King story. I like the reappearance of GE's Kitchen and Coltrane, too. It's the only one that seemed worked out properly before filming started. None of the other Brosnans felt like that to me.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That's a brilliant website - but I meant one that references the women's outfits. My sister is always going, ooh, look at that outfit, isn't that marvellous, and so on, it's an angle that I never really considered.
Whatever I don't care for in GE, at least it offers a pleasingly superficial entertainment with things a person can pick up on and enjoy, even for outsiders, but with its predecessor LTK, I didn't bother to tune in with my sister because I knew I couldn't sell it, even as a movie to criticise - y'know, Bond's not terribly credible and oft cast mate Leiter gets mauled by a shark early on, Bond goes on a revenge mission. It echoes a point I make about those kind of one-theme movies - if you don't like the plot, there's really nothing else to fall back on.
Sinclair Mackay, who wrote The Man With The Golden something or other, an appraisal of the films up to CR, did bring me up short when he wrote that there are two types of fans, those who believe in it and those who know it's all rubbish but enjoy it knowing that, and neither feels duped. LTK appeals to the former (and I enjoyed it on its initial release) and GE appeals to the latter. People like me get actively offended when they find they can't actually believe in the film.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I caught most of CR the other night. I just love this film. Craig was sublime in this one. It’s just a shame that they couldn’t build on this but then again it’s probably unfair to think that they could. It was just that good.
One thing that struck me was that despite the film being nearly 20 years old now it doesn’t feel dated. The Aston Martin for example looks as fresh now as it did then.
My theory/guess is that this is the film DC had the least input into seeing as it was his first film. He was so good in this that I don’t like to criticize too much but maybe if he had less input in the last two films they might have been a lot better.
My theory/guess is that this is the film DC had the least input into seeing as it was his first film. He was so good in this that I don’t like to criticize too much but maybe if he had less input in the last two films they might have been a lot better.
This is subjective though…they could have been far worse 🤷🏻♂️ I’m no big fan of SPECTRE, but I’m happy enough with NTTD - yes, there are some elements of it I’m not happy with…but I love the ending 🙂
My man!
I could put this on Bond Twitter as they've been bitching about Brian Viner's feature in the Mail, but I thought I'd post it here.
All this stuff is arguable of course and I don't find his choices particularly contentious, even though I'd have Moonraker as second best and not last, it's hardly controversial.
Obv drag it on to your desktop to enlarge.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Must have been a slow news day over at The Mail…👀😁
Well, contributers to Bond Twitter would probably bitch about a list that exactly matched their own. It isn't a bad order, although I would reverse a few choices. His reasons are subjective, as are all these kind of 'lists'.
There's a very rough consensus about which Bonds are considered best and which worst, but the middle is often up for grabs. And since no one's taste will exactly align with any consensus, every list will have wild cards in the best, worst, and middle categories.
I like reading “favourite” lists rather than “best” lists. Too much needs to be considered for the latter, while the former ticks every box for the writer of the piece. Always fun to poke holes in those lists, too 😁
'Favourites' and 'Best' always interesting often contrasting lists. 😊
Octopussy
Caught a bit of it when I was channel surfing. Its a movie that as I get older annoys me more and more. It had the potential to be a good action thriller but it was ruined by the stupid humour when drama was sacrificed for juvenile laughs.
I agree @Mailfist I also caught a few minutes last night, the end of the appalling Tiger hunt chase and Bond's infiltration of Octopussy's Island. All spoilt by inappropriate and daft humour. Worse, during Bond's initial confrontation with Octopussy, Roger Moore keeps one hand in his pocket the whole time. Hardly ready for action is he?. Given he's in high humidity India, to have the hero kitted out with the gear he wears, especially given he's 'swimming' to the place, is just ridiculous. It shows no spycraft and even less of the debonair Sir Roger's interpretation of OO7. The clunking dialogue throughout just grates - OP jumps from one subject to another as is half thier discussion hit the editing floor. I couldn't cope either and cut loose to watch the snooker.
Going from 'Balls, Q?' to Cue balls.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It's amazing how often 'favorites' and 'bests' don't line up. My list from my latest watchalong has a ton of personal favorites in there (including my beloved MOONRAKER) ranked much higher than they probably deserve.
With you on Moonraker. Also QoS, FYEO.👌
Brilliant😄
Saw a fair bit of AVTAK and I do love the pre-credits, I just love the way the action unfolds in this movie, and the neat mostly unobtrusive humour.
My observation is the May Day stuff, for once Moore looks out of his depth with the love scenes in this, he's just going through the motions and I'm not saying it's worse for all that... but originally there'd have been sexual tension between Bond and May Day, okay you'd have to go back a bit, to when Connery was in TB and alright, you can't imagine Connery going for her, so maybe Moore in LALD where he had a black love interest and didn't seem too middle aged. In this, there's no sexual tension, just tension and when they get into bed, it's just a plot point. Likewise, when you see her play fighting Zorin, the idea is that we see how fit she is, and she'll be later tested in a fight with Bond when she tries to whup his ass. But that's just never going to happen in this film, because she is in her prime and he's 57 or so. (Oddjob humiliating Bond in GF is fun and exciting, May Day humiliating an older Bond in this would be just humiliating.) So it's like one of those scenes where Bond has a car with gadgets but doesn't get to test them - the BMW in GE, say. So Moore's Bond has more of a Patrick Macnee as Steed vibe going on here, which is ironic, lots of lovely women around but he's somehow uninvolved, from today's perspective his dalliance with Stacey Sutton is both okay and just odd.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The PTS could have been great but it was ruined by the use of the Beach Boys track which totally killed any sense of Bond being in danger. It had a good plot and two great villains in Christopher Walken and Grace Jones but it was let down by Moore just being too old. He went through the entire movie looking like he had been embalmed. The fight between Bond and Tibbett and the two guards looked like a punch up at a retirement home, and there was never going to be any creditability if Bond had beaten May Day in a fight, the best stuntman couldn't have pulled that one off. Besides you can't ever imagine Roger fighting a lady, he's to much of a gentleman. As for the love scene I was worried Bond was going to put his hip out . 😀
Oh dear! DAF is being broadcast on ITV1 this afternoon and I'm afraid to say that on point of principle I won't be viewing it: it won't have been the last Bond film I've watched. Inevitably, ITV cuts DAF's key moments of graphic violence, untethering the film's light comedy and satirical longeurs. Such censorship tames the film, skewing audience response and deepening the film's unfavourable reputation with every broadcast. For me, DAF is a firm favourite and I'll only ever watch it unedited.
Ed: Okay, okay... I couldn't resist a peek, and the elevator fight is surprisingly unscathed! The ad breaks are an issue of course, though they do serve to underline how DAF's vignettes, many with their own punchline, function with a serial kind of TV-ad aesthetic of their own.
I think we ought to let Mr Barry carry the load from hereon out...
It was my birthday so I watched The Spy Who Loved Me on telly with my sister and a bottle of rose.
My sister got irritated with Barbara Bach's vocal delivery which is very dull once you notice it, in some instances it seems she's been asked to dub herself again. That said, she does have some very good moments, in particular the comedy between her and Naomi. She looks great, one of the view genuinely erotic Bond girls - but there were a few in this, weren't there, including Caroline Munro and an oddly and amusingly underused Valerie Leon, who I believe was in Casino Royale 67 and unrecognisable and Americanised in Connery's swan song.
Moore is a proper movie star in this, with a far greater star range than in his previous two movies which seem to have niche appeal in comparison. That said, he still has a camp air and can be patronising in a way we don't see in later movies.
Talking of 'bumps' mentioned in @Revelator 's Richard Maibaum thread, there are bumps aplenty here, noticeably in the pre-credits where it's assumed Triple X is the George Lazenby lookalike but of course it's Barbara Bach who leans forward to reply to the music box.
It's a greatest hits package, as has been observed, and more enjoyable over a drink and with company than by yourself, where the lack of depth and lack of John Barry is more noticeable. For as good as it is, there is something missing about the film. It's not just that the crew of the Russian sub is never really mentioned or shown, indeed in the pre-credits call to Gogol - is he a general, or the president - it isn't obviously clear that a Russian sub has been hijacked given his response, he could almost be responding to the missing UK sub as he seems to almost be gloating. Triple X never shows any concern for her own Russian crew or mentions them or the sub.
On top of which, it isn't clear how Bond could get a meeting with Stromberg - it's implied that like an episode of The Avengers, such things can just be arranged by their superiors, but what makes sense at Osato Chemicals - he's trying it on as a businessman, they're a business - doesn't make sense as just some random marine biologist meeting a billionaire recluse.
Another repeat of YOLT is Bond and Wet Nellie as opposed to Little Nellie - but while is tour of the volcanoes made sense in YOLT; he wants to spot if anything is amiss; admittedly it doesn't make sense that having noticed nothing, Spectre helicopters attack him, that said maybe they think he might have noticed something... Here, he has already infiltrated Atlantis, so what is he returning to find in the underwater Lotus? He doesn't find anything out so any attack... Okay, I'm taking it too seriously but he doesn't uncover anything does he. Was he looking to?
What are they hoping to achieve, going out in the sub at the end?
As one critic observed - in the fab Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang review book - what is Stromberg hoping to do? The underwater city shown in model form doesn't amount to much. Who'd want to live there? Why are all his crew on board with this? At least in Moonraker the scheme - while more outlandish - made sense in a Logan's Run sort of way. As our critic observed, if Stromberg wants to set up his underwater city, why can't he do it - who's going to stop him aside from 'some displaced turbot'?
I suppose Bond dropping the fish out of his Lotus is a bit of trolling of Stromberg, given how fond he is of them. Jurgens does little with the role, he just doesn't seem mad enough though I was struck by his resemblance to another fishy and fishily named character, my ex MP Chris Grayling. The reason he doesn't shake hands is his webbed fingers - does Bond ignore Naomi's entreaty not to shake hands done to be deliberately annoying? But the film never seems to show or mention his webbed fingers. The character's sheer oddness just doesn't come through
So as enjoyable as it is, The Spy Who Loved Me seems to have an empty core.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
We do get a glimpse or two of Stromberg's hands
but nothing is made of it.
When Bond returns to Atlantis in Wet Nellie he does see the crew standing around the map of the globe, and naturally, any villain with a world map in their lair suggests they're planning world domination.
True! Luckily I don't have any maps on the wall at home.
One other thing - I wouldn't trade the late Marvin Hamlisch's score in for Barry on this but it is augmented by a few classical pieces like Chopin, which is kind of cheating. (Chopin pops up as Drax's sheet music in the next film, doesn't it). What goes beyond cheeky when you think about it is the use of Maurice Jarre's Lawrence of Arabia theme in the desert, because it is head and shoulders above any other orchestral piece in the film and makes the scene beautiful - so it's not really parodic, they just nicked it. Imagine if you nicked Barry's Out of Africa theme for another movie and tried to pass it off as a parody.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No time to die (2021)
I don't think I've seen this all the way through since I got it on DVD. What to say? The directing, music, editing, lighting, cinematography etc. is top-notch. so is the acting. The problems it has are almost entirely in the plot. I chose to see Bond's death as a given since I don't think this movie would've been made without it. I still think Blofeld should've been the main villain. Hove the Herakles poison Madeleine brings to the prison be targeted on the guards except one. The one guard has been told his who extended family will meet horrible deaths if he doesn't help Blofeld escape. Safin gets henchman status. Ideally Madelaine should've been pregnant at the end of the movie, not a mother. Just say the time between the Italian PST and the rest of the movie is a few months, not four years. This way we can have Bond dreaming of a normal life and a family without subjecting us to actually seeing "dad Bond". Third i want Nomi to be killed in the poison garden raid (the world is at risk and one of two 00-agents is sent away from the action? doesn't make sense). The movie also needs a better ticking clock. Have the Chinese bomb the island at a given time, and the MI6 find out when this will happen. This could be an alternative job for Nomi. I do miss one or two really impressive stunts.Those are the main fixes I would like to have seen, but there are smaller ones too. I've made my peace with Bond's death. Now knowing NTTD is the last EON Bond movie has made it easier to accept. All in all I enjoyed watching the movie.
My sister was watching Spectre when I came in from work, it's one of our favourites. I like it still, the way it unfolds and the dialogue and top notch British acting talent in it - Fiennes, Wilshaw, the Moriaty actor - but to adopt that woolly concessionary phrase, I can see why others don't like it. Here's the thing: if you don't like Spectre, you won't like Spectre. It's just one thing. Other Bonds I dislike - Skyfall, for instance - I can come to terms with and just enjoy it with a glass of red and watch the scenes unfold, I still don't like it but there are things in it and I can enjoy grumbling about it too, the same goes for others like The Living Daylights (great pre-credits, the cello ski chase and Aston etc) and so on, I think NSNA is one with no redeeming scenes to speak of imo... Many offers up a change of scenes or something to look forward to but if you're not buying Spectre, you son't. Moonraker might be similar in a way, and Thunderball... they have a singular angle and attitude and if you like it, great, but if you don't...
I concede that it's a bit of nonsense when Q analyses the ring and it's all helpfully laid out for anyone who nicks it the whole of Spectre's set up, helpfully set out for the cinema audience with pictures of the individuals we've already just scene in Moneypenny's files, coincidentally, with tentacles or spider's legs each pointing to a known villain from the recent movies, nothing there to not understand, nobody else pictured we don't know about... simples.
'You have to watch out for people creeping up behind you' says Bond before Hinx does just thaton the train. Other passengers shown just beforehand eerily disappear and are never seen again, nobody pulls the alarm. It has that odd feel of The Shining about it. Some say Bond died on the table in DAD and the rest is an afterlife dream, I wonder if this could be said of Bond in Spectre, much of it has that eerie, dreamlike life flashing before you slowly feel about it.
It's a licence to kill and not to kill, M explains. Bond does a fair bit of that, walking away from Hinx and not killing him, then later Blofeld.
We never saw Connery, Dalton or Craig's Bond skiing (though Dalton did waterski I suppose).
Someone on Twitter pointed out that it only just occurred to them that Dalton goes to a restaurant with Kara in Afghanistan wearing just one boot following his hustle with Necros.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Hard to believe nobody has written in this thread since 9 August - have we all stopped watching James Bond?
I played a revisit to GoldenEye last night because I couldn't sleep. Late night showings on ITV at least mean the film isn't chopped about for a daytime audience, so we got Onatopp doing her squeezy-on-top thing as well as her assassin's orgasms. Very fetching. I quite like Famke Jansen in this, all that leather and vermillion, lovely. The Bond girl is a step in the right direction too. Natalia is much more active than some and plays an important role at several points in the movie. The villian on the other hand... Well, at least Sean Bean hides his accent, just about. But honestly, why make things so complicated. Even Bond says it: "You're just a common thief." So why do we need the connection between MI6 and Janus and the Lienz Cossacks. It's a neat little triangle for sure, but totally unnecessary for the basic Goldfinger style plot. Janus is trying to get rich quick; okay, he's messing up the global economy and Britain's inparticular, but all the Cossack revenge stuff is a bit much isn't it? This was a recurring theme with Bond in the Brosnan-Craig eras and I get sick of it these days. Just give me a nasty, crazy, megalomaniac who loves diamonds or oil; I don't need my villains to be soured and scorched by past betrayal / abuse / perceived slight. Blofeld's motivations were never explained, other than an egotistical need to be recognised as the world's greatest criminal mastermind.
Back to the film proper. Lots to like in the action stakes. Brosnan is good, much better than I remember him. Dench too. And she stays in her office. I didn't like the Q scenes. Robbie Coltrane's Zukovsky is wasted, and it feels as if a whole section of the film has been edited away - Coltrane's Zukovsky would have made a great villain for this movie, opening the way for a better life-and-death struggle between Bond and Onatopp. Maybe the filmmakers had not reached the point where Bond could fight a woman on equal terms. Jake Wade is completely pointless. Why is Bond talking to the Amercians? Does MI6 not have operatives in Russia and Cuba? Not sure about Bond seduciing his psychological assessor; seems bit inappropriate and unnecessary. Fleming would never have done it. The whole point of the Aston Martin-Ferrari chase is to introduce the sexual friction between Bond and Onatopp, having a wailing woman in Bond's passenger seat disturbs the eroticism. I guess the filmmakers didn't want it too obvious they were reimagining the opening scenes of OHMSS and DN, but it is fairly clear that is what they are doing, blending the car chase and the baccarat game into an introduction to Bond and Onatopp. Pity, as I say, that she is wasted as a villainess. Fione Volpe is still the top girl in that respect.
The music score, which I hate in isolation, is much better on screen. Brilliant credits. PTS a bit too much silliness a la Sir Roger, but it starts excellently with probably Brosnan's best stunt; certainly lays a marker of achievement from the off. Solid unflashy direction. Basically, a very good product, amusing and exciting, but with lots of annoying hitches and glitches which hamper my overall pleasure. If you haven't watched it loads, they probably don't matter much. In fairness, I did enjoy it.
Goldeneye was my last watch as well but I was lucky enough to see it in the cinema when it had a limited release to celebrate the 30th anniversary. Was great to see it on the big screen again.
IMO one of the best Bond movies. Brosnan nailed it from the first scene. Played Bond as if Bond actually enjoys being Bond.
Good plot. Trevelyan a good villain as essentially the flip side of Bond and Onatopp full on psycho with the added advantage of being seriously sexy.
Great PTS and the tank chase was a nice variation on the usual car chase.
Hope more are released to celebrate anniversaries. Can't beat seeing them on the big screen.