Last Bond Movie You Watched? 2.0

I was perhaps a bit vague in my previous post. I meant more obvious nods in SPECTRE like the DB5 coming back (again) in addition to the Moore-esque comedy attempts. I liked things like the car in the desert ("Benign Bizarre"). Indeed, I feel like things like that are more reminiscent of Fleming than all the deep n' gritty daddy issue stuff put together. The best elements of SPECTRE - and this is a shallow pool - were the Benign Bizarre touches. They felt Bondian without resorting to an in-your-face homage. In terms of the franchise's future, these dark yet quirky, almost pulp-like elements should drive the series' uniqueness more-so than another round of Goldfinger props.

In light of recent discussion, I rewatched SPECTRE and Die Another Day. I had more fun in Die Another Day. The story flows better, the low points of Die Another Day are mostly cosmetic and doesn't hinder the narrative as much as SPECTRE's storyline does. The cracks run much deeper in SPECTRE than in DAD, and despite both films being quite glossy, the edge goes to DAD for me.

Bearing in mind I had a few drinks whilst watching both, so that may have hindered my interpretation, but I highly doubt it - any person who believes bro-Blo, a pointless, secondary attempt at proving the necessity of MI6, and a contrived love story amongst balls to the wall, generic action are better than fresh ideas and joie de vivre , regardless of the naff execution, is probably consuming something much stronger and more affecting than alcohol.

The so-good-especially-when-you're-bad-athon

2016 Bondathon:

Tomorrow Never Dies
Goldeneye
Thunderball
Dr. No
For Your Eyes Only
The World Is Not Enough
The Living Daylights
Skyfall
A View to a Kill
Goldfinger
Octopussy
You Only Live Twice
Licence to Kill
The Man With The Golden Gun
Diamonds Are Forever
Moonraker
Die Another Day
Quantum of Solace
Live and Let Die
SPECTRE
Casino Royale

The problem with DAD - and the Brosnan era in general - is that there was a half-hearted attempt to make James Bond vaguely human with an emotional edge in the midst of a purely action-driven, not-so-serious movie. The issue with Craig's Bond, particularly in SPECTRE, is that there really is no way to make him "fun." You've had two films with girlfriend drama, two films with family drama, and so it's hard to make something purely entertaining.

A thing I found interesting in the Brosnans was some criticism (albeit by the bad guys) of what I guess you'd call Bond's old-school values.

Thinking in particular of Trevelyan's 'James Bond ... Her Majesty's loyal terrier. Defender of the so-called faith' and Renard's 'And what do YOU believe in ... preservation of capital?'.

Although that said, I think Fleming once indicated that he wasn't sure if courage and patriotism 'were virtues anyway'.

CJB wrote:

The problem with DAD - and the Brosnan era in general - is that there was a half-hearted attempt to make James Bond vaguely human with an emotional edge in the midst of a purely action-driven, not-so-serious movie. The issue with Craig's Bond, particularly in SPECTRE, is that there really is no way to make him "fun." You've had two films with girlfriend drama, two films with family drama, and so it's hard to make something purely entertaining.

This is why I'd love to read Purvis and Wade's original draft of DAD. Given it was intended to be a straight thriller, I imagine it would have been a good stab at characterising Bond as more humane. And of course I think GE, TND and TWINE work so I wouldn't agree that they're half-hearted attempts.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

A thing I found interesting in the Brosnans was some criticism (albeit by the bad guys) of what I guess you'd call Bond's old-school values.

Thinking in particular of Trevelyan's 'James Bond ... Her Majesty's loyal terrier. Defender of the so-called faith' and Renard's 'And what do YOU believe in ... preservation of capital?'.

Although that said, I think Fleming once indicated that he wasn't sure if courage and patriotism 'were virtues anyway'.

I've always liked that too.

Well, here we are again -looks like it we've made it to the end.

Spectre

it's been pretty much a year since I last and indeed, first saw it in a rather nice cinema in Mayfair and left moderately enthused. In that time I've absorbed everything written here and approached my viewing with less enthusiasm than last year. I still like it but less than before. Though again it did not feel a film of 2.5 hours it did make me think that its parts are better than its sum. Some of the humour is good, Belucci feels wasted somehow, the little nods and winks to the past but it is a wasted opportunity.
Skyfall had everyone more or less on point from Mendes to Craig and yet by here, it was almost as if the whole lot just couldn't be bothered in spite of the fact that unlike the early days, Bond films come so damn sparsely that they should each have top effort involved. Newman's score is an example, I like it but it's Skyfall recycled for much of it with Backfire being a notable exception. Granborough Road/She's Mine being notable uses from Skyfall.

Like Nimoy with the Star Trek reboots we still managed to get Dench back even with M dead. It's all disjointed. Waltz needs to be in another film to get a better chance.

I'm not mad on Andrew Scott as an actor at the best of times, one of these types that you can see the acting in progress -the effort and the scene chewing as shown with his Moriarty. His pay off is satisfying as 'C' is such a little shit (the "Well, at least we know what C stands for" line earned the biggest laugh in the cinema, fortunate the pause is there after it).

Still in praise of Fiennes' M. See that he's a tad irked from the off about Bond's escapades but like M in OHMSS willing to get behind Bond when it matters or at least support him in some way. Fiennes has the kind of 'bugger this' face that works in the film.

Well. There we have it. I imagine it'd drop in the rankings I posted a year ago but it's not the worse even if it's not the best.

I wish I could like SPECTRE as much as you. While it was always lower tier Bond for me, it still continues to slip faster than Lisl's nightie and accent.

Yes, there's lots to like (and even love, in parts), and one point you did bring up was C's death. I actually really liked the execution (not so much with M getting in on the action there - though the famous line of the scene is cracking), but the moment he loses balance, falls and dies, with Newman's score, works a treat in my opinion. Felt rather Hitchcockian.

I wouldn't say I rave about it to people. It is what it is. There's worst films generally out there but I don't know. Sort of a Shatnerian shake of the head and shrug of the shoulders. I don't know.

Hilly KCMG wrote:

I wouldn't say I rave about it to people. It is what it is. There's worst films generally out there but I don't know. Sort of a Shatnerian shake of the head and shrug of the shoulders. I don't know.

I also don't know.

Don't know what they were thinking.

CJB wrote:

The problem with DAD - and the Brosnan era in general - is that there was a half-hearted attempt to make James Bond vaguely human with an emotional edge in the midst of a purely action-driven, not-so-serious movie. The issue with Craig's Bond, particularly in SPECTRE, is that there really is no way to make him "fun." You've had two films with girlfriend drama, two films with family drama, and so it's hard to make something purely entertaining.

But were Fleming's novels all that serious? There were always lighter touches in his novels, even CR. An agent is sent to gamble at a casino. The lighter touches, the degree of benign bizarre and Fleming's sense of humour is what sets his work aside from other spy fiction, such as John le Carre. The fact that Bond is a little more human in the Brosnan era amongst the not so serious backdrop of the rest of the film is what makes it feel more like a Fleming book than anything else that has come after it (save for SKYFALL, perhaps).

FieldsMan wrote:

CJB wrote:

The problem with DAD - and the Brosnan era in general - is that there was a half-hearted attempt to make James Bond vaguely human with an emotional edge in the midst of a purely action-driven, not-so-serious movie. The issue with Craig's Bond, particularly in SPECTRE, is that there really is no way to make him "fun." You've had two films with girlfriend drama, two films with family drama, and so it's hard to make something purely entertaining.

But were Fleming's novels all that serious? There were always lighter touches in his novels, even CR. An agent is sent to gamble at a casino. The lighter touches, the degree of benign bizarre and Fleming's sense of humour is what sets his work aside from other spy fiction, such as John le Carre. The fact that Bond is a little more human in the Brosnan era amongst the not so serious backdrop of the rest of the film is what makes it feel more like a Fleming book than anything else that has come after it (save for SKYFALL, perhaps).

No, the novels weren't serious. I don't fault the Bond films when they go a tad outlandish.

My issue with the Brosnan era is that they went in half-cocked on the deep n' gritty stuff. The example I often use is Bond's relationship with Paris Carver. He seems to feel something for her throughout the film and is not very happy when she's been snuffed out, and yet, moments later he's giggling as he plays real life Mario Kart in the car park.

I'm not sure his feelings for Paris amounted to much. If they did, he would have quit the service like he did with Vesper and Madeleine, or married her like he did Tracy. But he left her - just like he did most other Bond girls - and now she's back. Of course Bond is upset when she died, but he was celebrating a small win during a life and death situation. Not to mention that he doesn't seem all that phased by sleeping with her or not. He tells her to go back to Carver, tells her she doesn't have to help him, and doesn't give her much when she starts seducing him. But she throws herself at him and got in trouble.

I also know when I've grieved for a loved one, there are still moments where I've smiled, and death doesn't come knocking as often as it does for Bond.

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Waltz needs to be in another film to get a better chance.

I disagree. I don't believe in bringing people back to get right what was done wrong to begin with. The reason for your existence in another movie shouldn't be to try and right previous wrongs. ALIEN RESURRECTION tried to atone for ALIEN-3 and just made the situation worse.  

SPECTRE completely ruined Blofeld for the near future; no reason to bring this character back any time soon. SPECTRE not only doesn't match up against other Bond films, it doesn't even match up against other films with Blofeld in it. Waltz's Blofeld is by far the least interesting of any of the Blofelds, and that includes NSNA and the campy Charley Gray in DAF. When your Blofeld can't compete against Charles Gray in a dress and blonde wig, you know something has seriously gone off the rails.

But above all else, I think EON needs to just quietly tip-toe away from the creative corner they've painted themselves into with SPECTRE. Just let Craig's era end with 4 films of varying quality. You can't bring Craig back to try and recover from the hole SPECTRE dug. Let it go. Have the courage of your convictions and let his Bond drive off into the sunset with Madeline and stick to your story arch. Don't try and go back in and ret-con a film that had retconned the previous 3 films. Just walk away and start over. SPECTRE is creative quicksand; the more you move about and try to pull yourself out, the deeper you'll sink. Don't try to fix SPECTRE. Let it be what it is and just move on. Wipe the slate clean. New director, writer, star, producers, studio. The current regime has gotten real stale, real quick.

Agreed entirely, GS. They screwed the pooch with Nu-Blofeld and any future appearance will inevitably come with more family drama and daddy issues.

As you've said - and I've often said too - it's virtually impossible for Cregg-Bond to appear in a standalone piece after SPECTRE and, as such, he and the creative team must go for the franchise to survive.

CJB wrote:

Agreed entirely, GS. They screwed the pooch with Nu-Blofeld and any future appearance will inevitably come with more family drama and daddy issues.

As you've said - and I've often said too - it's virtually impossible for Cregg-Bond to appear in a standalone piece after SPECTRE and, as such, he and the creative team must go for the franchise to survive.

Absolutely, the problem atm is with every film being linked every subsequent film reflects back on the ones before it (films themselves that had polarised support)...we can only end up with a haphazard crap shoot that increasingly has so much baggage holding it back it cannot hope to be anything more than a disappointment to one large sections of fans or the other. We need a radical repositioning to free the series in a way that allows each film to be judged on its own merits again.

It's ironic that after DAD we were all in agreement that the series needed a shakeup, and a shakeup we got in the form of CR. I know it's been fashionable to shit on CR in recent years (and sure, it has its flaws) but at the time it was universally praised by critics and long-suffering Bond fans alike. The problem is, they took something good (a realer, bloodier Bond) and dragged it too far into soap opera territory. Now they need to find a way to go back to the "classic" model of Bond film after tearing down that edifice. Bit of a creative mess, really.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Hilly KCMG wrote:

Waltz needs to be in another film to get a better chance.

I disagree. I don't believe in bringing people back to get right what was done wrong to begin with. The reason for your existence in another movie shouldn't be to try and right previous wrongs. ALIEN RESURRECTION tried to atone for ALIEN-3 and just made the situation worse.  

SPECTRE completely ruined Blofeld for the near future; no reason to bring this character back any time soon. SPECTRE not only doesn't match up against other Bond films, it doesn't even match up against other films with Blofeld in it. Waltz's Blofeld is by far the least interesting of any of the Blofelds, and that includes NSNA and the campy Charley Gray in DAF. When your Blofeld can't compete against Charles Gray in a dress and blonde wig, you know something has seriously gone off the rails.

But above all else, I think EON needs to just quietly tip-toe away from the creative corner they've painted themselves into with SPECTRE. Just let Craig's era end with 4 films of varying quality. You can't bring Craig back to try and recover from the hole SPECTRE dug. Let it go. Have the courage of your convictions and let his Bond drive off into the sunset with Madeline and stick to your story arch. Don't try and go back in and ret-con a film that had retconned the previous 3 films. Just walk away and start over. SPECTRE is creative quicksand; the more you move about and try to pull yourself out, the deeper you'll sink. Don't try to fix SPECTRE. Let it be what it is and just move on. Wipe the slate clean. New director, writer, star, producers, studio. The current regime has gotten real stale, real quick.

Yeah I agree with this now. Bond films have long ignored continuity - especially regarding Blofeld, and how they met (YOLT, OHMSS namely) - I'm happy for them to wipe the slate clean.

CJB wrote:

It's ironic that after DAD we were all in agreement that the series needed a shakeup, and a shakeup we got in the form of CR. I know it's been fashionable to shit on CR in recent years (and sure, it has its flaws) but at the time it was universally praised by critics and long-suffering Bond fans alike. The problem is, they took something good (a realer, bloodier Bond) and dragged it too far into soap opera territory. Now they need to find a way to go back to the "classic" model of Bond film after tearing down that edifice. Bit of a creative mess, really.

Wasn't DAD enjoyed and celebrated at the time of release, despite getting mixed reviews?

They didn't take a "realer" Bond into soap opera territory. It was already there in CR with the personal journey Bond apparently needed to go on to become Bond. SF is the only Bond film in Craig's era to be successful at giving Bond something to battle with internally whilst fighting an external threat.

I don't remember if I was on any Bond forums at the time of DAD's release, but I recall that about 2 years later (when I joined KTBEU) there was a broad consensus that it was the biggest heap of shyte the series had ever served up (though Brosnan himself retained a fair bit of popularity).

I didn't get the sense that CR overdid the emo stuff. Maybe it was given a pass because it's an origin story. For me, it really kicked off with QOS and Bond being a mopey bore for 90 minutes, waded in further with Skyfall, and finally leaped over a carcharodon carcharias in SPECTRE.

Yeah Bond wasn't emo in CR, but the soap opera connotations stem from the pointlessly contrived rookie agent storyline, as if his actions impact the events of CR, when he still meets the same plot points of the novel sans this personal journey.

The redeeming aspect of CR for me was that final shot and tbh if the utterance of the line 'My Names Bond...' and the final reveal of the theme had genuinely signalled the arrival of the man himself I think I would be much more charitable toward the film. However the QoS just revisits and resets any such notion to labour the same ideas and emotions all over again.....and then we get it all again...and then again. Now in this mix is Skyfall the exception in its case is that the film earns its theme and character exploration via the concept of age and Bond's relationship to a character we are invested in (M rather than a poorly written cypher that we are suppose to believe matters despite existing for perhaps 20mins of banal screen-time and maybe as much as a couple of weeks 'in movie' time), the film also scores with its villain and locations in a way the other films miserably fail.

I remember thinking when I first watch Casino Royale that the final scene felt shoe-horned in, and that Craig - at that point in time - didn't quite deserve to be saying the line. It just didn't feel right.

CJB wrote:

It's ironic that after DAD we were all in agreement that the series needed a shakeup, and a shakeup we got in the form of CR. I know it's been fashionable to shit on CR in recent years (and sure, it has its flaws) but at the time it was universally praised by critics and long-suffering Bond fans alike. The problem is, they took something good (a realer, bloodier Bond) and dragged it too far into soap opera territory. Now they need to find a way to go back to the "classic" model of Bond film after tearing down that edifice. Bit of a creative mess, really.

I don't remember any consensus being that a shake-up was needed. You always had your Fleming-purists who put up with Moore and Brosnan; I don't think CR invented an audience that wasn't already there. I remember being uncomfortable at times with DAD because it felt like it was starting to creep over into BATMAN AND ROBIN territory (corny puns such as "Let there be light", Toby's at times over-the-top acting...)

What I do remember at the time was that EON felt like a shake-up was needed, not the audience They looked at the Bourne series and decided Bourne was the wave of the future (which made no sense; at no time did Bourne ever come close to making the money Bond was, and the two series weren't really alike...until EON started blatantly ripping off Bourne, right down to poaching their talent, their fighting style, etc...). But I wasn't looking for a "shake-up"; I just wanted EON to pull back on some of the more fantastical elements that DAD had introduced; I wasn't ready for a whole-hog reboot. And it wasn't much of a reboot either. After AVTAK but before TLD, Michael Wilson gave a serious treatment to showing a much younger Bond working his way into the 007 position; what we got with CR was lip-service. If you're going to do an origin-story, you need to bring more to the table than a black-and-white 5 minute pre-credit sequence.

One problem with Craig's films is that they've dragged the "origin" story out across 4 films. We've seen Bond's origin (sort of), Moneypenny's, the new M's, Blofeld.....and viewers are suffering from fatigue. Furthermore, it's really too late to try and start doing the one-off films with Craig, because they'll feel out of place, or they may try to introduce Onatopp or Odd-Job style villains or some humor and it'll feel foreign to the Craig films. For better or worse, Craig's films are what they are; it's too late in the game to try and change the style or tone.

Trying to continue what was started in SPECTRE will only remind people of how bad that film was (the worst of the entire series; even NSNA is better because at least it had Fatima Blush, and worse than GOLDEN GUN because at least it had memorable lines of dialogue and some occasionally moody scenes). SPECTRE is totally forgettable.

A Bond 25 with Craig and Waltz would be compounding a mistake. Take the exit ramp the end of the movie gave you and let Craig's Bond ride off into the sunset. We don't need a Bond 25 where he avenges Madeline's death (we don't need another personal angle right now, and we've already spent 3 films with Bond moping like a sullen teenager whose girlfriend broke up with him). Create a new timeline...get new creative blood. Let's go retro, so to speak, and get back to the time when Bond villains were larger than life...with idiosyncrasies and diabolical plots...where the women had sexy names. A "retro" Bond would probably be an ever bigger hit in 2018 than the current Craig films because people are tired of the political correctness.... of "safe spaces" and "micro-agressions". I want a Bond who smokes, drinks to excess, treats women like sex objects, lives by the seat of his pants, takes chances, bristles at authority...and is generally one big middle-finger to the cultural elites who tell us Bond needs to be in touch with his feminine side...or that his women must be "equals". I want bimbos spilling out of their tops... I want a Bond film again that has the balls to put the number "007" in neon day-glo between a woman's breasts for the opening title sequence and doesn't give a damn what feminists think! I want a Bond who strips a Russian General's wife right in front of him! I want a Bond who slaps his leading lady and tells her she's not the type to turn the other cheek. I want to see witticisms come back like "I'm afraid you've caught me with more than my hands up" or "Speak now or forever hold your piece." Until that day, I guess I'll just have to keep watching the older films.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I want a Bond film again that has the balls to put the number "007" in neon day-glo between a woman's breasts for the opening title sequence and doesn't give a damn what feminists think! I want a Bond who strips a Russian General's wife right in front of him! I want a Bond who slaps his leading lady and tells her she's not the type to turn the other cheek. I want to see witticisms come back like "I'm afraid you've caught me with more than my hands up" or "Speak now or forever hold your piece." Until that day, I guess I'll just have to keep watching the older films.

Alas, they've been running away from these things even before Twatter and Bumfeed became the arbiters of acceptable speech and thought.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

CJB wrote:

It's ironic that after DAD we were all in agreement that the series needed a shakeup, and a shakeup we got in the form of CR. I know it's been fashionable to shit on CR in recent years (and sure, it has its flaws) but at the time it was universally praised by critics and long-suffering Bond fans alike. The problem is, they took something good (a realer, bloodier Bond) and dragged it too far into soap opera territory. Now they need to find a way to go back to the "classic" model of Bond film after tearing down that edifice. Bit of a creative mess, really.

I don't remember any consensus being that a shake-up was needed. You always had your Fleming-purists who put up with Moore and Brosnan; I don't think CR invented an audience that wasn't already there. I remember being uncomfortable at times with DAD because it felt like it was starting to creep over into BATMAN AND ROBIN territory (corny puns such as "Let there be light", Toby's at times over-the-top acting...)

What I do remember at the time was that EON felt like a shake-up was needed, not the audience They looked at the Bourne series and decided Bourne was the wave of the future (which made no sense; at no time did Bourne ever come close to making the money Bond was, and the two series weren't really alike...until EON started blatantly ripping off Bourne, right down to poaching their talent, their fighting style, etc...). But I wasn't looking for a "shake-up"; I just wanted EON to pull back on some of the more fantastical elements that DAD had introduced; I wasn't ready for a whole-hog reboot. And it wasn't much of a reboot either. After AVTAK but before TLD, Michael Wilson gave a serious treatment to showing a much younger Bond working his way into the 007 position; what we got with CR was lip-service. If you're going to do an origin-story, you need to bring more to the table than a black-and-white 5 minute pre-credit sequence.

One problem with Craig's films is that they've dragged the "origin" story out across 4 films. We've seen Bond's origin (sort of), Moneypenny's, the new M's, Blofeld.....and viewers are suffering from fatigue. Furthermore, it's really too late to try and start doing the one-off films with Craig, because they'll feel out of place, or they may try to introduce Onatopp or Odd-Job style villains or some humor and it'll feel foreign to the Craig films. For better or worse, Craig's films are what they are; it's too late in the game to try and change the style or tone.

Trying to continue what was started in SPECTRE will only remind people of how bad that film was (the worst of the entire series; even NSNA is better because at least it had Fatima Blush, and worse than GOLDEN GUN because at least it had memorable lines of dialogue and some occasionally moody scenes). SPECTRE is totally forgettable.

A Bond 25 with Craig and Waltz would be compounding a mistake. Take the exit ramp the end of the movie gave you and let Craig's Bond ride off into the sunset. We don't need a Bond 25 where he avenges Madeline's death (we don't need another personal angle right now, and we've already spent 3 films with Bond moping like a sullen teenager whose girlfriend broke up with him). Create a new timeline...get new creative blood. Let's go retro, so to speak, and get back to the time when Bond villains were larger than life...with idiosyncrasies and diabolical plots...where the women had sexy names. A "retro" Bond would probably be an ever bigger hit in 2018 than the current Craig films because people are tired of the political correctness.... of "safe spaces" and "micro-agressions". I want a Bond who smokes, drinks to excess, treats women like sex objects, lives by the seat of his pants, takes chances, bristles at authority...and is generally one big middle-finger to the cultural elites who tell us Bond needs to be in touch with his feminine side...or that his women must be "equals". I want bimbos spilling out of their tops... I want a Bond film again that has the balls to put the number "007" in neon day-glo between a woman's breasts for the opening title sequence and doesn't give a damn what feminists think! I want a Bond who strips a Russian General's wife right in front of him! I want a Bond who slaps his leading lady and tells her she's not the type to turn the other cheek. I want to see witticisms come back like "I'm afraid you've caught me with more than my hands up" or "Speak now or forever hold your piece." Until that day, I guess I'll just have to keep watching the older films.

Yes!

I completely agree with Gravity's Silhouette as well.

When one sets out on revenge, first dig two graves...

Spectre a few weeks ago aside, I rarely seem to watch a Bond at random as most tend to be done in the Bondathon's so tonight, For Your Eyes Only...

...God help me I still quite like the movie believing it to be Moore's best 'serious' take on 007. Yes, it's flawed in parts but the whole is better than the parts. Moments still tickle such as Bond's nod to the bad guys during the car chase, his somewhat bemused expression when leaving the hotel room after Bibi (any other film might've had him break the fourth wheel: "What is a man to do?") and any moment with Topol. On a total aside, watching/listening to a video somebody did of a Dalton FYEO with the Blondie song I considered that Dalton's scenes with Topol would've been quite something. Akin to Bond and Draco (though of course, the scenes are quite like that anyway).
Skipping away from Bibi (blessed that Bond thwarted her advances and we just get on with the film as best as we can), I like Melina (fool me that I didn't realise Bouquet was dubbed) even if her introduction is a tad abrupt or poorly done:
"Who are you?"
"He killed my parents."
"The Havelocks, I'm sorry."
She's a good looking broad and still has it in that French drama More4 showed earlier in the year.

Roge, in spite of the weathered look now creeping up on him, does his best and has some good moments of his tenure. The obvious is kicking the car off the cliff (Dalton et al could've done this as well but for Moore's Bond it somehow works) but finding Ferrera's body in the Lotus (poor swine wasn't the best SIS agent but his death still hits some kind of nerve) and the beach scene (the sheer brutal death alone of the Countessa is enough but Moore is admirable here).

Topol, as I say, is a delight: in line with Kerim Bey and Draco. For someone, like Draco, who operates beneath the law as well as above it, he's immediately likeable.

Ol' Bunky (the luckless gambler the Countessa winds up) should've been the new M or Foreign Secretary. Poor bloke.

And finally, yes the end is in sight, the music. I do like it, one of the better non-JB efforts though not the best Bond OST (Runaway is a favourite, Drive in the Country...) if any Bond film needed a Barry score FYEO was it.

Ende.

I would laugh if my heart were not so heavy...