The Spy Who Loved Me has gone down hill on a recent viewing.

It's been a while since I have seen it but I didn't enjoy it as much on the two recent viewings I gave it, as I did longer before.

I feel that Stromberg is kind of forgetable when one compares him to other Bond villains.

I also feel that maybe the romance between Bond and Anya is kind of more on the cheesy side compared to other movies, such as Anya asking to look at Bond's wound, and what to use for a bandage, and then they play that cheesy saxophone music to go with those cheesy lines. Other cheesy lines are all the dialogue with the shared bodily warmth in Syberian training, and "you're not going to take advantage of me, are you?"

I also feel that the action is kind of lacking in this one.  This has been an issue for 70s Bond movies, as for some reason the action was really good in OHMSS, and then kind of slowed down after that, but picked up again and got really good on MR and even in better in FYEO.

The opening ski chase is okay, but the jump is the only big part of it, otherwise it's not as good as the OHMSS or FYEO ski chases.  And aside from the opening jump, as well as the big battle on the tanker ship which is superb, the rest of the action is kind of slow, and just doesn't really pop as much as those two sections.

So the last couple of recent viewings were not as near as good as before, and now I am kind of reconsidering it.
But what do you think?

Ranked it at 20...so no, not for me i'm afraid.

Never been big on it myself. Never cracks the top 15 for me. Lack of focus and a cartoonish villain scheme prevent it from climbing.

That said, the ski and car chases are excellent and the Liparus battle is great fun!

Well the funny thing is I rewatched it again along with Never Say Never Again recently, and NSNA does not have the cheesy Bond girl seduction dialogue that TSWLM has, and NSNA also has a considerably better villain.

So therefore, would NSNA be considerably better in those regards, inspite that it's often regarded as worse?

If you say so. It's entirely up to you.

I think TSWLM is considerably tighter than NSNA.

Oh okay, tighter how?

It's one of my all-time top essentials. No one else's opinion is going to diminish mine. (You didn't have to wait 2 1/2 years for it.)
I know - we've already waited almost 5 years for NTTD. It will have to be something really special to match my level of anticipation and satisfaction this time.

TSWLM is one of the ones that ages with you and while it can raise or lower in your personal rankings its potency doesn't get diluted. When played back in a home theater environment it comes alive quite well and has all the right elements to be the most crowd pleasing of Roger's tenure.

It has energy, it has an edit that drives the film along, it has the grandeur and spectacle, it has the globetrotting but for the first time there is a relaxed attitude-a notion of: we do this better than anyone so let's just do it better.

Oh okay. Well the strange thing is, is that this Bond movie might have gone downhill the most for me compared to before, but yet NSNA has now gone up on a recent viewing.

A lot of people say this movie is terrible, and it does have it's short comings such as not having as high budget of action or good music, but I feel that it's not near as bad as people say.

Connery gives his best performance as Bond since Goldfinger in my opinion, and I can't help but really like the two villains, and can't help but feel they are better than usual for the Bond era of that time, in some ways.

I also feel that Kim Basinger, has somewhat considerably good chemistry with Connery as well. I also feel that the Bond girl's relationship with the villain was well handled as well.

But am I crazy for thinking NSNA is possibly better than The Spy Who Loved Me, or at least it has a better villain, and less cheesy dialog?

Two words...Rowan atkinson....WTF?

AMC Hornet wrote:

I know - we've already waited almost 5 years for NTTD. It will have to be something really special to match my level of anticipation and satisfaction this time.

Can one still really have high expectations for a film that's more than likely going to be as lousy as Spectre?

HGTB wrote:

TSWLM is one of the ones that ages with you and while it can raise or lower in your personal rankings its potency doesn't get diluted. When played back in a home theater environment it comes alive quite well and has all the right elements to be the most crowd pleasing of Roger's tenure.

It has energy, it has an edit that drives the film along, it has the grandeur and spectacle, it has the globetrotting but for the first time there is a relaxed attitude-a notion of: we do this better than anyone so let's just do it better.

I have a home theatre and while it looks spectacular it still doesn't enhance the poor characterisation/villain scheme for Stromberg, which I think is the film's biggest flaw (though I think he gets by because of Jurgens's sheer screen presence). And I don't think the edit does it any favours, either. Until we hit Italy, it meanders quite a bit when the subtext between Bond and Anya should be increasing the tension. It's because of that relaxed attitude the film fails to be as compelling as it could be. I'd also propose Thunderball was when the film makers first understood "we do this better than anyone so let's just do it better" which gives them a sense of confidence and self-assuredness because it feels like a holiday... but the element of danger is still present. TSWLM doesn't capture that danger.

Sure, it's a crowd pleaser, and I have fun when I watch it, but it's just not compelling enough.

Oh okay.  But a lot of people who do not care for TSWLM, like FYEO and in for FYEO, isn't Kristatos an arguably weaker villain and blander than Stromberg?

I don't think the strength of a film hangs on the virtues of its villain ....do you?

Some say a film is only as good as its villain. Whether it's a general rule of thumb I'm not so sure. Of course, looking at something like AVTAK challenges that. Personally I feel the film itself is underrated but that aside, Walken's Zorin is well liked despite the lukewarm reception to the film itself.

As for Kristatos, I disagree he's blander than Stromberg. His back story with Colombo, his war history, his dynamic with Bibi, and his services to the Russians provides richer characterisation. There's a human in there somewhere, and Glover relishes it. Is he the most memorable? Perhaps not, but not all villains need to be, so for me he's a refreshing change of pace. Stromberg's goal to create a world under the sea is cartoonish and childish. Being a recluse also doesn't give him much to do, either. He gets by on his magnificent voice that screams villainy, but otherwise he's very weak. We don't learn much about him. He's a stock standard villain, which in the world of Bond, isn't enough, particularly when competing with the likes of Dr No, Klebb, Goldfinger, Drax, Zorin, Sanchez, Alec, Carver, Elektra, etc..