Last Bond Movie You Watched? 1.0

Hilly wrote:

I could somehow imagine Bernard Lee doing it with this permanent scowl on his face and the teeth very tight around the pipe.

"That's all! That's all!"

He would never have f'ed up the whole King thing, whatever the hell M did.

Now some randon shit's happening with helicopters and buzzsaws. And it's totally unexciting.

And they killed the only modern BMW I've ever liked. After he had the gay hairdresser's car in GE and family Sedan in TND.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Hilly wrote:

I could somehow imagine Bernard Lee doing it with this permanent scowl on his face and the teeth very tight around the pipe.

"That's all! That's all!"

He would never have f'ed up the whole King thing, whatever the hell M did.

Lee's M if imprisoned somehow by King/Renard would've managed to escape and then shoot Elektra himself. Or best get Bond to do it and without chasing Elektra up the stairs.

Uh oh, he hurt his shoulder again. But he can jump out of a helicopter fifteen feet on skis.

And he yelled, "GHUTOUOUTT!!!!"

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'm reserving judgement on SF.

Laz thinks he already he saw it 13 years ago.

Largo's Shark wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'm reserving judgement on SF.

Laz thinks he already he saw it 13 years ago.

It doesn't strike me as TWINE 2.0 aside from M's past and a spolision at MI6.

And a miraculously unfunny end to the caviar factory sequence.

I can't tell if this is worse than TND or not. At least it looks better, but it seems to be even MORE boring.

EDIT ADDON: Bond just runs off without checking if Zukovsky is even alive.

Well, it has been nearly a year since I have posted on this site, but as I'm doing a Bond-a-thon, what better place to put my reviews?

First up: Dr. No from the Bond 50 Blu-Ray set. (On Oct. 15th)

I've always adored this film, so it didn't surprise me that I was feeling all fuzzy inside by the end credits. Has there ever been anyone as cool as Sean Connery in Dr. No? From the very first moments we see Sir Sean he is JAMES BOND, no doubts there. The first 20 minutes is pure classic Bond: a smoke filled casino, "Bond, James Bond", Bond's flirtation with Sylvia Trench, M's Briefing and Bond's eventual nookie time. Bond shooting Professor Dent has to be one of the best moments in the entire franchise, without question. Honey Ryder makes quite an effective in-over-her head Bond girl, and Joseph Wiseman's ultra-reserved Dr. No performance ranks among the best of the Bond villains.

Now, for the (minor) quibbles: I found the film to be just a bit slower than I remember. I've always known that Dr. No was a downtempo film, but in this viewing, I felt the film drag just a little. I must also admit that the final fight between Bond and Dr. No was also a tad rushed, and upon seeing the film's antagonist drowning in his pool of radioactive liquid, I thought to myself, "That was it?"

Overall, however, a thoroughly enjoyable Bond flick. I believe that Dr. No still ranks among the best Bond movies and is easily a top 10 entry.

1. Dr. No (1962) - 8.5/10

From Russia With Love from the Bond 50 blu-ray pack. (Oct. 16th)

Let me start off by saying that this film looks nearly flawless in high definition. I'm willing to bet that the picture from this blu-ray version is likely more detailed than what people saw in the theaters 49 years ago.

In my Dr. No review, I asked if there was anyone as cool as Sean Connery in his debut James Bond film. From Russia With Love answered my question. Sean Connery is just a stunning 007 no matter what way you look at it. It also seems that Connery is having a great time in the role; he is the essence of cool. From the way he walks, to the way he fights, to the way he seduces, to the way he orders his "very" black coffee, Sean Connery is James Bond. Plain and simple.

The rest of the cast works out great, also. Red Grant is one of my favorite henchman and the climactic fist fight between Grant and Bond on the Orient Express is breathtaking (my heart quickens a little every time I see that fight). Rosa Klebb makes a fantastic ugly and disgusting villain, who likes to creepily touch our main Bond girl. I think I like Honey Ryder a little more than Tatiana, but Daniela Bianchi makes a good Bond girl nonetheless.

Where Dr. No was more of a detective film, From Russia With Love is based on pure Cold War type spying. FRWL is also more stylish than its predecessor; the cinematography has noticeably improved, and some neat editing tricks are used to transition between one scene and another (I really love the train half-dissolved into the map - that no doubt inspired Raiders of the Lost Ark).

The issues in From Russia With Love never get past the minor. Maybe the initial belly dance at the gypsy camp could be sliced a little bit, and maybe that boat chase at the end could be, too. But overall, the film moves at a good pace and always keeps you interested. (For example, the film begins to slow down when Kerim, Tanya and Bond get on the Orient Express, but then....BAM! Kerim is murdered and we're immediately captivated.)

From Russia With Love is not only one of the greatest Bond movies, but it is also one of the greatest spy movies. Timeless, ultra-cool, and very slick, From Russia With Love still thrills after nearly 50 years in service.

1. From Russia With Love (1963) - 9.5/10
2. Dr. No (1962) - 8.5/10

Addendum: Oh, and how could I forget my favorite James Bond ally, Kerim Bay?! (Must have been a late night last night!) Pedro Armendariz's portrayal is likely my favorite Bond ally of the entire series.

Goldfinger from the Bond 50 blu-ray set. (Oct. 17)

Like Dr. No and From Russia With Love, Goldfinger was a stunning watch in high definition.

It has taken me a very long time to properly recognize this, but Goldfinger very much changed the cinematic James Bond after Dr. No and From Russia With Love. Nearly everything in Goldfinger is more flippant and blithe, more laid back and all smiles. Some people may despise this approach; after all, I believe Goldfinger was the beginning of what was to become the Roger Moore-esque Bond. You can take that or leave it, but whatever way you spin Goldfinger, the film is a joyride.

I'll start off by saying that I am completely dumbfounded by the amount of slack this film gets on these forums. Is Goldfinger perfect? Of course it isn't. But is it the snooze-fest that some of you folks claim it is? Absolutely not. Goldfinger is still one of the best James Bond films, and certainly one of the most fun. It all stems from Sean Connery's performance as our favorite secret agent. He isn't quite as 'lethal' as he was in Dr. No and From Russia With Love, but Connery's more easygoing approach suits Goldfinger's tone perfectly. He certainly has some great liners, also ("shocking" has always been one of my favorites).

Miss Pussy Galore may not be the most attractive Bond girl ever, but her performance is extremely strong. She's sassy, clearly knows her business and therefore comes across as 100% convincing. Three films into the Bond franchise and she is my favorite Bond girl, believe it or not (better get to the 'controversial' thread). Continuing with the cast, the Goldfinger/Oddjob duo is the best villain/henchman combination of the series. Not only does Goldfinger get to partake in one of the greatest dialogue exchanges of cinema history, he is delightfully arrogant and calculating. Oddjob is also my favorite Bond henchman. His bowler hat of death is unbelievably neat, and the way he shakes off a gold brick to the chest is the best done absurd moment in Bond history.

Classic Bond elements are at abundance here. That Aston Martin never fails to bring a smile to my face, and the Q lab scene is superb. John Barry produces a truly incredible score that oozes quintessential James Bond and Shirley Bassey's magnificent song ranks among the best in the franchise.

From a plot progression perspective, Goldfinger is actually very similar to Dr. No. Both films start off as a relatively small scale investigation, and end up turning into a sinister ploy to disrupt the world in one way or another. Goldfinger's is on a bigger scale however, and the climax at Fort Knox contains tension, fun and humor all in one. It's truly great.

Now, for some surprises (at least for me). Ever since I became a Bond fan, I have regarded Goldfinger as a 10/10, a perfect Bond film. This time around, I was extremely surprised to find myself doubting that score. There are some issues in Goldfinger - Cec Linder's portrayal of Felix is a good step backwards from Jack Lord's. Not to say that I dislike Linder's Leiter, but it is a true shame that Lord did not return (I am aware of the story behind it, though). Goldfinger meeting with all the gangsters bugged me just a little more than I remember, too. I thought to myself, "A scene like this would never have been in From Russia With Love." I think it was meant to be a little silly, but the scene went a little too far (the blatant overacting did not help). In the end these are minor criticisms, but they seemed to carry a little more resonance than I once thought.

In conclusion, Goldfinger is one of the best and certainly the most iconic James Bond film. I have no doubts that it will fall very comfortably into my top 5 by the end of this Bond-a-thon, also. But for the first time ever, I am not going to give Goldfinger a perfect score. It feels weird, and it kind of hurts, but I cannot ignore my gut. Regardless, I had a great time revisiting this classic James Bond film.

1. From Russia With Love (1963) - 9.5/10
2. Goldfinger (1964) - 9/10
3. Dr. No (1962) - 8.5/10

I think DN could have been fleshed out more in terms of the characters.

Thunderball from the Bond 50 blu-ray set. (Oct. 18)

Bondmania had set in very nicely by the time Thunderball was released back in 1965, and the film itself reflects that. Just take a look at that pre-titles sequence: Bond fights a cross-dressing SPECTRE agent, escapes via an inexplicably placed jet-pack, puts said jet-pack in the trunk of his Aston and gets away by spraying water out the back of said Aston at incoming thugs. Does it make any sense? Not really. Does it really matter that it doesn't make any sense? Not really. If you sit back and relax, Thunderball is very entertaining.

Of course Sean Connery is still superb as our favorite spy. Bond's liners are the best they've ever been (including, "Wait 'till you get to my teeth," and "She's just dead!"), Connery looks to be having a blast, and the extra jolt of confidence he gives the James Bond character often makes for some very amusing exchanges (the scenes between Bond and Q, and Bond and Largo come to mind).

When it comes to the supporting cast, Thunderball is quite solid. Jack Lord's Felix cannot be beaten in my eyes, but Rick Van Nutter does a better job than Cec Linder did. The film's villain, Largo, has an eyepatch and gets to do a good deal of evil things, but he ends up being overshadowed by the sinister Fiona Volpe (played marvelously by Luciana Paluzzi). The Fiona character is the best supporting member of the film and my personal favorite femme fatale. Domino is incredibly attractive, perhaps the most beautiful of all the Bond girls. Her actual character is a very solid, also. Naturally, the usuals (M, Moneypenny, Q etc.) are great.

The plot of Thunderball is actually interesting to me, despite it being done to death in this day and age. The plot progressing scenes (such as Domino's brother getting murdered by his look-a-like), make for some of the best scenes in the movie. From a technical aspect, Thunderball is a fairly mixed bag. While there are some serious dubbing issues and odd editing choices, Fiona Volpe's death scene is one of the best edited sequences ever to be seen in Bond (and therefore ends up being 100% effective).

Now, I view Thunderball as the first Bond movie to contain a more than minor issue (still not serious). The film's one true weakness is the pace and runtime. Plainly put, the film is at least 10 minutes too long with an option of 15 minutes if you really want to go there. This is particularly evident after watching the first three Bond films, all of which clocked in at roughly 110 minutes. Thunderball, of course, is 130 minutes. Most of the scenes that could be cut are the underwater ones; they are beautifully shot, but are quite lengthy (the scene in which Largo steals the nuclear bombs is the biggest offender). You'll recall that I criticized Dr. No's pace, but as the first Bond film was under two hours, the problem was less apparent. Unfortunately, Thunderball occasionally gets lost in its bloated run time.

But when it is on target (nearly the entire film is), Thunderball truly delivers. Sean Connery's Bond coupled with a great Barry score and Terence Young's direction can only mean one thing: a very good Bond picture. And, despite the bloat, Thunderball is just that.

1. From Russia With Love (1963) - 9.5/10
2. Goldfinger (1964) - 9/10
3. Dr. No (1962) - 8.5/10
4. Thunderball (1965) - 8/10

Welcome back SJK91! :)

You could probably post them all in one. ;)

The White Tuxedo wrote:

You could probably post them all in one. ;)

Doh. :x

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'm reserving judgement on SF.

Laz thinks he already he saw it 13 years ago.

It doesn't strike me as TWINE 2.0 aside from M's past and a spolision at MI6.

And a miraculously unfunny end to the caviar factory sequence.

I can't tell if this is worse than TND or not. At least it looks better, but it seems to be even MORE boring.

EDIT ADDON: Bond just runs off without checking if Zukovsky is even alive.

I'd like to have seen more of Zhukovsky. Bloody hell, imagine him in a Brosnan CR.

Well, actually, don't but still...decent enough character I think.

Zukovsky's a great character! But, I would have loved to have seen Mathis and Brosnan's Bond interact...

SJK91 wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

You could probably post them all in one. ;)

Doh. :x

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QWfrxYt9DQ

As for TWINE...

I like "One last screw."

Was that a farm animal calling out in pain? No, that was M.

Oh, is Bond going to shoot M? Great! Oh, he shot the lock.

FieldsMan wrote:

Zukovsky's a great character! But, I would have loved to have seen Mathis and Brosnan's Bond interact...

would've been something. And imagine Brosnan after his vodka poisoning.

You Only Live Twice from the Bond 50 blu-ray set. (Oct. 19)

You Only Live Twice is a film that better exists in your memory. Prior to this viewing, I thought You Only Live Twice as a somewhat flawed but more than solid Bond adventure. Upon watching it tonight, however, I've realized that this film is about as all-over-the-place as you can get. You Only Live Twice reaches some highs, but sees a good deal of lows.

For starters, compare the 'YOLT Sean Connery' to the 'Dr. No Sean Connery' (or the Sean Connery of FRWL, GF and TB). After watching the first five Bond films in five days, I can tell you that the difference is astonishing. It is a cliche on these forums to classify Sean Connery's performance in YOLT as 'tired', but it is true. Most of his charm is gone in You Only Live Twice. Apart from the great fight in Osato's office, and a couple of zingers (mostly with or concerning Helga Brandt), Connery is on autopilot. I'm not going to say that I dislike his performance in You Only Live Twice, but after having four stellar turns as James Bond, Connery's YOLT performance is disappointing.

You Only Live Twice's supporting cast features a couple of strong players, but it is generally unremarkable. Tiger Tanaka makes for a good Bond ally, and while not being as effective as Thunderball's femme fatale, the villainous Helga Brandt is more than solid. The two other Bond girls are forgettable, however. Aki's only real strong scene is her death, and Kissy (who isn't even mentioned by name until the end credits) might just be the most uninteresting Bond girl there is. I don't mind Donald Pleasance as Blofeld, but after all of the hype that came from Thunderball and From Russia With Love, I couldn't help but feel let down.

The film feels too much like a travelogue at times, and it shows just a little too much of the Japanese culture than it should (although I realize in 1967, this was probably not the case). That being said, the duo of Freddie Young's cinematography and Ken Adam's production design makes for some of the best visuals in all of Bond. All of Adam's sets, from Henderson's Japanese home to the dazzling underground volcano are just magnificent. The money definitely showed on the screen. Now for the bad visuals - the special effects. Minus the believable pre-titles sequence in space, I have a hard time believing YOLT's special effects were ever convincing. The two biggest offenders are the helicopter battle (good idea, poor execution) and the SPECTRE rocket re-entering the Earth's atmosphere (looks like something out of a terrible 1950's 'B' movie). You Only Live Twice offers a very valuable lesson in filmmaking: if you can't pull it off convincingly, don't bother doing it. A lot of movies made nowadays should heed this advice.

I feel that the filmmakers' excessive efforts put into the beautiful sets was to counteract You Only Live Twice's preposterous and nonsensical plot. Extremely important plot points are throwaway lines; Tiger says to Bond, "Bad news from outer-space," to which Bond says (rather flippantly thanks to Connery's non-motivation), "Yes, I heard, now the Soviets are blaming the Americans." Tiger then says, "Next time it will be war." If you're not paying attention, you've missed it. When the characters don't even seem to care about the world ending, it is hard for the audience to care. Then Blofeld says something about, "seeing a new power dominating the world." What was that you say, Blofeld? The entire motivation behind the rocket eating spacecraft was a SPECTRE new world order? It doesn't matter, nobody ever mentions it again. Whatever, let's just get to the gunfight.

If Thunderball wore a little thin, then You Only Live Twice is a three foot wire stretched across a football field. The filmmakers didn't know where to stop, and a lot of the film turns out to be only a couple steps away from a complete mess. John Barry's score, Ken Adam's sets and the classic feel of the 1960s almost makes you believe that You Only Live Twice should share a shelf with Connery's first four Bond films, but upon further inspection, it really doesn't.

1. From Russia With Love (1963) - 9.5/10
2. Goldfinger (1964) - 9/10
3. Dr. No (1962) - 8.5/10
4. Thunderball (1965) - 8/10
5. You Only Live Twice (1967) - 6/10

----------------------------------------------------------

On Her Majesty's Secret Service from the Bond 50 blu-ray set. (Oct. 20)

What a difference one film makes. By 1967, James Bond (while very successful monetarily) was beginning to become a noticeably tired franchise. You Only Live Twice had pushed the series further than it could go when it came to decent story telling and believability, and the producers rightfully realized that it was time to turn the films around. The result is On Her Majesty's Secret Service, a truly superior James Bond adventure.

In order to enjoy OHMSS, you must try and accept the fact that George Lazenby is James Bond. There are some folks I know (and some of you on this forum) who simply cannot do that. I cannot force anyone to change their opinion, but I personally believe that Lazenby makes for a decent 007 most of the time. His performance may be a little uneven at times, but when Lazenby is on his game, he is just about as convincing as you can get. I've always wondered if OHMSS was roughly shot in chronological order because as the film moves on, Lazenby improves. Oddly enough, his worst scene (performance wise) is the very first one he's in. "Bond, James Bond" is bizarrely delivered, and while I do love the line, "This never happened to the other fella," I could see how it wouldn't be someone else's cup of tea. (Interestingly, the second time Lazenby utters "Bond, James Bond," he is spot on.)

Then there is the final scene of the film, which Lazenby totally nails. It is not only Lazenby and the film's finest moment, but one of the best filmic James Bond moments ever. As a matter of fact - and I may offend some of you with this - I'm almost 100% sure that Lazenby sold this scene better than Sean Connery would have. If Connery's YOLT performance is anything to go by, I'd rather have had Lazenby in that car crying over his dead wife as opposed to Connery. (Perhaps an earlier Connery would have done better.)

The supporting cast is extremely strong. For some reason, Draco has always reminded me of Kerim Bay both in the way he looks and the way he presents himself (that is a good thing), and Telly Savalas' portrayal of Blofeld is my personal favorite. Then there is Diana Rigg, who is surely one of, if not THE best Bond girl of the series. She is enigmatic, feisty and proves to be just the perfect girl for James Bond. Diana Rigg interpreted her character in the perfect way, and the features Tracy has makes her final scene even more tragic.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service's plot is quite psychedelic; Blofeld is using very eccentric hypnosis methods to brainwash beautiful girls into spreading a virus which is to make all livestock infertile. And oh, he's demanding a lot of money. If it sounds a little wacky, it is. But the scheme actually is quite ingenious as no one would likely see it coming. Blofeld's plot is slightly eerie, and it is far more convincing that You Only Live Twice's SPECTRE new world order, or whatever the hell that film was about.

John Barry's score deserves a paragraph of its own, it is that fantastic. The use of a non-vocal main title was likely a risk in 1969 (especially after GF, TB and YOLT), but when paired with Maurice Binder's title work, the result is pure magic. The 'Sir Hillary's Night Out' track (when Bond is sneaking around Piz Gloria after he escapes the cable car room) is the most hauntingly beautiful track of the entire series. Both the Louis Armstrong version and the instrumental version of "We Have All the Time in the World" is wonderfully warm, and the action cues are heroically splendid. John Barry proved with On Her Majesty's Secret Service that he was the outright master of scoring these films. May that man rest in peace.

Now, for the minor quibbles. As On Her Majesty's Secret Service was George Lazenby's first Bond film, I feel the decision to extensively dub his voice with Sir Hillary's was a mistake. If Blofeld did not recognize Bond's appearance, I don't think Bond's real voice would have been a giveaway. Secondly, the editing of OHMSS is occasionally questionable. There is no doubt that the cinematography is stunning, but some of the fights employ the use of extremely harsh looking jump cuts that can be distracting. Also related to editing, there is a moment during the Piz Gloria gunfight where one of Draco's helicopters magically appears out of thin air! Maybe they just didn't get every shot they needed.

Overall, however, OHMSS is a clear improvement over its predecessor and a large breath of fresh air for the franchise. George Lazenby deserved at least one more Bond film (if not more) to wrap up his story, that is for sure. He and the film were unfairly judged in 1969 for not being like Sean Connery, but I'm happy to see many contemporary reviews giving On Her Majesty's Secret Service the credit it deserves.

1. From Russia With Love (1963) - 9.5/10
2. Goldfinger (1964) - 9/10
3. Dr. No (1962) - 8.5/10
4. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) - 8.5/10
5. Thunderball (1965) - 8/10
6. You Only Live Twice (1967) - 6/10

James Bond (and my reviews) will return with...Diamonds Are Forever. (Done spamming for now)

No mention of Freddie Young's cinematography?

top notch reviews SJK. Perfectly put for YOLT being one best "exists in the memory".

I'm sure Laze will agree on your "In order to enjoy OHMSS, you must try and accept the fact that George Lazenby is James Bond".

Should be the tagline on the DVD

Largo's Shark wrote:

No mention of Freddie Young's cinematography?

He is mentioned in my YOLT review! "The duo of Freddie Young's cinematography and Ken Adam..."

And thanks for the comments!

Bond's on the sub with a gun.

"Up, down, stay, move, stand, sit!"

Largo's Shark wrote:

Lazenby. wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Is there no chance that SKYFALL could be good?

In a week's time, yes. In six months time? No.

So its reception will be exactly the same as QUANTUM OF SOLACE's?

Not quite, but eventually it won't be far off.

Lazenby. wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Lazenby. wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Is there no chance that SKYFALL could be good?

In a week's time, yes. In six months time? No.

So its reception will be exactly the same as QUANTUM OF SOLACE's?

Not quite, but eventually it won't be far off.

Why are you so certain?

Python wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

Python wrote:

The DP must have really loved throwing in smoke on his sets, it just makes the film look even more dated than ever. Just ugly ugly cinematography. Sets are unremarkable.

Believe it or not, TND was shot by Oscar-winning cinematographer Robert Elswit.

Yup, I love a lot of his other work, particularly GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK. I have no idea what happened for TND, but then again you have Spottiswoode directing.

I like a lot of Elswit's work too, and since I like very little of Spottiswoode's (outside of the early stuff), I'd be inclined to think it was a matter of 'better have set the lights, dearie, because I'm rolling in 3 minutes." The people working for him on SIXTH DAY that I interviewed were perpetually in eye-roll over his insecurity and ragtag staging. Arnold was even making fun of him on the set, and you just don't do that with a director.