Common misconception. Just because Blackleiter is anti-Moore, doesn't mean he's a die-hard Fleming purist.
You are absolutely correct, my friend. -{ My dissatisfaction with Moore in the role really doesn't have that much to do with how closely he does (or doesn't) match Fleming's Bond. Even Connery deviates significantly from the Bond in the novels, which really becomes apparent in the films released after FRWL. I have always felt that Dalton is the closest approximation of the literary Bond, but none of the actors are an exact match. As for never having read Fleming's Goldfinger, I'm sure I'll get around to it eventually.
I have an early story but I'm only 21. Goldfinger was the first Bond movie I have ever seen. I remember it being on Spike TV back in the early 2000's. I've been in love ever since then.
I'm three times your age, but I, too, was lovestruck by Goldfinger in the same way! -{
I'm three times your age, but I, too, was lovestruck by Goldfinger in the same way! -{
Well, you're not three time MY age, but I too loved Goldfinger IMMENSELY on first viewing in my teens. That, YOLT & DAF rocked my world. Didn't go as nuts over DN, FRWL or TB, but I enjoyed them. Key was, I was a big Star Trek/Lost In Space fan from when I was six. Put a laser in a movie, or show space, & I'd be hooked. )
Goldfinger or From Russia with Love must have been my first Bond experience. My father always seemed to be able to find a Connery marathon on tv at all times. He has been studying Russian as long as I can remember would always (and still does) work on his vocabulary while the tv is on. He thought it was very funny to teach five year old me how to say "I am not a spy." When I was little he took me to see Golden Eye in theaters. I just remember thinking Famke Janssen was the most stunning person I had ever seen. I have to disagree with Dalton, much can be taken in my a 6 year old watching Bond.
Many years ago, when I was a nipper, I badly wanted to see (the, then, new) Moonraker on a rare treat to the cinema. Unfortunately, this didn't meet parental scrutiny, who thought it might be inappropriate for an eight-year old. So it came to pass that it was not to be my first Bond film.
My first Bond film might possibly have been Diamonds are Forever, but it's doubtful that my parents would take a baby 002 into the cinema with them.
So, I had to make do with a TV showing of a Bond film for my introduction to the series. To this day I can't remember if it was Dr No or You Only Live Twice, but I do recall that Connery was the first Bond I saw.
No one since has managed to equal him in my eyes (no disrespect). No, not even Lazenby... :v
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
edited January 2015
My first taste of 007 was being taken to see LALD when I was five years old. I was transfixed by the poster - the pose with the gun across the chest, speedboats & alligators bursting forth, the 007 logo & the 'i' of 'Die' drawn as a knife. My viewing of the film's a bit vague but the agent's knifing in New Orleans, the stepping stone escape from the alligator island & the voodoo stuff at the end all stay with me to this day.
Then I discovered Connery when ITV showed DN in 1975 (or thereabouts). I was aware this was the same character but played differently. Every year or so they'd show a new Connery with TB being my favourite - I was mad keen on Jacques Cousteau & his underwater escapades. Then I saw DAF on Xmas Day, 1978. It seemed such a radical Connery film - comical & yet darkly sadistic.
Between all this came the Lazenby romp & it seemed a most odd film. Bond getting married? Don't normal people do that? Bond isn't normal & OHMSS was my least favourite film for quite a while.
Meanwhile the Moores kept appearing in the cinema with TSWLM & MR being highpoints. This was the era of real cinema spectacle & MR in particular looked absolutely fantastic. it didn't matter one jot about hovercraft gondolas & double-taking pigeons - this was Bond in space for goodness sake!
Then in the mid-'80s I did something unforgiveable - I grew up (a bit) & started taking life seriously. And poor old AVTAK was the Bond that suffered in this period. In an odd way, Dalton's introduction to the role snapped me out of my sombre state & I revelled at his hard man act in LTK.
The '90s saw me become the laid back adult I now am who sees Bond films as they should always be - glorious pieces of entertainment that should forever be cherished, whoever slips on the shoulder-holster.
But now OHMSS is my favourite Bond for the very reasons I disliked it originally. How the passage of time changes a person's tastes.
My first taste of 007 was being taken to see LALD when I was five years old. I was transfixed by the poster - the pose with the gun across the chest, speedboats & alligators bursting forth, the 007 logo & the 'i' of 'Die' drawn as a knife. My viewing of the film's a bit vague but the agent's knifing in New Orleans, the stepping stone escape from the alligator island & the voodoo stuff at the end all stay with me to this day.
Then I discovered Connery when ITV showed DN in 1975 (or thereabouts). I was aware this was the same character but played differently. Every year or so they'd show a new Connery with TB being my favourite - I was mad keen on Jacques Cousteau & his underwater escapades. Then I saw DAF on Xmas Day, 1978. It seemed such a radical Connery film - comical & yet darkly sadistic.
Between all this came the Lazenby romp & it seemed a most odd film. Bond getting married? Don't normal people do that? Bond isn't normal & OHMSS was my least favourite film for quite a while.
Meanwhile the Moores kept appearing in the cinema with TSWLM & MR being highpoints. This was the era of real cinema spectacle & MR in particular looked absolutely fantastic. it didn't matter one jot about hovercraft gondolas & double-taking pigeons - this was Bond in space for goodness sake!
Then in the mid-'80s I did something unforgiveable - I grew up (a bit) & started taking life seriously. And poor old AVTAK was the Bond that suffered in this period. In an odd way, Dalton's introduction to the role snapped me out of my sombre state & I revelled at his hard man act in LTK.
The '90s saw me become the laid back adult I now am who sees Bond films as they should always be - glorious pieces of entertainment that should forever be cherished, whoever slips on the shoulder-holster.
But now OHMSS is my favourite Bond for the very reasons I disliked it originally. How the passage of time changes a person's tastes.
Nicely done, my friend! -{
And by the way, Connery was my favorite Bond from the start and has remained in the top spot to this day. So I got it right from the very beginning!
Here's a silly memory-
On one of my many Bond triple feature viewings I had two friends with me, and we were all about 14, and the movies were DN, FRWL & GF. And we were in a silly & caffeinated mood. So every time we saw a bad rear projection or an obvious model shot (mostly Goldfinger's jet) we yelled "FAKE", tossed a volley of popcorn at the screen, & dissolved into a lump of giggling idiots. )
I don't remember a time in my life without bond! from acting out scenes as bond for my uncles...my brothers hand me down SC bond action figure and AM dinky car went everywhere with me! the ppk toy gun that was taken from me at the airport going to Canada for the first time. going to see LALD and thinking RM was james bonds brother
I am a James Bond fan.
And it hasn’t always been easy to admit it. To do so would usually give rise to condescending sneers in some circles. It was on a par with revealing that you enjoy a Big Mac now and then.
But it wasn’t always so. . .
In the beginning the Bond films were viewed as sophisticated adult comic strips which were emblematic of the “New Frontier” of the early sixties. Later in the decade, as the culture shifted dramatically, the character of James Bond was viewed as a figure of “The Establishment” and his popularity began to wan somewhat.
During the seventies the Bond films changed with a greater emphasis placed on slapstick comedy mixed with the series trademark production values. In the decades that followed and despite the casting of successive actors and half hearted attempts to refresh the concept, this formula remained more or less the standard template for the films until the Casino Royale reboot.
In the beginning James Bond hardly made of dent in my nine year old world. I remember seeing the one sheet for “Dr. No” posted in the window of the local supermarket and while it caught my eye it was quickly forgotten. Around the same time I picked up the comic book tie-in, but I felt the artwork was a bit stodgy when compared to what Marvel was doing as they started their long march in revolutionizing the form and I soon lost interest.
A year later, my aunts and uncles were gathered at our home for a Friday night get together when I happened to overhear them talking about a movie. They were speaking in hushed but excited tones. Something about sex and a fight on a train. A fight on a train! I listened closer. The following week, accompanied as I often was in those days by my brother Eddie and my cousin Anthony, I went to see it.
The move was “From Russia With Love” and it was unlike anything we had ever seen before. This wasn’t a war movie, or a western, or even a private eye flick. This was something else altogether. Something completely new and modern; cold war foreign intrigue with a jet setting super cool hero engaging in sex and violence that was served up shaken and not stirred.
The opening gunbarrel logo and closing credits promising that James Bond would return in Goldfinger told me that it was part of a series and there would be more to come.
And then came. . . “Goldfinger.”
And “Goldfinger” blew the roof off.
Showcased exclusively at New York’s plush DeMille Theatre, it was United Artists big Christmas release and my first “downtown” movie.
I was eleven years old and as we stood on line for the five o’clock show snow began to fall. A group of young secretaries were chatting about a movie called “Sex and the Single Girl.” Suddenly, I felt very grown up.
And then in a rush, we were seated inside. The audience was made up entirely of adults and they seemed just as eager to see the movie as I was. A current of anticipatory excitement ran through the theatre.
The curtain rose, the movie came on. . .
And I knew right from the opening moments of the pre-title sequence that the filmmakers had created something even more unique than the previous film. The narrative had been streamlined with sly self-mocking satire, the action heightened with cutting edge technological toys; all of it mixed to perfection. Not since “The Crimson Pirate” had I seen a movie that so delighted in its absurdities and yet managed to keep a straight face throughout.
It was the single most exciting movie experience of my young life. Nothing since has ever matched the glamour and excitement of that snowy winter’s eve in 1964.
The following summer Bond fans everywhere were given a nice surprise as United Artists did something brilliant; they released “Dr. No” and “From Russia With Love” on a double bill with the tagline “James Bond is back. . . to back!”
This was the beginning of a very successful pattern that lasted throughout the decade and beyond. So, I was finally able to catch up with Dr. No and I loved it. Combined with From Russia with Love it was the Saturday afternoon at the movies to end all Saturday afternoons at the movies.
As James Bond became a cultural phenomenon in the sixties, various social institutions weighed in on the effects all this might be having on young people.
Once such institution was the Catholic Church which condemned the films as morally objectionable. At the time I was a student at a Catholic elementary school and one day an entire class was set aside to talk about these terrible films. No one has a license to kill, the Irish Christian Brothers intoned harshly, and sex was only for procreation. Of course, none of us paid any attention to this blather and we flocked to see each new Bond movie in its turn.
The following winter United Artists released “Thunderball” as their big Christmas release. So, from Christmas ’64 to Christmas ’65 it was a year of virtually non-stop Bond movies. “Thunderball,” however, was a bit of a disappointment. Something was missing;, it was big and lwith a story that, while topical, lagged somewhat. Still, there was a lot to recommend; the beautiful wide screen cinematography and locations, the girls, the gadgets, etc. And it was Bond! So we kept the faith accordingly.
A two year gap followed “Thunderball” during which we were inundated with all the copy cat imitators. Derek Flint, Matt Helm, and on and on. Some were okay. Most were bad.
And we waited. . .
Then one spring day my cousin Anthony and I were romping around midtown Manhattan when we were both brought up short by the sight of the biggest billboard in the world displaying the artwork for the upcoming release of “You Only Live Twice.”
I was mesmerized by the trip-tech of images that ran through the 007 symbol.
In one, Bond is surrounded by Japanese bathing beauties.
Okay so far.
In the next, he’s in a mini-gyro fighting off a horde of enemy helicopters.
Even better!
And then, in the final image, he’s standing sideways along the lip of a hollowed out volcano containing a rocket with a red communist star on its side. All this while helicopters are circling overheard and firing down into the volcano while gray hooded men slid down ropes into the fiery inferno below.
Mother of God! What was all this!
The paintings depicted a “Boys Own” adventure done on a science-fiction scale. It completely hot-wired my fourteen year old brain. And this time the movie did not disappoint. Yes, it was completely and utterly unbelievable, but the sheer size and spectacle of the production was enthralling especially when seen on the big screens of the day.
Another two year gap followed before the release of the next film.
And again we waited.
In the winter of 1969, as the tumultuous decade drew to a close, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” was released with George Lazenby taking over the role of James Bond. A low level of anxiety ran through me; George who? Sean Connery WAS James Bond. This whole thing had the air of a knock off – like a cheap Italian western. It turned out, however, to be a masterpiece. A flawed masterpiece to be sure, but it remains to this day one of the best movies in the series.
For me, it was the peak of the series and the peak of my affection for all things Bond. From that point on I became less and less enchanted with the films. Still, I kept the faith and dutifully trudged off to each and every new Bond film upon its release. But what was once stylishly entertaining was now repetitious and cringe worthy. All that was left was nostalgia.
Times change and our celluloid heroes need to change with them. The Casino Royale reboot has brought James Bond into the 21st century and all that glitters is once again gold.
But it will never be the same.
It can’t be.
And that’s okay because James Bond will return to delight each new generation of moviegoers.
In the sixties The Beatles and James Bond dominated the popular culture. Nothing was bigger and in their respective milieus nobody did it better. They were part of a larger revolution taking place in the arts and in society as a whole.
It was an interesting time to be a kid and a good time to be a James Bond fan.
Here's a silly memory-
On one of my many Bond triple feature viewings I had two friends with me, and we were all about 14, and the movies were DN, FRWL & GF. And we were in a silly & caffeinated mood. So every time we saw a bad rear projection or an obvious model shot (mostly Goldfinger's jet) we yelled "FAKE", tossed a volley of popcorn at the screen, & dissolved into a lump of giggling idiots. )
When I discovered the pleasures of drink, a couple of friends & I used to indulge in viewings of AVTAK with booze accompaniment. We found the two went in hand-in-hand & the film improved when viewed through an alcoholic haze. We'd shout, "That was Roger, honest!" when Moore's stunt double performed yet another incredulous stunt. Childish perhaps, but I still find it the best Bond to watch with a few cans to hand.
I am a James Bond fan.
And it hasn’t always been easy to admit it. To do so would usually give rise to condescending sneers in some circles. It was on a par with revealing that you enjoy a Big Mac now and then.
But it wasn’t always so. . .
In the beginning the Bond films were viewed as sophisticated adult comic strips which were emblematic of the “New Frontier” of the early sixties. Later in the decade, as the culture shifted dramatically, the character of James Bond was viewed as a figure of “The Establishment” and his popularity began to wan somewhat.
During the seventies the Bond films changed with a greater emphasis placed on slapstick comedy mixed with the series trademark production values. In the decades that followed and despite the casting of successive actors and half hearted attempts to refresh the concept, this formula remained more or less the standard template for the films until the Casino Royale reboot.
In the beginning James Bond hardly made of dent in my nine year old world. I remember seeing the one sheet for “Dr. No” posted in the window of the local supermarket and while it caught my eye it was quickly forgotten. Around the same time I picked up the comic book tie-in, but I felt the artwork was a bit stodgy when compared to what Marvel was doing as they started their long march in revolutionizing the form and I soon lost interest.
A year later, my aunts and uncles were gathered at our home for a Friday night get together when I happened to overhear them talking about a movie. They were speaking in hushed but excited tones. Something about sex and a fight on a train. A fight on a train! I listened closer. The following week, accompanied as I often was in those days by my brother Eddie and my cousin Anthony, I went to see it.
The move was “From Russia With Love” and it was unlike anything we had ever seen before. This wasn’t a war movie, or a western, or even a private eye flick. This was something else altogether. Something completely new and modern; cold war foreign intrigue with a jet setting super cool hero engaging in sex and violence that was served up shaken and not stirred.
The opening gunbarrel logo and closing credits promising that James Bond would return in Goldfinger told me that it was part of a series and there would be more to come.
And then came. . . “Goldfinger.”
And “Goldfinger” blew the roof off.
Showcased exclusively at New York’s plush DeMille Theatre, it was United Artists big Christmas release and my first “downtown” movie.
I was eleven years old and as we stood on line for the five o’clock show snow began to fall. A group of young secretaries were chatting about a movie called “Sex and the Single Girl.” Suddenly, I felt very grown up.
And then in a rush, we were seated inside. The audience was made up entirely of adults and they seemed just as eager to see the movie as I was. A current of anticipatory excitement ran through the theatre.
The curtain rose, the movie came on. . .
And I knew right from the opening moments of the pre-title sequence that the filmmakers had created something even more unique than the previous film. The narrative had been streamlined with sly self-mocking satire, the action heightened with cutting edge technological toys; all of it mixed to perfection. Not since “The Crimson Pirate” had I seen a movie that so delighted in its absurdities and yet managed to keep a straight face throughout.
It was the single most exciting movie experience of my young life. Nothing since has ever matched the glamour and excitement of that snowy winter’s eve in 1964.
The following summer Bond fans everywhere were given a nice surprise as United Artists did something brilliant; they released “Dr. No” and “From Russia With Love” on a double bill with the tagline “James Bond is back. . . to back!”
This was the beginning of a very successful pattern that lasted throughout the decade and beyond. So, I was finally able to catch up with Dr. No and I loved it. Combined with From Russia with Love it was the Saturday afternoon at the movies to end all Saturday afternoons at the movies.
As James Bond became a cultural phenomenon in the sixties, various social institutions weighed in on the effects all this might be having on young people.
Once such institution was the Catholic Church which condemned the films as morally objectionable. At the time I was a student at a Catholic elementary school and one day an entire class was set aside to talk about these terrible films. No one has a license to kill, the Irish Christian Brothers intoned harshly, and sex was only for procreation. Of course, none of us paid any attention to this blather and we flocked to see each new Bond movie in its turn.
The following winter United Artists released “Thunderball” as their big Christmas release. So, from Christmas ’64 to Christmas ’65 it was a year of virtually non-stop Bond movies. “Thunderball,” however, was a bit of a disappointment. Something was missing;, it was big and lwith a story that, while topical, lagged somewhat. Still, there was a lot to recommend; the beautiful wide screen cinematography and locations, the girls, the gadgets, etc. And it was Bond! So we kept the faith accordingly.
A two year gap followed “Thunderball” during which we were inundated with all the copy cat imitators. Derek Flint, Matt Helm, and on and on. Some were okay. Most were bad.
And we waited. . .
Then one spring day my cousin Anthony and I were romping around midtown Manhattan when we were both brought up short by the sight of the biggest billboard in the world displaying the artwork for the upcoming release of “You Only Live Twice.”
I was mesmerized by the trip-tech of images that ran through the 007 symbol.
In one, Bond is surrounded by Japanese bathing beauties.
Okay so far.
In the next, he’s in a mini-gyro fighting off a horde of enemy helicopters.
Even better!
And then, in the final image, he’s standing sideways along the lip of a hollowed out volcano containing a rocket with a red communist star on its side. All this while helicopters are circling overheard and firing down into the volcano while gray hooded men slid down ropes into the fiery inferno below.
Mother of God! What was all this!
The paintings depicted a “Boys Own” adventure done on a science-fiction scale. It completely hot-wired my fourteen year old brain. And this time the movie did not disappoint. Yes, it was completely and utterly unbelievable, but the sheer size and spectacle of the production was enthralling especially when seen on the big screens of the day.
Another two year gap followed before the release of the next film.
And again we waited.
In the winter of 1969, as the tumultuous decade drew to a close, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” was released with George Lazenby taking over the role of James Bond. A low level of anxiety ran through me; George who? Sean Connery WAS James Bond. This whole thing had the air of a knock off – like a cheap Italian western. It turned out, however, to be a masterpiece. A flawed masterpiece to be sure, but it remains to this day one of the best movies in the series.
For me, it was the peak of the series and the peak of my affection for all things Bond. From that point on I became less and less enchanted with the films. Still, I kept the faith and dutifully trudged off to each and every new Bond film upon its release. But what was once stylishly entertaining was now repetitious and cringe worthy. All that was left was nostalgia.
Times change and our celluloid heroes need to change with them. The Casino Royale reboot has brought James Bond into the 21st century and all that glitters is once again gold.
But it will never be the same.
It can’t be.
And that’s okay because James Bond will return to delight each new generation of moviegoers.
In the sixties The Beatles and James Bond dominated the popular culture. Nothing was bigger and in their respective milieus nobody did it better. They were part of a larger revolution taking place in the arts and in society as a whole.
It was an interesting time to be a kid and a good time to be a James Bond fan.
Wow, that really took me back! Your memories of being inaugurated into the world of Bond are remarkably simliar to mine. Very nicely done. Thanks! {[]
If you've read the novels & know what to look for, Brosnan was a fairly dark Bond. If you haven't & are just in it for the fun of it, Brosnan's Bond seems like he's having a great old time as a secret agent.
It was a perfect balance for the time, and a sure way to bring back Bond big time until conditions were right for another super-hard-edged attempt.
Comments
You are absolutely correct, my friend. -{ My dissatisfaction with Moore in the role really doesn't have that much to do with how closely he does (or doesn't) match Fleming's Bond. Even Connery deviates significantly from the Bond in the novels, which really becomes apparent in the films released after FRWL. I have always felt that Dalton is the closest approximation of the literary Bond, but none of the actors are an exact match. As for never having read Fleming's Goldfinger, I'm sure I'll get around to it eventually.
I'm three times your age, but I, too, was lovestruck by Goldfinger in the same way! -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Before that, I never once paid attention to 007 so I didn't see any footage of any other Bond movie.
I have to say Connery eased me into the series quite well.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
My first Bond film might possibly have been Diamonds are Forever, but it's doubtful that my parents would take a baby 002 into the cinema with them.
So, I had to make do with a TV showing of a Bond film for my introduction to the series. To this day I can't remember if it was Dr No or You Only Live Twice, but I do recall that Connery was the first Bond I saw.
No one since has managed to equal him in my eyes (no disrespect). No, not even Lazenby... :v
Then I discovered Connery when ITV showed DN in 1975 (or thereabouts). I was aware this was the same character but played differently. Every year or so they'd show a new Connery with TB being my favourite - I was mad keen on Jacques Cousteau & his underwater escapades. Then I saw DAF on Xmas Day, 1978. It seemed such a radical Connery film - comical & yet darkly sadistic.
Between all this came the Lazenby romp & it seemed a most odd film. Bond getting married? Don't normal people do that? Bond isn't normal & OHMSS was my least favourite film for quite a while.
Meanwhile the Moores kept appearing in the cinema with TSWLM & MR being highpoints. This was the era of real cinema spectacle & MR in particular looked absolutely fantastic. it didn't matter one jot about hovercraft gondolas & double-taking pigeons - this was Bond in space for goodness sake!
Then in the mid-'80s I did something unforgiveable - I grew up (a bit) & started taking life seriously. And poor old AVTAK was the Bond that suffered in this period. In an odd way, Dalton's introduction to the role snapped me out of my sombre state & I revelled at his hard man act in LTK.
The '90s saw me become the laid back adult I now am who sees Bond films as they should always be - glorious pieces of entertainment that should forever be cherished, whoever slips on the shoulder-holster.
But now OHMSS is my favourite Bond for the very reasons I disliked it originally. How the passage of time changes a person's tastes.
OHMSS, at first and as " I" matured, it became my favourite !
2085?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Thanks, that was a great trip down your memory lane!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Nicely done, my friend! -{
And by the way, Connery was my favorite Bond from the start and has remained in the top spot to this day. So I got it right from the very beginning!
On one of my many Bond triple feature viewings I had two friends with me, and we were all about 14, and the movies were DN, FRWL & GF. And we were in a silly & caffeinated mood. So every time we saw a bad rear projection or an obvious model shot (mostly Goldfinger's jet) we yelled "FAKE", tossed a volley of popcorn at the screen, & dissolved into a lump of giggling idiots.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
By
JOE MORRISSEY
I am a James Bond fan.
And it hasn’t always been easy to admit it. To do so would usually give rise to condescending sneers in some circles. It was on a par with revealing that you enjoy a Big Mac now and then.
But it wasn’t always so. . .
In the beginning the Bond films were viewed as sophisticated adult comic strips which were emblematic of the “New Frontier” of the early sixties. Later in the decade, as the culture shifted dramatically, the character of James Bond was viewed as a figure of “The Establishment” and his popularity began to wan somewhat.
During the seventies the Bond films changed with a greater emphasis placed on slapstick comedy mixed with the series trademark production values. In the decades that followed and despite the casting of successive actors and half hearted attempts to refresh the concept, this formula remained more or less the standard template for the films until the Casino Royale reboot.
In the beginning James Bond hardly made of dent in my nine year old world. I remember seeing the one sheet for “Dr. No” posted in the window of the local supermarket and while it caught my eye it was quickly forgotten. Around the same time I picked up the comic book tie-in, but I felt the artwork was a bit stodgy when compared to what Marvel was doing as they started their long march in revolutionizing the form and I soon lost interest.
A year later, my aunts and uncles were gathered at our home for a Friday night get together when I happened to overhear them talking about a movie. They were speaking in hushed but excited tones. Something about sex and a fight on a train. A fight on a train! I listened closer. The following week, accompanied as I often was in those days by my brother Eddie and my cousin Anthony, I went to see it.
The move was “From Russia With Love” and it was unlike anything we had ever seen before. This wasn’t a war movie, or a western, or even a private eye flick. This was something else altogether. Something completely new and modern; cold war foreign intrigue with a jet setting super cool hero engaging in sex and violence that was served up shaken and not stirred.
The opening gunbarrel logo and closing credits promising that James Bond would return in Goldfinger told me that it was part of a series and there would be more to come.
And then came. . . “Goldfinger.”
And “Goldfinger” blew the roof off.
Showcased exclusively at New York’s plush DeMille Theatre, it was United Artists big Christmas release and my first “downtown” movie.
I was eleven years old and as we stood on line for the five o’clock show snow began to fall. A group of young secretaries were chatting about a movie called “Sex and the Single Girl.” Suddenly, I felt very grown up.
And then in a rush, we were seated inside. The audience was made up entirely of adults and they seemed just as eager to see the movie as I was. A current of anticipatory excitement ran through the theatre.
The curtain rose, the movie came on. . .
And I knew right from the opening moments of the pre-title sequence that the filmmakers had created something even more unique than the previous film. The narrative had been streamlined with sly self-mocking satire, the action heightened with cutting edge technological toys; all of it mixed to perfection. Not since “The Crimson Pirate” had I seen a movie that so delighted in its absurdities and yet managed to keep a straight face throughout.
It was the single most exciting movie experience of my young life. Nothing since has ever matched the glamour and excitement of that snowy winter’s eve in 1964.
The following summer Bond fans everywhere were given a nice surprise as United Artists did something brilliant; they released “Dr. No” and “From Russia With Love” on a double bill with the tagline “James Bond is back. . . to back!”
This was the beginning of a very successful pattern that lasted throughout the decade and beyond. So, I was finally able to catch up with Dr. No and I loved it. Combined with From Russia with Love it was the Saturday afternoon at the movies to end all Saturday afternoons at the movies.
As James Bond became a cultural phenomenon in the sixties, various social institutions weighed in on the effects all this might be having on young people.
Once such institution was the Catholic Church which condemned the films as morally objectionable. At the time I was a student at a Catholic elementary school and one day an entire class was set aside to talk about these terrible films. No one has a license to kill, the Irish Christian Brothers intoned harshly, and sex was only for procreation. Of course, none of us paid any attention to this blather and we flocked to see each new Bond movie in its turn.
The following winter United Artists released “Thunderball” as their big Christmas release. So, from Christmas ’64 to Christmas ’65 it was a year of virtually non-stop Bond movies. “Thunderball,” however, was a bit of a disappointment. Something was missing;, it was big and lwith a story that, while topical, lagged somewhat. Still, there was a lot to recommend; the beautiful wide screen cinematography and locations, the girls, the gadgets, etc. And it was Bond! So we kept the faith accordingly.
A two year gap followed “Thunderball” during which we were inundated with all the copy cat imitators. Derek Flint, Matt Helm, and on and on. Some were okay. Most were bad.
And we waited. . .
Then one spring day my cousin Anthony and I were romping around midtown Manhattan when we were both brought up short by the sight of the biggest billboard in the world displaying the artwork for the upcoming release of “You Only Live Twice.”
I was mesmerized by the trip-tech of images that ran through the 007 symbol.
In one, Bond is surrounded by Japanese bathing beauties.
Okay so far.
In the next, he’s in a mini-gyro fighting off a horde of enemy helicopters.
Even better!
And then, in the final image, he’s standing sideways along the lip of a hollowed out volcano containing a rocket with a red communist star on its side. All this while helicopters are circling overheard and firing down into the volcano while gray hooded men slid down ropes into the fiery inferno below.
Mother of God! What was all this!
The paintings depicted a “Boys Own” adventure done on a science-fiction scale. It completely hot-wired my fourteen year old brain. And this time the movie did not disappoint. Yes, it was completely and utterly unbelievable, but the sheer size and spectacle of the production was enthralling especially when seen on the big screens of the day.
Another two year gap followed before the release of the next film.
And again we waited.
In the winter of 1969, as the tumultuous decade drew to a close, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” was released with George Lazenby taking over the role of James Bond. A low level of anxiety ran through me; George who? Sean Connery WAS James Bond. This whole thing had the air of a knock off – like a cheap Italian western. It turned out, however, to be a masterpiece. A flawed masterpiece to be sure, but it remains to this day one of the best movies in the series.
For me, it was the peak of the series and the peak of my affection for all things Bond. From that point on I became less and less enchanted with the films. Still, I kept the faith and dutifully trudged off to each and every new Bond film upon its release. But what was once stylishly entertaining was now repetitious and cringe worthy. All that was left was nostalgia.
Times change and our celluloid heroes need to change with them. The Casino Royale reboot has brought James Bond into the 21st century and all that glitters is once again gold.
But it will never be the same.
It can’t be.
And that’s okay because James Bond will return to delight each new generation of moviegoers.
In the sixties The Beatles and James Bond dominated the popular culture. Nothing was bigger and in their respective milieus nobody did it better. They were part of a larger revolution taking place in the arts and in society as a whole.
It was an interesting time to be a kid and a good time to be a James Bond fan.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
When I discovered the pleasures of drink, a couple of friends & I used to indulge in viewings of AVTAK with booze accompaniment. We found the two went in hand-in-hand & the film improved when viewed through an alcoholic haze. We'd shout, "That was Roger, honest!" when Moore's stunt double performed yet another incredulous stunt. Childish perhaps, but I still find it the best Bond to watch with a few cans to hand.
Wow, that really took me back! Your memories of being inaugurated into the world of Bond are remarkably simliar to mine. Very nicely done. Thanks! {[]
A both good & bad statement on his films. :007)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
It was a perfect balance for the time, and a sure way to bring back Bond big time until conditions were right for another super-hard-edged attempt.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
But yes, Brosnan was a dark bond. When he shoots dead Elektra for Example -{
Pity about the outlandishness of Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day. Goldeneye and The World is Not Enough were pretty good.
That was part of what I liked about it!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS