The Quantum agents leave the opera because someone (Bond) has infiltrated the meeting, hence it can’t go ahead because anything they discuss will be overheard…plus they’ve no idea how many people are listening in - there could be a raid and arrests about to take place, so they leave.
I think M is on about Vesper loving Bond…about her returning the money to save Bond’s life, even at the cost of her own…
M: James, did you ever ask yourself why you weren't killed that night? Isn't it obvious? She made a deal to spare your life in exchange for the money. I'm sure she hoped they would let her live, but she must have known she was going to her death.
M: Of course, the villains got away with the money anyway despite your intervention, which destroyed a lovely old Venetian building and caused the death of Ve-
Bond: Don't go there...
One advantage of watching QoS on telly is the cuts - Bond simply knocks out the guy in Haiti rather than the gruelling death in slo-mo, and the rape scene in the finale is pared right down, all to the good.
Just watching CR for the umpteenth time. I’ve said it plenty of times but this is just a brilliant film, even now some 16 years after it was first released. It’s so much better than the rest of DC’s run and in my opinion the only other Bond film that comes close is the sublime Thunderball.
Well I just watched Spectre for the first time in ages and I'm amazed to say I quite enjoyed it 😱 It went downhill a bit when they got to Blofeld's lair but there's actually quite a few good parts to it. I had it down as the worst film in the canon but it's moved up a few places now.
Seeing this for the unteempth time, you notice things - it's all very well Moore's Bond being on a hang glider but how come he manages to trail Mr Big's canoe up an African river at night and not get noticed - all Big has to do is turn around and see him! Plus, how can a hang glider do that anyway, there isn't enough wind or momentum. Later, we see him following Big in the crocodile submarine which makes more sense, but where did he get that from? It's too big for him to have carried it, or was it planted downstream by Q and the gang?
One of the problems of dreaming you're watching a Bond film is that the usual criticisms creep in, as they do with watching actual Bond movies in daylight hours.
Still, that was better than my 5am dream - calling my sister out of my Epsom abode to point out a pink and angry mushroom cloud - no there's another one too! - above the houses of our leafy suburban street as the Russians make good on their threat - probably a dream brought on my seeing Zelensky being mates with Biden on yesterday's news.
This is part of ITV's build-up to No Time To Die on New Year's Day.
There's a lot going on tbf it's watchable if you disengage the brain, not sure if that was the intention. Watching it in a dream would probably lead to fewer questions and nitpicking. And I didn't quite like some of the characters in it - I don't love to hate Rodriguez the villain. Fiennes' M seems a bit off, intended to a possible villain it seems but then he isn't. Kircade (Finney) I know I ought to like but don't really. A lot of Bond's actions can only be explained by the idea he's off his nut still after his fall.
It was followed by Die Hard, a superior film though of course having seen it so many times, I didn't last til the end this time. I admit it starts slow, if you had a choice between kicking off with the GE pre-credits and this, you go Bond all the way if it's repeat viewing. That line from Tomorrow Never Dies in the pre-credits from Admiral Roebuck 'My God, what the hell does Bond think he's doing?' M: 'His job...' seems borrowed from Die Hard, as cowardly yuppie Ellis moans to McClane's wife about what the hell he thinks he's doing and earns the same response.
No Time To Die had its TV premiere tonight, not counting pay to view and so on.
I found it interesting and even engrossing at times, watched up until the bit where Bond goes to Norway when I realised by then the film was of course just one depressing scene after another, with no room for light or charm. There's a lot to unpack in terms of information, and no room for much else, this works on second bounce but first time I couldn't process it. Compare with the Fox, Boy, Horse, Gerbil cartoon earlier where there's no plot to speak of but a lot of heart.
ITV seemed to tone down some scenes I think - the death of Hugh Dennis in the Shard is not so harrowing, we don't see him beg, and Craig isn't so hands on, not so Knives Out in his manner with Madeleine when they double date with Blofeld. I don't recall hims saying 'You're sweating!' in this. ITV does tend to improve the Bonds - it deletes the eye-gouging scene in Spectre and the prolonged knifing in a Haiti hotel room in QoS.
It looks good, I liked the pre-credits with the framing of the Aston from the bell tower before mayhem is unleashed. Some of the musical themes seem to owe much to Skyfall though the composer is different. But - and this is key - Bond fouls up yet again for - and I didn't pick up on this first time round, he deliberately screws up the new 007's attempt to seize the scientist, because he's working for the CIA, and this action leads directly to the scientist's escape and the death of Leiter. It wasn't clear to me that Bond is kind of miffed at the entrance of the new 007 and prefers to work for Felix and even if so it's a rubbish reason, seemingly born out of petulance. So when the new 007 is sore with Bond on his return to London to see M, well, she's got every right to be - he messed things up for her AND for everyone else! Okay, all of Spectre died but he had no deliberate hand in that.
Another problem with the film and there are many is the lack of any sexual or romantic arc of the kind we normally get with these films. He's not going to cop off with his Knives Out buddy. Nor Moneypenny. Nor the new 007. The whole Mads thing is a dead duck. There's none of that teasing expectation or anything to prep the movie up.
In fact, sex aside, there is no romance developed, no new relationships of any kind. Bond already knows M, Q, Moneypenny. Blofeld. Leiter. The new 007 is not much of a relationship and indeed her introduction and the foul up in Cuba is likely due to someone adding her in the final script stage, originally maybe it was just Bond and Leiter fouling things up so making Bond less culpable. There's no development between Bond and Safin is there, they don't meet til the end I think. Often in the Bonds we get the sense of s***housery going on, one-upmanship or a betrayal. Here nothing gets a chance to develop, it's all a bit of a dead duck.
On top of which, Bond on his own lacks the romantic patriotism some of us like, then on top of that, we learn stuff about MI6 that is less than lovely so there's nothing much to root for here. It is the State giving itself a job because the whole Hercules thing or whatever it's called wouldn't exist anyway if it weren't for the British Govt. There's no self-made external foe, Safin is just a goal-hanger.Now, this could be quite ingenious in many ways but like a lot of Craig's films, it doesn't quite make the point itself, that a lot of it is a cat chasing its own tale (we saw this with Silva in SF, and one could argue that Bond's very existence precipitated the jealous mindset of Blofeld himself).
I turned over to watch the news, it's about 500 dead a week due to A&E failures, it doesn't make for a cheery evening. I saw Indy and the Last Crusade earlier, now there's a film with a lot of heart. Was the haughty gatekeeper at the German fortress Max Kalba from The Spy Who Loved Me? Someone will know. (Edit: Yes, it was him, yet another Bond alumni and still alive going by his page on the imdb). Also, if the chalice offered Kronsteen was phoney, it wouldn't kill him would it? It's not part of the test, it just wouldn't do anything. Indeed, partaking from the actual wooden chalice would kill him, given that he is not a righteous one. It does emphasis why Dr Jones would hit Indy for 'blasphemy' though, to make it clear he was a believer and wouldn't die on drinking from it.
You're right, 'ITV does tend to XXXXX *ruin* the Bonds - it deletes the eye-gouging scene in Spectre and the prolonged knifing in a Haiti hotel room in QoS'. 😁
Will just add, for some of us the lack of any comedic undercurrent in NTTD is a problem. Because some of it ought to be funny, I mean the bit where Bond takes off in Nomi's plane is a bit of one-upmanship - in an Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade type film, this would be a laugh. Here it isn't really. The director began with a grim horror opener, followed with an impressive looking but grim action scene with a grimmer pay off, then a miserable theme tune, then a nasty heist with staff begging for mercy and getting shot, then another miserable scene with Craig on his Todd with no friends and no purpose in Jamaica. Jokes do get in there, but as with LTK, it doesn't make for a comedic film and I know a lot will be saying, so what, Bond isn't comedy. But for many of us, movies like Dr No, FRWL etc were reined it but did have that vibe to it - this is nonsense, but it's a laugh to see what we can get away with if you sign up for the ride.
When a Bond film has a sly, witty and light feel to it, I can excuse a lot and go along with it. The moment it tries to make you believe it by getting serious and menacing - rather than funny so you suspend your disbelief, I start to kick back.
But citing Indy as the example is dodgy - its strike rate is not good, esp when you compare with the early Bonds. For all that, it is roughly correspondent with Craig's films - first one widely applauded, second film derided, third one redeems it, fourth film again in the dog house. I don't agree with that because I hated SF and loved SP, but others willl see it this way. We will see if this year's Dial of Destiny is received like NTTD among Indy fans.
That UN ambassador for the UK might be Auric Goldfinger in a parallel universe - a hand switches off his earpiece and he taps it disconsolately.
Solitaire is meant to be one of the good guys but in the pre-credits she watches his demise with a stony, impassive expression. Maybe she was just out of sorts for not getting a shag lately.
Introduced after Macca's song, Roger Moore is so slim he resembles Carry On's Kenneth Williams - the image enhanced by the arrival of Lois Maxwell who looks a bit matronly, a bit Hattie Jacques here. What does that make Bernard Lee, then? I suppose the irsascible old farmer upon whom the hapless Terry Scott pays a visit, requesting more milk. 'Because your daughter was very obliging last time, and I'd like some more!' 'Oh, you would, would you?!!'
M is right to deplore Bond's coffee contraption if it messes up the saucer, couldn't Bond give it a wipe before handing it to his boss? Couldn't they have done another take? And when handing M his spoon, use the handle rather than placing your thumb in the bowl of it - a thumb that's doubtless been up Miss Caruso's backside not so long ago. No wonder M looks so grumpy in the next film, he'd probably been laid low with diphtheria the last few months.
The 'romantic' aspects of the film don't get any better with age. The script does try to make it clear that Solitaire is under the thumb of Mr Big but Kotto plays him in an amiable way - well, as most Bond villains of that era were - so we don't get the sense she's an abuse victim subject to coercive control. She has a bad time of it in this film with her men, stuck between a **** and a hard face you might say. It might work if it were made clear that Solitaire is highly carnal and straining at the leash and all it needs is Bond to come along. A line by Big such as 'We caught you with a farm hand/my personal assistant only last year but we got there in time... You don't want your suitor to scream like he did' might make Bond seem less of a gatecrasher plus raise the odds a bit. But while I like Jane Seymour in the role, she more resembles the repressed student miffed at being passed over on fresher's week, she seems to lose her virginity as though Moore's Bond is the school prefect and she's just ticking boxes.
For the target audience of kids at the time, the murky subtext might be overlooked.
Plus it would help if Bond were played by a young, virile fellow - not Connery in his last two EON movies, maybe the guy in Goldfinger. Connery's line delivery might have helped in this film, one does get the sense that Moore was overshadowed a bit and that the dialogue's heavy lifting was beyond him (and Lazenby of course). Instead, Bond's seduction and general Flashman-style caddishness leaves a bad taste - though at the time it was seen as a bit of a lark. Moore's physique - lean, smooth and tanned - is emphasised to contrast with the hairy corpulence of the previous incumbent.
Moore is downplaying a lot in this so the larger than life performance of Yaphet Kotto and even Clifton James do liven things up.
Cars and bikes do seem to needlessly crash in this film, all they had to do is slow down a bit.
Solitaire was a more interesting character in the book, and I preferred Jane Seymour in that Harryhausen film she made. Solitaire in this film is inconsistent from scene to scene and doesnt make much sense.
The film maintains the general structure of the book but follows it very very loosely, changing almost every detail. Primarily missing is the bit in the middle where Felix gets fed to a shark. But I now think there is an equivalent in this film: at almost the exact same point in the story, Bond is fed to the crocodiles! coincidence, or another very loose reimagining? This sets up the third and most spectacular of three chases in a row, which is maybe why I never spotted the parallel before, especially as that boat chase is the bit I always remember best from the film.
having now watched over half of the Persuaders, I think Rogers performance here owes a lot to Y'Lwadship Brett Sinclair. That business with the espresso machine, and the ridiculous shaving kit later on, for this film Moore is playing Bond as very lazy and spoiled and with that aristocratic entitlement, a bit of a jerk. He doesn't play Bond like that in his later movies, not did he play Simon Templar like that. Also the shot where he starts babbling to Mr Big about wines, and Teehee slugs him on the back of the head, he makes a silly comical face before dropping unconcious. Thats totally his comedy stylings mode from The Persuaders. The scene where he swallows the bullet in the next film is similar, but he pretty much drops that popeyed doubletake move in subsequent films.
This time, The Man With The Golden Gun on ITV4. 'Face it boy - you goofed!' says JW Pepper at one point and this seems a fair summary as Bond has few moments of genuine heroism but plenty of antihero stuff that might be better suited to Flashman, the character followed by George Macdonald Fraser, the writer who went on to help with Octopussy - some deliberately ungallant stuff. It's meant to be funny - this Bond is very much the same guy in Live And Let Die, sort of hard and not very clubbable. Smarmy.
Most actors as they age benefit from the audience conferring the younger self on the older, so they appear young still. This later happened with Moore, but it occurs to me that as a generation came to know him through Spy and MR his first two films benefited from the reverse - coming out of nowhere they seemed like an odd, unexpected TV treat and awareness of the warmer, more clubbable Moore of the later films helped soften the young, slightly charmless Bond we see in his first two.
Thing is, if Bond is a bit of klutz in this - folk seem to scorn him a bit - so is everyone else, Goodnight we know about but Scaramanaga admission on his island that 'science isn't my strong point' does as one critic observed mean that he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's on about, though another said it was a nice twist to have Bond explain the workings of it to the villain. To be fair, this is unusual in having the villain appropriate another person's lair for his own use - the other person being Hi Fat who ended up in his own mausoleum. Edit: In fact, at no other point in the series does this happen - the mega lair overseen by a villain who didn't build it or oversee its creation. Thing is, this makes Scaramanga seem a bit of a cuckoo in the nest, it divests him of his power, like finding out your fiancé's swanky pad is rented, not owned outright. It might have worked better had we seen him assume control of it, a few henchman shot/taken out and so on. It also makes his villainy a bit hit and miss - would a hitman move into the area of harnessing a new energy source if he had no previous? Would he really need or want to?
I don't know, maybe the idea of Scaramanga wanting to duel Bond in this - he seems to have Fatima Blush's ambition to make an impact on this iconic spy, it's a given that he is a famous individual at least in the spy community but maybe elsewhere - but it seems pretty poor as ambitions go and hardly a true duel anyway given the way he goes about things. Things in the movie don't quite gel - when Bond warns Scaramanga not to get too close to the circular pools in his new lair, well we see Lee jump back a bit - it all has the vibe of a kids' matinee showing at the local fleapit, maybe bunking off school or before going on to the local swimming baths in the holidays, not bad memories but hardly Friday night blockbuster stuff. Likewise the film itself has an idle, desoltory vibe.
Having so many women die at Bond's hand or rather by association with him - hardly any are killed directly by him - may be a warning to women in the audience not to mess with a bloke like this, or alternatively might satisfy their socially unacceptable sexually competitive edge.
Why does Goodnight take about the mushrooms with an edge in her voice at the Scaramanga dinner? Does it mean they're drugged?
The pre-credits is wasted a bit, we don't care much for the wise guy trying his luck with Scaramanga, if I recall we don't follow his emotional journey, we don't see him wrongly thinking, 'Hey, this should be easy, these two are a couple of schmucks!' then see his complacency turn to apprehension and downright fear. Nobody really seems to fear Lee in this film, I know Andrea is meant to but I don't much see it. It is a significant flaw in a generally flawed film.
I try to get behind Timothy Dalton's films, I really do but of all the 'bad' Bond films, his are the ones I least like revisiting, they don't even have the guilty pleasure glee of pointing out the bad stuff. I'm always prepared to give The Living Daylights a chance, it is vivid in the mind's eye with a quick turnaround of locations and set-prices. Watching part of it this time, I think it might just have the most ingenious of all Bond plots - the defection that isn't a defection and all that follows, the romantic triangle of Bond, Koskov and Maryam D'Abo (forget character's name). But I don't think the narrative is told very well and I find Dalton just a bit too much, then again he says he didn't have much time to prepare for it, being drafted in after Brosnan was forced to drop out at the last moment - I still don't really get how that happened, surely they could have plea bargained so Brozzer got to do Bond and then does Remington Steele the following year as a mega star?
Not sure Daylights is good as a debut Bond for an actor, the plot is so involved when you want to be focussed on the actor, it's like if Connery started with From Russia With Love.
License to Kill I enjoyed more at the cinema. but now I find it fails the 10-min test that other Bonds like most of the Brosnan's pass quite easily. Namely that you turn on and find something interesting going on, a bit of sparkle or a stunt or fun dialogue that lifts you. Even Never Say Never Again has something you can take the Mickey out of. This film isn't awful and the plot at times is quite clever but to dip into, it's a bit meh.
One of the stations I have ❤️ on my channel list is 24/7 James Bond. It plays on loop the entire canon, in order of release, without advertisements. I have a game I play to guess which movie it is when I turn to the channel - it usually takes no more than 1-2 seconds apart from the Brosnan/Craig films that can take a bit longer as I find that a lot of them have scenes that are so bland that they could belong to any of their movies.
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
Dalton is never 100% relaxed in the role (even in LTK) and it probably doesn't help that you get John Glen's trait of being tonally messy.
I love TLD and I think Dalton, even though a little nervous and unsure (Brosnan has a bit of it in GE), he is better in TLD than he is in LTK. He's more handsome, fit, passionate about giving it a good crack and is clearly going into the film with an idea of how he wants to play it.
On the plot - the defection stuff is great - but the Joe Don Barker arms dealer stuff isn't. The plot becomes way too convoluted, in a similar manner to OP, that I often have to go and read the Wikipedia page to remind myself of what the hell is going on.
On your point about being an odd way to start a tenure - I wonder how different the story would be if Brosnan was in it?
Wow, amazing I had to search onto the second page to find this thread.
Do we no longer watch James Bond films ?
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE at the B.F.I. in the John Barry: Spies, Swingers and Shadows season.
This used to sit solidly in my top ten, but over exposure has dampened its impact. A very good looking product that sadly has a work-a-day script and a lead actor not entirely paying attention to character. Watching this time though, I am inclined to give Sean Connery the benefit of some doubt. The screenplay gives him zero emotional involvement and as with all these early Bond's it is a bed-hopping, shoot-'em-up with a smile jamboree with minimal nuance. He's okay with most of the comedy and only comes unstuck when the script drops its numerous clangers. Roald Dahl's writing fulfils the necessities without any niceties, so for instance when Bond first meets Tanaka there is no graceful mid-amble once the ice is broken, they dive straight into looking at some stolen documents from Osato's safe, no explanations necessary it seems, highlighted by Bond's ordering: "I want that negative enlarged." People come and go far too fast in this film which fairly motors along rather like Aki's white sports car. It does set a tremendous lick of a pace and you sometimes wish it would pause for breath a moment as fight follows chase follows piranha fish mauling follows love affair follows exploding volcano etc etc etc.
Some splendid visuals, notably the aerial photography. I always have a little satisfied sigh when I see Bond running across the roofs of Kobe Docks. The helicopter combat is hands down one of the best action sequences ever seen in a OO7 film, a truly stupendous marrying of sound and film editing, photography, effects and - of course - the Bond Theme. It isn't Barry's composition, I know, but he really makes the theme 'work' for those three minutes like it has never worked before or since, perhaps until David Arnold pumped it out at the climax of Casino Royale.
Donald Pleasance ? Hmm. Don't like him. He veers from quiet menace to shrieking harridan a little too easily.
The girls ? They get a lot of love on the fan sites, but both Aki and Kissy [the latter never named in the film only in the cast list] are two of the most disposable Bond girls of the series. Bond's affection for Aki is equally disposable for he switches his lust to Kissy with indecent haste. That's a writing issue and you miss the days of Joanna Harwood's continuity. Karin Dor is a poor substitute for Luciana Paluzzi's black widow Fiona Volpe.
Best impression is the look of the damn thing. Enormous sets, sparkling photography and a clutch of decent costumes. Crisply edited. Lewis Gilbert directs on autopilot. It is mostly an actioner, so he's only got that terrible dialogue to occupy his time and there's nothing he can do about that. It is no wonder he brought Christopher Wood on board to sharpen up TSWLM in 1976/77. He probably remembered how one note Roald Dahl's effort is.
It's all a bit daft really. Plot holes and scientific impossibilities abound. You can sense Bond is beginning to parody himself - again some script choices are to blame - what is all that stuff about Little Nellie defending her honour ? None of this really seems to hurt the movie which continues to be enjoyable even if some of the shine has rubbed off through repeated wear. In 1967, I don't think any of this mattered a hoot. Bond, despite what is poor, was too big and brash and bold a bandwagon to fail. It didn't and doesn't despite all the negatives.
Lastly, just a beautiful lush incidental score from John Barry that hums and purrs and taunts us in the background, adding much of the flavour and atmosphere missing from the writing and directing.
In 2023 I think I went a full calendar year without watching a Bond film for the first time since I was 10 years old.
At the beginning of this year I went and made a list of all the Bond films that I have seen since the beginning of 2020, and these included The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. As these were the first two Bond films that I watched as a 10 year old, I thought now would be a good time to revisit them and a thoroughly enjoyable experience it was too. I enjoyed the lightheartedness and fun action, combined with really good looking cinematography, miniatures, special effects.
I think I may go back to the 1960s next. I think the last time I watched my favourite Bond film (FRWL) was at least 5 years ago. It's time to revisit it.
Me too. I try and save them for special occasions when I know I won't be distracted and really feel in the mood. I used to watch them years ago when they were on ITV4 during the week and would enjoy them, but I think my viewing habits have changed a bit since then.
Comments
The ‘odd questions’ 👀
The Quantum agents leave the opera because someone (Bond) has infiltrated the meeting, hence it can’t go ahead because anything they discuss will be overheard…plus they’ve no idea how many people are listening in - there could be a raid and arrests about to take place, so they leave.
I think M is on about Vesper loving Bond…about her returning the money to save Bond’s life, even at the cost of her own…
Yes that’s my understanding as well.
But dud she ever say that exactly? I can't recall. And if it was said in Casino Royale, thsts an unhelpful reference.
M: James, did you ever ask yourself why you weren't killed that night? Isn't it obvious? She made a deal to spare your life in exchange for the money. I'm sure she hoped they would let her live, but she must have known she was going to her death.
M: Of course, the villains got away with the money anyway despite your intervention, which destroyed a lovely old Venetian building and caused the death of Ve-
Bond: Don't go there...
One advantage of watching QoS on telly is the cuts - Bond simply knocks out the guy in Haiti rather than the gruelling death in slo-mo, and the rape scene in the finale is pared right down, all to the good.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Just watching CR for the umpteenth time. I’ve said it plenty of times but this is just a brilliant film, even now some 16 years after it was first released. It’s so much better than the rest of DC’s run and in my opinion the only other Bond film that comes close is the sublime Thunderball.
Well I just watched Spectre for the first time in ages and I'm amazed to say I quite enjoyed it 😱 It went downhill a bit when they got to Blofeld's lair but there's actually quite a few good parts to it. I had it down as the worst film in the canon but it's moved up a few places now.
I'm now wondering what's now your (new) worst Bond film? 😅
Diamonds are Forever.
Live and Let Die last night.
Seeing this for the unteempth time, you notice things - it's all very well Moore's Bond being on a hang glider but how come he manages to trail Mr Big's canoe up an African river at night and not get noticed - all Big has to do is turn around and see him! Plus, how can a hang glider do that anyway, there isn't enough wind or momentum. Later, we see him following Big in the crocodile submarine which makes more sense, but where did he get that from? It's too big for him to have carried it, or was it planted downstream by Q and the gang?
One of the problems of dreaming you're watching a Bond film is that the usual criticisms creep in, as they do with watching actual Bond movies in daylight hours.
Still, that was better than my 5am dream - calling my sister out of my Epsom abode to point out a pink and angry mushroom cloud - no there's another one too! - above the houses of our leafy suburban street as the Russians make good on their threat - probably a dream brought on my seeing Zelensky being mates with Biden on yesterday's news.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
😂😂😂😂 You as well, then?
Skyfall
This is part of ITV's build-up to No Time To Die on New Year's Day.
There's a lot going on tbf it's watchable if you disengage the brain, not sure if that was the intention. Watching it in a dream would probably lead to fewer questions and nitpicking. And I didn't quite like some of the characters in it - I don't love to hate Rodriguez the villain. Fiennes' M seems a bit off, intended to a possible villain it seems but then he isn't. Kircade (Finney) I know I ought to like but don't really. A lot of Bond's actions can only be explained by the idea he's off his nut still after his fall.
It was followed by Die Hard, a superior film though of course having seen it so many times, I didn't last til the end this time. I admit it starts slow, if you had a choice between kicking off with the GE pre-credits and this, you go Bond all the way if it's repeat viewing. That line from Tomorrow Never Dies in the pre-credits from Admiral Roebuck 'My God, what the hell does Bond think he's doing?' M: 'His job...' seems borrowed from Die Hard, as cowardly yuppie Ellis moans to McClane's wife about what the hell he thinks he's doing and earns the same response.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Spectre
How many times has Craig resigned, been suspended or been presumed dead? Not the biggest fan of Spectre though it has some highlights.
I like Ralph Fiennes as M. Much preferred him to Judi Dench.
I also never got the relationship with Madeline Swann. It just doesn't work for me. I just don't find them believable as a couple.
No Time To Die had its TV premiere tonight, not counting pay to view and so on.
I found it interesting and even engrossing at times, watched up until the bit where Bond goes to Norway when I realised by then the film was of course just one depressing scene after another, with no room for light or charm. There's a lot to unpack in terms of information, and no room for much else, this works on second bounce but first time I couldn't process it. Compare with the Fox, Boy, Horse, Gerbil cartoon earlier where there's no plot to speak of but a lot of heart.
ITV seemed to tone down some scenes I think - the death of Hugh Dennis in the Shard is not so harrowing, we don't see him beg, and Craig isn't so hands on, not so Knives Out in his manner with Madeleine when they double date with Blofeld. I don't recall hims saying 'You're sweating!' in this. ITV does tend to improve the Bonds - it deletes the eye-gouging scene in Spectre and the prolonged knifing in a Haiti hotel room in QoS.
It looks good, I liked the pre-credits with the framing of the Aston from the bell tower before mayhem is unleashed. Some of the musical themes seem to owe much to Skyfall though the composer is different. But - and this is key - Bond fouls up yet again for - and I didn't pick up on this first time round, he deliberately screws up the new 007's attempt to seize the scientist, because he's working for the CIA, and this action leads directly to the scientist's escape and the death of Leiter. It wasn't clear to me that Bond is kind of miffed at the entrance of the new 007 and prefers to work for Felix and even if so it's a rubbish reason, seemingly born out of petulance. So when the new 007 is sore with Bond on his return to London to see M, well, she's got every right to be - he messed things up for her AND for everyone else! Okay, all of Spectre died but he had no deliberate hand in that.
Another problem with the film and there are many is the lack of any sexual or romantic arc of the kind we normally get with these films. He's not going to cop off with his Knives Out buddy. Nor Moneypenny. Nor the new 007. The whole Mads thing is a dead duck. There's none of that teasing expectation or anything to prep the movie up.
In fact, sex aside, there is no romance developed, no new relationships of any kind. Bond already knows M, Q, Moneypenny. Blofeld. Leiter. The new 007 is not much of a relationship and indeed her introduction and the foul up in Cuba is likely due to someone adding her in the final script stage, originally maybe it was just Bond and Leiter fouling things up so making Bond less culpable. There's no development between Bond and Safin is there, they don't meet til the end I think. Often in the Bonds we get the sense of s***housery going on, one-upmanship or a betrayal. Here nothing gets a chance to develop, it's all a bit of a dead duck.
On top of which, Bond on his own lacks the romantic patriotism some of us like, then on top of that, we learn stuff about MI6 that is less than lovely so there's nothing much to root for here. It is the State giving itself a job because the whole Hercules thing or whatever it's called wouldn't exist anyway if it weren't for the British Govt. There's no self-made external foe, Safin is just a goal-hanger.Now, this could be quite ingenious in many ways but like a lot of Craig's films, it doesn't quite make the point itself, that a lot of it is a cat chasing its own tale (we saw this with Silva in SF, and one could argue that Bond's very existence precipitated the jealous mindset of Blofeld himself).
I turned over to watch the news, it's about 500 dead a week due to A&E failures, it doesn't make for a cheery evening. I saw Indy and the Last Crusade earlier, now there's a film with a lot of heart. Was the haughty gatekeeper at the German fortress Max Kalba from The Spy Who Loved Me? Someone will know. (Edit: Yes, it was him, yet another Bond alumni and still alive going by his page on the imdb). Also, if the chalice offered Kronsteen was phoney, it wouldn't kill him would it? It's not part of the test, it just wouldn't do anything. Indeed, partaking from the actual wooden chalice would kill him, given that he is not a righteous one. It does emphasis why Dr Jones would hit Indy for 'blasphemy' though, to make it clear he was a believer and wouldn't die on drinking from it.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Very nicely observed @Napoleon Plural Thanks for that
You're right, 'ITV does tend to XXXXX *ruin* the Bonds - it deletes the eye-gouging scene in Spectre and the prolonged knifing in a Haiti hotel room in QoS'. 😁
Will just add, for some of us the lack of any comedic undercurrent in NTTD is a problem. Because some of it ought to be funny, I mean the bit where Bond takes off in Nomi's plane is a bit of one-upmanship - in an Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade type film, this would be a laugh. Here it isn't really. The director began with a grim horror opener, followed with an impressive looking but grim action scene with a grimmer pay off, then a miserable theme tune, then a nasty heist with staff begging for mercy and getting shot, then another miserable scene with Craig on his Todd with no friends and no purpose in Jamaica. Jokes do get in there, but as with LTK, it doesn't make for a comedic film and I know a lot will be saying, so what, Bond isn't comedy. But for many of us, movies like Dr No, FRWL etc were reined it but did have that vibe to it - this is nonsense, but it's a laugh to see what we can get away with if you sign up for the ride.
When a Bond film has a sly, witty and light feel to it, I can excuse a lot and go along with it. The moment it tries to make you believe it by getting serious and menacing - rather than funny so you suspend your disbelief, I start to kick back.
But citing Indy as the example is dodgy - its strike rate is not good, esp when you compare with the early Bonds. For all that, it is roughly correspondent with Craig's films - first one widely applauded, second film derided, third one redeems it, fourth film again in the dog house. I don't agree with that because I hated SF and loved SP, but others willl see it this way. We will see if this year's Dial of Destiny is received like NTTD among Indy fans.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Watched Octopussy 2 days ago with a friend. Celebrating its 40th anniversary this year and still one of my all-time favourites.
My usual Christmas tradition - OHMSS.
Check out my Instagram: @livingthebondlife
"I never joke about my work, 007."
Routine check-in after ITV4's Live and Let Die.
That UN ambassador for the UK might be Auric Goldfinger in a parallel universe - a hand switches off his earpiece and he taps it disconsolately.
Solitaire is meant to be one of the good guys but in the pre-credits she watches his demise with a stony, impassive expression. Maybe she was just out of sorts for not getting a shag lately.
Introduced after Macca's song, Roger Moore is so slim he resembles Carry On's Kenneth Williams - the image enhanced by the arrival of Lois Maxwell who looks a bit matronly, a bit Hattie Jacques here. What does that make Bernard Lee, then? I suppose the irsascible old farmer upon whom the hapless Terry Scott pays a visit, requesting more milk. 'Because your daughter was very obliging last time, and I'd like some more!' 'Oh, you would, would you?!!'
M is right to deplore Bond's coffee contraption if it messes up the saucer, couldn't Bond give it a wipe before handing it to his boss? Couldn't they have done another take? And when handing M his spoon, use the handle rather than placing your thumb in the bowl of it - a thumb that's doubtless been up Miss Caruso's backside not so long ago. No wonder M looks so grumpy in the next film, he'd probably been laid low with diphtheria the last few months.
The 'romantic' aspects of the film don't get any better with age. The script does try to make it clear that Solitaire is under the thumb of Mr Big but Kotto plays him in an amiable way - well, as most Bond villains of that era were - so we don't get the sense she's an abuse victim subject to coercive control. She has a bad time of it in this film with her men, stuck between a **** and a hard face you might say. It might work if it were made clear that Solitaire is highly carnal and straining at the leash and all it needs is Bond to come along. A line by Big such as 'We caught you with a farm hand/my personal assistant only last year but we got there in time... You don't want your suitor to scream like he did' might make Bond seem less of a gatecrasher plus raise the odds a bit. But while I like Jane Seymour in the role, she more resembles the repressed student miffed at being passed over on fresher's week, she seems to lose her virginity as though Moore's Bond is the school prefect and she's just ticking boxes.
For the target audience of kids at the time, the murky subtext might be overlooked.
Plus it would help if Bond were played by a young, virile fellow - not Connery in his last two EON movies, maybe the guy in Goldfinger. Connery's line delivery might have helped in this film, one does get the sense that Moore was overshadowed a bit and that the dialogue's heavy lifting was beyond him (and Lazenby of course). Instead, Bond's seduction and general Flashman-style caddishness leaves a bad taste - though at the time it was seen as a bit of a lark. Moore's physique - lean, smooth and tanned - is emphasised to contrast with the hairy corpulence of the previous incumbent.
Moore is downplaying a lot in this so the larger than life performance of Yaphet Kotto and even Clifton James do liven things up.
Cars and bikes do seem to needlessly crash in this film, all they had to do is slow down a bit.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Solitaire was a more interesting character in the book, and I preferred Jane Seymour in that Harryhausen film she made. Solitaire in this film is inconsistent from scene to scene and doesnt make much sense.
The film maintains the general structure of the book but follows it very very loosely, changing almost every detail. Primarily missing is the bit in the middle where Felix gets fed to a shark. But I now think there is an equivalent in this film: at almost the exact same point in the story, Bond is fed to the crocodiles! coincidence, or another very loose reimagining? This sets up the third and most spectacular of three chases in a row, which is maybe why I never spotted the parallel before, especially as that boat chase is the bit I always remember best from the film.
having now watched over half of the Persuaders, I think Rogers performance here owes a lot to Y'Lwadship Brett Sinclair. That business with the espresso machine, and the ridiculous shaving kit later on, for this film Moore is playing Bond as very lazy and spoiled and with that aristocratic entitlement, a bit of a jerk. He doesn't play Bond like that in his later movies, not did he play Simon Templar like that. Also the shot where he starts babbling to Mr Big about wines, and Teehee slugs him on the back of the head, he makes a silly comical face before dropping unconcious. Thats totally his comedy stylings mode from The Persuaders. The scene where he swallows the bullet in the next film is similar, but he pretty much drops that popeyed doubletake move in subsequent films.
This time, The Man With The Golden Gun on ITV4. 'Face it boy - you goofed!' says JW Pepper at one point and this seems a fair summary as Bond has few moments of genuine heroism but plenty of antihero stuff that might be better suited to Flashman, the character followed by George Macdonald Fraser, the writer who went on to help with Octopussy - some deliberately ungallant stuff. It's meant to be funny - this Bond is very much the same guy in Live And Let Die, sort of hard and not very clubbable. Smarmy.
Most actors as they age benefit from the audience conferring the younger self on the older, so they appear young still. This later happened with Moore, but it occurs to me that as a generation came to know him through Spy and MR his first two films benefited from the reverse - coming out of nowhere they seemed like an odd, unexpected TV treat and awareness of the warmer, more clubbable Moore of the later films helped soften the young, slightly charmless Bond we see in his first two.
Thing is, if Bond is a bit of klutz in this - folk seem to scorn him a bit - so is everyone else, Goodnight we know about but Scaramanaga admission on his island that 'science isn't my strong point' does as one critic observed mean that he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's on about, though another said it was a nice twist to have Bond explain the workings of it to the villain. To be fair, this is unusual in having the villain appropriate another person's lair for his own use - the other person being Hi Fat who ended up in his own mausoleum. Edit: In fact, at no other point in the series does this happen - the mega lair overseen by a villain who didn't build it or oversee its creation. Thing is, this makes Scaramanga seem a bit of a cuckoo in the nest, it divests him of his power, like finding out your fiancé's swanky pad is rented, not owned outright. It might have worked better had we seen him assume control of it, a few henchman shot/taken out and so on. It also makes his villainy a bit hit and miss - would a hitman move into the area of harnessing a new energy source if he had no previous? Would he really need or want to?
I don't know, maybe the idea of Scaramanga wanting to duel Bond in this - he seems to have Fatima Blush's ambition to make an impact on this iconic spy, it's a given that he is a famous individual at least in the spy community but maybe elsewhere - but it seems pretty poor as ambitions go and hardly a true duel anyway given the way he goes about things. Things in the movie don't quite gel - when Bond warns Scaramanga not to get too close to the circular pools in his new lair, well we see Lee jump back a bit - it all has the vibe of a kids' matinee showing at the local fleapit, maybe bunking off school or before going on to the local swimming baths in the holidays, not bad memories but hardly Friday night blockbuster stuff. Likewise the film itself has an idle, desoltory vibe.
Having so many women die at Bond's hand or rather by association with him - hardly any are killed directly by him - may be a warning to women in the audience not to mess with a bloke like this, or alternatively might satisfy their socially unacceptable sexually competitive edge.
Why does Goodnight take about the mushrooms with an edge in her voice at the Scaramanga dinner? Does it mean they're drugged?
The pre-credits is wasted a bit, we don't care much for the wise guy trying his luck with Scaramanga, if I recall we don't follow his emotional journey, we don't see him wrongly thinking, 'Hey, this should be easy, these two are a couple of schmucks!' then see his complacency turn to apprehension and downright fear. Nobody really seems to fear Lee in this film, I know Andrea is meant to but I don't much see it. It is a significant flaw in a generally flawed film.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I try to get behind Timothy Dalton's films, I really do but of all the 'bad' Bond films, his are the ones I least like revisiting, they don't even have the guilty pleasure glee of pointing out the bad stuff. I'm always prepared to give The Living Daylights a chance, it is vivid in the mind's eye with a quick turnaround of locations and set-prices. Watching part of it this time, I think it might just have the most ingenious of all Bond plots - the defection that isn't a defection and all that follows, the romantic triangle of Bond, Koskov and Maryam D'Abo (forget character's name). But I don't think the narrative is told very well and I find Dalton just a bit too much, then again he says he didn't have much time to prepare for it, being drafted in after Brosnan was forced to drop out at the last moment - I still don't really get how that happened, surely they could have plea bargained so Brozzer got to do Bond and then does Remington Steele the following year as a mega star?
Not sure Daylights is good as a debut Bond for an actor, the plot is so involved when you want to be focussed on the actor, it's like if Connery started with From Russia With Love.
License to Kill I enjoyed more at the cinema. but now I find it fails the 10-min test that other Bonds like most of the Brosnan's pass quite easily. Namely that you turn on and find something interesting going on, a bit of sparkle or a stunt or fun dialogue that lifts you. Even Never Say Never Again has something you can take the Mickey out of. This film isn't awful and the plot at times is quite clever but to dip into, it's a bit meh.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
One of the stations I have ❤️ on my channel list is 24/7 James Bond. It plays on loop the entire canon, in order of release, without advertisements. I have a game I play to guess which movie it is when I turn to the channel - it usually takes no more than 1-2 seconds apart from the Brosnan/Craig films that can take a bit longer as I find that a lot of them have scenes that are so bland that they could belong to any of their movies.
Dalton is never 100% relaxed in the role (even in LTK) and it probably doesn't help that you get John Glen's trait of being tonally messy.
I love TLD and I think Dalton, even though a little nervous and unsure (Brosnan has a bit of it in GE), he is better in TLD than he is in LTK. He's more handsome, fit, passionate about giving it a good crack and is clearly going into the film with an idea of how he wants to play it.
On the plot - the defection stuff is great - but the Joe Don Barker arms dealer stuff isn't. The plot becomes way too convoluted, in a similar manner to OP, that I often have to go and read the Wikipedia page to remind myself of what the hell is going on.
On your point about being an odd way to start a tenure - I wonder how different the story would be if Brosnan was in it?
"Better make that two."
Wow, amazing I had to search onto the second page to find this thread.
Do we no longer watch James Bond films ?
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE at the B.F.I. in the John Barry: Spies, Swingers and Shadows season.
This used to sit solidly in my top ten, but over exposure has dampened its impact. A very good looking product that sadly has a work-a-day script and a lead actor not entirely paying attention to character. Watching this time though, I am inclined to give Sean Connery the benefit of some doubt. The screenplay gives him zero emotional involvement and as with all these early Bond's it is a bed-hopping, shoot-'em-up with a smile jamboree with minimal nuance. He's okay with most of the comedy and only comes unstuck when the script drops its numerous clangers. Roald Dahl's writing fulfils the necessities without any niceties, so for instance when Bond first meets Tanaka there is no graceful mid-amble once the ice is broken, they dive straight into looking at some stolen documents from Osato's safe, no explanations necessary it seems, highlighted by Bond's ordering: "I want that negative enlarged." People come and go far too fast in this film which fairly motors along rather like Aki's white sports car. It does set a tremendous lick of a pace and you sometimes wish it would pause for breath a moment as fight follows chase follows piranha fish mauling follows love affair follows exploding volcano etc etc etc.
Some splendid visuals, notably the aerial photography. I always have a little satisfied sigh when I see Bond running across the roofs of Kobe Docks. The helicopter combat is hands down one of the best action sequences ever seen in a OO7 film, a truly stupendous marrying of sound and film editing, photography, effects and - of course - the Bond Theme. It isn't Barry's composition, I know, but he really makes the theme 'work' for those three minutes like it has never worked before or since, perhaps until David Arnold pumped it out at the climax of Casino Royale.
Donald Pleasance ? Hmm. Don't like him. He veers from quiet menace to shrieking harridan a little too easily.
The girls ? They get a lot of love on the fan sites, but both Aki and Kissy [the latter never named in the film only in the cast list] are two of the most disposable Bond girls of the series. Bond's affection for Aki is equally disposable for he switches his lust to Kissy with indecent haste. That's a writing issue and you miss the days of Joanna Harwood's continuity. Karin Dor is a poor substitute for Luciana Paluzzi's black widow Fiona Volpe.
Best impression is the look of the damn thing. Enormous sets, sparkling photography and a clutch of decent costumes. Crisply edited. Lewis Gilbert directs on autopilot. It is mostly an actioner, so he's only got that terrible dialogue to occupy his time and there's nothing he can do about that. It is no wonder he brought Christopher Wood on board to sharpen up TSWLM in 1976/77. He probably remembered how one note Roald Dahl's effort is.
It's all a bit daft really. Plot holes and scientific impossibilities abound. You can sense Bond is beginning to parody himself - again some script choices are to blame - what is all that stuff about Little Nellie defending her honour ? None of this really seems to hurt the movie which continues to be enjoyable even if some of the shine has rubbed off through repeated wear. In 1967, I don't think any of this mattered a hoot. Bond, despite what is poor, was too big and brash and bold a bandwagon to fail. It didn't and doesn't despite all the negatives.
Lastly, just a beautiful lush incidental score from John Barry that hums and purrs and taunts us in the background, adding much of the flavour and atmosphere missing from the writing and directing.
In 2023 I think I went a full calendar year without watching a Bond film for the first time since I was 10 years old.
At the beginning of this year I went and made a list of all the Bond films that I have seen since the beginning of 2020, and these included The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. As these were the first two Bond films that I watched as a 10 year old, I thought now would be a good time to revisit them and a thoroughly enjoyable experience it was too. I enjoyed the lightheartedness and fun action, combined with really good looking cinematography, miniatures, special effects.
I think I may go back to the 1960s next. I think the last time I watched my favourite Bond film (FRWL) was at least 5 years ago. It's time to revisit it.
I don't watch them regularly any more either @Golrush007 A rest up every so often from Bond allows a fresh perspective when one does pitch in.
Me too. I try and save them for special occasions when I know I won't be distracted and really feel in the mood. I used to watch them years ago when they were on ITV4 during the week and would enjoy them, but I think my viewing habits have changed a bit since then.
Plus he's dead.
Roger Moore 1927-2017