I'd have to agree with those in favour of Drax over Charles Gray's Blofeld. I see it as though DAF could have been a very rooted Bond film, very to the point and sinister and they certainly achieve some level of creepiness, eeriness and tensity but it is definitely not through Blofeld. He is probably the least sinister of all the villains in that movie and I really do feel he is a lot of the downfall of the film in general - That and how boring the action scenes are - the moonbuggy chase although entertaining doesn't move fast enough and the oil rig finale is just terrible. I respect Charles Gray and I'm sure he isn't personally at fault for the most of it -whoever decided to have Blofeld portrayed this way is. It's a fun movie though but as I've said a thousand times before, a complete disappointment considering the amount of potential it has.
Moonraker on the other hand is the complete opposite - A truly ridiculous plot line, forced humour and comical henchmen, however it does move quickly and is non-stop entertainment. I can see why people who are really into the comical Bond think it's so great - there isn't much waiting around! So a complete comparison to DAF which has creepy henchmen and an underlying creepy plot line, Moonraker has comical henchmen, a plot line that's clearly all about complete entertainment (apart from the destroying the human race thing and starting over in Space - but that's so ridiculous it can't really be taken as sinister no matter how many people will be killed) but where Moonrakers greatness truly lies is in Bond (of course) and maybe even more so, Hugo Drax. Seriously, without Lonsdales stone cold portrayal of Drax this film would suffer so much more. Even though his plan is ridiculous, as a villain, he is completely sinister, controlling, interesting and engaging. A camp or over the top performance in this case would be so bad I can't even imagine it.
It really depends on opinion of course but to me it depends on whether you prefer plot line priority or character priority. To me, Charles Gray's Blofeld SPOILS DAF and Lonsdales Drax MAKES Moonraker.
I'm not seeing too many misguided criticisms on this thread, just differing opinions. Seeing a performance or aspects of a film in a different light to someone else isn't misguided, it's just a different perspective. People see films in different states of mind and a lot of what you take away from a film is influenced by what you take into it. I would say for an opinion to be misguided it needs to be based on false information, a wrong assumption or broad generalisation. Something like this:
Part of the attraction admittedly is adherence to a certain formula: danger, beautiful women, exotic locations etc. But there couldn't be more difference between say Skyfall and, say, TMWTGG.
One such opinion I have heard is that the Bond movies have had no impact on the history of cinema! Now that is misguided )
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
Agreed - brilliant scene, and the clown outfit, being s incongruous, only makes it more tense. One of Sir Roger's finest moments.
Yes good acting pleading with the General, but my gripe is how did he do a professional clown make up job
in such a short time ?
Octopussy is a good mixture of action with Moore humour. I blame that John Glen, joking around!
Just glad we haven't had Bond in drag - Blofeld was bad enough in DAF. At least it was a disguise.
I'm with you all the way EXCEPT for the reappearance of JW Pepper in the TMWTGG. I hated that character in LALD and I hated him even more in TMWTGG!
Agreed about J.W. Pepper in TMWTGG. He's absolutely awful. In LALD, even if you don't like the execution, the concept has some merit - a racist, incompetent redneck sheriff in Louisiana being bested by a professional outfit of villains who he underestimates because of his prejudice. He's a caricature but, I daresay, not a million miles away from many real-life poh-leecemen in the Deep South at the time. Plus, he's clearly the butt of the joke and is set up as a figure of ridicule. In TMWTGG however, he's presented as Our Loveable Pal Jay-Dubya and the audience is encouraged to laugh along indulgently at his jokes about "pointy-heads". It's lazy and pretty disgusting really.
I'm still waiting for someone to give me a specific example of what was so bad about Connery's performance in YOLT. You can quibble about the film's plot being to fantasy-based or just plain unrealistic, but given the requirements of the script, where did Connery go wrong?
I think that Connery gives a professional performance in YOLT but it's nowhere near his wonderful performances in DN, FRWL, GF & TB. For a long time, I was one of those people who thought he looked "bored" in the role. But when I watched YOLT again at Christmas (first time I've seen it in years), I realised why: Bond has nothing to do. He's just a cog in the machinery of the plot. And this is the fault of the script, not Connery.
In DN, FRWL, GF and, to a lesser extent, TB, we get to see an interesting three-dimensional character which gives Connery the opportunity to actually act: Bond is frightened (the tarantula in DN, driving into the "oncoming car" in GF), Bond is nervous (he doesn't enjoy "being taken for a ride" by Fiona), Bond is desperate (on his knees on the Orient Express, strapped to the laser table in Goldfinger, trapped in the spine machine in Shrublands), Bond is enraptured (by Honey on the beach), Bond is cunning (tricking Miss Taro into the "taxi", discussing the "lovely sport" of ice skating with "Tilly Soames"), Bond is shocked (the death of Jill), Bond is cheeky (outcheating Goldfinger at golf in GF, handing Fiona her shoes in TB)... etc.
In YOLT, in contrast, he's never shaken, never stirred. He's never put in real danger and just coasts along in second gear for the entire story. He is generally able to use a gadget to get out of trouble or someone else comes along and sorts it out for him with no tension beforehand (Kissy arrives to save him from the gunmen outside Osato's office, a giant magnet picks his pursuers up from the road, Tanaka disarms Blofeld with a ninja star etc.). Even the situations where he should be scared (when Helga has him tied up with a bunch of very scary looking surgical instruments, for example), he just makes a quip and the script allows him an easy way out. And his relationships with the Bond girls... Honey, Tatiana, Pussy and Domino all have interesting back stories and Bond is permitted to interact with them in different and interesting ways. In YOLT, Bond just pretty much falls into bed with all the girls - Ling, Aki, Helga and Kissy are completely one dimensional characters with no backstory whatsoever so Bond's relationships with them are completely one dimensional too - and he pretty much just falls into bed with them. Helga and Aki sleep with him for no reason at all except that the newly-forged formula dictates that they have to.
It's undeniable that Connery was very disenchanted with the role in 1967 and I think it's fair to say that a more motivated actor might have done a little more with the material. But the material is so thin to begin with that we're splitting hairs.
This is why I still believe that OHMSS '67 is still the biggest missed opportunity in the entire series. It would have given Connery something to really get his teeth into and allowed him to go out on a high.
(P.S. All that said, I still really enjoy watching YOLT, as I do all the Bond films - even the ones at the very bottom of my list!)
This is a great thread and I've really enjoyed reading the contributions.
My No 1 Most Misguided Criticism is one that crops up an awful lot, so much so that it seems to have been generally accepted as fact:
"CR isn't a faithful adaptation of the novel because Bond is a rookie agent who constantly makes mistakes but in Fleming's Casino Royale he's a professional and experienced OO"
It drives me nuts because it's totally wrong on both counts:
1) In CR (the film) Bond has only just been promoted to OO status but he is very clearly an experienced agent. Also, he's very professional and doesn't really screw up at all.
2) In Casino Royale (the book), Bond is clearly an experienced agent too but he's also only been recently promoted to OO status. And he makes tons of mistakes. Way more than Bond does in the movie.
If anything, you could argue that Film Bond is more experienced than Book Bond.
I'm with you all the way EXCEPT for the reappearance of JW Pepper in the TMWTGG. I hated that character in LALD and I hated him even more in TMWTGG!
Agreed about J.W. Pepper in TMWTGG. He's absolutely awful. In LALD, even if you don't like the execution, the concept has some merit - a racist, incompetent redneck sheriff in Louisiana being bested by a professional outfit of villains who he underestimates because of his prejudice. He's a caricature but, I daresay, not a million miles away from many real-life poh-leecemen in the Deep South at the time. Plus, he's clearly the butt of the joke and is set up as a figure of ridicule. In TMWTGG however, he's presented as Our Loveable Pal Jay-Dubya and the audience is encouraged to laugh along indulgently at his jokes about "pointy-heads". It's lazy and pretty disgusting really.
I'm still waiting for someone to give me a specific example of what was so bad about Connery's performance in YOLT. You can quibble about the film's plot being to fantasy-based or just plain unrealistic, but given the requirements of the script, where did Connery go wrong?
I think that Connery gives a professional performance in YOLT but it's nowhere near his wonderful performances in DN, FRWL, GF & TB. For a long time, I was one of those people who thought he looked "bored" in the role. But when I watched YOLT again at Christmas (first time I've seen it in years), I realised why: Bond has nothing to do. He's just a cog in the machinery of the plot. And this is the fault of the script, not Connery.
In DN, FRWL, GF and, to a lesser extent, TB, we get to see an interesting three-dimensional character which gives Connery the opportunity to actually act: Bond is frightened (the tarantula in DN, driving into the "oncoming car" in GF), Bond is nervous (he doesn't enjoy "being taken for a ride" by Fiona), Bond is desperate (on his knees on the Orient Express, strapped to the laser table in Goldfinger, trapped in the spine machine in Shrublands), Bond is enraptured (by Honey on the beach), Bond is cunning (tricking Miss Taro into the "taxi", discussing the "lovely sport" of ice skating with "Tilly Soames"), Bond is shocked (the death of Jill), Bond is cheeky (outcheating Goldfinger at golf in GF, handing Fiona her shoes in TB)... etc.
In YOLT, in contrast, he's never shaken, never stirred. He's never put in real danger and just coasts along in second gear for the entire story. He is generally able to use a gadget to get out of trouble or someone else comes along and sorts it out for him with no tension beforehand (Kissy arrives to save him from the gunmen outside Osato's office, a giant magnet picks his pursuers up from the road, Tanaka disarms Blofeld with a ninja star etc.). Even the situations where he should be scared (when Helga has him tied up with a bunch of very scary looking surgical instruments, for example), he just makes a quip and the script allows him an easy way out. And his relationships with the Bond girls... Honey, Tatiana, Pussy and Domino all have interesting back stories and Bond is permitted to interact with them in different and interesting ways. In YOLT, Bond just pretty much falls into bed with all the girls - Ling, Aki, Helga and Kissy are completely one dimensional characters with no backstory whatsoever so Bond's relationships with them are completely one dimensional too - and he pretty much just falls into bed with them. Helga and Aki sleep with him for no reason at all except that the newly-forged formula dictates that they have to.
It's undeniable that Connery was very disenchanted with the role in 1967 and I think it's fair to say that a more motivated actor might have done a little more with the material. But the material is so thin to begin with that we're splitting hairs.
This is why I still believe that OHMSS '67 is still the biggest missed opportunity in the entire series. It would have given Connery something to really get his teeth into and allowed him to go out on a high.
(P.S. All that said, I still really enjoy watching YOLT, as I do all the Bond films - even the ones at the very bottom of my list!)
I can't really argue with much of what you say about the lack of "meat" to Connery's role in YOLT. Still love that movie, though! And I absolutely agree that it would have been so terrific to have Connery go out with OHMSS as his last Bond film. I have no doubt that he would have pulled it off with style, class and a surprising grace that would have left no doubt as to who is the greatest Bond of them all (not that there should be any doubt anyway!)
I can't really argue with much of what you say about the lack of "meat" to Connery's role in YOLT. Still love that movie, though!
Me too. A beautiful John Barry score, fantastic cinematography, an iconic villain, perhaps the greatest film set in history and my favourite ever theme song. Plus, even though it dispenses entirely with Fleming's plot and with most of his characters it still captures one of the strongest aspects of the novel which is capturing the exoticism of Japan - it really feels like we get to see another culture. Eon do what they do best and put every penny on the screen.
Oh, and one thing I had forgotten all about - the sequence at Kobe docks is choreographed like a classic MGM musical - it's a really unique and stunning fight scene.
A criticism that annoys me is that the voodoo threat throughout LALD really spoils the film. I think this could be further from the truth. Sure, it makes the film feel pretty dated in some sense but I also think it gives it and extremely unique and somewhat creepy feel which I think is nicely levelled out by the humour which Moore does so well -"butter hook!!"- This IMO is one of the only Moore films where they got the balance between dark and campy spot on mostly down to the fact that everyone nails their performance and that the subdued supernatural theme running just behind the main plot gives it a dark edge.
....and the best he ever managed was a sermon on the mount.
A criticism that annoys me is that the voodoo threat throughout LALD really spoils the film. I think this could be further from the truth. Sure, it makes the film feel pretty dated in some sense but I also think it gives it and extremely unique and somewhat creepy feel which I think is nicely levelled out by the humour which Moore does so well -"butter hook!!"- This IMO is one of the only Moore films where they got the balance between dark and campy spot on mostly down to the fact that everyone nails their performance and that the subdued supernatural theme running just behind the main plot gives it a dark edge.
There is Voodoo in the Novel as well, but it's only referenced at the start.
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
A criticism that annoys me is that the voodoo threat throughout LALD really spoils the film. I think this could be further from the truth. Sure, it makes the film feel pretty dated in some sense but I also think it gives it and extremely unique and somewhat creepy feel which I think is nicely levelled out by the humour which Moore does so well -"butter hook!!"- This IMO is one of the only Moore films where they got the balance between dark and campy spot on mostly down to the fact that everyone nails their performance and that the subdued supernatural theme running just behind the main plot gives it a dark edge.
There is Voodoo in the Novel as well, but it's only referenced at the start.
It fits well into the film and gives Moore a rock solid start to his tenure as Bond...pity he had so many ups and downs though
....and the best he ever managed was a sermon on the mount.
Oh, and one thing I had forgotten all about - the sequence at Kobe docks is choreographed like a classic MGM musical - it's a really unique and stunning fight scene.
I love that scene and the soundtrack that accompanies it! -{
I agree with Blackleiter )
Moore is no where near the greatness of Connery (first three films that is). But Moore's take on Bond isn't my cup of tea just like Brosnans. Too suave not enough of that killer side. I know they have their fans on here .
Comments
Moonraker on the other hand is the complete opposite - A truly ridiculous plot line, forced humour and comical henchmen, however it does move quickly and is non-stop entertainment. I can see why people who are really into the comical Bond think it's so great - there isn't much waiting around! So a complete comparison to DAF which has creepy henchmen and an underlying creepy plot line, Moonraker has comical henchmen, a plot line that's clearly all about complete entertainment (apart from the destroying the human race thing and starting over in Space - but that's so ridiculous it can't really be taken as sinister no matter how many people will be killed) but where Moonrakers greatness truly lies is in Bond (of course) and maybe even more so, Hugo Drax. Seriously, without Lonsdales stone cold portrayal of Drax this film would suffer so much more. Even though his plan is ridiculous, as a villain, he is completely sinister, controlling, interesting and engaging. A camp or over the top performance in this case would be so bad I can't even imagine it.
It really depends on opinion of course but to me it depends on whether you prefer plot line priority or character priority. To me, Charles Gray's Blofeld SPOILS DAF and Lonsdales Drax MAKES Moonraker.
One such opinion I have heard is that the Bond movies have had no impact on the history of cinema! Now that is misguided
I agree, He was kinda funny in LALD but I was extremely uncomfortable with his racism in TMWTGG
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yes good acting pleading with the General, but my gripe is how did he do a professional clown make up job
in such a short time ?
Octopussy is a good mixture of action with Moore humour. I blame that John Glen, joking around!
Just glad we haven't had Bond in drag - Blofeld was bad enough in DAF. At least it was a disguise.
Bleuville. "Spend the money quickly Mr. Bond".
Agreed about J.W. Pepper in TMWTGG. He's absolutely awful. In LALD, even if you don't like the execution, the concept has some merit - a racist, incompetent redneck sheriff in Louisiana being bested by a professional outfit of villains who he underestimates because of his prejudice. He's a caricature but, I daresay, not a million miles away from many real-life poh-leecemen in the Deep South at the time. Plus, he's clearly the butt of the joke and is set up as a figure of ridicule. In TMWTGG however, he's presented as Our Loveable Pal Jay-Dubya and the audience is encouraged to laugh along indulgently at his jokes about "pointy-heads". It's lazy and pretty disgusting really.
I think that Connery gives a professional performance in YOLT but it's nowhere near his wonderful performances in DN, FRWL, GF & TB. For a long time, I was one of those people who thought he looked "bored" in the role. But when I watched YOLT again at Christmas (first time I've seen it in years), I realised why: Bond has nothing to do. He's just a cog in the machinery of the plot. And this is the fault of the script, not Connery.
In DN, FRWL, GF and, to a lesser extent, TB, we get to see an interesting three-dimensional character which gives Connery the opportunity to actually act: Bond is frightened (the tarantula in DN, driving into the "oncoming car" in GF), Bond is nervous (he doesn't enjoy "being taken for a ride" by Fiona), Bond is desperate (on his knees on the Orient Express, strapped to the laser table in Goldfinger, trapped in the spine machine in Shrublands), Bond is enraptured (by Honey on the beach), Bond is cunning (tricking Miss Taro into the "taxi", discussing the "lovely sport" of ice skating with "Tilly Soames"), Bond is shocked (the death of Jill), Bond is cheeky (outcheating Goldfinger at golf in GF, handing Fiona her shoes in TB)... etc.
In YOLT, in contrast, he's never shaken, never stirred. He's never put in real danger and just coasts along in second gear for the entire story. He is generally able to use a gadget to get out of trouble or someone else comes along and sorts it out for him with no tension beforehand (Kissy arrives to save him from the gunmen outside Osato's office, a giant magnet picks his pursuers up from the road, Tanaka disarms Blofeld with a ninja star etc.). Even the situations where he should be scared (when Helga has him tied up with a bunch of very scary looking surgical instruments, for example), he just makes a quip and the script allows him an easy way out. And his relationships with the Bond girls... Honey, Tatiana, Pussy and Domino all have interesting back stories and Bond is permitted to interact with them in different and interesting ways. In YOLT, Bond just pretty much falls into bed with all the girls - Ling, Aki, Helga and Kissy are completely one dimensional characters with no backstory whatsoever so Bond's relationships with them are completely one dimensional too - and he pretty much just falls into bed with them. Helga and Aki sleep with him for no reason at all except that the newly-forged formula dictates that they have to.
It's undeniable that Connery was very disenchanted with the role in 1967 and I think it's fair to say that a more motivated actor might have done a little more with the material. But the material is so thin to begin with that we're splitting hairs.
This is why I still believe that OHMSS '67 is still the biggest missed opportunity in the entire series. It would have given Connery something to really get his teeth into and allowed him to go out on a high.
(P.S. All that said, I still really enjoy watching YOLT, as I do all the Bond films - even the ones at the very bottom of my list!)
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
My No 1 Most Misguided Criticism is one that crops up an awful lot, so much so that it seems to have been generally accepted as fact:
"CR isn't a faithful adaptation of the novel because Bond is a rookie agent who constantly makes mistakes but in Fleming's Casino Royale he's a professional and experienced OO"
It drives me nuts because it's totally wrong on both counts:
1) In CR (the film) Bond has only just been promoted to OO status but he is very clearly an experienced agent. Also, he's very professional and doesn't really screw up at all.
2) In Casino Royale (the book), Bond is clearly an experienced agent too but he's also only been recently promoted to OO status. And he makes tons of mistakes. Way more than Bond does in the movie.
If anything, you could argue that Film Bond is more experienced than Book Bond.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
I can't really argue with much of what you say about the lack of "meat" to Connery's role in YOLT. Still love that movie, though! And I absolutely agree that it would have been so terrific to have Connery go out with OHMSS as his last Bond film. I have no doubt that he would have pulled it off with style, class and a surprising grace that would have left no doubt as to who is the greatest Bond of them all (not that there should be any doubt anyway!)
Me too. A beautiful John Barry score, fantastic cinematography, an iconic villain, perhaps the greatest film set in history and my favourite ever theme song. Plus, even though it dispenses entirely with Fleming's plot and with most of his characters it still captures one of the strongest aspects of the novel which is capturing the exoticism of Japan - it really feels like we get to see another culture. Eon do what they do best and put every penny on the screen.
Oh, and one thing I had forgotten all about - the sequence at Kobe docks is choreographed like a classic MGM musical - it's a really unique and stunning fight scene.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
There is Voodoo in the Novel as well, but it's only referenced at the start.
It fits well into the film and gives Moore a rock solid start to his tenure as Bond...pity he had so many ups and downs though
I agree with Blackleiter
Moore is no where near the greatness of Connery (first three films that is). But Moore's take on Bond isn't my cup of tea just like Brosnans. Too suave not enough of that killer side. I know they have their fans on here .