Without doubt the lowest point of the whole Bond series for me. Just awful.
Agreed, but would it be possible that it was done on purpose, to make it deliberately look like a commercial break? The idea passed my mind while watching it. I mean, itās so godawful, so stupid that itās hard to imagine that the producer let Tamahori get away with it without having a special reason.
Itās possible certainly. But if so it was hugely misjudged on their part. And to be honest I donāt believe it. I think it was just bad SFX that couldnāt match what the director wanted to show. These days it seems pretty straightforward and it could be done relatively seamlessly on a computer. 10 years ago maybe not so. Either way, it crosses way over the line in a way that doesnāt fit the rest of the film despite how far fetched it is in places. Perhaps just another case of one Bond too many. It seems that the series constantly needs to reinvent itself and replace the lead actor on a regular basis in order to keep the whole thing grounded sufficiently.
[url]http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/64/imagescaaheg02.jpg/[/url] [size=12pt]Live and Let Die [/size] (1973)
![http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/64/imagescaaheg02.jpg/[/url]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/64/imagescaaheg02.jpg/%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
Bond meets Blaxploitation, resulting in some funky stuff, including weird Afro hairstyles, ultra-cool pimpmobiles and some of the most horrifying side-whiskers since Mungo Jerry hit the charts in the summertime. Far out!
The film initially got mixed reviews, and I must say that I still have mixed feelings about it. Actually I donāt really know what to think of it. Mooreās first foray into the Bond universe is a fairly light-hearted affair, set against the dark background (no pun intended) of a black kingpin trying to break the backbone of American society with the help of drugs. Mooreās approach suits the Bond character, or better: his Bond character quite well, but Iām not sure it suits this particular movie that well. Moore doesnāt have the virile looks of a Connery, so it seemed logical that he would opt for a different approach, but the darker edges of the story cried for a punchier style and a meaner Bond. Along with the visual characteristics of blaxploitation, the movie should also have adopted some of the bite of the subgenre. But by this time the Bond franchise had become family entertainment and everybody, including director Hamilton, seemed to be well aware of that.
What we get is an upbeat, tongue-in-cheek, occasionally near-cartoonish adventure movie, showing Moore at his charming best (he is a jolly good fellow, isnāt he?) in all kinds of trouble, but never really in danger. It might all be a matter of taste. The film is quite popular among members of this site (so far six people voted for this movie as their favorite Bond). It has style, itās not boring, and there are even a few scenes set in the Caribbean that could scare the hell out of small children. But it works too much by fits and starts and in the end thereās too much J.W. Pepper and isnāt not peppered enough.
Some nice vignettes, notably the New Orleans funeral procession and the ātrespassers will be eatenā scene (and sign). Jane Seymour looks good, but I thought she was quite irritating. Gloria Hendry, on the other hand, is a delight as the clumsy Rosie Carver, and so is Madeline Smith in a brief scene as Mooreās one-night-stand. I never liked the Paul & Linda Song, but the theme works well within the context of the movie (and part of the score).
[url]http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/803/galgadgettswlmflagparac.jpg/[/url] [size=12pt]The Spy who loved Me[/size] (1977, Lewis Gilbert)
![http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/803/galgadgettswlmflagparac.jpg/[/url]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/803/galgadgettswlmflagparac.jpg/%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
Many think this is Mooreās best Bond and I also had good memories of it, but watching it again after a relatively long period of time, I was slightly disappointed. Itās a lavishly produced entry with great locations, great sets and great stunts, the best of all the ski chase of the opening scene, including Bondās escape via a Union flag parachute, which really kick-starts the movie. The remainder of the movie suffers a little under this opening and occasionally slides off into the usual silliness, but it never becomes dull or boring and looks great (if you donāt fancy Barbara Bach, you might fancy Caroline Monro). So whatās the problem?
I know itās risky to talk about believability or logic in relation to Bond movies, or Bond villains. Both the movies and the villains are larger-than-life and one cannot apprehend the logic of a maniac who wants to destroy the world, but it helps if he does it for money, or because he simply wants to (because heās a maniac). The villain from this movie, Stromberg, dreams of destroying life on earth in order to create life under water. I didnāt really get the logic of this eco-terrorist: if he desperately wanted to create his under water world, why didnāt he? Why exterminate life on earth first? He seemed too human and rational to be a fanatic without any conscience, and I didnāt have the idea the film makers wanted to condemn eco-terrorism either. There was a screw loose, not in the villainās head, but in the script (or in my head, of course).
Apart from featuring the best opening scene (or at least the best remembered) of all Bonds, the film is known for two other things: Ken Adamās incredible sets and Richard Kielās performance as Jaws, Strombergās gigantic henchman with the metal teeth. The supertanker set was the largest sound stage in the world at the time it was built and itās genuinely mind-blowing. But thereās always this drawback that it will be destroyed by Bond (itās either the world of the set) and for the destruction ā understandably - scale models are used, which give you the idea youāre watching The Thunderbirds. In The Spy who loved Me the effect was that of a rude awakening. And then thereās Jaws. He has that one quality a villain should never have: heās indestructible. Some of his scenes work (the fight in the train, bringing From Russia with Love to mind), but he survives plane crashes and eventually kills his brother shark with his teeth. Thatās not my cup of teeth.
is this that one with Moore stranded in a boat with a chick at the end - i love these endings ;D
okay, iĀ“ve seen many of these movies a long time ago, or on another occasion in video-rental
and hardly can say iĀ“ve seen them properly from beginning to the end, so iĀ“m very confused about that
I too have seen a few Bond films recently; both unfortunately, a mixed bag.
First was Goldeneye, Brosnanās first essay as Bond and the film that really kick-started an ailing series. It is pretty well remembered today, but watching it now, I think it is actually quite weak in places. Sean Bean makes a good villain (but does he always have to end up betraying the hero?), but his character isnāt very flashy or memorable. Brosnan does a good job, as does Judy Dench as āMā, and the tank chase is excellent, as is the opening. Yet, those two scenes all that stand out; the two Bond girls (one good, one bad) stay in the mind, but not much else does. Hell, more scenes stand out for me in The Man with the Golden Gun. Quite a few of the special effects are obviously CGI, which makes them look pretty dated as the models in the earlier films havenāt. A decidedly patchy Bond move for me.
Next up was Sean Conneryās last film as 007, Diamonds are Forever. Connery didnāt want to do it, and it shows; he looks pretty bored most of the time, overweight and out-of-shape. Still, the first half is mostly very good with some real standout scenes (the introduction of the great Wynt and Kidd; the fight in the elevator). However, when Connery gets to Las Vegas, the movie seems to be dazzled by the tacky āglitzā, loses steam and has a particularly poor climax on a oil rig. Blofeld is here, but the menace is gone. I dislike Jill St John as the Bond girl; personally speaking, I donāt find her attractive, and thatās a pretty large criterion for any Bond girl for me. Still, the movie has its moments, but it is hardly Conneryās finest hour; he shouldnāt have returned. I doubt Roger Moore would have done a better job (or George Lazanby), but at least weād have a better farewell for Connery as Bond in the shape of You Only Live Twice.
[quote=āJohn Welles, post:427, topic:544ā]I too have seen a few Bond films recently; both unfortunately, a mixed bag.
First was Goldeneye, Brosnanās first essay as Bond and the film that really kick-started an ailing series. It is pretty well remembered today, but watching it now, I think it is actually quite weak in places. Sean Bean makes a good villain (but does he always have to end up betraying the hero?), but his character isnāt very flashy or memorable. Brosnan does a good job, as does Judy Dench as āMā, and the tank chase is excellent, as is the opening. Yet, those two scenes all that stand out; the two Bond girls (one good, one bad) stay in the mind, but not much else does. Hell, more scenes stand out for me in The Man with the Golden Gun. Quite a few of the special effects are obviously CGI, which makes them look pretty dated as the models in the earlier films havenāt. A decidedly patchy Bond move for me.
Next up was Sean Conneryās last film as 007, Diamonds are Forever. Connery didnāt want to do it, and it shows; he looks pretty bored most of the time, overweight and out-of-shape. Still, the first half is mostly very good with some real standout scenes (the introduction of the great Wynt and Kidd; the fight in the elevator). However, when Connery gets to Las Vegas, the movie seems to be dazzled by the tacky āglitzā, loses steam and has a particularly poor climax on a oil rig. Blofeld is here, but the menace is gone. I dislike Jill St John as the Bond girl; personally speaking, I donāt find her attractive, and thatās a pretty large criterion for any Bond girl for me. Still, the movie has its moments, but it is hardly Conneryās finest hour; he shouldnāt have returned. I doubt Roger Moore would have done a better job (or George Lazanby), but at least weād have a better farewell for Connery as Bond in the shape of You Only Live Twice.[/quote]
iĀ“m planning to do some Bond marathon, because i virtually remember nothing from these movies, well except for two last ones- but thatĀ“s something quite different - i never was a big fan of Bond, but now - reading some of these reviews ā¦ - well, JB marathon
Conneryās real farewell was in the end Never Say Never Again. But none of the 3 is of much interest, but I think that Twice is by far the weakest Connery Bond.
Diamonds is not that bad. And I really think that Lazenby would have been better. Or Moore. Diamonds is more the Moore type of Bond films.
Always enjoyed Diamonds Are Forever, like the bad guys in this one. Connery has put the weight on of course.
Watched Diamonds Are Forever two days ago and wasnāt very impressed. Not a very good story and a not-so-cool Connery on that one Iām afraid.
Those 2 killers are the best aspect of Diamomds. They should have had much more screentime.
iām reading a great intresting booklet which is in 2 volumes called " Last Bus from Bray" which in volume 1 covers the unfilmed projects of Hammer Films from 1950-1970 and volume 2 covers the years 1970-2010. iām half way through volume 1 and itās got tons of interesting stuff a lot of which is new to me. itās a bit pricey as each volume is only 100 pages long and is in magazine style, there are a lot of grammar mistakes as well which is really unforgivable and off putting for a professional publisher, but that aside itās a great read so far.One of the things i didnāt know was that Oliver Reed was one of the actors seriously in the running for playing James Bond when Sean Connery annouced he was not playing the part in " On Her Majestyās Secret Service" that would have been something to see. The old womaniser and boozer would have been in his element and may well have put him on a different road or sent him on the path to self destruction earlier. He would not have been a disaster i donāt think.He could be menacing and cold on screen . an opportunity missed.
[quote=āENNIOO, post:430, topic:544ā]Always enjoyed Diamonds Are Forever, like the bad guys in this one. Connery has put the weight on of course.[/quote]Got Conneryās two best Bond comments of all time too ;D
Iāve always loved those movies, although they are sometimes a bit silly. 
I think the best James Bond films were:
#1 From Russia with love (Bond without any gadgets, very gripping story and delightful Daniela Bianchi :D)
#2 Live and let die (gorgeous blaxploitation-like atmosphere and this absolutely fantastic ending - magic! ;D)
#3 Casino Royale (I was very surprised with this one - I didnāt like those latest āBondsā - particularly Die Another Day is somehow silly IMO - but I found CR astonishingly enjoyable))
I hope they change the name of the new one when it comes out, Skyfall doesnāt sound too great a name does it.
Well, since Javier Bardem plays the villain, maybe they should change it to NO COUNTRY FOR OLD BOND ;D
Iām rather optimistic about the next Bond film - Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes and Albert Finney along with Judi Dench and Daniel Craig sounds like a great cast. Iām looking forward to how well San Mendes fares as director as well. He will make an interesting movie, classic Bond or not.
Yeah, I had problems with that. I always sensed that Brocolli & Co. regretted āthe death of Oddjobāā¦ as future merchandise-marketting opportunities werenāt fully realized until too late. -But they got-over-it. Until Jaws. Part of SPECTREās āevilā was that they didnāt tolerate failure. Jaws shouldāve been immediately eliminated at the end. Plus, Bond wouldāve known the croc/gator-wrestlingās secret that 95% of a predatorās jaw-strength is utilized in the downward-chomp. The muscles that open the jaw are incredibly weak. Kiel shouldāve been a one-time-only character.
I saw From Russia with Love today. What a great, fun film! A classic Bond movie that works perfectly without the excess baggage of overly complex gagets and dredded ālight reliefā. Sean Connery is on top form as Bond, the supporting cast is excellent (especially Robert Shaw as the villain) and the Bond girl is probably the best in the entire series. Director Terrence Young makes this not only a fantastic Bond film, but a very good spy movie as well.