148 replies to this topic

[Roebuck]

And I'll tell you what I love about the Palio stuff, sadistic though it makes me sound: I love it that

Spoiler

innocent bystanders get taken out

.

Tony Gilroy said something about the golden rule for writing a Bourne script was to ask ''What Wouldn't James Bond Do?'' After Quantum that's going to be a lot more difficult. Eon have got themselves a whole new Bond language to play around with.

Although I still maintain that the dogfight/freefall is a fundamentally Brosnanesque affair that doesn't belong in what is otherwise generally an appropriately gritty and Craigian motion picture.

Something very similar was proposed for Goldeneye. Bond and Natalya would have had to leap from their plane with only one parachute and the burning wreckage falling fast behind them. Glad they finaly used it.

[Roebuck]

Spoiler

The other character, the girl, I thought was a great idea. She's 'another Vesper', Yusef working the same old blackmail trick on another government employee on behalf of Quantum. I loved the scene, to be honest - Bond strides in and this poor girl, who thinks she's falling for the guy, suddenly gets a harsh lesson in reality. Bond is also saving her life, preventing another Casino Royale.

In a weird way the scene put me in mind of the ‘‘007 in New York’’ short story. There’s a lot of QoS that hints at Fleming without being a direct copy.

[Harmsway]

I'd forgotten quite how wonderful it is. I don't see any "pretty significant missteps", and Laz's performance only seems better and better as time passes.

Eh, I still think Lazenby is pretty awkward. His delivery of anything resembling humor lacks any elegance, and he's often pretty wooden. He nails the final scene, though.

In addition to Laz, here's my checklist of problems:

• Awkward humor throughout. The puns are as terrible as they are frequently crass. The previous Bond films all managed to make their humor a bit more elegant... here, it's like a foreshadowing of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, and perhaps even worse. At least DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER never broke the fourth wall, and there's no line of the caliber of "He had a lot of guts!"
• A love story that is anything but genuine. Tracy gets some nice development (albeit it brief, before we segue into the cheat of the montage), but Bond's descent into love seems as arbitrary as ever. For a story that presents some real opportunity for development for Bond, until the last scene Bond's about as shallow as he was during GOLDFINGER, and probably more so, actually. It doesn't help that after Bond says good-bye to Tracy and chases after Blofeld, he goes on a 1960s sex romp that echoes OUR MAN FLINT in its silliness. Indeed, the tragic ending we all love feels terribly jarring... there's very little in this film to prepare us for such a dramatic turn. It's like we suddenly stepped into a whole different film.
• Telly Savalas' Blofeld is servicable, but is hardly the epic adversary the story should have had. This is the moment where Blofeld forever gets his one-up on Bond, and after the epic build-up to this moment in all the EON films, Savalas' Blofeld is a let-down. We can do better than his gangster-esque take.
• It's really overlong. We spend far too much time with extraneous action and suspense sequences. Admittedly they're all pretty good, but there's no reason to have as much of 'em as we do.
• The experimental editing on Hunt's part isn't the best.

Now, as I say, I do think ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is one of the more enjoyable Bond flicks, and definitely near the top, if only for Barry's score and Hunt's elegant direction, but flawless Bondian masterpiece? Nah, I don't think so.

[double o ego]

Spoiler

The other character, the girl, I thought was a great idea. She's 'another Vesper', Yusef working the same old blackmail trick on another government employee on behalf of Quantum. I loved the scene, to be honest - Bond strides in and this poor girl, who thinks she's falling for the guy, suddenly gets a harsh lesson in reality. Bond is also saving her life, preventing another Casino Royale.

Interesting. You may well be right.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a hardhitting and haunting experience. It has its flaws (I really wish that the dogfight and, particularly, the freefall had been dropped - this stretch of the film really mars it and just plain isn't appropriate for Craig's 007), but in many ways it's very impressive and even sobering stuff.

Like THE DARK KNIGHT (although I hesitate to make the comparison because it's as obvious a comparison as, well, Bourne), it's a film that really rattles around in your head afterwards, refusing to be dislodged. It gets to one. I really love the likes of GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY (to cite the more recent outings), but they certainly don't affect me in this way. Not, of course, that they're supposed to. They are what they are, and this is what it is. That's what's so great about the Bond series - it has everything. Films for every mood and occasion.

Of course, there have been "moving" Bond films before, notably OHMSS and CR, which are both terrific and both probably more "perfect" as films than QoS (being virtually free of flaws). But QoS' imperfections somehow make it - forgive me, I'm gonna get really pretentious and Private Eye Pseuds' Cornerish now - more human and interesting an experience, just as CraigBond's obvious character and emotional defects make him more real and compelling than, say, jolly Roger (wonderful though the Mooremeister is in his own way, of course).

But what, I think, really sets QoS apart from all the others is that it truly makes Bond's world of espionage seem an utterly nasty business. Now, this ain't exactly new (Bourne touches on it, obviously, but not as powerfully as QoS does), but it's new for the Bond series. In virtually all of the other Bond films (as well as in, it must be said, virtually all of the Fleming novels and those of his successors), the British secret service and its allies are portrayed as being almost insufferably on the side of the angels. Bond only kills those who are - to quote Arnie in TRUE LIES - all bad, and everything's really a bit of a lark. No innocent bystanders ever get hurt in Bond's missions to recapture stolen nukes or eliminate North Korean space weapons. It is always assumed that the governments of Great Britain and her allies can do no wrong. In retrospect, it's very surprising that it's taken so long for cynicism to arrive in the Bond series.

It's made clear, of course, in CR that M would give Le Chiffre a safe haven in return for his valuable info, meaning that the British government is indeed prepared to sup with the devil, but QoS takes it much further. The world of QoS is really a very bleak, dirty world, and Bond is up to his eyeballs in it. So much for his quantum of solace. If Bond is prepared to chuck a friend's body in a dumpster, it carries chilling implications, regardless of how he may rationalise it. On the surface, QoS is about 007's redemption. Below it, it's the rather horrifying story of his getting sucked deeper and deeper into a world that we now know he'll never get out of. The only small consolation for the audience is that we're aware that he is, at least, one of the good guys. Relatively speaking, that is.

In Fleming's OHMSS, there's a line to the effect that Bond, while he may be reminiscing about his childhood as he waits on the beach, is "now a man with years of dirty and dangerous memories - a spy". And QoS makes the viewer really feel the dirt and the danger, and the pain. This is the story of how he got that way. Never has a celluloid Bond been less of an aspirational fantasy figure than Craig's. In CR and in this flick, the man goes through absolute ing hell. By comparison, Bourne's life is simply all fun and games (perhaps there ought to be a sort of CBn swear box docking cash every time someone mentions Bourne).

As I seem to recall Jim pointing out in his review, QoS is truly a film that dwells on the consequences of violence. In many ways, it's not an easy watch.

Brilliantly said.

[double o ego]

Spoiler

The other character, the girl, I thought was a great idea. She's 'another Vesper', Yusef working the same old blackmail trick on another government employee on behalf of Quantum. I loved the scene, to be honest - Bond strides in and this poor girl, who thinks she's falling for the guy, suddenly gets a harsh lesson in reality. Bond is also saving her life, preventing another Casino Royale.

Interesting. You may well be right.

Come on Loomer- she's even got the love knot on. It's not exactly subtext.

What I don't get is why Bond slips the Yusef thingy in his pocket at the beginning; is he going after him alone? There's no implication that he has as M is stood outside and he doesn't seem very surprised. Seems like it's just something they put in there because it looked good at the time, as with most of the film. And as Greene gets him no closer to Yusef (or is he supposed to have told Bond something in Ranger Rover number 3? Honestly- Bond manages to sit in at least three Ranger Rovers in this film) it feels like the whole Greene plot has been a bit of a distraction. The plots aren't woven together: you could remove Quantum from Greene and the story would lose nothing.

Ey? He took the "Yusef thingy" because he wanted to know more, investigate it on his own and go handle it the way he felt it needed to be. People don't seem to realise that, Bond's loyalty to his country never ever wavers, so his duty was never ever in doubt from the perspectie of an intelligent audience member. However, he is human, he is hurting, he is angry and is looking for someone to blame instead of blaming esper and himself and Yusef is, his go to guy.

Bond was more than likely going to either kill Yusef or at the very least beat the living daylights out of him. (pun intended) BUT QoS is a film that showed Bond's character grow and develop more than any other Bond film prior. QoS had Bond evolve into a professional, learn to keep his emotions in check and come to the realisation that he will never find true love in this grainy and dirty business he's in. Which is why he'll take what he can get and why he treats women as disposable pleasures. Bond has learnt the most important lesson in his life here and why put himself or anyone else in a position of potential pain and loss. They don't need it and neither does he, which is inevitably why he may come off as a mysogynist and a lothario.

Much of Bond's evolution can be credited to Mathis. Mathis commanded Bond's attention on 2 occasions where he told him that Vesper really did love him and that Bond needs to forgive her to move on and of course to forgive himself. If he can't forgie himself, he'll be tormented fr the rest of his life and will never be the effective agent he needs to be in order to get the job done. Bond no longer blames or hates Vesper. He came face to face with Yusef, a weak little punk of man and Bond brought him to justice. Killing him wouldn't have solved anything and more importantly, Yusef is the only lead they have regarding Quantum anyway. Also, what added to the scene was the Canadian agent, who, would have been Vesper version 2, this put the whole Vesper situation into greater context and perspective in Bond's mind.

To enjoy QoS, one has to look beyond the minor and trivial flaws and work their brains to appreciate the film for what it offers because there's no spoon-feeding nonsense here.

[Loomis]

Eh, I still think Lazenby is pretty awkward. His delivery of anything resembling humor lacks any elegance, and he's often pretty wooden. He nails the final scene, though.

Indeed he does. And by no means is he Daniel Craig, but I do think he's pretty decent throughout. There are quite a few rather worse Bond performances out there - even Connery did a couple that aren't as good.

[*]Awkward humor throughout. The puns are as terrible as they are frequently crass. The previous Bond films all managed to make their humor a bit more elegant... here, it's like a foreshadowing of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, and perhaps even worse. At least DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER never broke the fourth wall, and there's no line of the caliber of "He had a lot of guts!"
[*]A love story that is anything but genuine. Tracy gets some nice development (albeit it brief), but Bond's descent into love seems as arbitrary as ever. For a story that presents some real opportunity for development for Bond, until the last scene Bond's about as shallow as he was during GOLDFINGER, and probably more so, actually. It doesn't help that after Bond says good-bye to Tracy and chases after Blofeld, he goes on a 1960s sex romp that echoes OUR MAN FLINT in its silliness.

Well, I must admit that I watched only up to the part where Bond's cover is blown at Piz Gloria, but whereas I always used to feel that OHMSS was intense, soaked in emotion and even a bit tough to take (certainly in comparison to, say, OCTOPUSSY), it now seemed to me like light comedy. Mind you, that may be in large part due to the fact that I'd just seen QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which is just so hard-edged (mostly, anyway) that you won't even believe it. Of course, OHMSS does get less silly, tougher and more moving after Bond's cover is blown. Its second half is superior.

Similarly, QoS races along at such a lightning pace in parts that it seemed to me that Hunt was lingering on his shots for an absolutely ridiculously self-indulgent length of time. He wasn't, of course - it was just that QoS was so fresh in my mind.

And I think Bond's "descent into love" in CASINO ROYALE is just as arbitrary. What helps CR, though, is that Craig and Green give far better performances than Lazenby and Rigg. But CR's script and construction are hardly beyond criticism.

Indeed, the tragic ending we all love feels terribly jarring... there's very little in this film to prepare us for such a dramatic turn. It's like we suddenly stepped into a whole different film.

Sure, but perhaps that was the whole point, giving the ending more shock value and impact.

[Mr. Osato]

I too am in the unfortunate group still waiting for QOS.

I just watched OHMSS and was taken by the fact that the first 40 minutes (up 'til the "love montage") was entirely a personal story. The caper doesn't kick in until Draco tells Bond about "Gumbolt in Switzerland."

...this is a direction/storyline that would suit an actor of Daniel Crags caliber.

[Harmsway]

There are quite a few rather worse Bond performances out there - even Connery did a couple that aren't as good.

I'm not sure I agree. I think Connery at his laziest still tops most of what Lazenby turns in throughout OHMSS.

And I think Bond's "descent into love" in CASINO ROYALE is just as arbitrary. What helps CR, though, is that Craig and Green give far better performances than Lazenby and Rigg. But CR's script and construction are hardly beyond criticism.

I wasn't claiming it was. But as somewhat flawed as CASINO ROYALE's love story is, I don't think CASINO ROYALE's love story feels just as arbitrary. He doesn't go from shagging two chicks in a mountain lair to wanting to marry a gal within a day or so. The story of CASINO ROYALE gives more development to Bond's role in the romance, and the why of it all, than OHMSS ever really manages.

Sure, but perhaps that was the whole point, giving the ending more shock value and impact.

Eh, I think it ultimately robs the ending of much significance. Because there's nothing really leading into it, it's just... "Oh, there's a sad moment." It's not a moment that informs Bond as a character, because little else in the film has been done with Bond as a character. It just sits there.

[Loomis]

There are quite a few rather worse Bond performances out there - even Connery did a couple that aren't as good.

I'm not sure I agree. I think Connery at his laziest still tops most of what Lazenby turns in throughout OHMSS.

Well, Connery at his laziest is still always very entertaining and iconic (and the same goes for Moore even when he's being a million miles away from Fleming's Bond), but entertaining doesn't always equal good (e.g. the glacier surfing in DAD isn't good, but I do find it entertaining, mostly on the level of unintentional comedy).

I detected not a single false note in Laz during this most recent of my many, many viewings of OHMSS. By any standards it's a remarkable debut performance, and I think he'd have gotten better and better had he carried on. He's got sex appeal, humour, class, athleticism and is a real badass - I really don't see what's not to like about Lazenby. And, as you say, he totally nails that final scene in OHMSS.

But as somewhat flawed as CASINO ROYALE's love story is, I don't think CASINO ROYALE's love story feels just as arbitrary. He doesn't go from shagging two chicks in a mountain lair to wanting to marry a gal within a day or so.

Going from shagging two chicks (three, actually, as the film seems to imply!) to wanting to marry another gal within a day or so is possible, though! Perhaps on one level he was testing his feelings for Tracy. And when he saw her at the skating rink he realised that those feelings were real.

The story of CASINO ROYALE gives more development to Bond's role in the romance, and the why of it all, than OHMSS ever really manages.

Romance doesn't need a "why".

Eh, I think it ultimately robs the ending of much significance. Because there's nothing really leading into it, it's just... "Oh, there's a sad moment." It's not a moment that informs Bond as a character, because little else in the film has been done with Bond as a character. It just sits there.

Wow, I think you're severely underrating it, Harms. It's more than "a sad moment" that "just sits there" (like the series had given us so many sad moments by that point that we'd developed sad moment fatigue!) - it's still by far the most emotionally devastating moment in the entire history of Bond. There are things that move me in CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but nothing that moves me remotely as much as the ending of OHMSS. I'm not ashamed to say that I almost cry every time I see it, and I must have seen it dozens of times.

Neither am I sure what's lacking in terms of things "leading into it". Please explain what you would have added to give it a proper lead-in. Why should there be any telegraphing of OHMSS' shock ending, any more than there should be telegraphing of the shower scene in PSYCHO? The whole point, surely, is to suddenly cut the ground from under the audience's feet.

[stromberg]

But as somewhat flawed as CASINO ROYALE's love story is, I don't think CASINO ROYALE's love story feels just as arbitrary. He doesn't go from shagging two chicks in a mountain lair to wanting to marry a gal within a day or so.

Going from shagging two chicks (three, actually, as the film seems to imply!) to wanting to marry another gal within a day or so is possible, though! Perhaps on one level he was testing his feelings for Tracy. And when he saw her at the skating rink he realised that those feelings were real.

What he did that night was for Queen and Country. You don't think it gave him any pleasure do you?


Great review, btw. Knew you'd like it

[Loomis]

It's not a moment that informs Bond as a character, because little else in the film has been done with Bond as a character.

Here's the difference, as I see it, between CraigBond and Vesper and LazBond and Tracy:

CraigBond loves his job. He loves the British secret service. He enjoys The Life™. He is, in fact, a superpatriotic sadist who lives to bring on the mayhem - a sort of British government-licensed Hannibal Lecter without the cannibalism. He wants to stay with Vesper not because she'll provide him with a way out of The Life™ but because, simply, he loves her more. I mean, he isn't getting any younger (unlike LazBond) - he's knocking on and knows he's soon gonna start getting soft and has started to think about settling down.

LazBond isn't nearly as wedded to his job, in fact early on in the film he jumps at the chance to resign from it! Right from the word go he communicates - to me, at least - a sense of being unhappy and unfulfilled. He thinks M is a pompous old duffer and resents being his bitch. So he's actually very much open to being swept off his feet by a woman. Sure, he does love Tracy, but he also very much wants out of The Life™. It's a rather different take on the Bond character than was ever done before or has ever been done since, so, yes, I think OHMSS does plenty with Bond as a character.

What he did that night was for Queen and Country. You don't think it gave him any pleasure do you?

[Harmsway]

Well, Connery at his laziest is still always very entertaining and iconic (and the same goes for Moore even when he's being a million miles away from Fleming's Bond), but entertaining doesn't always equal good (e.g. the glacier surfing in DAD isn't good, but I do find it entertaining, mostly on the level of unintentional comedy).

Again, I'd say the laziest Connery performance is still by-and-large better than 75% of Lazenby's work in OHMSS.

He's got sex appeal, humour, class, athleticism and is a real badass - I really don't see what's not to like about Lazenby.

Well, I don't think he has much genuine sex appeal. He's kind of goofy-looking, and his manner of speaking doesn't really exude much genuine charm. I don't think his humor works (I think 75% of the humorous comments out of his mouth are delivered awkwardly). He certainly has athleticism, but he overall just strikes me as kind of, well, dorky.

It's more than "a sad moment" that "just sits there" (like the series had given us so many sad moments by that point that we'd developed sad moment fatigue!) - it's still by far the most emotionally devastating moment in the entire history of Bond.

I agree that it's the saddest moment in the history of Bond. Absolutely devastating. But it's also terribly disconnected from the film that preceded it.

Please explain what you would have added to give it a proper lead-in.

A more serious, darker tone throughout with a bit more drama. A developed romance that doesn't rely on a montage to cheat its way through. A Tracy whose troubled state isn't forgotten soon after she's introduced. A Bond that doesn't feel like a cartoon superhero, and is actually given some modicum of psychological depth.

Why should there be any telegraphing of OHMSS' shock ending, any more than there should be telegraphing of the shower scene in PSYCHO? The whole point, surely, is to suddenly cut the ground from under the audience's feet.

Ah, but PSYCHO feels like a thriller from the get-go. We might not be prepared for the shower scene, but it matches the tone. OHMSS has been, by and large, light comedy romp (until the sucker-punch of an ending, it's lighter than any of the previous Bond entries, save GOLDFINGER).

[Loomis]

Well, I don't think he has much genuine sex appeal. He's kind of goofy-looking, and his manner of speaking doesn't really exude much genuine charm. I don't think his humor works (I think 75% of the humorous comments out of his mouth are delivered awkwardly). He certainly has athleticism, but he overall just strikes me as kind of, well, dorky.

Dorky?!?!?!?! You're making him sound like Rick Moranis! C'mon, Harms, you're severely underrating the Lazmeister and you know it! Respect the Laz, man.

And I'll remind you that a certain Mr Daniel Craig has come in for more than his fair share of criticism re: his looks, but being blond, short, a Vladimir Putin lookalike, looking a good fifteen years older than he actually is, etc. didn't stop him becoming the greatest James Bond of all time and the biggest sex symbol, well, ever!

I agree that it's the saddest moment in the history of Bond. Absolutely devastating. But it's also terribly disconnected from the film that preceded it.

Even if it is "terribly disconnected" from the rest of the film (and I'm not sure I'd agree that it is), I don't necessarily see that as a problem.

A Bond that doesn't feel like a cartoon superhero, and is actually given some modicum of psychological depth.

Well, see my above post for my take on Bond's psychological depth in this flick.

OHMSS has been, by and large, light comedy romp (until the sucker-punch of an ending, it's lighter than any of the previous Bond entries, save, perhaps, GOLDFINGER).

Hmmm.... I think YOLT is lighter, and THUNDERBALL not really any darker.

[Harmsway]

Right from the word go he communicates - to me, at least - a sense of being unhappy and unfulfilled.

I see your argument, I just don't agree. I think his character is pretty all over the place, and never once gives the impression that Tracy ever really means something to him.

Dorky?!?!?!?! You're making him sound like Rick Moranis!

He's not that bad, mind you (see ol' Rog in the whole of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY... Bond has never been so much like a grandpa), but I do find something pretty dorky about him. I wouldn't describe him as cool by any stretch, and when he tries to be, it's a nice attempt, but it doesn't quite work. I'll concede there's still something endearing about him, though.

And I'll remind you that a certain Mr Daniel Craig has come in for more than his fair share of criticism re: his looks, but being blond, short, a Vladimir Putin lookalike, looking a good fifteen years older than he actually is, etc. didn't stop him becoming the greatest James Bond of all time and the biggest sex symbol, well, ever!

Maybe so. But I always really liked how Craig looked in the part, and so I find him vastly superior in the looks department to Laz. In fact, I daresay Craig is the coolest-looking Bond out of 'em all, save Connery.

Even if it is "terribly disconnected" from the rest of the film (and I'm not sure I'd agree that it is), I don't necessarily see that as a problem.

I do, in the sense that it feels out of place. It doesn't gel with the rest of the flick that well. In Fleming, it's a shocker, but it fits with the tone of the story being told. The way that film had been developed, there was not enough humanity in it to merit an ending full of such potentially rich tragedy.

Hmmm.... I think YOLT is lighter, and THUNDERBALL not really any darker.

I think both are darker than OHMSS, and by a pretty significant amount, shocking though that comment may be.

[Loomis]

In fact, I daresay Craig is the coolest-looking Bond out of 'em all, save Connery.

Oh, there's absolutely no question about it. And Connery, bless him, only looks cool in his first three flicks (albeit that he's an entertaining presence in all seven of his Bond outings), and even then goes in for some absolute fashion howlers (notably the sky blue romper suit in GOLDFINGER). Let us never forget - or forgive - things like those awful white spats in YOLT, those dreadful so-called clothes in DAF (and, my, that flab and that wig) and those NSNA dungarees.

Even if it is "terribly disconnected" from the rest of the film (and I'm not sure I'd agree that it is), I don't necessarily see that as a problem.

I do, in the sense that, IMO, it's out of place. It doesn't gel with the rest of the flick that well. In Fleming, it's a shocker, but it fits with the tone of the story being told. The way that film had been developed, there was not enough humanity in it to merit an ending full of such potentially rich tragedy.

Again we disagree. Not enough humanity in the film to merit an ending full of such tragedy? There's Draco's obvious love and concern for Tracy, and the horrible irony that this gentle father is ultimately responsible for his daughter's death by pushing her into the arms of 007. It's not Italian counts who kill themselves in their sports cars or other degenerate members of "the fast international set" who get Tracy killed. Neither is it her connection to her father's organised crime empire - it's the supposedly cool and professional man of the world James Bond and his apparently respectable and responsible British government that finally tilts Tracy onto the path to a tragic demise.

Hmmm.... I think YOLT is lighter, and THUNDERBALL not really any darker.

I think both are darker than OHMSS, and by a pretty significant amount, shocking though that comment may be.

I'll give you THUNDERBALL, albeit with some reservations, but I completely fail to see how YOLT is darker, let alone by "a pretty significant amount". Sure, it has its dark(ish) moments, thanks chiefly to a fairly strong helping of The Element of the Bizarre™ - what I mean by this is that it has a lot of atmosphere, but it's nonetheless overwhelmingly goofy stuff.

[Harmsway]

Again we disagree. Not enough humanity in the film to merit an ending full of such tragedy? There's Draco's obvious love and concern for Tracy, and the horrible irony that this gentle father is ultimately responsible for his daughter's death by pushing her into the arms of 007.

Draco's great. But he's in so little of the film he hardly makes much of an impression, and is soon forgotten (as is the whole of Tracy's tragic backstory).

I'll give you THUNDERBALL, albeit with some reservations, but I completely fail to see how YOLT is darker, let alone by "a pretty significant amount". Sure, it has its dark(ish) moments, thanks chiefly to a fairly strong helping of The Element of the Bizarre™ - what I mean by this is that it has a lot of atmosphere, but it's nonetheless overwhelmingly goofy stuff.

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is very silly, and OHMSS certainly has nothing resembling a hollowed-out volcano. But once you get beyond the plot elements and to the issue of tone, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is more straight-faced and on the whole darker in atmosphere.

Despite a somewhat more realistic storyline (though Blofeld's brainwashing scheme is one of the silliest in the franchise), OHMSS is pretty goofy.

[00Twelve]

I'm going to jump into the OHMSS debate here, if I may. I love the film; however, I do feel that it fails to be as consistent in tone as the novel was.

- I think that the lion's share of Tracy's backstory is lost. Part of the crushing impact of her death is the consideration that this was to be her new life after a miserable existence.

- The best parts of Lazenby's Bond are what are already there in the novel. Yes, he's world weary. Yes, he's all too ready to resign. Yes, he's ready for a quieter, more human life as a husband. But none, none of that has to do with Lazenby. That's all part of the character as written in the book. That's one thing that I lament about Laz-- he's too young and virile to be the senior 00 in the service that we see in the book. Yes, Bond also shagged the *one* girl at Piz Gloria, but there was the fact of there having been a good while since he and Tracy were together and he is a 00 who doesn't expect to live through the week.

- Savalas did indeed prove to be an underwhelming Blofeld, but only in comparison with the literary one. EON never managed to make Blofeld as intimidating, ominous, intelligent or creepy as he was in the books; while Savalas came off as too much of a gangster, he was certainly preferable to Dr. Loomis. The entire character was lost as soon as he was introduced as a cat lover (but maybe moviegoing audiences weren't ready for Fleming's Blofeld).

- Basically, I think OHMSS is only as great as it is 1) because of how much of the novel made it in, and 2) because of the performances Hunt was able to extract out of the cast. I also think our (the fanboys) love for the film is greatly informed by our love for the novel. It's indisputably a great Bond novel, but I think we give the film the benefit of the doubt because we know the details that the movie didn't actually communicate by itself.

[double o ego]

What are you talking about? A movie's a movie, regardless of how much of the source material made it into the movie itself or how the director was able to draw strong performances from his cast as you clearly state. By what else would you measure a movie to be good by?

[BoogieBond]

Glad you liked it.
I also thought the opera scene was excellent. Its one scene where I think the quick editing/cutting really enhances the scene, although I have to admit, my slow eyes were struggling with some of the scenes immediately afterwards.
I think the dogfight, although a little out of place in this realism era, was pretty good, the freefall just , to me, pointed out the comparison with MR and how good the MR one is, I doubt it can be bested.
On the OHMSS subject, it certainly helps being a big fan of the book, but the film, by itself is really great, but I am a massive OHMSS fan(Top 5 Bond for me easily). But I would have to agree that Lazenby, while OK, is a young whippersnapper rather than the weary Bond that is writing his resignation at the start of the novel.

[Loomis]

Well, if we disagree so much on what is generally considered a classic (among Bond fandom nowadays, that is, for OHMSS wasn't, of course, nearly as universally acclaimed Back in the Day™), I can't wait to see how much we'll disagree on QUANTUM OF SOLACE, Harms!

Draco's great. But he's in so little of the film he hardly makes much of an impression, and is soon forgotten (as is the whole of Tracy's tragic backstory).

Again, I'm not with you. Draco is not in "so little of the film he hardly makes much of an impression" - I'm somewhat certain that he gets as much screentime as Tracy (and more than Blofeld), or at any rate a roughly comparable amount of screentime. He keeps cropping up in the flick from start to finish, even taking the leading role in the climactic action sequence. He's both a metaphorical father figure/older man ally to Bond (a la Kerim Bey, Fleming's Tiger Tanaka, Mathis in the Craig films, etc.) and a literal father figure to Tracy. Far from being "soon forgotten", his presence looms large. Gabriele Ferzetti may not be the greatest actor in the world, and he may be awkwardly dubbed, but the character is complex, rounded and well-drawn, rather more so, in fact, than most characters in most Bond films.

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is very silly, and OHMSS certainly has nothing resembling a hollowed-out volcano. But once you get beyond the plot elements and to the issue of tone, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is more straight-faced and on the whole darker in atmosphere.

Yes, but it's precisely those plot elements in YOLT that make it goofy. Occasional moments of atmosphere don't make this fundamentally zany movie "dark". However, I agree that Blofeld's plot in OHMSS is silly (thankfully, the film spends little time dwelling on it, and rightly so, for the focus - the spine of the story - is on the Bond/Tracy relationship). Still, the plot of CASINO ROYALE is also very daft (villain attempts to win back tens of millions at a casino and the British secret service sends a gambler to stop him). Both OHMSS and CR manage, though, to rise above these far-fetched schemes and become films that are About Something More™. YOLT, much as I do love it, doesn't even attempt to do this.

[Safari Suit]

What is "dark"?

[Loomis]

I also think our (the fanboys) love for the film is greatly informed by our love for the novel. It's indisputably a great Bond novel, but I think we give the film the benefit of the doubt because we know the details that the movie didn't actually communicate by itself.

I don't agree. Actually, I've never liked OHMSS the book. I find it overrated and dull, and indeed less believable than the film. Fleming's YOLT is an utter masterpiece, though.

What is "dark"?

The opposite of "light".

[marktmurphy]

Spoiler

The other character, the girl, I thought was a great idea. She's 'another Vesper', Yusef working the same old blackmail trick on another government employee on behalf of Quantum. I loved the scene, to be honest - Bond strides in and this poor girl, who thinks she's falling for the guy, suddenly gets a harsh lesson in reality. Bond is also saving her life, preventing another Casino Royale.

Interesting. You may well be right.

Come on Loomer- she's even got the love knot on. It's not exactly subtext.

What I don't get is why Bond slips the Yusef thingy in his pocket at the beginning; is he going after him alone? There's no implication that he has as M is stood outside and he doesn't seem very surprised. Seems like it's just something they put in there because it looked good at the time, as with most of the film. And as Greene gets him no closer to Yusef (or is he supposed to have told Bond something in Ranger Rover number 3? Honestly- Bond manages to sit in at least three Ranger Rovers in this film) it feels like the whole Greene plot has been a bit of a distraction. The plots aren't woven together: you could remove Quantum from Greene and the story would lose nothing.

Ey? He took the "Yusef thingy" because he wanted to know more, investigate it on his own and go handle it the way he felt it needed to be.

Obviously what we're supposed to think when he does it; but he doesn't. He appears to be working with M at the end- may be he's not; it isn't clear in the acting.
And more importantly- this whole plotline is dropped for an hour and a half. We're supposed to think that whatever it is Bond slips in his pocket is important, but it just isn't- the plotlines aren't intertwined at all. At least in Bourne Supremacy the Marie-getting-killed plotline is the reason for Bourne going on his mission and ultimately to Moscow for the end.

[Harmsway]

Well, if we disagree so much on what is generally considered a classic (among Bond fandom nowadays, that is, for OHMSS wasn't, of course, nearly as universally acclaimed Back in the Day™), I can't wait to see how much we'll disagree on QUANTUM OF SOLACE, Harms!

Maybe we will, maybe we won't. I have no idea how I'll feel about QoS (I've loved everything I've seen so far, though).

Occasional moments of atmosphere don't make this fundamentally zany movie "dark".

But "dark" is first and foremost a question of atmosphere and tone, and that's why I deem YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE to be darker than ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

However, I agree that Blofeld's plot in OHMSS is silly (thankfully, the film spends little time dwelling on it, and rightly so, for the focus - the spine of the story - is on the Bond/Tracy relationship). Still, the plot of CASINO ROYALE is also very daft (villain attempts to win back tens of millions at a casino and the British secret service sends a gambler to stop him).

Granted. I don't have a problem with Bond stories being daft in concept, really. I just find it a bigger issue in OHMSS because it gives you the opportunity to really laugh at it (the brainwashing scenes, for example, have no equivalent in CASINO ROYALE).

[Loomis]

Occasional moments of atmosphere don't make this fundamentally zany movie "dark".

But "dark" is first and foremost a question of atmosphere and tone, and that's why I deem YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE to be darker than ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

Okay, I'll give you that the overall atmosphere and tone of YOLT may be darker than the overall atmosphere and tone of OHMSS (albeit not hugely so), but the main plot elements (excluding just a couple of small things like Blofeld's silly scheme, which is really just a throwaway McGuffin and probably gets only a couple of minutes of exposition) of OHMSS are far darker than those of YOLT, which I think we'd agree are "daft in concept" (Bond faking his death, SPECTRE swallowing American spacecraft, Bond being disguised as a Japanese, Bond's unnecessary "marriage" [why doesn't he just pass himself off as, say, a National Geographic reporter?], Tiger Tanaka's harem, etc.).

So in a way it all evens out between YOLT and OHMSS in the "dark" stakes - if you like, YOLT may trump it in atmosphere, but OHMSS certainly comes out streets ahead in terms of hardhitting story elements.

[Judo chop]

But "dark" is first and foremost a question of atmosphere and tone, and that's why I deem YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE to be darker than ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

Huh? YOLT is dark?

Dark like a London fog maybe. "Dreary" is more fitting description, IMO. What dark tones do you - either of you - find in YOLT?

To be honest, I think of YOLT as being rather toneless and as atmospheric as The Void. If it were to register a heartbeat for me, I still think I'd be quicker to put it on the lighter end of the spectrum anyway.

(We are talking about the films, and not the books, correct?)

[Loomis]

Well, I don't think the film of YOLT has any particularly dark tones to it (excepting the death of Aki, which I seem to remember someone on a DVD commentary or something calling an "ethereal" scene, although it is, of course, thrown away and forgotten about almost immediately).

That said, though, I do think the film has a few more echoes of the Fleming novel than immediately meet the eye. I ramble on about them here:

http://debrief.comma...p...=0&p=344191

[Harmsway]

To be honest, I think of YOLT as being rather toneless and as atmospheric as The Void.

Let's not exaggerate, JC. I know you despise the film, but let's give credit where credit is due! All quibbles with a slapdash story and lazy performances aside, the sheer visual and musical qualities of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE make it one of the most distinctively atmospheric Bond films of them all.

It just oozes a very dream-like, surreal quality from the very beginning, all due to the beautiful marriage of Gilbert's visual sensibilities, Adam's set design, and Barry's music. Bond has never been quite so strikingly bizarre. There's also a rich sense of exoticism, and one of the few Bonds to really get that travelogue feel in place.

And Barry delivers his most haunting and lush Bond score, a rich cornucopia of sound that is only equalled by his work on ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. The way it accentuates each scene gives it oodles of atmosphere and exoticism. Watch how beautifully it adds a mournful quality to the death of Aki, or to the shots of Bond and Kissy in the boat. Breathtaking.

[Judo chop]

To be honest, I think of YOLT as being rather toneless and as atmospheric as The Void.

Let's not exaggerate, JC. I know you despise the film, but let's give credit where credit is due! All quibbles with a slapdash story and lazy performances aside, the sheer visual and musical qualities of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE make it one of the most distinctively atmospheric Bond films of them all.

It just oozes a very dream-like, surreal quality from the very beginning, all due to the beautiful marriage of Gilbert's visual sensibilities, Adam's set design, and Barry's music. Bond has never been quite so strikingly bizarre. There's also a rich sense of exoticism, and one of the few Bonds to really get that travelogue feel in place.

And Barry delivers his most haunting and lush Bond score, a rich cornucopia of sound that is only equalled by his work on ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. The way it accentuates each scene gives it oodles of atmosphere and exoticism. Watch how beautifully it adds a mournful quality to the death of Aki, or to the shots of Bond and Kissy in the boat. Breathtaking.

Now... I wouldn't be the Judo That We All Know And Love™ if I didn't profusely lace every one of my opinions with exaggeration, would I?

The score is woefully enveloping, the cinematography is delicious and the sets are a triumph. That amounts to excellent packaging. But what's in the box after you unwrap it?

I did exaggerate. I think the trappings of atmosphere abound in YOLT. But I think its lack of soul makes the whole event all the more disappointing. Adam does some of his best work in YOLT, but it’s a sterile, uninviting, unsettling look that requires a warm-blooded animal to inhabit in order to offset the chill. YOLT needs a pulse and I can’t find one. It's a cruel illusion YOLT casts.

But I really don’t mean to turn this into an anti-YOLT rant, so to get back on topic (which wasn’t really ever on topic), is it in the visuals and the score alone that you find YOLT’s darkness? We may be talking about the same thing, I wonder. What you call dark, I call empty. I don't think they're the same thing.

[Safari Suit]

What is "dark"?

I warned you!