151 replies to this topic

[Mister Asterix]

Bond did kill Greene at the end, even if they didn't show his actual demise. Bond wanted to have him suffer the way Vesper did...

Actually, no. Bond wanted Greene to suffer the way Fields did. Hence, the oil.

[Bondian]

Don't listen to over-wrought, tightly wound Bond fans who secretly miss Roger Moore's cartoon Bonds, but just don't want to admit it.

Funny you should mention that.

Luckily there's seven that I can slap in my DVD if I need cheering up.

[Judo chop]

Bond did kill Greene at the end, even if they didn't show his actual demise. Bond wanted to have him suffer the way Vesper did...

Actually, no. Bond wanted Greene to suffer the way Fields did. Hence, the oil.

Thanks for making that connection, Mr. *. I had missed it. (Did you mention it in your review? If not, you should have.) It helps elevate the concept too, because I wasn’t (and still amn’t) sure if I like the fact that they report Greene dead with oil in his stomach.

It seems a bit contrived in trying to make his demise more dramatic. Why would Greene take the oil with him? He knows it’s not going to help and that it would only hurt. Why wouldn’t he leave it before starting his long, dry journey?

Unless of course that’s what he did do, and then when dehydration forced survival instincts to override reason, he returned to the oil can to drink it. That would be quite chilling. But if that were the case, I’d have liked to hear about it.

[DrNoNo]

Nope QOS was not OHMSS, it was much better.

Kindly put away the crack pipe.

Yes...PLEASE put the crack pipe away. QOS was nowhere near OHMSS. Not even in the same league. Not even in the same ballpark! Great scott man!

[HildebrandRarity]

Nope QOS was not OHMSS, it was much better.

Kindly put away the crack pipe.

Sorry, doublenoughtspy, but Q0S is a cut above OHMSS.

First, Lazenby is the worst actor to play James Bond. Period. No surprise because he was only a tv commercial model. He moves like a panther. But so does Craig. In the acting stakes, Craig destroys Lazenby. They are not even on the same plane.

Second, not a single woman I know buys the fact that Bond falls in love two hours after behaving like Hugh Hefner up at Piz Gloria. To thinks that he does so after he gets caught trying to shag one of three girls again, is a conceit. Only a near teenage boy would buy it. Or an idiot.

Another idiot is Blofeld. Since Blofeld is a "must" with Bond, why does such a smart person as written by Fleming not recognize Bond given that he (Bond) blew up his volcano rocket base in the previous mission/outing. They're not strangers...Ernst is a "must" for James, after all.

Further, Mike Myers has reduced the cat-stroking Blofeld to parody. Anyone between 12 and 25 laughs everytime I have a pussy-stroking Blofeld James Bond film on dvd. Dr Evil has had it's effect on OHMSS. We get no animal as Dr Evil in Q0S. The menace in Amalric's eyes alone is more than any menace projected from Telly Savalas.

Speaking of embarrassments, OHMSS was exactly that for years after 1969.

We know that OHMSS was a failure. It's a fact that OHMSS took a while to make it's money back and turn a profit for the studios. Why? Because it had a downer of an ending and had a terrible actor playing the lead. Eon was ashamed of the movie for years and years after, and you know it - or *should* know it. It was the black sheep of the Eon family.

Fine, it has a great score and fine cinematography and Rigg is perfect and is based on a very good Fleming novel. But it does not even come close to Quantum. If they got rid of the Dr Evil-like cat-stroking so that the new generation wouldn't laugh, it would start approaching it, but then what do you about Lazenby's amateur performance? How do you digitally alter it?

[Judo chop]

Bond did kill Greene at the end, even if they didn't show his actual demise. Bond wanted to have him suffer the way Vesper did...

Actually, no. Bond wanted Greene to suffer the way Fields did. Hence, the oil.

Thanks for making that connection, Mr. *. I had missed it. (Did you mention it in your review? If not, you should have.) It helps elevate the concept too, because I wasn’t (and still amn’t) sure if I like the fact that they report Greene dead with oil in his stomach.

It seems a bit contrived in trying to make his demise more dramatic. Why would Greene take the oil with him? He knows it’s not going to help and that it would only hurt. Why wouldn’t he leave it before starting his long, dry journey?

Unless of course that’s what he did do, and then when dehydration forced survival instincts to override reason, he returned to the oil can to drink it. That would be quite chilling. But if that were the case, I’d have liked to hear about it.

re-posting to bump the thread past that previous exchange of crap* and back to my relevant question/concern/thought.

EDIT: That was submitted before I saw Hilde's post.

[doublenoughtspy]

Sorry, doublenoughtspy, but Q0S is a cut above OHMSS.

Keep dreaming.

First, Lazenby is the worst actor to play James Bond. Period. No surprise because he was only a tv commercial model. He moves like a panther. But so does Craig. In the acting stakes, Craig destroys Lazenby. They are not even on the same plane.

You don't find Lazenby believable in the action scenes? I do.

You don't find Lazenby believable in the love scenes? I do.

Sure - Craig is better at straight dialog than Lazenby - years of TV/Theatre/movies will do that.

But Lazenby has a leg up on Craig in that he actually resembles the man Ian Fleming wrote about.

Second, not a single woman I know buys the fact that Bond falls in love two hours after behaving like Hugh Hefner up at Piz Gloria. To thinks that he does so after he gets caught trying to shag one of three girls again, is a conceit. Only a near teenage boy would buy it. Or an idiot.

Lazenby is quoted as saying that Rigg was so gorgeous that "acting" like he loved her wasn't a stretch. What red-blooded male wouldn't fall instantly in love with her?

The novel has Bond sleeping with other women while at Piz Gloria. Why are you blaming Lazenby/Hugh Hefner/whoever?

Another idiot is Blofeld. Since Blofeld is a "must" with Bond, why does such a smart person as written by Fleming not recognize Bond given that he (Bond) blew up his volcano rocket base in the previous mission/outing. They're not strangers...Ernst is a "must" for James, after all.

OHMSS came before YOLT in the novels. Peter Hunt ignored that YOLT had been filmed. Did your keen eyes notice that there were no YOLT gadgets in Bond's desk and no other reference to the film? Plenty of Bond films ignore/change/reboot continuity. Why does CR get praised for it but OHMSS sucks because of it?

Further, Mike Myers has reduced the cat-stroking Blofeld to parody. Anyone between 12 and 25 laughs everytime I have a pussy-stroking Blofeld James Bond film on dvd. Dr Evil has had it's effect on OHMSS. We get no animal as Dr Evil in Q0S. The menace in Amalric's eyes alone is more than any menace projected from Telly Savalas.

So because people who don't have a clue about cinema/pop culture/the character's history don't know the difference - any film with Blofeld sucks? Pathetic.

Speaking of embarrassments, OHMSS was exactly that for years after 1969.

We know that OHMSS was a failure. It's a fact that OHMSS took a while to make it's money back and turn a profit for the studios. Why? Because it had a downer of an ending and had a terrible actor playing the lead. Eon was ashamed of the movie for years and years after, and you know it - or *should* know it. It was the black sheep of the Eon family.

I realize that film is commerical art - but I don't judge a film's merit's based on the money it makes or didn't make. So High School Musical 3 is a better film than Citizen Kane by your standards. Interesting and laughable.

If it was so "lame" and the blacksheep - why would Eon make casual and overt references to OHMSS in TSWLM, FYEO, and LTK?

The "downer" of an ending is straight from the book. You are familiar with Ian Fleming's work?

Fine, it has a great score and fine cinematography and Rigg is perfect and is based on a very good Fleming novel. But it does not even come close to Quantum. If they got rid of the Dr Evil-like cat-stroking so that the new generation wouldn't laugh, it would start approaching it, but then what do you about Lazenby's amateur performance? How do you digitally alter it?

I'm glad you like the score and Rigg. At least we agree on a few things.

[avl]

Why bash the old to defend the new? I love OHMSS, Laz and all

[Loomis]

Another idiot is Blofeld. Since Blofeld is a "must" with Bond, why does such a smart person as written by Fleming not recognize Bond given that he (Bond) blew up his volcano rocket base in the previous mission/outing. They're not strangers...Ernst is a "must" for James, after all.

OHMSS came before YOLT in the novels. Peter Hunt ignored that YOLT had been filmed. Did your keen eyes notice that there were no YOLT gadgets in Bond's desk and no other reference to the film? Plenty of Bond films ignore/change/reboot continuity. Why does CR get praised for it but OHMSS sucks because of it?

Come on, DNS, you of all people ought to know that there are clips from YOLT in the OHMSS opening credits sequence. Or did Hunt have no control over that?

[doublenoughtspy]

Another idiot is Blofeld. Since Blofeld is a "must" with Bond, why does such a smart person as written by Fleming not recognize Bond given that he (Bond) blew up his volcano rocket base in the previous mission/outing. They're not strangers...Ernst is a "must" for James, after all.

OHMSS came before YOLT in the novels. Peter Hunt ignored that YOLT had been filmed. Did your keen eyes notice that there were no YOLT gadgets in Bond's desk and no other reference to the film? Plenty of Bond films ignore/change/reboot continuity. Why does CR get praised for it but OHMSS sucks because of it?

Come on, DNS, you of all people ought to know that there are clips from YOLT in the OHMSS opening credits sequence. Or did Hunt have no control over that?

Maurice Binder filmed the gun barrel and the credit sequence.

Hunt really didn't like YOLT at all. He's quoted as saying it wasn't a Bond film.

[Loomis]

But Lazenby has a leg up on Craig in that he actually resembles the man Ian Fleming wrote about.

Craig doesn't resemble the man Ian Fleming wrote about? From CASINO ROYALE, I give you:

(Bond's) last action was to slip his right hand under the pillow until it rested under the butt of the .38 Colt Police Positive with the sawn barrel. Then he slept, and with the warmth and humour of his eyes extinguished, his features relapsed into a taciturn mask, ironical, brutal and cold.

Don't you think that Craig fits that facial description to a T? I do. And more so than any of the other actors.

Still, you're correct that OHMSS is a better film than QoS.

[dee-bee-five]

Why bash the old to defend the new? I love OHMSS, Laz and all

Me, too. For me, OHMSS, CR and QoS are now the three peaks of the series. It's true that the new dynamic, stimulating Craig Bonds make it slightly harder for me to sit through the older Bank Holiday romp-Bonds (despite my being in my 40s); but I still love them like one does a well-loved old pet who now seems a bit more creaky than he once did.

But Lazenby has a leg up on Craig in that he actually resembles the man Ian Fleming wrote about.

Craig doesn't resemble the man Ian Fleming wrote about? From CASINO ROYALE, I give you:

(Bond's) last action was to slip his right hand under the pillow until it rested under the butt of the .38 Colt Police Positive with the sawn barrel. Then he slept, and with the warmth and humour of his eyes extinguished, his features relapsed into a taciturn mask, ironical, brutal and cold.

Don't you think that Craig fits that facial description to a T? I do. And more so than any of the other actors.

I agree 100%.

[avl]

Why bash the old to defend the new? I love OHMSS, Laz and all

Me, too. For me, OHMSS, CR and QoS are now the three peaks of the series. It's true that the new dynamic, stimulating Craig Bonds make it slightly harder for me to sit through the older Bank Holiday romp-Bonds (despite my being in my 40s); but I still love them like one does a well-loved old pet who now seems a bit more creaky than he once did.

Add in the Daltons and I'm right there with you. Mind you, Moonraker was the perfect film for a 10 year old to watch on the big screen And I mean that as a compliment as I was the 10 year old in question!

Edited by avl, 19 November 2008 - 09:18 PM.

[Judo chop]

Ah yes, the oldest and most oft referenced James Bond commandment. The taciturn mask. Ironical, brutal and cold.

Sounds like Craig to me.

(And not especially George.)

[dee-bee-five]

Why bash the old to defend the new? I love OHMSS, Laz and all

Me, too. For me, OHMSS, CR and QoS are now the three peaks of the series. It's true that the new dynamic, stimulating Craig Bonds make it slightly harder for me to sit through the older Bank Holiday romp-Bonds (despite my being in my 40s); but I still love them like one does a well-loved old pet who now seems a bit more creaky than he once did.

Add in the Daltons and I'm right there with you. Mind you, Moonraker was the perfect film for a 10 year old to watch on the big screen And I mean that as a compliment as I was the 10 year old in question!

Moonraker is a film for 10 year olds... of all ages. Accept it on those terms and there's still much to enjoy in it.

[HildebrandRarity]

Another idiot is Blofeld. Since Blofeld is a "must" with Bond, why does such a smart person as written by Fleming not recognize Bond given that he (Bond) blew up his volcano rocket base in the previous mission/outing. They're not strangers...Ernst is a "must" for James, after all.

OHMSS came before YOLT in the novels. Peter Hunt ignored that YOLT had been filmed. Did your keen eyes notice that there were no YOLT gadgets in Bond's desk and no other reference to the film? Plenty of Bond films ignore/change/reboot continuity. Why does CR get praised for it but OHMSS sucks because of it?

Come on, DNS, you of all people ought to know that there are clips from YOLT in the OHMSS opening credits sequence. Or did Hunt have no control over that?

Maurice Binder filmed the gun barrel and the credit sequence.

Hunt really didn't like YOLT at all. He's quoted as saying it wasn't a Bond film.

If you go by what James Bond actually says to M in OHMSS that (paraphrasing from years and years of watching the movie) "...but, Sir, Blofeld is a bit of a must for me", where he reiterates his desire to go after Blofeld after having had "two years" (M's words), then I think it's intellectual dishonesty to suggest that Bond and Blofeld have never met.

It's stupidity!

Sorry, I know you "love" OHMSS, but I just put six bullets into it and you couldn't even come back without talking about "pop culture", the exact so-called "pop culture" that classified OHMSS as a failure.

Listen, I think Barry's score is awsome, Rigg is awsome, cinematography is awsome, it's based on a Fleming story...all great things. But you're judgement is clouded and you haven't moved on. Who cares if Laz himself thought anyone could fall for Rigg...the question was why should we believe James Bond falls for Tracy only two hours after he tries to shag Ruby again - Ruby being one of, let's say, three girl he's ing at Piz Gloria?

This movie has been a Christmas staple at my home for years and years. I think highly of OHMSS but it's not as good as QOS.

Sorry, my dear fellow, but I think you're having a tough time moving on. You're stuck and you have no interest in having a balanced view on the matter. You're mind was made up years and years ago, so there's little point in making you look at things a bit more even-handedly.

[Loomis]

Hilly, how many times have you seen QoS? And how many more theatrical viewings are you in for, do you think? Will it be a record?

[HildebrandRarity]

Last night was five right after a martini party...with about 30-odd others in a smaller viewing room where the audio quality was much better eventhough it was a smaller screen.

The record was six for Casino Royale and GoldenEye.

[dee-bee-five]

Another idiot is Blofeld. Since Blofeld is a "must" with Bond, why does such a smart person as written by Fleming not recognize Bond given that he (Bond) blew up his volcano rocket base in the previous mission/outing. They're not strangers...Ernst is a "must" for James, after all.

OHMSS came before YOLT in the novels. Peter Hunt ignored that YOLT had been filmed. Did your keen eyes notice that there were no YOLT gadgets in Bond's desk and no other reference to the film? Plenty of Bond films ignore/change/reboot continuity. Why does CR get praised for it but OHMSS sucks because of it?

Come on, DNS, you of all people ought to know that there are clips from YOLT in the OHMSS opening credits sequence. Or did Hunt have no control over that?

Maurice Binder filmed the gun barrel and the credit sequence.

Hunt really didn't like YOLT at all. He's quoted as saying it wasn't a Bond film.

If you go by what James Bond actually says to M in OHMSS that (paraphrasing from years and years of watching the movie) "...but, Sir, Blofeld is a bit of a must for me", where he reiterates his desire to go after Blofeld after having had "two years" (M's words), then I think it's intellectual dishonesty to suggest that Bond and Blofeld have never met.

It's stupidity!

Sorry, I know you "love" OHMSS, but I just put six bullets into it and you couldn't even come back without talking about "pop culture", the exact so-called "pop culture" that classified OHMSS as a failure.

Listen, I think Barry's score is awsome, Rigg is awsome, cinematography is awsome, it's based on a Fleming story...all great things. But you're judgement is clouded and you haven't moved on. Who cares if Laz himself thought anyone could fall for Rigg...the question was why should we believe James Bond falls for Tracy only two hours after he tries to shag Ruby again - Ruby being one of, let's say, three girl he's ing at Piz Gloria?

This movie has been a Christmas staple at my home for years and years. I think highly of OHMSS but it's not as good as QOS.

I have to say, I'm inclined to agree. OHMSS was my favourite Bond film for decades. CR finally edged it out of my No.1 slot. Now QoS has come along and, although I'm not sure if it's better than CR, it has possibly edged OHMSS into the No.3 slot. All subjective.

[plankattack]

I'm kind of glad that a OHMSS skirmish has broken out in a QoS thread. Because my point about QoS is that the great Bonds do lead to this kind of debate. What I mean is, OHMSS is, IMHO, a cut-above, but I realise it's not to everyone's taste. I'm not sure QoS is up there, but at least there is a lot of back and forth about it, which has to be a good thing for the series in general. OP for example, or YOLT, don't generate this kind of passion, so while I think QoS is flawed, I'm glad that it's differences from the rest of the series, are leading us to take such strong viewpoints.

I just got back from watching it again, and I'll say this - it's a much better film second-time around, and I was just pleased that having reached middle-aged, that I was, like CR before it, finally watching a Bond that was aimed at an older age-group. Unlike say, well, I won't go there. But if nothing else, the last two films have proved that EON have lost the urge to make "family entertainment." Whether they succeeded in making good "adult" entertainment is all personal taste and opinion, but watching QoS again, I'm glad that they've tried.

Oh, and one-liner fans "He didn't smoke" is exactly the kind of "humour" I've been waiting for. Rather than, oh god, where does one start.......

[dee-bee-five]

I'm kind of glad that a OHMSS skirmish has broken out in a QoS thread. Because my point about QoS is that the great Bonds do lead to this kind of debate. What I mean is, OHMSS is, IMHO, a cut-above, but I realise it's not to everyone's taste. I'm not sure QoS is up there, but at least there is a lot of back and forth about it, which has to be a good thing for the series in general. OP for example, or YOLT, don't generate this kind of passion, so while I think QoS is flawed, I'm glad that it's differences from the rest of the series, are leading us to take such strong viewpoints.

I just got back from watching it again, and I'll say this - it's a much better film second-time around, and I was just pleased that having reached middle-aged, that I was, like CR before it, finally watching a Bond that was aimed at an older age-group. Unlike say, well, I won't go there. But if nothing else, the last two films have proved that EON have lost the urge to make "family entertainment." Whether they succeeded in making good "adult" entertainment is all personal taste and opinion, but watching QoS again, I'm glad that they've tried.

Oh, and one-liner fans "He didn't smoke" is exactly the kind of "humour" I've been waiting for. Rather than, oh god, where does one start.......

"Christmas comes once a year"? "When one is in Egypt, one should delve deeply into its treasures"? The list is endless...

[Loomis]

Last night was five right after a martini party...with about 30-odd others in a smaller viewing room where the audio quality was much better eventhough it was a smaller screen.

The record was six for Casino Royale and GoldenEye.

Well, swipe me. God bless you, sir, and all who sail in you - especially as it hasn't even been out for a week where you live, unless I'm mistaken.

I think my own record for theatrical viewings of the same film is four, for both THE BOURNE SUPREMACY and DIE ANOTHER DAY. I wanted to see CASINO ROYALE on the big screen more than the three times I actually did, but never got round to it.

I daresay I'll clock up a couple more QoS screenings in the fullness of time. As it stands, though, I've seen it just once.

[plankattack]

Oh, and for anyone who thinks that DC isn't doing Fleming's Bond, then perhaps they should study Fleming's Bond a bit more. TD's was the most literal, but DC is definitely doing an interpretation, not an impersonation.

[dee-bee-five]

Last night was five right after a martini party...with about 30-odd others in a smaller viewing room where the audio quality was much better eventhough it was a smaller screen.

The record was six for Casino Royale and GoldenEye.

Well, swipe me. God bless you, sir, and all who sail in you - especially as it hasn't even been out for a week where you live, unless I'm mistaken.

I think my own record for theatrical viewings of the same film is four, for both THE BOURNE SUPREMACY and DIE ANOTHER DAY. I wanted to see CASINO ROYALE on the big screen more than the three times I actually did, but never got round to it.

I daresay I'll clock up a couple more QoS screenings in the fullness of time. As it stands, though, I've seen it just once.

My record was 15 for TSWLM in '77. Of course, I was a teenager back then, so I hope that is some excuse...

[Mister Asterix]

I'm kind of glad that a OHMSS skirmish has broken out in a QoS thread. Because my point about QoS is that the great Bonds do lead to this kind of debate. What I mean is, OHMSS is, IMHO, a cut-above, but I realise it's not to everyone's taste...

Insightful point there, plank.

[spynovelfan]

Nobody is going to persuade doublenoughtspy that OHMSS is not a great Bond film here, people. Nor is anyone going to persuade him that QoS is a good Bond film. We all have our own tastes.

What I would say is that I love both of those films, despite their obvious flaws. In fact, I think all Bond films have obvious flaws. All films have flaws, of course, because nothing's perfect, we all have our own tastes, and - perhaps more importantly for this discussion - if you look hard enough at something you can usually find something wrong with it. Terence Young once said something to the effect that Bond films had to work while you were in the cinema - on the way home, you might realise that some of the logic made no sense, but as long as it worked while you watched it, that was okay. Today, we're not at home thinking 'Yeah, okay, but he was screwing all those women up the mountain' or 'I don't understand why they would need to practise killing James Bond on a man wearing an extemely sophisticated mask of James Bond, which they never used again' - we're on the internet saying it.

All James Bond films, it seems to me, are frustratingly erratic, to greater or lesser degrees. This is partly the result of the way they have been made, with a group of creative people all vying to top the last film in the series, with ideas thrown in the hat from all over, including drafts of previous films, with the pressure of the changing film industry, and so on. They are often not coherent or consistent in plotting, continuity, tone or logic.

Something that I've been thinking reading some of the threads in the last few days is that I'm not really a fan of the Bond film. Let me explain what I mean. I quite like the British band Keane. A couple of years ago I read an interview with the songwriter in which he was describing some of their new material. I can't find the quote, but he said, essentially, that it was very much a 'Keane song', and he then listed what that was: piano pop-rock with a great melodic hook, epic sensation to it, frustration etched into the lyric, etc. It wasn't quite that, but my point is that he knew what it was that people expected of him, and what they were as a band. And all the things he said were what I like about the band. However, I don't listen to them primarily because of all that stuff - I listen to them because they do all that stuff well. If the epic-sounding melodic hook they're known for is there, but simply isn't that memorable, I'm not going to suddenly love it because it's an epic-sounding melodic hook. I have to actually like the melody!

The same goes for Bond. I don't like Bond films because they are Bond films, ie because they have a super-stylish British agent who says this and that and there's a title song and he drinks vodka martinis and then he does this... Etc. I like them because they do all that well. The precise elements of 'Shaken not stirred' and so on are not intrinsically cool to me - they're more familiar than other hooks that have been attempted in the genre in the past. But I think the OSS 117 books are quite cool. They're not as cool as Fleming's. I think the films could have been quite good, too - but they weren't. If a Bond film puts all its elements together well - OHMSS, FRWL, CR, QoS - I love it, warts and all, the same way I love a good song. You either love the melody or not, love the content or not. And, actually melody is perhaps appropriate. The tune of James Blunt's 'You're Beautiful' was why it was a hit - check out the lyrics and you'll see they make no sense. So it is to the plot of a Bond film - really the equivalent of the lyrics of a pop song. (And I love lyrics. Most people don't care.)

I'll stop there, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say. I don't love Quantum of Solace for particularly logical reasons. I just like the tune.

[jaguar007]

I'll jump aboard this boat

For many years OHMSS was at the top of the list right after FRWL. Now I will say, after 2 viewings of QoS - I still find OHMSS to be the better of the films. HOWEVER, after seeing CR again on the big screen for the first time in 2 years (right before the midnight showing of QoS) I have come to the conclusion that Casino Royale is a better movie than OHMSS. Since CR came out, I placed it in my top 5, but below OHMSS. Watching it again made me realize how much better the character development is in CR. It is really the first Bond movie where Bond and the other characters are three dimentional. I won't diss Laz, but I will praise Craig. I think CR actually topped my all time favorite, FRWL!

[dodge]

Sorry, doublenoughtspy, but Q0S is a cut above OHMSS.

Keep dreaming.

First, Lazenby is the worst actor to play James Bond. Period. No surprise because he was only a tv commercial model. He moves like a panther. But so does Craig. In the acting stakes, Craig destroys Lazenby. They are not even on the same plane.

You don't find Lazenby believable in the action scenes? I do.

You don't find Lazenby believable in the love scenes? I do.

Sure - Craig is better at straight dialog than Lazenby - years of TV/Theatre/movies will do that.

But Lazenby has a leg up on Craig in that he actually resembles the man Ian Fleming wrote about.

Second, not a single woman I know buys the fact that Bond falls in love two hours after behaving like Hugh Hefner up at Piz Gloria. To thinks that he does so after he gets caught trying to shag one of three girls again, is a conceit. Only a near teenage boy would buy it. Or an idiot.

Lazenby is quoted as saying that Rigg was so gorgeous that "acting" like he loved her wasn't a stretch. What red-blooded male wouldn't fall instantly in love with her?

The novel has Bond sleeping with other women while at Piz Gloria. Why are you blaming Lazenby/Hugh Hefner/whoever?

Another idiot is Blofeld. Since Blofeld is a "must" with Bond, why does such a smart person as written by Fleming not recognize Bond given that he (Bond) blew up his volcano rocket base in the previous mission/outing. They're not strangers...Ernst is a "must" for James, after all.

OHMSS came before YOLT in the novels. Peter Hunt ignored that YOLT had been filmed. Did your keen eyes notice that there were no YOLT gadgets in Bond's desk and no other reference to the film? Plenty of Bond films ignore/change/reboot continuity. Why does CR get praised for it but OHMSS sucks because of it?

Further, Mike Myers has reduced the cat-stroking Blofeld to parody. Anyone between 12 and 25 laughs everytime I have a pussy-stroking Blofeld James Bond film on dvd. Dr Evil has had it's effect on OHMSS. We get no animal as Dr Evil in Q0S. The menace in Amalric's eyes alone is more than any menace projected from Telly Savalas.

So because people who don't have a clue about cinema/pop culture/the character's history don't know the difference - any film with Blofeld sucks? Pathetic.

Speaking of embarrassments, OHMSS was exactly that for years after 1969.

We know that OHMSS was a failure. It's a fact that OHMSS took a while to make it's money back and turn a profit for the studios. Why? Because it had a downer of an ending and had a terrible actor playing the lead. Eon was ashamed of the movie for years and years after, and you know it - or *should* know it. It was the black sheep of the Eon family.

I realize that film is commerical art - but I don't judge a film's merit's based on the money it makes or didn't make. So High School Musical 3 is a better film than Citizen Kane by your standards. Interesting and laughable.

If it was so "lame" and the blacksheep - why would Eon make casual and overt references to OHMSS in TSWLM, FYEO, and LTK?

The "downer" of an ending is straight from the book. You are familiar with Ian Fleming's work?

Fine, it has a great score and fine cinematography and Rigg is perfect and is based on a very good Fleming novel. But it does not even come close to Quantum. If they got rid of the Dr Evil-like cat-stroking so that the new generation wouldn't laugh, it would start approaching it, but then what do you about Lazenby's amateur performance? How do you digitally alter it?

I'm glad you like the score and Rigg. At least we agree on a few things.

Yes, yes, and furthermore: Craig does have a leg up on Laz in anything in QoS: he's not even allowed by Marc Forster to act. For all you get to see of his face in the action scenes, they might as well have used a dummy. Love scenes this time? None at all. CR's another story. We're talkin' QoS here. And on all fronts, this time around, Laz puts the ill-served Craig to shame.

[Mister E]

Nope QOS was not OHMSS, it was much better.

Kindly put away the crack pipe.

This one in my hand ? I am not even smoking it !

[doublenoughtspy]

If you go by what James Bond actually says to M in OHMSS that (paraphrasing from years and years of watching the movie) "...but, Sir, Blofeld is a bit of a must for me", where he reiterates his desire to go after Blofeld after having had "two years" (M's words), then I think it's intellectual dishonesty to suggest that Bond and Blofeld have never met.

It's stupidity!

There is absolutely no reference to Japan, Volcanoes, bald heads or anything else from YOLT.

Had it ever crossed your mind that it could refer to 2 years since Thunderball?

I'd be happy to discuss what changes were made between the extensive Richard Maibaum drafts and Peter Hunt's final shooting script and how references to previous films were added and discarded, but it would be pretty wasted on you.

Sorry, I know you "love" OHMSS, but I just put six bullets into it and you couldn't even come back without talking about "pop culture", the exact so-called "pop culture" that classified OHMSS as a failure.

Coming from the man that brought up Austin Powers as the reason people laugh at Blofeld.

Since you seem to revere what other people think as the measure of what is important - please take a look at the Tomato Meter thread - OHMSS beats QOS rather handily - 81% to 66%.

Listen, I think Barry's score is awsome, Rigg is awsome, cinematography is awsome, it's based on a Fleming story...all great things. But you're judgement is clouded and you haven't moved on. Who cares if Laz himself thought anyone could fall for Rigg...the question was why should we believe James Bond falls for Tracy only two hours after he tries to shag Ruby again - Ruby being one of, let's say, three girl he's ing at Piz Gloria?

You still haven't responded to the fact that Fleming was responsible for that sequence of events, not the film makers.

This movie has been a Christmas staple at my home for years and years. I think highly of OHMSS but it's not as good as QOS.

Sorry, my dear fellow, but I think you're having a tough time moving on. You're stuck and you have no interest in having a balanced view on the matter. You're mind was made up years and years ago, so there's little point in making you look at things a bit more even-handedly.

My love for OHMSS has nothing to do with the fact that I don't like QOS.

I'm well known for my passion and expertise on the film, but I doubt I would haven been involved with the Bond DVDs and been invited to do work for the literary copyright holders if I couldn't be "even-handed" as you say.

Sure - you can point the finger and say it may cloud my judgement - but what do you say to the other fans that say it's the worst in the series and the 33% of critics that are slamming QOS?

Gosh, they must all be stuck in the past too...

Is that a choir of angels singing?