Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

ChickenStu on the Connery Era


25 replies to this topic

#1 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 18 October 2013 - 07:27 PM

Well, my annual Bond movie marathon began earlier this evening. The difference is, my DVD boxed set remains on the top of my bedroom wardrobe gathering dust as this year I am watching the films from my newly purchased Blu-Ray set! Like my other thread in the Fleming section I'm hoping the illustrious fellowship here will allow me to use this thread to share my thoughts and musings, and actively encourage and participate toward any discussion organic to them. 

 

Dr No

 

First, I was absolutely blown away by the picture quality on Blu. BLOWN AWAY. I thought the DVD looked good, but this is even better. The colours are crisp and vibrant, the new sound mix is top notch. As for the movie itself, it's a good thriller but not a great one. I watched this with my 5 and 7 year old daughters. Toward the end my oldest girl got bored and went to play on the computer, but surprisingly the younger one stuck the film the whole way through. 

 

The problem with this movie for me, is I just did not like the book. The film is a very faithful adaptation but to me the actual story isn't very compelling. Bond goes from A, to B, to C and the villain is bland and uninteresting. 

 

However, the best thing for me here is Connery's performance. I think if any other actor were playing the role, this film would be nigh unwatchable. Connery has a charisma that literally burns through the screen and he's mesmerizing. It's rare that an actor's sheer magnetism can make a pretty damn average movie feel like a better one. The beautiful Ursula Andress also adds a bit of pleasing eye candy.

Joseph Wiseman is not threatening at all as the title villain, and the wonderful Jack Lord is criminally wasted. 

 

If that sounds like sacrilege please accept my apologies. This is only my opinion after all. One must remember that this isn't the first one I saw, and the ones I saw first conditioned me to me to expect bigger, more spectacular and more complex stuff. This one just seems too quaint when watching it now. 

 

From Russia With Love

 

For me, it all starts here. This one is easily in my all time top three favorites. The book is one of my favorites of Fleming's, and the film more than does it justice. Again, top marks on the Blu-Ray. Connery is just as brilliant as he is in the previous film. Here, he is given a wonderfully enjoyable sidekick in Kerim Bay (played with charm by Pedro Almendariz) a stunning love interest in Daniella Bianchi (who isn't just there as eye candy, and is actually an integral part of the story). 

 

Surprisingly the film is almost stolen from Connery by Robert Shaw as Red Grant. One of the best bad guys of all time, he feels like a real threat to our man and Shaw makes him extremely menacing. Even though I've seen the film countless times, I still genuinely think he is about to kill Bond in the tense box-car scene on the train. 

 

This is a rare action film that is just as intelligent as it is bombastic. For every spectacular explosion, there is a plot development that keeps things fresh - and the film moves along with perfect momentum. It's truly structured like a theme park ride. 

 

Surprisingly, my 5 year old stuck with me all the way through this one too! Even though she asked a lot of questions bless her. 

This is a truly excellent movie. 



#2 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 19 October 2013 - 07:42 AM

Interesting views about Dr No. In many ways it isn't so much an espionage story as a conventional detective yarn - murder takes place, Bond's sent to investigate, murderer gets to hear of this and tries to bump Bond off, Bond gets closer to the truth, meets girl who is completely uninvolved until he turns up, meets villain and, eventually, gets rid of villain. On the other hand, it set the pattern for most of the Bond films - exotic locations, beautiful leading lady, sinister villain (I think this villain is, although low key) who wines and dines Bond, conveniently drops plot details and is stopped in his tracks before his barking-mad plan reaches its conclusion.

 

I agree with you about From Russia With Love, especially concerning Robert Shaw's Grant. It's quite a feat to steal the show considering his character spends most of the movie mute, but when he does speak it is as two characters - "Nash", with a phoney upper bracket accent and, as I think is noted in the book, a vague hint that the man might not be "the full shilling", and Grant, a truly chilling villain. The scene when the real Grant is revealed is one of the few times when our hero looks as if he might not come out of the next few minutes alive, in my view. Robert Shaw was an inspired choice as Grant - as an actor he would often play characters who seemed outwardly normal but had a hint of the psychotic about them.

 

(Incidentally, when Daniel Craig's first Bond film was released, the film reviewer for "The Guardian" made a curious comparison - comparing Craig's Bond not only with his predecessors in the role, but with Robert Shaw's Grant, and, rather oddly as well, Patrick McGoohan's "Number 6" in "The Prisoner". The writer felt that Craig's Bond worked because one could easily imagine Daniel Craig playing not only 007 but also Red Grant. It conjures up an amusing idea for a future Bond film - how about Craig as Bond, and as a villain impersonating him?)



#3 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 19 October 2013 - 12:08 PM

Interesting thoughts there Guy. I believe Robert Shaw set a standard that has not been beaten, but the makers have tried to imitate him over the years. The best example that springs to mind is Stamper in Tomorrow Never Dies who felt very much like a pale imitation of Grant. Although is not even half as threatening. 

 

Pedro Almendariz is what makes this movie for me though. He is perhaps the most charming sidekick out of them all. He and Connery have genuine chemistry together and you can really believe they are good friends. I'm betting that Connery and Almendariz got on just as well off camera as they did on. There a few a scenes of them in the movie just basically laughing together and generally enjoying each other's company. I can't remember the exact context of the scene, but there's a bit in the movie where our man says he's after the leading lady for information and Kerim Bay hints it may be more. Our man smiles bashfully and admits that Bay is right... and the two share a laugh over it. Its a wonderful scene and a wonderful relationship. In many ways I feel that friendship provides the core of this movie.

 

There is not a man on the planet who wouldn't LOVE to have Kerim Bay as a mate! 


Edited by ChickenStu, 19 October 2013 - 12:17 PM.


#4 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 19 October 2013 - 07:01 PM

Goldfinger

 

This one is a classic and perhaps my favourite of all the movies (if one CAN have a favourite that is). This contains Connery's best performance as our man. Gert Frobe and Harold Sakata are wonderful, despicable heavies and Honor Blackman is a sexy and tough dame. I ADORE John Barry's score for this, it's very memorable and I often find myself humming refrains from it. It's very catchy music. This movie simply is a winner. It's actually BETTER than Fleming's book. 

 

That scene where our man is strapped to the table and Goldfinger turns on the laser... still makes me squirm! 

 

Thunderball

 

It may surprise a lot of you but I have never been the biggest fan of this one. It's way overlong, it's dull, and neither the villain or the love interest is very memorable. Whenever I do my yearly marathon, I find myself kind of looking at my watch whilst watching this one. Connery is fine and all - but this is just extremely bland. Is this one considered a classic by the masses?

 

Again, my youngest daughter watched both with me, and my oldest got bored and sloped off onto the computer. I'm sensing a pattern here! 



#5 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 20 October 2013 - 12:37 AM

Interesting thoughts there Guy. I believe Robert Shaw set a standard that has not been beaten, but the makers have tried to imitate him over the years. The best example that springs to mind is Stamper in Tomorrow Never Dies who felt very much like a pale imitation of Grant. Although is not even half as threatening. 

 

Pedro Almendariz is what makes this movie for me though. He is perhaps the most charming sidekick out of them all. He and Connery have genuine chemistry together and you can really believe they are good friends. I'm betting that Connery and Almendariz got on just as well off camera as they did on. There a few a scenes of them in the movie just basically laughing together and generally enjoying each other's company. I can't remember the exact context of the scene, but there's a bit in the movie where our man says he's after the leading lady for information and Kerim Bay hints it may be more. Our man smiles bashfully and admits that Bay is right... and the two share a laugh over it. Its a wonderful scene and a wonderful relationship. In many ways I feel that friendship provides the core of this movie.

 

There is not a man on the planet who wouldn't LOVE to have Kerim Bay as a mate! 

Yes, a great performance by Pedro Armendariz, in a film he never lived to see. He was stricken with cancer and as I understand it, his scenes were filmed early on in the production schedule because of this. He lived long enough to meet Ian Fleming on set - there's a photograph of him with Fleming and Robert Shaw, sitting there between takes looking thoughtful - then with the film done he returned to the US. He was in hospital in Los Angeles when he committed suicide. His illness had, presumably, become intolerable. A tragic end for an actor who played, amongst other roles, a memorable character in the Bond series. 



#6 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 20 October 2013 - 01:01 AM

Goldfinger

 

This one is a classic and perhaps my favourite of all the movies (if one CAN have a favourite that is). This contains Connery's best performance as our man. Gert Frobe and Harold Sakata are wonderful, despicable heavies and Honor Blackman is a sexy and tough dame. I ADORE John Barry's score for this, it's very memorable and I often find myself humming refrains from it. It's very catchy music. This movie simply is a winner. It's actually BETTER than Fleming's book. 

 

That scene where our man is strapped to the table and Goldfinger turns on the laser... still makes me squirm! 

 

Thunderball

 

It may surprise a lot of you but I have never been the biggest fan of this one. It's way overlong, it's dull, and neither the villain or the love interest is very memorable. Whenever I do my yearly marathon, I find myself kind of looking at my watch whilst watching this one. Connery is fine and all - but this is just extremely bland. Is this one considered a classic by the masses?

 

Again, my youngest daughter watched both with me, and my oldest got bored and sloped off onto the computer. I'm sensing a pattern here! 

Goldfinger - up there at the top of my list. Best Connery performance, even if his role is largely passive - get captured and undermine the villain's plan as and when. One of the best villains - Gert Frobe created a memorable adversary, even though the actor had to be dubbed. John Barry wrote an excellent score and a theme tune which set a standard. And the film is better than the book in one respect - it sidestepped the problem of removing the gold from Fort Knox. Fleming's original plan in the novel was highly improbable. The screenwriters must have realised this, and tied in a topical item - the "atomic device" from Red China, which is how they described their first nuclear test in 1964.

 

Thunderball - I like it a lot, but I can understand why others don't. It's not easy to make underwater action look exciting, but John Barry had the idea of using the music score to liven it up by adapting the 007 theme for the big battle at the end. It's my favourite version of that theme. The problem I have with the film is continuity errors - the underwater battle has several. I also like TB because it features the Vulcan B2 - a magnificent British aircraft, imho!



#7 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 20 October 2013 - 05:13 PM

Thanks for your kind reply Guy. Yes, I was aware of Mr Almendariz's tragic circumstances. I hope however his family is proud of the legacy he left behind. It's nice that his son pops up in a minor role in Licence To Kill. However, let's not got to ahead of ourselves...

 

You Only Live Twice

 

Despite the narrative deviations from Fleming's novel, I am very fond of this movie. The far east setting is beautiful, and the score by Barry is suitable dreamy and wistful. It's a shame this wasn't to be Connery's swan song. He did a lovely job here on what was (at the time) supposed to be his last movie. Donald Pleasance is wonderful as Blofeld. The volcano set at the end is magnificent. This is a very enjoyable film and held both my daughters' interest throughout. I love the scene where our man is fighting the baddies on the rooftop to the strains of the main title theme. Little things like that make one glad to be alive.

 

A truly wonderful adventure, funny engaging, thrilling and beguiling. I'm a big fan of this one, although I'm acutely aware that many others aren't.



#8 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 20 October 2013 - 10:59 PM

Thanks for your kind reply Guy. Yes, I was aware of Mr Almendariz's tragic circumstances. I hope however his family is proud of the legacy he left behind. It's nice that his son pops up in a minor role in Licence To Kill. However, let's not got to ahead of ourselves...

 

You Only Live Twice

 

Despite the narrative deviations from Fleming's novel, I am very fond of this movie. The far east setting is beautiful, and the score by Barry is suitable dreamy and wistful. It's a shame this wasn't to be Connery's swan song. He did a lovely job here on what was (at the time) supposed to be his last movie. Donald Pleasance is wonderful as Blofeld. The volcano set at the end is magnificent. This is a very enjoyable film and held both my daughters' interest throughout. I love the scene where our man is fighting the baddies on the rooftop to the strains of the main title theme. Little things like that make one glad to be alive.

 

A truly wonderful adventure, funny engaging, thrilling and beguiling. I'm a big fan of this one, although I'm acutely aware that many others aren't.

And thank you too, ChickenStu. I also enjoy "YOLT". (It took me long enough, as a nipper, to get around to seeing it at our local fleapit!)  As a child, following the space race, I enjoyed YOLT because of the involvement of the villains in trying to disrupt it. John Barry's score was also a plus - has spaceflight ever had a more beautiful but sinister soundtrack than his "Space March" theme? And as you say, it featured Donald Pleasance - Nottinghamshire's very own Bond villain - he was born in the north Notts. town of Worksop.

 

However, I can't help but wonder how the actor originally cast as Blofeld, the Czech Jan Werich, might have portrayed the arch villain. At a guess, he'd have been dubbed. (With voice provided by Eric Pohlmann, who did the voice of Blofeld in FRWL & TB?) But would he have been too benign in his portrayal, as the film's director thought? Too much like Santa Claus in appearance? Another one of those "we'll never know" episodes in the Bond series.



#9 Major Tallon

Major Tallon

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2107 posts
  • Location:Mid-USA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 11:46 AM

I also am a fan of YOLT.  Plot holes abound, and it's hard to take much of it seriously, but there are some phenomenal set pieces, and the volcano set steals the show.  It's interesting to read the numerous present-day critiques of Connery's performance as bored, knowing that well-regarded US critic Roger Ebert (who disliked YOLT), praised his performance with the words "Connery labors mightily."  I'm no great fan of over-the-top Bond movies, but YOLT does it very well indeed.



#10 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:50 PM

That's the thing you see, I do have a soft spot for SOME (and I emphasize the word SOME) of the more overblown ones. For example, I am a huge fan of Moonraker and won't hear a damn bad word said about it! (but you have to bare in mind I'm also a huge Star Wars fan so that goes a lot of the way toward explaining my soft spot for that one). 

 

I think the so called "over the top" ones are a necessary evil(?) in these movies - since they are the ones that snare the younger viewers, who will grow into adulthood with an appreciation of the more down to earth ones. I think it's a balance at the end of the day. Daniel Craig seems to know it too, as he has stated numerous times that he wants the next one to be a bit more lighthearted, and he wants one of "those" kind of Bond films on his roster (and fair play to him for that).

 

A lot of people criticize them, but frankly I think a lot of those critics sometimes come across as miserable old bores. As much as I enjoyed Skyfall I did find it to be a rather somber affair. I am hoping they let their hair down a bit on the next one. 

 

Although, having said all that I still think Die Another Day is a complete turd. 



#11 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:56 PM

Reserve your final judgment till your five year olds have seen it!



#12 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 21 October 2013 - 02:00 PM

Reserve your final judgment till your five year olds have seen it!

 

That's what makes me sick to my stomach. I have a horrible feeling that they are going to LOVE Die Another Day. That was the first one my 20 year old step-son saw as a boy and he was running around the house pretending to be our man. Now though, Daniel Craig is his man. He is after all - HIS Bond. 



#13 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 21 October 2013 - 07:36 PM

Diamonds Are Forever

 

I'm just not all that keen on this one. I can appreciate it was perhaps a pretty big deal to get Connery back after the George Lazenby crisis - but I think he deserved a better film than this one. It's just as bland and superficial as the soulless sodom it's largely set in. Connery whilst still extremely charismatic just looks bored out of his skull. Jill St. John is brash and unlikeable as Tiffany Case and Charles Gray makes for a far too camp Blofeld.

 

Also, considering the way OHMSS ended I think at least some mention of the events in that film should have happened here. Our man only needed one line like "that bastard killed my wife" and that would be it!

 

Obviously, we the audience DO know that's the reason that our man so desperately wants to nail Blofeld IF we've seen the previous movie. Newcomers however I think would wonder what our man's motivation was. Even sounds like John Barry is bored. 

 

I'm glad this wasn't to be Connery's final bow as the man - and I shall be back in here to talk about that one when the time comes! But as it stands, Diamonds Are Forever to me, is just a complete mess.



#14 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 21 October 2013 - 10:55 PM

Diamonds Are Forever

 

I'm just not all that keen on this one. I can appreciate it was perhaps a pretty big deal to get Connery back after the George Lazenby crisis - but I think he deserved a better film than this one. It's just as bland and superficial as the soulless sodom it's largely set in. Connery whilst still extremely charismatic just looks bored out of his skull. Jill St. John is brash and unlikeable as Tiffany Case and Charles Gray makes for a far too camp Blofeld.

 

Also, considering the way OHMSS ended I think at least some mention of the events in that film should have happened here. Our man only needed one line like "that bastard killed my wife" and that would be it!

 

Obviously, we the audience DO know that's the reason that our man so desperately wants to nail Blofeld IF we've seen the previous movie. Newcomers however I think would wonder what our man's motivation was. Even sounds like John Barry is bored. 

 

I'm glad this wasn't to be Connery's final bow as the man - and I shall be back in here to talk about that one when the time comes! But as it stands, Diamonds Are Forever to me, is just a complete mess.

I've said this before on this site - I think DAF was made as if OHMSS hadn't happened. I rather like the film, it was one of the first I saw as a kid, but it does seem as if the studio, the producers and the director were determined to pretend that DAF was a follow on from YOLT. Bond's attitude towards Blofeld, far from wanting revenge (Once he'd met him again, and yet another double in the "Whyte House") was almost like that of a gentlemanly sparring partner engaged in a bit of one-upmanship. Incidentally, when I first saw DAF at the pictures I bought a copy of the souvenir programme. I still have it. The programme references all the previous Connery films, but OHMSS is notable by its almost complete absence - Diana Rigg is mentioned, and that's it.



#15 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 21 October 2013 - 11:39 PM

A reasonable assumption for sure. The thought has actually crossed my mind a few times. The thing is though - if they wanted to wipe OHMSS out of canon - then why is Tracy's death mentioned/referred to in The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Licence To Kill and almost in The World Is Not Enough when our man is asked if he'd ever lost anybody?

 

Seems a little odd to me. 



#16 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 22 October 2013 - 07:25 AM

A reasonable assumption for sure. The thought has actually crossed my mind a few times. The thing is though - if they wanted to wipe OHMSS out of canon - then why is Tracy's death mentioned/referred to in The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, Licence To Kill and almost in The World Is Not Enough when our man is asked if he'd ever lost anybody?

 

Seems a little odd to me. 

Indeed. Perhaps it was a bit of short-termism. OHMSS performed well - depending on how you measure these things, very well - but, it seemed, not well enough for the powers that be. Plus George Lazenby cashed in his chips as Bond, having been persuaded the whole thing was old hat. Perhaps the thinking was to keep reminding the audiences out there that the "original Bond" was back - as if they needed reminding at the time (I was around, and you couldn't help but notice Connery's comeback in the media.) - even if that meant temporarily airbrushing OHMSS and Lazenby out of the picture. That's my opinion on how you square that particular circle.

 

The funny thing is that, having re-established Connery as Bond for DAF - with the desired box office results - the producers had to then persuade audiences to let him go, in favour of "The Persuader" himself, Roger Moore.

 

It's a measure of the impact of the OHMSS story though, that throughout the rest of the series up until the end of the Brosnan era, there would be occasional references to the death of Tracy. I doubt we will see the OHMSS story re-done in the re-booted Craig era though. There's no need - Craig's Bond lost the love of his life - even if the loss was accompanied by a massive betrayal - in Casino Royale.



#17 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 22 October 2013 - 08:22 AM

As great as the rebooted timeline is - I can't help but feel a bit sad that the odd thing here and there has been wiped from continuity. It's a shame we never received closure. 



#18 Peppermill

Peppermill

    Recruit

  • Crew
  • 4 posts
  • Location:The Hague

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:11 PM

Very nice pieces Chickenstu, I really enjoy reading your views on the movies. Cool to hear your daughter seems to enjoy the movies as well. However, it might have nothing to do with the movies. I remember I really enjoyed just spending time with my dad, it didn't matter how. Watching a movie or a sporting event can be a great way because it usually takes some time and there isn't much distraction.



#19 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:32 PM

Thank you for your kind words Peppermill, but to be honest with you old bean - my daughters aren't really as big a fan of these as I'd like. Breaks my heart a bit really to tell the truth but alas - they have their own path to walk in life. 



#20 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 26 October 2013 - 11:49 PM

Never Say Never Again.

 

Always work this into my annual marathon, in it's correct place between Octopussy and A View To A Kill. It's a funny one this. Obviously we all know it's not part of the official series so I'm not going to go into that and try to just look at the film on its own merits. And yeah, it's not too bad. Not quite sure what to make of the jazz soundtrack, it's a little overlong and it drags in places - but generally speaking it's adequate. The real draw here is the return of Sean Connery as our man. Even though he's visibly quite a bit older than he was in Diamonds Are Forever he still has charisma in spades. It's clever to work his advancing age into the story line. A moot point, cause no matter how old that guy gets he's still got that twinkle in his eye. 

 

Another thing that's a big draw for me in regards to this film is that it was directed by Irvin Kershner of whom I'm a huge fan. I love Kershner's work and I personally sorely miss a director like him when you look at some of the dreck that comes out today. 

 

One question though: why does both Edward Fox and Rowan Atkinson deliver their lines as if they are pissed? 



#21 Peppermill

Peppermill

    Recruit

  • Crew
  • 4 posts
  • Location:The Hague

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:50 PM

I always thought Rowan Atkinson was angry with himself because he was such a lousy agent and he knew it. Seeing Bond as a hero and an example and failing in front of him. I think Fox serves the purpose of an angry M that doesn't think there is any use for Bond anymore but during the course of the movie is convinced by Bonds actions that he is indeed a great agent.


Edited by Peppermill, 27 October 2013 - 07:51 PM.


#22 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:17 PM

I always thought Rowan Atkinson was angry with himself because he was such a lousy agent and he knew it. Seeing Bond as a hero and an example and failing in front of him. I think Fox serves the purpose of an angry M that doesn't think there is any use for Bond anymore but during the course of the movie is convinced by Bonds actions that he is indeed a great agent.

 

Agreed.  While there are many problems with Never Say Never Again, I don't think that Rowan Atkinson or Edward Fox are among them.



#23 Double Naught spy

Double Naught spy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 169 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 09:07 PM

ChickenStu,

 

As the years go by, I find NSNA very hard to sit through, so I applaud your efforts.  One of the main reasons why is one you mentioned.  The soundtrack, from the opening song (which is not a good fit with Connery's "infiltration of the enemy camp" scene) to the jazz stuff is really annoying.  And unlike like the dated 'disco-sound' in TSWLM, was this 'sound' even popular/relevant in 1983?   As it stands, the NSNA soundtrack works about as well in a 007 film as a Deliverance-style banjo soundtrack would!   Hah, this movie should be shown classes at the movie-soundtrack college for what NOT to do!



#24 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:17 AM

I agree with you about the soundtrack as a whole - but I have to admit - dammit, I do actually like the opening song for Never Say Never Again! Can't explain why, I just always have done. Sorry! 



#25 col_007

col_007

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 556 posts
  • Location:Bladen Safe House

Posted 10 November 2013 - 06:21 PM

Like you reviews of all the films ever thought of doing a blog :)



#26 ChickenStu

ChickenStu

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 608 posts
  • Location:South East

Posted 29 January 2014 - 04:33 PM

Like you reviews of all the films ever thought of doing a blog :)

 

It's been suggested before as a matter of fact!