90 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

I don't think that YOLT is a 'lesser Connery", for a start it's up there with Goldfinger as the movie which typerfies Bond to the public (how many parodies have used the Pleasence Blofield or the Volcano lair?)

It is in my opinion, a lesser Connery film, but you gotta love it, or at least like it. Definitely one of the more wooden performances by Connery, actually it may be his most, but the film on the whole is a good film.

[Loomis]

Its hard to call all of the film a Bond film

I know what you mean. For me, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is to the Connery Bond era what THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR is to the Brosnan Bond era: Bond-ish, but not Bond. In his "Movie Guide", Leonard Maltin nails it when he describes DAF as "closer in spirit to Republic serials than Ian Fleming, but great fun" (he rates the film highly, ***1/2 out of ****).

The pre-credits sequence and subsequent cross-cutting between Bond's briefing and the funny business in South Africa deliver all the best Bondian elements beautifully. After that, well, the film settles down to being a sort of American caper comedy, with Connery playing.... well, someone who isn't James Bond.

Great entertainment, though.

[Turn]

Its hard to call all of the film a Bond film

I know what you mean. For me, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is to the Connery Bond era what THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR is to the Brosnan Bond era: Bond-ish, but not Bond. In his "Movie Guide", Leonard Maltin nails it when he describes DAF as "closer in spirit to Republic serials than Ian Fleming, but great fun" (he rates the film highly, ***1/2 out of ****).

The pre-credits sequence and subsequent cross-cutting between Bond's briefing and the funny business in South Africa deliver all the best Bondian elements beautifully. After that, well, the film settles down to being a sort of American caper comedy, with Connery playing.... well, someone who isn't James Bond.

Great entertainment, though.

I think most of the early part of the film up to when Bond arrives in America has some solid moments. The elevator fights is particularly unsettling in contrast to what goes after it.

[Scottlee]

DAF good points
- Not the most spectacular of pre-credits if you look at the whole series, but for 1971 it was quite a good one, and re-introduced Connery well.
- Connery looks re-energized. His happy-go-lucky performance in DAf is lovely to watch.
- Wint and Kidd are great supoorting villains, fab in all their scenes
- Witty script, full of humour and clever lines.
- The music is very good, one of my top 10 Bond soundtracks out of the 20.

Bad points
- Charles Gray is a terrible casting as Blofeld. It's not the same character.
- After the first 20 mins, Bond seems to completely forget why he hates Blofeld so much. There are no mentions to Tracey whenever he sees him, and barely even the slightest hint of rage given off at all. This is very weak writing.
- The omitting of the Salt mine ending makes you feel as if the movie is ending somewhat prematurely.
- Jill St John is the joint worst Bond girl along with Halle Berry. Connery looks totally bored alongside her for most of the film, and there's practically no chemistry there at all. I found myself hoping Jill St John would turn out to be the sacrificial lamb, and you shouldn't feel that way about a heroine.

[Mr J Bond]

I think all bond films are good, even though some aren't as good as others.
I don't think this is the worst bond film, but it is quite light weight compared with some, OHMSS is quite heavey and is very plot driven but DAF was made to be a black comedy so therefore that is how we should see it as light entertainment!

[Qwerty]

Quite so. I often watch this movie for the light entertainment you speak of. Welcome to CBn!

[Mr J Bond]

Quite so. I often watch this movie for the light entertainment you speak of. Welcome to CBn!

Thank you for your kind welcome Qwerty!

[Janus Assassin]

I'm currently watching DAF. The only part I dont like about it is the fact with Blofeld's laser. When he shot the missle in North Dakota and the Missles in Red China, it didn't seem to do much damage, I can put my butt to a lighter and and it would do more damage.

[LordAsriel]

DAF is one of the two Bond films (with TND for different reasons)I never enjoyed watching. The movie is simply not appropriate following OHMSS. Charles Gray is totally miscast as Blofeld, Jill StJohn is one of the worst Bond girl, and I don't find Connery convincing at all. He's far better in NSNA.

[Turn]

DAF is one of the two Bond films (with TND for different reasons)I never enjoyed watching. The movie is simply not appropriate following OHMSS.

Why are so many people hung up on DAF not being "appropriate" following OHMSS? So the film wasn't about a mourning Bond spending the whole film leading up to avenging Tracey's death. Bond takes care of it in the pre-titles. End of story.

I love OHMSS, but didn't a lot of audiences feel the same way about it not being appropriate in 1969 following films like TB and YOLT?

[CharlieBind]

DAF is one of the two Bond films (with TND for different reasons)I never enjoyed watching. The movie is simply not appropriate following OHMSS.

Why are so many people hung up on DAF not being "appropriate" following OHMSS? So the film wasn't about a mourning Bond spending the whole film leading up to avenging Tracey's death. Bond takes care of it in the pre-titles. End of story.

I love OHMSS, but didn't a lot of audiences feel the same way about it not being appropriate in 1969 following films like TB and YOLT?

I think that problem is that there are two types of Bond fan, the ones who take it seriously and think that Flemming is a 'gritty' and 'realstic' writer and that the movies should be like that. The other type is those who read/watch Bond's adventures for entertainment and escapisism and who want to be entertained.

I think that the first type seems to be the most vocal, hence the slagging off of DAF.

[Turn]

DAF is one of the two Bond films (with TND for different reasons)I never enjoyed watching. The movie is simply not appropriate following OHMSS.

Why are so many people hung up on DAF not being "appropriate" following OHMSS? So the film wasn't about a mourning Bond spending the whole film leading up to avenging Tracey's death. Bond takes care of it in the pre-titles. End of story.

I love OHMSS, but didn't a lot of audiences feel the same way about it not being appropriate in 1969 following films like TB and YOLT?

I think that problem is that there are two types of Bond fan, the ones who take it seriously and think that Flemming is a 'gritty' and 'realstic' writer and that the movies should be like that. The other type is those who read/watch Bond's adventures for entertainment and escapisism and who want to be entertained.

I think that the first type seems to be the most vocal, hence the slagging off of DAF.

You're probably right, Charlie Bind. Thus I can enjoy OHMSS and DAF in their own right without all the baggage. They are what they are.

[Janus Assassin]

People think that DAF is a failure, especially after OHMSS. We assume that Bond is going after Blofeld in the PTS to avenge his wife. But it is not mentioned in any part of the film. It was considered a big dropoff after OHMSS.

[CharlieBind]

People think that DAF is a failure, especially after OHMSS. We assume that Bond is going after Blofeld in the PTS to avenge his wife. But it is not mentioned in any part of the film. It was considered a big dropoff after OHMSS.

Considered by who??

Critical and audience responces at the time, as I understand it were BETTER than OHMSS and the over-all feeling was that the REAL Bond was back.

Ironically the movie that really was considered a failure was OHMSS and it until the 'eighties for it to start to be re-evaluated. Even today, sadly, it remains very under-rated and under-appreciated outside of Bond fandom.

Edited by CharlieBind, 07 November 2004 - 09:26 AM.

[Scottlee]

I'm watching the series in order atm, and last night I came to DAF. I don't think Connery was bad at all in the film. He looked far more lively and up for it than he did in YOLT.

The film has its weak points, loads of them, but as pure entertainment the film does very well. One thing that struck me more than usual last night was the score. The music is good whenever Wint and Kidd come on, or when Bond gets into a fight scene.

[Janus Assassin]

I'm watching DAF now and one thing bothers me

When Bond is playin craps in the casino, Saxby calls up Blofeld and tells him that Peter Franks is on camera 2. Didn't Blofeld realize that was Bond. It was pretty clear.

[CharlieBind]

I'm watching DAF now and one thing bothers me

When Bond is playin craps in the casino, Saxby calls up Blofeld and tells him that Peter Franks is on camera 2. Didn't Blofeld realize that was Bond. It was pretty clear.

I thought that Blofeld did recognise him, hence his little reception for Bond later on

[Nelson David George]

I love DAF. It's one of the Bond's I grew up with. It seemed to me that DAF and TSWLM were the Bond's that were always on tv. Yes it's light, but whenever I watch it time flies by. The dialogue is cracking - Tom Mankiewicz gets a lot of credit from me and he sounds like a decent bloke on the commentry - and the soundtrack is excellent, one I find myself listening to all the time.

[freemo]

Tom Mankiewicz gets a lot of credit from me and he sounds like a decent bloke on the commentry.

Yeah, I get that impression too. He seems like a great guy, and his writing is very clever and witty. He does great commentaries too (also Live and Let Die and Superman), with lots of anecdotes about the cast and crew and trivia about making the film.

Odd thing with the DAF commentary, it's one of those ones with lots of peoples speeches sliced together, but Mankiewicz is clearly watching the film as he talks. I'd say he a did a full commentary but they only used parts of it (he's talking probably about a third of time I'd estimate). The Guy Hamilton bits a good, and no offence to John Cork, but personally (even though we get to hear alot of him and it's probably the best bits anyway) I would've preferred the full TM commentary.

[Jim]

and no offence to John Cork

Does anyone else find this Cork person to be a dullard? Less than inspiring.

[Loomis]

Does anyone else find this Cork person to be a dullard?

Well, he is one of the world's foremost Bond experts.

Which probably makes him a dullard to 99.9% of the world's population, but I guess he'd be the life and soul among a gathering of CBners.

[Jim]

Does anyone else find this Cork person to be a dullard?

Well, he is one of the world's foremost Bond experts.

Whoop-de-doo.

What a thing to be an expert in. Someone else's talent. "I've wasted my life" springs to mind.

[Qwerty]

Tom Mankiewicz gets a lot of credit from me and he sounds like a decent bloke on the commentry.

Yeah, I get that impression too. He seems like a great guy, and his writing is very clever and witty. He does great commentaries too (also Live and Let Die and Superman), with lots of anecdotes about the cast and crew and trivia about making the film.

Quite right. He's one of the most enthusiastic of the entire group that is heard in any of the commentaries for these films. He keeps things interesting and knows what he's talking about.

[Turn]

Didn't Mankiewicz get a full commentary track to himself on the LALD DVD? Maybe the next wave of DVDs will include the full one for DAF.

[Nelson David George]

Yeah, Mankiewicz has a full commentry track on LALD. Since it seems that he is watching the film during his commentry of DAF I also hope that we may get a full one from him on DAF in the future.

[Moonraker]

Tom Mankiewicz gets a lot of credit from me and he sounds like a decent bloke on the commentry.

Yeah, I get that impression too. He seems like a great guy, and his writing is very clever and witty. He does great commentaries too (also Live and Let Die and Superman), with lots of anecdotes about the cast and crew and trivia about making the film.

Quite right. He's one of the most enthusiastic of the entire group that is heard in any of the commentaries for these films. He keeps things interesting and knows what he's talking about.

To me he always seemed like a likeable guy and the interviews and the commentaries support that. His story lines might not of made sense but he brought wit mixed sophistication to the films.Not a failure(way better than NP&RW).

[Qwerty]

I just watched the The Man With The Golden Gun documentary again featuring him yesterday. Good stuff.

[Scottlee]

I also like T.M. I think he's far more suited to writing for Connery than Moore. I think that Moore looks more comfortable with the scripts after TMWGG.

If there's ever a reason for being sad about the fact Connery didn't go on a renaissance and continue long into the seventies once the Lazenby entry faded away, it's the missed opportunity of T.M and Connery doing more collaborations.

In regards to John Cork, I actually like him butting in with his own opinions during the commentaries. He says interesting things about the characters, where as a lot of the other track 'guests' speak about a bunch of technical stuff only.

[Qwerty]

In regards to John Cork, I actually like him butting in with his own opinions during the commentaries. He says interesting things about the characters, where as a lot of the other track 'guests' speak about a bunch of technical stuff only.

How do you compare those commentaries to the "live" ones?

[Scottlee]

I've never really noticed the difference to be honest. It's not something that's stood out enough to bother me, if cut and pasting is something they have done a lot to the commentaries.