151 replies to this topic

[plankattack]

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.

Definitely true. But this is why I find QoS an interesting entry in the series. Because while I don't believe any Bond director gets free reign, I do feel that Forster got more leash than most. There are stylistic touches - the editing, the use of sound (or lack of it during some sequences), the freezeframe, that make this entry a different "type" of film. Which other film has started it's car chase the way this one does, with silent commercial-style intercuts of the car. I do feel that's why there is some discomfort among some, open hostility from others, because this film doesnt "feel" like all the others.

CR, claimed as a re-boot, is still very traditional EON-film-making. QoS is not.

[Harmsway]

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.

Nonsense.

We get plenty of great performance time from Craig in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Scenes that come to mind include a drunk Bond talking with Mathis (as a Fleming fan, it's great to finally see a drunk Bond), Bond charming the pants off of Fields with an ease that only Connery could replicate, Bond holding a dying Mathis, Bond talking to Camille in the cavern, Bond telling Camille how to take a kill, Bond preparing to kill a terrified Camille out of mercy, Bond talking with Camille about how to push onwards, Bond saving Corrine from the same fate as Vesper, Bond talking with M... They're not all very long, but they're definitely there.

Love scenes this time? None at all.

What do you call that interlude with Fields, then?

[dee-bee-five]

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?

But by that reckoning, that means 67% of critics aren't slamming QoS. And other fans, like myself, are saying it's one of the best of the series. And as it's all subjective, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

But isn't it fascinating how I, as a lifelong Fleming and Bond film fan (note, I put Fleming first), can't understand how any serious Bond fan can't enjoy QoS, whereas you, equally serious and dedicated, probably can't conceive how someone like me can?

[jaguar007]

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?

Honestly (if I may interject) yes, many of them are stuck in the past. I will admit that the first 1/2 hour is QoS is highly flawed, but all Ebert did in his review was talk about what HE expected in a James Bond movie. Many other critics did the same thing, they dissed the movie for what it was not, not for what it is.

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?

Honestly (if I may interject) yes, many of them are stuck in the past. I will admit that the first 1/2 hour is QoS is highly flawed, but all Ebert did in his review was talk about what HE expected in a James Bond movie. Many other critics did the same thing, they dissed the movie for what it was not, not for what it is.

To add to my own quote: It is much the same way OHMSS was highly criticized back in 1969, because it was different (and had a different Bond) from what people had expected from a Bond movie like GF, TB and YOLT.

[Mister E]

In all serious though. QOS beats the hell out of OHMSS. The leading gal and girl ? There is no question. Laz was a barely capable actor who sometimes pulled off convincing emotion. Diana Rigg did a good job with the role she was given but as a character she is not written very well. The plots for both films are very good but Blofeld's modest demands make the impact very much less than. Greene wins as a villian but barely since like Savalas' Blofeld, he just lacks that classic maniac drive. The atmosphere for both films are great but QOS knocks it out of the park. The class is there but so is the grit. The visuals are also far more interesting in QOS. Hunt did a better job at editing and presentation but Forster added a far more interesting style to the content truer to Ken Adam. The emotion and impact of the characters with out a doubt go to QOS. Bond and Camille was a great team up, Bond grew but Camille became lost. She felt the empty feeling of revenge. Dench as M beats Lee's preformance, she trusted Bond but she was torn between her duties. Leiter also is a very worthy mention and plays the same role M does. Overall, QOS is just the way better film with far more substance.

[dodge]

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.

Nonsense.

We get plenty of great performance time from Craig in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Scenes that come to mind include a drunk Bond talking with Mathis (as a Fleming fan, it's great to finally see a drunk Bond), Bond charming the pants off of Fields with an ease that only Connery could replicate, Bond holding a dying Mathis, Bond talking to Camille in the cavern, Bond telling Camille how to take a kill, Bond preparing to kill a terrified Camille out of mercy, Bond talking with Camille about how to push onwards, Bond saving Corrine from the same fate as Vesper, Bond talking with M... They're not all very long, but they're definitely there.

In your mind, Harms, in your mind. Craig was an absolute lump, imo, this time around. He bored me to tears. He was a bigger cipher than Matt Damon in Bourne.

Love scenes this time? None at all.

What do you call that interlude with Fields, then?

I call it poppycock. Craig was charmless, sexless and zero-charismatic--as directed by Marc Forster.

You see? I can sound nearly as dogmatic as you...but only if I rrrrrrrrreally work at it.

[Mister E]

I call it poppycock. Craig was charmless, sexless and zero-charismatic--as directed by Marc Forster.

Craig's Bond flirting and doing Feilds says quite the opposite. That is just one scene because Craig was terrific.

[plankattack]

Honestly (if I may interject) yes, many of them are stuck in the past. I will admit that the first 1/2 hour is QoS is highly flawed, but all Ebert did in his review was talk about what HE expected in a James Bond movie. Many other critics did the same thing, they dissed the movie for what it was not, not for what it is.

Great point. I read a review where the critic was upset that Bond was getting drunk on screen. Clearly her idea of Bond was different from Fleming's creation. But Bond films have always been stuck trying to please the two different crowds that watch them, and QoS is proving to be a faultline (or sinkhole, perhaps?!?!) between the two groups.

It's pretty clear that QoS did not set out to please those with a pre-conceived notion of what a Bond-film is - they're up in arms and are hammering away pretty hard. Their loss. Perhaps Ebert should pop in his AVTAK dvd to cheer himself up.

Edited by plankattack, 19 November 2008 - 10:37 PM.

[Harmsway]

You see? I can sound nearly as dogmatic as you...but only if I rrrrrrrrreally work at it.

You should keep it up. It's much more fun to read.

[Mister E]

Perhaps Ebert should pop in his AVTAK dvd to cheer himself up.

Actually one of his all time favorites is NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.

http://rogerebert.su.../310070301/1023

[dodge]

I call it poppycock. Craig was charmless, sexless and zero-charismatic--as directed by Marc Forster.

Craig's Bond flirting and doing Feilds says quite the opposite. That is just one scene because Craig was terrific.

Bullroar. Compare the bland scene with the Connery scene it mirrors--and watch Con show you how it's done. Craig, as directed by Marc Forster, looks as though he'd be lucky to get a paid date.

[plankattack]

Perhaps Ebert should pop in his AVTAK dvd to cheer himself up.

Actually one of his all time favorites is NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.

http://rogerebert.su.../310070301/1023

Well, at least Ebert isn't upset about gunbarrels and use of the theme....

[Mister E]

I call it poppycock. Craig was charmless, sexless and zero-charismatic--as directed by Marc Forster.

Craig's Bond flirting and doing Feilds says quite the opposite. That is just one scene because Craig was terrific.

Bullroar. Compare the bland scene with the Connery scene it mirrors--and watch Con show you how it's done. Craig, as directed by Marc Forster, looks as though he'd be lucky to get a paid date.

Fiddle Faddle ! FIDDLE FADDLE I SAY !

Anywho, I disagree. Feilds was the uptight stiff and Bond broke her with the classic charm and refusal to take orders from a pretty girl. Would a stiff 007 insist on staying in nice hotel as opposed to keeping cover in a rat trap Feilds was about to book ? I don't think so.

[dodge]

You see? I can sound nearly as dogmatic as you...but only if I rrrrrrrrreally work at it.

You should keep it up. It's much more fun to read.

You know, you're...right! I like it! I really do! No more Mr. Nice Guy!

[Mister E]

Perhaps Ebert should pop in his AVTAK dvd to cheer himself up.

Actually one of his all time favorites is NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.

http://rogerebert.su.../310070301/1023

Well, at least Ebert isn't upset about gunbarrels and use of the theme....

All he wants is Connery back no matter how old he is.

[Shadowman]

Just a short comment on the threads dealing with OHMSS, CS and QOS. Personally (and we should keep in mind these are subjective viewpoints), I also used to put OHMSS on the top of my list followed by FRWL. My number one main criteria was that they were Fleming's stories, and not a made up film like QOS. That being said, after repeated viewings of all these films I've turned my list around so that now number one for me is CS (because they finally filmed Flemings novel..even though they had to update the plot and add other scenes). Number two would still be OHMSS, then FRWL (even though I hate they changed the plot to be politically correct)then Goldfinger, Thunderball, Doctor No then QOS. I hate how dated Dr. No has become and how they made Quarrel's character a cartoon, which is why it's near the bottom of my list even though its Fleming. I really enjoyed QOS, but had to put it at the bottom below the others because it is also not a Fleming story. I suppose from now on I will have to rate the future Bond's against each other starting with this film, as they have no more novels to go on. Using scenes from his novels that haven't been filmed yet won't qualify in my book either, though I hope they will keep trying in the future (for example how they used the towing/reef scene from LALD novel in the film FYEO.

[doublenoughtspy]

But by that reckoning, that means 67% of critics aren't slamming QoS. And other fans, like myself, are saying it's one of the best of the series. And as it's all subjective, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

My point is that there is a healthy percentage of people that aren't that wild about the film. Surely they all can't be "stuck in the past" or so enamored with the previous Bonds that he is accusing me of.

Apparently I'm wasting my breath though - because any criticism of QOS is instantly branded as stuck in the past. How about all the critics mentioning Bourne rather than previous Bond films?

But isn't it fascinating how I, as a lifelong Fleming and Bond film fan (note, I put Fleming first), can't understand how any serious Bond fan can't enjoy QoS, whereas you, equally serious and dedicated, probably can't conceive how someone like me can?

It is pretty wild.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Good arguements. I guess Casino Royale will be the only 'perfect' Bond film for all 007 fandom in my adult lifetime. Sorry you didn't enjoy it DNS but excellent review.

For what it's worth, I never wanted to be James Bond after reading Casino Royale. I don't have the (iron) boulls for it.

[Bondian]

I can see where you're coming from, DNS. (no sexual puns intended). I hold most of the Rog Bond films close to my heart. Even though Casino Royale enticed my stubbornness of tradition to accept this new way forward. I will always hold the Rog films close to my heart. However good. No other actor could portray Bond in such a cool manner even if they're better actors.

Our Dan is a great actor. He's done two good films (although I'm still making my mind up about Quantum of Solace, but like my dear friends Lady Templar and Dave Morefield (hope you don't me dropping your names chaps ) Rog will always be the coolest Bond.

Wait. There's a knock at my door. Crap, there's 30 members of CBn's Daniel Craig Police waiting to remove my ovaries. Shucks. They'll have a hard time finding them.

Cheers,


HildebrandRarity

[dodge]

There's another side to the numbers game for us to keep in mind. Two years ago, the percentaqe of dissenters against Craig and/or CR was in the single digits. Now, if the percentage is 33% or 37% the word 'only' hardly applies. That's a quantum leap in dissatisfaction.

[HildebrandRarity]

But by that reckoning, that means 67% of critics aren't slamming QoS. And other fans, like myself, are saying it's one of the best of the series. And as it's all subjective, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

My point is that there is a healthy percentage of people that aren't that wild about the film. Surely they all can't be "stuck in the past" or so enamored with the previous Bonds that he is accusing me of.

Charles, the exact same thing happened to OHMSS in 1969 as what is happening to a MUCH LESSER degree to Q0S. [Rhetorical Question: Were all the critics of OHMSS (where there was no "Tomatometer", something which you cited in your earlier response to me - which actually baffles me) also stuck in the past with the first five Connerys? Perhaps many of those critics were. Perhaps not. Right?]

I'm not going to continue for longer (because I actually like a LOT about OHMSS) but I had taken the Thunderball-OHMSS-YOLT Fleming Sequence into account decades ago. You're not chatting with some ing dumb fly-by-night Bond fan who discovered the series in 2006...so, let's be clear, we're not discusing the novels. We're discussing the movies. We're discussing QOS and OHMSS the movies in relation to each other and the Eon canon, not Q0S the short story and OHMSS the book in relation to the Fleming canon.

Blofeld not recognizing Bond is a flaw. Hunt's choice means OHMSS is either flawed or NOT canon. Period. If it's the later, then it's no wonder it was an Eon Black Sheep and so they purposely avoided any reference to Tracy's death in Diamonds Are Forever. A downer of a movie which was a failure...why no appropriate follow up? Why?

I'll whisper you a secret: OHMSS's gunbarrel is the only one of the 22 in which the blood after the gun shot wipes away any trace of Bond's remaining silhouette as it pours down over him...as if Eon were symbolically wiping away any trace of Lazenby. Which is what they *were* trying to do after principal photography finished.

So often Lazenby's voice seems dubbed while his lips hardly move. So often his quips are placed "off camera" or while his head or back is turned.

OHMSS is a very good Bond movie elevated in the higher echelons of the canon by a rousing Barry score and Diana Rigg as well as some stunning cinematograhy and great skiing and stunt work. But it's hardly perfect.

Forget your Tomatometer, Charles, OHMSS has its flaws and they're more appearent than Q0S's and it - including the less-than-believably laid out conceit of the love story - would get panned by the critics today just as they were in 1969. Most notable panning would be the struggling performance by Lazenby as James Bond.

Craig is OUTSTANDINGLY STUNNING as James Bond in Quantum. No critic in their right mind has said otherwise.

[dodge]

But by that reckoning, that means 67% of critics aren't slamming QoS. And other fans, like myself, are saying it's one of the best of the series. And as it's all subjective, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

My point is that there is a healthy percentage of people that aren't that wild about the film. Surely they all can't be "stuck in the past" or so enamored with the previous Bonds that he is accusing me of.

Charles, the exact same thing happened to OHMSS in 1969 as what is happening to a MUCH LESSER degree to Q0S. [Rhetorical Question: Were all the critics of OHMSS (where there was no "Tomatometer", something which you cited in your earlier response to me - which actually baffles me) also stuck in the past with the first five Connerys? Perhaps many of those critics were. Perhaps not. Right?]

I'm not going to continue for longer (because I actually like a LOT about OHMSS) but I had taken the Thunderball-OHMSS-YOLT Fleming Sequence into account decades ago. You're not chatting with some ing dumb fly-by-night Bond fan who discovered the series in 2006...so, let's be clear, we're not discusing the novels. We're discussing the movies. We're discussing QOS and OHMSS the movies in relation to each other and the Eon canon, not Q0S the short story and OHMSS the book in relation to the Fleming canon.

Blofeld not recognizing Bond is a flaw. Hunt's choice means OHMSS is either flawed or NOT canon. Period. If it's the later, then it's no wonder it was an Eon Black Sheep and so they purposely avoided any reference to Tracy's death in Diamonds Are Forever. A downer of a movie which was a failure...why no appropriate follow up? Why?

I'll whisper you a secret: OHMSS's gunbarrel is the only one of the 22 in which the blood after the gun shot wipes away any trace of Bond's remaining silhouette as it pours down over him...as if Eon were symbolically wiping away any trace of Lazenby. Which is what they *were* trying to do after principal photography finished.

So often Lazenby's voice seems dubbed while his lips hardly move. So often his quips are placed "off camera" or while his head or back is turned.

OHMSS is a very good Bond movie elevated in the higher echelons of the canon by a rousing Barry score and Diana Rigg as well as some stunning cinematograhy and great skiing and stunt work. But it's hardly perfect.

Forget your Tomatometer, Charles, OHMSS has its flaws and they're more appearent than Q0S's and it - including the less-than-believably laid out conceit of the love story - would get panned by the critics today just as they were in 1969. Most notable panning would be the struggling performance by Lazenby as James Bond.

Craig is OUTSTANDINGLY STUNNING as James Bond in Quantum. No critic has said otherwise.

Newsweek (or Time?) said, essentially, that he wasn't given the chance to act at all. I admire your enthusiasm and vigor but, please, unless you've read ALL reviews you shouldn't say "No critic has said otherwise."

[HildebrandRarity]

In their right mind. I changed it before you posted but after you quoted it. Most critics and fans on CBn think otherwise. So, Dodge, is it Time...or Newsweek? Which one is it?

Regardless only someone mentally challenged or blind can't see it. It's there. MOST critics see it. I suggest you buy yourself a ticket and go see Quantum again.

Clearly you're only in it for snide commentary than even-handed debate.

C'est la vie.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I call it poppycock. Craig was charmless, sexless and zero-charismatic--as directed by Marc Forster.

Craig's Bond flirting and doing Feilds says quite the opposite. That is just one scene because Craig was terrific.

He didn't do anything! The script just puts them together. One scene they're looking at each other from two separate rooms, Bond says something about stationery and takes off his jacket, and the next, they're in bed. Where the hell did that come from? There had never been any sexual tension leading up to that. And don't tell me that Craig had a great pickup line, that's bull. Had Pierce Brosnan said and done those things in one of his films, the Brosnan-haters would be howling up a storm at how unrealistic and pathetic a line that was.

Just compare that scene with Craig's pickup of Solange in Casino Royale. Now THAT was a pickup line and a scene that clearly oozed with Bond's charm, cool, and charisma. That was classic Bond and Craig played it well. You get none of that in the aforementioned Quantum Of Solace scene. Bond had more chemistry and sexual tension with Camille than he did with Fields and it would have made more sense for him to bed Camille toward the end of the film than with Fields as written.

[Marc-Ange Draco]

However, for me, it easily ranks alongside my two favourite entries - OHMSS and Casino Royale. Not only do I think it's the most stylish of the series, but I think it's the best-directed, one of the best-written and I love the characterisation. What I love most about it, though, is the way it makes me work as a viewer because so much of it is in the subtext.

My favorite is OHMSS as well, and Casino Royale rounds out my top 5. With that said, I've got to take issue with the other things you said--there was little to no subtext in the movie. Yes, you had to work, but it was due to choppy editing and a jumpy, weak plot--not because of any cleverly layered plot, subtext, or character development. Just my 2c.

[HildebrandRarity]

I saw OHMSS again last night and it's losing it's cachet in light of the Craig movies.

Lazenby can't act and time after time there are lines of dialogue for James Bond that are inserted as a complete after thought. His lips don't move or it's off screen.

It's very sloppy or lazy movie-making.

Further, there are three fist fight sequences that lead to Marc Ange Draco's office...all three of them are cut in a not too disimilar fashion to the Aston/Alfa sequence at Lake Garda...but there are WAY TOO MANY instances where the rest of the film is left as padding and now feels bloated. A good 15 minutes could be cut with much tighter editing. The stock car sequence is a sequence THAT IS LESS NECESSARY in OHMSS than any of the Q0S action sequences...and it now, with a more discerning eye, looks a bit silly.

OHMSS was elevate in the ranks in retrospect because it was one of the few "serious" movies Eon made. But now that we've had Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace, there needs to be a shifting simply because OHMSS has some glaring short-comings which i've highlighted in this very thread.

Only those who have difficulty moving on from their deeply-held convictions and nostalgic feelings can't see OHMSS's flaws.

I've been a Bond fan since the 1970s but I don't have any emotional or nostalgic connections to any particular movie per se. If there are problems with something, I have no qualms in seeing those flaws.

OHMSS is, sad to say, an over-rated Bond film among old Bond fans who were not even around to see it fail in 1969, for it *was* a failure. OHMSS gained cachet only in the later 1980s because many Bond fans who were in their 20s to 30s at that time (and who hadn't seen the movie until it came out on video) were dissillusioned with the likes of Moonraker and AVTAK...and 'wanted' a real Fleming adaptation to hold on to.

Craig is now here and his films have now gone to the top of the table with his portrayal being more Fleming that anything Lazenby could muster.

Mature people need to deal with it.

[Loomis]

All I can say is that OHMSS remains the only Bond film I've seen since watching QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and I loved it.

Does it have its flaws? Sure, but so does QoS. As the man said about Peking duck and Russian caviar, I love 'em both (although it's curious how, of all the Bonds, OHMSS was the one I felt drawn to after QoS).

I'd still put OHMSS ahead of QoS as a film, but not streets ahead a la OHMSS being a better film than, say, AVTAK. This may change as I catch QoS a few more times, but I have to say that I still find OHMSS A, more exciting (it still rocks the house in terms of action), B, more Flemingian, C, a better-looking film (I can't wait to see it on Blu-ray some day on a really superb television set), and D, more emotionally affecting. The only thing QoS has over OHMSS is Craig's Bond.

And BTW, I'm 33, so hardly "old".

[ChrissBond007]

I see some OHMSS vs QOS here. To be honest and I think this opinion isn't very populair, but I prefer Lazenby over Craig, just because I love everything about OHMSS, including Lazenby's peformance. I think it will never topped on my list. I find CR sometimes slighty overrated and I don't think it's the best or the best since the sixties. Just in my opinion of course.

QOS is a good movie, with a truly awful first half hour. I'm not a big fan of the movie, I gave it a 7/10, it's just okay.

Edited by ChrissBond007, 21 November 2008 - 01:33 PM.

[avl]

I love OHMSS and I don't see that changing any time soon. I'm not blind to its faults, and I don't need to deal with it - I'm very happy with OHMSS as an amazing one off that is what it is and does what it does.

[doublenoughtspy]

I saw OHMSS again last night and it's losing it's cachet in light of the Craig movies.

Speak for yourself.

Lazenby can't act and time after time there are lines of dialogue for James Bond that are inserted as a complete after thought. His lips don't move or it's off screen.

It's very sloppy or lazy movie-making.

Nothing can be said off screen in a movie? Did you just make up that rule?

Further, there are three fist fight sequences that lead to Marc Ange Draco's office...all three of them are cut in a not too disimilar fashion to the Aston/Alfa sequence at Lake Garda...but there are WAY TOO MANY instances where the rest of the film is left as padding and now feels bloated. A good 15 minutes could be cut with much tighter editing. The stock car sequence is a sequence THAT IS LESS NECESSARY in OHMSS than any of the Q0S action sequences...and it now, with a more discerning eye, looks a bit silly.

Plenty of people are saying that the aerial dog-fight/parachute sequence is completely out of place in QOS. It feels like its from a Brosnan film. OH THAT'S RIGHT - BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN FOR BROSNAN!

OHMSS was elevate in the ranks in retrospect because it was one of the few "serious" movies Eon made. But now that we've had Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace, there needs to be a shifting simply because OHMSS has some glaring short-comings which i've highlighted in this very thread.

So you decide all Bond film rankings for everyone? HOW CONVENIENT.

Only those who have difficulty moving on from their deeply-held convictions and nostalgic feelings can't see OHMSS's flaws.

I've never pretended that OHMSS has no flaws. Could you please make an effort to realize that QOS has some?

I've been a Bond fan since the 1970s but I don't have any emotional or nostalgic connections to any particular movie per se. If there are problems with something, I have no qualms in seeing those flaws.

See my request above. I think you're seeing QOS with rose-colored glasses.

OHMSS is, sad to say, an over-rated Bond film among old Bond fans who were not even around to see it fail in 1969, for it *was* a failure. OHMSS gained cachet only in the later 1980s because many Bond fans who were in their 20s to 30s at that time (and who hadn't seen the movie until it came out on video) were dissillusioned with the likes of Moonraker and AVTAK...and 'wanted' a real Fleming adaptation to hold on to.

The film made less than the Bond film that preceded it. But YOLT made less than the Bond film that preceded it too. OHMSS broke box-office records in the UK & the US during its debut weeks. It made plenty of money for Eon & UA.

Some Stats for you - courtesy of a Sony report:

On Her Majesty's Secret Service 1969
Production Cost: $7,000,000
Marketing Cost: $1,000,000
US Gross: $22,800,000
Overseas Gross: $64,600,000
Worldwide Gross: $87,400,000
Theatrical US Rentals (studio net profits before production and marketing costs):
$9,117,000
Theatrical Overseas Rentals (studio net profits before production and marketing costs): $23,283,000
Theatrical Worldwide Rentals (studio net profits before production and marketing costs):$32,400,000
US Admissions: 16 million
Overseas Admissions: 46.4 million
Worldwide Admissions: 62.4 million
Net Studio Income From Box Office: $24,400,000

How is a return of $24 million dollars, in 1969, when the average film cost about $2 million and barely broke even, a failure?

Boxoffice aside, let's say I accept your argument that OHMSS was a commercial failure. From an artistic standpoint, it's still a triumph. Citizen Kane was a box office failure. Does that make it bad in your mind as well?

What do you say to the movie critics, who have no vested interest in Fleming purity that a Bond fan might - that consistently rank OHMSS as one of the best films. Are they clutching to something too?

Craig is now here and his films have now gone to the top of the table with his portrayal being more Fleming that anything Lazenby could muster.

Mature people need to deal with it.

You like QOS more than OHMSS. I get it.

But please be mature enough to recognize that some Fleming scholars, like myself and author Ben Macintyre (who wrote For Your Eyes Only: Ian Fleming and James Bond) still see OHMSS and Lazenby's performance as the most accurate film portrayal of Ian Fleming's James Bond.