61 replies to this topic

[Trevelyan 006]

After re-watching the film tonight, I began to think as to why one doesn't really hear as much acclaim for it compared to the likes of Connery's Goldfinger or From Russia With Love. Quite honestly, 7 times-out-of 10 I'd rather watch ThunderBall over the two. I believe it holds it's own with the best of Connery's films. I love that it follows the novel decently well too (the novel was one among my favorites).

I can understand that some have a certain 'distaste' for the underwater scenes but, as a whole, I feel the film is really a gem.

Perhaps the legendary status of other Connery films shadow ThunderBall?

Edited by Trevelyan 006, 27 July 2012 - 03:24 AM.

[AMC Hornet]

Not in 1965.

You just don't hear much about TB now. It was the talk of the world for years after it came out.

But, as underwater photography and breakneck action and editing became more common, subsequent viewers became more jaded towards TB's pacing. How and/or why anyone can expect a single, completed film to keep up with changing tastes is beyond me.

Instead of underrating TB after the fact, flamers should concentrate on dissing NSNA, which had the opportunity to ramp up the pacing in an underwater climax, but instead chose to concentrate on Bond vs Largo in a throwback remake deliberately paced to reflect the film style of the 1960s, which was one of the elements that critics had been demanding of EON for years.

There's no pleasing some people. Fortunately I saw TB only 7 years after its original release, when Bond, underwater photography and action films in general were still new to me, so I have never lost affection for it.

People should take era into context when watching an old film, instead of just saying "it's not as good as Crank."

[Dustin]

About ten or 15 years ago I felt TB was the favourite Connery Bond with many fans. The iconic GF and YOLT's volcano used to have a higher profile with the general public, but among fans many preferred TB for its more serious tone and it being the pioneer of the nuclear blackmail/terror films. Perhaps that's what overshadows the actual film today, the atomic bomb threat was done by all and sundry during the last decade, often even better that in TB.

[Messervy]

I don't really feel it is overlooked. At least not by Bond fans. I have read countless times here posts about how good TB is, about how SF should be Craig's TB, etc. I even think it is one of the few Bond movies to have acquired iconic value.

[thecasinoroyale]

I have to admit it's my least favourite Connery film. Of course, I enjoy the espionage elements of 'Thunderball' on land, and think Bond's on fine form when he is carrying out his task at Shrublands and even infiltrating Largo's hideout, which is brilliant.

It's just the drawn out underwater sequences and dreary, dream-like music soundtrack that put me off. Not that it's due to the lack of action etc, as that doesn't bother me, it's just something I never enjoyed the first time round and can give or take those moments watching it today.

[tdalton]

I think that it's overlooked in the sense that it deserves to be talked about far more than the vastly overrated GOLDFINGER, but aside from that I think it more or less holds the place it deserves in the franchise's history. It's a good Bond film, and it's a good move in the right direction following GOLDFINGER, but it doesn't quite measure up to either DR. NO or FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

I agree with the original poster. Thunderball is somewhat overlooked. TB is the first widescreen spectacle of the franchise combining what the first three episodes came up with and including the femme fatale with Fiona. Additionally Sean Connery gives his most experienced performance without being bored. The movie is also slightly better directed than it predecessor and the Bahamas have a more exotic feel than the United States. TB is a mix between a mystery and an epic. The first part is pretty mysterious (the SPECTRE meeting, Shrublands, first scenes in Nassau) and the second part evolves being a spectacular grand-scaled finale. The underwater photography by Lamar Boren is also breathtaking and quite revolutionary for 1965.

Oh and the Bond girls are gorgeous.

TB, actually, is my number 4 in my Bond ranking. (behind OHMSS, FRWL, TLD)

[Miles Miservy]

I don't really feel it is overlooked. At least not by Bond fans. I have read countless times here posts about how good TB is, about how SF should be Craig's TB, etc. I even think it is one of the few Bond movies to have acquired iconic value.

What's interesting is that (& I cannot remember where I'd learned this...) one of the actors that had auditioned for but had not landed the part of Domino was none other than Jacqueline Bisset. I sometimes wonder how different a movie it would have been.

Edited by Miles Miservy, 27 July 2012 - 03:52 PM.

[Trevelyan 006]

I also feel Connery delivered some of his best and most memorable lines in ThunderBall. (Well, some of my favorite anyway.)

Pat Fearing: What exactly do you do?
James Bond: Oh, I travel... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.

Domino: So... what sharp little eyes you've got.
James Bond: Wait 'til you get to my teeth.

James Bond: That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman.
Emilio Largo: You know much about guns, Mr. Bond?
James Bond: No, but I know a little about women.

To note a few...

Edited by Trevelyan 006, 27 July 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

It is a good Bond movie.

The last reel sucks because of the underwater tedium and a lacklustre fistfight with Largo that Bond was never really in any danger of losing.

But, despite the final reel it still stands head and shoulders above the majority of Bond movies.

The tranny-fight in the pre-titles is inspired - shocking and disturbing - very Fleming. And using a woman to catch his bullet while dancing was ahead of it's time then and still pretty daring now; one of the few cinematic moments that capture the ruthlessness of his job (like Strangway's death scene in Dr No; "That's a Smith and Wesson, and you've had your six...")

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 27 July 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[AMC Hornet]

(like Strangway's death scene in Dr No; "That's a Smith and Wesson, and you've had your six...")

Poor Strangways - shot by the three 'blind' mice, then again (in disguise?) by Bond.

That must have put a 'dent' in his career plans.

(Cor, I can be such a prick sometimes...)

[Publius]

It's my second favorite of Connery's, right after From Russia With Love. At least my 7th favorite overall. When the modern day Bond drifts into larger-than-life spectacle, I always wish it would be more like Thunderball and less like You Only Live Twice or Moonraker. Those other over-the-top Bond movies have their charm, but none keep themselves just grounded enough like Thunderball does.

I also find it the funniest Bond movie. There are some cheesy lines, but on the whole it's smartly written. In particular, the Q scene might be my favorite in the entire series, but in general the banter between characters strikes the right balance between believable dialogue and 60s camp.

Then you have one of the most underrated (yet most duplicated) Bond villains in Largo, the most gorgeous Bond lady of all in Domino, and of course it's set in the Caribbean which might as well be Bond's home turf instead of England. Excellent soundtrack on top of everything.

If you have a home theater system and a copy of Thunderball in high-def or Blu-ray, or know someone who does, it could easily become your favorite Bond movie if you're not careful. And by that mean it almost takes proactive, stubborn adherence to others as your favorites to not have Thunderball casually dethrone them, as casually as Connery glides (and I mean glides) through this one.

[elizabeth]

I never used to like THUNDERBALL and I overlooked it, but I gave it another watching a few years ago because my memory of it was fuzzy, and I was greatly (and pleasantly) surprised. To me it represents what espionage films are all about: adventure.

[Vanish]

It seems to me TB has gotten a pretty consistent amount of attention and positive reaction over the years - If anything, FRWL and Goldfinger are generally just the classic "go-to's" for most people, and I usually see Thunderball mentioned "next in line."

Even with the sluggish pacing during the underwater scenes, I still think it's a top-tier Bond movie and a far more satisfying and Bond-esque production than Goldfinger is.

Edited by Vanish, 28 July 2012 - 05:49 AM.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

Out of all the 'big spectacle' Bond films, Thunderball always felt to me as the most Flemingesque compared to for instance You Only Live Twice or Moonraker.

[Odd Jobbies]

(like Strangway's death scene in Dr No; "That's a Smith and Wesson, and you've had your six...")

Poor Strangways - shot by the three 'blind' mice, then again (in disguise?) by Bond.

That must have put a 'dent' in his career plans.

(Cor, I can be such a prick sometimes...)

I deserved that, and nice pun.

Yes, i obviously meant Professor Dent

[Colossus]

It is ok, but the perfect background movie to put on.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

In my opinion it is weakest of Terence Youngs Bond films - he really wasn't as good with epics as Lewis Gilbert. Still, it is a classic and a fine Bond film, but if any of the 60's Bond films feels dated, it is this one.

[AMC Hornet]

Casblanca is dated too.

[Colossus]

Casablance does not really have its own series to be compared with so it is merely dated if you consider b&w dated. Thunderball cannot get away with it though since it was in the middle of one of the revolutionary series ever made, from 1962 to 1969 the 5 consecutive movies followed a thematic buildup, really the first "blockbusters", well ever. The jump to widescreen wasn't done with finesse, but thats ok. It was a transitional movie, director squabbles, interchanges, trying to outdo the past ones, while the previous Bonds were just "ok well whatever i guess we should do this one", treading the line between grounded and crazy. Yaknow.

Thats just being anal though, its da bomb diggidy yo anyway with some choice SPECTRE crew scenes. It should just have been handled better technically. YOLT was beautiful technically, sound/visuals are possibly the very greatest of the series but a sort of sucky story. DN-FRWL-GF had a good balance. And OHMSS was just a bung lightning in a bottle anomaly. The thing about TB is the Caribbean locale which was done already, so by setting it here it was from the core already saying "hey remember that awesome palmy place, lets go back there again". actually it could be sucha frivolous thing but that may be probably the main reason why it didnt feel fresh. the locales in fact are like characters of themselves, even the author was into birdwatching and nature stuff as his main hobby.

[AMC Hornet]

"It should just have been handled better technically."
By whom?
Moonraker could have been handled better technically, according to some. According to others it was perfect.
Same with Thunderball.
Unless we let someone like George Lucas loose on Thunderball to "improve" it the way he "improved" his original Star Wars trilogy, the film is not going to change, I'm happy to say.
In this era viewers find watching SPECTRE and SEAL frogmen battling each other in an element that hampers their mobility "boring." Yeah, well, watching two squads of astronauts drifting around zapping at each other from a distance with lasers can be pretty tedious too, to some.
OTOH, someday today's young adrenalin junkies might develop an appreciation for what goes into filmmaking, and learn about the history of the art form, and may even come to appreciate what was accomplished in the 1960s without CGI.
I'm fortunate to have seen TB in the pre-CGI/rock video editing days, so my appreciation for it has never diminished.
It's too bad they don't make 'em like that anymore. We don't get the opportunity to enjoy the locations as much these days.

[The Shark]

I love the moody, dream-like score. Definitely one of the darkest things Barry ever wrote.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

Could not agree with you more, AMC Hornet. For its time TB is a revolutionary movie. The underwater photography must be some of the best I have ever witnessed on screen. Compare it to TND underwater scenes and one can conclude that TB outshines a movie that was made 30 years later.

[univex]

Jut a quick personal note on TB: It´s probably my second favourite Bond film, and sometimes the first. It alternates often with FRWL. I just love it, every bit of it. Connery´s swagger is unbeatable, Claudine Auger is gorgeous, love the settings, Largo is very cool and Volpe spins my hypothalamus!

[AMC Hornet]

Volpe spins my hypothalamus!

"What a blow it must have been - you having a failure."
"Well, you can't spin them all..."

[univex]

Volpe spins my hypothalamus!

"What a blow it must have been - you having a failure."
"Well, you can't spin them all..."

Yes, she blew me...away. Spun me out of control.

[DR76]

Quite frankly, "THUNDERBALL" and "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE" are the only two Connery films I find really impressive. Although the latter is held in high regard, I rarely hear a good opinion about the 1965 film.

[Trevelyan 006]

I just guess I feel as thought considering today's age, ThunderBall is kind of the unsung hero of Connery's films. It is not exactly glorified like some of his others when perhaps it should be more-so. It is a great film and one, that I wish, would get more recognition for it's greatness...

[marktmurphy]

It's funny: it was made at the absolute height of Bond's popularity, and most of it is very stylish and memorable- and Bond himself has never been cooler than in Thunderball. It's full of fantastic, memorable stuff.
And yet it's really boring. As a film, it's a bit dull.

It's a film where the sum of its parts is greater than the whole.

[DaveBond21]

Thunderball is not overlooked on this website, and really this thread should simply be attached to one of the other threads on the subject.

As for me, this one has grown on me over the years since I first watched it properly in 1999.


_