zombie84 said:
Tyrphanax said:
Never Say Never Again. Oh yes. Connery's final goodbye to Bond. He's old. The times have changed (compared to Thunderball) it all feels very out-of-place, but it's still pretty well Bond. Personally, I prefer Tunderball to Never Say Never Again; it's a cooler film, though we do get some neat video game action with Never Say Never Again, I just can't warm up to its take on Largo who just comes off as "meh" and psychotic compared to Thunderball's more suave and controlled take. SPECTRE isn't as interesting, either, though their bomb plot is slightly more grand than just blowing up Florida or whatever (though the plan to steal it is far more outlandish and silly), and I preferred hiding Blofeld's face and making him more mysterious; from my point of view, he started to get more and more lame as we saw more and more of him. Fatima Blush is an interesting henchwoman, and we'll see her type at least once more later on in a more official film. Domino is just kind of there and doesn't feel as human as Thunderball's version. It's still a good film, though I do wish the had been able to swing the Roger Moore cameo for the ending.
I have feeling I am maybe just an Irvin Kershner fanboy, but I feel like this is one of the better Bond films ever made. Yeah. I'm not a huge Bond fan, so take that as you will. But this film is, in my opinion, every bit as clever and witty as the Connery classics, except it has the better taste to not take itself too seriously and have fun with the idea of an older Bond. Sean Connery looks like he is enjoying himself, at least. Not the best film ever made or anything, but when I watch this film I feel like the people making it were having fun. It has a bad rep with some people, but compared to shit like Moonraker this looks like genius. It has a certain silliness that reminds me of some of the better Roger Moore entries.
This brings up the main point that lured Connery back in initially. This was to be an older Bond, one who was out of step with the modern and relatively ineffective espionage world. Through slightly more humorous interactions this more seasoned 007 would still manage to avert disaster again but with more of a twinkle in the eye and the comfort of greater years.
If Connery has something challenging, some new aspect to the part to play with then he's off before the starting gate chomping at the bit. This has always been a major incentive and is why he chose so many odd parts after shaking off Bond finally in the late 60's/early 70's. Just look at all the great performances he gave in his films with Sidney Lumet.
But of course, then you had Jack Schwartzman wanting all kinds of different things, the production troubles, the studio's desires and ultimately the script and every bit of the good ideas that were initially there became buried a bit...and then dialed back a bit there...and a bit more and more so eventually you had to read deeply into context to really get into any of the plotting or characterization going on. Connery, Brandauer, Atkinson and Carrerra are the only actors who aren't sleepwalking or ineffective.
You're absolutely right to single out Kersh Zombie, because he's the only reason why the film was ever finished or that it makes any sense at all! Sadly, the whole thing had a bit of the Charles Feldman/Casino Royale production horrors going on. Even Slocombe isn't able to do very much with the rather drab sets and color palette.
Everything said it isn't a bad film, it has it's moments thanks largely to Sean who felt he had something new to bring after being promised a new direction, but it doesn't hold a candle to any of the 16 original EoN films. It possibly could have but in addition to all the problems it also hasn't dated very well.
And yes, I find Moonraker to be unjustly ridiculed. Where did all the hate come from exactly? When I was growing up everyone unjustfully loathed The Man with the Golden Gun. I think Moonraker is an overall stronger film than For Your Eyes Only, and I prefer Bond more realistic. If you could remove the goofy elements all it is is a slightly more tired and gravitating to audience desires remake of Spy which was a remake of You Only Live Twice's basic plot.
Bingowings said:
I like Moonraker, it's silly but it's good silly.
I agree with this on the silliness aspect. Though it is gratingly out of place, it was done with the intent of pleasing the entire 1979 audience and maintains heart. But that double-taking pigeon.....ugh!
Christopher Wood appeared to have fun with his two Bond scripts, but on his second he amped up all of the humor around Bond's world and Bond's relation to that said world and it all becomes a little tiresome. Bond knows everything about everything, he does not falter etc. But the initial half to three quarter point actually belies Wood's attention to reality in that 007 does some actual spying and uses his brain to get him out of deadly situations in a manner usually reserved for the early Connery era. In his novelizations for these two films (I only have Spy, but I'm nearly positive Moonraker is the same way) Wood writes the story somewhat differently and in almost a pure Fleming style. Just imagine a Fleming Bond novel based on the film script and you wouldn't be too far off.
zombie84 said:
Maybe. To be fair it's been 10 years since I've seen 90% of the Bond films. NSNA I saw recently.
No problem, admittedly I find it hard to go two months without a complete run through. Probably when I got my Bondian residence card...
SilverWook said:
I enjoyed AVTAK a lot more revisiting it on the UE DVD. I think my initial negative reaction to it all those years ago was, "You killed Steed! You bastards!" Honor Blackman is the only Avengers alum to make it out of a Bond movie alive. ;)
It was probably too soon for a movie to have another giant mine set.
Oh Lord, Tibett! What the devil have you done with my socks? The best thing in the film after Walken's phenomenal Zorin is the by-play between Moore and Macnee. This was my introduction to the charming bowler hatted twinkling eyed Steed, and I still hate that he exits the film so early. Huge loss of energy that takes ages to partially recover.
Tyrphanax said:
So. Dalton. When I first got into Bond, it took me ages to see Dalton's films. I only saw a few Connerys and Moores. When I finally got around to seeing his films, I'd already read some of the books, and I found that Dalton played a very adequate book Bond, but didn't sacrifice the feel of the films too much.
The Living Daylights is a pretty cool film. You can certainly tell at times that it was originally written as a Moore film, but it still retains the harder edge that Dalton brought to the series. I love the opening shots, because I always love seeing other Double Ohs, though of course none of them ever live up to Bond's high standards (save one). This is also the only Bond film with only one Bond girl, if I'm not mistaken (I guess there's the girl on the boat at the beginning, though); Kara is an okay girl, I suppose... she doesn't really do that much and kinda just waits around for stuff to happen to her until she runs off to save James at the airfield at the end which just seems out of character for her. Rhys-Davies is great as Pushkin; and there's really palpable tension in the scene with him and Bond in the hotel room. Georgi is a pretty complex and interesting character as well with the whole double-reverse-defection thing going on; he goes from "oh boy one of these goofy characters, ugh" to a brilliant criminal mastermind during the course of the film, which I like. Necros is of course our Red Grant for this film. And Joe Don Baker (Mitchell!) as Whitaker was another of those characters that was hard to get over considering he comes back as Jack Wade later on. Saunders I always feel bad for; he was finally getting the hand of things at the end, too. I never was a big fan of the Aston Martin they used, but it didn't look as bad as it used to this time around. The Mujahideen are a cool angle, the airplane cargo fight is a cool one, and the cello sled is good times. Also has a sweet 80's music theme by a-Ha.
License to Kill is one of my favourites. I love the more personal, "departure" Bonds like OHMSS and License to Kill because they're different than the same-old-same-old Bond formula, and I feel like they're really some of the few films that Bond does any real character development in; in OHMSS, he learned he can't ever be anything but 007 of MI6, and in License to Kill, he attacks M, goes rogue on a vendetta; and yet they still manage to do it without completely alienating the Bond feel (in my view) there's still cars, gadgets, allies, chases, henchmen, et cetera, all the "Bondian Elements". This one really puts a spotlight on Bond's misogyny, which is an interesting angle. Pam is a Bond girl who also feels like she's capable and smart (but they go a bit far in proving she's "still feminine" with her out-of-character pining for Bond), Q gets to put on his field agent pants as he goes "rogue" himself to help Bond (and also seems to have a disregard for his own equipment as he chucks the broom radio into the bushes). Dalton gets the emotion of the Leiters' attack over well (though Felix seems a bit chipper in the phone call at the end of the film, all things considered) Sanchez is cool and dangerous and plays the quintessential drug lord, Benicio del Toro is insane and dangerous and a neat henchman. Krest is slimy and weird as he should be, and having grown up fishing I could always tell the "maggots" were lures. I always feel bad for Sharkey, but I always almost cheer when Bond gets revenge for him, too. Wayne Newton makes a good cameo, and Lupe provides some scenery and intel but not much else. The title song is pretty great, and is a nice throwback to older Bond songs (especially thanks to the Goldfinger inspiration) though I wonder what Clapton's version was like.
Well these are getting longer, I guess... Oh well. I should start formatting them into paragraphs, but no.
Goodbye, Dalton. On to Brosnan!
TLD can be seen from many points of view. There are the leftover Moore elements, the bits for the unknown "replacement" actor, the parts that were for Brosnan and all three were re-tooled for Dalton and redrafted. It takes a few views to really get into this and many other aspects but at some point it struck me at just how good of a film it was. For a while I bought into the criticisms of it being disjointed and having both a weak female lead and villains, but the key is that it balances between the world of cinematic espionage and the real world of 1987. With that in mind everything becomes clearer.
LTK is a film that should be played on the largest screen possible with the sound maximized. It is a dirtier smaller film that if you can forget about the debts to late 80's action franchises and production deficits, actually plays very damn well. In fact, so much so that it is easily the last fully enjoyable Bond to be produced. (Sitting in Skyfail's credits had me wishing that there had just been a re-release of LTK) the motivation is great but not too well defined. It should have been fleshed more in order to fully justify Bond's resignation of what has essentially become his life's purpose. Dalton still plays it perfectly because his insubordination and rebellion was already present however checked in TLD. The film makes perfect sense when the battered Dalton lets out that sigh in the desert, one of the few times Fleming's Bond has ever appeared on-screen in his truest from.
SilverWook said:
Having rewatched LTK recently, I suspect Felix being so "chipper" at the end is due to the amount of painkillers he's probably on. ;)
That's good! To me he sounds exactly as he does when on the phone with Moore's Bond arriving in NYC for lunch early on in LALD!
Tobar said:
Die Hard (1988)
Been a while since I'd last seen this. Great film, really solid. Now I know I'll end up watching The Detective and reading the books.
Just won the THX LD, so I know this Christmas will get a bit...loud!
LMS:
Stardust Memories
This is one of Woody Allen's films that seems to be a bit more of a self-indulgent side project and I can't help but enjoy it for some reason. Like Shadows and Fog, I just rather like it but can't point to much of anything as to say why. It is almost his response to 8 1/2, but of course with his characteristic spin on the plot. "We especially like your early funny movies." 3 balls out of 4. But what a terrible DVD. Terrible!
