Bond.

[schwammy]

Well, this is slightly outside of the time constraints of this forum, but it definitely is one of the 'finer things' in life. I started viewing the James Bond canon on DVD this week. Started with 'Dr. No' and continued with 'From Russia With Love.' Those are my two favorites, and they're the least 'Bondy' of the series - fewest gadgets, fewest one-liners, least campiness.

I really enjoyed all the DVD extras, particularly the making of these films. They went into considerable detail on the details of Bond, showing how Sean Connery's suits and shirts were made, and by whom. Three years of Gearheaddom followed by hanging out at the Fedora Lounge has really sensitized me to the finer points of good tailoring. Sean Connery's suits and shirts really do stand out on viewing, as does Ursula Andress's swimsuit!

Of particular interst was the documentary on director Terence Young. I didn't realize how much of his influence went into the creation of Connery as Bond.

Also interesting was how disaster-plagued the filming of 'From Russia With Love' was. Director Terence Young nearly died when his helicopter crashed into the ocean, leading lady Daniela Bianchi was injured in a rollover car wreck when her driver fell asleep, and supporting actor Pedro Armend?ɬ°riz discovered he had terminal cancer midway through filming. They had to speed up production and shoot all his scenes first before he died!

One question for Bond/gun lovers: at the beginning of 'Doctor No,' M takes away Bond's Beretta .25 and makes him start carrying a Walther. But when Bond shoots Professor Dent midway through the film, I don't think that's a Walther he's carrying. Looks more like the old Beretta. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[MK]

Thanks for the info. I am not a huge Bond fan, but I have really enjoyed the films all my life....especially the Connery as 007. I will check out the DVDs.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Bond needs a fedora.

I've read they've recast Bond again. I'm looking forward to what they do with the Character from this moment on. The heat's on, though... there are some really good Spy Thriller movies out there now. They need to bring Bond back to his roots to get him back on top.

 

[schwammy]

Originally posted by Renderking Fisk
Bond needs a fedora.

In fact, Bond wears a fedora in the first two films - the same fedora, by the looks of it. It's a small-brimmed affair, but it looks good on him. In the third film, he wears a black straw heat while playing golf. I think he discontinued the hats after that.

Originally posted by Renderking Fisk I've read they've recast Bond again. I'm looking forward to what they do with the Character from this moment on. The heat's on, though... there are some really good Spy Thriller movies out there now. They need to bring Bond back to his roots to get him back on top. [/B]

I quite agree, Renderking, and Quentin Tarantino wants to shoot a serious version of 'Casino Royale' set in the 1960s. The 1960s part will never happen, but it would be great if it did.

Last night I rented 'Goldfinger.' So many people, including Roger Ebert and the late Gene Siskel, have cited this as the best Bond, and I just don't see it. While the Bond films are known for exotic locales, 'Goldfinger' has to have some of the worst. Bond spends most of this movie in America, which must have been really convenient for United Artists, but did Americans really pay money in 1964 to see a Bond movie with scenes shot at a junkyard in Miami Beach and a Kentucky Fried Chicken in Louisville? Oh, you want international locations? How about the Esso oil refinery in London? That's picturesque. How about a golf course? Better yet, one five minutes away from Pinewood studios?

Yeah, okay, painting a girl in gold paint is an interesting touch. Oddjob is a unique henchman (though he smiles so much, you end up liking him). But a hat for a weapon is a bit much. To paraphrase Austin Powers "Who throws a hat? Honestly!"

The Aston Martin is neat, but Bond uses up all the gadgets within about two minutes' screen time and still gets captured. A guy with that much training and a car like that ought to be able to conquer Poland, France, and the low countries. Bond can't even defend himself against half a dozen Korean rent-a-thugs and a grandmother with a machine gun.

The whole plot is dumb. James Bond, the man who blew up Dr. No's Caribbean headquarters and stole the Lektor machine from the Russians, is now called upon to stop a fat smuggler who (gasp!) cheats at gin. Oh, but he wants to rob Fort Knox. So he calls in a bunch of escapees from the Warner Brothers Home For Aged Gangsters, tells them all his plans, and then gasses them to death. Question: why bother telling them your plans if you're going to kill them? Why spend $50,000 in fancy equipment, including a pool table that converts into a control panel and a scale model of Fort Knox, if you're going to immediately kill the only people who see it? Why separate the one dissenting gangster and send him off to be squished in a brand new Lincoln Continental -- if you're also planning to kill all the other gangsters five minutes later? Why compact the car? Especially when there's a suitcase full of gold bars in the trunk? Why why why? Bond suggest the only possible explanation when he says, "He's quite mad, you know." But Goldfinger doesn't come across as mad any more than Saddam Hussein does, even though he too is frequently labeled a madman. They are both just bad guys who aren't very smart.

Well, as it turns out, not everyone who sees the scale model is killed. Bond sees it -- hides under it, in fact -- during one of his ill-fated escape attempts. Bond spends 3/4 of the movie in the villain's custody, and he doesn't do anything to further the plot or foil the heist except insult the villain and flirt with Honor Blackman. I refuse to use her character's name. No, on second though, I will use it. Why would a woman who fancies herself independent and liberated, who knows judo and is a flying instructor, have a name like 'Pussy Galore?' All that does is make 12-year-old boys snicker. But not only does she keep the name, she also keeps a 'flying circus,' staffed by five mercenary pilots who are all perfectly willing to commit mass murder and are all, by the way, busty, attactive, 19 years old women. Amazing coincidence, that. When the five female pilots swayed up to the camera in their matching jumpsuits, I said out loud, "This is where the Bond franchise jumped the shark."

The most hilarious part, I thought, was when Bond wakes up aboard Goldfinger's plane, is given a drink, and asks for -- AND RECEIVES -- his luggage! Considering the fact that Goldfinger hates Bond and wants to kill him, it is remarkably considerate of him to fish his luggage out of his wrecked Aston Martin and haul it from Switzerland to Kentucky. All this so Bond can have two more wardrobe changes.

Then there's Felix Leiter, who could actually USE a wardrobe change. He and his partner wear identical gray sack suits with the dorkiest porkpie hats ever. Felix is a CIA agent, who, correct me if I'm wrong, has no jurisdiction inside the United States. (Wouldn't that the FBI's bailiwick?) Nevertheless, he is there in Kentucky, when he should be assisting in the Bay of Pigs invasion (or collecting his pension, since he looks about 65.) And he has nothing better to do than follow Bond around and utter such memorable lines as "with him, it's either a drink or a dame!" Did real people ever talk like this? I don't think so. It sounds like the scriptwriter, who was British, grew up going to gangster films, and that was his sole exposure to American conversation. Every time an American opens his mouth in this movie, I wince. Why, oh why did they replace Jack Lord? He was a perfect Felix Leiter. He had something going on behind those Foster Grants. The replacement guy looks like a retired insurance salesman, and is about as interesting.

Still, Felix is loyal to Bond, though I'm not sure why. If the FBI and CIA have as much rivalry as the 9-11 report leads us to believe, how on earth can a CIA agent be willing to spend his career following around this British klutz? Let's face it, Bond dresses well and knows a lot about wine, but he always gets captured and he always has to be rescued. A good example: Bond pries open a nuclear device that is seconds away from detonating, then stares in bewilderment at the mass of moving dials and gears, afraid to make a move. What are you waiting for, James? Start tearing it apart! Do something! Rips some of those wires out! Smash it with a gold brick! You're not going to make the situation worse by holding back now. But no, he waits for the Deus ex machina - an American who comes up and hits the 'off' button.

At the end, when Bond's plane goes down, there's good old Felix once again, loyally searching for Bond in a helicopter, while Bond, the ingrate, hides so he can continue making out with his girlfriend. For heaven's sake, James, spring for a hotel room! The CIA has better things to do than look for you all day!

Two serious changes occur in Bond's character in this film. One is that he is for some reason suddenly pitted against Q. This takes him down a level, in my estimation. A normal guy, on being given an Aston Martin with machine guns and an ejector seat, would exclaim, "Wow! Is that ever neat!" But Q lectures, and Bond just yawns. This makes him seem less like the cold-blooded secret agent of 'Dr. No' and more like a pampered, irresponsible schoolboy.

The second change is with regard to women. In the first two movies, Bond had women falling into his lap. In this one, he receives a chilly reception twice; first from Tilly Masterson, and then again from Honor Blackman's character (whose name I am back to refusing to repeat). Women throwing themselves at Bond makes him seem more admirable. Bond throwing himself at women -- who respond indifferently -- makes him seem slightly pathetic. No one wants a pathetic James Bond.

The producers replaced Terence Young, who directed the first two, with Guy Hamilton, and he admits in an interview that the plot of 'Goldfinger' was so ludicrous that he decided to just have fun with it. But if you're going to do that, you might as well go all the way and make an Austin Powers movie. I dunno. To me the whole film seems like an expensive misuse of a valuable property. And of course, wouldn't you know it, 'Goldfinger' made millions. Among the first three films, it was the most popular.

Lisa Simpson got it right: "You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator."

 

[Marlowe]

Most of the movies are pretty asinine. The books (once again) are much cooler.

If I had Hollywood clout, I'd make "Casino Royale" and set it in the mid-'50s (when it was written). I'd pretty much use the book as a script. I wouldn't let any of the actors, costume designers, composer, set dressers, prop men, etc. get away with any anachronisms, either. No modern "bedhead" or Jennifer Aniston hairstyles or '70s-ish clothes. 1954, goddammit!

My favorite Bond movies are the least outlandish and/or overly superheroic ones. That's why (unlike probably every other living human except one) I like the Timothy Dalton movies. His Bond actually (gasp!) got his hair messed up and his clothes torn up! I also like the "Dr. No" movie because it shows Bond shoot down a man in cold blood. The character Bond is supposed to be a licensed killer, remember? Not an assasin, exactly, but certainly authorized by his agency to blow away anyone who really requires it. (Not that any of the movies are free from plot holes and other suspension of disbelief problems.)

It's probably too much to ask in this day and age, but I really would like to see a Bond movie that was as close to one of the books as possible. Maybe done with the attention to historical detail that Merchant Ivory productions are known for. Sort of a 1950s costume drama/period piece.

 

[Brad Bowers]

I have to agree about Timothy Dalton. I felt his Bond portrayal was the closest to the literary Bond. You could see in him the cynicism and world-weariness that Bond has in the novels. My favorite Sean Connery film is "From Russia, With Love," as it stays pretty close to the novel. I never cared for Roger Moore as Bond, but if I had to pick one of his, it would "For Your Eyes Only," as it was far more realistic than any of his others.

Brad Bowers

 

[schwammy]

Well, I can see we are all of one mind one this subject. Let's have a drink to celebrate our unity.

Stirred, not shaken.

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Guys?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ have you been reading my posts on other forums about Bond?

Something?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s not right for all of us to pretty much agree this much. Planets are aliened or something?

All the Moore Bond movies are embarrasingly stupid with the one Brad mentioned ?¢‚Ǩ?ìFor Your Eyes Only?¢‚Ǩ?. That had a plot that seemed plausible for the most part, the rest were just lame. Not Moore?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s fault, he had crap to work with.

Someone needs to take a beating for Moonraker. The movie would have been by far the best out of all of them if they actually STAYED WITH BOOK! Instead they did a take-off of STAR WARS which didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t mix well. Bond isn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t an Astronaut; he?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a FREAKING SPY!

Dalton?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s first Bond was pretty good, while ?¢‚Ǩ?ìLicense To Kill?¢‚Ǩ? was more like ?¢‚Ǩ?ìMiami Vice?¢‚Ǩ? then anything else.

Brosnan?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Bond I think was the best one since Connery?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s. In a perfect world, Tom Clancy would get a shot at writing a Bond Script about 007 hunting down an Al-Qaeda cell. But that?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s just me.

 

[The_Edge]

I like the 007 franchise a lot. However, there are only four that I absolutely adore.

1.) From Russia with Love
2.) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
3.) Die Another Day
4.) Goldfinger

 

[Renderking Fisk]

Just wondering, Edge. How come GoldenEye isn't on your list.

 

[schwammy]

Well, after watching 'Goldfinger' again with audio commentary #1 on, I must soften my somewhat harsh appraisal of the movie. Perhaps it wasn't quite as bad as I made it out to be. I still agree with Bond, though, when he says at the end, "It was nothing." It really was. He didn't do much.

What was interesting to me was director Guy Hamilton's recollection that they had to get a 'PG' rating in the USA and a 'U' in Britain because kids comprised such a large part of the audience. But to do this they had to mollify two censors with opposite points of view. The British censor was concerned about all the violence, which didn't bother the American censor at all. The American censor was very concerned about all the sex, which didn't bother the British censor at all.

I do think it must have still been pretty risque stuff for children in 1964.

 

[The_Edge]

Originally posted by Renderking Fisk
Just wondering, Edge. How come GoldenEye isn't on your list.

I just don't care for 'Goldeneye' all that much although my opinion of it has improved immensely since it's debut. At the time I was working as a clerk in a mall video store and this was the first Bond film in a number years with a new actor. There was a ton of hype and because of where I worked I was right smack in the middle of hanging posters and standees and other promotional crap. So by the time I saw the film it had been built up so much that I thought it was a bit flacid. These days I'll catch it and enjoy it but it isn't one of my favorites.

As far as Brosnan Bonds go I think 'Tomorrow Never Dies' is a much better pic. 'The World Is Not Enough' was garbage, IMO. However, with 'Die Another Day' I think they came the closest to re-capturing the things I like best about Bond. Not perfect, mind you, but close.

What I find interesting is that many folks consider 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' to be one of the worst 007 pix and they site George Lazenby as why. For this reason I avoided the picture for many years. Then about five or six years ago it came on and I decided to give it ago. From the very first notes of the opening title sequence I was mezmorized. Lazenby was wonderful in the role and Diana Rigg is by far the most gorgeous of all the Bond girls. The sets are fantastic, the dialogue is smart, the action and editing is way ahead of its time and I think it sports John Barry's best Bond score.

Lazenby got a bum rap and I think he would have only improved if given a second chance.

 

[Brad Bowers]

OHMSS was, by far, the one film that most closely followed the novel. And yeah, Lazenby didn't make a bad Bond at all. Still better than Moore. The one thing I don't care for is Telly Savalas as Blofeld. When I was in Switzerland in '84, one of my must-see stops was the old revolving Piz Gloria restaurant that was used for the exterior shots. They had Bond's coat of arms hanging inside, and "007" printed on the window, but those were the only signs that a Bond movie was filmed there.

Brad

 

[STHill]

Edge, I totally agree with you about "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." I saw it with my dad when it first came out, and I thought it was great. Later, I became aware that it was almost universally despised. I figured maybe because I was 11 years old when I saw it, and it was my first Bond film, my opinion was skewed. Fairly recently, I watched it again, and it was still great!

Lazenby was not great, but he was okay, and everything else about the movie was excellent. I think whoever immediately followed Connery was destined to fail; someone had to be the sacrificial lamb, and it was poor old George Lazenby.

And, yeah, Diana Rigg is one of the great underrated sexpots of all time.

 

[MK]

That was a great, insightful review Schwammy. I grew up with these movies and take them pretty much at face value. Your review pointed out some very obvious points that I missed. Having grown up in the sixties and seeing the films very young makes me except them more and not notice their short comings as much.

Most of the Moore films (not the angry bloated one) were the worst....although his first, Live and Let Die was a good performance. You could see that he was being measured against Sean. After that it was all about polyester.

I was excited about Dalton because of his great performance in The Rocketeer. I thought he stole the show in that film, but I thought he was uninteresting and bland in his Bond role. I am not sure of the problem.

I wish they had the guts to cast someone ruggedly handsome like Connery.

 

[Marlowe]

I read all the books, so the movies just don't do it any more. When you get right down to it, the books are a bit silly. That's kind of the way they're supposed to be: like serialized pulp adventure for boys, only in novel form and with sexual relationships in them. The movies, of course, are far more silly than the books. Bond girls are nice to look at, sure, but all they do is distract you from how silly the whole thing is. And some of the written stories, the short stories especially, are remarkably devoid of silliness. (At least for Bond stories.)

I wholeheartedly recommend any and all the books to fellow Lounge members. The Bond character of the books is more human and fallible and interesting and easier to identify with than the supercool one-liner-generating machine of the movies.

 

[Michael Mallory]

Hey, c'mon...George Lazenby has to be the BEST Bond! Okay, I'm just being a whacker here to get a rise. But I still think Lazenby had the best LOOK of any Bond. Still photos of him are terrific. As demonstrated by John Le Carre, a really good spy shouldn't be someone who turns heads as soon as he walks into a room and then takes over once he's in -- like Connery or Brosnan or, in a different way, Moore -- he should blend in, and Lazenby looked like a bloke. I never cared for Timothy Dalton as Bond. He played the cynicism, but he always looked smaller than life. And I can't stand Pierce Brosnan. He has one expression: pained annoyance, like the restaurant just ran out of filets. Recent Bond films have been all explosions and noise and no fun, IMO. But I'll agree that "Dr. No" and "From Russia With Love" are probably the best (though I, too, like "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." "Goldfinger" is fun, but it's the beginning of the process of turning Bond into a cartoon character. As for Moore, the degradation of the character wasn't entirely his fault. He was abetted by plenty of cornball lines of dialogue, jokey bits (like playing the "Lawrence of Arabia" music when he rides the camel in "Spy Who Loved Me" -- without that gag, it would have been a perfectly acceptable, serious scene) and more and more ridiculous characters. And, of course, he was about 104 the last time he played Bond. I'd love to see Russell Crowe take a shot at it, but of course, he won't.

And, I hate to be this kind of person, but in every Bond movie I've ever seen, he's, uh, been on top.

 

[Matt Deckard]

I think they need to cast a younger actor to play the part. Connery was not an old man in the first films.

From Russia with love and OHMSS are the two top movies in my book for bond.

Moonraker (go ahead thrash me) was pretty interesting to watch too, though it's just not bond.

From Russia with Love is a secret agent living by his whits and getting away with things by the skin of his teeth.

The new films with Brosnan portray him with the abilities of spiderman and a sub par wardrobe.

 

[Mycroft]

About the Books compared to the Movies

-Sean COnnery is the closest thing to the James Bond (JB) in the book
-the conection with COnnery include a naval career, scotish (not English) harritatge, apperence, hair cut, attitude