James Bond 007 film-by-film thread

Not sure if I am pushing the limits on a family friendly forum, but in OHMSS it was the scene in which Bond has a liaison with the bespectacled British woman. In DAF it was the woman who was strangled by her bikini top. Very quick but visible.

 

Thought it was the playboy centerfold. Never get away with that now. Never say never.

 

I haven’t seen Live And Let Die for a very long time, thirty years or so. In the interim, I read the novels. LALD is a problematic read as there is some overt casual racism in the book. Again, it is of it’s time, and I do no expect art from the 1950’s to have a modern sensibility, but it was sometimes an uncomfortable read.

Live And Let Die was the first Bond film I saw in the theater, back when I was eleven years old. Much of it takes place in New York of the 70’s. I lived in the Bronx, not Harlem, but it presented a familiar New York to me. Watching it again so many years later, it still brings “my” New York back to me. The streets, the hairstyles, the clothing.

I haven’t seen any of the Roger Moore Bond films in some time. I found him to be a good Bond but VERY different from Connery. He plays it more sophisticated but much more for laughs than Connery ever did. Moore has very good comic timing. His introductory scene with the very beautiful Italian agent had a great many subtle looks and asides from Moore that really made the scene (as he tried to redirect M). Also, there is a very different dynamic between Moore and M. M seemed to dislike Connery’s Bond as a person. But Moore’s Bond actively annoys him. Like DAF, there is no Headquarters scene, so M & Moneypenny had to make an appearance at Bond’s home. Q doesn’t appear in this film. While missed, he is really not needed as the only gadget is the magnetic watch.

Moore was better than I remembered him but he just does not have the danger of Connery. He’s a bit “soft”. Even when Connery was at his heaviest, he was physically imposing. Moore lacks that (much like Brosnan).

The credit sequence was good but not a standout. It made a few odd choices that I don’t understand like superimposing a woman face within what I assume is an “Afro” hairstyle. Then the face and the hair move independently. Strange. The music, of course, is superb. Arguably the best of the Bond theme songs. George Martin made good use of snippets of the tune throughout the film.

The Bond women offered no surprises for the franchise. The Italian agent was very beautiful and presented a good comic performance. Rosie was very striking but an annoying character, constantly losing her mind over snakes, hats, voodoo symbols, etc. Solitaire was a good Bond woman. Of course, Jane Seymour (still) is a very beautiful woman, but they actually gave her a character and she had an impact on the plot. She was a touch too easily manipulated by Bond but this Bond is played as a playboy looking for a casual sexual conquest far more than even Connery. He comes on a bit too strong and it’s a tad creepy, but, again, it is a film of its time.

My big problem with this film is its tone. The Bond films have made a slow transition from action films to comedic films with action. They introduce a stereotypical Southern sherif who chews tobacco and calls everyone “boy”. He becomes comic relief for the long car/boat chase sequence. Just like DAF made you laugh at urban Italians and homosexuals, LALD now shows how funny rednecks can be. That kind of humor really cheapens the franchise, IMO.

I was concerned at how this film would portray African Americans, as all of the villains are black. Again, this film is of its time. Although I was young, I recall Shaft and Superfly and later television shows like Get Christie Love and Good Times. And, yes, there was a lot of stereotyping going on in film and TV of the time. But it was also a time where the studios realized that films could be made for a previously ignored black audience. So it was a complicated time that I don’t have enough knowledge to really comment on, but know enough not to oversimplify. This film does reflect the stereotypes of the time. It would be odd if it did not. But, yes, some of it did make me cringe, like references to “pimpmobiles” and “honkys”.

I thought the villains were pretty good as far as Bond villains go. Yaphet Kotto plays it straight which, IMO, always works best for a Bond villain. Mister Big is not looking to take over the world or hold it for ransom. He’s a drug trafficker with grand ambitions. No laser beams required. Tee Hee, even with his metal claw, also played it straight. No crazy villains in this film. Geoffrey Holder (Baron Samedi) is the oddball. He feels shoehorned into this film. But he was a sensation at the time as a dancer and choreographer. Even at eleven years old I knew him and his broad movements and great voice and laugh.

As far as action sequences, this film was pretty run of the mill. The car chases were kind of dull to me. The boat chases were better as they did some neat bridging over land. The best sequence for me was when Bond was left on that little island surrounded by gators and his one gadget failed him. The climax seemed oddly tame to me.

The film worked well as a travelogue. My guess is that, while most viewers have seen New York on film, few mainstream films gave you a look at the streets of Harlem. New Orleans was fun but underused. I wonder if the funeral music was composed by George Martin? The bayou sequences were okay - the gator farm was terrific. The Jamaica scenes were pretty lush.

Overall, I found this to be a mid-level Bond film.

 

He also dies in the end in the book FRWL. He is bought back to life in the next book a doctor nearby saved him from the poison . I forget which book was next. Maybe Dr no

 

In the novel does Bond have any legitimate kids ?

 

yes.

 

I think he does in You Only Live Twice. But he leaves Japan without knowing he is going to be a father.

 

I think there is a similar frame in The Spy Who Loved me if I remember correctly.

 

Spent the weekend nursing a head cold and did little but sit in front of the television. I wound up watching three Bond films, including special features and commentary. The last of these was one of only two Bond films that I have never seen before: The Man with the Golden Gun. To my delighted surprise, it turned out to be a pretty strong film.

My favorite of the Connery films is From Russia with Love. Other films are more fun, but I really like the non-epic scope of the film. It is a cat and mouse game between two professionals.

The Man With The Golden Gun is much like From Russia With Love in that respect. It is a film with no gadgets. Aside from the MacGuffin of the Solar Agitator, there is no grand scheme. At its essence, it is a cat and mouse game between two professionals. What makes it work is its tone (it mostly avoids the silliness of previous films) and the casting of Christopher Lee.

TMWTGG is a solid film but it does have its problems. The franchise’s treatment of women is getting more concerning with each film. In this one Moore physically assaults the Maud Adams character in order to get information. He repeatedly slaps her across the face and threatens to break her arm. Yet, somehow, all is forgiven and she winds up in his bed. Later Scaramanga strokes her face and body with his gun. Just creepy. The Britt Ekland character (Ms Goodnight) is treated terribly throughout the film. Bond women have been treated cavalierly in previous films but this borders on misogyny. I’m hoping this trend reverses itself soon. Having said that, in terms of beauty (and Bond films must have beautiful women) both actresses are pretty stunning.

The title sequence is pretty sexy. Best since YOLT. But the theme song is terrible. Worst so far in the series. Poor Lulu.

This film looks like it may have a lower budget than previous films. Certainly the fact that, as of LALD they went back to standard 185:1 aspect ratio instead of the beautiful 235:1 Cinemascope work in films like YOLT & OHMSS. This film is not eye popping and even some of the sets feel low budget. It is noticeable but doesn’t really impact the film as its story is more intimate in scope.

Roger Moore appears a bit more comfortable in his role. I noted that, during the fight in the belly dancers dressing room, and the marshal arts sequence, I couldn’t spy any body doubles. It was Moore all the way.

As a travelogue it works nicely. The Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwanese island sequences are pretty dazzling. The belly dance sequence is supposed to take place in Beirut but there isn’t even an establishing shot of the city, which was a missed opportunity.

There are a number of memorable scenes in this film. I thought the gun maker’s workshop was interesting, the 360 car flip stunt was great (although ruined by a dumb whistle sound effect), the marshall arts sequences were great and full of surprises. The best set piece by far was the tilted Queen Elizabeth. Very imaginative.

The most disappointing part of the film for me was the reintroduction of the redneck Sherriff. Why? The entire tone of the film was different during his sequences.

Christopher Lee is a great Bond villain. He plays it straight, not over the top. He doesn’t have any ambition to take over the world. He’s "just" the world’s most skilled assassin for hire. I also like that he didn’t seek out Bond as an adversary. Lee plays it low key. He doesn’t even speak until halfway through the film. When he interacts with Bond it is with a certain professional respect. He plays it well.

Overall, I liked this film very much, even with its problems. I thought it much improved over Live And Let Die.

 

The theme song for "Moonraker" came up randomly in iTunes for me today, and reminded me that (even though I kinda hate the film) it's a good song. Specifically, the instrumental arrangement is very nice, with a lush, mysterious and subtle quality.

 

That’s a positive take on Golden Gun. It had a lot of potential and the main plot would have been better if they didn’t distract from it with the macguffin.

The fight In the dressing room is a typical Roger Moore fight from The Saint. It worked well.

 

I like the corkscrew car jump in Man With the Golden Gun. No CGI back then.

 

Touch it.

You can touch it if you want...

 

It's worth watching just to see Ursula.

 

Finally got around to the next film in the Bond box - The Spy Who Loved Me. Moore says it is his favorite of his Bond films. To me it was very familiar. Its as if a bunch of Bond geeks made a list of the coolest parts of the previous films and incorporated that list into a new screenplay.

There are only two Bond films I have never seen before, Golden Gun (which I just saw for the first time in January) and Moonraker (which is next up). I know I have seen The Spy Who Loved Me before, but it made so little impression on me that it was like a new film.

To start at the beginning, the opening sequence was fine. The bait and switch with Triple X's introduction was well done. The ski jump is, of course, a classic scene, although the yellow and red ski clothing was a bit over the top. I have gotten used to Moore's close ups not matching the long shots of the stunts, but it really stood out for me here. The set for the Russian M's office was terrific. It looked like sleek catacombs with a single chair. Cool!

The title sequence may be the sexiest yet. Very well done. Adding Moore neither helped nor hindered. Some of the opening sequences can feel a bit pieced together or a bit busy and cluttered. But this one was very smooth and ballet like. Best yet.

I do like the theme song. Not the best Bond theme, but a good one. Carly Simon's voice was subjected to some kind of ADT and sounds very different from the single release.

As for Moore, I think he has really gotten comfortable in the role of Bond. He inhabits it well at this point. I am very glad they moved away from the woman abusing Bond of Golden Gun, that was an unfortunate phase. But in this film Moore had so little dialogue that wasn't a pun or play on words of some kind. That contributed to the film feeling slight to me.

The women are always lovely in every Bond film, and this is no exception, although the 1976 makeup is a touch dated (and not in a good way). It is always a delight to see the lovely bit players giving Bond the eye. A standout is the striking Caroline Munro who played Naomi, Stromberg's hench-person.

Barbara Bach is among the most interesting looking Bond women (big anime eyes), but, unfortunately, she is no actress, IMO. Her line readings were uniformly flat. As to her character, she was supposed to be Bond's equal but, twice, she wound up the damsel in distress who needed to be rescued by Bond. She was a strong female character in title only, not by deed. A missed opportunity.

Another misstep was the villain - Stromberg. His motivation was just silly. He loved the ocean and lived underwater. But land dwellers were polluting his oceans so he decided to nuke Moscow and New York! Yeah, that's a good solution. Granted, Bond villains don't need the best of motivations, but really?

As a travelogue, this film worked really well. I expect a Bond film to take me places I may never visit myself. This one delivers. The sequences in Cairo & Sardinia were picture postcard perfect. And the sets were wonderful, from the sultan's tent to the villains lair. And, to top it off, we are back in the 2.35:1 aspect ration, which is what a Bond film should be.

Now we get to the part I was most unhappy with. This film is very derivative of Bond films that have gone before.

Jaws is nothing but Oddjob taken to an extreme. Like the henchman in Live And Let Die he has an appliance that is deadly. But the fact that Jaws seemingly cannot be killed just became silly after a while.

The tanker that swallows US & Russian submarines is a rehash of the rocket that swallowed up US & Russian rockets in You Only Live Twice.

The villains lair is very similar to the one in You Only Live Twice in it's curved lines, bullet proof blinds that close off the control room and the mini monorail.

The dropping of a person through a floor into a tank of man eaters was lifted from You Only Live Twice.

And, of course, the skiing sequence is straight out of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It is redeemed by the parachute stunt which is pretty awesome.

Having said that, the car that turns into a submarine was wonderfully unique. It should be noted that, aside from the car, there were no gadgets in this film. In that respect it went back to basics, just Bond vs the bad guy. I liked that aspect of the film very much.

Overall I look at this as a middling effort. Not the worst Bond but nothing special.

I know I am way behind this thread, but I am enjoying taking my time through this series.

 

Bond 25?
Out ( in the year ) 2525.

 

Bond played by either Zager or Evans!

 

If you thought Spy was derivative, then you will find Moonraker to be like Spy all over again.

 

They need to quit crapping out these movies every few years. The story is just starting to bore me. I don't like that they took the Austin Powers plot where Blofield is his long-lost brother. I really couldn't care less if they transition into a Bond that is not a white male either cause at that point I will have lost interest anyway.

 

Doctor Evil

I mean this is a James Bond film, agree.. what a load of rubbish.

 

Middling? Wow.

 

I just hated the slide whistle effect. Ruined it for me.

 

The marked increase in humor started with Goldfinger, which served the film quite well. But for that sort of fantasy/adventure movie, it's not out of place, preventing it from becoming just a dour spy flick. But over the course of the next three films it lost that lighter touch. OHMSS, although it had its merits, was generally a bit stiff as a broad form of entertainment. Box office numbers were dropping, and the franchise needed a fresh start.

Diamonds Are Forever was the film that set that tone for Bond films for practically the next couple of decades. Its use of humor was quite overt, and that success carried into the Moore films. Unfortunately, Moore seems to get the blame for turning Bond into somewhat of a lightweight, but all that started with Connery in DAF.

Personally, I think the humor helps make them better films, but it only works if the writing is smart.

 

Well, Bond doesn't actually die, of course, at the end of From Russia With Love. The ending is somewhat ambiguous, and then we learn about his fate and recovery in the next novel, which was Dr. No, whereby M sends Bond to Jamaica on a soft assignment as punishment for putting himself at such risk.