April is the cruellest month: a day-by-day game

Oh yes thank you @Jim , for a fantastic birthday month game! It’s been a great way to ring in 47 laps round the sun.


Lazenby, I saw him in both The Man From Hong Kong and Who Saw Her Die.
But I’ll go with The Man From Hong Kong, he made a great performance there as the main villain, but Who Saw Her Die was also great.

You guys forgot Penny Dreadful and The Tourist.

1 Like

Although I’m not closing it if folks still wish to comment, a big thanks for such a considered discussion of some fairly (and deliberately) baity propositions.



Can we have another set of discussions this May?
I’m really enjoying it.

1 Like

Good enough in Penny Dreadful and Doom Patrol to be considered as 001 (or M?)


Sorry, I’ve been really busy this past month with family visits and stuff so I haven’t been able to post anything on these topics. So I will begin rectifying that now. Hopefully, it’s not too late. Anyway,

April 1: Is A View To A Kill the most “spy film” in the series?

No. My vote still goes for From Russia With Love. SPECTRE sets a trap of revenge for James Bond and the British government all the while teasing a tantalizing bait of a Lektor decoder–a much-coveted MacGuffin that is currently in the possession of the Russians. As part of the tease is Tatiana Romanova, a beautiful Russian woman, in which Bond has to use his charms and sexual skills to bring her to his side and achieve his aims of obtaining the Lektor. All the while, SPECTRE has every detail and scenario plotted out and has its top assassin Red Grant stalking Bond throughout the film with Grant both studying and protecting Bond when need be to accomplish SPECTRE’s goals.

It’s a cross and double cross film with SPECTRE using Bond to steal the Lektor only to steal it back when they kill Bond so they can sell it back to the Russians. They secretly film Bond and Tatiana in their sexcapades, which SPECTRE plans to use to embarrass the British government with yet another sex scandal. Cloak and dagger is used when Grant impersonates Bond at the train station to take out Norman Nash and then again when Grant impersonates Nash to Bond getting on his good side before betraying him and getting the jump on him.

Bond is also involved in the spy game in that he uses devices to locate hidden bugs in his hotel room, he and Kerim Bey clandestinely observe a meeting in the Russian consulate, he uses sex to accomplish his mission, and he and Kerim team up to assassinate Krilencu while using a little subterfuge with Kerim’s sons. But ultimately, Bond has to use his wits to get out of the Grant situation by manipulating him to misuse a gadget.

From Russia With Love is the most Hitchcockian film of the series and is a great spy film.


Never too late! Feel free to go on posting here!


April 2: A Charles Gray-like Blofeld is more like the OHMSS novel Blofeld than Telly Savalas’ version.

I agree. And I agree with both Dustin’s and plankattack’s takes. The novel Ernst Stavro Blofeld was not a thug. He was a cold, calculating CEO-type. That description does fit Gray better than Savalas–and neither really define Donald Pleasence. That said, however, Savalas is my favorite film Blofeld. He has more menace and sense of danger than all the other Blofeld’s to date except for maybe Eric Pohlmann’s unseen Blofeld in From Russia With Love and Thunderball.


I disagree. My vote for the worst roster of female role and representation in the series goes to The Man With The Golden Gun. Mary Goodnight is a complete bumbler whether it’s secretly planting a bug in a villain’s trunk or simply watching Bond trying to extricate the Solex Agitator. Whatever she does ends up making Bond’s job harder or even nearly killing him. Even when she does something right (taking care of Kra) she initiates a cataclysmic event in the destruction of the island. Additionally, her character is literally stored in a closet for safe keeping until later while Bond pumps some information from Andrea Anders.

And speaking of Andrea, she is a kept woman who is either “teased”/threatened by Scaramanga and his golden gun in bed or slapped and roughed up by Bond on a bed.

It is this film which stamped the Bond series (for a few years anyway) with the reputation that Bond girls were bimbos. Totally unjustified for the series, but unfortunately, fairly accurate for this film.


I’ll preface my comment by saying I respect what Barbara and Michael have done over the years. But as always, we look to the future and the longevity of the franchise. If Barbara is so hung up on Daniel Craig and says they won’t be making any moves on a new actor for a long time, perhaps they have reached the end of their tenure and should hand over to someone else, namely David G. Wilson.

David is listed as an executive producer of James Bond video games. I’m well aware of the difference between the two mediums, but a contemporary Bond video game concept can be arranged but a new film seemingly cannot be. Someone like David would represent a new beginning across the board (new MI6 crew and the like) while keeping it in the family.

After Die Another Day, Casino Royale was screaming out as an option. They seemingly don’t know what to do this time. Nonetheless, they’ve had plenty of time to think about things. Choosing the wrong direction can be problematic, but so can extended inactivity.


I will point out BB said those recent comments whilst promoting her production of Macbeth with Craig as the title character. She was hardly likely to talk about Craig being easily replaced when she was literally there to sell the idea that people should pay a not small amount to see him live.


I agree - it was hyperbole to hype the current endeavor and divert attention to it.

„Stop asking me about Bond, we‘re here for Macbeth!“ would have been the impolite way.

Also, BB will probably want all the work on Bond to be under the radar. So I expect more future comments on how it will take more time.

It can, however.

But the greatest actor ever comment was a bit much, definitely.


Just a tad

1 Like


I agree, the Aston Martin DB5 should be given a rest. We’ve gotten WAAAAAAYYYY too much nostalgia baiting this century. It was ok for Die Another Day to do it because they were doing it for the series’ 40th anniversary, which was a celebration of the entire series. Additionally, it had never really been done before–certainly to that extent-- so it was palatable going down. However, almost every film since then has doubled down, even tripled down, on nostalgia and nowhere was that more evident than in the beloved DB5.

Pierce Brosnan drove a DB5 in GoldenEye, but that was simply a nod to the series’ past and to reinforce the idea that he was James Bond, particularly after the six-year gap in films. The DB5 returned in Tomorrow Never Dies but was only in a cameo–and even less in The World Is Not Enough.

Then came the Daniel Craig years. Casino Royale wanted to show how its universe Bond got the DB5. Fine, another little nod to the past, and again, a reinforcement that this “controversial” 007 is really James Bond. But then the car returns gadget-laden in Skyfall. All well and good I suppose. It was nice to see it tricked out with gadgets again, but then it is promptly destroyed–only to have it revived in SPECTRE, albeit in a cameo, and later a return to gadget-laden action in No Time To Die. Again, the filming of it in NTTD was entertaining, but all these continued call backs to previous Bond films, such as the oil-covered Strawberry Fields in Quantum Of Solace, got tedious.

Where is the originality? Why are we now always looking back with tips of the cap to the past or subverting expectations of it, instead of looking forward and carrying the series into the future? Roger Moore didn’t need all those continued callbacks. Neither did Timothy Dalton.

No matter how much Craig used it or any future 007 does, the Aston Martin DB5 WAS, IS, and ALWAYS WILL BE Sean Connery’s car. It’s time to put the beloved icon in the garage and come up with something new for Bond #7.

As for the aggressive Omega wristwatch selling ads, I have no opinion, since I rarely, if ever, see them.


I would agree with that. I last watched TWINE in the run up to No Time To Die and I enjoyed it more than I had since probably the first time I saw it. Denise Richards’ acting certainly isn’t all bad. In fact, she’s decent for much of it. The biggest glaring issues are when she has to recite a lot of gobbledegook like when she’s on the tram in the pipeline and in the flooding submarine. Personally, I give her props for acting in and dealing with all that water pouring inside the sinking submarine. But I agree with those earlier who mentioned that her name, her costume at the nuclear site, and a large chunk of her dialogue have negatively impacted others’ opinions of her in the film.

But if I had to go for the worst thing about TWINE, it is what they do with the Renard character. They set him up as this Uber-bad terrorist, one who can feel no pain, and who will get tougher and stronger until he dies. When you first see him deal with Sasha Davidov and Mikhail Arkov at the fiery rock place, he’s suitably dangerous there. He still works that way in the bunker, particularly when he faces Bond behind the bullet-proof glass door. But from there on, he’s a shell of himself.

Renard becomes a mopey puppy in the liaison with Elektra King, which loses a lot of his dangerous persona. And then, in the final battle aboard the submarine, where is the guy who feels no pain? Where is the guy getting tougher and stronger? He’s gone, and you are left with just a generic henchman. There is one shot where Bond hits him in the jaw with the plutonic rod. They should have had Bond hit him like four or five times in a row and not have Renard phased by it one bit. They could have had him chuckle at Bond’s uselessness or laugh maniacally at his increasing power, but no, they don’t do that. They could have had Renard pick up something exceedingly heavy that he wouldn’t have been able to lift normally and hurl it at Bond to show his increasing strength. They could have had him aggravate Bond’s shoulder again or squeeze it till his collarbone broke to all but incapacitate him. But no, they don’t do that either.

Someone, somewhere, once wrote (I don’t remember who but it could have been on this board) that Renard should have been about to kill Bond when 009’s bullet finally breaks through the medulla oblongata and kills Renard. (Whether Bond makes a final weak punch to Renard’s jaw or he’s just laying helpless when the bullet finishes the terrorist doesn’t matter. Either way could work.) Anyway, when Renard dies, the person then had Bond say something like, “Thanks, 009.”

THAT is how the film’s threat should have ended. THAT is how Renard’s character SHOULD have been done. That would have made him a memorable villain. Instead, we are left with a what could have been scenario and stuck with a lovesick henchman whose once promising entrance falls flat, leaving him one of the lesser henchmen in the series. Bummer. :disappointed:


That would have been an interesting occurrence, and I will say yes to the idea. Raymond Benson had some great plots–and, yes, I said great. High Time To Kill and Doubleshot are terrific plots. His weakness, however, was in the prose. So I think he could have, at the very least, come up with a script with great ideas in terms of characters and plot. It likely would have needed some more work in regards to dialogue and some descriptions, so the producers could have brought other writers in to polish it off. But scripts are written by multiple writers nowadays anyway, so why not? And with what we ended up with at the end of the Daniel Craig era, I say they should have given Benson a go.


A very good point. Despite Bond being the best and “senior 00” Most films don’t acknowledge other 00’s roles in SIS. Notable exception No Time to Die

Four words–No and HELL NO!

The Codename Theory to put it simply is stupid and makes no sense. As David_M said, if James Bond is a codename, then Moneypenny is a codename, Felix Leiter is a codename, Bill Tanner is a codename, Maj. Boothroyd is a codename, and even Miles Messervy is a codename (yes I believe Robert Brown is Messervy). That’s a lot of codenames going on, many of which would be totally unnecessary for those not in the field.

What makes more sense is that you have different actors playing the role of James Bond or Moneypenny or Felix Leiter or Bill Tanner or Maj. Boothroyd or Miles Messervy–with each of those actors playing their particular versions of the character.

Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan all played the same character. Daniel Craig was different. His was a rebooted James Bond.

Certainly after Spider-Man: No Way Home, audiences are now used to the idea of the same character but from different universes. Thanks to the Craig era, for better or worse, the Bond series now falls into that category too. We know the new James Bond actor will definitely not carry on from Craig’s timeline. He’s his own universe. But the new guy can either pick up where Brosnan left off or be another rebooted James Bond.

But the codename theory is complete and utter…baloney. :face_vomiting: