Before and After the Re-Watch: The Bond Films

[David_M]

Yes, to me it feels like, “Hey Roger, we’re gearing up for a new actor soon, but it’ll take a while to pull it together and meanwhile we’ve got this unsold inventory to unload. How about another go around to buy us some time?”

I don’t think a younger guy could’ve made more out of the AVTAK we saw than Roger managed to, but I do wonder if knowing a new guy would star might have given everyone involved a shot in the arm and produced a very different film, from the ground up?

Mostly what I remember from that summer was all the gossip columns saying Pierce Brosnan was in line to be the next Bond (well before he was actually signed), interesting because AVTAK hadn’t even left the theaters yet, and because my own attitude was, “By all means, bring him on.” And me a Roger booster…

[secretagentfan]

@David_M

Even the long ride on the dirigible, while a superhuman feat beyond any real man, still amounts to “just hanging on” for miles and miles.

Well, his active feat here is escaping the police (the not-Dick Tracy wanted to arrest him, and that would have taken too much time Bond needed to get to Zorin‘s digging site).

[secretagentfan]

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER

Before:

I always liked this one. But I also always thought it is one of the most improvised, ramshackle and simply lightweight Bonds there is. I loved the score from the moment I first heard it, and it was so great to see Sean Connery once again. This was a fun film, for sure, but almost like fan fiction with no real script, just making it up as they went along.

My opinion of it was „nice to have but not essential“, tucking it away in the middle position of my ranking as long as no more deserving films came along.

And I felt bad for it, expecting to disappoint our resident DAF-lover.

After:

This time I really concentrated on following the plot, and I must admit: for the first time I discovered a certain elegance to it, making sense with the most unexpected amusement, shrugging off every „but this is not Fleming!“-criticism with tongue-in-cheek holding, completely self-confident bravado, knowing full well that this is just pure fun and therefore higher art.

Connery, of course, is the raison d‘etre of all of this, and his magnetism turns every idea, even the lesser ones into flying objects intent to hit bull‘s eye.

Jill St. John now is one of my favourite Bond girls during the first half in which she counters Bond with fearless charme, and Charles Gray is my favourite Blofeld ever.

Of course, the two henchmen are okay, too.

So look at my updated ranking.

Next up: FOR YOUR EYES ONLY

[jamesb007nd]

Yes, Charles Gray is always the one I have in mind when I read the Fleming novels.

[sharpshooter]

@Dustin

Today, AVTAK holds that thankless rank of ‘one too many’ for Moore, perhaps unfairly.

I agree. AVATAK probably is one too many for Roger but it’s actually pretty good, and follows the general template of his better Bond films like MR and OP.

[secretagentfan]

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY

Before:

When I saw this film for the first time I had become a total fan, going from TSWLM to MR to catching the previous ones during the cinema re-runs, and I was especially primed for it because that summer my family went to Korfu where parts of the film had been shot.

Of course, it looked very different in the film, but I did not care. FYEO was such a delight. A new Bond film. On the big screen (where else at that point?). We went and loved it. My poor grandmother had to ask the owner of the record shop next to her flat whether I could get the promo poster for the soundtrack (what a scandal that was then, the female legs and protruding buttox). Life was good back then, and a new Bond film at the end of summer vacation - oh, yes, something to look forward to again and again. I never thought it would be different.

That this film had no space fight anymore was not important for me, nor the down to earth action. It was a Bond film, guys! I had no complaints.

Later, when I got older, much older, I thought the film was good but overlong. However, it had terrific stunts and an engaging story, also a fantastic title song and a very listenable score.

After:
I still like this film, but a little bit less so than the last time I watched it. Why? I still feel it’s overlong (the second submarine attack could have been easily cut, the Q visit does nothing). Lisl is just introduced to die. And the Bibi sideplot… it makes Moore look even older.

However, they actually use Moore‘s age (Tracy‘s headstone does show 1969). And he behaves like the older Bond he is. So I kind of like this, and the gadget free film (save the exploding Lotus) is at least as gritty as LTK, maybe even more. But still I felt as if the sum of its parts works less than some parts of it (the climbing sequence is wonderful). Although the story is interesting its ramifications lose their urgency throughout the film, and then it’s more or less stitched together action sequences.

One last gripe: the commando base in the bowels of the fishing trawler is HUGE. How big is that ship?

[David_M]

FYEO still holds the record for the film I saw the most times in the cinema (5) but that’s less because I love it all that much and more because at this point everyone seemed to have caught on that I was a Bond fan, and thus asked if I’d like to go see it with them, which I could never seem to say “no” to.

It did run counter to what I thought was the “formula,” with no huge battle at the end, less reliance on gadgets, etc. In fact back while it was still in production, I drew a comic book of what I thought it should be like, and that was much closer to the TWSLM/MR mold. But I enjoyed the actual film.

For the first time I was living in a town big enough to have a store with the poster in stock, so it was a bit of a letdown that it the design was photographic in nature and not one of the awesome paintings I was used to (and which would return immediately after this film). I didn’t have an issue with the “legs and cheeks” pose, but at the time I was living just outside of Lynchburg, VA, then the home of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, so the local paper airbrushed a pair of shorts onto the girl’s bottom when they ran the ads.

I agree that even though the return to more earthbound action and plotting made for a neat change at the time and added some gravitas, it also in retrospect keeps this one from being quite as fun to rewatch or as cherished as some other entries. While it may well be Glen’s best job as director, there’s a certain level of restraint in play that makes it at easy to admire on a purely objective level, but all too easy to remain objective about, if you follow.

I did think it was great that Roger’s age was acknowledged and leveraged in several subtle ways, though I guess there wasn’t much future in that with two more films to go. Anyway, even a subtle nod would prove better than just ignoring the issue, which only made it more obvious.

One last gripe: the commando base in the bowels of the fishing trawler is HUGE. How big is that ship?

That scene is confusingly edited in places, with the fight moving from boat to boat and onto the docks, but I’m pretty sure the largest space is ashore in a warehouse of some kind. The walls are made of stone. Assuming we’re talking about the same scene?

[secretagentfan]

@David_M

Assuming we’re talking about the same scene?

I was referring to the beginning, with the guy going below deck into the base where the ATAC is.

@David_M

I agree that even though the return to more earthbound action and plotting made for a neat change at the time and added some gravitas, it also in retrospect keeps this one from being quite as fun to rewatch or as cherished as some other entries. While it may well be Glen’s best job as director, there’s a certain level of restraint in play that makes it at easy to admire on a purely objective level, but all too easy to remain objective about, if you follow.

Fully agreed. That’s why at least in my current memory I prefer the adventure of OP.

[sharpshooter]

I really liked FYEO when I was younger and watched it a lot, but I then grew to find it dull and lacking style. It’s a chance to be more down to Earth and Fleming inspired I guess, but for my money Roger’s best performance in that style is TMWTGG. I find Kristatos to be a weak villain too, probably the least memorable of the Moore era.

[Stbernard]

I agree that it’s Glens best job at directing, I think because he’s working with great actors, who needed little or no direction. One of the great French actors of her generation, Topol, Julien Glover and Moore. After Moonraker it had to go back to earth re watching it recently and it definitely says in the middle.

[secretagentfan]

Still thinking about FYEO, I must add that in contrast to the preceding two Gilbert Bonds (which are in the mold of more US leaning blockbusters) this first Glen Bond really looks and feels (and sounds) like a European thriller of that era. Right down to the choice of shots (the maybe a bit too on the nose experiment with the zoom towards Melina’s eyes in closeup).

It all fits. Conti´s score has not that Barry-esque lyrical heaviness but goes for the fun, hum-and-clap along full throttle mood many European action films featured at that time.

I also find it interesting, by the way, that the revenge theme really is part of the whole movie:

• Bond remembers Tracy’s death at the beginning, Blofeld (timbre like Savalas, only with a thick added accent) trying to take revenge for what happened to him at the end of OHMSS

• Bond warning Melinda to be prepared to die herself (physically or psychologically) when taking revenge

• Bond avenging Ferrara

• Columbo taking revenge for Kristatos´ attempt at having Bond target him

In the end, the film allows Melina to only kill Gonzales but remain otherwise free of the consequences, since it is Columbo who finally throws the knife at Kristatos.

Bond, however, knows that he is the one who brings death and has to endure the consequences (Ferrara´s and Lisl´s deaths) others have to suffer for him. A really good portrayal of Bond.

And it ends with the best solution: a compromise with no reprisals or punishment - both sides have to win.

[David_M]

@sharpshooter

I find Kristatos to be a weak villain too, probably the least memorable of the Moore era.

I think part of the problem is that he starts off as an ally claiming Colombo’s the villain, then they trade places at the halfway point. Historically, the Bond films where there’s confusion about who the real baddie is (FYEO, TWINE and to some extent GE) and the ones where there are multiple “big bads” (OP, TLD, TWINE again) tend to underwhelm on the “villain” front. Bond movies work best when it’s made very clear from the outset who the villain is (even if we have to wait sometimes for the full details of their perfidy). The more players you throw in, with their various side-schemes and motivations, the less of an impression any of them make.

Also agree with SAF that the revenge angle holds FYEO together in a satisfying way, and reinforces the sub-theme that the years are beginning to take their toll on Bond. Of course Melina will take his “first dig two graves” speech as “Do as I say, not as I do,” but in truth, he’s been there, done that, and he knows it’s a bad road to travel.

[secretagentfan]

OCTOPUSSY

Before:
So, 1983, I am totally a Bond fan, and the idea of getting a new Moore Bond and (in Germany only in 1984) another Connery Bond is just the luxury the 80´s offered in spades.

I remember watching “Octopussy” for the first time in my favorite big theatre in my hometown, and I enjoyed it, but… also I was a bit disappointed. What lingered in my mind was that finale at Khan’s Palace. Okay, not frogmen killing each other under water or Ninjas fighting in a Volcano or tanker and space station fights but… Amazons doing circus-trained ballet fights with easily disposable, by-chest-distracted henchmen.

Still, as I said, I enjoyed it. But as I got older and read about the unfortunate campy silliness of “Octopussy” I rarely attempted re-entry. Then, again being even older, I re-watched all Bond films in chronological order in honor of the that year to be released SPECTRE - and I was surprised how entertained I was by OP. What an amusing and great adventure (the India section) and a tight thriller (the Germany section), all rolled in one. So the film climbed up again on my ranking. But I must confess I did not re-watch it afterwards. The old “I really like it -but I don’t really like it that much”-feeling.

After:
No, I really do like it after all. More than I remembered. But like so many Bond films post MR this one also is a mixed bag. Not referring to its quality but to its tone. The PTS is: Bond has a new flying gadget. Then comes the outright scary and slightly surreal sequence with the clown fleeing from the knife-killers, finally crashing into that villa with the Fabergé egg rolling out of his hand. Then the solid London based Fleming-feeling of the auction. And then India, with all the self-aware campy jokes (although the “It´s all in your wrist” and “It´s not really all in your wrist”-backgammon scene is wonderful and, for me, typical Bond). Then it switches back to the spy action, gritty and truly tense, with Orloff´s plan (only Berkoff going over the top with a Dalek-like voice) a wonderfully frightening and these days all too believable threat (again). Afterwards we’re back to the campy India for the finale - and the thrilling pre-Cruise plane stunt capping it off in a way that becomes a nice echo of the PTS.

The question is: does OP lack the courage of its convictions, not staying firmly in the Cold War tension but cushioning it with all the comedy tropes (animals watching vehicles, people looking at their wine bottles, stereotypes being used for jokes which travel well and are therefore universally understood, inside jokes which do not travel as well but have the British audience chuckle)?

Or is that mixing of the Bond bag, as it is done in so many following adventures, not a bug but a feature?

If you judge it with the current mindset you might be convinced that EON just was too fearful and that all those jokes ruin the movie.

But if you judge it with the mindset in which it was conceived and actually viewed back then, you will have to conclude that this mix was a very clever idea and absolutely crowd-pleasing. Give the people what they want. And they wanted this in 1983. Also, most of the jokes really are very funny (“No, Madam, I am with the Economy Tour.”)

I was on the fence during this rewatch-session. At first, until the first chase sequence in India I thought: Wow, I really like this better than FYEO which had the humor toned down so much.

I do think that Moore looks younger than in the earlier film (better lighting? better make-up? feeling better?). And the threat of Orloff´s plan is a terrific narrative drive, with concrete tangible consequences, therefore stronger than the abstract ATAC quest of the predecessor.

But in the end FYEO remained a few nudges before OP for me, due to the maybe for me too jarring mix of tone.

However, I really like OP. And maybe even so much that I will rewatch it much more often than before.

One last gripe: Despite Glen choosing impressive visuals, supervising the editing perfectly in order to create a wonderful sense of place and orientation, even during the tight action sequences, there is one major flaw in Glen´s direction. Maybe it is based in Wilson´s writing because this flaw re-appears in every film they both are involved in (nobody dared to criticize the son-in-law´s scripts, of course). But the tendency to resolve conflict between Bond and the leading lady is always terribly weak. Bond just kisses the lady (in this case the a few moments ago tough Octopussy) and very soon she just sighs “Oh, James”. There is even a precursor to LTK´s Pam rushing off and stifling a tear.

Then again, maybe this is also a sign of the times these Glen films were made in.

In any event, all I wanted was a sweet distraction for an hour or two. And I got it. Very sweet.

[David_M]

I don’t know if “fear” is the right word, but I think the existence (or anyway the impending arrival) of NSNA definitely influenced the direction taken by OP. There’s the feeling that Eon wanted to throw in the kitchen sink on this one and include all the elements audiences had responded well to in previous Bonds, and some of those elements didn’t entirely fit the “back down to Earth” direction begun (and largely ended) with FYEO.

Arguably, even Roger’s casting may have been influenced by the threat of NSNA. I mean, if you know you’re going up against Sean Connery in a rival film, why make your job even harder by casting an unknown quantity as Bond, even if your current guy is getting on in years (and asking for more money)?

It’s interesting to imagine the film we might have gotten if Eon had felt freer to expand on the direction they began with FYEO. Then again, maybe they added the lighter, more OTT moments back in based on critical and audience reactions that found FYEO lacking in those elements?

Anyway I agree there’s an unevenness of tone here, although it helps to have Roger at the center of the action to more or less hold it together. In contrast, I felt like the Brosnan films rarely managed that balance, being half hand-wringing emotional drama and half cartoonishly outlandish action fests. Those films are neither fish nor foul to me and I’m never sure how to feel about them, other than disconnected.

Not sure where I’d put OP in my rankings, but for what it’s worth, between VHS, DVD, BluRay and streaming, it may be the most-watched film in the series for me. Or more precisely, the sequence starting with Bond’s confrontation with Orlov in the train car and running through the car-to-train transfer, train fight, knife fight, car chase and bomb defusal is the most-watched 20 minutes or so.

[Dustin]

Strangely, I didn’t actually realise it back then, but OCTOPUSSY was a massively political film at the time, potentially alienating a key market of the franchise when Bond films just weren’t shown behind the Iron Curtain.

In that summer of 1983 Germany had only just a new government for less than a year, a change that resulted from the NATO Double-Track Decision that’s been hugely controversial. Protests against it had been going on throughout the 80s and had mobilised hundreds of thousands of protesters against the deployment of medium range nuclear weapons in Western Europe (read: Germany amongst others).

In that climate a Bond film depicting a plot to detonate one of such warheads on German soil must have looked like the recipe for disaster. Against this background the change in tone and the emphasis on a (fantasy-)India as the main setting seems understandable, if not always fortunate. I remember back in the day some feuilleton articles mentioned this potential hot topic, but no actual protests - that I’m aware of - seem to have happened.

Watching the film today I’m amazed how bold they managed to be with their story.

OCTOPUSSY’s weakness in my view is how muddled the plot ends up to be and what kind of endgame Khan was aiming at. Maybe that ended up on the cutting room floor.

[west]

Octopussy, over the last five or ten years, has rocketed up my rankings and gone from one of my least watched to one of my ‘go-to’ Bond films.

I’m not too sure what my issue with it was before, but since I rediscovered it, I find the plot, set pieces, casting, and humour all fantastic. As SAF mentioned, it very much is “give the people what they want,” but perhaps they perfected the recipe here, and I find it a great “comfort Bond” film.

The Q scenes are great, the auction is fantastic and the Backgammon scene, “double sixes, fancy that”, is one of my favourite Bond moments, up there with any cool, suave moment in the franchise.

The Tarzan yell I wouldn’t miss, but it’s not such a detriment to the overall film that I think its reputation is overblown. In fact, I find the slide whistle on TMWTGG much more problematic in being a detractor to the scene and stunt.

I also think the clown disguise is a great idea and is unfairly criticised. They’re at a circus. Of course a clown disguise is logical, I would have been disappointed if they missed the opportunity to do it!
Unfortunately, the clown criticism/controversy often detracts from one of my favourite Moore performances - Bond in clown makeup panicking and desperately trying to find and defuse the warhead. Fantastic juxtaposition between the disguise and the desperation.

[secretagentfan]

LIVE AND LET DIE

Before:
I believe this was the first MooreBond I saw after I was introduced by TSWLM and MR, and I remember that I liked it a lot but that its snake and Voodoo scenes also scared me. I had not expected a Bond film to skirt horror that way. But I was so happy when I found the soundtrack album in a record score (with that double sleeve and the big photos inside) and I absolutely loved the score already back then and still consider it one of the best Bond scores not by Barry and one of the best Bond scores period.

The movie, during my last rewatch sessions, I still liked a lot but thought it at times slow (the boat chase) and altogether placed it in the middle of my rankings. I expected this not to change. It did, though, because…

After:
… this time I was so thoroughly entertained I was shocked how fast it went by. I always loved Bond films which place him in unfamiliar surroundings, and LALD not only plays the fish out of water angle but heightens it by introducing the supernatural element. The conflict of this film is between Bond and a cult (which is used for criminal purposes, as every cult is), and it is so much fun to see Bond exposing it any which way he can - and consequently destroying it.

In my memory I thought that LALD wants to have it both ways: acknowledge the supernatural while making fun of it. Having rewatched it, I do think that this is not true. Samedi sitting on the train and laughing in the camera AND taking off his hat to bow to the audience does not mean the filmmakers wanted to say: oh, and he really is a supernatural being, so it is all true, after all. No, it is just showmanship, winking at the audience like, well, a big fish. The theatre closing its curtains. We had lots of fun, we hope you had, too.

Also, referring to the other thread´s questions about Solitaire: I found it quite clear that in the post-sex-scene Solitaire is not bothered by Bond seducing her but by the cards showing her that this would happen - and in her superstition the cards are always right. However, as Bond admits now, the cards were stacked in his favor. Even that is not something Solitaire is ready to accept. She was raised with the superstition, so much that she believes she has lost her powers - even when it is clear that she never had them. It´s the old astrologist’s playbook: be unspecific so every coincidence or obvious consequence of real circumstances can be sold as predictions.

And Mr. Big/Kananga is superstitious himself and uses it to keep his people in line. But even more so he is so full of himself that he thinks that he can take the powers away from Solitaire by having sex with her - after having accomplished that before with her mother, which also has no cause and effect-possibility because Solitaire also mentions her grandmother having powers. So, despite her granny and her mother having children before they still retained their powers… until at some point they really had, um, more sex and that ended it?

Rubbish. It´s just Mr. Big having an inflated opinion of himself.

Which leads us to the many one-liners Mankiewicz wrote for Moore. They are perfectly delivered. Moore really is Bond from the moment he appears here, and this is such a staggeringly huge feat it can’t be applauded enough. After Connery´s turn in DAF this guy who looks and acts very differently (but still pretty mean and tough, by the way, through his whole tenure - something which gets overlooked or clouded by memories and unfair crictics) succeeds. Because he is that good.

I also said it before and (as I am prone to) say it again: I think LALD is the most courageous and effective Bond reboot of the whole series, taking huge chances by dropping so many established tropes and daring to pick a subject matter which still proves controversial. None of the following reboots did that.

And every department delivers top notch work. The action sequences are inventive, fun and done for real, and that shows and pays dividends.

One last gripe: I actually don’t have one.

I was so impressed by LALD this time - my ranking will never be the same.

[secretagentfan]

One more thing I had forgotten about LALD: Bond makes a comment about Quarrel and him being absolutely close, and it is Quarrel who puts the explosives on the poppy fields, not Bond.

And to drive the anti-racist accusations home, it is an Afro-American CIA agent who rescues Bond from the murder attempt after the first encounter with Mr.Big, with Mankiewicz even giving him the crowdpleasing line about his plan going into Harlem as a white man asking dangerous questions: „Good thinking, Bond…“

[secretagentfan]

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

Before:
The first time I saw this I remember feeling let down. Everything looked cheaper, Nick Nack was not threatening, the finale was no major setpiece. And then I read about it being the least of the films, a low point, even considered that by the people who made the film.

Later on my opinion on it changed, though. It was not the best but still a nice entertaining adventure. And Christopher Lee as the Anti-Bond was a great villain. So the film climbed up my ranking again. I even thought this one is underrated.

After:
I did enjoy this one. But after LALD which I really, really loved after rewatching I remain less impressed. All the accusations against the film seem justified. Many locations look cheap and uninviting. Goodnight is supposed to be a comic relief but makes MooreBond look even meaner than he already behaves here.

Granted, Bond is under pressure because Scaramanga is supposed to take aim at him, and nobody knows how Scaramanga looks, so every lead has to be followed, even with brutality. And Moore, I must say again, plays this kind of Bond perfectly, too. Yet, he is more appealing as the nicer, funnier Bond, and I am glad the next film allowed him to be that.

Maybe it was a mistake to wait with the confrontation between Bond and Scaramanga for so long. The film lacks that in the first half, although it does have a propulsive movement at times - but then it slows down again, mainly in the Goodnight scenes. It would have been more interesting to have an accomplished Chinese agent also hunting for the Solex Agitator. Well, the next film(s) tried that.

I was surprised that Clinton James was already named in the main titles, instead of having him just do a cameo. EON apparently built this film on the basis of its predecessor´s success, but the repeat of Pepper and the boat chase (so much shorter than I remembered) are only mildly amusing.

Interestingly, the idea of a wax figure coming to life - the twist in the finale - is already foreshadowed in Hai Fat´s Grizzlyland garden with the sumo ringers. And I had forgotten as well that the Kung Fu nieces are properly introduced before they re-appear in the after-school-fight.

I do find it amusing that the gangster in the PTS apologizes to Al Capone after shooting at his wax figure - they really want to imply that he is one of that generation?

I also noticed this time around how effective Barry´s score is, especially in the fun house sequences which otherwise would have fallen a bit flat with their old fashioned “scares”.

Oh, and one last thing: Moore´s Bond has really the dressing speed of Superman. How could he hide the wax figure of himself and change clothes with that so fast?

And did Scaramanga really put a loaded Walther PPK into the hands of the wax figure - or was Bond able to find his own again before he dressed so miraculously fast?

In conclusion: I like this MooreBond - but it is definitely the least of his tenure, for my taste.

[stromberg]

@secretagentfan

And did Scaramanga really put a loaded Walther PPK into the hands of the wax figure - or was Bond able to find his own again before he dressed so miraculously fast?

He did. He’s a perfectionist.

One more thing that always irks me: is this the proper way to handle a knife?