Thank you so much. Very insightful. Helps me better understand my responses to Brosnan Bonds.
1 Like
Now that makes me curious how and why you coined that interesting term.
1 Like
I looked up the phrase and it brought up what amounted to binge eating.
1 Like
I coined it because I perceive Glen in this work as having to compensate for Sir Rogerâs age and its attendant limitations in creating his mise en scene and editing, as well as his general use of filmic formal elements. Similar to Douglas Sirk having to compensate in IMITATION OF LIFE for Lana Turnerâs modest thespian skills, or Orson Welles in OTHELLO compensating for making the movie across years, continents, and the varied availability of performers.
2 Likes
Perfect. And he succeeded (Glen), I think.
2 Likes
Latter Moore does benefit from his directors background in second unit and editing.
4 Likes
Hereâs one of mine:
I think the LALD boat chase is BORING.
Sure, it has some entertaining moments with the various jumps. But on the whole, it goes on for way too long and is dreadfully paced. Cutting between it and JW Pepperâs antics takes out all the momentum. On top of that, it lacks tension because none of these pursuing boats ever get close to Bondâs! Have them shoot at him, for Godâs sake, have them knock their boats into his, have one of the goons jump into his boat so he has to fight him off! It only becomes interesting by the very end when Bond has to find a way to sneak up on and take out Adam, and thatâs far too late.
I genuinely do not understand how this is considered one of the greatest action sequences of the franchise.
8 Likes
Same here, never quite understood the allure of that sequence.
On a related note: Itâs been actually a godsend Lazenby quit with his film. Having him in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER and/or LIVE AND LET DIE would likely have crashed the series for good. Both needed a seasoned actor to lure audiences back and Lazenbyâs diva persona wouldnât have helped on set or between productions. Thereâs a good reason Eon steered clear of Oliver Reed - Lazenby would very likely not have been easier to work with.
2 Likes
Agreed about the boat chase and the pacing. The fact lengthy sections are left unscored doesnât help and the attempts at humour donât land the same for me. I still enjoy parts of LALD but it feels dated to me now, even more than the early 60s films.
People say he wouldâve been better as the films progressed (likely) but we still donât know. Itâs an imagined future that doesnât exist. The fact he did one movie and the surrounding elements were so good protected him. With the way OHMSS concluded thereâs a sense his story was interrupted, and interruptions last forever. The tragedy of Tracy and how Lazenby is frozen in time helps intensify the attachment, in my own experience.
6 Likes
Like many I used to lament Lazenbyâs departure because I imagined DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER as a much more serious and thrilling affair than Connery could provide us with. A true revenge for Tracy that wasnât just a pts afterthought and somehow restores the botched chronology.
Itâs certainly true that Eon was prepared to go a long way with Lazenby - supposedly offering him a contract that would seen him as 007 well into the 80s - and he may well have improved his acting and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER could have become a different film.
But if we look at Eonâs (then) past record, does it really suggest theyâd have responded to the critics panning the film for lack of gadgets and spectacle with a revenge Bond film in Flemingâs more serious tradition? OHMSSâs big drawback was Conneryâs absence - but right after that people complained about its unhappy ending and the fact Bond married Tracy. Thereâs a good chance the next filmâs script would have addressed these shortcomings with or without Lazenby as Bond. And in much the same manner DAF and LALD would eventually do, by - almost - claiming OHMSS never happened.
That would have left Lazenby in a role only very few people back then actually wanted to see him in - and a series that turned towards lighter comedy to placate the zeitgeist. I have trouble seeing Lazenby pulling that off.
6 Likes
Yes, I see what you mean - Lazenby only would have worked if they went with a darker, moodier sort of film after OHMSS, and youâre right that EoN probably would have taken the criticism about OHMSS to heart, as of course, they in fact did. In that sense, the fact that Lazenby didnât WANT to continue helped them with their pivot.
Iâm glad to know Iâm not alone in my stance on the LALD boat chase, by the way. 
I guess itâs not a shocking Bond confession after all.
5 Likes
At the time⊠(Grandpa Simpson voice on/âŠ)
It used to be actually seen as a big deal in the early/mid-70s, a huge segment of the film devoted to numerous speedboat stunts. And it was certainly influential for the SMOKEY AND THE BANDID/CANNONBALL RUN/BLUES BROTHERS type of action that largely consisted of several participants chasing each other in cars/boats/airplanes or whatever like a pack of dogs playing.
But itâs certainly true that even the shorter FRWL chase a decade earlier had more âactionâ in the way of shooting and explosions. I suppose as so often it was a question of making the most out of the budget while not killing the stunt team. 
3 Likes
Exactly. The last time I watched AVTAK, I thought âWell, Glen is getting a chance to show off his editing chops.â Maybe why I prefer it among his films.
2 Likes
Was perfect for a late 1960âs movie. I do not know how well it would have done in the 1970âs.
Agreed. Making a movie in the zeitgeist of the 1970âs would have been a different project than in the previous decade.
Heaven forfend.
3 Likes
I think OHMSS and DAF arenât worlds apart in terms of tonality. Thereâs a direct line from the tinsel on the formerâs Christmas tree to the latterâs superficial dĂ©cor replicating the tinsel facades of Vegas, that giant plastic mammoth bauble. OHMSSâ story is only marginally less riddled with holes and the general atmosphere - even inside the action thriller that OHMSS also is - is one of mild amusement and acceptance of the genreâs ridiculousness.
OHMSS has an inner logic that isnât far above DAFâs. The main difference is, in OHMSS things happen for reasons of the overarching story, while in DAF they happen for Conneryâs overarching presence. Cut the last five minutes of Lazenbyâs film and you could almost seamlessly slip from that into Conneryâs.
5 Likes
I usually canât read two Bond books back to back. While Bond isnât the only book series that this happens with, I would say this is somewhat shocking for a Bond fan. Itâs arguably my short attention span, but also some of my dadâs best advice in terms of media. He told me donât focus on just one series/franchise, as it will eventually bore you. Youâll then miss out on possibly the material that you once loved, because you overdosed on using all your free time on one subject. Since becoming a full time Bond fan in my late elementary years, Iâve thankfully been able to space my Bond adventures (in all media) out.
Back to the books, I think that one of the reasons that I always try to space my Bond books out in particular is simple. When I started collecting and reading Bond books, they werenât really available (in person) at book stores in my part of the country. Plus, I was a poor college student. So, when I got them (the last version of the unaltered book text), it took some time to begin to read them. And when I finally read them, they were thankfully self contained. I found that reading with gaps (filled with other books to read), that I enjoyed them more spaced out compared to back to back.
6 Likes
Itâs interesting, I usually love reading two (max three) Bond novels back to back, as I find it helps once Iâve built momentum. However, right now Iâm in the middle of Sherwoodâs second novel (A Spy Like Me), and while I am generally enjoying it overall (more on that once Iâve finished it), I do feel a bit constricted having resolved to read the whole trilogy back to back. Plot wise it makes sense, but it also means Iâm going many weeks without reading anything else. I guess I enjoy reading consecutive Bond novels when it feels spontaneous rather than planned from the outset.
7 Likes
True, itâs always tempting for me to read Bond books back to back. I do plan on reading the Kim Sherwood books back to back to back. Even holding back on reading the series until the trilogy was finished. So, while I always try to savor the flavor of a new Bond (or another series) book story. Some exceptions can be made. I read all of the Raymond Benson original books back to back. Simply because they were in the two trilogy packs. Side note: Iâm surprised that Bensonâs novelizations didnât receive a trilogy pack (with a fancy title like The Union Trilogy and Choice of Weapons got). A 2012 release would have been great (considering it was TNDâs 15th anniversary and DADâs 10th anniversary). But I liked the stories so much that I decided to read them back to back. So, itâs not a every time type of deal reading different stories in different series.
As for the shocking film confession. I honestly think that Guy Hamilton shouldnât have directed TMWTGG and Richard Maibaum shouldnât have written it. The Tom Mankiewicz screenplay of simply Bond vs Scaramanga would have been probably better. To think Tom Mankiewicz had a more human screenplay than Maibaum did in the end! Guy Hamilton was very poor at making humans showing emotion in his Bond movies, probably worse than any other Bond director. The difference in character emotion is night and day between Hamilton and Hunt (and even some of the one off directors), honestly. In the seventies, it seemed like Guy Hamilton just wanted to go for laughs, whenever he could. Similar to a Marvel movie, in some ways.
3 Likes