I agree, but then the IQ of the whole movie dips at that point
Tiffany’s IQ, allegiance, and resolve (she cowers identically during both the elevator fight and the final confrontation) seem to ping pong throughout the entire movie, as if the film cannot decide what kind of Bond girl it wants to present–part of its allure–a Bond movie which actively refuses to be consistent, but which manages to cohere.
Can we please not hate on DAF LOL.
The movie doesn’t dip–it merely refuses to end the way its predecessors did, carrying its queerness and indeterminacy to their logical conclusion: the Bond girl (who wore pants for the first time) makes the final move on Bond, and in the penultimate image is depicted as standing beside him rather than laying beneath him; the threatening weapon remains active; the villain may or may not have been killed (Bond did not stick around to make sure); the final confrontation is with henchmen rather than the villain; and Bond himself seems more amused than lecherous/triumphant. All the usual climaxes have been done away with–it is like a porn movie without the payoff orgasm.
I love DAF, I think it also has the best (arguably) Felix Letter. Certainly some of the cheekiest dialogue and Connery kissing himself is genius.
I do think it dips though because they felt they must have a big finale. It would have better suited a kind of Errol Flynn / Basil Rathbone sword fight , I don’t know something theatrical
I’ve said this a few times, but there hasn’t really a fantastic film that is like Dr No->TLD since TLD. Goldeneye was pretty good and CR is great, but not quite the same. Either way, there’s been two decent Bond films since 1987 IMHO, with the rest being fairly average or worse. 2 good films in 30 years; 2 good films out of 8.
OMG! You are my brother from another mother. I have never met anyone who agreed with me that Norman Burton was Felix #1.
But it is such a lame big finale that blends perfectly with the many other parts of the film that are standard Bond film elements played in a new key.
I shall take that!
Jeffrey Wright is brilliant also , imo , its him , Burton and Bernie Casey.
Jack Lord - dull very stiff performance I’ve always felt.
Cec Linder - really really dull, no pretence of a relationship with Bond , certainly no chemistry between he and Connery.
Rick Van Nutter - like a drunken Clint Eastwood impersonator that turned up at a corporate conference and the organisers went " meh we have lots of water features and other things happening , no one will notice him in the corner "
David Heddison- the friendship comes across with Moore , which I believe they were in real life, this carries him through LTK, but I think his line delivery and physicality is very stiff.
John Terry - I can’t say anything , actually I would argue that his Felix is more embarrassing than DADs surfing .
Yes, he always avoids the topic of lyrics in interviews. Pipes of Peace was such a poor album.
I recently read a book based mostly on interviews Paul did with a guy who wrote liner notes for his albums and the text for his tour programs. At one point Paul says music is like art: two people can experience the same work and get two entirely different things from it. Sometimes, he said, fans will recite his lyrics to him and say they loved how he was talking about this or that issue or concept through metaphors and he thinks, “Wow, that’s not what I meant at all, but if that’s their interpretation, that’s cool. Now it’s their song, too.”
Which is fine. But later in the same book he admits that sometimes he just throws in lyrics as “placeholders” to make a rhyme, or because they pop randomly into his head. At first he thinks, “well, that doesn’t make any sense,” but then he decides that yes, if it popped into his head, then it must mean something. It must have been sent to him somehow. And somewhere, some listener will figure it out and embrace it.
So basically, he’s using the “art is subjective” crutch to justify lazy writing.
It wouldn’t bother me except when you hear something like “Eleanor Rigby,” you know what great poetry he’s capable of.
I am in strong agreement with Arbogast777 on this issue. Bond and Madeline on an endless road trip in the Aston Martin (echoing Bond and Tiffany on their never-ending world cruise) has a tremendous sense of rightness for me. I think there is a way to bring Craig Bond back without negating all that has gone before, but the path seems narrow at best.
There’s an idea for a plot, then: road trip. Bond and Madeline drive across Europe for the whole two hours having adventures on the road. You could go in lots of directions: a series of OTT, humor-laden attacks from SPECTRE cars, blimps, planes and so on, like “The Great Race” or “Cannonball Run,” or they could be stalked relentlessly by a bigger, more powerful vehicle in a suspenseful thriller like Speilberg’s “The Duel.” Or they could be stranded at a hotel populated by evildoers with a grudge against Bond. Or they could arrive at WallyWorld only to find it closed, leading Bond to force a park worker to take them on the rides at gunpoint.
We’ve never gone that route with a Bond, before: essentially a “two-hander” buddy film with a limited, personal scope. If nothing else, it’d remove all the clutter of M, Q, Moneypenny and the rest of “Team Bond” so the nominal star could have more screen time.
I’m only halfway kidding. It’d probably take something this radical to make me give a damn.
I’m the opposite. Whilst I would’ve accepted a new Bond (“What might’ve been, is a waste of time”) Craig as Bond feels like unfinished business to me.
Very interesting. What book was that?Sounds like a good read.
I think his most personal lyric is ‘Riding to Vanity Fair’, which seems to be about either John or Heather.
Same. He feels like a Bond that deserves five films, and to be thought of in the same way as Connery and Moore. Five films is a solid era and goes a long way in helping his case.
I concur. All personal preferences aside, objectively, Craig’s worst is at least equal to Brosnan’s best.
Objectively, that is subjective.
Subjectively then, I choose it to be objective
As the knight in “The Last Crusade” says: choose wisely.
I actually enjoy GE and TND more, but think Casino Royale and Skyfall are the ‘better’ films.
Well… TND v QOS
Poor script v unfinished script with potential
Formulaic by the numbers plot v an attempt to really tell a different Bond story.
Wild variances in tone v a consistent thematic journey
Weird neck /shoulder biting v realistic depictions of human relationships.
Subjectively, I feel I’m being objective