John Long - TB, take 2
David Mosley
John, I bought the widescreen version of TB this week and finished
watching it
about an hour ago. As I said previously, I would let you know what I
thought
of it this time.
Well, it's definitely better in widescreen than in the cropped TV
version I saw
last weekend, though I wouldn't say it's become my favourite Bond. The
under
water scenes look better choreographed in WS, and somehow don't seem
quite as slowly paced as last time, but I don't whether that's a
difference in the
film or in me.
I can also (having watched it a second time) appreciate more, why Bond
walks
straight up to Largo and tells him who he is. My guess is that the
situation (ie
the stolen bombs) is so dire, and the time scale Bond is working to is
so tight
that he hasn't got time to pussyfoot around, and figures that by coming
out into
the open like he does, he can lure SpECTRE into giving itself away.
After all,
if he was wrong about Nassau nothing would happen to him.
I still find the little bits of speeded up like (like Bond throwing the
chair at Bouvoir
in the pre-credits sequence) a little irksome. Imo, speeded up film
never looks
genuine, and makes the film look a bit dated (that, and the
back-projection).
But I guess this was cool for the '60s, and anyway, these are technical
problems
I have with the film, not narrative ones.
As people have noted recently, I guess TB would look a lot different on
a proper
cinema screen, rather than a tv set, but you have to get by with what
you can, eh?
Connery's performance seemed better this time around as well. I don't
know why
that should be, but I suspect the widescreen gives greater context to
some of his
reaction shots (like in the underwater battle finale). Btw, was he
wearing a toupee
of some sort by this stage? His hair seems different from the first
three films, and
Connery himself seemed stockier. Also this time round, Leiter blended in
better in
the film. I was kinda more ready to accept Rik van Nutter (crazy guy,
crazy name)
in the role, even though I'll always like Jack Lord's portrayal of
Leiter.
The girls were good this time also, especially Fiona Volpe. Her put down
to Bond
after their night of passion worked well second time around: "Mr Bond,
James
Bond, who only has to make love to a woman once for her to start hearing
heavenly choirs..." or some such quip.
Also, I really liked the music that the band played in the Kiss Kiss
Club, when
Bond and Volpe are dancing. Was that a Barry compostition?
I don't know. The more I sit here thinking about TB the more I'm
prepared to
like it. It's little things, like that piece of music, which strengthen
my enjoyment
of TB this time.
Best regards,
DEMos
John Long
David Mosley wrote:
>
> John, I bought the widescreen version of TB this week and finished
> watching it about an hour ago. As I said previously, I would let you
> know what I thought of it this time.
Ah yes, how could I forget?
> Well, it's definitely better in widescreen than in the cropped TV
> version I saw last weekend, though I wouldn't say it's become my
> favourite Bond. The under water scenes look better choreographed in
> WS, and somehow don't seem quite as slowly paced as last time, but I
> don't whether that's a difference in the film or in me.
You'd be surprised how the advantage of WS effects one's perceptions of
a film. If you have to attribute your new found ideas to something
other than yourself, my bet is that it's the letterboxing.
> I can also (having watched it a second time) appreciate more, why Bond
> walks straight up to Largo and tells him who he is. My guess is that
> the situation (ie the stolen bombs) is so dire, and the time scale
> Bond is working to is so tight that he hasn't got time to pussyfoot
> around, and figures that by coming out into the open like he does, he
> can lure SpECTRE into giving itself away. After all, if he was wrong
> about Nassau nothing would happen to him.
This seems logical to me, of course the tension builds when we know that
Largo knows what's going on - this situation having put Bond in more
danger than before.
> I still find the little bits of speeded up like (like Bond throwing
> the chair at Bouvoir in the pre-credits sequence) a little irksome.
> Imo, speeded up film never looks genuine, and makes the film look a
> bit dated (that, and the back-projection). But I guess this was cool
> for the '60s, and anyway, these are technical problems I have with the
> film, not narrative ones.
And it's difficult to get away from this style which was popular with
filmmakers of the 60's. You'll find lots of it in OHMSS which is very
highly regarded by fans around here. I personally don't have much of a
problem with it.
> As people have noted recently, I guess TB would look a lot different
> on a proper cinema screen, rather than a tv set, but you have to get
> by with what you can, eh?
Absolutely, I'm sure that watching this movie in a theater would be a
great experience. Sadly, most of us don't have that option.
> Connery's performance seemed better this time around as well. I don't
> know why that should be, but I suspect the widescreen gives greater
> context to some of his reaction shots (like in the underwater battle
> finale). Btw, was he wearing a toupee of some sort by this stage? His
> hair seems different from the first three films, and Connery himself
> seemed stockier. Also this time round, Leiter blended in better in
> the film. I was kinda more ready to accept Rik van Nutter (crazy guy,
> crazy name) in the role, even though I'll always like Jack Lord's
> portrayal of Leiter.
I always thought that Connery gave a strong performance in this film. I
don't know the answer to the toupee question. As for the guy playing
Leiter, he works well and the strange thing is - he actually reminds me
of Jack Lord so this might explain my fondness for the TB Leiter.
> The girls were good this time also, especially Fiona Volpe. Her put
> down to Bond after their night of passion worked well second time
> around: "Mr Bond, James Bond, who only has to make love to a woman
> once for her to start hearing heavenly choirs..." or some such quip.
And Bond's putdowns were equally entertaining and much more insulting,
"My dear girl, what I did tonight I did for queen and country - you
don't think it gave me any pleasure do you?" Also, this girl plays her
role to perfection. I love the character and the portrayal - I think
I've said that before on this forum.
> Also, I really liked the music that the band played in the Kiss Kiss
> Club, when Bond and Volpe are dancing. Was that a Barry compostition?
I'm not sure about that piece. Barry's score was incredible for this
film, though. Definitely one of the strongest elements of the
production.
> I don't know. The more I sit here thinking about TB the more I'm
> prepared to like it. It's little things, like that piece of music,
> which strengthen my enjoyment of TB this time.
I know what you mean. WS is extremely advantagious when studying film.
If a movie is filmed in scope, such as TB, it becomes even more
important. Congrats on your review, most enjoyable.
--
JOHN LONG jl...@epix.net
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
Moderation Results Negative
Dangermouse
David Mosley <david....@virgin.net> wrote
> Connery's performance seemed better this time around as well. I don't
> know why
> that should be, but I suspect the widescreen gives greater context to
> some of his
> reaction shots (like in the underwater battle finale). Btw, was he
> wearing a toupee
> of some sort by this stage?
Yes.
John Wielgosz
John Long wrote:
>
> David Mosley wrote:
> >
> > John, I bought the widescreen version of TB this week and finished
> > watching it about an hour ago. As I said previously, I would let you
> > know what I thought of it this time.
>
> Ah yes, how could I forget?
>
> > Well, it's definitely better in widescreen than in the cropped TV
> > version I saw last weekend, though I wouldn't say it's become my
> > favourite Bond. The under water scenes look better choreographed in
> > WS, and somehow don't seem quite as slowly paced as last time, but I
> > don't whether that's a difference in the film or in me.
>
> You'd be surprised how the advantage of WS effects one's perceptions of
> a film. If you have to attribute your new found ideas to something
> other than yourself, my bet is that it's the letterboxing.
[snipped for length]
Just to add something to the thread, I just acquired the remastered,
Dolby Digital version of "Thunderball" on laserdisc. Yeah, you heard
me, digital sound. The soundtrack was apparently taken from 70mm prints
with 6-track magnetic sound. It's not exactly in competition with
modern-day soundtracks, but is a definite improvement over mono, with
everything having a greater "presence" to it. I sat down and re-watched
it (the fourth time I saw it), and I liked it better than before.
Disc highlight: Underwater finale, just as John Barry's "007" theme
starts up, cripes, what a freakin' brilliant piece of music.
Rhino
David Mosley <david....@virgin.net> suggested the following as a
possible answer to the ultimate question of Life, the Universe and
Everything:
>:|I still find the little bits of speeded up like (like Bond throwing the
>:|chair at Bouvoir in the pre-credits sequence) a little irksome. Imo,
>:|speeded up film never looks genuine, and makes the film look a bit
>:|dated (that, and the back-projection).
And possibly the worst example of this is possibly the worst scene in
possibly the worst Bond film - when Bond falls out of the back of the
ambulance and rolls down the hill in Moonraker - yeuch!!!
ANY film that uses that speeding up process ALWAYS reminds me of
Johhny Weismuller - without exception (for those not in on the joke,
he played Tarzan in numerous 1930s films and whenever he fought a lion
or crocodile etc the film would be rediculously fast)
**** /\/\/\/\+-+- Rhino -+-+/\/\/\/\ ****
**** http://village.vossnet.co.uk/r/rhino ****
**** James Bond, Carry On Films, Prisoner ****
**** Hammer Horror, Trivia, Black Adder ****
**** John Wyndham, James Herbert, etc etc ****
If I don't like The Simpsons, does that make me
a homerphobic?
James McMahon
David Mosley wrote:
>
> John, I bought the widescreen version of TB this week and finished
> watching it about an hour ago.
> Btw, was he wearing a toupee of some sort by this stage? His hair
> seems different from the first three films,
He'd worn a small hairpiece since FRWL.
> Connery himself seemed stockier.
Connery was prone to weight gain. Terrence Young says that as early as
FRWL (on the commentary track of the FRWL laser disc) that when Connery
appeared in a towel Young was telling him to suck in his stomach. So
the problem was already showing that early.
> Also, I really liked the music that the band played in the Kiss Kiss
> Club, when Bond and Volpe are dancing. Was that a Barry compostition?
Yes it was. It's called "Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang". In fact it was
supposed to be a major Bond theme. There are lyrics to the song and two
different recordings of the vocal version can be heard on the two-disc
version of the 30th Annaversary James Bond CD. One version is sung by
Shirley Bassey and the other by Dionne Warwick.
Here are some of the lyrics:
He's tall and he's dark,
and like the shark he looks for trouble,
that's why the zero's double,
Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
He's suave and he's smooth,
and he can sooth you like vanilla,
the gentleman's a killer,
Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Demoiselle's and danger have filled the stanger's past,
Like a knife, he cuts through life,
like every day's the last!
James
John Long
John Wielgosz wrote:
>
> Just to add something to the thread, I just acquired the remastered,
> Dolby Digital version of "Thunderball" on laserdisc. Yeah, you heard
> me, digital sound. The soundtrack was apparently taken from 70mm prints
> with 6-track magnetic sound. It's not exactly in competition with
> modern-day soundtracks, but is a definite improvement over mono, with
> everything having a greater "presence" to it. I sat down and re-watched
> it (the fourth time I saw it), and I liked it better than before.
I'm coming to your house to see this.
> Disc highlight: Underwater finale, just as John Barry's "007" theme
> starts up, cripes, what a freakin' brilliant piece of music.
Anything done by Barry is brilliant.
John Long
Rhino wrote:
>
> David Mosley wrote:
> >:|I still find the little bits of speeded up like (like Bond throwing the
> >:|chair at Bouvoir in the pre-credits sequence) a little irksome.
>
> possibly the worst Bond film - when Bond falls out of the back of the
> ambulance and rolls down the hill in Moonraker - yeuch!!!
No, the worst example: probably all those fight scenes in OHMSS ;)
Paul Baack
David Mosley wrote in message <356B49C5...@virgin.net>...
>I literally sat there chewing my fingers off when Bond/Lazenby was
>attempting to
>escape from the cable car machine room. Never before in any Bond movie
>previously have I felt that there was a situation that Bond wouldn't get
>out of,
>except this one. The possibility of Bond's hands being crushed in the
>wheels was
>simply enormous.
That's what makes OHMSS such a great Bond film. Here's James Bond, in
*real* danger, using his brains (and pocket linings) instead of a "Q Gadget"
to extricate himself. That scene would make anybody's "Bond Highlight"
reel. How refreshing to see 007 being played as a smart guy.
>The ski chase (which segues into the car chases) was
>equally nerve-wracking, (more so than anything in TSWLM or FYEO), and the
>photography of those scenes was spectacular! Okay, so Lazenby wasn't
Connery, but he
>made me believe that he *was* Bond for the duration of the film. Diana Rigg
was
>also excellent. She actually made me believe that here was a woman who was
>Bond's equal and whom he *would* ask to marry him.
I've always taken Lazenby's portrayal, *technically* inept as it was, to be
a pretty good portrait of James Bond as a much younger man. He's much more
brash that Connery's Bond (he quits the Secret Service in a huff; he visits
M at home to pursue a case he's been relieved of; he falls in love and gets
married; he rescues suicides, and later pays off their gambling debts; he
apparently enjoys Playboy Magazine; etc.) This is James Bond in his
twenties. He's romantic and a bit naive.
Paul
_____________________________
Paul Baack
ba...@hmss.com
Her Majesty's Secret Servant
http://www.hmss.com
David Mosley
John Long wrote:
> Rhino wrote:
> >
> > David Mosley wrote:
> > >:|I still find the little bits of speeded up like (like Bond throwing the
> > >:|chair at Bouvoir in the pre-credits sequence) a little irksome.
> >
> > And possibly the worst example of this is possibly the worst scene in
> > possibly the worst Bond film - when Bond falls out of the back of the
> > ambulance and rolls down the hill in Moonraker - yeuch!!!
>
> No, the worst example: probably all those fight scenes in OHMSS ;)
>
I watched OHMSS again for the first time in years having just bought the
widescreen version and considering my comments re. TB and speeded up
film, I
didn't find the moments in you mentioned in OHMSS particularly jarring.
Yes,
they were there, but they seemed to be shorter and less obtrusive.
After watching OHMSS, I can't understand how it could have flopped upon
release!
It was absolutely bloody brilliant; it was well-paced, had good
characterization, a plot, action and, most importantly, imo, tension. I
literally sat there chewing my fingers off when Bond/Lazenby was
attempting to
escape from the cable car machine room. Never before in any Bond movie
previously have I felt that there was a situation that Bond wouldn't get
out of,
except this one. The possibility of Bond's hands being crushed in the
wheels was
simply enormous. The ski chase (which segues into the car chases) was
equally
nerve-wracking, (more so than anything in TSWLM or FYEO), and the
photography of
those scenes was spectacular! Okay, so Lazenby wasn't Connery, but he
made me
believe that he *was* Bond for the duration of the film. Diana Rigg was
also
excellent. She actually made me believe that here was a woman who was
Bond's
equal and whom he *would* ask to marry him. Her handling of the car
chase was
what clinched it for me. Normally you would expect Bond to do the
driving, but
here Rigg takes charge (without belittling Bond's masculinity) and copes
with
the situation as well as he would have.
After that, I watched TLD, (I had a huge spendup last week and bought a
load of
widescreen Bond films, hence the reason why I'm suddenly watching so
many).
Here, imo again, was another film which didn't put a foot wrong. I know
many
people don't regard John Glen as a particularly good/great director (I'm
usually
one of them), but with TLD I think that Glen really redeemed himself
here after
the debacle of AVTAK. I don't think there's a single scene which jars or
seems
out of place or forced. Again, I found the film well plotted, with good
characterization, and Dalton was outstanding as Bond, being both
charming with
Kara at the Ferris wheel, and tough as nails when he went to kill
Pushkin. The
globe-trotting aspects of the film (they certainly visited a lot of
countries)
all had purpose to them, including the trip to Afghanistan, which
previously I'd
found a bit odd watching TLD on TV. It has definitely entered my top
five
favourite Bond movies, along with OHMSS, FWRL, GF and TSWLM, and Dalton
now ties
with Lazenby as my second favourite Bond (after Sean).
The other aspect of both films that I greatly enjoyed was that, even
though I'd
seen them both previously some years ago, I didn't recall an awful lot
of them
beforehand and so they both appeared fresh to my jaded palette.
Best regards,
DEMos
John Long
David Mosley wrote:
(snip for length)
I'm glad you're getting the chance to watch all of these titles on
letterbox. TLD is a brilliant film. OHMSS is decent but much more
technically flawed then some are willing to admit. Aside from the
speeded frames, which you called to our attention, there's the overuse
of rear projection during the ski chase and the bob sled sequence. Hunt
covers this up with quick cuts however and the final result is at least
passable, if somewhat dated. You're correct about the plotting - quite
good. I don't think very highly of Lazenby, but it does strike me as
ironic at times that he happened to be in such a fine film. The score
is also brilliant. OHMSS has quite a lot going for it. I don't think
it approaches my top five but it's good. TLD, on the other hand, ranks
number two with me. It's just about perfect.
Shaukkor
John Long wrote in message <356B95...@epix.net>...
> OHMSS has quite a lot going for it. I don't think
>it approaches my top five but it's good. TLD, on the other hand, ranks
>number two with me. It's just about perfect.
I agree %100. TLD is also my second fave, fight behind FRWL. I like OHMSS,
but I find that I like it more for the sake of novelty than for its actual
cinematic merits -- much for the same reasons that I like NSNA. The pacing
in OHMSS, however, is superb; the character of Bond was a fully developed
one (versus TND), and they didn't skimp on action, romance or suspense for a
minute (TND had lots of the former, but none whatsoever of the latter two --
however, I didn't intend to write this post a TND bashing, so I acquiesce.
It always seems to work out that way, though).
Dave Bernardi
Toronto, Ontario
Shau...@msn.com
Scott Cochrane
Shaukkor wrote:
>
> John Long wrote in message <356B95...@epix.net>...
>
> > OHMSS has quite a lot going for it. I don't think
> >it approaches my top five but it's good. TLD, on the other hand, ranks
> >number two with me. It's just about perfect.
>
> I agree %100. TLD is also my second fave, fight behind FRWL.
IHHO TLD is just about the perfect Bond movie; right up to the point
where they head to Afghanistan. From here it's as if a new movie
starts. Plot ideas so carefully developed in the first half of the film
suddenly vanish and a different, much weaker film emerges dealing with
drug smuggling.
I've always felt it was a shame that the quality of the first half of
the film couldn't be sustained throughout.
Kimball Kinnison
On Tue, 26 May 1998 19:19:37 -0500, "Paul Baack" <ba...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>
>David Mosley wrote in message <356B49C5...@virgin.net>...
>
>>I literally sat there chewing my fingers off when Bond/Lazenby was
>>attempting to
>>escape from the cable car machine room. Never before in any Bond movie
>>previously have I felt that there was a situation that Bond wouldn't get
>>out of,
>>except this one. The possibility of Bond's hands being crushed in the
>>wheels was
>>simply enormous.
>
>That's what makes OHMSS such a great Bond film. Here's James Bond, in
>*real* danger, using his brains (and pocket linings) instead of a "Q Gadget"
>to extricate himself. That scene would make anybody's "Bond Highlight"
>reel. How refreshing to see 007 being played as a smart guy.
>
>
>>The ski chase (which segues into the car chases) was
>>equally nerve-wracking, (more so than anything in TSWLM or FYEO), and the
>>photography of those scenes was spectacular! Okay, so Lazenby wasn't
>Connery, but he
>>made me believe that he *was* Bond for the duration of the film. Diana Rigg
>was
>>also excellent. She actually made me believe that here was a woman who was
>>Bond's equal and whom he *would* ask to marry him.
>
>
>I've always taken Lazenby's portrayal, *technically* inept as it was, to be
>a pretty good portrait of James Bond as a much younger man. He's much more
>brash that Connery's Bond (he quits the Secret Service in a huff; he visits
>M at home to pursue a case he's been relieved of; he falls in love and gets
>married; he rescues suicides, and later pays off their gambling debts; he
>apparently enjoys Playboy Magazine; etc.) This is James Bond in his
>twenties. He's romantic and a bit naive.
>
This romantic and naive aspect of Bond's character in OHMSS actually
detracts from the film for me. To this day I remember the shock of
watching Connery shoot Prof. Dent in absolutely cold-blood. That's
something that heroes just didn't do then.
Sure we had the film noir tough guys of Mitchum in the forties and
Cagney in the thirties. But they were anti-heroes - we were expected
to *root* for Connery.
And Connery's cold-blooded instincts lent more crediblity to Bond
than Lazenby's romanticism. Connery's Bond would be *much*
more likely to survive than Lazenby's.
Just my $0.02.